|
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 January 03 2020 08:27 Xxio wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 03 2020 08:01 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 07:31 Xxio wrote:I don't think it's reasonable to claim the Nazi salutes happened only because Trump was elected. And if the deeper concern is authoritarianism, I would focus more on events like the radical left's post-election riot in Portland. The rioters chanted "We reject the president-elect!" But we all have our biases. At far-right political rallies throughout the United States, folks tout their support for Trump on white nationalist, ethnophobic grounds and threaten civil war if he is not reelected. The connection to authoritarianism is clear in that context, especially given the tie between the threat and the head of the nation. How is that comparable to the scenario you've countered with? Please couch your answer in the meaning of the word "authoritarianism." Threatening civil war is also bad. People who support Trump no matter what are like zombies. I don't think many are white nationalists. I take physical action more seriously, like the Charlottesville attack and this list of radical left activities. I'm sure there are many on the right too. I made this list because for some reason people here like to pretend antifa and the radical left is good. The link to authoritarianism is obvious. I'm not going to write an essay. Heads up because I think it's only fair: I ban users who advocate for physical violence (defend the attack against Andy Ngo at your peril.)
On January 03 2020 08:43 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:
Kind of weird to bring up a topic and then forbid us from taking some positions on it. But this discussion has been had before and it's not really topical right now so I'm fine with ignoring this topic. It's truly unfortunate that you feel hampered by the fact that you can't advocate for beating, killing, or assaulting people of a certain kind.
Does this extend to foreign policy and domestic policing or no?
|
Canada5565 Posts
On January 03 2020 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:
Bernie completely body slamming everyone else in fundraising. I signed up for repeating donations! GO BERNIE! A good amount to take on Trump's $46 million Q4. Overall still way lower than Trump's 2019 haul. I think Bernie could beat him though.On January 03 2020 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 08:43 Xxio wrote:On January 03 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:
Kind of weird to bring up a topic and then forbid us from taking some positions on it. But this discussion has been had before and it's not really topical right now so I'm fine with ignoring this topic. It's truly unfortunate that you feel hampered by the fact that you can't advocate for beating, killing, or assaulting people of a certain kind. Does this extend to foreign policy and domestic policing or no? I trust you all to use good judgement. I haven't banned anyone yet for it, if that helps. "That journalist in the field deserved to get his head kicked in! He had it coming. More of that, please! Here is my rambling rationale" isn't going to work, even if delivered with lighter flair.
|
On January 03 2020 08:27 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 08:01 farvacola wrote:On January 03 2020 07:31 Xxio wrote:I don't think it's reasonable to claim the Nazi salutes happened only because Trump was elected. And if the deeper concern is authoritarianism, I would focus more on events like the radical left's post-election riot in Portland. The rioters chanted "We reject the president-elect!" But we all have our biases. At far-right political rallies throughout the United States, folks tout their support for Trump on white nationalist, ethnophobic grounds and threaten civil war if he is not reelected. The connection to authoritarianism is clear in that context, especially given the tie between the threat and the head of the nation. How is that comparable to the scenario you've countered with? Please couch your answer in the meaning of the word "authoritarianism." Threatening civil war is also bad. People who support Trump no matter what are like zombies. I don't think many are white nationalists. I take physical action more seriously, like the Charlottesville attack and this list of radical left activities. I'm sure there are many on the right too. I made this list because for some reason people here like to pretend antifa and the radical left is good. The link to authoritarianism is obvious. I'm not going to write an essay. Heads up because I think it's only fair: I ban users who advocate for physical violence (defend the attack against Andy Ngo at your peril.)
The burden of persuasion is on you in terms of connecting your tangent to the topic at hand, namely that it is viable to compare the phenomenon of Trump supporters that publicly express violent sentiments to "antifa far left" rioters, a handful of which may have assaulted a shock jock once in the past. Refusing to describe why you think those two phenomena are comparable on authoritarian terms is little more than a signal that you don't actually care for the accuracy of the comparison, rather you are only concerned with it being presented at all. We indeed all have our biases....
The differences between those two phenomena seem fairly accessible, one has a clear tie to the current head of the US government, the other generally despises all vestiges of government power and has no direct tie to anyone involved in mainstream US politics. One has direct ties to numerous groups that are literal arms of the government's enforcement power, be it the police, immigration authorities, the military, or even prison guards. The other is composed of extremely loose, solely symbol-connected groups that feud with one another so much that they have failed to have a meaningful impact on basically any kind of politics in the US whatsoever.
