The News Thread

[CiG]

Classical liberalism is libertarianism and they both clearly fall under the right wing umbrella. So i dont know how that would make you mostly in line with the left. Maybe you shouldn't call yourself a classical liberal anymore?

Well that would simply be a product of the way the left has changed.
Americans I believe misuse the word liberal and this fault of the American political realm cannot be shifted on to people who use the word liberal correctly.

I support unionization, I am fine with social programs, I am fine with a reasonably high minimum wage law, gun regulations, I support many forms of environmentalism, I support gay marriage, transgender rights, secularism and many other left-wing staples.

I would place myself in the part of the left, mostly in the center, that opposes radical shifts to the left or right and enshrines individualism over everything else.

Americans think Hillary Clinton is a liberal for example. In America, liberal = progressive-corporatism, but that's not my fault.

 

[Einherjar86]

If you don't approve of rhetoric which calls for dead police and the silencing of whites that Black Lives Matter often call for, or the violent overthrowing of the government, the removal of property rights, the fundamental rejection of liberal democracy and of the oppression and potential starvation of billions of people for the sake of communism or even just socialism then you should have promptly left the rally.

Makes sense right?

No. As I already said, I wasn't around people saying those things. I did hear one small group of people saying that "cops and KKK go hand in hand," and I did promptly move away from them.

You're insinuating that a significant portion of people were saying those things. That's simply not the case. At Charlottesville, by contrast, a significant number of people were explicitly evincing white supremacist values. It became a white supremacist rally because many right-wing people chose to avoid the event altogether. That was a smart decision. The rally I was at was neither a white supremacist rally nor an antifa rally.

The Charlottesville rally made itself a despicable event, probably due to actions from antifa as well as white supremacists. But it was tainted from the get-go by blatant displays of racism. Lots of right-wingers stayed away because of that. Those didn't made a poor choice, in my opinion. The Boston rally wasn't an antifa event and was barely affected by any violence from antifa, despite what your sources tell you.

It proves that, in the minds of even the leftists such as yourself, you're no better than the right in all the areas it truly counts.

Sorry, I don't follow. I'm sure there's a point here, but I don't see it.

I can get behind principled positions against guilt by association. Can you?

Associating with white supremacists isn't a principled position. Those two things contradict one another.

I didn't associate with antifa or with the active harassment of any right-wing individual. I stood as part of group to peacefully express discontent toward people wearing swastikas on their vests.

You seem to believe that violence and ideological grandstanding was widespread, but I don't think you know how large Boston Common is.

Yeah they're all just a bunch of victims who decided to bring primitive weaponry to a gun fight. Only victims who are simply considering their own safety do things like that.

They're not victims. In some cases they were probably assaulters. But I'm not going to dismiss the militiamen who brought guns while I rail against the counter-protestors who showed up homemade weapons. If it was okay for the militiamen to bring their guns, then it was okay for the counter-protestors to bring their weapons. If the militiamen were unarmed, then I'd criticize the counter-protestors for bringing weapons.

Makes sense right?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Wikipedia disagrees with your assessment. Do you have any evidence in support of your claims? Western Armenia was annexed by the Ottomans, Eastern Armenia by the Persians and Russians. Ergo, you didn't have a country until shortly after the genocide.

disagrees with what? Eastern Armenia was never annexed by anybody you moron. We have been there before any of the other nations you are speaking of. "THE DIASPORA WENT BACK AND CREATED THE STATE OF ARMENIA"? lmfao, thats the dumbest thing i have heard all day from you. The turks marching out and slaughtering the Armenians of western Armenia is how our diaspora spread throughout the world you dumb imbecile. The Armenians of eastern Armenia have always been in that region, and a lot of sources and historians even say they are the oldest group of people from that region. No one went back there and created a new Armenian nation. It's what was left.

Armenian Genocide = Half of Armenia was annexed and all of the Armenians in that region had to leave or get slaughtered. Now we have a fraction of what used to be our nation.

Holocaust = They eventually stole a piece of land and called it theirs and are currently murdering their neighbors for trying to toss stones at them.

How do you neven make such a comparison? Is the word "genocide" confusing you?

We had a country long before any of the nations you are talking about

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Well that would simply be a product of the way the left has changed.
Americans I believe misuse the word liberal and this fault of the American political realm cannot be shifted on to people who use the word liberal correctly.

I support unionization, I am fine with social programs, I am fine with a reasonably high minimum wage law, gun regulations, I support many forms of environmentalism, I support gay marriage, transgender rights, secularism and many other left-wing staples.

