The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I wouldn't be so sure. I've read the whole memo which is probs more than most can say here and I've been in this thread peppered with said 'otherside's data' from the begining. if anything I've been exposed to more of it then you.

This is just such a bad argument.
Yes communist dictatorships caused the death of a lot of people. For what reasons?

Probably reason one, especially in China under Mao: Famine.
Really bad decision making based on specific interpretation of what is a very big realm of ideas under the hood of "communism". So now we know that going all out centralized planned economy is a bad idea, especially when the central organization makes big planning mistakes. Pretty bad.

Reason two: Those dictators were paranoid maniacs. Like so many dictators they used massive violence to get rid of any possible opponents. Communism itself however does not call for this, at least not any version I am aware of (?).

So reason one is basically just the realization that a central planned economy has significant risks, as there is a single point of failure, the central planner, and if they make mistakes you get a ton of dead people.

Reason two is basically independent of communism. Violent dictators are bad. Well duh...

The Nazis killed people as a main feature of their ideology. They systematically planned the eradication of millions of people as a central part of their Nazi ideology. Unlike communism it is central to nazi ideology to eradicate jews, blacks, etc pp. Nazis believe is basically "murder the inferiors races".

So equating Communists with Nazis in terms of "how evil are they" is entirely unfounded. All the death and destruction caused by Communist regimes is caused because of stupid mistakes in government or by dictators who kill their opponents.
From those historic instances of communism we can learn two things:
- centrally planned governments are flawed
- dictators are bad

Although some central planning does appear to somewhat work in modern day China. They still do their five year plans and at least some to avoid famines by now. Rather they're a significant economic power.

Also the absolute numbers of death are kinda pointless to compare. Stalin and Mao had a lot more time to commit their evil deeds. Hitler was thrown out of the race when Nazi Germany was annihilated.
Not to mention that especially Mao had a lot more people under his power, so causing a famine easily killed way more people then would be possible for Nazi Germany.

The Nazis/KKK were openly happy about Trump not pointing fingers at them. They felt empowered because of how Trump phrased this. If humanity were a race of a logicians only I'd agree that "all people who were violent were bad" would be enough. But we are not. Nazis felt empowered because of what Trump said. Do you think Nazis should feel empowered by the President of the United States?

Okay, then **** muslims?

No, not acceptable?

Then **** individuals on an individual basis then. That logic holds up awfully well if you're not a prejudice twit, islamaphobic or otherwise.

**** those specific people who support this criminal action too, tbh, nobody needs cheering, people cheering this should be arrested as accessories.

Again, that isn't the entire ******* demonstration, and it still doesn't excuse the individuals in antifa that's ******* up the program for any right-wing demonstration. It happens to be nazis this time, but non-racist non-violent trump supporters have caught **** from antifa before (unless you ARE antifa, in which case, you're opinion is "all trump supporters are violent racist targets of euthanasia").

In which case, you're antifa AND a terrible judge/jury to be allowed to also be executioners. Why not just let police execute every criminal they encounter instead of issuing citations or jailing? Would that be wrong too? So is getting clubbed just for showing up for a statue.

huh? wwwwwwwwwwhat? the meanders of your mind have four or five poles you bounce of off.

And you'll bounce of any other idea back to those. ties be dammed. no wonder narratives with no basis in reality become simple.

again how is this obsession with antifa and taking as much blame as possible away from the neo-nazis KKK and confeds even make sense here?

you realize the same argument you use to cut ties with the manifestation and the car driver is applicable to any possible so called antifa aggressor even as they are as-of-yet unproven to have even been there.


Do you realize that that means an undermining of your own future argument if antifa DOES turn out to have been there in non-negligible numbers?

that's kindof a crazy-man's angle to a debate but hey you do you. you probably know how to make this work in the end right?

In every country where ONLY communism has been implied, it failed. What more proof do you need?

