Special Needs Society

More
30 Aug 2019 20:58 #342862 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic Special Needs Society

Kobos wrote: Never said anything about ANTIFA (there are many many groups) and by including them you kinda proved my point, and being a previous member from back in the Ferguson protests I can absolutely tell you there are cells (when violence became and objective I dropped out, I was an anarchist at the time in my youth but also a pacifist) they act individually but there is a degree of organization.


Forgive me for misreading you then because that's what I was taking from your comment:

"bring weapons to bash the Nazi." is glossed over.


I don't think most antifa bring weapons to bash the Nazis but rather they oppose fascism and arm themselves in case the nazis attack. The problem is, you're always going to get someone who is amped up for a fight and feels provoked and you may not be able to control that person. And if antifa, as I understood the comment, is bringing weapons to bash Nazis then what are Nazis bringing weapons for? Weren't they armed first? And which of these groups, organized or not, launched the first terrorist attack?

Kobos wrote: The Peace sign T-shirt guy throwing the Malatov is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. I do not like what's going on at the border but I would not use that image to promote my point because you lose 40% of your audience by doing so it's counter productive at best stupid at worst.


I understand that. But, and this is just for the sake of argument, don't US military troops act as the world's "peace keepers"? Aren't they armed while doing so? So what is the difference between peace-keeper and war-maker? Isn't it all relative? All a matter of perspective? This is one of the things I love about Star Wars.

Kobos wrote: That is organization, on the same level of the right wing groups I and you both loathe.

Are Trump rallies inherently racist? Even when Hispanic, Asian, Arabic and African Americans are present?


No, but to be honest with you, I get very annoyed by the few black people that show up. Specifically annoyed at them. The truth is there have always been black people that acted against the interests of the black community at large.



Enter David Clarke

www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-quietly-d...sheriff-david-clarke

They will use any black person they think can look credible just to repeat whatever anti-black sentiment they want to spew without looking racist. A congressman famously brought in a black woman Trump had hired just to point at her, not for her to actually speak, as the 'token black' which proves Trump isn't racist. It's the same as saying "I'm not racist. I have a black friend." We just laugh at stuff like that. You would think that would apply to Omerosa and that she wouldn't think her former buddy was racist but even she thinks he's racist. If I went to a Trump rally they would probably put me on stage behind Trump and remove me only if I wasn't smiling or cheering enough. It's comical. They put the same black guy on stage more than once. Why would you do that if there many black people there? No, you do it to make it look like there are. But no... is a Trump rally inherently racist? I say no but its not a hard no. In other words... Trump rallies are for his base and Trump's opinion of his base is that they share his racist ideas. When he accused Mexican immigrants of being rapists and murderers he had no intention of going out on a political limb. No... he was counting on white people sympathizing with him and wanting to take 'their' country back. There are simply dog whistles that not everyone is supposed to pick up on. The only reason why I pick up on some of them is because the same dog whistles are overused. The whole racist thing in politics isn't new. In the Republican party its called the "Southern Strategy". But its supposed to be subtle. Trump just doesn't do sutble very well. And so the people who normally hear the dog whistles heard the same message through a megaphone when they heard Trump. And that's why these Trump rallies lead to Klan rallies and alt right rallies and tiki torches. He's their guy. They know it. And he knows it. Steve Bannon wasn't there for no reason. And this sets up people like Steve King to say what a lot of other people are thinking.

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” - Steve King

Do you see what he did there? Steve King just told us that white nationalists are white supremacists. He's telling you that the dog whistle is actually the thing we know it is but couldn't prove. Is there any reason we shouldn't believe Steve King? Is it all just a strange coincidence that suddenly, after Obama, all these white groups which are usually quiet, are out in force under Trump?

“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.” - David Duke, former grand wizard of the KKK.

Is the former grand wizard, with all his [white] magic, seeing what other republicans aren't seeing? Are all these people delusional for thinking Trump is one of them? Because its not just black people saying Trump is racist. It's white people saying it too. Let's move on.

