General US Politics Discussion

[El Dildo]

I don't like the anti Soros demonization, but I think that it's accurate to say that he funds a lot of militant leftism.

except it's not accurate because you haven't demonstrated it at all...

[Eutyphro]

I don't have to demonstrate it for you really. You're free to be as ignorant as you choose.

[Fonz]

 

Revolutionary

 

Communist

 

 

aren't militant at all.

 

 

Sure....

 

 

The RCP is basically Bob Avakian's cult. It has no real political significance and is a relic of the Cold War cartoon that is Maoism. They're about as communist as the edgy Democratic Party front known as the CPUSA (and probably even less militant, somehow).

[El Dildo]

I don't have to demonstrate it for you really. You're free to be as ignorant as you choose.

you didn't say that the Sun is bright or that the sky is blue.

 

you're not speaking in universally agreed-upon facts.

you're speaking in conspiracy theory.

 

the onus of proof falls on your shoulders when it comes to such claims.

 

/debate 101

/elementary school

Edited August 23, 2017 by El Diablo

[sivispacem]

Like I said if you are expecting a check from soros to these groups your not going to find it.

I never suggested you would. Do you feel the need to turn every argument into a straw man, or just the ones you can't satisfactorily address?

 

Both E and myself agree that Soros, among others, funds these groups for militant purposes. Maybe they turn a blind eye.

The fact you agree does not lend your assertions additional veracity. The simple fact of the matter is that the assertions of direct and specific funding which have been repeatedly made are simply untrue; the intent of Soros to actually sponsor these so-called "militant" organisation hasn't been supported by a single piece of evidence.

 

What's clear is that the groups we've listed provide funding for the violent protests

Actually it's not at all clear how involved these specific groups, or even their members and supporters, are in the violent aspects of these protests. Your allegations of direct involvement are circumstantial, and pretty flimsily circumstantial at that.

 

So do you guys ever get bored of this boring completely substanceless nit picking?

Oh give it a rest Euty. If you can't be bothered to support an argument, don't bother posting it. It's nobody's fault but your own and complaining about how boring you find semantics and how your critics are just splitting hairs is tiresome nonsense simply designed to deflect away from the fact you've got nothing of merit to say.

[Eutyphro]

 

Like I said if you are expecting a check from soros to these groups your not going to find it.

I never suggested you would.

Yeah, but you are misinterpreting a claim, and moving the goalposts, to then drive through some irrelevant point about a claim noone made. I chose to ignore it, because it sufficiently bores me, but it's good Spaghetti Cat pointed it out.

[El Dildo]

because it sufficiently bores me, but it's good Spaghetti Cat pointed it out.

[sivispacem]

Yeah, but you are misinterpreting a claim

...

I think that it's accurate to say that he [soros] funds a lot of militant leftism.

Naa, apparently you're just sh*t at making points. But of course it's not your fault, it's everyone else's for being so damn pedantic.

[Eutyphro]

Which was proven, with a range of examples actually. But you intend to pedantically misinterpret it to the point that in your specific universe it's false. That's good for you actually, but it doesn't have much to do with the truth or falsity of what I said.

[El Dildo]

it was proven because I said so.

 

cool.

[El Dildo]

guys I think all Republicans are violent racist militant thugs funded by the Murdoch family.

 

don't ask me why.

this discussion bores me and someone else said the same thing.

 

[sivispacem]

Which was proven, with a range of examples actually.

It wasn't even evidenced, let alone proven. Which is why you spent five posts basically saying "I'm not playing anymore" until Spaghetti Cat threw you the "moved the goalposts but not really" lifeline. Pretty sad really.

[DEALUX]

 

Not about go around punching Nazis'...unless they actually are going around threatening people with violence.

He said, a week after a group of nazis marched threatening a group of people with violence, and one of them even went as far as ramming people in a terrorist act of violence.

Right.

 

Yeah, one. Also, there is a difference between hate speech and sh*t-talking. I bet the other camp were threatening the right-wingers too. It's really not a one sided thing. The people who typically go to protests pretty much expect violence. The "punch a Nazi" meme started on the left.

