Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[Coughdrop addict]

Don't take my word for it. They are openly plotting to impeach Biden for hurting Strong Daddy's tender ego: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5...eachment-if-it

That Putin is a murderous fascist dictator who wants the US out of the picture, or even better under his thumb, used to be common sense. Then came the citizens united decision that allowed him to buy the Republican party. Now to dare speak ill of him is a heresy on par with denying the election was stolen to Republicans.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Don't take my word for it. They are openly plotting to impeach Biden for hurting Strong Daddy's tender ego: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5...eachment-if-it

Well Trump got impeached for something Biden did, the republicans are just trying to give it back to the correct recipient.

That Putin is a murderous fascist dictator who wants the US out of the picture, or even better under his thumb, used to be common sense. Then came the citizens united decision that allowed him to buy the Republican party. Now to dare speak ill of him is a heresy on par with denying the election was stolen to Republicans.

Since we're quoting Ted Cruz, the GOP is criticizing Biden for going easy on Putin. I'd just like to ask what the actual are you tallking about? Who in the GOP praises Putin and says we shouldn't criticize him?

[alhoon]

That Putin is a murderous fascist dictator who wants the US out of the picture, or even better under his thumb, used to be common sense. Then came the citizens united decision that allowed him to buy the Republican party. Now to dare speak ill of him is a heresy on par with denying the election was stolen to Republicans.

You're exaggerating by orders of magnitude. Putin is a rightwing authoritarian with a bit of blood on his hands that uses underhanded and authoritarian measures to keep his hold in power.
Is he a nice guy? Nope. Is he a murderous fascist dictator? Nope. He's short millions of deaths for that.
He would win the elections even without meddling in the elections. He just wouldn't be as powerful.

Furthermore, the USA politicians that openly support Putin are few and without much influence. Trump has no qualms speaking bad about Putin.
You assume that Putin owns Trump.
He doesn't. Trump just agrees with Putin. He talks poop about him for easy points, but he agrees with him.


Now, on Putin wanting to have the USA under his thumb... which country's leader wouldn't want that? Putin is just immoral enough and considers himself insidious enough to attempt it.
USA is very rich, with globally influential lobbies and a tech advantage in many fields.
Of course every leader that loves his or her country would want USA (or factions within USA) dancing to the tune he sings.

[Heathen Hammer]

I'd say Putin is a corrupt autocrat, him being "murderous fascist dictator" sounds like something an unhinged CNN journo would spat out during their "struggle sessions" about enemies of Dear Leader Biden.
At the end of the day, people like Macron, Trudeau or Biden are no better then Putin, as all of them also are fake "democratic" leaders who just happen to represent the ruling oligarchy, while process of "democracy" is either staged or so drawn and distorted by funky electoral systems and gerrymandering that its useless and irrelevant.
Having said that, Biden supporters claiming about Putin being behind every opposition voice in US says more about Biden supporters then Putin or American resistance groups.

Also alhoon, I want to know of you thought of my post from last page.

[alhoon]

Quote it please, I don't know what you refer to.

[EmperorBatman999]

I'd say Putin is a corrupt autocrat, him being "murderous fascist dictator" sounds like something an unhinged CNN journo would spat out during their "struggle sessions" about enemies of Dear Leader Biden.
At the end of the day, people like Macron, Trudeau or Biden are no better then Putin, as all of them also are fake "democratic" leaders who just happen to represent the ruling oligarchy, while process of "democracy" is either staged or so drawn and distorted by funky electoral systems and gerrymandering that its useless and irrelevant.
Having said that, Biden supporters claiming about Putin being behind every opposition voice in US says more about Biden supporters then Putin or American resistance groups.

Also alhoon, I want to know of you thought of my post from last page.

"Fascist" is a clumsy term to use for Putin. Whereas fascism is highly characterized by an ideological underpinning (although it remains a questions how closely fascists actually follow the ideology once in power, consider the policy drift experienced by Italy, Germany, and Spain during the '40s), Putin's regime is characterized as being bereft of ideology and governed solely by pragmatic considerations. He may often lean into nationalist appeals, but nationalism itself is only one of the many pillars characteristic of genuine, or in Umberto Ecco's terminology, "Ur-Fascism."

Similarly, this gets into the distinctions between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Fascism is characteristic totalitarian, and totalitarianism differentiates itself from "generic" authoritarianism by encouraging public involvement in the regime (usually through grandiose public events, state-sponsored trade associations, emphasis on national civil and military service, official youth groups etc.) Authoritarianism, meanwhile, relies on public indifference towards the regime. Putin doesn't want people to care at all about his regime, as any active participation then prompts investigation into it, which then breeds opposition such as Alexei Navalny.

[Heathen Hammer]

Quote it please, I don't know what you refer to.

Post #760.

