Like a robotic writing coach, the 'tone check' tool can analyze a chunk of text to provide insight about the emotion it conveys (cheerful versus angry), if it seems agreeable and conscientious, and whether it reads as confident or tentative (or, bonus: analytical). Designed for both personal and business use, the program will also point out suggestions for alternative word choices to tweak the tone of the message.IN THE COMMENTS: Original Mike says:
So they've (re)invented the thesaurus.It's the opposite of a thesaurus more than it's the same.
1. You have to decide when to go looking for alternate words in the thesaurus. The thesaurus won't pro-actively tell you where there's a good place for rewording.
2. The thesaurus deprives you of information about the tone and notoriously — dishonorably, opprobriously, shamefully! — lures naive users into screwing up their tone.
Posts
116 comments:
"the program will also point out suggestions for alternative word choices to tweak the tone of the message."
So they've (re)invented the thesaurus.
Yes, but can the robots understand the transcendent meaning beyond the words?
A thesaurus for dogs is needed for choosing the right bark.
McCain war hero from my thesaurus supercomputer
hero idol darling minion lackey stooge butt joke buffoon fool
"The thesaurus won't pro-actively tell you where there's a good place for rewording."
It's an uppity thesaurus.
Top Definition. uppity. Taking liberties or assuming airs beyond one's place in a social heirarchy. Assuming equality with someone higher up the social ladder.
Bill Gates has had this kind of attitude about our writing skills for a long time.
AI that helps humans become self-aware.
Maybe Kevin Williamson could have used this before before calling Bernie Sanders, who lost most of his family in the Holocaust, a Nazi.
Cue the teacher unions, the bureaucrats, public school apologists, and lazy teenagers:
What does it matter if we don't learn words?! We have a computer for that.
Wm. Empson
For example, I remember a Chinese student who put in an essay on the Scotch Ballads `The ballad must be simple and vulgar'. Most of the essay was spent in laborious praise of the Scotch ballads, which he felt to be required on him, but I gathered that he felt they were like popular works in China which a proud scholar would despise. That is, he knew the word had two meanings, and wanted to use it to drop an insinuation. The mistake was, therefore, an extremely marginal one ; it was merely that he took `of the common people' to be the head sense, under which `coarse' could insuinuate itself as an Implication (equated to the head sense, perhaps). But this is a definite mistake ; whatever the political or literary views of the reader, he will feel that there has been a ridiculous collapse of an attempt at tact.
ARM, you throw around that NAZI term pretty freely yourself, so your distress at the misapplication of that terms is noted. And to be fair, it is kind of hard to tell the difference between a NAZI and a Commie without a guide book.
My writing style is a bit robotic. I wonder if Watson will like it as is.
tim in vermont said...
ARM, you throw around that NAZI term pretty freely yourself
Blatant lie, although a perfect example of projection. You continuously make yourself look even more foolish than necessary by calling inappropriate subjects Nazis. You would do yourself a favor if you dropped that particular idiocy.
First self-driving cars, then self-writing texts, then self-thinking minds. Who needs humans?
ARM, we have all read your comments.
I never called Sanders a NAZI, BTW, I just said that it is hard to tell one party that believes in an all powerful central government that tells it's people what to do in nearly every facet of their lives from another party that believes in an all powerful central government that tells its people what to do in nearly every facet of their lives.
I think the fact that Soviet Russia and Communist China turned to fascism on a dime sort of proves it.
Maybe Kevin Williamson could have used this before before calling Bernie Sanders, who lost most of his family in the Holocaust, a Nazi.
Maybe ARM could have read the article, and noticed that even Matt acknowledges that Williamson explicitly did not call Sanders a NAZI, he called him a national socialist.
Does the communist manifesto ever explicitly call for the unification of Austria and Germany? No, it does not!
Clearly, two very different parties and anyone who would besmirch the good name of A Reasonable Man is a NAZI.
Gahrie said...
Williamson explicitly did not call Sanders a NAZI, he called him a national socialist.
