Why are conservatives so obsessed with debates and debate culture...

Youtube Debates are the modern day duel. You must TOTALLY OWN the SJW CULTURAL MARXIST with BASIC LOGIC AND FACTS AND REASON and act like you're the first person to ever consider using logic in a debate before and jerk your skull-in-a-top-hat-avatar's dick off to how REASONABLE you are

Fascists don't "debate." They like to debate because it helps them convince others that they are right. They don't care what you think. The bourgeoisie will always side with them when push comes to shove. Debate is therefore irrelevant.

So then we BTFO them in debates and then BTFO them in the streets. What's the problem?

Debates are more feelings over facts.

A Communist could use nothing but facts and a Rightists could say "Do you know Stalin killed 60 Million people." and the crowd would go wild.

Charisma is all that matters, facts are almost meeingless in debates. Thats why the Right loves them.

Because they know facts are Leftist

They tend to have more facts at hand when debating and their side owns 90% of the guns.

youtu.be/SkSV4xyKkds?t=1m7s

Unsourced images aren't facts. You'd think you would realize this after the whole Jontron affair.

What unsourced image?

They really don't, unless you're a liberal.
Can be solved easily.

Really? How are you going to win a violent uprising against a group that is both larger and better armed than your side, especially when your side refuses debate and therefor loses the hearts & mind aspect of support?

Pretty much this.

Debate is a stupid person's idea of what smart people do, and because it's so confined to a certain environment, it's easy to break the rules and etiquette for your advantage.

So every moron fantasizes about being up there and throwing epic BTFOs and making applause break statements while some clueless academic of the opposite team looks around exasperated and without reaction.

We stash them up at Holla Forums.com, go check there

I remember in the first presidential debate when Hillary clearly BTFO Trump. She did everything right, talked policy, had numbers etc. while he just blew hot air. The next day polyps were insisting he won and I literally could not understand how they could justify that belief to themselves.

Yeah a small group of committed revolutionaries has never managed to take over a country and transform it into a socialist state before. Nope. Thank you for reminding us that in order for a revolution to succeed you have to convince the proles to be communist so that the bourgeoisie will create communism for you.

i hate this meme so much, not only is it totally deranged its also so pretentious and arrogant it makes me want the right wing to win just so these types of leftists choke on their own words. No reality is not left wing biased. Left Wing politics are just more humane and viable for long term sustainability.

I'm not sure who you think "our side" is, and you seem new to Holla Forums, but people like us debate right-wingers all the time and win.

youtube.com/watch?v=45vGBs58TDw
youtube.com/watch?v=YqghKRF9564

As to the issue with guns, we address it by getting the Left back to its roots. We're not just going to sit back and let the other side impose the interests of capital.

Bunch of AntiFa LARPing as Bolsheviks will lose in a civil war. Violence is a stupid solution.

Because why use facts when you can just throw strawmen and loaded questions at someone and then go back to getting fellated by your youtube audience?

Seriously, I could not have cared less about who won the election, but Trump was just awful in those debates and the idea that he btfo anyone is just absurd. What he was saying would often be totally incoherent, he still came off as more likable than hillary though tbqh. There is something deeply unsettling about that lady's demeanor.

Well I mean it is pretty creepy when a politician claims everything is great when it isn't.

Trump supporters are delusional. In their minds he is a God who can do no wrong. They will excuse and ignore anything he does that might shatter their faith in him because they really want him to win and "trigger le sjws"

Yeah I think that is the crux of why she lost. America is already great, continuing the Obama legacy doesn't sound so great when you're some opiate addicted out of work coal miner.

Some debates on the same side are really good. But I have yet to see a Leftist and Rightist debate without srawmaning or spewing fallacies with emotional appeal.

Most facts are Leftist. Climate change is what makes me cringe the most when it comes to the Right.
Reality does tend to favor socialy Liberal ideas. The "Live and let live" mentality.

...

Defenders of capitalism (fascists) must be silenced. Debating with them only empowers them.

It's the only solution

You are either a troll or very retarded. We want to totally destroy our opponents: ideologically and physically. Otherwise killing them just makes them martyrs for a cause.

...

What do you think user.
He's both.

see

...

Do you think politics is about different ideas being weighted against each other? This is a purely liberal notion. Politics is about conflicting interests. The working class and the ruling class has contradictory interests, and the ruling class will never "give in" and act against its own interests.

Remember to vote CPC 2019, gotta crash those unions :^)

But it isn't about convincing our opponent. It is about convincing the masses.

You can "convince the masses" without giving your opponents a platform. Make them pay for their own media time. Debate is philosophical masturbation.

That's a way different point than "let's kill the opposition."

 >>1517551
Logic and reason are at the basis of Western civilization, that's why. The real question should be: if leftists are correct, why don't they treasure logic, which would prove them right? The answer is, as summed up in one word by post-modernist Derrida, "phallologocentrism" - the belief of overfocusing on the "phallos" ("masculine") and the "logos" ("spoken word", "discourse", "reason", "logic"). Post-modernists don't see the world as individuals with agency and interests but purely as factions fighting for power, thus no real dialogue can occur - it's really just a farce.

