I think throwing communists out of helicopters is justified. But it's not surprising why these views are controversial given most people's ethical and moral frameworks.
probably accurate, but the ridiculous amount of collateral damage there makes it a non-viable option. Unless we can somehow get CHAZ or similar going repeatedly
The culture they instilled. That was always the point.
This is why leftists call most communist countries "right wing". They were socially conservative... to the specific communist leader's interpretations of reality.
The progressives have always refused to understand that their Bolshevism exists solely to be the sacrificial first wave in order for their leadership to seize control. Truth is, I think if you could force them to tell the truth, they'd tell you that they know, they just think they'd outsmart everyone else and remain in charge, or in favor.
How do you look yourself in the mirror and say, without averting your eyes, that killing children is justifiable? What kind of netherworld creature must you be?
I had an argument with a leftist years ago about that revisionist history movie about Nat Turner: "Birth Of A Nation".
Apparently a lot of people were so fucking triggered that when they saw a little black girl being lead around with a rope by a little white girl (I don't think that would have ever happened generally, it doesn't make any sense), they decided that it was okay to kill the little white girl. I pointed out that Nat Turner ordered the murder of both children and an infant in the plantation home that he originally attacked (a family he knew well), even against the apprehensions of his own insurrectionist forces. Turner himself basically admitted that it was an act of ethnic cleansing and terrorism to try and end slavery by capitalizing on white fear of a race war.
The leftist response was that it was okay to murder all the children and infants because they could potentially grow up to be slave owners. So, not even a desire for redemption: no 're-education', no family separation, not even a gulag, just summary execution of infants for pre-crime and guilt by association.
In their mind, the world is already fallen and evil. Humans are evil. Only through Leftism and Utopia can the world be made right. The children are already evil by being human, and will be raised to be evil, so it's simply not even worth the effort to expend in order to save them.
Under capitalism, countless child laborers die who would not die under communism.
Ushering in communism requires the death of the ruling class and their heirs, even if they are children.
It's morally correct to take the course of action that results in the death of fewer people.
The revolution will kill fewer people than continuing under capitalism.
Therefore, the communist revolution is the morally correct course of action.
Of course, we know the argument doesn't work in reality. Communist states commit huge amounts of mass murder. Of course, I'm sure Sunkara would argue that those attempts weren't Real Communism™ and don't count.
It's also a false start to suggest that Capitalism is responsible for the deaths of those child labourers. You can't follow a chain of logic if the axiom is flawed and debatable.
Capitalism isn't a monolithic entity that can be said to have a predictable result, since Capitalists are not obligated by ideology to engage any one or another set of actions. Capitalists have been both responsible for the death of children through labour and for the emanicpation of Children from Labour, depending on time and place. Many Capitalists have used large amounts of capital to set up funds and efforts for the freeing and educating of children. To suggest that Capitalism will have a definitive effect on children is to ignore the widely disparate outcomes that have occured under Capitalism. It is, in fact, an absence of rules and ideology rather than the presence of one.
since Capitalists are not obligated by ideology to engage any one or another set of actions.
You know that and I know that, but they're Communists. I'm not sure they believe that it's possible for an ideology to exist without despising the people it's supposed to be for and ruthlessly punishing them every time they fail the ideology.
Nicholas Romanov was actually a decent guy. The problem was that he was an ideologue (of absolutism) and very incompetent. If he had abdicated in favor of his son, the family would probably have survived, but he did not want to put his son through that.
Sunkara credited his politicization to his reading as a teenager: from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm he developed an interest in Leon Trotsky
I don't think he got the right message from those books.
There's a Guardian US? Is it also massively feminist and staffed by people with a history of financially backing radfems?
Nope. Guardian US is, if anything, even dumber than Guardian UK. Its members accused the original supposed newspaper of 'twansphobia' because of its concerns over transvestite men shoving their penises where they don't belong.
I think throwing communists out of helicopters is justified. But it's not surprising why these views are controversial given most people's ethical and moral frameworks.
Given the sheer number of communists, we might need a DC-8 and a volcano.
