Jump to content

Yet Another Socialism Thread


BrythonLexi
 Share

Recommended Posts

An addition I guess:

What i'm saying by me living in anarchism is not that i'm in an anarchist society (clearly).  What I mean is that the values in my life and how I act, in some way, are under the attempt of following anarchist principles.  I give to the needy not in exchange for anything, but to help out those who need it.  I provide what labour I can, and am helped where I need it.  We all have our ways we can help, and we all have ways in which we need help.  And I, for one, am honoured to do my part in keeping others afloat - gods know others have kept me afloat for 2 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

An addition I guess:

What i'm saying by me living in anarchism is not that i'm in an anarchist society (clearly).  What I mean is that the values in my life and how I act, in some way, are under the attempt of following anarchist principles.  I give to the needy not in exchange for anything, but to help out those who need it.  I provide what labour I can, and am helped where I need it.  We all have our ways we can help, and we all have ways in which we need help.  And I, for one, am honoured to do my part in keeping others afloat - gods know others have kept me afloat for 2 years

Capitalists aren't against charity though. Bill Gates, for example. I whole heartedly support charity and non-profit organizations, and I volunteered for the red cross for a year. The military, even. Everyone is fed. I'm not saying your principles are wrong, they aren't. In fact I think everyone does them on a small scale. But toppling the whole of society and governance because some people are not as well off as others is naive. Consider this, the modern impoverished american has a better standard of living than a middle class englishman in the 1600s. Look how far we've come! Why ruin it?

My father used to tell me this all the time (he still does), "Don't cut your nose off to spite your face". What he means by that is don't make stuff worse because stuff is bad. Rather, it'd be better to try and fix this system and iron out the wrinkles in it.

  • Upvote 1

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

Capitalists aren't against charity though. Bill Gates, for example. I whole heartedly support charity and non-profit organizations, and I volunteered for the red cross for a year. The military, even. Everyone is fed. I'm not saying your principles are wrong, they aren't. In fact I think everyone does them on a small scale. But toppling the whole of society and governance because some people are not as well off as others is naive. Consider this, the modern impoverished american has a better standard of living than a middle class englishman in the 1600s. Look how far we've come! Why ruin it?

My father used to tell me this all the time (he still does), "Don't cut your nose off to spite your face". What he means by that is don't make stuff worse because stuff is bad. Rather, it'd be better to try and fix this system and iron out the wrinkles in it.

In a way, I am against charity - not because it's bad, but because it shouldn't be up to charities to take care of people.  That's supposed to be what our taxes go to in the current system, and is why taxes are notoriously high in mixed economy countries like in Scandinavia.  While we are under governments like this, it should be their job to take care of the citizenry.

I find it folly to say that abandoning our current system would bring us all the way back to before the Industrial Revolution.  Did the Reich abandoning democracy and embracing a whole new social order turn WW2 Germany into the HRE?  No - in fact, they did well economically before the Allies did the right thing and fought them on the beaches [etc. etc.]  The Catalonians didn't lose or abandon electricity when they declared themselves, only losing it in the Civil War as all sides had.  The Zapatistas, who are anarchists surviving to this day in Mexico, do have the essentials of life.

I push for change and for the welfare of my fellow workers because it is the right thing to do - I feel it wrong to accept a society where people are systemically in pain like this.  And while I understand there is, obviously, risk in social change - to me, that's a risk worth taking to pursue the rights of all.  And if revolution never comes?  Fine, but one can at least hope to drive enough social change to make things better for those on the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BrythonLexi said:

In a way, I am against charity - not because it's bad, but because it shouldn't be up to charities to take care of people.  That's supposed to be what our taxes go to in the current system, and is why taxes are notoriously high in mixed economy countries like in Scandinavia.  While we are under governments like this, it should be their job to take care of the citizenry.

I find it folly to say that abandoning our current system would bring us all the way back to before the Industrial Revolution.  Did the Reich abandoning democracy and embracing a whole new social order turn WW2 Germany into the HRE?  No - in fact, they did well economically before the Allies did the right thing and fought them on the beaches [etc. etc.]  The Catalonians didn't lose or abandon electricity when they declared themselves, only losing it in the Civil War as all sides had.  The Zapatistas, who are anarchists surviving to this day in Mexico, do have the essentials of life.

