Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 17, 2017.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Feel free to prove these accusations. As long as you don't, this is nothing but aggressive babble. As, in fact, a large part of the rest of the post, so it makes no sense to comment it.
You may not like his humor, but you cannot deny this;
You already did, to others. Explicitly - you described your process of analysis (extracting "information" according to your assumptions about bias in the media, without knowing the facts) yourself.
One can try: Reread Goldberg under the assumption - for which there is considerable evidence - that he is running something very like a Sokal Hoax. Start with the basics, the small foothold you have in reality, maybe like this: since (as you know) corporate capitalism is the characteristic economic system of fascist governance, "leftist fascism" is oxymoronic. Blatantly. Don't try to weasel around into some kind of too-clever explanation - just look at it, the role that language plays. Compare Sokal.
- - - - ---
Meanwhile, looking at Trump 2020, what will motivate the voters? A clue: https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2019/02/06/5c5b46c2e4b09293b20b0b1a.pdf
[/quote] So, then, how many Americans are unclear on whether or not it is racist to smear shoe polish on your face in a crude personal re-enactment of an old minstrel show? A new HuffPost/YouGov poll sought to answer that, asking Americans whether it is "acceptable or unacceptable" for a white person to wear blackface "for a costume."
- - - - -
Self-identified Trump voters say wearing blackface is acceptable, as part of a costume, by a 44 to 34 spread. They are the only identified subgroup in which a plurality defended it as acceptable - - - [/quote]
And what might, in a different media world, motivate the voters?
or maybe this:
This the second video at that time: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/02/08/john-dean-matthew-whitaker-hearing-nr-vpx.cnn
First of all, Goldberg makes a lot of sense, contrary to the content of Sokal's Hoax (Ok, in some sense, if one looks at the actual gender and so on "science", they are even more nonsensical than Sokal's hoax, given that Sokal's hoax contains a lot of excellent jokes.) Even if one accepts that "leftist fascism" is an oxymoron, as long as your only argument is that, this is, sorry, nothing. To use oxymorons as a title of a book is nothing but a standard marketing trick, and otherwise irrelevant. What matters is that he has presented a lot of evidence for support of a lot of fascists ideas by a lot of important persons on the left.
But essentially you have not even presented good evidence that "leftist fascism" is an oxymoron. Mentioning corporate capitalism in this context makes no sense. Corporate capitalism is the system which has been supported by the majority of the left (all those who rejected the communist project) all the time. All the "anti-capitalist" rhetorics from the left is nothing but rhetorics. Big corporations are even interested in "anti-capitalist regulations" which make it extremely difficult for companies to follow these regulations because this gives the big players a large advantage in comparison with small competitors or newcomers.
Quite simple: They hate political correctness.
By the way, I have seen some evidence that the conflict is not only rich (coup supporters) vs. poor (Maduro supporters), but also white (coup supporters) vs. non-white (Maduro supporters), with a strong racist element in this conflict. As far as this is correct, this adds yet another example that the US supports whatever they hate in their official propaganda. After fascism (Ukraine) and jihadist terrorists (Syria, Libya) they support also racists (Venezuela).
That's the standard propaganda line, straight from the wingnut media feed.
Knew I could count on you.
Capitalism is rightwing. Socialism is leftwing.
By definition. Even Goldberg doesn't try to paper over that one (he tries to sell the Nazis as socialist). But you? You're a lost ball in the high weeds.
He's running a line of bs, and you are falling for it - in public.
And he concludes that this makes them fascists, which is stupid.
All authoritarians have "ideas" in common - that's how they get that label. Trump shares many "ideas" with Stalin - that does not make him communist.
Yep. That's your post-Nixon Republican Party after the Southern Strategy gave them the White House - Trump included. It's also the Blue Dog Dems, and the rightwing Dems generally.
That's how fascism rolls.
It's not an accident.
What skin colour are the 1000 bodyguards Russia sent for Maduro's protection?
A juvenile resistance to civilized behavior. It's the same behavior as a teenager dropping his pants half way down his butt to show his "disdain" for convention and thereby joining the "basket of deplorables".....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Any argument or so that this is only propaganda, and not a simple and trivial truth? Trump has, last but not least, violated many times many different rules of political correctness, so that he would be clearly not supported by anybody who thinks positive about political correctness. Not?
So what? I'm not Goldberg. I defend free market capitalism, Goldberg is a conservative, thus, comfortable with the existing regulated capitalism, thus, with corporatism. So, this is not clearly not his line of attack. He shows that the left supported as well those parts of fascism which are, at least in the official propaganda, evil today.
Corporatism is not free market capitalism, but regulated capitalism, and the form of capitalism accepted by the social-democratic (or "social fascist" in Stalin's language), non-communist left. And it is what remains from the left wing after the end of communism.
As long as you present nothing but namecalling against this "line of bs", this is what you have to expect: I support the side which gives better arguments. Namecalling does not count as a good argument.
A strawman. (Not? Then quote him, please.) Whatever, what I see is that the difference is even less than I thought. That the difference is not really important I have thought even before, based on Hannah Arendt's totalitarianism book.
PC and civilized behavior are quite different things. In particular, traditional civilized behavior is not PC at all today. PC is against freedom of speech, and fighting some quite irrelevant forms of uncivilized behavior is only part of the cover. To talk about, say, the correlations between race and IQ is usually done in quite civilized ways, using scientific language, but nonetheless, the PC gangs fight against such forms of speech.
