Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: 6) I believe in God. 48

Journal by smittyoneeach

Read Marx and discover a mythology that is irreconcilable with any other narrative, including the Bible. Hang out in leftist internet environments, and you will discover a toxic bath of irrational hatred for the Judeo-Christian tradition. You will discover an alternate vocabulary in which Jesus is a "dead Jew on a stick" or a "zombie" and any belief is an arbitrary sham, the equivalent of a recently invented "flying spaghetti monster." You will discover historical revisionism that posits Nazism as a Christian denomination. You will discover a rejection of the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization and American concepts of individual rights and law. You will discover a nihilist void, the kind of vacuum of meaning that nature abhors and that, all too often, history fills with the worst totalitarian nightmares, the rough beast that slouches toward Bethlehem.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

6) I believe in God. More

6) I believe in God.

Comments Filter:
  • I particularly like how the author magically makes 8 bullet points into ten by claiming that two of them have enough weight to be counted twice each. That said I would wager he has read only marginally more of Marx than you have - and we agree that you haven't yet made it all the way through the Communist Manifesto once.
    R But go ahead, demonize the people you dislike. It probably makes it easier to justify to yourself your oppression of them, right?
    • The last line wasn't supposed to be all bold. I didn't write out a "BR" tag correctly, it somehow became a "B" tag instead. My fault for not using preview.
    • I'll take the fact that you offered nothing at all in refutation of the point made--"leftist internet environments" are against the Judeo-Christian heritage that substantially informs Western though (along with the Greeks, obviously)--as a tacit admission that it's spot-on.
      • There was a point made in their drivel? You could have fooled me. It seemed like it was just a classic case of fact-free conservative ravel-rousing. It was poorly written, devoid of facts, and playing so loose with math as to be essentially free of it entirely.

        It belongs in the fiction / parody section with your book on how to arbitrarily redefine fascism. Thankfully only one of the two have made it to print so far.
        • You can make all the fun of Goldberg you want. We'll await (a) your own political science book, and (b) better sales than Jonah had.
          Have you read Liberal Fascism? While it's fair to say that JG's book will never achieve the body count that KM's did, Goldberg is having a significant, positive effect on the political discourse in this country.

          • Goldberg is having a significant, positive effect on the political discourse in this country.

            Significant? Perhaps.

            Positive? Not in the least. Goldberg's book preaches hate and discourages understanding. The Communist Manifesto was preaching more love than Goldberg.

            • "My handle is damn_registrars, and I have not read this book, but Imma try to bluff my way through."
              • Anyone who has read the dust jacket or Amazon reviews of that book know that it is openly embracing prejudice and hatred. It is no more interested in reasonable discourse than Coulter's book "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)". Even more so anyone familiar with the one-dimensional political spectrum that he is trying to sell knows that facsism belongs not more closely on the left but rather more closely on the right - although in reality fascism / anarchism is an orthogonal axis not owned exclusively
                  • Citing yourself? Just because your "author" friends like to try for it does not mean it is a valid way to make a point.

                    Unless you believe that for some reason the dust jacket - and for that matter the very title - of your new favorite book to link to is somehow completely counter to the point that the text makes, then the points I made (which you seem to have completely ignored) stand.
                    • It was a valid way to beat the submission filter, through.
                      The only point you've made is that you haven't actually read the book, based upon your accusations. I guess such behavior is only questionable if undertaken by a lesser being than yourself.
                    • You're not honestly trying to compare one of the most financially successful pieces of hate speech to the Communist Manifesto, are you? The Communist Manifesto actually presented new ideas for government and economics. Goldberg just took the hate - which was already at 11 - and turned it up to 11.5. No new ideas were presented by Goldberg, and no meaningful sources were used in his constructing an atrociously flawed argument. All he did was redefine a word that other conservatives had not previously tho
                    • Could you bother to define hate speech, then connect your definition to Goldberg's book?
                      It seems that his second book, "The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas [amazon.com]" could almost have been written with you, personally, in mind.
                    • Goldberg's book is very plainly hate speech for several reasons.

                      First, it redefines terminology (his premise only works if you accept his twisted new meaning of "fascism") to encourage hatred towards a group of people he has at best only very marginal understanding of of the philosophy of.

                      Second, by redefining that group under a hated term he is discouraging people from actually having any kind of discourse with people of that group.

                      Third, he plays (at best) fast and loose with his "facts" to suppor
                    • I'll send him a link to this twaddle of yours over on Twitter [twitter.com] to see if you can at least score a guffaw from the fellow. You haven't said a thing with any basis in reality.

                      @JonahNRO [twitter.com]: got a guy accusing you of "H8 speech" for writing LF => http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5986095&cid=48346465 [slashdot.org]
                      Have you already retired this nonsense somewhere?

