User:ListenerX/Fuss closet

Introduction

“”To fuss is human; to rant, divine!

—John Bellairs

There have been complaints that I have "derailed" several discussions on the Wiki by injecting references to communism thereinto. This is understandable, as in these cases it often happens that by the time I am through trying to explain why the communism reference is not completely out of the blue, dialogue has veered extremely off-topic.

In aid of avoiding such derailments, if I feel the need to pop off at the Reds in the context of somebody else's discussion, and if I know that an explanation of why I am doing so might run too long, I will place the rant here instead, for the perusal of interested parties.

Rants

Genovese's People's History of slavery

[1] — No, a book written over a century after U.S. slavery was abolished by a fellow who was born 65 years after that date was not "the single most important book about American slavery," no matter how well it toed the party line! ListenerX^TalkerX 02:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing about history books. They are often written years, decades and even centuries after the events they describe. Roll, Jordan Roll was a crucial step in the development of understanding US slave society and the ways in which the enslaved created spaces for resistance within the slave system. It's a crucially important part of the historiography. What's your problem with that? RaoulDuke 03:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If the statement were qualified to say "the single most important history of American slavery," then there just might be a case, but to talk about all books ever written on the subject is an entirely different kettle of fish. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry--given that the context was a conversation about a professional historian writing history articles, I thought that was clear--my fault for not being specific. I'm not trying to say that Genovese was more important than Uncle Tom's Cabin or anything...RaoulDuke 03:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Democratic centralism among unionists

[2] — The problem with that is, according to traditional unionist ideology, once a strike is called, all union members, even those who did not ask to be in the union or do not support the strike in question, are expected to support that decision as a matter of Class Solidarity. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it's no different to other rules by majority, such as democracy, where you have to follow what the majority voted for, even if you didn't. I don't think it's particularly "class solidarity", although that has a role in this specific example, it's also just as, if not more, influenced by the wider ideas of Rule by Majority. ^{d hominem} 19:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In any functional democracy there are significant constitutional restraints on what a majority vote can achieve. When only some such restraints were put in place in the area of union votes, the affected unions howled blue murder. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"As a result of this act, striking miners were not entitled to state benefits, thus forcing the majority of miners and their families to survive the strike on handouts, donations from the European "food mountain" and other charities. Being without benefits had more serious consequences for the miners and their families. Their children were not entitled to free school meals or social security help with school uniforms. Poverty and hunger became rife in the mining heartlands. This forced many miners into a dilemma: return to work, and be viewed as a "scab"; or maintain support and live primarily on donations, which is what the majority did." Heh. I'd scream bloody murder too. RaoulDuke 02:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

But I supposed if you didn't suffer that sort of shit at all, no one would strike, ever. And thus it would lose all meaning - just imagine if you could say "oh, I'm not getting paid enough, I'm going to stop working and get the same stuff but just not work until you pay me more!", it'd be madness. Which is why such an action is extremely serious. I can't remember exactly what I was watching, but I remember it portrayed miners who were breaking the strikes in the 80s passing the pickets in buses with tehir heads tucked down to stop them being identified and hit by rocks - this I imagine was real. Still, I've never came close to such an action, I can't really comment. ^{d hominem} 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The old-time strikers put their money where their mouths were, and modern-day strikers should do that as well. Provision of State benefits to workers who are actively choosing not to work as scabs does little but provide opportunity for abuse of strike actions. It was abuse of this sort that took down James Callaghan's government and brought in Thatcher.

I was referring not to the miners' reaction, but to the unions', the unions objecting to the removal of autonomy in their internal affairs.

At one point in the 1984 miners' strike, the miners tried to blockade and shut down a steel mill by throwing rocks, etc., and then brought suit against the police who stopped them from doing so. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Organic food for the proles

[3] — This morsel of Marxist analysis is of course complete twaddle; organic food has given family-farmers an edge against corporate competition (or are family-farmers too oppressive of Poor People and generally too kulakish for a Red to give a hoot about?), and large numbers of non-rich people (and in particular those who have abandoned the pursuit of wealth on account of other principles) eat it and grow it in gardens. The only "status" organic food is a "marker" of is a heightened awareness of what one is feeding oneself. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

