I don't know who wrote that paragraph I cited, probably a dozen or so individuals. More importantly it has been *read* by very many people, all of whom could've flagged any errors.
So I'm going to go ahead and put more trust in Wikipedia than a pamphlet of the Nazi propaganda czar, but thanks.
Clearly I'm not denying that the nazis tried to appropriate some of the momentum that (internationalist) Socialism was having in Mid/East Europe. But in practice they never were left wing, in the parlance of their times nor ours.
If you can cite any credible historian who argues that the nazis were left wing, I'd love to hear about it -- and I'd be quite surprised.
I get the feeling that this meme originates with modern right wingers in the USA. Either because they understandably do not want to be associated with the third reich and/or because they want to associate their nemeses on the left with it.
For what it's worth, I think it's fair to say that in much of the rest of the world, Left and Right are about wealth distribution, and about who should be in control of means of production (investers or workers). Not saying this is better, or worse, just noting the difference. That said, it is probably also fair to say that most international observers, assuming they use this classical economic notion of left/right, would consider the US to be pretty far off to the right. Again, just saying.
No. It wasn't. It really wasn't. Don't take my word for it:
Nazism, or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups. Usually characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism, Nazism originally developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture in post-First World War Germany, which many Germans felt had been left humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles. Prior to the emergence of the Nazi Party, other right-wing figures had argued for a nationalist recasting of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism.
Even if a Left wing Socialist group like the Nazi party was voted in they could never get a foothold on an action that would harm other races.
You realize that the Nazis are about as RIGHT wing as you can get, I hope. Yes, yes, I know they abused the word, but they were Socialist in much the same way that North Korea is Democratic.
Not with Richard Feynman, but instead with William Hurt and Blair Brown, I rather enjoyed "Altered States", even though it was filled with William Hurt pretentiousness - it fit because he played a pompous academic.
Sorry for off topic, but just to come full circle here: there is a rather good movie about Feynman's involvement in the Challenger investigation, where the great man is portrayed by one William Hurt.
I remember reading abobut this in Feynman's autobiography. IIRC he wanted to experience some halucinations without subjecting his brain to any chemicals. I've always wanted to try it, but have never had access to a sensory deprivation tank. Fortunately there were plenty of chemicals.
That the intelligence community is created in its present form as a means to fight the cold war.
Even in the last decade or so before the Wall fell and the Cold War was over, if not long before, spending on military and intelligence has been primarily another channel for shoveling public funds to private contractors. Notice how spending did not decrease post-1989, when the alleged threat had evaporated. They badly needed a new threat to justify the outlandish "defense" budgets and sure enough a decade later one presented itself. The amounts are way out of proportion to the actual danger, just as before.
You sir, do not understand the word paraphrase. He very plainly pointed out AGW proponents using the same ploy as opponents and made a presumption as to their underlying reasons.
Paraphrase: to say the same thing in different words. That's not the problem here, I think. The problem is that I apparently misunderstood the original poster, and thus ended up saying something that did not reflect his meaning. I stand corrected. And moderated.
In fact, it seems that even my own admission of having blundered is deemed trollworthy by some moderator or other. Oh well, karma to burn, as they say.
Um, okay. I thought I just paraphrased what he had said, no twists intended. Guess I misunderstood his post, then. Out of curiosity, though, how did you read it?
Democracy tried, and failed. There have been successes, and other failures with Democracy. A failure does not mean the system is fundamentally flawed. It's the other systems (Communism, Socialism,...) which seem to have leaders like this as an objective.
Apples and oranges.
The democracy-autocracy axis is usually considered orthogonal to the classical left-right axis. And sure enough, there are democracies where all out socialists rule by democratic majority, and there are far right corporatist dictatorships.
The idea that democracy and capitalist free market fundamentalism are somehow inextricably connected seems, to say the least, tenuous to me. Likewise the usual corollary that socialism and autocracy are somehow inherently linked.
Indonesia knew exactly what Australia signals intelligence could do during Timor ~1999.
I'd guess they might have known way earlier. After all the near-genocidal Indonesian invasion (1975) and prolonged occupation (1975-1999) of East Timor enjoyed the sustained support of Australia and the US... Despite massive torture, extrajudicial executions and deliberate starvation.
It wasn't until some Western journalists (the tireless Amy Goodman among others) managed to get video footage of the 1991 Dili massacre out of the area that those accomplices had to answer questions by their electorate about why such a brutal and sustained onslaught on human rights was being supported and partially facilitated by their governments.
You are so stupid. Snowden has plenty of stuff left.
Name calling isn't very helpful. But yes, it would surprise me if he doesn't have anything tucked away for a rainy day. He is in the kind if situation where some "insurance" might come in handy.
You start out saying money is not the same as wealth, but then give an example of how having less of the former means you can afford less of the latter.
I'm guessing I just misunderstand your point.
Anyway, TFS is about a proposal to introduce a maximum wage, not raising the minimum (which is already quite reasonable in Switzerland).
