Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Arcade_Tryer · 21-01-2017 02:32PM

super_furry wrote: »

I don't believe in tolerance for Nazis. When a group of people's stated aim is to ethnically cleanse and remove entire races of people from a country, I don't think that should be tolerated.

That's fine. And you know what we do in a democratic and civilised society when we do not agree with what others say? That's right, we beat the **** out of them. Oh wait, no. That's what they do. We win through ideas. Through the peaceful exchange and spread of ideas. That is how we win. Because even if we win through violence, we have not won.

Billy86 · 21-01-2017 02:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I said you're fine with it.. And it's clear you are.

Repeatedly saying "I don't support violence BUT they have nothing to complain about" does not mean you're against it. It's like people who start a sentence with "I'm not racist BUT ____" or "I'm sorry BUT ____"

If you say they don't have a leg to stand on, you're saying it's fine.

In these posts, all I see is "If you condemned Trump's call for violence, you have a right to complain. If not, you don't have a right to complain about being attacked."
If they have nothing to complain about in your opinion, it means you think it's fine. You don't get a free pass just because you start the sentence trying to cover yourself.

Again, your attempts at straw man arguments really need work. You are unable to argue why people who seemed fine with violence being used against others should have caused for complaint when violence is used against them, so instead you're trying to misrepresent my posts despite me never saying at any point that the violence is fine and actually explicitly, and repeatedly, stating the opposite. It's about as definitive a straw man argument as you can get, and it's incredibly transparent.

In every one these posts I have condemned the violence, pretending I haven't doesn't change the fact that I have. At no point did I say it was fine, despite your sad attempts to make it look that way. What I did say was that that people who were unwilling to condemn violence from Trump supporters have no leg to stand on in trying to play the victim card in terms of looking for sympathy from a situation they happily helped create.

If someone assaulted a family member of yours while a friend of theirs cheered it on, attempted to justify it, and refused to say it was in any way wrong though, I'm sure you'd be right there jumping to the culprit's friend's defense if he got assaulted in turn by a different family member of yours. It wouldn't make the other family member right in doing so, but it certainly wouldn't make the culprit's friend have a leg to stand on when looking for sympathy from you or others. And that's all there is to it.

super_furry · 21-01-2017 02:40PM

And how did that work against Nazis in the past? I mean I don't want to Godwin the entire conversation here, but we are talking about literal Nazis.

Grayson · 21-01-2017 02:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm seriously impressed by the edits you've made here. Good research

There's a video I posted a while back (I'll post it below again) in which Rachel Maddow talks about the differences between ambassadors and the career diplomats. The career diplomats run the place the Ambassador is the public face of the embassy. So all these embassy's will continue to run on a day to day basis. There's still technically someone in charge.
It is unusual how little appointments Trump has made. Take for example what's happening in Gambia. There's whole sections of the state department dedicated to different parts of the world. And the directors of these sections advise the president on issues in those parts of the world. So at this point in time there's technically no-one to advise Trump on what's happening in Gambia because he hasn't appointed anyone.

I like Rachel Maddow's show. She always talks about something different, usually historical, and links it to what's happening now. Even if you dislike her politics or personality (I think she's a bit showy) you'll still always learn some interesting facts.

Goya · 21-01-2017 02:46PM

It's just leading to further division and a nice justification for Trump and his supporters (not all of whom are fascistic by the way).

That guy who got punched is a fanatic (and he uses that frog symbol and the expression "red pilled" - nuff said) but punching him has him absolutely delighted now because it gives him ammunition and makes a martyr out of him.

****ing idiots. The far left and far right are both odious. The moderates and moderate conservatives are getting drowned out - they include Trump supporters. There are plenty of people who agree with Trump on some things but not on others, however they still opt for him (they're worried about the economy, crime, mass immigration and terrorism - and there's nothing wrong with that). I don't think he's misogynistic (I do think he's sexist), I don't think he's a white supremacist or a homophobe. But he has fans and cabinet members who are misogynist and neo nazi and homophobic and all this aggression towards him and all his supporters are just buoying those hardliners up. The far left are heading in self fulfilling prophecy direction.

And really, smashing the place up and blocking people from going to the event - Trump supporters looked better overall yesterday tbh.

21-01-2017 02:48PM

Billy86 wrote: »

You are unable to argue why people who seemed fine with violence being used against others should have caused for complaint when violence is used against them

Holy fưck, you're actually insane and don't in any way realise it. Why would anyone here have to argue why they should have cause for complaint just because you're arguing that they don't?

To paraphrase what you're saying, not a single person at that inauguration can complain about being attacked unless they have spoken out against what Trump said. And then you try to claim you're not OK with violence.

