|
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 05:36 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 05:22 Artisreal wrote: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. 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?
I was getting at you asking whether white supremacists could be innocent. I did not include "false positives" in my reply.
Forthermore, my main irk right not is with equating people who do (violent) shit while calling themselves/bein part of "antifa" (which according to my personal experience does happen) and generally violent ideologies like white supremacism. Like the evil at work isn't even remotely in the same league. If someone wants to proclaim anyone else's life to be worth less than his/hers, I can't feel any remorse for them being hurt.
It aint solving the problem, but I aint got no problem with them getting a fightback.
I should add that I cannot condone preemptive violence at all. As I think everyone has the right to bodily integrity.
Even a white supremacist, who does not accept the same premise for those s/he considers to be less of worth.
|
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 would imagine there would be less people who act like Danglars if a dog whistle will get you beaten up, to be honest with you.
|
On July 03 2019 06:50 Artisreal wrote:I was getting at you asking whether white supremacists could be innocent. I did not include "false positives" in my reply.
I really don't know what you're trying to say here. I was clearly talking about false positives all along.
Forthermore, my main irk right not is with equating people who do (violent) shit while calling themselves/bein part of "antifa" (which according to my personal experience does happen) and generally violent ideologies like white supremacism. Like the evil at work isn't even remotely in the same league. If someone wants to proclaim anyone else's life to be worth less than his/hers, I can't feel any remorse for them being hurt.
I don't necessarily see what antifascists perceive as fascism to be generally violent ideologies (you could be a racial separatist who supports peaceful means for example). From my experience, they seem rather frivolous in terms of whom they classify as a fascist. On both extremes we have people who advocate for physical violence in dealing with people they consider a threat.
Ironically, from the conservative point of view, the position the left has on abortion is an example of someone else's life being worth less.
Edit: From their respective points of view, both sides are protecting the most vulnerable (minorities in case of the left and unborn children in case of the right) from people trying to deprive them of their rights.
It aint solving the problem, but I aint got no problem with them getting a fightback.
I should add that I cannot condone preemptive violence at all. As I think everyone has the right to bodily integrity.
Even a white supremacist, who does not accept the same premise for those s/he considers to be less of worth.
My point was that comparing lynching people to the justice system is flawed on many levels.
|
On July 03 2019 06:34 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The veil over that attempt to seize the moral high ground is so thin as to be gossamer. They regularly attempt to demean and devalue media they don't like, while holding their right-wing outlets to no meaningful level of accountability. If they've never said it themselves, they still rally behind a man who regularly uses classic fascist rhetoric regarding the free press in this country.
But now that the subject of discussion is a group of people that isn't their far-right gang of dude-bros, the press is sacred and the work of journalists must be protected and placed on a pedestal. Suddenly, their priorities are in order, when it just so happens to favor their agenda. Who's going to take that seriously?
|
On July 03 2019 07:20 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 06:34 Ben... wrote: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. The veil over that attempt to seize the moral high ground is so thin as to be gossamer. They regularly attempt to demean and devalue media they don't like, while holding their right-wing outlets to no meaningful level of accountability. If they've never said it themselves, they still rally behind a man who regularly uses classic fascist rhetoric regarding the free press in this country. But now that the subject of discussion is a group of people that isn't their far-right gang of dude-bros, the press is sacred and the work of journalists must be protected and placed on a pedestal. Suddenly, their priorities are in order, when it just so happens to favor their agenda. Who's going to take that seriously? The playful hurdling back and forth overtop the point of contention is precisely the mechanism through which far-right ideas get air play, so much so that even folks who would otherwise not harbor any reactionary sentiments are roped into defending a side and taking a corner, which coincidentally happens to almost always land on the same side of the aisle.
|
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. Trump Administration Hits Some Immigrants In U.S. Illegally With Fines Up To $500,000 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
Fear tactics, it's not like they going to seize their assets and garnish their wages. Credit scores are usually a per country sort of thing. Nothing but trying to scare and hurt people. Not actions of an earnest actor.
