|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I am at a loss how an individual can be totalitarian. He seems to think people supporting bathroom rights have a subconscious desire to be under a totalitarian government. Or does he have me even more confused than I thought. His argument appears to be that states only affect all of the folks within their own borders but federal law affects everyone. Totally everyone, thus totalitarian. Meanwhile, the state is exactly the right level to screw with your life totally to the nth detail, but that is not totalitarian. Don't go the authorities if you think I am picking on you. The perfect "bullies" argument. He wants his word "totalitarian" because that word has a gravitas that his own position (states rights) lacks. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Meanwhile, the state is exactly the right level to screw with your life totally to the nth detail, but that is not totalitarian. I'm not speaking for Faith, but there is a certain type that argues this...unless State level laws are displeasing, such as the Oregonian law that means people have to serve wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. At which point it should be down to the individual. But bathrooms? No that should be down to the State, or maybe if they are inclined to be disagreeable the the school Administration should have total authoritarian control, but failing that a single individual objector should control other people's bathroom usage. Whatever 'level' of control gets what they want, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
but failing that a single individual objector should control other people's bathroom usage. Whatever 'level' of control gets what they want, eh? That's how I am describing NCE's position. I am hoping to get a denial/clarification, but I seem to be getting doubling down. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1051 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
The word "totalitarian" is rightly used as a mark of shame to describe regimes like North Korea. To use it to describe the laws and leanings of a liberal democracy weakens the fight against those regimes - and it makes you look a complete idiot. The problem with your point is that what you describe is not totalitarianism - it's just state brutality. North Korea certainly is a totalitarian state, but pointing to horrific tortures doesn't establish this fact; since brutal tortures happen (and have happened) elsewhere as well. The classical definition of a totalitarian state is one that recognises no distinctions between public and private, and in which the state is entitled (or maybe obligated) to be involved in everything and to regulate and control every aspect of life. Brutality usualy goes hand-in-hand with totalitarianism since it's hard to see how such a system can be maintained without forceful oppression, but it's not part of the definition. There is a tendency in politics to throw insulting political names at everyone we don't like, and in this process they all start to blur in meaning. I think this is something we should try to avoid - if fascist, dictatorial, totalitarian etc all start to mean the same thing, then we run out of language with which to talk about these things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22494 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
caffeine writes: The problem with your point is that what you describe is not totalitarianism - it's just state brutality. Yes, I agree, I thought the same when I read Vimesey's post, but as you also note:
Brutality usually goes hand-in-hand with totalitarianism... I'm trying to think of a totalitarian regime that wasn't brutal. Here are some examples of totalitarian regimes that come to mind:
Were any any of these totalitarian regimes benevolent? Or maybe there are benevolent totalitarian regimes I failed to list? If we can find no benevolent totalitarian regimes then I think we'd have to conclude that totalitarianism always travels with brutality.
There is a tendency in politics to throw insulting political names at everyone we don't like, and in this process they all start to blur in meaning. I think this is something we should try to avoid - if fascist, dictatorial, totalitarian etc all start to mean the same thing, then we run out of language with which to talk about these things. Right. Or another way you could put it, if we apply extreme terms to the everyday then the words have no value when applied where they actually fit. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
The problem with your point is that what you describe is not totalitarianism - it's just state brutality. Unless you are aware of a totalitarian state which does not practice state brutality, then your distinction is meaningless to the point I was making. Totalitarian states are synonymous with brutality, torture and atrocities. As long as they are synonymous with those things, then referring to the mild impositions of a liberal democracy as totalitarian is (a) about as "imprecise" as language gets; and (b) (my earlier point) serves to utterly and disgustingly diminish and normalise the genuine suffering of people at the hands of regimes which are genuinely totalitarian.