How do the similarities overcome those differences with reference to how authoritarianism operates? And please don't throw out a bunch of acontextual links as though they establish some kind of prevelance without further explanation.
|
On January 03 2020 08:49 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:
Bernie completely body slamming everyone else in fundraising. I signed up for repeating donations! GO BERNIE! A good amount to take on Trump's $46 million Q4. Overall still way lower than Trump's 2019 haul. I think Bernie could beat him though. Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2020 08:43 Xxio wrote:On January 03 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:
Kind of weird to bring up a topic and then forbid us from taking some positions on it. But this discussion has been had before and it's not really topical right now so I'm fine with ignoring this topic. It's truly unfortunate that you feel hampered by the fact that you can't advocate for beating, killing, or assaulting people of a certain kind. Does this extend to foreign policy and domestic policing or no? I trust you all to use good judgement. I haven't banned anyone yet for it, if that helps. "That journalist in the field deserved to get his head kicked in! He had it coming. More of that, please! Here is my rambling rationale" isn't going to work, even if delivered with lighter flair.
Just to be clear:
1. "I think it's justified to bomb X (country) even if that means some innocent children will die"
2. "I think it's justified if Andy Ngo got beat up"
Those both okay, both bannable by you or is one okay and one would get someone banned?
|
Canada5565 Posts
On January 03 2020 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 08:49 Xxio wrote:On January 03 2020 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:
Bernie completely body slamming everyone else in fundraising. I signed up for repeating donations! GO BERNIE! A good amount to take on Trump's $46 million Q4. Overall still way lower than Trump's 2019 haul. I think Bernie could beat him though. On January 03 2020 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2020 08:43 Xxio wrote:On January 03 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:
Kind of weird to bring up a topic and then forbid us from taking some positions on it. But this discussion has been had before and it's not really topical right now so I'm fine with ignoring this topic. It's truly unfortunate that you feel hampered by the fact that you can't advocate for beating, killing, or assaulting people of a certain kind. Does this extend to foreign policy and domestic policing or no? I trust you all to use good judgement. I haven't banned anyone yet for it, if that helps. "That journalist in the field deserved to get his head kicked in! He had it coming. More of that, please! Here is my rambling rationale" isn't going to work, even if delivered with lighter flair. Just to be clear: 1. "I think it's justified to bomb X (country) even if that means some innocent children will die" 2. "I think it's justified if Andy Ngo got beat up" Those both okay, both bannable by you or is one okay and one would get someone banned? 1. Fine because it's not advocating for violence against the children. I assume the poster wishes there would be no child casualties. If they express wanting the children to die, then I ban. I assume they are talking about attacking a state, armed militants, etc.
2. Advocates direct violence against an individual
You're overthinking it, but post more in the website feedback section if you'd like. If someone says they want to assassinate bernie, assassinate trump, whatever, I'll ban them. If they say they want to shoot, or someone should shoot, antifa or nazis generally speaking I'll ban them. As a pre-emptive, I don't care about the thesis on morality some of you are ready to post.
|
On January 03 2020 09:30 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2020 08:49 Xxio wrote:On January 03 2020 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:
Bernie completely body slamming everyone else in fundraising. I signed up for repeating donations! GO BERNIE! A good amount to take on Trump's $46 million Q4. Overall still way lower than Trump's 2019 haul. I think Bernie could beat him though. On January 03 2020 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2020 08:43 Xxio wrote:On January 03 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:
Kind of weird to bring up a topic and then forbid us from taking some positions on it. But this discussion has been had before and it's not really topical right now so I'm fine with ignoring this topic. It's truly unfortunate that you feel hampered by the fact that you can't advocate for beating, killing, or assaulting people of a certain kind. Does this extend to foreign policy and domestic policing or no? I trust you all to use good judgement. I haven't banned anyone yet for it, if that helps. "That journalist in the field deserved to get his head kicked in! He had it coming. More of that, please! Here is my rambling rationale" isn't going to work, even if delivered with lighter flair. Just to be clear: 1. "I think it's justified to bomb X (country) even if that means some innocent children will die" 2. "I think it's justified if Andy Ngo got beat up" Those both okay, both bannable by you or is one okay and one would get someone banned? 1. Fine because it's not advocating for violence against the children. I assume the poster wishes there would be no child casualties. If they express wanting the children to die, then I ban. I assume they are talking about attacking a state, armed militants, etc. 2. Advocates direct violence against an individual You're overthinking it, but post more in the website feedback section if you'd like. If someone says they want to assassinate bernie, assassinate trump, whatever, I'll ban them. If they say they want to shoot, or someone should shoot, antifa or nazis generally speaking I'll ban them. As a pre-emptive, I don't care about the thesis on morality some of you are ready to post.
Not overthinking, I've made my point.
|
And since we were discussing whataboutism the other day, here is a textbook example from the other side. And a mod, no less.
On January 03 2020 07:31 Xxio wrote:I don't think it's reasonable to claim the Nazi salutes happened only because Trump was elected. And if the deeper concern is authoritarianism, I would focus more on events like the radical left's post-election riot in Portland. The rioters chanted "We reject the president-elect!" But we all have our biases.
