[004]
IdumeanPatriot
Current Version
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
On a more serious matter, \'\'\'Youngstormlord is a liar, flat and simple.\'\'\' He completely made up that \
to:
On a more serious matter, \\\'\\\'\\\'Youngstormlord is a liar, plain and simple.\\\'\\\'\\\' He completely made up that \\\"quote\\\" from Lind out of thin air. It\\\'s not on any of the pages he cites. If you had even read them, you would also immediately see that. Your knee-jerk response to point and nod without even checking the source is either lazy, dishonest, or both.
As for \\\"fascism\\\" I\\\'m not sure quite what that word means in your world. Assuming that I deciphered the rambling rants in your first post correctly, your point goes something like:
* If I, Shtovak, say you are a fascist, you\\\'re a fascist.
* If you\\\'re against Nazism and their anti-Semitism, you\\\'re still a fascist.
* If you\\\'re against dictatorship and in favor of democracy, you\\\'re still a fascist.
* If you specifically deny you are a fascist, you\\\'re still a fascist.
All of this because \\\"Fascism is as fascism does\\\". Which is not only [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question begging the question]], but sounds a lot like [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm \\\"Four legs good, two legs bad\\\"]] when you repeat it like a mantra. And more so when you add increasingly unsubtle insinuations that people who disagree with you on its definition (me, in this case) are fascists as well because disagreeing with you.
For my take... The protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' are never presented as fascists in the story. The supposed utopia they set up is a confederation with a very weak central government and Swiss-style plebiscitary democracy. When they encounter actual fascists, they disavow them (on account of, among other things, \\\"the usual Nazi stuff,\\\" meaning more specifically \\\"ranting,\\\" \\\"anti-Semitism\\\" and a \\\"demand for total control of every aspect of everyone\\\'s life.\\\"). Most of their politics as stated or described (anti-Big Government, anti-Big Business, gun rights, direct democracy, Rugged Individualism, states\\\' rights etc etc) fits terribly with fascism (which is collectivist, statist and dictatorial in all its incarnations), but excellently with the talking points of reactionary right-wing populism. Thus, it seems far more reasonable to describe their polity as that.
As for the real life person William Lind again, defaming him as a fascist and Holocaust denialist (slanders that can literally destroy someone\\\'s life) without getting proof for it, just because you dislike him as an author -- this is not merely irresponsible, but deeply malicious. Even after being shown that your very serious charge against him was false, you go right on with the verbiage. Only an evil person behaves this way toward fellow law-abiding citizens, whether they are political enemies or not.
However, you have been open about approaching this issue mainly as a political propagandist from the very first. You evidently consider yourself to be on an \\\"anti-fascist\\\" crusade, and presently your target is a book you (by your own admission) haven\\\'t read and its author. Thus, your apparent lack of care for precision or factual truth is understandable. It remains, nonetheless, completely unacceptable. Physician, heal thyself.
As for \\\"fascism\\\" I\\\'m not sure quite what that word means in your world. Assuming that I deciphered the rambling rants in your first post correctly, your point goes something like:
* If I, Shtovak, say you are a fascist, you\\\'re a fascist.
* If you\\\'re against Nazism and their anti-Semitism, you\\\'re still a fascist.
* If you\\\'re against dictatorship and in favor of democracy, you\\\'re still a fascist.
* If you specifically deny you are a fascist, you\\\'re still a fascist.
All of this because \\\"Fascism is as fascism does\\\". Which is not only [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question begging the question]], but sounds a lot like [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm \\\"Four legs good, two legs bad\\\"]] when you repeat it like a mantra. And more so when you add increasingly unsubtle insinuations that people who disagree with you on its definition (me, in this case) are fascists as well because disagreeing with you.
