General US Politics Discussion

[Eutyphro]

This is ironic because on one side we have a guy saying three videos prove beyond reasonable doubt that all members of a group use pepper spray all the time.

I didn't say all Antifa members use pepper spray. You fail at reading.

 

 

There are a plethora of reasons why we should worry about the far left. Firstly, their attack on intellectual diversity and freedom of speech.

This is a much broader problem that doesn't even originate with the radical left. This has been explained to you countless times, but you're incapable of admitting the liberal centre isn't some bastion of enlightenment.

 

For the millionth time: if this is all leftist 'neomarxism' why are liberal feminists at the heart of the phenomenon? How do you reconcile that?

Because the social justice ideology isn't liberal. It assigns collective guilt on the basis of collective identity. It's neomarxist. It expands the 'proletariat' to a possibly infinite amount of victim groups.

 

ML is associated with the largest period of economic growth in human history.

lmao

 

how do you propose we respond to people who are so casually racist that they don't even recognize racism is an issue? there's no amount of polite and careful logic that will convince someone like that to see what is right in front of their face when they're so hate-bent on denying it. you tell me the proper response and I'll hear you out.

You mean people so casually racist that they call black conservatives 'uncle Tom's'? Why would people have to admit inrtitutional racism exists if you fail proving it exists? You're supposed to prove your points here. This is called "D & D", not "accept leftist dogma or get scolded". Your aggressive stupidity continually derails the thread, and it's nice ten-a-penny said something about it.

 

I've gotten bored of this discussion though, and have better sh*t to do, so you can all have fun and echo each others stupidity, fail at engaging with criticism, and insult any dissent.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Spaghetti Cat]

...and this is why we can't have nice things people. Sheesh. Just delete the last two pages. Back to the last sensible post.

 

 

 

Produce the evidence.

https://www.aclu.org/news/new-aclu-report-details-pervasive-racial-discrimination-america
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/04/ferguson-police-racial-persecution-federal-report
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/09/489372162/justice-department-to-issue-critical-report-on-baltimore-police-department

Ignore the press outlets (yes I know the Guardian is biased), these are three reports by three ACLU and DoJ.

 

(and continues...)

 

Here's some surveys of the general publics interactions with officers

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=84

Here is a Washington Post article with more than enough reports cited and linked to show a trend.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/15/racial-profiling-has-destroyed-public-trust-in-police-cops-are-exploiting-our-weak-laws-against-it/?utm_term=.003e7bdeab7f


I mean if you can't find the evidence with a quick Google as I've done, then you're deliberately trying not to find it.

Now let's predict your rebuttal...

I'm gonna guess you'll go with the, "These are only a few isolated departments," as if we're actually going to find any kind of study that reveals a nation wide, systemic trend, and as if anything short of that is just evidence of trends that are isolated to certain regions or departments, despite an overwhelming amount of anecdotal reports by civilians that these reports are indicative of wider trends at large.

When you have evidence from the DoJ, the ACLU, the NAACP, as well as anecdotal evidence from millions of citizens, then I would say that shows a pretty significant problem. You'd have to work pretty hard to deny and rebuke these reports, but no doubt that you will try.

 

 

 

Ok, thank you for posting that and all. But this had nothing to do with what I was asking nor the topic at hand, maybe the coppers thread.

 

These are the people arrested in Portland:

 

 

 

This had nothing to do with race.

 

The claim MTD makes, as far as I can tell, is that the police arrested one group (antifa) but not another (the proud boys) based on ideology. This is quite a serious claim, I'm trying to find any evidence of this claim. And after several pages, nothing.

 

Look, this should be a perfect example to test out the theory. You have the same groups (more or less) protesting in two different cities, in two different states, with two different police forces. As far as I can tell BOTH police forces acted within the law. They kept both sides apart, and even escorted the attendees away from the scene.

 

If the claim was true we should have seen some sort of proof by now, right? At least in one of the cities. Several days and several pages on, nothing. Which leads me to conclude that this whole affair is B.S.

 

Oh and the only ones arrested were the violent ones, kinda interesting.

[Tchuck]

 

This is ironic because on one side we have a guy saying three videos prove beyond reasonable doubt that all members of a group use pepper spray all the time.

I didn't say all Antifa members use pepper spray. You fail at reading.

 

Well

 

 

You are aware that Antifa uses pepper spray all the time right? Who are you to condemn anyone for using it, in self defence or attack?

 

 

No, they use pepper spray aggressively all the time. And I don't really get why you bother denying it. I think you know they do.

 

I think you are the one who fails at reading..You first referred to Antifa as a group, saying they use pepper spray all the time. This implies that their members use pepper spray all the time, and you made no distinction as to quantifying them. Implicitly accusing ALL OF ANTIFA of doing so all the time.

 

And you use three videos, to base your statement that antifa does this all the time.

 

Again, stop backpedalling and moving the goalposts and provide evidence. You said ALL THE TIME, f*cking show us.

 

And sh*t, my point still stands.

3 videos out of context, HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, ANTIFA IS VIOLENT!

several cases of police brutality based on race, ISOLATED INCIDENTS, WE CAN'T CLAIM THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, THE POLICE ISN'T THE PROBLEM.

 

Heck, we can even condemn the right even more!

We have 2 instances of right-wing terrorists attempting (one was successful) to run down a crowd with their cars. According to your logic, the right-wing DOES THIS ALL THE TIME!

Edited September 15, 2017 by Tchuck

[Eutyphro]

3 videos out of context, HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, ANTIFA IS VIOLENT!

 

 

several cases of police brutality based on race, ISOLATED INCIDENTS, WE CAN'T CLAIM THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, THE POLICE ISN'T THE PROBLEM.

What does this have to do with it? I've never denied the US police is very violent. It seems you are just randomly spouting leftist talking points regardless of whether they are relevant.

[El Dildo]

For clarity, failure to show evidence of me being a racist after accusing me of such is equivalent to conceding to me. By the way, you need to man up and explain this yourself. If your a fifth of the person I am, you should have no problem shirking the aid of your buddies, especially the catfish. =P

I don't owe you anything. I'm not the only one who replied to you with evidence.

your own words and behaviors have demonstrated more than enough. you continually move the goal posts and make excuses for why racial discrimination isn't racist... which makes you a casual racist / apolgoizer.

 

let's not forget: you're the guy who thinks that I have to be gay in order to be concerned with the oppression of gay people and other minorities.

so you're pretty much human excrement who isn't really entitled to have human dignity explained to you. especially by the likes of me.

 

You mean people so casually racist that they call black conservatives 'uncle Tom's'?

can you read? do you need glasses, pal?

 

I don't call "black conservatives" anything.

I used the phrase Uncle Tom to describe a specific person. many people who share his skin color have expressed the same sentiment long before I came around. one of them in this very forum said that he agreed with me. as usual, you've just put words in my mouth and misrepresented what I've said because you have no reasonable defense against it.

 

but apparently you're so bored with this conversation that you keep replying to me.

you're not fooling anyone, big guy. your intellect is falling into Chiari's realm. it's not a good look on you.

Edited September 15, 2017 by El Diablo

[Tchuck]

What does this have to do with it? I've never denied the US police is very violent. It seems you are just randomly spouting leftist talking points regardless of whether they are relevant.

