• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

I heartily oppose both human sacrifice and the jati system, and I don't "struggle" to say either. Why is it difficult for you to take a stand on slavery?
Two reasons:
1) you haven't asked me
Do you oppose slavery? Unequivocally? Without reservation or condition?
Yes.

If you want to get down to it, I might oppose it more than you do. Like... I oppose unmanaged illegal entrants being used as proxy-slaves in the farming and service industries, and I oppose the outsourcing of manufacturing and textiles to countries that use children and the destitute as functional slaves, I oppose the legalization of prostitution because it exacerbates sex trafficking and the slavery of women to serve the sexual desires of men. And I have no fucking tolerance for islam at all because it actively enslaves women, and I get pissed right the fuck off when people defend that horrific and appalling religion and ignore the massive and ongoing human rights violations being practiced by adherents of islam on a daily fucking basis.
 
He had brought up slavery. I asked a specific moral question related to slavery and conservative ideology, whether he in fact supported the rights of the enslaved over the "freedom" of slavers, and he deflected rather than answering.
Well... no... he didn't bring up slavery, he brought up 1984. In response to Jimmy mentioning Orwellian doublespeak. Which comes from 1984.

ETA: Did you genuinely not get this exchange?
Thank you for demonstrating Orwellian Speak.
Freedom is Slavery.
I've read Orwell. I've studied Orwell. And he would approve of my message. He wasn't a man given to thought-canceling cliches, and he did not love the co-option of his work by hypocrites.
 
I heartily oppose both human sacrifice and the jati system, and I don't "struggle" to say either. Why is it difficult for you to take a stand on slavery?
Two reasons:
1) you haven't asked me
Do you oppose slavery? Unequivocally? Without reservation or condition?
Yes.

If you want to get down to it, I might oppose it more than you do. Like... I oppose unmanaged illegal entrants being used as proxy-slaves in the farming and service industries, and I oppose the outsourcing of manufacturing and textiles to countries that use children and the destitute as functional slaves, I oppose the legalization of prostitution because it exacerbates sex trafficking and the slavery of women to serve the sexual desires of men. And I have no fucking tolerance for islam at all because it actively enslaves women, and I get pissed right the fuck off when people defend that horrific and appalling religion and ignore the massive and ongoing human rights violations being practiced by adherents of islam on a daily fucking basis.
See? It's actually very easy to condemn slavery. So why can't Tswizzle?
 
Also, the part where you refused point blank to condemn the transatlantic slave trade or support its violent overthrow, which makes your position as a moral authority deeply questionable in my opinion.
This is a stupid thing to say.
No, ^^that^^ is a stupid thing to say.

Undoubtedly there were those who were willing to accept as moral and just to treat certain peoples like trainable livestock with a bonus, never discussed in polite company, of being able to ‘breed’ the women at will and so ‘grow’ your holdings. Laws and religion worked together to normalize this and to see it as ‘God’s will.’ I understand and accept that there were those who did not question this system but accepted it as right.

But clearly, there were many even in the deep south and even in slave holding families who disagreed, who recognized the barbarity, the inhumanity, the absolute moral wrong. Some few slave holders freed their slaves upon their own death —which begs the question of why they waited until they could no longer benefit. Was it because they felt they could best protect the enslaved while living but had grave concerns about their fate after the ‘master’ died? Or because they could not figure out a way to maintain their wealth and free slaves?

There was a very concerted effort to keep people enslaved, culturally, legally, and using religion. It was forbidden for slaves to read or write but some learned anyway, sometimes with the help and encouragement t of the master or family. Sometimes it was done in secret. Some tried to be kind and allowed slaves to choose to marry and to earn their own money. But they were still slaves, still beholden to someone else’s goodwill and permission and confined to whatever rules were laid out. Punishment would mean beatings, being sold, being separated from family, even infant children. And of course this is a very dispassionate, sanitized version of a horrible, barbaric, unjustifiable, unjustifiable practice.

That some people of the day chose not to look too closely at what was happening is doubtless true. But it is beyond reprehensible for people today to look at such a systemic violation of human rights and all tenets of decent society as anything less that abhorrent and unforgivable.

I
And yet you've refused to condemn the indian caste system, and you've refused to condemn aztec human sacrifices! That makes your moral authority deeply questionable in my opinion.
Where have you been for the last decade? Huffing glue?

