Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

I'm talking relative to the US's laws about treason. I have no idea about Turkey's laws against treason and secession.

Also, we're talking domestic, internal actions. The US has shown time and time again that it'll support whoever the fuck it wants abroad, legality against their sovereign nation notwithstanding. Clearly it's a non-issue.

Erdogan confirmed cool beans then and Crimea is Russian because it's legal

[SalmonGod]

Nah it'd be cool, left and progressive media would cover their backs and left politicians would protect them.

What progressive media is mainstream?  And I've never seen leftist politicians protect leftist protesters who got in trouble with the law. 

Major counter-point to your claim would be the treatment of whistleblowers this past decade.  I'd be very surprised if you can find a single supportive statement for Chelsea Manning ever uttered on TV.  And if leftist politicians can't be bothered to go out of their way for a trans who hands over proof of their opposing party's war crimes to the media in a manner that a living hero of their's (Daniel Ellsberg) confirms mirrors his own actions... then what kind of leap of logic would lead you to believe there'd be support for armed challenge against authority?

Right now the only violence the left's done has been disorganized progressive stack rioting, disorganized and unrestrained and without a real defined leftist ideology.

Yet they're still classified as terrorist threats...

[Dorsidwarf]

EDIT: Let me make this clear- what I'm saying in regards to the US's response to a domestic case of secession = treason has absolutely no bearing on international law nor the US's opinion of international actions. LW, stop putting words in my mouth.

That's how LW works though. He puts words in your mouth, then points out that the words are shit-flavored.

(Or if you're unlucky enough to border Serbia, marches 30,000 troops down your throat)

[Loud Whispers]

EDIT: Let me make this clear- what I'm saying in regards to the US's response to a domestic case of secession = treason has absolutely no bearing on international law nor the US's opinion of international actions. LW, stop putting words in my mouth.

I don't care about doing a "gotcha" on you as there's nothing to be gained by one upping no ones on the internet because we are nothing, there is no LW or Ispil, only arguments. The moral argument here is that Turks cannot bulldoze PKK for secession and treason but the USA can, drawing the paratoplels shows once more hypocrisy of decadent West

I know that the USA doesn't care about international law but I'm also separating that might makes from might not making right, ask yourself what Gandhi would do. The answer is either go peaceful, or go nuclear

[Loud Whispers]

What progressive media is mainstream?  And I've never seen leftist politicians protect leftist protesters who got in trouble with the law.

MSNBC, Huffington Post, Guardian, CNN, BBC 2000-2015

Major counter-point to your claim would be the treatment of whistleblowers this past decade.

Is whistleblowing a left-wing action?

then what kind of leap of logic would lead you to believe there'd be support for armed challenge against authority?

You think broadcasters support Islamists when they refuse to air hebdo? No, but fear is enough to force compliance

Yet they're still classified as terrorist threats...

M8 everything is terrorist, my government just declared internet shitposters non-violent extremists

[Dorsidwarf]

EDIT: Let me make this clear- what I'm saying in regards to the US's response to a domestic case of secession = treason has absolutely no bearing on international law nor the US's opinion of international actions. LW, stop putting words in my mouth.

I don't care about doing a "gotcha" on you as there's nothing to be gained by one upping no ones on the internet because we are nothing, there is no LW or Ispil, only arguments. The moral argument here is that Turks cannot bulldoze PKK for secession and treason but the USA can, drawing the paratoplels shows once more hypocrisy of decadent West

I know that the USA doesn't care about international law but I'm also separating that might makes from might not making right, ask yourself what Gandhi would do. The answer is either go peaceful, or go nuclear

I guess then it's a matter of the validity of the secession according to other foreign powers.

So it's morally okay for DPRC to violently re-annex Taiwan because Taiwan isn't recognised by virtually any major powers as an independent country? (Because DPRC won't sign nice trade agreements with states that do)

[TheBiggerFish]

But don't we recognize Taiwan?

