1. Socialists do not determine to dictate anything, opinions included. Communists do. Just as from the right of the middle of the spectrum, most Nationalists don't try to dictate anything. Fascists do. The use of the term "dictatorship" in the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" does not refer to the Classical Roman concept of the dictatura (the governance of a state by a small group with no democratic process), but instead to the Marxist concept of dictatorship (that an entire societal class holds political and economic control, within a democratic system), as opposed to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoise", or capitalist society, in which the wealthy classes own the means of production and exploit the working classes for the generation of private profit. It was never in any Socialist writing that people's bodies, will, or mentality must be broken to make the world what Socialists deem "right" or "good" just as it was never in any authentic Nationalist writing. Those notions come from the extremes on both sides of the spectrum, Hitler and Stalin. Get your facts straight.
2. I'm racist and elitist for saying that based on your opinions you're "more than likely a white, middle- to upper-class, hetero-sexual male"? Please apprise me of how pointing out that based on their opinion someone more than likely belongs to a certain group (who those opinions clearly benefit) means I hate or even dislike that person or that group.
3. "Perceived" injustices? Almost all of these issues have little real validity? Wait.. so, a bunch of working people (who pay their rent on time and are citizens, validating their right to be both in the land and in that particular building ) that are about to get kicked out into the street so the landlord could sell it to a developer is "perceived" injustice? It's morally okay to uproot families with little or no-where else to go to for a high-rise which "better" families will move into? Or a mall which "better" people will shop in? How is this injustice "perceived" and not actual? And no-one said anything about the gay guys doing anything in public or talking about it to anyone who didn't want to hear it. They got the crap kicked outta them (one, to death) and another raped with an object because they were gay, not because they were being gay "at" someone (which is impossible [and based on rape and public indecency stats, I'd say far more heteros try to impose their sexuality than gays]). How is being beaten to death for being something not actual injustice. And as far as the bulls, yes, we liberals champion diversity and respect for different traditions, but never at the expense of well-being, human or not, centuries-old or not. I don't understand how what happens to those bulls is merely "perceived" injustice. Do they feel less pain than we do? Please explain. If you can, that is. My third point (" these issues have little real validity?") can be argued endlessly. We obviously have different thresholds of injustice. I may think you're morally decrepit and you may think ...whatever about me. But please address the first two. Again, only if you can.Sorry I wrote a book guys. This guy gave me a banquet, and I love a challenge.





Subscribe to Hulu Plus to watch this show on your TV and mobile devices. 


Sorry, currently our video library can only be watched from within the United States


Facebook

