Hey, we want to be part of the hate! by dreamtrove

Quote:

I'd replace deception with delusion

they are true believers

IMHO, they're profiteers. But if you're right, then we're in worse trouble than I thought.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 12:18 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Not booted for a position, but booted for lack of civility."

I don't see any attempt to infringe on free speech here. Free speech doesn't appear to be the issue.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Can I be the moderator of civility. Someones got to do it, might as well be me since I'm the most civil unbiased person here.

Gosh dang it, you beat me to it. Since I know that the best way to determine how great the intelligence of a person is to gauge how moch they agree with me, I figured I would be the logical choice. But you are pretty close, at least in this thread, so I would have made you my deputy. But I don't get to spend much time here, so just keep doing a great job. Kudos for your accomplishments so far. I'll try to remain available for consultations on the hard calls, tho.

As practice, I'll say that my frame of mind is Against Anit-semites, but I'm not Jewish, or related to any that I know of. Plus I'm amused at all the postings of those who won't seem to miss DT, not to mention the secret society that DT wants to have "off-line, via gmail" but nobody seems willing to join - who was it that did not want to join any group that would accept him as a member? So, that would be Pro-Peace, and Amused, eh?

The coolest thing about it is that it only needs to happen in RWED, and the rest of the board can remain aloof. Thanks to unsung heroes like thatweirdgirl newbies are regularly and clearly informed to not venture into RWED with thin skins (or faulty logic units), so your enforcement here should not dilute the enjoyment of the rest of the board.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 2:55 AM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
.... it only needs to happen in RWED, and the rest of the board can remain aloof. Thanks to unsung heroes like thatweirdgirl newbies are regularly and clearly informed to not venture into RWED with thin skins.

I've always had a little problem with that piece of advice that is often given to newbies. Why stay out of the RWED? It's generally a great forum, and there are always interesting topics and stimulating interactions between posters. I've been able to navigate thru all the stuff here for many years, and I'm still standing tall. So what if sometimes it gets a little rough, so what if sometimes it seems everyone is against you, so what if you get called a name or two. If you have that severe a confidence problem, then maybe you really aren't a Browncoat after all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 3:38 AM

Who is the newbie?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 4:30 AM

LEEDAVIDT

i'm confused why there is so much anger here ...
so,i'm leaving this post with a quote....

Mal: But it ain't all buttons and charts, little albatross. You know what the first rule of flyin' is? Well I suppose you do, since you already know what I'm about to say.
River: I do. But I like to hear you say it.
Mal: Love. You can know all the math in the 'Verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens. Makes her home.
River: Storm's getting worse.
Mal: We'll pass through it soon enough.

keep flyin' fellow browncoats (remember,most of us are on the same team)

"it ain't much"

http://www.myspace.com/leedavidt

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 5:03 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, one implies that the occupying force of a city must no longer be an occupier. The other implies that the entire government must disappear.

Consider that the source of the remark, Ayatollah Khomeini, also referred to Israel as the "Little Satan" and said:

"We must all rise, destroy Israel and replace it with the heroic Palestinian nation."

"Islam and the Muslims and all international standards regard Israel as a usurper and aggressor and we do not approve the least negligence in terminating its aggressions."

"The criminal hands of the world arrogant states will not be severed off the Islamic lands unless Muslim nations and oppressed peoples rise against them and their offsprings especially Israel."

"It is incumbent on all Muslims especially Muslim countries to do away with this core of corruption {Israel} any way possible."

"This degenerative tumour that has, with backing of major powers, been planted in the heart of Islamic states and whose roots daily threaten the Islamic lands must be removed with help and effort of Islamic states and the great nations of Islam."

http://www.geocities.com/ahlulbayt14/khom-quds.html

So I'm thinking he wasn't talking about peaceful elections.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 5:58 AM

Quote:
Mal: But it ain't all buttons and charts, little albatross. You know what the first rule of flyin' is? Well I suppose you do, since you already know what I'm about to say.
River: I do. But I like to hear you say it.
Mal: Love. You can know all the math in the 'Verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens. Makes her home.
River: Storm's getting worse.
Mal: We'll pass through it soon enough.

Well spake, lurker above.
You're right, we lose sight of the idea.

