Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Cerberus87 said:

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.

Institutionally, however, women having influence on government was much more prevalent in other nations. Inheritance doesn't come into it, because on an institutional level we see the opinions of women respected much more in these other countries. The only Roman woman to ever actually run Rome was Ulpia Severina, wife of Emperor Aurelian, who acted as Regent while an heir for her husband was selected. That's one example in centuries. Admittedly, the Byzantines got better about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Institutionally, however, women having influence on government was much more prevalent in other nations. Inheritance doesn't come into it, because on an institutional level we see the opinions of women respected much more in these other countries. The only Roman woman to ever actually run Rome was Ulpia Severina, wife of Emperor Aurelian, who acted as Regent while an heir for her husband was selected. That's one example in centuries. Admittedly, the Byzantines got better about this.

Well, there were also the woman of the Severan dynasties. They didn't run Rome in their own name but with the second emperor being insane and the next two being children, one also a lunatic and the other a very meek boy(Makes me think of Joffrey and Tommen ) it was up to their mothers and grandmother to be the power behind the throne. This was not missed by the Senators at that time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Radiant head said:

it's almost as if... people have conflicting interests

There's nothing wrong with conflicting interest, that has nothing to do with what I said in my response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Well, there were also the woman of the Severan dynasties. They didn't run Rome in their own name but with the second emperor being insane and the next two being children, one also a lunatic and the other a very meek boy(Makes me think of Joffrey and Tommen ) it was up to their mothers and grandmother to be the power behind the throne. This was not missed by the Senators at that time. 

Referring to Alexander Severus? Of course, that ended when the legions literally preferred a barbarian to an Emperor who took advice from his mother. Hardly an indicator of a society with good women's rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 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?

[citation needed]

I've said multiple times that I'd really like to criticize Trump. The problem comes with some of the ridiculous shit that comes out against him that I have to defend him simply because he is telling the truth on some of those matters. Like the fact that there is still no evidence to be shown that Trump is under Russia's thumb aside from the CIA saying so.

I have problems with Trump. A $1 trillion dollar infrastructure plan would be a great place to start. I'm not a party person but repeating things like that is apparently not enough.

My point is that Trump isn't the problem. The problem is the authoritarian wing of the left which is growing and the soon to be authoritarian wing of the right. If you want to continue to make the a "wonderful caring left vs. evil heartless right" issue, I'll be happy to laugh when your authoritarians go after you. Remember, can't spell g_lag without "U".

As for more violence on the left, take a look at the race riots. Take a look at the inauguration and the Antifa. Or the WikiLeaks emails which flat out stated that the Clinton Campaign hired people to instigate violence at Trump rallies during the election cycle. Or maybe we can talk about Islamic terror apologizing from the left. Or how about the riot outside Milo's University of Washington speech where even a Progressive friend of mine said that he was scared for his life from the protesters against (he was a hardline Sanders supporter and still is) before and after someone got shot. Where would you like to start?

Edited by Pepe The Conquerer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

Referring to Alexander Severus? Of course, that ended when the legions literally preferred a barbarian to an Emperor who took advice from his mother. Hardly an indicator of a society with good women's rights.

China, although probably the most misogynistic country on the planet, had many powerful women amongst its dynasties, not least Cixi and Wu Ti. Ironically, it also has a history of being probably the most repressive country on earth, literally taking 5 steps back for every step forward it ever made, even in the modern day. How sad is it that the most powerful women in the world hail from the place they are probably the least welcome (think of how many infant expats from China are female). Also, although the historicity of Dynasty Warriors is debatable at best, there are a good number of playable female warlords from the Warring States period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pepe The Conquerer said:

My point is that Trump isn't the problem. The problem is the authoritarian wing of the left which is growing and the soon to be authoritarian wing of the right. If you want to continue to make the a "wonderful caring left vs. evil heartless right" issue, I'll be happy to laugh when your authoritarians go after you. Remember, can't spell g_lag without "U".

