Problematic Stuff

Post Reply
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 36699
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Animavore » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:55 am

Image
Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor. Traitor.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 31704
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Svartalf » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:10 am

white hoods are ok while black masks are not? :racist:
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12108
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:48 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:25 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:52 pm
Of course, from an individual perspective, yes. If someone I oppose politically is being a little shit to me, then I obviously don't like it. But, viewing it objectively, have I obtained some right to steal his hat and throw a drink in his face?

Some people think it's just fine to harass people in restaurants because they harbor offensive political opinions and are "little shits" as a result. It's not feasible to have a rule where -- legally - the rightness of harassment depends on the identity of the persons involved. If you reverse the races, or political persuasion, or sex, of the persons involved - the shoe on the other foot test - and the answer would be different, then one is not applying a workable standard - and that standard is one that will entail a larger cost than benefit, in the end.

I would rather live in a country where I have to put up with Nation of Islam shits calling me honkey, and I don't get to snatch their hat and throw drinks in their face, than one where I can do that, but others can't.
I'm going to frame my question in another way because I feel that you're not really engaging with it. What if you were called "Honkey" every day, or worse, or told that you weren't welcome, or that people like you should blah blah blah? What if you were routinely short-changed because of who you are, because of your looks, or your ancestry, presumed political affiliations, or just because you lived on the 'wrong' side of town? What if, wherever you went, you had to keep an eye out for trouble, for the ever-present prospect of little shits giving you shit? What if this is something that not only you had to deal with, but your partner, your kids, your extended family, your community? I invite you to read back over the last few posts in this strand and have another stab at it.
I'd steal their hats, and throw drinks in their faces?

Why don't you answer it? What is it that you think I'm missing, and what is the right answer?
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12108
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:55 am

Animavore wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:55 am
Image
The law would apply to the Klan, too. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... format=txt

There have been many mask laws, specifically directed at the Klan, for more than a century. The difference with this law is that it's federal, not State (most of the other mask laws were state law crimes). I think it's an overreach of federal authority, but the text would apply to anyone, not just antifa.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12108
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:04 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:16 am
Svartalf wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:10 am
You still have not justified how political violence is any more acceptable than the sheer hooliganism I deem it to actually be.
But that wasn't your original point. Your original point was that it wasn't political. Which is incorrect.

Regarding whether political violence is justifiable... in certain circumstances it clearly is, or else every single war would be unjustifiable. Kicking the Nazis arse would have been unjustifiable in WWII. That would be a silly position to hold. I think ANTIFA are morally justified in using violence to oppose white supremacy and racism. All you upstanding respectable citizens seem to forget that violence is a regular feature of political change in the past, and most of your comfortable position to pontificate about civility has been won at the end of a gun, sword or canon etc.
There is a fundamental difference between a nation going to war, and civilians engaged in violence to serve their own political ends. When it comes to Nazi Germany, there was a question of German aggression, and a defense against it. War is supposed to be allowable in defensive actions (under the UN Charter).

Now, people, including ANTIFA, have a right of self-defense too. If they're going out on the street, singin' songs and carryin' signs, mostly sayin' hoo-ray for our side, and they get attacked, then technically they should have a right of self defense. However, so does the local Nazi party.

What's not allowed is for someone to be voicing an unpalatable political opinion, and then to have some other person or group determine that the opinion is unacceptable and take violent action against it. That's especially true when the rubric is that the horrible opinions are a threat to society or whatever. Where an antifa person attacks an "alt right" person, the antifa person may be pure of heart and wishing only to protect society from the horrible opinions of the alt right. However, the alt-rightie likewise may well believe with a pure heart that it is the antifa person that holds the horribly objectionable views and is a threat to society.

Each person has a right to such viewpoints. The State is not an effective arbiter of which views are to be allowed to be responded to with violence, because the threat to society and the justifiability of attacks on persons for holding horrible views can just becomes a matter of who is in power at the time. A local government in podunk Mississippi may well believe that one set of beliefs are evil and a threat, while a local government in podunk Massachussetts may think quite the opposite.

The solution is government neutrality in matters of political opinion and free speech, and equal protection of the laws relative to violence.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12108
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:07 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:42 am
You said anfita were engaged in political violence: "It's absolutely politically motivated", and as the people who oppose racists [antifa] are better than racists then it's "most definitely is a false equivalency (sic)" to say that racist and antifa political violence are equally unjustified. As I said, I think you need to make a better case to justify the use of political violence.
Very true. A racist opinion and antifa opinions are just that, opinions.

