Nazis are the enemy.
19 Aug 2017, 5:52 am
The only reason that people who aren't blatant Nazi-sympathizers and white nationalists aren't fully opposing the right-wing rallies and taking down of confederate statues is due to the fact that those leading the counter-protests are communists, and Americans are still terrified of communists. It's hilariously absurd to witness. They seem to forget that communists were destroying Nazis left and right in WWII. America had propaganda posters at one point which stated "This man is your friend! He fights for freedom!" in reference to a Soviet soldier. Absolutely hilarious how the US turned against the USSR with its disgusting violent nature and imperialistic desires. Now, we have people arguing about whether or not white supremacists should be treated like they're espousing just another opinion. White supremacy is no 'opinion' to be tolerated. It's a lot more than just a 'political belief.'
I don't really actively advocate for 'punching Nazis' all the time like a lot of anarchists do, simply because it gives those punched an excuse to claim they're the oppressed ones, that they're victims. Any harm, even if morally justified, against them done by random people will just be used as a way to fuel their platform, honestly. But I did enjoy seeing Richard Spencer get BTFO'd.
A lot of liberals (not leftists, of course--liberals aren't leftist, a distinction between them must be made) and conservatives are both condemning these white supremacists. Some are claiming that they have a right to free speech and shouldn't be stopped in any way. Honestly, I've seen more supposed 'centrists' defend the neo-Nazis than anyone else. Ridiculous.
_________________
crisscrossed with axes and thresholds, with latitudes and longitudes and geodesic lines, traversed by gradients marking the transitions and the becomings.
19 Aug 2017, 6:49 am
synthpop wrote:
The only reason that people who aren't blatant Nazi-sympathizers and white nationalists aren't fully opposing the right-wing rallies and taking down of confederate statues is due to the fact that those leading the counter-protests are communists, and Americans are still terrified of communists.
Yet another post implying everyone who is X fits neatly into box Y.
Let's spin this around. Tell me which of the following statements are in contradiction with one another.
"I fundamentally and completely disapprove of communism."
"I believe communists should have a right to free speech and to peaceful assembly."
"I am opposed to the use of violence as a means of pushing a political message."
"I do not approve of historical monuments being pulled down just because I happen to disagree with the person depicted by it."
Quote:
It's hilariously absurd to witness.
Really? I find it gravely concerning. By chance or design (I tend towards believing the latter) there exists an increasingly violent division in America that is on the brink of getting out of control.
Quote:
They seem to forget that communists were destroying Nazis left and right in WWII. America had propaganda posters at one point which stated "This man is your friend! He fights for freedom!" in reference to a Soviet soldier. Absolutely hilarious how the US turned against the USSR with its disgusting violent nature and imperialistic desires. Now, we have people arguing about whether or not white supremacists should be treated like they're espousing just another opinion. White supremacy is no 'opinion' to be tolerated. It's a lot more than just a 'political belief.'
What do you propose we do to those who espouse white supremacist opinions without infringing on their rights?
Quote:
I don't really actively advocate for 'punching Nazis' all the time like a lot of anarchists do, simply because it gives those punched an excuse to claim they're the oppressed ones, that they're victims. Any harm, even if morally justified, against them done by random people will just be used as a way to fuel their platform, honestly. But I did enjoy seeing Richard Spencer get BTFO'd.
It more than gives them an excuse, it literally makes them victims. That's before taking into consideration the unqualified accusations, "He's a Nazi! Gerrim!", being levelled by some people at anyone to the "right" of Marx.
Quote:
A lot of liberals (not leftists, of course--liberals aren't leftist, a distinction between them must be made)
Indeed.
Quote:
and conservatives are both condemning these white supremacists. Some are claiming that they have a right to free speech and shouldn't be stopped in any way. Honestly, I've seen more supposed 'centrists' defend the neo-Nazis than anyone else. Ridiculous.
What is ridiculous about defending the right to free speech and freedom from harm? To defend those principles is to defend all whom they apply to, not just "neo-Nazis".
To be liberal is to uphold the articles of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen:
"Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law."
