US Politics: Locked, Loaded, Fired Up and Capitalized

[maarsen]

51 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

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.

Just when you figure things can't get worse, we find out that Trump has actually hired a competent person. 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Just when you figure things can't get worse, we find out that Trump has actually hired a competent person. 

Well, no general or political operative can fix it when the problem is at the top.  Like, Trump could have an administration led by George Marshall and Otto von Bismarck, and and it still wouldn't matter.

[Trebla]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

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

After this weekends events, this bolded quote takes on new meaning...

Quote

 

Whipple said Kelly hadn’t been able to keep the president in check, particularly on Twitter, in the middle of an international crisis and had seen uneven progress at best.

Aides familiar with Kelly’s conversations say he has tried to get “under the hood,” in the words of one.

 

 

[LongRider]

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

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. 

False flag, really?

Quote

The man accused of murdering a woman by deliberately driving into her during protests against a far-right rally was photographed earlier in the day standing with the white supremacist, neo-Nazi group Vanguard America.

James Fields, 20, of Maumee, Ohio, allegedly killed Heather Heyer, aged 32, and injured 19 others when he rammed his car into a group peacefully protesting on Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Photographs from earlier that day appear to show Fields rallying with Vanguard America and carrying a shield bearing the group’s insignia. He wears the white polo shirt and khaki pants that are the group’s uniform.

 

[The guy from the Vale]

Quote

I'm not advocating that sort of action, but this is significantly different than rounding up your own citizenry and rounding them into detention camps due to a difference in ideology. This is more akin to refugee camps, isn't it? Refugees come to the border and while the government decides whether or not we will let them in legally or send them back, they are housed in a camp. That's not the same thing in my estimation. Now if we're talking about rounding up immigrants who are already here and putting them into camps, that more closely resembles the idea of a detention camp. In any case, I'm against splitting up families in the manner that Trump's rigid enforcement of the immigration laws has resulted in.

@Manhole, others have already told you why you're wrong about this part on the side pertaining to the US private prison system, but there's another wrinkle there, on the German side: The Nazis largely didn't kill their own citizens. And I don't just mean that they killed millions of Jews, Roma, gays and lesbians, and political dissidents who hailed from regions they conquered. Rather, by the time they were put into concentration camps and murdered, German Jews and gypsies hadn't been German citizens for six years. The Nuremberg laws were passed in 1935, the actual Holocaust started in late 1941.

Now compare this with Trump's rhetoric on the citizenship status of Muslim Americans, and things get even chillier, fast.

As an outsider to all of this, I can't possibly understand why this "protest" was allowed to be staged, why its leaders haven't been arrested on charges of incitement of violence, and why this is seen as a free speech issue. These weren't peaceful protests: Those Neo-Nazis brought guns while waving Nazi and Confederate (i.e., flags that advocate for the enslavement of nonwhites at best, and genocide at barely worst) flags. This is the opposite of a peaceful protest right out of the gate, due to the massive presence of arms, combined with genocidal rhetoric. As far as I can understand things, there is no free speech protection for incitement to violence, even in the US. No, thee police couldn't control this once it was going on, so they had the responsibility from stopping it before it even happened. They failed.

Some here claim that totalitarian ideas should be tolerated in the marketplace of ideas. But those ideas are antithetical to the marketplace of ideas itself. While tolerance and nonviolence are among the highest ideals, tolerance of intolerance subverts tolerance, and nonviolence in the face of violence being incited or executed is the Pilatean way - washing your hands of the dirty deeds the bigots and hooligans performed while you sat idly by and watched, tut-tutting them. Most ideas should indeed be tolerated. The idea of genocide is not among them. Tolerating totalitarianism will end tolerance, and so totalitarisnism has cannot be tolerated, precisely because we want to preserve tolerance. The current discourse on the "alt-right" scarily looks like this: 

 

At the same time, the classical liberal position, while apparently unable to deal with the issue, isn't the actual problem. Calling people fascist apologists for holding that stance doesn't really lead anywhere except drive them further away, and we need generally upstanding people who disagree on whether this is a free speech issue to still have our backs when things seemingly inevitably get even worse. I get the emotional impulse to lash out, but we need to stay strong in these times, not segregate into our tiny little corners. I agree with Jon Arryn that Trump seems more Mussolini than Hitler in his rank incompetence, but the political undercurrent of the culture wars and racial politics in the US is always going to turn fascism into its worst kind - closer to Nazism than Peronism. We all need to stay vigilant.

