Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 1/23/2021 at 10:11 PM, tadmjones said:

The rioters should have used shit trucks instead of physical force on people, maybe they would have still raised their objections , still not sure why they didn’t raise them, what did the loss of life on the 6th have to do with what happened in Nov?

I am, once again, out of reactions.  But this is great.

And where's the beaurocrat in charge of my reactions, anyway???  I don't have nearly enough to respond to all the things I'd like to respond to!  :P

 

On 1/23/2021 at 5:31 PM, whYNOT said:

True, I think there was and is some denial going on by he and his supporters about the results, but at the time who knew?

I did.

 

I started to rely quite heavily on Tim Poole for my news last year, when the pandemic shutdowns were at their height and nobody could tell what was gonna happen next.  I continued that reliance throughout November, when he was talking about the "constitutionally-specified election day" (as opposed to an election month or year).

He made some really good points.  I, for one, am convinced that we need an "election DAY" and that anything which happens after that day must be deemed irrelevant.  Since he switched to the other side of that argument later on in November I have ceased to rely on him.

 

Now that election day is over and there isn't much room for doubt left I'd like to ask whether it's a good idea for people to accept the presidency of Joe Biden (as deeply flawed as we all know that'll be) or to just set everything on fire and quit the civilization game altogether?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 597
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for th

14 January 2021 We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are

Also there's an argument to the effect that, well look, the representatives in Congress deserve this. While, strictly speaking, this is correct, it doesn't follow merely from that fact that this is th

Posted Images

Fire seems to be the favored tool of the hard left/antifa/anarchist/black bloc types , when you see buildings ablaze the professionals are in town.

Portland on weeknights and those in the Capitol on the 6th are the larping brigades.

Within hours of becoming president Biden legitimately outlawed acknowledging biological sex identity cementing a path to ensuring a re-civilized society. Feel the unity!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

they think America is superior to any other country that's ever existed.

That's why I mentioned the abusive father comparison. They probably truly believe their behavior is an act of adoration for the country, but their actions amount to hatred for most people looking from the outside. It's not just a comparison, but a version of the same mentality as abusive people. It's hard to point out, because most people see evil as an evasion of truth, or deliberately calling something good which you call evil. This is a case of evil where people are deliberately calling something good which you also call good, but their conception of good is distorted and twisted yet don't care to correct the wrong conception (an abuser may truly think they are doing the right thing and think you're the one who doesn't get it). 

All they have is false adoration (I'm not saying that they "actually" believe in something antithetical to America, but that they frame things in terms of adoration in a distorted way).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I think I saw an article stating that 81 cases/suits were filed in regards to the election , 30 of which are still active. 

Fake news again Dude.

Quote

After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost 86 lawsuits

Quote

Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence;[8] judges, lawyers, and other observers described the suits as "frivolous"[9] and "without merit".[10] In one instance, the Trump campaign and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost multiple cases in six states on a single day.[11] Only one ruling was initially in Trump's favor: the timing within which first-time Pennsylvania voters must provide proper identification if they wanted to “cure” their ballots. This ruling affected very few votes,[2] and it was later overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.[12]

Trump, his attorneys, and his supporters falsely[13] asserted widespread election fraud in public statements, though few such assertions were made in court.[14] Every state except Wisconsin[15] met the December 8 statutory "safe harbor" deadline to resolve disputes and certify voting results. The Trump legal team had said it would not consider this election certification deadline as an expiration date for its litigation of the election results.[16][17][18] Three days after it was filed by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, the Supreme Court on December 11 declined to hear a case supported by Trump and his Republican allies asking for electoral votes in four states to be rejected.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh crap, I keep getting duped. Good fact checking, thanks.

Senator Paul pledged to spend the next two years going to the states to demand they change their election laws and procedures to ensure free and fair elections. Sounds like a waste of time and effort, we just had the fairest and freest election ever, all our institutions say so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Oh, totally.  The left wants to control our boardrooms and the right wants to control our bedrooms.  Most Trumpists don't want postmodernism in public education (etc); some of them want to prohibit abortions, others immigration, a few sprinkled on top want to have Creationism taught in science class and of course all of them endorse Trump's pandemic handouts.