TL;DR: The post-modern left doesn't believe in dialogue which is why they never show up to debate (and when they do and lose, they blame logic itself instead of taking responsibilities for their poor ideas only accepted in their echo-chambers).

We're not the post-modern left you tard. The rest of what you said is only partly correct (pomos don't believe in the concept of "truth") but it applies to a small section of the Left.

That's literally how the world works though. I thought you fascists were all about "struggle"?

Yeah, we'll convince bourgies to give up their means of production freely. Why haven't I thought about this before?

Because we absolutely trounce you. Just like in real life, but without having to wait for the long term effects to kick in.

Fascism has never beaten Communism without massive amounts of globalist support.

You do realize you are replying to a Holla Forums falseflag right?

which side was aided by globalists in new york in the founding of its empire.

pro-tip: it wasn't the germans.

face it, you're what the elite want so they can be oligarchs in the open instead of the illusion of per-tense they operate under now.

anyone who is reals > feels wants you to argue properly and provide observable examples you fuckwad

...

That's the problem. Fascists prefer feels to reals. There is no reason to debate with them.

You mean those montages of Daily Mail headlines?

if theyre the ones obsessed with logic and demonstration then use it yourself

once they turn into a slobbering screeching mess shoot them, but make sure theyre humiliated by having their reason and sources turned against them

obviously those arent sources, and you should point that out and laugh at anyone who tries that shit

This, Gamergate, New Atheism, the alt-right reactionaries, etc are all bound up in a cancerous mess of pedantry.

Yeah because that has helped prevent them from obtaining power in the past right?

how to demonstrate that you know nothing about antifa or bolshevism in less than a single sentence
are we being raided by cuckchan or something?

Because you're a dumb nigger and they're smart white guys. With guns.

All Im getting from this thread is either that you people think fascists are right(you wouldnt think they can have net positive outcomes of debates otherwise) or that you are enamored so much with your views that you might paint anyone that casts rightfully doubt over them a nazi. (Just like the sjw we were promised leftypol wasnt).

This whole thread is a shame, and even given a post modern duplicitious agenda of "no matter the costs" is edgy at best and completely self defeating at worst.

Shame.

Fascists aren't right, they just aren't interested in debate. They represent the dying gasps of the bourgeoisie trying desperately to maintain their favored economic system. The best thing to do is disrupt them and organize the working class against them.

You do know that Hitler and NSDAP was funded by pretty much the same people as well? They went out of their ways to choke on porky's dick.

Are you retarded? Just because an ideology wins popular support, doesn't mean it's correct.

...

Im not saying nazis are right.

Im saying that YOU think they are right, and so, trying not to lose face you want to redefine debates as something wrong. Thats totally fine. It matches perfectly the values of a post modern.

This is however something yuo should not say out loud because people will understand what you ACTUALLY want to do and not what you them to think you want.

Anyone fighting for freedom of speech will feel that yours is the wrong side. You can try to redefine words all you want. "Literally nazis" claims work every single time, when you powerwords stop working youll realise who is really dying and beg for debate.

Is it wrong? You have an actual excuse? Perhaps if YOU were the ruthless dictator things would be different, the right kind of communism, right?

For some reason I suspect things will be the same.

There could never be a rational debate with a liberal since he can reify blatant lies and be believed while you present nothing but facts. In order for people to accept those facts, they'd hve to also admit that they have been duped since their childhood, and thats a very hard thing to occur in this society of prideful idiocy. Youd literally need some sort of 100% all party approved archive of historical facts, but no liberal would debate you in those conditions since they rely on idealist rhetoric while leftist rhetoric is materialist in nature.

user, can you educate me on who killed 60 million people? Forgive my ignorance

You can pretend famine didnt happen, or happened because the evil americans or something like that. Its not that important to me.

t.someone who don't know how debates works.
The postmodernism you decry have already invaded the debate field, to the point you can base your claims on outright lies as aternatives facts.
Form>>>>>>>>Content take a guy stuttering true things and a guy boldly claiming wrong things. If the audience is not already knowledgable about the subject, the confident will be considered the winner.
Pathos>>>>>>>>Logos from a very long time already.
The Market place of ideas is a meme. Logic and reason are the ideology of debates, not their reality.

What is there to debate with nazis? A core tenent of their worldview is abandoning rationalism - and rational arguments only hold sway over those who accept them as valuable.

So, i should believe the emotional claims of someone being a literal nazi, and not allow this literal nazi to have any kind of platform. How rational.

