|
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 |
On July 03 2019 04:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 04:55 maybenexttime wrote:On July 03 2019 04:50 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 03:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Acrofales wrote: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. 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. 1) I wouldn't call WW2 the anti-fascist route. Rather it was just geopolitics as usual. The UK didn't really care what political ideology Hitler adhered to. And cared even less about Italy. I imagine they'd have been even more worried if they were communists. The main issue was that they didn't want a new German empire gobbling up all of Europe. France was, understandably, even more worried. Sure, it definitely suited the allies that the Nazis were doing gruesomely horrible things in the countries they controlled, but that wasn't why the war started. The US was even less worried about fascism, and initially there was quite a lot of support for the German cause. Especially in the face of the political elite who were scared shitless of communism. Whitewashing the Allies' motives as nobly anti-fascist after the fact definitely makes them look good (and don't get me wrong, they were definitely "on the right side" of that fight), but the reasons for going to war initially had very very little to do with stopping those evil fascists. So unless the fascists take full control of the country and stat invading Canada and Mexico, I don't think we'll go the anti-fascist route. 2) I'm a bit surprised you don't get the problem here. What makes your morality the "right" one? You'll have to do a bit better than that. If you and Andy Ngo both want to beat one another up, what gives you the moral high ground over him? As a third party, why should I intervene on your behalf and stop Andy from punching you, but not stop you from punching Andy? To me you both look like belligerent fools who need to sleep it off in jail. 3) No. I'm trying to point out that you are making innocent victims by wanting to beat up fascists. Just like those people on 4chan who dox people. Sometimes they dox the scum of the earth and I kinda sympathize and think they deserve it. And sometimes they dox people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their lives get ruined all the same, and they were totally innocent. Same thing. Just because you think someone is a fascist in the spur of the moment, doesn't mean they are. And you might just be beating up an innocent bystander. 1) Okay sure that distinction makes sense, I can grant you that if you want. The end result is still that we dealt with the fascists with violence. 2) There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over fascists is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. 3) Sure, if I am morally fine with assaulting fascists, and I assault someone who I think is a fascist, but it turns out they aren't, I am no longer morally justified. That's not a groundbreaking statement tho. I guess that would make people assaulting you justified because they could feel threatened by your support of political violence and potentially becoming innocent victims of it. ;-) The only people who should feel threatened by my support of political violence are fascists, and fascists weren't waiting for this to justify assaulting me and people like me. A key component of fascism is the view that social progress is decadent and causes society to become degenerate. My views are literally making society fall apart, they are already coming after me. In your previous post you admitted that you may misidentify someone as a fascist. You are intellectually dishonest. I've been called a fascists on a few occasions by communist nutjobs (as well as being called a communist/socialist by libertarian nuts). Why would I not feel threatened by people like you? How am I intellectually dishonest? Of course it's possible that someone will be misidentified as a fascist, and in that case, an attack on them is, in my view, morally wrong. What else should I be saying in order to be honest according to you?
You gave a reason why innocent people can feel threatened by the likes of you (being targeted by mistake) and then claim they have no reason to be afraid. FFS...
|
How can you be innocent and a white supremacist or fascist?
