INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Yuri Bezmenov on October 17, 2017, 12:36:38 PM
-
If this law was enforced, ANTIFA, BAMN and possibly even Black Lives Matter could be rounded tomorrow and shot.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/842
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/841
-
It would be a great start. and putting two behond soros's ear would be the icing on the cake
-
If this law was enforced, ANTIFA, BAMN and possibly even Black Lives Matter could be rounded tomorrow and shot.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/842
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/841
Wouldn't the actual communist party be the first matter of business?
-
I would not mind any of those group and would be happy for the KKK and (hate group who must not be named) thrown into the mix
-
Outlawing the communist party is in conflict with freedom of association.
-
(https://memegenerator.net/img-preview/Instance/PreviewInstanceData?instanceDataJson=%7B%22instanceElements%22%3A%5B%7B%22instancePicture%22%3A%7B%22imageID%22%3A1985197%7D%2C%22instanceTexts%22%3A%5B%7B%22text%22%3A%22ban%20all%20the%20groups%22%2C%22placeholder%22%3A%22top%20text%22%2C%22horizontalAlign%22%3A%22center%22%2C%22verticalAlign%22%3A%22near%22%2C%22color%22%3A%22%23ffffff%22%7D%2C%7B%22placeholder%22%3A%22bottom%20text%22%2C%22horizontalAlign%22%3A%22center%22%2C%22verticalAlign%22%3A%22far%22%2C%22color%22%3A%22%23ffffff%22%7D%5D%7D%5D%7D)
-
The KKK these days are little more than a remnant of their old past, no? old klansmen might get together in their uniforms and burn crosses etc. but I've not heard about them lynching any blacks lately (lately being said with some irony, since AFAIK it is a long time since they did so. all the Klan-oriented fuss I've heard since...well since historical times, is people bitching about the KKK sponsoring sections of US highway to keep clean.) They don't seem much to be a modern-day threat,
-
Democracy at its finest.
-
Democracy at its finest.
Meh, domestic twrrorists have forfeited by their very actions certain freedoms. Like the responsibility/right one may have to own and drive a car. Most people do the right thing. But if ones completely disregards the rules and legislationconcerned with how they mustaddtess this right, they forfeit the benefits as they have not thr respect or responsibility.
Democracy is not ultimate freedom/anarchy.
-
The KKK these days are little more than a remnant of their old past, no? old klansmen might get together in their uniforms and burn crosses etc. but I've not heard about them lynching any blacks lately (lately being said with some irony, since AFAIK it is a long time since they did so. all the Klan-oriented fuss I've heard since...well since historical times, is people bitching about the KKK sponsoring sections of US highway to keep clean.) They don't seem much to be a modern-day threat,
White nationalism seems to be more in vogue right now.
-
The KKK these days are little more than a remnant of their old past, no? old klansmen might get together in their uniforms and burn crosses etc. but I've not heard about them lynching any blacks lately (lately being said with some irony, since AFAIK it is a long time since they did so. all the Klan-oriented fuss I've heard since...well since historical times, is people bitching about the KKK sponsoring sections of US highway to keep clean.) They don't seem much to be a modern-day threat,
White nationalism seems to be more in vogue right now.
Why because of one or two marches? How many violent confrontations with groups like BLM and Antifa in the last 12 months?
-
What are the BLM and Antifa?
-
Democracy at its finest.
Meh, domestic twrrorists have forfeited by their very actions certain freedoms. Like the responsibility/right one may have to own and drive a car. Most people do the right thing. But if ones completely disregards the rules and legislationconcerned with how they mustaddtess this right, they forfeit the benefits as they have not thr respect or responsibility.
Democracy is not ultimate freedom/anarchy.
Didn't say it was, but this particular case had very little to do with democracy or things like equal rights. No wonder the state has never attempted to enforce it, it would have been thrown out faster you can say "travel ban".
Looking it up, it seems it was declared as unconstitutional at least once.
