Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
InnesI
The Goat Fucker

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:19 pm
Posts: 1883
PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 8:53 am 
 

While I don't agree with US weapon laws I do think that if you're allowed to bear arms then no none should bother you if you don't use it. If you use it, and not for self defence, then you should expect consequences. Doesn't matter is its knives or automatic rifles. No one in the thread has said anything to legitimize the use of weaponry like the ones in the picture S&P posted while they wanted to crack down on knives.

If the woman acted in self defence then I think she should be allowed to defend oneself. So if that's the actual situation the cops were in the wrong. But it's also hard for them to judge the situation. How can they know what has happened before in contrast to what they see when they arrive? They've gotten the call but if what they see when they arrive is the caller attacking the other person with a knife they can't just assume self defence either. From the video footage it does seem like aiming for the legs would have been a lot better though.

Not sure about is cops in the US have excessive training though. From what I've heard its very easy to become a cop in the US (6 months at the police academy) compared to my home country for example (and we only have a 2 year education for this profession). I think one of the main problems might be the lack of education actually.

AddWittyUsername wrote:
So openly recognizing that there are multiple, massive problems with cops, that this situation was handled utterly wrong, that this death should not have happened and is squarely on the police is being a "bootlicking fuck" if one dares to also recognize that maybe there is a bit of a difference. . .


Some people here just dislike using arguments and prefer using emotions and pejoratives. Unfortunately it has also been encouraged to some degree. Its up to us other people, whether we agree with each other or not, to bring discussions to a nice level.
_________________
Metal Archives resident goat fucker. Since adopting the name InnesI online I've also been called a satanist, communist, right wing, nazi-apologist, fascist, muslim, muslim lover, PC, neoliberal, boot licker and verbal masturbator! Feel free to add your projection too. :-)

Top
 Profile  
Slater922
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:24 pm
Posts: 742
PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 9:19 am 
 

InnesI wrote:
Not sure about is cops in the US have excessive training though. From what I've heard its very easy to become a cop in the US (6 months at the police academy) compared to my home country for example (and we only have a 2 year education for this profession). I think one of the main problems might be the lack of education actually.

I think that's one of the main problems with the police. Since they're more focused on getting the job as fast as possible, they end up skipping over some important stuff like dealing with mentally ill people and whatnot. While there seems to be some attempts to train them for more situations, I'd say follow Sweden's police academies, where you need to take classes for two years to complete and get a wide load of various situations so officers can be better prepared.
_________________
FLORIDIAN DEATH METAL AND NORWEGIAN BLACK METAL IS KING

Check out my reviews

Top
 Profile  
InnesI
The Goat Fucker

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:19 pm
Posts: 1883
PostPosted: Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:02 pm 
 

Slater922 wrote:
I think that's one of the main problems with the police. Since they're more focused on getting the job as fast as possible, they end up skipping over some important stuff like dealing with mentally ill people and whatnot. While there seems to be some attempts to train them for more situations, I'd say follow Sweden's police academies, where you need to take classes for two years to complete and get a wide load of various situations so officers can be better prepared.


Sweden has had critique towards security guards of different varieties. Mostly those who patrol the inner city. They have between 8 hours and 40 hours of education. It is obvious that more mistakes will be made with such loose requirements. We've had critique towards the police as well but generally from people who themselves break the law. These include people involved in drugs in different ways, football hooligans, illegal graffiti artists and political sides who dislike that the police defend any demonstration that has been allowed to take place (usually far left and far right groups). Otherwise most critique here towards the police is that they are not tough enough. But that goes for the whole juridical system really.
_________________
Metal Archives resident goat fucker. Since adopting the name InnesI online I've also been called a satanist, communist, right wing, nazi-apologist, fascist, muslim, muslim lover, PC, neoliberal, boot licker and verbal masturbator! Feel free to add your projection too. :-)

Top
 Profile  
Curious_dead
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:13 pm
Posts: 666
PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:19 am 
 

Oblarg wrote:
Sedition and Pockets wrote:
You speak in the register of defeatism, of opportunism, of accommodation with that which cannot be accommodated within the framework of justice.


You sound absolutely batshit insane right now.


That's because she is. Absolutely not fucking sense of nuance.

Top
 Profile  
l Lunaris l
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:14 pm
Posts: 123
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:07 am 
 

Sedition and Pockets wrote:
AddWittyUsername wrote:
Just an fyi, but not every form of socialism believes in preaching the party line to the denial of everything else including reality where inconvenient. It's possible to recognize capitalism for the massively unjust and problematic system it is, while simultaneously recognizing some issues have a significantly broader foundation than capitalism alone. Similarly, it's possible to recognize that, if we're not going to be in a position to fully abolish capitalism anytime soon, there are ways to limit at least some of its excesses. Which requires looking deeper into existing issues to peg their specific cause beyond a nebulous "capitalism". That's not "making excuses", that's recognizing that some issues can't be solved simply by abolishing capitalism, while some other issues can be solved or at least significantly reduced even without fully abolishing capitalism.


You speak in the register of defeatism, of opportunism, of accommodation with that which cannot be accommodated within the framework of justice. I couldn't care less whether you speak that poison in the name of something you call "socialism" or not. I couldn't care less how you identify or who you canvas for; so long as you speak that poison, you are licking the boot.


Nothing can have any nuance. Nothing can have another root cause besides capitalism. Pointing out that destroying the current systems won't solve all of our problems, pointing out that things aren't just black and white and we can make positive change without uprooting everything, that's just making excuses.

I guess I'm not a real socialist, sorry everyone. I'm just a bootlicker making excuses for our capitalist overlords.

I don't know what kind of bullshit mental gymnastics you have to pull to excuse literal genocide and worship the Soviets, while also condemning anyone who dares imply that this is a more complicated situation than a cold-blooded murder. You demand blind hate of everything your perceived enemy does, while closing your eyes to the wrongdoings of your own "side" when it's convenient. It's the exact same shit I expect to see from fascists. It's like you're trying your hardest to prove horseshoe theory right.
_________________
Eco-socialist weirdo | Proudly LGBTQ+ | Vote Green!

