site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 336 results for

domain:nature.com

Liberalism is what a dictatorship of the working class looks like when it goes through gender affirming care.

Fascism is what a dictatorship of the working class looks like when it forgets to invite any women.

Communism is what a dictatorship of the working class looks like when it forgets to invite any men.

Okay, how about composing and performing a song about it being springtime for Hitler?

the ones who were already jumping at the bit.

It is interesting to see it potentially developing as the last straw for a lot of people, where a passive lack of charity crosses into something more active.

Once, I did care, but I burned out before this. I don't really consider the right "my side" in an affirmative sense, but my anti-leftness solidified sometime during the whole "whiteness is the source of all evil but technically doesn't mean white people wink wink nudge nudge" era of egregious bigotry.

This is not good for society, and it's definitely not good for my intellectual charity when talking to whatever infinitesimal fraction of the left refused to tolerate that shit, but I don't really feel like the ball is in my court for solving it, either. For all my many flaws and failures, I've never declared an ethnicity a contract with the devil, or tried to create high-minded academic fig leaves for virulent racism.

Yeah, as with a lot of things Jewish, there's two kinds of people who use the noun "Jew" to refer to a Jewish person -- neo-Nazis and Jews.

(OK maybe boomers too)

It's water under the bus.

Now a bit regarding Nazism specifically. The left has so abused the term Nazi/fascist, similar to abuse of Antisemite or Communist/Socialist, that at some point you can’t be surprised when people start to think Nazism isn’t so bad, and start to wear the badge in defiance. In a weird way it becomes analogous to blacks reclaiming the word “nigger”

Lots of people manage to be called Nazi/fascist inappropriately without becoming pro Nazi. I wonder what the difference here is between the anti Nazi conservatives and the pro Nazi conservatives are. My guess at the most obvious explanation would be that the pro nazis are just pro nazi to begin with and any excuse they give is just that, an excuse.

Now maybe we could say that it's because "Nazism" as a term has become diluted, like how "Communism is when the government does stuff" happened among many youth.

But diluted communism/socialism is typically like "I'm such a socialist, I wish we were like Norway". For Nazism to be diluted, I wouldn't expect Hitler and gas chambers, I'd expect "I'm such a Nazi, I wish we were like Slovakia" or something. The dilution in the mainstream is typically from shared misunderstandings.

"Young" in this case is 18-40, adults working in a professional capacity.

I ran into this in my local Republican party, I was invited to join the Young Republicans and I laughed, saying I'm 30 and I'm married and I have a mortgage, I think I'm just a regular Republican. They said oh no it goes up to 40, and I was flabbergasted.

Is there anyone who thinks the Young Republicans is an important organization, and not a kind of hanger-on group that doesn't really achieve much if anything? It strikes me as an organization that exists within the party structure so that it doesn't not exist, and hierarchy-wise it gives you a few sinecures for minor apparatchiks working their way through the party, but I don't think the Young Republicans carry any real power.

No. Otherwise it would mean you've just become about as literal Nazi as possible in a world where the Nazi party is no longer around.

But there's no reliable evidence this guy wants peaceful coexistence, last time he was out he engaged in violent attacks. He "reformed" in prison so dupes at the UN would get behind his cause of release.

Interesting how pretty much all of this is just "people who don't show perfect loyalty to the tribe". In which case I suppose there's a question to be asked.

Why should the Gov Scott/Stefanik/Roger Stone/etc crew who are appalled by Nazism and bigotry have to show their loyalty to the Nazi side and accept their anti American values, instead of the Nazi side having to show their loyalty to the Gov Scott/etc side and stop being Nazis?

Ever looked at The Listener crossword in The Times? It makes a cryptic look like a child's word search.

I tried to find an example but I can only find pictures of finished puzzles without the clues. Looks like there are some follow-alongs on YouTube.

…did you ever?

I did. The whole reason I got into /r/SSC and The Motte is because I thought they represented a chance for dialogue between the two sides, and a chance for each of us to say "I guess they make some good points sometimes", come together, and either forge a common path, or at least forge a pact to purge the crazies on each respective side. All I got for the trouble was "not good enough" said in so many ways, and a litany of denials that there's anything wrong with the progressive side, and that if I think otherwise, it's because I'm being uncharitable.

Now... you know me (and I know me), I know I'm prone to sperging out at times, but I was actually trying, but at this point, why bother? This isn't even accusatory, I know your heart's in the right place, but I know that you and people like you are incapable of stopping the things I find offensive and distasteful that come from your side, so why should I police mine?

There are no literal Nazis, and there haven't been in 80 years. That's part of the point here, you're chasing boogeymen.

So "I love Hitler" is about as literal Nazi as possible in a world where the Nazi party is no longer around?

In my opinion there is literally nothing that can be said between two consenting adults in a private conversation that I would consider unacceptable behavior.