There are a couple of company men, and alliance moles, but for all we know, they might be future allies, but more importantly, it's not them that brings us down, it's our own infighting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 5:58 AM

Quote:
Mal: But it ain't all buttons and charts, little albatross. You know what the first rule of flyin' is? Well I suppose you do, since you already know what I'm about to say.
River: I do. But I like to hear you say it.
Mal: Love. You can know all the math in the 'Verse, but take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens. Makes her home.
River: Storm's getting worse.
Mal: We'll pass through it soon enough.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 12:24 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by leedavidt:
i'm confused why there is so much anger here ...

keep flyin' fellow browncoats (remember,most of us are on the same team)

I don't think you'll find any place on this site that is more like life on Serenity than the RWED. As a matter of fact it's pretty tame here compared to life on Serenity. I know everyone sees something different in Firefly, but don't forget River stabbing Jane, River kicking Simon in the throat, Simon punching Mal, Mal telling Jane to leave the table, Mal threatening to put Jane out the Airlock, etc. I think the list could go on for a while. At one point in the movie Mal threatens to kill anyone who isn't helping or getting out of his way. As far as I know there have been no death threats around here so far. I think the quote that best describes my feelings about people in RWED is Book's dieing words to Mal.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 11:47 PM

Ah, but Mal kicked Jane from the table for acting like people here :)

You left out River trying to get everyone killed, and Simon trying to get everyone killed, Simon letting Kaylee die, and who was that mole they picked up in the beginning?

It's no use! The hair will still be there!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 7, 2009 7:11 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, it ain't never boring, and that's a fact.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 7, 2009 11:42 AM

And yet, boring is what the media are after, and so they were sure to find it.

I think they've found a formula of information addiction:

Get the viewer just bored enough that he's almost about to turn it off, and then dangle something interesting:

Here, we'll have a middle of matrix two pointless married couple argument that will annoy you all while we await the grand battle. You know there's a big battle, so you're gonna hang on, the question is, how much will you endure in order to get to the battle? In the theater, the answer seems to be about 45 minutes.

Then there's the almost sex. The cute neighbor next door has just moved in. If this were a porn show, our hero would be banging her on top of the washing machine with a minute, but instead, we're going to dangle her at you to make sure you keep watching. (This, btw, is why I support pornography, it frees everything else up to be not porn.)

And then there's media news. Something interesting happened today! And in just 55 minutes we'll tell you, but first, a story about a puppy with aids, and the fight that the owner had with the neighbor, who fears the dog might be gay, and now this ad break. But when we come back, the new medical shortcuts being taken that could kill you. But not until we talk about how to poof your hair - AT HOME!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 7, 2009 5:26 PM

FREMDFIRMA

That being why I don't watch TV, and consider most of hollywoods output in the last fifteen years to be downright trash - sadly tho, even books have gone downhill as those still writing them for codgers like me have been dumbed down themselves, not to mention the need to prostrate oneself for five and more years at writers workshops which are more or less mutual suckup societies, got thrown out of the last one for starting a brawl by calling J.D. Sallinger 'crap that can be beaten by angsty teen livejournal' which it is.

Funny that, however, a friend of a friend decided NOT to go that route, wrote a work to stand on it's own merits and actually bagged enough respect to get the folks at Baen books to pick it up, after it sold out to the point where the smaller publisher initially used could not keep up.

Larry's a great guy, and the work has a definate over the top Buffy-ish flavor to it, with a side order of Tremors type camp, so it would prolly appeal to the folks here.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/mhi-sample/

I'd highly reccommend pre-ordering from the second run however...
http://www.amazon.com/Monster-Hunter-International-Larry-Correia/dp/14
39132852/ref=ed_oe_p/189-5214509-0108863
Cause the original run are now collectors items worth about two hundred bucks and more.
http://www.amazon.com/Monster-Hunter-International-Larry-Correia/dp/07
41444569

It's good stuff, believe it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:25 AM

Frem,

I'll take a look sometime, when I decide it's a better use of time then reading some of these posts.

But I just wanted to say that there was unfocused hate which could all be deposited in a single thread.

Got something to say about Jews? Muslims? Don't wait! Just bring on the hate!

This is an accountability free zone!
Don't cloak your hate in a Gaza debate!

