Do you think anthropogenic climate change denial is an extremist right wing position?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

[jamesgoldman]

No, the Proud boys are extremist right wingers
Climate change deniers are nowhere close to the same league

I think the current actions are pointless given the overpopulation that is only getting worse, kill 4,000,000,000 and control birth rates then we will be getting somewhere

[goaded]

"I'm not extreme, I just think we should kill people"?

[jamesgoldman]

I didn't say I wasn't extreme on this issue, just putting climate change deniers into that group is wrong

[Sargentcaptain]

Is there a single right wing view that you're not gonna call extreemizt?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Given that asymmetric polarization:

www.vox.com/.../strikethrough-republicans-have-broken-politics-polarization

has now landed the GOP in the authoritarian camp:

www.theguardian.com/.../republican-party-autocratic-hungary-turkey-study-trump

views held by the right that aren't extremist are getting fewer. For example, the idea that the government should leave fighting a pandemic entirely up to the individual is an extremist view because such attitudes resulted in the deaths of 100,000+ people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fW4EcP1DdM

[Sargentcaptain]

I was talking about generally right wing people, as were you initially, not the two turds that are the political parties. And on that: twitter.com/.../1124798285632417793?lang=en

The Euros wanna shit talk American policies, well color me shocked. Imagine giving a molecule of shit about the fucking Guardian. It would be a nice change of pace if they could just once give concrete evidence to support their bullshit instead of circle jerking.

lmao, the people who want us to show them our medical histories are calling other's authoritarians, hey remember all those morons who cheer stricter and stricter gun grabber policies, I recall most of them clinging to the 'liberal' leftoids, you know the same 'liberal' leftoids that wanna nuke your right to free speech

Anyway, here's a decent piece on extreemizm of 'the other' edition.cnn.com/.../index.html

Is having the gov strip you of your freedom of movement and assembly also an extremist view or are you just bullshitting because it's the opposite camp? Is calling for a military controlled state also an extremist view? And legit, what are actual right wing views that are not extremist, you don't gotta agree with them (I'd actually rather if you didn't), I just wanna see if you consider any modern popular right wing views extremist.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

First of all, the Guardian reporting it doesn't mean it's automatically wrong; they cited their sources.

Yeah, "having the government strip the freedom of assembly and the freedom to travel" is an extremist view DURING A PANDEMIC.

I guess we also shouldn't have the government so blatantly infringing on people's liberties during other natural disasters like when an evacuation order is issued when there's an incoming hurricane.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

But hey, I'd bet you'd say speed limits infringe on the "freedom of movement" and fire codes infringe on "freedom of assembly" LMAO.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Coronavirus safety measures aren't about reconciling government control but opposition to it is about letting unaccountable private tyrannies to get more of it by preying on a disunited public:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqNAEx1lm4&t=510s

[Sargentcaptain]

"Yeah, "having the government strip the freedom of assembly and the freedom to travel" is an extremist view DURING A PANDEMIC."

Is that a typo? The rest doesn't make much sense if it isn't.
Yeah, the gov taking people's basic human rights away is quite extremist. And so is the opposite, anarchism. See how I can identify two opposite extremist morons, while you're just dodging the question. I guess you really do believe that every modern popular right wing belief is extremist.

"But hey, I'd bet you'd say speed limits infringe on the "freedom of movement" and fire codes infringe on "freedom of assembly" LMAO."

LMAO, no stop fighting the strawman, but hey, this is another point for me. I see that retards want to restrict freedom of movement, that's extremist, I see that morons don't want speed limits, that's extremist as well.

"Coronavirus safety measures aren't about reconciling government control but opposition to it is about letting unaccountable private tyrannies to get more of it by preying on a disunited public"

Ah yeah, what is it Australia? having literal fucking military controlling their own citizens isn't authoritarian, nice one. Countries banning protests against the gov is 'for their own good' ~ the gov. You're being played like a fiddle and you don't even know it.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

No it wasn't a typo it was sarcasm. Saying that the measures taken to maintain public safety in the wake of this pandemic is leading us to authoritarianism is as stupid as saying that an evacuation order during a hurricane is government overreach.

Now here's a little history lesson: when authoritarians used a boogeyman to impose state power, they would use a foreign country or a subversive faction (kind of like how Trump was using secret police [police not in uniform using unmarked vans to arrest people] during those protests in Oregon), not a force of nature. The only way they would use a force of nature to reconcile state power is by trying to pin it on a political enemy (i. e. how the right has been touting the lab leak hypothesis).

[Sargentcaptain]

*the gov literally arresting peaceful protestors and people just walking in a fucking park*

> dumb shits like you 'tHaTs NuWt AuTwOWiTaWiaTiZZm.'

Buttfucking every gov overreach ever was in the name of public safety, and on that note I don't give a shit. You don't have a 'right' to keep other people locked up in their homes because you are the one who's scared of going out.

"when authoritarians used a boogeyman to impose state power, they would use a foreign country"

Not always. Read up on a lot of soviet shit, technically the same nation and for the most part, the big reason for hatred of people from other parts of USSR wasn't nationalism, but different economic prowess. Authoritarian policies can come from a lot of different ways, of course the fear of a hostile takeover is historically huge, especially in Europe, but it's far from being the only way authoritarians reside. I don't recall dipshits hating gay people cuz Canadians or something. I don't recall morons wanting to ban guns cuz Mexicans. Don't tell me that denying gay/gun rights isn't authoritarianism.

"using secret police [police not in uniform"

I've never seen any evidence of this.

"using unmarked vans to arrest people"

You get that using undercover vehicles is a pretty big part of law enforcement, right?

