What about ANTIFA?

[Taihei Tengoku]

(Image)

And where do these numbers come from? Hmm? What study supports this graph? HMM?

Literally every study of global wealth ever. Here's one.

[The Grene Knyght]

What is the problem?

The problem is that you are engaging in dishonest argument, in that you make empty posts with no substance, but phrase it in a way that it seems like you're answering the question. I thought I was fairly clear about that. But lets go through what you said word by word.

Now, before we get started, the issue I chose to bring up with the graph was that "there's are two things that are measured in two entirely different measurements being put on the same graph. You could have the left axis in steps of 50, and it'd show something completely different, while still being the same graph."

Do you have a rebuttal with any actual substance?
Or just more wasted pixels masquerading as an argument

The Fraser Institute index is internally consistent

Not what I was asking, and not relevant here. This is a nebulous statement that is virtually meaningless without any follow-up as to how it is relevant to the matter at hand.

Not what I was asking, and not relevant here. This is a statement made with no argument backing it up.

Not what I was asking, and not relevant here. Just because they are common, doesn't mean they represent good data.

Now here's where things start getting interesting. You start slipping into jargon here, presumably to throw people off the track of what you're actually saying, so they don't notice that you're not addressing what was asked. What you're addressing here, and correct me if I'm misinterpreting, is how the economic freedom is measured, not how it can be quantitatively related to the other y-axis, measuring poverty

I nice little bit at the end, where you seem to be adding a follow up argument, which nicely diverts attention to the fact that you haven't really made any arguments at all.

Now, here's what you should have said; that the argument against your graph goes both ways. That since the two values can be graphed against each other in any way, any way I chose to skew the data would be invalid too, and so to fully disprove the arguments you were making, I really would have to use the other issues I mentioned. But the reason I don't think you're going to do that is you don't really want to argue against me. Maybe you don't think you can win, but probably you just don't care enough, which I get. But do us all a favour, if you're going to put in the effort of typing something, try actually typing something worth the time it takes to read.

[The Grene Knyght]

ANTIFA beat down a disabled veteran. A veteran that probably sacrificed for the rights of all Americans. They did something horrible to a person that defended their rights to say they are the ANTIFA.

Source?
There's been a few of these recently

[Taihei Tengoku]

What is the problem?

The problem is that you are engaging in dishonest argument, in that you make empty posts with no substance, but phrase it in a way that it seems like you're answering the question. I thought I was fairly clear about that. But lets go through what you said word by word.

Now, before we get started, the issue I chose to bring up with the graph was that "there's are two things that are measured in two entirely different measurements being put on the same graph. You could have the left axis in steps of 50, and it'd show something completely different, while still being the same graph."

Except the Fraser/Cato index is a ten-point index, so all you gave away was that you didn't read the source

[The Grene Knyght]

The problem is that you are engaging in dishonest argument, in that you make empty posts with no substance, but phrase it in a way that it seems like you're answering the question. I thought I was fairly clear about that. But lets go through what you said word by word.

Now, before we get started, the issue I chose to bring up with the graph was that "there's are two things that are measured in two entirely different measurements being put on the same graph. You could have the left axis in steps of 50, and it'd show something completely different, while still being the same graph."

Except the Fraser/Cato index is a ten-point index, so all you gave away was that you didn't read the source

And yet, you didn't notice until this post, so all you're revealing is you didn't read my original post.
But since you bring it up, lets address another why in which you engage in dishonest debate: your use of sources. Because you don't use them to back up your arguments, you don't use quotes from them to demonstrate a point. What you do instead is post sources as your argument. If you respond to every post with a link to a 20 page study and nothing else, and its not immediately clear what point is being demonstrated, you're not debating in good faith.

[Ifreann]

Do you have a rebuttal with any actual substance?
Or just more wasted pixels masquerading as an argument

The Fraser Institute index is internally consistent, and the World Bank data is valid. Graphs with two y-axes aren't uncommon, and the raw average of national economic freedom indices understates the population-weighted average, which takes into account the tremendous progress made with the bulk of humanity (i.e. Asia). What is the problem?

elaborate, professor.

Bourgeois Dignity by Deirdre McCloskey is her eliminating alternative explanations other than the bourgeois revaluation (i.e. "capitalism") for this:

If you follow the quote pyramid up I linked the first three chapters. The table of contents presents what other alternative explanations she analyzes and eliminates as an inadequate cause but you can see where she is going with this.

Tell Dierdre McCloskey that there was no year 0.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Except the Fraser/Cato index is a ten-point index, so all you gave away was that you didn't read the source

And yet, you didn't notice until this post, so all you're revealing is you didn't read my original post.

The Fraser/Cato index is one of the standard indices for the subject. Having to clarify it for you was a bit like having to clarify that there are only 360 degrees in a circle.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The Fraser Institute index is internally consistent, and the World Bank data is valid. Graphs with two y-axes aren't uncommon, and the raw average of national economic freedom indices understates the population-weighted average, which takes into account the tremendous progress made with the bulk of humanity (i.e. Asia). What is the problem?


Bourgeois Dignity by Deirdre McCloskey is her eliminating alternative explanations other than the bourgeois revaluation (i.e. "capitalism") for this:

If you follow the quote pyramid up I linked the first three chapters. The table of contents presents what other alternative explanations she analyzes and eliminates as an inadequate cause but you can see where she is going with this.

Tell Dierdre McCloskey that there was no year 0.

There are other graphs articulating the same thing that are pedant-friendlier.

[Liriena]

ANTIFA beat down a disabled veteran. A veteran that probably sacrificed for the rights of all Americans. They did something horrible to a person that defended their rights to say they are the ANTIFA.

All of antifa did it? Also, source? Also, the "this person fought for your rights" cliché is probably nonsense, unless that veteran fought in the revolutionary war, the civil war, or maaaaayyyybe World War II.

[Kubra]

Bourgeois Dignity by Deirdre McCloskey is her eliminating alternative explanations other than the bourgeois revaluation (i.e. "capitalism") for this:
(Image)
If you follow the quote pyramid up I linked the first three chapters. The table of contents presents what other alternative explanations she analyzes and eliminates as an inadequate cause but you can see where she is going with this.

Ah, so you did. Well, it seems our authors credentials are more or less in order.
That said, you've presented us merely the introduction and the table of contents. I presume you expect we will be wooed so greatly by the introductory chapters that we will simply assume that the meat of the matter is dealt with satisfyingly. That, or you're merely wishing to demonstrate that you've read a book that we have not. I of course assume the former scenario, is that correct?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Bourgeois Dignity by Deirdre McCloskey is her eliminating alternative explanations other than the bourgeois revaluation (i.e. "capitalism") for this:
(Image)
If you follow the quote pyramid up I linked the first three chapters. The table of contents presents what other alternative explanations she analyzes and eliminates as an inadequate cause but you can see where she is going with this.

Ah, so you did. Well, it seems our authors credentials are more or less in order.
That said, you've presented us merely the introduction and the table of contents. I presume you expect we will be wooed so greatly by the introductory chapters that we will simply assume that the meat of the matter is dealt with satisfyingly. That, or you're merely wishing to demonstrate that you've read a book that we have not. I of course assume the former scenario, is that correct?

The argument of the book takes, well, the length of the book to explain. The introductory chapters are as much of the original text is available for free, there are also some videos where she explains her point.

[Kubra]

Ah, so you did. Well, it seems our authors credentials are more or less in order.
That said, you've presented us merely the introduction and the table of contents. I presume you expect we will be wooed so greatly by the introductory chapters that we will simply assume that the meat of the matter is dealt with satisfyingly. That, or you're merely wishing to demonstrate that you've read a book that we have not. I of course assume the former scenario, is that correct?

The argument of the book takes, well, the length of the book to explain. The introductory chapters are as much of the original text is available for free, there are also some videos where she explains her point.

Which is, of course, insufficient.
You are our interlocutor, you are our window into your mind and its readings. We rely on you to explain, in your own words and in tandem with that of cited sources, your position and arguments for such. To that end, you gave the first three chapters and a table of contents.
Look, a bit of intellectual laziness is fine, this is just a forum after all, but it's blue-balling if you won't actually give with the take. You're no doubt aware of the contents of this particular source, so by all means, it would be appreciated if you'll elaborate, and summarize the work to the best of your abilities. Demonstrate to us why the author is correct in their assertions.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The argument of the book takes, well, the length of the book to explain. The introductory chapters are as much of the original text is available for free, there are also some videos where she explains her point.

Which is, of course, insufficient.
You are our interlocutor, you are our window into your mind and its readings. We rely on you to explain, in your own words and in tandem with that of cited sources, your position and arguments for such. To that end, you gave the first three chapters and a table of contents.
Look, a bit of intellectual laziness is fine, this is just a forum after all, but it's blue-balling if you won't actually give with the take. You're no doubt aware of the contents of this particular source, so by all means, it would be appreciated if you'll elaborate, and summarize the work to the best of your abilities. Demonstrate to us why the author is correct in their assertions.

1) People were incredibly poor (one bad turn away from death) from the dawn of time until about 1800. Now a good part of it is very rich, in that survival is mostly a given, and a good part of the rest is on their way.
2) The transition to this is because of "capitalism," i.e. social acceptance of merchants + the pursuit of wealth. Nothing else is sufficient. Politically it is "liberalism" in the Enlightenment sense of pluralism and respect for the private life.
3) Exploitation is insufficient, because plunder economies like Rome never mechanized nor did feudal China. Spain even plundered itself into poverty.
4) Materialism is insufficient, because this would mean India or China would've figured it out before Europe. More recently, "lost causes" like Hong Kong or Singapore develop basically overnight without the influx of free money/goods that other places in the Third World had.
5) Eugenics is insufficient because the rapid pace of development (now within one working lifetime) outstrips genetic "improvements" in the racial stock, never mind that what constitutes suitable racial stock always expands. The examples of the two Germanies and Koreas show that race isn't the deciding factor because people of the same race can get it right or wrong depending on the ideas they allow to develop.
6) Societies enrich to the extent that they are capitalist and liberal. The West is mostly capitalist and mostly liberal, and therefore very wealthy. China is somewhat capitalist and somewhat wealthy, but vastly better than when it wasn't capitalist at all. Even within the West the United States is the most strongly pluralist and (one of) the most strongly market-friendly polities, and we see the results as it is wealthier than most of the rest--Swedes in Sweden are poorer than Swedes in America, so are Frenchmen, Indians, and Chinese.

Neo-nazis are bad because they want to rip up the liberal order and replace it with one that demonstrably brought death and ruin wherever it was tried. Antifa is bad because they want to do the same thing but think they're the good guys because World War Two. Resting on the laurels of a past crusade to justify the rest of your ideological baggage is Robert Mugabe thought and it leads to the same place.

[Calladan]

The worst thing to ever exist. I am so happy there is an ANTIFA minority at my school, because it makes it easier to beat them down.

The worst thing to ever exist? Really? In the whole history of humanity (which is quite long, when you think about it) they are the worst thing to ever exist?

Do you want to maybe rethink that, or are you going to stick with that moronic declaration?

[New Decius]

I think the issue is a very simple one with a simple answer. Yes it is wrong to greet violence with violence. I say it in that way because that was what Antifa has been doing. When white supremacists and neo-Nazi's turrn out in a SA-style torch march waving swastika flags and chanting Anti-Semetic slogans that is not peaceful demonstration that is violence. It is also violence when these same Hitlerite idiots go out and beat up black teenagers while they are marching. So Antifa commonly confronts that horrid hatred violence with counter violence.