Or, if you prefer, as John Stuart Mill asserted:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
And for the Biblically-inclined:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
19 Aug 2017, 8:01 am
synthpop wrote:
The only reason that people who aren't blatant Nazi-sympathizers and white nationalists aren't fully opposing the right-wing rallies and taking down of confederate statues is due to the fact that those leading the counter-protests are communists, and Americans are still terrified of communists. It's hilariously absurd to witness. They seem to forget that communists were destroying Nazis left and right in WWII. America had propaganda posters at one point which stated "This man is your friend! He fights for freedom!" in reference to a Soviet soldier. Absolutely hilarious how the US turned against the USSR with its disgusting violent nature and imperialistic desires. Now, we have people arguing about whether or not white supremacists should be treated like they're espousing just another opinion. White supremacy is no 'opinion' to be tolerated. It's a lot more than just a 'political belief.'
I don't really actively advocate for 'punching Nazis' all the time like a lot of anarchists do, simply because it gives those punched an excuse to claim they're the oppressed ones, that they're victims. Any harm, even if morally justified, against them done by random people will just be used as a way to fuel their platform, honestly. But I did enjoy seeing Richard Spencer get BTFO'd.
A lot of liberals (not leftists, of course--liberals aren't leftist, a distinction between them must be made) and conservatives are both condemning these white supremacists. Some are claiming that they have a right to free speech and shouldn't be stopped in any way. Honestly, I've seen more supposed 'centrists' defend the neo-Nazis than anyone else. Ridiculous.
I don't really actively advocate for 'punching Nazis' all the time like a lot of anarchists do, simply because it gives those punched an excuse to claim they're the oppressed ones, that they're victims. Any harm, even if morally justified, against them done by random people will just be used as a way to fuel their platform, honestly. But I did enjoy seeing Richard Spencer get BTFO'd.
A lot of liberals (not leftists, of course--liberals aren't leftist, a distinction between them must be made) and conservatives are both condemning these white supremacists. Some are claiming that they have a right to free speech and shouldn't be stopped in any way. Honestly, I've seen more supposed 'centrists' defend the neo-Nazis than anyone else. Ridiculous.
Yeah, the USSR was really great when it was slicing up Poland together with the nazis, helping kick off WW2, when the USSR was suffering under the blood soaked rule of a dictator, a paranoid man who purged anyone with a decent brain who he thought might not lick his boot, a man who signed a deal with Hitler that he wouldn't tread on his toes if he didn't tread on his. If Hitler hadn't been an imbecile, he might well have been ruling Western Europe and Stalin Eastern Europe. There's a reason the Germans rushed West to surrender and rushed West to escape East Germany after, before they were locked behind a wall and all but made slaves.
19 Aug 2017, 12:56 pm
Where are these "Nazis" anyway? All I see on the news is people yelling at the Trump building which I find is totally stupid because.
1) Trump doesn't have any control over Nazis.
2) Trump doesn't live anywhere close to Nazis territories. Trump lives in the Eastern US states, whereas Nazis typically live in the Western US states.
3) Trump doesn't actually live in Trump tower anymore. He lives in the white house.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Aug 2017, 10:55 pm
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I'll take the designation of being "Fake News" as a compliment, as that conservative insult is applied to those news sources that are just the exact opposite of real fake news.
Avoiding giving straight answers again, Bill?
It's rather telling that, when confronted with anything that contradicts your binary world view, your responses are invariably the textual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!".
If you lack the fortitude to defend your flimsy rhetoric, I suggest you discontinue the petty attempts at pigeon-holing and, likewise, desist from peddling your Identitarian drivel.
I've decided giving answer to you, straight or otherwise, hardly is worth my time.
"Anything that causes me to doubt or question my beliefs isn't worth my time."
How admirable!
Quote:
You're the one who accused me of "identity politics," when I fail to recall how I wrote anything in defense of a particular ethnicity I might belong to.
You use identity politics, but don't understand what is meant by identity politics.
Hint: Race and ethnicity comprise only one form of identity politics.
Hint 2: You repeatedly treat "conservative" and "right wing" as monolithic groups, either explicitly or by implication.
Quote:
Or in other words, your accusations are specious, as I did no such thing.
My "accusation" is bang on point. Examine your posts in this thread and you'll find multiple examples of language referring to identity groups, as well as explicit pigeon-holing of people based purely on their criticism of yourself.
