Originally posted by Bashar Teg
terrorists are bad, sure; but anti-terrorist terrorism needs to stop.
Let me make my opinion on the matter perfectly clear, white supremacy is a disgusting divisive narcissistic ideology and white supremacists who employ the use of politicized violence are disgusting hateful unethical terrorists. Violent Antifa members are disgusting unethical terrorists and like their violent counterparts within the white supremacy movement are so cowardly and weak they cannot operate ethically or civilly within the political discussion and instead have to resort to completely unjustified violence and intimidation, and groups like BAMN supporting the continued existence and spread of affirmative action and college admission racial quotas are also disgusting for promoting racist policies.
Both the violence within Antifa, and within the white supremacy movement need to stop because violence has no place in political discourse in a civil ethical society. Can we at least agree on that much? Or are you actually going to defend the violent actions taken by those in Antifa for some reason? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that isn't what you're doing right now because that would be horrible.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Speaking as somebody who voted for Hillary over Trump, this partisan bullshit goes both ways and I could say just the same that many Hillary supporters voted for her blindly out of partisan politics, and some just voted for Hillary because she has a vagina. And some people legitimately informed on the issues like a few people I know thought both were terrible candidates but either thought Hillary was a worse candidate or agreed with the Republican platform more.
This is part of what irks me and I think it represents a danger not a lot of people think about. By that I mean when people convince themselves either that only one side does a certain behavior or that one side does a certain behavior way more than the side they just so happen to be on...it's a recipe for disaster.
Bringing up actual white supremacist groups like the KKK can actually help prove a point: when the KKK holds a rally they get called on it. They get called out as racists, the response is usually overwhelmingly negative. You don't see the media going out of their way to dress up the shady actions of white supremacists if they begin to destroy shit. If some members of the KKK began attacking cops the media wouldn't sometimes frame it as if the cops share some of the blame.
Antifa thugs just do not get their actions called out in the same way. Sometimes they get made out to be victims, like that girl with the dreadlocks who got clocked and whoops turned out to have been violent. The media outlets that interviewed her before all the facts came out did not bother to go back and maybe give some more context to the situation about the persons behavior. Would they have protected a white supremacist like that?
Since yep, the violent thugs in Antifa are no better than the white supremacists. They delude themselves into thinking they are different because they claim to be against "fascism". This is like if the KKK changed their name to "The Racial Tolerance League" and then convinced themselves they were morally superior because of it.
Either way, being partisan towards the Republicans or voting for Trump out of ignorance isn't remotely the same as being a fascist, which is the premise upon which they demonize and justify the methods they use against their political adversaries. Let me repeat this, even if your statement here is 100% accurate, the premise behind their movement that even most of the people they oppose are fascists is not justified.
At this point I'd rather people just fall back on the easy insult against Trumpers of "you're stupid". Or maybe quoting Trump's love of the uneducated. Anything other than repeatedly displaying to the world that this group included a word in their name that they don't seem to even truly understand.
And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you aren't serious about violence being justified against these people because that would be morally repugnant, unethical, and illegal, but if I'm wrong in assuming you don't actually believe violence towards these people is justified feel free to correct me.
If he was serious and people need to get beat down for living in bubbles and being willfully ignorant well...damn lol. I mean, the punchline to that joke more or less writes itself, do I even need to say it?
Also, if that Clockwork Orange reference is an indication that you like a Clockwork Orange, then props to you because I love that book/movie.
Indeed I also like the book.
In regards to my position on Antifa, I don't give a **** about white supremacists, because their existence and actions does not justify Antifa's unethical behavior. If you show me white supremacists committing violent actions, I will condemn those as well, in fact just the ideology of white supremacy on it's own is enough for me to condemn and it disgusts me that these people exist. None of this means that the violent behavior of Antifa isn't unethical and shitty, and thus none of this changes my opinion on Antifa.
And Bingo was his name-o
And thankfully Antifa is largely powerless as a political movement on a national scale, however their capacity to physically harm the individuals who they assault troubles me regardless of their lack of national influence on politics, which is why New Jersey labeling them as terrorists pleases me, just as I'd want any violent white supremacist group labeled that way as well.
Indeed I like what NJ did. My question is how many other states label them terrorists? It needs to be every single state. No doubt California has labeled them terrorists.
