You can be an Evangelical Christian and still be a Leftist. Also, the SNP are still regarded as leaning left
No not all opposition in the Uk is banned. Yet. But their policies on free speech have slowly but surely been leading to erosion, e.g. the police visiing that guy to 'check his thinking' or that community officer harassing a woman praying silently outside an abortion clinic.
I did browse the Community. I stand by what I said. Communists are in the wrong plain and simple. it is naive to say they hate Stalin and what he stands for when they would inevitably wind up in the same place as him. Communism cannot and has never worked because it is anethma to human nature. it has been tried multiple times in multiple different time periods in multiple different cultures and always generates the same results. That sub is a glorified 'that wasn't real Communism' statement. You can literally never implement Communism without winding up with Stalinism. Communists NEVER intend to start out that way but they ALWAYS wind up there no matter what because the ideology is rotten at its core, in part because it is utopian.
I linked you an entire video outlining how Hollywood has a long history with Communism/marxism. Hollywood is pushing identity politics which is modern day Marxism. So there is every reason to believe this claim.
The faction of the Democrats currently in power do not lean right. They are leftists. Again, leftist doesn't = left wing people, let alone moderates.
You are being elitist again and also your statement doesn't line up with what I said at all. Putting aside how Drinker is speaking to mainstream sensibilities and shockingly finding an audience amongst mainstream audience, my investment in superheroes has nothing to do with a limited consumption and you would have known that based upon my statements.
My love of superhero fiction has been a life long thing even when superheroes were NOT mainstream. I also outlined how I like Japanese and British superheores, neither of which are or were mainstream in America or the UK. Judge Dredd is not mainstream. Captain britian is not mainstream. I loved Deadpool in the early 2000s when most people had no idea who he was. I watched the 1991 Super Sentai season in 2021, the season immediately pre-dating the season that became Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. I watched Cutey Honey F last year and got into Sailor Moon in 2010, a show that came and went within a year or 2 in the UK. But my first love in superhero fiction has been Marvel. I even disliked Infinity War because of changes made to Thanos from the comics. I was one of the minority of people who popped when I saw Thanos in Avengers 2012 because I was one of the minority of global audiences who knew who he was.
I have always and I will always love superhero fiction, so inevitably i am invested in the status of the MCU. As for Drinker, I know he is a far cry from me on this front but it is again elitist to chastise him for covering that stuff when most of the world is interested in it. And the reason they are interested is because superheroes, when done right, have broad universal appeal because they speak to the human condition in a fundamental way, particularly if you are a child. Therefore when done right they inevitably gain mainstream traction.
âAnd yet the USA is currently governed by the Democrats, who aren't communists,â
Then why are they embracing of identity politics? Why have they discriminated based upon immutable characteristics? Because there are clear cut Commie sensibilities within the Democrats.
Also you keep mistaking the term instittuon for government. The government is A institution but not the only one. Universities are another institution. Hollywood yet another. Iâve already explained this.
âwho have isolated their left-flank,â
Left wing doesnât = leftist.
âAnd they're currently on a path to lose all 3 chambers of government in November.â
Yes, because their leftist, highly identitarian policies have been widely unpopular. That doesnât counterpoint what Iâve said. Communism is like a virus. It slowly spreads, it doesnât just happen all at once.
âBut yes, "woke" Hollywood apparently spreading communism is the problem.â
It is. It is a gigantic seismic problem, the one hope of which being that they are turning people off from it. But then Gen Z seem polarised, with Gen z females being very woke in general and gen z males gravitating towards toxic people like Andrew Tate. Which put you on a dangerous path of either getting Communism or fascism.
âAlso it doesn't seem he's ever watched Dark, Black Sails, Mr. Robot, Altered Carbon (S01 was great). No record of Raised by Wolves (this guy like sci-fi or not?) or Foundation (which would probably at least partially annoy him, but it's still sci-fi). A quick search reveals he did watch The Expanse, so this stuff really should be on his radar. These are not niche shows. You can watch most of them just via Amazon Prime, Netflix, Apple TV, HBO etc.â
And your arguments were flawed. See my other comment for more detail.
âHow is it Labour would somehow prove to you that they've addressed their anti-semitism problem?
Are you genuinely upset about Labour because of some kid saying "comrade" in their conference?â
There are a varity of ways Labout could address their anti-semitism problem. One way would be to take a hardline stance against the recent crop of anti-semitism in the country, categorically condemn the projection of explicitely genocidal slognan âfrom the river to the seaâ onto Big Ben, pressure the Mayor of London to use the police to crackdown on stuff like the latter and take a hardline and outspoken stance against Islamists in the country since they are historically anti-semitic. All of which can be done regardless of any stances they might have for or against Israel.
Am I genuiney upset? More like concerned and worried. Pre-New Labour the Labour party had a red flag as their slogan. They were very much sympathetic to Communist ideology with many in the party being Communists unto themselves (which is largely why imo they struggled to win elections before they moved away from being as left as they were). So to see a young person doing something in line with Communists is highly concerning. It speaks to  potential Communist tendencies amidst the up and coming generation of the party and possibly a general Communist faction within it. Additionally, Marxists have often allied themselves with Islamists as they share a common enemy (Western society) and this has been to the benefit of a rise in Islamism. Labour enjoy sizable support amongst the Muslim population. Whilst I believe (and I hope I am right) that most Muslim Britons are moderate and peaceful people, there obviously are Islamists amongst them, which may well have contributed to Labourâs anti-semitism problem. In other words, there is at least a very real possibility that Islamists are benefitting from the Labour party. The Mayor of London as a lawyer in fact defended a known Islamist in the 2000s when he was interned in an Egyptian prison and currently isnât doing much to curtail anti-semitism at pro-palestine protests, the Big Ben projection being merely the largest example of this. So, even if he himself is not an Islamist, which I do not think he is, I think he inclined to be soft on them.
Youâd get rid of said term by continually bringing up facts and scientific research to the contrary and trying to get as much attention for those as you can, along with campaigning for those to be taught in schools whilst the narrative supportive of the concept of transgenderism is removed from schools.
Quote of him saying yoga is satanic?
âHe literally endorsed public executions, dude.â
America still endorses public executions. I donât think it is an open and shut case that public executions are inherently a bad thing unless they are done as a form of entertainment in the public square.
âAlso, no comment on him wanting to ban sexual reassignment or adults?â
??????????I did respond to that you yourself responded to my response.
But anyway, to elaborate it hinges upon a debate about whether believing your sex and gender donât sync up is a mental illness and if it is does that compromise their ability to consent to such a surgery.
Hence why I am undecided. Personally, I think it is a mental illness and such surgeries are unhealthy but I also donât know if it is a mental illness that comprimises your consent or if a surgery is a lesser evil or not because I do not know if such a mental condition has any effective long term treatment. In any case though, I personally would make a condition of such surgeries that the patient be over 25 as 25 is the age at which cognitive development has âfinishedâ. This minimises the possibility that people may well have just been going through a phase and therefore make a life altering decision theyâd later regret.
