|
it's the qr code that really nails it, though
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Being an angry gun nut who really has it in for some dude named Roy is also beautiful in its simplicity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:
Who are these Radical leftist who fell under the power of the horseshoe and became neo-conservatives?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:Who are these Radical leftist who fell under the power of the horseshoe and became neo-conservatives? you should consider looking up the history of neoconservatives the answer may surprise you
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Irving Kristol, former Trotskyist And just to name the most ridiculous person out there, David Horowitz jumped from leftism to neoconservatism to the alt right
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Irving Kristol, former Trotskyist yeah i mean the shift makes a ton of sense in terms of like understanding why it happened when you consider that this was the anti-Stalinist left in America the funny thing with this and the johnson discussion earlier is you look at him and im reminded of scoop jackson, with his incredibly good record on civil rights but you also look at what both men did wrt vietnam of course when you're a moron who probably can't define neocon like so BadOptics posted:Who are these Radical leftist who fell under the power of the horseshoe and became neo-conservatives? then you make an rear end out of yourself e: ambiguous; im not implying you are a moron yronic heroism, im calling badoptics a moron
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
For a moment I thought you were talking about Scoop Jackson, sports journalist and I was very confused
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
stone cold posted:yeah i mean the shift makes a ton of sense in terms of like understanding why it happened when you consider that this was the anti-Stalinist left in America Thanks, I was always struck by how neoconservative ideology embraced "global revolution"... seemingly out of nowhere, and then around 2007 I learned about the Trotsky connection and it fell into place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Thanks, I was always struck by how neoconservative ideology embraced "global revolution"... seemingly out of nowhere, and then around 2007 I learned about the Trotsky connection and it fell into place. yeop that and the legendary pettiness of people like podhoretz thankfully their ideology is dead for now, that's a sort of thanks to wolfowitz, i guess but not really, the man is a monster
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Many of our Bold Internet Leftists would fall in love with the war if only the guy was explicitly calling himself a Nazi instead of a rebranding. I love how blatantly you project. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
it turns out when your entire understanding of geopolitics turns on the axis (heh) of opposition to the ussr you get taken to some weird fuckin places
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It is very telling that you think distinctions between aggression and defense are unimportant and pedantic. Communism is an attack on capitalism you dingus. That's the whole idea. There's no important difference between thwarting the spread of communism and defending capitalism. The phrases are functionally identical. That has nothing to do with moral justifications for military action or intervention, where the differences between aggression and defense are important. You can attack capitalism without launching an aggressive war. You can defend capitalism by engaging in a bunch of unprovoked aggression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
The American invasion of Vietnam was a "defensive" war in the same sense that a mafia boss is acting "defensively" when they put out a hit on somebody who threatens their monetary interests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
Nobody said the US invasion of Vietnam was a defensive war. Offensive acts can be motivated by a desire to defend the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
The issue as discussed earlier was that there was, in fact, different types of communism (the Soviets, China and Vietnam weren't necessarily on the same page) and that by the 1960s, the Soviets weren't interested in "exporting revolution." The war was predicated on Dominio theory, it is just that Dominio theory was complete nonsense and essentially a fantasy. If anything it is a very good lesson of how DC has produce theories that have been stewed in echo chambers beyond any usable form. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Communism is an attack on capitalism you dingus. That's the whole idea. There's no important difference between thwarting the spread of communism and defending capitalism. The phrases are functionally identical. Yeah no. Someone else somewhere deciding to be communist is not an attack on capitalism. It doesn't stop people on the other side of the world from being capitalists if they want to be. This makes as much sense as saying that someone deciding to be Jewish is attacking Christianity, or someone being Methodist is attacking Catholicism. That only works if your underlying theory is that some institution is just owed everyone's belief and allegiance by divine right and any wrongthinkers are attacking it just by existing, and therefore going to someone else's country and dropping napalm on them until they agree with you is just defending your ideology, it's nonsense. Domino theory was false, whether the Cubans or the Vietnamese decided to be socialist was not an attack on American capitalism in any way. JeffersonClay posted:You can defend capitalism by engaging in a bunch of unprovoked aggression. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
The soviets were clearly quite happy to provide substantial military aid to north Vietnam in the late 60's. Domino theory was bad and dumb, but the claim was not that it was good, but rather that containing communism was a popular political position in the US during the Cold War. VitalSigns posted:Domino theory was false, whether the Cubans or the Vietnamese decided to be socialist was not an attack on American capitalism in any way.] I never suggested it was an attack on American capitalism specifically, but American capitalism was and is predicated on having a bunch of capitalist trading partners across the world, or at least governments that will allow capitalist exploitation. The us intervened in Vietnam to keep Vietnamese capitalists in power and to thwart a communist revolution. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
