That is certainly a definition of Beastmode. Some real life GoT shit. How do you say Go Yellow Jackets in French?
Go Yellow Jackets????
How fucking dumb of a statement is that.
After my last argument with Loco on the topic, I read about the yellow jacket's origin. They were mostly people that have been fed up with the status quo for years, which is understandable. It also explains why that type of a movement progressed into a complete farce with ridiculous demands led by people that are either clueless or have different agenda. At this point the "yellow jackets" that go protest are mostly "hitchhikers" of the movement that go out for the violence.
That police should've beaten the shit out of that guy. There are not many countries that would treat the situation this way, and I'd say France's government has been doing everything in their power to handle it as peacefully as possible. It has been going for months, the violence is completely unjustified. Five hundred kilometers more to the East and those people would've been sprayed with water, gassed or beaten the shit out of.
I would not be surprised if Russia has a deep hand in the whole thing
And the actually funny part of the whole shit is that Macron was trying to fix the country for them. Except now he s just going to be just another reactive(rather than proactive) president of France that's not gonna do shit.
P.S. inbefore someone posts a dumb gif with police brutality, no fucking shit there are rotten apple in the police as well, there are ways to deal with such kind of policemen
On February 13 2019 04:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
that's just stupid baal
what is?
On February 13 2019 16:40 Loco wrote:
FYP. By the way, Baal is very opposed to being called a fascist enabler, but look at how fast he laps that racist shit up.
unvelibable, it went right through your head didn't it?
Yo are the one enabling this, that has always been my point, you sanctioned initiating violence against political opponents, you punch nazis, nazis punch migrants, this guy punches muslims, muslims punch jews etc. and every single group strongly believe that their fist is the righteous one.
On February 13 2019 18:33 NMcNasty wrote:
Seemingly basic moral question to anyone:
Say you're pretty sure that a leader of a foreign nation has murdered someone, a civilian. The leader didn't necessarily do the deed themselves but the evidence is pretty damning that they at least ordered it. You can't be 100% sure, but its looking bad, say 97%.
Do you still:
1. Shake hands with that leader
2. Trade with that leader's nation
3. provide military assistance to that leader/nation (which is most likely mutually beneficial)
4. allow your country to complete in the Olympics when that leader hosts
side questions:
5. Does it matter what type of civilian it is (journalist, prostitute, religious leader)
6. Does it matter where that civilian is actually from
-------------
The more I think about it the more I feel like the answer to all six question is no, even though the status quo answer to all six questions seems to be yes. The trickiest one I think is 2 going back to the argument Baal and Loco were having about sanctions essentially causing starvation. If you refuse to trade, there should at least be some sort of secondary plan to ensure an inflow of food/medicine to a country that needs it.
There is a massive difference between systematially killing directly or indirectly thousands or millions than killing a single man, if you didn't trade with a leaders who kill 1 man you probably would stop trade with more than half of the world and almost every single third world country,
Taking a ridiculous purist stance when dealing with heads of state would only create much more harm, that is why it is approached pragmatically.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Feb 14 2019 15:39. Posts 2233
On February 13 2019 08:51 Santafairy wrote:
wow so you're arguing he ended a tensely heated arms race and led to the dissolution of a close to century old communist regime for fundamentally economically motivated reasons
yeah there would be no similarity there to what we're talking about with north korea, of course, my mistake.
See you're doing it again, and its getting tiresome. You claim Gorbachev and KJU are in the 'same situation', I point out that the situation isn't remotely similar since the governments are in reality completely different (North Korea is essentially a monarchy while the soviet Union was an actual communist state (if corrupt)), instead of countering the point that ruins your argument you just get angry that I'm stating the obvious.
you're right KJU does NOT want a stronger economy for his country. that's why his best friend is the US. for having created so many economic sanctions to help the DPRK not have economic prosperity. the biggest favor they could do
both leaders of totalitarian systems with failing economies in their latter days, both desperate to talk to the outside and specifically counterparts. to my mind the DPRK is not particularly less communist than other revolutionary states, although the fact that they have no money at all might make it hard to say definitively. at any rate, your observation that the DPRK is a monarchy (which is true, heredity differentiates the DPRK and USSR) wouldn't prove your point of excluding communism since a monarchy isn't an economic system
this is the typical black and white thinker like I said earlier, no capacity for nuance, and you habitually conflate any comparison as being an equivalency. and that makes analyzing the world and history pretty easy, because no two things are ever equivalent.
