If fascists got rid of the violent communist trash and maintained order without turning countries into shithole dictatorships that worship the state then I'd agree with you. But this is obviously not the case.
Commies and anarcho-autists should be allowed to spew their bullshit provided they do it without hurting anyone, and the same goes to fascists. But trying to claim that Pinochet or Franco did no wrong by killing political enemies and setting up authoritarian non-democratic rule is plain stupid.
Look, the "did nothing wrong" part was clearly tongue-in-cheek, we're obviously talking in terms of lesser of two evils. It is absolutely preferrable to annihilate communism intelectually at it's roots without resorting to violent measures, or repress it within confines of your country's constitution, but sometimes it's too late for that.
As for the "shithole dictatoriships" parts, well, Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal were backwards, due to the regimes traditionalism and ultra-conservatism, but it's not like they were terrible places to live or squandered some huge potential to become industrial powerhouses.
Commies and anarcho-autists should be allowed to spew their bullshit provided they do it without hurting anyone
But they are hurting society, at least they conspire to. Just like we punish conspiring to commit violent acts on individuals, we should punish conspiring to commit violence en masse.
we're obviously talking in terms of lesser of two evils.
Well you're painting historical fascists as these savior types, while choosing to ignore the horrible shit they did while "saving" their respective countries from communism. But I do agree that Pinochet, despite being a horrible person, was the lesser of two evils. the second being a Venezuela style economic collapse which Chile was beginning to fall into. This doesn't mean that he "did what had to be done" or any stupid shit like that.
But they are hurting society, at least they conspire to. Just like we punish conspiring to commit violent acts on individuals, we should punish conspiring to commit violence en masse.
Do you seriously not see how this exact rhetoric can be used against anti-communists and fascists? The idea that we should suppress an ideology for "the good of the people" has been used extensively by communists to justify censorship, not to mention them calling everyone they don't like a fascist to justify violence against them, because "they would've done the same to us if they took power!!!111". You literally are doing the same thing that communists have historically done against what they considered to be "wrong".
while choosing to ignore the horrible shit they did while "saving" their respective countries from communism.
I'm not choosing to ignore anything, of course they did horrible shit, because they were horrible, violent people. But it's the commies' fault that only horrible, violent people could have any effect on the situation they created.
Do you seriously not see how this exact rhetoric can be used against anti-communists and fascists?
No, it can't be used against anti-communists because constitutional democracy is already anti-communist and that's our baseline. It's ok for society to drift to the left or (preferably to me) to the right gradually, but all calls for a violent revolution should be prosecuted. Society shouldn't be a battleground of violent ideologies, maintaining stability should be its primary concern.
it's the commies' fault that only horrible, violent people could have any effect on the situation they created.
Its well known that many fascist regimes came into power after waves of leftist violence, but no one is responsible for violence other than the party which commits it. Blaming the deaths of thousands on commies instead of the fascists that killed them is really disrespectful, not mention the fact that you're excusing mass killings, rapes, and cleansing just because it was done (supposedly) against communists.
No, it can't be used against anti-communists because constitutional democracy is already anti-communist and that's our baseline.
What? This doesn't make any sense. They can (and do) use your same exact talking points to suppress speech.
It's ok for society to drift to the left or (preferably to me) to the right gradually, but all calls for a violent revolution should be prosecuted.
No, the moment that idiots (left or right) start being violent, destroying and looting is the moment you begin to imprison them. But calling for something or advocating an ideology should not be grounds for violence.
I would never excuse rape or killing of innocent bystanders and everyone who did those things will rot in hell if there is one, but other than that, yeah, I can't really consider someone a monster for killing in a war that they haven't started.
What? This doesn't make any sense. They can (and do) use your same exact talking points to suppress speech.
You're dealing in absolutes (inb4 prequel memes), there's a substantial difference between discussing ideas and forming organisations that aim to overthrow a legally elected government.
No, the moment that idiots (left or right) start being violent, destroying and looting is the moment you begin to imprison them.
The thing is they aren't idiots, otherwise no revolution would be successful, by the time it gets violent, it's likely too late.
I can't really consider someone a monster for killing in a war that they haven't started.
...what? Are ISIS not monsters for killing people in Syria because they did not start the war there? Are they righteous, in your opinion, because they are simply "resisting western colonialism which made them do all the killings and rapes. There are apologists who use this exact same defense to pretend like ISIS is somehow justified in doing the horrible shit that they do because its all the West's fault that people are dying, do you agree or is it only okay when fascists do it to communists?
there's a substantial difference between discussing ideas and forming organisations that aim to overthrow a legally elected government.
