Disco Elysium Developers Shout Out Marx And Engels In Game Awards Victory Speech

During the speech for their second win of the night, ZA/UM, the team behind Disco Elysium gave a special thanks to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the authors of The Communist Manifesto.

In this acceptance speech for the Fresh Indie Game Award, Helen Hendepere said that the team would like to thank “some of the great people that came before us.” The people they shouted out included the architects of communist thought, Marx and Engels, as well as Russian painter Vladimir Makovsky, and Viktor Tsoi, a Soviet singer and songwriter.

If you’ve played Disco Elysium, which features the vocal talents of the members of socialist podcast Chapo Trap House, you may not be surprised by these references. If not, I encourage you to read The Community Manifesto, which is about how a ghost called “communism” is haunting Europe. It’s pretty radical.


Comments

    Seems like a good place to bring up the fun trivia that historically communism has resulted in the deaths of a 100 million people.

      Can you hear the cries of “not real communism” already?

        Didn't take long, did it?

          To be fair Marx wasn’t an awful guy and I don’t think he can directly be blamed for Stalinism, but the rhetoric around communism conveniently leaves out all the violent history and clings to Marx because the rest of it is a total shitshow. It’s also posted by people who seem to think they’ll have some privileged place in the new order writing articles and rhetoric, when they’ll probably be directed into a mine to procure rare earth metals or something.

          I just find it hilarious that so many posit communism as the saviour of humanity and desperately seek to hide its bloody history - and when you point it out, you’re met with “But other ideologies did it too!”

            Dictatorships calling themselves communist/democratic/whatever aren't the things they call themselves.

            China is not democratic
            Nazis were not socialists

              The USSR was communist. If you dispute this fact you’re either deliberately trying to revise history, or deluded. Which is exactly the point I was making in my original post.

              It seems to me the nationalism bit is the motivating factor in nazi death tolls. The socialism thing seems like a bit of a bait and switch. How do you talk about Hitler without mentioning the whole ethnic superiority motive? That's a pretty major part of right wing politics even today. And Hitler was democratically elected.

              I feel one should probably look at the reason why people were killed? What were the causes and motives?

              Sometimes it was class struggle. Murdering the rich to achieve equality. You can maybe blame Marx for that, because he sees history as class struggle. But there have been class struggles before Marx, and for this to happen, the underclass usually has to have some sort of grievance with the ruling class. I don't think most people in democratic capitalist countries expressing an appreciation for Marx and Engels want to murder the rich, except in hyperbole.

              Sometimes it's to crush dissent. I think everyone who has any sort of empathy finds authoritarianism repulsive. Democratic countries generally don't do it to its own people, but have done it to foreign countries through the mechanism of regime change. The 1953 Iranian coup de'tat by the United States and the UK spring to mind. The other one that comes to mind is the Opium Wars. That one can be directly attributed to capitalism. Or even the 1 million deaths in India when Indians attempted to rebel against British East India company rule.

              Sometimes, it's bad planning. This is best exemplified on the communist side by the Great Leap Forward. But there's a good capitalist example of this in the Potato Famine, where approx 1 million people died. This occurred largely because greedy landowners in Ireland created postage stamp sized lots, so that the only crop people could grow there was the potato. That, and the inability of the British government to provide any sort of relief or reform. In the most striking example in a capitalist dictatorship, British policy in India also killed approx 35 million by starvation by some estimates. If you're playing counting games, that one is up there.

              So, I tend to think it's more fruitful to talk specific policy questions. Can class struggle be real? Yes. Should violence be used to achieve equitable circumstances? No, but possibly in very dire circumstances. Thomas Jefferson believed that every few years revolution would be a good thing. Is authoritarianism a good thing? No. Never. Is private ownership of property a good thing? Yes, I think so. Would a more equitable distribution of wealth be a good thing? Yes, I think so. Would unrestrained capitalism necessarily produce an equitable society? I don't think so, and I don't think history bears this out either.

                the whole ethnic superiority motive? That's a pretty major part of right wing politics even today.

                horseshit.

                Ethnic superiority is not even a minor part of right wing politics the amount of ethnic supremacists in the right wing is incredibly small. I only know the AUS, UK and US circumstances well so maybe you were thinking of somewhere else.

