General US Politics Discussion

[DEALUX]

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Depends on whose words you're talking about. Not all of these people actually want to kill jews, blacks, etc. The right-wingers at the protest were comprised of different groups (i.e. not all of them were white supremacists).

 

Do you work for the Young Turks? I'm sure they would love to have you there. I never said that, you idiot. You might want check your references twice before you accuse me of such things. And the poll hasn't been disputed by anyone. I know sivispacem tried to do that but his argument was basically just an opinion. There wasn't any real vagueness in that question of the poll if you read it a few times and think about how a normal person would read it. Also, I was making a different point. The percentages in the poll simply show that a lot of Muslims do condone violence in certain forms or behavior that we would find reprehensible. I was really only talking about these percentages. Also, I would add that even if you condone violence that doesn't automatically mean that you will perpetrate it yourself (some of the replies in this thread are case in point; I doubt any of the people in this thread would actually punch a Nazi).

 

I was referring to the threats of violence between the two "sides". That's mostly sh*t-talking.

 

No. The point was that the people who signed up for the Unite The Right event were right-wingers of all stripes, not just neo-Nazis.

 

It wasn't really the whole side. Which side are you talking about? The right-wing protesters as a whole? Really? They all wanted to run people over?

 

The recent meme to "punch a Nazi" started on the left. Stop being so obnoxious.

[sivispacem]

Depends on whose words you're talking about. Not all of these people actually want to kill jews, blacks, etc. The right-wingers at the protest were comprised of different groups (i.e. not all of them were white supremacists).

I don't know if the echoes of Trump's "they're rapists" Mexico speech are intentional or accident, but let's be frank. Unite the Right was organised by a collection of neo-Nazi, white supremacist and Christian identity groups. It's fairly accurate to assign a collective white supremacy at ideology to them because the white supremacists are the norm, not the exception.

 

I think it's reasonable to believe than a match organised by, amongst others, the American Nazi Party and KKK is going to be largely comprised of white supremacists.

 

 

I know sivispacem tried to do that but his argument was basically just an opinion.

If that's your take home from my rebuttals on the subject then you're almost as bad at understanding arguments as you are at making them. Amongst a myriad of different arguments, ranging from the selective rewording of questions by you to subtly change their meaning, loaded language used to try and imply more sizeable support for violent extremist ideas than the statistics actually suggest, the most significant was the lack of any comparable control group if non-Muslims to give actual meaning to the polling (IE determine how exceptional results were in the context of other religious groups) and the inability for the polls in and of themselves to separate religious influencing factors behind views from other sociopolitical and cultural ones.

 

But it wouldn't be a post of yours if it didn't massively simplify, selectively reinterpret and generally misrepresent someone else's views, would it?

[Eutyphro]

If you really need an intellectual father figure, go back to Chomsky.

I don't really feel like going through this off topic incoherent mostly ad-hominem rant aimed at me, but on the topic of Chomsky. He recently thoroughly condemned Antifa: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/noam-chomsky-antifa-major-gift-right-wing-anti-fascist-alt-left-a7906406.html

 

He seems to be among the few people on the left willing to condemn action by leftists that is wrong on principle.

[make total destroy]

He said that sh*t months ago after Richard Spencer was punched in the face.

 

And he's still wrong.

[Creed Bratton]

And here you go folks. From the mouth of a former neo-Nazi and a leader of a Skin Heads outfit: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-no-difference-alt-right-white-nationalism-white-supremacy-neo-nazi-charlottesville-2017-8

 

tl;dr: the alt-right, white nationalist, white supremacists and neo-Nazis are all essentially the same thing. Some of them are just pretending to be normal in an attempt to normalize their racist message.

 

And apparently it works. Look at all the dumb racists in this topic trying to defend these pieces of sh*t.

[Rockstar Vienna]

You know, "nutjob" is not an argument. (: You are f*cking stupid, no... you're are not, I don't think your IQ is 2 digit or somethin

That's rich coming from you, replying with stupid memes, silly YouTube videos and sh*t like "ui ui ui, triggered?" Bravo!

[make total destroy]

No. The point was that the people who signed up for the Unite The Right event were right-wingers of all stripes, not just neo-Nazis.

yeah guys what about all the moderate neo-nazis that were there

[Eutyphro]

And apparently it works. Look at all the dumb racists in this topic trying to defend these pieces of sh*t.

