Archinect
anchor

Politics Central

2183
x-jla

anarchist jurisdiction sounds like a good band name



Sep 21, 20 10:20 pm  · 
3  · 
randomised

Something like that, below. Would look good on a t-shirt, could make a killing selling those...

 · 
randomised


.

Sep 22, 20 2:27 am  · 
5  · 
citizen

I saw them back in '85. During the show I lost two teeth and a pint of blood, but got a great t-shirt (see above) and a hemp codpiece. So it worked out.

3  · 
gwharton

It's all fun and games until local political corruption and incompetence cause the federal government to cease all funding in your city.

Sep 22, 20 11:14 am  · 
 ·  2
SneakyPete

It's all fun and games until federal political corruption and incompetence enable the feckless executive to cease all funding in your city.

2  · 
x-jla

Maybe everyone should stop paying Their taxes

1  · 
gwharton

It's funny how entitled and privileged the blue bubble elites act, that they think they can just ignore federal law at will and allow their paramilitaries to violate resident civil rights with impunity.

1  ·  1
SneakyPete

It's funny how entitled and privileged the federal thugs act, that they think they can just ignore civil rights law at will and violate resident civil rights with impunity.

1  · 
tduds

Which federal law? Please be specific.

Also please provide examples of civil rights that have been violated and/or the existence of "paramilitaries"

1  · 
curtkram

maybe he's talking about that bundy family that took over a federal park? they're blue bubble elites right?

2  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

I think Judge Smails forgets about States Rights, or is it only when states start restricting the rights of others, then it's "Don't Tread On Me"?

 · 
awaiting_deletion

How does zoning deal with Anarchist use groups?

 · 
tduds

Ammon Bundy did recently align with Black Lives Matter, so...

1  · 
gwharton

Hey b3ta, tell me more about this neoconfederate LARP thing you're into these days.

 · 
tduds

Still waiting on those examples...

3  · 
SneakyPete

Hold your breath. Pro-lifers will definitely want you to live, so examples will appear quickly.

1  · 
tduds

Behind every great woman is a man who cooks dinner.

https://www.vogue.com/article/...

Sep 22, 20 5:39 pm  · 
2  · 
tduds

Image may contain: 1 person, text that says 'He MOVED TO TOWN TO OPEN ICRO-BREWERY AND MARRY ASTRIPPER... He S FICHTING TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUITION! ORTLAND PORTLAND THE ANARCHIST JOREGON: JURISDICTION'

Image may contain: one or more people, text that says 'THEY TOLD HIM TO CUT HIS HAIR. THEY TOLD HIM TO GET A JOB. He MOVED TO PORTLAND INSTEAD. CLEAR EAR PORTLAN THE ANARCHIST ORTLAND REGON: JURISDICTION'

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Image may contain: 2 people, text that says '• EVEN IN AMERICA'S WHITEST CITY, BLACK LIVES MATTER. P POREGON: ORTLAND THE ANARCHIST REGON: JURISDICTION'

Image may contain: one or more people and text

by https://davidfwalker.com/

Sep 23, 20 12:18 am  · 
7  · 
x-jla

Those are great.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

you'll have to dig through the weeds here at archinect, but maybe randomised will remember at least, but I think this david walker hangs-out here, we already suggested such artwork...


1  · 
awaiting_deletion

there was commentary by the Revolutionary Poet that confirms this prediction and the Bundy note above....the workflow here is Archinect invents, people browse it, a certain dumpster fire guy translates all this onto some #chan site (translates because I read they speak a funny language) and then it ends up in the publics pyschy later...just a suggestion.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

yes but then Ancient Shed noted the strange impression Italian Sci-Fi movie makers have of American culture...or wait IS THE USA THAT PREDICTABLE THAT AN ITALIAN WHO GOT OFF AT THE WRONG SUBWAY STOP IN THE BRONX COULD MAKE A MOVE ABOUT PRESENT DAY PORTLAND?!? (see Free Movies thread for this)


1  · 
gwharton

The dream of the 1860s is alive in Portland....

 · 
Non Sequitur

As the holy mother would say: god damn-it those are fucking great!

1  · 
randomised

I remember...those were the days, good times! I even watched little mullet karate kid lookalike being a pseudo tough guy, great YT channel with all sorts of gems!

1  · 
x-jla

Right now ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
I am an anti-Christ
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want
But I know how to get it
I want to destroy the passerby
'Cause I want to be anarchy
No dogs body
Anarchy for the U.K.
It's coming sometime and maybe
I give a wrong time, stop a traffic line
Your future dream has sure been seen through
'Cause I want to be anarchy
In the city
How many ways to get what you want
I use the best, I use the rest
I use the N.M.E.
I use anarchy
'Cause I want to be anarchy
Its the only way to be
Is this the MPLA
Or is this the UDA
Or is this the IRA
I thought it was the U.K.
Or just another country
Another council tenancy
I want to be anarchy
And I want to be anarchy
(Oh what a name)
And I want to be an anarchist
(I get pissed, destroy!)

Sep 23, 20 12:29 am  · 
1  · 
Non Sequitur

thumbs up for sex pistols

 · 
randomised

In true sex pistols fashion, that should be a middle finger!

 · 
awaiting_deletion

start the revolution, or just remain American in a perfectly suitable environment for continuous ineffective revolutions - yay US!

now get back to drafting, revolutions are a weekend kind of thing, doesn't pay the bills.

Sep 23, 20 6:36 am  · 
 · 
x-jla

It’s like 60’s except without the good music! It’s hard to take a revolution seriously without a good sound track.

 · 

I think the modern day revolutions have accomplished quite a bit of positive change. I think you don't see it because it's not directly improving your lives . . .

 · 
tduds

Music is great right now. You just gotta look in the right places.

 · 
x-jla

Like what chad?

 · 

Equality for women, LGBTQ, races other than white, reproductive rights. There is still much work to be done but things are better than just five years ago.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

on music and culture and stuff most of you will like, much deeper than JP....was going to post in music, but will do here -


 · 
awaiting_deletion

where tduds? not on archinect!

 · 
SneakyPete

Will Kentucky be an Anarchist Jurisdiction by Saturday?

Sep 23, 20 1:50 pm  · 
1  · 
gwharton
.
1  · 
awaiting_deletion

Do anarchist tax? I mean if it's tax free like Florida, maybe it's worth planting a flag and a tent there?

 · 

Seattle has no income tax, and Portland has no sales tax.

1  · 

I took some time to read this piece in The Atlantic tonight. Not really sure what to say other than it got me worried about the results of the election. I remember the fight on Florida in 2000, though I was not all that aware of how everything was playing out. The article is speculative (hoping it remains so rather than predictive) but seems well researched and reported. Curious to see if others had read it and have thoughts to share.


The Election That Could Break America

Sep 23, 20 8:36 pm  · 
 · 

No one has any thoughts, or no one has taken the time to read it?

 · 
SneakyPete

Your intro made me want to avoid it. My vote, while guaranteed to be cast, matters little, so getting upset is bad for my general well-being.

1  · 

Everyday: I read it, and I've been in a noticeable panic ever since. And I can tell you that my cohort of midwest middle-aged moms are all in the exact same frame of mind that I am. We're terrified. We're hoping and clinging to the idea that someone, somewhere in power can make this right. I was, however, calmed a bit by this tweet:


2  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

"Facts Matter" - That's SOOOOOO 201X

 · 

Donna, the recent FiveThirtyEight podcast discussed the article for a bit. It was helpful as well. Still a little worried, but less so after listening.

You can listen to it here, or watch and listen to it below:

 · 

I posted the above last night. Then I read the NYT piece on The Donald's taxes, and I'm back to being worried again. Not sure if there is anything he won't try to get 4 more years to figure out a way to make more money off the presidency and get out of his debts.

 · 
gwharton

It's all just media FUD. Complete bullshit from start to finish. Ignore it and you will be much happier with peace of mind.

 · 

What about this one on expanding and packing the Supreme Court ... thoughts? Maybe this is exactly the intent of the article, but I used to think that it would be too radical of an idea to do this ... but he actually makes a good argument that, "Expanding the number of people who sit on the Supreme Court is a normal American solution to a problem that has happened before in our history." Makes it seem more plausible than some of the other ideas I've seen floated like impeaching Kavanaugh or implementing term limits. 

There is Only One Way Out of this Crisis: Expand the Court in The Nation.

Sep 24, 20 4:55 pm  · 
1  · 
citizen

I'll go. I already have the outfit.

 · 
SneakyPete

I could see that backfiring like the erosion of the filibuster which is currently biting us in the ass.

2  · 
citizen

What could possibly go wrong?

1  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

I think it's great idea; like Elie said, they could 100 on the court, it'll only make it more representative of the country. The number is arbitrary, and no document says it needs to be nine.

1  · 
SneakyPete

Until the Republicans take the Senate and the House and the Executive and pack it fullererer and then pass an amendment capping it at that number forevermore. Democrats only back down when going up against Republicans, remember. Their own caucus not so much, so they'll end up losing.

 · 

They'd never get an amendment to cap it. It would never be ratified be enough states (only need 13 blue states to block it). There are 15 states currently under complete Democratic Party control, 19 if you don't care about the Governor (only the legislatures need to ratify it, right?). 

Plus, if the Dems really wanted to play they'd figure out a way to give DC and Puerto Rico statehood, split California into two (or more) states, and combine the Dakotas and the Carolinas to ensure continued control in the Senate (add blue senators, take away red senators). At some point in the game of "judicial appointment" chicken someone will flinch. Until then, let's embrace the absurdity.

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

All that sounds like fun, and all, but what we need to make sure doesn't occur, is this. The last time we found ourselves after the election flat-footed was 2000; we can't let that happen this time. We need to make sure the Dems have a fucking spine.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

/\ problem with being liberal (although beta I commend you for not being the stereotypical liberal, you have balls and a spine).

1  · 
willard whyte speakin

dems, stall at all costs. then biden can nominate obama. his expertise is constitutional law, so he would be a natural justice. that is, if he still wants to work.

now, *claps hands* who wants to talk about religion?

Sep 25, 20 1:32 am  · 
1  · 
randomised

Funny, it was Biden that made those SCOTUS nominations political in ‘87 when he blocked the nomination by Reagan, making it about party politics...This shit show is all thanks to Biden, it will bite the Democrats in the ass, karma is a bitch...

1  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Actually, 

"Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."

"At the close of the hearings, Biden won praise for conducting the proceedings fairly and with good humor and courage, as his 1988 presidential campaign collapsed in the middle of the hearings. Rejecting some of the arguments that other Bork opponents were making, Biden framed his discussion around the belief that the Constitution provides rights to liberty and privacy that extend beyond those explicitly enumerated in the text, and that Bork's strong originalism was ideologically incompatible with that view."

 · 
Volunteer

Congress will be sworn in on January 3, 2021. The Republicians could lose every single seat they hold in the Senate and still confirm Justice Barrett before that date. The Democrats can't stall the proceedings one day much less three months. Justice Barrett is a done deal.

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Yep, and based on everything you said; get ready for 15 Supreme Court Justices.

 · 
randomised
As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Joe Biden presided over Bork's hearing. Biden stated his opposition to Bork soon after the nomination, reversing an approval in an interview of a hypothetical Bork nomination he had made the previous year and angering conservatives who thought he could not conduct the hearings dispassionately.
 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Yeah. You forgot the part where he was running for president at the time, and when he dropped out, he moderated. My point, was to refute the idea that he had something to do with the "borking" of Bork. That was Kennedy. Not Biden. In fact, as you are all too well aware, he was also involved in Thomas as well, so let's ask how that went...

 · 
x-jla

Stacking the courts, adding infinite justices, that is the death of America...IMO, new justices should be selected (maybe) and confirmed by the sitting members of the court.

 ·  1
b3tadine[sutures]

Wait, so "stacking" and adding justices is "Death To America", but subverting The Constitution, with some ham-fisted idiocy, doesn't? Did you even read the damn thing?

 · 
randomised

The dems with Biden “moderating” made the process political, so this is the result...

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Nah. It's funny isn't it, how he was supposed to be a "conservative" and a "liberal" stooge, all within the span of three years...

 · 
awaiting_deletion

again, rando, you know way too much about US politics to be just Dutch. I don't get it?

 · 
randomised

I don’t get it either...I wish I didn’t have to. But since the US is meddling in everything and everywhere I have to know what’s coming this way, the shit you flush ends up here sooner or later, better be prepared :-) I also lived and worked in New Amsterdam for a while and still have friends there.

 · 
x-jla

All know about Amsterdam is that I fell down the stairs at a bar because the stairs are weird their or I was really drunk, hookers, weed, beautiful city, tulip fields....pretty weird that US affairs is so well known around the world. I saw shaman in Peru on tv blessing posters of joe Biden. Guess back in the day everyone was concerned with what was happening in Rome...as they should be...empires

 · 
x-jla

*there

 · 
randomised

Most people here only follow the narrative presented to them by the one direction they lean to, but I like to look at things from more than one angle. And about those stairs, they’re just steep and narrow to keep the Americans out! Kidding, they’re just like that to save space as those old houses like the Amsterdam centre used to be warehouses. Nice article on CityLab about those: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-15/the-history-of-amsterdam-s-canal-houses

 · 
awaiting_deletion

the lawn flare appears now equal.  Biden appears to have better graphics now, but still lacking.  Saw "Trump Country" again today sign and lawns matched...

Sep 25, 20 8:08 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

Lawn sign and bumper sticker people should all move to Florida and rot.

 · 
Volunteer

"Dana Houle, a Democrat activist who was once a chief of staff on Capitol Hill to a Democrat lawmaker, tweeted Friday night that he hopes Barrett is investigated over the children she and her husband adopted from Haiti. “I would love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney Barrett & her husband used to adopt the two children they brought here from Haiti,” Houle wrote."

What class. 

Sep 26, 20 7:52 am  · 
2  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Good. Goose, meet Gander.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

curt, the word in hyperbolic media is democrats traffic, republicans adopt.

1  · 
x-jla

The democrats are completely useless do-nothings...The republicans keep the do-nothings from pressing buttons that they don't understand...That's about it.

 · 
curtkram

straight from Qanon dtl?

2  · 
awaiting_deletion

I've heard of that curt, literally "heard" it it. Not on Facebook, but some people I know are and then occasionally it appears to spill over into main stream media. I just thought it would be interesting to post each parties approach to unwanted children as per popular culture.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

that Q thing, someone showed me some stuff on it, I refuse to mess up my youtube algorithm, even Joe Rogan leads you down a questionable series of video selections, but the video I saw pretty much explains Q as people who question stuff. i.e. are critical of stuff and sometimes unfounded criticism, but in short, just like Jordan Peterson, not sure why everyone is so worked up...actually I am sure, it's called Twitter and Social Media.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

curt, consider this - Qanon (i did some internet research, never heard of this), this Q whatever may just be most of 'merica who doesn't believe the media.

I remember loading feed trucks 25 years ago, trucker blasting Rush Limbaugh talking about how full of shit the left wing media is, 25 years ago...in your part of the woods bruh (midwest).

You understand that no working person believes the Cable and Social media news right? No college frat or sorority kid whose downed a bottle of jack in a night believes the "media" right. You understand that the fly over states are the dumb inbred people of this country!

Amazon.com: John Belushi Animal House Poster Chug Jack Daniels: Prints:  Posters & Prints

For the record marriage between cousins is allowed in California and New York, but in Texas you go to jail.

 Cousin marriage law in the United States - Wikipedia

Who are the inbred monkees of this country? Dumb and honest enough to work hard and go to war for left and right wing beauracrats - the midwest and south.

When you're lied to your entire life you vote - fuck you. so buddy, where is Q really from? China, Russia, or some podunk town in Missouri?

anyway a good college game - 'bama vs mo, on now.

remember this is the internet, nothing is real, and no one cares. and Bill Clinton married an affluent rich lesbian who used his brains to fail in life while he put cigars up interns you know what, went to islands to molest young women, BUT he played a saxophone on Arsenio Hall to be cool with black people. (see how dumb media's narrative is, get it? I doubt it...)

see this is how language works - pretty much everything in last paragraph is 85% right, the word "lesbian" not correct unless Hillary comes out one day and who assumed black people liked Clinton? (15% wrong is a spin on a fealing)


 · 
curtkram

i've given up on media too. i haven't gone complete crazy though. i get my news from astrologers and tarot readers now.

1  · 
awaiting_deletion

correct. same thing.

 · 
SneakyPete

.

 · 
x-jla

Media is owned by a couple big corporations...left narrative -corporations are self serving and evil. Also left narrative- the fake news is a alt right talking point.

1  · 
liberty bell

DTL.DWG is chris teeter, right? And somehow even more forehead-slappingly stupid than I thought? 



Sep 26, 20 4:21 pm  · 
1  · 
awaiting_deletion

Olaf Design Ninja actually, as a mod you should be able to figure that out, non? I googled, there is an architect by that name, does good work. Looks like in the real world rated quite well.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

I now see why you're butt hurt. that one liner above based on populous culture. did you know most of america believes this? I'm in NYC area and am literally 1 click from that dead Epstein dude, did you know he was an asshole, a bad client, and had an island with young women and supposedly a democratic president went there a lot....I hope you understand why popular culture thinks my statement. now slap your head, dear, and understand i'm only reporting to you the cultural facts of your country, dear.

don't be an idiot. don't choose a side.

 ·  1
SneakyPete

Olaf / whatever / Chris utilizes random noise and hubris on the level of Ricky B, but with less interest in learning anything.

1  · 
awaiting_deletion

correct. if it's not about architecture and is based on very limited real world knowledge, you can literally link all the laws everyone is discussing above, I've learned from the master, Ricky - Spam post.

 · 

Wait, I thought Olaf was Chris? Chris/metamechanic could be a huge pain in the ass but smart - but if Olaf/DWG aren't Chris I don't want to drag Chris into it. Since I'm supposedly an all-powerful mod I guess I *could* just hide all of DWG's posts until I figure it out but the truth is I have no way of finding out the real identities of anyone on here. Mods aren't all-powerful.

 · 
randomised

Not sure why one would post someone’s real name here if they never go by that name on the forum. Isn’t that like some kind of unwritten rule or archinect etiquette?

 · 
curtkram

if his posts need to be hidden, hide them. if they don't, then don't. it doesn't matter if he has a different name offline does it?

 · 
Non Sequitur

but DWG likes belgian triples … so that counts right?


2  · 
randomised

curt, that was not my point...

 · 
awaiting_deletion

everyone relax. I haven't bothered reading the terms and conditions for posting on archinect. The mod's may very well be allowed to just put names on accounts and call them out, have you read it? let's say it's slander, spinning a one liner joke that has truth it (yes I know someone who went to Epstein's island a few times and I know high flying democrats, whatever)....point is this - reddit for architecture discussion sucks, twitter for architecture discussions sucks, one of my favorite people to discuss architecture is either banned from archinect or refuses to join, all other design sites are boring in discussion with limited freedoms, and in general left-wing(ish) leaning political sites are much more open to intellectual conversations, so yeah you're going to piss people off here occassionally...lastly, the young left has somehow become puritanical....anyway I'm only allowed Belgium Tripels these days and yes most of what I write here does not reflect it's author. sure I could figure out who everyone is, lives, etc... but who has time for that?

2  · 
square.

what?

 · 
randomised

I'm relaxed :-) just found it odd that a person's real name is being used when that person is not even using that name here any more. When Chad was using b3ta's real name at some point because b3ta was posting under his real name, some people were making a big deal about it. Just thought to bring it up, that's all...

 · 

Because b3ta couldn't keep track of his various accounts and posted in his real name thinking it was his anonymous account. If I recall correctly rando you where on of those who was upset . .

1  · 
randomised

I was not upset, had a very entertaining and lively discussion about naming recipients of pro-bono design work for the entire world to see...to me it felt like publishing a list of recipients of food stamps, which is kind of degrading in my opinion, especially when gender and ethnicity are involved. Still, in my opinion ;-)

 · 

Naw, you got upset about it.

1  · 
awaiting_deletion

it appears this is not music, it's an opinion. my bad, I put it in the wrong thread.

I'll post it here

(remember kids, it isn't us fucking with us, it's them)

Sep 26, 20 8:18 pm  · 
 · 
randomised

Ah yes, opinions, like there are One In A Million of those

1  · 
awaiting_deletion

yeah don't link that G'n'R song, that won't end well.

 · 
tduds

The first two lines of that spoken intro were my dad's voicemail message for years. He thought it was the funniest thing. He wasn't wrong.

2  · 
awaiting_deletion

guessing you dad got it from Cool Hand Luke and not G'n'R (where I first heard it).

 · 
tduds

Yep but he likes both.

1  · 
x-jla

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MPHUu9sAGKo


Sam Harris and John Mcwholter on the new religion of anti racism....fantastic podcast 

Sep 28, 20 4:16 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

Anyone watch this?

 · 
tduds

So who's watching the shitsho- I mean "debate" -  tonight?

Sep 29, 20 2:46 pm  · 
1  · 
x-jla

I’m watching the comedy.

 · 
tduds
randomised

Ted Turner v. Rupert Murdoch

 · 

I'm going watch but turn it into a drinking game. . .

 · 
x-jla

The debate comedy I meant Tduds...

 · 
tduds

Eh I'd recommend the film instead.

 · 
x-jla

You were right, should’ve watched the film instead...

1  · 
x-jla

Take away....trumps not leaving office without a drawn out fight...and Biden’s son is an international criminal and the media has given him a pass...”anyway you look at it you lose...”. Tulsi Gabbard, or Yang could’ve beaten Trump. It was obvious that they were the only candidates that had a chance of pulling votes from the other side...the Dems are fucking stupid beyond comprehension. They deserve to lose, and they played the same bs hand as 2016 with the racism bs...this time around it’s going to stick even less because everyone sees the almost completely one sided unrest and violence from the left, a senile canidate, a completely obnoxious and disingenuous vice candidate...how fucking dumb is the Dem party?

1  ·  1
square.

biden will win in a landslide. the polls have been adjusted to reflect the shortcomings of the 2016 polls. if anything, they might be over compensating in the direction of trump, and everyone is afraid to call it like it is. if you stop going by media bs and look at all of the polls, aka data, across the board, it's very clear that trump is losing, and badly. the only way he will win is by pulling some illegal power grab or the rnc tossing ballots, which imo is all talk.

but you can keep believing the narrative the media is feeding you, which is surprising coming from you.

1  · 
gwharton

I'm old enough that I remember the polls in October 2016 saying Hillary was going to win by a landslide and Trump had almost no chance of winning at all.

 · 
x-jla

You’re believing the bs msm narrative. The polls are garbage, as they were in 2016. We’ll see...

 · 
square.

and i'm old enough to remember that the 2012 election was supposed to be close, and obama won decisively. if you read my post, you would have seen that all the pollsters have heavily adjusted their methods based on 2016. you can choose to ignore the facts of the data, but you're choosing to fall in the same trap people fell for in 2016. seeing these things based on prior assumptions, aka the last election, is nearly certain to be incorrect. currently the narrative is heavily skewed based on the problems of 2016. the data say otherwise.

if you have data to refute this, would love to see it. but everything you're saying is anecdotal.

 · 
tduds

I'm honestly afraid to make predictions, but I'm getting the sense in this thread that jla is so skeptical of the "MSM" narrative that he's disregarding blatant truths because he heard it from them & not someone else (who is also saying it, because it's blatantly true). At some point skepticism becomes self-delusion. Verify information, don't dismiss it.

1  · 
square.

the irony is that he is buying into the "don't believe polls" narrative that is overwhelming popular in the msm. i being a little bullish here, but i think dismissing the polls today based on past errors, while ignoring that the polling being done today is both entirely different and painting a different picture, is ignorant.

1  · 
tduds

Also invoking the 2016 election without also paying attention to the 2017, 2018, and 2019 elections is ignoring large trends in turnout & electorate. The president does not exist in a vacuum.

1  · 
square.

also, gwharton- the polls were not predicting a landslide win electorally in 2016, they were predicting that a clinton win overall was highly likely, which ended up being wrong. most polls from an electoral perspective painted a closer picture than 2012 (336-212 is closer to landslide territory than 302-235, which is roughly what was expected in 2016).

 · 
square.

right tduds, people are choosing to ignore the negative partisanship of this election, which the midterms showed was heavily in favor of democrats. if there is any recent election that is the best to use as an interpretation, it's the closest one that just happened. not that it should decisively predict anything, but only using 2016 and conveniently ignoring 2018 is a fallacy.

1  · 
randomised

‘don’t believe the polls’ is as msm as ‘don’t believe the msm that say ‘don’t believe the polls’’

 · 
x-jla

Ok, you will see who’s correct. I just know what I see and hear, and the polls are bs for the same reason they were in 2016...

 · 
tduds

What is that reason? Genuinely curious why you think they're bs.

 · 
x-jla

Because there is a large silent majority of people who despise the Dems and view them as disingenuous deep state actors. Those people are either voting trump, not voting, or reluctantly voting Biden. Low turnout, and inability to take votes from 2016 trump voters is a simple equation. On top of that we have a 2.0 version of what happened in 2016 with the fake media pushing a racial divide and conquer narrative (everyone is tired of it including most of the black people I know) overzealous shutdowns that strained mainly dem controlled states, and the and same establishment persona of Hillary...what’s different from 2016 to suggest a different outcome? It’s like they doubled down on the same mistakes.

 · 
x-jla

The only thing that may slightly harm trump is the elderly...if he had a brain he’d be kissing old ass.

 · 
x-jla

They likely feel left behind and put at risk with his rhetoric about corona being that they are most affected health wise.

 · 
randomised

x-jla, even if you reach those conclusions by yourself, it is still the MSM narrative of one half of the spectrum...just the other half. But what if all you heard and saw didn’t translate in a Trump win this coming November, what’d you do, accept it or reject it?

1  · 
gwharton

There are a few reasons the polls may not be that reliable, for the same reasons (only more so) that they were in 2016. High on that list is that most of the polls are weighting D+10 or more on assumptions of turnout that don't appear to have any basis in reality, when during the primary Trump saw unprecedented turnout for an incumbent President. The same thing happened in 2016. Actual results will likely be more like a dead heat or possibly D+1. So if you see a poll weighted more than that in either direction, it's bullshit.

 · 
square.

what about 2018? the polls all underestimated that number of seats dems would pick up in the house.

 · 
gwharton

2018 was somewhat similar, actually. The D+ weighted polls all significantly overshot. They were predicting a much bigger D majority in the House than actually materialized, and a D Senate, which didn't happen.

 · 
square.

jla, biden is not hillary. there is much less visceral hatred for him, and much more so for trump this time around. trump is no longer an agent of change or a protest vote, he IS the establishment right now. that's what i mean by negative partisanship, and it's what will flip this election on him. thinking this election is exactly like 2016 is why pundits and the msm were so wrong about 2016.

 · 
square.

not true gwarton. everyone was predicting 20-30 seats picked up, and they ended up picking up 41. 538 was actually pretty spot on with 39 (accurate polls!), just a few less. not sure where you're getting your data- again, would love to see it.

https://projects.fivethirtyeig...

 · 
gwharton

538 changes their poll aggregates on a daily basis, derived from a black-box model they won't share with anyone. A month or more before the election, the D+ polls were predicting much bigger gains in both houses than materialized. 538 did the same thing with the 2016 election too. They do this constant revision thing ostensively so they can be "up to date", but really they are just obscuring the record of how wrong Silver has been when he gets outside of his sabermetrics specialty.

 · 
gwharton

To be clear, I am not suggesting the polls are either right or wrong. I'm saying they are mostly bullshit and nobody really knows what's going to happen. Anybody who says otherwise is lying.

3  · 
square.

agreed- which is why i'm saying the media consensus that you shouldn't believe the polls and there is a secret trump vote should be treated with equal skepticism. i'm arguing it because it is the overwhelming consensus.

in terms of 538, they were pretty consistently calling for 239-244 for months?

1  · 
x-jla

Randomized, I don’t really care who wins to be honest. I’m not voting for either. I’ll accept whatever happens. I’m just not seeing those polls reflected at the human level among the very broad spectrum of people I know...that’s not a scientific conclusion, but it’s even more anti-DNC than it was in 2016 from what I’m seeing. I’ll believe my own eyes and ears over the polls, because the polls aren’t

 ·  1
x-jla

Very reliable in this current weird society

 · 
x-jla

I’ve said before, Trump is the class clown in the fancy lad bording school picking on the other kids and making arm pit farts. He makes a mockery of the system that people have grown to despise and feel alienated by. It’s just one landscape designers opinion....

 · 
x-jla

We (most every day people) don’t believe that the govt does much of anything but line their own pockets....so why wouldn’t we find joy in the clown of the club we ain’t in...

 · 
tduds

I follow your line of conclusions but I don't agree & don't see anything beyond your internal conjectures to buttress any of what you've concluded. As they saying goes, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

1  · 
x-jla

It’s just based on what I’ve seen and heard from the real world, and I have a pretty diverse group of friends, family, etc. The only unifying thing that’s happened ironically is this debate. Its pretty universal that everyone thinks it was a shit show.

1  · 
square.

my anecdotal friends and family, who are also diverse, and living in this real world, disagree. doesn't mean anything. what's telling is your opting out of voting, which speaks volumes.

 · 
randomised

fair enough x-jla, I personally wouldn't sail on the info coming from my bubble(s).

 · 
x-jla

square, I’m voting for Jorgensen...and obviously all the state stuff...

 · 
tduds

"what's telling is your opting out of voting" 

"I’m voting for Jorgensen" 

Potato, Potahto ;)

 · 
x-jla

That’s the attitude that got us into this 2 party monopoly in the first place

 · 
tduds

No it's not. Our system of first past the post voting got us there. The insistence on putting a disproportionate amount of effort into fielding a quixotic presidential candidate rather than building a robust party infrastructure is what's keeping us there. And even if they did that, the result would be a different two parties, not three or four.

2  · 
tduds

In effect the place for this is the primaries. There are plenty of factions, caucuses and coalitions *within* the two major parties who are all vying for majority control of the party & therefore a greater say in the party platform and nominations. 

My opinion is that voting for president is, in essence, the single least important piece of political action in America. So many other things need to happen before the major party candidates get to the general election, and all of those are 1) easier to influence, and 2) more about promoting systems than individuals. The way I see it, voting for the "lesser evil" of the two major nominees and fighting like hell in local races, ballot initiatives, and constitutional changes does more to advance a third party agenda than putting a single iota of your limited time towards a 100% unwinnable protest candidacy. 

Just my 2 cents.

2  · 
tduds

A competitive third party will never be voted into existence. A multi-party democracy can only be cultivated by changing the way we elect our government.

2  · 
x-jla

The point isn’t for a third party candidate to win, it’s for a third party candidate to create an alternative so that the two parties don’t monopolize the discussion. Unfortunately, they are kept from debates for that reason.

2  · 
tduds

I can support that. I came up in a bizarre time when Ross Perot somehow managed to get into the debates and so my foundational early childhood idea of a "normal" Presidential Debate is one with 3 people. 

Conversely the recent new normal of like 25 candidates on the primary stage is also ridiculous. Give me 5, 6 tops.

 · 
square.

i would love 4 parties: left, center left, center right, and right. but the reality isn't there, and voting for third party candidates without the infrastructure, like tduds says, is the same as throwing away your vote.

 · 
gwharton

Given the way the US political system is structured, there is no way more than two parties at a time are ever going to be simultaneously viable. There have been a few periods in our history where there have been more than two major parties on the ballot. They don't last because that situation is not stable. So the extras all either merge or die.

1  · 
gwharton

And, in case you were wondering, Trump's takeover of the GOP in 2016 is exactly what the successful rise of a third party in the US political system looks like. The same thing is probably going to happen to the Democrats over the next four or so years, though they may fracture into two or more parties first.

3  · 
square.

right. have to dream sometimes. never say never! e.g. we might see some new states within the next 4 years..

 · 
tduds

"i would love 4 parties: left, center left, center right, and right." 

I'd contend that all 4, and more, exist within the larger two party structure we currently have.

1  · 
x-jla

And libertarian left and libertarian right...Which really only fundamentally differ on issues of property...but I’d go a step further and have prez and vice prez voted separately...so that you may end up with a mixed president and vp...that would create another balance and lessen the partisanship

 · 
tduds

If we're being hypothetical - eliminate the "presidency" altogether. Make Commander in Chief a cabinet level position, along with Senate President (aka VP in the current system) and make it part of an Executive Council along with the various Secretaries.

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

I watched My Octopus Teacher.

Sep 30, 20 11:37 am  · 
1  · 
x-jla

Good doc

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

I'm glad I watched it after I had barbecue octopus.

 · 
x-jla

Ummm eating smart things...

 · 
x-jla

I did tear a little when the shark bit off her arm...

 · 
square.

i refuse to eat octopus, even though i eat other seafood. as said, they're too smart.

1  · 
snooker-doodle-dandy

I watched the Shit Show!


Sep 30, 20 1:42 pm  · 
 · 
tduds

I'm sorry.

 · 
proto

I watched it...not going to watch the next ones...what an embarrassment as an american

gonna sign up to do call lists in other states to encourage voters to use their right to vote

2  · 

Watched it. I called Trump a runt but with a 'c'. I've never said that word before as it's the most vile insult I can think of. My wife just looked at me and said 'yeah he is'.

2  · 

I watched it too, though delayed (I recorded it because ... kiddo's bedtime). I didn't even know there was an option to watch a debate. The debate is what I was hoping to watch, but apparently it got bumped from all the networks so they could air the shit show instead. Happiest point of the night was when I turned it off. No, I take that back. I was happier putting my kid to bed.

1  · 

I liked it when Biden told Trump 'oh shut up, man'. :)

1  · 
SneakyPete

I liked it (at a visceral level that I am not proud of because it's why Trump is President) when he called Trump a clown.

1  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

I love that he called that fuck a clown.

 · 
tintt

Joe and Don, lol.

 · 
x-jla

If “will you shut up, man” was joes campaign slogan he’d have mad flair.

3  · 
awaiting_deletion

lawn flare up date, we're now probably at 50/50 and I saw a "Q" sticker on a car today (now that I know what that is in more detail, haha)

but this one is the winner, was driving to fast to take pic

Any Functioning Adult Yard Sign Garden Election Sign Yard image 0

Sep 30, 20 9:54 pm  · 
 · 
tintt

Those are all over my neighborhood.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

some smaaht neighbors.

 · 

this has been one of the best takes I’ve seen today (full disclosure, I’ve mostly been avoiding it today, but regardless this was funny) ... just wait through the first part if it's not your thing initially

Sep 30, 20 11:58 pm  · 
3  · 
x-jla

That was great

 · 

Weird Al, 2020.

 · 
tduds

Did you know Weird Al has an architecture degree? Probably the most successful Architecture grad in history...

7  · 
awaiting_deletion

Thought he dropped out?

 · 
x-jla

He’s in there along with many others...

 · 

Pulling this out of the replies above for further discussion: 

Re: political parties and how many there are and the dream of having more than two dominant parties ... I agree on all major points so far. 

My question: What would it take to adapt the current system to allow for more than just the dominant two to have some viability? 

Some potential ideas for potential discussion, not in any particular order and not necessarily taken individually nor in a group: Getting rid of electoral college (would require constitutional amendment)? Nullifying electoral college in favor of popular vote (see National Popular Vote Interstate Compact)? Ranked choice voting (local, state, and/or federal levels; watch Maine's use of this next month for the presidential election for the first time)? Allocating each state's presidential electors based on plurality vote in congressional districts, and the others by statewide plurality vote (like Maine and Nebraska rather than statewide winner take all the other 48 states and DC do now)? Others?

Oct 1, 20 3:02 pm  · 
 · 
gwharton

We would need an entirely new Constitution and system of government. That's not going to happen without a civil war, and maybe not even then. It's partly a matter of structure, and partly a matter of scale. At this size and composition, our country is not governable by a democratic multi-polar party structure.

 · 
curtkram

Plenty of countries form coalition governments. It wouldn't even be hard.

 · 
proto

ranked voting seems like it would solve at least the issue of voting for the least common liked candidate

Oct 1, 20 5:16 pm  · 
1  · 
gwharton

All ranked voting does is turn two-party contests into one-party states.

 · 

I'm not following that logic gwharton. Care to elaborate, or point to something that supports your statement?

 · 
gwharton

The math of how RCV works guarantees two things: 1) there will never again be another majority-vote consensus winner in any election, and 2) the candidate who can mobilize a unified minority faction the most effectively will always win. This both dramatically increases partisan corruption, and special interest blocks will control our electoral process even more than they do now, to the point where there are never any alternatives allowed again. RCV is a terrible idea which has had bad results everywhere it has been put into practice in the USA. The only people advocating for it are those same minority special interest groups who stand most to gain total control over it.

 · 
gwharton

As an example of what I mean by that, in a 2010 race for San Francisco Board of Supervisors (City Council), after 20 rounds of tabulation, among several candidates on the ballot, there were 9,608 exhausted (discarded) ballots (ballots where none of the marked choices were among the final two), whereas the winner garnered only 4,321 votes. The victor took fewer than 25% of the total votes cast, and a majority of the votes cast were not counted at all. This is a relatively common outcome with RCV.

 · 
gwharton

In reality, the only way RCV would not regularly disenfranchise large numbers (and even majorities) of voters would be if, after ever round of votes was counted, the remaining candidates went back to the public for another vote rather than doing the ranked-choice virtual runoff which creates all these problems. But if we do that, we quickly run into massively-cumbersome voting process and voter fatique. We already have way too many elections to start adding more. Our current primary system is set up to deal with all of that on the front end rather than the back end.

 · 
curtkram

sounds like they got the more moderate candidate that appealed to more people in San francisco. If we get rid of 2-party primaries and let people choose from a broader range of candidates that could help reduce the polarization we have now.

1  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

I love RCV. Works well in Minneapolis. Forces the candidates to actually work for my vote, and gives me a couple of options for who I'd prefer, and if my second winds up garnering more votes, I don't feel like my vote was wasted.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

this is what a sane country looks like -


 · 
x-jla

Vote Jorgensen, she wasn’t to turn US into a giant Switzerland

 · 

I assume your example is the 2010 election for SF District 10. It seems like an outlier rather than the norm, but probably an issue anytime you have 21 candidates on the ballot. Without RCV, on that particular election, you would have had the winner being a candidate with only 2,137 votes compared to a candidate that eventually got 4,321 votes. That candidate that was leading with the initial tally only ever got up to 3,201 before they were eliminated. So I don't know that you could make any type of claim that more people wanted that candidate over the eventual winner and it would have been better without RCV. 

Are there ways around that in a traditional system? Sure you could have a run off with the top two candidates or something like that, but isn't that essentially forcing people to pick a candidate they don't like, or sit out the election? 

The portrayal that an exhausted (discarded) ballot is a bug of RCV doesn't really hold up either. Voters could have included the eventual winner on their ballot but chose not to. Isn't that like if they had stayed home and not voted for that candidate anyway? In any given election only a fraction of all eligible voters participate. Those who don't participate have already exhausted their ballot. 

The same thing would happen in a run-off election of the top two. Those who don't like either candidate (presumably those who would leave them off their RCV ballot) would stay home and "exhaust" their ballot. In the 2010 election for SF District 10, the eventual winner wouldn't have even been in a run-off election among the top two. 

For some different context, the 2016 presidential election had roughly 138 million voters (58.1 percent of estimated eligible voters) show up and vote. Some quick and rough math indicates there were roughly 237.5 million eligible voters (138 is 58.1 percent of 237.5). Of those only 63 million (I'm rounding up for Trumps benefit) voted for the winner. Some more math: (63 / 237.5) * 100 = 26.5 percent of the vote. So really only around a quarter of people who could have voted for Trump, actually did vote for him. It's even worse if you consider the primary process and the smaller fraction of voters that help choose who is on the final ballot. 

While different scenarios, if your argument against RCV is that there might be cases where only a small portion of the electorate actually ends up voting for the winner ... I'd ask how is that different than the current system?

 · 
tduds

Portland has a pretty good system for their local elections. The primaries are nonpartisan, so anyone can vote for any candidate. If a candidate gets a clear majority in the primary, they win. If no single candidate gets >50% of the vote, the top two advance to a runoff on Election Day in November. So, sort of what gwharton suggested. It's not exactly ranked choice, but it's a huge improvement over enshrined partisanship.

 · 

tduds, it sounds like Portland has adopted a "top-two" nonpartisan blanket primary system for local elections that WA and CA use for most of their elections. The top-two primary election process is appealing, but I also think it can lead to a candidate winning even if a larger coalition could have formed around a third-party candidate. If a pair of extreme partisans, one D and one R, are in a primary a bunch of others where one is a generally well-liked (but only for second choice) centrist candidate, the centrist candidate could end up winning in RCV, but would probably be eliminated in a top-two system. Look at the results of the 2010 SF District 10 election. The candidate who won through RCV, and is (arguably) the most agreeable by the largest coalition of voters, wouldn't have made it to the general election in a top-two primary system.

 · 

Too slow on getting the link for the above. Should have been "top-two" nonpartisan blanket primary above.

 · 
tduds

That's certainly a possible hypothetical, depending on the voting demographic. Portland is famously a liberal bastion so what you end up with more often than not is two left-leaning candidates in the November runoff.

 · 

That is the more likely outcome, but not always the case depending on how many candidates there are that could split the left-leaning vote. There was an example in that link above where the 2016 race for state treasurer in WA state had 3 Democratic candidates splitting the primary vote which left the 2 Republican candidates at the top to run-off in the general election. Democratic candidates had a larger share of the total votes in the primary (by something like 40,000 votes), but couldn't put any one candidate in the top two to advance to the general election.

1  · 
x-jla

so now Trump and Melania have covid...Can this year get any weirder?  



Oct 2, 20 1:18 am  · 
 · 
randomised

Sure, if Pence, Biden, Pelosi and Harris get the "China plague"[Trump's words] too!

 · 
Non Sequitur

I’m surprised it took that long.

4  · 

I simply do not trust anything that Trump says. I want to see proof he has COVID. I wouldn't put it past him to lie about having it to: get out of the debates, attempt to potstone the election, or suddenly be cured by a new, unproven vaccine.

1  · 

He's got it. He's too much of a narcissist to admit any type of weakness. Getting sick from a hoax virus that is no worse than the flu is a weakness in his mind. He thinks he won the debate and would look forward to doing it two more times. He doesn't need some type of elaborate conspiracy to claim there is a cure, he's already been doing that. He's already floated the idea of postponing the election and people quickly pointed out that's not a possibility. Elections can occur even if the candidate is sick or dead. 

Occam's razor: Trump and his circle have been pretty careless with precautionary measures. One of them caught it and it spread throughout the group.

1  · 
proto

"I simply do not trust anything that Trump says. I want to see proof he has COVID. I wouldn't put it past him to lie about having it to: get out of the debates, attempt to potstone the election, or suddenly be cured by a new, unproven vaccine."

New sensationalist headline to replace the last ones: shitty debate performance; white suprematist non-disavowal; tax avoidance; etc, etc

1  · 

I still don't trust the man.

2  · 
x-jla

Chad, conspiracy theorist now?

1  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

It's not a conspiracy if it's true.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

pretty much covers this entire thread, 2:00 number of parties...link Fridman/Malice

1  · 
curtkram

that's great dtl. I am going to aspire to be Andy Kaufman now

2  · 
awaiting_deletion

I thought it would be helpful on trolling - Andy Kaufman for example, yes. that's tough comedy man.

 · 
x-jla

got covid test.  Positive for antibodies, negative for active infection.  Was asymptomatic I think.  Maybe had a mild fever for 1 day about a month ago...I’ve Been having weird headaches and palpitations this past 3 weeks, so not in work mode at all.  Just googling like mad and stressing myself out.  No idea how I got it.  I was as careful as one could be.  Didn’t go anywhere but grocery store and meeting clients outdoors with masks...don’t get it



Oct 5, 20 2:20 pm  · 
 ·  1
randomised

aerosols!

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Damn you j-lax, don't you die on us yet, we're still having so much fun! 

I did two days of jiu-jitsu, and my partner made me quarantine for two weeks.

1  · 
Non Sequitur

How/why did you leave yourself so vulnerable to C19? Is that not what pistols are for?... protection? time to panic!

1  · 
x-jla

I feel bad for all the martial arts schools...they are probably struggling. I canceled my gym membership a couple months ago...just been running, hiking, and sparring with my 17yo...I can’t exercise until I get docs clearance...this sucks

 · 

false positive?

 · 
x-jla

Non, I’m should have loaded my pistols with Clorox I guess...

1  · 

You know the antibody test have a 50% false positive rate. Basically they are worthless.

 · 
x-jla

Didn’t know it was that inaccurate? I guess no licking door knobs yet for me:(

 · 
randomised

Tested negative this weekend for active rona, no antibody test was done...the guy in the office who did have confirmed corona had exactly the same symptoms, and in two days he was out of the woods too...perhaps my viral load was too low already, called on Thursday and got tested on Saturday only. Anyways am surprised how quickly one can feel better this time (2nd wave?) like the guy at work (retired 65+ handy man) plenty of people testing positive but hardly anyone now here (NL) ends up in the hospital or the morgue...(knocks on wood)

 · 
gwharton

I have been closely exposed to three active Rona cases over the past few months. Have not caught it yet, and tested negative each time. Luck continues to hold out for now.

