Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 123: Heather Heyer

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346490-cnn-trump-insisted-on-putting-economic-remarks-at-top-of

Pathetic
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

I also want to go back to menuwars' fucking false equivalence because that shit pisses me off. You say that the only reason blm hasn't systemically murdered millions of innocent civilians is because they aren't in power? We have fucking white supremacists carrying the flag and embracing the symbol that is responsible for the largest singular genocide in history. There is no equal.

Oh yeah, I meant to respond to that.

Menu, do you believe BLM is on par with the KKK?

Because calling BLM supporters essentially "just as bad" makes me think you do, and I need to know why.

The kkk calls for removal of entire races of people. Blm calls for equality in treatment from the law. Even if their methods were equivalent and we granted menuwars' argument that handicap, their endgames would still be far different from one another.
---

Yeah, we brought up what Cruz said. He came out with that really quickly.
---

Regaro posted...

Wang trying to make Corrik's gaslighting attempts look reasonable and measured.

At what point do you call out Regaro's bullshit?

This is addressed to the liberals here.
---

I haven't paid attention to it, what gaslighting is he accusing you of again?
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Oh hey, Ted Cruz ... isn't completely repulsive:

i don't believe you
---

Corrik posted...

Regaro posted...

Wang trying to make Corrik's gaslighting attempts look reasonable and measured.

At what point do you call out Regaro's bullshit?

This is addressed to the liberals here.

When his statements no longer apply.
Through your words you are actively attempting to normalize the horrors that this administration is working toward.
---

Menu seems to have left for the moment so he hasn't had a chance yet to answer my question but what I wanted to figure out was a more detailed explanation of his view of BLM. That was pretty key to understanding what was going on there to me.

I was basically trying to figure out what track he was on. Whether it was an issue with BLM's ideology or a more general tone/rhetoric thing.

Honestly the way the whole thing started I thought it was tone/rhetoric and he was saying that language like Kenri's inflamed the other side and made working towards solutions more difficult, but then BLM suddenly ended up the focus of the conversation and I lost the thread a bit.
---

Corrik's been very good in his response to the nazis. Also in general, though I usually disagree with him, he argues in good faith which I can't say for certain other people.
---

MrGreenonion posted...

Kinglicious posted...

Corrik posted...

He could just simpy believe everyone has the right to speak their opinions, no matter what they are.

That's pretty much it. Full on "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That includes Nazis, yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

Punch Nazis.

This paradox of intolerance thing is a pretty much direct comparison to a much earlier discussion regarding interventionism and even what is deemed humane or not.

Do you just allow other countries to build up nukes and hope they don't attack you (even when stating they will) because it is their own country and they can do as they please and its not our affairs? Or do we act?

If terrorists from a country are attacking you and killing your citizens do you bomb them back even though it may inadvertently kill civilians there?

At what point should you just not accept things?

Should we have bombed Japan?

Should countries resort to total war when their enemies are? Do you let a country continuously attack your civilians while you refuse to retaliate due to the rules of war?



I remember a specific exchange with someone where I asked them is it better to be moral or to be alive in a war? They said they would rather die being moral and know they lived a good life. But, if you are eradicated, your history is removed from the world, and no one even knows what you died for. What was the point?


That paradox is no different.

Which is why I am confused to see an argument on the side of not being tolerant here from a liberal voice because the liberals in this topic were very against not being immoral in wars if necessary with the same paradox applied.
---

Corrik posted...

What was the point?

This is more of a philosophy question, I think. Would be up to the individual to determine.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

I've been away all weekend, have any of our resident conservatives stated even the mildest condemnation of the Charlottesville nazis?

Corrik is condeming it.

Ulti was hardcore defending them then realized how bad that made him look, so he went through some serious backpedaling. Over the last 24 hours he's been inching closer and closer to his original view, though, easing it in.

He did try and change the conversation to some Scaly assassination conspiracy theory at one point, that was fun.

Other than that, no. Seph popping in every once in a while to talk shit about the left, based on quotes I'm seeing. Smuffin only posting in his topic, still claiming it was a leftist plot.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Like, okay. Some people may not have heard white supremacist ideologies. So it's important that they do, in case... They too want to become a white supremacist...?

