New Alternative News Channel "GB News" chaired by Andrew Neil launching - read OP before posting

When those of a conservative bent complain about -isms and -phobias, we aren't saying these terms are meaningless and should never be used. Of course they should be used.

But they should be applied to legitimate circumstances, irrespective of whether you're a far-left anti-Semite (which is extremely common!) or a far-right white supremacist.

However, what many on the Left now do is apply these terms quite casually to large swathes of the population. There is next to no engagement with ideas.

I refer back to the example I made before; that a friend of mine believes the mere existence of border controls and discussions around them is a form of racism.

That, to me, is extreme. Perhaps you share his opinion? I don't know.

But there are many examples like this. And I haven't even mentioned how overused the terms, Islamophobia and transphobia, happen to be.

Robs the meaning of words when they are overused and overapplied in too many cases where it's simply a difference of opinion and nothing more than that - certainly nothing malign against the people in question.

Nah, it was pointed out that you being gay and saying Anne Widdecombe isn't homophobic, doesn't make her not homophobic... So substantially different to your inferred interpretation.

It isn't a literal statement, obviously.

It's hyperbole to reflect what is happening on the ground and how these terms are now casually and flippantly thrown around like verbal confetti.

You may be talking about me, but I never called you homophobic.

I said you were a bootlicker because you were extolling her virtues and claiming she was anything but a bigoted, hateful geebag who, if she had her way, would strap you to a table and hook you up to a car battery in order to "cure" you. That is, of course, assuming that you are actually gay and that you really do think AW is a nice person, instead of making **** up on the fly in an attempt to be contrarian. Given how the thread has developed since then, 'twould take a real gambler to bet against that option. I stand over that bootlicker description. You're either taking the piss or too far gone to be saved.

Because, let's face it, modern conservatism is a walking hypocrisy. You're a gay man who professes themselves to be on the same side as bible-thumpers and nazi knuckle-draggers walking around with swastika paraphernalia? Really? Those two groups being entirely friendly towards gay people, famously.

Same with the dopes in 'Murica running around protesting about not black sportspeople ignoring the flag, while having another flag of a (failed) seditious group tattoo'd on their arms and emblazoned across their cars and houses. You do realise these idiots are representative of you and everything you're defending here, right? "Respect the flag".......except they aren't even aware of proper flag etiquette, never mind adhering to the principles of it. The same people who decry regular Muslims for not speaking out against extremists are nowhere to be found when the bold kids on their side of the fence start acting the maggot.

I mean, one of the major cornerstones of Conservatism is the sanctity of hetero family nucleus.......two fathers is a no-no (despite Jesus himself having two fathers). How can you look at a group of people who think you're unnatural and go "yeah, them's my kinda people".

"God is infallible, and can do no wrong, but he made a mistake with all these gay people and that needs to be rectified". What colour is the sky in the world in which these people live? The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

You're missing the point, one suspects that's on purpose at this stage.

It's pretty insignificant that she holds such views herself, as an individual. It's that Conservativism, as a whole, not only embrace those views but attempts to force them on all and sundry. Using their opposition to gay marriage isn't a "most extreme example", it is literally one of the most common examples you'll find right throughout the political ideology. It is one of the most defining characteristics of Conservatism. Literally called social conservatism. That you are so blasé about this and are trying to shrug it off like it's a) not common and/or b) not important, speaks volumes. These aren't extremist views. These are the hallmark of pretty much everybody who identifies as a Conservative.

Edit: You've altered your original post to now include the piece about "National Socialism". Like that makes it okay for you to associate yourself with modern day Nazis or something. I suppose DPRK is an actual democracy or a republic, using that logic, huh?

Nazism was an attempt to respond to Marxist socialism.

Hitler despised Marxism, but he was sympathetic to a collectivist response and was hostile to free market capitalism. Nationalizing industry was also key on the agenda. In the 1930s, the contention that fascism arose out of socialism was accepted across the board; an observed historical fact. Fascists marched under red banners on May Day. Nazism began life from the German Worker's Party. Its leaders believed in high tariffs, in worker's control of factories etc. It's true that socialists of the nationalist and Leninist varieties opposed each other, but they were fishing from the same pool. They were competing for the same kind of voter. The one kind of person that neither brand of socialist had any time for was the classical liberal - the person who elevated the individual over the state rather than the state over the individual.

I could go on, but to deny the link between socialism and Nazism is simply not to understand the history.

I've heard it all now; free market capitalism only began in 1979. 😆

But you are describing religious conservatism.

I don't subscribe to their doctrine, and wouldn't support a political party that did.

And I'm against religious conservatism precisely because I'm a classical liberal that doesn't believe that the State should interfere with the rights of individuals.

On that, we have exactly the same view. The only difference is that I justify my view based on conservative thinking and you justify the same position from your own political persuasion.

You referred to my post as just nonsense.

There's nothing nonsense about it. It's historical fact.

What, exactly, are you trying to say here?

If we ignore the bullsh1t deflection of your premise that one of the most authoritarian regimes in the history of mankind was actually socialist......how does that in any way make it okay for modern right wingers to embrace it? I mean the fact that the far right are embracing their ideology should be proof enough that the comparison is bollocks, no?

Your entire argument seems to be "well the Nazis started off as left-wingers, so it's okay that today's right-wingers have swastikas on their clothes". That is, to put it mildly, patently fcuking absurd.

So, fill us in Mr "I'll answer everybody's questions"..........why are you defending neo-nazis? And why do you think calling them socialists, when they clearly were anything but, means that today's fruitcakes can masquerade as nazis without criticism?