Boards Index › Chat rooms – the forum communities › Chat forum three boards › A Brave Woman
-
AuthorPosts
-
7 February, 2017 at 4:47 pm #1021309
Drac has the same approach, but she approaches it in a different way, goes off on a tangent, and gets her facts wrong (eg people who carry anarchist flags are Communists.
Lol, people who walk around carrying anarcho-communist flags and chanting phrases from the communist manifesto aren’t communists?
Edit:
I have attached two screen captures of the flags from a video of the inauguration riots.
Attachments:
7 February, 2017 at 6:38 pm #1021322The black and red flags are the flags of anarcho-snydicalism. Also of anarcho-communism.
Both groups hate and despise the Communists. The Communists hate and despise both groups.
Anarcho-syndicalists are a breed all of their own, advocating sabotage, and have a long tradition ion the USA (through the legendary IWW).
Anarchist-communists are communists in the same way as hippies who live in communes are communist, in the same way that the early Christian communities were communist – in the Acts of the Apostles, these groups shared all they had in common. Most families are communist in this sense until the children grow. The anarchist-communists hate Marx; they look to Prince Kropotkin, especially Mutual Aid, as their bible.
In France, the Communists informed the Gestapo of anarchist-communist meetings, and those meeting were arrested and dealt with. The Gestapo were not composed of people like Herr Flick and Helga, I’m sorry to say.
In Spain, where there were 1 million anarcho-synndicalists and a strong anarchist-communist influence int eh countryside in the 1930s., the Communists isolated and murdered anarchist-communists. Some left-wing opponents of the Communists were skinned alive by KGB agents, including British agents..
No, the anarchist-communists are not communist.
Please be more sensitive to politcs. It’s the same with the absurd characterisation of Jess Phillips as a Marxist-feminst (!) or the staggering definition of Hitler as a moderate leftist.
I don’t feel this discussion belongs anywhere outside personal clarification, but you keep coming back to it.
7 February, 2017 at 7:47 pm #1021331When there are holes in morals, there’s a demoralization crisis where no one really feels like earning money or helping themselves or others. When someone keeps hitting puzzle pieces at me, I give the puzzle after it’s put together to people. If they feel paranoid and didn’t want someone to figure something out, then don’t hit puzzle pieces at me or punish the person rudely leaking their information to people like me who aren’t working for them. But all of that guilt results in those people being demoralized- the fact that they knew cures or symptoms but didn’t tell people in words, or that they secretly hate people they feel confident enough to affect. Where there are less social skills people might not know that if people makes someone angry, they shouldn’t pay attention to someone that makes them feel mad. How could there be peace if people are gravitated towards whoever makes them mad? Many people feel angry at certain people who they avoid or take a look at their own feelings. I’m pretty sure everyone has that one person they feel mad about, and they learn to not feel confident enough to deal with them. I can’t be a diplomat to a country whose politicians make me angry- people avoid jobs that involve them dealing with people who make them mad. It’s more important to be socially smart- to know themselves and others- than it is to be actually smart in the government. If the world doesn’t know what good they do for them, then why should outsiders trust them? People would rather be loved than be right.
7 February, 2017 at 8:28 pm #1021337You’re a brave man Scep…..you against most of the boardies (again)
It’s because he goes on ego trips. He always goes against the majority and tries to win his argument by waffling or dodging certain points. Don’t start screaming about being bullied, scep, it’s just an observation.
Nooo. i totally disagree, Reason,. You’re wrong, so wrong. So there I just think that agreeing with people is quite boring. Sometimes I like what people say, and I even like some people. But I think polemic is important in sharpening debate. Drac has the same approach, but she approaches it in a different way, goes off on a tangent, and gets her facts wrong (eg people who carry anarchist flags are Communists.
lol @ polemic being important, just so long as it’s on your terms eh Scep, otherwise you scream “bullying”.
7 February, 2017 at 8:38 pm #1021341Ww2 could have been avoided if so people didn’t sympathize with Nazis. It’s a whole different matter that it was the Nazis who sympathized with Hitler’s viewpoint that people are stupid and enabled him, and Hitler enabled the Nazis to do bad things, and the Nazis enabled Hitler to take over the world. It was a depression and demoralization filled entity that people didn’t successfully discourage. It’s okay to say they hate some people- that means that it’s a wall to navigate around, but it’s not okay to do something about a mere sentiment.
7 February, 2017 at 9:53 pm #1021343Well that was a laugh
7 February, 2017 at 10:02 pm #1021345I just think that agreeing with people is quite boring. Sometimes I like what people say, and I even like some people. But I think polemic is important in sharpening debate. Drac has the same approach, but she approaches it in a different way,
lol @ polemic being important, just so long as it’s on your terms eh Scep, otherwise you scream “bullying”.
look up the meaning of polemic, Reason.
Drac engages in polemic, not bullying; we can be pretty rough with each other in the polemic.
Bullying is different.
I think the only time I complained about bullying concerned the relentless attacks made on me when my dad was dying, and then died. That was a hard time.
I have no idea whether your parents are alive, Reason. If they are, then when one of them finally goes (not for a very long time, I hope), you’ll feel what I felt.
If one of them has gone, then what can I say?
I like horseplay. I like polemic. There are different rules when someone is going through a death – in my book anyway. No doubt you’ll think I’m whining..if so, then so *shrugs
7 February, 2017 at 11:08 pm #1021348I just think that agreeing with people is quite boring. Sometimes I like what people say, and I even like some people. But I think polemic is important in sharpening debate. Drac has the same approach, but she approaches it in a different way,
lol @ polemic being important, just so long as it’s on your terms eh Scep, otherwise you scream “bullying”.
look up the meaning of polemic, Reason. Drac engages in polemic, not bullying; we can be pretty rough with each other in the polemic. Bullying is different. I think the only time I complained about bullying concerned the relentless attacks made on me when my dad was dying, and then died. That was a hard time. I have no idea whether your parents are alive, Reason. If they are, then when one of them finally goes (not for a very long time, I hope), you’ll feel what I felt. If one of them has gone, then what can I say? I like horseplay. I like polemic. There are different rules when someone is going through a death – in my book anyway. No doubt you’ll think I’m whining..if so, then so *shrugs
polemicpəˈlɛmɪk/<input height=”14″ src=”” type=”image” width=”14″ />noun-
1.a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something
8 February, 2017 at 12:09 am #1021351ahoy, Reason!! Where did your get that definition from, and is it complete?
The definitions in my Pearson’s Dictionary are 1. an aggressive attack or refutation of the opinions of principles of another; 2. the art or practice of disputation or controversy.
The OED – longer and the standard – says much the same, stressing the intellectual nature of the argument, and usually theological/ideological nature.
Now that is the polemic I like to engage in.
The aggressive opinion or attack n someone in your definition covers smear and slander as much as anything else. That isn’t polemic in my understanding. If it is, then it’s a polemic I don’t like, and a polemic which is akin to bullying. But even saying that grates – it’s just not polemic.
8 February, 2017 at 12:27 am #1021354Whichever dictionary Google uses to give its definition
-
AuthorPosts
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!