I bet youll not even adress what im talking about here, take it literal or feign innocence.

wat

Literal Nazis should not have a platform. That is correct.

guys what Holla Forums is doing in this thread is tricking you into blindly accepting the lie that conservatives are capable of logic-based discussions.

mods lock the thread and tempban all the newfags for one hour so they get a chance to upgrade their nazi tactics detectors.

dns bypass removed my sage

I think its rather sjws taking this board as a project to slowly radicalize you.

that's a nice strawman you built there - calling people who think Adolf was a swell guy and Jews are behind all evil in the world and the holocaust didn't happen but should have "nazis" isn't exactly an 'emotional' claim.
Nazis aren't interested in quality arguments, only appearing to 'win' the argument matters to them - there is little value to be gained debating them. More often than not letting them broadcast their bullshit and legitimising it by taking it seriously is the worse option.

because identitarians elevate obvious logical fallacies to the basis of their whole ideology, especially the argument ad hominem, making many of them easy targets for anyone with half a brain.

they're also chronically obsessed with pedantry and are not actually arguing for any unpopular or heterodox views, so they're able to cite any number of sources that echo whatever they're saying - even if a critical look at all the evidence available doesn't necessarily agree with them, they can find any number of shills to back them up.

this is not to say one shouldn't value rigor or sourcing credible information, on the contrary, it's the only way to arrive at the closest conclusions to the truth - it's just that shitty right wing pundits seem to fetishize it because it's the only thing they've got going for them over the lowest tier of SJWs. even the less bluepilled identitarians are more capable of seeing the forest and not just the trees than these morons.

Conservatives obsess over debates in that very particular fashion so that nothing new may emerge, so that the truth can remain concealed.

"To all those who claim to practice political philosophy, we ask: What is your critique of the existing world? What can you offer us that's new? Of what are you the creator?" – Alain Badiou

Nazis in our current age don't actually exist in any substantial ammount, so either you're doing a moot argument about very few people or you're calling your political opposites nazis because it's a convenient persuasive redefinition of the word nazi.

That, or well, you're welcome to tell me which is your third option.

I see no fucking clue that you aren't just using nazi as a codeword for anything that rustles your jimmies. "Boo hoo, people get all emotional and are not fucking sold on our totally not tested, not given a chance ideas, they're believing the TOTALLY LITERAL NAZIS instead of us!". What nazis? Tell me how many debates between nazis and communists have you seen on the last decade?

'I think you here are all worshiping a doomsday ideology'. I'm not conservative, at all. I've lived in two, not one, countries that have endured dictatorships. I'm a science person, I read scientific papers for work all the time and I actually check references of all the news articles I read. I make sure to not repeat information that I have not checked myself, not even from close people that I supposedly trust. You think the media lies? I fucking lived with governments that actively manipulated press. I know how it looks like. Does this make me a nazi? Inconvenient people that don't like your talking points don't deserve a platform are to be labeled in the most destructive way? (because they would use emotional arguments otherwise!) Are you thinking what comes out of your mouth?

Spell it out for me. This is not about nazis nor fascists, right? Here and now, you have someone that believes you're a fucking ignorant ass, and you have ONE, only one opportunity to clarify this. You can either side with dialogue, or just tell me that you believe I'm a nazi.

Provide proof that stalin killed 60 million people

Hard mode: Using the black books method of include all the hypothetical children of people killed in famines is not allowed.

Go easy on the drama, buddy.

I've had several debates online with nazis, and nazism is on the ascendancy through its more mainstream 'alt-right' variety. That is the context I'm speaking in. Mainstream liberals and conservatives can be engaged with, but the standard arguments in those cases are usually something like "stalin killed two hundred million zillion, that means socialism is bad", "human nature means socialism is impossible" or "socialism removes personal responsibility" or other arguments that rely on emotional pull or ignorance.

Keep telling yourself that, cuck.

I debated back in high school.

Debate breeds useful skills like oratory, the ability to research, and the ability to track the structure and flow of logical arguments. The problem is that it breeds a simultaneous mentality of "all arguments only matter for their ability to win", it creates a serious detachment from an understanding of consequences and the underlying idea and promotes the notion of winning at all costs.

The end product are people who speak well, research well, understand legal procedure well, and who are totally numb to the results of the policies and rulings that they advocate. This is the fount of your amoral attorneys, lying politicians, and crooked judges.

Not bying your premise tho

Same reason creationists are. It's easy to win a debate even with no facts on your side if you know the right tricks.

Nice digits but when have creationists ever won a debate?

Authentic nat ional socialists are a marginal number, rest are neonazis who only know hollywood movies and memes and think it was far right racist system, when it was actually opposite.

So, people you don't like are about to become nazis, disregarding that what they do and their behaviour have nothing to do with actual nazis.
It's okay to use 'debate' as a synonim of 'discussion'. But that means that you people are against ALL 'debates' including discussion?

Look, it's allright. You seem to dislike debates. However all the reasons posted here against it seem to be all about "how biased and emotional people become" while at the same time you seem to post lots of biased and emotional arguments too.

Creationists LOVE debates, or at least they love to expose themselves in debates, and they lose all the time.

You can dislike them all you want, but if you went to a debate, with your facts well resourced, and simply exposed yourself, even if you were to 'lose', people would become aware of your talking points, and the evidence behind your talking points.

And sure, half of the population has less than the Autism Level median and are dumb, and will get emotional, and will believe what they want to believe. Even worse, most educated people over the Autism Level median will be all emotional and believe what they want to believe.

But at the moment of truth your opponents will be on record saying something contradictory and faulty, if its a proven lie there's a chance they will be accountable for it.