-
Outlawing the communist party is in conflict with freedom of association.
No it isn't. The communist party has the stated goal of destroying the US government.
You can't assemble for that reason any more than you san shout fire in a crowded theater.
-
The KKK these days are little more than a remnant of their old past, no? old klansmen might get together in their uniforms and burn crosses etc. but I've not heard about them lynching any blacks lately (lately being said with some irony, since AFAIK it is a long time since they did so. all the Klan-oriented fuss I've heard since...well since historical times, is people bitching about the KKK sponsoring sections of US highway to keep clean.) They don't seem much to be a modern-day threat,
:indeed:
-
Democracy at its finest.
The thing you don't seem to understand about the US constitution and laws is that we look at all the fucking horrible mistakes that Europe makes, and we LEARN from them.
We saw how the Nazis used democracy against itself and we rightfully decided that we didn't want that happening here.
In our case the communists were the real threat because the American Nazi party imploded in the late 1930's.
-
It makes all the difference HOW they intend upon the destruction of the US govt.
If it is by political mean, or at least, non-violent means of doing so then I see no reason they ought to be prevented from making the attempt. Provided they do not resort to employing violence or coercion then IMO they have the right to try. I don't see them getting very far, and quite obviously the US government is going to resist. But on both sides, provided the absence of violence the it is in the interests of democracy for groups to be able to attempt to turn hearts and minds and to bring down a government if they were capable of gathering sufficient followers for their cause to have that degree of capability.
On some level, this ought to serve as safeguard against tyrants, with such attempted non-religious, thinking (whether or not poorly, this is irrelevant, if they do not do so sufficiently well to begin with then they are going to fail) movements of course failing if they lack justification enough for their cause to pick up sufficient momentum to succeed. It strike me, that by simply resorting to declaring such movements outlaws, this is cowardice and demonstrates that the government of the US, or anywhere else in a similar situation that they lack the scrap of spine needed to turn and face their accusers down.
Do I give a damn about the communist party ? no, I really don't. But the underlying principle I outlined above, yes,
-
^^^ Do you eve read the crap you write??
You thinks it's ok for undemocratic forces to use democracy against itself to bring it down and replace it with totalitarianism??
I hope you like living in a Gulag, or the taste of Arab cock as you bow down to Mecca 5 times a day.
-
Outlawing the communist party is in conflict with freedom of association.
No it isn't. The communist party has the stated goal of destroying the US government.
You can't assemble for that reason any more than you san shout fire in a crowded theater.
Actually they can assemble and they do. It reads like fluff. 'The communist party should be outlawed'? What the crap is that? Thanks for the advice code 842. Seems more like a scare tactic to keep the labor unions under thumb at the time.
-
It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
-
It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.
-
It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.
Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??
It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.
Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
-
It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.
Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??
It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.
Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
-
Whilst it might be able to work if everybody genuinely believed in the ideals touted by communism and actually did proceed accordingly, IRL it just isn't going to happen, and it will indeed poison any society it infects; because the problem is that even if 98% of those partaking of a benevolent ideology, do follow it faithfully and conduct themselves well, it only takes that 2% where there is a power structure, to be the ones who will make it a priority to worm their filthy ways into it and burrow in like a tick, sucking from the lifeblood of a nation and defaecating lies, propaganda and the germs of greed and hunger for power into the wound.
And it always the worst of the lot that head straight for the places of power, or 'behind the throne' if a decent human being does get into power, trying to sway them, because power is a corrupting influence when most get a taste of too much, and even more, it attracts those who are already corrupt more than it does the human being; IMO thus artificially resulting in the power base of a govt being enriched in power-hungry. freedom hating filth with despotic ambitions, since the positions and posts suited to such things attract the bad apples more strongly than they do the good.