"Fascist" is a clumsy term to use for Putin. Whereas fascism is highly characterized by an ideological underpinning (although it remains a questions how closely fascists actually follow the ideology once in power, consider the policy drift experienced by Italy, Germany, and Spain during the '40s), Putin's regime is characterized as being bereft of ideology and governed solely by pragmatic considerations. He may often lean into nationalist appeals, but nationalism itself is only one of the many pillars characteristic of genuine, or in Umberto Ecco's terminology, "Ur-Fascism."

Similarly, this gets into the distinctions between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Fascism is characteristic totalitarian, and totalitarianism differentiates itself from "generic" authoritarianism by encouraging public involvement in the regime (usually through grandiose public events, state-sponsored trade associations, emphasis on national civil and military service, official youth groups etc.) Authoritarianism, meanwhile, relies on public indifference towards the regime. Putin doesn't want people to care at all about his regime, as any active participation then prompts investigation into it, which then breeds opposition such as Alexei Navalny.

That's a pretty good explanation. I would also add that today "fascism" is kinda reduced to being a "fighting word" for modern ideologues.
Fascism in on itself wasn't even an ideology, but rather a movement, and stages of that movement were very different from each other, characterized by changes in post-WW1 Italy.

[Coughdrop addict]

Well Trump got impeached for something Biden did, the republicans are just trying to give it back to the correct recipient.

What have you been told to believe Biden conspired to frame Trump for?

Pretty strange how Biden is senile and cannot function, but seemed to continually outwit the smartest man in human history and organize a massive voter fraud machine involving tens of thousands of people without leaving a single piece of evidence behind huh? Of course that is typical for the right, the enemy is always weak and inferior yet somehow also a dire threat.

"Fascist" is a clumsy term to use for Putin. Whereas fascism is highly characterized by an ideological underpinning (although it remains a questions how closely fascists actually follow the ideology once in power, consider the policy drift experienced by Italy, Germany, and Spain during the '40s), Putin's regime is characterized as being bereft of ideology and governed solely by pragmatic considerations. He may often lean into nationalist appeals, but nationalism itself is only one of the many pillars characteristic of genuine, or in Umberto Ecco's terminology, "Ur-Fascism."

Similarly, this gets into the distinctions between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Fascism is characteristic totalitarian, and totalitarianism differentiates itself from "generic" authoritarianism by encouraging public involvement in the regime (usually through grandiose public events, state-sponsored trade associations, emphasis on national civil and military service, official youth groups etc.) Authoritarianism, meanwhile, relies on public indifference towards the regime. Putin doesn't want people to care at all about his regime, as any active participation then prompts investigation into it, which then breeds opposition such as Alexei Navalny.

I believe Putin is a fascist, because like most fascist at his core all of the nationalistic bluster conceals an uglier truth: he's a sadists who doesn't care about any of what he says and really just gets off on crushing people underfoot and making them suffer.

In addition to that Russia fits many of the traditional traits of fascism:

-Scapegoating and Finger-Pointing: The state singles out an enemy who is then blamed for everything. This can be anything from a single person (Navalny) to foreign nations (the US) to an alleged worldwide conspiracy (liberals, Jews), but by far the most often used enemies are minorities who lack the political power to effectively defend themselves (Muslims, gays).

-Constant State of Emergency: The people are constantly told the enemy is everywhere and will overwhelm them the moment they let their guard down, justifying an eternal war machine and police state.

-Unquestioning Obedience to Authority: The leader is to be loved and obeyed because he is the leader. This extends to anyone acting on the leader's authority.

-The Cult of The Leader: The leader's name and face are posted everywhere. He is portrayed as embodying the nation and people and as an infallible, divinely-appointed genius who is literally perfect in every way.

-Entwining of Government and Business: Corruption is normalized. Businesses that tow the party line and give the required kickbacks are rewarded with lucrative no-bid contracts, along with tax breaks, deregulation, protectionist tariffs, subsidies, and other forms of cronyism. Businesses that oppose the state suffer "accidents", harassment, punitive taxes, and may even be nationalized and given to the leader's friends or family members.

-Worship of Strength: Strength is defined as the ability to dominate others, by any means. Equal partnerships at any level of society are discouraged in favor of a superior/inferior dynamic. Openness to compromise is considered a sign of cowardice and weakness, both between individuals and between nations.

-Rampant Militarism: War is romanticized and celebrated as heroic and manly. Constant military parades and displays are the norm, and the vast majority of the nation's budget goes to the military.

-Sexism and Misogyny: Women are expected to "know their place", are seen as lesser than men, and have little if any options beyond wife and mother. They are often treated as little more than soldier-factories.

-Enforced Conformity: Conformity to a single identity is harshly enforced. There is no place for debate or questioning. Nonconformists, foreigners, and minorities are oppressed and persecuted. All media and creative endeavors must support the state's views.

