|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Condiv posted:you don't have to throw your hat into the antifa ring. but when you start crying about how terrible antifa is and that they should stay away, you've crossed into fascist sympathizer territory, as antifa has protected a lot of people from nazi violence (including non-violent protestors!!) my problem with this precise sentiment is that good and bad are not binary things. in no way am I explicitly disagreeing, but this comes back to my first point with the lesser of two evils (which, violence is seen as an evil, necessary as it is). shutting out discussion during the election of how Clinton was bad and yelling at 'berniebros' to fall in line played a role in her overall failure. I think it would be prudent if, for a change of pace, discussions could be held as to how portrayed evilness can overall be harmful, even if another opposing side is more evil. I don't think both sides are bad, but I think both sides have bad people, and one side has significantly more bad people than the other side. without swift action, the amount of bad people in antifa will likely grow, and ineffectually punching nazis does, in the bigger picture, very little but incite fear and anger. what I'm saying is antifa is in position to get OWSed over time. this would be particularly bad because realistically two fights need to be won, the second being against the fucks who hold all of the money and basically play puppets with everyone else using the media that they pay off. Kilroy posted:Nah. I mean she did that, but politicians do this all the time and it usually works. It's just that she's the epitome of status quo liberalism, and even if people can't articulate it yet and wouldn't believe it if you spelled it out for them, they know liberalism has failed them. She was the candidate of hot air and bullshit. She's taken every position on every important issue and many of the unimportant ones and, while you can argue she'd have been a satisfactory President by historical standards and certainly better than Trump, at her core she doesn't really stand for anything. She's the candidate of nothing - the pinnacle of liberalism, really. I did not like Clinton because she spoke using weaselly words that would allow her to, as you stated, be full of hot air and bullshit and get away with it. many of her lines did the opposite of resonate with me - my favourite being her response that all of her stances could be read in her book that we can buy. I disagree about Trump, though; I don't think it was explicitly clear. Trump made gains in votes compared to past Republican across all race and income groups except for rich white people - who actually voted for D more than tradition. incidentally, Trump was also the candidate talking about how he would fix the problems that poor people suffer from, and Clinton was the candidate talking about how America was already great and that she would be focusing on the middle-class or something like that. I doubt Trump voters cared for much more past that, even if Trump's plans were wrong. the reality is that Clinton was continuing the long standing tradition of pretending poor people don't exist because they're gross or something. a cat on an apple fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Aug 29, 2017 |
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
I hope that members of Antifa can realize that while they probably aren't, there are definitely some among your number who are, like some football hooligans, there for the ruck rather than the team or supporting a side. That these people are on the more correct side is beside the point and they're usually rooted out, but they still exist in pockets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
a cat on an apple posted:my problem with this precise sentiment is that good and bad are not binary things. in no way am I explicitly disagreeing, but this comes back to my first point with the lesser of two evils (which, violence is seen as an evil, necessary as it is). shutting out discussion during the election of how Clinton was bad and yelling at 'berniebros' to fall in line played a role in her overall failure. I think it would be prudent if, for a change of pace, discussions could be held as to how portrayed evilness can overall be harmful, even if another opposing side is more evil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
Punching nazis isn't ineffectual. In fact, it's the most effective tactic you can take against fascist movements when they're in their infancy, as the inventors of modern fascism themselves admitted. You're right that's not the only fight to be won in the broader sense. But again, they aren't going to be OWS'd, because OWS had political goals - antifa doesn't outside of protecting people from fascists, so it doesn't matter what the media says about them as long as they drive fascist movements back onto the margins (and they don't need the media to do this.) Additionally, it's not the job of antifa to overthrow the oligarchs; while plenty antifa leftists agree with that goal (lots of anarchists found among the antifa), it's not in their purview. As movements go, antifa is pretty focused. Like, you get that antifa isn't a new thing, right? Nor is it unusual for the media to be hostile to them? OWS was babby's first protest after decades of bad information propaganda about how protests work, the first stirrings of class consciousness after being in a class coma for a long time. In general, while some individuals may be exceptions, antifa groups know the score, and they're not going to fade away at the first sign of police hostility or media demonization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
