Trump inauguration

[Joun_Lord]

Okay, but this is missing an important point.......... (apologies for snipping your post)

That was my point, you don't ignore evil. You don't let it fester and grow in strength like a fungus, like a cancer, like any other metaphor implying pervasive rot or disease. Ignoring it, acting like it doesn't exist, or thinking its been pushed away is foolish.

I ain't saying we should compromise with fucks like Spencer or even Trump. I'm all for compromise normally for many things, I think thats the best way to have a good society is for people to come together, find common ground, all that care bears rainbow shit. Compromise of rights, nah fuck that. Compromising with somebody like Spencer means compromising rights, lives, and that is no compromise worth bearing.

Does that mean destroy people like Spencer, to attack them? No, not unless given no choice. The goal shouldn't even be to destroy the ideology but to make it irrelevant.

Trump arose not because the system was broken but because people were complacent about the toxic ideology some of Trumps supporters espouse, because others were forgotten, and because people tried to break the political system by pushing down people. That is the reason Obama came to power, disenfranchised people that the system was broken for, people forgotten or actively hated by the establishment. In perhaps a bit of irony a similar wave propelled Trump to the same office, MLK bust and all allegedly.

The way to stop Trump and people like him, first don't be take by histrionics. Trump is not Hitler, not Mussolini, not even Duterte. Republicans are not brown shirts, well not all of them. Understand that first and foremost is key to understanding the aims and goals of them and separating those people, good people, normal people, just people with slightly different wants and desires from you or I or that guy over there, fuck that guy sitting over there watching us all creepy like, from out and out complete fucks like Spencer.

Second, and this I think is key, be against the ideology and not the person. Even someone like Spencer one should hate what he stands for rather then him as a person. Spencer is a hateful piece of shit, we should not stoop to their level though. I'm not saying be besties with him but maybe don't attack him, certainly not physically. Go after his shitty ideology, don't attack it though, don't drive it underground so it might gain strength and rise anew. Render it irrelevant. Show that all their theories of races and genders and all that crazy Mein Kampfy Chair bullshit is just that, bullshit.

You don't destroy a racist, you make him transform into a truck......I mean into someone who isn't a racist through education, through experience, through rendering it as obsolete as my cell phone (fuck all of you with your newfangled rectangle phones, flip phones that just make calls and thats about it are the only true way to go).

Sometimes that not possible, sometimes no amount of education will change someone. Sometimes even you must fight for your own rights by fighting against them. But that should not be something done with haste, something done lightly.

As you said, we are not in that place to fight. We could go there, most definitely. American exceptionalism or not we are not immune from such chaos (for the longest time I used to pronounce that word like "chi-os, I had always read it but never heard it spoken aloud, I was really confused when someone first said "kayos", reading is a fun thing) and we must be vigilant. But we should not be the ones to fire the first shot or throw the first punch.

It's mostly borne from social media, but there is a very significant portion of liberals and centrists who are more than willing to give neo-Nazis a platform, failing to understand that the ideology of a neo-Nazi is antithetical to that of the concept of free speech. It is a failing to understand that history has already taught us the consequences of Nazism, of fascist dictators, and to give the neo-Nazis any modicum of legitimacy is to not only ignore history, but also devalue the education that was supposed to have taught us of it. It's an implicit belief that Nazi ideas must have some merit to them, otherwise why bother wasting time with their nonsense?

Yes, there are people this dumb who are supposedly on "our side".

Giving them a platform to spew their garbage (zod damn I love that word spew, its so goddamn great for fun mental images) is repellent, is disgusting, it upsetting but should not be a problem. Neo-Nazism is not incompatible with free speech, thats the point of free speech is to let even pieces of shit like some jackbooted thugs who unfortunately make people who like jackboots for no political reason unable to enjoy them say what they want. Free speech is stops being free the moment we stop people we don't like from partaking, our own speech can stop being free too if it becomes something someone else doesn't like.

Doesn't mean accept what Spencer shits out, to even listen to it, but to stop it, especially with violence is what gives fucks like that legitimacy and power.

In an ideal society, I would certainly agree with you. However, we live very, very far away from that ideal society now.

In today's society, there is a real, legitimate fear that white supremacists will have more power than they have ever before had in the US government. Spencer's words, we would hope, should speak for themselves and make it obvious how much of a cartoon villain he is. However ... that hasn't happened. His position has somehow been escalated much higher than it ever should have been. Why is that?

White supremacists might have more power then anytime in recent history, not more then they've ever had, thats kinda what I've been harping about in regards to hyperbole. But thats beside the point.

The fact that Spencer is such a giant gaping asshole is obvious and is why he until recently was not considered anything beyond a nuisance to be ridiculed. That attitude is why he has achieved such heights, his power comes from people ignoring him except to point and laugh at the freak. People were not ready to be cold cocked by him, people were not prepared to stand against him on equal footing.

I can only speculate why. To examine that would take a conversation outside the scope of this one. But, the very fact that he has this high a position in our brave new world scares the living shit out of marginalized people, including myself. The problem is, we have tried to reason him and his kind out of existence. This has happened starting from our times in middle/high school. We have had huge entertainers like John Oliver laying the smackdown on them in all the comic glory you can muster from that darkness. Yet, this has not seemed to affect them much, if it has in any significant way.

Our brave new world is still the same old world, we just forgot that. People like Spencer never went away, they just sulked in the shadows like some goth kid gazing upon the popular people, only remember to be picked. We might have forgot them but that doesn't mean they stopped existing. I'm a somewhat marginalized person and yes, people like Spencer scare me when they achieve such heights. However I try to temper my fears with logic, with knowledge, with understanding, maybe the occasional tub of ice cream.

You cannot reason them out of existence, you might be able to reason away what they believe in but not always. Snarking at them like Mr Current Year isn't going to make them go away either, just makes them more defensive, more tenacious. Even with all the education all the snark, everything there will still exist people like Spencer. Thats a fact. You have to learn to accept that.

But at the same time learn to accept people like Spencer are far fewer then ever, that even some country bumpkin Mountaineer American like myself has through education, through experience given up pretty much any hateful ideology I might have had as a wee lad. I say pretty much because I'm still a bit of a racist, I hate NASCAR, most races in general like bike races or foot races. They are all inferior races!!!!!

Marginalized people are seeing that happen. They are seeing the failing of facts, of reason, getting through to not only the Nazis, not only the people in the middle who for whatever fucking reason have some measure of sympathy for the Nazis, but also the people in governmental power. They are seeing their only other avenues of protest being gradually eliminated. They see the world around them almost deliberately cornering them and being complacent about it.

I have been seeing people I'd formerly known as strict nonviolent advocates cheering on the punching of a Nazi. This fear of nonviolence no longer mattering? It is spreading, as a consequence of the cancer that is almost two decades of Bush expanding governmental powers to near-authoritarian levels, to Obama barely making efforts to reduce those powers, and now to Trump moving forward to expand those powers to textbook authoritarianism. People are no longer willing to be patient, because life only lasts for so long, and whatever incrementalist changes we have accomplished in the last two decades are now in dire threat of disappearing into the void.

They are getting desperate. We are getting desperate. I don't hold the belief that violence should be the first resort to action, and there was a time when I'd seen people itching to get a punch in years back, before there was a concept of Trump actually becoming President. Times now though are very different; the beginning of 2017 is a different world from the beginning of 2015. To those who are marginalized, we are seeing that violence may soon be the only thing that will affect any real change.

That is fear, hysterical fear talking. The same hysterical fear that leads to accusing everyone who voted for Trump as a racist Nazi and compels people to violence over ideological differences. If there no reason to fear this coming age? I'd by lying like a Trump spokesman if I said there was no reason to fear, there clearly is. Some reprehensible people are in power or close to it, there are people that are less then friendly towards you as a member of the LGBT community or I as a damn dirty devil worshipping atheist.

But the fact is that is reason to be wary, to be worried, to even prepare for bad things to happen in a worst case scenario. Maybe even go buy a gun, Not because of Trump so much but because guns are fun and its a hell of alot harder for someone to attack you if you can blow them away. But that doesn't mean go out and blast someone you see with a Trump bumper sticker. That means be cautious, be prepared, but don't let your fear rule you or run away from you.

To those are marginalized now, those that can be marginalized in the future, the time is now to fight back in the system, to do protests and marches and even bullshit twitter hashtag campaigns. The time is not yet for violence and hopefully never will. It might, it might not happen. But you damn sure better be sure its the right time before you bust out the bats and chains.

I want to exhaust every single possible nonviolent opportunity before the hammer falls. I see some promise from other movements and other ideas, but even I am beginning to lose hope in them being meaningful. I'm a trans woman, I haven't had a job in years, I've been suffering chronic pain and a litany of mental illnesses for almost as long, and my current living situation forces me to choose between living with an abusive nigh-Trump supporting parent, or starving to death on the streets. I will be soon moving to another state where I may or may not be able to get the same coverage that I have with New York City's Medicaid program. This is all an extremely delicate house of cards that, if it topples, I will have utterly no idea how to progress from there.

There are multitudes of people who have even worse situations than I do.

Imagine their pain. Imagine their desperation. Imagine why all of this would lead them to believe that the system will never work for them. Imagine them hearing outsiders to their living situations telling them to be absolute saints, where those outsiders are living in what may as well be paradises compared to theirs'.

Imagine the utter contempt they will not only have, then, to the system, but also to those who will not offer an inch of sympathy to them.

Then you will imagine only a fraction of a percentage of the frustration they and others more privileged than them, but still belonging in their groups, have felt for generations in this country. This fury, if unaddressed by those in power, will lead to a dark path no matter what any of us believe or decide.

Also to be honest, anyone who would sympathize with Spencer and Nazism simply because he was decked on camera ... well, I question their intelligence and authenticity to anything liberal or left to begin with.

