The Meetup
The Meetup
Comments
75-
-
I bet you could get them wall themselves in if you told them it would piss off the liberals.
-
I couldn’t understand how the holocaust could happen until I witnessed how much joy conservatives take in teasing people for trying to care about others. Fucking demented freaks.
-
-
-
For a second there I thought you did my boy EAP dirty.
-
Edgar Allan Parsons
-
-
-
This argument never made sense to me. The people who say that the new fascism will call itself antifascist also claim to be against fascism so this equals out. It just doesn't make sense as a gotcha. Antifa is demonstrably against fascistic politics and that's the gotcha if there is one
-
One comment I saw eons ago explained it, it went something like this
"Imagine theres a group called Team-No-Bad-Guy. They gather to yell to stop people doing bad guy things. You don't like those people that they yell at, but you don't like the non-yelling methods Team-No-Bad-Guy uses sometimes. Team-No-Bad-Guy hears you say this and calls you a bad guy and begin yelling at you. You realize that they can call anyone bad guys and you wonder how things would be for you after the big bad guys were gone."
-
This makes a lot of sense when talking about centralized organizations and movements like the French or Bolshevik revolution. There is a text called something like "why the Paris commune abolished the guillotine and so should we" describing how the guillotine was more and more used against anyone differing from "party line". Similar stories about Russia and for example Kronstadt.
A decentralized organization like antifa on the other hand doesn't have a party line. They can't gain domination over a state. There are individual groups that go rogue but they have no guillotine nor state apparatus and they are a minority within antifa
-
-
This argument never made sense to me.
Don't worry, it's just because they're not arguing from a place of good faith. They are often not even serious or thoughtful enough to even understand that they're arguing in bad faith, it's just they have strong feelings and not enough capability to form logical arguments in their heads to fight their own discomfort with foreigners or people of color or having to respect people's gender identity. (It's almost ALWAYS about race or sex.)
This is why centrism is dead. There is no "middle ground" between having paralyzing hangups and emotion-driven policies and not having these things. Either you get incredibly sweaty and ashamed watching interracial cuckolding porn or you're chill and don't care. There is very little overlap.
-
That's because they're lying.
-
To me it seems at least kind of suspicious if someone has a shared hobby with fascists of sharing videos of people being assaulted or killed and talking about how much they deserved it, and are enforcing groupthink in a similar way. It feels like they are playing the same game and must share many of the same ways of thinking, even if they are nominally on different teams. Maybe that isn't what Antifa is really about, but people I've known who self identified with it have been like that. I worry that engaging with and relating to politics that way is all heading to a similar place regardless of on-paper beliefs, so the way this comic depicts a physical refusal to even acknowledge the thought is kind of chilling.
-
Hey dipshit. They are literally sending people to concentration camps right fucking now. Stop with this "but maybe in the future bullshit".
If you're not American I'll bet your country also has a growing fascist subset because just look at the state of politics the world over. We can talk about future fascists once we deal with the ones that are literally in front of us following the same playbook as last time.
-
Holy shit. You’re unironically being the guy behind the wall. Quick, Susan, where is my camera!?
-
Your opinion that nobody deserves to be killed is really rare, historically. King Arthur killed people. Achilles killed people. Moses killed people. Sun Wukong killed people. Superman is probably the first superhero in history who didn't regularly kill people.
What I'm saying is that people who celebrate violence are normal and your pacifism is a weird and hypocritical trend that won't be popular for very long.
George Washington understood that. He fought and sent people to their deaths for the freedom you now enjoy. Show some patriotism and appreciate the value of violence.
-
I came across a scientific proposal to investigate the issue I think you're responding to: dangerous ideological thinking that breeds
evidence-resistant dogmatism and intergroup intolerance.
Ideological adherents aren't necessarily a problem until they become militant in their intolerance to dissent & hostility to self-examination. Their zealotry may lead them to abandon reason (eg, rampant fallacies) & commit injustices for ideological pursuits.
Movements against fascism, theocracy, & persecution of threatened classes can be good at opposing particular problems. However, adherents who fixate can lose sight of the general failure in humanity—ideological extremism—that got us those problems and indulge in the same kind of flawed thinking that creates the kinds of problems they're opposing: they're counterproductive & self-defeating. A failure to commit to integrity in the pursuit of truth and to scrutinize & justify efforts rationally (eg, by welcoming self-examination & debate) is a sign of problematic priorities.
An interesting part about the research proposal is it suggests ideological thinking is a general phenomenon with essential qualities distinct from the content of any particular ideology and testing is needed to properly define that phenomenon. It suggests a definition to test that identifies doctrinal & relational components as essential qualities: ideological thinking is
a style of thinking that is rigid in its adherence to a doctrine and resistance to evidence-based belief-updating (i.e., doctrinal) and favorably oriented toward an in-group and antagonistic to out-groups (i.e., selectively relational).
