LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Crysuko]

in what way is seizing property which isn't mutually inclusive with mass killing comparable to genocide which is

Not comparable, just that both can be seen as fairly Authoritarian actions.

Not that I'm really against redistributing wealth and resources.

even though the seizing of property is inherent to all forms of socialism. both libertarian and authoritarian.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

If he meant to say all users of chapo should be exterminated, why is he insisting that's not what he meant?

As an abstract discussion, people often 'joke' about things they aren't actually joking about, and issue thin denials when confronted. This technique has become sadly common in politics in recent years.

I won't deny performative irony is a thing, but it is a thing that it's very hard to call someone on in good faith without a lot of evidence. I mean, when calling someone a liar, good faith flies out the window. It's also very hard to tell apart from regular irony (which I guess is it what makes it effective).

[Torrocca]

It sure is funny how, when I go to April of this year like Proct insinuated, it was a post where I was explicitly mocking tankies. Funny how that works.

It's funny how they prolly just saw the word gulag and raced back to post.

As we all know, snide mockery through sarcasm is irrefutable proof that you actually support the thing you're mocking!

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It's not hard to search your own posts.

It sure is funny how, when I go to April of this year like Proct insinuated, it was a post where I was explicitly mocking tankies. Funny how that works.

Making a gulag joke is making a gulag joke.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Yes.

And so far, this thread has confirmed it even more for me.

Agreed. The fact that Holocaust denialism isn't even citationable in this country is ridiculous.

Holocaust denialism or holocaust jokes?

[Crysuko]

Agreed. The fact that Holocaust denialism isn't even citationable in this country is ridiculous.

Holocaust denialism or holocaust jokes?

yes

[Bojikami]

It sure is funny how, when I go to April of this year like Proct insinuated, it was a post where I was explicitly mocking tankies. Funny how that works.

Making a gulag joke is making a gulag joke.

But she was making a gulag joke about making gulag jokes, thus negating the gulag joke.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

In the original context in which he said it, he appears to have said it because he found your joke lingo to be annoying and to be inspired by Chapo, and saying "chapo should be fumigated" as a way to say he hates capo and it should be banned. Not unlike when you said T_D should be purged. It is a joke. If he meant to say all users of chapo should be exterminated, why is he insisting that's not what he meant?

This downplaying's a bit absurd, even for you, Xen. If, IF it was NC's intent to talk about banning a community, why'd he bother spending numerous posts making precisely zero effort to clarify his position? Why'd he make a post that replied to a post with a context completely separate about any talk over banning communities or whatever?

He did tru to clarify his position.

[Great Minarchistan]

Ohhh and expropriating property isn't authoritarian, right? QED

in what way is seizing property which isn't mutually inclusive with mass killing comparable to genocide which is

So you need to advocate something comparable to mass killing people to be qualified as an authoritarian? You're either going off a tangent or your parameters of authoritarianism are rather... dubious.

[Crysuko]

in what way is seizing property which isn't mutually inclusive with mass killing comparable to genocide which is

So you need to advocate something comparable to mass killing people to be qualified as an authoritarian? You're either going off a tangent or your parameters of authoritarianism are rather... dubious.

so directly answering the point you made is going off on a tangent. I think you have your definitions backwards

[Torrocca]

This downplaying's a bit absurd, even for you, Xen. If, IF it was NC's intent to talk about banning a community, why'd he bother spending numerous posts making precisely zero effort to clarify his position? Why'd he make a post that replied to a post with a context completely separate about any talk over banning communities or whatever?

He did tru to clarify his position.

No, not at all. Just saying, "iT's iRoNiC!!1!", when pressed and then using a whole slew of half-assed tactics to deflect from what he said, isn't "trying to clarify his position". It's defending the position he already made.

[Nova Cyberia]

It's not hard to search your own posts.

It sure is funny how, when I go to April of this year like Proct insinuated, it was a post where I was explicitly mocking tankies. Funny how that works.

You hold grudges, eh? Maybe that's why you get so desparate to make anyone who disagrees with you look bad.

[Nova Cyberia]

He did tru to clarify his position.

No, not at all. Just saying, "iT's iRoNiC!!1!", when pressed and then using a whole slew of half-assed tactics to deflect from what he said, isn't "trying to clarify his position". It's defending the position he already made.

No, I explained to you several times what I meant. Now you're literally lying.

[Crysuko]

It sure is funny how, when I go to April of this year like Proct insinuated, it was a post where I was explicitly mocking tankies. Funny how that works.

You hold grudges, eh? Maybe that's why you get so desparate to make anyone who disagrees with you look bad.

you made yourself look bad without anyone else's help

[Great Minarchistan]

So you need to advocate something comparable to mass killing people to be qualified as an authoritarian? You're either going off a tangent or your parameters of authoritarianism are rather... dubious.

so directly answering the point you made is going off on a tangent. I think you have your definitions backwards

You didn't answer me "directly", I said that many people here are authoritarian using advocation of expropriation of property as an example to that and then you started wanting to compare expropriation and mass killings, as if the former wasn't authoritarian simply because it's far from being as bad as defending mass killings.

