Can you go read theory to gain an understanding of complex systemic forces? I’m not going to sit here and explain textbooks worth of information about the inner workings of political systems to you.
“You do the thinking, Ricky! You do the thinking!”
;D
Yeah, that rhetorical ploy shoots themselves in the foot. Too easily drags us down into their combative one-upmanship, out of the considerate space. Too big a gap to effortlessly bridge, when the groupthink precludes consideration, just too stubbornly determined to defend the dunnykrugilous hill to die on, because it’s identified with, it’s them, that’s a threat! Limbic system engage! Social-Dominance mode engage! Tribal survival depends on it! Panic! Throw anything at it! Cannot consider ideas outside that which will save us, our one true way, or the great peril will get us! LOL. I perhaps shouldn’t laugh and mock… it comes with very dire consequences. This whole “Psychology of Totalitarianism” thing. Mass formation. Where what’s obvious from outside the groupthink, is double-down denied from within it, and the desperation drives it ever deeper, to where then any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues… and nary a moment given to consider “are we the baddies?”
So you’re acknowledging that you don’t have a firm enough grasp on the point you’re trying to make to explain to me how Democrats enable fascism and are instead suggesting I read entire textbooks to understand how Democrats enable fascism because you can’t?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. See the logical fallacy made there? Bounding from one rhetorical device to another. Understandably coming from a frustrated place, especially aggravated when the rhetorical hook didn’t catch something.
Also, if one knew even a little of what Doc referenced, you’d then also see they were not coming from a place of ignorance on the matter, and has a much better grasp on the point they’ve made, which is broader than the little trap you thought you’d set up to prove your false dichotomy, answering your question. Even just a couple minutes websearch the name…
No, I’m not gonna get into a political argument with a numpty who clearly has no understanding of the topic to nit-pick my word choices and interpret my explanation in bad faith.
Go read a book if you want to learn. I don’t owe you an argument. Start with Marx, then try Kropotkin. Malatesta is good too. Go from there, you uneducated baboon.
There we differ. Not just the succumbing to name-calling, ~ that’s understandable, to an extreme. The “Start with Marx”. That does not oft go well. Out of the Big Baron frying pan into the Big Brother fire. I suggest it’s better to start with the anarchists, from before Marx stripped the freedom, reduced it to economics, like the freedom would trickle down, perverting the worth “communism”, that anarchists had been using for at least 5 years before Marx handed it over to tankies and totalitarians.
I say Marx should have listened to Bakunin more than Engels (or whatever or whoever (in London) that so corrupted the philosophy of his youth).
“We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.” – Mikhail Bakunin
Did you not see how I said to go to Kropotkin? Someone who specifically criticizes Marx and exposes the flaws in his theory?
I simply feel starting with Marx is to get a good understanding of what generally “the Left” sees as a baseline for defining what “communism” is. It is beneficial to be well read, even of those you disagree with what they say.
I should read more Bakunin. I read Engles in my youth around the time I was being exposed to communism alongside Marx. Then I was exposed to Anarchism through a new understanding of media and following the history of geopolitical movements they were associated with (big punk music fan).
I guess I will apologize for succumbing to insults. Social media these days has my patience thin for online interactions.
Can you go read theory to gain an understanding of complex systemic forces? I’m not going to sit here and explain textbooks worth of information about the inner workings of political systems to you.
“You do the thinking, Ricky! You do the thinking!”
;D
Yeah, that rhetorical ploy shoots themselves in the foot. Too easily drags us down into their combative one-upmanship, out of the considerate space. Too big a gap to effortlessly bridge, when the groupthink precludes consideration, just too stubbornly determined to defend the dunnykrugilous hill to die on, because it’s identified with, it’s them, that’s a threat! Limbic system engage! Social-Dominance mode engage! Tribal survival depends on it! Panic! Throw anything at it! Cannot consider ideas outside that which will save us, our one true way, or the great peril will get us! LOL. I perhaps shouldn’t laugh and mock… it comes with very dire consequences. This whole “Psychology of Totalitarianism” thing. Mass formation. Where what’s obvious from outside the groupthink, is double-down denied from within it, and the desperation drives it ever deeper, to where then any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues… and nary a moment given to consider “are we the baddies?”
So you’re acknowledging that you don’t have a firm enough grasp on the point you’re trying to make to explain to me how Democrats enable fascism and are instead suggesting I read entire textbooks to understand how Democrats enable fascism because you can’t?
So you’re wasting my time with nonsense?
Thanks.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. See the logical fallacy made there? Bounding from one rhetorical device to another. Understandably coming from a frustrated place, especially aggravated when the rhetorical hook didn’t catch something.
Also, if one knew even a little of what Doc referenced, you’d then also see they were not coming from a place of ignorance on the matter, and has a much better grasp on the point they’ve made, which is broader than the little trap you thought you’d set up to prove your false dichotomy, answering your question. Even just a couple minutes websearch the name…
No, I’m not gonna get into a political argument with a numpty who clearly has no understanding of the topic to nit-pick my word choices and interpret my explanation in bad faith.
Go read a book if you want to learn. I don’t owe you an argument. Start with Marx, then try Kropotkin. Malatesta is good too. Go from there, you uneducated baboon.
There we differ. Not just the succumbing to name-calling, ~ that’s understandable, to an extreme. The “Start with Marx”. That does not oft go well. Out of the Big Baron frying pan into the Big Brother fire. I suggest it’s better to start with the anarchists, from before Marx stripped the freedom, reduced it to economics, like the freedom would trickle down, perverting the worth “communism”, that anarchists had been using for at least 5 years before Marx handed it over to tankies and totalitarians.
I say Marx should have listened to Bakunin more than Engels (or whatever or whoever (in London) that so corrupted the philosophy of his youth).
“We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.” – Mikhail Bakunin
We need both.
We have neither.
Did you not see how I said to go to Kropotkin? Someone who specifically criticizes Marx and exposes the flaws in his theory?
I simply feel starting with Marx is to get a good understanding of what generally “the Left” sees as a baseline for defining what “communism” is. It is beneficial to be well read, even of those you disagree with what they say.
I should read more Bakunin. I read Engles in my youth around the time I was being exposed to communism alongside Marx. Then I was exposed to Anarchism through a new understanding of media and following the history of geopolitical movements they were associated with (big punk music fan).
I guess I will apologize for succumbing to insults. Social media these days has my patience thin for online interactions.