User talk:Delirium of disorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Republicans

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Much as I despise the current version of the Republican Party of the United States, this change you did was just vandalism. --Orange Mike 00:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the Republican party to the list of fascist movements. I believe that it met the requirements for inclusion. You apparently do not. This should be a legitimate debate based on facts instead of unfounded accusations of vandalism. "In the more common case that a movement did not or has not yet come to power, it is included on this list if it meets six of the following seven criteria: A. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above all else, and wishing to give absolute power to the state apparatus. B. stressing loyalty to a single leader. C. advocating violence or using modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition. D. advocating severe economic and social regimentation. E. advocating corporatism. F. advocating totalitarian policies. G. declaring itself or holding itself out to be a fascist movement, or using any other common label that usually indicates a fascist political orientation"

Republicanism is in power...but it has not yet secured totalitarian control of politics and society.

The Republican party clearly meets A. They are a Nationalist party that directly chooses to ignore International laws and norms. They declare themselves exempt from the ICC and norms of international justice such as the Nuremberg principle of the criminality of aggressive war. Their domestic policies of extreme government repression have lead to the largest prison population on earth in the USA. They exalt the Christian religion both rhetorically and by violating the civil liberties of those who choose not to live a biblical fundamentalist lifestyle (such as homosexuals).

B. is more questionable. The fact that the Republican party let Bush take office after he lost an election is good evidence that they promote their single leader above the law. Bush's abuse of signing statements to undermine congress, secret prisons all over the world, and manipulation of the media are further evidence that he desires dictatorial power.

C. The Republican party has used propaganda and censorship to a greater extent than perhaps any non-Stalinist party in history. In most markets, because of Republican control of the FCC, corporations are the only ones given license to operate TV and radio stations (see also E). Republicans have a sad history of jailing journalists. Republican legislation such as CIPA censors public access to the Internet.

D. Tax cuts for the rich, prison for the poor. Drug war laws overwhelmingly target poor minority youth, even though wealthy white middle aged men are the biggest demographic when it comes to hard drug use. Republicans support massive corporate subsidies (bailouts, defense contracts, etc) that enrich the already wealthy while cutting social programs that could help the poor.

E. Republicans have been the most pro-corporate party in history. (See also D)

F. NSA monitoring of the worlds communication is the sort of 1984 style totalitarianism that other oligarchs have only dreamed of.

G. The Republicans don't call themselves fascist, but when pressed, most will admit to representing corporate interests above democracy. (see also E) The corporatist label is associated with fascism.

A? They exalt corporate interests above national ones, although they occasionally like to pretend otherwise.

B? They are loyal to a class, not a single leader; Shrub is just the latest front man. C? Mostly accurate, although the violence is scattered and covert. D? They advocate social regimentation, except when it would be unprofitable; economic, not so much. E? You don't understand the meaning of the term corporatism. It does not mean "prostituting the body politic to corporations" (the Republican policy). The radical free-market aspect of the current Republican party (at least in rhetoric) is one of the non-fascist elements about it. F? Likewise, the word totalitarian. G? See E. --Orange Mike 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember I only need six out of seven. A? They may promote corporate interests above national ones, but the Nazi's promoted Racial interests above national ones. Think of how much longer the Nazis would have lasted if they had let the best and brightest German Jews work on high tech weaponry like the V2 or even an A-bomb project. A purely rationally self interested Nationalist would not be a racist because often racial minorities can further the national interest as well as anyone else. The German fascists were Nationalist, but not just nationalist. The Republican party is Nationalist, at times even at the expense of corporate profits (for example in the case of restrictive immigration policy).

B? I agree that Bush is not yet a dictator and that other capitalists hold as much or more power than him, but there has been a lot of rhetoric about rallying around the president. "You're either with us, or your with the terrorists"

C? The focus is on propaganda, not violence.

D? The right wing leaders in government promote a rigid class based society. Social mobility is a myth.

