< 1 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

Democracy isn’t dying, but perhaps the two-party system is. (how about the “coalition government” approach?)

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  964
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 October 2019 10:01
 
Jefe - 09 October 2019 09:58 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 09:56 AM
Jefe - 09 October 2019 09:22 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 09:10 AM

... there are not, per se, any fascists in the US to fight…

That’s quite a presumption.  (Just one among several…)

Well, when you put it that way, I am clearly wrong.

Or just presumptuous?

Oh no, I’m convinced I’m wrong.  Your judgement proves me wrong because everyone who argues for a position presumes the position is correct, so “presumptuous” has no real meaning here.  So give yourself more credit.  You’ve shown with perfect clarify just how wrong those presumptions are.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
09 October 2019 10:03
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 10:01 AM
Jefe - 09 October 2019 09:58 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 09:56 AM
Jefe - 09 October 2019 09:22 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 09:10 AM

... there are not, per se, any fascists in the US to fight…

That’s quite a presumption.  (Just one among several…)

Well, when you put it that way, I am clearly wrong.

Or just presumptuous?

Oh no, I’m convinced I’m wrong.  Your judgement proves me wrong because everyone who argues for a position presumes the position is correct, so “presumptuous” has no real meaning here.  So give yourself more credit.  You’ve shown with perfect clarify just how wrong those presumptions are.

/yawn

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  964
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 October 2019 10:04
 
Jefe - 09 October 2019 10:03 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 10:01 AM
Jefe - 09 October 2019 09:58 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 09:56 AM
Jefe - 09 October 2019 09:22 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 09:10 AM

... there are not, per se, any fascists in the US to fight…

That’s quite a presumption.  (Just one among several…)

Well, when you put it that way, I am clearly wrong.

Or just presumptuous?

Oh no, I’m convinced I’m wrong.  Your judgement proves me wrong because everyone who argues for a position presumes the position is correct, so “presumptuous” has no real meaning here.  So give yourself more credit.  You’ve shown with perfect clarify just how wrong those presumptions are.

/yawn

That was my first reaction.

[ Edited: 09 October 2019 10:08 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
09 October 2019 10:05
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 10:04 AM
Jefe - 09 October 2019 10:03 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 10:01 AM
Jefe - 09 October 2019 09:58 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 09:56 AM
Jefe - 09 October 2019 09:22 AM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 09:10 AM

... there are not, per se, any fascists in the US to fight…

That’s quite a presumption.  (Just one among several…)

Well, when you put it that way, I am clearly wrong.

Or just presumptuous?

Oh no, I’m convinced I’m wrong.  Your judgement proves me wrong because everyone who argues for a position presumes the position is correct, so “presumptuous” has no real meaning here.  So give yourself more credit.  You’ve shown with perfect clarify just how wrong those presumptions are.

/yawn

That was my first reaction.

Clearly.

 

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
09 October 2019 10:38
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 09:44 AM

So are you asserting that the Brown Shirts arose in a political vacuum and weren’t a reaction to anything, therefore any comparison to Antifa doesn’t work because Antifa is reacting to something?  Beyond that I don’t understand the basis on which you are calling a partial quote “nonsense.” 

Who is the “fascist alt-right” whose influence needs to be lessened?  Richard Spencer’s alt-right isn’t fascist.  They specifically call for separate states for racial groups, not the subordination of all inferior racial groups under the domination of one group in an ultra-national state—a hallmark of fascist ideology.  So they’re not fascists, but they are alt-right.  So who are they? Where are these fascists fighting for an ultra-nationalist state that subjugates all political opposition?  You must have some idea because you are using the label, so before you hang me up on focusing on a label that divides us, how about you explain to me how you are dividing people according to that label.

And then explain the influence these labeled people have that justifies this particular form of “ardent opposition”—to wit, Antifa.  I happen to agree with your “logical course,” but Antifa doesn’t.  They aren’t addressing the cause of any social problems; they are just fighting these fascists I’m asking you to identify, and they are doing so violently.  So, I ask you the same question I’ve asked Twissel twice now, which you quote without answering either: are they justified in this violence?  They are violent; for them, the “eyes on the prize” requires this violence, and it justifies it.  So I’m asking again: Is the problem with the “fascist alt-right” such that violence is both justified and the solution?  And if so, one what grounds?

