2020 US Election (Part 3)

[El_Machinae]

But when "collaterals" happens, my problem is not "that will not convince people", my problem is "collaterals happened".

Ah, I see, you were talking about the morality. I have no problem with saying "accidentally harming people who don't deserve it, is morally wrong". But that doesn't really get us anywhere, because we're then confronted with the horror of collateral damage being necessary.

Once something is necessary, it's a question of realism (in the political sense) and then we discuss it using realism. We would refrain from causing collateral damage for morality's sake, except that we cannot. So, why? Because there's a larger fight that needs to be won. Then we're entering realism, where "what's the value of limiting collateral damage"? Well, the value is that limiting collateral damage gives you tools with which to win the larger battle, which spill into actually causing less collateral damage.

Preventing collateral damage out of morality will have the same effect as doing so out of realism, but trying to convince people to behave morally rather than realistically is only useful if one wants to create window-dressing for the realistic behavior.

(you can call it more commonly "hypocrisy").

In my experience, people don't care about moral arguments or hypocrisy, not really. It's consequences they care about. We like pointing out other people's hypocrisy, but our own hypocrisy rarely motivates changes. Selfishness is too powerful.

It's why the world is so crappy. Moral arguments are insufficiently persuasive, even within political circle - nevermind across them.

 

[Patine]

Yeah, well, sorry but that's mental.

I mean, I agree that if it's in (actual) self-defence, violence might be acceptable in the toolkit. If someone makes actual hate calls or death threats or whatever which actually puts someone in danger and gets a mouthfull of fist, then I won't cry over him.
But when "collaterals" happens, my problem is not "that will not convince people", my problem is "collaterals happened". I don't consider that punching people who didn't actually deserve it is a nuisance and that looking bad is the real problem.
I mean, I understand that collateral could happen, and still the fight be worth it (it's not because civilians were unintentionally killed that it was wrong to fight the Nazis, to take the usual and safe example, or that some holding certain valuable principles could harm some people doesn't mean that these principles should be eschewed), but the problem of harming and innocent should always BE that you harmed an innocent, and NOT how harming an innocent is a liability to you.

Notice that's the root of my beef with our residents unhinged self-proclaimed anti-fascists : they care more about the dogma than the meaning, which is a close cousin of caring more about appearances than actual values
(you can call it more commonly "hypocrisy").

It's so strange that you pipe up about this when it comes to fascist adjacents but say **** all when it comes to minorities being collateral damage, almost as if you don't actually care when it doesn't align to your free-speech absolutist desires

Edit:

Nevermind that tolerating bigots and their enablers is a position that puts minority lives in danger, inherently.

Ah, I see, you were talking about the morality. I have no problem with saying "accidentally harming people who don't deserve it, is morally wrong". But that doesn't really get us anywhere, because we're then confronted with the horror of collateral damage being necessary.

Once something is necessary, it's a question of realism (in the political sense) and then we discuss it using realism. We would refrain from causing collateral damage for morality's sake, except that we cannot. So, why? Because there's a larger fight that needs to be won. Then we're entering realism, where "what's the value of limiting collateral damage"? Well, the value is that limiting collateral damage gives you tools with which to win the larger battle, which spill into actually causing less collateral damage.

Preventing collateral damage out of morality will have the same effect as doing so out of realism, but trying to convince people to behave morally rather than realistically is only useful if one wants to create window-dressing for the realistic behavior.

In my experience, people don't care about moral arguments or hypocrisy, not really. It's consequences they care about. We like pointing out other people's hypocrisy, but our own hypocrisy rarely motivates changes. Selfishness is too powerful.

It's why the world is so crappy. Moral arguments are insufficiently persuasive, even within political circle - nevermind across them.

In terms of collateral damage against, "Fascists," (or those alleged to be so, or "Fascist adjacents," or "Fascist sympathizers," or those that fully, completely, and mindlessly support greater and greater gratuitous and unaccountable tactics against anyone accused of being a "Fascist," - it really does historically snowball quickly, and being in denial of even the possibility helps no one in the long-term) being justified and even necessary reminds of a great quote by a famous historical icon of the Anti-Fascist Far-Left, politically-speaking.

"One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic,"
-Josef Stalin

 

[El_Machinae]

So what is the primary objective of every douche on the streets the past 6 months that was caught committing acts of physical violence?

I'm explicitly not defending every case. I don't even know every case. I explicitly agree that there are bad actors and that they are acting without my blessing.
The BLM movement is actually very easy to define in favorable ways, with the understanding that there are bad actors who don't properly embody the underlying goal. And (apparently) mischaracterizing the entirety of BLM (or antifa, even) is also very easy to do, if one is biased against social justice.

The best we can do is police our own, cuz the other side won't listen.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Maybe the last few pages need to be pulled out and given their own thread. It is getting far afield from the election.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

In terms of collateral damage against, "Fascists," (or those alleged to be so, or "Fascist adjacents," or "Fascist sympathizers," or those that fully, completely, and mindlessly support greater and greater gratuitous and unaccountable tactics against anyone accused of being a "Fascist," - it really does historically snowball quickly, and being in denial of even the possibility helps no one in the long-term) being justified and even necessary reminds of a great quote by a famous historical icon of the Anti-Fascist Far-Left, politically-speaking.