Debates with marginalized, unpopular ideas no one actually likes (like creationists, or the twist of unpopular communism that is against debates) also get protected by debates, normalizing the idea that even despised groups should be able to speak.

This. It encourages sophistry, which is counterrevolutionary.

Yes or no, a death count that includes "people that should have been born but weren't" is valid for judging an economic system?

That was a really long winded way to tell everyone you're a histrionic dramaqueen. How ironic.

People punched Richard Spencer because he's a nazi. If you don't think he's a nazi, you're a delusional twit.

That's literally where this whole retarded "debate" came from, a dude who is unambiguously a nazi. Quit your mealy-mouthed bullshit

I'm not familiar with all the board meme beliefs, so, excuse me.

Question, are you denying holodomor even happened, or that it happened in a completely different fashion. Or are you saying that people that die from famine produced by bad policy shouldn't be counted as born people?

You are incredibly naive. The whole point of getting on stage is to give your position legitimacy from just the format. When that idiot got onto stage with Bill Nye, Nye lost from the very beginning just because his opponent was made to look more credible than he actually was because he was framed as his ideological and intellectual equal.

It doesn't matter from that point who did a better job. The more retarded idea gained credibility just from being on stage.

The black book of communism counts the unborn amongst the dead. Defend that.

Why would I defend counting the unborn when talking about actual deaths? (even if a spontaneous reduction in your society could be catastrophic on the long term)

I'm against inflating the numbers, yeah, you can probably get to 2048 millions if you project to the future, but you can get big numbers already if you don't add made up potential people.

If you're going to cite black book numbers (which is what everyone cites), you implicitly defend their methodologies. This isn't like a retarded Holla Forums conspiracy theory where you have to wade through 10 badly constructed jpeg memes. I'm not even an ML and tankies are a constant thorn in my side, but I'm just pointing out the exaggeration is obvious to anyone who plainly reads the text of the book.

I don't understand this sperging over the millions dead directly or indirectly due to Stalin and his policies - is it really much better if it is objectively proven that "only" 20 million Russians died?

2 or 3 sentences is not sperging. I see you're still fresh from arguing with Holla Forums. Welcome back to reasonable discussion.

Let me quote myself:

I used the word 'debate' because discussion implies an exchange of ideas, but debate implies the contest between two opposing viewpoints. This is also why debate is a poor medium of communication - instead of actually seeking to find 'the truth' or to sincerely exchange views, it more often than not devolves into a dick-measuring contest of sophistry. It is undialectical and unproductive.

Accountable? You certainly have more faith in the public discourse than I do.

I'm not so sure you understand what I'm trying to argue here. My point from the start was that nazis reject rationalism and as such providing sound, logical arguments has no value to them, and as such will make any claim to fit their stance, to appear to 'win' the argument. If you keep calling them out for contradictory statements or other nonsense, out come the ad hominems (which is consistent with their essentialist ideology) or they will just reject any opposing facts as 'jewish propaganda'. Here is a text on it rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness
Engagement with these types of people should be by cult deprogramming, not debate.

No, it happens much more than in your post

Is it just me, or is there an influx of SJWs trying to ridicule the notion of rational thinking lately? The most effective socialists were the ones who were exactly the kind of rationalist the OP is mocking. I've also seen an influx of anti-porn, anti-prostitution, anti-gun sentiment which could only have come from liberals. We have to do something to eject these cunts. They don't belong here.

It's a moot point anyway, in the same vein that "holohoaxers" badly miss the point of what they're arguing. The morality of mass murder based on intent is not really all that dependent on the final number, which is more or less your point. Killing 100,000 Jews in a program of ethnic cleansing isn't more humane than killing 6 million. The difference just becomes a matter of efficiency and capability.

Ah, yes, Stalin killed literally 40% of the total Soviet population, that is, over 60 million people. This is entirely plausible and is not the most retarded of all horseshit claims against him.

Don't bother, he's obviously a super spooked liberal whose position is that even a single death under stalin's watch makes him an unequaled monster

It's not just you. I think it's a. Reddit leftists are getting kicked off of reddit & b. it's people finding Wolff's video and coming here.
Redditors can go fuck themselves if they want to be radlibs and those coming from Wolff's video should be "accepted" (for lack of a better term) rather than "shooed off".

Uh, aren't those considered exploitation under capitalism?

I mean I understand not spazzing out and dragging hookers that are just trying to make ends me off the streets and into prisons

This. The mods need to do some house cleaning.

Someone punched him because they didn't like what he was saying and attacked him in a burst of anger.
There's a real and practical difference between "edgelords who espouse fascist ideology" and "violent and obedient gunmen who are willing and capable of murdering millions". Spencer is never going to lead or even be part of some Fascist coup, he is an edgy hipster. Paying attention to him is bad for you, trying to silence him is bad for everyone. It gives credence to what he's saying, thought polices him, and makes the Left look incapable and afraid of rationally arguing against him; debates are for the audience, not the participants, punching your opponent is like drooling and mumbling on the stage.