When said organization becomes violent then yes, shut it down (oy vey!), but until then you shouldn't suppress opposition, no matter how dumb or dangerous you think they are. Tell me would you support the Klan being shut down forcefully and all its members hanged or imprisoned? What about neo-nazi parties? Same logic applies here correct?
by the time it gets violent, it's likely too late.
This line is used to justify oppression and suppression of free speech so much its almost a cliche at this point. "We just had to kill them, otherwise they would have done the same to us!" can and is used to justify genocides.
Look, we won't reach an agreement, because we fundamentally differ in our worldviews in that you're trying to establish some universal rules that ensure global justice, whereas I see the world as an endless struggle of various irreconciably opposing interests and being a shameless Polish particularist, don't really care what kind of logic applies, what is justified and what isn't and how certain assumptions translate to other groups as long as the interests of my group are protected. Sure, my position in an intellectual debate about abstract concepts is inherently tainted because of that, but I'm much less interested in winning abstract discussions than I am in well-being of my people.
No problem, but its very clear that you are biased which lead to you ignoring my questions.
Look, we won't reach an agreement
I don't expect to reach agreements with most people i argue with online, I do it because i like learning about how other people think and also to test the validity of my beliefs and see if they can be challenged.
Everytime /u/Polisskolan2 gets trapped he pulls a "no true AnCap" out of his ass.
"Government courts are evil and police are bad, except when I need them to enforce a contract that I signed with another person who failed to uphold his/her portion. Then AnCaps are totes cool with a Federal Authority"
I put some landmines near a playground I built, but some dumb, socialist 2-year olds thought they had a right to play on it but because they were too stupid to understand the NAP they got blown up. Serves 'em right to be honest with you fam
speaking of self-employed, what If I hate niggers and spics so much, that even if they offer to work for half of a chink, I still pick the cumskin anyways even though it isn't economically sensible enough?
In his defense, there are also Marxist econ PhDs. How the fuck that can happen, I do not know. But it happens.
I'm doing an econ PhD and I'm an anarchist
...
"I am getting an econ PhD" is not a good argument to justify your positions because a PhD doesn't mean your positions are justified or well founded. Your getting a PhD in econ despite being an anarchist no more justifies anarchism, its ideology, or it's foundations anymore than Marxists, Austrians, or even YECs having PhDs justifies theirs, even if they have PhDs in fields relevant to the field they are spouting bullshit in.
When did I say that was my position? I didn't make that claim at all.
Merely bringing up the fact that there are lots of people studying econ at a high level that come from different perspectives and it's unlikely they're all idiots except for the Badeconomics users enlightened from their own intelligences.
Nah, some are awful, some are good. Badecon is the best; they have strict requirements for submissions and it's not just a "look at how stupid this guy is!" circlejerk sub. You have to refute their statements with sources and numbers and at least a moderate understanding of economics.
On the other hand, subs like badlinguistics and badphilosophy are full of pseudo-intellectual morons.
lol the badecon community reflects the consensus of the economics community. Just because there exist the odd edgelord outliers trying to make a name for themselves by having fringe positions doesn't mean they're respected in the community, and there's plenty of evidence for why.
You know you'd get torn to shreds in any proper discussion on badecon. There are some brilliant people on that board; I'm regularly very impressed. I'd like to see you have a go at them with your viewpoints. Hell, I think you should, maybe you'd prove me wrong, but I doubt it. The left's version of anarchy is even more asinine and bewilderingly naive than the ancaps'.
their consensus of "we're incredibly enlightened and know everything; everything that goes wrong is the fault of politicians" is the same excuse you'd hear out of Soviet economists too
I'm starting to doubt you're pursuing a phd in anything. Economists would never proclaim to know everything; they would only proclaim to know what modern models support.
You have the same thought processes, level of denial, and bias as a Trump supporter or an ancap, your priors just happen to fall in a different spot.
33 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-03-19
Cool story, bro
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a aonome 2017-03-19
Thanks
n/a fourcrew 2017-03-19
Reminder that Pinochet worship is just as LARPy as /r/fullcommunism talking about gulags.
n/a Nomadlads 2017-03-19
Can I be a half-elf half-Pinochet paladin?
n/a DistortedLines 2017-03-19
/u/wholelottatoughlove
If fascists got rid of the violent communist trash and maintained order without turning countries into shithole dictatorships that worship the state then I'd agree with you. But this is obviously not the case.
