4 ms·

No, this is a false equivalence. If the choice were between pinochet and a liberal democratic government, then the liberal democratic government is the obvious

No, this is a false equivalence. If the choice were between pinochet and a liberal democratic government, then the liberal democratic government is the obvious choice. But the choice was between a military Junta and Communism; you've got two bad choices, but one of them has a free market and economic stability. The utilitarian decision is to pick pinochet. If you have to choose between Naziism and Communism, you've got two equally bad, genocidal choices. In such a case, you shouldn't side with either group as it makes no difference which one you pick.

the_af 3y ago
[flagged]
- novagameco 3y ago
  > I guess you don't like democracy all that much! Democracy is a useful tool for building consensus, it is not the end goal of politics. Marxism is a catastrophic political cult which has never resulted in anything other than the deaths of millions, either through deliberate genocide or incompetent adherence to its pseudoscientific economic divinations. It should be removed from government through any means necessary. If a Nazi was elected president and vowed to use his political authority to achieve his goals, the military would be justified in overthrowing him and violently suppressing his supporters Consensus can be achieved through other means. All forms of government rule by a monopoly on the use of violence, including democratic ones.
  - the_af 3y ago
    Your passionate attack of Marxism and defense of military coups is negated by the fact these coups torture and kill thousands of people in the name of the Free Market. Your whole analogy is moot: if a Nazi achieves power via democratic means, and stays there via democratic means, he wouldn't be a Nazi: Nazism is the rule of antidemocratic Might Makes Right; he wouldn't remain democratic if things didn't go his way. Which paradoxically, is precisely what you seem to be advocating: that it's ok to abandon democracy when it doesn't go your way. I appreciate your honesty and candor: you dislike democracy, and your worldview is despicable and vile. Still, your honesty is something!
    - novagameco 3y ago
      > if a Nazi achieves power via democratic means, and stays there via democratic means, he wouldn't be a Nazi: Nazism is the rule of antidemocratic Might Makes Right; he wouldn't remain democratic if things didn't go his way. The same is true of communism, which advocates for the violent murder of land and property owners and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. I have little faith there would have been another election after Allende; Marxism is an inherently violent political cult which sees its enemies as subhuman. Sound familiar? > you dislike democracy, and your worldview is despicable and vile. Still, your honesty is something! Try to attack ideas instead of people. The way you argue is unconstructive. I like democracy, but it's imperfect. > your worldview is despicable and vile You defend the presidency of a Marxist; I can say the exact same thing about you. Would you likewise defend a Fascist who was elected and vowed to abolish democracy? I think the disconnect between you and me is that I see no substantive difference between Communism and Naziism, while you seem to think that Communism is capable of a soft side, which it objectively is not
      - the_af 3y ago
        The president you're talking about was elected by Chileans with free democratic elections, didn't enact a dictatorship, and would likely have been voted out of office in the next elections. You are arguing in favor of the overthrow of democracy because you don't like the party in power. What's worse, in your attack of Communism you decided to defend a bloodthirsty, murderous dictatorship that tortured thousands of people (some were mutilated so horribly, even the military that captured them are on record as horrified. Read the accounts). So I thought long and hard about how to reply to you, and my argument boils down to this: Fuck you. I want nothing more to do with you. Don't bother replying, I think you're vile.
- nec4b 3y ago
  Hitler was also democratically elected and the Germans didn't seem to be able to vote him out.
  - the_af 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - novagameco 3y ago
      So you believe it would have been wrong to violently remove Hitler from power when he was chancellor before the death of Paul von Hindenburg? If you had to power to prevent a man who espouses a genocidal political ideology from seizing absolute power, would you not do so?
      - the_af 3y ago
        Without foreknowledge that someone is going to overthrow democracy and enact a violent dictatorship, and while they are playing within the rules of democracy: yes, it's wrong. Of course we now know Hitler ended up with a dictatorship, but at the time he was playing by the rules. If you are going to argue scifi time-travel scenarios, I'm not interested and you can shove them up your ass where they belong. This is getting really silly. Either you respect democracy or you don't. You don't, period. Your worldview is vile and I want nothing to do with you.
    - nec4b 3y ago
      >> How hard is this to understand? Indeed, he got into power by democratic vote. After that he bullied his way in dictatorship. But the first step was getting elected into the Bundestag. >> Really, this is getting silly: it's ok to overthrow dictatorships, it's not ok to overthrow democracies you don't like as long as they remain democratic. You have to wait your turn. If somebody promises to overturn a democracy the moment he is elected. We should wait for him to do this and only then start with the resistance?
      - the_af 3y ago
- ixtli 3y ago
  That is the point: when people in a liberal democracy want to make it more democratic this gets called a “communist dictatorship” and the far right that is paid to usurp it gets labeled as the “lesser of two evils.” Every time, every place.

