Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

a good and nice guy

u.s. politics: faygo to the polls

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I agree with most of this, but do have some pushback regarding the two bolded bits. I can't get behind violence as a response to mere rhetoric. I think that more often than not that is going to backfire on you. The Milo/Berkeley incident was a prime example of this. In that particular instance Antifa played right into the Right's narrative. That could not have gone better for Milo had he scripted it. He rode that incident into numerous media appearances, including the opening slot on Bill Maher's show. 

To the last part, that is the job of the police at these events. That's #1 on their mission statement for riot control. Not sure how you can logically criticize them for that.

I'm enough of an old liberal to reflexively go to the "there is no excuse for violence against speech" axiom, but that was before we had actual Nazis marching through the streets and being coddled by a sitting President, with a vast right wing media apparatus to amplify their violent and destructive ideology. I also can't help but notice that it's usually the people with the least skin in the game (word choice is deliberate) who are most attached to these high principles.

My first friend that I quoted is, like I said, deeply religious, and one of the more thoughtful and educated people I know, and she's fully accepted the idea that Nazi scum will use tolerance as a weapon against us. I'm torn on it myself, but I am coming around to her point of view, and it's because so many fucking people still support our Nazi-sympathetic President. But I also know this subject has been done to death here and it's been pretty heated, so I don't have much desire to re-litigate the issue.

As for what cops should have been doing, I'm going by numerous friends' accounts that there were only white cops nearest the action and that they were pretty biased against counter protesters. I believe BPD is actually one of the less awful metropolitan police organizations, but they are still pretty biased and in need of reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

It's because the campaign contributions were limited, the argument was that limitations on contributions restricted free speech, with money being considered speech.

Ugh, money as speech, disgraceful that SCOUS agreed to that.

1 minute ago, kairparavel said:

Money talks, as you know. 

Yes, I know.  Money talks and bullshit walks.  Same as it ever was.  Now the money man bullshiter in the White House brings those clichés to life.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm enough of an old liberal to reflexively go to the "there is no excuse for violence against speech" axiom, but that was before we had actual Nazis marching through the streets and being coddled by a sitting President, with a vast right wing media apparatus to amplify their violent and destructive ideology. I also can't help but notice that it's usually the people with the least skin in the game (word choice is deliberate) who are most attached to these high principles.

My first friend that I quoted is, like I said, deeply religious, and one of the more thoughtful and educated people I know, and she's fully accepted the idea that Nazi scum will use tolerance as a weapon against us. I'm torn on it myself, but I am coming around to her point of view, and it's because so many fucking people still support our Nazi-sympathetic President. But I also know this subject has been done to death here and it's been pretty heated, so I don't have much desire to re-litigate the issue.

As for what cops should have been doing, I'm going by numerous friends' accounts that there were only white cops nearest the action and that they were pretty biased against counter protesters. I believe BPD is actually one of the less awful metropolitan police organizations, but they are still pretty biased and in need of reform.

I agree that the situation is made worse by having a POTUS that is sympathetic and coddling to these fascists, but I don't see how that really changes the equation much. How is violence going to help correct the problem? Are we going to wipe them out to the last man? Is that the plan? Outside of that, I think violence from the Left typically helps their cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm enough of an old liberal to reflexively go to the "there is no excuse for violence against speech" axiom, but that was before we had actual Nazis marching through the streets and being coddled by a sitting President, with a vast right wing media apparatus to amplify their violent and destructive ideology. I also can't help but notice that it's usually the people with the least skin in the game (word choice is deliberate) who are most attached to these high principles.

My first friend that I quoted is, like I said, deeply religious, and one of the more thoughtful and educated people I know, and she's fully accepted the idea that Nazi scum will use tolerance as a weapon against us. I'm torn on it myself, but I am coming around to her point of view, and it's because so many fucking people still support our Nazi-sympathetic President. But I also know this subject has been done to death here and it's been pretty heated, so I don't have much desire to re-litigate the issue.

As for what cops should have been doing, I'm going by numerous friends' accounts that there were only white cops nearest the action and that they were pretty biased against counter protesters. I believe BPD is actually one of the less awful metropolitan police organizations, but they are still pretty biased and in need of reform.

Its very interesting because both the left and the right accuse the other side of using Tolerance and Free Speech to push their own agenda, whilst also claiming a conspiracy of those in power against them, claiming undue censorship against themselves and also blaming the police for going soft on the other side. I've seen these claims by people in the alt-right and those who are heavily left , antifa types. 

But yeah I also cannot see how violence can ever do anything but escalate the situation. I think we've already seen it. I'm quite sure much of the talk in the Alt-Right about Antifa and Berkley protests meant that many nazi's turned up looking for a fight, I'm sure next time you will see the left come out looking for a fight as well. Reminds me of old school football hooliganism.

Share this post


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

I agree that the situation is made worse by having a POTUS that is sympathetic and coddling to these fascists, but I don't see how that really changes the equation much. How is violence going to help correct the problem? Are we going to wipe them out to the last man? Is that the plan? Outside of that, I think violence from the Left typically helps their cause.

