Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Fair enough, fair enough.

On another note, Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times was dismissed today. That didn't take long. Fox made a big deal of it at the time.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Progs gonna Prog: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-racism-charge

Really good look at the way progs work.

Now, back to reading about how antifa are justified and so forth from our outstanding news outlets.

Honest question, Talent, which major news outlets are praising Antifa and calling their acts justified? Maybe some legitimately are and I just don't know it. Heck, Nancy Pelosi put out a statement condemning them today.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Horrendous example of gerrymandering. North Carolina state senator (a Democrat) buys a new house that's outside of his district. The state redraws the district to include his new home.

Republicans say it was done at his request. He says the Republicans didn't want him running in a different district. Who to believe? Probably neither

http://www.fayobserver.com/news/20170827/senate-map-gerrymandered-for-senators-house

[Dr. Strangelove]

Mattis freeze Transgender order; allows transgenders already serving to stay in place.

Will Trump be angry?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/29/mattis-orders-pentagon-allow-transgender-troops-continue-serving-pending-study/614711001/

[iam416]

DSL:

The tone on antifa is one of understanding without approval. I'll post some additional links tomorrow.

Here's one from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/o...e.html?mcubz=0

That's an OpEd piece which more or less blames the antifa on DJT.

Here's simple news coverage from the NYT on Berkeley stuff this weekend: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/u...y.html?mcubz=0

To contrast the NYT's soft take, the LA Times, certainly not a conservative organ, wrote this piece on the same events and included the fact that antifa were responsible for some violent acts : http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...829-story.html

The LA Times, IMO, is fair enough in tone. I'm fine if you want to delve into motives a bit, but you can't possibly excuse their actions and tactics and you should (IMO) recognize that it does more damage to your cause than good.

But, hey, that's just me.

As for Pelosi, yeah, she didn't actually mention antifa in her first try and then eventually got around to it on try number 2. It must have pained her, especially after she used antifa and the threat of the heckler's veto to pressure the parks service into pulling the permit for the Patriot's Prayers Freedom Rally (whatever the hell that is).

The Berkeley mayor also just said that he's not sure that Milo and Coulter (I think) should visit because of threats of violence. That's fucking absurd. Fucking absurd.

[Mainevent]

Agreed, there should be no soft selling what Antifa is. Meeting violence with violence is only going to make things worse. They are always going to look better when standing next to the Nazis, but who doesn't? Liberals/opposition/resistance movements should condemn and distance themselves from them or try to show them the error of their ways. But much like the far right, most of these people are probably too far gone and feel this is their only path.

[CGVT]

Yep

[hack]

Well, the less opportunity they have, the more people gather at the fringes. Time for economic policy for all, not for some. I agree that the violence solves nothing. It's only an excuse to not focus on the horrible people on the extreme right.

[Dr. Strangelove]

DSL:

The tone on antifa is one of understanding without approval. I'll post some additional links tomorrow.

Here's one from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/o...e.html?mcubz=0

That's an OpEd piece which more or less blames the antifa on DJT.

Here's simple news coverage from the NYT on Berkeley stuff this weekend: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/u...y.html?mcubz=0

To contrast the NYT's soft take, the LA Times, certainly not a conservative organ, wrote this piece on the same events and included the fact that antifa were responsible for some violent acts : http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...829-story.html

The LA Times, IMO, is fair enough in tone. I'm fine if you want to delve into motives a bit, but you can't possibly excuse their actions and tactics and you should (IMO) recognize that it does more damage to your cause than good.

But, hey, that's just me.

As for Pelosi, yeah, she didn't actually mention antifa in her first try and then eventually got around to it on try number 2. It must have pained her, especially after she used antifa and the threat of the heckler's veto to pressure the parks service into pulling the permit for the Patriot's Prayers Freedom Rally (whatever the hell that is).

The Berkeley mayor also just said that he's not sure that Milo and Coulter (I think) should visit because of threats of violence. That's fucking absurd. Fucking absurd.