Any group of people that's large enough will inevitably have at least one violent hooligan who just uses the group identity as an excuse to fight people and break things, that's not a criticism unique to antifa. You can find someone like that in any group if you want to tar everyone with that brush to rationalize your dislike of that group.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:I hope that members of Antifa can realize that while they probably aren't, there are definitely some among your number who are, like some football hooligans, there for the ruck rather than the team or supporting a side. That these people are on the more correct side is beside the point and they're usually rooted out, but they still exist in pockets. (I do think they should give a sliver of a gently caress, even now, but no more.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
a cat on an apple posted:my problem with this precise sentiment is that good and bad are not binary things. in no way am I explicitly disagreeing, but this comes back to my first point with the lesser of two evils (which, violence is seen as an evil, necessary as it is). shutting out discussion during the election of how Clinton was bad and yelling at 'berniebros' to fall in line played a role in her overall failure. I think it would be prudent if, for a change of pace, discussions could be held as to how portrayed evilness can overall be harmful, even if another opposing side is more evil. the problem is, there's no strong evidence that antifa is formenting bad people. maybe there have been a few punches thrown when they shouldn't have been thrown, but that's going to be the case for any group of people no matter what. by saying "antifa needs to do better or else the right wing will rightfully call them hateful and as bad as fascists!" you are holding antifa to a standard that no other group is held to. not the police. not the loving nazis they're protecting people from. not even church groups can organize without someone being an rear end! you are setting antifa up to fail and be labeled just as bad as fascists! this is the same reasoning used to tar BLM. some person goes and smashes a window? BLM is the worst movement ever and needs to be arrested by the police! cut it out! Condiv fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Aug 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:by saying "antifa needs to do better or else the right wing will rightfully call them hateful and as bad as fascists!" you are holding antifa to a standard that no other group is held to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Hi antifa actually has goals unlike OWS and most of them are not punch based this is not a realistic danger except in that the media is trash and all of their other goals are low key as gently caress and unlikely to get publicity and certainly not going to be mentioned as organized by antifa if they do One of my allies actually writes for It's Going Down (one of the bigger anarchists/antifa news sites) and NPR reached out to him about interviewing some antifa, and he reached out to some mutual friends who have ahreed to do it. I'm also in the process of organizing a John Brown Gun Club with people from the local crew, and we're working on organizing some community workshops on self defense and poo poo and a community garden and all kinds of little things focused on improving the community with helps from local orgs that have actual structure and names that people can recognize. But all of those things are because of our broader ideas, not because people happen to identify as antifa. Antifa is not a movement or a broader ideology in and of itself, trying to apply that logic to it is a mistake Edit gently caress I missed like a whole page I'm responding to the guy who said antifa was in danger of getting OWS'd BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Aug 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Also worth pointing out that the government didn't need any precedents set by antifa or any violence perpetrated by any protesters in order to unleash violence of its own to destroy OWS and suppress anti-capitalist protests, much to the smug satisfaction of D&D I might add who sneered at the ineffectual nonviolent methods of OWS. Mysteriously, those same ineffectual methods that liberals and conservatives laugh at are also held up by those same people as the only acceptable form of protest 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
all evidence of antifa "doing bad things" should be regarded with an extremely jaundiced eye. the right wing and the fascists have shown no qualms about twisting and manipulating reality to better suit them. like when fascists tricked the idiots at the ACLU into broadcasting propaganda meant to help absolve fascists of the murder they had just committed:  or when the fascist stabbed himself in a parking lot and posted all over facebook how antifa had assaulted him for no reason!!  fascists will exaggerate, fabricate, and distort as much as they need to to attack their enemies, and when you claim that antifa is being too violent based on rumors that may well have been concocted by right wingers, you are helping them fight back against the people defending people from fascists and fascism
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
