|
Jaxyon posted:You're making a semantic argument.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
axeil posted:So David Wong over on Cracked wrote a good article about radicalization and becoming a monster by fighting monsters and I thought folks here might enjoy it. I kinda wonder if all of us here are starting to fall into the traps he's pointing out here. I think it's possible to read it as a both side-ism condemnation but I don't think that's what he's going for. He's trying to warn people not to become the monsters they set out to defeat. I could give a long form complaint about it, but I'm feeling lazy and he's essentially doing horseshoe theory and I've seen it about 10 times since Charlottesville.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:It means being against any type of social program and using the cost of that program to justify your position. it's fascinating how progressive social programs are the only sorts of policies that are consistently held to the "I demand full details on financing and implementation or you are Unserious" standard
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:yes (technically im complaining about your rhetoric, but close enough). And my point is that's irrelevant, you already knew where I stood on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
axeil posted:So David Wong over on Cracked wrote a good article about radicalization and becoming a monster by fighting monsters and I thought folks here might enjoy it. I kinda wonder if all of us here are starting to fall into the traps he's pointing out here. I think it's possible to read it as a both side-ism condemnation but I don't think that's what he's going for. He's trying to warn people not to become the monsters they set out to defeat. This is about the hundredth lazily written article trying to convince people to play nice with their oppressors. It's a bad look, friend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Anchor Wanker posted:This is about the hundredth lazily written article trying to convince people to play nice with their oppressors. It's a bad look, friend. That's not what he's arguing though. He even says that at the end!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:if it's on the top 1% then it would indeed merely need to be modest. they have a lot of money dude Ze Pollack posted:comparing the top half of this quote to the bottom half of this quote is an astonishing self-own
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm amazed at the stones it takes to describe taxes that need to raise a trillion or so dollars as "modest." If we go to single payer companies no longer have to cover employee health insurance. The average worker worked 1,786 hours in 2015. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics employers spend about $10.11 per hour on benefit costs. In 20017 we have a little over 127 million people working full time in the US. If we then taxed companies at a rate comparable to about half of their current per hour benefits costs, which is probably still less than the medical portion of benefits, that should give the IRS an extra trillionish dollars a year. I think I calculated that correctly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
axeil posted:That's not what he's arguing though. He even says that at the end! pokemon go to the polls isn't much of an argument, and he fundamentally misunderstands why groups like antifa form
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
the usual components of a cracked article: 1.) clickbait title 2.) "adult sitting-in-chair-backward to tell teens how the world is" tone 2.) pop science and/or misinterpreted historical fact 3.) anecdote from the writer's personal life 4.) overly simplified call to action 5.) funny jokes in the picture captions sometimes those caption jokes are rly funny though, so it can be worth it
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
axeil posted:That's not what he's arguing though. He even says that at the end! The end is an otter gif. He's saying "don't hit Nazi's, instead vote" which is pretty incoherent. Dead Reckoning posted:I'm in favor of taxing the wealthy, but I'm bearish about the amount of additional revenue it would generate, because I don't believe that it's possible for the elected legislature in a democracy to craft a tax code that accountants will be unable to shield the money of their wealthy clients from. Which is an argument against any tax increase on rich people ever but not at all borne out by reality or history. Yes, they can stop some of it, but they never stop all of it. That's why you get real aggressive with the rate increase. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
ooh DR has quit explaining why single payer can't work in California and moved on to explaining why it can't work at the national level. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
I have mixed feelings on that article. I suspect that he's right in some ways; I don't want to become what I hate in order to fight what I hate. That's what we did in the War on Terror, and I despised it. But at the same time, giving Chimp second - or nth - chances expecting a sudden pivot is a sucker's bet. He's had seventy-one years to develop the personality he has. For the most part, it's served him pretty well in the business world. He's not going to change. He's not going to suddenly wake up one day that he's wrong and decide to be humble, or that immigrants are great people. When it comes to political violence, I'm like John Lennon: "you can count me out - in". I don't advocate violence, but I'm willing to resort to it if I have to. When Nazis invade your town shouting that "Jews will not replace us" and running people over with cars, sitting down and having a dialogue isn't going to work. You have to show, in clear and uncertain terms, that's not acceptable. So while I can see where the author is coming from, I don't think that 'the left', even at its worst, will ever get to be as uneducated and hostile as Chimp supporters at their worst.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
