|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I'm sure there are people on social security or recieving food assistance who are Nazis. Should those programs be halted until we can insure no Nazis get anything? I'm not sure if "giving Nazis guns and giving Nazis things that will materially improve their conditions" are the same thing or the gotcha you think it is. Honestly is this thread doing ok? You can accept and explain that arming Nazis is a necessary evil that needs to be dealt with swiftly the moment the war is over. You don't need to embrace it with both hands to own the DSA and their "secret masters", a bit of insane ranting that doesn't seem to have gotten the usual complaints about conspiracy and tinfoil hats.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I'm not sure if "giving Nazis guns and giving Nazis things that will materially improve their conditions" are the same thing or the gotcha you think it is. So address the Lend-lease example then. Gumball Gumption posted:Honestly is this thread doing ok? You can accept and explain that arming Nazis is a necessary evil that needs to be dealt with swiftly the moment the war is over. You don't need to embrace it with both hands to own the DSA and their "secret masters", a bit of insane ranting that doesn't seem to have gotten the usual complaints about conspiracy and tinfoil hats. I don't see anyone cheering for arming Nazis, or embracing that with both hands. I do see posts that seem to argue that the US shouldn't be sending weapons to Ukraine because they'll be used to arm Nazis. So no, I don't think the thread is okay. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Mar 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:This kind of rhetoric is exactly why people were criticizing that brand of extremist leftist talking points a few days ago. You can't have that kind of approach but also want universal health care, UBI, etc. Always having the most extreme and uncharitable interpretation of any topic just means no one takes you seriously. Can you be more specific about what's extremist, and why that disqualifies someone from not wanting people to die from crushing medical debt? Also, what would an unextreme and "charitable" interpretation look like? e: Honestly the most alarming thing in this argument is how easily people get swept up in pro-war fervor. Anyone who isn't immediately and fully on-board with escalation is treated as an idiot at best or a Secret Traitor for displaying inadequate patriotic fervor. Obvious moral failings are immediately excused, and those who don't excuse them are again treated as fools or traitors. Yinlock fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Mar 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:So address the Lend-lease example then. The prevailing response to any of that concern is that they're the cool Nazis we don't need to worry about. Like, that's the problem. You can acknowledge people are concerned about arming Nazis which should be a concerning thing and will be a huge problem to clean up but believe it's a necessary evil. Instead it keeps being pushed that you need to accept that it's a good thing and there is something wrong with you personally if you hold any concerns at all with giving guns to Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:This kind of rhetoric is exactly why people were criticizing that brand of extremist leftist talking points a few days ago. You can't have that kind of approach but also want universal health care, UBI, etc. Always having the most extreme and uncharitable interpretation of any topic just means no one takes you seriously. It is, however, fantastic at ruining a discussion space.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:The prevailing response to any of that concern is that they're the cool Nazis we don't need to worry about. Like, that's the problem. You can acknowledge people are concerned about arming Nazis which should be a concerning thing and will be a huge problem to clean up but believe it's a necessary evil. Instead it keeps being pushed that you need to accept that it's a good thing and there is something wrong with you personally if you hold any concerns at all with giving guns to Nazis. Can you name a single country where sending / selling them weapons wouldn't be arming Nazis?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Can you name a single country where sending / selling them weapons wouldn't be arming Nazis? What is the point of that? What wonderful logical trap that shows arming Nazis is a moral good do you think this is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Can you name a single country where sending / selling them weapons wouldn't be arming Nazis? Does this suddenly make it okay, or...? Also, in this specific case the Nazis are getting fawning media coverage and photo ops. I think, at the very least, maybe those responsible should put more thought into how the U.S is going about this than none at all. Brute-forcing it with blind patriotism only goes so far until it either blows up in your face or it's time for another history book scrubbing to pretend all of this never happened, usually both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:From what people who follow Ukrainian politics seem to say they run the gamut from "Kremlin money trail isn't even hidden" to "We must restore the USSR to eliminate the homosexuals and other Western degenerates" types to, yeah, the already mentioned Illia Kyva that doesn't really seem to have changed views so much as labels from his far right roots. Yeah the entire thing reminds me last year in Bolivia how after MAS won they changed the rules of the government to get rid of the military personal and judges who were appointed and still openly supported the coup. You don't have to play nice with people who's goal is to actively kill the will of the people by any means necessary, including force. Not to mention in Ukraine's case these parties want to wipe away the entire existence of the nation. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Of course the US is arming Nazis. The goddam LAPD is full of Nazis. The American armed forces are full of nazis in all branches. They way I would look at it is imagine a world like today but if Russia had more military might than the United States. Now imagine if Russia invaded the modern day United States. There would be a lot of Americans fighting. Military, civilians, and volunteer groups. A lot of these volunteer groups are 3%er types. If the United States was struggling in the war, should other countries not give U.S. any aid since a small amount of it could potentially get to the 3%ers? Every country has radical groups, and unfortunately when it comes to these volunteer armies it attracts the right wing. Centrists and liberals world-wide don't fit the demographics of people who are going to want to start their own independent militaries. Hence why they tend to be either far right or at times far left. This isn't to say that you should actively be arming such groups, but more so that refusing to give aid to the country at all whatsoever, even when meticulously planning where your aid goes to have as little support going to these groups as possible, is ludicrous. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Mar 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Does this suddenly make it okay, or...? Since it's inevitable the weapons used by any country's military will inevitably get into the hands of some far right groups, as those are active in armed forces... The only moral cause then would be absolute, categorical isolationism? It's a stupid argument that proclaims there should be no alliances, no defense cooperation, just the most naive version of pseudo-pacifism that would be written off as too on the nose to be credible if somebody used it in fiction. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Mar 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
It's a toughie for sure. On one hand, there are Nazis in Ukraine, so we shouldn't deal with them. On the other hand, there are Nazis in Russia, so we shouldn't deal with them either, but not doing so means supporting the Ukrainian Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:It's a toughie for sure. On one hand, there are Nazis in Ukraine, so we shouldn't deal with them. On the other hand, there are Nazis in Russia, so we shouldn't deal with them either, but not doing so means supporting the Ukrainian Nazis. Except in Russia they actually are the government. And pretending that's the same thing is morally repugnant to the highest degree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:The prevailing response to any of that concern is that they're the cool Nazis we don't need to worry about. Like, that's the problem. No, it isn't. The prevailing response is that it's a small group and that it is better to provide weapons with the risk that a small number will end up in the hands of bad people than to not provide weapons at all. Who is actually saying "they're the cool Nazis"? Gumball Gumption posted:You can acknowledge people are concerned about arming Nazis which should be a concerning thing and will be a huge problem to clean up but believe it's a necessary evil. That is the argument. Yes. Gumball Gumption posted:Instead it keeps being pushed that you need to accept that it's a good thing and there is something wrong with you personally if you hold any concerns at all with giving guns to Nazis. Again: who is saying this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1505339812575858696?s=20 Remember the POW's of January 6th! Conservatives never seem to get mad when other chuds do this trash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:No, it isn't. The prevailing response is that it's a small group and that it is better to provide weapons with the risk that a small number will end up in the hands of bad people than to not provide weapons at all. The guy above you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
That is not what “prevailing” means.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:The guy above you. Quote it then? I don't see him doing that
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:This kind of rhetoric is exactly why people were criticizing that brand of extremist leftist talking points a few days ago. You can't have that kind of approach but also want universal health care, UBI, etc. Always having the most extreme and uncharitable interpretation of any topic just means no one takes you seriously. To whom are you addressing this post, and what kind of rhetoric do you think people are lumping in with UBI et al.? Because your post sounds pretty extreme & uncharitable without context, which means we shouldn't take it seriously, according to your own metrics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Churchill was democratically elected so his actions are divided amongst all of the people of his nation and thus so diffuse that no one has any responsibility at all The funny thing is that isn't even true in a British parliamentary system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:To whom are you addressing this post, and what kind of rhetoric do you think people are lumping in with UBI et al.? seems pretty accurate to me
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:seems pretty accurate to me up until a month ago, 'do not support nazis' was considered a remarkably orthodox liberal political stance, in fact. then it turned out there were a bunch of nazis in a geopolitical situation where the US finds it very convenient to arm nazis, and much like concentration camps for immigrant children before it, opposition went from universal to radical left wing extremism overnight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:seems pretty accurate to me So no one should take Bottom Liner seriously?  eta: I guess I don't understand the concept of YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME ON THIS POINT SO THAT MEANS UBI & M4A ARE NEVER GONNA HAPPEN, CHIEF! It reminds me of a friend's wedding a few decades ago; while she was getting dressed her slip showed a bit under her bridal gown, which caused her to melt down & shout THAT'S IT; THE WEDDING'S OFF! Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Mar 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:up until a month ago, 'do not support nazis' was considered a remarkably orthodox liberal political stance, in fact. You keep conflating the support of Ukraine with the support of Nazis, as well as misrepresenting the positions of just about every poster you engage with. forgive me for not engaging with your pointless rhetoric. Willa Rogers posted:So no one should take Bottom Liner seriously? You do what you want Willa. His point was accurate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Is there any movement from Democrats to attack the GOP as being very pro-Russia as a mid-terms strategy? Considering the absolute assault Dems have taken at the hands of weirdo anti-CRT chuds and now false-grooming and false-pedophilia charges there has to be some kind of fight-back on the national level planned I assume? Going full chauvinism sounds like it would work about as well for Democrats today as it did for Kerry-Edwards in 2004. Everyone knows the Republicans are the chauvinist right-wing party, trying to claim the Democrats are the real nationalists isn't going to fool anybody, and anyway Republicans are way better at messaging the whole witch-hunting for traitors thing than Dems are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
Being "taken seriously" is just code for conforming to effete liberal orthodoxy and nobody should give a single poo poo about trying to do so. It doesn't have any connection to the ability to seize and wield power
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Going full chauvinism sounds like it would work about as well for Democrats today as it did for Kerry-Edwards in 2004. I dunno; Dems are doing a p. good job so far. quote:Michael McFaul, the former Obama-era U.S. ambassador to Russia, declared on Twitter, "There are no more ‘innocent’ ‘neutral’ Russians anymore," saying they must declare they "support or oppose this war." Kindergarten-level with-us-or-against-us thinking is incredibly popular in U.S. politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Being "taken seriously" is just code for conforming to effete liberal orthodoxy and nobody should give a single poo poo about trying to do so. It doesn't have any connection to the ability to seize and wield power We can't listen to what Greenwald says about war propaganda bc he said stupid things about trans people. We can't listen to what Khanna says about M4A bc he sponsored alt-med legislation. We can't listen to the left at all, bc THAT'S IT, MY SLIP IS SHOWING; THE WEDDING'S OFF!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:We can't listen to what Greenwald says about war propaganda bc he said stupid things about trans people. Someone with actual left positions is extremely worth listening to Willa. The first two examples are not that. Greenwald is a broken clock and Khanna is a moron. Neither are particularly left-leaning. This isn't a difficult position to understand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:up until a month ago, 'do not support nazis' was considered a remarkably orthodox liberal political stance, in fact. So you would agree, then, that given the choice between giving an invaded country weapons to defend themselves against plainly stated cultural genocide, some of which will end up in the hands of Nazis, and standing by to let that cultural genocide occur as it may, the latter is the more moral decision??
