Glazov exposes the Left

[Hermit]

Glazov devotes his early chapters to developing Hoffer's notion of 'the believer'. The repetition you cite is well explained.

There are undoubtedly some particular sociological strata as well as psychological characteristics that are especially fertile grounds from which christians , racists, libertarians, milleniarians, communists, fascists, gandhiists, capitalists, republicans, monarchists, rationalists et cetera will attract their ardent - and most likely misguided - adherents from. It does not necessarily follow that the majority of christians , racists, libertarians, milleniarians, communists, fascists, gandhiists, capitalists, republicans, monarchists, rationalists et cetera can be regarded as a "believer" in Hoffer's sense, and believing otherwise is Glasov's most obvious mistake. The repetition is not well explained at all. On the contrary, it is no more than evidence of the mindset of a "true believer", Glasov himself - the mind of an obsessive, deluded, compulsive ranter. From what I read so far, United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror should be titled: Glazov exposes Glasov.

[Mysturji]

Altemeyer exposes the right (wing* authoritarians, that is).
* This doesn't mean what you probably think it means.
In his (not so) recent book, The Authoritarians.






(Someone did ask for balance, did they not?)

[cowiz]

Define "left"

[Chinaski]

Define "left"

Not right?

Anyway, as far as I can tell, this is nothing more than a self-righteous rant intending to demonize progressive or liberal political stances. I wish the leftists would grow a fucking backbone and lot themselves be defined by their opponents.

[Styrer]

Glazov devotes his early chapters to developing Hoffer's notion of 'the believer'. The repetition you cite is well explained.

There are undoubtedly some particular sociological strata as well as psychological characteristics that are especially fertile grounds from which christians , racists, libertarians, milleniarians, communists, fascists, gandhiists, capitalists, republicans, monarchists, rationalists et cetera will attract their ardent - and most likely misguided - adherents from. It does not necessarily follow that the majority of christians , racists, libertarians, milleniarians, communists, fascists, gandhiists, capitalists, republicans, monarchists, rationalists et cetera can be regarded as a "believer" in Hoffer's sense, and believing otherwise is Glasov's most obvious mistake. The repetition is not well explained at all. On the contrary, it is no more than evidence of the mindset of a "true believer", Glasov himself - the mind of an obsessive, deluded, compulsive ranter. From what I read so far, United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror should be titled: Glazov exposes Glasov.

Glazov builds on Hoffer, and defines the Believer as one who is alienated from his own society, and therefore rejects its values, including democracy and individual freedom. It's clear,from the earliest chapters of the book you've not read, and your waffle above is utterly useless in moving this topic forward. You're just about on the edge of ejecting yourself from any proper chat on this one.

Styrer

[CJ]

Styer

If you have pissed off everybody with the style of your arguments rather than their substance what have you achieved?

Regards
Chris

[Styrer]

Styer

If you have pissed off everybody with the style of your arguments rather than their substance what have you achieved?

Regards
Chris

You almost answer your own question. Answer: the knowledge that thin-skinned objection to manner and tone precisely matter more to some of you censorious lot than the arguments presented.

It's not looking too good for some of you. And to the ones who were simply silent observers - I look forward to engaging with your less than dulcet tones next time.

Styrer

[cowiz]

Styer

If you have pissed off everybody with the style of your arguments rather than their substance what have you achieved?

Regards
Chris

You almost answer your own question. Answer: the knowledge that thin-skinned objection to manner and tone precisely matter more to some of you censorious lot than the arguments presented.

It's not looking too good for some of you. And to the ones who were simply silent observers - I look forward to engaging with your less than dulcet tones next time.

Styrer

Oh goody, we have ourselves a self proclaimed intermerlectual. Well done you!

[Styrer]

Styer

If you have pissed off everybody with the style of your arguments rather than their substance what have you achieved?

Regards
Chris

You almost answer your own question. Answer: the knowledge that thin-skinned objection to manner and tone precisely matter more to some of you censorious lot than the arguments presented.

It's not looking too good for some of you. And to the ones who were simply silent observers - I look forward to engaging with your less than dulcet tones next time.

Styrer

Oh goody, we have ourselves a self proclaimed intermerlectual. Well done you!