A distinction without a difference, in this context. Williamson is a weasel for taking that particular line of attack. Good men would acknowledge that.
gahrie,
Outstanding. I would love to hear Bernie delineate the many differences between national socialism and his own positions.
ARM has called us all fascists more than once himself, but we all know that ARM maintains dishonest definitions of fascism, pretending it is not an economic system, so that he doesn't have to face the fact that he agrees with much of it.
The best defense he can muster is that anybody who disagrees with his ravings is an idiot.
"A distinction without a difference."
HA HA HA HA! You mean like calling conservatives here fascists and claiming you never called us "NAZIs"?
FWIW, I don't think Sanders is a national socialist. He doesn't care about America that much. He thinks we should throw more of our future national treasure at the Grecian black hole so that their economy of pensions can continue.
tim in vermont said...
ARM, we have all read your comments.
You are a complete fool, confusing mockery, of you in particular, with your own nutty beliefs. It is sad when the object of derision fails to notice.
tim in vermont said...
ARM has called us all fascists more than once himself,
I have mocked idiots like you for calling people fascists. Unfortunately you were too stupid to notice.
My whole rant on fascism and communism on this site was inspired by ARM calling people who believe in individual freedom and classical liberal democracy, you know, types who think that the people are sovereign over the government, not the other way around, as in fascism and communism, are fascists.
His only defense seems to be: "You are an idiot."
Well, I think a French politician, a lady, said that "one of life's supreme pleasures was to be called an idiot by an imbecile." I wouldn't say it was a supreme pleasure, but it is amusing.
Calling conservatives 'fascists' is different because it's 'punching up', 'speaking truth to power', and 'exposing to sunlight'. Also, it's the ideology of old white males. Hitler was a white male. Therefore, nazis.
Calling them such names though is hate speech designed to oppress and censor. A cheap trick by the fascist elite to keep the 99% fighting each other instead of the whipmaster. After all, they're the "anti-fascists", they say so at the protests where they try to shut down dissenting speakers.
Also know as: It's different when WE do it!
tim in vermont said...
My whole rant on fascism and communism on this site was inspired by ARM calling people who believe in individual freedom and classical liberal democracy, you know, types who think that the people are sovereign over the government, not the other way around, as in fascism and communism, are fascists.
Another straight up lie, in a truly pathetic attempt at self justification for endless idiotic comments. Sad. Sad. Sad.
Anyway, here's how you can tell that ARM is a communist and not a fascist: he uses the word 'reasonable' in his handle. From 'Bolshevik' to 'People's Republic', the Communists are second-to-none when it comes to brazenly using words that are the exact opposite of what they are describing.
" by calling inappropriate subjects Nazis. "
I once called a stool a Nazi. And a flower vase. But they deserved it, with their inherent hatred of Jews.
So I guess you are A-OK with Williamson calling a Jew, who lost his family to the holocaust, a Nazi (National Socialist). That's how you roll. Williamson is not a disgraceful thug, but a respected member of the right wing commentariat.
"So I guess you are A-OK with Williamson calling a Jew, who lost his family to the holocaust, a Nazi (National Socialist). "
I could give a shit what Williamson says.
Upon closer inspection, Sanders does not really fit the bill for what we'd understand a National Socialist to be. He's just a regular old socialist whose ideas are not compatible with the American ideal. However, I find him much more straight forward and honest than Pantsuits McGee.
The left in this country has redefined 'National Socialist' to mean 'Someone who I disagree with politically, usually in the context of they want a government program that will do something I disagree with, or want to remove a government program I agree with."
In short, Bernie fits the bill. Blame your side for deciding that words don't mean what they have traditionally meant.
Now a question for you: which Republican candidates, if any, do you believe to be fascists?
If none, then a simple statement like "None of the Republican candidates for president are fascists' will suffice.
. It is sad when the object of derision fails to notice.
Well, if you ever backed up your attempts at mockery with any actual, you know, evidence and logic, you might make some headway. But we both know that logic and evidence are a dead end for you when it comes to explaining why fascism and communism are at opposite ends of the economic spectrum.
Another straight up lie, in a truly pathetic attempt at self justification for endless idiotic comments.
It seems like you should be able to explain why my comments are "idiotic" in just a paragraph or two. but instead you just call me an idiot, over and over. Sad, sad, sad.
I don't think Sanders is a NAZI or even a national socialist, BTW, as I have said. But I am not responsible for your interpretation of what somebody I never heard of wrote, and so I feel no responsibility to answer for it. If you think that means I think it is fine to call Sanders a NAZI, well, that is just more of your dishonest rhetoric.
My mother lived under NAZI occupation, and my wife and children are Jewish, raised Jewish, not just Jewish by definition. It wasn't small government conservatives who believed in individual freedom and basic protections against the government who overran my mother's country and took away the Jewish kids in the neighborhood.
It was men who believed in individual rights and protection from an all powerful government who fought to take her country back.
Ladies, the Laslo3000 is programmed to give you five language-optimized sexual experiences.
1. Sensitive Laslo, for the women who want a soft, sensual experience, with no anal.
"Baby, would you like me to gently rub more lavender oil on your back? It smells heavenly."
2. Forceful Laslo, for the women who want it a little rough, and desire to be told what to do.
"Babe, bend over and bite the pillow. Now. And you better be ready, because I'm going to smack that ass and pull some hair."
3. All-Powerful Laslo, for the women who wish to be dominated fully.
"Little Girl, if you take off the blindfold the repercussions for you will be much worse. Shall I get the handcuffs and then carve my name into your thigh with a needle?"
4. Possibly Serial-Murderer Laslo, for the women who like to flirt with danger.
"My scared flower, after I have carved my name into your thigh I will anally ravage you, then take you out into the forest and look at places where a body might easily be buried. Don't be afraid: I've done this before."
5. Daddy Laslo, for the women with Daddy issues.
"Sweetie, if you let Daddy do this to you we will go get ice cream afterward. Daddy's Girl likes ice cream, doesn't she?"
I am Laslo.
Laslo Spatula said...
Ladies, the Laslo3000 is programmed to give you five language-optimized sexual experiences.
Unsurprisingly, the Sensitive Laslo option is the one most often cited to the salesman on the showroom floor as the reason for purchase.
It has never once been selected by the user at home.
Williamson's NRO article, Bernie’s Strange Brew of Nationalism and Socialism, is of course far more nuanced than ARM will admit. At least Reasonable provided a link so that people can see for themselves the toxic combination of antipathy towards brown people that Bernie feels are ruining America and his well-known socialist proposals for "fixing" this country. Williamson explicitly states that it makes him uncomfortable to even take note of the rabid nationalism at Bernie's events [note to ARM: Sanders supporters are showing up wearing swastika shirts, swastikas!] given the family history of escaping from Nazis -- the only time Williamson writes the those four letters n-a-z-i in the whole article. Strange brew indeed!
Alexander said...
Now a question for you: which Republican candidates, if any, do you believe to be fascists?
None. With the possible exception of Rand Paul, they are all socialists - 'hands off my social security and medicare'.
None. With the possible exception of Rand Paul, they are all socialists - 'hands off my social security and medicare'. - ARM
If you worked anywhere but at a university, it would be hard to get through life with such a childish black and white view of the world.
Down with Latin and Latin derived words. They are good for nothing except administering an enslaved empire.
More old Anglo Saxon words are what we need. Not the Spanish Inquisition's favorite words and phrases.
Blogger tim in vermont said...
it would be hard to get through life with such a childish black and white view of the world.
More projection. You have an extreme Manichean world view, all lefties are bad. I wouldn't call it childish, because children are capable of quite subtle distinctions. You are primitive.
Still no rational argument, just more name calling. You can't even imagine my surprise ARM.
Though I do agree that the distinctions between fascism and communism are subtle, so we are making progress.
all lefties are bad.