Politesse and I have both condemned the Indian caste system on numerous occasions, as well as participated in discussions which directly concerned the fucked up nature of that.

And yet here you are throwing up Whataboutisms rather than actually saying "slavery is bad and slavers are bad".

Oh, let's not forget Dubai, may the slavers there die in the buildings built with the blood of those they used, as they come tumbling down on their heads.

Now, if only she could actually get off her ass and actually support meaningful and effective measures against slavery instead of whatever the fuck she has been doing.

It's way more effective to fight slavery by making immigrants citizens than it is to make it so that people fear for their lives and freedom if they are discovered working...
 
Last edited:
Politesse and I have both condemned the Indian caste system on numerous occasions, as well as participated in discussions which directly concerned the fucked up nature of that.
Also true. I made no bones about my feelings on SB403. Though perhaps Emily does not follow the California megathread.
 
Um, you know the "supposed owners" the rebels slaughtered were the entire white population of Saint Domingue, men, women and children, don't you? You know they took many of them prisoner, and then slaughtered them, don't you? You know after the initial massacres were over they announced there would be no further violence against those still alive, and when people came out of their hiding places, they were slaughtered, don't you? You're daring TSwizzle to say he doesn't consider them criminals, because...; darers go first.

It's kind of interesting that when we discuss the history of slavery in the US, there's always this lingering excuse: "oh that was just people in those times; they didn't know any better. We can't judge them on that basis." Why can't we see that defense here?
Who says we can't? If you feel like offering that defense, knock yourself out. But there's no need for you to -- you didn't dare anybody to justify it so the "darers go first" challenge isn't for you. If Poli wants to offer that defense he's welcome to. But the defense will be fair game for analysis and evaluation, same as any other defense, same as the lingering excuse you mentioned. In other threads I've pointed out why that excuse for US slavery is a steaming pile of dingos' kidneys.
 
Why do you ask somebody what he meant when what he meant was blatantly obvious, and then instead of waiting for an answer, impute the most idiotic meaning you can imagine and spend the rest of your post taking for granted that's what the person meant?
That is the only definition you provided. If you have another in mind, provide it. And I will ask why you apply one set of standards to decide whether a protestor is a fascist, then apply another to yourself. Why are you wasting time whining like a <expletive deleted> toddler about being "misintrepreted" instead of just clarifying what you meant, in plain English? Tswizzle likewise refuses to clarify. Why? It's not hard for most people to call the African slave trade a bad thing.
Hey laughing dog, what did you like about Poli's post? Did you like that he falsely* claimed "That is the only definition you provided."? Did you like that he snipped out the part of my post that proved his accusation was false as well as the part where I'd pointed out that he'd quoted my actual definition back at me? Was it his demand that I do what I'd already done that you liked, or perhaps his "have you stopped beating your wife"-style question, "why you apply one set of standards to decide whether a protestor is a fascist, then apply another to yourself.", offering zero evidence that I'd done anything of the sort? Did you like that he used a schoolyard bully taunt on me for not having done something I had, in point of fact, done? Did you like his trumped-up false** accusation against TSwizzle? If it wasn't some of those things you liked, what does that leave? I guess you could like that Poli is wasting time whining like a toddler about TSwizzle not engaging with his derail.

(* In post #1882 I provided the definition of "fascist" I'm using: "riding roughshod over human rights, particularly the human rights of their political opponents, and having an ideology that legitimizes those methods".)

(** In post #1896 TSwizzle clarified in plain English that he meant "Why do you side with the violent thugs outside Berkeley?".)
 
Why do you ask somebody what he meant when what he meant was blatantly obvious, and then instead of waiting for an answer, impute the most idiotic meaning you can imagine and spend the rest of your post taking for granted that's what the person meant?
That is the only definition you provided. If you have another in mind, provide it. And I will ask why you apply one set of standards to decide whether a protestor is a fascist, then apply another to yourself. Why are you wasting time whining like a <expletive deleted> toddler about being "misintrepreted" instead of just clarifying what you meant, in plain English? Tswizzle likewise refuses to clarify. Why? It's not hard for most people to call the African slave trade a bad thing.
Hey laughing dog, what did you like about Poli's post....?
To be fair and honest, I don't read every exchange. As I get older (not necessarily wiser), I try to avoid exchanges that evolve into what people meant in part because I find them confusing. For example, I have no idea why the slave trade matters in this discussion.