[4] — Neo-conservative, n.: A Red who found out that yammering on about "business elites" and "spreading communism throughout the world" was not drawing the crowds it used to, and that the concepts of "cultural elites" and "spreading democracy through the world" were better crowd-pleasers. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"I'm more of a culture warrior than a class warrior" — One could not find a more succinct summary of the distinction between the neo-conservative and the orthodox Marxist. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Orwell in action

[5] — That is everyone who is a promoter of the theory behind political correctness, for starters. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it couldn't possibly be the case that a few of them might be...I don't know...actually concerned with the feelings of other people, could they? No--you're right; that couldn't possibly be the case. The electrocutioner (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Political-correctness is based on several things, but concern for the Other People is not one of them. Politically-correct terms are mostly coined by a restricted group of radicals with their own axe to grind. (What is that? The people to whom the terms refer are objecting to them? Pay no attention to those poor benighted souls; they just have false consciousness, is all.) ListenerX^TalkerX 07:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to establish what exactly you mean by "politically-correct terms". Are you talking about, say, the term "Native American" as opposed to "Indian" or "Redskin"? Or the term "African American" as opposed to, say, "Black" or "Colored"? Those are the terms that come to mind when I think of "politically-correct terms", and while I can't say for certain who coined them, I'm pretty sure that the people to whom those terms refer do not object to them. If these don't count as "politically correct terms" to you, then I'd guess we're operating from different definitions here. (Either that, or I've just misunderstood what "politically correct" actually means, which is completely within the realms of possibility.) The electrocutioner (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy days

[6] — Perhaps Mr. Scrooge also considers December 25 no more or less special than May 1? ListenerX^TalkerX 01:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How very...um...Marxist...of him? Seriously, what the hell is this doing on your anti-Communism rant page? The electrocutioner (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to TheoryOfPractice's claim that "No season, week, month or day is any more relevant than any other," I thought it apropos to remind him of the fuss Red unionists make about the U.S. Labor Day not being on May 1, International Workers' Day. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this. You seem to assume a lot about me. You're wrong. I don't "do" May Day, either. Fuck you. Asshole. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Such stimulating debate. - π 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I assumed nothing of the sort. The original post was just a guess, which is why it is framed as a question. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dictators and radical feminists

[7] — There are exactly two substantial differences between radical feminists and communist dictators, not so sharp at all: (1) the precise definition of the Ruling Class that is desperately in need of persecution; (2) the fact that radical feminists have never had the opportunity to make a revolution. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Balkanization of the U.S.

[8] — I blame the Reds. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You got a b-side, X? - π 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough there was no mention of Reds in the book. That means the author must be a part of the conspiracy too, eh ListenerX? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Reds were the first ones to mount any serious attack, within the U.S., upon the U.S. Constitution and founding principles, which is the only thing unifying the country (unlike in Europe, where ethnicity also plays a role). They started the tailspin of balkanization. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The Reds unified America against them because the US started a huge anti-communist propaganda campaign. Besides, the Rep/Dem political balkanization didn't start happening until the 1970's, when the two parties began to be associated with "liberal" and "conservative". Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

1970s is post "The Red Scare" so you are not really helping yourself there. - π 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The two arguments are unrelated. My points are: 1) The Red scare did not divide America, and 2) The balkanization could not be related to the Red scare because it happened much later. Does it make sense now? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Red scare did not divide America? Have you forgotten McCarthy and the Committee of UnAmerican Activities? You couldn't take anything, but polarised a opinion on that. - π 21:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Although the Reds laid the necessary groundwork, it did not come into the open until the 1960s, with the aid of the New Left (as has been said elsewhere, the 1960s only brought into the open groundwork that was laid in the 1920s). Pi is right that the Second Red Scare divided America, for example by igniting hostilities between the State and the press; before that, they were united by Roosevelt-style liberalism and then World War II. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) @Pi: But that didn't spill over into the liberal/conservative split, which didn't exist until later on anyway. Sure, the Red scare divided America over communism itself, but Listener's point is that it was the beginning of the current polarization.