Top
 Profile  
Methuen
Metalhead

Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 4:55 pm
Posts: 1857
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:02 pm 
 

Ezadara wrote:
Biden formally recognized the Armenian genocide today. First president since Reagan to do so. As someone with Armenian heritage, as much as it's a massive case of 'about time', it's relieving to finally see a president say those words and recognize the suffering Armenians went through, and continued to go through in the face of a vicious campaign to erase the genocide. Pretty nice to see a president honor their campaign promise and put humanitarianism (and reality) over geopolitics, too.


That is so important - keep telling the world that it happened, and that it was genocide, and don't let the official descendents of the perpetrators carry on covering it up. I didn't know that Germay had officially recognised their historic culpability & issued various staements a couple of years ago - learning about their total lack of action (and official indifference) didn't make nice reading considering later history.

Empyreal wrote:
Like I said, I don't know that I'd ever be OK with deadly force from the cops or the state. That's just giving them more power to kill wantonly.


I can't remember where I read it, though I'm sure it was by Pope Francis, but the writer argued that giving a government the right to kill its people is just plain wrong, no good can come of it, etc.; that doing so effectively cheapens the life of everyone in that country; you're all worth less as individuals - the government sets the law, and the prosecutors of the law have the right to kill you. It's some Nazi / Communist nonesense. That right is then exercised most formally in terms of executions, on behalf of said government, and executing people doesn't demonstrably serve to make a better world. Easy for him to talk in moral absolutes from a throne of course, but it did get me thinking, and I finally settled on 'the death penalty is wrong', 'giving the state the right to kill its people like that is wrong'. The argument was expanded slightly that the state killing its people is a kind of failure; it's the state admitting that it can do no better for those it is killing. The extreme annoyance the whole thing caused in our right-wingers helped settle matters - always look at who is being offended to work out if you're on the side of right or wrong.

When I look at the event with the young girl, I think that our police aren't armed - they come in pairs, have stab-proof-vests, big sticks, and decent training in how to use said stick. That girl could've been taken down by a British policeman without dying. She'd have been a bit knocked about, and might have injured someone else, but she wouldn't have been killed. She wasn't some trained hitman out to end a life with one swipe of a kitchen knife. At worst, if she'd tried that in somewhere stabby like London or Birmingham, she'd have been lightly toasted by a taser, but still not killed.

On the same theme, I look at the terrorists that occaisonally get shot here, and I think 'do they really need to be killed ?' - there's a certain visceral gratification in the bad guy getting the Deathwish III treatment - but do we win the war that way ? Tough one. We now have armed police at airports, major railway stations and so on, incase someone shouts "Allahu Akhbar" and tries it on - however, if they have a bomb you can't shoot them (trigger) - if they're attacking a crowd, you can't fire into it (hit someone innocent) - so why can't the police take their big sticks and get stuck in the old fashioned way ? (obviously, personal harm risk). So we've constructed a very limited scenario in which the state can kill its people - and I still can't help but think that it's wrong, and a kind of failure.

Too much philosophy, history, and 70s prog rock is turning me into a pacifist, I think :lol:
_________________
Last.fm | Goodreads |

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 1116
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 4:48 pm 
 

l Lunaris l wrote:
Nothing can have any nuance. Nothing can have another root cause besides capitalism. Pointing out that destroying the current systems won't solve all of our problems, pointing out that things aren't just black and white and we can make positive change without uprooting everything, that's just making excuses.


We live in a capitalist society. That economic base, that mode of production, structures every aspect of our lives and every facet of our society and culture. At every level, our world replicates the relations and power dynamics of the capitalist economics; you can't get away from that and trying to do so just obscures the material factors at play. When you abstract events and moments from the systems, structures, and conditions that call those moments into being, you're not adding context, you're just removing meaning.
_________________
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)|Our Program/What We Stand For|Liberation News|Join Us

Top
 Profile  
Pichushkin
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:41 am
Posts: 165
PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:50 pm 
 

SuperVeji4 wrote:
Sedition and Pockets wrote:
You speak in the register of defeatism, of opportunism, of accommodation with that which cannot be accommodated within the framework of justice. I couldn't care less whether you speak that poison in the name of something you call "socialism" or not. I couldn't care less how you identify or who you canvas for; so long as you speak that poison, you are licking the boot. You speak of "reality" as if that were something that could be found in the mere facts of a moment abstracted from the whole society and world which gave birth to that moment, or the system that built and sustains that world, but that reality is simply a construction and artifact of the systems of power which uphold the present order. That you accept it as "real" doesn't change that it is not. I refuse to accept that false "reality." I refuse to bend the knee to the illegitimate power that calls that "reality" into being. I will work, tirelessly and as ruthlessly as I must, to shatter that "reality" and smash that power. I hope you can see your way clear to do the same, but if you don't, that, too, is your prerogative. Just know it makes you a fucking bootlicker.

This post is just pure cringe, sounds like an edgy teenager wrote this. The fact that you are a grown-ass adult woman is utterly embarrassing.

Oblarg wrote:
Sedition and Pockets wrote:
You speak in the register of defeatism, of opportunism, of accommodation with that which cannot be accommodated within the framework of justice.


You sound absolutely batshit insane right now.

You say that now? You must've missed her previous recent posts in which she flirts with racism and antisemitism. And when this was pointed out she hilariously used the excuse of, "oh sorry, I was just having a bad day."

It's strange, S&P behaves like an evangelical: says batshit crazy shit, yet claims martyrdom when called out on her beliefs. Classic Persecution Complex, exactly what you would see from Christian evangelicals.




But the site owner & mods are stupid hypocrites & allow her to post her garbage. Say anything remotely positive about America or conservative & you’re banned. This racist anti Semitic piece of shit can insult my people and no action is taken. Fuck this forum for allowing such trash free reign to spread hate. S & P should have been kicked out along time ago but the site owner is such an idiot she’ll allow people like this to continue to post
_________________
Niklas Sanger wrote:
I'd prefer if this thread was more about physical attributes that affect playing or stage presence, or that are a detriment but play with anyway, not a man's penis size.

