EPTHe said he cleaned up DC after being president by saying 'you can't do that'.
video:
+ Show Spoiler +
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1624
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
He said he cleaned up DC after being president by saying 'you can't do that'. video: + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
brian
United States9641 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 02 2019 22:18 farvacola wrote: Your trepidation in the face of identifying journalists and non-journalists is a key aspect of what goes into fascist cooption of liberal social norms. It’s basically another iteration of the paradox of tolerance. The fascistic impulse is to label disfavored reporting "non-journalists." It's a start to making the violence against them feel less shocking. He filmed the protest, and with many cameras turned on him, did nothing to instigate the violence directed against him. That's simply assaulting a journalist, and trying to partially excuse it along the lines of "he was asking for it." In this case, "fascist cooption of liberal social norms" is a rebranding of "illiberalism is justified when it's not the right kind of people doijng the reporting." I'd say that's a stone's throw from saying because he was gay and Asian, he was coopting norms. Different labels, essentially same reasoning. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On July 03 2019 00:05 Danglars wrote: I really hope that you change your mind on defending journalists in the face of Antifa violence. If only for showing that Trump's rhetoric on the media actually incenses you, rather than just wishing it were a left-wing figure trashing some "non-journalists." It's really a telling sign that Trump's speech is tantamount to inciting violence against journalists, and actual violence against journalists makes you question if they really were journalists (and others to question if it really was a brain hemorrhage). It's not for lack of video, it's for lack of courage. To be fair, not everybody with a gopro and a wordpress account is a journalist... we probably need to think long and hard about what freedom of speech really means when fascist propaganda, fake news, and whatever other trash is being covered under this banner. That said, I find it hard to justify physical violence against *anybody* who is only writing a blog. Whether you call it journalism or just a random person with a telephone camera... | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12463 Posts
I am not fine with assaulting "journalists". Farva isn't fine with assaulting "journalists". If you don't know that, you ought to. Be better. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On July 03 2019 00:05 Danglars wrote: I really hope that you change your mind on defending journalists in the face of Antifa violence. If only for showing that Trump's rhetoric on the media actually incenses you, rather than just wishing it were a left-wing figure trashing some "non-journalists." It's really a telling sign that Trump's speech is tantamount to inciting violence against journalists, and actual violence against journalists makes you question if they really were journalists (and others to question if it really was a brain hemorrhage). It's not for lack of video, it's for lack of courage. What are your arguments against antifa? Antifa were the soldiers who went into Germany to help fight the nazis weren't they? Antifa literally stands for Anti-Fascism. I only see Antifa come out when White supremacists come out. I don't support violence in any way however. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11840 Posts
On July 03 2019 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote: What are your arguments against antifa? Antifa were the soldiers who went into Germany to help fight the nazis weren't they? Antifa literally stands for Anti-Fascism. I only see Antifa come out when White supremacists come out. I don't support violence in any way however. Well, to give Danglars some credit, some Antifa people have a pretty broad definition of "fascism" that can entail things like private ownership of means of production or advocating for that. Also, just to be on the record, i, too, am not fine with physically attacking people, even if they are fascist propagandists. There must be a better solution in a civilized society to handle this problem. I do not think that we should normalize physical violence as a means of solving disputes. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 03 2019 00:09 Acrofales wrote: To be fair, not everybody with a gopro and a wordpress account is a journalist... we probably need to think long and hard about what freedom of speech really means when fascist propaganda, fake news, and whatever other trash is being covered under this banner. That said, I find it hard to justify physical violence against *anybody* who is only writing a blog. Whether you call it journalism or just a random person with a telephone camera... The more the merrier for people with Gopros and a blog or YouTube channel. You don’t get the moniker “hard news reporter” if you do more commentary, but covering these events is actual journalism. We wouldn’t have footage of his assault without others documenting the violence from within the march. It’s totally a function of our times to need these independent voices. The thinkprogress and jacobin journo bragged about not being mistreated. I’m not going to gripe if you point to a blogger that publishes videos of second-hand commentary on other bloggers and declare he is no journalists. You have go out and document events, or conduct interviews, or solicit quotes and conduct investigations. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 03 2019 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote: What are your arguments against antifa? Antifa were the soldiers who went into Germany to help fight the nazis weren't they? Antifa literally stands for Anti-Fascism. I only see Antifa come out when White supremacists come out. I don't support violence in any way however. Their protests in the states are routinely violent. Whatever they may have once been, or may still be in certain offshoots in other countries, does not change who they are and what they do now. It’s only a matter of time before they pound someone dead instead of just bloody. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On July 03 2019 00:11 Nebuchad wrote: There is something telling about the fact that every time something like this comes up it's impossible for some people to single out the fascists. Like, I can't be morally fine with attacking Andy Ngo, fascist sympathizer, I have to be fine with attacking journalists. It's the same process that happens every time the word "fascist" is replaced by "people who disagree with you on politics". I am not fine with assaulting "journalists". Farva isn't fine with assaulting "journalists". If you don't know that, you ought to. Be better. The problem here is that you think beating up fascists is totally okay. Even if those "fascists" are not actually doing anything violent. Even though I agree with you that Andy Ngo is a deplorable troll, smashing him in the face and stealing his gopro is not an adequate response, nor is it morally justified. There's a reason we have a justice system. If you think "adhering to a fascist ideology" is so bad you should be punched over it, you should pass censorship laws on fascist propaganda, ban fascist organizations, and generally make fascism illegal. But going out and punching them in the face is wrong on many levels. 1) Violence doesn't solve anything, it just polarizes the issue further, which leads to more violence, more polarization, etc. 2) Who decides who gets to punch who? I'm sure there's people who feel communists are despiccable and should be punched in the face. Do you, neb, deserve to be punched in the face for your political beliefs? Communism may have a noble goal, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there is no doubt that all communist regimes so far have all been fucking awful... most of them considerably worse than Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. So defending our civilization from communists is a noble goal, and communists should be punched in the face. Right? And what about atheists? Clearly their loose morals is leading us down the road to destruction and needs to be stopped. Violently if necessary. Or for that matter, evangelicals. Their puritannical intolerance must be stopped. Etc. etc. 3) Note how I just decided you were a communist? In a system where we could punch communists in the face, you'd be screwed. Even though you have self-declared various times as definitely not a communist. Mob rule doesn't care. Antifa decided Andy Ngo is a fascist and should be punched. In this case they might be right. But mob rule is often wrong and innocents get lynched. Are these non-fascist innocents who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time acceptable collateral for the "good" of punching fascists? Btw, regarding anti-fascism laws, many of them are in place in various European countries. I don't know whether we have less problems with fascism than the US, but we definitely have less *overt* fascism. We also have a lot less problems with violence against journalists. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12463 Posts
On July 03 2019 00:34 Acrofales wrote: The problem here is that you think beating up fascists is totally okay. Even if those "fascists" are not actually doing anything violent. Even though I agree with you that Andy Ngo is a deplorable troll, smashing him in the face and stealing his gopro is not an adequate response, nor is it morally justified. There's a reason we have a justice system. If you think "adhering to a fascist ideology" is so bad you should be punched over it, you should pass censorship laws on fascist propaganda, ban fascist organizations, and generally make fascism illegal. But going out and punching them in the face is wrong on many levels. 1) Violence doesn't solve anything, it just polarizes the issue further, which leads to more violence, more polarization, etc. 2) Who decides who gets to punch who? I'm sure there's people who feel communists are despiccable and should be punched in the face. Do you, neb, deserve to be punched in the face for your political beliefs? Communism may have a noble goal, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there is no doubt that all communist regimes so far have all been fucking awful... most of them considerably worse than Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. So defending our civilization from communists is a noble goal, and communists should be punched in the face. Right? And what about atheists? Clearly their loose morals is leading us down the road to destruction and needs to be stopped. Violently if necessary. Or for that matter, evangelicals. Their puritannical intolerance must be stopped. Etc. etc. 3) Note how I just decided you were a communist? In a system where we could punch communists in the face, you'd be screwed. Even though you have self-declared various times as definitely not a communist. Mob rule doesn't care. Antifa decided Andy Ngo is a fascist and should be punched. In this case they might be right. But mob rule is often wrong and innocents get lynched. Are these non-fascist innocents who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time acceptable collateral for the "good" of punching fascists? Btw, regarding anti-fascism laws, many of them are in place in various European countries. I don't know whether we have less problems with fascism than the US, but we definitely have less *overt* fascism. We also have a lot less problems with violence against journalists. Yes, I do agree with your characterization of what the problem is: we do have a difference in our moral code. The justice system deals with legal questions not with moral questions. I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists, in case I need to make that clear. And yes of course my preferred route is having laws that ban fascism as hate speech, that makes a lot more sense than relying on the kindness of masked strangers. But that's not going to happen in the US any time soon. 1) That's true, yeah. If you have some way of solving fascism I'm listening. Last time around we went with the antifascist route. 2) It's me, I decide who gets to punch who. We're talking about what I think is morally okay, I'm not sure why it comes off as a surprise that I'm the one who decides it. 3) Are you trying to have me empathize with fascists? Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism, for the record, and it's a large part of why I'm morally fine with punching fascists. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On July 03 2019 00:34 Danglars wrote: Their protests in the states are routinely violent. Whatever they may have once been, or may still be in certain offshoots in other countries, does not change who they are and what they do now. It’s only a matter of time before they pound someone dead instead of just bloody. I mean White Supremacists have already caused death at their rallies... Do you condone white supremacists? | ||
|
brian
United States9641 Posts
so fucking weird. i don’t know how anyone signs off on this. shameful imo. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5161 Posts
And that's the thing about being an individual and accepting you have so little power yourself. Only the masses are able to make changes, or you simply have to become a leader of some kind to single handedly change popular sentiment yourself and create a new wave of enlightenment. Sadly, there are other people on the ideological spectrum who are just as smart (if not smarter) and are just as charismatic as you are. So what do you do? At present times we're at an impasse. We've reached a rift between subpopulations where some group just can't tolerate what the other group on an ideological level any longer and visa versa, yet we still keep tolerating each other in a pragmatic sense (i.e. so society keeps functioning somewhat). I just hope the pragmatic tolerance doesn't nosedive because of some kind of event (say a massive hunger epidemic because of wheat / corn crop failures). | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 02 2019 23:52 farvacola wrote: Thank you for performatively proving my point. I also want to know how calling someone a "non-journalist" is qualitatively different from calling what they do "fake news"? + Show Spoiler + On July 02 2019 23:44 Danglars wrote: The fascistic impulse is to label disfavored reporting " That's simply assaulting a journalist, and trying to partially excuse it along the lines of "he was asking for it." In this case, "fascist cooption of liberal social norms" is a rebranding of "illiberalism is justified when it's not the right kind of people doijng the reporting." I'd say that's a stone's throw from saying because he was gay and Asian, he was coopting norms. Different labels, essentially same reasoning. Suddenly that doesn't seem to read the same way. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 03 2019 00:55 ShoCkeyy wrote: I mean White Supremacists have already caused death at their rallies... Do you condone white supremacists? To the extent that white supremacists refer to the marchers at Charlottesville, I definitely oppose them. Remember, however, that I’ve been called a white supremacist in forum posts and PMs, whereas I don’t remember labels of Antifa being thrown around quite as casually. You’re going to run into problems with your use of that term here in today’s political environment. I favor restricted immigration and a longer border wall, and free speech rights for even the most detestable in society. If that’s a qualifier for a white supremacist as you use it, and not just David duke and Richard Spencer and followers with tiki torches, then I’d argue you’re mistaken. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 03 2019 01:25 NewSunshine wrote: I also want to know how calling someone a "non-journalist" is qualitatively different from calling what they do "fake news"? + Show Spoiler + On July 02 2019 23:44 Danglars wrote: The fascistic impulse is to label disfavored reporting " That's simply assaulting a journalist, and trying to partially excuse it along the lines of "he was asking for it." In this case, "fascist cooption of liberal social norms" is a rebranding of "illiberalism is justified when it's not the right kind of people doijng the reporting." I'd say that's a stone's throw from saying because he was gay and Asian, he was coopting norms. Different labels, essentially same reasoning. Suddenly that doesn't seem to read the same way. Their work product and what that says about their ethics is quite a different thing than credentialism of farva’s stripe. The journalists at the NYT and WaPo regularly publish misleading stories with major omissions or extreme slant. It doesn’t mean they’re not journalists. It doesn’t relate to calling somebody not a journalist to mean something material in violence against that person. As a reminder, you haven’t weighed in on the main disagreement prompting farva’s string of posts. | ||
| ||
