- Capitalism and Alternatives -

For McSpotlight.

Posted by: Frenchy on January 10, 19100 at 11:25:35:

In Reply to: Just like Gandhi's favorite meal was veal? posted by MDG on December 30, 1999 at 10:58:49:

: : Anyways, here's a brief excerpt from "Considering the Political Spectrum, why Hitler was on the left", found at Free Republic.

: Free Republic? Again with the ultra-conservative websites! That's like going to the National Cattlemen's Association website for a nonbiased opinion on the benefits of beef eating.

: :
: : Why Hitler Was a Left-winger; Left as Enemy of Individualism
: : Peikoff then quotes Fichte as saying "(T)he individual life has no real existence...since it has no value of itself,
: : but must and should sink to nothing... (T)he Race alone...ought to be looked upon as really living." Ahh, what a
: : glorious celebration of being you! The Nazi philosophy pursued this belief unfailingly. "They preached authority
: : above rights, the group above the individual, sacrifice above happiness, nihilism above morality, feelings above
: : facts, pliability above absolutes, obedience above logic..."
: : Does the rejection of the individual, the rejection of personal happiness, the rejection of morality, and the
: : rejection of facts and logic sound like behavior coming from the right? Quite the contrary, it sounds like a nutshell
: : summation of all Leftist ideology.

: No, Frechy. Leftists believe in human rights, civil rights, and individual freedom, things Hitler, as a fascist and hence an extreme right-winger, disregarded. Do not confuse Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism with Leftism. Even Barry Stoller, perhaps the most dogmatic Communist on this site, stresses the respect for individual rights. Repression can corrupt any system, be it left, like Stalin's USSR, or right, like Pinochet's Chile.


: : Wonder if McSpotlight will let this through?

: As a fine leftwing website, it upholds your right to speak freely, no matter how silly you wish to get.

: --
: McSpotlight: Damn straight. For the record, the only of Frenchy's posts we have ever rejected are ones which aren't 'debating' in any recognized sense of the word; and we make it quite clear that irrelevant posts will be rejected. That applies not merely to Frenchy, but to everyone who posts here; we welcome all points of view, but just ask that you a) debate and b) do your best to be vaguely civil.

So, there have been some of my posts that have been censored?
I wonder if you could show what was so offensive about those that were rejected?

McSpotlight: Frenchy, just for your benefit, we'll put up the Disclaimer we put up on the index page

"All opinions and points of view are welcome. However, abusive or irrelevant posts will be rejected. Messages may occasionally be edited for brevity or clarity."

A one-line sarcastic comment which has no positive content will be rejected, as we've told you some four times before already.

If you post a message that consists of no actual text in the message, merely a sarcastic title, it will be rejected. Out of hand. Regardless of how amusing it is. This is a Debating Room.

Where we as moderators have to edit, we do so according to standard IETF-agreed netiquette guidelines; merely trimming out redundant text to make things more readable.

We do not put words into your mouth, or alter your text, nor will we ever. We either accept or reject.

Most of your posts that were rejected were not even particularly offensive; merely spectacularly redundant, impressively irrelevant and mildly satirical.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup