No True ChiCom/Commie Derail Thread

[Cherico]

Same way you guys live with supporting the state kidnapping and torturing union organizers with rape dogs (wait shit I don't even have to pretend, you guys just straight up support that one), bombing abortion clinics, lynching blacks, driving trucks into political rallies (but more this time!) and supporting and training blackshirts a world over.

Very carefully :^)

The Klan was started by democrats and acted as the militant wing of the democratic party for generations, that one is all on you guys stop trying push your unwanted garbage onto other people.

 

[Jessica Atreides]

Why should we need to?

See, this is the problem with commies, they think others actually care which specific commie clique they run with.

I'm going to be honest with you: This exact kind of thing is why they thought you guys were so bad at debating that you needed a safe space to protect you from leftists.

"What does the worlds second largest economy and our primary sociopolitical rival actually believe?" is a pretty basic question and you're just looking silly as heck right now.

 

[Realm]

The Klan was started by democrats and acted as the militant wing of the democratic party for generations, that one is all on you guys stop trying push your unwanted garbage onto other people.

I'm onto your tricks, there will be no differentiation of the right today good sir!

 

[Jessica Atreides]

The Klan was started by democrats and acted as the militant wing of the democratic party for generations, that one is all on you guys stop trying push your unwanted garbage onto other people.

Please don't throw slow lobs over home plate.

Klansmen were influential inside both major parties, pushing racism, nativism, Prohibition and especially anti-Catholicism. In the South, Jim Crow-supporting Democrats made a natural fit for the KKK. But in Midwestern industrial towns full of immigrant Catholics and Jews who voted Democratic, the Klan took root largely among Republicans. The Klan was Democratic in Oregon and Republican in Indiana — two of its biggest strongholds. By the end of the decade, the organization, whose membership remained semi-secret, claimed 11 governors, 16 senators and as many as 75 congressmen —roughly split between Republicans and Democrats.

Its initial successes in state and local elections prompted the Klan to turn its attention toward the White House in 1924. Its imperial wizard, Hiram W. Evans, first descended on Cleveland, where Republicans had gathered to nominate Calvin Coolidge. There, about 60 Klan leaders and lobbyists prevailed upon party officials to smother a resolution condemning the Klan before it ever went to a floor vote, a move called a “brilliant victory” by The Fiery Cross, a Klan newspaper in Indianapolis that also described the Republican convention as having a “real, genuine Klan atmosphere.”

Emboldened by its success in Cleveland, Klan leaders appeared two weeks later at the Democratic convention in New York City. There was great support for the Klan among many state delegations, but bitter opposition from others. The conflict was exacerbated by the party’s hopeless division over Prohibition, with the “wet” wing of the party hoping to nominate New York Gov. Al Smith, a Catholic.
Unlike in Cleveland, however, the KKK confronted vigorous pushback at the Democratic convention, first in a raucous debate over whether to condemn the Klan by name (a resolution to do so lost by a razor-thin margin amid numerous last-minute vote changes) and then in a bitter fight over the presidential nomination itself, in which both the Klan and anti-Klan candidates ultimately withdrew.

By all accounts, Klan representatives had expected to influence the Democratic convention the same way they had the Republican one — by quietly building support for their preferred nominations and policy planks behind the scenes, while picking up what H.L. Mencken called “a lot of free and gaudy advertising.” But vocal opposition caught the organization off guard. “There is such a thing, it appears,” wrote Mencken, “as being burnt by the spotlights.”

This is of course silly anyway, because it is in fact not the 1920s, and there are a great many sarcastic responses (and many more unsarcastic responses which aren't as fun) available to highlight a hundred years of political shifts. Facebook one liners don't work so well in an actual argument. In other words: Stop being so bad at this or Spacebattles will be right: You need a space of your own for protection because you don't have the ability to make effective arguments on your own behalf.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I'm going to be honest with you: This exact kind of thing is why they thought you guys were so bad at debating that you needed a safe space to protect you from leftists.

"What does the worlds second largest economy and our primary sociopolitical rival actually believe?" is a pretty basic question and you're just looking silly as heck right now.

Except that this topic isn't about the nature of the Chinese political and economic system specifically but a news thread about China with a witty headline.

The previous NEWS topic of discussion was the Chinese military hackers being charged by the US Justice Department for stealing the information of tens of millions of Americans.

Then it was your Comrade who decided to insert the very un-news like tangent quibbling about the thread title that led to this current derailment. It's a standard practice in general (though of leftists here specifically) of throwing in the red herrings in order to often successfully derail a conversation. Kind of like what you did in the cancel culture thread with your weird Pizza Snobbery post or how instead of responding to substantial arguments, Comrade Sophia decided to call the person she was invested in a discussion with a vapid slur instead.

I mean it's par for course for many conversations but it seems pretty consistent as of late with your fellow travelers. Don't discuss the topic at hand, engage in the low effort posting and the like to derail it and try and score screenshots or e-points or whatever. Which again is fine. Just easy to point out how pathetic the tactic is.

Undoubtedly its more effective on websites like SB and SV with those echo chambers that your decrying here and where senior staff can get away with even doxxing and posting personal information of members they don't like with little consequence. 🙃

 

[Jessica Atreides]

Kind of like what you did in the cancel culture thread with your weird Pizza Snobbery post

Man are you still mad about that? That isn't a political thing, I actually really like Pizza and will paradrop into it. Sorry if I offended your brand loyalty, but its a garbage pizza and I hate seeing people eat terrible things.

Don't discuss the topic at hand, engage in the low effort posting and the like to derail it and try and score screenshots or e-points or whatever.

Nah, I actually jump in when I see something I honestly feel like responding to. You guys don't actually have the level of internal activity or external attention for performative posting. I mean, that's just a fact: It would be a step down for me to actually mess with you. I get more engagement from posting terrible people I see on Nextdoor than I would by replying here for others. I mean, the LPP (like per post) on people who post on here for real is far too low, so it wouldn't be worth it even if you all completely agreed with me.

Sorry dude, I'm just replying to things I want to reply to.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Ignoring that you include a sub variant of anarchist on your list of thing deserving differentiation when a sub variant of anarchism, an-com is being dismissed as worthy of differentiation

Because it's still Communism, and the issues are with what defines being Communist; therefor the criticisms of Communism continue to apply and as such differentiation from other Communism is a moot point. And Anarcho-Capitalism is more an extension of free-market libertarianism than an evolution of most other Anarchism.

What's up with the domestic terrorism and murder my dude?

For domestic terrorism, the Right doesn't have goons breaking windows, attacking journalists, arriving to peaceful protests with explicit intent to drive up tension (seriously, name a right-wing counterprotest), or most of the other shit Antifa gets up to as a mainstream political movement.

The reason the Right's got more formally-defined domestic terrorism is, honestly, mostly that "right-wing terror" is defined by targets, not affiliation. You shoot up a mosque, even if it's the Sunni/Shiite schism? Right-wing terror. Same for synagogues, anything relating to homosexuals, etc. And the media instantly buries cases when it turns out to be any of the "protected" groups, so the mess of the ghetto black community, which includes such things as transgenderism being considerably more accepted than homosexuality, remains firmly out of the public eye.

For murder... Good fucking luck getting anything political to stick through the 13/50, which came out of FBI reports.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Man are you still mad about that? That isn't a political thing, I actually really like Pizza and will paradrop into it. Sorry if I offended your brand loyalty, but its a garbage pizza and I hate seeing people eat terrible things.

I'm not mad that your a snob. I enjoyed pointing out your a snob. The fact you can't keep on topic is just a bonus and since that thread happened yesterday I don't really see what's so alarming about referencing it considering you and others like you are doing it again... today.

Nah, I actually jump in when I see something I honestly feel like responding to. You guys don't actually have the level of internal activity or external attention for performative posting. I mean, that's just a fact: It would be a step down for me to actually mess with you. I get more engagement from posting terrible people I see on Nextdoor than I would by replying here for others. I mean, the LPP (like per post) on people who post on here for real is far too low, so it wouldn't be worth it even if you all completely agreed with me.

Blah Blah Blah snobbish low effort performative response to try and retort they are not engaging in snobbish, low effort performative posting and still can't even stay on her own topic. What dude was talking about likes per posts?

I like the fake apology at the end though. Have a like since you care about them so much!

 

[Realm]

Because it's still Communism, and the issues are with what defines being Communist; therefor the criticisms of Communism continue to apply and as such differentiation from other Communism is a moot point. And Anarcho-Capitalism is more an extension of free-market libertarianism than an evolution of most other Anarchism.

