Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
But according to Donald
today, it takes smarts to be a president. I'll quote the tweet, so people don't have to click the link.
edited 12th Feb '17 12:49:33 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Every comparison with Trump turns into Insult to Rocks because there's nothing redeemable about him at all.
Even actual dictators usually have something that's at least vaguely respectable in comparison to him, like having actual ideals, not being a stupid boor, and being more competent.
Trump might as well be a comedy act because of how cartoonishly terrible he actually is. He feels like something you'd see in the Simspons or something.
By internet time, this is from forever and a day ago, but I want to do a response.
As someone who recognizes that the concept of rights is the single most significant development in the field of Human society and civilization in the last 400 years, I have to figure people have got to have some pretty good fucking reasons for throwing them out- even in the case of Nazis.
Is it really just, "Fuck Nazis?" for you? Not even a, "If these people don't believe in the rights of non-whites, then there's no reason why I should believe in their rights"?
How about this for you: Naziism is, by its very nature, destructive to the principles of democracy. Democracy is a means of social organization meant to ensure that the rights, freedoms, and safety of its citizens are protected as best as possible. Naziism of its own nature espouses limiting or forcibly stripping the rights of a democracy's citizens, often for simply being born to a particular group. (Wrong skin tone, wrong orientation, parents are the wrong religion, etc.)
Naziism is thus a direct threat to liberal, functional democracy. Naziism and Nazis rely on a larger society either tolerating them or being ignorant of them and their agenda until they can take over the society, warp it until the society becomes a copy of Naziism's horrifically perverted philosophy, then spread. And Nazis who do take over a society in turn try to use the state's near monopoly on violence against the state's own citizens, which I think everyone here can agree is not okay.
Naziism is little different than a parasite or a virus, and should be treated like it. One shouldn't question ridding a democracy of Nazis any more than one questions whether to give medical treatment to a person with a virus, or to get rid of the bacterial or parasitic infection someone may have. As far as I'm concerned, personally, Spencer and his like are actually a step or two below an infection of Ascaris lumbricoides. (Note: Do not use google image search for that unless you are sure you have the stomach for it.) A democracy refusing to tolerate Nazis is just a sign that the democracy in question is committed to remaining a democracy.
Nazis have no place in the marketplace of ideas, either. The marketplace of ideas tossed them out after 1945, and nothing about their actions or words indicate they've changed anything to merit a second opportunity. And as the past couple of decades have taught us, it only takes a few people being committed to an evil, insane, unconscionable philosophy or cause in order to shake the world to its knees or cause massive harm to people. So Nazis fearfully hiding in the corners and shadows of a society that despises them and refuses to give them an opportunity to spread their particular brain plague is exactly where they should be. If they come out of that corner, (as they have) I have no objection to shining a light on them and stepping on them like roaches.
So on the question of whether one should punch a Nazi, it depends, as one philosopher has said on the subject, of how you define should. Legally? No you should not, due to everything from practical reasons (getting yourself in legal trouble, injuring yourself in the process, putting yourself in harm's way and the cross hairs of vengeful Nazis) to philosophical ones. (The greater breakdown of society and mutual erosion of public safety.) Ethically? Fuck yes, you should.
And my personal advice if you do decide to punch a Nazi: keep your wrist straight behind your fist so the transfer of energy goes straight through instead of messing up your wrist. If you go for the face, only aim for the nose, and keep your thumb outside of your fist. (Or use a forearm or an elbow.) Otherwise go for the solar plexus, that spot right around/underneath where the ribs meet. Much safer for your hand/arm, and may be more reliable than a head shot, especially if you come anywhere close to landing it right.
TLDR: fuck Nazis.
(Partially inspired by posts
like this
among many others that I'm having trouble finding at the moment.)
edited 12th Feb '17 1:19:12 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Nazis have been one of the most Acceptable Targets for so long that I'll be honest, I never actually thought I'd see the day when we would seriously be debating the ethics of shutting them down.
Every time that conversation topic crops up, I feel like I've stepped into a parallel universe. What's next? People defending zombies?
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I would compare it to a lot of people who employ the trite centrism we've discussed multiple times in the sense that I feel most of them are trying to be principled and avoid being slanted, which in a vacuum is fine but you should know when to toss the assumption that everyone is magically right about something just because.
People like to twist the whole "tolerance of others" thing around to mean "people preaching tolerance can't criticize anything without being hypocritical, because criticism is intolerant".
The problem is that encouraging tolerance means refusing to tolerate intolerance. It's not hypocrisy, it's just unintuitive. If you want people to be tolerant, you must stamp out intolerance.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Double negative makes a positive. Intolerance of intolerance is tolerance.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Trump Friend, Christopher Ruddy, says that Reince Priebus should be fired
. They're starting to turn on one another.
The GOP Twitter
is celebrating Lincoln's Birthday with what appears to be a false quote.
The quote:
Not this shit again.note
"Those damn liberals say that everyone should be tolerated - so why isn't it okay for me to hate black people? Where's the tolerance?"
That is the argument.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."There a difference between tolerating intolerance and physically assaulting people for holding intolerant beliefs; vigilante justice is toxic to the rule of law, and while it may seem fine when exceptions are being made for people whose beliefs you find abhorrent, legitimizing that sort of behavior is dangerous.
@TobiasDrake: That's not what's being debated, we're debating whether it is acceptable to assault someone simply for being a white supremacist without them having committed a crime.
edited 12th Feb '17 3:21:24 PM by CaptainCapsase
While an extreme example, I'm sure the Polish people who had to endure six years of German occupation don't give a fig about the rule of law when people are killing people or forcing them into labor camps.
Respect for the rule of law only extends insofar as the rule of law protects people equally. If the law's unjust, unfair, or protects a group of people with outright murderous beliefs at the expense of the very real, very vulnerable populations these people target, rule of law becomes a tool entirely for the powerful to keep and maintain power.
We have seen a tip towards the favoritism of white supremacist dickwaffles at the expense of other people under this administration. We're going to see far more of it. Punching a white supremacist in the face, making sure to reinforce the fact that even if the highest office in the country is peddling the same bullshit, this shit is not acceptable, is an unfortunate act, but it's also an act of very explicit defiance when the rule of law is going to fuck you in favor of the guy who thinks Jews aren't people.
edited 12th Feb '17 3:27:28 PM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

US Presidency: So easy a caveman IS doing it