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.
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark and Biff rofl. But thanks personally for countering an impression I got of you from the majority of your posts. By the way, is condemning both sides while specifically condemning white supremacists and neonazis tantamount to not condemning the actions in your rubric? I saw that come up quite a bit.
To use the political term that gets bandied about so often; optics. The first condemnation should have been solely focused on the nazis and white supremacists. You can then release a statement later that condemns both sides for escalating conflict in a moment that was essentially a powder keg waiting to go off. There is no easy way to do it and you're gonna catch flak for it. But the truth of the matter is, there was someone killed by one side. That side deserves all the condemnation immediately following it. Do not give them the sense that you are on their side by being morally ambiguous. Won't help you at all.
I was more interested in your yes or no answer than where it fits in the optics of political campaigns. I could go on for days about that one.
So I've heard of the Riots at Berkeley and decided to look up "Battle of Berkeley" and that alone was scary enough to show that the alt right is pushing their agenda to fuel more fights. Going through some of those videos, the alt right is just pushing for more and more violence at more protests. Some of those videos had wording on them of "KILL KILL KILL" while an alt right was punching a woman... And if you listen, they're laughing, calling it a war zone, and seem happy about the violence going on. It seems like they want more "Battles" until the left is gone completely.
At this point, the alt right and alt left have gone full circle, and are at war with each other now. People would rather have violence embroiled in their life than peace. I don't see the U.S. doing so well unless police crack down on violence in general.
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark and Biff rofl. But thanks personally for countering an impression I got of you from the majority of your posts. By the way, is condemning both sides while specifically condemning white supremacists and neonazis tantamount to not condemning the actions in your rubric? I saw that come up quite a bit.
To use the political term that gets bandied about so often; optics. The first condemnation should have been solely focused on the nazis and white supremacists. You can then release a statement later that condemns both sides for escalating conflict in a moment that was essentially a powder keg waiting to go off. There is no easy way to do it and you're gonna catch flak for it. But the truth of the matter is, there was someone killed by one side. That side deserves all the condemnation immediately following it. Do not give them the sense that you are on their side by being morally ambiguous. Won't help you at all.
I was more interested in your yes or no answer than where it fits in the optics of political campaigns. I could go on for days about that one.
To give you the short answer, no. But like I said, this wasn't the day to play "many sides."
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark and Biff rofl. But thanks personally for countering an impression I got of you from the majority of your posts. By the way, is condemning both sides while specifically condemning white supremacists and neonazis tantamount to not condemning the actions in your rubric? I saw that come up quite a bit.
Most republicans representatives had done it, and i think it's fair enough. The problem comes when you just talk about the violence and don't condemn white supremacist because then it can be seen as you are giving them a moral equivalence to BLM or antifa which does not exist.
And i will get a page out of the conservatists in these thread, if you get a different impression from left leaning posters here, you should go back and re-read.
Trust me, it got worse upon rereading. ~34 pages of echoing each other's hysterical comments. Almost no good faith discussion of points raised by conservatives.
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark
On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote: Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run.
I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes.
I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position.
Well we could look back in this very thread...
That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera.
As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled.
This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
On August 16 2017 09:30 Nevuk wrote: Noidberg just had a reaal wild ride out on the US politics thread. Even for that thread, that was some weird shit.
It was like for one glorious day xDaunt decided to just not bother with the dog whistles and just speak plainly.
The truth hurts. But in the end, I almost respect him more for just coming clean on the subject. It is better than whining about being labeled a racist and then turning around and suggesting that BLM and Nazis might both be bad.
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark
On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote: Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run.
I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes.
I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position.
Well we could look back in this very thread...
That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera.
As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled.
This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
On August 16 2017 09:30 Nevuk wrote: Noidberg just had a reaal wild ride out on the US politics thread. Even for that thread, that was some weird shit.
It was like for one glorious day xDaunt decided to just not bother with the dog whistles and just speak plainly.
On August 16 2017 23:19 ShoCkeyy wrote: So I've heard of the Riots at Berkeley and decided to look up "Battle of Berkeley" and that alone was scary enough to show that the alt right is pushing their agenda to fuel more fights. Going through some of those videos, the alt right is just pushing for more and more violence at more protests. Some of those videos had wording on them of "KILL KILL KILL" while an alt right was punching a woman... And if you listen, they're laughing, calling it a war zone, and seem happy about the violence going on. It seems like they want more "Battles" until the left is gone completely.
At this point, the alt right and alt left have gone full circle, and are at war with each other now. People would rather have violence embroiled in their life than peace. I don't see the U.S. doing so well unless police crack down on violence in general.