"during those protests in Oregon"

> protests

You're still gonna stick with that, huh? How about riots?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

The boogeymen authoritarians use is a foreign country or a subversive faction but they don't use forces of nature like diseases and now you're just trying to push the "riotous left" mythos.

apnews.com/.../virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748

[Sargentcaptain]

Even if up until this point all authoritarians only used foreign countries as an in to take people's rights away, something I've already proved is not the case, you get that that's not the only way they can take more power and that it is at the *very* least possible that in the future they will have other boogiemen too.

'riotous left mythos'? Where were you last year? Police buildings getting torched with people barricaded inside, cars destroyed, affordable housing being burned down, looting private businesses all over the place, random people getting beaten in the street, etc. How in the fuck are these things not riots? Are you really just going under the 'everything I don't like is in the fault opposite camp' line of 'thinking'?

On that article, you get that for political violence you need to have a lot of evidence amounted over several years. These shits weren't active that long. And who do you think set police building ablaze? Do you really think that nonsense was caused by the 'thin blue line' shits? Could it maybe have *something* to do with people spraying ACAB? I don't recall the CHAZ debacle having shit to do with right wing people, or were all those commie flags and Guevara shirts alt roight dog whistles? I'm honestly asking at this point. I don't understand the beliefs of someone who can't come up with a single modern right wing view that is mainstream that you just don't consider to be extremist. I hate the left, but I can understand a shitload of their modern beliefs and even when I vehemently disagree, I wouldn't have a kneejerk reaction and just call everyone on the opposite end extreemizt.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

I didn't say that authoritarians only use foreign countries (I also mentioned subversive factions), I said that the notion that they use forces of nature as boogeymen to reconcile power is utter bilge. However, private concentrations have a long history of downplaying the severity of forces of nature so people don't act collectively against them which makes it easier for said private concentrations of power to exploit the public in such a time of crisis (look up disaster capitalism).

Social distancing isn't about expanding state power but opposition to it is about expanding corporate power; it has nothing to do with protecting liberties.

And you need evidence built up over time and analysis over the past 10+ years has indicated that most politically motivated violence comes from the right.

[Sargentcaptain]

"I said that the notion that they use forces of nature as boogeymen to reconcile power is utter bilge."

And even if they didn't in the past, is it at least possible that they'll do it in the future?
Besides, plenty of places have started banning some types of cars due to climate change.

"However, private concentrations have a long history of downplaying the severity of forces of nature so people don't act collectively against them which makes it easier for said private concentrations of power to exploit the public in such a time of crisis (look up disaster capitalism)."

Fuck are you going on about now? Can you stop jumping from one tangentially related topic to another?

"Social distancing isn't about expanding state power"

And if social distancing was all the governments around the world have been doing, maybe you'd have a point. I've already mentioned shitholes where the military is patrolling their own citizens (for their own good, of course), places where you just cannot go out or have a job cause the gov is authoritarian.

"but opposition to it is about expanding corporate power; it has nothing to do with protecting liberties."

What the actual fuck are you going on about? How is arresting people who go to a peaceful protest against the gov bullshit 'expanding cooperate power'?

"And you need evidence built up over time and analysis over the past 10+ years has indicated that most politically motivated violence comes from the right."

What the hell is your god damn point? '10 years ago some right shits burned down a car, that must mean that today people with a hammer and sickle bandanas were right wing?'

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

"And even if they didn't in the past, is it at least possible that they'll do it in the future?
Besides, plenty of places have started banning some types of cars due to climate change."

Wow, the worlds' on fire and you can't see why banning cars that pollute a lot more than the others would have more to do with protecting public safety versus a governments' intention to reconcile power? I mean this is beyond stupid on your part.

As for reconciling private power:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqNAEx1lm4&t=177s
Fly under your totalitarian colors.

[Sargentcaptain]

Are you legit saying that banning cars is not authoritarian? Are you really so retarded that you think that banning a fucking Ford pickup will have any actual impact? Even banning god damn Koenigseggs is gonna do shit. If I wanna have a Pagani, I'll get myself one and it's something that has precisely nothing to do with the gov. Again, public safety is fucking always used by the gov to take your rights away.

What is beyond stupid on my part exactly? Wanting the gov to stay the fuck out of my garage? You get that you're literally defending authoritarians, so long as they are lefty auths, you're fine with sucking them off.

"Fly under your totalitarian colors."

'Don't want the gov in your parking lot? What a dictator.'

And on the private horseshit, ask yourself who's profiting off of the sales of meds, vax, masks. Safe to say, these are corporations, not charities.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

A single pickup won't do much but banning those not used for utility purposes will make a difference. But hey if you see banning certain kinds of cars as authoritarian I bet you feel the same about banning leaded gas?



And to think that piece of shit Jorgensen had the nerve to talk about Biden supporting the 1994 crime bill when
1. At the time violent crime was hurting minority communities as much as mass incarceration is now.

2. If it were up to her lead emissions from gasoline would still be poisoning the minds of black youth (and blind sheep like yourself would keep blaming high violent crime rates in the black community on the toxic influence of rap music).

[Sargentcaptain]

"A single pickup won't do much but banning those not used for utility purposes will make a difference."

First off, if you want to ban what I can or cannot own, go and eat a dick. And yeah, that shit is the textbook definition of authoritarian. The gov should stay the fuck out of my garage. Secondly, all of transportation is responsible for 15% of emissions, with all cars being responsible for less than half of that. How in the world is banning a damn Toyota gonna change anything?

www.brookings.edu/.../

"But hey if you see banning certain kinds of cars as authoritarian I bet you feel the same about banning leaded gas?"

For fuck sake, at least try to argue in good faith for the hell of it. You're like a 5yo who just heard me say that my fav pokemon is the one you don't like.

"And to think that piece of shit Jorgensen had the nerve to talk about Biden supporting the 1994 crime bill when
1. At the time violent crime was hurting minority communities as much as mass incarceration is now.

