Moderates don't Exist.

[MithrandirOlorin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e3_IKKb1fw

youtu.be/IKKb1fw

Every Election I can member (they start with 92) the General Election candidate perceived at the time as the moderate lost.

The media perpetuates the myth of Moderate Electable because true meaningful change threatens them, whether it's form the left or Right.

But like the Centrists of Weimar Germany if push comes to shove they will deem the far right the lesser evil because at least their insanity is amenable to Capitalism.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

They're not really supposed to exist. Representation of the public gets split between gathering votes from progressives or conservatives. That's fortified by the establishments being a generally safe bet for your own political interests.

[AlucardNoir]

Of course they'd select the Nazis then, they were the lesser of two evils. Leninist soviet Russia had gulags, fascist Italy did not. Before the holocaust fascist were the lesser of two evils when compared to communists... and after WWII communists made sure they took that crown back.

Currently, the only two regimes worse than fascist ones are the historical Aztec empire whose human sacrifices reached 1% of their population yearly and the communist regimes that thanks to countries like the USSR, PRC, North Korea, Vietnam and the like succeed in surpassing the atrocities committed by fascist powers before and during WWII.

When the Weimar centrists had to chose between the communists and the national socialists to form a coalition government or risk a new election and loose even more seats they chose the lesser of two evils in the hopes they could control the NAZI. When communists were accused of starting the Reichstag fire the German populace didn't bat an eye. Why? because the communists had been violent before that event so actually starting the fire after losing their change at power was something most Germans could see communists doing.

Currently the only form of government worse the fascism is communism. That was also true in 1933.

That being said, if you're only options are to chose between a communist and a fascist... well, you're fucked, you just have to decide for how long you want to suffer before you die.

[clearspira]

Of course they'd select the Nazis then, they were the lesser of two evils. Leninist soviet Russia had gulags, fascist Italy did not. Before the holocaust fascist were the lesser of two evils when compared to communists... and after WWII communists made sure they took that crown back.

Currently, the only two regimes worse than fascist ones are the historical Aztec empire whose human sacrifices reached 1% of their population yearly and the communist regimes that thanks to countries like the USSR, PRC, North Korea, Vietnam and the like succeed in surpassing the atrocities committed by fascist powers before and during WWII.

When the Weimar centrists had to chose between the communists and the national socialists to form a coalition government or risk a new election and loose even more seats they chose the lesser of two evils in the hopes they could control the NAZI. When communists were accused of starting the Reichstag fire the German populace didn't bat an eye. Why? because the communists had been violent before that event so actually starting the fire after losing their change at power was something most Germans could see communists doing.

Currently the only form of government worse the fascism is communism. That was also true in 1933.

That being said, if you're only options are to chose between a communist and a fascist... well, you're fucked, you just have to decide for how long you want to suffer before you die.

FYI, your judgment upon Aztec sacrifices are a great case of looking at something with 21st century eyes. Do you know why they sacrificed people? Its because the WHOLE population, not just the leaders, believed that if they did not give their gods a periodic donation of blood then the whole world would end. Many sacrifices were completely willing for the simple reason that they believed themselves to be heroes who were dying for a higher cause. The 1% died so that the 99% could live. And you know what? Its a system that worked. The Aztecs lasted longer than many other civilizations have and would have lasted even longer if it wasn't for the Spanish. (And yes, I know that many were also unwilling, I am merely pointing out that you are being grossly unfair).

And just for the record, I agree that the notion of killing yourself to stop the apocalypse was stupid, but then again, I think all religion is stupid. Sacrificing yourself is from the exact same tree as prayer.

[MithrandirOlorin]

What's Evil about Fascism is apparent right in it's stated goal. Communist isn't Evil, Socialism sin't Evil, it's not even really Marxism, Lenin and Mao were really more following the idea of Blanque.

[Yukaphile]

@clearspira Gotta love people who are so ignorant of history and look back to less developed times, victim-blaming with all the holier-than-thou self-righteous judgment of somebody who, comparatively speaking even if they lived in a dirt-poor Third World country, has had a silver spoon in their mouth from the moment they were born, huh? Nothing like good old-fashioned human hypocrisy.

Btw, clearspira, here's something I wanna ask you. Might be off-topic, but it's not the first time we've done that. I'm curious. You love The Culture, with all the rampant gender-swapping and sleeping around that goes with that series. And yet you're against a female James Bond and a female Doctor Who and seem to think Dax isn't a trans/bi allegory. Am I missing something here, or is that more inborn human inconsistency?

[AlucardNoir]

@clearspira & @Yukaphile ah yes, the moral relativist argument. Made even sweeter when it's used in defense of moral values the people making the argument would otherwise be against.

Yes, how dare I be ignorant of the historical context in which those people massacred each other? Especially when they did it in the name ore religion. Oh, right, by not being a moral relativists to begin with. I'm an atheist because I'm not a moral relativist. And as of the last few years I've apparently become and islamophob because that's the blanket term applied to anyone who is against the religious edicts of islam.

Fuck the aztec religion, fuck christianity, fuck judaism, fuck islam and fuck any defending them and the atrocities committed in their name.

The above statement was intended to be offensive and I do not apologize to anyone that took offense. If Mods want to do something about it feel free to ban me because my moral viewpoint when it comes to religion has been made and nothing other then a supernatural miracle will change it.

@ MithrandirOlorin Oh, look another idiot with his "real socialism" shtick. Every time a communist or socialist revolution succeed and socialists or communists came into power the result was an authoritarian regime that competed only with the Nazi's in their atrocities... well, all except the USSR, that system under Stalin actually served as inspiration to Hitler's Nazi Germany so it's unfair to compare the original with a copy.

Communism doesn't work because communism requires that everybody think the exact same way. People don't. It requires that people be all equally capable of achieving the exact same thing. People aren't - unless you're talking legally. It requires people have the exact same goals. Needless to say people don't.

Whenever communism has been forced upon the people it has ended up badly, not because real communism couldn't be tried but because "the people weren't ready" for real communism. For fucks sake, the fist soviet army was only founded because the communist realized they couldn't compete with the organized armies of other states and the white army. The first army only had one rank. Those things were quickly abandoned because they weren't fit for purpose. The first Gulags were supposed to be re-education camps to force the people that disagreed with the communists to come to their way of thinking.

Communism has been tried, it ended up as authoritarian socialism and moved into authoritarian capitalism in place of moving closer to "real" communism. Humans aren't intrinsically communistic, not any more then they are intrinsically capitalistic mind you. Humans are nonetheless social and hierarchical.

As for fascism, fascism is the extreme of nationalism. By it's very nature it's unfortunately more "natural" a governing system then communism since it's by it's very nature hierarchical and based on humanity's intrinsic sense of belonging to a group. And before you say that that last one is what communism is all about, communism doesn't draw lines in the sand between people, and that right there is the problem with it. Human is one identity, white, black, asian, american, european, chinese, french, qubequa, texan, argentinian, han, japanese, australian, iranian etc others. Humans are tribal, communism seeks to ignore that tribalism while fascism seeks to exploited. Fascism always has an easier grip when it comes to that because, again, humans are tribal. To erase tribal lines you have to erase language, culture, history, tradition ... which are all things communists have tried to do at different points in history... oh yeah, and facial features and eye, hair and skin color...

Humans notice differences between individuals and easily categories people intro the in group and the out group, fascism exploits this human traits, communism seeks to ignore it and when it realized it can't is seeks to forcefully suppress it.

[Darth Wedgius]

Odd, the media doesn't seem to treat antifa violence more harshly than far-right violence. Maybe CNN and MSNBC aren't conspiring against the left?

I will acknowledge that fascism will be authoritarian, and socialism, whatever its many failings and body count, in principle could be democratic. Democratic in more than the "vote for your favorite party member" sense, that is.

in practice, socialism has a lot of bodies and is frequently accompanied by authoritarians. In principle, neither fascism nor socialism is kind to what Mussolini called "the debacle of individualism."

[clearspira]

@clearspira & @Yukaphile ah yes, the moral relativist argument. Made even sweeter when it's used in defense of moral values the people making the argument would otherwise be against.

Yes, how dare I be ignorant of the historical context in which those people massacred each other? Especially when they did it in the name ore religion. Oh, right, by not being a moral relativists to begin with. I'm an atheist because I'm not a moral relativist. And as of the last few years I've apparently become and islamophob because that's the blanket term applied to anyone who is against the religious edicts of islam.

Fuck the aztec religion, fuck christianity, fuck judaism, fuck islam and fuck any defending them and the atrocities committed in their name.

The above statement was intended to be offensive and I do not apologize to anyone that took offense. If Mods want to do something about it feel free to ban me because my moral viewpoint when it comes to religion has been made and nothing other then a supernatural miracle will change it.

@ MithrandirOlorin Oh, look another idiot with his "real socialism" shtick. Every time a communist or socialist revolution succeed and socialists or communists came into power the result was an authoritarian regime that competed only with the Nazi's in their atrocities... well, all except the USSR, that system under Stalin actually served as inspiration to Hitler's Nazi Germany so it's unfair to compare the original with a copy.

Communism doesn't work because communism requires that everybody think the exact same way. People don't. It requires that people be all equally capable of achieving the exact same thing. People aren't - unless you're talking legally. It requires people have the exact same goals. Needless to say people don't.

Whenever communism has been forced upon the people it has ended up badly, not because real communism couldn't be tried but because "the people weren't ready" for real communism. For fucks sake, the fist soviet army was only founded because the communist realized they couldn't compete with the organized armies of other states and the white army. The first army only had one rank. Those things were quickly abandoned because they weren't fit for purpose. The first Gulags were supposed to be re-education camps to force the people that disagreed with the communists to come to their way of thinking.

Communism has been tried, it ended up as authoritarian socialism and moved into authoritarian capitalism in place of moving closer to "real" communism. Humans aren't intrinsically communistic, not any more then they are intrinsically capitalistic mind you. Humans are nonetheless social and hierarchical.

As for fascism, fascism is the extreme of nationalism. By it's very nature it's unfortunately more "natural" a governing system then communism since it's by it's very nature hierarchical and based on humanity's intrinsic sense of belonging to a group. And before you say that that last one is what communism is all about, communism doesn't draw lines in the sand between people, and that right there is the problem with it. Human is one identity, white, black, asian, american, european, chinese, french, qubequa, texan, argentinian, han, japanese, australian, iranian etc others. Humans are tribal, communism seeks to ignore that tribalism while fascism seeks to exploited. Fascism always has an easier grip when it comes to that because, again, humans are tribal. To erase tribal lines you have to erase language, culture, history, tradition ... which are all things communists have tried to do at different points in history... oh yeah, and facial features and eye, hair and skin color...

Humans notice differences between individuals and easily categories people intro the in group and the out group, fascism exploits this human traits, communism seeks to ignore it and when it realized it can't is seeks to forcefully suppress it.

Its the fact that you are going fuck this and fuck that as opposed to trying to understand why they did what they did. It makes you look like an ignorant and judgemental prick. Life is not as simple as "They were bad people". And guess what? In a thousand years people will be saying the same about you.

[clearspira]

@clearspira Gotta love people who are so ignorant of history and look back to less developed times, victim-blaming with all the holier-than-thou self-righteous judgment of somebody who, comparatively speaking even if they lived in a dirt-poor Third World country, has had a silver spoon in their mouth from the moment they were born, huh? Nothing like good old-fashioned human hypocrisy.

Btw, clearspira, here's something I wanna ask you. Might be off-topic, but it's not the first time we've done that. I'm curious. You love The Culture, with all the rampant gender-swapping and sleeping around that goes with that series. And yet you're against a female James Bond and a female Doctor Who and seem to think Dax isn't a trans/bi allegory. Am I missing something here, or is that more inborn human inconsistency?

Its actually quite simple: the Culture was designed by Iain Banks to be the ultimate liberal society. We were introduced to this story from chapter one as being what it is. James Bond and Dr Who are only getting rid of its men because the Woke are trying to force their politics down our throat.