On the Tyranny of the Majority in posting on a Left-leaning forum:

[eelw]

I still don’t know what this thread is about.

Fortune cookie being woe is me. Meany liberals!!!

 

[Captante]

Fortune cookie being woe is me. Meany liberals!!!

It is fair to say there's a fairly strong liberal-bias around these parts.

(just like most places where the majority are highly educated and/or relatively intelligent)

 

[biostud]

It is fair to say there's a fairly strong liberal-bias around these parts.

(just like most places where the majority are highly educated and/or relatively intelligent)

Unfortunately that is because the alternative at this point is something pretty close to full blown fascism.
Where are the traditional conservatives?

 

[Jaskalas]

Unfortunately that is because the alternative at this point is something pretty close to full blown fascism.
Where are the traditional conservatives?

We call then Democrats. One sits in the White House.
Rest are bankrupt ideologically. Either joined the Dems, joined the MAGA fascists, or are a numbered few hiding behind a rock until the good lord takes them.

Humans have a religious fervor to them. A zealotry. There is no room for a middle ground. It is swallowed whole. Traditional conservatives were bankrupt and found strength in MAGA zealotry. It provided motivation and guidance. People were either appalled by it, or got sucked in and let their brains be washed in these fanatical ideas that are antithetical to America. I fear a solid majority of them chose MAGA, it was easier than letting go of their Egos and admitting mistakes. Easier than embracing an ideology whose main proponents will continue to reject you.

Far easier then, to pick a tribe of evil, than to be tribe-less.

 

[woolfe9998]

We call then Democrats. One sits in the White House.
Rest are bankrupt ideologically. Either joined the Dems, joined the MAGA fascists, or are a numbered few hiding behind a rock until the good lord takes them.

Humans have a religious fervor to them. A zealotry. There is no room for a middle ground. It is swallowed whole. Traditional conservatives were bankrupt and found strength in MAGA zealotry. It provided motivation and guidance. People were either appalled by it, or got sucked in and let their brains be washed in these fanatical ideas that are antithetical to America. I fear a solid majority of them chose MAGA, it was easier than letting go of their Egos and admitting mistakes. Easier than embracing an ideology whose main proponents will continue to reject you.

Far easier then, to pick a tribe of evil, than to be tribe-less.

Biden is too socially liberal to be considered a "traditional conservative." When liberals claim the democrats are right of center by comparing them to European countries, they are thinking of fiscal and economic ideology. Our center left democrats might be considered fiscally and economically conservative if compared to Europe, but they are way left of the European right on social issues. The left/right division in Europe is really all about immigration and other social issues. Even their fascists might be to the left of many our democrats strictly on fiscal and economic policy.

But fascism isn't about fiscal and economic policy at all. Fascist economics were pragmatic, an ad hoc admixture of capitalistic and socialistic policies. Hitler was bored with economics. He delegated economic policy to Schacht and later, to Goring. The only thing about economics that mattered to him was war production. That, and they shut off most international trade due to "economic nationalism." (Sound familiar?) Because his ideology was that of far right populism, or to put it another way, radical social conservatism. (nationalism/racism/tribalism).

I agree with everything else you say here. The center-right barely exists anymore here. Most moved to the far right, because as you say, they'd rather join an evil tribe than be without one. The exact same thing happened with traditional conservatives in Nazi Germany.

 

[Moonbeam]

Party formation is the easy part. The only reason alternate parties flounder right now is because many people know they are doomed to fail in our current system.

Doomed in the sense of certain to fail, in my opinion. I don't particularly like the that things are some how divinely fated as I believe Doomed implies. I see it as certain to fail structurally. A lot of other things would also have to change before it to would have any chance to work.

 

[dank69]

Doomed in the sense of certain to fail, in my opinion. I don't particularly like the that things are some how divinely fated as I believe Doomed implies. I see it as certain to fail structurally. A lot of other things would also have to change before it to would have any change to work.