Let me start:
I have an issue with socialists. They kill hundreds of millions of people, and quite frankly that's just not polite. I mean, if you want to go kill people, that's one thing, but everything in moderation guys. Also. Kill people in interesting ways. I mean, sure, while it may be interesting to pull a person to pieces on a rack, when you do it 30,000 times in row, it just gets boring. Also, a little word about child raising under socialism. Children need to learn that actions and consequences are connected. If you just randomly shuffle them into labor camps, they'll never learn and grow up to be healthy reasonable adults, well, okay, partly that's because they die, but you get my drift.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Let me start:
I have an issue with socialists. They kill hundreds of millions of people, and quite frankly that's just not polite. I mean, if you want to go kill people, that's one thing, but everything in moderation guys. Also. Kill people in interesting ways. I mean, sure, while it may be interesting to pull a person to pieces on a rack, when you do it 30,000 times in row, it just gets boring. Also, a little word about child raising under socialism. Children need to learn that actions and consequences are connected. If you just randomly shuffle them into labor camps, they'll never learn and grow up to be healthy reasonable adults, well, okay, partly that's because they die, but you get my drift.

Um. WHAT is your knowledge of socialism based on?

If the free-hate-for-all thread is not the place for discussion, I apologize (I mean it!) but I'm just a little curious, as I was born in a socialist system and while it had FLAWS(OMG, flaws!) mass murder and child labour camps were notably absent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 6:00 AM

BADGERSVERYFINEHAT

Erm, how do Socialists kill hundreds of millions of people? I'm fairly Socialist, but I've not even killed one person. Maybe i just need to pull the finger out and get on with the killing...

Or is it back to the "sarcasm-difficult-to-expresss-online" thing.

Picture me confused

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 6:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If the free-hate-for-all thread is not the place for discussion, I apologize (I mean it!) but I'm just a little curious, as I was born in a socialist system and while it had FLAWS(OMG, flaws!) mass murder and child labour camps were notably absent.

It always is notably absent. No one advertises mass murder and child labor camps.

And if this is a free-hate zone then I hate drunken people who stumble around the dance floor spilling their drinks and recklessly brandishing their cigarettes. The closest I ever came to a bar fight was when some asshole (probably a socialist) was standing around like an idiot on the dance floor, spilling his drink and bumping into me and my partner while we were trying to dance. Then he burned my dance partner with his cigarette and I got in his face and told him to get the hell out of here or I was going to ram his cigarette up his ass. He left. He left the bar! All I wanted was for him off the dance floor.

Damn socialists.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:52 AM

Accountability free zone, but I think you guys have the gist.

Yeah, there was some tongue in cheek there, but I was refering to socialist regimes, not parties or people. Of course, the deaths would be from National Socialists, Soviet Socialists, and Maoist Socialists, Baathist Socialists, all state-socialists.

But I just thought that I would get it started. There's an awful lot of hate going around, I thought it needed a home to stop it from infecting everything else. That way we can take all the hate more lightly ;) and it can live in its own little thunderdome. I mean, yeah, there are people on this forum who hate muslims, and people who hate jews, but the labels get thrown at people who don't, and pretty often.

Hence, a shiny new accountability free zone. You can say anything here and it won't affect your external persona. Got something to hate? I was the sacrificial lamb by starting it off, got a couple flames for it, xie xie.

It's like what I said about porn in an earlier thread. On the internet, there's an infinite variety of porn. This frees up other things to be not-porn, and so some of the most watched films online are things like Freedom to Fascism or Zeitgeist. However, on TV, where porn is banned, everything is porn, even, or should I say especially, the ads. People watch mindnumbingly stupid reality TV shows in hopes that a swimsuit might fall off. Whereas, which you have the change to click on College F^&kfest, dumb show with hotties, or intelligent show with little or no sex, you're going to opt for 1) or 3), whereas on tv, 2) would reign supreme.

Finn. I was in a bar with a date, a girl who liked to drink, so we went in, and some guy shoved his hand up her skirt. That ended in a bar fight. I lost, because the guy was about 7", but then he lost, because the bouncers came and did a number on him. I think the guy was just a democrat, not a socialist :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 8:51 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Finn. I was in a bar with a date, a girl who liked to drink, so we went in, and some guy shoved his hand up her skirt. That ended in a bar fight. I lost, because the guy was about 7", but then he lost, because the bouncers came and did a number on him. I think the guy was just a democrat, not a socialist :)

Where to begin? 7"? Really? Is that all? That doesn't seem very tall. Maybe you meant 7 feet...

And he was obviously a democrat. If he were a Republican, he'd have shoved his hand down your pants while crying about how shamed he was about it.

