The answer is a communist party

[Kirran]

I too see different ways of organizing.
And when I become dictator, prepare
to watch change in Americastan.

Revolt, why is it you have this deeply persistent habit of adding -stan to every country's name?

 

[Revoltingest]

Revolt, why is it you have this deeply persistent habit of adding -stan to every country's name?

It calls to me.
But not every country gets the honor.

 

[Kirran]

It calls to me.
But not every country gets the honor.

When did this start?

And which ones don't? :O

 

[Revoltingest]

When did this start?

I don't recall.
But Canuckistan, Americastan & Revoltistan were early adopters / beneficiaries.

And which ones don't? :O

Sweden has gone unscathed this week.

 

[Kirran]

I don't recall.
But Canuckistan, Americastan & Revoltistan were early adopters / beneficiaries.

Sweden has gone unscathed this week.

Monaco?

 

[Revoltingest]

Monaco?

The subject of Monacostan hasn't come up yet.

 

[Kirran]

The subject of Monacostan hasn't come up yet.

Well now we know!

Pakistanistan?

A friend of mine in school once mistakenly referred to Palestine as 'Palistan'.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pakistanistan?

Well it would be silly to add "istan" when it's already there.

A friend of mine in school once mistakenly referred to Palestine as 'Palistan'.

I hope that you mocked him (her?) mercilessly.

 

[Kirran]

Well it would be silly to add "istan" when it's already there.

I hope that you mocked him (her?) mercilessly.

You're sure?

Nah only a little. This was the same person who upon hearing about us talk about Tibet one time said "I don't care about that Muslim s***".

 

[Shad]

Well, when one grows up with incessant moralistic posturing and propaganda about "evil empires," then the only real argument to be had is regarding the moral high ground. That's the beginning and the end of the argument right there for Americans, so that's all there is to deal with.

I'm Canadian. Communism is only touch in senior year history. You are talking about an environment I was never in.

You missed my point. You tried to use morality by referencing the USSR's lack of declaration of wars while it killed it's own people for various reasons. That moral high ground is taken at the expanse of acts against their own people in order to minimize it. It is like pointing out an abusive father is moral because he donates to charity.

That's what we in the West have made famous - and it's why our political culture (and popular culture in general) involves an endless parade of the "victim olympics" - because we're such a moral and upstanding nation and this kind of stuff sells to the masses.

Feelings and morality sells. It also bolsters the sense of righteousness just like it does for many of the religious.

So, whenever this subject is broached and we get the usual Western sanctimony, then it deserves the response it gets.

As does the claim about communism which fly in the face of history.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm Canadian. Communism is only touch in senior year history. You are talking about an environment I was never in.

You missed my point. You tried to use morality by referencing the USSR's lack of declaration of wars while it killed it's own people for various reasons. That moral high ground is taken at the expanse of acts against their own people in order to minimize it. It is like pointing out an abusive father is moral because he donates to charity.

If that's how you interpreted my post, then I think you're the one who missed the point.

But using your "abusive father" analogy, I'll try to explain.

There are two fathers.

One is a hard-working blue collar worker who loves his family and children, works 16 hours a day and tries his best to support them, even if they may feel somewhat deprived. But at least he's doing his best. He's making an honest effort, even if imperfect.

Another is an extremely wealthy tycoon who inherited all his money, yet hates his family and children so much that he deliberately starves and deprives them. He could give them more, but he intentionally refuses to do so for no good reason.

Who holds the moral high ground in these two examples?

Feelings and morality sells. It also bolsters the sense of righteousness just like it does for many of the religious.

Yes, I believe I said that.

As does the claim about communism which fly in the face of history.

Whose history?

 

[Shad]

If that's how you interpreted my post, then I think you're the one who missed the point.

Some of what I added were from other posts.

There are two fathers.

One is a hard-working blue collar worker who loves his family and children, works 16 hours a day and tries his best to support them, even if they may feel somewhat deprived. But at least he's doing his best. He's making an honest effort, even if imperfect.

Another is an extremely wealthy tycoon who inherited all his money, yet hates his family and children so much that he deliberately starves and deprives them. He could give them more, but he intentionally refuses to do so for no good reason.

You forgot to add the part where the father kills the children for noth following the ideology then goes rob other fathers for refusing to give their wealth on demand.

Whose history?

Established history.

 

[Stevicus]

You forgot to add the part where the father kills the children for noth following the ideology then goes rob other fathers for refusing to give their wealth on demand.

Sounds like capitalism to me.

Established history.

Propagandists' history.

 

[Shad]

Sounds like capitalism to me.

Communism more like it.

Propagandists' history.

Nope. Some of records are from the Soviets themselves and have been known since the 70s.

 

[Stevicus]

Nope. Some of records are from the Soviets themselves and have been known since the 70s.

Prove it.

 

[Shad]

Prove it.

You could start with The Gulag History Museum

 

[Stevicus]

You could start with The Gulag History Museum

What about it? I'm aware that there were gulags and what you're attempting to imply, but it's not relevant to the point I was making.

Perhaps you could clarify more specifically what you meant in post #230:

As does the claim about communism which fly in the face of history.

What specific claim about communism were you referring to, and what evidence do you have to demonstrate that it "flies in the face of history"?

 

[Shad]

What about it? I'm aware that there were gulags and what you're attempting to imply, but it's not relevant to the point I was making.

Perhaps you could clarify more specifically what you meant in post #230:

Simple. You downplay the failures of Communism and the crimes of those involved with it by tossing out "evil empire",

What specific claim about communism were you referring to, and what evidence do you have to demonstrate that it "flies in the face of history"?

The dismissal of a western view about communism even if accurate.

 

[Stevicus]

Simple. You downplay the failures of Communism and the crimes of those involved with it by tossing out "evil empire",





The dismissal of a western view about communism even if accurate.

Do you have a specific quote of mine which you can cite? When you're just throwing generalized statements like this without any specifics, it's hard to know what you're referring to. I don't believe I've denied or downplayed anything here, but I've often found the Western view to be exaggerated, one-sided, and hypocritical.

 

[Shad]

Do you have a specific quote of mine which you can cite?

As I said the dismissal of views because it is a western one

I don't believe I've denied or downplayed anything here, but I've often found the Western view to be exaggerated, one-sided, and hypocritical.

This is what I see as downplaying especially as some of information is from the Soviet records themselves.

I would agree it is hypocritical if coming from a politician that is a war-hawk. This is not the case.