|
On July 03 2019 07:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 07:20 NewSunshine wrote:On July 03 2019 06:34 Ben... wrote: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. The veil over that attempt to seize the moral high ground is so thin as to be gossamer. They regularly attempt to demean and devalue media they don't like, while holding their right-wing outlets to no meaningful level of accountability. If they've never said it themselves, they still rally behind a man who regularly uses classic fascist rhetoric regarding the free press in this country. But now that the subject of discussion is a group of people that isn't their far-right gang of dude-bros, the press is sacred and the work of journalists must be protected and placed on a pedestal. Suddenly, their priorities are in order, when it just so happens to favor their agenda. Who's going to take that seriously? The playful hurdling back and forth overtop the point of contention is precisely the mechanism through which far-right ideas get air play, so much so that even folks who would otherwise not harbor any reactionary sentiments are roped into defending a side and taking a corner, which coincidentally happens to almost always land on the same side of the aisle.
The problem is, I don't condone violence, like that which underlies the whole issue. Violence is unacceptable, but I also have a hard time with the idea that a group like Antifa are literally exactly the same as Nazi's, but just for the left. I see a lot of noise about them from conservatives, but I just don't see much else to support the idea at all.
If you're Danglars and you're trying to argue to me that the work of journalists, professional and amateur, is important, and must be held in high esteem, I have a problem. I'm half with you. On one hand, yes, in this case I agree with you, but I can't help but feel that if, tomorrow, MSNBC and CNN ran a story about rally-goers at a Trump rally threatening to shoot someone, we'd be right back to shouting Fake News, or calling their stories misleading, or talking about how they lie through omission, or one of the dozen ways he's found to criticize media he doesn't like, without outright resorting to "the press is the enemy of the people", since he knows that line is flat out unacceptable in a free country. Meanwhile, outlets like Fox News and Breitbart never seem to enter the conversation. They go completely unchecked. Hannity is paid handsomely to run insane conspiracies that have been long-debunked for anyone who watches any other outlet, but somehow Fox News is fine.
All this, I guess, is a long-winded way of pointing out how good they have been at not getting whiplash. Not just them. This isn't me just lambasting Danglars and xDaunt, they sure aren't unique here. But I couldn't hold a stance on an important issue like that, only to turn it completely upside down later, just for convenience's sake, and exactly on partisan lines. I'd feel like shit. I was raised on the notion that this country is great, not that only one political party is great, and fuck you if you don't tow the line.That was something that, ever since my youth, was the definition of un-American. That was supposed to be what we stood on guard against, not embraced wholeheartedly.
|
On July 03 2019 06:48 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 06:24 maybenexttime wrote: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.
Don't forget if you have enough money you can get out by just promising to pay in the event you do flee.
|
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.
Yours? The side that literal neo-nazis support?
Even by your standards, Daunt, this is a lame attempt. Not even 'at its finest', just lazy.
|
This is gonna be a weird July 4th event. The president is going to celebrate the massive standing military that is under his control. The founders would be horrified.
|
United States24701 Posts
The Department of Justice has confirmed that the U.S. Census forms will now go to printing without inclusion of a question about citizenship. Considering how long the alternative (providing new justification to the courts) would take, the Democrats would have way too much leverage if the current administration decided to put off the census. Still, this is an obvious defeat handed to the Trump administration by Congress and SCOTUS.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/politics/doj-census-citizenship-question/index.html
|
On July 03 2019 08:10 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +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. Yours? The side that literal neo-nazis support? Even by your standards, Daunt, this is a lame attempt. Not even 'at its finest', just lazy.
Thats pretty shitty. You can't disqualify entire sides of an argument based on the people who support it. That just leads to people finding crazier and crazier people supporting the other sides arguments until nothing can be supported.
Its really been something to see the left in the 21st-century embrace and celebrate censorship and violence in reaction to the same. The idea that your enemy should be your teacher but is okay if you're on the correct side.
|
On July 03 2019 08:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 08:10 iamthedave wrote: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. Yours? The side that literal neo-nazis support? Even by your standards, Daunt, this is a lame attempt. Not even 'at its finest', just lazy. Thats pretty shitty. You can't disqualify entire sides of an argument based on the people who support it. That just leads to people finding crazier and crazier people supporting the other sides arguments until nothing can be supported. Its really been something to see the left in the 21st-century embrace and celebrate censorship and violence in reaction to the same. The idea that your enemy should be your teacher but is okay if you're on the correct side.
