NationStates

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:05 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Bannedbytomorrow wrote:Rehabilitate is a nice way of saying "make it someone else's problem." You don't want to negotiate, you want to remove them. You don't want to debate them, you want to shut them up. Face it, everyone here wants another person here dead.

I don't want them dead. I want them to become decent human beings.

You are entirely wrong... save for one thing: I don't want to debate them, because there is nothing to debate. There is no debate to be had with Holocaust deniers, Confederate revisionists or genocide supporters. There is no debate to be had with people who think darker skin makes you "subhuman", that "Hitler did nothing wrong", or that "slavery was actually good". There is nothing to debate with someone who believes that "the International Jewry is conspiring against the white male" or that LGBT rights are the doom of Western civilization. None of those positions is even remotely legitimate or worthy of the pretense of legitimacy that a debate would grant them. Those ideas only deserve one thing: to be permanently suppressed. They have no place in humanity. And those who believe those ideas need to change or face exclusion.

See what I mean? You hate the,, it's not hard to tell. You think that they're subhuman, and don't deserve to have the rights everyone else does. Sure, you may not outright say that you want them dead, that they need to be suppressed forever, and if they don't change their ideas then they have no place in this world. You can sugarcoat it all you want, but we both know that you wouldn't mind killing them all.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:05 pm**

Zeinbrad wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
If we didn't defend him it would be up to nazis to do it and they don't seem up to the job, so it wouldn't be a very good discussion. For another, i am disturbed by the progressive attempt to cast themselves as a moral side in this conflict. This was the eastern front in WW2, not a clash between heaven and hell.

Denying the progressives on this forum an opportunity to act like this is something fascists do rather than something political authoritarians and extremists do (Like many progressives) is also worthwhile since it undermines the whole with us or with them attitude that tends to be fostered otherwise.

No, hey guys, allies here, you're both terrible ideologies.

As yes, the Eastern front of this conflict with all.....one person dead and no one starving to death or being forced to charge into enemy tanks under the threat of death.

You are so eager to argue with people with opposing views you don't like that you are willing to defend a murderer? Really? That's your reasoning? Also, aren't you yourself trying to gain the morale high ground by 'showing these leftist that is man was ramming into a crowd twice and killed a women' also?

You really should reevaluate your priorities and self if you are willing to defend anyone as long as the progressives aren't doing it. For you are fostering the 'us vs them' attitude yourself.

I'm willing to point out that the people with views I consider detrimental to society are not fit to claim a moral high ground in this situation, and point out the current existence of potential innocence to the charge of murder given the propensity for Gang of 88 style hysteria the progressive movement has.
Remember Zimmerman? I did the same there too, and ultimately was vindicated in terms of the evidence presented at trial and the outcome, despite the incredulity and barely veiled disgust of progressives, including progressive lawyers, on the forum.

My money is on manslaughter or not guilty if "The car was struck first" is the angle the defense goes with. If he pleas out, that's also a possibility.

I'm willing to defend anyone from gang of 88 style hysteria and lynch mob attitudes. He is currently innocent, he has not been proven guilty.

Your attempt to cast this attitude as something you disdain, as a cultural trope, has led to the creeping authoritarianism of the progressive movement corrupting the justice system and university kangaroo courts. So yeh, i'm willing to oppose it at every opportunity presented.

The person who should be held in low regard here isn't me. It's people so eager to throw human rights under the bus to act high and mighty about opposing racism/sexism.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:05 pm**

Torrocca wrote:
Hakons wrote:
Communism is built on genocide, so...

The horseshoe theory of communists = nazis strikes again.

Hakons wrote:
So any death in poor nations that probably don't have free markets is now the fault of capitalism?

It certainly is, considering it's a problem that America alone - a capitalist nation - has the resources to easily solve.

Only Nazi's can commit genocide?

The problem is that we haven't confiscated all the wealth of America?

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:05 pm**

Napkiraly wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
The 100 million over 80 years socialism dominated is matched every five years by capitalistic policies.

The same ones that are reducing poverty globally? Not mention, it's jumping the gun a bit. A lot of these countries haven't developed into advanced industrial capitalist societies yet therefore are not ready to have a proletarian revolution.

And that poverty reduction is fueled by the blood of twenty million people annually.

Hakons wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
The 100 million over 80 years socialism dominated is matched every five years by capitalistic policies.

Those capitalist nations being? Those policies being? You can't blame the word's problems on capitalism. Deaths due to limited resources predate capitalism by millennia.

Food, clean water, and medicine are not limited resources today, not by a long, long, long shot, yet millions still die because they have no access to them. How do you explain that?

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:06 pm**

Napkiraly wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
The 100 million over 80 years socialism dominated is matched every five years by capitalistic policies.

The same ones that are reducing poverty globally? Not mention, it's jumping the gun a bit. A lot of these countries haven't developed into advanced industrial capitalist societies yet therefore are not ready to have a proletarian revolution.

Afghani communists tried to have a proletarian revolution before Afghanistan was ready. It... didn't go quite well.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:07 pm**

Hakons wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
The 100 million over 80 years socialism dominated is matched every five years by capitalistic policies.

Those capitalist nations being? Those policies being? You can't blame the word's problems on capitalism. Deaths due to limited resources predate capitalism by millennia.

We live in a world where capitalism is the dominant economic system, available resources exceed the needs of all humanity, and yet millions die from lack of food, water, health care, etc. If this economic system, even with near universal control of the entire world's production and distribution of goods and services, is not providing for the entirety of our world's population, either there's something fundamentally broken with the system in practice (and in direct contradiction of the claims of theorists who defend it) or this is how it's supposed to work. Either way, the system is killing millions on a regular basis, either due to incapacity or unwillingness.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:09 pm**

Torrocca wrote:
Napkiraly wrote:The same ones that are reducing poverty globally? Not mention, it's jumping the gun a bit. A lot of these countries haven't developed into advanced industrial capitalist societies yet therefore are not ready to have a proletarian revolution.

And that poverty reduction is fueled by the blood of twenty million people annually.

Hakons wrote:
Those capitalist nations being? Those policies being? You can't blame the word's problems on capitalism. Deaths due to limited resources predate capitalism by millennia.

Food, clean water, and medicine are not limited resources today, not by a long, long, long shot, yet millions still die because they have no access to them. How do you explain that?

Food, clean water, and medicine are limited resources. That is a fact. Why do people die from lack of resources? Because. They. Lack. Resources.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:10 pm**

Torrocca wrote:
Food, clean water, and medicine are not limited resources today, not by a long, long, long shot, yet millions still die because they have no access to them. How do you explain that?

Because if we will supply African countries with food, clean water, and medicine, they 1) will be forever dependent on that supply, 2) will exponentally grow their populations to the point food, clean water and medicine will become limited resources, 3) when those will be pulled out, will lose most part of their population and fall lower than they are now... wait, can we actually pull it off? We can make the biggest socialist genocide!

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:11 pm**

Hakons wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
And that poverty reduction is fueled by the blood of twenty million people annually.

Food, clean water, and medicine are not limited resources today, not by a long, long, long shot, yet millions still die because they have no access to them. How do you explain that?

Food, clean water, and medicine are limited resources. That is a fact. Why do people die from lack of resources? Because. They. Lack. Resources.

If those are so limited, then how can so many first world countries waste so much?

We can't both be lacking and capable of wasting what we supposedly lack.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:11 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Hakons wrote:
Those capitalist nations being? Those policies being? You can't blame the word's problems on capitalism. Deaths due to limited resources predate capitalism by millennia.

We live in a world where capitalism is the dominant economic system, available resources exceed the needs of all humanity, and yet millions die from lack of food, water, health care, etc. If this economic system, even with near universal control of the entire world's production and distribution of goods and services, is not providing for the entirety of our world's population, either there's something fundamentally broken with the system in practice (and in direct contradiction of the claims of theorists who defend it) or this is how it's supposed to work. Either way, the system is killing millions on a regular basis, either due to incapacity or unwillingness.

I agree with this. In fact, as I argued in the other thread:

It's a series of topics that deserve discussion, and yes, foster debate and side-taking and factionalism and such, politics in general does. The medias obsession with it and refusal to give fair hearing to persons/ideologies opposed to neoliberalism seems to me to be based mostly in a desire to avoid criticism of corporate capitalism.