In effect I’m asking if you distinguish what our resident poet can’t, namely: “When you find yourself attacking Antifa…look what you end up defending.  You can’t have it both ways.”

You certainly like to highly define terms like ‘fascist’ in order to minimize their impact, while loosely putting those opposing as Antifa and exaggerating their influence.  You really need to do more research on the alt-right movement; they are hate-filled white supremacists who are organized, armed, and seek political power – that fits my definition of a fascist.

Who here said anything about condoning violence?  It is the alt-right who are the greatest threat to peace, and as often happens, violence is sometimes met with violence, which can only be prevented when hate is stifled by united and positive forces.

You’ve picked the wrong side on which to focus your critical passions.

 

 

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  964
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 October 2019 11:19
 

Who here said anything about condoning violence?

Antifa. 

They don’t just condone it.  They think it is both necessary and justified because the electoral system has failed, or will fail, to contain the threat that is—as you label them—“the fascist alt right,” as though all these extreme right wing groups are some kind of armed, unified movement asserting political power through violent means, which they are not.  And I’ve asked you directly, and you’ve evaded:  do you agree with them?  Not do you agree that violence might happen, that it is unfortunate when it does happen, and that it should be avoided.  I’m asking the question Antifa has asked and answered:  Is the violence Antifa both calls for and puts into practice necessary and justified?  They think it is, and I have focused my “critical passion” on that claim, and all I’m seeing in response is a lot of whining, hedging, dismissal, and denigration.  But it’s a simple question, so why not answer it: is violence a valid substitute for the electoral process when it comes to dealing with the “alt right,” and if it is, on what grounds? 

And if not violence, then how about political suppression through intimidation that denies First Amendment rights?  Antifa stands for that too.

 

 

[ Edited: 09 October 2019 11:34 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
09 October 2019 13:00
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 11:19 AM

Who here said anything about condoning violence?

Antifa. 

They don’t just condone it.  They think it is both necessary and justified because the electoral system has failed, or will fail, to contain the threat that is—as you label them—“the fascist alt right,” as though all these extreme right wing groups are some kind of armed, unified movement asserting political power through violent means, which they are not.  And I’ve asked you directly, and you’ve evaded:  do you agree with them?  Not do you agree that violence might happen, that it is unfortunate when it does happen, and that it should be avoided.  I’m asking the question Antifa has asked and answered:  Is the violence Antifa both calls for and puts into practice necessary and justified?  They think it is, and I have focused my “critical passion” on that claim, and all I’m seeing in response is a lot of whining, hedging, dismissal, and denigration.  But it’s a simple question, so why not answer it: is violence a valid substitute for the electoral process when it comes to dealing with the “alt right,” and if it is, on what grounds? 

And if not violence, then how about political suppression through intimidation that denies First Amendment rights?  Antifa stands for that too.

To answer your question, I do not condone violence and believe it only justified in direct self-defense or in defense of others.  Neither do I believe in provoking or inciting violence for a cause.  Violence should be avoided, but the threatening nature of the alt-Right/neo-Nazis should not be allowed to intimidate others from counter-protesting.  A HUGE turnout of counter-protesters, showing solidarity against hate, arm-in-arm singing loudly to drown out hateful slogans, is my idea of what’s needed.

The electoral process alone will not resolve social issues that have been taken to the streets.  Violence is not the answer, but neither is surrendering the streets to the alt-Right.  And to be clear, I have not been defending Antifa per se, but arguing against your position that sees them as a greater threat than the alt-Right.

There are legal means to minimize violent confrontations, but the overall interpretation in the U.S. of the First Amendment, that it’s an absolute where anything goes, that there are basically no limits to what one can say even when it threatens the rights of others and the public peace, is an issue that should be considered.  [As I pointed out on another thread, in the U.S. armed neo-Nazis can march en masse with fists raised shouting racist and threatening slogans and violence ensued (Charlottesville); Canada’s neo-Nazis marched in silence (Quebec City), skirmishes happened, but no one died.  And yes, we do enjoy and value free speech.]

