George D. and Che G.

[John]

"We need to see our opponents..." "...as fellow human beings"


http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/why-ian-freeman-ostracized-me

[Russell Kanning]

interesting

[KBCraig]

I have no problem with his column, and how we need to see everyone as humans, instead of either 100% Good or 100% Evil.

The problem is, that some people are, on balance, evil.

Sure, Che had some redeeming qualities that motivated him, but in the end he became a monster. Adolph Hitler also survived a rough childhood; he was kind to children, loved animals, appreciated art, developed the Autobahn, and saved the German economy. I'm not about to list him as someone I admire, though.

[George Donnelly]

Actually, in the end, Che gave up his state privilege and went off to start another revolution in a foreign land. And he died for it.

[Jim Johnson]

So you admire someone who over came asthma.
Why do you need Ian's approval?

[MaineShark]

Of course, it's not that he had good intentions, and became corrupt over time.

His goal was to forcibly institute socialism, no matter how many he had to murder in order to do so.  He set out to be a mass-murderer, and achieved his goal.

[George Donnelly]

Jim, I don't. Not sure why you even asked the question. EDIT: I take inspiration from some aspects of Che Guevara's life, Jim. I DON'T remember saying anywhere that I admire Che Guevara. If I did, it was a mistake. I don't admire him. I only take inspiration from certain aspects of his life.

MaineShark, that claim is not correct based on my research. If you can back it up, I'd love to see the evidence.

[MaineShark]

MaineShark, that claim is not correct based on my research. If you can back it up, I'd love to see the evidence.

Really?  What part of that do you find "incorrect," exactly?

That he meant to impose socialism?  That he meant to do so by force?  That he did not demonstrate any unwillingness to murder?  That he arranged for the Soviets to install nuclear weapons in Cuba (and not tactical nukes; we're talking megaton-class thermonuclear weapons, whose only possible purpose is the mass-murder of civilians in cities)?  That he later denounced the Soviets for not going to war with the US?

He was a mass murderer in his own right, and he did so for the worst of possible motivations (trying to impose the most utterly-evil political philosophy that's ever been developed)(Kevin's right,there's nothing that's 100% evil, but Socialism is darn close), and would have happily increased the scale if he'd been able to do so.

Should I go on?  Guevara would not likely have been the next Hitler, even if he had the resources (he seemed to prefer being the man behind the figurehead), but if he'd been able to, he certainly would have stepped into Eichmann's role with a bloodthirsty gleam in his eye.

And so, I have to agree with Ian on this one: lauding Guevara is akin to lauding Eichmann.

[George Donnelly]

"He set out to be a mass-murderer" is hyperbole - unless you can back that up. Can you?

[Jim Johnson]

Jim, I don't. Not sure why you even asked the question.

I'm wondering why you need to write an article about how Ian is treating you.

The Freedom Movement needs to separate it's self from any notions of violence. 
It is through violence that we will be defaced and then defeated.

[George Donnelly]

Jim, Ian and Che Guevara are simply props that give me an easy segue into looking at the deeper issue of considering our opponents as complete human beings instead of dehumanizing them as cardboard cutout tyrants.

[MaineShark]

"He set out to be a mass-murderer" is hyperbole - unless you can back that up. Can you?

I just did.  He set out to impose socialism by force of arms.  Sorry, but "collateral damage" or "can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" or any other such nonsense euphemisms and excuses are meaningless.  Killing others who are not committing aggression against you is murder.  Doing it on a large scale is mass murder.

He knew what he was planning to do, and by all accounts went forward joyfully.

[FTL_Ian]

I have to say I didn't expect this one to come back up.  George, I ostracized you for the way you have treated several people online, including me.  The Che thing was merely the final straw.

I also attempted to share with you at the time we had the disagreement that Che was a killer, and you similarly balked as you are doing with Maineshark.

I can understand casting aside the average facebook poster who doesn't agree with you, however I figured being the top sponsor of your premiere Agora.io online un-conference would at least give me an audience to attempt to persuade you, but no.  You even told me you'd refund the money for my sponsorship (which was long done and over at that time), and of course I refused.

[FTL_Ian]

I agree with George that people should be seen as human beings.  Che was a sick human and does not deserve to be idolized.  In the same way that petty tyrants like Judge Burke should not be looked up to despite also having redeeming qualities.  (He's nice when he's not in his robe.)

[Silent_Bob]

I agree with George that people should be seen as human beings.  Che was a sick human and does not deserve to be idolized.  In the same way that petty tyrants like Judge Burke should not be looked up to despite also having redeeming qualities.  (He's nice when he's not in his robe.)

Redeeming qualities... Being *nice* while not wearing the mantle of "judge" somehow makes up for all the lives he's damaged/destroyed?