Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SalmonGod

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 844
391
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: September 21, 2019, 11:07:24 pm »
Trolldefender, you do deserve real credit for being willing to look things up when prompted, and realize that you were misinformed.  I didn't mean that last post I made that referenced you to be a dig at you.  It was just convenient that what you had come in and said before was an example of what MSH was referring to in regards to swing voters, imo.  It wasn't meant to be a statement about you.  Just election politics in general, because the stuff you were saying is really common conservative gospel regarding socialism/communism.  And I also apologize for the harsh reaction you received when you first came in here saying that stuff.  I can't remember if I was one of them, but I know you faced some harsh words over it.  The thing is, there are people like you who have simply been misinformed and don't realize it.  But there are also political trolls who know better, but intentionally sabotage the ability to have coherent political discourse and spread misinformation by abusing terminology.  Those types are way too common, and being on the internet too long can jade you so you react harshly towards anyone who looks like that type at a glance.

392
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: September 21, 2019, 12:20:34 pm »
But if you actually count every election since 1992, Democrats have won 4 times, Republicans 3 times. The strategy does actually work.

Ok.  So you add Clinton to the mix.  In the Clinton era, off the top of my head...

  • landmark bank de-regulation
  • the first free trade agreements accelerated the worst aspects of globalism
  • racist crime legislation essentially re-established slavery/Jim Crow in order to feed the new private prison industry (thanks Hillary & Biden)
  • ECHELON began tapping into satellite and the internet planting the seeds of today's style of mass surveillance
  • law enforcement's brutal new millennium approaches to activism were prototyped in 1999's Battle in Seattle

What actually worked here?  Just winning elections doesn't mean anything if we don't actually do better on any of these things

  • mass surveillance
  • government and corporate secrecy/corruption
  • the militarization and unaccountability of law enforcement
  • economic inequality
  • war profiteering/war crimes
  • social programs
  • infrastructure
  • education policy and funding
  • the environment apocalypse

Without even touching the nature of the elections in the 90's (I was in high school government class during the 2000 election, and was taught that Bush and Gore's strategies were a major departure from recent history), you're telling me that an overall net loss on my political interests means a strategy is "working".

Yeah well that's one perspective. But ... pretty everything was actually shittier before. What we have now is omnipresent media which makes it seem like terrible things are more common than ever, but that's mostly illusory, similar to how murders are down but the media reports on murders more.

Pretty much everything was more shit before. Higher chance of homicide, more prevalence of rape, shorter lifespans. If you want shit, look at the 1980s.

Yeah, crime rates have fallen (among the general population).  I know this.  I'm one of those people who regularly reminds people of this when they're gasp-gossiping about whatever terrible thing is on the news.  That doesn't mean that a lot of other things I care about haven't gotten worse.  Like... that bullet point list of my political interests that I've repeated 3 times now.  All of those things have gotten worse.  Including... you know... the fucking apocalypse.  Tell me how any single one of them has gotten better, and you might earn a little respect for your message.

393
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: September 20, 2019, 07:48:11 pm »
Cons
Continuous, bleeding-from-the-neck magnitude of horrendous losses on the fronts of
  • mass surveillance
  • government and corporate secrecy/corruption
  • the militarization and unaccountability of law enforcement
  • economic inequality
  • war profiteering/war crimes
  • social programs
  • infrastructure
  • education policy and funding
  • the environment


It's worth pointing out that my bullet-point list of cons is not radical stuff.  That's all really common, basic leftist priorities.  And it's common for establishment Democrats to openly take conservative positions on like half of them.  Look at the shit Biden says and his record, and how that relates to those bullet points.  If that is what appealing to moderates is about, then what this means for me is that if I vote strategically based on what can win the election by appealing to moderates, then I am voting in support of throwing away almost all of my political interests.  It's pro-actively championing 90% horrible just to prevent 100% horrible, and life continually getting worse and worse forever.  Something has to change at some point.  What better time than the apocalypse?

