Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

315 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      101
    • No
      130
    • Maybe
      84
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      59
    • No
      134
    • Indifferent
      51


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Lushen said:

You do know how nukes work right?  Like...literally the existance of nukes in N Korea means they can strike us.  If you're referring to the range not being long enough to hit the US from Korea, I'll remind you the Japanesse bomb'd Pearl Harbor, one of our military bases first.  And N Korea has explicitly mentioned Guam.

http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/nation-world/report-north-korea-making-missile-ready-nuclear-weapons/462814538

This is a bipartisan issue, I'm not fear mongering. 

they could, but even as backwards as North Korea is, they would know the repercussions. they would be crushed.

North Korea is more a threat to surrounding countries, specifically South Korea, as has been the issue for a long time. there can be no pre-emptive solution to the problem without North Korea turning an attack on Seoul, South Korea and resulting in a huge loss of life. They want this as a deterrent, because they know it's the only thing preventing the US from kicking down the door and toppling them.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


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

People can't change when they're dead.  Whatever Michael Brown's potential was, he died as a man violently attacking a police officer and lionizing him will only encourage the same behavior.

Lushen, did you read any of Shoblongoo's posts?

Genuine question. Furthermore, you said he was a "waste of space," but all 18 year olds are a "waste of space" if we're talking about contributions to society. That was Phoenix Wright's point.

At any rate, if NK sends a nuke anywhere in the world then that's the end of North Korea. It's the same old nuclear Mexican standoff.

They're not going to nuke South Korea and they're certainly not going to touch China due to the fact that they're allies. And they can't take South Korea on conventional war.

1 minute ago, Rapier said:

That said, I disagree with the logic that violent protests and riots are valid because this logic borders Machiavellian "the end justify the means" thinking, which does not sustain itself rationally. It is not true that I may use any action in my disposal to reach the end I want, even if it is a noble goal. And if I give a moral pass to such an act, I am imperatively forced by my morals to also give a pass to other radical actions with questionable methods, as long as the goal is considered noble. tl;dr, the reasoning doesn't sustain in itself and is harmful, thus it must be reprimanded.

If anything, it had the opposite desired effect: It didn't make other people more sympathetic to the alleged police brutality and unfairness. It made protesters look like "violent thugs" without a cause other than taking opportunity of the chaos. It is not helping Michael Brown's side at all.

It actually is a tool in favor in some ways, because riots spread awareness.

I know this is anecdotal, but the number of people that have asked me about the motivation of the Baltimore riots and the long history of corruption in Baltimore was astounding. It's something I've taken for granted but was not known on a nationwide scale.

Besides, in all cases of riots, there were peaceful protests otherwise ignored for weeks beforehand. It's not like someone dies and people suddenly riot. It's that someone dies, people make their voice heard, they're ignored and nothing is done, riots happen. They win over some but as it stands, people who are against their side to begin with won't exactly be swayed in their favor.

At this point it's getting an indifferent populace aware.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

they could, but even as backwards as North Korea is, they would know the repercussions. they would be crushed.

Yea, that's the silver lining.  Despite what China has been saying, I don't think they'd support N Korea.  The US and China have one of the most reliant trade deals in history, neither country could survive without the other's technology and manufacturing IMO.  The issue is, I don't think Kim Jong Un is...the most intelligent man in the world and I think his arrogance could supersede all logic.  After all, N Korea has claimed that they were the first to put a man on the Sun.  

18 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Lushen, did you read any of Shoblongoo's posts?

Obviously as I replied directly to his point about his brother who could change saying that it doesn't matter since Michael Brown didn't change before he died so what he could have potentially done is irrelevant and we can't speak for what might have been.  You read my post?

If all 18 year olds are wastes of space then none of them should be idolized.  Simple.  That being said, not all 18 year olds are wastes of space, some serve in the military, some go to college and focus on their studies, one of my friends started a charity organization long before he was 18 that actually became quite significant.

