Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Sorry, what's my side again?"Not super wide spread" lol. Is a tiny group within a tiny subculture. There is a nutter for everything and your side chooses it's opponents that validate your own prejudices not by that opponents significance. You learnt it from the best though. I read a bit of Shapiros debate book he does the exact same thing.
libertarian I know dont worry.Sorry, what's my side again?
No. Try again if you like.libertarian I know dont worry.
Please read what I actually wrote earlier.
IDW fan? Your group has been cooped by the right because they can hide behind you to release their rhetoric sorry to to give you the bad news.No. Try again if you like.
I can tell you I'm very against tribalism and political partisanship. So instead of making assumptions about other people's politics, I try to just discuss issues with them rather than through a filter of "You're a such-and-such, therefore..."
Just absolutely gotta put everyone in a box with a label hey? I get why - it's easy to dismiss the other person without challenging your own ideas. But it's not a good thing. Sorry to give you the bad news.IDW fan? Your group has been cooped by the right because they can hide behind you to release their rhetoric sorry to to give you the bad news.
Look the reason I find Libertarians so frustrating is they are so obsessed with the individual. Actual real history will tell you that working class emancipation is only successful through collective struggle and identity. I'm way more interested in economics than culture but whenever you get into a discussion with a libertarian about economics, its one of two things;Just absolutely gotta put everyone in a box with a label hey? I get why - it's easy to dismiss the other person without challenging your own ideas. But it's not a good thing. Sorry to give you the bad news.
Thanks for the good response.Look the reason I find Libertarians so frustrating is they are so obsessed with the individual. Actual real history will tell you that working class emancipation is only successful through collective struggle and identity. I'm way more interested in economics than culture but whenever you get into a discussion with a libertarian about economics, its one of two things;
- maintain the status quo
- UBI, which they dont realise is also, maintain the status quo
They are always economically conservative, capitalist apologist to the core and devoid of any real ideas. Soon as you talk about reforming labour movments or worker coops they freeze.
There is but you have to acknowledge that the working class in radicalising. You have to ask yourself why. For me it is economic and a cultural response to disparity within our system. The left is finally beginning to emerge from the russia blunder years and hopefully we can begin to help people realise that maybe it isnt the browns over the border that are creating this economic tension we are seeing, they may need to look up.Thanks for the good response.
I'm big on the importance of the individual, but that's more to do with culture, law and morality etc. When it comes to economics, I am much more aware of the need for collective ideals. It kinda goes hand in hand with economics anyway, as it's system that collectively effects people.
IMO, our nation does a good job of balancing freedom of individuals to create their own wealth and collectively protecting those who are most in need. It could be much better as far as effectiveness and efficiency goes, but the principle is on the right path. One thing I don't like is the privatisation of utilities and services that has happened over the last few decades.
So basically, it's a balancing act in my view. Too far either way and it topples.
It was the DSA national convention, the DSA being the biggest (non-union affiliated) left wing organisation in the USA. Bit rich to say it is a minority view."Not super wide spread" lol. Is a tiny group within a tiny subculture. There is a nutter for everything and your side chooses it's opponents that validate your own prejudices not by that opponents significance. You learnt it from the best though. I read a bit of Shapiros debate book he does the exact same thing.
Don't think there's much swearing in it, no.Do our parliaments still say prayers? Do we still swear in the bible?
These are the people controlling our public discourse, moderating SRP, shaming people for not sharing their opinion, getting people sacked, and destroying lives.
Don't think there's much swearing in it, no.
Are umpires supposed to award an equal number of free kicks to each side too?
All murder is wrong.
That's all good and well if your benchmark for whether something is good or bad is how many murderers it has inspired.The ENTIRE point is Antifa murders = 0. Ethnic Nationalist/Supremacist murders = many.
The only way you can defend that is if you're a sympathiser or actually involved in the Nationalist/Supremacist scene. You can't paint that any other way, Shan. You just can't.
That's all good and well if your benchmark for whether something is good or bad is how many murderers it has inspired.
There's no need to defend a disparity when you think both sides are full of *******s.
See, I think you're coming at this all wrong. It's dichotomous thinking. Violence is bad. Sure, murder is quite obviously worse than thuggish mobbing, but that doesn't make thuggish mobbing ok. It's really quite easy to say both ANTIFA and right-wing extremists who kill others are pieces of s**t. Obviously the latter are more so. But both fit nicely under than umbrella term and I'm not downplaying anything.I thought the concern about Antifa was the propensity for violence. In which case, what side MURDERS for their beliefs? And in doing so, what groups warrants opposition to them?
Antifa wasn't formed in a vacuum.
See, I think you're coming at this all wrong. It's dichotomous thinking. Violence is bad. Sure, murder is quite obviously worse than thuggish mobbing, but that doesn't make thuggish mobbing ok. It's really quite easy to say both ANTIFA and right-wing extremists who kill others are pieces of s**t. Obviously the latter are more so. But both fit nicely under than umbrella term and I'm not downplaying anything.
Do you think strikes are a form of mob violence? I did an internship a million years ago with oxfam hong kong, we were observing strikes at sweatshops in Cambodia, we were banned from being anywhere near we could only document from a distance. There was violence during the strikes. When you take something away from a person with power there is always violence. the only reason we have a capitalist system is through extreme acts of violence perpetrated by the french working poor. Where is the line between justifiable violence and unjust violence for the libertarians?See, I think you're coming at this all wrong. It's dichotomous thinking. Violence is bad. Sure, murder is quite obviously worse than thuggish mobbing, but that doesn't make thuggish mobbing ok. It's really quite easy to say both ANTIFA and right-wing extremists who kill others are pieces of s**t. Obviously the latter are more so. But both fit nicely under than umbrella term and I'm not downplaying anything.
Violence is quite clearly defined. Justification is another matter altogether, and it's rarely black and white.Do you think strikes are a form of mob violence? I did an internship a million years ago with oxfam hong kong, we were observing strikes at sweatshops in Cambodia, we were banned from being anywhere near we could only document from a distance. There was violence during the strikes. When you take something away from a person with power there is always violence. the only reason we have a capitalist system is through extreme acts of violence perpetrated by the french working poor. Where is the line between justifiable violence and unjust violence for the libertarians?
So you have no personal belief where the line could be drawn? You must have a set of violent events that you deem justified and a set that you deem not justified.Violence is quite clearly defined. Justification is another matter altogether, and it's rarely black and white.
I've no idea what libertarians would define as the line and wouldn't speak on behalf of them.
Of course, but they are all determined by the context of the situation, which is basically endless possibilities.So you have no personal belief where the line could be drawn? You must have a set of violent events that you deem justified and a set that you deem not justified.