There is actually one Antifa group called BAMN (by any means necessary) that is rather prevalent in Berkeley that I wouldn't say is toothless in its area of operation. Thus far it has incited a massive riot, which included violence and property damage, when Milo Yiannopoulos came to speak at UC Berkeley, as well as starting a huge mob fight with a group of Trump supporters holding a pro free speech rally (free speech is so fascist amirite). On top of this the Mayor of Berkeley, despite this violent behavior and despite the leaders of BAMN saying violent militant action is needed against fascists, is actually part of the BAMN facebook group and is facebook friends with some of the group's leaders. Let me repeat that, the mayor of Berkeley is affiliated with this group that preaches and practices violence against their political adversaries. And one of their leaders Yvette Felarca who has actually physically assaulted people and has on national television called for violence against her political adversaries is, for some reason, allowed to teach children at a public school in Berkeley.
This just doesn't get pointed out enough. How has the mayor not been removed? Why has nobody demanded this?
Not to mention one of their goals is to defend affirmative action and have it further instated in national policy, which is an actual existing racist policy within our government. They were a party involved in the supreme court case Grutter v. Bollinger as well as organizing student support at the University of Michigan for the eventual outcome of the Supreme Court decision where the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that it is okay for colleges to discriminate against white people on the basis of race. Not to mention BAMN has organized several college campaigns to oppose legislation seeking to abolish racial admissions policies, and they have actually gotten people to sign petitions before that have shut down this anti-racial admission process legislation. And they have actually received two awards for defending racist policies.
It's weird because the narrative from the left is that all racism is bad. Thus affirmative action would be bad and it would be something they would rally to stop. So why don't more on the left come out against AA? Or admit they truly do not believe all racism is bad.
I'm actually left-leaning and think identity politics on both sides is childish disgusting and narcissistic, so you saying "what about the shitty people on the right" does absolutely nothing to sway my position on Antifa because I have no vested interest in defending the right, and because I think white nationalists, the alt-right, and white supremacist groups are ideologically abhorrent on principle and any violence from them is completely ethically inexcusable in the same vein.
Also here is the problem: both sides are just as bad, but this isn't accurately represented in our media. If people do not want to care about that fact okay, but it contradicts with the narrative we are given about how super important the press is supposed to be.
Originally posted by Surtur
This is part of what irks me and I think it represents a danger not a lot of people think about. By that I mean when people convince themselves either that only one side does a certain behavior or that one side does a certain behavior way more than the side they just so happen to be on...it's a recipe for disaster.Bringing up actual white supremacist groups like the KKK can actually help prove a point: when the KKK holds a rally they get called on it. They get called out as racists, the response is usually overwhelmingly negative. You don't see the media going out of their way to dress up the shady actions of white supremacists if they begin to destroy shit. If some members of the KKK began attacking cops the media wouldn't sometimes frame it as if the cops share some of the blame.
Antifa thugs just do not get their actions called out in the same way. Sometimes they get made out to be victims, like that girl with the dreadlocks who got clocked and whoops turned out to have been violent. The media outlets that interviewed her before all the facts came out did not bother to go back and maybe give some more context to the situation about the persons behavior. Would they have protected a white supremacist like that?
Since yep, the violent thugs in Antifa are no better than the white supremacists. They delude themselves into thinking they are different because they claim to be against "fascism". This is like if the KKK changed their name to "The Racial Tolerance League" and then convinced themselves they were morally superior because of it.
At this point I'd rather people just fall back on the easy insult against Trumpers of "you're stupid". Or maybe quoting Trump's love of the uneducated. Anything other than repeatedly displaying to the world that this group included a word in their name that they don't seem to even truly understand.
If he was serious and people need to get beat down for living in bubbles and being willfully ignorant well...damn lol. I mean, the punchline to that joke more or less writes itself, do I even need to say it?
Indeed I also like the book.
And Bingo was his name-o
Indeed I like what NJ did. My question is how many other states label them terrorists? It needs to be every single state. No doubt California has labeled them terrorists.
This just doesn't get pointed out enough. How has the mayor not been removed? Why has nobody demanded this?
It's weird because the narrative from the left is that all racism is bad. Thus affirmative action would be bad and it would be something they would rally to stop. So why don't more on the left come out against AA? Or admit they truly do not believe all racism is bad.
Also here is the problem: both sides are just as bad, but this isn't accurately represented in our media. If people do not want to care about that fact okay, but it contradicts with the narrative we are given about how super important the press is supposed to be.
The media exists in a bubble.
The two party system doesn't represent the majority.. at all.
Originally posted by Saltmining
#BuildtheWall
#Draintheswamp
#TaxReform
#BanMuslims
#LockHerUp
#CutRegulations
#GrabHerBythePussyThe Democrats Slogan was
#I'mWithHer
I still love how grown adults thought the best response to the pussy grabbing thing was vagina shaped hats. Truly that was a day of days when the first pussy hat came into existence.
I also am a big fan of the recent stickers designed by democrats, like this one: Btw, this is real. These are not from an Onion article. How is it after everything that has happened they still fail to learn lessons?