2. If it were up to her lead emissions from gasoline would still be poisoning the minds of black youth (and blind sheep like yourself would keep blaming high violent crime rates in the black community on the toxic influence of rap music)."

What in the absolute fuck is this tangent? The fuck are you bringing up that bitch for? The fuck are you going on about black people? The fuck are you talking about crime?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

"First off, if you want to ban what I can or cannot own, go and eat a dick"

If you wanna own a tank a chlorine gas on your lawn, you're damn right I would want to ban that because you're putting public safety in jeopardy because it can leak and release toxic fumes. But I bet you'd say that if your neighbors are afraid, they should get hazmat suits.

No, property rights don't give you the right to put public safety at risk and having a vehicle that pollutes does exactly that, just at a broader scale.

[Sargentcaptain]

"If you wanna own a tank a chlorine gas"

Again, please for the love of lord Lenin, argue in good faith for once in your life. Are you legit braindead? How the fuck are you associating that to people just wanting to fucking drive their vintage muscle car?

Road accidents kill over a mil people each year. People get drunk, drive too fast and endanger other's lives. Fuck it, ban all forms of transportation.
Seriously, no one likes this convo but you'll have to have it - how many lives is convenience gonna cost? Creating building is about as influential in climate change as cars are, fuck it, you better live in a tent. Are you alight with people using electricity, knowing that they often cause fires and can burn down entire buildings on top of straight up electrocuting people? Climate change is actually boosted mostly thanks to the energy sector, fuck it, you having electricity is endangering my life. How much pollution is caused due to heating / air-conditioning? Fuck it, you having a stove is killing me, ban that shit, freeze to death bitch. Farming is producing greenhouse gasses, oh shit, you better not have a steak or an apple, they're killing me, if you're against starving to death you're endangering public safety. Even pre corona, wearing masks could have saved thousands of lives every single year, fuck it, mask mandates forever, less you're selfish.
If you're in favor of banning cars you're an authoritarian idiot.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

"Road accidents kill over a mil people each year. People get drunk, drive too fast and endanger other's lives. Fuck it, ban all forms of transportation."

Now you're saying that I'm not arguing in good faith? Without transport we wouldn't have the infrastructure that we do and way more people would be dying of preventable deaths. It's a cost benefit analysis and you wanting to own a muscle car isn't an issue but driving around and polluting with it is. But hey maybe that person also has a pool in their backyard and don't want to have to go back to get more chlorine for the rest of it so by your logic they should be allowed to own a tank of chlorine gas on their lawn.

[Sargentcaptain]

"Now you're saying that I'm not arguing in good faith?"

Oh, looks like you don't like it when you gotta deal with it huh?

But alright, here's an honest argument. A lot of power is used in producing movies, games, toys, books, music, etc, as well as using a lot of rare materials that can be dangerous themselves, or require transporting them from the other side of the globe. None of this is essential. Why not then ban entertainment? Guitars are often cancerous due to the shit metal and the terrible coating and paint, they are expansive to make, destroy the woods, transporting them from another continent, all for a bit of entertainment (so same thing you're getting from driving a car), why not ban them all? Why not ban stuff like NASCAR and F1? Are you also gonna ban things like rowing? It's not like the production of that equipment is gonna save any lives. What I said for electricity still goes, I suppose with the asterisk thought that it can only be used for stuff like medicine and food production. That would significantly cut down of pollution and save a lot of lives, right? People don't need houses with over 3,000 square feet, why not ban all bigger houses then, thus saving material, space, cutting down on potential workplace accidents. Is public safety good enough of a reason to you to ban all nonessential travel then? Why should people go to road trips, vacations and holidays, none of that is really benefiting anyone, but it is putting people at risk, especially if they fly or go on a cruise. What I said about masking up is still valid then.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Because we've realized that we have to cut emissions by a given quantity so we have to decide we have to cut something so we decided the things you listed are more important to living a fulfilling life than muscle cars.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

So you being told not to own muscle cars would be democratic, not authoritarian.

[Sargentcaptain]

"Because we've realized that we have to cut emissions by a given quantity so we have to decide we have to cut something so we decided the things you listed are more important to living a fulfilling life than muscle cars."

'The council has decided that the power generator you've bought is of more use to us, surrender it or you'll be locked away, fight it and you'll be killed.'

So you disregarded my interesting question about the morality and 'when is it ok to basically let people die for the sake of your convenience?', instead you're just sucking off authoritarian dipshits whilst claiming to hate authoritarians. 'Lib' left in a nutshell.

"So you being told not to own muscle cars would be democratic, not authoritarian."

I knew you were *slow*, but this is just embarrassing. We've talked about this before, but fuck it I'm feeling like a broken record so here it goes yet again - just because you're 'democratic' doesn't mean that you're not, or can't be authoritarian. Democracy is merely the system used in order to decide who's authority to follow. In 1800s US the democratic vote would lead to protecting slavery, you're not gonna tell me that keeping slavery in place is libertarian now will you? I'm genuinely asking, cause what you said here is that fucking retarded.
You have precisely 0 input on what car I can or cannot own, and if you wanna ban some types of vehicles cause you don't like them, by the buttfucking definition, you're an authoritarian.
I'm genuinely asking, do you understand the authoritarian doesn't mean 'things I don't like'? You get that both the left and the right can be very authoritarian, communist/fascist?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

"In 1800s US the democratic vote would lead to protecting slavery, you're not gonna tell me that keeping slavery in place is libertarian now will you?"

Actually most people in the 1800s didn't support slavery because the populations of the free states outnumbered the slave states 2:1. Slavery only lasted as long as it did for 2 reasons:

1. The electoral college gave smaller states more power than they should have
2. Powers that should have been given to the Federal governments were given to the state governments.