What good have they ever done for the world? The Left were the bad guys in the French Revolution, they were the bad guys in WW II, the bad guys in the Cold War, and the bad guys today. They believe in demonstrably ruinous economic and social policies, increased government power and the oppression of the individual.
The Left has given the world Socialism, Progressivism, Fascism and Communism.
And Progressives gave us eugenics (i.e. Planned Parenthood) and the concept of a Living Constitution intended to kill the rights we hold dear and (previously as "self-evident"). Bad ideas from bad people.
Gahrie said...
The Left were the bad guys ... in WW II
Need any more be said?.
I agree that Lefties are heartless true believers with the biggest guns, but somebody had to do the French Revolution. The Bourbon kings system of rule using total corruption with the of the Catholic Clerics badly needed to be eliminated so men could taste freedom The American Revolution was their example.
And that allowed Napoleon to fix up Europe, until Waterloo 17 years later turned on a few brave men's efforts. But 15 years of fighting the French Empire kept the British Empire so occupied they could not reconquer their claimed North American Colonies, apart from invading and burning Washington. But Andrew Jackson at New Orleans turned that tide here as Wellington turned it in France.
I see the possibility of programming this WATSON to enforce uniformity of "correct" views upon the user.
If, above, the commenters were using WATSON, I doubt the whole kerfuffle over socialism vs national socialism, etc., would have arisen. WATSON would have explained what the commenters should have written.
What that is, exactly, would depend on who last programmed WATSON.
Is there any way for WATSON to perform a Robocop-like reset of programming to delete extraneous, self-contradictory, irrational rules, or at least to detect them and note their presence to the users?
Since you're speaking to word choice today, this from a New York Times news piece about Sandy Bland, the woman who apparently hanged herself in a jail cell: "The death has fueled additional tensions over the treatment of African-Americans in police custody and comes roughly three months after the death of Freddie Gray..." Roughly. I think I might have used "a little more than..." or "approximately." Unless I wanted to rile up people.
To be fair, I think a good deal of this comes from haste and everyone in the mix thinking alike about the core issues. And fewer editors.
Althouse wrote: It's the opposite of a thesaurus more than it's the same.
No, the opposite of a thesaurus would be an antonymicon (Quaestor just invented a word; feel free to use it with attribution.) An antonymicon would reverse the meaning of what you write, but would not necessarily alter the tone. Applying a thesaurus often changes the tone, in fact that's its chief function.
For example: A broker might email a client the message "Sell Apple and buy Microsoft" in anticipation of a fall in the share price of Apple concurrent with a rise in the value of Microsoft. The tone is mostly neutral, though it implies urgency and confidence. Applying the antonymicon yields "Buy Apple or sell Microsoft." The meaning is completely reversed. The tone hasn't changed, however.
The antonymicon is a slim and mostly useless volume compared to a thesaurus because, though many meanings have more than one corresponding word, opposite meanings are sparse by comparison. Some words have complementary meanings which are not necessarily opposite meanings. Unconditional opposites are quite rare. Consider the stock broker's email. Is the opposite of sell buy, or is it retain? Sell and buy are complements, not opposites, except within a larger context. I reckon there is no set of rules that would reliably reverse the meaning of any sentence in English. Most people would without much reflection say that the opposite of loose is find. Therefore by that rule the opposite of Tom has lost his mind (i.e. Tom is insane) would be Tom has found his mind, a very odd turn of phrase that only a non-native English speaker would likely employ. Another intuitive antonym pair is fat and slim, however exchanging these words may not change the meaning at all - fat chance and slim chance both mean something is unlikely or improbable.
There is no antonymicon because the idea of opposites in language is so slippery as to be mostly nonsensical. Take any proposition of the form A is the opposite of B, and, more often than not, upon reflection the proposition will degrade to mere rhetoric.
Typo alert: ... the opposite of lose is find...
I figured it out. "I am Laslo" is the Id to Ann's Superego.
The question is: Is she aware of this?
Althouse wrote: It's the opposite of a thesaurus more than it's the same.
