Steve King isn't the only one, and as far as I know he is still a member of the Republican party.
When AOC shows support to a Marxist-Leninist State and party, and when she loudly claims for the seizure of the means of production, you'll have a point. So far, the most extreme thing she's advocating for is Nationalized Healthcare and investment in infrastructure. I don't really think you can equate that with complaining about the white genocide. Her policies and rhetoric are at the very most that of a left-leaning liberal anywhere else in the world.
So no, your argument doesn't really hold up.
If you're going to claim that the Democrats were collaborating with the Soviets, I'd like to remind you that Mccarthy was a Democrat.
Economic security for people who are unwilling to work is a basic feature of most advanced economies. See the BS in Québec, the RSI in France, and so on. There was a time in the US when it was a thing too.
Regardless of whether it's implemented in certain countries, the idea that society must support those unwilling to work seems to be quite far on left side of the spectrum.
The "you don't work - you don't eat" idea is not "rightists". It's just a basic law of nature.
"You don't work - you don't eat" isn't a reality anywhere in the world today. It's not a basic law of nature, it's a delusion. The world doesn't actually work like that.
Do you think that the Republicans are quite far on the left side of the spectrum? Because last I've heard they haven't repealed food stamps yet.
This is a completely worthless, ahistorical comment.
> French Revolution,
How did that turn out?
> American Revolution
There is no definition of leftism that would include the American independence movement. The conception of leftism didn't even exist!. My head is about ready to explode.
> Mexican Revolution
See French revolution.
>And the all time greatest threat to the world has been a right wing populist revolution; the rise of Nazi Germany.
Pick up a book on the Weimar Republic some day, you might learn something!
> Right wing revolutions tend to curtail rights like the Iranian Revolution
'Tend to'
I have been repeatedly informed that the Iranian revolution was a liberation from the Western Imperialists & therefore left-wing (yes, seriously).
Strangely omitted are the Russian, Chinese, & Cuban revolutions. I wonder why?
Frankly, I'm shocked the mods let this topic survive on the front-page for this long. It's a honeypot for every kind of crank to show up and start arguing (myself included)
In summary, you guys need to put down the IDEs & start reading actual history books (not wikipedia & and half-assed bastardized regurgitations of Chomsky)
Left is progressive, right is conservative. These terms can and are applied to historical events retroactively.
> Pick up a book on the Weimar Republic some day, you might learn something!
How is this a refute?
> Strangely omitted are the Russian, Chinese, & Cuban revolutions. I wonder why?
Neither Russia nor China are considered the West. But why don't you tell us. I can only guess your argument is that left wing revolutions are totally worse than Nazis.
…it was created in September 18, 1947 as part of a reorg brought on by difficulties encountered during WWII. Pretty good foresight on their part to realize they were going to need to start a bunch of unnecessary wars!
"There is not a major political party in the US that advocates for an employment guarantee, banning private property, or withdrawing all armed forces from around the world. These are positions you would expect from a range of left parties in a parliamentary system."
That's a pretty loose definition of 'major'.
Parliamentary systems sound pretty shitty then - keep in mind the Golden Dawn, UKIP, and any one of the perennial "let's deport all the Roma" parties also counts as a major political party under your definition.
I for one can't wait to return to a time where the only people who could afford to be writers were members of the upper class who didn't need to rely on publishing for their income; we might be spared the next Dan Brown.
It's no wonder copyright reform has completely stalled out over the last 20 years when all discussions devolve into the same repeated canards.
If you're one of the majority of writers and relying on publishing for your income, you are probably not relying on publishing for your income but rather food stamps.
Many authors are their own publishers. Writing (and most arts) pays so little because society values their work so little. We seem to value a decent novel at about $5. An author already sees about $0.50-$1 of that. Respected, well reviewed, award winning (but not best selling) authors I know would still be hard up earning a living wage even if their income increased tenfold by them getting 100% of the proceeds.
> One should not use so much memory for a mail server, way too risky.
Is there a table or formula I can consult that will give this particular dumb person(myself) a handy guide for what amounts of addressable memory will introduce security risks for particular applications?
Apparently more than 32-bits is obviously[0] a problem for email; what about databases? Should I feel bad I use more than 64GB of memory in my DB installations? Am I being irresponsible? What about web servers? How much risk does each additional bit of memory add?
My final question is, why does pretty much every other software maintainer not have a problem fixing the memory allocation themselves, obviating the need for external tools to fix these issues? I guess they're going the extra mile!
[0] So obvious a problem that sendmail, postfix, and exim don't require me to apply workarounds for it for some reason. Very irresponsible of them, if you ask me.
Yes being able to freely buy a product that offers a different point on the security / openness continuum is slavery, and phrasing it like that doesn't undermine either the meanings of the word 'enslave' or 'authoritarianism'.
Congrats on your dedication to your cyberpunk larp!
"Support for these legacy computing symbols includes 212 characters added in
Version 13.0 to provide compatibility with a wide range of early home computers, or
“microcomputers,” manufactured from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s. These symbols
also cover the teletext broadcasting standard originally developed in the early 1970s, and
the Minitel standard developed in the 1980s. This collection of early microcomputer symbols includes support for the character sets of Amstrad CPC, Apple 8-bit, Atari 8 and 16-
bit, Commodore 8 and 16-bit, MSX, Yamaha, RISC OS, and Tandy"
> it isn't even necessarily incorrect to express that they may not want to pursue that particular field anymore
Can I express that to people who think a volunteer project owes them anything & couldn't be arsed to implement the project's functionality themselves in the first place?
Somehow I don't think that would be a constructive use f time.
> Various republican-aligned groups in the US actually cooperated with the NSDAP.
If we're bringing up stuff from the 1930s, you're not going to like what the Democrats were doing from then until 70s.