Potato potahto but okay.

 

[Moonbeam]

I still don’t know what this thread is about.

This thread was my attempt to demonstrate a danger that befall us even on the left when we allow fear of the ideas of others to evoke feelings of rage. Logic and liberal analysis fly right out the window and we see a piling on witch-hunt commence. I decided to demonstrate my belief this is a real thing by re-directing the animosity I have generated here on this forum confronting some I believe guilty of it directly by exposing that irrational uncritical anger to someone profoundly wise in that matter who lived long before I was born but who had quite some effect on my thinking. Turns out that so many of the critiques of me that have become fashionably stereotypical were faults some how never spotted before in John Stewart Mill. Who knew?

And wonder of wonders, those most critical of me were most critical of the OP. I appreciate the fact that some were politely critical and of things of what I would call of less import.

 

[JWade]

I have multiple dictionaries, i like using them, see how society has changed definitions. Here is the definition from 1982 of fascism: a system of government characterized by dictatorship, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism: first instituted in Italy in 1922.

definition of fascism today: (as per oxford dictionary) an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

my political views are moderate, with a conservative leaning. traditional conservative (guess what I am far from broke, and very educated). Both Republicans, as well as Democrats today, are belligerent, only care about their views, you express an opinion they dont agree with, they attack you, belittle you. both sides do this, people in the middle dont.

To show the ignorance of the Left, someone can be a Republican and not vote for or like Trump, just like to the ignorance of the Right, someone can be a Democrat and not be a socialist liberal. On these left leaning forums, the ignorance shows. Just look at the personal attacks in this thread. we have become a society that the only opinion that matters is one's own opinion and every one else is wrong if they disagree, everyone is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc if they disagree, for what ever reason.

 

[fskimospy]

I have multiple dictionaries, i like using them, see how society has changed definitions. Here is the definition from 1982 of fascism: a system of government characterized by dictatorship, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism: first instituted in Italy in 1922.

definition of fascism today: (as per oxford dictionary) an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

my political views are moderate, with a conservative leaning. traditional conservative (guess what I am far from broke, and very educated). Both Republicans, as well as Democrats today, are belligerent, only care about their views, you express an opinion they dont agree with, they attack you, belittle you. both sides do this, people in the middle dont.

To show the ignorance of the Left, someone can be a Republican and not vote for or like Trump, just like to the ignorance of the Right, someone can be a Democrat and not be a socialist liberal. On these left leaning forums, the ignorance shows. Just look at the personal attacks in this thread. we have become a society that the only opinion that matters is one's own opinion and every one else is wrong if they disagree, everyone is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc if they disagree, for what ever reason.

Wait, are you trying to say characterizations of fascism as an ultra right movement are somehow new or took place between 1982 and today? If so that’s nonsense. Fascism even during its contemporary existence was clearly associated with far right movements.

 

[JWade]

Wait, are you trying to say characterizations of fascism as an ultra right movement are somehow new or took place between 1982 and today? If so that’s nonsense. Fascism even during its contemporary existence was clearly associated with far right movements.

I said look how it has changed from 1982 to today. Are they the same? no, they are not. One is from 1982 the other is from 2020, printed dictionary, same company. Bit of history lesson, Fascism was started by Musilini. Before starting fascism he was a socialist. The left tends to lean more socialist than the right does.

BUT my point is how the wording of definitions change over the years. Fascism was founded by and was far left, not right, not it is associated with the far right.

 

[fskimospy]

I said look how it has changed from 1982 to today. Are they the same? no, they are not. One is from 1982 the other is from 2020, printed dictionary, same company. Bit of history lesson, Fascism was started by Musilini. Before starting fascism he was a socialist. The left tends to lean more socialist than the right does.

BUT my point is how the wording of definitions change over the years. Fascism was founded by and was far left, not right, not it is associated with the far right.