I'm willing to lead you to water, Bill, but I'm not about to force a hosepipe down your throat.
With the exception of you, I have NEVER heard the term encompass anything other than ethnicity or possibly class. And if I am guilty of promoting identity politics by promoting a leftist narrative, then so are you with doing the same with the right.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
20 Aug 2017, 1:53 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I'll take the designation of being "Fake News" as a compliment, as that conservative insult is applied to those news sources that are just the exact opposite of real fake news.
Avoiding giving straight answers again, Bill?
It's rather telling that, when confronted with anything that contradicts your binary world view, your responses are invariably the textual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!".
If you lack the fortitude to defend your flimsy rhetoric, I suggest you discontinue the petty attempts at pigeon-holing and, likewise, desist from peddling your Identitarian drivel.
I've decided giving answer to you, straight or otherwise, hardly is worth my time.
"Anything that causes me to doubt or question my beliefs isn't worth my time."
How admirable!
Quote:
You're the one who accused me of "identity politics," when I fail to recall how I wrote anything in defense of a particular ethnicity I might belong to.
You use identity politics, but don't understand what is meant by identity politics.
Hint: Race and ethnicity comprise only one form of identity politics.
Hint 2: You repeatedly treat "conservative" and "right wing" as monolithic groups, either explicitly or by implication.
Quote:
Or in other words, your accusations are specious, as I did no such thing.
My "accusation" is bang on point. Examine your posts in this thread and you'll find multiple examples of language referring to identity groups, as well as explicit pigeon-holing of people based purely on their criticism of yourself.
I'm willing to lead you to water, Bill, but I'm not about to force a hosepipe down your throat.
With the exception of you, I have NEVER heard the term encompass anything other than ethnicity or possibly class. And if I am guilty of promoting identity politics by promoting a leftist narrative, then so are you with doing the same with the right.
Your ignorance does not constitute an argument, Bill. And I made no mention of either "left" nor "right" narratives. Identity politics is the sole domain of neither wing.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Aug 2017, 2:06 am
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I'll take the designation of being "Fake News" as a compliment, as that conservative insult is applied to those news sources that are just the exact opposite of real fake news.
Avoiding giving straight answers again, Bill?
It's rather telling that, when confronted with anything that contradicts your binary world view, your responses are invariably the textual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!".
If you lack the fortitude to defend your flimsy rhetoric, I suggest you discontinue the petty attempts at pigeon-holing and, likewise, desist from peddling your Identitarian drivel.
I've decided giving answer to you, straight or otherwise, hardly is worth my time.
"Anything that causes me to doubt or question my beliefs isn't worth my time."
How admirable!
Quote:
You're the one who accused me of "identity politics," when I fail to recall how I wrote anything in defense of a particular ethnicity I might belong to.
You use identity politics, but don't understand what is meant by identity politics.
Hint: Race and ethnicity comprise only one form of identity politics.
Hint 2: You repeatedly treat "conservative" and "right wing" as monolithic groups, either explicitly or by implication.
Quote:
Or in other words, your accusations are specious, as I did no such thing.
My "accusation" is bang on point. Examine your posts in this thread and you'll find multiple examples of language referring to identity groups, as well as explicit pigeon-holing of people based purely on their criticism of yourself.
I'm willing to lead you to water, Bill, but I'm not about to force a hosepipe down your throat.
With the exception of you, I have NEVER heard the term encompass anything other than ethnicity or possibly class. And if I am guilty of promoting identity politics by promoting a leftist narrative, then so are you with doing the same with the right.
Your ignorance does not constitute an argument, Bill. And I made no mention of either "left" nor "right" narratives. Identity politics is the sole domain of neither wing.
If taking one side or another politically was identity politics, then everyone would be guilty of it. But no, that is not identity politics. Rather, it constitutes identifying solely with people of one's own ethnicity, or religion, or social class at the exclusion of all others. Hell, by your definition, siding with a favorite football team would be identity politics!
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
20 Aug 2017, 3:15 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
If taking one side or another politically was identity politics, then everyone would be guilty of it. But no, that is not identity politics. Rather, it constitutes identifying solely with people of one's own ethnicity, or religion, or social class at the exclusion of all others. Hell, by your definition, siding with a favorite football team would be identity politics!