|
On July 03 2019 05:02 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 04:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 04:55 maybenexttime wrote:On July 03 2019 04:50 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 03:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Acrofales wrote: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. 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. 1) I wouldn't call WW2 the anti-fascist route. Rather it was just geopolitics as usual. The UK didn't really care what political ideology Hitler adhered to. And cared even less about Italy. I imagine they'd have been even more worried if they were communists. The main issue was that they didn't want a new German empire gobbling up all of Europe. France was, understandably, even more worried. Sure, it definitely suited the allies that the Nazis were doing gruesomely horrible things in the countries they controlled, but that wasn't why the war started. The US was even less worried about fascism, and initially there was quite a lot of support for the German cause. Especially in the face of the political elite who were scared shitless of communism. Whitewashing the Allies' motives as nobly anti-fascist after the fact definitely makes them look good (and don't get me wrong, they were definitely "on the right side" of that fight), but the reasons for going to war initially had very very little to do with stopping those evil fascists. So unless the fascists take full control of the country and stat invading Canada and Mexico, I don't think we'll go the anti-fascist route. 2) I'm a bit surprised you don't get the problem here. What makes your morality the "right" one? You'll have to do a bit better than that. If you and Andy Ngo both want to beat one another up, what gives you the moral high ground over him? As a third party, why should I intervene on your behalf and stop Andy from punching you, but not stop you from punching Andy? To me you both look like belligerent fools who need to sleep it off in jail. 3) No. I'm trying to point out that you are making innocent victims by wanting to beat up fascists. Just like those people on 4chan who dox people. Sometimes they dox the scum of the earth and I kinda sympathize and think they deserve it. And sometimes they dox people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their lives get ruined all the same, and they were totally innocent. Same thing. Just because you think someone is a fascist in the spur of the moment, doesn't mean they are. And you might just be beating up an innocent bystander. 1) Okay sure that distinction makes sense, I can grant you that if you want. The end result is still that we dealt with the fascists with violence. 2) There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over fascists is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. 3) Sure, if I am morally fine with assaulting fascists, and I assault someone who I think is a fascist, but it turns out they aren't, I am no longer morally justified. That's not a groundbreaking statement tho. I guess that would make people assaulting you justified because they could feel threatened by your support of political violence and potentially becoming innocent victims of it. ;-) The only people who should feel threatened by my support of political violence are fascists, and fascists weren't waiting for this to justify assaulting me and people like me. A key component of fascism is the view that social progress is decadent and causes society to become degenerate. My views are literally making society fall apart, they are already coming after me. In your previous post you admitted that you may misidentify someone as a fascist. You are intellectually dishonest. I've been called a fascists on a few occasions by communist nutjobs (as well as being called a communist/socialist by libertarian nuts). Why would I not feel threatened by people like you? How am I intellectually dishonest? Of course it's possible that someone will be misidentified as a fascist, and in that case, an attack on them is, in my view, morally wrong. What else should I be saying in order to be honest according to you? You gave a reason why innocent people can feel threatened by the likes of you (being targeted by mistake) and then claim they have no reason to be afraid. FFS...
If that's your threshold and you apply it consistently, I'm guessing you feel threatened by stuff all the time and therefore feel justified in punching back all the time. Fascists might mistake you for a leftist at some point, considering libertarians think you are a communist. So according to this logic, they represent a threat to you and you are justified in punching them back. When we decide to put criminals in prison, we also accept that a percentage of the time we're going to put an innocent in prison. I assure you this is something that comes up all the time and doesn't really represent a huge problem for most moral views.
On a more basic level, if you feeling threatened by me having the possibility to make a mistake about you justifies your violence against me, then surely me knowing that fascists are threatening me and wouldn't make a mistake in targeting me justifies my violence against them.
|
On July 03 2019 05:11 Artisreal wrote:
How can you be innocent and a white supremacist or fascist?
Do you have to be one to be targeted by anti-fascists?