Btw, it should be mentioned how the entire conflict started.quote:On the urging of the Soviet Union, Ho Chi Minh initially attempted to negotiate with the French, who were slowly re-establishing their control across the area.[90] In January 1946, the Viet Minh won elections across central and northern Vietnam.[91] On 6 March 1946, Ho signed an agreement allowing French forces to replace Nationalist Chinese forces, in exchange for French recognition of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam as a "free" republic within the French Union, with the specifics of such recognition to be determined by future negotiation.[92][93][94] The French landed in Hanoi by March 1946 and in November of that year they ousted the Viet Minh from the city.[90] British forces departed on 26 March 1946, leaving Vietnam in the hands of the French.[95] Soon thereafter, the Viet Minh began a guerrilla war against the French Union forces, beginning the First Indochina War. Essentially the French refused to acknowledge the right for the Vietnamese people to rule themselves through free elections, this devolved into a guerilla war that then inevitably pulled in the superpowers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Irving Kristol, former Trotskyist Yeah trotskyism. This is why you always need to keep around a ice pick when dealing with Trots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
What the hell is trotskyism anyway?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:What the hell is trotskyism anyway? Trotskyism is a form of communism centered around the idea of a global revolution with a permanent vanguard, as opposed to the communism in one state that Lenin and Stalin preferred.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Offensive acts can be motivated by a desire to defend the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:don't sign your posts  Although, it's really interesting seeing how otherwise intelligent people will get themselves all wound up around stupid arguments just to slapfight over something they clearly misunderstood. But it's JC so I understand the slappy instincts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Offensive acts can be motivated by a desire to defend the status quo. Like for instance supposed leftists parroting the NRA to defend their dick extenders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Trotskyism is a form of communism centered around the idea of a global revolution with a permanent vanguard, as opposed to the communism in one state that Lenin and Stalin preferred. Well, plus an emphasis on the proletariat as the vanguard party, as opposed to the peasantry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Whats wrong with attacking capitalism?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
You have to frame it as defending anti-capitalism or you're implying capitalists have the morally superior position, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:Whats wrong with attacking capitalism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A&t=17s
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Wherein Clintonistas erase more black leftists: https://twitter.com/KiranOpal/status/913772386994065409  https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/913803450915463168 (Talmadge, of course, blocked her after this)  Clintonistas on Twitter are the literal worst. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
All that anger focused at a woman who supported Clinton for agreeing with her male friend. Weird.  They did not imply that black people are not articulate. The OP incorrectly inferred it. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:All that anger focused at a woman who supported Clinton for agreeing with her male friend. A translucently-white person claiming that there's "no blackness there" in black leftists' tweets is, uh, pretty problematic, dude. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Who are these Twitter people and why should I care?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Wherein Clintonistas erase more black leftists: Why do you pay attention to so many random people on twitter who have lovely opinions? I can go out and find twitter users from "the left" and rage about them all day long, but that would be incredibly stupid. Why do you think posting random people that supported clinton lends weight to your viewpoint?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Why do you pay attention to so many random people on twitter who have lovely opinions? I can go out and find twitter users from "the left" and rage about them all day long, but that would be incredibly stupid. Why do you think posting random people that supported clinton lends weight to your viewpoint? Bravenak was right though
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Bravenak was right though Likely. Twitter is awful, and awful people / paid trolls / bots are all that you are going to get when using it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Why do you pay attention to so many random people on twitter who have lovely opinions? I can go out and find twitter users from "the left" and rage about them all day long, but that would be incredibly stupid. Why do you think posting random people that supported clinton lends weight to your viewpoint? The reason why I brought it up is because Briahna Joy Gray is a writer who I respect quite a bit. She was on a podcast that I like listening to, and she mentioned this incident. The fact that POC leftists get erased so regularly by establishment Democrats bothers me quite a bit. Also Lisa Talmadge isn't just some rando on twitter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The reason why I brought it up is because Briahna Joy Gray is a writer who I respect quite a bit. She was on a podcast that I like listening to, and she mentioned this incident. The fact that POC leftists get erased so regularly by establishment Democrats bothers me quite a bit. Right, but about half of your posting consists of reacting to a twitter post. You then tell us all how mad you are about it, and that it proves that centrists/liberals/clinton supporters are literally the worst. It's kind of an stupid gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:right, but about half of your posting consists of finding a twitter post, and then telling us all how mad you are about it and that it proves that centrists/liberals/clinton supporters are literally the worst. That's demonstrably untrue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Majorian posted:That's demonstrably untrue. Okay, maybe 25%-30%, but you do it A LOT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:26
|
|