Oh look! I don't need to accuse you of stalking me since you've proven that's exactly what you're doing.

The NAZIs didn't employ the more violent tactics until AFTER they were given the power to do so. Their initial technique of public shaming and bullying through intimidation worked quite well (and ultimately gave them the power to demolish Jew-run businesses...among other things).

If victimization were a Boolean process, clearly not. But, as I've stated, they are both considered oppressive by the Socialist paradigm — of which this article and the majority of its supporters (see replies to my initial comment) are exercising.

Your entire argument hinges on "if you don't like it, ignore it and find something else to enjoy". I come from a the point of view of "if you don't like it, make some change happen".

I think you need to revisit your history books. I wasn't referring to the after the fact Communist state. I was explaining how Socialism infects a society through propaganda.

You do realise the Op-Eds came BEFORE the tanks and rifles and fear of getting sent to the gulag, right?

Well, considering Orwell was fighting against Communism, I suppose some evils are necessary. If life were so easily a black and white morality, things would be much easier. Would you give up your freedoms so you could feel better about something (for a time)? That's what "isms" promise us and that's why there…

"As I have explained elsewhere on this thread, this is the type of "bad" that I have been subjected to continuously in my 20+ years of gaming and I cannot tolerate anymore. I'm not naive enough to not notice and I'm not apathetic enough to not care."

Are you selectively comprehending terminology? If something is underrepresented, it isn't treated fairly and is "oppressed." Again, you've stated you were from a formerly Communist-controlled country and don't acknowledge this?

Actually, I've thought about my initial question quite deeply.

I think a lot of "oppression" is abstract and fabricated to suit people with agendas.

LOL! Now I'm just going to keep replying because I know how much your ego won't let you just let it go.

There are two forms of Marxism: Economic and Cultural. What I'm addressing is Cultural Marxism. I'm not so much redefining it as digging through all of its rebranded terms to its root.

You finished? Come on. You gotta have that last word. It's just killing you not to have it. Come ooooon ;)

Awesome. I wonder how many of these commentators share the same IP....

"I wasn't calling you a dumbass...I just said you were acting like one." Christ on a cracker, the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one!

Oh! So now I'm FOX News? ...let's see where this next derailment takes us.

The opposite of progressive is counter-progressive (or regressive). When I was in school for my Psychology degree (ended up switching to CompSci) and learned about PR, spin and social systems, I discovered an interesting study on how much power specific words have. These charged words can possess implicit meanings…

So ask your question because I've been trying to get an honest answer since my initial comment and have only got stuff like your continuous torrents of accusations, criticisms of my replies and complete derailments of my arguments.

And you don't find anything even remotely antagonistic with that? This comes from the same article that has a title picture that read's "A Man's World?" I'm sure the article wasn't insinuating that it's a man's world because he added a question mark after it. English is your primary language right? Please don't…