IMO the government of this country cannot be saved, the disease is too entrenched and the only thing to be done is to cut it out like a cancer and after treating the left behind remnant which would in time grow strong again and result in another infestation, replace it with an entirely new, minimalist government, on the lines of having sufficient to run the infrastructure of the country, things like public roads, fire response, NHS, and defense of the country on the international scale, as well as of course, keeping out the bath-dodging koran-smoochers, and do what can be done to further attract trade over and above what we already are (as opposed to arguing over it, in cases such as leaving the EU to wallow in its own corruption, and there being all sorts of utterly moronic disputes about 'whether britain should be 'allowed' to freely trade with the EU mainland, spoken as if doing any other thing than not standing in the way of peoples's trading is something for which there even ever COULD legitimately or sensibly be done, as though NOT 'permitting' such freedom of trade was something which should be tolerated rather than dismissed out of hand as wrong, and as the purely bureaucratic wrongheaded garbage such policies must by their nature be)
A very liberal, progressive model of as close to an anarchy as is practical; featuring a bare-bones governmental infrastructure, just enough to maintain the functioning of the countries vital parts, such as electricity generation and distribution, accountable to the people, run by the people and for the people. And the complete abandonment of any pursuit of any man for a victimless 'crime', because without a victim there can be no crime perpetrated. Those already punished i n some way for a victimless 'crime' retroactively and universally freed, if incarcerated and compensated whether or not incarcerated.
-
Did you doze off in that big text gap right there? :zoinks:
-
Democracy at its finest.
The thing you don't seem to understand about the US constitution and laws is that we look at all the fucking horrible mistakes that Europe makes, and we LEARN from them.
We saw how the Nazis used democracy against itself and we rightfully decided that we didn't want that happening here.
In our case the communists were the real threat because the American Nazi party imploded in the late 1930's.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/823560365141327872/hrUZF-vD_400x400.jpg)
-
No, well possibly but that isn't the reason its there, been having whitespace like that appear in other posts elsewhere too.
-
Do "we" think that President Trump is somewhat congruent to Nazis?
I would like to explore the evidence. please.
-
I would not make quite such a direct comparison. Trump doesn't have the same degree of appreciation for liberty, freedom and respect for people's rights.
At least hitler REALIZED what he was up to would be perceived negatively if discovered and thus made attempts to hide his deeds. Trump either doesn't give even that size of a shit, or he is simply too stupid to comprehend it, because he is, quite simply (and quite simple) a fucking cretin.
-
It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.
Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??
It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.
Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.
-
It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.
Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??
It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.
Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.
Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.
Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
-
Do "we" think that President Trump is somewhat congruent to Nazis?
I would like to explore the evidence. please.
My reference was to Scrappy's comments about learning from Europe's 'horrible mistakes'. Scrap, as usual, is self-contradictory and full of shit.
-
It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.
Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??
It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.
Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.
Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.
Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
Taking over Atheist communities, Gaming,.....
-
It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.
Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??
It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.
Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.
Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.
Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.
-
It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.
Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??
It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.
Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.
Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.
Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.
I don't think you are completely wrong BUT you are not completely right either.
"Progressives" and "Progressive Liberals" are the cultural Marxists or the Neo-Marxists that scrap was talking about and they sure as Hell want to restrict freedoms and push a Marxist agenda, whether they realise it as such or not.
However, you are right Liberals are not necessarily Progressives.
I do feel though that generally when Liberals DO identify "Progressives" and the "Progressive agenda" that enable if not support these efforts. Bill Maher to an extent, Joe Rogan, Bill Burr, and Dave Rubin are examples of what I would call True Liberals. They are prepared to hold actual Liberal rather than Leftist views and call out Progressive BS. They do the same with Conservative viewpoints. They are honest and not following the collective. They are prepared to critique objectionable viewpoints and defend their own and allow for difference.
Progressives do not. They are trying to whittle down society, cultural and freedoms by any means, fair or foul, and for the greater progressive vision. They are the great dividers. Death of a thousand cuts.
-
It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.
Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??
It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.
Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.
Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.
Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.
I don't think you are completely wrong BUT you are not completely right either.
