metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
The Nazi side is the one that committed a terrorist attack.
Should confederate monuments be destroyed?
- Thread starter Disgustipated
- Start date
The Nazi side is the one that committed a terrorist attack.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
But who are the real fascists? Is it the guys with the swastika flag? Is the people murdered by the guy with the swastika flag?
We just don't know.
We just don't know.
Or could it be the people who try to restrict others people freedom through ideologies presenting themselves as superior and therefore inherently good while in themselves being rigid and intolerant?
We just cant know, right? After all these people may not carry around symbols to be identified with and their actions leading to death and suffering may be in the name of some greater good...
Last edited:
civver_764
Deity
Again with this collective guilt nonsense, and also not true. The counter-protestors engaged in several acts designed to terrorize the Unite the Right attendees, including throwing chemicals in people's eyes. They started all of the violence, and that was their entire reason for being there.
One side came to listen to speeches, and the other side came to prevent them from doing that.
As for the car crash. It has not at all been established that it was terrorist attack. His car had been under attack by rioting counter-protestors. It seems that a brick was thrown at his window shield, and his car was also being attacked with bats. It seems very likely that he panicked. Either way, he was clearly incited by the violent counter-protestors.
I am not sure why people try to frame this as a left vs right thing. Obviously nazis suck, and yet antifa tend to riot and are responsible for deaths at times as well (eg some people in Athens, a couple of years ago, were burned alive when antifa set the bank they were employees in on fire; now i couldn't care less about banks and their owners, but it still was murder).
I fear this gets framed in a way that again it can lead to nothing good. My position isn't the boring (and crucially misleading, imo, because it markets a platitude, allowing for some oligarchs taking advantage from the soundbite) "extremists are bad on all sides", but that some individuals just happen by chance to be nazi murderous thugs, when very easily they could end up being supposed anti-nazi murderous thugs.
I fear this gets framed in a way that again it can lead to nothing good. My position isn't the boring (and crucially misleading, imo, because it markets a platitude, allowing for some oligarchs taking advantage from the soundbite) "extremists are bad on all sides", but that some individuals just happen by chance to be nazi murderous thugs, when very easily they could end up being supposed anti-nazi murderous thugs.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Yes, eeeeevil people who want to keep you from abusing your freedom at the expanse of others.
Last edited:
Lol. Slightly oversimplified and one-sided? Btw isnt that what would Hitler also made his goal? Germany needing to keep others from leting them in the way of its freedom to greatness?
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Exactly.
I hate how Antifa is portrayed as this evil group in the media, when really, they're just activists for the good cause. But really, it's the same people who claim the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a dictatorship and not a Democracy, so what do you expect?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Well, the fact that you need to throw in a "to greatness" in there kind of weaken your "point".
No such thing as a "freedom to greatness".
Besides which, ultimately, it's about balance. It's a well established fact that rights and freedom can only be limited when the limitation serves to prevent a greater violation of the rights or freedom of another person. The proposal that certain exercise of freedom of speech can create greater harm to the right of others is a fairly straightforward case that can be defended (you might not agree, but it'd take a deep level of delusion to deny the case exists altogether).
The proposal that the right to exist of Poland or jewish people created greater harm to Hitler's realm than curtailing that right did to Poland or the Jews is about as indefensible as it gets. Then again, having seen how you twisted yourself into a pretzel to figure out an argument for slavery...
Valessa: And the same media who seem hell-bent on portraying the "peaceful" alt right despite the fact that so far, the alt-right HAS murdered at least one opponent in those protests, and the antifas have not?
No such thing as a "freedom to greatness".
Besides which, ultimately, it's about balance. It's a well established fact that rights and freedom can only be limited when the limitation serves to prevent a greater violation of the rights or freedom of another person. The proposal that certain exercise of freedom of speech can create greater harm to the right of others is a fairly straightforward case that can be defended (you might not agree, but it'd take a deep level of delusion to deny the case exists altogether).
