Nearly defunct social network Parler has fired its CEO

[Axle Grease]

I can't tell a difference between a fascist or a communist. Especially since neither have morals and clamor to murder people for whom they can't control. Far right, far left to describe two sides to the same social coin is nonsense. It's like the same difference in Islam. Sharia versus Sunni who for whatever reason hate and kill each other. They're both Muslims.

Stop falling for the socialist lie of difference. It's just a narrative to justify an existence. The world would be a much better place when people stop trying to control each other and live and let live and by the golden rule. You don't have to like nor love each other. That's impossible. People are different. Just respect the right for people to live in their own bubbles. Without threatening the bubbles of others. Leave people dafuq alone. If there's a God and he has a problem, then he himself, will take care of it.

Let's see what people who call themselves Nazis believe:
"We demand public control of all banking and credit institutions as well as all utilities and all monopolies, confiscation of all conglomerate holdings, cancellation of all usurious debt, comprehensive profit sharing in all basic industries, and the institution of a national program of interest-free loans for families, farmers, and small businessmen."

"We also believe that HONEST WORK is the only legitimate basis for wealth – not speculation, usury, or money-manipulation – and that a sound economic system must rest, not on debt or some extraneous metal, but on the productivity of the Aryan worker alone. We believe further, that money is properly a medium of exchange and store of value, not a commodity like bread or steel, and that therefore money and credit should not be issued for profit, but to serve the legitimate needs of the people without interest."

So it was no surprise that the American Nazi Party sided with the Occupy Wallstreet movement.

On Energy and the Environment:
"Towards these ends" the ends being self-sufficient in non-polluting energy, "we demand a phasing out of all forms of energy which befoul the environment, such as coal, petroleum, and nuclear fission. To replace them, we demand an immediate and massive program to develop new, CLEAN energy sources."

Is there anything here Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would've objected to?

Those savages are politically far to the Left. They're racist socialists. It is a barefaced lie to call them far Right.

 

[Danny101]

Let's see what people who call themselves Nazis believe:
"We demand public control of all banking and credit institutions as well as all utilities and all monopolies, confiscation of all conglomerate holdings, cancellation of all usurious debt, comprehensive profit sharing in all basic industries, and the institution of a national program of interest-free loans for families, farmers, and small businessmen."

"We also believe that HONEST WORK is the only legitimate basis for wealth – not speculation, usury, or money-manipulation – and that a sound economic system must rest, not on debt or some extraneous metal, but on the productivity of the Aryan worker alone. We believe further, that money is properly a medium of exchange and store of value, not a commodity like bread or steel, and that therefore money and credit should not be issued for profit, but to serve the legitimate needs of the people without interest."

So it was no surprise that the American Nazi Party sided with the Occupy Wallstreet movement.

On Energy and the Environment:
"Towards these ends" the ends being self-sufficient in non-polluting energy, "we demand a phasing out of all forms of energy which befoul the environment, such as coal, petroleum, and nuclear fission. To replace them, we demand an immediate and massive program to develop new, CLEAN energy sources."

Is there anything here Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would've objected to?

Those savages are politically far to the Left. They're racist socialists. It is a barefaced lie to call them far Right.

My definition between what is politically far left or far right is between total government control(socialism) or none at all (anarchy).

Funny though how socialists conflate morals with identity politics. There's always an enemy of identity. There's also rich oligarchists who feign socialist leanings to co-op socialist angst for their own purposes. Corporatists. Modern Chinese CCP party call themselves communists but they sure as hell look a lot more like NAZI Germany in form and function with their utilization of capitalism through crony profiteers. On leashes of course. America elites are essentially corporatists with socialist, fascist, and communist leanings all rolled into one. 2020 was their concerted effort to destroy small businesses, oft built by ordinary citizens. 2020 was the elites' war on what they consider the peasants of the world, to shore up their power and position and that no ordinary person nor groups of ordinary persons would ever challenge their reign. All forms of governments are corrupt and suspect. The power of family and homestead far exceeds that as we today know as government. Just look at the World Debt Clock and the debt of each nation. Simple phuckary. Man's Government is a bad joke.

 

[Axle Grease]

My definition between what is politically far left or far right is between total government control(socialism) or none at all (anarchy).

