Image

Life imitates Animal Farm: 'Some have more equal rights'

User avatar
Equal_Right_More_Equal_Students.jpg
Student Rep. on Free Speech: "Some People Have More Equal Rights Than Others"

During a debate about the threat to free speech on university campuses, Richard Brooks, the Vice-President of the National Union of Students, almost quoted George Orwell's Animal Farm directly when he said that "some people have more equal rights than others."

Asked by host Victoria Derbyshire, "are too many people being silenced?" Brooks said that the NUS' "no platform policy" was a way of preventing "fascists and racists" from speaking on campus.

Brooks claimed that the organization's "safe space policy" is "based on the idea that every single person has freedom of speech, and everyone has equal right to freedom of speech, however, some people have more equal rights than others."

He also claimed that such policies were "progressive" and were not an example of "censorship".
To quote from our earlier relevant reporting on a similar subject:

Some decades ago a wise man said, "The fascists of tomorrow will be called anti-fascists." It seems that tomorrow is already here and we may as well say, "The fascists of today call themselves anti-fascists."

Image
While the "more equal" story above comes from Britain, the movement for more equal rights is strong in this country, too, as evidenced in this stock image from our archives:

Image

User avatar
We will silence fascist and racist speech even if we have to use fascist and racist tactics! Heil Obama!

User avatar
[img]/images/clipart/Prog_Off.gif[/img]
This is truly a wonderful specimen of the anti-democratic leftist political correct enforcers.
Although I felt overwelmed with joy to see my great hero E. A. Blair's quote "some are more equal..." appear from the mouth of such a leftofascist, plain honesty (yes, yes, it is a weakness, I know) forces me to play advocate of the devil. Below i will give the entire transcript and my views about it. Sorry if it's too serious. Just send me to Gulag :)

The transcript goes as follows:

"Are too many people being silenced?""No i don't hink so. NUS has a no platform policy.It was born out the 1970's where there were fascists, racists coming on to campus.There are six organisations - not people - organisations, who are on that no platform listDemocratically decided by our national congress, happens every year,

I do not know the organisations they prohibi, and maybe it's pretty common sense they are not allowed (full blown fascists about to do violence or something like that), but disallowing freedom of speech to any group is something serious ... so just because it's "democratically decided" by some student union... while these organisations are not prohibited by the government, I don't know if that's really what "democracy" is all about. Anyhow...

and that is all about make sure students feel safe on campus,

Learning about the world should be the opposite of "feeling safe all the time". The world is not one big safe space. This is madness.

and that we extend their freedom of speech by not being marginalised when they're debating
.

So, by preventing the bad boys from debating, you "extend" (sic) the freedom of speech (sic) to students so they are not marginalised.

IE: if you do not hold a debate, the students do not feel marginalised by a debate, and that is "extending freedom of speech".

Eum... ok.
If we do not hold elections, the ruling parties will not feel marginalised by losing elections, and that would be "extending democracy"; Great logic!

That's very different to a safe space policy, which is based on the idea that every single person has freedom of speech, and anyone has equal rights to freedom of speech,however some people (smirk, smirk) have more equal rights than others, and actually we are making sure that marginalised groups get theri views heard.

I will now play devil's advocate (I regret I have to do so):

Two possible interpretations:

1. he thinks marginalised groups have more 'equal rights'. That would be full blown orwellian PC bull shit.

2. he thinks the privileged classes "have obtained more equal rights", so the safe space policy helps the marginalised groups by preventing the bad boys from holding campus debates.
That would be a very badly constructed, ambiguous sentence, but it would make him just a little bit less of a Thought Police officer. Not that it would matter (he remains a lefto-fascist), but I'm just disgusted by the PC enforcers always miquoting people to give them labels, so I felt obliged (yes, yes a weakness I know) to play devil's advocate.

Both of those policies are democratically decided, they are narrow, they are progressive, they are sensible,they are not part of a wider debate about censorship, of freedom of speech,that people are using, when their views are not given the platform they think they deserve."

This is actually the most creepy part of the interview.
He defends these policies by saying they are the Absolute Korrekt Truth because they are "narrow" and "progressive" and "sensible". Says who?

"They are not part of a wider debate about freedom of speech":
meaning: if it is not politically correct, freedom of speech does not apply.

This is even worse than saying "some people are more equal". This literally translates to "if you have naughty politically incorrect opinions (ie. Crimethink ™ for the fans) that are not "progressive" (says who?), we will not even consider giving you freedom of speech.

