Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Hotblack Desiato

looksee wrote: »

I think you are still missing the point. You seem to be suggesting that you cannot live in a council estate and be able to discuss philosophy. It may surprise you to realise that council estates contain all kinds of people, from socially aware to the absolute opposite.

oh FFS. You know what he/she is talking about but they didn't use quite the form of words you prefer so...

looksee

Oh? what form of words would I prefer?

FA Hayek

Poor thing!

recedite

Interesting case in Holland about whether a misogynistic Muslim bus driver should be required to shake hands with women.

This has been seized upon by the PM Mark Rutte for his election campaign.
With far right candidate Gert Wilders having risen in popularity, the incumbent has decided its time for a "populism" injection into his own campaign.

The clever bit here is that the PM portraying women as the victims. That's 50% of the electorate, and judging by the anti-Trump protests in USA, its the demographic most opposed to "right wing populists".
In effect, Rutte is trying to enlist both the Dutch equivalent of a Trump supporter, and also their equivalent of an anti-Trump protestor. If he pulls this neat trick off, he can really clean up on polling day.

On the original issue, I'm inclined to agree with the Dutch Human Rights Institute view. If the guy can drive a bus without shaking peoples hands, (and I assume he can) then he should be free to do so. Whether the bus driver is privately an Islamic mysogynist, or a white supremacist, or indeed some kind of misandristic lesbian should not matter.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

Interesting case in Holland about whether a misogynistic Muslim bus driver should be required to shake hands with women.

This has been seized upon by the PM Mark Rutte for his election campaign.
With far right candidate Gert Wilders having risen in popularity, the incumbent has decided its time for a "populism" injection into his own campaign.

The clever bit here is that the PM portraying women as the victims. That's 50% of the electorate, and judging by the anti-Trump protests in USA, its the demographic most opposed to "right wing populists".
In effect, Rutte is trying to enlist both the Dutch equivalent of a Trump supporter, and also their equivalent of an anti-Trump protestor. If he pulls this neat trick off, he can really clean up on polling day.

On the original issue, I'm inclined to agree with the Dutch Human Rights Institute view. If the guy can drive a bus without shaking peoples hands, (and I assume he can) then he should be free to do so. Whether the bus driver is privately an Islamic mysogynist, or a white supremacist, or indeed some kind of misandristic lesbian should not matter.

seems petty, bus drivers in Holland dont shake hands with passengers on a regular basis, no comparison to the teacher ones that popped up before. surely the guy could have found something better to grandstand on?

recedite

silverharp wrote: »

seems petty, bus drivers in Holland dont shake hands with passengers on a regular basis, no comparison to the teacher ones that popped up before. surely the guy could have found something better to grandstand on?

It is a petty issue, but he is banking on appealing to quite a large audience by being simultaneously pro-women's rights and also anti-multicultural. Its an unusual combination. You know how the feminist and LGBT groups don't usually like to associate with "right wing Islamophobes".

No wonder Wilders is annoyed about it. He can cite the real problems, but he then loses the SJW voter (like yer wan three posts up).

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

It is a petty issue, but he is banking on appealing to quite a large audience by being simultaneously pro-women's rights and also anti-multicultural. Its an unusual combination. You know how the feminist and LGBT groups don't usually like to associate with "right wing Islamophobes".

No wonder Wilders is annoyed about it. He can cite the real problems, but he then loses the SJW voter (like yer wan three posts up).

I dont know anything about Dutch politics but its clear in Germany that multi-culti and women's freedoms are clashing and I would expect AfD etc. to point this out.

recedite

silverharp wrote: »

I dont know anything about Dutch politics but its clear in Germany that multi-culti and women's freedoms are clashing and I would expect AfD etc. to point this out.

Its quite tricky to persuade a fully baked, left-wing, white female vegan cookie to vote for a "fascist" candidate.
If Rutte pulls this off, he'll probably be the first politician to do so.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

Its quite tricky to persuade a fully baked, left-wing, white female vegan cookie to vote for a "fascist" candidate.
If Rutte pulls this off, he'll probably be the first politician to do so.

Im not sure, this was from the cookies march in Berlin at 20second mark looks suspiciously like cookie submission to the religion of submission

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWX1SKncyOA

FA Hayek

What was the point of shouting Allah Akbar at a feminist rally? They do know the reality of feminism in Muslim Majority countries, they would be the first against a wall, or sold on as sex slaves, for those men that like short back and sides of course

PopePalpatine

FA Hayek wrote: »

What was the point of shouting Allah Akbar at a feminist rally? They do know the reality of feminism in Muslim Majority countries, they would be the first against a wall, or sold on as sex slaves, for those men that like short back and sides of course

So, Richard Spencer? I'm not surprised, after all the alt-right owes a lot to PUA charlatans.

orubiru

FA Hayek wrote: »

What was the point of shouting Allah Akbar at a feminist rally? They do know the reality of feminism in Muslim Majority countries, they would be the first against a wall, or sold on as sex slaves, for those men that like short back and sides of course

I think it's more likely that the see Christianity as their "enemy" and so they would see Islam as an ally. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or something.