This is simply untrue. Fascism started with and has always been a phenomenon of the far right and that’s just a fact. Conservatives tried to rewrite history to change that but they were lying and we should clearly not endorse liars.

As an easy way to understand was fascism just look at what they did. Once in power did they imprison the conservatives or did they imprison the leftists? The leftists of course and it’s because fascism is an ultra right ideology. Current conservatives don’t want to admit that because it makes them look bad.

 

[JWade]

This is simply untrue. Fascism started with and has always been a phenomenon of the far right and that’s just a fact. Conservatives tried to rewrite history to change that but they were lying and we should clearly not endorse liars.

As an easy way to understand was fascism just look at what they did. Once in power did they imprison the conservatives or did they imprison the leftists? The leftists of course and it’s because fascism is an ultra right ideology. Current conservatives don’t want to admit that because it makes them look bad.

it started more left/socialist than right. The government controls everything, gives to the people (ie government run healthcare, government-controlled businesses, etc) I am going off Musilini's definition. Yes, Hitler/Germany during his time would be considered Fascist, and was EXTREME right. The fascist imprisoned anyone who had a different view point of them, and as i said in my first post, the extreme right as well as the extreme left have zero tolerance of anyone with a different view point, opinion, or beliefs. I read alot of posts here, the left tends to want the Federal government to run things and make decisions. The right has traditionally believed in smaller government, less federal control, more control by the states. bash the repeal of roe vs wade, but what the supreme court did was give control to the states, which is the opposite of fascism. not to get in an abortion debate, all i will say on it is that congress needs to pass an actual law on it and not rely on a supreme court ruling.

again, back to my original post, how definition has changed by the same company over the years, and both the extreme left and extreme right in this country could easily be considered fascist by their actions. key word, EXTREME. Thankfully, the numbers of the extremists are not the majority, but they are the loudiest, and each side associates everone on the other side with the extremists

 

[fskimospy]

it started more left/socialist than right. The government controls everything, gives to the people (ie government run healthcare, government-controlled businesses, etc) I am going off Musilini's definition. Yes, Hitler/Germany during his time would be considered Fascist, and was EXTREME right. The fascist imprisoned anyone who had a different view point of them, and as i said in my first post, the extreme right as well as the extreme left have zero tolerance of anyone with a different view point, opinion, or beliefs. I read alot of posts here, the left tends to want the Federal government to run things and make decisions. The right has traditionally believed in smaller government, less federal control, more control by the states. bash the repeal of roe vs wade, but what the supreme court did was give control to the states, which is the opposite of fascism. not to get in an abortion debate, all i will say on it is that congress needs to pass an actual law on it and not rely on a supreme court ruling.

This is fanciful thinking at best. Conservatives do not actually care about small government; they care about government that does what they want.

Just look at all the small government conservatives like DeSantis who want to dictate how local governments run themselves. When they say they are for small government they are lying and assume you will believe them.

again, back to my original post, how definition has changed by the same company over the years, and both the extreme left and extreme right in this country could easily be considered fascist by their actions. key word, EXTREME. Thankfully, the numbers of the extremists are not the majority, but they are the loudiest, and each side associates everone on the other side with the extremists

This is, again, nonsense. The problem is conservatives and you don’t need to rely on me for this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Even_Worse_Than_It_Looks

American politics are diseased but conservatives are the primary cause.

 

[dank69]

I have multiple dictionaries, i like using them, see how society has changed definitions. Here is the definition from 1982 of fascism: a system of government characterized by dictatorship, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism: first instituted in Italy in 1922.

definition of fascism today: (as per oxford dictionary) an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

my political views are moderate, with a conservative leaning. traditional conservative (guess what I am far from broke, and very educated). Both Republicans, as well as Democrats today, are belligerent, only care about their views, you express an opinion they dont agree with, they attack you, belittle you. both sides do this, people in the middle dont.