Commies and anarcho-autists should be allowed to spew their bullshit provided they do it without hurting anyone, and the same goes to fascists. But trying to claim that Pinochet or Franco did no wrong by killing political enemies and setting up authoritarian non-democratic rule is plain stupid.
n/a WholeLottaToughLove 2017-03-19
Look, the "did nothing wrong" part was clearly tongue-in-cheek, we're obviously talking in terms of lesser of two evils. It is absolutely preferrable to annihilate communism intelectually at it's roots without resorting to violent measures, or repress it within confines of your country's constitution, but sometimes it's too late for that.
As for the "shithole dictatoriships" parts, well, Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal were backwards, due to the regimes traditionalism and ultra-conservatism, but it's not like they were terrible places to live or squandered some huge potential to become industrial powerhouses.
But they are hurting society, at least they conspire to. Just like we punish conspiring to commit violent acts on individuals, we should punish conspiring to commit violence en masse.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-03-19
Well you're painting historical fascists as these savior types, while choosing to ignore the horrible shit they did while "saving" their respective countries from communism. But I do agree that Pinochet, despite being a horrible person, was the lesser of two evils. the second being a Venezuela style economic collapse which Chile was beginning to fall into. This doesn't mean that he "did what had to be done" or any stupid shit like that.
Do you seriously not see how this exact rhetoric can be used against anti-communists and fascists? The idea that we should suppress an ideology for "the good of the people" has been used extensively by communists to justify censorship, not to mention them calling everyone they don't like a fascist to justify violence against them, because "they would've done the same to us if they took power!!!111". You literally are doing the same thing that communists have historically done against what they considered to be "wrong".
n/a WholeLottaToughLove 2017-03-19
I'm not choosing to ignore anything, of course they did horrible shit, because they were horrible, violent people. But it's the commies' fault that only horrible, violent people could have any effect on the situation they created.
No, it can't be used against anti-communists because constitutional democracy is already anti-communist and that's our baseline. It's ok for society to drift to the left or (preferably to me) to the right gradually, but all calls for a violent revolution should be prosecuted. Society shouldn't be a battleground of violent ideologies, maintaining stability should be its primary concern.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-03-19
Its well known that many fascist regimes came into power after waves of leftist violence, but no one is responsible for violence other than the party which commits it. Blaming the deaths of thousands on commies instead of the fascists that killed them is really disrespectful, not mention the fact that you're excusing mass killings, rapes, and cleansing just because it was done (supposedly) against communists.
What? This doesn't make any sense. They can (and do) use your same exact talking points to suppress speech.
No, the moment that idiots (left or right) start being violent, destroying and looting is the moment you begin to imprison them. But calling for something or advocating an ideology should not be grounds for violence.
n/a WholeLottaToughLove 2017-03-19
I would never excuse rape or killing of innocent bystanders and everyone who did those things will rot in hell if there is one, but other than that, yeah, I can't really consider someone a monster for killing in a war that they haven't started.
You're dealing in absolutes (inb4 prequel memes), there's a substantial difference between discussing ideas and forming organisations that aim to overthrow a legally elected government.
The thing is they aren't idiots, otherwise no revolution would be successful, by the time it gets violent, it's likely too late.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-03-19
...what? Are ISIS not monsters for killing people in Syria because they did not start the war there? Are they righteous, in your opinion, because they are simply "resisting western colonialism which made them do all the killings and rapes. There are apologists who use this exact same defense to pretend like ISIS is somehow justified in doing the horrible shit that they do because its all the West's fault that people are dying, do you agree or is it only okay when fascists do it to communists?
When said organization becomes violent then yes, shut it down (oy vey!), but until then you shouldn't suppress opposition, no matter how dumb or dangerous you think they are. Tell me would you support the Klan being shut down forcefully and all its members hanged or imprisoned? What about neo-nazi parties? Same logic applies here correct?
This line is used to justify oppression and suppression of free speech so much its almost a cliche at this point. "We just had to kill them, otherwise they would have done the same to us!" can and is used to justify genocides.
n/a WholeLottaToughLove 2017-03-19
Look, we won't reach an agreement, because we fundamentally differ in our worldviews in that you're trying to establish some universal rules that ensure global justice, whereas I see the world as an endless struggle of various irreconciably opposing interests and being a shameless Polish particularist, don't really care what kind of logic applies, what is justified and what isn't and how certain assumptions translate to other groups as long as the interests of my group are protected. Sure, my position in an intellectual debate about abstract concepts is inherently tainted because of that, but I'm much less interested in winning abstract discussions than I am in well-being of my people.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-03-19
No problem, but its very clear that you are biased which lead to you ignoring my questions.
