Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vivalas]

Anybody frogposting in 2022 should be banned without a warning.  You're either /pol/ diaspora shitting up the blue boards or you think frogposting is funny.  Either way you should not be tolerated anywhere.

Such hatred and intolerance based on your own personal bigotry over humor. You really should be ashamed but I bet you feel righteous. This is why I say to let the idealogues have their hatred they revel in so much. They have built up an entire ethos to allow themselves to label and hate freely without societal recourse. Shame to waste all that work over morals.

Huh, wow, this thread is really going places, huh. Kinda curious where it progresses, but this isn't really the place I go to for high-octane political debate, even if I am pleasantly surprised at the diversity of opinion in this community.

While this thread has people's attention I will drop, however, one of my favorite writings on the topic. This isn't Reddit so it satisfies the request of the creator, and it's titled "I can tolerate anyone but the outgroup" and it describes in a real good way a different sort of "intolerance paradox" that stands in contrast to the buzzword material people spread nowadays online about how we really need to censor everyone guys because otherwise the spooky intolerant bigots hiding in the woodworks will suddenly take everything over. Even if people genuinely have good intentions with creating more "tolerant" communities as some have described here, this is just me, but I've always been starkly against censorship of any type and believe the best way to fight that is in the open, and to resolve our differences in a way that brings everyone together rather than breeding more antagonism and hate. You have to remember bigoted people have different ideological mindsets than non bigoted people. Simply banning them and saying "we fixed it, we stopped bigotry!" is kinda silly, since you're just radicalizing these types and reinforcing the notion that polite civil society is out to get them and justify their intolerance.

To be clear I'm getting far far higher up in the clouds than funny dorf discord bans the funny frog, and don't think swastikas all over the df discord will solve bigotry, this is just my opinion on the general societal trend we have nowadays on the subject.

That being said, if you don't have your reading glasses (it's rather long) here's my favorite part of the essay,

The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: “Master, I have been tolerant of innumerable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, transgender people, and Jews. How many Virtue Points have I earned for my meritorious deeds?”

Bodhidharma answers: “None at all”.

The Emperor, somewhat put out, demands to know why.

Bodhidharma asks: “Well, what do you think of gay people?”

The Emperor answers: “What do you think I am, some kind of homophobic bigot? Of course I have nothing against gay people!”

And Bodhidharma answers: “Thus do you gain no merit by tolerating them!”

In reference to this, specifically:

Anybody frogposting in 2022 should be banned without a warning.  You're either /pol/ diaspora shitting up the blue boards or you think frogposting is funny.  Either way you should not be tolerated anywhere.

[brewer bob]

Simply banning them and saying "we fixed it, we stopped bigotry!" is kinda silly, since you're just radicalizing these types and reinforcing the notion that polite civil society is out to get them and justify their intolerance.

I don't think anyone really thinks that banning bigots stops them or makes them go away. It's more of denying them a platform to spread their hate and to make those platforms places where the targets of bigots can feel safe (or at least not have to deal with their bullshit).

But yeah, it doesn't solve the underlying issues that cause bigotry.

[Il Palazzo]

While this thread has people's attention I will drop, however, one of my favorite writings on the topic.

That was an excellent article. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Thorfinn]

BTW, @The_RyujinLP (and someone on page 1 or so) is correct that this was originally a leftist meme, specifically, a fascist one. Fascist in it's real meaning, not the silly caricature people have of fascists. With the exception of the pot legalization group, the original memes had no problems with authoritarianism, at least when the boot was applied to the right. I have not seen any recent use of it in any fascist context, left or ersatz right.

What is the real meaning of fascists that puts them to the left?

Proto-fascism predated Mussolini, some people place it in the late 1800s, but the "official" start was Mussolini, who formalized its description in his book from 1919, I think. He also suggested the use of the term "corporatism", since only Italians could understand the symbolism of the Roman fasces. "Everything for the State, everything within the State, and nothing against the State."

It's an ideology where there is a state-corporate "marriage", but with the state the dominant partner. So long as the industrialists do what the state wants done, industrialists retain nominal title to the factories, but if they balk, never flinch from confiscating the property and giving it to more compliant owners. But it was also more local -- this state supremacy also took the form of the hyper-regulatory state, where citizens are told both what they may not do and what they must do. And this was generally overseen by the businesses, as they saw their employees 6 days a week, and knew who the agitators and subversives were. Doesn't take too much reflection to see the parallels in the modern world, on any number of topics -- climate change, covid, surveillance, environmentalism, censorship, gun control, rent control, wokeness, etc.

Upshot is that fascism is inherently a big government ideology, which aligns closely with modern (American) leftism, and with global neoconservatism, and especially with the radical globalism of actors like the WEF. It does not have much in common with the limited government conservatism of Reagan or Thatcher.

[Mohreb el Yasim]

The frog is kind of funny sometimes but in basically 100% of conversations I've seen like this it eventually turns out the guy complaining about overzealous moderation was being way worse than he wants people to think.