I know how you feel. I'm not exactly in a much better place physically, mentally, or financially. I do live in fear of my life crumbling like one of those constructs made of rectangles bits of plastic or paper used in games of chance and other games in the shape of a domicile, what ever you call that. I fear having a mental break, I certainly fear retreating completely into my own mind as I've had trouble stopping myself from doing.

So I do understand the anger and frustration towards our "betters", towards those who would attack us for being different, for not having wealth, for being who we are and who we choose to be.

I even understand the want to do something drastic, even something violent. More then anyone will ever know really, my scars and my words would never be enough to tell the whole story of how I feel and to this day I wonder if thats for the best.

But I also understand restraint, I understand violence solves little if anything, that a hand of friendship and some understanding does more then a closed fist and closed mind.

Does that mean one needs to sympathize with shits like Spencer or to "turn the other cheek" if they attack? Not really, though I would think one should have atleast some human sympathy (cue calls of hypocrisy on my part). Spencer says monstrous things, he is not a monster. When he was struck for saying things he was a human being in pain. One does not need to be an inauthentic liberal or leftie pinko commie to not like seeing anyone in pain.

Thats why we are better then Spencer, because even someone like Spencer we'd prefer not to see hurt, because we aren't monsters. We are better.

And sexier, don't forget that.

[The Romulan Republic]

Accepted. Here is a more concise explanation of my position: I am heavily conflicted on at what point violence will be necessary. Ideally, I would only wish for it to be in the cases you had mentioned; genocide, slavery, mass internment, etc. There is another part of me that is seeing it happen far sooner than we may both want, which may be the point where the economy collapses, a new recession begins, and the system fails to bring people to a level where they can continue to live, and feed their families. That part of my beliefs is winning as time passes.

I draw the line for armed revolt at state-sanctioned slavery and genocide/comparable acts of mass murder*, because those are cases where the scope and depth of the suffering and destruction may render war the lesser evil, and because in those cases non-violent resistance is of extremely limited effectiveness- particularly genocide. Passively resisting genocide just means you sit their and get killed faster.

*Note that I consider the use of WMDs preemptively to be grounds to overthrow a government by force. The only reason I don't support doing so with Assad after he used chemical weapons is because it would risk war with Russia, and to be blunt, no one country is worth that.

Sometimes even when we feel a course of action is theoretically justifiable, it is not practically so. A war with Russia to remove Assad would be a cure that's worse than the disease.

Humans, being animals with an instinctual desire to survive and failing to see the system properly providing ways to, will resort to anything they can if the world falls. I'll go into this more in my reply to Joun, but suffice to say, I've now reached a point where I believe I would be extremely insensitive and out of touch to the reality that people below me on the socioeconomic ladder face if I condemn them, as well as completely hypocritical.

I could understand armed revolt by those in extreme poverty, perhaps empathize with them, but their is a difference between understanding and believing it is the right course of action. More on this shortly.

I posited those arguments as a devil's-advocate-but-not-so-devil's-advocate position representing not only those I speak of's thought processes, but also mine in that half of my mind. They were not to directly advocate for violence but to explain how the methods you brought up can fail, and fail spectacularly. In my view, failure to understand these will result in epic disasters on the level of the Democrats not predicting Trump's electoral victory.

I have no serious desire for bloodshed to occur. I don't want to live in a war-torn ruin of another page of history, and if the government does not fuck anything else up, we just might get through this alive. I will, though ..... have to accept the very likely reality that this country will be going down a path it will never recover from, and by the actions of its own internal structures. The world of Neil Blomkamp's Elysium is one I see us approaching day by day, and like the concept of war itself, there is no easy answer nor any likable solution that will get us out if that time arrives.

As one who has often been accused of being alarmist, I find this a little too cynical and defeatist.

Could the worst case scenario come to pass? Of course. But concluding that it will likely happen prematurely leads to tunnel vision, to rushing to one option (in this case, mass violence) as the only likely or practical outcome, which makes that outcome more likely.

I'll be blunt: I'd been observing your replies to any subject or post which had mentioned the topic of violence and nonviolence, and I haven't been able to gain a consistent viewpoint from you. Sometimes you leave those exemptions from your pacifism, and other times you talk as if there should be no exemption, period. Until now, I haven't chosen to inquire what is your real belief because I didn't see it as worth the trouble. Then you replied to my first post.

I find this difficult to believe, because their are a number of points that I have repeated fairly consistently for years on this board (and I challenge you to find a single post where I have ever advocated absolute pacifism- if you can I will retract it right now, with my apologies), but to avoid any possible ambiguity on the issue, here is a brief outline of my views:

I believe that generally speaking, the use or threat of force, and particularly lethal force, is morally wrong and pragmatically unwise, for a number of reasons, mainly:

a) It gets people, including innocent people, hurt and killed, and causes destruction.

b) It undermines any attempt at creating a stable or functional society.

c) Violence poses risks to those who use it as well. Revolutions very often fail, and very often succeed at putting in just another abhorrent regime.

d) Regarding political violence specifically, I regard it as inherently undemocratic to try to impose ones' views by force.

However, I also believe that it is justifiable for an individual to use force to the extent that it is necessary to defend themselves or others from an immediate physical threat, for a political movement to use force to the extent that it is necessary to prevent mass murder or liberate slaves (see above), and for a country to use force to the extant that it is necessary to defend itself or its allies against military aggression, or to end mass murder or slavery.

I was admittedly sardonic about touching a nerve; I don't view you as "less American". That is definitely nowhere close to where I was going with that. I viewed you as living in a position of privilege, in a different country separate from the policies of the United States. A country with socialized healthcare, compared to a country soon to have crippled healthcare. You compared your position with people living here by stating that the US's policies have an effect on the rest of the world, but that is an academic point of view where people can craft theories all they want, but it is drastically separate from what the people living here will immediately feel.

In other words, you seemed like an upper class rich fuck talking down to the middle and lower classes, when comparing the state of Canada and the soon-to-be state of the United States.

I'll be willing to drop this, though. I have no desire to pursue this and I have infinitely better things to argue about.

My duel citizenship is a rather touchy subject for me- I take quite a bit of pride in it, probably more than I should, and regard myself as very much a citizen of two countries. My sentiments are effectively that if I were ever asked to choose between them, the one that asked me to choose would be the one to loose.

Beyond that, I can assure you I am in no way upper class or rich. I'm better off than some, certainly, but I am currently unemployed (or perhaps sporadically employed would be more accurate), and to be blunt, the only reason that I am not on the street is likely because my Mum has a house that I can live in.

Nor am I unaffected by what happens in the United States. I grew up for the first 13 years of my life in the United States. I remember going to school in the United States on September 11, 2001. I have friends and family in the United States, including members of vulnerable groups. I take my obligations as a voter seriously. And while I do not think it would be appropriate to discuss my family's finances with a stranger on the internet, do not doubt that we will be economically effected by Republican policies. As, for that matter, I was by the aftermath of the 2008 recession, which affected unemployment and job availability in Canada as well.

And in a globalized world, US politics does affect everyone to some extent. W's election sure as hell affected the Iraqis, to take an extreme example, but Canada is certainly not immune if our only neighbour and biggest trading partner goes belly-up. To think otherwise is utterly absurd.

Honestly if you don't consider facing mass starvation and destitution for not only yourself, your entire family, but also your entire community enough to be at least a spark, then it's going to be almost impossible to drive in this point into you.

I can understand why some would respond to that with violence, but again would have to question weather it is an approach that is practically likely to succeed.

Moreover, I do not wish to sound heartless, but their are always people starving, always people having their rights violated. If the simple fact of such things happening were grounds for armed revolt, then we would never know an end to civil war.

So these things would have to be happening on a great scale, and without a more effective means of redress, before I could even consider violence as an option.

Edited to more accurately clarify my views on the use of force in self-defence.

[The Romulan Republic]

Since it slipped my mind earlier, I'll add that I feel that the term "privileged" is used too often as a way of saying "Your argument is invalid because of your identity". While our experiences can certainly shape our views, and that ought to be taken into account when considering possible bias, it is wrong to treat "You are privileged" as a rebuttal in and of itself. I would actually contend that that is effectively a variety of ad hominem fallacy- attacking the speaker instead of the argument.

[Flagg]

Is anyone else seeing Joun_Lords penchant for insensitivity towards minority populations? It's kinda sad, because he's not stupid.

[Dragon Angel]

Trump arose not because the system was broken but because people were complacent about the toxic ideology some of Trumps supporters espouse, because others were forgotten, and because people tried to break the political system by pushing down people. That is the reason Obama came to power, disenfranchised people that the system was broken for, people forgotten or actively hated by the establishment. In perhaps a bit of irony a similar wave propelled Trump to the same office, MLK bust and all allegedly.

Not because the system was broken? Widespread voter disenfranchisement and the Electoral College putting Trump into office despite the vast difference of the popular vote is not a broken system?

Granted, the latter is baked into the American system, but to consider it not broken or not broken enough is an awfully cynical view of how a fair and democratic election properly functions.

Second, and this I think is key, be against the ideology and not the person. Even someone like Spencer one should hate what he stands for rather then him as a person. Spencer is a hateful piece of shit, we should not stoop to their level though. I'm not saying be besties with him but maybe don't attack him, certainly not physically. Go after his shitty ideology, don't attack it though, don't drive it underground so it might gain strength and rise anew. Render it irrelevant. Show that all their theories of races and genders and all that crazy Mein Kampfy Chair bullshit is just that, bullshit.

That isn't an aphorism to be taken as an absolute. When an ideology literally believes in the willful eradication of democratic government and the systematic extermination of all races not deemed pure enough, and you have people who intentionally follow it, believe in it, then you had better be right that the people will also be condemned. And not only condemned, but condemned hard.

When people who would be affected if a neo-Nazi gains power see Richard Spencer, they see the possibility that their very existence will be jeopardized. They don't see some "merely" misguided Southern conservative. They see someone who will inspire more Dylan Roofs to come forth.

Also, neo-Nazism is far from being underground and hasn't been underground for decades. Like I said, you have been basically learning about it since you were a teenager. The ideological battle started long before you were aware of it. People are seeing that battle now failing.

