Portland Protestors abducted by secret police

[GreyICE]

This is once again a relevant image:

[Draco Dracul]

Okay, let's deal with some of this.

First, I am not calling the left "fascist." I am simply saying that they do many of the things that they would call "fascist" if their opponents did them.

(1) That's like saying using a pincer movement on a battlefield is an appeal to tradition. It's the use of tactics that have not only worked in the past, but have been shown to work on a fairly consistent basis for the last 60 years.

It's not the use of protests per se. It is the fact that every issue is put on the same level as the 1960s fight against Jim Crow. Basically, the Left desperately wants to re-live the 1960s and will go to any lengths to make the current cause the moral equivalent of ending Jim Crow, with the need to use the biggest hammer they can find to get their way.

I mean a big part of that is many elements of Jim Crow where repackaged and reused with a thin veneer of justification.

(3) The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”

Tear down statues!

Something done largely after years or even decades of trying to go through legal channels were blocked.

So if they do not pass the laws you want removing the statue, you get to take it down on your own?

But that's beside the point. Tearing down a statue because of anger over policing policy does seem to reflect action for action's sake.
In fact, a lot of the "defund the police" seems to be more about striking back and getting revenge rather than looking at solving the issues that cause deaths at the hands of police.

In many cases these are statues that were erected for the purpose of terrorizing the black populous, the local populous have wanted removed for years or even decades, but were barred from removing due to state laws.

(4) Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
...
Which side has torn down basically anyone, even those on their side, that disagrees with their leader?

I don't think that disagreeing with Trump is what people who lay the charge of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" are objecting to. The problem is the complete inability to ever credit Trump with good faith and the need to portray every action and policy that you disagree with as "evil for evil's sake" rather than considering the reasons for the policy.

I love how that doesn't actually address my point at all, or do you think that the republicans that Trump routinely brow beats using his fanatical base think he's doing evil for evil's sake?

In any case, though, the point is that cancel culture is essentially the epitome of "disagreements must not be in good faith." The left is completely unwilling to have any of its assumptions challenged. For example, the entire trans movement has been characterized by people submitting because any dissent causes people to be labeled "bigoted" and unpersoned.

I mean a) this kind of makes the assumtion that legitimately held beliefs and bigotry cannot be the same thing, b) lets anti-trans people completely off the hook for reacting negatively to having their assumptions challenged, and c) makes denying rights to a marginalized group a lesser issue than saying mean things to people that are rich and influential.

(5) Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”

You mean like paranoia that any dissension is fueled by Russia?

One, that's a really, really weird one to try and use against side that is significantly more diverse. Two, actions of a foreign government and actions of an ethnic group are not the same thing, it's not random Russians that are being blamed it's specifically the government of Russia. Three, it's not paranoia, even with the hamstrung investigation with a censored final report the evidence that there is active interference and psyops being performed by the Russian government.

The point is, the left has its own bogeyman, and dissent is blamed on him. It's not that Russia has never interfered. It is that the impact of Russian interference has been exaggerated, and is used as an excuse not to deal with the issues that the other side brings up.

As I point out later, the left may be more diverse ethnically, but the "appeal against the other" is very strong, only it is reversed with whites, especially white males, being seen as "the other," with all minorities united under the banner of "people of color." Whites are seen as "the other" who threaten all and must be punished. Moreover, America is re-defined so that whites are the intruders, who represent oppression against the multicultural paradise that America was supposedly always envisioned as. Basically, the real America is everyone except for the historical majority and the historical majority are the intruders.

I don't really think that holds much water, especially when looking at the congressional delegation in the House, where the democratic house roughly matches the demographics of the country.

(10) Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”

Anyone who apologizes generally gets hated harder. Look at Drew Brees and Coach Gundy.

In my experience that's only in the case of back handed apologies. Not only that, but the massive focus on Trump, a man that almost never apologizes, would make it clear that it's not the case. Additionally much of the focus is on people with substantial financial, social, and/or political power.

Trump's lack of apology is how he survives. Anyone who apologizes winds up getting destroyed. And "back-handed" apologies are how every apology is looked at by the left. Blood in the water.

Considering he's down 10-15 points in the polls, that's in dispute.

(13) Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”

Well, were the Washington Redskins forced to change their name because of a popular push against it? Was the push against "COPS" and "Live P.D." driven by popular sentiment? The elimination of Aunt Jemima? How much of cancel culture is driven by popular rage, and how much by a small group who sees themselves as the saviors of the oppressed?

Where.

Generally speaking, a number of activists manage to shake down corporations to get the changes they want.

I don't see the connection, because selective populism means that populist or even socialist policies are enacted, but only for the in-group. The was something that was very common among southern democrats prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act, social programs would be enacted but structured to only help whites. Or to use a modern example the large scale relief programs Trump made for farms to shield his voters from the problems his trade war caused.
[/quote]

[G-Man]

So your example of the student union you quoted being relevant to fascism is that they'll later join the HR department, and to prove that you use... trans rights?

