681–690 of 691 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the ability for good concepts to be "tainted" by the opposition is the most dangerous manifestation of tribalism/group think, in modern society.
Freeze peach was never a good concept. The libertarian Internet was a mistake and the world will be a better place when it's gone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't go around dressed in black with anarchist symbols and wearing a mask, attacking people or destroying stores at riots in the middle of the night, no. I generally stay away from that type of stuff and instead support non-violent, political change that happens within the system and I think those destructive groups are engaging in ineffective and bad tactics.
Are you antifa?
I do not do that so that would make me not fall under any type of anarchist label like that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Says you. This is so much word-salad I got diarrhea. To be a fascist you don't need to exist in opposition to a socialism. The two ideologies exist independently of each other. This take is just ignorant. Show me anywhere, where any scholar, on either side of, inside or outside of our current iteration of the Overton window, bundles socialism and fascism as codependent. Not a single mention of "socialism" in the 14 p…
Fascists are, by definition, socialist. You cannot be a free market fascist, because then the party wouldn't have power and the people wouldn't have a shared direction to move. Calling any modern figure on the right a fascist is a deep misunderstanding of the word and its history. I'm not sure what the 14 points of fascism are but it appears to be a modern work that came out in the 90's. I would encourage you to read…
By what definition?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
"It is characterized by a hatred for liberalism, socialism, democracy, internationalism and the parliamentary system;" / "It opposes communism, socialism, pluralism, individual rights and equality, and democratic government" / "Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism" / "Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes... It is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world-conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker, to stand in its way."
Even Mussolini named fascism as something standing against socialism.
So, what definition are you thinking of?
> I'm unaware of serious historians who don't, at least partially, think this way.
So simply cite the serious historians who think that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just like some very far right people exist The difference being they have support from the president. Whereas on the left, it's just some random "person" on Twitter. Republicans and MAGA literally supports terrorists. This isn't a debate. It's fact.
No, its not random people on twitter. If you read the statements that were put it, it involved actual terroristic actions of a variety of groups to sabotage critical infrastructure.
You can't. You can't even name the people that I weren't even referencing. It's random people.
But I can point to the literal President of the USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, its not random people on twitter. If you read the statements that were put it, it involved actual terroristic actions of a variety of groups to sabotage critical infrastructure.
Let's not forget far left communists disrupted power in Germany last year, directly leading to deaths. https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-blackout-how-dangerous-are-left...
Oh wait...
Go ahead and show me the the people in the German government on the left doing this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The war on drugs definitely didn't cause the drug trade or the murders. Have to stop you right there. The “war on drugs” absolutely has created the conditions for the drug trade and the murders. If you criminalize a large part of the economy, then only criminals will profit from it. If we had sane drug policy, there would not be the profit that attracts these criminals. Additionally, the US intelligence services (a…
So don't do anything to stop anything. Got it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, its not random people on twitter. If you read the statements that were put it, it involved actual terroristic actions of a variety of groups to sabotage critical infrastructure.
Name the people in the US government on the left doing this? Go ahead. You can't. You can't even name the people that I weren't even referencing. It's random people. But I can point to the literal President of the USA.
I would say that people who are sabotaging powerplants count as being called far left terrorists. And that is both dangerous and bad. It is not just a random person making tweets. Instead its people sabotaging powerplants.
It is silly to dismiss that all as just being on twitter. When power plants are sabotaged that can kill people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Afghanistan: Every NATO member went because of article 5. The Taliban explicitly refused to comply when requested to hand over Bin Laden. This is as clear cut casus belli as it gets. And then Australia, South Korea, Malaysia, Azerbaijan and even Mongolia participated. How are those NATO? How is Mongolia even aligned with the US or under their influence in any way? Iraq: Japan, Australia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Ukrai…
You are basically saying that supporting American imperialism is not exclusive to NATO. And I don‘t dispute that. I also think that history has been far too kind to France’s supposed opposition to the illegal invasion. France stood firmly inside a military alliance who’s members broke international law and disregarded human rights. If France and Germany were serious about their supposed opposition to that war they wo…
No, I'm saying that states are relatively free to agree or disagree with the US, at least until president 47. France faced no consequences, and countries like Nicaragua are on the opposite end of the geopolitcal spectrum with no particular interest in a war on the other side of the world.
Because whether Iraq or Afghanistan bear the historical hallmarks of imperialism is up to debate, especially with Afghanistan with clear casus belli, stated war objectives, and no intention to annex or directly control/govern the territory. The actual number of countries supporting either is a good metric on that; I think Afghanistan war had a much wider support for a reason. Putting both conflicts together is simplistic, if not disingenuous.
>France stood firmly inside a military alliance who’s members broke international law and disregarded human rights.
The USSR stood inside an economic and arguably military alliance with literal Hitler until 41. The USSR fed the Wehrmacht, fueled their tanks, and provided metals for their war machine. Mentioning this since you already mentioned you're on the left side of the spectrum. Can we call the USSR as subservient to Third Reich imperialism?
Breaking an alliance simply because an ally does something you don't agree with, while morally commendable, it is also simplistic. France didn't pull out, like nobody pulled out when France was committing atrocities in Algeria, or when Turkey invaded Cyprus; no Warsaw Pact countries left during Hungary 56, Albania did leave because of Prague 68 but only because of it being the last straw on their already strained relations, like CSTO countries aren't pulling out because of Russian imperialism in Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova. Armenia is trying to pull out only because the CSTO wasn't there when it was needed, that is, when the treaty doesn't address its very own points.
Alliances are born out of self-interest, not out of moral purity or consistency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actual terrorists have a right to speak too, you know. Intrinsic to the whole idea of rights is that even people we don't like (or are even mortally opposed to!) still have them. The problem with "firebombs on anti-abortion pregnancy crisis centers" is obviously the firebombs .
> The problem with "firebombs on anti-abortion pregnancy crisis centers" is obviously the firebombs I don't know, if we didn't have "anti-abortion pregnancy crisis centers", the firebombs would be kind of irrelevant
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think cooling off the empirical war machine is "harming the USA"
Supporting actual attacks on shipping lanes, or supporting the russian war, or attacks done by designated terrorist organizations is what I am referring to that some of the hard leftists support. Yes, those things harm the USA, to explicitly be doing things like supporting the russian war on our allies.