E? I agree that Mussolini's "corporatism" is different from modern multinational corporations. His system leaned in more of a syndicalist direction, while our system is firmly state capitalist. Our economic system has very little to do with free markets. Markets require informed buyers making rational choices. Since the multinationals have a state supported monopoly on the media, consumers are bombarded with advertising propaganda. They cannot make rational choices. The US government also institutes massive state interventions in the economy. Government R&D in the NIH and the Universities is what keeps the health care and biotech industries profitable and innovative. Aerospace, automation, electronics, IT, and energy are all industries that would never have reached their current scale without the defense contracts that funded their growth. The model of our economy is public subsidy for expensive emerging markets and R&D...and privatization of anything profitable. Taxpayers take the risks, and the shareholders get the gains. Moreover, corporations don't compete within themselves and they are getting bigger all the time. Each corporation is a mini command economy within itself. Monopolies mean that a whole industry basically becomes a command economy. None of this has ANYTHING to do with free markets. Republicans may use free market rhetoric, but they're never serious about it. I think they just do it so they don't loose votes to the Libertarian party. Bush oversaw the largest expansion of the government (the creation of the DHS) since Roosevelt.

F? Other aspects of our society may be less totalitarian, but the government's surveillance system is an indicator of the massive involvement of the government in our daily lives. Total information awareness. Franco or Hitler would have loved to know as much about their people as our government knows about us in the USA.

G? What is a "common label that usually indicates a fascist political orientation"? Extreme right-wing? Defender of the Homeland? Violent anti-communist?

Look...we can keep arguing about the details of this issue. The requirements for entry are vague and arbitrary. Political terms mean different things to people on different parts of the spectrum. To some Englishman in the BNP, an American republican is a leftist. To a socialist or anarchist, both the Democrats and Republicans are a in the same league as the historical fascists. My labeling may not appeal to you politically, but it was not vandalism. That's what I would like you to admit. Delirium of disorder 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, by your lights. The fact remains, that by Wikipedia standards, what you did was clearly vandalism: a total violation of the neutral point of view (NPOV) principle; this is a separate issue from whether the GOP is going in that direction. If we spend all our time in embedding our political analyses into the articles, the entire project collapses in a mess of revert wars and flaming. --Orange Mike 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not including a group that qualifies for a category is lying by omission. I think that those who refuse to apply the same criticism to their own government that they do to others are not being neutral at all. Everyone has a personal stake in politics, so no one can be entirely neutral. However, we should try to be objective and truthful. Slandering and deleting my edits because you don't agree with my politics is more of an act of vandalism than me adding a controversial group to a controversial category. Fascism shocks and disgusts any ethical person. Pointing out fascist aspects of someone else's politics has long been an Internet taboo. See Goodwin's Law. It's hard to discuss this issue without pissing people off no matter how hard we try to obey wikipedia policy. If I tried to be politically correct and not offend anyone, articles on fascism would be kept blank. I would rather let the controversy get aired out in an open forum than suppress it by attacking controversial editors. Why can't you give me the benefit of the doubt? Delirium of disorder 01:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Please don't add the encryption key to multiple places like you have just done. If there is consensus to add it, we may do so in due course but I note that you haven't participated in any of the detailed discussion occurring over this issue so your actions are unhelpful. Please consider discussing your opinions rather than just blindly adding the key. Will (aka Wimt) 21:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And here I was about to ask the same thing. Please read Wikipedia:Keyspam - this crap is at spam levels, which is why it's in the spam filter. And we really don't want to encourage the next memespam - David Gerard 01:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the key because the whole discussion on AACS controversy was about it, and so it's particularly relevant to those wikipedia articles. The only reason to not add it is because you are afraid of the fascist US legal system. In the spirit of free speech, I have no problem disclosing the key. I didn't try to discuss the issue on the talk page first because I know there are cowards who are too afraid of getting sued to ever reach a consensus. Delirium of disorder 02:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, User:Delirium of disorder inserted the AACS key into the articles AACS encryption key controversy, Censorship in the United States and HD DVD. His edits have now been removed from the page histories to reduce Wikimedia's legal exposure. --  Netsnipe  ►  01:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Communist terrorism - warning test3