 

 

It has everything to do with it since you are being a complete hypocrite. You have vehemently attacked and condemned the left as a bunch of violence-seeking maniacs who are out to destroy the world and our way of living, have commended the police for taking questionable actions against them, have commended the government for tapping the IPs of millions of people under very questionable reasoning, and painted antifa as being all violent resorting to violent tactics, while putting forth no evidence.

 

Conversely, whenever the topic goes to the right-wing and its horrors, you and other always find a reason to excuse the behavior or paint them as not all bad and simply reacting against the insane violence coming from the left.

 

All I want from you is consistency.

[sivispacem]

You don't need to prove every single cop is racist- just prove most are.

I'm not really sure this follows. Racism being an endemic and significant problem in law enforcement doesn't demand that over 50% of officers are racist. The mere existence of groups such as the Lynnwood Vikings, enabled by departmental inaction on LE gangs for fear of upsetting officers, does strongly point to these issues being endemic in some law enforcement organisations.

 

The logic on the "liberal cities and racism" comments doesn't really stand up to scrutiny either. LE members, like those in the military community, tend to lean Republican so characterisation of Democrat leaning cities as racist on the basis of actions of LE doesn't necessarily follow. It's also worth remembering that these cities are also more demographically and ethnically diverse anyway, which naturally increases the scope for allegations of racist action on the part of those policing those communities.

 

As an aside, if this thread continues on its current trajectory there are going to be some additional substantial bans handed out.

[Saggy]

 

Boy you don't get it do you. They're not absent at all. They're the lone voice of dissent toward what they'd also label the "present left wing extremism".

What are you even trying to say?

 

 

I'm kind of tired of explaining and re-iterating for you. You know, nobody else seems to have any problems comprehending my posts but you. Just saying.

 

Chiari,

 

I see you're conveniently forgetting Ferguson.

 

Also your implication seems to be that only liberal cities will find fault with their police department, because only liberal researchers will come to such conclusions? Or is that you feel this is all some liberal propoganda or part of some plot? Well, either way, you're actually helping prove a part of my point because it's not as if conservative city's police forces are going without any negative remark, they've just engaged substantially higher hurdles for any agency or indepdent researcher to study racially divisive trends. I mean, you very flippantly dismiss the issue with Sherriff Arpaio, but just check these Google results for the Albaquerque PD

 

http://www.koat.com/article/failure-to-use-body-cameras-consumes-apd-misconduct-findings/12052214

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/justice/albuquerque-police-brutality-report/index.html

(Actual report)

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/04/10/140410-doj-apd-findings-letter.pdf

 

Now, this report is focused on police brutality issue, but according to your logic above, I shouldn't have found any such evidence for it since Albuquerque is a conservative town right? But low an behold when the feds come in, they shake out some evidence. Funny how it takes a federal agency. *cough*blueprotectsblue*cough*

 

 

One of the things that you contended is we couldn't find proof that showed a tendency for police to racially profile or racially discriminate, but despite my ( and everybody but yours ) ability to find this evidence you're still unsatisfied, and I think you've actually obfuscated a more important piece here ( which was more than likely your goal ).

 

Police officers are not "mostly racist", but they ARE "mostly conservative". And no, before you go and bark for evidence you don't actually want, I can't find some actual surveys that were conducted, but like any other person I have access to Google and can search that. However what's more, is that I actually know a lot of police officers from other hobbies. I go to outdoors and knife forums, most of the people on those websites in general are more conservative bent. Here you want to see it out of the mouth of police officers themselves?

 

https://forum.officer.com/forum/public-forums/ask-a-cop/16290-are-you-officers-mostly-conservative-or-liberal

 

Feel free to contest that, but I'm putting the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders for this one. Prove to me that most cops aren't conservative.

 

 

But since we've whittled it down this far anyone, let's explore how that relates back to the argument in the first place. If most police are conservative, then who do you think they're more likely to sympathize with at a anti-Trump rally with protesters getting mased by conservative-leaning "Proud Boys" in a truck?

[Eutyphro]

It has everything to do with it since you are being a complete hypocrite. You have vehemently attacked and condemned the left as a bunch of violence-seeking maniacs who are out to destroy the world and our way of living,

Not the left in general, but Antifa specifically.

 

have commended the police for taking questionable actions against them

All police action is questionable to you.

 

have commended the government for tapping the IPs of millions of people under very questionable reasoning

False, but I don't really get why you're desperate to go back to that tired old discussion.

 

and painted antifa as being all violent resorting to violent tactics, while putting forth no evidence.

I've not provided evidence? You mean, injuring hundreds of cops at the G20 is not evidence? Injuring police at DJ20 is not evidence? 7 of them being arrested at this Proud Boys incident for violence isn't evidence? There is a very large amount of evidence. An overwhelming amount. So the problem might be that you are blindfolded, not that there is no evidence.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Creed Bratton]

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/donald-trump-twitter-internet-cut-off-terror-attacks-parsons-green-tube-attack-explosion-latest-a7948141.html

 

Once again, a Republican president wants to limit freedom because TERRORISM. I can't wait to see Trumpets try to spin this one.

[Chiarii]

 

For clarity, failure to show evidence of me being a racist after accusing me of such is equivalent to conceding to me. By the way, you need to man up and explain this yourself. If your a fifth of the person I am, you should have no problem shirking the aid of your buddies, especially the catfish. =P

 

I don't owe you anything. I'm not the only one who replied to you with evidence.

your own words and behaviors have demonstrated more than enough. you continually move the goal posts and make excuses for why racial discrimination isn't racist... which makes you a casual racist / apolgoizer.

Actually, if you're going to call me a racist and refuse to back up that false, inaccurate assertion, you owe me an apology.

 

I haven't once moved the goalposts, this discussion started with me asking for you to prove a culture of racism and ended with the same request. With the help of the yokel, you have continuously failed to prove the claim. If you understood how evidence works, you'd understand the burden of proof lies with you- not me. I don't have to prove a negative. If you understood how to interpret research articles and data, you'd understand that the yokel cited a source that confers with my statement that a fraction of law enforcement engage in racially charged violence. In fact, the article he linked explicitly said that. Lastly, if you understood how debate worked, you wouldn't have spent 2 pages insulting me while I asked you to support your claims with evidence.

 

 

I'm not really sure this follows. Racism being an endemic and significant problem in law enforcement doesn't demand that over 50% of officers are racist.

Let's talk about colloquial language. The implication of statements like "not all cops are racist" or "policing is an inherently racist institution" or "there is a racist culture among police" implies that most cops are racist. Since there are 2 categories here (racist and not racist) a majority implies greater than 50%.

 

I'm challenging the completely baseless idea that racism is rampant in law enforcement. Unverified anecdotes don't mean anything to me and neither does a handful of cherry picked cases against liberal cities. It's odd you challenge me on this, considering that you're so quick to rip up other people who cherry pick, use anecdotes, and throw half-truths around with total disregard. If I had to guess, I'd say it's the content in particular that has you involved.

 

BTW, as I'm sure you know, local law enforcement agencies are typically accountable to the mayor of the city. So for instance, Chicago/Baltimore/NYC were all mentioned. Well, we can prove that all of these are liberal cities with liberal mayors in liberal states. Yet, you want to suggest all of that's insignificant and that somehow because some cops have conservative leanings that is a significant driving factor in a culture of racism that doesn't truly exist? That's beneath you.