axeil posted:That's not what he's arguing though. He even says that at the end! And the DPRK says its a people's republic. It aint, and that's exactly what he's getting at. He makes a few decent points about giving someone a second chance and not hating people for unrelated poo poo, but this is still more horseshoe nonsense. Treating activists as though they're children with no agency and no discernment is some nonsense you could find in any of the other hundred articles like this. You should absolutely be radical when it comes to opposing the far right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:ooh DR has quit explaining why single payer can't work in California and moved on to explaining why it can't work at the national level. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:it's fascinating how progressive social programs are the only sorts of policies that are consistently held to the "I demand full details on financing and implementation or you are Unserious" standard Look I need to see a full prospectus and actuarial tables based on FY2000 dollars over the entire life of the program, including a detailed plotting of the Fiscal Impact of such a program on the Laffer Curve otherwise it's just pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Any who, time to authorize this defense supplementary budget where the majority of line items are classified even to my Senator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think UHC can and should be done on the national level, but I bristle when people suggest that the only reason that arguably the largest government intervention since WWII hasn't been done yet is cowardice and a lack of will by moderates, or that every funding and implementation challenge is sufficiently trivial that we can expect Congress to hammer it out and make our dreams real. It wasn't done at first because of racism, but then not done because things weren't bad enough and centrists are cowards. Literally every legislation ever has to be hammered out by congress and MfA isn't especially dream-like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think UHC can and should be done on the national level, but I bristle when people suggest that the only reason that arguably the largest government intervention since WWII hasn't been done yet is cowardice and a lack of will by moderates, or that every funding and implementation challenge is sufficiently trivial that we can expect Congress to hammer it out and make our dreams real. well it's more like a lack of will by the entire nation since enough people were happy enough with private insurance that a political movement around it never quite coalesced as it has now the funding aspect is not trivial but ultimately uhc systems are cheaper than our current mess so it's not as important in the long run as many of the very serious people have tried to portray it as
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think UHC can and should be done on the national level, but I bristle when people suggest that the only reason that arguably the largest government intervention since WWII hasn't been done yet is cowardice and a lack of will by moderates, or that every funding and implementation challenge is sufficiently trivial that we can expect Congress to hammer it out and make our dreams real. First of all, I haven't seen you since prior to the election so welcome back to the bad place. Secondly, I said use the funding of the F35 to make a general guess, so you're not playing with infinite numbers, just a program that is already considered OK and in the higher end of expenditures the federal government makes, just as a measuring stick, how much does the cost of the F35 program get us? Because as long as it doesn't literally bankrupt the country, I don't really care how much it costs, just that it is POSSIBLE. It is a cowardice, it is a cowardice of imagination. That the world cannot exist outside of the way it currently does. I do not dream of a utopia I dream of a Just World. This means what is important, like that all people are fed and clothed, and treated with dignity and respect is a higher priority than capitalism or the nation itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Anchor Wanker posted:And the DPRK says its a people's republic. It aint, and that's exactly what he's getting at. He makes a few decent points about giving someone a second chance and not hating people for unrelated poo poo, but this is still more horseshoe nonsense. Treating activists as though they're children with no agency and no discernment is some nonsense you could find in any of the other hundred articles like this. I don't think he's actually talking specifically about opposing the far-right but rather about any small insular communities and how self-righteous they get and how the ends always justify the means no matter what. I mean poo poo, this is right out of what happened in algeria with their radical islam issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QTaJ_ZVn-4&t=2455s (starts at 41 minutes, runs until about the 48 minute mark, key point i want to make is at around the 44 minute and 47 minute marks) tl;dr: algeria sees a rise of a radical islamic political party that promises to ban elections and institute totalitarian rule if they win. as said in the documentary "do you let a party go to power which claims: one man, one vote, but only once!". so to the army steps in, stages a coup and cancels the elections. the islamic political party now is pissed and takes a page out of bin-laden's playbook and start assassinating politicians. to combat this the algerian state security agency infiltrated the cells, convinced them that their list of enemies should be expanded and continued this until you got a People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front situation. "A group that believes a 100% pure (insert group) will not see that purity in anybody else but themselves. So whoever disagrees with them becomes the enemy, becomes out of the (insert group) and if they happen to disagree with each other themselves, then they will start fighting each other...eventually it ends in suicide" It's really good and I think the textbook example of how things can splinter infinitely and your tactics become more and more outlandish. axeil fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
