2020 US Election (Part 3)

[Angst]

Until they are under oath in court. Then they'll go:

There is a nonzero chance we either made this up, or it's that thing.
What thing?
You know, when you hear someone say something and provide that as evidence.
Hearsay?
Yeah, that's the one.

To be fair, hearsay does have some say in court as it is a form of evidence. It's just not at all substantial on its own for a court case; it's something peripherally used to bolster already strong arguments.

(EDIT: Not that your post is denying this, I just want to get it straight because a lot of people misunderstand what evidence means when told that hearsay is a form of evidence.)

In this case, most of the Trump "proof" is indeed only hearsay, if not hearsay of hearsay, which is a ridiculous situation to have 70% of his voter base support, and very worrying.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that clearly the polarization won't go down, so if the US means to remain a single country it may at some point go to war against others to maintain that.
Britain did it, in the case of Ireland - though ultimately Ireland still rebelled, and granted that was culturally a different "country" within a country. But the US is too large and too different to hope to drive polarization down now, imho.

 

[Angst]

Yeah, it's incredible how well conservatives have normalised rhetoric of the "hard left" and the far right as being equivalent in their extremes.

Yep. There's no equivalency between "I want to be able to get married" and "I want to murder <racial expletive>".

Even doing the <brackets> made me feel wrong. I could have done the ((())) dogwhistle, too.

The far right is scary, the "hard" left is, at its worst, only arguably annoying to people.

Not that the "hard" left is annoying to me, for the record. To other people.

 

[Patine]

This cartoon is spot on. A practicing Jehovah's Witness could disagree with the imagery, but not the script. The script is 100% accurate. I'd seen the one by these folks on Mormonism, but it was a while ago. Time for a rewatch. Thanks for posting

I had a friend in elementary school whom he and his family were Jehovah's Witnesses. His older brother was shunned and cast out of the family and church for some inappropriate conduct or association I was never made privy to, and it was just like he had never existed to them - cold as ice. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a heretical and wonky cult - just one not big on gratuitous twisted sex and causing death like many other cults are.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's just the that US antifa is basically tame. We also saw that in the riots, where virtually all the dead were from the left.

 

[Angst]

It's just the that US antifa is basically tame. We also saw that in the riots, where virtually all the dead were from the left.

To be fair, there are a few bad apples, but considering Antifa at large dangerous in any way in its US form is just eating propaganda.

They're largely decentralized and not a unified party. Which is how it's bad faith, but possible to point out minor sections of the movement and universalize it as toxicity at large.

Compare to the Proud Boys that just purged its leadership, removing an African-American leader with a letter remniscent of blood and soil. The announcement is literally so horrifying I can't replicate it on this forum without getting a warning.

EDIT: Cloud_Strife summized it greatly here:

Literally sitting here, quaking in my boots about the roaming gangs of woke leftists going around tepidly calling things problematic even as the right wing become increasingly vicious in their rhetoric and violence.

Like let's cut the bs here, one of these groups Is an existential threat to my safety and America, the other is a boogie man used by conservatives to whip up dislike of younger generations.

One of these groups have access to weapons and a desire to use them, alongside implicit support of the police, the other have heated arguments on twitter.

It's a false, disengenuous comparison and does an injustice to the issues this country is facing.

If you're more worried about the leftists than you are with the right wingers then it's because you view the latter as a greater threat to your ideology, which is very telling.

 

[Patine]

Yep. There's no equivalency between "I want to be able to get married" and "I want to murder <racial expletive>".

Even doing the <brackets> made me feel wrong. I could have done the ((())) dogwhistle, too.

The far right is scary, the "hard" left is, at its worst, only arguably annoying to people.

Not that the "hard" left is annoying to me, for the record. To other people.