What are you talking about my friend? All of the regular liberals on this forum have said that they don't condone violence even against fascists, even some of our socdems and one of our communists agreed, what's that broad statement about the left right after you talked about disqualifying entire sides?
(I don't think farva is a liberal :p)
|
On July 03 2019 08:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 08:40 Sermokala wrote:On July 03 2019 08:10 iamthedave wrote: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. Yours? The side that literal neo-nazis support? Even by your standards, Daunt, this is a lame attempt. Not even 'at its finest', just lazy. Thats pretty shitty. You can't disqualify entire sides of an argument based on the people who support it. That just leads to people finding crazier and crazier people supporting the other sides arguments until nothing can be supported. Its really been something to see the left in the 21st-century embrace and celebrate censorship and violence in reaction to the same. The idea that your enemy should be your teacher but is okay if you're on the correct side. What are you talking about my friend? All of the regular liberals on this forum have said that they don't condone violence even against fascists, even some of our socdems and one of our communists agreed, what's that broad statement about the left right after you talked about disqualifying entire sides? (I don't think farva is a liberal :p)
You just excused punching nazies even if you weren't sure about it. catdog said that they'red be less people who agree with danglers if saying "dog whistles" got you beat up.
I don't know what you are confused with my second part, clearly, the left realized that it enjoys censoring whatever it labels as other to itself and as decided to use the phrase "paradox of intolerance" to justify not tolerating anything it disagrees with.
|
I'm not the left sermo. I'm just some dude.
|
On July 03 2019 08:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 08:10 iamthedave wrote: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. Yours? The side that literal neo-nazis support? Even by your standards, Daunt, this is a lame attempt. Not even 'at its finest', just lazy. Thats pretty shitty. You can't disqualify entire sides of an argument based on the people who support it. That just leads to people finding crazier and crazier people supporting the other sides arguments until nothing can be supported. Its really been something to see the left in the 21st-century embrace and celebrate censorship and violence in reaction to the same. The idea that your enemy should be your teacher but is okay if you're on the correct side.
What are you talking about? Read what I said. Read what I'm replying to. Engage your brain. Then try a reply.
I'm not really getting involved in the talk about Antifa. I've never been a supporter of theirs nor am I likely to start being tomorrow. They do some good work but they fuck it up with stunts like this.
But it's crocodile tears when the right whine about Antifa. How far did you think the envelope could be pushed before people got scared and stupid and started being violent? Antifa's a response. Not a nice one, and it's going to get worse. This is what the right wants and it's what it's going to get, unfortunately.
User was warned for this post.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 03 2019 09:47 iamthedave wrote:
I'm not really getting involved in the talk about Antifa. I've never been a supporter of theirs nor am I likely to start being tomorrow. They do some good work but they fuck it up with stunts like this.
Direct action, to use the euphemism, is always what Antifa has been about. Even their original incarnations in the late 30's focused on tactically disrupting and battling far-right groups under the guise of anonymity (while drawing from the same playbooks that informed fascism during the same period).
On July 03 2019 09:47 iamthedave wrote:
But it's crocodile tears when the right whine about Antifa. How far did you think the envelope could be pushed before people got scared and stupid and started being violent? Antifa's a response. Not a nice one, and it's going to get worse. This is what the right wants and it's what it's going to get, unfortunately.
Hardly. Antifa is the latest culmination of a century of revolutionary leftist intellectual thought, and existed long before Trump entered office. They are also not "stupid" at all. Their decentralized, autonomous organizational framework is deliberate as well as communicating through various P2P networks and encrypted services like Signal.
|
On July 03 2019 09:24 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 08:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 08:40 Sermokala wrote:On July 03 2019 08:10 iamthedave wrote: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. Yours? The side that literal neo-nazis support? Even by your standards, Daunt, this is a lame attempt. Not even 'at its finest', just lazy. Thats pretty shitty. You can't disqualify entire sides of an argument based on the people who support it. That just leads to people finding crazier and crazier people supporting the other sides arguments until nothing can be supported. Its really been something to see the left in the 21st-century embrace and celebrate censorship and violence in reaction to the same. The idea that your enemy should be your teacher but is okay if you're on the correct side. What are you talking about my friend? All of the regular liberals on this forum have said that they don't condone violence even against fascists, even some of our socdems and one of our communists agreed, what's that broad statement about the left right after you talked about disqualifying entire sides? (I don't think farva is a liberal :p) You just excused punching nazies even if you weren't sure about it. catdog said that they'red be less people who agree with danglers if saying "dog whistles" got you beat up. I don't know what you are confused with my second part, clearly, the left realized that it enjoys censoring whatever it labels as other to itself and as decided to use the phrase "paradox of intolerance" to justify not tolerating anything it disagrees with.