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Communist terrorism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ratiocinate 06:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How the fuck are my edits vandalism? I keep trying to delete a moronic passage that blames atheism for the genocidal authoritarian regimes of the Nazis and communists. First of all, the article is supposed to be about communist terrorism and a discussion of Hitler has no place there. Secondly, Hitler used Christianity as part of his political platform. Although a few people have claimed that Hitler made comments in private that he doubted Christianity, these quotes cannot be verified in any historically accurate manner. I can list pages of quotes that are all historically verified and documented (they come from speeches that hundreds of thousands of people witnessed) where Hitler praised Christianity. Denying Christianity's role in fascism and moreover accusing atheism of causing the holocaust is one of the biggest lies imaginable. I'm the one trying to clean up an otherwise legitimate article by removing these ignorant falsehoods and you have the gall to call me a vandal? Why are you trying to spread these lies? Are you one of the motherfucking bible beaters too? Delirium of disorder 06:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoooooo slow down Delirium of disorder, you're going to end up blocked. The way to handle these edits is not to stoop to that level. I removed the Dinesh D'Souza (see Talk:Communist_terrorism edits that were started by User:Mamalujo (see their user pages to get hints) and said why I felt it was a minor view not worthy of Wikipedia (we need not report every partisan view no matter how notable... etc etc etc).

I countered the Black Book of Communism with the Black Book of Capitalism with references to balance it out as that was created by the authors as a balancing view i.e. it is not WP:SYNTH to show that but it is clearly encyclopaedic. My edit was removed by an IP thus I would then simply tag that section POV if the consensus didn't allow a balancing reference. It doesn't mention Atheist per se anyway...but you're going to make it hard for me to stay and support a consensus to keep the minor D'Souza partisan view out of this page if you yell like that. ps also edit this page [1] with something so it isn't redlink'd. Ttiotsw 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with blaming communism for terror. I also support including the Black Book of Capitalism for balance. I haven't read either, but basic knowledge of history shows that both authoritarian economic systems caused unnecessary deaths. I'm not trying to defend authoritarian communism nor am I trying to squabble over the numbers. My problem is blaming Atheism for the horrors of totalitarianism, including the holocaust. The quote I keep deleting specifically blames Atheism for the terror of Stalin, Moa, and Hitler. I keep bringing up the fact that European fascism was a Christian movement and calling it atheist is highly irrational. Hitler himself used fervently pro-Christian rhetoric in speech after speech. Why are you saying that lies are legitimate points of view? Moreover, blaming Atheism for the authoritarian communist states in Russia and China doesn't make much sense either. Stalin and Mao created a cult of personality around themselves that required unquestioning reverence to the leader. This was a faith based system and was far more like a religion than a rational atheist system. I don't know what you mean by redlink'd....? Delirium of disorder 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have truth or lies but simply stuff you write that is referenced to show you didn't invent this yourself. I'm in agreement with you regarding the conflation by others of Atheism and political systems BUT the only way to balance a "lie" is to show it as ...

• a minor view from non-notable person,
• or giving excessive weight to a partisan source,
• or an unreliable source

For instance a blog on a race-hate site from some contributor fails all three whereas a work by a well known and published historian with a print book is an unbreakable reference and the only way that can be balanced is with an equally good reference or to read that reference very closely and see if it was taken out of context or "quote mined" and misquoted in some way. It is not an easy task doing this but it's a good skill to hone. Also don't accuse an editor of this but say their their contribution looks like it was taken out of context etc etc because of ...'x'. The weight of consensus can then decide.

Re: the redlink - your user page (not the user talk page) appears as a new article. See WP:REDLINK . This is clue that the user is newish. It's a good trick to add something to that page link even if it just says "Hi !" so that people have to dig deeper to see what you have contributed. Ttiotsw 14:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please see WP:POINT

When it is suggested that links to protest sites are inappropriate, the correct response is not to remove all legimitate links. Creating a disruption to make a point is rather frowned upon. --BigDT 15:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck gives you the power to decide what is "inappropriate" and what is [sic] "legimitate"? The DNC and RNC are criminal organizations that harbor the most deadly international terrorists. These are the political parties of war criminals. They are totally illegitimate and should be shut down. The protests are the legitimate democratic conventions--the places where the people will have a real say. Any ethical person should see that promoting the POV of the protesters makes far more moral sense than promoting the POV of the government. Since you seam to think that the protests don't warrant inclusion, it simply follows that the far less important links (to the DNC and RNC sites) do not warrant inclusion either. However, Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral POV, so it should link to both the DNC, RNC, and protest sites. Please stop allowing me to be censored. Articles about past DNC and RNC events have discussed the protests, why can't this article? Delirium of disorder 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Past events have been described by sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. (SEWilco 17:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

If the protests need third party sources, then why don't the conventions? Delirium of disorder 18:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask in the articles' Talk pages. (SEWilco 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC))