Pajiba

I don't know WHO in their right mind believes Clitney is *really* any better. You can just tell she's medicated into submission, just wait, the inevitable snap is coming and it will be, spectacular.

Laughing at Britney Spears for the sin being a mediocre singer who cracked under the pressure of serving as a lust object for horny perverts three times her age just isn't funny anymore.

I'm with Tracer; when I was 15/16 and grown men would hit on me, yell shit out their car at me or stare at me, I didn't know how to deal with it. On one had I've got friends who told me to take it as a compliment, but it just made me feel… dirty. Like I'd done something wrong that my walking home from school made a man view me as a sexual object. And I was dealing with this sort of shit on a small scale with (as best I can tell) more intelligence and support than Ms.Spears. To be told, at all of 16, that your biggest asset is your sexuality when you're not even fully in control of it yet has to be intimidating and scary. And yes, she is an adult now, but obviously there's been damage done that she's going to need a lot of time and therapy (which doesn't involve being on TV in a bikini) to work through. I wish she could get left alone long enough to get well, but I doubt it will happen. Both because of the public's obsession with her and her obsession with being in the public eye.

I've never paid much attention to Mandy Moore before; but now suddenly I heart her.

For weeks I've been waiting for one brave politician to quit the "thanks for participating" line tell those lunatics to just shut up and go back to Planet Zorg.
Thank you Barney Frank.

I don't know WHO in their right mind believes Clitney is *really* any better. You can just tell she's medicated into submission, just wait, the inevitable snap is coming and it will be, spectacular.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at August 19, 2009 1:15 PM

---

Oh god, I despair. What the fuck point is there in giving her that dumbass nickname? Because she's a woman? For crying out loud. Oh and hey, did you notice it's such a shit nickname that it could also apply to Whitney Houston?! Which is great because she's another woman who lost it in a "spectacular" way and who's good for the occasional ridiculing. Congratulations.

As for Tarantino: I was sure I'd heard that this was his worst film yet. It looks pretty bad to me, so far.

Posted by: Caspar at August 19, 2009 1:45 PM

If it was a dude it'd be Dickney.

And what, you got something against clits? Sounds to me like YOU are the sexist here.

Are we really all that excited about Inglorious Basterds? I've generally been of the "maybe it'll get good revews, in which case maybe I'll see it" attitude. I wasn't aware there was a HUGE amount of anticipation for it.

That clip of Britney has finally brought me full circle in my feelings toward her. First, I thought she was cute and harmless, then I thought she was a talentless hack, then I thought she was a white trash taltenless hack, then I thought she was an insane white trash talentless hack, then I just thought she was insane. Now I just feel sorry for her. She's back to being harmless, but it isn't cute anymore.

Hmmm, interesting, the placement of Britney at the top, and Mandy at the end. Former competitors who developed with vastly different outcomes.

Plus, the energy douche was actually funny instead of just sad. So very sad.

Kolby is right -- a fascist party can go either way on the ideological spectrum, depending principally upon what system it was created to suppress. Recently there have been a greater number of conservative commenters who have used at least nominally reputable media outlets for the purpose of equating fascism with liberalism, but that has little bearing on any thoughtful examination.

Eep, I don't necessarily believe that fascism and socialism are opposite systems of government, but they certainly are not "almost identical." There is a radical aspect of fascism that is, or at least should be, absent from a socialist society.

I think the main problem with the argument is that the definition of fascism has long since evolved beyond its origins as a political belief.

Fascism is now more like racism or sexism; it can come from anywhere and anyone, and is more a state of mind that a political doctrine. To be honest, there is no concrete definition for it; like indecency, folks can't define it, but they know it when they see it.

Pretty much any kind of government can become fascist if the wrong people are involved. So to say that socialism is more or less fascist because of what are ultimately superficial similarities (since the Fascists rejected socialist ideologies just like they did capitalism) is missing the point entirely.

Fascism is basically the opposite of liberalism, so there, if you were looking for an ideological opposite, that is it.

See, this is what is disturbing me, people play fast and loose with these terms and any understanding of what happened in the past is lost and then it just happens again. The idea that fascism can go either way ideologically springs from an oversimplification of the concept of fascism to mean "an overbearing government [usually one the speaker dislikes] that forces policy on an unwilling populace." True fascists don't trust capitalists (or neighboring countries) and think that strong government control of the bodies of the economy (their economic policy is "corporatist") is essential to stemming the capitalist conspiracy.

So fascism and liberalism are opposites, but fascism and socialism are equatable? That's not coherent.

Fascism was the political belief that the governing body knew and could mandate what it best for you. Fascism is almost always godless preferring ideals of Progress, Efficiency, and Labor. That Nazi Germany adopted Strength, Might, and Eugenics has more to do with the maniacs heading the governing body. If Jesus, King Arthur, and Yoda were the fascist triumvirate, perhaps we would not have very much to complain about.

Socialism is a bureacratic framework for achieving equality which may or may not have republican governors, senators or spokepersons, may or may not espouse religious freedom, may for may not value the same things that the Nazis did. The strongest definition of Socialism as we have it today is the theory that a population works as a unit to produce an efficiency of Gross National Product to Labor. There is no working domestic model, at least not one we can examine. North Korea passes bad information, China is the land of a neo-capitalism, and Cuba has been incentives driven (and for the wealthy only) for as long as it's been mapped in the Caribbean. Venezuela and Bolivia are mostly talking about Nationalism and anti-Americanism when they talk about "Socialism for the 21st century." They just want their resources back from foreign business so long as they can make a larger profit from doing so.

Nazis were a fascist government. The German people were amazed at the great strides Germany had undertaken to increase the wealth and power of a nation that once had only Reconstruction dollars going for them. They were not necessarily racist, but the undercurrent of the times made them accept the lower prices for firewood along with the re-zoning of ethnic groups they were made to believe were injurious to the national jurisprudence.

Populism is the knee-jerk political ethos that derives it's wealth from the collective population and splits up the goods and services equitably. Only screaming "Populism!" isn't scary enough. I think that is what people try to accomplish when they cry and huff at Socialism. The real thing is that these people actually hate Obama for who he is and what he thinks he can accomplish in 4 years (I say 8). I cannot believe that they are that set on destroying Hope when we see it so rarely. My only rationalization for their behavior is that they might be afraid.

Liberalism is a political social theory more applicable to examining the populace rather than the government. Perhaps in a country where politicians were deified or hell, even looked up to, this might be more uncouth. However, liberalism is a social theory about the free exchange of ideas creating the best of all possible worlds. It is a very zen academic and universal theory that really has no place in political debate other than identifying fuckhead twats who are going to be speaking more through their prejudices rather than with reason or pathos.

I'm not current on my Fascism, but I seem to remeber that the "means of production" remain strictly in private hands with the caveat the it SERVES the needs of the state FIRST.

Wealth still accumulates in private hands. At least that's the way it worked Germany, Italy, Chile Argentina etc..

So fascism and liberalism are opposites, but fascism and socialism are equatable? That's not coherent.

Posted by: sansho1 at August 19, 2009 3:42 PM

Why not? Because the public thinks that fascists are ultra-conservatives and socialists are ultra-liberals? Has it occured to you that maybe this is the result of the very obfuscation you complained about in your post?

I think you're confusing "liberalism" with "being an American liberal." They aren't the same thing.

jackseppelin I think you're talking about modern (I would say American) liberalism, whereas I was talking about classical liberalism. Per wikipedia:

According to author and philosophy professor Peter Vallentyne, "Liberalism comes in two broad forms. Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality."[7]

Again per wikipedia, classical liberalism is a set of ideas that express support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,[2] and a transparent system of government.[3][4][5]

It makes sense. Liberalism is about freedom. The idea that there should be an effort to enforce or encourage equality of opportunity, result, etc is a much newer one. In fact I would say it is the opposite of liberalism, despite the fact that people who describe themselves as "liberal" espouse it.

Everything you say is correct, Vermillion, I just don't put as much weight in the difference in intentions between the socialists and the fascists. The fundamental flaws (in my mind) in both systems spring from assigning control to the government. Once you do that, the differences are essentially academic and will wax and wane at the whim of whoever happens to be in power.

We are talking about all of this in terms of the current political climate in America, yes? Because everyone in the gorram country embodies classical liberalism except perhaps for dying breed of neo-Cons. And possibly Fox News. Just to be their fuckhead twat contrarian selves.

It is difficult to find what you're problem is Eep. There are huge differences in socialists versus socialists. The mind want to synthesize, but it is not always possible, and it is far less useful when political troubleshooting. We would need to get fully into all of the knicks and grooves and get a fair amount of field experience to fully justify this contention. If you're just shooting the shit, however, yeah, you have a point. Classical liberalism is vaguely the polar opposite of fascism. Was Goebbels a liberal in the classical sense. Probably. He just wasn't into sharing. Did he think he was giving Germany Jesus, King Arthur, and Yoda to the people. Yes, that's how they come to power.

I don't know what government you are talking about, but every government exhibits large influence over every sector of family, community and market. The arguments you are forcing could as easily be applied to any government once it gets big enough, which usually happens about 6 months after the Declaration of sovereignty.

Politicos having a discussion about "Liberals" is like discussing who writes with their right hand at a writer's convention. The modern definition is the way it plays in this country. You either espouse one school of thought because it is to be trusted, or you take ideas from anywhere because they might work. Even the most hackneyed conservative gets liberal from time to time. It's just a vague approach to problem solving. There is no liberal ideology. Those are just Democrats running their mouth-- a point of pride, we might mention, that they bring an entirely different idea to the table than anyone else has heard.

jackseppelin

I'm not trying to argue semantics or say that modern liberals are confused about what they are. I used the term "liberalism" in the classical sense and it caused confusion, so I was trying to clear things up.

