Proto totalitarianism, the warning signs of an ideology’s totalitarian agenda (Page 2)

[MarketData]

Interesting take, but if you think the real threat to democracy comes from Antifa and feminists you fell for the misinformation and you're one of the sheeple.

[No_Archons]

obviously the threat originated overseas, mr. marx was not our friend, but antifa and feminism are products of cultural marxism, you understand this to be true, yes?

[MarketData]

@No_Archons Whatever you want to call them they are just part of the phoney liberal/conservative conflict. The real struggle is between the have and have nots, the ruling elite versus the people. Everything else is just a distraction.

[No_Archons]

Surre, but knowing the details does help. The left are the pawns ushering in totalitarian rule right now, and regardless of who is behind it, we need to shift public opinion so that we as a society dont beg to have our freedoms taken away even further by the manipulative elite.

[Waffles731]

Ann Coulter literally promotes Fascism
My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism.-Ann Coulter.

[ADFSDF1996]

Did she actually “promote fascism” or is it simply her political opponents taking things out of context?

[Waffles731]

No that's literally a quote of hers that says her libertarian friends are being pansies

[ADFSDF1996]

How does that correlate with fascism? Besides she’s not libertarian, she’s republican.

[Waffles731]

She literally said her libertarian friends do not understand the benefits of Fascism

[ADFSDF1996]

That quote is from 1997, it’s not like her views can’t change. Besides what if she was only joking?

[ADFSDF1996]

That quote is from “rational wiki” a notoriously liberal page.

[Waffles731]

No, its fron Wikiquote. The quote version of wikipedia

[ADFSDF1996]

Doesn’t hide the fact that it’s still a quote from 22 years ago. If she were truly a fascist, she would have been disavowed by the republicans long ago. Just like how Richard Spencer and Patrick Little were disavowed by the Republicans.

[Waffles731]

"If she were truly a fascist, she would have been disavowed by the republicans long ago." Yeah noz Steve King hasn't been disavowed

[ADFSDF1996]

The Republican Party disavowed him this year.

[Exterminatore]

I don’t think Anne is a fascist, unfortunately, though I wish she was. I however am.

[Waffles731]

Did they change your title, or was I just THAT drunk when I wrote this

[ADFSDF1996]

I don’t think they changed anything.

[Waffles731]

Then I must have beem REALLY drunk, If I was a complete ass I apologize

[ADFSDF1996]

No worries. It’s all good.

[Waffles731]

Cool, I don't usually get Political when I'm drunk, I'm generally a happy drunk so this whole thing was a little surprising

[goaded]

"The Republican Party disavowed [Steve King] this year."
He's been an elected Republican politician since 1996 (23 years), and still is; he was just removed from his committee assignments, not the party.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded And that’s a step forward.

[goaded]

A small one, yes. Another Republican, Peter King, only stopped supporting the IRA after 9/11 (when it became illegal to support terrorist organisations). The IRA killed "over 1,700 people". He's still a Republican politician.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded Non sequitur

[Waffles731]

@goaded The IRA is a tricky thing, I agree wholeheartedly with their goals, its their Methods I can't stand and even some of them, such as the killing of Lord Mountbatten i will argue was justified.
And the British Army did all sorts of even worse shit in Northern Ireland up to and including concentration camps with operation Demetrius and the British army killed even more civlians than the IRA now if I was a still a catholic, and was living in Northern Ireland at the time and I see my best friend Joe Hauled off to a concetration camp and I hear my dad talk about rhe War of Independence and the Easter Rising, I'm going to be inclined to take my Dad's.45 and shoot the nearest British soldier

[goaded]

Killing soldiers is one thing (even if they're at a purely ceremonial occasion, like en.wikipedia.org/.../Hyde_Park_and_Regent%27s_Park_bombings), but killing civilians is another.

[Waffles731]

@goaded yet the British did that too with their soldiers (and again they killed more Civilians than the IRA) but they also funded Protestant Terror groups

[Waffles731]

@goaded no side in the conflict is remotely clean

[goaded]

True, but one of my sister's friends was hit by glass shards from an IRA bomb. History's full of bad decisions.

[Lliam]

@goaded , how many innocent people were injured or killed by the Orange Order and their ilk?

[Smegskull]

This would be way more impactful if you decontextualised it from feminism/antifa/etc. I get that they are prime examples of this but it just comes across as finger pointing and detracts from the point.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Meh. Just regular Right-wing rantings.

