Are Republicans Preparing to Militarize?
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
And I have been over this: that is not an answer, that is an extended bowl movement. "Yes" or "No", should we punch Nazis?
You mean like that scene at the end of Stalker where Monkey slides the drinking glasses across the table? Though it probably wasn't all that extended--just my weird memory of it. Just as the Bach chorale prelude in Solaris was not, in fact, played very slowy (more largo than larghetto)--again, just my screwy memory of it.
#StartMakingSense.
Again, I have already answered that question↗. Now, get your head out and stop being so damn lazy.
OK, here's the version from Solaris:
~70 bpm, or thereabouts--as are most versions. I submit, however, that one can take that down to about 60 bpm and it sounds pretty awesome. In fact, that's how I play it, with my own Satiean instructions to "play langorously" and to specifically play the trills "somewhat sloppily."
But back to ElectricFetus's wacky thesis on incentivizing wingnuts to act violently...
Edit: Oh, and his unhealthy obsession with "making Tiassa pay," or whatever it is that he's on about.
~70 bpm, or thereabouts--as are most versions. I submit, however, that one can take that down to about 60 bpm and it sounds pretty awesome. In fact, that's how I play it, with my own Satiean instructions to "play langorously" and to specifically play the trills "somewhat sloppily."
But back to ElectricFetus's wacky thesis on incentivizing wingnuts to act violently...
Edit: Oh, and his unhealthy obsession with "making Tiassa pay," or whatever it is that he's on about.
How the fuck is a "yes" or "no" answer to the question of "should we punk nazis" no making sense to you?
And I have read previous post of your repeatedly, it does not answer my question. Again "yes" or "no" not several paragraphs of sophistry.
The fact that you think an ethical question like that can be distilled down to a one word answer is... well, honestly, rather terrifying.
Tiassa already answered your question - you just don't like his answer.
So now we're in Ashton Kutcher territory? Really!?
What is wrong with you? Do you really think, given the scant context of the query, that a simple "yes" or "no" is sufficient? Even with context aplenty, "yes" or "no" wouldn't be sufficient. Frankly, I was astonished by how many were satisfied with a simple negative response--no acknowledgement for the fighting words doctrine (for which there is, in fact, legal context)? Hate speech? Disturbing the peace? And on that last one, I strongly recommend David Graeber's The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy <<< . He doesn't specifically address "fighting words" (or he hasn't yet--I'm only half-way through), but rather the threat of violence as undercurrent in "rules" territory.
And stop misusing "sophistry"--it's only slightly less annoying than "classicism." For the umpteenth time: it's classism, unless you're talking aesthetics.
#AryanNationalSnowflakeArmy | #WhatTheyVotedFor
Click because we've been there, done that.
It's not. Why are you changing criteria?
What, now Nazis are too delicate to punk?
What are they, Aryan National Snowflakes?
Alright, then.
From the post in question↗:
▸ I believe in human rights, so you don't go clocking Nazis just for playing dress-up and making themselves known.
So, yeah. Really, ElectricFetus, I don't care what you think your excuse is; you don't have one. The tragedy here is that you waste such effort making all that noise just to say precisely nothing.
Not an answer, completely avoids the point.
and then you go on a rant minimizing it: just as you question my egalitarianism, I will question your pacifism, do you get it yet? You ask why the conservatives are militarizing, answer: because people like you feed the trolls.
Kittamaru & parmalee,
There is context to the question that your intentional ignoring. It is not any random Nazi in any random situation, it is any person you believe is a Nazi out on the street minding his business, getting clocked in the face in front of cameras to be used a propaganda against us.
