Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

[pErvinalia]

Oh, well, then clearly it's not trolling, and neither is anything I've said to Dutchy. Since you agree with my definition, then your bullshit accusations that I've been trolling Dutchy and "everyone knows it" is just another one of your false accusations.

You're definition was to badger sometime to get a rise out of them. That's exactly what you do with Scot.

[JimC]

Enemies of the people will be eliminated by proletarian cadres!

[Forty Two]

Oh, well, then clearly it's not trolling, and neither is anything I've said to Dutchy. Since you agree with my definition, then your bullshit accusations that I've been trolling Dutchy and "everyone knows it" is just another one of your false accusations.

You're definition was to badger sometime to get a rise out of them. That's exactly what you do with Scot.

No it isn't what I do, and it's not an accurate statement of my definition.

[Sean Hayden]

Enemies of the people will be eliminated by proletarian cadavers!

I'm afraid that ship has sailed. It would have been a cult classic, we could've been millionaires Jim!

[pErvinalia]

Oh, well, then clearly it's not trolling, and neither is anything I've said to Dutchy. Since you agree with my definition, then your bullshit accusations that I've been trolling Dutchy and "everyone knows it" is just another one of your false accusations.

You're definition was to badger sometime to get a rise out of them. That's exactly what you do with Scot.

No it isn't what I do, and it's not an accurate statement of my definition.

Silly me, I forgot, you are never wrong. Even when you are demonstrably wrong.

But, I don't do anything I consider trolling - which is to just badger or bother people for the mere purpose of getting a rise out of them.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 7#p1762210

[Forty Two]

It's not about "never" being wrong, which I've not claimed to be.

I think you just misunderstood me. When I wrote that it's for the "mere" purpose of getting a rise out of the, "mere" is being used in the "not more than" or "solely" sense of the word. I don't know if that's common usage outside the US for that. But, what it means is that there isn't another purpose for the post.

I.e., when I make a point using sarcasm or humor, it may get a rise out of Dutchy, but it's not "merely" advanced to get him agitated, etc. And, I don't consider all fun-poking and piss-taking to be trolling, even though arguably any joke or ribbing of someone might get a rise out of them.

I think you're, as usually, just purposefully trying to fight over a big nothing. It's just a matter of clarifying meaning here. So, for the record, I don't try to "troll" Dutchy in the sense of just trying to upset the guy or bother him for no reason. I bust his balls now and again, but that's usually because of his practice of constantly denigrating others and other cultures, and constantly arguing that the Dutch way or Dutch things are superior to everyone else's, particularly the US and Americans, both of which he had insulted many times.

So, I don't view it as trolling to suggest in a joking fashion that Australia must have solved their cyclone problem by adopting the Dutch polder method along the coasts of Straya. Sure, that "might" get a rise out of Dutchy, but really, it's making a point, and taking an opportunity to have a quick ribbing.

If that is considered "trolling" by you, then I really don't see what you don't consider trolling.

[pErvinalia]

I can't even...

You need to seek help.

[Forty Two]

I do? You're sitting here arguing over whether I'm "trolling" Scot Dutchy because I made a couple of mild ribbing type posts about some of the shit he's said about the Netherlands.

I've tried to explain to you what I think of as trolling. You, of course, won't offer your own definition, because that's just how you operate. You then change my definition of trolling such that you think trolling means "badgering or bothering to get a rise out of someone" instead of badgering or bothering MERELY to get a rise out of him." Surely, you understand the difference?

Further, the comments I made about Oz and the Netherlands or the ribbing of Dutchy, alluding some past comments, is not "badgering" the guy. It's just good natured piss taking. Everybody does it around here. I don't consider it trolling.

It's o.k. if you do. You can call it trolling if you want. That's why I was very careful to say that I didn't think it was trolling, but I didn't know what definition YOU were applying to it. But, go ahead and consider it trolling. Whatever it is, it's not in violation of the rules. So who the fuck cares?

