Political Definitions Are Changing

[Martin Hash]

I've noticed lately during debates, Leftists deny the NAZIs were Socialists, and they go to Snopes to prove it.
Were NAZIs Socialists?
No wonder Snopes lost their credibility; I thought it would be easy to debunk the debunkers, but when I Googled "What is Socialism?" I actually got an answer that included "democracy" as a primary component, making China, the Soviets & Cuba not Socialists! Wiki's definition of "socialism" has changed substantially from the time I used to quote from it just a couple years ago, and Google's definition of "fascism" is completely different than traditional dictionary definitions.
Google Redefines the Word Fascism

Of course, on Facebook there is no way to have any kind of real debate so this insidious compromise of trusted authority is quite effective.

The Left has always used language as a weapon, just ask Goebbels, and I think they're winning the language war now on the Internet.

[apeman]

The destruction of the meaning of words is perhaps the biggest red flag that society is very sick.

Anyone who tried to debate/persuade honestly cannot compete against the distorters and abusers of language if the audience is the masses.

BIG problem with democracy, as evidenced by my voting qualifications thread (that some posters shit on while simultaneously living in a broken system that functions on distorted sound bites and Hot Takes appealing to tribal instincts for political discourse)

[TheReal_ND]

What's particularly annoying for me is all the Alt-Right guys trying to prove NatSoc isn't socialism. Granted it's a different form of socialism than most, specifically in that it's actually nationalistic, but it bugs me to no end. When I try to point out that they look like retards doing that I get dog pilled. I think it's fine if they want to try to argue it's not leftist, because in a lot of ways it doesn't resemble typical leftism as we know it. It also forces people to think outside of the box in what is left/right. It is left of center though imo.

[C-Mag]

WOW

No mention of Collectivism in either of those re-definitions.

The Snopes article was rewritten simply to paint Trump as a Nazi. I know they are trying to illicit an emotional response and not a thinking one. But if I thought about it and looked what Trump has done, he is absolutely not Totalitarian. He is taking power away from the Federal Government and returning it to the people by taxing an Axe to the Red Tape and Regulations of Government. So, Pray Tell Dr Hash, why would a Totalitarian give power of the State away ?

[Martin Hash]

If the goal of liberty is: most liberty to most people, and
liberty is: the wants of the individual are paramount, while
collectivism is: the needs of the group supersede the wants of an individual
That put collectivism on the left.

Now, given that Libertarians support most liberty to whoever gets there first (which includes aristocracies),
that puts them to the right of our liberty goal, so:

Collectivists <------- Liberty --------> Libertarians

[TheReal_ND]

If the goal of Liberty is upholding the will of the people that constitute the state then

Libertarians <---- Liberty ----> Collectivists

Libertarians uphold anarcho tyranny in this paradigm while Collectivists are on the right presererving natural order. Should point out this form of collectivism is exceedingly rare. NatSoc being the only thing coming close imo

[Martin Hash]

If the goal of Liberty is upholding the will of the people that constitute the state then

Libertarians <---- Liberty ----> Collectivists

Libertarians uphold anarcho tyranny in this paradigm while Collectivists are on the right presererving natural order. Should point out this form of collectivism is exceedingly rare. NatSoc being the only thing coming close imo

Explain how Collectivists are "preserving natural order." What is that? You mean the status quo, like conservatism?

[Zlaxer]

Martin just need to accept that liberty is not the natural human state BC most humans simply lack the intellectual capacity to preserve liberty.

[TheReal_ND]

People constituting a nation having a say in their well being to some extent is the natural order. Being dictated to by an outside proletariat (alien,) or a technocracy not answerable to the people is unnatural. Granted, in an aristocracy the level of control the people constituting the kingdom has, is minimal, and that's also a natural order. It's not a universal though. The former scenario being far older and natural as well.

[Martin Hash]

Martin just need to accept that liberty is not the natural human state BC most humans simply lack the intellectual capacity to preserve liberty.

My entire premise is that liberty is a fragile indoor flower, only kept alive through constant care & watering by concerned tenders.