Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
@grizzlygrizzle
I'm sorry, but that is objectively false. Hitler was always considered a man of the right, even before the war, hence his defense of the right, and his election itself being due to the conspiratorial meddling of the conservative parties, which would then find place in his government. The statements and actions you are talking about from FDR came from before fascism was ideologically open, and his statements were based only on propaganda that Mussolini put out in an attempt to ally with Americans. Furthermore, one has to remember that FDR... was a staunch and open capitalist, and anti-socialist. Funny how you bring up Sanger, the anti-abortion figurehead of supposed "progressivism," while ignoring that her stated "eugenics" had nothing to do with progressive thought, and lined up far more with conservatives of the time. What "turned" the far right nazis and their allies, the fascists, into being correctly known as far right ideologies, was the accurate telling of history by historians you'll do anything to erase. After all, the only reason you're denying your allies in the far right fascists is because you want to erase the right's responsibility for the holocaust.
-- The essence of your ideology is one of hatred towards the left, and while you openly agree with nazis say, by calling socialism a failed, utopian experiment, while marx openly refuted utopianism, you still claim to hate them, and thus you try to paint them as leftists to justify said claim of hate, because to tell the truth about the nazis means admitting that you would have sided with them. Hell, your very "definition" of leftism is one that very clearly and openly applies to the right wing ideologies that you so readily defend, but that is an irony I fear that is lost on you. The nazis and fascists were open about their far right policies - why can't you be?
-- The essence of right wing thought, from capitalism to fascism, is one based on darwinism, or in essence, the idea that hierarchy is justified, natural, and should be protected. Both call for the subjugation of people into mindless products of their environment, and the stripping of their individuality or freedom in the name of the greater system. Fascism does this for the nation, nazism for the race, capitalism for the market. Of course, the average person cares little for the greater system, they exist only to serve it and be discarded when their time is done. Both fascists and capitalists are utterly convinced that their system is human nature," which justifies the cruelty and inefficiency of their systems. After all, while capitalism preaches the "self interest" of the individual, while stripping them of their individuality, as fascism preaches the "self interest" of the nation or race, while stripping the people of either of those groups of their very personhood, neither seems to realize that their systems do not actually act in accordance with human nature, and that the needs of humanity can be better achieved without these self-destructive systems.
-- The problem is, your description of both capitalism and leftist economics comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of both systems, one I don't think can be rectified within your brain. You base your "understanding" of history not around what is true, but what best aligns with your ideology, hence your disgustingly false assertions on the nazis.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@HowieHellbent
You accuse me of lies... and yet you are unable to prove your assertions. Because they're not true - lies, that is.
You ignore logic, evidence, and reasoning, and most of all, ignore my actual points. You haven't fulfilled even the most basic academic criteria to be taken seriously. You can't handle the fact that you got proven wrong, so you assert and insult, dancing around the actual debate for hours on end. You even admit to this.
If you don't want to be called a bad faith actor, stop projecting that behavior on me, and address your own actions. After all, I follow the facts, I debate with logic. You? You insult, you censor, you run away. Shameful
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@HowieHellbent
Thank you for so effortlessly proving me right. The issue is that you see yourself above historians, who have based their life work in definitions of historical and economic ideology.
The very quote given there shows hitler's diametric opposition to socialism, as the author of the quote points out. Also, might want to address the rest of the quote there.
And that isn't cherry picking at all, it supports the point I made, which is that TIK openly admits that the vast majority of historical sources and historians disagree with TIK's point. Your assertion otherwise is unfounded.
And if my rebuttal wasn't "easily visible" to you, then you must be blind, as it is not only right there, but ongoing.
Historian 2 -
Robert Paxton, professor and historian of fascism, nazism, and the modern far right.
"Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that" (Robert Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" 2004 digital loc. 214).
“The German Right had traditionally been völkisch, devoted to the defense of a biological ‘people’ threatened by foreign impurities, socialist division, and bourgeois softness” (Robert O. Paxton "The Anatomy of Fascism" p. 37).
"There was no space in Italian politics for a party that was both nationalist and Left."
- Robert Paxton, “Anatomy Of Fascism.”
3
-
@HowieHellbent
Sorry, what are the lines before and after that "quote" of yours?
"...he upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’ interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns..."
"Capitalism was, therefore, left in place."
He disapproved of "interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns"
This is litterally a historians proving that hitler wasn't a socialist, and your only response is to attempt to redefine socialism.
You're actually so egotistical that you assume that you can assert, without proof, that you know more about socialism than someone who spent their life studying it in a historical sense. This is nothing other than dishonesty on your part.
He literally and openly applies the definition of anti-socialism to hitler, thereby proving hitler was a socialist.
What argument can you even attempt to make now? Are you going to claim that you know more about the definition of socialism than a lifelong economist and historian, without evidence backing up your claims?
Thank you for admitting hitler wasn't a socialist.
3
-
@HowieHellbent
I'm sorry, that's simply false. The dictionary definition of socialism is as follows - "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" from the oxford languages dictionary.
The same also goes for the definition of capitalism, private ownership of the means of production.
You don't have an argument against this, so you appeal to strawman fallacies to deny the fact that the vast majority of historians oppose your ideological nonsense, and the fact that you can't provide a single historian that agrees with you.
The quote in question doesn't prove, or even say, anything about public property or the seizure of private property, and you have no actual proof otherwise. The statement is proof that he proclaimed the nazis did not have an economy of private property, and that they did not take from the capitalists.
You have no arguments, and thus as you admit, you lost the debate.
Asserting that you are correct and that there are somehow no contradictions in your false argument does not make it so.
Historian 3 -
Roger Griffin, expert on modern and historical fascism economics.
"It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941; Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947)."
“'Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism' (Griffin 1991: 26)” (Roger Griffin “Fascism” 2018 digital: p. 45).
3
-
@Nightdare
I "dare claim" the truth, yes. Economics and political philosophy are important and unshakable parts of history, and thus, are always a part of a historian's work.
Even if those two groups "can" study history, they do so far less efficiently than historians, because they only look at one mall part of a bigger picture, whereas historians look at political philosophy, economics, history, and so on as one cohesive whole and study it. It being their field of expertise doesn't make them better at studying and presenting history - they're worse, in fact.
3
-
@Nightdare
Luckily, we aren't talking about historians that study cultural anthropology, or more accurately, cultural anthropologists. We're talking about general historians, who study all aspects of their given subject.
So yes, you are wrong.
The very definition of political philosophers and economists is one who studies those subjects, and those subjects alone. They will always miss the bigger picture.