[Loud Whispers]

So it's morally okay for DPRC to violently re-annex Taiwan because Taiwan isn't recognised by virtually any major powers as an independent country? (Because DPRC won't sign nice trade agreements with states that do)

And fuck all kinds of broccoli for Tibet and Hong Kong

[Dorsidwarf]

The US recognises "the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China."

www.state.gov


"The UK does not recognise Taiwan as a state and has no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, so limited consular services are available to British nationals"

[TheBiggerFish]

I could have sworn that...Huh.

[Rolepgeek]

I find it moderately hilarious that people always think the opposite side has control of the media.

My parents think the conservative right has control of the media because rich people. Conservatives seem to think the progressive left has control of the media because journalists/scandal-hounds.

In other news, Fort Sumter didn't fire first. Which is why you march up, tell them 'you're on federal land, we need to use this building, kindly leave and take your firearms with you'. Have the police wear protection, but if they get shot at, give 'em 24 hours to surrender or we storm the place. Don't blow it up, that's expensive and sets a really bad precedent I'd really like to avoid. But nonetheless, this isn't just a protest. Protests usually involve people saying 'hey we're protesting and this is what we want to change and we've got a lot of people who agree with us but we'll try to be civil about it'. (whether they manage that, when protests involving large numbers of people are inevitably chaotic and ripe with chances for opportunists, is another story) This is people saying 'We're going to be carving out an enclave to be separate from the government and if people don't like that they can talk to my gun'.

And Loud Whisper...ethnic minority group numbering in tens or hundreds of thousands, trying to get a state separate from an oppressive government that is biased against them, when they have a predominantly their-ethnicity/language area they could manage that in, is rather different than a few dozen people of the predominant ethnicity of a state, trying to carve out land in the middle of said state because they feel like their economic rights weren't being respected, is just a little different. Maybe not in the sense of 'either way they're trying to separate', but in the sense of 'who has the better reason' and 'how supported is the cause'.

Because that's part of the thing about democracy. The more people support your cause, the more legitimate it is, almost by definition. More people opposing can hurt the legitimacy, but if it doesn't affect them directly, then it's considered less legitimate, because it's easier to condemn things that are distant on principle without looking at the people involved.

And if I remember right, BiggerFish, we pseudo-unofficially recognize Taiwan. Or something.

[Dorsidwarf]

From the article I got the quote with, the US maintains strong nondiplomatic unofficial ties with Taiwan, (but doesnt support its independance), possibly because that lowers the chances of an ugly shooting war in one of the most minerally-rich areas of the world.

[Frumple]

Alright, that's coming down to a poorly defined hellfire line, again. Can you roll in the bear cats if a few guys at an Occupy protest have rifles slung? One guy?

One guy in his house refusing to pay his property taxes?

I'd argue that in, all of those cases, unless they're shooting at someone, police shouldn't be aggressing things.

I'd mostly agree, but they're again pretty significantly different situations. You might draw parallel with the former if they're explicitly threatening violence during the process and it's not an open carry state, but if they're there peaceably and not breaking any laws, then it's probably not something to be dealt with. This situation... ain't that. This isn't one or two folks showing up at a protest in an open carry area with weapons slung, this is multiple dozen threatening explicit violence (which is by and large the big thing, here, imo -- someone with a gun saying they're going to kill people is roughly where you stop screwing around) and overtly breaking the law in the process. I'd probably guess the closest previous similarity would be some of the Panther action a ways back, but even then most of that was damned different.

The latter, there's not really much parallel at all, and it's something that's relatively likely to get your arse shot if you're armed and belligerent (which, again, this lot is), and definitely likely to get you put in jail or a psychiatric hospital -- far as I'm aware, police in that situation tend to aggress pretty rapidly if you don't let yourself get talked down pretty quick. They don't just back off and let you twiddle around just because you've got a gun. Firearm ain't gonna' get you out of breakin' the law, especially if you're threatening violence and displayin' capability to inflict it.

... is the concept that armed belligerence is something that needs to be stopped pretty rapidly really something I've having that much difficulty expressing in a way that gets across? Especially when it's as incredibly blatant as something like this situation? Rule of thumb's really kinda' simple -- if you want to use the threat of firearm use to make a point, you make it implicit and don't make the first move. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what happening in this situation. Going past that is what normally gets people shot. Can argue it shouldn't, I guess, but still.

