Jump to content

US Politics: Locked, Loaded, Fired Up and Capitalized


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, straits said:

The general theme of BLM rhetoric is, as I understand it, equal rights for black Americans and fair treatment by law enforcement. This is easily distinguishable from the actions of a shooter who decided to kill cops without some specific directive from BLM.

The rhetoric of a neo-Nazi rally, and generally the racist implications of alt-right "representatives" is not defensive or egalitarian in its tone. So the deliberate car ramming into a crowd of counter-protesters is more closely related to the actual rhetoric of the alt-right. So far it looked like and it sounded like neo-Nazism. With this attack it's also beginning to act like a radicalized group. It's safe to categorize it as a threat to the general populace, which is not the case with BLM.

Yeah, I agree with this in a general sense. The conflation that occurred between the shooter and the BLM mostly centered around controversial chants that have been used at a few different BLM protests. "Death to Pigs" Kill all Cops", etc etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, straits said:

The general theme of BLM rhetoric is, as I understand it, equal rights for black Americans and fair treatment by law enforcement. This is easily distinguishable from the actions of a shooter who decided to kill cops without some specific directive from BLM.

The rhetoric of a neo-Nazi rally, and generally the racist implications of alt-right "representatives" is not defensive or egalitarian in its tone. So the deliberate car ramming into a crowd of counter-protesters is more closely related to the actual rhetoric of the alt-right. So far it looked like and it sounded like neo-Nazism. With this attack it's also beginning to act like a radicalized group. It's safe to categorize it as a threat to the general populace, which is not the case with BLM.

Categorized by whom? See, the entire premise here is the supposition that government can't or won't perform their role. Okay, let's assume that's true. Then the second supposition is that then when it's determined to be in the wrong one part of the populace will be violently policed by another part. But who makes that determination? And who stops it there? Remember we've kicked government out of that role, so who replaces them? A majority? Is that where this goes? I mean, the numbers do favour our side of the argument some, but I'll bet they've got more guns. 

So, not that much escalation, right? Okay, who stops it? Let's say yesterday a bunch of right minded folk beat the crap out of some of those fascists. We're somehow calling curtain, now? We're thinking that the people on their side of the issue will be like 'fair cop' and nothing happens until the next statue march? No? Or is it not very very very very very likely that they will adopt the same degree of self-determined authority and 'regulate' their own brand of justice? Etc. It's one thing to say the status quo is just not good enough, but to propose violence like it'll happen in a vacuum as opposed to a heavily armed gun factory is very short-sighted indeed. You're going to eventually have to either come to a place where you're back to relying on lawful authority, or appealing to the reasoned minds of the other side, or...perpetual war? Troubled Ireland?

So if we're going to have to come back to those not very appealing but all we've got options in the end, why not skip the part with a bunch of venting murders and assaults and all that just create more scorecards people are going to put ahead of peace for so long people will forget where it began. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I mention all this to ask:  do you really think suppressing the speech of white supremacists is going to make them go away?  

No, just like I don't think suppressing the rights of known murderers and rapists will make them go away.  But, ya know, not a good reason to let them go wandering around doing their murdering and raping, right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

For the record I have no problem with non-violent civil disobedience or with violence in self-defense.

Yeah I don't know why that seems to be brought up.  I also like how Malcolm X was mentioned.  I greatly admire his story, but the most beautiful part is after his Hajj he came out as non-violent.  Then, of course, was almost immediately assassinated by his former militant group (albeit quite possibly with help/encouragement from..certain agencies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah I don't know why that seems to be brought up.  I also like how Malcolm X was mentioned.  I greatly admire his story, but the most beautiful part is after his Hajj he came out as non-violent.  Then, of course, was almost immediately assassinated by his former militant group (albeit quite possibly with help/encouragement from..certain agencies).

To be fair, I think we did start saying 'rule of law' without clarifying what we all meant by same, so I get the assumption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

To be fair, I think we did start saying 'rule of law' without clarifying what we all meant by same, so I get the assumption. 

Yeah, that's fair.  I'm just unclear as to what unjust law we're supposed to be (non-violently) violating.  Now, unjust execution and enforcement of laws?  All on board with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah, that's fair.  I'm just unclear as to what unjust law we're supposed to be (non-violently) violating.  Now, unjust execution and enforcement of laws?  All on board with that.

I know it's confusing. If it helps any, there's a decent chance we'll have a nuclear apocalypse soon and none of this will really matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading through a number of articles - and the associated comments pertaining to the violence in Charlottesville.  It be pretty ugly.

 

The more rational conservative types are pushing the 'both sides are at fault' explanation very hard, apparently taking their cue from Trump. 

 

The not so rational ones...well, a meme is gaining strength that the guy who used his car as a weapon was either a 'liberal' or part of a false flag operation.  I believe we can expect fringe media stories justifying this stance within a few days. 

 

All of the conservatives commenting on those threads view BLM as a straight out terrorist group.  For them, its not even open for debate.   The same is not true of the white supremacists, though they do (reluctantly) condemn the violence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I know it's confusing. If it helps any, there's a decent chance we'll have a nuclear apocalypse soon and none of this will really matter. 

