General US Politics Discussion

[DEALUX]

It's one of those topics where he seems mostly reasonable on. I think he gets a lot of advice from the people under him. I don't really see it as fiery rhetoric necessarily. He's really only hinting at violence and that's actually smarter than spelling it out.

 

I don't think that we're quite there yet in terms of going to war though. As bad a track record the US has for foreign interventions, this will probably turn out to be the worst if it goes down and I'm saying that even though I think the US does in some sense have a moral duty to sort this sh*t out.

[sivispacem]

It says something which fights you pick.

I spent most of my university days debating with M-L's and anarchists, and playing devil's advocate is tiring. Anyway, do I not have the prerogative to debate with whoever I want? It's funny, I'd have thought you'd want to debate given that you're posting almost exclusively in a subforum named "Debates and Discussion".

 

But if they argue for the extrajudicial murder of white nationalists you gloss over it.

Just because I don't feel the need to gratify teenage edginess doesn't really constitute "glossing over", does it? I mean, are you expecting another public condemnation to sh*t you up before you'll stop making up f*cking idiotic nonsense?

 

No, making false claims about my comments, and attaching ridiculous exaggerated accusations to them is what you do.

It would almost be funny if I did. I wish I could take the credit but frankly you've done more to contradict your own arguments than I have.

 

They were arrested because they were marching along in a group of several hundred people wantonly vandalizing, setting cars on fire, and lobbing dangerous objects at the police. Several of them have already had charges dropped.

And, as I've questioned before, why were they charged in the first place? Using criminal charges to silence political criticism, especially in cases where there's no reasonable chance of prosecution, is simply unfathomable in a rational and just society.

 

I sympathize with peaceful protesters, not with rioting degenerates.

But you didn't particularly care if the former get cast as the latter. I mean, you've done it yourself.

 

But people going to jail for throwing glass at the police is unnecessary state repression right?

Don't be ridiculous. I don't think, nor have is ever suggested that, it's fundamentally wrong for people who have actually committed violent disorder to be prosecuted. If I have, tyen please cite where. Though whether or not I think breaking a Starbucks window warrants a prison sentence is a quite separate issue.

[Eutyphro]

 

It says something which fights you pick.

I spent most of my university days debating with M-L's and anarchists, and playing devil's advocate is tiring. Anyway, do I not have the prerogative to debate with whoever I want? It's funny, I'd have thought you'd want to debate given that you're posting almost exclusively in a subforum named "Debates and Discussion".

I love debating, but I don't really enjoy tiring elaborate strawman attacks with insults attached. I like it when there's genuine intent. If you want an example, you can consider what you said on the previous page "It's pretty glaring and a vindication of everything I've said up to this point."

 

You're completely disingenuously occupied by the "vindication of your points", and it is rather petty. You are very hostile in doing it, but still expect to receive the utmost respect yourself.

 

I mean, are you expecting another public condemnation to sh*t you up before you'll stop making up f*cking idiotic nonsense?

Idiotic nonsense like "funny how you seem to be applying this mantra only to leftists and not to violent right wing extremists?" or "then again, I also don't live in your bizarre McCarthyist alternate reality where armed and aggressive leftists hide behind every lamppost and wheelie bin ready to smash the state. I'm starting to get the impression you think the Turkish brand of state sponsored political repression and harassment is something to be aspired to. Except the spectre of "leftists" is your Gülan movement. And in this analogy, you're Recep Tayyip Erdoğan".

 

Most of this stupid nonsense I've simply ignored. For someone that dishes out completely ridiculous allegations and ascribes views to people based on fantasy, you sure are bad at receiving criticism.

 

But you didn't particularly care if the former get cast as the latter. I mean, you've done it yourself.

No, that's rubbish.

 

Though whether or not I think breaking a Starbucks window warrants a prison sentence is a quite separate issue.

I don't think breaking a Starbucks window warrants a prison sentence either, but you seem to be adopting childish strawman attacks from melchior.

 

If I could actually nuance whatever strawman has been erected of what I said. It's unfortunate and unjust when innocent people get arrested when they happen to be among a group of degenerate rioters. Furthermore, it's not justifiable for the government to phish for the IP addresses of everyone who visited a website, simply because those in charge of the website have possibly been involved in illegal action. These things are obviously true.

 

But I don't give blanket condemnation of investigating those involved with DJ20. It's a very questionable far left movement, and there can very well be sufficient ground to investigate them. Furthermore, I also don't give blanket condemnation of shutting down parts of Indymedia if inflammatory statements constituting incitement to violence and illegal action were published on many accounts. And I think MTD's suggestion that inciting violence and illegal action falls under 'free speech', which he doesn't believe in anyway, is ridiculous.

 

As for comparing the far left and the far right, it seems to me that the nature of their extremism is different. The far right seem to dominate when it comes to terrorist murder. The far left seems more prone to violent rioting. The far right violent murder phenomenon generally seems to be a lone wolf thing, whereas the violent rioting is a group phenomenon.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Eutyphro

[El Dildo]

You've wished politicians got shot

you've been misrepresenting this for months now.

that was never my point.

