Degeneration of American Leftism?

[Communal concils]

He accuse me of just making things up, because he didn't see links. Which I find stupid. It's just argument of of silence( that is denying the argument because there is no textual evidence). If you don't see something, that does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Yeah, but if you're gonna make a contentious claim, the burden of proof lies on you.

You said that regimes are bad, I can just be as opportunist as you and say that were is the proof of the badness of regimes. If you didn't say sources, I could have deny it and just say nothing bad happen because I did not see evidence. A person that does not show "Evidence" does not mean that they are "wrong"

[Molonia]

Yeah, but if you're gonna make a contentious claim, the burden of proof lies on you.

You said that regimes are bad, I can just be as opportunist as you and say that were is the proof of the badness of regimes. If you didn't say sources, I could have deny it and just say nothing bad happen because I did not see evidence. A person that does not show "Evidence" does not mean that they are "wrong"

But how can we know you're "right"?

[The New California Republic]

Yeah, but if you're gonna make a contentious claim, the burden of proof lies on you.

You said that regimes are bad, I can just be as opportunist as you and say that were is the proof of the badness of regimes. If you didn't say sources, I could have deny it and just say nothing bad happen because I did not see evidence. A person that does not show "Evidence" does not mean that they are "wrong"

You created the OP. You didn't include any sources for any of your claims. Therefore, it can all be dismissed far more easily than the effort it took to write.

[The New California Republic]

If you didn't say sources, I could have deny it and just say nothing bad happen because I did not see evidence. A person that does not show "Evidence" does not mean that they are "wrong"

But how can we know you're "right"?

There has actually been more evidence given in this particular case-in-point that disproves what the OP is saying, in contrast to the utter lack of evidence given by the OP to support it.

[Communal concils]

You said that regimes are bad, I can just be as opportunist as you and say that were is the proof of the badness of regimes. If you didn't say sources, I could have deny it and just say nothing bad happen because I did not see evidence. A person that does not show "Evidence" does not mean that they are "wrong"

But how can we know you're "right"?

That's the point,Hypocrisy . This libertarian socialist says that non-libertarian ideologies are tyranny. Since he does not show sources, I can assume that everything he said is not true only because I didn't see the proof I want. His allies say that there is no reason to believe me because I have not brought sources, some of them did not bring sources for their own beliefs. If we were living in a tribal society, and we look at the surrounding area, we can assume that the world is flat. It take thousands of years to know that such things are not true. we though the universe had limits, but we were wrong again. We can apply this to so many issues. That's the problem with empiricism. If I had an illusion from something, I can claim it's real because I saw it.

[The New California Republic]

But how can we know you're "right"?

That's the point,Hypocrisy . This libertarian socialist says that non-libertarian ideologies are tyranny. Since he does not show sources, I can assume that everything he said is not true only because I didn't see the proof I want. His allies say that there is no reason to believe me because I have not brought sources, some of them did not bring sources for their own beliefs. If we were living in a tribal society, and we look at the surrounding area, we can assume that the world is flat. It take thousands of years to know that such things are not true. we though the universe had limits, but we were wrong again. We can apply this to so many issues. That's the problem with empiricism. If I had an illusion from something, I can claim it's real because I saw it.

The burden of proof is squarely on you. You created the OP. It isn't up to us to piss around providing sources to disprove something that you have yet to give us any sources for. This whole song and dance to try to mask that fact really doesn't wash.

[Communal concils]

You said that regimes are bad, I can just be as opportunist as you and say that were is the proof of the badness of regimes. If you didn't say sources, I could have deny it and just say nothing bad happen because I did not see evidence. A person that does not show "Evidence" does not mean that they are "wrong"

You created the OP. You didn't include any sources for any of your claims. Therefore, it can all be dismissed far more easily than the effort it took to write.

Okay, Dogmatist. as I said before, empiricism has flaws. If a person said the earth isn't flat in front of a bunch of flat earthers, then what they said is not true if they have no sources. a person that says the earth is round is right, even if they don't show sources.

[Communal concils]

That's the point,Hypocrisy . This libertarian socialist says that non-libertarian ideologies are tyranny. Since he does not show sources, I can assume that everything he said is not true only because I didn't see the proof I want. His allies say that there is no reason to believe me because I have not brought sources, some of them did not bring sources for their own beliefs. If we were living in a tribal society, and we look at the surrounding area, we can assume that the world is flat. It take thousands of years to know that such things are not true. we though the universe had limits, but we were wrong again. We can apply this to so many issues. That's the problem with empiricism. If I had an illusion from something, I can claim it's real because I saw it.