Giving them a platform to spew their garbage (zod damn I love that word spew, its so goddamn great for fun mental images) is repellent, is disgusting, it upsetting but should not be a problem. Neo-Nazism is not incompatible with free speech, thats the point of free speech is to let even pieces of shit like some jackbooted thugs who unfortunately make people who like jackboots for no political reason unable to enjoy them say what they want. Free speech is stops being free the moment we stop people we don't like from partaking, our own speech can stop being free too if it becomes something someone else doesn't like.

Doesn't mean accept what Spencer shits out, to even listen to it, but to stop it, especially with violence is what gives fucks like that legitimacy and power.

Absolute free speech is only functioning now because we do not yet have classical fascist policies in the books. If the neo-Nazis gained a platform, and they gained power because of that platform, then they would take steps to eliminate free speech as that is one of the central tenets of fascism, which neo-Nazism is. That they say it "politely" right now, today, does not change this fact.

Democracy only works as long as the structure to voice one's political concerns is holding. The neo-Nazi actively desires to subvert democracy by the very nature of Nazism. We know this because we have had decades to show in the early 20th century, and we also know that once a Nazi party subverts democracy, it then moves to enact its agenda of racial purity. Another central tenet.

The neo-Nazi ideology closing into power is not the result of it having been driven underground for the second half of the 20th century, or anything like that. Racism and xenophobic nationalism have been concepts that have existed for as long as the United States, and obviously they didn't just stop between World War II and today because thinking that would just be daft. It's an ideology that rides the coattails of those two, gaining prominence now because we have the most racist and xenophobic President to have been in power within our lifetimes. By no means has it been driven underground and left to fester for that long, and if you think that, then you don't have an understanding of the agenda of white supremacists, which have included attempting to infiltrate police forces and the military. (Of which, I might add, they both have policies explicitly forbidding Nazis, with very good reason. There, you already have an abridgement of your "freedom of speech"!)

White supremacists might have more power then anytime in recent history, not more then they've ever had, thats kinda what I've been harping about in regards to hyperbole. But thats beside the point.

The fact that Spencer is such a giant gaping asshole is obvious and is why he until recently was not considered anything beyond a nuisance to be ridiculed. That attitude is why he has achieved such heights, his power comes from people ignoring him except to point and laugh at the freak. People were not ready to be cold cocked by him, people were not prepared to stand against him on equal footing.

This is definitely not the case. I don't even know where to begin deconstructing this asinine assumption.

Our brave new world is still the same old world, we just forgot that. People like Spencer never went away, they just sulked in the shadows like some goth kid gazing upon the popular people, only remember to be picked. We might have forgot them but that doesn't mean they stopped existing. I'm a somewhat marginalized person and yes, people like Spencer scare me when they achieve such heights. However I try to temper my fears with logic, with knowledge, with understanding, maybe the occasional tub of ice cream.

This betrays a lack of knowledge of history. No one "forgot" about them just as no one forgot the KKK exists. They existed, but they were not given the level of power that Il Duce may intentionally or not grant them in the next 4-8 years. They did not have a political platform to fight on.

And I'm sorry but you being atheist is not comparable to a black person's struggles, the struggles of LGBTQs, and if we delve further into neo-Nazism, those of disabled people. An atheist's position in society may not exactly be the highest compared to Christians, but they are not close to being as low on the ladder as those three. You don't have nearly as much of a fear of your rights to live being restricted, or being abused by bigots and authorities, or imprisoned for who we are. There isn't going to be a "Defense of Judeo-Christian Theology Act" at any point in the projected future. I'd consider Islamic theists (who believe in the same fucking God) to be in an infinitely worse position than you'd ever land in.

But at the same time learn to accept people like Spencer are far fewer then ever, that even some country bumpkin Mountaineer American like myself has through education, through experience given up pretty much any hateful ideology I might have had as a wee lad. I say pretty much because I'm still a bit of a racist, I hate NASCAR, most races in general like bike races or foot races. They are all inferior races!!!!!

Have you been in a bubble the last several years? The groups that make up the "alt right" have been ballooning for a long time, and one of the signature events I remember that pushed them into further political prominence was GamerGate. Reactionary conservatism has been growing for much, much longer. They are most certainly not "far fewer than ever" if you have paid any attention to what has been going on.

That is fear, hysterical fear talking. The same hysterical fear that leads to accusing everyone who voted for Trump as a racist Nazi and compels people to violence over ideological differences. If there no reason to fear this coming age? I'd by lying like a Trump spokesman if I said there was no reason to fear, there clearly is. Some reprehensible people are in power or close to it, there are people that are less then friendly towards you as a member of the LGBT community or I as a damn dirty devil worshipping atheist.

Says the person who is not likely to face a f*gg*t bashing party or a lynch mob. Characterizing it as "hysterical" just further goes to show out how of your league you are in understanding what actually happens.

Stay woke.

To those are marginalized now, those that can be marginalized in the future, the time is now to fight back in the system, to do protests and marches and even bullshit twitter hashtag campaigns. The time is not yet for violence and hopefully never will. It might, it might not happen. But you damn sure better be sure its the right time before you bust out the bats and chains.

If you think that marginalized people haven't carefully considered all the variables involved, then ..... whatever.

But I also understand restraint, I understand violence solves little if anything, that a hand of friendship and some understanding does more then a closed fist and closed mind.

Spencer says monstrous things, he is not a monster. When he was struck for saying things he was a human being in pain. One does not need to be an inauthentic liberal or leftie pinko commie to not like seeing anyone in pain.

Thats why we are better then Spencer, because even someone like Spencer we'd prefer not to see hurt, because we aren't monsters. We are better.

This is the mindset of a Saturday morning cartoon. "If you do ____, you will be the same as them".

Spencer himself not being a monster? What in the flying fuck? I haven't seen this kind of brazen apologism for a while.

The hand of friendship cannot fundamentally work if the person you'd want to extend that hand to fundamentally opposes your existence. This is what neo-Nazism is to anyone who does not fit their definition of pure. You cannot expect those who will suffer under them to just go "love the sinner, hate the sin" and be done with it. The sinner has an ideology that opposes the marginalized's entire right to exist.

[Flagg]

Oh, calm down sweetheart. It's 1980 again and we're burning less Jews every day!

But really, the first amendment needs to exclude hate speech towards things you're born with. Put all the fucking confederate treason flags and swastikas where they fucking belong: Trash heaps and museums.

[Dragon Angel]

I draw the line for armed revolt at state-sanctioned slavery and genocide/comparable acts of mass murder*, because those are cases where the scope and depth of the suffering and destruction may render war the lesser evil, and because in those cases non-violent resistance is of extremely limited effectiveness- particularly genocide. Passively resisting genocide just means you sit their and get killed faster.

*Note that I consider the use of WMDs preemptively to be grounds to overthrow a government by force. The only reason I don't support doing so with Assad after he used chemical weapons is because it would risk war with Russia, and to be blunt, no one country is worth that.

Sometimes even when we feel a course of action is theoretically justifiable, it is not practically so. A war with Russia to remove Assad would be a cure that's worse than the disease.

"Practicality" can go both ways. You consider the Russia angle, but the living situation of the people could just as well be extremely impractical and render your point moot. Genocide is a relatively quick death. Extreme destitution is a slow and painful death. Choose your preferred form of dying.

I could understand armed revolt by those in extreme poverty, perhaps empathize with them, but their is a difference between understanding and believing it is the right course of action.

As one who has often been accused of being alarmist, I find this a little too cynical and defeatist.

Could the worst case scenario come to pass? Of course. But concluding that it will likely happen prematurely leads to tunnel vision, to rushing to one option (in this case, mass violence) as the only likely or practical outcome, which makes that outcome more likely.

It's a projection, and one that is quite viable given the circumstances. It was tunnel vision to think the Democrats had a slam dunk in the election. It will be equally tunnel vision if we delude ourselves into thinking that with Trump's clown car of an administration, we cannot in any possible way be too close to the worst case. I projected approximately 10 years in a previous thread; if we are too complacent, that can easily turn to less. Maybe even just four. Who knows.

Don't be complacent. Be watchful.

I find this difficult to believe, because their are a number of points that I have repeated fairly consistently for years on this board (and I challenge you to find a single post where I have ever advocated absolute pacifism- if you can I will retract it right now, with my apologies)

If you think I'm going to search through thousands of posts in your history to find this, then you're mistaken. Anyway, believe what you want.

I believe that generally speaking, the use or threat of force, and particularly lethal force, is morally wrong and pragmatically unwise, for a number of reasons, mainly:

a) It gets people, including innocent people, hurt and killed, and causes destruction.

It's good then that no one has been killed. The issue is, innocent people have already been hurt. See NoDAPL.

Clarify this for me: When you say destruction, do you mean property destruction? If so, would you put this as equal to people's lives?

b) It undermines any attempt at creating a stable or functional society.

A stable or functional society is already undermined when the forces that are supposed to keep it that way, such as the cops, work to silence the voices of those who are deeply concerned their positions in society will not be so stable or functional. To say otherwise would be prioritizing order over justice, and there can be no possible moral or ethical order without proper justice.

c) Violence poses risks to those who use it as well. Revolutions very often fail, and very often succeed at putting in just another abhorrent regime.

This is a valid concern. This is why if conditions degenerate to where people see it as better to have a revolution, then it would be infinitely better to focus on the causes of this than to blame the victims.

d) Regarding political violence specifically, I regard it as inherently undemocratic to try to impose ones' views by force.

Would you not regard it as equally undemocratic for multinational corporations and billionaires to impose their views by subverting democracy? It may be more "polite" and "civilized" than mass violence for them to do so by bri--"lobbying", but it ends up becoming just as antithetical to democracy.

The rich have extensive financial weapons at their disposal. The middle class and the poor, failing finances and failing the ability to use "proper" channels, only have one other option to be heard.