As a U.S. citizen, I'm a lot more concerned with what the President/Congress/Supreme Court are doing rather than what groups of radical protesters are doing. Do these protesters sometimes have very dangerous ideas and actions? Definitely- but they aren't the ones making the decisions that affect the entire nation. Congress is voting to limit their own independent ethics watchdog organization, but the 'real' issue is that a group of protesters may have included some Communists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pepe The Conquerer said:

My point is that Trump isn't the problem. The problem is the authoritarian wing of the left which is growing and the soon to be authoritarian wing of the right. If you want to continue to make the a "wonderful caring left vs. evil heartless right" issue, I'll be happy to laugh when your authoritarians go after you. Remember, can't spell g_lag without "U".

As for more violence on the left, take a look at the race riots. Take a look at the inauguration and the Antifa. Or the WikiLeaks emails which flat out stated that the Clinton Campaign hired people to instigate violence at Trump rallies during the election cycle. Or maybe we can talk about Islamic terror apologizing from the left. Or how about the riot outside Milo's University of Washington speech where even a Progressive friend of mine said that he was scared for his life from the protesters against (he was a hardline Sanders supporter and still is) before and after someone got shot. Where would you like to start?

I mean, if we want to look at authoritarianism, just take a look at the Republicans. They have been for years. The Democrats don't get a pass on this, because a good majority of them are too, but the Republicans are definitely so. There's a reason they like to crack down on civil liberties (which is apparently one of the only things the Democrats and Republicans can agree on). Trump is heavily authoritarian leaning despite claiming to be populist.

Talk to the populace, however, and a lot of them are far more towards the "liberty" scale, whichever left, right or centre.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pepe The Conquerer said:

Where would you like to start?

Statistics and legislation. Surely you can quote some instead of a "the right were the victims this whole time!"

The fact that someone is intolerant of a Neo-Nazi doesn't make them authoritarian. Unless you're getting the consequences of free speech confused with authoritarianism. Riots getting violent is not a sign of authoritarianism, nor is the idea of people reacting horribly to Milo Yiannopoulos (who is a complete shitlord). Saying that not all Muslims are terrorists is not authoritarianism. Life, it may be too much to ask, but stop bullshitting me. I can't tell if you're deliberately obtuse or if you're really this dense.

Signs of authoritarianism: killing funding towards pro-choice clinics, defunding the arts, making it exceedingly difficult to do things if you are of a lower economic class, restricting rights of non-Christians, lying to the public over bullshit, creating a national holiday of your inauguration, and telling media outlets to fuck off while responding to the media outlet that your own cabinet member owns. The idea of alt-fact exists in many authoritarian regimes, but you seem to be less critical of this because the "right" has won.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

China, although probably the most misogynistic country on the planet, had many powerful women amongst its dynasties, not least Cixi and Wu Ti. Ironically, it also has a history of being probably the most repressive country on earth, literally taking 5 steps back for every step forward it ever made, even in the modern day. How sad is it that the most powerful women in the world hail from the place they are probably the least welcome (think of how many infant expats from China are female). Also, although the historicity of Dynasty Warriors is debatable at best, there are a good number of playable female warlords from the Warring States period. 

China, I'd say, was distinct from Rome in that it started out as a Monarchy while Rome transitioned into one, and it's Emperors still had to pay lip service to the idea of a Republic until Diocletian. I also think that that characterization of China is a bit unfair; it wasn't until the Ming that China got extremely reactionary, and for Manchu women under the Qing it wasn't actually so bad. The Qing actually tried to ban footbinding because women in Manchu society were more respected; they didn't get very far to appease the Han, but they were more open to female rulers because of this. The other important female rulers were also before the Ming; I'd say that Confucianism wasn't actually as consistently rigid as it's often portrayed, but that its revival under the Ming after the fall of the Yuan was quite regressive. But, well, when we're talking about Manchu policy towards footbinding in the General US Politics thread, that's when you know it's time to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Statistics and legislation. Surely you can quote some instead of a "the right were the victims this whole time!"

The fact that someone is intolerant of a Neo-Nazi doesn't make them authoritarian. Unless you're getting the consequences of free speech confused with authoritarianism. Riots getting violent is not a sign of authoritarianism, nor are people reacting horribly to Milo Yiannopoulos (who is a complete shitlord). Saying that not all Muslims are terrorists is not authoritarianism. Life, it may be too much to ask, but stop bullshitting me. I can't tell if you're deliberately obtuse or if you're really this dense.