Sorry for being sane but if you think someone doesn't have the right to complain about a bottle to the face, you're definitely saying it's fine.

Arcade_Tryer · 21-01-2017 02:54PM

super_furry wrote: »

And how did that work against Nazis in the past? I mean I don't want to Godwin the entire conversation here, but we are talking about literal Nazis.

Well, Hitler didn't exactly come to power democratically. It's besides the point too. What you're really saying is, it's ok to be undemocratic towards people who are expressing their democratic rights; and all because of some superior belief you hold that they are dangerous, or wrong, or whatever. Sounds frightening. And far more similar to Hitler's Germany than modern day America.

Grayson · 21-01-2017 02:58PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Well, Hitler didn't exactly come to power democratically. It's besides the point too. What you're really saying is, it's ok to be undemocratic towards people who are expressing their democratic rights; and all because of some superior belief you hold that they are dangerous, or wrong, or whatever. Sounds frightening. And far more similar to Hitler's Germany than modern day America.

He was elected as was his Party when they took power. Although strangely they didn't win the popular vote.....

I'm going to stop before I godwin the thread too

super_furry · 21-01-2017 02:59PM

No, I'm saying I have no problem with someone punching a Nazi.

Permabear · 21-01-2017 03:04PM

This post has been deleted.

beercr8te · 21-01-2017 03:06PM

super_furry wrote: »

I don't believe in tolerance for Nazis. When a group of people's stated aim is to ethnically cleanse and remove entire races of people from a country, I don't think that should be tolerated.

Time was, punching Nazis had widespread support.

What if nobody has any tolerance for your views? Is it justified to punch you for holding them? After all, marxist communism which is always the end game of leftists is responsible for more deaths and suffering than nazism.

Arcade_Tryer · 21-01-2017 03:08PM

super_furry wrote: »

No, I'm saying I have no problem with someone punching a Nazi.

Erm, right. You can use whatever mental gymnastics you need to use. But the fact is someone was physically assaulted for peacefully expressing their democratic right to free speech. You either support that. Or you don't. I know which stance seems more authoritarian and Nazish to me.

Grayson wrote: »

He was elected as was his Party when they took power. Although strangely they didn't win the popular vote.....

I'm going to stop before I godwin the thread too

Who the hell cares whether a thread is Godwinned ffs. Never heard such nonsense since I first started using the internet. It's an interesting analogy and nearly always relevant in political discussions. He got into Government democratically. The way in which he asserted power was far from democratic.

super_furry · 21-01-2017 03:08PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well I'm not American for a start so their first amendment doesn't mean much to me. But no, I don't believe in 100% unfettered free speech without consequences.

Indeed the person in question, Richard Spencer is banned from entering the EU because he was trying to organise and develop a Hungarian Nazi party. I'm OK with this too.

super_furry · 21-01-2017 03:12PM

beercr8te wrote: »

What if nobody has any tolerance for your views? Is it justified to punch you for holding them? After all, marxist communism which is always the end game of leftists is responsible for more deaths and suffering than nazism.

You know what. If my actions - not my views - but my actions and stated goals involve trying to bring about the ethnic cleansing of everyone but one specific race of people, then I totally deserve a dig in the head.

Not sure where you're getting the Marxist and Communism stuff from. I just think that sometimes, Nazi's deserve it if they're punched.

Arcade_Tryer · 21-01-2017 03:12PM

beercr8te wrote: »

What if nobody has any tolerance for your views? Is it justified to punch you for holding them? After all, marxist communism which is always the end game of leftists is responsible for more deaths and suffering than nazism.

They really do not grasp the reality that they are using the same justification that these would be Nazis would use if they somehow managed to assert an Authoritarian regime.

super_furry · 21-01-2017 03:13PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

They really do not grasp the reality that they are using the same justification that these would be Nazis would use if they somehow managed to assert an Authoritarian regime.

They? I'm part of a they now? What group is that?

Galway_Old_Man · 21-01-2017 03:14PM

Goya wrote: »

And really, smashing the place up and blocking people from going to the event - Trump supporters looked better overall yesterday tbh.

Did you see the video of the Trump supporter putting out a fire started by the other crowd, before they assaulted and punched him? :pac:

I'll have to consult with some of our resident experts here as to was it ok to beat this guy up? Did he bring it on himself by wearing a red hat? Should he have let the fire continue? Who else is fair game to beat up?

Professor Moriarty · 21-01-2017 03:17PM

HellSquirrel wrote:

Not that you would. If you're the sort that just claims that it's a lie because you don't like the answer and can't bear science, then I highly doubt you have the intellectual curiosity to risk proving yourself incorrect.

I thought he was being ironic.