 

 

I think it's become more than obvious that Trump supporters in this topic voted for Trump because they loved his white supremacist rhetoric during the campaign. That's the only logical reason why they would still support him and why they don't have a problem with his response, and why they're downplaying the actions of a bunch of Nazis and white supremacists while enthusiastically attacking those who oppose them. It's time to call a spade a spade. They're racists, plain and simple.

The way you oversimplify and exaggerate things at the same time is disgusting. Which Trump supporters are you talking about? If anything you're the one that's bonkers if you think we should kill people for spouting hate speech.

 

Defending free speech is not the same thing as defending Nazis. There's also no downplaying either. Realistically speaking, most of these right-wingers haven't done anything criminal or worthy of a violent response.

[Khephera]

The way you oversimplify and exaggerate things at the same time is disgusting. Which Trump supporters are you talking about? If anything you're the one that's bonkers if you think we should kill people for spouting hate speech.

 

Defending free speech is not the same thing as defending Nazis. There's also no downplaying either. Realistically speaking, most of these right-wingers haven't done anything criminal or worthy of a violent response.

Agreed. I guess Voltaire would be perceived as a closet Nazi apologist by today's standards, too.

I'm glad Karen has conducted an interview with Chris Cantwell about the Charlottesville aftermath, giving him a platform to show his side of the story about what happened there (and other issues).

So anyone who's interested:

 

What "free speech" means to me is that people do not have the moral right to initiate violence against you to stop you from expressing what you believe. Even if you are using "free speech" to condone the initiation of violence against others, while you're not actually committing or directly threatening violence, it's not morally justified for others to respond to you with violence. However, when you're kind of a cheerleader for your own brand of thuggery (no matter the side you're on), don't be too surprised if you don't get much sympathy when you are the victim of someone else's thuggery. If you talk and act like an aggressive thug looking for a fight (again, both sides), and someone kicks your ass, don't expect very many people to care.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Khephera

[make total destroy]

Chris "we'll kill these people if we have to" Cantwell. Chris "pulls a gun on people that ask him to stop filming them" Cantwell. Who cares what that whiney pissbaby has to say?

[Khephera]

^ Well, he was talking about it in the context of "self-defence", which, in principle, I'm totally fine with. I was really more concerned about his antisemitic slurs and his advocation for an ethno-state.

[Clem Fandango]

By stating matter of fact?

 

 

BLM is hardly 'militant leftism.'

 

 

 

So as opposed to Antifa, I'm the one being contrarian, but also at the same time a hack who wants to conform to middle class respectability? Make up your mind which one I am. I can't be both. Middle class respectability isn't contrarian.

It is if you cultivate it in response to the increased prevalence of radical politics. I don't think you're actually trying to fit in with posh boys, I think you want to be seen saying this sh*t.

 

 

 

Really what you are trying to do is repeating historical failures, that caused millions of deaths, and a wide range of failed states. "But this time it will be different!"

Well, what happened historically? Ignoring the Bolsheviks (it's been explained to you that the USSR was the only ML state to really be created in a social revolution) people built directly democratic institutions and communes. I don't think this is entirely relevant in 2017, as I've already stated. I don't know exactly what form social change should take, it definitely shouldn't take the form of the militias and peasant mobs that ruled Barcelona in the 1930s. This- again- has already been explained to you, but don't let that get in the way of your little performance.

 

I don't give a f*ck what support, it you agree with me or traditional leftism or wussified social democracy or mutualism or technocratic post-scarcity or a single buyer market economy. As long as you support something, and want to do something rather than whinge about broken windows all day. The planet is being destroyed, society is collapsing. Bill Nye the Science Guy seems to manage to acknowledge this without being a leftist of any stripe. Your response to these issues is to cling to the Queen's skirt, and insist that the empire is all powerful and eternal, with no basis for doing so.

 

 

 

The overwhelming majority of people don't want your radical egalitarian societal failure project.

Nor are they interested in leaving things in place, or in rescuing civic institutions. They don't give much of a sh*t about anything, it you haven't noticed. Appeals to popularity are pretty empty in our society.

 

But do people reject 'radical egalitarianism'? No, not at all. You're just projecting your own bootlicking onto the rest of the population. If you get punched outside a bar do you say "thank you sir, may I have another"? Wouldn't surprise me.