                Your talk of equality... i don't even know where to start it's not that clear to me what your arguing for, i think some level of social safety net is good the problem is the people implementing always seem to fuck up somehow. Single mother in the uk getting 120k pounds a year...woops, people that could be working on welfare for years and years that is not right.

                take US vs Aus healthcare, the US system particularly regarding the research and development of drugs and other treatments seem to require the US system to generate the needed capital. At the same time it leads to a system where thousands have no health cover and the rich can basically bribe themselves into better care.

                When i died 2 years ago and ended up in hospital (i live in aus) i was told point blank "can you please register under your private health cover because we can charge them more than the public healthcare system" which i did unfortunately. I end up in the nicer private hospital next door in a nice 2 person room with this really funny guy from Guyana, unfortunately the ice machine in the private hospital is broken which is bad for me because both my kneecaps cap been basically "ripped off" and i need the ice to control the swelling or i was in a lot of pain. So in conclusion more money charged for a lower standard of care with better scenery.

                Capitalism is better than socialism period being less centralised it is harder for corruption to take hold and given the competitive nature most corruption is caught and dealt with, a blend of capitalism with a well planned social safety net and limited immigration would be the best solution.

                  Any story you can tell which has "when I died X years ago" is a pretty great one, I must say
                  It's not often someone gets to say that!

                  Ethnic superiority is not even a minor part of right wing politics the amount of ethnic supremacists in the right wing is incredibly small. I only know the AUS, UK and US circumstances well so maybe you were thinking of somewhere else
                  That's being a little naive. It's a pretty major part of one nation's platform. Pauline Hanson rose to fame by saying we were "swamped by Asians". They're 3.6% of the population right now. Columnists like Andrew Bolt have risen to infamy by singling out Africans as criminals, and propagating the idea that Islam is incompatible with our way of life, when our nearest neighbour is the world's most populous Islamic country. If it's not based off ethnicity, it's still based on the same principle of a fear of the "other".

                  Your talk of equality... i don't even know where to start it's not that clear to me what your arguing for....
                  I thought I was pretty clear. Put it this way. I am very interested in religion. The fact that Christians killed and molested a lot of people, does not mean we cannot still discuss theology, or have to bring it up everytime. We know. I'm apatheistic but I happen to like theology. So it is with communism.

                  ...Your talk of equality... i don't even know where to start it's not that clear to me what your arguing for, i think some level of social safety net is good the problem is the people implementing always seem to fuck up somehow. Single mother in the uk getting 120k pounds a year...woops, people that could be working on welfare for years and years that is not right.

                  What's interesting here is that you say you don't know what I'm arguing for. Here, you present a contradiction. What are your principles? You think some level of safety net is good. Straight up, this is a socialist idea. You have expressed the principle that the government is obligated in some way to financially protect its citizens. The question then isn't capitalism vs socialism, it's a question of how much we disagree over this government obligation. We clearly have a difference of opinion on degrees. That's all this shouting match in the west boils down to.

                  As far as corruption goes, I have worked for the government and I have worked for a huge multinational corporation. The difference was, the government was driven largely by media anxiety. The corporation, if anything, was vastly more bureaucratic and more wasteful. I think corruption is an inherent risk of any large organisation. On the larger political stage, it's pretty clear to me that money controls access to politicians, and therefore determines policy, which tends to rub up against the principle of democracy somewhat.

                i have to reply here i'm excited to finally not argue with an NPC i hope we can find something to disagree on.

                Pauline i don't like anything Hanson and one nation hardly represent a majority of the right wing in Australia you know that, i'm really just disagreeing with your use of the word majority i think you run the risk of gaslighting the uninformed. As for the racism accusations i don't know much of Andrew bolt i wrote him off as a racist early so i cant devils advocate that fool but the "Asian takeover" stuff is more about changing culture than fear or hate of actual asian people, because immigrants organise themselves into enclaves unless influenced by outside forces they may make up small amounts of total population but they are densely packed into certain areas in certain cities, they do change the culture and regardless of your perspective that is unfair to the people that were their first, or are we suddenly taking back land rights and all the progress we have made to addressing historical injustices against the Aborigines. It is the same thing on a different scale as far as i am concerned, immigration needs to be controlled and immigrants need to be carefully integrated, i have no problems with our current immigration polices this is more a complaint against other nations.

                As to equality i cannot understand if you want equal opportunity or equal outcomes mainly stemming from you comments at the end of the first post particularly the political violence one as i'm sure when i read that i am imagining something different to what your imagining when you write it. If you want equality of opportunity then we all good there in terms of agreement.

