|
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 October 02 2025 20:17 Uldridge wrote:
It just shows you don't understand human on a fundamental level.
You feeling certain ways about your convictions and being reasonable about them and being able to self reflect does not mean other humans are able to.
There are these mechanisms in play that make this very logical and extremely difficult to dismantle. It's like those suicide cults. You'll never find anyone close to be reasoned with and then they kill themselves and you're just left scratching your head part in confusion, part in disbelief.
In group cohesion is very strong for these people. So much so it trumps reason.
Edit: for clarity, you need to, quite literally, speak a different language with the same words to these people because they look at reality from a different angle. It's like you both point at the same thing and you say A, while the other says B. We're now at a point where they're veering into more basic commonly held agreements in English and disagree there.
The fundamental axiom of the conservative is disagreement, while this is the opposite of a progressive. I want to disclaim that I don't necessarily view disagreeableness as negative per se, it just needs to be dosed in correct dosages.
Conservatives can be reasoned with as long as they're just that - conservatives. In recent times conservatives have adopted hardcore traditionalist ideals.
Conservatives view progressives as opposition. Meanwhile traditionalists view progressives as an existential threat to the very fabric of society. There's a saying among traditionalists which goes "conservatives conserve nothing", which means that conservatives are being accused by traditionalists of not being radically conservative, i.e. traditionalist. This idea has spread like a wildfire in online circles.
|
You can view it like a terminal negative feedback loop.
Once the low hanging fruit is found as enemies they'll start pointing to themselves in ever increasing purity testing. The cohesion never lasts. It's too fragile, but it'll be very destructive in the process.
|
|
|
On October 02 2025 16:25 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2025 05:16 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2025 04:54 Simberto wrote:On October 02 2025 04:08 WombaT wrote:I think there’s probably a case that at least some of those jailed maybe were a case of wrong place, wrong time, or at least just went there to protest and not storm the Capitol, got caught up in things jr whatever. Hey it happens. The blanket pardoning of people who blatantly went there with ill intent, and committed violence is insane. It’s like a sewage pipe burst and there’s simply too much shit to focus on any particular spot that’s covered in it, but my lord that was egregious That seems to be the strategy. As long as you constantly spam horrifible, horribly stupid, or otherwise unforgivable shit, no one can focus on one thing long enough so it has consequences for you. And apparently it works. I don't know why. People are fucking morons. If you assume malice people suddenly look a bit less stupid. And I think we’re at a stage we probably should. Yeah sure some people are, but hey some of the most morally upstanding people I know are pretty stupid. It’s not stupidity. The person who’ll demand we respect cops in the face of the ‘radical left’, but be OK with people who actually assaulted police officers being pardoned aren’t doing so because they’re stupid. They’re malicious bad actors Yes, they're malicious. But not from their point of view. They view themselves as righteous. As I explained previously, evil views itself as good the majority of the time. It follows that supporters of evil view themselves as supporters of good the majority of the time.
That you?
On September 11 2025 06:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Guns may not save lives, but they did save my day.
On December 08 2024 22:38 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2024 15:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Once you have normalized that we can kill each other if we have a really good reason, all bets are off Normalized killing such as a CEO getting away with bloody murder. You're still not getting it. We're not the ones normalizing any killing, we're just dancing around the corpse of an individual who himself created the normalization.
On October 02 2025 16:29 KT_Elwood wrote:
Hint: Fascism is when everbody is either in... or an enemy. Everybody who even as much as argues in good faith for a counter argument: Enemy.
What happened to the guy who said this:
"When discourse ends, violence begins"?
There is also this poll I havent seen mentioned in this thread yet:
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kirk-americans-political-violence-poll
Agree it's okay to be happy about death of political figure they oppose:
Very Liberal: 24%
Liberal: 10%
Moderate: 7%
Conservative: 4%
Very Conservative: 3%
Agree violence can be justified to achieve political goals:
VL: 25%
L: 17%
M: 9%
C: 6%
VC: 3%
|
What do you think the classifier Liberal means?
|
That's so interesting that conservatives claim to be so passionately against political violence, when nearly all political violence comes from their side of the political spectrum*. Republicans should probably start holding each other accountable.
*This general fact about political violence was discussed a few days ago ( https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5283#105657 ), although this is the first time I'm seeing your ironic poll!
|
On October 02 2025 22:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That's so interesting that conservatives claim to be so passionately against political violence, when nearly all political violence comes from their side of the political spectrum*. Republicans should probably start holding each other accountable. *This general fact about political violence was discussed a few days ago ( https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=5283#105657 ), although this is the first time I'm seeing your ironic poll!
The prevailing conservative opinion appears to be that you should say "killing people is very very bad" when it occurs, while shrugging your shoulders about what to do about it. Trying to stop it from happening again, or saying "predictably, it happened again because we did nothing to stop it" after the fact, is a greater sin than actually doing it.
Unless a minority is responsible for the shooting, in which case the correct course of action is to vaguely threaten the ones who didn't do it because all leftists/trans people/immigrants/Muslims/whoever are collectively guilty.
|
Saying political violence is okay does not mean you're about to act upon it and vica versa.
Truth is that right leaning people are radicalized more easily and thus have a lower threshold for political violence. Generally disavowing political violence and a fringe percentage acting out political violence is not mutually exclusive.
|
On October 02 2025 22:10 Uldridge wrote:
What do you think the classifier Liberal means?
At this point in time I would say:
Very Liberal - people who openly celebrated Kirk death,
Liberal - the ones that try to gaslight themselves and others that their nazi/fascist rhetorics is not the cause, and they themselves are therefore not to blame (There is shred of sanity remaining in them, which makes them somewhat uncomfortable with saying murder is good, not enough though to admit that they may be partially responsible. End of the day they are the good guys, so cant do anything morally wrong)
|
On October 02 2025 21:37 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2025 16:25 Magic Powers wrote:On October 02 2025 05:16 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2025 04:54 Simberto wrote:On October 02 2025 04:08 WombaT wrote:I think there’s probably a case that at least some of those jailed maybe were a case of wrong place, wrong time, or at least just went there to protest and not storm the Capitol, got caught up in things jr whatever. Hey it happens. The blanket pardoning of people who blatantly went there with ill intent, and committed violence is insane. It’s like a sewage pipe burst and there’s simply too much shit to focus on any particular spot that’s covered in it, but my lord that was egregious That seems to be the strategy. As long as you constantly spam horrifible, horribly stupid, or otherwise unforgivable shit, no one can focus on one thing long enough so it has consequences for you. And apparently it works. I don't know why. People are fucking morons. If you assume malice people suddenly look a bit less stupid. And I think we’re at a stage we probably should. Yeah sure some people are, but hey some of the most morally upstanding people I know are pretty stupid. It’s not stupidity. The person who’ll demand we respect cops in the face of the ‘radical left’, but be OK with people who actually assaulted police officers being pardoned aren’t doing so because they’re stupid. They’re malicious bad actors Yes, they're malicious. But not from their point of view. They view themselves as righteous. As I explained previously, evil views itself as good the majority of the time. It follows that supporters of evil view themselves as supporters of good the majority of the time. That you? Show nested quote +On September 11 2025 06:20 Magic Powers wrote:
Guns may not save lives, but they did save my day. Show nested quote +On December 08 2024 22:38 Magic Powers wrote:On December 08 2024 15:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Once you have normalized that we can kill each other if we have a really good reason, all bets are off Normalized killing such as a CEO getting away with bloody murder. You're still not getting it. We're not the ones normalizing any killing, we're just dancing around the corpse of an individual who himself created the normalization. Show nested quote +On October 02 2025 16:29 KT_Elwood wrote:
Hint: Fascism is when everbody is either in... or an enemy. Everybody who even as much as argues in good faith for a counter argument: Enemy.
What happened to the guy who said this: "When discourse ends, violence begins"? There is also this poll I havent seen mentioned in this thread yet: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kirk-americans-political-violence-pollAgree it's okay to be happy about death of political figure they oppose: Very Liberal: 24% Liberal: 10% Moderate: 7% Conservative: 4% Very Conservative: 3% Agree violence can be justified to achieve political goals: VL: 25% L: 17% M: 9% C: 6% VC: 3%
Do you actually believe this is a gotcha of some sort? You're not a pacifist, don't tell me you're a pacifist. You, just like me, believe that some people deserve death.
Are you some kind of pacifist? Because if you are, then you should oppose Trump with every fiber of your being.
So this is a terrible attempt at a gotcha. Look into the mirror.
|
|
|
United States43058 Posts
The so called tolerant left always do this. Back when Antifa destroyed cities in the early and mid 40s they blamed the political violence on “Nazis”. But if you look at the numbers then in pure tonnage terms the centrist patriotic Germans who wanted to keep Germany great actually used far fewer tonnes of explosives than the violent left. Yet it’s never the fault of the radical left, no matter how many bullets Antifas fire, they always insist that it is the fault of “Nazis”. You can’t reason with these people. I am very smart.
|
United States43058 Posts
On October 02 2025 22:29 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2025 22:10 Uldridge wrote:
What do you think the classifier Liberal means? At this point in time I would say: Very Liberal - people who openly celebrated Kirk death, Liberal - the ones that try to gaslight themselves and others that their nazi/fascist rhetorics is not the cause, and they themselves are therefore not to blame (There is shred of sanity remaining in them, which makes them somewhat uncomfortable with saying murder is good, not enough though to admit that they may be partially responsible. End of the day they are the good guys, so cant do anything morally wrong)
You’re allowed to say no bud. You don’t have to literally show us that you don’t understand what it means.