I'm not entirely sure that they would understand the standard of living for the average Muslim woman but I am pretty sure they understand that a good few Americans who voted for Trump do not like Muslims.

I feel like it's been a feature of the Atheist community over the years that American Atheists seem to be more against the stereotypical redneck white-trash fundamentalist Christian rather than being interested in skepticism or rational thought.

It just happened to be that the "boogeyman" for many Americans with a progressive and/or libertarian view of life was the White Christian Fundamentalist, or the Neo Nazi, or the Republican so the Atheist community in the USA grew around that.

From there the specific American Atheist view was spread to places like Germany or even Ireland. I've said before that I can sit with Atheist friends and rant endlessly about Christianity and Republicans and their mad beliefs but as soon as I went after Islam or some other ideology it was a big no-no.

It is usually rationalized using the concept of "punching up" and "punching down".

Speaking of punching, I watched a stream with a few Youtube Atheists recently and they were discussing the rights and wrongs of "punching Nazis" and I'm thinking that there's no way you can defend the idea of punching someone just because you see their views as dangerous.

Nope. Apparently it's fine to punch someone in the street so long as their beliefs are abhorrent.

recedite

orubiru wrote: »

Apparently it's fine to punch someone in the street so long as their beliefs are abhorrent.

Sad but true; fascists and anti-fascists are indistinguishable in terms of their firm belief in this policy.

orubiru

recedite wrote: »

Sad but true; fascists and anti-fascists are indistinguishable in terms of their firm belief in this policy.

To expand on it, I think Richard Spencer is a pretty awful guy and yeah sure he is a neo-nazi or he's a member if the alt-right or whatever. Fine.

I even understand why someone would want to punch the guy and why they would go ahead and do it. Bragging about it seems weird though. I kind of feel like even the perpetrator would say "OK, I got really angry there but I should not have done that".

But we have people who claim to be the good guys sitting around with smug faces when someone on their list of sworn enemies gets assaulted.

"He deserved it". Maybe. I think though that it's better to just condemn violence. Or even if you want just turn a blind eye and say "I didn't see it" or claim you don't know the context. That would be bad but understandable, I think. Actually openly reveling in it though? What the hell is going on?

I just can't stand people who actually think that they are good people or they are fighting the good fight or they are "on the right side of history" when they are actually engaging in bad behavior.

I heard something like this before "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets" and honestly I couldn't disagree more.

If you find yourself justifying violence against someone because "he's just a terrible person" then you're not fighting the good fight, you're just an asshole.

How slippery is the slope form punching confirmed Neo-Nazis to punching people who are accused of being Neo-Nazis?

If someone is fighting for social justice then great. Who is the judge of what's right and what's wrong though?

Who's deciding which people are deserving of a sucker-punch? Surely running up to someone in the street and punching them is illegal regardless of the rationalization behind it?

Social Justice people want to live in a Utopian society free of Racists and Sexists etc and that is probably a worthy goal. What is the cost of this? What do we do with the people accused of Sexism and Racism? Imprisonment? Execution? Beat them up a bit? Are we doing that with or without trial?

It's wrecking my head that people I would probably consider to be good and just and respectable people are actually enormous hypocrites when it comes down to it.

Hotblack Desiato

orubiru wrote: »

I think it's more likely that the see Christianity as their "enemy" and so they would see Islam as an ally.

More fool them, if so.

It is usually rationalized using the concept of "punching up" and "punching down".

The irony being that in any islamic republic, we and they would be the first ones up against the wall.

Speaking of punching, I watched a stream with a few Youtube Atheists recently and they were discussing the rights and wrongs of "punching Nazis" and I'm thinking that there's no way you can defend the idea of punching someone just because you see their views as dangerous.

Thankfully they didn't think that in Cable Street. Or the millions of men who took up arms to defeat fascism, tens of thousands of volunteer Irish among them.

Tolerance of intolerance leads to the destruction of freedom.

recedite

If you believe in freedom of speech it has to apply to everybody. With the caveat that hate speech should not be allowed (against anybody).

BTW the millions who fought with the allies in WW2 defeated German, Japanese and Italian plans for empire and expansion. It was not a war against fascism.
Spain remained a fascist country for decades, unmolested because it never tried to expand outside its own borders.

robindch

orubiru wrote: »

[...] I'm thinking that there's no way you can defend the idea of punching someone just because you see their views as dangerous [...] Nope. Apparently it's fine to punch someone in the street so long as their beliefs are abhorrent.

