Support in recent conflicts (poll)

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not only are we diverse, we're a balanced lot.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No. The problems I have with Russia's government are well-founded and numerous enough that they would derail the thread into a cesspit of nationalists defending their wounded pride.

...What?

Fair enough. Can't say I like Russia's government any better than I like anyone elses government either.

The second question seemed simple enough, and was asked since you seem to hold violent extremists in such low regard that it suggests there must be a better way to be an extremist. I guess another way to approach this would be to ask: what is your view on peaceful extremists? I'm assuming they are okay as long as you can completely ignore them, yes?

 

[kochman]

Let's see if my impression is correct.

Is your impression that everyone knows Russia is the bad guy?
Because that's what the poll is reflecting.

 

[Phrossack]

Fair enough. Can't say I like Russia's government any better than I like anyone elses government either.

The second question seemed simple enough, and was asked since you seem to hold violent extremists in such low regard that it suggests there must be a better way to be an extremist. I guess another way to approach this would be to ask: what is your view on peaceful extremists? I'm assuming they are okay as long as you can completely ignore them, yes?

MLK, Jr. was considered extreme by many in his time, and he was a generally good and very beneficial person.

My problem with violent extremists, such as neo-fascists on the Ukrainian side and the better part of the Donetsk rebels on the other side, is that they think they can change the world for the better if only a few more people were dead. They escalate things with their violence and hatred, which causes things to get out of hand. Quickly. Violence causes more violence. Yanukovych used violence against peaceful protesters, then protestors used violence against the government and seized it, then pro-Russian rebels used violence to seize power over in the East, then the new government used violence against them, and now we have a nasty civil war that has weakened the economy, killed a lot of people, and will keep the country bitterly divided for a very long time. It's stupid.

Yanukovych shouldn't have attacked the protesters; it enraged them. The Maidanists shouldn't have seized power; it alienated the east. The rebels shouldn't have seized power in the east; it provoked the new government. And the new government shouldn't have tried to forcefully put down the rebels after they seized government buildings; it riled the easterners. And now the country's ruined, people are dead, and since violence is the main political tool, it's fairly easy for the main proponents of violence to gain power. But the cat's out of the bag now.

 

[madviking]

axis of evil for me

 

[Timsup2nothin]

MLK, Jr. was considered extreme by many in his time, and he was a generally good and very beneficial person.

My problem with violent extremists, such as neo-fascists on the Ukrainian side and the better part of the Donetsk rebels on the other side, is that they think they can change the world for the better if only a few more people were dead. They escalate things with their violence and hatred, which causes things to get out of hand. Quickly. Violence causes more violence. Yanukovych used violence against peaceful protesters, then protestors used violence against the government and seized it, then pro-Russian rebels used violence to seize power over in the East, then the new government used violence against them, and now we have a nasty civil war that has weakened the economy, killed a lot of people, and will keep the country bitterly divided for a very long time. It's stupid.

Yanukovych shouldn't have attacked the protesters; it enraged them. The Maidanists shouldn't have seized power; it alienated the east. The rebels shouldn't have seized power in the east; it provoked the new government. And the new government shouldn't have tried to forcefully put down the rebels after they seized government buildings; it riled the easterners. And now the country's ruined, people are dead, and since violence is the main political tool, it's fairly easy for the main proponents of violence to gain power. But the cat's out of the bag now.

You may note the irony of having seemed to disagree with my premise that peaceful extremists will be exterminated by the mainstream just like violent extremists will (only more easily), and then pointing out a peaceful extremist who was assassinated. In my opinion extremists face a simple choice, violence or death. They aren't necessarily intent on 'changing the world via killing', they mostly just recognize that the world would rather kill than change so if they try to make a stand to change it there will inevitably be some killing, usually including them.

Violence is always the main political tool, the only question is whether anyone but the state has the stomach for using it.

 

[Phrossack]

You may note the irony of having seemed to disagree with my premise that peaceful extremists will be exterminated by the mainstream just like violent extremists will (only more easily), and then pointing out a peaceful extremist who was assassinated. In my opinion extremists face a simple choice, violence or death. They aren't necessarily intent on 'changing the world via killing', they mostly just recognize that the world would rather kill than change so if they try to make a stand to change it there will inevitably be some killing, usually including them.

