Should big digressions be split to a new topic?
-
I didn't say it was correct. I said that's what was taught. Bear in mind this stuff is usually taught to the age range where minds are usually preoccupied with other matters (i.e. hormones) than seemingly dull people from n generations ago where n >= 1 that 'don't understand me'. So it gets dumbed down for an audience that, largely, doesn't care anyway. And the mass media today really doesn't help with this since most of the media don't seem to care either. I used to think it was maliciously trying to brainwash people but Hanlon's Razor explains it better anyway.
Hitler's overall approach was one of nationalism but at the expense of serious specific social inequalities, e.g. the events of Kristallnacht. It's a fascist approach, but not a right wing one.
The way I see it, a government does not have to be right wing to be totalitarian but that a right wing government would have to be totalitarian.
As far as fascism goes being right wing, it isn't really. Heavily authoritarian, sure. But primarily associated with nationalism, which smells more 'left' than 'right' if you're using that terminology.
Yes, politics is multi-dimensional. Most people don't seem to be able to navigate that particularly well, from what I've seen. And the media makes it worse by diluting and convoluting the terminology into whatever they want it to mean.
-
Or you're a progressivist,
You're right. I forgot an option for evil. It's hard to tell when some people are stupid or evil.
-
The worst part is they think they're the good guys and will therefore stop at nothing.
-
nationalism, which smells more 'left' than 'right'
To add to the fuckup, here nationalism is heavily on the right side - it was Hitler's socioeconomic policies that make some people label him as a leftist.
And basically, if you're a right-winger (however you define it), Hitler's a damn lefty, and if you're a left-winger, Hitler's a right wing nutjob.
Can we settle at that?
-
you're either ignorant or stupid or a troll.
"either" supports exactly two arguments.##pedantic dickweed
-
"either" supports exactly two arguments.
That's how the sentence started but it got away from me.
-
And basically, if you're a right-winger (however you define it), Hitler's a damn lefty, and if you're a left-winger, Hitler's a right wing nutjob.
Can we settle at that?
That sounds like left winger talk to me (where everything they don't like they call, ironically, fascism...see @antiquarian above). Honestly, if someone insists that Hitler is right wing, then I just have to ask them what they think right wing is. If they say, "Fox News," (or worse, Faux News) I know they're just talking out of their ass.
I know that Europeans have different ideas about stuff, so some of it is just cultural translation. And most people who speak poorly of Fox (or Rush Limbaugh, for that matter) have rarely, if ever, watched it, and usually they're about as clueful about Hitler. Then they tell you that trying to cut government spending or being creative about fixing inner city schools is raaaaacist.
-
That depends, are you from or familiar with a country where the Minister of Education and the Minister of Home Affairs (aka the Home Secretary) have recently butted heads about schools in a large-ish city being at risk of being targeted by extremists trying to brainwash people?
Cutting government spending can be a good thing if you have a massive deficit problem because spending your way out of it is unlikely to help. How many trillions is the US debt these days, for example? Fixing inner city schools is unlikely to be racist unless you have some interesting immigration problems where the main language of the country is the second or even third language priority for a school. (Example: some schools in London, England, have English as a second language, not the main language despite being in the middle of England)
-
This thread makes me so happy. It's like birthing a child that grows up exactly how you hoped in every way.
Filed Under: Godwin was a genius
-
I'm so glad I finally started posting. I'm in a crowd of people that, for once, I can actually relate to as human beings and have meaningful discussions with, without feeling like I'm about to belittled for thinking for myself. (Yes, there's one forum I know that actively belittles people who think for themselves unless they think for themselves to philosophical levels and have studied philosophy and thus can argue about it at that level... but it's not a philosophy forum.)
-
some schools in London, England, have English as a second language, not the main language despite being in the middle of England
London isn't in the middle of England. It's more of a carbuncle on England's backside.
-
In the strict linear spatial sense, sure. But given how many people descend upon it every day, given how many people live there, given how much money floats around it... it is effectively the centre of things.
I am so glad I no longer commute to central London daily.