                I have never worked for the government myself but i have friends that do, i work for a multinational corporation and our bureaucratic waste stems almost entirely and i do mean entirely from government intervention and regulation, that said it is counter terrorism, money laundering, organised crime and exploitation so there is no way around it we should be doing this shit anyway even if not mandated by the government the issue is they stick their fucking ore in every other week and interfere with shit that was working perfectly fine because some state/federal jack off politician can feed the media a soundbite about reforming x y z so the media anxiety you mentioned just know that those tools also wipe their ass with the free market whenever they get anxious.

                On the larger political stage, it's pretty clear to me that money controls access to politicians, and therefore determines policy, which tends to rub up against the principle of democracy somewhat.

                couldn't agree more with the first half the problem is i think that ultimately money doesn't buy votes so the people still decide, you make enough bad decisions or even just one major fuck up and you will lose office or spark rebellion. On the whole i'm not sure there really is that much we disagree on not even the scope of social programs, i don't really care how large or not they are as long as they are not being corrupted and abused all arguments to the contrary seem to be "but muh taxes" "how u gunna pay for it Bernie" its all nonsense the reason these programs cost so much is because of corruption, and i do find it hard to argue because they seem to be designed this way.

                for example imagine bernie made food a "uman right" suddenly people just show up the supermarket and fill a trolly with heaps of shit they don't need champagne, caviar (they are the morons that think its actually free shit and my taxes end up rising) why should they care it's free right if it spoils we can just dump it in the garbage, then the supermarket jack up the prices because shit you don't care ur not paying so the incentive to keep prices down is completely gone (again my taxes you bastards!!). Now the government gets a fucking huge bill but again they don't care because this shit is the law so they just raise taxes so they can actually write up next years budget. Eventually America collapses under the sheer weight of idiots kicking the can down the road, this is basically what happens to every socialist country.

                At the moment i'm afraid that labour is going to promise free tertiary education and get voted in that is the end for us, Australia will have climbed onto a roller-coaster with no breaks, right now unless something is done about the problems the UK is having with the NHS including they're problems with mass immigration it will sink them all on it's own.

                then again i could be insane i wouldn't know the insane never do..

                and again glad to argue with someone who isn't and NPC chanting socialism has killed 100m therefore Marx bad or the Marxist evangelism corps telling us all how he was an absolute genius and the communist manifesto dindu nuffin.

              i would like to take this opportunity to say that our Chinese overlords..*ahem* i mean the glorious nation of China has done nothing wrong...

            Conversely, since you yourself admit that the guy himself wasn't all that bad, can't you give people the benefit of the doubt that when they talk about socialism in a positive way, they are talking about the ideas, and not about the godawful execution brought upon by a self-worshipping madman? If Marx cannot be blamed for Stalinism, why does Stalinism have to be brought up every time? It's a bit like reminding people that Einstein's research led to the atomic bomb whenever someone talks about the theory of Relativity.

              It's not at all like your Einstein analogy.

              The bad that has come from Marxist ideologies FAR outweighs any good that has come from it.

              Hell, so far, the only large scale good that has come from his ideologies only happen in capitalist countries, like Australia (in before "but what about the Nordic countries" which are backed by free market enterprise).

                Not sure the analogy is that inappropriate? After all, the atomic bomb has killed millions and can still potentially bring upon the destruction of the planet and the extinction of the human race.

                I guess you are arguing that, even so, at least Einstein's research has also brought upon many important developments in science, while not so much has came out of Marx's ideas other than things such as the ones you mention? I'd argue that if Einstein's research at large was as demonised due to the atomic bomb as Marx's ideas are due to Stalinism, we wouldn't see so many good developments coming out of it, either.

              Although I don’t think Marx can be blamed directly for Stalinism, the Manifesto and his body of works did give rise to communism in practice and did form the basis of the Russian Revolution (with talks of class warfare/the inevitable revolution of the proletariat). Any discussion or advocacy of communism is incomplete without noting the horrors of Stalinism or Maoism. Lenin wasn’t a saint either, Stalin was just more of a thug. Marx’s body of work is like 150 years old now - some of its relevance is diminished.

              The comparisons of Marx to Hitler are nonsensical though. Maybe I was a bit unfair with my first comment, but given the number of people here who are outright denying communist states in history, maybe I wasn’t. I have less of a problem with the developers shouting out to a man who died ages ago, than I do with the author of said article getting excited to push her misinformed communist perspective.