Arcade_Tryer · 21-01-2017 03:17PM

super_furry wrote: »

They? I'm part of a they now? What group is that?

Those who condone a person being punched in the head for expressing an opinion. Those are they.

And those are more of a threat than the Nazi who was punched in the head.

Professor Moriarty · 21-01-2017 03:18PM

HellSquirrel wrote:

Not that you would. If you're the sort that just claims that it's a lie because you don't like the answer and can't bear science, then I highly doubt you have the intellectual curiosity to risk proving yourself incorrect.

I thought he was being ironic.

Arcade_Tryer · 21-01-2017 03:20PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The black and white politics on here is hilarious. Apparently anyone against Nazis is far left now.

Mental gymnastics once again.

Amazing how people manage to take the moral high ground in a situation whereby they are condoning a person being physically assaulted for expressing an opinion. Sickening.

Grayson · 21-01-2017 03:21PM

Trump got to work fast.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/21/donald-trump-era-begins-with-obamacare-rollback-and-missile-defence-orders

Before attending a series of inaugural balls around Washington DC, the Republican sat down to sign an executive order aimed at undermining Obama’s signature healthcare law, known as Obamacare.

Rolling coverage of events in the US and around the world as more than 20 countries host solidarity marches in wake of Trump inauguration
Read more
The order notes that Trump plans to seek the “prompt repeal” of the law. In the meantime, it allows the Health and Human Services Department and other federal agencies to delay implementing any piece of the law that might impose any economic cost.

Using a similar order, the new president also signed into law a new national day of patriotism, and in a separate statement on the White House website, said he intends to develop a “state of the art” missile defense system to protect against attacks from Iran and North Korea. It did not say whether the system would differ from those already under development, specify the cost or say how it would be financed.

So new missile defence system, repealing Obamacare and a new national day of patriotism. Not sure what that last one is. Is it a public holiday? And they already have the 4th of July.

super_furry · 21-01-2017 03:21PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Those who condone a person being punched in the head for expressing an opinion. Those are they.

And those are more of a threat than the Nazi who was punched in the head.

Hahaha. You've jumped the fence baby!

Because I said that a Nazi deserved a dig, I'm more dangerous than the guy who is openly working to see ethnic cleansing in America and who called for white supremacists to march against Jewish people.

Arcade_Tryer · 21-01-2017 03:22PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ah yes, a few headcases are definitely more of a threat than Nazis.

There are a few lads in my village who like to give people a punch to the head the odd time. They're cocks, but I don't have any real concerns about them taking up ethnic cleansing or invading a few neighbouring countries any time soon.

Again, you misunderstand. I was speaking about those who condone the punching of someone for expressing their opinion. Not the actual person who threw the punch. Key difference.

Arcade_Tryer · 21-01-2017 03:24PM

super_furry wrote: »

Hahaha. You've jumped the fence baby!

Because I said that a Nazi deserved a dig, I'm more dangerous than the guy who is openly working to see ethnic cleansing in America and who called for white supremacists to march against Jewish people.

In a democratic society, such thinking is more of a threat to democracy than a single Nazi yes. Because while a single Nazi won't overthrow a democracy, condoning violent response to freedom of expression has the potential to destroy a democracy and everything it stands for from within.

Permabear · 21-01-2017 03:28PM

This post has been deleted.

Arcade_Tryer · 21-01-2017 03:29PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm not condoning the violence BTW, anyone stopping to that level is a thug and a moron.

Glad we agree. Unfortunately, it is being widely condoned online by mostly self professed leftists, many ironically who claim to be champions of civil rights and so on. The term 'Nazis' is also being thrown around by these people at will at anyone who challenges their narrow, warped viewpoint concerning the violence.

21-01-2017 03:29PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Either way it's a bit absurd. Why are you so keen to play down the Nazi's views as just expressing an opinion, while being hysterical about those who condone the punch? Is that not just expressing an opinion too?

It's the same reason the KKK is still legal but them committing crimes isn't. And attacking KKK members is illegal.

Cartouche · 21-01-2017 03:31PM

Populist politicians like Trump will always appeal to the feeble minded.

super_furry · 21-01-2017 03:32PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

In a democratic society, such thinking is more of a threat to democracy than a single Nazi yes. Because while a single Nazi won't overthrow a democracy, condoning violent response to freedom of expression has the potential to destroy a democracy and everything it stands for from within.

So he's a 'single Nazi' 'but I'm not a singular person when I think that sometimes when people get punched they deserve it.

Seems like again, you're trying to ascribe me and position me among a certain group of people. And at the same time ignoring the fact that Richard Spencer is not a single Nazi and instead the spokesman for a growing facist movement.

Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Comments