Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Mardla]

I think there is a bit of a difference between some using it, and it being accepted as reasonable by the right generally. But that's where you have gone, so here we are.

Depends who we mean by the right, and whether we agree that it is an actual entity.

[Mattopilos II]

Depends who we mean by the right, and whether we agree that it is an actual entity.

Let it be known that trying to work out semantics before an argument means I am Jordan Peterson. At least try and be original.

[Mardla]

(Image)

Let it be known that trying to work out semantics before an argument means I am Jordan Peterson. At least try and be original.

Yes, I have an idea how that might go.

"Let's just try to grasp the being of the preliminaries by ascribing their limits and significance. Our common understanding will provide a basis for our search for truth."

Two minutes later into the discussion

"All being that's not on the periodic table is a spook and fake."

[Mattopilos II]

Let it be known that trying to work out semantics before an argument means I am Jordan Peterson. At least try and be original.

Yes, I have an idea how that might go.

"Let's just try to grasp the being of the preliminaries by ascribing their limits and significance. Our common understanding will provide a basis for our search for truth."

Two minutes later into the discussion

"All being that's not on the periodic table is a spook and fake."

Muddying the water seems to be your forefront. Also being terrible at reading people. If you don't want a discussion and just want to fuck around, just say so.

[Mardla]

Yes, I have an idea how that might go.

"Let's just try to grasp the being of the preliminaries by ascribing their limits and significance. Our common understanding will provide a basis for our search for truth."

Two minutes later into the discussion

"All being that's not on the periodic table is a spook and fake."

Muddying the water seems to be your forefront. Also being terrible at reading people. If you don't want a discussion and just want to fuck around, just say so.

I don't want to have a discussion where "the left" means everyone on the left and "the right" means anyone who happens to hold right-wing views, because that is some bullshit qualification restriction for statements.

[Mattopilos II]

Muddying the water seems to be your forefront. Also being terrible at reading people. If you don't want a discussion and just want to fuck around, just say so.

I don't want to have a discussion where "the left" means everyone on the left and "the right" means anyone who happens to hold right-wing views, because that is some bullshit qualification restriction for statements.

I never made that distinction. I am sorry you are so far up your arse that you are willing to assume I was the one who bred that view here, but all it does is piss me off. Go pretend to read someone elses mind, I ain't enjoying your bullshit.

[Mardla]

I don't want to have a discussion where "the left" means everyone on the left and "the right" means anyone who happens to hold right-wing views, because that is some bullshit qualification restriction for statements.

I never made that distinction. I am sorry you are so far up your arse that you are willing to assume I was the one who bred that view here, but all it does is piss me off. Go pretend to read someone elses mind, I ain't enjoying your bullshit.

I don't enjoy you condoning using intimidation and harassment to silence political opposition, but then, here we are.

[Mattopilos II]

I never made that distinction. I am sorry you are so far up your arse that you are willing to assume I was the one who bred that view here, but all it does is piss me off. Go pretend to read someone elses mind, I ain't enjoying your bullshit.

I don't enjoy you condoning using intimidation and harassment to silence political opposition, but then, here we are.

I think the major failing on the right is that we're still stuck in the mindset of discourse. It's clearly escalated beyond that at this point.

Kindly piss off.

[Herskerstad]

Sure there is, plenty of intimidation is lawful.

You didn't say intimidation, period. You said fear tactics with something threatening implied. Putting a burning cross on someone's lawn is terrorism, legally.

Not always. Fear tactics with something threatening implied often falls under for example blackmail. Blackmail is not always illegal either. If I saw some kids vandalising my fence, I could threaten them by saying I will call the police unless they restore it. A pundit could likewise probably say " White people should keep their mouths shut because a day of reckoning is coming." Could be plenty of rationales, including religious ones and inferring to God's judgement. It's completely true that activity that forms strongly historical norms towards illegal activity, such as cross burning, can be ruled as terrorism in the US. Does not mean Kuwait would do the same.

That being said, judicially speaking terrorism has no universally agreed upon omni definition. It's used differently from legal body to legal body. Sometimes in it's own legal codes that have specific acts in play and sometimes as a term that supplements the very acts themselves to increase punishments.

[Mardla]

You didn't say intimidation, period. You said fear tactics with something threatening implied. Putting a burning cross on someone's lawn is terrorism, legally.

Not always. Intimidation with something threatening implied often falls under for example blackmail. Blackmail is not always illegal either. If I saw some kids vandalising my fence, I could threaten them by saying I will call the police unless they restore it. A pundit could likewise probably say " White people should keep their mouths shut because a day of reckoning is coming." Could be plenty of rationales, including religious ones and inferring to God's judgement. It's completely true that activity that forms strongly historical norms towards illegal activity, such as cross burning, can be ruled as terrorism in the US. Does not mean Kuwait would do the same.

That being said, judicially speaking terrorism has no universally agreed upon omni definition. It's used differently from legal body to legal body. Sometimes in it's own legal codes that have specific acts in play and sometimes as a term that supplements the very acts themselves to increase punishments.

If I go on your property and threaten you and try to break down your door, is that legal?

[Mardla]

Fear tactics with something threatening implied often falls under for example blackmail.

Nah, that's threatening to disclose compromising information specifically, very little outside of that.