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Unless you are aware of a totalitarian state which does not practice state brutality, then your distinction is meaningless to the point I was making. Totalitarian states are synonymous with brutality, torture and atrocities. As long as they are synonymous with those things, then referring to the mild impositions of a liberal democracy as totalitarian is (a) about as "imprecise" as language gets..." But this is merely a way to obscure the point here. As I tried to say earlier on the thread*, totalitarianism is first of all an ideology or built into an ideology. Marxism is such an ideology, it was totalitarian before there ever was a totalitarian Marxist state. "Brutality, torture and atrocities" certainly are synonymous with totalitarian states, but they are implicit in the ideologies even before there is a state built on them. I mentioned that Roman Catholicism is totalitarian in its beliefs, principles you can find in its official documents even now, and that fact was demonstrated in its "brutality, torture and atrocities" when it had the power to enforce its beliefs on Europe. Same with Islam, it's a totalitarian ideology, which is proved when it has the power to act on its principles. Totalitarianism aims to rule everybody, to require conformity to its principles. That describes Marxism/Communism, Roman Catholicism and Islam, and fascism too. Today's American Left shows its fundamental totalitarianism by its violent riots against an elected American President, the calls you hear for his assassination from some on the Left, the very attitude that they are not going to allow him to BE President, they intend to force THEIR view of things on all of us. Yes, that IS totalitarian, and yes one of its weapons IS political correctness, a method of demonizing the opposition by character assassination to shut us up. I don't remember where I posted Tim Allen's comments** that our times feel like Germany in the 30s, should have been somewhere on this thread. He's right, and that atmosphere is wannabe totalitarianism. You aren't allowed to have a dissenting opinion, they'll scowl you down, they'll call you names, they'll yell at you. There's even already been some brutality, torture and atrocities here and there by anti-Trumpers, and anti-white racism as well: it doesn't characterize the whole Left, but it is certainly a Leftist attitude promoted by Leftist powers. The Left is no longer acting like a liberal democracy, don't be deceived about that, they are acting like totalitarians. ABE: *Turns out it was on the Gay Marriage thread where I made these points about totalitarianism, particularly in Message 516 **The Tim Allen post was on the Gay Marriage thread, in Message 522 Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I call the gay marriage law wrong and unjust, certainly in the context of a nation built on freedom of religion among other freedoms, but I haven't called it totalitarian though it is certainly part of the totalitarian thinking of the Left. See my previous post.
ABE: Actually I see I did argue that the gay marriage law is ideologically totalitarian on the Gay Marriage thread, in Message 516. Just one law isn't enough for a definition of totalitarianism, but since it does force conformity to a view opposed by a large part of the population that used to be protected by the First Amendment maybe that's a better argument than my argument here. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I call the gay marriage law wrong and unjust The 14th Amendment?
it does force conformity to a view opposed by a large part of the population that used to be protected by the First Amendment maybe that's a better argument than my argument here. The 14th Amendment just says everyone is entitled to equal protection under law. I assume you are mixing this up with the non-discrimination in public accommodation statutes? These only 'force' public accommodations to not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, age and so on. They don't force conformity to a view on any individual. That's why you are allowed to not hold that view. So since you remain free to disagree with the statutes, I fail to see anything remotely totalitarian at play here. Is it totalitarian to make little girls to use little boys room and deny them access to the little girls room, for years and years and years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The point is the First Amendment that promises religious freedom is prior. Punishing Christians for acting on their religious beliefs is a violation of the First Amendment. You need another solution to your problem.
ABE: I'm talking about gay marriage here. The bathroom problem \is something else. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: I call the gay marriage law wrong and unjust, certainly in the context of a nation built on freedom of religion among other freedoms You understand, of course, that freedoms compete? They have to be balanced against each other. Expecting your particular freedom to trump all others is not freedom - it's dictatorship. Religion doesn't get a free pass to over-rule all other freedoms, how could it in a free society? For your rule to rule all, you'd have to live in a theocracy, and you don't. You have freedom to practice and speak about your religion. You just don't have freedom to discriminate against other members of your society in the public sphere. That's the compromise you have to accept - it's not a problem for the majority of Christians, just your particular sect. And it's not particularly onerous - it's something that in 50 years time will look as wrong as aparteid. That's just the way it goes.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't recall any discussion by the Founders of competing freedoms. Can you produce a quote from that era? I think there is something unique about this gay marriage law, that never came up before. And Freedom of Religion is the very first of the Ten Amendments too. " ...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The gay marriage law when it collides with biblical Christianity has in fact already been used to prohibit the free exercise of Christian belief. So if there is a conflict, religious rights should have priority. But again, show where the Founders anticipated any conflict of rights.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I did respond to what you wrote. I pointed out how it was contradictory, first saying that the thread title is "a bit of a joke," then saying you were going to show how it was actually true. Which is it? A bit of both, I guess.