The problem with opinions is not when individuals hold them. It's when the government holds them. The big problem with segregation in the US, and similar racism in Australia and South Africa, and elsewhere, was that it was racist policies wielded by the government/the state.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12108
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:08 am

Seabass wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:17 am
Racists aren't really a problem in the US. It's just a few isolated nutjobs. SJWs are the real problem. :prof:

Or they are both problems.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45855
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:57 am

Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:42 am
You said anfita were engaged in political violence: "It's absolutely politically motivated", and as the people who oppose racists [antifa] are better than racists then it's "most definitely is a false equivalency (sic)" to say that racist and antifa political violence are equally unjustified. As I said, I think you need to make a better case to justify the use of political violence.
Very true. A racist opinion and antifa opinions are just that, opinions.

The problem with opinions is not when individuals hold them. It's when the government holds them. The big problem with segregation in the US, and similar racism in Australia and South Africa, and elsewhere, was that it was racist policies wielded by the government/the state.
False dichotomy.

Sent from my Kogan Agora 8 using Tapatalk

Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 19916
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:17 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:48 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:25 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:52 pm
Of course, from an individual perspective, yes. If someone I oppose politically is being a little shit to me, then I obviously don't like it. But, viewing it objectively, have I obtained some right to steal his hat and throw a drink in his face?

Some people think it's just fine to harass people in restaurants because they harbor offensive political opinions and are "little shits" as a result. It's not feasible to have a rule where -- legally - the rightness of harassment depends on the identity of the persons involved. If you reverse the races, or political persuasion, or sex, of the persons involved - the shoe on the other foot test - and the answer would be different, then one is not applying a workable standard - and that standard is one that will entail a larger cost than benefit, in the end.

I would rather live in a country where I have to put up with Nation of Islam shits calling me honkey, and I don't get to snatch their hat and throw drinks in their face, than one where I can do that, but others can't.
I'm going to frame my question in another way because I feel that you're not really engaging with it. What if you were called "Honkey" every day, or worse, or told that you weren't welcome, or that people like you should blah blah blah? What if you were routinely short-changed because of who you are, because of your looks, or your ancestry, presumed political affiliations, or just because you lived on the 'wrong' side of town? What if, wherever you went, you had to keep an eye out for trouble, for the ever-present prospect of little shits giving you shit? What if this is something that not only you had to deal with, but your partner, your kids, your extended family, your community? I invite you to read back over the last few posts in this strand and have another stab at it.
I'd steal their hats, and throw drinks in their faces?

Why don't you answer it? What is it that you think I'm missing, and what is the right answer?
OK, I can see your reluctant to go there. What I'm suggesting is that you're not really thinking about this from a personal perspective. Sure, you've explained your values and how you see things, and I appreciate that, but I feel you're applying your criticism of the Whataburger hat thief to all situations in an abstract sense, not in a personal sense. I don't think you really appreciate what it is, or might be, to be targeted for victimisation - in fact, I don't think many of us do. Most of us, I would suggest, belong to the nominal groups which wouldn't be the natural target for racist shitiness. Being looked-down on, distrusted, discriminated against, controlled, threatened, living in a constant state of wariness, etc, is something that other people have to deal with.

If the Whataburger hat thief was subject to verbal abuse we can easily condemn the response as an individual, discrete incident - there's no problem there in principle imo. But if being subject to verbal abuse is a constant feature in one's life how long do we or should we tell the targets of victimisation that they should put up with it? How long is it acceptable for someone to feel like a stranger or an outsider in their own country or community? If the so-called 'little shits' are feeling increasingly emboldened to publicly express their innate shitiness (and some evidence suggests they are), and we're to maintain that they have a right to be shitty -- a constitutional right in fact -- then at what point is it appropriate to let people know that they don't have to be on the receiving end of shitiness any more? Is it there ever a right point to do that, or do we just let be what will be, and sort everything out after the apocalypse? ;)
.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 19916
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:36 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:07 am
Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:42 am
You said anfita were engaged in political violence: "It's absolutely politically motivated", and as the people who oppose racists [antifa] are better than racists then it's "most definitely is a false equivalency (sic)" to say that racist and antifa political violence are equally unjustified. As I said, I think you need to make a better case to justify the use of political violence.
Very true. A racist opinion and antifa opinions are just that, opinions.

The problem with opinions is not when individuals hold them. It's when the government holds them. The big problem with segregation in the US, and similar racism in Australia and South Africa, and elsewhere, was that it was racist policies wielded by the government/the state.
I'd agree with that to a point, but I don't think members of society at large get a free pass or are let off simply because the government implements racist policies or endorses racist points of view.