âNo, you've asserted this. You haven't bothered to back it up.â
I linked to you a video where someone from the Soviet Union explained this.
âCommunist regimes lasted much longer (and were bigger with more influence and people under its umbrella), and thus had more time to persecute and oppress others.â
You realise this just proves my point. If they wound up as being bigger and wound up lasting longer then they had a wider pool of people across a wider point in time to oppress. You mistake is arguing it was a mere quirk of history which led there being more Communism than fascism when that isnât the case. Communism tends to last longer and get independently adopted because it is the more immediately appealing idea on paper. Fascism is often but not always a response to Communism and that was a huge factor in Hitler's rise to power both domestically (Communism within Germany) and internationally (Britian and France viewed Hitler as a buffer against the Communism of the Soviet Union).
Additionally, I just double checked some figures via a quick conversation with my co-pilot AI. I asked it how many people did the Nazis kill between 1933-1945 (their time in power). It was 17 million approximately. I asked the same question of the USSR in the same time period, which obviously did not include the start of end of their regime. This number was over 35 million. So, the USSR on average were responsible for more deaths than the Nazis.
But lets break down the figures a bit more.
Between 1933-1945 the Nazis exterminated 17 million people across all the territory they controlled, meaning they killed on average 1.42 million people per year in that time period.
Meanwhile, as a result of the Holodomor in Ukraine, the USSR were responsible for over 7 million deaths between 1932-1933. This means the USSR in this mere 2 year time span killed 3.6 million people per year in this ONE piece of territory they controlled.
Between 1958-1962 15-55 million people died in China as a result of Mao's Great Leap forward. This means the CCP in a mere 4 year time span killed 3-11 million people per year.
So, it seems Communism didn't just kill more people because it lasted longer or was more influential. It was simply more lethal in general.
âBut try telling people who lived through Argentina, Taiwan, South Korea (when they were fascist-adjacent), Brazil, Spain, Italy, Nazi Germany, etc that "communism is just as bad).â
That is an imbecilic metric for various reasons. First of all you could simply flip that statement to be telling people who lived through/are living through Venuzuela, various African countries that swallowed the socialism kool aid, South Korea (when they became Commuist), the USSR, China, Vietnam and Cuba that fascism is just as bad. Second of all, people who lived through that are inevitably going to say fascism is worse because they havenât necesarilly experienced Communism and their trauma will all but guarantee a bias towards fascism being worse, unless they have done historical research to educate themselves about communism.
âNo, I'm saying you assume the very worst of the wider left-wing diaspora in the USA - claiming that the very worst of them represent all of them, and handwave away and dismiss right-wing theofascistsâ
I never said that. I am talking about Leftists. Leftists are a loud minority, but a minority who have captured powerful instutions and individuals. I never said left wing people as a whole. 15-20 years ago I was on the left wing. My views have changed but not overwhelmingly, but in the modern discourse I would be considered conservative.
Aditionally if I am dismissing them, it is only because they are in fact a minority with currently little power. Again, you are claiming things would be just as bad if not worse if this small minority suddenly got the reigns of power but they donât, they havenât gotten near those reigns in a very long time and it seems unlikely that they will any time soon. Lefitsts meanwhile have those reigns and the only avenue to check and balance them is to not vote for them whilst simultaneously not financially supporting them whilst simultaneously building parallel institutions altogether. So this minority âtheofascistsâ have a whole mountain to climb before they can supposedly implement evil policies whilst leftists are doing evil things right now.
âThe current GOP house speaker, Mike Johnson, once endorsed banning gay sex (or maintaining the on-paper ban) in Texas. No comment on that?
Any thoughts about Project 2025 which plans to ban pornography and suggests that "transgender ideology" is a subset of it? I'd link you the document relevant, but it appears that it has gone private.â
I didnât comment on that because I didnât know about it until you brought it up. Am I supposed to know all things about everything or else you hold me in contempt? Ironically, this is very much in line with Leftist punitive behaviour. But, for the sake of argument lets unpack that. The current GOP speaker of the House wanted to ban gay sex in Texas. Lets steel man this to say he said this very recently, he still believes it and he wants to have it happen across the whole country. Okie dokieâŠheâd still need to go through the process of getting it into law which comes with checks and balances, so if other members of the party donât align with him it could never happen. The Presidentâs support would carry a lot of weight so if the president (Republican or Democrat) doesnât support it that will make his agenda more difficult. At least a sizable chunk of the country would be opposed to it, meaning he risks damaging both his own career prospects and the GOPâs in general, meaning there might be more pressure for him to leave it alone. But even if it does pass into law, the next government to roll into power might disagree with it and therefore change the law to get rid of it. All the while, the vast majority of the mainstream media is all but guaranteed to be opposed to it and be pushing hard for it to not happen or for the law to change back.
Meanwhile, the faction of the Democrats currently in power are more aligned than not with the MSM, universities and ESG/DEI pushing institutions like Black Rock and the WEF, who are pushing for and actively implementing discriminatory policies and/or policies which make border security more difficult.
Yeah, I donât agree with Project 2025 now that you have told me about it. But also, it is never going to happen. It is fundamentally impractical to try and ban pornography, much the same way prohibition didnât work. In this sense it doesnât really matter. But from a moralistic POV I can sort of see their POV. Whilst I myself have consumbed pornography there is a big problem of people under 18 accessing it and being negatively affected by it, which I attribute to poor sexual education, poor parenting and the stupidity of giving anyone under 16-18 smartphones.
However, it should be noted at least one pornography producer is on camera talking about making pornography, including trans porn, tailored to a young audience. Which is evil. Pornography shouldnât be made FOR a child audience in mind. So, the idea that there is a connection between pornography and trans is tenuous to my knowledge but it it is entirely possible Project 25 were aware of this example and bought into it.
â100 years ago we arrested people for having gay sex.â
You are making the mistake of presuming society continuously gets better and more enlightened. It doesnât. Societies attitudes can degrade as much as they can evolve. So you have to go case by case. Something believed long ago that we donât believe now doesnât mean we stopped believing in it because we realised it was wrong. We in the now can be wrong for no longer believing in it. Whilst I donât agree about gay sex, I do think for example our immigration policies now are worse than they were 40 years ago. I think the standard of mathematical and historical education is infinitely worse now than 50 years ago. Your statements donât address the specifics of the topic of executions.
âIt wouldn't be a "de facto" ban. It would be a general ban.â
âI also suspect strongly that Michael Knowles and Matt Walsh would endorse anti "LGBT propaganda" laws present in Russia that prohibit cultural and media content that positively depict LGBT people.â
"He shouldn't be obliged to do anything, but what he is making commentary about modern TV. If he chooses to cherrypick modern TV, people will judge him for that. He mades definitive claims about the quality of modern TV yet has huge, obvious gaping holes in his knowledge base regarding it."
