The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

“This glib proposal to outlaw the Communist Party would be quickly recognized everywhere as an abject surrender by the great United States to the methods of totalitarianism." - Thomas Dewey

When we talk about free speech, I want everyone to understand this: free speech for all mankind, respect freely given where it is not deserved, this is a truly radical idea.

Implying that communism is morally eauivalent to neo-nazism.

Totalitarian communism is a genocidal philosophy. The original post was great - the government should have no role in the United States in outlawing political philosophies, no matter how repugnant.

Jesus f**k

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

But what if it leads to women throwing themselves down staircases if Roe is overturned

That's on the women that throw themselves down staircases. 

People jumped out of buildings because they went from being worth paper millions to being under water, financially during the Depression.  That was on them, too. 

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

“This glib proposal to outlaw the Communist Party would be quickly recognized everywhere as an abject surrender by the great United States to the methods of totalitarianism." - Thomas Dewey

When we talk about free speech, I want everyone to understand this: free speech for all mankind, respect freely given where it is not deserved, this is a truly radical idea.

Implying that communism is morally eauivalent to neo-nazism.

Totalitarian communism is a genocidal philosophy. The original post was great - the government should have no role in the United States in outlawing political philosophies, no matter how repugnant.

Jesus f**k

Yeah because ethnic minorities fare so well in North Korea

[publicunofficial]

But what if it leads to women throwing themselves down staircases if Roe is overturned

That's on the women that throw themselves down staircases. 

People jumped out of buildings because they went from being worth paper millions to being under water, financially during the Depression.  That was on them, too. 

What a c**t.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

“This glib proposal to outlaw the Communist Party would be quickly recognized everywhere as an abject surrender by the great United States to the methods of totalitarianism." - Thomas Dewey

When we talk about free speech, I want everyone to understand this: free speech for all mankind, respect freely given where it is not deserved, this is a truly radical idea.

Implying that communism is morally eauivalent to neo-nazism.

Totalitarian communism is a genocidal philosophy. The original post was great - the government should have no role in the United States in outlawing political philosophies, no matter how repugnant.

Jesus f**k

I mean, they killed 100 million people. This isn't really up for debate.

I think both totalitarian communism and fascism are god-awful and should be ground into the dirt where they belong by all freedom-loving people on the right and left alike. The people trying to rehabilitate either are the problem.

[Mr. Reactionary]

“This glib proposal to outlaw the Communist Party would be quickly recognized everywhere as an abject surrender by the great United States to the methods of totalitarianism." - Thomas Dewey

When we talk about free speech, I want everyone to understand this: free speech for all mankind, respect freely given where it is not deserved, this is a truly radical idea.

Implying that communism is morally eauivalent to neo-nazism.

Totalitarian communism is a genocidal philosophy. The original post was great - the government should have no role in the United States in outlawing political philosophies, no matter how repugnant.

Jesus f**k

Totalitarian communism is definitely a genocidal philosophy. What do you expect happens to anyone who wants to opt-out of a communist system?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

“This glib proposal to outlaw the Communist Party would be quickly recognized everywhere as an abject surrender by the great United States to the methods of totalitarianism." - Thomas Dewey

When we talk about free speech, I want everyone to understand this: free speech for all mankind, respect freely given where it is not deserved, this is a truly radical idea.

Implying that communism is morally eauivalent to neo-nazism.

Totalitarian communism is a genocidal philosophy. The original post was great - the government should have no role in the United States in outlawing political philosophies, no matter how repugnant.

Jesus f**k

We can debate all day whether "real" communism would have involved the deaths that Stalin, et al incurred, or whether or not they were necessary, but the fact remains that, where those flying the flag of communism took power, the result was a bloodbath. And, even if you have a conservative definition of genocide, the Holodomor seems as good an example as any, even if you consider it isolated. Genocide is the interaction between two variables--death and its ethnic or racial dimensions; both of those by themselves did occur in the USSR (we need merely contemplate the Man of Steel's actions as Commissar for Nationalities concerning the latter), and it is certainly not hard to imagine that they could have happened in conjunction multiple times.

