Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
A hypothetical dystopian scenario of a world dominated by radical left wing totalitarianism (Page 3)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
58Opinion
This is like never gonna happen. Having a left-wing totalitarian state is so much better than right-wing totalitarian state. I mean that’s why all the axis powers lost the war in WW2
Wouldn’t wouldn’t be better to have neither totalitarian state?
@Girther10 yeah none would be good and I mean, that's where we kind of are right now.
@saeyamasaki
While both types of states are bad. Totalitarian Left wing states have committed far more atrocities than totalitarian right wing states.
... Are you like... stupid? Wow, have you ever heard of the Holocaust or any German-occupied Europe genocides. Those were all caused by Right-Wingers.
@saeyamazaki Have you ever heard of the holodomor, the great purge, the Great Leap Forward, pol pot’s genocide and all the other genocides and atrocities committed by totalitarian radical left wing regimes?
How about you go do your research before calling people stupid, when it’s you who seems very clueless and naive.
Okay, if you count the number of genocides or atrocities committed by left-wings vs right wings. Right wing would be more. If you count the death toll, right wing will be more by far.
@saeyamazaki Statistically, the communists killed a lot more. It’s common sense, there were more communist nations than there were totalitarian right wing nations.
But are you seriously trying to defend radical left wing totalitarianism? It doesn’t matter on what side of the political spectrum a regime is, totalitarianism is totalitarianism and it’s evil.
It's not that I'm trying to defend totalitarian states, gosh.
@saeyamazaki- where is this “where we kind of are” that you speak of?
Uhhhhhh... you do realize the Nazi regime, despite having the name "national socialist party" was, in fact, a right wing fascist regime. So, right there, the souls of 6 million jews would beg to differ
@siccorro- Uhhhh... why do you conveniently leave out who exactly , you are addressing? No one responds to you bc they don’t know who you’re talking to, besides thinking you make no sense anyway so why even bother.
@saeyamazaki- the first words the author writes is to declare this is hypothetical. Why would you think he, or anyone else thinks this will happen? And it does seem like yourdefending your totalitarian views, and acting like you prefer it.
Gosh.
Just be aware, people are taught to think a certain way from day one, like brainwashing, if you don't question your beliefs and the world we live in, people won't begin to learn the truths
Can I ask you some question about this?
I think it's funny that conservatives eat up the works of a card carrying socialist and twist it around.
Here's the thing guts, Orwell was a socialist. He fought for the socialists in Spain against an established conservative government run by fascists.
Anyways, I worry about you guys, get help. This is early onset paranoid delusional behavior.
@BearTwoEight Typical liberal making baseless assumptions instead of forming an valid argument.
And congratulations you just proved many of my points right by using psychiatry as a political weapon.
@BearTwoEight And I know Orwell was a socialist but the difference betweeen him and other socialists is that he was a critical thinker who acknowledged that his political ideology could go wrong. That’s why his book “1984” is about a radical left wing regime modelled after Stalin’s Soviet Union. He was also very critical of Stalinism.
Orwell didn’t let his political ideology cloud his logic, can you say the same about yourself?
By the way, I don’t consider myself a conservative. I’m politically independent but registered as libertarian.
You sound insecure and unstable, but that's cool.
@BearTwoEight Look at you, you can’t even form a valid argument.
Ad hominems are not valid arguments pal.
I think you need to relax and go outside for a bit. Your delusions are making you aggressive.
@BearTwoEight You sound like a typical shrink making baseless assumptions about people.
Grow up and act your age. You’re 39 years old.
Grow up? Says the delusional guy ranting and raving and flinging insults.
@BearTwoEight I’m not the one that’s exhibiting signs of passive aggressiveness, denial, bias and fallacious rhetoric. That’s all you buddy.
You’re just upset since this article struck a nerve and you don’t have any valid counter arguments.
@ADFSDF1996
1984 is not about a socialist government. It certainly has socialist aspects but it is largely a conservative world if you read the book.