I am responding to this here because I am getting annoyed at jumping between pages
When specifically did he make huge sweeping statements about modern TV and what specifically did he say? It may well have been that he was making statements about the state of a particular genre or the handling of this stuff by big studios or handling of franchises in general.
âCan I ask, have you heard of Severance, Succession, Better Call Saul, The Bear, Altered Carbon etc?â
Yes. I call those exceptions that prove the rule (to an extent). Better Call Saul fell off when Laolo showed up and didnât recover much until the last stretch of the final season when we saw Saul return to his old ways and get caught. Succession also lost its way mid way imo and Altered Carbon from my understanding fell off in season 2 which was 4 years ago, the first season being approximately 6 years ago. In other words, hardly relevant to the current state of the TV landscape that TCD would be commenting on.
âThat to me suggests he has an agenda. â
Couldnât one just flip that around to say someone insisting he see everything has an agenda? What if he does see everything but comes to the same conclusions? Like in the context of this conversation, your condemnation of him in regards to his lack of TV knowledge is dependant upon your assessments of the quantity and quality of TV shows being accurate. In other words if on balance there are not many good tv shows/if the tv shows you are saying are good actually are not (at least in TCDâs opinion) then your argumentation about him having an agenda falls apart.
What if he is just calling it as he sees it basically? The tv shows he watches on balance speak to the general state TV landscape scaled to what he has seen? Like what is his agenda really when he calls most Star wars tv shows shit, but said Andor was good, said the Cleopatra Netflix thing was bad, but said Blue Eye Samurai was good, called Rings of Power bad but said Invincible was good?
I think he basically sees what he sees and calls it on its own whatever he feels it to be, making statements about the state of TV based upon what he has seen broadly. Is that necessarily accurate to the state of the industry? Maybe it is. Maybe it isnât. But then, no one can watch all of TV to even be in a position to say such a thing.
âYou claim he focuses purely on the MCU, Star Wars and other franchise content because it's popular.â
But it is because it is popular that it is the media that is predominantly mainstream and therefore stuff most people are likely to see.
âRobyn Hood was none of that. It was a shitty local network TV show that he reviewed because it was a very easy opportunity to dunk on 'woke' content. That is called pandering to his base.â
It still garnered mainstream attention due to controversy. But lets say you are correct that he was pandering. Are you 100% pandering is the norm not the exception for him? The showrunner also got into beef with friends and associates of TCD and to an extent went after people like him, which I think makes it fair game for TCD and such people to respond by covering it.
I will also say, why is it bad for TCD to hypothetically pander by covering Robyn Hood when we consider the show itself existing as one gigantic pandering exercise?
I also donât get why you put âwokeâ in quotation marks. The show by any rationale metric was woke.
Iâd also add that calling out something like Robyn Hood is just generally culturally useful. The show existed from a place of Neo/Cultural Marxism, which is to say identity politics, appropriating an iconic character and subverting it. It wasnât merely shitty and cringe, but such a thing should be called out to make it less likely to happen in the future because it was in fact morally not okay to subvert it in that way. More poignantly, the morals the show was pushing, even if it had nothing to do with Robin Hood were frankly repugnant all on their own and should be called out.
âThis is laughable. There have always been shit shows and films made. Robyn Hood was never an influential or major show of any kind.â
See above. It wasnât merely shit. It was shit to a massive degree BECAUSE of the identity politics and socio-economic ideology it was pushing. 15 years ago I might have agreed with you, but when a show comes out and lioneses black people in an urban setting committing acts of breaking, entering and theft it isnât just accidentally racist, but is subtextually supportive of things like the 2020 riots, Cultural Marxism, etc. At which point it deserves to be mocked and called out for the propaganda it was, regardless if it was unsuccessful.
âYes, the controversy of grifters like TCD using it to appease their audience.â
He isnât a grifter. The show was controversial because of the changes it made to the mythology and then the showrunner started a beef with HeelvsBabyFace which in turn got more attention.
If TCD was a grifter heâd cover exclusively woke content, but he doesnât even cover ALL woke content.
If I am being honest, ideally Iâd want people to use reviews to learn something about a film or tv show after they already saw it. in other words go into it cold with an open mind and making their own decisions of it. that is not, nor has it ever been, how people utilise reviewers. I myself no longer even do that due to my funds and money being limited, and because most content is awful. Thus I look to reviewers whose tastes are close enough to my own to see if something might be worth my time. I saw Top Gun Maverick on Drinkerâs recommendation and it was maybe the best movie I saw in 2022. I saw Everything Everywhere All at Once because of EFAP and was glad I did. If I had gone by trailers alone Iâd have never seen either as they are not something that at face value appealed to me.
âI don't think this is elitism. I'm not slamming TCD for not watching Babylon Berlin. He ignores stuff that isn't obscure, and he crafts a fundamentally misleading image of the modern media climate.
And that's a shame because there's just so much more out there, and you really do not have to dig to find content that he ignores.â
Let me for the moment give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are not being elitist. Why are you thus engaging in bad faith and saying he deliberately ignores stuff in order to compose a misleading image? How do you know it isnât simply a case of he has just not heard of/is uninterested in seeing certain films and TV shows and is therefore calling it as he sees it?* How can you say with absolute accuracy that he is behaving with malefic intent? How can you say with absolute accuracy that the shows you are claiming counter âhis narrativeâ (for the sake of argument, lets agree that this narrative is âmost Hollywood output is badly crafted and wokeâ) are not badly crafted and are not woke? Or at least, would not be in the eyes of TCD?
Additionally, what if the type of stuff (including specific franchises) the Drinker covers are the things most people want to be good? What if most people WANT Star Wars and Marvel specifically to be good? Let me give you an example. Iâm reading and getting a lot more out of manga these days than I got out of mainstream Marvel/DC comics from 2013-2020 (the most recent time period I was reading comics, having come out of a long break). This is because I despise what Marvel and DC have become. Do I like the manga I am reading on its own merits? Yes absolutely. But, would I want Marvel and DC to be good again? Yes I would. If they were good again would I be reading more of them than manga? Yes I would, because I have a longer and deeper emotional connection to them. So, there might be alternatives out there, but most people Iâd argue want Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, Marvel, DC, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, the Witcher, Halo and other historic franchises (many of which form indelible parts of our shared cultural heritage) to be good. I for example do not just feel sad that Marvel and DC are rotten now because I myself once loved them, I believe them to be our modern Western mythology. Thus if they are in a state of disrepair it at least says something about the state of Western society, if not being a demorallising state of affairs in its own right.
*What if he hasnât seen Better Call Saul because he is uninterested in shows to do with the law, or regards it as a pointless exercise since it is a prequel, or because he never saw/was never interested in Breaking Bad? Why must it for sure be because he was deliberately ignoring it because otherwise itâd counter his narrative?
