Which doesnt change the "infochart" is highly biased.
So you want to pretend it is "US views" (by most of the americans) that Democrats are literally communists, and that science is the same as a religion?
In a world where Democrats are communists and science is religion. Those who believe that also voted for Trump.
The same bullshit. That chart ignores fascism, nationalism and national socialism completely.
Frankly either get glasses or open your eyes.
Communism --> Labour --> Democrats for the left.
Republican <-- Conservative <-- Nationalist for the right.
On that very chart.
No but what kind of joke are you trying to pull? If you believe THIS is biased, you need to get a reality check.
EDIT: I don't know if it's because you are having issues understanding the graph, but nowhere is the chart saying that democrats are communists. It's only stating that Communism is far-left, labour being moderate-left and democrats being center-left.
Likewise, if you think being on the right is to be fascist, you indeed need a reality check.
Overall, you probably just need a reality check and/or learn to read the chart.
Last edited by Zandalarian Paladin; 2017-06-24 at 11:54 PM.
Google Diversity Memo
Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA
Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
[...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..
I think we understand Conservative US views just fine, it's just that many of us consider them to be bat-shit crazy.
We understand that every election is about abortion rights (or the lack thereof) and defending your constitutional right, supposedly as imagined by your founders some couple of hundreds of years ago, to bear military-grade weaponry (even though no such weapons existed when the 2nd amendment was written, not to mention that the courts interpreted it to be about the States having the right to have a regulated militia well into the 20th century).
We also understand that you consider healthcare to be goods to shop for on a free market like a car, rather than a right. Because loosing a leg because you can't afford treatment makes you more free. It's not like getting to keep that leg makes you more free. No, no! Freedom from taxation is the only thing that counts (and the freedom to discriminate because of your religious views of course).
We also understand that it is very, very, very important for you that extremely wealthy people gets to keep as much of their money as possible, even though taxing them higher would increase the economic freedom of the rest 99% of the population as they'd end up having more money to spend after having paid their bills and taxes if the mega-rich payed a higher share of the total tax burden and/or if services like healthcare was provided by the government. Since the mega-rich would remain rich their economic freedom would be marginally reduced, while the remainder 99% of people would have much more economic freedom. But that's unacceptable.
We also understand that government is some oppressive alien force that cannot be trusted, rather than the democratic vehicle through which society can take collective action. Unregulated free markets driven purely by the profit motive is extremely trustworthy though. Regulate it so that plastic toys can't include poisonous led? No way, José! (Also, you don't like José)
We also understand that you don't see any problem at all with your system allowing for citizens to have their voting rights revoked, prisons to be driven by the profit-motive and your police to be under-trained and over-prone to use lethal force. "Government" = bad. Police state = good. Gotcha.
Last edited by Zarc; 2017-06-25 at 12:36 AM.
But not fascism and national socialism. Why does the infographic do not put Republicans onto the same side as alt rights and fascists, if it is only about "right" and "left"?
That is because i think it is biased. It displays communism at the left, and democrats too, acting as if they are the same spectrum (while the democrats are a center party), but it forgets right wing extremists as like the alt right which is reality in america nowadays. Where are the bigot racists in that infographic that voted trump into office and read breitbart?
Where are the alt right extremeists in your chart? Where is the area that puts Reagen on the same side as Trump and Bannon? And Mr. Spencer?
I'm sorry but communism is NOT on par with alt-right at all. We're not talking of Antifa or BLM here, which, as you can see, has also been omitted from the chart.
I know you may have a hard time wrapping your head around the fact that people on the right are not necessarily bigots, but perhaps it's time you start opening yourself to that possibility.
And yes, Democrats ARE center-left. Because Clinton was center-right does not make the party center. They are on the same spectrum, because it uses a linear spectrum without authoritarian/libertarian values because that in itself deserves another infographic. They're not equivalent and they are NOT saying that they are on the infographic. You're assuming that.
Google Diversity Memo
Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA
Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
[...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..
Neither Antifa nor BLM are communists. There exists no "commiunism" in the USA. Thats just gibberish of the right wingkins to disredit liberal thinkers and democrats.
But Donald Trump is, he pretends to be a "conservative" while he infact is a right wing populist, who is not in the "infochart" you postet. And yes, that is the reason your infochart is biased. It forgets right wing extremism, which infact exists in the USA.
I dont assume anything. I just see the definition of the "left" in that infographic as a rhetorical trick which discredits every kind of liberal mindset as being in the same boat as communism, while communism only exists in the head of the right wing breitbart readers.
That infographic is garbage. Try something thats less biased.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
You know, you've been trying really hard to discredit the chart and failed time and time again. Because not only do you literally omit the fact that "Nationalist" IS part of the chart, but also assume that Communism is an insult. You also assume that both are currently at play in the US, while none of them actually are. They are examples that are easy to grasp, assuming you're educated and not just trying to shut things out.
There's also a slight paranoia in your personal rethoric. For some reason, you are persuaded there's some kind of "trickery" or bias. If breitbart readers see communism and have an aneurysm, well tell you what, that's their own problem from their own biased perspective. That's not the chart being biased, that's them. Just like you are on the other side around.