Creepy...

If he would say:
'we regret censorship, but we deny freedom of speech to government prohibited organisations, like terrorist groups or overt holocaust denying neonazis about to perform violence, but we make sure this is supported by the large majority of students and by campus and government officials", then that would indeed be "sensible"...

But letting a student union (apparantly peopled by Hamas Fans, see other articles about them) decide what is "sensible" for the rest, and prohibiting that: this is just censorship and lefto-fascism.

There, I had to get that out.



Greetings,

Minitrue

Let's end with a quote from the master:


orwell.jpg

User avatar
Naglaya Morda wrote:We will silence fascist and racist speech even if we have to use fascist and racist tactics! Heil Obama!

I find this piece stunningly ironic given the 'rules' about the disparagement of certain political candidates - or as it is termed 'The flinging of Poo'.

User avatar
Comrade Torcer wrote:
Naglaya Morda wrote:We will silence fascist and racist speech even if we have to use fascist and racist tactics! Heil Obama!

I find this piece stunningly ironic given the 'rules' about the disparagement of certain political candidates - or as it is termed 'The flinging of Poo'.
Shall I prepare a ball-gag for your avatar Comrade Torcer?

User avatar
Comrades Torcer and Punk -

Don't you realize that you're acting like Social Justice Warriors now? It's not enough for you that the entire Internet and social media is full of smelly troll poo and infighting - you want this site to be full of troll poo and infighting as well, and you won't be satisfied unless the rest of us comply with your demands. And if there's resistance, you will complain that you're being censored, call us fascists, and throw dramatic tantrums with S&M gags.

I can't deny you your free expression on any of the thousands of political forums and news sites, and I'm sure you've been posting there - I think I came across Torcer's comments on American Thinker, which is filled with pro-Cruz and anti-Trump articles and comments. Why is that not enough for you? Why do you come to this website with its unique voice and style and want to bend it to your will, making it indistinguishable from all other sites? Who is really acting like a fascist here?

I respect your choice of a candidate; I'm sure it's the result of some intellectual effort on your part, and far be it from me to persuade you otherwise. But you seem to have no respect for my choice, ignoring the possibility that it could also be the result of my intellectual effort. Punk has already called me "Brown Square." What's next, calling me a toothless hillbilly from a trailer park?

Given that Punk is a self-described atheist, it's really strange to see him suddenly act like a Bible-thumping holy roller trying to convert everyone to his faith and treating them as infidels and heretics. Especially while promoting a candidate who acts and sounds like a second-tier televangelist wearing his religion on the sleeve and a large chip on his shoulder.

You like to talk about constitution and conservative philosophy, but you don't know the first thing about private property. You act like socialist Bernie supporters who imagine that everything around them appeared out of nowhere and was then stolen from the people by greedy capitalists. You seem to think that I found this site in the forest and claimed it my own, when it should really belong to everybody. But the fact is, this site is the result of many years of my work and it's my right to do with it as I please. You were welcomed here as permanent guests like everyone else, and now suddenly you show up and start dictating your rules to me and others. Would you act the same way if I were to let you into my house?

Did it give you a pause that millions more voted for the other candidate? Are you assuming these millions of people are all stupid and don't know what's best for them? Do you believe these rubes need to be ruled by their betters - like you, for example? And yet you continue to claim that you stand for this country's founding principles?

Why did you assume that this site would be following the prescribed Party line? I'm sorry if you were disappointed that it hasn't become an anti-Trump insult machine like so many other previously good sites. But neither has it become an anti-Cruz insult machine. Have you wondered why - or did you assume that it's because I'm just ignorant, like all the other people you insult on other websites? Have you stopped for a moment to consider that I may have my reasons? That, perhaps, I may know something that you don't know, or I can see something that you can't see?

Why don't I see a similar attitude from anyone else but only the Cruz supporters? Zealotry, insults, intolerance... And not just in response to criticism, but even when someone doesn't think that your candidate as the only Lord and Savior. For example, Rush is obviously on the Cruz side, but because he hasn't gone Glenn Beck all the way and is trying to remain objective and his show, Torcer is questioning his intellectual integrity.

What is it about Cruz that turns normal and good people into intolerant zealots who show up on your doorstep and start giving you orders? If this is the atmosphere that his personality generates, I don't want him to be anywhere near power over other people's lives. This attitude of his supporters, more than anything else, makes me worry about what his management style would feel like.

This is the first instance where I'm breaking my rule of not disparaging candidates directly, but it's your nagging that made me do it. And please don't force my hand anymore because I could write a lot more on this subject, and not only on this site - something I've been restraining myself from out of respect for the other side. Don't make me lose that respect.

User avatar
Dear Red Square,

When I first found your Cube, and I recognize that it is and always has been YOURS, it was a place where I could get a laugh at the left's expense and even poke a little fun at them myself. I am very thankful and appreciative of all the hard work it must have taken to achieve such a glorious website.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for your creation, and that is part of the reason that I am so disappointed in what it is becoming. This was always a place where truth reigned supreme. My understanding of the Cube was that it was a place where absurdities got exposed and humiliated. There was no restriction on who's absurd statement could be mocked, so long as it was done with good humor.

Granted I was not around here during the 2008 and 2012 elections, so I don't know what it was like back then during the primary season. I know how I felt during those dark times. I watched the GOP fall into line with the media and nominate a RINO loser in John McCain, followed by another in Mitt Romney. I held my nose and voted for both of them, but after 2012, I vowed that I would NEVER vote for another lying weasel that the media selected to go up against their Democrat candidate.

So I began watching the politicians very closely to see who made what promises, and who kept them. I watched Rand Paul and Ted Cruz do their filibusters. I watched Scott Walker stand up to the unions and their recalls. I watched Ben Carson school the president at a prayer breakfast. I watched Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz conduct hearings with Hillary and the IRS scandals. There were a few who seemed to stand up for my liberties.

We gave the House to the GOP in 2010. We gave them the Senate in 2014. They did nothing but capitulate to the Democrats. By the time the presidential candidates announced their candidacies, I didn't listen to a word they said. I was already done with lip service. I wanted to see action. Don't tell me what you'll do, show me what you've done. I was looking exclusively at their records.

I have seen lots of guys run for office and make lots of conservative promises, Marco Rubio was one of them. He talked a good game. I believed in him and gave him my full support. I still believe that he meant what he was saying, but Washington got to him. He joined the Democrats to sell America out. Maybe he was too young and weak to be a senator, but for whatever reason, he betrayed me. This was yet another reason to NEVER trust in rhetoric, but demand proof of action.

So when Donald Trump came along, I looked at his record, but since he has never held public office, he didn't have much of one. The record he did have was not one that convinced me that he had ever stood up for American liberty. So it really wasn't all that hard to dismiss Trump as just another talker with a record that contradicted his rhetoric.

Cruz was the obvious choice for me. Not because of what he says or how he says it. He is not attractive or charismatic in any way. He does talk like a televangelist, probably lots of people in Texas do. It was his record of standing up for liberty, even when he stood alone that won my support. He has proven himself over and over, that he will stand up against anyone who comes against the constitution that protects my individual liberty.

It was our constitution that made America great. No man can make America great again. Only the unleashing of American liberty can do that. That's not what I hear from Donald Trump. I hear that tariffs and a wall and letting Russia take the lead in foreign affairs will make America great again. I simply do not believe in him. It really is as simple as that for me.

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect it, I do. I know that I have no 'right' to demand anything from you or your wonderful Cube. I do not expect you to make any concession for my sake. It is YOUR Cube and you may do with it as you wish. It has been my privilege to be a member. It just saddens me that creativity here was curtailed on the day you endorsed Donald Trump. Of course, you don't see it that way because you are able to look past his faults, as I am sure that I look past Ted's.

I admit that it threw me for a loop. I always thought of you as a guy who valued the freedoms our Constitution affords us above all other political considerations. I never thought you could be taken in by a salesman using the same old tired gimmicks that have been used by progressives for decades. Perhaps I am 100% dead wrong on this one. I have read your endorsement numerous times, and all I can see is adoration for empty rhetoric. That's not an insult, that is my honest assessment. I am sure I am probably blind to some things that you see, and vice versa.

My ancestors have fought and died to secure the blessings of liberty in this nation for centuries. Some fled Europe on the Mayflower and made homes in the wilderness where they could exercise their God-given liberties. Others fought savage Indians to establish their homes. Another generation fought the British for independence. Still others fought the British again in 1812 to defend their newly conceived nation. Eleven of my direct ancestors fought for the Union in the war between the states to preserve this precious nation. Several have fought for America in wars since then to help other nations take part in liberty. Every generation has met the enemies of liberty with force, and now it is our generation's turn.

So yes, it is personal for me and I take it seriously. I admit that I am emotionally involved in this election and that my sense of humor on the subject is worn a little thin. If given a chance, Hillary will finish what King Barry began. Failure is not an option this time. We need a government that will re-establish the rule of law as defined in our beloved Constitution. Our government is out of control and must be reigned in and restrained.

