Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 198

I'm pretty sure the who ideology behind the centrism you're ironizing is that extreme views will cause violence and violence will cause more violence in a never-ending circle, thus being anything other than a 'centrist' is causing pain in the world. Then again by that definition, you probably would point Gandhi as a centrist that waited for his head to get cut off. There's plenty of examples of strong people that opposed violence and but still changed the status quo - since its MLK day in the US it only makes sense to give Rosa Parks as another example.

Opposing violence does not mean you will submit to it or not condemn it

No, there were two points. One is that not all violence is equal; the violence of the one who resists the imposition of top-down violence that takes their rights or dignity away is understandable and morally acceptable (and yeah, it doesn't necessarily lead to the kind of reproduction of senseless violence that they imply it does.)

The second point is that there is an extremist ideology currently dominating the world. The status quo is extreme. The current policies in the US and UK are extremely barbaric, both domestic and foreign, they are not "freedom-promoting", so holding the centrist position in those places has to be understood as extreme. These policies, as they made their first entrance in the world, had to be imposed through extreme violence and US interventionism because people didn't accept them, yet today they are assumed to have "arisen spontaneously" because "free market capitalism is what most people want". That's just not true, a lot of people resisted them but the dictatorships successfully imposed them, and in places where there were no dictatorships like the US and the UK, they capitalized on wars to sneak them in (Falklands War and Iraq War) and made a stronger use of social engineering to get people to accept them. That's how the Overton window came to be what it is today with its massive rightward shift.

On the subject of non-violence, Stokely Carmichael said, "Dr. King's policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience."

In conflicts, peaceful solutions are only ever possible when both sides are willing to compromise or when one side gives up (or is forced to give up). That's the thing that liberals/centrists don't seem to be able to understand. When you're fighting for your life, for your right to exist as a person of color let's say, a compromise isn't an option with a Nazi. Or when you're fighting for your children's lives due to rapidly rising global temperatures, you also don't compromise with an elite that doesn't give a shit about future generations.

You want to bring up Gandhi and MLK, let's discuss that. Here's what Gandhi said on Palestine:

“I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.”

In other words, when you have been pushed far enough, and the situation is extreme enough, and everything else has proven ineffective, violence is justified. And Martin Luther King Jr. himself acknowledged the Kennedy quote that I have as my signature: here it is linked directly when he says it in a documentary.

People have been misled when it comes to Gandhi's and MLK's revolutions' successes being owed solely to non-violent protest (or that they were even a success, in India's case). Gandhi's quit India movement functioned in tandem with a second, unassociated organization that wasn't afraid to capitalize off their propaganda gains and fight the police. Any historically serious activist will acknowledge that the non-cooperation movement of Gandhi was an accessory to Subhas Chandra Bose's rebels. Here's what Peter Gelderloos wrote on the topic:

"In India, the story goes, people under the leadership of Gandhi built up a massive nonviolent movement over decades and engaged in protest, noncooperation, economic boycotts, and exemplary hunger strikes and acts of disobedience to make British imperialism unworkable. They suffered massacres and responded with a couple of riots, but, on the whole, the movement was nonviolent and, after persevering for decades, the Indian people won their independence, providing an undeniable hallmark of pacifist victory. The actual history is more complicated, in that many violent pressures also informed the British decision to withdraw. The British had lost the ability to maintain colonial power after losing millions of troops and a great deal of other resources during two extremely violent world wars, the second of which especially devastated the “mother country.” The armed struggles of Arab and Jewish militants in Palestine from 1945 to 1948 further weakened the British Empire, and presented a clear threat that the Indians might give up civil disobedience and take up arms en masse if ignored for long enough; this cannot be excluded as a factor in the decision of the British to relinquish direct colonial administration.

