The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Commie thugs attack Nigel Farage in pub

I'm no fan of UKIP; I'm a Labour-voter in fact.

But what these commie thugs did was despicable. **** them

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/22/farage-calls-anti-ukip-protesters-who-forced-him-out-of-pub-scum
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for alow
alow
19
I'm no fan of Farage but that's not okay.
In what way are they communist?
These aren't 'commie thugs', they're just idiots.
Reply 4
Avatar for 455409
455409
17
Stopped reading when you branded them communists.
Original post by Captain Haddock
These aren't 'commie thugs', they're just idiots.


Exactly, there's nothing in the Communist ideology about chasing people out of pubs.
They're just idiots, plain and simple.
Good lads is what I say.
Original post by Bornblue
Exactly, there's nothing in the Communist ideology about chasing people out of pubs.
They're just idiots, plain and simple.


It would be stupid to call them fascist (their behaviour absolutely resembles that of the Brownshirts).

So yeah, I have no problem saying they are behaving like Bolsheviks.

I'm shocked that otherwise-sane left-wing TSRians feel obligated to jump to the defence of the authoritarian left, both historical and present
Original post by angelfox
Good lads is what I say.


Yeah, because people totally deserve to be harassed while having lunch with their kids, merely because one disagrees with their politics :rolleyes:
Original post by LordMarmalade
It would be stupid to call them fascist (their behaviour absolutely resembles that of the Brownshirts).

So yeah, I have no problem saying they are behaving like Bolsheviks.

I'm shocked that otherwise-sane left-wing TSRians feel obligated to jump to the defence of the authoritarian left, both historical and present


I don't think calling them idiots is defending them as such.
Original post by LordMarmalade
Yeah, because people totally deserve to be harassed while having lunch with their kids, merely because one disagrees with their politics :rolleyes:


So because lots disagreed with Hitler it means that he shouldn't have been harassed?
Original post by Captain Haddock
I don't think calling them idiots is defending them as such.


Would you agree that when someone behaves like a Brownshirt, it is legitimate to call them a fascist, even if the action has nought to do with conventional political fascism?
Original post by angelfox
So because lots disagreed with Hitler it means that he shouldn't have been harassed?


I call Godwin, and claim my £5
Original post by LordMarmalade
It would be stupid to call them fascist (their behaviour absolutely resembles that of the Brownshirts).

So yeah, I have no problem saying they are behaving like Bolsheviks.

I'm shocked that otherwise-sane left-wing TSRians feel obligated to jump to the defence of the authoritarian left, both historical and present


It's not 'jumping to their defence' at all.
What they did was stupid. I just don't see how it makes them communist.
Communism is an economic ideology regarding the means of production and absolute equality of outcome. Nothing about communism is inherently authoritative either, don't confuse the theory with certain dictatorship countries labelling themselves as 'communist'.
There has never been a true example of a communist country.
I don't see how chasing someone out a pub is communism, it's idiocy.
hahahah brilliant good on them!

though i do feel bad for his kids
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
It's not 'jumping to their defence' at all.
What they did was stupid. I just don't see how it makes them communist


If a right-winger goes around behaving like a brownshirt, it is legitimate to call them a fascist.

If a left-winger goes around behaving in a comparable way, it's legitimate to call them a commie thug, given they are aping the actions of communists all over the world (using physical force to intimidate your political enemies)

There has never been a true example of a communist country.


No true scotsman, eh? To be honest, I don't think you're in any position to tell the Soviet Union they weren't really communists (unless you're saying there has never been a socialist country that has reached the fantasy end-state of communism)

The claim that there has never been a real communist regime is pure casuistry
Reply 16
Avatar for 455409
455409
17
Original post by LordMarmalade
Yeah, because people totally deserve to be harassed while having lunch with their kids, merely because one disagrees with their politics :rolleyes:


To be fair if he's elected he'd be harassing people having their lunch with their kids through his stupid policies.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LordMarmalade
If a right-winger goes around behaving like a brownshirt, it is legitimate to call them a fascist.

If a left-winger goes around behaving in a comparable way, it's legitimate to call them a commie thug, given they are aping the actions of communists all over the world (using physical force to intimidate your political enemies)



No true scotsman, eh? To be honest, I don't think you're in any position to tell the Soviet Union they weren't really communists (unless you're saying there has never been a socialist country that has reached the fantasy end-state of communism)

The claim that there has never been a real communist regime is pure casuistry

No, not really. The Soviet Union calling themselves socialist doesn't mean they were. They were not. Just because thugs attack people and call themselves communist, it does not mean that they are communist, they are merely using it as an excuse.
Is the Democratic Republic of North Korea, democratic?
Original post by james1211
To be fair if he's elected he'd be harassing people having their lunch with their kids through his stupid policies.


That doesn't make any sense, it's just a mealy-mouthed justification for the kind of harassment and intimidation that should be instinctively repulsive to anyone who values our constitution and form of parliamentary democracy
Original post by Bornblue
No, not really. The Soviet Union calling themselves socialist doesn't mean they were.


That's right, we look "under the bonnet" to make that determination, from which we can determine that the Soviet Union absolutely adheres to the characteristics of a socialist state.

The assertion made by those on the far left that there has never been a real socialist/communist regime is as laughable as Muslims who claim that whenever a terrorist carries out an attack in the name of Islam, that axiomatically means they're not a real Muslim.

No true Scotsman = self-serving crap

And although these far-leftists will claim the Soviet Union wasn't really socialist, they still seem to have more sympathy for it than for the west. It's as though they don't even really believe the claim themselves
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you