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: The Slide Into Totalitarianism Is Scary 69

Journal by smittyoneeach
Wow, the eagerness to embrace Correct Thought, where "liberals" used to cling to a benefit of the doubt, is worrisome.

One can only surmise that totalitarian states in prior centuries had similar non-inquisitive cheerleaders.

Global warming/climate change/; elections; police tragedy; international conflict: the willingness to fellate the first Narrative provided by the Zampolit, without question, bodes poorly for recovering the Republic from the ongoing crash.

I need to keep you guys in prayer.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Slide Into Totalitarianism Is Scary More

The Slide Into Totalitarianism Is Scary

Comments Filter:

  • 90 years ago, getting informed usually required having the luxury of a week in the library at best, and unless you were wealthy enough to subscribe to academic journals you'd NEVER be completely informed on any specific area of study.

    In 2005 with Wikipedia and search engines, that excuse disappeared.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      unless you were wealthy enough to subscribe to academic journals you'd NEVER be completely informed on any specific area of study.

      In 2005 with Wikipedia and search engines, that excuse disappeared.

      You're right that the excuse applied much less often once Wikipedia became a serious contender. However, academic journals were still returning demands to purchase individual articles for on the order of 40 USD apiece unless the reader is affiliated with a subscribing institution.

    • I've reached a state of total skepticism about everything online.

      • I've reached a state of total skepticism about everything online.

        Really? Your writings here very much suggest otherwise. You may be skeptical about things you disagree with online but when you find questionable material that supports your worldview you happily parrot it here for all the world to see.

        • It's your waggy-finger posts that I like best.
          • I'm not claiming to be perfect, I'm only pointing out that your own double standard refutes the claim that you used earlier in this thread.
            • You just do whatever the heck you want with my posts, and I think that You Are The Man.
              • All I'm doing with your posts is quoting them. You can deflect all you want, but it doesn't change the obvious magnitude of your double standard. I struggle to think of a more partisan person I have had a discussion with here on slashdot.

                • All I'm doing with your posts is quoting them.

                  Don't be bashful! Take credit for treating the meaning like a helpless victim in the hands of an assailant.

                  • How many of your JEs here would you like me to quote to show how deeply partisan your "skepticism" is? The list of you discarding any notion of skepticism when it furthers your belief structure is long here.
                    • I admit that I've been slower to criticize the GOPatsies than I should. Admitting error isn't really a problem, as the truth is the same regardless.

                    • I admit that I've been slower to criticize the GOPatsies than I should

                      That's not the biggest issue here. You proudly trumpet all kinds of partisan nonsense here, bringing it out as if it is irrefutable fact. Your claim of being "skeptical" simply doesn't match reality. You show skepticism only towards certain types of people and certain types of commentary.

                    • Your claim of being "skeptical" simply doesn't match reality.

                      Ah, yes. I love your Olympian Judgement posts so very, very much.

                    • I'm not passing judgement, I'm simply observing that you pass on opinions from Your Team as gospel and show skepticism only from words that come from other sources. Just this week you passed along a Tucker Carlson bit as gospel; I cannot recall any time that you have ever expressed the slightest bit of skepticism towards his editorials here.

                    • Your claim of being "skeptical" simply doesn't match reality.

                      Ah, yes. I love your Olympian Judgement posts so very, very much.

                      I'm not passing judgement,

                      Your judge my skepticism insufficient, then immediately deny having judged my skepticism. This is why I think that no one can be cool like you. NO ONE.

                    • Your judge my skepticism insufficient, then immediately deny having judged my skepticism.

                      Show me where you demonstrated the smallest bit of skepticism on the conservative conspiracies that you have posted here to be fact, and I'll walk it back. Your writing has never shown any skepticism here towards bits coming in support of Your Team. Even your nonsense about Kamala Harris-linked White House cocaine never had the slightest tint of skepticism in your writing.

                    • smallest bit of skepticism on the conservative conspiracies that you have posted here to be fact, and I'll walk it back.

                      My turn not to bother thinking you sincere.

                    • smallest bit of skepticism on the conservative conspiracies that you have posted here to be fact, and I'll walk it back.

                      My turn not to bother thinking you sincere.

                      Or you could challenge that statement by showing me an example of you showing skepticism against conservative commentary. I asked you to show an example, and you have not yet produced one.

                    • You are example-proof.
                    • Can you provide an example of that? It would seem more likely you are example-deficient. We've gone through this exercise before and you previously have not provided examples when asked for them.

                    • Can you provide an example of that?

                      More or less every thread with you is a tendentious mess. Stay lovely.

      • Funny, we thought same of print/broadcast media long before there was an internet. But, as noted, your partisanship precedes you, your "skepticism" is very selective, far from "everything" online

  • There's an insightful thought in this post somewhere, but you didn't bother to express it.
    • Word salad is being generous; I have no idea what they're really complaining about here. I mean sure, the threat of the MAGAts is still ongoing, though becoming more manageable as their numbers dwindle in the face of GoP incompetence, but I'm no longer fearing they'll prevail as I once did. ;-)
  • ... is not far from fascism. Fascism is, with absolutely zero exceptions, a right wing movement. Every historical fascist has been a right wing leader, in every country. Some have twisted words - as right wing leaders often like to do - to try to give themselves move palatable labels, but they have all been right wing leaders.

    Every.
    Single.
    One.

    So if you are fearing totalitarianism you should be looking at your own voting card and thinking about the motivations of the people you have already dedicate

    • "Fascism is, with absolutely zero exceptions, a right wing movement. "

      Thank you, I now suddenly realize why nothing you write makes sense to me, you've confused your right with your left.

      • He's a gaslight with a silent 'g'.

      • "Fascism is, with absolutely zero exceptions, a right wing movement. "

        you've confused your right with your left.

        Not in the least. Fascism is the extreme concentration of power into as few hands as possible. That is a distinctly right wing movement and ideology. Which party keeps giving us candidates who want to shut down massive parts of the federal government? Which party works to take away voting rights and reduce the number of elected officials at the federal (and often also state and local) level?

        Every well known fascist and totalitarian was a right wing ideologue. Just because some of them falsely took

        • concentration of power into as few hands as possible

          As the lines vanish into that point/blob, what difference did the right/left "distinction" even mean any more? Redistribute power, not wealth, say I.

          • concentration of power into as few hands as possible

            As the lines vanish into that point/blob, what difference did the right/left "distinction" even mean any more? Redistribute power, not wealth, say I.

            There could not be larger distinction there between the right and left. Your Team consistently wants to redistribute power to as few people as possible, every single time. The "left" consistently wants more representative government.

            • "More representative"? Dude, Zombie Joe is barely alive! I guess your statement is true: the "left" is more representative of the dead.

              Your 2024 slogan must be: "Crave the Grave!"

              • Dude, Zombie Joe is barely alive!

                I think you've beaten that silly GOP-endorsed refrain heavily enough. It doesn't match up to reality. You might as well go back to your old "president potted plant" bit instead, it makes more sense. Just because he doesn't say something stupid enough to make the front page of every newspaper every day - like your own Dear Leader - doesn't mean he's "barely alive". In several important metrics he is in better physical health than your Dear Leader.

          • Redistribute power, not wealth, say I.

            :-) Yeah, we know.. very funny are you

    • We'll likely never agree, but "right wing" means "starts with the individual as the unit of analysis" in my (Maslow-3D) thinking.

      Your Team has the

      New
      Anti-
      Zionist
      Intifada

      thing going kinda heavy now.

      • We'll likely never agree, but "right wing" means "starts with the individual as the unit of analysis" in my (Maslow-3D) thinking.

        You can parade out your own ideals, but it doesn't change what happens when politicians of the far right take power. We have seen it more than once under members of Your Team, they just didn't manage to execute their fascist ideals as efficiently as their idols.

        New Anti- Zionist Intifada

        Cute. I suppose all the Nazi flags that show up at Trump rallies are literal false flag operations then? You really expect us to believe that not a single neo-Nazi actually aligns themselves with Your Party?

        • I wouldn't accuse Trump of being "far right"; his nobody's fiscal conservative, warhawk, or social conservative. Come to think of it, he kicks the Reagan tripod straight over. Hilarious, Your Team's Pavlovian reactions.

          • fiscal conservative

            He invoked Reaganomics 3.0 with the tax cuts he has signed into law. His budget so overwhelmingly favored the wealthy that he makes Reagan look like a socialist.

            warhawk

            He wanted to extend the war in Afghanistan. He wanted to expand the war on terror. Just because he idolizes Putin and Kim to the point where he would roll over to honor them doesn't mean he was somehow anti-war.

            social conservative

            He appointed the justices that led to Roe v Wade being overturned. In fact that is one of his only fulfilled promises, he promised to

            • He invoked Reaganomics 3.0 with the tax cuts he has signed into law.

              Which underscores my non-fiscal conservative point, when you consider the deficit/debt impacts. But it's OK: I never expect actual analysis from you.

              He wanted to extend the war in Afghanistan. He wanted to expand the war on terror.

              Yeah, yeah, yeah: he wanted a pony, so he must be into cavalry.

              He appointed the justices that led to Roe v Wade being overturned.

              Well, that's just common sense. Any non-necrophile favors life.

              • He invoked Reaganomics 3.0 with the tax cuts he has signed into law.

                Which underscores my non-fiscal conservative point, when you consider the deficit/debt impacts.

                Yet you and the rest of Your Team enthusiastically supported those tax cuts under the expectation that the illusion of "trickle-down economics" would suddenly materialize and work on its third iteration, even when it failed tremendously on its first two. Your Team has never had a budget that wasn't dependent on that idea. Your Team has never been willing to cut the budget enough to even balance it at its current level of taxation, and yet you wanted to cut less and reduce income at the same time. It did

                • You blew off my debt/deficit point, while bolstering the GOPatsie tax cut point.