[Torrocca]

No, not at all. Just saying, "iT's iRoNiC!!1!", when pressed and then using a whole slew of half-assed tactics to deflect from what he said, isn't "trying to clarify his position". It's defending the position he already made.

No, I explained to you several times what I meant. Now you're literally lying.

Way after you did all that shit, which is clear to anyone who dares to read that shitshow.

[Nova Cyberia]

No, I explained to you several times what I meant. Now you're literally lying.

Way after you did all that shit, which is clear to anyone who dares to read that shitshow.

Not really. I told you pretty quickly what I meant.

[Torrocca]

Way after you did all that shit, which is clear to anyone who dares to read that shitshow.

Not really. I told you pretty quickly what I meant.

Nah though:

Ah, I see you're now breaking out full-fledged Nazi rhetoric regarding your enemies. Imagine my lack of surprise.

Yes, gas an internet forum. Clearly that works.

It's clear you were trying to downplay what you'd said.

[Conserative Morality]

tbqh you can't really get through to most people, especially those who are partisan but not particularly interested in politics. People follow certainty and determination. You can't meekly come to the table with mewlings of compromise and agreement. You must become their nightmare; become the left-winger they thought you were. Only then will they see true horror, and submit.

This is where my thought process has been heading, tbqh.

I'll make the Tokugawa's look like outright liberals.

Cut down all the peasants for offending men of good birth!

[Crysuko]

so directly answering the point you made is going off on a tangent. I think you have your definitions backwards

You didn't answer me "directly", I said that many people here are authoritarian using advocation of expropriation of property as an example to that and then you started wanting to compare expropriation and mass killings, as if the former wasn't authoritarian simply because it's far from being as bad as defending mass killings.

expropriation of property is inherently socialist, wheather they're authoritarian or libertiarian. (also tankies like to pretend it's a false dichotomy but the difference is night and day)

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

tbqh you can't really get through to most people, especially those who are partisan but not particularly interested in politics. People follow certainty and determination. You can't meekly come to the table with mewlings of compromise and agreement. You must become their nightmare; become the left-winger they thought you were. Only then will they see true horror, and submit.

Strongly disagree. There are few noble goals which becoming a nightmare will meaningfully service, and plenty of noble goals which becoming a nightmare will dash completely. Compromise and building bridges are ends of themselves, sometimes even more important than accomplishing your goals. Of you need to become a momster, become a strawman of yourself, what are you even fighting for?

Perhaps I am speaking in platitudes. but you are doing the same only they are pessimistic platitudes rather than optimistic ones.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It's true that western conservatives (at least the moderate ones) are liberals. Which makes it all the more funny when they start calling people libtards and the like. While it's true a word's colloquial meaning and academic meaning are different, I feel it would be beter for everyone if "liberal's" colloquial meaning was brought more in line with its academic meaning, as it is already beginning to be.

And what then is used for what we call liberalism in casual modern parlance? Not all liberals are progressives.

Social liberalism.

[Conserative Morality]

tbqh you can't really get through to most people, especially those who are partisan but not particularly interested in politics. People follow certainty and determination. You can't meekly come to the table with mewlings of compromise and agreement. You must become their nightmare; become the left-winger they thought you were. Only then will they see true horror, and submit.

Strongly disagree. There are few noble goals which becoming a nightmare will meaningfully service, and plenty of noble goals which becoming a nightmare will dash completely. Compromise and building bridges are ends of themselves, sometimes even more important than accomplishing your goals. Of you need to become a momster, become a strawman of yourself, what are you even fighting for?

Perhaps I am speaking in platitudes. but you are doing the same only they are pessimistic platitudes rather than optimistic ones.

It's not pessimism. On the contrary, it's optimism. Victory is within your grasp, so long as you have no fear; so long as you are certain of your own virtues. The idea that rolling over and submitting to someone else's will is a nobler goal than victory is a product of a culture of defeat. How is submission to the enemy worthwhile? If you have no confidence in your own principles, why bother fighting for them at all? And better to have no confidence than only some confidence. Men of little confidence are easier to sway than those of none. Horror is in becoming the antithesis of your enemy; horror is in embracing virtue without restraint. Horror is to look upon the twisted values of the enemy, and become their personal demon. Horror is in the complete rejection of the enemy and their value system.

[Conserative Morality]

And what then is used for what we call liberalism in casual modern parlance? Not all liberals are progressives.

Social liberalism.

That's still calling it liberalism, and social liberalism is already used for, well, social liberalism. Libertarians are socially liberal.

[Nova Cyberia]

Not really. I told you pretty quickly what I meant.

Nah though:

Yes, gas an internet forum. Clearly that works.

It's clear you were trying to downplay what you'd said.

No. I just thought it was ridiculous how much you willfully misrepresented your post.