Signs of authoritarianism: killing funding towards pro-choice clinics, defunding the arts, making it exceeding difficult to do things if you are of a lower economic class, restricting rights of non-Christians, lying to the public over bullshit, creating a national holiday from your inauguration, and telling media outlets to fuck off while responding to the media outlet that your own cabinet member owns. The idea of alt-fact exists in many authoritarian regimes, but you seem to be less critical of this because the "right" has won.

This, all day long. 

Trump IS authoritarian. He's only been president for a week and his actions are as if they're straight from the fascist handbook.

Richard Spencer is a Neo-Nazi (to call him anything else is a euphamism, really) who's advocated for black genocide and who is spear-heading a march against Jewish people (that's a pretty active thing; not just mere speech) in Montana. Waiting for actual damage to occur is a huge failure of Liberalism. Nice, white liberals in particular have failed at every step to prevent any of history's atrocities. 

Side note on violence on the left: The women's march has been applauded for having 'no arrests'. Yes; it was peaceful. Actually, the very fact that it was peaceful is a big part of why it won't accomplish anything (apart from being good for morale for many). This is a good link looking at some of the history of protesting by women, and how ineffectual peaceful protests have been. 

There's also plenty of right-wing violence that is either under-reported or very much minimized in the U.S. This was one recent rant by a friend who works as a Planned Parenthood escort. (She gave permission to share so long as it was anonymous):

Everyone recently has an opinion about protests because of the recent marches. That’s everyone’s right of course. I’m about to offer mine. Well, sort of, you’ll see.

I’m not going to ask about or discuss anyone else’s opinions regarding protesting in general or the women’s march, rallies, etc... To be honest those opinions are largely irrelevant to me (with a few exceptions, like intersectionality opinions) and I’ve seen enough reading Facebook as it is. So, respectfully, you can go ahead and skip leaving those opinions in the comments.

If someone doesn’t like them that’s their right and irrelevant to my life. What I have a problem with is that I’ve never seen any of those same people talking the same way about anti-abortion protests. They happen every week at clinics all over the country. While there are peaceful, praying folk at these places (and I respect their rights even if I hate them for exercising them in this exact fashion), there are also many who are not peaceful or nice in any way, shape or form. Aggression, harassment, vandalism and assault at clinics are not the rare events people seem to think they are. And I rarely hear a word from anyone about it.

In the past year, I have personally called the police a few times (I’m not the only one who has, either) and I filled out FACE Act violation forms for the FBI. The day after the Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado Springs my car was vandalized. You know, the one in which I transport my already born child. I listened to a conversation recently wherein two protesters had a calm, gentle conversation about which tall building across the street from where we were standing would be best for sniper fire on “my” clinic. I have had my picture taken by people who intend to save it for when they have their own “Nuremburg Trial” and have us all killed (and yes I know that’s logically ridiculous). I have escorted patients into the building with jackets over their heads, in the middle of an anxiety attack because of protesters’ behavior. I have listened to the vilest, most racist shit ever uttered to any women of color who walk into the clinic. That’s not even the whole deal, and what is worse is that my clinic is downright docile compared to some others throughout the country. And of course the escorts I work with- as well as everywhere else- experience the same, it’s not like it’s only me.

Many people may not know about this because no one bothers to cover it for the most part. Some people I do tell don’t even believe it or make jokes about it (fyi jokes about clinic bombing… I don’t find them fucking funny), which really pisses me off because they’re basically calling me a liar. If you read this and don’t believe it, you are also calling me a liar.

The whole point of this long winded rant is that I see you, whoever it applies to, bitching about people worried about their civil rights (again, I don’t want to hear whether or not you agree that they have reasons to be) but being silent about people afraid of going to the doctor because they might get hurt. Happens every week, all over the country. Crickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One interesting thing I remember reading was that MLK's march worked because of the threat of Malcolm X on the horizon. It's when people literally threaten harm against the constituents of the oppressors that the oppressors cave in; the issue is that they whitewash MLK as "see what peaceful protest can do?" but without any of the external factors beyond that.