"Progressives" and "Progressive Liberals" are the cultural Marxists or the Neo-Marxists that scrap was talking about and they sure as Hell want to restrict freedoms and push a Marxist agenda, whether they realise it as such or not.
However, you are right Liberals are not necessarily Progressives.
I do feel though that generally when Liberals DO identify "Progressives" and the "Progressive agenda" that enable if not support these efforts. Bill Maher to an extent, Joe Rogan, Bill Burr, and Dave Rubin are examples of what I would call True Liberals. They are prepared to hold actual Liberal rather than Leftist views and call out Progressive BS. They do the same with Conservative viewpoints. They are honest and not following the collective. They are prepared to critique objectionable viewpoints and defend their own and allow for difference.
Progressives do not. They are trying to whittle down society, cultural and freedoms by any means, fair or foul, and for the greater progressive vision. They are the great dividers. Death of a thousand cuts.
That's the thing about the left and right; they both have extremes, and both sides have some level of believing the other side is poisoning society with their sociological ideals. The left has always shared social philosophies with socialism, but from the standpoint of political ideology calling the far left marxists is no more meaningful than calling the far right fascists. Though suggesting the government step in as an oppositional force against the ideals of the left is indeed a fascist idea.
-
It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.
Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??
It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.
Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.
Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.
Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.
I don't think you are completely wrong BUT you are not completely right either.
"Progressives" and "Progressive Liberals" are the cultural Marxists or the Neo-Marxists that scrap was talking about and they sure as Hell want to restrict freedoms and push a Marxist agenda, whether they realise it as such or not.
However, you are right Liberals are not necessarily Progressives.
I do feel though that generally when Liberals DO identify "Progressives" and the "Progressive agenda" that enable if not support these efforts. Bill Maher to an extent, Joe Rogan, Bill Burr, and Dave Rubin are examples of what I would call True Liberals. They are prepared to hold actual Liberal rather than Leftist views and call out Progressive BS. They do the same with Conservative viewpoints. They are honest and not following the collective. They are prepared to critique objectionable viewpoints and defend their own and allow for difference.
Progressives do not. They are trying to whittle down society, cultural and freedoms by any means, fair or foul, and for the greater progressive vision. They are the great dividers. Death of a thousand cuts.
That's the thing about the left and right; they both have extremes, and both sides have some level of believing the other side is poisoning society with their sociological ideals. The left has always shared social philosophies with socialism, but from the standpoint of political ideology calling the far left marxists is no more meaningful than calling the far right fascists. Though suggesting the government step in as an oppositional force against the ideals of the left is indeed a fascist idea.
I disagree. The right when given a lot of power suppresses in a different way. They become Religious authoritarians and push hard traditional values. I do not think that the "Far Right" is a natural extension of Right Wingers. I think that the Liberals are slightly different. My thinking is this. I mentioned the kind of Liberals I admire and like and see myself as within their political wheelhouse. Being able to look at less restrictive ideas and debate and entertain new perspectives and ideas. Being open-minded and accepting. But whilst this is great, imagine you have people who say "I am wanting to distance myself from the restricted and traditional approaches to society and culture and encourage more diverse and open ideas..." being embraced and then those people go all "....but if you do not embrace all of my new and innovative and diverse ideas then I will threaten, marginalise, doxx, humiliate, fire you"
In short, I see the road from moderate conservative to restrictive Religious Authoritarian zealot, and from moderate Liberal to Progressive zealot as being simply dialling up the ideology (and no I do not see either extreme as better). What I do not see is the NeoNazi fascist as being the natural extension of the Right winger.
I will be even more frank, I think that the mainstream conservatives are far more reasonable than the mainstream Liberals BECAUSE of two things. Firstly, I think Progressives have infested the Left and the moderate Liberal is being brainwashed or duped by the authoritarians OR they are bullied from dissent. Secondly, the Right is very reasonable by and large precisely BECAUSE they are not that empowered despite the Presidency. They very nice and reasonable for now. They are fighting hard against the Liberally driven establishment. They need allies. Once they get the power they will not need to be reasonable and nice and will start becoming the Religious Right again.