For my take... The protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' are never presented as fascists in the story. The supposed utopia they set up is a confederation with a very weak central government and Swiss-style plebiscitary democracy. When they encounter actual fascists, they disavow them (on account of, among other things, \\\"the usual Nazi stuff,\\\" meaning more specifically \\\"ranting,\\\" \\\"anti-Semitism\\\" and a \\\"demand for total control of every aspect of everyone\\\'s life.\\\"). Most of their politics as stated or described (anti-Big Government, anti-Big Business, gun rights, direct democracy, Rugged Individualism, states\\\' rights etc etc) fits terribly with fascism (which is collectivist, statist and dictatorial in all its incarnations), but excellently with the talking points of reactionary right-wing populism. Thus, it seems far more reasonable to describe their polity as that.
As for the real life person William Lind again, defaming him as a fascist and Holocaust denialist (slanders that can literally destroy someone\\\'s life) without getting proof for it, just because you dislike him as an author -- this is not merely irresponsible, but deeply malicious. Even after being shown that your very serious charge against him was false, you go right on with the verbiage. Only an evil person behaves this way toward fellow law-abiding citizens, whether they are political enemies or not.
However, you have been open about approaching this issue mainly as a political propagandist from the very first. You evidently consider yourself to be on an \\\"anti-fascist\\\" crusade, and presently your target is a book you (by your own admission) haven\\\'t read and its author. Thus, your apparent lack of care for precision or factual truth is understandable. It remains, nonetheless, completely unacceptable. Physician, heal thyself.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
On a more serious matter, \'\'\'Youngstormlord is a liar, flat and simple.\'\'\' He completely made up that \
to:
On a more serious matter, \\\'\\\'\\\'Youngstormlord is a liar, flat and simple.\\\'\\\'\\\' He completely made up that \\\"quote\\\" from Lind out of thin air. It\\\'s not on any of the pages he cites. If you had even read them, you would also immediately see that. Your knee-jerk response to point and nod without even checking the source is either lazy, dishonest, or both.
As for \\\"fascism\\\" I\\\'m not sure quite what that word means in your world. Assuming that I deciphered the rambling rants in your first post correctly, your point goes something like:
* If I, Shtovak, say you are a fascist, you\\\'re a fascist.
* If you\\\'re against Nazism and their anti-Semitism, you\\\'re still a fascist.
* If you\\\'re against dictatorship and in favor of democracy, you\\\'re still a fascist.
* If you specifically deny you are a fascist, you\\\'re still a fascist.
All of this because \\\"Fascism is as fascism does\\\". Which is not only [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question begging the question]], but sounds a lot like [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm \\\"Four legs good, two legs bad\\\"]] when you repeat it like a mantra. And more so when you add increasingly unsubtle insinuations that people who disagree with you on its definition (me, in this case) are fascists as well because disagreeing with you.
For my take... The protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' are never presented as fascists in the story. The supposed utopia they set up is a confederation with a very weak central government and Swiss-style plebiscitary democracy. When they encounter actual fascists, they disavow them (on account of, among other things, \\\"the usual Nazi stuff,\\\" meaning more specifically \\\"ranting,\\\" \\\"anti-Semitism\\\" and a \\\"demand for total control of every aspect of everyone\\\'s life.\\\"). Most of their politics as stated or described (anti-Big Government, anti-Big Business, gun rights, direct democracy, Rugged Individualism, states\\\' rights etc etc) fits terribly with fascism (which is collectivist, statist and dictatorial in all its incarnations), but excellently with the talking points of reactionary right-wing populism. Thus, it seems far more reasonable to describe their polity as that.
As for the real life person William Lind again, defaming him as a fascist and Holocaust denialist (slanders that can literally destroy someone\\\'s life) without getting proof for it, just because you dislike him as an author -- this is not merely irresponsible, but deeply malicious. Even after being shown that your very serious charge against him was false, you go right on with the verbiage. Only an evil person behaves this way toward fellow law-abiding citizens, whether they are political enemies or not.
However, you have been open about approaching this issue mainly as a political propagandist from the very first. You evidently consider yourself to be on an \\\"anti-fascist\\\" crusade, and presently your target is a book you (by your own admission) haven\\\'t read and its author. Thus, your apparent lack of care for precision or factual truth is understandable. It remains, nonetheless, completely unacceptable. Physician, heal thyself.