[JA]

“This glib proposal to outlaw the Communist Party would be quickly recognized everywhere as an abject surrender by the great United States to the methods of totalitarianism." - Thomas Dewey

When we talk about free speech, I want everyone to understand this: free speech for all mankind, respect freely given where it is not deserved, this is a truly radical idea.

Implying that communism is morally eauivalent to neo-nazism.

Totalitarian communism is a genocidal philosophy. The original post was great - the government should have no role in the United States in outlawing political philosophies, no matter how repugnant.

Jesus f**k

We can debate all day whether "real" communism would have involved the deaths that Stalin, et al incurred, or whether or not they were necessary, but the fact remains that, where those flying the flag of communism took power, the result was a bloodbath. And, even if you have a conservative definition of genocide, the Holodomor seems as good an example as any, even if you consider it isolated. Genocide is the interaction between two variables--death and its ethnic or racial dimensions; both of those by themselves did occur in the USSR (we need merely contemplate the Man of Steel's actions as Commissar for Nationalities concerning the latter), and it is certainly not hard to imagine that they could have happened in conjunction multiple times.

Simultaneously, we can't ignore the instances in which Communism arose without establishing an authority that pursued extraordinarily violence. Perhaps the best example is former Yugoslavia. But context is perhaps most critical in understanding any historical event; just as religion itself doesn't cause violence but serves as a justification, the same can be said of ideologies that don't explicitly promote violence against other groups. In every situation in which Communism arose, the context must be understood; this includes historical grudges, hatred, rivalry, explicit and implicit support for Communism's opposition by internal and external forces, desire for resources, and so on. Nothing in Communism promotes violence against any other group, save for the call for the overthrow of the bourgeois (which is a significantly small minority within a society). Sometimes, that may take the form of systematic persecution of religious or ethnic minorities when said minorities had once possessed disproportionate wealth/power/privileges in that society. And even that doesn't make the violence correct or excusable, especially not when it morphs into genocidal tendencies.

If mentions of Communist countries' undisputable violence and possible genocides is occurring, it's also fair to mention the countless examples of extraordinary violence perpetrated by capitalist forces as well. What the US did to North Korea resulted in near decimation of the country and the death of nearly 1/3rd of its population; the total bombs dropped during the Vietnam War across Southeast Asia far surpassed that of WWII (and that conflict was instigated by French colonialism and American imperialism); the support provided to the White Russian Army aided it in mass violence (including British use of chemical weapons on Russian civilians); the forced displacement, terrorism, segregation, and warfare against Palestinians by Zionist settlers supported by Great Britain and the Western-dominated League of Nations and UN; and the unimaginable forced relocation, enslavement, genocide, and displacement of tens of millions of people in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania, by Western colonial powers.

The point is, power and inequality almost always birth violence and persecutions. That occurs whether the system is Communist, Capitalist, or whatever; it occurs whether people are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or other.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

“This glib proposal to outlaw the Communist Party would be quickly recognized everywhere as an abject surrender by the great United States to the methods of totalitarianism." - Thomas Dewey

When we talk about free speech, I want everyone to understand this: free speech for all mankind, respect freely given where it is not deserved, this is a truly radical idea.

Implying that communism is morally eauivalent to neo-nazism.

Totalitarian communism is a genocidal philosophy. The original post was great - the government should have no role in the United States in outlawing political philosophies, no matter how repugnant.

Jesus f**k

We can debate all day whether "real" communism would have involved the deaths that Stalin, et al incurred, or whether or not they were necessary, but the fact remains that, where those flying the flag of communism took power, the result was a bloodbath. And, even if you have a conservative definition of genocide, the Holodomor seems as good an example as any, even if you consider it isolated. Genocide is the interaction between two variables--death and its ethnic or racial dimensions; both of those by themselves did occur in the USSR (we need merely contemplate the Man of Steel's actions as Commissar for Nationalities concerning the latter), and it is certainly not hard to imagine that they could have happened in conjunction multiple times.