I'm not perfect about that avoiding them, but I am getting there. As a result, I have no comment because I am frankly too lazy to go back and read through all of that. So, I apologize not answering your question.

(* In post #1882 I provided the definition of "fascist" I'm using: "riding roughshod over human rights, particularly the human rights of their political opponents, and having an ideology that legitimizes those methods".)
You did. And that seems to becoming a more common interpretation of "fascist". However, when I see "fascist", I still think of the more traditional "extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."
 
I'm not perfect about that avoiding them, but I am getting there. As a result, I have no comment because I am frankly too lazy to go back and read through all of that. So, I apologize not answering your question.
Don't, the whole thing is ridiculous. The tldr is I fucking hate it when conservatives throw in aphorism-ized quotables from Orwell or MLK or Lincoln without really thinking about what they really mean. Pro slavery dipshits quoting abolitionists can go cry near a pyre, but it's not worth reading through the whole exchange.
 
Trump sued large law firms to get them under his boot. Trump sued corporate media to get them under his boot. Trump threatened universities to get them to be more compliant. Trump is using the DoJ to fulfill political attacks on opponents.

Call it whatever the heck you want, fascism, authoritarianism, TDS... His actions are indisputibly unconstitutional.

Far right wingers are using the tool of obfuscation while hiding in the pages of the dictionary. There is no honor or honesty left among them.

ETA: Okay, so I can spell obfuscation correctly on the phone, but not while or left?!
 
Last edited:
There is no honor or honesty peft among them.
I mean, their 24/7 job right now is helping cover up, or worse, downplay, sex crimes that their party leader at least abetted against minors. I don't think anyone is going to look to the Republicans for honor or honesty ever again.
I'm not referring to the professional political whores. I'm referring to their citizen enablers and/or supporters.
 
Trump sued large law firms to get them under his boot. Trump sued corporate media to get them under his boot. Trump threatened universities to get them to be more compliant. Trump is using the DoJ to fulfill political attacks on opponents.

Call it whatever the heck you want, fascism, authoritarianism, TDS... His actions are indisputibly unconstitutional.

Far right wingers are using the tool of obfuscation while hiding in the pages of the dictionary. There is no honor or honesty left among them.

ETA: Okay, so I can spell obfuscation correctly on the phone, but not while or left?!

You really need to get yourself checked out for Tourette syndrome. You have some sort of neurological disorder where you just blurt out Trump for no reason.
 
Trump sued large law firms to get them under his boot. Trump sued corporate media to get them under his boot. Trump threatened universities to get them to be more compliant. Trump is using the DoJ to fulfill political attacks on opponents.

Call it whatever the heck you want, fascism, authoritarianism, TDS... His actions are indisputibly unconstitutional.

Far right wingers are using the tool of obfuscation while hiding in the pages of the dictionary. There is no honor or honesty left among them.

ETA: Okay, so I can spell obfuscation correctly on the phone, but not while or left?!

You really need to get yourself checked out for Tourette syndrome. You have some sort of neurological disorder where you just blurt out Trump for no reason.
Oh, that's right each of the wings of this movement are completely independent of each other and their coordination and similar paths / goals / tactics are merely coincidental.
 
What I wrote:
If not, then I dare you to deny it. With words. I'll even start it for you: "I support the Black people who rose up in rebellion and slaughtered their supposed owners in St Dominique, and do not consider them criminals, because..."
Um, you know the "supposed owners" the rebels slaughtered were the entire white population of Saint Domingue, men, women and children, don't you? You know they took many of them prisoner, and then slaughtered them, don't you? You know after the initial massacres were over they announced there would be no further violence against those still alive, and when people came out of their hiding places, they were slaughtered, don't you? You're daring TSwizzle to say he doesn't consider them criminals, because...; darers go first.

What Poli snipped it down to.
Um, you know the "supposed owners" the rebels slaughtered were the entire white population of Saint Domingue, men, women and children, don't you? You know they took many of them prisoner, and then slaughtered them, don't you?
If he paid attention to context he might not misunderstand so thoroughly.

