Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelf1900 The alt right was founded in order to push the right wing, like you, further right, and to provide an outlet for people that were already might further right than normal to have a political movement backing them up. They hate the left wing, and only disagree with many (but not all) of the republicans because they aren't far right enough. You seem not to actually understand what it means to be far right, or really, even left wing. If you look into it for half a second without the bias inherent to conservatism, you find that they want what the right wants, only more extreme. The alt right hates leftists, and wants to recruit you. I'm sorry bud, but they're right wing. Not at all left wing.
2
-
MajorLeague I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
2
-
MajorLeague I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
2
-
MajorLeague Lol... I did that weeks ago. It's how I know you're objectively wrong. I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
2
-
2
-
2
-
MajorLeague Yes, you are a bigot and a conspiracy theorist. Thanks for admitting that you support what the nazis actually did as well. I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Caporetto_1917
But it is. Just because you personally think that it's a justified assumption to make doesn't make it any less of an assumption. Sure, there are those that don't engage with this content, and I cannot blame them. The video is an ideological manifesto that spends hours on unrelated rants and assertions before finally coming to the actual point, and then just continuing said rants. Those who don't bother watching often come out with just as much as someone that has, that is that TIK is an ideologue that cares more about his political views than any historical accuracy of any sort. Not everyone wants to read the manifesto of a conspiracy theorist, and having unfortunately done so, I cannot blame them. The problem is that TIK's views are already long debunked, this is why he has to spend so much time shifting the lines of the battle itself. If, for example, he actually accepted criticism of his artificially constructed ahistorical definitions, his very argument would fall apart. He's already shown his insecurity in those points through his unwillingness to adhere to them in other arguments. The figures you mention have done good in making criticisms of his work, but his work itself fell long before they started to crush the remaining rubble to dust. Sure, TIK makes responses where he attempts, and fails, to counter criticisms, points that often slide right past the actual argument itself in favor of an unrelated point resting on yet more unproven assertions. There's a reason that people, even those that watch the videos and responses, and that reason is that TIK largely fails to make effective counters. As you yourself said, he certainly "addresses" arguments. The problem lies in the fact that he is unable to "rebut" them. I find that those who claim to have previously been socialists are either lying, or those that called themselves socialist for a month without ever researching it. But usually the former. After all, in the modern era, the far more likely thing to happen is a case like mine, growing out of the infantility of "libertarian" capitalist economics in favor of classical libertarianism. You can pretend to fit a niche you don't, but it doesn't change the facts. I can understand those who watch the video, specifically because it's one of the worst ways to escape "echo-chamber views." TIK is, after all, his own echo chamber, which is why the majority of the fans of these videos are people who have only ever found him through ideological means, while the fans of his older work were highly critical of his ideological videos, like this one. Sure, do as I have, read the theory of those like Hayek, but it appears you forgot to do so with an open mind. But it is telling that you only found these videos acceptable... when you agreed with them, ideologically.
2
-
2
-
@coyote4326
Child, what? Are you actually this terminally ignorant? That's genuinely really sad.
Yes, this fanatic perspective is extremely unpopular. the fact that you think a politically targeted youtube video, made within a right wing echo chamber, can at all be compared to the general perception of this issue, is actually absurd, and pretty hilarious. The fact that so few people have even seen the video, much less interacted it, means a hell of a lot more than the "like dislike ratio," especially when, again, said video was made in an echo chamber specifically to appeal to a small group of denialists.
Did you really think the likes on one video were indicative of the viewpoints actual popularity?
Of course the nonsense denialism in question is unpopular. TIK's cult coming to praise their bible doesn't change that.
2
-
@junkaccount2535
See? You're a literal religious cultist. You take the figureheads of your movement, far right ideologues, and hold them up as saints. It's legitimately odd how much you idolize those who merely tell you what you want to hear.
Fundamentally, you are a religious zealot,. who bases their ideology off of resisting a devil that they do not understand. You see yourself as a hero, resisting some evil, when in reality you're merely fighting the shadows that your thought leaders are projecting on the wall. At least you admit you deny reality though.