I push for change and for the welfare of my fellow workers because it is the right thing to do - I feel it wrong to accept a society where people are systemically in pain like this.  And while I understand there is, obviously, risk in social change - to me, that's a risk worth taking to pursue the rights of all.  And if revolution never comes?  Fine, but one can at least hope to drive enough social change to make things better for those on the bottom.

Again I support the UBI, which would fix that. I think the UBI would overall help the poor while not punishing the rich.

Ehh... the Nazis still had a government, the Catalonians didn't last long enough for us to know, and the Zapatistas live off the land. They are Mayans and, I should note, are terrorists.

What is systemically in pain? The only real issues we have in our society (that can be attributed to capitalism) are high medical prices, large wage gap and no unemployment safety net. Imagine how lucky we are to be able to say that's our issues. 200 years ago, medicine was more lethal than the disease, everyone was poor except the .1% and you were forced to work. Now is not so, and you can thank capitalism for that.

I think if you read up on the UBI you'll come to support that, rather than the total overthrow of the government.

  • Upvote 1

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BrythonLexi said:

The Democratic platform does not advocate the abolition of capitalism, but merely a higher minimum wage.

You know this has nothing to do with this whole discussion, but in dutch we have a word, (apperantly) for a type of socialism thatj ust focuses on the material needs of the people and nothing else and it is called (translated) steaksocialism.

I tought this was a funny word.

 

16 hours ago, BrythonLexi said:

  Marxist-Leninists believe in particular that a two-phase revolution is required for the success of communims; that is, underdeveloped nations must first go through a "bourgoise revolution" installing capitalism, before a communist revolution can successfully take place.  The communist revolution would be lead by a vanguard party, such as the Bolsheviks.

This is a very small technicallity and not as much a debate(or maybe i'm wrong lmao), but although marx believed in a two phase revolution, Lenin only did so at the beginning and later on stopped suporting this idea. (as you an see, Russia moved from Feudal to Lenin in one sweep). It wasn't the Bolsheviks lead by Lenin but rather Plechanov and his Menshiviks. 

Next up there is another issue which is once again a technicality. I don't think it is fair to say social-democrats aren't socialists in today's day and age. Words change meaning and political words do even more often than usual. In Europa if I say "socialist", everyone is pretty sure I am not talking about thr type of socialist you mean. The same is the case with liberalism and what not. Here I will just follow your definition, but, i tought it was worth clarifying.

The actual interesting stuff

I have a few questions for you, just so I know what i can actually talk about.

  • You support small communities, what would happen with more advanced industries that aren't immediate needs for anyone and or are too expensive / complex for a community. 
    • Example: We have a dissease, not like covid, but like the Plague. We could try to make a medicine or vaccine, but this would undoubtidly require the greatest minds in all of the world. So would we have to pull these people from their communities or..? 
      Next up we would need massive production, we aren't talking about immediate food needs (which are logical for everyone to make), but we would need factories for millions of vacine doses or places to keep the capsules safe. To do this efficiently (resource logistics, export logistics, costs..) we would have to do this in a few concentrated places not every small community can have these advanced thigns right?. These factories are crazy hard to make and set up, it would be very hard to make happen.
  • People need power (I mean arguably), how would power logistically be done, it is a project that often supplies more than one community to be efficient. How would this work. Who would make these windmills, nuclear reactors etc.. who would run them?
  • What if people (lets not even say a majority, but a sizeable minority of 20%) does not want to live in this system with anymore, what would their voice be accounted to?
    • And what if a group of these people lived very close togheter, and started to radically change this system in these few places?
  • Let's assume communities would be a close bunch of people willingly working togheter. But these people would (presumably) be further removed from other communities, isn't it a real possiblity that there will be a tribalism between communities.
  • Do you think people will have enough solidairty within a community, what happens to the people there if they dont.
  • What happens in your proposed system if someone is not well liked because they are diffrent than the average (someone has another race, is autistic, is highly gifted, has a leg less) and society decides to exclude these few persons (as has happend in the past a lot). Would there be any protections or..?

