|
evilweasel posted:yeah the problem with this answer is that we hear the "its satire" in a pretty different context and have no issues realizing that what is a joking threat to the in-group can still be perceived as extremely threatening to the person being joked about when discussing right-wing memes. the secondary problem is that the idiots who don't realize it's a joke start one-upping the people making jokes until you've created a self-radicalized group of morons being 100% serious, better known as the "lf problem" Right but that's where the first amendment argument comes in. The more practical answer is that billionaires are doing violence by existing and a moral billionaire would give the money away until they stopped being one (useful example for rhetorical purposes: Rowling), so violence is morally justified in response. Practically though that won't shut up his brother but the first amendment answer will.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right but that's where the first amendment argument comes in. what is legal and what people need to personally tolerate in other people are two incredibly different things "but the first amendment!!!!" in response to people being scorned for saying terrible, but legal, things is rightly scorned as a bad argument and it's not any better here. if you try to use it to persuade people who disapprove of your speech you're basically conceding they should disapprove of it
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
You can stop being a lovely rich capitalist. Hard to stop being an oppressed minority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are the "good billionaires" often troted out, but it's abundantly clear that not only did they make their money by incredibly predatory means, they'll backtrack from their "pay our fair share" platitudes the second someone actually looks ready to do just that. poo poo, even MAGA chuds want to shoot bezos into the sun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:Her district is D+29. The Republicans running against her will mount a different type of campaign. Rather than trying to win, they’ll probably just mount a huge disinformation campaign to damage the Democratic Party at large. Its not the GOP that she needs to deal with -- the establishment is running a primary challenger to her even though they aren't supposed to be doing that or be giving them any support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:It saddens me that so many people only seem to talk about guillotines as a rhetorical device. Billionaires really shouldn't be allowed to keep their wealth, and if they resist they should be separated from both their assets and their heads, in that order I don't think the order is critical
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:
LOL, the general public isn't going to riot in the streets because John Roberts abused process to favor the Republican Party. What you are talking about is too abstract or too far removed from the lived experience of most Americans for them to be able to be brought around to caring about the topic at all, let alone caring enough to revolt over it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
I think the guillotine thing is actually helpful rhetoric because it's exactly what happened when the rich and powerful finally crossed the Rubicon in France. I'm not advocating it explicitly, but historically, massive changes like this have only happened via violence and it's something good to remind them of from time to time
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I don't think the order is critical Disagree. You remove the head first and let the wealth be inherited, and then repeat the process until you're either out of heirs or they start refusing to accept the inheritance and let it go to the state for redistribution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Why is everyone assuming that Roberts will do anything to protect Trump that would significantly diminish either the actual or perceived power of the Supreme court? It's seriously the dumbest loving thing that keeps getting brought up Unfortunately I don't think the Chief Justice openly defying every norm and standard will really provoke much of anything. By and large democrats don't really care about the supreme court even though a whole lot of labor and civil rights legislation literally lies on a frail 86 year old woman's shoulders Also while John Roberts tries to uphold the outward prestige to the court (for his own ends), at the end he is a hardcore GOP member and if he is given a chance to permanently enshrine republican rule or save them from losing power than he is going to take it, regardless of the optics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:LOL, the general public isn't going to riot in the streets because John Roberts abused process to favor the Republican Party. What you are talking about is too abstract or too far removed from the lived experience of most Americans for them to be able to be brought around to caring about the topic at all, let alone caring enough to revolt over it. I'm not saying it's likely from this particular instance, but that's absolutely how we go down this road. Republicans have succeeded in stacking courts because their voters demand it, explicitly. Roe vs Wade was a landmark decision and it's about overturning it that has been so critical for keeping religious nutbags safely in the party. Democrats can yell about protecting women's rights, but the motivation for change is much stronger than the motivation for keeping things the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:what is legal and what people need to personally tolerate in other people are two incredibly different things I mean, the op's brother asked a rhetorical question by phrasing it rhetorically. "Why aren't you ISIS" presumes an awful lot and phrasing it that way *probably* means he's not open to being convinced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Its not the GOP that she needs to deal with -- the establishment is running a primary challenger to her even though they aren't supposed to be doing that or be giving them any support. But but but the Democratic party never misuses its institutional power to