Step 1 - distract, redirect
On January 03 2020 08:43 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:
Kind of weird to bring up a topic and then forbid us from taking some positions on it. But this discussion has been had before and it's not really topical right now so I'm fine with ignoring this topic. It's truly unfortunate that you feel hampered by the fact that you can't advocate for beating, killing, or assaulting people of a certain kind.
Step 2 - accuse, strawman
|
BREAKING: Pentagon officials confirm the killing of Iran's most senior commander Qassem Suleimani
Pray for the Middle East
|
Iirc, in my state(PA) 100% of the green votes and at least 75% of the Libertarian votes would have had to have gone to Hillary for her to win, and that's with ~412k more people voting than in the 2012 race. Hardly seems like a 3rd party issue.
|
On January 03 2020 09:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 08:27 Xxio wrote:On January 03 2020 08:01 farvacola wrote:On January 03 2020 07:31 Xxio wrote:I don't think it's reasonable to claim the Nazi salutes happened only because Trump was elected. And if the deeper concern is authoritarianism, I would focus more on events like the radical left's post-election riot in Portland. The rioters chanted "We reject the president-elect!" But we all have our biases. At far-right political rallies throughout the United States, folks tout their support for Trump on white nationalist, ethnophobic grounds and threaten civil war if he is not reelected. The connection to authoritarianism is clear in that context, especially given the tie between the threat and the head of the nation. How is that comparable to the scenario you've countered with? Please couch your answer in the meaning of the word "authoritarianism." Threatening civil war is also bad. People who support Trump no matter what are like zombies. I don't think many are white nationalists. I take physical action more seriously, like the Charlottesville attack and this list of radical left activities. I'm sure there are many on the right too. I made this list because for some reason people here like to pretend antifa and the radical left is good. The link to authoritarianism is obvious. I'm not going to write an essay. Heads up because I think it's only fair: I ban users who advocate for physical violence (defend the attack against Andy Ngo at your peril.) The burden of persuasion is on you in terms of connecting your tangent to the topic at hand, namely that it is viable to compare the phenomenon of Trump supporters that publicly express violent sentiments to "antifa far left" rioters, a handful of which may have assaulted a shock jock once in the past. Refusing to describe why you think those two phenomena are comparable on authoritarian terms is little more than a signal that you don't actually care for the accuracy of the comparison, rather you are only concerned with it being presented at all. We indeed all have our biases.... The differences between those two phenomena seem fairly accessible, one has a clear tie to the current head of the US government, the other generally despises all vestiges of government power and has no direct tie to anyone involved in mainstream US politics. One has direct ties to numerous groups that are literal arms of the government's enforcement power, be it the police, immigration authorities, the military, or even prison guards. The other is composed of extremely loose, solely symbol-connected groups that feud with one another so much that they have failed to have a meaningful impact on basically any kind of politics in the US whatsoever. How do the similarities overcome those differences with reference to how authoritarianism operates? And please don't throw out a bunch of acontextual links as though they establish some kind of prevelance without further explanation.
This is the second time he's done this go around with the same exact links. The first time I responded to his post and never got a response back. I literally asked him how Ngo who looked for violence the same as a person with ties to nazism that killed people, and no answer.
|
|
|
On January 03 2020 11:25 JimmiC wrote:Well that seems a whole lot like throwing a lit match into a pile of dry kindling. That is not good news for peace.
|
|
|
|
|
Gotta rally behind nationalism ASAP
|
Norway28728 Posts
|
I'm reasonably confident those Nazi saluting cadets will find gainful employment on Trump's inevitable personal protection squads likely led in part by Eddie Gallagher. I mean with the military spread thin around the world, ICE busy raiding workplaces, Border Patrol running the concentration camps and the Secret Service notoriously bad at their job in the last decade, it's the only possible responsible safety measure.
I hope that stays dark hyperbolic sarcasm and doesn't morph into a dreadfully accurate prediction
|
Is this to distract from impeachment or is this straight up for the elections?
I understand how a war can get people to rally behind you but I have a feeling that this specific attempt is so transparent that it wouldn't really reinforce his popularity, dunno if that's too naive of me to think.
|
On January 03 2020 12:02 Nebuchad wrote:
Is this to distract from impeachment or is this straight up for the elections?
I understand how a war can get people to rally behind you but I have a feeling that this specific attempt is so transparent that it wouldn't really reinforce his popularity, dunno if that's too naive of me to think.
I wouldn't expect a calculated move from Trump anyway. This is probably in response to the new email evidence that came out several hours ago.
|
On January 03 2020 12:02 Nebuchad wrote:
Is this to distract from impeachment or is this straight up for the elections?
I understand how a war can get people to rally behind you but I have a feeling that this specific attempt is so transparent that it wouldn't really reinforce his popularity, dunno if that's too naive of me to think.
I'm not actually sure that there's anything Trump could do at this point, that his supporters wouldn't then rally even harder behind him for. Even if it was expanding Medicare and taxing his wealthiest friends so hard that they still wouldn't notice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
