|
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 March 13 2025 06:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 05:26 Vivax wrote:On March 13 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 05:07 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. We already have laws against vandalism. What you're proposing here is a thought crime where they're prosecuted not for the vandalism but for the beliefs in their heart during the vandalism. Though conservatives have always believed that they deserve to be a protected class. Yeah... that's what terrorism is. We also have laws against flying jets into buildings. That‘s attempted mass murder, not vandalism. You‘re saying that if someone kicked a fence in because the owner is a Republican, he should get shipped off to Guantanamo ? Where do you draw the line. Terrorism usually involves an endangerment of physical well-being of other people, not objects. (And through physical action) You need to take risks at some point when the political establishment is turning to shit. These risks involve speaking up and possibly getting shit on. Beats getting shot at when you try that too late. I'm not saying anyone should get shipped off to guantanamo... I'm merely pointing out that as far as the definition of terrorism goes this clearly fits it. I'm sure this discussion will go how most of these discussions go... I'll make some analogy to highlight the hypocrisy like... "If a white supremacist went around torching the cars of black people because they don't think black people should be in their town then everyone would agree that's a form of domestic terrorism." Then someone will reply "Well that's different because black people are being targeted and they are a protected class. For it to be terrorism it has to be intimidation against race/religion/sex or some other protected class and not against a political ideology." Then I'll point out that that's never been a criteria for terrorism and it's something that was just invented for the sake of this argument. But it won't matter because 10 other people will come in and also perform the necessary mental gymnastics to agree with this new arbitrary criteria in order to prove me wrong. Eventually I'll get annoyed and give up and let people have their own definitions for words
Wouldn‘t that be a hate crime ?
My knowledge of your laws is at its limits atm.
Terrorism might be ideologically or politically motivated but is otherwise a pretty vague term amplified in use during the Bush era.
The amount of organization behind the attacks matters. Foreign funding etc.
9/11 was organized, funded and killed thousands of people. It wasn‘t the WTC they targeted, but the US as a whole.
|
United States42024 Posts
On March 13 2025 06:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 06:30 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 05:07 KwarK wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. We already have laws against vandalism. What you're proposing here is a thought crime where they're prosecuted not for the vandalism but for the beliefs in their heart during the vandalism. Though conservatives have always believed that they deserve to be a protected class. Yeah... that's what terrorism is. We also have laws against flying jets into buildings. Is it possible you're being a little hyperbolic here with the argument that keying a Tesla is terrorism because 9/11. It's an example against your argument that "we already have laws against vandalism so we're prosecuting a thought crime." Pretty much every "act of terrorism" is already in violation of some other law that's already on the books. In fact the "thought" or "intention" behind the action is the most core tenet of whether something is terrorism or not. Setting a building on fire is arson. Setting a building on fire that's a mosque is also arson. But setting a mosque on fire to intimidate muslims is also... you guessed it... terrorism.
Okay but maybe we can make an exception for 9/11. The idea that if I'm okay with X then I'm surely okay with a million times X just doesn't follow. There's never been a requirement that we support 9/11 to be okay with things that aren't 9/11 before.
|
United States24583 Posts
|
On March 13 2025 06:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2025 06:26 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 06:04 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 05:10 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 04:59 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:22 BlackJack wrote:On March 13 2025 04:19 Fleetfeet wrote:On March 13 2025 04:12 BlackJack wrote:
It's certainly harsh to punish some naive hooligan as a domestic terrorist but as a matter of fact the destruction of property as a means of intimidation/coercion for political/ideological reasons can easily be considered terrorism. Do you think there's a form of protest that the current government would support? There seems to be a strong urge from them to silence dissenters. Why would any government "support" any protest against said government? form of protest*, not protest. Well there have been protests happening daily across the entire country since the election... I don't know if the government is supposed to be supportive of that but clearly they are tolerated. You don't know if the government should be supportive of its citizen's right to protest? Simberto answered this at the top of the page. Maybe it's splitting hairs but you're using "supportive of protest" and "supportive of a right to protest" interchangeably when they are two different things. I am not. I said form of protest from the beginning. You misunderstood it as 'protest' and I corrected you. Given I can name three (campus 'illegal protest', tesla 'illegal boycott' and tesla 'terrorism') questionable statements from the current administration regarding its citizens' right to protest off the top of my head, I'd say it isn't unreasonable to suggest they don't support their citizens right to protest. I'm not pressuring you to make you fuck up fwiw. I know you as a devil's advocate and a free speech absolutist, and I was curious which would break first, given that this issue is at odds for those positions. I don't see a meaningful difference between a government supportive of a protest against it or supporting a "form of protest" against it. Either way, I expect any government would not want to support protests against it or any "form of protest" against it. Then you said "You don't know if the government should be supportive of its citizen's right to protest?" Which is an entirely different question. Yes, governments should be supportive of its citizens' right to protest. Are you now asking me whether Trump's government is supportive if its citizens' right to protest? I doubt it.
The question was never ambiguous, but I appreciate you (eventually) answering it!
+ Show Spoiler +It was never 'form of protest against it', just 'form of protest.'
|
Anti-musk is not terrorism.