Oh, by the way - it wasn't me! I'm not exactly 7 feet tall, but I'm not far from it at 6'9"...

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 9:07 AM

RIVER6213

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Fascism is running high on the board. I probably should have left earlier. I hate to leave on a sour note, but this has become a hate site.

Read through the posts and find people spouting against the racial inferiors, genetic, religious, their own special monkey people in need of extermination.

I know there are good people here, but the Israel thread has really brought it out. Check out the actual nazi forums and see how tame they are in their animosity compared to what's posted here. I was genuinely offended by the suggestion that because I don't want to see another race get exterminated that this makes pro-holocaust, esp. as the descendent of holocaust suvivors, or more to the point, non-survivors.

The feeling from the neocons on the board towards muslims is beyond racist. It's genocidal.

I was also disappointed once more, over the pile on effect. Once one person had p*ssed on the graves of my ancestors and relatives, a whole lot of other people seemed to jump on board. So I repost things by jews I know and am told that this too is "Nazi" stuff. Nevermind that jews seem genuinely concerned not for themselves, that Israel is bad PR for the jewish community, or the Iraq war is bad PR for americans, but for the actual plight of the Palestinian people and the Iraqi people.

Earlier, I got into a disagreement on the second amendment. I said it didn't support lone reaver's rights to shoot people. I later conceded the point, which makes me worried about the implications, but when one person insulted me, suddenly there was a huge pile on.

Questions? Comments?

It took you this long to figure out that many people in this forum are xenophobic and small minded?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:45 PM

Ah, the infamous one lives.

13, I disagree. They are xenophobic and loud, but I think they are a minority. I think that when they post much, they cause the majority to be silent, or leave the site. Then I suppose, they become the majority, at least of posts.

I'm not slow, the post density changes. Several people commented, ebb and flow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If the free-hate-for-all thread is not the place for discussion, I apologize (I mean it!) but I'm just a little curious, as I was born in a socialist system and while it had FLAWS(OMG, flaws!) mass murder and child labour camps were notably absent.
It always is notably absent. No one advertises mass murder and child labor camps.

Yes, but it's still a lazy assumption to make that all socialist states must exhibit the worst characteristics of totalitarian regimes.

Eastern Germany wasn't squeaky clean by far but if there had been child labor camps or secret mass murder, the evidence would have come up after it was dismantled.

And if no one advertizes them, how can you even suspect that democracies left and right aren't running child labor camps and committing mass murder? These things are no more inherent in socialism than they are in democracies. They are symptoms of oppressive totalitarian regimes in general.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Accountability free zone, but I think you guys have the gist.

Yeah, there was some tongue in cheek there, but I was refering to socialist regimes, not parties or people. Of course, the deaths would be from National Socialists, Soviet Socialists, and Maoist Socialists, Baathist Socialists, all state-socialists.

I'll argue that it's still less a symptom of socialism than it is of oppressive, totalitarian regimes in generally trying to achieve or stay in power. Historically, many (most?) but not all socialist systems have started as or turned into such regimes, often because they were created out of extreme circumstances to begin with, which tends to favor the radical.

Almost any system to rise out of extreme circumstances is likely going to be imperfect or oppressive itself. Fascism, socialism, absolute monarchy, sham democracies, what have you.

And no, I am not a socialist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And if no one advertizes them, how can you even suspect that democracies left and right aren't running child labor camps and committing mass murder? These things are no more inherent in socialism than they are in democracies. They are symptoms of oppressive totalitarian regimes in general.

Well that’s always a concern, you’re right.

I do think, however, that socialist economies are more likely to be totalitarian, then capitalist economies, for the simple fact that socialism is often used as an excuse for totalitarianism. The government controlling the means of productions puts a lot of power in the hands of the government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn. I was in a bar with a date, a girl who liked to drink, so we went in, and some guy shoved his hand up her skirt. That ended in a bar fight. I lost, because the guy was about 7", but then he lost, because the bouncers came and did a number on him. I think the guy was just a democrat, not a socialist :)

I had a problem like that one night. I have a friend that is a fan of the fruit of the vine, and she’s also a professional dancer so when she gets plastered she puts on an enticing show for all the guys in the bar. One night a similarly drunk guy started harassing her after she danced with him to that point that I had to say something. Which he promptly ignored, so I had to get in his face. H e was a lot bigger then me, I’m sure he could have pounded me, but my strategy was to just pick up this girl and leave so I wasn’t really worried about a fight. However, one of his buddies, whom I had seen on post before, whispered something to the drunken dude which made him apologies and leave. So that was the end of that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Not too many 'socialists' in this band of US-associated dictators ----