The moderate Liberal being checked by a moderate conservative is best.
-
This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.
But carry on, children.
-
This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.
But carry on, children.
Something I said?
-
It has nothing to do with labor unions.
FFS, have you ever read a history book?? Communism destroys every society that it gets ahold of.
Venezuela is the latest victim.
Not touting communism. It's one thing for the US government to acknowledge certain domestic groups as enemies of the state, which it does. Though it's a different matter to criminalize the existence of the group or the association to them.
Can you name a single case of communist parties sharing power in a peaceful way in a parliament or other elected body??
It's an ideology that has all the answers, therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else or share power.
Marxism is a social/political virus that is 100% fatal to society, if you don't kill it, it will kill you, quite literally in many cases.
Again, not touting communism. Communism played a key role in the organization of labor unions which were peaking in membership and picketing like mad at the time of this code. It's so broadly scoped it reads like an idea rather than legistation. Still there's nothing in it that wasn't secured by the Taft Hartley act almost ten years earlier.
Did I kill the conversation? Am probably purposely being annoying, because it's possible for a person to both agree and disagree with something based on practice vs principle. It's annoying anyone would agree with this in principle today. The communist foothold in the US during the 50's was firmly planted in the labor unions and this code granted the government the power to force communist leadership out of unionized groups. At the time, considering a third of US citizens were unionized, in practice that may have been very important. It's not anymore, so right now the principle wins. It's unconstitutional and there's currently no reason to deny the rights of the whole, when there's other laws in place to deal with those who forfeit their rights as individuals.
Although communists were involved with labor unions they didn't necessarily play a key role. Entryism is a prime tactic of communists, they infiltrate an organization that is tangentially related to their goals then they corrupt the organization to their ends. Many in government were aware of this, hence provisions of the Taft Hartley act and these laws.
Today, with the rise of ANTIFA and other neo-Marxist organizations, I think the laws become relevant again. We need a bulwark to protect ourselves from this threat that has already taken over the humanities departments of most major universities. I'd like to see these laws used to purge the American universities of neo-Marxist teachings. On the surface this might seem anti-first amendment but in practice it's the opposite since it's ANTIFA is the one trying to shut down free speech on college campuses.
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.
I don't think you are completely wrong BUT you are not completely right either.
"Progressives" and "Progressive Liberals" are the cultural Marxists or the Neo-Marxists that scrap was talking about and they sure as Hell want to restrict freedoms and push a Marxist agenda, whether they realise it as such or not.
However, you are right Liberals are not necessarily Progressives.
I do feel though that generally when Liberals DO identify "Progressives" and the "Progressive agenda" that enable if not support these efforts. Bill Maher to an extent, Joe Rogan, Bill Burr, and Dave Rubin are examples of what I would call True Liberals. They are prepared to hold actual Liberal rather than Leftist views and call out Progressive BS. They do the same with Conservative viewpoints. They are honest and not following the collective. They are prepared to critique objectionable viewpoints and defend their own and allow for difference.
Progressives do not. They are trying to whittle down society, cultural and freedoms by any means, fair or foul, and for the greater progressive vision. They are the great dividers. Death of a thousand cuts.
That's the thing about the left and right; they both have extremes, and both sides have some level of believing the other side is poisoning society with their sociological ideals. The left has always shared social philosophies with socialism, but from the standpoint of political ideology calling the far left marxists is no more meaningful than calling the far right fascists. Though suggesting the government step in as an oppositional force against the ideals of the left is indeed a fascist idea.
