|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
That was a really interesting read, thanks!
I definitely agree with the acceptance position as well.
Pyongyang has long had the means to all but level Seoul, and weapons capable of killing tens of thousands of Americans stationed in South Korea—far more than those killed by al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001, an atrocity that spurred the U.S. to invade two countries and led to 16 years of war. Right now North Korea has missiles that could reach Japan (and possibly Guam) with weapons of mass destruction. The world is already accustomed to dealing with a North Korea capable of sowing unthinkable mayhem.Pyongyang has been constrained by the same logic that has stayed the use of nuclear arms for some 70 years. Their use would invite swift annihilation. In the Cold War this brake was called mad (mutual assured destruction). In this case the brake on North Korea would be simply ad: assured destruction, since any launch of a nuclear weapon would invite an annihilating response; even though its missiles might hit North America, it cannot destroy the United States.
|
In the past few months, multiple illegal North Korean ballistic-missile and ICBM tests—coupled with the most recent bellicose language from Pyongyang about striking the U.S., Guam, our allies and our interests in the Asia-Pacific region—have escalated tensions between North Korea and America to levels not experienced since the Korean War.
In response, the Trump administration, with the support of the international community, is applying diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea to achieve the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and a dismantling of the regime’s ballistic-missile programs. We are replacing the failed policy of “strategic patience,” which expedited the North Korean threat, with a new policy of strategic accountability.
The object of our peaceful pressure campaign is the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The U.S. has no interest in regime change or accelerated reunification of Korea. We do not seek an excuse to garrison U.S. troops north of the Demilitarized Zone. We have no desire to inflict harm on the long-suffering North Korean people, who are distinct from the hostile regime in Pyongyang.
Our diplomatic approach is shared by many nations supporting our goals, including China, which has dominant economic leverage over Pyongyang. China is North Korea’s neighbor, sole treaty ally and main commercial partner. Chinese entities are, in one way or another, involved with roughly 90% of North Korean trade. This affords China an unparalleled opportunity to assert its influence with the regime. Recent statements by members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, as well as other regional and global voices, have made clear the international community holds one view regarding North Korea’s provocative and dangerous actions: They must stop. Pyongyang must stand down on those actions.
China has a strong incentive to pursue the same goals as the U.S. The North Korean regime’s actions and the prospect of nuclear proliferation or conflict threaten the economic, political and military security China has worked to build over decades. North Korea’s behavior further threatens China’s long-term interest in regional peace and stability. If China wishes to play a more active role in securing regional peace and stability—from which all of us, especially China, derive such great benefit—it must make the decision to exercise its decisive diplomatic and economic leverage over North Korea.
Our diplomatic approach also proceeds through the United Nations. The Security Council’s recent unanimous vote imposes new sanctions on North Korea and underscores the extent to which the regime has chosen to isolate itself from the international community. This vote, which also had Russia’s support, reflects the international will to confront the North Korean regime’s continuing threat to global security and stability.
We urge all nations to honor their commitments to enforce U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea and to increase diplomatic, economic and political pressure on the regime, specifically through the abandonment of trade, which finances the development of ballistic and nuclear weapons. The U.S. continues to consolidate international unity on the North Korean issue through increased engagement at the U.N., at regional diplomatic forums, and in capitals around the world.
While diplomacy is our preferred means of changing North Korea’s course of action, it is backed by military options. The U.S. alliances with South Korea and Japan are strong. But Pyongyang has persistently rebuffed Seoul’s attempts to create conditions whereby peaceful dialogue can occur, and has instead proceeded on its reckless course of threats and provocation. As a result of these dangers, South Korea’s new government is moving forward with the deployment of U.S. Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense against the threat. We commend South Korea’s decision to deploy this purely defensive capability.
Installing Thaad launchers on the Korean Peninsula and conducting joint military exercises are defensive preparations against the acute threat of military actions directed against the U.S., our allies and other nations. China’s demand for the U.S. and South Korea not to deploy Thaad is unrealistic. Technically astute Chinese military officers understand the system poses no danger to their homeland.
WSJ
Tillerson and Mattis decide to pen a joint op-ed.
|
On August 14 2017 13:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +In the past few months, multiple illegal North Korean ballistic-missile and ICBM tests—coupled with the most recent bellicose language from Pyongyang about striking the U.S., Guam, our allies and our interests in the Asia-Pacific region—have escalated tensions between North Korea and America to levels not experienced since the Korean War.
In response, the Trump administration, with the support of the international community, is applying diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea to achieve the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and a dismantling of the regime’s ballistic-missile programs. We are replacing the failed policy of “strategic patience,” which expedited the North Korean threat, with a new policy of strategic accountability.
The object of our peaceful pressure campaign is the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The U.S. has no interest in regime change or accelerated reunification of Korea. We do not seek an excuse to garrison U.S. troops north of the Demilitarized Zone. We have no desire to inflict harm on the long-suffering North Korean people, who are distinct from the hostile regime in Pyongyang.
Our diplomatic approach is shared by many nations supporting our goals, including China, which has dominant economic leverage over Pyongyang. China is North Korea’s neighbor, sole treaty ally and main commercial partner. Chinese entities are, in one way or another, involved with roughly 90% of North Korean trade. This affords China an unparalleled opportunity to assert its influence with the regime. Recent statements by members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, as well as other regional and global voices, have made clear the international community holds one view regarding North Korea’s provocative and dangerous actions: They must stop. Pyongyang must stand down on those actions.
China has a strong incentive to pursue the same goals as the U.S. The North Korean regime’s actions and the prospect of nuclear proliferation or conflict threaten the economic, political and military security China has worked to build over decades. North Korea’s behavior further threatens China’s long-term interest in regional peace and stability. If China wishes to play a more active role in securing regional peace and stability—from which all of us, especially China, derive such great benefit—it must make the decision to exercise its decisive diplomatic and economic leverage over North Korea.
Our diplomatic approach also proceeds through the United Nations. The Security Council’s recent unanimous vote imposes new sanctions on North Korea and underscores the extent to which the regime has chosen to isolate itself from the international community. This vote, which also had Russia’s support, reflects the international will to confront the North Korean regime’s continuing threat to global security and stability.
We urge all nations to honor their commitments to enforce U.N. Security Council sanctions against North Korea and to increase diplomatic, economic and political pressure on the regime, specifically through the abandonment of trade, which finances the development of ballistic and nuclear weapons. The U.S. continues to consolidate international unity on the North Korean issue through increased engagement at the U.N., at regional diplomatic forums, and in capitals around the world.
While diplomacy is our preferred means of changing North Korea’s course of action, it is backed by military options. The U.S. alliances with South Korea and Japan are strong. But Pyongyang has persistently rebuffed Seoul’s attempts to create conditions whereby peaceful dialogue can occur, and has instead proceeded on its reckless course of threats and provocation. As a result of these dangers, South Korea’s new government is moving forward with the deployment of U.S. Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense against the threat. We commend South Korea’s decision to deploy this purely defensive capability.
Installing Thaad launchers on the Korean Peninsula and conducting joint military exercises are defensive preparations against the acute threat of military actions directed against the U.S., our allies and other nations. China’s demand for the U.S. and South Korea not to deploy Thaad is unrealistic. Technically astute Chinese military officers understand the system poses no danger to their homeland. WSJTillerson and Mattis decide to pen a joint op-ed.
The Warrior Monk has spoken. Mattis is doing his thing.
|
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response.
|
On August 14 2017 13:07 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 11:03 Nevuk wrote:On August 14 2017 10:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:Trump is proposing not at all a preemptive strike. What is on the table is a preventative strike. Preemptive strikes are like the 1967 6 day war where Israel attacked Egypt after Egypt moved their divisions to the border and Israel gathered intelligence suggesting an imminent attack. Preventative war is like the 2003 Iraq invasion where we invaded Iraq to prevent Saddam from handing off chemical weapons to Al-Queda at an unknown and unspecified future time. We have no indication of an imminent North Korean attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war So it's basically an even worse idea than a preemptive strike? Preemption is protected under international law as an act of self defense against an imminent attack. Preventative war is what Bush2 tried to use as the basis for Iraq War 2. If anyone still cares about international law and war crimes and whatnot, preventative war is at this point a war crime without some kind of backing by the UN. If Trump simply launches an attack on NK without any kind of indication of in incoming attack then that would be an act of aggression without any kind of international law backing. Of course, no one cares about international law anymore and great powers can just invade freely at any time.
I think the fact the Korean war never ended changes what a strike would technically be. It's hard to say though since we were the first to violate the terms of the ceasefire and have long refused to replace it (as was supposed to happen decades ago) with a peace treaty.
|
On August 14 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
As far as punching nazi's goes I don't personally care if someone does it, but I also don't think they should be immune to appropriate legal consequences.
If you insult someone's mother (or in this case, advocate that they be exterminated like pests), you can't be surprised if they punch you in the mouth. It's not fear of the justice system or people's character that causes the drastic disparity in the use of the N-word on the internet vs in the presence of black people in person. The pearl clutching over punching Nazis is comical. Advocating for genocide or a whites only America is on the long list of things that pretty risky to pay in public. Much like the N-word or telling random women you want to fuck them. There is a huge difference between laughing about it and saying Nazi punchers shouldn't be arrested for assault Topical: American Tourist Punched For Giving Nazi Salute In Germany
the Neustadt district where he got punched is rather know for his progressive orientation, even though Dresden is in the former GDR. Can't say I'm suprised. I guess talking didn't work with a heavily intoxicated person there so the only option was war.
|
On August 14 2017 08:09 KwarK wrote:
There may come a time where we need to use violence against those who espouse far right ideas. However we're a long way from that point and when that time comes that violence will need to have the legitimacy of the state, it shouldn't simply be vigilantes attacking those whose political ideas they disagree with.
Punching nazis who haven't asked anything and keep their opinions private is certainly not ok. After all we live in democracy and one can have his ideas, however disgusting they are. Now I think it's great the tourist that made a nazi salute in Germany got punched. Whether you believe in it or not there are stuff you don't do because it's unbelievably offensive, and when you offense people past a certain degree, you get punched. Which is why you don't do it.
I approve laws in Europe that simply prohibit people to wave a nazi flag, wear svastikas and perform nazi salutes in public. And if someone wears a svastika in public, I approve ehoever punches him in the face.
6 million jews have been gased and burnt in ovens by nazis. Wearing a svastika is not just exercising your right of free speech, it's actively insulting in the most atrocious way millions and millions of people. And I think it's great that it's really not a good idea, for one's safety, to do it.
|
On August 14 2017 15:11 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:On August 14 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
As far as punching nazi's goes I don't personally care if someone does it, but I also don't think they should be immune to appropriate legal consequences.
If you insult someone's mother (or in this case, advocate that they be exterminated like pests), you can't be surprised if they punch you in the mouth. It's not fear of the justice system or people's character that causes the drastic disparity in the use of the N-word on the internet vs in the presence of black people in person. The pearl clutching over punching Nazis is comical. Advocating for genocide or a whites only America is on the long list of things that pretty risky to pay in public. Much like the N-word or telling random women you want to fuck them. There is a huge difference between laughing about it and saying Nazi punchers shouldn't be arrested for assault Topical: American Tourist Punched For Giving Nazi Salute In Germany the Neustadt district where he got punched is rather know for his progressive orientation, even though Dresden is in the former GDR. Can't say I'm suprised. I guess talking didn't work with a heavily intoxicated person there so the only option was war.
You are right about Dresden-Neustadt, but I think you would receive this treatment in most places in Germany.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
The fact that he then proceeded to call the police which brought him even more trouble is highly amusing to me tbf.
|
On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response.
Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right.
|
On August 14 2017 17:13 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response. Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right.
Can't imagine who you would consider "completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right"?
Beyond the obvious of babies or whatever.
|
On August 14 2017 17:13 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response. Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right.
The argument goes like this: because the left hates white people so much, white people are drawn to an identitarian movement where their whiteness is respected and valued => the left fuels the alt-right.
1. The left doesn't hate white people. This is the lie that the right deliberately spreads about the left in order to justify their opposition to equality: "What you're pushing for isn't equality, it's an attack against white people". If this narrative has an influence on the rise of the alt-right, the people to blame are the ones who are pushing it, ie the right.
2. Clearly none of the people who push this bankrupt ideology actually believe that when you criticize something a lot it ends up fueling it, cause 80% of their internet presence has been about criticizing libtards and SJWs. So even if it was true that the left was hating on white people, it would be hypocritical for them to draw a connexion between that and the rise of white identitarianism, since they would therefore be responsible for the rise of SJWism and libtardism themselves.
3. I would be careful creating a distinction between a group that used to be hidden and that is now in the spotlight and a group that used to be inexistent and is now invigorated. White identarianism is clearly the former. Don't let their visibility fool you into believing they used not to exist before the left went all evil on them.
|
On August 14 2017 08:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
As far as punching nazi's goes I don't personally care if someone does it, but I also don't think they should be immune to appropriate legal consequences.
If you insult someone's mother (or in this case, advocate that they be exterminated like pests), you can't be surprised if they punch you in the mouth. It's not fear of the justice system or people's character that causes the drastic disparity in the use of the N-word on the internet vs in the presence of black people in person. The pearl clutching over punching Nazis is comical. Advocating for genocide or a whites only America is on the long list of things that pretty risky to pay in public. Much like the N-word or telling random women you want to fuck them. There is a huge difference between laughing about it and saying Nazi punchers shouldn't be arrested for assault Topical: American Tourist Punched For Giving Nazi Salute In Germany
Why do we even argue this stupid whataboutism? The guy drove a car into a crowd ISIS style ffs! Did "the other side" do anything remotely comparable at that occation? Hell no! Did Sanders go on a supid rant about "the far right is also bad" when one of his supporters opened fire on republican congressmen? No, he did not. Condemn what should be condemned, it is not that complicated! Punches are bad, but should have nothing to do with the Charlottesville discussion.
|
On August 14 2017 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 17:13 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response. Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right. Can't imagine who you would consider "completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right"? Beyond the obvious of babies or whatever.
Well, that's a fair point, no one. But the point is that left-wing extremism breeds right-wing extremism and vice-versa.