i'm not angry you're stating the obvious but i hope somewhere you have the ability to do more than that
I'm guessing with Gorbachev you're only thinking about the results
Well the fact that Gorbachev actually brought results and provided relief for his people (temporarily at least) and that KJU hasn't at all done so is pretty important. But even if take your previous statements as charitably as possible and assume you merely meant that KJU *could be* the next Gorbachev (as in if he would completely change his motives, personality, and discover the concept of morality), its still basically too late because KJU has already straight up murdered people.
you have this meme conception of gorbachev as soviet jesus and keep trying to strawman me into this position of saying the two men are personally identical and it's not going anywhere
here's a situation for you: KJU announces democracy 1 year into his reign, hardliners loyal to his father from the army kill him, take his place, and to alleviate food demand that they can't meet because you underestimate how hard anything would be to run in a state as precarious as the DPRK, execute everyone in camps. or alternatively they also execute another 100k suspected sympathizers just for the hell of it and to cement new order. or alternatively oops that backfired, and now half the army mutineed because they don't like massacring civilians and there's a civil war. but at least we could say KJU did the right thing.
That is 'a situation', but certainly not likely as *if* KJU legitimately converts his country to democracy (allows election monitoring), frees the slaves, and dismantles his nuclear arsenal he would have the full support (military and otherwise) of basically the rest of the world. Also, when free speech is brutally oppressed, its difficult to tell who is actually 'hardline' in the sense that they are pro-totalitarian regimes and those trying to fight against it. From the outside it seems as if Kim has complete control of his government ideologically. Its completely unlike the Soviet Union where the hardliners were a very real and public threat.
from the outside it seems as if a human being has no internal organs unless you manage to read a book
Do you think he purges people, like people loyal to his father, because there was no threat? Do you think he killed his brother because that's how he gets his rocks off or because of the uncertainty it placed on his own power and life?
you and the North Korean people probably agree on one thing, that he gets his power from the sky or from heaven. you have no idea how power is cultivated or maintained or how someone would have to operate in that system. this is why I tried to explain to you before. even if the archetypal democratic saint or whoever you want, could magically become leader of the DPRK, there are internal and external pressures that you'd have to satisfy just to even survive. it's not a video game where it's just programmed so you can do whatever you want with no consequences, it's the real world. the most ideal hypothetical person couldn't achieve whatever your requirements are. my advice is you don't set your expectations above reality and accept that talking is necessary. encouraging success and partnership is necessary. it's been like 10 years since the last summit and this is an opportunity, not a failure or sign of weakness.
"Sanctions and wait" has never worked. Cuba, Iraq, Iran, DPRK. Has it? Ever? Your naivete is at least refreshing. Election monitoring, you should be posting in the ROFL thread. "Hey China, thanks for the coal and being our only energy lifeline during these difficult times. By the way you now have a democracy on your border, congratulations." What does that mean military support of the rest of the world? You think he could declare a democratic constitution, and after everyone turns on him, he can go back and say, you know for generation after generation we've been teaching you that the US is your mortal enemy, but now they're going to help me defeat the Korean People's Army, which is the real enemy. Congratulations, you just started a war. Speaking of which, whose hands did the nukes fall into? How did the military just casually dismantle them. Oh right, this is in fantasyland. And do you think China wouldn't just land grab instantly? Military support. For a civil war of a nuclear power, next to a nuclear superpower. And did you ask the ROK if they were on board with this military support, because it's the ROK's million footsoldiers that are going to have to clean that up. Why am I bothering. What the fuck are you even talking about? What would he need military support for if he was essentially abdicating? You mean he would have the full commitment of the civilized world to occupy his country while sending him to the Hague. Wow what a deal. I wonder why he hasn't snapped at that offer and reformed yet.