Sincerely, tone down the toxic skepticism and stop seeing attacks where there are none.
Google Diversity Memo
Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA
Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
[...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..
This just means my memory is better than yours. Here is what you actually said:
Yes, I am defining memory, as the ability to click a couple of pages back in a thread. /tongue_out
Are you suggesting czar did not? You are suggesting that Lenin's creed of 'Peace, food and land', wasn't because people had none of those? The difference between authoritarian rule of a czar and that of communism, is that the fruits of the labor go to either the czar or the state. Feel free to check what happened even after Stalin. See the initiatives that Cheriney started in his short time as head of state. It might be hard to see, but communism was bigger in buracracy, but it wasn't bigger as far as government control. It's slim and hard to see, but all you have to look at is Russian gains in medicine and technology, prior to collapse of USSR. Both the czar and Stalin had limitless power. Both killed off their rivals, but only one literally owned the country."How exactly was communism, even in Stalin's form, a bigger government than the czar".
That question clearly shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Government that is so massive that it consumes everything is what communism is. From every industry, to the job you are forcefully placed in, to your social life, and even to what you can talk about legally. It's about falling in line with Government for the greater good. It's about everyone being controlled by the state so that everyone is economically equal. It's about trading all independence and liberty so that no one can be better off.
Communism did for Russia, what even Peter the Great couldn't do. This is a guy who went as far as to force his advisors and government to shave their beards, as part of an aggressive push for modernization. While the Czar was busy with killing off Russians in wars over which king had a bigger dick and wasting resources on fabrage eggs, the people had nothing and no means to have anything. The impact and resources going to the people, despite still being authoritarian, is showing that government being authoritarian that is the problem. Not if the government is defined in size... that's silly...
You are making the case for smaller government, not that the size doesn't mater. Just a reminder..."The French monarchy controlled every facet of French life. It wasn't just because they were wealthy, it's was because the populace had nothing."
Yes, exactly, just like political marxism. The only difference between the two is that the you served the "state" and not a monarch. When you're a subject, you're a subject. It doesn't matter who you are subservient to.
Why? You said it needs to respect the individual. That has nothing to do with the republic. Which, by the way, failed by the end of the book.I'll break down the difference between a Republic and a monarchy for you. I hope you didn't pay for a college education, because you were badly ripped off if you did.
Then you agree, you were wrong to say individual? You are proving my point, not yours. Try again, but this time say individual, instead of people. Otherwise... yeah, if I didn't think I was right, I wouldn't have given you shit for saying individual.In a monarchy, the monarch controls the Government. They are unelected and the people are simply beneath them. In a Republic we vote for and choose from the people to represent us in Government (of the people and by the people), who then serve us by creating laws and funding things that protect our liberty, (for the people).
I'm sorry, what? I believe that America was founded by time traveling Marxist? No, it's not about a citizen being an individual. You just spent an entire paragraph agreeing that it's about the people? Now you are back to individual? Monarchy is about the individual, thus the mono in the name and singular servitude in the definitions you posted.I hope you can move on from this false belief that the founding fathers believed in Marxism. It's very simple minded, and is nothing more than revision of history. The USA is about liberty for all. It is about each citizen being an individual, having free thoughts, being able to speak against the state, independence to live the life that one desires. Communism is totalitarianism.
In monarchy, the laws are only defined by an individual's wealth. If you busted your ass, gained the followers and were able to afford a larger army, like the ancestors of royalty did. You the individual would have the same power. Just because you couldn't afford the army, the land, or anything else for that mater. Doesn't mean you didn't have an equal right to the monarchy as an individual.
The monarch wasn't just your government, he was also your employer. You were in servitude to him, because he was better off. Don't tell me you are jealous, that the kings ancestors busted ass to gain this land and their children have the right to the inheritance. Right? (That's why poor Anastasia didn't have that Disney ending.)
Your opposing view, political marxism, is not something I trust. Here's three reasons why I don't trust what you're espousing
A, is just there as an insult. We disagree, I get it. If all I have to say is that, I am wasting a lot of time explaining.a.) You don't even understand what political marxism is.
b.) your revisionist view that the founding fathers were marxists
c.) Political marxism has killed millions and millions of people. Marxism is about oppression. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is totalitarianism. Political marxism states that the state is everything, and everyone is subservient to the state. If we lived in a marxist state I would be executed for my views.
B, quote me doing it. I never did, you silly... start with forgetting what you said, end with forgetting what I said? Great bookends...
C, could you talk more about "dictatorship of proletariat"? are you saying the working class are dictators?
- - - Updated - - -
Just because I feel like it. The mechanism that fixes Plato's republic to not fail, is democracy. It's supposed to enforce the perspective of the majority, in the elites that are chosen to represent the republic. That's the key... that's why it was such a big deal for America... it's why we as Americans have always wanted to spread it. The failure in republic can usually be traced to governments inability to determine the will of the people. Although, in modern times we figured out how to maneuver even around that:
crap, now I'm full on ranting...