If it's true we only have 18 months left to save the planet, then what I do doesn't matter anymore, so might as well live it up

Might as well take a chance on not supporting shitty candidates, too.  What do you have to lose?

394
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: September 20, 2019, 07:30:14 pm »
I understand how you could misunderstand what I'm saying that way, but this

"Compromise" is not a dirty word. If a policy that does 80%, or even 60% of what you want it to do can get passed, it is better than a 90% or 100% policy that has no chance. It is even worse when you're in a situation where you'd be able to get 70% or 80% if you hadn't been screaming "GIVE ME 100% OR GO TO HELL!", which is far from an uncommon situation. Deciding that "well, Candidate A isn't everything I want a candidate to be, but Candidate B who I like better will probably lose, so I'll support A" is basic logic - you won't get anywhere if you don't make the best effort to make some forward progress.

is not the reality of the last 20 years.

I would be fucking over the moon ecstatic like you wouldn't fucking believe to see my interests even 60% represented in politics.  I would celebrate like I just won a million dollars if a president was elected who represented me that well.

What we've seen in reality:

Pros
  • Modest, gradual progress on the culture war (i.e. women's and LGBT rights).  That's a good thing.

Cons
Continuous, bleeding-from-the-neck magnitude of horrendous losses on the fronts of
  • mass surveillance
  • government and corporate secrecy/corruption
  • the militarization and unaccountability of law enforcement
  • economic inequality
  • war profiteering/war crimes
  • social programs
  • infrastructure
  • education policy and funding
  • the environment

Democrats have sufficiently represented me on like 10-20% of my political interests.  And that's if I generously disregard the political interests I have which I understand to be far outside the realm of establishment politics, such as transitioning away from capitalism completely, where I know looking for representation is an impossible expectation.  Everything else has been sacrificed on the altar of pragmatism in legislative strategy and appealing-to-moderates in election strategy.  On the promise that winning comes first, and then all that other stuff comes second. 

Well... in the last 20 years, the appealing to moderates strategy lost us more elections than it's won.  Arguably, the only Democrat president since 1996 was also the least moderate-seeming candidate.  (compare Obama's optics to Gore, Kerry, and Hillary)  And even when we won elections AND CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES, our legislative strategy STILL saw us losing ground on every single one of those bullet points above.

So tell me again why I should believe in it?

If what you say is true - that doing other than appealing to the minority while screeching that "ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME IN ALL WAYS IS FAR-RIGHT" will lose us all elections forever.  Then why even care?  If you're willing to decide that giving any consideration at all to the interests of 68% of the population is unthinkable, why are you even pretending that you believe in democracy instead of demanding Imperial rule by whoever you think is The God-Savior of Humanity?

And my argument has nothing to do with who we appeal to or how we label those who disagree with us.  I'm not looking for 100% purity, and I am absolutely not the type to label someone far-right over any disagreement.

My argument was that the environment is collapsing, and we have a very limited time to do anything about it.  We are at a point where it will take radical action to prevent apocalypse-level bad stuff from happening within our lifetimes.  We either succeed in radical action, or we all die.  This is not hyperbole.  Do or die.  Scientific certainty.

In this context, does winning an election even matter anymore if we give up our chances of survival in the process?  How is that winning?

395
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: September 20, 2019, 06:24:17 pm »
Reelya, everything you're saying is the same stuff I've been hearing my entire adult life, beginning with the 2000 election where Bush and Gore engaged in bloody combat to prove to the nation which one of them was the most pure... umm... most pure... unassuming totally average moderate joe that you could imagine having a drink with at the bar.  This appealling to moderates and elections, unreciprocated compromise, navigating legislation based on "realism", etc has been the prevailing logic for 20 years.  What it's gotten us is a fucking dystopian nightmare, and literal imminent global civilization-threatening apocalypse.  I'm done with it.  It's bullshit.  If it were truly winning strategy, we would have gotten somewhere by now.  But everything is shit.  Abandon your typical statistics-based approach for a moment and look at recent history.  Why should anyone who looks back at the last 20 years believe in this shit anymore?  Why should anyone who looks ahead at the next 20 years believe in this shit anymore?  If what you say is true - that trying to actually accomplish anything meaningful will lose us all elections forever.  Then why even care?  We don't have time for this anymore.  We don't have even a few more years to play these games.  It's radical change now or environmental apocalypse.  What you're telling me is that my only hope at a future is literal violent insurgency.  And maybe that's true.  But think for a moment about whether that's really what you're trying to say.  And if it is, then just say it.

The reason they vote is because they feel it may serve their interests. A policy which serves the interests of the many is more likely to receive results in voting than a policy which serves the few, even in our world of propaganda this remains true because work must be done to change that perception. You literally cannot have a message that is more appealing than what the left offers. But you do have to, you know. Offer it.

There was an example in this thread just a couple pages ago.  Trolldefender spouted a whole bunch of far-right gospel about the evil and danger of socialism/communism, along the lines of everything the slightest bit socialist in any form is literally Stalin rising from the grave to bring death to your nation.  But at the same time said he was planning to vote for the guy who straight up promised to give him a free $1000, because "lol cool free money whatevs".

There's the closest thing you'll ever find to a real fence-sitting swing voter, for exactly the reasons MSH described here.

396
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: September 13, 2019, 06:32:28 pm »
Not Biden.

Not fucking Biden.

Never.

Anyone who thinks progressives and millennials had a burn-it-all-down attitude after 2016.  Just see what happens if Biden wins the primary.

We're talking about someone WHO CALLED DICK CHENEY A DECENT GUY IN 2015!

397
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: September 12, 2019, 01:55:52 am »
I guess my reaction was because it reads like "The only way to pay off your loans is to win the job lotto and get a $175k a year job".  Or maybe that's the point - the claims that really the only way to get out of debt is to win a lotto or be super-well connected so you can get elected to Congress?

My opinion is probably clouded because when I graduated college in 2000 I had a debt to income ratio of about 50% - that is, my student loans the day I graduated was about 50% of my annual salary, and at 6.5% interest rate.  Also, I got scholarships so only had to pay for 1 year (out of 4) of college.  So my brain rationalizes that prices today are lower, if the average is only paying twice as much for four times (or more, since average students take more than 4 years now) as many years of school.

So when I hear complaints, about debt burden - I guess I just can't relate, because I worked to not need a lot of debt, and then I worked to pay off the debt I had.  I'm also in that weird demographic age right at the end of Gen X; I remember growing up even noting that the worldviews and lifestyles of the kids as few as 2 years younger than me were very different than mine and my peer groups'.  That still holds - my worldview in general is more optimistic and "if you work hard you will probably get ahead" (opposed to today's sentiment that even if you work hard, you probably won't get ahead).

So I'm sad all around - I feel on one hand that there's something wrong that people can't figure out how to plan and make things work.  I'm sad that conditions have changed such that it is in fact more difficult (in sheer numbers, if not on a percentage basis) for students to get consistent employment to support their debt.  I'm sad that society has done something to education in general, such that it feels like for the first time in a long time, we have a generation where people say "education today is not better than it was when I was a student" (opposed to the past 2 centuries, where most people confidently said things were getting better).  I'm sad that the current young-adult generation is so disenfranchised and flat out fearful.

Born in '83 here.  A Xennial, if you will.  I've got a fair amount of Gen X in me.  But I was also an early adopter of internet and right in the thick of the cultural switch you speak of.

