Emotional and self absorbed people are easy to control. Critical people that value reason are harder to control. For leftists to prevail they must destroy critical thought
Leftism requires a planned economy (and planned society for cultural leftism.) That cannot ever exist without coercion and force, which is why all communist regimes devolve into top-down dictatorships regardless of what ideals they were founded on.
Then what do you call cancel culture, a tactic the left has embraced whole-heartedly for almost a decade now?
I mean, if you're saying that they're lying, duplicitous shits who don't mean anything that they push out into the public sphere, I agree with you, but how to address those people rather than getting bogged down in semantic arguments about precisely which flavour of totalitarians they are?
If you want to refute the op-ed, you should attempt a semantic deconstruction of it's fundamental assumptions - for example it's definition of "freedom". You're almost there by redefining "leftist", but you didn't fully support your assertion or refute the article's definition. If the author is not describing "leftist", he's describing "something". Is the author wrong about that "something"? What would you call that "something"?
What you're claiming neither matches the reality of all leftist governance (or let's say proposed governance if you believe "leftism has never been tried") since the 20th century, or even what honest leftists claim now days. It's ironic you talk about "boomer beliefs" when you sound like a hippy from the 70s. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you're attempting to make the distinction between shitlib LARPers and the "real left" that ThatsAlright always does.
Taught "Political theory" is neomarxist bullcrap. Fabians who took over the education system after WW2 pushed the idea of a left-right spectrum to reinforce the idea that right-wing is "Literally Hitler" and left-wing is "Anti-Hitler". There was no other purpose than to soften up society to accept their anti-nationalist ideas.
In 21st century reality, left and right are tribal signifiers. The left are who they say they are and who identify with their side, vice versa for the right. Whatever utopian anti-state plans you think anyone on the left (or right) dreams about - they are nothing but dreams. Any revolutionary movement nearing success will be subsumed by those so-called LARPers (who make up the majority of humanity) for own benefit.
Leftism requires a planned economy (and planned society for cultural leftism.) That cannot ever exist without coercion and force, which is why all communist regimes devolve into top-down dictatorships regardless of what ideals they were founded on.
Religious ones can't either. The pendulum swing usually goes to a theocracy.
That's not true, and even if it were, leftists are not left, they just call themselves that way.
Then what do you call cancel culture, a tactic the left has embraced whole-heartedly for almost a decade now?
I mean, if you're saying that they're lying, duplicitous shits who don't mean anything that they push out into the public sphere, I agree with you, but how to address those people rather than getting bogged down in semantic arguments about precisely which flavour of totalitarians they are?
No no, remember leftists' most important principle is non-coercion... LOL.
Define "leftist." Clearly you can't mean Communist or Socialist.
Really, all politics is a form of coercion.
Isn't communism just property and agency coercion anyway? The guy you responded to is an absolute moron.
Sure: We collectivize your farm. Any counterrevolutionary objections and you go to re-education gulag.
Don't want to publicly praise Dear Leader or your public praise isn't fervent enough? You go to re-education gulag.
You sound like a fifth column.
If you want to refute the op-ed, you should attempt a semantic deconstruction of it's fundamental assumptions - for example it's definition of "freedom". You're almost there by redefining "leftist", but you didn't fully support your assertion or refute the article's definition. If the author is not describing "leftist", he's describing "something". Is the author wrong about that "something"? What would you call that "something"?
What you're claiming neither matches the reality of all leftist governance (or let's say proposed governance if you believe "leftism has never been tried") since the 20th century, or even what honest leftists claim now days. It's ironic you talk about "boomer beliefs" when you sound like a hippy from the 70s. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you're attempting to make the distinction between shitlib LARPers and the "real left" that ThatsAlright always does.
Taught "Political theory" is neomarxist bullcrap. Fabians who took over the education system after WW2 pushed the idea of a left-right spectrum to reinforce the idea that right-wing is "Literally Hitler" and left-wing is "Anti-Hitler". There was no other purpose than to soften up society to accept their anti-nationalist ideas.
In 21st century reality, left and right are tribal signifiers. The left are who they say they are and who identify with their side, vice versa for the right. Whatever utopian anti-state plans you think anyone on the left (or right) dreams about - they are nothing but dreams. Any revolutionary movement nearing success will be subsumed by those so-called LARPers (who make up the majority of humanity) for own benefit.
the total state is the endpoint of the left, this is not even debatable.
why would i use my enemy's definitions of themselves?
I guess knowledge of the killing fields were memory-holed for you.
Communists must be physically removed.