Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

[SleepingSilence]

@ZB1996 I got to be honest here, I'm super, super confused on what exactly you're even disagreeing with and what points you're making.

I normally keep away from posting in this thread, as there is no easier way to make enemies. However, this post has irked me for a certain reason. I have tried to conceal my own political beliefs as much as I can, though obviously I could not do so fully.

@ZB1996

Sorry, this is not the best example of how I usually discuss. But will do my best to keep it at a good level. People shouldn't have to hide politic opinions because of hate they may receive as long as it's genuine.

It is clear that to those who believe utterly in selfishness, a conflict of interest would occur between he and his boss, especially if his boss demands something of him. Further, he who is governed by self-interest has no reason to serve his boss for pay, if he can simply take it.

@ZB1996

I'm not sure if this a disagreement, basically you're saying. If the guy doesn't like his boss, he won't be interested in being useful to his boss. Though I disagree as many people hate their jobs but still try their hardest out of necessity to make a living. Out of self interest, his family needing money and food. Someone who is selfish, or self centered would still do what he could not to be fired for pay. Because the person needs money...I don't know what I'm discussing here to be frank.

But she will probably fail. The placement of this example is curious, for if the attempted rapist is her boss then she will not follow this latter category.

@ZB1996

You are mistaken, the comments of the women and her body being private propriety and the teen and boss scenario are completely unrelated and aren't even replies to the same thing. So I'm confused at your placement.

This seems true enough, but it seems to miss this point of most discussions of private property. It would seem that the greatest problem regarding private property is not that it exist but that the number of holders naturally becomes disproportionate. Far from the Locke’s vision of many small-scale landowners, what appears is an oligarchy in regards to wealth, where only a few gather up most of the wealth. And for most people, this does not result in any advantage for them.

@ZB1996

Okay, I think this is arguing against capitalism and how private property works? Saying this doesn't give people advantages? If that's the case. I strongly disagree, everyone benefits from private property laws. Even poorer people without any possessions. Privately owned lands for instance are much cleaner than their public counterparts. Reasons that make it obvious. Once again, confused.

This seems true, but I would add that belief in private property and the emphasis on self-interest is an important distinguisher of libertarianism from anarchism.

@ZB1996

You say seems true alot, I'd love for you to provide links or other backing to elaborate on the point you're making because at points it just seems like you're agreeing more than disagreeing. :P

This is true. The Left enjoys creating a strawman of libertarians. They draw conclusions from what they think is the Libertarian ideology, and assume that these are the conclusions that libertarians draw. This stand especially for Rand.

@ZB1996

Well to be fair so does the right...

This is true, but it must be noted that even under this restriction they will do what they can to fulfill the desires their self-interest desires. This means unionization, strikes, or, if the situation should so demand, revolution.

@ZB1996

I did make a point that they have options. And yes, strikes will likely lead to that boss, not becoming successful.

There is no real reason to believe that the prominent individuals of alt-Right or most of their followers are being disingenuous. They have political beliefs which are not merely shams to troll people. That is not to say that there have not been trolls and fake controversies. On the other end, political correctness is a real problem, though it has been exaggerated. It was ridiculous when Orlando Bloom was criticized for calling himself a pikey, and it was equally ridiculous when people complained that Blizzard made Tracer from Overwatch gay.

@ZB1996

Well I will say, some people seemed to be confused on who the alt right even in. And I'm not saying all of them are trolls, I will say the troll mentality, I see far more often than I should. But again, I basically agree...

This is true. Yet while it certainly helps Trump from charges of racism, it does not really alleviate his opponents fear that his policies, whether real or simply stated during his presidential campaign, have deliberately targeted minorities.

@ZB1996

I guess I agree too? Though those fears are still irrational.

During the campaign Trump indeed said nothing against the transgender community, and openly disregarded North Carolina’s transgender bathroom law, though his Administration seems to have made peace with that law since. I do not know what you mean when you say that he was the only president that was for gay marriage when it was not politically convenient. I presume you mean his speech at the convention in regards to Orlando nightclub shooting, but almost all Republicans were equally supportive, regardless of their opinion on same-sex marriage. But Trump has never been a supporter of gay marriage, and has only decided to leave the law alone, which is not really a move of courage.

@ZB1996

Didn't mention politicians, I said presidents. And recent candidates like Obama and Hillary and Bush I'm pretty sure all were against the law, but flip flopped to supporting it. I guess you may be correct about Trump's views on gay marriage, looking into it more. Though he hasn't ever flip flopped like previous candidates. So that first part, I stand by because it's true. Look up statements from Obama, Hillary etc and you'll know what I mean.

nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016…

It doesn’t seem appropriate to not call Trump a conservative. Though he has some differences from most Republicans, such as support for large increases in infrastructure spending and a less interventionist approach in foreign policy, he does not differ much from most Republicans.

@ZB1996

Trump's policies aren't that conservative. I did preference, by America's standard as everyone here is right wing compared to the rest. Though I will admit, I've not been following his recent activities as of late, maybe he's become much more right. I wouldn't know. I certainly think he was voted for by so many because of this fact, that he seemed to be more of a populist. But I disgress and it's getting into conjecture at that point.

commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas…
nationalreview.com/article/442221/don…
newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/david-limbau…

These two theses can be true without there being any contradiction, for among some people mixed-race relationships may be rising while among others white supremacy may be rising.

@ZB1996

Not really because it doesn't make sense for whites to want to be the superior race but then have more relationships to make sure that doesn't happen, but the whole 'KKK is dying' thing. Probably helps prove that it's not a strong point right now.

Of course there are many in the swing states who voted for Trump for economic reasons. Yet I do think that many of them voted for Trump for social reasons, as you implied yourself. There are no studies that I can point to to prove this. However, I can say that I remember the campaign, and it was not an economic message which spiraled Trump to popularity, but his comments on Mexican illegal immigration, which, because they were more inflammatory and its position harder than his rivals, made him more appealing to the Republican base. Likewise with his comments regarding Muslims.

@ZB1996

I do believe social reasons and the left's behavior at the time was certainly his main success. Trump's unfiltered message was refreshing to people. Despite not actually being particularly articulate. Though I will point out, It wasn't solely the right that appreciated things that he spoke about.

If these were their thoughts, then they were certainly ignorant. Yet Republicans have often raised taxes, and the Democrats have often lowered them, despite the received view.

@ZB1996

Links would help...but I will concede democrats give tax breaks in american history. But that's again because we're considered more "right" and taxes are extremely looked down upon in the western world, more often than not. Republicans raising them, I honestly don't know if there's any super big instant of that. :/ I just know Bill Clinton raised them so high that even he admitted to going to far...

Perhaps it is not possible to be turned around now, but with truly privatized hospitals people would be turned away.

@ZB1996

They legally cannot do that in emergencies. It. is. not. legal. The meme mentions stabbing, that is emergency care. THEY HAVE,to care for you. Please provide evidence to the contrary if you think I'm wrong, because I literally posted the LAW.

I have no idea what a “smurf” is in this sense, but this person seems real enough, and there is no need to impugn their character.

@ZB1996

I deleted this, because I absolutely hate that the rest of point becomes ignored outright because of this. So it's gone forever now. But it refers to people that make secondary accounts, usually one for serious things and another to goof around or act differently. I've had this happen, on this very site...on this very section...multiple times and also aware of people who have more than two accounts. So I really, really don't see this as that offensive, because of how the account posts are. But I deleted it. Because the point the account made regardless doesn't actually have any basis in reality.

Were these policies adopted in America they would be a moral disaster.

@ZB1996

Yeah "you're welcome here" Trudeau is a liar. ;D

But that proves just how invalid their point is.

Well it's sort of a thing that America is evil, it's always the case. Usually said by other Americans, so the irony that we're oh so patriotic kills me. Maybe it's just because we're the only ones allowed. But we criticize ourselves far more often than I see of anyone else. Not saying it doesn't happen, the praise or others criticizing. And this immigration thing, is just false. Europe only has more immigrants of other people from Europe, if you remove Europe people moving to a different place in Europe. America has the most immigrants from all around the world. (in a link I displayed above.) And how awful Europe's condition is, and that people try to say "undocumented immigrant" which means illegal immigrant. When the majority of people have no problems with legal immigration...but people always ignore the word illegal meaning 'did a criminal act by law.'

It's a mess of things and a mix of so many things that made me frustrated by this. >.<

In other words, immigrants in Europe are having a bad time.

@ZB1996

Basically yeah.

It does not seem so. America has a long history of anti-immigrant sentiment, in spite of long his story of welcoming immigrants. I think you helped show that America is still the land of opportunity, but this does not exonerate us of our own wrongdoing. Though others may be worse, this does not mean we should stop looking at our own wrongdoing and attempt improvement. Illegal immigrants have reason to fear right now. They are vilified as criminals without reason, they have minimal protection from the law, and they have to live with the fear of being deported back.

I have the hope that my response did to rouse your anger too much.

@ZB1996

I hope I seem fair in my response as well. America does not have a problem with legal immigrants, we are a melting pot. Illegal implies a crime has already been committed. So that's the reason right there...All places around the world, like I said. Don't allow criminals in their place. Europe legalized and approved all the people that ruined their country. Canada, they cannot get on their welfare system or even get a job. America is effectively the only place they currently CAN cheat the system. And I'm sorry, legal immigrants are even more strict to the idea of illegals than the average person is. We aren't wrong for wanting people to get here legally. Please understand their is a difference. History is history. This is the present and the fact. Illegal immigrants are NOT allowed...ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. This isn't because of people being mean, this is because their purposefully avoiding legal parameters.

[Penny]

Ignoring that is almost guaranteed to be a smurf account…
@SleepingSilence

Except it isn't ignoring anything, its a rhetorical device employed to discredit my statement. As it happens I am relatively new to the site and I conduct my RPs 1x1 via PMs, so I haven't logged that many posts.

Ad hominem attacks aside, my statement about it being scary to be an immigrant refers to dealing with members of the public rather than with the Immigration department (excepting the uncertainty generated by the travel bans).