When Trump speaks, all I hear is a northeast liberal with a record of corrupt cronyism and an authoritarian complex who wants to grow government. That may not be what you hear, and obviously it's not what millions of other people hear, but that is what I hear. Put that with his track record of supporting the worst liberals in our government that he often calls his friends, and couple that with many of his past statements about banning assault rifles, Planned Parenthood does great work, George W. Bush should have been impeached, imposing tariffs will improve our economy, the government is going to pay for everyone's healthcare, etc. etc. etc. and is it any wonder that so many constitutional conservatives are opposed to him?

As far as The Cube is concerned, I apologize for calling you Brown Square. It was a poor play on your own guidance that trashing candidates and each other would make glorious red things brown. I have made my best effort to be forthright in telling all that I am a punk at heart. Do not be surprised if I act like one from time to time. I also freely admit that I was surprised that you would censor me the way you did. Then you accused me of not reading the thread and called me disrespectful and a troll for commenting on the double meaning of the word "supporter" which I am sure I have seen on other threads on this site prior to this episode.

Again, it is your site, and your perfect right to censor my contributions and call me whatever names you like, despite the fact that they may not be entirely accurate. I think there are many misunderstandings between us. I am not even sure that it's worth the time it would take to untangle them all. I do not demand that you recognize my right to speak freely on YOUR Cube. I know that I have no such right.

The point that I was trying to make was that in my humble opinion, I find it first of all comical that a political figure who leads by such a wide margin as Trump does, whines that the system is rigged when he is the one benefiting the most from the so-called "rigging" that has been in place since the nineteenth century, and secondly I find it somewhat hypocritical to censor a post about it when yours is a site that routinely eschews censorship of the truth regarding political figures who make such bone-headed statements. Perhaps your attachment to this particular individual prevents you from seeing the comedy of such a ridiculous comment. Or just as likely perhaps, my opposition to him enhances the absurdity of his statement for me.

As our absent friend of late, the Kangaroo reminded me once, The Cube is a site entirely constructed on mockery. Yet I have been instructed to only say positive things about my favorite candidate, no mockery of his opponents is allowed. Being 'in character' means that we pretend to oppose everything that we hold dear. So this means that I can only mock my preferred candidate... unless my preferred candidate is Donald Trump. So, if my math is correct, we are free to mock every candidate, except for one. Does that ring any bells? Can you at least appreciate how that might look to others who do not share your admiration of him?

I could reluctantly operate under a rule that says "Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican candidate for president." But the reality is that there is only one presidential candidate who is not to be mocked on The Cube, under penalty of censorship. And that is fine, as I have conceded, it is YOUR site to do with as you please. But you insult my intelligence when you pretend, as Hannity and Drudge and Breitbart also do, that you are being fair and impartial to all candidates. I am not blind, nor will I pretend to be.

You were brave enough to come out and endorse Trump on the Cube, declaring weeks ago that the primary season was all but over, so why the reluctance to admit to kontributing members that they are free to eat from any tree in the garden except for one and that any attempt to cast Trump in a negative light will result in censorship? Honesty is what most folks want, or claim to want. Isn't that what Trump supporters want? Somebody to tell it like it is? So tell us like it is, we can handle it. If we don't like it, too bad for us. People respect honesty, even if they don't like it. They loathe being told what to think and say. You of all people should know that.

One thing I have always admired about The Cube is that it has always rejected stereotypes and recognized individuals. That seems to be a thing of the past. You seem to have lumped me in with every other Cruz supporter that you have had contact with. I am not them and they are not me. I don't know what they said, but I am sorry they offended you so badly that you feel you must lash out at anyone who is not in lockstep with your opinions.

You can call me a zealot or any number of names if that makes you feel better, I've been called far worse things. It's all just words to me. What bothers me is that two things I love, America and The Cube, seem to be falling into a hypnotic groupthink mentality and any attempt to snap them back to reality is met with censorship and name-calling. You call it zealotry, I call it passion.

If we are ideological enemies, I do not belong here and this site is no longer what it once was. Perhaps it never was. Perhaps it was something I projected onto the Cube. I thought it was about calling out absurdities that infringe on personal freedom. I thought it was about stopping authoritarians who want to rule over others and impose their will with an iron fist. I thought it was about ridiculing the enemies of truth and justice.

