FA+
Shop
Antifa Hypocrisy
8 years ago
I've noticed a growing trend used by Antifa and similar groups as justification for their hate; specifically, they cite isolated examples as proof that the Alt-Right are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. For instance, they'll bring up;
-their family being _ist and hateful;
-news stories of people allegedly committing violent acts while saying _ist things.
-Individual _ists on record saying _ist things.
They then use this to justify their violent attitudes to those on the right (ie, conservatives, libertarians, alt-right, etc). Of course, anyone with any reasoning capacity whatsoever can see the problem with this. Yes, it's terrible if their family was genuinely a bunch of racist scumbags; and it's horrible when people commit acts of violence just because of someone's race/sex/sexuality/etc. Yes, it's evil for people to spout hateful and bigoted things. Most people on the right think these things are evil, and that those who commit evil acts should be prosecuted while the people who say evil things should be laughed at and ignored. None of that matters to Antifa, however; the simple fact that there are white-supremacists and neo-nazis who identify as 'Right' or 'alt-Right' or whatever is justification enough for them to advocate for physically assaulting anyone on the Right.
This is, of course, intellectually dishonest, and they are practicing the very same thing that they accuse their opponents of. They hate White-Supremacists and Neo-Nazis for painting other races with too broad a brush, yet they paint everyone on the Right as racists/nazis by the exact same reasoning. Actual racists are not bred in a vacuum; they usually experience some sort of evil from the race(s) they hate (or see reports of it), and paint the entire race with the same brush. Antifa members may experience or see incidents of horrible ___ism, but then they go on and paint the entire Right as racists/Nazis.
There is, however, a big difference between Antifa and even the actual racists I've seen; the racists are by-and-large non-violent, and don't want to achieve their goals through violence. They seem to want legally-enforced segregation, where the various races have their own countries and self-govern, and think this will lead to peace - I disagree, and I think it's coercive to separate the races in such a manner, but at the very least they actually want peace. Antifa, however, does not; every Antifa member I've seen not only condones violence, but encourages it - you can scarcely see someone in 'Antifa' without seeing something like 'punch a nazi', 'bash the fash', etc.
I suspect that's why we're seeing more people being sympathetic with white-nationalism and those who advocate it; not because white-nationalism has good ideas, but because those who actually believe it are being physically attacked for their beliefs, and the attackers paint the rest of us with a broad brush unless we fully and completely condone stripping the rights away from that political minority. The anti-fascists, in other words, are the actual fascists.
-their family being _ist and hateful;
-news stories of people allegedly committing violent acts while saying _ist things.
-Individual _ists on record saying _ist things.
They then use this to justify their violent attitudes to those on the right (ie, conservatives, libertarians, alt-right, etc). Of course, anyone with any reasoning capacity whatsoever can see the problem with this. Yes, it's terrible if their family was genuinely a bunch of racist scumbags; and it's horrible when people commit acts of violence just because of someone's race/sex/sexuality/etc. Yes, it's evil for people to spout hateful and bigoted things. Most people on the right think these things are evil, and that those who commit evil acts should be prosecuted while the people who say evil things should be laughed at and ignored. None of that matters to Antifa, however; the simple fact that there are white-supremacists and neo-nazis who identify as 'Right' or 'alt-Right' or whatever is justification enough for them to advocate for physically assaulting anyone on the Right.
This is, of course, intellectually dishonest, and they are practicing the very same thing that they accuse their opponents of. They hate White-Supremacists and Neo-Nazis for painting other races with too broad a brush, yet they paint everyone on the Right as racists/nazis by the exact same reasoning. Actual racists are not bred in a vacuum; they usually experience some sort of evil from the race(s) they hate (or see reports of it), and paint the entire race with the same brush. Antifa members may experience or see incidents of horrible ___ism, but then they go on and paint the entire Right as racists/Nazis.
There is, however, a big difference between Antifa and even the actual racists I've seen; the racists are by-and-large non-violent, and don't want to achieve their goals through violence. They seem to want legally-enforced segregation, where the various races have their own countries and self-govern, and think this will lead to peace - I disagree, and I think it's coercive to separate the races in such a manner, but at the very least they actually want peace. Antifa, however, does not; every Antifa member I've seen not only condones violence, but encourages it - you can scarcely see someone in 'Antifa' without seeing something like 'punch a nazi', 'bash the fash', etc.
I suspect that's why we're seeing more people being sympathetic with white-nationalism and those who advocate it; not because white-nationalism has good ideas, but because those who actually believe it are being physically attacked for their beliefs, and the attackers paint the rest of us with a broad brush unless we fully and completely condone stripping the rights away from that political minority. The anti-fascists, in other words, are the actual fascists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMrZnOivlrs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ei.....P0Jpc&t=5s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFIMoH_YOZg
But yes, I agree - it's hilarious to see reasonable atheists and Christians on the same side now X3
The anti fascists are creating ACTUAL fascists.
The trans-identity-outrage idiots and people that call everyone homophobic and islamophobic are creating actual homophobic and islamophobic people because of their SJW bullshit.
Also you mention the racists and segregation when even that isn't true... Actual minorities are pushing for segregating THEMSELVES!!! I-Shit-You-Not, just look up "California State University Los Angeles" and the word "segregation".
https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28906/ And other colleges are taking it even farther with segregated classes as well!
Also a point to mention, these same colleges have designated "Free-speech-zones" usually off somewhere out of the main areas that they only enforce when it is someone with a center right, or right, or far right, or "unpopular" opinion of any sort on something, often times requiring an annoying permit or appointment process that can be denied because it falls into a vague "other" category.
The only progressives and "liberals" are now center and right, the left has gone full looney-toons regressive.
2 of those colleges are ones I actually went to years ago!
There's a reason for the saying "idle hands are the devil's workshop"
Their lives are so cushy and normal that they actually WANT oppression and strife, so they make it up by any means possible.
Any movement based around sexuality or "gender" (which is usually just personality traits, not a new gender) is... Well, like you said, just people looking for trouble so they can feel victimized.
It's sad. It's sad that these are the kinds of people our country is breeding and that those who disagree are usually afraid to do anything about it.
I don't like Antifa, they have a bad approach. But you're disingenuous when you use the same overarching generalizations towards the right or racists that you accuse Antifa of when justifying violence. Your group is not homogeneous and neither is theirs. Ask a few Alt-Right why they consider themselves part of the group, and they'll give you a different answer.
Is it true that, in the past, racists were often violent? Absolutely. But that's not the case nowadays; the ones who want race-based laws often want it because (they claim) racial segregation will bring peace. If you have actual stats to show otherwise, by all means; but without stats, I have to go based on the racists I've met and I know of, and they're by-and-large peaceful. They want to work within the laws of the nation to enact the change they wish to see; while I may not respect their goals, I at least have a grudging respect for their way of pursuing them.
Speaking in terms of trends or not, i don't really care if violence is trending up or down though. We need to get the number lower. It's unacceptable in any amount.
Also, to say that non-violent racism is acceptable or respectable because it's non-violent is naive at best. In any group that puts itself above others, you're going to foster hate for outsiders. And hate will beget violence. Even if you split the races and force relocation (which is an insane idea, they tried that in South Africa), and say "violence is bad", they'll still hate each other and you'll still have violent actors. Nothing useful will have been achieved.
"Also, to say that non-violent racism is acceptable or respectable because it's non-violent is naive at best."
Did you actually read what I said?
"They want to work within the laws of the nation to enact the change they wish to see; while I may not respect their goals, I at least have a grudging respect for their way of pursuing them."
Respecting racism != respecting the methods modern-day racists by-and-large are using to achieve their goals.
"And hate will beget violence."
Actually, most of what I see is fear - not hate. They believe that the white race will suffer some form of genocide if they do not take steps to preserve it, and they do not wish to see that. Indeed, the ones I've spoken to don't appear to *hate* other races, and see the black-seperatists and similar groups as their allies - just allies they'd rather live apart from, and vice-versa.
Nowhere did I say I support their ideas and goals, in any case. I simply think:
1. Their rhetoric and actions appear to be significantly less violent than those of Antifa.
2. Their ways and means appear to be lawful - and indeed, respectable - even if I find their goals reprehensible.
To put it another way - some of those being called 'Nazis', even though they have racist views, are actually behaving better than those who are diametrically opposed to them. And to be honest, I find that absolutely hilarious.
Fair point, but i feel like you were implying violence is the only factor when it comes to harm done. If you're not, then why would you compare racists to Antifa and reach the conclusion that Antifa is as bad/worse?
"Actually, most of what I see is fear - not hate"
As for fear, people are rarely motivated to be kind to one another out of fear. Submissive, maybe. A submissive white race is kind of against the point if you really believe a white genocide is likely. Also, if white separatists don't get their way legally, where does the fear and contempt go?
I get using this as an example to smear Antifa. Racist are bad, but Antifa is worse because they're violent. Yeah, ok, whatever. But you end up half way legitimizing racists by saying they're not so bad for this reason or that. I really don't feel like that's useful to anyone.
Btw, no actual hard feelings. I just enjoy arguing.
Let me get this straight; you think the violence of Antifa (and their promotion of violence) is *less bad* than the relatively peaceful White Nationalists? Sorry, that is absolutely silly. I will take a non-violent racist over a violent non-racist any day.
Moreover, you are assuming that Antifa is not racist; they are, by-and-large, as they generally subscribe to SJW philosophies. So it's really a comparison between violent racists and non-violent racists.
"As for fear, people are rarely motivated to be kind to one another out of fear. Submissive, maybe. A submissive white race is kind of against the point if you really believe a white genocide is likely. Also, if white separatists don't get their way legally, where does the fear and contempt go?"
That's the thing; I think they will at least in part get what they want. Not legally mandated racial segregation, no, but at the very least I expect the US will take a stronger stance on immigration (legal and illegal), and will marginalize Antifa and SJWs to obscurity. As for where that 'fear goes' - sorry, but until they actually act on that fear, the law has no say in it. See, the problem is you're trying to compare what is morally bad with what is legally harmful. If someone is stingy and refuses to help someone in need, if they're miserly, if they're greedy, etc - that's a moral evil, but doesn't actually cause legal harm to anyone. If someone actually goes out and steals shit, *that is worse*. Likewise, it is morally bad to believe that we should enforce laws that will segregate people by race; it is legally harmful to go out and actually hurt people.
"I get using this as an example to smear Antifa. Racist are bad, but Antifa is worse because they're violent. Yeah, ok, whatever. But you end up half way legitimizing racists by saying they're not so bad for this reason or that. I really don't feel like that's useful to anyone."
illegitimate - not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.
So, hang on - are you saying they are illegitimate? Exactly how? Their beliefs are legitimate - that is, they legitimately believe what they believe, even if many of the things they believe are wrong. They have a legitimate political presence (though fairly small), and they have legitimate goals. Exactly how are they illegitimate in any way that, say, Communists are illegitimate? You can say they want tyrannical things; well, so do Communists. You can say that they don't respect individual rights - but then, you can say the same of Communists. What they want does not fit within the current Constitution, but they want to change it to make it work - and again, you can say the same of Communists.
I don't, but you missed the point. Racists have a long history of oppressive tactics, many of which are not violent or illegal, that have created a really nasty situation for a lot of people. Damage was done and the groups who dealt it became the one's you're talking about. Antifa might get there yet, but we're talking about over a century's worth of oppression they're proud of. Context is really important, stop pretending it's not.
"That's the thing; I think they will at least in part get what they want"
Yeah, they're certainly trying. But it's at a cost. During the election where immigration and refugees were central issues, we saw an upsurge in hate rhetoric and violence. So again, what happens when this reaches the conclusion? What makes it better?
"See, the problem is you're trying to compare what is morally bad with what is legally harmful"
They go hand in hand and any responsible lawmaker would tell you that, because normal people like to consider what their actions might reap. Otherwise, laws should be codified and executed by a computer.
