|
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. |
United States41991 Posts
On November 29 2017 03:29 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 03:24 KwarK wrote:
Jockmcplop, nobody things Danglars is a racist because he's a conservative. It's just the beliefs he claims to espouse can only be rationally explained if they start with the filter "does this benefit white supremacy?". There is no way to get from Danglars' stated beliefs to the arguments he makes without adding in that filter. He claims to support the constitutional rights of Americans, and yet is absent when large numbers of black Americans are denied the fundamental right of the franchise. He claims to support free speech and yet is absent when the head of the executive openly attacks Americans for using it. He claims to support justice and yet when his nominee for President pardons the undeniably racist Arpaio he's absent.
Compare that with the ACLU, for example. The ACLU claim to be non partisan and that all civil rights matter to them. They supported the victims of Trump's illegal residency denials, but they also supported alt-right protesters. That's what it looks like when you're a zealot for the cause, rather than using it as cover.
Danglars invokes a set of racially neutral axioms to support his beliefs. But he invokes them on clearly racially motivated lines.
Does that make sense? Yes. I wasn't saying that people unfairly treat Danglars as a racist. I'm saying that when posts that don't really have anything to do with racism are treated as evidence of white supremacism, something that I have often seen here, it lowers the bar and all of a sudden the discussion of whether or not its ok to punch someone for having extreme political views is difficult. Do I support punching nazis? Sometimes yes Do I support punching white supremacists? Fuck no! I probably am one depending on who you ask.
My main opposition to punching Nazis is largely that I'm an unapologetic statist who thinks that the state's monopoly on violence probably works out for the best and we should maintain that illusion. It's actually remarkable that we're able to maintain beliefs like "Planned Parenthood is a death camp for babies" and "the correct way to oppose PP is to vote against it". But we do, and that's why we have a civilized society. It's a hollow illusion, but one that we dare not shatter. If the smart people start punching idiots then soon idiots will think it's okay to punch people too. That'll continue until it goes full Troubles and then fifty years later people will remember why we don't do sectarian violence and the two sides will resume peacefully voting against each other.
Punching Nazis would probably work, but I don't trust the judgement of the Nazi punchers to use that power wisely.
|
On November 29 2017 03:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 03:09 hunts wrote:On November 29 2017 03:04 zlefin wrote:On November 29 2017 02:32 hunts wrote:On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2017 10:34 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 08:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Wow, that Danglars diatribe about how sad it is people wont be his friend was intense.
ProTip: Don't want people to treat you like a racist douche, don't act like a racist douche, support a racist douche, then complain when people don't want to hang out with a racist douche.
It actually kind of blows my mind people think there's nothing friendship ruining about supporting Trump. He's a terrible human being, beyond his policy, Trump is actually a trash person all around.
If you're friends with Cernovich, you aren't my friend. If you support Trump you aren't my friend. Let me be clear, this isn't a personal thing, this is a "regardless of how much I try to make you my friend, you can't be my friend and be friends with Cernovich, they are mutually exclusive" thing.
You are bad at choosing friends if your friend can also support the destruction of you and/or your family's life. And sure you can call them "friend" but you obviously wouldn't understand the intent of the term.
That doesn't mean I couldn't have a beer with Danglars, just means it would probably end with me punching him in the throat if he tried to talk politics. I would never be foolish enough to consider him a friend either. Ouch. I thought you were more civilized than to presume a political discussion would turn to blows. But yes, we've heard your defense of screaming racist at everything because everything is racist before. Well we have mutual combat laws here so I figured it would go something like you say something repugnant, I say you can't say that, you say you can, I challenge you to combat to settle whether you can say it in my presence or not, you don't like those choices and object. I assure you your choices are 1. not say it 2.fight 3. get ostrasized and not be a part of the conversation. You pick fight and get punched in the throat. I suppose you could just walk away or stop, but you seem far too stubborn to do something like that. Seems perfectly civilized to me, but you also can't tell the difference between everything being racist and racism being a part of pretty much everything in this country so we clearly have trouble agreeing on the meaning of words. Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off. You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. Come on dangles, of all people, I would assume one of the 2 claiming to be a lawyer would at least know that free speech does not apply to civilian on civilian interaction. xdaunt is the lawyer, not danglars; the difference is quite apparent once you know what to look for (not really sure how to describe the difference in quality of argumentation/rhetoric) also, yawn, another day where 90% of the posts are danglars nonsense, and people countering danglars' nonsense. For some reason I thought it was both xdaunt and danglars, guess I was wrong. np, it happens. there are some other lawyers and/or paralegals around, don't remember who. I don't think there were any other on the "right" of the higher frequency posters.