That was quite the list but I am interested in continuing this conversation.

ps: interesting thread

~Belgium

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

Again I support the UBI, which would fix that. I think the UBI would overall help the poor while not punishing the rich.

Ehh... the Nazis still had a government, the Catalonians didn't last long enough for us to know, and the Zapatistas live off the land. They are Mayans and, I should note, are terrorists.

What is systemically in pain? The only real issues we have in our society (that can be attributed to capitalism) are high medical prices, large wage gap and no unemployment safety net. Imagine how lucky we are to be able to say that's our issues. 200 years ago, medicine was more lethal than the disease, everyone was poor except the .1% and you were forced to work. Now is not so, and you can thank capitalism for that.

I think if you read up on the UBI you'll come to support that, rather than the total overthrow of the government.

I am a supporter of UBI as well, but I don't think its enough.

Anarchists have governments as well, and I fail to see how Zapatistas living off the land means anything; if anything, thats even more an example of independence.  The label of terrorism is one that states put on organisations and militant groups that they don't like - Trump wanted Antifa labeled as anarchists despite the lack of an organised structure, and the USA won't label its friends in the Middle East as terrorists until they're no longer our friends.  To be labeled as terrorist only means that the powers at be disagree with your message; which is why, again, Trump wanted Antifa labeled terrorists but the Proud Boys don't get that label.

Systemically in pain being the large scale poverty that you mention with those specific examples.  People who have no chance of escaping the cycle of poverty due to the lack of support.

We are still forced to work - that's the problem!  If you don't work, you starve - simple as that.  And most people are still poor - our income inequality is larger than it was before the French Revolution!

11 minutes ago, Nukey6 said:

Who would decide who does what and when if what you want to happen came to be?

A direct democracy, organised at the local level like in ancient Athens.  The community would decide themselves how to work for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BelgiumFury said:

You know this has nothing to do with this whole discussion, but in dutch we have a word, (apperantly) for a type of socialism thatj ust focuses on the material needs of the people and nothing else and it is called (translated) steaksocialism.

I tought this was a funny word.

 

This is a very small technicallity and not as much a debate(or maybe i'm wrong lmao), but although marx believed in a two phase revolution, Lenin only did so at the beginning and later on stopped suporting this idea. (as you an see, Russia moved from Feudal to Lenin in one sweep). It wasn't the Bolsheviks lead by Lenin but rather Plechanov and his Menshiviks. 

Next up there is another issue which is once again a technicality. I don't think it is fair to say social-democrats aren't socialists in today's day and age. Words change meaning and political words do even more often than usual. In Europa if I say "socialist", everyone is pretty sure I am not talking about thr type of socialist you mean. The same is the case with liberalism and what not. Here I will just follow your definition, but, i tought it was worth clarifying.

The actual interesting stuff

I have a few questions for you, just so I know what i can actually talk about.

  • You support small communities, what would happen with more advanced industries that aren't immediate needs for anyone and or are too expensive / complex for a community. 
    • Example: We have a dissease, not like covid, but like the Plague. We could try to make a medicine or vaccine, but this would undoubtidly require the greatest minds in all of the world. So would we have to pull these people from their communities or..? 
      Next up we would need massive production, we aren't talking about immediate food needs (which are logical for everyone to make), but we would need factories for millions of vacine doses or places to keep the capsules safe. To do this efficiently (resource logistics, export logistics, costs..) we would have to do this in a few concentrated places not every small community can have these advanced thigns right?. These factories are crazy hard to make and set up, it would be very hard to make happen.
  • People need power (I mean arguably), how would power logistically be done, it is a project that often supplies more than one community to be efficient. How would this work. Who would make these windmills, nuclear reactors etc.. who would run them?
  • What if people (lets not even say a majority, but a sizeable minority of 20%) does not want to live in this system with anymore, what would their voice be accounted to?
    • And what if a group of these people lived very close togheter, and started to radically change this system in these few places?
  • Let's assume communities would be a close bunch of people willingly working togheter. But these people would (presumably) be further removed from other communities, isn't it a real possiblity that there will be a tribalism between communities.
  • Do you think people will have enough solidairty within a community, what happens to the people there if they dont.
  • What happens in your proposed system if someone is not well liked because they are diffrent than the average (someone has another race, is autistic, is highly gifted, has a leg less) and society decides to exclude these few persons (as has happend in the past a lot). Would there be any protections or..?