 

As an aside, if this thread continues on its current trajectory there are going to be some additional substantial bans handed out.

Noble. I take no responsibility for the tantrums of the yokel and diablo in the last 2 pages. I criticized a claim that MTD made and then the two of them took it upon themselves to try to prove the claim. After failing miserably, they devolved into hurling insults repeatedly, inadvertently citing articles the proved my point. I am completely absolved from this.

 

As an aside, I was temp'd for saying something to MTD that was absolutely comparable to what he said to me yesterday. I was also met with outrage. I noticed that no one took issue with what he said to me yesterday, and I assume that he didn't receive the same penalty that I did.

 

If this is true, there is more evidence of a culture of ideological suppression here than there is of rampant racism in law enforcement. I appreciate that you hold some of us here to a higher standard, I just wish you'd take more issue with little boys who cry wolf. Good to see you though Sivis!

 

As for Saggy, he was able to decipher the point here, which is that most cops are not racist.

[sivispacem]

Let's talk about colloquial language. The implication of statements like "not all cops are racist" or "policing is an inherently racist institution" or "there is a racist culture among police" implies that most cops are racist.

I disagree. The first of those statements is basically meaningless weasel words anyway; it's obvious not all cops are racist. The second is highly ambiguous in meaning, but does not implicitly or explicitly suggest a majority of officers are themselves racist. A police force which enforces laws that are considered prejudicial against ethnic minorities, or for the express purposes of upholding social, economic and cultural norms that do so, could be equally described as "inherently racist" regardless of whether the majority of individual officers were. The third also does not state or imply a majority of officers are involved. "There is a racist culture amongst police" is a factual statement as long as racist cliques, cabals or gangs of police officers exist.

 

I'm challenging the completely baseless idea that racism is rampant in law enforcement.

I don't think racism is rampant across law enforcement as a whole, but equally I find it difficult to dispute the notion that racist cultures do exist in some police departments. As I said before, the mere existence of expressly racist police gangs like the Lynnwood Vikings makes this rather difficult to dispute. There's also the ongoing FBI investigation into penetration of Law Enforcement by white supremacist groups.

 

Whether these racist police gangs are common elsewhere in the law enforcement community, and simply not investigated due to local sociopolitical factors I don't know. But it's difficult to argue against their existence; equally, exploring issues such as these objectively and empirically is hard precisely because of the code of silence between officers. Remember, it took a CRASH team member getting shot by another undercover officer before the Rampart scandal was exposed.

 

Yet, you want to suggest all of that's insignificant and that somehow because some cops have conservative leanings that is a significant driving factor in a culture of racism that doesn't truly exist?

That's not at all what I suggested. My point was that taking a trend that appears to apply to one demographic group and applying it to an entire city doesn't make much sense, especially when the demographic is a statistical outlier in the wider context of the city.

 

I assume that he didn't receive the same penalty that I did.

Why do you assume that? You know what they say about assumption...

[Saggy]

 

New Page, hello all!

 

That's kinda the rub though, that the police there, as you say, walk hand-in-hand with, well it jumps from far-right to white supremacists. This supposes that there was some sort of agreement before hand, or a wink-wink nod-nod situation. I've asked for any proof of this and none has come forward. All we're going off of is a thinly worded story about the incident.

 

I want to see that evidence as well. There's over a million law enforcement officers in the USA, so anyone claiming that cops side with white supremacists is going to have some serious explaining to do in regards to backing that up with evidence.

 

Even if someone could connect 50,000 cops to white supremacist leanings, that still means over 95% cops don't support it. A pretty far cry from a culture of racism.

 

 

Well since Chiari wants to talk about "the point", I think I need to refresh his memory. See Spaghetti Cat's post in bold, oh 2 or 3 pages back, about the incident with the marauding pepper-spray truck and the allegation that the police let them on by because they were sympathetic to their politics?

 

Then you kept demanding evidence of this as if it was the argument at hand to (and I'm getting to like this phrase ) move the goal posts once more.

 

So then I produced evidence, and said....

 

 

 

Now let's predict your rebuttal...

 

I'm gonna guess you'll go with the, "These are only a few isolated departments,"

 

...then you did essentially just that, except also threw in the "These are all from liberal cities!" non-sequitur to boot. Still not sure what your point in assessing that, although it's ironic you then to choose to criticize sivis ( actualy I can't tell if you're responding to him or me in that section ) about pointing out the overwhelming conservative leanings of police officers and bringing it back around to what the original argument was about: Whether there was some kind of special treatment by these officers.

 

By the way, still waiting for you to acknowledge the DoJ report from Ferguson, a non-liberal city, as well as tell me why you think conservative cities would make it unlikely for reports unfavorable of the police to manifest given the findings produced about the Albuquerque PD. In fact, maybe address the points people have made about Sheriff Arpaio with something more than, "Well that's just one guy, it doesn't prove a culture, herp durp I likes semantics".

 

Here's why Sheriff Arpaio is important... The original argument, back before your "Prove racial culture" obfuscation, was whether or not these officers gave the guys riding around pepper-spraying people special treatment because of some kind of sympathetic consideration toward their political or ideological base. Now, going back to Sheriff Arpaio before you lose sight of that dot, I'll connect the two for you: Here you have The Commander in Chief scratching the back of a person who was literally investigated and found guilty of permeating the very sort of culture you're denying is so widespread, and exonerating him of a crime that it was pretty firmly established he committed without question. Now, whether you think he should have been exonerated, or not convicted in the first place, (oh I would be really surprised to hear you don't think he did anything wrong at all ) here's the glaring problem... Well, since you want to talk about "colloquial" language, let's talk subtext and connotation. What message do you think is inferred by police departments from Trump exonerating Arpaio after being found guilty for the exact same charges that departments around the country are finding themselves accused of? Now of course you'll dismiss this out of hand as well, but if there's any time in America for police departments to be embolden and shirk their civic duties in favor of supporting bipartisan politics ( which may incorporate racial profiling and discrimination ) right now is literally the best time in the last 60 years to do so.

 

 

But again let's reign it back to that "point" thing, since you like to run amok with that. The reason that the police let the guys in the truck go could be because they did nothing wrong and were defending themselves, or it also has just as likely chance that they were a bunch of conservative, redneck, backwoods-hillbilly dickwads ( and by the way, I'm using my local expertise, Vancouver is not a liberal city ) and simply decided that these guys shouldn't be charged because they were sympathetic to conservative-redneck-backwoods-hillbilly ideology. Either one of those possibilities in my mind has just as much evidence to support it, because those incompetent police officers ( regardless of their conservative-red...blah blah ) didn't do their f*cking job and even make a report, detain them, or do basically anything that would actually ensure fair and partial enforcement of the law.

 

 

So with that point in mind, why should anyone not suspect that the police officers lapse in professionalism was due to their personal politics? It's so easy to say "Police are racists so they do this," and then even easier for people like yourself to focus on that little piece because it is impossible to prove, but when you sit there and argue tooth and nail against an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, then your facade of logic and "debate" falls apart in the face of nuance and common sense.

 

P.S.

 

You really don't see the irony in supposing predominantly liberal cities produce liberally biased reports, but that predominantly conservative police departments don't produce conservatively biased conduct, do you? ...and you call everyone else here a pseudo-intellectual.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Saggy

[El Dildo]

You don't need to prove every single cop is racist- just prove most are.

this statement says everything about how poor and flawed your logic is.

most cops do not have to be racist for there to still be a problem with systemic racial discrimination within police departments and the criminal justice system at large.

 

I can't even believe we're having this discussion in 2017. this is how far the goal posts have moved. you don't think that the United States has some serious and continual issues with racial oppression? at best you're lying to yourself and enabling the culture of racism that allows a person like Trump to become president. at worst you're just another casual racist who apparently lacks the self awareness to comprehend how stupid you sound.

 

Actually, if you're going to call me a racist and refuse to back up that false, inaccurate assertion, you owe me an apology.

go f/ck yourself you casual racist.

how's that an for apology?

Edited September 15, 2017 by El Diablo

[Eutyphro]

go f/ck yourself you casual racist.

 

 

how's that an for apology?

 

Can you please improve the level of your posting so we don't have to go through another page of your stupid thread derailing insults? You won't, and the mods won't do anything either, but I'll just ask anyway.

[Spaghetti Cat]

Thanks saggy, that post does seem like ages ago.

 

If I may, one thing:

 

 

Either one of those possibilities in my mind has just as much evidence to support it, because those incompetent police officers ( regardless of their conservative-red...blah blah ) didn't do their f*cking job and even make a report, detain them, or do basically anything that would actually ensure fair and partial enforcement of the law.

 

 

I haven't been able to find anything regarding a report on the Vancouver police website. There is a section for request of info, maybe someone wants to do that. However the police DID detain the suspect in the first truck. There's a picture of of the guy in the post MTD did way back. They later released the man, but after they detained him.

 

The second truck, as far as I can tell from the article, was stopped by the police. Doesn't say anything about a detention. If I were to guess, the info was taken down, and depending on the damage a civil case possibly. That's a bit different than looking the other way. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears.

 

 

And if to drive the point home even further, we have yet another set of antifa arrests, 9 in total. This time in Berkley. Including battery on a police officer and carrying a banned weapon:

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/09/14/uc-berkeley-ben-shapiro-speech/

 

All to protest noted white supremacist and anti-semite Ben Shapiro.

 

...

 

If I may, to my Democrat friends and the non-violent left. Do you ever think that maybe you might be on the wrong side here? Backing or supporting these black-clad thugs and criminals? Protest and be against the KKK and Nazis all you want, hell I'm with you, but supporting anarchists who's first, last, and only tactic is open violence is just nuts!

 

I hope our politics haven't gone so far off the rails that supporting groups like antifa is a good idea.

[Clem Fandango]

Because the social justice ideology isn't liberal. It assigns collective guilt on the basis of collective identity. It's neomarxist. It expands the 'proletariat' to a possibly infinite amount of victim groups.

How long are you going to keep making this stupid point? Acknowledging harmful relations between two groups doesn't make you a 'neomarxist' people have been doing that for as long as there's been humans. Class analysis (what you're referring to) was a feature of early liberals, back when liberalism was still an enlightenment school of thought.

 

But this isn't class analysis anyway, since it doesn't implicate an oppressor class, it implicates vague and disembodied societal mores. You seem to think just acknowledging 'victimhood' makes someone a leftist... and that all leftism descended from Marxism? It's not even clear what you believe.

 

And btw 'neomarxism' refers to something specific, it doesn't mean "sort of looks like Marxism to someone with no understanding of Marxist theory." You and Peterson are both using the term wrong.

 

 

 

lmao

Believe it or not the 1/4 of the Earth's population living under ML states weren't living purely to provide you with rhetorical ammo. I get that the only basis your fanatical devotion to the status quo has is this idea of the USSR as a constant trainwreck where every moment is suffering, but these people didn't exist to stand next to the West and make it look better by comparison. These were complex states at the helms of complex societies, and where advanced in their own way.

 

I'm not going to entertain your blatant denial of facts. Look it up if you don't believe me. I don't know why I'm entertaining your broader point either: that it's either liberal-Capitalism or Marxism-Leninism. This is clearly not the case.

[Saggy]

 

 

...

 

If I may, to my Democrat friends and the non-violent left. Do you ever think that maybe you might be on the wrong side here? Backing or supporting these black-clad thugs and criminals? Protest and be against the KKK and Nazis all you want, hell I'm with you, but supporting anarchists who's first, last, and only tactic is open violence is just nuts!

 

I hope our politics haven't gone so far off the rails that supporting groups like antifa is a good idea.

 

Well I think that "support" is a pretty strong word. In my opinion, there's a lot of similarities between how both groups are feeling. Hardcore conservatives keep insisting they not be associated and grouped in with these "nationalist" and KKK/Neo-Nazi facsimiles, and seem to be in the same instance grouping up the Left with antifa and "violent" protesters.

 

But here's the thing... I would be a lot more concerned being grouped and lumped in with racists and white supremacists versus these violent antifa members. Yes, they use violence. No, I don't think that's the most abhorrent or reprehensible thing we've seen lately in this country. It's really worth remembering that of the "violence" antifa causes, most of it is property damage, and they've yet to seriously injure let alone kill a person.

 

Now, this might be getting out a little into the weeds here, but frankly if we're going to allow and promote state-sanctioned violence to disrupt protests and give little care when those tasked to enforce and dole it out go overboard, then I am going to give little care when an antifa member sucker punches some dipsh*t, breaks some windows or sets something on fire. In the mean time, the "other side" has already been culpable in vehicular homicide, attempted vehicular homicide, and is preaching a message that is far more likely to incite greater and more severe acts of violence than what antifa is espousing.

 

I'll sum it up for you in one sentence. The side you're accusing of being the predominant problem wants you to exercise violence against windows, the side I'm accusing of being the predominant problem wants you to exercise violence against minorities.

 

Now of course I get your desire to want to tally up the actual instances of violence perpetrated by both sides and say, "They're the ones actually committing all the violence," but is that an accurate stance to take? This is harking back to a discussion we've already had, whether left-wing or right-wing extremists commit more violent acts in terms of amount, and whether their acts of terrorism are more extreme in terms of severity.

 

So to really drive this home with you further with this, "Don't you think you're choosing the wrong side," question.... Timothy McVeigh was on the side you're suggesting is less violent. Dyaln Roof was on the side you're suggesting is less violent. Planned Parenthood shooter? Your guy. Orlando Night Club shooting? Well that's pretty debatable... But was he preaching hate for windows (symbolizing capitalism) or for homosexuals? The left arguably has Micah Johnson ( though it's hard to ascribe wanting to kill white people to leftist ideals ) and that asswipe that shot up congress's baseball game. Oh and if it seems like that's pretty even, I left out a few real esoteric incidents, but check out the list yourself.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

 

OH and that's just counting attacks where someone has died or been injured, what about the reports around the country about rising amounts of hate crimes directed towards Jews and other minorities? I'm pretty sure antifa didn't stir up those sentiments.

 

 

SO yeah... No, I don't think I'm on the wrong side. I don't think what antifa is doing is good, but I can't pretend that I feel like the condemnation of their actions is particularly important. If anything it just seems like a hollow attempt at distraction ( a quite successful one ) by saying, "Well, they're just as bad!" so that people just start arguing that instead. They're disruptive, they're inappropriate, and counter-productive, but in no way can I honestly say they're anywhere near as morally reprehensible as the side they're protesting, and I don't think their principles, strategies or ideals would as readily lend them to advance their violence at the same rate or severity that right-wing extremists' ideals and principles will. I mean, let me know when an antifa member blows up a federal building and kills a few hundred people, including more children than what died at Sandy Hook, and maybe I'll reconsider; but in the meantime they're gonna have to break a whole lot of windows and mase a whole lot of Proud Boys to really compare.

