US Politics: On Many Sides

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I think you also might want to consider your audience here. This poster you are responding to as been here about 2 weeks. You are welcoming this poster into the politics thread by calling him a nazi and an idiot. You think that's likely to convince him that your opinion is worth two shits? 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

"If you call me on my shit (the shit where I defend and sympathize with nazis and gaslight minorites), you're regressive and vile, but definitely the nasty things I say aren't vile."

Got it.  

Wow. I guess "I'm rubber and you're glue" was already taken?  

[GAROVORKIN]

38 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Second dumbest shit I've read all day.  

Again, nazism.  Stop trying to compare this to having a firm disagreement about nearly everything else.  Freedom of speech should always end at incitement to commit violence.  Always.  We are not talking about a valid ideology.  We restrict speech in lots of ways.  It really says something about a person that wants to protect nazis so that they are allowed to do their nazi-ing.  I'd label this behavior as sympathizing. 

I was talking about free speech and rights but I guess you missed that part .  I have no sympathy or or use  supremacist nazi  idiots,  So you really don't know what you talking about here do you? I could think of few thing more thing to say to this but, Ive decided im not going bother.  Your just not worth it .

 

 

 

 

[GrimTuesday]

13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Murdering your ideological enemy is not a valid ideology. Full stop. It's in part why we hate nazis. Being silent in the face of vile, regressive ideology forwarded by people who claim to be liberals is why I am here, at least insofar as this particular argument is concerned. 

On the other hand, is it not acceptable to be violent when the stated goal of the opposition is violent, repressive, and genocidal? Now, I don't believe in violence, but I do see the point that when you have a group that openly advocates for oppression and violence, it is appropriate to meet them with as much violence as they put forward. The values of hate and oppression must be stamped out for humanity to survive and prosper. These aren't people how disagree on what kind of tax code we have, these are people who think that there is a racial hierarchy that must be maintained, and that they must sit atop it. When you have what are effectively brownshirts marching in the street, we would do well to remember what happened last time they were allowed to win the day.

As I said, I don't think that we should be killing them, I don't think that violence is the solution, but but I get it. Of course, that is also giving into our fears, one of the main things that these people prey on, and by becoming violent, we have effectively lowered ourselves to their level and are allowing them to control the narrative by giving them a legitimate claim of oppression and martyrdom.

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 nor does it give you the  right in engage rioting or the destruction of property.

 

How do you define property, does it include black people?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, GrimTuesday said:

On the other hand, is it not acceptable to be be violent when the stated goal of the opposition is violent, repressive, and genocidal? Now, I don't believe in violence, but I do see the point that when you have a group that openly advocates for oppression and violence, it is appropriate to meet them with as much violence as they put forward. The values of hate and oppression must be stamped out for humanity to survive and prosper. These aren't people how disagree on what kind of tax code we have, these are people who think that there is a racial hierarchy that must be maintained, and that they must sit atop it. When you have what are effectively brownshirts marching in the street, we would do well to remember what happened last time they were allowed to win the day.

As I said, I don't think that we should be killing them, I don't think that violence is the solution, but but I get it. Of course, that is also giving into our fears, one of the main things that these people prey on, and by becoming violent, we have effectively lowered ourselves to their level and are allowing them to control the narrative by giving them a legitimate claim of oppression and martyrdom.

Yeah, I have no beef with Antifa actions during this particular event. I conceded earlier in the thread that it appears that their presence at this event does appear to be a net positive. I'm all for self-defense. I agree with that measure of violence. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

27 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

  Your just not worth it .

 You sir, are much more insightful than I. I have wasted hours trying to talk sense to this poster, and you have come to a conclusion that I should have come to months ago. I am going to take a page from your book if you don't mind. Thank you for showing me the light. And that's sincere. 

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I think you also might want to consider your audience here. This poster you are responding to as been here about 2 weeks. You are welcoming this poster into the politics thread by calling him a nazi and an idiot. You think that's likely to convince him that your opinion is worth two shits? 

 

I'm sorry, what? If you want to assume that people who joined the forum recently are too ignorant or incapable of discussing politics, specifically american politics, then that's on you.  I will judge someone based on what they say not on their newness to the forum.   I also don't buy into this idea that whitewashing things will somehow convince them to be decent.  If you can't be decent without someone licking your balls, then you aren't decent.  

Again, youre reading comprehension fails and you put words in people's mouths.  I've called both of you sympathizers, not actual nazis.  I don't give a shit if I convince either one of you.  

Someone upthread brought up some of the nazi/white nationalist/far right tactic of internet propaganda, false flag attacks, gaslighting, anything to put a 'kinder gentler face' on the vile shit.  One of my close friends has been knee deep in researching for an article about the evolution of today's white supremacists and so she's been on some of the forums they frequent and it's amazing how similar their tactics are to the way some of you post here.  

[all swedes are racist]

4 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

lmao, not one to give it up to cops, but that was a beautiful own

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

If you're asking Sword of Doom and Dr. Pepper, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Neo-Nazis. It's a selectively applied amendment. On top of that, they are interested in 2nd Amendment solutions regarding these types of groups. Welcome to the Regressive Left.

the preferred term these days is alt-left. 

but (and i actually am trying to be civil here and respect the precious discourse) the (paraphrasing) "don't fight a nazi by becoming one" argument frankly grates. I get your anti-violence stance, even if i don't agree with it, but come up with a better way to express it. violence is a necessary elect of fascism, but if far from the sole or even defining one. even if you are not concerned with punching left and creating rhetorical ammo to be appropriated by the right, it's just inaccurate, and shoddy logic. non violence can certainly be a principled stance, and one should be able to defend it without resorting to literally "those who disagree with me are nazis" 

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No, you'll find that both of us are actually anti 2A.  What we are for is to not allow nazis platforms for recruitment.  Nazism isn't a valid ideology.  It's incitement to murder entire groups of people.  What we are also fighting against nazis, white supremacists and other far right fuckers who want to, you know, kill us.   I get that you love nazis, but most decent people do not.  If not loving nazis makes us somehow 'regressive' then ok.  