Amin, Idi
Uganda

Banzer, Colonel Hugo
Bolivia

Batista, Fulgencio
Cuba

Botha, P.W.
South Africa

Cedras, Raoul
Haiti

Cerezo, Vinicio
Guatemala

Diem, Ngo Dihn
Vietnam

Doe, General Samuel
Liberia

Duvalier, Francois
Haiti

Duvalier, Jean Claude
Haiti

Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King
Saudi Arabia

Hassan II
Morocco

Marcos, Ferdinand
Philippines

Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez
El Salvador

Mobutu Sese Seko
Zaire

Noriega, General Manuel
Panama

Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza
Iran

Papadopoulos, George
Greece

Park Chung Hee
South Korea

Pinochet, General Augusto
Chile

Pol Pot
Cambodia

Somoza, Anastasio Jr.
Nicaragua

Somoza, Anastasio, Sr.
Nicaragua

Smith, Ian
Rhodesia

Suharto, General
Indonesia

Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas
Dominican Republic

Videla, General Jorge Rafael
Argentina

Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed
Pakistan

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:39 PM

And to flood this thread some more..

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

But I just wanted to say that there was unfocused hate which could all be deposited in a single thread.

I get really aggravated with absolute statements or language.

"Evil", for example. It's a lazy concept because it prevents people from using their brain to actually engage with something.

Or the wholesale dismissal of another culture, another system, other life choices, without a hint of compassionate curiosity.

Slurs.

Anything, really that attempts to draw a thick line between people, defining one group as good and one as "other" and bad, as we we aren't each of us mere circumstances away from that "other".

It is such an arrogant, lazy, cowardly position to take, and it always pisses me off.

Venting prejudice and hate is fun!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

I do think, however, that socialist economies are more likely to be totalitarian, then capitalist economies, for the simple fact that socialism is often used as an excuse for totalitarianism. The government controlling the means of productions puts a lot of power in the hands of the government.

I figure they have that tendency because socialism almost always arises from some kind of extreme situation where perhaps oppression was already a factor. It radicalizes people and in such an environment the most radical and most power-hungry rise to the top and the confused masses follow, out of idealism or fear. Radical, power-hungry people in power.. pretty much the recipe for totalitarianism, right?

There is a definite historical correlation there, but not a causation in that the system of socialism itself would inevitably create oppression and mass murder.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 1:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I figure they have that tendency because socialism almost always arises from some kind of extreme situation where perhaps oppression was already a factor. It radicalizes people and in such an environment the most radical and most power-hungry rise to the top and the confused masses follow, out of idealism or fear. Radical, power-hungry people in power.. pretty much the recipe for totalitarianism, right?

There is a definite historical correlation there, but not a causation in that the system of socialism itself would inevitably create oppression and mass murder.

I’m not confident that there’s not a causation. If you put the economy squarely in the hands of the government then you run an increased risk of totalitarianism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:06 PM

Quote:
River6213 started to feel something in her legs and arms; she could actually move them a bit. “Great, I’m not paralyzed” River6213 thinks. The sound of the helicopter overhead was pretty loud and getting louder, but through it she thought she could hear other voices speaking. River6213 was feeling rather panicked at this point. “ShadowFLY can’t be too far away” she mutters to herself. “I’ve got to get out of here” she thinks. River6213 starts the nasty business of dragging herself out from under the wreck that used to be a very nice Jaguar. She pulls herself from underneath the vehicle just in time to see two figures standing across from each other regarding each other. There is nothing but silence until the figure closes to her says “State your Business.” River 6213 doesn’t recognize the nearest figure standing there, but she right away knows who the other figure is. “Oh shit!” River6213 says out loud as her gaze falls onto the duffel carrying figure of Shadowfly.

River, real River, who has come out of the shadows.

There's no shame in being who you are, and I'm sorry if I offended your alter egos. If you've been reading this board for the past four years you know that I was institutionalized for 3 years. I didn't mean any offense.

As you came out of the shadows when you name was mentioned, considering sockpuppet theory. I was slow, yes, I saw this happen before. True, it's possible to provoke people by assuming IDs and ranting at them, and people are, sure, basically sheep. But people are just animals. They react to what they see. Throw a pie in their face, they'll throw one back. Give them a pie for dessert, they'll give you one back.

