Leo you misunderstand Hitler completely

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, TheAlchemist said:

Nazis and fascists cling to the past, but not any real version of it.

That's true of conservatives in general. They have a fantasy of the past.

Case in point: Last month Nikki Haley said that "America was never a racist country."

And she is far from a Fascist. But that's how stupidly conservatives tend to think.

Conservatives are in deep denial about the evils of their tradition and past. Because they see themselves as champions of it.

Edited March 31 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Conservatives are in deep denial about the evils of their tradition and past. Because they see themselves as champions of it.

That's evil only if you could change them. Labelling realities as evil is inherently soul crushing. It's a necessary evil at best. 

Liberals from a 100 years would probably call the capitalism of today as evil. But it is the best that we could come up with given the circumstances we were in. 

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

That's evil only if you could change them. Labelling realities as evil is inherently soul crushing. It's a necessary evil at best. 

Liberals from a 100 years would probably call the capitalism of today as evil. But it is the best that we could come up with given the circumstances we were in. 

They are not honest enough to even admit the evil. Never mind changing it.

How hard is it to admit that America was a racist country in the past? That doesn't require any change of it.

[Nilsi]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Nilsi Your view of politics is so nutty that I am not going to explain much more to you. You have a lot of wrong ideas that require rethinking.

 

So everything that you can't find on CNN is "nutty," or even better, just flat-out "wrong"?

For someone who claims to be the "most open-minded person on the planet," your mind is quite dense.

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@NilsiPost-modernism is not a dog. Post-modernism is a philosophy. To be post-mordern requires having certain epistemic positions.

You still want to push this point?

An Amish person wouldn't necessarily be able to describe themselves as conservative, but could still intuitively hold the epistemic positions inherent to that "philosophy."

Also, I don't care what Trump thinks or how he views himself; his actions speak louder than a thousand words. 

Hasn't psychoanalysis taught us anything here? Your most fundamental philosophical positions are totally unconscious, and thus a true postmodernist wouldn't be able to describe themselves as such.

Edited March 31 by Nilsi

[Leo Gura]

33 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

You still want to push this point?

An Amish person wouldn't necessarily be able to describe themselves as conservative, but could still intuitively hold the epistemic positions inherent to that "philosophy."

Also, I don't care what Trump thinks or how he views himself; his actions speak louder than a thousand words. 

Hasn't psychoanalysis taught us anything here? Your most fundamental philosophical positions are totally unconscious, and thus a true postmodernist wouldn't be able to describe themselves as such.

You make a good general point here. However, calling Trump post-modern is like calling a dog post-modern. That would be to give the dog too much intellectual sophistication.

Edited March 31 by Leo Gura

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

6 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Wow, what a load of crap.

Postmodernism is not merely an „aesthetic and philosophical movement;“ it is the state of the world we’ve been living in, I claim, for over 100 years. This would be like saying „classicism is merely an aesthetic and philosophical movement starting with the Renaissance,“ when actually it is a reference, a gesture to classical antiquity, which did ACTUALLY happen. People try to pretend like postmodernism isn’t an actual thing, which is insane to me.

Some of the core tenets of postmodernism are:

• Blurring of the distinction between what is real and what is imaginary; this already started with characters like Edward Bernays (early 20th century), the father of public relations.
• The death of the meta-narrative; this is Nietzsche's infamous proclamation about the death of God (in the late 19th century).
• Fragmentation and decentering of meaning; you can start seeing this happen in art with Pablo Picasso and cubism (early 20th century).
• Irony, parody, and pastiche; James Joyce’s 'Ulysses' (1922) creates an ironic conglomerate of various writing styles and historical periods that makes it obvious that we have arrived at the end of linear history already.

Besides that, I have already characterized postmodern capitalism in a previous post. We could also analyze this psychologically through things like mental illnesses and such, but that’s not my forte, and I don’t think it’s necessary to drive the point home.

Your move is the equivalent of quoting some random Christian YouTuber in a debate about God. If that’s your epistemic standard, I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation.

   You claim that post modernism is the state of the world for 100 years. Do you have proof that Post modernism ruled the world 100 years?

   How does the statement of post modernism being merely 'aesthetic and philosophical movements' have anything to do with you claiming that it's like me stating that 'classicism is merely an aesthetic and philosophical movement starting in the renaissance.'? Why did you red herring and straw man in this way?

   Also Trump isn't a post modernist, he's a con artist, scammer, fraudster, swindler, grifter, and hustler, lying to everyone including the conservatives to gain more power.

[Nilsi]

18 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Nilsi

You claim that post modernism is the state of the world for 100 years. Do you have proof that Post modernism ruled the world 100 years?

My claim is that postmodernism began to become the dominant sociocultural reality in the West over 100 years ago, yes, and I've given you many examples that illustrate this.

Edited March 31 by Nilsi

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

They are not honest enough to even admit the evil. Never mind changing it.

How hard is it to admit that America was a racist country in the past? That doesn't require any change of it.

Will liberals admit that their privilege & affluence they enjoy right now is a result of third world exploitation?

