blackjacki2 United States. Feb 15 2019 23:20. Posts 2582
The theory of preemptive violence against evil people that may be violent in the future given a set of circumstances sounds kind of like it was ripped from the Bush administration
On February 15 2019 22:20 blackjacki2 wrote:
The theory of preemptive violence against evil people that may be violent in the future given a set of circumstances sounds kind of like it was ripped from the Bush administration
Right, because warmongering over weapons of mass destruction that were proven to not exist in order to continue forward with a well-known, pre-existing imperalist agenda is the exact same thing as trying to prevent more of this from happening:
"2018 was a particularly active year for right-wing extremist murders: Every single extremist killing — from Pittsburgh to Parkland — had a link to right-wing extremism."
And here's a one year comparison between the very evil left who are oppressing the "only potentially violent" Nazis (worth pointing out that none of the four "leftist" incidents are associated with antifa):
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
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.
No way, protestors with no protective gear get more injuries than policemen wearing full combat gear? Who would've thought of that?
If you can't understand that the whole protest is being hijacked by either people that were paid for foreign agenda, or are complete idiots, its kind of your own problem. Even the yellow jackets themselves are condemning the violent behaviour. Imagine being a cop in that situation, you think you wouldn't have a decent chance of hurting an innocent person while a bunch of aggressive retards go for you? You do realize that the cops are much less than the actual protestors right?
Also, who would've thought that a populist movement would have the vote of the public... I've previously posted their requests. I especially liked the one where they want more out of the government but lower taxes... BUT they protested the cut of administration staff by 10%... are you fucking kidding me? They are literally contradicting themselves and can't see it.
1
blackjacki2 United States. Feb 16 2019 03:04. Posts 2582
On February 15 2019 22:20 blackjacki2 wrote:
The theory of preemptive violence against evil people that may be violent in the future given a set of circumstances sounds kind of like it was ripped from the Bush administration
Right, because warmongering over weapons of mass destruction that were proven to not exist in order to continue forward with a well-known, pre-existing imperalist agenda is the exact same thing as trying to prevent more of this from happening:
I'm talking about a concept of the Bush Doctrine that preemptive war (violence) is justifiable to ward off some future threat. Regardless of the actual motives of the Bush foreign policy do you agree with the concept or not? If you are unsatisfied with my example maybe you can provide your own historical example of when violence would be justifiable against a group of people for propagating certain ideas?
It's hard to take the ADL or SPLC seriously when they seem so adamant to downplay Islamic terrorism and play up Right-wing terror despite the fact that Islamic terrorism has killed far more people in the 21st century in the USA despite the fact that Muslims are maybe 1% or 2% of the population.
Case in point, one of the examples of Right-Wing extremist murder from 2018 from the map you posted:
Jason Auvenshine, 47, killed a man on a skateboard in an auto collision then fled the scene. Prosecutors said Auvenshine was a member of a white supremacist prison gang and even had a gang manual in his vehicle at the time of the collision. In May 2018, Auvenshine was convicted of intoxication manslaughter and failure to stop and render assistance and received two concurrent life sentences.
I googled it... the guy on the skateboard he hit was white. Not exactly what I would call a hate crime...
Of course nobody can dispute there is a ton more right-wing terrorism than left-wing terrorism in the US right now. I just happen to see a lack of left-wing terrorism/extremism as a good thing.
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. 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'.
and you agree that spreading a "puncha jihadist" retoric woudl mostly just enable racists to punch muslims right?
the same way punch a nazi would just enable maniacs to punch people wearing MAGA hats
(to you, a nazi and a commie are not a valid equivalency but to many it is, and you would still green-light violence to anybody who thinks that way)
On February 15 2019 22:08 Loco wrote:
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.
not a red herring fallacy at all, the guy used your own idea of sanctioning punching evil people.
So you disavow's antifa's "punch a nazi" motto? as usual you dance from once stance from another, so what is it, do you support it or do you denounce it?
How can you be so naive to think Richard Spencer is afraid of Antifa ffs... Richard Spencer loves antifa they are the biggest recruiters for the alt-right, how many people do you think shifted hard to the right when they saw a leftist hobo in black punch him on TV?
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.
your punching comes from good philosophers and good statistics, their punching comes from bad philosophers and bad statistics.
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?
I honestly don't think I can make a more compelling argument than a random guy using your own words to justify punching muslims, so I wont bother, if that didn't make it for you nothing I say will.
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.
You political ideas have also caused enslavement and genocide in a far grater scale than fascism have, I also rely on first-hand testimonials from people and not immutable first principles like "stick for the little guy", so I suppose we should also censor your ideas.
Yes freedom of speech was "solved" long before me or Hitchens, in fact here is a quote from a fellow you seem to admire a lot:
"if we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all" - Noam Chomsky
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?
Oh, so now you are fine with private companies to supress political speech, so I guess you are ok with what happened with Colin Kaepernick?
These companies aren't firing nazis, or do you think James Damore is a nazi for speaking against hiring quotas in tech? Do you think "sargon of akkad" is a nazi too?, Patreon kicked him out.
Dozens if not hundreds of conservative accounts are banned on twitter, like 4 days ago a famous feminist was banned from twitter because she said trans women are not real women, she is a TERF-Nazi too right?
If you want to know my stance about my subject I think private companies can fire them if they want, I'd also like to see a consumer reaction, on the specific case of massive social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Youtube they have taken over "public space", most speech is done in their platforms so I think speech there should be protected like its protected by the state, (yes that is a regulation, as I've said some regulations are good, this would be one of them)
How could I (or you) have an opinion about this? was the guy being disruptive? I've known of prisoners to be gagged in trials many times, what does this have to do with what we are discussing? what a stupid thing to post.
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.
Drone is such a fascist enabler, he gets the punch too imo.
I"m not sure its funny or sad that you believe nazis are actually afraid of Antifa... because nothing scares driven violent hateful sociopaths like a 60kg affeminate man with dreadlocks in a fursuit.
Fighting nazis with threats of violence and intimidation, that is their whole modus operandi ffs, If you were fighting the chinese would you challenge them at ping-pong you genius?
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Feb 16 2019 08:24. Posts 2233
you found a source that claims the other side is 400 times as violent as your side, and that your side is probably statistically indistinguishable from having 0 violence, and you just swallowed it whole without thinking the methodology would be worth digging into?
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
On February 16 2019 07:24 Santafairy wrote:
you found a source that claims the other side is 400 times as violent as your side, and that your side is probably statistically indistinguishable from having 0 violence, and you just swallowed it whole without thinking the methodology would be worth digging into?
I just took the two sources in the Wikipedia lede of the alt right. Standards are higher for the lede than anywhere else. I also remembered something about Dave Rubin and Peterson claiming that they are despicable and hateful organizations, "the worst" was Rubins précise words, from which I can deduce that they are legit.
My side doesn't kill people in NA, but they have killed a lot of ISIS members in Syria. Does that count? I guess it's a wash then.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 16/02/2019 10:03
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Feb 16 2019 11:17. Posts 3096
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. 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'.
and you agree that spreading a "puncha jihadist" retoric woudl mostly just enable racists to punch muslims right?
the same way punch a nazi would just enable maniacs to punch people wearing MAGA hats
(to you, a nazi and a commie are not a valid equivalency but to many it is, and you would still green-light violence to anybody who thinks that way)
Like I said, in no way a fan of the punch a nazi rhetoric, and yes, I agree that leftists adopting that rhetoric (and other leftists acting based on that) would probably lead to a greater degree of acceptance of violence from the right. I mean, actual nazis already accept violence, but it's fair to assume that 'punching nazis is good' 'trump supporters are nazis' at some point will lead to 'maga hat jerk being punched in the face by leftist' which can lead to 'moderate' republicans being like 'well they started' and 'there were jerks on both sides' when some nazis punch antifas during some big rally.
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.
Drone is such a fascist enabler, he gets the punch too imo.
I"m not sure its funny or sad that you believe nazis are actually afraid of Antifa... because nothing scares driven violent hateful sociopaths like a 60kg affeminate man with dreadlocks in a fursuit.
Fighting nazis with threats of violence and intimidation, that is their whole modus operandi ffs, If you were fighting the chinese would you challenge them at ping-pong you genius?
This is not me believing in something I want to believe in. I used to have the same naive stance as you and all the other liberal pundits out there who throw the exact same objections around. It is the default, non-critical position that we are all indoctrinated in if we live in a liberal society (all ideas equally have their place in the "marketplace of ideas"; violence is never acceptable unless you could die if you don't defend yourself). My mind was changed by being skeptical first and being open to the contrary, which led to me becoming more informed. It was not a comfortable process, but the truth rarely is comfortable. Like Thoreau said, "Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth." That defines the past 9 years for me since I stopped playing poker and I devoted myself full time to becoming a more knowledgeable person.
I have posted some evidence that what you're saying here is untrue, they are scared, it is explicit and undeniable, and you choose to not pay attention to it in order to protect your prejudices. What's amazing is that when we started discussing this, I found an issue that was relevant news on that very same day: I posted evidence that the huge KKK rally was cancelled because the Neo-Nazis feared for their safety due to antifa. I posted direct quotes of them saying so, I did not need to guess or believe. I also posted Richard Spencer saying so, and a whole documentary showing that the alt-right was clearly losing. They have not grown as a result of antifa interference, which is consistent with the entire history of anti-fascist action if we look at the historical evidence. You ignored the evidence, as you always do when it goes against your cherished beliefs, and now you're back to stating your opinion as if it were a fact: that antifa are determined to make things worse. You will not re-evaluate because you absolutely, viscerally despise the far left.
You look at things from a juvenile binary lense: free markets: good, free speech: good, violence: bad, and anything that doesn't validate this perspective, any nuance or shade of gray thrown in makes you anxious. In order to remove that anxiety, you respond to objections purely mechanically, reflexively, by throwing out talking points, the opposite of well-thought out arguments. They are your comfortable and safe place. But if I insist long enough that these talking points are not convincing, and you start feeling like you don't look like you're on top of things, you turn to self-righteous mockery, logical fallacies and dismissiveness. I can't do anything about it except stop wasting my time.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
they also went after Ayaan Hirsi, in before they say Malala is an islamophobe too
Everyone can make mistakes. A mistake on one issue does not invalidate another issue that they reported on. Especially when they have apologized for it. That's what a respectable organization does.
this is worse than Mortensen quoting Breitbart lol
I was going to say you are making another false equivalency fallacy, but this is even worse, since you don't claim they are equal but actually worse! I would actually pay good money to have you in a lab in a study on prejudices that looks at how much of what you believe is based on them.
Notes: The Southern Poverty Law Center is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. It is noted for its legal victories against white supremacist groups and its legal representation for victims of hate groups. The SPLC also classifies and lists hate groups—organizations that in its opinion “attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. The SPLC has been accused of having a far left bias by hate groups and other questionable far right sources."
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence
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. 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'.
and you agree that spreading a "puncha jihadist" retoric woudl mostly just enable racists to punch muslims right?
the same way punch a nazi would just enable maniacs to punch people wearing MAGA hats
(to you, a nazi and a commie are not a valid equivalency but to many it is, and you would still green-light violence to anybody who thinks that way)
Like I said, in no way a fan of the punch a nazi rhetoric, and yes, I agree that leftists adopting that rhetoric (and other leftists acting based on that) would probably lead to a greater degree of acceptance of violence from the right. I mean, actual nazis already accept violence, but it's fair to assume that 'punching nazis is good' 'trump supporters are nazis' at some point will lead to 'maga hat jerk being punched in the face by leftist' which can lead to 'moderate' republicans being like 'well they started' and 'there were jerks on both sides' when some nazis punch antifas during some big rally.
Since your stance seems to be based largely on the fact that Neo-Nazism "isn't big enough" to warrant grassroots resistance against them that inevitably involves violence at times, and because it involves a dangerous slippery slope, let me ask you this.
Given the documented shortcomings of "liberal anti-fascism" -- the fact that Nazism came to power legally in a highly intellectually and culturally advanced nation -- and the failure of the allied strategy of appeasement leading up to WW2, a convincing argument can be made that allowing fascism to develop and expand runs the documented risk of sliding into totalitarianism. If we don’t stop them when they are small, do we stop them when they are medium-sized? If not when they are medium-sized, then when they are large? When they’re in government? Do we need to wait until the swastikas are unfurled from government buildings before we defend ourselves? When would you support a militant anti-fascist movement that challenges the state monopoly on political legitimacy?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Feb 16 2019 19:12. Posts 2233
On February 16 2019 17:05 Loco wrote:
I was going to say you are making another false equivalency fallacy, but this is even worse, since you don't claim they are equal but actually worse! I would actually pay good money to have you in a lab in a study on prejudices that looks at how much of what you believe is based on them.
On February 16 2019 17:05 Loco wrote:
far right alt-right right wing far right alt-right right wing far right alt-right right wing far right alt-right right wing far right alt-right right wing far right alt-right right wing far right alt-right right wing far right alt-right right wing far right alt-right right wing far right alt-right right wing far right alt-right right wing
it's embarrassing for you to link that embarrassing fact check site again that some guy is running out of his basement just because you got suckered in by the name, as well read as you are
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2018/1...ed-philadelphia-keenan-massey-antifa/
why wasn't this on your list of 4 left-wing incidents? here i've just caused a 25% increase in the number of left wing incidents by adding one incident, that suggests the source is of suspect reliability to the point you want to make
meanwhile 1,274 of your alleged incidents are the category of "white supremacist propaganda" which if you go down the list is people handing out fliers like be proud of your heritage and patriots unite and if you're lucky a copy of the 1st amendment
really what argument is this supposed to be when you unpack it, sure you have photos and tape of antifa attacking people, but I don't see it on this ADL list. checkmate fascist enablers
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
On February 15 2019 22:20 blackjacki2 wrote:
The theory of preemptive violence against evil people that may be violent in the future given a set of circumstances sounds kind of like it was ripped from the Bush administration
Right, because warmongering over weapons of mass destruction that were proven to not exist in order to continue forward with a well-known, pre-existing imperalist agenda is the exact same thing as trying to prevent more of this from happening:
I'm talking about a concept of the Bush Doctrine that preemptive war (violence) is justifiable to ward off some future threat. Regardless of the actual motives of the Bush foreign policy do you agree with the concept or not? If you are unsatisfied with my example maybe you can provide your own historical example of when violence would be justifiable against a group of people for propagating certain ideas?
It's hard to take the ADL or SPLC seriously when they seem so adamant to downplay Islamic terrorism and play up Right-wing terror despite the fact that Islamic terrorism has killed far more people in the 21st century in the USA despite the fact that Muslims are maybe 1% or 2% of the population.
Case in point, one of the examples of Right-Wing extremist murder from 2018 from the map you posted:
Jason Auvenshine, 47, killed a man on a skateboard in an auto collision then fled the scene. Prosecutors said Auvenshine was a member of a white supremacist prison gang and even had a gang manual in his vehicle at the time of the collision. In May 2018, Auvenshine was convicted of intoxication manslaughter and failure to stop and render assistance and received two concurrent life sentences.
I googled it... the guy on the skateboard he hit was white. Not exactly what I would call a hate crime...
Of course nobody can dispute there is a ton more right-wing terrorism than left-wing terrorism in the US right now. I just happen to see a lack of left-wing terrorism/extremism as a good thing.
I mean... you present this case as if the ADL wasn't up-front about their data and whether or not the killings are ideologically related (hate crimes). You're almost complaining that there is too much data, implying they should only focus on hate crimes. Why shouldn't we know the full scope of the murders, because it's too complicated to read their breakdown in the report? It's complicated to include that information on a map, but the information is easy to find. I think it's valuable to know that extremism leads to a range of violent behaviors. An extremist ideology is the ideal way to justify and channel an already existing desire for power and violence, it doesn't restrict it. It could be helpful for instance to have data that shows that a lot of white supremacists are also wife beaters, so that it's less likely that women would want to associate with them even if they sympathize with white supremacy.
I've already said that I do believe in preemptive/defensive violence. I criticized your comparison because you couldn't have picked a worse one. The evidence was crystal clear that there was no threat to justify the invasion of Iraq. As for historical examples, pick any serious threat of genocide and I believe that a violent resistance was justified. As soon as someone uses their freedom to threaten someone's existence or their humanity, they have to be ready to deal with the consequences, and I don't believe the state should have the monopoly on making and enforcing those decisions.
Can you provide your sources for the claim that the ADL is downplaying Islamic terrorism?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
How could I (or you) have an opinion about this? was the guy being disruptive? I've known of prisoners to be gagged in trials many times, what does this have to do with what we are discussing?
Wow, so you are against free speech! You draw the arbitrary line at what may be "disruptiveness". Who decides what is disruptive and what isn't? You? Other right-wingers? See how easy it is to use your own talking points in order to show your hypocrisy, just like with the Venezuela interventionism stuff. The guy is about to be sentenced to 24 years in prison, that's 24 years in which his speech will not be free. He should be allowed to make his case. He's clearly trying to say something if you actually watch the video. He's not singing songs and making loud fart sounds. You literally defend him being taped over the mouth if he meets some special criteria of what you deem to be disruptive by speaking normally. Amazing.
