|
Kilroy posted:iirc this started (over a week ago) when yronic heroism claimed that the democratic base used to be southern racists (correct but not controversial) and that all the losing democratic presidential candidates since then have been super leftist (lol no) mister facetious came in and claimed that lbj wasn't pro war and then crowsbeak started in on poor lbj had no choice and is a tragic figure
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Haha no kilroy. The point is "things were so much better and Dems were better at a time when they had a bunch of segregationists and a war in Vietnam is ignorant as hell and a terrible look" but I should not expect gun nut Internet tough guys like Kilroy and Crowsbeak to get that I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
stone cold posted:yeop Never dd whitewash it but nice try. Keep punching left. Ytlaya posted:You're being kind of dumb here. For an analogy, what you're doing is literally no different than liberals who use positive social justice views to mask harmful economic policy (except in reverse, using LBJ's positive accomplishments to somehow "offset" his escalation of the Vietnam War, which is pretty loving bad as far as crimes go). Never did. The worse that I did was suggest that hewasn't responsible for Vietnam it was his predecessor. My problem with stone cold is that stone cold is really obviously a liberal trol like yronic, just seeking to stir poo poo up. Either that or a trot, in which case they might as well be a liberal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Never dd whitewash it but nice try. Keep punching left. true leftists love imperialism and give cover to johnson and his atrocities. i personally dump agent orange on civilians every day as a tribute to the presidents who were forced into war and have no agency whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
stone cold posted:true leftists love imperialism and give cover to johnson and his atrocities. i personally dump agent orange on civilians every day as a tribute to the presidents who were forced into war and have no agency whatsoever. You know I wonder why you ran cover for the war criminal Hillary Clinton. Must be something that a non true leftist like myself cannot understand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You know I wonder why you ran cover for the war criminal Hillary Clinton. Must be something that a non true leftist like myself cannot understand. have you considered that all american presidents are bad because we're the extremely capitalist hegemon, friend some are certainly less bad than others, but american empire
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
True leftist here i deny genocide for breakfast
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
stone cold posted:have you considered that all american presidents are bad because we're the extremely capitalist hegemon, friend Just answer the question. Why were you running cover for hillary?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Obama dronestriked my wedding and I clapped and cheered
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Just answer the question. Why were you running cover for hillary? why were you stanning for the vietnam war
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Obama dronestriked my wedding and I clapped and cheered carter funded the junta that assassinated me and i jumped for joy
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
stone cold posted:true leftists love imperialism and give cover to johnson and his atrocities. i personally dump agent orange on civilians every day as a tribute to the presidents who were forced into war and have no agency whatsoever. Please stop stawmanning in this thread. (and in general) e: yronic heroism posted:Haha no kilroy. The point is "things were so much better and Dems were better at a time when they had a bunch of segregationists" Same with you; this isn't something anyone here has argued.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Please stop stawmanning in this thread. (and in general) i'll do that when crowsbeak stops stanning for johnson in vietnam johnson was a cool and good president domestically, but he was a monster so
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
stone cold posted:why were you stanning for the vietnam war Already answered, now answer mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
stone cold posted:i'll do that when crowsbeak stops stanning for johnson in vietnam Still not what he's doing. That's why what you're doing is stawmanning. quote:johnson was a cool and good president domestically, but he was a monster so Everyone here agrees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Already answered, now answer mine. not really i mean you can say, Crowsbeak posted:Never dd whitewash it but nice try. Keep punching left. all you like but Crowsbeak posted:I would argue that it was more he was doing as JFK wanted. As well as in a untenable position due to JFK having had tte only semi competent South Vietnamese leader assassinated. this is why he escalated from sixteen thousand troops to five hundred thousand and kept on dumping agent orange and napalm and endorsed search and destroy because he was just a tragic figure being puppeted by the ghost of jfk you're whitewashing history, and you didn't really answer the question imo all i want to see from you is a little nuance e: majorian, he's whitewashing johnson's actions, so yes this is a fight worth having
