EPTTalking of which:
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8432
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7916 Posts
Talking of which: | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7916 Posts
On August 16 2017 06:23 Danglars wrote: Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics. Let's play that game again: "Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too." Oh yeah, that works! | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18097 Posts
On August 16 2017 01:37 Falling wrote: Well, I mean, I can see some delay in a specific condemnation. (In Muslim terror attacks this is certainly the case because it takes some time for it to be established and/or released that it was such an attack.) And so in this case, I could see keeping your powder dry until such time that it confirmed to be a white supremacist attack. Because if you have your ear to the ground there were all sorts of rumours: that it was false flag or that the car was surrounded, the driver panicked and gunned it to get out. Turns out, no he is a white supremacist and there is more video footage that shows the car lining up and accelerating into the crowd, but in the first hours there could be some sense in holding off condemning a white terror attack if it wasn't so clear to you at the time that that is what it was. Of course everything cleared up pretty quickly and so that would be the time to roundly condemn it. Remember that one time Trump condemned far right terrorists for shooting at a mosque in Canada in January? Oh no. He didn't wait for the facts and just tweeted that Islamic terrorism struck again. Or how he waited until he knew what happened in the Louvre? Oh no. Just brown people being Muslim terrorists. And this further ties into the whole narrative. He kept calling Obama out on not using "Islamic terrorism", when one of the main reasons Obama didn't do that was because it would legitimize the attacks as somehow being "Islamic", and offend Muslims who are not in any way supportive of the attacks. So. Why can't you call the recent attack Nazi terrorism. Is there some redeeming quality of Nazis that I don't know about and we should try not to offend them? Because I can't think of any reason except pandering to Nazis. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
I imagined the not so peaceful people to be emboldened by Trump in office but what the fuck is happening right now. Idk if it has already been posted here or if you guys have seen it (probably), but an excerpt of this film from the 40s was on the German news homepage yesterday because it supposedly went viral on social media (which I don't use so idk). + Show Spoiler + The snippet started at about 2:20 and went for a couple of minutes @falling The way you guys talk about antifa in the US gives me a rather different impression than I have of a namesake organisation here in Germany. And personally I'd exclude the usual black block from antifa, though admittedly people in there do overlap between both movements. Which is a shame. | ||
Falling
Canada11367 Posts
On August 13 2017 05:13 Falling wrote: What a disgusting attack. I don't think I've been arguing moral equivalence; I opened with the most egregious violent attack: that of the car being driven into a crowd that injured in killed. That's clearly the worst thing that happened and there wasn't an equivalent of it at this particular event. But there's been a bunch of 'pony up' or whatever and so while I'd rather leave alone, I have a few thoughts. So one- I'm afraid not a lot of people are going to like this source, but then again one of the 'pony up' sources was Buzzfeed, so... Ben Shapiro' playing some clips. 7:40 unprovoked attack on a reporter. (And honestly this is a pattern I've seen from antifa in both North American and Europe- reporters tend to get hit by antifa members. Anonymity is kind of their schtick so the free press recording them isn't exactly their thing, I would guess.) And just so you know, Ben opens both barrels on Trump (for getting so cagey and slow about denouncing the white supremacists) and rightly sees the most heinous thing as the actual murder. However, no unprovoked violence- which seems to be the claim- is not the same thing as less violence as the other guys (absolute vs relative measures). Or even if we take the car footage, claims are made that only one side was armed, but as there are bats, clearly that's not really the case. However, obviously, only one murder happened and that's on the Nazi side. I wouldn't argue that the violence was on equal scales. I actually wouldn't be surprised if in this particular rally, there was less on the anti-fa side. Thinking about this for a bit, this seems to be a continuation of the so-called Berkley Battle for both sides, and I watched a lot of footage from that event and the violence was definitely much more equitable? (Seems like the wrong word choice in this instance.) Lots of instances where antifa would snatch one alt-right guy from out of the group and just pound him in a gang up situation until the other alt-righters came in to pull him back. Lots of yanking people around, lots of violence on both sides, swinging back and forth. From reading around on some anarchist online hangouts (as best as I could find) and alt-right websites as best as I could tell, the alt-right push back came as a surprise to anti-fa. They thought it should have been an easy intimidation because Berkley was safely 'left' (honestly started sounding like gangland turf warfare). But the fact the organization of the alt-right took antifa off guard. And then from the alt-right side (the militant ones anyways), there was a general sense that as long as they stuck together, they could easily outmatch antifa's violent tactics- they could really only be harmed if antifa could pick off strays at unawares. So then, just myself speculating- the success at Berkley led to even greater preparation by the alt-right at Charlotteville. I mean, you can see a clear progression from pre-Berkley encounters: hoodies, masks, pepper spray, sticks whatever all held by antifa vs rando alt-right and every encounter