You don't even know what you're calling evil, and you've likely never even thought to ask beyond the propaganda you were hand-fed. you think just another economic system is evil, and yet you're unable to explain why. You're the only one denying human nature here, as well as denying any academic study of the world as it currently exists. You have no basis for your claims, and you know it. And the system you praise? You don't even have good reasons for that! American capitalism has resulted in the untold deaths of tens of millions of people. It is not the "only economic theory which resulted in millions being lifted out of poverty to this day," I hate to break it but the vast majority of economic systems can claim that. You're a religious cultist that wants to stamp all over history to promote your ideology.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@coyote4326
See, that's the problem. Unlike you, I haven't relied primarily on insults or demeaning words to make an argument. I'm happy to make my own arguments, and you find that if you take any of these insults out, they stand on their own. Ad hominem fallacies happen when a person bases their argument off of an insult, as in, "you are wrong because you are a child." I, on the other hand, prefer to prove you wrong while noting how childish your thought process is, as in "You child, here's why you're wrong." I'm sorry that you can't argue without bringing up fallacies, but you not being confident in your position has little to do with me.
The problem is, you really didn't. You didn't provide statistics, not relevant ones. What you did would be like trying to argue that gun violence didn't exist, and only taking evidence from one small town with a population of 40 in alaska. This topic is nearly a century old, and has had hundreds of pieces of media created surrounding it, thousands of words written, hundreds of hours of videos, movies, documentaries, and so on. And you think one video, on a channel most people invested in the subject had never heard of, can somehow provide a consensus on all of that material? You see nothing that proves you wrong because you refuse to see it, that's nothing new. Even TIK admits that his argument goes against the mainstream, that it is a position held by virtually zero historians and economists, did you even watch the video? You call criticism of your goalpost shifting "redundant strawman arguments," but you're unable to even explain why. As of yet, your assertion remains unproven. Do you have any actual evidence?
This isn't a historical discussion though, you should have been able to tell that from the hours that the author spends demonizing other ideologies and peddling their own, insulting historians and his critics alike. I mean seriously, have you even watched the video? A huge amount of the runtime is dedicated to "socialism evil, capitalism good, capitalism has never failed and all these failures are socialism's fault." The goal of this video is an explicitly ideological one. The "lens" the author wants to view history through is one that only allows the author to come to conclusions that benefit their ideology. Your problem is then saying that "by my logic," all other historical videos must be politically targeted too, and to that I say, what?? This is a video in which the creator explicitly argues for one ideology, and against several others, and pushes a narrative that benefits said ideology. Do you think that means that his detractors, either with their own videos or comments under his videos, are always doing the same thing? No, many of his detractors and critics are more than fine to point out his fanatic ideology and abstain from pushing their own, in favor of actual history. That's of course ignoring the historians themselves that disprove TIK's position, and yet contain no trace of ideology in their work. What is "said logic," child? You have yet to make an argument as to how any of this is actually by my logic, and not just your deflection? Oh, wait, because it has nothing to do with my logic, but is yet another strawman argument fallacy from you. Child, when you make accusations, actually try to prove them. You've guessed at my supposed ideological motivation, and failed. This tells me that you are motivated by an ideology, and are attempting to accuse others of the same, regardless of truth. No, child, my comments are obviously based off of a need for historical accuracy and historical discussion, unlike yours, that are based off of a need for political motivation and ideological promotion.
2
-
@junkaccount2535
So you're literally proving my point. You're pushing an ahistorical fanatic ideology, that relies on baseless accusations directed at me, so I can fit your cult-enemy stereotype. Your ideology is deadly. Stop denying hundreds of millions of deaths.
So no, of course i'm no troll, i'm just someone who is more than willing to throw a wrench into your horrific, cultish narrative, and you really just can't handle that. Despite me continually correcting you, you still call me a socialist, a communist, because you know if you admitted I wasn't, your narrative would fall apart. You just can't help but project your denial of hundreds of millions of deaths onto me, something you continue doing proudly to this minute. You genuinely think that critical thinking and adherence to logic is brainwashing, simply because it counters your denialist narrative. You literally think that critical theories, schools of thought and philosophy surrounding the pursuit of greater understanding of the world, is brainwashing. What you mean is that you want to convert me to your cult. Child, i'm literally not a commonest. Capitalism is, of course, a system that requires a specific state in place to function, and capitalism has never shied away from statist intervention in the market, and economies that go beyond "fully private." It, of course, holds a political leaning that by necessity moves towards the right, and similarly, not only by definition can result in death, in reality has resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths. The problem is that your view of capitalism is cultist and utopic, you physically cannot handle criticism of your ideology because any fault in said ideology disqualifies it from being your ideology, in your mind. This is the mindset of a religion. Hell, even socialists can admit to the faults in their ideology. You're worse than your own devil, your denialism is disgusting.