Jesus, man, can you stop with this shit? I mean, you argue over irrelevancies. Why don't you just talk about communism here? It's a thread about communism, not whether a small joke about another member's previous posts is "trolling" or not. For fuck's sake, man, and who do you think you are, anyway, in accusing someone else of trolling. You've declared that you purposefully troll and abuse people. So what?

[pErvinalia]

I do? You're sitting here arguing over whether I'm "trolling" Scot Dutchy because I made a couple of mild ribbing type posts about some of the shit he's said about the Netherlands.

A couple?!? You've been badgering him for 6 months to a year at least.

I've tried to explain to you what I think of as trolling. You, of course, won't offer your own definition, because that's just how you operate. You then change my definition of trolling such that you think trolling means "badgering or bothering to get a rise out of someone" instead of badgering or bothering MERELY to get a rise out of him." Surely, you understand the difference?

I understand you are an equivocator of epic proportions. It's a nonsense distinction, as you could claim almost anything to get out of being labelled a troll. I'll just use your bogus distinction to refute your accusation of me being a troll, as I don't merely badger, I also do it for humorous effect for the benefit of others. Voila, I'm not a troll!

It's o.k. if you do. You can call it trolling if you want. That's why I was very careful to say that I didn't think it was trolling, but I didn't know what definition YOU were applying to it. But, go ahead and consider it trolling. Whatever it is, it's not in violation of the rules. So who the fuck cares?

It's against the 'play nice' rule if it's egregious enough.

Jesus, man, can you stop with this shit? I mean, you argue over irrelevancies. Why don't you just talk about communism here?

You really are a piece of work. You just can't own your own words, can you? You've been carrying on labelling me a troll for weeks now, and when I finally get sick of it and point out that you are a troll too, you redefine the English language in an effort to get out of it. And when you can't wriggle any more, you fall back on the "derail" defence. Which, apart from being totally bogus, is ironic given the amount of times you derail threads because you can't admit you are wrong and/or own your own words.

It's a thread about communism, not whether a small joke about another member's previous posts is "trolling" or not. For fuck's sake, man, and who do you think you are, anyway, in accusing someone else of trolling. You've declared that you purposefully troll and abuse people. So what?

Because you are up on your high horse. Get off it, and stop pestering others.

[pErvinalia]

[Forty Two]

I do? You're sitting here arguing over whether I'm "trolling" Scot Dutchy because I made a couple of mild ribbing type posts about some of the shit he's said about the Netherlands.

A couple?!? You've been badgering him for 6 months to a year at least.

LOL.

I've tried to explain to you what I think of as trolling. You, of course, won't offer your own definition, because that's just how you operate. You then change my definition of trolling such that you think trolling means "badgering or bothering to get a rise out of someone" instead of badgering or bothering MERELY to get a rise out of him." Surely, you understand the difference?

I understand you are an equivocator of epic proportions. It's a nonsense distinction, as you could claim almost anything to get out of being labelled a troll. I'll just use your bogus distinction to refute your accusation of me being a troll, as I don't merely badger, I also do it for humorous effect for the benefit of others. Voila, I'm not a troll!

I have called you a troll because you've said yourself that you troll and abuse people. I don't need anything more than that. You also repeatedly personally attack, insult and namecall.

I really don't care if you troll. I just want you to obey the rules. You're the one who brought this whole thing up.

It's o.k. if you do. You can call it trolling if you want. That's why I was very careful to say that I didn't think it was trolling, but I didn't know what definition YOU were applying to it. But, go ahead and consider it trolling. Whatever it is, it's not in violation of the rules. So who the fuck cares?

It's against the 'play nice' rule if it's egregious enough.

LOL - it all depends what people say, of course. If Scot Dutchy can say what he says all the time without being in violation of the play nice rule, I daresay anything i've said is well within the rules.