However, I also believe that it is justifiable for an individual to use force to the extent that it is necessary to defend themselves or others from an immediate physical threat, for a political movement to use force to the extent that it is necessary to prevent mass murder or liberate slaves (see above), and for a country to use force to the extant that it is necessary to defend itself or its allies against military aggression, or to end mass murder or slavery.

Then you would have no objection to the Standing Rock tribe retaliating, given the circumstances behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. They have had crimes done against them that make me admire their patience throughout all those months, because they have been saints compared to what historically other protests under similar circumstances would have responded with. I don't think they will be able to maintain this level of patience for much longer.

My duel citizenship is a rather touchy subject for me- I take quite a bit of pride in it, probably more than I should, and regard myself as very much a citizen of two countries. My sentiments are effectively that if I were ever asked to choose between them, the one that asked me to choose would be the one to loose.

Beyond that, I can assure you I am in no way upper class or rich. I'm better off than some, certainly, but I am currently unemployed (or perhaps sporadically employed would be more accurate), and to be blunt, the only reason that I am not on the street is likely because my Mum has a house that I can live in.

It was a metaphor. Of course you're not upper class. But compared to people in the United States who are about to be facing their health insurance stripped away? Who are going to be facing ultra-conservative social policies that Canada will not be affected by? That may as well make you upper class to them.

Nor am I unaffected by what happens in the United States. I grew up for the first 13 years of my life in the United States. I remember going to school in the United States on September 11, 2001. I have friends and family in the United States, including members of vulnerable groups. I take my obligations as a voter seriously. And while I do not think it would be appropriate to discuss my family's finances with a stranger on the internet, do not doubt that we will be economically effected by Republican policies. As, for that matter, I was by the aftermath of the 2008 recession, which affected unemployment and job availability in Canada as well.

And in a globalized world, US politics does affect everyone to some extent. W's election sure as hell affected the Iraqis, to take an extreme example, but Canada is certainly not immune if our only neighbour and biggest trading partner goes belly-up. To think otherwise is utterly absurd.

I remember going to school on 9/11/2001 as well. I actually went to school just a few blocks away from the World Trade Center. If we're going to be using that as any sort of a valid metric.

Of course US politics affects everyone. This isn't some unknown fact. The problem is a matter of degree. If Trump decides to deport every single Muslim and Mexican from the United States and you as a Muslim or Mexican happen to be living in Canada, that is not going to affect you. If Mike Pence somehow rams an anti-LGBTQ agenda through the system, that is not going to affect LGBTQ people living in Canada. If there is a federal heartbeat abortion bill signed into law, that will not affect cis women in Canada.

If all you have to worry about is employment, then frankly, I envy your position.

Moreover, I do not wish to sound heartless, but their are always people starving, always people having their rights violated. If the simple fact of such things happening were grounds for armed revolt, then we would never know an end to civil war.

So these things would have to be happening on a great scale, and without a more effective means of redress, before I could even consider violence as an option.

Which ... again, may be much closer than either of us hope it could ever come to pass.

Since it slipped my mind earlier, I'll add that I feel that the term "privileged" is used too often as a way of saying "Your argument is invalid because of your identity". While our experiences can certainly shape our views, and that ought to be taken into account when considering possible bias, it is wrong to treat "You are privileged" as a rebuttal in and of itself. I would actually contend that that is effectively a variety of ad hominem fallacy- attacking the speaker instead of the argument.

Except there was more to my argument if you read it than "check ur privilege lol".

[The Romulan Republic]

"Practicality" can go both ways. You consider the Russia angle, but the living situation of the people could just as well be extremely impractical and render your point moot. Genocide is a relatively quick death. Extreme destitution is a slow and painful death. Choose your preferred form of dying.

A slow death gives you more options to find ways to avoid death, and continue living.

And the thing about a hypothetical war with Russia is that it would escalate the death toll from hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions, and the scope of the conflict from one region of the world to the entire world.

It's a projection, and one that is quite viable given the circumstances. It was tunnel vision to think the Democrats had a slam dunk in the election. It will be equally tunnel vision if we delude ourselves into thinking that with Trump's clown car of an administration, we cannot in any possible way be too close to the worst case. I projected approximately 10 years in a previous thread; if we are too complacent, that can easily turn to less. Maybe even just four. Who knows.

Don't be complacent. Be watchful.

This seems to me a straw man. I'm not saying that its the only possibility but simply that treating it as the only likely outcome inclines one to disregard alternatives and rush more quickly toward the worst possible end, because they believe that their is no other way.

If you think I'm going to search through thousands of posts in your history to find this, then you're mistaken. Anyway, believe what you want.

If you're unwilling or unable to back up a claim about me that I believe to be false, then concede it. You know how this works, surely.

It's good then that no one has been killed. The issue is, innocent people have already been hurt. See NoDAPL.

Clarify this for me: When you say destruction, do you mean property destruction? If so, would you put this as equal to people's lives?

No one has been killed, to my knowledge, if you are specifically referring to Standing Rock. But that is only one part of a much large destruction.

As to your questions: Property destruction, environmental destruction, cultural destruction. All are a consequence of war.

And no, of course I would not put them as equal to peoples' lives, and that's a huge (and to me, rather insulting) leap from what I posted.

A stable or functional society is already undermined when the forces that are supposed to keep it that way, such as the cops, work to silence the voices of those who are deeply concerned their positions in society will not be so stable or functional. To say otherwise would be prioritizing order over justice, and there can be no possible moral or ethical order without proper justice.

I mostly agree with this in and of itself, but I would still say that the disruption and chaos caused by a corrupt police force is usually less than the disruption and chaos caused by a civil war. You really can't top a civil war for chaos and destruction, short of an open war between major powers.

This is a valid concern. This is why if conditions degenerate to where people see it as better to have a revolution, then it would be infinitely better to focus on the causes of this than to blame the victims.

And also to make all possible efforts to avoid the war in the first place.

Would you not regard it as equally undemocratic for multinational corporations and billionaires to impose their views by subverting democracy? It may be more "polite" and "civilized" than mass violence for them to do so by bri--"lobbying", but it ends up becoming just as antithetical to democracy.

It is undemocratic, but their's something particularly blatant about, in effect, holding a gun to someone's head and saying "Conform to my politics or get shot."

And I seriously hope you are not suggesting that the existence of corporate bribery is grounds for an armed revolution. Because at that point, you're effectively arguing that any sort of political corruption means its time to burn the country down, and by that reasoning, we should have been at war for decades.

Only, you know, not.

The rich have extensive financial weapons at their disposal. The middle class and the poor, failing finances and failing the ability to use "proper" channels, only have one other option to be heard.

This is exactly my point about you latching on to one option as the only one.

Peaceful protest and civil disobedience can have an enormous effect if you get sufficient numbers behind them. Their are costs yes, but small in comparison to the costs a civil war can entail.

We have less money, yes, but we have one advantage that the rich, almost by definition, will never have- numbers.

To take one recent example- Bernie Sanders was able to out-fundraise Hillary Clinton based overwhelmingly on small individual donors. And while he lost the race, he came far closer than pretty much anyone expected him to, given who he was opposing, his views, and how much the deck was stacked against him.

Who has more power: A million people who can give fifty dollars to the cause, or a single person that can give fifty million?

Then you would have no objection to the Standing Rock tribe retaliating, given the circumstances behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. They have had crimes done against them that make me admire their patience throughout all those months, because they have been saints compared to what historically other protests under similar circumstances would have responded with. I don't think they will be able to maintain this level of patience for much longer.

Yes, I fucking well would object to them "retaliating", if by that you mean engaging in preemptive/offensive violence/reprisals.

You seem to keep trying to muddy the waters by equating retaliatory violence with defensive violence, which does make me question your motives here.

I would probably not object, in theory, to individual protesters using force if necessary to defend themselves from an immediate physical threat. Although I would question the likely effectiveness and prudence of doing so, because the police will have more power, and turning it into a battle will cost the protesters sympathy with people who would otherwise support them.

I would absolutely object to them employing violence as a protest tactic, engaging in offensive violence or reprisals. The word you're looking for their is "terrorism".

It was a metaphor. Of course you're not upper class. But compared to people in the United States who are about to be facing their health insurance stripped away? Who are going to be facing ultra-conservative social policies that Canada will not be affected by? That may as well make you upper class to them.

I remember going to school on 9/11/2001 as well. I actually went to school just a few blocks away from the World Trade Center. If we're going to be using that as any sort of a valid metric.

Of course US politics affects everyone. This isn't some unknown fact. The problem is a matter of degree. If Trump decides to deport every single Muslim and Mexican from the United States and you as a Muslim or Mexican happen to be living in Canada, that is not going to affect you. If Mike Pence somehow rams an anti-LGBTQ agenda through the system, that is not going to affect LGBTQ people living in Canada. If there is a federal heartbeat abortion bill signed into law, that will not affect cis women in Canada.

If all you have to worry about is employment, then frankly, I envy your position.

Its not the only thing, no, as I thought I made clear.

But I have no interest in trying to one-up each other over who is more oppressed/affected. Its tasteless, and irrelevant. Of course their are people who have it worse than me. It does not therefore follow, however, that my arguments are wrong, or that I do not stand to be significantly affected.

Which ... again, may be much closer than either of us hope it could ever come to pass.

It certainly is if the it becomes the common view that it is the only plausible outcome.

I believe that it is worth doing everything we can to prevent that, because neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can imagine the horror that a civil war would be.

The last American Civil War cost over 600,000 lives. It was fought with single shot rifles and muskets, in an age when cavalry was still relevant on the battlefield. A repeat in the modern era, the age of machine guns and drones and ICBMs, when the US is also a global power, would quite literally be a horror beyond human comprehension. I can think of nothing worse we could do to ourselves short of initiating a full-scale nuclear exchange.

Except there was more to my argument if you read it than "check ur privilege lol".

Yet ultimately it seems to me that your point is that my view is somehow less valid because of my position.