Was I wrong all along? Was this site only about wanting to stick your thumb in the other guy's eye? Was it always about tearing down the current totalitarian strong man so that we can install one of our own? Was it always about using the dirty tactics of our ideological foes in order to run roughshod over them the same way they did to us? Is it all just payback for what they did to George W. Bush? If so, that is not who I am and I am sorry I wasted everybody's time here. Otherwise, Cube Onward!

Yours Truly,
Konservative CENSORED Punk

P.S. I am quite certain that I have NEVER described myself as an atheist, but then again, who knows? Maybe you're right about that too!

User avatar
CENSORED_Punk wrote: P.S. I am quite certain that I have NEVER described myself as an atheist, but then again, who knows? Maybe you're right about that too!

I would like to add that my searches of "atheist", "atheism", and "god" in KP's posts returned nothing suggesting he was an atheist.

User avatar
Comrade Punk:

Congratulations with your post, very well written and clear. It would be a waste to see you leave the Kollektive.

I can imagine that for a supporter ofcandidate A, it's hard to see a forum supporting candidate B. I've also occasionally felt sorry for some non-trolling Cruz supporters on this forum the past months. It's hard to stay 'neutral' in matters like this.

For example: The post you reacted to about drowning ted was indeed very funny for people who are pro trump or don't care at all, but hard for the other side. If you really like Cruz, it was "poo throwing", so officially against the "neutrality rules" about only being positive about the candidates. Maybe new rules are in order as you suggest.

I have no idea how red quare can solve this.

*Shutting down until elections? Would be sad I think.

*No comments about any of the GOP candidates? Strange for a political forum...

*Accepting that a forum cannot stay neutral forever without troll-wars, and accepting Red Square's endorsement of Trump (or ignoring it) for the few weeks that are left? Maybe most realistic option , but would personally find it sad if this would drive away people who made great posts in the past and cannot see past this one divisive issue (a very important one, of course). On the other hand, personally, I too disagree with some posts on this site (about completely different issues), but as long as those do not become the majority, I'm not leaving.

But once more, I agree when you say new "rules" might be in order...

Let's just hope the Kube can stay united!

In my own country, a few years ago the communist party (PvdA) went into the elections in a union with a local Arab Nationalist party (AEL) with muslim influences.
= So a secular anti nationalistic party went together with a muslim nationalistic party.
I guess they needed a lot of Doublethink to do that.


Let's learn from their shiny example and stay friends!


Greetings,Minitrue

User avatar
"Gentlemen, this is the War Room! There will be no fighting in the War Room!"

User avatar
Thank you Minitrue for your reasonable response. I often find it difficult to express myself in matters of such crucial importance without sounding hostile. I do not wish to see kubists at each others' throats over primary candidates and degenerate into chaos either. I just think it is somewhat insulting to tell us to remain silent when our guy makes more verbal gaffes than Joe Biden.

Although I was surprised by the endorsement of this site's esteemed owner and creator, I do not demand that he recant his endorsement. What I object to is what his endorsement says about me as a kubist.

We have all spent a good deal of time lampooning corrupt politicians who ignore the rule of law as outlined in our founding documents. It is the very essence of what this site is based upon. However, when I look at many of our collective creations, I see that many of them will now just as easily apply to us and our own party. I believed that we were better than them because they were living in a fantasy world where speech had to be censored so as not to offend anyone, and we lived in reality.

That is what made it so gratifying to be a member here. We stood for something grander than they could ever hope to be. But with Red Square's endorsement, I learned that we are really no better than them. His endorsement made it clear that he, and by extension, we the Cube kollektive, were just having a few laughs at their expense until we could find our own egotistical bully to ignore the rule of law and melt down the entire political system and recreate it in our own image... by force if necessary. That is exactly what we mock the Left for doing, and it makes us all hypocrites.

As I have stated, Red Square has every right to endorse anyone he wants, censor anyone he wants, and frankly I am surprised that he hasn't yet hit the 'smite' button and deleted my existence from his presence. What he may not realize is that when he speaks for The Cube, he is also speaking for its members. This is especially true when he prevents open discussion by dissenting voices. When objections to his endorsement were raised, he shut down the thread and deleted posts, which again, he has every right to do, but it should come as no surprise that some would find it objectionable.

The People's Cube has given me a voice to express my displeasure at would-be tyrants who attempt to usurp my liberty, and for that I am forever grateful. I do not demand the right to speak or be a member of the kollektive, but I generally do not choose to consort with those who call me names and make false accusations against me in retaliation for things said by others, and then censor my voice when I refuse to comply with their demand that I stifle my own speech in deference to their superior judgement (That's kind of the essence of being a conservative punk, as unpolished as it may be).