Sure, different people have different opinions, but what your pointing out there is that different people have different sets of values. We often say that everyone is entitled to their opinions, which gives the impression that opinions are kind of neutral or equal, but we would hardly say that everyone's values are equally justified or justifiable - that values which promote a White-only autocracy, for example, are equal in stature and merit as values which promote an integrated democracy.

The point I was making to pErvy regarded his justifications for the political use of physical violence which, as it stands, appears as you suggest to reduce down to a conflict of opinion. I know that pEry has strong opinions on this so my hope is that he might flesh out those premises or concepts which constitute the values which inform his opinions. I don't think it too much of a stretch to say that pretty much everybody knows on a fundamental level that racism is wrong, that there's a number of intellectual and ethical shortfalls inherent to racist perspectives, and that the social consequences of racist values are deleterious to the well-being of everyone - racists included. Nonetheless, our intuitions about what is right and wrong are not, in themselves, an adequate justification to commit violence on racists.

For my own part, I think the initiation of political violence is unjustified. If we're to say that political violence is justified and made justifiable by the content of the political opinion of those we oppose then we are in effect saying that violence against everyone who's views are not in perfect tandem with our own is justifiable, to some degree, and also that violence committed against us for the same reasons is similarly justifiable. If we want to live in a world where political opposition justifies violent action then we are essentially saying that we're happy to be on the receiving end of it (in the political sense, if not in the actual bruises and broken bones sense).

This is the nature of the equivalence both Svarty and I have brought up.

If the antifa ninja army turn up to a White Supremacist rally with the express intent of 'giving the fascists a kicking' then, by being prepared to initiate violence they justify, legitimise, and authorise the violence of those they oppose, and by that intent their actions become about expressing their violent tendencies, with the political opposition aspect of it merely being the hook to hang it off. This doesn't only apply to the anftia ninja army though, the same goes for the Rise Above Movement, Volsfront, or The Order, etc.

Perhaps a slightly better ethical position is to say that, in the context of a political protest, it is justifiable to use violence against those who would do us harm - either now or in the future. This at least implies that in this context the use of violence is not the express intent of, or primary reason for, being politically active. But again, although this 'not looking for it but prepared to engage in it' position at least focuses our attention on a specific political context, if we are to say that we will only use violence on those who would do us harm then we are in effect saying that we are prepared to use violence against everybody - for we are all capable of harming others, and this justification on our own part also justifies violence against us on the same grounds. We also have the knotty problem of what actually constitutes harm here as well.

A slightly better ethical position that that is to say that, again in this context, while it is not justifiable to use violence against those who would do us harm it is justified when we are actually being harmed - when people are not just threatening but are actually engaged in violence against us. To act only for the defensive protection or preservation of oneself does do away with intent and probable harm as well as removing the political context from consideration - for it matters not what the politics of the violent attacker or the justification for their own actions is, only that we are suffering the consequences now and have to deal with that now. This position also suffers from the same kind of problems I've already outlined regarding violence acting as a justification for yet more violence, but how many of us are really going to take a beating, or possibly worse, simply to maintain the moral high ground? Nonetheless, we still have to deal with what actually constitutes 'us' here - it is 'us' in the individual, personal sense, or 'us' in the group sense for example.

And yet (!) if we look at these ethical positions and accept that, either in a limited or a broader sense, that violence is a justified response to violence, then don't we also have to look to ourselves and ask to what extent our views inform our actions in this arena and whether or not they contribute to, promote or perpetuate, violence as a political means in society? In other words, if we fail to address these issues then what are the chances for a less violent, more peaceful political discourse and society?

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18441
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:58 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:36 pm
...while it is not justifiable to use violence against those who would do us harm it is justified when we are actually being harmed - when people are not just threatening but are actually engaged in violence against us.
Ethics schmethics. In the recent past we had a few dozen, maybe a couple of hundred pathetic men dressed up in white polo shirts and brandishing Tiki torches marching down some town's streets, shouting "Jews will not replace us". Hardly a threat, was it? But then, the Beer Hall Putsch was no more than a flash in the pan.

What if the alt-right does successfully unite and actually gets organised while Trump continues to do a Hindenburg? Shall we wait until the 20th of July 1944, when the horse has truly bolted, a nation lies in ashes and fatal harm has come to 55 million individuals? Hitler said he'll use the machinery of parliamentary democracy to destroy it, and that's what he did. Should we wait for a repeat of something like that before kicking the butts of those who work for a White [insert name of nation here]? Should we wait until the purveyors of the so called fake news, the so called Lügenpresse of yore have been neutralised? Is it good strategy to not violently resist the germ of the alt right and its enablers until the enemies of democracy beat us and are too powerful to be defeated? Are you going to keep your hands in your pocket because they have not broken baseball or cricket bats over our heads - yet? What exactly is this shit about I have no right to steal his hat and throw a drink in his face? Yes, our intuitions about what is right and wrong are, in themselves, an adequate justification to commit violence on racists. There is no equivalence between their right to racism and ours to racial equality, no matter how pure at heart the fascists feel about their opinions. Hitler certainly felt pure at heart. He was going to make Germany great again by getting rid of the double scourge of civilisation - communism and the Jews.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45855
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:12 pm