We realize this threat to be even more direct when we understand that the pacifist history of India’s independence movement is a selective and incomplete picture-nonviolence was not universal in India. Resistance to British colonialism included enough militancy that the Gandhian method can be viewed most accurately as one of several competing forms of popular resistance. As part of a disturbingly universal pattern, pacifists white out those other forms of resistance and help propagate the false history that Gandhi and his disciples were the lone masthead and rudder of Indian resistance. Ignored are important militant leaders such as Chandrasekhar Azad, who fought in armed struggle against the British colonizers, and revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh, who won mass support for bombings and assassinations as part of a struggle to accomplish the “overthrow of both foreign and Indian capitalism.” The pacifist history of India’s struggle cannot make any sense of the fact that Subhas Chandra Bose, the militant candidate, was twice elected president of the Indian National Congress, in 1938 and 1939.[8] While Gandhi was perhaps the most singularly influential and popular figure in India’s independence struggle, the leadership position he assumed did not always enjoy the consistent backing of the masses. Gandhi lost so much support from Indians when he “called off the movement” after the 1922 riot that when the British locked him up afterwards, “not a ripple of protest arose in India at his arrest.” Significantly, history remembers Gandhi above all others not because he represented the unanimous voice of India, but because of all the attention he was given by the British press and the prominence he received from being included in important negotiations with the British colonial government. When we remember that history is written by the victors, another layer of the myth of Indian independence comes unraveled.

The sorriest aspect of pacifists’ claim that the independence of India is a victory for nonviolence is that this claim plays directly into the historical fabrication carried out in the interests of the white-supremacist, imperialist states that colonized the Global South. The liberation movement in India failed. The British were not forced to quit India. Rather, they chose to transfer the territory from direct colonial rule to neocolonial rule. What kind of victory allows the losing side to dictate the time and manner of the victors’ ascendancy? The British authored the new constitution and turned power over to handpicked successors. They fanned the flames of religious and ethnic separatism so that India would be divided against itself, prevented from gaining peace and prosperity, and dependent on military aid and other support from Euro/American states. India is still exploited by Euro/ American corporations (though several new Indian corporations, mostly subsidiaries, have joined in the pillaging), and still provides resources and markets for the imperialist states. In many ways the poverty of its people has deepened and the exploitation has become more efficient. Independence from colonial rule has given India more autonomy in a few areas, and it has certainly allowed a handful of Indians to sit in the seats of power, but the exploitation and commodification of the commons have deepened. Moreover, India lost a clear opportunity for meaningful liberation from an easily recognizable foreign oppressor."


The explicit purpose of the peaceful movement is to cultivate class consciousness and sympathy for the cause through directly demonstrating the violent oppression of the police. Their role is to create a public space for the legitimate violent resistance that the state fears.
Indian historian RC Majumdar wrote a book called "Jibanera Smritideepe" which has some interesting points on Subhas Chandra Bose and the impact of the INA on the withdrawal of the British from India. One particular testimony that stands out in it is a conversation between Clement Attlee and Chief justice P.B. Chakrabarty of Calcutta High Court. Attlee credits the breakdown of the loyalty of the Indian military personnel in the colony to the exploits of Netaji, pretty much pointing him out to be the principal cause of British withdrawal. During the same discussion, when Attlee was asked about the extent of Gandhi's influence upon the British decision to leave India, he apparently smiled sarcastically as he slowly voiced out, "m-i-n-i-m-a-l!"

Similarly, you cannot underestimate the influence of the militants in the Civil Rights Movements. Middle-class black activists like King got much of their power from the specter of black resistance and the presence of armed black revolutionaries. As for Rosa Parks, she was an active part of the Black Power Movement, despite the fact that its leaders held the idea that "a 'non-violent' approach to civil rights is an approach black people cannot afford and a luxury white people do not deserve." (Stokely Carmichael)

Dr. King was a great face for the movement. A great orator. There was a lot of substance there. Including his beliefs on income inequality as well. The Black Power Movement, Black Panthers, Malcolm X, among others were also crucial to the success of the Civil Rights Movement and should not be forgotten. I feel like my liberal education in history focused too much on Dr. King and Gandhi and not the full scope of what was effective at the time. Maybe it's time we put a little fear into the minds of the politicians and the billionaires.