I've worked really hard.  Spent much of the past year recovering from severe burnout, because 2015-2018 I was basically working myself to death.  But I know people smarter and harder working than I who haven't done nearly as well.  I'm under no illusion that while my hard work and talents have been a valuable part of getting me to where I am today, they wouldn't have amounted to anything without a lot of privilege and luck.  I make more with a single job than most of my peers, and I own a home.  At the same time, I'm still buried in debt and live paycheck to paycheck.  I admit some of that is because I've been stuck in a toxic marriage with someone who's mildly irresponsible with money (mostly spends too much on soda and eating out).  But even without that, I don't think I'd be that much better off.  It's just as much to do with kids and medical expenses, which are burdens that very few millennials or zoomers can bear anymore.  My dad's sort of a big shot in his field and my parents are pretty financially secure.  If I didn't have their support, I would have been completely fucked several times over by various emergency expenses.  I don't know anyone with kids my age or younger who doesn't regularly get bailed out by older family, and those without such family support end up in horrible situations or more likely just don't have kids and accept that they'll never be able to responsibly afford kids even if they want them.  And my job fortune has been just as much about receiving valuable tip-offs and good words from friends and being in the right place at the right time as it has been about hard work.  I think I still have a shot at making it to a place of relative security before my parents are gone, but I've enjoyed very little of my life so far and don't know that I ever will because having to work all the damn time, so it's often difficult to see the point.  I sincerely doubt I'll ever be able to afford a comfortable retirement... and that's if environmental collapse hasn't de-stabilized everything in the next 40 years.  My retirement plan and only hope for the future, like much of youth today, is the death of capitalism.

I also graduated college in 2008.  There's a really sharp line there between the experiences of those who "made it" before that cut-off, and those whose financial and career journeys began after the crash.  Seriously look at the numbers and testimonies about how the experience of working up from entry-level has changed after 2008.  The experiences simply are not comparable.

I think an even bigger part of the generational difficulty in sympathizing is that older generations did have their own struggles, and when we talk about our struggles, it feels like we're marginalizing yours.  But it's not like that.  They're just not comparable.

My dad's dad died when he was 15.  His mother made him pay rent to continue living with her through his teen years.  He did hard manual labor.  He went to college, met my mom, and had me when they were 20.  My mom dropped out of school and worked at McDonald's to support the family while my dad finished his Masters degree.  They lived in a little 3-room shack with sections of floor missing about the size of your average 2-car garage.  They feared the electricity being cut and me freezing to death in the Wisconsin winters when they were late on their bills.  I get it.  They struggled through genuine hardship.  And they look at my life, and don't see the same.

But the difference is the things they did were possible back then.  It was a hard path, but it was a path that was there.  A single McDonald's income won't even pay rent for a studio apartment in many places anymore.  They didn't even have to take out student loans to live on it (if barely) and afford school.  My dad got a good job immediately after graduating, and the types of advancement opportunities that were available to him are not around today.  For example, he was a computer geek in the 80's, and without any formal tech training or certification, he was the de facto network admin and IT expert at the global headquarters of a multinational corporation in the mid-90's.  I'm also a computer geek and that's created some opportunities for me, but none nearly so grandiose, as corporate I.T. isn't that kind of wild frontier anymore.  Nothing is.  The world's population has literally doubled in my parent's lifetimes.  Almost every job market is saturated, and dominated by middle-aged people who got knocked down a peg during the recession, forcing youth out completely.  Desperation has everybody hyper-vigilant for a hole to fill, such that glaring voids like the one my dad filled as de facto I.T. don't exist for more than a year or two.  When I started studying what I focused my degree on, the job market was starving for the skills I trained in.  A couple years later when I graduated, I was already a dime a dozen and would have struggled to find a job even without the crash.  And I never did end up doing anything with my degree, and instead settled for work I hate that I fell into mostly by luck.

We're drowning in shallow luxuries, which gives off the appearance of being spoiled.  But luxuries are cheap, while necessities are expensive.  Ten years ago, I was renting a two-bedroom apartment in the cheapest, trashiest complex in the city, and I live on the outskirts of Indianapolis where cost of living isn't very high compared to the rest of the country.  I can build a capable gaming computer today for half of what a month's rent cost there ten years ago, which I'll get at least 5 years use out of.  Giving up stuff like that would make almost zero difference in the struggle.  It doesn't matter how much we sacrifice.  We can subsist on ramen and spend our 2 hours a day not working staring at a wall, and if we didn't kill ourselves first, maybe that would get us to a place of financial security in our middle ages instead of never.  The same opportunities and paths simply do not exist which did up until 20 years ago.