And you are a complete numbnut who is unable to answer even a single critical question and thinks he's tough and virtuous by calling as much people 'racist' on the internet as possible.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Creed Bratton]

 

And apparently it works. Look at all the dumb racists in this topic trying to defend these pieces of sh*t.

And you are a complete numbnut who is unable to answer even a single critical question and thinks he's tough and virtuous by calling as much people 'racist' on the internet as possible.

No, I only do it to racists. They're very easy to spot.

 

 

EDIT: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16196792/robert-mueller-tillis-trump-russia

Now why would he possibly want something like that?

Edited August 24, 2017 by The Yokel

[Chiarii]

tl;dr: the alt-right, white nationalist, white supremacists and neo-Nazis are all essentially the same thing. Some of them are just pretending to be normal in an attempt to normalize their racist message.

 

And apparently it works. Look at all the dumb racists in this topic trying to defend these pieces of sh*t.

 

I think it's time to start questioning how 'right-wing' neo-nazis and white supremacists are. We don't really know much about their positions other than how they feel about race. Doesn't sound inherently right wing to me. Even Hitler proposed state-sponsored healthcare, which isn't right wing by any stretch.

 

 

 

Are you seriously making excuses for nazis? They were practicing hate speech when they talk about removing jews, removing blacks, making america white again.

 

You are either for free speech or you're against it. Personally, I'm against free speech. To me, it sounds like you want to be able to put your views out to the world and suppress the views of people you hate, which is in itself supremacist.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Chiari

[Creed Bratton]

I think it's time to start questioning how 'right-wing' neo-nazis and white supremacists are. We don't really know much about their positions other than how they feel about race.

Sure. They just keep voting for Republicans for a laugh.

[Chiarii]

Sure. They just keep voting for Republicans for a laugh.

 

 

Republicans aren't that right wing either. Republicans are the party that brought us EMTALA.

 

Surely you can understand that in a nation where you really only have 2 choices for who to vote for, it is more than likely that you won't be perfectly aligned with your candidate.

[Raavi]

Republicans are the party that brought us EMTALA.

 

It's amazing, and by amazing I really mean sad, how much umbrage you take with emergency rooms having a duty of care to patients that are brought in sans having to first ask their credit card details.

[Creed Bratton]

Republicans aren't that right wing either.

The Kool-Aid is strong in this one. If they're not so right wing, then how did Trump manage to win? How did so many Republican voters accept the most far-right version of conservatism with such ease? How is Fox News one of the most popular and trusted news sources for Republican voters? How is the war on drugs still a thing? How is the push for ID laws still a thing? How is any part of their platform still a thing?

[DEALUX]

I don't know if the echoes of Trump's "they're rapists" Mexico speech are intentional or accident, but let's be frank. Unite the Right was organised by a collection of neo-Nazi, white supremacist and Christian identity groups. It's fairly accurate to assign a collective white supremacy at ideology to them because the white supremacists are the norm, not the exception.

 

If that's your take home from my rebuttals on the subject then you're almost as bad at understanding arguments as you are at making them. Amongst a myriad of different arguments, ranging from the selective rewording of questions by you to subtly change their meaning, loaded language used to try and imply more sizeable support for violent extremist ideas than the statistics actually suggest, the most significant was the lack of any comparable control group if non-Muslims to give actual meaning to the polling (IE determine how exceptional results were in the context of other religious groups) and the inability for the polls in and of themselves to separate religious influencing factors behind views from other sociopolitical and cultural ones.

I know who organized it but from what I could gather some percentage of those who showed up were right-wing conservatives (some of them were there to report the event). I don't know why they decided to show up though. Who did they think they could "unite" with?

