Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 817

SilverWook said:

Why am I even shocked by this sort of thing anymore?

I don’t know why you would be shocked. Most of these people are totally okay with totalitarianism, as long as it’s their fascist dictator in power. They look like they’re about one whiskey binge away from fatal heart attacks, but tragically I see a little kid in the top-right of that photo.

How could I have added that after? You quoted it in your post.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

SilverWook said:

Why am I even shocked by this sort of thing anymore?

I don’t know why you would be shocked. Most of these people are totally okay with totalitarianism, as long as it’s their fascist dictator in power. They look like they’re about one whiskey binge away from fatal heart attacks, but tragically I see a little kid in the top-right of that photo.

Any kid brought to one of those things should be given to a foster family.

Even I could be a better parent than one that takes their kiddos to Trump’s “hillbilly Nuremberg rallies” as Bill Maher recently called them.

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Why do you always want to play the apologist for right wing craziness like this or Alex Jones?

Just who were you talking to here? You posted right after Frink. Frink may be many things, but if you think he is an apologist for Alex Jones, you have to be drunk.

I was talking to Mrebo.

Also in response to Mrebo, I was obviously fucking joking. You have mentioned multiple times that I’m calling for violence and death and I think that’s absurd.

I mentioned it in that one post.

If you can’t tell that my “I’m usually against violence but I wish the state would execute everyone that believes in Qanon” was a literal call for action, then you have the situational awareness of a brick. You can say that it’s callous that I don’t value the lives of people dumb enough to believe in QAnon (and I don’t, and I won’t pretend that I’d shed any tears if they all keeled over tomorrow) but you can’t say that I’m calling violence. Not unless you’re okay with being totally dishonest. I know you throw in a line about how I’m hyperbolic, but your implication that my rhetoric will inspire people to violence is absurd. I have no following, and the political violence I’m in favor of isn’t even actually happening with any kind of regularity.

As you recognize I said you were being hyperbolic, and I didn’t initially respond to your post to express any concern about your post…because I know your way of expressing things.

I was implying that the kind of rhetoric you use, which is increasingly common on the left, can inspire and has inspired violent acts. I’d hope there’s not such a nutjob on this site who would somehow be motivated by your post. I suppose you would hope the same.

The kind of rhetoric we see on the left, excusing Antifa violence of any kind, or inspiring somebody like James Hodgkinson, does seem far more dangerous than a silly conspiracy theory that all the Democratic leaders are going behind bars soon.

And Antifa never killed anybody. Like I said earlier, the people using violence against Nazis aren’t automatically as bad as the Nazis. To claim that they are is a false equivalence.

I’m not trying to draw any equivalence. One doesn’t need to do that to recognize violence is bad.

Depends on the violence. If punching nazis can deter nazis from organizing, then there’s no problem.

If time travel becomes possible I’m going to travel back in time and punch Hitler in the nose.

Cool. Now, how about the white supremacists and neo-nazis that organize all across America today?

I think punching Hitler in the nose (when he’s still a child?) might forestall neo-nazis.

If that doesn’t work and neo-nazis are as dangerous as believed, I suppose one might worry about them hitting back.

60 people shot in Chicago

It’ll just keep happening until strict gun control laws are put into place. Unless anyone is interested in doing that then I have no interest in hearing about anyone’s thoughts or prayers. Not that anyone cares about this since less than ten are dead and it isn’t some dramatic mass-shooting.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Why do you always want to play the apologist for right wing craziness like this or Alex Jones?

Just who were you talking to here? You posted right after Frink. Frink may be many things, but if you think he is an apologist for Alex Jones, you have to be drunk.

I was talking to Mrebo.

Also in response to Mrebo, I was obviously fucking joking. You have mentioned multiple times that I’m calling for violence and death and I think that’s absurd.

I mentioned it in that one post.

If you can’t tell that my “I’m usually against violence but I wish the state would execute everyone that believes in Qanon” was a literal call for action, then you have the situational awareness of a brick. You can say that it’s callous that I don’t value the lives of people dumb enough to believe in QAnon (and I don’t, and I won’t pretend that I’d shed any tears if they all keeled over tomorrow) but you can’t say that I’m calling violence. Not unless you’re okay with being totally dishonest. I know you throw in a line about how I’m hyperbolic, but your implication that my rhetoric will inspire people to violence is absurd. I have no following, and the political violence I’m in favor of isn’t even actually happening with any kind of regularity.

As you recognize I said you were being hyperbolic, and I didn’t initially respond to your post to express any concern about your post…because I know your way of expressing things.

You were talking about it at times as though I was serious and you even implied that Frink actually felt that way too.

I was implying that the kind of rhetoric you use, which is increasingly common on the left, can inspire and has inspired violent acts. I’d hope there’s not such a nutjob on this site who would somehow be motivated by your post. I suppose you would hope the same.

How is it increasingly common on the left? Not on the left I’m seeing. I wish I lived in this parallel universe that you live in where the left is incredibly radical, because that’s not how it is in my world. And whatever anyone does after reading my posts is their problem.

The kind of rhetoric we see on the left, excusing Antifa violence of any kind, or inspiring somebody like James Hodgkinson, does seem far more dangerous than a silly conspiracy theory that all the Democratic leaders are going behind bars soon.

