Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

And how is your revolution going to be different, comrade? Less extrajudicial killings? More centralized grain redistribution policies?

Well, seeing as how I'm not a purist and how reform created through peaceful mass action is still something that's entirely on the table, at least for America... that, I guess?

So wait, why do we need communism if we’ve got a democracy that serves that purpose already?

[Totally Not OEP]

I've literally always been clear of my love and affection for the Kaiser and, to a lesser extent, have stated I liked the Tsar; I have no love for the Bohemian Corporal or, obviously that fucking Georgian. I'll be honest and say I have no idea who Sihanouck is, however.

Fair enough, I'm just so used to people being sarcastic it's hard to tell anymore when someone is being sincere.

He was the King of Cambodia before the Khmer Rouge and Pol tried to incorporate him into the regime as head of state for ceremonial purposes. Norodom eventually became disillusioned by the bloodshed the regime and tried to resign, but was put under house arrest instead. He had several faults, but nobody can say that he was worse than Pol Pot.

Admittedly I have a Wehraboo tendency so it's understandable although that is with qualifications that pertain particularly to this subject.

[Kowani]

Well, seeing as how I'm not a purist and how reform created through peaceful mass action is still something that's entirely on the table, at least for America... that, I guess?

So wait, why do we need communism if we’ve got a democracy that serves that purpose already?

In defense of Torra, she’s an Anarchist.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

So wait, why do we need communism if we’ve got a democracy that serves that purpose already?

In defense of Torra, she’s an Anarchist.

Fine, why do we need *anarchism*?

[Nakena]

Weimar Republic came into existence after Wilhelm abdicted after his pension was being threatened if he wouldn do so. Hindenburg (or more specifically Ludendorff since Hindenburg wasnt the biggest ace) previously set up everything to transfer power to the civilian government, to ensure they and not the old leadership would have to deal with the whole mess. (So they could later retake power from them...)

5D chess in action. :^)

Ahhh. Thank you.

The more you research it the more you come to appriciate the genius of the officer corps of the late Imperial Germany and their remains. Like the Freikorps in the Baltics. They fought far away from their home, without nation or monarch anymore, kept going on making plans for an reconquest of their old land.

Makes you also understand where the "And yet" (Und Doch) comes from. They never give up, not even in total collapse, the spirit marches always on, in different uniforms and disguises taking different forms.

As interesting note: None of this would ever have been possible in the very (boring) society that gave birth to them, only at the frontier, on the edge, amongst the collapsing ruins of the old world this ruthless spirit revealed its true form and power.

PS: Unfortunatly they also brought the bolshevists into power to bring down another enemy. Just to crush them afterwards. Didn worked out as planned. Woops. Sorry world. fufufufu : P

[Torrocca]

No I didn't. There's nothing appealing to purity over pointing out that Communism has a specific definition that the CCP doesn't fucking meet. That's as fucking stupid as saying it's an appeal to purity to say that a blob of blue isn't red. That's not how that shit works.

You have the floor to explain why.

Or you could just crack open a fucking dictionary or something to see how Communism's defined as "a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state." and how the CCP meets literally none of those qualifiers instead of diving head-first into an argument without even understanding the concept of something you hate at its dictionary level that's even written on the first sentence of its Wikipedia page.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You have the floor to explain why.

Or you could just crack open a fucking dictionary or something to see how Communism's defined as "a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state." and how the CCP meets literally none of those qualifiers instead of diving head-first into an argument without even understanding the concept of something you hate at its dictionary level that's even written on the first sentence of its Wikipedia page.

If the CPC's actions are explicitly done to try and move the nation towards communism is it not fair to criticize them for being communists?

[Kowani]

Ahhh. Thank you.

The more you research it the more you come to appriciate the genius of the officer corps of the late Imperial Germany and their remains. Like the Freikorps in the Baltics. They fought far away from their home, without nation or monarch anymore, kept going on making plans for an reconquest of their old land.

Makes you also understand where the "And yet" (Und Doch) comes from. They never give up, not even in total collapse, the spirit marches always on, in different uniforms and disguises taking different forms.

As interesting note: None of this would ever have been possible in the very (boring) society that gave birth to them, only at the frontier, on the edge, amongst the collapsing ruins of the old world this ruthless spirit revealed its true form and power.

PS: Unfortunatly they also brought the bolshevists into power to bring down another enemy. Just to crush them afterwards. Didn worked out as planned. Woops. Sorry world. fufufufu : P

Blegh. Never been one for spirit employed towards certain ends. I suppose it’s almost admirable.

[Nakena]

The more you research it the more you come to appriciate the genius of the officer corps of the late Imperial Germany and their remains. Like the Freikorps in the Baltics. They fought far away from their home, without nation or monarch anymore, kept going on making plans for an reconquest of their old land.

Makes you also understand where the "And yet" (Und Doch) comes from. They never give up, not even in total collapse, the spirit marches always on, in different uniforms and disguises taking different forms.