 

I think the question in the poll that you disputed was, roughly speaking, "are suicide attacks and other forms of violence in the name of the faith justifiable?". There was a shorter version of the question listed in the summary that omitted the "other forms of violence" part. I don't recall how exactly I reworded the question to prove my point. I don't think I did. You disputed the question initially because you thought it was vague. I don't think that it is. It seems absurd to me to suggest that people would simply gloss over the suicide part and focus on violence in general. Think about how you or any normal person would read and think about that question. It would be unlikely that anyone who is against suicide attacks would simply ignore the suicide part. I didn't really manipulate the numbers (the ones in the "rarely justified" category are not completely irrelevant in my mind). However, I remember specifically saying that even if you take the ones in the "often justified" category you're still left with millions of Muslims who condone suicide attacks. Your other points are somewhat relevant but when you consider the rate of occurrence of terror attacks carried out by Muslim extremists it kinda shows a link between professed opinions and real world actions. I mean when was the last time someone got killed over a drawing of Jesus or some offensive parody? Also, it's funny that you say there is no control group for this (which may not matter that much in the end since we already see a prevalence of Islamic extremism that has no Christian equivalent currently) when you cited in another thread the fact that trans people commit suicide in higher numbers and you inferred from that that this is due to society generally rejecting them. Where is the control group for that statistic that you so willingly accept as evidence of societal problems? Which other oppressed group commits suicide in similar numbers? (I know this point is not related, but if you're going to reject poorly controlled studies, why not do it consistently?)

Edited August 24, 2017 by ΣΓ

[Chiarii]

If they're not so right wing, then how did Trump manage to win? How did so many Republican voters accept the most far-right version of conservatism with such ease?

 

Trump was not the most right wing of the 17 candidates.

How is Fox News one of the most popular and trusted news sources for Republican voters?

 

Fox is just one biased media outlet. Just like MSNBC.

How is the war on drugs still a thing?

 

 

Because people are still using drugs.

How is the push for ID laws still a thing?

 

 

Why is this such an issue? Everyone can afford an ID.

How is any part of their platform still a thing?

 

I'd blame it on the divisive left calling everyone racists lol.

It's amazing, and by amazing I really mean sad, how much umbrage you take with emergency rooms having a duty of care to patients that are brought in sans having to first ask their credit card details.

 

It's amazing, and by amazing, I really mean sad, how you are willing to say that someone should have to give their labor with a roll-of-the-dice chance of fair compensation. I also think you need to be educated on what EDs are really like. It's not Grey's Anatomy; it's people trying to score pain killers, get a note for work, and minor issues that could've been tx'd at a clinic.

 

These people congest EDs which make them less efficient when unpredictable, real emergencies arrive.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Chiari

[Clem Fandango]

It's amazing, and by amazing, I really mean sad, how you are willing to say that someone should have to give their labor with a roll-of-the-dice chance of fair compensation

 

Kind of falls flat when you realise doctors and nurses aren't being paid directly by patients. They aren't like the contractor who comes to fix your roof, the hospital pays them and you pay the hospital.

 

 

I also think you need to be educated on what EDs are really like.

Oh, sorry didn't realise you were busy educating someone. Carry on.

 

 

 

It's not Grey's Anatomy; it's people trying to score pain killers, get a note for work, and minor issues that could've been tx'd at a clinic.

These people congest EDs which make them less efficient when unpredictable, real emergencies arrive.

Wait actually since you're educating Raavi why don't you educate me as well on how you plan to increase access to emergency care by flat denying it to millions of people.

These people congest EDs which make them less efficient when unpredictable, real emergencies arrive.

[Chiarii]

Kind of falls flat when you realise doctors and nurses aren't being paid directly by patients.

 

 

Nurses absolutely. Doctors not necessarily. Many doctors in hospitals are actually private practice. The hospital is merely renting out their space for practice. This applies to med-surg, OB, ED, OR and pretty much any setting you care to name. Nice try. BTW, the hospital bill is separate from the physician bill in this country. I don't expect you and Raavi to realize this, seeing as you're both foreigners.

 

But sure, there are some physicians that are 'employees'. That's called academic medicine. Most of their time is spent teaching residents and not actually practicing.

 

 

Wait actually since you're educating Raavi why don't you educate me as well on how you plan to increase access to emergency care by flat denying it to millions of people.

These people congest EDs which make them less efficient when unpredictable, real emergencies arrive.

 

 

I didn't say I intend to increase access to it. But, soon, we'll see hospital emergency departments close in favor of private emergency clinics. In fact, this is already happening with the rise of Altus, elitecare/urgent care etc.