Negotiation and force are the only things that have ever worked. That requires talking. Not just sanctions, sit on your hands, and wait for the evil other side to read your mind and unilaterally do everything exactly to turn their country into the perfect harmless demilitarized democratic vassal state of the US, which by the way the leader of the country can never do, for other reasons, and keep his power or life usually. And which, by the way, the US government doesn't care about to begin with. You and I care about genocide, we care about liberty, we care about democracy, we care about these things per se. Governments usually don't, without good reason. And if the good guys don't care that much you're setting yourself up for disappointment to expect the bad ones to spontaneously care.
As for the nuclear arsenal, it belongs to a unified Korea and isn't going anywhere
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
1
NMcNasty United States. Feb 14 2019 17:16. Posts 2039
On February 14 2019 14:39 Santafairy wrote:
your observation that the DPRK is a monarchy (which is true, heredity differentiates the DPRK and USSR) wouldn't prove your point of excluding communism since a monarchy isn't an economic system
A monarchy is mutually exclusive with communism. In a true communist state private property is abolished, everything is publicly owned. In a monarchy vast quantities of wealth are privately owned. Its a completely different system, and central to the argument here because you're imagining a state apparatus keeping Kim in check when there is none. Kim effectively is the state.
But you knew that already right? I'm just being super obvious? Need to discover nuance and read a book i guess?
Do you think he purges people, like people loyal to his father, because there was no threat? Do you think he killed his brother because that's how he gets his rocks off or because of the uncertainty it placed on his own power and life?
You're going in authoritarian logic circles again. You're using the fact that Kim murdered people as evidence of a threat against him, and therefore justify his murdering. We don't have public statements to show that Kim's victims were even ideologically opposed to him let alone plotting something. I'm happy you've conceded that North Korea is effectively a monarchy, then you should know that kings and queens will eliminate competition due to mere blood relation.
you and the North Korean people probably agree on one thing, that he gets his power from the sky or from heaven. you have no idea how power is cultivated or maintained or how someone would have to operate in that system. this is why I tried to explain to you before. even if the archetypal democratic saint or whoever you want, could magically become leader of the DPRK, there are internal and external pressures that you'd have to satisfy just to even survive.
And if it hasn't been clear to you already let me just it plainly: I am not taking that for granted, neither that there actually is formidable opposition to Kim nor that purges would be the only way to handle it if there was. When bodies start to show up and no one has any real evidence why, due to the lack of ability to investigate the story, I leave it at that, I'm not jumping into tin foil hat conspiracy mode.
encouraging success and partnership is necessary. it's been like 10 years since the last summit and this is an opportunity, not a failure or sign of weakness.
The concern is that its a missed opportunity, because two of the main parties involved don't take the situation remotely seriously. Maybe what appears to be a mouth-breathing, dumb, immature tweet, actually is a mouth-breathing, dumb, and immature tweet, and not 4dimensional geopolitical chess. The concern, is that Kim's opening up to the west is just a sham in order further enrich himself and tighten the stranglehold on his people. When he so blatantly reneges on his summit pledges it increasingly becomes obvious that that is the case.
Last edit: 14/02/2019 17:16
1
NMcNasty United States. Feb 14 2019 17:22. Posts 2039
On February 14 2019 06:23 Baalim wrote:
There is a massive difference between systematially killing directly or indirectly thousands or millions than killing a single man
Well, yeah, of course one is worst than the other, but I started at a single civilian, because I really don't think there's an acceptable number. If not one, at what point do you take action? 12? 300? 7000?
if you didn't trade with a leaders who kill 1 man you probably would stop trade with more than half of the world and almost every single third world country,
And that's true. The idea is that maybe we've been way too lax, and have let the world become so fucked up to actually reach that point.
On February 13 2019 04:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
that's just stupid baal
what is?
On February 13 2019 16:40 Loco wrote:
FYP. By the way, Baal is very opposed to being called a fascist enabler, but look at how fast he laps that racist shit up.
unvelibable, it went right through your head didn't it?
Yo are the one enabling this, that has always been my point, you sanctioned initiating violence against political opponents, you punch nazis, nazis punch migrants, this guy punches muslims, muslims punch jews etc. and every single group strongly believe that their fist is the righteous one.