[Vilageidiotx]

There is no level of "getting fucked around with" by the police transacting in this example. Will there inevitably be those officers who purposefully antagonize civilian populace? Yes, but they already exist and no one is fond of them as. This sort of screening is not an attack on anyone to be viewed as being born of doing something wrong when they haven't. In reality, the purpose of a security checkpoint as I said, even if it is not taking account of every vehicle, is to give the perception to a potential threat they might be caught before they can act and by additional quality, find a few persons of interest accidentally.

That's not the way people think though. Even if you have done nothing wrong, a security checkpoint typically feels invasive. It's like a tax audit. Nobody likes to be audited, even if they know their taxes are clean. Having authority figures poking around our shit when we haven't actually done anything to warrant it is obnoxious.

I would like to know your issue with sobriety checkpoints, because even living in a location with one of the highest numbers of yearly intoxicated driving casualties, these have been less than a few minutes of my time consistently. And I will note I am none too fond of the potentially radical implication leveled against law enforcement officers, which I will address in light later.

Sobriety checkpoints, in my experience, are a hassle even if you want cops poking around your shit. They always slow traffic way the fuck down.

I don't believe cops are dragging people out and beating them all the time at these things, that's not what I am saying. It's not radical to say you don't want authorities annoying you for no real reason though.

No, the Democratic party is not all true leftists, but when your party was fielding a candidate, with any seriousness at all, such as Sanders, I would call that extreme.

Sanders was a throwback to the New Deal dems. The idea that Sanders is an extremist is a clear sign that we are way the fuck out right of the typical political spectrum. IMHO Social Democrats are pretty fucking milquetoast.

you do not see me showing much sympathy for those on the true Alt-Right who might hold beliefs that some races or faiths are inherently inferior or that taxation is theft and the central government is evil.

Err, A: There isn't anything wrong with you sympathizing with libertarians. They are wrong, not evil. B: Those forces exist within the right and regularly feed it. The taxation is theft crowd is a well established part of right wing politics in America, and they have ran their fair share of candidates in the past. I feel you are under the impression that anything that deviates from the center is a monstrosity. The problem with the Alt-Right, for instance, is not that they are too far from the center, but rather that their ideas are horribly unjust.

Carrying on, those stereotypes are all targets of the Alt-Right and the "Alt-Right" who they both strike and lash out at, as minority as they are, but I also note that approximately .3% of the United States population, as example, is transgendered yet look at the level of catering received or allocated to it and the amount of attention it received. The left found a niche in this tiny percentage and as a relative whole, leveraged it into a national debate when it was and is a non-issue.

The idea of justice in general is that it is available to all. If there is a small portion of the population who are being treated unjustly, their small number doesn't mean that the injustice is acceptable. If you want to argue about whether or not they are being treated unjustly, that's one thing, but saying "There isn't enough of them to care about." is fucked up.

The difference with these fringe radicals is that one group, the Far Left, has shown they are willing to do that or permit that sort of mindset in public. They are the ones burning down their colleges, breaking windows, attacking citizens to include committing assault with deadly weapons, using low-level explosives and smoke, and any other number of more violent criminal activity to help broadcast their message. No less, some of those fragments in the far left who advocate, and at least many more provide excuse for, the infamous rally cry of "Pigs in the blanket, fry them like bacon." Again, the Far Left demonstrates an intent to do harm, acting on opportunities to do harm, and the capability to do harm.

You make this sound ridiculously endemic, when this is a pretty small potatoes issue right now. Drive to most colleges or windows in the United States and I think you'll find them unburned and unbroken.

Violence happens on the fringes, and at this point it is under control so it isn't a major problem. Your argument, honestly, is as silly if I kept pounding you in the head with Dylan Roof, or those Alt-Right guys who keep showing up to protests now. I mean, both of those arose in an atmosphere of right wing culture, does that make the existence of the right wing in general culpable for their existence specifically? That's silly.

A disorder eh? Sounds purely factual to me. But no, even on the political compass it clearly shows what it is, now sure some people don't use it correctly and politics has it's subtle differences. But I don't really think that's the main focus of Libertarianism. Opinions of non-interventionism has nothing to do with what is and what is not a commodity.

Once I went to use the word "Spectrum", I just had to continue with disorder, couldn't help myself. We are here to keep our host entertained.

@Dynamo Frokane



But yes, Libertarianism is on a spectrum moving from Republicans who like weed on down to An-Caps. All of that belongs to Libertarian thought.

I'll start with begging people to stop using the word strawman if it doesn't actually fit the sentence, a strawman is an argument that hasn't come up or existed by real people. Something like trickle down economics, never existed. But if you're trying to argue that people haven't argued that people shouldn't own your home. I hate to break it to you....

So if decreasing taxes on the rich doesn't help the through job creation for the poor, then why would anybody support decreasing said rich people taxes? That is an argument that exists, and is what the term "Trickle down economics" describe, then whether or not the term itself was used by those who pushed for it is neither here nor there.

Also, we aren't arguing about Stalinism right now. That was another thread. You were using home rights as a defense for all property rights, which isn't really appropriate.

