[maddmike]

I do not misunderstand socialism. If you know anything about history, socialism favors the brutal and ruthless who will kill anyone in their way. Marxism and socialism go hand in hand. It's extremely naive to think that these type of people neatly separate things. They do not. The National Socialist Party (Nazis) killed anyone they deemed were in their way of taking over. The Marxists in Russia killed the royal family and anyone in their way to establishing the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Castro and Gueverra did the same thing in taking over Cuba. All those regimes continued the killing for years, as they began tracking and monitoring anyone they even suspected might oppose them in any way. That can (and did) include killing members of their own ranks who weren't as brutal or ruthless as the ones who took over were. They have no problem killing the socialist idealists who think that socialism is a wonderful system; especially if those idealists are opposed to the brute force method of taking over, ruling and reigning. The fluffed up ideal never actually happens or works, because it's always co-opted by the brutal and ruthless.

I'm so tired of the faux-intellectuals who are nothing more than sock puppets of ideologies being pushed by types of people they don't recognize because of their ignorance of history. If what you know about the past was told to you by a university or the media, then you have no idea what actually took place. There's a reason why millions risked their lives escaping socialist Germany, socialist Russia, and socialist Cuba. Talk to the people who escaped from socialist run societies and they'll explain how it actually works in real life. They'll happily correct any faux-intellectual misunderstandings of real socialism.

However things were in the past here, that's changed suddenly as of the past year. The cancel culture is displaying and demonstrating a type of power we haven't seen since McCarthyism. Things that were intended to be benevolent, are now being bent towards attitudes and behaviors that strongly resemble the cultural changes that took place in both Russia and Germany before Marxist/socialist/fascists took over. It's not something to dismiss or ignore with the trendy faux-intellectualism of today with it's 'tropes', 'laws' (Godwin's), etc., used to dismiss any kind of opposition. Everything is up for grabs right now, and that's not good.

Wow, that is a lot to unpack but I guess you insist on talking politics.

"I do not misunderstand socialism. If you know anything about history, socialism favors the brutal and ruthless who will kill anyone in their way. Marxism and socialism go hand in hand. It's extremely naive to think that these type of people neatly separate things. They do not. The National Socialist Party (Nazis) killed anyone they deemed were in their way of taking over. The Marxists in Russia killed the royal family and anyone in their way to establishing the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Castro and Gueverra did the same thing in taking over Cuba. All those regimes continued the killing for years, as they began tracking and monitoring anyone they even suspected might oppose them in any way. That can (and did) include killing members of their own ranks who weren't as brutal or ruthless as the ones who took over were. They have no problem killing the socialist idealists who think that socialism is a wonderful system; especially if those idealists are opposed to the brute force method of taking over, ruling and reigning. The fluffed up ideal never actually happens or works, because it's always co-opted by the brutal and ruthless."

Actually, if you think the Nazi were socialist then you do misunderstand socialism. Saying Nazis were socialist because it is in their name is like saying North Korea is a democracy because they call themselves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The Nazis literally killed all of the socialist in their party overnight, that is not a metaphor. Saying "Marxism and socialism go hand in hand" further demonstrates your lack of understanding of both of those terms as they are not synonymous. I think what you really have a problem with is authoritarianism. I do too and that is true if it is left leaning or right leaning. Lets take a look at some of the most brutal regimes and put them in perspective:
Pol Pot: One of the worst people in modern times was a Marxist-Leninist and a nationalist. Most importantly he was a totalitarian dictator
Saddam Hussein: A Ba'ath party nationalist and a brutal dictator
Ruhollah Khomeini: An Islamic Shia nationalist and it is still against the law to insult him in Iran
Vajiralongkorn:The current king of Thailand. Although they are a constitutional monarchy, he has enriched himself to the tune of $70 Billion and anyone who speaks against him is imprisoned
Augusto Pinochet: a right-wing nationalist dictator who overthrew the civilian government through a military coup. Responsible for purges of any left-leaning politicians and the disappearance and torture of thousands of people
Idi Amin Dada Oumee: Considered by many to be one of the most brutal dictators in modern history. He was a pan-africanist and nationalist and killed around half a million people
Kim II Sung: Communist dictator of North Korea responsible for close to 200k political deaths
Adolf Hitler: Everyone knows what he did. Responsible for the death of millions of, well, everyone including all of the socialists and communists in the German government
Francisco Franco: Nationalist, Fascist dictator who overthrew the Spanish Second Republic and imprisoned and killed tens of thousands of people
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin: Communist dictator of the USSR. Responsible for the death of millions of his people
Mao Zedong: One of the worst dictators in history responsible for the death of up to 80 million
Genghis Khan: Brutal emperor and monarchist who conquered most of the known world and slaughtered unknown millions and displaced or annihilated entire ethnicities
Leopald II of Belgium: Absolute ruler of the Congo Free State in which he treated everyone as his personal ATM. Committing some of the worst atrocities

