Radiant head Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) i can agree with criticizing tactics, because i think antifa is a bit of a mess and it's there's a good discussion worth having over what actions would work the best (which also depends on what goals exactly are), though even then i think tactics should be left to the people actually involved. but i have no interest in liberals moralizing about violence it's always the same people who don't care about black people getting shot on the street by state-sanctioned thugs or the us military murdering children in the middle east who get all outraged about smashing windows or whatever. Edited February 9, 2017 by Radiant head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 7 hours ago, Radiant head said: i can agree with criticizing tactics, because i think antifa is a bit of a mess and it's there's a good discussion worth having over what actions would work the best (which also depends on what goals exactly are), though even then i think tactics should be left to the people actually involved. but i have no interest in liberals moralizing about violence it's always the same people who don't care about black people getting shot on the street by state-sanctioned thugs or the us military murdering children in the middle east who get all outraged about smashing windows or whatever. That, sir, is a generalization. I don't think violence is justified here, and I think that the US should get out of the Middle East, and the police need to be reformed. At the very least, I would like Antifa more if they spent more time actually punching Nazis and less smashing windows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 The term "liberal" gets thrown around in here so many times -often in borderline mutually exclusive context- that I start to wonder if people are talking about the same thing or if everybody has his own definition of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunwoo Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 "Liberal" has become the new "Mary Sue" -- it's been used to describe things that someone doesn't like rather than what it actually means, and it no longer has any meaning anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Yojinbo said: The term "liberal" gets thrown around in here so many times -often in borderline mutually exclusive context- that I start to wonder if people are talking about the same thing or if everybody has his own definition of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Yeah I really hesitate to say liberal these days because it refers to almost opposite things economically between the US and Europe. Social liberalism makes sense as a term, but economic liberalism meant - to me, growing up - expansion of welfare, but it made much more sense to me to have it refer to more of a free market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 My comment was perhaps a little harsh. I've been using the definition of liberal as is currently popular in much of the media/amongst my friends. Trump's yelling in all caps over on twitter after the appeals court ruled against him. If nothing else, the past two months have shown how used he is to getting his own way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) well i'm a socialist, so i almost always use liberal in the way it's used in the rest of the world. both american liberals and conservatives are liberals as far as i'm concerned. relevant: Edited February 10, 2017 by Radiant head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Water Mage Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Res said: My comment was perhaps a little harsh. I've been using the definition of liberal as is currently popular in much of the media/amongst my friends. Trump's yelling in all caps over on twitter after the appeals court ruled against him. If nothing else, the past two months have shown how used he is to getting his own way. Honestly he should stop tweeting altogether, or have a professional spokesperson do it. But yeah, I think being the president is not what he imagined at all. A sadistic part of me really wanted to see his real life reaction to the courts ruling against him. Speaking of Twitter, someone told me that Trump broke the law by speaking in favor of his daughter's brand on Twitter. Some say he can be even be impeached by that, but I doubt something so small would do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 So crime rates are down, killings by police are up, police are rarely ever charged or convicted, but the police need more power anyway. Ugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Water Mage said: Honestly he should stop tweeting altogether, or have a professional spokesperson do it. But yeah, I think being the president is not what he imagined at all. A sadistic part of me really wanted to see his real life reaction to the courts ruling against him. Speaking of Twitter, someone told me that Trump broke the law by speaking in favor of his daughter's brand on Twitter. Some say he can be even be impeached by that, but I doubt something so small would do it. Man, some people are impatient. I seriously doubt that this will bring an impeachment hearing. Yes, a lot of people dislike Trump (to put it mildly), but if he's going to be kicked out of office, I'd rather it be for something that won't make future historians shake their head in bewilderment. Edited February 10, 2017 by eclipse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Res said: So crime rates are down, killings by police are up, police are rarely ever charged or convicted, but the police need more power anyway. Ugh. Not exactly shocking, considering that he's threatened to send the feds into Chicago, but revolting nevertheless. As if Police in the US didn't have enough power already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augestein Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 6 hours ago, Res said: So crime rates are down, killings by police are up, police are rarely ever charged or convicted, but the police need more power anyway. Ugh. Yeah, police don't need anymore power than they already have. And crime rates have not been "permanently going up." I'm sick of this garbage "X is happening and we have to stop it!" Please. How stupid do they think we are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Water Mage Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, eclipse said: Man, some people are impatient. I seriously doubt that this will bring an impeachment hearing. Yes, a lot of people dislike Trump (to put it mildly), but if he's going to be kicked out of office, I'd rather it be for something that won't make future historians shake their head in bewilderment. Personally I agree with you, but I've heard that the papers for his impeachment have already been prepared, with signatures and everything, so it's like they're waiting for a single mistake in order to attack. I wonder...are those who are pushing for Trump's impeachment are aware that the replacement is even worse? Edited February 10, 2017 by Water Mage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 At this point I'm not even convinced that Pence is worse than Trump anymore, at least from the pov of a US citizen. I personally still have hopes that Trump's Anti-TTIP agenda and his policies of detente towards Russia will prove to be fruitful but of course I'm saying that sitting in the middle of europe not directly affected [yet] by the negative consequences of Trump's shit-stirring antics. Pence embodies just about everything that makes the GOP such a disgusting shitshole but I don't see him being a fundamental threat to the state's constitution, whereas Trump - and of course Steve Bannon - could very well end up being one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 @Radiant head, question, as I'm curious: do you think that the rioters should be made to pay for the,property they destroy (assuming that it's proven, of course)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 hmm I don't really know. if it's like a bank of america or walmart i couldn't care less, but I'd be more sympathetic to like a mom and pop store. but there's probably no way to formally or legally make that distinction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 8 hours ago, eclipse said: Man, some people are impatient. I seriously doubt that this will bring an impeachment hearing. Yes, a lot of people dislike Trump (to put it mildly), but if he's going to be kicked out of office, I'd rather it be for something that won't make future historians shake their head in bewilderment. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" has people shaking their heads now. But I imagine anything related to Trump will have historians going "what the fuck????" 2 hours ago, Yojinbo said: At this point I'm not even convinced that Pence is worse than Trump anymore, at least from the pov of a US citizen. I personally still have hopes that Trump's Anti-TTIP agenda and his policies of detente towards Russia will prove to be fruitful but of course I'm saying that sitting in the middle of europe not directly affected [yet] by the negative consequences of Trump's shit-stirring antics. Pence embodies just about everything that makes the GOP such a disgusting shitshole but I don't see him being a fundamental threat to the state's constitution, whereas Trump - and of course Steve Bannon - could very well end up being one. Steve Bannon is the real reason why Trump is dangerous, but even he has to compete with a Jew (Trump's son in law) for senpai to notice. If we get rid of Steve Bannon then I think the next four years will just be bumbling idiocy that won't really do much. Supposedly senators are trying to get Bannon removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 I used to think pence was worse, because trump seemed way less of a theocratic asshole on things like lgbt rights, but current set up with bannon is probably way worse than what pence would be the other key thing here is that pence or say someone like cruz if he had won would at least govern with a sense of things being normal and without all the unhinged outbursts on twitter. but the horrible politics would be the same. and a lot of the outrage against trump comes from people who approve of most of his politics but just don't like his vulgarity, which means there would be a lot less scrutiny or criticism of the White House in mainstream media Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 7 hours ago, Radiant head said: hmm I don't really know. if it's like a bank of america or walmart i couldn't care less, but I'd be more sympathetic to like a mom and pop store. but there's probably no way to formally or legally make that distinction Is this morally, or legally? Do you accept the need to enforce the law in this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 I guess moral, since I don't believe in private property laws Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 7 hours ago, Radiant head said: I guess moral, since I don't believe in private property laws Ah, see, I'm a legalist. I think that, even if a law is bad, it should be changed and enforced until then. Saying that only the laws that we like are on the books opens up a massive can of worms. And also, what would replace private property laws? Obviously we can't have people smashing other people's stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 I mean the implications would lead to a pretty deep uprooting of how things are done in the current system, because I don't agree with a few people being able to buy 90% of the world's land and resources for profit. like I live in nyc, where real estate investor speculation leads to absurd rent hiking and there being more uninhabited housing than homeless people. as for what things should look like, that's probably a huge discussion for another thread. as for laws, it kind of depends. obviously pure chaos wouldn't help anyone, but i would place greater value in giving a voice to oppressed over protecting Walmart buildings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 7 hours ago, Radiant head said: I mean the implications would lead to a pretty deep uprooting of how things are done in the current system, because I don't agree with a few people being able to buy 90% of the world's land and resources for profit. like I live in nyc, where real estate investor speculation leads to absurd rent hiking and there being more uninhabited housing than homeless people. as for what things should look like, that's probably a huge discussion for another thread. as for laws, it kind of depends. obviously pure chaos wouldn't help anyone, but i would place greater value in giving a voice to oppressed over protecting Walmart buildings You can have both. Civil disobedience, even of the violent variety, should include accepting one's punishment. In that way, a protest is held while rule of law is maintained. If you want to protest an unjust law, go right ahead, but a vital part of any successful civil disobedience campaign is the part where the rebels surrender to authorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 don't necessarily disagree, though there's been a massive erosion of civil liberties since the 60s and habeas corpus was repealed so i don't blame people for not trusting the legal system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 so uh anyway it looks like trump and bannon chickened out on appealing the court's blocking of the muslim ban, so this is basically dead, though now they want to rewrite it. so much for "SEE YOU IN COURT" 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.