The burden of proof is squarely on you. You created the OP. It isn't up to us to piss around providing sources to disprove something that you have yet to give us any sources for. This whole song and dance to try to mask that fact really doesn't wash.

why must I encourage laziness of the Reader? If they don't care about this, then they shouldn't be talking to me. "facts" are what you want them to be, and "proof" is what you want it to be.

[Ghost in the Shell]

The western Left has been degenerating since its very beginning. The Neocons realised this. Scoop Jackson was the last hope for the Democratic Party.

[The New California Republic]

You created the OP. You didn't include any sources for any of your claims. Therefore, it can all be dismissed far more easily than the effort it took to write.

Okay, Dogmatist.

Oh look, he has resorted to namecalling. Neat.

as I said before, empiricism has flaws. If a person said the earth isn't flat in front of a bunch of flat earthers, then what they said is not true if they have no sources. a person that says the earth is round is right, even if they don't show sources.

Ridiculously bad faith noise to attempt to excuse your lack of sources for your claims in the OP.

[The New California Republic]

The burden of proof is squarely on you. You created the OP. It isn't up to us to piss around providing sources to disprove something that you have yet to give us any sources for. This whole song and dance to try to mask that fact really doesn't wash.

why must I encourage laziness of the Reader? If they don't care about this, then they shouldn't be talking to me. "facts" are what you want them to be, and "proof" is what you want it to be.

You don't provide sources for your claims, and you have the gall to accuse the reader of laziness? Oh my fucking god this is golden.

[Communal concils]

The western Left has been degenerating since its very beginning. The Neocons realised this. Scoop Jackson was the last hope for the Democratic Party.

Based and Red-pilled.

[Ghost in the Shell]

The western Left has been degenerating since its very beginning. The Neocons realised this. Scoop Jackson was the last hope for the Democratic Party.

Based and Red-pilled.

Thank you I try. Aspiring to become so redpilled I call left-communism a liberal or semi-liberal ideology.

[Communal concils]

But how can we know you're "right"?

There has actually been more evidence given in this particular case-in-point that disproves what the OP is saying, in contrast to the utter lack of evidence given by the OP to support it.

This is just one example out of a million other people or groups. anyways,only Point 4 and 5 apply to this article. Their rhetoric is unappealing to a significant section of the working class, and they have a total rejection of historical socialist societies. You yourself have not really shown evidence of accusations in the past.

[Communal concils]

Based and Red-pilled.

Thank you I try. Aspiring to become so redpilled I call left-communism a liberal or semi-liberal ideology.

indeed.

[The New California Republic]

There has actually been more evidence given in this particular case-in-point that disproves what the OP is saying, in contrast to the utter lack of evidence given by the OP to support it.

This is just one example out of a million other people or groups.

So? It's more sources than are included in the OP, which does disprove some of what you are saying.

anyways,only Point 4 and 5 apply to this article.

Only superficially if you want to grasp at straws.

Their rhetoric is unappealing to a significant section of the working class, and they have a total rejection of historical socialist societies.

More claims without actually providing sources. Yeah, just keep piling them on.

You yourself have not really shown evidence of accusations in the past.

"Evidence of accusations"? What the actual fuck are you talking about?

[Totenborg]

But how can we know you're "right"?

That's the point,Hypocrisy . This libertarian socialist says that non-libertarian ideologies are tyranny. Since he does not show sources, I can assume that everything he said is not true only because I didn't see the proof I want. His allies say that there is no reason to believe me because I have not brought sources, some of them did not bring sources for their own beliefs. If we were living in a tribal society, and we look at the surrounding area, we can assume that the world is flat. It take thousands of years to know that such things are not true. we though the universe had limits, but we were wrong again. We can apply this to so many issues. That's the problem with empiricism. If I had an illusion from something, I can claim it's real because I saw it.

Tell you what, then, homie. Go spend some time under an authoritarian regime. When (or if) you get back, tell me if it felt like it wasn't tyranny. As for evidence of the horrors of authoritarian communism, there are several million graves that can back up my point.

[Communal concils]

This is just one example out of a million other people or groups.

So? It's more sources than are included in the OP, which does disprove some of what you are saying.

anyways,only Point 4 and 5 apply to this article.

Only superficially if you want to grasp at straws.

Their rhetoric is unappealing to a significant section of the working class, and they have a total rejection of historical socialist societies.

More claims without actually providing sources. Yeah, just keep piling them on.

You yourself have not really shown evidence of accusations in the past.

"Evidence of accusations"? What the actual fuck are you talking about?