 

I said that I can understand why someone would target them and I said that - since he already decided to make his move - it was a shame he missed. political violence against active politicians who are arguably oppressive in their ideology and legislative agendas is a totally different thing than the violent rhetoric and actions of the Far Right against fellow citizens.

 

Meanwhile at CNN:

Sivis is bullsh*t, just like most of the other brainwashed liberals on here. When will you people realize CNN (and no I don't watch Fox News) isn't a credible news source?

you guys are delusional, as usual.

 

are Liberals defending CNN? who are you even arguing with?

nobody here is pretending that CNN is the ultimate unbiased source.

Edited August 30, 2017 by El Diablo

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

tbh I think saying that smashing windows will lead to massive repression is about as meaningful as saying it will overthrow the system.

 

It alone won't lead to a mass repression. Yet to the extent that it provokes any political response, that response will be repressive.

 

 

Radical leftism will never truly gain traction in the US, because it is at odds with the dominant libertarian element in US culture. Reformist social democracy can't even get traction in the US.

 

For now at least, libertarianism is dead in the US. It's arguably been dead ever since we stopped being a Jeffersonian 'nation of farmers'. And that's not why social democracy can't gain traction. It can't gain traction because of legalized corruption and the lingering red scare dogma.

 

 

As for radical leftism never gaining traction in the US, you are probably right in the short term. If people want to oppose socialism in the US, then let them eat their own sh*t. Baby steps are fine for now. But a substantial shift of American political attitudes away from the right is not far fetched. Finally, that shift is damned near imminent. Radical leftism doesn't need to be dominant in order to be a normalized, accepted, and eventually prevalent influence on US politics. It's probably a good thing that radical leftism isn't dominant because novel approaches are often short on details and lack testing. The mere prevalence of socialist views shifts the scales in favor of a more balanced policy approach overall, instead of this far-right vs. center right nonsense.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Tchuck]

Stormfrom is down. Excellent.

 

 

“registered Stormfront users have been disproportionately responsible for some of the most lethal hate crimes and mass killings since the site was put up in 1995. In the past five years alone, Stormfront members have murdered close to 100 people.”

 

But it's all memes, right? They were just sh*t-talking, sh*t-posting. Lone wolves went and killed people, totally nothing to do with Stormfront or the right-wing in general. No sir.

[Eutyphro]

But it's all memes, right?

I understand you don't really have to try to understand nuance on here, because you can just misinterpret people to then attack some oversimplified version of what they are saying, to pander for likes of the majority agreeing with you. But it would be decent if someone started making the effort.

 

Anyway, I don't mind seeing Stormfront go.

 

Lone wolves went and killed people, totally nothing to do with Stormfront or the right-wing in general. No sir.

It's perfectly likely Stormfront helps to further radicalize right wing radicals, and because of that it's great to see the website go. But as I pointed out, right wing extremism and left wing extremism do seem different in nature. Because whereas the far right seems to dominate when it comes to terrorist murder. The far left seems more prone to violent rioting. The far right violent murder phenomenon generally seems to be a lone wolf thing, whereas the violent rioting is a group phenomenon.

 

As long as a platform such as Stormfront isn't used to incite specific illegal acts, but is used for hate and bigotry protected under free speech, then the legal basis for shutting it down through government action is absent, but it's good a private initiative took it down.

 

are Liberals defending CNN? who are you even arguing with?

nobody here is pretending that CNN is the ultimate unbiased source.

Well, the meme made me laugh, because Antifa are being compared to WWII soldiers implicitly and explicitly, in this topic and in the media, and that comparison is completely ridiculous, because Antifa are degenerates and not heroes.

 

political violence against active politicians who are arguably oppressive in their ideology and legislative agendas is a totally different thing than the violent rhetoric and actions of the Far Right against fellow citizens.

So you are asking me to make a distinction between good terrorism, against people you dislike, and bad terrorism, against people you like?

Edited August 30, 2017 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

I love debating, but I don't really enjoy tiring elaborate strawman attacks with insults attached.

But your own arguments consist of almost nothing but this. You persistently complain about straw men directed at you and about the lack of nuance and misinterpretation of your views, apparently oblivious to your own extensive use of exactly the same techniques. On the other hand, you dismiss nuanced and detailed rebuttals as "semantics" and not worthy of your time. You can't have it both ways.

 

The fact that everyone seems to draw the same apparently incorrect conclusions from your comments suggests they're not as clear or coherent as you seem to think.

 

You're completely disingenuously occupied by the "vindication of your points"

In this instance yes, given that you aggressively denied their accuracy and validity through a string of ad hominem attacks and straw men. I'd pretty much given up responding until you ended up validating them.

 

You are very hostile in doing it

I've given up trying to be quietly reasonable with you by this point, given that every response you seem to post is dialed down to just below "diatribe" in its aggression. Maybe you should look to your own fallacy laden, straw-man-filled, thinly veiled ad hominems of posts before asking questions about the aggression of others.

