Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 146

On July 16 2019 01:46 GoTuNk wrote: Is not making sense a new debate tactic? I don't understand what you mean or what you want to say. Maybe someone else can chime in and explain.

It's really not complicated to understand. Take a little emotional distance from it all and look at the situation objectively. The person you are equating to an ISIS suicide bomber did not, in fact, bomb anyone, nor did he commit suicide. He also didn't believe in raping, killing and terrorizing innocent people. You can disapprove of what he wanted to do, but that doesn't mean you should deny the facts and establish a false equivalence. It doesn't help your cause.

You further implied that I support ISIS because I shared his letter. That is some next level ignorance and bad faith on your part. It is especially concerning that you don't know the ideology of the fighters who have been at the forefront of fighting jihadists for years, and that you fail to understand that I share their political philosophy. You are much, much closer politically to a jihadist than I am. You don't believe in a divine authority but you believe in an absolute authority all the same, and because of this belief in authority you can justify any and all forms of oppression committed against people who are not you.

Perhaps the reason you guys are upset at the fact that I shared the manifesto is because it makes you feel uneasy about your lack of conviction and agency in the world. Someone saw fit to risk his life for his belief in human solidarity, and he didn't hurt anyone in the process. He was consistent and he lived and died on his terms as someone who is truly anti-authoritarian. He didn't just pretend to be on the internet, and that's a good reason enough to feel cognitive dissonance.

On July 16 2019 09:08 Loco wrote: Perhaps the reason you guys are upset at the fact that I shared the manifesto is because it makes you feel uneasy about your lack of conviction and agency in the world. Someone saw fit to risk his life for his belief in human solidarity, and he didn't hurt anyone in the process. He was consistent and he lived and died on his terms as someone who is truly anti-authoritarian. He didn't just pretend to be on the internet, and that's a good reason enough to feel cognitive dissonance.

"didn't hurt anyone in the process" yeah spitting image of mohandas ghandi

this is probably going to be the most simplest one for you to answer but why was he carrying a homemade ar15 that he bragged about in the manifesto you disseminated here

-live life of conviction
-don't squander your own agency
-believe in human solidarity
-get killed while trying to attack a government facility with a rifle and bombs
one of these things doesn't belong

main thing that's upsetting is you celebrating a delusional man throwing his life away because he wrote some gibberish that sounds anti-authoritarian before committing suicide by cop. wow what an incredible agent of change.

Obviously this guy is a terrorist, just like anyone who tries (but fails) to shoot up an abortion clinic is. you can agree with his vision for society and still think the way he went about trying to create it was stupid, dangerous, counter-productive, deranged..

If you want a french revolution that's fine, as brutal as that was it was arguably a necessity for the democratization of Europe (not all the random murders, but the people rising up and offing the king, sure. ) But this is a lone guy targeting the 'servants of evil', it's not the masses rising up to take care of the overlords. He's not gonna inspire anything big, instead he discredits any organization he affiliates with (to the degree anyone pays attention to him at all).

It's just a way of lashing out at the system when hopelessness and alienation becomes too much, his attack offers nothing constructive. His ending statement is not gibberish or 'delusion', and actually has some pretty mainstream beleifs and values, like his view on economic inequality.

As for terrorism, no one should be taken seriously when they talk about terrorism unless it's not in a hypcrotical way. There are some good definitions of terrorism out there, imo the one most states came up with the in post 9/11 'anti terror' legislation offer the best definitions. The definitions some political scientists use are ok, but some have argued terrorism is a 'weapon of the weak', making their definition ideological. Clearly someone would only use this in their definition if they want to ignore state terrorism, thus making them a hypocrite. There are also some political scientists who argue against using a definition, this is also ideologically motivated. Their motive is keeping their profession alive by making it more complicated than it is. Scholars like chomsky just use the state's definition of terrorism, making him one of the few non-ideological scholars on the topic.

You can also reveal the meaning of the word terrorism by talking about the history of it's usage as some scholars like Eqbal Ahmed did. So in every society there are two definitions of terrorism, the non-ideological one, which is formalized in law. and the ideological one, which has the actual meaning of the term but is never formalized anywhere. The real definition of terrorism is this: any violent group who the state is opposed to is a terrorist. Any violent group aligned with the state is not a terrorist; (they are a moderate, or freedom fighter typically).