To show the ignorance of the Left, someone can be a Republican and not vote for or like Trump, just like to the ignorance of the Right, someone can be a Democrat and not be a socialist liberal. On these left leaning forums, the ignorance shows. Just look at the personal attacks in this thread. we have become a society that the only opinion that matters is one's own opinion and every one else is wrong if they disagree, everyone is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc if they disagree, for what ever reason.

When you say the Republicans attack people they don't agree with what you mean is prominent Republican politicians, because we have hundreds of videos showing examples. When you say Democrats attack people they don't agree with what you mean is random internet strangers you don't actually know that could be anything from a Democrat to an "independent" to a Republican troll to a Russian bot, but certainly not prominent Democratic politicians. When you say people in the middle don't do this you are lying to yourself.

 

[Amol S.]

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority on a left leaning forum is a tyrany properly to be seen as a vulgarity and to be dreaded, acting as it does through the authoritative assumption of its posters. But reflecting persons perceived that when a forum's majority is itself the tyrant collectively, over the separate individuals who post in it, its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do via the quality of posts therein by political pundits. A virtual society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the majority opinion is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of that prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of forum members to impose, by other means than social stigmatization, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

But though this proposition, one might hope, is not likely to be contested in general terms, the practical question, where to place the limit, how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control, is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done. All that makes existence valuable to anyone, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed, by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law. What these rules should be, is the principal question in human affairs; but if we except a few of the most obvious cases, it is one of those which least progress has been made in resolving. No two ages, and scarcely any two countries, much less political forums have decided it alike; and the decision of one age or country is a wonder to another. Yet the people of any given age and country no more suspect any difficulty in it, than if it were a subject on which mankind had always been agreed. The rules which obtain among themselves appear to them self-evident and self-justifying. This all but universal illusion is one of the examples of the magical influence of customary forum decorum which is not only, as the proverb says, a second nature, but is continually mistaken for the first. The effect of custom, in preventing any misgiving respecting the rules of conduct which mankind impose on one another, is all the more complete because the subject is one on which it is not generally considered necessary that reasons should be given, either by one person to others, or by each to himself. People are accustomed to believe, and have been encouraged in the belief by some who aspire to the character of philosophers, that their feelings, on subjects of this nature, are better than reasons, and render reasons unnecessary. The practical principle which guides them to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each person's mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathises, would like them to act. No one, indeed, acknowledges to himself that his standard of judgment is his own liking; but an opinion on a point of conduct, not supported by reasons, can only count as one person's preference; and if the reasons, when given, are a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people, it is still only many people's liking instead of one. To an ordinary man, however, his own preference, thus supported, is not only a perfectly satisfactory reason, but the only one he generally has for any of his notions of morality, taste, or propriety, which are not expressly written in whaever creed to which he or she may aspire; and his chief guide in the interpretation even of that. Men's opinions, accordingly, on what is laudable or blamable, are affected by all the multifarious causes which influence their wishes in regard to the conduct of others, and which are as numerous as those which determine their wishes on any other subject. Sometimes their reason, at other times their prejudices or superstitions: often their social affections, not seldom their anti-social ones, their envy or jealousy, their arrogance or contemptuousness: but most commonly, their desires or fears for themselves, their legitimate or illegitimate self-interest. Wherever there is an ascendant class, a large portion of the morality of the country emanates from its class interests, and its feelings of class superiority. The morality between Spartans and Helots, between slave owners and Blacks, between princes and subjects, between nobles and roturiers, between men and women, has been for the most part the creation of these class interests and feelings: and the sentiments thus generated, react in turn upon the moral feelings of the members of the ascendant class, in their relations among themselves. Where, on the other hand, a class, formerly ascendant, has lost its ascendancy, or where its ascendancy is unpopular, the prevailing moral sentiments frequently bear the impress of an impatient dislike of superiority. Another grand determining principle of the rules of conduct, both in act and forbearance, which have been enforced by law or opinion, has been the servility of mankind towards the supposed preferences or aversions of their temporal masters, or of their gods. This servility, though essentially selfish, is not hypocrisy; it gives rise to perfectly genuine sentiments of abhorrence; it made men burn magicians and heretics. Among so many baser influences, the general and obvious interests of society have of course had a share, and a large one, in the direction of the moral sentiments: less, however, as a matter of reason, and on their own account, than as a consequence of the sympathies and antipathies which grew out of them: and sympathies and antipathies which had little or nothing to do with the interests of society, have made themselves felt in the establishment of moralities with quite as great force.