 

Idiotic nonsense like "funny how you seem to be applying this mantra only to leftists and not to violent right wing extremists?", "then again, I also don't live in your bizarre McCarthyist alternate reality where armed and aggressive leftists hide behind every lamppost and wheelie bin ready to smash the state."

I don't think either of these is an inherently unfair accusation. You have been far more aggressive in your assertions of the justification for criminal investigation into left-wing groups than right-wing ones, even though it's far from clear that the former represent any particular societal threat compared to the latter. The only person who seems unable to see the double standards that you're perpetuating is you. Similarly, your personification of violent leftism as such a significant threat that it warrants additional law enforcement emphasis, and your consistent drive to implicate groups that are ideologically opposed to your own viewpoint as complicit in violence by mere association and proximity, normally with no evidence to speak of, does smack of McCarthyism.

 

No, that's rubbish

No, it's not. You have said on multiple occasions variations of "if you don't want to get arrested, don't go to demonstrations which might also contain radical leftists. If you do, and get arrested, it's your own fault for associating with them".

 

but you seem to be adopting childish strawman attacks from melchior.

But that's a fairly accurate representation of most of the violence that takes place in these riots, isn't it? Most of it is petty, wanton vandalism targeted at companies that are symbolic of capitalism.

 

But I don't give blanket condemnation of investigating those involved with DJ20.

In case you haven't noticed, nor have I. As I've already said, I think it's reasonable for individuals responsible for violent disorder to be prosecuted. What I don't think is acceptable are the unconstitutional and politically oppressive fishing expeditions the DoJ is conducting against left-wing groups, apparently for the sole purpose of stifling dissent.

 

It's a very questionable far left movement

What is this even supposed to mean?

 

Furthermore, I also don't give blanket condemnation of shutting down parts of Indymedia if inflammatory statements constituting incitement to violence and illegal action were published on many accounts.

What I, and others, have questioned is whether statements constituting incitement to violence or illegal action were actually published, and the degree to which a platform can be held responsible for the content hosted on it. As already noted, the same allegation could be made about numerous other platforms including the social media giants, with a vast amount more evidence to back it up.

 

As for comparing the far left and the far right, it seems to me that the nature of their extremism is different. The far right seem to dominate when it comes to terrorist murder. The far left seems more prone to violent rioting. The far right violent murder phenomenon generally seems to be a lone wolf thing, whereas the violent rioting is a group phenomenon

The degree to which violent right-wing attacks are truly "lone wolf" is questionable. Most of the violent groups like Combat 18, the KKK or the White Wolves are principled on "leaderless resistance" and actively discourage collaboration when planning terrorist acts. But they do still organise, and often in the commission of other non-ideologically-driven criminal acts such as football hooliganism in the case of C18 and robberies in the case of various US far right groups.

 

I really don't think they're as inherently different in this respect as you make out.

[Tchuck]

 

As long as a platform such as Stormfront isn't used to incite specific illegal acts, but is used for hate and bigotry protected under free speech, then the legal basis for shutting it down through government action is absent, but it's good a private initiative took it down.

 

But it was. As far back as 3 years ago, there were already reports linking the website to dozens of murders. Breivik was one of the website's users. You can bet he used that platform to discuss his ideas, his plans, ask for advice. Ditto for Wade Michael Page. These were people who actually went ahead and killed people based on that website. They discussed their stuff with members.

 

Conversely, even nothing even remotely similar was discussed in IndyMedia, the DoJ still went ahead and fished the millions of IPs off of it. After the fact, they dropped it since they realized that it was all bullsh*t.

But you were applauding their decision to go after that website and people in it because they created a protest that the police escalated into violence. And agreed with the DoJ that the millions of people should be investigated because they simply visited the website. Because of some twisted Orwellian logic.

 

And now we have the case of this other website, again, linked to dozens of murders, an actual place where people go to spew their hatred and rhetoric, plan whatever it is that they plan, and at first you excuse them with "it's just people memeing and sh*tposting" and then to "well they may be racist bigots, but it isn't illegal". And if it wasn't for a private institution taking matters in their own hands, that filthy place would still be online.

 

But god forbid people visit the wikipedia page for antifa. Probably just a bunch of black clad unemployed leeches who want free access. And damn those reporters at demonstrations, they need to be shut down.

 

Oh and according to you logic, since you implied that sivis condones violence if he doesn't condemn it while condemning something else, can we say that you also condoned the actions of Stormfront users because you forgot to condemn them while you were condemning IndyMedia users?

[Clem Fandango]

 

tbh I think saying that smashing windows will lead to massive repression is about as meaningful as saying it will overthrow the system.

 

It alone won't lead to a mass repression. Yet to the extent that it provokes any political response, that response will be repressive.

