Toxic people - Can you get on with people you think are a$$holes?

We all know people like that. Charming rogues. He might be a this, a that, and a the other, but he's probably good fun and very personable.

Just go with the flow - no-one's getting hurt by it. Better than making some terrible fuss and embarrassing everyone.

yeah that's exactly it. I always do go with the flow, like I said when I see him I get on with him. I only tell my friends I don't like him, it's not really a big deal, if I couldn't tell them then they wouldn't really be my friends
I was just wondering if it was bad of me to dislike him.

I do not tolerate the three sins of hedonism, individuality and sadism in my company which means I will rightly avoid privately associating with the filthy majority of this species.

I do not tolerate the three sins of hedonism, individuality and sadism in my company which means I will rightly avoid privately associating with the filthy majority of this species.

I do not tolerate the three sins of hedonism, individuality and sadism in my company which means I will rightly avoid privately associating with the filthy majority of this species.

It's strange, I associate those values with right-wing thinking. Maybe you should back to your Jeremy Corbyn march where you belong

Are you not aware that communism is individualist and fascism is collectivist?

It's as if defining fascism is a right-wing ideology was a progressive/Fabianist ploy all along...

You are confused because you are trying to locate all of the positions in a limited political model. Left is free worker individualism, right is free market individualism, and fascism is third positionist totalitarianism.

I am extremely far from progressivism.

Blairite/Clintonite leftism draws on huge elements of third position politics. Ignoring the racial aspects of fascism, it falls very close to progressive left politics.

The progressive left is about equality whereas fascism is about hierarchies. They are quite literally the opposite.

Progressive leftism is about hierarchy whereby academics and journalists form the dictatorial class and act in the interests of the collective (according to them) in the same way clergymen did in the past. If you actually look at the rhetoric of imperialist cultures such as those of Nazi Germany, the Brits during the scramble for Africa or the American West. A lot of the motivating rhetorical came not from perceptions of innate superiority, but the protestant social gospel and a vision for creating a better, more equal, more developed world. This is the true politics of victimhood and it sounds so alien because we look at the evils carried out by these cultures through our 21st century lens, when in reality, the people carrying out those acts of evil, were doing so under the premise of moral superiority and White man's burden, and are the same progressive leftist class of today, even if that progressive leftist class is quick to admonish these past crimes.


Your fascism is basically a blue pill dipped in red paint. So near but so far

This is a very lazy attempt to characterise all authoritarian ideologies as the same. The minutiae of the political, economic and cultural policies makes a monumental difference. The British outwardly proclaimed their superiority to the Africans and Indians and the Nazis to the Africans, Slavs and Jews. But if you ask a progressive whether he is racist he will deny it, and intention does matter. The progressives support capitalism, consumerism, social liberalism and equality quotas. Fascists support corporatism, national pride, asceticism, violence and meritocracy. Intention matters and you cannot say they are the same just because they both use authoritarian methods and think they are doing the right thing. By that argument MLM is also fascism which is ridiculous.

Youve turned a discussion about sneaky friends, into an argument about f**king politics.

Jesus, you sound fun. (that's sarcasm... I dont think youre a fun person at all.)