17 thoughts on “Unraveling The Intellectual Slander”

1. And modern liberals are the true inheritors of the intellectual legacy of Nazism, right? I am continually amazed.

2. Not Nazism per se, but fascism in general, yes. The only reason that fascism is considered “right wing” is because of a false history taught since the war, and the fact that Hitler gave it a bad name by incorporating racism and race-based genocide into it. Mussolini was widely admired by the left in the twenties and thirties, and much of the New Deal was based on his own programs.

3. I would also add that modern “liberals” aren’t liberal at all.

4. I’d go so far as to argue that words like “liberal” and “conservative” are fundamentally meaningless, and seem to be applied based more on whim than on any agreed-upon definition.

5. I agree.

6. Before Germany was fascist, it was socialist. Let’s give the name of the party a quick review. It was the National Socialist Party. I am glad to see that many people who believe in circa 1700 liberalism are setting things straight.

7. Language is rarely an exact science. The meanings of words are not concrete across the centuries, or even across the decades. The meaning of the word “socialist” has changed immensely, even since the 1940’s. Today it can even be used to include people who believe in free market capitalism.

8. “Language is rarely an exact science. The meanings of words are not concrete across the centuries, or even across the decades. The meaning of the word “socialist” has changed immensely, even since the 1940’s. Today it can even be used to include people who believe in free market capitalism.”

   I hear a squeaking sound, reminiscent of a weasel.

9. “Social Darwinism” is like “neocon” and “trickle down economics.” One rarely encounters any one who uses those terms who either knows what they really mean, or gives evidence of having done any real thinking.

10. Language is rarely an exact science.

    You can say that again. In fact, the vast majority of language use is not even remotely scientific. Still my language tend to have definitions that don’t drift.

11. Bilwick: I’m not a rodent, I was merely using sarcasm to make a point. A point not only about language, but about the state of political discourse in America these days.

12. Ethan, would you care to give an example of someone who believes in free market capitalism being referred to as a socialist? Note that I am asking for a specific usage by a specific person in a real debate, not an accusation someone makes on KOS, etc. about what they BELIEVE a ‘teabagger’, etc is saying. Let’s also add that the phrase ‘free market capitalism’ does not include corporatism or any of the distortions of the term that many on the left use to defend themselves from accusations of being socialist.

    Language does change with time, but the definition of socialism, specifically of its core elements, has remained quite consistent. Redefining the phrase to suit one’s ideological preference is an old favorite of the left (see Second Ammendment, meaning of), and is not what we are talking about here.

13. I don’t read KOS, just like I don’t read Drudge. I try to consume information with as little “value-added” spin as possible. The rest of your preconditions for my response make any response at all pretty impossible. Define “corporatism,” define “the left,” and when we’re speaking the same language maybe I’ll have something to say.

    I was referring, though, to television personalities such as Bill O’Reilly frequently referring to Barack Obama as a Socialist during the 2008 campaign. Which mortified the actual Socialist Party of America, I hear.

14. If you are going to argue that Obama is a believer in free market capitalism, I am going to have to say ‘no sale’ Obama may or may not be a socialist (I personally don’t believe he is a deep enough thinker about such things to really understand the implications one way or the other), but he is certainly NOT a believer in free market capitalism.

    Thanks for playing however, try again when you have something better…

15. Back up what you say, Scott, and try to be a little less odious. Then you might convince me.

16. Ethan lumps Kos- a far left-wing site, whose host and namesake has publicly wished for the deaths of American soldiers in order to advance his political objectives- and Drudge, which is a clearinghouse for headlines with no commentary whatsoever?

    Otnay ootay rightbray, I must say.

17. Drudge is a clearinghouse for carefully cherrypicked headlines, that site’s bias is no secret. So yes, I lump it in with Kos. Saying they’re both biased sources is not the same as saying they’re equally bad.

    If all one read was the links on Drudge, one would get a very different picture of the world than if, say, they read the BBC or the Associated Press.

Comments are closed.