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
stone cold posted:this is why he escalated from sixteen thousand troops to five hundred thousand and kept on dumping agent orange and napalm and endorsed search and destroy You're projecting a lot of cartoonish, villainous intentions onto a pretty bland post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're projecting a lot of cartoonish, villainous intentions onto a pretty bland post. i have real issues with making out johnson in vietnam to be a tragic figure, because he wasn't, he was an rear end in a top hat my bad i guess?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Dind;t answer that question stone cold. I mean you can pretend to never have spent much of 2016 attacking Bernie supporters for being critical of the war criminal Hillary. But you did. I mean I don't understand why a self proclaimed socialist would attack other socialists for not being on board with a liberal war criminal but that was you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Dind;t answer that question stone cold. I mean you can pretend to never have spent much of 2016 attacking Bernie supporters for being critical of the war criminal Hillary. But you did. I mean I don't understand why a self proclaimed socialist would attack other socialists for not being on board with a liberal war criminal but that was you. because, much like how i appreciate johnson domestically, i think hillary would've been a much better president than anybody else on the field but lmao if u think that any head of the american empire in the post wwii american hegemony wasn't a war criminal or imperialist monster in one way or another see you're not acknowledging the crimes is the problem i have with you, you don't see johnson as culpable, when, if you look in as mentioned like a blillion times in the pentagon papers, he absolutely was every president has been bad, some less bad than others johnson is one of the least bad presidents that doesn't mean you get to sit here and pretend he's cool for vietnam, he's not
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
stone cold posted:because, much like how i appreciate johnson domestically, i think hillary would've been a much better president than anybody else on the field
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
e: nevermind
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:YOu thought that the person who destroyed two countries during her time as secreterry of state and armed wahabi rapists in Syria was good for America. Wow. THe person who said UHC, something that would help alot of Americans was never going to happen. The person who attacked trying to reign in the banks. THe person who started the witchunt over Obama's birthplace? Yeah you're a real Socialist. I think we can now say you;re like yronic a neoliberal troll. Go back to wherever neoliberal sociopaths like you are appreciated.  please show me the person who is head of an empire (the highest stage of capitalism, in case you've forgotten your lenin) who didn't do bad poo poo tia
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, I understand, LBJ was no tragic figure, but you project a lot of unwarranted malevolence onto other people's posts. nah, like that other guy who thought johnson was pro war but didn't really know history pre reagan was okay crowsbeak is a bad poster e: also, whitewashing war and letting that go unchallenged in discourse is dangerous
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
stone cold posted:nah, like that other guy who thought johnson was pro war but didn't really know history pre reagan was okay Someone can be wrong but not evil. You treat a lot of posters who disagree with you like they're evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Someone can be wrong but not evil. You treat a lot of posters who disagree with you like they're evil. crowsbeak has said some really racist poo poo in the past, so i'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one mister facetious was pretty chill, despite their misconception about johnson and his stance on war there is a difference
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
stone cold posted:
You supported her over Sanders. So you are in fact a lying neoliberal sociopath. Stop with the act you compare about anything but your taxes. Also noticing no attempt to deny this. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
stone cold posted:i have real issues with making out johnson in vietnam to be a tragic figure, because he wasn't, he was an rear end in a top hat Why does is matter so much to you? Re-litigating the primaries makes sense in spite of how annoying it can be because both sides are still fighting over control and all the players are still relevant. What does talking about Johnson in Vietnam actually achieve? And it's not like Crowsbeak was even going on about how Vietnam was good, they were just saying they put more blame for Vietnam on JFK than Johnson. It was never about apologism for imperialism or whitewashing the war in general. I don't get how this blew up into a big derail. Is Johnson a weird pet president/hate for some of you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You supported her over Sanders. So you are in fact a lying neoliberal sociopath. Stop with the act you compare about anything but your taxes. i never denied supporting hillary, but i do object to the charge of lying neoliberal sociopath because i don't think you know what those words mean also, if i was rich, i would be pretty cool with paying higher taxes than the rich do right now enacting the buffett rule, reducing the estate tax exemption and enacting progressive rates, is all super cool to me now it's your turn to say "hey, i did try to whitewash johnson, he did a bad in vietnam. he did a bad, even though he did a lot of good"