âIn Scotland, the Scottish National Party (SNP) is a left social democratic[1] political partyâ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Scottish_National_Party#:~:text=In%20Scotland%2C%20the%20Scottish%20National,which%20campaigns%20for%20Scottish%20independence.
Social democracy[6][7][8][9]
Scottish nationalism[10][11][12][13]
Left-wing populism[14][15][16]
âThese are not new policies. It's mostly old legislation and overzealous local police. â
Letâs say we agree the legislation and policies are not new. 20 years ago the police didnât act the way they have been acting in the last 5+ years. Therefore, regardless of the age of the policies or legislation, the police have clearly changed their attitudes to those policies and legislation. Which goes to prove my point. These videos by former police officers are very enlightening on the subject:
âWhat pathway of banning opposition to you expect is going to happen? How could this be done?â
By punishing people for exercising their rights to free speech, including when it comes to scientific facts or making jokes. That is how totalitarian or authoritarian regimes roll and it is typically done incrementally.
âr/tankiejerk is primarily comprised of anarcho-communists and libertarian communists.â
It is irrelevant. Communism by its inherent nature is a bad idea inherently incompatible with the human condition. This is true of the economic and other facets of the ideology, the exact configuration is irrelevant. Capitalism has proven itself across human history to be the most compatible economic system with the human condition. It is far from perfect and some configurations are more toxic than others. But it doesnât inevitable result in societies like the various Communist nations of the past and today. Because Communism is incompatible with the human condition, one way or another, it is inevitable that the only way to get people to go along with the system is via violence.
In other words, tankjerk as a community boils down to âThat wasnât real Communism. Real Communism has never been tried.â, which is incredibly naĂŻve:
âYou are welcome to have that debate with them, but the notion that all communists are just stalinists is just outright untrue.â
I wouldnât waste my time trying to reverse their delusions/indoctrination. And you are missing my point. ALL configurations of Communism are bad because they all hinge upon a fundamentally anti-human ideology and therefore wind up in the same murderous place. Like, the Stalinist communists in the USSR didnât start out as Salinists/tankies either. It was a gradual slide into that. A compromise here, another one there. Slowly, but surely you eventually find yourself agreeing those people needed to die via tank, and you might even be the one driving it.
âIdentity politics has nothing to do with communism.â
Yes it does. Watch the videos I linked above that discuss exactly why they are essentially Communism with a make over.
âThe notion that the US entertainment industry, one of the most profitable industries on earth is somehow pro-communism is beyond absurd.â
You are making the mistake of looking at Communism as a purely economic phenomenon. It isnât. It is a larger socio/political/economic ideology. Marxâs economic conclusions and arguments hinged upon his particular (incorrect) reading of both history and by extension of the human condition.
Therefore, a group of people can be for profit, but still be ideologically in line with Communism, just not necessarily the economic aspect of it. Or else, they can have a mind towards getting to Communismâs economic end goal âeventuallyâ. This was even true of Lenin, who implemented the âNew Economic Policyâ, which amounted to temporary capitalism. So whilst engaging in for profit economic activities might inherently disqualify you as a Communism in theory (that is to say, what Marxâs literal on paper theory was), in practice it doesnât. Black Rock are clearly a for profit organisation, and yet they are pushing ESG and DEI (which is updated Marxism) very hard.
More poignantly, you should watch these videos which details Hollywoodâs deeply Communist connections, the second one specifically calls out the myth of the so called Hollywood Witch Hunts:
âNo reason to believe this whatsoever.
AOC and the squad, for instance - do not control the Democrat party. Neither does Bernie Sanders.â
You know what, after doing some research last night I will concede on this point. Biden and Hillary Clinton are not Communists. But they have engaged in ID politics, which whether they realise it or not, is updated Marxism. But they wouldnât be the first people to support something without realising it is Communist in its nature.
âIdentity politics, in so much that it exists currently, is not communism. It's fundamentally embraced by the capitalist class.â
I already addressed this above and linked to stuff discussing why ID politics = Communism. I will be diplomatic to a degree and say maybe we are using the same words but not meaning the same thing. When I say Communist to be clear I am lumping Communists, Marxists and in particular Post-Modern Neo-Marxists together, I use the terms interchangeably, which is maybe a communication faux pas on my part. Post-Modern Neo-Marxism specifically is the root of ID politics.
Additionally, even if we presume one cannot be for profit and also Communist, theso called âcapitalist classâ can buy into ID politics (and by extension postmodern Neo Marxism) as a slight of hand. âYou donât want to be racist/sexist/homophobic do you? You donât want to alienate your customers/voters do you? Better embrace this ID politics stuff, which comes with equity and not juding people as individuals baked into the equation.â
âAffirmative action is not necessarily communism.â
Yes it is because it is by definition judging people by the group they belong to and not on their individual merits.
âI think we're getting into the realms of nonsense here. How are you distinguishing left-wing from leftist here?â
I already explained this many posts ago regarding what I mean when I use the term leftist.
âSo much for them making a one-party state then.â
This doesnât address my points. I said it slowly spreads. I never said we were already there.
âAnd no, identity politics/wokism =/= communism.â
I already addressed this above.
âSpreading identity politics in the sense of cringe depictions of women/ethnic minorities or raceswapping has nothing to do with communism.â
Yes it does because Communism is more than just an economic phenomenon. A massive component of Communism can be summed up as âanti-westernismâ. Those cringe depictions subvert western societal foundations and values. Women as physically on par if not superior to men as warriors. Minorities as groups constantly supplementing to white people in the modern day. Subverting the traditional/iconic depictions of iconic characters. These are all hallmarks of the Communism playbook. You also absolutely didnât discuss how wokism also encompasses demonised/undermined depictions of white people and masculinity.
âI said nothing specifically about your consumptionâ
Here is the (partial) chain of conversation that led to the above comment on your part:
You: âHollywood are woke capitalists, if anything. The notion that what they do has anything to do with any kind of communist is beyond absurd. And their cultural relevance wanes every year anyway. Stop caring what the capeshit cinematic universe does. There's plenty of great content to watch from the USA, and elsewhere.â
Me: âI don't follow the MCU anymore beyond specific movies I am interested in (I will watch Deadpool 3) or movies I think will be so bad they will be funny, like Madam Web, Venom 3 or Kraven. That being said, I want more variety in films now, but I can't help still being sad at the decline. I have always loved superheroes (both American, British and Japanese and if they count the Greek mythological ones since I was a kid. As sad as I am about the MCU I am infinitely more sad about the destruction of Marvel and DC comics specifically. I am substituting that void with manga, anime and older movies and shows. But I don't really see what that has to do with our discussion.â
You: âMore that you (and TCD) have a narrow palette of media consumption and make general observations about media based on that narrow observation.â
So, you told me to stop caring about the MCU (I despise the capeshit label btw, not least of all since barely any characters wear capes) and then accused me of having a narrow palette of media consumption. That is objectively you saying something about my media consumption and the fact you mentioned the MCU makes it specific. Therefore, you did in fact say something specifically about my consumption.