I would place myself in the part of the left, mostly in the center, that opposes radical shifts to the left or right and enshrines individualism over everything else.

Americans think Hillary Clinton is a liberal for example. In America, liberal = progressive-corporatism, but that's not my fault.

well we are talking about America, so....

 

[CiG]

well we are talking about America, so....

Fuck America.

I don't live there, so why would I describe myself as left-wing in relation to a country I don't live in?

You're insinuating that a significant portion of people were saying those things. That's simply not the case. At Charlottesville, by contrast, a significant number of people were explicitly evincing white supremacist values. It became a white supremacist rally because many right-wing people chose to avoid the event altogether. That was a smart decision. The rally I was at was neither a white supremacist rally nor an antifa rally.

Oh okay, so principles only kick in once the horrid views reach a certain number.

The Charlottesville rally made itself a despicable event, probably due to actions from antifa as well as white supremacists. But it was tainted from the get-go by blatant displays of racism. Lots of right-wingers stayed away because of that. Those didn't made a poor choice, in my opinion.

It was also tainted by the presence of hammer and sickle flags.

The Boston rally wasn't an antifa event and was barely affected by any violence from antifa, despite what your sources tell you.

You mean the rally wherein you cited a few instances of violence breaking out and then proceeded to call it non-violent and peaceful?

Associating with white supremacists isn't a principled position. Those two things contradict one another.

It is if your association is strictly based on making sure their constitutional rights are upheld. The ACLU are currently representing them on this matter as @HamburgerBoy stated earlier.

They're not victims. In some cases they were probably assaulters. But I'm not going to dismiss the militiamen who brought guns while I rail against the counter-protestors who showed up homemade weapons. If it was okay for the militiamen to bring their guns, then it was okay for the counter-protestors to bring their weapons. If the militiamen were unarmed, then I'd criticize the counter-protestors for bringing weapons.

Makes sense right?

No.

Makes 0 sense. It's actually strange that you think it does.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I don't live there, so why would I describe myself as left-wing in relation to a country I don't live in?

Well because the subject was American politics and you pointed out how you are in line with the left when we were talking American politics.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Fuck America.

 

[CiG]

Well because the subject was American politics and you pointed out how you are in line with the left when we were talking American politics.

This was the context:

This is a big problem with the left for me personally, as I more or less identify more with the left.
There's little to no principle anymore. Acting like a moron because the other side does it too is an incredibly dumb and unprincipled way to act.

This is why the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party are less and less representing their supporters and more and more blending together into an amorphous blob of horseshit.

I believe this is a problem of the left pretty much everywhere in the west, hence why I mentioned the U.K. parties too.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... wtf.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Armenian Genocide = Half of Armenia was annexed and all of the Armenians in that region had to leave or get slaughtered. Now we have a fraction of what used to be our nation.

Yes and those that left survived and formed the Armenian Republic.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... retardation confirmed. The ones that left never went back(ended up in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Russia and eventually out here) and the the Armenian Republic you speak of WAS what was Eastern Armenia, which had always been there. People that had ALWAYS been there, not people that went back. No one left eastern Armenia until the huge earthquake of 1988 and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Do you still need me to school you?

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh okay, so principles only kick in once the horrid views reach a certain number.

Yes, they do.

If you looked at the two rallies abstractly, you'd see vastly different patterns. If the slightest instance of violence taints everything, then everything's fucked. But compare a mostly violent rally with a mostly nonviolent rally.

Those are two very different things.

It was also tainted by the presence of hammer and sickle flags.

Sure, fine. I'm calling Charlottesville a shitshow, and I'm not saying antifa are the righteous revolution.

You mean the rally wherein you cited a few instances of violence breaking out and then proceeded to call it non-violent and peaceful?

Yes! I don't get why you have such a hard time with this. A rally of tens of thousands, and something like 17 people get arrested, and no serious injuries and no gunfire? Hate to break it to you, but that's a peaceful rally.

It is if your association is strictly based on making sure their constitutional rights are upheld. The ACLU are currently representing them on this matter as @HamburgerBoy stated earlier.

Which I support. I can do so and simultaneously criticize what I think are stupid beliefs.

No.

Makes 0 sense. It's actually strange that you think it does.

Then explain, because I think you're being ridiculous.

If it's perfectly acceptable for men to show up with guns in order to guarantee that their first amendment right to free speech is upheld, then what is the problem with the opposition showing up with homemade flame throwers to guarantee that their first amendment right is upheld. You can't condone one side and condemn the other, and it's strange that you think you can.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

... retardation confirmed. The ones that left never went back(ended up in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Russia and eventually out here) and the the Armenian Republic you speak of WAS what was Eastern Armenia, which had always been there. People that had ALWAYS been there, not people that went back. No one left eastern Armenia until the huge earthquake of 1988 and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Do you still need me to school you?

It wasn't a recognized nation though. Just as there was no recognized Jewish nation. It took genocides for each to fulfill their national identity.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

smh, yes retardation confirmed. Armenia(not the name of our nation in my language btw) was a country long before the Russians or turks even existed. Again, now your going back to "Armenia was created in 1918 ..... butbutbut i never said Armenia was created in 1918(the same fucking year that the genocide was still taking place), but but but they were created in 1918"

 

[CiG]

Yes, they do.

If you looked at the two rallies abstractly, you'd see vastly different patterns. If the slightest instance of violence taints everything, then everything's fucked. But compare a mostly violent rally with a mostly nonviolent rally.

Those are two very different things.

Violence is easy to condemn. That's not the point here, you were placing guilt on people for standing near other people who said things.

Sure, fine. I'm calling Charlottesville a shitshow, and I'm not saying antics are the righteous revolution.

So you're doing what Donald Trump did, even though you condemned him for saying what you're saying now?

I didn't realize you were this unprincipled.

Yes! I don't get why you have such a hard time with this. A rally of tens of thousands, and something like 17 people get arrested? Hate to break it to you, but that's a peaceful rally.

Not peaceful for the outnumbered people who were assaulted.
This shows how one-dimensional your thinking is. Hangings in the old west or lynchings in the Jim Crow days by your definition were non-violent and peaceful.

Then explain, because I think you're being ridiculous.

If it's perfectly acceptable for men to show up with guns in order to guarantee that their first amendment right to free speech is upheld, then what is the problem with the opposition showing up with homemade flame throwers to guarantee that their first amendment right is upheld. You can't condone one side and condemn the other, and it's strange that you think you can.

What is the problem with illegally arming yourself to make sure you can counter-protest?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

2492 BC

your little romanticism with the bolsheviks drawing out lines, handing some of our land to the azeris and calling it "the republic of Armenia" (which only lasted for all of 2 years btw) is amazing tbh.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

2492 BC

your little romanticism with the bolsheviks drawing out lines, handing some of our land to the azeris and calling it "the republic of Armenia" (which only lasted for all of 2 years btw) is amazing tbh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(Samaria)

 

[CiG]

Then explain, because I think you're being ridiculous.

If it's perfectly acceptable for men to show up with guns in order to guarantee that their first amendment right to free speech is upheld, then what is the problem with the opposition showing up with homemade flame throwers to guarantee that their first amendment right is upheld. You can't condone one side and condemn the other, and it's strange that you think you can.

I'm still laughing at this.

So, you would be fine if one side showed up with illegally owned firearms to ensure their first amendment rights are upheld? Maybe they could bring a flail? Harpoon gun? What about that weapon Xena uses?

It's justified because the big mean right-wingers are legally carrying firearms in a professional manner in order to make sure, since the police continually stay out of it and allow Antifa to run amok, that the counter-protesters don't do what they have done since Donald Trump started his second bid for the presidency.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(Samaria)

Ok so in other words "YOU ARE RIGHT ONCE AGAIN MY BIG ARMENIAN DADDY"

Also lol at that article starting with "according to the hebrew bible" And again, Israel was NEVR a nation or a country before it was hi-jacked. And again, i told you the original inhabitants of that region were the Philistines and they date back way beyond those dates in that article, but the original inhabits of Armenia were and always have been Armenians.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Ok so in other words "YOU ARE RIGHT ONCE AGAIN MY BIG ARMENIAN DADDY"

Also lol at that article starting with "according to the hebrew bible" And again, Israel was NEVR a nation or a country before it was hi-jacked. And again, i told you the original inhabitants of that region were the Philistines and they date back way beyond those dates in that article, but the original inhabits of Armenia were and always have been Armenians.

The non-mystical parts of the Bible are actually considered relatively reliable sources of history. Obviously biased, but more detailed and comprehensive than a lot of the alternatives for the time. And Israel/Judah was an independent state for at least hundreds of years.

There is no country in existence than can be said to be definitively settled by its current inhabitants. Only a massive wuwuz would suggest otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Armenia