I'm sure if you were listening all along, you know that I have had some pretty priceless wars with a number of people, and Citizen most of all, though not in a long time.

I'm somewhat flattered that you came out of the shadows to comment to my post. As far as being fruity as a nut, I think it's safe to say there's a lot of that around here, and I think John knows that he takes the cake on this one.

Just wanted to ask if you're feeling okay. If you follow the threads on neurology, you know me and Kathy both know a lot about this, and have some pretty different ideas about this.

You also know one of my sisters has chronic depression as a result of mercury poisoning (assuming you read all of these) and I'm helping her currently get off of psychiatric medicine.

I agree, doctors can't fix people, they usually make them worse. For what it's worth, I liked the Fruity Obama bar and the Patsy Cline song, which I've had on mp3 for many years, for the same reason.

Now, all of that said, if River Tam were here in my room, I wouldn't cure her, even if I could. I'm not sure that I should have cured myself. But I've lost a lot of friends to depression in the past, and taking the steps is not the same as knowing which steps to take. It is always better to know, than not to know.

To become crazy, from normal. That's a trickier game. I was certifiable and certified, when I encountered Firefly. I sympathized with River a lot. There's certainly a power in a different state of mind, and I'm not in complete agreement with the popular social view that one state of mind is right, and any other wrong.

As for the stuff I post on this board, it's usually targeted to try to bring some sort of accord between multiple members. I've been here for a long time, got here just ten days before you. I've seen a lot of things, you've seen them too. I watched the whole Kaneman thing, and the ShadowFly too, hence the choice of quote above.

As for the bias, it goes up and down too, In the beginning, the anti-muslim feeling was pretty small. Only a couple of people who thought reaver=muslim. As for the anti-semitism, I think my first post on this board was a long rant against Pirate News for his stance on jews. But all of this does cause a number of people to stay silent on an increasing number of threads, several people have told me so. Hence the hate threads (these focused threads weren't my idea, they were a suggestion by another member, but I thought it was a good idea, because things can boil over, topic threads get buried.)

But people tolerate me, and they tolerate John, and in general, I think quite fairly. Actually, some completely sane members of this board have a harder time getting along because they cling to ideological positions like somehow, if they let go, they'll suddenly be lost in a sea of confusion if they don't put down the blue or the red party line manifesto.

And sure, it gets intense sometimes, be yourself, and welcome back. It's good to see a familiar face.

Also, let me know if you have checking into Sarah Conner Chronicles. Summer says she has plans to make Cameron a deeply complex character like River. I hope that the writers of the show let that happen.

ps.

None of this is a snark, but a lot of remarks, including some of my own, are snarks, they're just a way of making light of what might otherwise become a serious situation. We have to stay light to some extent, or we'll all be pulled into a human whirlpool. (hence my video posts)

And while I'm at it, there are always people with problems that almost make me dispair, I have two friends with serious heroin addiction problems, both trying to get off, but both on the slippery slope towards being a hopeless wreck. One of them is doomed, his own personal issues and denial keep him from believing in anything better. The other can save himself, but I'm not his saviour, I can only tell him what he already knows, and what to do when things go wrong, I can't make him choose the right path. But if you've known a serious heroin addict then you know that this is one of the most serious death traps known, and be thankful every day that it's not yours.

dreamtrove, delusional, psychotic, schitzophrenic, bipolar, obsessive compulsive, is all. (yes, those are real and official clinical diagnosis from my life as a guinea pig.) So yeah, people here are pretty intense, but they can be pretty accepting also.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not confident that there’s not a causation. If you put the economy squarely in the hands of the government then you run an increased risk of totalitarianism.

Theoretically, it's supposed to be in the hands of the people, anyways.

I'm fairly certain that you cannot have an extremely oppressive regime where the wealth/economy isn't concentrated in relatively few hands, be that government or its rich supporters. Any system loses stability when the gap between rich and poor becomes too large. If the government doesn't have direct control of the economy, if it is corrupt, the rich and powerful will use the government as their tool, just like a corrupt socialist government would abuse its powers.

The effort would be a bit smaller for a corrupt socialist government, it's true, but we have never really seen one that wasn't corrupt from the start, either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If you put the economy squarely in the hands of the government then you run an increased risk of totalitarianism.

