Res Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Lord Raven said: Yeah, I agree. I consider myself educated to issues to a bare minimum degree and I really don't want to be considered in the upper tier of this, if nothing else. I recommend avoiding the 'things anti-vaxers say' Facebook page, then. ;) 1 hour ago, Radiant head said: yeah it's kind of the same thing as putting the ceo of exxon or the president of goldman sachs in his cabinet. just a more blatant version of how the government has always been run. Has anyone been as thin-skinned and impulsive as Trump, though? Of all the pressing issues and concerns that could've been addressed yesterday... we get a whole speech about crowd size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 yeah, now THAT looks really scary. the white house just looks orwellian as hell, pr-wise. unless corporate media gives up access journalism now that trump has rebuked them and actually tries to hold them accountable, it's like we're going to have no idea what's going on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 It's not the gubmint's duty to educate you about vaccines, as much as it's not the gubmint's duty you get you vaccinated, and it's not their job to counter. As far as I know that's just how American law rolls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augestein Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Excellen Browning said: It's not the gubmint's duty to educate you about vaccines, as much as it's not the gubmint's duty you get you vaccinated, and it's not their job to counter. As far as I know that's just how American law rolls. Well you could argue that it's their duty to educate people because of public schools. While it might not be educating the current set of adults, it IS their duty to ensure that children are being properly educated. Of which, there seems to be no attempt to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 My biggest problem is with the Antifa rioters. I saw the Communist hammer and sickle out on signs during the riots and that worries me a lot more than anything that Trump might do. I would like to criticize Trump but between him and the Antifa, I'll take Trump hands down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rukina Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 6 hours ago, Excellen Browning said: It's not the gubmint's duty to educate you about vaccines, as much as it's not the gubmint's duty you get you vaccinated, and it's not their job to counter. As far as I know that's just how American law rolls. Each state has laws requiring certain vaccinations. A state's government can modify them if necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Pepe The Conquerer said: My biggest problem is with the Antifa rioters. I saw the Communist hammer and sickle out on signs during the riots and that worries me a lot more than anything that Trump might do. I would like to criticize Trump but between him and the Antifa, I'll take Trump hands down. why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 anti fascism is self defense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) Um, antifa as in anti-fascists. I assume this is in relation to Richard Spencer's latest escapades. Why are we defending fascists? I loathe communism as well, but if any ideology is susceptible to being immediately disdained because it has inherently toxic qualities, it's fascism. Even more so than communism. Either way, (thankfully) both don't have any significant support behind them. Some sickle flags does not mean America is about to be overtaken by communism. Edited January 23, 2017 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Yeah because fighting one totalitarian ideology by trying to forcefully establish another one is totally bound to work out well. Like back in the day when Hitler protected Germany against Bolshevism and the CPSU protected their citizens from fascism. Those were truly fun times for the whole family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 8 hours ago, Pepe The Conquerer said: My biggest problem is with the Antifa rioters. I saw the Communist hammer and sickle out on signs during the riots and that worries me a lot more than anything that Trump might do. I would like to criticize Trump but between him and the Antifa, I'll take Trump hands down. Seems like a false dichotomy to me- just like how every criticism of Obama was not support of neoconservative fascism, not every criticism of Trump is a support for Communism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 6 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said: why? Because Antifa factions in Europe are essentially Trotskyists. And they are not above using violent measures to achieve their means. I don't think President Trump will be that bad for the USA. He might even be OK. But when you (not you specifically, just in general) spend over a year convincing yourself that anyone you disagree with is a Fascist (regardless of whether that is truth or not), then resorting to violence in order to "stop fascism" becomes justifiable because you have determined yourself to be morally good while they are morally evil. The Spencer incident is a great litmus test. I think he's a terrible person but all he has right now are ideas and opinions. He doesn't determine policy at any level. So resorting to physical violence in order to silence him or even condoning that violence because "he's a Nazi" is in direct opposition to the idea of free speech. I disagree entirely with what he says. I'll be happy to discredit his arguments in the public sphere and show why white ethno-nationalism is terrible. But as per the idea of freedom of speech, I'm going to defend his right to say his ideas without being attacked. Plus, physically attacking him is only going to justify his case in his opinion. He will (and is, if I'm not mistaken) use the victimhood narrative that has been cultivated by leftists and use that to his advantage to say that whites are under attack. That will almost undoubtedly raise support for his opinions which we can all agree is not a good thing. Using violence to silence him is self-defeating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skynstein Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 On 22/01/2017 at 1:37 PM, Res said: Thirdly, sure, he's only been president for a couple of days. But we've already seen measures introduce to do away with the ACA (with no alternative currently offered). We've already seen the changes to the whitehouse.gov site (with all references to LGBT and disability rights removed, with so far nothing chosen to replace them, and with