Even if we're to believe that they're actual serious Nazis who explicitly reject reason and not just edgy, disillusioned, alienated teenagers who got fooled by propaganda, that doesn't mean there's no use in debating and arguing against them, because again, it's for the audience, not the participants. If they just constantly use fallacies and shitty sources, then the audience will see that and think less of their position.

They're as exploitative as anything else; to be specifically against them is usually just petty, puritanical moralism.

Youre siding yourself with mainstream media in order to label excellent people as nazis. Gotcha.

if you cant debate and don`t understand intricate details of the theory, shortcomings, compromises, strengths etc you might as well give up advancing it

Based wordfilter. Fuck off newfag

kys

Educate yourself.

Nah, either you concede the point that Spencer is obviously a nazi and you're moving the goalposts from your original objections ("but they're not actually nazis"), or you desperately insinuating now that "he's not a REAL nazi" now that you see you can't couch your argument on your original premise.

Either way you show that you're either not arguing in good faith or are completely delusional

I'm saying it's meaningful and stupid to conflate "edgelords who espouse fascist ideology" and "violent and obedient gunmen who are willing and capable of murdering millions". I don't doubt his beliefs, I doubt his willingness to act on them in any significant way.

Because the facts support them? Blacks really are dumber and really do commit more crime, gays really are pedophilic degenerates who recruit young males, women really do get special treatment, etc.

Why are leftists so obsessed with telling lies and hoping they come true?

You're really dumb. I just want you to know that.

Yes, but ideology has nothing to do with capablity, and ideology is what you engage with in a debate. What were the NSDAP before they gained the "violent and obedient gunman" status if not nazis?

Fair enough, though I still have far less faith in 'the audience'. That there is some kind of a middle ground to be won by intellectual engagement seems extremely idealistic.

Eh, they have some extra dimensions of exploitation like sex trafficing or porn made in bad faith etc. and are often very egregious examples of exploitation due to the low barrier of entry

I side with them when they are right. For colloquial use labelling racialist anti-rationalist ethno-nationalist reactionaries as nazi is sufficent.

What do you think about:

Don't you think you're the one being described? It kinda sounds like that.

I'm not the one who wrought the number. I wouldn't think nazis where better because supposedly they had to kill less people because according to Holla Forums it was "physically impossible to burn so many people!" okay, even granting that they were pretty much assholes.

Now, let's suppose the numbers were better for your argument, Let's suppose just 10% of the official number died.

Not enough?

How about 1 million due to famine. Is that low enough for you? Do you consider that "possible" even barring every evidence? How about half a million?

So, let me get this straight, even with this low number, which I'm granting you out of generosity, since you seem to keep pedddling the same "But some other guy said some outrageous number, he probably was a nazi!" I would like to know what excuse do you have.

Communism is supposed to be all about the good stuff, very few people would die of inanition if any. All good fruits of reason and science would fall upon the peasants instead of gate keeped for the capitalist pigs, yet it wasn't even necessary.

How can Lysenkoism be a thing? How can URSS make the same mistakes as Germans did, putting politics over science?

If you promise something better than capitalism, which is already pretty bad even moderately checked, can you provide me examples that don't fall in anti science, anti reason areas putting thousands of people in danger?

If communism isn't supposed to grant us that, what's the actual benefit over capitalism? Will I have more rights as an individual? Because from all the "dismiss and negate platforms to biggits" that this thread is rife with, I'm not sure all the "to each to its need" will not be managed with cronyism and nepotism just as all the real life samples of communism that we can find. I'm not sure dissenters will even be treated like humans at all, specially when all dissenters seem to be nazis or potential nazis, or white nationalists and it's perfectly ok to punch them.

Oy begorrah, it's almost like another potato famine!

I'm not going to argue about the nature of ML states, that will probably fly way above your head. Lo let's go with your version of communism.

The politics of socialist inspiration of Kerala's state enhanced quite a lot the lives of its inhabitants.
The capitalism's death toll outperform the communism's one.
As for the Anti science stuff, remind who got first into space?

You're part of the ruling class or one of their pet? Absolutley none. You're being buttfucked in the current system? Quite a lot.
Inb4 muh bootstraps

And reminder capitalism also cause famines and shortages…
Inb4 human nature
Inb4 not true capitalism

they think highschool debate club is real life

Why do the statistics say that? Are they statistics flawed, possibly due to racial bias? If they're not, why blacks dumber and more criminal?
That's just soccermom-tier retardation.
Again, why is that?

You need to look at society in materialistic term, not just pointing at the symptoms of the problem and naming some boogeyman as the agent.

Exactly.
They did not meaningful become "Nazis" until they actually started implementing Nazism. But to assume that the NSDAP are the same brand of individuals as neo-nazis is pretty absurd. Completely different material conditions exist in a completely different political system and culture.

Most people in the audience are going to be apolitical and undecided, and that's the type of person you're going to be able to bring to your side. If you're arguing in 4chan most of the audience are going to be edgy teenagers who leans towards Holla Forums, but even then it's not a lost cause; if they see Holla Forumsacks sperging out and incapable of reasonably arguing, they're going to be less attracted to that side. In their minds there's the rational counter-culture of Holla Forums and insane, controlling SJWs. 4chan has created a false political dichotomy in their minds and by simply presenting the position here they realize that dichotomy isn't true.
That's true, along with other professions, but again, the reason most people are fanatically against porn and prostitution is usually because of puritanism.