The Hodgkinson example is bullshit because I, unlike Steve Scalise, actually want political action to be taken to prevent assholes like him from getting shot in the first place, plus I’ve never advocated shooting anyone, let alone an elected official. Antifa hasn’t killed anybody, unlike members of the alt-right, and they aren’t in power, and I have no problem with terrorizing the alt-right and neo-Nazis. Sue me, I enjoy it when Nazis are the victims of violent acts. I didn’t even condone it per se, I just said I’m not shedding any tears over it and it isn’t as bad. As for the conspiracy, I care much less for whether it’s dangerous than I care that it’s incredibly stupid. QAnon is a perfect example of stupidity on the right and is also a perfect example of why a lot of people shouldn’t have the right to vote because of their stupidity. And maybe that rhetoric is more dangerous than QAnon, but there’s plenty of armed rightwing bullshit rallies all over this shithole country. The Nazi rally in Charlottesville where that guy plowed through a bunch of innocent leftwing protesters was full of armed Nazi thugs. Trump encouraged violence at his rallies. Violence against protesters has occurred at his rallies. Alex Jones, who has been in communication with the president, has come dangerously close to advocating gun violence against political opposition. Stop pretending that the right isn’t full of militant fucks. Whether you’re willing to acknowledge them or not, they’re there.

And Antifa never killed anybody. Like I said earlier, the people using violence against Nazis aren’t automatically as bad as the Nazis. To claim that they are is a false equivalence.

I’m not trying to draw any equivalence. One doesn’t need to do that to recognize violence is bad.

No, violence is not always bad. Sometimes you have to be violent and sometimes really horrible things are done because the good guys were too cowardly to use violence. To keep going with the Nazi example, if the Allied powers had gone into Germany in 1933 and killed every single member of the Nazi party instead of waiting for Hitler to conquer almost all of Europe, then we would’ve been spared WWII. I’m generally against violence, but saying that it’s “bad” in a blanket statement is ridiculous.

Your zeal for violence and my relative pacifism probably can’t be reconciled. Your fixation on ills of the right and ignoring/downplaying/excusing ills on the left is also unresolvable.

Whatever point you’re trying to make, the following is logically fallacious (a non sequitur):

The Hodgkinson example is bullshit because I, unlike Steve Scalise, actually want political action to be taken to prevent assholes like him from getting shot in the first place, plus I’ve never advocated shooting anyone, let alone an elected official.

Either he is a leftwing nut motivated by extreme rhetoric or he isn’t. Your justifying violence based on the identity of the victim is horrible as a matter or morality and logic. There’s no reason that shabby logic belongs only to the self-declared righteous.

What? I’m not self-declared righteous. And didn’t justify any shootings. I just fucking said that if what I want were implemented then things like the shooting of Scalise wouldn’t be happening. And you’re failing to explain how it’s horrible to justify violence based on the identity of the victim. When I was in school, a classmate’s dad used violence in order to save him from a kidnapper. Is that bad? Stop acting like I’m generally in favor of violence against people purely because their opinions are different than mine. My position is that violence against dangerous people like the alt-right and neo-Nazis isn’t a bad thing.

I also don’t ignore or downplay the ills of the left. I hate how moderate it is. I hate it’s willingness to compromise. I hate it’s fixation on stupid shit like political correctness and offended feelings rather than real issues. I go on and on about how awful the so-called left in America is. My problem with it is that it’s not radical enough and I never downplay how much that bothers me.

I think he was going for a “Gun control advocates don’t care unless it’s a mass shooting” angle. I’m not sure though.

It’s a lot of people shot in a short time frame. I thought the gun control advocates would care but it’s not a story that get lots of play because it’s not a mass shooting. It’s fodder for discussion. I’m not sure what Frink is saying with his comment.

SilverWook said:

Why am I even shocked by this sort of thing anymore?

Were these people in a deep coma during the Cold War? I think I can hear Ronald Reagan spinning in his grave.

All those 50’s paranoia flicks about Russian’s infiltrating our society aren’t quite as funny anymore.

Pleasant thought for the day. Certainly the Russian infiltration/compromise/coordination/whatever you want to call it with a good chunk of the Republican Party and several conservative lobbying groups is, at this point, pretty undeniable. But let’s also consider that Russian intelligence didn’t give up on the American so-called Left just because they failed to get much traction there. Jill Stein, Dennis Kucinich, Tulsi Gabbard, maybe even Tad Devine. Small players, certainly, but they were very much used to effect, particularly with what I’d call the whipsaw effect. Trump won, and Stein immediately ran a pretty strange recount campaign. Strange in that there was pretty much never any chance at all it would uncover any significant irregularities, even if there were some to find, due to how voting happens in most of the affected states. But by actually having the recounts happen, it legitimized the win – and since this was the only conceivable outcome of a recount in those states, it wasn’t even a gamble.

The success of the Russian Right triggered a very predictable reaction from the Left, and the Russian Left, small as it was, had a game plan to make the most of their position.

Now Democrats are running new fresh faces in red districts that have never before been competitive. Who are these Democrats? Exactly how much vetting does a fresh face get, or are the Democrats happy to take anyone willing to run in Oklahoma? I truly believe that quite a few Republicans are deeply and dangerously compromised by Russian intelligence services. But not all of them are. If those that aren’t compromised get swept out of office by some newbie out of nowhere, are we actually adding one to the Russian tally? We’ve already got one Tulsi Gabbard, could a Blue Wave give us ten or fifteen?

Not that I think a Blue Wave isn’t pretty much the only thing that can lead to a good outcome. Just a cautionary note about the “Anybody is better than XXX” mentality. There’s nothing about the Democratic Party that makes them immune to Russian infiltration. Maybe it’s harder, but that’s not really the same thing at all. We’re at war. Don’t let some stranger in your HQ simply because they’re wearing an allied uniform. Check them out thoroughly.