Top
 Profile  
Unorthodox
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:08 pm
Posts: 2246
PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:29 am 
 

Thing is, Sedition and Pockets political "hot takes" are far more common among the average 14-20 year old these days than when I was around that age. Remember when Bernie was a crazy socialist? Man, those were the good old days. To think I was some radical wanting everyone to have a $15 minimum wage, healthcare, and free college. Now we got people outright advocating for the complete abolition of capitalism and seizing property from landlords. Stupidity has no political leanings, but it does seem to push towards authoritarianism (those who can't think in nuance tend to by into unnuanced political beliefs).

There's two cliffs, one on the left and one on the right. I think people have been too exposed for too long with the cliff on the right, without any sort of recognition of the one on the left.
_________________
Last.fm

Top
 Profile  
l Lunaris l
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:14 pm
Posts: 123
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:20 am 
 

Sedition and Pockets wrote:
l Lunaris l wrote:
Nothing can have any nuance. Nothing can have another root cause besides capitalism. Pointing out that destroying the current systems won't solve all of our problems, pointing out that things aren't just black and white and we can make positive change without uprooting everything, that's just making excuses.


We live in a capitalist society. That economic base, that mode of production, structures every aspect of our lives and every facet of our society and culture. At every level, our world replicates the relations and power dynamics of the capitalist economics; you can't get away from that and trying to do so just obscures the material factors at play. When you abstract events and moments from the systems, structures, and conditions that call those moments into being, you're not adding context, you're just removing meaning.


I mean, you're absolutely right here. Capitalism inherently reinforces and enables existing injustices, and creates its own. As the system that our lives are built upon, it affects everything. And it is very important to recognize the role it plays in every aspect of our society, and all of our society's problems.

But it's not the only source of injustice by a mile. It works to worsen evils that could exist without it, and that it can exist without. There are so many problems that can be fought against and mitigated within our capitalist society, so much room for improvement and change and reform. Are things not better for the average person than they were a century ago? Are you gonna tell me that there are no social issues that have been solved under capitalism? None at all?

And that's not even mentioning that your own gross authoritarian tankie ideology, if implemented, would probably be even worse than what we're dealing with now. The USSR and communist China, the terrible tyrannical regimes that you seem to be so eager to defend, have already proven that.
_________________
Eco-socialist weirdo | Proudly LGBTQ+ | Vote Green!

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 1116
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:49 pm 
 

l Lunaris l wrote:
I mean, you're absolutely right here. Capitalism inherently reinforces and enables existing injustices, and creates its own. As the system that our lives are built upon, it affects everything. And it is very important to recognize the role it plays in every aspect of our society, and all of our society's problems.

But it's not the only source of injustice by a mile. It works to worsen evils that could exist without it, and that it can exist without. There are so many problems that can be fought against and mitigated within our capitalist society, so much room for improvement and change and reform. Are things not better for the average person than they were a century ago? Are you gonna tell me that there are no social issues that have been solved under capitalism? None at all?


I do not believe that the evidence of history, the evidence of our own experience, or the basic parameters of capitalism as a system allow for deep and durable change from within that system, nor do I believe that there are any significant social problems that can really be said to exist independently of capitalism and class society (and capitalism is merely the most advanced form of the latter). Are there meaningful, attainable reforms to be won under capitalism? There are, and we must pursue them, both as "harm reduction" and to draw people into struggle to develop political consciousness toward revolution. But, these attainable reforms are both limited in scope, and, unless the capitalist system itself ceases to be, they will always be vulnerable to being rolled back by the ruling class, and our energies dissipated just in holding onto what has already been won. Deeply, fundamentally, fully addressing and overcoming white supremacy, patriarchy, ableism, anti-queer oppression etc will require the liquidation of the material conditions that make them possible to sustain and useful to the capitalist ruling class, and that ultimately means the liquidation of capitalism, the capitalist state, and all class distinctions.
_________________
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)|Our Program/What We Stand For|Liberation News|Join Us

Top
 Profile  
Oblarg
Veteran

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:59 pm
Posts: 2872
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:02 pm 
 

have you ever tried making a point in plain language
_________________
iamntbatman wrote:
manowar are literally five times the band that fates warning are: each member is as good as fates warning alone, then joey's bass solos are like an entire extra fates warning

Top
 Profile  
Curious_dead
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:13 pm
Posts: 666
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:49 am 
 

Sedition and Pockets wrote:
Deeply, fundamentally, fully addressing and overcoming white supremacy, patriarchy, ableism, anti-queer oppression etc will require the liquidation of the material conditions that make them possible to sustain and useful to the capitalist ruling class, and that ultimately means the liquidation of capitalism, the capitalist state, and all class distinctions.


I'm not sure if you're really that naive or if you're just so deep into your ideology that your willing to just parrot meaningless talking points. Those things would exist in any system. In fact, they existed for thousands of years and actually thrived under other systems that were far removed from modern capitalism.

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 1116
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:32 am 
 

Curious_dead wrote:
Sedition and Pockets wrote:
Deeply, fundamentally, fully addressing and overcoming white supremacy, patriarchy, ableism, anti-queer oppression etc will require the liquidation of the material conditions that make them possible to sustain and useful to the capitalist ruling class, and that ultimately means the liquidation of capitalism, the capitalist state, and all class distinctions.


I'm not sure if you're really that naive or if you're just so deep into your ideology that your willing to just parrot meaningless talking points. Those things would exist in any system. In fact, they existed for thousands of years and actually thrived under other systems that were far removed from modern capitalism.


Some of them predate capitalism, but white supremacy, for instance, does not. It was a product of capitalism and directly implicated in the process of primitive capital accumulation. That said, even noting that some these social malformations have a history that stretches back to the time before the emergence of capitalism misses the point entirely. Capitalism is a specific form of class society, and all of these systems of oppression have their material basis in class society and specifically, in the existence of private property and the relations of power generated from property. What this kind of thinking misses is that for the overwhelming majority of human existence (we're talking something like 250,000 years here), class society and the oppressive structures that serve as a defense of the institution of private property didn't exist. Private expropriation of socially produced surplus is the foundation of every form of oppression and exploitation that has emerged over the last 10,000 years or so. It is the reason those oppressions exist, and it is the reason they persist.