Unlike you I have paid attention to history and to the speech and the acts of open Nazis. I am fully aware that they do not need "permission" in the form of previously enacted violence against them in order to be violent against non-whites (or to mistreat women). The raison d'être of Nazism is to be violent, to be counter-nature by repressing its diversity through force. You imply that it is possible to be a peaceful Nazi, that we should just leave them alone and they aren't going to violent, that they are in fact just reacting to violence done against them. Interestingly you don't make an argument to defend this conclusion, you simply present it as self-evident. Why don't you take this opportunity to actually make an argument? I know what your opinion and your conclusion is, but you never make a proper argument. State your premises and show how they lead to your conclusion?
You're obviously making a false equivalence fallacy here, which is one of the easiest fallacies to avoid making, yet you say my argumentation has become weak? It can't be worse than yours. Yes, a false equivalency fallacy like this enables fascism. Nazis are not "political opponents". Nazism isn't valid politics. Punching Richard Spencer isn't the same thing as punching a random Muslim in Finland, for obvious reasons; and if someone thinks that it is, or that there are "more worthy recipients of violence", you don't get to blame it on "violence breeds violence," let alone blame it on my making a case on an internet forum that it is seemingly effective to make Nazis feel unsafe due to threats of violence (which I am 100% open to be proven wrong about). As I previously argued, violence is always present in all of politics, including yours, as I have clearly exposed in the past including these past few pages, so the whole argument is a non-starter. No one who is alive and intends on staying alive can claim to be above violence. You always have to look at the fine detail--is violent and for what reason(s)--something you spectacularly fail at, as with most things because you don't bother to analyze things carefully and pay attention to a causal chain; like Stefan Molyneux you always go back to first principles in order to justify things.
Let's not forget the time where you posted an actual Neo-Nazi's tweet unknowingly and made his "free speech" case for him -- you know, the case where he was worried he and his fascist peers wouldn't be able to recruit as easily on Reddit due their new anti-hate algorithms. You'll probably predictably avoid dealing with this and simply restate that your concerns are over the "ideologues" creating the algorithmns, and how "easily it can be used to restrict any form of speech they don't like". But the thing is, even if we were to grant this to be true, rather than a slippery slope fallacy, the outcome is still that you would still be enabling fascists. These two things are not mutually exclusive. So that means that, if you were fully honest, you would say "I am fine enabling fascism, because (a) "those who repress them are worse threats" and/or (b) "repression will only make them grow more". That would not only be more honest, but it would also open up a possible discussion on what empirical evidence there is to bolster your argument. The thing is, you don't want that. Why? First because you are lazy, and you want to "own the libs" with as little effort as possible. Secondly, because empiricism does not jive well with (archaic) first principles. One is about re-evaluating your beliefs based on the evidence for them, the other is about holding steadfastly to "foundational" beliefs (which are self-serving).
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
That is certainly a definition of Beastmode. Some real life GoT shit. How do you say Go Yellow Jackets in French?
Go Yellow Jackets????
How fucking dumb of a statement is that.
After my last argument with Loco on the topic, I read about the yellow jacket's origin. They were mostly people that have been fed up with the status quo for years, which is understandable. It also explains why that type of a movement progressed into a complete farce with ridiculous demands led by people that are either clueless or have different agenda. At this point the "yellow jackets" that go protest are mostly "hitchhikers" of the movement that go out for the violence.
That police should've beaten the shit out of that guy. There are not many countries that would treat the situation this way, and I'd say France's government has been doing everything in their power to handle it as peacefully as possible. It has been going for months, the violence is completely unjustified. Five hundred kilometers more to the East and those people would've been sprayed with water, gassed or beaten the shit out of.
I would not be surprised if Russia has a deep hand in the whole thing
And the actually funny part of the whole shit is that Macron was trying to fix the country for them. Except now he s just going to be just another reactive(rather than proactive) president of France that's not gonna do shit.