The election of trump and the republicans to full power can't be responded by with violence, riots and sky is falling hysteria, that is precisely what the conservatives want, they want a race war, they want all the liberals lined up on the street. So do me a favor and join your local democratic party, political action group, make calls, write letters to congress, make specific liberal demands like single payer healthcare, praise taxes on the rich, tax high-frequency stock trades, independent citizen counsels and prosecutors from police corruption and brutality, etc, etc, get active in the way they don't want, instead of just bitching, having a tempertarum or worse getting violent. They laugh at your bitching, they practically jerk off to liberal tantrums and they dream of the day they can righteously shoot liberals in defense of America, so why are so many obliging them?
Last edited:
And as Tiassa already responded - no, you do not have the right to go around randomly punching people you believe to be Nazi's in the face. That was rather clear in his post - I personally refuse to believe you are not intelligent enough to have figured that out by yourself, thus, you are trolling.
As to violence - I wholeheartedly hope this fucked up situation can be resolved without violence... but too many times, we have seen people remain peaceful and allow terrible people consolidate enough power that ANY sort of resistance becomes suicidal at best - I only hope that if it comes that far, that our men and women in uniform will uphold their oath to protect and serve the United States and the Constitution upon which it was founded, NOT the president (since they do not, in fact, swear a oath to the president)
Yeah yeah and also who cares about punching nazis anyways, it is totally a non-issue... that is summery I got of Tiassa blathering. Well it is a problem because it gets conservatives more votes, it stimulates their dream of using their penis enhancers, etc.
If that is what you honestly read from Tiassa's post... then I'm not sure what help there is for you.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
The Bonus Army was not communist, or youthful, or collegiate, or waving bike locks around, or in any similar way resembling the current Antifa crowd, as you claimed. Your attempted lumping was nonsense.
Unlike you, I don't allow my terms to be defined and issues framed by the paid propagandists of the American authoritarian corporate right. It interferes with making sense.
Every so often we get a look behind the curtain.
American Republican fascist politicians aren't particularly tough, or brave. The closest W&Cheney ever got to an act of martial or physical courage was clicking on HotMilitaryStud.com for some buddy time. They're cowards, mostly, wimpy freaks who talk a good game but fold when it counts, dough-assed Bannons who go around calling people "cucks" to get even for what happened to them in high school. Why would anyone sign on with Trump except to suck up to the big bully? John Goodman with a bowling ball would have no problem with them.
Well then rephrase your argument. If not then we have nothing more to talk about here.
Tell that to the republicans in 1929.
And that has to do with the Bonus Army how?
A fine theory, not sure I want to see it test... no frankly I do want to see it tested: let Antifa attack the "American Republican fascist" to test their resolve, if they are as weak as you say it would be a joy to see it, if instead they level antifa, well maybe some good will come of that (I say) and maybe not (you say), but none the less a worthwhile experiment, all we need is someone stupid enough to punch nazis.
So your saying the "propagandists of the American authoritarian corporate right" want me to believe the republicans of 1929 were foolish enough to think the Bonus Army were communist?
Is this some Elders of Zion 4D chess move shit?
Well...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
http://www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/1930-1939/1-hoover/2-bonusarmy/
http://www.historynet.com/the-bonus-army-war-in-washington.htm
and
It would seem that there were plenty of people who were happy to label the Bonus Army as communist, and that the actual Communist party was contentedly stirring the shitpot to cause as much trouble as they could.
That said:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=23227
-Emphasis mine.
So, it would seem to me anyway, that the "Bonus Army" was not, in fact, communist - however, once the majority of the peaceful protest elements of the group went home after Congress adjourned, the remaining elements were whipped to frenzied rioting by C. B. Cowan and John T. Pace of the Communist Party.
Is that a fair assessment?
Yeah, no shit. There clearly a miss communication problem here. I never said they were communist, only that republican labeled them as such, much to their defeat in the election, which iceaura implies can't happen, that a bunch of conservatives can blow away a buntch of people (labeled as communist by them, or perhaps really were communist, doesn't matter) and not lose at the ballot box as a result or as a added factor (obviously the great depression was Hoovers biggiest problems, none the less this massacure is cited as an added factor in reducing Hoover and the republican parties approval).