So that they can see the argument being said and reaffirm what it is that won't work today, what wrongdoing would need to be done, and how utterly incompatible it is. If you can see them then you can see that people are fully capable of being ugly monsters and need to personally defend against becoming like that. It reaffirms where they are and where they don't want to be.

xp1337 posted...

I initially conceived it as protecting it against the prospect of outlawing hate speech. But the more it went on the less I think that's accurate. I mean, he can speak for himself, but since he has previously and we all seem a bit confused my current best take is that he thinks social pressure/shunning of an ideology causes it to strengthen because you haven't actually changed any minds, just forced them to hide it.

Both of these are accurate.
Not outlawing speech can be argued from a legal premise for limited value, it really goes back to principles of free speech and liberty which get to the second half of what you said. I wouldn't say it as "social pressure/shunning" though, negative ideologies will be shunned. If they aren't then there's some major issues in society as a whole and are a bigger issue. That's another reason they should exist too mind you, a rise of negative beliefs can help tell you where things are going wrong at a large scale, if we take this beyond just the individual. But I digress, letting them shunning is fine. Deplatforming can be iffy depending on who's doing what and it's complete rejection where it's forced to move underground is where I think the process goes from a good thing (weakening the ideology) to a bad one (strengthening it) as it now doesn't have any argument against it either. Once it reaches those levels you've got an echo chamber and the ideas will strengthen with no external ones saying otherwise.
---

Kinglicious posted...

So that they can see the argument being said and reaffirm what it is that won't work today, what wrongdoing would need to be done, and how utterly incompatible it is. If you can see them then you can see that people are fully capable of being ugly monsters and need to personally defend against becoming like that. It reaffirms where they are and where they don't want to be.

A history lesson can do that just fine. There's no reason that people still shouting the ideologies is necessary.
---

Corrik posted...

Which is why I am confused to see an argument on the side of not being tolerant here from a liberal voice because the liberals in this topic were very against not being immoral in wars if necessary with the same paradox applied.

I think the distinction is the finality of death versus more temporary immoral acts.

Like, I don't personally agree with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I would totally be down with a hypothetical magical world where we could evacuate all the people beforehand and THEN level the cities. It would still be really, really, really bad for the people who established their lives there, but at least they wouldn't be, you know, deceased.

Punch Nazis, don't kill Nazis (unless they're killing others of course)
---

"Let's bring back a pro slavery movement so people can see it's wrong. It's the only way they'll learn." - Wang
---

TheRock1525 posted...

but I don't think it would have been a violation of free speech if the city refused to allow this rally.

It absolutely would have.
In fact, the ACLU defended them over the weekend and confirmed it was in court.

StealThisSheen posted...

You're basically quiet on things unless it's to condemn something like antifa, or support a white nationalist/GGer/etc.

It's really annoying to be told this when I'm far from quiet and regularly post about damn near everything. There's almost no major arguments on the things we agree on so the times we do stand out more. That's literally it.

LapisLazuli posted...

He defends Nazis daily, let's see him defend Antifa.

They've a right to assembly and protest too. Why would I say otherwise? They don't have a right to break random Starbucks, riot, or commit terrorist actions either. I fully support the idea of one of them wanting to talk to others and I've heard them before on streams too. That's fine. They have the right to believe what they do, they don't have the right to commit violence. Which is why they're steadily being labeled a terrorist group too.

LordoftheMorons posted...

These pieces of shit should have to the right of free speech and ((heavy emphasis) peaceful) assembly. They should, however, be loudly condemned by everyone due to the hateful ideas for which they stand.

We're in agreement here.
kevwaffles posted...

Wang, you are now literally arguing against learning from history. What are you doing, man?

Where do you see that?
---

Kinglicious posted...

It's really annoying to be told this when I'm far from quiet and regularly post about damn near everything. There's almost no major arguments on the things we agree on so the times we do stand out more. That's literally it.

"Why didn't you come out about this?"

"Well I didn't know about that."

"Or this?"

"Didn't know that either!"
---

https://twitter.com/Kia_Mak/status/897128672829874176

Meanwhile: DOJ just announced that they arrested Jerry Drake Varnell on Saturday for attempting to set off a car bomb in Oklahoma City https://t.co/xrVIbiIEz7

Domestic white terrorist. Fuck trump's America.
---

Kinglicious posted...

Where do you see that?