Can we set aside the government's role in what's probably going to be another economic depression to agree that the Trumpists are categorically wrong (just as wrong as the socialists!) if they endorse the welfare state?

Rather dated, imo. The left, as a matter of fact, already have some control of "our" boardrooms - and will now do so further. Regulations, taxation and social activists getting products banned - are just a few aspects. The right are -objectively - justified in opposing open immigration, a rationalist idea which overlooks the context of a welfare state, affirmative action, wage laws, etc. which would penalize present American citizens and workers. And "our" bedrooms? I personally know of several conservatives and read of dozens more who have openly embraced that their sons and daughters, sisters and brothers (and parents sometimes) are gay. As here, there has been a tidal change from those US conservatives re: sexuality. That war is won. Most of it is an old 'narrative' the Left want us to believe to encourage/create 'victims', a victimhood mentality without which Lefties haven't any cause to exist. When it comes to the madness of parents telling the young kids, and/or leaving their child's gender - NOT his/her sexuality, mind - up to the child's whim, a rational thinker would here agree completely with the conservatives.

The right may "want to prohibit" abortions, but the fact that 60% of the US support at least first trimester abortion, is not some thing they can overturn through SCOTUS, and they know it. Also: Heard of any attacks on clinics and doctors lately? The limit of what the pro-lifers are left with, is little more than an advocacy program that they have evidently not been prepared to try to enforce. (And they are justified in not wanting their tax dollars to support abortion agendas at home and abroad).

If it is no more than an "economic depression", you see ahead, you disagree with Sowell and other erudite observers - and the obvious and explicit activity and aims of the Democrats - that they badly want a one party state, one that will be increasingly Socialist, you can bet.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What's your point?

Um. Many conservative thinkers have lately been doing the best thinking?

They can rise above the personae of public figures - i.e. "Trump" v. "Biden" - and identify the political/moral essentials?

That they don't take their emotions to be tools of cognition?

That they are not subservient to the mainstream media's propaganda?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You apparently linked it as a response to me, but it doesn't address the things that I said. It wasn't a very interesting article and it didn't make a connection to what I posted. 

Quoting you: "Sounds good about DC, the people there are citizens and deserve to vote".

Aside from not making head or tail of this (I mean, why not declare San Francisco a state with two more senators- the people deserve a vote...) - you haven't noticed the urgency of which Sowell was most aware - A Vote at the Crossroads.

Does it matter to you that the Democrats clearly want to extend their power, with such ploys? For what ends, I asked.

There is the connection: You make out as if everything is normal, excusable or completely justifiable (i.e. open immigration). Sowell indicates that such machinations are ominous. He can plot the Democrats moving to a one party state, and if that's not "interesting" - as even a possibility and an intent - what is?

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Senator Paul pledged to spend the next two years going to the states to demand they change their election laws and procedures to ensure free and fair elections. Sounds like a waste of time and effort, we just had the fairest and freest election ever, all our institutions say so.

He also accepted that Biden is the legitimate president. That is the difference he has with you. He was not duped.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Aside from not making head or tail of this (I mean, why not declare San Francisco a state with two more senators- the people deserve a vote...)

Because the people of DC are not represented in the Senate and they are not allowed to vote in the presidential election. The people of San Francisco are already represented in the Senate and they are allowed to vote for president.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 7:56 PM, Eiuol said:

Because the people of DC are not represented in the Senate and they are not allowed to vote in the presidential election. The people of San Francisco are already represented in the Senate and they are allowed to vote for president.

 

Skirting the point again.

Yes/no: Do you think the Democrats are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Yes/no: Do you think the Democrats are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state?

The question seems meaningful because the answer is "Yes".