But what is your point when raising the issue of violence in regards to Antifa?  If the threat of violence in society is your major concern here, I suggest viewing some videos of the hate-filled faces of alt-Right demonstrators to broaden your perspective of where the danger actually lies.

It is not “whining, hedging, dismissal and denigration” to show strong disagreement, and all you have to do is ask if you want something made clear.

[ Edited: 09 October 2019 13:06 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  964
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 October 2019 14:51
 

To answer your question, I do not condone violence and believe it only justified in direct self-defense or in defense of others.

Then you are half-way to my criticism of Antifa as a bigger problem than the alt-right because Antifa does not agree with you.  They believe in “direct action” to suppress what are otherwise First Amendment rights through violence, property violence, harassment, and intimidation.  That is the ideology that unifies and defines them. 

But what is your point when raising the issue of violence in regards to Antifa?

Because it is intrinsic to their ideology.  Political suppression through violence, harassment and intimidation is what they do.

If the threat of violence in society is your major concern here, I suggest viewing some videos of the hate-filled faces of alt-Right demonstrators to broaden your perspective of where the danger actually lies

.
Fuck you.  I don’t need to broaden my perspective because I’m familiar with the hate filled faces of the alt-right.  What those videos lack is the violence of Antifa.  Yes, individual white supremacists and/or white nationalists have committed acts of violence, but these are rare—very rare—and they stand out because unlike Antifa, violence isn’t written into their ideology.  Quite the contrary: the alt-right has stood for everyone’s right to peaceably assemble, protest, and speak because they realize doing so protects them.  Call it self-preservation, not virtue, but they believe that.

Incidentally, fascists by definition don’t believe that (you can look that up), and they use violence to suppress political diversity (you can look that up too).  This makes Antifa more like the fascists than the alt-right.

Violence is not the answer, but neither is surrendering the streets to the alt-Right.

What is this “surrendering the streets to the alt-right”?  From The New York Times article on the “alt right” Charlottesville anniversary march in Washington D.C., which was months in the planning: 

After weeks of hype, white supremacists managed to muster just a couple of dozen supporters on Sunday in the nation’s capital for the first anniversary of their deadly rally in Charlottesville, Va., finding themselves greatly outnumbered by counter-protesters, police officers and representatives of the news media.

A couple dozen hate-filled losers, and that’s a threat we have to worrying about surrendering too.  Seriously?  And that was the second time the “alt-right” tried to unite into a cohesive movement for a common cause.  And all that came of it was 20-30 people—hate filled people, yes, but that’s only piss in the wind in a nation of 320 million.  And regarding that wind blowing against them, there were thousands of counter-demonstrators there, “most of them showing solidarity against hate, arm-in-arm singing loudly to drown out hateful slogans.”  But unlike them—and I agree they are the answer—Antifa was there, and they disagree with both of us because they think these marches need to be violently suppressed.  This is why they show up in masks: they think violence is necessary because those peaceful singing protestors who vote and keep white supremacists away from real power aren’t enough.  They know their ideology requires criminal behavior, so they come disguised, just in case.  They are categorically distinct from what we both call the solution.

I’ll close with another quote from The New York Times article:

The alt-right movement, never very well unified, has been particularly rived by infighting and schisms in the last year. Members have been outed by both online activists and mainstream media outlets, causing some to lose their jobs. The left’s ability to turn out counterprotesters has also been a factor, from the hard-left activists threatening violence against far-right street protesters, to center-left citizens who have been vocal, and explicit, in expressing their disgust and scorn.

The article is correct.  The alt-right has never been unified, much less the unified force encompassing in any sense all the various white nationalist/white supremacy hate groups.  That it is—meaning that there is coherent “fascist alt-right” movement or ideology to fight—is a fantasy put up by Antifa, and their sympathizers.  In fact, one of Spencer’s goals in organizing the “Unite the Right” in Charlottesville was to change that; it was to create a unified movement.  It failed. Not only did it turn up a mere ~250 hard core “activists” from roughly a dozen groups, instead of unifying these groups the “alt-right” became even more internally fractious and splintered, meaning they are non-existent as a political threat, all the hate-filled videos on the Internet notwithstanding.  Simply put, Antifa is fighting an opponent they’ve created in their own minds so they can justify political suppression, nothing more.  This makes them a grass-roots version of totalitarian tendencies I deplore.  The fact that their target is morally repugnant is neither here nor there to the principle they threaten.