How is advocating for people to say the same things over and over like society didn't learn from it before anything but not learning from the past? Or, in other words:

StealThisSheen posted...

A history lesson can do that just fine.

---

Wang is essentially making the argument that you can only believe in mountains if you yourself have personally seen a mountain.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

She purposely kept it vague leading up to the election to try and get anti-vaxx votes. She basically refused to say she WASN'T anti-vaxx until after it didn't matter, while making comments that could be taken as anti-vaxx.

false. she said she's pro-vaccination in one of her books long before the campaign.
---

in one of her books doesn't fucking matter if she pander to them in person with snake talk
---

I'm sure Trump has said things in his book that he then later contradicted.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

in one of her books doesn't fucking matter if she pander to them in person with snake talk

---

Peace___Frog posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

in one of her books doesn't fucking matter if she pander to them in person with snake talk

---

Regaro posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

in one of her books doesn't fucking matter if she pander to them in person with snake talk

---

books are a different continuity, the tv adaptation had to make changes
---

StealThisSheen posted...

A history lesson can do that just fine. There's no reason that people still shouting the ideologies is necessary.

"A" history lesson can't, no. That's incredibly shortsighted.

The first history lesson will help explain it for a while but people will forget the reasons of those lessons and they will lose impact. "History is doomed to repeat itself" isn't due to not knowing the past, it's due to certain ideas repeatedly springing up because they're rooted more deeply. We're now 3 or 4 generations removed from WW2 and the Nazis. That means whatever lesson you get taught about history is just that, history. Unless it's a really, really conservative idea, it's not going to match up on many details and some small things will slip through as people adapt these old ideas to their surroundings. The world as a whole won't be compatible with many of the old ideas either - they were rejected and people purposefully moved on intending to stay away from it. Those few aspects that remain will steadily grow and have a resurange of some kind. Generally speaking it won't be the same but the ideology will successfully plant itself in a new time.

A history lesson will not be very helpful to you, you're in a different time facing new versions of the old ideas. You're too removed from the original to get all the meaning and the idea is now presented in such a way to try to appeal to you in this new time, to make you believe it's possible. If you shut them down at this stage, you give them validity.

But if you let them talk, this incompatibility becomes clear. Everyone moved away from the idea generations ago and basic principles no longer work in the new society, principles they can't hide once a push is made. So they'll get rejected again, by people who reaffirm their current beliefs as they reject the old ones. As they do that, they will also continue to move against these negative beliefs.

Only after generations of rejection from iteration after iteration can you effectively program out these ideas as there won't be anything left to compare. It'll effectively be dead.
---

Jill Stein was about as bad with pandering to anti-vaxers as Ben Carson and Donald Trump.

Anti-Vaxers should NOT be pandered to. They should be educated.
---

Guys, we should bring back slavery. We can't possibly tell how awful that was without experiencing it!
---

kevwaffles posted...

Guys, we should bring back slavery. We can't possibly tell how awful that was without experiencing it!

Just want to point out this is something that I deal with all the time in these topics.

Wang never said that.
---

Corrik posted...

kevwaffles posted...

Guys, we should bring back slavery. We can't possibly tell how awful that was without experiencing it!

Just want to point out this is something that I deal with all the time in these topics.

Wang never said that.

And Kev never said Wang said that.
---

No its reductio ad absurdum to show how dumb his statement was by extending its logic elsewhere.

No wang is not directly advocating for the return of slavery but his logic can be extended that way and should be a sign to him that its wrong
---

Ffs, Corrik. The point is that you don't need to keep repeating history to learn from it. I never said Wang said that.

Would you prefer I had gone with feudalism or barbarism or something?
---

Wang explicitly said in his book that he's anti-slavery.
---

Not only have I never said that but slavery proves my point a lot more than not. It still exists mind you, but societies has continued to face it for centuries, steadily finding new ways to have an economy that's better without relying on it. Those that still do are looked down upon heavily because we've new, better ideas that have made it completely incompatible today.
---

Eddv posted...

No wang is not directly advocating for the return of slavery but his logic can be extended that way and should be a sign to him that its wrong

No, it can't.
It does explain why slavery kept coming up in history though. It also explains why we no longer do it and have systems to stop others from doing it internationally too.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Ffs, Corrik. The point is that you don't need to keep repeating history to learn from it. I never said Wang said that.