IIRC, xDaunt and farvacola are lawyers, Doodsmack is in law school, and Plansix is a paralegal of sorts who works with attorneys.
In some funny but expected news, Dems cancel their meeting with Trump in light of his tweet about them.
|
On November 29 2017 03:26 riotjune wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 03:03 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 02:57 riotjune wrote:
Lol, this discussion about free speech (again?) reminds me of a question in a social studies textbook I've read in 6th grade. There was a picture of what seems to be a homeless guy standing on a wooden soapbox holding a loudspeaker, and shouting into it. Below it reads "Does the First Amendment allow one to shout whatever he wants in the middle of the night?"
Teacher never really told us the answer to the question, but I think we all agreed there was really nothing to stop the homeless man from expressing his views outside of violating quiet hours. Sure, it's completely within your right to spew whatever diarrhea comes out of that hole you call a mouth and there's no law to stop you, except maybe a couple of pissed off people with any sense of decency itching to cave your face in.
Which is why I think the First Amendment is a right that should be treated like a privilege, not unlike universal healthcare. Just because it's your right doesn't mean you should abuse it for your shitty purposes. But that's entirely within your right. Just don't complain when you get punched in the face for doing it.
And I said a right that should be treated like a privilege, not something that should be made into a privilege. Which is why during the medical school interview if you get asked "Do you think universal healthcare is a right or privilege?," you always answer "It should be a right" or risk being viewed as a horrible human being.
But asking people to treat a right as a privilege is probably overestimating each individual's scruples a bit since these days everybody and their dog is exploiting everything and everyone the first chance they get at every step. This isn't the days like the founding fathers when things were still based on principles (or at least they claimed to be, at least back then they pretended to be decent instead of coming out like a piece of shit like it's the cool thing to do now every now and then). I follow up until you say "everybody and their dog is exploiting everything and everyone the first chance they get at every step." I take it you understand the difference between city noise ordinances for all speech, and saying the content of what he said makes it illegal (and today, the related "I'll punch him and consider myself justified in doing it, or I'll cheer/be indifferent if someone else does so). No, I don't understand the difference. Would you be kind enough to elaborate?
A public noise ordinance that says anybody with a bullhorn disrupting public peace affects everybody and could be overly restrictive or permissive.
A public ordinance saying you can have that bullhorn and yell into it, but you can't mention Allah is the Prophet but can say to come to the Catholic Potluck, that's discriminating on the base of speech.
|
United States41991 Posts
On November 29 2017 03:35 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 03:11 zlefin wrote:On November 29 2017 03:09 hunts wrote:On November 29 2017 03:04 zlefin wrote:On November 29 2017 02:32 hunts wrote:On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2017 10:34 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Ouch. I thought you were more civilized than to presume a political discussion would turn to blows.
But yes, we've heard your defense of screaming racist at everything because everything is racist before. Well we have mutual combat laws here so I figured it would go something like you say something repugnant, I say you can't say that, you say you can, I challenge you to combat to settle whether you can say it in my presence or not, you don't like those choices and object. I assure you your choices are 1. not say it 2.fight 3. get ostrasized and not be a part of the conversation. You pick fight and get punched in the throat. I suppose you could just walk away or stop, but you seem far too stubborn to do something like that. Seems perfectly civilized to me, but you also can't tell the difference between everything being racist and racism being a part of pretty much everything in this country so we clearly have trouble agreeing on the meaning of words. Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off. You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. Come on dangles, of all people, I would assume one of the 2 claiming to be a lawyer would at least know that free speech does not apply to civilian on civilian interaction. xdaunt is the lawyer, not danglars; the difference is quite apparent once you know what to look for (not really sure how to describe the difference in quality of argumentation/rhetoric) also, yawn, another day where 90% of the posts are danglars nonsense, and people countering danglars' nonsense. For some reason I thought it was both xdaunt and danglars, guess I was wrong. np, it happens. there are some other lawyers and/or paralegals around, don't remember who. I don't think there were any other on the "right" of the higher frequency posters. IIRC, xDaunt and farvacola are lawyers, Doodsmack is in law school, and Plansix is a paralegal of sorts who works with attorneys. In some funny but expected news, Dems cancel their meeting with Trump in light of his tweet about them.