Yeah, I'm assuming even a low, easy to grasp number which opponents usually wouldn't provide them. I frankly believe the number was much much higher, though I don't consider fair counting projected lowered birthrate as "kills" (though it is still a problem)

The problem is, even with that low number I don't see then what is the advantage then, when the solution they found to famine was to implement politically motivated pseudoscience. I could understand the initial causes of famine as frankly they had a huge part of the world against them.

All this thread is all "our oponents use emotions!" yet when the left is involved all over the world I don't see anything but emotions:

"this progressive promoted bill we pushed for is actually ruining lots of lifes, we should roll backwards and say we're sorry" Said no politician ever, not even leftist ones. As I'm currently affected by several on my own country and your side seems to continuously act as if its not happening, as if trying to fight against the injustices your side provokes would be a detriment to your cause.

You actually didn't answer the question.
What's my benefit as a pedestrian. Are you telling me elites and their pets will not arise inside a communist regime? Please, tell me that cronysm will not happen in your fantastic society, make my day.

"Those biggits didn't let us buy machinery that magically our fantastic definetely superior regime wasn't able to produce so they killed us and all the deaths are their fault. If only they allowed us to engage in capitalism to get the things we needed to get started, we would have been better and would retroactively never had needed capitalism after all!". So, in YOUR case capitalistic pigs should have given their enemies a platform, because unfairly denying a platform over politics can kill lifes. I'm glad you're starting to see things my way.

What's dangerous is not even the fact that you wouldn't be able to produce shit. I frankly believe you could, after all it's becoming extremely easy to produce shit, and sooner or later some capitalist would see the business of seeling you stuff and you would get the technology that your regime wouldn't be able to produce (without breaching the supposed moral and human dignity that china is breaking all the time to advance medicine or to make profits). No.

What I fear is how you people seem so eager to to engage in persuasive definitions so much, to ask for your opponents to live under certain rules while claiming you're not breaching them when you obviously are. What I fear is how impossible is to even admit something wrong happened under your perfect guidance, because in the end, your leaders will be surrounded by politically correct yes men, and nothing would get done without throwing mountains of bodies into the engines.

We should be happy with how things are going, thankfully all the mainstream people "supporting" your side own a "che" t-shirt and are behaving ugly as hell, becoming a living vaccine against your nonsense. I feel you would be killing much more given the inability to criticize ANYTHING your side does.

You have know ideo how it works don't you?
In capitalism, the motto of society is profit. Therefore, the tobacco industrial is justified to lie about the danger of his product for the shareholder's sake. That's capitalism.
A corrupt despot in a third world country helps secure the profits of foreign corporations by crushing laborer's uprising, so it's justified to fund him and bribe him. That's capitalism.
Making the population starve because producing bioethanol for foreigners makes you rich? That's fine i'm creating surplus value!
Your engulf half of your budget over inefficient healthcare because health should belong to the market? That's capitalism.
The planet squeezed for a few dollars more?
That's capitalism.

What's in for you? If you don't see the benefit of an economy based on use,in which we got rid of the profitability filter, if everything falling apart okay because you can buy stuff, then socialism will have no appeal for you.

In the health domain i see the big insurances slowly buying away the health professionals, i see the seconds pressured by the firsts into prescribing what benefit the shareholders over what would benefit the patients. That's not a system i want to live under.

The moralist angle is not an insightful way to look at this.
The dominant class didn't concede a platform as long they could et away with it, like their rational self interest commanded, something someone as enlightened as you probably already knows trough the bloody history of unions and labor protests.
Things didn't change thanks to freedom of speech but with shift in the balance of power.
Freedom of speech is only allowed as long as it doens't threaten seripusly the status quo. See what happens to whistleblowers.

On a personal level, i'm not even for censorship for no moral reason but a practical one: it is counterproductive. A one sided control of information is absolutely impossible, especially with the current technollogy and there is a reflex of thinking "if they try to hide it, there must be some truth to it" whenever something is denied a platform.

There is some space between Stalin did nothing wrong and Stalin was the Antichrist you know?
A lot of people here are shitting on him on a regular basis. But to argue about it, it's usually useful to get insights on what the fact are
and what was the context of thoses happenings, you know? Facts, use of reason, not going apeshit when a buzzword is thrown around?
If you base your worldview about skewed or truncated data, and react badly when this is pointed out, it means you're not arguing in good faith, no matter how good intended is your message.
Claiming communism kills a lot and claiming communism kills the most is not the same thing, no mater how tragic it is in both cases.

Fuck off

Wait, you're retarded/delusional enough to think that Stalin wasn't responsible for millions of deaths?

What the fuck? This is even more retarded than holocaust denial. The more time I waste on this shithole the more I'm convinced there's no difference between Holla Forumstards and you.

And you both have that horrifying lack of awareness of how insane you actually are.