For the record, no one is saying that ending capitalism and abolishing private property will result in the immediate end of racist, white supremacist, misogynistic, anti-queer, or ableist patterns of thought and behavior (well, no one except maybe some anarchists). The old society may be pregnant with the new, but the lingering effects of generation upon generation of propaganda backed by limitless power will, undoubtedly, still leave its mark on the emergent post-capitalist society. Rooting these out will be the work of years, and perhaps (probably?) of generations, but the materially necessary first step is the end of private property and the severing of the relations of power created out of property. That can't be done from within capitalism; our liberation demands that capitalism must perish as a system.
_________________
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)|Our Program/What We Stand For|Liberation News|Join Us

Top
 Profile  
gestapothrash
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:55 am
Posts: 1052
Location: The Land Down Under
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:43 am 
 

Sedition and Pockets wrote:
For the record, no one is saying that ending capitalism and abolishing private property will result in the immediate end of racist, white supremacist, misogynistic, anti-queer, or ableist patterns of thought and behavior (well, no one except maybe some anarchists).

Well that's obvious, I've seen you say some pretty detestable and racist shit in here and you hate capitalism
_________________
UltraBoris wrote:
Imagine getting pounded on the side of the head with a rather average-sized brick approximately four times a second for a half-hour while a vacuum cleaner is turned to maximum volume in the background. That's Marduk for ya.

My Fukking Wantlist
My Fukking Collection

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 5671
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:47 am 
 

Ezadara wrote:
Biden formally recognized the Armenian genocide today. First president since Reagan to do so. As someone with Armenian heritage, as much as it's a massive case of 'about time', it's relieving to finally see a president say those words and recognize the suffering Armenians went through, and continued to go through in the face of a vicious campaign to erase the genocide. Pretty nice to see a president honor their campaign promise and put humanitarianism (and reality) over geopolitics, too.

It's really not fair to credit Reagan with a formal recognition of the Armenian genocide. His mention was barely an afterthought and, arguably, an accident.

The real question is: why the hell did it take this long to recognize reality?

Would be nice if Biden could follow this up with calling what's happening in Yemen a genocide... or at least to stop selling US manufactured arms for Saudi Arabia's "defense." Because yeah, that's still happening.
_________________
ambientsorrow wrote:
Pretty rubbish, I must say. Certainly not worth the hype behind it. Boring and predictable. A band for 14-22 year olds.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 58624
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 649
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:35 pm 
 

Curious_dead wrote:
Sedition and Pockets wrote:
Deeply, fundamentally, fully addressing and overcoming white supremacy, patriarchy, ableism, anti-queer oppression etc will require the liquidation of the material conditions that make them possible to sustain and useful to the capitalist ruling class, and that ultimately means the liquidation of capitalism, the capitalist state, and all class distinctions.


Those things would exist in any system. In fact, they existed for thousands of years and actually thrived under other systems that were far removed from modern capitalism.


I'm inclined to agree with this. The basic idea behind what S&P is saying, I think, is that economic injustice is ultimately what accounts for all those forms of bigotry, exclusion, oppression, etc. (term these "social injustice" for short); so, satisfy the requirements of economic justice (i.e., end capitalism and implement socialism), and social justice will be the (eventual) result.

Now it's obvious enough that capitalism exacerbates social injustice, even though (as I think Marx himself says) it does create significant social and material improvements compared against the system that precedes it. (Of course the socialist rejoinder is that socialism would create further improvements overall, which I think is a very plausible view.) But the idea that capitalism "deeply, fundamentally, fully" accounts for social injustice isn't so clear, IMO, though it's provocative and interesting.

If what S&P is saying (i.e., in its stronger version: not merely "exacerbates" but "deeply, fundamentally, fully accounts for") is true, then there shouldn't be anything at play in our psychological makeup and interactions that would lead to bigotry and exclusion and the like, even if (hypothetically) nobody had been systemically wronged in economic terms. And I think that's pretty unlikely, so I'd probably have to agree with you (Curious_dead).

Even under the best of material conditions, it seems obvious that pretty much everyone would have the potential to display a bit of an asshole streak. Or at least ethical/interpersonal immaturity - as in, "That person is different from me, that weirds me out, I don't like it," and any behavior that manifests that attitude. Not to mention certain styles of religious indoctrination: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," etc. I could see economic justice significantly undermining things like that, but I'd be interested to hear the case that it would wholly eliminate them (even in a gradual, roundabout, multi-generational sort of way).

Top
 Profile  
Ezadara
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:32 pm
Posts: 351
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:03 pm 
 

darkeningday wrote:
The real question is: why the hell did it take this long to recognize reality?

High risk, low reward. Armenians are anything but a major voting bloc in US politics (outside of California's 28th congressional district) and unfortunately recognizing the Armenian genocide just isn't an important issue to people outside the Armenian community. Add in all the crap Turkey has been pulling over the last few decades, and, well, why would any American president bother? No politician ever lost an election or suffered a drop in approval ratings because they refused to recognize the genocide.

I'm glad Biden put truth and right over politics in this case. I don't think that wound in the consciousness of the Armenian diaspora will ever really heal until Turkey itself stops its monstrous campaign to deny what our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents went through, but it does make a difference for the United States to finally recognize the genocide after years of keeping quiet to avoid upsetting a country that hasn't even really been an American ally for the last decade.

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 5671
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:21 pm 
 

It's a smart political move too, at least domestically. It's a rare issue both the left and the right agree on, and not in the Sinema/Romney austerity kind of way. The right likes the acknowledgment because it fits into their narrative of Muslims slaughtering Christians, while the left likes it because it was a fucking genocide.

I'm curious to see if there's any political fallout with Turkey. I know the US evacuated their embassies due to credible threats of violence. It gives me hope that this administration can follow the right course of action without catastrophizing the worst case scenario and tacking to the path of least resistance.

I guess in a perverse way, Erdogan being an unapologetic monster made this move less perilous, as opposed to someone like Modi who puts a kind face to mask abject cruelty.
_________________
ambientsorrow wrote:
Pretty rubbish, I must say. Certainly not worth the hype behind it. Boring and predictable. A band for 14-22 year olds.

Top
 Profile  
AddWittyUsername
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:40 pm
Posts: 203
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:55 am 
 

darkeningday wrote:
It's a smart political move too, at least domestically. It's a rare issue both the left and the right agree on, and not in the Sinema/Romney austerity kind of way. The right likes the acknowledgment because it fits into their narrative of Muslims slaughtering Christians, while the left likes it because it was a fucking genocide.