Meanwhile big brother is bigger than Orwell's wildest dreams, so it's ever in the back of our minds that we can't truly relax... ever.  State governors ship their police forces across state lines to invade sovereign territory as if they're soldiers with blatant disregard for state, federal, and international law so they can maul protesters with dogs and shove them naked into dog kennels in winter temperatures for wanting to literally prevent apocalypse, and a Democrat president mostly pretends it's not happening for months (Standing Rock).  Suicide is the leading cause of death among young men, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone under 35 who hasn't lost someone they cared about to it.  I'm not a very social person and don't have a large circle, but I still see expressions of suicidal thoughts or severe depression from someone I know every single day.  Corporations can openly kill massive numbers of people to make a buck and face zero consequences (opioid epidemic as just one example).  Whistleblowers publish smoking gun evidence of massive high-level corruption and war crimes with regularity, and they face horrendous consequences while the wrongdoers exposed face none, because Boomers frankly seem to just admire that stuff.

Everything's damn bleak and absurd, and there is absolutely a generational reckoning coming.  I just don't know when.  There have been so many lines crossed that had me thinking "Surely this is the moment.  Surely this won't be tolerated."  But I've been continually disappointed.  I've stopped looking for it.  But it's definitely coming, and it's going to be a volcanic release of pressure and transformation of landscape.

I think Muse sums it up best...

398
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: September 02, 2019, 10:47:54 pm »
hey, if they all shoot each other there are fewer morons voting for republicans

Huh, I've now been confronted with the image of many of my friends (those who would vote for Republicans) being shot. And also the suggestion that this would be a good thing. What a great image to have in my head. Thanks a lot.

The context being that they are mostly shot by each other as the result of an environment that they openly advocate for.

399
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: August 27, 2019, 02:05:56 am »
Then we start this train all over again. As I mentioned, it's pretty near impossible for us to do more damage to the planet than the worst of mass extinction events (which dumped more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have known fossil fuels to do ourselves), and given that those failed to actually reduce life back to nothing but inconsequential microbes, I'd be hard-pressed to see us do better. Even if we did manage to pull off something that devastating, as I mentioned the damage to the actual conditions on the planet would be temporary (presuming CO2 and not, say, radioactive isotopes due to a nuclear apocalypse). The same processes that turned those microbes into everything that we have today would keep chugging away to do that all over again.

For reference, it took around 650 million years to go from first bits of multicellular life (Ediacaran period) to where we are now. Presuming we somehow managed to fuck up so badly that all multicellular organisms are dead, that still leaves plenty of room before proper catastrophe (Moon getting too far away, issues with the Earth's core, ever-growing Sun) actually extinguishes life on Earth for good for things to have rebounded back to where they are now.

So, no; our grand climate fuckery will not doom the planet. It will fuck up life as we know it, and our own lives, but not damn life altogether. If you want to do that, then you need to start setting off nukes.

Someone brings this up in every conversation I've ever had about environmental collapse, and I've never been sure what the point is.

400
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: August 26, 2019, 05:20:21 pm »
Either way, I see it as the last nail in civilization's coffin if nothing is done soon to save the Amazon.
Eh, I think you're either giving too much credit to climate change or too little credit to civilization.

As I'm often pointing out to people, climate change is apocalyptic, but there are several other apocalyptic environmental situations going on at the same time.  I don't like how mainstream environmental politics is so tunnel visioned on climate change.  I wish the common phrase would be environmental collapse, instead.  Habitat destruction, pesticides, and plastics in the ocean are all going to destroy us if they continue unabated.

The Amazon lives right at the intersection of many of these concerns.