Wow, that's really. Something. Lets see if we can lay it out:

1) A student union from a random school does something you don't like
2) In 20 years that student union will be running the HR department
2A) As proof of this, trans people are accepted!
3) Therefore the left is fascist.

The point is, the letter by those students represents what the left movement actually believes and is fighting for. These people are not outliers, and are an accurate representation of what is behind much of the left's agenda.

Second, what the fuck do you have against trans people? Is this just random "I haven't fulfilled my quota of bigotry this week" shit?

I am against any movement that insists that I must say that 2+2=5 or be labeled a bigot.

THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS.

You have mayors who allow rioters to burn and loot property, to deface public monuments and buildings, in one city (Seattle) they were allowed to take over a police station. In Portland, the rioters set fire to a police station. To look at the feds restoring order in one of these cities when the rioters began threatening federal buildings as "kidnapping an terrorizing" is warped. I think the bigger outrage is that the mayors objected to the feds after refusing to restore order themselves.

And these student groups reflect the ideology that is going to be forced upon the public in the next twenty years or so - actually, given the acceleration, in the next five years or so.

So no, you are the one who "isn't even wrong," i.e. you completely misunderstand the context of the fight.

Wow, this is incredible. Your argument is that "the left" isn't using more government power against the protesters, and therefore they're fascist. The only way they could not be fascist is use more government authority, and when they demanded absolute police control of the city with no oversight, that'd be the least fascist thing they could do.

Well, I'll admit, you graduated from "not even wrong" to "so wrong it's hilarious". Never have I ever heard the argument "they give the people too much freedom, and that's fascist!"

If they were neo-Nazis who were continuously protesting a Jewish neighborhood, vandalizing properties and looting and burning, I doubt you would see the mayor being unwilling to use the police to restore order as benign neglect. Nor would you see the President sending in federal assets to suppress the unrest as fascist.

The mayor is not giving "the people" freedom. He is allowing rioters to take away others' freedom.

That's right up there with your intellectually amazing point "post-modernism is even more modern than modernism (a 70 year old movement) and is therefore traditionalist" which I thought would be the single most inane thing said in this thread.

You are conflating points 1 and 2. My point in 1 is that the left is more concerned with reliving its glory days in the 1960s and 1970s rather than dealing with current problems on their own terms.

As for "more modern than modernism" my point is that whether you reject modernism for post-modernism or for tradition, both the fascist right and the pomo left reject enlightenment values of truth and objective reality in favor of "whatever gives me power."

The fact that they are rejecting objective reality for a different set of values than the fascist right does not change the fact that they put the maintenance of their narrative ahead of honest inquiry to find the truth.

[Draco Dracul]

So your example of the student union you quoted being relevant to fascism is that they'll later join the HR department, and to prove that you use... trans rights?

Wow, that's really. Something. Lets see if we can lay it out:

1) A student union from a random school does something you don't like
2) In 20 years that student union will be running the HR department
2A) As proof of this, trans people are accepted!
3) Therefore the left is fascist.

The point is, the letter by those students represents what the left movement actually believes and is fighting for. These people are not outliers, and are an accurate representation of what is behind much of the left's agenda.

If they represented what the movement believed in, Biden wouldn't have absolutely crushed Sanders in the Primaries.

Second, what the fuck do you have against trans people? Is this just random "I haven't fulfilled my quota of bigotry this week" shit?

I am against any movement that insists that I must say that 2+2=5 or be labeled a bigot.

THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS.

There is something deeply ironic about using trans rights to accuse the left of being fascist when one of the major things the Nazis did upon obtaining power was destroy decades of research into gender identity.

You have mayors who allow rioters to burn and loot property, to deface public monuments and buildings, in one city (Seattle) they were allowed to take over a police station. In Portland, the rioters set fire to a police station. To look at the feds restoring order in one of these cities when the rioters began threatening federal buildings as "kidnapping an terrorizing" is warped. I think the bigger outrage is that the mayors objected to the feds after refusing to restore order themselves.

And these student groups reflect the ideology that is going to be forced upon the public in the next twenty years or so - actually, given the acceleration, in the next five years or so.

So no, you are the one who "isn't even wrong," i.e. you completely misunderstand the context of the fight.

Wow, this is incredible. Your argument is that "the left" isn't using more government power against the protesters, and therefore they're fascist. The only way they could not be fascist is use more government authority, and when they demanded absolute police control of the city with no oversight, that'd be the least fascist thing they could do.

Well, I'll admit, you graduated from "not even wrong" to "so wrong it's hilarious". Never have I ever heard the argument "they give the people too much freedom, and that's fascist!"

If they were neo-Nazis who were continuously protesting a Jewish neighborhood, vandalizing properties and looting and burning, I doubt you would see the mayor being unwilling to use the police to restore order as benign neglect. Nor would you see the President sending in federal assets to suppress the unrest as fascist.

The mayor is not giving "the people" freedom. He is allowing rioters to take away others' freedom.

If the perpetrators, methods, and underlying motivation where different you wouldn't feel the same is the most no duh take I've seen in quite a while.
[/quote]

[GreyICE]

So your example of the student union you quoted being relevant to fascism is that they'll later join the HR department, and to prove that you use... trans rights?