@LX: My knowledge of history is not up to par, but I fail to see how the political divisions in the 1960's correlate to those today. The point of "The Big Sort" is that "liberal" and "conservative" have become lifestyles in addition to political views, which creates politically and culturally like-minded communities across America. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened in the 1960s was the shattering of a common basis for political ideas, enabling the balkanization. As to politics being a lifestyle, guess who started that one. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede that point, but just because they started it that doesn't mean that is why the two-party system picked up on it. I dunno, it seems like a very weak series of linkages to say Communism --> New Left --> Polarized two-part system --> Big Sort. There are many other factors at work as well. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) However, I might add the Republicans falling into bed with Dominionists in the late 1970s furthered this divide. That is when religion became political. - π 22:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The left-wing parties picked up on the class-consciousness idea because it was a more solid way to hold their voting bloc together. Then the right-wing parties copied it in response. The New Left were Marxists, though mostly not as orthodox as their predecessors, and the 1960s counterculture introduced an entire generation to the idea of political activism as a lifestyle. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Class consciousness is like the Turing test, a boring and trivial idea relevant because it was given a name that caught on. The real reason to everything is cheap electronics and that 2 is a critical number. For 2+ the interface to the world becomes too complicated for the undedicated, who will then prefer not to choose. --Swedmann (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Party line vs. democratic will

[9] — Extremists on both sides of the spectrum erroneously equate the democratic will with their political program. In its modern incarnation, it derives from the idea of false consciousness: if a vote does not further the desired political program, the voters are somehow being duped and/or coerced into voting against their own interests. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He said winger. There are two wings. He could be referring to both simultaneously. - π 05:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That is true. However, he seemed to be talking exclusively about the right-wingers, who display this pattern of thinking much more visibly these days, many left-wingers having moved into identity politics where the majority are held to be the bad guys. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that he is wrong to accuse the right-wing when both ends of the political spectrum do this and you know he is talking about the right because they do it far more than left these days. - π 10:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that he is talking mostly about the right-wingers, period. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If this isn't racist, neither were the Nazis

[10] — A not-so-new way to "justify" racial hatred, and a very hypocritical one. If that is the definition of racism, then the Nazis were not racists; they did not hate the Jews "for no reason other than race," but also thought the Jews had a hegemony over the economy and were aiming to dominate the world, based on centuries of ethno-religious anti-Semitic propaganda. Despising the entire white population for the wrongs of some whites is racist, but as the essay notes, most "Black Pride" promoters do not think that way.

Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.- Martin Luther King, Jr. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of that feminist who told me that hating men is okay because it is not institutionalised. - π 07:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The world as they wish it were

[11] — Once the Reds twisted everything out of shape, it became increasingly difficult to succeed with a form of politics that was not a complete world-view; the first to try it were the Nazis, in direct reaction to the communists, and then our right-wingers did the same thing in diluted form, in response to our left-wingers trying communist tricks, also in diluted form. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Enlightened countries

[12] — Strange that a "more enlightened" country should allow Dark Ages-style fanatics to call for people's deaths on the streets, while concurrently hauling other people before court for criticizing the fanatics' backwards attitudes in private conversation. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What in goat's name are you on about? Bondurant (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

He's displaying Andyesque American arrogance. Evil educated Hoover! 21:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about this. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Aww, bless your little cotton socks, ListenerX. I bet your bottom lip trembled for a bit when I suggested that there may - gasp! - be a more "enlightened" country than the US somewhere in the world. So you thought, "I know, I'll pull an example completely out of context out of my diaper to show how clever I am and that I'M RIGHT! And if he comes back with something then, I'll just say, 'Yeah, but your a stupid head,' followed by a, 'Yeah, but my dad's bigger than yours.' Yeah."