 

...and I know, Timothy McVeigh is a pretty old reference to allude to, but can you think of even one left-wing terrorist that caused the damage he did? Beyond that, can you think of one left-wing terrorist that was as wholly representative of the ideology which is so troublesome? Most of this white nationalism and "alt-right" lacks the anti-federal sentiment, but everything else that inspired McVeigh and those like him is alive and well in their movement. I think that should concern you far more than a bunch of douche-bag hipsters breaking windows and pepper-spraying people like assholes.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Saggy

[Chiarii]

I disagree. The first of those statements is basically meaningless weasel words anyway; it's obvious not all cops are racist. The second is highly ambiguous in meaning, but does not implicitly or explicitly suggest a majority of officers are themselves racist. A police force which enforces laws that are considered prejudicial against ethnic minorities, or for the express purposes of upholding social, economic and cultural norms that do so, could be equally described as "inherently racist" regardless of whether the majority of individual officers were. The third also does not state or imply a majority of officers are involved. "There is a racist culture amongst police" is a factual statement as long as racist cliques, cabals or gangs of police officers exist.

Then we're in agreement on the first statement. As for the second statement, despite your opinion that it's ambiguous, I hold it to be wrong and ignorant. Enforcing the law is the job of law enforcement officers by definition. They do not write the law (legislative branch) and they do not decide if the law is constitutional (judicial branch). Blaming them for enforcing a 'racist' law is like blaming gmail for someone sending you spam messages. Secondly on this issue, the legislative and judicial branches don't need to cater to you, or me, or some societal reject turned black bloc protester. They need to serve the greater good. In a country where free speech is a right people are free to criticize them, but criticism against police when the issue is 'this law is racist in my opinion' is misguided. One could even argue that the selective enforcing of laws is a violation of what policing should be. As for the third statement, I disagree but I'll accept it if you're willing to be consistent across a variety of groups.

 

I don't think racism is rampant across law enforcement as a whole, but equally I find it difficult to dispute the notion that racist cultures do exist in some police departments. As I said before, the mere existence of expressly racist police gangs like the Lynnwood Vikings makes this rather difficult to dispute. There's also the ongoing FBI investigation into penetration of Law Enforcement by white supremacist groups.

Whether these racist police gangs are common elsewhere in the law enforcement community, and simply not investigated due to local sociopolitical factors I don't know. But it's difficult to argue against their existence; equally, exploring issues such as these objectively and empirically is hard precisely because of the code of silence between officers.

Good, just like you, I don't believe racism is rampant either. The existence of some examples of racism in the police isn't justification for saying that white supremacists and police walk hand in hand. The insinuation of that is basically any cop I see, in any state at any time, has a pretty good chance of being racist. The reality is that a small minority of cops being racist is not troubling; it is normal human variation.

 

Hate groups infiltrating law enforcement is horrifying. It's not enough to assume that it could be some kind of widespread trend. Oh and the code of silence is common among an array of professions. Most people don't want to be a whistleblower.

 

 

Why do you assume that? You know what they say about assumption...

Well, I sincerely do hope that assumption was wrong.

 

the overwhelming conservative leanings of police officers...

 

By the way, still waiting for you to acknowledge the DoJ report from Ferguson, a non-liberal city, mon sense.

 

P.S.

 

You really don't see the irony in supposing predominantly liberal cities produce liberally biased reports, but that predominantly conservative police departments don't produce conservatively biased conduct, do you? ...and you call everyone else here a pseudo-intellectual.

Firstly, just because I didn't address this doesn't mean I don't have an answer for it. I ignored the bulk of your post because you are a rude, petulant ignoramous who just last week equated defense as a form of gratitude to 'cocksucking'.

 

Secondly, I didn't care enough to call you out on the whole bit about the political affiliation of cops, but now that it's obvious you'll keep touting this unsubstantiated line of bullsh*t until you are, I want to see evidence of the 'overwhelming conservative leanings' of police officers. Make sure you include a citation of this in your response.

 

Third, Ferguson is part of greater St. Louis. Not sure if you're familiar with it or not, so I'll give you a bit of a background. St. Louis is one of the most liberal cities in the USA. It's also a violent sh*t hole that literally just last night had protests that brought out the riot police. It consistently tops the list of most violent cities in America. With Ferguson being a part of greater St. Louis, it's reasonable to conclude that it's not so different from the major metropolitan city it's next to.

 

Finally, you're here claiming that the sources the two aggresors cited were liberal, yet, Diablo himself said I was denying 'blatant, unbiased sources'. So which is it? I know that to people like you, liberal and unbiased are the same thing but the truth is they aren't. It's one or the other. Perhaps you and Diablo can hash it out and then get back with me.

[Creed Bratton]

Interesting: http://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-obtains-warrant-for-russia-linked-facebook-ads-and-accounts-2017-9

 

 

 

FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly obtained a search warrant for records of the "inauthentic" accounts Facebook shut down earlier this month and the targeted ads these accounts purchased during the 2016 election.

 

Also, another prosecutor who worked money laundering cases is joining Mueller's investigation: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/15/another-prosecutor-joins-trump-russia-investigation-242794?lo=ap_d

Edited September 16, 2017 by The Yokel

[Saggy]

 

I disagree. The first of those statements is basically meaningless weasel words anyway; it's obvious not all cops are racist. The second is highly ambiguous in meaning, but does not implicitly or explicitly suggest a majority of officers are themselves racist. A police force which enforces laws that are considered prejudicial against ethnic minorities, or for the express purposes of upholding social, economic and cultural norms that do so, could be equally described as "inherently racist" regardless of whether the majority of individual officers were. The third also does not state or imply a majority of officers are involved. "There is a racist culture amongst police" is a factual statement as long as racist cliques, cabals or gangs of police officers exist.

Then we're in agreement on the first statement. As for the second statement, despite your opinion that it's ambiguous, I hold it to be wrong and ignorant. Enforcing the law is the job of law enforcement officers by definition. They do not write the law (legislative branch) and they do not decide if the law is constitutional (judicial branch). Blaming them for enforcing a 'racist' law is like blaming gmail for someone sending you spam messages. Secondly on this issue, the legislative and judicial branches don't need to cater to you, or me, or some societal reject turned black bloc protester. They need to serve the greater good. In a country where free speech is a right people are free to criticize them, but criticism against police when the issue is 'this law is racist in my opinion' is misguided. One could even argue that the selective enforcing of laws is a violation of what policing should be. As for the third statement, I disagree but I'll accept it if you're willing to be consistent across a variety of groups.

 

I don't think racism is rampant across law enforcement as a whole, but equally I find it difficult to dispute the notion that racist cultures do exist in some police departments. As I said before, the mere existence of expressly racist police gangs like the Lynnwood Vikings makes this rather difficult to dispute. There's also the ongoing FBI investigation into penetration of Law Enforcement by white supremacist groups.

Whether these racist police gangs are common elsewhere in the law enforcement community, and simply not investigated due to local sociopolitical factors I don't know. But it's difficult to argue against their existence; equally, exploring issues such as these objectively and empirically is hard precisely because of the code of silence between officers.