I do. And I know that by exclusively defending slavers as innocent victims
I did nothing of the sort and you don't have any intellectually honest reason to think I did -- you're trumping up a false damaging accusation with malice and reckless disregard for the truth. I asked you to reveal your knowledge and by implication I invited you to consider whether your evident categorizing of some five-year-old child as a "slaver" was truthful. The people I defended as innocent victims and the people who were slavers are two disjoint sets.

and exclusively condemning escaped slaves for their violent ways
Never happened. The great majority of escaped slaves killed nobody; and I expect most of the ones who killed somebody were fighting an armed opponent. That's war. But you weren't talking about "escaped slaves" in general; you were talking about the specific subset who "slaughtered their supposed owners". Somebody supposing a five-year-old to be an owner doesn't make it so.

but not technically endorsing or condemning slavery, you're trying to bait me into falsely accusing you of a pro-slavery position,
I was trying to bait you into nothing of the sort. I've repeatedly condemned slavery in other threads and you've seen me do it; couldn't say if you've observed me doing it. If you paid attention to context you'd know what I was trying to do.

Because you don't want to discuss the issue, you want attention.
Au contraire, I want the attention on you. You're a guy who sends TSwizzle on a mission you're unwilling to go on yourself. You snipped out the meat of my post; "You're daring TSwizzle to say he doesn't consider them criminals, because...; darers go first." Looks to me like you don't want to discuss that issue. Darers go first.
 
Last edited:
...
Protesting fascists doesn't mean you're protesting fascism -- you can always just bundle your fasces into a different enforced ideological monoculture. It's perfectly normal for one set of fascists to oppose a different set of fascists.
That is true. But for some reason, I think fascism is much more right wing. If fascism is right wing, is there any evidence the protesters were right wingers?
Why, is there any evidence your antecedent is correct? "Fascism" and "right wing" are pejoratives leftists use to mean "evil"; they don't have objective meanings users try to conform to. The point of using them isn't descriptive accuracy, but rather framing a narrative. Categorizing leftists as fascist is perfectly normal and hardly confined to the right. The governments of the PRC and the USSR called each other fascist. Heck, Marcus Garvey called his own organization fascist, back in the days before "fascist" became a put-down.
History is the evidence my antecedent is correct.

Your argument is worthy of the Cheshire cat but it is hardly convincing. After all, calling someone a X doesn’t make it so.
That cuts both ways.

From the absence of evidence, I conclude you are unaware of any evidence indicating these protesters are actual fascists.
From the absence of evidence, I conclude you are unaware of any evidence indicating Turning Point are actual fascists. For "actual fascists" to mean anything objective it would have to mean embracing Mussolini's ideology and policies -- hence my examples upthread of foreign conquest and extreme business regulation. The point is, nobody actually uses "fascism" to mean actual fascism. People universally use the word metaphorically -- they encounter some practice or opinion that they intuitively associate with Mussolini (or with Franco or Voldemort or whoever) so the "fascist" pattern-matching neurons in their brains wake up and make them call somebody a fascist. But as you say, calling someone a fascist doesn't make it so -- all it means is one guy is intuitively reminded of actual fascists by another guy. Well then, TSwizzle is every bit as entitled to be intuitively reminded of actual fascists by left-wingers beating people up for crime-think as Poli and the protesters are to be intuitively reminded of actual fascists by whatever the heck Turning Point did to earn their ire. Nobody owns the trademark on metaphors.

Please note I am neither defending their behavior or making any statement about their political ideology. I was curious.
Noted.

... For example, I have no idea why the slave trade matters in this discussion. ...
It doesn't. Two posters were accusing each other of Orwellian language abuse, one of them flipped a mental coin and it came up "Freedom is slavery" instead of "War is peace", and a third poster got triggered by the keyword.

As a result, I have no comment because I am frankly too lazy to go back and read through all of that. So, I apologize not answering your question.
Wakatta.[/Uma Thurman]

(* In post #1882 I provided the definition of "fascist" I'm using: "riding roughshod over human rights, particularly the human rights of their political opponents, and having an ideology that legitimizes those methods".)
You did. And that seems to becoming a more common interpretation of "fascist". However, when I see "fascist", I still think of the more traditional "extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."
Fair enough. Nobody owns the metaphor so suit yourself. From outside the respective movements, though, the protesters trying to stop their opponents from speaking and organizing and trying to win elections look every bit as extreme, authoritarian and intolerant as the people they're protesting. A plague on both their houses. As for the "right-wing" traditional qualifier, that looks an awful lot like the "non-state-actor" traditional qualifier in the U.S. government's old definition of "terrorism" -- an arbitrary limitation thrown in for the purpose of giving the definer's own people a pass.
 
