|
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 |
United States42868 Posts
Eh, not sure that’s right. The secretly part.
|
On August 30 2025 00:55 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2025 16:24 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 29 2025 15:56 Godwrath wrote:On August 29 2025 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 29 2025 13:30 Zambrah wrote:On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs. I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost. You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary. The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. Ive never said violence is always great, I was only refuting the idea that violent civil war is bad, because while it can be bad it can also be an important aspect of societal change. And yes, we look at history in retrospect in the hopes that we can take what we see in history and get some possible glimpse into the future. If retrospective insight wasn't valuable the field of history probably wouldnt exist. From what I understand of history things like Civil Rights, worker's rights, and the broad spread of democratic form of government were achieved through violence or the direct threat of violence. Do I know the future? Of course not, but I can look at history and at least conclude that violence has been a persistent and crucial effector for change in many important instances and that the situation we are in now seems like one where violence may wind up being the crucial effector for change as opposed to voting. When Spain fought its civil war, the fascists won. The transition away from fascism occurred without violence. As far as I recall, it was similar for Portugal. Why do you and GH believe so strongly that the progressive coalition is going to win the civil war? You are being obtuse. Would you had prefered the República didn't fight that war ? My point is that advocating for violence is unlikely to lead to a better outcome, and good outcomes can be achieved without violence. What is your point? Can't answer the question ? I know, it's obvious what your point is, and that is by taking for granted that no violence is better than violence when It comes to dealing with fascists. Only took 40 years to get rid of Franco, and It was because of natural causes, while the damage he did perdures. We have notable figures such Esperanza Aguirre from the PP nowadays claiming that the coup detat of the second republic was for the better, and that' the "mainstream right". So again, did you think the second republic should had surrendered because they could lose ?
If you have a coup, then yeah, I would much rather my side fight it out. We are talking about hopefully not getting to that point or at least not pouring more fuel into the fire to get into that situation.
A second civil war would've been infinitely worse, do you not agree?
|
On August 30 2025 05:34 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2025 00:55 Godwrath wrote:On August 29 2025 16:24 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 29 2025 15:56 Godwrath wrote:On August 29 2025 15:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 29 2025 13:30 Zambrah wrote:On August 29 2025 13:15 Slydie wrote:Violent civil war is not always a bad thing, personally Im a fan of the civil war we had in the US, Im pretty glad we put that slavery thing down there and the only regret I have for the outcome is that the South got off too easy. I also look at the aftermath of the French Revolution and other revolutions and no, I dont agree that violent civil war is inherently bad, I think that violence has been a key and fundamental aspect of major societal shifts and that if violence wasnt routinely exercised in history we'd still have Kings and be fucking serfs. I think you can only say this in retrospect, when you know how everything unfolded decades later. For the people who live through it and do not know the outcome, civil war is always a disaster, and should be avoided almost at any cost. You also cherrypick your examples too much. You can could also point to the Russian Revolution and the Balkan civil war and say the outcome was not necessarily "good", or the whole war was unnecessary. The communist block falling and the Arab spring happened without much blood spilled. Ive never said violence is always great, I was only refuting the idea that violent civil war is bad, because while it can be bad it can also be an important aspect of societal change. And yes, we look at history in retrospect in the hopes that we can take what we see in history and get some possible glimpse into the future. If retrospective insight wasn't valuable the field of history probably wouldnt exist. From what I understand of history things like Civil Rights, worker's rights, and the broad spread of democratic form of government were achieved through violence or the direct threat of violence. Do I know the future? Of course not, but I can look at history and at least conclude that violence has been a persistent and crucial effector for change in many important instances and that the situation we are in now seems like one where violence may wind up being the crucial effector for change as opposed to voting. When Spain fought its civil war, the fascists won. The transition away from fascism occurred without violence. As far as I recall, it was similar for Portugal. Why do you and GH believe so strongly that the progressive coalition is going to win the civil war? You are being obtuse. Would you had prefered the República didn't fight that war ? My point is that advocating for violence is unlikely to lead to a better outcome, and good outcomes can be achieved without violence. What is your point? Can't answer the question ? I know, it's obvious what your point is, and that is by taking for granted that no violence is better than violence when It comes to dealing with fascists. Only took 40 years to get rid of Franco, and It was because of natural causes, while the damage he did perdures. We have notable figures such Esperanza Aguirre from the PP nowadays claiming that the coup detat of the second republic was for the better, and that' the "mainstream right". So again, did you think the second republic should had surrendered because they could lose ? If you have a coup, then yeah, I would much rather my side fight it out. We are talking about hopefully not getting to that point or at least not pouring more fuel into the fire to get into that situation. A second civil war would've been infinitely worse, do you not agree?
Do you mean the transition ? Sure It was better than a second civil war, but probably would had been much better if the world fighted fascism more vehemently (and violently) when It was rising rather than watch the show from the sidelines hoping that the shit would not get to them.
Now back to US politics, they already had their coup attempt, but more importantly, now the fascists are already into power, and won't take long until they are entrenched enough where It will be imposible to dislodge them without violence. I guess this where we disagree, we are on different realities. It's like argueing two years ago with people about Israel ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza, now they shut the hell up about not being ethnic cleansing, but the goalpost has moved from not happening, not being genocide to it's too late to change it. Hopefully i am wrong on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