the_af 3y ago

[flagged]

novagameco 3y ago
> I guess you don't like democracy all that much! Democracy is a useful tool for building consensus, it is not the end goal of politics. Marxism is a catastrophic political cult which has never resulted in anything other than the deaths of millions, either through deliberate genocide or incompetent adherence to its pseudoscientific economic divinations. It should be removed from government through any means necessary. If a Nazi was elected president and vowed to use his political authority to achieve his goals, the military would be justified in overthrowing him and violently suppressing his supporters Consensus can be achieved through other means. All forms of government rule by a monopoly on the use of violence, including democratic ones.
- the_af 3y ago
  Your passionate attack of Marxism and defense of military coups is negated by the fact these coups torture and kill thousands of people in the name of the Free Market. Your whole analogy is moot: if a Nazi achieves power via democratic means, and stays there via democratic means, he wouldn't be a Nazi: Nazism is the rule of antidemocratic Might Makes Right; he wouldn't remain democratic if things didn't go his way. Which paradoxically, is precisely what you seem to be advocating: that it's ok to abandon democracy when it doesn't go your way. I appreciate your honesty and candor: you dislike democracy, and your worldview is despicable and vile. Still, your honesty is something!
  - novagameco 3y ago
    > if a Nazi achieves power via democratic means, and stays there via democratic means, he wouldn't be a Nazi: Nazism is the rule of antidemocratic Might Makes Right; he wouldn't remain democratic if things didn't go his way. The same is true of communism, which advocates for the violent murder of land and property owners and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. I have little faith there would have been another election after Allende; Marxism is an inherently violent political cult which sees its enemies as subhuman. Sound familiar? > you dislike democracy, and your worldview is despicable and vile. Still, your honesty is something! Try to attack ideas instead of people. The way you argue is unconstructive. I like democracy, but it's imperfect. > your worldview is despicable and vile You defend the presidency of a Marxist; I can say the exact same thing about you. Would you likewise defend a Fascist who was elected and vowed to abolish democracy? I think the disconnect between you and me is that I see no substantive difference between Communism and Naziism, while you seem to think that Communism is capable of a soft side, which it objectively is not
    - the_af 3y ago
      The president you're talking about was elected by Chileans with free democratic elections, didn't enact a dictatorship, and would likely have been voted out of office in the next elections. You are arguing in favor of the overthrow of democracy because you don't like the party in power. What's worse, in your attack of Communism you decided to defend a bloodthirsty, murderous dictatorship that tortured thousands of people (some were mutilated so horribly, even the military that captured them are on record as horrified. Read the accounts). So I thought long and hard about how to reply to you, and my argument boils down to this: Fuck you. I want nothing more to do with you. Don't bother replying, I think you're vile.
nec4b 3y ago
Hitler was also democratically elected and the Germans didn't seem to be able to vote him out.
- the_af 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - novagameco 3y ago
    So you believe it would have been wrong to violently remove Hitler from power when he was chancellor before the death of Paul von Hindenburg? If you had to power to prevent a man who espouses a genocidal political ideology from seizing absolute power, would you not do so?
    - the_af 3y ago
      Without foreknowledge that someone is going to overthrow democracy and enact a violent dictatorship, and while they are playing within the rules of democracy: yes, it's wrong. Of course we now know Hitler ended up with a dictatorship, but at the time he was playing by the rules. If you are going to argue scifi time-travel scenarios, I'm not interested and you can shove them up your ass where they belong. This is getting really silly. Either you respect democracy or you don't. You don't, period. Your worldview is vile and I want nothing to do with you.
  - nec4b 3y ago
    >> How hard is this to understand? Indeed, he got into power by democratic vote. After that he bullied his way in dictatorship. But the first step was getting elected into the Bundestag. >> Really, this is getting silly: it's ok to overthrow dictatorships, it's not ok to overthrow democracies you don't like as long as they remain democratic. You have to wait your turn. If somebody promises to overturn a democracy the moment he is elected. We should wait for him to do this and only then start with the resistance?
    - the_af 3y ago
ixtli 3y ago
That is the point: when people in a liberal democracy want to make it more democratic this gets called a “communist dictatorship” and the far right that is paid to usurp it gets labeled as the “lesser of two evils.” Every time, every place.