- 20 Oct 2020 01:48
#15128695
Okay, no contention.
Not the way *I* do it.
= D
---
Okay, no contention.
Okay, thanks.
---
Hmmmmm, here's the point of contention -- you're content to frame the situation as some kind of 'playground politics', as I term it, meaning an *interpersonal* matter, and it's *not*. This is about *politics*, like the neoconservative / neoliberal thing you just mentioned.
The *politics* of this matter is that *fascists* should not be able to use public space for their right-sectarian-violent message. You're against violence, and you should be against it *pre-emptively*.
But look at where the politics of the 'patriot' camp *is* these days -- it's defending killer cops, basically, instead of calling for the government to *defund* / demilitarize (basically) all police departments in the U.S., which has, by far, the most killer cops.
Well, when are the police going to be defunded, and fascist hatred shut-down and shut-out of public spaces? Are you saying that communists / anti-fascists should wait for the *police* to do something about killer cops and fascist public displays? There's a *policy vacuum* there, that you're not addressing, either.
Stalinists with governments / state power aren't interested in empowering the working class. Therefore they're *Stalinists*, and not communists. (See 'The Communist Manifesto'.)
---
Yes, and that's the *problem* right now because there's a policy vacuum as a result, that doesn't address the fascists in the public view, the fascist in the White House, the killer cops, and sanctions on other countries.
What was her 'unconstitutional use of power', or are you just making shit up to justify the conspiracy to kidnap? And your resorting to the Michigan militia, ex-post-facto, is *extra-legal*, which is unconstitutional, since that would be a kind of fait-accompli *outsourcing* of governance, which is what *fascists* do.
Was this all COVID-related?
Oh, so she provided for additional unemployment benefits, due to the ongoing and indefinite coronavirus hazard, that's caused 1,000,000 deaths worldwide.
You obviously object to this action as well and think that people should risk death to be back at the workplace or else live on thin air itself.
You really should specifically say 'ISIS', or what Islamist militia you're referring to. You open yourself up to looking Islamophobic and anti-Muslim / anti-Islam if you're too general and vague in your terming.
Why aren't you blaming the capitalist labor market? Why aren't rightists calling for an *end* to capitalism since it's fucking up so royally on this? (It's the inherent friction between a capitalist globalized *economy* and the patchwork nation-state *administration* over this globalized capitalist economy -- two world wars in the 20th century, I'll remind, due to this 'friction'.)
Yes, I acknowledge this, and I also call it a 'schism', or factionalism, within the Democratic Party, currently. Or hypocrisy, which is what you were indicating.
Understandable, but a retrenchment into nationalism / isolationism, as under Trump, isn't a historically-progressive step, and it's bad for the consumer due to lesser selection from decreasing sources -- not that I look to the bourgeoisie for *any* improvements, of course, but I'm just describing things here.
I think the people of the *Global South* have had the frustration you're describing for *centuries*, and it's finally happening to the Global North, now, as well. That's because of *capitalism*, and capitalist *imperialism*, which is more descriptive and specific than a generic 'globalism', as you term it.
blackjack21 wrote:
I've already said I'm not a fan of neo-nazis or the KKK. However, they aren't in power in the US today. The neoconservatives and the neoliberals are the authoritarian warhawks with deep hooks in the establishment.
Okay, no contention.
blackjack21 wrote:
Hedonism can be very destructive.
Not the way *I* do it.
= D
---
blackjack21 wrote:
Detox. Therapy. Etc.
Okay, no contention.
blackjack21 wrote:
SFPD. San Francisco Mayor London Breed announces cuts to police in new city budget
Okay, thanks.
---
blackjack21 wrote:
They have the right to peaceably assemble. Everyone does. Even Antifa. They don't have the right to initiate violence against people they don't like.
Hmmmmm, here's the point of contention -- you're content to frame the situation as some kind of 'playground politics', as I term it, meaning an *interpersonal* matter, and it's *not*. This is about *politics*, like the neoconservative / neoliberal thing you just mentioned.
The *politics* of this matter is that *fascists* should not be able to use public space for their right-sectarian-violent message. You're against violence, and you should be against it *pre-emptively*.
blackjack21 wrote:
Pretty much.
blackjack21 wrote:
There's nothing wrong with participating in a patriot rally.