a cat on an apple posted:I disagree about Trump, though; I don't think it was explicitly clear. Trump made gains in votes compared to past Republican across all race and income groups except for rich white people - who actually voted for D more than tradition. incidentally, Trump was also the candidate talking about how he would fix the problems that poor people suffer from, and Clinton was the candidate talking about how America was already great and that she would be focusing on the middle-class or something like that. I doubt Trump voters cared for much more past that, even if Trump's plans were wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:all evidence of antifa "doing bad things" should be regarded with an extremely jaundiced eye. the right wing and the fascists have shown no qualms about twisting and manipulating reality to better suit them. like when fascists tricked the idiots at the ACLU into broadcasting propaganda meant to help absolve fascists of the murder they had just committed: And not just fascists. The right wing constantly, constantly makes up absurd stories about violence from everyone who disagrees with them. Hillary assassinated Vince Foster and Seth Rich and 100s of other people, Obama supporters carved a backwards B into a white lady's face, Pizzagate, gay people throw poo poo on peaceful Christians, then wipe their gay asses with pages from the Bible and throw those too etc etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
As mentioned in another thread: Respectability politics will never work when your opponent refuses to respect you. The Nazis are going to keep assaulting and killing people as long as they think they can get away with it, and the police will not stop them until forced to. They are actively intimidating and assaulting not only counter-protestors but any minorities and vulnerable people in sight while the authorities turn a blind eye. How many have to die for your ideals?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
It's lovely behavior to see a picture of 4 white supremacists beating a black kid to where he gets stitches and say that both sides are at fault because some anti violence protestors used a bit of mace
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 10:40
|
|
L
|
violent protesting is good, very good
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Yo, marxist-socialist here. I personally dislike Antifa taking any direct offensive violence. Defensive violence, or forming a black-block to stand as a shield is different, but if that black-block then moves to engage before direct offensive action is taken against them, then yes that I personally cannot condone. Even then, Antifa are still better than a neo-liberal centrists that tweet and message encouraging platitudes from safety while not actually doing anything with the power they have, physically or politically to actually make change for justice. That MLK quote about Moderates is bang on. Marxist-socialist here. I personally like any individual or group willing to risk safety and freedom to gently caress a racist’s poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Never not punch Nazis, hth
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
David Frum, while not a Democrat, had a hot take that it was State power and not private citizens that beat the Nazis  . I'm guessing that will get picked up as the next line from the types of liberals that think both sides are equally bad and need excuses on how to attack people fighting nazis. The argument being we need to allow the nazis to take over, wage a world war, and then get beaten by a coalition of foreign countries I guess. It aligns well with their attitude that as long as the state is doing something legally it's totally fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
David Frum lecturing on the morality of use of force is some real poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Seriously no kidding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:David Frum lecturing on the morality of use of force is some real poo poo He's a putz. I don't know how he factors into anything Democrats though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:David Frum lecturing on the morality of use of force is some real poo poo  God, I can almost taste what the world felt like back then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Radish posted:David Frum, while not a Democrat, had a hot take that it was State power and not private citizens that beat the Nazis As demonstrated, mentioned above, by the representatives of state power, the police, sitting back and doing nothing until the victims of Nazi assaults start fighting back. A Nazi literally tried to shoot a black man at Charlottesville and this invited no response from the authorities until the video went viral. The Authorities are not going to ride to your rescue, Antifa does what the police refuse to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:As demonstrated, mentioned above, by the representatives of state power, the police, sitting back and doing nothing until the victims of Nazi assaults start fighting back. A Nazi literally tried to shoot a black man at Charlottesville and this invited no response from the authorities until the video went viral. I think some of these people are so out of touch or misled of what they think American society is actually like they believe that Nazis couldn't take over because OBVIOUSLY the police/government officials would stop them if they got too rowdy and the system would certainly have some sort of protection from nazis legally taking over. Charlottesville definitely woke some of them up (I've read more than a few people say that they were wrong and it's pretty clear now what works and what doesn't) so the ones that are still committed are more interested in their ideology than actual opposition of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Can't wait to see which piece of nazi propaganda liberals will wrap around their lips next.