As for \\\"fascism\\\" I\\\'m not sure quite what that word means in your world. Assuming that I deciphered the rambling rants in your first post correctly, your point goes something like:
* If I, Shtovak, say you are a fascist, you\\\'re a fascist.
* If you\\\'re against Nazism and their anti-Semitism, you\\\'re still a fascist.
* If you\\\'re against dictatorship and in favor of democracy, you\\\'re still a fascist.
* If you specifically deny you are a fascist, you\\\'re still a fascist.
All of this because \\\"Fascism is as fascism does\\\". Which is not only [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question begging the question]], but sounds a lot like [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm \\\"Four legs good, two legs bad\\\"]] when you repeat it like a mantra. And more so when you add increasingly unsubtle insinuations that people who disagree with you on its definition (me, in this case) are fascists as well because disagreeing with you.
For my take... The protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' are never presented as fascists in the story. The supposed utopia they set up is a confederation with a very weak central government and Swiss-style plebiscitary democracy. When they encounter actual fascists, they disavow them (on account of, among other things, \\\"the usual Nazi stuff,\\\" meaning more specifically \\\"ranting,\\\" \\\"anti-Semitism\\\" and a \\\"demand for total control of every aspect of everyone\\\'s life.\\\"). Most of their politics as stated or described (anti-Big Government, anti-Big Business, gun rights, direct democracy, Rugged Individualism, states\\\' rights etc etc) fits terribly with fascism (which is collectivist, statist and dictatorial in all its incarnations), but excellently with the talking points of reactionary right-wing populism. Thus, it seems far more reasonable to describe their polity as that.
As for the real life person William Lind again, defaming him as a fascist and Holocaust denialist (slanders that can literally destroy someone\\\'s life) without getting proof for it, just because you dislike him as an author -- this is not merely irresponsible, but deeply malicious. Even after being shown that your very serious charge against him was false, you go right on with the verbiage. Only an evil person behaves this way toward fellow law-abiding citizens, whether they are political enemies or not.
However, you have been open about approaching this issue mainly as a political propagandist from the very first. You evidently consider yourself to be on an \\\"anti-fascist\\\" crusade, and presently your target is a book you (by your own admission) haven\\\'t read and its author. Thus, your apparent lack of care for precision or factual truth is understandable. It remains, nonetheless, completely unacceptable. Physician, heal thyself.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
My position? Obviously I don\'t endorse it, nor any of the book\'s other atrocities. I don\'t endorse the atrocities of the protagonist V in \'\'ComicBook/Literature/VForVendetta\'\' either, to use something from a book I like on the other end of the political spectrum.
to:
My position? Obviously I don\\\'t endorse it, nor any of the book\\\'s other atrocities. I don\\\'t endorse the atrocities of the protagonist V in \\\'\\\'ComicBook/VForVendetta\\\'\\\' either, to use something from a book I like on the other end of the political spectrum.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
On a more serious matter, \'\'\'Youngstormlord is a liar, flat and simple.\'\'\' He completely made up that \
to:
On a more serious matter, \\\'\\\'\\\'Youngstormlord is a liar, flat and simple.\\\'\\\'\\\' He completely made up that \\\"quote\\\" from Lind out of thin air. It\\\'s not on any of the pages he cites. If you had even read them, you would also immediately see that. Your knee-jerk response to point and nod without even checking the source is either lazy, dishonest, or both. In my opinion, clearly both.
As for \\\"fascism\\\" I\\\'m not sure quite what that word means in your world. Assuming that I deciphered the rambling rants in your first post correctly, your point goes something like:
* If I, Shtovak, say you are a fascist, you\\\'re a fascist.
* If you\\\'re against Nazism and their anti-Semitism, you\\\'re still a fascist.
* If you\\\'re against dictatorship and in favor of democracy, you\\\'re still a fascist.
* If you specifically deny you are a fascist, you\\\'re still a fascist.
All of this because \\\"Fascism is as fascism does\\\". Which is not only [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question begging the question]], but sounds a lot like [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm \\\"Four legs good, two legs bad\\\"]] when you repeat it like a mantra. And more so when you add increasingly unsubtle insinuations that people who disagree with you on its definition (me, in this case) are fascists as well because disagreeing with you.