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Lushen said:

You do know how nukes work right?  Like...literally the existance of nukes in N Korea means they can strike us.  If you're referring to the range not being long enough to hit the US from Korea, I'll remind you the Japanesse bomb'd Pearl Harbor, one of our military bases first.  And N Korea has explicitly mentioned Guam.

http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/nation-world/report-north-korea-making-missile-ready-nuclear-weapons/462814538

This is a bipartisan issue, I'm not fear mongering. 

not to sound like a dick, but i probably know far more accurately than you how a nuke works. and missiles. and planes, apparently. i've linked two things absolutely worth watching in this thread already: the oppenheimer doc and the short but sweet wwii info vid fallen.io. you might begin to understand both the physical difficulties in making a nuke and the political complexities surrounded by their manufacture and ''use.'' what's more--nk probably has no idea how to practically manufacture a hydrogen bomb.

it being a bipartisan issue and whether or not you are fear mongering are wholly unrelated.

11 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Yea, that's the silver lining.  Despite what China has been saying, I don't think they'd support N Korea.  The US and China have one of the most reliant trade deals in history, neither country could survive without the other's technology and manufacturing IMO.  The issue is, I don't think Kim Jong Un is...the most intelligent man in the world and I think his arrogance could supersede all logic.  After all, N Korea has claimed that they were the first to put a man on the Sun.  

Obviously as I replied directly to his point about his brother who could change saying that it doesn't matter since Michael Brown didn't change before he died so what he could have potentially done is irrelevant and we can't speak for what might have been.

your opinions are pretty hastily formed. what you have to say about un contradicts a previous article you linked concerning nk's own power lmao.

Edited by Phoenix Wright

Share this post


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

Obviously as I replied directly to his point about his brother who could change saying that it doesn't matter since Michael Brown didn't change before he died so what he could have potentially done is irrelevant and we can't speak for what might have been.

If all 18 year olds are wastes of space then none of them should be idolized.  Simple.  That being said, not all 18 year olds are wastes of space, some serve in the military, some go to college and focus on their studies, one of my friends started a charity organization long before he was 18 that actually became quite significant.

okay so your point is that he was trash at 18 (just barely an adult, and he wasn't really trash) but he died

in either case, it's pretty obvious; he's a symbol that probably isn't someone we should totally lionize but he's not someone we should demonize at all. he's basically a kid who was shot dead, and shoblongoo's point covers everything about the case. michael brown was looked into by the police force and the DOJ and it turns out he wasn't entirely innocent, but that investigation led to a whole host of other issues

hence he's one of the many faces of the movement. however, your issue seems to literally be with the symbol and not the movement itself (or actually maybe both and you're just finding something really stupid to criticize) so I don't really know why you're going with this. maybe you should stop looking too far into the symbols and care about the movement instead, because symbols are overrated (but are necessary for the common folk).

so please, address the argument and not the symbol, because while he isn't the best symbol his death lead to a DOJ investigation that more or less unraveled the truth, and it just so happened that Michael Brown was the exception and not the rule. i think you, as a white person, really don't understand the fear that black people (or minorities) in general have of the police.

 

Share this post


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

not to sound like a dick, but i probably know far more accurately than you how a nuke works. and missiles. and planes, apparently. i've linked two things absolutely worth watching in this thread already: the oppenheimer doc and the short but sweet wwii info vid fallen.io. you might begin to understand both the physical difficulties in making a nuke and the political complexities surrounded by their manufacture and ''use.'' what's more--nk probably has no idea how to practically manufacture a hydrogen bomb.

I majored with an emphasis in nuclear engineering but ok.

North Korea already has nukes BTW, so how hard it is to make is like...not relevant?  In fact, if you clicked on the link I started this discussion with, you'd read that they just recently made the breakthrough of attaching nukes to a missile so yea...  

19 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

so please, address the argument and not the symbol, because while he isn't the best symbol his death lead to a DOJ investigation that more or less unraveled the truth, and it just so happened that Michael Brown was the exception and not the rule. i think you, as a white person, really don't understand the fear that black people (or minorities) in general have of the police.