I'm down to runnin' up on them crackas in they city hall

On January 20 2020 22:42 Loco wrote: Gotunk's authoritarianism

saying that just a few lines below a picture against freedom of speech... ironic.

Nazi Speech Matters! Interfering with the *~MarKeTPlaCe Of IdEaS~* is always bad, because speech is totally causally inert! Don't oppress Nazis, it makes you worse than them. The only oppression that I support is that of Free Trade. Naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation! I am a Libertarian!

"Even after renouncing his personal use of guns, King had a complex relationship with the phenomenon of self-defense in the movement. He publicly discouraged it as a widespread practice, but acknowledged that it was sometimes necessary. Through his career King was frequently protected by other civil rights activists who carried arms, such as Colonel Stone Johnson, Robert Hayling, and the Deacons for Defense and Justice." - Wikipedia (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)

On January 20 2020 22:42 Loco wrote: Lemon is apparently such a naive centrist that he thinks one who opposes fascism and a fascist sympathizer can come to a mutual understanding and "enhance each other's perspectives."

You don't think understanding how people got to hold their beliefs in the first place is a good exercise?
Will that understanding make influencing them easier or harder?
Do you believe that having empathy and understanding for a person and their beliefs means you can't take action, even arms against them or even actively push for their deaths?

I'm no expert, but wasn't black and white "us and them" thinking of the masses what allowed the rise of totalitarian regimes and religious wars in the first place?

If you had finished reading the post that you're quoting from and had taken the time to look at the provided links you would have found out that I do understand how he got to hold his current beliefs. I provided evidence of that understanding in the form of a documentary and a long exposé that goes into every little detail as to how social engineering creates people who hold his neoconservative views. That same understanding allows me to know that I am not going to influence him to hold different views, no matter the approach that I take. Social engineering is very powerful. People don't just give up the narratives that they have learned to live by, especially when they have been advantageous to them, because you've asked them a few questions about it online.

On January 21 2020 22:13 LemOn[5thF] wrote: I'm no expert, but wasn't black and white "us and them" thinking of the masses what allowed the rise of totalitarian regimes and religious wars in the first place?

That's way too simplistic. Most wars were fueled by feelings of intrinsic superiority and a "might makes right mentality", where certain group identities feared or hated other group identities because of some unalterable characteristics. Keyword here is "unalterable". If someone wants you dead because of characteristics that you were born with and can't alter, you are necessarily forced to be "against them". The option of singing kumbaya and preaching mutual understanding isn't available. Is that really not obvious to you?

On January 20 2020 22:42 Loco wrote: The whole point of fascism is that it isn't rational, Lemon. It doesn't give a shit that you question it, and it doesn't compromise. It is rooted in a fear and a disgust of the 'other'. For GoTunK, those others are those whom he deems "thugs", "criminals" or "vagrants". They are the people who don't have capital, and those who are the most oppressed. They are the weak and he is the strong, and the weak only ever envy and want to take from the strong. He's not interested in understanding them. He just wants them to quietly submit.

Aren't you criticising Gotunk and fascists for not being open to understand other's ideas.
While saying it's not worth trying to understand the as they are not rational in the same paragraph?

Aren't you doing the same thing ?

On January 21 2020 22:14 Loco wrote: If you had finished reading the post that you're quoting from and had taken the time to look at the provided links you would have found out that I do understand how he got to hold his current beliefs. I provided evidence of that understanding in the form of a documentary and a long exposé that goes into every little detail as to how social engineering creates people who hold his neoconservative views. That same understanding allows me to know that I am not going to influence him to hold different views, no matter the approach that I take. Social engineering is very powerful. People don't just give up the narratives that they have learned to live by, especially when they have been advantageous to them, because you've asked them a few questions about it online. Show nested quote + On January 21 2020 22:13 LemOn[5thF] wrote: I'm no expert, but wasn't black and white "us and them" thinking of the masses what allowed the rise of totalitarian regimes and religious wars in the first place? That's way too simplistic. Most wars were fueled by feelings of intrinsic superiority and a "might makes right mentality", where certain group identities feared or hated other group identities because of some unalterable characteristics. Keyword here is "unalterable". If someone wants you dead because of characteristics that you were born with and can't alter, you are necessarily forced to be "against them". The option of singing kumbaya and preaching mutual understanding isn't available. Is that really not obvious to you?