On August 14 2017 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 17:13 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response. Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right. The argument goes like this: because the left hates white people so much, white people are drawn to an identitarian movement where their whiteness is respected and valued => the left fuels the alt-right. 1. The left doesn't hate white people. This is the lie that the right deliberately spreads about the left in order to justify their opposition to equality: "What you're pushing for isn't equality, it's an attack against white people". If this narrative has an influence on the rise of the alt-right, the people to blame are the ones who are pushing it, ie the right. 2. Clearly none of the people who push this bankrupt ideology actually believe that when you criticize something a lot it ends up fueling it, cause 80% of their internet presence has been about criticizing libtards and SJWs. So even if it was true that the left was hating on white people, it would be hypocritical for them to draw a connexion between that and the rise of white identitarianism, since they would therefore be responsible for the rise of SJWism and libtardism themselves. 3. I would be careful creating a distinction between a group that used to be hidden and that is now in the spotlight and a group that used to be inexistent and is now invigorated. White identarianism is clearly the former. Don't let their visibility fool you into believing they used not to exist before the left went all evil on them.
1. The left doesn't hate white people, that's very true and it's indeed a cover-up argument.
2. Well, I mean, it's not hard to see that right-wing extremism creates left-wing extremism and vice-versa. Both are valid, and none came first, that's a circle. When you have two conflicting ways of seeing the world, and a conflict happens, there's only two way out : escalation of conflict then war, or desescalation and compromise. That last part is supposed to be what the government (and institutions, people in power, etc) does.
3. White identarianism existed. But it grew bigger than it was, partly thanks to "SJWism" or whatever is the correct term for the tribal left.
I mean, it's really an escalation of conflict, and the harder one side becomes, the harder the other side responds. Just look at the recent media coverage of the Google memo thing : in the USA, it took a Libertarian website to cool-headedly adress the news (and then The Atlantic, at the top level of seriousness and integrity as always). In France, it took fucking Slate.fr to correctly adress the issue without spreading complete falsehoods. Now, when you have all the newspapers in the country claiming a guy that a guy whose point is basically "I think diversity is important, but I don't think we're doing it right" is "anti-diversity" and should be fired, you have a fringe of people who weren't far-right, who become far-right. And the reverse goes too : when you have thousands of neonazis who violently demonstrate in the open, a fringe of people who weren't far-left become extremists too. And it continues, again and again.
(note : just to be clear, I am absolutely not saying that we should discount the recent events, or that right-wing violence is somehow more acceptable than left-wing violence, etc. Violence from any side should be hardly punished, just like reasonable opinions from any side should be listened to.)
|
On August 14 2017 18:35 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2017 17:13 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response. Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right. Can't imagine who you would consider "completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right"? Beyond the obvious of babies or whatever. Well, that's a fair point, no one. But the point is that left-wing extremism breeds right-wing extremism and vice-versa. Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 14 2017 17:13 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response. Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right. The argument goes like this: because the left hates white people so much, white people are drawn to an identitarian movement where their whiteness is respected and valued => the left fuels the alt-right. 1. The left doesn't hate white people. This is the lie that the right deliberately spreads about the left in order to justify their opposition to equality: "What you're pushing for isn't equality, it's an attack against white people". If this narrative has an influence on the rise of the alt-right, the people to blame are the ones who are pushing it, ie the right. 2. Clearly none of the people who push this bankrupt ideology actually believe that when you criticize something a lot it ends up fueling it, cause 80% of their internet presence has been about criticizing libtards and SJWs. So even if it was true that the left was hating on white people, it would be hypocritical for them to draw a connexion between that and the rise of white identitarianism, since they would therefore be responsible for the rise of SJWism and libtardism themselves. 3. I would be careful creating a distinction between a group that used to be hidden and that is now in the spotlight and a group that used to be inexistent and is now invigorated. White identarianism is clearly the former. Don't let their visibility fool you into believing they used not to exist before the left went all evil on them. 1. The left doesn't hate white people, that's very true and it's indeed a cover-up argument. 2. Well, I mean, it's not hard to see that right-wing extremism creates left-wing extremism and vice-versa. Both are valid, and none came first, that's a circle. When you have two conflicting ways of seeing the world, and a conflict happens, there's only two way out : escalation of conflict then war, or desescalation and compromise. That last part is supposed to be what the government (and institutions, people in power, etc) does. 3. White identarianism existed. But it grew bigger than it was, partly thanks to "SJWism" or whatever is the correct term for the tribal left. I mean, it's really an escalation of conflict, and the harder one side becomes, the harder the other side responds. Just look at the recent media coverage of the Google memo thing : in the USA, it took a Libertarian website to cool-headedly adress the news (and then The Atlantic, at the top level of seriousness and integrity as always). In France, it took fucking Slate.fr to correctly adress the issue without spreading complete falsehoods. Now, when you have all the newspapers in the country claiming a guy that a guy whose point is basically "I think diversity is important, but I don't think we're doing it right" is "anti-diversity" and should be fired, you have a fringe of people who weren't far-right, who become far-right. And the reverse goes too : when you have thousands of neonazis who violently demonstrate in the open, a fringe of people who weren't far-left become extremists too. And it continues, again and again. (note : just to be clear, I am absolutely not saying that we should discount the recent events, or that right-wing violence is somehow more acceptable than left-wing violence, etc. Violence from any side should be hardly punished, just like reasonable opinions from any side should be listened to.)