A heads up on this matter, I suspect, will have little effect. Most of the capacity for serious mentation tire the brain of the average forum dweller after a few words. TLDR and, of course, delivered with great sugness and self pride.

Edit: Smugness and Self Pride as I am sure you realized.

Just an FYI.... ATF P&N is not a thesis posting board.

 

[Amol S.]

TLDR; Is Moonbeam moaning it up again?

The problem is, I do not think Moonbeam is doing this at the right place. Their message would be received by the correct constituents if they were to post this same exact message on Reddit. The low number of conservatives that even come to this website, just makes Moonbeam's comments in trying to bring conservatives to the left, a futile attempt.

I also was not able to understand what Moonbeam posted, only to understand the thread title.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is, again, nonsense. The problem is conservatives and you don’t need to rely on me for this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Even_Worse_Than_It_Looks

American politics are diseased but conservatives are the primary cause.

Conservatives are the only cause of it. What makes for the phenomenon of conservatism IS fear. Conservative thinking can be now and has in the past been terrifying to see to see in the extreme.

So the result of that witnessing by liberals can thus generates on the left the exact same conservative causing fear.

When I say the human mind unaware of its nature is exposed to conditions that cause fear, we react in ways that just make that situation that much worse I am saying that we create what we fear.

I post on a left leaning forum, not interested in splitting hairs over the accuracy of that description. There are fewer people who post on this forum who buy into modern Republican bullshit than probably proportionately walk down a San Francisco street.

It is to people of that kind of typically non conservative thinking that I have tried to inform that fear of the right and the hatred it generates pushes us to act out exactly as we know the right would if they acquire that kind of fascist political power.

The right is riddled with fear and if the left reacts to that fear with hatred rather than reason, the greater they will use the left to excuse their behavior.

I believe the way to defeat the right is to create conscious awareness that what the right should be genuinely terrified of is itself.

The problem I see on the left is fear in the form of lack of confidence in the power of liberal thinking.

That is why, when you say the right is only ‘primarily’ the cause I have tried to express how to increase the truth of that fact.

I believe that liberalism of mind, rational intelligence augmented by the suppression of fear, features that find physical evidence in brain scans of self confessed liberals, is a primate adaption in humans of more recent evolutionary appearance in our species and that is vital to combat a much more ancient fight or flee practically brain free reflex.

Factors that work against reactive fear are psychological awareness, faith, trust in the goodness of others, empathy, healthy self respect, etc.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just an FYI.... ATF P&N is not a thesis posting board.

The problem is, I do not think Moonbeam is doing this at the right place. Their message would be received by the correct constituents if they were to post this same exact message on Reddit. The low number of conservatives that even come to this website, just makes Moonbeam's comments in trying to bring conservatives to the left, a futile attempt.

I also was not able to understand what Moonbeam posted, only to understand the thread title.

A board does not become like a thesis board because someone thinks he sees it as one. I have discovered in myself countless times that I object to having to think. It can be work and generate unpleasant associations.
As regards your second point, had you perhaps applied yourself with somewhat more vigor, you might have noticed the audience I intended to address lean liberal.

Hope that wasn’t to long or too difficult to understand.

I will give you this however. There was one in particular in the OP I am mot sure I understand even after considerable effort. There is also a word whose definition I do not know.

 

[eelw]

Well at least the fortune cookie is more concise in these above posts. Like people may actually read his posts when he gets to a point instead of droning on worse than a Sportage post

 

[Amol S.]

Moonie off his meds again?

Just remember this. Just like how an apple a day keeps the doctor away, a walnut a day keeps the psychiatrist away.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just remember this. Just like how an apple a day keeps the doctor away, a walnut a day keeps the psychiatrist away.

When I explained to you why I wasn't in a right leaning forum or making points to those on the right, but was addressing them to the left intentionally, I figured you wouldn't take being show you don't read very will personally as an affront to your ego.

They say that solving riddles can be good for your head:

Here's one for you?

What do you have when you nave nuts on a wall?

What do you have when you have nuts on your chest?

What do you have when you have nuts on your chin?

 

[Amol S.]

When I explained to you why I wasn't in a right leaning forum or making points to those on the right, but was addressing them to the left intentionally, I figured you wouldn't take being show you don't read very will personally as an affront to your ego.

They say that solving riddles can be good for your head:

Here's one for you?

What do you have when you nave nuts on a wall?

What do you have when you have nuts on your chest?

What do you have when you have nuts on your chin?

I heard you the first time with your reply that the OP was addressed to the left. I will be honest here and am trying my best not to be mean. I sometimes cannot understand what your posts are trying to address, as your words and grammar are all over the place. It just throws me off and I lose interest in reading the whole entire post of yours. I highly suggest using Microsoft Word. I can understand up to the first 3 or 4 sentences in your post usually. If you intentionally make posts like this to be a riddle, can you please provide a non-riddle version as well, not everyone has time.


Riddle one: walnut
Riddle two: chestnut
Riddle three: chin nut

I wish to apologize to Moonbeam.

 

[zinfamous]

I said look how it has changed from 1982 to today. Are they the same? no, they are not. One is from 1982 the other is from 2020, printed dictionary, same company. Bit of history lesson, Fascism was started by Musilini. Before starting fascism he was a socialist. The left tends to lean more socialist than the right does.

BUT my point is how the wording of definitions change over the years. Fascism was founded by and was far left, not right, not it is associated with the far right.

I thought you said you were well educated? That look towards critical thinking up there in your post is pretty damn poor.

lol: "fascism was once socialist, therefore it is left." This is for 3rd graders. Not adults. No one listens to people when they spit out stupid takes like that. Just saying. You didn't just stumble onto something "brilliant." Plenty of dumb people have shat that out, long before you, again and again and again. It's not at all a reflection of actual history.

You need to do some actual reading, rather than take a 5 minute gander at two dictionary definitions of the same word and decide that this is enough research to summarize the entire 20th-21st century of a dense, thoroughly-documented political and social movement that rather violently defined social movements and national characters for decades.

But hey, you've got two definitions that you read! Congrats, you must be ready for your 3rd grade history report! I mean...it's possible that you could be "Well educated" if 2nd grade is the average level achieved by your particular cohort. So, there's that...


Yes, I'm being "mean to you." It's because that shit you are posting has been moaned about hundreds of times already, again and again. It's a stupid argument, thoroughly defeated by facts and logic. Please step out and reenter the room when you have some adult thinking to contribute.

 

[biostud]

The right has traditionally believed in smaller government, less federal control, more control by the states. bash the repeal of roe vs wade, but what the supreme court did was give control to the states, which is the opposite of fascism. not to get in an abortion debate, all i will say on it is that congress needs to pass an actual law on it and not rely on a supreme court ruling.

Another quite important aspect for the state is to defend the freedom of the individual. Somebody (Supreme court) must ensure that state laws are not restricting the freedom of the individual. Most would argue that it is better to have "some" laws made at state level, as it is closer to the people, than laws made on national level.

That has been the problem for democracies turning into dictatorships (like nazi Germany, current Russia etc.), that if you don't have a system that prevents your democracy turning into a dictatorship, then at som point it can happen. And that is the path Trump and his followers are marching down, it will not happen today or tomorrow, but slowly creeping closer until it is too late.