 

With all due respect Dr Pepper.  I do think you owe Manhole Eunuchsbane an apology for that comment.  

 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

With all due respect Dr Pepper.  I do think you owe Manhole Eunuchsbane an apology for that comment.  

 

You're right.

I'm sorry because I haven't pointed it out enough.  There are a lot of us who he doesn't have fooled.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

42 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

lmao, not one to give it up to cops, but that was a beautiful own

the preferred term these days is alt-left. 

but (and i actually am trying to be civil here and respect the precious discourse) the (paraphrasing) "don't fight a nazi by becoming one" argument frankly grates. I get your anti-violence stance, even if i don't agree with it, but come up with a better way to express it. violence is a necessary elect of fascism, but if far from the sole or even defining one. even if you are not concerned with punching left and creating rhetorical ammo to be appropriated by the right, it's just inaccurate, and shoddy logic. non violence can certainly be a principled stance, and one should be able to defend it without resorting to literally "those who disagree with me are nazis" 

That was an amazing quip, wasn't it?

I don't buy into the alt-left label. Antifa is a lot of negative things IMO, but an equivalent to the alt-right is not one of them. The Alt-right label is an attempt to legitimize White Supremacy and Nazism. I don't believe that Antifa attempts to disguise itself in any way, certainly not in this manner. For all their faults, I don't believe they are trying to cloak themselves in a cape of false legitimacy the same way the Alt-right does.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I am not terribly proficient at expressing my position with the written word. I agree with you on that front. I'm far better at employing a relatable image or video reference to make my point.

I also admit that politics is not my forte. My critical thinking skills are not on par with yours or say Kalbears or dmc's. Hell. as much as I despise his position, I'll admit that Sword of Doom is much better at expressing his or her beliefs or positions than I am. That said, I'm not calling anyone here a nazi in the same manner that say a Dr. Pepper employs. I'm merely pointing out that advocating that belief is at least in part a fascist position.

To try and equate our current political situation to WWII is fallacious in my estimation. These neo-nazis have not conquered territory that is not their own. They have not erected death camps. They don't drive tanks and fly warplanes over our neighborhoods. We are not at war with them in the same sense. (I know you haven't taken that position here, but others have forwarded that comparison or equivalence.

[DMC]

On 8/17/2017 at 10:50 AM, S John said:

Kottonmouth Kings and Bone Thugs?  If it were possible to overdose on weed, this is how it would happen.

It almost did.

[GAROVORKIN]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

You're right.

I'm sorry because I haven't pointed it out enough.  There are a lot of us who he doesn't have fooled.  

You don't have the right insult people who have different points of view on things then you do. For some one who preaches tolerance. and so many good and positive things , your very intolerant.  

 

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

With all due respect Dr Pepper.  I do think you owe Manhole Eunuchsbane an apology for that comment.  

 

Don't waste your time, GAROVORKIN, she is wholly unapologetic and fully incapable of introspection. You were right when you said she was a waste of time. Stick to your guns.

[James Arryn]

God, I'm drawing a blank, but back in poli-sci there was lots of talk about this particular kind of ideology that promoted the idea that the world was a violent political struggle and that people had to choose a side and back it up with violent action, no room for the cowards afraid to pick sides...god, it's on the edge of my tongue. Face-ism? Nope, that wasn't it. Fastim? Gah. Don't worry, I'll get there soon. Meanwhile, here's a nice Hitler quote to pass the time;

“He who would live must fight. He who doesn't wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.”

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

You don't have the right insult people who have different point of view on things then you do. For someone who preaches tolerance, your very intolerant. 

Again, very astute. She does not preach tolerance, she preaches selective tolerance.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

God, I'm drawing a blank, but back in poli-sci there was lots of talk about this particular kind of ideology that promoted the idea that the world was a violent political struggle and that people had to choose a side and back it up with violent action, no room for the cowards afraid to pick sides...god, it's on the edge of my tongue. Face-ism? Nope, that wasn't it. Fastim? Gah. Don't worry, I'll get there soon. Meanwhile, here's a nice Hitler quote to pass the time;

“He who would live must fight. He who doesn't wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.”

EXACTLY. Thank you James, you are humble and lovable.

 

 

 

/There's no need to fear, Jame Arryn is here!

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

You don't have the right insult people who have different points of view on things then you do. For some one who preaches tolerance. and so many good and positive things , your very intolerant.  

I don't preach tolerance.  Not even close.  

I reject the idea that it's automatically an insult to identify someone as what they are.  I mean, if his views are a certain thing, then he is a certain thing.  This isn't confusing.  For example, my views are informed by feminism, and I am a feminist.  In a different sort of example, I have views that are highly negative towards cats, therefore people call me a cat hater. Calling me a cat hater isn't an insult because, um, I am.  If I had a problem with that label, I'd maybe look into changing my feelings about cats.  

[Bonnot OG]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

God, I'm drawing a blank, but back in poli-sci there was lots of talk about this particular kind of ideology that promoted the idea that the world was a violent political struggle and that people had to choose a side and back it up with violent action, no room for the cowards afraid to pick sides...god, it's on the edge of my tongue. Face-ism? Nope, that wasn't it. Fastim? Gah. Don't worry, I'll get there soon. Meanwhile, here's a nice Hitler quote to pass the time;

“He who would live must fight. He who doesn't wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.”

Ah yes, the great white devils advocate coming in to help the other two that push false equivalences.