All I'm hearing is "Comparing us to literally anyone who would make us look bad is prejudiced but also you guys are all the same"

Anyway, what's up with the whole murdering union activists and their families with trained rape dogs thing?

 

[Jessica Atreides]

I'm not mad that your a snob. I enjoyed pointing out your a snob.

Friend, your posts are turning into utter babble in your rush to respond to me.

Also, its Her.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Is this the point where you try and get in the last word with ever increasing amounts of snobbish low effort posting?

Friend, your posts are turning into utter babble in your rush to respond to me.

It's not a rush... I am more then capable of eating lunch, engaging in multiple threads and discussions and responding to you simultaneously. But thanks for your concern Guy.

Also, its her.

Sure thing Dude.

EDIT: Corrected pronoun usage in previous post.

 

[Jessica Atreides]

It's not a rush... I am more then capable of eating lunch, engaging in multiple threads and discussions and responding to you simultaneously.

Evidence doesn't back that up.

Is this the point where you try and get in the last word with ever increasing amounts of snobbish low effort posting?

"Snobbish"

But no, I don't actually care about getting the last word in, so feel free to have it.

Sure thing Dude.

If this is intended to rile me up, I have to break it to you that its gender neutral where I live. If you identify female and you feel my language was misgendering you, then I apologize.

What are your pronouns?

 

[Scottty]

"What does the worlds second largest economy and our primary sociopolitical rival actually believe?" is a pretty basic question

We already know what we need to: China is ruled by a clique who call themselves the Communist Party, but who in practice simply have the goal of staying in power indefinitely, and will adopt whatever policies they think will best work for that.
What particular label or -ism they currently act as if they believed in? Doesn't really matter.
We know what the ChiCom regime is. We don't need to care what you choose to call it.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Evidence doesn't back that up.

*yawn* More low effort performative declarations bro?

If this is intended to rile me up, I have to break it to you that its gender neutral where I live. If you identify female and you feel my language was misgendering you, then I apologize.

Guy, it wasn't meant to rile you up. That's just a side benefit of when pointing out your hypocrisy and careless snobbery (where I live!) in your pronoun usage. You and the Comradess clearly don't give a crap about pronoun use or your gender identities except to earn victimization points.

But I accept your (second in this thread so far) fake apology.

 

[Cherico]

All I'm hearing is "Comparing us to literally anyone who would make us look bad is prejudiced but also you guys are all the same"

Anyway, what's up with the whole murdering union activists and their families with trained rape dogs thing?

Once again communist regiems did the same thing.

The soviet union had zero problems killing union activists and did so repeatively and the red guard went to huge extremes of depravity during the great leap forward.

Your trying to claim that you have moral superiority you dont.

 

[Realm]

Once again communist regiems did the same thing.

The soviet union had zero problems killing union activists and did so repeatively and the red guard went to huge extremes of depravity during the great leap forward.

Yes, all communists are the same, we've established that. All right wingers are also the same, so we can agree and get on the same page.

Your trying to claim that you have moral superiority you dont.

What about my "trying to claim that you have moral superiority you dont"? Is there something wrong with it? Is there anyone you would recommend to make sure my "trying to claim that you have moral superiority you dont" is okay? I'm very concerned for its health.

 

[LordsFire]

Anyway, what's up with the whole murdering union activists and their families with trained rape dogs thing?

What are you referring to with this, anyways?

 

[Realm]

What are you referring to with this, anyways?

Pinochet did some wack ass shit

 

[PsihoKekec]

Oh, I thought you were refering some of the NKVD union purges.

 

[LordsFire]

Pinochet did some wack ass shit

...And what relation does Pinochet have to American ideological conservatism?

I'll note that when someone earlier made a 'all the same' kind of statement, it was about communists in general, not 'all leftists in general.'

Trying to equate 'all communists are fundamentally the same' and 'all conservatives are fundamentally the same' is nonsense.

(As a note, I myself am willing to accept the existence of a tiny percentage of outlier communists who are fundamentally different than most communists. Law of large numbers and all that)

And that's before you even get into all the people described as 'conservative' who have less in common with each other ideologically than Communists and Fascists do.

American Conservatives, and most or all other western conservatives for that matter, have no need to 'own' anything Pinochet did. Last I checked, he was a dictator, and thus had very little to no overlap with the political ideals America was founded on.