With apologies to the bullying thread...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Gailbraithe**

Phryxis wrote:
Regulating light bulbs is not authoritarianism.

Yes. It is. As has already been explained to you, it's a very low grade form of authoritarianism, but it's still authoritarianism.

Nope. Not authoritarianism. Go wiki it.

No, I'm describing the inevitable end result of pursuing the demonization of a minority group as a means to political ends.

So, if we persecute gay people, the INEVITABLE end result is a fascist state that dominates the world assassinating all opposition?

I never said that, so no.

**Phryxis**

to try to turn what little you know about me into a dismissal of my beliefs is deeply, deeply insulting.

Whatever, dude. It's your life. Keep being unhappy. You're the winner.

**Kilkrazy**

Why would anyone trust Mussolini about anything?

**djones520**

Phryxis wrote:
Fascism movements are always sexually repressive.

This is certainly not a traditional indicator of fascism, and it's not really even corellated by chance. For example, Mussolini gave women the vote in Italy.

The world was extremely sexist in 1940, as compared to the modern first world. Given that context, fascist governments end up being fairly "typical" when it comes to "accepted" sexual practices.

However, like all aggressive, militaristic ideologies, fascists have definitely supported the oppression of gays. No argument there.

The modern conservative movement is extremely homophobic, always ranting about the dreaded "gay agenda," and fiercely anti-woman.

Watch the overuse of scare adjectives. They're just sloppy when you're trying to make a reasoned argument.

The conservative movement is homophobic. It's not "extremely" homophobic at all. The standard line is "do what you want in your own bedroom, but marriage is between a man and a woman." There's a big difference between thinking what somebody is doing is wrong, and thinking you have a duty to go out and stop it. If the American right was proposing that we STOP gays from having homosexual relationships, then I might buy the "extremely" label. In reality, they simply find it immoral.

The conservative movement is not "anti-woman" at all, certainly not "fiercely." Look at all the women running as Republicans this November. Look at the success of Sarah Palin. I mean, seriously, what appeal does she have BESIDES being a woman? None. It speaks to how frustrated the American right is with being mislabled as mysoginists, that they get excited about any woman they can get into office.

They seek to strip away women's right to control their own reproduction

This is a bad argument on so many levels...

Let me preface this by saying that I'm pro-choice...

But the "woman's right to choose" is one of the most bogus lines of propaganda ever. Women have no "right" to "choose." What we're talking about is killing a baby. It's not "her body." It's a baby's body. We, as a society, have decided that it's really better for all involved if we allow people to kill babies in certain situations. I agree, it is better for all involved. But it's still killing a baby.

On top of that, there's the simple fact that the Republicans are NOT trying to strip anybody's imaginary rights away. They had control of the White House, the Senate and the House. They will never have a better chance to overturn abortion than that, and they made no effort to do so.

Abortion is a done issue. Republicans talk about it to rile up their base, and Democrats use scare tactics about it going away to rile up theirs. Just like you're doing right now. It's not going away. Period.

P.S. Funny how Republicans are the ones "scaring" everyone, but Democrats promise an end to Roe every November, unless you vote for them. Everyone uses scare tactics. Get over it.

This can be seen in the increasing refusal of the GOP to play ball with the democratically elected majority

This is a symptom of the current American political climate. The Democrats played delaying tactics, the Republicans did it. Neither party has a clear conscience here. If this makes the Republicans fascists, it makes the Democrats fascists too.

Yes, I know, "the Republicans did it more!!!" So what? The Nazis were the Nazis because they burned 4 million Jews. It's not like everyone else only burned 3 million, so they were cool. In order to be "anti-Democratic" you have to actually be "anti-Democratic." Not just "marginally more anti-Democratic than the other guy, who I arbitarily decided is JUST democratic enough that he's NOT anti-Democratic!"

The movement is supported almost entirely by a handful of extremely wealthy industrialists

Like who, George Soros? Oh, right, he made his money in currency manipulation. But he does have a strange, scary accent...

Again, you're pretending that everything bad in American politics is "what Republicans do." Everyone in DC is tied up with corporate interests. Obama got more in donations from BP than any other President. We're a corporatized country. Since we've mostly been run by Democrats over the years, what's up with that?