SJWism doesn't reach the potentially nazifiable people in a vacuum. It reaches them through the prism of far right websites, where it is magnified and turned into this dangerous extremist thing that it's really not. There's a reason why you have to add all of these cultural marxist conspiracies in order to create something that would actually be problematic if it were true: because the reality doesn't match the objective that they're trying to reach. When one of the side's extremist is an african-american girl who complains about a white person wearing dreads in an irrational fashion and the other's side extremist is a bunch of torch-wearing hitler-quoting people, even though I understand the appeal of centrism and seeing both sides, I cannot honestly look at the situation and assert that there's a logical cause and effect reaction going on.
If you're going more for Antifa as the opposing side, typically you're going to find berniebros there more than you're going to find SJWs: it's a movement that is to the actual far left, not the american one. The woman who died was a socialist.
|
|
|
On August 14 2017 18:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 18:35 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2017 17:13 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response. Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right. Can't imagine who you would consider "completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right"? Beyond the obvious of babies or whatever. Well, that's a fair point, no one. But the point is that left-wing extremism breeds right-wing extremism and vice-versa. On August 14 2017 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 14 2017 17:13 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response. Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right. The argument goes like this: because the left hates white people so much, white people are drawn to an identitarian movement where their whiteness is respected and valued => the left fuels the alt-right. 1. The left doesn't hate white people. This is the lie that the right deliberately spreads about the left in order to justify their opposition to equality: "What you're pushing for isn't equality, it's an attack against white people". If this narrative has an influence on the rise of the alt-right, the people to blame are the ones who are pushing it, ie the right. 2. Clearly none of the people who push this bankrupt ideology actually believe that when you criticize something a lot it ends up fueling it, cause 80% of their internet presence has been about criticizing libtards and SJWs. So even if it was true that the left was hating on white people, it would be hypocritical for them to draw a connexion between that and the rise of white identitarianism, since they would therefore be responsible for the rise of SJWism and libtardism themselves. 3. I would be careful creating a distinction between a group that used to be hidden and that is now in the spotlight and a group that used to be inexistent and is now invigorated. White identarianism is clearly the former. Don't let their visibility fool you into believing they used not to exist before the left went all evil on them. 1. The left doesn't hate white people, that's very true and it's indeed a cover-up argument. 2. Well, I mean, it's not hard to see that right-wing extremism creates left-wing extremism and vice-versa. Both are valid, and none came first, that's a circle. When you have two conflicting ways of seeing the world, and a conflict happens, there's only two way out : escalation of conflict then war, or desescalation and compromise. That last part is supposed to be what the government (and institutions, people in power, etc) does. 3. White identarianism existed. But it grew bigger than it was, partly thanks to "SJWism" or whatever is the correct term for the tribal left. I mean, it's really an escalation of conflict, and the harder one side becomes, the harder the other side responds. Just look at the recent media coverage of the Google memo thing : in the USA, it took a Libertarian website to cool-headedly adress the news (and then The Atlantic, at the top level of seriousness and integrity as always). In France, it took fucking Slate.fr to correctly adress the issue without spreading complete falsehoods. Now, when you have all the newspapers in the country claiming a guy that a guy whose point is basically "I think diversity is important, but I don't think we're doing it right" is "anti-diversity" and should be fired, you have a fringe of people who weren't far-right, who become far-right. And the reverse goes too : when you have thousands of neonazis who violently demonstrate in the open, a fringe of people who weren't far-left become extremists too. And it continues, again and again. (note : just to be clear, I am absolutely not saying that we should discount the recent events, or that right-wing violence is somehow more acceptable than left-wing violence, etc. Violence from any side should be hardly punished, just like reasonable opinions from any side should be listened to.) SJWism doesn't reach the potentially nazifiable people in a vacuum. It reaches them through the prism of far right websites, where it is magnified and turned into this dangerous extremist thing that it's really not. There's a reason why you have to add all of these cultural marxist conspiracies in order to create something that would actually be problematic if it were true: because the reality doesn't match the objective that they're trying to reach. When one of the side's extremist is an african-american girl who complains about a white person wearing dreads in an irrational fashion and the other's side extremist is a bunch of torch-wearing hitler-quoting people, even though I understand the appeal of centrism and seeing both sides, I cannot honestly look at the situation and assert that there's a logical cause and effect reaction going on. If you're going more for Antifa as the opposing side, typically you're going to find berniebros there more than you're going to find SJWs: it's a movement that is to the actual far left, not the american one. The woman who died was a socialist.