 Violence makes everything worse. Unfortunately, there are fringe elements on the right and the left who don't chose to see it that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Its very interesting because both the left and the right accuse the other side of using Tolerance and Free Speech to push their own agenda, whilst also claiming a conspiracy of those in power against them, claiming undue censorship against themselves and also blaming the police for going soft on the other side. I've seen these claims by people in the alt-right and those who are heavily left , antifa types. 

But yeah I also cannot see how violence can ever do anything but escalate the situation. I think we've already seen it. I'm quite sure much of the talk in the Alt-Right about Antifa and Berkley protests meant that many nazi's turned up looking for a fight, I'm sure next time you will see the left come out looking for a fight as well. Reminds me of old school football hooliganism.

Completely unsurprising to hear this equivocal bullshit.  Only one side is using their free speech to argue for inequality.  

This equivocation is tacit support of the white supremacists.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Completely unsurprising to hear this equivocal bullshit.  Only one side is using their free speech to argue for inequality.  

This equivocation is tacit support of the white supremacists.  

No idea what you are going on about. That both sides use the same excuses and have the sense of conspiracy and suspicion is simply reality. Thats not a defence of anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

On Friday morning, I actually heard an Antifa rep and one of the organizers of the "free speech" rally getting interviewed on a local radio station. Funnily enough, it was a hip-hop station, during the time slot where they usually talk about celebrity gossip, and boy was it weird to hear Jermaine Wiggins (TE on the first Pats Super Bowl team, now a morning show host) asking the rally organizer if he was a Nazi. To his credit, the rally organizer invited the Antifa guy to speak at the event, and the Antifa guy responded with. "Haha, no. Well... actually... maybe. Let me get back to you on that." Sorry, none of that is related to my actual point, but I just had to share.

The Antifa guy was pretty explicit that they were going to be violent if the ralliers started spouting any fascist or Nazi rhetoric. I don't know enough about what went down at Berkeley to compare. I am very suspicious in general of the accusations being leveled against Antifa and BLM as trouble-makers, because as my friends' testimony pointed out above, you can't always trust cops to be neutral, and it's hard to tell who's instigating what when it's chaotic and people are wearing masks. I also wonder how much false flag agitation goes on there, because that's a proven tactic for authoritarians to grasp power, US law enforcement agencies have done it in the past, and Trump's people make false flag accusations so often in their own defense that it seems like they must be projecting.

But anyway. I, too, am grateful that Antifa (and BLM by all accounts I've read) played it as wisely as they did today, if for nothing else, than to keep their side of the street clean when law enforcement and lazy reporters will probably try to blame them for whatever violence does occur. That said, I do believe there is a time and a place for violence, when dealing with fascists and Nazis. Maybe there didn't have to be any violence today because the Nazis were so outnumbered, they just pissed themselves and ran (to cries of "Smile for your exit interviews on Monday!" in one delightful story). And because Boston PD was organized and made sure to disarm everyone. It's almost like they were bodyguarding these pathetic little cretins.

One might suspect that ultimately it is because of the explicit no weapons prohibition Boston had in place -- which they could not do in Virginia, because, unlike Massachusetts VA is an open carry state (and some other states that don't have open carry allow concealed).  Without the opportunities for public fondle and strut it's just not any fun for the crazyconfederatenazis.  They don't want to argue with merely words of violence, they can only get their full jollies by doing it with guns and other physical violence.  Total bullies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Completely unsurprising to hear this equivocal bullshit.  Only one side is using their free speech to argue for inequality.  

This equivocation is tacit support of the white supremacists.  

What are things going to be like in the next 20 years I wonder ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

. I also can't help but notice that it's usually the people with the least skin in the game (word choice is deliberate) who are most attached to these high principles.

Been wanting to address the privilege argument for awhile here as it has been used repeatedly throughout these threads for the last week or so. This is likely to get me blasted from many sides here, but at this point I feel like I need to push back against it to some degree as it has been used repeatedly to  discredit one side of this debate.

 I'm not even going to attempt to deny my privilege here. I'm a white, straight male, from a firmly Middle Class background. My parents are white, blue collar professionals who did everything right in terms of providing a stable environment for their children. I grew up in a firmly Middle Class neighborhood in a suburb of San Francisco. I've never gone to bed hungry. I've never been homeless. I've enjoyed just about every social advantage one could hope to enjoy. I get that. I haven't experienced social/political/economic oppression on say the same level that your Trans friend you were talking about has. I understand and acknowledge that my political views are colored by these facts.

 That said, I don't believe any of this makes my opinion or position less valid. Having experienced systemic societal oppression makes a more extreme or less moderate view more understandable, but it doesn't necessarily make that view superior. That merit has to be determined on the strength of their arguments at the end of the day, not based solely on how terrible their life experience has been.