Again
Why is understanding and having empathy for someone mutually exclusive from taking even violent actions against them?

But I just told you that I'm confident that I do understand. Of course I think it was very much worth it to study these ideologies and understand them, otherwise I wouldn't have put in the time to do so. Why do you insist on telling me that I do not try to understand them? Can you provide some kind of evidence that I misunderstand the origin of these beliefs instead of just claiming that I do, over and over again?

Can you also tell me what parts of fascism and neoconservatism are rational?

I studied psychopaths, and Hitler
Do I feel empathy, even admiration for some characteristics of both? Yes, absolutely!
Does that mean I wouldn't support action against them, even potentially die trying? Hell no!

I've been thinking a lot about child molesters, and I have a lot of empathy and understanding for them, especially those that have those urges and don't act on them - just imagine how that'd be, your whole sexuality that's normal in society aimed at what theirs is aimed at.

Does that mean I don't support jail time and removing them from society for even holding child pornography? No it doesn't

On January 21 2020 22:25 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On January 21 2020 22:14 Loco wrote: If you had finished reading the post that you're quoting from and had taken the time to look at the provided links you would have found out that I do understand how he got to hold his current beliefs. I provided evidence of that understanding in the form of a documentary and a long exposé that goes into every little detail as to how social engineering creates people who hold his neoconservative views. That same understanding allows me to know that I am not going to influence him to hold different views, no matter the approach that I take. Social engineering is very powerful. People don't just give up the narratives that they have learned to live by, especially when they have been advantageous to them, because you've asked them a few questions about it online.   On January 21 2020 22:13 LemOn[5thF] wrote: I'm no expert, but wasn't black and white "us and them" thinking of the masses what allowed the rise of totalitarian regimes and religious wars in the first place? That's way too simplistic. Most wars were fueled by feelings of intrinsic superiority and a "might makes right mentality", where certain group identities feared or hated other group identities because of some unalterable characteristics. Keyword here is "unalterable". If someone wants you dead because of characteristics that you were born with and can't alter, you are necessarily forced to be "against them". The option of singing kumbaya and preaching mutual understanding isn't available. Is that really not obvious to you? Again Why is understanding and having empathy for someone mutually exclusive from taking even violent actions against them?

Huh? Didn't you openly say more than once that you were in the habit of skipping over all my posts, implying that my contributions can only ever be worthless? Why are you now trying to give me lessons on understanding and empathy? I don't even go that far with GoTuNk. Did you ever show an ounce of remorse for saying these things or apologize to me?

On January 21 2020 22:29 Loco wrote: But I just told you that I'm confident that I do understand. Of course I think it was very much worth it to study these ideologies and understand them, otherwise I wouldn't have put in the time to do so. Why do you insist on telling me that I do not try to understand them? Can you provide some kind of evidence that I misunderstand the origin of these beliefs instead of just claiming that I do, over and over again? Can you also tell me what parts of fascism and neoconservatism are rational?

Define "rational"

Very few things people do are rational, you are influenced by social engineering just as Gotunk is.
We all are - thinking we have blank slate independent rational free will is a total mirage - I realized this after reading A Short History of Nearly everything, Sapiens, Laws of Human Nature, Power of Habit, studying behavioral economics and now practicing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy + getting into a genealogy history book. They show you you know literally fuckall, so much of what we do and believe are processes we don't understand, influenced by others and generalisations, you can never be rational as you put it, only try to understand what you can so you can live by your narrow arbitrary values

EDIT: Well in a grand scheme of things our values are narrow and arbitrary, but just like with veganism or recycling - you take responsibility for your values lead by example and take action and hope others do the same and significant changes can come