It's like trusting that Comcast will actually abide by net neutrality laws if we reclassify them because we have no proof that they won't. What? It's their MO to maximize profits and net neutrality is an obstacle to that. But we have no proof they'll act that way, so legislators should do what? Take their word?
Tell me what you would do in that instance, and then tell me how that differs from preventing/fighting racial segregation legislation. I'm asking in regards to the issue of implied but not proven harm.
As for the words legitimate and illegitimate, i used it correctly and you understand what i meant. Racism is illegitimate as far as being in accordance with mainstream political and moral views.
As for bringing up communists and SJWs.. i like the idea of a mixed economy and socialized welfare, and i support non-traditional gender identities and sexual orientations. If you want to discuss either, feel free, but i don't get why it's relevant. If Antifa embraces SJW views, that means little to me because "SJW philosophies" are an umbrella term for many things. Specify what views in particular Antifa holds that make them racist.
That's the thing, though; they're not proud of what was done before, and they don't identify with it. Their motivations and means are entirely different - indeed, Antifa has more in common with the KKK than these White Nationalists do. Shoot, I've even met a few 'White Nationalists' would be content if they were allowed to just make their own communities, and I can see no good legal reason to not allow them to do so.
Yes, there is a bad history of racism in the US; but you can't really compare the racists of yesteryear with the White Nationalists of today. They have different motivations, different goals, and different means.
"[What is legally harmful and morally wrong] go hand in hand and any responsible lawmaker would tell you that, because normal people like to consider what their actions might reap. Otherwise, laws should be codified and executed by a computer."
False. What is legally harmful and what is morally wrong are two entirely different things. There is overlap, but one is not the other, and conflating one with the other leads one down the road of tyranny. It is morally wrong to espouse the beliefs that blacks are inferior to whites; it is legally harmful to attack a black man for sleeping with a white woman. That distinction must be recognized in law, or there can be no real freedom.
"It's like trusting that Comcast will actually abide by net neutrality laws if we reclassify them because we have no proof that they won't. What? It's their MO to maximize profits and net neutrality is an obstacle to that. But we have no proof they'll act that way, so legislators should do what? Take their word?
Tell me what you would do in that instance, and then tell me how that differs from preventing/fighting racial segregation legislation. I'm asking in regards to the issue of implied but not proven harm."
Sorry, what? You're bringing up an entirely irrelevant example, one I have no real opinion on.
As for White Nationalists - or indeed, anyone who believes in race-based laws - well, I ask the same regarding Communists. Communists want things that are detrimental to everyone's rights, and seek to impose them politically. In this, I regard Communism and White Nationalism in a similar light; both may be espoused, both may be touted and argued for, but if they become law we must either accept that law or go to war over it. Part of freedom, however, is accepting that people can say and do as they please, even if you personally think that what they say and do is evil; so long as they're not harming anyone else, they should be free to do what they want.
"As for the words legitimate and illegitimate, i used it correctly and you understand what i meant. Racism is illegitimate as far as being in accordance with mainstream political and moral views."
Okay then; how am I making it 'legitimate', exactly? I already told you, I don't agree with what they say; I've made that abundantly clear. One can recognize the positive qualities of a movement without agreeing with their fundamental principles. I admire Mormons, for instance, in their stable family structures and their support for traditional moral values, even though I disagree strongly with several of their core beliefs; recognizing their positive moral behavior, however, does not 'legitimize' their beliefs, any more than recognizing White Nationalism's generally peaceful behavior legitimizes their beliefs. My goodness, are you really so narrow-minded that you can't tolerate anything but complete condemnation of a group, just because that group is based on unsound doctrines?
"As for bringing up communists and SJWs.. i like the idea of a mixed economy and socialized welfare, and i support non-traditional gender identities and sexual orientations. If you want to discuss either, feel free, but i don't get why it's relevant. If Antifa embraces SJW views, that means little to me because "SJW philosophies" are an umbrella term for many things. Specify what views in particular Antifa holds that make them racist."
They believe in things like reparations, how white people are oppressors and how minorities are oppressed, etc. No, it's not universal of course, but it's quite common - and such beliefs are just as racist.
As for you believing in 'mixed economies' and 'socialized welfare' - I believe your beliefs are unsound, and will strip away the rights of many if they were made into law, and that it is morally wrong for you to push for them. The same way I view White Nationalists, I view you. By entertaining your ideas and giving you a platform, am I 'legitimizing' your beliefs - beliefs that I believe will strip away the rights of many, and plunge our nation into the next dark age? Am I 'legitimizing' you if I recognize that you are not violent like Antifa, and commend you for not being like those Commie Cucks? Of course not; I am simply analyzing what is true and what is not.
Of course i can and you're a fool if you give them a blank slate so easily. Your racist buddies you have are not the same as the ones i know or that most people are familiar with.
Your argument on law is getting ridiculous, and you're made up "moral" and "legal" distinction is confusing. Legislators should take into account all parts of the situation, long term and short, when they pass laws, full stop.
"By entertaining your ideas and giving you a platform, am I 'legitimizing' your beliefs[?]"
Depends on how you entertain the ideas. You're debating my ideas and seem intent on disproving them, so i would say you probably aren't. However, you're defending White Nationalist as being non-violent and less evil than someone else, the last point being the important one. There's a clear difference.
If you don't see at this point how you're legitimizing racists by your rhetoric then i can't convince you, although i think you're smart enough to know that you are.
As for me being narrow minded, i see groups as the sum of their parts, where some parts may be wholly unacceptable. You wouldn't eat soup if there was a fly in it, would you? For the same reason i don't laud racists for good behavior. Also, i'm not so narrow minded to ignore history and precedent, or to ignore future implications of someone's views. For instance, i'm really interested in human level AIs, but i'm well aware we need to be cautious because of the dangers they present. So if Google said they're going to start deploying human AIs in the next few weeks, i'd have to get on board and resist that until we know it's safe. I feel the same way with racism, although i'm fairly convinced there's not a positive side to racism.
Now, you criticize my socialist leaning attitude as it "strips away rights", which i assume you mean taxes? When Trump declared Mexico would fund the wall, what was being floated recently was a tax on imports from Mexico. That would hit you and more importantly businesses. But the wall keeps out Mexicans, right? The GOP and Trump's administration is rife with shit like this. Please look into it, because you don't even have an opinion on net neutrality and probably didn't realize that the GOP *already* did away with internet privacy regulations that let ISPs sell your internet history data. The GOP has already removed some of my rights, and for no good reason other than they sold them to Comcast.
Also, just for curiosities sake, what rights do you lose in a mixed market socialist country, in your opinion?
Alright, fine then; you CAN compare them, and the 'racists' on the Alt Right are qualitatively and materially different from the racists of the 1950's in the following ways;
-Many are open to a 'free market' solution to their problems.
-Most are motivated by fear for their race, rather than hatred of other races.
-Most pursue change through lawful means.
-Most of them don't actually *hate* racial minorities, and simply think society would be better if people were segregated by race - including said racial minorities.
So, yes; I suppose you can compare them, and you find that they are quite different.
"Your argument on law is getting ridiculous, and you're made up "moral" and "legal" distinction is confusing. Legislators should take into account all parts of the situation, long term and short, when they pass laws, full stop."
My dear, that distinction is why you are free. Just think - what if a conservative Christian went into office, thinking such things. Gay sex would be illegal, to say nothing of gay marriage; being a drunkard would be illegal; there would be a 10% tax on income going to all Christian churches. Thank goodness conservative Christians make a distinction between morality of what we choose for ourselves and the morality of what may be rightfully forced by law! So no; it's not 'ridiculous', making this distinction between what is moral and what is legal; there is a difference between personal morality, and what is right to force as law.
"Depends on how you entertain the ideas. You're debating my ideas and seem intent on disproving them, so i would say you probably aren't. However, you're defending White Nationalist as being non-violent and less evil than someone else, the last point being the important one. There's a clear difference. "
Is that the truth, or is it not? I don't really care whether an argument is 'legitimizing' something else; what matters is *if it is true or not*. You say I'm 'legitimizing' racism; well, that is utterly irrelevant to debate, as it has nothing to do with whether or not the argument is true.
"As for me being narrow minded, i see groups as the sum of their parts, where some parts may be wholly unacceptable. You wouldn't eat soup if there was a fly in it, would you? For the same reason i don't laud racists for good behavior. Also, i'm not so narrow minded to ignore history and precedent, or to ignore future implications of someone's views. For instance, i'm really interested in human level AIs, but i'm well aware we need to be cautious because of the dangers they present. So if Google said they're going to start deploying human AIs in the next few weeks, i'd have to get on board and resist that until we know it's safe. I feel the same way with racism, although i'm fairly convinced there's not a positive side to racism."
If you see groups as the sum of their parts, with 'nasty flies' making the group just as bad as the 'nasty fly', then every reasonably large group is going to be just as bad as any other, as the worst members are pretty much equally scummy people. There are ardent, violent, hateful racists in both the White Nationalist groups and Antifa - therefore, according to your reasoning, they are equally bad. But let's not stop there; there are members of the KKK in the Democratic Party, so according to that logic the Democratic Party must be just as bad as the worst of those KKK members. Now, is this a sensible and reasonable way to judge groups? Of course not; the average Democrat doesn't believe racial minorities are inferior, doesn't burn crosses on yards, etc. You don't judge a group by the very worst examples, just as you don't judge any grouping by the outliers; you judge the behavior of groups based on common trends in behavior, and you judge the beliefs of the group by commonly held beliefs, etc. So, based on that, yes; it does appear that the White Nationalists are *better* than Antifa.
"Now, you criticize my socialist leaning attitude as it "strips away rights", which i assume you mean taxes?"
Among other things which are common to Communist ideologies, but yes - taking away a person's right to their own property. So, yes; I view you in much the same way I'd view a White Nationalist; foolish, but the question of whether or not I am 'legitimizing' you or White Nationalists is irrelevant, as what is true is true whether we want them to be or not. It may be that you believe the right to bear arms should be upheld in your mixed economy; if so, that's good, and I'll say your ideology is sound on that front. If you personally are non-violent and give to charity on a regular basis, those would be good too and I'd recognize them as such - just as I recognize the generally non-violent nature of current White Nationalists as good.
And again; I don't really give a damn about 'legitimizing' or 'illegitimizing' something; what matters is whether or not what is being said is true.
"When Trump declared Mexico would fund the wall, what was being floated recently was a tax on imports from Mexico."
A tariff, not a tax. There is a big difference between the two; other countries do not have the automatic right to import goods. As for other forms of taxation - foreign nationals do not have the automatic right to work here, and illegal aliens DEFINITELY don't have the right to be here; imposing fees and fines are appropriate.
"That would hit you and more importantly businesses. But the wall keeps out Mexicans, right?"
Besides being able to keep out at least a portion of illegal immigrants - Mexican or not, we don't actually care, and I'd thank you to stop bringing race into this as I've made it clear *I don't care about race* - the wall is something that cannot be easily torn down without significant expenditure of labor, and is a more permanent solution in case someone who doesn't care about border security (ie, a Democrat) is elected.
"Please look into it,"
I don't like 'educate yosef' assertions; if you have information, present it here. Otherwise, it is immaterial.
"because you don't even have an opinion on net neutrality and probably didn't realize that the GOP *already* did away with internet privacy regulations that let ISPs sell your internet history data. The GOP has already removed some of my rights, and for no good reason other than they sold them to Comcast."
Citation plz.
"Also, just for curiosities sake, what rights do you lose in a mixed market socialist country, in your opinion?"
The right to the money taxed, for one thing. I can accept funding for valid functions of government as an unfortunate necessity (one we should regularly seek ways to reduce or eliminate), but to 'rob from Peter to pay Paul' is evil whether it is done by a lone individual or by governmental force.