I'm curious to see if there's any political fallout with Turkey. I know the US evacuated their embassies due to credible threats of violence. It gives me hope that this administration can follow the right course of action without catastrophizing the worst case scenario and tacking to the path of least resistance.

I guess in a perverse way, Erdogan being an unapologetic monster made this move less perilous, as opposed to someone like Modi who puts a kind face to mask abject cruelty.

Putting my cynical politics hat on, I think another major factor is that when a genocide (or other crimes against humanity) happened long enough ago that everyone actively involved is dead, acknowledging it happened is a stand-alone action. Which, yeah, might still piss off the country that spent a century spreading propaganda to deny it committed genocide, and result in some international political consequences, but fairly limited (at least comparatively).

On the other hand, when it comes to acknowledging recent or currently ongoing atrocities, things can't exactly be left there. Acknowledging, say, that the Saudis are using the weapons you're selling them to commit a genocide in Yemen while doing or changing nothing is, if possible, an even worse look than simply looking the other way and pretending nothing's happening. So acknowledgment there would have to come with actual decisions and actions--regarding weapon sales, other economical matters, sanctions and embargoes, refugees, intervention, international courts, and so on. Each of which has political risks and consequences.

(Obviously, I don't think those are good reasons to simply ignore an ongoing genocide--unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the politicians disagree with me there)

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 1116
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:13 am 
 

megalowho wrote:
Curious_dead wrote:
Sedition and Pockets wrote:
Deeply, fundamentally, fully addressing and overcoming white supremacy, patriarchy, ableism, anti-queer oppression etc will require the liquidation of the material conditions that make them possible to sustain and useful to the capitalist ruling class, and that ultimately means the liquidation of capitalism, the capitalist state, and all class distinctions.


Those things would exist in any system. In fact, they existed for thousands of years and actually thrived under other systems that were far removed from modern capitalism.


I'm inclined to agree with this. The basic idea behind what S&P is saying, I think, is that economic injustice is ultimately what accounts for all those forms of bigotry, exclusion, oppression, etc. (term these "social injustice" for short); so, satisfy the requirements of economic justice (i.e., end capitalism and implement socialism), and social justice will be the (eventual) result.

Now it's obvious enough that capitalism exacerbates social injustice, even though (as I think Marx himself says) it does create significant social and material improvements compared against the system that precedes it. (Of course the socialist rejoinder is that socialism would create further improvements overall, which I think is a very plausible view.) But the idea that capitalism "deeply, fundamentally, fully" accounts for social injustice isn't so clear, IMO, though it's provocative and interesting.

If what S&P is saying (i.e., in its stronger version: not merely "exacerbates" but "deeply, fundamentally, fully accounts for") is true, then there shouldn't be anything at play in our psychological makeup and interactions that would lead to bigotry and exclusion and the like, even if (hypothetically) nobody had been systemically wronged in economic terms. And I think that's pretty unlikely, so I'd probably have to agree with you (Curious_dead).

Even under the best of material conditions, it seems obvious that pretty much everyone would have the potential to display a bit of an asshole streak. Or at least ethical/interpersonal immaturity - as in, "That person is different from me, that weirds me out, I don't like it," and any behavior that manifests that attitude. Not to mention certain styles of religious indoctrination: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," etc. I could see economic justice significantly undermining things like that, but I'd be interested to hear the case that it would wholly eliminate them (even in a gradual, roundabout, multi-generational sort of way).


It's not logically, rationally, or materially tenable to argue that systemic injustice is caused by personal beliefs and behaviors. When we talk about white supremacy, or patriarchy, or queer oppression, we're not talking about bad thoughts in the heads of some people, we're talking about developed structures of power, law, and ideology. If oppression had its roots in some natural capacity of human beings to be "assholes," then oppression would appear in history in an essentially limitless array of forms and targets, and these oppressions would not be systemized. Instead, actual oppression appears in a quite limited array of forms, consistently targeting the same folks, and always in a systematic way. Moreover, each of these systems of oppression has clear ties to the economic base of class society, and serve transparently obvious functions in facilitating the accumulation, maintenance, and defense of private property and wealth.

You're right to say that each individual human being possesses the capacity to be, as you put it, an "asshole," but that's really neither here nor there. We're not talking about individual acts of bad behavior or noxious individual beliefs; we're talking about systems of power, systems of law, systems of exploitation and abuse—systems that are socially enforced and backed by organized violence. No one is saying that ending capitalism will result in some sort of utopia free of individual prejudice or anti-social behavior. What I'm saying, what socialists and communists have been saying for damn near 200 years, is that the systems of oppression that are characteristic of class and capitalist society have their roots in the private ownership of the means of production. They are inextricably and irreducibly linked to the structures and imperatives of the capitalist system, and if we want to eliminate those systems and liberate the oppressed, we cannot do that from within the strictures and structures of capitalism. The end of systemic oppression demands a whole new system.
_________________
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)|Our Program/What We Stand For|Liberation News|Join Us

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 58624
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 649
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:44 am 
 

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying.

So the idea is that economic injustice explains, without remainder, what I termed for short "social injustice" (bigotry, exclusion, oppression, etc., on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, etc.) - but in the systemic rather than personal sense.

I think that's a useful distinction. I did see someone the other day invoke the slogan, "The personal is the political" (which I'm too young and politically inexperienced to appreciate more), but even then my thought was that it might unintentionally blur a pretty intuitive and appropriate distinction. Obviously no one can be systemically immunized against shitty, bigoted individual behavior; even in a classless society, some people might conceivably dislike and disassociate from foreigners, or use the words "retarded" or "gay" as insults, etc., etc. But (the argument goes) it wouldn't be an inescapable law of nature that certain "marginal" people had to be deprived of certain basic goods of life; theoretically there's no permanent obstacle to people formally, collectively recognizing and protecting a universal right to the rudiments of a decent life ("life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness," etc.).