Even that may not work if things are spinned a certain way. Look at the shit all that the Baltimore riots fixed; the cops who murdered Freddie Gray have not been brought to justice and its a result of the symptoms of the problem in Baltimore.

I sincerely approve of punching a Neo-Nazi. His goal is to make entire groups of people fear for their life; he should have a taste of that fear, either so he doesn't do it or it forces him to re-evaluate himself. Punching a Neo-Nazi is punching someone who preaches authoritarianism against those that aren't like him. Unless intolerance of intolerance is authoritarian (which it isn't).

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is straight from the nazi leader himself 

Only one danger could have jeopardised this development – if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh yes, the out-of-context MLK quotes are always rife on media sites in the wake of any protest/MLK Day.

I nearly mentioned all the police killings as another facet of right-wing violence; they're also steadily increasing in number, and they continue to be ignored. Obviously POC, particularly black people and native people, are disproportionately targeted, but we can't even convict killers of white men (a friend on Facebook is the widow of Daniel Shaver - she was donated the services of one of the best attorneys in the country, and yet even with all her privilege she's struggling to secure justice).

40 minutes ago, Radiant head said:

this is straight from the nazi leader himself

I liked this, with that same quote.

Oh, and for what it's worth, the shooter at the recent UW shooting was in line to attend Milo's event (and is a fan of him and of Trump).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't support Trump.  I don't like many of his policies.  Like stated before, I'm greatly concerned about his Vaccine commission.  He needs to grow some thicker skin, his "We Love the President Day" seems a bit self-congratulatory, and I don't think our military needs any expansion right now.  That being said, I think claims that he is a fascist are exaggerations and do more harm than good.  It's like when the right called Obama a socialist or a communist.  It's a bit too much like invoking Godwin's Law, and makes one sound hyperbolic to a neutral party.

 

I applaud the Women's March for being a peaceful protest.  I love that we live in a country that we can peacefully protest.  I condemn any violence, no matter who commits it.  I've worked at Cook County Hospital (It's called Stroger now, but no one recognizes that name) and not a day went by that I wasn't treating somebody who was the victim of a gunshot.  I also worked in a clinic in St Louis that was within walking distance of the Ferguson shooting, and I saw plenty of victims of violence there.  I think we should emulate MLK and Gandhi with peaceful protests.  If there's doubts on MLK's efficacy, Gandhi achieved independence in India with his efforts.  Call me idealist, but I want to live in a country where I can tell me children that they don't have to be violent to effect any change.

 

Tangentially related, I think all police should be required to wear body cams.  It's not going to be a silver bullet, but having a video record of everything will help at least in part, to curb police abuse of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That being said, I think claims that he is a fascist are exaggerations and do more harm than good.  It's like when the right called Obama a socialist or a communist.  It's a bit too much like invoking Godwin's Law, and makes one sound hyperbolic to a neutral party.

How so? His and his campaign team's rhetoric supports the assertion of fascism or trending towards fascism for many reasons stated above.

Obama being a socialist is not a smear nor is it reminiscent of a bad leader and being communist was flat out wrong. Do you not agree that the majority of what Trump has done and said - as well as the things his campaign manager have said - are symptoms of a fascist or authoritarian president?

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't support Trump when the election first started, I actually didn't want him or Hillary to win, I wanted Ted Cruz to win. If only Carson, and what's his name dropped out, we may had our first Latino president, I actually kinda wanted Pence, and Kaine to drop thier people, and run together. I'm a little taken a back by the women's march myself. (NOTE: I SUPPORT WOMEN"S RIGHTS, I BELIEVE MEN AND WOMEN WERE CREATED EQUALLY BY ALMIGHTY GOD AND THAT HE SEEMS THEM EQUALLY AND SO SHOULD WE, BUT FEMINAZIS THAT DO NOTHING BUT DESPISE MEN, AND CLAIM THAT EVERYTHING IS THE GOSH DARN PATRIARCHY, AND EVERYTHING IS SEXIST I WILL NEVER SUPPORT: NOTE OVER) I'm not entirely sure what they thought they were going to accomplish, Trump's never really listened to protestors before, and some of the arguments they were marching weren't even women's rights issues, and went more into the "What is a human life?" area. Personally I don't think protests accomplish much in today's world, since we often equate them with the violent protests, and attacks that have been commited across the country recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

How so? His and his campaign team's rhetoric supports the assertion of fascism or trending towards fascism for many reasons stated above.