1. You must be blind, because I gave you a source last page. well, here:
https://liberationschool.org/category/soviet-union/

2. I don't know if it's a straw-men because I would need to talk to an actual DSA member, that is unless your one yourself. If so, the what did I do "wrong". Go into detail with a large paragraph.

3. Okay dogmatist.

4. well, didn't you accuse me of being reactionary.

[Communal concils]

That's the point,Hypocrisy . This libertarian socialist says that non-libertarian ideologies are tyranny. Since he does not show sources, I can assume that everything he said is not true only because I didn't see the proof I want. His allies say that there is no reason to believe me because I have not brought sources, some of them did not bring sources for their own beliefs. If we were living in a tribal society, and we look at the surrounding area, we can assume that the world is flat. It take thousands of years to know that such things are not true. we though the universe had limits, but we were wrong again. We can apply this to so many issues. That's the problem with empiricism. If I had an illusion from something, I can claim it's real because I saw it.

Tell you what, then, homie. Go spend some time under an authoritarian regime. When (or if) you get back, tell me if it felt like it wasn't tyranny. As for evidence of the horrors of authoritarian communism, there are several million graves that can back up my point.

Have you actually been to an authoritarian state, I would be glad to read your story,
I don't really need to go anyways, because I know what complete obedience to authority is like. That is culture and social norms of a country outside America.

However these are claims. How come you said that I must give sources and links to my claims, but you have not done the same?
Yikes, an Oxymoron. "Authoritarian communism", sound stupid.

[Torrocca]

Well, that OP pretty much lost me when it made mention of making "certain sacrifices" to homophobes and xenophobes.

Yeah, fuck that noise. The American Left is okay; it could do better, but it's sure as shit not degenerate because it acknowledges and focuses on social inequalities and economic inequalities at the same time.



The OP pretty much hates social equality, so American Leftism is degenerate because it focuses on social stratification in addition to economic stratification.



The sheer amount of misrepresentation of the American left here is hilarious, not gonna lie.

So this is a big Strawmen!

Imagine falsely accusing other people of making strawmen when your OP is one big, self-aggrandizing strawman that entirely misrepresents the American Left.

Also, it's not a strawman when you literally said Leftists should concede ground to bigotry. Fuck that noise.

[Trotskylvania]

Real weird flex trying to call the current that published articles with titles like "Revolutionary Totalitarianism" as a liberal deviation

How'd that Holiday in Cambodia go?

[The Archregimancy]

Based and Red-pilled.

There is no reason to respond to badly written, undocumented claptrap like this. In a court of law, they would laugh you out of court. They probably would understand you are insane, have you placed in a straihtjacket and taken to a little padded room to babble your nonsense about being "woke (?) and all the utter nonsense that fills your head. Afer the hospital, you'd be place in an Adul Foster Home and you woldn't be allowed to leave to prevent you acted like a lunatic. You'd be given a max dose of Antipsychotics and you would a worthless, poor, deluded bumb with a beard growing on your face because you sit in a drug induced stupor.

I leave you now to speak to the "voices" in your head. Let us now when you go to the insane asylum.

Darth Caedus New Order, *** warned for trolling/flamebaiting. ***

Please familiarise yourself with the site rules.

[The New California Republic]

1. You must be blind, because I gave you a source last page. well, here:
https://liberationschool.org/category/soviet-union/

That isn't a source, that's a home page for a topic. If that's the best you can do in terms of providing sources, then I can see why you are refusing to provide any.

I don't know if it's a straw-men because I would need to talk to an actual DSA member, that is unless your one yourself. If so, the what did I do "wrong". Go into detail with a large paragraph.

A straw men? What the fuck are you talking about?

Okay dogmatist.

Charming, another ad hominem because you have no real response to give.

well, didn't you accuse me of being reactionary.

It was a descriptor of the policies that you were advocating. Crucial difference there friendo.

[Communal concils]

Real weird flex trying to call the current that published articles with titles like "Revolutionary Totalitarianism" as a liberal deviation

How'd that Holiday in Cambodia go?

well, I'm using Pol Pot as a tool of criticizing certain Marxist-Leninist( Maoist to be more exact). I always funny that they go to extreme lengths to separate Mao-Zedong from one of his biggest fans. Anyways, Pol Pot is a Meme.


The trip in Kampuchea( not Cambodia) was wonderful. I make sure that I wasn't Vietnamese or wearing Glasses.

[The New California Republic]

So this is a big Strawmen!

Imagine falsely accusing other people of making strawmen when your OP is one big, self-aggrandizing strawman that entirely misrepresents the American Left.

Also, it's not a strawman when you literally said Leftists should concede ground to bigotry. Fuck that noise.

Yeah there have been a lot of really ironic statements from CC in this thread.