1  · 
x-jla

The antibody test is way more accurate than 50/50. It’s like 98%+ according to the nurse, and even higher than that for positive results. False negatives are more common. I am glad I have some immunity, even if temporary, but I’m also very worried that some damage was done to my heart because I’ve been getting an abnormal amount of palpitations. I had them once Like this when I was about 15, following a flu or something...went to cardio and he said I was fine. This time just worried because I’m older and covid is not very well known in terms of long term damage...also a bit of health anxiety that I’ve always had makes it mentally draining.

 · 
Non Sequitur

I still think an assault-riffle styled supersoaker filled with bleach is the way to wage war against corona.

1  · 
gwharton

According to Walter Reed Medical Center, german suplex is now the preferred method for beating Rona.

 · 
x-jla

Did he take hydroxycloroquine?

 · 
x-jla

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SB50heKBxgw


Lmfao!



Oct 5, 20 9:38 pm  · 
 · 
tduds

That was uncomfortably unfunny. I only made it through 30 seconds though so maybe it gets better. Do they eventually drop the stupid characters?

 · 
tduds

Spotify, a private company, having full editorial control over what their platform carries, is the libertarian position here, btw.

1  · 
x-jla

It was funny. And these people have the right to mock Spotify employees and other annoying people who think that they have moral authority over other people’s minds. That’s a libertarian position here, too...Also, Rogans contract states that he has complete creative freedom, so any attempt to censor would be a breach of that contract.

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Morals. You see morality, I see businesses practicing their first amendment right to shut down stupid shit.

2  · 
tduds

I never said they didn't have the right to do it - just that it's dumb. We all have the right to be wrong and dumb, doesn't make us less wrong or less dumb. ;)

Mostly my point is that the word "censorship" is misused here. No one is being "censored." As I understand, some episodes are not accessible on Spotify, but are easily found elsewhere if one so chooses.

 · 

FTR, I stopped caring at Spotify and Joe Rogan.

1  · 
x-jla

That’s why people need to make sure they have contracts that prevent censorship, so that platforms or employers aren’t able to control creative freedom. I didn’t equate this to govt censorship, it’s not unconstitutional, just religious pearl clutchers...

 · 
x-jla

“I never said they didn't have the right to do it - just that it's dumb. We all have the right to be wrong and dumb, doesn't make us less wrong or less dumb.” That statement can go both ways...lol

1  · 
square.

joe rogan signed the deal. he should have made a smarter contract. this isn't censorship, it's business. people still have a problem seeing the internet as a series of platforms rather than the equivalent of your voice. anyone is still free to say whatever they want, but when they speak on a website, that website has the right to curate the content how they see fit. it's just like a newspaper. there is no controvesy here- if joe rogan wanted full creative control, he could avoid the $100 million payout, but he's greedy and went for the money.

3  · 
x-jla

I think his contract did give him complete creative control over content. It’s not Spotify, it’s some employees threatening to go on strike.

 · 
tduds

Hell yeah. Strikes rule.

1  · 
gwharton

"b3tadine[sutures] - Morals. You see morality, I see businesses practicing their first amendment right to shut down stupid shit."

It's really fun watching communists run to the defense of corporate censorship.

1  · 
square.

sorry gwharton- who forced joe into the $100 million corporate deal? capitalist crocodile tears much? anyone who truly wants to speak their mind runs away from corporations as fast as possible.

 · 
tduds

There's no such thing as corporate censorship.

 · 
x-jla

Strikes....then I’m assuming you support Spotify if they decide to fire them all...

 · 
x-jla

They aren’t going to breach a 100mil contract over a few self righteous millennials id guess...

 · 
x-jla

gw, let’s see how consistent they are...can companies prohibit employees from wearing blm logos at work?

 · 
tduds

I don't "support" Spotify but I acknowledge that they can do it if they want.

 · 
tduds

"can companies prohibit employees from wearing blm logos at work?" 

Yes... My whole point here is what someone is allowed to do and what someone should do are not the same things, and being allowed to do something doesn't make it a good thing. It's not illegal to be an asshole, but it doesn't make one less of an asshole.

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Judge Smails: "It's really fun watching communists run to the defense of corporate censorship."

This is my favorite part; Employees told Spotify to go fuck, Spotify told Rogan to get fucked. Employee Activism FTW.

See how that works?

Employees. Soon to be owners.

1  · 
tduds

Leverage works, sometimes.

1  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

I'm thinking in these polarized times, leverage, is being leveraged in a good way. Those kkklowns working on behalf of Trump, are going to have their comeuppance soon enough. Not just talking about those in government either.

 · 
archi_dude

Isnt this the same as if Joe was given a show on a cable network? They'd probably say "yeah don't be transphobic." But at the same time, also kinda the equivalent of removing songs with a parental advisory sticker on iTunes.

 · 
x-jla

Why do people parrot bs as if it’s fact? Can you please point to something said on the show that’s “transphobic”.

 · 
x-jla

B3, everyone who votes trump is kkk...eventhough trump designated kkk terrorist org...kkk is now +50% of Americans...so 50% or Americans are terrorists. Beautiful logic.

2  · 
x-jla

All Dems are pedophiles by that logic. Your thinking is no better than the Q conspiracy kooks.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

NO ONE CARES HOW YOU FEEL....all of you ;) also, aren't socialist governments pretty much corporations and visa versa? Don't many of the Silicone Valley Corporations act and function like Communes(ist).

 · 
curtkram

Spotify is building spotify's brand. JRE is building JRE's brand. The idea that Spotify would let JRE control the Spotify brand is dumb from a libertarian perspective, a capitalist perspective, a communist perspective, a worker's rights perspective, etc.

2  · 
tduds

As a friend of mine so eloquently put it, Joe is a neutral slate for his non-neutral choice of guests.

 · 
x-jla

Tduds, who cares. Millions of people listen because they want to. Don’t like it, don’t listen. Only way someone would care what other people say or listen to is if it goes against their religion. Like the old ladies burning ozzy CDs...I agree with your position though that a private platform can do what they want. I agree 100%. Just looking for a little consistency. Some thing way up there about corporations being forced to supply birth control that we argued about....

 · 
randomised

The cringe is strong with that one...I’d rather watch a debate between Biden and Trump with French dubbing on repeat than stupid shit like that...whatever message they try to bring across like that I’ll support the opposite.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

I think the complaint these days is who JRE is giving a platform to, which effectively is Spotify's platform. I don't think it really matters anymore what anyone says, it's whose platform they are on. I delete all JRE podcasts from my history to avoid the inevitable YOUTUBE algorithm that always recommends Alex Jones and the like after checking out a JRE podcast...I also don't get podcasts that are not highly intellectual, I could give two shits how other humans I don't know interact verbally. Spotify has been playing shitty music for years (label agreements, etc...). Stick with youtube.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

x-jla - Have a quick breakdown for you here. JRE listeners are typically people with Heidegger in one hand and a Joint in the other. They tend to speak like Rogan in terms of weed more than Heidegger.

If Gender Identity is a language issue, hence "pronouns" being important, then this is a topic worth discussing as language is a systemic organization of human thought that is "plastic" culturally and has a massive affect on humans affected by language (everyone). . Architects used Heidegger this way with regard to "dwelling". Heidegger was just doing a language excercise, with no real connection to space, form and time.

Now if someone wants to discuss Gender Identity in the terms of biological sexual reproduction in the animal kingdom and wants to deny evolution, history, and binary facts, you give them a gun, put them in a cage with flat earthers and let Darwin sort it out.

So there I offered a method for discussing this - Language or Biology.  or you can play videos, cite JRE and expect 'fuck all' on responses in social media.

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Everyone supporting Trump may not be Klan, but everyone voting for Trump has no problem with his racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and homophobia.

 · 
x-jla

B3, that’s too convenient of a reason to vote Biden to be true...almost like the duopoly tryin to be a monopoly...there are 2 choices, and if you choose that one you are xyz...so really only one choice. It’s all a bunch of horse shit.

 · 
x-jla

DWG, in terms of content, I don’t see any more depth in Lex Fridmans podcasts, than in JREs. I love Lex Fridmans podcast, and listen to it often...he’s been a guest on JRE a few times too. But the level of depth is about the same imo. Rogan has a wider range or people on, comedians, athletes, etc...but also plenty of thinkers who do get in depth on some topics.

 · 
x-jla

As far as free speech goes. I understand the difference between private owned platforms and govt censorship. I’m not criticizing the right of private platforms to censor content, I’m criticizing the weiners who feel compelled to do so. Only a true dip shit would attempt to limit what people say and hear. I’m my day, only old crank ladies did this, now it’s 20-30 yo shmucks.

 · 
square.

well, from a business's perspective, it's actually essential to moderate your message- it's called pr. when you have customers, it's probably a good idea from time to time to listen to what they're saying and not let loose cannons spew whatever the hell they want. i really don't understand the gripe here.. feels like another xlax bogeyman.

 · 
gwharton

In the internet era, the opposite is true, square. The old media mass audience business models have collapsed. Now, the only way for media orgs to make money is outrage porn targeted very narrowly at more and more extreme beliefs, and straight-up clickbait. This is why most of the major news orgs have shifted their messaging toward pandering to the biases of hardcore partisans of one sort or another.

 · 
tduds

"...pandering to the biases of hardcore partisans of one sort or another." 

For example, constantly regurgitating a relatively unimportant gossipy story about a podcaster who had three or four out of hundreds of his episodes removed from the platform that's paying him one hundred million dollars. Seems like outrage porn to me.

4  · 
square.

i mean moderate as in filter. reputable news outlets still have editors who decide what goes out and what doesn't. this isn't censoring. if you write an op ed, someone is going to review, edit, and ultimately decide whether or not to publish, because their company, hence name, is carrying the piece. but i was referring to businesses.. spotify isn't media in the way you're talking about (news) they are a streaming service, and they have to make decisions about curating their content.

so joe gets his fat paycheck but has to now address concerns of the company, who probably has to address concerns of their employees. no one compelled him to sign this deal. so what are we all made about again? if you don't like the moderated content, choose something else.

1  · 
gwharton

I do see your point, square. But consider that by acting as moderators in that sense, they waive all pretense at being a Platform rather than Publisher under section 230. Not a big deal for CNN, Fox, or NPR. But a much bigger deal for Facebook, Twitter, and Spotify, all of whom depend to some degree on not being regulated as publishers. Publishers can be sued or regulated for all sorts of things platforms arguably cannot. So, I'm happy to stipulate that social media sites can moderate their content, but we must also then stipulate that they no longer meet the definition (or have the protections) of being "Platforms" and must be regulated as Publishers instead.

 · 
square.

i'll be honest, i'm not up to speed on the section 230 thing, but what does this have to do with an individual going into contract with a business, and said business having an influence on what that person says? nothing- it's a common business relationship. i'm not even under contract and there are stipulations on my speech in my workplace.

i'll agree that social media needs to be heavily regulated, but spotify is very different than the two you mention.

 · 
tduds

I don't think Section 230 applies to apps like Spotify the way it applies to apps like youtube or facebook. I can't just upload anything I want to Spotify and have people be able to listen to it. Further, I don't think this action would impact their status under 230 in any case, since platforms remove content (and users) that violates their TOS all the time.

 · 
gwharton

230 might not apply to Spotify, particularly if they are paying Rogan for his show. I'm just pointing out that it's not as clear-cut as the commie-lolbertarians would have us believe.

 · 
JonathanLivingston

Wow, You guys don't read or listen to anything but still form an opinion huh? As far as I know, Spotify did not remove these episodes. In fact, it told its employees as quoted in the BI article above "Joe Rogan and the episode in question have been reviewed extensively," Ek said in the all-hands, according to the report. "The fact that we aren't changing our position doesn't mean we aren't listening. It just means we made a different judgment call." They decided to keep the content. Because... The contract that was signed gave JRE creative control over their show. So Spotify could break their contract by deciding not to carry some content or telling him what he can't say on their platform, in which case Joe could take his money and walk. They won't and haven't done that because that would be stupid. Listen to the actual episode in question. It's not transphobic. It's critical of a movement that is being pushed on popular culture. There is a serious problem there. It's cool to be in the in-crowd. Being the victim is so hot right now. Let's add more letters so we can have more victims of oppression. This whole LGBTQAI+/ally thing is out of control and that's not phobic. It's labeling people, the irony. I HAVE FAMILY AND FRIENDS WHO ARE NOT STRAIGHT. I SUPPORT THEM AS THEY ARE, AS AN INDIVIDUAL HOLDING A PERSPECTIVE AND LIVING IN CIRCUMSTANCES WORTHY OF INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION AND UNDERSTANDING.

1  ·  1
x-jla

JL, yes I mentioned that contract above. The episode was not transphobic at all. The type of person complaining is more woke the more offended they are, and the smaller the thing that they call out the better person they are or something . Very religious like.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

x-jla, I disagree on your comments above about Fridmen vs Rogan. Fridmen interviews and the one episode about his father and family I only made it half way through. Rogan talks a lot and interviews a lot of uninteresting people. In short, I only listen to Podcasts or lectures with direct thought from the person I'm interested in, Fridmen is good in that regard as he doesn't interject much. Point is, the more personality the host develops, the less I care, not why I'm listening in the first place...

JL - it's a linguistic excercise and yes it's out of control, because its just language,etc....

gwharton thank you as always for being education - 230...

 · 
randomised

Employees can complain to management they don’t like that the company they work for provides a platform for a guy like Joe, but that’s all they can do, or walk away...and again everybody’s talking about Joe Rogan, Spotify will see another boost in their audience and Joe will raise his profile again as a kind of free speech advocate...until the next “incident”

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

There's no "movement" being "pushed" on the public. Can we stop with this incessant bullshit? There's no more a movement to get you to do anything, than there's a "movement" to get people to believe the sun orbits the Earth. You people are so fucking irrational.

2  · 
x-jla

Says that guy who thinks that the kkk is still a powerful force to worry about...it’s membership is like 30 fat guys and one skinny guy with a mullet.

 ·  1
tduds

A lot of people seem to misinterpret being allowed to do something as being forced to do it, and being held accountable for something as being prevented from doing it. Seems like an undercurrent of the "Free Speech" crowd.

 · 
square.

this is all coming about because the majority is becoming the minority, their opinions no longer the mainstream consensus. that's it.

 · 
x-jla

Tduds, holding people accountable and mocking the actions of those who hold others accountable is free speech too.

 · 
JonathanLivingston

So what's the conversation here about? Censorship? Didn't happen.   https://open.spotify.com/episode/4SIh4Pt39AtGQYzMJMNkv1 Here is the podcast in question if you actually care to listen to it.

 Transphobia? Also didn't happen. Being critical is not phobic. That's the whole point of that JRE podcast.  People should be free to be whatever they want. The problem is that people from both sides continue to try and silo individuals into groups that they can generalize. It's hard. Because people are not homogenous, so you need to add letters to the LGBTQAI+/ally designation. It's the irony that as woke as we can pretend to be, we still group. It's the nature of humanity to make generalizations because we cannot process every variable in the world. But that grouping and labeling however well-intentioned and beneficial also has consequences. Without interrogating that and being aware of the fact that these groups are all just designations someone else has made of us we are doomed to the kinds of bigotry and hate perpetuated by the obscene groups you mention. People, especially those who don't fit a common narrative want to belong to something. and you can either continue to segment the population into ever-increasing buckets or you can embrace humanity and our differences with love kindness and acceptance and critical thought. 

