Wil Wheaton, who ditched Twitter bc they didn't ban Alex Jones, gets banned from his new platform over censoring transgenders

[Final-Fan]

o_O.Q said:

Final-Fan said:

"the point i'm making is that both socialism and totalitarianism are predicated on state control/regulation whereas capitalism is about free enterprise"

And the point I was making is that if it's possible to be totalitarian and capitalist then it's obviously possible for a certain type of totalitarianism to be in conflict with socialism.  This is what I meant earlier when I said

3.  "if a state is acting in ways entirely consistent with totalitarianism but in ways that are frequently inconsistent with socialism"

and you said

totalitarianism is not inconsistent with socialism so you've already started this wrong

because apparently I can't possibly paint a picture so clear that you can see it without me having to lead you up to it by the nose.  Even if, for the sake of argument, the Nazis were both totalitarian and socialist your objection is STILL wrong because the claim that you made was that it was categorically impossible to have totalitarianism that was in conflict with socialism.  If that wasn't what you meant to say, then fuck you. 

BTW, "That sounds just like socialism which demands that no one in a community have private property for the purpose of generating profit"  The total abolition of private property doesn't sound like a Nazi ideological position to me.  I would be happy to be proven wrong there but if I am right then this is at best a senseless strawman argument; which pretty much sums up my feelings about a lot of what you've said these past couple of days.  This is a very specific question of fact that you should be able to answer. 

The Nazis were fanatically anti-Communist.  Not just Soviets.  I dunno why you're pulling Karl Marx into this when the 1932 Nazi platform included "12. Eliminate the Marxist threat."

so you're asking me to disassociate their title from their actions? and you think that makes sense?

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking.  I think it makes sense in the context of "political party that gets a complete change of leadership but keeps the old name" to say, "Hey, maybe it's fucking possible, just possible mind you, that the values and ideals expressed by the founders of the party that got kicked out weren't so important to the new leadership and they just kept the name because they weren't totally opposed to it and didn't want to have to rebrand themselves.  Maybe they just didn't care.  Or maybe they still had those ideals, but we shouldn't just make that assumption based on the name that they didn't have any hand in creating." 

The Republican Party and Democratic Party of the USA have undergone radical changes to their ideology (most notably, in recent history, 1960-1970) but they didn't change their names.  Not the best example because both parties still claim to value democracy and republicanism, but still, do you see where I'm going here? 

if i call someone you are unfamiliar with a fool what is your first question in response going to be?

I don't know everything about you, but I am not totally unfamiliar with you.  I think it's not completely outrageous to form an opinion on someone after several thousand words of conversation.

you see that right there? that's frustration

Yes.  Yes it fucking is.  Do you know why we never got around to "what is the ratio of socialist vs. non-socialist vs. anti-socialist policies enacted by the Nazi Party" that you wanted to do and accused me of ignoring?  Well, the reason, which I believe I have mentioned before or at least alluded to, is because it was utter torture trying to get you to dialog on simple questions that you either flat-out could not understand or refused to properly answer.  The road you wanted to go down is so open-ended and historically complex that I knew there was little chance to do it justice in those circumstances.  (Did every single thing the German government did reflect the wishes of the Nazi Party?  Is discouraging smoking socialist or just solid health policy?  Is it socialist when the USA or the individual states discourage smoking on the grounds of the public health and the cost to society of the medical consequences?  Is it socialist to even hold tobacco producers accountable for the damage?)  I think you wanted a mindless list-war, no, I think you expected the mindless vague list you started with to be the be-all and end-all. 

I'm mostly done with this, but I'll keep riding it into the ground for now.  How low can you go?  Is there any limit to your failure to parse logic? 

"because the claim that you made was that it was categorically impossible to have totalitarianism that was in conflict with socialism. "

you quoted the claim i made right above this

"totalitarianism is not inconsistent with socialism so you've already started this wrong"

so essentially you're taking what i've said and disregarded it to put words in my mouth lmao

No.  No, stop.  This one example is enough to show how intellectually bankrupt you are.  Here is the sequence of posts: 

Me:  "if a state is acting in ways entirely consistent with totalitarianism but in ways that are frequently inconsistent with socialism"
Me, rephrased because you're so fucking obtuse:  "It is possible for totalitarianism to be in conflict with socialism.  So hypothetically if that were the case...(then you shouldn't attribute what the state did in that case to socialism)"
You:  "totalitarianism is not inconsistent with socialism so you've already started this wrong"
You, by logical implication:  "it's not possible for totalitarianism and socialism to be in conflict in that way, so your hypothetical is meaningless"
Me:  "So you're saying a state that is both totalitarian and capitalist, for example, is totally impossible?"
Me, rephrased:  "Are you SURE that there's no way for a totalitarian state to hold another ideology that is in conflict with socialism?"
You:  "the point i'm making is that both socialism and totalitarianism are predicated on state control/regulation whereas capitalism is about free enterprise
"i'm not going to be dishonest though and state it couldn't happen because it could if resources became too concentrated into one business but obviously its far more likely to be born out of socialism"
You, translated:  "OK fine it's possible"
Me:  *assumes you agree that socialism is in conflict with capitalism*  <--LET ME KNOW IF THIS ASSUMPTION WAS WRONG. 
Me:  "Even if, for the sake of argument, the Nazis were both totalitarian and socialist your objection is STILL wrong because the claim that you made was that it was categorically impossible to have totalitarianism that was in conflict with socialism."
Me, rephrased:  "If you agree that it's possible for a totalitarian state to hold another ideology that conflicts with socialism, then clearly some form of totalitarianism can be in conflict with socialism, which is exactly what I originally proposed, therefore your disagreement with what I originally said was wrong"
You:  " 'because the claim that you made was that it was categorically impossible to have totalitarianism that was in conflict with socialism.'
"you quoted the claim i made right above this
" 'totalitarianism is not inconsistent with socialism so you've already started this wrong'
"so essentially you're taking what i've said and disregarded it to put words in my mouth lmao"
You, translated:  "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING"
Me:  this post