But yeah, I genuinely think that human civilization is far more dependent on a healthy natural environment than most realize or want to admit, and that the current state of the environment is apocalyptic.  Hand-waving that technological innovation is going to save us is magical thinking.  And with only a few years left and all of these problems accelerating in pace, it's still only on the fringes that anybody is acknowledging the kind of changes necessary to address these problems.  Republicans think any concern for the environment whatsoever is based on radical hysterical lies.  Meanwhile, centrist Democrats think a submarine that goes around replacing melting glaciers with perpetual motion energy is more realistic than a Green New Deal.  I don't see why I should be giving civilization very much credit right now.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottsnowden/2019/08/19/ice-making-mini-submarines-is-the-latest-idea-to-re-freeze-the-arctic/#44235663673e

Plus... you do know the Amazon is directly responsible for a pretty big chunk of the world's oxygen supply, right?

401
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: August 26, 2019, 04:30:04 pm »
Either way, I see it as the last nail in civilization's coffin if nothing is done soon to save the Amazon.

402
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: August 21, 2019, 04:10:17 am »
You're not wrong.  But on the other hand, you're not making a very convincing argument that we should focus on alleviating the fears that motivate fascists, when you just described them as a fear of having to actually respect and tolerate other people while not living in a luxury bubble at the center of the universe.  That's not something I really care to validate in any fashion whatsoever.

You also rightly point out that demagogues know how to tap into irrational fears, but I don't think you give this the weight that it deserves.  Not all of them are fear-motivated.  Some are true believers, opportunists, or simply love stirring up the conflict.  There are very few antifa-sympathetic people out there who don't believe that it's really important to make this distinction.  There's more than just fear to the likes of Richard Spencer, and the vast majority of physical conflict antifa has been involved in to my knowledge have either been direct self-defense, intervention on behalf of someone else who's in danger, or targeting Richard Spencer-like high profile figures in attempts to drive them specifically out of the spotlight.  And in Richard Spencer's case, it worked, by his own admission... "just not fun anymore."

I do believe that outreach to people who are more innocently misled by swallowing propaganda or by toxic upbringing is really important.  And I have sometimes been the guy at other times to remind people that we need to be mindful that anger is a response to feelings of powerlessness, and we need to be mindful of that.  These points just aren't all-encompassing answers to the problem.

Anyway, yeah, I haven't got around to gathering up any stuff tonight.  Been kinda not very motivated to do so, though, after sluissa and nenjin basically said that it wouldn't matter to them anyway.  Because any group is exclusively defined by the worst thing any one of them does.

403
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: August 20, 2019, 07:17:42 pm »
People saying that antifas engaging in violence only strengthens their enemies are absolutely right, which is why the right wing tries so hard to point out when antifa is violent.

I'm convinced that I could post that the moon is green, and somebody would blandly respond with this unsubstantiated statement.  It's so non-sequitur at this point.

You believe this.  I get it.  Seriously.  I know that this is a thing that various people here believe to be true.  So simply repeating it point blank doesn't add anything.  Try to build an argument on something more than repetition of a statement.

I feel I am extremely generous about giving benefit of the doubt and being non-judgmental.  But at what point am I allowed to feel like what's really being said is.... "Today is Wednesday".... and the point isn't to convince but to repeat.... and I'm only prompting that repetition.

SG'd probably be better at noting specific examples, though. I too am pretty beat at the mo'.

Yeah, I'm exhausted, too.  I'm dealing with some super deep personal stuff these days (a divorce at the heart of it, but this does not begin to describe).  I devoted far too much time to this lastnight, but I'm a sucker for getting drawn in.  I have to be somewhere tomorrow and can't stay up so late again.  Got to focus and get my work done earlier so I can get to bed and not oversleep.  But I will maybe see about putting some stuff together.

404
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: August 20, 2019, 05:07:37 pm »
And I'm not saying "Well fuck it, violence"

I'm opposing a violent characterization of antifa, because they are not on the whole as violent as made out and they engage in a much wider range of actions than just violence.  This is not something unique to antifa, but a type of reactionary hysteria I've seen regarding leftist activism for the entire 18 years I've been paying attention to leftist activism.

And I'm defending violence being on the table as an option, while not blanket condoning every act of violence.