As Hotblack implies, the question is at what point does the legitimate exercise of free speech cross the line into the illegitimate practice of irresponsible speech - telling inflammatory lies to angry people in this case.

That line is notoriously difficult to define, but it's not useful to behave as though the line does not exist.

For what it's worth, Spencer, Spicer, DJT and the GOP generally have gone past the point of "shouting fire in a crowded theater". The question now is whether they or anybody else can control what they have begun to unleash.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

As Hotblack implies, the question is at what point does the legitimate exercise of free speech cross the line into the illegitimate practice of irresponsible speech - telling inflammatory lies to angry people in this case.

That line is notoriously difficult to define, but it's not useful to behave as though the line does not exist.

For what it's worth, Spencer, Spicer, DJT and the GOP generally have gone past the point of "shouting fire in a crowded theater". The question now is whether they or anybody else can control what they have begun to unleash.

i dunno, if you can punch a Spenser you can punch a marxist..better not to punch anyone and counter their views the old fashioned way

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

[...] better not to punch anyone and counter their views the old fashioned way

Yes, of course So long as people are amenable to reason - then violence is never appropriate. Nonetheless, there is a point at which tolerating intolerance, or reasoning with the unreasonable, becomes not only pointless, but counterproductive to the public good.

So where does that leave Steve Bannon, now appointed to the National Security Council - a man who ran an inflammatory, far-right, white supremacist website for years, who enjoys the open support of neo-Nazis and who has openly called "to bring everything crashing down" and who has talked openly that:

Steve Bannon wrote:

...we're at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict which, if the people in this room and the people in this church do not bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the Church Militant not just to stand with our beliefs but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that's starting, then we will eradicate everything which we've been bequeathed in the last 2000, 2500 years.

Full text of interview is here.

Does he sound like a man who is interested in the greater good of all and who is amenable to peaceful, rational discussion?

FA Hayek

robindch wrote: »

Yes, of course So long as people are amenable to reason - then violence is never appropriate. Nonetheless, there is a point at which tolerating intolerance, or reasoning with the unreasonable, becomes not only pointless, but counterproductive to the public good.

This is a round about way of saying, if people do not accept my world view, its OK to punch them.

It is not. EVER.

There is no law to say you have to be 'reasonable'. None, what so ever. An individual is free to be as unreasonable or as reasonable as they please. What laws we do have are laws that prohibit the use of force and violence against others. People are free to hold whatever views, they wish. They are not free however, to act on these views. There is the key difference.

The more we see of this hysteria from the left, it is clear in my mind that the left are no longer liberal.

robindch wrote: »

Does he sound like a man who is interested in the greater good of all and who is amenable to peaceful, rational discussion?

So, the solution is to punch him?

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

Yes, of course So long as people are amenable to reason - then violence is never appropriate. Nonetheless, there is a point at which tolerating intolerance, or reasoning with the unreasonable, becomes not only pointless, but counterproductive to the public good.

So where does that leave Steve Bannon, now appointed to the National Security Council - a man who ran an inflammatory, far-right, white supremacist website for years, who enjoys the open support of neo-Nazis and who has openly called "to bring everything crashing down" and who has talked openly that:Full text of interview is here.

Does he sound like a man who is interested in the greater good of all and who is amenable to peaceful, rational discussion?

The US is a democracy and Trump to the best of my knowledge isn't a white supremacist or a closet Nazi, looking for permission to throw a few punches by some arbitrary "test" isn't warranted. Any opposition to Trump should be peaceful and with an eye on 2020 likewise any opposition to fringe elements should be by peaceful means and memes :pac:

robindch

FA Hayek wrote: »

This is a round about way of saying, if people do not accept my world view, its OK to punch them.

It's not a "round about" way of justifying violence and you know quite well it's not - so please don't troll.

silverharp wrote: »

Any opposition to Trump should be peaceful and with an eye on 2020 likewise any opposition to fringe elements should be by peaceful means and memes [...]

Couldn't agree more.

However, I note that you didn't answer the question I asked - would you like to?

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

It's not a "round about" way of justifying violence and you know quite well it's not - so please don't troll.Couldn't agree more.

However, I note that you didn't answer the question I asked - would you like to?

seriously not trolling , its the meaning I took from your comment. If you don't want to tolerate intolerance "you" should do something about it is the meaning I took from it and its in the context of hitting people that said words.
As for Bannon, honestly don't know much about him, if he comes out with noteworthy rhetoric from now on, point it my way.

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

seriously not trolling , its the meaning I took from your comment.

The trolling comment was directed towards FAH - not you

silverharp wrote: »

If you don't want to tolerate intolerance "you" should do something about it is the meaning I took from it and its in the context of hitting people that said words.

Not "should" do something about it - again, I'm not advocating violence.

