General Politics Thread

[Berzerker]

In the past week, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has imposed sentences ranging from 14 to 45 days on four people who pleaded guilty to unlawful parading and picketing inside the Capitol building on Jan. 6 — a misdemeanor offense.

"There have to be consequences for participating in an attempted violent overthrow of the government, beyond sitting at home," Chutkan said at one of the hearings.

from Reuters via yahoo news

14-45 days for the attempted violent overthrow of the government

 

[Sommerswerd]

There's always...

 

[Berzerker]

You've literally spent months downplaying the Jan 6 Insurrection. We aren't stupid, and we don't pretend to be mind-wiped after every post like you do. That's why two people both responded with Jan 6 to you. You don't get to pull this 'lock them both up' spiel, after you spent all this time crying and equivocating about Jan 6.

And you still won’t answer my direct questions. I asked you multiple questions, and you properly engaged with ... none of them.

But the most pertinent.

I called Jan 6 a riot and you call it an insurrection, if I called it murder would you be the one downplaying it? I'm not downplaying it, you're overblowing it. I didn't call it mostly peaceful and I said the rioters should be punished for what they did. As for your questions, I'm opposed to rioting. If people are destroying neighborhoods in the name of civil rights I wont be joining their crime spree. Jan 6 damaged the capital building, 500 riots destroyed economic infrastructure in already poor communities across the country. Let BLM build back better.

Yes or no, are you for the Civil Rights Movement. In which case you gotta answer my point about the paths that leave you, with the position you took.

And these protests, are because the Police aren't protecting the neighborhood, and are openly sympathetic with violent right-wing extremists. At every turn, the Trump administration, and the Police inflamed the protests, instead of trying to calm them down. They weren't 'rioting' to tip the election. They were protesting an openly racist and corrupt regime, that responded to protests with escalating crackdowns. We all know how this would be reported if the US were a foreign country. 'State police forces brutally crackdown on ethnic minority'.

A decentralized protest movement, staying as peaceful as the BLM marches did is noteworthy. That's just a fact. If you say, no even that is too 'violent' and deserves to be brutally crushed. You flat out just don't want protests (or protests that don't agree with you). You are just a reactionary.

Lets see... Democrats were caught coordinating with BLM and several months before the election we have a summer of riots that amazingly stopped after the election and haven't returned. Nah, no political motivation involved. I thought I answered you, if peaceful protests become riots stop attending them and find a peaceful way to protest. But no, apparently riots are the way to go. Would that create a moral imperative to join the riot?

I remember watching Democrats line up to call the cops racists and murderers, if they weren't cheering the riots they were defending or condoning the mayhem. Dont try to blame that on Trump, Biden was the mastermind of the drug war ruining the country. Given BLM's track record would you welcome a BLM protest outside your business or home?

What about you, if it was something you cared about, say in 1776?

I wouldn't destroy the neighborhood and tell my victims I was mostly peaceful

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Berzerker You avoided the question. Looking back do you approve of the violence that birthed the civil rights legislation of the 1950s and 60s? Back then most of the violence was on the part of those opposed to change by police and whites. TV brought that violence into the living room for all to see. Who got out of hand back then?

Then again in the late 60s Vietnam sparked violent protests to end a war. Those protests changed the public attitude and forced an end. What is your opinion on those protests?

 

[Samson]

I wouldn't destroy the neighborhood and tell my victims I was mostly peaceful

Has any particular individual done both these things?

But the question you asked was "How many riots would you be willing to attend?" If the cause was important enough, how many would be worth it? I assume you care about American independence from the UK, so that is the cause I chose as an example, but of course feel free to specify a cause you would be willing to sacrifice more for.

 

[PhroX]

Also remember that violence at the protests includes times when the police attacked protesters. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the entire ideology, but I would expect a libertarian to support peoples right to defend themselves from violence carried out by agents of the state....

 

[stinkubus]

American-style right wing "libertarianism" is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. It's liberalism for the well off with brutal authoritarianism for those who are not with that authoritarianism being exercised via people and institutions who have no accountability to the public.

I would be willing to bet that the co-morbidity of this ideology and Cluster B personality disorders is staggering.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You avoided the question.

The sun went up this morning and I heard a duck go "quack".

 

[Gorbles]

American-style right wing "libertarianism" is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. It's liberalism for the well off with brutal authoritarianism for those who are not with that authoritarianism being exercised via people and institutions who have no accountability to the public.