[Flagg]

TRR: Your view isn't less valid, you just cannot understand on a visceral every day basis the experience of being a person whom is more likely to be assaulted, raped, murdered, and/or have less than equal status. So it's more like your view is just less informed.

[Dragon Angel]

A slow death gives you more options to find ways to avoid death, and continue living.

Tell that to the people suffering it. Tell that to the possible millions who may find themselves in that situation with no way out. You may not like what you get back from them.

And the thing about a hypothetical war with Russia is that it would escalate the death toll from hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions, and the scope of the conflict from one region of the world to the entire world.

Are we talking about Syria still or are we discussing somewhere else, because I'm not sure what your argument is here now.

This seems to me a straw man. I'm not saying that its the only possibility but simply that treating it as the only likely outcome inclines one to disregard alternatives and rush more quickly toward the worst possible end, because they believe that their is no other way.

On the flipside, keeping yourself open to options that may no longer exist would be keeping yourself out of touch within fantasy land.

And before you somehow twist this again to me going "rar get out the gunz", realize that I am not saying we are in a situation right at this moment where violence is the only option.

If you're unwilling or unable to back up a claim about me that I believe to be false, then concede it. You know how this works, surely.

Did I not say that I have better things to argue about? Did I not say that I'm dropping this? Then why are you continuing this subject?

As to your questions: Property destruction, environmental destruction, cultural destruction. All are a consequence of war.

And no, of course I would not put them as equal to peoples' lives, and that's a huge (and to me, rather insulting) leap from what I posted.

I figured I'd ask, because the last several days have left me ... doubtful of the motives of many liberals. Great job taking even me politely asking you a question, giving you some benefit of the doubt, as a personal insult though. Maybe I should've gone forth like last time and assumed your intentions immediately.

I mostly agree with this in and of itself, but I would still say that the disruption and chaos caused by a corrupt police force is usually less than the disruption and chaos caused by a civil war. You really can't top a civil war for chaos and destruction, short of an open war between major powers.

And also to make all possible efforts to avoid the war in the first place.

It's "less" to you because it's quiet. War is loud, war is messy. Corrupt cops operate "cleanly". It is difficult to notice the extent of their actions when what they do is quieter than an outright battle. It is even more difficult to notice the extent of their actions when, as a result of how quiet they are, you have no knowledge as someone outside of the communities affected.

It is undemocratic, but their's something particularly blatant about, in effect, holding a gun to someone's head and saying "Conform to my politics or get shot."

It is "particularly blatant" because it's a messy way of doing things. Bribing politicians and authorities behind the scenes is much cleaner, much less noticeable. However, it still achieves similar ends.

And I seriously hope you are not suggesting that the existence of corporate bribery is grounds for an armed revolution. Because at that point, you're effectively arguing that any sort of political corruption means its time to burn the country down, and by that reasoning, we should have been at war for decades.

Only, you know, not.

This is exactly my point about you latching on to one option as the only one.

Okay, I have to seriously ask, do you have a pathological inability to get nuances between black and white? Where do you fucking go off assuming in nearly every single item of discussion that I'm just itching for a violent revolution? Are you taking this seriously at all? What the fuck is wrong with you?

I'm not going to bother continuing this if you're going to pull this shit in every single line of discussion we are on.

Peaceful protest and civil disobedience can have an enormous effect if you get sufficient numbers behind them. Their are costs yes, but small in comparison to the costs a civil war can entail.

We have less money, yes, but we have one advantage that the rich, almost by definition, will never have- numbers.

To take one recent example- Bernie Sanders was able to out-fundraise Hillary Clinton based overwhelmingly on small individual donors. And while he lost the race, he came far closer than pretty much anyone expected him to, given who he was opposing, his views, and how much the deck was stacked against him.

Who has more power: A million people who can give fifty dollars to the cause, or a single person that can give fifty million?

This is a discussion that definitely requires serious debate, but it is outside the scope of this one. (Frankly, with you pigeonholing me into "rar rar GGUUNNZZZZ" all the fucking time I'm really not willing to do that.) And I don't think it's as clean cut as you may believe.

Yes, I fucking well would object to them "retaliating", if by that you mean engaging in preemptive/offensive violence/reprisals.

You seem to keep trying to muddy the waters by equating retaliatory violence with defensive violence, which does make me question your motives here.

That you follow this with:

I would probably not object, in theory, to individual protesters using force if necessary to defend themselves from an immediate physical threat. Although I would question the likely effectiveness and prudence of doing so, because the police will have more power, and turning it into a battle will cost the protesters sympathy with people who would otherwise support them.

Means I'm almost sure you knew exactly what I was saying, and you're literally trying to start more shit now based on some remote semantical phrasing. And if you think there being a battle (hint: there already has been several, except one-sided) would make the protesters completely unsympathetic, then you are mistaken.

I would absolutely object to them employing violence as a protest tactic, engaging in offensive violence or reprisals. The word you're looking for their is "terrorism".

The cops, Energy Transfer Partners, and the state government have been violating their rights for months now. There is a chance the authorities will completely ignore their calls for help from here on out, and employ even worse tactics against them. If every single opportunity is shut down to them, then what do you expect them to do? Roll over and take what's coming while you fantasize about some nonexistent "proper" method? Are you blind to not only that, but previous American history with Native American treaties?

There is nothing that guarantees there will be an effective nonviolent method against Energy Transfer Partners before it is too late, and jesus if you're going to take this as some endorsement of LET'S IMMEDIATELY GO TO VIOLENCE RIGHT NOW I'm going to flip the fuck out.

Its not the only thing, no, as I thought I made clear.

But I have no interest in trying to one-up each other over who is more oppressed/affected. Its tasteless, and irrelevant. Of course their are people who have it worse than me. It does not therefore follow, however, that my arguments are wrong, or that I do not stand to be significantly affected.

Yet ultimately it seems to me that your point is that my view is somehow less valid because of my position.

This isn't some "but there are starving babies in Africa" argument. This is commentary on how you may not have a real image of how dire their contexts will be compared to yours. You and them may soon be in completely different worlds, and you are still saying you have a full and complete idea of what is happening in theirs'.

It certainly is if the it becomes the common view that it is the only plausible outcome.

That won't be something I or you will ever be able to control.

I believe that it is worth doing everything we can to prevent that, because neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can imagine the horror that a civil war would be.

The last American Civil War cost over 600,000 lives. It was fought with single shot rifles and muskets, in an age when cavalry was still relevant on the battlefield. A repeat in the modern era, the age of machine guns and drones and ICBMs, when the US is also a global power, would quite literally be a horror beyond human comprehension. I can think of nothing worse we could do to ourselves short of initiating a full-scale nuclear exchange.

You call me pessimistic. The United States, as you say, would be willing to nuke its own cities and bring its own countryside to radioactive ash???

[The Romulan Republic]

TRR: Your view isn't less valid, you just cannot understand on a visceral every day basis the experience of being a person whom is more likely to be assaulted, raped, murdered, and/or have less than equal status. So it's more like your view is just less informed.

You're right that I can't understand it, or more precisely, that I can hope to understand it only indirectly, or from an intellectual perspective, and not one of personal experience. And I sincerely hope that I neither or nor anyone else who has not experienced such things ever has cause to understand it from personal experience.

But again, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. One does not have to haver personally experienced something to understand that it is a terrible thing, or to understand that their are other alternatives that might be more terrible still.

Nor am I incapable of sympathizing. I don't blame anyone for being angry or hopeless-hell, I'm angry, and I have less personal cause to be than most. But simply reacting on that rage and desperation, while an understandable human reaction, is not always right and can lead to even worse outcomes. That's all I'm saying, and I apologize if it sounds colder or more self-righteous than I intend it to.

[Elheru Aran]

TRR: Your view isn't less valid, you just cannot understand on a visceral every day basis the experience of being a person whom is more likely to be assaulted, raped, murdered, and/or have less than equal status. So it's more like your view is just less informed.

You're right that I can't understand it, or more precisely, that I can hope to understand it only indirectly, or from an intellectual perspective, and not one of personal experience. And I sincerely hope that I neither or nor anyone else who has not experienced such things ever has cause to understand it from personal experience.

But again, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. One does not have to haver personally experienced something to understand that it is a terrible thing, or to understand that their are other alternatives that might be more terrible still.

I run into ideas like this every day. Theoretical knowledge... is still knowledge. It doesn't have practical experience to back it up, but nonetheless, unless experience informs it or it's displaced by new knowledge, it's no less valid for that.

[Dragon Angel]

But again, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. One does not have to haver personally experienced something to understand that it is a terrible thing, or to understand that their are other alternatives that might be more terrible still.

Nor am I incapable of sympathizing. I don't blame anyone for being angry or hopeless-hell, I'm angry, and I have less personal cause to be than most. But simply reacting on that rage and desperation, while an understandable human reaction, is not always right and can lead to even worse outcomes. That's all I'm saying, and I apologize if it sounds colder or more self-righteous than I intend it to.

Being an armchair sociologist with moral pomposity tends to elicit extremely frustrated reactions when your intellectual thought experiments contradict their real, lived experiences.

It's like people who are far away from being transgender telling me what is "reality" for trans people when it directly contradicts not only my life experience, but hundreds, thousands of other trans people's life experiences. And yet, somehow they are taken as the real experts. Also, people who have no connection to psychology, no contact with mental illness, making proclamations on what mental illness is "really about".

The sooner you can apply that to sociological scenarios, the better you will understand just why I am disagreeing with what you believe.

I run into ideas like this every day. Theoretical knowledge... is still knowledge. It doesn't have practical experience to back it up, but nonetheless, unless experience informs it or it's displaced by new knowledge, it's no less valid for that.

Theory is good to have, but it is often incomplete without experience. It is different to memorize all the laws of the United States, versus to actually practice as a lawyer in court.

[Flagg]

TRR: Your view isn't less valid, you just cannot understand on a visceral every day basis the experience of being a person whom is more likely to be assaulted, raped, murdered, and/or have less than equal status. So it's more like your view is just less informed.