But look at where the politics of the 'patriot' camp *is* these days -- it's defending killer cops, basically, instead of calling for the government to *defund* / demilitarize (basically) all police departments in the U.S., which has, by far, the most killer cops.
blackjack21 wrote:
No. They have the right to peacefully assemble and protest communists. They do not have the right to a communist rally and start attacking people.
Well, when are the police going to be defunded, and fascist hatred shut-down and shut-out of public spaces? Are you saying that communists / anti-fascists should wait for the *police* to do something about killer cops and fascist public displays? There's a *policy vacuum* there, that you're not addressing, either.
blackjack21 wrote:
Yes, back to semantics. When the communists do something you don't like, suddenly they aren't communists anymore.
Stalinists with governments / state power aren't interested in empowering the working class. Therefore they're *Stalinists*, and not communists. (See 'The Communist Manifesto'.)
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, this, then, is the *crux* of the problem -- the *bourgeois* approach to civil society is obviously too linear and *reductionist* in its politicization. There's that caption on the graphic from one of the articles I included previously -- it says, speaking from the position of the cops, that 'Personally, I don't support racist stabbings, but I will defend to the death your right to recruit for them.'
blackjack21 wrote:
That's classical liberalism.
Yes, and that's the *problem* right now because there's a policy vacuum as a result, that doesn't address the fascists in the public view, the fascist in the White House, the killer cops, and sanctions on other countries.
blackjack21 wrote:
I didn't say it was laudable. I said it was understandable, given her unconstitutional use of power. It's also likely criminal.
What was her 'unconstitutional use of power', or are you just making shit up to justify the conspiracy to kidnap? And your resorting to the Michigan militia, ex-post-facto, is *extra-legal*, which is unconstitutional, since that would be a kind of fait-accompli *outsourcing* of governance, which is what *fascists* do.
blackjack21 wrote:
I just laid it out for you. If you live in Michigan, you can't go to your vacation house. However, Whitmer's husband can, because his wife is the governor. As I said, she also did things like preventing people from buying paint, etc. so that they could at least do something constructive to their houses while they were stuck at home. There was no constitutional authority for this, and it wasn't reasonable.
Was this all COVID-related?
blackjack21 wrote:
The supreme court of Michigan.
Michigan Supreme Court Confirms Whitmer’s Orders Are Out
Oh, so she provided for additional unemployment benefits, due to the ongoing and indefinite coronavirus hazard, that's caused 1,000,000 deaths worldwide.
You obviously object to this action as well and think that people should risk death to be back at the workplace or else live on thin air itself.
blackjack21 wrote:
I think you can glean that from Muslim extremists. Obviously, that means extremists with a Muslim background, and not all Muslims.
You really should specifically say 'ISIS', or what Islamist militia you're referring to. You open yourself up to looking Islamophobic and anti-Muslim / anti-Islam if you're too general and vague in your terming.
blackjack21 wrote:
And if the government endorses outsourcing of jobs, and imposes lockdowns, and enables illegal aliens to drive down wages, is that not primarily economic? Are people complaining about such things all right-wing extremists, or are they addressing an economic issue?
Why aren't you blaming the capitalist labor market? Why aren't rightists calling for an *end* to capitalism since it's fucking up so royally on this? (It's the inherent friction between a capitalist globalized *economy* and the patchwork nation-state *administration* over this globalized capitalist economy -- two world wars in the 20th century, I'll remind, due to this 'friction'.)
blackjack21 wrote:
Pretty much the Democrats control the so called killer cops. So the people doing the protesting are typically also the people putting those people into positions of political power.
Yes, I acknowledge this, and I also call it a 'schism', or factionalism, within the Democratic Party, currently. Or hypocrisy, which is what you were indicating.
blackjack21 wrote:
In North America and Europe, huge numbers of people have had enough of the globalist policies. They aren't necessarily looking for global development, but rather a restoration of social cohesion in their own societies.
Understandable, but a retrenchment into nationalism / isolationism, as under Trump, isn't a historically-progressive step, and it's bad for the consumer due to lesser selection from decreasing sources -- not that I look to the bourgeoisie for *any* improvements, of course, but I'm just describing things here.
I think the people of the *Global South* have had the frustration you're describing for *centuries*, and it's finally happening to the Global North, now, as well. That's because of *capitalism*, and capitalist *imperialism*, which is more descriptive and specific than a generic 'globalism', as you term it.