 

 

 

Your utopian fantasy will keep on failing, because it isn't based on sound ideas, but on resentment and ignorance.

It isn't really based on ideas at all, but is reactive and more a form of negation than a set of positive proposals.

 

Resentment though, fair enough. A lot of the world is literally staving while people pile up money that they don't even spend so that they can feel good about themselves. Damn right I resent these people, they're filth. You probably shouldn't throw around terms like 'resentment' when your views on leftism revolves around them wearing cooler clothes than you, as well.

[Clem Fandango]

How do you overthrow something like capitalism, except for militancy actually?

lol dude if you believe our society can only be changed with massive application of force then you are a more intense critic of it than I am!

[Spaghetti Cat]

^Mel I think we can agree on the problems out there, just differ on the solutions. Returning to a sound Constitutional order would probably be just as radical as what you propose. What I'd like to see is equal justice not equal outcomes. Just because some of us oppose your solutions doesn't mean we like the status quo either...

 

Like I said if you are expecting a check from soros to these groups your not going to find it.

I never suggested you would. Do you feel the need to turn every argument into a straw man, or just the ones you can't satisfactorily address?

 

Well give me an example of what you were expecting. Short of a conviction in a court case there's probably nothing that I could show you that would meet the high standards you are asking for. I'm using the check as an example, not a straw man.

 

 

 

 

 

Both E and myself agree that Soros, among others, funds these groups for militant purposes. Maybe they turn a blind eye.

The fact you agree does not lend your assertions additional veracity.

ugh, I'm not saying that we agree proves my point. I'm actually giving E some credit here. He ninja'd me on some of his previous links, so I was just adding to the examples. Why do you get so edgy over these simple things?

 

 

The simple fact of the matter is that the assertions of direct and specific funding which have been repeatedly made are simply untrue;

 

Again the check analogy. I have shown that Soros funds groups that fund protesters such as DisruptJ20. It's called a middle-man, you are not going to find any direct and specific funding with Soros's name on it.

 

 

the intent of Soros to actually sponsor these so-called "militant" organisation hasn't been supported by a single piece of evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough, it's pretty hard to prove intent. Let's say the funds are intended for one purpose and they are instead given to these violent groups. (and this is the part you left out of my post) Wouldn't you agree that the funding should be stoped? Period? That the money isn't used for violent purposes. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

 

 

 

What's clear is that the groups we've listed provide funding for the violent protests

Actually it's not at all clear how involved these specific groups, or even their members and supporters, are in the violent aspects of these protests. Your allegations of direct involvement are circumstantial, and pretty flimsily circumstantial at that.

 

 

Soros funds Alliance for Global Justice (among others) AGJ funds groups such as Resist Fascism, which was responsible for the J20 protests, where over 200 people were arrested and lots of damage done. Is this specific enough?

 

 

 

 

[Clem Fandango]

^Mel I think we can agree on the problems out there, just differ on the solutions. Returning to a sound Constitutional order would probably be just as radical as what you propose.

Ah, because the constitution specifically forbids the accumulation of massive wealth and pumping Co2 into the atmosphere. Oh wait, no it doesn't. In fact your mates say that wealth inequality is a good thing and that global warming is a hoax designed to increase the scope of state power.

 

The Supreme Court can also interpret basically any policy they like as constitutional as long as there's some vague basis, or precedent in previous interpretations. When people say they're 'constitutionalists' what they mean is they think the US was founded on their specific views and that the Supreme Court should privilege their interpretation of what the constitution was supposed to protect.

 

 

 

What I'd like to see is equal justice not equal outcomes.

'Equality of opportunity' is a bit of a misnomer, because while we are both theoretically free to become bankers, neither of us actually wants to, making the point moot. Society also depends on the vast majority of the population not being filthy rich Capitalists, someone has to do literally every other job. It also involves massive state interference: a massive welfare state, legislating against unpaid internships which are used as an intentional barrier to people from poorer backgrounds entering things like finance here in Australia and apparently every other private sector profession in the US, free university, free medical care (so you don't undo all of your progress by falling down the stairs) and so on and so on.

 

Tell me, how does a school teacher get rich under this system? They can be the best damn school teacher in the world and they won't be awarded millions of dollars. Ranting about 'equality of outcome' is kind of empty when your outcome is dependent more on your chosen profession or birth than how hard you work within it.

