Based on the conversations going on behind the page, it seems there have been several attempts to edit or delete the page. Some of the conversations are interesting but most of them are the usual Side A trying to preserve the record and Side B trying to find excuses to obfuscate the record. Here are a few clips:
My opinion is the page title shouldn't exist, therefore I have proposed the page be deleted and am assuming this is adequate notification, without individual pings, to those invested in its content. ~ cygnis insignis 15:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
May you expand the context of your opinion? WeiChengChao (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
How about no 2607:FEA8:F49A:F500:844B:8EE3:6322:1D9E (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
and...
Why not have citations rather than removing information all together? Funny, because burning books and info is exactly what communist regimes do. Way to support free speech and the marketplace of ideas. Naw, just want to protect your comrades. 162.142.28.114 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Similar sentiments have been expressed in the deletion discussion and elsewhere, where concerns such as censorship are being addressed. Another view is finding a distinction between correlation or causation in a page detailing communism and large amounts of deaths. ~ cygnis insignis 15:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The entire fascism vs. communism debate is a stupid one anyways. They're two sides of the same coin and both deserve to be derided for the evils they've committed. Authoritarianism and the fallen nature of man is the root of the problem.
Seriously, “X has always been controlled opposition” is basically a meme at this point. I can’t take anyone who says it seriously.
Jordan has always said he leans Left, which is why the Left labeling him alt-right was such a hoot.
JP has a lot of insight into human nature, psychology and related sciences but his political takes have always been rather naive. This is no different. At least he’s realizing his mistake.
Socialism leads to communism leads to fascism. The only difference is the futile attempts by communists to create a utopia that occur before it degrades into fascism.
Anti-Fascists are no more anti-fascist than anti-racists are anti-racist.
Good job spending the time reading through it. I took one look at the handwriting and noped out.
Her story is very sad, but this is what hedonism earns you in the end: a wasted life with nothing to show for it. At least it sounds like she’s realizing her mistake, finally, but people like that rarely change even if given the opportunity so I doubt the situation will improve for her. Sad.
I'd be willing to bet she doesn't learn anything from it either and votes for a Democrat again the next time, expecting a different result.
I believe there's a word for that, hmm...
These are exactly the kind of low-information, irrational, impulsive and emotional people that Left loves.
This is a modern amalgamation of the Noble Savage fallacy and the Appeal to Nature/Naturalistic fallacy, where native populations and primitive peoples are often considered wiser and more moral than modern people due to their simple way of life and their connection to nature.
The truth is that human nature is the same regardless of the context, and constant warfare, rape, slavery were commonplace among Native Americans and some even practiced self-mutilation, child-sacrifice and other atrocities.
Remember, the African tribes were the ones to kidnapped and sold their own people to the European slave traders.
Human nature is the same everywhere you go. Only people that learn to overcome their nature are able to move beyond it. This is just as true for people living in the USA today as it was for African tribesman living in Africa a thousand years ago.
Your doomsday scenario only plays out if our entire country is dependant on chain of command at the federal level. It is not.
If a nuclear strike hit our capitol, pretty sure whoever fired it won't be alive much longer to retaliate further, much less strike.
Let's assume there are a handful of nuclear missile silos in North Dakota that are completely safe from the attack. Do you really think the silo commander is going to pick a target and give the order to fire the nukes by himself? These nukes require a chain of command by design so this is virtually impossible. What about an airbase? Is the base commander going to sortie all the fighters on his own without clear orders or objectives? It's not likely.
The intention of the strike would be to hit all of the primary targets simultaneously, so it's not like any significant portion of the command structure would remain after the initial strike, and even if it did, communications would be severely affected so it probably wouldn't matter. It would be up to low level commanders to make BIG decisions in a short period of time with very little information all on their own without being able to coordinate with anyone else in the command structure.
Also, you keep ignoring the physical size of the country. Someone in Wyoming won't be affected directly if a nuclear bomb destroys NYC. The whole country doesn't hinge on one or two cities.
You're absolutely correct. The average person living in a rural area or less populated state probably wouldn't even know the attack was happening at first, and they may not even be directly affected at all. I'm not sure how this is relevant though.
It seems you really want America to be as pathetic as our retard media portrays us. We are not. If our stupid federal gov't falls we have states rights and would love on from there.
I'm sorry if I hit a nerve. I'm just trying to be realistic about how a hypothetical scenario could play out. I obviously don't want any of this to happen.
It's been a while since I researched the topic but I remember there are a number of countries in Africa that certainly do put a high value on human life. IMHO this is primarily due to the strong Christian influence. Some countries like Malawi are actually safer than places like the UK and France.
Nobody's nuking half the country. Why would you irradiate the land you're trying to conquer? Also, that would have to be a LOT of nuclear bombs and would lead to global nuclear annihilation.
