Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Raumata said:

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/is-it-ok-to-punch-a-nazi-leading-ethicists-weigh-in/

Here is one article where an ethicist gives their opinion. I hope you, and everyone else, finds it interesting.

It's interesting that he should mention MLK Jr, when MLK's legacy was to be shot dead (and forever after be misquoted by white people).

As Radiant head said, the shooting of a protester in Seattle has garnered virtually no news, especially after it was confirmed that he was a protester and not one of Milo's potential attendees (when there was some doubt, everyone pounced on it in order to denounce the protesters). The general message I'm getting from a lot of people is the left should be prepared for self-sacrifice if they wish to get anywhere.

You say it's important not to forget history, which I absolutely agree with. But there's a huge difference between reading about history and listening to Milo's speeches, which leads to the outing of society's most vulnerable people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Res said:

It's interesting that he should mention MLK Jr, when MLK's legacy was to be shot dead (and forever after be misquoted by white people).

As Radiant head said, the shooting of a protester in Seattle has garnered virtually no news, especially after it was confirmed that he was a protester and not one of Milo's potential attendees (when there was some doubt, everyone pounced on it in order to denounce the protesters). The general message I'm getting from a lot of people is the left should be prepared for self-sacrifice if they wish to get anywhere.

You say it's important not to forget history, which I absolutely agree with. But there's a huge difference between reading about history and listening to Milo's speeches, which leads to the outing of society's most vulnerable people. 

I see. Do you mind clarifying what this difference is?  Maybe this is a stupid question. Sorry.

I'm looking at the results in the news section of my google search. There seems to be quite a few articles about that situation, but I'm not seeing NY times or Huffpost or BBC covering this story. Hmm. I wouldn't just rely on popular media outlets in order to get my news (maybe try local news?).

About Milo? Well, it already happened and he's probably not going to mince his words anytime soon. I admit I listened to a few of his livestreams and didn't really buy everything he was selling.

Edited by Raumata
added a word or two

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Comrade said:

Liberals get the bullet too, comrade.

They're the communists who would gladly lynch anybody who disagrees with them in a public setting. One person has told me unironically that the gulags should be brought back into use.

We've repeatedly responded to you on this. Are you here to soapbox or are you here to toss labels out and play the victim? I know you're not here to discuss. In either case, since I have faith that you will, if nothing else, try to defend your pride, then I will report you for soapboxing if you say shit like this again.

1 hour ago, Raumata said:

I see. Do you mind clarifying what this difference is? 

Difference is that Milo is a bullshitter and professional troll. Nothing he says is worthy of anything - it's not rooted in fact, he is a writer on Breitbart after all. Which is textbook fake news and alt-right/neo-nazi propaganda. Added onto this is the fact that he flip-flops on various issues in a clear attempt to pander - and it includes things like how video games are for mouthbreathers which was later retracted when he realized that his following includes those. He also claims that he chose to be gay and that he can revert to straight at any time.

I doubt he really cares about anything but money and attention and furthering his brand. His actions certainly contribute to those three things being his endgoal. He is not some historical figure that anyone should give two shits about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

Difference is that Milo is a bullshitter and professional troll. Nothing he says is worthy of anything - it's not rooted in fact, he is a writer on Breitbart after all. Which is textbook fake news and alt-right/neo-nazi propaganda. Added onto this is the fact that he flip-flops on various issues in a clear attempt to pander - and it includes things like how video games are for mouthbreathers which was later retracted when he realized that his following includes those. He also claims that he chose to be gay and that he can revert to straight at any time.

Hmm. I believe I've seen a few of your statements echoed on other forums about Milo by someone else. You may have a point there.

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

I doubt he really cares about anything but money and attention and furthering his brand. His actions certainly contribute to those three things being his endgoal. He is not some historical figure that anyone should give two shits about.

By your logic, you aren't a historical figure and no one should care about what you have to say. What's the point in holding and expressing an opinion then?

Ah, or if you prefer, why should I listen to my elders when they give me advice? They're not in the history books.

Sorry for being so sassy, I just felt like poking fun at it a bit.