suppressed minority voices in favor of pro status quo centrists. Why to even suggest that they do so would be to imply that perhaps leftism is much more popular in this country then the outcome of Democratic primaries would lead one to think. And we all know this is a center-right country that has to be tricked into supporting progressive policy. That's just common sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:what is legal and what people need to personally tolerate in other people are two incredibly different things Additionally, there's the context of family gatherings/car rides and so on where there's political discussions where I maybe mention late stage capitalism being the cause of something and then getting "You're not actually as far left as those people" in response and I don't really have the resources, quick thinking, or indepth knowledge to press my position. It isn't just specifically this question, though it prompted it in the immediate sense (He wants to ask me for my thoughts because he doesn't want to risk alienating any of his coworkers, drat you unconditional family love!  ) but he's asking me because there's been a chain of conversations where I posit that socialism is good, actually; and he responds with borderline kinda bad arguments but they take a lot of effort to unpack, much like the text I got in its entirety, and car ride conversations kinda move around. So this would be a good opportunity to try to put together a primer.Because the requisite knowledge and steps to go from "Billionares are actively actually causing harm" to "so they deserve to be guillotined" is not an answer he'll accept, ostensibly, because they could always be taxed more and regulated; while the actual arguments as to why that's insufficient I lack the knowledge to adequately explain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I think the guillotine thing is actually helpful rhetoric because it's exactly what happened when the rich and powerful finally crossed the Rubicon in France. I'm not advocating it explicitly, but historically, massive changes like this have only happened via violence and it's something good to remind them of from time to time "The Guillotine worked perfectly in France" is the Historian's version of "The Matrix was a great movie and it's a shame it never got a sequel". Yeah it happened to the rich and powerful. Then it happened to people that didn't fit that description. Then it happened to people that Robespierre didn't like. Then it happened to Robespierre. Then Napoleon took over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I'm not saying it's likely from this particular instance, but that's absolutely how we go down this road. Republicans have succeeded in stacking courts because their voters demand it, explicitly. Roe vs Wade was a landmark decision and it's about overturning it that has been so critical for keeping religious nutbags safely in the party. Democrats can yell about protecting women's rights, but the motivation for change is much stronger than the motivation for keeping things the same. We are going down the road of open revolt because people are going hungry while they watch their children wither and die from treatable illnesses. You're never going to get any more than a tiny fraction of the public to give the tiniest poo poo about John Roberts ruling on subpoenas in such a way as to support the Trump Administration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1197900337690107904?s=20 Did John Bolton get hacked? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
Ham posted:https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1197900337690107904?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Unfortunately I don't think the Chief Justice openly defying every norm and standard will really provoke much of anything. By and large democrats don't really care about the supreme court even though a whole lot of labor and civil rights legislation literally lies on a frail 86 year old woman's shoulders Why did he vote to keep Obamacare then? That has stuck with me. They'll pass the horrible citizens united ruling, because it wasn't very clear what the consequences would be from it immediately. The result has been disastrous, but it has played out slowly. Instantly removing millions of people's (admittedly lovely) healthcare coverage, killing coverage for those 18-26 years old and reinstating lifetime benefit limits would've been devastating and the cause would've been clear (it's the fault of the supreme Court). I don't like Roberts one bit, but I think people here underestimate how savvy he's been in navigating pushing GOP policy in a discreet and ultimately more insidious manner. Roberts isn't going to risk the court to protect Trump. Trump is going to go down as an all time horrible president, and someone that most Republicans will pretend that they always hated in just a few years
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:"The Guillotine worked perfectly in France" is the Historian's version of "The Matrix was a great movie and it's a shame it never got a sequel". Yeah it happened to the rich and powerful. Then it happened to people that didn't fit that description. Then it happened to people that Robespierre didn't like. Then it happened to Robespierre. Then Napoleon took over. Nonetheless the guillotine is a symbol that to this day invokes a powerful fear in the rich. That's its primary utility. The guillotine is literally the only symbol the non-rich have to communicate with the rich on their level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:"The Guillotine worked perfectly in France" is the Historian's version of "The Matrix was a great movie and it's a shame it never got a sequel". Yeah it happened to the rich and powerful. Then it happened to people that didn't fit that description. Then it happened to people that Robespierre didn't like. Then it happened to Robespierre. Then Napoleon took over. the power of the monarchy was broken forever, op. the crowned heads of Europe spent the next century and change trying to turn the clock back and failing. unless you're a Le Pen-style we must bring back the house of Bourbon conservative the review of the guillotine is "10/10, would slice again."
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Nonetheless the guillotine is a symbol that to this day invokes a powerful fear in the rich. That's its primary utility. I don't agree with you fully very often, but this is spot on
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
This is great. Graham's posture improves and he looks up with hope as this man wearing a veteran hat and speaking with a southern accent says he respects him, and then it all comes crashing down as soon as the dude criticizes Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the power of the monarchy was broken forever, op. quote:On 18 May 1804, Napoleon was granted the title Emperor of the French by the French Sénat and was crowned on 2 December 1804 I didn't realize "forever" meant "only about 12 years"
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:
Imo Roberts isn't going to "risk the court" no matter what he does in the upcoming impeachment trial. Instantly inflicting massive suffering on hundreds of thousands of Americans is something the average American understands and will revolt over far more than the way John Robert's rules on subpoenas during an impeachment hearing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
ewiley posted:I mean, the op's brother asked a rhetorical question by phrasing it rhetorically. "Why aren't you ISIS" presumes an awful lot and phrasing it that way *probably* means he's not open to being convinced. Well, not literally this but close enough that the text as a whole is "a lot to unpack". Like I guess I'll post it: quote:Hey RS, There's some additional texts that do get a little into economics which I won't post for sure for our privavy but I've largely only responded with, "uh, maybe I can respond this weekend? I feel like there's a lot to unpack here."
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Additionally, there's the context of family gatherings/car rides and so on where there's political discussions where I maybe mention late stage capitalism being the cause of something and then getting "You're not actually as far left as those people" in response and I don't really have the resources, quick thinking, or indepth knowledge to press my position. It isn't just specifically this question, though it prompted it in the immediate sense (He wants to ask me for my thoughts because he doesn't want to risk alienating any of his coworkers, drat you unconditional family love! I've had conversations with relatives like this, they rarely go anywhere. I think focusing on edgelord memes from either side is not likely to win any arguments What I'd recommend is using the Socratic method: asking him what he thinks socialism is and why it is bad. Direct him through pointed questions about his beliefs to make him come to the conclusion that capitalism is bad rather than telling him it is. This is easier said than done but you won't convince someone that socialism is a good thing by telling them that it is, because you're speaking two different languages. e: I'd treat the entire text as a red herring and not address it, but go down to the foundations of why you think socialism is a good thing and not draw out why people argue the way they do online. I mean, how does one 'sincerely' post a meme to facebook? The Internet has so little real context he's just working himself up over nothing. ewiley fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:
you should try reading the next chapter of the history book some time. there's some colorful pictures that you will find entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
gently caress off with your book promotion bullshit. If you'd had any balls, you would've been beating down the doors to testify. VH4Ever posted:... Projection: It's A Thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Well, not literally this but close enough that the text as a whole is "a lot to unpack". yeah that text is entirely "uh i'm pretty uncomfortable with this whole violence edgelord thing" and he is basically saying "look i understood it to be joking originally and now it seems to be driven by people who are not joking and i'm not down with that" if your response is "oh that's just part and parcel of socialism! let me tell you more about socialism" uh that is going to be as not-convincing as it's possible to be
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Roberts isn't going to "risk the court" no matter what he does in the UN coming to teach me trial. Instantly inflicting massive suffering on hundreds of thousands of Americans is something the average American understands and will revolt over far more than the way John Robert's rules on subpoenas during an impeachment hearing. Point taken, but I'll go one step further. John Roberts is many things, mostly bad. But he is an incredibly smart man with an amazing talent for politics. I see it just as likely for him to want to pull off the band aid and actively push for Trump's removal. Trump isn't getting another Justice in. Roberts is looking 10, 15, 20 years down the line. I'm not saying he won't surprise me and bend over backwards to help Trump. I just think the null hypothesis being that Roberts is the GOPs errand boy is misguided
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:"The Guillotine worked perfectly in France" is the Historian's version of "The Matrix was a great movie and it's a shame it never got a sequel". Yeah it happened to the rich and powerful. Then it happened to people that didn't fit that description. Then it happened to people that Robespierre didn't like. Then it happened to Robespierre. Then Napoleon took over. Yeah, basically. The guillotine was used to sate the peoples' lust for blood against their historical oppressors, yes. The problem was that the people who seized power didn't want to make a lot of structural changes. They were primarily middle class people, petite bourgeoisie. They'd been oppressed as well, but they hadn't been starving like basically everyone else. Their chief complaint was that they'd been locked out of the political process unless they wanted the status quo. They didn't want to make fundamental changes to the system in a way that harmed them. They wanted to put the brakes on actual revolution. How you do that is to give people a blood sacrifice instead of fixing structural problems. The terror was that blood sacrifice because few gave a poo poo about rich nobles. I fundamentally disagree with the guillotine memes because if the left actually does seize power, blood sacrifice is counter-revolutionary. It sates the anger of people, but it doesn't resolve their problems. And as their problems continue, the eagerness to throw people more blood sacrifice becomes easier and easier. It's madness, but it's a kind of madness that makes sense in the moment for political reasons. You find that a lot in politics. There aren't as many offramps as you think when you're trying to decide policy, especially when you could be next for Madam le Guillotine. A leader's position is only as strong as the people and institutions that support him or her and if the ink is drying on those institutions then it's just the people and the people can be fickle, especially when they're howling for more blood. Then it's a madness that makes sense for someone else as it consumes you. In politics, when you study it closely, the choices are a lot more limited than you'd assume. Political will, that willingness to get poo poo done that's more precious than gold, is difficult to manufacture. But it can only be spent in certain ways and even if something is good policy and makes sense and could be close to perfect, if the public disagrees you'll never get it done. And if the public wants something ugly and stupid and mean done and you don't want to, you don't enact their policies at your own peril. Or you lean into it, grab that tiger by the tail and try to ride it to political power. It's only an extremely stupid politician that ignores the public. Mass murder of the corrupt, no matter how evil they may be, as a form of public policy is a dead end. All of that anger needs to be sated by structural changes. Instead of turning inwards and solving their problems, France turned outwards and vented their rage on other countries and blazed across Europe. You saw the same sort of thing happen during the Iranian revolution. Both revolutions saw millions dead in a short time. The casual expenditure of lives as grief and rage bubbled over and became war. What those people need was care, always and first. Leaning into violence as a matter of revolutionary policy leads to bad ends. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Point taken, but I'll go one step further. John Roberts is many things, mostly bad. But he is an incredibly smart man with an amazing talent for politics. I see it just as likely for him to want to pull off the band aid and actively push for Trump's removal. Trump isn't getting another Justice in. Roberts is looking 10, 15, 20 years down the line. I'm not saying he won't surprise me and bend over backwards to help Trump. I just think the null hypothesis being that Roberts is the GOPs errand boy is misguided yeah. roberts is a legitimately smart man who was very well respected for his skills as a lawyer by all members of the supreme court prior to being nominated. the idea that roberts is unable to think more than a single step in front of him is nonsense. people have this idea that bad people also need to be stupid, which is a dangerous and stupid belief. roberts is qualitatively different than, say, kavanaugh/gorsuch/alito because he is much, much smarter than they are, and that makes him more dangerous, not less. people, such as me, saying roberts will act impartial aren't saying he will act impartial because he is good or anything. we're saying it because roberts will (correctly) see that