Can dialectics break a Cartesian plane?

Dialectics doesn't even have a plane, you a**hole.

So you think you're reading this? Fascist!

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "What an offensive thing to say! You must be a fascist!" 

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "Whoever you are, how dare you say that! I assume you're a fascist?"  

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "How could you utter such a thing? By my troth, you must be a fascist!"  

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "You didn't add a trigger warning! FASCIST."  

Offensively, I said, "Hi, I'm Z." Offended, he replied, "That's a strong opinion. You must be a fascist!" And so on.

We aren't a fan of banning members from political organisations for merely some assertion concerning facts, like Ken Livingstone's assertion about German history. It's not a partisan assertion, it is a neutral statement that does not necessitate any particular response. The assumption that a person like Livingstone is secretly evil and a budding supervillain for saying it seems unfounded. We're also not a fan of most political organisations, which helps. These bans tend to thrive on an atmosphere where emotion seems more important than politics, which is indeed most political organisations. This seems apt when the political realm is generally marginalised, however politics contains facets which cannot be comprehended in such a way.

However, Ken Livingstone's suspension from Labour was one of the more ridiculous bans of late. It wasn't for a usual, controversial topic. No, it was for a trivial suggestion about occasional early Nazi collaboration with Zionists. Well, the Nazis later invaded the Soviet Union, and often condemned their take on socialism. Yet they co-operated with them, even starting World War II in co-operation with the Soviet Union. Yet people don't seem offended at this. In lieu of considering Livingstone, he is merely hounded out based on vague insinuation.

Of course, the Labour Party had ties to the Israeli 'Labour Party,' which recently condemned Corbyn for his criticism of Israel. They also have the Friends of Israel groups, which doesn't help matters. So them getting strict about this while allowing pro-Israel factions to stay is a slightly absurd figure. Okay, so Labour is disunited. Some Labourites supported and still support senseless war in Iraq, yet they aren't all banned. Indeed, it might seem like that decision was quite recent. However, in the light of these Labour escapades, what we totally couldn't allow was - Ken Livingstone. This might seem farcical, however people can reduce almost any political current to farce when they sniff wind of alleged 'anti-Semitism.' All of a sudden, it's the height of anti-communism, it's fascism, it's in brief pure villainy. Few labels are as trivialised as being branded a villain by the usual leftist.

Quite frankly, if the liberal Labour wish to make their administrative decisions like this, perhaps they should stick to a 'laissez-faire' platform.

Let us cut to the chase. So, we have decided on a new rule for this blog. You are not allowed to assert that the state of Transnistria invaded England in 1066. You will also be harshly reprimanded for suggesting that the state of Croatia had the majority of its population convert to Buddhism in 975. Finally, as an unspoken rule, you are not to say that Nuri as-Said was overthrown in 1941.

We trust that commenters will do all of these things, so that we can follow up with a concerned post involving the fear of a scandalous culture running rampant in the comment section.

You might also wish to go further and join a political group which posts contemptible, dull pseudo-political agitation on social media sites, by which I mean basically any political group on social media sites. Then post incriminating material that people can screenshot. There are clearly not enough incriminating screenshots available on social media at the moment, because social media is dull, so the media is having to grasp at straws. Perhaps someone who believes that journalists' lives matter should try to help them, by providing convenient material. All the same, the number of people who believe that is justifiably shrinking.