"One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic,"
-Josef Stalin

We've already seen what happens when fascists gain power but you seem to think proactive measures ensuring it doesn't happen again are somehow equivalent to straight up neo-fascism which is frankly insane

 

[Akka]

Quoted for posterity.

What do you mean by "[I'm] too mental"?

Come on, spit it out.

That you're a fanatical nutcase. Seems pretty obvious considering you aren't even able to notice your entire worldview is based on circular reasoning, even when it's spelled out loud in your face, and that you filter everything through your ideological prism to reach the conclusion that you wanted to reach to begin with (i.e. : "everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist that hates me because I'm a minority").
I already told you all that several time. Not my fault you refuse to process it.

Ah, I see, you were talking about the morality. I have no problem with saying "accidentally harming people who don't deserve it, is morally wrong". But that doesn't really get us anywhere, because we're then confronted with the horror of collateral damage being necessary.

On the contrary, it's the most fundamental point. It might not GET you anywhere, but it JUSTIFIES getting anywhere. If your cause isn't just, then collaterals are just crimes, not necessary casualties, and you can't claim a just cause if you don't base it on justice. And if you base it on justice, then your first care should be about actions being just or unjust, not about them being convenient of inconvenient.

In my experience, people don't care about moral arguments or hypocrisy, not really. It's consequences they care about. We like pointing out other people's hypocrisy, but our own hypocrisy rarely motivates changes. Selfishness is too powerful.

If this is true, then why should whites not just embrace white supremacism then ? Why shouldn't men just embrace patriarcal sexism ? If it's just about selfishness and chosing whatever benefits one personally, those would be the logical choices.
If you reject justice and morality, then why should the guys you try to convince chose your side ? What IS your argument if you reject what should be the fundamentals ?
In fact, what even is your cause about then ?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

(i.e. : "everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist that hates me because I'm a minority").
I already told you all that several time. Not my fault you refuse to process it.

Do you need any assistance with that strawman you are building? Do you need help?

 

[Zardnaar]

We've already seen what happens when fascists gain power but you seem to think proactive measures ensuring it doesn't happen again are somehow equivalent to straight up neo-fascism which is frankly insane

No one's really claiming fascism is great but a few things Antifa does entirely counter productive.

I suppose the theory is it forces people to pick between them and us.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Comment on FoxNews about the election:

I think this is the point, Biden didn't really win 79 million votes, he won 71 million and Trump didn't really win 72 million, he won 80 million. This will be proven in court as sure as tomorrow follows today. Dominion have already bailed at press conferences, engaged lawyers and dispatched their hardware to the far reaches of the Earth following the election, including Germany and Spain. All coincidence I guess. To be honest, I just don't know but it is more believable to me because Biden inspires me less than a used disposable nappy.

 

[Patine]

We've already seen what happens when fascists gain power but you seem to think proactive measures ensuring it doesn't happen again are somehow equivalent to straight up neo-fascism which is frankly insane

We have seen what happens when Fascists gain power. And we've also seen what Stalin's Antifa did in Eastern Europe right after WW2. But, we're not dealing with Fascists or Stalinists in the modern day and age. The situation, issues, tactics, goals, context, and even actual beliefs, ideals, viewpoints, and ideologies of those involved have changed dramatically in the last 75 years (imagine that!), and antiquated and obsolete labels and viewpoints help no one in this sense today. The Republican Party of the United States is a monstrous and horrid institution, but they aren't actually, "Fascists," and more of their evil is motivated by raw greed than demographic issues (though the latter does have it's part). However, the Democratic Party of the United States is also a cesspool of scum, that disingenuously gets people like you to vote for them, because in the rigged electoral system where BOTH Duopoly Parties take part in institutional suppression of Third Party and Independent candidates or ideologies not taken by the Duopoly, presenting themselves as the "only alternative," to the Republicans. But, the Democrats offer the reforms they rope in you, and other minority voters, with at a glacial and, "crumbs from the table," pace - not nearly sufficient for what's needed, and lagging tremendously behind many other First World Nations, or even some State Governments at the State level. The Green Party USA, the Peace and Justice Party, or the Party of Socialism and Liberation would probably all be far better deals for you in their platforms and goals, if they weren't buried in electoral agency ignonamaty and struggling with laws that (deliberately) make fundraising, advertising, and ballot access a Herculean labour, and never appear on the debates, except on "Minor Party cards," on speciality cable channels and streams that very few watch. The real enemy of reform, change, and betterment in the U.S., and the real instruments of oppression and tyranny is the Duopoly as a whole, not some, "Fascist boogeymen." The Duopoly has just mastered the, "good cop, bad cop," routine, and you, like so many others, have fallen for it - lock, stock, and barrel.

