Category talk:Authoritarian moonbattery

Not authoritarian

 * 1) Louis Althusser, who appears to be a philosopher and has no stance on whether communism should be achieved by authoritarian means.
 * 2) Cathy Brennan, Sheila Jeffreys, and TERFs in general, have no connection to "authoritarian" philosophies.
 * 3) Cloward-Piven strategy, which does not appear to have any connection to leftism.
 * 4) Melanin theory, which is just a theory.
 * 5) Valerie Solanas, who does not appear to have any political opinion on the use of the State.

Withoutaname (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, these items don't really fit with "Authoritarianism" as defined by the article. Jagulard (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of Valerie Solanas in here is clearly incorrect; she doesn't at all fit the profile described by "Authoritarianism". Withoutaname (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And in what way does she show dogmatism toward a particular body of work, strict adherence to a cult of personality or advocacy on using the State in order to carry out her will? Furthermore, what does this have to do with leftism? Withoutaname (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean, besides the point that she was a, (quote): "influential American radical feminist", the SCUM manifesto basing itself on the concept of class warfare (with a resulting violent revolution), and indeed a gender-based genocide? This is a fever-dream merger of radical feminism and Communism, one of which has clear authoritarian streaks, and the other of which is a staple food of authoritarianism. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Kill all [insert outgroup]" isn't authoritarian! It only counts if it fits into the anti-government political bent that withoutaname has decided is the true meaning of the word." Sorry for the dogpile withoutaname, but even further review does seem to suggest you've invented a pseudo-libertarian hard line for distinguishing whether something is authoritarian that doesn't really make sense. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, his claim that the Cloward-Piven strategy, (quote): "doesn't appear to have any connection to leftism" is blatantly false. directly states:
 * "The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".[1][2]"
 * No connection to leftism, was it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind his other claim, that (quote): "TERFs in general have no connection to "authoritarian" philosophies." No connection to the evangelical far right, was it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There's so much irrational pseudo-philosophy in your rant I don't know where to begin...

Let's see, "influential American radical feminist" = bunch of big scary labels that you've conveniently applied without explaining what connection they have to authoritarianism. Unless you're some MRA who thinks any sort of mild liberal feminism challenging his preconceived ideology is "radical", if you've ever bothered to read even the RW page on radical feminism and the history of the philosophy, it isn't even remotely authoritarian. Neither is communism inherently authoritarian, because 1) it is a movement and not an ideology and 2) of those ideologies which claim to be communist anarcho-communism is obviously not authoritarian. And I've explained before on Ikanreed's talkpage that advocating mass murder is a necessary but not sufficient condition for authoritarianism, the biggest counterexample being your fan favorite Sam Harris who has advocated bombing the Middle East before.

"[Authoritarianism] only counts if it fits into the anti-government political bent that withoutaname has decided is the true meaning of the word" -I've never claimed authoritarianism applies only to an "anti-government political bent" (the majority of which is actually the opposite of authoritarian) and in fact most rightist policies like the PATRIOT Act which expands the police state is authoritarian.

"The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy...that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty"" -Which has no connection to leftism, unless you're a dimwitted American who thinks "left = big government".

"No connection to the evangelical far right, was it" Right-libertarians sometimes ally with social conservatives, so I guess right-libertarians are authoritarians now? Withoutaname (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What I take away from the above;