As far as drowning Ted, I thought it was funny. I even made an 'in-karakter' comment lampooning Cruz's VP pick. I didn't feel slighted by the post. It simply confirmed what I had been saying, that there is a double standard on this website. That is Red Square's prerogative, but don't tell me that all negative criticism of all candidates will be censored. As a Cruz supporter, I can laugh at Ted Cruz, but apparently laughter at Donald Trump's expense is forbidden.

It's not that I want to "trash" Donald Trump, but he does make some very ridiculous statements, as has Ted. We have mocked Obama regularly for some of his dumb misstatements like '57 states' and 'corpse-man', for example. But will there be any mention of Trump calling Tanzania 'Tan-zany-uh'? Or is it not funny when our guy does it? This reminds me of a graphic I saw here somewhere of a Nazi wearing Obama's logo, accompanied by the caption "It's not fascist when we do it." (No, I did not just call anyone a fascist!) Are we really that hyper-sensitive that we cannot make fun of our own guy when he says something stupid? If so, then the Cube is no different than the safe-spaces it routinely mocks --and that is the very definition of hypocrisy.


User avatar
Dear [...] Punk (whatever you given name these days may be) -

I assumed you were an atheist because of this recent comment. But it wasn't meant to disparage you - I have no problem with atheists as long as they are not the militant and obnoxious ones who give the rest a bad name. It was only meant to show a cognitive dissonance between a smart secular guy and him promoting a bad televangelist impersonator.

I accept your apology and I would very much like to let this subject go and everyone be friends again. I just wish you wouldn't slip into bitter tirades and go on complaining immediately after offering to mend fences. Complaining about "rigged rules" coming from you just doesn't look convincing.

The Drowning Ted post appeared at a time when I was responding to you on another thread, and if you didn't tie me up for a few hours with this back-and-forth I would have seen it before you did. But after it had already developed a thread of comments I couldn't delete it - and now you're accusing me of hypocrisy because of that.

Why can't you understand that life is fluid and often unpredictable, and it doesn't fit into rigid rules, which is why there will always be elbow room and the power of discretion. For example, you keep complaining about me deleting and censoring your posts, while I only deleted one image (where you cannibalized my work) and left a whole bunch of others hanging there. Or would you like me to be 100% consistent and delete every one of them?

There's a reason cops don't stop every car that goes over the speed limit on the highway. But I guess if you were a cop, you'd be stopping every driver who goes 2 mph over the posted limit. In real life, if you tried that, you wouldn't last long on the force. But I guess that's the problem of the entire Cruz campaign.

Finally, we do not have religious feelings about Trump and have poked fun of him on several occasions in the past (including him speaking in Prince Charles voice, showing the middle finger, etc.), and you would have known this if you haven't been AWOL for a few months. But there's a difference between poking fun and copy-pasting "troll poo" - which I define as distortions, exaggerations, and misinformation that was fabricated by campaign strategists for online distribution.

Let me reiterate: "troll poo" is not just any criticism - it's criticism based on false premises, memes, and gimmicks created by any of the campaigns. Examples of that would be Trump's "Lying Ted" or Cruz's "13 points of how Trump is like Hillary" based on exaggerations and designed to preach to the choir.

Speaking of TanZANia, if you took time to look it up, you would've seen that it's how this word is pronounced in many of the world's major languages, including Russian, German, Italian, Spanish, etc. If we start making fun of it, speakers of those languages (me included) would think of us narrow-minded, parochial jokesters.

Native Tanzanians also pronounce it either way in Swahili, the most common being TanZANia. Tanzania is a made-up word, created when the union government was formed from Tanganyika (the mainland) and Zanzibar in the mid 1960s. They didn't know what to call their union, so they made up a new word from both Tanganyika and Zanzibar and came up with Tanzania.

Once again, your assumptions of someone's ignorance didn't hit the mark. But I'm sure there are many sites out there where Tanzania jokes would receive a warm reception, so why don't you post them there? I couldn't stop you even if I wanted to.

Miniturue -

Thank you for your wise comments and I hope more people would take time to read them. I can't really think of any new rules that would fix this sadly unavoidable situation.

But there's always a solution. Let me give you an example.

