u.s. politics: faygo to the polls

[Sivin]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I'm glad you draw the line somewhere. I guess that's a start. It's the "based on one's political ideology" that we are discussing though.

Nazism is not a political ideology, it is a sickness that too many seem content to see spread unchecked. 

There's only one cure, and it is not indulgence.

[James Arryn]

11 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Nazism is not a political ideology, it is a sickness that too many seem content to see spread unchecked. 

There's only one cure, and it is not indulgence.

So, brown and black are taken. Red and green already have political implications and blue is too awesome a colour, so maybe with a nod to Prince we form the Purple Shirts?

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

If you are speaking up for the rights of nazis and white supremacists, you sure as fuck aren't an ally. Speaking up for their right to speech is speaking up for promotion of nazism and white supremacy. 

Also, you are really fucking naive if you don't think their ideology and speech promoting their ideologies aren't provoking enough to justify violence against them. 

Yes, I suppose I'm really just that "naive."  But I'm happy I'm not naive enough to know that unprovoked violence against nazi protesters right now is exactly what they want, will unquestionably exacerbate the problem, and grant them the escalation they so desire.  Get back to me when you develop a legitimately informed and principled understanding of American politics.

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

yeah, i am certainly 100% all for this, among many other solutions both strategic and tactical,  but the pertinent issue here is almost no one here (in these threads or in the streets engaging in direct action) is in any sort of position to make this happen. and even if it were to happen, how effective would it be considering many of those tasked with enforcing such directives could likely hold nazi/white supremacist or adjacent views?

Those in the streets are in a position to make it happen.  Interest groups run Washington.  Most of these are private interest groups (i.e. representing businesses, industry, or unions).  Public interest groups represent specific policy goals.  How many thousands were there in Boston yesterday?  You know how you change things?  By donating and committing your time to public interest groups that represent what you believe in.  The NRA is so effective because they have such committed dues-paying members.  There's plenty of groups out there to commit oneself to in order to pressure Congress.  

In terms of enforcing such directives, obviously you're right regarding the current administration.  Not much you can do except keep ensuring your voice is heard until the next presidential cycle.  But look at the military COS responses to Trump's comments.  Look at Mnuchin feeling the need to justify to his Yale cohorts why he's not resigning.  Keep Trump isolated and push impeachment.

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

i'll be the first to say we need to shoot for big picture pie-in-the-sky goals, but in the interim we cannot dismiss tactics that the nazis and ilk musr contend with, namely a strong showing of oppositional force (both in terms of activism, demonstration, protest etc as well as the threat of physical violence) 

Totally behind this - as long as "threat of physical violence" is only activated upon in self defense.

[DanteGabriel]

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

ps welcome back @DanteGabriel missed you in these threads

Thanks, but I don't think I'll be back long. I dropped out because I knew getting involved in these threads in the Age of Trump would be bad for my stress and my soul, and it never really goes anywhere. I came back to comment on Boston because I was feeling pretty fucking proud of this fucked up city, half of whose inhabitants I would gladly punch in the face just for their driving habits, and I wanted to stick up for my adopted town after they did a pretty good thing. But now I'm just getting back into the patterns I wanted to avoid, getting worked up by transparently shitty arguments and throwing insults at a clueless numpty.

[Sivin]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So, brown and black are taken. Red and green already have political implications and blue is too awesome a colour, so maybe with a nod to Prince we firm the Purple Shirts?

White. 

The least we could do is let the last thing they see feel comforting.

[Bonnot OG]

Just now, dmc515 said:

Yes, I suppose I'm really just that "naive."  But I'm happy I'm not naive enough to know that unprovoked violence against nazi protesters right now is exactly what they want, will unquestionably exacerbate the problem, and grant them the escalation they so desire.  Get back to me when you develop a legitimately informed and principled understanding of American politics.

Those in the streets are in a position to make it happen.  Interest groups run Washington.  Most of these are private interest groups (i.e. representing businesses, industry, or unions).  Public interest groups represent specific policy goals.  How many thousands were there in Boston yesterday?  You know how you change things?  By donating and committing your time to public interest groups that represent what you believe in.  The NRA is so effective because they have such committed dues-paying members.  There's plenty of groups out there to commit oneself to in order to pressure Congress.  

In terms of enforcing such directives, obviously you're right regarding the current administration.  Not much you can do except keep ensuring your voice is heard until the next presidential cycle.  But look at the military COS responses to Trump's comments.  Look at Mnuchin feeling the need to justify to his Yale cohorts why he's not resigning.  Keep Trump isolated and push impeachment.

Totally behind this - as long as "threat of physical violence" is only activated upon in self defense.

Violence against nazis, whether or not they throw the first punch, is not unprovoked. 

Are you white?  Because I gotta really strong feeling you are given the bs you're pedaling in here and why you fail to see nazism is always provoking violence whether or not they are physically assaulting people. 

And yes, nazism is always threatening physical violence, it's ingrained in their ideology. But you clearly are unaware of that.

 

[GAROVORKIN]

25 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

So you're just flat out ignorant of history and how violence was the only thing that stopped a nazi government? 

Yes warfare which left 55 million dead half of whom were Russians.  I know history ,  It was my major in college , I have degree in it.  

[James Arryn]

12 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

White. 

The least we could do is let the last thing they see feel comforting.

Eh, that could get confusing if they're all sheeted up, but I like the use of irony. Here's a bit more: it's a good thing that back in history people who argued against violence as a response to intolerance never had to face the kinds of dangers people face today, else they'd obviously have abandoned their stance. But like for example when Gandhi or MLK were arguing for non-violence the biggest threat they faced was being only given 3 breakfast cereal options, unlike people today who are facing Real Danger. 