P.S. inbefore someone posts a dumb gif with police brutality, no fucking shit there are rotten apple in the police as well, there are ways to deal with such kind of policemen
You've "read more" to confirm your biases... your stance hasn't changed in the slightest. Macron had the best interest of the people, lol, you're like a full-blown neoliberal at this point... you remind me of Howard Schultz running for president and saying that the worst problem in the US currently is the national debt. Clearly you haven't read much about the actual problems that these people have with their government. The "hitchhikers" argument is demonstrably false. The polls still show that there is a popular support (slightly more than 50%) for the movement to continue. It's also ridiculous on its face... there have been virtually no police officers who were severely injured during the protests, but there are 150+ citizens who have been mutilated.
I've already said this but you don't seem to understand how much of a risk there is to be mutilated/disfigured for life by going to one of these protests, and there's been a dozen deaths already. You don't seem to understand that humans have an instinct of self-preservation, that people won't take those risks without a very strong motivation. A movement of violence for the sake of violence just doesn't fit the script at all. There are occasions for people to be violent in countless numbers of ways every day, they don't need to risk an eye or losing a limb if they just want to be violent. The repression against the movement by the police force has been absolutely massive and it has been denounced by Amnesty International, and you think that because you saw a gif of a boxer punching a police officer (in response to the officers first being violent, which you didn't see) you think this representative of what's happening. Sigh.
People are sprayed with water all the time. A few days ago I saw one guy who was sprayed and he hit the pavement hard and he looked unconscious. A group of Yellow Jackets worried about him approached to try to help him, and they sprayed the whole group to prevent them from helping. And it wasn't even a chaotic spot of the protest, people were just standing there. I've linked to people losing hands. One police officer with your rhetoric said yesterday that "it's well deserved" to lose a hand. Is that what you think too? The guy who punched the cop in the .gif has been sentenced to one year in prison by the way. He also has to pay a total of €5,000 for the two police officers he hit.You can rejoice, unless you feel like "justice" would have been better served if he had been beaten to a pulp? This is what he said:
“I see police hitting the yellow vests protesters with truncheons – I don’t understand. I see a woman on the ground, someone kicks her and raises a truncheon and that’s when I threw myself at the policeman and hit him”
Get out of your filter bubble and look at what the last protests were actually like. You can see them in a bunch of different cities on February 9th if you look a this Twitter thread. There's nearly dozen different marches with people peacefully protesting. Even a group of bikers.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On February 14 2019 17:14 Loco wrote:
there have been virtually no police officers who were severely injured during the protests, but there are 150+ citizens who have been mutilated.
1700 people vs 1000 policemen injured, obviously, the injuries of normal people would be higher as they dont wear protective gear
Those figures are probably off though and the normal people's number s probably a bit higher, but not sustaining heavy injuries
Also no a movement of violence, for the sake of violence indeed makes no sense. What makes sense is foreign financial aid for leaders that manipulate idiots to cause destabilization in one of the strongest European nations.
On February 14 2019 06:23 Baalim wrote:
There is a massive difference between systematially killing directly or indirectly thousands or millions than killing a single man
Well, yeah, of course one is worst than the other, but I started at a single civilian, because I really don't think there's an acceptable number. If not one, at what point do you take action? 12? 300? 7000?
if you didn't trade with a leaders who kill 1 man you probably would stop trade with more than half of the world and almost every single third world country,
And that's true. The idea is that maybe we've been way too lax, and have let the world become so fucked up to actually reach that point.
Dogmatic purity can be very seductive but it certainly isn't effective, human progess is better archieved through pragmatical and slow evolution, trying to just set a very high and rigid bar simply won't work
Unlike you I have paid attention to history and to the speech and the acts of Islam. I am fully aware that they do not need "permission" in the form of previously enacted violence against them in order to be violent against kafirs. You imply that it is possible to be a peaceful Jihadist, that we should just leave them alone and they aren't going to violent, that they are in fact just reacting to violence done against them.
Funny how just changing the group you are making the same arguments some racist make.
Yes, a false equivalency fallacy like this enables fascism. Nazis are not "political opponents". Nazism isn't valid politics.
Not false equivalency, communist can be easily argued to also be not valid politics.