I don't think that's a bad argument. I'm trying to imagine what the pushback might be. "Classless society" might be thought borderline oxymoronic, given that society (arguably) requires its members to have unequal and limited authority over one another (but I'm not qualified to get into that argument). Also, I'm thinking back to some commentary (Martha Nussbaum's) from a few years ago, when people were more intensely debating same-sex marriage; Nussbaum's position, IIRC, was that the usual dumbass arguments against marriage equality ("It'll undermine the foundations of civilization," "Think of the children!" etc.) were mostly just people putting in "intellectual" dress their raw disgust for LGBT people. It might be possible to maintain that economic injustice doesn't clearly account without remainder for something like this disgust, and that there's no theoretical guarantee that disgust couldn't translate to systemic inequalities of some kind (as in, say, the right to a recognizedly legitimate personal partnership) in a classless society.

I dunno. It's interesting to think about, but obviously I'm not sure what the right answer is.

Top
 Profile  
Methuen
Metalhead

Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 4:55 pm
Posts: 1857
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:17 am 
 

megalowho wrote:
"Classless society" might be thought borderline oxymoronic, given that society (arguably) requires its members to have unequal and limited authority over one another (but I'm not qualified to get into that argument). .


It is, and does (demonstrably, at least) - Sticking with the revolutionary example, there's always a need for things to just work; we can't have a King, so we need a governing commitee that can assume executive power over the rest of us. Well done, you've now formed a whole new class for folks to belong to / be excluded from; the commitee member. Naturally specifications are drawn up to govern who can join / stand for election to, the commitee - naturally this is exclusive to some degree. 'John from Smith Street ? He's not totally on-board with the new way of thinking; let's exclude those that aren't paid up party members'. You now have a three-tier society; commitee members, party members in general, non-party members. Rights and privileges begin to accrue to the new strata, and before you know it we're listening to 'Winds of Change' and holding candles in the rain in Berlin.

One thing the speculative social philosophy always ignores (I'm not sure why) is the human need for distinctions, however petty. Where I grew up, the rungs of the ladder (to paraphrase Pratchett) were extrmely close together - but people would have a cleaner doorstep than No. 38; they'd sweep the street outside their front door (No. 12 doesn't have that); Mrs Jones's children only wear their siblings' hand-me-downs, not their cousins - proper posh that is ! And So On. If gradation isn't mandated, it's sought.

Scale this up, and yeah, 'classless society' is one of those ideas, like racial purity and christian science, that don't stand up all that well in the real world.

Fun thought experiment mind, most political philosophy is at least interesting.
_________________
Last.fm | Goodreads |

Top
 Profile  
Oblarg
Veteran

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:59 pm
Posts: 2872
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:40 am 
 

I'm sure the systemic oppression seen in ostensibly communist systems is actually the fault of capitalism, too?

Or are you still disingenuously sticking to the line that there is no such thing as oppression under any systems that claim to be anti-capitalist?
_________________
iamntbatman wrote:
manowar are literally five times the band that fates warning are: each member is as good as fates warning alone, then joey's bass solos are like an entire extra fates warning

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 58624
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 649
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:03 am 
 

Methuen wrote:
Fun thought experiment mind, most political philosophy is at least interesting.


For sure. :)

And here's a bit of comic relief: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/350

Top
 Profile  
l Lunaris l
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:14 pm
Posts: 123
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:14 am 
 

Sedition and Pockets wrote:
You're right to say that each individual human being possesses the capacity to be, as you put it, an "asshole," but that's really neither here nor there. We're not talking about individual acts of bad behavior or noxious individual beliefs; we're talking about systems of power, systems of law, systems of exploitation and abuse—systems that are socially enforced and backed by organized violence. No one is saying that ending capitalism will result in some sort of utopia free of individual prejudice or anti-social behavior. What I'm saying, what socialists and communists have been saying for damn near 200 years, is that the systems of oppression that are characteristic of class and capitalist society have their roots in the private ownership of the means of production. They are inextricably and irreducibly linked to the structures and imperatives of the capitalist system, and if we want to eliminate those systems and liberate the oppressed, we cannot do that from within the strictures and structures of capitalism. The end of systemic oppression demands a whole new system.


Your argument here is making more sense to me, but I'm really not sure if I agree. If there is going to be a state at all, there will always be room for systematic oppression, whether or not it is capitalistic.

Systemic oppression is possible wherever people have power over other people. Which means that, yes, in order to completely get rid of it, we would have to abolish capitalism. But what other systems do we even have that have no power structure at all? In order to have laws, you need to enforce them. Which requires giving power over others to a group of people. In order to have a system of government that can actually do things and affect things, it needs to have some sort of power over its citizens. And we can do our very damn best to mitigate the negative effects of those things as much as possible, while using power as positively as possible, but systemic oppression of some kind will always be a possibility.
_________________
Eco-socialist weirdo | Proudly LGBTQ+ | Vote Green!

Top
 Profile  
InnesI
The Goat Fucker

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:19 pm
Posts: 1883
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:19 am 
 

l Lunaris l wrote:
Your argument here is making more sense to me, but I'm really not sure if I agree. If there is going to be a state at all, there will always be room for systematic oppression, whether or not it is capitalistic.

Systemic oppression is possible wherever people have power over other people. Which means that, yes, in order to completely get rid of it, we would have to abolish capitalism. But what other systems do we even have that have no power structure at all? In order to have laws, you need to enforce them. Which requires giving power over others to a group of people. In order to have a system of government that can actually do things and affect things, it needs to have some sort of power over its citizens. And we can do our very damn best to mitigate the negative effects of those things as much as possible, while using power as positively as possible, but systemic oppression of some kind will always be a possibility.


This is key. I'm not going into a debate on capitalism or socialism but we need to realize that oppression will be there regardless of the system we have. It will vary in degree and it will effect different people but it will always be there. We've seen it in all societies in all times regardless of if its democratic, theocratic, authoritarian, tribal or anything in between.

I've seen anarchists of both the left and the right claim that all evil comes from the state. And of course if you look at it it is easy to see how so many bad things have come from state power (or being enabled through what is deemed ok in said state). But its the same thing as when people say they find religion to be part of every big conflict. Of course it it. But its only part of the picture. When one becomes to ideological one also blinds oneself. One wants to verify ones owns theory and usually ignore any attempt at falsification (thank you Karl Popper).