Violence is always the main political tool, the only question is whether anyone but the state has the stomach for using it.

MLK did not use violence personally. He allowed his enemies to use it, which backfired on them.

People with extreme views do not usually face the choice of violence or death. The Teahadists over here don't need to kill anyone, nor is there any violence directed against them. Jobbik has been gaining seats in Hungary without a civil war starting. It's not like having extreme views instantly triggers a civil war or anything.

Violence is also not exactly the primary tool of everyday politics. Lots of countries manage to hold peaceful elections all the time, and extremists can rise to power with ballots rather than bullets. Unless you grew up in a war zone, I can't see where you're getting this idea that violence is the main political tool.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Where exactly are extremists rising to power with ballots? My country holds elections all the time. We 'choose' between candidates to 'represent' us who are a micron off center on every issue, based generally on a perception that one manages to create that the other is actually 'extreme' about something. In short, we choose the one who is so not extreme that he can't be as successfully painted as extreme as his opposition can be.

No matter who gets elected anyone who actually doesn't fit very neatly into the mainstream gets marginalized and if they resist marginalization they are subject to state sanctioned violence. I do just fine because I accepted marginalization a long time ago, but that doesn't make me blind to the process.

As to MLK...are you suggesting that the changes made in the areas with which he was concerned came about because of a 'backfiring' of the violence used against him? If you want to add 'in part' to that I might well agree, but if you are trying to say that civil rights in America were extended to blacks and neither rioting nor threat of rioting had anything to do with it you had to have missed something...like about two decades.

 

[kochman]

My problem with violent extremists, such as neo-fascists on the Ukrainian side and the better part of the Donetsk rebels on the other side, is that they think they can change the world for the better if only a few more people were dead.

I've heard the same from environmental extremists.
Extremism just sucks in general.

 

[Phrossack]

Where exactly are extremists rising to power with ballots? My country holds elections all the time. We 'choose' between candidates to 'represent' us who are a micron off center on every issue, based generally on a perception that one manages to create that the other is actually 'extreme' about something. In short, we choose the one who is so not extreme that he can't be as successfully painted as extreme as his opposition can be.

No matter who gets elected anyone who actually doesn't fit very neatly into the mainstream gets marginalized and if they resist marginalization they are subject to state sanctioned violence. I do just fine because I accepted marginalization a long time ago, but that doesn't make me blind to the process.

As to MLK...are you suggesting that the changes made in the areas with which he was concerned came about because of a 'backfiring' of the violence used against him? If you want to add 'in part' to that I might well agree, but if you are trying to say that civil rights in America were extended to blacks and neither rioting nor threat of rioting had anything to do with it you had to have missed something...like about two decades.

I already gave examples. Lots of Republican/Tea Party politicians and groups in the US hold extreme views on a lot of things, yet they're in power. The most extreme of them sometimes threaten violent rebellion, yet they don't make good on their threats so far, nor do they face any violence themselves. Jobbik in Hungary is literally Nazi in almost every way, yet it hasn't started a civil war or been shot at. Elections have gained them seats. I don't see why you think extreme views=violence.

Rioting certainly had a part in the Civil Rights movement, but MLK preferred peaceful protests and sit-ins. He didn't call for violent rioting, IIRC.

I've heard the same from environmental extremists.
Extremism just sucks in general.

I haven't heard of any environmental extremists who have actually tried to kill people. As far as I know, "ecoterrorists" like Earth First! just targeted property.

But I'm against all radical, violent environmentalists. They poison the movement's image and turn public and political opinion so much against themselves that they set the movement back greatly. Violent extremism sucks indeed.

 

[Antilogic]

Dude, have you played Final Fantasy 7?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I already gave examples. Lots of Republican/Tea Party politicians and groups in the US hold extreme views on a lot of things, yet they're in power. The most extreme of them sometimes threaten violent rebellion, yet they don't make good on their threats so far, nor do they face any violence themselves. Jobbik in Hungary is literally Nazi in almost every way, yet it hasn't started a civil war or been shot at. Elections have gained them seats. I don't see why you think extreme views=violence.

Rioting certainly had a part in the Civil Rights movement, but MLK preferred peaceful protests and sit-ins. He didn't call for violent rioting, IIRC.