"You have precisely 0 input on what car I can or cannot own, and if you wanna ban some types of vehicles cause you don't like them, by the buttfucking definition, you're an authoritarian."

If you think that saying you shouldn't be allowed to own high emissions vehicles because the world is burning and shouldn't be allowed to put leaded gas in it because the emissions are poisoning the minds of Children makes me an authoritarian, fine but then we're just arguing semantics.
So are you going to advocate giving more power from the state to federal governments and abolishing the electoral college?

"You get that both the left and the right can be very authoritarian" Yeah, but you don't seem to realize that authoritarian is a right wing position and individual liberty is a leftist one. For example, supporting gay marriage is a leftist position but Tony Blair holding that position didn't make him a leftist given that virtually all of his other views were right wing.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Fascism (right) took away liberty while communism (left) didn't. And before you bring up Russia and China, they were authoritarian before communism came to power. And the way the political spectrum is portrayed is misleading; on the right side the vertical axis should go between state power and corporate power.

[Sargentcaptain]

"Actually most people in the 1800s"

Sure, whatever, make it 1700s, it doesn't matter. Do you understand the point?

"So are you going to advocate giving more power from the state to federal governments and abolishing the electoral college?''

Fuck no, and I have no idea why you asked this.

"Yeah, but you don't seem to realize that authoritarian is a right wing position and individual liberty is a leftist one."

lmao, no you precious little baby it ain't, or are you just not gonna mention issues such as free speech, gun rights and here the right to own a classic Mustang, remember when all those 'libertarian' leftys wanted to ban art and homeschooling

left = individual liberty

lol lmao kek, nah, no it fuckin don't

"individual liberty is a leftist one"

Yeah, that's why all those vaccine mandates are supported by Ben Shapiro simps, oh wait

"For example, supporting gay marriage is a leftist position"

It's just an anti authoritarian position. If the only reason for why that is a 'leftist' position is cuz democrats support it, then leftists are also against freedom when it comes to things like guns. This is precisely why people prefer putting an economic axis and a separate axis for social issues where those are divided by support and opposition for authority and mandates. Even alternatives to the political compass have a separate axis for individual's freedoms, because the only true freedom supporting people are anarchists and those can't be classified as either left wing or right wing.

[Sargentcaptain]

"Fascism (right) took away liberty while communism (left) didn't."

I swear that line is straight out of an anticommunist comedy. Are you delusional or just plain retarded? Tell me again how free people of Yugoslavia were. You're not actually gonna tell me that people sent to the Goli otok weren't victims of authoritarianism, now are you?

"And before you bring up Russia and China, they were authoritarian before communism came to power."

So because [x] policy is already in place prior to a revolution, that means that the post revolution country that still has that policy in place for some dumbfuck reason no longer supports [x] policy? I legit don't understand this point. You repeat it like it's the damn gospel, but it's meaningless.

"And the way the political spectrum is portrayed is misleading; on the right side the vertical axis should go between state power and corporate power."

'The way you measure support or opposition for government authority is bad cuz no walmart'
This reads like 'I don't like being labeled as authoritarian, yeah I want to take away your rights, no I'm libertarian'. Don't deceive yourself, you ain't fooling me, you're just another 'lib' left idiot who thinks that left = good and bad = right. You don't give a shit about people's rights, least of which individual's rights.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

-I brought up the electoral college because it was flaws in the Democratic system that allowed slavery to persist as long as it did.

-Wow, apparently you lack basic reading comprehension. I didn't say that there weren't authoritarian leftist regimes, I said that these were preceded by regimes that were already authoritarian so to use them as examples of how the left can take away existing freedoms is a non-sequitir.

-You keep bringing up guns, car ownership and vaccine mandates. How many times am I going to have to tell you that it's not about control, it's about safety. It's protecting people's individual liberty to walk around the streets and not worry about getting shot, their town burnt down by a wildfire, or not have to worry about contracting a deadly disease. When the left talks about freedom, they're actually talking about freedom. When the rights talking about freedom, they're talking about their freedom to take freedom (including the freedom of safety) away from others.

-My point is that the notion that because X authoritarian regime was leftists, tyranny can come from the left is utter bilge when the country was authoritarian long before said leftist regimes came to power. It would be like saying that because the founding fathers owned slaves, people who advocate freedom of speech are pro-slavery.

Tyranny comes from the right whether it's at the hands of state power (Fascism) or private power (so called "libertarianism").

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

And no I'm not a Tankie and the previous regime being authoritarian doesn't absolve China or the USSR of being authoritarian just like slavery existing long before the American Revolution doesn't mean it was OK for the founding fathers to own slaves. HOWEVER, it does mean that saying that socialism or the radical left is a threat to freedom because of what happened in Russia and China is as asinine as saying that people who advocate things like the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion are a threat to the emancipation proclamation.

The issue isn't that I don't like being called an authoritarian, it's that you're using that accusation to deflect attention away from the totalitarian nature of your ideology.

[Sargentcaptain]

"I brought up the electoral college because it was flaws in the Democratic system that allowed slavery to persist as long as it did."

Oh so democracy ain't so good after all huh? In any case, basic human rights are guarantied by the constitution. The states are states, and as such decide upon the president of the union together.

My reading comprehension is bad because I wasn't able to read your mind because that crucial 'existing freedoms' part wasn't there in the post above.

"I said that these were preceded by regimes that were already authoritarian so to use them as examples of how the left can take away existing freedoms is a non-sequitur."

No guns, cars or basic fucking liberties cuz kung flu, fine. You wanna talk about places like Yugoslavia being democracies, if only briefly, turned into dictatorships thanks to socialists?

