House of Eratosthenes

Regular readers of my blog know that I have never seen CONservatives as anything other as subhumans who will willingly slave away to enrich their real exploiters. Rarely does a day go by when I do not come across one more example of why people of the CONservative mindset are subhuman tools. The remainder of this post is based upon one recent, and very clear instance, of why CONservatives are extermination-worthy subhumans.

But it’s evidently been edited…

The remainder of this post is based upon one recent, and very clear instance, of why CONservatives are subhumans.

Perhaps it was the greater attention that made the blogger think again, or it could’ve been comments like this one:

I’m curious, as a conservative myself, what you propose as the method of extermination for me. I’m sure along with your fellow travellers, the possibilities you’ve imagined must be endless. Since you feel my progeny should be exterminated as well, how will you carry out this sentence on my young sons and daughter? Do we all get to enjoy a final train ride in a boxcar before our deaths? Please indicate your intentions as we’d like to make some final arrangements first.

This “Waterworld mentality” keeps coming up in liberal commentary, whenever they think no one’s listening, or that only “good” people are listening.

Liberalism being a bad sales job, from true-believers, to decent but ignorant people who don’t understand what they’re buying, it trades on deceit and therefore it’s difficult to extract a coherent overarching theme from it all. Except we know it isn’t about equality; that one we can safely rule out straight-away. Just walk up to a liberal, any liberal, and offer a serious proposal that gays should be treated like straights, black should be treated the same as whites, men and women should be on equal footing before justice and the law. See how that flies.

Across their true-believers and their recruits, it seems to be an inevitability that some statement surfaces about a coming storm, or at least, a belief in present or future scarcity. In advance of this scarcity, some individuals and/or classes are to be “voted off the island,” if you will; there will be some townhall assembly, during which the pariahs are to be singled out and banished.

It’s as if they’re advocating for a democratic method of selection of these inevitable casualties, as an alternative to a natural one. Meanwhile, they forget to question whether the coming famine is really a certainty. Reminds me of the South Park episode where a bunch of characters flying in a plane crash in the mountains, and someone announces they need to cannibalize Eric Roberts because otherwise they’ll starve to death — even though nobody’s really that hungry just yet.

Meanwhile, they forget to question whether the coming famine is really a certainty.

They also forget to note that, in a war of all against all, they’re unarmed.

One of my fundamental tests to determine if a person is worth taking seriously is: Do their big fancy theories also apply to themselves?

This person’s theory is: Group A may decide whether Group B is human or not. Having concluded that they’re not, Group A has the right to wipe out Group B. Well, ok, Adolf, let’s go with that. By the transitive property of equality, then, Group B can embrace its subhumanity, use the exact same (undefined) process to conclude that all humans should be wiped out, and act accordingly.

Are you sure that’s the way you want to go, champ? I’m betting that someone who calls their blog “Dissention” doesn’t own a gun or know anyone who does. Almost every CONservative “subhuman” of my personal acquaintance does. Didn’t think that one through, didja?
- Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 07:18
mkfreeberg: This “Waterworld mentality” keeps coming up in liberal commentary, whenever they think no one’s listening, or that only “good” people are listening.

It’s common on the political right, as well. It’s extremism, not liberalism.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 07:53
We replied to Advocatus Diaboli.
http://dissention.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/how-conservative-subhumans-think-apr-21-2014/#comment-19991
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 07:58
Z: It’s common on the political right, as well. It’s extremism, not liberalism.

*TWEEEEEEEET*

Two minutes, re-litigating a conclusion. Hit the box.
- nightfly | 04/23/2014 @ 08:59
My, my the Libs are ever increasing their blind hatred for us. Even though they’ve basically achieved many of their goals. There seems to be a direct correlation between liberal power and…let’s just call it what it is…fascism. Yes, I know fascism is right wing extremism according to Libs who want to feel better about themselves but reality, not a string suite for them, is a beeotch. Just like their record on civil rights. It’s why all they have is lies…and blind hatred. Hand in glove.

As you say, Morgan – “Liberals, always another revolution away from happiness. Always.” Or some such…

And Zach…tuberculosis.
- tim | 04/23/2014 @ 09:43
tim: There seems to be a direct correlation between liberal power and…let’s just call it what it is…fascism.

Nearly all political scientists put fascism, who were ideologically opposed to liberalism, on the political right. Here’s a few citations.

Nazism and the Radical Right in Austria 1918-1934, Lauridsen.

The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, Paul Davies.

The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain, edited by Gottlieb & Linehan.

Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right, Griffin et al.

France in The Era of Fascism: Essays on the French Authoritarian Right, edited by Jenkins.

Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe (Studies in European Culture and History), edited by Weitz & Fenner.

tim: As you say, Morgan – “Liberals, always another revolution away from happiness. Always.”

That conflates liberalism with the political left generally.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 12:45
Z: Nearly all political scientists put fascism, who were ideologically opposed to liberalism, on the political right. Here’s a few citations.

*TWEEEEEEEET*

And there you go, right back to the sin bin. Be advised that many rec leagues have a “three strikes and you’re out” policy. One more and you get ejected from the game.
- nightfly | 04/23/2014 @ 14:25
nightfly: And there you go,

We provided multiple citations from political scientists. You provided no evidence and no argument.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 14:26
Arguing with the ref after the call? Not recommended.

Anyway, it’s two minutes for re-litigating a conclusion. Just because it was six weeks ago doesn’t mean we don’t remember that these “multiple citations” were all soundly dealt with back then, nor that the “fascism is always right-wing” canard was refuted. I am not of a mind to re-present any of those arguments again, so go back and reread it while you serve out your penalty.
- nightfly | 04/23/2014 @ 18:25
nightfly: the “fascism is always right-wing” canard was refuted.

While “always” is too strong a word, it is simply a fact that most political scientists, and most sources generally, put fascism on the political right. That was true in the 1930s, and is still how fascism characterized today (present company excepted, of course).
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 19:01
@Nightfly,

I’d say that’s a five-minute major and a game ejection, no?

QED.
- Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 19:07
While “always” is too strong a word, it is simply a fact that most political scientists, and most sources generally, put fascism on the political right.

If we side with the majority all the time, we risk trading Jesus for Barrabas.
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 19:25
mkfreeberg: If we side with the majority all the time, we risk trading Jesus for Barrabas.

We’re not discussing who gets to be crucified, but the meanings of words, which are determined by general usage.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 19:36
We’re not discussing who gets to be crucified, but the meanings of words, which are determined by general usage.

Then, why are y’all bothering us with what most political scientists say? If the general usage is different from what they say, who cares what they say?
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2014 @ 04:52
mkfreeberg: Then, why are y’all bothering us with what most political scientists say?

Political scientists are experts in the field of politics. Practical lexicographers are experts in how people use words. While political scientists usually have much more specific meanings for the terms, they are largely consistent with how they are used by the laypersons.

When someone reads a newspaper article about neo-fascists and the extreme right, no one gets confused (present company excepted, of course). When one watches the news about liberals wanting to pass more education funding, no one confuses that with communists and fascists (present company excepted, of course). When religious conservatives advocate laws against birth control or sodomy or teaching the Bible in public schools, no one confuses their wanting more government with liberalism (present company excepted, of course). These uses of the terms are so conventional that there is simply no controversy about their use (present company excepted, of course).
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 05:50
Z: While political scientists usually have much more specific meanings for the terms, they are largely consistent with how they are used by the laypersons.

*TWEEEEEEEEET*

That is not the question. The question is, “If the general usage is DIFFERENT from what they say, who cares what they say?” So in fact you are answering the opposite of the question. Two minutes, dodging the issue.

It’s not that hard to answer what is asked:

Z: When someone reads a newspaper article about neo-fascists and the extreme right, no one gets confused (present company excepted, of course).

We certainly are not confused. We contend, and not without cause, that it is the newspaper writers who are confused – primarily because they are allies and admirers of the budding fascists of their own side and wish not to face this reality. They also crave the swank society and the cache it bestows on their egos, and want to protect their access to it. (Look how quickly Sharyl Atkinson was unpersoned for asking questions.) They craft a narrative for themselves and call it “objectivity.” Saying so don’t make it so.

Z: When one watches the news about liberals wanting to pass more education funding, no one confuses that with communists and fascists (present company excepted, of course).

Again – calling it “education funding” at this point is a gross misnomer. The United States has increased per-student spending severalfold since the 1970’s without any improvement of student performance or increase in learning. That money’s going to waste, and yet these alleged champions of education want more of it. Therefore it’s reasonable to suspect, if not conclude outright, that they want it for themselves and their cronies at the expense of families and taxpayers. The main point is that they think of the money as theirs by right, with the taxpayers mere spigots that must remain ever fully open. That could be called many things, but “liberal” is not one of them.

Z: When religious conservatives advocate laws against birth control or sodomy or teaching the Bible in public schools, no one confuses their wanting more government with liberalism (present company excepted, of course).