Good, just like you, I don't believe racism is rampant either. The existence of some examples of racism in the police isn't justification for saying that white supremacists and police walk hand in hand. The insinuation of that is basically any cop I see, in any state at any time, has a pretty good chance of being racist. The reality is that a small minority of cops being racist is not troubling; it is normal human variation.

 

Hate groups infiltrating law enforcement is horrifying. It's not enough to assume that it could be some kind of widespread trend. Oh and the code of silence is common among an array of professions. Most people don't want to be a whistleblower.

 

 

Why do you assume that? You know what they say about assumption...

Well, I sincerely do hope that assumption was wrong.

 

the overwhelming conservative leanings of police officers...

 

By the way, still waiting for you to acknowledge the DoJ report from Ferguson, a non-liberal city, mon sense.

 

P.S.

 

You really don't see the irony in supposing predominantly liberal cities produce liberally biased reports, but that predominantly conservative police departments don't produce conservatively biased conduct, do you? ...and you call everyone else here a pseudo-intellectual.

Firstly, just because I didn't address this doesn't mean I don't have an answer for it. I ignored the bulk of your post because you are a rude, petulant ignoramous who just last week equated defense as a form of gratitude to 'cocksucking'.

 

Secondly, I didn't care enough to call you out on the whole bit about the political affiliation of cops, but now that it's obvious you'll keep touting this unsubstantiated line of bullsh*t until you are, I want to see evidence of the 'overwhelming conservative leanings' of police officers. Make sure you include a citation of this in your response.

 

Third, Ferguson is part of greater St. Louis. Not sure if you're familiar with it or not, so I'll give you a bit of a background. St. Louis is one of the most liberal cities in the USA. It's also a violent sh*t hole that literally just last night had protests that brought out the riot police. It consistently tops the list of most violent cities in America. With Ferguson being a part of greater St. Louis, it's reasonable to conclude that it's not so different from the major metropolitan city it's next to.

 

Finally, you're here claiming that the sources the two aggresors cited were liberal, yet, Diablo himself said I was denying 'blatant, unbiased sources'. So which is it? I know that to people like you, liberal and unbiased are the same thing but the truth is they aren't. It's one or the other. Perhaps you and Diablo can hash it out and then get back with me.

 

 

Your last paragraph didn't even make sense. Try again?

 

Also I already said that the burden to prove most police aren't conservative is on you. It's a pretty widely and obviously observable consensus, not merely my own opinion. Now, if you're telling me that you simply don't believe anything with 100% verified empirical evidence on the matter, then I think it's just making it all the more obvious that you're grasping for straws. Not everything in life can be 100% verified, but can be pretty well accepted as fact by a preponderance of evidence. That preponderance leads to the overwhelming consensus that police officers are conservative. If you don't agree with that consensus, prove it wrong.

 

I'm glad you're giving your vocabulary a workout finding ways to insult me without resorting to vulgarity. In your mind does that actually make it any less petty? I don't really mind I just think it's funny, you have this really heightened opinion of yourself but it's justified by literally nothing, all the while you accuse others of being pseudo-intellectuals as you try to hide behind your sesquipedalian bullsh*t (see I can do it too).

 

Sorry I accused you of sucking off Trump, my vocabulary just isn't as broad enough as yours, I couldn't find a word for sycophant to call you. See that's close, but since you don't actually know Trump personally or stand to benefit at all from brown-nosing him so much, you don't quite fit that definition. Let me know how you want me to candy coat it, and I'll go with that, but "defending him", is just a little too euphemistic and omits a certain boot-licking flare you add to your "defense" of him. I figured you'd get the gist by me accusing you of sucking him off, I didn't mean to offend your delicate sensitivities. Sorry I'm not "PC" enough for you.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Saggy

[Spaghetti Cat]

 

 

 

...

 

If I may, to my Democrat friends and the non-violent left. Do you ever think that maybe you might be on the wrong side here? Backing or supporting these black-clad thugs and criminals? Protest and be against the KKK and Nazis all you want, hell I'm with you, but supporting anarchists who's first, last, and only tactic is open violence is just nuts!

 

I hope our politics haven't gone so far off the rails that supporting groups like antifa is a good idea.

 

Well I think that "support" is a pretty strong word. In my opinion, there's a lot of similarities between how both groups are feeling. Hardcore conservatives keep insisting they not be associated and grouped in with these "nationalist" and KKK/Neo-Nazi facsimiles, and seem to be in the same instance grouping up the Left with antifa and "violent" protesters.

 

...

 

Well...ahh...I could do this sivispacem-type quote train monstrosity and pick the whole damn thing apart. I'm not because this post is about clarity and not insults. So I hope you don't mind, but it's just a lazy argument. Someone with a different point of view can only be a Nazi klansman, there's no in-between?

 

Here's what I find funny, hardcore conservative. Think about that for a moment. Let's be clear here, I am a Constitutional Originalist, a conservative if you'd like. Free markets, individual liberty, limited government, and a supporter of free speech and freedom of religion. In what universe does that support the Nazis/neo-Nazis or the klan?

 

I'm going to break it down nice and easy, point one:

 

The KKK - I get a lot of sh*t when ever I say this, but here we go. The Klan was the violent political wing of the Democrat party. That's crazy you might say. Nope. The largest gathering of the Klan was in 1924. Where you might ask. Alabama? Mississippi? Texas? Not even, New York City. In support of the...wait for it...

 

...wait for it...

 

...the 1924 Democrat National Convention! Yes, it's true, these folks:

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention

 

With this sort of checkered past, why on earth would I support the Democrat party? Much less the Klan? The answer is a big fat negative.

 

 

Point two

 

Nazis/neo-Nazis - this falls flat on it's face. Say it with me, National Socialists. National. Socialists. As a liberty loving American I don't subscribe to socialism. Universal healthcare and confiscation of private firearms are straight out of 1930's Germany. That's not something I'm advocating.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, don't have my neo-nazi rolodex handy, but most of the groups there in Charlottesville were something like Workers Party this, and socialists movement that. A bunch of utopians, only difference is that they wanted it based on a certain race.

 

As someone who believes in individual liberty, I really don't care what your race or nationality is. If you're a patriotic American, that's good enough for me.

 

 

Point C

 

Timothy McVeigh - I don't get to use this very often. Laughable. So McVeigh blew up the federal building in retaliation for the FBI assault in Waco, Tx. Just the other day we went through how many posts where I repeated over and over again how violence to solve political issues is, ya know, bad-ish. Again, where in the world did you come up with the notion that I'd support McVeigh. Seriously, how do those two dots connect?

 

Dylan Roof? Omar Mateen? A punk kid who wanted to start another Civil War. An ISIS member who terrorized Orlando. This is just reaching.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Strike one two and three. This is why it's a lazy argument. Instead of having a confident point of view, and letting it shine, it's an excusal for violence. Tell everyone why free healthcare, or free college, or free whatever is the right thing to do. Why does it have to be..."and he's a nazi klansman so SHUT UP!" That just seems kinda...lazy.

 

It should be pretty easy. "Yeah, antifa sucks, they're a bunch of punks. The reason why we should do X is because..." And then let people decide. If there is a good argument to be made, people will listen. Whenever it boils down to accusations of racism it undercuts whatever discussion is to be had.

 

So, you know...