Aside from most of this being bullshit that actually means nothing, and if it's not abide-able by law what you "feel" it means, is absolutely worthless. The best defense for a dozen people is "oh people wont use your underwear" everyone owns everything! But yeah personal propriety. Which isn't a legal term, so means nothing. Yeah, that means, they CAN use it. They can legally steal your shit, without penalty.

Personal property is a legal term. Hence why we pay personal property taxes. But that's irrelevant anyway, because if you make systematic changes you'd presumably adapt the legal system to those changes.

Also it tries to argue, anything you own that makes you money is the difference. Is private property and whatever doesn't is "personal", so a guitar...if you'd play and had a tip jar. That would no longer be you're personal propriety. According to this logic. That was not a straw-man because IT WAS MADE BY A PERSON.

You can argue that, but it's irrelevant to the discussion because I wasn't arguing that. In my opinion the line is drawn where the absence of the thing isn't realized by the thing itself, but rather the absence of the income produced by the thing. If someone takes your car, even if you are an Uber driver, the absence of the car itself is the thing. If someone takes your Wal-Mart though, you aren't all like "Oh no! The shelves." So whereas the former, personal property, is an inalienable right, the later, abstract property, is up for public discussion.

Also you disregard my statement about, people successfully suing others for trying to steal people's stuff or breaking and entering, and getting rewarded for it. Is that a straw-man? Because it seems like the COURTS, disagree that no one is doing it. It was probably being done more than ever...

wat?

Let me break down that scenario for you then, in a libertarian world, a teen is fired because of her sexist boss. Okay, so she'll point that out, people will realize to not go there. And that company loses money. Just because some people act irrationally doesn't mean at fucking all that success should be YOUR responsibility, in this case the boss failed to run a successful business due to mistreating employees. Their competitors have far better work conditions and therefore see more business.

If this were true, and everybody purchased along ethical lines, then big box stores would never have overcame small businesses. Experience has shown that people shop based on convenience rather than a complex ethical decisions, and that's sensible, because nobody has time to research every purchase meticulously. I can't be fuckin' bothered to google the owner of a store before I go to buy toilet paper there. So in the real world, that teen is fired and maybe her parents and friends don't go to his business, but most people would anyway because they either don't know about the problem or don't give a shit. An injustice has taken place and Libertarianism has no practical answer for it.

In an authoritarian fantasy world, that same corporation, let's say cannot simply fire people. Once you're hired, you are there for good. That asshole boss still exists. So, that world keeps her job she likely hates and can't get away from. And all the customers also CAN'T go anywhere else. Because that IS the only other corporation. It receives bailouts, because no matter how bad it is. IT CAN'T FAIL.

To the furthest of my knowledge no business has ever received a bailout for diddling the help. In our current system we have laws in place to protect employees. The point being, sometimes people are not rational actors and you need to intervene in the system to keep it just.

I've never seen anyone in real life say they are. Some people probably took the label to heart, like the SJW's did, which I believe was also not something they attributed to themselves at first. But once again, I have to ask is it really on par? Why aren't there giant riots full of them?

What would they be rioting for? Their movement is new and doing well enough by simply existing, so there wouldn't really be a point to them rioting. But I think we have established that both extremes exist so we'll carry on.

'Citation needed' that the alt-right as a whole wants this. :P

Richard Spencer. I suspect anybody calling themselves alt right but not wanting ethno-states are really either libertarians or regular conservatives and don't exactly need a separate term, meaning the only unique thing the term Alt Right describes are the ethno-state folk.

You're argument is nobody brought it up, even if that was true. You realize you are now telling me to "talk less" or dumb down my sentences because it's too complicated and is out of nowhere. When everyone else in this page has brought up additional and off topic things and everyone else's posts, are also walls of text, but without all the links I provided to actually provide solid backing for my text. But it's somehow bad because I'm doing it. Not following your own rules, and telling me I'm rambling. Even if true, is hypocritical at best.

The problem is you get into a lot of non sequitors and it can oftentimes be confusing to try and parse together what your thesis is. I'm not telling you to dumb things down, I'm asking for brevity because I think it would make the discussion less of a clusterfuck.

I guess I agree? Though how does that correlate to "right wing opinions are popular with white folks in the pre-college era"? Because that was what I replied to.

Pre college would be teenagers. What I was saying is that highschoolers saying seemingly right wing things doesn't mean much because teenagers say random shit. So if someone hears teens going on about race or whatever, it doesn't mean the next group is Generation Zyklon. I say this because I remember people saying racist or homophobic shit all the time when i was in highschool, and my cohort of millenials are the ebil lazy lefties.

also, what the righteous fuck is a smurf account?

As it happens I am relatively new to the site

@Penny

welcome to the site.

tell the moderators i welcomed you so i get some welcoming people to the site points that they are going to dole out.

[Dolerman]

There isn't anything wrong with you sympathizing with libertarians.

@Vilageidiotx

[Dinh AaronMk]

Richard Spencer. I suspect anybody using the label that want ethno-states are either libertarians or regular conservatives and don't exactly need a separate term, meaning the only unique thing the term Alt Right describes are the ethno-state folk.