I hope your mommy puts you down to bed tonight with a nice bottle of warm milk with cinnamon so you don't have any nightmares about those nasty reds and their free health care. Bondurant (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rant and rave all you want; it will not make the example go away. Some people would say that the U.K.'s sort of free-speech laws represent a more enlightened policy than the U.S.'s. That this got such a rise out of you, however, tends to throw some doubt on that hypothesis. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahaha. A classic argument-dodging technique. Evil educated Hoover! 16:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no argument in Bondurant's post. When an argument is presented I will respond to it. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course there was an argument, X - didn't you see it? Bondurant is arguing that because Europeans are so enlightened compared to the barbarians in the United States, we should accept that they always know best. Sure, it may look like Britain is arresting people for expressing socially unacceptable ideas in private, but that's only because we have puny American brains in soft American skulls and are therefore incapable of grasping the big picture. Now, I would argue that a country with blasphemy laws, highly restrictive slander laws, openly racist neo-fascist political parties and a history of misusing national exclusion to keep out people they don't like really couldn't be called "enlightened," save ironically. Of course, I'm a dumb American, so what do I know? I'm sure one of my European betters will be along to correct me. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Enlightened" in the sense that they aren't too scared of the Evil Commie Reds to have state healthcare. Evil educated Hoover! 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) That is true, at least. On the other hand, the British seem to be too scared of fascists to have free speech on certain matters. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My argument was that you pulled an example that was completely out of context to the original discussion because you didn't like what I said. Not only that, but you put your "example" in a different location, which to me suggests you weren't even convinced by your own argument. If you can't man up and do it in the original forum, instead of putting it on this sneering page, then you deserve ridicule.

I'll humour you on your argument. Yes, I agree that the Act you pointed to is an infringement of freedom of speech and an example of something the UK has got very wrong. There are other things we are not so great on too. I'm not a blind patriot.

Back to the original point, I stand by my assertation that the UK is more "enlightened" when it comes to health care. When half of your political establishment and supposed main-stream news media is pushing arguments like the "death panel", and the fact that millions of people actually buy into an argument like that shows just how "enlightened" the US is. How are people ever going to get onto a serious discussion on the genuine social benefits of a public health care option, when one of your two major parties (and to be fair, some of the Democrats) are screaming to the public that Obama is going to "KILL YOUR GRANDMOTHER!!!111ONE!" And it is not an enlightened attitude to think it's perfectly ok for 71 million people to have either no, or inadequate insurance, no matter what you say.

Now, if we're in the game of how our respective laws restrict the liberty of otherwise law-abiding people, then I'm sure we can find quite a few that don't exactly paint the US in a great light. It'd be wrong of me to bring these into a discussion on health care, of course. Bondurant (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is not strictly a continuation of the health care discussion, in which I had nothing further to say. I should gladly have put it in the "original forum" if I had not at several points in the past been criticized for derailing discussions by changing the subject in that manner, in consequence of which I created this fuss closet.

I am fully agreed that the invective against the U.S. health care bill is extremely hysterical and mostly in error. I disagree that this makes us uniquely "unenlightened;" it is just an example of the universal phenomenon of groupthink, which takes different forms in different places.

It is true that the Patriot Act is/was very heavy-handed. However, in all of your four examples of legal abuse, the facts were in dispute; if Mr. Khan had been entering the country with terroristic intent, if the art professor had been growing anthrax, if the Vegas revelers had been involved with terrorism, if the webmaster had been funneling money to Hamas, the government's reaction would have been altogether justified. On the other hand, in the British case the argument was that the government's reaction was unwarranted even allowing that the hoteliers had done what they were accused of. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Complexity" = contradiction

[13] — Ah, looks like someone is still sore concerning those inconvenient facts about the Reds. Me, I am a scientist and take an axe blade to "complexities" for a living. At one point I demolished an entire scientific paper in one sentence. Falsehoods are fragile that way.

Ironically, "complex" is itself a code word among Reds; for them a "complex issue" tends to mean "a fact that threatens to put the lie to our dogma unless we cover it up with a mountain of bullshit." To take an example, in the pinko history I am currently choking my way through, you sometimes get the impression that "complex" is the author's favorite word. He says, i.a., that it is "complex" for someone to be anti-capitalist and racist at the same time. Of course it is not complex at all, except perhaps to someone who holds it as an unshakable point of his faith that racism is a giant capitalist conspiracy to divide the proles.