                  I don't know if you knew this, but Roe v Wade did not require anyone to have an abortion. It allowed people who didn't want to have abortions to continue to not have abortions.

                  Life: it is to be protected from the spectrum of killers from terrorists to abortionists.

                  • You blew off my debt/deficit point

                    How? I specifically pointed out that Your Team keeps making budgetary decisions - that you yourself champion - that only accelerate the debt and deficit. Reaganomics didn't reduce either any of the first three times it was attempted, and won't on any subsequent attempt either. It's time for Your Team to try something else. I don't care if you admit that it doesn't work or not, you need a different idea.

                    Life: it is to be protected

                    Then you should be supporting safe and legal abortion. When abortion becomes illegal we put the liv

                    • It's time for Your Team to try something else.

                      The original complaint is that Trump spent like a Democrat. Still stands. I see my typo "[he's] nobody's fiscal conservative".

                      Then you should be supporting safe and legal abortion.

                      Destroying life is not protecting it. I don't understand how this is a challenge for you, except that it is the truth.

                    • It's time for Your Team to try something else.

                      The original complaint is that Trump spent like a Democrat. Still stands. I see my typo "[he's] nobody's fiscal conservative".

                      Do you have numbers to back that up? Or are you just throwing that around for the time being? We both know you will enthusiastically vote for him next November. There is no chance of anyone else winning the endorsement of Your Team.

                      Regardless, Your Team will never balance a federal budget. They are too much in love with cutting taxes from the highest of economic echelons, which always reduces the overall revenue.

                      Then you should be supporting safe and legal abortion.

                      Destroying life is not protecting it.

                      You are conveniently overlooking the fact that your restrictions will end up preventing

                    • cutting taxes from the highest of economic echelons

                      Can we please cease pretending that there is any relationship between the tax code and the budget? Please?

                      You are conveniently overlooking the fact that your restrictions will end up preventing women from being able to safely end pregnancies that are a danger to their own lives. You are also overlooking situations with fetuses that are not viable. You are not protecting anyone's lives when you ban abortion from those women.

                      You left off rape & incest in the effort to distract from the central point that abortion-as-birth control has been the issue.

                      Dobbs was a Federalist move, but Your Team's paroxysms recall those of a poisoned human dying in the womb. I would personally fall short of a Federal ban on the procedure, on the principle that Federal laws should not operate at the individual level. But we're far from havi

                    • cutting taxes from the highest of economic echelons

                      Can we please cease pretending that there is any relationship between the tax code and the budget? Please?

                      How can you possibly make a budget if you're ignoring the incoming side of the ledger? Nobody would do that for a family budget, why would you do that for a federal budget? Or is there some enormous and secret stream of revenue that the federal government has beyond taxes?

                      You are conveniently overlooking the fact that your restrictions will end up preventing women from being able to safely end pregnancies that are a danger to their own lives. You are also overlooking situations with fetuses that are not viable. You are not protecting anyone's lives when you ban abortion from those women.

                      abortion-as-birth control has been the issue.

                      You are assuming - incorrectly - that people who are pro-choice would favor people using abortion instead of birth control. That issue only exists from Your Team and people aligned with it.

                      Perhaps your life has been blessed to the

                    • How can you possibly make a budget

                      Look: we don't. The inability to get back to regular order (since Bush43) was the proximal cause of Speaker McCarthy's ouster. Congress hasn't Congressed in a very long time.

                      Perhaps your life has been blessed to the degree that no woman you've ever known has found herself needing to get an abortion.

                      The discussion is sufficiently dark that I will not share it online. But, yes, personal experience does inform my position.

                    • How can you possibly make a budget

                      Look: we don't

                      A budget needs to consider income and expenses. That's pretty damned obvious. You're willfully ignoring income and substituting in fantasy. Complain all you want about expenses but when you slash income you can't expect the budget to balance when you don't make comparable changes on the other side of the table.

                      Perhaps your life has been blessed to the degree that no woman you've ever known has found herself needing to get an abortion.

                      The discussion is sufficiently dark that I will not share it online. But, yes, personal experience does inform my position.

                      I'm going to turn your good faith card back against you here. I see no reason to believe that to be a good faith argument. It's easy for you to make something up at this point and use it to sup

                    • A budget needs to consider income and expenses.

                      Our federal budget has zero consideration for either. No need to soil yourself like this.

                      I see no reason to believe that to be a good faith argument.

                      I really don't give a GIVE what you think, on this or pretty much any other topic.

                    • I see no reason to believe that to be a good faith argument.

                      I really don't give a GIVE what you think, on this or pretty much any other topic.

                      And who is forcing you to reply? Your statements on totalitarianism will continue to be wrong regardless of how many times you reply to me with "na, na, na!", as will your statements on the destructiveness of GOP philosophy on the federal budget.

                    • And who is forcing you to reply?

                      The dramatic tension where I wonder if you're merely trolling, or have actually quaffed enough Commie Kool-Aid to believe your drivel just keeps bringing me back.

                      I admit to hoping for the former.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't panic.

Close