That was quite the list but I am interested in continuing this conversation.

ps: interesting thread

~Belgium

I like these questions, a lot!

For social-democrats being / not being socialists, that actually is a pretty large debate in of itself.  I'd definitely prefer them over liberals and conservatives, that's for sure!

For the questions of advanced industry, plague, etc: That's already what happens on a macro scale with current nation-states, is it not?  The world's leading figures don't work out vaccines together - it's national races.  Resource chains, etc are also something that already happens on an international level with trade agreements between countries - could that not happen on a micro level as well?  Electricity follows the same way

As for large proportions of people not wanting to take part, let them.  Let those non-anarchists have their own places in which to live, free from the communes.  The freedom of choice is one of our key principles, of course.

As for tribalism, that already happens on a national level as well.  It'd be a shame if it came to war, but I guess it'd never be possible to erase that.

For discrimination in these systems, I can't really say I have an answer - as that question propogates many different types of societies.  There will always be some form of discrimination in countries/places, and one can hope that there will be those who take care of the oppressed.  Those changes have to come from society, whatever its form - be it under capitalism, socialism, or (gods forbid) fascism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BrythonLexi said:

I like these questions, a lot!

For the questions of advanced industry, plague, etc: That's already what happens on a macro scale with current nation-states, is it not?  The world's leading figures don't work out vaccines together - it's national races.  Resource chains, etc are also something that already happens on an international level with trade agreements between countries - could that not happen on a micro level as well?  Electricity follows the same way

I mean on some level it is.
If I hear communities i think about groups of 300 people and not 1 Billion. But maybe I am udnerstanding this wrong?
There has been international cooperation (facilitated by corperations and international universities) 
 

2 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

For discrimination in these systems, I can't really say I have an answer - as that question propogates many different types of societies.  There will always be some form of discrimination in countries/places, and one can hope that there will be those who take care of the oppressed.  Those changes have to come from society, whatever its form - be it under capitalism, socialism, or (gods forbid) fascism.

This is an issue because at least in theory we have a way to protect minorities in democratic states with a constitution. Without these systems (aka with direct democracy) it would be very hard to prevent people exiling the less capable in times of need, even more than in current capitalist systems.

4 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

As for tribalism, that already happens on a national level as well.  It'd be a shame if it came to war, but I guess it'd never be possible to erase that.

 

Once again this was based on my ideas of communities which are small, not nation like communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BelgiumFury said:

I mean on some level it is.
If I hear communities i think about groups of 300 people and not 1 Billion. But maybe I am udnerstanding this wrong?
There has been international cooperation (facilitated by corperations and international universities) 
 

This is an issue because at least in theory we have a way to protect minorities in democratic states with a constitution. Without these systems (aka with direct democracy) it would be very hard to prevent people exiling the less capable in times of need, even more than in current capitalist systems.

Once again this was based on my ideas of communities which are small, not nation like communities.

Yeah, that's fair!  I tend to think of society as being modular in that regard (a nation being a larger community, a neighborhood being a small nation), so that probably influences how we perceive things.

My criticism of that theory where we protect people is that we only add in discrimination protections for, say, racial and ethnic groups when the national community at large perceives those protections as being needed.  So, by my modular view of society, it's just a larger step up of a community - and getting 10k people to agree is easier than 300 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

I am a supporter of UBI as well, but I don't think its enough.

Anarchists have governments as well, and I fail to see how Zapatistas living off the land means anything; if anything, thats even more an example of independence.  The label of terrorism is one that states put on organisations and militant groups that they don't like - Trump wanted Antifa labeled as anarchists despite the lack of an organised structure, and the USA won't label its friends in the Middle East as terrorists until they're no longer our friends.  To be labeled as terrorist only means that the powers at be disagree with your message; which is why, again, Trump wanted Antifa labeled terrorists but the Proud Boys don't get that label.

