Eastern EU states want to ban hammer and sickle.

Redleslie2

Sand wrote:

My own personal opinion is that a mixture of guilt over Germanys past and paranoia regarding the possibity of the resurgence of national socialism - and Germanys unemployment hasnt been higher since the 1930s according to recent figures, 5 million with government make work schemes, up to 20 million(!!!!) without make work schemes - drives the need to ban Nazi symbology.

The waves of murders and assaults on foreigners by neo-nazis in europe has something to do with it. IMHO this is just the latest attempt by a few cranks to normalise fascism, divert attention from the holocaust anniversary and pander to the far right in countries which had rather dodgy records during the war.

Twats like this don't help.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

IMHO this is just the latest attempt by a few cranks to normalise fascism, divert attention from the holocaust anniversary and pander to the far right in countries which had rather dodgy records during the war.

Of course the opposite of this is hardly healthy either - put a swastika on a thug and he’s a bad guy, put an Anarchist’s symbol and suddenly he’s a good guy, even though frankly both groups are driven by hate and little else.

Yet like the simple beasts of Animal Farm the mantra similar to “four legs good, two legs bad” seems to prevail with some. Leaving them repeating the same tired dogma of one side being good and one being evil, not on the basis of their actions, but on the basis of labels. That’s why they cannot comprehend the notion that for many in eastern Europe the hammer & sickle might be perceived in much the same light as the swastika is in western Europe, or that the swastika might not be seen as a bad symbol at all in, say, India.

Frankly twats like this don’t help either, but I doubt if some of their supporters here would understand why.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course the opposite of this is hardly healthy either - put a swastika on a thug and he’s a bad guy, put an Anarchist’s symbol and suddenly he’s a good guy, even though frankly both groups are driven by hate and little else.

I'd like to see what the basis for this claim is, as it flies in the face of everything I know about anarchism. No, i am not an anarchist.

Frankly twats like this don’t help either, but I doubt if some of their supporters here would understand why.

What's that got to do with anything?

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

I'd like to see what the basis for this claim is, as it flies in the face of everything I know about anarchism. No, i am not an anarchist.

All extreme ideologies will tend to share a common belief that change or control must be brought about through violent means. Anarchism, like Nazism or even Marxism have had histories that are (and continue to be) inextricably linked to violence. That may not be in your encyclopaedic knowledge of anarchism, but then again it’s easy to be selective in everything you know about something if you induce rather than deduced your beliefs.

What's that got to do with anything?

To illustrate the aforementioned point.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

Anarchism, like Nazism or even Marxism have had histories that are (and continue to be) inextricably linked to violence.

The same could be said for democracy. I fail to see how this supports your statement that anarchism is "driven by hate and little else".

That may not be in your encyclopaedic knowledge of anarchism

Did i miss the bit in the rules that says you have to be patronising dick to post here? I simply said that your claim "...flies in the face of everything I know about anarchism." - I did not claim an "encyclopaedic knowledge", so please, step down from the high horse.

To illustrate the aforementioned point.

How? It was a photo of 2 people, dressed in black, outside a shop. Presumably in Seattle. In the absense of context I don't see how this illustrates anything.

F Fiesta

It was a photo of 2 people, dressed in black, outside a shop

Missing the bit where the smashed the window in?

pete

F Fiesta wrote:

Missing the bit where the smashed the window in?

I think it is, yes.

Did you have a point?

OfflerCrocGod

pete wrote:

The same could be said for democracy. I fail to see how this supports your statement that anarchism is "driven by hate and little else".

Democracy is not an "extreme" ideology.

pete

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Democracy is not an "extreme" ideology.

I never said it was.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

The same could be said for democracy. I fail to see how this supports your statement that anarchism is "driven by hate and little else".

As has been pointed out democracy is not an extreme ideology, so your response is either irrelevant or an attempt at a man of straw argument. Democracy does not seek to engender change through violence, so the same could not be said.

Did i miss the bit in the rules that says you have to be patronising dick to post here? I simply said that your claim "...flies in the face of everything I know about anarchism." - I did not claim an "encyclopaedic knowledge", so please, step down from the high horse.

Point taken. I may well be a patronising dick, in which cast I apologise - or alternatively I would simply appear so to any idiot who was feeling threatened. Either is possible, possibly both.

How? It was a photo of 2 people, dressed in black, outside a shop. Presumably in Seattle. In the absense of context I don't see how this illustrates anything.

Two people, dressed in black, outside a shop, with one about to smash the window - you would appear to only see what you want to see.