The one point I take particular exception to: you don't get to deny scientific facts that don't fit your worldview and go accuse others of politicizing science. Reality doesn't work like that, son.

[ADFSDF1996]

@HungLikeAHorsefly Congratulations on proving my point. May I remind you that you get to promote opinions as facts.

Do you even know what an appeal to authority is boy?

[ADFSDF1996]

*you don’t get to promote opinions as facts.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Yep. I know what an ad hominem is too, little guy. I'm impress you're familiar with informal fallacies at all, though. Very impressed. Didn't think folks like yourself were capable of that level of critical thinking.

You're right though. I don't get to promote opinions as facts. Fortunately for me, there is overwhelming evidence for damn near every one of the scientific truths Conservatives choose to deny. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

*impressed

[ADFSDF1996]

@HungLikeAHorsefly Once again you prove my points. And almost all of the so called “scientific facts” you liberals like to promote are nothing more than pseudoscience. Numbers 1, 2, 9, 10, 15 and 16 on this list describe your premise very well,

It’s ironic how you claim I can’t think critically when I can say the same to you considering that you are too focused on looking for flaws in arguments you disagree with but fail to look at the flaws on your side.

Believe it or not, I use to be moderate liberal, until I actually started to think critically and notice that liberalism was not what I thought it was.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Well, I mean, when we're talking about man-made climate change, the Theory of Evolution, the efficacy of vaccines, the scientific definition of gender vs. biological sex, and many other issues... Conservatives ignore scientific fact in favor of opinions that validate their own worldview. Whereas Liberals are usually in agreement with the scientific community. Usually.

But, what do I know? I've just been a scientist for the past 25 years. Oops, I guess that's an appeal to authority again.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Zero evidence + no knowledge of scientific principles = science
More evidence than we know what to do with + thousands of experts in agreement = pseudoscience

Am I right?

[ADFSDF1996]

@HungLikeAHorsefly Making up all sorts of gender identities is not Scientific in nature but rather a matter of “political correctness”. If a person wants to identify as an alien, are they suddenly an alien?

Not all conservatives deny evolution, and not all liberals believe in Evolution. www.washingtonpost.com/.../

There are both liberal and conservative antivaxxers. Although it’s usually liberals who are anti vaxxers. www.realclearscience.com/.../...accine_108905.html

There are conservatives who are environmentalists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_conservatism

Liberals are actually the ones who tend to use an appeal to authority when the science in question appeals to them, not when it opposes them. Ask yourself, why did the liberals go silent when this discovery was made? www.sciencedaily.com/.../170504104342.htm

That’s the problem with using false dichotomies, it leaves out so many variables.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I'm well aware that individuals believe in different things, regardless of their political identity. However, acknowledging that gender and biological sex are different concepts is very much a valid scientific point of view. That's something that biologists, psychologists and those in the social sciences largely agree on. I know there's a narrative that gender not being the same as sex goes against biology, but unfortunately the majority of biologists (the people who define what is and what isn't biological in nature) don't agree with that viewpoint.

Here's the actual study the article in the link you posted refers to. You'll notice something: there's not one single reference to the words "man", "woman" or "gender". Why? The biological science doesn't deal with gender. They deal with sex. Which is, coincidentally why the word "sex" appears 176 times.

bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/.../s12915-017-0352-z

So, why were Liberals silent? Because this article has nothing to do with gender. It's about biological sex. Which scientifically literate people understand.

Now, about the rest of the issues:
- Yes, there are some Conservatives who are environmentalists. And it's Conservatives who are rolling back laws protecting the environment. It's Conservatives who defund environmental research. It's Conservatives who constantly claim climate change is a natural cycle and not caused by humans (we know it's not a natural cycle).

- It's Conservatives, not Liberals, who have been trying for decades to get the Theory of Evolution removed from standard curriculum in primary schools across the country. It's Conservatives that attempt to pressure museums into teaching "Intelligent Design" and even Creationism as being equivalent scientific theories to Evolution (they aren't scientific at all).

[ADFSDF1996]

Science isn’t one big happy family, not every scientist agrees with one another. Each scientist brings something to the table, it may or may not be accepted but even if it’s only partially accepted, doesn’t mean it’s “unscientific” because new discoveries can prove it’s credibility. Likewise just because something is accepted as true doesn’t mean it will always be true, since new discoveries can debunk it.