I am a strong believer that a state isn't bad or evil in itself like anarchists try to say. It's all about what we do with it. The same goes for power structures and hierarchies. They aren't bad things in themselves. I actually think they are necessary to teach, to learn, to build and to create stable societies. That doesn't mean they are good in and of themselves though. However I think getting rid of all hierarchies and all power structures are devastating. That will create lawlessness and it will only lead to tribal structures instead and more instability. Because lets face it, humans can't exist, even for a short time, without establishing power structures. What is important is to see to that the power structures are made to be as good as they possibly can be.

Has capitalism brought bad things? Sure it has! But it has also brought good things some of which every one of us enjoy today right at this moment. And the same goes for any political system. Now some has more bad than good and reverse but to be blinded and think that most things will solve themselves if we just get rid of X is delusional (whether that X is capitalism, socialism, immigration, the church or whatever).
_________________
Metal Archives resident goat fucker. Since adopting the name InnesI online I've also been called a satanist, communist, right wing, nazi-apologist, fascist, muslim, muslim lover, PC, neoliberal, boot licker and verbal masturbator! Feel free to add your projection too. :-)

Top
 Profile  
CoconutBackwards
Bullet Centrist

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:02 pm
Posts: 1014
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:26 am 
 

megalowho wrote:
Methuen wrote:
Fun thought experiment mind, most political philosophy is at least interesting.


For sure. :)

And here's a bit of comic relief: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/350


I've never heard of the philosopher, "Michel Foucault", but I'm enjoying the comics about him.
_________________
GTog:
"So, you want to sign songs about your great and glorious invisible cloud daddy? Go right ahead. You have whole tax-free buildings to do that in. I am not only not listening, I am intentionally going out of my way to ignore you."

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
xXdArKenIngDayXx

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 5671
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:09 pm 
 

My overall opinion of Biden keeps yo-yoing by the day, but goddamn has he exceeded my (admittedly low) expectations. I feel weird saying it but so far he's the best president of my lifetime. If he does a full, unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, my vote in 2024 is guaranteed.

Though I am worried about the future. Youtube represents a small piece of the electorate, but the hatred of Biden there seems to far exceed even Obama. If Republicans manage to win back congress by the midterms, we could be looking at a hellish time. And if Biden doesn't seek reelection, a Marjorie Taylor Green type figure (or Trump himself) could be on the table for the WH.
_________________
ambientsorrow wrote:
Pretty rubbish, I must say. Certainly not worth the hype behind it. Boring and predictable. A band for 14-22 year olds.

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 1116
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:08 pm 
 

l Lunaris l wrote:
Sedition and Pockets wrote:
You're right to say that each individual human being possesses the capacity to be, as you put it, an "asshole," but that's really neither here nor there. We're not talking about individual acts of bad behavior or noxious individual beliefs; we're talking about systems of power, systems of law, systems of exploitation and abuse—systems that are socially enforced and backed by organized violence. No one is saying that ending capitalism will result in some sort of utopia free of individual prejudice or anti-social behavior. What I'm saying, what socialists and communists have been saying for damn near 200 years, is that the systems of oppression that are characteristic of class and capitalist society have their roots in the private ownership of the means of production. They are inextricably and irreducibly linked to the structures and imperatives of the capitalist system, and if we want to eliminate those systems and liberate the oppressed, we cannot do that from within the strictures and structures of capitalism. The end of systemic oppression demands a whole new system.


Your argument here is making more sense to me, but I'm really not sure if I agree. If there is going to be a state at all, there will always be room for systematic oppression, whether or not it is capitalistic.

Systemic oppression is possible wherever people have power over other people. Which means that, yes, in order to completely get rid of it, we would have to abolish capitalism. But what other systems do we even have that have no power structure at all? In order to have laws, you need to enforce them. Which requires giving power over others to a group of people. In order to have a system of government that can actually do things and affect things, it needs to have some sort of power over its citizens. And we can do our very damn best to mitigate the negative effects of those things as much as possible, while using power as positively as possible, but systemic oppression of some kind will always be a possibility.


Is it possible that another system could develop its own novel forms of systemic oppression. The planet could be invaded by aliens from a distant galaxy, too. In either case, you're talking about something wholly speculative. The systematic oppressions that capitalism visits on marginalized people aren't speculative. They're a known and proven fact. They exist. We know why they exist. We know what structures maintain them and keep them in place. We know how they're enforced. To argue that we should accept known oppression on the chance that ending it might unleash unforeseen oppression seems...problematic to me.
_________________
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)|Our Program/What We Stand For|Liberation News|Join Us

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 1116
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:23 pm 
 

InnesI wrote:
Has capitalism brought bad things? Sure it has! But it has also brought good things some of which every one of us enjoy today right at this moment. And the same goes for any political system. Now some has more bad than good and reverse but to be blinded and think that most things will solve themselves if we just get rid of X is delusional (whether that X is capitalism, socialism, immigration, the church or whatever).


I don't think you'll find a single developed, politically educated communist who believes capitalism has never done anything good. The Marxist view is that capitalism was at one time a progressive force in history. There was a time when bourgeois capitalism was the revolution. Capitalism was and is a necessary precursor to socialism. Without the development of productive forces made possible by capitalism, a planned socialist economic system would be impossible. The problem isn't that capitalism has never done any good, but that it has long outlived any usefulness it might once have had for anyone not in the owning classes.
_________________
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)|Our Program/What We Stand For|Liberation News|Join Us

Top
 Profile  
Methuen
Metalhead

Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 4:55 pm
Posts: 1857
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:24 pm 
 

Sedition and Pockets wrote:

Is it possible that another system could develop its own novel forms of systemic oppression. The planet could be invaded by aliens from a distant galaxy, too. In either case, you're talking about something wholly speculative. The systematic oppressions that capitalism visits on marginalized people aren't speculative. They're a known and proven fact. They exist. We know why they exist. We know what structures maintain them and keep them in place. We know how they're enforced. To argue that we should accept known oppression on the chance that ending it might unleash unforeseen oppression seems...problematic to me.