axeil posted:I don't think he's actually talking specifically about opposing the far-right but rather about any small insular communities and how self-righteous they get and how the ends always justify the means no matter what. Great now explain how this applies to antifascists which is Wong's example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
axeil posted:"Also, if you think about it, all American institutions and capitalism itself help support white supremacy, therefore all are Nazi enablers and eligible for violent retribution." among the really dumb things in this article, this stands out the most. participating in exploitative and white supremacist institutions doesn't make a person either and only thought-free caricatures of "the left" think so thinking that a critique of the united states couched in anti-racism and anti-capitalism includes its entire population reveals certain...biases
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Great now explain how this applies to antifascists which is Wong's example. You don't want to go too far. Beating up Nazis is Cool and Good. Beating up Nazi sympathizers is less cool and less good. Attacking up people who criticize the violence is even less cool and good and attacking those who defend that group even less so. There's a point where it goes too far and that's what he's trying to get at and point out that absent internal dissent and moderation, all groups will end up at this point even if it's just how they talk/interact and not true violence. R. Guyovich posted:among the really dumb things in this article, this stands out the most. participating in exploitative and white supremacist institutions doesn't make a person either and only thought-free caricatures of "the left" think so I just showed a documentary example of how this same thinking lead to the (self) destruction of islamist terrorist cells in algeria. this is not a false phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
axeil posted:That's not what he's arguing though. He even says that at the end! His points about how radicalization happens aren't really wrong in any way, but when he tries to link Antifa groups to it, he fails to recognize any of the history of Antifa movements and ends up tanking his own piece into both-sidesism. The short version is that groups like Antifa (or ARA, or AFA in the UK, SHARP, etc) don't really stick around once fascist/neo-nazi/skinhead/etc groups get out of Dodge. Their goal is purely connected to this; once their targets stop starting poo poo in public places, historical Antifa groups tend to go dormant or disband entirely; their members go back to whatever it is they were doing, whether it's other forms of activism or just their daily 9-5. They don't really tend to widen their scope. Wong's piece seems to suggest that the supposed radicalization supposedly inherent to Antifa means that they will start targeting everyone and everything that stands in the way of stopping Nazis and that they will become self-sustaining on that basis, but history tells us that this really isn't how these groups work. They target actual members of Nazi/white supremacist organizations and don't tend to get involved in any wider violence. The thought process that Wong describes doesn't really seem to happen, at least in historical examples, in part because these are very loose networks that don't communicate much and really are only united by the idea of Nazis being bad and worth fighting. To put it another way, he seems to imply that both "sides" are viruses; but when we look at the history we see that Antifa-style groups are more like antibodies, who only come out to play when the specific threat they're designed for happens to show up. When the virus they're designed for isn't around they do nothing. Fraction Jackson fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:among the really dumb things in this article, this stands out the most. participating in exploitative and white supremacist institutions doesn't make a person either and only thought-free caricatures of "the left" think so It's the classic "critiquing a system while embedded in it...hypocritical much?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Fraction Jackson posted:His points about how radicalization happens aren't really wrong in any way, but when he tries to link Antifa groups to it, he fails to recognize any of the history of Antifa movements and ends up tanking his own piece into both-sidesism. hm. i think this is a much better critique than the ones i've heard so far. i read the article as mainly thrusting at the whole point about radicalization in general but i can see why his choice of example was very poor (although perhaps was made in an attempt to tie things to current events)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
axeil posted:hm. i think this is a much better critique than the ones i've heard so far. I mean I understand why someone might come to the conclusion he did, in particular because for whatever reason, leftist political violence in this country always "feels" scarier to a lot of people. That by itself would probably require dissertation-level analysis if people wanted to look into why that is. So, especially for people who seem to think that Antifa is a New Thing and nothing like it ever existed before, I can see how they'd end up where Wong did. But since we can see that groups with similar aims to modern Antifa never went down that road, it's harder to argue that they radicalize in the same way, or if they even "radicalize" in the way he means it. So using it as a second example in opposition to Nazi/white supremacist movements obscures his thesis badly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
According to the proud boys and tradwife, jerking it is killing all the sperm. Those poor little sperm are just smashing into the keyboard and dying helplessly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
