Homophobia associated with higher rates of psychoticism

Well I don't know. Should I? You dismiss people so glibly withou addressing their points. Ajidica in this thread for one.

Well I politely responded to your post. If you want to cop out of the discussion that is fine.

Ajidica is making meaningless comparisons. I addressed it once already. Two groups can both be socialist and have a variance in the policies they choose to enforce. What makes someone a socialist is the ideology which those policies originate from. He doesn't get that.
 
Unsolicited Godwin investigation results:

Not suprisingly... civman probably gets the Godwin award for post #211. However, I guess it could arguably also go to Rashiminos or aelf. On page 11 of the thread, post #210, Rashiminos uses the word "eugenecism" but what he is referencing isnt as clear as what civman is referencing in post #211. Of course if neither one of those was a Godwin, aelf certainly invokes it in post #216... and from there it was off to the races...:sad:
 
Actually I wasn't the one who brought up the Nazis if you go back and read the thread. It was Aelf in this post:

His strategy seems to be to blame any bad thing on the left.

Islamic extremism? The left created it. Nazism? Left-wing. The Iraq War fiasco? The left's doing. The Inquisition? Totally leftist. Hurricane Katrina? The left caused it.

The evil left is gonna get you... right before, or after, they implode :run:

I just happen to have extensive knowledge on the matter. That and WWI and II in general.
 
Ajidica is making meaningless comparisons. I addressed it once already. Two groups can both be socialist and have a variance in the policies they choose to enforce. What makes someone a socialist is the ideology which those policies originate from. He doesn't get that.
If I said or implied the early Nazi program (you know, dating to the days when they were a street gang full of WWI veterans, freikorps*, and disaffected youths) didn't have socialist elements, I apologize for that. As a group of largely working class and unemployed gang members protesting the Weimar Republic it would be expected that there would be some socialist background.
What I was trying to say is that just because the early Nazi program had socialist elements in no way means that the Nazi Party after the Enabling Act and the Night of the Long Knives can really claim any linkage to socialist policies. The platform of a violent street gang has very little to do with a political party thirteen years later. That the post-Enabling Act Nazi Party happened to implement some social welfare programs that the socialists had also endorsed (and the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, also endorsed) -or continued some of the policies implemented by the Weimar-era "Grand Coalition"- is due to their populist emphasis and should not be read as giving the Nazi Party any meaningful claim to being socialist.
It would be like calling Pinochet a socialist because he kept the copper mines nationalized. That requires completely ignoring every other thing he did -up to and including the overthrow of the democratically elected president Salvador Allende.

*Often, the same members of the freikorps that had just finished putting down the Spartacist Uprising and murdering Rosa Luxemburg.
 
If I said or implied the early Nazi program (you know, dating to the days when they were a street gang full of WWI veterans, freikorps*, and disaffected youths) didn't have socialist elements, I apologize for that. As a group of largely working class and unemployed gang members protesting the Weimar Republic it would be expected that there would be some socialist background.
What I was trying to say is that just because the early Nazi program had socialist elements in no way means that the Nazi Party after the Enabling Act and the Night of the Long Knives can really claim any linkage to socialist policies. The platform of a violent street gang has very little to do with a political party thirteen years later. That the post-Enabling Act Nazi Party happened to implement some social welfare programs that the socialists had also endorsed (and the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, also endorsed) -or continued some of the policies implemented by the Weimar-era "Grand Coalition"- is due to their populist emphasis and should not be read as giving the Nazi Party any meaningful claim to being socialist.
It would be like calling Pinochet a socialist because he kept the copper mines nationalized. That requires completely ignoring every other thing he did -up to and including the overthrow of the democratically elected president Salvador Allende.

*Often, the same members of the freikorps that had just finished putting down the Spartacist Uprising and murdering Rosa Luxemburg.


So you're saying not only was the Nazi Party a Socialist party up to the night of the long knives, but they supported Socialist policies and continued them after the long knives and throughout the war.

So in your opinion what specifically made them stop behaving like Socialists? The night of the long knives?
 
Actually I wasn't the one who brought up the Nazis if you go back and read the thread. It was Aelf
First of all, I mentioned aelf's post (#216) already, but Godwin's Law includes both direct and indirect comparisons so I think you are still the culprit unless you can explain what you meant by this (post #211):
Eugenics. Another interesting left wing creation. You guys really are imploding on yourselves.
When you say eugenics is a "left-wing creation" what are you talking about? When did the "left-wing" create eugenics?

Exactly... Godwin on you... congrats.
 
