-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Opinions re: ANTIFA?
- Thread starter Hanafuda
- Start date
- Views 28,301
- Replies 465
- Likes 9
- Status
What are you talking about exactly? You just linked an article and didn't say anything else.
Allow me to get to the root of this problem as I understand it.
To me the electoral college has played an important role to protect local interests such as agriculture or industry based around certain natural resources against population dense areas. I believe this is important to an economy. If either of you were to change the system, how would you change it? If you disagree with the protection of local interests, please explain why?
Last edited by supersonicwaffle,
I was talking about that she didn't always win the popular vote. When it comes to the whole Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton popular vote the numbers were very close.
They tried to blame the Russians for interference. But even if they did at most they would only have a 3% effect of the vote according to political scientist Levin.
538 total electoral votes
Hilary got 232
232/538 = 43%
Trump got 306
306/538 = 57%
57-43 = 14%
14% minus 3% from Russia’s intervention = 11%
So even if Russia did interfere with the election and we take away the the 3% boost (based on the study Levin did) Trump would have still won with 11% more. This should be the end of the Russian interference debate.
Last edited by SG854,
I wasn't saying you. Just people who still trying to pin it on a rigged election as the reason for Trump winning. Even if Russia did interfere Trump would have still won.
Last edited by SG854,
I find this bullshit. Most people entering the US illegally were people who were not being persecuted nor facing any kind of extreme poverty, they are just cheaters trying to skip ahead of others who spend years taking a degree, learning english, getting a decent job and moving there legally.This might have been posted here before, but it's basically how I see the immigration thing. You can't really blame the immigrants themselves for trying to live.
Promotion and rewarding of this kind of behavior is the reason why most third world countries will be always shitholes. No accountability, no push to fix their mistakes and corruption.
Any source? If you're a poor Mexican without close family members who are US citizens, it's close to impossible to legally immigrate to the US. They're not really "skipping" some sort of process because there is none. Idk about other countries, though.
I am a poor person without any close family members in the US nor in Japan, is that a reason for me to invade their countries illegally? Really? Why i am not surprised this mindset is coming from california/ny.... This is why their corrupt gov ( along with others) will never fix those problems.
You can immigrate legally to pretty much everywhere in the world, either by getting a legal job, buying land, getting transferred by your company.
https://borgenproject.org/about-the-poverty-rate-in-mexico/
Ahh, yes. Why didn't they just think to buy some land or get transferred by their company? That makes no sense for a person living in extreme poverty. Going by your quote, that's almost one out of every ten people.
I want to add that I definitely believe the law SHOULD be enforced and I'm absolutely NOT saying "just let them in". What I'm against is the justification a lot of people seem to use. They falsely vilify these people and sometimes even borderline dehumanize them. It's obvious to me that they're either racist or ignorant. These people are just desperate. They're at their wits end and they didn't make the decision to cross a desert into a foreign land where they'll have no legal status and don't know the language lightly. You can't blame them for taking whatever jobs they're given. That's why we should concentrate on the employers. Without any jobs they'll have no reason to even attempt to cross over.
Yes, a few are bad people, but that only means that they're like any other group of people that ever existed.
Anyway, this isn't really about Antifa anymore.
Last edited by invaderyoyo,
So weird that there would be anti-Mexican trumpers in a thread about Antifa.
I love the fake pearl clutching in regards to antifa, it is the biggest and funniest radicalized right dogwhistle. Never mind those guys swinging confederate flags in people's faces, look at these guys instead please.
As we learned this week from reading about Michigan, where armed vigilantes turned up to a government session, the radicalized right are fucking psychotic and dangerous. And Trump defended their actions, surprise surprise. I'm glad there is a group that acts as the physical arm of moderate and progressive values. It didn't exist before the radicalized right emerged in 2014, because duh, moderates are moderate and that's not really our thing. But Richard Spencer and his fellow twats forced our hand and I'm glad they exist. They don't instigate, just react. That's cool with me. And they often outnumber RR protesters, well, with counter protesters they do at least, which I find hilarious and triggers the RR so much.