In the NYT article you cite, Noam Chomsky, patron saint of the Far Left, condemns Antifa as flat out states they do more harm than good. Again, as far as I know, Antifa HAS no ideology other than beat up people they regard as Nazis. It's violent and despicable but ultimately a reactionary movement. It dissipates without something to react TO.

It also seems to me to be a very Fox News message, trying to paint everyone to the left of Trump as being a closet Antifa sympathizer and acting as if they are an equal evil to Nazism (not you, but FoxNews certainly does).

I think Berkeley should allow the free speech week but it's also patently clear that "Free speech week" is nothing more than a celebration of the Alt Right. Who from the Left has been invited to attend? Thus far I've heard only Milo, Coulter, and Steve Bannon? It's the campus conservatives looking to make 'progs' look bad and the 'progs' took the bait. It's got nothing to do with some sort of actual celebration of the 1st Amendment else they would've invited a fuller political spectrum to attend.

[iam416]

Preach, Maine.

The far right/normal right sees itself in a "culture war" where its very ideas are subject to the aggressive censorship of the left. The "war on Christmas" is but one example of this persecution complex. There are other more valid examples that resonate with more normal conservatives, e.g., campus nonsense (which is why they write about it all the time). But it's certainly not limited to campus. And every ridiculous example further galvanizes a huge voting bloc. It's ok to shit on treasonous statues, but you can count on the progs to go way too far. And I'll be SMDH at it - the politics of it (no skin off my back if we can't formally recognize Columbia because of the harm it does to "marginalized peoples").

Antifa plays directly into worldview as strongly as possible. That, IMO, is remarkably counterproductive.

That said...I'm no prog...heh...I'm still a Clinton D at heart. Which I suppose makes me more of an R than D these days. So, my wishes for the Ds aren't at all aligned with the powers that be. I know that.

[iam416]

I'll quote the NYT tomorrow, DSL.

I actually disagree with you on your First Amendment take. The heart of free speech is permitting that with which you disagree. In Berkeley, nothing could be more symbolic than hearing the speakers you mentioned. It's moot...I can't imagine anyone in that city allowing those speakers to have their say.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'll quote the NYT tomorrow, DSL.

I actually disagree with you on your First Amendment take. The heart of free speech is permitting that with which you disagree. In Berkeley, nothing could be more symbolic than hearing the speakers you mentioned. It's moot...I can't imagine anyone in that city allowing those speakers to have their say.

I support the first Amendment whole-heartedly. I just don't think that the event staged by the Berkeley conservatives is intended to be a celebration of the 1st Amendment. It's intended as a provocation that they fully expect will meet resistance, probably violent resistance, and the lefties have taken the bait as I said.

If they intended it as a true free speech event then commies and, I dunno, devotees of Lyndon Larouche should be among the guest speakers. Are they? Oh, they're exclusively Alt Right guests? Hmmmm

[iam416]

Yeah, they can call it a 1st A event because they know they'll be silenced.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yeah, they can call it a 1st A event because they know they'll be silenced.

We might have different ideas of what being silenced is though. Are they entitled to receive a polite reception? I would argue no. They're entitled to not be threatened, attacked, etc. etc.

Asking that no one protest when the Neo-Nazis march through their town is going a bridge too far for me. I know the whole "don't give them attention argument" but I have major issues with just ignoring them as well.

I have no idea if it's true, but I saw an anecdote from Germany recently...Neo-Nazis used to march in Nuremburg (I forget the actual city but it fits) annually, to celebrate Hitler or some such shit. Townspeople couldn't make them go away. So eventually someone came up with the idea that for every kilometer they marched through town, locals would pledge to donate a certain amount of money to a local charity. Soon the Nazis were met with cheers and shouts to keep going. The Nazis were completely confused as they wanted provocations. Eventually they figured out what was happening and just scrapped the marches altogether.

Could something like that work here? Dunno. I'd like to think so.

[AlabamAlum]

Commies speak at Berkley all the time. Wait, faculty counts, right?