-
-
I doubt I did. You don't like London, that much is obvious. And there's plenty not to like, seeing how there's the whole Westminster thing going on there with lots of overpaid, stuffed shirts that have no idea what they're talking about, all the while taking our country to hell in a handbasket.
But for any definition other than geospatial, it functions as the centre of England. Economically, politically, in terms of population, in terms of money... however you look at it. It is not a pretty place and I am glad I escaped my former career in one of the banking institutions headquartered in London. I'm not pretending it is perfect; it is far from perfect and in many ways could be likened to a cesspit, but that doesn't change the fact it is the major player in England.
But if I did misinterpret, please do explain what I have misinterpreted.
-
It's like you guys are daring me to move this digression to a new topic.
-
It's like you guys are daring me to move this digression to a new topic.
Only if we can shoot you.
Filed under: Say 'what' again!
-
-
where everything they don't like they call, ironically, fascism...see @antiquarian above
That's an honest problem, I agree.
Honestly, if someone insists that Hitler is right wing, then I just have to ask them what they think right wing is. If they say, "Fox News," (or worse, Faux News) I know they're just talking out of their ass.
Here, nationalism, racism and his hate for gays and Jews would put him on the right side immediately. As for the authoritarianism, it seems like a blurred line - it seems like leftists prefer more of a democratic, but nanny state, while right-wingers prefer a more authoritarian, but less intervening one.
Then again, we don't really have an economically right-wing or libertarian party. Nobody really proposes private schooling or corporationism. Well, except for one minor party, but those guys are basically what people think Fox News is on the social level.
-
It's like you guys are daring me to move this digression to a new topic.
Depends.
Can admins ban admins?
-
-
Actually yes, but you have to strip admin off the admin first.
Hey, what kind of kinky stuff happens in the admin section anyway? And why aren't we invited?
-
Actually yes, but you have to strip admin off the admin first.
Does this mean that admins can't ban themselves? What if, say, @codinghorror does something shameful and wishes to commit seppuku?
-
He would have to be "developer" for that (which is in the container config), developers can impersonate other admins (normal admins can not impersonate admins)
-
He would have to be "developer" for that
I can understand the need to leave developers the option of self harm.
-
-
Really, I'd be interested to hear why you think Hitler is right wing
Xenophobia? (The whole Jewish thing for example.) The anti-smoking perspective?
Yes, there's one forum I know that actively belittles people who think for themselves
Hmm. URL please?@Arantor said:
And there's plenty not to like, seeing how there's the whole Westminster thing going on there with lots of overpaid, stuffed shirts that have no idea what they're talking about, all the while taking our country to hell in a handbasket.
Nothing a reel of piano wire and 650 lamp-posts wouldn't solve in a productive afternoon...
Oh - were you talking about bankers?
-
Nothing a reel of piano wire and 650 lamp-posts wouldn't solve in a productive afternoon...
Oh - were you talking about bankers?
We've got plenty of lamp-posts and pianos.
-
It's a circle. The left wing and the right wing bend around to meet, that's where many a crazy dictator lives.
-
Here, nationalism, racism and his hate for gays and Jews would put him on the right side immediately.
@PJH said:Xenophobia? (The whole Jewish thing for example.) The anti-smoking perspective?
In the last 50 years or so, the left wing of America has become anti-nationalistic and antisemitic. And anti-smoking (from the state, not the individual perspective) is definitely a left wing thing here.
it seems like leftists prefer more of a democratic, but nanny state, while right-wingers prefer a more authoritarian, but less intervening one.
Wow. I was thinking about this over night. In the US, it's the left wing that's more authoritarian. The right wing still values limited government and the rule of law. Sometimes the laws they want aren't so good, but it's still better than the government-should-do-anything-that-feels-right-crowd on the left.
Fixing inner city schools is unlikely to be racist unless you have some interesting immigration problems where the main language of the country is the second or even third language priority for a school
Most things that the left claims to be racist isn't racist. They just don't have better arguments handy to protect things like teachers unions. They do stuff like kill the program in Washington, DC that gave money to poor kids to get out of the abysmal public school system. I guess the good private schools (where their kids all go) were getting too crowded.
