|
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 April 28 2026 22:08 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 20:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 20:30 Harris1st wrote:
You could somehow correlate working age with voting age: Would be an interesting experiment what would happen if retired people/ people over thr age of (insert number) aren't allowed to vote anymore just like underage people aren't allowed to vote. Unfortunately, Republicans would never, ever, ever go for that, even if it were for the overall benefit of the country. Every republican I know supports age and term limits. I think it's very popular among anyone who isn't a politician.
Ahh yes, ye olde Hamster Wheel.
1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
Nevermind the agism considering Bernie is still pretty much the best of the bunch.
|
Did you just forget that you still haven't answered the question you were all about for the last several pages?
|
On April 28 2026 18:50 EnDeR_ wrote:
Do you really not see how obtuse your approach is?
You "demonstrated" by asking another question, which you also didn't answer, then went on to some unrelated thing.
Note how at no point you have laid out your logic in a clear way, nor have you explored the consequences your logic would have on the thing you are discussing.
You are not communicating clearly neither now, nor in the past.
I do hope GH gets around to this.
|
On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?]
We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand.
-Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation
-Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks
-Non-Reformist Reforms
-Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void
-Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this)
Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. It's not a comprehensive list.
Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas!
|
|
|
On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. It's not a comprehensive list. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas!
I want to touch upon Parallel Institutions/MAN and Symbolic Defiance.
What's the monetary support coming from for these? I think if we're going to ignore laws and symbols, we're going to need a lot of bail money and lawyers. Where's the foundation of this going to begin growing and how do you propose we go about getting that support?
|
On April 28 2026 23:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. It's not a comprehensive list. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas! I want to touch upon Parallel Institutions/MAN and Symbolic Defiance. What's the monetary support coming from for these? I think if we're going to ignore laws and symbols, we're going to need a lot of bail money and lawyers. Where's the foundation of this going to begin growing and how do you propose we go about getting that support?
We're still brainstorming  Do you have ideas of your own to contribute before we get into which we should pursue most vigorously and how to go about it?
If not, that's fine. We can come back to your (and anyone else's) reasonable concerns once others have shared their ideas.
|
On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas!
Thank you for the list. Two clarifying questions:
1. What does "non-reformist reform" mean?
2. Should our stance of civil disobedience / non-cooperation and any legal / constitutional challenges apply to all matters taken by an illegitimate government, including any changes we actually agree with, so that we are consistent in our message and not cherry picking?
For example, let's suppose the illegitimate government wants to pass universal healthcare, which is an issue I personally agree with. I confess that I'd have difficulty opposing universal healthcare simply because it's being passed by a poisoned source like an illegitimate government. I'd struggle because the legitimate versions of our government haven't been able to pass universal healthcare, and I don't know how long the American people would otherwise need to wait for it.
It'd be easy for me if all the illegitimate government's positions were morally detestable, but what are your thoughts on an internal conflict like this hypothetical illegitimate government wanting to do something I (or you) actually strongly agree with?
|
On April 28 2026 23:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas! Thank you for the list. + Show Spoiler +Two clarifying questions:
1. What does "non-reformist reform" mean?
2. Should our stance of civil disobedience / non-cooperation and any legal / constitutional challenges apply to all matters taken by an illegitimate government, including any changes we actually agree with, so that we are consistent in our message and not cherry picking?
For example, let's suppose the illegitimate government wants to pass universal healthcare, which is an issue I personally agree with. I confess that I'd have difficulty opposing universal healthcare simply because it's being passed by a poisoned source like an illegitimate government. I'd struggle because the legitimate versions of our government haven't been able to pass universal healthcare, and I don't know how long the American people would otherwise need to wait for it.
It'd be easy for me if all the illegitimate government's positions were morally detestable, but what are your thoughts on an internal conflict like this hypothetical illegitimate government wanting to do something I (or you) actually strongly agree with? We're still brainstorming . Do you have ideas of your own to contribute before we get into which we should pursue most vigorously and how to go about it?
If not, that's fine. We can come back to your (and anyone else's) reasonable concerns once others have shared their ideas.
I've described my understanding of non-reformist reforms previously and you're welcome to do your own research in the meantime though.
|
On April 28 2026 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 23:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. It's not a comprehensive list. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas! I want to touch upon Parallel Institutions/MAN and Symbolic Defiance. What's the monetary support coming from for these? I think if we're going to ignore laws and symbols, we're going to need a lot of bail money and lawyers. Where's the foundation of this going to begin growing and how do you propose we go about getting that support? We're still brainstorming Do you have ideas of your own to contribute before we get into which we should pursue most vigorously and how to go about it? If not, that's fine. We can come back to your (and anyone else's) reasonable concerns once others have shared their ideas.