Evidently Althouse did not follow the link to IBM's Watson Tone Analyzer site, because Original Mike's comment is much more correct than Althouse's contradiction.
Original Mike characterizes the Watson Tone Analyzer as a re-invention of the thesaurus, which underestimates the program considerably. No previous thesaurus offers synonyms which will achieve a desired tone in a body of text.
The Left were the bad guys ... in WW II
Need any more be said?.
No matter how much the modern Left objects, the NAZIs and other Fascists were a Leftist ideology, and were embraced by Progressives and Liberals in the United States prior to WW II. That is a simple fact, and the Left has not yet succeeded in erasing enough history to deny it, despite how hard they have tried.
" No previous thesaurus offers synonyms which will achieve a desired tone in a body of text."
It's up to the user to peruse the offerings for the tone he desires.
Fascists were a Leftist ideology, and were embraced by Progressives and Liberals in the United States prior to WW II.
Name one.
It's up to the user to peruse the offerings for the tone he desires.
Yes, but Watson sorts the offered synonyms conditionally based on the whole text. Give it a different body of text with some of the same words and Watson will often suggest a new set of synonyms.
Well, for those who need a crutch ....
Name one.
Ezra Pound
Franklin Roosevelt
Cole Porter
Well, for those who need a crutch ....
Hey, go easy... I'm defending you.
"Hey, go easy... I'm defending you."
Guess I need Watson.
"Name one."
Gladly.
In 1911, after a fire destroyed their home in Hastings-on-Hudson, the Sangers abandoned the suburbs for a new life in New York City. Margaret Sanger worked as a visiting nurse in the slums of the East Side, while her husband worked as an architect and a house painter. Already imbued with her husband's leftist politics, Margaret Sanger also threw herself into the radical politics and modernist values of pre-World War I Greenwich Village bohemia. She joined the Women's Committee of the New York Socialist party, took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World (including the notable 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike and the 1913 Paterson Silk Strike) and became involved with local intellectuals, left-wing artists, socialists and social activists, including John Reed, Upton Sinclair, Mabel Dodge and Emma Goldman.
So now the question for you is: are racial eugenics a fascist ideology that somehow snuck through into the hearts and minds of people who are NOT FASCISTS...
... or is communism and fascism a distinction without a difference?
AReasonableMan said...
"tim in vermont said...
ARM, you throw around that NAZI term pretty freely yourself
Blatant lie, although a perfect example of projection. You continuously make yourself look even more foolish than necessary by calling inappropriate subjects Nazis. You would do yourself a favor if you dropped that particular idiocy."
Lefties constantly use semantics to separate themselves from the NAZI party in Germany. The only difference was the NAZI party succeeded in pushing their agenda on a country. You guys want to take our guns like the NAZI's did. You are already nationalizing the large corporations, notably banks and auto companies, into a corporate/government collectivist mish-mash. Everything about your platform is grounded in various forms of racism though it denigrates the white blonde haired blue eyed so you have that going for you.
There is a significant difference in cultural goals too. The NAZI party wanted to take over the world and make it more like Germany. The Prog's in the US have taken over and are trying to turn the US into Mexico.
Quaestor said...
Franklin Roosevelt
Are you on drugs?
Most, if not all, of the Republican candidates for President are socialists, they support Social Security and Medicare, programs that are unquestionably socialist in nature. In addition they are running for national office. Using the 'logic' in play here aren't they 'national socialists'?
AReasonableMan said...
Most, if not all, of the Republican candidates for President are socialists, they support Social Security and Medicare, programs that are unquestionably socialist in nature.
You've sold me. How can I opt out? I want my money back. Cn thy do that for me?
Rusty said...
How can I opt out? I want my money back. Cn thy do that for me?
No. The vast majority of voters have no interest in voting out the two national socialist parties.
President Franklin Roosevelt expressed admiration for the Fascist leader Benito Mussolini, and sent him cordial letters. In June 1933, Roosevelt praised Mussolini in a letter to an American envoy: “... I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy and seeking to prevent general European trouble.” In another letter a few weeks later, the President wrote: “I don't mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with the admirable Italian gentleman.”
