Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Burrito Boy]

If they were expressing a philosophy of hatred and genocide maybe, but they weren't. Nor did they murder anybody. Ergo there is no equivalency.

They both use violence but there's no equivalency because they're violent for different reasons? That makes no sense to me. Given, murder is worse than assault. As I said before, when talking about murder and vandalism not being equivalent, both are crimes. Both should be punished according to their severity. We shouldn't begin judging whether something is a crime based on the philosophy of the perpetrator rather than the nature of the crime.

[Burrito Boy]

Well said.

 

For an Atheist Foreign influence whose loyalties to Aquaman have never been confirmed!!

 

(Sorry, trying to lighten things up. I'm sure you love Aquaman in your heart- all good people do)

Damn straight! Aquaman rocks.

[Zeropoint]

Actually, I'm an atheist. I used "self-proclaimed" because many members of the alt-right do identify themselves as Christian, and I do take them at their word that they so consider themselves. Others can and have disputed that identification on the basis that their expressed views and actions are the antithesis of Christianity; but as you say, it's not for me to judge.

Ah, I totally misinterpreted what you were saying. I'm sorry for coming to the wrong conclusion about you.

 

Are you kidding ? folks debate who is or isn't a Christian all the time. Who is one, and who is just pretending to be one for political gain or social acceptance.

Why do you think the faith has so many divisions, schisms, and so on? 

And almost all of those divisions have equally good claims to be the correct interpretation of the religion. Hmm.

 

The bible itself speaks of false prophets, knowing people by their fruits, and Jesus looking at people who claim to have done all this for him and his response "I do not know you"

Don't automatically assume that the people who are "good" by the standards of society are the ones doing the Bible right; the Bible clearly advocates racism, slavery, genocide, and use of public violence to enforce social norms. The Bible records Jesus as saying that he came to bring not peace but a sword, and that he would set families against each other.

[Hermit]

Ah, I totally misinterpreted what you were saying. I'm sorry for coming to the wrong conclusion about you.

 

And almost all of those divisions have equally good claims to be the correct interpretation of the religion. Hmm.

 

Don't automatically assume that the people who are "good" by the standards of society are the ones doing the Bible right; the Bible clearly advocates racism, slavery, genocide, and use of public violence to enforce social norms. The Bible records Jesus as saying that he came to bring not peace but a sword, and that he would set families against each other.

 

I don't and I'm not. 

 

But at the same time, whether it clearly advocates or merely recognizes the historical context it was written in is another subject of debate. Multiple translations, priority of new vs old testament and Jesus over Paul (and everyone else), etc. are matters that have gone back and forth.

 

Now, you have made up your views, and I'm sure after long and careful study. I have studied as well, and have different views. We can claim confirmation bias or what you ever you like. But when you use "Hitler was a Christian" as a fact and a pillar for your seeming stance ,, when the majority of his biographers say he was an opponent of it, then yes, I think I'm going to speak up.

 

We don't need divisions between atheists who think Neo Nazis are scumballs (The majority of Atheists,  i dare say) and people of Faith who think Neo Nazis are scumballs(And yes, again I think the Majority of people of faith believe that). I believe that's going to distract from a united effort from denouncing said scumballs

 

And I think the bastards are hoping for just that.

[Lord Liaden]

Just to wrap up where I'm coming from, I know quite a few people who identify themselves as Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or other religions; and for whom their faith is a positive, humanity-affirming motivation for them to live decent lives and do good by their fellow human beings. And I applaud them for it. Whatever makes someone contribute to the betterment of the human condition gets my support, whether I personally believe in and follow it or not.

 

I judge people by their actions rather than the books they quote.

[Burrito Boy]

The Bible records Jesus as saying that he came to bring not peace but a sword, and that he would set families against each other.

I'm not a theologian but I am a Christian and to me this verse (Matthew 10:34) means that some people will accept Christ as their savior and follow Him while others, sometimes in the same family as a believer, will not. It's not a call to violence.

[pinecone]

I'm not a theologian but I am a Christian and to me this verse (Matthew 10:34) means that some people will accept Christ as their savior and follow Him while others, sometimes in the same family as a believer, will not. It's not a call to violence.

I concur, I think he said in moderm terms...I'm going to shake things up, not confirm the old ways.....YMMV...

[Old Man]

Photo of antifa breaking up a large assembly of white nationalists:

 

 

 

[Nolgroth]

And the fact that the Antifa showed up armed shows intent and malice aforethought. THAT'S the equivalency.

 

And that's why I am not letting them off the hook (not that I have any authority or power). Both sides showed up with the intention of fighting. It is just that simple. You cannot claim peaceful demonstration when you come strapped. 

[Nolgroth]

As I've said on numerous occasions, we have to recognize that there are reasonable, thoughtful people on the "left" and the "right," among the Republicans and the Democrats. Reasonable, thoughtful people can disagree on a number of issues, without being spawn of evil. And they can find common ground on matters of clear and present threat, without being traitors to their beliefs. IMHO people of any stripe who refuse to even consider cooperation or compromise on dogmatic grounds, are neither thoughtful nor reasonable.