I think you should probably start at HBCU and other schools where aspiring lawyers are being made to get them on your side. You should also probably start some sort of "Civil Go Fund Me" so that people who can provide support has a means to donate. Use it as a trust with the explicit duty of paying for lawyers and bail. You're also going to need to define what laws and symbols are to be defied. You need to define order among the disorder you wish to create.
|
On April 28 2026 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 23:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas! Thank you for the list. + Show Spoiler +Two clarifying questions:
1. What does "non-reformist reform" mean?
2. Should our stance of civil disobedience / non-cooperation and any legal / constitutional challenges apply to all matters taken by an illegitimate government, including any changes we actually agree with, so that we are consistent in our message and not cherry picking?
For example, let's suppose the illegitimate government wants to pass universal healthcare, which is an issue I personally agree with. I confess that I'd have difficulty opposing universal healthcare simply because it's being passed by a poisoned source like an illegitimate government. I'd struggle because the legitimate versions of our government haven't been able to pass universal healthcare, and I don't know how long the American people would otherwise need to wait for it.
It'd be easy for me if all the illegitimate government's positions were morally detestable, but what are your thoughts on an internal conflict like this hypothetical illegitimate government wanting to do something I (or you) actually strongly agree with? We're still brainstorming . Do you have ideas of your own to contribute before we get into which we should pursue most vigorously and how to go about it? If not, that's fine. We can come back to your (and anyone else's) reasonable concerns once others have shared their ideas. I've described my understanding of non-reformist reforms previously and you're welcome to do your own research in the meantime though.
I don't have anything else to add to your list; I think fighting the illegitimate government both on legal grounds ("constitutional challenges") and in the streets ("civil disobedience") would be the two main ideas I would have suggested / contributed.
|
On April 28 2026 23:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 23:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 23:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. It's not a comprehensive list. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas! I want to touch upon Parallel Institutions/MAN and Symbolic Defiance. What's the monetary support coming from for these? I think if we're going to ignore laws and symbols, we're going to need a lot of bail money and lawyers. Where's the foundation of this going to begin growing and how do you propose we go about getting that support? We're still brainstorming Do you have ideas of your own to contribute before we get into which we should pursue most vigorously and how to go about it? If not, that's fine. We can come back to your (and anyone else's) reasonable concerns once others have shared their ideas. I think you should probably start at HBCU and other schools where aspiring lawyers are being made to get them on your side. You should also probably start some sort of "Civil Go Fund Me" so that people who can provide support has a means to donate. Use it as a trust with the explicit duty of paying for lawyers and bail. You're also going to need to define what laws and symbols are to be defied. You need to define order among the disorder you wish to create.
Those are great ideas! I don't want to discourage you from exploring this line of thinking. It genuinely sounds promising and like something I'd support. It isn't quite what we're looking for in this moment. It fits more in "details of how to do something" already mentioned more than a different thing to do.
That said, it's a great contribution I sincerely appreciate and will certainly return to/support/look for ways to improve during that part of our work.
|
The fun part is that those few highly regarded ideas are the ones that Trump regime have been preparing for.
For civil disobedience, they've been sending troops and ICE thugs to the streets to ensure any civil disobedience is met with maximum force.
They have also been going after civil society by attacking (however flawed) organizations like SPLC and more importantly blackmailing universities (the usual place where civil movements grow) into suppressing student speech and ability to protest the goverment.
And finally, they have been going suing law firms, disobeying or circumventing court orders and heating up the rethoric going after the judiciary, since Congress and Senate led by Republicans have no interest in holding up their end of the bargain under Trump, the only obstacle left is the Judiciary.
|
To do something GH doesn't like, which is commenting on the insanity of the current administration, while we should focus on "la revolution":
I mean, I get it, it's limited edition, whatever, but who the fuck would want a passport with the current president, how cooky and dictatorial is that?
If there is a country which does this shit, I'd love to check it out because this, to me, is even more insane then his moronic coins and national parks pass with him next to Washington.
|
|
|
Canada11509 Posts
I have a theory that the age problem would mostly go away in the house of representatives with more competitive races. Solve gerrymandering and most of it goes away.