Studying the how/why/when/where of say, economics, will not tell you as much as a general historian could. You could give me every possible detail known about the economy of 1920s america, for example, and i'd still have no idea of say, the cultural effect of swing dancing, because economies are just one part of history.
One easily can, and most will, discuss matters of economics without bringing up full historical context, which absolutely includes the wars, the trade, the government, the policies, the people, and all who influence the economy indirectly. Economists don't look that deep. Do you know who does? Historians.
You're right, Hayek wasn't "just" an economist. He was an ideologue that tried to use economics to push his ideology, and was fine with ignoring history, politics, and economics if that allowed him to pursue his goal.
"studying" a subject by denying the actual definition of said subject and using your work to push your ideology isn't studying.
All i'm trying to do is point out that a random economist with a clear political bias in no way trumps the accurate descriptions and definitions of historians before him, and TIK citing Hayek is only happening because TIK agrees with Hayek's worldview, and thus, his rewriting of historical and economic definitions. Hayek isn't a reliable source on the history of socialism, he is biased and openly attempts to rewrite it to the benefit of his ideology.
It has nothing to do with being right wing, there are plenty of right wing historians that get it right. It has to do with him being an ahistorical ideologue.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@josephkempinger
In most cases people's share decreases because their workload and responsibility decreases, as well as that, in Coops hires are the choice of the employees themselves so they all consent to this arrangement. And how are market forces not top down? Market forces generally aren't determined by individuals, nor groupings at the bottom of society. They are mostly determined in the modern day by those at the top. The price for necessities isn't in tune with demand, but with the amount those supplying it think they can wring from your hands. The people really can't do much, they need those things so they'll buy no matter the price, hence them trying to go to the government, not the bottom-down market, when those things fail to work out. Shareholder and owner behavior isn't really something that the people themselves can change, and when decisions are made at the top level, the ruling passes down to the masses. Sadly, the benefits tend not to. Even in cases where the thing isn't necessary, often markets will push to make it necessary, lobby the government, bombard you with advertising, anything to make you think a useless product is necessary. Think diamond rings. It seems to be far more top down than bottom up. I also don't think calling the government "effectively the people" makes much sense, since the government historically is absolutely terrible at actually listening to and representing the people, especially with policies that bailout companies, as those tend to be extremely unpopular. I think the problem is that the definition of socialism has come far from its historical meaning in the eyes of many and is being unjustly expanded to include things that just don't make sense under the umbrella of socialist ideology. The further problem then is that this video invites numerous association fallacies, allowing right wing people to choose to criticize moderate left wing or liberal figures with invocations of nazism, all while ignoring the actual growing threat of fascism on the right. I don't think there are any worthwhile parallels to make between the nazi view of race and the socialist view of the worker, as socialists view workers and their bosses as equally moral and both the subject of a system outside of their control that dictates their actions, beneficial or otherwise, while nazis see their own race as individually a herald of utopia and other races as purposefully and knowingly engaging in malicious conspiracy. The only real commonality between the two is that one group is seen as ideal and the other not, but again, that's something all populist movements do. Capitalists do it with the poor and the anti-capitalists, conservatives do it with the LGBT people and the migrants, monarchists did so with opposing religions and kingdoms, ect. Trying to say they were similar because "...they bind together based on something they can identify with (race, nation, class) and then try to pursue something that is supposed to be for the benefit of that group" makes no sense, because all ideologies do that. Capitalists bind together based on pro-capitalism, work ethic, and wealth, demonizing the others, and claim to create a system that benefits that group, that being capitalism. Conservatives do the same, taking America as a nation and claiming that immigrants must be excluded, to the benefit of the nation. This isn't a good comparison because it is practically politically omnipresent. Taking one group in favor and pushing a system that purposefully works at the expense of another group is something that can be said of any ideology in existence, minus pure apoliticism. I don't believe they should be mentioned in the same breath, or more accurately, called subsets of the same system, because first and foremost hitler's ideology and actions don't fit the definition of socialism, but more importantly because the only similarities that can be pointed out are so vague and omnipresent that the same comparisons could be much more easily made with other ideologies that are not the current topic of conversation.
3
-
@josephkempinger
"Collectivism" is really a meaningless word, given that all ideologies fall under it, and libertarians absolutely do those things. While conservatives and libertarians often say that their ideology has some emphasis on the individual, this is rarely more than a political talking point, and applies no more to them than it does to socialists, perhaps less. Socialists also explicitly have individualist arguments, and yet as right wingers leap to steal the label, the basic association doesn't often go that way. Both of the groups do still hold collectives in and out of favor, conservatives dislike migrants, leftists, those they deem degenerate, and so on, and blame these groups for societal failings. Libertarians dislike the government, anti-capitalists, those they deem lazy, the poor, so on. The very ideologies themselves at their core have the same "us vs them" mentality you point out. Nationalism, nazism, socialism, they all have just as much of an "us vs them" mentality as the vast majority of all other ideologies. Capitalism does as a basic requirement need people to have an ingroup and an outgroup, the ingroup being the capitalists, the libertarians, those loyal to the market, the outgroup being anti-capitalists, the government, the lazy, which they blame for all of society's failings. It celebrates and blames groups just like any other ideology, and though it claims to care about the individual, the only individuals it actually seems to care about are the few on the top of society who got there by stepping on entire groups. Capitalism doesn't magically become "individualistic" because it carries a fantasy of one person coming and dominating over the rest, dictators have done that for years. No, one person becoming an individual by stepping over everyone else isn't as individualistic as it gets. If you're looking for that, then anti-capitalism seems to have a much better track record, of attempting for a world where we aren't cogs in a big machine to be discarded at will, where we can actually exercise individual autonomy and not just spend our days doing whatever the rich are willing to pay us to do. Capitalism doesn't necessitate or even hold in particularly high esteem individualism, not just in the actual examples but in the ideology itself. It values the idea that one individual can strip away the individuality from others. You can hold whatever opinions on socialism and capitalism that you like, but it's a simple fact that the organization of capitalism in terms of us vs them groupings is no less "collectivist" than that of nationalism. And I disagree with your final statement here, I think it's far more likely that socialism will always fail only when it is implemented in a context of a capitalist society or capitalist world, as capitalism sees socialism as an active threat. As long as this is the case, no ideology can actually grow and adapt when it is under constant siege by all of the other world powers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@goforbroke4428
The problem is far from the ideology's ability to "control" human nature, such a thing just isn't necessary. Again, human nature seems to be what it is natural for humans to do, to want, and that overwhelmingly seems to be whatever they think benefits humanity. I also don't know why you put anarchism in there, given there's no real power, force, or attempt to control human nature under that system. And like, again, I don't disagree in the notion that self governance is a good idea, free from public and private force altogether, free to be an individual, amazing. Not sure then why you decide to include anarchism in your list of ideologies that somehow don't call for this and instead call for some specific system of domination that seeks to mold humanity to itself rather than the other way around, but yeah fine, fair I guess, that's just how you wrote it. So yeah, have fun thinking for yourself, and i'd prefer to not bother thinking about this argument.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@HablaCarnage63
I was on my phone for that response as well, and you can tap the comment to see the thread in more detail.