Punching Richard Spencer isn't the same thing as punching a random Muslim in Finland, for obvious reasons
Not, but it is the equivalent of punching Slavoj Zizek
No one who is alive and intends on staying alive can claim to be above violence.
fuck pacifism, why just punch nazis? lets hang them and stop them from commiting more violence right?
like Stefan Molyneux you always go back to first principles in order to justify things.
Says the man who rules his politics by two principles.. one of them "stick for the little guy" lol
Let's not forget the time where you posted an actual Neo-Nazi's tweet unknowingly and made his "free speech" case for him[/b] -- you know, the case where he was worried he and his fascist peers wouldn't be able to recruit as easily on Reddit due their new anti-hate algorithms. You'll probably predictably avoid dealing with this and simply restate that your concerns are over the "ideologues" creating the algorithmns, and how "easily it can be used to restrict any form of speech they don't like". But the thing is, even if we were to grant this to be true, rather than a slippery slope fallacy, the outcome is still that you would still be enabling fascists.
I will support the freedom of speech of every fascist, I will support the freedom of speech of every communist, every jihadist, zionist, anarchist, flat earther or and everybody else.
You dont call me a Jihadist enabler because you have narrowed your world into a false dichotomy where anybody who isn't your ally is at the very least your enemy's enabler.
These two things are not mutually exclusive. So that means that, if you were fully honest, you would say "I am fine enabling fascism, because (a) "those who repress them are worse threats" and/or (b) "repression will only make them grow more".
I think I've already said 10 times that I would rather not have people spreading bad ideas like Nazis or Jihadism, but having anybody dictating what is and what isn't a good idea is a far more dangerous prospect than any idea in itself.
Secondly, because empiricism does not jive well with (archaic) first principles. One is about re-evaluating your beliefs based on the evidence for them, the other is about holding steadfastly to "foundational" beliefs (which are self-serving).
A communist talking about following empirical evidence and not following foundational beliefs... I-R-O-N-I-C.
(I will stop calling you communist when you stop calling me neoliberal)
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 15/02/2019 04:21
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Feb 15 2019 06:44. Posts 3096
On February 13 2019 04:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
that's just stupid baal
what is?
On February 13 2019 16:40 Loco wrote:
FYP. By the way, Baal is very opposed to being called a fascist enabler, but look at how fast he laps that racist shit up.
unvelibable, it went right through your head didn't it?
Yo are the one enabling this, that has always been my point, you sanctioned initiating violence against political opponents, you punch nazis, nazis punch migrants, this guy punches muslims, muslims punch jews etc. and every single group strongly believe that their fist is the righteous one.
accepting the equivalence between nazis and muslims. I know muslims who eat pork, who basically don't believe in any of the abhorrent stuff some/many muslims believe in. But there are literally 0 'moderate' or 'sensible' nazis.
On February 13 2019 04:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
that's just stupid baal
what is?
On February 13 2019 16:40 Loco wrote:
FYP. By the way, Baal is very opposed to being called a fascist enabler, but look at how fast he laps that racist shit up.
unvelibable, it went right through your head didn't it?
Yo are the one enabling this, that has always been my point, you sanctioned initiating violence against political opponents, you punch nazis, nazis punch migrants, this guy punches muslims, muslims punch jews etc. and every single group strongly believe that their fist is the righteous one.
accepting the equivalence between nazis and muslims. I know muslims who eat pork, who basically don't believe in any of the abhorrent stuff some/many muslims believe in. But there are literally 0 'moderate' or 'sensible' nazis.
Do punch jihadis is an acceptable equivalence then? there are 0 moderate or sensible jihadis right?.
Try to take a guess what happens when you sanction punching Jihadis... yeah rednecks judging who is a jihadi and punching random muslims.