Oh good lord.
You have a flabdabletian way with words.
-
Wow. I was thinking about this over night. In the US, it's the left wing that's more authoritarian. The right wing still values limited government and the rule of law. Sometimes the laws they want aren't so good, but it's still better than the government-should-do-anything-that-feels-right-crowd on the left.
Maybe I put it a little wrong. Leftists want the government to be a crowd-pleaser - which basically means high welfare, lower taxes for middle-class as compared to corporations and millionaires, etc. - while still not rejecting the minorities and generally fucking off their personal lives (kind of anarcho-socialism). Right-wingers, on the other hand, want the state to guard moral values, patriotism and tradition (very much bordering on nationalism nowadays), while fucking off their money and having everyone work for themselves.
Actually, scratch that last part - as I said, there's pretty much only one party that proposes that, and it's batshit insane. But it's still right-wing in theory.
Most things that the left claims to be racist isn't racist. They just don't have better arguments handy to protect things like teachers unions. They do stuff like kill the program in Washington, DC that gave money to poor kids to get out of the abysmal public school system. I guess the good private schools (where their kids all go) were getting too crowded.
Are private schools really that good? Here, it's mostly buying morons a free pass throughout their education. The schools don't really want to fail people in fear of them leaving, so the kids bring straight As, and parents are too stupid to realize their children have a Jon Snow-ish level of knowledge.
-
I like how I heard it described once - left wingers have no faith in the people and put it instead in the government, assuming the people can't live without help from the government, and right wingers put their faith in the people, believing the government should be an entity that is an extension of the people, not in control of them.
-
They do stuff like kill the program in Washington, DC that gave money to poor kids to get out of the abysmal public school system. I guess the good private schools (where their kids all go) were getting too crowded.
Well, except, (IIRC) the studies done showed there was no difference in outcomes for the poor kids who got those vouchers - they dropped out and failed at pretty much the same rate. So the only thing going on was the transfer of money from one corrupt organization that paid teachers well to a corrupt organization that paid teachers poorly and skimmed it off the top for the rich people who owned the private school which, ironically, reduces the chances that the public school will perform because all of the parents who care take their kids and money and leave, further screwing the public school over.
-
(Yes, there's one forum I know that actively belittles people who think for themselves unless they think for themselves to philosophical levels and have studied philosophy and thus can argue about it at that level... but it's not a philosophy forum.)
Is it reddit?
-
Curiously enough, no. It is a quiet forum that wonders why people don't want to go there outside of the core cabal of contributors. The hilarity is that fresh blood is 'welcomed' but might as well stay out of any debate unless they either agree with the prevailing view, or take up arms to defend any even mildly contrary view.
One debate comes to mind about bullfighting and the prevailing view that it should be banned. I said up front I agreed that it should be banned but that I could see an argument about culture and preservation of it. Yup: I merely outlined the notion that such an argument could be made. I outlined that I wasn't making that case, nor was I defending it, just observing that such an argument could be presented, albeit badly. This did not end well.
The RWTF of that forum is how the person most strenuously arguing against such things is also very much against political correctness because it's restricting language and tells people how to think. But of course she doesn't demand people think the way she wants them to think or anything. She complains that people don't think for themselves any more - but browbeats them if they think for themselves but don't agree...
Also, said forum has a policy that you cannot have a wrong opinion, only a wrong point of view.
-
-
I realise I just described both Reddit and Slashdot but no, it is neither of these. It is a place full of bad memories and me not being the right sort of person for the place and I prefer not to share because my ex is one of the administrators, it doesn't exactly cast me in a good light either and a full scale invasion from here probably wouldn't work out too well. It's probably better it stays the quiet little corner of angry that it is.
-
The RWTF of that forum is how the person most strenuously arguing against such things is also very much against political correctness because it's restricting language and tells people how to think. But of course she doesn't demand people think the way she wants them to think or anything. She complains that people don't think for themselves any more - but browbeats them if they think for themselves but don't agree...
