Discussion in 'Self Defence' started by Pretty In Pink, Jun 24, 2017.
even when he physically assaults people, and encourages terrorism?
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play.
They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
I don't know that hatred and the alt right can be dealt with in the liberal we must simply discuss ideas way. They do not operate in good faith and are not aiming at a mutual pursuit of good. We can discuss with, well, most forms of right wing and conservative thought because they broadly agree on the same ideas of justice, logic, truth, etc.
Last paragraph is me not Sartre. If someone makes fun of that Frenchman, are they parodying or Sartre-izing him? Ah ah ah
Lets just say my personal leanings dont make me anywhere in line with nazis, however antifa are not a fan of me because i think communism is just as bad as facism. So i am screwed either way.
Im not fan of Britain first either, especially them keeping money that should go to the legion.
I forget who said it, I think it was Foucault, but the measure of intelligence is not in seeing similarities, but distinctions.
Interestingly, ero and I had been talking about the violence inherent in communist and fascist revolutions recently and my thought was that it can be blamed on the necessity of purging your own country of those who disagree with your ideology; as comparisons, think about the difference between the French and American revolutions, both aimed at democracy, but one revolting against a foreign power...
What foreign power was being revolted against in the American Revolution???
The Colonial government made themselves to be the "foreign power" in that confrontation.
That's my point - you didn't see the same bloody massacre and purging campaign in the US that you did during the French revolution, something that you also saw in fascistic and communist revolutions...
Tell that to the free black communities.
Like the Panthers.I remember what happened.
I agree,but you're calling the Crown a "foreign power",which it wasn't.Except perchance to the Scots who had come mainly into the southern area.
The grievances of many of the French people had gone on far longer and were much worse than any complaint the American colonial had. So it wasn't surprising that things got out of hand-waaaay out of hand. While it's also mostly a class war revolution I think it's safe to say the Reign of Terror transcended ideological purposes.Not unlike the Cultural Revolution,both were great avenues for individuals to get back at other individuals.I mean,you have revolutionaries having their former comrades killed and in some cases their ideologies aren't radically different.
While the American revolt is started in the main by the upper and merchant classes I agree there certainly weren't the same extreme ideological differences between rebel and loyalist as twixt things like Marxism and fascism.
It has been estimated that about 25% of the colonials supported the revolt,25% supported the crown,and the other 50% really didn't care to get involved. Plus many of the loyalists fled the colonies after the war.So yes, there were no practical reasons for purges.
Pol pot was extreme left wing, so were the IRA...
Please note, this is not in "off topic" and i have not memorised the ToS yet, that aside.
I dont think any polcie would use this, for U.S police they probbly all ready have a network of good trainers for what they need, that is if the police department doesnt actually train them well.
They did treat the loyalsists badly afterwards and unliekt eh french rovolution it was for a independent country not against the nobility. I am far froma authority on this BTW.
Yeah, I'm not trying to say that the American revolution was bloodless or composed of the 'good' guys, but that environmental and practical facets of a revolution are the driving force of more famous purges rather than ideological components.
Separate names with a comma.