And that is the reason why you dont advocate for the initiation of violence between groups, Loco says that I haven't provided evidence when a guy literally just took your "punch nazis" rethoric directing it to muslims and instead of acknowleding the poetic proof that fell out of the sky on your asses you go on about "its a false equivalency because Nazis are the real baddies, not jihadis. Everybody thinks their ideological enemies are the true baddies.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 15/02/2019 10:03
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Feb 15 2019 14:56. Posts 3096
I don't advocate punching nazis, just to be clear. I think the idea that violence begets violence holds true even if it's violence towards a group I 'hate', and I think engaging in violence perpetuates a violent cycle. I do think violence can be defended from a self-preservation (or preservation of other, weaker groups) perspective, but there's nothing indicating that actual nazis, today, are a big and significant enough group that violence is the only way to combat them. But I mean, if you're looking for a group of people to punch, then yeah, jihadists are prolly as close to an acceptable group as nazis as you can find. Those groups actually are equivalents to a large degree (also in terms of what type of people they attract). Communists, or muslims at large, don't fit at all.
It's kinda like nazis are to 'groups somewhat skeptical towards increased immigration' what 'jihadists' are to 'muslims'.
On February 14 2019 17:14 Loco wrote:
there have been virtually no police officers who were severely injured during the protests, but there are 150+ citizens who have been mutilated.
1700 people vs 1000 policemen injured, obviously, the injuries of normal people would be higher as they dont wear protective gear
Those figures are probably off though and the normal people's number s probably a bit higher, but not sustaining heavy injuries
You do know what the word "virtually" means, right? It means hardly any. It doesn't mean none. I also said "severely" injured. But you stopped reading huh.
The website you linked says that it is reporting government statistics. These are probably not the best statistics because, you know, there is this thing called a conflict of interests here. ZINEB REDOUANE is a 80 y.o. woman who is said to have died from a tear gas grenade. Before she died in the hospital she said she saw two police officers and that they shot in her direction with a grenade launcher as she was closing her windows. Your website says no deaths can be attributed to police. But even according to your website, the ratio of "losing an eye" is 1:15 cop to citizen, which still proves my point. But probably zero of these cops have been disfigured by their own weapons, which are by far the most dangerous things present in those protests, while hundreds of protesters have been.
Also no a movement of violence, for the sake of violence indeed makes no sense. What makes sense is foreign financial aid for leaders that manipulate idiots to cause destabilization in one of the strongest European nations
Or you know, listening to the people who are protesting, regular people of all ages, who explain how they can't pay their bills with their salary... and paying attention to the fact that this movement is usually peaceful and has popular support ... maybe that makes more sense than a Russian conspiracy. What do I know though.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On February 15 2019 13:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't advocate punching nazis, just to be clear. I think the idea that violence begets violence holds true even if it's violence towards a group I 'hate', and I think engaging in violence perpetuates a violent cycle. I do think violence can be defended from a self-preservation (or preservation of other, weaker groups) perspective, but there's nothing indicating that actual nazis, today, are a big and significant enough group that violence is the only way to combat them.
Sorry but this is rubbish. You're just playing into a popular false narrative. No serious antifascist argues that physical violence is the best way to combat them. Combined with other tactics centered around outing them and making their lives difficult, it is the threat of violence that antifa uses successfully, just like the state does in order to repress criminal activity. This is really crucial to understand. You don't need to be violent very often in order to be considered a threat, just like you don't need to be bluffing all the time in poker in order to get into someone's head after you've shown one particularly good bluff. Even if you might see people "advocating punching Nazis", this is a tactic, it is not a command. Antifa says "we won't play by the rules that we know you (fascists) won't play either as soon as you get the opportunity; you'll never get to feel safe spouting fascist shit in public". And according to Neo-Nazis, like Spencer himself, it is this threat of not playing by the rules of a liberal society that discourages Nazi activity the most. I'm not going to keep making this case over and over again, because no one is bothering to engage with it and if you choose to not pay attention I can't do anything about it. There are arguments to be made against it, but I'm not hearing them here.
On this very topic, this came out today. Worth a listen.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On February 15 2019 07:04 Baalim wrote:
Try to take a guess what happens when you sanction punching Jihadis... yeah rednecks judging who is a jihadi and punching random muslims.