Bias is another problem within the science community, as I’ve pointed out in number 3 on this list. And biases within science can have catastrophic effects for a society, when politically driven science can is used by the wrong people to cause harm. And that can taint the reputation of the science community.

I’ve talked about how a person can be credible within the science community here. How to be credible and gain respect in the science community ↗

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Of course there's bias. Scientists are human after all. And of course they don't always agree. Even on well understood topics, there are always a few dissenters.

On these topics, however, the vast majority of experts in the relevant fields agree. About 97% of all climate scientists *in the world* agree we've got global climate change caused by humans. That's about 1,600 scientists in agreement, with only about 50 dissenters. On the topic of the Theory of Evolution, there's even more consensus. Even more on vaccinations. And so on. It's not like it's a raging debate - these things are considered facts, with a few wingnuts in the balcony saying otherwise. But even then, you'll find that the dissenters rarely say the whole concept is bogus - they often just have very specific issues with a few parts of it.

Yet, our Conservative politicians choose to ignore all of this, while Liberals typically don't (except, as you pointed out, on the issue of vaccinations). That'd be fine and dandy if they didn't then go and make public policy based on this misinterpretation of science.

[ADFSDF1996]

Again it’s not as simple as it being liberals vs conservatives, there are many other groups of people you’re leaving out of the equation.

Plus Assuming that all of the 97% of scientists who believe in man made climate change are liberal is a hasty generalization because you obviously don’t know the political views of every scientist on that side of the argument.

And to assume that a person is against evolution just because they are conservative is a sweeping generalization. www.google.com/.../...epting-of-evolution.amp.html

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Again, I'm not saying all scientists are Liberals, and I'm not assuming all Conservatives are Creationists. I'm not saying 97% of climate scientists who *know for a fact* humans influence climate change are Liberals (although most of them are). Your argument is a straw man.

What I am saying is this: regardless of whether or not all Conservatives are Creationists, it's Conservative politicians who have been trying to get Creationism taught *as a scientific theory* in public schools for decades. Not Liberals. And, it's Conservative politicians - including the Trump administration - who ignore the scientific community when making environmental policy. Not Liberals.

You are right about the anti-vaccine thing, though. Liberals are all over that. SMDH

[ADFSDF1996]

Then you understand that politics aren’t as simple as “A or B”.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Of course. Basically nothing in life is as simple as A or B.

The problem comes into play when the vast majority of experts in a field are in agreement about an issue and politicians choose to do the opposite for no other reason than the fact that it conflicts with their beliefs. Such as:

- Nearly all biologists consider the Theory of Evolution to be scientific fact. And Conservatives push an anti-evolution agenda at the State and Federal levels because the Bible says otherwise.

- Nearly all meteorologists, climate scientists and planetary scientists consider it a fact that we are in an unprecedented period of global climate change and it's caused by humans. Yet Conservatives openly deny it and push an agenda of widespread deregulation of environmental standards.

- The vast majority of psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and biologists consider sex and gender to be two completely different things. Yet Conservatives claim otherwise because it doesn't fit with their worldview. They even go so far as to claim biology supports their position when most biologists wholeheartedly reject it.

So no not everybody is the same in terms of political ideology - there are Liberals who are anti-science and there are Conservatives who are pro-science... but by and large it's the Conservatives who are putting an anti-science agenda into practice with our national and state level public policy.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

And if Conservatives understood that these are very complex issues with nuances - they are, after all - then we'd see a different rhetoric. Instead of saying sex and gender are very complex concepts that are interrelated, with evidence that gender is strongly influenced by biological sex, just not in all cases... we instead get "biology says there are only two genders".

Instead of acknowledging that there are issues with the state of the science with global climate change - how we know it's happening but we don't know the extent or severity... we instead get "it's just a natural cycle".

No, if Conservatives truly understood science, the public debate on these issues would be radically different.

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) There are many people within the Christian communities that accept evolution. And not every conservative is religiou
2.)

3.) The concept of gender is a rather new issue because we don’t know much about the human mind yet. But most people within psychiatry, psychology and sociology agree that Gender has to do with a person’s role in society. Whether they are masculine or feminine. It has nothing to do with biology but rather psychology.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gkONHNXGfaM

3.) Again that’s a false dichotomy because it leaves out libertarians, independents, moderates and other political ideologies. It’s not as simple as making it Conservative (republican) vs liberal (Democrat).

There are always new things to be discovered. Just because something is accepted as truth now, doesn’t mean it can’t be debunked in the future when new discoveries are made. And in some cases the truth can be inbetween. Even one of the most fanatical atheists can think critically. www.google.com/.../amp

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Again, I know there are Christian communities that support evolution, and that not every Conservative is religious. However, the Christian communities that do not support evolution are much greater in number and influence Conservative politicians to enact public policy according to their wishes. And those wishes reject scientific fact that doesn't agree with their beliefs.

So, while not all Conservatives agree, it doesn't change the fact that Republicans are nearly always the ones attempting (and in a lot of cases, succeeding) in implementing anti-science public policy.

And while the state of scientific thought is always changing and new facts do arise, rejecting what is now considered to be scientific fact is just a convenient way to dismiss evidence based reasoning in favor of opinion.

[ADFSDF1996]

Skepticism and critical thinking in science does not imply an unscientific ideology. Outright rejecting an official science as a whole is unscientific.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I agree. And when skeptics misapply scientific principles in arguments against widely held scientific consensus - like, say, how the Greenhouse Effect violates the second law of thermodynamics - what should we call that?

[ADFSDF1996]

Denying the obvious doesn’t count as skepticism. Do we call “flat Earthers” skeptics?

Skepticism is used in debates where the truth isn’t known. For example “are aliens real or not real?” Doubting they are real is valid skepticism because it’s not denying the obvious. If we ever find out the answer and people on either side of the debate, stubbornly claim the opposite then that’s ino longer skepticism but rather denial.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Is it skepticism when someone rejects a scientific principle based on a misunderstanding of that scientific principle? Or of other science that surrounds that issue?

For example, when "skeptics" say the period of climate change we're in is a natural phenomenon or that our concept of global warming violates the second law of thermodynamics... but their version of the second law isn't accurate and climatologists know it's not a natural cycle because that's literally the first thing they checked and they have truckloads of evidence to prove it isn't... is that skepticism?

When people say Creationism and Intelligent Design are equivalent to Evolution as scientific theories, even though neither meet the well established rubric that defines what a scientific theory is and are completely devoid of evidence... is that skepticism?

When people say there aren't more than two genders because biology says otherwise... but biology does not say otherwise... is that skepticism?

[ADFSDF1996]

Skepticism is synonymous with doubt.

Pigheadedness is synonymous with stubbornness.

Attaching the word “science” behind something does not always mean that it’s scientific in nature because it can also be pseudoscience guarded by an appeal to authority. That’s where skepticism comes into play.

In biology it’s a fact that there are only two distinct sexes, there’s no arguing that. But that doesn’t stop a certain group of people from pushing the pseudoscientific idea that they are “one and the same”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wL0O-Uz9hgI

[StraightOuttaHades]

You are clueless.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

It is a fact that there are only two biological sexes (barring the fact that combinations of chromosomes other than XX and XY are much more common than most people think). And it's also a fact that gender and biological sex aren't the same thing. Biology has nothing to say about gender, other than it's influenced by biological sex. The idea that sex and gender are synonymous is pseudoscience, not the other way around.

[StraightOuttaHades]

Only sex and gender was always the same thing until liberals wanted to push the tranny agenda can't you see that?

[ADFSDF1996]

@HungLikeAHorsefly So you’re telling me that it’s okay to include made up genders on medical forms?

You do realize that there are sex specific diseases. en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Sex_differences_in_medicine

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I'm saying that gender and sex aren't the same thing. That doesn't mean I think people should be able to make up genders. And the fact that there are sex-specific diseases has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.

[ADFSDF1996]

It has everything to do with the discussion, A person deceiving doctors by selecting the biological sex on a medical form that the person isn’t, can cause a doctor to accidentally give the wrong medicine to the person.

Aa for people who make up genders, it happens. Even when it comes to gender, there are only two genders, male and female. The rest are made up or incorrectly labeled as genders.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Well, I don't know how it is where you live but around here (on the West Coast), forms at doctor's offices differentiate between gender and sex. As well they should. And if those forms didn't differentiate, it's clear to most rational adults that many people do conflate gender and sex; it's up to the individual to recognize when this happens and act accordingly. I mean, if I knowingly give inaccurate information to a doctor then I shouldn't be surprised when they mistreat me.