You're right that I can't understand it, or more precisely, that I can hope to understand it only indirectly, or from an intellectual perspective, and not one of personal experience. And I sincerely hope that I neither or nor anyone else who has not experienced such things ever has cause to understand it from personal experience.

But again, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong. One does not have to haver personally experienced something to understand that it is a terrible thing, or to understand that their are other alternatives that might be more terrible still.

Nor am I incapable of sympathizing. I don't blame anyone for being angry or hopeless-hell, I'm angry, and I have less personal cause to be than most. But simply reacting on that rage and desperation, while an understandable human reaction, is not always right and can lead to even worse outcomes. That's all I'm saying, and I apologize if it sounds colder or more self-righteous than I intend it to.

I get where you're coming from. I've been there. But if you've never walked on the moon you don't tell Buzz Aldrin how he should walk on the moon. You can rationally grasp the concept and understand the why and how and come to a logical conclusion of what will likely happen if you moon hop too high, but you can't fully understand it.

In one of the rare cases of South Park being right, it's Stan telling Token that he "He gets it! He doesn't get it." In response to the use of the word "n***er".

[Elheru Aran]

I run into ideas like this every day. Theoretical knowledge... is still knowledge. It doesn't have practical experience to back it up, but nonetheless, unless experience informs it or it's displaced by new knowledge, it's no less valid for that.

Theory is good to have, but it is often incomplete without experience. It is different to memorize all the laws of the United States, versus to actually practice as a lawyer in court.

Yeah, I won't argue that there's no distinction. I'm just saying to give it due credit. I can be aware, as a man, that women experience discrimination that I don't, for example.

[Joun_Lord]

Not because the system was broken? Widespread voter disenfranchisement and the Electoral College putting Trump into office despite the vast difference of the popular vote is not a broken system?

Granted, the latter is baked into the American system, but to consider it not broken or not broken enough is an awfully cynical view of how a fair and democratic election properly functions.

Voter disenfranchisement is nothing new and there have been arguments that the electoral college did its job by giving voice to lower population areas even if the results were not ideal (or personally even fair). The fact that Trump won 2,623 counties compared to Hillary's 489 show there was a massive divide between rural and urban voters and presumably the EC was supposed to make it so urban voters don't just walk all over rural voters because there are more.

Its still unfair though, because just going to land area there is far more red land then blue, there hasn't been a close race by county since 1996. Urban voters are shit on that way. They were shit on this election just as they were shit on in 2000 when there was a massive divide between the number of counties the candidates had got and the popular vote and then election being decided on the former.

Is the system broken? No it does what its supposed to but its still unfair, still needs some reform I think

That isn't an aphorism to be taken as an absolute. When an ideology literally believes in the willful eradication of democratic government and the systematic extermination of all races not deemed pure enough, and you have people who intentionally follow it, believe in it, then you had better be right that the people will also be condemned. And not only condemned, but condemned hard.

When people who would be affected if a neo-Nazi gains power see Richard Spencer, they see the possibility that their very existence will be jeopardized. They don't see some "merely" misguided Southern conservative. They see someone who will inspire more Dylan Roofs to come forth.

Also, neo-Nazism is far from being underground and hasn't been underground for decades. Like I said, you have been basically learning about it since you were a teenager. The ideological battle started long before you were aware of it. People are seeing that battle now failing.

Even people who want to violate the system, want to violate rights, want to destroy everything we hold dear have rights. They can say all they want because until they do something illegal like act on their moronic ideology it is their right. That is part of a free democratic society, allowing even terrible people to say terrible things.

How someone views another, either way, does not give them the right to harm or violate the rights of another. Richard Spencer has no right to harm anyone or violate their rights but neither does anyone have the right to harm him or violate his rights. Doing so perpetuates the eradication of a democratic government and free speech right there.

Do I like it anymore then you do? No, I'd love to shut up people like Spencer, like the Westboro Baptist Church, all the people who conflate atheism with devil worshipping or hate of religion, and people who mindlessly use Red Letter Media as proof to justify their prequel hate. But I also love living in a free society where I can say what I want and unfortunately that also means allowing them to say what they want.

The battle for a free society is not failing just because some reprehensible people make gains, thats part of a free society. You can call them out on how reprehensible they are, you can fight them politically, you can go out and physically protest them, you are still free. They day you cannot, the day they cannot do the same, is the day the battle is failing.

Absolute free speech is only functioning now because we do not yet have classical fascist policies in the books. If the neo-Nazis gained a platform, and they gained power because of that platform, then they would take steps to eliminate free speech as that is one of the central tenets of fascism, which neo-Nazism is. That they say it "politely" right now, today, does not change this fact.

Democracy only works as long as the structure to voice one's political concerns is holding. The neo-Nazi actively desires to subvert democracy by the very nature of Nazism. We know this because we have had decades to show in the early 20th century, and we also know that once a Nazi party subverts democracy, it then moves to enact its agenda of racial purity. Another central tenet.

The neo-Nazi ideology closing into power is not the result of it having been driven underground for the second half of the 20th century, or anything like that. Racism and xenophobic nationalism have been concepts that have existed for as long as the United States, and obviously they didn't just stop between World War II and today because thinking that would just be daft. It's an ideology that rides the coattails of those two, gaining prominence now because we have the most racist and xenophobic President to have been in power within our lifetimes. By no means has it been driven underground and left to fester for that long, and if you think that, then you don't have an understanding of the agenda of white supremacists, which have included attempting to infiltrate police forces and the military. (Of which, I might add, they both have policies explicitly forbidding Nazis, with very good reason. There, you already have an abridgement of your "freedom of speech"!)

Yes Nazism is bad, Nazism getting back in power would be bad. Nazis are so bad they would try to eliminate free speech so clearly we gotta kill it first before they can right?

Democracy works because everyone, even those who seek to subvert it, have a voice. You cannot have the good parts of democracy without the bad. You cannot have candidates and political parties doing what you want without candidates and political parties doing stuff you don't want or even going against what you want. Even if those terrible fucks get in power that is part of democracy, not a nice part but still part. Just because the results are not what you like, what I like, what anyone with half a brain likes doesn't mean democracy has failed.

The fact that Neo Nazis have been trying to recruit on the down low rather then going around to bases and recruiting offices giving out flyers that say "Join the Nazi Party, we have white wine and white grapes!" show they are driven underground, they are no longer an accepted public platform for most people. The fact its so shocking that Spencer has gotten anywhere, and keep in mind he has no power he just has attention because the fucking douche has went around Heiling Trump, is proof that their ideology isn't exactly mainstream these days thank fucking god, zeus, FSM, and mecha-Godzilla.

Also the military and police forces are jobs and like most jobs have rules on the conduct of free speech and self expression. Not even some office worker drone can go around heiling shitler and painting 88 anywhere anymore then they could go around proselytizing for the Clinton campaign. The military and police are extra strict when it comes to those things but they are not alone.

This betrays a lack of knowledge of history. No one "forgot" about them just as no one forgot the KKK exists. They existed, but they were not given the level of power that Il Duce may intentionally or not grant them in the next 4-8 years. They did not have a political platform to fight on.

And I'm sorry but you being atheist is not comparable to a black person's struggles, the struggles of LGBTQs, and if we delve further into neo-Nazism, those of disabled people. An atheist's position in society may not exactly be the highest compared to Christians, but they are not close to being as low on the ladder as those three. You don't have nearly as much of a fear of your rights to live being restricted, or being abused by bigots and authorities, or imprisoned for who we are. There isn't going to be a "Defense of Judeo-Christian Theology Act" at any point in the projected future. I'd consider Islamic theists (who believe in the same fucking God) to be in an infinitely worse position than you'd ever land in.

People damn sure seemed to act like they forgot shitbags like Spencer existed as they were so shocked when his ugly punchable mug started showing up on tv. They acted like Neo-Nazism was defeated, dead and gone. They acted like it was sooooooooo damn shocking for an open white supremacist having a political platform like its never happened before, like Hugo Black, Clarence Morley, David Duke, the German American Bund, or all the opnely racist governors and politicians during the Civil Rights era never existed.

Don't pull the "privilege bingo" on me to say I don't understand struggles. I am a poor, atheist, cultural minority with mental disability and a lifetime of developmental problems plus a funny fucking accent. I have fears of my rights being restricted, of me being treated like a criminal or worse because of some "isms" I was born with, I know whats its like to have people look down upon me and think I'm lesser because I sound different, I've know physical pain for my religion (or lack of). So don't fucking think for a minute I don't know hardship or struggle, I do. I fear much the same people as you, I do understand your fears and sympathize so goddamn much.

But I try not to let my fear control me anymore then I try to let my disability. And its hard, its so goddamn hard. You probably know what I'm talking about when I say how hard it is some days to go outside, the crippling fear that grabs you at the thought of going out your door, the panic that feels like a elephant sitting on your chest at the thought of being in a crowd, the skin crawling revulsion over someone brushing against you. But I try to go out, I try to do my job, hell I even try to let people like family members give me a hug despite wanting no part of it, despite a hug from a niece or nephew feeling like the worst kind of hell that makes you want to throw them off you and run away to scrub your skin.

Have you been in a bubble the last several years? The groups that make up the "alt right" have been ballooning for a long time, and one of the signature events I remember that pushed them into further political prominence was GamerGate. Reactionary conservatism has been growing for much, much longer. They are most certainly not "far fewer than ever" if you have paid any attention to what has been going on.

GamerGate was just some online only bullshit by a bunch of trolls and MRAs whining because no woman wanted to touch their dicks, not exactly indicative on the real world. You can't use message boards and twitter feeds as a barometer of real world politics or the real world itself.

Says the person who is not likely to face a f*gg*t bashing party or a lynch mob. Characterizing it as "hysterical" just further goes to show out how of your league you are in understanding what actually happens.

Stay woke.