A raise of minimum wage was only mentioned as a way for CEOs to mitigate their own losses if this measure were implemented, since it would cap the maximum at some multiple of the minimum.
Also, I honestly don't see how having cheaper CEO's would force a company to increase prices -- they would have less costs, not extra costs to be compensated?
Ruse? Please. I get way too many mod points and usually read at -1. Your handle looked familiar and sure enough, countless MyCleanPC and fetid feces posts. Either your account was hacked and you should fix that, or you are garden variety troll.
So a more equitable wealth distribution is a bad thing because it makes the ultra rich less special... Got it.
What good does it do to give somebody more money if that money now buys less?
That is not necessarily how it works. You're assuming wages can only grow by raising prices of products. What's being proposed here is lowering executive's pay.
Or are you just being over sensitive about something?
Wait, are you suggesting I'm fat? Nicely played.
... if it had been an actual plan rather than a tongue in cheek comment.
I had actually noticed your tongue in cheek there, no worries. Some +1 Funny mods do wonders for ones karma, which comes in handy when making controversial positions in more serious exchanges.
I just figured I'd pile on with another stereotype jab, none too seriously. I failed obviously, seeing as you are now posting dead serious links to counter my "charge"... Maybe I'm not the over sensitive one;-)
Well fuck, they'd (who was this again? you didn't specify) rather use already proven technologies instead of sinking billions into new battery technologies that won't even have the energy density anyway
Actually, I did specify, though perhaps a bit too casually; the current suppliers of oil, gas, coal, etc. Also, if you think there have been no significant improvements to "proven technologies" in recent years then, respectfully, you have not been paying attention.
Because Europeans are known for their inability to resist fat and sugary foods? Or because the Soviets were known for their state of the art cuisine? Huh that is funny, I thought that the US was having a lot more troubling figures re morbid obesity than Europe, and that the Russians are second to only the British when it comes to shitty food.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know who wrote that paragraph I cited, probably a dozen or so individuals. More importantly it has been *read* by very many people, all of whom could've flagged any errors.
So I'm going to go ahead and put more trust in Wikipedia than a pamphlet of the Nazi propaganda czar, but thanks.
Clearly I'm not denying that the nazis tried to appropriate some of the momentum that (internationalist) Socialism was having in Mid/East Europe. But in practice they never were left wing, in the parlance of their times nor ours.
If you can cite any credible historian who argues that the nazis were left wing, I'd love to hear about it -- and I'd be quite surprised.
I get the feeling that this meme originates with modern right wingers in the USA. Either because they understandably do not want to be associated with the third reich and/or because they want to associate their nemeses on the left with it.
Goebbels would be proud.
For what it's worth, I think it's fair to say that in much of the rest of the world, Left and Right are about wealth distribution, and about who should be in control of means of production (investers or workers). Not saying this is better, or worse, just noting the difference. That said, it is probably also fair to say that most international observers, assuming they use this classical economic notion of left/right, would consider the US to be pretty far off to the right. Again, just saying.
The National Socialism party was left wing.
No. It wasn't. It really wasn't. Don't take my word for it:
Nazism, or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups. Usually characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism, Nazism originally developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture in post-First World War Germany, which many Germans felt had been left humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles. Prior to the emergence of the Nazi Party, other right-wing figures had argued for a nationalist recasting of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism.
source, emphasis mine.
You're welcome to disagree, of course -- if you're a complete idiot.
Even if a Left wing Socialist group like the Nazi party was voted in they could never get a foothold on an action that would harm other races.
You realize that the Nazis are about as RIGHT wing as you can get, I hope. Yes, yes, I know they abused the word, but they were Socialist in much the same way that North Korea is Democratic.
We have the constitution.
Do you?
Not with Richard Feynman, but instead with William Hurt and Blair Brown, I rather enjoyed "Altered States", even though it was filled with William Hurt pretentiousness - it fit because he played a pompous academic.
Sorry for off topic, but just to come full circle here: there is a rather good movie about Feynman's involvement in the Challenger investigation, where the great man is portrayed by one William Hurt.
I remember reading abobut this in Feynman's autobiography. IIRC he wanted to experience some halucinations without subjecting his brain to any chemicals. I've always wanted to try it, but have never had access to a sensory deprivation tank. Fortunately there were plenty of chemicals.
USA, a country full of control freaks and paranoia.
They do often go hand in hand. But that's true everywhere, not only USA.
That the intelligence community is created in its present form as a means to fight the cold war.
Even in the last decade or so before the Wall fell and the Cold War was over, if not long before, spending on military and intelligence has been primarily another channel for shoveling public funds to private contractors. Notice how spending did not decrease post-1989, when the alleged threat had evaporated. They badly needed a new threat to justify the outlandish "defense" budgets and sure enough a decade later one presented itself. The amounts are way out of proportion to the actual danger, just as before.
You sir, do not understand the word paraphrase. He very plainly pointed out AGW proponents using the same ploy as opponents and made a presumption as to their underlying reasons.