Ask the source of this fantasy.
The assumption that different races have different IQ levels is prejudicial and not scientifically supportable. All survival techniques are acquired for dealing with the long term environmental challenges of different species in general and human races in particular.
All races have histories of great societies all around the world. People are not getting dumber or smarter. They just become better educated and more informed.
The rural midwest voted for Trump, as well as the rest of the Republican government.
So - not too much sympathy, but some:
And in the process he has you accepting his category "the left" and his category "fascism" - standard propaganda framing (standard hypnotic technique, as well).
He tries to sell the idea that fascism was leftwing, so that the label will not stick to the rightwing Republicans.
That is a major propaganda effort in the US - the fascist movement in the US does not want to be labeled "fascist", and to avoid that the authoritarian corporate capitalists have financed a large, long term, and effective propaganda campaign to destroy the meaning of the word while attaching its pejorative connotations to their opponents.
You don't know that, so you don't know what Goldberg is doing. So you got took.
You are unable to evaluate arguments in this matter - as proof, you suckered for Jonah Goldberg's corporate capitalist shilling.
As further demonstration, here is your idea of a better argument:
There is no such "the left wing" in the US.
Capitalism is not something that "remains" after the end of communism.
Again: to escape from a Sokal Hoax, start with whatever basic physical reality you have:
- - - -
Sure. Racism as exemplified in blackface minstrelsy is much older than "political correctness". And the excuse of "political correctness" is a standard one for denying the fact of racist behavior and politics in the US. And the Trump voters are very well documented racists - far more consistent in that than in their ephemeral and inconsistent objections to "PC". (There's nothing more PC than carefully not using bad words like "racist" to describe blackface crapola, birtherism, racially abusive police, etc. But the people supposedly objecting to PC language police never seem to object. It's almost as if political correctness were not their issue.
Your version of "PC", which you have adopted uncritically from US wingnut propagandists, is almost identical with civilized behavior.
Once again you wander into some area of near-total ignorance, and make proclamations identical to the silliest and crudest of US corporate capitalist propaganda feeds.
The objections to the racism inherent in the common attempts to draw "correlations between race and IQ" have nothing to do with the forms of the speech. It's the contents, not the forms, that are racist.
There is a physical reality involved, see. As with climate change, child labor, US political movements, and Trump, you have to know something about that physical reality to evaluate the speech. You don't.
Slavery is the purest form of Capitalism. Slavery is also not politically correct, better to call it "indentured servants".......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Of course it's also not politically correct to have a huckster run a country of some 325 million people. It speaks of uninformed or misinformed decision making by the voters.
The result of this politically incorrect presidency is becoming apparent as we speak.
I think the distinction is easy to make: if you're a liberal you fart loudly in public shamelessly--it's freedom of expression.
Conservatives conserve farts for more austere occasions, like being invited to the Oval Office.
Maybe I've been watching too much Veep.
Like a Supreme Court Justice shaking his head in disagreement during a State of the Union address by Obama.
A statement which since has been proven farsighted.
But this was not the point. If you are correct, or those who see a sufficiently strong correlation between race and IQ in the data, can be discussed in a quite civilized way. Nonetheless, the SJWs will do what they can to prevent those who see such a connection from speaking. And such attempts are certainly not about civilized behavior. Even iceaura agrees with that point:
Indeed, PC is about forbidding some content of speech.
Everything correct, except that "you have to know" has to be translated from newspeak as "you have to agree with iceaura".
Whatever he tried - what he takes as fascist ideas are those proposed by the original fascists, Mussolini in particular. Of course, his classifications about who is left and who is right differs from your, but it looks like more mainstream than yours.
What I see here is that you started here a large, long term propaganda campaign in favor of your definition of fascism. Unfortunately for you, it is ineffective, given that it repeats itself, does not provide anything acceptable in a scientific forum (like some sufficiently objective criteria, which can, after this, applied to particular persons), so that your definition reduces effectively to "iceaura decides, without discussion, who is fascist and who isn't".
Whatever, Goldberg's book was named "liberal fascism". The US liberals are a quite well-defined political force in the US (which has nothing to do with classical European liberal values, but can nonetheless easilty identified).
If it is appropriate to name something capitalism which is far from a free market but highly overregulated is nothing I worry about.
So what? Of course, PC fights against many things which have been much older than PC. Most of the things they fight against are much older.
As long as you only name people with other political positions racist, no problem - once you think that using such bad words can replace arguments, you will always find bad words to name your opponents. PC is about people getting fired for being "racist" or "sexist" on the base of essentially nothing but a minor disagreement with the actual PC.
No. Maybe you mean some polemical communist meaning of "capitalism", but even Marx would disagree. The libertarian notion of a free market is based on self-ownership (against tax slavery) and private property with freedom of contract.
Once you want a democracy, you have to accept that stupid criminals will rule you.
And what does that tell you about the average voter IQ?
actualy it is your professed libertarian ideology that has the closest relationship to fascism. the chicago school "chicago boys" were all deep with pinochet. von hayek and von mises similiarly were anti democratic authortarian in the form of monarchists.
goldberg is crackpot rightwing nut job who is gets employed via wingnut welfare.
no he does. it like most right wing books is poorly written trash. the left was against fascism. fascism is firmly a right wing ideology.
Separate names with a comma.