"Although some central planning does appear to somewhat work in modern day China. They still do their five year plans and at least some to avoid famines by now. Rather they're a significant economic power." The reason they do good economically is becuase you have an economic system based on capitalism. To say China is doing good on a socio-physiological level they are doing quite bad. No free speech and alot of censor ship. That is what communism brings when implemented. Maybe communism doesn't call for this itself, but when it is implemented, and there have been too many examples of this, it doesn't work and only causes violence.

I am not claiming hardcore communism works or is desirable. I am merely providing an argument why Communism is not morally equivalent to Nazism, which is the implication of people going "but antifa are communists" to defend Nazis marching.
Communism is a faulty concept to handle government and it has let to much evil and misery, but it was never intended to do so. Nazism is fully intended on creating evil and misery.

A person waving a Communist flag waves a flag of a failed concept of governance/economy.
A person waving a Nazi flag is waving a flag of an ideology of hatred.

One more question. The KKK was founded by a democrat and to your logic I am an alt-right person for saying nazis weren't the only ones who commited violence. But doesn't make me a democrat then? Becuse in YOUR EYES (not mine) I support (and I do not, so don't you dare take this out of context) the nazis, and therefor the KKK, by making that statement?

The fact that the Democrats once were the bad ones (well they still are not really great) and the republicans fought to end slavery was quite surprising to me when I learned of it.

It sure is ironic that now members of the republican party are somehow supportive of the confederate states and the KKK.
Everyone somehow flipped sides at some point.

The people who are in the alt-right may call themselves alt right but they have nothing to do with conservatism and what the right stands for. I think republicans don't like the fact that there is violence commit on a statue. You know Lincoln used to be a slave owner, so to your logic all of his statues should be destroyed aswell? Or does he get a pass because he won the war?

What does the right stand for?

People are to be judged in the context of the environment they were born into.
A person born in a time and place that views slavery as normal can't be held responsible for going with what they've been grown up to.

However this changes when there is a choice. People who fought for the south clearly decided to fight for the side that wanted to keep slavery. People on the north fought against it. Lincoln was in the north. So yeah he gets a pass, because he won the war and was on the right side.

Similar argument why there is no need to remove statues of earlier presidents who may even have been openly in favor of slavery. They were a product of their time, not their personal fault.

Statues that specifically are about southern state civial war generals specifically worship personalities that for whatever reason fought for slavery. They represent a fight for injustice and that is why they ought to be removed.

From what I read somewhere that General Lee apparently didn't like the idea of slavery personally, but decided to put his loyalty to his country above that. A decision one can't really blame him for, but also a decision he definitely does not deserve a memorial for.

For the love of...

Robert E Lee, was married to George Washington's granddaughter. He worked with Grant during the Mexican-American war and became a decorated war hero defending this country He believed slavery was a great evil and his wife broke the law by teaching slaves to read and write. After the civil war he worked with Andrew Johnson's program of reconstruction. He became very popular with the northern states and the Barracks at West Point were named in his honor in 1962. He was a great man who served this country his entire life in some form or other.

His memorial is now being called a blight. No American military veteran should be treated as such. People keep yelling, 'You can't change history.' Sadly you can. This is no better than book burnings. ISIS tried rewriting history by destroying historical artifacts. Is that really who we want to emulate?

As they tear down this 'blight' keep these few historical facts in your mind. No military veteran and highly decorated war hero should ever be treated as such. This is not Iraq and that is not a statue of Sadam.

The Civil War was also not Germany WWII, the Confederates neither gassed nor mass-executed a single race or religion, nor any mass of people in general. Not everyone who pays memorial to the Civil War, is a barbarian or nazi, unlike, oh, idk... the nation literally formed by barbarian tribes, and that established the Nazi party.

That stings, don't it? Well then, don't berate non-racist things as racist, and don't expect someone to practice historical-belittling like another country practices with their historical mass genocide.

And to qualify that statement, Calhoun was a racist, **** his statue, and when the white-nationalists tried to defend that statue, every agreed **** them too. Because it's NOT ABOUT RACISM DAMMIT, and nobody supports the racist pricks besides themselves. If someone with a confederate flag says they aren't racist and don't support nazis, it's because they're not racist and don't support nazis.

huh? wwwwwwwwwwhat? the meanders of my post have four or five legitimate points you ignore outright like it weren't written in english.

