Print

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

[Twi]

personally, if I were the gubmint, I'd brandish the hellfires and bearcats in a scary-looking way until they get the point. No actual uses of hellfires or bearcats are needed, unless the militia are serious about resisting arrest and all that nonsense. They probably aren't, but who knows?

I should probably read more into this. :v

[Strife26]

And when the response is a resounding non-surrender? Baseline competence from these guys says that they're perfectly aware of the hellfires and Bearcats

[Twi]

Hm. Well, to be fair, I'm not the gubmint, and probably shouldn't be the gubmint anytime soon.

I also sort of agree with a lot of what has been said about double standards. While I'm certainly not in favor of just nukin' em, and I wouldn't call them terrorists (dunno what I'd call them, but they're not doing terror AFAIK?), there's definitely something off about how armed, white, conservative protests/whatever get the kid gloves (and the kiddy media attention!) while the peaceful, libural protests (or the not-quite-peaceful-but-also-not-armed, usually-non-white protests) get the nuking and being called terrorists and having the full power of the state brought on them, etc.

Maybe it has something to do with the media? The more people hear about whatever's going on, the more Law Enforcement/etc feels that They Have to Stop This Right Now?

EDIT: Alternative explanation: The 'conservative' protests are generally against some far away Central Gubmint, and thus the Local Authorities don't feel threatened by it. The 'libural' protests are usually against The Local Authorities themselves (occupy counts, rich people are totally local authorities :V) and thus are treated as legitimate threats. (this also fits nicely with, say, the Ferguson protests being handled much more peacefully when the National Guard was in charge then when the local police was running the show, or am I thinking of some other protests?)

[Loud Whispers]

Why do we continue to listen to LW in this debate? He's responding to six-paragraph explanations with
"wot m80 erdo did nuffin rong m8y!??!"
Go back to serbia

Use as many words as needed m8, Erdogan did nothing wrong

Loud whispers, let me know when Mexica movement people or the Jefferson State people or the Cascadia people actually get an armed militia and take control of federal property.

Having the Mayor of Los Angeles would actually mean they are the authority

[Descan]

I thought reactionary was basically a term for extreme conservatism?

Conservative wants to keep things the same, reactionary wants to go back to how things were. Basically. :v

There is overlap, of course.

[Sheb]

Nah, reactionary is mostly used as a stronger form of conservative, and only in negative way (Except for FootJob's EdgyLord Friends). Basically, it's what liberal uses to call arch-conservatives they don't like.

I mean, if we try to use another definition like Descan, the entire GOP became reactionary when gay marriage turned legal.

[My Name is Immaterial]

Why do we continue to listen to LW in this debate? He's responding to six-paragraph explanations with

"wot m80 erdo did nuffin rong m8y!??!"

Go back to serbia

I don't know, I, for one, enjoy his shitposting.

[Frumple]

I mean, if we try to use another definition like Descan, the entire GOP became reactionary when gay marriage turned legal.

Oh, not all of it. Just those who are reactionary about certain social issues, heh. Y'can be reactionary on specific subjects rather than in general, after all.

... which was apparently a lot of it, just... not all. Quite a few economic conservatives that really don't give two shits about who you're screwing, ferex, and a non-negligible amount of social ones for which homosexuality just isn't part of what they give a damn about.

'Course, odds are pretty high they'll vote in lockstep with the ones that are, but that's mostly just how the republican party rolls, these days. Democrat, too, though usually to a notably lesser degree.

And yeah, the rough actual!definition does describe reactionaries as those who want to return to the previous state of things, whereas the conservative just wants to keep things keeping on. It's relatively easy to slip from being conservative to reactionary if you're in a period of notable change, heh.

[Rolepgeek]

Erdogan did nothing wrong m8, this is a very arbitrary line to draw. Actual terrorist attacks on civvies is "how democracy works" whilst citizens occupying an abandoned outpost is terrorism lol
Also Kurds are not Christians, they were not Ottoman'd

No. Terrorism=unacceptable. But that doesn't mean the rest of the people who want to be free shouldn't be allowed because that would be "giving into terrorism". What's more, maybe you should be differentiating between people. I never said this was terrorism. I just said you can't put up with it, since it's a form of protest that I, at least, consider unacceptable. You know, armed and trying to create a military compound. This is why I was saying you can't just Noncentral Fallacy. Everyone can play at that game, and then no one gets anywhere, and nothing useful gets done, no facts become revealed, no one is taught by the discussion. That's politicks, not debate. I come here to debate, not to politick.