And…unless I am missing the chronology, the “alt-right” started showing up armed at its events after Berkeley, where Antifa really made its real debut.  Since their stated mission was violent suppression of the alt-right, and they proved at Berkeley that they were willing to act on it, the alt-right started showing up armed, ready to defend themselves. 

Given the circumstances, who wouldn’t?

[P.S. The “whining, hedging, dismissal, and denigration” characterizes the responses en masse, not you uniquely.  Though I admit to not excluding you from the first two (and I’ve already quoted to you the only coherent point from the apotheosis of the last). I apologize.]

 

[ Edited: 09 October 2019 15:11 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
09 October 2019 15:06
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 02:51 PM

To answer your question, I do not condone violence and believe it only justified in direct self-defense or in defense of others.

Then you are half-way to my criticism of Antifa as a bigger problem than the alt-right because Antifa does not agree with you.  They believe in “direct action” to suppress what are otherwise First Amendment rights through violence, property violence, harassment, and intimidation.  That is the ideology that unifies and defines them. 

But what is your point when raising the issue of violence in regards to Antifa?

Because it is intrinsic to their ideology.  Political suppression through violence, harassment and intimidation is what they do.

If the threat of violence in society is your major concern here, I suggest viewing some videos of the hate-filled faces of alt-Right demonstrators to broaden your perspective of where the danger actually lies

.
Fuck you.  I don’t need to broaden my perspective because I’m familiar with the hate filled faces of the alt-right.  What those videos lack is the violence of Antifa.  Yes, individual white supremacists and/or white nationalists have committed acts of violence, but these are rare—very rare—and they stand out because unlike Antifa, violence isn’t written into their ideology.  Quite the contrary: the alt-right has stood for everyone’s right to peaceably assemble, protest, and speak because they realize doing so protects them.  Call it self-preservation, not virtue, but they believe that.

Incidentally, fascists by definition don’t believe that (you can look that up), and they use violence to suppress political diversity (you can look that up too).  This makes Antifa more like the fascists than the alt-right.

Violence is not the answer, but neither is surrendering the streets to the alt-Right.

What is this “surrendering the streets to the alt-right”?  From The New York Times article on the “alt right” Charlottesville anniversary march in Washington D.C., which was months in the planning: 

After weeks of hype, white supremacists managed to muster just a couple of dozen supporters on Sunday in the nation’s capital for the first anniversary of their deadly rally in Charlottesville, Va., finding themselves greatly outnumbered by counter-protesters, police officers and representatives of the news media.

A couple dozen hate-filled losers, and that’s a threat we have to worrying about surrendering too.  Seriously?  And that was the second time the “alt-right” tried to unite into a cohesive movement for a common cause.  And all that came of it was 20-30 people—hate filled people, yes, but that’s only piss in the wind in a nation of 320 million.  And regarding that wind blowing against them, there were thousands of counter-demonstrators there, “most of them showing solidarity against hate, arm-in-arm singing loudly to drown out hateful slogans.”  But unlike them—and I agree they are the answer—Antifa was there, and they disagree with both of us because they think these marches need to be violently suppressed.  This is why they show up in masks: they think violence is necessary because those peaceful singing protestors who vote and keep white supremacists away from real power aren’t enough.  They know their ideology requires criminal behavior, so they come disguised, just in case.  They are categorically distinct from what we both call the solution.

I’ll close with another quote from The New York Times article:

The alt-right movement, never very well unified, has been particularly rived by infighting and schisms in the last year. Members have been outed by both online activists and mainstream media outlets, causing some to lose their jobs. The left’s ability to turn out counterprotesters has also been a factor, from the hard-left activists threatening violence against far-right street protesters, to center-left citizens who have been vocal, and explicit, in expressing their disgust and scorn.