My point is that in the case of MLK we have no way of knowing whether his peaceful extremism had any effect or not. I personally think rioting is far more effective and is a whole lot more likely to have brought about whatever change was grudgingly made, but maybe that's just me. Not better from a moral standpoint, just more effective.

As to the tea party...you can call them 'peaceful extremists' if you like. I would say they are more like the edge of the mainstream, and that in their geographic area the mainstream is not exactly full width. However the tea party is far enough from the center of the mainstream that they in fact do not have the power to actually get much of anything done.

As to facing any violence themselves...again I suspect that is a comfortable coincidence of geography. Someone spouting off about armed rebellion in support of Tea Party principles at Florence and Normandie would be the next Reginald Denny...except no one would feel sorry for them including the local authorities.

 

[Zkribbler]

My point is that in the case of MLK we have no way of knowing whether his peaceful extremism had any effect or not. ...

This is my era. MLK had an earth-shattering effect. Remember, this was in the early days of TV news. When white America saw peaceful blacks being attacked by police dogs and state troopers, it brought a sea-change effect to the civil rights movement.

Blubber-bellied red-necked sheriffs became targets of scorn and ridicule.

OTOH, the violence of the Black Panther Party, SNCC, etc. was great for grabbing headlines but resulted in a backlash. It was far more harmful than helpful.

 

[warpus]

I support the right of Israel to defend itself and not have rockets fired at it, the right of Palestinians to have a country of their own and not be abused by a neighbour, I definitely do not support the people firing rockets at Israel, I support Ukrainians and want them to have their own country and control their own destiny, and I definitely do not support Russia isolating herself from the rest of the international community like this, because it is going to affect their citizens negatively, other countries' citizens negatively, and is definitely not the direction that the world needs to be going in. Russia needs to eventually join the west instead of alienating itself from it.. or at least eventually join Europe.. A move in this direction is going to be negative for all parties concerned.. but mainly for average men, women, and children.. from Russia and elsewhere.

Either way, these are all complicated issues. I'm not willing to discuss any of them in this thread, because I'm lazy.. and there's better threads for that.. but I do think I have an open mind and am willing to change my mind on anything.. It doesn't happen very often on here, but downtown changed my mind once and so can you.

Spoiler :

I don't know if downtown actually ever changed my mind, who knows, but I liked the sound of that so I went with it

edit: I also just realized that this isn't the "change your mind?" thread? But whatever, there you go. There it is, my opinion. Now I have company so I must depart with this hastily thrown together edit message in place, as stupid as it may be.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is my era. MLK had an earth-shattering effect. Remember, this was in the early days of TV news. When white America saw peaceful blacks being attacked by police dogs and state troopers, it brought a sea-change effect to the civil rights movement.

Blubber-bellied red-necked sheriffs became targets of scorn and ridicule.

OTOH, the violence of the Black Panther Party, SNCC, etc. was great for grabbing headlines but resulted in a backlash. It was far more harmful than helpful.

Well, I'm not up for the argument. I will point out that your analysis is founded on the premise that 'what the people in power do' is directly related to 'what the majority of people think about things', which I think is dubious at best.

 

[Rashiminos]

Europe w/ Novorossiya. A number of states against Israel.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Should we 'not get you started on Russia' because you are bitter, angry, and irrational?

Can you suggest any point whatsoever in being a 'peaceful extremist' since the world's 'mainstream' is demonstrably violent and well known for exterminating extremists whether they are peaceful or not...unless they can totally* marginalize them of course?

*defined as landless, penniless, and voiceless, as a minimum. Also cannot exist in any significant numbers.

And don't even get him started on Poland

 

[timtofly]

Well, I'm not up for the argument. I will point out that your analysis is founded on the premise that 'what the people in power do' is directly related to 'what the majority of people think about things', which I think is dubious at best.

That is the joy of diversity, and a government who thinks they can represent and control every aspect of life.

 

[Antilogic]

And don't even get him started on Poland

For the love of whatever you hold sacred, don't. Just don't.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

For the love of whatever you hold sacred, don't. Just don't.

There is a dangerous assumption there that I hold something sacred...but don't worry, I won't.