I don't expect to reach agreements with most people i argue with online, I do it because i like learning about how other people think and also to test the validity of my beliefs and see if they can be challenged.
n/a Senator_Chickpea 2017-03-19
wew
lad
n/a HivemindBuster 2017-03-19
Did you link to wrong thread? not seeing anything about PhDs.
n/a aonome 2017-03-19
Yeah I did, I've been following the same retards in more than one thread. I'll make a comment now with the thread I meant to link to
n/a aonome 2017-03-19
I linked to the wrong drama by accident, here is the thread
n/a Assy-McGee 2017-03-19
Everytime /u/Polisskolan2 gets trapped he pulls a "no true AnCap" out of his ass.
"Government courts are evil and police are bad, except when I need them to enforce a contract that I signed with another person who failed to uphold his/her portion. Then AnCaps are totes cool with a Federal Authority"
n/a Polisskolan2 2017-03-19
Spot on. You should do this for a living.
n/a Assy-McGee 2017-03-19
why do so many AnCaps argue that child labor and sex slaves are perfectly okay within the NAP framework?
n/a Polisskolan2 2017-03-19
Do you have any idea how expensive self-employed prostitutes are?
n/a Assy-McGee 2017-03-19
are killing near-extinct animals for fun okay in the NAP because they aren't harming other people?
n/a EternallyMiffed 2017-03-19
Yes. Animals ain't worth shit, unless they are YOUR animals. Then it's ok to hang poachers.
n/a Polisskolan2 2017-03-19
If they are liberal animals, it's not just okay - it's mandatory.
n/a Assy-McGee 2017-03-19
I put some landmines near a playground I built, but some dumb, socialist 2-year olds thought they had a right to play on it but because they were too stupid to understand the NAP they got blown up. Serves 'em right to be honest with you fam
n/a Assy-McGee 2017-03-19
speaking of self-employed, what If I hate niggers and spics so much, that even if they offer to work for half of a chink, I still pick the cumskin anyways even though it isn't economically sensible enough?
n/a Polisskolan2 2017-03-19
What about it?
n/a DonaldBlythe 2017-03-19
Seeing these foolish economics phds makes me glad I have a doctorate in gender studies instead.
n/a UncleSamuel 2017-03-19
https://i.imgur.com/Z0D6leM.png
-UncleSamuel
n/a xjapxn 2017-03-19
...
Then what the hell was his reason for saying it?
n/a atakeonhooper 2017-03-19
aren't there tons of econ phds who are subject to (((cultural marxism)))
this guy doesnt know what the fuck he's talking about
n/a ThatOtherPromise 2017-03-19
In which universe my dude
marxist econ are a minority. You say anything anticapitalist in the econ department of my college and u get hanged
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-03-19
Merely bringing up the fact that there are lots of people studying econ at a high level that come from different perspectives and it's unlikely they're all idiots except for the Badeconomics users enlightened from their own intelligences.
n/a ThatOtherPromise 2017-03-19
Change this to every badX sub if you want to be consistent
n/a Mort_DeRire 2017-03-19
Nah, some are awful, some are good. Badecon is the best; they have strict requirements for submissions and it's not just a "look at how stupid this guy is!" circlejerk sub. You have to refute their statements with sources and numbers and at least a moderate understanding of economics.
On the other hand, subs like badlinguistics and badphilosophy are full of pseudo-intellectual morons.
n/a Mort_DeRire 2017-03-19
lol the badecon community reflects the consensus of the economics community. Just because there exist the odd edgelord outliers trying to make a name for themselves by having fringe positions doesn't mean they're respected in the community, and there's plenty of evidence for why.
You know you'd get torn to shreds in any proper discussion on badecon. There are some brilliant people on that board; I'm regularly very impressed. I'd like to see you have a go at them with your viewpoints. Hell, I think you should, maybe you'd prove me wrong, but I doubt it. The left's version of anarchy is even more asinine and bewilderingly naive than the ancaps'.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-03-19
their consensus of "we're incredibly enlightened and know everything; everything that goes wrong is the fault of politicians" is the same excuse you'd hear out of Soviet economists too
n/a Mort_DeRire 2017-03-19
I'm starting to doubt you're pursuing a phd in anything. Economists would never proclaim to know everything; they would only proclaim to know what modern models support.
You have the same thought processes, level of denial, and bias as a Trump supporter or an ancap, your priors just happen to fall in a different spot.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-03-19
spend some more time on BE if you think the users there don't purport to know everything, they are neckbeardy as fuck
n/a crimsonchibolt 2017-03-19
that thred title is massive word salad