I know you hate having the truth exposed to you, but that isn't going to stop me. You hate facts history, philosophy logic, and it shows. Just admit to your religion already.
2
-
2
-
@coyote4326
The fact that you don't even know how to spell the fallacy you keep accusing people of, tells me all I need to know. You genuinely don't know what it is, even after i've explained it to you so many times. An Ad Hominem fallacy is when a person's entire argument is reliant upon, and is justified by, their assertions in the form of insults. It is not, however, when someone insults someone while making other arguments, or, when someone belittles the utter absurdity of your claims, claims even you aren't interested in backing up. So, i'm sorry, you'll find according to all objective metrics, I've not done anything of the sort. Again, when you make a claim, you need to provide evidence, argumentation, and your fear of doing so perfectly encapsulates the deep insecurity you hold in your position. You are not only unwilling, but unable to prove your claims... because no proof exists. Again, I have never fell back on logical fallacies for my arguments, as I have proven time and time again, despite your consistent attempts to assert (never prove, of course) otherwise. I haven't used logical fallacies child, unlike you. I've even explained this to you, and predictably, you have no response. Amazing.
2
-
@coyote4326
But, again, you didn't. You provided a biased, useless metric. I "outright claimed" it was an unpopular opinion, a fact even TIK recognizes and admits to. You failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. Do you notice your goalpost shift? I claimed a viewpoint was unpopular. You claimed this video was popular. This video, which is a tiny, imperceptibly small part of the overall debate on the subject. This video is popular... among one tiny right wing online community, that have attempted to drown out the historians that correct TIK's ideological narrative. So, again, you have yet to provide evidence for your assertions. This video finds its support from an echo chamber. So... no, those aren't statistics. Deal with it :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DrCruel A conservative friend the conservative movement came up with Fascism. It was embraced by no socialists at the time, but was widely accepted by conservatives like Von Papen Eventually radical conservatives in Germany and elsewhere were won over by it. The alliance between far-right anti-socialist National Socialists and Bolshevik socialists - Known as Brown Communists and Red Fascists at the time - is what initiated the Second World War, as well as the inaction from more conservative institutions who felt threatened by daring to have to act.
What is Fascism then? Why, end-stage capitalism of course. And Bolshevism, once it failed, is suddenly discovered to be state capitalism. Really?
Yes, really. Lenin literally attested to the second thing himself.
What's shocking to me is that you expect rational people to believe in your obnoxious self-serving horseshit. Even after a century of genocide, atrocities, institutionalized slavery, thievery and general betrayal of working people, you still actually expect us to help you screw us over. You think we're all gullible idiots, and really expect us to fall for it all over again. And sometimes, as in Bengal and the Congo, you rotten dirty fascist criminals are show those true desires to the world.
2
-
2
-
@DrCruel You haven't heard it here either. Mussolini was an ex-socialist reactionay, and never an anarchist when he devised right wing Fascism. That's a simple fact. Likewise, are you arguing that the governments of the UK and America were "anarchist and socialist" when the far-right National Socialists began to build up their military?
"Schmitt has become an important influence on Chinese political theory in the 21st century, particularly since Xi Jinping became Party general secretary in 2012. Sinologist Flora Sapio has highlighted the friend–enemy distinction as a particular topic of interest in China, commenting, "Since Xi Jinping became China’s top leader in November 2012, the friend-enemy distinction so crucial to Carl Schmitt’s philosophy has found even wider applications in China, in both ‘Party theory’ and academic life." Leading Chinese Schmittians include the theologian Liu Xiaofeng, the public policy scholar Wang Shaoguang,[55] and the legal theorist and government adviser Jiang Shigong."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt
Interesting "left" you got there. Wonder why you seem to think that those who would later take his ideology and apply them sparingly somehow change the fact that this man was an open and fervent conservative, like you.
"Most notably the legal opinions offered by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo et al. by invoking the unitary executive theory to justify highly controversial policies in the war on terror—such as introducing unlawful combatant status which purportedly would eliminate protection by the Geneva Conventions, torture, NSA electronic surveillance program—mimic his writings. Professor David Luban said in 2011 that "[a] Lexis search reveals five law review references to Schmitt between 1980 and 1990; 114 between 1990 and 2000; and 420 since 2000, with almost twice as many in the last five years as the previous five".