Yeah I'm probably not going to face those things because I'm not gay or a racial minority. However doesn't mean I don't face my own struggles just as real, just as violent, just as deadly. Stay "woke" yourself and realize there is more people are risk then just yourself.

If you think that marginalized people haven't carefully considered all the variables involved, then ..... whatever.

Yesh I do think they haven't. I think they are being irrational, driven by fear and not thinking. I don't blame them, quite the opposite. But I also don't think being driven by fear allows them see all of whats going on or to respond rationally. The only reason I'm not the same is I'm emotionally deficient and possibly a robot.

This is the mindset of a Saturday morning cartoon. "If you do ____, you will be the same as them".

Spencer himself not being a monster? What in the flying fuck? I haven't seen this kind of brazen apologism for a while.

The hand of friendship cannot fundamentally work if the person you'd want to extend that hand to fundamentally opposes your existence. This is what neo-Nazism is to anyone who does not fit their definition of pure. You cannot expect those who will suffer under them to just go "love the sinner, hate the sin" and be done with it. The sinner has an ideology that opposes the marginalized's entire right to exist.

Don't speak ill of saturday morning cartoons, they had good messages. And yes, doing what your enemy does makes you the same as them. If you act like Spencer, restrict rights like him, you become just as bad as him.

Spencer is not a monster, not a villain, he is merely a man, a bad man who says bad things. A person you should be completely and utterly opposed to but not one you should view through the lens of fantasy or fear. A man who is completely reprehensible but one who is understandably so (as in we understand why he is reprehensible), his motives and wants are known, are able to be countered. If he is seen as just an opponent rather then a inhuman creature to be slain he becomes just a man and a sad pitiful one that holds no power over us.

And I'm not saying extend the hand of friendship to Spencer. Spencer baring a miracle is a lost cause. But there are others who can be swayed by understanding and compassion rather then hate and pain. Even someone like Spencer might eventually stop being a human turd but he never will if people attack him, hurt him, make him the victim rather. Nobody should be a victim. Not even Spencer.

That also mean standing up if someone like Spencer tries to make you a victim but just saying horrible shit is not it.

[Dragon Angel]

Even people who want to violate the system, want to violate rights, want to destroy everything we hold dear have rights. They can say all they want because until they do something illegal like act on their moronic ideology it is their right. That is part of a free democratic society, allowing even terrible people to say terrible things.

How someone views another, either way, does not give them the right to harm or violate the rights of another. Richard Spencer has no right to harm anyone or violate their rights but neither does anyone have the right to harm him or violate his rights. Doing so perpetuates the eradication of a democratic government and free speech right there.

I'm just.....

Do I like it anymore then you do? No, I'd love to shut up people like Spencer, like the Westboro Baptist Church, all the people who conflate atheism with devil worshipping or hate of religion, and people who mindlessly use Red Letter Media as proof to justify their prequel hate. But I also love living in a free society where I can say what I want and unfortunately that also means allowing them to say what they want.

The battle for a free society is not failing just because some reprehensible people make gains, thats part of a free society. You can call them out on how reprehensible they are, you can fight them politically, you can go out and physically protest them, you are still free. They day you cannot, the day they cannot do the same, is the day the battle is failing.

White nationalism isn't something like the debate between Star Wars versus Star Trek. Even the disgusting Westboro Baptist Church does not come close to the neo-Nazis. White nationalism is the total eradication of anyone who does not fit the definition of Pure Straight White, and Richard Spencer is a documented, card-carrying believer of this ideology. The WBC is a sideshow compared to what the neo-Nazis want to do, are aiming to do, and are poising themselves to do.

This is a cosmopolitan view that is seen and taken advantage of by the far right, because they know extremely well that liberals and centrists with these "principles" will not stand in their ways. Look at all the liberals who went as far as to vote for fucking Trump. Not conservatives. Not far right xenophobes. Liberals. Because they do not take the gravity of people with connections to white supremacy in power seriously enough to recognize it. They do not realize the sheer amount of effort it took to stop the last Nazi regime from wiping Europe clean of all the "undesirables".

And bluntly, this is an utter failure of historical education. Anyone who had paid any fucking attention to their civics classes should know precisely why belief in Nazi ideology is not equivalent to preference for your favorite YouTube star.

You are far more invested in condemning the people who fight fascists because fascists want to deny them the right to live, than condemning the fascists themselves. The people who will live and die under the fascist boot are not your enemy. If you can't recognize that then you are hopeless.

Democracy works because everyone, even those who seek to subvert it, have a voice. You cannot have the good parts of democracy without the bad. You cannot have candidates and political parties doing what you want without candidates and political parties doing stuff you don't want or even going against what you want. Even if those terrible fucks get in power that is part of democracy, not a nice part but still part. Just because the results are not what you like, what I like, what anyone with half a brain likes doesn't mean democracy has failed.

"Even if those terrible fucks get in power [and suspend democracy, and enact a racist and genocidal agenda the likes this world has never seen] that is part of democracy, not a nice part"

I added something you left out. Something utterly crucial when it comes to neo-Nazis. What makes neo-Nazis absolutely dangerous to have in power. Do you really think they're just going to leave the United States' governmental structure intact? Hahahahahahahahahaha.....

Tell that to the Weimar Republic.

And of course I won't like those results. I'll be dead. Since Nazis don't have the best track record with LGBTQ people.

The fact that Neo Nazis have been trying to recruit on the down low rather then going around to bases and recruiting offices giving out flyers that say "Join the Nazi Party, we have white wine and white grapes!" show they are driven underground, they are no longer an accepted public platform for most people. The fact its so shocking that Spencer has gotten anywhere, and keep in mind he has no power he just has attention because the fucking douche has went around Heiling Trump, is proof that their ideology isn't exactly mainstream these days thank fucking god, zeus, FSM, and mecha-Godzilla.

Are you serious? Social media has been having a Nazi problem for a long time now. Catchphrases like "White Genocide" are becoming ever more widespread. Nazis group up and harass / brigade people who speak against them, and it has been a long-standing problem that companies like Twitter have until only recently dragged their feet on solving.

If they were not accepted in any meaningful way, then we would not have had Trumpolini with his endorsements from people like David fucking Duke becoming a legitimate leader of the GOP, and soon his Chief Propaganda Officer Steve Bannon doing his thing.

Also the military and police forces are jobs and like most jobs have rules on the conduct of free speech and self expression. Not even some office worker drone can go around heiling shitler and painting 88 anywhere anymore then they could go around proselytizing for the Clinton campaign. The military and police are extra strict when it comes to those things but they are not alone.

They are public service jobs. Jobs funded by the American taxpayer. If we are to make free speech truly absolute, then by definition you must include them and reverse their anti-Nazi policies.

People damn sure seemed to act like they forgot shitbags like Spencer existed as they were so shocked when his ugly punchable mug started showing up on tv. They acted like Neo-Nazism was defeated, dead and gone. They acted like it was sooooooooo damn shocking for an open white supremacist having a political platform like its never happened before, like Hugo Black, Clarence Morley, David Duke, the German American Bund, or all the opnely racist governors and politicians during the Civil Rights era never existed.

The people who were seriously shocked did not pay attention, or they relied on sources that did not reveal the true gravitas of what is real.

The media that pretended this was not happening is massively at fault for not showing the reality of the situation and fighting harder to prevent it.

Don't pull the "privilege bingo" on me to say I don't understand struggles. I am a poor, atheist, cultural minority with mental disability and a lifetime of developmental problems plus a funny fucking accent. I have fears of my rights being restricted, of me being treated like a criminal or worse because of some "isms" I was born with, I know whats its like to have people look down upon me and think I'm lesser because I sound different, I've know physical pain for my religion (or lack of). So don't fucking think for a minute I don't know hardship or struggle, I do. I fear much the same people as you, I do understand your fears and sympathize so goddamn much.

But I try not to let my fear control me anymore then I try to let my disability. And its hard, its so goddamn hard. You probably know what I'm talking about when I say how hard it is some days to go outside, the crippling fear that grabs you at the thought of going out your door, the panic that feels like a elephant sitting on your chest at the thought of being in a crowd, the skin crawling revulsion over someone brushing against you. But I try to go out, I try to do my job, hell I even try to let people like family members give me a hug despite wanting no part of it, despite a hug from a niece or nephew feeling like the worst kind of hell that makes you want to throw them off you and run away to scrub your skin.

Then you're speaking lemming talk. You should know very well the dangers of what is happening and tolerating an intolerant group that will literally murder you if given the chance.

I'm not asking you to go out and fight Nazis. I'm not even asking you to get involved in activism. Those are things only you can decide. Go mind your own business as much as you like. I'm asking you to realize that accepting neo-Nazism and giving them a platform in media and culture will be a disaster against the concept of democracy and against the existences of human beings including yourself.

Because pretending that this will simply be a matter of peaceful change of policy and regular course of business is asinine when taking every historical example of Nazism and white supremacy into account. It's walking yourself into the sea, blindfold ready and willing to try to swim across the planet. Your principles are suicidal.

GamerGate was just some online only bullshit by a bunch of trolls and MRAs whining because no woman wanted to touch their dicks, not exactly indicative on the real world. You can't use message boards and twitter feeds as a barometer of real world politics or the real world itself.

GamerGate caused numerous real life problems. It forced several women from their homes for varying periods of time, threatened other women's jobs and livelihoods by going behind their backs talking to their employers (and even got one woman fired), smeared the names of other people including a trans activist that had a Breitbart article calling her a pedophile, shut down advertisement campaigns funding gaming-oriented sites that spoke against them. May I go on?

Seriously, stop. Just stop.

Yeah I'm probably not going to face those things because I'm not gay or a racial minority. However doesn't mean I don't face my own struggles just as real, just as violent, just as deadly. Stay "woke" yourself and realize there is more people are risk then just yourself.

Yesh I do think they haven't. I think they are being irrational, driven by fear and not thinking. I don't blame them, quite the opposite. But I also don't think being driven by fear allows them see all of whats going on or to respond rationally. The only reason I'm not the same is I'm emotionally deficient and possibly a robot.