"You keep bringing up guns, car ownership and vaccine mandates. How many times am I going to have to tell you that it's not about control, it's about safety."

For the millionth time, things like public safety are used by governments in order to expand their powers. Even you briefly admitted to that before turning to 'they don't do that to forces of nature'. Remember the expose of Edward Snowden? Thank fuck for public safety there. Thank fuck for public safety measures (such as curfews) in god knows how many places around the globe whenever there were protests against the residing government.

If you're afraid of being shot, you must have a severe phobia of driving or swimming or using a sharp object or god forbid using an elevator. Suicide is twice as likely to be your cause of death, and that only accounts for 1% of deaths. Not to mention, you don't have the 'personal liberty' to feelings. I feel unsafe fucking around with electricity all day, well shit, better ban batteries. How many fires were directly caused by climate change, how many were directly caused by electrics?

[Sargentcaptain]

"not have to worry about contracting a deadly disease."

I've got a solution for that - don't go outside. That protects my liberties and your sensibilities.

"When the left talks about freedom, they're actually talking about freedom."

lol, lmao, kek, no, just, fuck no

''When the rights talking about freedom, they're talking about their freedom to take freedom''

Protecting 2A is taking away freedom? What is your IQ?

"(including the freedom of safety) away from others."

Freedom of feelings? I'm sorry, I thought you were over the age of 5.
Nah fuck it, I want an honest answer, why can't I cry the same shit then for travel and road accidents? Arguing for it with the public safety bullshit and the trademark feeeelengz argument too.

"My point is that the notion that because X authoritarian regime was leftists, tyranny can come from the left is utter bilge"

> lefty tyrannical regime exists

'tyrany can nut cum from the left'

I'm just dumbstruck. Struck, by your dumb.

"It would be like saying that because the founding fathers owned slaves, people who advocate freedom of speech are pro-slavery."

This is a false comparison. I'm talking about a situation in which right shits are auths, then left shits are auth, *supporting the very same policies* and you come in saying 'thawtz loike wen too difurent polizies thawgut shayt tu du witeechother'.

[Sargentcaptain]

"Tyranny comes from the right whether it's at the hands of state power (Fascism) or private power (so called "libertarianism")."

A broken cuck's right once a thread.

"saying that socialism or the radical left is a threat to freedom because of what happened in Russia and China is as asinine"

'Saying that a regime currently conducting a geocide is a threat to freedom is bullshit, because the previous regime was also committing genocide.'

You don't even know what my ideology is is the funniest shit to me.

> totalitarian nature of my ideology

*my ideology*

leave people the fuck alone

lol, what a dictator I am, Mussolini would be proud

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

"I've got a solution for that - don't go outside. That protects my liberties and your sensibilities."

Yep, just like if you got a tank of chlorine gas in your backyard and your neighbors afraid of a leak, he should just move somewhere else or get respiratory equipment to protect his liberties. But yeah, stay at home or risk dying; that about sums up what "freedom" means to you (total tyranny).

Cars are a basic liberty, ones that needlessly pollute to the extent that you're talking about aren't just like gasoline is a liberty but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to burn gasoline with triethyl lead in it. Way to pull a Balle and Mote fallacy.

The Soviets didn't take down the Democratic system in Yugoslavia, the Nazis did.

"For the millionth time, things like public safety are used by governments in order to expand their powers." And for the millionth time, when authoritarian regimes come to power the boogeyman they use is a country (China) or a subversive movement (BLM) NOT a force of nature. It's like calling an evacuation order during a hurricane authoritarian.

-Don't change the subject, we're talking about a radical leftist movement in the US being a threat to liberty (which they're not).

-Your ideology is that power should be given from the public sector to private unaccountable organizations built from the ground up to exploit the public.

[Sargentcaptain]

"Yep, just like if you got a tank of chlorine gas in your backyard"

Just give me one honest, good faith argument.

"But yeah, stay at home or risk dying"

Is that not how it's always been? You get that you risk dying every second of your life no matter where you are, and if you're not an absolute pussy, you're still gonna live your life like normal and you're not gonna lock up other people inside.

"that about sums up what "freedom" means to you (total tyranny)."

'total tyranny is when people are free to stay at home or live their lives'

I'm starting to feel like this is just reverse Poe's law now.

"Cars are a basic liberty, ones that needlessly pollute to the extent that you're talking about aren't"

Getting big 'free speech is when I say something, not when you say something' vibes. Tell me again about how banning an Alpine is gonna solve all world's problems. To be fair, I wouldn't mind driving around in a Rimac, anyway, you got 2 million I could borrow?
Hey that reminds me, remember how leftoids thought that EVs were gonna save the planet? Yeah, well turns out that it depends on the way electricity is produced and in many cases EVs ain't saving jack shit on top of being pricier, shittier, less reliable, having awful mileage and dying sooner than a proper car, they can pollute just as much as proper cars do.

"Way to pull a Balle and Mote fallacy."

'you have a right to own cars, just not those ones, or those ones, or those ones, what's that, of course you have a right to own a car, here, take this piece of shit that is about as durable as a used condom, don't tell me you can't own a car, tatz a falliccy'

[Sargentcaptain]

You're pulling the exact same shit leftoids do with 1A, or 2A, or schooling, or vax mandates, or the right to own a house, or the right to own a business. Fuck me, you nuts really do be 'liberal' with taking away civil liberties.

"The Soviets didn't take down the Democratic system in Yugoslavia, the Nazis did."

lol, you have no understanding of history whatsoever, 'tito was a nazi' is certainly is take, just not a very accurate one, unless of course you believe that socialists who also happen to be nationalists are the same as national socialists

> Yugoslavia, kneejerk reaction to soviets cuz eastern Europe

kek, you know shit about Yugoslavia now don't you, read up on the Tito Stalin relationship, that shit will blow your mind

"And for the millionth time, when authoritarian regimes come to power the boogeyman they use is a country (China) or a subversive movement (BLM) NOT a force of nature."