The full scenario was I commented about my dwarves doing something silly and posted an angry pepe - actually fairly sure it was my first post in the DF discussion channel as I just went there to report a bug earlier - then some mod DM'd me a warning you can't post pepes in the server, I said I couldn't see anything in the rules about pepe, but he pointed it out under the heading "personal attacks and harassment" that I skimmed because, like, why would it be there lol. And so I found it is in fact against the rules, as they state because it's associated with hate groups. I told him what I thought of such a rule and that I wouldn't follow it and if that's a problem he should just ban me now. Is that me being way worse than I wanted people to think?

Badness aside, you literally told him to ban you, so why are you here crying about it.

Her, but yes. (It was me. I swung the hammer)

We agree that it was explicitly stated in the rules "before" he posted? (and not added afterwards)
in that case it is fair game. (even if i would prefere if the "banned thing list" would be something legally decided as it would make it clearer to everyone where to look up and what list to refere to to know if / what is allowed)
Is "winnie the pooh" banned too, or is he allowed? (i ask as i've already heard of him being banned)

[Nordlicht]

Proto-fascism predated Mussolini, some people place it in the late 1800s, but the "official" start was Mussolini, who formalized its description in his book from 1919, I think. He also suggested the use of the term "corporatism", since only Italians could understand the symbolism of the Roman fasces. "Everything for the State, everything within the State, and nothing against the State."

It's an ideology where there is a state-corporate "marriage", but with the state the dominant partner. So long as the industrialists do what the state wants done, industrialists retain nominal title to the factories, but if they balk, never flinch from confiscating the property and giving it to more compliant owners. But it was also more local -- this state supremacy also took the form of the hyper-regulatory state, where citizens are told both what they may not do and what they must do. And this was generally overseen by the businesses, as they saw their employees 6 days a week, and knew who the agitators and subversives were. Doesn't take too much reflection to see the parallels in the modern world, on any number of topics -- climate change, covid, surveillance, environmentalism, censorship, gun control, rent control, wokeness, etc.

Upshot is that fascism is inherently a big government ideology, which aligns closely with modern (American) leftism, and with global neoconservatism, and especially with the radical globalism of actors like the WEF. It does not have much in common with the limited government conservatism of Reagan or Thatcher.

If I get your description correctly socialism, communism and anarchism would be right ideologies.

[Mohreb el Yasim]

Proto-fascism predated Mussolini, some people place it in the late 1800s, but the "official" start was Mussolini, who formalized its description in his book from 1919, I think. He also suggested the use of the term "corporatism", since only Italians could understand the symbolism of the Roman fasces. "Everything for the State, everything within the State, and nothing against the State."

It's an ideology where there is a state-corporate "marriage", but with the state the dominant partner. So long as the industrialists do what the state wants done, industrialists retain nominal title to the factories, but if they balk, never flinch from confiscating the property and giving it to more compliant owners. But it was also more local -- this state supremacy also took the form of the hyper-regulatory state, where citizens are told both what they may not do and what they must do. And this was generally overseen by the businesses, as they saw their employees 6 days a week, and knew who the agitators and subversives were. Doesn't take too much reflection to see the parallels in the modern world, on any number of topics -- climate change, covid, surveillance, environmentalism, censorship, gun control, rent control, wokeness, etc.

Upshot is that fascism is inherently a big government ideology, which aligns closely with modern (American) leftism, and with global neoconservatism, and especially with the radical globalism of actors like the WEF. It does not have much in common with the limited government conservatism of Reagan or Thatcher.

If I get your description correctly socialism, communism and anarchism would be right ideologies.

why do we even bother with left and right seems superflous now days.

[Red Diamond]

why do we even bother with left and right seems superflous now days.

I am not sure what rock your living under!  The world seems divided up into left and right like it was before to me.

Proto-fascism predated Mussolini, some people place it in the late 1800s, but the "official" start was Mussolini, who formalized its description in his book from 1919, I think. He also suggested the use of the term "corporatism", since only Italians could understand the symbolism of the Roman fasces. "Everything for the State, everything within the State, and nothing against the State."

It's an ideology where there is a state-corporate "marriage", but with the state the dominant partner. So long as the industrialists do what the state wants done, industrialists retain nominal title to the factories, but if they balk, never flinch from confiscating the property and giving it to more compliant owners. But it was also more local -- this state supremacy also took the form of the hyper-regulatory state, where citizens are told both what they may not do and what they must do. And this was generally overseen by the businesses, as they saw their employees 6 days a week, and knew who the agitators and subversives were. Doesn't take too much reflection to see the parallels in the modern world, on any number of topics -- climate change, covid, surveillance, environmentalism, censorship, gun control, rent control, wokeness, etc.

Upshot is that fascism is inherently a big government ideology, which aligns closely with modern (American) leftism, and with global neoconservatism, and especially with the radical globalism of actors like the WEF. It does not have much in common with the limited government conservatism of Reagan or Thatcher.

Socialism and Leftism isn't solely about government doing stuff. 