[Herskerstad]

Not always. Intimidation with something threatening implied often falls under for example blackmail. Blackmail is not always illegal either. If I saw some kids vandalising my fence, I could threaten them by saying I will call the police unless they restore it. A pundit could likewise probably say " White people should keep their mouths shut because a day of reckoning is coming." Could be plenty of rationales, including religious ones and inferring to God's judgement. It's completely true that activity that forms strongly historical norms towards illegal activity, such as cross burning, can be ruled as terrorism in the US. Does not mean Kuwait would do the same.

That being said, judicially speaking terrorism has no universally agreed upon omni definition. It's used differently from legal body to legal body. Sometimes in it's own legal codes that have specific acts in play and sometimes as a term that supplements the very acts themselves to increase punishments.

If I go on your property and threaten you and try to break down your door, is that legal?

No, that would generally fall under threats. Maybe false imprisonment or attempted burglary depending on the circumstances.

[Herskerstad]

Fear tactics with something threatening implied often falls under for example blackmail.

Nah, that's threatening to disclose compromising information specifically, very little outside of that.

Quite often, but it can also relate to getting what we'd call an unsanctioned gain. I could blackmail a person to give me 100 dollars if not I will report their supposed crime to the police. Even if the crime was real, I'd still make myself liable for charges of blackmail and dereliction in regards to reporting crimes. At least here.

[Mardla]

If I go on your property and threaten you and try to break down your door, is that legal?

No, that would generally fall under threats. Maybe false imprisonment or attempted burglary depending on the circumstances.

Right, all you have to for terrorism is threats. You don't have to bomb or kill. If I put a noose on your tree, that's terrorism.

[Mardla]

Nah, that's threatening to disclose compromising information specifically, very little outside of that.

I could blackmail a person to give me 100 dollars if not I will report their supposed crime to the police.

Yes but there you have disclosing compromising information, that's required. It's quite distinct from threatening to hurt someone if they dissent.

[Herskerstad]

No, that would generally fall under threats. Maybe false imprisonment or attempted burglary depending on the circumstances.

Right, all you have to for terrorism is threats. You don't have to bomb or kill. If I put a noose on your tree, that's terrorism.

In specific circumstances, sure, if the act promotes an already set presence or strongly implied call to violence or mass violence for example then I can think of a few nations that would have that behaviour sanctioned under terror law or the more often used heightening or lowering of existing sentences.

A guy threatening to break down anothers door probably would not be hit with a terrorism charge. I'd gladly agree that it is terrorism on a social and personal level which is every bit as real, but the legal definition differs quite from nation to nation.

[Herskerstad]

I could blackmail a person to give me 100 dollars if not I will report their supposed crime to the police.

Yes but there you have disclosing compromising information, that's required. It's quite distinct from threatening to hurt someone if they dissent.

Which would generally still fall under threats or aggrevated threats. An aggrevated threat can be as a result of terrorism, but not all aggrevated threats judicially are from acts of terrorism.

[Mardla]

Right, all you have to for terrorism is threats. You don't have to bomb or kill. If I put a noose on your tree, that's terrorism.

In specific circumstances, sure, if the act promotes an already set presence or strongly implied call to violence or mass violence for example then I can think of a few nations that would have that behaviour sanctioned under terror law or the more often used heightening or lowering of existing sentences.

A guy threatening to break down anothers door probably would not be hit with a terrorism charge. I'd gladly agree that it is terrorism on a social and personal level which is every bit as real, but the legal definition differs quite from nation to nation.

If they were doing it as a gang activity, they would certainly be charged with "street terrorism" in my state.

[Arouran]

Says who? The AbrahamGod Never Said Child Marriage Was Ok,But It Was Normal To Marry At 14 Years Old.

That was actually a prophetic dream. Allah SWT told the Prophet Muhammad SAWS that his marriage to A'isha RA would happen.

If the Abrahamic God says pedophilia is acceptable even in just one instance (which considering child marriages were common back then, he did more than once) then I'm glad to believe in many gods. Shirk ftw

[Arouran]

If the Abrahamic God says pedophilia is acceptable even in just one instance (which considering child marriages were common back then, he did more than once) then I'm glad to believe in many gods. Shirk ftw

[Herskerstad]

In specific circumstances, sure, if the act promotes an already set presence or strongly implied call to violence or mass violence for example then I can think of a few nations that would have that behaviour sanctioned under terror law or the more often used heightening or lowering of existing sentences.

A guy threatening to break down anothers door probably would not be hit with a terrorism charge. I'd gladly agree that it is terrorism on a social and personal level which is every bit as real, but the legal definition differs quite from nation to nation.

If they were doing it as a gang activity, they would certainly be charged with "street terrorism" in my state.

Sure, I can see where that would in many areas reach the metric of domestic terrorism, but the point still holds. Chances are in my nation they'd finger a ringleader and have the rest charged with various degrees of accessory to the aggravated threat.

[Mardla]

If they were doing it as a gang activity, they would certainly be charged with "street terrorism" in my state.

Sure, I can see where that would in many areas reach the metric of domestic terrorism, but the point still holds. Chances are in my nation they'd finger a ringleader and have the rest charged with various degrees of accessory to the aggravated threat.

Unless race was involved.

[Herskerstad]

Sure, I can see where that would in many areas reach the metric of domestic terrorism, but the point still holds. Chances are in my nation they'd finger a ringleader and have the rest charged with various degrees of accessory to the aggravated threat.

Unless race was involved.

Sadly would probably depend on what race.

[Mardla]

Unless race was involved.

Sadly would probably depend on what race.

Or faith

[Reikoku]

Rei, do you identify as Japanese now, or...? I don't think Japanese would consider you Japanese.

I'm someone who is currently trying to get Japanese citizenship.