Lol. Wow Chuck, I've been gone a while but you've given me alot to work with here. Thanks. Let's get to it.
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.

Oh yeah, and one more point for Lee: fighting for basic human rights you say? How about the right to stay alive? I'm talking about one place on the planet right now that has more killing going on every day than any other war or anything thing else for that matter. So why don't they have a pair or wrestlers with one representing the drug carltels, and the other representing the government and citizens? I guess "social justice" isn't concerned with things like that.

Socialists always try to dictate for others who's opinions are valid, and who's are to be rejected out of hand due their alledged guilt for being whatever they happen to be, in this case "white, middle- to upper-class, hetero-sexual males." This of course is a racist and elitist position itself, but since they are the ones doing the accusing and labeling of others, then they feel sure that their own racism is hidden, or perhaps even justified. Sort of like saying: "How can I be a racist elitist when I'm the one accusing others of it?" Well, the fact is they can be. And anything that Gabriel might label me doesn't necessarily make me that anyway. I would like to reemphasize this notion of "perceived" injustices. Almost all of these issues being championed in the ring have little real validity. Even though gays can't force everyone in ever place in the world to accept whatever their current definition of themselves may be (most recently as candidates for marriage), they are still free in most places to enjoy the kind of sex they prefer (or "must" have for genetic reasons I guess is the latest thing). And if there are decency laws in place for "geeze, get a motel why don't you," that isn't repression because the fact is no one really wants to hear about other people's sex life or have it talked about in front their children -- can't you just keep it to youselves? These days, I suppose not. And I don't particulary like seeing anything about bull fighting -- I'm not a Latino who identifies with the machismo of it all, nor a Latina who might find it sexy -- but I don't see it as my place to tell other people what kinds of sports or centuries-old traditions they can or can no longer participate in (that's for the greens, socialists, and animal rights people to dictate for them). And whatever happened to "diversity?" It used to be a big catch-phrase for liberals. But the fact is, they don't want diversity, what they want is homogeneity. They want all of the races and countries to do things the way they want, but none (or little) of their individual cultural heritage -- the things that make them unique.

Chuck is more than likely a white, middle- to upper-class, hetero-sexual male. Capitalism, corporatism, and other forms of modern day feudalism with all the forms of social injustice they perpetuate have thus far benefited people like him. The thought that people can think and act in ways that neutralize or weaken these institutions scare him. So he and those like him will validate the existence of the systems that benefit them by declaring that they produce order, and therefore those who seek to undermine them want a "social meltdown" complete with "ignorant, irrational mobs". Order is not the paramount goal of any healthy society because it's just an ideal, not a principle. Justice is a principle (to the justified). And so is oppression (to the oppressor). If justice and/or oppression are the principles, order is just the catalyst by which these things succeed or do not. Any order that propogates exploitation and injustice should be removed and replaced with order that promotes justice. Otherwise it's not order, It's just organized oppression. Order that allows all or as many as possible to participate and benefit from it is justice. I'm not part of any socialist world order, and never intend to be, but that doesn't suit Chuck's narrative so I'm sure he'll ignore that. I will say this for myself and these other "enlightened individuals". You can keep your "order". It does no one good but yourself.

Then it sounds like you two belong in the ring with these enlightened individuals. The point of this kind of thing is to try to put everyone at odds with each another. It's how to incite and escalate ignorant, irrational mobs into creating the situation for social meltdown and [hopefully] revolution. You'll see this happening in many countries around the world right now -- very dramaically in Lybia, Syria and quite a few others. Only with this kind strife (based on percieved injustices) can you rob people of their freedoms.