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:Why does is matter so much to you? Re-litigating the primaries makes sense in spite of how annoying it can be because both sides are still fighting over control and all the players are still relevant. What does talking about Johnson in Vietnam actually achieve? And it's not like Crowsbeak was even going on about how Vietnam was good, they were just saying they put more blame for Vietnam on JFK than Johnson. It was never about apologism for imperialism or whitewashing the war in general. e: i'm just gonna drop it duckworth 2020 stone cold fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Endlessly harping on Vietnam whenever anyone brings up the popularity of Medicare seems like an irrelevant waste of time at best, or more likely a disingenuous concern troll because those same people will tell you to get over Iraq already because cynically voting to murder thousands of 20 year old American kids and countless Iraqi civilians based on a (horrifically wrong) calculation that it would d look good politically to be tough on terrorism, well that's just shrewd pragmatism and exactly what we need in a President.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Endlessly harping on Vietnam whenever anyone brings up the popularity of Medicare seems like an irrelevant waste of time at best, or more likely a disingenuous concern troll because those same people will tell you to get over Iraq already because cynically voting to murder thousands of 20 year old American kids and countless Iraqi civilians based on a (horrifically wrong) calculation that it would d look good politically to be tough on terrorism, well that's just shrewd pragmatism and exactly what we need in a President. i mean i agree with that, which is why i told yronic that nobody bought them saying that "well, actually the iraq war was about genocide and r2p"
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
stone cold is a fine poster and I say that as someone who disagrees with a large portion of what they say. at least she doesn't concern troll endlessly and actually says what she means and wants trump insanity got a hold of a lot of potential leftist allies imo and tbqh if you're for universal healthcare, taxing the rich, pushing social justice and pulling the reigns on the MIC why have beef when we live in an insane conservative hellhole of a country
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
must be a hell of a duck to be worth $2020
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Probably a purebred Indian runner
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:stone cold is a fine poster and I say that as someone who disagrees with a large portion of what they say. at least she doesn't concern troll endlessly and actually says what she means and wants Hahaha, look at NFS pretending like he's a unifying figure. Majorian fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Endlessly harping on Vietnam whenever anyone brings up the popularity of Medicare seems like an irrelevant waste of time at best, or more likely a disingenuous concern troll because those same people will tell you to get over Iraq already because cynically voting to murder thousands of 20 year old American kids and countless Iraqi civilians based on a (horrifically wrong) calculation that it would d look good politically to be tough on terrorism, well that's just shrewd pragmatism and exactly what we need in a President. Vietnam was a pragmatic calculation that it would look good to be tough on communism which would help when passing great society programs by defusing accusations of socialism!. So when people say democrats should just copy Johnson to get real popular again, Vietnam is actually quite relevant. Johnson was threading a needle by attacking both unrestrained capitalism with minimal government and revolutionary socialism. when Ronald Reagan put out records saying Medicare would lead to a socialist dictatorship Johnson could respond he was bombing the poo poo out of revolutionary socialists and Medicare was just about taking care of grandma.