Also, said forum has a policy that you cannot have a wrong opinion, only a wrong point of view.
Sounds like university professors/researchers - claim to be open minded, but assumes because of their positions/degrees that only their views are correct, and because of the specialized nature of their knowledge (like Evolutionary Biology or Underwater Basket Weaving), have nowhere else to use it besides universities and obscure corners of the internet.
-
Of the person in question, both her and her husband hold PhDs in something or other...
Wait... that would mean I wasn't intellectually stunted after all and that I possess relatively normal intelligence! That's something of a relief.
-
Are private schools really that good? Here, it's mostly buying morons a free pass throughout their education. The schools don't really want to fail people in fear of them leaving, so the kids bring straight As, and parents are too stupid to realize their children have a Jon Snow-ish level of knowledge.
They're typically better than public schools, which are often unaccountable to anyone. At least the private schools must compete. I assume there's grade inflation and social promotion everywhere, but I think parents who are putting out money are more likely to take an active role.
-
Well, except, (IIRC) the studies done showed there was no difference in outcomes for the poor kids who got those vouchers - they dropped out and failed at pretty much the same rate.
I've heard that some charter schools have this issue. I hadn't heard this regarding the DC program. Do you have any links?
So the only thing going on was the transfer of money from one corrupt organization that paid teachers well to a corrupt organization that paid teachers poorly and skimmed it off the top for the rich people who owned the private school which, ironically, reduces the chances that the public school will perform because all of the parents who care take their kids and money and leave, further screwing the public school over.
This sounds like loads of bullshit. Firstly, the jobs were offered and accepted. Your skimming theory might be true to a certain extent, but it's loads better than politicians and the (criminal) public teacher unions fleecing the public for their own gain.
One of the problems with public schools is that they have no practical accountability. If they need to compete for students, parents can effectively hold the schools accountable. If anyone is screwing the public over, it's the public schools.
-
public schools
Is that the state funded type of public school, or the fee-paying type of public school?
-
In the US, a public school is a school funded and run by a government. Kind of like public roads or parks. I forget that you guys turn that around.
Of course, companies are different, since their public / private status is related to how ownership in them is traded.
-
You have a flabdabletian way with words.
Okay, I'll try to do this. I know I shouldn't engage, but what the hey.
@boomzilla said:I can't see how fascism could be reasonably be right wing.
At best, you could describe fascism as "radical centrist"; it takes its ideas slapdash from both the left and the right.Now, I think we can probably agree that the left wing is driven by Socialist ideals, correct? And that Socialism is defined by the OED as
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Perhaps, being one of those
fucking ignorant septicschaps from over the pond, you'd prefer Merriam-Webstera way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
That's it. That is Socialism, not "providing [healthcare|education|gay & lesbian funbuses] to [illegal aliens|the poor|jews & niggers]". You'll note that the definitions above are 100% to do with capital, and nothing to do with social infrastructure like education, transport or health.
Fascism, on the other hand, has no problems with private enterprise. Allianz, Hugo Boss, Volkswagen (unsurprisingly), IG Farben (now Bayer), Siemens and many others all made a fortune under the Nazi regime. And it wasn't just companies inside Germany; IBM, Standard Oil, Chase, Coca Cola, Ford … the list is long and depressing.
Indeed, the Nazi government were ardent fans of Reaganomics (or would have been, had the phrase been invented in the mid-to-late '30s). They went on a privatisation boom that would have made Thatcher proud, and which was utterly against the flow of what was happening in the rest of europe. Nazi policy was capitalist to the core. Even the "Final Solution" was a good, profitable, business, which could not be said of Stalin's gulags or Mao's reeducation camps.
Just because the Nazis called themselves "national socialists" doesn't mean they were socialists. And just because Fox News calls Obama a socialist doesn't mean you lot have anything approaching a serious political left wing.
-
In the US, it's the left wing that's more authoritarian.