We must remember that Lenin, Mao, Mugabe, Castro, and Pol claimed to have (and may have initially had) only the best of intentions when they toppled Nicholas II, Chiang Kai-shek, Ian Smith, Fulgencio Batista, and Lon Nol, respectively, who were all far-right-wing, conservative, authoritarian, tradition-and-religion-intertwined-and-abusing, aristocratic, and elitist leaders and establishments they were propped up by, and whom I shed no tears for and fully note how horrid, monstrous, tyrannical, oppressive, caste-oriented, corrupt, brutal, and untenable they were. But, Lenin, Mao, Mugabe, Castro, and Pol also became horrid monsters themselves, and, once securing power, they created Hells all their own, just with different themes and ideals behind them, and their successors (except Pol, who had none) carried on, and, in some cases, made this worse. "Betrayal of the Revolution," by Leon Trotsky is a VERY instructive read on the topic. My point is, it doesn't matter if radical or extreme political and social movements are far-right-wing or far-left-wing, or how they look PRIOR to gaining power, or how bad those they want to replace are, trusting extremist and radical movements has a historically bad track record.

 

[Angst]

We must remember that Lenin, Mao, Mugabe, Castro, and Pol claimed to have (and may have initially had) only the best of intentions when they toppled Nicholas II, Chiang Kai-shek, Ian Smith, Fulgencio Batista, and Lon Nol, respectively, who were all far-right-wing, conservative, authoritarian, tradition-and-religion-intertwined-and-abusing, aristocratic, and elitist leaders and establishments they were propped up by, and whom I shed no tears for and fully note how horrid, monstrous, tyrannical, oppressive, caste-oriented, corrupt, brutal, and untenable they were. But, Lenin, Mao, Mugabe, Castro, and Pol also became horrid monsters themselves, and, once securing power, they created Hells all their own, just with different themes and ideals behind them, and their successors (except Pol, who had none) carried on, and, in some cases, made this worse. "Betrayal of the Revolution," by Leon Trotsky is a VERY instructive read on the topic. My point is, it doesn't matter if radical or extreme political and social movements are far-right-wing or far-left-wing, or how they look PRIOR to gaining power, or how bad those they want to replace are, trusting extremist and radical movements has a historically bad track record.

This is all speculative, however. Antifa doesn't inherently aim to topple the government, even if sections of it are indeed of schools overlapping with your list of dictators and wish to do so. This is what many people miss. The core tenet of Antifa is to prevent fascism. That's it.

 

[Patine]

This is all speculative, however. Antifa doesn't inherently aim to topple the government, even if sections of it are indeed of schools overlapping with your list of dictators and wish to do so. This is what many people miss. The core tenet of Antifa is to prevent fascism. That's it.

Antifa is only one facet of the affairs being discussed, and not even the biggest or most important by far - the radical aspects of the American Social Progressive Movement are far bigger than just Antifa. And Antifa, like a LOT of other people today, including a lot on this thread, don't know the definition of the word, "Fascist," or they wouldn't term themselves, "Anti-Fascist," given the tiny number of Americans who TRULY qualify, ideologically, as Fascists - and almost all living in the middle of nowhere, with a few washed out skinheads in the suburbs. David Duke and Timothy McVeigh are probably the best know Americans who truly live up to the term, and McVeigh was executed, and Duke's a has been windbag. However, "Fascist,' inaccurately defined and sloppily and arbitrarily applied IS becoming one a certain category of term you see through history - "Counter-Revolutionary," in the French Revolution Reign of Terror, "Anti-Social" in the early USSR, "Anharmonious" in Maoist China, "Unamerican/Anti-American," or outright, "Communist," in the U.S. Red Scare (and further down the Cold War), "Genocide Ideologue," in post-1994 Genocide, RPF-run Rwanda, "Terrorist," in Bush-era United States, and "Coup Supporters," by Erdogan for a while after the 2012 attempted coup on him - you know, one of THOSE terms.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Antifa should jettison its old name since its an old communist front organisation that is no longer that anymore
Its just now a lose colition of groups.
Probably some old socialists that are still present but beyond that Antifa might well be that women in the Unicorn costume dancing on the street

 

[Gorbles]

Political extremity and radical, unbending rush to change without stopping to consider or build bridges, of any sort, even with the best of intentions and the most admirable of goals, is the breeding ground, potentially speaking, of the most monstrous socio-political regimes, policies, and leaders in history - especially when coming out of the crucible of a head-to-head struggle between two diametrically opposing such groups, and all the animosity and vitriol developed in such a struggle.