All in all. After both sides (democrats vs republicans, antifa vs fascists, religion vs science, everything else that encourages an "us vs them" narrative) say they want the other side to condemn the bad apples in the group, what exactly should they do in order to cooperate?

Edited by Raumata
added a word or two

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Res said:

Wow at this Arkansas abortion law. I have no words for how awful it is.

That's legit terrifying.  I hope that goes hand-in-hand with birth control being given out for free, but I honestly doubt that.

5 hours ago, Comrade said:

Liberals get the bullet too, comrade.

They're the communists who would gladly lynch anybody who disagrees with them in a public setting. One person has told me unironically that the gulags should be brought back into use.

Labels belong on items in a grocery store, not people.  Just as That One Canadian who went nuts in a mosque doesn't mean that Canadians are against Islam.  In this case, you're looking at someone who's just as intolerant as people on the far right - only with a different set of criteria.  Fear knows no political label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raumata said:

By your logic, you aren't a historical figure and no one should care about what you have to say. What's the point in holding and expressing an opinion then?

Ah, or if you prefer, why should I listen to my elders when they give me advice? They're not in the history books.

Sorry for being so sassy, I just felt like poking fun at it a bit.

Luckily the logic wasn't vacuous.

Quote

All in all. After both sides (democrats vs republicans, antifa vs fascists, religion vs science, everything else that encourages an "us vs them" narrative) say they want the other side to condemn the bad apples in the group, what exactly should they do in order to cooperate?

Well, for starters, actually cooperate instead of making the issue binary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

43 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Luckily the logic wasn't vacuous.

Quote

M'kay.

43 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Well, for starters, actually cooperate instead of making the issue binary.

I see. I think they should state what their #1 priorities are, and make decisions that will help their policies fit the other's own policies. That is, if they swallow their pride long enough to compromise. 

That is what I'd say if it were at all possible for them to do so. *Sigh*. I just realized that it won't happen.

Edited by Raumata
added a word or two

Share this post


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

All in all. After both sides (democrats vs republicans, antifa vs fascists, religion vs science, everything else that encourages an "us vs them" narrative) say they want the other side to condemn the bad apples in the group, what exactly should they do in order to cooperate?

When you read about history, it's hopefully from a variety of sources, and although all history books come with an agenda, well-written books will be backed up with facts, sources and an index. Milo isn't aiming to be a historian; he doesn't represent so much of an alt-right view as he's just a troll. 

Religion vs science is a bit of a misnomer (one hopes!). After all, one can be both religious and a scientist - and equally one can be non-religious and believe in all manner of crackpot theories. Science aims to present theories about the observable universe and it isn't necessarily at odds with religious belief. What we do have is religions vs. other religions; usually the fundamentalist religions against one another, since the majority of religious people live peacefully and don't desire to impose their views upon others.

Are you talking about cooperation between different political factions, or between people within the same political faction (I.e. looking at solutions to stop the infighting?). 

Share this post


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

When you read about history, it's hopefully from a variety of sources, and although all history books come with an agenda, well-written books will be backed up with facts, sources and an index. Milo isn't aiming to be a historian; he doesn't represent so much of an alt-right view as he's just a troll. 

 

I see.

8 minutes ago, Res said:

Religion vs science is a bit of a misnomer (one hopes!). After all, one can be both religious and a scientist - and equally one can be non-religious and believe in all manner of crackpot theories. Science aims to present theories about the observable universe and it isn't necessarily at odds with religious belief. What we do have is religions vs. other religions; usually the fundamentalist religions against one another, since the majority of religious people live peacefully and don't desire to impose their views upon others.

 

True.

8 minutes ago, Res said:

Are you talking about cooperation between different political factions, or between people within the same political faction (I.e. looking at solutions to stop the infighting?). 

Mostly the former rather than the latter. I believe it would be somewhat easier for people within the same political faction to cooperate than otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Raumata said:

Mostly the former rather than the latter. I believe it would be somewhat easier for people within the same political faction to cooperate than otherwise. 