And again, I have to ask, why? What is the purpose of this argument? Are you trying to point out flaws with socialism? If so, I really don't care, i'm not a socialist and have no interest in defending the ideology.
Why ask for countries? One can easily hold a consistent economic or ideological platform without having countries as examples, and often ideologies don't manifest in countries but in movements and communities. And no, I would not say wartime economies, sanctioned autarkies or regulated capitalist economies represent socialist.
And once again, why? Nazi Germany doesn't fit the definition of socialist, just like they don't fit the definition of say, anarchist. You don't need an anarchist society to see that they don't fit the definition. The definition of socialism clearly does not apply to nazi germany, and the existence of said definition put into practice... doesn't change that? So why even argue that?
Like, say it was "a list with zero names on it." How does that disprove the fact that the nazis didn't fit the definition?
3
-
3
-
@davidlindsey6111
Yeah, again, the problem being that you quite literally advocate for a system that by all definitions is more tyrannical, because you exclude more people from authority and further concentrate power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. In all cases, when you have a supposed tyranny of the majority, with the same amount of political authority as a tyranny of the minority, the majoritarian route is less tyrannical. You advocate for a system in which the means of production are in the hands of an increasing few, who hold not only a dictatorial grasp on those means of production, but also use their wealth and power to influence the policy of genera government to protect their riches. Socialists, on the other hand advocate for a system in which the means of production are owned collectively by those that work on them, no one person having the authority that modern industry leaders do, each individual checking and balancing eachother and ensuring that if political authority must be exerted, it will be exerted with the consent of farm more than the handful of individuals that exert it under capitalism. Which sounds more tyrannical to you?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bfranciscop
You mean the socialist parties that he purged, destroyed, disbanded and made illegal? Ohhh, wait, you mean hitler's far right anti-socialist party, which you are attempting to deny the past and crimes of. Sad. He appealed to businessmen and allowed private property to function essentially untouched, competing with eachother for the voluntary contracts that the party would offer. He outlawed unions and socialism in any form, and gave business owners the full right, with state backing, to completely own and control their business without the slightest hint of any sort of leftist resistance from their employees. It was no wonder these private business owners then supported the party. You don't seem to understand ths and intead assert that private individuals are somehow the arm of the state. Under fascism there can only be one party a party aligned with the entrenched power structures of capitalists and conservatives. The state didn't run the economy, and it had no desire to. The economy was run by private owners that supported the nazi party because the nazi party made it worth their while, and yet they still competed and profited. State ownership isn't the definition of socialism, child. It wasn't socialism, hitler was a proud anti-socialist like you. Attempts to assert that hitler, the inspiration for the modern far right, was somehow a socialist are just another form of "that wasn't real anti-socialism," an attempt made by conservatives and capitalists to deflect the majority of their actions (authoritarianism, economic failure, segregation, ect) onto anyone but themselves. Hitler didn't fit the definition of socialism in any capacity, nor did he have any desire to. The only ahistorical thing here is your continued refusal to deal with the facts of your modern heroes, the nazis.
Hitler didn't have a socialist agenda to promote though, nor did he ask the state to take the business of the vast majority of companies inside germany. He worked with foreign businessmen, awarded them, integrated their work into his ideology, because they agreed with him. Yes, the businessmen in question were proud supporters of a man you call a socialist. that doesn't make much sense, hm? Hitler worked with those capitalists that were willing to align with his right wing anti-socialist ideology, and by asserting otherwise you're calling people like Ford and Koch Sr knowing socialists. Of course, logic isn't a big part of your worldview, so i'm not surprised. Stop denying the crimes of the far right.
3
-
@idk-cj2qy
You assert that "genes matter" because, according to your past statements, it is your genes that determine if you will be a utilitarian, a nihilist, an absurdist, and so on.
I've never said anything like that. In reality, i've pointed out your absurd assertions, and you seem to think this means I support the notion of... banana civilization. Do you understand how deranged you sound? Humans can't have bananas as parents. Bananas don't have civilizations.
This is the first time either of us have brought up genetic disorders, and you don't seem to want to back up the assertion that I deny human evolution, something you previously have gone against. Are you willing to back up a single one of these assertions?
And no, having a moral philosophy that does not value, or even hold particularly sacred human life is not a hereditary trait, nor is it one that is decided by your individual genes as a human. So, in line with your recent corrections on your past nonsense, what set of genes gives you a greater chance of being a utilitarian?
It's amazing, you literally can't debunk a single thing I've actually said, so you just make things up and hope that they sound absurd enough to make you think you're right. I hate to break it to you but yes, the existence of everything, down to co2, is random chance.
You still don't understand the concept of desire vs moral values, nor do you substantiate the claim that I said something about computers being older than humans. You don't substantiate or even rationalize a single one of your claims.
I'm explaining basic reality to you and you're instantly jumping to absurd strawmen that don't even make sense as hyperbole.
We already knew you really didn't want to try. But here's a dare for you - substantiate, cite, or even argue for a single one of your assertions here. Let's start with your assertion that I said "computers always existed as a concept before humans existed and that humans were just discovering computers." Can you prove this, or do you admit you're a liar?
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight Starting off with a bang, are we? This whole line of faulty argument is based on a single false assertion, that two people who have repeatedly told you otherwise were actually marxists. So I could just stop there, you're wrong, and should apologize. But i'll go on.
And then, of course, you decide to pull an especially nice association fallacy, one you refuse to explain or quantify.
You also must not how you walk back on two previous arguments you've made, one that Marx did not create or invent socialism and so that he cannot solely define it, and two that hitler was not marxist, or did not agree with marx. When taken together, this means either this argument or your previous ones fall apart. Didn't quote think of that when writing up this copy-pasta, did you?