@Vilageidiotx

To add to this, you get a lot of ethno-state language in the weird world of some internet fringe groups: see shit like weebs and even bronies.

It's surreal as fuck but in my adventuring I've met more than a mere handful of bronies cheering on Donald Trump as the master of twelve-dimensional chess and actively seeking a world or a country without brown people. It's easy to draw them out too, just talk about Bookchin. And then there are those surreal as fuck Nazi apologists ("I'm not racist, I just recognize race exists", congratulations: you've learned people have different skin colors).

So in my opinion, when the topic of the Alt-Right comes up it is in the vein of Richard Spence as Vilage points out and these people.

[Dolerman]

@VilageidiotxOh and a smurf account is like a fake profile, usually used by someone already on the site. Sort of like how you created @Dinh AaronMk as an alternate account, for the purpose of airing out your more hardline communist beliefs without the repercussions from the milquetoast crowd who like you for being a moderate doggo.

Also even if it's not the case, I've seen smurf accounts act like this exactly. But if it's wrong, and this is an actual active RP'er. Then I have no problem, correcting myself.

@SleepingSilence

But the problem is the burden of proof is not on @Penny to prove she is a real person because no one else has had to do that, why is there exceptional circumstances for one person? You accused someone unfairly, and you probably should apologise, not for your arguments but for you anti-social accusation.

I disagree I'm being -that- aggressive. I'm matching levels if nothing else. I'm even purposefully cutting it back, because I'm aware of it. Which sadly is apparently when everyone wants to rebutt.

@SleepingSilence

No you arent, you are cursing a blue streak and occasionally even using caps lock. However much you are 'cutting back' you aren't cutting back enough. Ask @The Harbinger of Ferocity regardless of views this was a very civil and productive conversation. You've mentioned to me before that political threads are a perpetual shitstorm (which isnt necessarily true btw), so I really don't know why you are so attracted to them, because you sure as hell aren't De-escalating anything.

[Dinh AaronMk]

@VilageidiotxOh and a smurf account is like a fake profile, usually used by someone already on the site. Sort of like how you created @Dinh AaronMk as an alternate account...

@Dynamo Frokane

tfw I'm pretty sure you just implied Vilage watches cartoon horses.



;^)))))))))))))))))))

[Vilageidiotx]

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

tfw I'm pretty sure you just implied Vilage watches cartoon horses.

;^)))))))))))))))))))

@Dinh AaronMk

Well I suppose if I were to make a fake account for political radicalism, I might as well use it to show of creepy sexual fetishes too.

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

@Vilageidiotx

You would be right that is not how people think, which I believe to be detrimental, and while it is on that level of inconvenience that everyone would rather to just avoid, the sort where it is just another irritation in life perceived as irrelevant, there's few cheaper, more expedient options to implement as examples that are not only practical, but effective. The reduction in the rate of traffic is to be expected with it, but I find that a small price to pay. Areas of extremely high population density, such as New York and California would need to use their traffic data, as would they all, to help alleviate issues of that nature while meeting the objective.

I am of the thought that the advancement of socialism, as with the New Deal, as a platform in the United States is inherently negative to the system as a whole. Sanders arguments by comparison to the general qualities of the Democratic party are much further left, throwback or not. I would say the same and more about anyone openly advocating communism in the United States, to add at that point they have become largely un-American. I can see the appeal of socialism, even to citizens of the United States, but it is still much further left leaning in the same vein that hysteria was made about how "Alt-Right" Donald Trump was and that the Nazi party and its ilk are running for presidency. The difference being, Sanders and others with socialist values are actually strongly left leaning compared to the rest of their party and embraced for it while we have even seen here in this discussion that Trump and his administration is its own animal which is mainly Republican in label, with some overt leanings.

To me, anything that varies too far from center enters the realm of potential for extremes. To use an example of my stance, communists and libertarians are far to the sides of their associations in my eyes. As I will maintain no less, I never accused anyone of being evil, just that I cannot sympathize with the right - which I belong to - on those grounds and others related. And yes, while you would be correct the "taxation is theft" crowd has existed for quite a long time, I am fairly confident that they are still a minority and not even a vocal one at that in comparison to some of their neighbors or those on the other end.

If you want to argue about whether or not they are being treated unjustly, that's one thing, but saying "There isn't enough of them to care about." is fucked up.

A minority of people should not be explicitly catered to at the cost of the rest of the norm. I will repeat my opinion as preface, but I do not believe transgendered - or other - persons should be allowed to use the male or female restroom that does not match their biological sex unless they've transitioned completely to that gender. I do believe it should be requirement that there is a neutral bathroom, using the model some locations had of the "family restroom", which could be used by anyone. It is not the duty of those regularly gendered people to compromise themselves or morals for others; they can if they want to.

You do not see me arguing that Autistic people are treated unfairly in the public eye, even being the butt of a joke here, and demanding they receive special accommodations such as non-fluorescent lighting or making the outrageous argument that wanting to treat it as an illness and cure it is a "Final Solution" type ordeal. These people in question are significantly more common, roughly 1 in 68, albeit still considered statistically abnormal. If you revert this back to my prior example and overlay the parallels, I believe my point to become clear - that the far left made a far larger deal about transgender, among other issues, than legitimately exists; they're all still people in the end.