People whining, labeling others against their individuality, then casting judgement? Yeah, that's what's happening. 

 · 
tduds

"So what's the conversation here about?" I just came here to dunk on that stupid youtube video & then I stuck around to half-assedly retort some things. It's gone on way too long. NEXT TOPIC PLEASE.

2  · 
x-jla

sounds like you are mad that people are holding the high priests accountable through mockery. This is what accountability looks like too.

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

square stated it correctly; the majority is rapidly becoming an irrational, and irrelevant minority of their own doing. People who were marginalized have had it with our bullshit, full stop. They've had to walk on eggshells to protect our fragility, and they've said no more. If I'm "woke" fine, fuck you, I don't care what fragile, mealy mouthed muppets think. I'll continue trying to do better, it costs me nothing to treat people with the dignity they're owed, and I'll trust that people will offer me grace when I fuck up. JRE, don't care, he's minor phenomenon, filling the gap after Alex Jones died.

 · 
x-jla

The white guilt cult...something masochistic about it...I treat people as individuals...don’t give a fuck about your group identity...anything else is racist. Unless you are a member of a tribe that lives in some remote forest, or you are part of some commie dystopia like NK, your group identity is the least important or interesting thing about you.

 ·  2
awaiting_deletion

beta you're missing the point, you of all people too. x-jla channeling JRE and Alex Jones is only channeling those accused of being the majority by association - white straight males - but did we forget the poor white straight males/working class white males. They may look like the bad guys but are not. Now you could say, well at least those poor white males know how it feels to be marginlized. Great! what problem does that solve? Get the guillotines out for the right people, non? (the wealthy, the politicians, the famous journalists, the wealth actors, the influential musicians - you know all the non-working class type of people who have opinions about shit and can lobby their opinions into law). The revolution will have no identity, just a currency.

1  ·  1

You're full of shit jla. If you don't give a fuck about a person's group identity then you don't care what religious, political, or sexual orientation / identity someone has. Your posts on this site have shown that you care deeply about a persons identity when it comes to those categories. You're a liar.

3  ·  1
x-jla

Says the most racist person on here...^. I never said anything remotely racist, so until we play fair, you are racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic!

 · 
awaiting_deletion

I'll frame my observation differently, the left wing media ensured Trumps election to the presidency, get it? not sure why anyone would thumb down an observation unless you don't see the world that way...that's a big issue to not see, just sayin'.

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

You don't get it dtl.dwg. It's the 1% driving this narrative about transphobia, misogyny, homophobia and race. You stated it yourself; the Moneyed Elites are making the laws, the rules, the distinctions, not the working class. The working class are being pitted against one another, to continue fighting wars amongst ourselves. The Dumbfuckery of JK, JRE, and all the other whores, are the 1%. So who's being played? Not me, not most people, because if we all just live and let live, we'd have no laws based on a book, written about a "holy" spirit. So puhlease, I know who is killing whom, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

I agree, but what I'm saying is what you're hearing is that reaction, that's what that side sounds like because you're on the other side.

 · 
x-jla

Without “the 1%” you would have a bunch of “working class” running in circles. Try it in your own firm. Let the interns have equal control! Eliminate hierarchy...it’s not how society works. The divide and conquer tactic is how two nearly identical political parties divide the vote....it’s clear that the media is helping in that goal.

 ·  1
x-jla

Economic inequality is not a problem. Poverty is a problem. We don’t need to eliminate wealth stratification in order to eliminate poverty. lifting the bottom doesn’t require pushing down the top. Thats flawed thinking and only adds to this divisive culture. Poverty is solved by opportunity. Opportunity is created by entrepreneurs. The key is to incentivize bringing opportunity to areas that need it most.

 ·  1
b3tadine[sutures]

Again, you don't understand; I am an architect, I am an architectural worker, I don't own the capital. Interns are architectural workers, they don't own the capital.

You are clearly making the wrong connections, and the wrong distinctions.

Economic Inequality, IS the problem. 

I don't want to push down the top; I want to destroy the top.

 · 
x-jla

“Destroy the top” How does society function then? Government? Communism? You don’t understand business and economics. You are a worker because someone owns the firm to begin with. You have projects to work on because people with money are building projects. A worker isn’t a worker without a factory to work in...workers don’t start and run factories...

 ·  1
x-jla

“Destroy the top”. Does this apply to sports too? Seriously. Do we make sure shitty bands Get paid exactly the same as great bands? Do we make Lebron calm down his game so 5’6” white guys can get some baskets too? Why do you think business is any different than anything else. Some people excel and reap the rewards of their hardwork and talent. Equality sucks! Inequality is freedom

 ·  1
randomised

Indeed, the working class doesn’t give a fuck about misogyny, homophobia, transphobia or race...those are not topics that worry them, they have bigger existential worries, going from paycheque to paycheque, worried that they can get fired without notice, lose health insurance if they even have any. It is a luxury to worry about those phobias or racism when you’re stuck at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid. Those topics are being thrown in the discussion (by the “Moneyed Elites”) to prevent fixing the real issues, a welcome distraction to keep the status quo in place.

2  · 
awaiting_deletion

x-jla, the communist manifesto is enough to indicate a working class can not rule, in case anyone has actually read it...written by a rich english dude and a german in exile (for influencing too many working class revolts). the distraction are "moral" topics like misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc...because you'll find, assuming you talk to most humans, those topics really aren't the most important items in their lives and even some of them are the group or have someone who is part of a group that supposedly is a hot topic - in other words humans are humans and really just want to exist at some acceptable level financially...I'll have to find it, but some n+1 article around the time of OWS noted that reality was even if you taxed the financial 1% it wouldn't be enough, we would need to tax something like the top 15-20%, pointing out that many people in that category wouldn't consider themselves a 1% because they may be a neurosurgeon or something and fell they've earned it.....lastly, to think the working class in the USA are a bunch of production like factory workers is delusional, the working class these days are often managers, part of the management class, we're actually talking about most people on this thread, pretty sure we know how to run things...but lets keep feeding the fire on things that ultimately most humans are ok with - like trans, homosexuality, etc.. etc...see your paycheck sucks because he/they/she doesn't want a ___ anymore? nah.

 · 

x-jla wrote

"Says the most racist person on here...^. I never said anything remotely racist, so until we play fair, you are racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic!"

I didn't call you any on those things in my post.  

You say that you don't care about a persons group identity but by your posts here you certainly care what religious, political, or sexual orientation / identity someone has. You're a liar. 

 · 
gwharton

There will always be a "top" stratum in any society, just as there will always be a middle and a bottom. That is just a fact of existence. Beta is angry that xir is not in it and never will be, so has turned to a nihilistic rage against reality itself, rather than looking for ways to seriously ameliorate the real problems we have in our society due to the predatory depredations of our top classes against the middle, often with the assistance of the bottom, xe just wants to tear everything down in a fit of pique. That's not an answer or a solution. It's a tantrum. 

Is wealth and income disparity a huge problem in the USA? Yes, absolutely. Is the complete corruption, irresponsibility, incompetence, and dissociation of our ruling elites a core problem? Yes, absolutely. Is anarchist Marxism an answer to those problems? Never has been and never will be.

 · 
x-jla

Jeff Bezos wealth has no effect on my life at all. I don’t give a fuck. The left has a pizza party view of economics. If someone takes 7 slices, the rest of us are left with 1. That’s not how economics works. There isn’t some finite pool of money that we take from. Income inequality means nothing. The measure that people should be concerned with is the living standards of the lower and middle class, not the difference between them and the upper class. That’s a meaningless metric.

 · 
gwharton

Jeff Bezos' wealth does affect my life. A lot. I live in Seattle, where it is an omnipresent factor. As for the lolbertarian assertion that income inequality means nothing, that's obvious nonsense. Money is power, particularly in our alienated, transactional society where social bonds are tenuous, and power factors very largely in how people interact with one another in a social environment. Human social life is about far more than just economic quantification, JLA.

1  · 
x-jla

gw, I agree that “social life of more than economic qualification”. Socioeconomic stratification in society is a cultural and somewhat a planning problem. NYC in the late 70’s and early 80’s had neighborhoods where wealth was varied greatly, but the social scene was mixed. That’s an anomaly maybe, but I don’t see wealth inequality as a dividing factor in and of itself. The cultural current is what causes division among classes. The Marxist rhetoric from the bottom, and the bougie materialism from the top. That’s not economics per se, It’s culturally driven.

 · 
randomised

Nah...rich people don’t hang out with poor people and vise versa, more so than skin colour or religion or sexuality it is money that decides who you spend your time with. In my local working class Moroccan cafe people of all ethnicities and religions have their coffee, the thing binding all together is that they don’t have a lot of money and therefore they go to the cheap coffee place, best croissants in town by the way...

 · 
x-jla

My point is, who cares. A free society requires that there are not any limits on what one can achieve or acquire. This will naturally produce inequality, because some people are better at the game than others, as it does in sports, music, etc. Equality is boring and unproductive. That said, Equality or opportunity is incredibly important for a free society. Equality of outcome requires a police state. How could it work any other way?

 · 
x-jla

Increase opportunity. Poor people aren’t poor because or rich people, poor people are poor because or lack or opportunity, or at least a perceived lack of opportunity. Increase opportunity, and stop brainwashing poor people and minorities that they are oppressed. The mental toll that the exaggerated rhetoric of oppression takes far outweighs actual oppression present day.

 · 
x-jla

Because a belief that you are oppressed, actually causes one to be depressed. Depression is a feeling that you are stuck, and that nothing you do can change your situation. That’s an insidious message. Empowering people to understand that they have the ability to change their reality is caring. Spreading an oppression narrative is exploitation for political purposes.

2  · 
randomised

My sister works with homeless people and addicts, but if she’ll do anything to empower her clients and show they have the ability to change their reality (beyond alcohol and/or narcotics) she’ll be out of a job in no time...

 · 
curtkram

there will be plenty more people who are destitute and addicted to fill space for someone recovering.

 · 
awaiting_deletion

x-jla - case and point on calling your yourself a victim or accepting you are oppressed by others rather than yourself, head on over to this news post and see the students post at bottom - https://archinect.com/news/article/150231818/lesley-lokko-resigns-as-dean-of-ccny-s-spitzer-school-of-architecture   
to be clear, this is playing out in real-time between media, assumed prejudices, reputation and all on archinect, I'm simply suggesting much of what x-jla is stating is visible in that news post with reactions.

 · 
x-jla

DWG, I don’t know anything about this professor, but the student who commented on there suggested that there is more to the story. The victim narrative is often only given credence when the person claiming victim hood fits into a certain demographic. In reality, individuals experience “oppression” in many forms, and it’s usually not primarily race and gender. For instance, one can be oppressed by mental illness (anxiety, depression). One can be oppressed by low expectations of their communities. One can be oppressed by abusive parents or partners. One can be oppressed by bullies. Those non-race and sex based forces are predominately the forces that oppress us in 2020. Of course someone can be oppressed by racism, but that’s a less common and less pervasive thing this day and age. The media pushes a narrative that race and sex = likely oppression. Even millionaire athletes are oppressed. My point is, this perception causes mental oppression, self oppression, that far exceeds any racism or sexism one experiences. For example, my anxiety is far more oppressive to me than the minor ailments and situations that cause it. Mental health is being hijacked by political explanation via media.

 · 
curtkram

i googled "oppressed" just to verify the definition after reading jla's post. as it turns out "oppressed" means "subject to harsh and authoritarian treatment." i almost get what he's trying to say, but it just isn't there. so like, treating people harshly because of their gender has happened. mental illness doesn't treat people harshly, but it can put people at a disadvantage?

 · 
x-jla

Curt, I’m just sayin, we live in an age of mass anxiety. Media is creating anxiety. Mental limitations that we place on ourselves can hold us back. Just watched The Playbook on Netflix. Doc Rivers drills into players heads “you’re not a victim”. He understands that to achieve greatness, you can’t have a victimhood mentality. It’s destructive.

 · 
x-jla

Regardless of whatever inequality makes your struggle harder, you will get further if you have an empowered mentality rather than a victim mentality. Media and politicians are pushing a victim mentality. Identity politics is pushing that mentality. Hardcore fans
will understand...”I’ve got that PMA”- Bad Brains

 · 
awaiting_deletion

curt, I think x-jla clarified and to be fair "oppression" is probably not the right word. rather forms of "victim" or "victomhood" would be more appropriate and I think those in power would prefer you accepted you have a "condition", you are a "victim" and suffer accordingly, because back in WWII there was a guy (not German) who studied Nietzsche, ran a newspaper, took over a country and always noted it was the struggle and bitterness that he confronted with action which made him....not saying we should follow suite, but he had a point - see x-jla links although I like this version



1  · 
x-jla

DWG and Curt u are correct...I should have said that the exaggerated/paranoid perception of outside oppression causes internal depression, anxiety, and self loathing. Oppression was poor choice of word for what one subjects themselves to...

 · 
x-jla

right narrative- others are cause of your pain

 · 
x-jla

left narrative - others are cause of your pain

see the pattern?

 · 
awaiting_deletion

yes its always the OTHER! back to OG post on this thread within a thread, who is the OTHER? Trans means what? wanting to be the other, non?

 · 
awaiting_deletion

for all those x-jla haters, he's more in tune with highly intellectualized academia you left wingers eat-up like fools, like literally the "other" has always been the topic. of course when the "other" becomes the "one" they forget about the "other" other...and you get our current situation...you know - Jordan Peterson is what they want, Trump is what they want...THE OTHER.

1  · 
x-jla

Give us power and we will tamp down THE OTHER - That’s the basic political story since the beginning of time, Regardless of the “ism” involved. Humans are tribal animals. Tribes are all about being part of it or being an “other”. Anything except emphasizing individuality feeds this tribal instinct. Individuality is the antidote to our tribal tendencies.

 · 
x-jla

Identity politics, critical race theory, Marxism, etc, all place ones individuality secondary to their group identity.

 ·  1
tduds

Human evolution places individuality secondary to group identity. Everything else either flows from that or ignores it at their peril.

 · 
tduds

Left wing narrative: [x] is bad because of what they say and do. 

Right wing narrative: [x] is bad because of who they are. 

Surely you see the difference.

1  ·  1
tduds

I only read the last three replies to this, the rest was too annoying to wade through.

 · 
x-jla

I don’t see the difference, and don’t call me Shirley!

 · 
tduds

If you can't tell the difference between opinions and identities I think you forfeit your chance to promote either in the public sphere.

 · 
x-jla

It’s not that, it’s your assertion about “left wing narrative” and the left right wing narrative”

 · 
x-jla

It’s not correc

 · 
tduds

It is, though. There are exceptions but the median narrative, *especially* among people who have won elections, is what I described.

 · 
x-jla

No, it’s not. “Straight white male” is The only socially acceptable insult based on race and sex on the US cultural circa 2020

 · 
x-jla

And we know which side uses it

 · 
x-jla
x-jla

This is what unequal enforcement of the law looks like.

 · 

How so? The person was arrested and is in jail.

 · 
tduds

What's the double standard? Please elaborate.

