-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
My irony meter just broke: Rumsfeld says fighting against Fascisim
- Thread starter ronito
- Start date
- Status
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Xdrive05 said:I think we can all agree that they were assholes. Right?
That's Islamoassholes to you buddy!
Ghengis Cohen
Banned
Well they would have to explain the reference. Islamofascist is nice because no explanation is needed for something that has no real meaning beyond it being scary sounding.Incognito said:
ronito said:
Ok, I'll lay out the triadic model for you...
Fascism:
AGENT: Nation State ------> OBSTACLE: individualism, independent groups, class divisions ------> GOAL: the power and glory of the state.
and I quote Dr. Terence Ball (go ahead Google him)
"The Inclusion of the name socialist in the name of the Nazi party has led to some confusion on this point, but Hitler was not a socialist in any ordinary sense of the term as he explained in a speech,
For Hitler, then, "socialism" was merely another name for nationalism;"Hitler said:
For reference, the triadic model for socialism is
Socialism
AGENT: common/working people --------> OBSTACLE class division, economic inequalities, unequal life chances, false consciousness ---------> GOAL: Filfillment of human need, e.g., satisfying work, fair share of product
Which is more like Nazism??
Socialism
AGENT: common/working people --------> OBSTACLE class division, economic inequalities, unequal life chances, false consciousness ---------> GOAL: Filfillment of human need, e.g., satisfying work, fair share of product
Which is more like Nazism??
radios shipping overview
Member
I can't make it to the anti-Bush rally tomorrow here in SLC, so I'm going to an anti-Rummy rally that takes place in the evening. Should be fun.
Ghengis Cohen
Banned
They are not.Incognito said:
Holy wtf. I never thought I would see such a vile post right here on GAF.Square2005 said:
You probably only know Nazis by the name used by Holocaust-deniers like Ann Coulter: "White Knights of Honor Who Defend All That is Good and White, Whose Sheets are White, and Souls are White, and Who Marry Sunny-Faced Women in White Summer Dresses."
sans_pants
avec_pénis
jiji said:I can't make it to the anti-Bush rally tomorrow here in SLC, so I'm going to an anti-Rummy rally that takes place in the evening. Should be fun.
way to accomplish nothing
ElectricBlue187
Member
It seems like Rummy has some intellectual confusion over what 'fascism' is
radios shipping overview
Member
Right, because the proper response is just to post about these things on the internet and sigh a bit.sans_pants said:
sans_pants
avec_pénis
jiji said:
no but protests arent legitimate in any way
highroller
Member
castle007 said:
It's completely ridiculous. OF COURSE there was more media coverage of soldiers abusing prisoners. The fact that he can't figure out WHY people might care to know that makes me want to run around screaming.
This is the best comment in this thread, I think. (Though ronito's got some good ones that made me laugh.) And it's not borderline racist, I think it IS racist.
Dynamite Shikoku
Congratulations, you really deserve it!
sans_pants said:
what?
sans_pants
avec_pénis
terrene said:
they accomplish nothing and those in power dont care about them
Johan van Benderschlotten said:
On the one hand, I hate that I can read his posts when they've been quoted. On the other hand, I'm almost glad to see such an absurd level of naked hypocrisy on display. Square's neocon talking points, while possibly either naive or idiotic, are not "vile."
I think *my* irony meter just broke.
Let he who doesn't spew slanted partisan rhetoric cast the first stone, folks.
Yeah exactly. I mean, you'd never hear a liberal say something as vile as, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." I mean shit, I totally agree with you terrene--how VILE, to think that liberals would say such a VILE thing. Just vile, so very vile. Next you'll see people accuse liberals of making light of abortion or whatever, saying they joke about ripping fetuses out or something. WHERE ARE THE STANDARDS HERE??? That's what I want to know. Where. Are. The. Standards?terrene said:
The proper term for groups like Al Qaeda is Militant Muslim Radicals.
Having the term, "Islam" attached to them only serves as a compliment, and helps them in their hijacking of a religion. They want to be seen as religious people, they want to be seen as fighters doing something religious or something that God wants, and by applying the term "Islamo" to whatever noun only gives them credibility.