On January 21 2020 22:36 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 21 2020 22:25 LemOn[5thF] wrote:   On January 21 2020 22:14 Loco wrote: If you had finished reading the post that you're quoting from and had taken the time to look at the provided links you would have found out that I do understand how he got to hold his current beliefs. I provided evidence of that understanding in the form of a documentary and a long exposé that goes into every little detail as to how social engineering creates people who hold his neoconservative views. That same understanding allows me to know that I am not going to influence him to hold different views, no matter the approach that I take. Social engineering is very powerful. People don't just give up the narratives that they have learned to live by, especially when they have been advantageous to them, because you've asked them a few questions about it online.   On January 21 2020 22:13 LemOn[5thF] wrote: I'm no expert, but wasn't black and white "us and them" thinking of the masses what allowed the rise of totalitarian regimes and religious wars in the first place? That's way too simplistic. Most wars were fueled by feelings of intrinsic superiority and a "might makes right mentality", where certain group identities feared or hated other group identities because of some unalterable characteristics. Keyword here is "unalterable". If someone wants you dead because of characteristics that you were born with and can't alter, you are necessarily forced to be "against them". The option of singing kumbaya and preaching mutual understanding isn't available. Is that really not obvious to you? Again Why is understanding and having empathy for someone mutually exclusive from taking even violent actions against them? Huh? Didn't you openly say more than once that you were in the habit of skipping over all my posts, implying that my contributions can only ever be worthless? Why are you now trying to give me lessons on understanding and empathy? I don't even go that far with GoTuNk. Did you ever show an ounce of remorse for saying these things or apologize to me?

Well I told you - how Gotunk seems you to, you seem to me, dismissing ideas in a close minded way, never asking questions only forcibly trying to push your narrow understanding of the world


Have I been doing exactly the same thing, dismissing your ideas and scarcely asking questions? Well yeah? Does that make me a hypocrite when I talk about empathy? Also yes!

On January 21 2020 22:37 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On January 21 2020 22:29 Loco wrote: But I just told you that I'm confident that I do understand. Of course I think it was very much worth it to study these ideologies and understand them, otherwise I wouldn't have put in the time to do so. Why do you insist on telling me that I do not try to understand them? Can you provide some kind of evidence that I misunderstand the origin of these beliefs instead of just claiming that I do, over and over again? Can you also tell me what parts of fascism and neoconservatism are rational? Define "rational" Very few things people do are rational, you are influenced by social engineering just as Gotunk is. We all are - thinking we have blank slate independent rational free will is a total mirage - I realized this after reading A Short History of Nearly everything, Sapiens, Laws of Human Nature, Power of Habit, studying behavioral economics and now practicing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy + getting into a genealogy history book. They show you you know literally fuckall, so much of what we do and believe are processes we don't understand, influenced by others and generalisations, you can never be rational as you put it, only try to understand what you can so you can live by your narrow arbitrary values EDIT: Well in a grand scheme of things our values are narrow and arbitrary, but just like with veganism or recycling - you take responsibility for your values lead by example and take action and hope others do the same and significant changes can come

I can define "rational" for you through an example. A belief in pseudoscientific theories of race, for instance, isn't rational. i.e., it is based on false information and/or prejudice. E.g. it's not rational to believe in phrenology, because the evidence shows that it is a pseudoscientific theory.

It is possible to come to know the difference between what is true and what is prejudicial, and we come to know this difference through rationality and empirical study.

There is a difference between a person who is able and/or willing to make use of rationality and empiricism to align (ideally) all of their beliefs with them, and a person who does not do that. It becomes a matter of degrees. No one is perfectly rational all the time. But claiming that because this is so, then everyone is the same, is obviously ridiculous. In fact it's so ridiculous that you yourself are contradicting it right now, by saying "I have read these things and now I know XYZ", implying that you have a higher degree of understanding than those who haven't read and practiced those things. If there was not rationality involved in this and it was all arbitrary, you wouldn't have valued it above other things, and you wouldn't be essentially preaching for this approach.