The proposal that the right to exist of Poland or jewish people created greater harm to Hitler's realm than curtailing that right did to Poland or the Jews is about as indefensible as it gets. Then again, having seen how you twisted yourself into a pretzel to figure out an argument for slavery...
Valessa: And the same media who seem hell-bent on portraying the "peaceful" alt right despite the fact that so far, the alt-right HAS murdered at least one opponent in those protests, and the antifas have not?
Last edited:
Ready for some pretzel twisting? How do you square your theory with existence of USA vs. native Americans?
Regarded slavery I think my position is being misunderstood but whatever...
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Much of the history of European colonies and native people is right up there with slavery and one fairly short step below the holocaust on a list of indefensible things. The continued existence of these people and their societies did not create more harm to the rights of colonial states (a "right to native land" not being among them),than the harm created to the native people and their societies by colonial actions. Some European colonies were somewhat better than others, but on the whole, there's very little worth defending there. In an ideal world, while the USA may have been created, they should have been created in a very different manner (likewise Canada, etc).
From which it does not follow that I think the USA (or other colonial nations) should be abolished *now* and the land returned wholesale. That would do fairly little to help safeguard the rights of the native people now, while creating immense harm to the rights of a few hundred millions people. Other forms of reparations should be found.
ETA: Also of note: America has done much, much more than their treatment of natives, and while the treatment of natives was horrendous, they've also set out to accomplish (and actually accomplished) much that deserves to be honored.
From which it does not follow that I think the USA (or other colonial nations) should be abolished *now* and the land returned wholesale. That would do fairly little to help safeguard the rights of the native people now, while creating immense harm to the rights of a few hundred millions people. Other forms of reparations should be found.
ETA: Also of note: America has done much, much more than their treatment of natives, and while the treatment of natives was horrendous, they've also set out to accomplish (and actually accomplished) much that deserves to be honored.
Last edited:
. . . right before engaging in the collective guilt nonsense.
Why don't we just keep it and stop wasting resources on rebuilding stuff?
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
And? Consider: europeans took South Africa away from the Zulus. And the Zulus had just taken it from the Bushmen. And mostly "genicided" them in the process. It goes a long way back... We could say the same about the spanish conquest of the Aztecs (tehy got willing local allies, didn't they?), etc. [/QUOTE]
It is a bad idea to dwell on past wrongs, a bad idea to wish to "correct" past wrongs by discriminating against people here and now. The xdescendants of the conquerors deserve no more to discriminated against than the conquered deserved, back in the past. To do so would be to "punish" the wrong people, without redressing a wrong that has already escaped human power to redress.
Wat should be done is to make sure that people now are not unfairly discriminated against,. that they have the same legal protections and all the basics necessary for a decent life. That power is not monopolized by some groups against others. "Identity politics", and talk about redressing past wrongs, undermines such efforts, by creating factions to fight against other factions. Reparations are a terrible idea. If there are treaties in force, respect and enforce them. Or broken treaties that can still be valid, by all means repair that. But do not start making up new "reparations" out of thin air, redistributing on the basis of events that happened to dead people centuries ago. If something must be redistributed now, do it on the basis of the necessities of people living now.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
When the traces of those past wrong are still with you every day - when you still live on reservations, under the authority of a government where the overwhelming bulk of power is vested in the people who wronged you, the idea of "not dwelling on the past wrongs" is a delusional fantasy.
The later is all but impossible without identifying who those "others" are and why power is monpolized against them by others,, and then people like you start screaming about "identity politics!".
Power IS monopolized by men in a way that is harmful to women. By white folks in a way that is harmful to other races. By descendants of immigrants and colonists at the expanse of Natives. These are simple, factual observations - political figures, are overwhelmingly white, men, christians, straights ; and their policy have a strong tendency to limit or harm the rights of women. There are a thousand different ways power is monopolized, a lot of it is the direct result of historical events, and of the damage done in the past that has yet to be fixed, but that still permeates society as a whole. Each of those break line between the powerful and the weak is unique, the result of its own distinct factor, and if we're to fix them we need to address the specific circumstances that allow it to exist.