To change topics entirely, the fact that this behavior has been permitted at all is proof enough to me that it is not taken seriously. I would say the same for the "Alt-Right" if people began flying Nazi flags, fighting with the police, setting fire to things and other improper behavior I described. Regardless of who is doing it or why, it is uncalled for and allows a dangerous standard to set in. It does not matter how much is occurring either; it needs to be controlled and put to an end all the same. Either you protest peacefully and obey the rules, or your protest has become unlawful and needs to be disbanded. If you riot, you are to be treated as criminals.

To address the other point, the difference with Dylan Roof is that he and his faction have remained largely out of sight and out of mind, with no one in disagreement about the hatefulness or cruelty of his actions. However, he's considered as much a lone wolf as Micah Xavier Johnson is, despite both being racially motivated, advocating violence and being involved in radical political movements; this is a clear double standard. Again, we do not see the Alt-Right marching in the streets promoting conflict or gaining the momentum to do so; for one reason or another, people believe that to be wrong, but turn a blind eye to the backing of movements like the New Black Panther Party or Black Lives Matter. Both are wrong no matter what way one views it.

As for the "Alt-Right guys who keep showing up to protests now", I imagine you are referring to the sorts as with the Based Stickman, Based Spartan and Based Kickman personalities, so correct me if I am wrong about who you are referring to. In truth, I have no issue with them given how abysmal the police response has been throughout and how it has been proven that the mayor of Berkeley has ties to the Far Left and had allow these incidents to occur by compromising his station with politics. I believe it to be a natural and needed reaction from Americans to restore order if law enforcement will not. At what point I find that to end, is when the police begin doing their job, albeit I still advocate the deployment of National Guard units to restore order and as a show of force regardless.

[SleepingSilence]

@Dynamo Frokane You giving me the moral high ground is ironic and will always be. Just saying. I'm not cursing up a storm, you people are taking advantage that I'm acknowledging that I was doing that. (in a single post) But you seem to regret to realize I've been editing the one I did out. Yeah I used caps a few times, because I was annoyed...but are you seriously going to tell me removing those few words with normal text will get people to stop whining about it? But no, I already deleted what I said was incorrect. Making a big deal out it at this point is just feeding a fire that doesn't exist.

I'm not trying to 'de-escalate', I'm pointing out blatant stupid lies. And I avoided it for a while. I love how you KEEP trying to say "why cant you ignore it" implying I should never talk. But not a single rebuttal to anything I said. Which is what I always expect.

[SleepingSilence]

<Snipped quote>
Ad hominem attacks aside, my statement about it being scary to be an immigrant refers to dealing with members of the public rather than with the Immigration department (excepting the uncertainty generated by the travel bans).

@Penny

I already deleted the section of the post. <.<

"I'm an immigrant non citizen. Sometimes this place is scary as fuck."

This highly implies that you're admitting to be an illegal immigrant. Which I just...you don't WANT that to be a true statement. <.<

But assuming you're a legal immigrant still going through the document process. Sometimes that shit takes a while, and I can sympathize. But I already pointed out. How your scary statement is a media lie. And the rest of the world operates exactly like this. Or is far stricter to the point, they don't have problems precisely because of it. Aka Canada.

A lot of people in the public don't do anything to you either. No one should even know. You have access to the internet and type perfectly fine, I don't think they're on to you. <.< Most news articles about those "random evil man screams "trump is the messiah and punched me" things are fake stories.

And yet, you're first post implies you've been here before yet have no previous history...so AGAIN it really, really makes me wonder if I just said "a secondary account" if ten people would be crying about it. But fine.

If you we're somehow offended at that word, I apologize. But again, already retracted it. I would love for you to explain why any other place you think would give immigrants a better life...or if you think Europe right now has a more positive attitude toward them. Because calling a whole country "scary" is not a small statement. :)

[SleepingSilence]

Once I went to use the word "Spectrum", I just had to continue with disorder, couldn't help myself. We are here to keep our host entertained.

@Vilageidiotx

Once again, if no one is taking the conversation seriously, I'm more than okay with it but I'd like for people to stop whining about me being mildly aggressive. If shitposting gets nobody to complain. <.<

But yes, Libertarianism is on a spectrum moving from Republicans who like weed on down to An-Caps. All of that belongs to Libertarian thought.

@Vilageidiotx

All of what? But, libertarian is sometimes considered a right or left wing opinion. When it actually isn't. It's just the counter to authoritarian.

So if decreasing taxes on the rich doesn't help the through job creation for the poor, then why would anybody support decreasing said rich people taxes? That is an argument that exists, and is what the term "Trickle down economics" describe, then whether or not the term itself was used by those who pushed for it is neither here nor there.

@Vilageidiotx

No, my point was trickle down economics is a straw-man, because it's only argued and used by mis-attributing it to someone who never said it. I said a real strawman because my statement was not one.

Also, we aren't arguing about Stalinism right now. That was another thread. You were using home rights as a defense for all property rights, which isn't really appropriate.