Fascism has enough right-wing characteristics that that the 'leftist' stuff can be consider 'outweighed'. 

[Nordlicht]

Leftism is ultimatly about cooperation and the dissolving of governments, nation, class and hierachies.   
I don't say that they are a uniform group, but I would say they have a common theme song.

I really can't see leftist ideology here.

As per Wikipedia:

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultra-nationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

The limited government conservatives like  Reagan or Thatcher wanted has the the goal of concentrating power to a few on the top, and destroy social / safety / health and environmental regulations that don't serve them. 
It seems there is a common theme on the right side too.

So imho it makes sense distinguish the groups.

[Red Diamond]

Leftism is ultimatly about cooperation and the dissolving of governments, nation, class and hierachies.   

The first word in that list is questionable............... 

[Bortness]

Very lucky that I read this thread before giving these garbage slimeballs a single cent of my money.

I am finished with Dwarf Fortress for good, and it makes me very, very sad.

Hey Toady - you sold your soul to the devil.  Good job.

[Bortness]

Is "winnie the pooh" banned too, or is he allowed? (i ask as i've already heard of him being banned)

Interesting.  If they're banning Winnie the Pooh, it's a direct service for Xi and the CCP.

[Thorfinn]

If I get your description correctly socialism, communism and anarchism would be right ideologies.

Theoretical communism is anarchism, at least to the leftist, who use "anarchist" as Proudhon or Bakunin used the term. Anarchist means something a little different, depending on who you talk to. Communism as practiced (as opposed to "real" communism) at any scale above a tribe is always and everywhere massive state authoritarianism, aspiring to totalitarianism. Definitely American Left.

In theory, socialism is supposed to be an intermediate in the progressive withering away of the state into communism/anarchism. In practice, it does so through becoming an authoritarian and ultimately totalitarian mega-state, with no means or evidence of those holding that power ever releasing their grasp. Again, American Left.

European Left, where it still has at least some ties to liberty and opposition to ancien regime is a little different.

It's not particularly surprising that neoconservatism has so much in common with the American Left -- Strauss, it's "founder" was a die-hard communist trying to find a way to make the ideology palatable to anti-communist America.

No, Reagan and Thatcher conservatism was not about concentrating power at the top. They were both outspoken advocates of decentralization, and to a fair extent, managed to rein in at least some aspects of the state, the major exception being the military.

[EDIT]
Shouldn't this discussion be somewhere else? It's gone way beyond complaining about being booted off Discord.
[/EDIT]

[Red Diamond]

[EDIT]
Shouldn't this discussion be somewhere else? It's gone way beyond complaining about being booted off Discord.
[/EDIT]

Generally the politics forum is General Discussion and not DF General Discussion.

If I get your description correctly socialism, communism and anarchism would be right ideologies.

Theoretical communism is anarchism, at least to the leftist, who use "anarchist" as Proudhon or Bakunin used the term. Anarchist means something a little different, depending on who you talk to. Communism as practiced (as opposed to "real" communism) at any scale above a tribe is always and everywhere massive state authoritarianism, aspiring to totalitarianism. Definitely American Left.

In theory, socialism is supposed to be an intermediate in the progressive withering away of the state into communism/anarchism. In practice, it does so through becoming an authoritarian and ultimately totalitarian mega-state, with no means or evidence of those holding that power ever releasing their grasp. Again, American Left.

European Left, where it still has at least some ties to liberty and opposition to ancien regime is a little different.

It's not particularly surprising that neoconservatism has so much in common with the American Left -- Strauss, it's "founder" was a die-hard communist trying to find a way to make the ideology palatable to anti-communist America.

No, Reagan and Thatcher conservatism was not about concentrating power at the top. They were both outspoken advocates of decentralization, and to a fair extent, managed to rein in at least some aspects of the state, the major exception being the military.

A lot of this I find confused.  You seem to be focusing on the exact details of what the groups believe in rather than the nature of what said groups advocate.

I advocate putting toes to the fire but I do not believe in burned toes.  I thus believe that because I don't believe in burnt toes, I am not to be held to be in favour of burnt toes when I advocate toes to the fire.

The

authoritarian and ultimately totalitarian mega-state

is the burnt toes here.  There is no reason then to say that the American Left is any different from the European Left, aside from the fact that the former is less delusional than the other.

[Mohreb el Yasim]

why do we even bother with left and right seems superflous now days.

I am not sure what rock your living under!  The world seems divided up into left and right like it was before to me.

actually not under rocks, that would be inappropriate in our socities, I live in a democratic country (in Europe) where whoever you elect (left or right) they will pursue the same agenda without any real difference between their actions. (oh the rhetoric changes, but the acts, are the same) Without any power as an elector to change whatever, the world represent itself as divided in left end right to give us the illusion of choice. but all and every politician is after only his personal agenda of power. Without any consideration of the wellbeing of future (or even current) generation.
Also if we take the demagogie at face value, left and right does not mean the same thing in europe and usa, that is why so many people disagree in the discussion.