 You mentioned the old Liberal argument of "there is no excuse for violence against speech" as if it is entirely hacky and outmoded. I have to disagree. I think it's rather foundational. I can understand someone more oppressed than myself wanting to turn to violence, wanting to justify a violent solution. I sympathize with that instinct, but I simply cannot agree that it is an acceptable political tactic. These nazis have studied the CRM. On more than one level, they want you to attack them physically at these sorts of events. Doing so plays into their hands in my estimation. How do you think it would've looked yesterday if say a thousand or so more violent minded counter-protesters had charged that gazebo and stomped some Nazi ass on national television? Who's cause would've been better served by that sort of action? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Completely unsurprising to hear this equivocal bullshit.  Only one side is using their free speech to argue for inequality.  

This equivocation is tacit support of the white supremacists.  

Thank you. It's a common far right tactic, their aim being that their marches and protests are perceived as something normal, and being worth of protection, coz you know the higher good. They were/are trying to pull something similar off with regards with football and infiltrating fan scenes. When they get called out from parts of the fan scenes, their usual response is something like:  "this is football, football is not politics. Go Team!" I find it outraging when "normies" buy into that nonsense and turn full apologist.

Talking about football. On the lighter side of things looks like Breitbart will get sued. Silly little story, I know. But I found it too funny, not to be shared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Notone said:

Thank you. It's a common far right tactic, their aim being that their marches and protests are perceived as something normal, and being worth of protection, coz you know the higher good. They were/are trying to pull something similar off with regards with football and infiltrating fan scenes. When they get called out from parts of the fan scenes, their usual response is something like:  "this is football, football is not politics. Go Team!" I find it outraging when "normies" buy into that nonsense and turn full apologist.

Talking about football. On the lighter side of things looks like Breitbart will get sued. Silly little story, I know. But I found it too funny, not to be shared.

But does only the right use those same or similar tactics ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Notone said:

Thank you. It's a common far right tactic, their aim being that their marches and protests are perceived as something normal, and being worth of protection, coz you know the higher good.

 Being able to express your political beliefs in this country through protest is normal. Their beliefs might not be normal, but their right to march and protest is. That's at the heart of this whole argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sure, if white men were truly discriminated against they would have a point. But I'm sure you realize that such victimisation on their part is hiding the true reaons of their economic woes. In other words, blaming affirmative action instead of political, governmental, and financial decisions taken these last decades is highly ridiculous. You and I know why inequality has risen in the past fifty years in the West, and we know affirmative action is certainly not to blame for anything in this story.

To expand on this statement, we need to remind ourselves of labor history in this country.

Among the primary reasons for what's happened in the so called 'rural' areas, once called the rust belt, is the loss of labor union power, due to the loss of membership.  Loss of membership came about because with Civil Rights laws, African American men had to be allowed into the 'blue collar' professions and unions -- which the white, immigrant class to which the  so called rural blue collar worker had resolutely kept WHITE and male from the beginning of the labor movements here.  They fought against slavery, first, because it took the jobs and depressed wages.  Then they fought to keep their job sites white because African Americans (like the Irish and Italians and Poles, etc. did too in their first generations) worked for lower pay and were competitors for jobs.

And in the southern, formerly CSA states, this played directly into the hands of capital, to keep the labor unions out, making them so-called, so sadly misnomered, 'right to work' states.  Which then led to undocumented labor, further depressing wages and rights and safety, leading to further decline in membership.

Also, without the voting clout of the labor unions lobbying for them, big infrastructure -- JOB -- projects locally, state and federal, haven't been green-lighted, leading to ever more membership loss.

In so many ways these people cut their own economic throats.

 

Share this post


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

What are things going to be like in the next 20 years I wonder ?

You'll be eating bugs, paying enormous tolls for water -- mostly recycled, if you're lucky, and probably starting to pay for air to breathe too, and living 18 to a room.

Share this post


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

 Being able to express your political beliefs in this country through protest is normal. Their beliefs might not be normal, but their right to march and protest is. That's at the heart of this whole argument. 

And you fell for it. The a bit more elaborated argument on my part would be: So is the right of counter protesters to express their views with a couter protest and to blockade the right wing rallye.

12 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

But does only the right use those same or similar tactics ? 

We're talking about right wing protests and tactics here. I am not reacting too kindly on this, but the left yadda yadda yadda, they're basically the same BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Notone said:

And you fell for it. The a bit more elaborated argument on my part would be: So is the right of counter protesters to express their views with a couter protest and to blockade the right wing rallye.

YES! ABSOLUTELY! They have the right to protest to express their shitty ideas. We have the right to show up and tell them just how shitty we think their ideas are. How is that even in question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You'll be eating bugs, paying enormous tolls for water -- mostly recycled, if you're lucky, and probably starting to pay for air to breathe too, and living 18 to a room.

 

It sounds like a utopian paradise.:D

 

I think in 20 years it will be illegal to criticize  anyone about anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 

It sounds like a utopian paradise.:D

 

I think in 20 years it will be illegal to criticize  anyone about anything.

You'll be too busy hunting cockroaches to have any time to criticize anything.

Share this post


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

×