Are you American? Have you been to America? This country is mind-bendingly huge with literally every type of climate and geography. Frankly it takes like 5+ hours to fly across the country with a lot of lateral space. You would need thousands and thousands of planes and pilots to even attempt an air invasion. Not to mention the thousands of miles of ocean between us and the rest of the world.
We also have a gigantic -- maybe the biggest -- stockpile of weapons on the planet. If things get as loose as we're suggesting, I'd estimate it would be giant blocs of militias holding ground.
All-out warfare in the modern area is all about disabling your enemy with first strike nuclear capability. Hypothetically if China or some other country wanted to attack us, it would start with a nuclear strike on key cities and bases to disable our chain of command and make it difficult or impossible to retaliate. Obviously if they failed they would pay dearly but if it was successful and they manage to evade our early detection system, we'd be mostly helpless from that point forward.
The primary targets would be places like Washington D.C., The Pentagon and any nuclear silos or nuclear capable ships or submarines that they know about. Secondary targets would be the various forts and other non-nuclear military installations across the country. Third would be major cities in key states where there's a strong state government, police force and national guard. Fourth would probably be power-plants across the country, although this might not be necessary.
Once this is done, the only purpose for a ground invasion at this point would be to take our natural resources --- oil, mineral deposits, farmland, forestry, etc. -- which are massive. This obviously requires a huge effort to control these areas, but they may try if it's important enough. That said, yes, I agree any ground invasion of this sort would most likely ultimately fail due to the tremendous resistance from a well-armed populace.
Yeah, I'm not too worried about the US. Any army that would stretch their supply line 5000 miles and across an ocean onto incredibly hostile territory -- including a type of urban and suburban warfare that has never been approached before -- is going to die before the tail makes it to land.
It all depends on the first strike. This isn't like Pearl Harbor. We live in an age of hyper-sonic intercontinental ballistic missiles that can destroy entire cities at a time. Air invasions wouldn't even be necessary except to mop up any resistance afterwards.
I'm not trying to scare anyone; this is all hypothetical after all. I'm just explaining how it could be done. I think people are too complacent and take our military strength for granted. It's important to realize that while our technological prowess remains unmatched in the world, Leftists have been working hard to weaken us by purging the ranks of anyone who doesn't think like them, removing leadership who oppose their idiotic social justice programs and even kicking out soldiers who refuse the vaccine mandates.
You can have all the military technology in the world, but when your soldiers and generals are Leftists who hate our country anyways, are they really going to put their lives on the line and do what is necessary to win? Even if they were willing, are they capable? I sincerely doubt it.
Unfortunately, ground invasions in the modern world will follow bombardment, most likely by a nuclear strike. A ground invasion may fail, but only after they've nuked half the country. I'd say that's the worst-case scenario but it's not improbable if the USA continues down the current path.
My understanding is the slippery slope fallacy is only related to deductive reasoning and not inductive reasoning.
Quote from source:
The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory.
Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to broad generalizations, and deductive reasoning the other way around.
Inductive reasoning starts with observations about the world and then builds a theory about how the world works based on observed patterns.
Deductive reasoning starts with a theory and then breaks it down into testable claims that are either true or false. This usually takes the form of (premise + premise = conclusion) where if all premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
The slippery slope is a perfectly valid pattern to recognize when building a theory through inductive reasoning but it can be a problem when developing premises in deductive reasoning. Of course, this gets misunderstood and misused by internet warriors trying to score points while ignoring common sense.
Honestly, it's not that complicated. If you observe a pattern and can make accurate predictions based on that pattern, that's all you really need to know if something is likely true.
I agree for the most part, but many people like you (no offense) unfortunately still believe we can have legalized gay marriage and avoid all the stuff that naturally follows. This just isn't the case.
Heterosexual marriage in one form or another has existed since the beginning of human history. It's purpose is abundantly clear. In contrast, gay marriage was never a thing except in a few very rare cases and has no purpose. Even so, in 2015 we decided that feelings are more important than reality and decided to legalize gay marriage on the basis that it's part of the "right to freedom of expression". This opened the floodgates that led us to today. No longer did reality matter when emotion, feeling and personal expression were sufficient, and thus society subsequently fell into the mass delusion that we're currently experiencing.
Mouthy Infidel is making the desire vs. behavior or thought vs. action argument.
I remember making this argument back in the 2000's debating (against) homosexuality and gay marriage in /r/atheism, /r/politics and /r/Christianity. I tried to explain to people that hating the sin is different from hating the sinner and that being born homosexual and acting on those desires are two different things. We can't choose how we are born but we can choose what we do, or at very least, we can choose whether to accept our [broken] nature or fight against it.