That's right, he was a desperate individual with strong (and worthy) convictions. Desperation and delusion are two completely different things. No one is saying that what he attempted to do has helped anyone directly, but it was consistent with who he was and what he believed, and he didn't hurt anyone as he attempted to do it. Reducing someone like that to the blanket labels of "deranged" and "terrorist" is barbarism in disguise. It is proof that the state owns your mind. Each and every one of us associates the word "terrorist" with senseless destruction and death. I'm not ceding that ground, as it is as clear as day to me that his attempted damage against infrastructure used for violent purposes was not senseless, and he was not responsible for any deaths.

We are all going to die, and most of us die very unremarkable deaths. He chose the way he was going out and made a statement with it at a critical time in human history. Martyrs outlive their bodies and there is no debate to be had about this: his death has and will continue to inspire further resistance, armed or not. I think that he knew that his actions wouldn't be directly effective and that he was likely going to die, and his real intention was to bring attention to what is happening and the fact that little is being done about it and encourage people to come up with more effective strategies than his to resist it.

Assuming everyone is an egoist deep down what do we do about this? It gets complicated. The powerful aren't going to budge an inch on their power. If anything they are doing anything in their power to scale up. Much of the masses are asleep as Loco talked about with social media, mass media, gamification, etc. The masses are the one who aren't acting in their own interest. How are so many seduced by a Donald Trump character? I will tell you a secret. A friend recommended that I read I think it was called THINK BIG AND GROW RICH by Donald Drumpf. Not only did I read it but I took notes. Not one of my brightest moments. I didn't know at the time his daddy gave him $100milly which was a shit ton at the time. He could have just put it in a conservative stock portfolio and be more rich than he is today. $100milly, apprenticeship with his daddy, and a Wharton MBA and he somehow loses money on a casino. But, I digress.

Donald Drumpf is just doing what's in his apparent self-interest. Disregarding the fact that if anyone is oppressed we can not be free. Even though I am a 6'2'', white, blond haired, blue eyed cis male a white ethno-state does not benefit me. Nor does nationalism. Neoliberalism only benefits the few. The ones with the most perverse selfishness and conceit or perhaps perceived rationality. Human solidarity must be number 1. It's for all of our best interests. I look at all of these houses when I walk on the beach. They will be absolutely useless in 30 years. My own parents' house maybe useless within 30 years. The Koch brothers will be dead in 30 years most likely. Then what? Why are they doing what they are doing? These fucking maniacs. I really want to say we should systematically take them out but I am not sure that is the answer and I certainly wouldn't be the one to do it. The thing is we aren't just against a politician or a CEO. We are against a collective of power. It's a brood of power. One big happy family. Is resistance futile?

It's going to take a real concerted effort on a lot of peoples' parts. We have to come together. We can not stand for the status quo. Especially if it is driven by the elite. We can not let them run us over.

I think if we start killing people it will be too easy to raise panic and fear among the masses. It will become easier to just scale up security to really horrible levels. I don't think these guys in power are necessarily doing anything that warrants the death penalty either. Unfortunately, the ones in power have highly advanced forms of manipulation and coercion. They have the entire spectrum of violence at their disposal and access to many forms of covert power.

It might just take someone like a Bernie Sanders being elected president. I hate to say it. There has to be more that we can do. I don't know. I thank Willem Van S for attempted to do something. No one was injured (except him). No one here can actually argue that what is going on in these detention centers are a good thing?

On July 16 2019 01:46 GoTuNk wrote: Is not making sense a new debate tactic? I don't understand what you mean or what you want to say. Maybe someone else can chime in and explain.

I sometimes make a fool out of myself when arguing with Loco but this is next level :D

On July 16 2019 22:58 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On July 16 2019 01:46 GoTuNk wrote: Is not making sense a new debate tactic? I don't understand what you mean or what you want to say. Maybe someone else can chime in and explain. I sometimes make a fool out of myself when arguing with Loco but this is next level :D

Well he often doesn't make any sense at all. Just writes convoluted words next to each other but doesn't present any coherent idea you can dispute; more like a bunch of isolated afirmations with other words between.

On July 16 2019 09:08 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On July 16 2019 01:46 GoTuNk wrote: Is not making sense a new debate tactic? I don't understand what you mean or what you want to say. Maybe someone else can chime in and explain. It's really not complicated to understand. Take a little emotional distance from it all and look at the situation objectively. The person you are equating to an ISIS suicide bomber did not, in fact, bomb anyone, nor did he commit suicide. He also didn't believe in raping, killing and terrorizing innocent people. You can disapprove of what he wanted to do, but that doesn't mean you should deny the facts and establish a false equivalence. It doesn't help your cause. You further implied that I support ISIS because I shared his letter. That is some next level ignorance and bad faith on your part. It is especially concerning that you don't know the ideology of the fighters who have been at the forefront of fighting jihadists for years, and that you fail to understand that I share their political philosophy. You are much, much closer politically to a jihadist than I am. You don't believe in a divine authority but you believe in an absolute authority all the same, and because of this belief in authority you can justify any and all forms of oppression committed against people who are not you. Perhaps the reason you guys are upset at the fact that I shared the manifesto is because it makes you feel uneasy about your lack of conviction and agency in the world. Someone saw fit to risk his life for his belief in human solidarity, and he didn't hurt anyone in the process. He was consistent and he lived and died on his terms as someone who is truly anti-authoritarian. He didn't just pretend to be on the internet, and that's a good reason enough to feel cognitive dissonance.

I did not imply you support ISIS. The analogy I was making is pretty clear and had nothing to do with it.

On July 16 2019 08:09 Loco wrote: Antifa is not an organization. You can be a friendless Egoist and simply remove Nazi stickers from your neighborhood and that makes you antifa, i.e. someone who partakes in anti-fascist action. There are no memberships or requirements to be affiliated with anyone. Showing up to a protest doesn't make you a "member of antifa".

Yeah antifa doesn't exist, its just a feeling we all have in our hearts to stop baddies, lol such a coward argument to dodge responsibility, Antifa is an organization, a decentralized one.

Are you saying this guy wasnt Antifa? or are you just talking shit without even a point.

Interestingly, the same people who call this man a terrorist think of Julian Assange as a (cyber-) terrorist too. So, I guess Baal was the first one to openly defend a terrorist between us two. It's just another instance of inconsistency from him, he is not self-aware enough to realize he is weaponizing this word like war-mongerers and fascists do to incite hatred against other people who believe in human freedom as their highest ideal.

What people? some clown in the news with an agenda said that Assange was a terrorist therefore I support terrorist? brilliant point.

Yes when you come with a rifle and molotovs to try to destroy a government facility thats an act of terrorism, If its an abortion clinic, a detention center, the DMV etc.

I also remember Baal downplaying the acts of the mosque shooter who killed 50 people because his manifesto was supposedly "full of memes" and because, apparently, "the left" had created him. It was somehow relevant to mention that for him, but it wasn't relevant for me to post a manifesto as-is without any added commentary.

The manifesto and the video itself was full of memes (subscribe to pewdiepie, Initial D driveaway etc), how is that downplaying it you dumbass, he was a mounstrous terrorist and deserves all the pain this existence has to offer, you on the other hand support this one because he shares your violent extremist views and its easier because he was so incompetent he couldn't do anything, would you condemn him as evil if he had killed ICE agents in his attack?

That man did not inspire fear in me or anyone I know, but I understand how he inspired fear in the eyes of a bunch of authoritarian bigots who are in favor of caging people and letting them suffer and die from preventable causes for arbitrary reasons.

"abortion clinic bombers dont inspire fear in me or anyone I know, but I understand how he inspired fear in the eyes of a bunch of baby killers who are in favor of suctioning baby bodies piece by piece instead of waiting a few months and giving them for adoption"


The same argument, made by the same kind of deranged idiots.

On July 16 2019 11:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: Obviously this guy is a terrorist, just like anyone who tries (but fails) to shoot up an abortion clinic is. you can agree with his vision for society and still think the way he went about trying to create it was stupid, dangerous, counter-productive, deranged..

Exactly, this is non different than an abortion clinic shooter, those people think that they are literally saving babies lives, innocent who cannot protect themselves and this guy thought he was saving immigrants from literal concentration camps, every terrorist is righteous in their own eyes and the eyes of their extremist supporters.

On July 16 2019 18:05 Loco wrote: That's right, he was a desperate individual with strong (and worthy) convictions. Desperation and delusion are two completely different things. No one is saying that what he attempted to do has helped anyone directly, but it was consistent with who he was and what he believed, and he didn't hurt anyone as he attempted to do it. Reducing someone like that to the blanket labels of "deranged" and "terrorist" is barbarism in disguise. It is proof that the state owns your mind. Each and every one of us associates the word "terrorist" with senseless destruction and death. I'm not ceding that ground, as it is as clear as day to me that his attempted damage against infrastructure used for violent purposes was not senseless, and he was not responsible for any deaths. We are all going to die, and most of us die very unremarkable deaths. He chose the way he was going out and made a statement with it at a critical time in human history. Martyrs outlive their bodies and there is no debate to be had about this: his death has and will continue to inspire further resistance, armed or not. I think that he knew that his actions wouldn't be directly effective and that he was likely going to die, and his real intention was to bring attention to what is happening and the fact that little is being done about it and encourage people to come up with more effective strategies than his to resist it.

he didn't hurt anyone BECAUSE HE GOT SHOT BEFORE HE COULD

WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS?