Yet when a previous poster puts forward a similar picture of another extremist, you don’t bat an eyelid. So are you judging someone based upon their actions or their labels? Four legs good, two legs bad?

therecklessone

The Corinthian wrote:

Point taken. I may well be a patronising dick, in which cast I apologise - or alternatively I would simply appear so to any idiot who was feeling threatened. Either is possible, possibly both.

If its of any help I wasn't threatened, would like to think I'm reasonably intelligent, and detected a hint of "patronising dick" as well...

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

As has been pointed out democracy is not an extreme ideology, so your response is either irrelevant or an attempt at a man of straw argument.

Look I'm not going to get drawn into a pseudo-intellectual dick measuring contest, so I'll keep this really simple.

You claimed that anarchism was driven by hate and little else. I asked you to elaborate on this. I didn't ask you about marxism, communism, baduism or anything else. I am genuinely interested in how you arrived at this conclusion. Certainly, some anarchists may advocate violent means to effect change. But as I pointed out, so do many democrats, and does not equate to being "driven by hate and little else".

Democracy does not seek to engender change through violence, so the same could not be said.

*cough* iraq regime change *cough*

And before you say anything, yes, I'm well aware that The Official Democracy Rule Book makes no mention of the use of violence to further political goals, but hey! When did that ever stop any of our favourite democracies out here in the real world?

Point taken. I may well be a patronising dick, in which cast I apologise - or alternatively I would simply appear so to any idiot who was feeling threatened. Either is possible, possibly both.

Don't worry TC - you're far from threatening, and I'm far from being an idiot. I really don't understand your fondness for personal insults, given your apparently superior intellect.... In any case, apology accepted.

Two people, dressed in black, outside a shop, with one about to smash the window - you would appear to only see what you want to see.

I'm well aware of what the picture is. My point was that simply posting a link to it serves no purpose. Where's the context? Where's your point?

Four legs good, two legs bad?

For the love of god will you please read another book. Your catchphrase is becoming somewhat grating.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

Look I'm not going to get drawn into a pseudo-intellectual dick measuring contest, so I'll keep this really simple.

If you don’t want to get drawn into a pseudo-intellectual dick-measuring contest, simply don’t reply. Don’t get drawn into a pseudo-intellectual dick measuring contest and then make a point that you’re not really getting drawn into it.

You claimed that anarchism was driven by hate and little else. I asked you to elaborate on this. I didn't ask you about marxism, communism, baduism or anything else. I am genuinely interested in how you arrived at this conclusion. Certainly, some anarchists may advocate violent means to effect change. But as I pointed out, so do many democrats, and does not equate to being "driven by hate and little else".

Extremist ideologies have at their core the concept of violence as a legitimate tool of promoting and perpetuating that ideology; revolution, as it were - be it Socialist, Fascist or whatever. Regrettably, this will tend to engender hate so as to facilitate a target for the violence; in the case of Nazism this was race based, for Communism this is class based, in the case of Anarchism it is represented by authority (and often also class).

Anarchism is not a bad example of violent extremism, for my purposes, as it presently promotes the same type of thuggish behaviour that one could (with a slight change of clothes and symbols) expect of Nazi-skinheads. And as much as you would like to claim that this is only some anarchists, events in recent years, such as those in Genoa or Seattle, would tend to indicate that this is a far more prevalent trend that you would like us to believe.

*cough* iraq regime change *cough*

Within a state democracy does consider violence as a legitimate tool of governance, were the US government to legitimise the use of violence to affect change within the US, it would cease to be a democracy. What you’re discussing is foreign policy, which is an entirely different issue as it is outside the remit of self-governance.

Don't worry TC - you're far from threatening, and I'm far from being an idiot. I really don't understand your fondness for personal insults, given your apparently superior intellect.... In any case, apology accepted.

Given you were the one to make the first insult I find your apparent lack of understanding rather disingenuous. Either that or you should probably re-evaluate that intellect of yours.

I'm well aware of what the picture is. My point was that simply posting a link to it serves no purpose. Where's the context? Where's your point?

I’ve already explained it in response. If you’re having difficulty understanding what I wrote, please address it directly and I’ll explain it.

For the love of god will you please read another book. Your catchphrase is becoming somewhat grating.

If it’s getting grating enough it may eventually sink into that skull of yours.

Or would you prefer to see everything on the basis of black and white labels?

bonkey

This thread is closed. I've had enough of this childish bickering.

The Corinthian - this is your final warning. If you can't remain civil to other posters, stop posting in this forum.

jc