I have made up my mind. You seem to have misread, or have some sort of comprehension problem.

What you consider to be bigoted is of your own perception.



civman110 said:
Nazis = Leftists



There's many sources.







So how do you know a government is going to be good to you after you give them all of the power in a centralized location? How do you know what their intentions are? Or that someone with ill intentions is never going to get elected and use that power against you?



If you want to cop out of the discussion that is fine.

A fine point to make from someone who has already copped out of at least three discussions.

Moderator Action: Please don't resort to simply posting a bunch of images mocking a user's post. That's crossing the line into jerk/spam territory.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Unsolicited Godwin investigation results:

Not suprisingly... civman probably gets the Godwin award for post #211. However, I guess it could arguably also go to Rashiminos or aelf. On page 11 of the thread, post #210, Rashiminos uses the word "eugenecism" but what he is referencing isnt as clear as what civman is referencing in post #211. Of course if neither one of those was a Godwin, aelf certainly invokes it in post #216... and from there it was off to the races...:sad:

Post 212* is the one you're looking for because I referenced the Holocaust. Silly me for thinking it was worth examining why someone would identify eugenicists as leftists instead of refusing to engage. :hammer2: (although there are plenty of alternate universes where my choice of non-religious groups against homosexuality leads to a similar outcome).
_______

Nice Ed Hochuli pics, cardgame.

So you are not going to answer the question?

I'm sure I can go back and find at least one question from each poster who has conversed with you that you didn't answer.

------

Spoiler :
*Coincidentally, a known boiling point of water.
 
Post 212 is the one you're looking for because I referenced the Holocaust.
I noticed that but the post was after posts #210 and #211 where there was already an arguable Godwin reference... so it didn't seem like there was any point in mentioning #212. Also, that post seemed like you were basically calling civman a Holocaust denier, which is a little bit different from a Godwin post.
 
Debunking Godwin's Law

Everyone’s aware of Godwins Law, right? That it's never appropriate to compare your adversary to a fascist? That's not exactly what Michael Godwin said. The quote was; "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches" ... but close enough.

Regardless of how you parse it, I say it's bunk. At least as far as the comparisons to fascism itself are concerned. Compare the Republican policies of today to those of fascist Europe of 70 years ago.

The markers of classic fascism are: A hyper-nationalistic movement combined with racism, xenophobia, corporate/government cooperation, a misogynistic, anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, anti-labor, anti-liberal, jingoistic movement bound together by propaganda fed by a source aligned with the party.

Let's break that down into components.

In fascist Germany, the Nazis demonized Romas (Gypsies), Jews, Slavs, Blacks, and virtually all other non-Aryan races as inferior. They were suspicious or outright hostile towards all "outsiders."

The Republican Party of today demonizes Mexicans, Muslims, gays & lesbians, Union workers, African/Americans, women’s interest groups (behind a thin veil of denial), and openly mocks the traditions and cultures of immigrants, be they legal or otherwise.

Under Hitler's Germany, the Nazis and major industrialists were all too happy to combine forces. Industry benefitted from deregulation, cheap labor and the abolition of organized unions. The Nazis benefitted from the backing from major industrialists, many of whom went on to repay them by supplying the Third Reich with everything from tanks and airplanes to the mass production Zyclon B.

Under the current Republican Party, deep alliances have also been forged with industrialists and corporate kingpins. The Koch brothers for instance, two men who were raised by one of the founders of the John Birch Society — a radical organization that promotes "Christian values" as the blueprint for American society and is openly hostile to government regulations of almost every stripe — have poured millions into undermining our national elections, blocking judges nominated by democratically elected officials and funding ultra right-wing nationalist groups. Including the (slightly less extreme) Tea Party movement.

The party leadership accepts their support in exchange for promoting the corporatist agenda. “Big business is good for America,” they tell is. Sure it is. Just as long as you don’t take into account what it’s done for everybody else.

And then there’s the use of party propaganda. From the early ‘30s, up until 1945, the Nazis mastered it. They did after all, write the book on it. Josef Goebbels used the media of his day; radio and film, to lead the people in the direction that the Führer dictated. They suppressed foreign broadcasts, lied openly to the masses and demonized whomever they regarded as hostile to the party’s interests. In the case of Hitler’s Germany, these “enemies” were often rounded up and killed or sent off to concentration camps; something we don’t have to worry about today... (unless you believe Glenn Beck’s claims of secret FEMA concentration camps.)

Their tactics are the same. Identify the “enemy,” try to drown out their voices, smear them, portray them as weak, unpatriotic or treasonous, then pass it off as “For the sake of our freedom.”