Being critical of the source is the very very basics, but things don't become true or untrue based on the source of information.

It seems that you are trying to argue that if only there was more rational debate against the budding NSDAP surely their rise could have been prevented - which seems very very unlikely from the perspective of a materialist analysis.
That definition of nazism is poor for this particular conversation, as the ideology with which one interacts with is the same even if mr. nazi isn't in the Reichstag.
True, but the conversation never was if the nazis of today are the same as the nazis of the 30s. They share the ideological qualities that makes debate with them worthless.

Seems idealistic, but perhaps true in the post-industrial West. Though the crumbling of the middle class society will push material reality back in the fore for political activity.
Perhaps that is true, but I still think you overvalue the power of 'rational argument' vs sperging on the average Holla Forumsyp. I agree that some of them can be reformed and especially the lurkers might appreciate a bit of sanity. I've had some decent reception when shilling socialism on other boards like Holla Forums.

Are they really? I don't think I've ever seen a conservative debate without some lazy fucking straw man or red herring.

Dude GE, Ford, and IBM literally gave supplies to Nazi Germany you fucking re-TARD.

>>>/reddit/
>>>/gulag/
>>>/trash/

Debate is bourgeois

Fuck. Off.

Also, I'm not going to waste my time proving something that's almost universally regarded as historical fact, which is Stalin being responsible for millions of deaths (i.e. not 'sixty gorillion xDDD', as your shitty strawman made out.)

A ten minute Google search to find the figures and their methodology, conducted by individuals who have dedicated years of their lives to this, as opposed to some smug imbecile on a far-left imageboard claiming something is untrue because it hurts his utterly retarded, sociopathic and thoroughly discredited totalitarian police state, which strayed further from its original ideal than most 'capitalist' states.

You people are identical to Holla Forums. You're the ones who should be sent to fucking gulags.

These are good things.

t. sheltered usa petit-bourg

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Greek_legislative_election

Stalin killed around 750k people during the great purges. the methodology used by to produce the figures in the millions is blatantly revisionist, most of them count deaths in gulags of people who were convicted of non-political crimes, some count in natural deaths and famines, some even count in ww2 victims (the ones that claim figures in the 10s of millions)

it's sad when a trot has to defend stalin, you should really do some research before shitposting

Strawman.
Strawman.
Either you're deliberately trying to deceive, or you aren't.

Either way, you're a piece of shit, in the first case because you're defending one of the worst political systems ever implemented, with an abundance of evidence to support that conclusion, or you're an idiot.

debating is good but debates are usually one sided and the people who host them have an internal bias so theres not really a debate just one side screaming at another. Most conservatives will lean to the left when they debate anyways since a lot of right wing arguments sounds disgusting when said on stage ie sacrificing environment for profit, exploiting cheap labor, increasing medical cost on the poor, justifying the police state.

what were you talking about? the great purges and the purges of the military later on is what stalin is criticized for, what did you have in mind?

you mean outside, and again, what are you referring to? how can i strawman when you don't even state your position mate?

I am trying to deceive? I only said one thing, and that was that the unjustified political murders stalin authorized were around 700-800k, and all other figures of the great purges are not from the archives but are produced by means of historical revisionism and guesswork. Now you tell me you don't mean the great purges alone, so i assume you have something else in mind. If you clarify what that something else is, i'll provide you with my knowledge on the subject (if i do have said knowledge, if i don't ill follow my own advice and research it). I never once lied or tried to deceive you, you on the other hand

sound like a liberal spaz with no clear idea what you're talking about, and you most likely won't be able to provide me with exact things to look up to that you think implicate stalin as a murderer. You just have this vague idea of stalin=bad and never actually bothered to research non-revisionist history. the fact that you result to childish insults after 1 post where i just stated the simple fact that stalin didn't kill 200 zillions during the great purges gives me a rough idea of your educational level.

I will be waiting for those 20 zillion deaths though, i really want to see what you'll post as stalin's murders aside from the great purges and the military purges

I'd like to know what produces a person like you.

reading books

thank you mr.liberal for letting me see something unique and beautiful

*revisionist garbage.

Fuck off you smug cunt.

twillight zone material

are you shitposting or retarded? i cannot tell anymore. please provide SOMETHING resembling an argument.

are you shitposting or retarded? i cannot tell anymore. please provide SOMETHING resembling an argument.

XD

Trotsky made not have killed quite as many millions, or he may have killed even more. What a world of difference

ok man you're not even trying to be coherent. to think i was actually willing to take the time to provide you with material to read based on your questions.

wish admins actually banned liberals and nazbols, this board is 98% shitpost 2% discourse

Keep a book, 'man.' And touch up on your rhetorical skills.

*Read.