There is one Cruz-supporting Cubist (I won't mention his name) who, like Punk here, was hoping that the Cube would be turned into a Trump-ridiculing machine for the entire duration of the primaries. Upon learning that I prefer Trump over Cruz, he became very disappointed and apparently assumed that the Cube would start trashing Cruz all the time (which was never my intention either).

Long story short, he emailed me saying that he would take a pledge to stay away from the Cube until the election was over. And so far he has kept his promise.

And I'm grateful for it because I have come to realize that "peacefully posting opposing views and peacefully commenting on them" is simply Utopian wishful thinking. We may pretend to be comrades made out of iron and wood, but in real life we're only human. As we've seen many times already, flare-ups are bound to happen, leading to mutual complaints and accusations, followed by long and boring explanations.

So instead of creating new rules, I'd rather make a suggestion.

a suggestion:

Any Cubist who is disappointed with the Cube because

a) it is not a Trump-trashing outfit you had hoped it would be and/or
b) it has not gone full Glenn Beck in idolizing Ted Cruz as a new prophet -
Let's agree that for your own and everyone else's sanity's sake you will follow the above Cubist's example and abstain from visiting the Cube at least until the nominee is selected.

Even loving spouses sometimes need time off from one another, and that actually helps their relationship in the future.

That doesn't mean that you are being kicked out - you are welcome to visit as long as you don't start another fight and make me spend tedious hours figuring out and formulating the rules.

User avatar
Red Square wrote:... spend tedious hours figuring out and formulating the rules.

Image
Rules? We don't need no stinkin' RULES!


User avatar
Image
I know, I know...

Daily beet quotas, mind your own beets, don't dip you pen in the company inkwell, no rations until the shovels are cleaned and turned in...

User avatar
If all tracks take The Freedom Train to the same Utopia the train seems to be sidelined on the tracks of the little town of Minutia.

User avatar
[img]/images/clipart/Prog_On.gif[/img]
And now back to business comrades!

Why talk about Trump and Cruz? They are all fascist pigs. Their heads will be put atop the flagpoles of the rising proletariat.

I will re-iterate my endorsement of the only true leader (also endorsed by mrs red square, so party approved ™)

albaghdadi2016.jpg

PS: taking a flight tomorrow, hoping he's not on it!

User avatar
Comrade Red Square:

I must confess that I had written a long open letter to you and others such a Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh… but as I considered the issue it became increasing obvious that this was an exercise in futility.

When one does not know the new and arbitrary rules of what was once free-speech the default more or less becomes silence. But in many ways you and other Trump supporters have provided a very important object lesson, for we now all know the misery of being shouted down for expressing our viewpoint.

As to your earlier allegation those weren't my comments on American Thinker, I usually hang out elsewhere such as https://moonbattery.com/

And while we who oppose Trump have had to endure increasingly vitriolic abuse, at least we do not have to live with the guilt of the attempt at forcing the man upon the nation.

User avatar
Has anyone else noticed the irony of the fact that this discussion is unfolding on the "Animal Farm" thread?

Looks like some introspection is in order for everybody involved.

in·tro·spec·tion
intrəˈspekSH(ə)n/

the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes.
"quiet introspection can be extremely valuable"

Also...

sense of proportion
The ability to judge the relative importance or seriousness of things.

User avatar
Red Square wrote:Has anyone else noticed the irony of the fact that this discussion is unfolding on the "Animal Farm" thread?

Looks like some introspection is in order for everybody involved.

in·tro·spec·tion
intrəˈspekSH(ə)n/

the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes.
"quiet introspection can be extremely valuable"

Also...

sense of proportion
The ability to judge the relative importance or seriousness of things.

Introspection is not required. This discussion merely is an indication that some Komrades have built up a tolerance to current Party Indoctrination methods and that stronger methods must be developed. We are starting to turn right when the Party is turning left so much it's going in circles.

User avatar
Comrade Torcer wrote:...
[highlight=#ffff00]And while we who oppose Trump have had to endure increasingly vitriolic abuse, at least we do not have to live with the guilt of the attempt at forcing the man upon the nation.[/highlight]

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson.

User avatar
Since we are talking definitions at this juncture:
Definition of projection
noun
3.2 The unconscious transfer of one's desires or emotions to another person:
'we protect the self by a number of defence mechanisms, including repression and projection'
Origin
Mid 16th century (in sense 6): from Latin projectio(n-), from proicere 'throw forth' (see project).https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defi ... projection?

User avatar
There were a couple of times where I started to post on one of the controversy threads with a "children, children! Calm down!" comment, but abandoned it as either futile or throwing fuel on the fire; in either case, counterproductive.

