I wonder if there is something inherent to the nature of left wing extremist groups that make them less "organized" in the sense that right wing extremist groups are?
Please spay/neuter your pets. Also, defang your copperheads.Honestly, I don't think that the present tone of political debate inspiring violence is an issue of serious concern. What is an issue of serious concern is that it almost certainly leads to the country being run less well, which is very much a matter of life or death, and occurs on a much larger scale.
...eventually, we will reach a maximum entropy state where nobody has their own socks or underwear, or knows who to ask to get them back.
Best post in- wait for it- the damn thread!
"Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front press office [..] said he is not encouraging anyone to commit murder, but “if you had to hurt somebody or intimidate them or kill them, it would be morally justifiable.”" (source
)
Then there's the Holocaust
◊ on your
◊ Plate
◊ campaign...
And of course, the cooking mama parody
is very violent and gory, though that's less rhetoric and more "Look meat is violent so don't eat it".
edited 12th Jan '11 8:54:32 AM by Yamikuronue
BTW, I'm a chick.@rjung:
I like how you were born in the 20th century and have constructed a worldview in which it's impossible to explain the 100 million deaths perpetrated by Marxists (i.e. leftists).
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard@Rotter: Some left wingers are Marxists. Not all Marxists are left wingers. Not all left wingers are Marxist.
I would add that equating a political side you disagree with "those people who killed 100 million in the last century" is exactly the sort of problem described in the topic, that of unconstructive approaches to political debate. Do we want to play that game? Do we want to add up the deaths of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim, and Caicescu, who we'll arbitrarily categorize under the "left", and see if they're more or less than the combined deaths inflicted by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, the Shah, Trujillo, Pinochet, Marcos, the House of Saud, and everyone else we can arbitrarily group under the "right"? And if we play that game, do you think anyone will really win?
If we're trying to find unpopular groups to affiliate our opponents with rather than discussing our opponents' policies, something is seriously fucking wrong.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.People seem to like my posts on this thread (and related threads) for some reason.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.@Taoist:
Marxism is a materialist political philosophy based on the eradication of all social inequality. If that's not leftist, "left" and "right" have no objective meaning.
It's also true. I don't know why playing nice is considered more important than speaking truth.
Um, no. When I say I'm right-wing, I mean it in the original sense, defined by the seating in the French National Assembly, of supporting monarchy and a state church. So I suppose you can count Franco.
edited 12th Jan '11 11:05:21 AM by Rottweiler
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard![]()
Damn straight.
Dude, your ideology is one of the dead branches of political evolution. A dead end. An abandoned field. Abandon that narrow valley. It has no issue. Come join us into the open plains of the mainstream valley!
DAMN RIGHT. Just like "marxist" doesn't have an objective meaning and can encompass lots of varieties. Just like Christian can cover anyone from Coptes, to Jah people, to Unitarians, to mormons, to the WBC.
If you keep speaking misleading half-truths that stall the debate and don't take anyone anywhere, that's what you'll get. No one benefits from that. Do you go on telling people you find sexy how you would bonk them? A Chewbacca Defense needs no lies, yet it is still, in spirit, a lie, and sinful.
edited 12th Jan '11 11:14:25 AM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?@Raw: If I cared about being mainstream, there would be nothing to stop me from becoming evil when evil is popular. Maoism was mainstream to progressives of The '60s.
The problem with wanting to be popular above all else is that, when society is evil, anyone can become Eichmann.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
They were misinformed as to what maoism actually meant. I was a maoist as a kid. I didn't know what that really meant, I had those books of the official records of the meeting of the Party and the glorious long march and I bought it all, I didn't have the capacity to question that.
But one thing is being on the vanguard, and another is being in a freaking dead end. Alone. That is not healthy.
Embrace singularitarianism! SCIENCE will save us all!
edited 12th Jan '11 11:19:44 AM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?I don't see any effective function of such groupings aside from, for example, being able to say "Noam Chomsky is like Stalin!" when you want people to ignore him.
edited 12th Jan '11 11:44:46 AM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I like how you keep on thinking in 18th-century terms and have constructed a worldview in which it's impossible to explain the numerous deaths that occurred, albeit in smaller quantities, at the hands of xenophobic, racist, culture-warring, power-hungry, unethical rulers throughout all of history, including and up to 20th century dictators.
Also, what Radical Taoist said. Not all Marxists are leftists, and not all leftists are Marxists.
And also, what Radical Taoist said after that:
If we're trying to find unpopular groups to affiliate our opponents with rather than discussing our opponents' policies, something is seriously fucking wrong.
What about environmental protection advocates? What if they're fine with the existence of social inequality?
Also, when you use the term "Marxism" do you actually mean "communism"?
And what Raw Power said about objective meaning: "left" and "right" are terms used by different societies and different people to mean different things. The terms themselves have no objective meaning; some issues that are considered "right-wing" for one country may be "left-wing" for another.
News flash:
- That's not a picture of Mao Tse-Tung, it's a picture of Che Guevara.
- Maoism does not include lots of flowers and trippy drugs.
Not to mention that they kinda fucking hated each other after a while.
That's what a lot of political speech is like these days—it's basically whatever you want it to be, to demonize your opposition and glorify your side. Truth is often the first and most forgotten casualty.
edited 12th Jan '11 12:09:29 PM by GlennMagusHarvey
What? It's an idiom?
edited 12th Jan '11 12:30:12 PM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?![]()
Well, were were actually arguing that such an argument is counterproductive.

I haven't seen violent rhetoric from PETA, unless you count any calls to free testing animals as violent and not just stupid.