Funny though how socialists conflate morals with identity politics. There's always an enemy of identity. There's also rich oligarchists who feign socialist leanings to co-op socialist angst for their own purposes. Corporatists. Modern Chinese CCP party call themselves communists but they sure as hell look a lot more like NAZI Germany in form and function with their utilization of capitalism through crony profiteers. On leashes of course. America elites are essentially corporatists with socialist, fascist, and communist leanings all rolled into one. 2020 was their concerted effort to destroy small businesses, oft built by ordinary citizens. 2020 was the elites' war on what they consider the peasants of the world, to shore up their power and position and that no ordinary person nor groups of ordinary persons would ever challenge their reign. All forms of governments are corrupt and suspect. The power of family and homestead far exceeds that as we today know as government. Just look at the World Debt Clock and the debt of each nation. Simple phuckary. Man's Government is a bad joke.

The power relationship between the individual and the State is the basis for my political spectrum. So, far Left is the totalitarian State in which every aspect of an individual's life is directed by the State. Far Right is Laissez-faire Capitalism where the State is limited to protecting the freedom of the individual. By that I mean free from government coercion to the degree that one respects the Individual Rights of others. Much of what you say I sort of agree with, but I do not gauge the corruptibility of people by the size of their economic prowess. The so-called peasants are as corruptible as the so-called elites. Offer them free stuff and find a scapegoat for their failures, or give their envy a moral façade. Many will give you their vote. Yeah, you're right about China, and many economies are a mess. In my view fiscal policy making is generally the sledgehammer approach to managing an economy that would otherwise be far more resilient through the nuanced approach of countless voluntary interactions of people acting in their own economic interests.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Human nature dictates that society will be ruled by the few at the top, while many will live comfortable lives in the "middle" and the rest will be at the bottom.

Left and Right are simply values that the people at the top espouse - none of them matter when it comes to actual systems of government.

Nations generally have 1 of 3 different systems: dictatorships, oligarchies and democracies. There are of course varying degrees of differences between nations with the same overall "system" (that is, some democracies differ from others, as some dictatorships differ from others), but the differences tend to be only in the extent of how the "classes" are made up.

The dictatorship system maintains the same elite "upper class", fairly small middle class and a large lower class which is exploited for their ability to serve the nation (either via work or military). Little to no support is given to those who are unfit to work/fight - as they are deemed useless to the system.

An oligarchy tends to operate much the same - a fixed elite but a slightly larger middle class. With more people at the top, the leadership can afford more leeway in the treatment of those "lesser classes" as the fear of a coup is diffused amongst the leadership instead of 1 man.

Democracies, which we seem to think are the "best" system differ only in the treatment of the "lesser classes", the larger proportion of middle class individuals and the somewhat greater mobility between classes (it is possible to be born lower class and rise to leadership in all 3 systems, but the odds are greater in a democracy - but are still quite low).

Communism, as a BELIEF, seems to be the exact opposite of this - everyone being equal with the working class (and ideally, everyone would be the working class) ruling.... but it defies human nature - so there are no "real" communist nations, nor have there ever been. Almost all communist nations have simply been dictatorships that simply stated they were Communist.... possible exception of China, which could be argued to be an oligarchy... but still certainly not Communist.

 

[Danny101]

Human nature dictates that society will be ruled by the few at the top, while many will live comfortable lives in the "middle" and the rest will be at the bottom.

Left and Right are simply values that the people at the top espouse - none of them matter when it comes to actual systems of government.

Nations generally have 1 of 3 different systems: dictatorships, oligarchies and democracies. There are of course varying degrees of differences between nations with the same overall "system" (that is, some democracies differ from others, as some dictatorships differ from others), but the differences tend to be only in the extent of how the "classes" are made up.

The dictatorship system maintains the same elite "upper class", fairly small middle class and a large lower class which is exploited for their ability to serve the nation (either via work or military). Little to no support is given to those who are unfit to work/fight - as they are deemed useless to the system.

An oligarchy tends to operate much the same - a fixed elite but a slightly larger middle class. With more people at the top, the leadership can afford more leeway in the treatment of those "lesser classes" as the fear of a coup is diffused amongst the leadership instead of 1 man.

Democracies, which we seem to think are the "best" system differ only in the treatment of the "lesser classes", the larger proportion of middle class individuals and the somewhat greater mobility between classes (it is possible to be born lower class and rise to leadership in all 3 systems, but the odds are greater in a democracy - but are still quite low).

Communism, as a BELIEF, seems to be the exact opposite of this - everyone being equal with the working class (and ideally, everyone would be the working class) ruling.... but it defies human nature - so there are no "real" communist nations, nor have there ever been. Almost all communist nations have simply been dictatorships that simply stated they were Communist.... possible exception of China, which could be argued to be an oligarchy... but still certainly not Communist.