 · 
x-jla

“Inciting a riot”. Where have we seen riots being incited recently...hmmmm...I kind of remember several months of “fiery but peaceful protests” people being harrassed and surrounded while eating dinner...violence...looting...“Burn it down” rhetoric...

 · 
tduds

Ah, yes I agree the Proud Boys and their ilk have been treated with suspiciously light hands by the police & elected officials.

1  · 
Volunteer

Meanwhile back in Portland yesterday: "A group of protesters toppled statues of former presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln and shattered the entrance to the Oregon Historical Society in Portland’s South Park Blocks late Sunday before moving into other areas of downtown, smashing storefronts and engaging in other acts of destruction." Apparently the Portland police have been completely neutered.

1  · 
tduds

Also the idea that "Protesters" are a unified or even an organize group is similarly disingenuous.

 · 
tduds

"Apparently the Portland police have been completely neutered." They've literally been deputized as federal officers to circumvent local gov'ts attempts to curb their use of tear gas and indiscriminate force on non-violent protesters and journalists (I'm not saying there aren't violent protesters, I'm saying the police are assaulting non-violent ones). Intentional or not, your selective reading of events is obvious.

1  · 
Volunteer

The police make arrests and the protesters are released without bail immediately by the Portland District Attorney who is as left wing and ineffectual as MayorTed Wheeler and Governor Kate Brown.

1  · 
tduds

Not all of the protesters, just the ones who faced unjustifiable force relative to their behavior. Again, assuming "The Protesters" is a single bloc is simply wrong. There's a lot going on and you're selectively ignoring parts that don't make the city seem like a dystopian hellscape. 

Meanwhile, I was actually in Portland yesterday afternoon and it was lovely. We went plant shopping, got some new records, and picked up ramen for dinner.

3  · 
Volunteer

Fifty Oregon State Police troopers were also federally deputized in August when they assumed security responsibilities outside the federal courthouse in downtown Portland as part of a deal to end the federal law enforcement response to protests. Those troopers will keep their status as federal deputies for one year.

So, the Portland city police have not been deputized. If so they would be making arrests for federal crimes and the rioters would not be being released back to the streets. 

 ·  1
tduds

" Oregon Gov. Kate Brown declared a state of emergency ahead of a Sept. 26 far-right rally in Portland, and placed law enforcement under a unified command consisting of the Oregon State Police and Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office. As part of that preparation, the U.S. Marshals Service federally deputized 22 sheriff’s deputies and 56 members of the Portland Police Bureau’s Rapid Response Team. 

 As OPB first reported Tuesday, the federal deputy designation did not end with the far-right rally, however. It extends through the end of the year, a decision made by the U.S. Marshals"

https://www.opb.org/article/20...

2  · 
x-jla

Tduds, our of curiosity, who would you say has caused more riots/looting/violence this past year the left wing protesters or right wing protesters?

 · 
x-jla

Please back with data

 · 
curtkram

you're thinking the people who knit pink hats are more violent than the people carrying ak-47s into their local arbys are more violent?

4  · 
x-jla

Did you forget about the looting and violence since June? You are comparing “right wing extremists“ since 1994 with “antifa”. That’s a broad category being compared to a single group. Antifa has killed people too. Antifa has assaulted people. People who align with blm have harrassed, looted, rioted, and assassinated police... I was asking about this year specifically. You don’t need to convince me that right wing extremists are bad. I know that. You leftists can’t admit that left wing extremists are bad too. That’s the problem I have.

1  ·  1
randomised

Yes x-jla, “BLM” rioters are a privileged bunch, let’s go after the Jewish low hanging fruit, again...and always

1  · 
Volunteer

"Seth Jones, a counter-terrorism expert, who helped create the dataset, told The Guardian: "Left-wing violence has not been a major terrorism threat.""

So, what has been going on in Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Chicago, St. Louis, New York, Philadelphia, Miami. ect. is not 'terrorism"? Police being assulted and sent to the hospital, businesses being burned, and ordinary citizens threatened while in their own homes is not "terrorism"? 

2  ·  2
b3tadine[sutures]

Simp

 · 
Volunteer

"Heroes American Cafe [ in Portland, Oregon] got threatening call, accused of being pro police, before 2 front windows were shot out in Portland"

The cafe owner is a retired Marine, who happens to be black. He has vowed to reopen his cafe immediately. 

1  · 
square.

those of you who are more concerned about some store windows being broken then a plot via armed militia to capture a sitting governor have some strange, backwards priorities.

2  · 
tduds

"Antifa has killed people too. Antifa has assaulted people."


 · 
x-jla

square, you are joking, right?. The damage is far greater than a few store windows. You fail to acknowledge the Antifa guy who stabbed a black conservative journalist, the multiple people assaulted by the antifa/blm mobs, the several cops who have been killed in the looting, the attempted assassinations, the antifa member who tried to fire bomb an ICE center, the antifa member who shot and killed a counter protester in Seattle. Keep wearing those blinders. The left plays an annoying game where if a right winger nut Commits an act of violence, all right wingers and politicians are culpable. Then, if a left wing nut commits an act of violence, it’s an isolated incident. Gtfoh.

 ·  1
x-jla

Volunteer, they are trying to normalize violence and strong arm tactics against non-conformity to their leftist ideology. Don’t fall for it. I condemn the right wing loonies, and libertarian loonies that use violence or the threat of violence to push their agenda. It’s sad that the left is so brainwashed into believing in this false good/bad dichotomy that they can’t do the same.

 · 
x-jla

I would have let my pit maul that twerp.

 · 
tduds

Violence in opposition to an authoritarian force is not equal to violence in support of an authoritarian force. The far right protests have the tacit (if not explicit) endorsement of the police and many Republican politicians. There isn't an equivalent endorsement on the left.

 · 
tduds

Even the *most* progressive politicians publicly support the movement while condemning the small proportion of violence. The most conservative politicians publicly support the violence.

 · 
randomised

Volunteer, you know that there is no such thing as left-wing violence or terrorism, they will simply claim those were not left-wing and just right-wing pretending to be left or something. Just as muslims claim there is no muslim terrorism because real muslims would never do such horrible things obviously...

1  · 
x-jla

Tduds, lol. You are ridiculous on this topic. Right wing extremists are typically anti -government. Historically the McVeigh types have been against what they perceive as an authoritarian force. The wackos that wanted to kidnap that governor were doing so because they perceived her as an authoritarian. The guy that was arrested was on video saying so, denouncing trump as an authoritarian, and had an A anarchy symbol in the background. The blm/antifa are not fighting authoritarian forces, they are fighting people and a system that they perceive as an authoritarian force.

 ·  1
x-jla

Tduds, put down the cool aid.

1  ·  1
x-jla

You are accepting the left extremists claim of oppression, but rejecting the right extremists claim of oppression. In doing so, you are making a subjective claim about the appropriateness of violence and civil unrest. Fortunately, the evidence doesn’t support the degree of oppression being claimed by either side.

 · 
x-jla

If Waco happened today, would you be ok with mobs of Anti-government right wingers burning down cities, starting fires, harassing people, walking off neighborhoods...Your bias is clear.

 · 
x-jla

*blocking off neighborhoods

 · 
tduds

"Right wing extremists are typically anti -government." 

Until the government became unusually far right wing. Now they go to bat for the president.

Stop saying "historically such and such is true" when we're talking about current events that quite loudly indicate otherwise.

 · 
tduds

I'm so fucking sick of having THE EXACT SAME CONVERSATION over and over like we haven't had it before. Bye.

 · 
x-jla

“Current events”. Currently left wing extremists are more of a problem. Historically in the US, right wing extremists were more of a problem. Why is this hard to get?

 · 
tduds

It's not hard to get, I just think it's incorrect.

 · 
tduds

And, just to be clear, it's not that I *condone* the violence, it's that I think incessant demands to condemn violence we've all already condemned is a diversion to avoid confronting the fact that the non-violent majority has a good point & the opposition has no counterpoint.

 · 
x-jla

What’s the point of “the non-violent majority”?

 · 
x-jla

“Opposition” no one is pro police brutality. The opposition is to the hyperbole and tactics of the mob.

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

State for the record the numbers please. Tell me how many Leftists murdered in Oklahoma City bombing again? How many abortion doctors were murdered by Leftists? How many peaceful, faith practicing individuals were murdered by leftists? How many gays were murdered by leftists? How many Black men and women were murdered by leftists? How many Leftists take up arms against this country? How many Leftists have plotted to kidnap governers again?

Zero.


Literally fucking, zero.

 · 
x-jla

Did you read what I wrote?

 · 
square.

no one is condoning violence. and i'm not denying the existence of some elements on the left, just reacting to your insistent posts about the same delusions. the weight you put behind one side, which has been presented to you through the lens of your favorite media, compared to reality of the situation, exhibits borderline paranoia (remember, i actually live in an anarchist jurisdiction, not behind my suburban wall of ignorance and joe rogan youtube videos). if you're not more concerned about militia groups trying to forcibly take over the government, your biases are as clear as day.

1  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Yeah, because it was full of facts. McVeigh, who you cite, wasn't against authoritarianism, they were racist cucks, against Clinton. These same asshatted militia cucks, are now down with the authoritarianism of Trump. They're mere opportunists, for whatever will give them a white nation.

1  · 
x-jla

Right wing extremists are bad. No need to convince me. The normal right wing People have never condoned the behavior of the extremists. Left wing extremists have engaged in violence and looting more so than right wing extremists. That violence has been largely condoned, and the hyperbole behind it has been made mainstream. Historically, in the US, the right has been a greater threat. Historically, in the world, the left has probably killed more people. Pol-pot, Stalin, Mao...Leftist extremism has a particular creep to it, a incubation period, that lets it infest deeply before its murderous nature becomes apparent.

 · 
x-jla

*back in history they did condone the behavior of right extremism, more recent history they have almost universally condemned it...correction to my first line...

 · 
square.

Historically, in the world, the left has probably killed more people. Pol-pot, Stalin, Mao

reasons i can't take you seriously. stalin, a leftist? that's rich.

all utter bullshit backed up with zero evidence, facts, or truth.

1  · 
b3tadine[sutures]

You only know how to identify left, as anything that isn't western democracy, or capitalist in its structure. Again your ability to discern helpful, and relevant opposition is not borne out by the complex realities.

1  · 
x-jla

“if you're not more concerned about militia groups trying to forcibly take over the government, your biases are as clear as day”. the left extremist rhetoric has become indistinguishable from the mainstream narrative. That’s a big difference. The whacky extremist/conspiracy theory rhetoric is also starting to become more widespread. Overall, extremism is becoming more widespread on both sides of the aisle, but the left extremism is acceptable socially.

 · 
x-jla

B3, Bundy worse than Manson, does not equate to Manson good. You can have the position that bundy was worse than Manson, but you lose credibility when that conclusion is meant to excuse the evil of Manson.

 · 
x-jla

I don’t know how many times I have to state that right wing loons have historically been worse in the US. Far worse in fact. This doesn’t mean that we should ignore the current rise of leftist extremism and the potential and present dangers that come with it.

 · 
square.

ok, we understand your incredibly biased perspective, and disagree.

move on.

1  · 
tduds

"The normal right wing People"

1  · 
tduds

It's curious how the failures of authoritarian capitalist regimes are often attributed to authoritarianism, while the failures of authoritarian communist regimes are attributed to communism.

 · 
x-jla

Do you have any examples of an authoritarian capitalist regimes?

 · 
x-jla

“ok, we understand your incredibly biased perspective, and disagree.” Can you specifically point an example of something you disagree with?

 · 
x-jla

And Tduds, you have a very juvenile understanding of communism if you don’t understand why it requires authoritarianism. Capitalism does not require authoritarianism. Huge difference.

 · 
tduds

I'd consider China an authoritarian capitalist regime, but not really in the same sense that you're asking. Singapore, modern Russia, modern Brazil, possibly Hungary are good contemporary examples. In the past, I'd point to Pinochet's Chile, Mussolini's Italiy, or Hitler's Germany. I don't know much about WW2 Japan but based on the whole Axis thing they might fit the description. 

One could also argue that any country with a colonial past engaged in authoritarian capitalism, at least with respect to their colonies. But that's a whole can of worms...

Point is they exist and are rarely, if ever, taken to task for being "Capitalist." & just to get ahead of the obvious misinterpretation: I'm contrasting these not because I'm making the point that capitalism is bad, but that the failures of socialist/communist states in the past -  just like authoritarian capitalist states - have more to do with the authoritarian nature of their regimes than their economic system.

2  ·  1
x-jla

The Chinese Communist Party is capitalism? The only one on the list that I’ll give you credit for is Singapore. It’s probably the only capitalist authoritarian regime. Chile, Italy under Mussolini, Hitler are Fascist, Not capitalist. If you don’t know the difference then you should research. And you are completely incorrect that economics is separate from authoritarian nature of regime. In a communist system how does the govt keep one from engaging in a trade and building wealth without force? What if I say fuck you Mr Govt? To the gulag I go...

 ·  1
x-jla

You know you are wrong. Stop playing dumb. Communism requires brutal authoritarian controls. Capitalism does not. Capitalism is a prerequisite for liberty and freedom.

 ·  2
curtkram

what's going on in your head between the time when you post and then respond to your own post?

2  · 
square.

xlax, the reason that china is so "prosperous" today is that they shifted from a strict system of communism to one that blends in capitalism, leaning heavily towards the latter. the economic system is now much more recognizable as capitalism. any historian and/or economist will agree with this, no matter their political disposition.

it's important to separate political systems from economic ones- just because the party is labeled as communist doesn't mean the economic policies follow the same principles. again, you're in way over your head. i'd love to see some of your "sources;" youtube videos and blogs don't count.

 ·  1
square.

for example: david harvey, a leading scholar on the left, would never call china's economic system communism, though the party is. you post all sorts of videos for others to watch, i challenge you to listen something outside of your bubble:

"In so doing, of course, [China] did consult with Western economists; Milton Friedman visited there in 1980. There was a considerable revision in the way in which economics was taught in universities so that if you go to China right now, you'll find very few people who've studied Marx. And very carefully, most of the economics departments are staffed by people who've got Ph.D.'s from MIT, and Stanford, and places like that. Their neoclassical economics is very well understood in China, and so their method of analysis of the economy started to shift; their policies started to shift.

So there was this introduction, and whatever you think of it, it was astonishingly successful. If you take any of the other countries that moved out of communism or socialism into capitalism, you think of what happened to all those countries that were in this ex-Soviet Empire, then you would say that they all went through a period of chronic disaster. China developed very rapidly"


https://www.democracyatwork.info/acc_the_significance_of_china_in_the_global_economy

 ·  1
x-jla

China is a communist country that has adopted state controlled capitalism. They did so because if they hadn’t they would be in the same predicament as NK. China is an authoritarian state because of its communist roots. It’s mildly less dystopian and more prosperous than NK because of capitalism.

 · 
x-jla

If you don’t understand that communism IS an economic system then it’s a waste of time to discuss. You need to learn the basics. IF you don’t understand that communism requires strick limitations on one’s freedoms, and that limitations on ones freedom require enforcement via authoritarian controls, then it’s a waste of time to discuss.

 · 
x-jla

Please provide me an example of a communist country that has a high degree of personal liberties.

 · 
tduds

"The Chinese Communist Party is capitalism?" 

Yes. Do you also believe the DPRK is Democratic?

1  · 
x-jla

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/04/635654200/ai-wei-weis-beijing-studio-destroyed-by-chinese-authorities When you have no property rights....:( the state controls you. Creative freedom requires property that is free from state control. Freedom does not exist under communism.

 · 
tduds

And we've reached the impasse we always do. Every individual sentence of your last few replies is misguided but it would take way too long to properly explain how, so I'm going to wander off and I'm sure you'll think you've won.

1  · 
x-jla

Property rights are the basis of all other rights, because property not under the control of the citizen in by default under the control of the state

 · 
x-jla

Tduds, believing that liberty can exist under a communist state is tantamount to believing in unicorns. It’s as dumb as being a flat earther because there is just as much evidence that communism is oppressive as there is that the world is round...

 · 
tduds

Sorry I didn't realize we were using your definitions for things and not the commonly shared definitions of academics who study and publish on these topics. It's gonna take me a while to catch up.

1  · 
square.

the amount of times he has contradicted himself, just today, is truly dumbfounding. like you said tduds, when you rely on broad cliches and youtube, it's impossible to have a coherent conversation.

 · 
x-jla

sounds like Tduds and square are losing the argument. It’s usually a sign when they state that they don’t have time, make calls for citations, and resort or ad hominem fallacies...

 · 
x-jla

100,000,000 killed under communism...yet it’s still not taboo to be a commie sympathizer. I blame our history curriculum.

 ·  1
tduds

You're having the wrong argument. You keep trying to box me into defending communism, which I'm not & never have.

 · 
x-jla

You are arguing that communism failed because of authoritarianism. I’m arguing that communism failed because authoritarianism is an inevitable feature of communism. You and / or square also falsely implied that economic systems are independent from governmental systems. That’s just not true, and we know this.

 · 
tduds

No, I'm arguing that the failures of individual states are often blamed on things that are politically advantageous to those casting blame, by pointing out that western political discourse often excuses the failures of "capitalist" nations while over-faulting "communism" for what are frequently authoritarian problems. 

"You and / or square also falsely implied that economic systems are independent from governmental systems." 

I didn't *imply*, I stated it outright and posted examples. You've yet to provide any rigorous counterpoint to any of the examples beyond dismissing them out of hand based on your pre-conceived conclusion. That's extremely circular and I won't stand for it.

 · 
tduds

I'm also bothered by the fact that we've once again slipped into a "Capitalist / Communist" dichotomy, which I also outright reject. Things can be non-capitalist and also non-communist.

 · 
x-jla

Counterpoint to what? I’ve countered every bs point you’ve made. I don’t need to cite examples of what can be easily worked out with basic logic. Communism requires authoritarianism. There has never been a communist nation that had high personal freedom, because personal freedom and economic freedom are codependent. The nations you mentioned above are communist states that have adopted capitalism because they’ve realized it to be essential. On the other side or the coin, free market capitalism resists authoritarianism by decentralizing wealth and power away from the state. This is not to say that authoritarianism cannot creep into free market capitalist society, but it’s much more difficult, and would require states to limit economic freedom, not expand it, as we’ve seen in the US, and recently in Hong Kong.

 · 
x-jla

True free market economies with classically liberal governments, can devolve into corporatist / crony-capitalist states. That’s a problem that requires more economic and personal liberty, and less government. Increased government requires increased authority. Authority requires consequences for non-compliance. Consequences are only effective with enforcement. Enforcement requires a force. This is common sense

 · 
x-jla

Furthermore, the most overlooked aspect of communism vs capitalism is aesthetically obvious. Architecture,

 · 
x-jla

Art, film, music...capitalism promotes creativity and innovation. Communism is boring and stagnant. Which is why China keeps bootlegging our shit

 · 
square.

you keep inventing fake arguments that no one is positing. stop resorting to stupid binaries. tduds- there's no point in trying. xlax is stuck in the cold-war, and no rational argument will free him from his anachronistic thinking. there's a reason he's the only one parroting his talking points..

 · 
tduds

I thought of some more Authoritarian capitalist examples - Erdogan's Turkey, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, actually any number of African dictator / warlord regimes would probably qualify but I know next-to-nothing about African political history. 

Also, apropos of nothing I'd love to hear jla explain his understanding of post-Mao Chinese history to the crowd. I think it would be illustrative in its inaccuracy. 

Beyond that I have no interest in continuing this dumb conversation.

 · 
x-jla

“You keep inventing fake arguments” You keep making arguments and walking away from them. You claimed above that Stalin wasn’t a leftist. Can you find a political compass where Stalin is not on the authoritarian left?

 · 
x-jla

https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 This is basic stuff square. You’re appeals to authority in the absence of common knowledge and common sense mean nothing.

 · 
x-jla

*your

 · 
x-jla

Tduds, you are conflating “state capitalism” with “ laissez faire capitalism” or “free market capitalism”. The CCP does not allow true free market capitalism, otherwise I’d be allowed to make a movie critical of Xi with my own money and resources. That wouldn’t happen. I’d disappear.

 · 
tduds

"The CCP does not allow true free market capitalism" 

I never said it did. No one is insisting that only "true free market capitalism" counts as capitalism other than you.

1  · 
tduds

Conversely, are you suggesting that "state capitalism" is "communism"?

 · 
tduds

The very concept of a two-axis politial compass is to disentangle the economic spectrum from the authority spectrum. That is and has been my entire point. Authoritarianism exists across the economic spectrum, as does Libertarianism/Anarchism. Come on, man.

1  · 
tduds

I'm so bad at walking away from a futile thread.

1  · 
square.

xlax- here's an actual scholarly article that supports the questioning of stalin being a leftist, unlike "politicalcompass.org" which is a generic quiz based website. might be a bit above your level though- i know it doesn't have fun colors or videos.

https://yale.universitypresssc...

this reminds me of the time you thought it would be a good idea to post something about marxism without reading a single text about the issue, instead parroting breitbart talking points. we all know what happened.

keep trying..


1  · 
square.

me waiting for the next 20 posts that prove my point without have to say word:
 · 
x-jla

Tduds, you’re intentionally missing the point, and it’s annoying. Communism requires authoritarianism. That was the debate. Capitalism does not require authoritarianism. You are posting random examples of failed communist states that have adopted capitalism to stay afloat. In doing so, they’ve become less miserable than they were. You proved my point. Thanks

 · 
x-jla

square, you never really make points, just cite “scholarly articles“. I don’t need to read some bs that Stalinism isn’t rooted in communism. It’s common knowledge.

 · 
x-jla

It’s funny how the left distances from their own historical terror through “scholarly articles”...aka gas lighting. Stalins command economy was directly based on Leninism-Marxism. Stalin killed about 10x more people than Hitler. When we talk of the evils of the Nazi party, we directly attribute these evils to their philosophical roots (nationalism, xenophobia, fascism). Conveniently, when we talk about Marxism it somehow gets distanced from the horrors that it served as the philosophical foundation for...

 · 
square.

Hasty Generalization

your ignorance is quite amazing- the article i cited specifically states that while stalinism is a decedent of communism, it is a distortion to the point of becoming something closer to fascism. you should read what i post before [see link above]

 · 
x-jla

We can dig up articles all day...confirmation bias is so easy and boring...Id rather debate the people I’m debating than their citations

 · 
square.

you don't do the work required to "dig up articles," let alone read them. you post quiz websites and youtube videos. it's like checkers vs chess.

 · 
x-jla

com·mu·nism
/ˈkämyəˌnizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
“a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.“. Maybe you’re digging so deep that your hitting the Earths bullshit reserve of Academia? We know what communism is. We know what Marxism is. We know who Stalin was.

 · 
square.

who's this we? you're literally arguing a point by yourself. i know stalin was a very bad dude. i'm not defending him. you're inventing imaginary strawmen, per usual. what i'm arguing is that the world is more gray than you see it, and there are plenty who see stalin less as "the left" and rather an authoritarian fascist. but it fits your convenient narrative that left=bad; i understand it's easier to resort to yelling dog whistles like "communism" and "leftists," but it's not factual or based in reality. it's just your strange opinion.

it's funny how trolls on the internet generalize everything in the world into binaries between "left and right," instead of doing the difficult work of informing their opinion on something like history by, well, reading history. guess spotify-joe is enough.

 · 
x-jla

You said that “Stalin wasn’t a leftist”. You are wrong. It’s funny how trolls on the internet try to obscure objective reality and common knowledge by pretending that their intellectual understanding of subjects is so vast that they don’t even need to make logical arguments or use critical thinking...attempting to create the illusion that they are posting from an oak desk in a giant library of “scholarly articles”

 ·  1
square.

you're evidence of stalin being a leftist is a quiz website. i'll stick to books and experts, though i suppose that is the root of much of our problems today, the skepticism around experts. i'll keep deferring to them. and now you're resorting to copying what i'm saying..

i'm not really sure what your goal is here, at the end of the day. i think we can all agree the archinect is a much better and more interesting, nuanced website when you're not running around trying to light stupid fires everywhere.

 · 
tduds

"Communism requires authoritarianism." 

 I've posted multiple references to anarcho-communism as a political theory, and there are plenty of examples out there should you choose to investigate.

1  · 
x-jla

“there are plenty who see stalin less as "the left" and rather an authoritarian fascist. but it fits your convenient narrative that left=bad.” Not really, it’s just that Stalin was a communist, and communism is leftist. We know this, man.
https://europe.unc.edu/iron-curtain/history/communism-karl-marx-to-joseph-stalin/

 ·  1
x-jla

Marxism is the most disastrous philosophy of the 20th century. When people ignore its effect and flirt with it in the 21st century I feel compelled to put them in check. There is no historical reason why we should view Marxism and different than nazism, fascism, white supremacy, or any other disastrous philosophy. In contrast, classical liberalism, liberalism, free markets, have lifted people from poverty, improved life, and have tended to increase civil liberties. To look at the 20th century and come to any other conclusion is flat earther level logic.

 ·  1
tduds

Ok but again no one is making the points you're arguing against.

1  · 
x-jla

anarcho-communism....no what you gonna do about it. It’s mine and I have guards with guns....10 mins in and it just becomes regular anarchy...biggest guy with biggest guns take what they want.

 · 
tduds

This happens a lot, not just with jla, and certainly not just on this forum... in which an attempt to tease some nuance out of a discussion by pointing out inaccuracies in the way something is portrayed is misconstrued (deliberately or not...) as a counter-argument in defense of the opposite. Criticizing popular descriptions of communism as inaccurate is not the same as defending communism.

1  · 
tduds

Attempting to explain something is not the same as endorsing or defending it.

1  · 
x-jla

Unless everyone suddenly becomes infinitely nice, and altruistic, which would negate 100,000 years of human history

 · 
x-jla

Private property rights are essential to peace and liberty.

 ·  1
square.

agreed, tduds. he's still going...

 · 
tduds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism#Example_societies_through_history Again not saying this is a good or bad thing, just that - counter to your "logic" - it happened, to various degrees of success.

 · 
x-jla

Yeah, duh. Hunter gatherer tribes and small agrarian tribes. I know. I was an anthropology major before architecture...that’s fine on a small scale, but it’s also a rough life lol. Wouldn’t exactly work in LA

 · 
tduds

"Communism requires Authoritarianism" 

*points out examples where it didn't* 

"No not those ones."

2  · 
tduds

Wasn't this thread about Orthodox Jews?

1  · 
square.

appears so. definitely lost some brain cells trying to follow this one...

 · 
x-jla

Tduds, those tribes are not communist any more than the Masai are capitalist because they wealth based on cattle ownership...they are tribes...and any society that’s been doing things the same for thousands of years is perfectly functional and I’m not going to critique them...

 · 
x-jla

Yeah, it was. Square derailed it with the claim

 · 
x-jla

That Stalin wasn’t on the left. I’m response to my assertion that the left has caused plenty of violence in the 20th century despite the fact that the right has created most political violence in the US....point being, the rise of radical leftism is not a benign threat

 · 
tduds

There were examples in the link I posted that aren't primitive tribes but sure ignore those also.

1  · 
square.

believe whatever you want; you make up so much bullshit it's impossible to keep up fact checking you. i'll stick to reality:

The report...identifies white supremacists as posing the "most persistent and lethal threat" of all domestic violent extremist groups.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/c...

 · 
b3tadine[sutures]

Imagine thinking that Capitalism is the thing that made life better for the planet. It's simply the most idiotic thing to consider. Capitalism ruins every single relationship that humans have with one another, with religion, with the planet, living life free from the torturous yoke of the bourgeoisie.

1  · 
x-jla

B3, freedom makes life better. Freedom to engage in free trade is just part of freedom. Suppressing ones freedom to engage in free trade requires authoritarianism. Never said that capitalism didn’t have any negative consequences, just that suppressing it has far more.

 · 
tduds

If we're going to talk about "suppression" it seems to me like the current western hegemony has spent more money, lives, and time in the last ~40 years suppressing non-capitalism than anyone has spent suppressing capitalism. "Capitalism", or at least the current dominant state of under-regulated capitalism in the world today, seems to rely more on a forced lack of alternatives than a free & consensual engagement.

1  · 
tduds

I'm getting off-off-off-off-off-off topic now.

 · 
x-jla

You are free to start a hunter gatherer commune if you want. Probably won’t be free to start a capitalist commune in NK.

 · 
x-jla

Hilarious how you think people living under communism have choice. They must really have loved Kim Jung Un. He got 110% of the vote.

 ·  1
x-jla

Communism is slavery. There is absolutely no difference.

 ·  1
liberty bell

OMG on NPR just now I heard Amy Coney Barrett’s actual voice for the first time are you fucking kidding me?! She’s even more whiney than Kavanaugh. JFC.

Oct 13, 20 10:31 am  · 
3  · 
SneakyPete

But she has three names and a womb. That means she may as well be RBG, right?

1  · 
randomised

Trump’s re-election?
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/


But more scary is this:
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/facebook-twitter-block-the-post-from-posting/


Interesting how Trump was impeached over digging into this...

Oct 14, 20 4:56 pm  · 
 ·  2
tduds

"Trump was impeached over digging into this..." 

He wasn't, though.

2  · 
square.

fake news? gop report = "no wrongdoing"

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-report-wrongdoing-biden-son-ties-ukraine-firm/story?id=73192146

next. if you want to talk about candidate's children's shady deals with foreign governments, there's plenty in the trump family to dig through. multiple kids, in fact! no one really cares though.

do you know americans really care about? the fact that over 200,000 people have died from a virus that the president intentionally downplayed and still has no plan for addressing.

1  · 
x-jla

Is it possible that Biden’s and trumps kids are crooks?

 · 
tduds

"Possible"? Yes. 

"Probable"? Ehh. 

"Relevant"? Not really.

1  · 
x-jla

It is if a sitting vp pulled levers the help him out...not that I wouldn’t for my own kid...but that’s a bad look for a presidential candidate especially after a years long investigation into foreign collusion.

1  ·  1
b3tadine[sutures]

The battle royale going on in j-lax head must be amazing! Everyone seeing those emails from Dollar Store Nosferatu stated explicitly that they were fakes.

 · 
x-jla

The battle royal was yesterday. I argued for 3 hours with my son whether or not a hamburger is a type of sandwich. It got deep.

1  · 
x-jla

And yes, a hamburger is a type of sandwich.

1  · 
Non Sequitur

A pop tart is also a type of sandwich.