As interesting note: None of this would ever have been possible in the very (boring) society that gave birth to them, only at the frontier, on the edge, amongst the collapsing ruins of the old world this ruthless spirit revealed its true form and power.

PS: Unfortunatly they also brought the bolshevists into power to bring down another enemy. Just to crush them afterwards. Didn worked out as planned. Woops. Sorry world. fufufufu : P

Blegh. Never been one for spirit employed towards certain ends. I suppose it’s almost admirable.

The question is though, is there even an end to this? Or is it all about the way itself rather?

It's almost a bit nihilist in a way.

[Torrocca]

In defense of Torra, she’s an Anarchist.

Fine, why do we need *anarchism*?

Because I'm of the particular belief that the best way to achieve true egalitarianism is through the dissolution of all unjust hierarchies and through reorganizing society into tight-knit, communal structures instead of the shit we've currently got.

Though I am shifting away from some Anarchist thought on account of things like healthcare and other shit that can't exactly be provided in the best possible manner under an Anarchist system, but I digress.

[Totally Not OEP]

You have the floor to explain why.

Or you could just crack open a fucking dictionary or something to see how Communism's defined as "a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state." and how the CCP meets literally none of those qualifiers instead of diving head-first into an argument without even understanding the concept of something you hate at its dictionary level that's even written on the first sentence of its Wikipedia page.

Congratulations on adding the Burden of Proof fallacy to that which you've already committed; it is not my job to make your argument for you, but yours alone to prove.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

This is foremost jest, but I can’t take that seriously if the person (1) stans (for a lack of a better word) for Jean Paul Sartre, a bloviated sophist, and (2) is so blatantly wrong. Catholic philosophers consistently crapped on Muslim philosophers like Averroes before the Muslims did it themselves. I will protect the honour of the Middle Ages to the death, bruz.

That’s, like, your opinion, man. The Middle Ages still sucked. When the most prominent products of that time are Aquinas and Anselm, that does not bode well for the philosophical legacy of the time period.

That’s, like, your wrong opinion, man. Aquinas and Anselm are both such beasts that, till this day, no one has refuted them.

Dissolving Parliament is not on the cards at the moment. At any rate, the Fixed Terms Parliament Act means that Her Majesty can no longer do so at her pleasure; there would need to be a vote in the Commons first.

May you please explain the process by which the Queen (or in a more general sense, the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom) would dissolve Parliament? I'm not entirely familiar with the process, given that that's not how things happen in my country (and as such, hopefully my ignorance in this regard is somewhat tolerable/understandable).

This is foremost jest, but I can’t take that seriously if the person (1) stans (for a lack of a better word) for Jean Paul Sartre, a bloviated sophist, and (2) is so blatantly wrong. Catholic philosophers consistently crapped on Muslim philosophers like Averroes before the Muslims did it themselves. I will protect the honour of the Middle Ages to the death, bruz.

> Bloviating sophist

So like me whenever I have to write an essay about a topic I find dreadfully dull?

Exactly:
>mfw I have to write about the market and economy of Australia’s mining industry

[Torrocca]

Or you could just crack open a fucking dictionary or something to see how Communism's defined as "a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state." and how the CCP meets literally none of those qualifiers instead of diving head-first into an argument without even understanding the concept of something you hate at its dictionary level that's even written on the first sentence of its Wikipedia page.

If the CPC's actions are explicitly done to try and move the nation towards communism is it not fair to criticize them for being communists?

If becoming more and more Capitalist and heavily increasing state authority is somehow moving toward any of the tenets of Communism, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

[Totally Not OEP]

Or you could just crack open a fucking dictionary or something to see how Communism's defined as "a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state." and how the CCP meets literally none of those qualifiers instead of diving head-first into an argument without even understanding the concept of something you hate at its dictionary level that's even written on the first sentence of its Wikipedia page.

If the CPC's actions are explicitly done to try and move the nation towards communism is it not fair to criticize them for being communists?

Friendly reminder a third of businesses in China are directly owned by the State and pretty much all of the others have extensive ties that equal to defacto shadow ownership; note how many executives are ex-PLA and their deep ties to the CPC power structure.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If the CPC's actions are explicitly done to try and move the nation towards communism is it not fair to criticize them for being communists?

If becoming more and more Capitalist and heavily increasing state authority is somehow moving toward any of the tenets of Communism, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

The theory behind the actions isn't inherently incorrect tbh

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

That’s, like, your opinion, man. The Middle Ages still sucked. When the most prominent products of that time are Aquinas and Anselm, that does not bode well for the philosophical legacy of the time period.

That’s, like, your wrong opinion, man. Aquinas and Anselm are both such beasts that, till this day, no one has refuted them.

May you please explain the process by which the Queen (or in a more general sense, the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom) would dissolve Parliament? I'm not entirely familiar with the process, given that that's not how things happen in my country (and as such, hopefully my ignorance in this regard is somewhat tolerable/understandable).



> Bloviating sophist

So like me whenever I have to write an essay about a topic I find dreadfully dull?