The easiest way to tell is by looking at big brother itself. Big Brother is described as a collection of the wealthy 1% of people who horde goods and services from the public. Big Brother wants no type of changes made to society, does not want to distribute power outside their circle, regularly incites war, and makes sex a moral crime which the government controls. Big Brother also hates both Communists and Fascists but especially Communists.
Now you could call it somewhat socialist because, as far as I remember, double think and the thought police arrest those who speak against the government. Though the counter argument to that is every oligarchy has done that from communist rulers to theocratic leaders.
@Hypnos0929 In the book 1984, the world is divided into 3 super states. Oceania is a totalitarian oligarchy, Eurasia is communist and EastAsia is an unknown totalitarian ideology.
George Orwell’s 1984 was critical of totalitarianism as a whole, regardless of what type of regime is in question. He was specifically critical of Stalinism and fascism.
Well it could be worse. The right wing extremists could take over.
Not realistic or relevant to the current political climate. And I disagree, radical left wingers are a lot worse.
Bruh it is VERY relevant to the current political climate. You nazi's are trying to destroy everything.
So everyone you disagree with is a Nazi?
Nope just the right wing extremists.
Oh, so everyone who disagrees with you is a “right wing extremist”?
"Not realistic or relevant" just like this question in general lol. Why do you think left wing totalitarian is more likely? Historically, fascist/right wing totalitarian regimes have been more common than communist/left wing totalitarian ones.
I find it ironic that a guy who looks exactly like Oswald Mosley is worried about totalitarianism.
LOL, that’s not me in the profile picture. That’s George Orwell. He was a socialist but he was also critical of his own ideology because he knew it was prone to totalitarianism.
Damn, I knew he looked familiar. George Orwell was pretty righteous!
Of course you know all Orwell's observations of the extreme left can equally be applied to the extreme right. It's a false dichotomy in fact.
How are we not doomed over the next 5-10 years especially since people were basically tricked into this?
“When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”
"Pseudoscience would slow the advancement of science"
This from the people exiting the Paris agreement.
"Decrease of life expectancy"
Universal health care extends life expectancy. If people aren't dying at birth or of toothache, they're living longer!
Fascism is a dead ideology, it was crushed by the end of WWII. It merely exists in fragments now, so that argument is invalid.
And there are differences between a regular left winger (moderate liberal) and radical left winger (communist).
And yes radical left wingers frequently spout pseudoscience, don’t act like they don’t.
"radical left wingers frequently spout pseudoscience" Examples?
We’ve discussed this before. Radical left wingers promote the following pseudoscientific ideas.
1.) The idea there is more than two genders
2.) Denying that iq is real
3.) Using psychiatry and psychology as political weapons
4.) Denying biological differences between males and females.
5.) Claiming that nobody is 100% straight
1.) The idea there is more than two genders
Some things you may not know about Transgenderism! ↗
2.) Denying that iq is real
Never happened. That it's not useful, not constant, and harmful when used to justify racism (despite the massive overlap in scores), yes.
3.) Using psychiatry and psychology as political weapons
I'm not sure what you're saying, here, but saying things simply, loudly and repeatedly is a psychological tool that's clearly being used by the current president daily.
4.) Denying biological differences between males and females.
Never happened. Accepting that it's not black-and-white, and that there's a lot of overlap is not the same thing.
5.) Claiming that nobody is 100% straight
I've never even heard that one.
Are these supposed to be somehow on the level of climate change denial?
@goaded What is it with you liberals and equating everything you don’t agree with to “climate change denial”. Just because you’ve never heard of them doesn’t mean they aren’t real. It’s your confirmation bias showing.
thefederalist.com/.../
www.google.com/.../
wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/.../researchers-identify-6500-genes-are-expressed-differently-men-and-women
quillette.com/.../
I guess I'm not a radical leftist, because I think the Savin-Williams (nobody is 100% heterosexual) research is hokum; it seems to equate pupil dilation with arousal, when it seems to me that the same thing would happen for shock.
The federalist article is a bit of a slippery-slope argument (professionals pointing out that the president is unfit for office is not the same as them having the power to lock people away forever). But, yes, it's not totally without foundation. Where's the pseudo-science part of it, though? Psychiatry as a whole?
