|
BigRed0427 posted:For me the line is "Are we talking positively about the North Korean Government?" "Do we automatically take the side of a country, no matter who it is and who's in charge, simply because the US is always evil?" For me it is unapologetic support for anything and everything the soviet union did no matter how shite it was. That and Stalin worship which is just... yeah Saying that it is a nebulous one, because it is how we are all seen by a large amount of people on the "centre". But it's good to examine ones own beliefs and ask how good they are for people every so often. It's just, y'know, hard to make myself try and listen to Sargon without bursting a blood vessel in my eye.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:For me it is unapologetic support for anything and everything the soviet union did no matter how shite it was. That and Stalin worship which is just... yeah Oh yeah. Sargon, at this point, is basically a 4chan troll who thinks he's an intellectual. I would love good conservative media, but it's like everyone is trying to copy Rush or Hannity at this point. No one wan'ts to talk about actual policy, just shout about Obama and Hillary. Edit: Probably because conservative media doesn't want people to know how bad the Republicans are loving them. BigRed0427 fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Pseudo-God posted:I've been trying to think about this sentence here, but I can't figure out under what conditions you think it would be acceptable to use violence. Can you list an example of how it would be done in practice? Forcibly dispersing nascent political organization combined with a comprehensive propaganda campaign to oppose them, more effective against ideologies that value successful shows of force like fascism. Alternatively, violence as a ritual to foster political allegiance and growth if unopposed, i.e what happens when fascists aren't met with overwhelming opposition. Doesn't work so well against people whose goal isn't really linked to violence and if it's the only tool you're effectively using, not very coherent and difficult to get people on board with, see most terror attacks. It also works better if it's more grassroots, if it's a communal activity, not something directed as part of a hierarchy because again you have the bonding element and then it's arguably just a symptom of existing political dominance but it can help uphold that status quo a bit by putting a damper on alternative political activism. Also, like, it works if you're doing it as a world superpower trying to destabilize another country but that's probably a little outside the scale but is still obviously political violence. So antifa is good because it directly works to disrupt neo nazis by attacking their violence based ideology (showing they aren't very good at it and can't actually intimidate people) and it functions as part of a wider leftist advocacy effort, trying to present an alternative and also aligns quite well with just general members of the public who don't like nazis showing up and loving up their towns. On the same note marching fascists are dangerous because they can utilize violence to spread their support via intimidation and displays of power if they aren't opposed enthusiastically (and, to a degree, forcibly) by other political factions. Violence is... fundamentally I think just a manifestation of enthusiasm. Zealotry. If it's being directed it can function as a way of creating zealots, or equally it can spring from pre existing zealotry in a political movement or environment (a fair section of society I think is opposed to nazis even if they're a bit lukewarm on any major political faction, so I wouldn't call them a movement but an environment is a decent word for it) so it's just... part of politics, really. Practice of violence in the case of a lot of ideologies or movements either practically or as a goal in and of itself, or opposition to violence in the case of ardent pacifists. Political violence is a really important thing. I don't think you can just write it out of political practice. From the twitter thread earlier, "violence is the language of the unheard", violence happens and serves a function in social/political activity. I think really the question is not whether it's effective because it manifestly has effects. It's whether specifically your personal ideological preferences are compatible with it. A lot of mine honestly are. It's not a goal but just as I don't have any moral issue about killing in self defence I also don't have a moral issue with application of violence to political ends, only practical concerns. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Here we go, you wan't an actually good criticism of Contra. Here it is. I wanted to post more to elaborate but I'm feeling too sick today but I just want to say that it's *blowing my mind* that people embraced Tabby. The internet is beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheTherynMeyer/status/933052452596719616
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Hell in a cell match I hope?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:Can we nail down exactly what constitutes a tankie because it's been used for everything from literally any ML to 'Kruschev did nothing wrong, Hungary deserved it'. people that still believe alger hiss didn't spy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Now who is Meyer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Hell in a cell match I hope? Certainly sounds like hell to me. Why is Contra talking to Blaire White again? She’s been pretty clear that White’s nothing but a bad-faith bully.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
She does like banging her head against a brick wall it seems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Now who is Meyer? pro-mra transwoman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:pro-mra transwoman. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:pro-mra transwoman. h...how? Edit: Nevermind. I got my own internet rabbit holes to chase. Go with God Contra. Edit 2: Wait, i'm actually looking at her channel now. Her video titles seem pretty left leaning. BigRed0427 fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
How anyone can find it more funny to make fun of tumblr lefties when "pro MRA transwoman" is a position that exists is beyond me. "Yeah you know I really liked the sexual assault and psychological abuse of women thing but you know I just wish I was on the receiving end of it."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:pro-mra transwoman. I truly enjoyed her meltdown with that Nick Fuentes dude the other day. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Are there any Pro-MRA trans men? I'm surprised I haven't encountered at least one yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:h...how? She has a few legitimately good videos mixed in with a bunch of awful conservative bullshit (agreeing with Trump's trans military ban, victim blaming some of the women coming forward about Weinstein, among other poo poo).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
I believe she also argued against that Canada transgender law because (among other reasons) it makes Trans people look weak that they aren't able to handle their own problems without the government or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
nael posted:Are there any Pro-MRA trans men? I'm surprised I haven't encountered at least one yet. i find it less likely considering such a person lived as a woman for probably most of their life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:For me the line is "Are we talking positively about the North Korean Government?" "Do we automatically take the side of a country, no matter who it is and who's in charge, simply because the US is always evil?" yeah, thats a pretty good definition. though i am sure there are different levels and nuances to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Genocyber posted:She has a few legitimately good videos mixed in with a bunch of awful conservative bullshit (agreeing with Trump's trans military ban, victim blaming some of the women coming forward about Weinstein, among other poo poo). The day is going to come where we, as in the LGBT community as a whole, has to sit down and discuss how to reconcile with queer people who are conservative. Milo may be an extreme example but there are a ton of guys like him out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
You get working class tories too, they might be daft as arseholes but drag em kicking and screaming into a better life regardless. The problem with Milo and his ilk isn't that they're conservative it's that they're actively hostile to the rest of the community. Which is a bit different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Ultimately you are still required to justify why you should be allowed to take these steps, and not someone with another political persuasion. That can only be done by careful public discussion, a system of accountability, and a clear set of rules when you are allowed to use violence. If this looks like the state, that's because it is. So then the question becomes how can you give a group like antifa state-like power without them immediately becoming totally corrupt and destructive. I have noticed that people in general take for granted the awesome responsibility that comes with power, and severely underestimate their own susceptibility to corruption. Given how lowly and corrupt people get, it's a miracle that our global society works at all. I would be extremely skeptical of anyone who claims they can do a better job. Honestly, I am getting quite creeped out from your nonchalant description of how you would use violence if you had the means. It's exactly the rhetoric and methodology used to suppress socialists/westerners/secularists/liberals/insert-ideology-here and indoctrinate the masses against them, only difference is that it's you who is doing it this time and not someone else. Why do you think that you will turn out better than the Nazis or ISIS?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:The day is going to come where we, as in the LGBT community as a whole, has to sit down and discuss how to reconcile with queer people who are conservative. Milo may be an extreme example but there are a ton of guys like him out there. I don’t think Milo’s anything but a contrarian. He finds satisfaction in being hated and in getting negative attention and feeling like he’s gotten one over on those that hate him. I don’t think he’s ever expressed a genuine belief in his life. I don’t think he holds any genuine beliefs. I am concerned about his influence. I work with a high-school-aged gay republican who idolizes Milo and I think it’s because the kid’s a double-outcast in that republicans won’t accept him for being gay and none of his peers accept him because he’s a republican. So he sees a disgusting shitbag like Milo as a kindred spirit. That’s a problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Pseudo-God posted:Ultimately you are still required to justify why you should be allowed to take these steps, and not someone with another political persuasion. That can only be done by careful public discussion, a system of accountability, and a clear set of rules when you are allowed to use violence. Power is a given, thusly its acquisition and use is more important than exactly how it is done. In any case, Americans, and human beings in general have a lot of respect for people with a willingness to do violence, so long as it seems to come from someone reasonably within the culture. In fact, an outspoken aversion to violence is completely unamerican.