Fascism is an inherently illogical, violent ideology which masks itself with composed rationalism. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing and should be met with violent opposition. Any other opinion is liberal obscurantism.

conservatism is liberalism though, not fascism

Stop making shit up about my kill count

t. spirit of stalin

let's not forget that while the purges were a period of heavy political repression, some of those 800,000 executed were most likely legitimately counter-revolutionaries

Fascists, "conservatives" and liberals pursue essentially the same policy. Only real reactionaries differ a bit, they want the old nobility back into power, however even in monarchies oligarchs have a lot if not the most political power.

fascism puts an emphasis on nationality as to benefit the country's bourgeoisie, while liberalism is more global. It's all capitalism in the end, but fascism has a distinct rhetoric and mode of operation that works differently than liberalism. You won't see GOP murder squads chasing pakis nor will you see them worshiping a leader, it's more laissez-faire.

I also hope you're shitposting with that flag

Debating liberals and debating fascists are different circumstances imo. Even if liberals aren't logical materialists and lack any dialectic thought, a leftist can probably appeal to their idolization of enlightenment rationalism and help steer them along the right course. Fascism is built upon the violent repression of leftist ideals so to debate it is utterly pointless unless you just want to participate in the spectacle.

depends on what level of fascist you're talking about. fascists are generally people who have felt that the status quo is rotten, but got swayed by fascist rhetoric into another mode of false consciousness. so depending on how deep someone is into his fascist spooks, they are easier to convince that capitalism is rotten. liberals on the other hand (both conservative and progressive) come from the idea that "the current system is good", and the vast majority doesn't even consider their ideology an ideology but rather some rule of nature and some form of societal end-game if you will. Hence not only do you have to convince them their spooks are spooks, but to also convince them that the current mode of production is just a point in history and not the end of it.

I do believe though that in the long term, these are the exact reasons why fascism is more dangerous than liberalism. Liberalism means inevitable austerity, meaning that eventually people will get disillusioned with it no matter how indoctrinated they are at present. When that happens, things can go in either the fascist direction or the leftist direction. This is why exposing fascism as nothing more than an ultra-reactionary tribalist form of capitalism is essential. People need to understand that the only real alternative to neoliberalism is worker control of the MoP, and everything else will always result in austerity and exploitation

They seek to legitimize it to themselves and others. Why else does anyone debate? Perhaps it's the cognitive dissonance necessary to being a conservative that makes them especially autistic about this.

That's just the fascist style of propaganda.

During Weimar Republic we had Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht murdered and we had hundreds of striking workers and soldiers shot dead by police and right wing Freikorps - when bourgeois liberals ruled. The same liberals later helped Hitler's fascists seize power.

I also hope you're shitposting with that flag.

not only the fascist style of propaganda, this is also how most neo-nazi organizations in europe get funded. they promise benefits to the local bourgeoisie if they manage to come into power and in turn they get funded by them, this is for example true in greece where the neo-nazi party is vehemently against public infrastructure being sold to europeans and chinese bourgeoisie because they openly state they should be at the hands of greek bourgeoisie (because that's who funds them).

thank god. it would be too much if you weren't shitposting

why is that?

Greek capitalists have no problem investing in foreign stocks, foreign currency and no problem owning foreign assets, owning foreign real estate etc. either. This is true for all capitalists in all countries, regardless whether they call themselves fascist or liberal. Capitalism is by it's very nature global, Marx already knew that.
Don't get fooled by bourgeois rhetoric, they don't care about nations at all, they only care about themselves or their family clan at best.

I didn't. Just because some bourgeois liberal moles managed to stage a successful coup within a Social Democratic party doesn't mean Social Democracy itself becomes liberal. The party affected by the coup turns liberal (might still use the label Social Democracy in order to fool workers into voting them). After Ebert seized power in the SPD half the old members left and founded other parties, namely the USPD and KPD.

that's exactly what i said user. i didn't say the capitalist actually cares about nationality, i'm saying that the greek capitalist funding golden dawn does so in hopes of being given the national capital. i never said that the capitalist won't also invest in other countries or anything like that, it's just a way for him to accumulate more capital that's based on the fascist rhetoric. but without him, the neo-nazis wouldnt have funding

into the trash your opinion goes.

I am infact Social democrat and communist, just like Marx, Rosa Luxemburg and many others.

No, liberals did. The SPD wasn't social democratic in 1914. It turned LIBERAL under Ebert
No, liberals did
No, "conservatives", "neoliberals" and whatever you want to call them did. And yes, Syriza is social democratic. And no, Syriza drove Greece not into austerity, the Troika did.
No, liberals do.
No, liberals do.

He doesn't. He pretends to do so. If he gets hold of it he will buy foreign assets i.e. move it out of Greece for personal gain.

syriza accepted the memoranda of the bourgeoisie instead of seizing all greek means of production and transferring it to the workers, even though they had a people's mandate to do so from the referendum they themselves held.

ok mate, keep telling yourself that. you live in even bigger denial than liberals, literally every european socdem party betrayed the revolution when they declared their support for ww1.

except the word communist started seeing widespread use by revolutionary parties that wanted to distinguish themselves from socdem traitors of the revolution after during ww1

ye lets ignore everything that happened after the second international, and just make the assumption that marx would support the socdem traitors of the revolution when they actively supported bourgeoisie profit war. and ye of course rosa was a socdem, even though the socdems were the ones that murdered her. ah wait they weren't REAL socdems right? fucking menshevik revisionist filth