 

[El_Machinae]

If this is true, then why should whites not just embrace white supremacism then ? Why shouldn't men just embrace patriarcal sexism ? If it's just about selfishness and chosing whatever benefits one personally, those would be the logical choices.
If you reject justice and morality, then why should the guys you try to convince chose your side ? What IS your argument if you reject what should be the fundamentals ?
In fact, what even is your cause about then ?

Would you like me to concede that 'collateral damage' is an undesirable evil, merely because it's bad? There wouldn't be a concession required, since I agree.

I said that the moral reasoning wasn't very effective, not that it completely lacked effect. But yeah, people naturally sort into their natural proclivity and then dress it up afterwards. The practical reason why hypocrisy is everywhere is because the moral argument is insufficiently persuasive.

I'm not rejecting the fundamentals, I'm saying that practically the outcome of behaviour is an important reason to engage in the behaviour. This doesn't contradict the idea that it's 'good' to engage in the behaviour. People who are abstaining from collateral damage for moral reasons are already doing so, and they aren't swayed into thinking that it's somehow 'good' by any argument. People who're ignoring collateral damage due to bias are making a strategic error. That there is a practical reason to stop doing so doesn't interfere with the moral reason.

 

[Estebonrober]

It's pretty telling that the people who claims the most to be anti-fascists are basically saying "let's allow anyone to beat and silence anyone else as long he claims that the guy beaten was a fascist"
I'm afraid I can't spell out the problem to anyone who has a brain broken enough to not see it to begin with.
But I'm totally unsurprised to see who supports it and who doesn't.

I'll have a problem with this when I see this actually start to happen. Right now I only see police state tactics coming from the right. Do share any systemic level shut downs of free speech you find performed by antifa. I would be very interested in seeing it.

 

[bernie14]

No one's really claiming fascism is great but a few things Antifa does entirely counter productive.

I suppose the theory is it forces people to pick between them and us.

Classic conflict theory

 

[Birdjaguar]

Sidney Powell is a true nutcase. Listening to her diatribes bout election fraud will be the go to humor for elections in the future.

 

[Estebonrober]

JFC can someone tell me wtf the last six pages of antifa talk is even on about? Can anyone link me evidence of antifa committing acts of violence against anyone other then Proud Boys and Patriot Prayers groups? Seriously wtf are you all on about? You do know you have a fudging president trying to use the antiquated constitutional rules that will allow him to use rigged state legislatures to steal a national election? He has not hidden his "fascist-adjacent" types in his border patrol and dhs positions.

Seriously the threat from the left is miniscule compared to the mass shootings perpetrated by "fa-adj" types. wtaf

 

[Estebonrober]

Comment on FoxNews about the election:

Yea its all about their feelings now instead of actual evidence. We need to let Trump be president because they feel the election was rigged.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Let's not have any further talk about fascists, Antifa, etc., except where it directly relates to this month's electoral proceedings. Thank you.

 

[Birdjaguar]

JFC can someone tell me wtf the last six pages of antifa talk is even on about? Can anyone link me evidence of antifa committing acts of violence against anyone other then Proud Boys and Patriot Prayers groups? Seriously wtf are you all on about? You do know you have a ******* president trying to use the antiquated constitutional rules that will allow him to use rigged state legislatures to steal a national election? He has not hidden his "fascist-adjacent" types in his border patrol and dhs positions.

Seriously the threat from the left is miniscule compared to the mass shootings perpetrated by "fa-adj" types. wtaf

It looks like the derail began at post 3465. About 135 posts ago. @Arakhor and @Lemon Merchant please split all those post off.

EDIT: Thanks!

 

[Estebonrober]

It looks like the derail began at post 3465. About 135 posts ago. @Arakhor and @Lemon Merchant please split all those post off.

EDIT: Thanks!

Yea I'm happy to start another antifa thread so I can see another 40 pages of discussion about monsters under the bed that no one can actually show any evidence of except generic ramblings in right wing echo chambers. . .

 

[Takhisis]

Anyone else hoping Trump pulls off this coup in Michigan by getting the state legislature to replace the electors with Trump supporters? Maybe he gets Penns. in this manner as well? Anyone? I for one and becoming of the opinion that the nation needs a real wake up call of what conservative forces are beginning to represent. not jsut an anti-immigrant anti-minority rights culture war party but and authoritarian regressive oligarchical party bent on minority tyranny through whatever means necessary. Maybe if this happens we can finally mobilize the abolition of the EC which is 150 years overdue at this point.

We knew he would try this is if was close at all, its not really and he is still going to try it. My fear is he fails and the next one is actually competent and then succeeds. Literally the only thing saving us from GOP tyranny is the same ineptitude that is killing thousands across the mid-west. Their literal idolization of incompetent administrators.

Here:

We've already seen what happens when fascists gain power but you seem to think proactive measures ensuring it doesn't happen again are somehow equivalent to straight up neo-fascism which is frankly insane

I mean, I live in a country with a minority government: in their past five iterations in government, one was unelected outright (they toppled another party's administration), the next one got there with 22% of the vote, the next with ~45%, the next with a suspect-yet-mythological 54%, and currently with 48%, all thanks to electoral alchemy and an actual coup d'état. Going by my experience at least, please no, man, don't even joke about it.