The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-09-21 10:56pm
Alyrium Denryle wrote: ↑2019-09-21 03:08pm
The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-09-21 01:31am
Your string of personal smears aside (because let's be honest, that's just par for the course on this board), let's address a few points:
1. I did not say that Lonestar supports pedophilia. But at the same time, people are judged, fairly or not, by the company that they keep, and the people they league themselves with. And Carlson's vices
are relevant here- it is often those who most victimize others who scream loudest about how their "rights" are being violated, as Carlson does- a man who's down with raping little girls shouting about how murdering politicians or cops and starting a fucking civil war is the fault of gun-control advocates because its all to defend gun rights. Just like the Confederate fuckers screamed about how they were being oppressed when people tried to even modestly limit the spread of slavery. So I think that Lonestar and others would do well to think about the company they keep, and who's "rights" the leading gun advocates are interested in protecting. Because it sure as fuck ain't the poor, or minorities, or women, or rape victims, or political dissidents. The NRA and its media and Congressional lapdogs are overwhelmingly the Alt. Reich's loyal creatures, and that informs who's "rights" they want these guns to protect.
That's just a fact, and you whining about how gun control advocates are the real racists just makes you sound like an Alt. Reichist screaming about how the SJWs are persecuting them and white men are the real victims of oppression.
Edit: Frankly, I don't get what the hell you're talking about with "gun control advocates are racists". It seems completely out of left field, an almost random smear.
Hi!
You do a lot of complaining about smears while doing a hell of a good job smearing others by putting words, political ideologies, and rape apology into their mouths. You just use the accusations as a shield from criticism and then dish out what you accuse others of doing.
You didn't even address Lonestar's argument, namely being a projection of how the political conversation will go. Here is the thing with Lonestar, he's broadly progressive AND supports gun rights. He views the history of gun control in the US as a racist history. Because it fucking is (something that the Liberals - note I am using that term as a communist to mean both democrats and republics - have simply let skip over their god damned minds); and generally supports sensible gun control measures. Historically black communities have been targeted with gun control measures to keep them from engaging in community self-defense when the cops were literally assassinating their leaders.
But hey, nuance is beyond you. I get that. But this time, you've broken your own nose with your knee jerk bullshit. Warning issued. Report closed.
Noted. I apologize if I misunderstood Lonestar's point, which I took to be agreement with Tucker Carlson and others' argument. However, you attribute motives to me that are not mine. I object, as always, to the claim that I make things up to shield myself from criticism. I mean what I say. I may be right, I may be wrong, I may be jumping to conclusions, but I mean it.
Oh I'm certainly not saying you make things up. It's likely subconscious.
As for your views on gun control: I understand that it is not considered appropriate to dispute a moderator's warning in public. However, it is also not common practice for a moderator to use an official warning to debate someone's position/argument, for reasons that should be obvious (lack of impartiality and the inability of the other person to defend their position in turn). Therefore, without disputing your ruling on my conduct, I will address your arguments on gun control as follows:
No no. You see, this is me debating you. What I did there was call you out on your bullshit. They are two entirely different things and you will notice the font color changed appropriately.
First, branding the entire gun control movement as racist is a blatant ad hominem, and I could turn it around and say (with at least as much justification) that this history of gun advocacy is largely driven by racism. The history of the US is racist-period. But there's nothing uniquely racist about gun control, and its advocates.
And you're utilizing a strawman. I didn't say the entire gun control movement is racist. I said that the history is a racist one. These are two different statements. Historically, gun control laws - until very recently in the history of the country - were used to target communities of color. And even when they weren't, they've been enforced on the basis of race (See Stop and Frisk), and even legal conduct is de facto criminalized with a death sentence for carrying a gun while black. See Philando Castile. A white person and a black person can do the exact same legal thing - carrying a gun - one ends up dead if that's reported to the police for some reason, and the other one does not.
See, that's the problem. White liberals who are the biggest advocates for gun control just don't fucking get it. They live in a personal universe where they can trust the police to protect them, or at minimum not murder them. If you call in on a home invasion, the police won't enter your home and shoot you on reflex. They will do that with black people armed or no, so having a means of self-defense other than calling the police is a necessity - or at least perceived as such - in many communities of color, and history tells them that self-defense from the police might also sometimes be a necessity. Because the police have absolutely assassinated black political leaders within living memory. See Fred Hampton.
And now they have right-wing militias to deal with, and you and I both know who the cops are going to side with. Outside Kamikaze Sith's jurisdiction anyway (SLC PD have killed exactly one person in the last 5 years or so last I checked, and that was a Nazi. Plus I know he'll defect to the revolution if push comes to shove.). That's just the logical end point of widespread white supremacist "infiltration" of law enforcement. I use the quotes because it's a feature of american law enforcement, not a bug. The police have always helped to enforce white supremacy in this country.
That was the other part of Lonestar's whole point. Any gun ban will have to be enforced
by the police. Racist goons who support - and have always institutionally supported - the oligarch-controlled state; who will send black people to prison where they will be enslaved by said oligarch-controlled state.
At minimum, this is a reality you must grapple with in any discussion on gun bans.
You appear to be arguing that guns will protect minorities from violence.
It gives them a chance, or at least a chance to take someone with them.