Your approach is saying everyone with a migraine should get a tylenol (which beat the right-wing approach of "just though it out you weaklings!", mind). Mine is actually figuring out what past event is behind those migraines, and how to treat them accordingly.
The later is all but impossible without identifying who those "others" are and why power is monpolized against them by others,, and then people like you start screaming about "identity politics!".
Power IS monopolized by men in a way that is harmful to women. By white folks in a way that is harmful to other races. By descendants of immigrants and colonists at the expanse of Natives. These are simple, factual observations - political figures, are overwhelmingly white, men, christians, straights ; and their policy have a strong tendency to limit or harm the rights of women. There are a thousand different ways power is monopolized, a lot of it is the direct result of historical events, and of the damage done in the past that has yet to be fixed, but that still permeates society as a whole. Each of those break line between the powerful and the weak is unique, the result of its own distinct factor, and if we're to fix them we need to address the specific circumstances that allow it to exist.
Your approach is saying everyone with a migraine should get a tylenol (which beat the right-wing approach of "just though it out you weaklings!", mind). Mine is actually figuring out what past event is behind those migraines, and how to treat them accordingly.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
My approach is not to say that such things are a migraine. My approach is to say that these problems are issues of the present, to be addressed for what they are now. The solutions must be thought to fit the problems, not to fit some factasy built on historcial claims, whether real or imagined.
Your solutions seems to be "positive discrimination". But what happens when you apply "positive discrimination" to a broad category of people? Those most able to seize the new opportunities will seize them; the others (a majority...) will continue to be a second-class within the group you are positively discriminating. Consider one thing done in the US: they reserve a quota for black students in universities... how does that help the vast majority of black young people who cannot even go to university? It only splits that "identity class" of theirs in an upper echelon that will take advantage of those opportunities, and a lower echelon that will continue poor as it was.
Or consider another thing, which seems to be dearer to you: women ger lower wages in average, so you deserve a quota for women directors in corporate boards. There will necessarily be a tiny percentage of the population. How are you benefiting "women" at large with this?
What is happening is that you take a real problem: universities are too expensive for poor people, or corporate boards squeeze wages of employees as much as they can get away with. And you make up false remedies for that, which do nothing to fix the problem, only allow a handful of people of the "right category" to be promoted to continue enforcing the system that causes the problems in the first place.
there are real solutions for these problems, mind you. Tax and pay for education though the state, make it available cheap to everyone. Change the laws and rules of business so that workers have more power within businesses.
Your solutions seems to be "positive discrimination". But what happens when you apply "positive discrimination" to a broad category of people? Those most able to seize the new opportunities will seize them; the others (a majority...) will continue to be a second-class within the group you are positively discriminating. Consider one thing done in the US: they reserve a quota for black students in universities... how does that help the vast majority of black young people who cannot even go to university? It only splits that "identity class" of theirs in an upper echelon that will take advantage of those opportunities, and a lower echelon that will continue poor as it was.
Or consider another thing, which seems to be dearer to you: women ger lower wages in average, so you deserve a quota for women directors in corporate boards. There will necessarily be a tiny percentage of the population. How are you benefiting "women" at large with this?
What is happening is that you take a real problem: universities are too expensive for poor people, or corporate boards squeeze wages of employees as much as they can get away with. And you make up false remedies for that, which do nothing to fix the problem, only allow a handful of people of the "right category" to be promoted to continue enforcing the system that causes the problems in the first place.
there are real solutions for these problems, mind you. Tax and pay for education though the state, make it available cheap to everyone. Change the laws and rules of business so that workers have more power within businesses.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The notion that those problems can be reduced to simple economic inequalities is staggering in its sheer wrong-headedness.
Economic inequality is ONE problem (albeit a serious one) within the larger mass. Pretending otherwise is massive ideological denialism.
(And while people focus on economic reparations, that concept - reparations - too, goes way beyond simple economics)
Economic inequality is ONE problem (albeit a serious one) within the larger mass. Pretending otherwise is massive ideological denialism.
(And while people focus on economic reparations, that concept - reparations - too, goes way beyond simple economics)
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