The only argument I've seen is "Oh, just because he was the bad guy doesn't mean we shouldn't worship him for sake of the movement" which is so illogical the best way I can think of to refute it is to just repeat it...

I never argued about the Ferguson DOJ investigation because it didn't really relate to what I was saying about BLM's illegitimate roots and current undertakings (go to their website, see how Michael Brown is NOT a dead issue, they're still investing a lot of time and energy on his behalf).  

 

I don't want to go into arguments for the DOJ investigation because whether or not Police should have their hand on a gun more often or be more vigilant with Black people in Ferguson who statistically have a higher crime rate is the same kind of situation of whether or not we should screen Muslim people getting on or off our planes more aggressively.  This is a very highly opinionated issue (pretty much 99% opinionated) in which discussion will lead nowhere good.  This is like talking about Abortion IMHO, people have their opinion and it's not really related to facts.

 

19 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

okay so your point is that he was trash at 18 (just barely an adult, and he wasn't really trash) but he died

in either case, it's pretty obvious; he's a symbol that probably isn't someone we should totally lionize but he's not someone we should demonize at all. he's basically a kid who was shot dead, and shoblongoo's point covers everything about the case. michael brown was looked into by the police force and the DOJ and it turns out he wasn't entirely innocent, but that investigation led to a whole host of other issue,

18 is not a kid, it's an adult.  You're acting like this was some 10 year old juvenile.  

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


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

It actually is a tool in favor in some ways, because riots spread awareness.

I know this is anecdotal, but the number of people that have asked me about the motivation of the Baltimore riots and the long history of corruption in Baltimore was astounding. It's something I've taken for granted but was not known on a nationwide scale.

Besides, in all cases of riots, there were peaceful protests otherwise ignored for weeks beforehand. It's not like someone dies and people suddenly riot. It's that someone dies, people make their voice heard, they're ignored and nothing is done, riots happen. They win over some but as it stands, people who are against their side to begin with won't exactly be swayed in their favor.

At this point it's getting an indifferent populace aware.

This!

I admit, I was hilariously ignorant of U.S. politics up until a couple of years ago, as I was many other things, living in my white privileged bubble. I've had zero interaction with U.S. police (my brother's a detective but that's in the U.K.), again, a result of privilege (unlike Philando Castile, who was pulled over 200+ times prior to being killed). I've learned a lot, thanks to the efforts of groups like BLM and The Guardian's database. Police killings in the U.S. are so commonplace that we only hear of a fraction of them, and even if you wish to dispute Michael Brown's case, there are hundreds in which the victim was very much innocent. For example, Ismael Lopez is a recent case of a man shot dead by police because they got an address wrong (and still the lies!)  There are hundreds of similar examples - some I've seen the videos of. One was a Facebook friend's husband. The average U.S.ian is 8 times more likely to be killed by police than a terrorist. I am far more aware now than I used to be even a year ago. It's definitely impacted how I'll interact with the police in future (and how not to call) and how to teach my kids, too.

Share this post


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

I majored with an emphasis in nuclear engineering but ok.

North Korea already has nukes BTW, so how hard it is to make is like...not relevant?  In fact, if you clicked on the link I started this discussion with, you'd read that they just recently made the breakthrough of attaching nukes to a missile so yea...  

majored...in what with an emphasis in nuclear engineering? so far your claims don't lay credence to your credentials. japan had planes to bomb us with. not missiles. nk's missiles don't yet reach japan. short of a miracle invasion, how do you expect a nuclear warhead to make its way to the united states from north korea?

north korea has fission nukes at best (uranium). not hydrogen bombs. 

i did read the first link. you ignored my point about it lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, you could say that North Korea is a threat to the US in the sense that if they were to attack South Korea or Japan we would get pulled into the fight.  And assuming nothing's going to happen only works if you also assume that all players in this game of "who will nuke whom" is rational.  I can think of at least two players whose rationality is called into question.

