Log In
Register
8.22am
26 January 2017
Offline
Well, Bernie is technically an independent when he sits in Congress, he’s just running as a Democrat for President.
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
11.47am
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline
I think having politicians who align themselves with parties is fine (as long as their policies are based on their own principles and not just toeing the party line) but more voters need to be independent and not vote based on party affiliation.
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed, QuarryMan([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
11.58am
15 November 2018
Offline Beatlebug said
I think having politicians who align themselves with parties is fine (as long as their policies are based on their own principles and not just toeing the party line) but more voters need to be independent and not vote based on party affiliation.
yesYESyesYESyes
The following people thank 50yearslate for this post:
BeatlebugLove one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018:
2019: 
2020:
12.15pm
26 January 2017
Offline Beatlebug said
I think having politicians who align themselves with parties is fine (as long as their policies are based on their own principles and not just toeing the party line) but more voters need to be independent and not vote based on party affiliation.
A thousand times yes! Especially in the US when the labels ‘Democrat’ and ‘Republican’ could describe a huge spectrum of different views. Like how the more libertarian, socially liberal Republicans are worlds apart from the more authoritarian hardcore conservatives, or the conservative ‘blue dog’ Democrats are completely different from the likes of Bernie.
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
Beatlebug, The Hole Got FixedI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
6.51pm
15 November 2018
Offline Is oppressing oppression oppressive?
The following people thank 50yearslate for this post:
BeatlebugLove one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018: 2019: 2020:
9.05pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline 50yearslate said
Is oppressing oppression oppressive?
Yes. You’re oppressing something.
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
Beatlebug#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 
2017 awards: 
2018 awards:
2019 awards: 
2020 awards:
2021 awards:
9.28pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline 
The Hole Got Fixed said
50yearslate said
Is oppressing oppression oppressive?Yes. You’re oppressing something.
Two wrongs don’t make a right… though three rights make a left*. 
In other news, affirmative action is discriminatory… 
*
Does this mean that, if you put three right-wingers together, they cancel each other out and become one left-winger? Are three right-wingers equal to one lefty? Show your work. 
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
QuarryMan([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site!
9.33pm
30 April 2019
Offline Beatlebug said
The Hole Got Fixed said
50yearslate said
Is oppressing oppression oppressive?
Yes. You’re oppressing something.
Two wrongs don’t make a right… though three rights make a left*.
In other news, affirmative action is discriminatory…
*
Does this mean that, if you put three right-wingers together, they cancel each other out and become one left-winger? Are three right-wingers equal to one lefty? Show your work.
*I think that just means that someone’s an inefficient driver.
The following people thank Tangerine for this post:
Beatlebug, 50yearslate11.34am
26 January 2017
Offline In what context, @50yearslate ? I feel like the question plays into several debates which would be very interesting to discuss.
One would be punching Nazis. As entertaining as it is to watch the likes of Richard Spencer get absolutely clobbered, whether it is justified is a whole debate in itself. Is it oppressive to use violence (basically, to oppress) those whose ideology centres around violently oppressing other groups? I’d be inclined to say yes it is oppressive, but that the nature of Nazi ideology opens them up to it as a justified means of combatting them. It’d be different to say, punching conservatives or democratic socialists.
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
11.48am
15 November 2018
Offline Yeah that’s sort of what I was thinking of. I saw a news article the other day about a Cubs fan who was banned for life because they did some white power sign, and it sort of led to me coming up with the question (though of course they’re not directly related). I was just curious to see people’s thoughts.
Love one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018: 2019: 2020:
12.37pm
26 January 2017
Offline It’s a complicated question which, as usual, goddess ContraPoints can answer better than I could, I think.
This video is a very clever and well scripted illustration of the dangers of how the liberal mindset of being sympathetic to Naziism (in the name of free speech and the free marketplace of ideas) can end badly. What I’m sure people will appreciate about it is how none of the characters are presented as consistently good or bad, and all of their viewpoints have their merits and their problems (though admittedly the Nazi character has more than the others).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPa1wikTd5c&t=623s
This video is an interesting exploration of political violence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEyL1rDe60w&t=625s
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
2.37pm
10 March 2017
Offline Sorry for being late to the party, i have been trying to keep my online usage to a minimum.
Anyways, it depends on what you mean by oppressing oppression. If you’re referring to reverse discrimination, then yes, it’s absolutely oppression. Even if women and minorities are still oppressed, it’s not the white man’s fault and trying to get revenge on the white man will only create oppression. If you’re referring to overthrowing a corrupt government, then no, it’s not oppression. This time the leader is to blame and must be removed in order to create a better world.
Also, i’m with Bernie, he’s one of the few politicians who actually cares about people. If Hillary wins the primaries, i’m voting Republican, even if that means voting for Trump.
The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:
BeatlebugIf you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
3.35pm
10 March 2017
Offline QuarryMan said
One would be punching Nazis. As entertaining as it is to watch the likes of Richard Spencer get absolutely clobbered, whether it is justified is a whole debate in itself. Is it oppressive to use violence (basically, to oppress) those whose ideology centres around violently oppressing other groups? I’d be inclined to say yes it is oppressive, but that the nature of Nazi ideology opens them up to it as a justified means of combatting them. It’d be different to say, punching conservatives or democratic socialists.
There’s 3 problems with what happened to Richard Spencer:
1. He’s not a Nazi. He may espouse views we disagree with but he’s a white supremacist, not a Nazi. Falsely accusing people of being Nazis makes the Holocaust seem not as bad as it actually was.