Art of the deal there folks. Before a big meeting where you want something from the other side call them out on twitter.
|
On November 29 2017 03:35 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 03:11 zlefin wrote:On November 29 2017 03:09 hunts wrote:On November 29 2017 03:04 zlefin wrote:On November 29 2017 02:32 hunts wrote:On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 28 2017 10:34 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Ouch. I thought you were more civilized than to presume a political discussion would turn to blows.
But yes, we've heard your defense of screaming racist at everything because everything is racist before. Well we have mutual combat laws here so I figured it would go something like you say something repugnant, I say you can't say that, you say you can, I challenge you to combat to settle whether you can say it in my presence or not, you don't like those choices and object. I assure you your choices are 1. not say it 2.fight 3. get ostrasized and not be a part of the conversation. You pick fight and get punched in the throat. I suppose you could just walk away or stop, but you seem far too stubborn to do something like that. Seems perfectly civilized to me, but you also can't tell the difference between everything being racist and racism being a part of pretty much everything in this country so we clearly have trouble agreeing on the meaning of words. Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off. You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. Come on dangles, of all people, I would assume one of the 2 claiming to be a lawyer would at least know that free speech does not apply to civilian on civilian interaction. xdaunt is the lawyer, not danglars; the difference is quite apparent once you know what to look for (not really sure how to describe the difference in quality of argumentation/rhetoric) also, yawn, another day where 90% of the posts are danglars nonsense, and people countering danglars' nonsense. For some reason I thought it was both xdaunt and danglars, guess I was wrong. np, it happens. there are some other lawyers and/or paralegals around, don't remember who. I don't think there were any other on the "right" of the higher frequency posters. IIRC, xDaunt and farvacola are lawyers, Doodsmack is in law school, and Plansix is a paralegal of sorts who works with attorneys. In some funny but expected news, Dems cancel their meeting with Trump in light of his tweet about them.
So does this mean we should expect a gov shutdown? Has the gov ever shutdown when a party is in full control of the government?
All government shutdowns that I can think of happen when a different party controls the executive and the legislative
|
On November 29 2017 03:33 zlefin wrote:
oh yeah, and I found this danglars remark funny:
"If not, then let's chuck the republic out, because you can't trust your fellow citizens to not follow the latest demagogue that's free to speak and others are free to speak back."
given how many citizens DID follow the latest demagogue to the detriment of the country and the world, and despite abundant evidence objectively establishing the truth.
There's abundant evidence that other reasons led to the rise of Nazis in Germany or the Communist Revolution in Russia. You could even say the actions limiting free speech in tsarist Russia contributed to the "detriment of the country and the world," to just give an example of counterarguments. I think healthy, free civil societies resist totalitarian takeovers by demagogues much better than repressive societies that say some things are too dangerous to allow hearing.
|
Trump’s master plan of saying you don’t plan on making a deal is a good way to get a meeting about cutting a deal canceled. Trump is going to find out that hard way that the party in power gets blamed for government shut downs.
|
On November 29 2017 03:37 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 03:35 On_Slaught wrote:On November 29 2017 03:11 zlefin wrote:On November 29 2017 03:09 hunts wrote:On November 29 2017 03:04 zlefin wrote:On November 29 2017 02:32 hunts wrote:On November 29 2017 01:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 29 2017 00:28 Danglars wrote:On November 28 2017 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well we have mutual combat laws here so I figured it would go something like you say something repugnant, I say you can't say that, you say you can, I challenge you to combat to settle whether you can say it in my presence or not, you don't like those choices and object. I assure you your choices are 1. not say it 2.fight 3. get ostrasized and not be a part of the conversation. You pick fight and get punched in the throat.
I suppose you could just walk away or stop, but you seem far too stubborn to do something like that.