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:We can't listen to what Greenwald says about war propaganda bc he said stupid things about trans people. It's extremely ironic that you are willing to side with a transphobic piece of poo poo because you agree with him on some things but don't think we should support the country Ukraine materially because there are some nazi's in their military (like all military forces). Guess who Greenwald represented as an attorney? quote:[Greenwald] worked pro bono much of the time, and his cases included representing white supremacist Matthew Hale in Illinois and the neo-nazi National Alliance.[15] oops~!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:seems pretty accurate to me (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
idiotsavant posted:So you would agree, then, that given the choice between giving an invaded country weapons to defend themselves against plainly stated cultural genocide, some of which will end up in the hands of Nazis, and standing by to let that cultural genocide occur as it may, the latter is the more moral decision?? Bottom Liner posted:It's extremely ironic that you are willing to side with a transphobic piece of poo poo because you agree with him on some things but don't think we should support the country Ukraine materially because there are some nazi's in their military (like all military forces). Guess who Greenwald represented as an attorney? Here's more examples of where it can't just be "Yeah, it's concerning we're arming Nazis but it makes sense in the short term and they'll need to be cracked down on in the long term" but that it needs to be praised as the moral good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:up until a month ago, 'do not support nazis' was considered a remarkably orthodox liberal political stance, in fact. I know a couple of people already replied to this, but what the hell are you even talking about? Are you just making up stances/arguments in your mind? How do you define "supporting" nazis? And how does that fit into the "remarkably orthodox liberal political stance" of a month ago, as you claim, for "not supporting" nazis? And how has does that play into a few nazis in Ukraine having weapons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Here's more examples of where it can't just be "Yeah, it's concerning we're arming Nazis but it makes sense in the short term and they'll need to be cracked down on in the long term" but that it needs to be praised as the moral good. There's also just the question of, uh, exactly how many Nazis. Unless my information is EXTRAORDINARILY out of date, Azov Battalion numbers in the low single thousands. Three thousand Nazis getting fancy American weapons in direct contravention of our instructions to Ukraine on the topic is bad. It's also a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the Ukrainian military getting aid. I have no problems admitting it's a regrettable short term side effect of policies I otherwise support.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:It's extremely ironic that you are willing to side with a transphobic piece of poo poo because you agree with him on some things I "sided" with his piece on war propaganda. Again: This is with-us-or-against-us bullshit. quote:but don't think we should support the country Ukraine materially because there are some nazi's in their military (like all military forces). Where did I say this, or anything close to this? eta: You gonna get around to quoting who you were referencing before or just keep making up poo poo you thought people said? Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Mar 20, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
Elizabeth Bruenig has explained my point here better than I can - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/dsa-ukraine-statement-anti-war/627086/ The DSA and leftists in general bringing up real policy concerns keep being attacked on moralistic levels and it's obvious war fervor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Elizabeth Bruenig has explained my point here better than I can - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/dsa-ukraine-statement-anti-war/627086/ It's the very thing that Greenwald was pointing out in his piece on war propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Here's more examples of where it can't just be "Yeah, it's concerning we're arming Nazis but it makes sense in the short term and they'll need to be cracked down on in the long term" but that it needs to be praised as the moral good. The posts you are quoting are not praising arming Nazis is as the moral good, and it is disingenuous to say so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:It's extremely ironic that you are willing to side with a transphobic piece of poo poo because you agree with him on some things but don't think we should support the country Ukraine materially because there are some nazi's in their military (like all military forces). Guess who Greenwald represented as an attorney? What are you implying here that pieces of poo poo shouldn't have legal representation or does the gay and jewish man have some sort of ulterior motive?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:The posts you are quoting are not praising arming Nazis is as the moral good, and it is disingenuous to say so. You're right, they're just turning policy arguments into moral arguments because it's not enough to agree or disagree that this might be bad policy, it needs to be the correct moral choice. Like I said, that piece I posted has helped me better understand what's upsetting me with this, especially with the attacks the DSA has gotten for their statement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2022 22:19
|
|