Well, it's interesting. Occupy Wall Street was smashed by the police. That is, normal everyday cops. Generally the black bloc only deals with the riot squad, most cops don't want to get near a crowd smashing up everything in sight and throwing projectiles at them. So that is something.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Antifa black bloc tactics are a force to be reckoned with no doubt. I just struggle to see their end game. That is, what does a "successful riot" from their perspective look like if no fascist show up to get their wigs split? To the casual or even sympathetic observer, it seems like these black bloc rioters desperately want to be martyred by the state or something.

 

As for comparing the far left and the far right, it seems to me that the nature of their extremism is different. The far right seem to dominate when it comes to terrorist murder. The far left seems more prone to violent rioting. The far right violent murder phenomenon generally seems to be a lone wolf thing, whereas the violent rioting is a group phenomenon

The degree to which violent right-wing attacks are truly "lone wolf" is questionable. Most of the violent groups like Combat 18, the KKK or the White Wolves are principled on "leaderless resistance" and actively discourage collaboration when planning terrorist acts. But they do still organise, and often in the commission of other non-ideologically-driven criminal acts such as football hooliganism in the case of C18 and robberies in the case of various US far right groups.

I really don't think they're as inherently different in this respect as you make out.

 

Especially in the case of prison-based right-wing groups - which is exactly where more-capable white supremacists often end up when violently acting out - the involvement is purely organizational even on the outside once they're released. In fact, some older members of Aryan Brotherhood have been known to grow disillusioned with the organization due to its emphasis on money over 'the cause'. These guys are getting in bed with an organized crime syndicate on the basis of white supremacist ideology, and then eventually realize how the gang works with people from just about all backgrounds to further its financing.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[El Dildo]

So you are asking me to make a distinction between good terrorism, against people you dislike, and bad terrorism, against people you like?

you've been reading too far into it since the beginning.

I didn't submit my master's thesis. it was a short comment about the story when it happened. I'm never going to say you should go out and shoot anybody. that being said I can easily empathize with the feeling that might lead someone to do so given this political climate. this is not supposed to be a politically correct statement... but if we're going to split hairs?

 

I'll happily defend the would-be political assassin instead of the wanna-be Nazi scum who drove over an innocent crowd of people then ran away. this is the climate. I didn't create it. I just live in it.

[Saggy]

 

So you are asking me to make a distinction between good terrorism, against people you dislike, and bad terrorism, against people you like?

you've been reading too far into it since the beginning.

I didn't submit my master's thesis. it was a short comment about the story when it happened. I'm never going to say you should go out and shoot anybody. that being said I can easily empathize with the feeling that might lead someone to do so given this political climate. this is not supposed to be a politically correct statement... but if we're going to split hairs?

 

I'll happily defend the would-be political assassin instead of the wanna-be Nazi scum who drove over an innocent crowd of people then ran away. this is the climate. I didn't create it. I just live in it.

 

 

Isn't that the same kind of bias that perpetuates terrorist attacks though. When you're able to rationalize and justify cold-blooded murder based on the merits of the "victim", then that goes both ways and is really only a matter of perspective. Do you think white nationalists are really condemning Dylan Roof for shooting a bunch of black people? I think allowing hate for a certain group to determine how much you can or can't condone or condemn something is a slippery slope. You can't allow your perspective to over-rule your moral compass, because that's what creates people like Dylan Roof who slaughter a bunch of black people because they have some idea that they're suffering the white man's burden. Micah Johnson slaughtered a bunch of cops for much the same reasons, but I'm pretty sure between the two of us we'd each have a much harder time defending Dylan Roof than Micah Johnson, right? But in the end, we'd still be defending a murderous ambush. In some ways that's exactly the kind of bias that causes people to sympathize for Dylan Roof; the differentiating factor becomes perspective. You and me obviously see things from Johnson's perspective more, but what about the people who see it from Roof's perspective? As you said, "it's the world you live in", and our perceptions shape that world differently for each of us.

 

I think that is why it's so important to condemn violent acts no matter how justifiable they seem to us personally, because despite our perceptions, there is a "real world" to consider. I think there's a big difference between condemning a violent act on principle, and playing the world's smallest violin over it though. I mean it's hard for me to feel sorry for those officers that Micah Johnson shot, but logically there is no reason to condone such an act over any other type of incident like it. To do so would be to fall victim to bias the same way that racists fall victim to bias and condone acts such as Roof's. Same sh*t, different set of blinders. I think Johnson had more legitimate, valid reasons to do what he did, but I can't logically defend it without extending the same logic to Roof's actions.

 

The reason I call it a slippery slope, is this country was basically born out of violence, and violence has caused the most growth and progress. We pretty much need it. When you have incidents like the Civil War for example, it becomes pretty hard to say that fighting for the world one perceives is wrong, except depending on the perspective. In the end there's the simple truth that some things do need to be fought for, and that violence to invoke political change does work. It always gets really, REALLY ugly before it works, but our history alone is proof positive. The important thing though is that "good" doesn't always prevail just because it's good; good has to fight back. So there is definitely a slippery slope, and it seems like a crap-shoot whether one particular act will be a savage murder or the start of a revolution. It's kind of like a "slow clap"... Someone has to start it. Every "lone wolf" shooter could be (and probably wants to be ) the slow clapper that kicks off a revolution. The question is whose revolution will it be, and how will they be stopped.