Share this post


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

The only argument I've seen is "Oh, just because he was the bad guy doesn't mean we shouldn't worship him for sake of the movement" which is so illogical the best way I can think of to refute it is to just repeat it...

Then you haven't been reading what other people have been saying. To come back to what Shoblongoo said, whether or not Michael Brown is a good symbol to rally is a minor part of the larger problem of the breakdown in the ability to trust the Police.

To what degree Michael 'provoked' the officers doesn't really matter at this point, because regardless of whether he did or did not attack the officer the broader community couldn't trust the Police on the matter since they were so used to officers lying about hostility in order to justify their brutality, nor could they trust the Police's investigation into the matter since their complaints amount to nothing since the officer in question just gets rubber-stamped.

This particular incident is the metaphorical straw breaking the camel's back. Focusing solely on whether or not this one incident was justified ignores the wider issue of the Police pissing away their good will with the public, especially since other, more clear-cut cases of abusive behaviour have come to light.

Share this post


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

majored...in what with an emphasis in nuclear engineering? so far your claims don't lay credence to your credentials. japan had planes to bomb us with. not missiles. nk's missiles don't yet reach japan. short of a miracle invasion, how do you expect a nuclear warhead to make its way to the united states from north korea?

north korea has fission nukes at best (uranium). not hydrogen bombs. 

i did read the first link. you ignored my point about it lol. 

Mechanical Engineering emphasis in Nuclear.  I don't think any of this really matters though, degrees don't mean a whole lot I was just saying if you've done internet research or similar studies on the matter you probably shouldn't criticize my knowledge...

I also never said Hydrogen bombs, I said nuclear bombs.  Fission bombs are nuclear...

Japan had planes to bomb us with...because long distance missiles weren't a thing yet and nuclear bomb wasn't either...

North Korea is "Considering" strike on Guam acc't the second link I referenced which means it can reach one of our military bases.  These bases include American Soldiers and Civilians.  Thus...They can hit us and their enemies...

I don't get it.  Your point is that it is very hard to manufacture and use a nuclear weapon despite my reference saying N Korea has a nuclear weapon they have attached to a missile that can hit Guam.  Like...do you not believe the source or...IDK what you're getting at...

 

28 minutes ago, Mortarion said:

Then you haven't been reading what other people have been saying. To come back to what Shoblongoo said, whether or not Michael Brown is a good symbol to rally is a minor part of the larger problem of the breakdown in the ability to trust the Police.

To what degree Michael 'provoked' the officers doesn't really matter at this point, because regardless of whether he did or did not attack the officer the broader community couldn't trust the Police on the matter since they were so used to officers lying about hostility in order to justify their brutality, nor could they trust the Police's investigation into the matter since their complaints amount to nothing since the officer in question just gets rubber-stamped.

This particular incident is the metaphorical straw breaking the camel's back. Focusing solely on whether or not this one incident was justified ignores the wider issue of the Police pissing away their good will with the public, especially since other, more clear-cut cases of abusive behaviour have come to light.

This is the issue with what people were responding to me about.  I was not discussing whether we could or couldn't trust the police, my last few posts were about how BLM has not been an effective movement and only caused confusion, hostility, and ignorance.  I believe that black lives matter, I just don't believe in Black Lives Matter.

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lushen said:

This is the issue with what people were responding to me about.  I was not discussing whether we could or couldn't trust the police.


...and that's the problem. Its like you're purposely trying to avoid understanding the argument that's being presented to you.

You keep bringing it back to Michael Brown; Michael Brown; Michael Brown.

As though the-point-of-origin is the be-all-and-end-all-of-the-movement; the whole legitimacy of BLM and every previously ignored issue of police accountability and criminal justice its brought to the forefront of the national discourse rises and falls on whether or not the shooting of Michael Brown was justified.