Antifa over these clowns all day erryday;
These cucks can't even go on a few weeks lockdown. It's been hard on everyone, myself included. Doesn't mean I'm enough of a bitch to grab a rifle and head down to my local government lmfao.
I love the fake pearl clutching in regards to antifa, it is the biggest and funniest radicalized right dogwhistle. Never mind those guys swinging confederate flags in people's faces, look at these guys instead please.
As we learned this week from reading about Michigan, where armed vigilantes turned up to a government session, the radicalized right are fucking psychotic and dangerous. And Trump defended their actions, surprise surprise. I'm glad there is a group that acts as the physical arm of moderate and progressive values. It didn't exist before the radicalized right emerged in 2014, because duh, moderates are moderate and that's not really our thing. But Richard Spencer and his fellow twats forced our hand and I'm glad they exist. They don't instigate, just react. That's cool with me. And they often outnumber RR protesters, well, with counter protesters they do at least, which I find hilarious and triggers the RR so much.
Antifa over these clowns all day erryday;
These cucks can't even go on a few weeks lockdown. It's been hard on everyone, myself included. Doesn't mean I'm enough of a bitch to grab a rifle and head down to my local government lmfao.
Last edited by Waygeek,
Ok, here we have:
First paragraph: Certain people not allowed in the thread I didn't start. (Bad form, dont do that.
)
Second paragraph: I love (insinuating, not meant that way), the fake reactions (after having presented a fake emotion yourself, also declarative - we dont know if that observation is true), which are not real, but are a dogwhistle (insinuating meaning the opposite, using the term wrong). They are similar to people who swing confederate flags (softer version of calling someone a Nazi on an online forum, suggestive (are they really similar?)).
Third paragraph: Extrapolating from one example to an entire population group. Feigned surprise. Then ending at at least Anifa are not as problematic as something close to modern day Nazis. (Comparison fallacy. (Point out a worse thing, to have the one you are arguing for look less worse.))
--
All in all I'm left leaning, from a country near germany, where the antifa movement has a far longer history than in the US, and have argued online in the past, that even smashing store windows in some cases could be covered as non violent political expression, at least in political theory.
But please - the argument above is a little heavy on the constructed side, uses almost exclusively rhetorical tricks, tries to cover them up with access emotion, and still ends up being a bad argument in the end.
Activism is fine, but dont overdo it, and dont always be stuck in that mode. Everything about your argument shouts 'I've read a rhetorics manual' but I havent though in depth about the issue (lack of nuance). You can become better at arguing, if an argument comes to you more naturally.
(If anyone wants to read up on some of the methods used - I personally liked Schopenhauers "The Art of Being Right". Read it if you are interested. The book I mean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right )
First paragraph: Certain people not allowed in the thread I didn't start. (Bad form, dont do that.
)Second paragraph: I love (insinuating, not meant that way), the fake reactions (after having presented a fake emotion yourself, also declarative - we dont know if that observation is true), which are not real, but are a dogwhistle (insinuating meaning the opposite, using the term wrong). They are similar to people who swing confederate flags (softer version of calling someone a Nazi on an online forum, suggestive (are they really similar?)).
Third paragraph: Extrapolating from one example to an entire population group. Feigned surprise. Then ending at at least Anifa are not as problematic as something close to modern day Nazis. (Comparison fallacy. (Point out a worse thing, to have the one you are arguing for look less worse.))
--
All in all I'm left leaning, from a country near germany, where the antifa movement has a far longer history than in the US, and have argued online in the past, that even smashing store windows in some cases could be covered as non violent political expression, at least in political theory.
But please - the argument above is a little heavy on the constructed side, uses almost exclusively rhetorical tricks, tries to cover them up with access emotion, and still ends up being a bad argument in the end.
Activism is fine, but dont overdo it, and dont always be stuck in that mode. Everything about your argument shouts 'I've read a rhetorics manual' but I havent though in depth about the issue (lack of nuance). You can become better at arguing, if an argument comes to you more naturally.
