Because you know the actual enemy, you defend a meme that demonises “propagandised individuals” instead of the enemy. Interesting choice.

No i didn’t.

I understand what capitalists are and he does too. We agree with the definition.

He just feels forced to conflate both to justify a toxic meme.

As if the rhetoric of today has no influence on the rhetoric of tomorrow.

But even in this very short sighted context, the conflation of “propagandised individuals” and “capitalist” is obviously toxic to the aim of archiving communism.

I will take a wild guess that you have many friends who are raised in capitalistic environments and who have been exposed to anti communism propaganda. Some of that propaganda probably worked on them and consequently they are propagandised individuals. But I doubt you would call them capitalist and enemy. Ofc, you wouldn’t as you would special plead for them, while happily supporting conflating propagandised individuals with capitalists and the enemy.

Thanks for proving my point. Your “us vs them” thinking caused you to confuse “propagandised individuals” with “capitalist” and ignore the big difference between both.

“Capitalist” is a class that in communism doesn’t exist. So consequently, after the implementation of communism there is no enemy of the class “capitalist” anymore. So again, communism would serve all people.

“Propagandised individuals” wouldn’t disappear after the implementation of communism. They can be discriminate against.

I don’t think promoting these sentiments does anything but propagandise an “us vs them” mentality that is fundamentally toxic to the idea of communism.

“Four legs good, two legs bad” is all, I am gonna say.

Thank you! Monica doesn’t deserve this.

I would have said, the ignorant (big overlap there)

Because as a white man, nope, I already didn’t want to go to the usa when I was 12yo and I don’t want the us to come to me for a long while now too.

They want to be blameless and every “step” further away is better. They aren’t “weak” because then you could blame their weakness.

More rights to others, gives me more rights to be different than I am. More rights to transpeople mean, I can more freely feel out what my relationship with my gender is and live it out more freely. More rights to immigrants means more “rights” to befriend, love, marry and live with one of those immigrants.

The “other” is me. The “other” is you. The “other” is us. That is why there is no other, just us.

I honestly think the bare minimum respect for your mother should demand you to be for Abortion rights. Your mother risked so many different kinds of pain for so many different kinds of reasons, at the very least, you shouldn’t want to make other mothers having to risk their life for just trying to have a baby, when all it takes is a bit of a cruel fate.

I am not advocating for it but in other nations, that would cause a military coup.

You ain’t seen nothin yet! Go and study 1930s Germany

Totally not directed to me but the reader.

Even to a reader, it is incredibly arrogant in tone.

I don’t know why you have to be a dick in your response to me but I will return the favor in my response.

Well maybe you shouldn’t assume someone doesn’t know the history because you don’t understand what they mean.

Some quick steps to understand subtext:

1. As it is obvious that a website can be used for anything, the description of wild is not actually describing the act.
2. If it is not describing the act, what is it describing? Clearly it is describing an ability. The ability of whom? As the “what” is already excluded as an option. The government’s abilit to do that!
3. Obviously the government can do that though… so maybe the ability is not the ability to do it but the lack of consequences that one has to face when doing it.
4. consequences? From whom? The public.

So let’s read it again, “it is wild that the public let the government publish obviously partisan propaganda over public channels like that”.

But why would the author expect the public to show a reaction to this behaviour? Mhm maybe because he is aware of the history and he assumes that the general public has the vague understanding, due to history, that the government shouldn’t be used to push partisan propaganda.

But please, be proud of how smart you are and how you know history while failing to understand the subtext of a simple sentence.

That a government site can be used so obviously for partisan propaganda is wild.

Such an enlightened belief.

“People believe what they believe” wow

You might be right but I think your chosen contrast is bad.

I could easily be a christian traditionalist, materialist and atheist. (I am not! But I could)

Whatever reason there is to oppose the claim that Harris is like peterson, whatever reason there is why Harris could never be a fascist, you aren’t highlighting it with that contrast.

You contrasted Harris to peterson based on their religious beliefs. I find that questionable. I don’t know what you are doing.

After hearing him speak about his belief, I wouldn’t dare to make any claim about his religious beliefs beyond that he is very careful with saying absolutely nothing about it.

I don’t care for Harris. So sure, he might is. And I know what it means.

I agree with your definition of christian traditionalist.

as you correctly described,

Being a christian traditionalist doesn’t require the person to actually believe in a god.

Being a “atheist” is not in conflict with being a [“theist”] I think you’ll find that they’re polar opposites.

Is therefore a wrong conclusion.

Being an “atheist” is not in conflict with being someone who emphasises the importance of historical beliefs, practice’s, and customs within Christianity, often adhering to teachings and rituals that predate modern changes in the faith.

I misunderstood your position then because I didn’t understand it as “christian traditionalist” but “christian” “traditionalist”. I had that impression because you contrasted it to “atheist” “materialist”. Being a “atheist” is not in conflict with being a “christian traditionalist”, neither does being a “materialist”.