The list can go on and on. What do all of these regimes have in common? It is not ideology and certainly not "socialism" although some of them were socialist. Rather it is fervent nationalism and totalitarianism. Here are is the list of the top 10 most socialist states today: China, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, Belgium. Are they all great? No, but that has less to do with socialism and more to do with authoritarianism. Nine out of ten of those countries are democracies and score highly on quality of life and happiness.

"I'm so tired of the faux-intellectuals who are nothing more than sock puppets of ideologies being pushed by types of people they don't recognize because of their ignorance of history. If what you know about the past was told to you by a university or the media, then you have no idea what actually took place. There's a reason why millions risked their lives escaping socialist Germany, socialist Russia, and socialist Cuba. Talk to the people who escaped from socialist run societies and they'll explain how it actually works in real life. They'll happily correct any faux-intellectual misunderstandings of real socialism."

Interesting ad hominem argument. See the list above of the most socialist countries by definition of socialism not totalitarianism which seems to be your false equivalency. Being tired of something doesn't make your point correct. I have been to Cuba, it is a communist, authoritarian regime and a failed state that has zero safety net or socialism going on. The same with Venezuela where my wife's family's properties and holdings are worthless. I'm assuming you are referring to East Germany and the USSR above. Once again, communist which has some socialist ideals but is communist none the less. The US has plenty of socialist ideals too. The military where I served being probably the biggest socialist institution as far as consumption of GDP goes. It is not a private army like monarchs of old used to have but a socialist organization using tax revenues from all citizens (like it or not) for what politicians decide is the common good. We also have socialist roads, police, public universities, schools, social security, fire departments etc. Maybe you don't like all of those institutions but your tax dollars still pay for them in order to further the common good. Does that make the U.S. communist? Of course not.

"However things were in the past here, that's changed suddenly as of the past year. The cancel culture is displaying and demonstrating a type of power we haven't seen since McCarthyism. Things that were intended to be benevolent, are now being bent towards attitudes and behaviors that strongly resemble the cultural changes that took place in both Russia and Germany before Marxist/socialist/fascists took over. It's not something to dismiss or ignore with the trendy faux-intellectualism of today with it's 'tropes', 'laws' (Godwin's), etc., used to dismiss any kind of opposition. Everything is up for grabs right now, and that's not good."

While I'm not sure exactly what specific instance you are referring to as "cancel culture" so it is hard to talk to the dog whistle you are using. Is our culture too sensitive to some things? Yes. Do people like to get their proverbial panties in a bunch over the slightest infringement? I think so but that is just my opinion and not fact. However, this is not a new phenomenon as politicians, kings, religions et. al. have been using this tactic since time immortal. See the Red Scare, the Lavender scare (McCarthyism), the civil war, the peple that want a new civil war, the crusades, the 100 year war, the Salem Witch trials... This is what people do to create and fester nationalism in order to gain and hold on to power. Remember, what all of the most brutal regimes had and have in common was a strong sense of nationalism which comes with a us vs. them mentality. Without a strong, scary enemy no one is going to put their trust in a strong authoritarian government. Right now the flavor of the day is "socialism". Most Americans don't understand that word or realize that some of the most successful nations in the world are proudly socialist. Before the socialist boogy man it was communism, before that is was "the yellow people" before that is was the Irish, rinse and repeat.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Oh I believe you because that's the way it used to be, but things have changed. The way things work can change quickly, depending on who owns what. You're talking about a system run by business people, not ideologues. If the people who own and control the media, social media, communications and other technologies, and demonstrated their enormous power to be able to brute-force the election results they wanted regardless of what actually happened start buying up other industries like insurance, etc., well then; the way things were will be over. The only way to stop that is by being able to recognize what's happening because you've learned from the mistakes societies of the past made. If we don't, government of the people, by the people, and for the people is over. It will be replaced by the age-old system of government of the rich and powerful, by the rich and powerful, and for the rich and powerful.

I disagree, completely.

And I'm going to leave it at that, because I think this discussion has gone far off from this forum's purpose.