...you won't engage on the issue of over-policing and over-incarceration.
...you won't engage on the issue of excessive use of force + inadequate mechanisms at law to charge cops who cause unnecessary deaths in the line of duty with homicide
...you won't engage on the issue of general lack of accountability for police misconduct
...and you certainly won't engage on the issue of unpunished police misconduct disproportionately affecting minority communities. 

Consider the following.

In the 1960s, there were civil rights activists in the mold of MLK who practiced non-violent civil disobedience to advance a worthy cause. That cause was desegregation and passage of the Civil Rights Act.

You also had more--militant factions--the Black Panthers. The Nation of Islam. The Weather Underground. The Black Liberation Army. Guys who were of the opinion "MLK is taking too long and getting nothing done--nonviolent civil disobedience is bullshit. NEW PLAN: Fight the Power."   

And they were working for the same end-goal. But they were using very different methods.

Now a favored tactic of the Segregationists at this time was to point to the militants and say: "See here? This is the problem. Its not that the Blacks are oppressed. Its that they're violent, lazy criminals who would rather loot and riot and blame the White Man for their problems then be productive members of society; all this talk of civil rights is nonsense."

Then, if a proponent of Civil Rights tried to engage in an on-the-merits discussion of what they were fighting for. Desegregation. Civil Rights Laws. All that good stuff. The Segregationists answer would be: "We're not discussing segregation. The issue is [insert some Black Panther who assassinated a police officer here]."

...and that was the level they engaged...

They equivocated between the purpose of the Civil Rights Movement and the conduct of certain bad actors as though the existence of the latter invalidated the former; as though if you could point to some "lionized" figure in the movement who had done something terrible or said something false, that somehow negated the broader point that segregation and Jim Crow and institutional racism was an injustice that needed to be redressed with corrective policy.

They were, of course, idiots. And the civil rights movement advanced over their hyperbolics.

What I want you to recognize is that you are echoing their argument. You are using the same misapplication of fact to the same ends.

Stop doing that.

Every single thing you are saying about Michael Brown can be true and accurate, and that does not negate the broader point that BLM as a force-of-opposition to unchecked police powers and push for attention to criminal justice reform is a movement with legitimate grievances doing good work in

a) Getting issues that were previously being completely ignored on the public radar

b) Advocating for responsive change-of-law; mandatory bodycameras on all officers. Procedures for independent review of citizen complaints against a police officer. etc.
(This was work that needed to be done and wasn't getting done)

Think about it.

***

The other issue--specific to the state of Missouri--is that Missouri has the most horrifyingly permissive Lawful Use of Deadly Force by a Police Officer  statute in the country. That came to light as part of the debate as to whether or not Darren Wilson could be criminally charged. 

...When the point was raised that even if prosecutors could prove Michael Brown was subdued and compliant at the time of his death, his shooting still would not violate Missouri Law.

...and when no case to be tried before a jury could even be filed because of it. 

...and when people got to reading wait--what does this law say???

A police officer in the state of Missouri can basically kill you at-will--lawfully--so long as he believes  you have committed a crime for which you can be arrested and use of deadly force is necessary "to effect the arrest."

It is a stupidly archaic law.

And--again--we're only now talking about it and trying to fix it, because #Ferguson.

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lushen said:

North Korea is "Considering" strike on Guam acc't the second link I referenced which means it can reach one of our military bases.  These bases include American Soldiers and Civilians.  Thus...They can hit us and their enemies...

I don't get it.  Your point is that it is very hard to manufacture and use a nuclear weapon despite my reference saying N Korea has a nuclear weapon they have attached to a missile that can hit Guam.  Like...do you not believe the source or...IDK what you're getting at...

The source is also from North Korean state propaganda networks. The type that has been making threats against the US for decades and hasn't done anything. Not to say they aren't serious this time with Trump fanning the flames, but I would treat it with a heavy dose of skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Bringing the conversation back to Trump for a moment...

Multiple sources now confirming that the FBI has conducted a raid on the home residence of former Trump campaign Chief of Staff, Paul Manafort.