Considering leftism is such a broad tent of divergent ideologies, and is far less homogenous in general than any right-of-the-centre (by definition, this makes sense. It's easier to align on conservative tendencies, because conservatism is rooted in the preservation of something. Contrast this to progressivism, or changing what currently exists in general - far more cause for disagreement on the best path forward), I'd argue that you kinda just proved my point on the whole "both extremes are the same" shtick.

 

[Moriarte]

We must remember that Lenin, Mao, Mugabe, Castro, and Pol claimed to have (and may have initially had) only the best of intentions when they toppled Nicholas II, Chiang Kai-shek, Ian Smith, Fulgencio Batista, and Lon Nol, respectively, who were all far-right-wing, conservative, authoritarian, tradition-and-religion-intertwined-and-abusing, aristocratic, and elitist leaders and establishments they were propped up by, and whom I shed no tears for and fully note how horrid, monstrous, tyrannical, oppressive, caste-oriented, corrupt, brutal, and untenable they were. But, Lenin, Mao, Mugabe, Castro, and Pol also became horrid monsters themselves, and, once securing power, they created Hells all their own, just with different themes and ideals behind them, and their successors (except Pol, who had none) carried on, and, in some cases, made this worse. "Betrayal of the Revolution," by Leon Trotsky is a VERY instructive read on the topic. My point is, it doesn't matter if radical or extreme political and social movements are far-right-wing or far-left-wing, or how they look PRIOR to gaining power, or how bad those they want to replace are, trusting extremist and radical movements has a historically bad track record.

He is known as Lev Trotsky in his homeland.. Surprised to know wiki now has him as Leon. The left didn’t appear in the void, in vacuum. As you know all to well, the Left was a reaction to the atrocities committed by the ruling classes, over centuries. Yes, obviously the left has varying track record. And how would it not have one, when operating from a position of inferiority? How else would Lenin fulfil the promise of socialist equality but by snatching the product away, created by the people, from the dead hands of an aristocrat. Point is, yes, it is bloody and painful. But any other way is a step back and a regression towards feudalism, towards slavery. The same parallels can be drawn today. You can’t just take the upper ground here and claim that trusting radical movements has a bad track record. Any minority movement has a bad track record when confronting a majority.

 

[Patine]

Considering leftism is such a broad tent of divergent ideologies, and is far less homogenous in general than any right-of-the-centre (by definition, this makes sense. It's easier to align on conservative tendencies, because conservatism is rooted in the preservation of something. Contrast this to progressivism, or changing what currently exists in general - far more cause for disagreement on the best path forward), I'd argue that you kinda just proved my point on the whole "both extremes are the same" shtick.

To be pedantic, "right-of-centre," is not that homogenous as a whole. The modern Republican Party of the United States is a coalition of Libertarians, Nationalists, Social Conservatives, Free-Trade Advocates, War Hawks, and even Moderates, as well as some who seem permanently and irredeemably caught up with the "Trumpist infection." However, because of the bottleneck system of nomination, and the forced and rigged two-party-system, these differences often seem muted at any given time based on who takes leadership of the party - much as it very much does for the Democratic Party of the United States, as well, in truth. It is actually somewhat similar to Party Leadership Conventions in Canada and the UK's Westminster System, in a way. And, reminder, that Biden, Kerry, Schumer, and the Clintons are Centre-Right on the political spectrum, and that the actual leadership and policy-makers of the Democratic Party of the United States are Centrist to Centre-Right on the spectrum, and the true Left-wing members of the party are often left in the cold, or only given crumbs, but play pied-piper to get voters who wouldn't normally vote for the party establishment to vote Democratic - in the exact same way Trump got Pence to play pied-piper to get Social Conservatives between the most personally amoral and irreligious person to EVER be U.S. President.