Here's the bill that was passed undoing the FCC rules put in place to safeguard your privacy: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th.....-resolution/34
Here's a list of how much they made selling out: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/.....vacy-fire-sale
^ note democrats make a lot of money from the telecom industry as well. Thankfully they didn't vote in favor.
"what if a conservative Christian went into office, thinking such things..."
How dense are you? They already try to do that for one, and two, that's the fucking opposite of what i said. A religious person is obligated plan for future repercussions of their legislation. A moral and *ethical* Christian knows that America is built on religious freedom and shouldn't pass any laws or policies that contradict that.
"every reasonably large group is going to be just as bad as any other, as the worst members are pretty much equally scummy people"
You missed my point again. We were talking about groups and their policies, not individuals. I judge on ideology, history, and actions. I won't stand by a group (including Antifa) that espouses any racist, violent, or hateful ideas.
"what matters is whether or not what is being said is true"
If that's the case you'd use less ambiguous examples instead of your local friendly racists.
"A tariff, not a tax. There is a big difference between the two; other countries do not have the automatic right to import goods. As for other forms of taxation - foreign nationals do not have the automatic right to work here, and illegal aliens DEFINITELY don't have the right to be here; imposing fees and fines are appropriate. "
Tax of tariff, it's a financial burden that will in the end land on American citizens. There are much more effective ways of attacking the problem than building a literal wall.
"I'd thank you to stop bringing race into this"
I didn't. Mexico is a nation that borders us to the south, Mexicans live in Mexico. The issue being discussed was our efforts to keep them on the right side of said border. I guess perhaps i should use the PC term "immigrant"?
"The right to the money taxed, for one thing. I can accept funding for valid functions of government as an unfortunate necessity (one we should regularly seek ways to reduce or eliminate), but to 'rob from Peter to pay Paul' is evil whether it is done by a lone individual or by governmental force."
It's your opinion on how much is fair, but you don't have a right to not be taxed. What actual rights do you lose?
Here's a list of how much they made selling out: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/.....vacy-fire-sale
^ note democrats make a lot of money from the telecom industry as well. Thankfully they didn't vote in favor.
So, let's look at the timeline of the rule;
December 2, 2016 - FCC implements rule. Head of FCC, Tom Wheeler, was appointed in Nov of 2013 by Obama
April 3 2017 - House and Senate Republicans struck it down.
Yeah... I suspect this was simply politicking to make the Republicans look bad. Democrats had been operating without that rule for some time, and the Democrat-Appointed head of the FCC only implemented it shortly before he figured he'd be removed from his position. I suspect there are nuances to this law that are not readily apparent, something that the Democrats in power relied upon or benefited from, and they didn't mind hamstringing the Republicans who took control of the house/senate. It may not be good, no; but this appears to be a game of politics, one neither party wanted to be put under.
"How dense are you? They already try to do that for one, and two, that's the fucking opposite of what i said. A religious person is obligated plan for future repercussions of their legislation. A moral and *ethical* Christian knows that America is built on religious freedom and shouldn't pass any laws or policies that contradict that."
Now now; you said yourself, what is legally and morally harmful go hand-in-hand, and they may very well think that it is a good thing to, say, make gay sex illegal. Yes, we DO have religious freedom; you are free to believe and worship as you want. But unless the law is limited to harm, gay sex is a *moral* issue that can be regulated by government. And, let us remember; we are also a country built upon freedom of speech. Speech, belief, creed, etc - these are all protected, and none of them are permitted to be infringed upon, while actions have no such protection. It stands to reason, then, that an evil act that illegally harms someone is worse than any speech, as no speech is considered bad enough to regulate.
"You missed my point again. We were talking about groups and their policies, not individuals. I judge on ideology, history, and actions. I won't stand by a group (including Antifa) that espouses any racist, violent, or hateful ideas."
Okay; let's break that down.
>"We're talking about groups and their policies, not individuals." - correct! Which is why it is more useful to judge a group based upon their common trends in beliefs and behavior rather than insisting upon a 'fly in the ointment' approach.
>"I judge on ideology, history, and actions."
Ideology and actions, sure. But neither of these groups have much of a history; they did not 'spring forth' from any particular groups in the past, even if they do have some ideological similarities.
>"I won't stand by a group (including Antifa) that espouses any racist, violent, or hateful ideas."
Agreed; I won't 'stand by' White Nationalists either. Not standing by a group, however, is not the same as comparing them favorably to another group, or recognizing their positive qualities.
If that's the case you'd use less ambiguous examples instead of your local friendly racists.
Like what, exactly? I don't know of any specific studies comparing Antifa to White Nationalists; I can only go by their actions and beliefs. I have yet to see any major, violent White Nationalist protests; they appear to be a fairly marginal group. Whenever you see a counter-protest to Antifa, most of them aren't White Nationalists, but Conservatives of various stripes, and their actions are generally in defense of themselves and others. Antifa, however, is quite large and quite violent, and has no qualms breaking the law; I could show you numerous instances of Antifa attacking people unprovoked; every instance I've found of Anti-Antifa protestors being violent, however, is in response to Antifa's violence. There are probably exceptions, sure - but this is the trend I see. I'll admit, my sampling of White Nationalists is limited... But if you have better data about them, please cite it.
"Tax of tariff, it's a financial burden that will in the end land on American citizens. There are much more effective ways of attacking the problem than building a literal wall."
False; a tax is a financial burden directly upon American citizens and American companies, a Tariff is a very indirect financial burden that may well give the comparative advantage to local businesses. Moreover, that is not even the primary method of funding afaik; that funding would come from fines imposed upon illegal immigrants sending money back to their home country, from what I hear.
"I didn't. Mexico is a nation that borders us to the south, Mexicans live in Mexico. The issue being discussed was our efforts to keep them on the right side of said border. I guess perhaps i should use the PC term "immigrant"?"