FBI agents entered the premises pursuant to a search warrant for documents related to the Russia Investigation and seized several hundred pages worth of material from Manafort's home.

The search warrant was signed by a judge and lawfully executed, pursuant to concerns that Manafort would not comply with subpoenas for turnover of relevant documents.

Clearest indication to date that this is now being treated as a serious criminal investigation. Mueller isn't playing around.

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they didn't find anything.

Spoiler

Documents seized during the raid included information Manafort had already provided to the congressional committees, the Post reported. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody tell me what the "alt left" is supposed to be? This week is the first time I heard this term. I'm a liberal, and the democratic party isn't splintered in any comparable way. Yeah, it was pretty scary when a third party candidate threatened to highjack our party, but the most aggressive thing I've seen Bernie Bros do is a backlash about the Nevada caucus. Lots of (potentially Bernie supporting) delegates couldn't make it, apparently somebody picked up a chair - but didn't throw it. I just never felt like there was an "alternative" style of liberalism as outlandish as fake tea parties, Neo-nazis, radicalized Christian theocrats, etc. I know it sounds like I'm kicking conservative ideals while they're down right now, but I'd really appreciate it if somebody pointed at the bad eggs of the left so at least I can be aware of what looks bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

Can somebody tell me what the "alt left" is supposed to be? This week is the first time I heard this term. I'm a liberal, and the democratic party isn't splintered in any comparable way. Yeah, it was pretty scary when a third party candidate threatened to highjack our party, but the most aggressive thing I've seen Bernie Bros do is a backlash about the Nevada caucus. Lots of (potentially Bernie supporting) delegates couldn't make it, apparently somebody picked up a chair - but didn't throw it. I just never felt like there was an "alternative" style of liberalism as outlandish as fake tea parties, Neo-nazis, radicalized Christian theocrats, etc. I know it sounds like I'm kicking conservative ideals while they're down right now, but I'd really appreciate it if somebody pointed at the bad eggs of the left so at least I can be aware of what looks bad.

"alt-left" was something that mainline Democrats called those "Bernie Bros" (which was also meant to be derogatory term) in an attempt to liken them to the same as the alt-right.

so yeah, progressives that supported Bernie were called the "alt-left", even though that was obviously wrong

the "real" bad part of the left is the authoritarian left (i.e distinctively not liberals), but this is not really comparable in the same way to the alt-right.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tryhard said:

"alt-left" was something that mainline Democrats called those "Bernie Bros" (which was also meant to be derogatory term) in an attempt to liken them to the same as the alt-right.

so yeah, progressives that supported Bernie were called the "alt-left", even though that was obviously wrong

the "real" bad part of the left is the authoritarian left (i.e distinctively not liberals), but this is not really comparable in the same way to the alt-right.

I don't know, it depends on where you go. Plenty of Tankies out there, and some are just as cancerous as the Alt Right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

I don't know, it depends on where you go. Plenty of Tankies out there, and some are just as cancerous as the Alt Right. 

You also live in a country that the USSR made its bitch, and that some people around there still think it was the best thing to happen to Czech Republic/Slovakia since sliced bread.

Share this post


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

You also live in a country that the USSR made its bitch, and that some people around there still think it was the best thing to happen to Czech Republic/Slovakia since sliced bread.

Really it's more that Tankies are by far the most self righteous, arrogant, smug assholes I've ever met. I mean, my least favorite person in the world that I know personally is a Tankie(well okay, second least favorite, one guy tried to kill me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2017 at 1:10 PM, Glennstavos said:

Can somebody tell me what the "alt left" is supposed to be? This week is the first time I heard this term. I'm a liberal, and the democratic party isn't splintered in any comparable way. Yeah, it was pretty scary when a third party candidate threatened to highjack our party, but the most aggressive thing I've seen Bernie Bros do is a backlash about the Nevada caucus. Lots of (potentially Bernie supporting) delegates couldn't make it, apparently somebody picked up a chair - but didn't throw it. I just never felt like there was an "alternative" style of liberalism as outlandish as fake tea parties, Neo-nazis, radicalized Christian theocrats, etc. I know it sounds like I'm kicking conservative ideals while they're down right now, but I'd really appreciate it if somebody pointed at the bad eggs of the left so at least I can be aware of what looks bad.

…so Imagine for a moment that the political spectrum is a coordinate plane…

The X-Axis, of course, represents the spectrum from Left to Right.

The Y-Axis represents the spectrum from authoritarianism (UP) to libertarianism (DOWN).

The political orientations of most persons—graphed out on this plane—will be broadly distributed across the X-Axis, representing a broad range of political opinions from Left to Right. But will display comparatively low variation from a value of zero (0) along the Y-Axis. Indicating that most mainstream political orientations—no matter how far left or how right—are neither extremely authoritarian nor extremely libertarian in nature, but somewhere in the middle.

This is your standard spectrum of opposition between Left wing politics and Right wing politics.

…now we start moving further up and down on the Y-Axis. This brings us to parties that—wherever their views may fall on the left/right spectrum—cannot be part of the mainstream dichotomy of left/right politics because they are so extremely authoritarian or libertarian as to be irredeemably off-putting to persons on all sides.


i.e. even if you have someone all the way on the far-right who believes that abortion is murder. And you can have a left/right disagreement on whether or not that's true. Everyone is generally going to be in agreement that women who have abortions should not be executed by firing squad. That would be an extreme authoritarian position, and anyone who holds it would be generally dismissed as a lunatic extremist.

This brings us to what has been labled  the “alt-right” and the “alt-left.”

Now I happen to despise both these terms. Because they are tame euphemisms for terms already in existence and that don’t need to be replaced; they serve only to put a positive spin on extremist political affiliations looking to rebrand themselves, after decades of being dismissed as lunatics under their preexisting labels.

Like we have a pre-existing name for extreme right-wing authoritarianism--It’s called fascism.

“Alt right” is literally  just a euphemism that some fascists made up because nobody likes being called a fascist.

...Then Hillary turned it into a pejorative during the 2016 campaign...

...Then the Right copied her and started throwing around the term "alt left" to describe the extreme left-wing 
libertarians on the opposite end of the spectrum from extreme right-wing authoritarians (we have a name for those too--they're called anarchists.)

This is completely unnecessary. Call an anarchist an anarchist and a fascist a fascist.  

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

…so Imagine for a moment that the political spectrum is a coordinate plane…

whoa there, you can put down the chart. I'm going to be teaching that lesson to students in a few years. I was mostly asking about what ideologies people have been ascribing to the "alt-left", that way I'm more equipped when it comes into conversation. Can't be as complicated as the alt-right term.

Take the Charlottesville nazis. They chanted "You will not replace us". So oh, they're talking about historic symbols being taken down and at worst it's their aggression toward immigrants and PoC taking jobs, that's pretty normal. Then they start chanting "Jews will not replace us" and you're left wondering where anti-semitism falls into the conversation. Alt right doesn't mean any one thing anymore, and even more frustrating is that some of those kids are just there to meme.

So, okay. I guess there's nothing to the alt-left term, besides a minor Bernie connection. Probably a buzz word our president heard on Fox News I guess. So how long can we go before we should be concerned about Steve Bannon not being fired? I know he was hired into a made up government position and probably has no power, but I think this is one firing Trump can use to gain back a lot of his party's good graces. It would also indirectly deal a blow to the efforts of nazis. A win for all of us, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i always thought the alt-left was a white middle class dude who voted for bernie sanders and donald trump

you know, the fuck it i worked for everything i have and im not privileged type

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

whoa there, you can put down the chart.

...you know it probably would have been simpler if I had just posted the chart.

Too many words. Here's a concise visual aid:

Political+compass+comp+center+just+for+the+laughs+center_13ba85_6249292.jpg

Edited by Shoblongoo

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...