 

You're welcome by the way.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Chiari

[sivispacem]

what I could gather some percentage of those who showed up were right-wing conservatives

As far as I'm concerned, if you march hand in hand with the National Vanguard whilst burning Tiki torches, you warrant being branded a white supremacist even if you don't self-identify as one.

 

I think the question in the poll that you disputed was, roughly speaking, "are suicide attacks and other forms of violence in the name of the faith justifiable?". There was a shorter version of the question listed in the summary that omitted the "other forms of violence" part. I don't recall how exactly I reworded the question to prove my point.

You represented it as support for mass casualty suicide attacks against civilians targets, as well as citing the shortened version of the question rather than the complete one (as did the source you cited at the time), which fundamentally twists the meaning of the question.

 

If someone asked me whether or not it was morally right to commit violent acts in defence of an ideological belief, my answer would not be to claim it isn't. There are circumstances I believe the commission of violence in the name of protecting ideology is fair, right and reasonable.

 

It seems absurd to me to suggest that people would simply gloss over the suicide part and focus on violence in general. Think about how you or any normal person would read and think about that question. It would be unlikely that anyone who is against suicide attacks would simply ignore the suicide part.

You've totally missed the point. The question is phrased in which a way that an affirmative agreement to either suicide attacks or other forms of violence results in a "yes" answer. Trying to infer a reading of it made by other people from other cultures, based on your subjective view of what may or may not be most prominent, when reading the question in a language it wasn't asked in, is utterly meaningless. Conversely, my assertion that an affirmative answer to the question does not necessarily imply support for suicide bombing is reasonable, because that's literally what the question says.

 

I didn't really manipulate the numbers

I never said you did; I accused you of using weasel words to portray support for fundamentalist ideas and actions as greater than the actual statistics suggest. There's an entire doctrine of intelligence analysis called words of estimative probability which is dedicated to accurately portraying percentage based probabilities in linguistically meaningful ways; you should probably look at approaches like this to help you choose more appropriate representations in future.

 

Which other oppressed group commits suicide in similar numbers?

Suicide attacks I assume you mean? In very recent history or currently, the LTTE and PKK-linked Kurdish separatist groups. Going back a few decades, the Kamikaze, the Chinese during various conflicts between 1911 and 1949, the Selbstopfereinsatz, both sides in the Korean War and the North Vietnamese.

 

The modern "suicide bombing" was literally invented by the LTTE.

[El Dildo]

Conservatives here are backpedaling so hard that we've come around full circle.

 

suddenly Nazi's aren't Right wing.

and suddenly Republicans aren't the Right.

 

this is amusing.

[Spaghetti Cat]

So leftists, got it.

 

I'll just leave this here, too much back-and-forth to comment on.

 

 

 

[El Dildo]

so racists, got it

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqHA6i6aUL4

[make total destroy]

Because 'leftists' are some unified group and are all literally the same. It's not like 'leftism' is a fairly broad category encompassing views from social democracy, to Marxism-Leninism (same thing anyway LOL), to anarchism. Nope. All leftists are exactly the same. There's no time for nuanced discussion, I have to post a video of some guy getting yelled at and pepper-sprayed to prove my point that AUNT EEFAH are terrorists. Yelling at people and pepper-spraying them is a widely used terrorist tactic FYI. Checkmate leftoids. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll have to go sign a petition declaring the force of gravity to be a terrorist organization because I can't stop falling over. But first, let me leave you with this question: why are leftists so mean?

[Tchuck]

 

You are either for free speech or you're against it. Personally, I'm against free speech. To me, it sounds like you want to be able to put your views out to the world and suppress the views of people you hate, which is in itself supremacist.

 

I am for free speech, in that free speech is about the government not censoring you. It says nothing of individuals and private companies. So if you want to exercise your free speech to preach hatred, that's great. We'll also exercise our free speech and help you lose your job, lose your friends, by exposing what a piece of sh*t person you are.

 

And when it comes to nazism, any and all force is completely justified.

[Clem Fandango]

Nurses absolutely. Doctors not necessarily. Many doctors in hospitals are actually private practice. The hospital is merely renting out their space for practice. This applies to med-surg, OB, ED, OR and pretty much any setting you care to name. Nice try. BTW, the hospital bill is separate from the physician bill in this country. I don't expect you and Raavi to realize this, seeing as you're both foreigners.