Actually, most of the illegal immigrants coming across our border are not from Mexico. They are *passing through* Mexico, as Mexico's treatment of illegal immigrants is pretty draconian compared to the US. In any case, I really don't care where they come from; illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants, and they should not be here. Laying fines on them is both legally valid and economical.
"It's your opinion on how much is fair, but you don't have a right to not be taxed. What actual rights do you lose?"
The right to the money wrongfully taken for services the Government ought not be engaging in; we DO have the right not to be taxed to fund things the government ought not be doing. That is the right lost - or do we not own the fruits of our labor? Moreover, let's turn it on its head; according to your argument, 100% taxation would not be 'harm', as you don't "have the right to not be taxed", making us all essentially slaves to the State. It strikes me that being made a slave to the state would definitely be 'harm' - no matter how comfortable the life.
Let me know when you find out what they are. I'd be interested to know. Regardless, the GOP's credibility is damaged by the money they took and i've yet to hear a reasonable explanation from them.
"I'll admit, my sampling of White Nationalists is limited... But if you have better data about them, please cite it."
The SPLC lists them as a hate group and states: "These groups range from those that use racial slurs and issue calls for violence to others that present themselves as serious, non-violent organizations and employ the language of academia.", and goes on to list a collection of groups that are deemed part of that definition. As for a specific example, i don't know or care. You're the one who brought them into the picture.
"and they may very well think that it is a good thing to, say, make gay sex illegal."
You're stuck on me saying they go hand in hand, by which i meant and later clarified was to say that policy makers must consider both the laws and long term impact of their policies.
Moral harm and legal harm are not terms i use, and stop implying the argument i am making is that people should pass laws based on what they view as "moral harm".
"Not standing by a group, however, is not the same as comparing them favorably to another group, or recognizing their positive qualities."
I've made my point on this and i disagree with you. I feel white nationalists do have enough history to be considered harmful and are unworthy of how you portray them. I will not ignore how harmful their core ideology is just to make a point about how non-violent they are compared to X, because it's not an apples to apples comparison.
"a Tariff is a very indirect financial burden that may well give the comparative advantage to local businesses."
May, but not guaranteed. It does have a chance of hurting local business which, as far as i know, don't mind buying cheaper products from Mexico. Further, buying from Mexico lets local business focus on innovating since they don't have to worry about keeping up with demand for products which already have a ready supply. That's capitalism yo.
"Actually, most of the illegal immigrants coming across our border are not from Mexico."
Our president made numerous statements damning Mexico specifically and laying blame on them, including, lets not forget, the burden of paying for the wall. It's no stretch to think people who listen to his statements associate Mexico with illegal immigrants. I'll use the PC term from now on, promise. ;)
"The right to the money wrongfully taken for services the Government ought not be engaging in"
You and i experience that today in our non-communist society. And again, it's a matter of opinion. Not a convincing argument, and also that's still the only right you mention you give up.
"let's turn it on its head; according to your argument, 100% taxation would not be 'harm', as you don't "have the right to not be taxed", making us all essentially slaves to the State"
Ah, i like that because it's so absurd. Yes, if you let the state do that, by letting people write policies and doing it the legal way, sure. That'd be harmful and oppressive. It's your own damn fault for letting it happen. People who are thinking about the situation rationally don't jump to such absurd conclusions though.
To counter your (probably?) capitalistic slant: full unregulated capitalism will result in the enslavement of workers and overthrow of structured government in a world in which anything can be bought for the right price. The working class, despondent and without financial means, won't be able to challenge the owner class. Financial incentives to be moral will not exist because monopolies exist and there is no other option. Growth will be stifled because industries are owned by a few people intent on maintaining their own wealth. You have no class mobility and ever increasing disparity between the ruling class and working class. People will literally be bought and sold, and they will have no rights.
That's absurd though. I mean, America was never like that, right? Oh wait, it was, and people didn't like it. Then we put in place regulations, formed unions, and began welfare programs including social security. Those are socialist ideas that are hugely popular and necessary. The're a balancing point between ideologies.
You mean like the money the Democrats took for the past 8 years? Again; the rule that the Republicans in Congress took down was put in on December 2 2016. You cannot claim it was such a terrible thing to get rid of the law if the Democrats sat on it for so long, waiting only until then to implement it. They had the power throughout the last 8 years to implement their policies; they did not.
The SPLC lists them as a hate group
Right, gonna stop you right there; I don't really give a damn what the SPLC thinks about anything, given that they're dishonest political hacks.
You're stuck on me saying they go hand in hand, by which i meant and later clarified was to say that policy makers must consider both the laws and long term impact of their policies.
And yet, the example still fits; let's take the case of the 'conservative Christian' governor that wants to make gay sex illegal. The Constitution makes no clear statements about sexuality, therefore such a power would feasibly rest within the purview of any given state. The impact of said law would in the long term reduce public acceptance of homosexual behavior. Both, in the views of said 'conservative Christian' governor, are good. He passes the law.
See the problem? Considering the current law and impact are qualifiers; I am speaking of the fundamentals of law itself, what makes a law morally good and what makes a law morally wrong. It is this distinction I use when judging Antifa and White Nationalists. Even if we assumed that Antifa was not a racist organization (and it very much is), it is still worse to be a thief than just a miser, and it is still worse to be a violent brute than a racist. Hence why I compared White Nationalists as generally morally favorable to Antifa.
I've made my point on this and i disagree with you. I feel white nationalists do have enough history to be considered harmful and are unworthy of how you portray them. I will not ignore how harmful their core ideology is just to make a point about how non-violent they are compared to X, because it's not an apples to apples comparison.I've made my point on this and i disagree with you. I feel white nationalists do have enough history to be considered harmful and are unworthy of how you portray them. I will not ignore how harmful their core ideology is just to make a point about how non-violent they are compared to X, because it's not an apples to apples comparison.