Kobos wrote: And I very much know you can't control individuals, most of us in the Mike Brown protests weren't shooting guns, but some were. I get that. But why can't violence just be condemned by both sides. I don't get it there are a million reasons for people to continue to justify it, but one reason it should be abhorrent to all and that is that we are ALL human.

Anyways man, I hope you know I do respect you quite a bit, and I appreciate the talk you have some good points but we are at a crossroads where I do not believe either of us are open to the ideas which can change minds. We share a lot of views just different ways of expressing them.

Much Love my friend,
Kobos


I respect you as well. People on the left have condemned violence on their side just as BLM has done. But it doesn't get reported so that people on the other side can continue to think that these groups are unreasonable. Even apologetics is propaganda. That's why us talking is almost a revolutionary act at this point. The more we talk about politics the more we puncture the bubbles of isolation that become echo chambers for extremes. It is a great opportunity to be part of the discussion and I hope it continues.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Aug 2019 21:18 - 30 Aug 2019 21:24 #342865 by JamesSand
Replied by JamesSand on topic Special Needs Society

I understand that. But, and this is just for the sake of argument, don't US military troops act as the world's "peace keepers"? Aren't they armed while doing so? So what is the difference between peace-keeper and war-maker? Isn't it all relative? All a matter of perspective



I object to the premise, but in terms of the question "what is the difference" or "who has the right to power"

It's a bit like every army having God on it's side....

The "Freedom Fighters" (whomever they are this week, Antifa, BLM, OccupyWherever, MeatIsMurder, whichever damned group has an opinion on something are all 100% firmly in the belief that they are in the right, on some ground or another.

and, broadly, the Status Quo team are generally firmly convinced they are in the Right also (and, to their benefit, usually have the better matching uniforms, cleaner weapons, and nicer boots)

Here's the twist - all the other parties are often at each other's throats, fine. Where the political game comes into it, is lobbying to "Dad" (being the government-of-the-day sanctioned police forces, whether you believe them just or not) to convince them that you are just trying to help them, and the real rabble rousers are those OTHER guys.

Visible street protests are one thing, but plenty of work goes into legal battles and trying to motivate the nearest political influence into believing your enemies are their enemies, and then, by some weird default, you can declare yourself the moral victor (if not the real victor) because the REAL power (which, on other days of the week, you might also be condemning, but they can be handy allies) has sided with you....


Since I've gone this far, I'm wondering if the comparison is relevant to establishing the special needs culture (or if it is the other way around - Such great steps were made creating environments and circumstances for such a wide range of young-persons to flourish, that the logical next step (for some people) was that any and all demands be met and treated as valid by the Ruling Power)
Last edit: 30 Aug 2019 21:24 by JamesSand.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos, Brick

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
31 Aug 2019 00:32 #342906 by CaesarEJW
Replied by CaesarEJW on topic Special Needs Society
I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but just imagine for a second the sensation of having your toes individually smacked with a ball-pin hammer on a concrete floor.
POP!
I love all of you.

“Muddy water is best cleared by leaving it alone.” - Alan Watts
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Sep 2019 05:40 - 02 Sep 2019 05:50 #343053 by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic Special Needs Society
Depends how thngs are defined, but for my reading of things "One person freedom fighter is another persons terrorist" is not realty accurate, for terrorism is better defined as targeting of civilians or otherwise illegal warfighting (by the laws of war) for ideological reasons. So IMO it's not the US against anyone who disagrees with the US, but rather the US against anyone breaking the laws of war (and when they can justify the cost of intervention). So it boils down more to globalization and peace.... and those 'bad guys' are the ones trying to cheat the dealt cards by those aforementioned illegal means for their own advantage. In a SW context the Rebel forces target only legitimate military objectives they deem necessary for progress in such a wy to minimize collateral damage ie legal warfighting. In comparison the Empire uses its full power indiscriminately against anyone as a resource to further it's progress. So what is globalization... the rules greed upon by the majority of the planet, but it's not like all people on the planet vote, rather just the representatives of most. So I guess peace is less likely to be some state of non-violence, but rather the least violent way to change the rules without reversing progress in the system to be more representative (and of course managing those that break them for personal gain, but it's not like that is a new thing)?

Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 02 Sep 2019 05:50 by Adder.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: KobosBrick