Seems perfectly civilized to me, but you also can't tell the difference between everything being racist and racism being a part of pretty much everything in this country so we clearly have trouble agreeing on the meaning of words. Your evaluation of what’s repugnant lol. You’re way too willing to settle things with violence for me. Go find a police officer or something to get your rocks off. You’ve always seen racism in everything and I don’t expect it to change soon. It's pretty simple really. We both see a Nazi advocating for my genocide I go to punch him, you defend his right to advocate genocide, and get punched too. You act like your positions aren't antithetical to polite discourse on their face. You seem to think you're entitled to the floor to say whatever you want, well, you can't say fire in a crowded theater and you can't advocate for my genocide in my presence. You want to think that makes me the uncivilized one, you go right ahead. I do have to give you points for the clever "Kill yourself" line you slipped in there though. First amendment free speech rights, who needs them? I should frame those first two sentences. But don’t worry, bro, if they shout to start lynching blacks in such and such neighborhood, that’s inciting imminent unlawful activity. I won’t let your base stupidity on the free speech rights of citizens interfere with the historical crossing of the line. You wish everybody thought like you, but they don’t. If you’re perpetually aggrieved, and say that gives you the right to punch someone talking politics, you construct your own law. Just excuse your own mischief. Here’s a thought: If you’re sharing beers and a political topic comes up, and you’re willing to punch him or her over it, just tell them to not discuss politics. It’ll work out better for both, and you get the bonus of not appearing to be a man itching for a fight. Given your tendency to call conservatives here advocates of white supremacy, and topics not unique to the black community expose white fragility, you’re just telling everyone to expect violence for their politics. And anyone not in full agreement with your political theory will have the good sense to stay away from those threats. Come on dangles, of all people, I would assume one of the 2 claiming to be a lawyer would at least know that free speech does not apply to civilian on civilian interaction. xdaunt is the lawyer, not danglars; the difference is quite apparent once you know what to look for (not really sure how to describe the difference in quality of argumentation/rhetoric) also, yawn, another day where 90% of the posts are danglars nonsense, and people countering danglars' nonsense. For some reason I thought it was both xdaunt and danglars, guess I was wrong. np, it happens. there are some other lawyers and/or paralegals around, don't remember who. I don't think there were any other on the "right" of the higher frequency posters. IIRC, xDaunt and farvacola are lawyers, Doodsmack is in law school, and Plansix is a paralegal of sorts who works with attorneys. In some funny but expected news, Dems cancel their meeting with Trump in light of his tweet about them. So does this mean we should expect a gov shutdown? Has the gov ever shutdown when a party is in full control of the government? All government shutdowns that I can think of happen when a different party controls the executive and the legislative
Trump seems to expect a government shut down. So should we, I suppose.
|
On November 29 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:
Trump’s master plan of saying you don’t plan on making a deal is a good way to get a meeting about cutting a deal canceled. Trump is going to find out that hard way that the party in power gets blamed for government shut downs.
*The party in charge of the legislator
As far as I remember Obama and Clinton did not get blamed for the gov shutdowns when they were in charge
|
Probably becuse at least obama didnt have a majority?
|
On November 29 2017 03:03 Nevuk wrote:
The Art of the Deal. This is the benefit of having a billionaire businessman in office.
|
On November 29 2017 03:44 Velr wrote:
Probably becuse at least obama didnt have a majority?
Neither did
|
United States41991 Posts
On November 29 2017 03:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 03:33 zlefin wrote:
oh yeah, and I found this danglars remark funny:
"If not, then let's chuck the republic out, because you can't trust your fellow citizens to not follow the latest demagogue that's free to speak and others are free to speak back."
given how many citizens DID follow the latest demagogue to the detriment of the country and the world, and despite abundant evidence objectively establishing the truth. There's abundant evidence that other reasons led to the rise of Nazis in Germany or the Communist Revolution in Russia. You could even say the actions limiting free speech in tsarist Russia contributed to the "detriment of the country and the world," to just give an example of counterarguments. I think healthy, free civil societies resist totalitarian takeovers by demagogues much better than repressive societies that say some things are too dangerous to allow hearing.