It's not a binary thing though, it's a continuum. SJWism doesn't directly reach the potentially nazifiable people, but they reach "hard" right people, who then become potentially nazifiable people. And they reach standard right people, who then become "hard" right people, who then become potentially nazifiable people, etc. And although your point about seeing thing through the prism of websites, newspapers and other medias is very true, it's also valid for everyone (see the Google example, or even the multiple Breibart-esque alt-left websites that are seeing everything as a Big [insert name of an industry here] conspiracy or blaming everything on the mean Patriarchy. Are they as big as Breibart ? No. Will they become as big ? If it continues this way, yes).
And I think it's also useful to compare apples to apples : when one side's extremists are people who manage to get someone fired (and his reputation destroyed) for things he didn't write, and the other side is a bunch of torch-wearing hitler-quoting people, I think the appeal of centrism and the logical cause and effect reaction appears clearer.
|
On August 14 2017 19:05 OtherWorld wrote:...
And I think it's also useful to compare apples to apples : when one side's extremists are people who manage to get someone fired (and his reputation destroyed) for things he didn't write...
Who are you referring to with this? The Google guy?
|
On August 14 2017 19:05 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 18:54 Nebuchad wrote:On August 14 2017 18:35 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2017 17:13 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response. Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right. Can't imagine who you would consider "completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right"? Beyond the obvious of babies or whatever. Well, that's a fair point, no one. But the point is that left-wing extremism breeds right-wing extremism and vice-versa. On August 14 2017 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 14 2017 17:13 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response. Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right. The argument goes like this: because the left hates white people so much, white people are drawn to an identitarian movement where their whiteness is respected and valued => the left fuels the alt-right. 1. The left doesn't hate white people. This is the lie that the right deliberately spreads about the left in order to justify their opposition to equality: "What you're pushing for isn't equality, it's an attack against white people". If this narrative has an influence on the rise of the alt-right, the people to blame are the ones who are pushing it, ie the right. 2. Clearly none of the people who push this bankrupt ideology actually believe that when you criticize something a lot it ends up fueling it, cause 80% of their internet presence has been about criticizing libtards and SJWs. So even if it was true that the left was hating on white people, it would be hypocritical for them to draw a connexion between that and the rise of white identitarianism, since they would therefore be responsible for the rise of SJWism and libtardism themselves. 3. I would be careful creating a distinction between a group that used to be hidden and that is now in the spotlight and a group that used to be inexistent and is now invigorated. White identarianism is clearly the former. Don't let their visibility fool you into believing they used not to exist before the left went all evil on them. 1. The left doesn't hate white people, that's very true and it's indeed a cover-up argument. 2. Well, I mean, it's not hard to see that right-wing extremism creates left-wing extremism and vice-versa. Both are valid, and none came first, that's a circle. When you have two conflicting ways of seeing the world, and a conflict happens, there's only two way out : escalation of conflict then war, or desescalation and compromise. That last part is supposed to be what the government (and institutions, people in power, etc) does. 3. White identarianism existed. But it grew bigger than it was, partly thanks to "SJWism" or whatever is the correct term for the tribal left. I mean, it's really an escalation of conflict, and the harder one side becomes, the harder the other side responds. Just look at the recent media coverage of the Google memo thing : in the USA, it took a Libertarian website to cool-headedly adress the news (and then The Atlantic, at the top level of seriousness and integrity as always). In France, it took fucking Slate.fr to correctly adress the issue without spreading complete falsehoods. Now, when you have all the newspapers in the country claiming a guy that a guy whose point is basically "I think diversity is important, but I don't think we're doing it right" is "anti-diversity" and should be fired, you have a fringe of people who weren't far-right, who become far-right. And the reverse goes too : when you have thousands of neonazis who violently demonstrate in the open, a fringe of people who weren't far-left become extremists too. And it continues, again and again. (note : just to be clear, I am absolutely not saying that we should discount the recent events, or that right-wing violence is somehow more acceptable than left-wing violence, etc. Violence from any side should be hardly punished, just like reasonable opinions from any side should be listened to.) SJWism doesn't reach the potentially nazifiable people in a vacuum. It reaches them through the prism of far right websites, where it is magnified and turned into this dangerous extremist thing that it's really not. There's a reason why you have to add all of these cultural marxist conspiracies in order to create something that would actually be problematic if it were true: because the reality doesn't match the objective that they're trying to reach. When one of the side's extremist is an african-american girl who complains about a white person wearing dreads in an irrational fashion and the other's side extremist is a bunch of torch-wearing hitler-quoting people, even though I understand the appeal of centrism and seeing both sides, I cannot honestly look at the situation and assert that there's a logical cause and effect reaction going on. If you're going more for Antifa as the opposing side, typically you're going to find berniebros there more than you're going to find SJWs: it's a movement that is to the actual far left, not the american one. The woman who died was a socialist. It's not a binary thing though, it's a continuum. SJWism doesn't directly reach the potentially nazifiable people, but they reach "hard" right people, who then become potentially nazifiable people. And they reach standard right people, who then become "hard" right people, who then become potentially nazifiable people, etc. And although your point about seeing thing through the prism of websites, newspapers and other medias is very true, it's also valid for everyone (see the Google example, or even the multiple Breibart-esque alt-left websites that are seeing everything as a Big [insert name of an industry here] conspiracy or blaming everything on the mean Patriarchy. Are they as big as Breibart ? No. Will they become as big ? If it continues this way, yes). And I think it's also useful to compare apples to apples : when one side's extremists are people who manage to get someone fired (and his reputation destroyed) for things he didn't write, and the other side is a bunch of torch-wearing hitler-quoting people, I think the appeal of centrism and the logical cause and effect reaction appears clearer.