In many ways, it's meet the new boss, same as the old boss. One can espouse ideology all day long, with their respective nuances, and change the system to their hearts content, but the end result often feels the same. Back to square one. Musical chairs.

 

[Danny101]

The power relationship between the individual and the State is the basis for my political spectrum. So, far Left is the totalitarian sSate in which every aspect of an individual's life is directed by the State. Far Right is Laissez-faire Capitalism where the State is limited to protecting the freedom of the individual. By that I mean free from government coercion to the degree that one respects the Individual Rights of others. Much of what you say I sort of agree with, but I do not gauge the corruptibility of people by the size of their economic prowess. The so-called peasants are as corruptible as the so-called elites. Offer them free stuff and find a scapegoat for their failures, or give their envy a moral façade. Many will give you their vote. Yeah, you're right about China, and many economies are a mess. In my view fiscal policy making is generally the sledgehammer approach to managing an economy that would otherwise be far more resilient through the nuanced approach of countless voluntary interactions of people acting in their own economic interests.

As one who favors capitalism, recognize that at some point, it can morph into something, corporatism, not originally intended. Should never outstrip the entrepreneurship of the common dreamer. Some people prefer to work for a corporation, more power to them, but it is up to government (the people's forum) to temper their power. It very well may be a delicate balance of all ideologies that is necessary. One comment I heard sounded interesting.
"Socialism without capitalism is communism, and capitalism without socialism is fascism." Food for thought.

 

[Axle Grease]

As one who favors capitalism, recognize that at some point, it can morph into something, corporatism, not originally intended. Should never outstrip the entrepreneurship of the common dreamer. Some people prefer to work for a corporation, more power to them, but it is up to government (the people's forum) to temper their power. It very well may be a delicate balance of all ideologies that is necessary. One comment I heard sounded interesting.
"Socialism without capitalism is communism, and capitalism without socialism is fascism." Food for thought.

No, Danny, no.... That statement is NOT "food for thought". It not only exposes the author's obscene ignorance of the three -isms, but also pushes the barefaced lie that Nazis are far Right. I've just shown the opposite in this very thread. You could do yourself a favour and visit the American Nazi Party website. Nazis are politically to the far Left, and Nazism which is Fascism with racist "theory" is rabidly anti-Capitalist and anti-individualist.

 

[poohbear]

Totally agree, but it means you cannot preach death to Christians, heterosexuals, men and Republicans either. Everyone should have the same rights.

Saying this as a left leaning Centrist who hates double standards.

He said "etc". You want him to list every group?? Why would u even think his statement excludes the majority?(I.e. heterosexual, Christians etc)

 

[Irata]

He said "etc". You want him to list every group?? Why would u even think his statement excludes the majority?(I.e. heterosexual, Christians etc)

It‘s rather simple...if you only mention one „set“ of groups, it‘s obviously a one sided view.

Now if Parler (never used it btw) is blocked because it‘s supposedly used to spew hate against one set of groups but services like Twitter and Tumblr where exactly the same thing happens against the „other“ groups are still active, then for me that‘s a problem.

It‘s sadly a manifestation of the „us against them“ attitude that is so prevalent right now. And this leads to interesting situations where the left is defending wealthy Oligarchs and the right an attack on a symbol of the USA (Capitol).

The „Convince the pitchfork people that the torch people want to take away their pitchforks“ principle works really well, sadly.

 

[davisbgs]

Well most of the legal battle surrounding Parler has been centered around a lack of giving the platform any reasonable amount of time to moderate content rather than a lack of willingness and also breach of contract by AWS. As far as I know that lawsuit is still in progress. This shallow dive into the topic just takes the liberal talking points against Parler and parrots them. Once again the unprofessional journalism of Techspot is refusing to report from a neutral standpoint. Parler may have been everything this article accuses them of being but journalism isn't about taking sides. Accusations that the platform coordinated the attack, is as far as I know unsubstantiated and should be presented as AWS's position rather than fact. Or better yet, just say that these are accusations in general since this article mainly surrounds itself on the topic of the CEO's firing. Unwillingness or refusal to moderate content is heavily disputed by legal filings. Instead of the unsubstantiated garbage, how about some substance in this article? Did the board release a statement as to why they were firing the CEO? How about an update on lawsuit between Parler and AWS? Sincerely this article is low grade effort. Non original reporting with lack of any redeeming quality. You could easily reword this article with some subtle differences to avoid taking a side and still say most of what this article is saying. Its just disappointing.

2/8/21
is Parler back up?
how do I find the Parler app that I just downloaded from Techspot on my android phone?

I was a parler member but deleted the app from my phone no longer avail on playstore
ty
Jules