It's like calling an abortionist killer or KKK member a "Christian Crusader" each time such a person is referenced. Just imagine if the news referred to these nutcases as "Holy Warriors". Seems silly, doesn't it? That's exactly what is occurring nowadays when terrorists are called "Jihadis". It's a term THEY want applied to themselves, and we are playing along. It's silly.
Rumsfeld's remarks show that the Administration don't really have a concrete idea of who they are fighting. These terms are appearing 5 years after 9/11, and it's not the first. There have been many terms coined in the past 5 years, trying to describe something. The problem is, they don't even know what that something is. And when I say "they", I mean the Bush Administration and Conservatives in general.
Having the term, "Islam" attached to them only serves as a compliment, and helps them in their hijacking of a religion. They want to be seen as religious people, they want to be seen as fighters doing something religious or something that God wants, and by applying the term "Islamo" to whatever noun only gives them credibility.
It's like calling an abortionist killer or KKK member a "Christian Crusader" each time such a person is referenced. Just imagine if the news referred to these nutcases as "Holy Warriors". Seems silly, doesn't it? That's exactly what is occurring nowadays when terrorists are called "Jihadis". It's a term THEY want applied to themselves, and we are playing along. It's silly.
Rumsfeld's remarks show that the Administration don't really have a concrete idea of who they are fighting. These terms are appearing 5 years after 9/11, and it's not the first. There have been many terms coined in the past 5 years, trying to describe something. The problem is, they don't even know what that something is. And when I say "they", I mean the Bush Administration and Conservatives in general.
The Stealth Fox
Junior Member
APF said:
You probably sold your soul for a Formula 1 racecar.
Edit: I know I would!
Dude, I have said many things in my life, and made many posts on GAF. But I have never accused someone of being an enemy to America or being a terrorist sympathizer. And if I were to say something like that, I'd have a lot more evidence to back up my shit than the person I'm talking to just generally being "liberal."APF said:
Let's play switcheroo with Square2005's statement and see how politically correct we are.
On the subject of, say, a digicam, spoken to a person of Arab descent. Would you decide to insult them by referring to the object as the "beheading cam?" No, not a good idea?
On the subject of welfare, spoken to a black man, would you offer to refer to it as "money for raising your crack babies?" I wouldn't, unless I was ready to get smacked or banned.
See if you can spot the difference between my post about abortion and Square's post, APF. I doubt you'll admit that you can, because you don't know how to respond to opposing viewpoints without straw-manning (see the post quoted above). But I'll try!
1) Square2005: Rubbing the most offensive stereotype that comes to mind in someone's face in order to insult them; basing it on brief exposure to their personal beliefs.
2) Me: Being intentionally over-candid about my own beliefs in order to self-efface/annoy. (To bring everyone up to speed, I don't hold any esteem for fetuses, and referred to them as "parasites, who should be scraped from the womb en masse," or somesuch. Not something I really believe, but like I said. JayDubya was an easy target.
). Wow, looks like one is passing judgement and exposing prejudice, and one is not! I THINK WE'VE FOUND SOMETHING HERE.
Of course, in further straw-manning and acting typically APF-ish, you neglect to mention that despite that difference, I was indeed banned for my post.
highroller
Member
DCharlie said:
I believe that would be for the win, right there.
Instigator
Banned
ronito said:
how about...
Communazis!
Don't liberals already call conservatives all that? I mean seriously, isn't that the general content of most GAF political posts? Even the smart posters are so polarized they fall into that level of characterization routinely, so I'm amused by the faux self-righteousness in the responses I.. uh, responded to...ronito said:
There's a very real phenomenon there, that the comment re: liberals and "freedom fighters" is touching upon, regardless of whether you (or anyone else who was supposedly "appalled" by that post) want to acknowledge it--much like there are real phenomena behind conservatives' being tarred as racist, or unconcerned about the poor, etc; or people noting that there is a militant strain of Islam that *gasp* sometimes resorts to terrorism. If GAF's liberals were honestly so disgusted by that fact, you all would be side-by-side with me in terrorism-related posts attacking people who make comments along those lines. But guess what ain't happening?