But when you get down to it; fascism, nazism they are all just one thing and that is wrong. These are ideologies which throughout history only spawned three things-hatred, oppression, and genocide. If you march under a swastika banner in the United States isn't it basically the equivalent of spitting on the graves of all the men who died at Normandy and at the Bulge? It's basically like a group in China blatantly marching with the old Japanese Imperial Flag through the streets of Nanking. How could anyone argue for marching under the banner of what cost sixty million their lives in a world war, and tens of millions more in genocides and oppression? They talk of freedom of speech, which does frankly enable any old idiot to spit out his stupidty, but there is a line between freedom of speech and hate speech. Presenting the swastika is not freedom of speech, in what world is that freedom of speech!? There is a reason so many countries have banned the swastika. The swastika is a symbol associated with Nazism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and the sixty million dead in WWII.

Yes it is wrong to meet violence with violence. But if you want to say someone is in the wrong, don't look at ANTIFA, look at the idiots screaming hate speech who incite it. If the American's want to solve the problem do the following:

Step 1: Ban the swastika altogether. Make it illegal to present said symbol at all and attach a legal punishment to the presentation of that acursed symbol.

Step 2: Ban Nazism, National Socialism, Neo-Nazism, whatever you want to term it, ban it. Most of the rest of the world has, jump on the sensibility train with em.

Step 3: While your at it, ban the KKK as well. How can anyone justify a group that goes around lynching people because of the color of their skin.

Step 4: Extension of prior two steps, declare the KKK and all Nazi organizations to be terrorist groups.

If there aren't any fascists around to incite the violence then there won't be ANTIFA there to meet them with violence. Problem solved.

[UniversalCommons]

The methods being used are very similar to the Reichstag in 1933. In order for the right to gain further power, they must outlaw some element of the left because they are not able to defeat them in street battles or open political conflict at this point. They cannot win with violence. It is a matter of legalities first. If the legalities go forward, it makes it more likely that counter demonstrations will be broken up so that the neo-nazis can march freely. Antifa has a much larger base than the alt-right. Already, it is becoming easier for the far-right to organize because some of their stigma as terrorist organizations has been removed. The goal is to remove the label of terrorism, gain the legal upper hand, and outlaw the enemies on the left. The polices hands are being tied to combat both sides.
http://www.salon.com/2017/08/31/the-med ... y_partner/

[-Ocelot-]

The "antifa are suddenly relevant and dangerous" is an alt-right, Russian rhetoric promoted by the so-called propaganda "bots". The coordinator of these propagandists ordered them to spam about antifa, so they now spam about antifa.

See this Russian guy named "David" on Twitter, for example. Posts 8AM-8PM Moscow time and his subjects change as if someone order them to go from topic A to topic B.

http://imgur.com/gallery/6flYH

Right now their orders are to demonize "antifa". Once they succeed/fail we will suddenly stop hearing about how evil antifa is. Wait and see.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The methods being used are very similar to the Reichstag in 1933. In order for the right to gain further power, they must outlaw some element of the left because they are not able to defeat them in street battles or open political conflict at this point. They cannot win with violence. It is a matter of legalities first. If the legalities go forward, it makes it more likely that counter demonstrations will be broken up so that the neo-nazis can march freely. Antifa has a much larger base than the alt-right. Already, it is becoming easier for the far-right to organize because some of their stigma as terrorist organizations has been removed. The goal is to remove the label of terrorism, gain the legal upper hand, and outlaw the enemies on the left. The polices hands are being tied to combat both sides.
http://www.salon.com/2017/08/31/the-med ... y_partner/

I mean the Spartacists tried to start a civil war and straight-up lost, but ok

The "antifa are suddenly relevant and dangerous" is an alt-right, Russian rhetoric promoted by the so-called propaganda "bots". The coordinator of these propagandists ordered them to spam about antifa, so they now spam about antifa.