Would you prefer I had gone with feudalism or barbarism or something?

You are trying to insinuate an argument he never made.

He said, they should be allowed to state their belief for it if they believe it. Nothing more.

You have trumped up that statement to somewhere that it never was said or even contemplated.

Yes, Wang would argue if you believe in feudalism you should be allowed to say so. Why not?

The point is that people have learned from history and it is why these ideas would never come into reality again, but the person has the right to voice that opinion regardless. They shouldn't be told they aren't allowed to say so just because it was done before.
---

Slavery talk got stamped out because people who brought up bringing it back got their ass beat.

The answer is beating ass.
---

What if the answer was eating ass?
---

Kinglicious posted...

Not only have I never said that but slavery proves my point a lot more than not. It still exists mind you, but societies has continued to face it for centuries, steadily finding new ways to have an economy that's better without relying on it. Those that still do are looked down upon heavily because we've new, better ideas that have made it completely incompatible today.

But it would still be objectively better if there was NO slavery and no one wanted slavery
---

Corrik posted...

The point is that people have learned from history and it is why these ideas would never come into reality again,

For reference, most ideas do come back. People only briefly learn from history, then they repeat it in similar but different ways or reject it again and advance in ways that continue to reject it. You can basically say that history is an ongoing process of multiple old ideas butting heads as people try to figure out which ones work best. Natural selection at an ideological scale, more or less.
---

Charlottesville murderer had a history of domestic violence against his mother:

https://apnews.com/ffec757d4c084bcda2c9ee4224e91c36/Mom-previously-accused-Charlottesville-driver-of-beating-her
---

Kinglicious posted...

Corrik posted...

The point is that people have learned from history and it is why these ideas would never come into reality again,

For reference, most ideas do come back. People only briefly learn from history, then they repeat it in similar but different ways or reject it again and advance in ways that continue to reject it. You can basically say that history is an ongoing process of multiple old ideas butting heads as people try to figure out which ones work best. Natural selection at an ideological scale, more or less.

Here's a question for you

Do you believe in objective truths?
---

Corrik posted...

You are trying to insinuate an argument he never made.

The point



































Your head
---

Kinglicious posted...

Corrik posted...

The point is that people have learned from history and it is why these ideas would never come into reality again,

For reference, most ideas do come back. People only briefly learn from history, then they repeat it in similar but different ways or reject it again and advance in ways that continue to reject it. You can basically say that history is an ongoing process of multiple old ideas butting heads as people try to figure out which ones work best. Natural selection at an ideological scale, more or less.

I really really want to tear this post down some more.

You're treating ideas as if they exist independently, and nature weeds out the bad ones through human experimentation and debate.

That's not reality.

Reality is that humans CREATE ideas. They are subservient to us the same way we are hypothetically subservient to an Abrahamaic God.

Natural selection in nature happens because either the creator is hands off, or there is no creator and life is left to fend for itself.

This is not true with ideas. We ARE their gods. They exist because WE ALLOW IT.

And there is no discernible reason we should allow those ideas without THE SLIGHTEST SHRED OF MERIT to prosper.

If it takes divine intervention to get rid of bigoted ideas, then so be it, because that is our right as their creators.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

in one of her books doesn't fucking matter if she pander to them in person with snake talk

it kinda does when the claim is "she never said she wasn't anti-vaxx before the election took place."
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

in one of her books doesn't fucking matter if she pander to them in person with snake talk

it kinda does when the claim is "she never said she wasn't anti-vaxx before the election took place."

This is an intellectually dishonest argument, and I believe you know it.

"Before the election took place" is referring to during the election cycle. Something she said in a book before that doesn't matter if what she's saying during the election seems to be contradicting it.

Just because something was said in a book did not mean it was the platform she was going to be campaigning on. And she purposely skirted around the issue for her campaign.
---

Let's harp on anti-vaxx too

I'm pretty sure Wang is on the side of science here. I think he personally believes that there's nothing wrong with our current methodology regarding them. If I am wrong about this then disregard the rest of this post.

Wang's pro-speech ideas at their most extreme would say "hey, I think those anti-vaxxers are loony, but they have every right to spread that belief."

Spreading that belief literally kills innocent people. It does so not through a subsequent action on the part of the believers like with white supremacy, but through an INACTION.

But hey, free speech, right?
---