The problem isn't whether it's binary or on a continuum, the problem is that it's based on a narrative of lies. If I was tempted to blame the other side for extremism on my side (which I'm not), whether the presentation of the other side that causes my extremism to rise was correct or incorrect would still be a factor. I wouldn't blame my extremism on the other side either way, but I especially cannot blame my extremism on something that I was told the other side does if the other side doesn't actually do it.
You then bring up that some alt-left sites contain fake news, which is not relevant to the point here. Besides, due to the idiotic way the left and the right are separated in the US, the counterpoint to Breitbart and Fox's bullshit isn't "alt-left websites", it's "everything else". So as much as Donald likes to dishonestly bring up "fake news", there is no equivalence there.
You are not comparing apples to apples in the end there. First, your account of the Google memo guy's situation is flawed, and second it shouldn't move anyone on the identitarian scale. There's nothing about "a guy being fired for conservative views" that should cause anyone to have more sympathy for nazism.
|
|
|
On August 14 2017 19:21 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 19:05 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 18:54 Nebuchad wrote:On August 14 2017 18:35 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2017 17:13 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response. Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right. Can't imagine who you would consider "completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right"? Beyond the obvious of babies or whatever. Well, that's a fair point, no one. But the point is that left-wing extremism breeds right-wing extremism and vice-versa. On August 14 2017 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On August 14 2017 17:13 OtherWorld wrote:On August 14 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read on Youtube and Twitter from "prominent thinkers" of the bankrupt side of politics, the take on Charlotteville will be that the left caused this by being too oppressive against the right and that we should expect more of that in the future because of our mean attitude or something like that?
Read that under a few pens, it's laughable as usual, was wondering if that's the dominant response. Suggesting that the left is to be blamed for Charlottesville is indeed ridiculous. However, the left (and especially the "tribal" part of the left that doesn't seek debate nor discussion) is clearly not completely innocent in the rise of the alt/far-right. The argument goes like this: because the left hates white people so much, white people are drawn to an identitarian movement where their whiteness is respected and valued => the left fuels the alt-right. 1. The left doesn't hate white people. This is the lie that the right deliberately spreads about the left in order to justify their opposition to equality: "What you're pushing for isn't equality, it's an attack against white people". If this narrative has an influence on the rise of the alt-right, the people to blame are the ones who are pushing it, ie the right. 2. Clearly none of the people who push this bankrupt ideology actually believe that when you criticize something a lot it ends up fueling it, cause 80% of their internet presence has been about criticizing libtards and SJWs. So even if it was true that the left was hating on white people, it would be hypocritical for them to draw a connexion between that and the rise of white identitarianism, since they would therefore be responsible for the rise of SJWism and libtardism themselves. 3. I would be careful creating a distinction between a group that used to be hidden and that is now in the spotlight and a group that used to be inexistent and is now invigorated. White identarianism is clearly the former. Don't let their visibility fool you into believing they used not to exist before the left went all evil on them. 1. The left doesn't hate white people, that's very true and it's indeed a cover-up argument. 2. Well, I mean, it's not hard to see that right-wing extremism creates left-wing extremism and vice-versa. Both are valid, and none came first, that's a circle. When you have two conflicting ways of seeing the world, and a conflict happens, there's only two way out : escalation of conflict then war, or desescalation and compromise. That last part is supposed to be what the government (and institutions, people in power, etc) does. 3. White identarianism existed. But it grew bigger than it was, partly thanks to "SJWism" or whatever is the correct term for the tribal left. I mean, it's really an escalation of conflict, and the harder one side becomes, the harder the other side responds. Just look at the recent media coverage of the Google memo thing : in the USA, it took a Libertarian website to cool-headedly adress the news (and then The Atlantic, at the top level of seriousness and integrity as always). In France, it took fucking Slate.fr to correctly adress the issue without spreading complete falsehoods. Now, when you have all the newspapers in the country claiming a guy that a guy whose point is basically "I think diversity is important, but I don't think we're doing it right" is "anti-diversity" and should be fired, you have a fringe of people who weren't far-right, who become far-right. And the reverse goes too : when you have thousands of neonazis who violently demonstrate in the open, a fringe of people who weren't far-left become extremists too. And it continues, again and again. (note : just to be clear, I am absolutely not saying that we should discount the recent events, or that right-wing violence is somehow more acceptable than left-wing violence, etc. Violence from any side should be hardly punished, just like reasonable opinions from any side should be listened