 

Oh I agree, but "Spawn of Evil" has a nice ring to it.

[TrickstaPriest]

Well said. 

 

For an Atheist Foreign influence whose loyalties to Aquaman have never been confirmed!!

 

(Sorry, trying to lighten things up. I'm sure you love Aquaman in your heart- all good people do)

 

Dammit Hermit, you had to post this just when I ran out of 'likes' for the day

[Tech priest support]

They both use violence but there's no equivalency because they're violent for different reasons? That makes no sense to me. Given, murder is worse than assault. As I said before, when talking about murder and vandalism not being equivalent, both are crimes. Both should be punished according to their severity. We shouldn't begin judging whether something is a crime based on the philosophy of the perpetrator rather than the nature of the crime.

Say whaaaaat?

 

Seriously in ww2 the axis used violence (war) to spread fascism and a regime that practiced mass murder, slavery and genocide. The allies waged war (used violence) to stop regimes that practiced and spread fascism, slavery and genocide. According to what you seem to be saying the allies were no better than the axis.

 

Your know what? The neonazis are fighting for an america that would drive out or exterminate tends of millions of people. Like that trump voter in Texas at a rally who shouted he couldn't wait for the "great liberal genocide" to begin.

 

You make think that if the neonazis use violence to promote a fascist America tha r will be a mass grave for tens of millions of Americans and anti fasicstsnuse violence to stop them they're "equivelant".

 

No, they're not.

[Nolgroth]

Okay (and let me try to word this delicately), please stop equating Antifa with the brave soldiers of WW2. Antifa are not fighting a war against some genocidal axis of evil. They are merely a group dedicated to using tactics like violence, disruption of public order, destruction of property, and instilling fear to further their own ideological agenda. That the Neo-Fascists/Nazis are on the opposite side does not make Antifa better, it merely makes them the lesser of the two evils between the two extremist groups. I will happily and enthusiastically condemn the Neo-Fascists and all of their ilk but I think Anitfa should be held accountable for all of their transgressions as well. They just haven't outright publicly murdered anybody (to my knowledge) yet. I expect that it will not take long before they do.

 

This whole ideological/political climate stinks. Perhaps it is the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, but I used to be able to identify with something. Now everywhere I look, all I see are bad guys. It kind of crushes hope and enthusiasm.

 

Think I better take a break for a few days. 

[megaplayboy]

My updated understanding of Antifa is that the group has something of an internal rift philosopically.  Some want to focus on protecting counterprotesters against violence, and only using force defensively--several black pastors credited the group with protecting them from violence in Charlottesville.  Some want to aggressively engage fascists and white supremacists in hand to hand combat.  

The group apparently originated in Germany in the late 1980s, as a movement to fight the resurgent neo-Nazism that followed reunification.  

The underlying philosophy, AIUI, is that fascism is such a uniquely dangerous threat to democracy that it should be aggressively challenged everywhere and denied even a foothold, including unfettered access to public forums.  Obviously a controversial position, but not an unprincipled one.  

[Burrito Boy]

Say whaaaaat?

 

Seriously in ww2 the axis used violence (war) to spread fascism and a regime that practiced mass murder, slavery and genocide. The allies waged war (used violence) to stop regimes that practiced and spread fascism, slavery and genocide. According to what you seem to be saying the allies were no better than the axis.

 

Your know what? The neonazis are fighting for an america that would drive out or exterminate tends of millions of people. Like that trump voter in Texas at a rally who shouted he couldn't wait for the "great liberal genocide" to begin.

 

You make think that if the neonazis use violence to promote a fascist America tha r will be a mass grave for tens of millions of Americans and anti fasicstsnuse violence to stop them they're "equivelant".

 

No, they're not.

Point taken. Violence is sometimes justified. But I would argue that what's happening now is far from what was happening in Nazi Germany. People aren't being forced to wear stars to identify that they're Jewish, they're not being forcibly segregated, and they aren't being shipped off to death camps. You can argue that these things might happen if we're not vigilant and I would agree with that. I know that there are people who still hold Nazi beliefs. I abhor them as I think we all do. (We, in this case being everyone in this discussion. Because as we all know there are sympathizers.) When I made my earlier comments about both sides resorting to violence, I wasn't trying to make the point that it's okay for one side to be violent because the other side is. I certainly wasn't condoning murder. I was lamenting that our society has come to the point where so many people think violence is an acceptable method of expressing their opinion. Violence should be a last resort. Neville Chamberlain was foolish for trying to appease Hitler. It's obvious that some people cannot be reasoned with. But the attempt should be made. Too many people now hear a differing opinion and, instead of hearing that person out, immediately call that person a Nazi. I myself was called a "closet Nazi" at the bookstore I used to volunteer at because I said I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton. I just laughed it off since I know who I am and what I believe. I can handle someone who disagrees with me without resorting to name calling or violence. If he had physically attacked me instead of simply calling me a name, I would have been within my rights to defend myself. He would have been the one charged with assault. Claiming someone is a fascist is not a legitimate excuse for attacking them. Using violence to force your opinion on others is actually fascism itself. Antifa using slogans like "Bash the Fash", setting fires, setting people on fire, punching people they identify as Nazis (whether or not those people really are Nazis), sending death threats, breaking windows, and other things they have done in Charlottesville and elsewhere is more reminiscent of Kristallnacht than it is of a concerted effort to end such pogroms.