|
On October 02 2025 22:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2025 22:29 Razyda wrote:On October 02 2025 22:10 Uldridge wrote:
What do you think the classifier Liberal means? At this point in time I would say: Very Liberal - people who openly celebrated Kirk death, Liberal - the ones that try to gaslight themselves and others that their nazi/fascist rhetorics is not the cause, and they themselves are therefore not to blame (There is shred of sanity remaining in them, which makes them somewhat uncomfortable with saying murder is good, not enough though to admit that they may be partially responsible. End of the day they are the good guys, so cant do anything morally wrong) You’re allowed to say no bud. You don’t have to literally show us that you don’t understand what it means.
I think answer displays to everyone here that this person should not be taken seriously, even if that already was more or less the case.
Just lacking any substance whatsoever.
|
Northern Ireland25800 Posts
Polling on a yes/no basis doesn’t really dig into the weeds anyway.
Or, people can lie, there’s a revolutionary idea.
And I mean the wording of such things is important too. ‘Can you be happy in the event of…’ doesn’t necessarily confer a support for a particular act, merely one’s reaction.
One can simultaneously think it’s a bad thing for the civic fabric that say, Charlie Kirk got assassinated, but also think nothing of particular value was lost in terms of what he was doing to said civic fabric. These things aren’t inherently contradictory.
End of the day, who’s of more concern, the people that do political violence, or the people who share memes about it on Twitter?
|
Well thank you Rayzda for your post. No more serious discussion to be had there
If you wanna stop being called nazis and fascists stop acting like them.
|
Can we just ban anyone that starts debating nazi and fascist semantics again? Or start your own nazi thread? There's like 2000 pages of this useless drivel in this thread
|
Where is the line?
Is/was it OK to be happy and celebrate when Osama Bin Laden was killed? How about Kissinger dying? What about someone like Milošević?
Just because someone says "the guy had it coming and the world is a better place without them" does that mean that someone is "celebrating their death"?
All of this rhetoric, and more importantly, what it's being used to justify is a crock of shit, especially coming from people who celebrate much worse things, like their rapist pedophile president.
It's also very funny how our resident boomer forgot to mention the main takeaway from the article, straight from the beginning:
How concerned Americans are about political violence is related to some degree to whether someone from their side or from the other side is the most recent to be attacked.
My grade: weak shit bro, try again.
|
Northern Ireland25800 Posts
On October 02 2025 08:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2025 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 02 2025 04:05 WombaT wrote:On October 02 2025 02:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:No. That's another idiotic Candace Owens rant. Also is there any chance that Jimmy can even vaguely abide by thread rules? For fuck’s sake That's a good point. No summary or explanation of a video =  good points guys. Although. I did I provide a 1 sentence summary of the video, I will expand on that. Candace Owens believes the Israeli government is involved in the killing of Charlie Kirk. She has been putting forth evidence towards this theory since shortly after this death. The farthest Matt Walsh will go, a guy who toes the DW party line, is that the details of Kirk's death "dont add up". Show nested quote +On October 02 2025 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
No. That's another idiotic Candace Owens rant. IMO, the only thing keeping Candace Owens alive is her maudlin delivery. If she were as dead serious and dry as Charlie Kirk when he said he finds the details of October 7th "very hard to believe" while implying the IDF let it happen... she might be as dead as JFK. She is getting buried right now by the people at the top of DW and the people above them. She is setting fire to her career. I pray she is not murdered. Candace is awesome. I agree with Candace and the late Mr. Kirk. The details of October 7 are very hard to believe. I posted The Kirk interview in the past. I can post it again if you like. EDIT: 'getting buried' means behind the scenes many many people are saying very bad things about her. its a colloquialism prolly not common in an international video game board. So there you have it guys... JJR... Mr. Warren Buffett, Barry Scheck Jerry Seinfeld, Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, Andrew Friedman, Andy Kaufman, Nathan Blumenthal, ... is officially anti-Israeli government. It is sad to see the Israeli government in this state... however.. i gotta call it like i see it. oh and of course... how could i forget Mike Morhaime. IMO, The Israeli government is evil.
Thank you for the summary.
What is the ‘DW’ exactly? Not an acronym I’m familiar with.
I’m still unsure why Candace Owens, or indeed Charlie Kirk would be under particular risk for their criticisms of Israel when there are plenty of others as, or more prominent, and who are more critical
|
United States43058 Posts
DW is daily wire, a group of right wing podcasters who found the rigorous journalistic standards of Fox “for entertainment only” News too rigorous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