Furthermore, you're arguing that anyone associated with "socialism" is a socialist. And that all socialists are anti-semetic. Therefore, hate to break it to you mate, but as a man who's admitted to using "socialist" medical services, living in a "socialist" country, and operating on a (gasp) marxist website, you would be an anti-semite. Hell, you literally said society itself was socialist, so everyone is anti-semetic? That's the problems, your claims never match eachother. If we say all socialism is anti-semetic, and all corporations, groupings, and societies are socialist... well you see where that's going. Hell, you seem to be anti corporation and don't want them around as they are (as per you not liking socialism, and calling corporations socialist.) Does that make you a socialist anti-semite, for hating the elites in positions of power and the vessels they achieved it through? I don't know man, if we replace every time you say "socialist" with "jewish" it begins to make more sense... That was a bit of a jab at your reasoning, but it does make sense in a way. You seem to have an obsession with putting everyone who disagrees with you under one banner. Similarly, I notice that despite you calling the most powerful corporations and countries in the world socialist, you apparently don't even believe it, as those are never the examples you give when saying socialism doesn't work.
Oh, and you've yet to realize that hitler was a socialist, because, you know, it isn't true. You also have admitted, in capitalized letters, that you have no idea what socialism is, which i'm personally thankful for.
So let's recap. You start off with an easily disproven assertion: both of us are marxist. Well, we've both corrected you numerous times on that front, but to a post-modernist like yourself I know that our words and facts mean nothing to you. You follow that with a few strands of hypocrisy when relating to your past arguments, namely, you assume that Marx's impact on socialism was foundational, that he created it and that his views and his interpretations alone must be put into the open fully when understanding it, therefore that distinction you tried to make, that you relied upon, between marxism and socialism you have now cast away at the first sign it could help your point. You even use marxist and socialist interchangeably, something you explicitly argued against doing. You also assume this is hitler agreeing with marx, when you've already been vehemently stating that hitler was not a marxist. This is all done in service to a poorly constructed association fallacy, in which the quotes you list and the conclusion you come to do not line up. Are you really saying that to be against capitalism, or against the rich in positions of power, that you must be anti-jewish? I'm afraid that simply makes no sense, one can easily dislike the ruling power of corporations and billionaires. (you certainly seem to) But, if we were to apply the same standard to thinks you like, may we assume that you're a segregationist, due to Sowell being a segregationist? Or perhaps a racist, like many of the enlightenment philosophers who first set into motion the movements that would define capitalism. Or maybe, you're a racist because you cite Hayek, (and thus must totally agree with al of his views, right?) another capitalist? May I further argue that all industrialists are in fact anti-semetic, because Ford (an industrialist fundamental in the development of modern industry) was? Hell, now that i'm thinking about it, that brings up an interesting contradiction. You assert socialism is anti-semetic because marx in cases correlated jewish people with the capitalist upper classes. But... you also say the upper classes, and the corporations/society that enriches them is socialist. So, are the rich anti-semetic because they want to remove themselves, because they think they're jewish? What? Hey, and what about actual billionaires who happen to be jewish, are they anti-semetic socialists as well? Or Jewish socialists, even? Or, maybe, you just don't understand what you're actually saying and just wanted to insult people who disagreed with you. Your logic makes no sense when applied to your previous statements, which tells me that somewhere along the line, you've developed a habit of having things you actually believe (like that socialism is bad, citing Venezuela) and things that you pretend to yourself to believe, or have fooled yourself into believing (like the USA or major corporations are socialist) and that the two do not come into contact (like saying "socialism works because the USA and the richest corporations in the world are socialist.") But in any case, enough with the games. As I said, we've had our fun, throwing insults back and forth, participating in useless debate, me commenting under you only for you to give a non-response, I respond, we move on. But now, devoid of all of that performative insults that I used as flavor text, devoid of the snippy language we threw back and forth as I pissed you off, and devoid of the mocking way i've addressed you before, just stop. I came into this, seeing you as an authority on these matters. I'm not joking, not saying that for a response, I am serious. I actually respected the work you did. But then, you did this shit. You made up insults, you attributed labels you cannot quantify and you went too far. With the faultiest argument you've made yet, you accuse two random people of being anti-semites. And why did you do it? You literally have actual holocaust deniers that are running around, gaining actual support, in your comment section and we're the ones you chose to attribute that title, and time to? It's not even in a logical way, you do it through first a false assumption, then an assertion, built on top of a fallacy. It doesn't even work internally. Just, for a second, I hope that logical brain kicks in and you realize how far you've fallen. Calling random people anti-semites, because they won't shut up, because they keep bothering you and you just want the "trolls" to stop and let this topic die so you can surround yourself with an echo chamber of those who agreed before even watching the video. You leveled a serious accusation, not for any real reason, but because we were pissing you off. And you've done that in the past, but never to this degree. I have to answer if you're the very post modernist you accuse us of being, as you seem to use terms not according to facts or reasoning, but according to your emotions, and how much we piss you off, so you can be justified in taking them out. You know you can just... ignore us, right? Get back to your life? You have a career to destroy, after all. But in other words, yeah, any pretense of professionalism I had fooled myself into thinking you had, because of the youtube channel and previous work, is gone. You're just another emotional idiot on the internet, who throws out words like they don't mean anything so they can feel justified in their irrational hatred of anyone who calls into question their beliefs, you just happened to get more of a following before anyone figured it out.. I'm done for the night, but for a single bloody second, self reflect. And I think that's the holocaust deniers calling you, so I don't want to keep you much longer. So long, TIK. See you for the next performative insult-fest tomorrow.
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight First part, since you're already dealing with the hilarity of refusing to actually understand what was written, and doingexactly what I have proven you love to do. Well, as they say - "The flak only gets heavy when you’re over the target."
Ok, so your first point is that the two agreed on anti-semitism. Even taking that as is, without any nuance, that still does not at all explain why you tried to hard to conflate socialism with the works of marx, when you continued to try to make the point, over and over, that they were not the same. Hitler was not a marxist, yes, but you phrased your previous response in a way meant to conflate the two. The fact is, your arguments for either of us being anti-semites was based on a misconception, that either of us were marxists. The fact that you went on to substantiate this through hypocrisy proves as much.
Again, massive leap in logic, and further hypocrisy. The "father of socialism?" Again, did you not realize that you spent hours trying to prove that Marx and Socialism were separable, and that as a result of that, hitler was a socialist? As I said, you're tearing apart your own argument. Furthermore, this is just another association fallacy. How are they to know that he associated capitalism with jewish people? Why should they care? If socialists are literally not anti-semetic enough to the point where they don't even know it, you aren't providing any education. You're providing stupidity, and ad-hominem attacks, disguised as an argument.