to.) SJWism doesn't reach the potentially nazifiable people in a vacuum. It reaches them through the prism of far right websites, where it is magnified and turned into this dangerous extremist thing that it's really not. There's a reason why you have to add all of these cultural marxist conspiracies in order to create something that would actually be problematic if it were true: because the reality doesn't match the objective that they're trying to reach. When one of the side's extremist is an african-american girl who complains about a white person wearing dreads in an irrational fashion and the other's side extremist is a bunch of torch-wearing hitler-quoting people, even though I understand the appeal of centrism and seeing both sides, I cannot honestly look at the situation and assert that there's a logical cause and effect reaction going on. If you're going more for Antifa as the opposing side, typically you're going to find berniebros there more than you're going to find SJWs: it's a movement that is to the actual far left, not the american one. The woman who died was a socialist. It's not a binary thing though, it's a continuum. SJWism doesn't directly reach the potentially nazifiable people, but they reach "hard" right people, who then become potentially nazifiable people. And they reach standard right people, who then become "hard" right people, who then become potentially nazifiable people, etc. And although your point about seeing thing through the prism of websites, newspapers and other medias is very true, it's also valid for everyone (see the Google example, or even the multiple Breibart-esque alt-left websites that are seeing everything as a Big [insert name of an industry here] conspiracy or blaming everything on the mean Patriarchy. Are they as big as Breibart ? No. Will they become as big ? If it continues this way, yes). And I think it's also useful to compare apples to apples : when one side's extremists are people who manage to get someone fired (and his reputation destroyed) for things he didn't write, and the other side is a bunch of torch-wearing hitler-quoting people, I think the appeal of centrism and the logical cause and effect reaction appears clearer. The problem isn't whether it's binary or on a continuum, the problem is that it's based on a narrative of lies. If I was tempted to blame the other side for extremism on my side (which I'm not), whether the presentation of the other side that causes my extremism to rise was correct or incorrect would still be a factor. I wouldn't blame my extremism on the other side either way, but I especially cannot blame my extremism on something that I was told the other side does if the other side doesn't actually do it. You then bring up that some alt-left sites contain fake news, which is not relevant to the point here. Besides, due to the idiotic way the left and the right are separated in the US, the counterpoint to Breitbart and Fox's bullshit isn't "alt-left websites", it's "everything else". So as much as Donald likes to dishonestly bring up "fake news", there is no equivalence there. You are not comparing apples to apples in the end there. First, your account of the Google memo guy's situation is flawed, and second it shouldn't move anyone on the identitarian scale. There's nothing about "a guy being fired for conservative views" that should cause anyone to have more sympathy for nazism.
Hey, I never talked about blaming or sympathy. Explaining is not excusing, as we have to remind a whole bunch of people every time there's a Jihadi attack ; it also applies there. And if you don't think that things like differential treatment in the media, promotion of spaces reserved to specific minorities, usage of positive discrimination/affirmative action methods, etc, aren't fueling the rise of the far-right, then it's fine, but I'd be curious as to how you explain it. Because yes, while you become a neonazi thanks to lies and biased narratives, you first have to enter the "zone of exposure" to these lies.
As for Google, I'd like to know what you consider as "flawed" in my rendition. He was fired because of the popular backlash [1], that was led by the press blatantly mischaracterizing his memo. That's facts. Here's a relevant The Atlantic article on the subject. And when you're a random guy, who reads the memo and concludes what this article concludes, what happens ? You lose trust in mainstream medias : they fucked up. But when you lose trust in mainstream medias, you still need to get informed, right ? So what do you do ? Well, you pick non-mainstream medias. That's when you enter the zone of exposure.
[1]
The mob that hounded Damore was like the mobs we’ve seen on a lot of college campuses. We all have our theories about why these moral crazes are suddenly so common. I’d say that radical uncertainty about morality, meaning and life in general is producing intense anxiety. Some people embrace moral absolutism in a desperate effort to find solid ground. They feel a rare and comforting sense of moral certainty when they are purging an evil person who has violated one of their sacred taboos.
[...]
He [Google's CEO] could have stood up for the free flow of information. Instead he joined the mob. He fired Damore and wrote, “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not O.K.”
From this NYTimes article on the subject. I think it's quite worthy of note that of all the outlets that first mischaracterized the memo, very, very few of them corrected their mistake and/or wrote another article to clarify things.
On August 14 2017 19:08 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 19:05 OtherWorld wrote:...
And I think it's also useful to compare apples to apples : when one side's extremists are people who manage to get someone fired (and his reputation destroyed) for things he didn't write... Who are you referring to with this? The Google guy?
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