Don't tell me. Let me guess. He's not a conservative because years after his death, a corporatist party found use in his authoritarian application of law. No doubt so are any leaders of conservative movements that have been found out for what they really are - and so therefore aren't REALLY conservative and never were, per that Orwellian rightspeak memory-hole trick. Is that it? Is he not a conservative because someone adapted his teachings later? Well then, Smith must be a communist.
2
-
@DrCruel Umm ... to be an ex-socialist, you have abandon socialism. Thanks for the confirmation. Though by your logic, you must consider TIK a socialist? As for right-wing Fascism, I assume you're trying to deflect from all fascism being inherently right wing.
Note also that the Germans were building up their military before the National Socialists, under von Seeckt. The western world was absolutely fine with this.
"Corradini spoke of Italy as being a "proletarian nation" that needed to pursue imperialism in order to challenge the "plutocratic" French and British.[103] Corradini's views were part of a wider set of perceptions within the right-wing Italian Nationalist Association (ANI), which claimed that Italy's economic backwardness was caused by corruption in its political class, liberalism, and division caused by "ignoble socialism".[103] The ANI held ties and influence among conservatives, Catholics and the business community."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#:~:text=Fascism%20(%2F%CB%88f%C3%A6%CA%83,in%20early%2020th%2Dcentury%20Europe.
Now I can only assume this man must be a socialist as well, right?
Carl Schmitt supported the National Socialists fervently, and would go on to in part influence other leftist groups, who took mostly his views on authoritarian law, and not the far-right views the nazis held in high regard. In my own cite. Don't you notice a pattern here? Didn't you bother to read it before you posted it? Seriously?
Or will you continue to claim the explicitly conservative die-hard supporter of the far-right anti-socialist nazis was somehow secretly a leftist, because some authoritarian corporatists took inspiration from him. Is this another one of those "fake conservatives?" This is too easy.
2
-
@DrCruel Oh, you're back. Amazing. Still trying to lessen the horrors of fascism by denying the very definition of right wing, left wing, fascist, socialist, ect? At this point you've shown unwavering admiration for the actual views of the fascists, you just attempt to pretend they never held them. How ironic. At this point you've run away from history entirely, as you've lost every point you tried to bring up relating to it, so all you have are insults and propaganda. Fascism is about as leftist/socialist as you are, as you've admitted.
Fascism was devised by an Italian anti-socialist who was a friend of conservatism. The capitalists were allies of the National Socialists at the beginning of the Second World War. These are not "narratives." They are objective historical facts.
I do not know who "they" are. The scholars I've read associate the rise of Fascism with the rise of the right. But if you'd prefer something more subjective as opposed to the empirical evidence, that's your prerogative.
In all the right wing anti-socialist iterations, to include the Fascist variant, the "people" mean the state, and the state means a hereditary totalitarian oligarchy made up of Party elite. Thus, for example, why Mussolini's son-in-law headed the Italian Foreign Ministry.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hariman7727
False according to you, a biased individual that is explicitly sympathetic to the right and far right.
Let's get an unbiased source, like "Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations," which states that the left is historically defined by "...ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" whereas the right is defined by "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".
The far right wing of politics is not "freedom/anarchy."
The absolute monarchs, the technocrats, the dictators, they did not value freedom.
The communists, the anarchists, the socialists, they were not right wing.
There is no point in which the right has decided to atone for their tyrannical past and tyrannical present, to actually define themselves in accordance to freedom. They don't need to "wrap around" - they were never anarchists to begin with.
You're literally trying to redefine terms as you see fit. You're claiming that the vast majority of the history of conservatism is "leftist big government," whereas your tiny, modern conception of the ideology is the only one that counts. Conservatives aren't leftist, and yet historically, they have had no opposition to the use of statist force. II hate to say this, but you defining the right and left in nonsensical ways and trying to take the terms for the right from the people who invented them, with nothing but "I said so" as an excuse, is not a valid argument.
The far right anti-socialist nazi party of germany invited the private owners to cement their control of the means of production, and invited international industrialists to help them with this. They didn't "take control," they lessened regulation, and capitalist regulation is not fascism nor is it socialism. The policies you described, even if 100% honest, fit no definition of socialism.
You have never given an argument, just dismissed other arguments you have no ability to rebut, and ran away when you realized you don't know the full story.
You're calling me a gaslighter because I actually dare to not ignore their policies, structure, and ideology, but instead I honestly observe them, compare them to historical and modern definitions, look at the information unearthed by historians. You're asserting that far right policies were somehow socialist because historians, dictionaries, and the nazis themselves must have lied, rather than you having the possibility of being wrong even once. You lost. Sorry?