Systemically in pain being the large scale poverty that you mention with those specific examples.  People who have no chance of escaping the cycle of poverty due to the lack of support.

We are still forced to work - that's the problem!  If you don't work, you starve - simple as that.  And most people are still poor - our income inequality is larger than it was before the French Revolution!

I, on the other hand, think it's just enough. It is enough to survive off of, yet it's not enough to be comfortable. It encourages work while allowing a floor to stand on. 

I disagree strongly with this point. First, most anarchists do not have governments. They may have some organization, but not governments. The Zapatistas are primitive to modern standards, they are mere mayan farmers. Albeit, violent and dangerous ones. Here is where you kinda go off the deep end imo. Terrorism has a specific definition, and any who meet that definition are terrorists. Be it the KKK, Black Panthers, ISIS, and arguably Antifa. The Proud Boys are as much terrorists as the III%ers. They aren't, in other words. They are more of a mercenary company than a terrorist group. On the flip side, Antifa activists/proponents/supporters/members have been known to commit violent crime and use fear to their advantage. Making them, de jure, terrorists.

I would not say no chance, at least not in today's society. It's much harder sure. But some of the richest and most powerful people in the modern era have started from nothing and built themselves up. If someone loses their job they do have options. Either they can search for a new one, start a business, learn a new skill, etc. etc. 

No..not exactly. In a city, for sure. But out where I live, there is plenty of wildlife and farmland to live off of. And most people arent poor. Most people are middle class. Our income equality is only larger because back then even the monarchs didnt have running water, electricity, cars, internet, planes, healthcare, etc. etc. Now most people do. And a very very very minute amount of people don't.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

Terrorism has a specific definition, and any who meet that definition are terrorists. Be it the KKK, Black Panthers, ISIS, and arguably Antifa. The Proud Boys are as much terrorists as the III%ers. They aren't, in other words. They are more of a mercenary company than a terrorist group. On the flip side, Antifa activists/proponents/supporters/members have been known to commit violent crime and use fear to their advantage. Making them, de jure, terrorists.

I don't think its fruitful to have this discussion anymore.  In what way is a militarised group who commits violent crime (Kyle Rittenhouse, for example) against civilian targets for political reasons not a terrorist group?  I think this is where I have to disengage, if you can honestly argue that such an organisation doesn't qualify as a terrorist group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

I don't think its fruitful to have this discussion anymore.  In what way is a militarised group who commits violent crime (Kyle Rittenhouse, for example) against civilian targets for political reasons not a terrorist group?  I think this is where I have to disengage, if you can honestly argue that such an organisation doesn't qualify as a terrorist group.

Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't in the Proud Boys. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Antifa isn't organized enough to be called a terrorist group then the Proud Boys aren't either.

Edited by Aqua-Corpsman
  • Downvote 2

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

Yeah, that's fair!  I tend to think of society as being modular in that regard (a nation being a larger community, a neighborhood being a small nation), so that probably influences how we perceive things.

My criticism of that theory where we protect people is that we only add in discrimination protections for, say, racial and ethnic groups when the national community at large perceives those protections as being needed.  So, by my modular view of society, it's just a larger step up of a community - and getting 10k people to agree is easier than 300 million.

There are real differences between the dynamics of a 300 people group or a 300M one.
In communities everyone knows everyone, if you did somethign wrong once people will more often remember.
There has also been research that would show that conservatives are more willing to donate and help local groups (communities) while "liberals" would be more willing to help nation or world wide projects. This would show us that they aren't just diffrent, on a structural level but also that at least in some aspects people act diffrent inside of them.

If you did actually mean communities though as in 300 people, we (at least in my opinion) are the most advanced species on earth. Not because of our individual abilities because these can be quite udnerwhelming, but a combination between our own personal judgement, our ability to form culture (which we haven't seen anywhere else on a serious scale) and our ability to cooperate with huge groups. 

I feel like if you take away the huge cooperation (because as shitty as cooperations might be sometimes, they do manage to get people from all over the world to work togheter on a signle thing), and have more people live of the land (as you mentioned you didn't think that would be too bad). We would be moving backwards in society. 
If we have small communities we would need more farmers (or we would need communities who specialzie in farming and then trade it but that brings obvious monopolistic issues with it), every person who works on a farm, is a person that can't do anything more complex. 

In this case the power plant issue comes up too, if there is tribalism, no central agency that makes sure cooperations exist to a minimal level, why would we trust them with our powerplant. 

Edited by BelgiumFury
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

I disagree strongly with this point. First, most anarchists do not have governments. They may have some organization, but not governments. The Zapatistas are primitive to modern standards, they are mere mayan farmers. Albeit, violent and dangerous ones. Here is where you kinda go off the deep end imo. Terrorism has a specific definition, and any who meet that definition are terrorists. Be it the KKK, Black Panthers, ISIS, and arguably Antifa. The Proud Boys are as much terrorists as the III%ers. They aren't, in other words. They are more of a mercenary company than a terrorist group. On the flip side, Antifa activists/proponents/supporters/members have been known to commit violent crime and use fear to their advantage. Making them, de jure, terrorists.

 

Gonna have to chime in on this one, because far-right extremism has been surging in the US. Proud Boys/3pers have committed many, many crimes in the last 5-10 years that it's almost incomprehensible you won't declare the more heinous acts terrorism, because they are literally using fear as their motivation. How are they a mercenary company? They were founded to stop "White Genocide", which doesn't exist in any way shape or form. I think it's disingenuous to separate the Proud Boys and 3pers from other far right extremists since it's a nebulous movement as with Patriot Prayer and other groups, but they are all rooted in white nationalism. 

I mean just off the top of my head you have: 

  • Murdered protestors with their cars. (Heather Heyer)
  • Pittsburgh Synagogue mass shooting 
  • Kyle Rittenhouse killed someone and is currently being charged for murder 
  • the leader of the Proud Boys got arrested 2 nights ago in DC for stealing a historically black church's BLM flag and burning it
  • Calling for the Michigan Governor to be kidnapped 
  • Storming the Michigan Capitol building with AR-15's. 
  • Jerry Varnell (3per) was arrested trying to be a Oklahoma City bomber copycat 
  • Those 3pers that blew up that Minnesota Islamic center a few years ago (one of whom was a cop)

I could probably find so many more instances, but how are these not terrorism? I'm just not sure how you can so casually call Antifa a terrorist organization and in the same sentence dismiss the Proud Boys/3pers as a "Mercenary Company". 

 

 

Edited by Comrade Joe
clarity
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Comrade Joe said:

Gonna have to chime in on this one, because far-right extremism has been surging in the US. Proud Boys/3pers have committed many, many crimes in the last 5-10 years that it's almost incomprehensible you won't declare the more heinous acts terrorism, because they are literally using fear as their motivation. How are they a mercenary company? They were founded to stop "White Genocide", which doesn't exist in any way shape or form. I think it's disingenuous to separate the Proud Boys and 3pers from other far right extremists since it's a nebulous movement as with Patriot Prayer and other groups, but they are all rooted in white nationalism. 

I mean just off the top of my head you have: 

  • Murdered protestors with their cars. (Heather Heyer)
  • Kyle Rittenhouse killed someone and is currently being charged for murder 
  • the leader of the Proud Boys got arrested 2 nights ago in DC for stealing a historically black church's BLM flag and burning it
  • Calling for the Michigan Governor to be kidnapped 
  • Storming the Michigan Capitol building with AR-15's. 
  • Jerry Varnell (3per) was arrested trying to be a Oklahoma City bomber copycat 
  • Those 3pers that blew up that Minnesota Islamic center a few years ago (one of whom was a cop)

I could probably find so many more instances, but how are these not terrorism? I'm just not sure how you can so casually call Antifa a terrorist organization and in the same sentence dismiss the Proud Boys/3pers as a "Mercenary Company". 