Would you care, you horrid little fucker, to make a comment on the topic's title?

What a bunch of cunts some of you truly are. The ignorance almost hurts.

I laugh.

Styrer

[cowiz]

Styer

If you have pissed off everybody with the style of your arguments rather than their substance what have you achieved?

Regards
Chris

You almost answer your own question. Answer: the knowledge that thin-skinned objection to manner and tone precisely matter more to some of you censorious lot than the arguments presented.

It's not looking too good for some of you. And to the ones who were simply silent observers - I look forward to engaging with your less than dulcet tones next time.

Styrer

Oh goody, we have ourselves a self proclaimed intermerlectual. Well done you!

Would you care, you horrid little fucker, to make a comment on the topic's title?

What a bunch of cunts some of your truly are.

I laugh.

Styrer

Go fuck yourself

[Styrer]

Styrer

If you have pissed off everybody with the style of your arguments rather than their substance what have you achieved?

Regards
Chris

You almost answer your own question. Answer: the knowledge that thin-skinned objection to manner and tone precisely matter more to some of you censorious lot than the arguments presented.

It's not looking too good for some of you. And to the ones who were simply silent observers - I look forward to engaging with your less than dulcet tones next time.

Styrer

Oh goody, we have ourselves a self proclaimed intermerlectual. Well done you!

Delighted to receive your pathetic little rebuke. What's your position on Sean Penn? The fact that you haven't stepped up so far is surely nothing to do with your being a full-blooded, wholesome cunt?

Answers on a postcard, at your own sad little expense.

Ignoramus.

Styrer

[cowiz]

Delighted to receive your pathetic little rebuke. What's your position on Sean Penn? The fact that you haven't stepped up so far is surely nothing to do with your being a full-blooded, wholesome cunt?

Answers on a postcard, at your own sad little expense.

Ignoramus.

Styrer

Hello troll.

[Don't Panic]

Styer

If you have pissed off everybody with the style of your arguments rather than their substance what have you achieved?

Regards
Chris

You almost answer your own question. Answer: the knowledge that thin-skinned objection to manner and tone precisely matter more to some of you censorious lot than the arguments presented.

It's not looking too good for some of you. And to the ones who were simply silent observers - I look forward to engaging with your less than dulcet tones next time.

Styrer

Oh goody, we have ourselves a self proclaimed intermerlectual. Well done you!

Would you care, you horrid little fucker, to make a comment on the topic's title?

What a bunch of cunts some of you truly are. The ignorance almost hurts.

I laugh.

Styrer

Hello Styrer, personal attacks are not allowed on this forum, especially ones so broadly ranged against the membership.

Since it's a repeat offence this is a formal warning for that attack.

[Don't Panic]

Styer

If you have pissed off everybody with the style of your arguments rather than their substance what have you achieved?

Regards
Chris

You almost answer your own question. Answer: the knowledge that thin-skinned objection to manner and tone precisely matter more to some of you censorious lot than the arguments presented.

It's not looking too good for some of you. And to the ones who were simply silent observers - I look forward to engaging with your less than dulcet tones next time.

Styrer

Oh goody, we have ourselves a self proclaimed intermerlectual. Well done you!

Would you care, you horrid little fucker, to make a comment on the topic's title?

What a bunch of cunts some of your truly are.

I laugh.

Styrer

Go fuck yourself

Pawiz, attack the ideas not the person, since this is your first offence you're getting a reminder to play within the rules.

[Don't Panic]

You almost answer your own question. Answer: the knowledge that thin-skinned objection to manner and tone precisely matter more to some of you censorious lot than the arguments presented.

It's not looking too good for some of you. And to the ones who were simply silent observers - I look forward to engaging with your less than dulcet tones next time.

Styrer

Oh goody, we have ourselves a self proclaimed intermerlectual. Well done you!

Delighted to receive your pathetic little rebuke. What's your position on Sean Penn? The fact that you haven't stepped up so far is surely nothing to do with your being a full-blooded, wholesome cunt?

Answers on a postcard, at your own sad little expense.

Ignoramus.

Styrer

And another personal attack. So another formal warning and a 48 hour suspension to go with it.

Have a nice day.