âI did ask you if you've heard of/watched Better Call Saul, Severance, Breaking Bad, Succession and The Bear.â
Answered above, but my comments in regards to superheroes would have made it clear what part of our conversation was being referenced.
âDo you like much outside of superhero fiction?â
Yes I do, unless you want to get pedantic about what does and does not constitute superhero fiction, e.g. does One Piece count as superhero fiction? Off the top of my head here are some things I am currently or have recently watched which would be difficult to catagorise as superhero fiction no matter what. Cowboy Bebop. Suzume. Alex Rider Season 3. Shogun. Schindlerâs List. Lawrence of Arabia. Komi Canât Communicate. Ford vs Ferrari. Boiling Point (film and TV series). The Sopranos (rewatch). The Offer. The Wolf of Wall Street. Heat.
But it is my first and primary love. I think about it every day. I have written essays about this or that to do with superheroes both broadly or more specifically (Spider-Man was my main area of knowledge) purely for fun.
âAnd much of that is kinda mainstream really (or was in certain time periods). Except maybe Captain Britain.â
No it isnât/wasnât when I got into it. Judge Dredd was not mainstream this year. Deadpool was categorically not mainstream circa 2003 in the UK. Â Who precisely in the UK or USA regarded Chojin Sentai Jetman as mainstream in 2021? It is debatable if Power Rangers in general is still mainstream in either market, but even if it is, Sentai is not and certainly not 30 year old Sentai.
Cutey Honey F is so NOT mainstream you have to work a bit to find English fansubs of it even on dodgy sites. Cutey Honey as a general brand has an at best debatable mainstream status in the USA, but in Britian it is leagues away from being mainstream even amidst the manga/anime scene here. Like you will be lucky to find merch of CH in your local Forbidden Planet or whatever, and of CHF specifically? Forget it. CHF might not have even been âmainstreamâ in Japan at the time of its release given how the show lasted for less than a year.
Sailor Moon was NEVER mainstream in the UK. The brand crashed and burned over here. There was 0 anything about it even in the anime/manga scene in the UK except people just knowing OF it. So, far from mainstream in 2010 UK when I got into it.
So no. Those things are not âkinda mainstreamâ. They were all in fact in the context of the time and places I specified not mainstream at all, and apart from Deadpool and maybe Judge Dredd never have been.
âIt's not that he covers it - it's because it's mostly all he covers. He ignores tons of media that implicitly contradicts the narrative he's trying to set.â
So I went on his channel just now and counted the total number of videos he has made going back 7 months. In total there were 61 videos.
Of those I then counted the videos that from their names or thumbnails fit the following criteria:
Featured a Marvel character
Featured an explicitly superhero character (so not something like One Piece or Godzilla x Kong which is at best debatable as a superhero brand, but is for sure not explicitly a superhero brand)
Featured a Star wars character, just to increase the difficulty curve even though based upon what you said really this shouldnât count.
This criteria included videos specifically covering the stuff above but also stuff where they might have simply been mentioned or visually referenced, for example, the Drinker might have featured the MCU in a video talking about why modern movies suck in general. Which is giving your point of argumentation extra leniency.
Of the 61 videos the Critical Drinker has made in the last 7 months 25 of them fit the above criteria whilst 36 do not.
In other words, even being extremely flexible and generous with what counts as Drinker covering superheroes, less than 50% of his videos from the last 7 months have been about them. Which, by definition, means that of this time span, he has objectively been MOSTLY covering non-superhero things.
Which seems in fact to contradict your own narrative.
But on a deeper level, it is incredibly bad faith to simply presume TCD is trying to set a narrative at all and is deliberately ignoring âtons of mediaâ that allegedly goes against his narrative*. TCD has been shown to change his mind and even admit to being wrong at times, which is a weird thing to do if you are tyring to set a narrative. He gave a positive review to Ghostbustrs Afterlife, then in a later video said somewhat tangentially that he was maybe too soft on it, and with the latest film admitted he bought into what it was selling but believes it was bad. I donât even agree with his views on the movies being bad, I think he was being too harsh, but this is contradictory behaviour if you are in fact a bad actor and trying to set a narrative. Wouldnât it make more sense to either declare Afterlife bad in the first place or claim Frozen Empire was good, or that Afterlife was good but Frozen Empire wasnât? It makes a lot more sense that he felt a certain way about the first movie and then organically just changed his mind, there was no narrative he was trying to push.
What even is the narrative he is going for? How does this media you speak of supposedly contradict it.
Lets for the sake of argument say his narrative is âHollywood is bad now because of ID politicsâ. I am making a presumption that that is what YOU think his narrative to be, I admit. But, for the sae of argument lets say it is his narrative. His reviews of Across the Spider-Verse and Blue Eye Samurai would go against that since they are actually very diverse stories by the standards of ID politics but TCD liked them. Â
In other words, he just sees what he sees and reviews it, or reviews it if he wants to. Which is frankly a more organic way to go about things and is imo why so many people like him and similar such reviewers. They enjoy their authenticity.
âHow were they flawed? Why is TCD cherrypicking media content?â
He isnât. I already discussed this above more than once.
âBCS is one of the most highly regarded TV series of all time. â
A piece of mediaâs popular perception doesnât necessarily correlate to its true quality. Black Panther was incredibly highly regarded in 2018 but was objectively flawed in massive ways. The Force Awakens enjoyed a very positive critical and audience reception in 2015 but has since been revealed to have been awful.
â So is Succession. They aren't my style of shows personally, but you berating them is very much "the world is wrong and I am right".â
Some things can be objectively evaluated. But when it comes to Succession I literally said âSuccession also lost its way mid way imoâ So Iâm not saying I am right and the world is wrong.
âAnd I could name many, many more shows with good reputations that TCD ignores that are more modern. Why does he ignore them?â
Again, having a good reputation and actually deserving it are not the same thing. As I said, TCD mainly covers movies vs TV shows and if I had to guess it is because he either likes movies more or movies are simply faster to watch than TV shows, some of which might run for seasons.
You are again presuming he is âignoringâ these shows. Frankly, all the shows you mentioned are not the most discussed things in pop culture. Mega brands are. Iâd also add that even something like Stranger things probably commands a bigger chunk of pop cultural attention than the shows you listed, not least of all because it is referencing stuff already familiar (ET, IT, etc). So, Drinker either doesnât know about them or might be more interested in covering them. Indeed, if you are making statements about the state of the industry the biggest and most popular tv shows and films (specifically films) are a more pragmatic thing as they tend to epitomise the state of the industry precisely because they operate on its highest level.