"Murdered protestors with their cars" was not Proud Boys or III%ers. That was a screwed up Nazi who was a terrorist.

Kyle RIttenhouse can only be charged with illegal possession of a firearm, as he acted in self defense. This isn't even a debatable point. Not only that, he was not part of the Proud Boys or III%ers.

The leader of the Proud Boys is black. Just saying.

I've heard plenty of democrats call for Trump to be shot. Your point?

The Michigan storming of the government building was not Proud Boys or III%ers, it was an unorganized riot. Which, to clarify so you don't call me a hypocrite, they should have been arrested.

The III%ers denounced Jerry Varnell. In fact, you should read the manifesto that the III%ers have. I read it. Cuz I'm an associate member of them. 😛 

They weren't III%ers. The cop had previous connections to the III%ers which were never confirmed.

Your whataboutism not withstanding, because the groups themselves have never done anything wrong. Sure some crazy mofo goes nuts and does something stupid. Oh, he was part of the III%ers 20 years ago? Apparently now it's their fault.

Get your facts straight, and come back when you're ready.

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

Kyle RIttenhouse can only be charged with illegal possession of a firearm, as he acted in self defense. This isn't even a debatable point. Not only that, he was not part of the Proud Boys or III%ers.

This point is clearly objectively wrong.
The charges facing Rittenhouse include first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide and attempted first-degree intentional reckless homicide, a charge of violation of curfew .

1 hour ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

The leader of the Proud Boys is black. Just saying.

Okay.. and how does this invalidade is argument? This is some whataboutism as well 😛

1 hour ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

I've heard plenty of democrats call for Trump to be shot. Your point?

You clearly know there is a diffrence between planning to do a kidnapping and saying someone should be shot (though I support neither), and this too is some whataboutism.

 

I am too lazy to check more, but it seems that extreme right people are also storming capitol hill right now 😛

Edited by BelgiumFury
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BelgiumFury said:

This point is clearly objectively wrong.
The charges facing Rittenhouse include first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide and attempted first-degree intentional reckless homicide, a charge of violation of curfew .

Okay.. and how does this invalidade is argument? This is some whataboutism as well 😛

You clearly know there is a diffrence between planning to do a kidnapping and saying someone should be shot (though I support neither), and this too is some whataboutism.

 

I am too lazy to check more, but it seems that extreme right people are also storming capitol hill right now 😛

The charges he is facing are easily refutable. His lawyer could be a 12 year old and he'd get a slap on the wrist.

Indeed it is whataboutism. The whole thing is. It invalidated the argument because it's kinda hard to be racist to yourself.

How he worded it, calling =/= planning. 

I just saw that, and Trump has already denounced them. As have I. And, as far as I know, the III%ers/Proud Boys are not involved.

But, funny enough, that point was whataboutism as well. Good job.

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

I just saw that, and Trump has already denounced them. As have I. And, as far as I know, the III%ers/Proud Boys are not involved.

Neither of the groups are involved (so far) trump denounced it but at the same time was a big reason this happend.
This is like an arson saying fire is bad imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BelgiumFury said:

Neither of the groups are involved (so far) trump denounced it but at the same time was a big reason this happend.
This is like an arson saying fire is bad imho.

So what's your point in relation to the III%ers then?

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BelgiumFury said:

Nothing.
This is really going away from the original discussion so this is what i wanted to say.

Ok. I think I'm going to leave this thread and not come back to it anyway lol.

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't in the Proud Boys. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Antifa isn't organized enough to be called a terrorist group then the Proud Boys aren't either.

I think people only support Antifa so they get free stuff when breaking into and robbing stores well pretending it's a stand against fascism. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the events of today, I cannot, in earnest honesty, continue arguments that will devolve into ad hominem attacks.

Attack me all you wish, but I cannot argue anything more but the unity of the American people in the wake of the blood spilled in the Capitol today.  Communist or fascist.  Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or even independent.  It doesn't matter - no socioeconomic system of ours cannot work without the content of the governed, be it capitalism, communism, or any other forms.  We are all workers.  We are all humans.  We are in this together.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.