For my take... The protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' are never presented as fascists in the story. The supposed utopia they set up is a confederation with a very weak central government and Swiss-style plebiscitary democracy. When they encounter actual fascists, they disavow them (on account of, among other things, \\\"the usual Nazi stuff,\\\" meaning more specifically \\\"ranting,\\\" \\\"anti-Semitism\\\" and a \\\"demand for total control of every aspect of everyone\\\'s life.\\\"). Most of their politics as stated or described (anti-Big Government, anti-Big Business, gun rights, direct democracy, Rugged Individualism, states\\\' rights etc etc) fits terribly with fascism (which is collectivist, statist and dictatorial in all its incarnations), but excellently with the talking points of reactionary right-wing populism. Thus, it seems far more reasonable to describe their polity as that.
As for the real life person William Lind again, defaming him as a fascist and Holocaust denialist (slanders that can literally destroy someone\\\'s life) without getting proof for it, just because you dislike him as an author -- this is not merely irresponsible, but deeply malicious. Even after being shown that your very serious charge against him was false, you go right on with the verbiage. Only an evil person behaves this way toward fellow law-abiding citizens, whether they are political enemies or not.
However, you have been open about approaching this issue mainly as a political propagandist from the very first. You evidently consider yourself to be on an \\\"anti-fascist\\\" crusade, and presently your target is a book you (by your own admission) haven\\\'t read and its author. Thus, your apparent lack of care for precision or factual truth is understandable. It remains, nonetheless, completely unacceptable. Physician, heal thyself.
As for \\\"fascism\\\" I\\\'m not sure quite what that word means in your world. Assuming that I deciphered the rambling rants in your first post correctly, your point goes something like:
* If I, Shtovak, say you are a fascist, you\\\'re a fascist.
* If you\\\'re against Nazism and their anti-Semitism, you\\\'re still a fascist.
* If you\\\'re against dictatorship and in favor of democracy, you\\\'re still a fascist.
* If you specifically deny you are a fascist, you\\\'re still a fascist.
All of this because \\\"Fascism is as fascism does\\\". Which is not only [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question begging the question]], but sounds a lot like [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm \\\"Four legs good, two legs bad\\\"]] when you repeat it like a mantra. And more so when you add increasingly unsubtle insinuations that people who disagree with you on its definition (me, in this case) are fascists as well because disagreeing with you.
For my take... The protagonists in \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' are never presented as fascists in the story. The supposed utopia they set up is a confederation with a very weak central government and Swiss-style plebiscitary democracy. When they encounter actual fascists, they disavow them (on account of, among other things, \\\"the usual Nazi stuff,\\\" meaning more specifically \\\"ranting,\\\" \\\"anti-Semitism\\\" and a \\\"demand for total control of every aspect of everyone\\\'s life.\\\"). Most of their politics as stated or described (anti-Big Government, anti-Big Business, gun rights, direct democracy, Rugged Individualism, states\\\' rights etc etc) fits terribly with fascism (which is collectivist, statist and dictatorial in all its incarnations), but excellently with the talking points of reactionary right-wing populism. Thus, it seems far more reasonable to describe their polity as that.
As for the real life person William Lind again, defaming him as a fascist and Holocaust denialist (slanders that can literally destroy someone\\\'s life) without getting proof for it, just because you dislike him as an author -- this is not merely irresponsible, but deeply malicious. Even after being shown that your very serious charge against him was false, you go right on with the verbiage. Only an evil person behaves this way toward fellow law-abiding citizens, whether they are political enemies or not.
However, you have been open about approaching this issue mainly as a political propagandist from the very first. You evidently consider yourself to be on an \\\"anti-fascist\\\" crusade, and presently your target is a book you (by your own admission) haven\\\'t read and its author. Thus, your apparent lack of care for precision or factual truth is understandable. It remains, nonetheless, completely unacceptable. Physician, heal thyself.
