EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4970
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Introvert
United States4684 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24568 Posts
And what political violence there is, isn’t necessarily always stuff that gets the auld thumbs-up. Some, did sure. United Healthcare CEO definitely had a lot of that, would be silly to deny that. Albeit that seemed an increasingly rare event of cross-spectrum support. My main issue with January 6th isn’t actually that it happened, but the lack of balls in addressing it after the fact. Especially the pardons. I doubt most of the perps from your examples will be spending much, if any time as free persons until they die. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4684 Posts
On May 26 2025 07:16 WombaT wrote: There’s a bit of a gap between accepting the narrative that Antifa are the big scary boogeymen/women, and denying there’s any left-wing political violence. And what political violence there is, isn’t necessarily always stuff that gets the auld thumbs-up. Some, did sure. United Healthcare CEO definitely had a lot of that, would be silly to deny that. Albeit that seemed an increasingly rare event of cross-spectrum support. My main issue with January 6th isn’t actually that it happened, but the lack of balls in addressing it after the fact. Especially the pardons. I doubt most of the perps from your examples will be spending much, if any time as free persons until they die. The Jan 6 people didn't get out until a pardon 4 years later, so there's just super convenient retcons going on here. I mean look at this My main issue with January 6th isn’t actually that it happened, but the lack of balls in addressing it after the fact. We've had to hear about Jan6 constantly since it happened. Where is anyone calling for a "discussion" about left-wing violence? For example, did the fire bombing of the PA gov mansion get any attention here at all? No, of course not. Again, it's either called justified or it's simply ignored. And we had posters calling antifa a boogeyman years ago while they were firebombing buildings and cars. And plenty of those people do get out, or more accurately, they are never pursued. People taking over buildings, for example. Left-wing prosecutors around the country are taking a light hand, so that's incorrect. Part of the reason the palestine protests got as bad as they did because they faced virtually no consequences. The United Health killing is just the worst example of recent memory and anyone who took even an ambivalent stance on that lost all credibility on the topic. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9098 Posts
Your imbecile god-king also prepared the ground for that in the 2024 election, hedging his bets by screeching about the election being stolen right up until the moment he was declared winner. This whole angle on violence reminds me of when you halfwits were pretending that the issue with "grab her by the pussy" was that he used the word "pussy". | ||
|
Razyda
596 Posts
Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications  .See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9098 Posts
On May 26 2025 08:22 Razyda wrote: Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications .See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7206 Posts
Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. It’s not nazi like rhetoric any more than you taking breaths is nazi like respiration. We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. Yeah, the notion that saying we should beat racists up is the same or similar as racists saying they want to beat black people up is idiotic. Fundamentally, I believe fascists to be an entity that is thoroughly and absolutely incompatible with what I view as a fair and equitable society, they exist entirely in bad faith, pervert and abuse any and all structures around them for their own vile aims. I don't believe we should go around beating the ass of every basic bitch conservative because basic bitch conservatives aren't fundamentally incompatible with society in the same extremely dangerous way that fascists are. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24568 Posts
On May 26 2025 08:22 Razyda wrote: Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications .See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. Trump is imposing it. That’s the problem. If some hardcore Zionist doesn’t want to talk Israel/Palestine with me because of my views on it, that’s up to them. Or if they don’t want to associate with me at all. I would consider that regrettable, equally it’s their prerogative. You have the right to not bother with people you consider arseholes. I’m owed the right via the social contract to have my views. Im not owed a debate, or a platform by people who might find my views repugnant | ||
| ||