That's cool, as long as I get to be Slim Pickens:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I know it's confusing. If it helps any, there's a decent chance we'll have a nuclear apocalypse soon and none of this will really matter. 

I am less concerned about a nuclear apocalypse than about what I term the 'Crunch'  - a long term energy/resource (especially potable water) crisis that is starting to come to a head.  That, combined with a trend towards authoritarianism...well, the US might effectively be an autocratic/oligarchic state for a long time - as in most of the rest of the century.   Trumps actions are setting the precedents that make this more likely.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

All of the conservatives commenting on those threads view BLM as a straight out terrorist group.  For them, its not even open for debate.   The same is not true of the white supremacists, though they do (reluctantly) condemn the violence. 

Yeah saw earlier that Fox and Friends, predictably, reactivated this abhorrent comparison (I won't even call it false equivalency, because that suggests both sides have a legitimate argument).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I have been reading through a number of articles - and the associated comments pertaining to the violence in Charlottesville.  It be pretty ugly.

 

The more rational conservative types are pushing the 'both sides are at fault' explanation very hard, apparently taking their cue from Trump. 

 

The not so rational ones...well, a meme is gaining strength that the guy who used his car as a weapon was either a 'liberal' or part of a false flag operation.  I believe we can expect fringe media stories justifying this stance within a few days. 

 

All of the conservatives commenting on those threads view BLM as a straight out terrorist group.  For them, its not even open for debate.   The same is not true of the white supremacists, though they do (reluctantly) condemn the violence. 

I continue to think that THE lynchpin to all of this is getting ~ half the country to believe that the media has a specific political agenda. Once that takes hold, there is literally nothing that doesn't fit their narrative. News is either good news in that it agrees with their view, or it's confirmation of the media's agenda, which is also good news. This isn't advanced stuff, this is pretty basic level propoganda, I'm not saying anything new, but imo it's the biggest obstacle to resolution now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I am less concerned about a nuclear apocalypse than about what I term the 'Crunch'  - a long term energy/resource (especially potable water) crisis that is starting to come to a head.  That, combined with a trend towards authoritarianism...well, the US might effectively be an autocratic/oligarchic state for a long time - as in most of the rest of the century.   Trumps actions are setting the precedents that make this more likely.   

I'm pretty concerned about the nuclear apocalypse myself, but I guess it's refreshing to know that there are sequels in the works even if this one's a flop.

Fucking hell. I'm actually an optimist, kinda. 

 

Edit: to lighten things up, we should play a game guessing where the Lee statue ends up. I'm guessing a club or bar in Eastern Europe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Edit: to lighten things up, we should play a game guessing where the Lee statue ends up. I'm guessing a club or bar in Eastern Europe. 

Next to Saddam's statue in Cheney's bunker.  Darth Vader still has powers!

So, there's increasing chatter that Bannon is on the chopping block.  Don't think this weekend helped his cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I'm pretty concerned about the nuclear apocalypse myself, but I guess it's refreshing to know that there are sequels in the works even if this one's a flop.

Fucking hell. I'm actually an optimist, kinda. 

I'd be concerned if I thought China would launch their nukes in support of North Korea. But I don't see that happening. Assuming DPRK lobs a nuke at (or near) guam I'd say Trump will launch enough nukes back at DPRK to kill a sufficient number of million people and ruin DPRKs military capability and then that will be the end of the nukular exchange. Not quite sure what happens after that. Who is going to want to in to a partial nuclear wasteland to re-establish the country? It'll be a humanitarian catastrophe for whoever is still living afterwards, but I wonder if the current admin will feel any compelling responsibility to help DPRK recover?

I guess as soon as DPRK launches a nuke, they know it's all on and all over, so they will blitzkrieg South Korea to the extent possible in the time they have left.

I think the economic fallout of an economically damaged Korea would probably have a bigger global impact than the military action.

Which way will the fallout drift? Does the prevailing wind come off China and over to Japan? Poor old Japan, would get hit with nuclear consequences of only the second military use of nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'd be concerned if I thought China would launch their nukes in support of North Korea. But I don't see that happening. Assuming DPRK lobs a nuke at (or near) guam I'd say Trump will launch enough nukes back at DPRK to kill a sufficient number of million people and ruin DPRKs military capability and then that will be the end of the nukular exchange. Not quite sure what happens after that. Who is going to want to in to a partial nuclear wasteland to re-establish the country? It'll be a humanitarian catastrophe for whoever is still living afterwards, but I wonder if the current admin will feel any compelling responsibility to help DPRK recover?

I guess as soon as DPRK launches a nuke, they know it's all on and all over, so they will blitzkrieg South Korea to the extent possible in the time they have left.

I think the economic fallout of an economically damaged Korea would probably have a bigger global impact than the military action.

Which way will the fallout drift? Does the prevailing wind come off China and over to Japan? Poor old Japan, would get hit with nuclear consequences of only the second military use of nukes.

Why does NK start it off? How will we know it's armed, not another test? And, I hate to say it, but what if preemption once again wins the day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...