Athenian democracy actually used randomness to try to fix that problem. They would pretty much flip coins to determine positions in most parliament seats. If you attended the gathering, you could be one of the lucky randoms to join. It might not be effective, but it's fun to think about democracy's orogin, being pretty much LFR queue...
Last edited by Felya; 2017-06-25 at 03:37 PM.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
I dont "discredit" the chart, i critizice it for being biased. It talks about democrats and communism on the left, but ignores alt right and fascist extremism on the right. And you were not really able to counter that argument.
No, i dont. I still see no right wing extremism as part of the chart. Do you really try to pretend that Nationalism and right wing extremism are the same?
I never said it is an insult. Still democrats are being put onto the left side together with Communism, while the american democrat party is a center party, and has nothing to do with left wing extremism.
Wait.. you want to pretend that alt right extremistm is NO part of the american right wing currently?
Did you watch news recently? Or did you watch who was voted into white house? A right wing populist and his alt right adviser, who created breitbart.
What kind of joke do you try here?
Seems you are not educated, if you dont see that the "left wing" on your biased chart contains communism, left wing extremism, but not alt right extremism and national socialism at the right.
I dont need to have a bias to know that the democrat party is neither left nor in the same boat as communism. I dont need a bias to see that liberal people and the liberl idea also are rarely part of the "left" political wing, but mostly centrists.
The infochart shows what a right wingkin THINKS the political sides are about. But not reality.
Last edited by mmoc903ad35b4b; 2017-06-25 at 04:51 PM.
Democrats are center left. They are. Communism is in NO WAY comparable to Alt-right and Fascism. Communism was mishandled in the past, but that doesn't mean the ideology is extreme in any way whatsoever.
Where do you see left-wing extremism on this chart? Communism, again? Man, you're really out for blood, aren't you?
Yeah, you're really out for blood on that one. Let me help you a bit about what communism really is and what nationalism is.
Communism:
* Which seems to be your case here, but then again it shows a wrong understanding of what Communism is.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
In political and social sciences, Communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.
Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism, anarchism (anarchist communism), and the political ideologies grouped around both. All these share the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system, capitalism, that in this system, there are two major social classes: the working class—who must work to survive, and who make up the majority within society—and the capitalist class—a minority who derives profit from employing the working class, through private ownership of the means of production, and that conflict between these two classes will trigger a revolution. The primary element which will enable this transformation, according to this analysis, is the social ownership of the means of production.
Criticism of communism can be roughly divided into those concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th century communist states*,[7] and those concerning themselves with communist principles and theory.
Which is mostly opposite to Communism. As per this definition, the alt-right is a Nationalist group, by the way, as you can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-righthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Nationalism is a multidimensional social construction reflected in the communal identification with one's nation. It is a political ideology oriented towards gaining and maintaining self-governance, or full sovereignty, over a territory of historical significance to the group (such as its homeland). Nationalism therefore holds that a nation should govern itself, free from unwanted outside interference, and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared characteristics such as culture, language, race, religion, political goals or a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism therefore seeks to preserve the nation's culture. It often also involves a sense of pride in the nation's achievements, and is closely linked to the concept of patriotism. In these terms, nationalism can be considered positive or negative, in some cases it meant that a nation should be able to control the government and all means of production.[3]
So is Antifa and BLM. They're not on the chart because they're a minority. And no, as much that you want it to be this way, communism is NOT left extremism. Trump is not the Alt-Right even if you really really want that to be true, just because some nutjobs are who decided to support him.
Have you done your readings?
I think you're seeing what you want to see, rather than the reality. You WANT to make the right look bad and you use a horrible rhetoric to achieve it with ridiculous arguments that somehow compare Communism with right-wing extremism. Honestly, I'm more inclined to think you're trying to make the left looks bad. The jury's still out about whether or not you're doing this on purpose or just by ignorance.
Google Diversity Memo
Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA
Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
[...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..
You and other conservatives should refrain from circlejerking over everything Trump does as infallible if you are concerned about others painting conservatives in broad strokes that they live in an echo chamber.
The US is divisive because one half of the nation subscribes to Trump as a religion, and the other half doesn't.
I am not sure what you are trying to prove to conservatives using Breitbart as the prime example their party is tainted by right-wing extremism - because in the first place, too many conservatives go by Breitbart and other far-right conspiracy sites as gospel.
Last edited by PosPosPos; 2017-06-25 at 05:21 PM.
"My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility
Prediction for the future
You and other liberals should refrain from circlejerking over everything Trump does as wrong if you are concerned about others painting liberals in broad strokes that they live in an echo chamber.
The US is divisive because one half of the nation subscribes to bashing Trump as a religion, and the other half doesn't.
...
Except there's nothing else to do when dealing with someone who's objectively always wrong. You can point out one thing he has done right since taking PotUS if you disagree.
Pointing out facts and living in non-alternative reality isn't a religion. Although to someone like you, I guess anyone who's not living in alternative reality is living out a religion.
"My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility
Prediction for the future
Europeans understand American politics just fine