If you put the government squarely in the hands of the economy then you run an increased risk of fascism.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m not confident that there’s not a causation. If you put the economy squarely in the hands of the government then you run an increased risk of totalitarianism.

Theoretically, it's supposed to be in the hands of the people, anyways.

And that’s the reason why totalitarian rulers love socialism. Total rule and propaganda in one neat package. Everyone from Hitler to Stalin to Saddam Hussein used some form of it.

And it’s interesting the way many people don’t have any problem recognizing the dangers implicit in a capitalist economy where the money is concentrated in a small group of people, but then turn around and love the idea of socialism which by definition concentrates the wealth in small group of people. Ultimately, the one huge advantage for the preservation of a free state that capitalism has over socialism is that the government is a third party which can be used to control the excesses of the wealthy. No such safety net exists in socialism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
the government is a third party which can be used to control the excesses of the wealthy.

... but rarely is.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:36 PM

KIRKULES

I have no problem with the idea of Socialism, but I don't believe it is an independently sustainable form of Government. Without Capitalist societies to leach off, Socialist societies quickly become impoverished due to lack of economic incentive. The economic growth of Capitalist countries is the only thing that keeps money flowing into Socialist countries. Without the market Capitalism provides Socialism would quickly fail.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
the government is a third party which can be used to control the excesses of the wealthy.
... but rarely is.

You’re welcome to live in that fantasy, but you live in a free country because the US government legislates rules to the economy all the time. Some would argue too much – some argue not enough, but at the end of the day, the difference between a free state and a totalitarian state is not just the ruthlessness of the government, but also the regulation or degree of control applied to the economy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:47 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I have no problem with the idea of Socialism, but I don't believe it is an independently sustainable form of Government. ... Without the market Capitalism provides Socialism would quickly fail."

I'm not sure I agree. Does Sweden need the US ? Denmark ? Iceland ? Remember, the US had a big hand in bringing the world economy down, which would have gone along quite nicely without.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:12 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I have no problem with the idea of Socialism, but I don't believe it is an independently sustainable form of Government. ... Without the market Capitalism provides Socialism would quickly fail."

I'm not sure I agree. Does Sweden need the US ? Denmark ? Iceland ? Remember, the US had a big hand in bringing the world economy down, which would have gone along quite nicely without.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

It looks to me like the biggest trading partners of the Countries you mention are mostly Capitalist countries (Germany, Britain, USA). The USA has also subsidised them by providing for their defense for the last 60 years. Without US protection they would have had to spend a much larger proportion of their GDP on defense and would have probably ended up speaking Russian anyway.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:19 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Iceland, Sweden and Denmark don't have defense forces ? I think they would be very surpised to hear that !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:31 PM

Politics is a small subject, so I want to keep this short in case River wants to read my above post.

Finn, I tried that tack and got headbutted, there was no escape. And you're right about socialist states. It's the basic principle of universal cooperation that makes it possible. The hippie crowd doesn't stop to think "cooperate with what, exactly"

Kathy, yeah, I think there are a lot, Botha was never a dictator. Neither was Ian Smith. Ian Smith, incidentally, was hailed by his populous even to his dying day as their rightful duly elected leader. When Mugabe gave orders to his own most loyal guard to arrest Smith, they refused. Pol Pot, OTOH, was an avowed socialist, as was Noriega, I will have to look these others up, but you also omitted people that you knew were socialists like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il. I'm not here to argue about the validity of state socialism, I was just sacrificing so others wouldn't feel so bad.

Quote:
Does Sweden need the US ? Denmark ? Iceland ?

All capitalist nations, one of those three intensely so, generally considered the second most capitalist nation on earth after Switzerland. That's why Iceland won't join the EU, it doesn't want in on the one currency, because it is the new banking center of Europe.

But as for socialism, I'm not going to bother looking up the list, because it's too much time, I'm hazarding a guess there are a few more socialists, but that's not the point. Look down the list of massive genocides in history and you will see a lot of state socialism. Esp. lately in Africa, though not exclusively. It's probably the biggest violent killer to come along since western religion. Maybe it's a part of western religion. But certainly, the biggest killer probably outside of socialism is our own govt., which is a sanctimonious self appointed elite. Lately, it hasn't been so bad, a lot of wars and death, but nothing like it was in its more socialist days (WWII) oh, and that was a snark.

To say that I don't like socialism is an understatement, I'm not here to argue it. I'm not a great fan of capitalism either. I think that's a hobson's choice. But given the two...