It's also worth noting that you keep referring to corporate power, you quote Mussolini as saying that a better name for his movement would be "corporatism," and yet you persist in referring to it as "fascism." It's clear that you're more interested in the propaganda value of the word, than in the actual accuracy of its application.

QFT. Very well said.

**dogma**

Gailbraithe wrote:
Internet psychology is always a cheap shot. Always. And it demonstrates exactly how little character you have.

Says the dude that calls people liars at the drop of a hat.

**Cheesecat**

Gailbraithe wrote:
Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.

Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.

**Gailbraithe**

Cheesecat wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.

Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.

That's not even remotely the same thing.

**Monster Rain**

Gailbraithe wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.

Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.

That's not even remotely the same thing.

It's actually the exact same thing. You just would never admit it because it makes you a hypocrite.

**dogma**

No, sorry. You're criticizing Republicans because they apparently behave as fascists. Phyxis is criticizing you because you behave as though you are defined by the fact that you were bullied. You're both operating on the premise that the way someone acts if definitive with respect to what they are; according to standards defined by things that are not associated with the present.

They're exactly the same thing. You can argue that his argument has less support than the one you're mounting regarding Nazis, but that's not what you're contending.

And hey, even if you don't accept that both arguments are predicated on similar logic, I have at least indicated how they are remotely related.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
It's actually the exact same thing. You just would never admit it because it makes you a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy is tough to prove. For example, one who lacks the ability to live up to his own standards (for whatever reason) is not a hypocrite.

Nietzsche is the textbook example.

**Monster Rain**

dogma wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
It's actually the exact same thing. You just would never admit it because it makes you a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy is tough to prove. For example, one who lacks the ability to live up to his own standards (for whatever reason) is not a hypocrite.

Nietzsche is the textbook example.

So what would a better word for it be?

**Gailbraithe**

Monster Rain wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.

Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.

That's not even remotely the same thing.

It's actually the exact same thing. You just would never admit it because it makes you a hypocrite.

No, it's not remotely the same thing.

No, sorry. You're criticizing Republicans because they apparently behave as fascists. Phyxis is criticizing you because you behave as though you are defined by the fact that you were bullied. You're both operating on the premise that the way someone acts if definitive with respect to what they are; according to standards defined by things that are not associated with the present.

They're exactly the same thing. You can argue that his argument has less support than the one you're mounting regarding Nazis, but that's not what you're contending.

And hey, even if you don't accept that both arguments are predicated on similar logic, I have at least indicated how they are remotely related.

Your ability to post specious nonsense has already been noted, no need to provide further evidence of how disingenuous you are.

**Cheesecat**

Gailbraithe wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.

Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.

That's not even remotely the same thing.

Yeah they are, you have little understanding about Fascism in Germany (like claiming that Nazis did little for Germany's economy untrue, they changed it from an economic depression to a

war-time economy) and then you compared them to Republicans and people are mad at you because can't tell the difference between Nazism and American Conservatism. And you

dismiss the person's ability to think for themselves by ignoring any criticism your opinions receive.

**dogma**

Gailbraithe wrote:
Your ability to post specious nonsense has already been noted, no need to provide further evidence of how disingenuous you are.

Nice. Instead of demonstrating why my argument is specious, you have chosen to mock me.

Clearly you are a paragon of intellectual virtue.

**Gailbraithe**

Cheesecat wrote:Yeah they are, you have little understanding about Fascism in Germany (like claiming that Nazis did little for Germany's economy untrue, they changed it from an economic depression to a war-time economy) and then you compared them to Republicans and people are mad at you because can't tell the difference between Nazism and American Conservatism.

First of all, I've said the Republicans are fascists, not Nazis. Nazism is one manifestation of fascism, but far from the only one.

Second, I didn't say the Nazis did little for Germany's economy. I said they didn't do anything that made the economy better for those who were suffering. Much like the policies pursued by Republicans over the last decade, the policies pursued by the Nazis grew the wealth of Germany, but all of the growth was captured by the oligarchy. And much like the average worker in America under Republicans, the average worker if Germany saw an overall decrease in wages while the Nazis were in power -- even as the fortunes of the wealthiest capitalists expanded.

Third, all of you are completely ignoring the huge difference between the two argument. Phyrxis is insulting and dismissing me. That's a personal attack. I am only trying to point out that the policies and tactics pursued by the Republicans are properly identified as fascism.