@dmc: Fascist symbolism is strictly forbidden in my country, except for educational purposes. Video games are censored if they show Nazi imagery (as was e.g. the case with Wolfenstein's Castle, and which has led to many European war games using the Iron Cross of the German military over the Nazi imagery even if the content in question clearly refers to Nazis). Even antifascistic imagery (like throwing a swastika into a wastebin) was banned. And while the right-wing has indeed gained some strength here, compared to most our neighbors with less stringent laws, it has so far failed to gain any significant traction beyond the fringe, and I hope it will stay that way.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

^^^^^^

Really interesting post. Thanks for that perspective. I think it's an important one. 

[The Anti-Targ]

If you want a non-violent world you can't achieve it through violence. The grave mistake people make is to believe that in the war for the soul of humanity only violence can respond to violence. The correct response for those yearning for a non-violent world is non-violent action in opposition to violence.

People seem to equate non-violence with passivity and weakness. The tongue and the pen are the weapons that will win this war, not fists, and guns. They'll also win the war on terror.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, James Arryn said:

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?

Well, I'm just imagining the morally best case scenario where, in the eyes of most of the political class and the media, Trump is justified launching Nukes as a response to a first strike from DPRK. But I wonder if Condoleeza Rice would be willing to pull out here mushroom cloud speech in support of pre-emption here. At least in this case we do know that DPRK has the capability to set off a nuke. Arguably that's much stronger justification than what actually existed for the invasion of Iraq.

[The guy from the Vale]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If you want a non-violent world you can't achieve it through violence. The grave mistake people make is to believe that in the war for the soul of humanity only violence can respond to violence. The correct response for those yearning for a non-violent world is non-violent action in opposition to violence.

People seem to equate non-violence with passivity and weakness. The tongue and the pen are the weapons that will win this war, not fists, and guns. They'll also win the war on terror.

I usually agree with you. Perhaps it would have been better to talk about equivocation, or inaction, in the face of violence, instead of nonviolence. Nevertheless, anybody who claims both sides are the same in this, or who think nothing can or should be done about the current rise in ethnonationalism, racism, and fascism, is effectively ceding the ground to them.

Still, what nonviolent action could Heather Heyer have taken to escape her fate?  How to stop that car in its trajectory, if not through (as limited as possible) violence? 

[Dr. Pepper]

35 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

 

At the same time, the classical liberal position, while apparently unable to deal with the issue, isn't the actual problem. Calling people fascist apologists for holding that stance doesn't really lead anywhere except drive them further away, and we need generally upstanding people who disagree on whether this is a free speech issue to still have our backs when things seemingly inevitably get even worse. I get the emotional impulse to lash out, but we need to stay strong in these times, not segregate into our tiny little corners. I agree with Jon Arryn that Trump seems more Mussolini than Hitler in his rank incompetence, but the political undercurrent of the culture wars and racial politics in the US is always going to turn fascism into its worst kind - closer to Nazism than Peronism. We all need to stay vigilant.

 

I think Kalbear already wrote a post that's a good response to this but I can't find it right now.  I agree with him.  This is bullshit.  I can't stand most evangelical christians.  We disagree on a significant amount and they say shitty things about me and mine, they call me names (sinner), they believe in some seriously bizarre shit.  And yet none of that somehow drives me away from defending them when it really matters (assuming they aren't white supremacists or nazis).  I don't know any decent person who would be driving away from doing what's right just because someone called them an apologist.  Most decent people I know would seek to understand why they were given that label because they actually want to be better people.

As Kalbear noted, those who would back off of unjust causes because someone was mean or challenged them are the ones who were never going to stand for what's right anyway. 

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If you want a non-violent world you can't achieve it through violence. The grave mistake people make is to believe that in the war for the soul of humanity only violence can respond to violence. The correct response for those yearning for a non-violent world is non-violent action in opposition to violence.

People seem to equate non-violence with passivity and weakness. The tongue and the pen are the weapons that will win this war, not fists, and guns. They'll also win the war on terror.

I'll remember to write and talk my way out of the camps.  I'll let the BLM leadership know they just need to tell black americans that they need to write and talk their way out of getting shot.  I'm going to propose to my bff who is transgender that she just needs to write and talk her way out of the next time she's beaten by some random dude.  Thanks for the excellent advice!

[James Arryn]

22 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well, I'm just imagining the morally best case scenario where, in the eyes of most of the political class and the media, Trump is justified launching Nukes as a response to a first strike from DPRK. But I wonder if Condoleeza Rice would be willing to pull out here mushroom cloud speech in support of pre-emption here. At least in this case we do know that DPRK has the capability to set off a nuke. Arguably that's much stronger justification than what actually existed for the invasion of Iraq.

But I wonder if, as was the case then, the Intel was ALL saying that Saddam wouldn't remotely be likely to use any WMDs he had on America, directly or indirectly, because he wasn't particularly suicidal and there was literally no upside...UNLESS he was invaded, in which case all bets are off. So, of course, the rational decision based on that Intel was...

[The guy from the Vale]

@Dr. Pepper I don't disagree with you on the ultimate evaluation of their actions. I just think that just putting out labels instead of untangling the how and why immediately may be a bad strategy. This is ultimately about prospective survival strategy, not hindsight moral armchair pondering. To misquote a famous man who hailed from my town, first comes being alive, then comes ethics.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I'm enjoying the backlash and mockery these fascists are enjoying online and in the media today. I know many of you aren't onboard with this thought, but it seems to me that they do more damage to themselves through their words than any punch could hope to deliver.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The guy from the Vale]

It's not enough. They need to face actual legal consequences for their actions.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

And the beatings continue...

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

It's not enough. They need to face actual legal consequences for their actions.

I'm cool with that.

[The guy from the Vale]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm cool with that.

I wish I had your confidence that anything approaching that was likely to happen.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

36 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

As Kalbear noted, those who would back off of unjust causes because someone was mean or challenged them are the ones who were never going to stand for what's right anyway. 

I'll remember to write and talk my way out of the camps.  I'll let the BLM leadership know they just need to tell black americans that they need to write and talk their way out of getting shot.  I'm going to propose to my bff who is transgender that she just needs to write and talk her way out of the next time she's beaten by some random dude.  Thanks for the excellent advice!

 These may both be fairly trite in the face of what just happened, but I think they are age old adages for a reason.

To the first, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

And to the second, the pen is mightier than the sword.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

19 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

I wish I had your confidence that anything approaching that was likely to happen.

Yeah, I'm not saying that's going to happen necessarily. I wonder if any law minded types here could break down the likelihood of any sort of civil suit that might be brought against the organizers of this protest. Not sure if there's any sort of viable liability that can be applied to them. 

[Dr. Pepper]

12 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 These may both be fairly trite in the face of what just happened, but I think they are age old adages for a reason.

To the first, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

And to the second, the pen is mightier than the sword.

They aren't trite.  They are fucking stupid in the context of this discussion.

The first one is something for preschoolers to learn when they want things like new shoes or people to buy their girl scout cookies.  No one should have to be sweet to someone to get them to do the right thing.  Women shouldn't be sweet to men to get them to not rape them.  I shouldn't be sweet to someone just to get them to want to be a decent human and not a nazi apologist.  

The second can be true, usually over long periods of time and typically only a small number of individuals have pens that are actually mighty enough to be powerful.  The rest of the time, over the short term and for the really big and terrible things, nope.  A pen is not going to stop a bullet, not going to stop someone through into camps, not going to stop something from being run down by a white terrorist.  

If you can't be a decent person because someone doesn't like you, you aren't a decent person.  Period.