âIt did not get much attention. Grifters like TCD elevated it. The entire anti-woke youtube bloc elevated it and cried about it.â
Letâs say I am willing to be diplomatic and concede the âanti-wokeâ YT bloc garnered attention for the show. Why was it wrong for them to cover it? The show was a piece of shit that should never have existed, not just because of bad craftmanship, but on a moralistic level it was wrong for them to have butchered Robin Hood the way they did.
Also I find the unironic use of the term Grifter rather cringe.
âWhy don't you just check out IMDB and see what series are getting good feedback?â
Not only could that potentially give me spoilers, but I have no way of knowing if the variety of IMDB reviewers share my taste in films. Additionally, I have all too often found IMDB reviews to be bad frankly, either overating or underrating things.
âYou don't need money to see what TV series are trending.â
In general I prefer to watch movies or when it comes to TV shows anime as animation is one of my favourite meidums.
âIt's not hard to see what is going. What's truly sad is that, so far as I can see, TCD hasn't watched a single Apple TV show. And Apple TV is very much going for the HBO quality market right now. It also has a lot of sci-fi, which TCD claims to like: Constellation, Severance, Silo, Foundation, For All Mankind. He's watched none of it.â
What if he doesnât have Apple Tv? What if he canât afford it? What if he doesnât regard it as value for money? What if he doesnât like Apple on principle for some reason?
Consider, he has covered every MonsterVerse movie, but not the high profile TV show tie-in that is more in line with the MV movie he most respects, Godzilla 2014. This implies to me he just doesnât have AppleTV
Frankly, it took the Monarch TV show to prompt me into temporarily getting Apple TV and I wasnât all that impressed by either the show or its selection.
âHe watched The Expanse. He loved the Expanse. He claims to be a sci-fi fan. I can name a ton of sci-fi that he hasn't watched. I simply don't believe he would have no interest in any of it. Iâ
Why does watching the Expanse whilst simultaneously claiming to be a sci-fi fan = you are a false fan for not watching these other things?
Iâve not seen the Expanse, so if I claim to be a sci-fi fan am I lying? What about all those sci-fi fans who existed before the Expanse was written?
Surely you can claim to be a fan of something but not have seen every installment of it, nor even the biggest examples. I am not going to blast someone for claiming their exposure to the genre is Invincible, the Boys and the DCAU movies. They are a superhero fan, their claim is sincere and accurate. I am not going to oblige them to read Stan Leeâs run on Spider-Man to qualify for the label.
It honestly sounds a lot like âNo true Scotsmanâ argument, which is ironic given the Drinker is literally Scottish.
âI can actually understand him not watching, for instance, Succession and BCS because he does gravitate towards speculative fiction (which they are not). But I don't get why he ignores a lot of highly-regarded sci-fi that he should, per his own standards, have good reason to think he'd enjoy.â
Because he might have genuinely not have heard about it or not have Apple TV. I also think you are exaggerating the degree to which he claims to be a sci-fi fan. Like yes he likes sci-fi, it isnât as if he has claimed it is his numero uno beloved genre. The books he wrote, to my understanding, were more akin to James Bond than something clear cut sci-fi.
Shit, my favourite franchise/TV show is Doctor Who which is an iconic sci- fi franchise, but sci-fi is is not my favourite genre.
âWith all due respect, most of these are basically kid/tween franchises (excluding Halo and Witcher). There's certainly a huge level of arrested development here. There's more to modern TV/film than franchise content.â
I will thank you not to make arm chair psychological assessments of me. As far as I can see you donât have any psychology expertise in the first place. Moreover, it is redundant to say âwith all due respect you have arrested developmentâ. The insult negates the claim of respect.
But, to dive a bit deeper, you didnât address my point. I am making a broad statement about society. What if most people want most of these things to be good, regardless of whether I personally do (I donât actually care about the Witcher or Halo personally as I am not a gamer). You didnât address that at all, but rather personalised your statements to me.
But, letâs say I was just talking about me for a second. There are many people much older than me who love and appreciate most of these franchises. Indeed, Marvel and DC comics havenât been made particularly for kids or tweens for a very long time and I frankly wish they would be. This is besides the fact that, in most cases, these franchises speak to the larger human condition and can therefore be appreciated on different levels for different audience members.
Spider-Man, my favourite, was aimed at teens in the 1960s and I love those stories. But, he grew up to the point where in the 2000s there was an entire subplot dealing with the emotional entanglments of him separating from his wife and the pair working to repair their marriage. Hardly kid/tween aimed material. Lord of the Rings was never simply aimed at kids or tweens, indeed former Islamist maajid Nawaz spoke about how reading Lord of the Rings as an adult (after he had married and become a father) whilst imprisoned in Egypt was part of his journey in rejecting Islamism. Batman the Killing Joke is an iconic Batman comic book which is absolutely unsuitable for children. The first series of the revived Doctor Who in 2005 featured aliens that farted as an appeal to children, except the aliens wore the skin suits of politicians, meaning they also functioned as a scathing satire of New Labour only the adult audience members could appreciate. The major critique of modern Star Trek is in fact that it is incredibly immature, which rather hurts the idea that it was aimed at kids or tweens.
Finally, Disney in its prime had an ingenious business model of making films that were literally designed to be appreciated on multiple age levels. The idea being that children and their parents could enjoy the films together, and in turn the children could rediscover the movies as they age and see things in them they could not have before, whilst sharing them with their own children. This was also George Lucasâ mentality for Star Wars btw. Children would grow up and pass them down to their children.
The latter I think is particularly I think why myself and others feel a vested interest in these specific franchises being good. They are part of our cultural legacy and if they are good and can appeal to the next generation, then the positive things they represent can in turn be passed on too. Which is why them being bad, and being bad in particular due to subversion, is a major point of contention
So, I do not think at all this is a matter of arrested development no matter how you slice it. You are claiming that the Drinker (and mayself) need to expand our media consumption, and yet your own claims above speak to your consumption of the things I listed off and analyses of them being itself limited.
âAlso there have been plenty of breakout TV series not based in any of that.â
That doesnât counter my points. I said people are invested in those and therefore want those (and obviously other big franchises like them) to be good. Therefore they gravitate towards Drinker when he covers them/the Drinker covers them because he gravitates towards them.
But, for the sake of argument, I do not know of many Tv shows that honestly ever reached the heights of pop cultural relevance that those franchises I listed did. Maybe Breaking Bad and the Sopranos? Maybe Stranger Things, which is itself trading off 80s nostalgia.
âAnd no, that the MCU is boring and shit and pandering is of no meaningful reflection on modern entertainment. â
Considering it was until recently the biggest and most successful franchise in the history of the world Iâd say this is simply not true. Hollywood was and is still dominated by a desire to chase its success and build media universes.