I realize there are more people at risk than myself. This is why I hold the positions that I do. Otherwise, I would not be so cosmopolitan about neo-Nazism being just another fun little trend that will pass.

I don't know how much rationality you will be able to keep if your life is ever threatened, but it is not "more rational" to think stepping aside while Nazis gain control will be better than stopping them. In fact, many would call that moral cowardice. Prime Directive in the worst Star Trek episodes-level cowardice.

"First they came for the blacks, and I did not speak out, because I was not black.
Then they came for the homosexuals, transgenders, and I did not speak out, because I was neither.
Then they came for the Jews, the Muslims, and I did not speak out, because I was neither.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

Imagine those who tried to speak after a neo-Nazi gains power, and then summarily silenced. Imagine remembering the struggles of those who tried their hardest to prevent that long before the neo-Nazi came. Imagine believing you were somehow higher than them by "bravely" allowing the neo-Nazi to take absolute control. Keep to your principles, Joun. Keep to them until someone else either frees you from their consequences, or you die from them.

(edit: crossed that out because I didn't want to go this far, but leaving it in for the record)

Don't speak ill of saturday morning cartoons, they had good messages. And yes, doing what your enemy does makes you the same as them. If you act like Spencer, restrict rights like him, you become just as bad as him.

"You're just like a fascist if you fight back against them."

How many times have I heard this said in so many variations by liberals, in response to any measure, even nonviolent (yes, even nonviolent), taken against white supremacists.

I tire of that false equivalency. I tire of people putting Nazis and their hated groups on the same standing. Frankly, by extension, I tire of you. Stay woke.

Spencer is not a monster, not a villain, he is merely a man, a bad man who says bad things. A person you should be completely and utterly opposed to but not one you should view through the lens of fantasy or fear. A man who is completely reprehensible but one who is understandably so (as in we understand why he is reprehensible), his motives and wants are known, are able to be countered. If he is seen as just an opponent rather then a inhuman creature to be slain he becomes just a man and a sad pitiful one that holds no power over us.

A Hitler wannabe is a monster just as Hitler was, unless you are going to seriously tell me Hitler wasn't a monster. I'm not even Godwinning this conversation; neo-Nazis are devout to Hitler as if Hitler was their Jesus. Hitler himself was not seen to be a real threat, any problem, by the contemporary media and culture when he came into power. History proved those who doubted him apocalyptically wrong.

And I'm not saying extend the hand of friendship to Spencer. Spencer baring a miracle is a lost cause. But there are others who can be swayed by understanding and compassion rather then hate and pain. Even someone like Spencer might eventually stop being a human turd but he never will if people attack him, hurt him, make him the victim rather. Nobody should be a victim. Not even Spencer.

That also mean standing up if someone like Spencer tries to make you a victim but just saying horrible shit is not it.

A Nazi, swayed by understanding, compassion? When the entire ideology of Nazism is against the foundation of a compassionate human being, a tolerant human being? Unless someone was indoctrinated since birth, which is not the most common form of Nazi in these days, those people have deliberately chosen to forsake the ideas of compassionate society. Nazism will not be compassionate to anyone except the white race, and will not settle until everyone who is not pure is dead.

[Dragon Angel]

Unless anything of interest pops up in my conversation with Joun, I'm terminating it now. There is no possible agreement we are going to come to and the false equivalences are making me see red, especially after this sorry excuse of a week thus far.

[Shroom Man 777]

. "But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?...It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity."

"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

[Flagg]

I changed my mind, GI Joun is fucking stupid. It's amazing how brazen the fucking scum on the right have become since their fellow traveler President Pussygrabber was installed by the Electoral Disfunction College.

[Joun_Lord]

Unless anything of interest pops up in my conversation with Joun, I'm terminating it now. There is no possible agreement we are going to come to and the false equivalences are making me see red, especially after this sorry excuse of a week thus far.

This is fine. Clearly we cannot agree, which I hope fine too. And I know you are dealing with stuff and I'm not exactly in the best state of mind myself.

[Shroom Man 777]

Of course you approach things from good faith and it is understandable that the bad-faith BS of these fascist fuckfaces are nigh-incomprehensible for non-psychotic people. So one accustomed to the good-faith processes of society finds it very uncomfortable and terrifying to contemplate if other kinds of defensive actions are necessary due to the bad-faith fascist fuckfaces' acts... because that implies that a lot of things have broken down to the point where these things have to be done. Nobody wants to be a partisan until the fuckers goosestep into town and do reprehensible shit right there. It makes sense to hope and believe that it hasn't reached that point.

And every one would want your view to be the right one. All those vulnerable groups that are becoming more vocal, who are taking more actions? My goodness... for years, for decades, for generations they would have LOVED it if things were really how the relaxed "oh let's just hear each other out then things will be OK" crowd saw they were.

[Flagg]

The fact is that sometimes violence just gets shit done. The Attica riot led to prison reforms that made life less hellish for the inmates, for example.

[Simon_Jester]

I meant appalled at the outcry and outbursts of the aggrieved vulnerable groups tired of the BS, I mean. If people are appalled at windows being smashed, they don't consider the notion that if things were directly proportional, Romanov-like conclusions would've been what lots of people had coming for a looong time.

Aaaah. Thank you Shroom, I begin to understand.

Yes, this is a good point. I see now.

Aristocrats who are appalled that the peasants are rioting should consider that when you ignore the peasants' protests, and violently suppress their riots without doing anything to solve the problems they rioted over...

Well, the peasants have no choice but to rise up, overthrow the aristocracy, and drag the aristocrats to Madame Guillotine.

If you think riots are bad, well, the peasants all dying of famine because no one in power listened to them is WORSE. Even the peasants straight-up murdering the aristocracy is worse.

This is what you were getting at, then, Shroom?
________________________________________________

And what I say to Joun Lord...

The alternative to all this, to one group murdering another group or recklessly allowing them to die by abusing power... The alternative to chaos is democracy. It is civil society. It is the idea that peaceful transitions of power are possible, that everyone has a right to exist and be free, and that this right is not negotiable.

The problem is that groups whose opinion is "other groups do not have a right to exist and be free" cannot be a part of this civil society.

Think about a card game. You know the one rule that basically all card games include? No cheating at cards. Because it doesn't matter what the rules of the game are; the most fundamental rule is that you're not allowed to ignore the other rules. You're not allowed to hide an ace of diamonds in your sleeve, you're not allowed to deal from the bottom of the deck, or mark the other player's cards. Because anything you do for your own benefit, that breaks the framework of the game, breaks the game itself.

Certain political factions believe in breaking the framework of civil society. They do not believe in reasonable argument or debate. They do not believe that their opponents have a right to exist at all.

As a consequence... their views are intolerable as a part of civil society. They cannot belong, any more than a man who cheats at poker can have a valid place in a poker game.

The best such a group can hope for, and more than it deserves, is to simply be ignored, like a group of poker players might somehow choose to ignore a cheat. But the usual fate of someone who gets caught cheating at cards is to be kicked out of their participation in the game, possibly with violence. And the more blatant the cheating, the more inevitable it is that they won't be allowed to play.

[Flagg]

I meant appalled at the outcry and outbursts of the aggrieved vulnerable groups tired of the BS, I mean. If people are appalled at windows being smashed, they don't consider the notion that if things were directly proportional, Romanov-like conclusions would've been what lots of people had coming for a looong time.

Aaaah. Thank you Shroom, I begin to understand.

Yes, this is a good point. I see now.

Aristocrats who are appalled that the peasants are rioting should consider that when you ignore the peasants' protests, and violently suppress their riots without doing anything to solve the problems they rioted over...

Well, the peasants have no choice but to rise up, overthrow the aristocracy, and drag the aristocrats to Madame Guillotine.

If you think riots are bad, well, the peasants all dying of famine because no one in power listened to them is WORSE. Even the peasants straight-up murdering the aristocracy is worse.

This is what you were getting at, then, Shroom?
________________________________________________

And what I say to Joun Lord...

The alternative to all this, to one group murdering another group or recklessly allowing them to die by abusing power... The alternative to chaos is democracy. It is civil society. It is the idea that peaceful transitions of power are possible, that everyone has a right to exist and be free, and that this right is not negotiable.

The problem is that groups whose opinion is "other groups do not have a right to exist and be free" cannot be a part of this civil society.

Think about a card game. You know the one rule that basically all card games include? No cheating at cards. Because it doesn't matter what the rules of the game are; the most fundamental rule is that you're not allowed to ignore the other rules. You're not allowed to hide an ace of diamonds in your sleeve, you're not allowed to deal from the bottom of the deck, or mark the other player's cards. Because anything you do for your own benefit, that breaks the framework of the game, breaks the game itself.

Certain political factions believe in breaking the framework of civil society. They do not believe in reasonable argument or debate. They do not believe that their opponents have a right to exist at all.

As a consequence... their views are intolerable as a part of civil society. They cannot belong, any more than a man who cheats at poker can have a valid place in a poker game.

The best such a group can hope for, and more than it deserves, is to simply be ignored, like a group of poker players might somehow choose to ignore a cheat. But the usual fate of someone who gets caught cheating at cards is to be kicked out of their participation in the game, possibly with violence. And the more blatant the cheating, the more inevitable it is that they won't be allowed to play.

This. People who state openly that "<insert condition caused by birth> people" should be denied equal status by the state up to and including extermination have no place in civil society and it's in societies best interest to shut them the fuck down, no exceptions.

That's my love/hate relationship with the free speech suicide pact in the first amendment. I used to think that allowing these individuals to wear silly costumes and worship a dead Austrian failure of humanity to say whatever they wanted within the confines of the first amendment was a good thing so that they could be mocked because pointing and laughing was the best way to deal with them. But unfortunately the stupid mustache crowd begins to actually become scarily relevant when someone who openly panders to them gains power and more of them come crawling out of the festering wound that is extremist ideology like maggots.