|
We get it you think the alt right had a superior worldview on discussion and want to learn the most you can from them.
Some people don't like that though.
|
On October 31 2018 04:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 04:37 Danglars wrote:
I thought the lefties here got sick and tired of being stereotyped and lumped into communist or SJW or authoritarian, and here I see Nazism/white supremacy crop up from multiple people with the stupid “what you say qualifies it to me, so stop saying it if you don’t want to be called it.”
If your arguments are so piss-poor that you have to compare to 1942 Nazis to make any headway, you’re leaving yourself wide open to stupid comparisons back the other direction. Oh, and don’t bother trying to claim you stand on the side of civility ... you’re just as bad as Trump calling fake news proponents “enemies of the people” if you’re going all Godwin’s law. That leaves you with zero room to criticize Trump when you adopt his worst aspects. They heard there were conservatives talking over there yonder and decided to go ruin that for them. What more can you really expect from the usual suspects?
I want to be fair to people that just don’t notice their compatriots stereotyping and dismissing arguments, because they generally agree with the conclusion or the general sentiment. That way, people that think the liberal shitposters never drop to the level of those conservatives that always end up banned, get reminded that the reverse is in fact true.
By the way, it’s mimicked in several cable news shows and Democratic politician press consequences, so who can really blame their duplication here?
|
On October 31 2018 05:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 04:27 NewSunshine wrote:On October 31 2018 04:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 31 2018 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Claiming that anyone on this site advocates for open borders is either an argument in bad faith or a basic failure in reading comprehension. I will assume it is the former because we know you can read. Great, so that means that you now are in favor of turning away the caravan coming up through Mexico? How about tough border controls like the wall? How about deporting everyone who is here illegally? And closing the loophole of birthright citizenship? How about there are positions in between. Don't be a dick. Don't try to assume people who don't agree with you must hate their country. That's step #1 for a conversation not being laughed out of the room. If you don't want to be greeted with a dismissive schtick when you bring it up, try not doing it in the first place. Thanks. Like I said, please explain why you think that my charge is unfair. I certainly have been up to the task in explaining why it is incorrect to state that the basis for every conservative policy is white nationalism. Because saying "oh, you don't fit the three checkboxes I've laid out for what constitutes patriotism in my eyes? you must hate America" is as absolutely ridiculous as it sounds. I'd have way more patience for this if you, ever once, stopped to ask yourself whether other people might have a point, rather than constantly trying to "be right". Don't try to dump assumptions into people's mouths and then wonder why you're not getting stellar conversation out of the endeavor. I'm not trying to be "right." I'm asking you what your point is, and you are refusing to give it to me. I have highlighted roughly half a dozen major areas of concern that I have when it comes to progressives/liberals and patriotism. And I have even gone so far as explaining what I believe to be unifying theme of it all. You objected to my argument, so I invited you to explain why I'm wrong. I'll leave it to you to figure out how best you want to do that, but a couple possibilities would be "Yeah, you're right about my position on those things, but here's where I show that I truly am patriotic" or "No, those aren't unpatriotic positions at all and here's why."
This is not a discussion where people who disagree with you are unpatriotic until they prove otherwise. There is absolutely nothing to enforce the notion that I have to love our country for the same reasons you do. Drop the assumptions and ask honest questions, or drop the discussion altogether.
Ultimately, this is a distraction from the main point. You bemoan being so misunderstood by others, and call them idiots for failing to comprehend, but you make no particular effort to extend any good faith attempts to understand yourself.
|
On October 31 2018 05:16 Plansix wrote:
Civility is over rated. Politics does not reward civility, especially on the national stage. The one exception to this rule is Mr. Rogers, who we have failed as a nation. We are not the people he wanted us to go up to be.
this is just a mess of a thought. what are you even saying here?
|
On October 31 2018 05:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 05:16 Plansix wrote:
Civility is over rated. Politics does not reward civility, especially on the national stage. The one exception to this rule is Mr. Rogers, who we have failed as a nation. We are not the people he wanted us to go up to be. this is just a mess of a thought. what are you even saying here?
Have you never seen Mr. Rogers’s appearance before Congress?
|
On October 31 2018 05:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 05:16 Plansix wrote:
Civility is over rated. Politics does not reward civility, especially on the national stage. The one exception to this rule is Mr. Rogers, who we have failed as a nation. We are not the people he wanted us to go up to be. this is just a mess of a thought. what are you even saying here?
Happy cake day
|
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI).
|
On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI).
Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list.
|
On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list.
Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though.
|
On October 31 2018 05:44 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 05:02 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 04:27 NewSunshine wrote:On October 31 2018 04:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 31 2018 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Claiming that anyone on this site advocates for open borders is either an argument in bad faith or a basic failure in reading comprehension. I will assume it is the former because we know you can read. Great, so that means that you now are in favor of turning away the caravan coming up through Mexico? How about tough border controls like the wall? How about deporting everyone who is here illegally? And closing the loophole of birthright citizenship? How about there are positions in between. Don't be a dick. Don't try to assume people who don't agree with you must hate their country. That's step #1 for a conversation not being laughed out of the room. If you don't want to be greeted with a dismissive schtick when you bring it up, try not doing it in the first place. Thanks. Like I said, please explain why you think that my charge is unfair. I certainly have been up to the task in explaining why it is incorrect to state that the basis for every conservative policy is white nationalism. Because saying "oh, you don't fit the three checkboxes I've laid out for what constitutes patriotism in my eyes? you must hate America" is as absolutely ridiculous as it sounds. I'd have way more patience for this if you, ever once, stopped to ask yourself whether other people might have a point, rather than constantly trying to "be right". Don't try to dump assumptions into people's mouths and then wonder why you're not getting stellar conversation out of the endeavor. I'm not trying to be "right." I'm asking you what your point is, and you are refusing to give it to me. I have highlighted roughly half a dozen major areas of concern that I have when it comes to progressives/liberals and patriotism. And I have even gone so far as explaining what I believe to be unifying theme of it all. You objected to my argument, so I invited you to explain why I'm wrong. I'll leave it to you to figure out how best you want to do that, but a couple possibilities would be "Yeah, you're right about my position on those things, but here's where I show that I truly am patriotic" or "No, those aren't unpatriotic positions at all and here's why." This is not a discussion where people who disagree with you are unpatriotic until they prove otherwise. There is absolutely nothing to enforce the notion that I have to love our country for the same reasons you do. Drop the assumptions and ask honest questions, or drop the discussion altogether. Ultimately, this is a distraction from the main point. You bemoan being so misunderstood by others, and call them idiots for failing to comprehend, but you make no particular effort to extend any good faith attempts to understand yourself.
I asked you an open-ended question to give you a reasonable opportunity to explain yourself multiple times. You refused to do it each time. It's pretty obvious who is making a good faith attempt to understand whom. If you're not going to put any effort into your posting when challenged, then this probably isn't the right thread for you to be in.
|
On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though.
Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front.
I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate.
It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries.
From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know?
So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has.
|
On October 31 2018 07:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 05:44 NewSunshine wrote:On October 31 2018 05:02 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 04:27 NewSunshine wrote:On October 31 2018 04:24 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 31 2018 04:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
Claiming that anyone on this site advocates for open borders is either an argument in bad faith or a basic failure in reading comprehension. I will assume it is the former because we know you can read. Great, so that means that you now are in favor of turning away the caravan coming up through Mexico? How about tough border controls like the wall? How about deporting everyone who is here illegally? And closing the loophole of birthright citizenship? How about there are positions in between. Don't be a dick. Don't try to assume people who don't agree with you must hate their country. That's step #1 for a conversation not being laughed out of the room. If you don't want to be greeted with a dismissive schtick when you bring it up, try not doing it in the first place. Thanks. Like I said, please explain why you think that my charge is unfair. I certainly have been up to the task in explaining why it is incorrect to state that the basis for every conservative policy is white nationalism. Because saying "oh, you don't fit the three checkboxes I've laid out for what constitutes patriotism in my eyes? you must hate America" is as absolutely ridiculous as it sounds. I'd have way more patience for this if you, ever once, stopped to ask yourself whether other people might have a point, rather than constantly trying to "be right". Don't try to dump assumptions into people's mouths and then wonder why you're not getting stellar conversation out of the endeavor. I'm not trying to be "right." I'm asking you what your point is, and you are refusing to give it to me. I have highlighted roughly half a dozen major areas of concern that I have when it comes to progressives/liberals and patriotism. And I have even gone so far as explaining what I believe to be unifying theme of it all. You objected to my argument, so I invited you to explain why I'm wrong. I'll leave it to you to figure out how best you want to do that, but a couple possibilities would be "Yeah, you're right about my position on those things, but here's where I show that I truly am patriotic" or "No, those aren't unpatriotic positions at all and here's why." This is not a discussion where people who disagree with you are unpatriotic until they prove otherwise. There is absolutely nothing to enforce the notion that I have to love our country for the same reasons you do. Drop the assumptions and ask honest questions, or drop the discussion altogether. Ultimately, this is a distraction from the main point. You bemoan being so misunderstood by others, and call them idiots for failing to comprehend, but you make no particular effort to extend any good faith attempts to understand yourself. I asked you an open-ended question to give you a reasonable opportunity to explain yourself multiple times. You refused to do it each time. It's pretty obvious who is making a good faith attempt to understand whom. If you're not going to put any effort into your posting when challenged, then this probably isn't the right thread for you to be in.
Explain myself for what? I don't need your approval to say actually yes, I do love my country. I don't give a shit what you think. I don't have to explain "well I don't believe in American Exceptionalism, but I'm really still a patriot for X, Y, and Z reasons". You and Trump are not some kind of arbiter for how I feel, I don't have to defend myself to you. Drop the false dichotomy.
|
On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has.
Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing.
Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions.
|
The FBI has gone through a lot of changes post Waco. It was a much more aggressive, gun ho agency before event. But the change has been uneven across the different branches. But considering what we know about local law enforcement and the prevelance racism and racial bias in those departments, I think they are much bigger problem than the FBI in 2018.
|
On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions.
If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out.
|
On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out.
I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be.
|
On October 31 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out. I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be.
So if you're not rooting for the white/Western block, which one are you rooting for?
|
On October 31 2018 12:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out. I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be. So if you're not rooting for the white/Western block, which one are you rooting for?
My "clash of civilizations" is what you would probably know better as "class warfare" so white supremacy has no place on the side I'm pulling for.
|
On October 31 2018 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out. I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be. So if you're not rooting for the white/Western block, which one are you rooting for? My "clash of civilizations" is what you would probably know better as "class warfare" so white supremacy has no place on the side I'm pulling for.
You know, I was reading something the other day that had a rather interesting observation. The point that was made was that traditional economic/class-based Marxism has been so thoroughly discredited by experience (everything from the USSR to Venezuela) that Marxists have been compelled to turn to new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies (e.g. the patriarchy as the oppressor to feminists) to stay relevant. Hell, class warfare always has historically degenerated into "clash of civilizations" - type identity politics anyway, so I don't see how you would ultimately be able to duck making a choice in the long run.
|
On October 31 2018 13:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2018 12:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 09:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2018 07:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 07:39 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2018 06:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 31 2018 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
While white supremacist groups feel most at home in the US, they too have world wide networks and resources. Of course if we want to run the clock for the existence of America the white supremacy body count dwarfs all other forms of terrorism against this country combined, even if you count pearl harbor.
The resources and international network becomes much more clear when one realizes that white supremacy doesn't stop at terrorist attacks labeled by a known white supremacist group (the FBI). Are you sure it's a known white supremacist group? Or is that just your opinion of the FBI? I can't remember it ever appearing on anyone else's list. Well I think we agree they were clearly a white supremacist group in the 60's, so I'd have to be shown when they stopped being one. I do recognize it's likely a point of disagreement for most though. Yeah I think that's fair. The pretty obvious steps taken to prevent black emancipation is a BIT OF A TIP OFF on that front. I guess it depends on how much you think the FBI has an individual identity above and beyond serving the government. If the government has such leanings, the FBI will have them too. For example, if the US ever became a truly fascist state, the FBI literally is the apparatus of a new secret police. It has most of the traits such an organisation needs to function out of the gate. It may be personal idealism but I tend to think the majority of the people in such an organisation are going to lean towards being hard working, patriotic, and professional. But Patriotism is very dangerous, especially when you're in an environment like that where you see things you or I never will. I mean, literature's been dealing with the idea of how far you might have to go in order to best serve/protect your country, and how many moral boundaries you might have to cross in the process, for centuries. From a certain perspective, attempting to suppress the civil rights movement in the 60s can absolutely be seen as the act of Patriots. You know? So I tend to think the FBI is only as good or bad as the government it serves. But I don't know how much of a personal identity the organisation actually has. Under Hoover it was Hoover's (J. Edgar), since then I think your describing more or less what it is. So I guess that takes us to the question of whether the government operates under a branch of white supremacy. My answer is obviously yes, and I think while Trump's in charge most liberals are having a hard time disagreeing. Before there's any confusion, I'm not calling Trump a nazi, I'm simply saying that white supremacy has a wide and powerful international network with resources compared to none in my view, even if like "Muslim Terrorism" there are many, sometimes competing, factions. If you're going to take this kind of global view of white supremacy, then you're inevitably going to find yourself in the territory set forth in Clash of Civilizations, at which you point you better be rooting for white supremacy to win out. I do take it and no I'm not rooting for white supremacy, though under the scenario you're imagining I can understand why you would be. So if you're not rooting for the white/Western block, which one are you rooting for? My "clash of civilizations" is what you would probably know better as "class warfare" so white supremacy has no place on the side I'm pulling for. You know, I was reading something the other day that had a rather interesting observation. The point that was made was that traditional economic/class-based Marxism has been so thoroughly discredited by experience (everything from the USSR to Venezuela) that Marxists have been compelled to turn to new oppressor/oppressed dichotomies (e.g. the patriarchy as the oppressor to feminists) to stay relevant. Hell, class warfare always has historically degenerated into "clash of civilizations" - type identity politics anyway, so I don't see how you would ultimately be able to duck making a choice in the long run.
Not sure what you were reading but that wasn't any Marxism or class analysis I subscribe to. I'm not sure how you think the USSR and Venezuela act as a discrediting of class analysis in general either.
Alas, I assure you whatever the sides I won't be on the one with white supremacy for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