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i find it less likely considering such a person lived as a woman for probably most of their life. Definitely, but there are quite a few pro MRA cis women on the internet, so experiencing life as a woman doesn't necessarily prevent you from having bad and dumb opinions on sexism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Pseudo-God posted:Ultimately you are still required to justify why you should be allowed to take these steps, and not someone with another political persuasion. That can only be done by careful public discussion, a system of accountability, and a clear set of rules when you are allowed to use violence. Well you asked a bit of a confused question, what do I think is acceptable and how is it effective. I listed the ways I think it's effective, I obviously don't actually support all of them because that would make the possibly the most politically confused person on the planet. Yes I did include the ways used to suppress ideologies throughout history because those are examples of effective political violence, the specific methods I think are effective though not the specific ends I think are moral. If you want my personal preference I think the only "good" political system is one with vast and active participation from as many people as possible. That you can't create an oligarchic system which also serves the public good. The notion of the philosopher king is bunk, basically. Or at least so unstable as to be untenable in the long run. I think the most important aspect of a political system is how authoritarian it is, how governed it is by top down diktat, be that oligarchic via wealth and inherited privilege as with our current "democratic" systems or be it totalitarian as with the USSR/fascism. I think that authoritarian systems are what creates corruption and that truly participatory governance is the surest route to avoiding that. But that participatory governance could still involve violence, or use of force at the very least. Because a completely nonviolent society would have no defence against a violent opposition. So long as violence is a thing that can happen then the idea of political violence has to be considered and, I think, sometimes used in defence of a desirable society. I think that violence is probably safest when directed by consensus, and that the consensus must be as wide reaching as it possibly can be to minimize the chance of outgroups forming against which violence might be directed. So basically I woudn't, ideally, advocate for state run political suppression squads because that seems like a pretty terrible idea under our current concept of the state, being basically a rich white boys' club that tells everyone else what to do. But I have far fewer reservations about groups of people forming of their own volition to beat up neo nazis who invade their towns to lynch immigrants. That seems really like almost the ideal. Spontaneous and enthusiastically participated in by people working collectively for their own betterment. Like I'm literally a communist, my ideal government is a bunch of people working together of their own initiative to improve the lot of the collective, and the state exists really only as a tool for greater collaboration and for projects that require as much collective effort as possible, and to redistribute the various useful products of the various subgroups involved. So the idea of state run things is kind of always going to be a pretty squarely second preference. State level administration and coordination fine, but not directed by a bunch of people given license to direct things on the behalf of others via a questionably representative electoral method. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:I am concerned about his influence. I work with a high-school-aged gay republican who idolizes Milo and I think it’s because the kid’s a double-outcast in that republicans won’t accept him for being gay and none of his peers accept him because he’s a republican. So he sees a disgusting shitbag like Milo as a kindred spirit. That’s a problem. young alienated white guys have always liked loud iconoclasts. it used to be rock stars, now it's political has beens. he'll probably grow out of his teenage shithead stage when life throws a real problem in his face and he's forced to consider the benefits of social interaction and empathy
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
it sure must be fun being an activist for men's rights and having to constantly explain your position on things because of what the phrase 'men's rights activist' entails
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
log cabin republicans existed long before milo was a thing, & will continue to be more and more of a thing as gay rights become more accepted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well you asked a bit of a confused question, what do I think is acceptable and how is it effective. I listed the ways I think it's effective, I obviously don't actually support all of them because that would make the possibly the most politically confused person on the planet. I appreciate the time you took to write this, and even though I am not a communist (I like owning things), I understand why something like that would be appealing to you. However, consider this. To prevent authoritarianism in its many forms, several social organizations have been formed to counter each of them. Corporate authoritarianism requires a counterbalancing regulatory system, individual authoritarianism requires a vast legal and law enforcement system, state authoritarianism requires oversight and accountability, opposing state authoritarianism requires a military system. All of these systems combined form a vast and complex state which in many ways can't be made smaller without compromising it's function. When you realize how complex the world truly is, it's a miracle anything works at all. Anyone who messes with the system is doing so at their own peril. Because groups like antifa are out in the streets and brawling with people who they claim are nazis, they implicitly make the claim that the state has utterly failed in some or all aspects of its function and they need to take over to fix the problem by punching it. I don't see why anyone should trust these people or take their word that they will be more fair, just, or equitable than the status quo. I also don't agree that the system has come to a point where such groups are necessary. The justification of why antifa has the right to violence for political reasons makes it acceptable for other groups to also claim the right to violence for political reasons, the whole difference will be who is the right target. Frankly, this is an invitation to terrorism from all sides, and everyone will be justified in their mind. As for your point about authoritarian systems creating corruption, I disagree. Corruption is inherent in all systems, and it comes from the desire of the individual to have higher status and control. This is why I truly agree with you that active participation by the citizens is required for a properly functioning political system, whatever the form that system takes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Pseudo-God posted:
let me correct you here, they're brawling with people who self-identify as nazis, and the reason people think the state has failed is because kkk guys shoot guns in the direction of people and get ignored by police
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
We just gotta maybe accept that we have yet to figure out the ideal society yet; but also maybe possibly accept that there is no ideal society; or perhaps no society where there isn't a small segment of outcasts regardless. Playing through Technobabylon I feel like there are some strong arguments for a near omniscient omniprescent benevolent AI managing things; it also presented arguments for why this might be a bad idea but they seem like categorically no different than the pros/cons for any other political system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:log cabin republicans existed long before milo was a thing, & will continue to be more and more of a thing as gay rights become more accepted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:It sure must be fun being an activist for men's rights and having to constantly explain your position on things because of what the phrase 'men's rights activist' entails This is one of those things that gets glossed over often, but yeah just another good reason to hate MRAs. There are some legit "men's rights" problems and sometimes those assholes will parrot them alongside their usual puke, but they don't really care about any of those, they just haphazardly staple them onto their bullshit to give it the tiniest air of legitimacy, so they can pretend they actually have any goal other than oppressing women. I said it before when Amos Yee was being disgusting, like getting pedophiles help and doing something better than forcing them underground could be a thing to work on, but all these people want to do is twist the surface level of a problem into something hosed up for their own uses, for the right wingers lately it's been so they can try to minimize Moore being a child predator, for MRAs it's so they can pretend to be something other than blatant sexists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/oMnxPsQanrs 1.08 "You're ridiculous, and men's rights is nothing."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Also I missed this but man, the bad things keep rolling for her lately and it's making me kind of nervous, these people are poison. Like look at this piece of poo poo, this isn't someone to play buddy with. https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/status/930148238287450112 https://twitter.com/MsBlaireWhite/status/933086180752572416 Yardbomb fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:Also I missed this but man, the bad things keep rolling for her lately and it's making me kind of nervous, these people are poison. The drink throwing was probably staged (I hope).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
Contra, please, listen to the leftists who you keep belittling and stop loving talking to shitlords like Blaire. Like seriously, it's not that she's talking to the other side, she's talking to members of the other side who've been proven time and again to be utterly irredeemable and have done serious harm to the people warning her about them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Pseudo-God posted:even though I am not a communist (I like owning things) Haha, are you for real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 10:21
|
|
