Holy shit, COULD it happen HERE?

[iambiguous]

Fascism? Cue the thugs...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... cists.html

I think perhaps we might even have a few of them here.

Where are your articles about the AntiFa violent thugs? Who existed first...AntiFa or The Proud Boys?

Yeah, sure, wherever you find objectivists in power there's the potential for thuggery. I'm sure there were thugs on the left when the antifascists and the Nazis waged war in the streets of Germany.

Some no doubt were motivated ideologically by "the cause". And, once you arrive at that point "in your head", there are very few means that can't be rationalized in order to attain and then sustain the noble end.

On the other hand, there is also a nihilistic element embedded in the motivation of some. Being thugs is the whole point for them.

The bottom line here and now though [re this thread] is that it is not the radical objectivists on the left who are in control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. Government. That's why they don't generate the sort of headlines that Trump's thugs do.

Lucky for you?

You are still basically a right wing objectivist, aren't you?

Let me invite you to bring your moral values and political agenda here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Test them as it were.

[WendyDarling]

I'll give you another chance to answer one of the simple questions from my last post, biggie. Go ahead, nobody is gonna stop you from being honest for a change.

[iambiguous]

I'll give you another chance to answer one of the simple questions from my last post, biggie. Go ahead, nobody is gonna stop you from being honest for a change.

These questions?

"Where are your articles about the AntiFa violent thugs? Who existed first...AntiFa or The Proud Boys?"

I'm conceding up front that there are thug's on the left as well as on the right. Historically, that has always been a component of either religious or ideological objectivism.

And asking which came first is like asking the Jews and the Palastinians who is to blame for the hostilities over there.

As for honesty, that invariably revolves around the "one of us"/"one of them" mentality. At least pertaining to moral narratives and political agendas.

Someone is being honest when they think like "one of us". They're telling lies when they don't. Why? Because they're "one of them".

It all comes "natural" as Satyr might insist.

Really, you need to bring one of your own value judgments here -- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382 -- so that others are permitted to judge for themselves which of us is really being "honest".

But then that's the neat thing about being an objectivist. If your side wins, great. But even if your side loses, you still have the consolation of knowing you ought to have won because you are always right and they are always wrong.

That's why, in my view, the sort of arrogance and contempt that the objectivists [left and right] often bring into discussions and debates like this is rooted far more in the psychology of objectivism.

This part: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

[WendyDarling]

You are very prolific, enjoying all your written rigmarole, but unable to answer questions with honesty. Thank you for not trying, but you did have an opportunity to actually provide an answer specific to the questions rather than your usual literary grandstanding that amounted to naught.

[iambiguous]

You are very prolific, enjoying all your written rigmarole, but unable to answer questions with honesty. Thank you for not trying, but you did have an opportunity to actually provide an answer specific to the questions rather than your usual literary grandstanding that amounted to naught.

Let me ask you a specific question:

Why don't you actually make an attempt to respond to the points I raise instead of turning everything into an argument about how I have not attempted to respond to the questions that you raise?

I think that I have.

And I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves who is ducking whom here.