But it's meaningless because:

Do you think the Republicans are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES

Do you think the Greens are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES

Do you think the Socialists are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES

Do you think the Evangelicals are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES

Do you think the Libertarians are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES

etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

The question seems meaningful because the answer is "Yes".

But it's meaningless because:

Do you think the Republicans are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES

Do you think the Greens are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES

Do you think the Socialists are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES

Do you think the Evangelicals are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES

Do you think the Libertarians are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES

etc...

Hypotheticals. You are showing your skepticism about all of them, when only one is in a position to do so. And somehow, I have my doubts about the Republicans - but the Libertarians, definitely not.

Only one Party is in a dominant position to do so, has brazenly told everyone their intentions and how they will go about it. Disbelieving what the Democrats state is at least denial of reality.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2021 at 5:42 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

So although you are right that violence can be justified (SOMETIMES) you would be wholly wrong to advocate the fighting before we (as a society) have done the thinking.

We've already done the thinking. We aren't fighting to create something new and different. We're fighting to preserve what we have (or, in some cases, recently had).

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Only one Party is in a dominant position to do so, has brazenly told everyone their intentions and how they will go about it. Disbelieving what the Democrats state is at least denial of reality.  

 

Right now the Republicans have shifted to be known as the part of the "worker". They also attack "the elites", just like the Democrats. The've positions themselves to be the party of change. Except, they're all into the status quo of cronyism. One set of industry supports Republicans, another supports Democrats. They both have socialist slogans.

Trump wanted big infrastructure bills, depression era welfare payments to farmers, tariffs, and a general anti immigrant attitude (similar to Bernie). You're path out of socialism is nonexistent, inaccurate, basically fake.

As far as the Libertarian Party (as opposed to Libertarianism) goes, it's such a hodge podge that one can't determine what they want. I saw a tea shirt saying "Don't tread of my medicare". I saw a speaker at a rally say "Libertarians' don't' care if you marry a goat". (I suppose they were referring to a goat that can sign a legal contract"). There is also such a thing as a leftist Libertarian. Not very inspiring.

My point is Democrats are not a good choice, but this idea that there is a clear better choices is also NOT the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2021 at 3:25 AM, whYNOT said:

If this went unnoticed before watch this spokesman spew forth. Not, you'd think, leaked from a private discussion - broadcast openly to millions by the biggest broadcaster. "That's the crowd you are in with" - Lemon claims of the totality of Trump voters: Nazis, KKK, Supremacists. Trump a racist Nazi, is the lie that these Leftists use to cover over their racism.

"An effort to preserve whiteness in America ... not facing its original sin".

When one dehumanizes a mass of people by type, history showed us, you prepare them for the slaughter or their domination.

Lemon would clearly love to see them crushed.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

We've already done the thinking. We aren't fighting to create something new and different. We're fighting to preserve what we have (or, in some cases, recently had).

Like the terrorist that kills abortion doctors in order to preserve life.

What we had? We used to have a sense of safety and order around the center of our government. The expectation that no entity would attack it.  The idea that we were not a Banana Republic. We brought that up to China when it happened in Hong Kong. What we had is gone because it was not preserved by people who "already did the thinking".

Damaging what we have will preserve what we have. Duh! Now I'm expected to watch your video's because of such pristine intelligent credibility? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2021 at 5:42 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Not a single Trumpist that showed up on January Sixth would be able to articulate a proper political ideal; I'm confident of that. 

I'm confident many could articulate a better political ideal than the Founders, whose flawed "ideal" led to civil war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Skirting the point again.

Yes/no: Do you think the Democrats are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state?

Just because I'm criticizing you for your reasoning isn't to say that I think the Democratic Party has honorable intentions or proper intentions. I'm saying you are picking the wrong things to be critical of. The things you want to be critical of are not threats because at least the things he picked are desirable consequences. I think Republicans maneuver themselves all the time as well. But that doesn't mean everything they do I think is a threat. If somebody went to tell me about the elimination of regulations, and explain how that is bad, I would tell them it isn't bad. But I wouldn't be saying that Republicans are good or honorable.