(If anyone wants to read up on some of the methods used - I personally liked Schopenhauers "The Art of Being Right". Read it if you are interested. The book I mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right )
Last edited by notimp,
Oh good, here comes my stalker.
Have we got any psychology majors in here that are experts in deranged ranting to translate please?
One exists BECAUSE of the other. Zero 'fallacy'. They're directly connected. You haven't got two fucking braincells to rub together.
--
Not a single left leaning individual on the face of the earth uses the term 'SJW'. Lying radicalized right do though, as well as calling themselves 'left leaning'.
They, including you, have been fooling no one since 2014.
LMFAO if I was the author of this book I would ask you don't associate with it. Being mentally ill is not 'being right'.
Second paragraph: I love (insinuating, not meant that way), the fake reactions (after having presented a fake emotion yourself, also declarative - we dont know if that observation is true), which are not real, but are a dogwhistle (insinuating meaning the opposite, using the term wrong). They are similar to people who swing confederate flags (softer version of calling someone a Nazi on an online forum, suggestive (are they really similar?)).
Have we got any psychology majors in here that are experts in deranged ranting to translate please?
One exists BECAUSE of the other. Zero 'fallacy'. They're directly connected. You haven't got two fucking braincells to rub together.
--
Not a single left leaning individual on the face of the earth uses the term 'SJW'. Lying radicalized right do though, as well as calling themselves 'left leaning'.
They, including you, have been fooling no one since 2014.
(If anyone wants to read up on some of the methods used - I personally liked Schopenhauers "The Art of Being Right". Read it if you are interested. The book I mean.
LMFAO if I was the author of this book I would ask you don't associate with it. Being mentally ill is not 'being right'.
Last edited by Waygeek,
When did I post in this thread and why does it keep coming back in alerts.... oh wait, 2 years ago, it's stale.
@Waygeek: Turn your shouting down, I was active almost daily in this forum long before you.
Also stop your passion and constant need for personal attacks. Learn how to have arguments on the 'factual' level, without always feeling the need to call the person you are confronting either deranged, mentally ill, or your stalker.
You wierdo. You'll become better at arguing, if you do.
Because most people arent part of either of those groups, so the Idea, that both of them might not be needed, or optimal - is the actual societal default.
Not one has to exist, because of the other - and look, my preffered on is less worse. Thats a fallacy.
If you dont understand, that in my entire post, I looked at the methodology you used to form an entirely fabricated argument badly - I've now spelled that out for you as well. I listed the rhetorical methods you used. And you decided to respond selectively.
Mocking the ones you had no rebuttle for..
Also stop your passion and constant need for personal attacks. Learn how to have arguments on the 'factual' level, without always feeling the need to call the person you are confronting either deranged, mentally ill, or your stalker.
You wierdo.
You'll become better at arguing, if you do. Still comparison fallacy.
Because most people arent part of either of those groups, so the Idea, that both of them might not be needed, or optimal - is the actual societal default.
Not one has to exist, because of the other - and look, my preffered on is less worse. Thats a fallacy.
If you dont understand, that in my entire post, I looked at the methodology you used to form an entirely fabricated argument badly - I've now spelled that out for you as well. I listed the rhetorical methods you used. And you decided to respond selectively.
Mocking the ones you had no rebuttle for..
Last edited by notimp,
Still comparison fallacy.
Only to a mind that should have several feet of concrete between it and society.
To sane people, no. We see the fucking connect.
"Just because we have criminals doesn't mean that's why we have the police!"
Literally mentally unwell.
You have misunderstood the argument.
There is a connection. It doesnt mean though, that you can rectify the behavior of one (extreme), with the behavior of the other extreme.
Maybe we dont need either extreme (very prevalent in society), is actually the sensible position most people in society would hold.
Comparison fallacy - because you insist, that its only "either/or" - its not. No societal development only has one other alternative.
False comparison. Antifa is not the police (state regulated).
Last edited by notimp,
- Status
Similar threads