That's not a personal attack, because I'm speaking broadly about a political movement and the direction it is trending. That's my opinion on politics.

And this bs attempt to draw an equivalency between my perception that the American conservative movement is a fascist movement and Phryxis dismissing my ability to have real thoughts because I am a slave to my freshman year in highschool is nothing but doubling down on Phryxis original personal attack.

Which, I might point out, came exactly when I pointed out that he was drawing an equivalency between light bulb regulations and forcing women to bear rape babies. So no wonder he resorted to personal attacks, and frankly, its no wonder that Monster Rain and dogma are dogpiling on with him.

**dogma**

Yeah, I've attacked you on a personal level. But I haven't done so in some time. For example, in the two threads we are currently participating in.

I don't agree with you on much, but I'm willing to admit that you have interesting things to say. I think we could have some rewarding conversations, but if all you're going to do is insult people and draw equivalence to past foolishness (something I have also done), then we can't do that.

Also, no, that's not 'doubling down' on Phryxis' statement. Cheesecat did not reiterate anything.

**Shadowbrand**

Let's all just calm down and all hug and kiss.

**Gailbraithe**

dogma wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Your ability to post specious nonsense has already been noted, no need to provide further evidence of how disingenuous you are.

Nice. Instead of demonstrating why my argument is specious, you have chosen to mock me.

Clearly you are a paragon of intellectual virtue.

Your argument is specious because your premise is nonsense.

Your premise: "You're both operating on the premise that the way someone acts if definitive with respect to what they are; according to standards defined by things that are not associated with the present."

This is complete rubbish. Neither Phryxis or I is operating on that premise, nor are we both operating on the same premise. You're not comparing are arguments, you're comparing two straw men you've created to look identical.

Disingenuous nonsense.

**dogma**

@ Shadowbrand: You can have all the gay lemur sex you want, but I'm sticking with my human women.

**Monster Rain**

Gailbraithe wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:Yeah dude, most people tend to get hostile when you take an event you know almost nothing about and use it to justify completely dismissing that person's ability to think for themselves.

Such as you comparing Republicans to Nazi's. Oh the irony.

That's not even remotely the same thing.

It's actually the exact same thing. You just would never admit it because it makes you a hypocrite.

No, it's not remotely the same thing.

Good point.

Yes it is.

**Shadowbrand**

Dude you haven't had a good time till you have boned a female gorilla. ;D

Also thread derailment.

**Monster Rain**

Shadowbrand wrote:Dude you haven't had a good time till you have boned a female gorilla. ;D

+1

http://video.adultswim.com/aqua-teen-hunger-force/gay-zombie-ape-party-bus.html

Shadowbrand wrote:Dude you haven't had a good time till you have boned a female gorilla. ;D

Also thread derailment.

On the contrary. I think this is exactly the direction the thread was supposed to go.

**dogma**

Gailbraithe wrote:
Your argument is specious because your premise is nonsense.

Your premise: "You're both operating on the premise that the way someone acts if definitive with respect to what they are; according to standards defined by things that are not associated with the present."

This is complete rubbish. Neither Phryxis or I is operating on that premise, nor are we both operating on the same premise. You're not comparing are arguments, you're comparing two straw men you've created to look identical.

Disingenuous nonsense.

No, that's not demonstration. You basically just wrote a long version of your original comment. Quoting something, and then calling it rubbish, is no different from simply calling it rubbish.

I commented from generalization in order to show how your arguments can be compared, and regarded as related. The implication being that they are "remotely related" at the very least.

**Shadowbrand**

But sadly I'm not allowed within 40km of Zoos or schoolzones.

**dogma**

Shadowbrand wrote:Dude you haven't had a good time till you have boned a female gorilla. ;D

Also thread derailment.

Have I ever told you that you're my favorite high school kid on this site?

*wink*

**Cheesecat**

Gailbraithe wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:Yeah they are, you have little understanding about Fascism in Germany (like claiming that Nazis did little for Germany's economy untrue, they changed it from an economic depression to a war-time economy) and then you compared them to Republicans and people are mad at you because can't tell the difference between Nazism and American Conservatism.

Second, I didn't say the Nazis did little for Germany's economy. I said they didn't do anything that made the economy better for those who were suffering. Much like the policies pursued by Republicans over the last decade, the policies pursued by the Nazis grew the wealth of Germany, but all of the growth was captured by the oligarchy. And much like the average worker in America under Republicans, the average worker if Germany saw an overall decrease in wages while the Nazis were in power -- even as the fortunes of the wealthiest capitalists expanded.