My definition? I haven't provided one. I'm using the existing definition, one which you seem to have arbitrarily decided only applies to specific identities, apparently based on the limited scope of your own experiences.
Manchester United supporters are a social group. If they politicised on the basis of that shared identity it would, indeed, be identity politics. As would anyone who made political arguments against people on the basis of their being members of said social group. For example:
"No true Manchester United supporter would vote for that Manchester City loving bastard."
Similarly, when you class anyone who disagrees with you as "conservative" or "right wing", you're engaging in identity politics.
Other identity groups include cultures and subcultures, sex and/or gender, age group or generation (think Brexit), sexuality, profession or trade, nationality, area of settlement, etc. I'd be staggered to find you haven't witnessed the majority of these either applied or appealed to politically.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Aug 2017, 3:23 am
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If taking one side or another politically was identity politics, then everyone would be guilty of it. But no, that is not identity politics. Rather, it constitutes identifying solely with people of one's own ethnicity, or religion, or social class at the exclusion of all others. Hell, by your definition, siding with a favorite football team would be identity politics!
My definition? I haven't provided one. I'm using the existing definition, one which you seem to have arbitrarily decided only applies to specific identities, apparently based on the limited scope of your own experiences.
Manchester United supporters are a social group. If they politicised on the basis of that shared identity it would, indeed, be identity politics. As would anyone who made political arguments against people on the basis of their being members of said social group. For example:
"No true Manchester United supporter would vote for that Manchester City loving bastard."
Similarly, when you class anyone who disagrees with you as "conservative" or "right wing", you're engaging in identity politics.
Other identity groups include cultures and subcultures, sex and/or gender, age group or generation (think Brexit), sexuality, profession or trade, nationality, area of settlement, etc. I'd be staggered to find you haven't witnessed the majority of these either applied or appealed to politically.
No, I don't call anyone I disagree with a conservative or right wing - I call people who are politically to the right conservative or right wing. Regardless, that still is not identity politics. Those Alt Right white nationalists at their idiot Unite The Right rally were purveyors of identity politics, as their goal was a purely white ethno state, whereas the antifascist demonstrators were not, as their counter protest revolved around the rejection of racism. I stand with the latter.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
20 Aug 2017, 4:06 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If taking one side or another politically was identity politics, then everyone would be guilty of it. But no, that is not identity politics. Rather, it constitutes identifying solely with people of one's own ethnicity, or religion, or social class at the exclusion of all others. Hell, by your definition, siding with a favorite football team would be identity politics!
My definition? I haven't provided one. I'm using the existing definition, one which you seem to have arbitrarily decided only applies to specific identities, apparently based on the limited scope of your own experiences.
Manchester United supporters are a social group. If they politicised on the basis of that shared identity it would, indeed, be identity politics. As would anyone who made political arguments against people on the basis of their being members of said social group. For example:
"No true Manchester United supporter would vote for that Manchester City loving bastard."
Similarly, when you class anyone who disagrees with you as "conservative" or "right wing", you're engaging in identity politics.
Other identity groups include cultures and subcultures, sex and/or gender, age group or generation (think Brexit), sexuality, profession or trade, nationality, area of settlement, etc. I'd be staggered to find you haven't witnessed the majority of these either applied or appealed to politically.
No, I don't call anyone I disagree with a conservative or right wing - I call people who are politically to the right conservative or right wing. Regardless, that still is not identity politics.
And people who are not. That is identity politics.
Quote:
Those Alt Right white nationalists at their idiot Unite The Right rally were purveyors of identity politics, as their goal was a purely white ethno state, whereas the antifascist demonstrators were not, as their counter protest revolved around the rejection of racism. I stand with the latter.
"I don't engage in identity politics but here are the identities I'm against, along with my take on what their goals are. Also, here are the identities I "stand with."
Mmhmm.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Aug 2017, 4:29 am
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If taking one side or another politically was identity politics, then everyone would be guilty of it. But no, that is not identity politics. Rather, it constitutes identifying solely with people of one's own ethnicity, or religion, or social class at the exclusion of all others. Hell, by your definition, siding with a favorite football team would be identity politics!