[make total destroy]

They publicly supported those actions.

 

If I publicly support, say, the New York Yankees, that doesn't mean I'm on the f*cking team.

 

And what does 'support' even mean in this context? Like, saying you 'support' something is not the same as actually supporting it.

 

 

Refuse Fascism which organized the #DISRUPTJ20 protest during Inauguration Day.

 

No, they didn't. Where are you getting this from? #DisruptJ20 was organized by anarchists. It was an anarchist march. It had nothing to do with the RCP or Refuse Fascism. The RCP are not fond of anarchists and anarchists sure as f*ck aren't fond of the RCP. There's no collaboration between the two.

 

 

 

'Refuse Fascism' aren't militant at all. They're a front for the Revolutionary Communist Party.

 

Revolutionary

 

Communist

 

 

aren't militant at all.

 

 

Sure....

 

 

 

"Hey, the DPRK isn't democratic at all"

 

Democratic

People's

Republic

 

Sure...

 

But on the real, the Revolutionary Communist Party is neither revolutionary nor communist. It's a cult. They are not militant at all. They don't organize anything. They show up in places like Ferguson and try to assert themselves as 'leaders' that no one asked for. They are opportunists.

Edited August 24, 2017 by make total destroy

[Dr. Robotnik]

If you get punched outside a bar do you say "thank you sir, may I have another"?

 

Isn't that what you expect cops, Neo-Nazis, or counter-protestors to do when you punch them? What about the business owners whose windows you've broken? Why should they just let that happen?

[Clem Fandango]

 

If you get punched outside a bar do you say "thank you sir, may I have another"?

 

Isn't that what you expect cops, Neo-Nazis, or counter-protestors to do when you punch them?

I've never thrown a politically motivated punch you scum. In fact I've never thrown a punch in my life that wasn't a response to someone else's violence against me.

 

 

 

What about the business owners whose windows you've broken?

lol I haven't broken a window since I was a teenage hooligan, and I only did that because I thought it was funny. I make no apologies for it though, so they can feel free to come and smash all the windows at my busine--oh wait.

 

You know I've never blocked anyone on here before but you are pretty insufferable and I'm pretty close. Plenty of people grind my gears on here but they'll at least post more than one paragraph (you have never managed a full paragraph to my knowledge) and don't just want to accuse me of beating people up IRL. I am however flattered that you think I'm on an unstoppable rampage of beating up cops.

[make total destroy]

I'm waiting for one of you folks to post those ANTIFA MANUAL pics that've been going around as if it's actually a real thing that exists.

[Dr. Robotnik]

 

 

 

 

What about the business owners whose windows you've broken?

lol I haven't broken a window since I was a teenage hooligan, and I only did that because I thought it was funny. I make no apologies for it though, so they can feel free to come and smash all the windows at my busine--oh wait.

 

They can always wreck your house instead.

 

For the most part, all I'm really trying to do is understand your thought by asking questions and letting you answer them in your own words.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Dr. Robotnik

[Tchuck]

 

 

Yeah, one.

 

He's still a representative of that movement, because he simply put their words into action. And, well, aren't you the one who claims that all Muslims are evil and want violence on the basis of one sh*tty skewered poll? So if we apply your logic, he is representative of the movement as a whole, and it makes them all murderers, doesn't it?

 

 

 

Also, there is a difference between hate speech and sh*t-talking.

 

Are you seriously making excuses for nazis? They were practicing hate speech when they talk about removing jews, removing blacks, making america white again. How is that not hate speech?

 

 

 

I bet the other camp were threatening the right-wingers too.

 

Sorry, no. The "other camp" was threatening their ideology of hate, not right wing in general. Unless you've just admitted that enough right-wingers identify with the ideology of hate in general to be the same thing. This other camp sh*t is bullsh*t.

 

 

 

It's really not a one sided thing.

 

One side is threatening to kill/remove people based on their beliefs and color. That same side took active action and murdered a person and injured dozens of others.

 

One side is showing up to shut down those demonstrations with their larger number. That same side is taking beating from the police, and being attacked by the other side, resorting to violence in self defense.

 

It f*cking is a one sided thing, you nazi apologist.

