

For what exactly? Not being an eloquent speaker or sufficiently self-debasing (he still tries very hard)?Ed Oscuro wrote:Oops, GOP can't even censure Steve King.
The "big literature" on the so-called "authoritarian personality" originates from a few mid-20th century immigrants who looked at the perhaps too familiar faces of the people who helped save their asses from fascism and then created an arbitrary "fascism scale" to judge and demonize their saviors with. It is Marxist propaganda fueled by paranoia and hate - a way to pathologize normalcy, traditional values, etc. Noah Berlatsky is just a recent, illustrative example of a character I saw propagating this garbage - a pathetic man who is obviously motivated by hatred of white people (and still has a job writing for multiple major media outlets despite that obvious hatred, which should tell you something). It is no surprise that he is pushing the "authoritarian personality" fiction and also feeding (white) people poison about their good parenting.Ed Oscuro wrote:@Rob: Man, what are you ON these days? Lay off the cherry pickin' shit my man.
These psychopaths, not "normal, conventional Americans", were/are the problem. Twenty LARPing clowns or Steve King making a poorly phrased comment does not an American fascist/Nazi menace make.The idea was for a questionnaire survey to explore whether a psychological profile of the 'potential fascist character' could be identified. It was the first time that the critical school of Frankfurt has used a quantitative approach, and the results of their 'F' (for fascist) scale 'seemed to warrant alarm.' 'Anti-Semitism turned out to be ... the visible edge of a dysfunctional personality revealed in the many "ethnocentric" and "conventional" attitudes of the general American population, as well as of a disquietingly submissive attitude towards authority of all kinds.' This is where the link to Riesman came in: these potential fascists were 'other-directed,' normal, conventional Americans. The Authoritarian Personality therefore concluded with a warning that fascism rather than communism was the chief threat facing America in the postwar world, that fascism was finding 'a new home' on the western side of the Atlantic, and that bourgeois America and its great cities were now 'the dark heart of modern civilization.'
Are you employed? (I know that the only thing that matters is how much money you don't make, so I thought I'd ask - if the answer is "no", getting a job could help. You don't have to wait for Bernie Sanders to give you money.)BryanM wrote:You're a smart guy who cares about things that matter.
So, you too wonder "when white nationalism and white supremacy" became offensive?Rob wrote:For what exactly? Not being an eloquent speaker or sufficiently self-debasing (he still tries very hard)?Ed Oscuro wrote:Oops, GOP can't even censure Steve King.
This is why talking about propaganda matters - NYT and the like do their smear pieces and people lap it up and regurgitate without an independent, critical thought in-between.So, you too wonder "when white nationalism and white supremacy" became offensive?
Ethnonationalism is "offensive"?!Ed Oscuro wrote:So, you too wonder "when white nationalism and white supremacy" became offensive?
"Racism"?Ed Oscuro wrote:straight-up racism that, once upon a time, got sorry asses kicked right out of polite conversation.
Those have always been there. Television presents a very warped version of the world.Ed Oscuro wrote:viciousness and straight-up racism that, once upon a time, got sorry asses kicked right out of polite conversation.
Indeed. In the human poultry farms, we will be rendered into bio feed (5% or less human by volume) used to grow sheet meat.Zen wrote:There will be no pigs, in Future World.
If you're looking to find something good in there, at the same time that you go out of your way to cherry-pick "scary" comments from minorities that you didn't give the same thought to understanding, you're a hypocrite.“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization – how did that language become offensive?
Here is a cherry-picked "scary" comment - maybe you can translate it for me so I can understand it.Ed Oscuro wrote:at the same time that you go out of your way to cherry-pick "scary" comments from minorities that you didn't give the same thought to understanding,
And by this alchemy, one cannot be racist against someone in a "position of power"?BryanM wrote:Racism is the exploitation of a racial underclass by a racial majority for their own (perceived) benefit.
Ich spreche nicht Politique!BryanM wrote:The difference between social liberal capitalism and conservative liberal capitalism is if these things give you a boner, or make you cough and want to talk about anything else. Both are incredibly racist.
My honourable friend, is correct. Unfortunately, it is "the current year".BryanM wrote:Visible boners in public are just considered uncouth and a breach of acceptable decorum, by some.
Ed Oscuro wrote:supremacy
Ed Oscuro wrote:offensive
Ed Oscuro wrote:viciousness
Ed Oscuro wrote:racism
Ed Oscuro wrote:toxic
Ed Oscuro wrote:unwelcoming
Going back to this comment, and ignoring the pointless vulgarity - people want to play this game of not being held accountable for the things they advocate. They want to keep the border porous, they want to abolish ICE and in more extreme cases simply want open borders. So let's say we abolish ICE - then what? Here are some stats from ICE.Ed Oscuro wrote:believing the lie that Dems want their American girls to be raped by immigrants with hairy foreign dicks,
and get other countries to pay for your massive steel border wall?Rob wrote:people want to play this game of not being held accountable for the things they advocate. They want to keep the border porous, they want to abolish ICE,
Xyga wrote:Liar. I've known you only from latexmachomen.com and pantysniffers.org forums.chum wrote:the thing is that we actually go way back and have known each other on multiple websites, first clashing in a Naruto forum.