 

 

 

 

Now, one thing I'd like to comment on later is the in the weeds comment. I think this is actually the important point. Maybe not in the way you might think though. Barring any nuttiness I'll circle back around later.

[Saggy]

 

 

 

 

...

 

If I may, to my Democrat friends and the non-violent left. Do you ever think that maybe you might be on the wrong side here? Backing or supporting these black-clad thugs and criminals? Protest and be against the KKK and Nazis all you want, hell I'm with you, but supporting anarchists who's first, last, and only tactic is open violence is just nuts!

 

I hope our politics haven't gone so far off the rails that supporting groups like antifa is a good idea.

 

Well I think that "support" is a pretty strong word. In my opinion, there's a lot of similarities between how both groups are feeling. Hardcore conservatives keep insisting they not be associated and grouped in with these "nationalist" and KKK/Neo-Nazi facsimiles, and seem to be in the same instance grouping up the Left with antifa and "violent" protesters.

 

...

 

Well...ahh...I could do this sivispacem-type quote train monstrosity and pick the whole damn thing apart. I'm not because this post is about clarity and not insults. So I hope you don't mind, but it's just a lazy argument. Someone with a different point of view can only be a Nazi klansman, there's no in-between?

 

Here's what I find funny, hardcore conservative. Think about that for a moment. Let's be clear here, I am a Constitutional Originalist, a conservative if you'd like. Free markets, individual liberty, limited government, and a supporter of free speech and freedom of religion. In what universe does that support the Nazis/neo-Nazis or the klan?

 

I'm going to break it down nice and easy, point one:

 

The KKK - I get a lot of sh*t when ever I say this, but here we go. The Klan was the violent political wing of the Democrat party. That's crazy you might say. Nope. The largest gathering of the Klan was in 1924. Where you might ask. Alabama? Mississippi? Texas? Not even, New York City. In support of the...wait for it...

 

...wait for it...

 

...the 1924 Democrat National Convention! Yes, it's true, these folks:

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention

 

With this sort of checkered past, why on earth would I support the Democrat party? Much less the Klan? The answer is a big fat negative.

 

 

Point two

 

Nazis/neo-Nazis - this falls flat on it's face. Say it with me, National Socialists. National. Socialists. As a liberty loving American I don't subscribe to socialism. Universal healthcare and confiscation of private firearms are straight out of 1930's Germany. That's not something I'm advocating.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, don't have my neo-nazi rolodex handy, but most of the groups there in Charlottesville were something like Workers Party this, and socialists movement that. A bunch of utopians, only difference is that they wanted it based on a certain race.

 

As someone who believes in individual liberty, I really don't care what your race or nationality is. If you're a patriotic American, that's good enough for me.

 

 

Point C

 

Timothy McVeigh - I don't get to use this very often. Laughable. So McVeigh blew up the federal building in retaliation for the FBI assault in Waco, Tx. Just the other day we went through how many posts where I repeated over and over again how violence to solve political issues is, ya know, bad-ish. Again, where in the world did you come up with the notion that I'd support McVeigh. Seriously, how do those two dots connect?

 

Dylan Roof? Omar Mateen? A punk kid who wanted to start another Civil War. An ISIS member who terrorized Orlando. This is just reaching.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Strike one two and three. This is why it's a lazy argument. Instead of having a confident point of view, and letting it shine, it's an excusal for violence. Tell everyone why free healthcare, or free college, or free whatever is the right thing to do. Why does it have to be..."and he's a nazi klansman so SHUT UP!" That just seems kinda...lazy.

 

It should be pretty easy. "Yeah, antifa sucks, they're a bunch of punks. The reason why we should do X is because..." And then let people decide. If there is a good argument to be made, people will listen. Whenever it boils down to accusations of racism it undercuts whatever discussion is to be had.

 

So, you know...

 

 

 

 

Now, one thing I'd like to comment on later is the in the weeds comment. I think this is actually the important point. Maybe not in the way you might think though. Barring any nuttiness I'll circle back around later.

 

 

In your first paragraph you start off with a false conclusions of what I've said, so should I really comment on the rest of it? I don't know who is making this "argument" that you've framed as "anyone with an opposing view is Category A" but it's not by me so I'm not sure how you've misinterpreted and misconstrued that in order to respond.

 

But, the rest of your post, first of all the whole "Democrats in the KKK" thing... How many times does someone have to point out the history of the Democratic party to? It's very simple, pre Civil Rights era, the "Dixiecrats" were majorly Democratic leaders in the South who jumped ship to the Republican party at the beginning of the Civil Rights era. So all of those people who you're pointing to in that photo going, "See they're Democrats, they're KKK members," ditched the party in favor for the Republican party in the 50s and 60s.

 

Point two, again, you're operating on your faulty premise so I'm not going to respond.

 

Point C, Timothy McVeigh... You really need to re-read my post as you've misunderstood something along the line. The point of Timothy McVeigh is to challenge you to find one left-wing radical who has caused as much damage, and whose ideas and ideologies could even possibly lead to the same kind of event. If you don't know much about Timothy McVeigh, then go do some quick research and compare his ideologies with what a lot of these "white nationalists" are preaching. I mean you keep insisting that left wingers and liberals are truly the violent ones, why haven't they ever caused anything the like of Timothy McVeigh? He's like the worse case scenario of what could happen if someone goes radical and decides to commit violence to further their political views. Think of him as the standard benchmark for a 100% domestic terrorist, the pinnacle of what all this violent hysterics on either side can amount to.

 

I think what you're failing to grasp here is the casual relationship that exists between Conservatism and these radical hate groups, and inferring that I'm suggesting there's some kind of intrinsic relationship instead. It's kind of funny as I already acknowledged that Conservatives are angry about being found guilty-by-association, which you somehow twisted into me concerting the two were intrinsically related, so I don't think reiterating that is going to help. Maybe if I instead make my point as a question: If you took a picture of a modern day crowd of KKK members, how many do you think would identify as conservative?

 

Oh, and try to hammer into your head that Democrats of 1942 are basically the Republicans of now. You've consistently overlooked this when trying to paint the former Democratic party as racist. I'm not even sure what point you think it proves... Okay, so the KKK was the political radical group of the Democrats in 1942. Are you trying to tell me that the KKK isn't the predominant radical group of the Republicans today? Maybe you missed David Duke's endorsement of the Republican party.

 

 

Now, I'm sorry that the reality of the situation is that the Conservative party is synonymous with hatred and bigotry. You can throw in all that free market and liberty sh*t all you want, except that time and time again this country has seen Conservative ideals and rhetoric backing the politics of hate. Take a picture of some modern klansmen, and take a random sampling with how many identify as conservatives, and there's your problem clear as day. Is it my fault that your political institution has been corrupted and taken hostage by racists? No, but maybe if you spent less time in denial and trying to cast Democrats in the same light ( while failing to understand why it makes no sense historically ) you could actually spend more time distancing yourself from these people and making the Conservative party something that people don't associate with this negativity.

 

You also didn't ask me what I thought should be done about antifa. You just asked if I thought I was wrong for "siding with them" or if I was worried about appearing to be on their side. Again, on that premise, go re-read my post. I'm not at all concerned that any antifa member is going to turn into a Timothy McVeigh because they're breaking windows and pepper-spraying people. On the other hand, there's a lot of incidents recently that suggest the radical right is closer to going full-Timothy than the radical left is.