See this Russian guy named "David" on Twitter, for example. Posts 8AM-8PM Moscow time and his subjects change as if someone order them to go from topic A to topic B.

http://imgur.com/gallery/6flYH

Right now their orders are to demonize "antifa". Once they succeed/fail we will suddenly stop hearing about how evil antifa is. Wait and see.

I was at Disrupt J20 in person and the "antifa" there were little more than thugs.

[Proctopeo]

The "antifa are suddenly relevant and dangerous" is an alt-right, Russian rhetoric promoted by the so-called propaganda "bots". The coordinator of these propagandists ordered them to spam about antifa, so they now spam about antifa.

See this Russian guy named "David" on Twitter, for example. Posts 8AM-8PM Moscow time and his subjects change as if someone order them to go from topic A to topic B.

http://imgur.com/gallery/6flYH

Right now their orders are to demonize "antifa". Once they succeed/fail we will suddenly stop hearing about how evil antifa is. Wait and see.

If you're going to have a conspiracy theory, at least make it interesting, like "we secretly speak Russian and Russians secretly speak English but we're convinced it's the other way around because of fluoride in the drinking water".

[Hirota]

The "antifa are suddenly relevant and dangerous" is an alt-right, Russian rhetoric promoted by the so-called propaganda "bots". The coordinator of these propagandists ordered them to spam about antifa, so they now spam about antifa.

See this Russian guy named "David" on Twitter, for example. Posts 8AM-8PM Moscow time and his subjects change as if someone order them to go from topic A to topic B.

http://imgur.com/gallery/6flYH

Right now their orders are to demonize "antifa". Once they succeed/fail we will suddenly stop hearing about how evil antifa is. Wait and see.

It's adorable that people think twitter has any influence and is used for anything other than twits shouting at each other.

[Torrocca]

The "antifa are suddenly relevant and dangerous" is an alt-right, Russian rhetoric promoted by the so-called propaganda "bots". The coordinator of these propagandists ordered them to spam about antifa, so they now spam about antifa.

See this Russian guy named "David" on Twitter, for example. Posts 8AM-8PM Moscow time and his subjects change as if someone order them to go from topic A to topic B.

http://imgur.com/gallery/6flYH

Right now their orders are to demonize "antifa". Once they succeed/fail we will suddenly stop hearing about how evil antifa is. Wait and see.

It's adorable that people think twitter has any influence and is used for anything other than twits shouting at each other.

>Implying a vast social media network that millions of people use has absolutely no influence whatsoever on anyone's thoughts or opinions

[Proctopeo]

It's adorable that people think twitter has any influence and is used for anything other than twits shouting at each other.

>Implying a vast social media network that millions of people use has absolutely no influence whatsoever on anyone's thoughts or opinions

I don't think it's quite powerful enough to be useful for a vast conspiracy.

[Torrocca]

>Implying a vast social media network that millions of people use has absolutely no influence whatsoever on anyone's thoughts or opinions

I don't think it's quite powerful enough to be useful for a vast conspiracy.

I mean, if people are able to find the bots and shills coming from Russia that are demonizing certain groups, then that sounds like a conspiracy to me.

[Proctopeo]

I don't think it's quite powerful enough to be useful for a vast conspiracy.

I mean, if people are able to find the bots and shills coming from Russia that are demonizing certain groups, then that sounds like a conspiracy to me.

But that's just a theory.
A conspiracy theory.
Thanks for reading!

If you'll excuse me, I need to invest in tin foil and purified water. Have to be safe from Russ- I mean aliens, of course!

[Alvecia]

I mean, if people are able to find the bots and shills coming from Russia that are demonizing certain groups, then that sounds like a conspiracy to me.

But that's just a theory.
A conspiracy theory.
Thanks for reading!

If you'll excuse me, I need to invest in tin foil and purified water. Have to be safe from Russ- I mean aliens, of course!

I mean, if they're able to actually prove the bots exist, that's more conspiracy than theory, surely?