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Endlessly harping on Vietnam whenever anyone brings up the popularity of Medicare seems like an irrelevant waste of time at best, or more likely a disingenuous concern troll because those same people will tell you to get over Iraq already because cynically voting to murder thousands of 20 year old American kids and countless Iraqi civilians based on a (horrifically wrong) calculation that it would d look good politically to be tough on terrorism, well that's just shrewd pragmatism and exactly what we need in a President. I think the framing/context is important here. One of the more dishonest strategies I've seen is when people who bring up, say, a program like Medicare and then someone says "lol I see you just love things done by the President responsible for (greatly escalating) Vietnam." However, that sort of response isn't necessarily dishonest if the first person said "I think we need another president like Johnson" (without clarifying domestic policy specifically or something). Of course, I would still argue that the person calling someone out for that should at least assume good faith and say something like "you mean domestically, right?" It makes sense to seek clarification when someone says something that potentially implies some highly problematic stuff, but the problem with a lot of the "anti-leftist" (for lack of a better term) liberals in D&D is that they immediately interpret things in the most hilariously terrible way and refuse to acknowledge any elaboration/defense. Probably the best/most common example of this in D&D is people bringing up racism when someone talks about the New Deal. It is entirely reasonable to say "but the New Deal was implemented in a pretty racist way" and demand some sort of acknowledgement of this! But what often happens instead is a blanket insinuation that obviously the poster in question is totally cool with racism, and any further attempt on the poster's part to say "uh, no, of course any similar future programs shouldn't be racist" is interpreted as some sort of guilty backpedaling or something. This is extremely dishonest, and I can't really think of any motivation for it that doesn't cast the person in question in a very negative light. So basically "both sides" here are sometimes at fault in different ways (though I would argue that the "anti-left" liberal side is more harmful in practice): - Leftists sometimes forget the fact that other people aren't necessarily aware of their beliefs/norms, and that it is very reasonable for someone (especially if that person is a PoC themselves) to demand explanations regarding things like this. Also, while SA leftists and actual leftist organizations are generally good, there are some pretty toxic folks out there (people who claim racism is nothing but a manifestation of classism aren't exactly rare). Probably the best example of this sort of thing is some of the exchanges I've seen with poster Koala's March on these forums. KM is occasionally off-base in making negative assumptions about leftist posters, but 1. if you read the exchange from the perspective of someone relatively unfamiliar with leftist discourse, her interpretation usually isn't that unreasonable, and 2. it makes sense for a PoC to be exceptionally sensitive to this sort of thing. After all, in American society at large, if someone says something that could be interpreted in a racist way, it usually actually is racist in some way. Of course there will be some false positives, but I can understand why someone would err on the side of assuming the worst about a statement that could be interpreted in a bigoted manner, so I think the onus is on leftists to take such things seriously and properly explain themselves (even if it might get repetitive/frustrating). Many leftists, particularly if they're white, have trouble putting themselves in the shoes of someone who is a PoC and/or unfamiliar with leftism in general. This attitude only really crosses the line when the person making the "accusation" refuses to acknowledge further elaboration on the part of the person they accused (which is unfortunately fairly common and probably the best sign that someone is coming from a dishonest place). - Liberals frequently go into these exchanges totally sure of the fact that leftists are all cryptoracists and proceed to engage them in the exact same way they would a conservative (i.e. in a mocking way with the confidence that everyone they're talking with is secretly hiding racist beliefs). There's no discussion to be had in situations like this, because the person in question already "knows" what the leftist "really believes" and will view all counterarguments as the frantic scrambling of someone who knows they're guilty/wrong. Most posters in SA who frequently argue with leftists (and should thus already know better) are guilty of this and likely have some other reason motivating their bizarre anti-left sentiment. This attitude is especially bizarre if someone remembers American history beyond the last several years (i.e. the far left has almost always been superior to the center-left on issues of social justice), and I think it's largely the result of the way the 2016 primary was framed by media.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
1. Amusingly, Johnson and Roosevelt weren't leftists. These were liberals who as history would have it had the advantage of large congressional majorities. 2. We've got ignorant poo poo like posters not even aware of LBJ escalating Vietnam. 3. It's weird to spend all this time trying to read other poster's minds, tbqh. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:1. Amusingly, Johnson and Roosevelt weren't leftists. These were liberals who as history would have it had the advantage of large congressional majorities. And yet their economic platforms seem unimaginably leftist by today’s standards. It’s almost as if...the Democrats have moved way to the right, thanks to self-proclaimed “pragmatists” like you. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 21:38
|
|