1  · 
randomised

It is totally different when Trump hires his kids to work for him, all out in the open, as opposed to Biden pressuring others to hire his kid in secret...the one approach makes Trump a nepotist the other shows Biden's corruption. Really curious what the voters will say...

 · 
tduds

Don't get me started on sandwiches.

 · 
square.

perhaps downplaying is the only way to reach herd immunity, maybe Trump is playing the long game here. Why'd you think he used his own backyard to spread the virus among his Republican friends?...Smart move I'd say, he's out of the basement but where's Joe?

randomised, your post below speaks volumes about your character, considering you think that an approach that would require 2millions deaths in the us is a smart move.


https://www.nbcnews.com/health...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32153-X/fulltext

1  · 
tduds

(from https://twitter.com/dantoujours/)

So just so I follow this story:

Hunter Biden, who lives in Los Angeles, decides to fly 3000 miles across country, to drop off 3 MacBook Pros at a repair shop run by a blind guy who charges the insanely low price of $85. 

He gets off the plane and drunk drives to the repair shop (because there aren't repair shops in LA). He drops them off, signs a contract for repair and then disappears. The repair shop owner recovers and reads Hunter's *private* emails, a few of which mention a possible meeting with his dad and is so alarmed, he contacts the FBI.

The FBI arranges to pick up the hard drives, but the computer repair shop owner takes a totally normal step of copying them. Once he realizes the FBI isn't doing anything with them, he calls up the most credible ex-Mayor on Earth and hands them the contents of these drives.

That totally credible ex-Mayor sits on them for months, then chooses to release them 3 weeks before the election. The mainstream media asks to independently verify their validity but said ex-Mayor does what all people trying to prove facts do and ignores these requests.

Is this how stupid we are now?


 · 
tduds

Let's take a break from yelling about communism to dunk on the other stupid extreme - unfettered libertarianism:

  https://newrepublic.com/articl...


Oct 14, 20 5:37 pm  · 
2  · 
x-jla

I don’t get it, two seconds ago you were talking about anarchy. That’s an even more extreme form of libertarianism, you know this right?

 · 
x-jla

You also probably know that libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism, right?

 · 
tduds

For the billionth time I was *explaining* it, not *endorsing* it. Not everything is an editorial, my man.

2  · 
x-jla

“Let's take a break from yelling about communism to dunk on the other stupid extreme - unfettered libertarianism:“
 · 
x-jla

^^^Your own words^^^

 · 
tduds

You must be fun at parties.

3  · 
randomised

"do you know americans really care about? the fact that over 200,000 people have died from a virus that the president intentionally downplayed and still has no plan for addressing."

perhaps downplaying is the only way to reach herd immunity, maybe Trump is playing the long game here. Why'd you think he used his own backyard to spread the virus among his Republican friends?...Smart move I'd say, he's out of the basement but where's Joe?

 · 
tduds

Sir this is a Wendys

2  · 
randomised

Don't get the reference but I did post my reply to square. under the wrong post, my bad...

2  · 
square.

the threat of individualist-extremists isn't being talked about enough by the msm! these people are preaching self-centeredness, eroding the social fabric and poisoning the minds of this generation. it used to be that the family, or church, or union was important and provided places of solidarity and togetherness. now these isolated libertarians, with their completely wrong, poisonous ideology, are ruining the country, and probably the whole world. for ALL of human history, people worked together- whether hunting and gathering, farming, building towns. libertariansim has done more to destroy human relationships than any other philosophy, in the history of mankind, ever. now these egotistical, isolated individualist-extremists will ruin history forever unless we call attention to it in online forums.

1  · 
square.

here's a personal blog that i used to understand libertarians, that is totally unbiased and extremely simple. some might say dumbed-down, but in a good way. but it's definitely authoritative https://ockhamsbeard.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/redefining-the-political-spectrum-2-0/

 · 
square.

dont even get me started on ronpaulism.

 · 
x-jla

Libertarianism is not synonymous with being anti social or selfish. You are basing your assumptions on what you’ve heard about Ayn Rand or something. Libertarianism is literally the opposite of authoritarianism. What you do in the absence of government micro management and control is a completely different thing. Community and family ties don’t disappear. Altruism isn’t a product of state sanctions. Altruism is a human trait that arises from an enhanced ability to survive and thrive when cooperating and helping each other out. Hunter gatherer tribes as you mentioned were not held together by a centralized government and endorsed with threats of violence via its police state, but instead Social consequences and mutual codependency.

 ·  2
x-jla

How people behave when given freedom is the responsibility of their parents, not the state

 ·  1
tduds

"Libertarianism is literally the opposite of authoritarianism." 

Yes and both are bad.

2  · 
x-jla

Authoritarians have killed hundreds of millions, libertarians shoot their own eye out once in a while, and collapse their lungs from mega bong hits.

 · 
x-jla

No comparison

 · 
square.

the new republic article/story tduds posted is more than enough real world evidence to put to bed any of your finest libertarian ideals.

 · 
x-jla

Pol-pots skull throne is more than enough real world evidence to put to bed any of your finest commie ideals.

 · 
square.

it's clear you're unable to refute any of the arguments against libertarianism, as you, yet again, revert to your red scare tactics. what about-ism at it's finest. btw- i don't support communism, that's just you making another straw man. i'm quite concerned about you, as you continually invent fake arguments and people.

challenge yourself for once and read the article. better yet, you don't even have to read.. it has a listen function.

 · 
x-jla

You didn’t make any arguments against libertarianism. You Just said it’s bad.

 · 
tduds

It's self-evident because it follows from basic logic ;)

 · 

That bear article is SO GOOD! I loved reading it, it's similar to China Mieville's fantastic takedown of seasteading in which he calls libertarians "republicans who are too dumb to game the system". https://inthesetimes.com/article/floating-utopias

1  · 
x-jla

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/923766097/facebook-and-twitter-limit-sharing-new-york-post-story-about-joe-biden


Obviously they want Biden in power so he can play nice with the markets they want to feed in, China primarily. 

Oct 15, 20 1:19 pm  · 
 ·  1
tduds

I'm really hoping a foreign policy expert weighs in on this to explain it, because I can't for the life of me understand why it matters, but also its all so convoluted that I also can't explain why it doesn't matter. That said, I also don't think anyone who believes it *is* important can explain it either.

1  · 
square.

the nypost is a borderline tabloid. if ANY other reputable news outlet could confirm this story, it might actually be something. but we've known for months it's been pushed by russia, and even the most recent gop report confirms no wrongdoing.

but, it has worked. instead of talking about policy issues, here we are again discussing fake stories from the tabloid president's own lawyer.

2  · 
x-jla

Vox is a borderline tabloid.

 ·  1
x-jla

It’s important because they probably have some dirt on the son of a presidential candidate. Wasn’t that what everyone was just worried about with trump owing money to foreigners?

 · 
x-jla

Having leverage against a sitting prez

 · 
tduds

Vox is primarily an editorial / analysis outlet. They digest events through an admittedly biased lens and produce mostly opinion pieces. They don't lie, they just project a worldview. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "a tabloid." 

The Post, on the other hand, is ostensibly a journalistic endeavor. Their mission is to digest facts and events to produce a neutral-as-possible (though of course still biased, because all things are biased) account of the story. They regularly fail at this, pushing a strong editorial narrative over their allegedly factual journalism, often at the expense of a full account of the facts. That's what invites the "tabloid" accusation.

1  · 
tduds

What gives me pause is not so much that this story is in The Post (though that definitely invites a little skepticism), but that it's *only* in the Post. If a story has legs, more reputable outlets will pick it up. That they haven't suggests to me that the story is difficult to corroborate or the sources are extremely suspect. & also, like I said earlier, the meat of the story is buried in so many layers of implied & dubious context that it's difficult for me to make sense of why it's bad, much less care. Nevermind that, even if there was something to this "leverage", that same leverage exists orders of magnitude stronger with Trump and his kids.

 · 
tduds

It's extremely suspicious to me that Democratic *and* Republican officials were hacked in / since 2016, and only Democratic candidates' information has been leaked. What to the hackers have on the GOP? Why are they withholding it? Seems like a classic blackmail scenario to me.

 · 
x-jla

Maybe they see the Dems are globalist warlords and want them to lose?

 · 
x-jla

Trump has kept his little hands out of foreign wars mostly...

 · 
tduds

"Maybe they see the Dems are globalist warlords"

Republicans laughing Blank Template - Imgflip

1  · 
x-jla

The republicans have been worse in that regard up until trump. He’s not really a war president like GW...He even dumped Brownie

 · 
x-jla

Obama did like his drone toys.

 · 
tduds

Drone strikes have continued under Trump, and by most accounts civilian deaths have increased. What has changed is that the administration removed the rules about reporting the strikes. 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/obama-drones-trump-killings-count

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/obama-trump-drone-strikes

https://theintercept.com/2019/10/02/trump-impeachment-civilian-casualties-war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes

 · 
x-jla

The bush admin was the worst and most corrupt admin in my lifetime. The trump admin is just ridiculous, but it pales in comparison to Cheney and GW.

1  · 
tduds

On some things, at least, we agree.

(edit) I think the Bush admin did more damage because they were more competent, but the Trump admin is more corrupt and significantly more autocratic. They're just extremely bad at it, which has been a lucky break for democracy.

 · 
x-jla

Look, the goal is to keep maximum liberty, minimum damages to environment, and create best quality of life for most number of people. It’s all about balance. I’m just pointing out the there are flaws in the leftist ideology as there are in the rights ideology. On certain issues, like the environment, I’m probably left of you.

 · 
tduds

"I’m just pointing out the there are flaws in the leftist ideology as there are in the rights ideology." 

No disagreement there, but you could throw a bit more criticism at the right if you want to appear to others the way you see yourself. I get that you think you're providing a counter-balance to a mostly progressive commentary here, but we're all well aware of the shortcomings and contradictions in the politics we support, and constantly harping on them derails potentially interesting discourse.

 · 
tduds

"On certain issues, like the environment, I’m probably left of you." lol probably not on environment.

 · 
x-jla

Maybe “left” isn’t appropriate term...I’m more about conservation, reforestation, Fixing the soil, etc...

1  · 
tduds

No I just meant that's the one issue where I'm about as far "left" as one can get. I'm sure we'd find plenty of common ground (literally and figuratively) in nature.

 · 
x-jla


hello square...equality is good.  

Oct 15, 20 3:47 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla


equality of outcome doesn’t make greatness 

Oct 15, 20 3:53 pm  · 
 · 
tduds

You know, if you want to debate you can debate stuff people are actually saying. There's no need to think up counterpoints to non-existent points.

1  · 
square.

it's the oddest thing about xlax. i don't even support communism..

1  · 
tduds

"Equality of opportunity is good, it's equality of *outcome* that is bad." 

"Ok can we have equality of opportunity now?" 

"No, that's actually equality of outcome and you can't have it."

1  · 
x-jla

Well Tduds, the left has thrown around vague rhetoric that’s its goal is equity, equality, ending income inequality, etc. the burden is on those supporting that to define the boundaries. If the goal is to end all income inequality, then it will take mr pol pot to do that...so, how much inequality is acceptable? I can easily point to example why zero is a bad goal...

 · 
tduds

"If the goal is to end all income inequality" 

It's not. 

"how much inequality is acceptable?" 

Less than we currently have.

2  · 
x-jla

As JP said, the left won’t define what too far looks like...they won’t box in the extremists...so if they don’t want to be lumped in with pol pot and Stalin, they should probably differentiate their goals, otherwise you are inviting people to speculate on how bad it can go

 · 
x-jla

By not saying how far is too far, I have to assume that the left doesn’t think it can go to far. This is very bad for their image, and it scares off moderates

 · 
square.

says the one throwing around vague platitudes like "freedom" and "liberty" with zero scope or definition.

side note: these youtubers you love to listen to aren't informing you or expanding your perspective, they are indoctrinating you into their way of thinking, and it's working based on how much you rely on their thoughts for your "arguments." in order to truly think independently, you need to read many perspectives from many people. this is also one definition of freedom; you're welcome.

1  · 
tduds

"the left won’t define what too far looks like" 

Strong disagree there. "The left" (which is so vague I'm not even sure what you mean so I'll just assume it to mean elected Democratic politicians) has quantitative policy proposals that quite explicitly define the goals. If you care to look. 

Nevermind that one could just as easily apply that criticism to "the right" because the disparate cohort of right-leaning folks includes people who think that all taxation is theft, no one but the sherrif has constitutional authority to enforce the law, and the US was made for White Protestants only. 

Why is the left constantly held to task for extremists that the left frequently disavows while the right seems to be given a pass on white nationalists who actively campaign for Trump and who trump tacitly endorses? Fuck that false equivalence.

1  · 
x-jla

What should be the maximum tax the state can take....hint: 100%=slavery

 · 
square.

right, xlax is conveniently ignoring the fact that trump's own government has labeled right-wing extremists the biggest domestic threat.

but the commies.. he' s more like a cartoon character from the 50's at this point.

 · 
tduds

There's a glaring but unspoken difference between "the extreme right" and "the extreme left" in that the Extreme Left is against the Democratic establishment and vice versa, while the Extreme Right frequently goes to bat for Trump - and vice versa. There are self-described Communists in America and they're quite anti-Biden. There are self-described White Nationalists in America and they're quite pro-Trump. You can't have a conversation about extremes without acknowledging this.

1  · 
x-jla

Answer the question

 · 
x-jla

What should be the maximum tax the state can take?....hint: 100%=slavery

 ·  1
tduds

"What should be the maximum tax the state can take" 

I don't know or care. If you care so much, you toss out a number.

 · 
tduds

It's stupid to ask *me* to define this because I'm not in charge of doing anything that would influence that number. But, if I had to, I'd say - generally - a society with billionaires is an unethical society, but a society with millionaires is fine and desirable even. Wealth is not entirely a zero-sum game but it is a finite supply that increases at a finite rate. If the rate of increase at the top outpaces the overall increase by a large margin (which it very apparently is in the past couple of decades), that's unethical. A few people have far too much while too many have far too little, and those with the most have made their largesse by exploiting the ones with the least. 

We're the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and we can afford to give every citizen a basic standard of living. That's freedom, to me.

1  · 
x-jla

Tduds, 0%. We should replace income tax with a national sales tax so that all transactions are voluntary, more you consume the more you pay.

 · 
tduds

Sales tax is regressive and will exacerbate inequality.

1  · 
tduds

My take is that if one really supports a 'meritocracy' and the 'bootstrap' mentality, they'd favor a 100% estate tax. I don't, but it seems to follow logically from the 'self made man' mythos.

1  · 
tduds

Income tax is voluntary. You can always choose to make less money.

2  · 
x-jla

I’m not opposed to a UBI. I’m opposed to the state placing arbitrary caps on how powerful individual citizens can become as long as they aren’t directly violating any laws or rights.

 · 
x-jla

Give people free health care and everything I don’t care. I’m concerned with the state taking, not giving. If giving requires taking, that’s a problem.

 · 
x-jla

Consumption tax makes more sense from an environmental standpoint.

 · 
tduds

"...arbitrary caps on how powerful individual citizens can become as long as they aren’t directly violating any laws or rights." 

Laws are, in a sense, arbitrary caps on power. This is a circular argument.

 ·