My definition? I haven't provided one. I'm using the existing definition, one which you seem to have arbitrarily decided only applies to specific identities, apparently based on the limited scope of your own experiences.
Manchester United supporters are a social group. If they politicised on the basis of that shared identity it would, indeed, be identity politics. As would anyone who made political arguments against people on the basis of their being members of said social group. For example:
"No true Manchester United supporter would vote for that Manchester City loving bastard."
Similarly, when you class anyone who disagrees with you as "conservative" or "right wing", you're engaging in identity politics.
Other identity groups include cultures and subcultures, sex and/or gender, age group or generation (think Brexit), sexuality, profession or trade, nationality, area of settlement, etc. I'd be staggered to find you haven't witnessed the majority of these either applied or appealed to politically.
No, I don't call anyone I disagree with a conservative or right wing - I call people who are politically to the right conservative or right wing. Regardless, that still is not identity politics.
And people who are not. That is identity politics.
Quote:
Those Alt Right white nationalists at their idiot Unite The Right rally were purveyors of identity politics, as their goal was a purely white ethno state, whereas the antifascist demonstrators were not, as their counter protest revolved around the rejection of racism. I stand with the latter.
"I don't engage in identity politics but here are the identities I'm against, along with my take on what their goals are. Also, here are the identities I "stand with."
Mmhmm.
By your definition, absolutely all politics has to do with identity. Or do you just paint the left with that designation?
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Aug 2017, 4:32 am
Aaendi wrote:
Where are these "Nazis" anyway? All I see on the news is people yelling at the Trump building which I find is totally stupid because.
1) Trump doesn't have any control over Nazis.
2) Trump doesn't live anywhere close to Nazis territories. Trump lives in the Eastern US states, whereas Nazis typically live in the Western US states.
3) Trump doesn't actually live in Trump tower anymore. He lives in the white house.
1) Trump doesn't have any control over Nazis.
2) Trump doesn't live anywhere close to Nazis territories. Trump lives in the Eastern US states, whereas Nazis typically live in the Western US states.
3) Trump doesn't actually live in Trump tower anymore. He lives in the white house.
There are these marvelous inventions called the internet, TV, and radio, through which Trump can communicate with his Alt Right base, regardless of where he or they geographically are.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
20 Aug 2017, 5:52 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Aaendi wrote:
Where are these "Nazis" anyway? All I see on the news is people yelling at the Trump building which I find is totally stupid because.
1) Trump doesn't have any control over Nazis.
2) Trump doesn't live anywhere close to Nazis territories. Trump lives in the Eastern US states, whereas Nazis typically live in the Western US states.
3) Trump doesn't actually live in Trump tower anymore. He lives in the white house.
1) Trump doesn't have any control over Nazis.
2) Trump doesn't live anywhere close to Nazis territories. Trump lives in the Eastern US states, whereas Nazis typically live in the Western US states.
3) Trump doesn't actually live in Trump tower anymore. He lives in the white house.
There are these marvelous inventions called the internet, TV, and radio, through which Trump can communicate with his Alt Right base, regardless of where he or they geographically are.
Yep when he's not communicating with the Russians, he's communicating with the nazis.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,782
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
20 Aug 2017, 12:24 pm
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Aaendi wrote:
Where are these "Nazis" anyway? All I see on the news is people yelling at the Trump building which I find is totally stupid because.
1) Trump doesn't have any control over Nazis.
2) Trump doesn't live anywhere close to Nazis territories. Trump lives in the Eastern US states, whereas Nazis typically live in the Western US states.
3) Trump doesn't actually live in Trump tower anymore. He lives in the white house.
1) Trump doesn't have any control over Nazis.
2) Trump doesn't live anywhere close to Nazis territories. Trump lives in the Eastern US states, whereas Nazis typically live in the Western US states.
3) Trump doesn't actually live in Trump tower anymore. He lives in the white house.
There are these marvelous inventions called the internet, TV, and radio, through which Trump can communicate with his Alt Right base, regardless of where he or they geographically are.
Yep when he's not communicating with the Russians, he's communicating with the nazis.
Yes.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