Obama being a socialist is not a smear nor is it reminiscent of a bad leader and being communist was flat out wrong. Do you not agree that the majority of what Trump has done and said - as well as the things his campaign manager have said - are symptoms of a fascist or authoritarian president?

I think he is far too authoritarian for my tastes, but not fascist.

He has some criteria from the fascist check list, but so do many, if not most world leaders to some extant.  He has a similar score to the Bush administration post 9/11, or even the American government during World War 2, but that was not fascist.

I think labeling him as authoritarian is accurate, and protesting his authoritarianism is something that I could support, and I'll be watching the coming weeks closely, but I want to keep things in perspective.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

I think he is far too authoritarian for my tastes, but not fascist.

He has some criteria from the fascist check list, but so do many, if not most world leaders to some extant.  He has a similar score to the Bush administration post 9/11, or even the American government during World War 2, but that was not fascist.

I think labeling him as authoritarian is accurate, and protesting his authoritarianism is something that I could support, and I'll be watching the coming weeks closely, but I want to keep things in perspective.

 

His campaign was run on nationalism and racism. This when combined with authoritarianism is fascism. These are quite accurate terms to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S. history began with the trashing of property (in this case, tea) and a violent uprising.

Slavery was not ended without violence.

Women did not gain voting rights without violence (and even then - Native American women did not gain equal voting rights until the 70s).

The civil rights movement was entwined with violence and MLK's legacy is more complex than is typically taught (here is a starting point). 

The U.S. has a bloodier history than many countries twice its age, and rarely listens unless the message is delivered in a violent fashion.

Federal workers have been told to halt external communications.

Media blackouts at EDA and USDA.

Former director of anti-immigrant hate group appointed chief of customs and border protections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

His campaign was run on nationalism and racism. This when combined with authoritarianism is fascism. These are quite accurate terms to use.

We'll have to agree to disagree in that regard.  This is coming from someone who is opposed to Trump, and I think there are serious issues with Trump, but that he's not a fascist.

Here's an article from The Atlantic which shows why, though worrisome, Trump is not a fascist.

The Atlantic endorsed Clinton in 2016, so they aren't exactly cheerleaders for Trump.

Edited by Rezzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

We'll have to agree to disagree in that regard.  This is coming from someone who is opposed to Trump, and I think there are serious issues with Trump, but that he's not a fascist.

Here's an article from The Atlantic which shows why, though worrisome, Trump is not a fascist.

All this article does is shift the goalposts. It argues that Trump has only been president a week and that he is not as bad as Mussolini. It says nothing of what his campaign did and is currently doing which is what we argue in this thread. This article did not address the points made in the thread, it actually vindicates the points and says that his campaign parallels that of Mussolini's, but then explains what happened in the long term with Mussolini but does not negate anything Trump has done or campaigned on.

We agree he has an authoritarian bend and used racism and nationalism to come to power. These are all the qualities of a fascist.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this issue is kind of tricky, because fascism very specifically describes the phenomena of conditions that were happening in germany, italy, spain, etc. during the world wars period of time.  on one hand, you can't really look at trump's right-wing nationalism/authoritarianism and say it's not similar to what fascism was describing, but at the same time what we have is a different set of conditions, that are better explained by looking at america's own history of neoliberal capitalism, conservatism, nationalism, etc.  there's also not much of class collaboration which is pretty central to fascism. we're mostly in unchartered territory, so while historical terms are definitely useful for perspective, it's probably best to not be confined to them. 

though call it whatever you want -  fascism, crypto-fascism, authoritarian populism, etc i think it's pretty clear the threat that's being posed here.  

Edited by Radiant head

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...