No drugs, just knowledge deep and wide.
H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
A very funny and interesting talk on the future of the Web and computing.
Quaestor said...
“... I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy and seeking to prevent general European trouble.” “I don't mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with the admirable Italian gentleman.”
He wrote some boilerplate diplomatese in 1933 when Italy was finally dragging itself out of the depression and that makes him a fascist? Given your vast historical knowledge you would know that FDR has been criticized endlessly from the right for dragging the US into the war against the Nazis, including ridiculous conspiracy theories such as him allowing the Pearl Harbor attack. You guys need to get your stories straight.
The other names were a novelist, a poet and a song writer, not exactly political leaders or even leaders of public opinion. You are desperately scraping the barrel. In fact you have nothing.
I don't get it, I admit it. Sure 90% of us believe that we have some shared responsibility and that some degree of taxation is justified to that end. Taxation is a completely different animal than setting industrial policy, directing the economy, assuming control of what should be produced and who should win and lose in an economy, who should be allowed to speak and who should be silenced, whether a person should be free to use his or her own property as they see fit or not. Whether the people are sovereign over the government or the government is sovereign over the people. Whether the government should engage in political propaganda.
On all of these issues fascists and communists agree as a matter of course. Telling them apart without a scorecard is kind of different.
"different" = difficult.
John P. Diggins, professor of history at the University of California, Irvine, notes in his 1972 study, Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America (p.59): "Whatever Mussolini's reputation is today, from the time of the [Fascist] March on Rome [1922] to the beginning of the Ethiopian War [1935], he was an esteemed figure. Americans in particular saw in Mussolini certain enduring qualities which enabled him to qualify as a `great man' not only of his time but of the ages."
ARM, you are disarmed in this fight. It's so over.
criticized endlessly from the right
"Endlessly"? I have heard crazy theories about allowing attacks from the left, for sure. Insisting that Bush was aware that the retaliation from Afghanistan for Clinton's reckless missile attacks two years earlier were coming, were they as endless as that? As a member of the right in good standing, I have never heard anybody on "the right" espouse such a theory. But then again, you have this idea that Nazis are of the right, so you have some circular thinking there.
Quaestor said...
Americans in particular saw in Mussolini certain enduring qualities
So all Americans had a favorable view of Mussolini? You are an idiot if you think these quotes are convincing.
And, you didn't address my point regarding the right wing view of FDR of dragging the country into a war against - wait for it - the Nazis.
tim in vermont said...
I don't get it
You don't, because you appear to know exactly nothing about political history.
Although, you did vote for a national socialist party. So, I will concede that you have some practical experience with fascism.
Yes ARM, there were America fascists. They are not the same thing as classical liberals. Just because you lump the two groups together in your muddled thinking does not make it so.
You really have to go to the fundamental beliefs of fascism to see where fascists would fall in today's political parties. A subject you studiously avoid because, it would seem, even you can see it would undermine your rhetoric.
We call fascism right wing, regardless of where it stands regarding collectivism.
We call classical liberalism right wing, regardless of where it stands regarding collectivism.
Therefore classical liberalism = fascism, Q.E.D.
Whatever we do, we must not examine the premises of the above syllogism, nor shall we allow ourselves to be drawn into any discussion of the premises.
ARM
@Michael K 6:51pm
Thanks for the link. Enjoyed it.
So Watson is Super-Clippy. Yay?
"It looks like you write like a Nazi. Would you like help?"
I am starting to the see the problem here Tim, you are talking about a right wing that exists entirely and solely in your head, whereas I am discussing reality. In the real world, the right wing in the US is the party of vaginal probes, the highest incarceration rates on the planet and capital punishment rates second only to the lunatics on the Arabian peninsular, the party of Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh. This faction of US politics bears much the same relationship to classical liberalism as your thoughts bear to political philosophy. None whatsoever.