On July 03 2019 05:13 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 05:02 maybenexttime wrote:On July 03 2019 04:59 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 04:55 maybenexttime wrote:On July 03 2019 04:50 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 03:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
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. 1) I wouldn't call WW2 the anti-fascist route. Rather it was just geopolitics as usual. The UK didn't really care what political ideology Hitler adhered to. And cared even less about Italy. I imagine they'd have been even more worried if they were communists. The main issue was that they didn't want a new German empire gobbling up all of Europe. France was, understandably, even more worried. Sure, it definitely suited the allies that the Nazis were doing gruesomely horrible things in the countries they controlled, but that wasn't why the war started. The US was even less worried about fascism, and initially there was quite a lot of support for the German cause. Especially in the face of the political elite who were scared shitless of communism. Whitewashing the Allies' motives as nobly anti-fascist after the fact definitely makes them look good (and don't get me wrong, they were definitely "on the right side" of that fight), but the reasons for going to war initially had very very little to do with stopping those evil fascists. So unless the fascists take full control of the country and stat invading Canada and Mexico, I don't think we'll go the anti-fascist route. 2) I'm a bit surprised you don't get the problem here. What makes your morality the "right" one? You'll have to do a bit better than that. If you and Andy Ngo both want to beat one another up, what gives you the moral high ground over him? As a third party, why should I intervene on your behalf and stop Andy from punching you, but not stop you from punching Andy? To me you both look like belligerent fools who need to sleep it off in jail. 3) No. I'm trying to point out that you are making innocent victims by wanting to beat up fascists. Just like those people on 4chan who dox people. Sometimes they dox the scum of the earth and I kinda sympathize and think they deserve it. And sometimes they dox people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their lives get ruined all the same, and they were totally innocent. Same thing. Just because you think someone is a fascist in the spur of the moment, doesn't mean they are. And you might just be beating up an innocent bystander. 1) Okay sure that distinction makes sense, I can grant you that if you want. The end result is still that we dealt with the fascists with violence. 2) There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over fascists is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. 3) Sure, if I am morally fine with assaulting fascists, and I assault someone who I think is a fascist, but it turns out they aren't, I am no longer morally justified. That's not a groundbreaking statement tho. I guess that would make people assaulting you justified because they could feel threatened by your support of political violence and potentially becoming innocent victims of it. ;-) The only people who should feel threatened by my support of political violence are fascists, and fascists weren't waiting for this to justify assaulting me and people like me. A key component of fascism is the view that social progress is decadent and causes society to become degenerate. My views are literally making society fall apart, they are already coming after me. In your previous post you admitted that you may misidentify someone as a fascist. You are intellectually dishonest. I've been called a fascists on a few occasions by communist nutjobs (as well as being called a communist/socialist by libertarian nuts). Why would I not feel threatened by people like you? How am I intellectually dishonest? Of course it's possible that someone will be misidentified as a fascist, and in that case, an attack on them is, in my view, morally wrong. What else should I be saying in order to be honest according to you? You gave a reason why innocent people can feel threatened by the likes of you (being targeted by mistake) and then claim they have no reason to be afraid. FFS... If that's your threshold and you apply it consistently, I'm guessing you feel threatened by stuff all the time and therefore feel justified in punching back all the time. Fascists might mistake you for a leftist at some point, considering libertarians think you are a communist. So according to this logic, they represent a threat to you and you are justified in punching them back. When we decide to put criminals in prison, we also accept that a percentage of the time we're going to put an innocent in prison. I assure you this is something that comes up all the time and doesn't really represent a huge problem for most moral views. On a more basic level, if you feeling threatened by me having the possibility to make a mistake about you justifies your violence against me, then surely me knowing that fascists are threatening me and wouldn't make a mistake in targeting me justifies my violence against them.
I don't feel threatened by either. I'm merely pointing out the fact that your logic can be easily used to make assaulting you morally justified. I don't consider physical violence justified other than in defense against physical violence from others.
We're trying not to put innocent people in prison and we certainly do not base our sentences on gut feelings.
Edit: My take is that you don't actually feel physically threatened by people you consider fascists (outside of actual physical confrontations) simply because they may be advocating that. Rather, punching someone with whom you so vehemently disagree with would simply make you feel good, and you're trying to rationalize that.
|
On July 03 2019 04:57 JimmiC wrote:
It is very strange to read about Portland being right-wing and having these people in their police force. In the environmental world they are one of the (maybe the most) progressive cities in NA. I had just assumed that most of their politics were this way and that they were an overall progressive city. I guess this is why you shouldn't assume.
You're surprised that liberals and progressives who demonize all cops are at the same time not joining said organizations that they demonize? That they arnt throwing away their friends and joining a service they don't believe should exist for minimal pay, mental scarring and a long career before the option of retirement, all while having to then work with the same people they are told beat their wives, are inherently racist and are all bastards?