What I am saying is that if a) open deceit, irrational hatred, white supremacy, religious intolerance, voter-suppression becomes more acceptable than they already are b) if the court system is corrupted by the executive and the legislative branches working together to stuff the courts with compliant judges - particularly the Supreme Court, as seems a certainty and if c) peaceful protest produces no results - and it's not achieved much to date, though it's early days - what then? Sit back and wait for the next election and hope that there will be an election? History suggests that tyrants don't give up power easily and DJT is displaying a lot of the early symptoms.

silverharp wrote: »

As for Bannon, honestly don't know much about him, if he comes out with noteworthy rhetoric from now on, point it my way.

See the above transcript from 2013 which suggests, in addition to all his other significant cognitive faults, that he's also paranoid religious fanatic who is openly threatening/encouraging violence.

Over the weekend, DJT appointed Bannon to the National Security Council which, amongst much else, advises DJT on the use of nuclear weapons. I can't imagine a less suitable man.

To you - does he sound like a man who is interested in the greater good of all and who is amenable to peaceful, rational discussion?

FA Hayek

robindch wrote: »

It's not a "round about" way of justifying violence and you know quite well it's not - so please don't troll.

So, what should we do with people that are unreasonable? You never answered that question, funnily enough.

You were quite explicit on this, unreasonable people should not be tolerated. This means one thing only.

orubiru

robindch wrote: »

As Hotblack implies, the question is at what point does the legitimate exercise of free speech cross the line into the illegitimate practice of irresponsible speech - telling inflammatory lies to angry people in this case.

That line is notoriously difficult to define, but it's not useful to behave as though the line does not exist.

For what it's worth, Spencer, Spicer, DJT and the GOP generally have gone past the point of "shouting fire in a crowded theater". The question now is whether they or anybody else can control what they have begun to unleash.

It's an interesting question. What is the point where intervention is necessary and what form should that intervention take?

I'd have to say that I don't honestly know.

The thing I've heard about Spencer etc is that we should create an environment where Alt-Right types should be "scared" to air their views.

I would argue that sucker punching them in the streets will not achieve this. Actually I would speculate that people have probably already been hurt in retaliation to the "attack" on Spencer.

I mean, what if the Alt-Right actually WANT a fight?

What happens if "punching Nazis" doesn't scare them? We should escalate?

Of course, we also have the problem of defining how someone is categorized as "punchable".

I'm seen the following leaps. Spencer is Alt-Right --> Spencer is a Nazi --> punching Nazis is great (remember when Captain America did it) --> If you think punching Spencer is wrong then you sympathize with Spencer --> you are a Nazi Sympathizer --> Is it OK to punch Nazi Sympathizers?

I am concerned that we are maybe a little too willing to give people on "our" side a free pass when they do something wrong.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

What I am saying is that if a) open deceit, irrational hatred, white supremacy, religious intolerance, voter-suppression becomes more acceptable than they already are b) if the court system is corrupted by the executive and the legislative branches working together to stuff the courts with compliant judges - particularly the Supreme Court, as seems a certainty and if c) peaceful protest produces no results - and it's not achieved much to date, though it's early days - what then? Sit back and wait for the next election and hope that there will be an election? History suggests that tyrants don't give up power easily and DJT is displaying a lot of the early symptoms.See the above transcript from 2013 which suggests, in addition to all his other significant cognitive faults, that he's also paranoid religious fanatic who is openly threatening/encouraging violence.

Over the weekend, DJT appointed Bannon to the National Security Council which, amongst much else, advises DJT on the use of nuclear weapons. I can't imagine a less suitable man.

To you - does he sound like a man who is interested in the greater good of all and who is amenable to peaceful, rational discussion?

I think your language is a ott and frankly overly emotional. Trump isn't a tyrant, he was elected in and he will leave power by the democratic system. I think you have fallen to the mass hysteria that the media and the "literally Hitler" Left has painted him. The more the opposition is based on emotion and not heavy hitting rationality the more people with view Trump as the sane alternative especially if innocent people end up being killed by a BLM group or one of these hooded groups if the Berkley type riots escalate.
As for Bannon, I'd imagine he would be hemmed in by the constraints of the job. I don't for a minute believe they have these parody hitler bunker meeting where they sit around discussing who they could nuke. Apart from ISIS Trump was elected on not involving the US in middle east remodelling so in terms of foreign wars it hopefully will be relatively boring.

Hotblack Desiato

Except now he's threatening Iran.

Trent Houseboat

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Except now he's threatening Iran.

He put them formally on notice, which is somewhere between a nonbinding stink-eye resolution and a declaration of putting them on blast.

recedite

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

He put them formally on notice, which is somewhere between a nonbinding stink-eye resolution and a declaration of putting them on blast.

Do you prefer the Israeli tactic of not giving any notice?
Which was originally Iran's own tactic.