For our resident historian, some great quotes from FDR regarding Lindbergh:
"if I should die tomorrow, I want you to know this, I am absolutely convinced Lindbergh is a Nazi."
"When I read Lindbergh’s speech I felt that it could not have been better put if it had been written by Goebbels himself. What a pity that this youngster has completely abandoned his belief in our form of government and has accepted Nazi methods because apparently they are efficient.”
Yeah, FDR was a Nazi.
And, you didn't address my point regarding the right wing view of FDR of dragging the country into a war against - wait for it - the Nazis.
Only after Hitler attacked Stalin and pissed off all the Communists working for FDR.
The feminist version of this software also targets the words for microagressions and if finding any directs the reader to stop reading and seek out a safe space where you can recover from the thought that you could have been exposed to words they might offend. If used while writing it tells the author he is s racist sexist bigot and replaces all words with safe words that will make feminists happy.
For was not a nazi. But he may have been a facist. or an Americanized version of one.
Another, 'historian' steps in it. Both those FDR quotes come from before Hitler invaded Russia.
A reasonable man not only were most leftist either socialists or racists or nazis (in Germany) there were also eugenecists it's a simple irrefutable fact.
Arm start here.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1228
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/fdr_and_fascism
Shouldn't we start with the standard history texts? Why the need for oddball links?
A reasonable man,
As far as whether Kevin Williams called Bernie a nazi Lets question the assertion. He didn't say he was a nazi. He said he was a nationalist socialist. He is most definitely a socialist but is he also a nationalist. Kevin makes a pretty compelling case. It's nice though that you are acknowledging that nazis were in fact socialists.
Also have you looked at bernies crowds. They are whiter than white. Whiter than the tea party. Whiter than sugar. Maybe Bernie has a race problem.
What parts of the texts do you find to be untru?
ARM, the reason FDR spoke highly of fascism is because until the war fascism was not a bad word to Americans. Prior to Mussolini revealing his true colors or, the world recognizing his dictatorship (since in truth his colors were always revealed,lefties just disn't care to look) facist Italy was a model for lefties to emulate. Or so it seemed to lefties at the time.
Fdr was no different.
All NAZIs are National Socialists, however not all National Socialists are NAZIs.
Shouldn't we start with the standard history texts?
Nope..those were written by the Left, and are untrustworthy. (I know I teach from them) After all, they created revisionist history.
Gahrie said...
All NAZIs are National Socialists, however not all National Socialists are NAZIs.
So you are suggesting that the execrable Williamson really meant:
Bulgarian National Socialist Party (Bulgarian, anti-Semitic)
National Socialist Workers' Party of Denmark (German-style National Socialist, anti-Semitic)
Parti Socialiste National, in France, founded by Pierre Biétry in 1903, became the Fédération Nationale des Jaunes de France (or the Yellow socialists) in 1904 (Anti-Semitic, pro-unions, anti-Marxist)
Socialist Reich Party (Germany) (pro-Hitler, pro-German-reunification, Holocaust-denying, anti-American, pro-Soviet but anti-communist and anti-capitalist, post-WWII)
Greek National Socialist Party (Italian-style fascist, pro-Hitler)
Hungarian National Socialist Party (one of several such groups, 1920s-40s) (German-style National Socialist, anti-Semitic)
National Socialist League (United Kingdom 1930s) (British, pro-Hitler)
National Socialist League (United States) ("Aryan", pro-Hitler)
National Socialist Party of America (white, anti-Semitic, anti-black)
Iranian National Socialist Party (est. 1952) (pro-Hitler, anti-Semitic (both anti-Arab and anti-Jew), anti-Turk)
National Socialist Party of Australia (a neo-Nazi organisation)
National Socialist Party of New Zealand (German-style National Socialist, anti-Semitic)
Nasjonal Samling (Norway, est. May 13, 1933 - dissolved May 8, 1945)(German-style National Socialist, anti-Semitic, anti-Masonic)
Apparently there are all kinds of National Socialist parties. They seem to have something in common however.