😆
An honorable mention goes to:
Nationalism vs multiculturalism will remain a dominant political battle for the foreseeable future IMO.
I believe the modern multiculturalist liberals that rule over most of Europe and the liberal portions of North America represent a sort of "over correction" in response to the history of colonialism and white supremacy.
The modern far right nationalist movements in these same parts of the world represent a similar sort of over correction in response to the flaws of the multiculturalists.
Originally posted by cdtmTo some of us, the more extreme versions of multiculturalism have put most of western europe on the wrong path. Germany, France. England, scandanavia, etc. I certainly don't wish to repeat the results of their experiment here in the US.
The multiculturalists have a good thing going. Of course they're going to overcorrect and try to stave off the torch's and pitchforks from the unwashed masses..
Originally posted by EmperordmbI'm not sure where that distinction comes from. They seem relatively intertwined, and both are a basic expression of human tribalism.
Cultural nationalism is important to an extent, ethnic nationalism is disgusting and racist.
As for black pride, for the most part yes I'd consider those movements racist at worst and ignorant at best, at least in a modern context. Much like feminism black pride was more understandable when the group in question was actually genuinely oppressed and treated as second class citizens, however in the modern day identity politics are childishly narcissistic, divisive, and detract from real issues.. People could do much better to take pride in and affiliate based on who they are rather than what they are. So for example black nationalist movements who support the existence of a black ethnostate are racist, just as white nationalists are. And any black empowerment movement that implicates all white people in collective guilt, or supports legal or corporate policies that racially discriminate in their favor (I'm looking at you affirmative action) are also racist. I would never affiliate with a movement that considers being born with a certain skin color worthy of pride as if it's some sort of virtue, since I find the concept of putting skin color on such a pedestal to be a horrible and disgusting, as well as logically incoherent and a waste of my time.
As far as Zionism goes I admit to not being familiar enough with Zionism to commentate on any racial connotations. This isn't me defending Zionism so much as it is me stating that I've never in my life actually had a conversation with another human being about Zionism or researched it. I've just heard other people mention it.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I'm not sure where that distinction comes from. They seem relatively intertwined, and both are a basic expression of human tribalism.
For example as far as immigration goes, it's perfectly valid for a person to say, this nation has values that our culture finds abhorrent, so when taking in immigrants we should be careful about the values and attitudes we are importing into our nation. It's important to preserve ideological attitudes within a nation that are conducive to progress and prevent other people's rights from being violated. There is no justification however for saying "you can't come into our nation because you were born with the wrong skin color."
Even if there is a correlation between race and cultural values, it is unfair to not treat members of each race as individuals who are capable of independent thought and separate values from each other. This so called "race realist" bullshit I see ethnonationalists trying to push is not logically or ethnically justifiable.
Originally posted by EmperordmbI would tend to agree with most of what you have just said. That being said, isn't there a sound cultural case that we are importing toxic elements of the latin american gang culture by leaving our borders as loosely controlled as they are, or that by bringing in streams of refugees from syria or iraq we risk bringing in the same sort of radical Islamic/Salifist elements that Europe seems to have opened their door to due to their immigration policies? None of that is based on skin color IMO, but it still gets construed as racist or xenophobic to express that kind of sentiment by modern leftists.
The distinction between culture and race is that it is perfectly valid to judge a person by the values they hold as well as actions they take, those are substantive qualities of who somebody is as a person, whereas judging somebody based on their skin color is completely superficial since skin color doesn't determine who somebody is as a person. There's a whole world of difference between judgements based on who a person is and what a person is.For example as far as immigration goes, it's perfectly valid for a person to say, this nation has values that our culture finds abhorrent, so when taking in immigrants we should be careful about the values and attitudes we are importing into our nation. It's important to preserve ideological attitudes within a nation that are conducive to progress and prevent other people's rights from being violated. There is no justification however for saying "you can't come into our nation because you were born with the wrong skin color."
Even if there is a correlation between race and cultural values, it is unfair to not treat members of each race as individuals who are capable of independent thought and separate values from each other. This so called "race realist" bullshit I see ethnonationalists trying to push is not logically or ethnically justifiable.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I would tend to agree with most of what you have just said. That being said, isn't there a sound cultural case that we are importing toxic elements of the latin american gang culture by leaving our borders as loosely controlled as they are, or that by bringing in streams of refugees from syria or iraq we risk bringing in the same sort of radical Islamic/Salifist elements that Europe seems to have opened their door to due to their immigration policies? None of that is based on skin color IMO, but it still gets construed as racist or xenophobic to express that kind of sentiment by modern leftists.