                However, would you say that Marx's ideas would inevitably be applied in a "soviet" way even if Stalin didn't exist? I personally don't think so. With this, I don't mean that I think the ideas are so incorruptible that it takes a special kind of lunatic to pervert them--I'm sure someone else sooner or later would have misused those ideas for self-profit/glory. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think that his ideas are intrinsically any better or worse than any other ideology that has been misused in history.

                Like, Capitalism has been outrageously misused and abused but you don't see people bringing up the worst examples and executions whenever the topic is touched.

                While I wouldn't dream of trying to justify the horrors of Stalinism, I believe it is used to as a facile demonizing of ideas and applications of stuff that is merely adjacent to it by, obviously, the people who stand to lose power or profit by their consideration.

                  Well we do see the worst of capitalism brought up every single day - hell the author of this article carries on about it all the time, so I don’t know what point you’re making there. It’s mentioned so frequently that people push communism as an alternative while ignoring its bloody past. I’m more pointing out how disingenuous these commenters are when they screech about “not all communists!” while crying about capitalism.

                  As for whether or not Marxism would have developed into Stalinism (or similar) - maybe? There’s lots to be written about that but I think especially in today’s setting a communist application of Marxism would result in a bloody uprising and dictatorial control to manage the new economy. Maybe it’s telling that the two biggest attempted communist states resulted in oppression, violence and death. But Marxism wasn’t written for a globalised, interconnected economy nor for a period of increasing automation. Arguably when the robots take all our jobs there’ll be nobody left to exploit.

                  None of it really matters because they’re still systems of moving around dwindling resources to try and make people happy - and somebody is always going to be unhappy and propose a system that ultimately was designed to make them happy at the expense of others (justified or not).

                While it's true that you'll hear constant criticism of capitalism in progressive spheres (such as this website), it's the abject terror of communism the one that's pretty much institutionalised at the systemic level. Not a day passes in which an innocuous (and very likely, actually positive) argument or idea is shot down as "No, that's socialism. I see that you want us living in ghettos by the end of the next week, Josef", and this is especially true at the government level. The fearmongering is real and the reasons are obvious.

                Maybe it's true that the radical finality of Marx's rhetoric could potentially only lead to oppression and violent abuse--after all, the greatest flaw with his ideas is the failure to factor human nature. That said, many of his ideas, separate and recontextualised are worthy of consideration and have successfully been adapted by some capitalist countries to improve welfare and happiness. All that is needed is for society not to recoil in angry fear when hearing that this or that idea came from Marx's bushy head.

      So has liberalism, religion, etc. Kapital and Marx never did anything but out a theory of labour and value out there. Maybe if they thanked Stalin or whatever you could take offence.

      Last edited 13/12/19 8:17 pm

      I think you'll find that's "socialism" which is *entirely* different and not at all similar to communism.

      /endsarcasm

        Actually, mostly you're just talking about totalitarian dictatorships, kinda like how the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not well known for its democracy, and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (the Nazi Party) wasn't particularly interested in socialism.

        But hell, it's the internet, let's not let a bit of nuance get in the way of some cheap point scoring.

          When you conflate socio-economic ideologies with a form of government and think you're into a winner.

          You can rule in a "totalitarian dictatorship" and still practice things such as communism, socialism, etc.

          Look at Stalin (Stalinism), Mao (Maoism) and the Kim dynasty (Juche).

          Hell, go have a look at Nazism, and you'll find that "the term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism" as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free market capitalism."

          Same shizen, different smell.

          But hey, you gave it a red hot crack.

            Maybe you should read some theory before doing whatever this is.

            Indeed. It's almost as if people are claiming that Marx And Engels created a fully resolved, definitive model of government, constitution and all, instead of describing a political philosophy in general terms that was open to a wide range of specific interpretations and would be applied to different countries with different circumstances in different ways by different people, kinda like how it strongly influenced the establishment of hybrid social welfare/corporatist states across western world.

            Conflating multiple different things and saying there all pretty much the same isn't really rebutting his point that paying attention to nuance makes it clear they're not the same.

            'You can rule in a "totalitarian dictatorship" and still practice things such as communism, socialism, etc."

            No you can't, idiot. Stalinism and Maoism were just ideologies detailing hypothetical methods (which didn't work) of how to progress society towards full communism. Communism is by definition without state or hierarchy.

            Last edited 14/12/19 4:03 pm

              "detailing hypothetical methods (which didn't work) of how to progress society towards full communism."