For "actual fascists" to mean anything objective it would have to mean embracing Mussolini's ideology and policies
Is that what you actually think "fascism" means in modern usage, or are you just trying to be a pill? Obviously the common usage of "fascism" has changed since 1945. It annoys me when smart people pretend to be stupid or illiterate in order to make a point. I mean, I assume you don't actually want to have a conversation about Mussolini and his policies comparative to the Trump movement, any more than Tswizzle genuinely wanted to talk about slavery. You're dropping Mussolini's name hoping that it will make everyone shut up, not to invite a conversation about how obviously similar Charlie Kirk was to contemporary clerical fascists like José Antonio Urquino who really did support Mussolini when given the chance. "Fascism" does not mean. and never has meant to anyone, "the literal policies of Mussolini's administration and nothing else." It did not even mean that while Mussolini was alive, it was always a rhetorically loaded andvsomewhat flexible term that offended actual fascists, and the common definition now in use didn't really solidify until after the war as the throughlines between the various far right statist movements of that period became obvious in retrospect.
 

...
Protesting fascists doesn't mean you're protesting fascism -- you can always just bundle your fasces into a different enforced ideological monoculture. It's perfectly normal for one set of fascists to oppose a different set of fascists.
That is true. But for some reason, I think fascism is much more right wing. If fascism is right wing, is there any evidence the protesters were right wingers?
Why, is there any evidence your antecedent is correct? "Fascism" and "right wing" are pejoratives leftists use to mean "evil"; they don't have objective meanings users try to conform to. The point of using them isn't descriptive accuracy, but rather framing a narrative. Categorizing leftists as fascist is perfectly normal and hardly confined to the right. The governments of the PRC and the USSR called each other fascist. Heck, Marcus Garvey called his own organization fascist, back in the days before "fascist" became a put-down.
History is the evidence my antecedent is correct.

Your argument is worthy of the Cheshire cat but it is hardly convincing. After all, calling someone a X doesn’t make it so.
That cuts both ways.
Of course.
From the absence of evidence, I conclude you are unaware of any evidence indicating these protesters are actual fascists.
From the absence of evidence, I conclude you are unaware of any evidence indicating Turning Point are actual fascists. For "actual fascists" to mean anything objective it would have to mean embracing Mussolini's ideology and policies -- hence my examples upthread of foreign conquest and extreme business regulation. The point is, nobody actually uses "fascism" to mean actual fascism. People universally use the word metaphorically -- they encounter some practice or opinion that they intuitively associate with Mussolini (or with Franco or Voldemort or whoever) so the "fascist" pattern-matching neurons in their brains wake up and make them call somebody a fascist. But as you say, calling someone a fascist doesn't make it so -- all it means is one guy is intuitively reminded of actual fascists by another guy. Well then, TSwizzle is every bit as entitled to be intuitively reminded of actual fascists by left-wingers beating people up for crime-think as Poli and the protesters are to be intuitively reminded of actual fascists by whatever the heck Turning Point did to earn their ire. Nobody owns the trademark on metaphors.
I'm sorry, but  Fascism has an actual meaning that is well-known. Now, if people want to use fascism to mean violent poopy-heads, then they should expect others to explain their "metaphors".


(* In post #1882 I provided the definition of "fascist" I'm using: "riding roughshod over human rights, particularly the human rights of their political opponents, and having an ideology that legitimizes those methods".)
You did. And that seems to becoming a more common interpretation of "fascist". However, when I see "fascist", I still think of the more traditional "extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."
Fair enough. Nobody owns the metaphor so suit yourself. From outside the respective movements, though, the protesters trying to stop their opponents from speaking and organizing and trying to win elections look every bit as extreme, authoritarian and intolerant as the people they're protesting. A plague on both their houses. As for the "right-wing" traditional qualifier, that looks an awful lot like the "non-state-actor" traditional qualifier in the U.S. government's old definition of "terrorism" -- an arbitrary limitation thrown in for the purpose of giving the definer's own people a pass.
The right-wing qualifier arises from history. Blaming history or the Oxford dictionary as "arbitrary", seems a bit desperate to defend a "metaphor".
 
Back
Top Bottom