I disagree. The right when given a lot of power suppresses in a different way. They become Religious authoritarians and push hard traditional values. I do not think that the "Far Right" is a natural extension of Right Wingers. I think that the Liberals are slightly different. My thinking is this. I mentioned the kind of Liberals I admire and like and see myself as within their political wheelhouse. Being able to look at less restrictive ideas and debate and entertain new perspectives and ideas. Being open-minded and accepting. But whilst this is great, imagine you have people who say "I am wanting to distance myself from the restricted and traditional approaches to society and culture and encourage more diverse and open ideas..." being embraced and then those people go all "....but if you do not embrace all of my new and innovative and diverse ideas then I will threaten, marginalise, doxx, humiliate, fire you"
In short, I see the road from moderate conservative to restrictive Religious Authoritarian zealot, and from moderate Liberal to Progressive zealot as being simply dialling up the ideology (and no I do not see either extreme as better). What I do not see is the NeoNazi fascist as being the natural extension of the Right winger.
I will be even more frank, I think that the mainstream conservatives are far more reasonable than the mainstream Liberals BECAUSE of two things. Firstly, I think Progressives have infested the Left and the moderate Liberal is being brainwashed or duped by the authoritarians OR they are bullied from dissent. Secondly, the Right is very reasonable by and large precisely BECAUSE they are not that empowered despite the Presidency. They very nice and reasonable for now. They are fighting hard against the Liberally driven establishment. They need allies. Once they get the power they will not need to be reasonable and nice and will start becoming the Religious Right again.
The moderate Liberal being checked by a moderate conservative is best.
Fully agree with the last sentence. While not perfect, the US is functional due to a mixture of socialist and capitalist infrastructure, and that's because both the right and left are allowed a voice in the needs of society. Sometimes that causes conflict, but the democratic process isn't under attack by the left. For the government to be allowed to criminalize the existence of or association to either left or right wing originations would more likely be an attack on the democratic process, because it could be the beginnings of a single party system.
-
It is like those that thumb their noses and jeer at anything religious. People should acknowledge that much of what we get frmo culture, whether we believe or not was built on the foundations of faith based religion. Sure there were wars and various persecutions but also a lot of the art and literature and laws and such things that bind the society. So it ought to at the least have a respectful place at the table of cultural and societal changes.
What I am saying is that points of view should have a place at the table and no one system or ideology is perfect.
For example, I think gay people should have the right to marry if they want. However, that does not mean that I think that religious people should be forced to marry gay people. It is not a zero sum game. Giving a right or privilege should NOT be at the expense of another. I think that society and culture should work like that and any one side or one ideology getting everything they want successively is a problem and so is the refusal to even entertain another side.
-
This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.
But carry on, children.
Something I said?
Was thinking about some of Al's comments, mostly.
-
This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.
But carry on, children.
Something I said?
Was thinking about some of Al's comments, mostly.
:dunno:
-
This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.
But carry on, children.
Something I said?
Was thinking about some of Al's comments, mostly.
Children is plural, so it understandable how that could be construed when blasted into the wind of a discussion. This has been a good conversation. Neo-Marxist and neo-facists are terms used for far left and far right ideologies, and while I took the position of nullifying the meaning of these terms, that doesn't necessarily negate the existence of the terms, their meanings or usage. Sir_Les seems to have taken a middle ground on the topic. Kek has expressed a legitimate concern and suggested a solution. While taking the stance against this solution, I've also offered no alternate solution because I can't think of one.
-
While universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, it's been a common perception those restrictions should be kept to a minimum beyond the restrictions of the law. Freedom of thought and expression is necessary to the environment of higher learning, to foster peaceful intelligent debate, for the sharing and advancement of knowledge and ideas. This cannot happen without the competition of ideas. For university administrators to placate a small subset of the student population who are intolerant of oppositional views, may possibly promote some level of harmony, but its a valid question to ask at what price.
-
This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.
But carry on, children.
Something I said?
Was thinking about some of Al's comments, mostly.