In terms of components
- doctrinal component
- description: an absolutist explanation for existing conditions
- prescription: a set of prescriptions for future thought, behavior, & social relations
- relational component
- group identification: strong personal identification with the in-group
- prejudice & hostility: a rejection of nonadherents that often takes the form of hostility and prejudice
Accordingly, an ideologically extreme individual
is one who (a) possesses a rigid, evidence-resistant description of the world, (b) strongly adheres to inflexible prescriptions for how they and others ought to live and act, c) exhibits intense identification with fellow adherents, and (d) displays active hostility toward nonadherents
whereas an ideologically moderate individual
is one who (a) adopts a description of the world that is flexible and responsive to evidence, (b) does not rely on or impose on others rigid prescriptive rules for living, c) displays weak or moderate identification with others who believe in similar worldviews, and (d) does not express hostility or prejudice toward dissimilar others.
The way individuals like this blow up when you criticize problematic thinking is typical of ideological extremism: even if you agree with their cause or are an ideologically moderate fellow adherent, they'll irrationally treat you with the intolerance & hostility of a nonadherent.
I think intellectual humility that respects truth & integrity demands ideological moderation.
While I favor causes to oppose the various particular consequences of problematic thinking that lead to injustices (eg, fascism), I think a higher, more general cause is to oppose & challenge irrational ideological thought wherever it turns up (especially in ourselves): that may be the ultimate enemy.
- doctrinal component
-
-
-
Do you want your brick wall in red or brown?
-
the local brick store has these nice black fireproofs.
-
-
"Hey, I'm just asking questions!"
-
With cheap nuclear energy we could have had electric cars for 50 years thus massively reducing global warming.
The same people who protested for environment protection protested against nuclear energy.
-
We could not have had electric cars for 50 years because there were no viable electric cars 50 years ago. The lack of electricity was not the reason.
Also nuclear energy is simply not cheap. Modern reactors (those that are actually good and don't explode and don't produce eternal poison) are so expensive that no energy company wants to build them (unless they get a shit ton of subsidies).
If we build more reactors 50 years ago we would have a lot of 50 year old reactors that were designed to last less than 50 years. And upgrading or demolishing them is expensive as fuck.
-
So the problem is capitalism here?
-
What other realistic alternatives do you suggest?
Solar only works when there's sun, fusil fuels kill the planet and give you all sorts of health issues including cancer.
I agree it's important greatly reduce consumption and build car independent infrastructure. But nuclear power is still the most reliable and least harmful source of power and if it wasn't for the disinformation and irrational nuclear phobia a considerable part of the energy problems would be improved.
-
Also nuclear energy is simply not cheap
The problem is capitalism, not nuclear.
-
To back up your claim about EV non-viability, I would point to the ~2000 Ford Ranger. While the GM EV-1 gets the spotlight, it was a weird car with a specific purpose. The Ranger, on the other hand, was a very normal vehicle with an EV powertrain shoved in where the gasoline wasn't. A few hundred were made. It used lead acid batteries, the only viable option at the time. NiMH and NiCd weren't good for the amperage needed and were expensive by comparison. The Ranger had about a 60 mile range at best and I think 60mph top speed. Great for parks and municipal trucky things, not great for the gen pop. That's just 25 years ago. Sure, one could argue that the main manufacturers could have done better with actual dedication and less comfort with cheap gasoline, but it doesn't change that lithium wasn't commercially viable yet. No other magical source could have appeared either, as even with the current EV push, Li-ion is still the top choice.
-
-
Aha! I can deduce from your opposition to self-proclaimed environmentalists that you must hate the environment. I am very smart.
-
Is this a form of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Let's make it more complicated:
Ukraine is fighting a fascist Russia, or at least a fascism supporting Russia. Russia is, by their own account, fighting fascists in Ukraine.
For one of the countries, can it be said that the real fascists are the ones against fascism?
-
-
-
Give 'em the ol' Cask of Amontillado
-
best revenge you could have
- they're aware of what's happening
- they know it's you
- it's long and drawn out
-
-
The thousand injuries of Fascists I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge.
-
For the love of Trump, Montresor!
-
-
-
Removed by Moderator — Modlog
-
This is formatted horrifically and I legitimately have no idea wtf you are trying to say
-
Friendly reminder to take your meds.
-
The joke works better when we're not witnessing antifascists getting bricked up day after day.
I'm bricked up right now shawty
I can hear that funky baseline now.
They are a brick, house. That Marduk is stacked and that's a fact. Ain't holding nothing back.
Also: they about be sipping on Amontillado, and the dudes name should be "Unfortunado".