Jump to content

US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

Scot, please reread where the socialism discussion started. My point was in reference to that, explaining to you where your insistence that yes, socialism has been abused. (which it has just like any other ideology), that's irrelevant to the fact that socialised healthcare is proven to be compatible with capitalism and democracy, so socialised healthcare really shouldn't cause the "Stalin in disguise!" cries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Scot, please reread where the socialism discussion started. My point was in reference to that, explaining to you where your insistence that yes, socialism has been abused. (which it has just like any other ideology), that's irrelevant to the fact that socialised healthcare is proven to be compatible with capitalism and democracy, so socialised healthcare really shouldn't cause the "Stalin in disguise!" cries.

tgftv,

I don't disagree.  What I object to is the attempt to claim that "Mao and Stalin" weren't Socialist.  It is an attempt to wash away the bad aspects of socialism and, a Rippounet demonstrates, seek to jump into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy with both feet by defining away any abuses as "not socialism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These days, if you're even somewhat remotely sane, it probably makes you an honorary liberal.

The case of a self described conservative, that is playing, with a full deck, to some extent, and probably loses his "true conservative" cred in the process.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/health

Quote

David Frum is a conservative, but he grew up in Canada and lacks an American conservative's instinctive revulsion toward national health care. Today he writes that maybe American conservatives should put aside their revulsion too. After all, the debacle over the Republican health care plan suggests that the public is unwilling to see health coverage withdrawn from millions of people. Democrats seem to have finally won the battle over ensuring health coverage for all, and that means Republicans can't control costs by simply denying health care to anyone who can't afford it. They have to figure out other ways to bring down costs:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

These days, if you're even somewhat remotely sane, it probably makes you an honorary liberal.

The case of a self described conservative, that is playing, with a full deck, to some extent, and probably loses his "true conservative" cred in the process.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/health

Quote

David Frum is a conservative, but he grew up in Canada and lacks an American conservative's instinctive revulsion toward national health care. Today he writes that maybe American conservatives should put aside their revulsion too. After all, the debacle over the Republican health care plan suggests that the public is unwilling to see health coverage withdrawn from millions of people. Democrats seem to have finally won the battle over ensuring health coverage for all, and that means Republicans can't control costs by simply denying health care to anyone who can't afford it. They have to figure out other ways to bring down costs:

Have we though?  I hope so but am not yet convinced of this optimistic outlook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

Have we though?  I hope so but am not yet convinced of this optimistic outlook. 

Yeah, I agree with what you are saying. It's prudent to be cautious here.

I mean let's not put up a sign in the background that says "mission accomplished!!!", until the mission is in fact accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lindsey Graham is having one of those days where he's doing something worthwhile. Or seems to be - I guess it depends on what he wants to achieve in the end. I assume he's trying to force the FBI to admit there's no evidence, but who knows how deep he's gone down the rabbit hole himself on the whole wiretap conspiracy.

Quote

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says the Senate will stall on confirming President Trump’s deputy attorney general if the FBI refuses to provide evidence of wiretaps against Trump.

“Congress is going to flex its muscle here and you see that all over the place,” Graham said Wednesday on NBC’s “Today.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/324033-graham-well-stall-doj-nominee-if-fbi-doesnt-comply-on-wiretaps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Would those of you who decided, once again, to go down the rabbit hole chasing trolls please open another thread?

Thank you OGE, denstorebog and NastyLongrider for getting back on topic!

Broader political subjects are verboten in the US Politics thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Broader political subjects are verboten in the US Politics thread?

3 pages of off topic discussions usually results in someone asking to start a new thread if they'd like to talk about it.  Whether an argument about the definition of socialism is a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy definitely falls into that category IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mormont said:

Nevertheless, he publicly rejects the label of neo-Nazi. Why? Largely (as I say) for propaganda reasons. Nazi isn't a label anyone wants. People don't want to agree with Nazis.

Which shows there's no point in trying to apply 'self defining' to neo-Nazis, because they have a track record of being dishonest in public about what they privately self-define as. In fact, it's a deliberate tactic of theirs. So we have no choice but to define them by their actions instead.

I'm pretty sure nazis didn't invent racism so it's plausible to me that someone can be completely racist and not a nazi at the same time.

It just seems backwards to me that someone would go "Yeh I'm going to preach openly about a white only state, hating jews, ally with open nazis and push ethnic cleansing but I'm not going to say I'm a nazi because THAT would make me look bad"

I mean there's enough there to show he's blatantly and openly racist without claiming he's lying about the not being a nazi part but everything else he's being honest about. 

It's kinda useless imo to attempt to define what people are privately because anything you come up with is going to be completely made up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Broader political subjects are verboten in the US Politics thread?

Yes, they are. The first two letters of the title of the thread should tell you whether or not esoteric discussions on a Chinese and a Soviet ruler should be on topic or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

It just seems backwards to me that someone would go "Yeh I'm going to preach openly about a white only state, hating jews, ally with open nazis and push ethnic cleansing but I'm not going to say I'm a nazi because THAT would make me look bad"

Nevertheless, that's exactly what many neo-Nazis including Spencer do - and we know they do it, and have been doing it for many years. There are private conversations about it that have been leaked. They believe resistance to their message is due to the bad associations of the word 'Nazi' and so they need to deny the label while pushing the agenda. That's the whole reason Spencer invented the 'alt-right' terminology.