What would you expect a popular demagogue takeover in a repressive society to look like? Because on the face of it that seems a conveniently unfalsifiable argument. For example Singapore is a very politically repressive society. Would you say that it has resisted a totalitarian takeover? It's hard to tell, given that one hasn't happened. Maybe nobody tried, maybe the people who tried were repressed.
Also, as an interesting counterpoint, South Rhodesia got Mugabe when they stopped their apartheid policies. South Africa forced a few generations of repressive order before relaxing the grip. Post-colonial Africa is one long argument against dropping liberal democracy into an artificial nation and hoping for the best (although the civil structures were also assaulted by a shitton of other factors, it's just that repressive nations were better able to endure those assaults).
|
The US public seems to remember enough of civics 101 to know that Congress funds the government. And the Republicans control congress. If Trump blows up this budget deal up, the Republicans will be blamed.
|
On November 29 2017 03:31 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:57 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 02:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 29 2017 02:38 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 02:28 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 29 2017 02:21 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 02:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 29 2017 02:17 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
believe it or not, the first amendment isn't carte blanche immunity to say whatever offensive thing you want. like if someone for some reason decided to visit a african-american majority neighborhood and repeatedly scream the n word with a hard r repeatedly if he got punched "muh free speech" isn't going to really make people feel for him. Clearly you have issues separating what we're supposed to feel bad for and what is against the law. you can argue what's legally right all you want, but it doesn't change that a purely legal viewpoint is absolutely ridiculous here. When the topic is the free speech rights of American citizens, regardless of repugnant ideology, we need that purely legal viewpoint to be settled. If you missed that discussion, or want to repeat that you will respect the marchers in contradiction to what GH has been saying, feel free to post up. you always belabor some tiny, usually obvious piece of the situation which no one really disagrees with but then deliberately muddy the waters and conflate disagreement on other aspects of the situation with not understanding the really obvious bit. no one is arguing that legally assault/ battery is wrong and free speech is protected. i don't agree that punching people is a good solution. i'm far less radical or militant than GH on issues of race and, well, pretty much everything else. doesn't mean that his viewpoint is incomprehensible. You always don't post about the bit that nobody disagrees with (silence is deafening), then run from the implications that nobody will admit (silence is deafening once again). Someone here is arguing that nazis shouldn't be able to march, and genocide will be a short step away (GH). Ticklishmusic: <Silence on both> Somebody here claims he's justified for calling people racist douches (Trump supporters), the solution is for them to stop being racist douches (change their political opinion) and political discussions with him will devolve into violence (it would probably end with me punching him in the throat if he tried to talk politics.) Ticklishmusic: <Maybe he agrees that a political discussion with me ought to end in violence> If it was clear where you stood, then we move on to whatever you think is muddied about the waters. Otherwise I don't know if you want to punch me, punch people exercising free speech, or cheer people on punching people practicing free speech. maybe there's no reason to talk about the obvious. i don't find the need to discuss 1+1 = 2 on most days. my silence on the matter of basic arithmetic is certainly deafening. i did say i don't condone violence, right? or did you miss that bit. doesn't seem like i'm getting much bang for my buck when i'm not deafeningly silent because you're not reading. consider being even a tiny bit introspective about why people consider trump supporters 'racist douches' instead of hiding behind the first amendment and other laws. if your first instinct is to do that, maybe there's something is wrong. Your only interaction thus far is to say you don't feel sorry for people that shout the n word in a black neighborhood and get punched. It sounds like you excuse violence in limited circumstances. And no, you didn't start your interaction here saying you didn't condone violence. When GH has made threats of violence under this and that circumstance, maybe I ask for clarity in what you would excuse or yourself do. So far, you're one-for-zero in condoning violence versus condemning violence in today's conversation. your reading comprehension is like, really bad dude. i merely made the point that there is plenty of stuff that while technically legal and protected may still result in shitty consequences which the law does not protect people from. for example, it's perfectly legal for me to stick my hand on the stove, and if i get burned it's my own fault. any sort of misunderstanding about my position on the use of violence from my initial post should have been cleared up in the subsequent ones. we can ask any random poster to see if i'm still being unclear or if you're having trouble reading.