As far as literature is concerned, though I have not applied myself particularly to that discipline, I am able (apparently unlike many of the so-called "students" whose papers I made my best attempts at grading in graduate school) to discern the difference between a classic work of literature and a dung-heap. Objections over the attack on the Western canon are by no means restricted, as is implied, to right-wing hacks, who, let us face it, are more concerned about students coming into contact with politically disagreeable material than with ensuring that some distinction remains between a university and its sewers. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

[14] — But, of course, no one bothers to mention that certain British unions permitted themselves to be run by communists who manipulated them for political purposes, apparently thinking it would be fun to drum up the proles for a little apoplexy and skull-smashing; the aim of this exercise being to bring down Thatcher's government, any actual labor grievances playing second fiddle. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OMG COMMUNISTS! Thatcher was a monster, as was Reagan. Their aim was to destroy the working class, and then the middle class. Deny this and lose all credibility. ħuman 05:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Might I dare to suggest that people's motives sometimes differ from what is dictated by Red dogma? And might I venture that pinkos, who are not known to be terribly correct where human nature is concerned (a shortcoming that even Marx recognized to some degree), are perhaps to be less trusted on this point than the average person on the street? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You might, and I would wonder about your warped worldview, but what does that have to do with what I wrote? ħuman 06:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I was dismissing your ravings about Thatcher's motives; but I will humor you and ignore the obvious presuppositions needed even to posit them. Now, for starters, Thatcher was something of an individualist and did not put much stock by ideas of "class," hence her quip, "There is no such thing as society." ListenerX^TalkerX 07:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Stupid little American proles

[15] — Ah, yes, those stupid little American proles; so benighted and falsely conscious as to believe that they might want to have some thought in their heads in the voting booth besides "me, me, me," or to suggest that their "self-interest" might not consist of grabbing more money from rich people, or to think for themselves without the aid of "political education" from labor unions, or to hypothesize that they might have a better handle than professors of philosophy on what sort of voting is "self-destructive" for them, or to dispute the notion that corporate big-shots are their implacable enemies and share none of their interests (national debt reduction, bridges, schools, healthcare, and job creation being of course exclusively workers' interests). ListenerX^TalkerX 05:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Imperial amnesia

[16] — That is just retrograde amnesia, though; not quite so noticeable as the anterograde variety. The Reds, well known to have an especial fondness for over-analysis, have found it necessary, each time some big new event happens in the geo-political makeup, to jettison certain of their former bullshit and excrete a fresh batch; case in point, when the European imperial powers shed their colonial holdings, leaving the Soviets and the Chinese with the lion's share of extant colonies, it became necessary to re-work the whole "Highest Stage of Capitalism" shtick. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What about the US' colonies? ħuman 04:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm far less interested in the development of capitalism than I am in things like slavery and other types of forced labour, the denial of basic human rights, violent political regimes sometimes culminating in genocide, and all of the other horrors associated with imperial rule, no matter the ideological slant of the imperial rulers. But don't let that stop you from making broad assumptions about where I'm coming from, politically-speaking. P-Foster (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Human, which ones specifically?

P-Foster, I was going off on a tangent, hence the use of the fuss closet; I was not referring to you above, since I know you are not of the orthodox persuasion. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah. My apologies. Not a prick. P-Foster (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Conservatives and the heart of America

[17] — Or, it could be that left-wingers got too far up where the sun don't shine into narrow forms of identity politics, causing the proles (who are so benighted as not to understand the importance of showing solidarity in the struggle of >insert obscure identity group here<, or even to know what the pinko prophets are pontificating about) to vote for the people who make their pronouncements in English. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I REALLY need to take this page off of my watchlist. P-Foster (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, to quote George Orwell making roughly the same point: "To the ordinary working man, the sort you would meet in any pub on Saturday night, Socialism does not mean much more than better wages and shorter hours and nobody bossing you about ... Often, in my opinion, he is a truer Socialist than the orthodox Marxist." ListenerX^TalkerX 04:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Systemic racism"

[18] — I suspect the so-called "anti-racists" would get much more support if they put more effort into denouncing miscarriages of justice such as this, rather than yammering about the evils of "systemic racism". ListenerX^TalkerX 04:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of racial tensions can be explained by the class struggle. Most blacks are lower class, and are thus perceived as inherently low class. If we even things we can erase that perception. That's what affirmative action is about.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that pipe-dream, people are not so stupid as the social-engineers think they are, and perceive affirmative-action for what it is, viz., discrimination on the basis of race. This makes them perceive any advances by the beneficiaries of affirmative-action as a sham, which just makes them angry. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Pinko singularity

[19] — Not to mention those who consider it... Yes, it would appear that the pinkos are on the verge of an astounding discovery: that >gasp!< all the trivial variants of Marxism that various radicals dreamed up over the years are actually saying the same thing. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)