I can't speak for everyone, but all of my IRL friends hate Musk because he is the most shameless and dastardly example of personal capital inflicting extreme harm on human society. He is using his power and influence as a wealthy individual to harm governments in not just the US, but other countries as well. The things he does impact governments, but he himself is not the government. I think its an important distinction. All of the anti-Tesla stuff is aimed at him as an individual and all the influence he is trying to have over various governments as an individual.
|
terrorism is defined. violence in pursuit of political aims.
setting a Tesla on fire because fuck Musk is not terrorism. there is no political aim.
setting a Tesla on fire to get Musk to step away from politics could be seen as terrorism.
|
On March 13 2025 07:57 Gorsameth wrote:
terrorism is defined. violence in pursuit of political aims.
setting a Tesla on fire because fuck Musk is not terrorism. there is no political aim.
setting a Tesla on fire to get Musk to step away from politics could be seen as terrorism.
The definition becomes a bit easier to apply when corporations merge with government.
These days it looks like that‘s the case for a lot of them.
First the monopoly, then the merger. But it‘s not official.
I don‘t believe the US government can‘t freely access data from any major corporation without any legal impediment nowadays.
It‘s getting fast with the changes.
We look at things that used to be standard and realize it‘s just the skeleton of old laws that are left standing to give an impression of normality and not alarm anyone.
But we‘ve been going from pandemic to Ukraine war and somehow those emergency measures still don‘t want to leave the presidential seat…
Maybe I‘m overreacting but nothing really makes much sense since his first term.
The Ruskification of America
|
On March 13 2025 07:57 Gorsameth wrote:
terrorism is defined. violence in pursuit of political aims.
setting a Tesla on fire because fuck Musk is not terrorism. there is no political aim.
setting a Tesla on fire to get Musk to step away from politics could be seen as terrorism.
Fair assessment imo
|
Northern Ireland23958 Posts
On March 13 2025 07:49 Mohdoo wrote:
Anti-musk is not terrorism.
I can't speak for everyone, but all of my IRL friends hate Musk because he is the most shameless and dastardly example of personal capital inflicting extreme harm on human society. He is using his power and influence as a wealthy individual to harm governments in not just the US, but other countries as well. The things he does impact governments, but he himself is not the government. I think it’s an important distinction. All of the anti-Tesla stuff is aimed at him as an individual and all the influence he is trying to have over various governments as an individual.
He’s clearly a cunt, it’s also a form of terrorism definitionally to run around vandalising Joe and Jane publics vehicles, IMO.
I also think it’s a completely nonsensical thing to spend any time on, and we just shouldn’t bother.
It’s just bullshit deflection, and shouldn’t be indulged. There’ll always be some new niche issue that the ‘enlightened centrist’ throws out to hide that they’re running useful idiot for Trumpism.
We’re still discussing ‘wokeism’ and fucking ‘is vandalising Teslas terrorism’, versus, I dunno like 100 actually pertinent things right now?
It’s 2025, the left aren’t holding the levers of power anymore, one can’t go ‘oh I’m a moderate I’m just concerned about the excesses of the left’ and continue to play the same record in perpetuity.
I mean one can, but, rather naturally you lose any idiosyncratic, iconoclastic devil’s advocate cred you may have possessed.
Flip that lens, perhaps not in a 180 flip, but to some degree, or your centrist cred is complete nonsense. You’re not a centrist, you just hate the left.
|
On March 13 2025 07:57 Gorsameth wrote:
terrorism is defined. violence in pursuit of political aims.
setting a Tesla on fire because fuck Musk is not terrorism. there is no political aim.
setting a Tesla on fire to get Musk to step away from politics could be seen as terrorism.
"Step away" is a bit inexact and still misses the fact that he could use his capital to change decisions of governments without being a member of the government.
This is much easier and more accurate to just frame as corruption. Elon Musk is the golden standard for private capital corrupting government. When people want Elon Musk to stop controlling governments using his insane wealth, it is not terrorism, it is defense of the entire idea of government.
|
Northern Ireland23958 Posts
On March 13 2025 07:57 Gorsameth wrote:
terrorism is defined. violence in pursuit of political aims.
setting a Tesla on fire because fuck Musk is not terrorism. there is no political aim.
setting a Tesla on fire to get Musk to step away from politics could be seen as terrorism.
I don’t think it necessarily has to be that defined.
Living in a place still blighted by it, albeit much, much less.
You still get the KAT/KAH* graffiti, you still get people being intimidated to leave their homes for living in the wrong area.
*Kill all Catholics/Kill all Protestants. (KA taigs/huns)
Burning a Catholic family out of their house doesn’t have to be welded to a political program.
Or vice versa, I’m a non-god Prod myself and I hate my own community and political representatives.
It’s an aimless terrorism, but it’s terrorism nonetheless to those subjected to its tendrils.
Like idk kicking a Brit family out of your area isn’t going to make the prospect of a United Ireland more likely, it’s not a sensible political move but it happens. And it’s motivated by political aims and identity. Feels pretty terroristic to me
Equally this topic, it’s beyond niche. Expecting me to be outraged on this while you say sweet fucking Fanny Adams on anything else? Lmao yeah sure, good one. Hope my partner passes muster while I cuck her out to the Donald
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