Shit question, the people of Hong Kong have to abide by rules put in place by elected officials from a list of people they do not get to choose on the pretext that their interests do not matter in the face of the greater whole. Do you approve of obedience to rules put in place by elected officials even when the rules are unjust? What do you do when elected officials have the interest of others in mind then, and are bought by others? Still elected, will you still abide?

And the people of South Carolina have to abide by rules decided by a small council of appointed officials who preside over all major policy decisions and have essentially irrevocable veto power. That doesn't make the Supreme Court a tyrannical government. And maybe I simply don't know enough about Hong Kong, but from what I can tell it's largely separate from mainland China, and autonomous in a lot of ways. Which would seem like they get more self-rule via democracy than most of China. Perfect, no. Additionally, you are equating 'does not benefit them primarily' with 'unjust', which I hold to be a false equivalency, possibly because I use a different definition of just. I don't know. I do know that issues with elected officials hold true in a lot of places, and corruption is an issue separate from the one I thought/think we're discussing. I'm getting confused as to what the original point here was with all the other stuff layering over it.

USA in a nutshell

Whilst not untrue, occupying a federal building with weapons and declaring it a sovereign state seems a lot more like disproportionate response to your buddies still being in prison after burning down forest to cover their poaching. I mean, don't get me wrong, fearmongering bullshit is politician thing to do, but I think that's usually why people try and do Republics, to have a 'buffer zone'. Which is only as effective as their terms are long, really...

Ongoing discontent due to oppression and wanting to escape it by creating a separate state versus ongoing discontent due to oppression and wanting to escape it by creating a separate state. One is accused of treason and is bombed whilst fighting continues, another is accused of treason and calls are being made even itt to bomb them and I hope for happenings it does.

Right. Except that one is the discontent of people about their buddies being in prison for burning down federal lands, and the other is upset because of a history of violence and oppression against their ethnic group, and quite possibly family, village, and friends. These are not equivalent. Again. Noncentral fallacy. Both belong to the set 'making state to escape oppression'. They do not both belong to the set 'large numbers of people with similar desire in similar location, enough to actually create a state'. They do not both belong to the set 'under a government with a relatively recent history of genocide'. They do not both belong to the set 'oppression type:victims of ethnic prejudice'. They do not both belong to the set 'oppression level: able to occupy a federal building with weapons and not get blown up within 24 hours'.

M8
It's just discussion, amplify your relaxed states, I have no interest in proving anyone smarts or idiots. That is a futile endeavour and wins no one anything, I also do not really even distinguish between you and other people itt

I understand that you don't. I'm asking you to give the discussion the degree of seriousness it deserves. Which is to say, the same amount all debates do. Go in with rigor, bring up evidence, respect your debating partner. "Use as many words as needed m8, Erdogan did nothing wrong" is not actually sufficient words. I could see possible reasoning for it, but to actually be convincing, you have to articulate that argument. And considering your responses to some of the other questions, I know you're more than capable, and willing when it suits you, which is why it is so frustrating that you don't with the bigger questions. If you don't want to have a serious discussion in detail, that's fine, but say so. Don't just brush it off with lolspeak and one-liners. Give me an argument I can engage with, not one I have to look up first.

Doesn't matter, it's an answer to the rhetorical question; if a bunch of Mexicans armed themselves up and staked out a chunk of the USA in Cali and claimed secession due to mistreatment, how would you all be then? Legitimate protest, or terrorists?
I'd say it'd be legit but advise for heavy policing

Mexicans ethnically, or Mexicans as in citizens of Mexico? Because either way I would be having none of it, it's just the level of response that would differ. You wanna protest or secede? Fine, file the paperwork, make your case, blahblahblah. Trying to take a bunch of other people with you, more than want to secede, with your secession, through violence? No. Trying to do it to get attention, through threats of force, implied or otherwise? No. You work through the channels of civilization. It's the same reason I hate that mentality of 'If everyone has guns, we'll be safe." Because that's worked out so very well in [fill in African/East European/Middle Eastern country in turmoil here]. Everyone with guns makes everyone twitchy, not polite.

Don't see anything left-wing about that action either. Heck, Obama says he's a spy not a patriot whilst Clinton says he's a traitor.

Except in my experience, support for Snowden at the grassroots level was overwhelmingly left-wing.

Or libertarians, who are right-wing and have boners for grassroot movements, the former RONPAUL crowd loved him. RussiaToday and Fox throwing their weight in to slag off America and democrats respectively also added in american conservatives to the mix alongside liberal democrat Guardian readers in the UK[/quote]
Libertarians are right-wing in American terms because they're pro-market, but they're liberal in the older sense of the word.