2
-
@hariman7727
Oh, but it was. Sorry you can't own up?
Bud, the problem is that this logic wraps right around to you. You are attempting to call them socialists because modern conservatives think that denying their connection to nazism will make them look better. Problem is, nazis still marxh with conservatives - not socialists.
You're attempting to grow the term socialism to encompass any amount of ideologies you personally claim to disagree with, no matter their actual ideological content or origins, because you can't deal with the past of your ideology being as bloody as it truly was.
Hitler didn't have a "socialism" to fight against. Socialists, from within and outside of hitler's country, fought him tooth and nail because the right wing policies that were backed from the beginning by the conservative party of germany and industrialists both national and international, were fundamentally against their own ideology, and in fact, against basic human decency.
So you'd like to claim that policies that the entire world conducted at the time, which were popular in right wing nations and less prevalent in nazi germany, were "socialist/communist?"
But this is a "premise" that is supported by nazis to this day. The problem is, you are literally defining your ideology around their own, purposefully excluding them no matter the historical connection and shared ideas. Their policies match up with the right, because the right doesn't give a shit about freedom.
And yes, thanks for bringing up another topic you're ignorant about, to deflect from the other argument you lost, I guess. Yes, I "believe" in basic american history. You are aware that it was the "party switch," not the "individual politician switch," yes? Would you like to explain how the republican party went from Greeley to Green without a party switch?
2
-
@matrix5062
Htler was a far right anti-socialist. Him not being the type of rightist you like doesn't change that. Germany was in constant conflict, very much because there was a large percentage of people not happy with the dominant liberal parties, both left and right wing. "Centralized government" is not "the opposite of capitalism," nor is capitalism "the right" in its entirety. The entirety of german and broadly european history is filled with right wing statists, and the right wingers of hitler's time were no exception. Acting as though "big vs small government" is the divide between left in right is not only vague but simply ahistorical. He didn't hate the right, nor did he particularly hate capitalism as a concept. He hated the idea of international intervention, on both a statist and market-oriented basis, but when it came to the private happenings of private companies and financial organizations within the country and not explicitly hostile to him, he praised them explicitly in contrast with state or social ownership. That's why he didn't abolish the banks, he just put them in new hands. I agree, there are many forms of socialism, but all share historical roots and ideological similarities despite their differences and sometimes outright hostilities. Not only did hitler not share these roots or similarities, but he outright denied any connection with them at all. There is no such thing as "socialism for one race," that's like saying "capitalism for one class," it's a simple contradiction of terms. If you're getting to the point that you have to rewrite basic definitions to make your point... your point just might be wrong.
2
-
2
-
@matrix5062
But you are, perhaps purposefully so, but you objectively are. You have decided to redefine what left and right themselves mean in order to paint perhaps the most widely known right wing government ever as "socialist." "Centralized governance" is, and always has been, extremely possible under right wing governments and leaderships. Socialists aren't the "soft end" of general authoritarianism, as authoritarianism is not inherently tied to socialism or the left. Yes, the differences within the left are many, but they are not so vast that they include the right.
Right wing is not "the form of governance which doesn't limit choice or personal reward." The modern right is extremely set on limiting both those things, and the very term "right wing" came about in reference to monarchists, as did the term "conservative." What is it you don't grasp? How can you not understand that the right has never been about "freedom," and that them asserting otherwise is entirely contradicted by basic history?
If it is the left that "demand control of all matters," why exactly is the modern right so dead set on supporting dictators and controlling as much as possible, while the left historically has fought against conservative monarchs and dictators? Why exactly is the history of the right in hating anarchism and the history of the left in creating it? You're defining left and right as more vs less government but this is just objectively false. Do you think that just because the modern right appeals to you with "freedom," that they're entirely sincere in that appeal? Further, Hitler praised private property again and again. He did not call for "control of all matters," unless said matters related to the targets of his nationalism, like the modern right. He did nothing "as a socialist." I hate to break it to you but "cancelled" is another word for "subject of free speech," and it's no wonder the right hates it so much. You literally think people disagreeing with you and saying so is authoritarianism. It's the right who is actually trying to use force, violence and government to harm, control and punish.
Again, Hitler was very insistent that his government was not to "own it all." You're free to be wrong but hopefully one day you bother to consider why you believe the frankly absurd things you believe, and why they're so easy to disprove time and time again. The right are so bad at promoting freedom they have to literally redefine the right to "Freedom" to even convince you.
2
-
2