Exactly:
>mfw I have to write about the market and economy of Australia’s mining industry

Aquinas’ sophistry has been disproven so regularly for the past few centuries I refuse to read him anymore. When you advocate for your opponents’ executions, I don’t suppose you get many contemporary critics, though.

[Torrocca]

Or you could just crack open a fucking dictionary or something to see how Communism's defined as "a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state." and how the CCP meets literally none of those qualifiers instead of diving head-first into an argument without even understanding the concept of something you hate at its dictionary level that's even written on the first sentence of its Wikipedia page.

Congratulations on adding the Burden of Proof fallacy to that which you've already committed; it is not my job to make your argument for you, but yours alone to prove.

It's not a fucking matter of burden of proof to ask somebody to learn a simple fucking dictionary definition before yeeting out baseless claims lmao

[Totally Not OEP]

If becoming more and more Capitalist and heavily increasing state authority is somehow moving toward any of the tenets of Communism, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

The theory behind the actions isn't inherently incorrect tbh

There's a reason Marx argued against Russian going Communist in his days; they had to go through a stage of Capitalism in order to allow for a transition to his system.

[Torrocca]

If becoming more and more Capitalist and heavily increasing state authority is somehow moving toward any of the tenets of Communism, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

The theory behind the actions isn't inherently incorrect tbh

It is when every movement the CCP's making is in the direction directly opposite to the one Communism is actually at.

[Totally Not OEP]

Congratulations on adding the Burden of Proof fallacy to that which you've already committed; it is not my job to make your argument for you, but yours alone to prove.

It's not a fucking matter of burden of proof to ask somebody to learn a simple fucking dictionary definition before yeeting out baseless claims lmao

"China isn't Communist."
"Please explain why you believe this?"
"Open a fucking dictionary lol lmao."

[Old Tyrannia]

Dissolving Parliament is not on the cards at the moment. At any rate, the Fixed Terms Parliament Act means that Her Majesty can no longer do so at her pleasure; there would need to be a vote in the Commons first.

Is a intervention of the monarch likely or possible now or in the near future should things further get heated inside the UK?

The Palace will do whatever they can to keep the Queen from being involved in any political controversy. They've made clear recently that they are not happy with MPs' attempts to drag Her Majesty into the debate over a no deal Brexit. If the Queen is forced into making some kind of personal decision, she will likely do so based on the legal advice of constitutional experts rather than her own judgement.

Dissolving Parliament is not on the cards at the moment. At any rate, the Fixed Terms Parliament Act means that Her Majesty can no longer do so at her pleasure; there would need to be a vote in the Commons first.

May you please explain the process by which the Queen (or in a more general sense, the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom) would dissolve Parliament? I'm not entirely familiar with the process, given that that's not how things happen in my country (and as such, hopefully my ignorance in this regard is somewhat tolerable/understandable).

It's not a problem. Hardly anyone on NationStates seems to know much about how the British constitution works, so you are far from alone. Anyway, I can't say I know much about the procedures of the American legislature.

Parliament is automatically dissolved every five years. If the Prime Minister wishes to dissolve Parliament ahead of schedule, they must hold a vote in the House of Commons. If two thirds of the Commons vote in favour of dissolution, the Prime Minister can ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament. The Queen can't refuse. Alternatively, the Queen may dissolve Parliament and call fresh elections if a new government cannot be formed with a working majority in the Commons following a vote of no confidence.

[Hanafuridake]

The United States is not capable of annexing China. You'll just end up sending millions of young Americans into the biggest meatgrinder since Operation Barbarossa.

Fighting communism is always a worthy cause tbh

Can the nationalistic government which constantly displaces ethnic minorities, revives veneration of Confucian scholars, and threw away Mao's economic plan because it was frankly stupid, really be called Communist though? Like a lot of Communist governments, they went nationalist pretty quickly.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

It's not a fucking matter of burden of proof to ask somebody to learn a simple fucking dictionary definition before yeeting out baseless claims lmao

"China isn't Communist."
"Please explain why you believe this?"
"Open a fucking dictionary lol lmao."

Don’t you know? It’s actually a dictionary with Chinese characteristics, so it’s not real communism.

[Torrocca]

It's not a fucking matter of burden of proof to ask somebody to learn a simple fucking dictionary definition before yeeting out baseless claims lmao

"China isn't Communist."
"Please explain why you believe this?"
"Open a fucking dictionary lol lmao."

Y'know, it's especially funny that you're complaining with another misused fallacy when I gave you the fucking definition anyway and saved you those precious .02 seconds of doing a Google search and doing the easiest homework imaginable lmao

[Kowani]

Blegh. Never been one for spirit employed towards certain ends. I suppose it’s almost admirable.

The question is though, is there even an end to this? Or is it all about the way itself rather?

You’re aware who you’re talking to? In the construction of a State, there can be no concern beyond the material well-being of as many citizens as possible. Order, hierarchy, freedom, ideology and religion, all these things are subject to the tangible. It is not the method that matters, but the end. Yet the method must matter, for it must not destabilize the tangible overmuch.