THE FUCK HE TOOK AND BRAGGED ABOUT AN AR15 TO SHOOT BUSES?

it's like extolling a suicide bomber who accidentally blew himself up on the way to work. well he didn't hurt anyone and was not responsible for any deaths.

the new normal

On July 17 2019 00:50 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 16 2019 11:58 Liquid`Drone wrote: Obviously this guy is a terrorist, just like anyone who tries (but fails) to shoot up an abortion clinic is. you can agree with his vision for society and still think the way he went about trying to create it was stupid, dangerous, counter-productive, deranged.. Exactly, this is non different than an abortion clinic shooter, those people think that they are literally saving babies lives, innocent who cannot protect themselves and this guy thought he was saving immigrants from literal concentration camps, every terrorist is righteous in their own eyes and the eyes of their extremist supporters.

Yes, Baal, destroying infrastructure that serves the sole purpose of committing violence against the most vulnerable people in existence is the exact same thing as shooting up people because they believe they have a right to bodily autonomy. The. same. thing. How can anyone ever doubt this? There's no way we can agree that we have this thing called science that lets us know that clumps of cells literally aren't babies, or that there is a meaningful difference between attacking property and attacking innocent people who make use of their basic human right to bodily autonomy.

There is no way we can figure out what is going on here. When Auschwitz survivors say that what ICE is doing is no different than what the Nazis did to them, we obviously have no reason to believe them. After all, there are so many right-wing pundits who say that only anti-Semites think that these are concentration camps, and the real fascists are the anti-fascists. Why do they all say this if there isn't truth to it?! There is no possible way out of this impasse, we must remain neutral and transcend petty concepts like justice and truth with our radical centrism.

On July 17 2019 02:57 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On July 16 2019 18:05 Loco wrote: That's right, he was a desperate individual with strong (and worthy) convictions. Desperation and delusion are two completely different things. No one is saying that what he attempted to do has helped anyone directly, but it was consistent with who he was and what he believed, and he didn't hurt anyone as he attempted to do it. Reducing someone like that to the blanket labels of "deranged" and "terrorist" is barbarism in disguise. It is proof that the state owns your mind. Each and every one of us associates the word "terrorist" with senseless destruction and death. I'm not ceding that ground, as it is as clear as day to me that his attempted damage against infrastructure used for violent purposes was not senseless, and he was not responsible for any deaths. We are all going to die, and most of us die very unremarkable deaths. He chose the way he was going out and made a statement with it at a critical time in human history. Martyrs outlive their bodies and there is no debate to be had about this: his death has and will continue to inspire further resistance, armed or not. I think that he knew that his actions wouldn't be directly effective and that he was likely going to die, and his real intention was to bring attention to what is happening and the fact that little is being done about it and encourage people to come up with more effective strategies than his to resist it. he didn't hurt anyone BECAUSE HE GOT SHOT BEFORE HE COULD WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS? THE FUCK HE TOOK AND BRAGGED ABOUT AN AR15 TO SHOOT BUSES? it's like extolling a suicide bomber who accidentally blew himself up on the way to work. well he didn't hurt anyone and was not responsible for any deaths.

Hmm, I don't know, maybe we could like, study the evidence? Maybe the fact that he often had guns on him and never shot anyone? Maybe here he wanted to be seen as a threat to the police so he would be killed immediately to make a bigger statement? There is no report of him firing at the cops that I know of?

lol at comparing Auschwitz to some ICE massage parlor.

3:06 "antifa are the decadent rich. they are the most privileged people in society, this isn't the working class rising up"

lol

I love Tucker. He's so much more entertaining than our resident right-wingers. I don't know why I bother reading you guys when I can just get the full download of your opinions there but with a lot more to laugh out loud at.

I think this was posted already on here but I'm re-posting for the awesomeness:

On July 17 2019 06:32 Loco wrote: the new normal

So CNN is pumping up the white nationalist icon on their screen time, just to try to peg him to Trump. Un-fucking real.

Trump Derangament Syndrome, case 213135135.