 

[Bugfatty300]

To be fair, there are a few bad apples, but considering Antifa at large dangerous in any way in its US form is just eating propaganda.

They're largely decentralized and not a unified party. Which is how it's bad faith, but possible to point out minor sections of the movement and universalize it as toxicity at large.

Compare to the Proud Boys that just purged its leadership, removing an African-American leader with a letter remniscent of blood and soil. The announcement is literally so horrifying I can't replicate it on this forum without getting a warning.

Night of the short penises.

 

[mitsho]

Somebody get this man a PM

I don't get it. Maybe that's for the better.

 

[Patine]

I don't get it. Maybe that's for the better.

I assume he meant a private message (PM), as you'd mentioned needing to take it up in Discord. But, knowing this forum, I COULD be wrong...

 

[mitsho]

Well, I got that. and it works. My point from the morning still stands though.

 

[Gorbles]

To be pedantic, "right-of-centre," is not that homogenous as a whole. The modern Republican Party of the United States is a coalition of Libertarians, Nationalists, Social Conservatives, Free-Trade Advocates, War Hawks, and even Moderates, as well as some who seem permanently and irredeemably caught up with the "Trumpist infection." However, because of the bottleneck system of nomination, and the forced and rigged two-party-system, these differences often seem muted at any given time based on who takes leadership of the party - much as it very much does for the Democratic Party of the United States, as well, in truth. It is actually somewhat similar to Party Leadership Conventions in Canada and the UK's Westminster System, in a way. And, reminder, that Biden, Kerry, Schumer, and the Clintons are Centre-Right on the political spectrum, and that the actual leadership and policy-makers of the Democratic Party of the United States are Centrist to Centre-Right on the spectrum, and the true Left-wing members of the party are often left in the cold, or only given crumbs, but play pied-piper to get voters who wouldn't normally vote for the party establishment to vote Democratic - in the exact same way Trump got Pence to play pied-piper to get Social Conservatives between the most personally amoral and irreligious person to EVER be U.S. President.

It's not as homogenous as I was making out I guess, no. My point was that "left-of-centre" is inherently more diverse in its collective outlook and as such is more likely to conflict with itself about the best solution for any perceived problem.

And when I say "left-of-centre", or even leftists without quotes, I can assure you I'm not talking about the Democratic Party Maybe sometimes AOC, but in her case (and for those like her) I'd likely use their actual names, because like you said they're a bit apart from the central party structure.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, it's incredible how well conservatives have normalised rhetoric of the "hard left" and the far right as being equivalent in their extremes.

https://abc7chicago.com/disturbing-new-details-in-alleged-plot-to-kidnap-michigan-governor/8079861/

CHICAGO (WLS) -- There is new and disturbing information in the alleged militia plot against the governor of Michigan.

The 14 men charged had far more violent plans than just a kidnapping, according to federal and state authorities.


RELATED: 13 charged in plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer: FBI

New filings claim there was a Plan B the militiamen had drawn up, that involved a takeover of the Michigan capitol building by 200 combatants who would stage a week-long series of televised executions of public officials.

And, according to government documents now on file in lower Michigan court, there was also a Plan C -- burning down the state house, leaving no survivors.

 

[r16]

my post on the previous page , with the suggested returns for a web search , according to different browsers or something , can also be seen as Google might not exactly be the only one which was bought off ...

(poster ain't no fan of BS Squared Donald Trump . Biden is most likely be called Bidon , as per the course in Turkey , a water container or a barrel or something if that big .)