2. Even if he is, everyone should have the right to free speech, even Nazis and white supremacists. It doesn’t mean we agree or are sympathetic with them, it just means we are anti-censorship and pro-free speech, something the above groups aren’t.
3. Even if they shouldn’t, using violence to silence those you disagree with is wrong and is something Nazis would do. Violence should only be used if you need to defend yourself or someone you love and there’s nothing else you can do.
The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:
BeatlebugIf you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
3.46pm
Members
18 March 2013
Offline Do you 100% support free speech in all of its capacities DO? Do you not think it could be dangerous to allow people, such as white supremacists who spread vile, bigoted and A LOT of false information to be given a platform that could easily allow more people to be turned to your opinions. If you keep on hearing ‘all Irish people are thieves and crooks who deserve to be locked up’ constantly, there will be a part of you that starts to believe it immediately.
At my homestead, a lot of anti-vaxxers are being allowed to speak on television. They spew unproven lies that easily collapse when you look into them yourselves but gullible people or people who don’t have the time to do their own research may go “oh well if her daughter became sick after getting the cervical cancer jab than I’m not vaccinating mine, despite the fact 000s of girls have had the vaccine without side effects. It’s by giving people like this a platform to preach their untruths that their misinformation and deception is spread.
The following people thank AppleScruffJunior for this post:
QuarryMan
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
4.15pm
10 March 2017
Offline Yes, as long as you aren’t harassing people, directly inciting violence, or making baseless or knowingly false and serious accusations (IE false rape accusations).
As for you’re examples:
1. All groups of people have stereotypes associated with them but we need to accept that stereotypes aren’t true and instead base people on individual merit, you don’t need censorship to do this.
2. I don’t see the problem there. I’ve seen both sides of the argument and personally believe that it should be up to the parents whether or not their child gets vaccinated. Sure, it makes no sense that scientists would intentionally inject people with poison but at the same time, there are a lot of stories of people getting immunized and shortly thereafter becoming autistic, intellectually disabled, or even dying.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
5.41pm
15 November 2018
Offline Yes, but that doesn’t mean anti-vaxxers should be able to attack people for their personal choices. I’ve read a lot of really horrible things about parents who have lost their children and then been slammed on social media with awful messages blaming them for the death of their child. If an anti-vaxxer doesn’t want to vaccinate their kid, that’s fine, I don’t care, but they need to respect other people’s choices.
Love one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018: 2019: 2020:
6.06pm
30 April 2019
Offline Was my post stolen? where’d it go?
6.15pm
26 January 2017
Offline Dark Overlord said
QuarryMan said
One would be punching Nazis. As entertaining as it is to watch the likes of Richard Spencer get absolutely clobbered, whether it is justified is a whole debate in itself. Is it oppressive to use violence (basically, to oppress) those whose ideology centres around violently oppressing other groups? I’d be inclined to say yes it is oppressive, but that the nature of Nazi ideology opens them up to it as a justified means of combatting them. It’d be different to say, punching conservatives or democratic socialists.
There’s 3 problems with what happened to Richard Spencer:
1. He’s not a Nazi. He may espouse views we disagree with but he’s a white supremacist, not a Nazi. Falsely accusing people of being Nazis makes the Holocaust seem not as bad as it actually was.
So he wasn’t in the German army in the 1930s, big deal. If you fraternise with Nazis, go to rallies with Nazis, and share identical views with Nazis, then in my opinion you are the same as a Nazi. And that doesn’t really make sense to me, surely it makes the Holocaust seem worse? That the world didn’t learn its lesson? The mere existence of Naziism in 2019 is enough for despair really.
2. Even if he is, everyone should have the right to free speech, even Nazis and white supremacists. It doesn’t mean we agree or are sympathetic with them, it just means we are anti-censorship and pro-free speech, something the above groups aren’t.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of speech. Spencer can spew his hate if he wants, but it does leave him open for someone to respond.
3. Even if they shouldn’t, using violence to silence those you disagree with is wrong and is something Nazis would do. Violence should only be used if you need to defend yourself or someone you love and there’s nothing else you can do.
I agree with this in principle, but if someone’s ideology revolves around the use of violence to suppress and murder vulnerable groups, then they forgo the same rights to be free of violence, in my opinion.
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
GetbackintheussrI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
8.18pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline The problem with silencing certain viewpoints is that that’s the quickest way to further radicalise the people espousing those viewpoints. Silencing leads to radicalising which leads to violence against innocent people. So, yes, I don’t care how bad an idea may be, someone has a right to shout about their bad ideas as long as they’re not calling for violence.
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
QuarryMan, Dark Overlord, Dark Overlord([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site!
8.59pm
10 March 2017
Offline QuarryMan said
The mere existence of Nazism in 2019 is enough for despair really.
Not really, Nazis may still exist but they’re such a small minority that doesn’t get taken seriously so there’s nothing to worry about.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of speech. Spencer can spew his hate if he wants, but it does leave him open for someone to respond.
Of course, you can’t have free speech without the right to criticize others views.
I agree with this in principle, but if someone’s ideology revolves around the use of violence to suppress and murder vulnerable groups, then they forgo the same rights to be free of violence, in my opinion.
I have to disagree with you there, using violence to silence those you disagree with is wrong and when you do so, you’re no better than those who you’re attacking.
The following people thank Dark Overlord for this post:
BeatlebugIf you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