And you'll ignore anyone's points, and bounce of any other idea back to your own. ties be dammed. no wonder narratives absent of contesting by blatant ignoring become so simple.

again how is this obsession with confeds and how they all deserve to be treated like violent nazis even make sense to validate antifa here?

you realize the same argument you use to validate antifa is applicable to any possible so called trump-supporting aggressor, even as antifa are factually certified and positively proven to have even been there? (http://time.com/4899658/charlottesville-antifa-protests/) (This cites their presence, and cites violent crimes by them)

Do you realize that this means an undermining of your own future argument if it DOES turn out that nazis have been there in non-negligible numbers? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally) (If listed in order, all the groups at the end put together, don't form the first 3 on the list, which means most the assholes, aren't the assholes you hate known as fascists)

that's kindof a crazy-man's angle to a debate but hey you do you. you probably know how to make this work in the end right?

*posts arbitrary video because duh video hur dur*

These are good points that shed some light on the question on who that guy was. I admit I know very little about US history, it has never been part of any school curriculum I was taught in any significant detail, certainly not enough to know the names of some generals.

So does a man like that deserve a statue? Possibly. Maybe with a little sign saying that the statue is there to remind of him for the positive things about him. Maybe there was such a sign on the statue. I don't know.

But the fact remains that the alt right marching under the topic of "Unite the right", which was about a lot more than that statue. So if you're just a fan of General Lee and you wanted to speak out for him you still ought to feel disgusted by those alt right Nazis waving Nazi flags and chanting things like "jews wont replace us" and "blood and soil" and refuse to be a part of that.
No need to be part of a "unit the right" march to protest when all you want is protest for a statue.

Just like if you're a peaceful anti nazi protester you ought to draw a clear line between you and violent antifa groups.

I don't see how this is about erasing history. The books are still there. It's not like the removal of a statue is an attempt of removing history. Books are there to report about history. Statues are there to give praise.
I am not a big fan of praising historical figures in general. At least not people involved in politics, or worse war. Might be because of the historical background of Germany and the way our education teaches that, but I feel giving praise to "war heroes of the past" really is only bound to make trouble. The heroes of one side are the criminals of the other side after all and in hindsight it is best to view history as a cold fact with no emotions attached. It happened before I we were all born. It should be a learning example of what mistakes people can make and not more than that.

They did basically fight to keep up slavery right? And slavery was like really violent and really bad and basically consisted of mass abducting people from another continent, move them under hellish conditions to the US and work them to death there?

Doesn't really sting, no. Formed by barbarian tribes? Those barbarian tribes at one point defeated the friggn Roman Empire. I am a proud barbarian
And yeah Nazi Germany was bad and is a shameful part of our history that I'll not refuse happened. That cold unemotional view of history I write about above probably is linked in here

The people in "unite the right" march happily waved their confederate flags in a group together with other people waving Nazi flags. They don't get to claim that. When somebody is waving a Nazi flag next to you you got to get out of there. And if you're in Germany you ought to call the police. Waving that flag alone is a crime here, for good reasons.

To be fair, they caught unanimous disagreement from both sides when it was the Calhoun statue a while back in Florida or something... you know what, I literally can't find it where the statue in question was taken down, but whatever, this is roundabout what I mean.

http://cwmemory.com/2015/07/02/when-a-monument-to-john-c-calhoun-was-torn-down/

Basically, the North did not fight to end slavery, and had not ended slavery prior to after the war, nor did the South fight to keep slavery.

The north and south both had slavery and slavery-supporters, and Lincoln couldn't care less about freeing the slaves, initially he did it only in the south, as a punishment to the south, in order to end the war against them.

The war started, over states' rights to have local laws particular and not have such an strict governing federal presence. That point is literally mute today, we have extended federal reach so far in 1930-1950 that it doesn't resemble the same model barely if at all. But from 1780-1910, it'd catch huge division for the government to establish a federal bank or federal martial to enforce federal ordinances not in the constitution (gun control, marijuana, speed limits, alcohol age).