The claim put forth is that antifa helps the alt-right grow.  I'm debating the credibility of this claim.  I don't understand how this claim can be seen as credible when the people making it
  • Fail to characterize antifa's activity correctly
  • Hyperfocus exclusively on a small selection of events that provide confirmation bias with disregard to proportionate and contextual comparison to the full tapestry of actions on both sides
  • Refuse to address the growth of fascism that was happening before antifa became large and controversial
  • Do not have any constructive input to offer that demonstrates an understanding of the reasons and methods by which fascism grows
I'm debating this because at a time when fascism is already powerful and on the rise, mischaracterizing and condemning those who are engaging in anti-fascist activity (of all sorts - not just violence) is directly beneficial to fascists.  If you want to condemn reckless violence, then ok.  I agree with that.  What I disagree with is the claims of "antifa is bad because they're just an angry mob engaging in reckless violence".

Yeah, not having an alternative doesn't make someone wrong.  But it also doesn't inspire confidence that they know what they're talking about, and aren't just reacting without putting any effort into having a complete perspective.

405
General Discussion / Re: AmeriPol thread
« on: August 20, 2019, 04:01:34 pm »
If you don't read anything else I have to say, read this: Do not ignore the alt-right. You have to fight them in ways that are effective, as opposed to being not effective. You should also avoid methods that are actively beneficial to the alt-right. I'm not sure how the previous concept is debatable for people who want to fight the alt-right. I'm sort of tired of getting an argument back that says "I EITHER HAVE TO PUNCH EVERYONE I SEE IN FRONT OF ME IMMEDIATELY OR NOT FIGHT AT ALL".

I'm not sure who's saying anything of the sort.  I'm arguing for the spirit of nazi-punching to be on the table as an option, and it's exhausting to have this constantly framed as a hyperviolent impulse to assault anyone over any shade of disagreement.  I'm not arguing in favor of every instance of people in masks beating someone. 

I've also pointed out repeatedly that the violent behavior of antifa is ridiculously exaggerated.  There are exceptions but they are few.  As I already said, counter-protesters generally show up ready for a fight, because they have to be by nature of the situation they're putting themselves in, but few show up wanting a fight. 

Almost every claim of excessive violence gets debunked as bad faith framing of the encounter or agent provocateurs.  In other words, propaganda.  They rely on the fact that most will see a headline or a 20 second video clip and retain their first-impression reaction indefinitely without digging any deeper.  The same thing the conservative side of politics does in general.  And I know that part of this argument is that fighting them gives them that propaganda material.  But maybe we should be more concerned about the fact that some are participating in spreading their propaganda while making that argument?

And I'm tired of seeing "Yeah, ok, but you shouldn't fight the alt-right in ways that benefit them" without any further explanation, which may not be explicitly stating "never fight", but when you put all the wordplay going on from everyone saying this together without any further explanation, that's what it amounts to in practice. 

If you want to get anywhere with expressing the idea that something should be done in ways that are effective vs not-effective, then you need to explain what is effective and what isn't.  Nobody is explaining what is effective.  The only thing put forward has been "do all the same things but more cold and emotionless".  And.... ok....  Besides this, I don't know what to make of the anti-nazi punching crowd's stance other than "ignore them" or "rational debate".  Both haven't been said explicitly very much in this round of this debate in this thread, but this has come up dozens of times around here and I'm pulling some continuity from previous rounds in order to make sense of things.  Because if I don't do that, it's like... "Don't confront them because they just feed off that but nobody's saying don't confront them just do it in ways that are effective."


I feel that antifa's nazi-punch squad and say, a random disorganized mob punching and pillaging everything is a very small and often fleeting distinction.

Honestly, the conspiracy theorist deep inside me thinks antifa is just another far right group that fights far right groups to sow further violence and breed a persecution PR for actual far right groups.  Or even to shift blame for half the punching and pillaging a far right mob might do.

Agent provocateurs are a classic strategy employed against the left.  Police have even been forced to admit to doing it in court.  Identifying and mitigating them is something that comes up in any review of direct action protocol with experienced left-wing activists.

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 844