Paraphrase: to say the same thing in different words. That's not the problem here, I think. The problem is that I apparently misunderstood the original poster, and thus ended up saying something that did not reflect his meaning. I stand corrected. And moderated.
In fact, it seems that even my own admission of having blundered is deemed trollworthy by some moderator or other. Oh well, karma to burn, as they say.
Um, okay. I thought I just paraphrased what he had said, no twists intended. Guess I misunderstood his post, then. Out of curiosity, though, how did you read it?
So.. AGW is not real because you don't like the proposed courses of action that might help counter it. Got it.
Democracy tried, and failed. There have been successes, and other failures with Democracy. A failure does not mean the system is fundamentally flawed. It's the other systems (Communism, Socialism, ...) which seem to have leaders like this as an objective.
Apples and oranges.
The democracy-autocracy axis is usually considered orthogonal to the classical left-right axis. And sure enough, there are democracies where all out socialists rule by democratic majority, and there are far right corporatist dictatorships.
The idea that democracy and capitalist free market fundamentalism are somehow inextricably connected seems, to say the least, tenuous to me. Likewise the usual corollary that socialism and autocracy are somehow inherently linked.
Indonesia knew exactly what Australia signals intelligence could do during Timor ~1999.
I'd guess they might have known way earlier. After all the near-genocidal Indonesian invasion (1975) and prolonged occupation (1975-1999) of East Timor enjoyed the sustained support of Australia and the US... Despite massive torture, extrajudicial executions and deliberate starvation.
It wasn't until some Western journalists (the tireless Amy Goodman among others) managed to get video footage of the 1991 Dili massacre out of the area that those accomplices had to answer questions by their electorate about why such a brutal and sustained onslaught on human rights was being supported and partially facilitated by their governments.
You are so stupid. Snowden has plenty of stuff left.
Name calling isn't very helpful. But yes, it would surprise me if he doesn't have anything tucked away for a rainy day. He is in the kind if situation where some "insurance" might come in handy.
You start out saying money is not the same as wealth, but then give an example of how having less of the former means you can afford less of the latter.
I'm guessing I just misunderstand your point.
Anyway, TFS is about a proposal to introduce a maximum wage, not raising the minimum (which is already quite reasonable in Switzerland).
A raise of minimum wage was only mentioned as a way for CEOs to mitigate their own losses if this measure were implemented, since it would cap the maximum at some multiple of the minimum.
Also, I honestly don't see how having cheaper CEO's would force a company to increase prices -- they would have less costs, not extra costs to be compensated?
Damn that is way more sophisticated than I imagined possible from someone who then proceeds to post such utter drivel!
Again, my apologies; I encountered that other account while moderating and fell for this trickery. Glad I don't have an l or I in my handle.
Shit you're right, that is another UID with the same handle!?
692722 vs 3042365
How is that even possible? Sorry mate, I have been fooled. I disagree with what you're saying here, but calling you troll was inaccurate.
Ruse? Please. I get way too many mod points and usually read at -1. Your handle looked familiar and sure enough, countless MyCleanPC and fetid feces posts. Either your account was hacked and you should fix that, or you are garden variety troll.
Wage floors reduce the value of money.
So a more equitable wealth distribution is a bad thing because it makes the ultra rich less special... Got it.
What good does it do to give somebody more money if that money now buys less?
That is not necessarily how it works. You're assuming wages can only grow by raising prices of products. What's being proposed here is lowering executive's pay.
So... Raising minimum wage is bad for the poor huh? You make less sense when you want to appear clever than when trolling
i.e. it has as much to do with global warming as not stabbing you has to do with murder.
So quite a lot, then.
Ah the little mishap where no one died caused by a tsunami that killed >15k People
Wait, are you declaring nuclear energy is safe by comparing, in terms of casualties, with a natural disaster of biblical proportion?
That said, the fallout (ha) of the reactor damage is still posing rather serious challenges, in case you hadn't noticed.
Or are you just being over sensitive about something?
Wait, are you suggesting I'm fat? Nicely played.
... if it had been an actual plan rather than a tongue in cheek comment.
I had actually noticed your tongue in cheek there, no worries. Some +1 Funny mods do wonders for ones karma, which comes in handy when making controversial positions in more serious exchanges.
I just figured I'd pile on with another stereotype jab, none too seriously. I failed obviously, seeing as you are now posting dead serious links to counter my "charge"... Maybe I'm not the over sensitive one ;-)
Well fuck, they'd (who was this again? you didn't specify) rather use already proven technologies instead of sinking billions into new battery technologies that won't even have the energy density anyway
Actually, I did specify, though perhaps a bit too casually; the current suppliers of oil, gas, coal, etc.
Also, if you think there have been no significant improvements to "proven technologies" in recent years then, respectfully, you have not been paying attention.
Because Europeans are known for their inability to resist fat and sugary foods? Or because the Soviets were known for their state of the art cuisine? Huh that is funny, I thought that the US was having a lot more troubling figures re morbid obesity than Europe, and that the Russians are second to only the British when it comes to shitty food.