 

Realistically, I think the adherence to non-violence is espoused most by those who want to protect the status quo, and also why it is so disturbing to them. They see their veneer chipping away, and there's no telling by what it could be replaced.

 

Jeez these posts always look smaller in the quick reply window.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Saggy

[SaveTheZombies]

Wow, stormfront is in fact down.

....

But not their BS propaganda sites like http://martinlutherking.org/

That's still up.

[El Dildo]

Jeez these posts always look smaller in the quick reply window.

yeah... that's a lot more energy than I ever put into the original comment.

like I said you guys might be reading a little too far into it. I agree with virtually everything you just said.

 

but I don't have a platform. I'm not preaching to a huge audience through a radio show. violence was never my agenda. I just said hey look at that guy. too bad he missed. people are pissed off in this country. it was supposed to be flippant. I wasn't trying to make the most salient politically correct statement of all time.

 

anywho; the Mueller investigation has started pounding another nail into Trump's coffin.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-organization-to-tell-house-intel-committee-about-russia-real-estate-deal/

 

it's kind of amazing.

almost every public statement that Trump has made as POTUS about Russia ends up being completely false and in fact the exact opposite of what he said.

[Creed Bratton]

Terrorists after all: http://fortune.com/2017/08/26/charlottesville-violence-leaked-chats/

[El Dildo]

^^^ why am I not surprised?

 

Trump of course wants to stamp out DACA.

because he's a petty fascist racist. but now it looks his own Congress is going to fight him on that, as well.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/31/immigrant-members-of-congress-ask-trump-to-keep-daca/

 

must be hard for poor little Donny.

control all 3 branches of government. can't pass a single piece of his own agenda. poor little fella.

[Eutyphro]

The fact that everyone seems to draw the same apparently incorrect conclusions from your comments suggests they're not as clear or coherent as you seem to think.

Well, that's an argumentum ad populum. I think my comments are misinterpreted because I'm the only person criticizing the left, democrats, feminism, etc.. and have become a stand in for conservatives in this thread by doing so, eventhough I'm a centrist liberal with a slight left libertarian leaning. The nuance of my comments is consistently denied, because by misinterpreting me you can make yourself look virtuous in comparison.

 

Maybe you should look to your own fallacy laden, straw-man-filled, thinly veiled ad hominems of posts before asking questions about the aggression of others.

Well, this is turning into a childish 'you first' thing, but if you go back you were the one starting off accusing me of hypocrisy, and then got pissed off when it was thrown back at you, because you can't handle being treated as you treat others. I've had discussions with Triple Vacuum Seal recently that were decent, but with you it's impossible. It immediately turns into something very petty.

 

You have been far more aggressive in your assertions of the justification for criminal investigation into left-wing groups than right-wing ones,

No, that's rubbish. But that's what you want me to do, so you can then look virtuous by how tough you are on the right.

 

even though it's far from clear that the former represent any particular societal threat compared to the latter.

The continual riots, vandalism and physical assault, and what is happening in colleges, and the stifling of free speech of conservatives and often even centrists or moderate leftists, are threats.

 

Similarly, your personification of violent leftism as such a significant threat that it warrants additional law enforcement emphasis, and your consistent drive to implicate groups that are ideologically opposed to your own viewpoint as complicit in violence by mere association and proximity, normally with no evidence to speak of, does smack of McCarthyism.

Violent radical leftism is a threat to the liberty and safety of almost anyone who is not of a far left leaning, and it does warrant extra law enforcement attention. You can't even march in favor of free speech anymore or some back clad c*nt will pepperspray you in the face. That's an issue. Furthermore, haven't you yourself lumped in anyone on the far right with violent extremists? I remember you arguing that marching for white supremacy was intrinsically genocidal and therefore violent. You've effectively argued their speech is violence. Furthermore, you don't seem to give a sh*t about calls to violence against police officers made on this forum.

 

No, it's not. You have said on multiple occasions variations of "if you don't want to get arrested, don't go to demonstrations which might also contain radical leftists. If you do, and get arrested, it's your own fault for associating with them".

You missed the part where I said you should join peaceful protesters and not rioters, but this is more of your nuance missing virtue signalling.

 

But that's a fairly accurate representation of most of the violence that takes place in these riots, isn't it? Most of it is petty, wanton vandalism targeted at companies that are symbolic of capitalism.

There's also quite a lot of assault, throwing glass and rocks, and pepper spraying of police officers and others. And the vandalism can also be quite a lot more significant than just breaking a window.

 

What is this even supposed to mean?

What I mean by 'questionable far left movement' is a far left movement that cheers on assault and vandalism. I find that questionable, don't you?

 

What I, and others, have questioned is whether statements constituting incitement to violence or illegal action were actually published, and the degree to which a platform can be held responsible for the content hosted on it. As already noted, the same allegation could be made about numerous other platforms including the social media giants, with a vast amount more evidence to back it up.

If the German department of justice says it occurred, and considering the violence that occurred on the G20, then I'm inclined to believe them. You seem to think that reports of claims of the German department of justice is not evidence, but an article about screenshots of chatting between Charlottesville protesters is. They discussed using violence against the police on there, and hundreds of officers were injured at the G20. I remember saying 80 police officers, but just read it was actually 500.

 

As for whether a platform can be held responsible, if a platform tolerates calls for illegal action, then they are breaking the law. Social media giants consistently make the effort to remove such things.

 

 

As long as a platform such as Stormfront isn't used to incite specific illegal acts, but is used for hate and bigotry protected under free speech, then the legal basis for shutting it down through government action is absent, but it's good a private initiative took it down.

 

But it was. As far back as 3 years ago, there were already reports linking the website to dozens of murders. Breivik was one of the website's users. You can bet he used that platform to discuss his ideas, his plans, ask for advice. Ditto for Wade Michael Page. These were people who actually went ahead and killed people based on that website. They discussed their stuff with members.

Imagine two members on gtaforums in private message discussed murdering someone, would that be reason to shut down gtaforums? You see the distinction between a website that hosts imminent calls to illegal action, and a website that does not?

 

Conversely, even nothing even remotely similar was discussed in IndyMedia, the DoJ still went ahead and fished the millions of IPs off of it.

You are mixing up DJ20 and Indymedia.

 

But you were applauding their decision to go after that website and people in it because they created a protest that the police escalated into violence.

So, do you think an inauguration or a G20 summit should be secure events, or you think the police should retreat to let far left violent scumbags run amok and endanger everyone involved?

 

it's just people memeing and sh*tposting" and then to "well they may be racist bigots, but it isn't illegal"

There is a distinction between memeing and terrorism. And there is a distinction between bigotry and violence as well. There's a distinction between speech and violence.

 

Oh and according to you logic, since you implied that sivis condones violence if he doesn't condemn it while condemning something else, can we say that you also condoned the actions of Stormfront users because you forgot to condemn them while you were condemning IndyMedia users?

I condemned Stormfront when it came up didn't I? Apart from that, noone in this topic is far right, but there are justifications for violence against police being made, and you nor Sivispacem ever condemn it.

 

 

So you are asking me to make a distinction between good terrorism, against people you dislike, and bad terrorism, against people you like?

you've been reading too far into it since the beginning.

I didn't submit my master's thesis. it was a short comment about the story when it happened. I'm never going to say you should go out and shoot anybody. that being said I can easily empathize with the feeling that might lead someone to do so given this political climate. this is not supposed to be a politically correct statement... but if we're going to split hairs?

 

I'll happily defend the would-be political assassin instead of the wanna-be Nazi scum who drove over an innocent crowd of people then ran away. this is the climate. I didn't create it. I just live in it.

How is it different from Chiari posting about how he hopes MTD gets run over, or the Charlottesville chats that the Yokel and Tchuck posted? It's the same thing.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

Well, that's an argumentum ad populum. I think my comments are misinterpreted because I'm the only person criticizing the left, democrats, feminism, etc.. and have become a stand in for conservatives in this thread by doing so...The nuance of my comments is consistently denied, because by misinterpreting me you can make yourself look virtuous in comparison.

It's not really an argument and populum, but a case of Occam's Razor. There being some conspiracy amongst almost all posters to intentionally misrepresent your views because of your stance requires dramatically more assumption than your comments simply lacking clarity and coherence.

 

No, that's rubbish. But that's what you want me to do

It's not "rubbish", it's simple fact. There's no other conclusion to draw from your posts. But frankly, I don't really care. Unlike you, I've got no interest in asserting complicity and apologism in any instance where a public, grovelling condemnation of a particular set of actions of ideologues is not forthcoming.

 

The continual riots, vandalism and physical assault, and what is happening in colleges, and the stifling of free speech of conservatives and often even centrists or moderate leftists, are threats.

Nice straw man. I never claimed that these actions didn't present any societal threat, just that that threat was trivial compared to others. I also question whether or not the current violent disorder associated with the far left is particularly notable in the wider context of the last twenty or thirty years of political history. And, indeed, to what effect it is, in your words, "continual".

 

You can't even march in favor of free speech anymore or some back clad c*nt will pepperspray you in the face. That's an issue.

No, that's an kneejerk emotional retort with no basis in fact. Are you genuinely trying to suggest it is categorically impossible to march or protest in favour of free speech without being attacked by the black bloc? Because this is clearly, abundantly untrue- as numerous protests happen on a daily basis on a variety of free speech issues without any violence occurring.

 

Furthermore, haven't you yourself lumped in anyone on the far right with violent extremists? I remember you arguing that marching for white supremacy was intrinsically genocidal and therefore violent.

I've lumped all white supremacists in with violent extremism, because white supremacy is inherently an ideology that favours ethnic cleansing which is necessarily violent ("peaceful ethnic cleansing" is not a thing). I don't recall ever asserting the entire, wider far right movement was intrinsically violent, though much of it is.

 

And you claim it's everyone else whose unable to comprehend nuance...laughable.

 

You missed the part where I said you should join peaceful protesters and not rioters

And you selectively ignored repeated questions asked by multiple posters on what one should do to determine whether a peaceful protest is going to become violent before the fact, or how one should behave to disassociate themselves from these actions when they do occur. How can anyone be expected to take statements like these seriously if you can't even explain how they're possible?

 

There's also quite a lot of assault, throwing glass and rocks, and pepper spraying of police officers and others. And the vandalism can also be quite a lot more significant than just breaking a window.

You're saying a lot of words, but none of them actually appear to contradict or rebut what I've said.

 

What I mean by 'questionable far left movement' is a far left movement that cheers on assault and vandalism. I find that questionable, don't you?

Define "cheers on". Do I approve or encourage wanton vandalism, attacks on police and general violent disorder? Not one bit. Do I mind if some armed black bloc guys want to beat up some white supremacists? Not really. I quite like the idea of Nazis getting seven bells kicked out of them. I don't care who does it, though.

 

If the German department of justice says it occurred, and considering the violence that occurred on the G20, then I'm inclined to believe them.

Look at you, embracing a government line when it suits your narrative. That would have been unthinkable a year or so ago. I do put more faith in the ability of German authorities to rationally and coherently address the issue than US authorities, but that's still a step below any actual evidence of complicity being presented. And I'm not exclusively referring to Germany here anyway.

 

As for whether a platform can be held responsible, if a platform tolerates calls for illegal action, then they are breaking the law. Social media giants consistently make the effort to remove such things

This is simply not true. Social media organisations claim to make consistent efforts to remove illegal content or content that breaches their ToS, but in reality very little of the content reported to them is ever removed or addressed. This has been born out in numerous investigations conducted by third parties, with social media companies point blank refusing to remove Jihadist content, threats of violence and rape, or even groups discussing child abuse. Pretending they're making much more than a token effort is delusional.

[Creed Bratton]

This is be morally bankrupt piece of sh*t that some people in this thread support: https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-walks-back-trumps-promise-to-give-1-million-of-his-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-4691cf5e6dd6/amp/

[Chiarii]

This is be morally bankrupt piece of sh*t that some people in this thread support: https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-walks-back-trumps-promise-to-give-1-million-of-his-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-4691cf5e6dd6/amp/

How much have you donated to us?

 

As a Houstonian, I've been directly affected by Harvey. Any donations are appreciated, whether they're from someone's personal wealth or their foundation. If someone opts not to donate, that's fine. We aren't entitled to anyone else's money.

 

Anyways, I haven't heard anything about the Obamas or Clintons helping either, which just goes to show you that if you aren't in a swing state, one side takes you for granted while the other side couldn't give a f*ck less about you. Like you for instance. You don't care about us, you're just taking this opportunity to bash Trump.

[El Dildo]

Anyways, I haven't heard anything about the Obamas or Clintons helping either,

because they're not the president of the United States?

you know you're grasping at straws when any criticism of Trump is immediately ignored by saying something irrelevant about Obama or Clinton.

 

Trump doesn't get to be excused from his f/ck-ups just because there's a natural disaster happening somewhere.

 

You don't care about us

aw poor baby.

on the bright side, maybe now you'll know how it feels to be a gay person or a transgender person or an immigrant living in America today.

Edited September 2, 2017 by El Diablo

[Creed Bratton]

 

This is be morally bankrupt piece of sh*t that some people in this thread support: https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-walks-back-trumps-promise-to-give-1-million-of-his-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-4691cf5e6dd6/amp/

How much have you donated to us?

 

As a Houstonian, I've been directly affected by Harvey. Any donations are appreciated, whether they're from someone's personal wealth or their foundation. If someone opts not to donate, that's fine. We aren't entitled to anyone else's money.

 

Anyways, I haven't heard anything about the Obamas or Clintons helping either, which just goes to show you that if you aren't in a swing state, one side takes you for granted while the other side couldn't give a f*ck less about you. Like you for instance. You don't care about us, you're just taking this opportunity to bash Trump.

Did you even bother reading past the title? Or were you too preoccupied sucking Trump's cock?

[Chiarii]

 

Anyways, I haven't heard anything about the Obamas or Clintons helping either,

because they're not the president of the United States?

you know you're grasping at straws when any criticism of Trump is immediately ignored by saying something irrelevant about Obama or Clinton.

 

Trump doesn't get to be excused from his f/ck-ups just because there's a natural disaster happening somewhere.

 

You don't care about us

aw poor baby.

on the bright side, maybe now you'll know how it feels to be a gay person or a transgender person or an immigrant living in America today.