              So pray-tell, how did they do that?? Was the progress meant to be sudden, overnight wham bam thank you ma'am? Or was the process supposed to be somewhat drawn out, adding aspects until they were in "full communism"

              If it's the former, than sure. If it's the latter, well then you're an idiot.

              Last edited 16/12/19 4:23 pm

      Seems like a better place to bring up:

      a) Authoritarian regimes run by oligarchical cabals are precisely the opposite of communism so no, that number is a bollocks alt-right talking point. If you're gonna call something 'communism' at least google what that word means.
      b) Meanwhile, the CONSERVATIVE estimate of unnecessary death tolls in capitalist nations (which are considerably more precisely defined) is in the multiple hundreds of millions. And if you don't know this, this is because you're someone who thinks 'capitalism' is a synonym for 'rich white folks' and your internalised racism blinds you to the direct and indirect cost in the lives of brown people. See: Indian famines.
      c) Then again, if this needs to be pointed out to you, there's a 100% you're so broken it will bounce right off your head.

        “Communist/Stalinist USSR wasn’t communist because they were the bad guys. Also you’re a racist.”

        The USSR were communist, they just didn’t match your idealised version of it - none of them ever do. You can whatabout as much as you like but nobody sane will argue the USSR wasn’t communist. Whether Marx himself is directly responsible for those atrocities is another matter, but you don’t get to ignore the history of communism in practice because it’s inconvenient to your narrative.

          Fascism is not communism.

          Jesus Christ.

            Clearly. That has nothing to do with the USSR.

            Stop redefining things because they don’t fit your narrative. You’re wrong, acknowledge it and move on. This is why nobody takes modern day communists seriously.

              Gee these people are utterly deluded.

              These "youngins" do nothing but disregard the words and warnings of those that came before them, those that lived in and fled such places, because they "think" they know better.

              Funny how these same people will never move to a country that practices such things...

        I'm not being funny, if you don't understand this it's pretty clear you slept through high school history class.

        The only people 'redefining words' here are you.

        Communism has a very simple and well known definition:

        'a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.'

        That is what Communism IS.

        In Stalinist Russia, the property was not owned by the community, neither did each person contribute according to capacity.

        Therefore Stalinist Russia was NOT Communism.

        I get that you guys are edgelords who probably drift around places that, well, to put it politely advance authoritarian narratives.

        That's your call.

        But if you're going to throw around 'redefining narrative', you probably shouldn't engage in it so obviously.

        Also good job entirely avoiding the capitalist death toll.

    Who would have thought this story would be presented by this "journalist".

    Imagine if people were thanking "some of the great people that came before us". And rattling off Hitler, etc and then have said "journalist" telling people to read "Mein Kampf".

    Even as a joke, the outcry would be deafening.

      Select aspects of Marxist ideology worked out pretty well for us as Australians up until the 70s when we replaced Keynes with Friedman and neo-liberalism. Most of the labour laws we enjoy (less and less so as time passes) are thanks to Marxist readings if labour value, social contract and economics. Marx died a long time prior to to Soviet Union, but while he was alive he was instrumental in bringing about labour reform and unionisation in the United Kingdom, which created a situation under liberalism where workers enjoyed more economic freedom.

        because economic freedom in Aus has been declining since the 70's...(stay calm this will be relevant later)

        the problem with Marxist ideology is what he never noticed and i don't blame him for this nor the people who follow him, as you pointed out the unions in Australia for example.

        We end up a centralization of power in the form of unions in Australia not a much wrong with it in theory but once you add in human nature the centralisation of power leads inevitably to corruption, it is the same thing that leads the socialist and communist countries to become what they become.

        Marxist ideology also is not strictly all roses and sunshine like everyone else the people who follow along and think shit this is great are reading the same thing as people thinking holy shit this is horrifying, it depends on the persons interpretation of what is written and what they are willing to ignore/infer based on personal ideology.

        like my first statement where i used small portions of what you said to construct a ridiculous gotcha and reframed your argument to suit my own biased narrative. =)

      That's because Hitler and Mien Kampf aren’t comparable to Marx and the Communist Manifesto.
      There’s a reason why the works of Marx and others like him aren’t seen as negative contributions to humanity.

        Considering the works of Marx et al, has been used as the basis for the worst loss of life in modern history, I'd disagree with you there.

        But don't take my word for it. Speak to anyone who has (successful) fled from a socialist or communist state, and they will also disagree with you there also.

        Why do "you people" always ignore those that have lived under that umbrella?