axeil posted:You don't want to go too far. Beating up Nazis is Cool and Good. Beating up Nazi sympathizers is less cool and less good. Attacking up people who criticize the violence is even less cool and good and attacking those who defend that group even less so. That's not what antifascism does. They oppose Nazi's. They defend people against Nazi's, in cases where the police do nothing. This fantasy of antifa being a militant organization that is beating up all dissenters constructed to fulfill a point he wanted to make regardless of reality. quote:There's a point where it goes too far and that's what he's trying to get at and point out that absent internal dissent and moderation, all groups will end up at this point even if it's just how they talk/interact and not true violence. And there's the stupid part of this. He's making the statement that all groups will end this way, based on conjecture and horseshoe theory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
quote:Shkreli’s attorney called his client’s conduct “stupid” but begged the judge to give him another chance. Is there a special class that you have to take in law school covering different ways to say that your client is an idiot without getting fired?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:According to the proud boys and tradwife, jerking it is killing all the sperm. Those poor little sperm are just smashing into the keyboard and dying helplessly.  ted cruz!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
there's really no point in worrying about leftist groups getting too radicalized or too organized because the second they pose an actual inconvenience to power, let alone anything resembling a threat, they're immediately put down by the full force of state violence
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Fraction Jackson posted:I mean I understand why someone might come to the conclusion he did, in particular because for whatever reason, leftist political violence in this country always "feels" scarier to a lot of people. That by itself would probably require dissertation-level analysis if people wanted to look into why that is. So, especially for people who seem to think that Antifa is a New Thing and nothing like it ever existed before, I can see how they'd end up where Wong did. But since we can see that groups with similar aims to modern Antifa never went down that road, it's harder to argue that they radicalize in the same way, or if they even "radicalize" in the way he means it. So using it as a second example in opposition to Nazi/white supremacist movements obscures his thesis badly. Left wing violence is usually thought of in similar ways to what the Soviet Union did when they were gaining power or funding rebel groups. Right wing groups and leaders tended to be US funded and supported, and you've got 60 years of this quiet association peppered into the social unconscious that affects people's views. Jaxyon posted:That's not what antifascism does. They oppose Nazi's. They defend people against Nazi's, in cases where the police do nothing. It doesn't really help that black Bloc and the proud boys specifically target these protests as excuses to be violent / smash poo poo. Grapplejack fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
I will punch Nazis and also I will vote for communists. Come at me bro.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
communism is gross and bad, imo
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Left wing violence is usually thought of in similar ways to what the Soviet Union did when they were gaining power or funding rebel groups. Right wing groups and leaders tended to be US funded and supported, and you've got 60 years of this quiet association peppered into the social unconsciousness that affects views. Black bloc(which is a tactic, not a group , and generally not the same as antifascists though there is some crossover) may, at worst, set some symbolic fires do some property damage. Proud Boys will beat up black people. Seems about the same, i guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:First of all, I haven't seen you since prior to the election so welcome back to the bad place. My apologies for misinterpreting you; I thought you were arguing for literally diverting the F-35 budget into healthcare, which is something I've heard unironically suggested. I feel like it still might be salvaged as an instructive example though: the technical specifications and minimum/objective performance measures and delivery schedules for the F-35 run to tens of thousands of pages, and the program is still a mess, in large part because too much was asked of it without consideration for risk or limitations. A lot of that can be laid at the feet of the political decision to fold together two programs with differing objectives. I think we also have very different ideas about justice as well. I think it is better to pursue a certain path that guarantees that some but not all people are clothed and fed, rather than try to feed and clothe everyone and risk failing in such a way that more people end up naked and starving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
So we are living in the Forever War universe except there's no space travel and no genetic engineering to make everyone young and hot?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:well it's more like a lack of will by the entire nation since enough people were happy enough with private insurance that a political movement around it never quite coalesced as it has now Funny enough, I think the best selling point might be that 10 percent more people on military socialized medicine and Medicare report satisfaction. Jaxyon posted:Black bloc(which is a tactic, not a group , and generally not the same as antifascists though there is some crossover) may, at worst, set some symbolic fires do some property damage. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think we also have very different ideas about justice as well. I think it is better to pursue a certain path that guarantees that some but not all people are clothed and fed, rather than try to feed and clothe everyone and risk failing in such a way that more people end up naked and starving. I implore you to consider, that as long as I hold breath, I will find a way for justice to be served. That my brothers and sisters, my cousins and in-laws, elders and children all, will never have to suffer needlessly, and never have to make a utilitarian decision of who must live and die because of lack of means. Just consider it. With all my feeble grasping.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 02:53
|
|