Speaking of Venezuela, how about this then? Do you judge that it is wrong to disrupt in order to point out that a person is a war criminal? If so, what should be done about these radical anti-war lefties who disrespect the system in your ideal world?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 16/02/2019 20:30
1
blackjacki2 United States. Feb 16 2019 20:26. Posts 2582
On February 15 2019 22:20 blackjacki2 wrote:
The theory of preemptive violence against evil people that may be violent in the future given a set of circumstances sounds kind of like it was ripped from the Bush administration
Right, because warmongering over weapons of mass destruction that were proven to not exist in order to continue forward with a well-known, pre-existing imperalist agenda is the exact same thing as trying to prevent more of this from happening:
I'm talking about a concept of the Bush Doctrine that preemptive war (violence) is justifiable to ward off some future threat. Regardless of the actual motives of the Bush foreign policy do you agree with the concept or not? If you are unsatisfied with my example maybe you can provide your own historical example of when violence would be justifiable against a group of people for propagating certain ideas?
It's hard to take the ADL or SPLC seriously when they seem so adamant to downplay Islamic terrorism and play up Right-wing terror despite the fact that Islamic terrorism has killed far more people in the 21st century in the USA despite the fact that Muslims are maybe 1% or 2% of the population.
Case in point, one of the examples of Right-Wing extremist murder from 2018 from the map you posted:
Jason Auvenshine, 47, killed a man on a skateboard in an auto collision then fled the scene. Prosecutors said Auvenshine was a member of a white supremacist prison gang and even had a gang manual in his vehicle at the time of the collision. In May 2018, Auvenshine was convicted of intoxication manslaughter and failure to stop and render assistance and received two concurrent life sentences.
I googled it... the guy on the skateboard he hit was white. Not exactly what I would call a hate crime...
Of course nobody can dispute there is a ton more right-wing terrorism than left-wing terrorism in the US right now. I just happen to see a lack of left-wing terrorism/extremism as a good thing.
I mean... you present this case as if the ADL wasn't up-front about their data and whether or not the killings are ideologically related (hate crimes). You're almost complaining that there is too much data, implying they should only focus on hate crimes. Why shouldn't we know the full scope of the murders, because it's too complicated to read their breakdown in the report? It's complicated to include that information on a map, but the information is easy to find. I think it's valuable to know that extremism leads to a range of violent behaviors. An extremist ideology is the ideal way to justify and channel an already existing desire for power and violence, it doesn't restrict it. It could be helpful for instance to have data that shows that a lot of white supremacists are also wife beaters, so that it's less likely that women would want to associate with them even if they sympathize with white supremacy.
I've already said that I do believe in preemptive/defensive violence. I criticized your comparison because you couldn't have picked a worse one. The evidence was crystal clear that there was no threat to justify the invasion of Iraq. As for historical examples, pick any serious threat of genocide and I believe that a violent resistance was justified. As soon as someone uses their freedom to threaten someone's existence or their humanity, they have to be ready to deal with the consequences, and I don't believe the state should have the monopoly on making and enforcing those decisions.
Can you provide your sources for the claim that the ADL is downplaying Islamic terrorism?
You don't think it's a stretch for an anti-hate organization to include a white man's drunken vehicular manslaughter on another white man as an example of "White Supremacist extremist murder of 2018"? The crime had absolutely nothing to do with Right-wing extremism. I doubt they are making similar stretches to try to connect random crimes with left-wing ideology.
Do you want to compare every crime to every person's left/right ideology? There's probably a reason why Republicans have been trying to disenfranchise felons and why Democrats have been trying to restore their voting rights.
Right-Wing Extremist Violence is Our Biggest Threat. The Numbers Don't Lie.
These are the dominant headlines coming from these organizations these days. My evidence that ADL/SPLC downplay islamic terrorism is because they're giving magnitudes more press to Right-wing terrorism than Islamic terrorism.
From Politifact:
PolitiFact recently examined the GAO report and found, like the Reveal investigation, that more attacks were carried out by far-right violent extremists. But more people died during attacks connected with Islamic jihadists.
Of those 225 deaths by extremists:
• 106 individuals were killed by far-right violent extremists in 62 separate incidents;
• 119 individuals were killed by radical Islamist violent extremists in 23 separate incidents;
Even if you exclude the 3,000~ people from 9/11 you can still see that Islamic terrorism is killing just as many if not more people as right-wing terrorism, despite the fact that people that identify as Right-Wing probably outnumber people that identify as Muslim by 20 to 1. 2018 was obviously a down year for Islamic terror but we shouldn't pretend like we can take 1 year of data and extrapolate that Right-wing terror is a much bigger threat.
I don't mean to discount everything ADL/SPLC does but it should be clear that they are not impartial in these matters.
Contact Users: 658 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 06:45