And this argument again. We already now you have no idea what marxism is, or what socialism is, but i'll remind you how this nonsense just as easily applies to you. Like I said, if we replace every instance of you blaming something on socialism with blaming it on jewish people, gosh, that's really telling. It's almost like if yo literally replace the words in the sentence, the meaning changes. Hell, let's go back to 1940s america. What if someone said "I want to kill nazis" Well, if you replace "nazi" with "jew" it's anti semetic! Furthermore, none of this actually addresses the point, as i'm sure you noticed. You have been willingly participating in what you call anti semetism.
And here we go again. Do you not realize that devaluing terms actually does not at all help with them? I mean, if you actually ever cared about jewish people, you would be calling literally everyone anti-semetic in order to devalue what those words actually mean. Here, for example, you call the state anti-semetic. Not because jewish people are systematically disadvantaged, or discriminated against, but because Karl Marx said something about judaism once. Remind me, was Marx the first to propose a state? Was the USA built under teachings of Marxism? And again - why are you, all of a sudden, treating marx like an absolute authority on all things socialist?
And again, devaluing the term. If literally everyone in society, including yourself, is anti semetic than you've just admitted your insult was for shock factor along and entirely worthless.
Ok, and so are socialists. According to you, that's because socialists hate ruling elites, and if you replace all terminology that relates to those elites with "jewish" then they appear anti-semetic. So, by your own admission, you hate the upper groups of society just as much as socialists, and for similar reasons. That, i'm sorry to say, makes you by your definition anti-semetic, because you clearly despise the elites in power, which you assume are all jewish people, right?
And again, this makes no sense. If those in power truly were socialist anti-semites... why is private property still even a thing? Why are there a few jewish billionaires? But again, if we taking this stunning act of hateful rhetoric and flip around some terms, you sound like the very anti-semite you're trying to paint everyone else as. You can't even define capitalism, or the individual, because that would wreck your argument. So, you just pretend that everyone around you belongs to one shadowy group that controls everything, yet can be easily debunked in an internet debate. What was that quote? "Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy"
You admitted that in your first response where you seek to devalue an actual important term, but oh well, who cares.
And oh, buddy. I just have to guess that you haven't actually been reading these. I'm not a socialist, child. You are, though.
Ah, and here we have a bit of reverse engineering. You see, I told you that what you were doing helped my argument, by showing no fundamental difference in socialism and marxism, thus making hitler not a socialist. Your comeback is "well if im right, doesn't that make hitler open to being a socialist?" Well, no. Because you've already been proven incorrect on that point specifically many times. So yes, that would open the door to many other types of socialism. But, as usual, you assume you're right by default.
And another piece of cognitive dissonance. I have to ask, who do you think Marx was calling capitalists? Did you think that he was referencing your version of capitalism which he had no knowledge of? Or do you think he, like you, was complaining about the corporations and those in control at the time. There's a reason he wanted to seize the MoP from the capitalist class... because they already owned it. And I have to ask, if literally everything you don't like is socialist, why do you even continue to use the term? It's worthless now.
And a strawman argument. I didn't correlate your views, or compare your views, with marx. I compared your views against your own previous statements. And we've already been over how by your logic you're an anti-semite, so no need to go back there, but this only proves that you physically cannot address counter claims. You made an assertion on Marx's views, and attempted to project those over the world as you see it. And it didn't work out.
Oh, and this is particularly funny. I tend to avoid falling back on the use of accusations of fallacy, as i it gets no one anywhere, but this is a special case. You're a special case. I have to admit mate - this is textbook projection. Which "tons of evidence" might you be referencing, hm? Was it the time you said "REEEEE?" Or the second time you said "REEEEE?" Or perhaps that time that you said the fascist italians were not racist, to which I corrected you, to which you responded with "man youtube sucks." Or even now, how you make a false assertion that can be proven wrong in minutes. This is all more nonsense. I've consistently been the one giving out actual arguments, and you haven't even read them. And now, you're projecting onto me, because you truly do wish that I would shut up.
Close, not quite. I matched you in terms of crude language, especially after I saw how you operated. I used my ability to free speech to utterly destroy your arguments. And I've pissed you off, not deliberately, but by holding you accountable for your nonsense "logic" and easily falsifiable claims. But please, keep telling me how you think "REEEE" is a justifiable argument.
And I have to ask, if this is how you see a discussion... why have you not participated in one that way. You literally titled the video here something that was not meant to actually treat your opponents with any professionalism, but as an insult. You comment under everyone who disagrees with you that everyone that doesn't is an [insert buzzword]. You have yet to actually address any of my points, so I was hoping you would at least have the self awareness to understand the failures of your bad faith debating strategy. It's amazing how, even after saying that, you continue on with the lie that not only are we both socialists, but that socialism is anti-semetic. Again, not because you care, but because you want to shut us up. You have yet to prove that assertion, and according to you, you're more anti-semetic than the both of us, and open about it.
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight Hey, TIK. You remember that time that, after a few responses to you, I typed out a massive paragraph in which I basically said "after reading into your work more, you seem willing to discuss this honestly and engage with your critics fairly, and so perhaps I was hasty and without reason to treat you as bad as I did?" You remember that? I do. And I found my reason why, just by continuing to scroll through and engage with your statements. I know you most likely saw the post, it was up for days and you seem to see every comment on your page. I didn't enter this conversation anything like how you described, sadly. I entered it far too conceding. And now, I can see that treating you like a good-faith debater by default was a mistake. So, i'm sorry, but this ad hom attack doesn't work out.
You've never responded with anything genuine. Hell, I think the first real response I got from you was just saying "watch the video," and the next one I remember you stumbled upon me and Majorleague's conversation, to which you spammed "REEEEE" and treated that like acceptable dialogue. Now, i've just been forced to fall to your level to even talk to you.
It's not at all surprising to me that you've been so tempted to do that. After all, you don't seem to have anything resembling a moral barometer or set of beliefs besides "socialism bad, and everything I don't like is socialist." Because of course, you're happy to use what you call marxism to silence another human being, because... well, you don't have much of a good reason. You see, the funny thing is, we've been participating in debate. Like my debate with Majorleague, which you did not yet actually read through? And yet, your response to that was what again? Oh, right. "REEEE." You're right, a debate is not an insult-fest, so why is it that you refer to your opponents only by insulting overgeneralized terms? Why is it that you've written by far the most (in word count that is, your response is just as vapid as the other ones in terms of logic) in response to me calling out your faulty logic, and better yet, your tendency to argue through insults? I've actually foudn agreement and compromise with many of the people i've started a debate with in the comment section of this, and other, videos, and I can name a few recent ones in which I thin we had both educated ourselves. But of course, for you to admit to that, would be for you to admit that you don't know how to debate. I would agree, most of you viewers probably are knowledgeable on history. That's why so few agree with your videos, and why so many of the new comments praising them are from people who have never watched your channel before. But please, keep threatening to censor us. Because that's what always ends up happening, right?