Our parliament average age is 52 vs House of Representative is 57.5 but has been 58.
We do have have 2 over the age of 80 out of 343 seats vs 17 over the age of 80 out of 435 (not counting the one that just died.) But over the last ten years sometimes our oldest member was 77 vs late 80s in the States. So with competitive races, my theory is that it naturally scales younger.
However, the Senate might not change without some sort of age limit as there are only two positions to vote for and many States tend to favour one party for long periods of time.
Our Canadian appointed Senate averages 65 though historically 64, which is very close to US' 64-65 average. But importantly, Canada does have mandatory retirement at 75, which would cut out 14 Senators. (Sidenote. Oh, wow. Chuck Grassley is 92.)
On the surface, the averages don't maybe seem like much, but on the outer edges of elderly American politicians, you wind up with such bizarre cases that I can think of no equivalent Canadian example. Maybe with more competitive races, you would avoid cases like Kay Granger who was found in a memory care and living assistance home by Dallas Express.
https://dallasexpress.com/tarrant/exclusive-where-is-congresswoman-kay-granger/
And Feinstein was looking pretty rough by the end with prolonged absences due to health issues.
This doesn't touch presidential elections but they are such singular events that is hard to know if the battle of the geriatrics Biden vs Trump is a pattern or an outlier that will resolve naturally.
|
On April 29 2026 03:37 Jankisa wrote:
To do something GH doesn't like, which is commenting on the insanity of the current administration, while we should focus on "la revolution":
I mean, I get it, it's limited edition, whatever, but who the fuck would want a passport with the current president, how cooky and dictatorial is that?
If there is a country which does this shit, I'd love to check it out because this, to me, is even more insane then his moronic coins and national parks pass with him next to Washington. That passport sounds like an amazing way to be selected for a random cavity search at any point of entry outside the US.
|
On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. It's not a comprehensive list. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas!
Thanks for this! Appreciate the direct response and engagement.
I'd suggest simply supporting/enabling louder political voices. Propaganda's part of what gets us here.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1286 Posts
On April 29 2026 03:37 Jankisa wrote:To do something GH doesn't like, which is commenting on the insanity of the current administration, while we should focus on "la revolution": I mean, I get it, it's limited edition, whatever, but who the fuck would want a passport with the current president, how cooky and dictatorial is that? If there is a country which does this shit, I'd love to check it out because this, to me, is even more insane then his moronic coins and national parks pass with him next to Washington.
Heh looking at the outline on the second picture, if that door at the back were a little higher, it's basically just the US giving the rest of the world the middle finger.
|
On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 08:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:My biggest issue with the way GH handled his "legitimate government" topic wasn't with the semantics of that phrase. I'm happy to listen to whatever definition someone wants to use and operate within those boundaries, although sometimes I may not personally have an answer to every related question or hypothetical. My biggest issue was how he purposely slow-rolled the discussion + Show Spoiler + to the point where he knew people were going to get tired of him dodging the meaningful part of the conversation: is it sufficient to just call Trump's 2nd term "not legitimate", or should there be some kind of action taken to reinforce those words, and if so, what actions has GH taken (or what actions will GH take in the future) when he encounters illegitimate governments? It was silly when GH said he wouldn't answer those questions of substance until someone supported him, and then after Acrofales explicitly wrote out his full support, GH still wouldn't address the actions that ought to be taken, instead saying that one person was no longer enough and that we should all take a poll. The goalposts kept moving so that he'd never have to actually talk about the topic he brought up in the first place, even after Fleetfeet showed him an example of how to structure his flowchart. Given how frequently GH mocks and gawks at the rest of us for talking the talk but possibly not walking the walk, I found his virtue signaling (Trump's second term is illegitimate but GH doesn't want to do anything about it) to be hypocritical. Furthermore, given how much crap he gives many of us for engaging with a few other posters who are bad-faith or frustrating to talk to, GH didn't really give us a good alternative today. I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position. Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. It's not a comprehensive list. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas!
If you truly feel it's an illegitimate government, the easiest thing you can do is just stop paying tax, and stop claiming any sorts of benefits.
Get called by the IRS, go to the court, tell them you do not obey the laws of an illegitimate government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://ip.index.hr/remote/bucket.index.hr/b/index/cea77797-9e15-4171-a9d6-8cb648ab27eb.jpg?width=765&height=430)