As far as I know, reactionary wants to go back hundred plus years, to before how things were in their younger days, even, while conservatives just want things to go back to being like 'the good old days'. I mean, ideally, progressives would push the country forward and conservatives would keep that progress in check to prevent stuff from getting out of hand, and that's almost what it's like now, except horribly distorted and twisted. Progressives should be the idealist party, and conservatives should be the practical party, and they should push against each other so that a balance between what is right and what is necessary can be struck.

[RedKing]

And one problem is that you have reactionaries who see "progress" as decay, and their own regressive ideas as "restoration". Which is not dissimilar to the fundamentalist concept of religion -- the mainstream is somehow a corrupted form of the "true" religion, and the fundamentalist is restoring the religion to its fundamental truths.

Likewise, the far-right often claims that modern democracy is corrupt and debased and they're trying to restore America to its fundamental state (which is of course, very much in the imagination of the beholder, unless you want to repeal all amendments except the Bill of Rights, and revoke the vote for women, minorities and people without land).

[mainiac]

Libertarians are right-wing in American terms because they're pro-market, but they're liberal in the older sense of the word.

This is a pet peeve of mine.  "In the older sense of the word" meaning liberalism as it existed around 1750 or so?  Sure they aren't interested in privileges for guild masters, import taxes at the edges of cities, titles of nobility, slave plantation colonies and a highly erratic system of land tenure and peasant work schedules.  But they also aren't in favor of breakneck investment in public works and education, confiscating the lands of religious orders, excise taxes on luxury goods, creation of a subsidized banking sector the state would use to fund industry and income taxes on the wealthy.

The ideas of liberalism in the older sense of the word have very little relevance to our world.  The question of whether the national, town or no government owns the guilds doesn't matter too much when the guilds effectively ceased to exist 200 years ago.  But 300 years ago, these were major issues.

"Classical liberalism" as people use the word today is a recent invention.  Although there were similar movements around, it really solidified as a movement in a rebellion against social democracy, the "liberalism" that they hate so much.  So "classical" is actually younger then "unclassical".

[RedKing]

Not to pour gasoline on the embers, but there's another element to the Bundy militia thing: They're fundamentalist Mormons.

I thought something seemed peculiar about that one militia guy identifying as "Cpt. Moroni", but it didn't click that Ammon is also a name from the Book of Mormon.

The man identifying as Captain Moroni said he was inspired by the call, and that the inspiration was validated by God in the form of a flock of geese he saw flying.

So, to further draw the analogy to al-Qaeda and ISIS, they're also fundamentalist wackos who see God telling them to take up arms. There is nothing quite as dangerous as a group of people who seem themselves re-enacting some grand struggle from religious texts.


EDIT: Also, Twitter has come up with a great term for these guys: #VanillaISIS
 

[nenjin]

Man I wish we had a test case against this. Because I'm sure if a bunch of unemployed 20 somethings took guns into a federal building and camped out as part of the Occupy movement, they'd already been two days dead by now. Amazing how police who lately have been lighting up anything that is even remotely human now suddenly are overflowing with methodical control and restraint.

[Baffler]

Man I wish we had a test case against this. Because I'm sure if a bunch of unemployed 20 somethings took guns into a federal building and camped out as part of the Occupy movement, they'd already been two days dead by now. Amazing how police who lately have been lighting up anything that is even remotely human now suddenly are overflowing with methodical control and restraint.

Still more of this hypocritical bitching. It's amazing that people have found a way to be angry about authorities acting with proper restraint. But of course, this is the "other side" we're talking about. Why should they have any rights?

[RedKing]

Man I wish we had a test case against this. Because I'm sure if a bunch of unemployed 20 somethings took guns into a federal building and camped out as part of the Occupy movement, they'd already been two days dead by now. Amazing how police who lately have been lighting up anything that is even remotely brown now suddenly are overflowing with methodical control and restraint.

ftfy

Maybe if we sneak a black guy into the compound, that'll give the LEOs their go-ahead. Or maybe they can plant melanin on the dead and claim they were black the whole time.

FWIW, the local sheriff in that county wants these guys gone and is afraid they're gonna start shooting shit up (and they've basically sent an open letter to him telling him not to enforce the laws on them or they'll shoot). And most of the local population shares his sentiment. The good thing is that most of the other militias in the country aren't showing up to turn this into some kind of WoodGlock festival. They've actually been reported as being "disappointed" that the other militias haven't drunk the Kool-Aid and rallied to the idea of freezing their asses off in the woods in rural Oregon. Those fairweather patriots...

@Baffler:
Yeah, it's rather easy to be angry when you see a BLATANT double-standard at work. It's amazing that some people are like "Why u mad that a group of armed crazy crackers aren't being shot in the same week that the cops got off for shooting a black kid with a water gun? Why are you so angry, black people?"