Please do get you facts from another source besides what Fox News says that Republicans say that Democrats say. Such exaggerated cry was born in response to the family separations at the border, and the majority of democrats don't actually want to dismantle ICE. Yes, some of them did say the agency should be abolished, but also called for a more humane immigration system in its place, as a response to Trump's now-reversed policies.Rob wrote:They want to keep the border porous, they want to abolish ICE and in more extreme cases simply want open borders. So let's say we abolish ICE - then what? Here are some stats from ICE.
You'll have to explain because I honestly don't get the connection.Durandal wrote:and get other countries to pay for your massive steel border wall?Rob wrote:people want to play this game of not being held accountable for the things they advocate. They want to keep the border porous, they want to abolish ICE,
You might have forgotten this one, but this is shmups forum. (This was in response to some people not being fans of ST Dragon's extermination policies.)Ed Oscuro wrote:No, I mean that this kind of talk used to get people on well-maintained 'net forums kicked out, because it's toxic and unwelcoming.
This isn't accurate. Or should I say, is currently "accurate", but in a very narrow pedantic way.and the majority of democrats don't actually want to dismantle ICE
When are we gonna bomb Mexico and steal their gold and women to moderately improve the fencing around our precious deserts of death?You'll have to explain because I honestly don't get the connection.
I hadn't counted, but (apparently) eleven mainstream Democrats have said out loud that they would like to abolish ICE including our rising star Ocasio-Cortez. Thanks for the fact check. Reminded me of this tweet:Specineff wrote:what Fox News says that Republicans say that Democrats say.
Yes, some of them did say the agency should be abolished,
There you go, a grand total of 11.
Ah, now it makes perfect sense - bombing Mexico. Thanks for the lucid thoughts as always.BryanM wrote:When are we gonna bomb Mexico and steal their gold and women to moderately improve the fencing around our precious deserts of death?
You're welcome. Now stop generalizing.Rob wrote:Thanks for the fact check.
I can find no evidence for your accusation, BryanM.BryanM wrote:You might have forgotten this one, but this is shmups forum. (This was in response to some people not being fans of ST Dragon's extermination policies.)
And for all the fear or cheers of joy of fascism being ascendent these days, the past 6 years hasn't been good or bad for Golden Dawn. They haven't grown at all - stuck at the same 6 to 7% they get every election.
... though maybe their party was too openly nazi. The slightly more successful "nationalist" groups in other countries got the message from liberalism that you have to keep the murder boner inside your pants.
I think it's more about avoiding the embarrassment of admitting that Tony Schwartz was right and "The Art of the Deal" was fictional, and therefore Rob was conned by a moron whose brilliant technique is just peppering his wild promises with superlatives (tremendous, beautiful, etc.) and ending them with "believe me."Specineff wrote:What kind of great offense do you feel will be avenged by a businessman getting the ransom he demands for holding the federal government hostage?
As opposed, of course, to the utterly ceaseless chorus of "political correctness run amok", "censorship", and white genocide, all of which are always made entirely in good faith and never as a frivolous, sensationalist distraction from the actual issue at hand.Zen wrote:I would put it to you, that what was said; that the "left" petulantly and reflexively cries "Nazi", at thought which differs from it's own, is more true today, than ever before.
Thought like "Jews will not replace us?"Zen wrote:I would put it to you, that what was said; that the "left" petulantly and reflexively cries "Nazi", at thought which differs from it's own, is more true today, than ever before.
Really?BulletMagnet wrote:As opposed, of course, to the utterly ceaseless chorus of "political correctness run amok", "censorship", and white genocide, all of which are always made entirely in good faith and never as a frivolous, sensationalist distraction from the actual issue at hand.Zen wrote:I would put it to you, that what was said; that the "left" petulantly and reflexively cries "Nazi", at thought which differs from it's own, is more true today, than ever before.
Are you referring to the dreaded Charlottesville SS- Diabeetus Division?Mischief Maker wrote:Thought like "Jews will not replace us?"Zen wrote:I would put it to you, that what was said; that the "left" petulantly and reflexively cries "Nazi", at thought which differs from it's own, is more true today, than ever before.
Pardon me, BulletMagnet but I have not engaged in deflection when confronted on this forum, or anywhere else for that matter. Ever.BulletMagnet wrote:Yup, I completely made all that stuff up out of thin air, it's totally not the unofficial refrain of "nationalists"every time they're confronted about anything, especially not on this very forum.
Consider me Owned!