I was just pointing out that politicians who have lots of money and influence, like the Clintons and Obamas, are doing nothing. They don't care about the people when there's no more votes to be won. As for Trump, his early authorization for FEMA to get on the ground saved a lot of people. He did just fine.

 

As for the other comparison i just have to laugh at how stupid you are. I get it, you're a gay American with a soft spot for transgender people and immigrants. That doesn't mean your 'struggle' is real. Maybe we can find a gay Houstonian and ask which hardship was worse: being bullied for being gay, or watching his life's work wash away in a week as his home was destroyed.

 

You're the dumbest person I've ever engaged with.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

I was just pointing out that politicians who have lots of money and influence, like the Clintons and Obamas, are doing nothing. They don't care about the people when there's no more votes to be won. As for Trump, his early authorization for FEMA to get on the ground saved a lot of people. He did just fine.

 

He's doing fine because he's doing what any President needs to do at a time of natural disaster, providing for the 'here and now'. The immediate period following disaster and making sure the immediate needs are taken care of, regardless of political alignment, race, gender, sexuality and just about everything else that we've divided over these past few months.

 

The next challenge is the long-term rebuilding and restructure and this is where the influence of 'former political foundations and their money' will appear. Their charity and support will help rebuild lives in the years to come, but this takes planning and support to make sure what they are doing is right, so their money will come later, when Trump's immediate support and money has all dried up, just like the flood waters will be long gone.

 

It'll be the names of those long term supporters that will adorn the brass plaques and networks of the rebuilt society, because they got the schools and hospitals reopened and running smoothly again (Rather than just 'reopened in the short term, but the issues of building damage and trauma to staff / pupils can be handled later'.) , not the name of Trump, as he only made sure the victims had a roof over their head and a place to sleep in the short term.

 

Think about it that way and come back with this argument in a year, when the long term support network is more apparent.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Uncle Sikee Atric

[Chiarii]

Did you even bother reading past the title? Or were you too preoccupied sucking Trump's cock?

Unlike you, I did read past the title. I know you didn't read past the title because:

 

1) The article questions where the money comes from, whereas the title implies the money isn't coming.

 

2) Your reading comprehension is poor to begin with.

 

Now, I understand it must suck to be you. You're an incompetent young man surrounded by people who intellectually outshine you with consistency. It's not your fault; your parents are probably stupid as well. I'm not sure why you're given such leniency here. You aren't capable of contributing to discussion even if you wanted to. You're just a joke, a deluded crusader for nonexistant oppresion who is too cowardly to admit he's a lefty.

 

He's doing fine because he's doing what any President needs to do at a time of natural disaster, providing for the 'here and now'. The immediate period following disaster and making sure the immediate needs are taken care of, regardless of political alignment, race, gender, sexuality and just about everything else that we've divided over these past few months.

The next challenge is the long-term rebuilding and restructure and this is where the influence of 'former political foundations and their money' will appear. Their charity and support will help rebuild lives in the years to come, but this takes planning and support to make sure what they are doing is right, so their money will come later, when Trump's immediate support and money has all dried up, just like the flood waters will be long gone.

It'll be the names of those long term supporters that will adorn the brass plaques and networks of the rebuilt society, because they got the schools and hospitals reopened and running smoothly again (Rather than just 'reopened in the short term, but the issues of building damage and trauma to staff / pupils can be handled later'.) , not the name of Trump, as he only made sure the victims had a roof over their head and a place to sleep in the short term.

Think about it that way and come back with this argument in a year, when the long term support network is more apparent.

The inability to give credit when it's deserved is kind of pathetic. Is there anything the man could do to earn your approval? I doubt it. As for the other bit, maybe save your unsubstantiated claims for about a year and come back when we see them come to fruition. As it stands, only one political figure has done anything of value.

[Creed Bratton]

 

Did you even bother reading past the title? Or were you too preoccupied sucking Trump's cock?

Unlike you, I did read past the title. I know you didn't read past the title because:

 

1) The article questions where the money comes from, whereas the title implies the money isn't coming.

 

2) Your reading comprehension is poor to begin with.

 

Now, I understand it must suck to be you. You're an incompetent young man surrounded by people who intellectually outshine you with consistency. It's not your fault; your parents are probably stupid as well. I'm not sure why you're given such leniency here. You aren't capable of contributing to discussion even if you wanted to. You're just a joke, a deluded crusader for nonexistant oppresion who is too cowardly to admit he's a lefty.

This entire post smells of projection.

[Chiarii]

Just observation since you say things like 'sucking Trump's cock' and don't bother to read the articles you plaster all over this thread.

 

 

By the way, how much did you donate to Harvey victims? You never answered that.

[Creed Bratton]

Just observation

Hardly.

 

And don't bother trying to spin this like it's somehow my problem just because your precious president is a piece of sh*t. Instead, think hardly about what kind of a man you are when Trump is the type of person you support.

[Chiarii]

For the third time: How much have you donated to us?

 

I'm asking since you made a post bitching about it.