@Vilageidiotx

Ignoring that people we're talking about it, you guys only moved because I seemed to be paying attention to it. :P *sarcasm*

But my point again, was proving it was being argued. And was not a straw-man argument. And not all, but it is a big and easy to explain part of it...

Personal property is a legal term. Hence why we pay personal property taxes. But that's irrelevant anyway, because if you make systematic changes you'd presumably adapt the legal system to those changes.

@Vilageidiotx

It's usually the same as private though which is my point...So both words tend to mean the same thing. There isn't a difference from what I can tell.

You can argue that, but it's irrelevant to the discussion because I wasn't arguing that. In my opinion the line is drawn where the absence of the thing isn't realized by the thing itself, but rather the absence of the income produced by the thing. If someone takes your car, even if you are an Uber driver, the absence of the car itself is the thing. If someone takes your Wal-Mart though, you aren't all like "Oh no! The shelves." So whereas the former, personal property, is an inalienable right, the later, abstract property, is up for public discussion.

@Vilageidiotx

I know that. My point was replying to people making the argument. (that wasn't a strawman one) and pointing out why it was false. Businesses are owned by their owner period. They paid for it and took the risk. I assumes that's where the 'discussion' is leading.

wat?

@Vilageidiotx

You could of at least said, I'm confused or something a little more articulate. But assuming it's genuine confusion.

usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/0…

lawnewz.com/crazy/convicted-burglar-s…

Stuff like this...except if there's any snowball chance in hell for that person to win. Is not a world we should live in...but it has. Which is my point. Clearer now?

If this were true, and everybody purchased along ethical lines, then big box stores would never have overcame small businesses. Experience has shown that people shop based on convenience rather than a complex ethical decisions, and that's sensible, because nobody has time to research every purchase meticulously. I can't be fuckin' bothered to google the owner of a store before I go to buy toilet paper there. So in the real world, that teen is fired and maybe her parents and friends don't go to his business, but most people would anyway because they either don't know about the problem or don't give a shit. An injustice has taken place and Libertarianism has no practical answer for it.

@Vilageidiotx

Not always true, some small businesses suck too. Big doesn't always equal a problem. But you seem to be ignoring how social media smear campaigns can outright destroy people's lives. I think forcing people to "morally" shop is a slippery slope anyway. Granted boycotts don't work usually. But "buycotts" (stealing the word) do. So there is some level of outside forces that can effect the outcome of somebody's sales. Some people lose, but they still can try again. As bad as it seems, that's a GOOD thing for the consumers and people. If businesses weren't allowed to fail. They'd need government bailouts. Sometimes products become less needed or bought, when newer and better and cheaper stuff comes out.

To the furthest of my knowledge no business has ever received a bailout for diddling the help. In our current system we have laws in place to protect employees. The point being, sometimes people are not rational actors and you need to intervene in the system to keep it just.

@Vilageidiotx

What does diddling the help supposed to mean there? We wouldn't know what people did to employees. So can't say either way. I assume the innuendo and not the real term. But businesses getting bailouts is nothing new...

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01…

Hasn't stopped people from trying. ;D

I will also point out, that big businesses often support more government restrictions, not less. Because they can afford it, but not their competition.

What would they be rioting for? Their movement is new and doing well enough by simply existing, so there wouldn't really be a point to them rioting. But I think we have established that both extremes exist so we'll carry on.

@Vilageidiotx

Extremes exist on both sides, but which seems to be a bigger problem right now? It seems the worst the Alt right can do, is be horrendously unfunny. I simply point it out because SJW's were started from GamerGate and that was taken quite seriously by every big media site, when it started/fueled from nothing but a farce.

Richard Spencer. I suspect anybody calling themselves alt right but not wanting ethno-states are really either libertarians or regular conservatives and don't exactly need a separate term, meaning the only unique thing the term Alt Right describes are the ethno-state folk.

@Vilageidiotx

Not a citation really. And one person isn't a whole movement. So that's all I got for that.

The problem is you get into a lot of non sequitors and it can oftentimes be confusing to try and parse together what your thesis is. I'm not telling you to dumb things down, I'm asking for brevity because I think it would make the discussion less of a clusterfuck.

@Vilageidiotx

I didn't mean to get on your case too hard, unlike the other people nitpicking me to death here. You've tended to be respectful in the past. So if you felt in anyway I was being aggressive to you, I apologize. I have an actual reason for my slightly scattered thoughts. However, I will argue that it seemed like one to you because you replied to things, that weren't statements toward you. It was one post replying to three people and separating them would just be spam. Discussions of this nature NEED more context and as much evidence as possible. Also again, I'm not typing any more/less than the other person you've been discussing with.

Pre college would be teenagers. What I was saying is that highschoolers saying seemingly right wing things doesn't mean much because teenagers say random shit. So if someone hears teens going on about race or whatever, it doesn't mean the next group is Generation Zyklon. I say this because I remember people saying racist or homophobic shit all the time when i was in highschool, and my cohort of millenials are the ebil lazy lefties.