 

[Eagle7]

Way too much to address here in a lot of detail as this is obviously way off topic of the thread, of which I'm certainly an offender of causing. I apologize for that. It's just frustrating to watch our society behaving like lobsters in the pot, not realizing what it means that the water temperature slowly keeps getting warmer. Chipshot's comment: "Reminds me of conversations I had in college. Conversations that, sadly, would be all but impossible today." is quite revealing as to just how far things have gone. We're losing our freedoms; freedom of speech is pretty much already gone, and it isn't because of nationalism; just the opposite. All the academic distinctions mean nothing in the real world, as the struggle for power doesn't separate things into nice, neat and tidy groups. Those who want power will do and say anything in order to get it; "by any means necessary" is now the mantra of forces here in this country that are openly declaring their intent to overthrow it. The supposedly wonderful socialist countries that supposedly work so well, only work at all because of the might and power of capitalist America and the NATO accord that was formed after WW2 which protected and protects them from the type of brutal regimes already mentioned. Would any of those supposedly wonderful socialist countries be able to resist the military might of China should it descend on them? China has already declared their intent to take over the world. Ignoring that threat is no different than what took place in Europe in the 1930's. We're in dangerous times just like then, and people don't seem to realize it or recognize what these signs led to in the past.

 

[lockem]

Way OT: China has leadership and figure heads, but I do not think anyone there has the power of a dictator. China is getting ahead because they have economic and political cooperation within their party; sometimes by force and often at the expense of the general population but it does work. However, the USA just seems to have extreme left and extreme right yelling at each other with the moderates (which I hope are a significant portion of the total) all getting drowned out and constant stalemate as a result. Moderation is really the way forward, not yelling, name calling or finger pointing. Where are the Jerry Brown's of the country? (OK, 40 years ago he was pretty far left, but he moved to dead center as he aged).

Specific case in point: yes we need secure borders, yes we need a means for people to immigrate that actually works, yes we need a path to legal status for people who have already snuck through our inadequately secure borders. The right screams that we need 1) to the exclusion of 2) and 3), the left screams that we need 3) to the exclusion of 1) and 2), border guards and humanitarians will tell you that we need 2) or 1) and 3) alone will not work. One at a time does not work. Where is the bill that addresses all 3 issues simultaneously? Lost in the partisan shouting and going nowhere is where it is. I have some cynical thoughts about why this situation is so persistent, which I will keep to myself.

Another example:
Extreme left: we must (nearly) immediately stop using all fossil and nuclear fuels and (the lie) "green" energy will economically replace it all.
Extreme right: we can continue to burn all of the fossil fuels we want and (the lie) there will be no negative consequence.
Reality: we need to phase out the use of fossil fuels in a planned fashion that does not break down civilization or destroy the environment. We need nuclear power (fission or fusion) to fill the substantial gaps that "green" energy cannot fill.
End result: almost no forward motion on the issue; most of the rest of the world IS making progress.

 

[Martyn]

Back to the original non-political discussion....
Just to close the loop on the original post, I just got on line and had a virtual chat with Progressive. Deleted Snapshot for a total Monthly increase of only $7.59 for both cars. It's still way cheaper than the previous insurance. Now I can actually accelerate the way the car was intended to be driven

 

[Avnyc11]

Back to the original non-political discussion....
Just to close the loop on the original post, I just got on line and had a virtual chat with Progressive. Deleted Snapshot for a total Monthly increase of only $7.59 for both cars. It's still way cheaper than the previous insurance. Now I can actually accelerate the way the car was intended to be driven

Great decision!

 

[Kragbax]

Yes you can remove the device and keep the insurance. The problem I had with Progressive was they have a great initial rate but come renewal time jacked them up. I switched to LiMu. About the same initial rate, but no raise come renewal time.

I used the device on my last car. I barely drove it, and yet still got nailed for hard braking and some acceleration. It's a Boxster. I babied the thing, hoping to get through the 90 days unscathed (only need to use it 90 days for permanent discount). I'd driven maybe 30 miles in the Boxster over the 90 days with the device (winter in NY) and my discount dropped from 30% to 15%. I just traded the Boxster for my Giulia. I told them I'd use the device (because it's car based not account based) but I might not. You really can't enjoy the car with it, and if you do you see your "discount" reduced to nothing.

 

[EricVonHa]

Looks like this one be a lost lamb in a political storm, guys.

There is a separate section for controversy discussions outside of the brand