 

 

 

The people who typically go to protests pretty much expect violence.

 

Citation needed.

 

 

 

The "punch a Nazi" meme started on the left.

 

Actually it started back in the 40s when we were punching nazis to death. And stabbing them. And bayonetting them. It was the one thing that united several different ideologies and governments around the world.

 

[Clem Fandango]

So as opposed to Antifa, I'm the one being contrarian, but also at the same time a hack who wants to conform to middle class respectability? Make up your mind which one I am. I can't be both. Middle class respectability isn't contrarian.

So turns out you're actually just mimicking Jordan Peterson. Like, literally everything you post on the subject of socialism is lifted directly from Peterson's rants- apart from the stuff about the black clothes. You know, I at least thought this inane "socialism failed, look at Russia!" nonsense and dismissing everything as resentment was your own, even if I didn't think it was sincere. Nope! Imagine my shock at googling "Jordan Peterson socialism" and finding all of your new views.

 

At least this explains why you're incapable of introducing any nuance on the subject even when it's literally being drilled into you, and why you continue to reduce socialism historically to the Bolsheviks, even when you know about the CNT, the black army, the SRs and the Russian village communes. All things that Peterson has never heard of.

 

Turns out this is also where you get your constant rants about postmodernism being 'neo-Marxism' and somehow revolutionary.

 

If you really need an intellectual father figure, go back to Chomsky. Or, you could not copy any old intellectuals and support some parts of peoples' analysis while rejecting the parts that are clearly wrong. It's embarrassing that your understanding of socialism is five times more advanced than Peterson's but you mimic him anyway. I wondered why itcame off as so disjointed.

They can always wreck your house instead.

Right except wrecking the place where I live is not the same as wrecking someones' private property, which is used only to generate profit and rent. If you really can't see that then you are unhinged.

 

 

 

For the most part, all I'm really trying to do is understand your thought by asking questions and letting you answer them in your own words.

Really? Are you sure you aren't just letting rip with lame gotchas? Sure seems that way. If this is you being inquisitive then don't be surprised if you don't get much of an education.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Melchior

[Dr. Robotnik]

 

So as opposed to Antifa, I'm the one being contrarian, but also at the same time a hack who wants to conform to middle class respectability? Make up your mind which one I am. I can't be both. Middle class respectability isn't contrarian.

So turns out you're actually just mimicking Jordan Peterson. Like, literally everything you post on the subject of socialism is lifted directly from Peterson's rants- apart from the stuff about the black clothes. You know, I at least thought this inane "socialism failed, look at Russia!" nonsense and dismissing everything as resentment was your own, even if I didn't think it was sincere. Nope! At least this explains why you're incapable of introducing any nuance on the subject even when it's literally being drilled into you, and why you continue to reduce socialism historically to the Bolsheviks, even when you know about the CNT, the black army, the SRs and the Russian village communes. All things that Peterson has never heard of.

 

Turns out this is also where you get your constant rants about postmodernism being 'neo-Marxism' and somehow revolutionary.

 

If you really need an intellectual father figure, go back to Chomsky. Or, you could not copy any old intellectuals and support some parts of peoples' analysis while rejecting the parts that are clearly wrong. It's embarrassing that your understanding of socialism is five times more advanced than Peterson's but you mimic him anyway. I wondered why itcame off as so disjointed.

They can always wreck your house instead.

Right except wrecking the place where I live is not the same as wrecking someones' private property, which is used only to generate profit and rent. If you really can't see that then you are unhinged.

 

 

I can see a difference, but if someone was pissed over you breaking their window and possibly disrupting their livelihood, they probably wouldn't feel an obligation to play fair. And if you disrupt their ability to profit, you disrupt their ability to maintain their own house.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Dr. Robotnik

[Tchuck]

 

And if you disrupt their ability to profit, you disrupt their ability to maintain their own house.

 

Their ability to profit has already been disrupted, champ. Well before Melchior went in and threw rocks at the glass.

[Dr. Robotnik]

 

 

And if you disrupt their ability to profit, you disrupt their ability to maintain their own house.

 

Their ability to profit has already been disrupted, champ. Well before Melchior went in and threw rocks at the glass.

 

 

How so, "champ"?