I mean half the problems people bitch and moan about the police are caused by people who bitch and moan about the police. They didn't start the fire but it's a huge negative loop that should be pretty obvious.
|
On July 03 2019 04:55 maybenexttime wrote: I've been called a fascists on a few occasions by communist nutjobs (as well as being called a communist/socialist by libertarian nuts)
As a minor aside, I get the same thing. Libertarians nuts call me names for my desired interference in the market for welfare and social policy. Communists call me names for my defense of low taxation and limited redistribution, as well as a million other things. It’s a good place to be in, honestly. The extremes have definitely gotten louder, but not too much more populous.
|
On July 03 2019 05:17 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 05:11 Artisreal wrote:
How can you be innocent and a white supremacist or fascist? Do you have to be one to be targeted by anti-fascists?
Thats not what you said.
But of course, people claiming to be anti fascists tend to be over enthusiastic at times (yes, euphemistic).
So apart from human error, no, you won't be targeted by anti fascists unless you're part of the target audience.
|
Canada11347 Posts
People are bad at identifying fascists and if I had no other reason, that would be sufficient for me to be against punching Nazis. I've seen more than enough videos of these antifa clowns calling police fascists or anyone who supports police, fascists. I have a pretty positive view of the police and generally the sort of person that joins the police force. I suppose I have a preeminently punch-able face.
As for Andy Ngo- I've had a hard time figuring out why he's so hated. I've seen a few of his videos before and it's mostly just him passively recording protesters, as they yell various terrible things at him. Most of them seem to hate his guts for whatever reason. It is known.
So then I bothered to track down his first sin:
He was fired from a previous student journalism job for deliberately misquoting a muslim student in a way that put them under threat, "in a way that put them under threat" How did he do that exactly?
The Muslim on the panel says thusly: (I have placed a few question marks ?? while transcribing because I had a hard time parsing a few words, but I think the main meaning is captured.)
"and ? is that you are referring to- killing non-Muslims. . .that is only considered a crime when the country is based on Koranic law. That means there is no other law than the Koran. So in that case, you are given the liberty to like, leave the country. You can go to a different country. I'm not going to shoot your car?? So you can go- a different country. But in a Muslim country, a country based on the Koranic laws. ?? or being an infidel is not allowed. So you will be given the choice. Do you agree?"
That was quotation in the original clip, minus the "Do you agree?" The only additional context from the second video is not from that particular Muslim, but it throws to another Muslim, but in the audience who does not agree. And in the second video, Andy adds in the description that just before recording a question was asked of Surah 5:51 and infidels, and the student panelist summarizes Surrah 5:32.
So the most charitable summary could be 'you are free to leave' (a very euphemistic way of saying banished) and maybe by 'not allowed', he means you would be imprisoned? The reality is, the speaker did not follow through with the logical conclusion. It's not allowed- so then what happens if you exercise your 'freedom' and stay. What then? Maybe if there was a follow up question, he could be pressed to qualify 'what do you mean by not allowed'.
Now Andy Ngo's summary was "interfaith panel today, the Muslim student speaker said that apostates will be killed or banished in an Islamic state." Not in quotations, therefore it's a summary, and if a person disagreed with the summary- well the actual video is right below.
But in context of 'you are free to leave', the student panelist also says 'I would not shoot your car" not "I'm not going to imprison you". (And begins with ''killing a non-Muslim. . .that is only considered a crime when the country is based on Koranic law.") The panelist did not qualify that it was only a historical crime to be an infidel. But rather the qualifier was that it is a crime only in a country that only has the Koran for a law. Therefore, according to the student speaker, it is a crime for present day Islamic states. Yes there was another Muslim student that disagreed- Islam is a very varied religion with lots of disagreement. But a disagreement of the second student provides no additional context to the panelist's statements that clearly defended it was a crime to be an infidel in a country with Koranic laws with the punishments being 'leave' or it is 'not allowed'. As such, I do not think Andy took anything from context unless there was a filming of the entire exchange that I have not found that reveals something different.
I mean, is it really so strange that you have countries of the same religion that severely restrict religious freedom that you might have some adherents outside of those countries also believe the same thing? Yes. Not all Muslims. But yes, this particular Muslim- which was what Andy's posted video clips were about.