The fastest way to kill communists is to let them take power and kill all of their allies & party loyalists.
probably accurate, but the ridiculous amount of collateral damage there makes it a non-viable option. Unless we can somehow get CHAZ or similar going repeatedly
Unfortunately, that requires giving them power, so I'd prefer to settle for the second-fastest way to kill communists.
The only places left where people are reasonable, are the places where communists were in power. At least they are managing to preserve their culture.
The culture they instilled. That was always the point.
This is why leftists call most communist countries "right wing". They were socially conservative... to the specific communist leader's interpretations of reality.
The progressives have always refused to understand that their Bolshevism exists solely to be the sacrificial first wave in order for their leadership to seize control. Truth is, I think if you could force them to tell the truth, they'd tell you that they know, they just think they'd outsmart everyone else and remain in charge, or in favor.
Commies gonna commie.
this is what we have helicopter rides for
How do you look yourself in the mirror and say, without averting your eyes, that killing children is justifiable? What kind of netherworld creature must you be?
I had an argument with a leftist years ago about that revisionist history movie about Nat Turner: "Birth Of A Nation".
Apparently a lot of people were so fucking triggered that when they saw a little black girl being lead around with a rope by a little white girl (I don't think that would have ever happened generally, it doesn't make any sense), they decided that it was okay to kill the little white girl. I pointed out that Nat Turner ordered the murder of both children and an infant in the plantation home that he originally attacked (a family he knew well), even against the apprehensions of his own insurrectionist forces. Turner himself basically admitted that it was an act of ethnic cleansing and terrorism to try and end slavery by capitalizing on white fear of a race war.
The leftist response was that it was okay to murder all the children and infants because they could potentially grow up to be slave owners. So, not even a desire for redemption: no 're-education', no family separation, not even a gulag, just summary execution of infants for pre-crime and guilt by association.
In their mind, the world is already fallen and evil. Humans are evil. Only through Leftism and Utopia can the world be made right. The children are already evil by being human, and will be raised to be evil, so it's simply not even worth the effort to expend in order to save them.
The argument goes something like this:
Under capitalism, countless child laborers die who would not die under communism.
Ushering in communism requires the death of the ruling class and their heirs, even if they are children.
It's morally correct to take the course of action that results in the death of fewer people.
The revolution will kill fewer people than continuing under capitalism.
Therefore, the communist revolution is the morally correct course of action.
Of course, we know the argument doesn't work in reality. Communist states commit huge amounts of mass murder. Of course, I'm sure Sunkara would argue that those attempts weren't Real Communism™ and don't count.
It's also a false start to suggest that Capitalism is responsible for the deaths of those child labourers. You can't follow a chain of logic if the axiom is flawed and debatable.
Capitalism isn't a monolithic entity that can be said to have a predictable result, since Capitalists are not obligated by ideology to engage any one or another set of actions. Capitalists have been both responsible for the death of children through labour and for the emanicpation of Children from Labour, depending on time and place. Many Capitalists have used large amounts of capital to set up funds and efforts for the freeing and educating of children. To suggest that Capitalism will have a definitive effect on children is to ignore the widely disparate outcomes that have occured under Capitalism. It is, in fact, an absence of rules and ideology rather than the presence of one.
You know that and I know that, but they're Communists. I'm not sure they believe that it's possible for an ideology to exist without despising the people it's supposed to be for and ruthlessly punishing them every time they fail the ideology.
Reason for execution: had the wrong dad
Nicholas Romanov was actually a decent guy. The problem was that he was an ideologue (of absolutism) and very incompetent. If he had abdicated in favor of his son, the family would probably have survived, but he did not want to put his son through that.
i think lynching niggers in the south was just as ethical.
I don't think he got the right message from those books.
He needs to go back.
And the German response was justified, but it's not surprising why these views are controversial given the people involved.
Archives for this post:
link (removed) - archive.org - archive.today - imgur
Different strokes for different folks, man; and that's why you don't vote for them, let them in your country, or allow them to teach your children.
Nope. Guardian US is, if anything, even dumber than Guardian UK. Its members accused the original supposed newspaper of 'twansphobia' because of its concerns over transvestite men shoving their penises where they don't belong.