          The developers and writers at ZA/UM either lived in or had parents that lived in Soviet Estonia. Hindpere and Kurvitz are socialists. They're really cool and made an incredibly good rpg. You should play their video game.

            Didn't say I wouldn't play the game, and didn't call their character into question. (Too many games in the shame box already. I only *just* started Witcher 3).

        how are they not comparable!!!
        are you mad!!
        they are both books how much more similarities do you need!!

          You’re right!!
          Looks like we need an old fashioned book burnin!

      That is an absolutely idiotic comparison. I hope you're trolling. Marx and Engels' beliefs and writings =/= communism =/= the dictatorships you think of when people mention communism. Maybe read some of their work before buying the garbage you're regurgitating.

      People perverted what Marx and Engels and co stood for in every large-scale version of communism that has existed, corruption ensures communism will never work on a large scale in reality, but that doesn't make the ideas behind it less valuable or important, and the influences of Marx and co have had have been tremendous - sometimes perverted for personal gain, yes, but they also brought a massive leap forward in worker's rights among a whole host of major shifts in political thinking.

      Hitler meanwhile spouted his hate, believed in his hate and carried out his hate. His ideas lead to his actions. If you want to criticise Marxist ideas, maybe start by actually engaging with them and not with the results of the regimes that perverted them.

      How you can even mention them together baffles me, and you're a fool if you actually believe they're comparable. You're one step away from Reductio ad Hitlerum, and even being close is just embarrassing.

        Mein Kampf is like 50% Hitler's personal beefs with people, it's a weird read.

        I don't think anyone in the equivalence posting crew that lives here would care, but George Orwell has a few quick reads that would shed some light on their misguided comparisons and criticisms.

        Last edited 14/12/19 12:25 am

        "You're one step away from Reductio ad Hitlerum, and even being close is just embarrassing."

        Considering that's the entire basis for just about any and every argument the "left" has. Sure thing.

        But hey, let's just throw the "but it's not real Socialism" around... Maybe one day "real Socialism" might make an appearance.. until then, I'll listen to the words of those who came before and have first hand experience living in such places.

        I'll take their word over the word of someone who espouses this nonesense, without actually living it, or caring to move to a country that follows it.

          You keep bringing up the same arguments over and over and you're clearly not reading or understanding the ones people are making in return. I mean you're making a stawman out of leftist arguments and then patting yourself on the back for how right you are.

          If any given lefty says 'but Hitler' they are an idiot. Period. If any given righty says 'but Hitler' they are an idiot. Period. You're not stupid for disagreeing with me, nor would you be smart for agreeing with me, to infer either is the case is incredibly stupid in and of itself, but if you're making idiotic comparisons in your argument, funnily enough I'm going to think you're an idiot, or you're trolling. Once again - I hope you're trolling.

          The reality of communist government is and probably always will be horrific, I would not want to live under one, nor would the majority of lefties, because communist ideas don't translate to reality. That's not what I or other lefties are arguing for - I want you to separate the ideas of Marx and co from the movements they inspired from the political regimes that perverted them. You're literally comparing the book of a despotic dictator who went on to carry out the atrocities his ideas logically lead to with the writings of some academics that became inspiration for a lot of political movements and governments that eventually came undone due to corruption, greed and great evil. One was an individual's justification of evil and the others were ideas used as justification for a separate individual's evil.

          You cannot compare the two, and if you're going to whine about your strawman version of the left all making the same argument, you'd better accept I'm going to call you out on doing exactly what you think the left is.

        really good post.. until that latin crap at the end friend.

        no faster way to make yourself seem like in insufferable elitist than use those kind of phrases. Particularly when you already made your point so the logical conclusion is your trying to signal a superior education.

        comprehensive takedown i would have loved to upvote but ugh that last tiny bit so sad.

          Reductio ad Hitlerum isn't really latin, it's the fallacy of reducing an argument to 'Hitler did it too'.

          It's definitely not supposed to be showing off my education, it's just a snarky way of saying as soon as you bring up Hitler as a serious argument you've 'lost' the argument, but I get it, it does sound rather snobby after reading it back.

            you are now responsible for my "you learn something new every day" moment for today, i think you might be the first person ever to have educated someone in an online comment section cuddos =)

            EDIT: that is not how you spell kudos.....

            Last edited 14/12/19 9:25 pm

      yea, it's almost as though Marx and Hitler are two very different people with very different ideologies that led them to lead very different lives.

        Yet their ideologies were used to kill many millions of people. Never said they were identical.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now