But he is punch-able. It is known.
|
On July 03 2019 05:22 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 05:17 maybenexttime wrote:On July 03 2019 05:11 Artisreal wrote:
How can you be innocent and a white supremacist or fascist? Do you have to be one to be targeted by anti-fascists? Thats not what you said. But of course, people claiming to be anti fascists tend to be over enthusiastic at times (yes, euphemistic). So apart from human error, no, you won't be targeted by anti fascists unless you're part of the target audience.
Not what I said?
A few years ago antifa attacked a historical reenactment group in Poland because they were wearing uniforms, lol. I could easily be perceived as "the target audience" by some antifa hotheads. I'm bald and fairly muscular. But that is besides the point. According to Neb, feeling threatened with violence is a sufficient reason to respond with preemptive physical violence. Since mistakes happen, people can use the same justification to assault people like Neb.
On July 03 2019 04:55 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 04:50 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 03:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Acrofales wrote: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. 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. 1) I wouldn't call WW2 the anti-fascist route. Rather it was just geopolitics as usual. The UK didn't really care what political ideology Hitler adhered to. And cared even less about Italy. I imagine they'd have been even more worried if they were communists. The main issue was that they didn't want a new German empire gobbling up all of Europe. France was, understandably, even more worried. Sure, it definitely suited the allies that the Nazis were doing gruesomely horrible things in the countries they controlled, but that wasn't why the war started. The US was even less worried about fascism, and initially there was quite a lot of support for the German cause. Especially in the face of the political elite who were scared shitless of communism. Whitewashing the Allies' motives as nobly anti-fascist after the fact definitely makes them look good (and don't get me wrong, they were definitely "on the right side" of that fight), but the reasons for going to war initially had very very little to do with stopping those evil fascists. So unless the fascists take full control of the country and stat invading Canada and Mexico, I don't think we'll go the anti-fascist route. 2) I'm a bit surprised you don't get the problem here. What makes your morality the "right" one? You'll have to do a bit better than that. If you and Andy Ngo both want to beat one another up, what gives you the moral high ground over him? As a third party, why should I intervene on your behalf and stop Andy from punching you, but not stop you from punching Andy? To me you both look like belligerent fools who need to sleep it off in jail. 3) No. I'm trying to point out that you are making innocent victims by wanting to beat up fascists. Just like those people on 4chan who dox people. Sometimes they dox the scum of the earth and I kinda sympathize and think they deserve it. And sometimes they dox people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their lives get ruined all the same, and they were totally innocent. Same thing. Just because you think someone is a fascist in the spur of the moment, doesn't mean they are. And you might just be beating up an innocent bystander. 1) Okay sure that distinction makes sense, I can grant you that if you want. The end result is still that we dealt with the fascists with violence. 2) There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over fascists is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. 3) Sure, if I am morally fine with assaulting fascists, and I assault someone who I think is a fascist, but it turns out they aren't, I am no longer morally justified. That's not a groundbreaking statement tho. I guess that would make people assaulting you justified because they could feel threatened by your support of political violence and potentially becoming innocent victims of it. ;-) The only people who should feel threatened by my support of political violence are fascists, and fascists weren't waiting for this to justify assaulting me and people like me. A key component of fascism is the view that social progress is decadent and causes society to become degenerate. My views are literally making society fall apart, they are already coming after me. In your previous post you admitted that you may misidentify someone as a fascist. You are intellectually dishonest. I've been called a fascists on a few occasions by communist nutjobs (as well as being called a communist/socialist by libertarian nuts). Why would I not feel threatened by people like you?
|
This administration is fining immigrants ridiculous amounts for not leaving when ordered, regardless it seems, of when they arrived.
The Trump administration is seeking to fine some immigrants, who are in the United States illegally, hundreds of thousands of dollars for failing to take steps to leave after being ordered to do so, according to government documents obtained by NPR.
The Department of Homeland Security sent out a batch of notices across the country to targeted individuals ordering them to pay fines of up to nearly $500,000 for "failing to depart the U.S. as previously agreed," among other factors.
It's the latest hard-line effort by the administration as it clamps down on illegal immigration at the border and increases interior enforcement.