You made multiple videos, yes, but I guess I missed the "in-depth argument" part. When you start counting Sargon as a quote, well I don't know what much to tell you. The thing is, as I keep saying, I did make the mistake of watching the video. But I didn't even need to. All I needed to do was to go down to the comments, read you calling corporations socialist entities, and rightfully laugh you off and leave. Because you've just admitted you were wrong. You can manufacture a public all you want, (despite me having watched it and still not agreeing with you) but the basic fact is, you've made it far too easy to refute your claims. All someone has to do is remind you that no, i'm sorry, not everything you don't like is socialist, and your whole argument falls apart. Even then, the points you actually try to make aside from that don'y hold up, and are only even included because you feel confident enough in your redefinition. So, hi, i'm not a socialist, and the video was absolutely "this shit."
And we've been over how those claims make no sense, in a variety of ways. So let's do a quick run down of a few of those, but not all. You say i'm an anti-semite because I'm a marxist. Ok, well, false, i'm not. You then say all socialists are anti-semetic, so again, i'm not a socialist, however this makes even less sense. You basically assert that Marx was foundational in the creation of socialism, which is something you have sought to disprove in the past. Were pre-marx, or anti-marx socialists anti-semetic too? You don't account for that. Furthermore, you try to say that a state is anti semetic by default... by quoting marx. And again, what did he have to do with the formation of the very state? Pretty sure that was a bit before his time. And on and on and on. I can see why the word "fact" means nothing to you anymore, you just use it to describe whatever opinion you've most recently concocted.
Defending anti-semetism... by pointing out that not everything you don't like is anti-semetic? I'd say if anything we're dealing with rescuing the concept from you, who seeks to normalize and trivialize the crime that is anti-semetism, by reducing it to nothing more than an insult that you can throw at those who disagree with you, in part or in full. But it's telling how you have the ego to say "I know you inside and out," and still not remember those times I explicitly named my ideology. Oh, and you have an issue with spelling my name right as well.
Really? Prove it. Because from what i've seen, it's the socialists, marxists, and leftists in this comment section who have actually been arguing with those morons, had getting them to realize how fucked up their positions is. Meanwhile, you entertain their other delusions, all while refusing to even try to debunk their claims, emboldening them. The holocaust deniers are not marxist, no more than you are. And it's telling that, like everything else, you can't address the claims at face value, only ascribe them to something else you don't like. Imagine if a police officer did that. "Well of course there was a murder, and it was done by a socialist!" You have no proof of that, and instead of attacking the actual comments being made, you seek instead to blame a different group on them and attack that group. It's like blaming a party for a mass shooting, and seeking to disband that party all while the shooter is still on the rampage. You are emboldening them. You named it after an insult because people who actually cared about history pissed you off.
The problem with this next section is twofold. You've already been eviscerated on this stance multiple times, but continue to repeat it. I wonder why. In any case, first off, most people don't call hitler capitalist. We just remind you that politics are not a binary, and he was not a socialist. Furthermore, we know that according to you, he was not a capitalist, as he led a group of more than two people. But this is circular logic, and again, seeks to deflect from the actual crimes of the holocaust and those who perpetrated it. Your only reasoning for this is that you like capitalism, and because you like capitalism, it couldn't have done something bad.Because the state is not socialism, and because actual capitalists (not your definition) have committed genocide. Genocide that, like I said earlier, you are literally denying in the comment sections. Did you pause for some self-reflection after that? By redefining these terms, and literally denying genocides, you are the one who is downplaying the actual crimes here, by projecting them onto something you don't like. You have the nerve to call me a holocaust denier, not because of anything that I said, but because you don't agree with a strawman that you made up. Why don't you focus on the people literally saying the holocaust never happened, not the ones like me who are pointing out that hitler was not a socialist?
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight You ripped into your version of socialism, yes, which includes every major ideology of nearly all of human development, including capitalism as it was defined by many of its founders. And again, this only seeks to embolden the actual ideological descendants of the nazis. Because your association fallacy means people will point at jewish politicians like Bernie Sanders, and proclaim that they are the real nazis, they must be stopped. Meanwhile, the Proud Boys and other far-right groups are literally comitting terror attacks while at rallies waving around swastikas and calling for race war. Of course, you'll call these people socialist as well, which means that when the time comes to actually address that anti-semetism, random US politicians will be targeted, and not the actual fringe group. Again, it's like blaming a political party for a mass shooter and trying to tae action against them while the shooter is on a rampage. Oh, and one final thing - I know your ego won't allow you to even contemplate this, but people can watch your video and still disagree with it. I have no desire to embolden holocaust deniers or entertain their ideology, so of course I disagree with your video.
Again - despite us actually telling you, again and again, that we aren't socialists or maxists (words you now use interchangeably) you still continue to use that as a crutch to explain your falsehoods. You accused us of being socialists, marxist, postmodernists in the first place because we piss you off, because we won't shut up. You've yet to make a convincing argument for a single word in this paragraph.
And of course you're still salty about that, aren't you? Explains the pinned comment. No, you seek to build an echo chamber. By giving a nice little heart or a pin to people who agree with you or pretend to be victimized by, well,not understanding history much like you.And again, you did say you want to ban us. Not the best case you're making for yourself.
Again, I have to say that this is textbook projection. Let's take one example, I brought up the existence of jewish billionaires, and in fact, billionaires in general. According to you, these people are socialists, and according to marx, this means they are anti-semetic. Now, this doesn't work for a few reasons. For one, if these people were supposedly marxist socialists, then they'd be calling for their own removal, they'd be calling for their own wealth distribution. But they aren't. And if they're all anti-semetic, why aren't they leaving of their own volition? After all, your argument was that marx was anti-semetic because he correlated the upper capitalist classes with jewish people. But, according to you, those same people are both marxist and socialists, and yet are still somehow anti-semites, despite a clear lack of self-hatred? Now, what was your response to this. "Well i'm not marx, so I don't know what you're talking about." Brilliant. So when I actually take and interpret your previous old comments against the new, and apply your logic to areas you don't like, you only brush it off. Hell, like here, you're doubling down, both by pretending that you haven't done exaclt what you're accusing me of doing, and also by calling Marx the "father of socialism," some thing that just makes no sense given your previous argumentation, and you know, linear time. I have "Amditted" no such thing, I simply reminded you of your own behavior. Oh, and I actually substantiated my echo-chamber claim. You just said "no." And one last thing... do you realize that calling us post modernists is, in and of itself, an ad hominem attack?