Without identity politics, some other issue or set of issues would be thrust into the spotlight and used for moral grandstanding. Prior to the banking crash, the status quo was upheld by repeated claims of economic prosperity and competence. Robbed of the ability to use this as a justification for their rule, the upper classes have been forced into asserting moral superiority on the basis of various things.
It is now routine for them to run propoganda campaigns against threats to the status quo, remember bernie bros etc?

I'll just put this controversially (perhaps) out there, but i'm pretty confident that even a full blown nazi driving a car into a crowd of people still has less blood on their hands than people who lobby on behalf of corporate rule and privilege, but nonetheless, we're encouraged to take proclamations of misogyny or racism as the defining moral issues of our time, even for mere beliefs or statements rather than actual harm caused.

Consider both the impact in terms of total suffering caused, and the culpability of the perpetrators in terms of access to education, etc.

None of that means we should stop talking about these issues. Rather, we should recognize that, sort of like when a Nazi goes on a hysterical rant about their political opponent littering and tries to drum up a mob to harass them, any time a supporter of the status quo brings up this topic, it is not sincere, and is not in the interests of minorities to take up their call to arms.

Instead, when this topic is used to distract from the system of corporate rule or vilify threats to it, the response should be a refusal to accept the person as a moral arbiter, and condemnation of their service to corporate rule.

"I can't take you seriously as someone with a working moral compass, so I don't care if you think it's sexist or racist."

In addition, by positioning themselves as crusaders against discrimination and harboring an atmosphere of with us or against us, corporatists have overseen the rise of the far-right and alt-right. This should also be brought up when they attempt to use identity politics to shore up their rule.

I could call every minority a slur, say the most obscene things all day, every day, and have less actual impact than many of our moral guardians have had in terms of making racism a force in the modern era in functional terms.

People aren't driven to racism by racist rants these days, they are driven there because they are the only opposition corporatists are taking seriously. Economic alternatives are dismissed, ignored, and suppressed, but the moral legitimization of their rule *requires* they take racism/sexism seriously as a threat that they govern us to root out.

Whether or not that is the case, their appropriation of these causes and hysteria campaigns about the threat these movements pose to society is bolstering them by making them out to be the only viable threat to the status quo. Functionally speaking, it is far more in service of racism and sexism to act this way than to do many of the things these campaigners find so abhorrent.

Imagine if the media suddenly just up and refused to take any opposition to the republicans and conservatives seriously, except the BNP, and ran constant coverage of their electrifying and shocking rise in the polls despite their outrageous behavior (Including controversial points, because controversy is what sells and divides.). What would the effect of that behavior be.

Well, basically, that's what they've done, isn't it.

This should be pointed out at every opportunity to them.

Which is relevant to this one, as well as relevant to why it's getting so much coverage and discussion.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:12 pm**

Bannedbytomorrow wrote:
Liriena wrote:I don't want them dead. I want them to become decent human beings.

You are entirely wrong... save for one thing: I don't want to debate them, because there is nothing to debate. There is no debate to be had with Holocaust deniers, Confederate revisionists or genocide supporters. There is no debate to be had with people who think darker skin makes you "subhuman", that "Hitler did nothing wrong", or that "slavery was actually good". There is nothing to debate with someone who believes that "the International Jewry is conspiring against the white male" or that LGBT rights are the doom of Western civilization. None of those positions is even remotely legitimate or worthy of the pretense of legitimacy that a debate would grant them. Those ideas only deserve one thing: to be permanently suppressed. They have no place in humanity. And those who believe those ideas need to change or face exclusion.

See what I mean? You hate the,, it's not hard to tell. You think that they're subhuman, and don't deserve to have the rights everyone else does. Sure, you may not outright say that you want them dead, that they need to be suppressed forever, and if they don't change their ideas then they have no place in this world. You can sugarcoat it all you want, but we both know that you wouldn't mind killing them all.

Except I have explicitly said that I don't want to see them dead, so at this point you're baselessly speculating about my supposedly hidden motives.

Also, I don't see them as "subhuman". They are human. They are people. And people can change for the better.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:12 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Hakons wrote:
Those capitalist nations being? Those policies being? You can't blame the word's problems on capitalism. Deaths due to limited resources predate capitalism by millennia.