Fox deploys this strategy on a regular basis. Whether it’s coming from Roger Ailes or Rupert Murdoch is anybody’s guess, but someone at the upper echelons of News Corp has learned that using fascist propaganda techniques as their model can be extremely effective on an uneducated citizenry. It’s been working very well for them, as it did 75 years ago in Europe. And it has harmed the nation as a whole since 1996, when Fox News began their broadcasts in America.

So whenever Godwin’s Law is thrown out there, I get the meme, and I’m never one to compare anyone with Hitler. Nor do I ever equate others with the Nazis, per se.

But with fascism itself? You bet I do. Because the fact is, there’s very little daylight left between the fascists of todays 21st Century Republican party and the fascism of 20th Century Germany.
We’re not there yet, and hopefully we never will be. But that’s only because the GOP has thus far been unsuccessful in completing their task — the task of merging the government of the People, by the People, and for the People, with the interests of Industry, by Industry, and for Industry.

And don’t tell me it can’t happen here. It’s been happening right before our eyes.

 
So your point is that you agree with civman's comparisons (ie eugenics etc is all left-wing creation and thus (by implication at least) liberal)? Or is your point that you just can't stand anyone bringing up Godwin's Law in general? I just want to be clear on your point of all that TL;DR before responding (or not responding as the case may be... its late :sleep:)
 
I noticed that but the post was after posts #210 and #211 where there was already an arguable Godwin reference...
In post 210 I was using a broad term since I was trying to include the modern day variants* (eg the human biodiversity crowd). It's also not accurate to say the Nazis created the idea of eugenics (social Darwinists would be closer).

Spoiler :
*It occurs to me to call them strains. I have some MRAs to *thank*.
 
In post 210 I was using a broad term since I was trying to include the modern day variants (eg the human biodiversity crowd).
See I thought so, that is why I leaned towards giving the Godwin award to civman, even though you were the first one to mention "eugenics" it seemed that the way you were using it could be more general, whereas his use in post #211 seemed like a clear Godwin comparison.

Not to mention the fact that you specifically mentioned it in the context of homophobia, and more specifically psychotic behavior/policies/ideologies fueled by homophobia and/or related to homophobia... which is the actual topic of the thread.:)

I guess the point is... I agree with you, civman is definitely the Godwin winner of the thread.
 
First of all, I mentioned aelf's post (#216) already, but Godwin's Law includes both direct and indirect comparisons so I think you are still the culprit unless you can explain what you meant by this (post #211): When you say eugenics is a "left-wing creation" what are you talking about? When did the "left-wing" create eugenics?

Margaret Sanger.

Rashiminos also brought up eugenics before me (post #210)

If that's the case a) Why not? Is your position not worth defending?, and b) Why are you in this thread then?

If you took your statement of imposing on other people's wills seriously, you'd find some religions loathsome as well. Not all religions impose. ;)
I don't believe that though. I'm aware some people object to homosexuality because they subscribe to eugenicism.
 
See I thought so, that is why I leaned towards giving the Godwin award to civman, even though you were the first one to mention "eugenics" it seemed that the way you were using it could be more general, whereas his use in post #211 seemed like a clear Godwin comparison.

Not to mention the fact that you specifically mentioned it in the context of homophobia, and more specifically psychotic behavior/policies/ideologies fueled by homophobia and/or related to homophobia... which is the actual topic of the thread.:)

I guess the point is... I agree with you, civman is definitely the Godwin winner of the thread.

I think, in terms of actually comparing a group to Nazis, that is the case. I was going for "bringing up the subject." Not sure how much the distinction matters at this point ... :faint:

Margaret Sanger.

Going by Wikipedia... she was a little young in the 1870s...
 
Margaret Sanger.
Ah I see. So it would appear, assuming that your position is that Margaret Sanger invented eugenics... that I owe you an apology then...

That was your statement... that eugenics was a "left wing creation" right? So then I asked what you meant by that and you replied "Margaret Sanger."

So you are saying then, that your statement that "eugenics is a left wing creation" is based on your belief that Margaret Sanger created eugenics... Right?
 
Going by Wikipedia... she was a little young in the 1870s...

Natural Selection and the Theory of Evolution =/= Eugenics

Social Darwinism =/= Eugenics

So you are saying then, that your statement that "eugenics is a left wing creation" is based on your belief that Margaret Sanger created eugenics... Right?

She certainly galvanized the study and movement of it. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood and one of the world's most well known eugenicists. Hitler based the Nazi eugenics program off of her work.
 
Top Bottom