Not necessarily.  Just look at the sheer number of variants of something like Christianity, despite being the same religion.  Furthermore, Congress is made up of people from different states, and that's bound to cause some differences!

Edited by eclipse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I've heard yet another interesting bit of news that I'm not sure if it is true or not. Apparently Donald's son, Eric Trump, used taxpayers's money to fund his trip to Uruguay, using it to pay things such as the hotel. The total value of the taxpayer money used was $97,830. Is this true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did enjoy quite a few people complaining at the german magazine Der Spiegel's cover for this week. It's almost as if the concept of the free speech they attempt to push goes out the window when it's against them or a political view they agree with.

NY Daily News did it before (and the New Yorker currently), I know, but it seems more striking.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2017 at 9:19 PM, Lord Raven said:

We've repeatedly responded to you on this. Are you here to soapbox or are you here to toss labels out and play the victim? I know you're not here to discuss. In either case, since I have faith that you will, if nothing else, try to defend your pride, then I will report you for soapboxing if you say shit like this again.

I was simply quoting one of the graffiti paintings which had this quote (minus the comrade) with the hammer and sickle beside it. We could also talk about the "Kill Trump" graffiti from the riot.

 

There's also the case that this kind of reasoning is being taught at universities. For example, one person who was part of the crowd who claims to have beaten someone turns out to be staff at UC Berkeley.

 

My point  (while being a bit snarky) is to point out that Antifa are dangerous thugs and a good portion of them are pseudo-Marxists/Communists. Check out George Ciccariello-Maher. He's a professor at Drexel University and he's a Communist (he calls himself one) in favour of shutting down anyone who disagrees with him by force. There are professors who are teaching kids that terrorism (in the dictionary definition of the word) is acceptable.

 

C3otTkPVMAEBiEb.jpgkill-fascists-360x240.jpg

C3odov-UkAEB6_f.jpg

Edited by Comrade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Comrade said:

I was simply quoting one of the graffiti paintings which had this quote (minus the comrade) with the hammer and sickle beside it. We could also talk about the "Kill Trump" graffiti from the riot.

I mean, we just came from a presidency that had so many lynch threats that one "Kill Trump" is very tame in comparison.

Quote

There's also the case that this kind of reasoning is being taught at universities. For example, one person who was part of the crowd who claims to have beaten someone turns out to be staff at UC Berkeley.

This is an anecdote. Citation needed for the generalized point. Racist sentiments are taught in many schools. Does this mean all schools are racist?

Quote

My point  (while being a bit snarky) is to point out that Antifa are dangerous thugs and a good portion of them are pseudo-Marxists/Communists. Check out George Ciccariello-Maher. He's a professor at Drexel University and he's a Communist (he calls himself one) in favour of shutting down anyone who disagrees with him by force. There are professors who are teaching kids that terrorism (in the dictionary definition of the word) is acceptable.

  Reveal hidden contents

C3otTkPVMAEBiEb.jpgkill-fascists-360x240.jpg

C3odov-UkAEB6_f.jpg

Your point is to take a few people and demonize "the left" - in other words, anyone who disagrees with you. Your point is now to say anyone who disagrees with you or is on the left is a communist. And you cite specific people to prove your point, rather than an actual generalized study or really, a sense of knowledge of what you are talking about.

Anti-Trump graffiti tends to be few and far between in comparison to racist graffiti. I can find a source to back this up, if you wish, but you'd be a fool to disagree. Your entire purpose in this thread is to demonize the left, and not take any responsibility for the right having equal to or worse sensibilities. I mean, it's okay to look at people on your side and say that they are doing the wrong thing, and doing things even worse. Nobody in this thread has ever argued that the left is unequivocally correct. You're just projecting.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question, Raven.

 

Can you not say "well shit, these people are acting in terrible faith, we need to cut out this cancer from our movement"? Or is it more important to respond every time with "BUT THE RIGHT!!!"?

 

This is a cancer in your movement. Are you going to admit it or not? Because it sounds like you are apologizing for them.

Edited by Comrade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Comrade said:

Serious question, Raven.