"It is the intention of ICE to order you pay a fine in the amount of $497,777," Lisa Hoechst, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, wrote to Edith Espinal Moreno in a letter dated June 25, 2019, obtained by NPR from lawyers for Moreno.
https://n.pr/2LwEzpO］Trump Administration Hits Some Immigrants In U.S. Illegally With Fines Up To $500,000 https:[/url]
|
Falling: that isn't the original sin fwiw, Ngo was already talking about Antifa when he started getting known for stuff on the left. That was added later when people searched his history. I will review what you said here when I get home and if I find that you're right I will drop that specific part the next time I talk about this.
|
Canada11347 Posts
On July 03 2019 05:44 Nebuchad wrote:
Falling: that isn't the original sin fwiw, Ngo was already talking about Antifa when he started getting known for stuff on the left. That was added later when people searched his history. I will review what you said here when I get home and if I find that you're right I will drop that specific part the next time I talk about this.
That's fair.
For ease of access, here's the two videos I found that I was using for analysis:
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/857430129575813126/video/1
Second clip was posted two and a half hours after the first.
|
On July 03 2019 05:36 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:This administration is fining immigrants ridiculous amounts for not leaving when ordered, regardless it seems, of when they arrived. Show nested quote + The Trump administration is seeking to fine some immigrants, who are in the United States illegally, hundreds of thousands of dollars for failing to take steps to leave after being ordered to do so, according to government documents obtained by NPR.
The Department of Homeland Security sent out a batch of notices across the country to targeted individuals ordering them to pay fines of up to nearly $500,000 for "failing to depart the U.S. as previously agreed," among other factors.
It's the latest hard-line effort by the administration as it clamps down on illegal immigration at the border and increases interior enforcement.
"It is the intention of ICE to order you pay a fine in the amount of $497,777," Lisa Hoechst, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, wrote to Edith Espinal Moreno in a letter dated June 25, 2019, obtained by NPR from lawyers for Moreno. https://n.pr/2LwEzpO］Trump Administration Hits Some Immigrants In U.S. Illegally With Fines Up To $500,000 https: [/url]
What is the administration going to do if they don't pay the fine? Deport them? they were already told they can't stay lol
|
On July 03 2019 05:36 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:This administration is fining immigrants ridiculous amounts for not leaving when ordered, regardless it seems, of when they arrived. Show nested quote + The Trump administration is seeking to fine some immigrants, who are in the United States illegally, hundreds of thousands of dollars for failing to take steps to leave after being ordered to do so, according to government documents obtained by NPR.
The Department of Homeland Security sent out a batch of notices across the country to targeted individuals ordering them to pay fines of up to nearly $500,000 for "failing to depart the U.S. as previously agreed," among other factors.
It's the latest hard-line effort by the administration as it clamps down on illegal immigration at the border and increases interior enforcement.
"It is the intention of ICE to order you pay a fine in the amount of $497,777," Lisa Hoechst, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, wrote to Edith Espinal Moreno in a letter dated June 25, 2019, obtained by NPR from lawyers for Moreno. https://n.pr/2LwEzpO］Trump Administration Hits Some Immigrants In U.S. Illegally With Fines Up To $500,000 https: [/url]
Probably just a ploy so that they can say "did you know the average immigrant has over half a million dollars in debt that they'll never pay? They are stealing from tax payers!"
|
As others have pointed out, even if we were to accept that punching fascists is justified (Which i do not accept), you have the major problem of false positives. Add to that that the type of person who is very enthusiastic about punching fascists is probably also very enthusiastic about finding fascists to punch. A similar situation would be the person who is very enthusiastic about defending his home against invaders with his gun. And that type of people tend to have very high rates of false positives.
I am very much not a fan of fascists. But i am also and especially not a fan of violence and not a fan of accidentally punching not fascists. Another big problem is the propaganda effect. I would say that in most situations nowadays, if someone gets violently attacked, that profits the group interests of the attacked far more than those of the attacker (It might be different with regards to individual interests). People tend to dislike violence. Just imagine how many more people would act like Danglars does if there actually were hordes of leftists running around and beating random people up en masse. We really do not need that.
|
On July 03 2019 05:52 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 05:36 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:This administration is fining immigrants ridiculous amounts for not leaving when ordered, regardless it seems, of when they arrived. The Trump administration is seeking to fine some immigrants, who are in the United States illegally, hundreds of thousands of dollars for failing to take steps to leave after being ordered to do so, according to government documents obtained by NPR.
The Department of Homeland Security sent out a batch of notices across the country to targeted individuals ordering them to pay fines of up to nearly $500,000 for "failing to depart the U.S. as previously agreed," among other factors.
It's the latest hard-line effort by the administration as it clamps down on illegal immigration at the border and increases interior enforcement.
"It is the intention of ICE to order you pay a fine in the amount of $497,777," Lisa Hoechst, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, wrote to Edith Espinal Moreno in a letter dated June 25, 2019, obtained by NPR from lawyers for Moreno. https://n.pr/2LwEzpO］Trump Administration Hits Some Immigrants In U.S. Illegally With Fines Up To $500,000 https: What is the administration going to do if they don't pay the fine? Deport them? they were already told they can't stay lol [/url]
It's like he's treating this like housing in the 80s. He can try to evict them, but it won't work.
|
On July 03 2019 05:55 Simberto wrote:
As others have pointed out, even if we were to accept that punching fascists is justified (Which i do not accept), you have the major problem of false positives. Add to that that the type of person who is very enthusiastic about punching fascists is probably also very enthusiastic about finding fascists to punch. A similar situation would be the person who is very enthusiastic about defending his home against invaders with his gun. And that type of people tend to have very high rates of false positives.
I am very much not a fan of fascists. But i am also and especially not a fan of violence and not a fan of accidentally punching not fascists. Another big problem is the propaganda effect. I would say that in most situations nowadays, if someone gets violently attacked, that profits the group interests of the attacked far more than those of the attacker (It might be different with regards to individual interests). People tend to dislike violence. Just imagine how many more people would act like Danglars does if there actually were hordes of leftists running around and beating random people up en masse. We really do not need that.
I really don't think false positives are a major problem and I honestly don't think you think it either. All of the violence that is accepted by non-violent liberals, which is state violence, has false positives. That includes prisons, controls by police, riot officers, border police... We don't really go "Oh this could lead to an innocent being targeted, therefore it's unacceptable". We look at the positive and negative results and the positive and negative consequences.
If you are trying to say that the benefits don't outweigh the risk and you're making a shortcut, then you have a sustainable position, but I would suggest you don't make that shortcut because it makes your position sound ridiculous. I'll just add that I think you overestimate the risk a whole lot.
|
On July 03 2019 06:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 05:55 Simberto wrote:
As others have pointed out, even if we were to accept that punching fascists is justified (Which i do not accept), you have the major problem of false positives. Add to that that the type of person who is very enthusiastic about punching fascists is probably also very enthusiastic about finding fascists to punch. A similar situation would be the person who is very enthusiastic about defending his home against invaders with his gun. And that type of people tend to have very high rates of false positives.
I am very much not a fan of fascists. But i am also and especially not a fan of violence and not a fan of accidentally punching not fascists. Another big problem is the propaganda effect. I would say that in most situations nowadays, if someone gets violently attacked, that profits the group interests of the attacked far more than those of the attacker (It might be different with regards to individual interests). People tend to dislike violence. Just imagine how many more people would act like Danglars does if there actually were hordes of leftists running around and beating random people up en masse. We really do not need that. I really don't think false positives are a major problem and I honestly don't think you think it either. Most of the violence that is accepted by non-violent liberals, which is state violence, has false positives. That includes prisons, controls by police, riot officers, border police... We don't really go "Oh this could lead to an innocent being targeted, therefore it's unacceptable". We look at the positive and negative results and the positive and negative consequences. If you are trying to say that the benefits don't outweigh the risk and you're making a shortcut, then you have a sustainable position, but I would suggest you don't make that shortcut because it makes your position sound ridiculous. I'll just add that I think you overestimate the risk a whole lot.
The difference is that the justice system tries to prove beyond reasonable doubt that whoever is sentenced is guilty of the crime. Additionally, aside from the punitive function, prison is supposed to resocialize the criminals and/or protect the society from them. "Punching a fascist", on the other hand, is based on gut feelings and serves none of the aforementioned purposes.
|
On July 03 2019 00:33 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that it even matters whether he is a journalist for the purpose of justifying the violence is quite disgusting, though it certainly is emblematic of leftist tyranny at its finest. Perhaps the next time someone complains about Trump and conservatives being nazis, it would do well for that person to remember which side of the aisle actually has their own brown shirts. Oh you mean the Proud Boys? I mean yeah, they swapped out the brown shirt for an ill-fitting black dollar store polo and paired it with pants suitable for grandma's 80th birthday, but they fulfill a similar role. Though if they were ever required to actually defend a pro-Trump event it wouldn't go well because they might be required to actually be physically active in some way, and given that most of them appear to be in such bad conditioning that they couldn't run more than a quarter of a block, they may have some issues.
It's weird how it's always far-right groups that feel the need to have matching outfits. The KKK have their bedsheets and pointy hats, the Charlottesville tiki torch idiots had their white polos with khakis, and the Proud Boys have their previously mentioned outfits.
And let's take a second to recognize that it was at Trump rallies that we first started seeing reports of people threatening the press in context to the last few years. Seeing someone who regularly defends the guy who popularized the term "fake news" and hostility towards the press try to pin the recent threats against media figures strictly on the "leftist tyranny" is pretty rich. I can't recall Obama or Hillary calling unfavourable coverage "fake news" or declaring the press the enemy of the people.
edit: The Trump administration has appeared to have admitted defeat on the citizenship question for the census. The DoJ has confirmed to the plaintiffs in the case that the 2020 census will be printed without the question included. Given that the SC basically already told the administration that they they would rule against them barring a better explanation (which in itself was not likely to happen given the administration's entire case appeared to be premised on a lie and they didn't have any other way of justifying it), this was to be expected. It's good to see that this is confirmed to be the case though.
www.cnn.com
|
On July 03 2019 06:24 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 06:07 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 05:55 Simberto wrote:
As others have pointed out, even if we were to accept that punching fascists is justified (Which i do not accept), you have the major problem of false positives. Add to that that the type of person who is very enthusiastic about punching fascists is probably also very enthusiastic about finding fascists to punch. A similar situation would be the person who is very enthusiastic about defending his home against invaders with his gun. And that type of people tend to have very high rates of false positives.
I am very much not a fan of fascists. But i am also and especially not a fan of violence and not a fan of accidentally punching not fascists. Another big problem is the propaganda effect. I would say that in most situations nowadays, if someone gets violently attacked, that profits the group interests of the attacked far more than those of the attacker (It might be different with regards to individual interests). People tend to dislike violence. Just imagine how many more people would act like Danglars does if there actually were hordes of leftists running around and beating random people up en masse. We really do not need that. I really don't think false positives are a major problem and I honestly don't think you think it either. Most of the violence that is accepted by non-violent liberals, which is state violence, has false positives. That includes prisons, controls by police, riot officers, border police... We don't really go "Oh this could lead to an innocent being targeted, therefore it's unacceptable". We look at the positive and negative results and the positive and negative consequences. If you are trying to say that the benefits don't outweigh the risk and you're making a shortcut, then you have a sustainable position, but I would suggest you don't make that shortcut because it makes your position sound ridiculous. I'll just add that I think you overestimate the risk a whole lot. The difference is that the justice system tries to prove beyond reasonable doubt that whoever is sentenced is guilty of the crime. Additionally, aside from the punitive function, prison is supposed to resocialize the criminals and/or protect the society from them. "Punching a fascist", on the other hand, is based on gut feelings and serves none of the aforementioned purposes.
The justice system jails you before your trial and any question of reasonable doubt if you don't have enough money to skip that. At least in America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