Still, I'd like to think there's a third choice.

The flaw in capitalism is in its name: Capital. It rewards extant wealth, and always will. It should have been replaced by Industrialism when the industrial revolution struck. The stock market was invented by the banking industry so that capitalism would not fall to industrialism, because it could leverage a takeover with use of its ownership of the gold, which now had no value, unless they kept people in power who would assure that it did.

The flaw with socialism is also in the name, which is short for social engineering. The core idea is that govt. (known for its benevolence, peacefulness and competence) would engineer all aspects of society from the top down. The hallmark of "cooperation rather than competition" was cooperation with that top down plan, and the elimination of competing points of view.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:43 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

As usual, we're having a problem of semantics.

What is socialism? It's not just another name for tyranny or "social engineeering". My casual definitions are:

capitalism: Individual ownership of the means of production; no state involvement on wealth distribution
communism: ownership of the means of production by the masses; free distribution of wealth
socialism: capitalist production; distribution of wealth heaviily controlled by the state
fascism: ownership of the state by the capitalists.

Mix-and-match with democracy, republic, dictatorship, or other means of goverment (as opposed to production and distribution) as needed to create about 30 different variants.

Now, the trick, in MY book, is to keep the various forms of power from coalescing: keep the media, religion, government (force), and money away from each other. You not only need separation of church and state, you need separation of church and money, money and media, church and media, media and government...

I think you get the picture.

---------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
As usual, we're having a problem of semantics.

What is socialism? It's not just another name for tyranny or "social engineeering". My casual definitions are:

capitalism: Individual ownership of the means of production; no state involvement on wealth distribution
communism: ownership of the means of production by the masses; free distribution of wealth
socialism: capitalist production; distribution of wealth heaviily controlled by the state
fascism: ownership of the state by the capitalists.

I think some of these are poor definitions.

Socialism: Government ownership of the means of production; meaning that the government controls production, administration and distribution of goods and profits.

Fascism is not really an economic philosophy. Nazi Germany was a de facto socialist regime. And Nazi Germany is a perfect example of a totalitarian regime tending towards socialism as the government demands more and more control.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:18 PM

nice things to have, sure.

The origin of socialism is not a speculative matter. It was originally social engineering.

Just like neocons were originally called the American Trotsky Communistws, then the TSWP, then the Social Dems, then some became neoconservatives, but even then, they never denied who they were, and never claimed to have changed beliefs. They just said "we're trotsky socialists who support the conservative movement" because as irving kristol said they had be "blindsided by reality" He meant that a large conservative christian public that did not vote would vote if certain issues were on the table, and then the neocons could win. They had tried for many years to win a democratic primary with no luck. Clinton was their first democrat, after 20+ years of trying

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 10:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, I got this from Conservative Resources:

Quote:
Capitalism is an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor.

Socialism is a formal economic system in which society exerts considerable control over the nation's wealth and property in the pursuit of social justice.

Communism is a formal economic system in which property, particularly capital property (e.g. factories, machines, tools, etc.), is commonly owned and scarce resources are allocated through planning as opposed to price signals in a free market.

www.conservative-resources.com/capitalism-vs-socialism-vs-communism.ht
ml

The reason why I came up with the definitions that I did was because there doesn't seem to be a definition for governments which control distribution, as opposed to governments which control production. Since most peeps call government distribution programs (Social Security, welfare, unemployment, health care) "socialist", while referring to nationalized production as "communist" I decided to go along with the flow.

But if you don't agree with my definitions- a vaid point, since nobody seems to have a good handle of what they mean by each word- the I'm okay with using your definitions, as long as we reserve a word for a system of government-controlled distribution.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:34 PM

Etymology is a hobby of mine. I accept no definitions, for the record. This gets me into some arguments. Most definitions are some part interpretation.

Capitalism is a system based on capital, as the measure of wealth. I disagree with such a system as it rewards inheritance over industry and progress. It's still better than the competition.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But if you don't agree with my definitions- a vaid point, since nobody seems to have a good handle of what they mean by each word- the I'm okay with using your definitions, as long as we reserve a word for a system of government-controlled distribution.

All economic theories concern the distribution of goods. The more formal a theory is the more that distribution is handled by the government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 6:46 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
All economic theories concern the distribution of goods. The more formal a theory is the more that distribution is handled by the government.

Very astute. I'd not put it into that frame before.

The impressed Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:59 AM