This has, however, gone on for too long.

As for me, you know I prefer Cruz and have some strong reservations about electing Trump. That being said, I understand and respect Red Square's stance on not tearing down the now presumptive nominee in the weeks leading up to the general election.

I'm still not sure if I will hold my nose and cast a vote "for" Trump as a vote against the Democratic nominee; I am that concerned about his leadership ability. Big business success does not necessarily translate to political acumen (nor does it mean the person would necessarily make a bad diplomat or politician).

No, there is something visceral, a subconscious warning flag that raises every time I read or listen to any of Trump's comments. Listening to that little warning bell in my head has in the past kept me from getting a venereal disease, investing in Nigerian internet scams, or trusting a television preacher with my soul. I tend to trust it.

That being said, I have no problem with someone else backing Trump. I could be wrong and the man may make a great president...and that would be great.

I think Conservative Punk and the others involved in this latest outbreak of outrage are frustrated by the unconventional tactics Trump is using--being bellicose and confrontational with the media and other critics rather than immediately apologizing to them. It doesn't help that Trump is more than a little bit of an arse as a human being. This very "in-your-face" style has rubbed off on some of his supporters, who have made some obnoxious comments and taken some obnoxious actions in support/defense of their candidate. Those who support a different candidate, I think, are lashing back in what they see as an "in kind" retaliation. The problem is, this "in kind" retaliation can and has been directed at Trump supporters who haven't done a damn thing to deserve it.

Nasty comment begets nastier comment and the fight is on.

Then there is the generally permissive atmosphere at The Cube. Red Square have been very gracious in allowing pretty much anyone to post pretty much anything with very little in the way of moderation. The beauty of the system up to this point is that it has been quite self-regulating. When someone steps beyond the unspoken limits we have collectively developed, a post from Pinkie or Theocritus (may the God he never believed in rest his soul) gently ridiculed the questionable comment and then the collective set the violator back on track. Red Square never had to get involved.

This political season has produced a much higher level of vitriol and partisanship that any in my politically-aware memory. Since the commentators--for or against Trump or any other candidate--are apparently either oblivious to a Pinkie shovel whack or so self-righteous in their choice of candidate, they don't reign back in. Then Red Square has to make a direct comment regarding their comments...and he's now a Fascistic censor, destroying their right to free speech, etc., ad nauseum. He's stupid, cruel, and dictatorial, an obvious paid plant, a hypocrite. Because he doesn't agree with me wholeheartedly, he is evil and must be attacked.

Yeah. It sucks.

Now, here's your old Uncle Ivan's advice. I am an altekampfer; I've been with the Cube for damn near a decade now, and I have been cautioned by Red Square and outright rebuked in the past. At one point I got so aggravated by another Cubist that I was ready to quit the Cube. In the process of my many years of association with one of the finest unpaid writing staffs in the country, I have come to a few conclusions:

1) This is not my website. Red Square has created something quite wonderful (in the true sense of the word--it is a wonder that it works): a collectively authored, fully functional website. This is something I could not do

2) Posting on the People's Cube is a privilege, not a right. (See point #1). I get to post my drivel on a website with a pretty good traffic rate. Some of the things I have posted have even been picked up by print media. This would not have happened without Red Square's gracious policies regarding what can and cannot be posted on HIS website.

3) It is stupid to behave like a martyr when Red Square actually DOES lay down a rule in what has generally been a self-regulating environment. You don't pay dues to get access to post; you aren't hurdling a subscription wall to read what does get posted here; you aren't (unless you have hit the tip jar) even paying for keeping the site up and running. At the very worst, you have had your feelings hurt.

Boo-Hoo.

4) If you DO feel like Red Square has been unreasonable in moderating your post, use the private message function to contact him directly. Don't post some histrionic, passive aggressive screed on the thread in question. It makes you look like a petulant child. Trust me, I've been there on this.

The long and the short of it, in my most Un-Humble opinion: Build up the candidate of your choice, don't tear down his or her opposition. Don't go crying to the ref if you think somebody else is cheating, and don't cheat back in retaliation. You don't want to be featured on the cover of "Poor Me" magazine.

User avatar
Ivan Betinov wrote:... and I have been cautioned by Red Square and outright rebuked in the past.

Prior to rebuke:
Image
after rebuke:

Image


User avatar
Ahem.... As Benjamin (Animal Farm's wise old donkey) was prone to say:

"Life will go on as it has always gone on—that is, badly."


 
POST REPLY