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Liberals, and centrists in general, are obsessed with process and at a basic level opposed to democratic governance. Everything has to be a system and what is important is that rules and procedures are followed to achieve predictable results. It's why they love byzantine control schemes. Guns, drugs, crime, healthcare, primaries, whatever. It must all be made to confirm to a system, The more complex the better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Personally I don't share Gandhi's loathing for the coward, as he puts it. I understand that having violence done on you is scary as gently caress, as is the potential or threat of it. I admire those that can stand up and face it, though, especially if they do so non-violently and with a measure of forgiveness in them. Watching the protests at Standing Rock was a decent example of that, for instance. Against full, real life fascism this ends with you getting killed, likely most of your friends and family being killed/subjugated, and your entire belief system and general human goodness being ground into dust in jocular celebration. Not even a great way to make a point, as if the fascists win nobody will remember you or what you did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Hi antifa actually has goals unlike OWS and most of them are not punch based this is not a realistic danger except in that the media is trash and all of their other goals are low key as gently caress and unlikely to get publicity and certainly not going to be mentioned as organized by antifa if they do Speak for yourself. As I type this I can hear the screaming as antifa gradually approach my building, continuing their bloody massacre of every man, woman, and child who matches their ever-shifting definition of Nazi. I just looked out the window and a couple blocks away there were at least 50 corpses arranged on the ground in the shape of a swastika. God help us all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:I hope that members of Antifa can realize that while they probably aren't, there are definitely some among your number who are, like some football hooligans, there for the ruck rather than the team or supporting a side. That these people are on the more correct side is beside the point and they're usually rooted out, but they still exist in pockets. Even the worst of those "hooligans" are better human beings than you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Moving on https://twitter.com/IGD_News/status/902389194122608644?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:I hope that members of Antifa can realize that while they probably aren't, there are definitely some among your number who are, like some football hooligans, there for the ruck rather than the team or supporting a side. That these people are on the more correct side is beside the point and they're usually rooted out, but they still exist in pockets. So what? When I was a kid involved in Antifa it was very much about the rumble and punk rock more than it was about clear ideology. So what? The ideology is still there and the ideology is still good. Humans are multidimensional. Starting with effete intellectualism has been one of the major, if not the major problem with leftism in the US. Communists like Debs very much viewed the Revolution as inevitable. It was rationally proven. Therefore, while you need to advance the cause of the Revolution you don't need to do too much. Just martyr yourself a little so afterwards you'll look really good but aside from some brief stints in jail (for the ultra committed) all you really have to do is hand out some pamphlets and wait. I'll take a knuckledragger screaming, "Let's punch fascists, listen to loud music and drink too much beer and party!" over "Let's quietly discuss this issue like adults" any and everyday. You do get moralists and theorists on the Antifa side but direct action takes precedence. That's good. Act first. I know it's radical compared to idiot Democrat standard bearers like Newsom who want to go from "small to large" but do something, anything. Don't talk about it, don't wax poetic. Do something. Doing things is messy. That's OK. Be messy. Raise the chicken. Kill the chicken. Butcher the chicken. Filet the breast. Then you can talk about what to do with a clean cut of meat fresh for processing. Opposing direct action like Antifa is like when dumb kids answer "From the supermarket" when asked where meat comes from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Liberals, and centrists in general, are obsessed with process and at a basic level opposed to democratic governance. Everything has to be a system and what is important is that rules and procedures are followed to achieve predictable results. It's why they love byzantine control schemes. Guns, drugs, crime, healthcare, primaries, whatever. It must all be made to confirm to a system, The more complex the better. I think this is largely related to the general view liberals take towards politics. Like, for your average liberal politician, being a politician is a job that has the role of "generally making sure society continues to function and maybe tweaking things to make things run better." The idea of being in the government and pushing for dramatic change isn't even on the radar as an option, because that's just not what politicians are supposed to do. Most of these people, from the very beginning, view becoming a politician more as a career path than as any sort of ideologically driven attempt to change society for the better. This isn't to say they don't have some desire to make things better, but at the end of the day they think the status quo is basically acceptable and improving it isn't worth the risk of shaking things up. I think the reason for this is mostly just because people who are financially and materially well off* have little to gain from dramatic societal change, so they feel little, if any, drive to consider such changes. Their default emotional reaction is something along the lines of (to use universal healthcare as an example) "Well, maybe single payer would work, but maybe there's a clever market-based solution that works better and doesn't require any significant tax increases, so we should continue studying the problem before doing anything drastic." They're basically extremely risk averse out of a desire to protect their current quality of life. *I'm basically including anyone who has little to no risk of financial stress in their lives, so the top ~20% or so of Americans