threatening pages as the new Issues pages instead), we've got yesterday's lies, and today we have the announcement of the intention to withdraw from the UN. All of these are more real than 'Obama's going to take my guns away!' ever were. The UN is shit anyway, it's just a glorified League of Nations. On 22/01/2017 at 4:58 PM, blah the Prussian said: ...no, not really. Rome did a lot of good things, but it was shit in woman's rights even compared to other coutnries of the time, such as the Alexandrian successor states, which had Queens either as co-monarchs with their husbands or full on female inheiritance, and Persia, which had female regents and several female monarchs, although admittedly most of those were assasinated pretty quick. So no, Roman women were a little a bit above Saudi Arabia in that they could dress a bit freer, but apart from that it was utter shit. The real thing the Ancient World was good about was LGBT rights. Women in Rome could theoretically not be subject to anyone, they could be autonomous but they couldn't be head of a family (pater familias). It was rare, though. Possibility of existing queens means nothing, historic queens led countries due to lack of alternative, most dinasties did absolutely everything they could to pass the crown down to a male. Since nobility is based on blood, women were really the last resort to preserve the lineage. Even in fiction like Game of Thrones the rule is observed, Daenerys Targaeryen for example was last in succession and wed to Khal Drogo like a mule for the remaining Targaeryens to acquire command over his army, but Rhaegar was dead and Viserys was a weak clown, so the "right" to the throne was passed down to Daenerys after Drogo killed Viserys (and even then, I believe Drogo would be the one to sit in the Iron Throne...). What really matters are the civil rights among the peasantry, and even in absolute monarchies led by queens the women really had it rough. There was also no such thing as "LGBT rights" in the Ancient World because there wasn't yet a concept of homosexuality as "identity". Men who subjected themselves to pederasty in Athens would go on to marry women and form families. Transexuality was also not known of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Pepe The Conquerer said: The Spencer incident is a great litmus test. I think he's a terrible person but all he has right now are ideas and opinions. He doesn't determine policy at any level. So resorting to physical violence in order to silence him or even condoning that violence because "he's a Nazi" is in direct opposition to the idea of free speech. I disagree entirely with what he says. I'll be happy to discredit his arguments in the public sphere and show why white ethno-nationalism is terrible. But as per the idea of freedom of speech, I'm going to defend his right to say his ideas without being attacked. Plus, physically attacking him is only going to justify his case in his opinion. He will (and is, if I'm not mistaken) use the victimhood narrative that has been cultivated by leftists and use that to his advantage to say that whites are under attack. That will almost undoubtedly raise support for his opinions which we can all agree is not a good thing. Using violence to silence him is self-defeating. That's right, and personally I would prefer verbal response after he speaks his laughable ideas, but I can't really say I feel any sympathy for him either. Still, he seems more or less like the guy who would enact the ethnic cleansing that he believes in, if he had the power. And in fascist societies in the past that can happen very quickly. 3 hours ago, Yojinbo said: Yeah because fighting one totalitarian ideology by trying to forcefully establish another one is totally bound to work out well. Like back in the day when Hitler protected Germany against Bolshevism and the CPSU protected their citizens from fascism. Those were truly fun times for the whole family. Who is this addressed to? Edited January 23, 2017 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Just now, Tryhard said: That's right, and personally I would prefer verbal response after he speaks his laughable ideas, but I can't really say I feel any sympathy for him either. Still, he seems more or less like the guy who would enact the ethnic cleansing that he believes in, if he had the power. And in fascist societies in the past that can happen very quickly. Yes but it is now commonplace to endorse this violence. The FB comment section on the NYT opinion piece was applauding the use of violence against Spencer. And that's the problem. Now the question is "with who does it stop?". I've been called a fascist by someone I went to school with. Should I be silenced by violence? Authoritarianism is bad on both sides. But right now, it's a lot more prevalent on the left and it's naïve to think otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augestein Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 59 minutes ago, Pepe The Conquerer said: Yes but it is now commonplace to endorse this violence. The FB comment section on the NYT opinion piece was applauding the use of violence against Spencer. And that's the problem. Now the question is "with who does it stop?". I've been called a fascist by someone I went to school with. Should I be silenced by violence? Authoritarianism is bad on both sides. But right now, it's a lot more prevalent on the left and it's naïve to think otherwise. I don't think a few comments by a few people on twitter and FB should mean that it's commonplace to endorse violence. Most of the time on the Internet, when people say "good," for something bad happening to someone, it's just another way of saying "I have no sympathy." Probably when one side is completely and utterly crushed to lopsided numbers to the point where the other group is silenced either by force or just drowned out by other voices. It doesn't matter which side it's from. If you believe it's wrong, it's wrong. The origins of it don't matter. This nonsense of left and right is how this chaotic mess has gone on for as long as it is, because rather than trying to find a solution to it, people are pointing fingers at "some other side." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, Augestein said: I don't think a few comments by a few people on twitter and FB should mean that it's commonplace to endorse violence. Most of the time on the Internet, when people say "good," for something bad happening to someone, it's just another way of saying "I have no sympathy." Probably when one side is completely and utterly crushed to lopsided numbers to the point where the other group is silenced either by force or just drowned out by other voices. It doesn't matter which side it's from. If you believe it's wrong, it's wrong. The origins of it don't matter. This nonsense of left and right is how this chaotic mess has gone on for as long as it is, because rather than trying to find a solution to it, people are pointing fingers at "some other side." I don't know what you're looking at but hundreds of people comment on any given NYT article. And that's just the NYT. Honestly, I think that the time for fighting between the principled right and principled left is over. If you believe in the general freedoms of free speech and expression, we can put the petty shit of abortion/economics/minor social issues to the side for the moment just to band together. I think Conservatives and Liberals need to form a temporary alliance in order to stamp out this wave of authoritarianism that is sweeping the Western world. That's where I sit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pepe The Conquerer said: I don't think President Trump will be that bad for the USA. He might even be OK. But when you (not you specifically, just in general) spend over a year convincing yourself that anyone you disagree with is a Fascist (regardless of whether that is truth or not), then resorting to violence in order to "stop fascism" becomes justifiable because you have determined yourself to be morally good while they are morally evil. 35 minutes ago, Pepe The Conquerer said: I don't know what you're looking at but hundreds of people comment on any given NYT article. And that's just the NYT. Honestly, I think that the time for fighting between the principled right and principled left is over. If you believe in the general freedoms of free speech and expression, we can put the petty shit of abortion/economics/minor social issues to the side for the moment just to band together. I think Conservatives and Liberals need to form a temporary alliance in order to stamp out this wave of authoritarianism that is sweeping the Western world. That's where I sit. You said that Trump will not be bad for the USA, but then you said that people need to band together to fight authoritarianism in the west. Which is it? How is Trump going to not be bad for the USA if he's part of the authoritarianism you hate? Or, is it because he's a republican that he's alright and that the left is not? Quote Authoritarianism is bad on both sides. But right now, it's a lot more prevalent on the left and it's naïve to think otherwise. [citation needed] Edited January 24, 2017 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augestein Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Pepe The Conquerer said: I don't know what you're looking at but hundreds of people comment on any given NYT article. And that's just the NYT. Honestly, I think that the time for fighting between the principled right and principled left is over. If you believe in the general freedoms of free speech and expression, we can put the petty shit of abortion/economics/minor social issues to the side for the moment just to band together. I think Conservatives and Liberals need to form a temporary alliance in order to stamp out this wave of authoritarianism that is sweeping the Western world. That's where I sit. I know. I'm talking about Internet responses in general. Most Internet talk is exaggerated to the point that I'd honestly consider it a terrible place to even use a reference. It's like referencing Youtube. I'd like for them to work together in general as the discontent from both sides is insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/01/23/trump-reverses-abortion-related-policy-to-ban-funding-to-international-health-groups/?utm_term=.8365872c4992 It continues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/01/23/trump-reverses-abortion-related-policy-to-ban-funding-to-international-health-groups/?utm_term=.8365872c4992 It continues And right after the Women's March as well. Bloody hell... Edited January 24, 2017 by The Blind Idiot God Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 3 hours ago, Lord Raven said: You said that Trump will not be bad for the USA, but then you said that people need to band together to fight authoritarianism in the west. Which is it? How is Trump going to not be bad for the USA if he's part of the authoritarianism you hate? Or, is it because he's a republican that he's alright and that the left is not? Yeah I'm not sure how the Trump presidency telling lies and trying to spin them as 'alternative facts' isn't anything to worry about, but small groups of protesters with no political power are huge authoritatian threats. I guess some people will justify whatever Trump does because he's on their 'side' or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunwoo Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 8 minutes ago, -Cynthia- said: Yeah I'm not sure how the Trump presidency telling lies and trying to spin them as 'alternative facts' isn't anything to worry about, but small groups of protesters with no political power are huge authoritatian threats. I guess some people will justify whatever Trump does because he's on their 'side' or whatever. This is basically the story of humanity. There are a lot of people who claim that they don't like something if their opposition does it. They say it is shameful, and people who do it are horrible people. But when it's someone on "their side" who do it, then they'll backpedal. They'll make all sorts of excuses to justify it. Or they'll outright lie about it to make themselves come off as the better, more justified side. Humanity is full of a lot of people who can't see their own biases, who think things are okay for them to do, or that their side is always right. People have that kind of attitude about almost anything, trivial or not. It becomes terrifying when the thing at stake isn't so trivial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 5 hours ago, Augestein said: It doesn't matter which side it's from. If you believe it's wrong, it's wrong. The origins of it don't matter. This nonsense of left and right is how this chaotic mess has gone on for as long as it is, because rather than trying to find a solution to it, people are pointing fingers at "some other side." it's almost as if... people have conflicting interests Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 2 hours ago, Lord Raven said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/01/23/trump-reverses-abortion-related-policy-to-ban-funding-to-international-health-groups/?utm_term=.8365872c4992 It continues This tweet sums it up. And this is just nauseating Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.