Can you not say "well shit, these people are acting in terrible faith, we need to cut out this cancer from our movement"? Or is it more important to respond every time with "BUT THE RIGHT!!!"?

 

This is a cancer in your movement. Are you going to admit it or not? Because it sounds like you are apologizing for them.

I did both and I do both. In this thread, the "leftists" do both. The issue is that you are not doing the same at all. Your labeling of "left vs right" is meaningless.

Nobody in this thread - me included - is saying htese riots were anything short of dumb or fucked up. Just because we aren't saying that Milo is a victim in all of this (he is not, Milo Yiannopoulos is a shit stirrer who I'm fairly confident instigates these) and in fact shitting on Milo is irrelevant to the fact that we don't think these riots are a good thing.

Anti-fa is not a good thing. Fascism is far worse. People want to punch Nazis, people will not because it makes their stance stronger. You're projecting, once again, by saying that I do not criticize "the left" because you actively pick "left vs right" fights when in reality it's irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Comrade said:

Serious question, Raven.

 

Can you not say "well shit, these people are acting in terrible faith, we need to cut out this cancer from our movement"? Or is it more important to respond every time with "BUT THE RIGHT!!!"?

 

This is a cancer in your movement. Are you going to admit it or not? Because it sounds like you are apologizing for them.

 

Do remind me about all the times you called out such "cancer" in the (alt-)right. Hell, I haven't even seen you decrying the Quebec City shooting, let alone admitting that maybe the racist and Islamophobic rhetoric being spewed by Trump and his supporters may be a contributing factor to the incident.

I'm not even saying I expect you to do so; every movement has some awful people in it, some of them even violent. Evil knows no political affiliation. But to act like only your political opponents have a monopoly on violent behaviour is pathetic. It should go without saying that nobody in this is advocating violent behaviour, so please don't craft a giant strawman by implying otherwise.

Share this post


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

yeah, and the so called president is reacting as if he just learned about the judicial branch and checks/balances

To be fair, he is probably just learning about them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Comrade said:

I was simply quoting one of the graffiti paintings which had this quote (minus the comrade) with the hammer and sickle beside it. We could also talk about the "Kill Trump" graffiti from the riot.

 

There's also the case that this kind of reasoning is being taught at universities. For example, one person who was part of the crowd who claims to have beaten someone turns out to be staff at UC Berkeley.

 

My point  (while being a bit snarky) is to point out that Antifa are dangerous thugs and a good portion of them are pseudo-Marxists/Communists. Check out George Ciccariello-Maher. He's a professor at Drexel University and he's a Communist (he calls himself one) in favour of shutting down anyone who disagrees with him by force. There are professors who are teaching kids that terrorism (in the dictionary definition of the word) is acceptable.

  Hide contents

C3otTkPVMAEBiEb.jpgkill-fascists-360x240.jpg

C3odov-UkAEB6_f.jpg

Aight, question. You have been speaking out in favor of allowing Fascists, who wish, in some cases, for genocide, free speech, which I disagree with. Now, though, you appear to be advocating for the censorship of professors on the left who are advocating for something as bad. For what it's worth, I agree with this, but this seems rather inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2017 at 5:18 AM, Augestein said:

I agree, but to be fair, I think he's honestly just not used to the level of stress that comes with the job, and to be honest, it's not like his own work where he can just raise his arms bully someone into submission and then go about his day. The leaders of their countries have people to take care of and it makes them surprisingly more resilient to his words, and the media is kinda tearing him apart. Whether it be newspapers, televisions, or even word of mouth. And he didn't realize just how much attention the POTUS gets I think. You can't say anything without having someone tell their friends and family. 

Considering all of the shit that he said about Obama and how he never seemed to appreciate anything Obama did, I'm not inclined to feel sorry for him. If you can't take it, you shouldn't be dishing it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite astounding.

I really thought that was satire at first, but it's his actual account (not sure why he isn't using the POTUS twitter but hey). Trump can go barely one day without surprising me in some new way.

"Any negative polls are fake news"

Edited by Tryhard

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...