I've discussed the 6500 genes article on here before, the question then becomes: how many of those genes can express themselves as the opposite sex before you'd be classified as that sex? There have to be people where some of those genes are expressed one way and the others the other.
The gender/women's sports thing is a problem, especially with the latest craze for pretending to identify as female for a day to win a competition. They're really identifying as assholes. Maybe if you lost the award as soon as you changed gender again.
1.) So we agree that the study that claims nobody is 100% straight” is nonsense.
2.) There is no slippery slope in the federalist article, it’s simply pointing out how psychiatry is being used as a political weapon by the liberals. Tell me, why don’t you call it a slippery slope when the liberals were calling Trump the next “Adolf Hitler” back in 2016?
3.) The main thing that determines a person’s sex is their chromosomes, those 6,000+ genes are determined by the chromosomes.
4.) So we agree that male athletes and female athletes should be kept in their own divisions regardless of who the athletes like to pretend they are.
1. Yes.
2. It's a long way from "he's showing symptoms of X, Y, and Z mental issues", to "he disagrees with me, lock him up". As for saying he's the next Hitler, you and I weren't discussing it, then! I think we can both agree that neither end is desirable.
3. Yes, but there's a lot of fluidity, some people don't fit into either category you can come up with.
4. Yes, if they're pretending. There's a huge difference between someone who's lived as a woman all her life and someone who is just trolling. It's early days, yet, it will get sorted out.
2.) Making baseless assumptions without getting to know the person personally is fallacious. That’s why behavioral sciences like Psychiatry and psychology have such a negative reputation. Not to mention that many times mental health professionals misdiagnose people as well. Just look at that psychiatrist that was fooled into thinking Jared Lethe was mentally ill when he faked retirement.
3.) There is no fluidity when it comes to biologically assigned sex. People who have chromosomal disorders are suffering from syndromes and those are rare.
I don't know who Jared Lethe is.
"There is no fluidity when it comes to biologically assigned sex. People who have chromosomal disorders are suffering from syndromes and those are rare."
www.wikilectures.eu/.../Disorders_of_the_Sex_Chromosomes
"incidence of about 1:400–500"
That would mean about 200 in my local town.
Again chromosomal disorders are just that, disorders. They are not traits like Black hair, hazel eyes, fair skin etc. chromosomal disorders are mishaps.
That may be, but they're fairly common, and the people with them are still people, no?
Nobody is saying that they aren’t people but it’s illogical and immoral to use their chromosomal disorders as a basis of promoting the pseudoscientific idea of there being more than 2 genders and sexes.
Well, if a proportion of people don't fit your definition of male/female, then what are they? And that's not the only situation where a binary choice doesn't make sense; like I reported in my take, some people have brains that are structured in a way that doesn't match their bodies, there's also nothing they can do about that, and it's not necessarily genetic.
I don't see what you gain by insisting gender and sex are black and white when there are a lot of shades of grey.
It’s a well established fact that there only two sexes and two genders to match those two sexes. What you are arguing has no basis in scientific fact. Any other so called “fluidity” is individual personality.
Even people who suffer from chromosomal disorders/syndromes still identify as either male or female. People born with Hermaphroditism can choose to identify as either male female or hermaphrodites.
It's a well established convention, not a fact, and do the hermaphrodites get to choose every morning, or only once, and at what age?
@goaded. I think Goaded the obvious issue is that his definition of being conservative is extremely narrow. But his definition of being a radical leftist is extremely wide. So if you believe in gun ownership, but you are gay. You are still a radical leftist. If you are “Black” and support BLM, but you blame Mexican immigrants for stealing your job you are still a radical leftist. If you are Dominican and believe you are racially “White”, but think you should be allowed to immigrate to the U. S. you are still a radical leftist. One issue he dislikes makes you a radical leftist. But to be a conservative in his eyes you must complete a check list a hundred issues long. Whereas trump who only became a republican a few years back literally defines what is or is not conservative now.
@RolandCuthbert I think you're right, and thinking that way leads to the idea that you're in an oppressed minority, because nearly everyone disagrees with you on some minor point, even if they agree with you overall.