-Intrusive Control: There is no right to privacy for citizens. A secret police force constantly monitors citizens, ensuring that strict rules are followed to the letter.

-Harsh Punishments: Torture, forced labor, and execution are meted out for even minor infractions. Anyone who is seen as a threat to the state often simply disappears. Repression is the first and often only way the state deals with problems.

-Exemptions for The Leader: Laws are meant for everyone except the leader and the leader's inner circle. They deserve all the comfort, pleasure, and aggrandizement they can get. Anyone who says this is hypocrisy is labeled an enemy.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

What have you been told to believe Biden conspired to frame Trump for?
Pretty strange how Biden is senile and cannot function, but seemed to continually outwit the smartest man in human history and organize a massive voter fraud machine involving tens of thousands of people without leaving a single piece of evidence behind huh?

Not Biden himself, obviously. The Democrats. I doubt Biden can even say good morning to his wife without reading from a teleprompter anymore.
I'll remind you of the flow of events: Biden brags about how he told that he will cease aid to Ukraine unless they fire a prosecutor, prosecutor is fired and aid resumes. Trump at some point in his presidency tells Zelensky that that should be investigated. Aid to Ukraine continues despite this not happening. Democrats decide it was quid pro quo and impeach Trump.

Of course that is typical for the right, the enemy is always weak and inferior yet somehow also a dire threat.

I'm hard pressed to believe that you cannot see the irony in this. This is, quite literally, the left's position on Trump. He is at the same time a brainless idiot and the evil 5D chess mastermind who was on the verge of ending American democracy.

[alhoon]

I think you misunderstood the point.
I'm not saying "revolution will be 100% a good thing with 100% good outcome".
My point is simple Revolution of some kind in the West is inevitable.
I think it will gradually affect all of Occidental world, from North America and Downunder to Eurasia.
The underlying reason for that are the actions of the current elites, which seem to be more greedy and less smart then the elites from century ago that spawned them (in case of Rothschilds and Rockefellers quite literally lol): they are stuck in echo chamber, a lot of them are fiscally illiterate, and spent most of their lives during an unprecedentedly long period of stability (which was a whim of circumstances which they probably ignorantly explain with their own inherent genius and virtues, I wouldn't doubt), without realizing that merely a century ago, Europe was an epic battleground of wars and revolutions as it was throughout its existence and only a fool would think that current period of stability is forever. Essentially our elites are going to have same fate as a preppy rich trust fund kid, after being dropped off unsupervised in projects somewhere in Detroit.
Another major aspect is that for majority of population, there is very little to gain from preserving the current order, especially younger generations.
I get why boomers and Xers even, would want to keep their retirement funds and such, but what do millennials and zoomers have to gain? Their income is slashed by taxes and hyperinflation, and unlike boomers they never got the chance to buy property when it was 1400% cheaper in 1970s. Nor they had an opportunity to gain post-secondary education without lifelong debt enslavement.
Then we have additional factors. One of them is rapid technological growth. Archaic state institutions simply won't keep up with how technology develops, and blockchains and 3d printers will largely erode Big Government's control over society, where anyone could just print an automatic firearm or make stupid amounts of money by investing into right crypto-currency or NFT. Even government surveillance becomes a lost cause as we see in example of anti-tyrannical Resistance groups in Germany, China and Australia using encrypted software to communicate.
So the point is that regime change in Western nations is an inevitability. Pax Romana works... until it doesn't, which is the point. I'd rather have controlled demolition of the neoliberal order then it collapsing and causing lots of damage with the debris, so to speak.

While I think you are pessimistic... I don't disagree with a word written there, not a single one (although I find the word revolution an exaggeration - it won't be a big global one, but a few ones local ones).

What I was trying to say is your earlier posts, which I do disagree with are pushing people to "collapse and causing a lot of damage with the debris" instead of a controlled demolition of the current order.
A "controlled demolition" of a certain speed is called "change" and "progress" (not to be associated with the so-called progressives!)
Personally, I think that while you are pessimistic, you are not off by orders of magnitude. As the elites cling to power we will see a mix of "collapse" (and violence) and "controlled demolition".
Perhaps France will have collapse while Germany, scared about the images of the Ivory Towers of the Elites on fire violent protests and bloody riots will institute some change that will not be enough as riots start there too and a few heads topple, leading to a more controlled situation.
We will see.

Unfortunately, I agree with you that we're heading for a European Spring with the first shots fired within 2020s.


That said, this is a rant thread.
That reasonable, non-ranty post or not angry-reply-to-a-ranty post belongs in one of the academy threads that talk about the, according to some, inevitable collapse of Pax-neoliberala.

I'm hard pressed to believe that you cannot see the irony in this. This is, quite literally, the left's position on Trump. He is at the same time a brainless idiot and the evil 5D chess mastermind who was on the verge of ending American democracy.

Both sides are the same.