Wow, that's really. Something. Lets see if we can lay it out:

1) A student union from a random school does something you don't like
2) In 20 years that student union will be running the HR department
2A) As proof of this, trans people are accepted!
3) Therefore the left is fascist.

The point is, the letter by those students represents what the left movement actually believes and is fighting for. These people are not outliers, and are an accurate representation of what is behind much of the left's agenda.

Ah, so you're a "leftist"? No? Then maybe there's not even such a thing as "leftism", much less beliefs.

Here, this might give you the smallest taste of something beyond your simplistic worldview:
https://8values.github.io/

Second, what the fuck do you have against trans people? Is this just random "I haven't fulfilled my quota of bigotry this week" shit?

I am against any movement that insists that I must say that 2+2=5 or be labeled a bigot.

THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS.

Yes, yes, you're the edgiest 15 year old in the whole school. We all witness you.

If they were neo-Nazis who were continuously protesting a Jewish neighborhood, vandalizing properties and looting and burning, I doubt you would see the mayor being unwilling to use the police to restore order as benign neglect.

You're right, that would be a totally different situation. Also, if they were monsters created by Rita Repulsa, I'd want the Power Rangers to intervene.

But to leave your fantasy world and use an actual analogous situation, if some Nazis pulled down a statue of Albert Einstein, I wouldn't think the appropriate response would be to send in federal troops. That would seem like a lot of an overreaction to me.

You are conflating points 1 and 2. My point in 1 is that the left is more concerned with reliving its glory days in the 1960s and 1970s rather than dealing with current problems on their own terms.

As for "more modern than modernism" my point is that whether you reject modernism for post-modernism or for tradition, both the fascist right and the pomo left reject enlightenment values of truth and objective reality in favor of "whatever gives me power."

Point number 2, from Eco:

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.

Your logical leap is that "post-modernism implies the rejection of modernism." This is an underused fallacy called "equivocation" which I also call "the lazy google search fallacy."

See, modernism as an art movement was an art movement that lasted from the 1860s to the 1970s. Postmodernism as an art movement is an art movement that began in the 1970s. So when you're saying that postmodernism is a successor to modernism, you're using the definition of modernism where it's an art movement.

While the dictionary will give you Eco's definition of modernism as "modern character or quality of thought, expression, or technique." Using this definition you can only be post-modern using a time machine.

Since we can definitely see that Eco was not talking about art movements, using the art movement definition is ludicrous, but that's what happens when you get all your knowledge from Google. You don't actually know anything.

[Darth Wedgius]

In many cases these are statues that were erected for the purpose of terrorizing the black populous, the local populous have wanted removed for years or even decades, but were barred from removing due to state laws.

If the people wanted to get the statues removed, couldn't they have started a referendum? Are you certain those statues were erected to terrorize the local black population? I've seen black people defending them. And AFAIK, the statues only injured one person, and that was arguably self-defense on the statue's part.

[Darth Wedgius]

This is once again a relevant image:

Nope. You can't use tear gas against enemy soldiers, but it's more humane than shooting them. The battlefield is not the same situation as policing.

[Antiboyscout]

Your logical leap is that "post-modernism implies the rejection of modernism." This is an underused fallacy called "equivocation" which I also call "the lazy google search fallacy."

See, modernism as an art movement was an art movement that lasted from the 1860s to the 1970s. Postmodernism as an art movement is an art movement that began in the 1970s. So when you're saying that postmodernism is a successor to modernism, you're using the definition of modernism where it's an art movement.

While the dictionary will give you Eco's definition of modernism as "modern character or quality of thought, expression, or technique." Using this definition you can only be post-modern using a time machine.

Since we can definitely see that Eco was not talking about art movements, using the art movement definition is ludicrous, but that's what happens when you get all your knowledge from Google. You don't actually know anything.

It's not just an art movement, it's also a general philosophy. Stop being an obtuse asshole.

[Antiboyscout]

Damn, those blue balls must have hurt. Here you all are orgasmic over the deployment of federal agents. Not even the army.

Trump was hitler all along we knew it. That's why he waited a month to deploy the minimal amount of federal force possible.

[Draco Dracul]

In many cases these are statues that were erected for the purpose of terrorizing the black populous, the local populous have wanted removed for years or even decades, but were barred from removing due to state laws.

If the people wanted to get the statues removed, couldn't they have started a referendum? Are you certain those statues were erected to terrorize the local black population? I've seen black people defending them. And AFAIK, the statues only injured one person, and that was arguably self-defense on the statue's part.

One, the states where most of these statues were build the is very little referendum power and when it is the referendums are undercut by the heavily gerrymandered legislatures, see Florida where after a referendum restoring voting rights to ex-cons was passed the legislature immediately weakened it by passing law saying it only applied to those that had paid for all fees and fines accrued while incarcerated, something the state has no way to track. . Two, yes I am certain of that as the majority of those statues were built by white supremacist group and sister organization to the KKK the Daughters of the Confederacy during the height of the KKK's power in the late 1910s and early 1920s.