Kalbear

US Politics: Locked, Loaded, Fired Up and Capitalized

416 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, Sword of Doom said:

Oliver is really tearing into Trump right now.

Love that guy. Of the really strong crop of political humorists/satirists working right now, he's the cream of the crop.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

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. 

what do you expect? totally divorced from any actual real oppression, these shit libs worldview is reduced to banal and saccharine little abstractions that sound so pithy and profound but have no real basis in the real world, nor any concrete use

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

what do you expect? totally divorced from any actual real oppression, these shit libs worldview is reduced to banal and saccharine little abstractions that sound so pithy and profound but have no real basis in the real world, nor any concrete use

Wow. Glad to see you've dropped the gloves here and dropped any pretense of your bullshit apology the other day. At least you've got honesty going for ya. 

Edited by Manhole Eunuchsbane

Share this post


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

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? 

Non-violent responses can still be active and forceful. 

You know the reason why the white supremacists and Nazis tried to put the false flag notion in people's heads? Because they know the value of a martyr. If there is no violence committed by one side, and violence and death is committed by the other, then guess who controls the hearts and minds narrative among the gen pop? The WS&Ns biggest fear wasn't a violent response, it was the elevation of Heather to the station of martyr. Heather's death is tragic, but if it just leads to a violent response it will also be wasted. 

Share this post


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

Wow. Glad to see you've dropped the gloves here and dropped any pretense of your bullshit apology the other day. At least you've got honesty going for ya. 

buddy, if the shoe fits... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm not your buddy, pal.

sure you are

Edited by r'hllor's red lobster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

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.  

 

Actually, it's mostly when a large number of not very powerful people take to the pen and the microphone that the pen becomes most powerful. 

The reason non-violent action has been limited in the past is because it takes 100x more courage to be actively non-violent in the face of violence than to just meet violence with violence. And not many of us have that sort of courage. I hope I'm never tested in this way.

A bullet can't stop a bullet, it's just 2 bullets flying past each other. And if you are going to get into the body count game then your cause is already lost. The WS&Ns would have preferred the driver to have been gunned down or beaten to a pulp before he caused anyone any harm. Because then their cause would be the victimised one.

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

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

Who is "you" in this situation? If one is advocating for violence and oppression of a hate group, then isn't the person advocating for such violence and oppression as much not a decent person as those of the hate group?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

@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.

Obviously I don't know what country you're from.  This is a faulty measurement, but here's a map of the popular vote for the main nationalist party in each country.  If you can find any discernible pattern there based on anti-nazi laws, you have a very beautiful mind.  The larger takeaway is radical right parties have been on the rise throughout Europe - regardless of any specific country's anti-nazi laws.

2 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

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.

Frankly, I don't want to be allied in the fight against white supremacy with anyone wiling to advocate unprovoked violence or eager to label anyone that disagrees with them on defending free speech as nazi apologists.  They're untrustworthy, have marginalized themselves, and have a fundamentally flawed perspective on politics, let alone ethical code.  Be happy to welcome them to the adult conversation when they come to their senses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Actually, it's mostly when a large number of not very powerful people take to the pen and the microphone that the pen becomes most powerful. 

The reason non-violent action has been limited in the past is because it takes 100x more courage to be actively non-violent in the face of violence than to just meet violence with violence. And not many of us have that sort of courage. I hope I'm never tested in this way.

A bullet can't stop a bullet, it's just 2 bullets flying past each other. And if you are going to get into the body count game then your cause is already lost. The WS&Ns would have preferred the driver to have been gunned down or beaten to a pulp before he caused anyone any harm. Because then their cause would be the victimised one.

Who is "you" in this situation? If one is advocating for violence and oppression of a hate group, then isn't the person advocating for such violence and oppression as much not a decent person as those of the hate group?

wow, yes of course. what an eye opener. if only there was, like, some kind of real and distinct political divide between the those calling for violent oppression and those who may be willing to resort to violence in the fight to oppose the violent oppressors because the supposed ideal of "rule of law" tends to take the side of oppressive faction.... but, i mean, you are totally correct. no real difference between these two factions. both are just fucking it up for the pacifists that have achieved so much 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours 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.

This is not actually factually true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours 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).

Why it's brought up is that a whole lot of people advocated staying with the rule of law or relying on it heavily to solve the problem; it was a direct response to that. Relying on the rule of law assumes that the law is just or that the systems are fair and proper. 

12 hours 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.

Sorry if I took the pithy phrase 'rule of law' to encompass both the laws on the books and the enforcement and execution of the legal system; I had assumed rule of law required things like enforcement and practice, not just things in books. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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.

I don't want a nonviolent world. Or rather, I don't believe one is attainable with current humans and it isn't my goal. Apologies if that's not clearer. I want, simply, a less intolerant one.

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

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 equate those who are preaching nonviolence to those who are oppressed as a tool to continue oppression. If the oppressed want to use nonviolent means and choose to do that, great for them; it's not for me to tell them how to run their insurgency, and cool beans if it works. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why it's brought up is that a whole lot of people advocated staying with the rule of law or relying on it heavily to solve the problem; it was a direct response to that. Relying on the rule of law assumes that the law is just or that the systems are fair and proper. 

That's fair.  I agree the system is unfair and improper.  As I said earlier, though, I'm unclear what exactly we should do for redress that isn't already being done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.