So a big Jewy Jew, is Sanders? Is he frum? Where is he on Israel and the Middle East? Loving on this Iran deal is he? Opposed to SSM? (probably, in his heart, and given his kooky sex columnist sideline)
Considering the crap Joe Lieberman took anytime he strayed from the leftist path, a little excoriation of Bubi Sanders is within scope. Williamson is welcome to explain to Sanders that he is on the wrong path. Being Jewish doesn't make you wise, infallible or even virtuous: Judenrats were composed of Jews, Kapos were Jews, just ask George Soros.
//doesn't inherently make you//
I guess it depends on which weapon a liberal needs in any given argument whether conservative are labeled "anti-semitic" or "slavishly pro-Israel."
The antisemitism I see these days is largely from the left, it's natural home.
Tim, you are talking about a right wing that exists entirely and solely in your head, whereas I am discussing reality.
No, you are discussing a fevered image of the
"right wing" whipped up in hateful Democrat propaganda, ARM, propaganda which you accept as gospel, same as you accept the versions of history written by leftist professors who were all sympathetic to the Soviet Union, and many of whom still are, like yourself.
What's a little genocide in the Ukraine? Eggs and omelettes.
Fascist and communist leaders wear uniforms. Why is that? You still haven't addressed the issue that fascism is an ideology of the left. It is.
And I see the problem with you. You honestly believe all of the things you are told about people you almost certainly never intermingle with. It is the liberal "non fraternization" commandment. If you got to know any actual conservatives, you would have to mellow your views.
I still don't understand why ARM feels he has to defend communism from being compared to fascism.
So all this time ARM has been rejecting and argument he didn't even understand. What a surprise.
I wonder too which is more Nazi like? A desperate if misguided attempt to convince a young mother not to kill her child by showing her it is a child, or taking grim satisfaction in the fact that more black children were aborted than born in NYC and that one's program of reducing the number of undesirables is continuing apace?
So we now have a definition of fascism from ARM, it is anything he doesn't like. What an ignorant tool.
tim in vermont said...
No, you are discussing a fevered image of the "right wing" whipped up in hateful Democrat propaganda,
Bullshit. You simply block out all the problems with the right, or project them onto the left. You are one of the purest Manicheans I have come across on this blog. Nothing bad can be said about the pure and beautiful image of the right that you have in your head that bears a very limited relationship to the reality on the ground.
You ignore scripture: "Who will produce a clean thing from man, who is polluted with sins, except God, who is one?". And you ignore commonsense. Name one politician who actually practices this perfect politico-religion you have invented in your head.
Still don't want to talk about the economic tenets of fascism as compared to the basic beliefs of the Democrat Party then ARM.
You must have been thrilled to hear that your genetic sanitation program of abortion has enjoyed such success over the years. Millions of undesirables dead. But it is those whose hearts bleed for the millions of dead children who are the Nazis, right?
So not a single living person lives up to your political ideals? That makes you a crank. No different to religious nuts who start their own church because no existing church is pure enough for them. As a pragmatic moderate I feel sorry for you. Unlike religious nuts you can't even look forward to being vindicated in the afterlife.
Still no answer then? Just more denial, babble, and attempts at persiflage.
One of the major differences between the Nazis and the Soviets, to give you some help to your side of the argument is that the Nazis had four year plans and the Soviets had five year plans. So I guess that makes it night and day, then.
Tim, you don't seem to understand how these things work. I am not the one making any ridiculous claims. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the communist or fascist parties. I am not under any obligation to defend two old ideologies.
You, on the other hand, have made claims that are easily dismissed as the ravings of a crank. That the right can never be fascist in nature. That the right is only ever good and that all evil is on the left. A cursory review of a history text book and a newspaper is all that is needed to dismiss your claims. I am trying to help you here. To help you look a little less foolish in public. No one likes a crank.
Step back a little, and really think about what you are saying. Does it make any sense at all?
One of the major differences between the Nazis and the Soviets,
The main difference between communism and fascism, is that communism is internationalistic, and fascism is nationalistic in rhetoric.
Post a Comment