@Vilageidiotx

I don't try to generalize, usually. But again, my point is kids don't even know what right or left wings even stand for. So saying their opinions are popular, doesn't make much sense. Especially right wing opinions, which aren't remotely easy to explain to a child. But it seems like you're kind of making the same point here...So maybe we're talking past each other here? I don't know. I had an entire middle school spread a rumor literally everyone in the school hated me for and it was me being gay and having a lot of sex. I can't even begin to explain just how ironic this has been. <.< And I'm almost 100% positive most of them are the “don't be mean or bully” liberal types. But I don't know what else that is, other than pointing out people being hypocritical jackarshes. (Or maybe that kids and teens suck.)

also, what the righteous fuck is a smurf account?

@Vilageidiotx

A thing I deleted that shouldn't be continually brought up. 'Not relevant'. Also already explained what it is. Google exists. :P

[Dolerman]

@Dynamo Frokane You giving me the moral high ground is ironic and will always be. Just saying. I'm not cursing up a storm, you people are taking advantage that I'm acknowledging that I was doing that. (in a single post) But you seem to regret to realize I've been editing the one I did out. Yeah I used caps a few times, because I was annoyed...but are you seriously going to tell me removing those few words with normal text will get people to stop whining about it? But no, I already deleted what I said was incorrect. Making a big deal out it at this point is just feeding a fire that doesn't exist.

I'm not trying to 'de-escalate', I'm pointing out blatant stupid lies. And I avoided it for a while. I love how you KEEP trying to say "why cant you ignore it" implying I should never talk. But not a single rebuttal to anything I said. Which is what I always expect.

@SleepingSilence

The fire exists because you started it, and its extremely obtuse to think that anyone is going to sift through a wall of text more than once on the off chance you made some minor edits.

And yes I am constantly asking you why you keep coming in political threads while always complaining about how much you cant stand political threads because it's hypocritical, that's not the same as asking you to never talk and you know it.

Yes not a single rebuttal to your arguments, because guess what, I'm not trying to debate you politically, I'm saying for you to relax and use less aggressive and condescending language, EVERYONE else in this thread even including right leaning people close to your position have managed it just fine, so there is no reason why you cant.

I'm not currently in any sort of debate with you, I'm just telling you to calm the hell down in my thread.

[SleepingSilence]

@Dynamo Frokane Again, you can't tell me I'm using condescending language when that's you're whole point. "Every human on earth in this forum has never done such things, why are you and only you ever acting slightly on edge?!"

So fine, already got you're point. I already acknowledged it far before anyone else. So you really didn't need to bring it up.

[LokiLeo789]

Fascinating, arguments everywhere.

[Dolerman]

@LokiLeo789

[LokiLeo789]

@LokiLeo789

@Dynamo Frokane

And how wonderfully frustrating it can be. Maybe I'll join a debate some time.

[Penny]

<Snipped quote by Penny>

I already deleted the section of the post. <.<

@SleepingSilence

Thank you, I appreciate the retraction. Even if it is somewhat undermined by:

<Snipped quote by Penny>

And yet, you're first post implies you've been here before yet have no previous history...

@SleepingSilence

Moving on.

<Thing said by Penny>
"I'm an immigrant non citizen. Sometimes this place is scary as fuck."

<Snipped quote by Penny>
This highly implies that you're admitting to be an illegal immigrant. Which I just...you don't WANT that to be a true statement. <.<

@SleepingSilence

As I said before, I am a legal resident.

<Snipped quote by Penny>
But assuming you're a legal immigrant

@SleepingSilence

Assume not! I have a greencard, it has my name on it and everything!

Does it make you feel any safer when people say they can't wait to get rid of all the f*#king immigrants? When you routinely get accused of stealing American jobs, when you get called a mail order bride, when people tell you you should go back to your own country, when people demand a ‘real american’, when your professional competence is questioned on account of your accent and on and on? When you see people capering around about travel bans? Not particularly.

Most people will grudgingly admit your right to be here once you explain you have a greencard. Papers please Frauline.

Is it the worst country in the world to be an immigrant? Clearly not, but that is hardly the point. America has been a scary place for immigrants, particularly in the past 18 months or so. You can argue statistics and distributions or whatever you want but I have had personal experience which I felt might contribute to the conversation. Maybe it's only anecdotal and all the assholes are concentrated in my area…

*que all the excuses, exceptions and stipulations*

@The Harbinger of Ferocity
A massive and insanely intrusive series of checkpoints, the deployment of the national guard, why not just declare marshal law and have done?

[mdk]

Is it the worst country in the world to be an immigrant? Clearly not, but that is hardly the point. America has been a scary place for immigrants, particularly in the past 18 months or so.

@Penny

Would you attribute that to Donald Trump's campaign/presidency?

[Penny]

@mdk

I'm hesitant to lay it all at the feet of the Campaign/Presidency of Trump. People didn't just wake up one day, see a speech and start thinking this way and its not like these sort of comments didn't occur during Obama's tenure. I does seem like there has been a sharp uptick since the last election cycle. It is always possible that the two are related, lifted on the same sort of rising tide we are seeing in Europe and other places.

From a personal point of view it certainly feels worse now. It was easier to laugh it off before the Trump campaign because you could tell yourself it was just an isolated few.