We've been over this already, you lost.

"Don't change the subject, we're talking about a radical leftist movement in the US being a threat to liberty (which they're not)."

Please tell me that this isn't a reference to you going on about Russia and China.

"Your ideology is that power should be given from the public sector to private unaccountable organizations built from the ground up to exploit the public."

Nice try, thanks for playing, better luck next time.

I still want an honest answer, why not ban travel and cars, at least all 'non essential' travel, using the same public safety bullshit (that you use for banning cars) and the feeelengz argument (you use for banning guns)?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

"Just give me one honest, good faith argument."

Your case is as sensible as that.

"Is that not how it's always been?"

Not as high as it's been in a pandemic.

-No one is saying that banning Alpines will end global warming but it's a step in the right direction (way to pull a strawman).

" don't tell me you can't own a car, tatz a falliccy'
If you need a truck for work purposes that's one thing but otherwise it's going to be as useful as a low emissions car.

Tito didn't bring down the Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, the Nazis did.

-You've just conjectured that a force of nature could be used to consolidate state power but downplaying the severity of them has a long history of allowing private power to be consolidated so you lost.

I brought up Russia and China because people are talking shit about how the Radical left in the US is going to take away liberties like they did in Russia and China but the problem with this argument is that freedom wasn't present in those countries in the first place.

"I still want an honest answer, why not ban travel and cars, at least all 'non essential' travel, using the same public safety bullshit (that you use for banning cars) and the feeelengz argument (you use for banning guns)?"

Because we are democratically (versus autocratically) deciding what we should give up slow the progression of global warming.

[Sargentcaptain]

"Not as high as it's been in a pandemic."

Aha, so having tens of thousands die due to illnesses is fine, just not hundreds? Pure numbers game, alright. Do you also wanna ban literally everything that may cause cancer? Do you also wanna ban sweets that cause approx. 100,000 lives per year? Do you also wanna ban alcohol and other drugs? Do you also want mask and vax mandates cuz flu? These are all, barring potentially alcohol and drugs, things that can kill you because of your choices. I'm not forcing you to go outside, and you have no right to force me to stay inside.

"No one is saying that banning Alpines will end global warming but it's a step in the right direction"

Would that 'right' direction be an authoritarian shithole?

"If you need a truck for work purposes that's one thing but otherwise it's going to be as useful as a low emissions car."

Why does it not surprise me that 'lib' left doesn't care about people's rights? But fine let's entertain your bullshit. So sporting isn't a valid reason? Preserving history isn't a valid reason? Technological progress and interest in it is not a valid reason? On top of that, what does the resident dicktator perceive as enough for the plebs? Is it a glorified Yugo? Electrified Moskvitch with the power of your average vibrator?

[Sargentcaptain]

"Tito didn't bring down the Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, the Nazis did."

Nice switcheroo. Shame I wasn't talking about that shit. To be honest, not sure if you did that deliberately, or if it was a honest mistake. After all there were more Yugoslavia's and SHS's than intelligent socialists, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
After the partisans 'liberated' the region from the Nazis at the end of WW2, they created what was known as a Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, shame the morons didn't really know what to do so they just let Tito take over and soon enough some of the partisans ended up on Goli otok thanks to daddy Josip. The 'temporary' powers Tito had became permanent, because he had the power to do that. He moved away from a multi party democratic system, leaving only his own party. The 'Democratic' from the name was dropped sooner than you can say freedom and the 'people's republic' was added, probably not to represent the people who got locked up because of their anti socialist or pro Stalinist beliefs.
Now are you gonna argue that the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia wasn't really democratic or are you gonna claim that Tito wasn't a leftist because he didn't like Stalin?

"people are talking shit about how the Radical left in the US is going to take away liberties"

They're literally arguing for banning guns. They're literally arguing for removal of free speech, homeschooling, they wanna impose vax mandates. You are literally arguing for banning cars you don't like. My fucking lord Lenin, if you wanna know who's gonna take away your rights, look in the mirror.

"freedom wasn't present in those countries in the first place."

And that is still a dogshit argument.

"Because we are democratically (versus autocratically) deciding what we should give up slow the progression of global warming."

That's not a real answer. Democracy has jack fucking shit to do with rights and your fears do not concern me.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

"Aha, so having tens of thousands die due to illnesses is fine, just not hundreds? Pure numbers game, alright. Do you also wanna ban literally everything that may cause cancer? Do you also wanna ban sweets that cause approx. 100,000 lives per year? Do you also wanna ban alcohol and other drugs? Do you also want mask and vax mandates cuz flu? These are all, barring potentially alcohol and drugs, things that can kill you because of your choices. I'm not forcing you to go outside, and you have no right to force me to stay inside."

OK well lets reverse that and should we say we should do away with every health and safety protocol because (fire codes, speed limits, etc...) because some people just don't want to follow them?

That right direction will be a world that isn't on fire (you're talking shit about hypotheticals, I'm dealing with actuals).

I care about people's right to not have their house burned down by a wildfire or not be destroyed in a hurricane; rights which you think that your privilege to overcompensate with muscle cars outweighs.

-The point remains that Tito didn't take down the democratic system in Yugoslavia.

If guns can be taken away by a criminal record, they're not a right. Yeah we're authoritarian because we want to make sure students have access to a certain level of education, just like we want to force parents to provide their children with a minimum quantity of food a day. And yeah vaccine mandates are sooo authoritarian because if someone doesn't want to get vaccinated that's their business. It's not like that would provide COVID with new opportunities to mutate into strains that the vaccine is less effective against. Hey I guess we're also authoritarian because we don't think people should be allowed to be raised in conditions conducive to the emergence of new diseases (like keeping bats and pangolins in close proximity).