APF said:Don't liberals already call conservatives all that? I mean seriously, isn't that the general content of most GAF political posts? Even the smart posters are so polarized they fall into that level of characterization routinely, so I'm amused by the faux self-righteousness in the responses I.. uh, responded to...
There's a very real phenomenon there, that the comment re: liberals and "freedom fighters" is touching upon, regardless of whether you (or anyone else who was supposedly "appalled" by that post) want to acknowledge it--much like there are real phenomena behind conservatives' being tarred as racist, or unconcerned about the poor, etc; or people noting that there is a militant strain of Islam that *gasp* sometimes resorts to terrorism. If GAF's liberals were honestly so disgusted by that fact, you all would be side-by-side with me in terrorism-related posts attacking people who make comments along those lines. But guess what ain't happening?
Yeah, I agree with the average Square post about as much as I do an average Incognito or bob_arctor post. Extremist liberal talking points are no more palatable to me than extremist conservative ones, and I see them in about the same light, yet GAF dogpiles on Square and calls his opinions vile?
LiveFromKyoto
Member
There's no way to disagree with the government without hating America and spitting in the troops' faces. I love this logicaland reasonable argument, and the brilliant people who repeat it in everyday life.
Aliens. Might as well cut to the chase.
Kobun Heat said:
Aliens. Might as well cut to the chase.
not to quibble with the retard in the pretty shaped building, but loosely speaking... the US more resembles any fascist state than Al Qaeda does?
why? Well, for one, we're actually a state. (Heh, I know, ridiculous isn't it? But these things do have rules, and as Rumsfeld will gladly state, without our rules we're nothing but dirty baby-killing arabs.) and second, the general marks of fascism are a strong executive (well, the power lays completely in the executive... so we're not there at all, but still, show me al-qaedas ultra-powerful executive branch. You can't. Know why? THERE ISNT ONE!) and a predilection towards the national unity brought by a military. (Tell me THAT doesn't sound like us.)
oh well... is there anyone who hears rumsfeld speak these days and doesn't outright dismiss it?
why? Well, for one, we're actually a state. (Heh, I know, ridiculous isn't it? But these things do have rules, and as Rumsfeld will gladly state, without our rules we're nothing but dirty baby-killing arabs.) and second, the general marks of fascism are a strong executive (well, the power lays completely in the executive... so we're not there at all, but still, show me al-qaedas ultra-powerful executive branch. You can't. Know why? THERE ISNT ONE!) and a predilection towards the national unity brought by a military. (Tell me THAT doesn't sound like us.)
oh well... is there anyone who hears rumsfeld speak these days and doesn't outright dismiss it?
reggieandTFE
Member
So much idiocy in this thread, especially from the idiots who think that Hitler and the Nazis were socialists. Uhh, after coming to power Hitler banned all Socialist/Communist parties from political life. He only used the word "socialism" in his rhetoric to appropriate working class support and general anti-capitalist leanings. I pity the American education system.
Terrene, your post makes no sense. How again can I be "straw-manning" you when you admit you've made those sort of remarks? Not that I directly pointed towards your personal vileness in the first place...
You're both making obnoxious comments, reflecting your beliefs, in order to annoy people. There's no difference between your obnoxious posts and his. Period. Oh yeah, you're using IRONY!! And therefore you're so morally-and-intellectually superior. Oh how ironic to amplify your most vile beliefs and use them to offend other people; it's a textbook example of irony, like rain on your mother****ing wedding day. :rolleyes
You say you've been banned for making those remarks, but even though you're banned like every other day, I find it hard to believe you were banned ~yesterday for a repeated offense, yet back today. Or that you were banned in the thread where White Man said he was too distracted to ban you. Or etc etc. Please. Stop being a douchebag, and stop pretending your delicate sensibilities are offended when someone makes an obnoxious point that has a kernel of truth in it.