1. Of course I can do the same. Yet, i'm not the one who's leveling unsubstantiated accusations and insults against you with little to no proof, so I don't feel a reason to. But if you're genuinely so pissed off that you accuse those of correcting your history of denying the holocaust, then yes, you should take a break.
2. Yes, you can. Because your job is not replying to us online, you gain no ad revenue from doing so. Your job, and the reason so many subscribed, is because you make videos on military history. Which is, again, why so many of your own fans are posting their disagreement on this video, because it's shamefully incorrect, and because it isn't what they subscribed for.
Yes, how far you've fallen. That was actually a piece that might be based in factual information, analysis of events. And better off, it's a piece that doesn't embolden and attract holocaust deniers. I have to remind you here, that while people tend to like contrarian perspectives, and being told that "*you* know more that the mainstream historians on this subject now! you dispelled their myths!" it does not make it true. Yes, some augments about history are flawed as is out understanding of historical events, and must be re-examined from time to time with new evidence. But if that re-examining leads you to label all of society and most historians anti-semetic holocaust denying socialists, then your point is absolutely trash, and it's just as wishy-washy about facts as you claim the post modernists are.
Another ad hominem attack, one you know is false. At this point, I have to wonder if you don't see the irony. Redefining terms lie post modernist, over and over, just to use it on other people. But please, keep making assumptions about my political beliefs. It's worked out so well for you in the past, right? And if "making a mockery of free speech" means "using free speech in the face of a person who wishes to silence you," then yes, I have to admit that i've been doing that.
Saying "why should I care" is not an argument. I don't care if you heed my words or not, like I said, i only said them to remind you of how this onversation has gone. But it's part of what you did that led me here. You've acted like a troll, who has insulted me, mocked me, spread lies and vicious false accusations about me, and tries to run to other viewers of the same video to confirm your biases. That's what led me towards realizing I don't need to care about what you say. It's worthless anyway.
Also, nice "no you" maneuver. Brilliant debating skills, as always.
You always self-reflect, hm? Which is how you've come to the conclusion that all of society is anti-semetic by default, because marx said something about jewish people over a century ago. If that's the type of self reflection you do, then I truly worry about what you discount through that method. Even now, you assume my own political motives. Did you stop to think "is this the case" when setting up the premise of that question?
And I know, bud. when you don't want to debate, just pretend a debate never happened. When you don't want to address points made against you, pretend they were never made. When you don't want to address the flaws in you own logic, just plug your ears and try to wish them away. I give you the truth, you give me lies, and we continue this dance forever. Fun stuff. There are plenty of pieces of evidence to refute your points with. Namely the "you're both marxist postmodernists" part. But I don't see you taking anything as proof there. But please, keep projecting onto me. After all, I only treat with respect those that actually earn it. And, as you said... you're describing yourself.
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight Your responses to wannabchomsky as well expose your point perfectly.
First you use anti-semite, not as a term, but as an insult. And I have to ask, you know that's a real thing, right? That jewish people genuinely do face discrimination in parts of the world, and that anti-jewish sentiments do literally exist? Hell, there are youtubers on this very platform, like The Golden One, who regularly preach literal anti-semitism to their audience, and encourage that audience to rise up against "them." That? That's anti-semetism. Not correcting your history. As I said, you're devaluing the term. Much like in your video on orwell and fascism, where you seemed to agree with a fair amount of comments that stated that fascism was just used to describe something someone disagreed with, you're now turning anti-semetism into that, a punch to add to the end of every sentence. But again, please, keep trivializing genuine societal problems. Your issue is that, even though you present Marx with no nuance, you still ascribe his teachings to us. Us, who are not marxists. Me especially, who agrees with Willich far more than Marx on some issues. The problem is, you're attributing those quotes to an ideology that predates marx, and then alleging that everything and everyone follows that ideology, down to society itself. So yes, that is misinformation, misconception, redefinition, and not so much libertarian nonsense, as we're taking that word back. And of course, right after saying that you totally weren't doing any of those things, you're back to making up strawmen, association fallacies, insults, and political assumptions.
Just to remind you by the way, another point you deflected from. By your own definition, you are an anti-semite, a socialist, and a holocaust denier. I personally wouldn't call you any of those things, I don't make the rules. You, however, did, so I see no problems in attaching your logic to yourself. And here we have another issue right off the bat. If even they don't know it, how can you say they're anti-semetic? One can discriminate through ignorance, however, the way you're describing it this anti-semitism comes from the knowing conflation of rich elites and jewish folk. How can someone do that... if even they don't know it? I feel like you're turning this into another term like socialism, where we all internally associate it with what it actually is, but then you use that association to make everything you don't like look terrible. Oh, what's that? Socialism is terrible because t controls every aspect of your life? Well that doesn't seem nice, that system is- oh, wait. You're just calling everything socialist now, using the association. So it's a value-less term. And I desperately hope you are not trying the same with anti-semetism. Because while targeting socialists does hurt people, you don't care about that. But targeting a random minority group, and downplaying/diluting the methods of their oppression? Yeah, that's a bit too far. And again, ill remind you, quoting marx means nothing if you can't actually draw a connection between us and marx, or better yet, between marx and the rest of the modern world, all of which you view and anti-semetic. Then, of course, you use the term as an insult again, because you have no desire to deal with eh real world ramifications of your words. Oh, and for a guy that supposedly knows e inside and out, you could at least get my name right.
=
3
-
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight What a shocker. Let's just quote back something I just said, yes? Because i've already addressed this. "And I know, bud. when you don't want to debate, just pretend a debate never happened. When you don't want to address points made against you, pretend they were never made. When you don't want to address the flaws in you own logic, just plug your ears and try to wish them away. I give you the truth, you give me lies, and we continue this dance forever. Fun stuff. " Because you honestly despise the act of even trying to engage in debate with anyone who is actually willing to call you out on your nonsense, it defeats your argument hilariously easily. Of course, that's what you must do, right? Because when I prove you wrong on every front, but you still have the ego to deny it, you just have to plug your ears and run away. This entire thing is one being ad hominem fallacy, and a massive deflection on your end. But, of course since you're lazy but still want to be able to try to hit me with a comeback, you allege that you've found one, disconnected point, that undermines everything i've said. This should be fun. Let's hope it's not a self-defeating argument based on fallacy, assertions, cherry picking, misrepresentation, and lies, right? Right?