:this:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 19916
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:51 am

Hermit wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:58 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:36 pm
...while it is not justifiable to use violence against those who would do us harm it is justified when we are actually being harmed - when people are not just threatening but are actually engaged in violence against us.
Ethics schmethics. In the recent past we had a few dozen, maybe a couple of hundred pathetic men dressed up in white polo shirts and brandishing Tiki torches marching down some town's streets, shouting "Jews will not replace us". Hardly a threat, was it? But then, the Beer Hall Putsch was no more than a flash in the pan.

What if the alt-right does successfully unite and actually gets organised while Trump continues to do a Hindenburg? Shall we wait until the 20th of July 1944, when the horse has truly bolted, a nation lies in ashes and fatal harm has come to 55 million individuals? Hitler said he'll use the machinery of parliamentary democracy to destroy it, and that's what he did. Should we wait for a repeat of something like that before kicking the butts of those who work for a White [insert name of nation here]? Should we wait until the purveyors of the so called fake news, the so called Lügenpresse of yore have been neutralised? Is it good strategy to not violently resist the germ of the alt right and its enablers until the enemies of democracy beat us and are too powerful to be defeated? Are you going to keep your hands in your pocket because they have not broken baseball or cricket bats over our heads - yet? What exactly is this shit about I have no right to steal his hat and throw a drink in his face? Yes, our intuitions about what is right and wrong are, in themselves, an adequate justification to commit violence on racists. There is no equivalence between their right to racism and ours to racial equality, no matter how pure at heart the fascists feel about their opinions. Hitler certainly felt pure at heart. He was going to make Germany great again by getting rid of the double scourge of civilisation - communism and the Jews.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:36 pm
...

We also have the knotty problem of what actually constitutes harm here as well.

...
I'm not a fan of the slippery slope argument, and I don't think the US is quite at the stage of aping the Weimar Republic, nor is Trump, for all his personal, intellectual, cognitive and political failings a Hindeburg. But I would like to put a direct question to you: do you think the Jew haters at Charlottesville should have had their limbs rearrange with pickaxe handles? I'm not asking if they merely deserved a kicking, but whether they should have actually got one. What would that have actually achieved?

I think the spectre of race in the US brings with it a raft of social and political problems which are difficult to address, not least because the US has a quite particular attitude towards race in which it still places (in the general sense, at least) great store. Also the fascist-right specifically continue to display an unrelenting penchant for assembly and provocation which seems, or so it is claimed, to be protected under the auspices of the constis0tituion. While the majority of Westernised nations have sought to mitigate and deal with the societal impact of extremism and incitement, chiefly by bringing in pretty stiff laws on hate-speech, in the US there seems to be a feeling that the constitution forbids this and that 'Freedom of Speech' grants those so minded a constitutionally protected 'licence to hate'.

We've argued before about the nature of free speech, about it being a protection from undue interference by the state, rather than being a right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre without consequence. However, the distinction -- which is a sound one I think -- still doesn't seem to have penetrated the border.

The rise in fascist sympathy lies not in the ideology of fascists per se, but in the social conditions which make it's intellectually and ethical impoverished worldview seem like a reasonable alternative. Meeting that with violence will, I fear, only exacerbate those social and political problems, further dissolve communities into ever-more specific groups of us's and thems, and embolden those who are led to believe in the kind of simplistic, one-dimensional solutions to complex problems which the far-right has made their vocation for at least 100 years.
.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45855
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:32 am

I think the US needs another civil war and splitting up into two countries. Not sure how that would practically work what with the military forces and nukes available at hand..
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45855
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:34 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:51 am

The rise in fascist sympathy lies not in the ideology of fascists per se, but in the social conditions which make it's intellectually and ethical impoverished worldview seem like a reasonable alternative. Meeting that with violence will, I fear, only exacerbate those social and political problems, further dissolve communities into ever-more specific groups of us's and thems, and embolden those who are led to believe in the kind of simplistic, one-dimensional solutions to complex problems which the far-right has made their vocation for at least 100 years.
But this is the thing I mentioned about the situation where the state isn't meeting it's obligations to maintain a civil and fair society. If they won't do it, then the people are going to have to do it themselves.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hermit and 6 guests