You're both making obnoxious comments, reflecting your beliefs, in order to annoy people. There's no difference between your obnoxious posts and his. Period. Oh yeah, you're using IRONY!! And therefore you're so morally-and-intellectually superior. Oh how ironic to amplify your most vile beliefs and use them to offend other people; it's a textbook example of irony, like rain on your mother****ing wedding day. :rolleyes
You say you've been banned for making those remarks, but even though you're banned like every other day, I find it hard to believe you were banned ~yesterday for a repeated offense, yet back today. Or that you were banned in the thread where White Man said he was too distracted to ban you. Or etc etc. Please. Stop being a douchebag, and stop pretending your delicate sensibilities are offended when someone makes an obnoxious point that has a kernel of truth in it.
Shut up you HIRWMPR!APF said:Don't liberals already call conservatives all that? I mean seriously, isn't that the general content of most GAF political posts? Even the smart posters are so polarized they fall into that level of characterization routinely, so I'm amused by the faux self-righteousness in the responses I.. uh, responded to...
There's a very real phenomenon there, that the comment re: liberals and "freedom fighters" is touching upon, regardless of whether you (or anyone else who was supposedly "appalled" by that post) want to acknowledge it--much like there are real phenomena behind conservatives' being tarred as racist, or unconcerned about the poor, etc; or people noting that there is a militant strain of Islam that *gasp* sometimes resorts to terrorism. If GAF's liberals were honestly so disgusted by that fact, you all would be side-by-side with me in terrorism-related posts attacking people who make comments along those lines. But guess what ain't happening?
purple monkey dishwasher
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Here ya go, you silly twats--Rummy's clip:
Nazi's would be insulted
Can you please list for me my "Extremist Liberal Talking Points". I lost my copy last night.
Nazi's would be insulted
JayDubya said:
Can you please list for me my "Extremist Liberal Talking Points". I lost my copy last night.
ElectricBlue187
Member
It's so funny when conservatives/christians/enron execs act like they're being persecuted. :lol
bob_arctor said:
I really did mean no offense. <3
But let's try to see what I mean, okay? We'll stick to this thread alone though, let's see...
BushCo... check. 1984 reference... check. Calling the administration fascists? Yup.
I mean we already have a hat trick, why not just throw in "BU$H NO BLOOD 4 OIL" for funsies? Ooh, ooh! Can we call the president a stupid monkey too?
You use the same level of rhetoric. Just because it's more popular here doesn't make it better. Or worse. At any rate, I'm not saying that spewing rhetoric is by neccessity bad. Just that people incessantly dogging Square for doing something identical is pretty silly.
Incognito said:
Woah, there, you lost me chief. Does not compute. Rewind.
You forgot the Purple Monkey dishwasher. But then that's a talking point of both sides.JayDubya said:
Honestly though there is a levels of magnitude difference between bad 1984 reference and getting on B-admin's case for getting the US closer to Fascisim than it has been since Nixon's days, and saying someone advocates the terrorists killing innocent people, even citizens of your own country.
ronito said:
Well, to me they both seem like examples of hyperbole, just with a different political slant. Both claims have some relevant evidence to make a fairly weak argument that doesn't at all lead to the same point either poster is going for.
Is the Bush administration too authoritarian without enough regard for civil rights? Yes. Is the USA a fascist state or really all that close to Oceania's IngSoc? No (if you think so, report to miniluv).
Do many liberals within the Democratic Party and in other nations (Galloway, cough) come off as pacifists and / or moral relativists that seem to consistantly sympathize with what the other side views as criminals and villains? Yes. Does that mean that all of them do, or that they actively act as cheerleaders for terrorism? No.
Well, Galloway maybe... :lol Nevertheless, PMD.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
JayDubya said:
That 1984 quote was more "Power to the people" then anything else (thought it relevant in that Rummy is essentially calling the people stupid, or as he so lovingly put it, "morally and intellectually confused"). But point taken. (also, Bushco?? I can't use that? I mean, I didn't take/copy/whatever that from anything! What the?) And I know you meant no offense as I generally don't either, though Square did piss me off earlier.
edit: Goddamit ronito, there's no such thing as a "bad" 1984 reference!
- Status