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
On the efficacy of violent and nonviolent protest: Do Protests Matter? Evidence from the 1960s Black Insurgency http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf quote:Examining data on protest activity, Congressional speech, public opinion and county-level voting patterns, I find results consistent with the hypothesis that protests during the 1960s black insurgency are independently influencing elite discourse as well as white attitudes and behavior and that the tactics employed produce distinct reactions. In public opinion polls between 1950 and 1980, a majority of subjects identifed “civil rights” as the most important problem facing America at the same time that nonviolent black protest activity peaked and, likewise, responded with “social control” when black-led violent protests were most active.1 I also find that black-led nonviolent protests precipitate increased Congressional debate about “civil rights” and increase proximate county-level white Democratic vote- share in the 1964, 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. By contrast, disruptions in the same period in which some protester-initiated violence occurred spark Congressional discussion of “crime” and “riots” and cause a statistically significant decline in proximate county-level white Democratic vote-share.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Black people are framed as necessarily violent by the white class. A non-violent faction is necessary for any sort of peace process. Black people, coded by the language of savagery by their oppressors, needed to be radical in their nonviolence in order for that diplomatic channel to be created. Same thing happened in India. And South Africa. But because of their success, people now think that all we need is a radically non-violent group to establish moral clarity. That's a lie and a lie that the establishment loves since it delegitimizes any insurgency or reaction to the established power system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:On the efficacy of violent and nonviolent protest:
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay found a predictive model whose assumptions back up his worldview remind us, who's the president again
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:JeffersonClay found a predictive model whose assumptions back up his worldview It's not a predictive model and I'm confident you did not delve into its assumptions. In any case, the heuristic "you were wrong about something else and therefore must be wrong now" is peak dumb. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Aug 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
I'm positive that nobody will read your 63 page polisci jerkoff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:On the efficacy of violent and nonviolent protest: It's highly questionable to compare the black civil rights movement with antifa vs. fascist activity, since the contexts are dramatically different. In the case of civil rights, racism against black people had huge support from large swathes of society. Virtually everyone who voted Republican was against them to begin with, not to mention a not-insignificant portion of Democrats. But, at least for the time being, fascists and explicit white supremacists don't have that kind of support. Black people were/are basically an underdog fighting against a society that is working against their interests, while - again, for the time being - fascists do not have strong public support. Theoretically, the whole point of antifa is to squash fascism before it reaches the point where it does have the kind of support that resisting it becomes more difficult. Heck, to make this comparison even more dumb, antifa's intention isn't to promote societal/government action; it's directly intended to discourage fascists, so whether wider society approves is irrelevant unless it's actually making people become fascist (which I haven't seen any evidence is the case). Unlike the civil rights movement, the goal here isn't to get a majority of citizens supporting a cause in order to elect representatives; it's just to scare off small fascist groups before they become bigger. Regarding the topic of black civil rights, I think there's a significant and important difference between fixing explicitly racist laws/policies and fixing the all the other important structural and societal issues that harm black Americans. Most white moderates at least realize that racism is bad in theory and that explicit discrimination based upon race isn't good. As a result, it's very difficult for them to really argue against stuff like eliminating Jim Crow laws. But other issues are more difficult to really "prove" as racist, especially to people like moderate liberals, which gives a lot of room for making excuses. There are a variety of other potential major issues with the reasoning used in that paper, but I'm kinda tired so I don't feel like listing them out now. Maybe I'll list some out later this evening. As a side note, one other thing people often ignore when the topic of protest efficacy comes up is that it's also entirely possible that there's literally nothing a group of people can do to accomplish their goals in a particular situation. Like, if you look at black people during the latter half of the 20th century, it's entirely possible there is literally nothing they could have done (by themselves, anyways) to convince the government and greater society to take action beneficial to their cause, either in the form of violence or nonviolence. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Aug 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:42
|
|