 

 

24 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

We've already done the thinking. We aren't fighting to create something new and different. We're fighting to preserve what we have (or, in some cases, recently had).

 

If it's time to fight, what you want to preserve is already dead. Any physical display of force in the context of resisting the government you have would be justified because there is nothing  Are you trying to justify the insurrectionists here? I've been trying to point out that those people hate the America that we have and the fundamentals on which it operates. They don't want to preserve something, they want to create something new. If you want to fight to preserve something, you need to use the very thing you want to preserve (the Constitution). I think at least the people fighting realize enough that the implication of what they say is that it's time for violent revolution. The people who realize the implication but don't fight would be cowards. 

8 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm confident many could articulate a better political ideal than the Founders, whose flawed "ideal" led to civil war.

To me, in the context of everything else you are saying, you sound to be saying that you want to get rid of the Constitution and replace it with something else. This is what I'm saying: you are not arguing for preservation, your arguing for a complete change (which is by definition a revolution). I agree that there is a better political ideal, but the flawed idea didn't ultimately lead to civil war, rather, it was a willingness of various founders to compromise with the founders who wanted to preserve slavery. The spirit of the Constitution didn't allow for slavery. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2021 at 5:42 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

...if you think those senators deserved a good reason to fear for their lives then I really will need to hear your reasons why.

The representatives deserve to be pressured and threatened by a mob because that's what they believe in and kneeled down to just last year: mob rule. They embrace it. They get what they deserve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 9:26 AM, whYNOT said:

And "our" bedrooms? I personally know of several conservatives and read of dozens more who have openly embraced that their sons and daughters, sisters and brothers (and parents sometimes) are gay. As here, there has been a tidal change from those US conservatives re: sexuality. That war is won. Most of it is an old 'narrative' the Left want us to believe to encourage/create 'victims', a victimhood mentality without which Lefties haven't any cause to exist. When it comes to the madness of parents telling the young kids, and/or leaving their child's gender - NOT his/her sexuality, mind - up to the child's whim, a rational thinker would here agree completely with the conservatives.

True enough, except that I would also count abortion as a central "bedroom" issue which is far from dead.  And although the left seems to be taking an interest in our bedrooms (via the incommunicable spectrums of our genders) I'm not sure the right is still above parading its own victimhood around.  The words "elitist" and "media" both come to mind.

On 1/26/2021 at 9:26 AM, whYNOT said:

The right are -objectively - justified in opposing open immigration, a rationalist idea which overlooks the context of a welfare state, affirmative action, wage laws, etc. which would penalize present American citizens and workers.

Are you saying that, given the choice between upholding every individual's freedom of movement and protecting the continuation of the welfare state, we shouldn't drop the latter like the ticking time bomb that it factually is?  You are right that it's one or the other; we can't have open borders and a welfare state at the same time.  If you know of a good reason why we should try to prolong the existence of the nanny-state then I'd be very interested in hearing it.

 

On 1/26/2021 at 9:26 AM, whYNOT said:

If it is no more than an "economic depression", you see ahead, you disagree with Sowell and other erudite observers - and the obvious and explicit activity and aims of the Democrats - that they badly want a one party state, one that will be increasingly Socialist, you can bet.

You seem to be using "what Democrats want" interchangeably with "what's going to happen" there, though, and I wouldn't do that.

 

I'm not worried about waking up some morning and looking out my window to discover the Soviet Union.  It didn't happen under Obama (whose rhetoric truly was openly Communistic and terrifying); the reverse didn't happen under Trump; that's just not how America works.  The postmodernist left will get a few of the things they want (which will be some amount of bad for all of us) but I cannot imagine there being any gulags - UNLESS the right wing decides to also go berserk.  What I am worried about is waking up one morning in an active war zone that I didn't ask for and would probably have some difficulty trying to thrive in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...