[Bonnot OG]

2 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Yes warfare which left 55 million dead half of whom were Russians.  I know history ,  It was my major in college , I have degree in it.  

You may want to ask for a refund.

[Sivin]

1 minute ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Yes warfare which left 55 million dead half of whom were Russians.  I know history ,  It was my major in college , I have degree in it.  

Is the fact that those Russians went to absurd lengths to avoid conflict with Nazis just not connecting then?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

In general I don't think we should visit violence upon people for their political ideology, but I think you can make an exception for Nazis. We're not talking about advocating violence against smug libertarians or Chinese Communists. We're talking about the modern definition of evil.

With that last post I was actually referring to myself or moderates in a general sense. Sword of Doom has already been really clear on how he wants to handles nazis. He hasn't bothered to answer what he is willing to do to those that "might throw us under the bus". He's already referred to us as "others", I want to know what that means to him exactly.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Violence against nazis, whether or not they throw the first punch, is not unprovoked.

Yes, it is.

3 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Are you white?  Because I gotta really strong feeling you are given the bs you're pedaling in here and why you fail to see nazism is always provoking violence whether or not they are physically assaulting people. 

You mean inciting violence, not provoking.  If you want to have an argument about whether their ideology is incitement - which the courts have made an exception for - that's fine.  But that exception does not entail allowing citizens to respond with violence, for patently obvious reasons.

6 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

And yes, nazism is always threatening physical violence, it's ingrained in their ideology. But you clearly are unaware of that.

You're right, I'm clearly unaware of the nazis ideology and what it prescribes.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

12 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

White. 

The least we could do is let the last thing they see feel comforting.

They've already co-opted it. Unless you're suggesting an undercover operation, I wouldn't advise wearing it lest you be mistaken for one of them. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

11 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Are you white?  Because I gotta really strong feeling you are given the bs you're pedaling in here and why you fail to see nazism is always provoking violence whether or not they are physically assaulting people. 

Again with the diminishing identity bullshit. What percentage of a vote do caucasians get in your new regime? 25%? 33%? 50%? What are we looking at here?

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

But like for example when Gandhi or MLK were arguing for non-violence the biggest threat they faced was being only given 3 breakfast cereal options, unlike people today who are facing Real Danger. 

IIRC, Gandhi's Salt March was protesting the banishment of Rice Krispies.

[James Arryn]

9 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Is the fact that those Russians went to absurd lengths to avoid conflict with Nazis just not connecting then?

Erm?

Stalin was one of the very earliest political figures warning of Hitler's danger, which makes sense when you remember that the Nazis made their bones beating up people voicing the corrosive ideology of...communism. And Molotov duly made the rounds like crazy trying to get other nations to form alliances. But the other nations, though generally alarmed at Hitler's rise, were as or more concerned about the Soviets and, having read Mein Kampf, also understood that Hitler's entire raison d'être was the Conquest/enslavement of the east and destruction of communism, so they declined all Russian overtures. The thinking was to let these 2 ideologies have a crippling war with each other and then if possible gather up the remains. So, we get Munich, which you will remember was news to Stalin, whose representation was not invited. 

So having identified the general idea of aiming Hitler in his direction, Stalin practiced realpolitik and we get Molotov-Ribbentrop. But that never happens without Munich.

Now, as for nations who tried very very hard to stay out of the war, there was one which violated all their mutual protection treaties and let WWII rage on for 2 years, meanwhile being the Nazis biggest trading partner and contrary to myth NEVER chose to oppose the Nazis on any kind of ideological or moral basis, but this is not a very popular reminder.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

IIRC, Gandhi's Salt March was protesting the banishment of Rice Krispies.

OH SNAP, CRACKLE, POP!

[Sivin]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Eh, that could get confusing if they're all sheeted up, but I like the use of irony. Here's a bit more: it's a good thing that back in history people who argued against violence as a response to violence never had to face the kinds of dangers people face today, else they'd obviously have abandoned their stance. But like for example when Gandhi or MLK were arguing for non-violence the biggest threat they faced was being only given 3 breakfast cereal options, unlike people today who are facing Real Danger. 

Nice return, I hope Dr. King would be glad to know that 47 states don't commemorate his efforts on the same day they jerk off to a traitor's failed campaign to keep black men and women as chattel. 

 

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Nice return, I hope Dr. King would be glad to know that 47 states don't commemorate his efforts on the same day they jerk off to a traitor's failed campaign to keep black men and women as chattel. 

 

Given what he actually faced, I don't think he'd flinch too much. 

[GAROVORKIN]

4 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

This does not address why I found your statements to be so offensively stupid.

First, on whether or not Nazis will ever amount to a threat in this country: they have already killed someone. It's pretty fucking shitty to spout platitudes about how they'll never be a threat a week after they fucking killed someone.

Second, on moral equivalencies: You said that people who use violence against Nazis are no better than the Nazis. Well, one side believes in exterminating whole races of people, and another side believes in violently defeating that genocidal ideology. Do you really see no difference? I'd say there's a pretty fundamental difference between wanting to hurt people because they're Jewish or black or gay, and wanting to hurt people because they promote a violent, genocidal ideology.

The  man that  ran over that woman belongs in jails and hopefully he rot in jail.  

There is a bit of difference between warfare and street protesting , don't you think?  You don't have the right  to instigate violence  against  someone in the street because you don't  happen to not like they're saying. If they talk about about committing violence and don't then  you still don't have the right under law commit violence yourself,  I really  don't need explain the law to you do I?   If  they commit violence, then you do have the right to defend yourself and fight back.