The first part is an admission that i've watched the videos, in fact. Now, I know you hate to admit this, but just because someone suffers through your gish gallop and still at the end finds it lacking any depth or proper argumentation doesn't mean the fact that they watched it is somehow erased. Similarly, watching the whole thing and still not agreeing is pretty much a given. That's why so few of your commenters have actually watched the video, and so many of your critics have. And of course you essentially give up on this argument right away, but it's important to point out how you still strawman what I said, and as per the usual, decide to hyper fixate on a single comment, rather than the numerous ways you were proven wrong, and undeniably a lying hypocrite.
Funnily enough, I have watched the video. Which is... how I know you used him. Seriously, what even is this argument? Are you seriously trying to argue that some random person would guess the extremely specific figure and circumstance of you using sargon for an argument? Hell, this just proves I did watch the video.
But, again, this just proves I was right. You did use Sargon. You literally just admitted this entire fallacious response was worth nothing, as it took you roughly three minutes to know exactly what I meant, and explain it, as well as showing I was right. Again, seriously, what was the point of this response? You wanted a snappy comeback, right? Well, even the argument you attempt to use proves who full of nonsense the whole video is, and taking a page out of your book, let's look at them and watch your argument actually begin to unravel, yeah? First off, even assuming that each socialist in the video disagreed on literally everything, that's still anecdotal evidence. Three people will never represent an entire ideology, and it would be silly to assume they do. So your coming argument is already built on a fallacy, but even then it doesn't work. Because these people don't disagree on everything, they clearly agree on the basics, and a good deal more. It's what comes besides those basics, the implementation and interpretation they disagree on. That's just ideological differences, a hoppean capitalist and a minarchist capitalist will disagree on many things, but that doesn't make them not both capitalists. Now, if you were to bring a person representative of hitler's views in there, you'd find the socialists would disagree with them far more, and have less of those common ideological foundations and agreements. So not only is this anecdotal evidence, but the evidence itself disproves your point. But, finally, the most important point - you've jumped into a debate between three people, and proclaimed none knew what socialism is. But... you do? You're literally just another one of the debaters, and not even a socialist, so with less authority to talk about the definitions and terms that they are using. You've just assumed you know better then them. So, again, your entire argument is based off a fallacy, you misrepresenting their views, and then an egotistical assertion. Amazing, is this really your best argument? And gosh, all of this from making the mistake of watching the video. Shame.
Always love it when they end with a snippy little insult. It's like you guys think that you're actually right, somehow, even after all of this. I've got to admit, I don't know how you've deluded yourself so much, but good job.
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight Yes we know bud, everyone you don't like is actually everyone else you don't like. Pardon the assumption, but it has some evidence behind it: I doubt you are fairly representing their viewpoints. Which is no surprise, really, but you continue to double down on it. I don't use reddit, mate. I, unlike you, don't stalk through various social media sites looking for reasons to get angry.
You literally admitted you used him, you used his channel and his livestream as support for your arguments. That is using the man to substantiate your points. Again, you can't weasel away from this when you literally just admitted to being wrong on this point. But, keep being a pedant. It's real flattering.
you said, in these exact words, that they "couldn't agree what Socialism was, and each had differing views on it" which to you, was "showing that Socialists have no idea what Socialism actually is." Yet,again, actually looking at their views you see that they do agree on the basics of socialism, they just don't agree on things like implementation, or things to do alongside the base socialist model. So no, i'm sorry, literally using your quotes does not count as "postmodernist rhetoric." However, redefining post-modernist does.
And now this, this is what I call a strawman. Two things. One, if you have to dumb their beliefs down so much as to say "well they both think government good," then im' afraid to let you know (as has been pointed out to you in the past) the vast majority of human civilization has been socialist. Also, we can't forget that you are yet again finding a new way to define socialism, as state control of the economy, when previously you have alleged that companies were socialist, hierarchy is socialist, and of course society is socialist. And now the second pat: no, they would agree. Because socialists don't literally just want state control. They want worker control, which you define as state control, because you're a postmodernist. You'll notice how often socialists call for, say, funds to be moved away from the military and police into public infrastructure. That doesn't seem like just state control to me. Most socialists also like unions, which again are not the state, no matter how much you wish otherwise. This is of course ignoring libertarian socialists, or anarchists, which your good friend Rothbard described by saying that "...even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines." Nazis, on the other hand, have a much more complex economic and political ideology than just "state good," and may I recommend an interesting essay that examines the philosophical beliefs of fascists in much more depth? Ur-Fascism is a good start. https://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf So yes, thanks for pretty much proving me right.
Oh, and let's not forget in all of this you've yet to prove either of us are marxists. Forget about that bit already? I mean, it's what your entire argument relied upon. That, and you forgot that all of society apparently is anti-semetic, which does include yourself. Oh, and it of course fails to address the vast majority of my arguments, which is no surprise.
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight So your response to rightfully being called out for yourself using antisemetic figures is, guess what, blame aversion, deflection, and the same childish quotes, over and over again. It's like you think this person didn't even read them on the way down. It's ok, we know your strawman is ridiculously stupid, and how by your own logic you're an anti-semite, but maybe when in this very thread I tear apart this same logic over and over again, don't go repeating it back to the next person you meet, hm? Your association fallacy doesn't work. You dumbing it down doesn't work. Your hypocrisy in relating marx to all of socialism doesn't work, and best of all, you calling everyone you don't like an anti-semite for pointing out actually antisemetism in your arguments doesn't work. I have to admit, i've never seen you this flustered. And with good reason, most likely because you know how stupid your copy-paste "point" is, and how thoroughly it was destroyed.
3
-
@phillip3495
The very fact that I can respond to every one of your claims and you have not a single rebuttal proves my point absolutely. To you, reality warrants dismissal, as your thoroughly disproven arguments cannot stand through rebuttal.
See, the problem is, you don't actually have a rational argument, nor have you based your argument on data or findings from any source, at least any source you're willing to provide. I've proven you wrong, and you have not a single response to my objective and logic-based arguments, simply because you have no logic to speak of. You rely on authority to tell you what to think, and rather than go on to make your own arguments as I have, you are unable to actually make more arguments than simple dismissal and repetition of the same disproven point. Simply put, you've never gained the ability to properly integrate facts and form conclusions of your own.
Frankly, on the issue of the nature of people and philosophy, like all other subjects you are evidently and obviously clueless. It just so happens that TIK, like you, is fine with ignoring reality when it suits him. At least TIK has gone further than you and actually attempts to cite arguments, though of course his sources almost always prove him wrong upon actually reading them. It just so happens both of you have come to the incorrect conclusion due to your own inability to conceptualize facts, and reliance on dismissal and authority to make claims you know you can't back up.
3