We live in a world where capitalism is the dominant economic system, available resources exceed the needs of all humanity, and yet millions die from lack of food, water, health care, etc. If this economic system, even with near universal control of the entire world's production and distribution of goods and services, is not providing for the entirety of our world's population, either there's something fundamentally broken with the system in practice (and in direct contradiction of the claims of theorists who defend it) or this is how it's supposed to work. Either way, the system is killing millions on a regular basis, either due to incapacity or unwillingness.

Communism on a national scale doesn't work. It won't work on a global scale. I'm sure your leading the way of the Global Revolution by giving all your assets to children in Africa.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:12 pm**

Torrocca wrote:
Hakons wrote:
Communism is built on genocide, so...

The horseshoe theory of communists = nazis strikes again.

More like: having an ideology which can only end in stealing the private property from anyone who owns it or killing them if they refuse, while later if successful going after all monetary savings because a moneyless society is also a thing to strive for.

Or rather, all historical evidence of murder being also against you. Communists surely did not mind the horseshoe theory either when they had joint parades with the Nazis.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:14 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Bannedbytomorrow wrote:See what I mean? You hate the,, it's not hard to tell. You think that they're subhuman, and don't deserve to have the rights everyone else does. Sure, you may not outright say that you want them dead, that they need to be suppressed forever, and if they don't change their ideas then they have no place in this world. You can sugarcoat it all you want, but we both know that you wouldn't mind killing them all.

Except I have explicitly said that I don't want to see them dead, so at this point you're baselessly speculating about my supposedly hidden motives.

Also, I don't see them as "subhuman". They are human. They are people. And people can change for the better.

You're lying to yourself. You typed out that whole thing on how you're not going to tolerate any of these certain beliefs. It's obvious to everyone that you hate them. You can lie to yourself all you want, but you and I both know that you want them all dead.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:15 pm**

Torrocca wrote:
Hakons wrote:
Food, clean water, and medicine are limited resources. That is a fact. Why do people die from lack of resources? Because. They. Lack. Resources.

If those are so limited, then how can so many first world countries waste so much?

We can't both be lacking and capable of wasting what we supposedly lack.

OK, comrade, what is your assuredly precise and feasible solution to this?

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:16 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Hakons wrote:
Those capitalist nations being? Those policies being? You can't blame the word's problems on capitalism. Deaths due to limited resources predate capitalism by millennia.

We live in a world where capitalism is the dominant economic system, available resources exceed the needs of all humanity, and yet millions die from lack of food, water, health care, etc. If this economic system, even with near universal control of the entire world's production and distribution of goods and services, is not providing for the entirety of our world's population, either there's something fundamentally broken with the system in practice (and in direct contradiction of the claims of theorists who defend it) or this is how it's supposed to work. Either way, the system is killing millions on a regular basis, either due to incapacity or unwillingness.

It is not like most of those countries which such an issue exists are places usually mark by bloody civil war, mass murder, a lack of law, or, even more interesting, countries where communism or socialism was tried.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:16 pm**

Isentria wrote:
Torrocca wrote:
The horseshoe theory of communists = nazis strikes again.

More like: having an ideology which can only end in stealing the private property from anyone who owns it or killing them if they refuse, while later if successful going after all monetary savings because a moneyless society is also a thing to strive for.

Or rather, all historical evidence of murder being also against you. Communists surely did not mind the horseshoe theory either when they had joint parades with the Nazis.

Tell me, what do you define as private property? Because, I'm assuming, it's not what the Communist definition of private property is, nor what it is they actually seized.

Also, proof on the Nazi parade thing?

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:16 pm**

Bannedbytomorrow wrote:
Liriena wrote:I'd very much rather we rehabilitated all racist scum, but if I see them intimidating others, invading college campuses and city streets, and harassing innocent people online, I have few qualms with someone who decides to deliver a good punch to their faces.

Rehabilitate is a nice way of saying "make it someone else's problem." You don't want to negotiate, you want to remove them. You don't want to debate them, you want to shut them up. Face it, everyone here wants another person here dead.

^Above we see a real world example of Evil Cannot Comprehend Good.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:18 pm**

Hakons wrote:
Liriena wrote:We live in a world where capitalism is the dominant economic system, available resources exceed the needs of all humanity, and yet millions die from lack of food, water, health care, etc. If this economic system, even with near universal control of the entire world's production and distribution of goods and services, is not providing for the entirety of our world's population, either there's something fundamentally broken with the system in practice (and in direct contradiction of the claims of theorists who defend it) or this is how it's supposed to work. Either way, the system is killing millions on a regular basis, either due to incapacity or unwillingness.

Communism on a national scale doesn't work.

That sounds rather oxymoronic, since communism is by definition stateless.

Hakons wrote:It won't work on a global scale.

Free market capitalism has supposedly managed to work on a global scale, even though mercantilists and physiocrats would have probably thought it impossible.

Hakons wrote:I'm sure your leading the way of the Global Revolution by giving all your assets to children in Africa.

Not a very original jab.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:18 pm**

Bannedbytomorrow wrote:
Liriena wrote:Except I have explicitly said that I don't want to see them dead, so at this point you're baselessly speculating about my supposedly hidden motives.

Also, I don't see them as "subhuman". They are human. They are people. And people can change for the better.

You're lying to yourself. You typed out that whole thing on how you're not going to tolerate any of these certain beliefs. It's obvious to everyone that you hate them. You can lie to yourself all you want, but you and I both know that you want them all dead.

[citation needed]

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:19 pm**

Liriena wrote:I'd very much rather we rehabilitated all racist scum, but if I see them intimidating others, invading college campuses and city streets, and harassing innocent people online, I have few qualms with someone who decides to deliver a good punch to their faces.

I'd very much rather we rehabilitated all people who call others scum based on their political or social views, but if I see them intimidating others, literally controlling college campuses and city streets 1984-style, and harassing innocent people everywhere, I have few qualms with someone who decides to deliver a good punch to their faces.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:20 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Bannedbytomorrow wrote:You're lying to yourself. You typed out that whole thing on how you're not going to tolerate any of these certain beliefs. It's obvious to everyone that you hate them. You can lie to yourself all you want, but you and I both know that you want them all dead.

[citation needed]

Don't you love it when people pretend to be mind-readers?

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:21 pm**

Genivaria wrote:
Liriena wrote:[citation needed]

Don't you love it when people pretend to be mind-readers?

WoOoOoOoOoh, Genivariaaa, you're thinking of delicious hot pockets right nooow, woOoOoOoOoh...

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:21 pm**

Torrocca wrote:
Isentria wrote:
More like: having an ideology which can only end in stealing the private property from anyone who owns it or killing them if they refuse, while later if successful going after all monetary savings because a moneyless society is also a thing to strive for.

Or rather, all historical evidence of murder being also against you. Communists surely did not mind the horseshoe theory either when they had joint parades with the Nazis.

Tell me, what do you define as private property? Because, I'm assuming, it's not what the Communist definition of private property is, nor what it is they actually seized.

Also, proof on the Nazi parade thing?

Private property as in the Communist definition of it: the, currently, privately owned means of production.
By all legal means, the means of production are in their legal owner's hands currently, to try to seize them is theft.

As for the parade thing: German-Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk. It is not like you are unaware that Stalin was also feeding Hitler's warmachine with resources while he was rampaging over Western Europe, right?

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:21 pm**

Isentria wrote:
Liriena wrote:We live in a world where capitalism is the dominant economic system, available resources exceed the needs of all humanity, and yet millions die from lack of food, water, health care, etc. If this economic system, even with near universal control of the entire world's production and distribution of goods and services, is not providing for the entirety of our world's population, either there's something fundamentally broken with the system in practice (and in direct contradiction of the claims of theorists who defend it) or this is how it's supposed to work. Either way, the system is killing millions on a regular basis, either due to incapacity or unwillingness.

It is not like most of those countries which such an issue exists are places usually mark by bloody civil war, mass murder, a lack of law, or, even more interesting, countries where communism or socialism was tried.

If you honestly think that the economic system that dominates the world (and at various points dominated the countries "where communism or socialism was tried") hasn't played a major role in global poverty, starvation, etc., that's on you.

NationStates

Charlottesville: Where Do We Go From Here?