On January 21 2020 22:42 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On January 21 2020 22:36 Loco wrote:   On January 21 2020 22:25 LemOn[5thF] wrote:   On January 21 2020 22:14 Loco wrote: If you had finished reading the post that you're quoting from and had taken the time to look at the provided links you would have found out that I do understand how he got to hold his current beliefs. I provided evidence of that understanding in the form of a documentary and a long exposé that goes into every little detail as to how social engineering creates people who hold his neoconservative views. That same understanding allows me to know that I am not going to influence him to hold different views, no matter the approach that I take. Social engineering is very powerful. People don't just give up the narratives that they have learned to live by, especially when they have been advantageous to them, because you've asked them a few questions about it online.   On January 21 2020 22:13 LemOn[5thF] wrote: I'm no expert, but wasn't black and white "us and them" thinking of the masses what allowed the rise of totalitarian regimes and religious wars in the first place? That's way too simplistic. Most wars were fueled by feelings of intrinsic superiority and a "might makes right mentality", where certain group identities feared or hated other group identities because of some unalterable characteristics. Keyword here is "unalterable". If someone wants you dead because of characteristics that you were born with and can't alter, you are necessarily forced to be "against them". The option of singing kumbaya and preaching mutual understanding isn't available. Is that really not obvious to you? Again Why is understanding and having empathy for someone mutually exclusive from taking even violent actions against them? Huh? Didn't you openly say more than once that you were in the habit of skipping over all my posts, implying that my contributions can only ever be worthless? Why are you now trying to give me lessons on understanding and empathy? I don't even go that far with GoTuNk. Did you ever show an ounce of remorse for saying these things or apologize to me? Well I told you - how Gotunk seems you to, you seem to me, dismissing ideas in a close minded way, never asking questions only forcibly trying to push your narrow understanding of the world Have I been doing exactly the same thing, dismissing your ideas and scarcely asking questions? Well yeah? Does that make me a hypocrite when I talk about empathy? Also yes!

Well no, you've done much worse than dismiss specific ideas that I bring up, you've decided that it was worthwhile to announce to the community that everything I write is not worth reading.

Also, if you hadn't been skipping my posts for so long (duh), you would have found out that I did ask questions to GoTuNk a number of times and usually he decided to evade them. People on this site have a history, believe it or not, and you are not in the best place to know that history. They are. You're just arrogantly introducing yourself into exchanges between people that you do not have the slightest clue about and make assumptions about them because it's low effort entertainment.

This guy peter gelderloos seriously misunderstands what nonviolence and pacificsm is. his 'sources', are often just personal anecdote. The claims he doesn't provide sources for are seriously unfounded, imo.

Also, neocolonialism is surely better than the british colonalism over India; one of the most vile instances of imperialism ever. One shouldn't really expect all the problems to go away with decolonization, but it was a major success in many ways.

On January 21 2020 22:56 Stroggoz wrote: This guy peter gelderloos seriously misunderstands what nonviolence and pacificsm is, he doesn't actually quote many pacifists at all except for those like ghandi, mlk and nelson mandela. his 'sources', are often just personal anecdote. The claims he doesn't provide sources for are seriously unfounded, imo. Also, neocolonialism is surely better than the british colonalism over India; one of the most vile instances of imperialism ever. One shouldn't really expect all the problems to go away with decolonization, but it was a major success in many ways.

If you can provide examples to back up your criticisms or an external critique of his book I'd be interested in reading them. There's a couple hundred of sources that aren't anecdotes.

He acknowledges that it's better in some ways, but claims that it is not the victory that is touted by pacifists. And he's right that it's easier to gain liberation when you are fighting against an easily recognizable foreign oppressor and that now "any liberation movement would have to go up against the confounding dynamics of nationalism and ethnic/religious rivalry in order to abolish a domestic capitalism and government that are far more developed". India today is "Teetering on the Brink of Fascism". Their government is inspired by Nazism and European fascist movements of the 20th century.