The article is correct.  The alt-right has never been unified, much less the unified force encompassing in any sense all the various white nationalist/white supremacy hate groups.  That it is—meaning that there is coherent “fascist alt-right” movement or ideology to fight—is a fantasy put up by Antifa, and their sympathizers.  In fact, one of Spencer’s goals in organizing the “Unite the Right” in Charlottesville was to change that; it was to create a unified movement.  It failed. Not only did it turn up a mere ~250 hard core “activists” from roughly a dozen groups, instead of unifying these groups the “alt-right” became even more internally fractious and splintered, meaning they are non-existent as a political threat, all the hate-filled videos on the Internet notwithstanding.  Simply put, Antifa is fighting a opponent they’ve created in their own minds so they can justify political suppression, nothing more.  This makes them a grass-roots version of totalitarian tendencies I deplore.  The fact that their target is morally repugnant is neither here nor there to the principle they threaten.

And…unless I am missing the chronology, the “alt-right” started showing up armed at its events after Berkeley, where Antifa really made its real debut.  Since their stated mission was violent suppression of the alt-right, and they proved at Berkeley that they were willing to act on it, the alt-right started showing up armed, ready to defend themselves. 

Given the circumstances, who wouldn’t?

[P.S. The “whining, hedging, dismissal, and denigration” characterizes the responses en masse, not you uniquely.  Though I admit to not excluding you from the first two (and I’ve already quoted to you the only coherent point from the apotheosis of the last).

You lost me with the “Fuck you”.

 

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  964
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 October 2019 15:12
 

And you didn’t lose me with the sanctimony that prompted it, which is why you got it—you deserved it.

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6391
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
09 October 2019 15:51
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 03:12 PM

And you didn’t lose me with the sanctimony that prompted it, which is why you got it—you deserved it.

Your silliness makes all responses sanctimonious. Do not forget what this site is for. What appetite are you satisfying? Perhaps you deserve a nap. You are welcome to assemble your arguments as you wish but lashing out when others are disappointed or unsatisfied with them looks childish.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17735
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 October 2019 19:13
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 October 2019 03:12 PM

And you didn’t lose me with the sanctimony that prompted it, which is why you got it—you deserved it.

Looks like you’ll be sharing the doghouse with me now.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21702
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
09 October 2019 20:56
 

I certainly hope Anal is right about America’s resistance to totalitarian states.  Here in Texas, where we grow stupid as a cash crop, I have less confidence. The power of the Red Neck voter is starting to scare me. In India you have the very rich alongside the very poor.  In Texas, you have the very intelligent alongside the very stupid. I’m depending on MLK’s Arc of the Moral Universe.  I hope it doesn’t bend toward stupid.

[ Edited: 09 October 2019 20:58 by EN]
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17735
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 October 2019 21:04
 
EN - 09 October 2019 08:56 PM

I certainly hope Anal is right about America’s resistance to totalitarian states.  Here in Texas, where we grow stupid as a cash crop, I have less confidence. The power of the Red Neck voter is starting to scare me. In India you have the very rich alongside the very poor.  In Texas, you have the very intelligent alongside the very stupid. I’m depending on MLK’s Arc of the Moral Universe.  I hope it doesn’t bend toward stupid.

Unfortunately it is… Technology is cheap and ubiquitous enough now to make social media and justice the reality TV of reality.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21702
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
09 October 2019 21:21
 
GAD - 09 October 2019 09:04 PM
EN - 09 October 2019 08:56 PM

I certainly hope Anal is right about America’s resistance to totalitarian states.  Here in Texas, where we grow stupid as a cash crop, I have less confidence. The power of the Red Neck voter is starting to scare me. In India you have the very rich alongside the very poor.  In Texas, you have the very intelligent alongside the very stupid. I’m depending on MLK’s Arc of the Moral Universe.  I hope it doesn’t bend toward stupid.

Unfortunately it is… Technology is cheap and ubiquitous enough now to make social media and justice the reality TV of reality.

Yeah, geez I wish you were wrong, but I fear you are not. Oh, well, I’ll just enjoy my vacations, my football games, and my Friday nights.  I feel powerless to affect any actual change. It’s like watching a play you know is going bad, but the script is already written.

 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >