.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:387163"]Dankill said:[QUOTE]Shadow, So what you're saying is that we are all naturally right wing animals?[/QUOTE] No, rather the opposite, that I'm tired of the implication that we are all right wing. I hate the implicit suggestions in the media that either you must be a neo-conservative who supports Bush, or an unpatriotic commie. Sure it *sounds* like they're trying to label you far right or far left by forcing such a choice, but as I pointed out above, modern communist states AS THEY EXISTED were [b]never[/b] far left. Anyone who would support communism after the track record of the last century knows that communist goverments are just fascist, oppressive states under a different name. So therefore, if someone is truly supporting such goverments, then they are actually further right than the neo-cons. [QUOTE]People tend to forget the irony of two facist goverments, one hard right, the other hard left, slaughtering each other by the milions in a war where the poeople lose no matter who the master is.[/QUOTE] Exactly, they're both fascist, and the point I've been making is that all fascism (in the terms that you just defined it in the second half of your sentence) is [b]inherently[/b] far right wing. The idea of a master who sends the people to war, where the minority thrives and the majority suffers - THAT itself is far right. If you disagree, can you name a left wing idea/political theory that is consistent with such methods? There are none. Sure you can name goverments like the USSR that were SUPPOSED to follow left wing ideas, but what counts is whether they did or not. Communism in theory was supposed to be equal wealth and power distributed equally, which is the exact opposite of "the people lose no matter who the master is". Thus communism failed its own ideals, and we all agree on that, so why still the constant insistance that communist states were "far left"? [b]What evidence is there to suggest that communism in practice is far left aside from the unfulfilled lies of long-dead Soviet dictators?[/b] [QUOTE]You don't think hippies can be facist? When they are afraid of your ideas and opinions because they are "dangerous" to their way of life, you'll see how fast you can be silenced by being labeled a bigot, a facist and pretty much locked out of the discourse. [/QUOTE] I totally agree that there is plenty of dangerous PC bullshit out there, and silencing views in such a manner is very detrimental to democracy. However, that being said, hippies and tight ass soccer moms have yet to cease government control anywhere in the world (unlike Soviets, Nazis, or neo-cons). Nor do I see them taking control of any goverments. EVER. Do they have the ability to influence our society? Yes, and that should be taken seriously. However, not every school of thought has realistic potential to become a full fledged political system. Therefore, I think the term "liberal fascism" can be misleading if used in the wrong context, because we're not talking about different forms of goverment as the term suggests, but rather one of the potential forces within a form of goverment, which - although very important - is like comparing apples and oranges. Ultimately, "liberal fascism" is just one more term neo-conservatives have continued to push in order to tilt the dialogue in their direction; they start with the fact that terms such as "PC Notsies" are actually FUNNY (because the hyperbole involved actually makes a good point about hypocrisy), they then ignore the exaggerations that make the joke funny as if they had never existed, and talk about "liberal fascism" as if there are actually PC governments out there literally enslaving people in the name of tolerance. That might make for a hilarious South Park episode, but it's not rooted in reality. As Colbert has pointed out, neo-cons make the facts on the surface look a certain way so you make assumptions based on how it "feels", and bet that you won't actually look at the facts beneath the surface. They wager everything on the fact that they can make their point in a few sentences, whereas it takes a few paragraphs to rebut them. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][