I'll have to tell the Ukrainian and Hungarian people I work with that the suffering of their families under communism was 'speculative' :lol:

There are hundreds of millions of voices that you're silencing there, comrade.
_________________
Last.fm | Goodreads |

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 1116
Location: United States
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:44 pm 
 

I'm not going to delve into the details of this, because this is a US politics thread and we've all been repeatedly asked not to go down that road, but I think there is a significant moral and material distinction between political repression that targets people for choices they've made and systemic oppression that targets people for who they are and for attributes of their being they have no control over. Your mileage may vary, and that's fine; but that's how I see it.
_________________
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)|Our Program/What We Stand For|Liberation News|Join Us

Top
 Profile  
InnesI
The Goat Fucker

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:19 pm
Posts: 1883
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:48 pm 
 

Sedition and Pockets wrote:
I don't think you'll find a single developed, politically educated communist who believes capitalism has never done anything good. The Marxist view is that capitalism was at one time a progressive force in history. There was a time when bourgeois capitalism was the revolution. Capitalism was and is a necessary precursor to socialism. Without the development of productive forces made possible by capitalism, a planned socialist economic system would be impossible. The problem isn't that capitalism has never done any good, but that it has long outlived any usefulness it might once have had for anyone not in the owning classes.


My point is that anyone who is deeply ideological always tend to blind themselves to the bad things their ideology has on its hands. You've certainly done so many times thinking removing capitalist structures would somehow end "racism, patriarchy, ableism, anti-queer oppression" etc. And the belief that abolishing any division and hierarchy between people will be the answer to the problems. This is delusional because with the abolishing of capitalist hierarchies we get other hierarchies. There is always power play, there is always a class society. It's not always as material as it is now but its always there. The communists can try their hardest to abolish class structures, and perhaps they can remove capitalist structures, but they will automatically create new ones. That is human nature. Its sort of like when people think changing the language will somehow change nature. There is no such thing. We can change the words but the condition is the same and sooner or later the new word will come to mean exactly what the old one did. In Sweden its taboo to use race, we say ethnicity instead (but mean the same thing). Its trendy to not acknowledge gender differences, and yet everyone knows there are clear cut differences between males and females. We no longer say dwarf but instead use midge... sorry little people... sorry again person of short stature but it still means the same thing and corresponds to natural things. So when a communist (or anarchist) tells you they want to abolish hierarchies all we can do is to realize they won't ever abolish hierarchy as such - they will only change it to a new ruling class (if that).

And its quite clear that there been tremendous oppression from the ruling classes in communist societies throughout time. But of course that is downplayed by you communists. And the same goes for all the people who are ideologically blind. They are blind to their own societies failures (especially if its body count is in the millions) but man are they quick to blame their antagonists for their failures. That's what happens when you give up your own thinking in favour of a party line. You become a useful dummy who dare not critique the party line. You become blind.
_________________
Metal Archives resident goat fucker. Since adopting the name InnesI online I've also been called a satanist, communist, right wing, nazi-apologist, fascist, muslim, muslim lover, PC, neoliberal, boot licker and verbal masturbator! Feel free to add your projection too. :-)

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 58624
Metalhead

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 649
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:22 pm 
 

CoconutBackwards wrote:
I've never heard of the philosopher, "Michel Foucault", but I'm enjoying the comics about him.


Nice! Probably my first exposure to him was in the liner notes to Isis's Panopticon.

Top
 Profile  
Methuen
Metalhead

Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 4:55 pm
Posts: 1857
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:42 am 
 

Sedition and Pockets wrote:
I'm not going to delve into the details of this, because this is a US politics thread and we've all been repeatedly asked not to go down that road, but I think there is a significant moral and material distinction between political repression that targets people for choices they've made and systemic oppression that targets people for who they are and for attributes of their being they have no control over. Your mileage may vary, and that's fine; but that's how I see it.


Aren't you lucky that you live in the US, and can sit at a computer and equivocate about the right kind of political repression on a public forum :lol:

Ever thought about holy orders ? You'd make a magnificent Jesuit with an attitude like that.

I'm completely happy saying 'political repression is bad', and then making the odd exception for the things found at the bottom of the barrel.
_________________
Last.fm | Goodreads |

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 1116
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:59 am 
 

Methuen wrote:

I'm completely happy saying 'political repression is bad', and then making the odd exception for the things found at the bottom of the barrel.


So what you're saying is that political repression is ok when it targets people you think deserve it? I like where you're going with this.
_________________
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)|Our Program/What We Stand For|Liberation News|Join Us

Top
 Profile  
Methuen
Metalhead

Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 4:55 pm
Posts: 1857
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:38 am 
 

Sedition and Pockets wrote:
Methuen wrote:

I'm completely happy saying 'political repression is bad', and then making the odd exception for the things found at the bottom of the barrel.


So what you're saying is that political repression is ok when it targets people you think deserve it? I like where you're going with this.


:lol: That's the spirit ! When the kernel of unpleasantness underlying your message is dragged out of you, don't take a moment to reflect and consider if you might be in the wrong, no - resort to juvenile 'gotcha' tactics and try to score points off the other guy !

Your plan for the future is 'a slightly different kind of repression by a slightly different state, and I'm happy with that because I assume I'll be wearing the boot' ? You call that revolutionary ? It's not even novel. Frankly, it's just sad.
_________________
Last.fm | Goodreads |

Top
 Profile  
Sedition and Pockets
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:29 am
Posts: 1116
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:58 am 
 

Your whole schtick and spiel is 'gotcha' tactics, so this seems like a weird road for you to go down, but ok.
_________________
The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)|Our Program/What We Stand For|Liberation News|Join Us

Top
 Profile  
InnesI
The Goat Fucker

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:19 pm
Posts: 1883
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:58 am 
 

Methuen wrote:
Your plan for the future is 'a slightly different kind of repression by a slightly different state, and I'm happy with that because I assume I'll be wearing the boot' ? You call that revolutionary ? It's not even novel. Frankly, it's just sad.


At least we can assume more people are scared away from the PSL than attracted to it based on postings on Metal Archives. :lol:
_________________
Metal Archives resident goat fucker. Since adopting the name InnesI online I've also been called a satanist, communist, right wing, nazi-apologist, fascist, muslim, muslim lover, PC, neoliberal, boot licker and verbal masturbator! Feel free to add your projection too. :-)

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Derigin and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group