[chilon]

No Hoons, both sides are not the same. Only one side wants to protect actual Nazis.

Right-wingers are out of control. Very telling how conservatives want to ban schools from teaching the Nazis were bad.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...azism-fascism/
https://www.wboi.org/news/2022-01-07...xed-opposition

[Cope]

Neither link evidences "right-wingers" being "out of control" or trying to "protect actual Nazis".

[Heathen Hammer]

Its like if KKK today would put a bunch of Holocaust denialism and Hitler apologia into curriculum, and when parents protest in response, smugly ask them why are they protesting teaching that communists were bad.
High school curriculum is for education, not for your petty ideological battles.
At the end of the day, it is up to parents to decide what should be taught in schools, since those schools are funded by their tax dollars.
If you want to teach flat earth theory, critical race theory, jesuit theocracy, pastafarianism or any other obscure set of ideas you can use your own private wealth and open your own private school. Taxpayer funds are not a piggy bank for you to spread your ideology.

[chilon]

Neither link evidences "right-wingers" being "out of control" or trying to "protect actual Nazis".

TWC didn't link the images I put in the post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch...167_spread_thi

This very much is evidence of conservatives being out of control in their attempts to control education the way they want.

[Heathen Hammer]

This very much is evidence of conservatives being out of control in their attempts to control education the way they want.

It is up to parents to decide what should be taught to their children. They pay taxes, its funded with their money and therefore, is their decision. If you want to teach flat earth theory, critical race theory or some other niche pseudo-science, nothing stops you from opening a private school from your own wealth.
The only people who are mad at this are ideological marxists who lost the opportunity to force their ideology into curriculum, and its a good thing.

[Cope]

TWC didn't link the images I put in the post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch...167_spread_thi

This very much is evidence of conservatives being out of control in their attempts to control education the way they want.

Favouring parental inclusion in the curriculum/education is not evidence of "conservatives being out of control". Nor is it evidence of "one side" wanting to "protect actual Nazis".

[chilon]

Favouring parental inclusion in the curriculum/education is not evidence of "conservatives being out of control". Nor is it evidence of "one side" wanting to "protect actual Nazis".

This bill goes far beyond "favouring parental inclusion". It creates an unmanageable, unscaleable system where any extremist parent can create massive time and work sinks for school districts based solely on their personal opinions and even force teachers to do unpaid work. When combined with some of the list for banned books the GOP has been trying to through, this bill allows a librarian to be jailed for recommending The Handmaid's Tale to a high school senior. That is out of control.

Demanding that a parent can veto any school lesson and then force a teacher to create an entirely new lesson plan solely for that kid is the biggest "snowflake" behavior I have ever seen.

And what the GOP lawmaker suggest was very much protecting Nazis by claiming that teachers must be impartial and not teach that Nazis possessed low moral character.

Do you support everything in this bill?

[Cope]

This bill goes far beyond "favouring parental inclusion". It creates an unmanageable, unscaleable system where any extremist parent can create massive time and work sinks for school districts based solely on their personal opinions and even force teachers to do unpaid work. When combined with some of the list for banned books the GOP has been trying to through, this bill allows a librarian to be jailed for recommending The Handmaid's Tale to a high school senior. That is out of control.

Demanding that a parent can veto any school lesson and then force a teacher to create an entirely new lesson plan solely for that kid is the biggest "snowflake" behavior I have ever seen.

And what the GOP lawmaker suggest was very much protecting Nazis by claiming that teachers must be impartial and not teach that Nazis possessed low moral character.

Do you support everything in this bill?

Feel free to cite specific provisions within the bill which are disagreeable. So far, the only complaints seem to be that parents can opt their children out of certain lessons and that history should be taught impartially (which it should). I'm not buying the "out of control"/"protecting Nazis" narrative.

[antaeus]

Feel free to cite specific provisions within the bill which are disagreeable. So far, the only complaints seem to be that parents can opt their children out of certain lessons and that history should be taught impartially (which it should). I'm not buying the "out of control"/"protecting Nazis" narrative.

The question is "how does one teach history impartially?" (as a metaphor for all curriculum areas)

Given that most historians would disagree on what that means, I'm not sure parents are the best judges of that either.

[chilon]

Feel free to cite specific provisions within the bill which are disagreeable. So far, the only complaints seem to be that parents can opt their children out of certain lessons and that history should be taught impartially (which it should). I'm not buying the "out of control"/"protecting Nazis" narrative.

I did. It's in the Reddit link. TWC won't let me link the image so I can't do your work for you. Feel free to go there and look at the list.

The real question, of course, is where is evidence from the Indiana GOP that any of these provisions are necessary? I, and others, have yet to see any evidence which makes these provisions necessary.

Perhaps you can link to such evidence that supports the need for any of these provisions.

And again, do you support all the provisions in the bill?