US Politics: Mueller Monday

[Gertrude]

6 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

 And fuck his kids too, because they know full well where their cushy lives came from.

Oh hell yes, But at least they might serve a purpose.

Mex - yeah, I figured they would be talked to, I'm just thinking it might not actually be that hard to flip them given the sentiment expressed by his loving daughter and the wife who dares think she should have the right to leave a marriage.

[Dr. Pepper]

25 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

This is an interesting read. Texts from Manafort's daughter to a friend.

Jesus. It might be a good use of Mueller's time to work on flipping his family against him.

Holy shit.  I want to see more texts.  I want the ones between daughter and mother (those that are relevant).  

7 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Yup. Certain personal grudges and inabilities to take any form of disagreement have been increasingly distorting these topics in recent times. I don't agree with ME's framing or premise at all on this, but I'm not at all surprised he's gotten sloppy in his arguments given the complete absence of nuance encouraged and even people who I think are intending to argue with him in good faith end up getting swept into what becomes a pile on. Who wants to deal with that shit? I mean, on a personal level he'd be better off quitting but these threads and this board will be poorer for it if they become the totalitarian nodalong with occasional cameo from genuine out-there right winger everyone can shout at that Dr. Pepper would like them to be.

There's a lot of disagreement in these threads.  It's just that there tends to be pretty firm feelings on nazis, their apologists and their defenders. You'll probably always find some sort of "totalitarian nodalong" one way or the other when it comes to nazis.  

[polishgenius]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I think this is fair, and yet I find someone who I had respected arguing about whether or not Nazis killed people. When we have evidence showing they planned to kill people, did kill people, and then congratulated the killer afterwards and hoped there would be more killing.

This bothers me. It bothers me because if my kids get killed because they're Jewish, or I do, and we get the rhetoric of 'oh, it was just some crazy person and it wasn't ALL nazis' - is that where we want to go? I don't want to spend my time convincing other people that there are a group of people out there who genuinely would be happy to kill me and my two boys because of their bloodline, and I don't want to spend a bunch of time convincing others that this is an actual, genuine threat and not just a bunch of people doing it for the lulz - because we already have deaths as a result of this. 

I guess for me, the question of whether it's one nazi or all nazis is moot, as every single person who takes up the Nazi symbology is condoning if not outright demanding the death of people like me. It's not something that is some odd thought experiment in my life any more, and I'll personally own that it should never have been even before I found out about my heritage. 

Like I say, I'm not with ME on this- I think he's gone into completely the wrong place with his position and tactic and I'm not at all surprised that you and others are disagreeing with him, especially this specific instance.

I just also think that to a certain extent he's been chased to where he is now. He started off saying things that could be disagree with, and has it seems to me been flustered and crowded into a position where he is just wrong, because just sheer argument has repeatedly been forced on him.

[Week]

6 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 

When he gets out of Prison he'll write a book , Hollywood will option it and he'll make millions, he'll become a popular lecturer on the college campus circuit and makes lots of money on speaking fees .  Those birds always land on their feet.

Not as far fetched as it sounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law

[DanteGabriel]

36 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Jesus fucking Christ, finally some perspective...what a stunningly sad  read through this has been until now. Many, I'm a bit dissapointed that you adopted the 'well, show how Briebart is wrong' position rather than try and find a better source to support your argument; you're much better than that. But I get that you were kinda getting bunker-vision. 

But I am so much more dissapointed in some of the posters I like here doing a pile-on with regards to Many's position. If we don't know each other by now, what the miserable fuck? 2 options: either Many has suddenly gone over to the dark side or his argument is not being heard, whether through poor communication, knee-jerk reactions or the new normal where you're either with us or against us. Or all three. And it never helps when a single-issue poster is hopping and barking all around the conversation. I don't get Many's exact argument as he's made it here, but having seen him make arguments many times, i feel extremely confident that he's not saying BLM = Nazis, or w/e.

He's saying that 2 murderers were disavowed by the groups they are thought to belong to (though from what I know BLM did so long before the Texas shootings whereas the Nazis only made that kind of noise after the fact). So while there are parallels to be made, they certainly aren't of similar value. And he's saying that conflating an individual action to a group as a whole is wrong, a position I generally agree with. I think he's chosen a bad illustration of that point, though...but that doesn't have me all Et Tu Manus?

There's a growing dynamic that despises the middle ground, and the pull comes from both extremes, often including myself as an 'extreme'. Moreover, many people from one extreme or the other falsely cite 'middle ground' as their defense. That those people are false does not mean the concept of middle ground is false, it just means that they are trying to hide behind the foliage of others who are sincere. And some of the sincere middle grounders are just dupes and/or the family member who would rather no one ever talk about daddy's abuse because they just want w/e peace they've found to last. But there are other middle grounders with both sincerity and thoughtful insight, and they're getting lumped in with the fakes and the fools and the cowards by people who want there to be only one choice. And I've probably been guilty of that kind of thing myself...but when it gets to the point of turning on a guy we all know for what he is?

It would seem we're headed towards the ideological equivalent of burning down the village in order to save it. 

This has been a fucking depressing read. 

 

 

 

Look, I respect you and I admire the intellectual rigor you bring to these discussions. You are one of the most principled posters around here.

But Manhole's "we can't blame Nazis" for the killing of Heather Heyer argument was awful on so many levels. I recognized the argument he was making. I just thought it was a shitty argument, for a shitty cause, sourced with shitty links. I refuse to be considered part of the "pile on" because he started the argument with me when I made a fairly uncontroversial (so I thought) statement that Nazis have already killed someone in America. I'm still not going to consider him a Nazi apologist. But  just as he wants us liberals to take a good look at the arguments we make, I want him to look at the arguments he chooses to have here and the way he chooses to argue them.

I don't think my anger at his terrible argument has anything to do with the abandonment of the civil middle. I wouldn't link this too closely to broader social trends.

[Bonnot OG]

multiple dead and injured in NYC in lower manhattan in a possible terror attack. no doubt this group of white supremacist are gonna jump on this with a gigantic hard on calling to ban all muslims while not discussing gun control or banning white men from owning guns even though a few weeks ago a white guy armed with guns killed 58 people and wounded hundreds more, all from the comfort of his hotel room.

[GAROVORKIN]

2 minutes ago, Week said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law

 

I stand corrected.  Thank you.

[IamMe90]

15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Laziness should be sued when the matters discussed are as significant as these are.  You still just don't think any of this matters in the real world.  Dungeons and Dragons is a fake world it is not real it is not this political and material world in which all of us who aren't sitting as old fogeys still playing games that are for children and spend the rest of their time as you do hooting at u-tubeys. This is why you get clobbered so much when you think you are a good guy who doesn't deserve it -- because you still put all this in game parameters when we others are real world targets and so are our friends and families and the environment and everything else we hold dear and precious.

Don't talk about lazy; you still haven't told me who's getting executed. 

[GAROVORKIN]

1 minute ago, Sword of Doom said:

multiple dead and injured in NYC in lower manhattan in a possible terror attack. no doubt this group of white supremacist are gonna jump on this with a gigantic hard on calling to ban all muslims while not discussing gun control or banning white men from owning guns even though a few weeks ago a white guy armed with guns killed 58 people and wounded hundreds more, all from the comfort of his hotel room.

So far they saying it may be be one man acting on his own.

[Bonnot OG]

44 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Jesus fucking Christ, finally some perspective...what a stunningly sad  read through this has been until now. Many, I'm a bit dissapointed that you adopted the 'well, show how Briebart is wrong' position rather than try and find a better source to support your argument; you're much better than that. But I get that you were kinda getting bunker-vision. 

But I am so much more dissapointed in some of the posters I like here doing a pile-on with regards to Many's position. If we don't know each other by now, what the miserable fuck? 2 options: either Many has suddenly gone over to the dark side or his argument is not being heard, whether through poor communication, knee-jerk reactions or the new normal where you're either with us or against us. Or all three. And it never helps when a single-issue poster is hopping and barking all around the conversation. I don't get Many's exact argument as he's made it here, but having seen him make arguments many times, i feel extremely confident that he's not saying BLM = Nazis, or w/e.

He's saying that 2 murderers were disavowed by the groups they are thought to belong to (though from what I know BLM did so long before the Texas shootings whereas the Nazis only made that kind of noise after the fact). So while there are parallels to be made, they certainly aren't of similar value. And he's saying that conflating an individual action to a group as a whole is wrong, a position I generally agree with. I think he's chosen a bad illustration of that point, though...but that doesn't have me all Et Tu Manus?

There's a growing dynamic that despises the middle ground, and the pull comes from both extremes, often including myself as an 'extreme'. Moreover, many people from one extreme or the other falsely cite 'middle ground' as their defense. That those people are false does not mean the concept of middle ground is false, it just means that they are trying to hide behind the foliage of others who are sincere. And some of the sincere middle grounders are just dupes and/or the family member who would rather no one ever talk about daddy's abuse because they just want w/e peace they've found to last. But there are other middle grounders with both sincerity and thoughtful insight, and they're getting lumped in with the fakes and the fools and the cowards by people who want there to be only one choice. And I've probably been guilty of that kind of thing myself...but when it gets to the point of turning on a guy we all know for what he is?

It would seem we're headed towards the ideological equivalent of burning down the village in order to save it. 

This has been a fucking depressing read. 

 

 

 

There is no civil middle to be had when the discussion is involving nazis, white supremacists and how they have killed people is being denied in some attempt to make those groups look less horrible than they already are. 

Oh and regarding the bold. The groups that murderer is an ally of and apart of, were cheering on her murder. How many fucking times does it have to be said before he shuts the fuck up about how the individual actions does not represent the group? Especially groups that want to commit ethnic cleansing to get their white ehtno state / Aryan nation? 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

35 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Jesus fucking Christ, finally some perspective...what a stunningly sad  read through this has been until now. Many, I'm a bit dissapointed that you adopted the 'well, show how Briebart is wrong' position rather than try and find a better source to support your argument; you're much better than that. But I get that you were kinda getting bunker-vision. 

But I am so much more dissapointed in some of the posters I like here doing a pile-on with regards to Many's position. If we don't know each other by now, what the miserable fuck? 2 options: either Many has suddenly gone over to the dark side or his argument is not being heard, whether through poor communication, knee-jerk reactions or the new normal where you're either with us or against us. Or all three. And it never helps when a single-issue poster is hopping and barking all around the conversation. I don't get Many's exact argument as he's made it here, but having seen him make arguments many times, i feel extremely confident that he's not saying BLM = Nazis, or w/e.

He's saying that 2 murderers were disavowed by the groups they are thought to belong to (though from what I know BLM did so long before the Texas shootings whereas the Nazis only made that kind of noise after the fact). So while there are parallels to be made, they certainly aren't of similar value. And he's saying that conflating an individual action to a group as a whole is wrong, a position I generally agree with. I think he's chosen a bad illustration of that point, though...but that doesn't have me all Et Tu Manus?

There's a growing dynamic that despises the middle ground, and the pull comes from both extremes, often including myself as an 'extreme'. Moreover, many people from one extreme or the other falsely cite 'middle ground' as their defense. That those people are false does not mean the concept of middle ground is false, it just means that they are trying to hide behind the foliage of others who are sincere. And some of the sincere middle grounders are just dupes and/or the family member who would rather no one ever talk about daddy's abuse because they just want w/e peace they've found to last. But there are other middle grounders with both sincerity and thoughtful insight, and they're getting lumped in with the fakes and the fools and the cowards by people who want there to be only one choice. And I've probably been guilty of that kind of thing myself...but when it gets to the point of turning on a guy we all know for what he is?

It would seem we're headed towards the ideological equivalent of burning down the village in order to save it. 

This has been a fucking depressing read. 

 

9 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Yup. Certain personal grudges and inabilities to take any form of disagreement have been increasingly distorting these topics in recent times. I don't agree with ME's framing or premise at all on this, but I'm not at all surprised he's gotten sloppy in his arguments given the complete absence of nuance encouraged and even people who I think are intending to argue with him in good faith end up getting swept into what becomes a pile on. Who wants to deal with that shit? I mean, on a personal level he'd be better off quitting but these threads and this board will be poorer for it if they become the totalitarian nodalong with occasional cameo from genuine out-there right winger everyone can shout at that Dr. Pepper would like them to be.

 

 I think these two posts more or less hit the nail of the head for me. I apologize for the part I have played in continuing to spin this particular Merry-Go-Round and will seek to avoid the topic in the future. 

 I have considerable respect for both Dante Gabriel and Kalbear here, and do not seek to make enemies of them, and I concede that this was a nit-picky, semantics argument at best. 

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law

Would it apply even if not profiting?  From those texts seems like manafort doesn't care about the money. 

2 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

multiple dead and injured in NYC in lower manhattan in a possible terror attack. no doubt this group of white supremacist are gonna jump on this with a gigantic hard on calling to ban all muslims while not discussing gun control or banning white men from owning guns even though a few weeks ago a white guy armed with guns killed 58 people and wounded hundreds more, all from the comfort of his hotel room.

Yeah, and the first news stories identified him as a terrorist while shitbag in vegas hasn't received such a link.  Even the nazi in charlottesville is frequently not cited as a terrorist.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Not the act, they disavowed him as a member of their group, no? That's what was said earlier in this discussion. 

They stated - despite actual physical evidence otherwise - that he was not part of the Vanguard group or something like that. Even though he was photographed at multiple events, carrying multiple pieces of their clothing, and showed up to this rally. 

Furthermore, other Nazi groups said 'yep, that's my boy' right afterwards. 

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

As for where there's middle ground, you know me. You know that I've been crying fascist as long as anyone around here, about Trump in particular and his at least 'bigotry tolerant' supporters. (Though I'll again say he's more Mussolini than Hitler) back when that was met with many a rolled eye. So I'm not a nazi apologist. But I think the 'punch a nazi' concept is wrong across the board. It's wrong as a tactic , because it's from the fascist own playbook. It's wrong as an idea because it says ideas can rightfully be opposed by violence. That's a double edged danger that just signals war. Now while I personally think the oft-argued 'pushing neutrals into the other camp' deal is bullshit...if you can align with bigots because of their being treated unfairly you were already heading their way. I mean, what would it take for a middle-grounder to hold a hose at Birmingham?...but I can see that adopting fascist tactics to combat fascism could and almost certainly would keep a lot of middle grounders from joining our side. So it's also bad strategy. 

Okay, but none of that has to do with the idea of identifying someone aligned with Nazis belonging to a Nazi group that discussed how to kill and harm people using cars before the event as a Nazi, and then stating 'nazis killed Heyer' being accurate. Right? You get that that was the argument ME was making, and why it might be a smidgen problematic. 

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

As for you and yours, I can't imagine what it feels like to be targeted by that kind of aimed hatred. I think any Nazis openly espousing murder and violence ought to be treated as criminals by the justice system, but I don't think anything gets better by individuals getting preemptive with guns or fists, even if/when the CJS is either incapable of stopping them or even indeed protecting them. If you feel genuinely endangered, I'd say you should move before I'd say you should resort to running plays from the fascist playbook, and that's not sarcasm. I understand moving is a big fucking deal, and I understand the fact that the victim is therefore bearing the cost of the attacker's ideology, but then again the alternative...getting preemptively violent yourself...is also a huge fucking deal with huge costs for you, too. We're not offered any good options right now. 

Our family had already been planning on moving, and we're still trying to get it worked out. It's very difficult. But when people like ME make arguments that boil down to #notallnazis, well, it makes it significantly easier. When we have people who I considered progressive allies saying 'hey now, that's not representative of all the nazis out there' - I can see the writing on the wall. For every one like him, there are even more of those who will say I had it coming, or my kids did, or it was a tragic accident, or a lone killer, or #notallnazis, or whatever. 
New Zealand seems better and better. 

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

But imo none of this explains turning on our own in here. Manhole's a known commodity. Occam's Razor should have clearly pointed towards miscommunication rather than exiling Many to Them. Even when he was being a bit of a twit...I mean, known commodity, right?

I would have said that too, save that he doubled and tripled down on it. And again, this isn't some hypothetical construct to me, so it made it extra weird. I'm sorry for contributing to the pile-on, but at some point when your racist friend says something racist you need to call them on it. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

12 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Ok, I'm mostly just a lurker here, but I really feel like we are through the looking glass here. Are you seriously implying that Nazis generally aren't keen on killing (certain sorts of) people and that therefore blaming Heather Heyer's death on them as a group is somehow deeply unfair to them? 

 

By your own admission she was killed by "a nazi". Are you really going to go "whoa, whoa, whoa, let's not blame all Nazis, that would taint their reputation..." ?

It was mostly a comic aside, but yeah, in a general sense I don't think it's responsible to blame a group of people for the actions of an individual. Not that it would specifically taint "nazi" reputation as a whole. That reputation is already rightfully tainted by the murder of millions.

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Like I say, I'm not with ME on this- I think he's gone into completely the wrong place with his position and tactic and I'm not at all surprised that you and others are disagreeing with him, especially this specific instance.

I just also think that to a certain extent he's been chased to where he is now. He started off saying things that could be disagree with, and has it seems to me been flustered and crowded into a position where he is just wrong, because just sheer argument has repeatedly been forced on him.

I think that's a pretty common internet phenomenon. In real debate it's actually a tactic you can use against an opponent, getting them manoeuvred into a place where they feel the need to argue for a bad position only tangentially related to their original point or admit defeat on the debate as a whole.

On the internet you see people do it to themselves, especially when being ganged up on, because they are often facing oblique arguments from many directions, some even with fallacies at their heart, so to respond they keep shifting their feet to defend themselves and when facing enough posters arguing (or sometimes just high volume from a few posters) that eventually their feet aren't anywhere near where the began, but they feel they need to defend it in order to defend the rightness of their original position. That's what I meant earlier by bunkered. 

 

[IamMe90]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It was mostly a comic aside, but yeah, in a general sense I don't think it's responsible to blame a group of people for the actions of an individual. Not that it would specifically taint "nazi" reputation as a whole. That reputation is already rightfully tainted by the murder of millions.

This is not a general sense, though, this is a specific context, which should be an exception to this general maxim. Remember what you said about doing your part to avoid spinning this merry-go-round? Yeah...