Simultaneously, we can't ignore the instances in which Communism arose without establishing an authority that pursued extraordinarily violence. Perhaps the best example is former Yugoslavia. But context is perhaps most critical in understanding any historical event; just as religion itself doesn't cause violence but serves as a justification, the same can be said of ideologies that don't explicitly promote violence against other groups. In every situation in which Communism arose, the context must be understood; this includes historical grudges, hatred, rivalry, explicit and implicit support for Communism's opposition by internal and external forces, desire for resources, and so on. Nothing in Communism promotes violence against any other group, save for the call for the overthrow of the bourgeois (which is a significantly small minority within a society). Sometimes, that may take the form of systematic persecution of religious or ethnic minorities when said minorities had once possessed disproportionate wealth/power/privileges in that society. And even that doesn't make the violence correct or excusable, especially not when it morphs into genocidal tendencies.

If mentions of Communist countries' undisputable violence and possible genocides is occurring, it's also fair to mention the countless examples of extraordinary violence perpetrated by capitalist forces as well. What the US did to North Korea resulted in near decimation of the country and the death of nearly 1/3rd of its population; the total bombs dropped during the Vietnam War across Southeast Asia far surpassed that of WWII (and that conflict was instigated by French colonialism and American imperialism); the support provided to the White Russian Army aided it in mass violence (including British use of chemical weapons on Russian civilians); the forced displacement, terrorism, segregation, and warfare against Palestinians by Zionist settlers supported by Great Britain and the Western-dominated League of Nations and UN; and the unimaginable forced relocation, enslavement, genocide, and displacement of tens of millions of people in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania, by Western colonial powers.

The point is, power and inequality almost always birth violence and persecutions. That occurs whether the system is Communist, Capitalist, or whatever; it occurs whether people are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or other.

I hear you loud and clear; my primary point involved the operative word “totalitarian”. I’m willing to cede that, aside from necessarily revolutionary violence, that revolutionary communism doesn’t “have” to be as violent as it was. That said, it *did* happen. An interesting point that Arendt makes—and we can debate its verifiabikity, but I think it brings up something important—is that what she called totalitarian societies treated their citizens as a conquered country, or, rather, much how they might treat a foreign country.

As for your other points, I’ve always found the “he did this...” style of debate to kack real comparison (the other instance that this comes up is in discussing right versus left terrorism). If we are discussing communism while keeping basic standards of decency we’ve come to accept, we should most certainly condemn its worst iterations.

[JA]

“This glib proposal to outlaw the Communist Party would be quickly recognized everywhere as an abject surrender by the great United States to the methods of totalitarianism." - Thomas Dewey

When we talk about free speech, I want everyone to understand this: free speech for all mankind, respect freely given where it is not deserved, this is a truly radical idea.

Implying that communism is morally eauivalent to neo-nazism.

Totalitarian communism is a genocidal philosophy. The original post was great - the government should have no role in the United States in outlawing political philosophies, no matter how repugnant.

Jesus f**k

We can debate all day whether "real" communism would have involved the deaths that Stalin, et al incurred, or whether or not they were necessary, but the fact remains that, where those flying the flag of communism took power, the result was a bloodbath. And, even if you have a conservative definition of genocide, the Holodomor seems as good an example as any, even if you consider it isolated. Genocide is the interaction between two variables--death and its ethnic or racial dimensions; both of those by themselves did occur in the USSR (we need merely contemplate the Man of Steel's actions as Commissar for Nationalities concerning the latter), and it is certainly not hard to imagine that they could have happened in conjunction multiple times.

