Would you unfriend or blacklist someone over politics?

Yes that's my argument. That's all socialists ever say these days whenever their workers' paradise utopia comes crashing down in flames (always). Yet their hard drives crash whenever they're reminded about nations were socialism was tried in the past. Venezuela being the most recent one. 10 years ago, my leftist friends were excited about Chavez. When I talk to them today about Venezuela, they get uncomfortable and say REAL socialism has never been tried or some shit, lol.

Stalin and Hitler were basically two peas in the same pod, just as nazism and communism were well.

You might ask why Hitler and Stalin went to war, since they are of a similar ideology. But this is just like asking why Catholics and Protestants, Sunnis and Shiites, go to war. These denominations of Christianity and Islam agree with each other on about 90% of the theology, yet they keep fighting. Reason mostly being for political power and territory. Hitler didn't hate the communists because they were socialist; he liked that part. He didn't like them because they were taking marching orders from Moscow and not Germany. Hitler had a pact and agreement with Stalin, but he violated it later for his own national interests.

Not really, I'm just calling out the double-standards of manufactured outrage culture when I see it.

Yet we have hundreds of controversial leftists who's accounts remain unscathed. Some are writing very racist tweets and get away with it. Something you still haven't addressed.

Maybe you might have additional proof that Silicone Valley is a libertarian haven, outside of your silly Guardian article? I'll wait.

It didn't work because it was a false equivalence. I explained to you why it didn't work, dozens of times. But you wouldn't have any of it because it goes against your programming.

 

They did. There's Gab.com and Minds.com.

Google and Facebook are already censoring and blocking links to those new sites that prioritize free speech. Because they know it's a competitive threat to their own political narrative and corporate interest.

Gab has had their servers pulled from GoDaddy, and were temporarily frozen by the FBI because the synagogue shooter had an account with them. Nevertheless, Facebook never gets taken down when a terrorist posts hateful messages on their platform before carrying out an attack.

My hope is that sites like Gab will be a result of the free market, and phase Silicone Valley out of existence.

 

And I see you as regurgitating and repeating the same drivel and arguments that don't work, again and again.

Then again maybe this explains a lot about socialist thinking.... Repeating the same horrible economic system (just like the same horrible arguments) again and again until it works.

"Insanity is repeating the same thing over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein

 

Looks like senator Warren is on the edge of saying something similar about the soviets. She's actually disappointed in them!

 

I originally answer no to this question but sometimes I feel like I totally would and totally should block certain people on my Facebook and in my life. Not because their ways differ to mine, just because I flat out don't give a shit really and don't wanna hear about it, don't wanna know it about.

 

The Soviets?

 

Yes, something we used to call the Russians and their satellites. It was her take on a history lesson I guess.

 

6

Oooooh is that the level of your argument these days? But then I suppose that’s not much further down the ladder than you were before LOL.

LOL – you say ‘I see you as regurgitating and repeating the same drivel and arguments that don't work, again and again’

Well lets take something from you from ONE YEAR AGO and my reply back then.

What the fuck has Venezuela got to do with anything? Why do you think it is ‘the elephant in the room’? I remember been critical of Chavez who I saw as a populists (like Trump) more interested in himself than sorting out the countries many problems and would probably make things worse.

But really what the fuck are you on about or is this more of your anti-left propaganda – oh look at Venezuela oh that’s what happens when lefties are in control – you know that’s as stupid as saying ALL right wing governments will inevitably turn into Nazi Germany.

Can you stop being simplistic and start addressing the many outstanding questions and criticisms of your views?

*

Thing is the Venezuela taunt is still as stupid today as it was back then, is that all the fuck you have on the right?

I repeat – CAN YOU START ADDRESSING THE MANY OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS AND CRITICISMS OF YOUR VIEWS?

 

6

Again from one year ago

As to the economics of Nazi Germany there is a book I’ve suggested before to others on this forum that I liked -

The Wages of Destruction: the making and breaking of the Nazi economy by Adam Tooze

If you want to get into a discussion on German history I’m happy to do so, I’m no expert but have read a number of books on the subject – what books have you read on German history so I can see if we have read any of the same? If you haven’t I can suggest some, if you wish?

The relationship between capitalism and the Nazis is a complex one, basically Hitler wanted control and capitalist forces eventually sided with him because they feared the communists more. Other capitalist like Henry Ford liked his ideas and many American banks invested in Nazis Germany, it is said that by 1941, American investment in the German economy totalled nearly 475 million dollars which some work out as 7.7 trillion dollars, adjusting for inflation.

The thing about many of the Nazis was that they had a belief in Social Darwinist ideas of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ genes that underpins a lot of right-wing socio-economic thinking even today.

*

By the way what books on German history have you read in the last year?

I would recommend ‘The short history of Germany’ by James Hawes I think you might find it easy to read and it’s not long (as the title suggests).

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shortest-H...3260&sr=8-1&keywords=short+history+of+germany


And now - can you start addressing the many outstanding criticisms of your views?

