[QUOTE=Broguts;52587204]Yeah but unlike the election you don't have to choose one over the other, you can hate both of them.[/QUOTE]
You can hate both Trump and Clinton, nobody's stopping you. Pretty sure a lot of people do, actually.
And yeah, you don't have to choose one over the other, which is why it's all the more irrelevant to bring up Antifa when debating about fucking Nazis.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52586633]Except right now it's Nazis that are literally out there killing people within this last week. Not Antifa. Can you not see how deflecting away from Nazis in such a situation is not only rather tactless but easily comes across as trying to write Nazis off? (Especially when there are people that commonly use the same exact arguments and forms of arguments to actively defend the Nazis.)[/QUOTE]
How many times do I have to say it? There is no deflection, and people who interpret the claim that [I]leftist violence exists[/I] as a write-off for Nazis are, quite frankly, fucking idiots. I don't give a shit if people seriously use that as an argument to defend Nazis because they're fucking idiots as well. My initial comment was only in response to the claim that it is a false equivalence to state that Antifa is capable of violence just as white supremacists are. I did not deflect from the events that happened last week. In fact, I did just the opposite.
[QUOTE=Boaraes;52587497]How many times do I have to say it? There is no deflection, and people who interpret the claim that [I]leftist violence exists[/I] as a write-off for Nazis are, quite frankly, fucking idiots. I don't give a shit if people seriously use that as an argument to defend Nazis because they're fucking idiots as well. My initial comment was only in response to the claim that it is a false equivalence to state that Antifa is capable of violence just as white supremacists are. I did not deflect from the events that happened last week. In fact, I did just the opposite.[/QUOTE]
The false equivalent is claiming that they're just as bad as one another. That is demonstrably false. If we group it together under far left and far right groups, since 9/11 the majority of violence from groups like these in fact comes from far right groups. Property damage is largely what comes from the far left ones. So your opposition to the false equivalence argument is invalid. (Though people have already explained this to you.) And your stubbornness in keeping to that viewpoint is what's making you look like those other people defending Nazis.
You know, I used to get mad at antifa protestors when I'd see videos on the internet, but after reading what Charlottesville residents had to [URL="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html"]say[/URL] about them, I really can't find a fault, at least in the context of Charlottesville.
[QUOTE=Boaraes;52586623]Care to explain your reasoning? It seems to me that the divergence between Ancarchism and Communism comes not from the end goal (which are definitely similar), but the methods to reach those end goals and moreso the time-frame in which those methods are executed. Communists want a gradual process from capitalism to common control of production, while Anarchists simply want to skip the process and go straight to a stateless, classless society, which usually implies force. It seems rather bizarre to subscribe to an ideology that is the bastardization of two groups that diverge on arguably the most important part.[/quote]
This is a conflation of beliefs of different kinds of far-leftists. There are many Communists who believe that a skip to the stateless, classless society is possible (these are generally the armed revolution ones), and many Anarchists who believe that society is too far from the anarchist ideal and time needs to be spent educating people and that this will allow people to realise for themselves that a classless society would be more beneficial to everyone. This is especially true for pacifist or green anarchists.
[quote]It's delusional because communal ownership of the means of production is incompatible with a large-scale society. To ensure assimilation of a large population to an entirely different system is to forcibly collectivize the population. We saw this in the late 1920s in the Soviet Union. The already existing peasantry who owned land were forced to have their farms collectivized in an effort to maximize production because Marx's idea of how the market should work is fucking retarded. So, right off the bat, it's simply a pipe-dream that can only succeed on a very small scale.[/quote]
Marx himself wrote about automated industry. He said that the automation of industry will lead to a point where almost all production is automated, and not only is this plausible, this is actually the direction we, as a society, are heading. If this was to occur, there would be basically two possible outcomes.Marx's ideal outcome is that the shared product and wealth, combined with the lack of action humans have to actually apply to acquire it, would mean that the sheer reduction of time spent working that everyone would get an increase in leisure and would then more freely pursue what they truly wanted to do. This is only really possible with the dissolution of classes so that the product is distributed equally. If it isn't, then that leads to the second outcome.
The second outcome under the current capitalist system the US has, which is the one we are most likely heading towards, means that instead of automation leading to more free time, it actually leads to less. This is because, under a capitalist system, a worker who has had his livelihood taken away by a robot's functionality has nothing left. He can no longer sell his labour, and in doing that, his quality of life will sharply decrease because he is forced to either take whatever can get with the undoubtedly poor worker conditions that come with it, become a criminal, or starve.
Somewhat ironically, current-day capitalism is exactly what I'd call "a pipe-dream that can only succeed on a very small scale". Even today, disregarding the robots and AI that will soon start taking many jobs, there is already crises with unemployment or underemployment, worsening workers' conditions, and stagnating wages, yet at the same time, the ruling class (that is, the richest 1% of America, because they pretty much are the ruling class. Most politicians are either in the 1% or are being influenced by them) has had [I]massive[/I] salary increases (to their already massive salaries) because productivity has been steadily rising even though hours worked has been the same. This is quite literally proletariat being cheated out of surplus value.
[quote]The term "tankie" does not have to explicitly refer to the crushing of the Hungarian revolution. It's more so used in the context of someone who sympathizes with the violence of revolution, and in the case of Anarchists, violent revolution is the quickest way to a fully realized communist state. The vehement opposition of western interventionism is also a primary trait.[/quote]
The term "tankie" refers to a hardline Marxist-Leninist (or Stalinist, if you want to be more brusque about it), following the ideology of the Bolsheviks and most likely would be the kind of person to say "Stalin did nothing wrong". This definition of the term can be confirmed by searching it on urbandictionary and it is how it's used on any given popular hard-left community on the internet (eg /leftypol/, leftist subreddits)
[quote]If Kropotkin's work is based on the disagreement of Soviet Russian state socialism, then how come his last work was produced in 1905 (which was more about Russian language and literature than politics) when the Soviet Union rose in 1917?[/quote]
A small mistake by me when I said that. To correct that;
Kropotkin's economic philosophy books that he published were in part, based on his disagreements with Marx's critique of capitalism. Kropotkin lived most of his life in Switzerland, and when he returned to Russia in 1917, he wrote [url=https://robertgraham.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/kropotkin-on-the-russian-revolution/]this[/url] in his journal. As he died in 1921 and had left unfinished works, it would be reasonable to assume that he would have published works critiquing the Soviet Union itself. The Soviet Union, especially what they would end up doing during the next 30 or so years, runs quite contrary to what Kropotkin wanted to happen.
[quote]Also, a quote from Kropotkin on the Bolsheviks: "During all the activities of the present revolutionary political parties we must never forget that the October movement of the proletariat, which ended in a revolution, has proved to everybody that a social revolution is within the bounds of possibility. And this struggle, which takes place worldwide, has to be supported by all means - all the rest is secondary. The party of the Bolsheviks was right to adopt the old, purely proletarian name of "Communist Party". Even if it does not achieve everything that it would like to, it will nevertheless enlighten the path of the civilised countries for at least a century. Its ideas will slowly be adopted by the peoples in the same way as in the nineteenth century the world adopted the ideas of the Great French Revolution. That is the colossal achievement of the October Revolution." ([url]https://www.bolshevik.info/meeting-lenin-kropotkin-bonc-brujevic1919.htm[/url])[/quote]
What's wrong with this?
[quote]You can call me ignorant on pretty much everything else but the scientific inquiries of Nazi Germany. I've read extensively on the subject so I would appreciate if you didn't misconstrue my restraint of going deeper into a tangent as an indicator of ignorance, thank you.[/quote]
I will call you ignorant as long as you still believe, seriously, that the Nazi ideology is as bad as Communist ideology. Understand that ignorance comes from two sides, here. You could have your thesis written on the scientific inquires of Nazi Germany, but if you still have no idea about socialist ideology, you can't accurately compare them.
[quote]No part of stating that the existence of killing in the name of each ideology is incorrect. This is the billionth time someone has either misunderstood or intentionally misconstrued my argument on this matter. [B]I am not arguing on the specifics of the end goals of each ideology in this context.[/B] I am arguing on the basis that communism is not adverse to violent insurrection.[/quote]
If we are going to compare end goals separately, then pretty much every ideology is in hot water. I'd argue that you would then have to add capitalism to the list of ideologies that have caused a lot of harm, because examples of that can be found centuries ago, from colonialism leading to mass-scale subjugation and genocides (intentional or not) of native populations as well as present day exploitation of third-world countries and widespread poverty that happens [I]within[/I] first-world countries.
Additionally, the "violent insurrection" of the Nazis (ie them trying to take over the entire world) lead to the bloodiest war in history. I'm not really sure civil wars and revolutions in (usually small) communist states can compete with that.
[quote]You are somewhat correct in the sense that I'm less adverse to communism as an ideology than its real-life implementation, but that extent ends thus. Allow me to reiterate as well: I disagree with the methods and theories based on dispassionate analysis. I dislike it because of its real-life failures and the suffering it's wrought. Whether or not I like/dislike or agree/disagree with something, those are two different things to me.[/quote]
Then, I'd argue, you'd have to add capitalism to the list of ideologies you hate. Make no mistake, being American definitely gives you a biased viewpoint to your attitude towards capitalism because as of the previous 3 or so generations, they have been the biggest winners from it. Even being American, however, there is nothing stopping you from falling on some cement, landing badly, breaking some bones, and then being deep in the red due to hospital bills. Even if you wouldn't like to change your mind on the real-world effects of communist ideology, I think it would be pertinent to read on some stuff based on the damaging negative affects of capitalism.
[quote]How does that invalidate what I said?[/quote]
From a sense of pure scale. Political assassinations are nothing new, and the guy, in your own words, wasn't even antifa. This is a fair criticism leveled at antifa if you believe that political violence is never justified, but you're using this to back up your point that the antifa are as bad as the far-right. Not only have the far-right praised the actions of people who did things orders of magnitude worse than someone who tried and failed to assassinate someone, last year, a far-right extremist actually [I]did[/I] manage to assassinate Jo Cox, a UK MP, based on her pro-EU and pro-immigration attitudes.
My point is, simply, saying "these two groups are as bad as eachother" while one group is tangibly worse is disingenuous. To me personally, it comes across as almost trying to use the far-right's bad reputation in order to smear the other.
I think I'm one of the few people that [B]REALLY[/B] likes rain. The sound of it is great, it can be rather soothing to just watch and I'd much rather be drenched in rain than be baking in the sunlight. Also, rain is great at flattening my hair when it won't co-operate w/ me.
[QUOTE=Owlz?;52589864]I think I'm one of the few people that [B]REALLY[/B] likes rain. The sound of it is great, it can be rather soothing to just watch and I'd much rather be drenched in rain than be baking in the sunlight. Also, rain is great at flattening my hair when it won't co-operate w/ me.[/QUOTE]
Lots of people love rain. I definitely do.
[QUOTE=Owlz?;52589864]I think I'm one of the few people that [B]REALLY[/B] likes rain. The sound of it is great, it can be rather soothing to just watch and I'd much rather be drenched in rain than be baking in the sunlight. Also, rain is great at flattening my hair when it won't co-operate w/ me.[/QUOTE]
Listening to rain is great.
But I'm weird in that i can listen to industrial noises and enjoy it just as much. And industrial ambient music too.
the sound of the metro is the most soothing thing ever
Shooting barrles to make them explode is the laziest media trope that exist on the planet.
This whole antifa/nazi thing in the US confuses me to hell. I haven't paid attention to you guys for a week and now you've got Nazi's? Leave the US alone for 200 years and it still won't develop it's own culture, but leave it alone for a week and you've got Nazi's.
Could someone give me a quick summary of how this all started?
[QUOTE=joost1120;52590612]This whole antifa/nazi thing in the US confuses me to hell. I haven't paid attention to you guys for a week and now you've got Nazi's? Leave the US alone for 200 years and it still won't develop it's own culture, but leave it alone for a week and you've got Nazi's.
Could someone give me a quick summary of how this all started?[/QUOTE]
A bunch of people took to the street (with a permit I believe) to rally and "[URL="https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138246/charlottesville-nazi-rally-right-uva"]unite the right[/URL]". Now of course far right groups like the KKK, Nazis, and other groups that can be considered as "the bad guys" saw that as an oppertunity to spread their message og !peace, !love, and !harmony. I believe then left wing organizations like Antifa and friends decided to launch a counterprotest. And then shit basically broke out.
Now, for some reason, a lot of far right people then later had a bit of a hard time disowning the Nazis and stuff. Mostly people on here and the goddamn president of the united states.
[QUOTE=joost1120;52590612]This whole antifa/nazi thing in the US confuses me to hell. I haven't paid attention to you guys for a week and now you've got Nazi's? Leave the US alone for 200 years and it still won't develop it's own culture, but leave it alone for a week and you've got Nazi's.
Could someone give me a quick summary of how this all started?[/QUOTE]
they've always been here and nearly everywhere else, but removing a general Lee statue is what made them all fiery and upset, and are only now becoming a noticeable problem to the average citizen.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52590629]Now, for some reason, a lot of far right people then later had a bit of a hard time disowning the Nazis and stuff. Mostly people on here and the goddamn president of the united states.[/QUOTE]
having people on your side is good, and some people (like trump) are either too cowardly or too morally bankrupt to distance themselves from racists. or they just agree with them.
I am sorry but butter and jam should never touch eachother.
Butter and jam sandwiches are the worst. You get a nasty contrast between the oil/fat of butter and the sweetness of jam.
I'm not sure if this is unpopular or not, but I think Random Access Memories was Daft Punk's best album.
The sight, texture and taste of butter makes me feel ill. I cannot understand people who put piles of butter on anything.
On a similar note, straight up plain average joe bagels are the bomb.
Butter is only good as a cooking oil. Plop butter in a pan to make an omelette? Perfect, reasonable usage. Putting butter on like, a roll? Why not use something healthier with more taste?
group A doesn't like the fact that group B exists and wants to destroy them using violent means. group C forms in response to stop group A using violent means.
if you think violence from group A is on par with violence from group C you have failed basic thinking
Sublime are overrated pieces of 90s trash fuck you fight me.
[QUOTE=gk99;52591578]Butter is only good as a cooking oil. Plop butter in a pan to make an omelette? Perfect, reasonable usage. Putting butter on like, a roll? Why not use something healthier with more taste?[/QUOTE]
butter is healthier than margarine
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52592435]butter is healthier than margarine[/QUOTE]
Depends on the butter, depends on the margarine. Soft spread ones tend to be healthier than hard ones (trans fats are unhealthy, and trans fats turn solid in fridge = harder margarine has more trans fats that soft ones)
Basically butter has saturated fat and older stick margarines have a lot of trans fats, both of which are bad. Trans fats are worse than saturated fat, so bad margarines [I]are[/I] worse than bad butters, but good margarines have no trans fats and likely a lot less saturated fat which makes them better in comparison.
So really, just look at the label and check what the stuff contains. Buy something that is healthy, and if it tastes good, keep buying it.
breath of the wild is pretty underwhelming
[QUOTE=TheWhiteFox1;52592594]breath of the wild is pretty underwhelming[/QUOTE]
after dumping hundreds of hours into The Witcher 3 it'll be years before I pick up another open-world RPG
[QUOTE=joost1120;52590612]This whole antifa/nazi thing in the US confuses me to hell. I haven't paid attention to you guys for a week and now you've got Nazi's? Leave the US alone for 200 years and it still won't develop it's own culture, but leave it alone for a week and you've got Nazi's.
Could someone give me a quick summary of how this all started?[/QUOTE]
A vein of Nazism has run in America since the 30's. When the US got involved in WW2 that shit got real unpopular but ticked back up in the 60's and has been on the rise ever since.
Antifa was created in Europe also in the 30's but didn't come to the US until the early 90's. Antifa ostensibly opposes Nazism and fascism through "direct action", which is often a euphemism for violence, and their targets are rarely restricted to abetted fascists.
The 2016 election, but particlarly Trump's campaign, exposed a lot of racial and social strife that exists in the United States. Far-right/alt-right actors such as but not limited to Neo Nazis and white supremacists see Trumps victory as a validation of their viewpoint and a win for their side, while the far-left sees him as the logical prelude to outright fascism in America. Hence activity from both sides increasing.
[QUOTE=My;52583538]Not sure how unpopular this is, but regular-ass salt pringles is some nasty-ass shit.[/QUOTE]
all pringles are awful. buy real potato chips.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52592940]all pringles are awful. buy real potato chips.[/QUOTE]
Salt and vinegar chips are 
Say goodbye to your taste buds if you eat too many, though.
Butter tastes great
[QUOTE=Bordellimies;52592536]Depends on the butter, depends on the margarine. Soft spread ones tend to be healthier than hard ones (trans fats are unhealthy, and trans fats turn solid in fridge = harder margarine has more trans fats that soft ones)
Basically butter has saturated fat and older stick margarines have a lot of trans fats, both of which are bad. Trans fats are worse than saturated fat, so bad margarines [I]are[/I] worse than bad butters, but good margarines have no trans fats and likely a lot less saturated fat which makes them better in comparison.
So really, just look at the label and check what the stuff contains. Buy something that is healthy, and if it tastes good, keep buying it.[/QUOTE]
saturated fats aren't as bad as people have made them out to be (health "experts" caused a lot of problems in the 80s when they were denouncing fat), the point is just not to eat too much shit
people have been eating butter for thousands of years (with no loss of life until suddenly about 30 years ago), unlike margarine which was invented about a century ago as a cheap substitute (missing all that which makes butter good), and if you can get the real thing why even bother with margarine?
IMO the "If you can get the real thing" is not always a good argument. Why would I buy fake caviar when I can get the real thing? Because the real thing costs too fucking much.
I prefer the softness of margarine over butter, trying to butter up a piece of soft toast is a nightmare if the butter is fridge cold and hard as stone. Margarine lets me do that with no problems whatsoever, and as long as I buy a healthy brand, I don't see a reason to use proper butter instead.
[QUOTE=Bordellimies;52593335]IMO the "If you can get the real thing" is not always a good argument. Why would I buy fake caviar when I can get the real thing? Because the real thing costs too fucking much.
I prefer the softness of margarine over butter, trying to butter up a piece of soft toast is a nightmare if the butter is fridge cold and hard as stone. Margarine lets me do that with no problems whatsoever, and as long as I buy a healthy brand, I don't see a reason to use proper butter instead.[/QUOTE]
difference is that there's substantial differences between the real thing and the fake thing (in this instance the chemical makeup and manufacturing methods).
if your butter is too cold then don't refrigerate it (or get the kind which is blended with a bit of olive oil or something)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Unpopular opinions V8 Flat IS NOTHING