Children is plural, so it understandable how that could be construed when blasted into the wind of a discussion. This has been a good conversation. Neo-Marxist and neo-facists are terms used for far left and far right ideologies, and while I took the position of nullifying the meaning of these terms, that doesn't necessarily negate the existence of the terms, their meanings or usage. Sir_Les seems to have taken a middle ground on the topic. Kek has expressed a legitimate concern and suggested a solution. While taking the stance against this solution, I've also offered no alternate solution because I can't think of one.
Doesn't change my perception that the labels rather than the ideologies were being discussed.
-
This discussion appears to be about labels, not the actual ideologies.
But carry on, children.
Something I said?
Was thinking about some of Al's comments, mostly.
Children is plural, so it understandable how that could be construed when blasted into the wind of a discussion. This has been a good conversation. Neo-Marxist and neo-facists are terms used for far left and far right ideologies, and while I took the position of nullifying the meaning of these terms, that doesn't necessarily negate the existence of the terms, their meanings or usage. Sir_Les seems to have taken a middle ground on the topic. Kek has expressed a legitimate concern and suggested a solution. While taking the stance against this solution, I've also offered no alternate solution because I can't think of one.
Doesn't change my perception that the labels rather than the ideologies were being discussed.
Wasn't trying to contradict that perception, but rather confirming that yes I was in fact discussing the labels as part of my contribution to this topic.
-
What do you think about this, Kek? There's been a few threads and videos posted about free speech on campuses. Am not really knowledgeable or invested it in the topic, so have been operating under an assumption similar to your views. That assumption is, a small faction of sensitive people are demanding someone else to protect them from controversial viewpoints, they're squeaky wheels getting grease and possibly influential due to the support of outside organized forces. Working on the assumption these are outliers and not very representative of the whole, it made me wonder what is happening with the voice of the majority and if they have organized support. While there does appear to be organizations competing for free speech on campus, this article suggest this is a fairly evenly divided topic, it's not a left against right issue at all, but rather the mentality of today's young adults who don't even know what their rights are in the first place.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
-
Can somebody please explain what this ANTIFA is/who they are and what they are about/it is about?
-
Here you go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
And some history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion
-
Can somebody please explain what this ANTIFA is/who they are and what they are about/it is about?
They claim to be anti-fascists but are nothing more than a gagglefuck of pathetic street thugs who only attack others when they outnumber them at least 4 to 1.
They will attack anyone to the right of Jane Fonda, which is to say. the majority of people in a civilized country.
Oh, they are basically neo-Marxist "anarchists" who live in their mothers basement and engage in LARPing mostly because they're bored.
-
Whilst it might be able to work if everybody genuinely believed in the ideals touted by communism and actually did proceed accordingly, IRL it just isn't going to happen, and it will indeed poison any society it infects; because the problem is that even if 98% of those partaking of a benevolent ideology, do follow it faithfully and conduct themselves well, it only takes that 2% where there is a power structure, to be the ones who will make it a priority to worm their filthy ways into it and burrow in like a tick, sucking from the lifeblood of a nation and defaecating lies, propaganda and the germs of greed and hunger for power into the wound.
Actually, no, it's the philosophy itself that is poisonous.
Communism is founded on the ugliest of human emotions, resentment.
The basic idea is if that one person has more than another, it's because they got it through nefarious means, rather that through hard work and being smart with money.
This is how it destroys the society, by chopping down anyone who dares to be successful and rewarding those who contribute nothing to society.
The only people who end up winning are the political class, just like the pigs in Animal Farm and every other case of communism, like ever.
-
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.
Most US universities are public with Federal funding.
-
For university administrators to placate a small subset of the student population who are intolerant of oppositional views, may possibly promote some level of harmony, but its a valid question to ask at what price.
The question isn't worded right. basically, universities are allowing a small subset to bully the rest of the student population.
At what price?? the answer is that no price is worth catering to mentally ill bullies, simply beat down the bullies.
-
Doesn't change my perception that the labels rather than the ideologies were being discussed.