---

Though I guess if we're armchairing similar situations, I'd call dead-on being something along the lines of a gang squatting in a post office on the outskirts of a town. Broke in during the hols/weekend, saying they're shoot the first pig that tries to get 'em out. Ain't actually shot, yet, but I'd say we're both pretty damn certain there wouldn't be too terrible much talking or waiting in that situation. Maybe there should be, but there wouldn't be.

[Strife26]

I find it moderately hilarious that people always think the opposite side has control of the media.

My parents think the conservative right has control of the media because rich people. Conservatives seem to think the progressive left has control of the media because journalists/scandal-hounds.

In other news, Fort Sumter didn't fire first. Which is why you march up, tell them 'you're on federal land, we need to use this building, kindly leave and take your firearms with you'. Have the police wear protection, but if they get shot at, give 'em 24 hours to surrender or we storm the place. Don't blow it up, that's expensive and sets a really bad precedent I'd really like to avoid. But nonetheless, this isn't just a protest. Protests usually involve people saying 'hey we're protesting and this is what we want to change and we've got a lot of people who agree with us but we'll try to be civil about it'. (whether they manage that, when protests involving large numbers of people are inevitably chaotic and ripe with chances for opportunists, is another story) This is people saying 'We're going to be carving out an enclave to be separate from the government and if people don't like that they can talk to my gun'.

That's essentially the "kill them all with a semi-decent excuse" option.

The US recognises "the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China."

www.state.gov


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act#Military_provisions

And bringing things full circle, there *is* actually US law that affects how we juggle the Taiwan question.

[Loud Whispers]

I find it moderately hilarious that people always think the opposite side has control of the media.

Well there are vagueish sides, it's really easier to say what something's not rather than what it is. Within sides there are factions and factions with differences in belief and structure.

My parents think the conservative right has control of the media because rich people. Conservatives seem to think the progressive left has control of the media because journalists/scandal-hounds.

What of a very right-wing authoritarian police force under a very left-wing authoritarian government?

In other news, Fort Sumter didn't fire first. Which is why you march up, tell them 'you're on federal land, we need to use this building, kindly leave and take your firearms with you'. Have the police wear protection, but if they get shot at, give 'em 24 hours to surrender or we storm the place. Don't blow it up, that's expensive and sets a really bad precedent I'd really like to avoid.

Boomsticks m8

But nonetheless, this isn't just a protest. Protests usually involve people saying 'hey we're protesting and this is what we want to change and we've got a lot of people who agree with us but we'll try to be civil about it'. (whether they manage that, when protests involving large numbers of people are inevitably chaotic and ripe with chances for opportunists, is another story) This is people saying 'We're going to be carving out an enclave to be separate from the government and if people don't like that they can talk to my gun'.

Sounds like they've protested then lol

And Loud Whisper...ethnic minority group numbering in tens or hundreds of thousands, trying to get a state separate from an oppressive government that is biased against them, when they have a predominantly their-ethnicity/language area they could manage that in, is rather different than a few dozen people of the predominant ethnicity of a state, trying to carve out land in the middle of said state because they feel like their economic rights weren't being respected, is just a little different. Maybe not in the sense of 'either way they're trying to separate', but in the sense of 'who has the better reason' and 'how supported is the cause'.

Mobs are well good
Also states trying to free themselves from oppressive governments biased against them... :D

Because that's part of the thing about democracy. The more people support your cause, the more legitimate it is, almost by definition. More people opposing can hurt the legitimacy, but if it doesn't affect them directly, then it's considered less legitimate, because it's easier to condemn things that are distant on principle without looking at the people involved.

This is just might makes right. Mob is best rule apparently, and only victory matters

And if I remember right, BiggerFish, we pseudo-unofficially recognize Taiwan. Or something.

Yeah both PRC and Taiwan are officially one China still, though de facto separate and with political support for making Taiwan officially separate from China so they don't end up like Hong Kong where their democracy is stripped away because the needs of a few rich islanders should not threaten the will of the majority :^)

That's essentially the "kill them all with a semi-decent excuse" option.

Yeah, you must go full Gandhi. Peaceful or nuclear, hellfire or ceasefire.