It has always been interesting when you think about these guys who are pseudo conservatives. Because they apply this all or nothing approach in certain situations for the effectiveness of their political argument. When we all know the supposed “left” has never been organized which is why I stop voting dem when I was young. Because it was simply a mess. The republicans, well before the trump era, were always the ones who were on message. They were fell in line, they stood for something.
Well those were the good old days. Or so I thought.
Is this one of those Nazi posts?
It is.
You're implying that Germany wouldn't be orchestrating this
It would not function very long... It will collapse under its own weight of end decisions
You’re making sense
Just like The Big Brother. They're completely under mind control
If you don't think our current right wing regime is a bigger threat to democracy than this fantasy... Then you truly have swallowed the kool-aid
@MrHealthyHabits Typical delusional left wing propaganda, labeling everyone they don’t agree with as autocrats, fascists or Nazis.
If we truly had a so called “right wing regime” you wouldn’t even be allowed to make those bold claims in person or online. You far left wing folks sure like to take things for granted and aren’t appreciative of the rights and liberties you have as US citizens.
I... Get the feeling that this is not worth continuing, you should probably seek professional help and I'm not even trying to be a smart ass when I say this...
How many times can someone contridict themselves in one post? I thought it was the left who was going to surpress my civil liberties...
Face it, you guys elected a traitor whose sold you out to the commies.
@MrHealthyHabits What is it with you liberals using psychiatry as a political weapon. “Get professional help” Cliche liberal logic whenever they can’t form any valid counter arguments. Yet you people wonder why psychiatry has such a well deserved negative reputation.
Not to mention that you are also using Red herring, straw man and a appeal to the stone to argue.
@MrHealthyHabits if anyone needs to “get professional help” it’s you, since you are spouting all sorts of pseudo intellectual delusional liberal conspiracy theories.
And you are also putting words in my mouth. I never contradicted myself, you are arguing just for the sake of arguing because this post struck a nerve and you don’t have any valid counter arguments so you resort to fallacious rhetoric.
But I also have to wonder if you even thoroughly read the whole post or if you just skimmed through it.
The irony is strong with this one...
Pseudo intellectual conspiracy theories... You mean like your whole entire "article"? Red herring, straw man... You mean like this whole radical left wing boogeyman you've created within your own delusions?
No one is out to get you, so stop trying to envision some type of false reality where you fantasize yourself as the victim to a left wing boogeyman that doesn't exist...
@MrHealthyHabits It’s funny how you are copying everything I say because you don’t have any counter arguments of your own.
You are using a red herring by ignoring everything I’ve said on this post, probably because you didn’t read my whole article.
You are using a straw man by taking things out of context by assuming that I’m talking about a conspiracy theory. When ironically it’s you who’s spouting off about a right wing-Communist conspiracy theory which makes no sense at all.
You are using an appeal to the stone by not providing any valid counter arguments. Your Insults and condescending demeanor are not valid counter a arguments buddy. They just diminish your credibility.
im sure its in the works , i like to think the people would rise against it..
I lost it at " heterophobia" and I was already skimming.
Laughable.
@Gods_Gift Typical liberal who can’t put biases aside.
Don't make assumptions about my politics!
And people could have the opposite politics to me but not be prey to the kind of illusions and conceits you show in your description.
One thing I will say in your favour is you have a vivid imagination. 😉
As hominems are not valid arguments buddy. You are almost 50 yet you are acting like an immature teenager, grow up.
Nobody thought took the Nazis seriously either until they started rounding up people.
“Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
You're so full of clichés!
The as hominem point is only relevant if I'm supposed to be making a proper argument against what you're saying. My whole point is, I don't feel I need to.
Wrong...
An ad hominem is basically insulting a person rather than the person’s argument, which is what you are doing.
I never denied it, I just explained why I was doing it.
It doesn’t matter, it’s still an invalid argument.
Are you seriously trying to justify your usage of a fallacy?
IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT AT ALL!
So basically you are just throwing insults since you don’t have any valid counter arguments.
I think the main problem is it's too long to read and especially to critique. It doesn't seem worth the effort because at first glance there seem to be some glaring errors and illusions that make the situation hopeless.