Nothing changes your perceptions, because in your mind, you're the smartest person in the universe. :tard:
-
What do you think about this, Kek? There's been a few threads and videos posted about free speech on campuses. Am not really knowledgeable or invested it in the topic, so have been operating under an assumption similar to your views. That assumption is, a small faction of sensitive people are demanding someone else to protect them from controversial viewpoints, they're squeaky wheels getting grease and possibly influential due to the support of outside organized forces. Working on the assumption these are outliers and not very representative of the whole, it made me wonder what is happening with the voice of the majority and if they have organized support. While there does appear to be organizations competing for free speech on campus, this article suggest this is a fairly evenly divided topic, it's not a left against right issue at all, but rather the mentality of today's young adults who don't even know what their rights are in the first place.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
This is the harbinger of the fall of western civilization.
If this is implemented in society at large, speech crimes and thought crimes will become the norm.
-
The laws aren't relevant because they're designed to protect government structure and liberals aren't really communists out to take down the democratic process. Private universities have the right to restrict freedom of speech, just like any private workplace or establishment. People's constitutional right to free speech applies to when the government is trying to restrict it, and that's what being suggested.
Most US universities are public with Federal funding.
Thanks for mentioning that. The federal funding is a valid point. Other than research grants, the majority of government funding to universities is indirect through channels of student funding. Though for the point of direct funding, universities already have to comply to certain standards to receive funding, so if the government wanted to include free speech standards among the qualifications, they could do that and it wouldn't be unconstitutional, or a government attack on anyone, or criminalizing anything. This is a viable and reasonable alternate solution to the implementation of code 842. Problem solved. Now if only someone would elect me. :laugh:
-
For university administrators to placate a small subset of the student population who are intolerant of oppositional views, may possibly promote some level of harmony, but its a valid question to ask at what price.
The question isn't worded right. basically, universities are allowing a small subset to bully the rest of the student population.
At what price?? the answer is that no price is worth catering to mentally ill bullies, simply beat down the bullies.
Though it may not be a small subset. The article I posted shows it could be about half the student population with seemingly no real political influence. The article made a good point that students act as their own arbiters for free speech, and speech is being restricted because that's what a lot of them want. It may not be related to politics at all, but rather a reflection on the public schools system. Young adults today were raised in the environment of zero tolerance in schools, where anything considered to be disruption to teaching and learning can be harshly punished with no consideration to circumstances. They've been lorded into submission in the name of harmony and their own good, so it's could explain why many may view their educators as having a responsibility to supress controversy. It may also explain why many might have the mentality that everyone should shut up and play nice, and if they don't then that's their ass.
-
I suppose it depends on the view of the individual communist. And how they themselves would reason it were they the administrator at top-level of organization. Myself, I wouldn't have thought of that, its quite an alien idea to my ways of thinking. Not now you point it out, its understandable enough, but certainly, not innate. Not, that I call myself a communist. It doesn't work, due to the fact that it only takes one or two bad applies in the entire country-size barrel for everybody bar a handful of self-enriching corrupt bastardlyshytes to go fuck themselves and starve in order to fatten the wallets of said 'elite' handful of greedy gobshites.
-
I suppose it depends on the view of the individual communist.
One of the core principles of communism is the statement by Carl Marx: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Do you see the inherent problem with any system based on this principle? In order to derive the maximum benefit from such a society, you have to have the least ability and the greatest needs. This is anti-meritocracy, it rewards the least fit while punishing the most fit. This is why all communist based political systems fail, it creates a dysfunctional hierarchy.
Not, that I call myself a communist. It doesn't work, due to the fact that it only takes one or two bad applies in the entire country-size barrel for everybody bar a handful of self-enriching corrupt bastardlyshytes to go fuck themselves and starve in order to fatten the wallets of said 'elite' handful of greedy gobshites.
It's also the institutional greed from the bottom up that collapses the system, for the reasons just stated. The elites who run the system also operate by a different set of rules since all communist systems create a "priest" class of educated overlords. In reality, it's impossible to eliminate the natural hierarchies of the strongest liars.