[Sargentcaptain]

"OK well lets reverse that and should we say we should do away with every health and safety protocol because (fire codes, speed limits, etc...) because some people just don't want to follow them?"

I like how you always try and avoid hard hitting questions and try to bullshit your way out of them with 'questions' that make no sense.

''That right direction will be a world that isn't on fire"

And instead of allowing for technological advancement to take place and instead of incentivizing 'good' things, you wanna take away people's rights. That ain't the right direction.

"(you're talking shit about hypotheticals, I'm dealing with actuals).''

> hypotheticals

If you're banning a Range Rover, yeah the place is an authoritarian shithole.

''I care about people's right to not have their house burned down by a wildfire"

Climate change caused precisely 0 wildfires. Wildfires are caused by smoking, campfires, railroad, electrics. Wanna ban those?

"or not be destroyed in a hurricane"

Aha, my old Volvo is gonna cause a fucking hurricane.

"rights which you think that your privilege to overcompensate with muscle cars outweighs."

> privilege

No bitch, they're called rights, and yeah, individual's rights trump all authoritarian bullshit.

[Sargentcaptain]

"The point remains that Tito didn't take down the democratic system in Yugoslavia."

No it fuckin don't. He was literally singlehandedly the motherfucker who took over, making his 'temporary' powers lifelong after signing a couple of documents. In place was a multiparty system, he destroyed it because he said that Yugoslavia didn't need further political division, installing himself as the lifelong shithead in chief.
Anyway, point is, leftoids can, did and do take away existing liberties.

"If guns can be taken away by a criminal record, they're not a right."

Prisons exist so freedom of movement is not a right? See how utterly retarded this is.

''And yeah vaccine mandates are sooo authoritarian because if someone doesn't want to get vaccinated that's their business."

Based.

How about you stop bullshitting and strawmaning and start arguing in good faith.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

-That was to show how ridiculous your use of the tu quo que fallacy is.

-You can fight climate change and protect people's freedom from catastrophic weather by both outlawing sources of pollution (again, do you see the ban on leaded gas as authoritarian) and developing new technologies.

-Yeah laws that limit how much you pollute are so authoritarian; oh wait we already have emissions tests.

-I don't know if you took drivers' ed but something that they explained was that driving is a privilege.

-Tito didn't destroy the multi-party system, the Nazis did. Threats to existing liberty come from the right.

-Right, if someone wants to use their wet market or their body as a breeding ground for new viral strains by your despotic standard of freedom that's their business.

[Sargentcaptain]

Do you really believe that banning leaded gas is on par with banning a god damn Honda? And by definition, in banning cars, you're taking people's rights away.

"Yeah laws that limit how much you pollute are so authoritarian; oh wait we already have emissions tests."

First off, this point is dogshit.
'yeah you think slavery is bad? we already got slaves, get owned humanitarian'
Secondly, emission tests are tests you muppet. Making it so that vehicles that score [x] on the test are banned is of course authoritarian. And funny thing, car companies regularly fudge the numbers on these tests.

"I don't know if you took drivers' ed but something that they explained was that driving is a privilege."

You can fuck around with definitions of tertiary things, or you can just admit that banning sports cars is authoritarian.

"Tito didn't destroy the multi-party system, the Nazis did."

This is fucking embarrassing. He literally did. Stop going on about the start of the war and start looking into what happened near the end of it when the coomies took over, shitting themselves the second they realized that they're gonna have to do something constructive for once.
You're just flat out erasing history now. You do understand how Tito got into permanent power now don't you? How in the fuck did the Nazis destroy the multi party system of a country in the year 1945 with Tito himself banning opposing parties? Do you think that Tito was a Nazi?

"Threats to existing liberty come from the right."

And the left. And I actually gave examples.

If someone doesn't want to get a vaccine that is their business.

> my despotic standards of freedom

kek

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

"Do you really believe that banning leaded gas is on par with banning a god damn Honda? And by definition, in banning cars, you're taking people's rights away."

I'm not for banning all cars, I'm for banning ones that pollute too much because of the risk they pose to others. Just like how a car would be deemed illegal to drive if it didn't meet safety standards because of the safety risk.

You're missing the point that right wing authoritarian movements have a track record of overthrowing democracies and depriving people of personal freedoms while authoritarian left wing movements were preceded by either a previous authoritarian regime or military occupation.

[Sargentcaptain]

Aha, tell me all about how I'll be able to drive around in a Lada, but a Jaguar isn't safe enough.

"right wing authoritarian movements have a track record of overthrowing democracies and depriving people of personal freedoms"

And so do lefty auth movements. Want another spin at that roundabout?

"while authoritarian left wing movements were preceded by either a previous authoritarian regime or military occupation."

So I present to you a democracy which was destroyed in less than 4 years thank to a lefty and you're still not acknowledging that.
And what they were preceded by makes no difference whatsoever.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

-You have safety standards that vehicles have to meet to make the roads reasonably safe to drive on and we have emission standards that limit how much a vehicle and pollute and as the climate change situation becomes more and more dire, the more pollution restrictions we need (just like road safety rules are more strict in more dangerous areas).

-The right wing Nazis took down the Yugoslavian government, not Titos'. Again, threats to EXISTING liberties comes from the right, not the left.

[Sargentcaptain]

"You have safety standards that vehicles have to meet to make the roads reasonably safe"

These things aren't even the same. If I wanted to, I can myself make a rat rod that has no safety features and while I can't drive in on the road (which is completely fine) I can still drive it on my field, or whoever else's place with the owners permission. Under the 'benevolent' stripping of my rights, thanks to you I wouldn't be able to drive that car wherever.