*TWEEEEEEET*

We already dealt with this issue too. A) Very few, if any, groups are calling for outlawing birth control. B) The issue wasn’t teaching the Bible in a public school but permitting voluntary prayers – and that wouldn’t require a new law, but the removal of the current ones that hold that it violates the First Amendment. And if it never happens, eh, there are other issues that people are dealing with.

You are racking up the minutes here, Squirty. Hit the showers, you’re done for the thread.
- nightfly | 04/24/2014 @ 07:00
Are folks here familiar with The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? I used to think it was one long exercise in question-begging, but after seeing the Cuttlefishes’ performance in Morgan’s experiment, I’m starting to think some kind of mystical “paradigm shift” does have to happen to achieve new understanding. Can’t you just see some Renaissance-era Zachriel darkening page after page of vellum with “of course the sun revolves around the Earth, it’s the scientific consensus, that’s the way most people use the term, all the experts say so, nobody outside the right-wing echo chamber thinks otherwise, blah blah blah”?
- Severian | 04/24/2014 @ 07:33
Now that we’ve got the Cuttlefish in the penalty box, backing the conversation up to 04/23/2014 @ 07:18…

I’m 1000% confident that the blogger who wrote this nonsense is just your typical Internet Tough Guy. The problem is, it’s people like that who enable the small fraction of the population that carry out the genocides, staff the gulags, make the trains run on time. Just spitballing here, but I’m guessing it’s about 10% of the population, tops, who would actually sign the order to pull the trigger, and maybe only 10% of those who would actually carry it out.

I’m basing my wild-ass guess on the lowest lows in approval rate for Bush and Obama. It seems about 25-35% of the country is absolutely tribal, and thinks their guy is doing a good job no matter what. These folks are still pretty insulated from the consequences of the policies they so fervently support, though, so I’m betting you can shave another 2/3 – 3/4 off that when it’s happening in your backyard. The problem is, that’s all it takes, and social pressure from the tribal guys is in itself sufficient to push some over the edge. Look at the Holocaust. How many people were actually slamming the doors on the cattle cars shut?

The trick is not to let it get to that point, and the trick to that — I hope — is to shine some light on these Internet Tough Guys.
- Severian | 04/24/2014 @ 08:17
Severian: Can’t you just see some Renaissance-era Zachriel darkening page after page of vellum with “of course the sun revolves around the Earth, it’s the scientific consensus, that’s the way most people use the term, all the experts say so, nobody outside the right-wing echo chamber thinks otherwise, blah blah blah”?

The insistence concerning the Earth’s fixity was based on scripture, not science. Nor does it have anything to do with how people use terminology.

nightfly: “If the general usage is DIFFERENT from what they say, who cares what they say?”

You mean a counterfactual question? It could be an example of jargon. However, as we’re discussing political terminology, the use by political scientists is relevant, just as if we were discussing biological evolution, the terminology used by biologists would be relevant.

nightfly: We contend, and not without cause, that it is the newspaper writers who are confused – primarily because they are allies and admirers of the budding fascists of their own side and wish not to face this reality.

Heh. Sure. Newspapers around the world from various cultures are all fascists because they use the term “fascist” as it has been used for generations.

nightfly: Again – calling it “education funding” at this point is a gross misnomer.

We weren’t discussing the specific issue, but whether most people confuse liberals with fascists when reading a newspaper article about liberal initiative on education spending.

nightfly: A) Very few, if any, groups are calling for outlawing birth control.

Many groups did, and some still do. These groups are called religious conservatives. We’re not arguing the specific issue, but how the term conservative is being used.

nightfly: B) The issue wasn’t teaching the Bible in a public school but permitting voluntary prayers

Many groups did, and some still do. These groups are called religious conservatives. We’re not arguing the specific issue, but how the term conservative is being used.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 10:40
Y’all may contemplate the absurdity of that statement, used to describe an age when Christian belief was universal and mandatory, in the shame closet.
- Severian | 04/24/2014 @ 10:44
There’s nothing worse in a hockey game than guys who whine the whole way to the box, the whole time they’re in the box, and the whole way back from the box to their bench… “It wasn’t a penalty – he did it first – how could you call that – oh, but he can do this other thing – you missed that other call – it wasn’t a penalty – he did it first – you guys are terrible…” Ugh. I find it no less tiresome here.
- nightfly | 04/24/2014 @ 10:54
Severian: some stuff about lexicographers, no numbers

Yes, we responded in terms of how lexicographers arrive at their conclusions.
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 11:04
Wrong thread, retards.

Use your time in the penalty box to review the current discussions in which y’all are so poorly, tediously, unwelcomely participating.
- Severian | 04/24/2014 @ 11:34

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Extermination?Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014

Extermination?
Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014