I would be willing to bet that the co-morbidity of this ideology and Cluster B personality disorders is staggering.

I wish I could like half a post. We don't need to lump ideologies in with personality disorders, because all it does is cause harm by association to the latter. Mental health has enough stigma as it is.

 

[Senethro]

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1448741745584480259?s=20

This is the sort of problem you get when people are angrier about CRT than, y'know, racists.

 

[amadeus]

A lot of people replying to that tweet did not listen to the audio; she wasn’t suggesting the Holocaust didn’t happen, or that they should teach as such, she was talking about being in compliance with TX state law mandating that “controversial issues” have more than one perspective offered.

The law may be asinine (I didn’t read it) but people are way to quick to jump to conclusions just based on a headline which is factually true but also misleading.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why would people read anything?

Twitter is not a place information is shared. It's a place for people with bad taste in masturbation material.

 

[PhroX]

A lot of people replying to that tweet did not listen to the audio; she wasn’t suggesting the Holocaust didn’t happen, or that they should teach as such, she was talking about being in compliance with TX state law mandating that “controversial issues” have more than one perspective offered.

The law may be asinine (I didn’t read it) but people are way to quick to jump to conclusions just based on a headline which is factually true but also misleading.

I dunno much about this particular situation beyond seeing the headline a couple of times today, but why would the Holocaust be considered a "controversial issue"? It's one of the most clear cut black and white "issues" out there....

 

[Farm Boy]

Right. Like Stalin and his admirers being approximately as bad as Hitler and his.

Controversy is usually dumb, wouldn't you say?

 

[Senethro]

Would reasonable "controversial" takes on the Holocaust be stuff like "To what extent did the Allies contribute to the death toll through turning back refugees in the 1930s?"

 

[Farm Boy]

Is it controversial? You tell me. Sounds like we'd have to count and stuff.

Oh, random general politics stuff spurred by the refugees comment - I haven't seen this many not-particularly-Trumpy Republicans, yes, they're around whatever the Assclown aficionados say - be down with letting in refugees since the the 90s Bush was president. Afghans? Sure. Those Haitians that walked an awful long way? Sure.

Now I figure we should replace* all those people working from home with people who want to work work. Or something. Not sure how accurate a read that is, but it amuses me.

*oooh, controversy word

 

[Gorbles]

Why would people read anything?

Twitter is not a place information is shared. It's a place for people with bad taste in masturbation material.

You can not like something, or not use something, without being completely wrong about what it is and what people use it for. Food for thought.

 

[amadeus]

Twitter for me is great for news and my hobbies. More problems lie with the curators of their own content than the platforms. Know how many stupid arguments I get into there? Zero. None. Nil.

I dunno much about this particular situation beyond seeing the headline a couple of times today, but why would the Holocaust be considered a "controversial issue"? It's one of the most clear cut black and white "issues" out there....

It wouldn't be something you'd talk about at a dinner party. I understand completely what the school woman is trying to say here, she's using it to illustrate the broader point about how the law could be enforced; saying that the Holocaust is "controversial" would be because, I think, its magnitude and evil and how it still affects people today rather than any debate over its historicity. It just struck me that she used the term with a different context than is probably meant by the TX legislature, although they wrote the law and given how they've written it (again, didn't read bill) it's possible some bad-faith actor could come along and use that context to legally justify some ridiculous position down the line.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't get any stupid arguments from where I get that sort of material, either.

 

[Lohrenswald]

98 % of votes counted, so I don't think it'll change much

I'm broadly happy. Especially about Red doing so well, since I voted for them and all. This even means that for the first time ever, a person I voted for has a mandate on THE BIG THING

I'm a bit sad about the environmental party though, barely below the 4 % threshold, which would have given them like 5 extra mandates. In some things I think they're not drastic enough, but in other things I think they're the ones most serious about the issues, so they'd have been pretty valuable.

I anticipate the old coalition of the Worker's party, Socialistic left and the Centre party making a government. The Centre party had said they wanted to not work with socialistic left this time, but they were looking a lot hotter earlier this year, and they now can't work without them

Unless something radical like Centre party goes with all the other bourgouis parties for a government, but I think there's about 0 chance for that

feel stupid I didn't realise this sooner

also chance of doxxxxxing myself but whatever

the new government was formed I think yesterday (or the day before). The deal is like all the people in the government had seats in THE BIG THING, which you can't be at at the same time as government, and so they get like people to hold their seats for them

With that, my mother's cousin is now in parliament
and I didn't vote for his party lol