                    • If another troll on slashdot opens an account as Jonah Goldberg here, how will you determine if it is the real thing or not? I don't care enough to go deal with hate on twitter, I have better things to do with my time than sign up for an account there. One of the beauties with the freedom of speech is that no matter how much someone may want to get their message out, they can never force anyone else to listen to it.

                      I'm sorry for you, that your hero worship drives you to take it so personally when I la

                    • If another troll on slashdot opens an account as Jonah Goldberg here, how will you determine if it is the real thing or not?

                      Now, why would such even come to your mind. . .

                      I'm sorry for you, that your hero worship drives you to take it so personally when I lay out so plainly the Jonah Goldberg is directly propagating hatred in his writings.

                      Oh, I see: you think I have some emotional investment in JG, and wish to try to get a rise out of me by shamelessly, baselessly carpet bombing him with your bile.
                      Serves to underscore how loser-esque your approches are, damn_registrars.

                    • If another troll on slashdot opens an account as Jonah Goldberg here, how will you determine if it is the real thing or not?

                      Now, why would such even come to your mind. . .

                      Perhaps because of the hacktacular idiot who setup an account to look like me some time ago on here? Or perhaps because the accounts are free and can be linked to free email addresses, hence not needing to actually correlate to anything?

                      I'm sorry for you, that your hero worship drives you to take it so personally when I lay out so plainly the Jonah Goldberg is directly propagating hatred in his writings.

                      Oh, I see: you think I have some emotional investment in JG

                      Well, out of nowhere you brought him up simultaneously in multiple threads. I then pointed out the obvious fact that the very title of his book that you hold so dearly is hateful and was chosen to foster more hatred. I continued on to point out that his books are full o

                    • No, I think you're engaged in attempted manipulation. You haven't read JG, you don't care much about him one way or another. You're just trolling.
                    • If you want to convince us that his best-known title is not hate speech, then you need to show where he uses his twisted new definition of "fascism" in a non-hateful way. Believe it or not, I do not take him for an idiot; I believe he knows exactly what he is doing. He chose the word fascism to elicit a hateful response. He knows exactly how his audience reacts when they hear that word, and he wants to cement in their minds a connection between it and the people he and them love the most to hate.

                    • A reading of the books of Luke and Acts proves that the Communist Manifesto presented no new ideas, just repackaged old ones.

                    • Badly. With Satan, all is ersatz.
                    • You're fannying about with the definition of "hate speech" to the same degree you claim JG did with "fascism", which he pointed out clearly has a spectrum of meanings, defined what he meant, and proceeded to write a book about it.
                      The real point here, I think, is that you're the sort of fellow who figures that whoever owns the dictionary wins the discussion.
                    • No. He made up a meaning of fascism that does not connect to reality, and was intended to incite anger and hatred. That worked well but he was too arrogant to not realize that there was already plenty of anger and hatred from that group to begin with; he didn't bring convert any people to his distorted kind of thinking, he just gave a group of people more of their favorite kind of anger-inducing rhetoric.
                    • If you'd read it, you'll see that LF grounds his argument well in history. Certainly, you're entitled to disagree.
                    • If it is so well grounded in "history" then it should be trivial for you to give an example from his text. Please, enlightened one, share some of your wisdom with us.
                    • How about we finish our Communist Manifesto project first? Still waiting on your installment.
                    • Interesting way to dodge that. I'll get another JE up on the manifesto soon regardless.
                    • How is it a dodge if I refuse further tasking until that at hand is accomplished?

                    • How is it a dodge if I refuse further tasking until that at hand is accomplished?

                      It's a dodge because we had a discussion (well, sort of) going and then you jettisoned it when your claims fell apart.

                      It's a dodge because you tossed out an outlandish claim that is completely counter to the publisher's own description of the text you are holding on so high.

                      It's a dodge because we weren't talking about the Communist Manifesto in this thread until you just brought it up out of desperation in your desire to get away from your indefensible praise of hate speech.

                    • How many repetitions of false claims, e.g. you 'hate speech' rectal pluck regarding Liberal Fascism, do you normally require to convince yourself of a given pet theory?
                      Your false claim was the original dodge in this thread anyway, a lame diversion from your not having read it prior to disparaging it. Laughable as usual, you are.

                    • false claims, e.g. you 'hate speech' rectal pluck regarding Liberal Fascism

                      If that was not used in a hateful way by your guy Goldberg, then tell me why do you love a fascist (e.g. Goldberg) so much? I have never heard anyone claim that he lovingly misapplied the term "fascism" to liberals. Furthermore as it is repeatedly used by conservatives as a hateful term to incite anger, it is 100% reasonable to expect that Goldberg is doing the same.

                      If there is a point where he uses the term in a non-hateful way, it should be very easy for you to show where that happens. You brought

                    • tell me why do you love a fascist (e.g. Goldberg) so much?

                      Wait--he's never held any political office. Yet you call him a fascist. Are you redefining the word on the fly? Was that not your accusation against him?
                      You have yet to show him guilty of "hate speech", yet you're hypocritically under-bussing him as a "fascist". You so cute.

                    • Wait--he's never held any political office. Yet you call him a fascist

                      You don't have to hold political office to be a fascist. Anyone with fascist ideals is a fascist regardless of whether or not they have ever bothered to run for anything. A fascist is simply someone who aspires to see power concentrated in a specific way towards a specific small segment of the population at the cost of all the others.

                      re you redefining the word on the fly?

                      No, I use definitions that are commonly understood. He jettisons the dictionary at his own convenience to incite anger.

                      Was that not your accusation against him?

                      Except he actually does it, and made a name for him

                    • He is most certainly not encouraging power sharing, socio-economic mobility, or understanding or communication with those from different walks of life or philosophical backgrounds.

                      Actually, his book The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas [amazon.com] is a good overview of precisely how your ilk is pretty much the antithesis of communication.

                    • He is most certainly not encouraging power sharing, socio-economic mobility, or understanding or communication with those from different walks of life or philosophical backgrounds.

                      Actually, his book The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas is a good overview of precisely how your ilk is pretty much the antithesis of communication.

                      That statement helps my thesis of his speech being hate-driven far more than any thesis of your own.

                    • Except for the part where the book contains zero (0) hate. At least by any rational definition. What planet you're on remains unclear.
                    • In what way is he using the words "tyranny" or "cheat" in a non-hating way? We've already seen him completely distort - or more accurately completely destroy - the common sense understanding of the word "fascism", is he somehow using these words in obtuse ways as well?

                      If your assertion is true, he is the only conservative author to ever use the word "tyranny" in a loving way. And frankly, it could still be understood to be used in a hateful way as the rest of the English-speaking world would understand

                    • In what way is he using the words "tyranny" or "cheat" in a non-hating way?

                      Well, there's always the title, itself: "The Tyranny of Cliches". Juxtaposing a violent word like 'tyranny' with 'cliche', should, in a thoughtful reader, invite some question as to what he's on about. "How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas" informs us that the cliches are rhetorical roadblocks to discourse:

                      Goldberg's revelations [americanthinker.com] are meant not to compile an interesting batch of factoids to drop at dinner parties, but to illustrate his thesis: the left employs clichés in order to cloak its ruthless, ruinous ideological aims in the language of easy-listening rhetoric, all the while denying that it is promoting a program attempting to establish a technocratic all-encompassing state in the name of the pragmatism of Progressivism: "The greater good"; "Social justice"; "Violence never solves anything"; "Power corrupts."

                      Your attempt to label Goldberg "hate speech", itself, is an example of the sort of cliche Goldberg exposes.
                      Your purpose appears to be to silence, not engage in legitimate debate.

                    • No, it's me that doesn't care about him either way. And despite what you like to think, I'm not trolling. I understand exactly how liberal 'anti-establishment' types can be and are used to promote fascist governance. And you also know, you can read all about how it happened in the 1930s Europe by the people that were there. And if you ever learn to ignore the messenger, you might understand what was written. If Goldberg's book has anything new on the subject, feel free to post a snip. On face value of what

                    • And how much you want to bet even they weren't the first? I can admit, I suppose, that it could have been the first time the idea was put on papyrus, where before, they were campfire stories...

                    • He can post an accented letter properly. Why won't you? Why are you being so lazy?

                    • Wait, are you trying to convince me that power doesn't corrupt? Well, beneath e certain tipping point, you might be right. And since when is being 'anti-power' a leftist fascist thing? And that 'greater good' crap is used by you all the time, under the euphemism of the 'lesser evil'. You once again bring out your similarities that far outweigh any differences you are bickering over. You two might finish your three legged race when you decide to aim towards the finish line.

                      Time is running out on this JE befo

      • Even Marx had to inherit from Acts 4:32

      • "leftist internet environments" are against the Judeo-Christian heritage that substantially informs Western though[t]...

        Is that supposed to be a bad thing? I would prefer a heritage free of religious dogma myself.

  • ...but not completely there yet. She's figured out that Lefties are fueled by vile thinking, and that this is characteristic only of that side. What she and I believe you haven't fully connected the dots on is the deceit. TFAuthor writes as though she believes the extent of lying on the Left is only on behalf of its set of sacred cows. And in the absence of attacks on those, Lefties will level with you, such that it even makes sense to converse with them, as long as you stay away from or make allowances

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close