So two adults coordinating a child porn ring is acceptable as long as it's done in private? Might need to walk back your literally nothing claim here.

It's fine if you are 1-3. You'll just have to trust me when I say that these conversations take place all the time

I'm sorry, but if you're in such a world where you genuinely believe that every man jokes this way and anyone who doesn't is just a liar, it says a lot more about you and the people you hang out with in your dark matter world than about men in general.

This type of defense is truly incredible just as a concept though. Like it's literally "Yes all men!" but as an endorsement, it comes off as a lack of imagination and theory of mind.

Heck, the very term "Jew" was declared offensive in some blue tribe circles 5+ years ago! There was even a This American Life episode featuring the Jewish host Ira Glass asking one of his younger interns or recent hires to describe what person he is in terms of his religion, and she insisted on calling him a "Jewish person" or something of the sort, while explicitly refusing to call him a "Jew," despite the fact that he self-identified as a "Jew."

I don't think it caught on, but then again, the blue tribe environments in which I reside don't have that many Jews and don't talk about Jews much, so it could be one of those things that just quietly passed under my radar and is actually dominant in the blue tribe.

Was there any actual support for Hitler? The single quote appears to be, as per the context The_Nybbler provided, a reducto ad absurdum joke.

I don't understand what the humor here is in

A: "Let's elect the most hardcore of our beliefs"

B: "That would be Hitler"

Seems like an admission that the beliefs are Hitler Lite, not a great sign.

But ok, sure let's take that as just a joke and not read into anything. What about the other comments like the one about the Kansas delegation possibly liking someone more if they painted them as Nazis? It seems over and over again the joke here is "boy we sure are a lot like literal Nazis".

Republicans like Gov Scott, Stefanik, Roger Stone, etc all seem to be appalled by it, so it's not some just Bad Faith Left Wing thing either unless anyone who breaks tribal loyalty is inherently considered an outsider enemy.

It doesn't even have real life traction, thats the thing.Firing some young republican nobodies is costless for republicans, and now everyone sotto voce thinks the liberals are the crazy moralizing karens they spent the ladt year pretending they werent. There is an extremely aggressive attempt to memoryhole the shaming and screeching of the late 2010s but this just shows the libs can't help themselves from beating the racism gong when some supply actually instantiates to feed their unlimited demand for wrongthink.

My understanding of 4chan culture is that none of these are remotely homophobic in practice, and the term "fag" has become sufficiently debased that someone needed to coin the term "gayfag" to describe male homosexuals.

I've happily made many a macro of Bill Hicks screaming "HITLER DIDNT GO FAR ENOUGH" paired with Dave Chappelle just eyebrow waggling. It is AMAZING what people read into that.

After the lefty reaction to the Kirk assassination I absolutely don't care about this, and will never care about anything like this from my own side ever again. OP wildly overestimates the number of fucks the right has left to give.

Do you believe that all of politics can only be summed up as "left" and "right" and that it is impossible to be both against killing people like Kirk and against racism/neonazism/etc?

If you do believe this, then why do Republicans like Gov Scott, Elise Stefanik, Roger Stone, etc seem to be able to denounce the chat without saying positive things about killing Kirk? Are they fake right wingers or something?

You don't need to be infiltrate a groupchat to find obvious examples of democrats wanting to do things they know their opponents find terrible. They openly talk about why Democrats should pretend to support economic populism so that they can sneak in trans rights and unlimited immigration, at the direct and explicit expense of white people. Its the entire existence of Lib Of Tik Tok and the progs out this out openly because they think cons are too stupid to ever pierce the barrier to entry of looking at a phone screen.

You're not beating the logs-in-eyes allegations. None of anything you said would reflect on how Arabs would treat Jews in a hypothetical one-state solution. The evidence we do have is from the expulsion of Mizrahim from all Arab countries to Israel - a pogrom you blame on Zionism. But they didn't do anything for Israel. They were completely innocent in the matter, but they were expelled and had their property confiscated anyway.

That was, undeniably, ethnic cleansing at the least. Genocide, if you stretch it. And you deny it so pithily, with a single sentence. As if the actions of Jews in Judea and Samaria reflected upon them as a whole.

Why should I trust you accusing Israel of genocide when you downplay the Arab one?

In 1944, before the actual, everyone-can-agree-they're-fascist fascist states of Italy and Germany had been defeated, George Orwell wrote an article highlighting how the term had devolved into an insult and lost any useful, shared, descriptive meaning of any actual political system: https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

Back when SBF was in the news for massive fraud etc. I made some random comment about him having a Jew-fro. My sister was quite offended by this and said it was a rude thing to say, even though I first learned the term from a Jewish friend in high school who rocked a pretty awesome Jew-fro (unlike SBF's nasty greasy rat's nest).