When dealing with civil rights, that's the federal level. Perhaps, but we're talking about the "civil right" of a child to decide to use the bathroom with people of the opposite biological sex because they feel like they are a different gender. That people think we need to call on the feds to help us figure this one out is what I'm calling a totalitarian mentality. It's not good enough to let the local politics decide, they must have total control of the whole country in the making of this decision. There can be no dissent. If your not 100% on board then you are a terrible person. Plus, look at all these other things you must think because you're not with us on this one. That feels like a totalitarian mentality to me. Out of curiosity: Why aren't bathrooms segregated by sex instead of gender? Like, penises in that room and vaginas in that one? And if segregation by some type is the goal, why base it on something as vaporous as this new gender thing - where you can feel like whatever you want? How does that keep the groups intact and separated?
I responded to a claim that explicitly said "passing" and you replied to that response. If you changed it, that's a different claim. The word "passing" doesn't appear in any of my posts in this thread, and what I recall originally saying was that there were bills in the pipeline that would resume now that the guidelines have been rescinded. Let's see, ah yes, Message 229:
me in Message 229 writes: Uh, yes they did. A number of states were considering legislation that would have restricted LGBT bathroom access.... This means that that state legislation I just mentioned can go back into the pipeline. Are you sure you're not trolling? No, the sub-thread that came from Message 229 ended at Message 293 where you acknowledged my reply. This sub-thread stems from Message 417 where passing was explicitly claimed:
quote: That claim has been proven false.
Legislators could still follow them too. Now, they may think they don't have to because they were rescinded; is that all you were trying to say? I think I pretty much said what I meant. There were LGBT bathroom use laws in the pipeline that were put on hold after Obama issued the guidelines, and now they can reenter the legislative pipeline. Beyond Title IX and the Obama guidelines there are civil rights issues. And you already acknowledged my reply to that:
quote: So now what? ... From Message 455:
I'm trying to think of a totalitarian regime that wasn't brutal. The Vatican? Too brutal? Even today? What about kingdoms? Regardless, I'm not talking about regimes. I'm talking about people's mentality and their approach to the governments. So this is beside my point (not that I'm assuming this was meant for me, just sayin'). Also, a false assumption people are making about me: I don't think the individual states are the perfect place for people to go to the government. You can have the same totalitarian mentality regardless of the level of government you go towards. Going to the feds though, especially because you cannot allow for other states to make different decisions than the one you want, is an even more totalitarian approach than sticking to more local levels. Oh, here's another one: I'm not saying that an individual can be totalitarian like a government can, I'm saying that they can have tendencies to prefer governments that have total control - that is, their mentality is one of a totalitarian nature. So, yeah, totalitarian is a bit of a joke in that it's hyperbolic, but it does look like the shoe fits so I see where people are coming from. I thought it would be interesting to explore the thoughts that lead to this kind of stuff, but we got too hung up on the verbiage to get anywhere. And here's the rub with this: It's not the threat of brutality from the people who have the totalitarian mentality. It's being against the idea of giving the feds more power, in general. Once you start going to far, that's how you get things like Trump. Now look at the mess we have. It's like with the cellphone tracking technology the feds got. Being against that idea is not because you're afraid that the feds are going to look at your selfies. It's because you don't want that technology getting into the wrong hands. And that is what happened, the tech got out. The left keeps handing more power to the feds and making them in charge of more decisions, and then we get Trumped. Woo hoo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I don't recall any discussion by the Founders of competing freedoms. You don't believe that different freedoms interfere with each other? You have to be told that such a concept is reality? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: I don't recall any discussion by the Founders of competing freedoms. Now don't be silly, you know that all freedoms are qualified. Freedom of speach is not absolute. This seems to cover it "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Just get on with allowing everyone to be equal and all will be fine.
So if there is a conflict, religious rights should have priority. Bollox!Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024