 

 

Now if you want to talk about what should be done about antifa? Better crowd control is needed, but unfortunately people seem to think that means more tear gas and crowd dispersal. Instead, if city organizers refused to issue permits to demonstrate in areas they can anticipate these kinds of problems it would be that much safer for everyone. Antifa can't break that many windows if you seclude the event to a park or warehouse district. Sequester it away from large traffic thoroughfares to avoid vehicular assaults ( including drive-by masing ).

 

The approach you favor is more problematic in my mind. You support the DoJ labeling them as a terrorist organization, meanwhile haven't even offered an explanation of how you're supposed to distinguish between antifa members and people just wearing black hoods and masks. Should it just be a crime to wear black hoods and masks and a protest, that seems awfully prohibitive, why should people not be allowed to protect their identity if they're espousing politics which are controversial and could then spill over and effect their personal lives?

 

Like, this guy sure learned his lesson...

 

http://nypost.com/2017/08/13/white-nationalists-are-being-ousted-on-twitter-and-one-lost-his-job/

[Fonz]

Point two

 

 

Nazis/neo-Nazis - this falls flat on it's face. Say it with me, National Socialists. National. Socialists. As a liberty loving American I don't subscribe to socialism. Universal healthcare and confiscation of private firearms are straight out of 1930's Germany. That's not something I'm advocating.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, don't have my neo-nazi rolodex handy, but most of the groups there in Charlottesville were something like Workers Party this, and socialists movement that. A bunch of utopians, only difference is that they wanted it based on a certain race.

 

As someone who believes in individual liberty, I really don't care what your race or nationality is. If you're a patriotic American, that's good enough for me.

I thought this meme was dead by now, but there we go.

First of all, the name "National Socialist" was put in place to compete for a working class voter base with the Communist Party in the Weimar Republic. Secondly, every so-called nationalist socialist (a contradiction in terms) within the NSDAP was purged early on in the very famous Night of the Long Knives. Thirdly, healthcare and confiscation of private arms have nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is not a set of policies to be implemented and social democracy is not socialism--in fact, Germany is relevant here, since the social democrats actively collaborated with the Freikorps to seek out and kill several communists, very famous ones like Liebknecht or Rosa Luxemburg. Actually, the economic program of Nazi Germany involved large-scale privatization of industry and active collaboration with several multinational enterprises like Ford. Communists are also not in favor of the confiscation of firearms. Doesn't it sound a bit contradictory to advocate armed revolution while simultaneously wanting the state to disarm the working class? Everyone in the communist movement was in favor of an armed, militant working class, with Friedrich Engels himself having taken up arms in the 1848 revolutions and being a military expert (nicknamed The General).

 

Lastly, healthcare and the modern welfare state in general actually comes from Germany but in the 1870s-1880s; it was put in place after the passing of the Anti-Socialist Laws, in order to both sabotage the socialist party and pacify working class militancy. This beacon of 'socialist' thought was implemented by Otto von Bismarck, noted revolutionary communist(?). So there's more to unpack than just saying the Nazis called themselves socialists. Was the Holy Roman Empire actually holy? It's right there in the name...

[El Dildo]

Nazis/neo-Nazis - this falls flat on it's face. Say it with me, National Socialists. National. Socialists. As a liberty loving American I don't subscribe to socialism. Universal healthcare and confiscation of private firearms are straight out of 1930's Germany.

if you walked into a college history class and started spouting this nonsense you'd be laughed out of the room. you are comically misinformed. you wouldn't know what Socialism is if it sat on your nose and sh/t into your nostrils.

 

as a "liberty loving American" you subscribe to countless socialized programs that you don't even realize. Socialism is not a derogatory synonym for 1930's Germany. talk about fake f/cking news. you've proven once again how little you actually understand about the topic being debated.

[sivispacem]

National Socialism is about as "Socialist" as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is "Democratic". If a core tenet of your argument is "well Nazism has socialist in the name so it's wrong to equate it with the political right", you might want to try cultivating a better argument.

[Eutyphro]

What he is arguing for is what Friedrich Hayek argues for in 'The Road to Serfdom'. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with it. I don't completely agree with the idea that the far left is like the far right. But the argument isn't without any historical merit, and can't be thrown in the bin as easily and as arrogantly as some of you do.

 

Secondly, every so-called nationalist socialist (a contradiction in terms) within the NSDAP was purged early on in the very famous Night of the Long Knives.

You can't argue that National Socialism was not in any way socialist, and then argue the socialist element was 'purged'. That's contradictory.

Socialism is not a set of policies to be implemented and social democracy is not socialism

Social democracy isn't purified communism. But it is still on the left, and colloquially socialist. But you are right that a non socialist government can enforce social democratic measures, which happens regularly, and it doesn't make them socialist or on the left.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Fonz]

 

You can't argue that National Socialism was not in any way socialist, and then argue the socialist element was 'purged'. That's contradictory.

 

I didn't argue there was an actual socialist element that was purged, just that the self-identified 'socialists' within the party--the Strasserist faction--were purged. The reason I stuck that "so-called" in there was to imply that they were not in any way socialist regardless of what they called themselves. They were basically ethnic nationalists who supported a form of social corporatism.

 

Social democracy isn't purified communism. But it is still on the left, and colloquially socialist. But you are right that a non socialist government can enforce social democratic measures, which happens regularly, and it doesn't make them socialist or on the left.

I don't have an issue with calling it left-wing as in the left wing of capital or left-liberalism. The thing is, it's not helpful to conflate social democracy with socialism, because there is a very clear historical demarcation between the two and because the notion of a socialism distinguished from communism (especially in terms of stages or phases) is a piece of Stalinoid apologia that's meant to obfuscate the nature of the communist movement. In general, misuse of terms like liberalism, socialism or fascism tends to distort the specific content of those things, which makes discussing them with rigour much more difficult.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Fonz

[Chiarii]

"well Nazism has socialist in the name so it's wrong to equate it with the political right", you might want to try cultivating a better argument.

 

Were nazis proponets of capitalism? Genuine curiosity here.

 

Economic axis is really the arbiter of where something falls on the political spectrum.

 

 

 

Nazis/neo-Nazis - this falls flat on it's face. Say it with me, National Socialists. National. Socialists. As a liberty loving American I don't subscribe to socialism. Universal healthcare and confiscation of private firearms are straight out of 1930's Germany.

if you walked into a college history class and started spouting this nonsense you'd be laughed out of the room. you are comically misinformed. you wouldn't know what Socialism is if it sat on your nose and sh/t into your nostrils.

 

as a "liberty loving American" you subscribe to countless socialized programs that you don't even realize. Socialism is not a derogatory synonym for 1930's Germany. talk about fake f/cking news. you've proven once again how little you actually understand about the topic being debated.

 

 

Classy as always. Socialist programs like Medicare and Social Security?Yeahh, they're going away within your lifetime. Public schools, welfare, SNAP, DARS, and the rest of the entitlements/taxpayer funded handouts need to disappear too.

Omar Mateen?

 

A man so conservative that he literally registered as a democrat.

[Dr. Robotnik]

Now, this might be getting out a little into the weeds here, but frankly if we're going to allow and promote state-sanctioned violence to disrupt protests and give little care when those tasked to enforce and dole it out go overboard

 

 

What qualifies as going overboard to you?