Simultaneously, we can't ignore the instances in which Communism arose without establishing an authority that pursued extraordinarily violence. Perhaps the best example is former Yugoslavia. But context is perhaps most critical in understanding any historical event; just as religion itself doesn't cause violence but serves as a justification, the same can be said of ideologies that don't explicitly promote violence against other groups. In every situation in which Communism arose, the context must be understood; this includes historical grudges, hatred, rivalry, explicit and implicit support for Communism's opposition by internal and external forces, desire for resources, and so on. Nothing in Communism promotes violence against any other group, save for the call for the overthrow of the bourgeois (which is a significantly small minority within a society). Sometimes, that may take the form of systematic persecution of religious or ethnic minorities when said minorities had once possessed disproportionate wealth/power/privileges in that society. And even that doesn't make the violence correct or excusable, especially not when it morphs into genocidal tendencies.

If mentions of Communist countries' undisputable violence and possible genocides is occurring, it's also fair to mention the countless examples of extraordinary violence perpetrated by capitalist forces as well. What the US did to North Korea resulted in near decimation of the country and the death of nearly 1/3rd of its population; the total bombs dropped during the Vietnam War across Southeast Asia far surpassed that of WWII (and that conflict was instigated by French colonialism and American imperialism); the support provided to the White Russian Army aided it in mass violence (including British use of chemical weapons on Russian civilians); the forced displacement, terrorism, segregation, and warfare against Palestinians by Zionist settlers supported by Great Britain and the Western-dominated League of Nations and UN; and the unimaginable forced relocation, enslavement, genocide, and displacement of tens of millions of people in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania, by Western colonial powers.

The point is, power and inequality almost always birth violence and persecutions. That occurs whether the system is Communist, Capitalist, or whatever; it occurs whether people are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or other.

I hear you loud and clear; my primary point involved the operative word “totalitarian”. I’m willing to cede that, aside from necessarily revolutionary violence, that revolutionary communism doesn’t “have” to be as violent as it was. That said, it *did* happen. An interesting point that Arendt makes—and we can debate its verifiabikity, but I think it brings up something important—is that what she called totalitarian societies treated their citizens as a conquered country, or, rather, much how they might treat a foreign country.

As for your other points, I’ve always found the “he did this...” style of debate to kack real comparison (the other instance that this comes up is in discussing right versus left terrorism). If we are discussing communism while keeping basic standards of decency we’ve come to accept, we should most certainly condemn its worst iterations.

Oh, I'm certainly not disagreeing with anything you state here. Totalitarian societies, including Communist ones, are generally hell. The way their citizens are treated is appalling; at least democratic societies have proven to provide a better standard of living (at least in terms of human rights and civil rights) than practically any totalitarian country.

A friend of mine is Bosniak, born and lives in Sarajevo, and is a staunch defender of Tito's Yugoslavia. She always tells me how, despite the newfound freedoms they possess, their country is now run by drug cartels, corrupt politicians, and mafia-like crime syndicates, and the majority of industries are concentrated in a few wealthy, well-connected hands. It's like that throughout most of Eastern Europe, aside from the few relative success stories (Czech, Slovenia, Poland, Estonia). Although they have considerably more freedom and democracy, that has been accompanied by massive unemployment, chronic poverty, enormous emigration, and significant insecurity for the majority of people. All of those things were largely foreign to countries such as hers during Communism, so a lot or even a majority of people miss Yugoslavia and the benevolent dictatorship of Tito where people like her one grandfather owned a business (who had to unionize and incorporate other workers since hiring employees was banned) and the others owned (and worked) their small farms and sold produce. Now, it's a daily struggle and most people she grew up with have left for work opportunities abroad.

Many totalitarian states have provided great security for their citizens, which helped to ensure its stability and success. Most others, however, were largely disasters and established solely to enrich a few while oppressing and exploiting the many. So, not even all totalitarian states are created equal.

[AtorBoltox]

Am I the only one who is marveling at 18-25 year olds?

If I'm reading it correctly, they make up only 4.28% of expected voters but they prefer Gillespie
by 65-23.