 

6

Sometimes talking to some ‘libertarian’ types I get the impression that just like many of the Nazis they are less interested in genuine political thought and debate and more interested in promoting grievance and in trying to misdirect and in scapegoat others. For example in blaming all problems on shadowy ‘left wing’ conspiracies of lefties, socialists, globalists, feminists, political correctionists and identity politics social justice warriors.

While never addressing the many outstanding criticisms of your views, as I say, you are a very funny man.

 

6

LOL but your explanation as to why you thought it didn’t work was you saying you thought it didn’t work – it wasn’t an explanation exactly just you again not addressing the criticism in anything like a rational way.

 

6

Sorry I don’t see the ‘winning’ mainly I see the running away or bitching.

The funny thing is that I can actually cite threads where you have run away from criticism, I can quote posts that show you repeat the same simplistic statements over and over and I can reproduce the answers that you were unable to refute in any rational or reasonable way.

The thing is that you force us to repeat ourselves because you refused to address the criticisms levelled at your views.

To repeat something - yet again - the normal process in a debate is –

Someone makes a statement or presents an argument

People make criticisms of the statement or argument

The presenter addresses the criticism in a rational and reasonable way or if unable to do so adapts or drops their stance.

BUT this is not what you do – you make a statement or presents an argument then refuse to address any criticisms of it and then just repeat the statement or argument

This means that people are forced to repeat their criticisms

It’s usually about then that you run away or start bitching.

 

Venezuela is brought up by some right wingers as an example of why all forms of socialism are evil and it will never work just as much as they once said the same thing of Socialist Russia

As I’ve commented on it’s basically slogan politics, incredibly and often laughingly simplistic.

Just as it would be over simplistic to claim that the Great Depression and the financial woes of the Weimar Republic show that all forms of capitalism are evil.

Basically such mad eyed exaggeration is the last refuge of the propagandist who has given up on rational and reasonable debate.

*

First you would have to define exactly what you mean by ‘socialism’ or ‘capitalism’

To me there are lots of different versions of capitalism and socialism, is everyone that leans slightly to the left a socialist, is everyone that thinks of themselves as a capitalist a supporter of the most extreme forms of laissez-faire capitalism? To me that seems like madness, yet I have talked to people that have said they think ‘socialism’ is any governance in which there is a welfare system and any interference of the government in the ‘free market’ which would seem to cover a lot of places most people would think of as capitalist. I’ve been called a communist by people on hipforums for things I’ve said here but I’ve also been called a capitalist because I favour Keynesian type economic models, but I’ve had some right wingers say that Keynes is socialist.

So I think there is a lot of confusion out there and so some people need to explain their thinking rather than fall back on simplistic rhetoric.

 

Panic

What are you trying to say?

Are you disagreeing with what she said in the video and if so what are you disagreeing with?

 

She said "former Soviet states".. Does that strike you as somehow stupid, funny or inaccurate? lol
The Soviet Union was called "union" because it consisted of a number of states other than Russia that are now independent. There are also a number of countries that can accurately be described as former Soviet satellites. So you really seem to be reaching for something to criticize. Your point is obscure.

 

First of all, including O'Rourke on your list of someone who "lied" to advance himself in his career and professional life is unsubstantiated. Beto was a family nickname for him. His name is Robert and he grew up in El Paso where that Hispanic nickname was acquired. His use of it in 1986 when he was 14 years old is documented. So you're simply repeating the lie by Breitbart and the Cruz campaign to try to discredit him. Second, there are niches where it can be advantageous to claim minority status, but the broader picture is one of disadvantage . Affirmative action and certain scholarships have created the niches, to compensate for the disadvantages experienced statistically by minority populations in other social contexts. Unfortunately, some people will try to game the system; others, out of sympathy to the minorities, may convince themselves that they are one of them on the basis of tenuous genetics or family folklore. To deny the history of discrimination experienced by racial minorities and the resulting disadvantages still suffered by a disproportionate number of them on this basis is lying to promote a political agenda. I think "white privilege" is an unfortunate term, because it suggests that all whites enjoy privileges that all non-whites don't enjoy, just by virtue of their being white. There are plenty of underprivileged whites, in Appalachia, the Ozarks, and poor urban neighborhoods, and there are non-whites who may be more privileged than some whites by virtue of their parents" achievements. But statistically, the term broadly corresponds to reality. Why don't we ever hear of people of color putting on white face to get a piece of white privilege? Passing as white was quite common before the mid-sixties.
Passing: How posing as white became a choice for many black Americans
Several celebrities have done this successfully.
10 Black Celebs Who Successfully Pass For White
5 Classic Hollywood Stars Who Passed for White
15 Celebrities Most People Don’t Know Are Black
The phenomenon is explored by Allyson Hobbs in A Chosen Exile: A History of Racial Passing ( 2014).
Racial preference favored whites longer than non-whites. If passing for white is less common now than then, it's probably a measure of the success of the civil rights movement and black pride movement in reducing the perceived need for it.

 

I think the only way I might consider ending a friendship over politics is if I discovered that the person is a fascist or racist. Something like that.

 

or maybe if i discovered that they were regular posters in the hipforums politics section.

 

Including family? That's my dilemma.