You should call people that are against anti-fascists anti-anti-fascist not fascists.
Because these anti-fascists don't oppose fascism, they oppose police, free market, freedom of speech, they don't think that everyone has the same rights and violence should be unleashed against the enemy that is a much broader group than just fascists.
Anyway wasn't that demonstration about the statue of a confederate general? I really doubt he was fascist xD

@thetrophysystem yeah Ignoring this and mimicking. two good signs that you've lost the argument and are resorting to whatever's left.

It comes as no real surprise that you're a confederate.

you're living up to the southern gunslinger stereotypes.

You're living up to the unrelatable mainland EU "govern and judge from afar" stereotype. Cute.

You don't have all the answers. You definitely don't for us, but if there's any room for you to get things right, it's for yourself. I.E. Mind your own business if you're going to destructively criticize without taking a single helpful stance.

There's a lot of stuff we could answer for ourselves. The people in charge of us are doing an absolutely garbage job of it, so you'd think you'd have multiple opportunities to take a helpful personal stance.

...but no, you do the single most fumb-duckery maneuver you possibly could, which is act holier-than-thou and act like we're defective by birth. Yeah, real helpful, thanks arseholes.

Did Jim Jefferies even bring up historical points about the Confederacy, or just that "the supports futz their cousins"? I didn't watch, it is clearly labeled "C" for "Cancer" in the corner logo.

You also come off as snobby. You know how many people refuse help from holier-than-thou snoblike figures? Basically everyone frustrated with the EU. Who are also apparently neanderthals and ignorant folk, according to response of Brexit.

I'm not a confederate. That's a stupid thing to say. That's a dissolved government.

I do come from and live in, an area generally within the influence of the Civil War in 1865. Civil War vets on both sides, are still war veterans. I don't know if Germany buries it's soldiers from WWI and WWII upside down in raw sewage in disgrace of their service, but we pardoned our soldiers and gave them full standing as war veterans, and we don't feel it's right to shame families who honor their fallen relatives.

Also, "gunslinger southern stereotype", yeah, the ignorant inferior that someone else has to govern over by martial enforcement for their own good. I see where you're going.

Stereotype, I thought you liberals were above that. What's the difference between a southerner confederate gunslinger wild west cousin sexing son of a hickabilly, and a watermelon eating grapeaid drinking whatever stereotype blah blah? I've heard all these stereotypes, they're consistently insulting and untrue, whether they're "white" or "another skin color".

At least I defend individuals on an individual basis. You, you're like, "I like people from here and here, but everyone born here is ignorant, I hate those guys. Never met any of them in person, we should probably set fire to their towns though".

Prejudice, is prejudice. What's that other stupid thing you always do, long chains of images? Let me find that one again...

Hey, so I saw someone was quoting revisionist history of Robert E. Lee in this thread.

What a surprise! It's trophy!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...come-down-soon-enough/?utm_term=.d9113e28eeb5

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

Revisionist History? You mean, history?

You got some historical stuff there too. Neat. Did it make any single one of my factual sentences, any less fact?

The man is in every sense of the word and by verdict of his own peers who had to live in his own era with him, pardoned.

He did bad stuff too.

To prosecute him this long after the fact, is unfair without disbanding the US for it's various crimes worldwide and absolving it's flag and everyone who died as veterans under it from forming the nation to modern day.

You know what revisionist history is? To make monuments to Lincoln and name streets after Grant, in their honest to goodness historical comparison to Lee. Entirely unfair to make the argument that Lee is the boogeyman and any good merits were fabricated.

What's your country? Well, it surely did bad things, so it's not a real country, it's just a bunch of squatters on some land and a leech to the civilizations around it, since the start of time until now, and if it hadn't participated in the wars and other resets to progressing civilization, then we'd already have colonized distant planets by now.

I refuse to recognize your country now, understandably so since it's founded on revisionist history, since you refuse to recognize arbitrary military service from select cherrypicked historical figures you disagree with.