That said, in this hypothetical scenario where someone is a pedophile who hates that part of themselves and wants to fight against it, they wouldn't be out there trying to foster mainstream acceptance. They wouldn't be advertising it like it's something to be proud of. They would avoid schools and anywhere with children like the plague on their own rather than being forced to do so. They would be seeking any way possible to "fix" themselves, and bar that possibility, they would accept a lifestyle of self-denial because they know it's the right thing to do.
However, the behavior of someone living this way and the behavior of these people on the left betrays their true intentions. They don't want to fight their nature, they want to be accepted and then later celebrated, following the precedent set by the LGBT+ movement before them.
I 100% agree that:
our company is roughly 70% Indian
...and...
I reported directly to the CEO for six years so I've talked to him about the Christmas thing.
He specifically set the tone that we are not to send cards to clients that say Merry Christmas, they have to say Happy Holidays. He said the reason is to not offend anyone.
Should be in the original post. They both add a lot of much-needed context.
Honestly, given this context, I don't think it's a big deal and I would just let it go.
He makes some great points. This reminds of this gem of a video demonstrating the difference in maturity and attitude between Next Generation and Discovery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnlxugk3Qb0
It really is like comparing adults to children.
Another good point by one of the commenters:
The older shows tried to imagine what humanity COULD be, the new shows just takes humans as they are now and puts them in the future.
Anyone who is or was an unrepentant NeverTrumper deserves a skeptical eye at the very least. Trump has flaws no doubt but he had unprecedented opposition from both parties and still managed to start a massive populist political movement that we're seeing fruit from as other candidates like MTG ride the wave.
I'm afraid Matt, while factually correct about something, is missing the bigger picture... like most inside-the-beltway Republicans.
Moving beyond Trump is one thing; abandoning Trump is another. Matt isn't explicit about which one he's referring to.
Want to "move beyond" Trump to an even more hard-line anti-establishment position? Absolutely.
Want to "move beyond" Trump to a more happy-go-lucky, lets-all-be-friends position? Absolutely not.
We need someone who is skilled in the actual act of governing.
This sounds too much like: "we need to elect an establishment politician".
I could be wrong. Matt may mean we need someone who has a good track record on the local and state level, which is fine, but finding a non-establishment politician with a track record on the local or state level is like finding a unicorn.
We CAN NOT compromise on an anti-establishment candidate. The enemy is the establishment, Democrat and Republican both, and I'll take a dozen Trumps, for all his faults, than one more George W. Bush or John McCain or Mitch McConnell.
Trump personality cult = bad (but not necessarily his fault)
Trump fighting spirit, anti-establishment attitude and common sense business acumen = good
My biggest complaints about Trump don't have anything to do with his mean tweets or cult of personality, they have to do with his excessive spending and his bad appointments to various offices. We need someone who will purge leftists from government and put in strong anti-establishment appointments. He did neither.
I don't know what Matt Walsh's criticisms of Trump are, but until someone better comes along as a viable candidate, I'd still vote for Trump in a heartbeat.
Done.
Not that I'm aware of... not in any clear and substantive way with sufficient support behind it. If that support doesn't exist then this effort is dead in the water.
Just paint targets on our back.
No.
I'm not talking about doxing specific individuals. I'm talking about making sure everyone involved understands who this movement consists of and what they believe. Remember, many other people are watching and trying to decide which side to support.
You've never read our founding documents, apparently. Restoring the US Constitution to the highest law of the land should be the obvious resolution. We don't have anything better.
Restoring the U.S. Constitution is the destination, not the path to reach the destination.
Violent overthrow is very popular these days but I don't think people realize how dangerous it is, not just in the conflict itself, but how easily things can go wrong and how easily you can end up with a new government that is worse than before. I haven't heard anyone suggest how such an uprising could be done properly to avoid these pitfalls.
Before a violent overthrow can have legitimacy, there are several things that need to be done first:
-
There needs to be a listing and public declaration/release of specific grievances against the current government. This should include examples and evidence backing up these claims.
-
There needs to be a re-affirming of the principles, values and rights of those who are publishing the grievances. It needs to be clear who this movement consists of, what their values are, and why they believe these grievances to be legitimate.
-
There needs to be a clear statement of intentions and a path forward in order to remedy the situation. This should always be a non-violent solution to begin with, but make it clear that justified violence will be used if there is insufficient relief given.
Only once remedy of grievances is denied by government should the next step be taken, namely violence to overthrow the oppressive government and bring relief to those oppressed.
This is just optics. I appreciate the strong pro-2nd amendment statement and I enjoy the problem she represents for the Democrat narrative due to her race, but the worth of any politicians is in their actions. Will this new administration actually be conservative and defend the U.S. Constitution while drastically reducing the size of government, or will they just pretend to be conservative while they do nothing, like most Republican politicians?
Republican =/= conservative