"But look what they were like before" is irrelevant; these are not the same people that committed the crimes before, their behavior is markedly different, their beliefs are markedly different; you cannot equate them. How you feel is irrelevant. If you wish to play that game, I shall compare Antifa to the Communists - and by that measure alone, comparing the KKK of yesteryear to the Communists of yesteryear, the KKK is morally favorable to the Communists - after all, the KKK is responsible for the deaths of perhaps a few thousand, while Communists are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.
Now, if you want to say that their core ideology, if implemented as law, is dangerous to people's basic rights, then I'd agree with you; that does not mean that their beliefs themselves are dangerous, as beliefs are just beliefs. And again, if one were to apply the same standard to Antifa, Antifa would again fare the poorer for the comparison; as a Communistic organization, it would have far more blood and far more violations of basic rights than any racist faction in America could claim.
[A tariff may benefit local businesses], but [it's] not guaranteed. It does have a chance of hurting local business which, as far as i know, don't mind buying cheaper products from Mexico. Further, buying from Mexico lets local business focus on innovating since they don't have to worry about keeping up with demand for products which already have a ready supply. That's capitalism yo.
And yet the 'harm' is not 'harm' in any legal sense; they would be just as 'harmed' if the Mexican business failed and could no longer provide said products. Harm comes into play when a right is denied, and no right is being denied; foreign businesses do not have the automatic right to sell products in America. They must accept the rules we place upon them, or take their businesses elsewhere.
Our president made numerous statements damning Mexico specifically and laying blame on them, including, lets not forget, the burden of paying for the wall. It's no stretch to think people who listen to his statements associate Mexico with illegal immigrants. I'll use the PC term from now on, promise. ;)
Actually, Mexico has been caught actively encouraging illegal immigrants into the US, as they'd be stuck with them and have to pay to enforce their own immigration laws if they didn't. THAT is why Trump wants to make Mexico pay for the wall, at least in part. But, let's not forget; sound bytes can't be too complex. Saying 'We'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it!' doesn't sound as good as 'We'll place tariffs on Mexico and cut their aid as well as imposing fines and penalties on the funds illegal immigrants send back to their families, and use that funding to build a wall."
You and i experience that today in our non-communist society. And again, it's a matter of opinion. Not a convincing argument, and also that's still the only right you mention you give up.
We experience it in our mixed-economy society, and I hate that too. And no, it's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of what's right.
Ah, i like that because it's so absurd. Yes, if you let the state do that, by letting people write policies and doing it the legal way, sure. That'd be harmful and oppressive. It's your own damn fault for letting it happen. People who are thinking about the situation rationally don't jump to such absurd conclusions though.
And yet, you place no actual limits on how much the government can take before you consider it evil. How much can they take before it's considered a violation of your rights, exactly? Can they leave you a penny? No? How about 1%? 5%? The fact is, taxes are coerced - they are taken at gunpoint - and they must not only be spent wisely and prudently, they must be spent on things the government actually has the right to do. Either rights are violated, or they are not; yet you cannot point to any specific amount or rule that says at what point taxation changes from the rightful exercise of a government to the unlawful oppression of its citizens.
To counter your (probably?) capitalistic slant: full unregulated capitalism will result in the enslavement of workers
False. At the very worst it would involve workers *selling* their rights; this is not slavery, it is simply a very one-sided contract.
and overthrow of structured government in a world in which anything can be bought for the right price.
False. Murder cannot be bought, for instance; but anything that can be rightfully owned can be traded by whoever, for whatever price they wish.
The working class, despondent and without financial means, won't be able to challenge the owner class.
False premise; they need not 'challenge' anyone, they can simply find another means to make an income outside of the usual means. People, in short, will adapt.
Financial incentives to be moral will not exist
False premise; if there is financial incentive to do a certain action, it is not a moral action. There is, however, financial incentive to not harm others, as that is the law under Capitalism.
because monopolies exist and there is no other option.
Monopolies will exist under any system; the difference being that in a Capitalist system, said monopoly could be superseded by new innovation or alternatives, while a mixed or Communist economy would be funding or supporting or owning these monopolies.
Growth will be stifled because industries are owned by a few people intent on maintaining their own wealth.
False; economic growth and new development will flourish as that is the only means by which people can make a living. Wealth is not a zero-sum game; wealth can be created from essentially nothing.
You have no class mobility
False; you have greater class mobility than in any other system of government, as government is not giving special privileges to established businesses by means of taxation, regulation, funding, etc.
and ever increasing disparity between the ruling class and working class.
False premise; there is no 'ruling class' in a capitalist system. The government is trimmed down to the essentials.
People will literally be bought and sold, and they will have no rights.
False; under a Capitalist system, people have far more rights than they do under any other economic system. Under our system, for instance, you do not have the right to sell your work for less than an arbitrary amount, called the 'minimum wage'; under a Capitalist system, you have the right to sell your work however you see fit.
That's absurd though. I mean, America was never like that, right? Oh wait, it was, and people didn't like it. Then we put in place regulations, formed unions, and began welfare programs including social security. Those are socialist ideas that are hugely popular and necessary. The're a balancing point between ideologies.
False; during the worst atrocities, government was controlled by big business owners, and said owners used that influence to secure funding, contracts, etc, as well as stifle all competition. Under a capitalist system, government's function is restricted from such activities; they can ask for funding and regulations, and the law is restricted from doing anything of the sort.
It's not indicative of anything. It took over a century for black men to get the right to vote. People were trying, and it didn't make it until 1965. Sometimes it takes the public outcry to reach a point lawmakers are forced to do it. A step forward is a step forward in my book. I don't accept steps backwards.
"Right, gonna stop you right there;"
"Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias". If we're going to play that game.
"The Constitution makes no clear statements about sexuality, therefore such a power would feasibly rest within the purview of any given state. The impact of said law would in the long term reduce public acceptance of homosexual behavior. Both, in the views of said 'conservative Christian' governor, are good. He passes the law."
You're still stuck on the "moral" shit. I'm talking about impact. If he's looking at worsening views on homosexuality, that could easily cause harm to those people and *that* is what he needs to consider. Not his religious views. I'm saying er on the side of do no harm, not do what you think is "moral". I can't really be more clear, so i'm done arguing that with you.