Both sides want to be more authoritarian. They all want more power. The only difference is what areas they want power over.
Left wing wants power over your lifestyle to try to somehow nanny state prevent you from doing things that are bad for yourself. Ie, no smoking, no sugary drinks. And they want to force everyone to accept everyone else or get nothing at all. Ie, a prayer for every religion ever or else no one gets to pray at all. Which is just silly. And lastly they want more government power and income to try to prop up those that are not so fortunate.
Right wing wants power over your lifestyle, morals, and religion to prevent you from doing things that are different from how they want to live their own lives. Ie, no non-heterosexuality, no non-christian religions or atheists. As a side-item, they want the government to be less authoritarian over people who do subscribe to their viewpoints, but for the people that don't... well you're all screwed. Oh, and they want less government income
because screw you people who are poor.from the wealthy, even though there is nowhere else that funding could come from.
-
I know I shouldn't engage, but what the hey.
It's always good to engage, especially when someone earnestly challenges things you think are not at all controversial.
At best, you could describe fascism as "radical centrist"; it takes its ideas slapdash from both the left and the right.
Perhaps, though it certainly seems like the preponderance of ideas comes from the left. Especially stuff like rule of law. Progressivism, America's cousin of European fascism is certainly a thing of the left.
And that Socialism is defined by the OED as
Ah, I can see you subscribe to the pedantic dickweed version of socialism. I will certainly agree that they didn't always follow the definition to the letter (though they did nationalize some things). And they definitely weren't classical Marxist socialists. But I think the socialist label still fits the best.
Indeed, the Nazi government were ardent fans of Reaganomics (or would have been, had the phrase been invented in the mid-to-late '30s).
No, they just controlled private industry without the burden of ownership. I'm not sure what you think Reaganomics was, but it doesn't look much like Nazi economic policies.
Just because the Nazis called themselves "national socialists" doesn't mean they were socialists.
Right. They were socialists because their government was in the business of running a planned economy. Corporatism is just another (often milder) way of doing socialism, really. And kind of an easier way to slip it in than full on expropriation. I would argue that the essential part of socialism is the planned economy part, not the ownership of the means of production.
And just because Fox News calls Obama a socialist doesn't mean you lot have anything approaching a serious political left wing.
It's true, we've managed to keep even crazier shit from getting too much traction. They've had to take small nibbles (aside from WWI, when Wilson pretty much went full
retardsocialist).
-
Right wing is any style of society management I don't agree with.
Or something.
I don't know.
*plays games*
-
Right wing wants power over your lifestyle, morals, and religion to prevent you from doing things that are different from how they want to live their own lives. Ie, no non-heterosexuality, no non-christian religions or atheists.
There are certainly some parts that do. Others take a more live and let live attitude from a public perspective, even if they fervently believe some of those things are sinful or terrible or whatever. OTOH, it's mostly the left that seems to act as thought police.
Oh, and they want less government income because screw you people who are poor.
Eh, what? Do you mean, they want fewer people getting their income from the government? Doesn't everyone want that? Is having people dependent on the government seen as a good thing in and of itself by anyone?
I would say they definitely want people to be able to support themselves. If you don't think this is good, I'd be very interested to know why you think it's a good thing if a person is unable to support himself.
Filed Under: I can think of several ways you'll answer questions I didn't ask
-
Right wing is any style of society management I don't agree with.
That's what I've been trying to tell @boomzilla.
-
I know, I know. Except it's funny, because they often don't realize that the stuff they think they hate are many of the same things they want!
Filed Under: Cognitive dissonance
-
Fascism, on the other hand, has no problems with private enterprise. Allianz, Hugo Boss, Volkswagen (unsurprisingly), IG Farben (now Bayer), Siemens and many others all made a fortune under the Nazi regime. And it wasn't just companies inside Germany; IBM, Standard Oil, Chase, Coca Cola, Ford … the list is long and depressing.
If you have control over something, get a major share of the profits, and also control where the rest can be invested, does it really matter whose name is on the stock certificates?