Even the liberals of today don't own up to the slavery they profit off of. Their entire world view would crumble infront of their eyes if they own up to it. 

Even back then, the founding fathers of America, aka the racists were the forward thinking liberals of their time. So you are essentially blaming the liberals for owing slaves back then.

Which is why the entire liberal virtual signalling is shallow, petty and deeply hypocritical. They want to guilt trip the conservatives into feeling bad and feel good as a result of it. The whole exercise is just soul crushing. I would stay 10 kilometres away from it. 

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You make a good general point here. However, calling Trump post-modern is like calling a dog post-modern. That would be to give the dog too much intellectual sophistication.

Have you ever considered that the media DOES hate Trump and has propaganda against him and he's actually a good president?

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

My claim is that postmodernism began to become the dominant sociocultural reality in the West over 100 years ago, yes, and I've given you many examples that illustrate this.

   No, you're exact claim is that postmodernism was running the show starting from 100 years ago, and that you're mistaking post modernism for modernism, capitalism and conservatives running the show for the last 100 years. You also over look that Neoliberals are now running the show for the last 50 years and they and corporates have a more profound impact on society than post modernists.

   Also, you haven't provided that much evidence and examples to even illustrate your position. All you've done is weasel, dodge and deflect, red herring here and there.

[Yousif]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

How hard is it to admit that America was a racist country in the past?

A lot of people are still racist and biased, but they got a bit smarter, back then their true face was explicit, today they’re hiding it and they exercise their devilry from the shadows.

 

[Yimpa]

44 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Even the liberals of today don't own up to the slavery they profit off of. Their entire world view would crumble infront of their eyes if they own up to it. 

Precisely. See explanation below 

 

[Leo Gura]

46 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Even back then, the founding fathers of America, aka the racists were the forward thinking liberals of their time. So you are essentially blaming the liberals for owing slaves back then.

Yes, although slavery is much older than that so it's not like they invented slavery.

[Yimpa]

36 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Have you ever considered that the media DOES hate Trump and has propaganda against him and he's actually a good president?

All 3 points are correct depending on your POV.

For example, with your last point, Fox News will claim and give examples of why he is a good president. 

[Danioover9000]

@Yimpa

1 minute ago, Yimpa said:

All 3 points are correct depending on your POV.

For example, with your last point, Fox News will claim and give examples of why he is a good president. 

   Why would Fox News claim and give examples of why Donald Trump is a good president?

[Leo Gura]

Of course journalists hate Trump. Because a core value of journalism is truth and Trump lies 24/7.

Notice that those in the news biz who like Trump are not serious journalists, they are hacks, entertainers, and grifters.

Edited March 31 by Leo Gura

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Of course journalists hate Trump. Because a core value of journalism is truth and Trump lies 24/7.

Notice that those in the News who like Trump are not serious journalists, they are hack enterainers.

   Because a core value of journalism is true, and Trump lies 24/7, and each person has their bias, confirmation bias and preference, and ideological agendas, that doesn't make some Journalists biased and fallible?

   Those in the news who like Trump are not serious Journalists and hack entertainers, instead of being biased in favor of Trump because of their right wing ideologies and worldview? Would you say the same thing if it's a left wing journalist who likes Joe Biden, that they are also not serious Journalists and are hack entertainers like CNN, BBC, Majority Report, TYT for example?

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Leo Gura

   Because a core value of journalism is true, and Trump lies 24/7, and each person has their bias, confirmation bias and preference, and ideological agendas, that doesn't make some Journalists biased and fallible?

   Those in the news who like Trump are not serious Journalists and hack entertainers, instead of being biased in favor of Trump because of their right wing ideologies and worldview? Would you say the same thing if it's a left wing journalist who likes Joe Biden, that they are also not serious Journalists and are hack entertainers like CNN, BBC, Majority Report, TYT for example?

There is no comparison. No left politician lies like Trump.

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

There is no comparison. No left politician lies like Trump.

   I'm not making a comparison, I'm pointing out that this:

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course journalists hate Trump. Because a core value of journalism is truth and Trump lies 24/7.

Notice that those in the news biz who like Trump are not serious journalists, they are hacks, entertainers, and grifters.

   Is a bold and biased claims you're making for Journalists who like Trump are 'not serious Journalists and hack entertainers', and also claiming that Journalism has a core value of truth. If it's true, then what about Journalists who like say Joe Biden? Are they also hack entertainers and not serious Journalists?

   I'm just pointing out your language is very loaded in terms and presuppositions yet defined, when a more neutral and objective language is more accurate and solid, like for example you could've stated instead that 'Of course Journalists hate Trump because all Journalists have their own ideological biases, even though the tenet of Journalism is core to Truth instead of lies each person has their own biases and preferences and worldviews, and those in the news business are biased and partial to left-center-right wing political biases and ideologies, so when you see some Journalists who strongly like whichever politician or scammer pretending to be a politician, do note such Journalists are too biased, too serious and are hack entertainer instead of for the truth, 

[Yimpa]

Censorship is a hell of a drug