The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[AtorBoltox]

Mostly bad faith responses to the equally bad faith "Nazis are rightwing because they hate jooz" trope. Hitler and the Nazis are their own thing and trying to make modern comparisons is largely just partisan/ideological smears rather than attempts to understand history. The same happens with Father Coughlin who was to the left of FDR and Huey Long but is nonetheless called "rightwing " because he "hated jooz".

[AtorBoltox]

He’s right. The US and friends only intervened in Western Europe to stop the incoming Reds from annexing all of Nazi Germany after the Nazi military was basically completely neutralized in Ukraine and Poland.

Right, it had nothing to do with Germany literally declaring war on us  

The European colonial powers and the US did jack in Europe for 3-4 years while the Soviet Union was taking out both Germany and Japan. Only when the Nazi army was basically absolvent did they feign a quick and weak invasion to garner whatever territory they could from the remnants of the German Army and the Hitler Youth.

[AtorBoltox]

Before COVID homicides had been gradually decreasing for decades. If they stay high after a general return to normalcy, that's cause for concern. I don't believe they will, we will likely see a reduction as we get back to normal life.

Normal life?  We have people hysterical about the fact that VACCINATED people might still be able to spread it, LMFAO.  COVID won’t be eradicated, and there is a depressingly large (and growing) group of nerds who will either never go back to normal or will completely betray their soap box about the virus.  The crimes were a symptom of society endorsing society as we knew it being over.

[AtorBoltox]

I think the zeitgeist opinion on John Oliver pretty much nails him.

I used to think it was really cool how he would dig into these uncovered, unexplored topics and uncover all these bizarre or horrible details.  That was, until he did a deep dive on a subject area I was actually very knowledgeable about, and was so misleading and ignorant that I wanted to fling my laptop out the window!  Having had that experience, I can now only assume that all the other deep-dives he does are equally full of malarkey, and it seems other people who are experts on those areas have said the same thing.

This sucks because not only is he misinforming people on a weekly basis, but all his segments basically boil down to "everything is irreparably f---ed."  And if you get a lot of information from his show, you can quickly become extremely cynical and believe that basically every system and every production and every form of bureaucracy in this country is utterly broken and corrupt.

In a more generic sense, his "comedy" is basically the same six jokes that wore thin sometime in 2014, and became memes solely for their repetitive, tiresome nature sometime in 2016, and yet 5 years later he's still making a living off them.  It's incredible.

And of course, his political views are basically just populist pandering.  He really needs to steer clear of politics.

I don't particularly care what Macarthur's opinion on John Oliver is, but holding against someone for observing American institutions are broken and corrupt is hackishness to the extreme

[AtorBoltox]

It's objectively true that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did-- so unless you have some other metrics for "evil" that I'm unaware of, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that one isn't so much "revisionism" as it is "fact."

In any case, I voted for #1 because it's the excuse used by trad-Christian LARPers who fantasize about the "simpler times" when people died in their 40s and lived under repressive religious brainwashing institutions that halted social and scientific progress for centuries. Oh boy, I sure do miss the days when psychopathic kings used religious dogma to justify their absolute authority and treated their subjects as little more than cattle! Those were the days, man. Who needs electricity anyway?

[AtorBoltox]

    Gov. Noem is in the right on this issue, and I give major props to BRTD for standing up for her in this thread against the waves of people attacking him for actually caring. Yeah, satanic shoes aren't the most pressing issue in the world. Still, nobody should be in the business of normalizing or rehabilitating Satan's image and society should not be treating this as if it were something perfectly normal. That this is being written off as not a big deal speaks directly to the profound spiritual malaise that this country faces.

1. Satan is not real. Even a lot of Christians don’t believe there is literally a red guy with horns who lords over a fiery underworld, and there isn’t much in the Bible to support that. Most of that conception of Satan comes from Dante’s Inferno, Milton’s Paradise Lost, and various Looney Tunes cartoons. It’s not a real thing and it’s embarrassing for real live adults to not only believe in it but have a moral panic over it (AGAIN).

I don't see how you could read the New Testament and not see the reality of Satan and demons. Christ was tempted by Satan after fasting for 40 days in the desert.  He talks about Satan and spiritual warfare repeatedly, as do his early apostles and disciples in their New Testament letters.   

[AtorBoltox]

(I’d like to point out, though, that you officially don’t get to use Foucault as a cudgel against the left or queer theory if you are Catholic. Them’s the rules.)

Foucault is best understood as a figure of the right.

And no, this isn't surprising at all to anyone with any understanding of Foucault that goes beyond awkwardly citing him in undergrad term papers to curry favor with aging-New-Left professors.

[AtorBoltox]

It's just a classic gish gallop.  The strategy for combatting a gish gallop is to select the most absurd claim and cast doubt on that as proxy for all the other claims also being false.



So let's look at "East Timorese Crisis: 200K dead" in the third graphic.  Have you ever heard of the East Timorese Crisis?  Did you know this was a war America fought in?  I hadn't, I had to look this up.  Apparently in 1999 the citizens of East Timor (Timor Leste today) held a referendum and voted for independence from Indonesia.  Indonesia-backed militias tried to terrorize people into voting against the referendum, and started killing and displacing thousands of people, mainly in the capital city.

The U.N. wanted to end the violence, so a coalition of some western countries (mostly Australia) went into Timor Leste to keep the peace.  The militias fled to Indonesia and there was little violence.  Australia helped East Timor set up a transitional government and a few years later the new nation joined the U.N.

The United States offered intelligence support, and stationed a ship offshore in case things got heated.  But things didn't get heated, the militias fled at the first sign of opposition.

The total death toll was 1,600 -- the number of civilians killed by the Indonesian militias before the U.N. ever got involved.  19 Indonesian militants and 27 coalition forces were killed in sporadic violence after the intervention.



So what we've got here is a textbook success story for the United Nations, with very little involvement from the United States whatsoever and a clear case of the United States being on the side of "the good guys."  And of course, 1,600 deaths instead of 200K (which would be 20% of the population of Timor Leste).

Yet the graphic multiplies the number of dead by 125, attributing all those deaths to the United States (and more specifically, "capitalism").  OK buddy.


Also, for the record, the number of Native Americans killed by the United States numbers in the thousands.  It's not 50 million.  It's probably somewhere around 20,000.

[AtorBoltox]

Well, the USSR and the PRC fought many wars and sponsored countless famines and genocides in the name of spreading communism, the economic/political system.  An explicit tenet of Marxist-Leninist ideology is spreading communism by any means necessary, including mass murder.  Capitalism is essentially a reflection of the basic state of the world, where people have the freedom to produce whatever they like and value it however they like, so it isn't much of an ideology and doesn't require any such rules to exist.

America hasn't fought wars in the name of capitalism.  They've fought wars in the name of anti-communism, but the primary motivation wasn't economic, it was preventing the Soviet Union from achieving global hegemony, oppressing/murdering millions more people, and surrounding America with puppet states where they could later set up nuclear silos or naval/air bases.

If we truly cared about spreading "capitalism" we'd declare war on Sweden for being socialist.  Or we'd have declared war on Vietnam in the 90s, a war we could have won in about ten minutes, instead of working to welcome them back into the civilized world.

the hits just keep coming

[AtorBoltox]

A year later trump is right. 

STOP THE TESTING!!!

Yet another exhibit showing Dems are in fact just as bad as Republicans--now that their side is in power, reality must be hidden from view.

[AtorBoltox]

Why even bring up fascism? It killed by far the fewest out of the 20th century's ideologies.

I do wonder if people who obsess over fascism/nazism are lowkey white supremacists since I guess russian/chinese dead from communism or the even larger amount of third world dead due to the chaos caused by poorly-handled decolonization pushed by the US don't seem to matter. >_>

[AtorBoltox]

The Paradox of Tolerance is a first year pol-sci concept

I have a degree in political science and this silly Twitter meme was never mentioned in a single class I ever took.

[AtorBoltox]

Got it, so can I laugh at the mother of the dead Afghan soldier who claimed Biden killed her son in her face?
Thanks.

I encourage you to do so provided that at least one living Marine is present.

What a cruel and bizarre response.

An insight into thuggish military worship

[AtorBoltox]

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=463208.0 this entire thread

[AtorBoltox]

This article in The Atlantic seems to insinuate that a lot of "educated" people think this is true.

Published last month in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the Costello team’s paper is persuasive, to the point that you have to wonder: How could past researchers have overlooked left-wing authoritarianism for so long? “For 70 years, the lore in the social sciences has been that authoritarianism was to be found exclusively on the political right,” the Rutgers University social psychologist Lee Jussim, who wasn’t involved in the new study, told me in an email. In the 1950 book The Authoritarian Personality, an inquiry into the psychological makeup of people strongly drawn to autocratic rule and repressive politics, the German-born scholar Theodor W. Adorno and three other psychologists measured people along dimensions such as conformity to societal norms, rigid thinking, and sexual repression. And they concluded that “the authoritarian type of human”— the kind of person whose enthusiastic support allows someone like Hitler to exercise power—was found only among conservatives. In the mid-1990s, the influential Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer described left-wing authoritarianism as “the Loch Ness Monster of political psychology—an occasional shadow, but no monster. ” Subsequently, other psychologists reached the same conclusion.

Obviously this is a crazy idea to me, ya know, because I talk to you people everyday and many of your are clearly very authoritarian.  Plus, ya know, the PRC, the Soviet Union, Australia, etc.

Anyway, interesting article that will be avoided by the people who need to read it and nodded along with by everyone else.

The internet is rotting right wing brains

[AtorBoltox]

The people in here crying about fascism deserve real fascism.

There has been a disturbing rise on brazen fascists like yourself on Atlas. I wonder what's bringing you creeps here.

Why is fascism necessarily a bad thing? Just because there have been awful fascists like Hitler and Mussolini, doesn’t mean that all fascists are bad. Socialism has been rehabilitated as an ideology, despite Stalin and Mao.

If one is fine to include within the overton window, so is the other.

Blue avatars are heading in a very dark direction

[AtorBoltox]

It never had any meaning.  I had literally never heard this word before 2015.

[AtorBoltox]

No.

If you want to understand fascism, watch JoJo Rabbit.

[AtorBoltox]

~ Ten Years Later ~

The event that will supposedly trigger this is....burning Harry Potter books.

Thanks for posting directly into the thread

[AtorBoltox]

.......the fact is that statically, the Australian economy had been better under Labor.

That is simply incorrect. Liberal fiscal management under Peter Costello was first class, one of the best Treasurers of the modern era.

In simple terms, the Liberal Party are more focussed on economic development and business. The Liberal Party is traditionally more aligned with the largest banks and mining companies.

The Labor Party are more focussed on social issues and environmental and climate issues. They are more linked with union movement etc.

So it is absurd that one could argue that the Labor Party is better at managing the economy.

[AtorBoltox]

Camp 3 still. It's really sad and bizarre how masks have somehow become a crazy radical concept to so many people.

In all seriousness (although my point about mosh pits is not a joke, banning mosh pits like Scarlet wants to effectively do* would be a pretty serious detriment to my life and enjoyment of things in general), the biggest issue I have with continued masking advocates is their main argument seems to be "it's not a big deal" which is not a valid argument. You could use the same logic to argue that mandatory hijabs is also not a big deal since it's almost the exact same thing (if anything a hijab is less invasive for reasons I'll get to in a bit), and thus if some hypothetical Muslim majority municipality or somewhere in Erdogan's Turkey tried to mandate hijabs we should all just shrug and at most say "Well I don't support this but it's really not a big deal, who cares." So if you think mandatory hijabs are never OK, then you can't argue for masks on those grounds.

[AtorBoltox]

Camp 3 still. It's really sad and bizarre how masks have somehow become a crazy radical concept to so many people.

In all seriousness (although my point about mosh pits is not a joke, banning mosh pits like Scarlet wants to effectively do* would be a pretty serious detriment to my life and enjoyment of things in general), the biggest issue I have with continued masking advocates is their main argument seems to be "it's not a big deal" which is not a valid argument. You could use the same logic to argue that mandatory hijabs is also not a big deal since it's almost the exact same thing (if anything a hijab is less invasive for reasons I'll get to in a bit), and thus if some hypothetical Muslim majority municipality or somewhere in Erdogan's Turkey tried to mandate hijabs we should all just shrug and at most say "Well I don't support this but it's really not a big deal, who cares." So if you think mandatory hijabs are never OK, then you can't argue for masks on those grounds.

What’s the problem here?

The comparison of being forced to follow religious precepts to wearing a mask to avoid spreading germs

[AtorBoltox]

1. Courts is also pro choice just like you are and is definitely to the left of you on LGBT issues

2. Courts has turned on Trump big time since Jan 6th and has said multiple times she thinks he should be in jail. She also is not a fan of most major Republicans right now either and also dislikes Reagan and the Bushes.

Btw you would not win Alabama but I could see a map where Courts does really really well for a Republican in the North East and Upper Midwest while you do much better in Appalachia and the South.

Maybe Courts would do better than average for a Republican in like Massachusetts and her home state of Rhode Island, just like I might do better than average for a Democrat in Kentucky, but I think I would still sweep the Northeast. Indeed I think I would do quite well in New Hampshire and Maine, which are really the only things close to swing states in the region. Not to mention Pennsylvania, which is on the border of the Northeast and Appalachia. As for the Upper Midwest, I fail to see how I would be remotely disadvantaged there. It's not either of our home regions (though I have spent a considerable amount of time there, not sure about Courts), but I think my positions would overall be much more popular than hers among independents and swing voters. Including on the trans issue. I might underperform slightly in suburban Minnesota or something, but I think I would overperform in just about all of the rest of the region. "Tough on crime" might be her only advantage over me there, and I would probably make up for that and then some with overwhelming black support in the cities and better-than-average rural white support.

Also let's address the elephant in the room: Republican turnout would be deeply depressed by a pro-choice, trans, anti-Trump Republican. My heterodox views are only slightly out of the mainstream for my party in comparison, and honestly really aren't even heterodox at all among the rank and file base. Certainly there won't be many black or Latino or ancestral D white voters who refuse to vote for me because they think I'm "transphobic."

What could happen, and I guess what you are getting at, is some "woke" suburban whites might find Courts more palatable than me. Though if I bashed her on her history of Trump support and right-wing populist views, I'm sure I could bring many back into the fold, however reluctantly. Also a good chunk of that demographic, including and in fact perhaps especially women, would sympathize with my more gender critical views whether they would openly admit it or not. Just look at VA-GOV 2021 for proof of that. I would certainly have the "TERF" vote locked up!

Add up all my turnout and demographic advantages, and frankly just the prejudice my opponent would unfortunately face even among many swing voters, along with doubtlessly a revolt against her among her own party? I really don't see how I don't easily win this election. I see myself slightly underperforming in the most liberal states, significantly overperforming in most swing states, and dramatically overperforming in most red states. Especially in my home region.

The reason Courts would do really well in the upper midwest/Rust Belt is due to the fact that she is pretty economic populist(very protectionist on trade issues, and pro infrastructure spending) , pretty non interventionist when it comes to foreign policy and that type of message appeals in the midwest. Add to the fact that she is pretty socially liberal, I think states like Michigan would vote for Courts. Btw this is how I think this is how the  map would look like




TX would decide the outcome and btw I think WI could vote more Democratic than MN here lol

LOL are you f--king insane?

A trans, pro-choice, anti-Trump yet still right-wing populist Republican may just well be the most disadvantaged candidate imaginable.

I would win New Hampshire and Maine with over 60% of the vote, Pennsylvania and Michigan with 55%+. The idea that I would outright LOSE these states is copium to an extent I've never even imagined possible before, and I've seen Russians trying to explain their losses in the Ukraine war!

Your "reasons" for thinking otherwise are so predictably stupid it's almost hard to believe you actually said them. The myth that the upper Midwest/rust belt is some anti-trade monolith is tired and ridiculous. At absolute best the region is very divided on the issue of trade, with farmers being hurt by protectionist policies and some factory workers arguably marginally benefiting from some of it. Overall it's a net positive in my favor, especially when you consider all the demographic/turnout advantages I otherwise have in the region. Also there really is no evidence outside maybe WW2 (a lifetime ago and then some, literally) that this region is particularly "non-interventionist." I have no doubt I would easily win these states in this match-up.

I also would likely win Florida and Nevada (a state I can't even fathom why you put into the R column) at least. And honestly think it is even more likely that I would win states like Ohio and Missouri and South Carolina than that I would lose states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Minnesota, let alone New Hampshire and Maine. The delusional copium here is off the charts!

I mean literally it feels like an actual, unironic child with maybe 2 seconds worth of education about how the political system in America works made this map. "Uh hurr durr muh Midwest is like, totes isolationist and protectionist, man! That's why it voted for Mondale in 1984! Totes would vote for a transgender pro-choice liberal Republican who is Trumpist in only the most electorally unpalataple ways then, OBVIOUSLY!"

Like, it's just downright embarrassing and cringeworthy and insulting. I may be far from perfect as a candidate, but I would clean up in this election. Massively overcorrecting for perceived and exaggerated biases in both directions is nonsensical cringe. Like it is way, WAY more likely that Courts wins Texas than New Hampshire still. Maybe your nonsense scenario makes for a more interesting and competitive map, but it doesn't bear even the slightest resemeblance to what the reality would be.

[AtorBoltox]

Anyway, the real pathetic behaviors coming from this moderator. Why the hell is he making these baseless accusations about me having a sock account coming from a position of authority within the forum?

How is it baseless? Your IP matched with that of another account that joined specifically to help you in an argument. That doesn't necessarily prove the case, but it's pretty compelling evidence.

Then that would be Abdullah's real-life friend's fault for logging onto here on one of Abdullah's personal devices.

I don't remember this excuse flying for Greedo's 'brother'

[AtorBoltox]

Then why would you ever expect me to want to engage with you?

So you can clear up the inconsistency that is the strange liberalism of Ferguson97.
I assume you have some interest in not having an inconsistent viewpoint.

You have literally admitted that you would find nothing wrong with cannibalism if God told you that it wasn't wrong. That is not well-thought-out argument or reason!

...

"Cannibalism is wrong because God says so" is not an argument.

It very much is. You just reject the premise, which is only unfortunate for you

Non sequitur anyway, any more pathetic attempts to engage in whatabout-ism will promptly be ignored.
I will not hesitate to humiliate you.


Now my friend.
Consent consent consent consent cannibalism consent consent. Consent consent? Consent!

What do you find wrong about this? Answer the question given previously. Do you think you are illiberal because you don't tolerate what consenting consenters consent to?

It's OK to accept help from your intellectual masters eg John Dule, CNN, MSNBC etc. Whatever else you watch