The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

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.

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?

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.

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.

Yes, I agree, I thought the same when I read Vimesey's post, but as you also note: I'm trying to think of a totalitarian regime that wasn't brutal. Here are some examples of totalitarian regimes that come to mind:

• North Korea
• Yugoslavia under Tito
• Romania under Ceausescu
• Russia under Stalin
• Italy under Mussolini
• Germany under Hitler

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. 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

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.

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.

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.

The 14th Amendment? 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?

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.

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.

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.

A bit of both, I guess. 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? 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:

---

You do realize that the Federal guidance on bathroom rules was because there were laws states were passing restricting bathroom use.

---

That claim has been proven false. And you already acknowledged my reply to that:

quote:

---

What really happened was that Trump issued an executive order rescinding the Obama guidelines that protected LGBT use of the restrooms of their gender identity.

​

Obama's guidelines weren't what protected them. Title IX is what, still, protects them. The guidelines were just help on interpreting that law.

​

The law says that schools can't discriminate based on sex, and now kids are saying that their gender is different from their sex, so the schools we're looking to the feds to tell them how to handle it (presumably so they don't loose federal funding).

​

This means that that state legislation I just mentioned can go back into the pipeline.

​

Not really. The guidelines didn't prevent legislation or add anything to the already existing law, it just helped the schools know what to do to keep their legal obligations.

​

Rescinding the guidelines doesn't take away anything. The schools can still follow them if they need help figuring out how to keep their legal obligations.

---

So now what?...From Message 455: 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.

You don't believe that different freedoms interfere with each other? You have to be told that such a concept is reality?

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. Bollox!