That being said I think you're confusing concepts with the actions of people who generally espouse them (or at least say they do).

When I said "The fundamental flaws (in my mind) in both systems spring from assigning control to the government," what I meant was assigning control over economic (and to whatever degree private) direction and interaction to the government, whether it should be through the government owning businesses outright or through the government having directorial control over technically privately owned businesses. Of course the government has control in the sense of being the law of the land, but there's a fundamental difference between a government intended to allow you to do whatever the hell you want to until you step on your neighbor's toes and one intended to guide you on a path through life that doesn't allow you to step on your neighbor's toes.

K, the Barney Frank thing was pretty awesome. Jebus, it'd be nice if more people (the regular people, that is, the average American idiot) would be called on their stupid more often. Regular people stupid is usually weapons-grade stupid and shouldn't be given a pass just because it is someone expressing their opinion.

There's a way to express misgivings about an Obama policy that doesn't make you look like a fucking moron. Too bad more people don't know what it is.

Also, "fascism" vs. "socialism" - you all understand that those are basically just brand names, right? If you were killed by goons on behalf of Stalin or Hitler or Mussolini, I'm pretty sure you didn't give a fuck what they called themselves while they were doing it.

And yeah, I'm expecting Britney to implode any day now. I truly believe she is actually slightly retarded. I think her handlers are pimping the "crazy/on meds" line because they think it sounds better than "developmentally disabled." I'm not saying this because I hate her, I'm pretty disinterested, but I think that's her problem. Well, that and her horrible, money-grubbing parents.

What the fuck is all this talk of isms?! isms on pajiba love? This is just beyond wrong. Get your shit together, people.

BOOBS.

PENIS.

THANK YOU GOODNIGHT.

I know this is not a direct carry-on from the conversation above, but I personally don't understand why there is an argument against Universal Health Care - The US is the only major industrialised country that doesn't provide health care free of charge to all of its citizens. I am from NZ and have lived in Australia and am currently living in the UK & while no-one can say that the systems are beyond reproach, I would never give them up for the Insurance-based system in the States, neither would anyone I know.
It is incredibly important, in my mind, for a person, regardless of their financial position, to be able to seek treatment as soon as they suspect something is wrong - noone should have to choose between financial security and health.
I come from a working-class background and my brother had a car accident in Australia that left him in a coma for 2 months - he was hospitalised there and then flown back to NZ (accompanied in the plane by a doctor & nurse) where he was treated, first in a general hospital, and then for a year in physical rehabilitation centre (full time), all at no cost to my parents.
Had they been without insurance in the US, I imagine that my life could have turned out extremely differently and would have left my parents indebted for life and under extreme pressure.

"The main difference is that fascists are really mean about being socialists."

As a German and a member of the German socialist party who btw is the oldest party in Germany and the only one that publicly opposed Hitler after he was elected Chancellor(not for long as you might imagine cause it sailed to the camps aftewards) I SIGN THAT.

I don't understand your premise re: liberals but I suspect you are only trying to plant at least one tent spike. So have it. Only I will leave this one pebble under your sleeping bag. I have worked the Republican and Democratic side of campaigns. One could argue how little elections have to do with governance, but a mere elation of throated laughs is the most we can expect from that argument. I have heard of this Liberal you speak of an been able to observe their behaviors out in the bush. I can tell you that self-proclaimed liberals are like Niggas trying to own their Black.

(That political shitstorm could take us down the lane and etymology of "White Trash," i.e. what does that portend to signify as the natural state of being a White? And if it means to signify that the natural state is 'not trash,' what then does that imply the other races are? Do Mexican-Americans, for instance, adopt Chicano because for some reason, stating the country of their nativity becomes synonymous with third or fourth rate? To more pointed a claim, did we drop Brown Power and La Raza because we could not see the benefits or what African-americans did to change the language of their cultural defeat? If you can call hip-hop that:)

As to your larger question, Eep, I don't understand and won't respond to it. Though a hasty over-generalization, I will add: When government is controlled by big business it is the the duty of the office still present to wrestle back the sovereignty over people's citizenship and preservation of rights. The main fallacy of your argument, as writ, is that you are treating Socialism versus Fascism (vs. Classical Liberalism?!) as a ground zero. All things being equal, I still think your beef is guff.

After posting the above, I realized I was really, really late to the party and no one will probably read my comment. Who cares. I'm gonna say something else.

The Britney screen capture is pretty perfect. "Free pie for everybody". So if she were President would she be considered a facist or socialist giving out free pie to everybody?