Jump to content

u.s. politics: a cruel and unusual government


all swedes are racist

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Because that has worked so far? This administration refuses to condemn them and thinks some of them are good people. And yes, they are recruiting people from Berkeley and surrounding areas. Who do you think invites them? Young republicans, the ones eating their shit up. 

The only reason that is a tool of theirs is because of finger wagging false equivalence pushing centrists, kind of like yourself. The issue isn't the counter protesters getting violent with fascists, its the centrists lacking any sort of spine saying both sides are bad and the nazis seeing this and using that to their advantage.  

Because that has been attempted, thus far? Boston is about the only example I can point to that fits my description, and yes, I'd count that a victory.

The administration at Berkeley has been caught between a rock and a hard place regarding this issue. It's either take the PR hit for re platforming controversial speakers, or pay a steep bill for property damage and personal injury lawsuits that result from violent protests.

The only reason this is a tool of theirs is because overzealous reactionaries rise to their bait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yea, regarding that article I posted about Identity Evropa looking to recruit on college campuses. They interviewed a guy that is apart of it. He said he looks to Golden Dawn as an influence of what to be. You know, the Golden Dawn that is Greece's nazi party and has members that were killing immigrants, refugees and stabbed an antifascist rapper to death? The same Golden Dawn that is supported by police in Greece? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I don't remember accusing anyone here of actual criminal conspiracy to commit criminal violence.  I didn't call the police.  I did not advocate you all be convicted without a trial.   Hell, I didn't even hit the "report" button.  

I just noted that a lot of people here are in fact speaking in favor of criminal violence, in the sort of vague general sense that is protected speech under the US Constitution, but which I still find reprehensible.

But it can't be criminal violence if a crime hasn't been committed. What they are speaking in favor of is violence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Law and order white people are so funny. Slavery was legal at one point, so was the Holocaust. Helping Jews and people of color in both instances were considered illegal. So tell me, would your law and order selves be perpetuating oppression and listening to the law? Because from where I stand, you wouldn't be the ally and would be on the side of the oppressor given how you are reacting to standing up to Nazis and white supremacists. Just because something is illegal does not mean it is unethical. And just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Well, there are some circumstances in which "setting off low grade explosives" can be legal.  And "smashing property" can be legal in some circumstances, especially if the property you smash is your own.  I did not get the impression that this is what they had in mind, but if you want to quibble, I don't care to argue.

Of course you care to argue. That's all you care to. What you don't care to do is actually get beaten. 

Because your argument that someone is 'innocent until proven guilty' runs smack into the idea of classifying all violence done by people as criminal violence. It cannot be criminal violence without a crime. So either, we are advocating violence against nazis (which may or may not be criminal) and you oppose that, or you believe that everyone is innocent in which case it cannot be criminal violence. Which is it? Can't be both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Maybe, but this argument is pretty boring.

That's usually what losers of arguments say, yes.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What we do to @briantw's Browns might qualify. If so, go straight to jail, @Kalbear.

I'm not sure we do things to the Browns so much as we point out the violence done to them, but we are certainly not good samaritans in stopping it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanders lays down marker with ambitious single-payer bid
More Democratic lawmakers than ever support the progressive idea, but it comes with risks for 2018.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-medicare-bill-242674

House GOP leaders unveil game plan for tax reform
Republicans say they’ll release more details on the still-vague tax overhaul on Sept. 25.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/kevin-brady-tax-reform-242654

Trump: Rich people won't benefit 'at all' from tax plan

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/trump-rich-people-tax-plan-242671

 

What a liar. Yeah, rich people won't benefit off a 15% corporate tax rate. That would never happen. And that's without even getting to them cutting the estate tax, which is bound be in there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I love the way these Trump-Train clowns try to use legal and illegal as synonymous for right and wrong.

To put this in perspective, most of what the actual Nazis did was legal and state-sanctioned at the time.

Yea. They're completely ignorant of history.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with @Triskan on being reticent about Bernie's single-payer push.  I think it's a great aspirational goal, but it's not even clear how to pay for it.  Granted, Sanders details some options here, but putting out a white paper instead of specifying sounds a lot more like a trial balloon than a true legislative push (which, again, goes back to the aspirational thing).  More importantly, I haven't heard any reasoning for how you're basically going to abolish the health insurance industry, which, ya know, has been a huge obstacle for reform time and time again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

I'm with @Triskan on being reticent about Bernie's single-payer push.  I think it's a great aspirational goal, but it's not even clear how to pay for it.  Granted, Sanders details some options here, but putting out a white paper instead of specifying sounds a lot more like a trial balloon than a true legislative push (which, again, goes back to the aspirational thing).  More importantly, I haven't heard any reasoning for how you're basically going to abolish the health insurance industry, which, ya know, has been a huge obstacle for reform time and time again.

Not to mention the AMA, Big Pharma, SEIU, etc, etc, etc, Lots of money behind the other side of this issue. Maybe a fight that should be had after taking back the House and The Oval Office though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The medicare for all thing feels like the progressive wing's version of the ACA repeal. It has no chance of passing, might not be even particularly good policy and is a political stunt that sets back actual policy in the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not to mention the AMA, Big Pharma, SEIU, etc, etc, etc, Lots of money behind the other side of this issue. Maybe a fight that should be had after taking back the House and The Oval Office though.

Yup.  A good rule of thumb for politics is to do what's possible and exploit what isn't.  Not only is this not remotely possible, it may well be quite unpopular - which means you're gifting the other side the opportunity to exploit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

Law and order white people are so funny. Slavery was legal at one point, so was the Holocaust. Helping Jews and people of color in both instances were considered illegal. So tell me, would your law and order selves be perpetuating oppression and listening to the law? Because from where I stand, you wouldn't be the ally and would be on the side of the oppressor given how you are reacting to standing up to Nazis and white supremacists. Just because something is illegal does not mean it is unethical. And just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical. 
 

I don't know anyone who is claiming all civil disobedience is wrong. But civil disobedience doesn't need to be or end up being uncivil disobedience. There are plenty of good arguments to support the approach of refusing to obey an unjust law. It is not necessary to refuse to obey an unjust law with violence.

The only way to prevent Nazism and Fascism from taking over is for the vast majority of people to speak out in opposition to it. Arguably, violence by anti-fascists creates inertia for the masses to get fully on board with the anti-fascist perspective.

The advocates for violence need to stop misrepresenting the perspectives of those who advocate non-violent opposition to fascism. You are isolating, alienating and threatening people who are ideologically aligned or sympathetic, but divergent on method. Which is counterproductive to the aim of keeping fascism, white supremacy and general hatred of "the other" on the social and political fringes.

On freedom of speech, absolutists fail to see the paradox that exists in absolutist approaches to freedom of speech. Someone's speech, especially if it comes from the socially and politically dominant group, ends up suppressing the speech of others. It does seem like absolutists only concern themselves with the ability of people from one group being able to say whatever they want without considering the suppressing effect such speech has on others and whether that creates an imbalance and an injustice.

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...