I think that might have merit in some circumstances, but the reality is that there are far more guns in the hands of often overtly racist Right-wing militias, and that its all a moot point if we got to something on the scale of a civil war, because the outcome would be decided entirely by who the professional armed forces backed.
That might matter if the only thing we were talking about was a full-scale civil war, but we're not. There are other possibilities, such as a local right-wing militia acting with police acquiescence or cooperation. That's happened repeatedly in the history of this country, the Ludlow Massacre for instance, or basically the whole of the Jim Crow south including the sack of Black Wall Street. Or for that matter Charlottesville. In those cases, left wing militias and community defense did work to limit the damage and casualties.
If Trump orders the troops in, and they obey, ANTIFA is not going to save us from them. What matters at that point is how much of the armed forces we have on our side, nothing more. Of course, in your opinion this "nuanced" view no doubt makes me just a fascist collaborator (that's not me putting words in your mouth- if you wish I can quote and link the thread where you once called me "Quislingesque" for opposing Left-wing militias).
That depends on how far the military is willing to go to kill their fellow citizens, and there are limits to the amount of damage to local infrastructure the military will be willing to commit on their own soil. If it did come down to a civil war with no limits, citizen partisans can make it rather difficult for the military to hold territory. For instance, Iraq and Afghanistan.
No need to quote me. I remember. And I agree with myself.
Regarding your false equivalency of Democrats and Republicans (laughably lumping them both together under the term "Liberal"), it is objectively false.
No no. It isn't a false equivalency. There is a reason why I differentiated it with the Capital-L Liberalism, as opposed to the small-l liberalism, the later being a particular Americanism I have no use for, except apparently when I have to explain it to you. Both parties are Liberal, but different strains. They differ in their approach regarding the justifiable extent of government in restraining the actions of individuals. Small-l liberals (in the US, when they're not being corrupt) tend to favor more economic controls and reforms to capitalism and fewer social controls; while conservatives (when they're not being corrupt) tend to favor fewer economic controls and more social ones.
Of course the corruption is ubiquitous because neither rejects capitalism and thus in both cases to one extent or another, are corrupted by the influence of capital in the political system.
Loomer explained it pretty well. I'll just quote them. Though they do not utilize the capitalization for differentiation purposes, as I am careful to do.
Loomer wrote:It requires no gymnastics. Republicans and Democrats both emphasize private property rights and view issues like racism as predominantly individual, moral failings (even if they recognize a systemic character, they relegate the cause to individual actors rather than the underlying economic structures involved). They emphasize the rights of the individual, idolize the idea of liberty (and before you go 'but the concentration camps', Republicans are still all about that shit, they've just drawn a line in the sand on who ought to be American while maintaining that Americans ought to enjoy liberty), and back capitalism in varied forms and implementations rather than desiring its overthrow and replacement. They are both liberal, because to most of the rest of the world (and certainly not to anarchists, socialists, and communists), liberalism doesn't mean 'progressive' or 'left' the way you yanks use it. You may find the following song enlightening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLqKXrlD1TU
We could of course go round and round on whether the current Republican establishment is sufficiently fash-y to disqualify them as liberal in the proper sense, but that would be a waste of time primarily because fascists - as you ought to know, having invoked their spectre - ride liberalism to power, and so the transitional period may be categorized quite comfortably as either. Perhaps, though, you'd like to go ahead and lay out proof of your position that they aren't liberal, since you've accused someone using perfectly orthodox political terminology of a false equivalency fallacy.
Other resources include this. Multipart series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlLgvSduugI
The two major parties hold strikingly and obviously different positions on numerous issues, from the environment to health care to refugees to gay rights to whether the President should be above the law, not to mention the numerous individual differences between specific politicians and factions. The "Both Sides" narrative is a lazy, trite, openly-dishonest cliche which appeals to cynicism and employs false equivalency, often masquerading as "fairness", to encourage either political apathy or political extremism (as you yourself acknowledge, your motive for using it is that you are a communist).
No, I mentioned it in my little aside to head off the bullshit you are attempting now. Both parties are Liberals, but only one of them are liberals. Seriously, you've existed on a board full of people outside the US and Canada for years which includes people from the non-anglosphere. You have to be deliberately obtuse to not understand that the way you use the term is unique to the North American continent and does not actually comply with the actual political philosophy. Do you jump to the defense of the Liberal Party of Australia and accuse the australians on the board of false-equivalency when they get compared with Republicans?
Moreover the effects of this narrative can be plainly observed: the Greens and the Libertarians and the Bernie-or-Busters used this exact same line (egged on by the Kremlin) to justify letting Trump win in 2016, and they're getting ready to try and do it again, because apparently they learned nothing from the last three years. If you want the single biggest reason why Trump is President and why there are little refugee children dying in cages- its this narrative, which has severely compromised our entire society's ability to engage in meaningful political discussion, replacing it with with a lazy cliche.
Now you're just going off on a (probably in-ignorance) strawman because you don't actually understand the topic you're trying to debate.
I fully expect that you will try to have me banned for "arguing with a moderator's ruling" for posting this. I wouldn't be surprised if that was your intent when you used an official warning argue my points, and included a completely off-topic and gratuitous false equivalency that you must have known I would feel obliged to argue.
Nope.
Be that as it may, my only intent here is to defend my position reg. gun control, which to the best of my knowledge is still permitted under board rules.
Exactly.