"And yet the 'harm' is not 'harm' in any legal sense; they would be just as 'harmed' if the Mexican business failed and could no longer provide said products. Harm comes into play when a right is denied, and no right is being denied; foreign businesses do not have the automatic right to sell products in America. They must accept the rules we place upon them, or take their businesses elsewhere."
You're going to have to rephrase that, i have no idea what you're saying. Stop inventing new connotations and meanings for words and read/respond to what i say in plain English.
"Actually, Mexico has been caught actively encouraging illegal immigrants into the US, as they'd be stuck with them and have to pay to enforce their own immigration laws if they didn't."
Make up your damn mind man.
"And no, it's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of what's right."
I consider thoughts on what is and is not an appropriate spending of taxpayer money an opinion. You're welcome to back it up, but you can't factually prove any of your ideas are more right than mine, making it an opinion man.
"And yet, you place no actual limits on how much the government can take before you consider it evil. How much can they take before it's considered a violation of your rights, exactly?"
I really don't know, i'd say there isn't a hard number. It's something you have to feel out, test, respond to feedback, and retest. Do that until people are happy with where you land on the scale between capitalism and socialism. Right now, i know large groups of people are not happy with where we're at. And then realize it's *all* a matter of opinion on how they want to be governed. Also, note that that middle point is a moving target.
"they must be spent on things the government actually has the right to do. "
We give the government rights by voting and electing people to decide that. So.. what's your point here?
"False. At the very worst it would involve workers *selling* their rights; this is not slavery, it is simply a very one-sided contract."
No, you miss the part where you can be kidnapped of shanghaied. Capitalism doesn't protect against bad actors man.
"False. Murder cannot be bought, for instance; but anything that can be rightfully owned can be traded by whoever, for whatever price they wish. "
What do you mean by that? I can hire someone right now to kill someone.
"False premise; they need not 'challenge' anyone, they can simply find another means to make an income outside of the usual means. People, in short, will adapt. "
Read the next bit about who owns the industries. Also, look back on history and why we have unions. If they weren't formed, workers wouldn't have had any agency against their employers.
"Monopolies will exist under any system; the difference being that in a Capitalist system, said monopoly could be superseded by new innovation or alternatives, while a mixed or Communist economy would be funding or supporting or owning these monopolies. "
We learned in economics 101 how difficult it is to supplant a monopoly. You may superseded them by making them irrelevant, but then you have a *new* monopoly to deal with.
Yes, communism creates state monopolies. The key difference is workers have agency against bad policies by voting on how they function and, depending on your flavor, workers may fucking own that monopoly with financial shares.
"False; economic growth and new development will flourish as that is the only means by which people can make a living. Wealth is not a zero-sum game; "
100% wrong. Africa has some of the greatest deposits of material wealth around, and yet it's squandered by people who have militarily and financially taken over the economy there. Africa is not proportionally flourishing based on their natural wealth. Communities stagnate and regress all the time despite producing wealth.
"wealth can be created from essentially nothing."
Seriously, i want in on that secret bro. Technology doesn't count; that's a product of education and capital. Neither of those are free.
"False; you have greater class mobility than in any other system of government, as government is not giving special privileges to established businesses by means of taxation, regulation, funding, etc. "
What about establishing castes and having no money to start and thus no money to succeed? Have you ever started a business? You need capital or investors.
"False premise; there is no 'ruling class' in a capitalist system. The government is trimmed down to the essentials."
Yes there are: if there aren't people with money will enforce their will upon, or take over the government and create one. It's financially advantageous to be in control, and so someone will try. Rome was toppled by massive armies built with money. But that's not even necessary as there are less violent ways of taking control of a government as well. You're far to trusting of people to be good.
"False; under a Capitalist system, people have far more rights than they do under any other economic system. Under our system, for instance, you do not have the right to sell your work for less than an arbitrary amount, called the 'minimum wage'; under a Capitalist system, you have the right to sell your work however you see fit. "
Rights vs protection, you give up some to gain the other and it's a balancing game. But we aren't talking about some mixed form of capitalism in that example. We're talking about an absurdly extreme version.
"False; during the worst atrocities, government was controlled by big business owners, and said owners used that influence to secure funding, contracts, etc, as well as stifle all competition. Under a capitalist system, government's function is restricted from such activities; they can ask for funding and regulations, and the law is restricted from doing anything of the sort. "
You're assuming the government isn't compromised. Good luck with that given monopoly owners running amok with more money than small countries.
They both like their safe spaces, and cry foul when they don't get their way and troll others that dont agree with them. I'm sick and tired of this nonsense. None of them are doing "gods work", they're making fools out of themselves.
I'm happy that we have people who are aware of politics, but I am disgusted at how they've gone about utilizing said knowledge. I may be a Conservative, but I will never bring myself to support something as foolish as the Alt-Right and their convoluted agenda. If that makes me a "cuck" then so be it.
That's not really how movements work, even if they achieve their goals and they have a modicum of success, they're going to stick around and continue to capitalize off of it.
As for "Nobody said the Alt-Right should get involved" - sorry, but you don't get to say what they can and cannot do. They are fighting the 'Regressive Left' far more effectively than Conservatives have been for a while.
I'll defend anyone's right to say whatever they want, believe whatever they want without legal or physical backlash until they feel it's necessary to shut up their opposition via physical force or other illegal means. As soon as you resort to violence and subjugation to exert your goals, you lose. The people you ostracize and suppress will become discontent, banding together. Because the regressive left is behaving this way, they're inadvertently fueling their own downfall. When you value 'feels over reals', you're setting yourself up to get fucked in the ass by logic. Being a brick wall screaming "but muh feelings" doesn't make anyone look good.
Antifa will be declared a domestic terrorist organization sooner or later.
That or a cultural war will truly break out between the left and right.
And then we're fucked either way.
Remember, before throwing stones, ya might wanna check if you aren't the thing you call others.