31–40 of 86 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't he a straight up monarchist?
[deleted]
You struck me as better than buying this shit. You don't have to care, but I am disappointed.
I don't speak German, so it was somewhat surprising to me when I learned that Führer means "leader" (or "guide", according to Wikipedia). And that that word is essentially dead in modern German speech. So how do you refer to the "leader" now?, I asked. I didn't get a good answer to that question, but it would probably take more understanding of German as to how they get by without the obvious word. I wonder if "news"…
Come to think of it, English "news" is more like the German "Neuigkeiten", while "Nachrichten" is more like the English "messages". But German news are as sensationalistic as everywhere else, so that seems to have no effect.
> Witch hunts cannot actually be carried out by losers, big or small: the agent of a witch hunt must have power. Aaaaay, and now the public conversation has finally advanced. The contention of the far right is that this statement is exactly right, but not in the way the author means. That is: there is no coherent rightist opposition to the national religion of progressivism, and this can be verified by checking for w…
A common tactic of any populist group is to paint itself as a persecuted outsider.
The far right and right have possibly never been stronger in the West, in fact. Throughout Europe, right-wing parties run government and far right parties have never had more power since perhaps WWII (and run government themselves in some countries).
In the U.S., there is a large, coherent rightist power structure that dominates government and politics, not an opposition. The rightists control the White House (and thus all regulatory agencies and the rest of the executive branch), both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, 70% of governorships, and a large majority of state houses. Most police are right-wing (AFAIK). The most popular cable news channel (Fox) and the most popular newspaper among the business elite (WSJ) both serve right-wing propaganda as a modus operendi (the WSJ on its editorial page). There are a vast number of other popular right and far-right publications. There are many major funders (Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, etc.); there are major think tanks, such as Heritage, dedicated to generating intellectual cover for the right and far-right agenda. And the power structure works together to a surprising degree; you can see read Heritage talking points in many places, often without realizing the source.
Here's an article I just read talking about the coherent rightist power structure, including a chief advisor to the President:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart...
> national religion of progressivism
There is no such thing. Again, see the actual state of affairs, described above (and in this religiously progressive country, Donald Trump won). The far right again tries to portray itself as persecuted and also tries to portray anyone who disagrees as mindless followers of "religion", like the right-wing ideologues, not reasoned supporters of human rights, democracy and freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been rereading this trying to see a coherent argument, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. The thing that you quote seems like it could win an award for stretching metaphors.
It's part of the charm. The issue of course is that if you don't flit in a distant metaphor, you tread disrespectfully upon _sacred ground_. To toe the line a little for you, the witch-hunters are activists (good, noble ones) looking for sinners (bad, evil ones) and preaching about a world where the sinners have all the power. In such a world, why would there be so many successful witch-hunters?
> In such a world, why would there be so many successful witch-hunters?
Because neither group has all the power (and there are many other groups too). The allegory, as someone pointed out, and the reasoning are both stretched past breaking.
> Witch hunts cannot actually be carried out by losers, big or small: the agent of a witch hunt must have power. Aaaaay, and now the public conversation has finally advanced. The contention of the far right is that this statement is exactly right, but not in the way the author means. That is: there is no coherent rightist opposition to the national religion of progressivism, and this can be verified by checking for w…
Are you saying there are no witch hunts on the American right? (Pizzagate, Benghazi, emails?) Nobody with a stable and lucrative career in these witch hunts? (Alex Jones, most of Fox News?) No hobbyists who enjoy witch-hunting on the weekend? (Again Pizzagate - an extreme case of the right-wing “do your own research to pierce the media veil” bullshit rabbit hole.) If that’s not what you’re saying, why is the actual p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been rereading this trying to see a coherent argument, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. The thing that you quote seems like it could win an award for stretching metaphors.
It is clear to me. It is hard to explain without attracting the attention of the moderators. I'm not sure it's possible to even talk about it without offending somebody, but fortunately I'm gradually losing the will to care. A simple example would be this recent shooting in Las Vegas. Now: the fact is that this number of people die on a regular basis in certain cities, making it Vegas x 1000, but it doesn't attract u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been rereading this trying to see a coherent argument, but I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. The thing that you quote seems like it could win an award for stretching metaphors.
It's part of the charm. The issue of course is that if you don't flit in a distant metaphor, you tread disrespectfully upon _sacred ground_. To toe the line a little for you, the witch-hunters are activists (good, noble ones) looking for sinners (bad, evil ones) and preaching about a world where the sinners have all the power. In such a world, why would there be so many successful witch-hunters?
Jon Ronson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9G6L4ZNuWk
Evergreen State College: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1RoBi5HKWc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is: there is no coherent rightist opposition to the national religion of progressivism, and this can be verified by checking for who is doing the hunting. Just because a bunch of people can do some witch hunting on twitter doesn't make it a lucrative and safe career. Twitter slacktivists aside, who do you think currently has an easier job - people fighting for civil rights, or people who are fighting against t…
Both sides have their frame and mythology. I get that you feel like you're doing what's right and true by advancing yours, but it's narratives and semiotics all the way down.
That's an old propaganda standby - both sides are the same, it's all just opinion. Nothing distinguishes U.S. policy from Stalin's, they would say in the Cold War.
But there is good and evil in the world, and if we don't distinguish between them then we are accomplices for the latter. Furthering hate is not the same as opposing it; oppressing people is not the same as fighting for their freedom.
> Witch hunts cannot actually be carried out by losers, big or small: the agent of a witch hunt must have power. Aaaaay, and now the public conversation has finally advanced. The contention of the far right is that this statement is exactly right, but not in the way the author means. That is: there is no coherent rightist opposition to the national religion of progressivism, and this can be verified by checking for w…
> there is no coherent rightist opposition ... A common tactic of any populist group is to paint itself as a persecuted outsider. The far right and right have possibly never been stronger in the West, in fact. Throughout Europe, right-wing parties run government and far right parties have never had more power since perhaps WWII (and run government themselves in some countries). In the U.S., there is a large, coherent…
The Kochs fund far-right publications? Which ones? They seem explicitly not far right, or even really right at all.
-- George Orwell, letter to Noel Willmett (1944)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/12/george-orwe...