And some on the left brought their best hoping for a unarmed soon-to-be victims. A California professor was arrested for bringing a bike lock viciously down on the head of a Trump supporter who was talking.
So I've heard of the Riots at Berkeley and decided to look up "Battle of Berkeley" and that alone was scary enough to show that the alt left is pushing their agenda to fuel more fights.
On August 16 2017 23:05 Doodsmack wrote: Honestly a protest breaks out into a violent riot, the police should have license to clean house completely, provided it is practical i.e. they have sufficient planning and numbers. And really, people shouldn't be allowed to bring weapons to protests lol. In that case there should be riot police in very close proximity.
The real question to me is why it seems pretty much normal in the US that groups of opposing protesters aren't separated by police in the first place. This idea of letting them come close to each other and only moving in if something bad happens seems pretty crazy, that's a shootout or dead people in general waiting to happen considering how heavily armed everyone is.
Over here these kinds of things usually look similar to this, with police not even remotely letting the groups closer together. If it's a protest that's moving around then the police escorts from all sides to keep everyone involved safe. Whether it's about a football game or political protests it works like this for most things where violence is expected from or against specific groups.
Meanwhile for most protests I've seen so far in the US over the last couple of months police seems to stand heavily outnumbered in the general vicinity while people seem to rely on groups that talk about hurting each other not actually getting physical. Hell, even the story with Erdogans bodyguards looked like this with police being used as mostly a relief force instead of trying to prevent an altercation in the first place.
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark
On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote: Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run.
I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes.
I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position.
Well we could look back in this very thread...
That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera.
As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled.
This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
On August 16 2017 09:32 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 09:30 Nevuk wrote: Noidberg just had a reaal wild ride out on the US politics thread. Even for that thread, that was some weird shit.
It was like for one glorious day xDaunt decided to just not bother with the dog whistles and just speak plainly.
The truth hurts. But in the end, I almost respect him more for just coming clean on the subject. It is better than whining about being labeled a racist and then turning around and suggesting that BLM and Nazis might both be bad.
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark
On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote: Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run.
I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes.
I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position.
Well we could look back in this very thread...
That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera.
As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled.
This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
On August 16 2017 23:25 Plansix wrote:
On August 16 2017 23:18 Danglars wrote:
On August 16 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark
On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote: Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run.
I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes.
I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position.
Well we could look back in this very thread...
That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera.
As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled.
This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
On August 16 2017 09:32 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 09:30 Nevuk wrote: Noidberg just had a reaal wild ride out on the US politics thread. Even for that thread, that was some weird shit.
It was like for one glorious day xDaunt decided to just not bother with the dog whistles and just speak plainly.
The truth hurts. But in the end, I almost respect him more for just coming clean on the subject. It is better than whining about being labeled a racist and then turning around and suggesting that BLM and Nazis might both be bad.
On August 16 2017 09:32 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 09:30 Nevuk wrote: Noidberg just had a reaal wild ride out on the US politics thread. Even for that thread, that was some weird shit.
It was like for one glorious day xDaunt decided to just not bother with the dog whistles and just speak plainly.
And it was.
Hmm now I wonder why Republicans in this thread might get the idea that denizens of the left think they're just one step removed from the white supremacist and neonazi racists. Oh yeah, they defend their comments when brought up. Fancy that.
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark
On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote: Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run.
I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes.
I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position.
Well we could look back in this very thread...
That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera.
As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled.
This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
On August 16 2017 09:32 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 09:30 Nevuk wrote: Noidberg just had a reaal wild ride out on the US politics thread. Even for that thread, that was some weird shit.
It was like for one glorious day xDaunt decided to just not bother with the dog whistles and just speak plainly.
The truth hurts. But in the end, I almost respect him more for just coming clean on the subject. It is better than whining about being labeled a racist and then turning around and suggesting that BLM and Nazis might both be bad.
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark
On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote: Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run.
I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes.
I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position.
Well we could look back in this very thread...
That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera.
As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled.
This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
On August 16 2017 23:25 Plansix wrote:
On August 16 2017 23:18 Danglars wrote:
On August 16 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark
On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote: [quote] I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes.
[quote] The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position.
Well we could look back in this very thread...
That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera.
As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled.
This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
On August 16 2017 09:32 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 09:30 Nevuk wrote: Noidberg just had a reaal wild ride out on the US politics thread. Even for that thread, that was some weird shit.
It was like for one glorious day xDaunt decided to just not bother with the dog whistles and just speak plainly.
The truth hurts. But in the end, I almost respect him more for just coming clean on the subject. It is better than whining about being labeled a racist and then turning around and suggesting that BLM and Nazis might both be bad.