 * I'm an MRA
 * I'm a "dimwitted American"
 * I use "big scary labels"
 * I haven't bothered to read stuff
 * I'm in love with Sam Harris
 * I think stuff is stuff now?!
 * 2/10 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you attacking the style of my arguments over their substance? You could have just conceded that you have no proper counterarguments to offer. Withoutaname (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @Withoutaname
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope, sealioning refers to "endless polite, reasonable questions and demands for answers" which I haven't done and "is comparable to running a filibuster and preventing anything getting done" which is something you've definitely been doing by preventing my work on the category and refusing to respond to my arguments here. Withoutaname (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are quite literally sealioning, dude. Let's examine what the actual sealion says in the comic:
 * "I have been unfailingly polite, and you two have been nothing but rude."
 * And:
 * "Are you unable to defend the statements you make? Or simply unwilling to have a reasonable discussion?"
 * What you just said:
 * "Are you attacking the style of my arguments over their substance?"
 * And:
 * "You could have just conceded that you have no proper counterarguments to offer."
 * TL;DR: Kindly refrain from sealioning further. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I started this "reasonable discussion" because you asked me to do it on the talkpage. If you want me to stop "sealioning", you could just let me remove the category from the Valerie Solanas page. Withoutaname (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean that exact edit which you don't have mob consensus for, and which three editors overtly disagree with you on? Also; now you allege that I put you up to this nonsense? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not just that edit, but you seem to equate every form of feminism including the most liberal ones with "moonbattery" as if they have anything to do with class conflict. Is CH Sommers an authoritarian moonbat? Do you just hate feminism when it challenges your ideology? Withoutaname (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Aah, the unadulterated fugliness of loaded questions... * sniff * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is CH Sommers an authoritarian moonbat? Answer the fucking question. Withoutaname (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you stopped hitting your husband? Answer the real question! I am not the Ombud's man 21:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