 

https://spectator.org/radical-anti-fascists-are-pretty-darn-fascist/

 

As for the person who shouted that he couldn't wait for the "great liberal genocide", I don't condone his words at all. In fact I find them disgusting. I would call him out the same as those who chant that they want "dead cops", those who post on Twitter that they can't wait for "white genocide". No matter what side of the political spectrum you're on, certain behavior is unacceptable.

[sinanju]

If they were expressing a philosophy of hatred and genocide maybe, but they weren't.  Nor did they murder anybody.  Ergo there is no equivalency.

 

With the exception of the guy behind the wheel of that car, neither did any of the protestors. Unless you know something nobody else does--in which case, you have notified the cops, right? Hateful bigots attacking other hateful bigots: equivalency.

[Lord Liaden]

I was lamenting that our society has come to the point where so many people think violence is an acceptable method of expressing their opinion.

 

Honestly, I've felt that this attitude has been growing in American society in particular for many years. From teenagers shooting each other over being "disrespected," to disgruntled employees going on a workplace rampage; to ultra-violent movies and video games. I consider all of these things to be, not the causes of a change in attitude, but symptoms of a culture that has long glamorized and romanticized violence and its tools; that celebrates the "lone wolf" taking the law into his own hands; that shows the biggest hero as the one who kills the most "bad guys," however he happens to define them.

 

IMO the collective social pressure to restrain this sort of behavior has been gradually eroding. The ground work has been laid for more and more people to consider such actions as an acceptable path to dealing with people they disagree with or who disturb them. Stable people recognize that in civilized society there's a line you can't carry this attitude across... but there's no shortage of unstable people, easily influenced or provoked. I'm not even sure any more that they're in the minority.

[Iuz the Evil]

No. Just, no.

 

Historical context matters. The Klan and Nazis have a lot of blood on their hands. This isn't hyperbole, you've got people publicly representing themselves as members of organizations with multiple murders on their track record, who have espoused terror tactics and violence for decades.

 

I can dislike some Antifa tactics, no problem. They are not in any way, shape, or form equivalent to the Nazis or KKK. Marching with flags, armbands and torches while chanting "blood and soil" then having someone associated with your really attempting multiple murder automatically cedes the moral high ground in my estimation. No equivalence. Done.

[Old Man]

With the exception of the guy behind the wheel of that car, neither did any of the protestors. Unless you know something nobody else does--in which case, you have notified the cops, right? Hateful bigots attacking other hateful bigots: equivalency.

 

Except that many of the people attacked by the hateful bigots were peaceful counterprotestors if not innocent bystanders.  And antifa wouldn't have been present, in fact would not even exist, if the hateful bigots weren't there to begin with. 

[Pattern Ghost]

It seems to me that Antifa helped stir the pot, and helped put the peaceful counter-protestors at risk. There's a disturbing trend of smaller agitator groups inciting violence at protests, and it looks to me that Antifa is in that camp, or at least some subset of them is.

[Joe Walsh]

Curiouser and curiouser: Bannon calls up the editor of the liberal magazine The American Prospect to talk about China and denounce racists as "clowns":

http://prospect.org/article/steve-bannon-unrepentant

[Nolgroth]

Clowns are scary freaks. Racists are scary freaks. I can see the correlation.

[Iuz the Evil]

Thought this was interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/us/hate-groups-us-map-trnd/index.html

 

Chick Publications made me laugh.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Basketball great Lebron James speaking out on Charlottesville.

 

Athletes are in an interesting and awkward position. People pay attention to them, whether they "deserve" it or not. They are criticized when they take a political stand (Muhammad Ali is an extreme example, but Jim Brown dealt with it as well -- and we're seeing it today in the controversy surrounding Colin Kapernick) and when they don't. They have an outsized "bully pulpit", but some are afraid to use it. Lebron James is not one of those athletes that is afraid to use it.

 

I wonder how many more of these statements we will see in the coming weeks.

[Joe Walsh]

Since we're full of links today, here's a remarkably good interview with Stephen Colbert from today's LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/tv/la-en-st-stephen-colbert-emmys-20170817-htmlstory.html#nt=oft12aH-2gp2

 

It's more philosophical and religious than political; worth reading no matter which side you're on.