"The right wing Nazis took down the Yugoslavian government, not Titos'."

Aer you illiterate or just purposefully dense? Given that all this time I was talking about a democracy being taken down, I'm going with the latter.
Yeah, at the start of the war Nazis took over what was then the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. At the end of the war, when socialists took over they established the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. Tito became the prime minister and he soon destroyed the multi party system because of 'needless division and bettering the peoples of Yugoslavia'.
Last time I checked Tito wasn't a Nazi.

"Again, threats to EXISTING liberties comes from the right, not the left."

They come from both, I'm giving you evidence, stop trying to evade it.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

"These things aren't even the same. If I wanted to, I can myself make a rat rod that has no safety features and while I can't drive in on the road (which is completely fine) I can still drive it on my field, or whoever else's place with the owners permission. Under the 'benevolent' stripping of my rights, thanks to you I wouldn't be able to drive that car wherever."

You aren't causing any harm by driving an unsafe car on your property but pollution travels beyond your property.

-A an authoritarian leftist regime coming to power after the democratic regime was deposed by a foreign invader isn't evidence that the radical left in the USA is any kind of threat to liberty.

[Sargentcaptain]

You using an internet connection, a phone/pc, electricity etc all contribute to pollution and all of these things (at least at the time of you reading this) don't make you any more of a productive member of society than the next jerk off yanking it to hot Russian babes nearby. Why should we be limiting cars, that don't really do much anyway, and not limit the energy department that is the leading cause of climate change?

"A an authoritarian leftist regime coming to power after the democratic regime was deposed by a foreign invader isn't evidence that the radical left in the USA is any kind of threat to liberty."

You were the dumbass who argued that lefties never take away rights. After I presented evidence on the contrary you shifted to 'lefties never take existing rights'. After I presented evidence to the contrary, you're now saying that 'tat dunt mattur cuz muh murican lefties'.
Buttfuck it, let's go on the ride to looneytown once more
Calling for laws that would ban 'hate speech', destroying the 2nd amendment, vax mandates, the patriot act was supported by all colors of shit, you and cars, banning homeschooling, dumbfucks from both parties salivating at the thought of censoring music/games/art in general...

Also, the chronology of Yugoslavia goes
monarchy > nazi takeover > partisan takeover > democracy > Tito takeover.
For how long are you going to evade the fact that a socialist destroyed the democracy and appointed himself the dictator? Or are you saying that partisans were foreign invaders?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

"Why should we be limiting cars, that don't really do much anyway, and not limit the energy department that is the leading cause of climate change?"

We don't just limit cars, powerplants that power those items have to meet emissions standards as well.

After the Nazis left many other factions tried to take control. Authoritarian leftist movements oppose non authoritarian factions but an authoritarian leftist regime coming to power in a stable Democratic state is unprecedented. This is also why economic security is just as important to individual freedom as political rights. Libertatians advocate doing away with the former and should thus be considered a totalitarian movement.

[Sargentcaptain]

I'm not saying that there aren't limitations on energy production, I'm asking whether you want them on energy consumption for typical households. Some states are banning the purchases of certain new PCs as their energy consumption is relatively high, nonetheless, these are consumer PCs that are effectively Mustangs to a typical Corolla, a bit of a beefier option but far from the best money can buy and still very much in the affordable and in the normal power range.

"After the Nazis left many other factions tried to take control."

There were the Nazis and their puppets and there were the partisans. The territory wasn't of that much interest to the west and people like Churchill actually supported Tito in the beginning, hoping that he would unite the territory and stop being a threat to the surrounding countries. And it's not like the Nazis left, it's more like they were killed by their only real opposition. There are plenty of reasons for why the partisans won, one of them is the fact that there wasn't really anyone else who would fight the Nazis and the puppets. Opposing the Yugoslavian fighters were Italians, Hungarians, Germans, at a point Bulgarians and Albanians, Nazi Croats and Nazi Serbs, but supporting YU were only the Partisans with limited support from the west.

[Sargentcaptain]

"authoritarian leftist regime coming to power in a stable Democratic state is unprecedented."

Shifting the goalpost once more.
Define stable, arguably that's what Yugoslavia was at that point. The war was won, the threat was gone, a democratic system had been in place for an election now and about two years later Tito destroyed it.

"Libertarians advocate doing away with the former"

Libertarians (differentiate libertarians and ancaps) care about economy and the average citizens life in it, that's precisely why they argue for things they argue for. They aren't mustache twirling monopoly men caricatures saying 'I luv ewel'. They also wanna help their fellow man, same as you presumably. Your goals are the same, you only disagree about the methods.

"and should thus be considered a totalitarian movement."

'I think the gov should stop bailing out glorified duopolies and fucking with my business every step of the way'

'totulituriun'

[purplepoppy]

Of course it is. Whenever there's a two sided debate people never ask what's the evidence for each argument, they ask which does my favourite political parties support.

[Snakeyes7]

Not necessarily, it could be anyone who believes in the scientific method. Specifically the part where you call things into question in an effort to bring the entire community to the best possible idea of what the truth is as they can.

[goaded]

The basic physical knowledge that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas is over a hundred years old. All the subsequent research has built on that.

[Snakeyes7]

Another reason some people think it’s bunk is because all of the doomsday predictions we have had never came true.

[slatyb]

It is, as irs contradicted by all the data.

[Celtero]

Denial? Perhaps... Doubt? Not really.

[goaded]

You still doubt, 180 years after it was first proposed that water vapour and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have a greenhouse effect? 160 years after carbon dioxide was identified as the then known gas with the largest effect? This is older thasn the theory of evolution, and nothing has disproved either.

[OddBeMe]

No, its unfort a moderate right wing position.