It's clear we don't agree that the legal angle is some "tiny, usually obvious piece of the situation." My conversation with GH hit on many topics of when it was okay to resort to physical violence for what you said or what you say others can say. He also has a habit of over-labeling with terms like "racist douche" and "advocating white supremacy," which further convolutes what he and others consider grounds for violence instead of tolerance. Maybe if you were the one labeled or (conditionally) threatened, you'd understand the need to lay out what and when society tolerates. I see no reason to dismiss the smaller points when it is absolutely not right to assume what you think is obvious. I thought it was obviously not fine to punch someone standing up for the free speech rights of others, and I was wrong. You can state here and now what your line is for condoning violence. He has a confusing but mostly comprehensible ideology that I oppose, and I'm sorry that you think I didn't comprehend it with my opposition of it.
|
On November 29 2017 03:27 zlefin wrote:
re: a bit above on statues
because credit isn't due here; THEY didn't all come for the founding father statues; only some extremists did.
and there's ALWAYS some extremist who goes further. so he didn't get anything right. he lied, and was wrong; being half-right doesn't mean much when anyone can be half-right.
so you're just promulgating lies as usual danglars, and improperly conflating situations that are quite different.
and my post wasn't nonsense, it was correctly pointing out a real problem in the thread that degrades it a lot. so it's in the responses to nonsense trolling category, not nonsense itself; still all part of that 90% though.
I don't see a point making a nonsense post saying "This is all nonsense, again." If it's nonsense, don't participate.
It's very hard to separate who were extremists going for statues and who were moderates going for statues when they end up defaced, vandalized, and shrouded. Are you a clairvoyant? I'm not.
|
United States41991 Posts
On November 29 2017 03:48 Plansix wrote:
The US public seems to remember enough of civics 101 to know that Congress funds the government. And the Republicans control congress. If Trump blows up this budget deal up, the Republicans will be blamed.
They'll probably blame the RINOs, which consist of somewhere between all of the Republicans (excluding Rand Paul) and none of them, depending upon the time of day.
|
On November 29 2017 02:56 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2017 02:53 Kickboxer wrote:
People living in the USA in 2017, comparing their existential and political position to 1932 Germany, throwing around terms like genocide and literal nazi ... is not a sane or measured approach. It just isn't. It's hysteria. It's "literally silly".
I know nobody learns about Stalin's Russia in school anymore but at least the reasons behind the rise of national-socialism in post WW1 Germany should be understood when engaging in a morality & politics discussion.
Apart from - ironically - the extreme political polarization, can you name some parallels between fucking Nazi Germany and Orange County, CA? A grand total of 100 or so people insane enough to dress up into the costumes of people who were shot and killed by their own ancestors proves nothing. I'm willing to bet USA has more furries than active, literal Nazis. they've decided to call themselves alt right now and most of them are pretty open about advocating for " ethnostates" , the idea that each ethnicity should live in their own state. How will those states come to be only inhabited by one ethnicity? When that's asked they mumble and deflect, but it is pretty clear the only way for it to happen is genocide. We even have one on this forum, active in this thread. They exist in considerable numbers.
We don't have any active poster in this thread advocating for ethnostates. We have several posters that can't separate examining ideology versus advocating such ideology. The alt right is more marginal than antifa and furries, if we consider the alt-right to be in favor of ethnostates. You've fallen far down in pointing and shrieking at tiny numbers of people.
|
On November 29 2017 03:31 Plansix wrote:
I just want to remind folks that the Nazi party were generally considered to be buffoons, losers and otherwise a silly fringe party right up until they took power. I could go on for days about why that totally takeover of power would never happen in the US, but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be concerned with the prevalence of Nazi ideology in main stream political discourse.
We don’t need to end up in full 1937 Germany for the modern white Nationalist to do a lot of damage. And these folks are shameless. They will lie through their teeth that they don’t believe in violence, are not racist and are totally not Nazis. While at the same time saying that Hitler loved his country and historians over look that. The biggest mistake the US could ever make would be not taking these people seriously.
What "prevalence of Nazi ideology in main stream political discourse?" Is Paul Ryan advocating Nazi ideology now?
|
I have seen little evidence that the alt right is a smaller group that the mythical antifa. Considering both are an unknowable number of people on the fringe of the political spectrum, I don't think anyone can claim one is more relevant that the other.
I will agree that antifa is way better at trolling on twitter. They have that skill on lock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