@Gods_Gift Ah So there it is, you basically acknowledged that you didn’t even read it. But then again that also sounds like an excuse as to you being unable to form any valid counter arguments.
Oh I read plenty of it. I based my judgement on those bits I did read. There's nothing from the title or subject matter alone which indicates what quality the ideas are going to have, I wouldn't judge just on that basis.
I've now read the whole thing, carefully, from beginning to end. So if you're still interested we could discuss the positives and negatives. :)
Let’s see what counter arguments you have.
OK I'm going to start with a small thing. I really don't think there'll be a YouTube in 2086. Not because climate disaster or nuclear war will necessarily have killed it off, along with the internet in general, so much as because things like currently fashionable websites change quite quickly, and IT and internet features change extremely quickly.
Now of course you could say, well maybe the events of your scenario happen sooner, or maybe it's not called YouTube but it serves the same purpose. My point however is that you're projecting a lot from our time 67 years into the future, with no reflection that everything will have changed far too much by that point. You can consider your scenario a relevant science fictional dystopia, as long as we treat the set date as merely indicative.
Even if YouTube is not around anymore by 2086 does not mean a similar website wouldn’t take it’s place.
For example Google, yahoo, bing, dogpile, DuckDuckGo all taking the place of search engines from the 1990s.
Funny, most totalitarian dictatorships are right wing. But this daydream of yours is darling!
@OddBeMe
That’s were you are wrong. Most regimes are actually left wing
Stalin
Ceaucescu
Mao
Tito
Honecker
Obote
Pot
Castro
Sung
Chavez
And the list goes on an on, it’s you who is daydreaming pal. Spouting radical left wing propaganda.
@asker @ADFSDF1996 now make a list of right wing dictators and compare them.
Hitler
Mussolini
Franco
Melosevic
Hirohito
Duterte
All of Middle East
Pinochet
(Rest of Latin America)
I would argue Stalin and Mao had a cult of personality regime, which makes it more right wing...
@OddBeMe
en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Communist_state
So basically 1984 lol
1984 was a critique of authoritarianism and advocated for socialism as the answer to it...
@SirRexington is that considered canon or just one interpretation? It was def a critique of authoritarianism, but I've read it 3 times and never got "pro-socialism" message from it.
Dude... the entire book is literally a nod to how a movement can be taken over and stray from what it initially intended. It deviates and loses more and more of what it was supposed to represent. It became the thing it hates. Ingsoc, the sole party in the book, was supposed to be a socialist party much like the Bolsheviks. But like the Bolsheviks, it devolved away from socialism and became s product of it's own power and quest for control to assert an outcome. The critique is that if we don't keep in check not just the outcome we strive for but the path to getting there, then we lose sight of what we seek in the first place.
@SirRexington I don't see how that makes it pro-socialist, since its whole premise is that this utopian ideal invariably descended into authoritarianism and 'doublespeak' and 'thoughtcrime'. That said, I appreciate you taking the time to expand on your reasoning; I think we just interpret the text differently, which is what truly challenging works of art do long after their release. It's definitely a cautionary tale about letting the worse aspects of human nature run the show in service of a supposedly "noble" goal, that much I agree with you on. My interpretation is more that Ingsoc became what it did BECAUSE of it's idealised outcomes, not in spite of them. Although I always equated it more as a parallel with Soviet communism rather than the kind of socialism/ reformation that, say, the most staunch Corbynite might advocate for. Maybe I'm missing some historical context behind the book's inception, but that's just what I took from it.
Libertarianism cares for the environment. You're just a biased asshole.
You are naive, Libertarianism isn’t a left wing party.
1984 George Orwell
These cunts put the RAT in Democrat!
1984 wasn't supposed to be a rulebook
Whoever ever said anything about a rule book?
I forgot the word i was looking for. But look at the EU, people are being arrested for just speaking their mind. Not long before 1984 becomes a reality.
Definitely, the EU is on verge of totalitarianism.
In my opinion the world we live in is a product of a war machine. And that comes with some extremely steep costs, costs that only the lower classes pay for while the elites try running the world behind closed doors in the name of "national security"