And once again, it is "the left" that you see as a group doing that, while what actually happens on this forum is that two people who are part of "the left" state that they personally find it acceptable, while the rest of "the left" disagrees. The last few pages have been people on "the left" arguing against other people on "the left".
I, for example, see myself as clearly on "the left", and i also very clearly stated that i disagree with violence, even against fascists.
And your takeaway from this is that this homogenous group of "the left" are all in favor of violence and censorship. Talk about perception bias. If you don't want people to perceive you as the same as actual neonazis because they are both on "the right", and assume that you are in favor of everything that neonazis are in favor of, maybe also don't assume that "the left" is this large unanimous blob that you can perceive by taking the parts people on "the left" say and do that you disagree with the most, and assume that everyone on "the left" thinks and does those things.
|
On July 03 2019 09:24 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 08:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 08:40 Sermokala wrote:On July 03 2019 08:10 iamthedave wrote: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. Yours? The side that literal neo-nazis support? Even by your standards, Daunt, this is a lame attempt. Not even 'at its finest', just lazy. Thats pretty shitty. You can't disqualify entire sides of an argument based on the people who support it. That just leads to people finding crazier and crazier people supporting the other sides arguments until nothing can be supported. Its really been something to see the left in the 21st-century embrace and celebrate censorship and violence in reaction to the same. The idea that your enemy should be your teacher but is okay if you're on the correct side. What are you talking about my friend? All of the regular liberals on this forum have said that they don't condone violence even against fascists, even some of our socdems and one of our communists agreed, what's that broad statement about the left right after you talked about disqualifying entire sides? (I don't think farva is a liberal :p) You just excused punching nazies even if you weren't sure about it. catdog said that they'red be less people who agree with danglers if saying "dog whistles" got you beat up. I don't know what you are confused with my second part, clearly, the left realized that it enjoys censoring whatever it labels as other to itself and as decided to use the phrase "paradox of intolerance" to justify not tolerating anything it disagrees with.
Do you support people like Alex Jones pretending and pushing the story that the sandy hook massacre was a fake news and a lie?
|
On July 03 2019 11:01 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 09:47 iamthedave wrote:
I'm not really getting involved in the talk about Antifa. I've never been a supporter of theirs nor am I likely to start being tomorrow. They do some good work but they fuck it up with stunts like this. Direct action, to use the euphemism, is always what Antifa has been about. Even their original incarnations in the late 30's focused on tactically disrupting and battling far-right groups under the guise of anonymity (while drawing from the same playbooks that informed fascism during the same period). Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 09:47 iamthedave wrote:
But it's crocodile tears when the right whine about Antifa. How far did you think the envelope could be pushed before people got scared and stupid and started being violent? Antifa's a response. Not a nice one, and it's going to get worse. This is what the right wants and it's what it's going to get, unfortunately. Hardly. Antifa is the latest culmination of a century of revolutionary leftist intellectual thought, and existed long before Trump entered office. They are also not "stupid" at all. Their decentralized, autonomous organizational framework is deliberate as well as communicating through various P2P networks and encrypted services like Signal.
My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest Antifa as an organisation is stupid, but that people in it can be. I find it highly unlikely that they're unaware that people like Sargon of Akkad, this Ngo fella, and tons of others love it when Antifa turns up to protest or to attack them because it gets them support and lets them (accurately) play the victim.
I mean, 90% of the time when Antifa is talked about on this forum it's by right-wing posters categorising them as a hate mob. Some signalling is getting mixed, you could say, from Antifa's perspective. When was the last time someone raised something good Antifa did?
At least the Proud Boys are what they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