On August 16 2017 09:32 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 09:30 Nevuk wrote: Noidberg just had a reaal wild ride out on the US politics thread. Even for that thread, that was some weird shit.
It was like for one glorious day xDaunt decided to just not bother with the dog whistles and just speak plainly.
And it was.
Hmm now I wonder why Republicans in this thread might get the idea that denizens of the left think they're just one step removed from the white supremacist and neonazi racists. Oh yeah, they defend their comments when brought up. Fancy that.
There are plenty of Republicans in this thread over the years who have managed to avoid dog whistle racism and being a Nazi apologist. This might just be a you issue.
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark
On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote: Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run.
I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes.
I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position.
Well we could look back in this very thread...
That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera.
As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled.
This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
On August 16 2017 09:32 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 09:30 Nevuk wrote: Noidberg just had a reaal wild ride out on the US politics thread. Even for that thread, that was some weird shit.
It was like for one glorious day xDaunt decided to just not bother with the dog whistles and just speak plainly.
The truth hurts. But in the end, I almost respect him more for just coming clean on the subject. It is better than whining about being labeled a racist and then turning around and suggesting that BLM and Nazis might both be bad.
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark
On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:40 Introvert wrote: Some people in this thread were giving props to GOP lawmakers, which is a smallish class. But then there are those like that NYT reporter who said it was probably just for a future presidential run.
I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes.
I never said the entire left was condemning the entire right. But it must be agreed upon that the right and conservatives are being tarred with this, not just Trump (See:Danglars). I mean if we can't it wouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position.
Well we could look back in this very thread...
That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera.
As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled.
This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
On August 16 2017 23:25 Plansix wrote:
On August 16 2017 23:18 Danglars wrote:
On August 16 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark
On August 16 2017 14:03 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:59 Aquanim wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:49 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 13:44 Aquanim wrote: [quote] I don't think that's an appropriate thing for that reporter to have said (though I haven't chased the quote) but it seems like small potatoes.
[quote] The members of the right and conservatives who aren't condemning Trump's position are probably getting tarred with it. Beyond that, you are yet to advance any argument that convinces me that I "must agree" with your position.
Well we could look back in this very thread...
That's exactly my point - I have been reading this thread and I have not seen any indication that anybody on the rightwing side of politics is being meaningfully tarred unless they (a) defended the Nazis et cetera. or (b) defended Trump not condeming the Nazis et cetera.
As such, I expect you to either advance evidence that your statement is true, or retract your statement. We cannot proceed with reasonable conversation while leaving a point like this unsettled.
This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
On August 16 2017 09:32 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 09:30 Nevuk wrote: Noidberg just had a reaal wild ride out on the US politics thread. Even for that thread, that was some weird shit.
It was like for one glorious day xDaunt decided to just not bother with the dog whistles and just speak plainly.
The truth hurts. But in the end, I almost respect him more for just coming clean on the subject. It is better than whining about being labeled a racist and then turning around and suggesting that BLM and Nazis might both be bad.
On August 16 2017 09:32 KwarK wrote:
On August 16 2017 09:30 Nevuk wrote: Noidberg just had a reaal wild ride out on the US politics thread. Even for that thread, that was some weird shit.
It was like for one glorious day xDaunt decided to just not bother with the dog whistles and just speak plainly.
And it was.
Hmm now I wonder why Republicans in this thread might get the idea that denizens of the left think they're just one step removed from the white supremacist and neonazi racists. Oh yeah, they defend their comments when brought up. Fancy that.
Defend your comments. But when what you're defending is egregious? Yeah, people will call you out on that. You can't defend what happened Friday and Saturday. It just makes you look, again, bad.
On August 16 2017 23:31 KwarK wrote: For what it's worth, the thug who attacked that guy isn't a professor as far as I know, and never was.
It was a former community college professor, and that's the video of one of the assaults he's charged for. Go google.
A former adjunct philosophy lecturer at a no-name community college. No doctorate, no full time position, no tenure etc. The right seemed to be pushing the "liberal college professors indoctrinating our youth to hate freedom and the constitution" angle with it, talking up this guy's resume as if he was the dean of Berkeley. The guy was about as professionally successful as you'd expect someone who beats people over the head with bike locks to be.
At the intersection where protections against unreasonable search and seizure meet the rights to free speech and association, there's now a web hosting company called DreamHost.
The California-based company is resisting a Department of Justice warrant that demands it hand over all files related to DisruptJ20.org, a website created by one of its customers to plan and announce actions intended to interrupt President Trump's inauguration.
Inauguration Day protests in Washington, D.C. turned violent; 230 people were arrested and charged with felony rioting.
