Gun control
I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.
1 The rest of the world looks at the US policy with slack jawed astonishment.
2. “Guns don’t kill people , people do” is identical to “Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people do”
3. Using the idea that carrying guns can prevent the government oppressing you seems to ignore the fact that the US government controls the most effective killing machine in history
not exactly, I linked to people who use something much close to my definition than to yours.
and no my definition isn't meaningless as the plant example would imply
It isn't meaningless to you because it is basically a catch all for people who have political beliefs and behaviors that you despise.
But that isn't a very useful definition for the rest of the world.
btw rococo this long discussion about Marxism started because I used the cultural Marxists label that a lot of the right uses to describe trans activism, and now you say my definition is unique and not shared any anyone.
I doubt those same people share your view that all political violence is Marxism.
btw rococo this long discussion about Marxism started because I used the cultural Marxists label that a lot of the right uses to describe trans activism, and now you say my definition is unique and not shared any anyone.
The term cultural Marxism (which, as an aside, has a strong whiff of antisemitism in its origins) was a label that certain right wing people in the United States began attaching to various social views a few decades ago.
As best I can tell, their logic was:
--We don't like Marxism.
--We don't like these social views.
--Hey, let's refer to these social views as "cultural Marxism." The reasoning doesn't matter much. Marxism has generally negative connotations in the United States. Maybe it will resonate and stick.
In other words, their logic was much the same as your logic.
*all political violence against democracies with decent constitutions but sure let's remove that part and claim Luciom considers you marxist if you fight for freedom while under a regime because we want to troll
*all political violence against democracies with decent constitutions but sure let's remove that part and claim Luciom considers you marxist if you fight for freedom while under a regime because we want to troll
Much like you, my omission was in the interests of brevity. The additional qualifier doesn't make your definition less ridiculous.
You used the example of chinese repression of democratic movements claiming i would lead the repression if i could
That was in response to your post about using rubber bullets for crowd control, not about Marxism, the implication of course being that you would use overwhelming lethal force if you could.
That was in response to your post about using rubber bullets for crowd control, not about Marxism, the implication of course being that you would use overwhelming lethal force if you could.
So the Chinese government uses lethal force against peaceful protestors to keep the regime in place and this in some way makes it improper to use lethal force against violent criminals setting a neighborhood on fire at night in a western democracy I get it
So the Chinese government uses lethal force against peaceful protestors to keep the regime in place and this in some way makes it improper to use lethal force against violent criminals setting a neighborhood on fire at night in a western democracy I get it
Should the capitol police have opened fire on the jan. 6 folks? (yes, I realize one did, talking about all of the other ones present).
Question for you Luciom: if the Marxists manage to get into power, as they did in the Soviet Union and China last century, presumably they don't just stop being Marxist. And by your definition anyone engaging in protests against them with any degree of violence are also Marxists, correct? So we appear to have a Marxist on Marxist situation in this scenario, have I understood this correctly? The Marxists are both driving the tank and standing in front of it.
Question for you Luciom: if the Marxists manage to get into power, as they did in the Soviet Union and China last century, presumably they don't just stop being Marxist. And by your definition anyone engaging in protests against them with any degree of violence are also Marxists, correct? So we appear to have a Marxist on Marxist situation in this scenario, have I understood this correctly? The Marxists are both driving the tank and standin
Question for you Luciom: if the Marxists manage to get into power, as they did in the Soviet Union and China last century, presumably they don't just stop being Marxist. And by your definition anyone engaging in protests against them with any degree of violence are also Marxists, correct? So we appear to have a Marxist on Marxist situation in this scenario, have I understood this correctly? The Marxists are both driving the tank and standin
No if the state becomes undemocratic, if the constitution becomes toilet paper and so on, violent political action isn't Marxist as I wrote repeatedly and you seemed to acknowledge.
You can have Marxist v Marxist confrontations but that would require other elements to call the group Marxist.
For ex china and Vietnam had a war in 1979
tribalism is the most basic of the class struggles. Class struggle means that , the idea people can neatly be divided in groups in monolithical opposition one to the other, and the following (for marxist) idea that you can only solve the struggle by abolishing all groups except one.
class struggle
noun
variants or class war or class warfare
: opposition of and contention between social or economic classes
especially : such a struggle between or
Plenty people regardless of their social class are anti immigration. An anti immigration stance is essentially based on ethno tribalism, again at its core.
yes nazists were very marxist in their framework, i literally linked you goebbels saying very marxists things.
Eco terrorism is pure marxism as well , exactly.
I think you are getting the idea now.
If i ever wrote "violent riot" without citing the political aspect which i did most of the times it's just for brevity i guess, i clearly don't consider marxist a football riot. The motivation must be political.
It's not that i think "only marxists"
Right. Anyone or group regardless of their ideology are marxist as soon as they resort to or advocate violence, due to Marxism also advocating violence. Which means all violent riots/groups/people are marxists. Not that Marxism isn't the only ideology that advocates violence, it's that all groups are Marxist instead...
corpus, example of why it's useful to label right-wing terrorism as Marxist:
every time in society a group acts with political violence and people don't condamn that as a heinous act , with the strongest terms possible, and don't ask for brutal, draconian repression of those acts, they help the "other side" do political violence as well.
not treating BLM violent riots as marxism (or with extreme strength and so on) allows the Jan 6 riots, and
Or maybe (and just run with me on this one for a minute), Marxism isn't the only ideology that thinks violence is justified.
I have another question for you Luciom.
Imagine that I live in Dallas, Texas. I take $20,000 in cash out of the bank, arm myself to the max (all with legal guns), and travel to the worst neighborhood in Dallas at 2:00 a.m. on a Saturday. I stand on a street corner and loudly count my money. Eventually, two guys try to rob me at knifepoint. I pull out my guns and fatally shoot both of them.
Before I traveled to the bad neighborhood, I to
It is not moral because you may have enticed a drunk and/or desperate, usually law abiding, citizen to do something bad in a moment of weakness on a late Saturday night.
But what if you lived in a town that has recently been terrorized by a band of home invaders that sometimes killed their victims? Is planning a similar sting with some buddies immoral if we assume that your money flashing in a public place will entice those pros only to enter your house with guns, and if you don't flesh them out and eliminate them, they will continue their crimes? (I realize that the police themselves would probably set something like this up. I just want to make sure that you agree that if they refused to, your life saving action would not be immoral).
(
It is not moral because you may have enticed a drunk and/or desperate, usually law abiding, citizen to do something bad in a moment of weakness on a late Saturday night.
But what if you lived in a town that has recently been terrorized by a band of home invaders that sometimes killed their victims? Is planning a similar sting with some buddies immoral if we assume that your money flashing in a public place will entice those pros only to ente
In vino veritas David, you don't become a robber while drunk if you aren't one inside. I have been drunk many times and I guess many people on this forum did as well and I don't think we ever robbed anyone in that state
It is not moral because you may have enticed a drunk and/or desperate, usually law abiding, citizen to do something bad in a moment of weakness on a late Saturday night.
But what if you lived in a town that has recently been terrorized by a band of home invaders that sometimes killed their victims? Is planning a similar sting with some buddies immoral if we assume that your money flashing in a public place will entice those pros only to ente
do you think the government can set people up and entice them to lie under questioning?