Jesus, man, can you stop with this shit? I mean, you argue over irrelevancies. Why don't you just talk about communism here?

You really are a piece of work. You just can't own your own words, can you?

I own them. I don't own your mischaracterizations of them.

You've been carrying on labelling me a troll for weeks now,

You called yourelf a troll before. You said it's what you do to people from time to time, and you like drive them from the forum. You have recently said that you "Abuse" people, too.

and when I finally get sick of it and point out that you are a troll too,

Even if I am a troll in your estimation, it doesn't make you less of one. You admitted to being one, and an abuser. So what?

And, I'm not one, not in my estimation. As I said, you admitted you were a troll, and I've never admitted it. And, I gave you my definition and an explanation for why I think I'm not a troll. Certainly, people can have different views on what is and is not trolling, which is why this is a completely idiotic argument for you to bang on about, but I'm not surprised you're banging on about an indiotic argument designed to move the argument off track and into some area of personal grousing. So you think I'm a troll? I don't care. I don't think so. So what? I don't need you to approve, or think I'm not a troll. I'm not violating the rules.

You, on the other hand have called yourself a troll and you have said you abuse people. So, I agree with you on that point.

you redefine the English language in an effort to get out of it.

Nooooo.... in the most recent example you took a word out of my off-hand, basic definition of trolling which radically changed the meaning. I see why you did it, because you were able to cast it as pretty much making any post which gets a rise out of someone as trolling. However, everyone knows that is not the definition of trolling. And, I explained what I was getting at to clarify for you. But, you can't let it go - you have to try to paint this as some kind of attack on me. And you're not really interested in coming to an understanding, you just want to try to score points, even on the dopiest of issues, in the dopiest of manners, and even when you are completely off base. Go fuck off, man.

And when you can't wriggle any more, you fall back on the "derail" defence. Which, apart from being totally bogus, is ironic given the amount of times you derail threads because you can't admit you are wrong and/or own your own words.

Wriggle? I've not needed to wriggle. You admit you're a troll and an abuser. I don't admit that I am those things. Under my definition, I'm not a troll. Under yours, you are. So, there is no wriggling here. You are free to think I'm a troll and call me a troll, but what you think is irrelevant. You haven't offered your definition of trolling, and until you do, your opinion on the topic is just your own declaration - not much more, if anything more, than another insult from you. There's no argument. No attempt to establish your point. But that's typical of you.

It's a thread about communism, not whether a small joke about another member's previous posts is "trolling" or not. For fuck's sake, man, and who do you think you are, anyway, in accusing someone else of trolling. You've declared that you purposefully troll and abuse people. So what?

Because you are up on your high horse. Get off it, and stop pestering others.

I'm not on a high horse, nor am I "pestering" anyone. FFS, your whole persona here is designed around pestering others. Look at the threads. You can't participate in a thread without being dick to someone. Even threads I'm not involved in, you antagonize and pester someone. Jesus fucking Christ, man.

[Brian Peacock]

Get a room you two.

[pErvinalia]

42 - Never wrong.

Oh and you can stop calling me a troll, as I'm now adopting your personally convenient description and I no longer consider myself to be trolling.

[DRSB]

It cannot be that bad if I am a product of this system, can it? I am proud of the education I received in Bulgaria.

[Animavore]

Surely the difference is simple. Nazism entails eugenics and ethnic cleansing. It's written into its doctrine. In the writings of Hitler.

There's nothing in any tracts by Marx which promote killing people. Lots of people were killed because of it, but it didn't necessarily follow from the doctrine. Same with capitalism. Millions have died, been enslaved, had their countries taken over by proxy governments and their resources robbed, been displaced, had their water and air poisoned, and as capitalism continues to ignore the environment and seek infinite growth in a finite space for the benefit of the few, we can expect climate catastrophe, possibly leading to extinction.

So the real question is why capitalism viewed as negatively as Communism, or any other failed doctrine which started with good intentions?