âI would strongly argue that the 10s and 20s have never been better for modern TV.â
And Iâd strongly argue that it is more accurate to say the 2000s and early-mid 2010s. Iâd also be willing to bet the stuff you claim is the best tv stuff out there is in fact suffused with post modern Neo Marxist propaganda in and of itself. But frankly, you are changing the subject now. You are not responding to my point that you quoted.
âTV in the 90s and 00s was mostly boring cop/medical/legal procedurals.â
Isnât that a rather subjective evaluation? What if a lot of people didnât find those boring? Also, the 2000s saw the rise of the Golden Age of TV of which the Sopranos was the first and Breaking Bad was by no means the second. So I donât think you can say all these top tier shows belong to the 2010s.
Moreover, I donât even really believe you have seen so much TV in the UK and USA across 30+ years that you can make huge broad sweeping statements like that? Or at least if you are going to do that based upon what you have seen (because doubt you have seen most/all of it), then it is hypocritical of you to lambast the Drinker for similar such sweeping statements about what he has seen.
Not to mention, I REALLY donât think the majority of British shows in the 90s-2000s were cop/medical/legal procedures. We had a plethora of sitcoms, talent, reality and game shows, not to mention with Doctor Whoâs rise in 2005 several Saturday night family shows popped up
âThere was way less money put into them.â
Money isnât the difference between a good or bad movie or TV show. Talent and knowing how to use your money is. Godzilla Minus One had a minscule budget compared to most Hollywood blockbusters and both looked better and was written better. The currency ultimately is time because that is the currency for good writing and good writing is the deciding factor.
The Sopranos and Breaking Bad definitely had decent budgets but compared to Game of Thrones it was chump change. Didnât matter. Because the writing and acting was just that good.
âNow we have much more diverse content. There's more TV series being made than there was in the 90s and 00s, and many other countries now play a much more active role too. â
If we are going to be counting foreign imports as well you REALLY couldnât have seen enough stuff to be making these statements.
â It's not all just American content. The internet has fundamentally transformed it.â
But most English speaking people consume English language media. Squid Game and Godzilla were exceptions to this rule. So the Drinker being an English speaker with an English audience is obviously going to focus mainly upon media made for the English language.
Frankly, this is a particularly silly argument coming from someone who lives in the UK considering the majority of our fictional TV and film media comes from America and is therefore already overseas media.
âThe MCU is the equivalent of McDonalds for modern TV/film. McDonalds being so prominent doesn't mean there aren't good examples of fine dining.â
McDonaldâs feeds 1% of the global population on Earth every day. It is therefore fair to be invested in the quality of McDonaldâs food the same way it is fair to be invested in the quality of the MCU.
But you are acting as though the Drinker only or mainly covers the MCu and then treats it like literally all of Hollywood is like it. He doesnât. As I showed above, less than half his content is MCU related. However, the trends he is critiquing in the MCU CAN be applied more broadly.
More poignantly, you are frankly being disingenuous. You are saying the Drinker mainly covers the MCU but then counter with the quality of TV when the Drinker mainly covers movies. So, even presuming your statements about the quality of TV are accurate (we just have your word for it) it isnât particularly relevant in the context of a reviewer who mainly covers mainstream Hollywood films.
âSure. That's possible. But it doesn't explain all the sci-fi shit he ignores.â
âDark, Altered Carbon, Severance, Silo, Foundation, For All Mankind, Constellation, Devs, Raised by Wolvesâ
Dark is a German show, not an English language show so unless you get a Squid Game situation the amount of attention you are going to get is limited. Drinker therefore might not have heard about it. I have because of a friend, but it isnât something I otherwise just encountered via osmosis.
Similarly, I literally never heard of any of those shows other than Altered Carbon (which started 6 years ago and died 4 years ago) or Severence and Iâm pretty sure I got it mixed up with Succession. So, they clearly didnât have this MASSIVE cultural footprint to the point where everyone would just know about them.
âKeir Starmer has been repeatedly yeeting anti-semites from the party, and supports Israel. What do you mean "take a hardline and outspoken stance against Islamists"? What does that mean in practice?â
Increase policing of pro-Palestine marches. Perform on the spot arrests of people chanting Islamist slogans. Actually deport known Islamist terrorists who are residents in the UK. Make public statements that all Muslims in the UK are expected to not just defer to UK law vs any iteration of Sharia. Most Muslims do this for the record, but it sends a message to the Islamists specifically who do not. Thatâd be a start.
âDude, it's the Labour Party. They will ALWAYS have people like that in their conferences. â
Which is my problem. A party that has any one like that in their ranks (let alone so outspoken) is thereby susceptible to that faction someday dominating them. Like I have said, Communists work slowly and insidiously.
âThis is absurd pearl-clutching. They are historically a left-wing party.â
I hate to break this to you but the Marxists were also left wing.
âKeir Starmer has purged much of the actual left-wing factions within Labour. The dude is as centrist as it comes for Labour. Most of the left has raged out and quit Labour because of the internal changes he's made. Have you seen Wes Streeting in general?â
I do not have the faith you do. I hope you are right and Starmer will be centre left. But it doesnât really matter considering neither party is willing to be right wing or conservative enough to address the major issues the country faces, immigration being at least in the top 5 priorities. The civil service are also very much left wing and they are at least a roadblock to governing.
âGeorge Galloway and his Workers Party says hi. Labour is not remotely popular amongst the wider Muslim population currently due to Keir Starmers policy on Israel.â
I said often not ALWAYS. The Muslin population have historically voted for Labour and Labour have enjoyed support from them. The mere fact the current leadership is unpopular doesnât mean the Muslim population has wholesale given up on them into the future. Typically people vote for the most aligning party. So, Labour might not enjoy support currently, but of the two parties they are the most likely to get support in the future and not the distant future necessarily either.
Okie dokie. On this point he is an idiot. Happy?
âMatt Walsh literally means it as entertainment. What else is he referring to there when he suggests the USA currently does not have them?â
Public executions can function as a form of shaming and a scare tactic too, not just entertainment.
âAnd Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles want to ban them for everyone. Tell me, if a leftist said that Christianity should be "eradicated" (like Knowles did regarding transgender stuff) would you set out the cry that he didn't really mean mass state persecution?â
None of this is a legitimate response to what I said. I never âcriedâ that he didnât really mean mass state persecution. I simply stated my own view on the matter whilst putting forward the good faith interpretation of what Walsh said, whilst simultaneously making it clear the topic is very complicated. You are strawmanning me and also oversimplifying the issue.
But lets play the game. If a leftists said they wanted to eradicate Christianity, I would want the full context of what they said, what they mean by eradicate and what exactly their rationale would be before I make any judgement call on them.
Iâd also say there is a difference between persecuting a group vs prohibiting them from having surgeries on their bodies which are not strictly necessary, by which I mean you are in physical pain/will die as a direct result of something that needs to be operated on. Trans people can live their lives with or without surgeries. And if you regard being trans as a mental illness, it is not unreasonable to argue that it is a bad thing to let them have massive life altering surgeries is unethical vs trying to help them cope with or deal with said mental illness. By contrast a Christian praying or baptising their child is not actually harming anyone physically or mentally, thus banning such a thing would be a legitimate act of persecution vs banning trans surgeries which could be argued as protecting people from a form of self-inflicted harm; presuming you regard being trans as a mental illness.
âNo, this is just a claim. You can call it "neo-marxism" if you like, but it's simply not communism.â
*rolls eyes* âThat wasnât real Communismâ. How clichĂ©. But it isnât just my claim. I linked you to videos where socio-political commentators explain that ID politics = Neo-Marxism. So it isnât just my claim and you never bothered to address those videos at all.
By contrast, it really is just YOUR claim that it isnât Communism.
âMost fascist regimes emerged in countries where communism was never anywhere near taking control.â
That is irrelevant. Fascism can rise up in response to the presence of Communism even if it isnât in control. It can simply be a perceived threat of control.
âAnd that communism was more successful and covered more territory doesn't mean that life was worse for someone living in the USSR compared to living in Nazi Germany.â
This is a disingenuous statement for 3 key reasons.
The nature of Fascism and Communism means it entirely depends whether you are part of the in group or the outgroup. A Russian pianist in Moscow for sure had it better than a Jew in a Berlin ghetto. But did that Jew in a Berlin ghetto have it worse than a Siberian prisoner? Not necessarily.
You have shifted the goal posts. First you argued that Communism lasting longer and being more widespread is the only reason it had a higher death toll. But when I countered that lasting longer and being more widespread is proof it is worse and more dangerous, you have suddenly shifted to an argument about the 1:1 general quality of life. But, as it happens, Iâd argue the general quality of life for most Russians WAS worse than for most Germans. There is a reason alcoholism is to this day so widespread across Russia and former Soviet territory. As a people they were traumatised.
You also disingenuously sidestepped that we were predominantly talking about death toll.
Basically according to you Communism isnât worse than fascism because it only killed more people because it lasted longer, but that also has nothing to do with it being worse because (according to you) daily life wasnât necessarily worse for a Soviet citizen than for a Nazi German citizen.
So, best faith interpretation here, most peopleâs lives in both countries were equally miserable and the fact that one of them lasted much longer and similar examples popped up across the globe isnât relevantâŠuntil it is.
BTW, I literally showed you that on an annual basis across its whole existence Nazi Germany killed fewer people than the USSR or Maoâs China killed within a much smaller span of time.
âAnd people who have lived under communist regimes haven't experienced living under fascism. So what's your point?â
My point is your metric was stupid because it doesnât prove anything. You said people who lived under fascism are not going to agree Communism is worse. That was your counterpoint to me. But it is a counterpoint that doesnât work because it can be flipped the exact opposite way. But now you are asking what is the point? This demonstrates you donât actually have a counter to my foundational point.
Best faith interpretation, you are trying to say no one on Earth could possibly determine which is worse. But this isnât true because
You donât need to have had direct experience on something to speak upon it with authority. Psychologists do not need to have experienced the traumatic events of their patients to speak about them with authority. Similarly, historians can speak with authority on subjects despite not necessarily having lived through them
People who have lived under one system can become educated in the realities of the other and therefore be in a position to make a judgement call.
I already linked you to a video where someone who DID live under Communism and has engaged in historical research said clearly that Communism is worse than Fascism. You never addressed that.
âAnd how is it you assume totalitarian communist style laws can somehow be implemented by weirdo left-wing cranks who ostensibly align with the Democrats?â
Because they already have been doing it. Communists undermine free speech. This has been happening. Commuists demand fealty and insist upon struggle sessions. This has been happening. Communists reject the individual in favour of collective group identities. This has been happening. Communists do not judge people based upon merit but group identities. This has been happening. Communists insist upon equity not equality of opportunity. This has been happening. Communists make discriminatory decisions based upon those they believe have and those they believe have not. The Biden administration did that in regards to giving out financial aid based upon race. Communists target media outlets and push their propaganda through them. This too has been happening in the form of identity politics.
And it has been happening slowly and incrementally for a minimum of 10+ years if not more. None of this shit happens over night. It is a long march through the institutions and theyâve already been marching for a while now.
âThey also have to go through a legislative process.â
Laws hinge upon the meaning of words. If you change the meaning of words you have a backdoor to changing the law. Case in point, racism no longer means discrimination upon the basis of race but the latter + power. Therefore, white people can never be victims of racism within the context of the USA, supposedly.
The law also has to be properly enforced, which it hasnât been. Black Girl Gamers for example have clearly been discriminating upon the basis of sex and race in their hiring practices, but have thus far not faced legal repercussions for breaking the law. Nor has the Biden administration. How about how it is not illegal to steal from certain places in California if the theft is under a set amount.
You also have to address ideological capture of the instutions that can act as a check and balance against an administration. In other words, if they ideologically are post modern neo Marxists then when a post modern neo-marxist government gets into power how much checking is there really? When non neo-marxist government gets in power how much of a blockage will they be?
â Each election, more far-right MAGA and Christian nationalist types get elected into office, tilting the balance ever so further towards being able to pass repressive legislation.â
GoshâŠI WONDER why such people have been steadily gaining more traction? It couldnât possibly be a reaction to Neo-Marxism being pushed now could it?
âNeither of those things, as much as you dislike them, have anything to do with communism.â
Of course they bloody do. DEI literally has the word Equity in it. Equity is inherent to Communist ideology as it is entirely about an equality of outcome. The Mainstream Media Meanwhile institutionally tilts left, hypocritically covering right wing people one way and left wing people another. There is literally a Guardian article from all the way back in 1999 claiming capitalism is worse than fascism or communism.
âSo why did you bring up the fact that we did public executions only 100 years ago if not to somehow excuse people calling for it now?â
You entirely missed my point, which given the over all conversation is unsurprising. My point was you have to go case by case. It was wrong for homosexuality to be illegal once upon a time, but whether public executions were wrong is a different subject to be discussed. It isnât open and shut. So yes, in very recent history we got rid of public executions, but was that the right decision in light of the history we have lived through since then? Maybe. Maybe not. But you are PRESUMING because we got rid of it it must mean it was a bad idea.
âAnd you'd be okay with that? How are laws against LGBT people on TV/film somehow less oppressive than hate speech laws (for instance)?â
I literally didnât say I was okay with that. I just said âokayâ and then you spewed this shit out.
Frankly this conversation has led me to the following conclusions:
You are a wretched, stupid, disingenuous goal post moving individual with obvious Marxist sympathies you are too moronic to recognise as dangerous.
You have also been needlessly aggressive and insulting, making personal judgement calls of me that crossed the line when I didn't do the same of you until now when I have lost my temper.
Speaking with you has melted my brain and made me dumber via exposure.
In summary fuck you, fuck off, I hope you have a miserable life you utter cunt.