A red herring fallacy. You are now arguing that people can take actions based on wrong/incomplete information instead of dealing with the original bad argument you made, which was based on a straw man. You initially asked me if I condemned the punching of Richard Spencer. I said my opinion doesn't matter, because it was clearly effective if we look at the evidence. The most important thing to realize from this is that Richard Spencer isn't the average Nazi. He has been one of the most influential figures in radicalizing people to the far-right. But he's scared of antifa now. My point was meant to point this out, but you absolutely refuse to deal with it, instead you insist on distorting my arguments and making it sound like I encourage people punching Nazis indiscriminately. It's very dishonest.
Loco says that I haven't provided evidence when a guy literally just took your "punch nazis" rethoric directing it to muslims
You still haven't provided any evidence that these things are equivalent, instead you've tried to make an indirect case through a mindless troll which is far from credible. You're also making a false cause fallacy: the guy didn't "take my rhetoric" and "do something with it" that proves your initial point. First it wasn't rhetoric, my points are made by highly respected philosophers and historians who believe in the paradox of tolerance. Secondly, I didn't cause the racist beliefs that followed my post (he used a bs statistic that exposed him), nor did he move from belief to violence. I affected his stance/actions towards Muslims in no way.
It's like if you said that you were against the state on this forum, and that in order to abolish it by all evidence you would need to use some force, and some guy who posted in the same thread said he thinks a good way to go about it is to go bomb government buildings indiscriminately, and I said, "Wow, look at this guy who used your anti-state rhetoric, this is what being against the state leads to." I would have no reason to use that person's distortion of your beliefs against you. You can do far better than resorting to this.
I think I've already said 10 times that I would rather not have people spreading bad ideas like Nazis or Jihadism, but having anybody dictating what is and what isn't a good idea is a far more dangerous prospect than any idea in itself.
Right, you have. So instead of repeating the same one sentence talking point that we have heard ad nauseam, you could post evidence for why people who don't think your conclusion is self-evident should believe it. Or you could present it as a deductive argument so that we could see whether it is valid or not. Basically, anything is more productive than just repeating it as if it were self-evident and then believing that the people who don't agree with you are just less intelligent than you. Repeating the same claim over and over again until people believe you is a well-known tool of propaganda, it doesn't belong in a rational discussion where we investigate the pros and cons of something. If the issues around different views on free speech and speech restrictions had been "solved", we could find out by going to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, where it would say that people like you who have listened to Christopher Hitchens have solved the problem and there is nothing more to say, but that's not what we find when we go there, do we?
Ideas are not neutral; we do not judge or use ideas neutrally, in a detached manner. That's why it is not allowed to make false claims about a product through marketing, to take one example. Because, let's say it is legal to claim that a homeopathic product cures cancer, there will be a lot of vulnerable and desperate people who will purchase it as a result, even if they cannot afford to, and it's not because they are stupid. It's because they are a structurally determined organism with a will to to live, and they don't know what else to do to increase their chance of staying alive. We all understand this very well, I've never heard anyone argue that there should be no restrictions in marketing.
But when someone claims that they are racially superior, and they scream "blood and soil", saying that other races should be exterminated, tying themselves to a brutal history of enslavement and genocide (often openly), that is somehow a neutral idea that belongs in the "marketplace of ideas"? It has no guarantee to hurt people? I don't believe so. I believe the more it's out there, the more it's normalized, the more there will be disaffected, alienated and disenfranchised people who will be drawn to it, and the more people of color will be harmed. I rely on first-hand testimonials from people and statistics for this belief, not immutable first principles.
What's interesting is that people already have the right to spread Nazi ideas in our "democracies". You're not even defending their freedom of speech, what you are doing is saying that their speech needs to be protected. You're saying their speech should not have the consequences that they have had, i.e. in the form of repression from antifa or private companies deciding to shut down their accounts. As a matter of fact they were granted free speech, and the people decided they did not want to hear it any longer, which was a consequence of having free speech in the first place. How else should it be? You love to ask "who decides". Well, who decides? Who are these elected authorities that you think should protect all people's speech from consequences? And how often have you seen Nazis being literally prevented to speak, rather than reaping what they have sown? Well, I've never seen it, but I did see this yesterday:
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Contact Users: 469 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 04:44
United States. Feb 14 2019 17:16. Posts 2039