In gathering evidence for the nearly 200 still-open cases in D.C. court, the Justice Department issued a warrant that DreamHost says is so broad it would require handing over the logs of 1.3 million visits to the website.
The company called the warrant "a highly untargeted demand that chills free association and the right of free speech afforded by the Constitution. ... This is, in our opinion, a strong example of investigatory overreach and a clear abuse of government authority."
On August 16 2017 23:19 ShoCkeyy wrote: So I've heard of the Riots at Berkeley and decided to look up "Battle of Berkeley" and that alone was scary enough to show that the alt right is pushing their agenda to fuel more fights. Going through some of those videos, the alt right is just pushing for more and more violence at more protests. Some of those videos had wording on them of "KILL KILL KILL" while an alt right was punching a woman... And if you listen, they're laughing, calling it a war zone, and seem happy about the violence going on. It seems like they want more "Battles" until the left is gone completely.
At this point, the alt right and alt left have gone full circle, and are at war with each other now. People would rather have violence embroiled in their life than peace. I don't see the U.S. doing so well unless police crack down on violence in general.
actual levels of violence aren't that high; and violence in the US has been declining for a long time now. the correlation between perception of how violent things are, and how violent they actually are, has been demonstrated to be rather low. much of the perception comes more from patterns of news reporting than from actual violence.
On August 16 2017 23:19 ShoCkeyy wrote: So I've heard of the Riots at Berkeley and decided to look up "Battle of Berkeley" and that alone was scary enough to show that the alt right is pushing their agenda to fuel more fights. Going through some of those videos, the alt right is just pushing for more and more violence at more protests. Some of those videos had wording on them of "KILL KILL KILL" while an alt right was punching a woman... And if you listen, they're laughing, calling it a war zone, and seem happy about the violence going on. It seems like they want more "Battles" until the left is gone completely.
At this point, the alt right and alt left have gone full circle, and are at war with each other now. People would rather have violence embroiled in their life than peace. I don't see the U.S. doing so well unless police crack down on violence in general.
actual levels of violence aren't that high; and violence in the US has been declining for a long time now. the correlation between perception of how violent things are, and how violent they actually are, has been demonstrated to be rather low. much of the perception comes more from patterns of news reporting than from actual violence.
If I was dumb enough to watch local news, I'd think the world was a repulsive, violent mess.
On August 16 2017 22:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm pretty sure we've covered that spoiler tag in here already. We're not painting all republicans with a broad brush in this, only the ones who cannot condemn the actions that have been perpetrated. So that spoiler is unnecessary.
EDIT: Also, stop equating BLM with Nazi and white supremacists. They are factually far different. BLM has come out against the violent actions that have been made in their name. Each and every time. So that argument gets you nowhere at all.
You should tell that to Kwark and Biff rofl. But thanks personally for countering an impression I got of you from the majority of your posts. By the way, is condemning both sides while specifically condemning white supremacists and neonazis tantamount to not condemning the actions in your rubric? I saw that come up quite a bit.
Most republicans representatives had done it, and i think it's fair enough. The problem comes when you just talk about the violence and don't condemn white supremacist because then it can be seen as you are giving them a moral equivalence to BLM or antifa which does not exist.
And i will get a page out of the conservatists in these thread, if you get a different impression from left leaning posters here, you should go back and re-read.
Trust me, it got worse upon rereading. ~34 pages of echoing each other's hysterical comments. Almost no good faith discussion of points raised by conservatives.
Yohoo, Danglar wake the fuck up! They were nazis, wearing svastikas, you know nazis like those who gased and put in oven 6 million jews. Yes, those ones. With Adolf. And they ran a car into protesters. You know like Isis does. And your fucking president said they were essentially not worse than protesters. Becausz you know, leftist, actual nazis, same shit.
It's not echo chamber and hysteria, and the pathetic attempts to justify the nauseus justification of that Austin Power villain you elected are not "fair points".
"Nazis are conducting terrorist attacks, but they are on my side, let's keep the partisan hackery going".
On August 16 2017 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 16 2017 18:13 Jacenoob wrote:
On August 16 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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!
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.
You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow.
But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview.
No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob.
Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument?
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.
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.
You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow.
But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview.
No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob.
Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument?
Christ you don't understand that reductio ad absurdum don't equate the terms of the reasoning? I am sure you are not that thick but let me explain to you: I am saying the reasoning is bad and demonstre it by applying the same line of thought to different and more extreme terms that make it apparent it's absurd. It's not a comparison at all.
So no, it doesn't mean i think Lee and Hitler are the same or comparable, just that the justification was bullshit which becomes clear when you change the names for more extreme ones. It's like rhetoric 101. Jesus, how do i even have to explain that?
EPT