I highly doubt that during the Great Depression, where there were thousands of homeless Germans doing odd jobs for people so they could get paid in shelter, food or water would

be making higher wages than the common soldier in the German Wehrmacht army during World War II. Also woman were working instead of doing house duties as they were the

major work force behind the home front. In fact one of the major problems with the Great Depression was not being able to find work something that World War II solved, plus how

can an unemployed person have higher wages than a employed person?

**Shadowbrand**

No but I am honored to be another persons favorite.

But seriously everyone, CALM DOWN AND LOOK AT THIS KITTEN.

**Amaya**

Here's some bullying.

Say something.

Democrat calls you a racist.

/careerover

And you wonder why conservatives get pissed off?

I guess it kind of escapes the left that the typical American doesn't give a flying fish fcuk about skin color. The vast majority of so called racism is simply cultural differences.

Yes, I have a little bit of a problem when someone (white, black, hispanic, asian, indian, arab, jewish, american indian, green, blue, grey, whatever) on welfare refuses to work because they are too good for a job when I go out and bust my ass everyday shoveling gak as a plumber.

Get in a damn trade.

**Cheesecat**

Shadowbrand wrote:No but I am honored to be another persons favorite.

But seriously everyone, CALM DOWN AND LOOK AT THIS KITTEN.

I hate cats they scratch and bite me all the time (Except your mom's cats your mom's cats are awesome) dogs (beside everyone knows that dog spelt backwards = god) are way better!

**Phryxis**

Which, I might point out, came exactly when I pointed out that he was drawing an equivalency between light bulb regulations and forcing women to bear rape babies. So no wonder he resorted to personal attacks, and frankly, its no wonder that Monster Rain and dogma are dogpiling on with him.

You believe that my motivation is to categorically deny your conclusions could be right. That's not my motivation. I'm not trying to say that "you're damaged goods, so you can't be right." Even though that IS your goal when you speak about "the right," it's NOT my goal when I suggest that you could use some help. You're projecting your tactics onto me, and it's simply not accurate.

I think you are in an unhappy place, and you're doggedly defending it, entrenching yourself in it, forcing everything to fit a worldview that was forcibly beaten into you as a high schooler. It's not healthy. Go get some help, get past it.

AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND: There's a lot of room for opinions in this world. Have your opinions. There are many people who agree with you and who don't have some dark event in their past. I don't agree with their views any more than I do with yours, but I am IN NO WAY suggesting that your views are impossible without your history.

The pain of your history reads so transparently in everything you're saying in these forums that it makes it incredibly obvious that you need to be proactive in dealing with it. I'm not saying that it would change your outlook. I'm saying that it really looks like you need help.

Go get some help. Come back emotionally clear. Say whatever you believe. It's only MORE credible when it's spoken by somebody who has their emotional state under control. If what you believe is true and right, it will survive the process of you dealing with demons of the past.

If you respond to ONE thing in this thread, please let it be this: If what you believe is true, how will it stop being true when you are more happy with yourself and with life?

**Gailbraithe**

Phryxis wrote:I think you are in an unhappy place, and you're doggedly defending it, entrenching yourself in it, forcing everything to fit a worldview that was forcibly beaten into you as a high schooler. It's not healthy. Go get some help, get past it.

Phryxis, do yourself a favor and stop pretending that you are magnanimous and benevolent.

Everything you have said in this comment is a giant personal attack. It is all character assassination, all of it forcing me into a position of defending myself. And not defending my positions, defending my self. You are positioning yourself as this nice, caring, sympathetic dude, but the reality is that you are taking that position in order to make deeply offensive personal attacks on my character in a public forum.

You are being a world class jerk, and if we were at a bar, I would be throwing a whiskey sour in your face in right now. You have no idea how much it sickens me that you are attacking me in this way and acting as it you are doing me a favor. You are, in my opinion, a complete scumball.

Seriously, every time you post this kind of bs, you are only making me hate you. You say you want me to be happy, but then you talk to me in this condescending and offensive manner, painting me as some poor, pathetic wretch, and it is obnoxious beyond the pale. Stop trying to be nice, you jackass. You fail at it miserably.