It makes perfect sense if you understand that they believe all of the above hateful crap is self-evidently true, and need some explanation for why people won't agree with it. In fact, they're now delighted because they believe that's exactly what Trump has managed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

Nevertheless, that's exactly what many neo-Nazis including Spencer do - and we know they do it, and have been doing it for many years. There are private conversations about it that have been leaked. They believe resistance to their message is due to the bad associations of the word 'Nazi' and so they need to deny the label while pushing the agenda. That's the whole reason Spencer invented the 'alt-right' terminology.

It makes perfect sense if you understand that they believe all of the above hateful crap is self-evidently true, and need some explanation for why people won't agree with it. In fact, they're now delighted because they believe that's exactly what Trump has managed.

He's publicly said that he rejects the Nazi label due to the negative connotation. That's not private.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But he advocates things Nazi's advocate publicly as well.  So he rejects the label but adopts the philosophy.

Pretty much what I gather which is why I think it's a waste to speculate what he is privately.

I find him to be far more dangerous than any swastika wearing nazi because if you hear him speak for a minute or two it can give an impression that he's well educated and well spoken, therefore he may have a point. That imo is far more dangerous than any frothing at the mouth ranting nazi.

The "they are really this in private" argument is too broad to apply imo. It could just as easily be used within this socialist debate. As in "Yeh publicly they say socialist but privately they are communists, they just say socialism because communism has a more negative connotation"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Pretty much what I gather which is why I think it's a waste to speculate what he is privately.

I find him to be far more dangerous than any swastika wearing nazi because if you hear him speak for a minute or two it can give an impression that he's well educated and well spoken, therefore he may have a point. That imo is far more dangerous than any frothing at the mouth ranting nazi.

This is a revisionist misconception of Hitler (or even Mussolini, but less so.)

Hitler was considered an extremely charismatic and persuasive speaker even by his most dire enemies/critics. And in fact the clips of him 'ranting' in speeches were actually the exception, or the crescendo. His actual style was to start off so softly and quietly that audiences became very hushed and people leaned in to hear...this was actually considered to be his unique style or signature, not the stuff we see in clips. This intimate phase would go on for quite a while, and most of it would be kindof conversational. Then he would begin to build energy and get louder, 'as though being persuaded himself by the undeniable truth of his own position' and then he'd get louder and louder, more and more emphatic as he neared the end and this is the phase always shown in clips, but it was relatively brief. Coupled with the sound of German to the non-German ear, it comes off 'frothing' but that was not at all the impression it made on Germanic audiences.

Imagine if all foreign audiences saw of Obama's speeches were the parts at the end where he's shouting slogans over the roar of the crowd and imagine it in a harsh sounding language you don't understand. That's what we see of Hitle's speeches. It's actually dangerous to think of him as an obviously rabid dog on a podium, it makes it seem like he should have been obvious to everyone and would of course be obvious to us. But in his time he was considered by neutral observers as effective a speaker as Churchill, with one coining the phrase that if Hitler spoke English and Churchill German, the same war would have been fought but for the opposite reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

This is a revisionist misconception of Hitler (or even Mussolini, but less so.)

Hitler was considered an extremely charismatic and persuasive speaker even by his most dire enemies/critics. And in fact the clips of him 'ranting' in speeches were actually the exception, or the crescendo. His actual style was to start off so softly and quietly that audiences became very hushed and people leaned in to hear...this was actually considered to be his unique style or signature, not the stuff we see in clips. This intimate phase would go on for quite a while, and most of it would be kindof conversational. Then he would begin to build energy and get louder, 'as though being persuaded himself by the undeniable truth of his own position' and then he'd get louder and louder, more and more emphatic as he neared the end and this is the phase always shown in clips, but it was relatively brief. Coupled with the sound of German to the non-German ear, it comes off 'frothing' but that was not at all the impression it made on Germanic audiences.

Imagine if all foreign audiences saw of Obama's speeches were the parts at the end where he's shouting slogans over the roar of the crowd and imagine it in a harsh sounding language you don't understand. That's what we see of Hitle's speeches. It's actually dangerous to think of him as an obviously rabid dog on a podium, it makes it seem like he should have been obvious to everyone and would of course be obvious to us. But in his time he was considered by neutral observers as effective a speaker as Churchill, with one coining the phrase that if Hitler spoke English and Churchill German, the same war would have been fought but for the opposite reasons. 

Sorry i should be more clear, I meant to say neo-nazi. Which is what the debate is about. I never accused Hitler of ranting. I do accuse the modern day open nazi screaming "white power" of ranting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Sorry i should be more clear, I meant to say neo-nazi. Which is what the debate is about. I never accused Hitler of ranting. I do accuse the modern day open nazi screaming "white power" of ranting.

Ah, my bad. I agree, ironically many neo-Nazis only see the same clips and thus imitate the wrong style. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...