the alt-right is showing up with more and more helmets, shields, blunt weapons... and militia showing up... and now a car ramming. So it might be that it's not necessarily that antifa has stopped being so violent so much as the alt-right got 'better' at it faster. Why that is remains to be seen- has the alt-right escalated past what antifa was ever willing to go (minus the car- I sincerely hope that isn't replicated and I don't think it will- as far as garnering support, it's clearly a losing strategy from the general public.) But I mean melee-wise- in the next clash, will antifa come in more prepared- like I wonder with the Kessler run off. If no police or reporters, what would have happened to the guy? I'm distrustful of any crowd left or right once it senses weakness and has blood in its nostrils. In effect, I think it's quite possible to say in this encounter, even if you take the car out of the equation, the scale of violence weighed more heavily on the alt right side: 80/20? 90/10? Who knows. Was that inherently less violence because antifa is inherently less given to violence or was it less violent because they lacked opportunity- the alt-right came the most prepared. We'll see I guess next time. I don't forsee this stopping anytime soon, and I don't think this will end well. edit. Well- except two things might mean this could still fizzle out- ironically the car ramming and then also the high proportion of actual neo-Nazis and white supremacists that showed up for the event. Those two things sent anyone who were vaguely associated with the alt-right, even if only for it's rebelliousness against the status quo, running for the hills. Those two things have potential stall the movement in its tracks even if the most radical were encouraged. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
On August 16 2017 11:36 Sermokala wrote: Reps like to talk about what to do with arabs a lot more then dems believe you me. I think there was a genuine fear of an unending electoral majority by democrats during obama's reign but that eroded as they realized he wasn't an experienced politician and wasn't sprouting the kinds of successors that Reagan did. I hear tons of things that trump wants to do and is going to do but I don't think hes capable of doing anything and I never did. The Illegal gun trade is a recognizable thing and something real criminals do to get the guns they want to commit crimes. I see space for actual "common sense gun control" but I know the loopholes and I know how easy it will always be to get guns in this country if someone wants a gun. Making nonsensical bans on different models of guns or arbitrary bans on the parts like magazines don't make sense especially in the growing age of 3d printing. A ban on the size of a plastic holder for the ammo is insulting and dumb to anything constructive to the legitimate goals of people wanting to lower gun violence. If you realy want less guns and gun use (you DO have a massive problem) in your society, you have to start somewhere, and starting with the worst guns would be a sensible beginning, and could save lives, even short term. There are something like 200k guns stolen in the US every year, and you have no control what so ever who is buying them. Every liberal gun law you keep, makes it easier for criminals, terrorists and shool shooters to get their hands on the gun of their dreams for their goals. Do you remember the Norwegian terror attacks in 2011? He used a Ruger mini 14, which is the most military weapon allowed in many countries. Then imagine what he could have with the guns you think anybody should own in the US! Same with the muslim attacks in London recently, where they used knives, you bet they would have had guns in the US, killing a LOT more people! | ||
|
Jacenoob
299 Posts
On August 16 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote: Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics. Let's play that game again: "Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too." Oh yeah, that works! Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On August 16 2017 15:40 Introvert wrote: I had a response written out to both before sleep time then screwed up with copy/paste. fffffffffffffffffffffffff But we'll leave on something I think we will agree on. Trump should have been more clear on Saturday, many parts of his comments today were...unhelpful, and the events in Virginia were undoubtedly more to the alt-right and Neo-Nazi's shame than antifa's. Introvert - thank you. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11367 Posts
I already said Trump is being inconsistent. I think that is clearly the case. He's waffling on white supremacists like he waffled on the KKK in the past (What is the KKK? I'll research them and let you know.). I don't know why he thinks it's a good idea, but I don't think it is. As far as I remember, I defended Obama's 'wait until the facts come out before condemning' so I was trying to give Trump some fact finding time as well because there were some contradictory reports that got cleared up with more video footage... and then it turned out he was just as wishy washy as before. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23433 Posts
You guys didn't try hard enough/pay enough attention to my posts to find some of my more extreme or conspiratorial posts, but no, they still aren't really comparable. I could write a whole page about white fragility and how this nazi terrorist is an example of what can happen when it's left unchecked, but I don't think anyone wants that or I have the will at the moment, plus someone posted a decent twitter version when this first started. @xDaunt/Danglars and to a lesser degree Introvert, come on guys. If Republicans we're half as concerned about stopping the systemic and habitual violations of black/brown/indigenous people's constitutional rights as they are about whining about how the system is (at a glacial pace) slowly chipping away at the social pedestal of whiteness that kept poor whites deluded into thinking they were better than poor PoC's because systemic racism reinforced that belief with resources and results, there wouldn't have even been a protest in the first place (or we would have been past them decades ago). Democrats have been able to get away with doing an absolutely atrocious job because Republicans don't just not care, they are actively and intentionally restricting PoC's constitutional rights. You all could get a third of the black vote if your party (conservatives included) just took a stand for what they claim they believe in applying to PoC's too. Instead they see Philando and think "yeah, you can't piss off cops, doesn't matter what color you are". As if they are completely clueless as to how asinine that is. That said, at least some Republicans are trial ballooning the idea of not being overtly oppressive bigots despite Trump's tone to see if they can convince their supporters of the advantages of subtlety. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Confederate-era monuments have been taken down in the middle of the night in Baltimore. Journalists in the city in Maryland, US, tweeted that the statues were being removed days after a city council vote on the issue. The memorials in the city include the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument on Mount Royal Avenue, the Confederate Women’s Monument on West University Parkway, the Roger B Taney Monument on Mount Vernon Place, and the Robert E Lee and Thomas J “Stonewall” Jackson Monument in the Wyman Park Dell. Confederate-era monuments fell back into the spotlight at the weekend when a civil rights activist died during violence at a far-right protest in Charlottesville, Virginia against plans to removal of a statue of Robert E Lee, who commanded the Confederate army of northern Virginia. Journalist Baynard Woods posted video of the Taney and Women’s monuments being driven away. Alec MacGillis, another journalist, posted images of the Jackson and Lee statues being taken down. The Baltimore mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, announced the creation of a special commission to review all of Baltimore’s Confederate statues and historical assets in June 2015. Maryland, a slave-owning state, remained in the union during the civil war, which was fought from 1861-65. But Rawlings-Blake’s commission noted that though 65,000 Marylanders fought for the north, 22,000 fought for the Confederacy. Other cities and states accelerated their plans to remove Confederate monuments following the violence in Virginia. Only two statues were taken down immediately, in Gainesville, Florida, where the Daughters of the Confederacy removed a statue of a Confederate soldier known as “Ole Joe”, and in Durham, North Carolina, where protesters used a rope to pull down a Confederate monument dedicated in 1924. On Tuesday evening Donald Trump insisted that not all of those participating in the Unite the Right protest in Charlottesville on Saturday were neo-Nazis or white supremacists, drawing a rebuke from senior Republicans and praise from David Duke, the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, who was at the protest. Source | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
| ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
Thank you to Falling and a handful of others for putting some much needed common sense into the thread, but i'm afraid your attempts to reason with the majority of the people itt is most likely futile. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7916 Posts
On August 16 2017 18:13 Jacenoob wrote: Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill. Gne what? I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18835 Posts
On August 16 2017 19:08 Reaps wrote: After reading this thread for the past few days, i have never seen such a huge amount of double standards on TL politics before, my god. Thank you to Falling and a handful of others for putting some much needed common sense into the thread, but i'm afraid your attempts to reason with the majority of the people itt is most likely futile. Take it to website feedback instead of leaving throwaway comments in a thread you do not contribute to. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 16 2017 19:13 farvacola wrote: Take it to website feedback instead of leaving throwaway comments in a thread you do not contribute to. I don't feel that strongly about it, but as it stands I don't even know who is being accused of double standards in that post. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7916 Posts
On August 16 2017 19:05 geript wrote: Here's my problem with the political right currently: No one is flat out willing to call Trump out on his shit and lies let alone actually require him to be president. I really don't understand why the "moral majority" party which will go to no ends to stop "baby murder" and "the gayz;" but they do nothing in the face of someone who flaunts sexual assault, flat out encourages violence, and openly courts nazis. Yes, I'm glad Cruz and Rubio are smart enough to realize that they need to denounce nazis; but when "your guy" is openly courting nazis it's time to throw the baby out with the bath water. Everytime I hear a GOP official talk about moral, i laugh out loud. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18835 Posts
On August 16 2017 19:22 Aquanim wrote: I don't feel that strongly about it, but as it stands I don't even know who is being accused of double standards in that post. Presumably, everyone who thinks the "both sides" angle is a crock of shit. | ||
|
geript
10024 Posts
TBH, I think the more interesting discussion is how this affects open carry laws and freedom of speech/association in coordination. Personally, I don't support open carry (or even owning a gun for protection) but that's a different conversation. Organized groups that have access to arms (legally or not) that are going to protest are a major safety issue; it's exacerbated by the fact that these groups are prone to inciting others to violence and being targets of others inciting them to violence. I would be extremely shocked if the recent events don't have a major effect on the judicial view of the first amendment and how it relates to the second in the upcoming years. | ||
| ||