Gen Z is conservative, despite the democrats denial.

The super liberal NYT went to talk to NFL fans about the national anthem controversy and here is what the Gen Z they interviewed said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Called Trump arrogant but agreed with him, confirming my opinion that people hate Trump's antics but agree with him in a lot of stuff, meanwhile, called the players disrespectful. Gen Z is clearly sick of liberal overreach.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/sports/football/nfl-trump-patriots.html

I have already seen Gen Z polls before about it. And my anecdotal experience from hearing kiddies in CoD/League of Legends confirms it as well. I hear nothing but praise for Trump.

Problems with this
1-Actually believing that Gillepsie is ahead of Northam 65-23 among millennials and that isn't either a typo or just a junk poll
2-Believing that one random kid disapproving of the NFL protests/LOL players liking Trump is definitive proof that Gen Z is conservative

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I see.

I'm sorry if I bothered anyone by calling Ron Paul a socialist. I think a better explanation might be that I believe him to have very unrealistic views. In my mind, given my upbringing exclusively around wealthy white neoconservatives in the old Confederacy, I kinda had a warped view of the beliefs of minorities or people who are less well off.

I'm trying to work on it though.

[TDAS04]

LGBT overreach has caused that.

They gained the sympath of lots of people then started pushing for marrying on churches, trans bathrooms, LGBT rights will only last in places where they were achieved by legislation, and that's their fault.

[The Dowager Mod]

LGBT overreach has caused that.

They gained the sympath of lots of people then started pushing for marrying on churches, trans bathrooms, LGBT rights will only last in places where they were achieved by legislation, and that's their fault.

That guy was a sock, Been banned.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Welp, PublicUnofficial has gone off the deep end. Sad. I like him.

[heatcharger]

When you have no other setting than edgy you end up saying sh*t like that.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

When you have no other setting than edgy you end up saying sh*t like that.

Well, the other thing with PublicUnofficial is that he honestly seems like a pretty malignant presence on the forum not entirely unlike Cora.  I mean, the guy is basically always trying to pick a fight with everyone for essentially no reason.

[publicunofficial]

I know this is a hot take but I honestly feel this way: When I find out someone owns a gun, after everything that's happened over the years, I cannot help but hate them.

Then hate me all you want. I can promise you no one cares one bit that someone from an obscure Internet forum hates them.

I say this from the bottom of my heart: I hope you are mentally well and are not a danger to yourself or anyone else.

Same to you.

Well the nice thing is if I ever snap and feel compelled to murder 3% of my town in the span of 10 minutes, I don't have the means to do it.

Do you own a vehicle?? The recent attacks in New York and across Europe shows how dangerous they can be.

You know what? I apologize for my earlier remarks, I DO hope you blow your brains out with that gun you love so much.

Go ahead and give me the death points TG, It's well worth it 

Glad someone saved it 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Shame we can't name this thread after this ass clown:

Well Trump signed the Republican bill allowing the mentally ill to own guns, so they're directly responsible for this in some respect.

[TheSaint250]

Shame we can't name this thread after this ass clown:

Well Trump signed the Republican bill allowing the mentally ill to own guns, so they're directly responsible for this in some respect.

The MasterJedi Magazine of Absurd and Ignorant Posts?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Shame we can't name this thread after this ass clown:

Well Trump signed the Republican bill allowing the mentally ill to own guns, so they're directly responsible for this in some respect.

The MasterJedi Magazine of Absurd and Ignorant Posts?

That works.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

MasterJedi made a good post; it definitely does not belong in this thread.

[_]

MasterJedi made a good post; it definitely does not belong in this thread.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

MasterJedi made a good post; it definitely does not belong in this thread.

Yes he made a good post, but I don't remember what it was.

[MasterJedi]

Shame we can't name this thread after this ass clown:

Well Trump signed the Republican bill allowing the mentally ill to own guns, so they're directly responsible for this in some respect.