International Jewish conspiracy
has nothing to do with leftism because leftists give no credence to biological race. Withoutaname (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Except all the ones who did. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how the conspiracy is "right-wing" or "left-wing" but there have been leftists who were racists. Maybe they were regressive leftists!--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You forgot the shit Stalin and his commie bosom buddies did (doctor's plot, the purges, "rootless cosmopolitans" and so on).--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 16:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are (or at least have historically been) "centrist" Antisemites as well. Especially if you consider a "center" to exist in the political spectrum of e.g. Iran or Egypt. I am not the Ombud's man 17:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Some self-described "leftists" are white supremacists but I don't see the white supremacy article listed under this category. So why have an obviously not leftist article like IJC in here? Withoutaname (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually why don't you put Nazism under authoritarian moonbattery since Strasser et al borrow leftist rhetoric? That way I can post this to badpolitics and have a laugh at you. Withoutaname (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Face it, the concept has zero relevance to leftism and how is it even libertarian/authoritarian again? Withoutaname (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How do  articles fit into that view? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First, exists and yet we don't have racism under "authoritarian moonbattery"; secondly, the Soviet Union was capitalist; thirdly, that's association fallacy, in the sense that "antisemitism is leftist because the SU did it" is the same as "owning dogs is rightist because Hitler did it". Anyway, aren't most rational people opposed to Zionism (the Israel state) today? Withoutaname (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You've still yet to answer why this is confined to just authoritarian groups and not also as prevalent amongst left-libertarians. Withoutaname (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Soviet Union was capitalist?
 * Why am I even talking to you, again? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why the fuck do you continually misrepresent my arguments or cherry pick the arguments that have the least weight in responding to? Why can't you answer any fucking questions about why this conspiracy is strictly authoritarian and not libertarian? Withoutaname (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * random historical example, grow up. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't show how the IJC isn't just as prevalent amongst authoritarians as it is amongst libertarians. Association fallacy Withoutaname (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, all rational people hate Zionism? I thought rationalism was a Jewish conspiracy to destroy religion. I am not the Ombud's man 20:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you even read your own article? "But meaningful discussion of Zionism – including criticism, not infrequently made by Jews – can and does occur outside of the precincts of Stormfront-ville." Withoutaname (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not write that article and I would certainly not have written that sentence had I written that article. In my opinion almost all people who describe themselves as anti-Zionist are wackos and nutcases from the extreme deep end of Leninist leftism and the extreme deep end of rightism. And there are of course some religious nutcases thrown in that also oppose Zionism. Overall not a group I tend to associate with. I am not the Ombud's man 20:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good thing to know you support the Israel state over the Palestinians. Withoutaname (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Israeli statehood is non negotiable. As is a continued Jewish presence in the historic Jewish homeland. If if Palestinian leaders are able to accept certain preconditions (among them peace with and recognition of Israel), Palestinian statehood should be the result of bilateral negotiations between Israel and Palestinian leaders. Statehood like it de facto exists in Gaza is not desirable. Do you like Hamas? Furthermore, I am in favor of peace talks without preconditions between the elected leader(s) of Israel and any Palestinian leader anytime, anywhere with no time limit of any kind. I am not the Ombud's man 22:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow we have an actual Zionist over here. Are you sure you're not Avenger? Withoutaname (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So please be a bit more concrete. Which part of my opinion on Israel do you dislike? Talks without preconditions? Israeli statehood? Continued Jewish presence in their historic homeland? Palestinian statehood after bilateral negotiations? I am not the Ombud's man 23:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Withoutaname (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Withoutaname (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I genuinely wanted to know what you think. *shrug* apparently I will wait in vain for a response from your side. I am not the Ombud's man 00:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you feel at all frustrated when a certain someone responds like that?
 * I am against the Israeli state, as well as any notion of a Palestinian one. Withoutaname (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So how do you solve the very real problem of people intent on killing Jews for the heck of it? And what do you say about e.g. the Soviet state never being dissolved for the sake of communism? I am not the Ombud's man 00:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I son't see why this is considered a left wing/right wing or an authoritarian conspiracy. There have been plenty of liberals and libertarians who have believed in this conspiracy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Who? Give examples! I am not the Ombud's man 01:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I thought there might be something Stefan Molyneux would've said but I can't find and now I want to vomit from eating all that ideological garbage. Regardless, I found that Ron Paul and Alfred Jay Nock have come close.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Third positionism
, especially the, was also known to use (quote) "the materialism of the Marxist dogma" as the basis for their leftist-sounding rhetoric and yet I don't see them listed under "authoritarian moonbattery". So why should Third Positionism, which is simply another fancy name for the position that fascists like to take, be listed under this category? Withoutaname (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So... you really are a tankie, aren't you? That's your whole deal?  Leftism can't fail, it's always right?  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's always left (sorry, couldn't resist the pun...)
 * Anyway, there are many instances where leftism fails, such as with Mao Zedong deciding to base his revolution on the peasantry or the current situation in Greece where leftist parties join bourgeois politics and ultimately become capitalist themselves (because of pressure placed on them by the IMF), or with leftists falling into the Marxist-Leninist trap of dogmatically following a 10-point political program instead of constantly changing their tactics along with the class struggle. It's just that many of the criticisms this website has of leftism is as inaccurate as a conservative criticizing Obama for being socialist. Withoutaname (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In other words: you're our tankie equivalent to Aneris? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And you complain about me using loaded questions? Withoutaname (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That might actually be unfair to Aneris. Aneris is annoying but he's never indicated he's for mass murder. ClothCoat (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you two should get together, have a cup of hot chocolate or something. I am not the Ombud's man 22:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a loaded question! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Academic and political experts have always placed third positionism and other variants of fascism on the far right. All variants of fascism borrow leftist rhetoric to try to gather support for their party from the working class, but fascism in no way falls under "authoritarian moonbattery". Withoutaname (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Who said Fascism was authoritarian moonbattery? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You did Withoutaname (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We have an article called "Fascism". Regarding the Third Positionism article, the reason I gave for adding that category alongside the obviously primary category of Authoritarian wingnuttery is the following:
 * "Our own description says it can involve "whatever economic and social issues of the left they want to throw into their toxic stew". Including Marxism."
 * Based on that, I think there's a case for having both categories. Which does not render it a clear-cut case of Authoritarian moonbattery (obviously), but a mix of authoritarian modes. Duh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * We've been over this. All fascist movements including Third Positionism have some Marxist/leftist rhetoric. That does not make any variant of fascism "authoritarian moonbattery". And horseshit theory really? Withoutaname (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We've certainly been over this. By which I mean, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * RBP, I'll make this as simple as possible. Italian Fascism contains "left-wing sounding slogans" yet is not listed under "authoritarian moonbattery". contains "from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism" yet is not listed under "authoritarian moonbattery". Third positionism contains an "attempt to mix neo-Nazism, antisemitism, and far-right ultra-nationalism with whatever economic and social issues of the left they want to throw into their toxic stew" yet is listed under "authoritarian moonbattery". This is logically inconsistent. Either they are all authoritarian moonbats or none of them are. Why is a supposedly rational person like you supporting such a blatant logical inconsistency? Withoutaname (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Third positionism is meant to combine policies that are socialistic with more conservative ideologies. It is called "third positionism" because it opposes leftists, liberals, and conservatives so I don't think that it makes sense to mark it as a right-wing or left-wing ideology.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Would creating a category called "Third positionism" be better than what we have now?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)