To say it a different way: if you're trans then you should know that intake forms at a doctor's office refer to biological sex, not your gender. Even if they say "gender". Which they probably won't.

"Male" and "female" are sexes - not genders. "Man" and "woman" are genders. They usually, but not always, refer to males and females (respectively). This is why it's rare to find the terms "man/men" and "woman/women" in biological journals, and the terms "male" and "female" in psychological/psychiatric/sociological journals.

[ADFSDF1996]

Then you understand that there are only two genders and two sexes.

I don’t know what “trans” people put on their medical forms but there are several cases of people scratching out the two options and putting their “gender identity” instead of their biological sex.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Yeah, I think there are only two genders and only two sexes. I do understand that precisely which one may be ambiguous to some, which leads to attempts to define additional labels that fall somewhere in between man and woman. I wouldn't exactly call those "genders", though.

Scratching off sex to put in your gender identity at a doctor's office is just dumb.

[alvincasey]

Thank you for admitting you are a fascist in your comments.
I had a feeling you were after a paragraph or two into your mytake. You should have included that in the beginning just to frame it correctly for everyone.

[ADFSDF1996]

Dude, grow up and quit embarrassing yourself. Point out where I admitted to being a “fascist”.

[alvincasey]

My bad, that was to your butt buddy "exterminatore". Which you had no problem with an admitted fascist.

[alvincasey]

Everything you mentioned fits the Trump supporters/evangelicals/KKK members perfectly.
Fuck ANTIFA. They are an extreme group that happens to agree with the left

[alvincasey]

That was an entertaining propaganda video. Its sad test the group that has traditionally had all the power gout think they are the victims now😀

[ADFSDF1996]

*Cough cough

[Logorithim]

Excellent and cogent analysis

[jacquesvol]

[ADFSDF1996]

I doubt you read it all in 3 minutes.

[goaded]

I doubt he had to.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded He has to.

[Steffy33]

I always thought it funny when I find out that people actually think like that and they are not joking either

[ADFSDF1996]

Think in which way?

[Steffy33]

See the above post to which my answer was posted

[ADFSDF1996]

You mean what I wrote?

[Steffy33]

Bingo wise wizard

[ADFSDF1996]

@Steffy33 It’s usually ignorance that causes people to think it’s funny. Don’t feel bad though, you aren’t alone.

[HereIbe]

We get it, you're a right-wing totalitarian who is trying to tell the world that all totalitarians are leftists.

You're still just another totalitarian piece of shit.

[ADFSDF1996]

Ad hominems and hasty generalizations aren’t valid arguments.

[HereIbe]

You mean, like the hasty generalizations you used to ONLY portray the left as totalitarian, Herr Hitler? Or are you more Signore Mussolini or Senor Franco?

[ADFSDF1996]

Reductio ad hitlerum


Should I start calling you comrade Stalin?

[HereIbe]

You inbred moron, I didn't say you were Hitler, I asked WHICH right-wing totalitarian style you were part of. So, which is it, you product of 100 generations of brother-sister incest?

[ADFSDF1996]

Now you are going to lie? Read your last reply before spouting more drivel. And your continuing to making hasty generalizations and as hominems? Not very smart are you?

[HereIbe]

Oh, dear, the nasty little fascist is still butthurt.

[ADFSDF1996]

That’s funny coming from someone who keeps throwing around insults.

[Secretgardenblood]

Good take

[Britantic]

Good take and a deserved thumbs up

[Thatsamazing]

Oh honey. You're special.

[StraightOuttaHades]

You are a total moron and that is a fact.

[Thatsamazing]

@StraightOuttaHades Ahahaha that's nice, champ.

[Thatsamazing]

@StraightOuttaHades Also, this seems tragically very relevant for you, all of a sudden: Blocking someone who disagrees with you means you're stupid. ↗

[StraightOuttaHades]

No it means that since everything you say on here is backwards liberal logic i cannot entertain speaking to someone with such a low IQ so you have to be blocked

[Thatsamazing]

@StraightOuttaHades You must have a problem clicking on links. See, what you want to do is, see the little arrow on your computer screen? Or if you're on your phone, just poke it with your finger? Here you go buddy, since you missed it the first time, champ. Blocking someone who disagrees with you means you're stupid. ↗

I assume you know how to read, but perhaps I shouldn't?

[NoToriousROB]

Let’s thank socialism for that