 

But sure, there are some physicians that are 'employees'. That's called academic medicine. Most of their time is spent teaching residents and not actually practicing.

Fine whatever, although the problem then is more with EMTALA intentionally not being funded then the mere fact that people with metal poles sticking out of them have to be stabalised when they walk into an ER rather than being turned away. Good to know to the extent the Republicans support giving people health care, they flatly refuse to pay doctors.

 

Imagine thinking the problem isn't with the state withholding compensation, but with people seeking medical care at all.

 

 

 

I didn't say I intend to increase access to it.

Complaints about congestion are complaints about a lack of access. Also what you intend to do is irrelevant, it's about what you support. You won't be creating any policies in your life time.

 

You're welcome by the way.

 

lol.

 

You know it's funny I saw you the other day say something like "I don't know why you[El Diablo] think it's appropriate to even talk to me, but I'll play along and pretend we're equals" but I don't think it's appropriate for you to post in here at all, not because you're a jerk or you can't keep up but because I think you're too young and we'll end up upsetting you. You're what, 15?

Edited August 25, 2017 by Melchior

[DEALUX]

Suicide attacks I assume you mean?

No, I meant the trans suicide statistic. Why do you accept that one when there is no control group for it (as far as I can tell)? Which other oppressed group commits or has committed suicide in the same numbers? If there is no equivalent then the idea that society is to blame for trans suicide rates is not that credible. This has nothing to do with this topic but rather to do with consistency in terms of interpreting statistics.

 

Even if you are right to some extent about the wording of the poll question, here it is in its complete form:

 

“Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?”

 

I think you're downplaying the significance of the answers in the often category. They are specifically asking about civilian targets or, in other words, innocent people. What crazy scenario would you have to come up with to agree that hurting innocent people in the name of some personal belief is justifiable?

[Creed Bratton]

So how's that "Mexico will pay for the wall" thing going? Oh, right: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/25/feds-on-trumps-shutdown-threat-its-blackmail/

 

So instead of Mexico paying for the wall, Trump's plan is to either make the taxpayers pay for it or he'll shut down the government, which is another way of wasting taxpayer money. Let's not even get into his travel expenses. Where are all those fiscal conservatives all of a sudden?

[sivispacem]

This has nothing to do with this topic

Too right.

 

rather to do with consistency in terms of interpreting statistics.

Eh? I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

 

I think you're downplaying the significance of the answers in the often category. They are specifically asking about civilian targets or, in other words, innocent people.

That was it. My recollection was not quite right there. The question refers to suicide attacks and attacks on civilian targets as two separate entities, with support for one resulting in affirmative answer. So someone in support of suicide bombings against military targets but who did not support attacks against civilians may well still answer "yes", resulting in the latter, incorrect inference from their response.

 

What crazy scenario would you have to come up with to agree that hurting innocent people in the name of some personal belief is justifiable?

That depends on the definition of "civilian". If "civilian" means "not military" or "non-combatant", then police forces, intelligence apperatus and the political establishment are civilian.

 

The phrase "violence against civilians targets" is also quite vague- certainly in English anyway. Disruptive attacks designed to cause material damage but not loss of life (such as those where advanced warnings are given) would fall under this, as would targeted killings of political figures that did not directly threaten large scale civilian loss of life.

 

I don't inhabit the minds of the respondents to these questions, so I don't know what the actual question meant to them or how it was interpreted. I also don't know exactly what level of violence they would believe to be acceptable, or the circumstances in which they would do so. I'm simply pointing out that drawing conclusions like "X% of global Muslims support terrorist attacks to defend Islam" are necessarily accurate.

[Tchuck]

It's also wise to remember that THE VAST MAJORITY in those polls showed no support at all for violence in any form. And other similar polls, conducted in America, resulted in other religious groups being more supportive of violence against civilians than Muslims.

[make total destroy]

The DOJ is seeking the IP addresses of the 1.3 million people that visited disruptj20.org, while 200+ people--some of them journalists--still face charges carrying up to 70 years in prison for being at the DisruptJ20 march on Inauguration day.

 

Where are the 'free speech' advocates at now?