acting impartial here imposes very small costs on his goals, while acting obviously partial would risk imposing very large costs on his goals later on. roberts is able to take a small hit now to avoid a bigger one later. case in point: roberts didn't abolish the voting rights act the first instant he got a case for it. instead, he basically laid the groundwork for repealing it later by issuing a ruling basically saying "the VRA metrics are outdated, congress must update them or we may strike it down" knowing full well republicans in congress would ensure no such thing was done so that he could strike it down a few years later and suggest he gave congress every chance to update it. he didn't let the VRA sit around for two years out of the goodness of his heart. he did it to make it much more dead when he eventually killed it. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah that text is entirely "uh i'm pretty uncomfortable with this whole violence edgelord thing" and he is basically saying "look i understood it to be joking originally and now it seems to be driven by people who are not joking and i'm not down with that" I would make the case that the incalculable human suffering that the entire planet is going to endure for the next century plus because of climate change can be laid directly at the feet of the billionaire class. I would also make the case that climate change (and the failure to address it) is the final argument against capitalism. If capitalism had Merit then it would have found some sort of solution to climate change, instead the billionaire class as forced the planets economic system to keep chugging along in a particular direction even though the inevitable disaster they were creating was known about decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this is an interesting theory. to summarize, the house managers can issue subpoenas for testimony during the senate trial, and Justice Roberts directly and immediately rules on any objections to those subpoenas. Given that you won't enforce a subpoena without Roberts' vote anyway, this will allow the House to get what is effectively an immediate supreme court ruling on the testimony of any of the witnesses who have refused to appear - and accordingly, they're not giving up the chance to get testimony from people by quickly moving to a trial. Huh. If this is the scheme then I might be going from "this is too early to impeach" to "yeah sure why not".
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Yeah, basically. I just wanted to say that your posting has been amazing the last two days. That being said, most people don't know those particular nuances in France. The guillotine is a symbol for the power that the public can wield against an oppressive, super wealthy class. It has power not because of bloodlust, but because it serves as a reminder that the public, when pushed enough, will use violence to uproot systemic oppression at the hands of the megarich and powerful
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah. roberts is a legitimately smart man who was very well respected for his skills as a lawyer by all members of the supreme court prior to being nominated. the idea that roberts is unable to think more than a single step in front of him is nonsense. Roberts can be confident and intelligent and brilliant and still decide that destroying the GOP right now is less advantageous then keeping Trump puttering along for as long as possible. It's not that people like me are arguing that Roberts is dumb; we are arguing that certain underlying assumptions about how he is evaluating the present situation are deeply mistaken. Personally I don't know which way Roberts is going to rule on the subpoenas, but I think that arguing that he will end up doing the right thing because "he's a smart man and it's the smart thing to do" is.... some really flawed reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1197888249580138497?s=20 I think this should be a bigger deal. the entire IG and Barr investigation into the FISA requests on the Trump-campaign-adjacent people turned up ONE low level lawyer loving with an email. Kind of a death by silence there of Barr's investigation
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Yeah, basically. Actually guillotining the billionaire class would ultimately be a bad path to go down, not because it's morally unjust, but because of (as you correctly observed) the forces it unleashes in the society that engages in such activity. That's said using guillotine memes to scare the piss out of the billionaire class is something I can definitely get behind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
ewiley posted:https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1197888249580138497?s=20 Bingo, what they released (a small procedural issue) reveals what they actually have (jack poo poo)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 17:20
|
|