That statement is rather stupid. There are left paramilitary groups in the US. There's also a ****load of liberals/democrats in the south and midwest who operate guns on the regular.

Really?

Of course lots of Democrats have guns though. I would assume most Democrats have guns in the south and the midwest. A plenty significant minority of Dems have guns in California.

And is it even possible to not know how to use a gun?

Case closed. Point made. etc etc.

The only peep fantasizing about civil war ITT is you. So there's that.

But, sure, let's flesh out your sick fantasy. First, less than 50% of peeps identify as Donkey or Elephant. Of that minority, even in the most red or green or blue areas, a minimum of about 1/6 and a maximum of about 1/3 of peeps are going to be Donkeys, and a min-max of 1/6-1/3 are going to be Elephants. That's in every jurisdiction, workplace, school, block, apartment building. And in lots of households too.

Do you imagine something like 25% of peeps up and moving across state lines to sort out into provincially pure pockets?

Then we got the problems of nobody ever is going to organize and bankroll these Donkey and Elephant armies. Are you fantasizing the Koch bros cadets -vs- the (((Soros))) rangers... or some such nonsense?

Finally, rank-n-file Donkeys and Elephants aren't going to pick up weapons, and go on campaigns. These folk are maximizing their action potential when they spent 10 minutes punching a hole in a piece of paper every other year. Half the time half of the registered Donkeys/Elephants can't even be bothered to do that.

Here... I'll help you.

For your fantasy to come true, you are going to need a "kicker". Try this: a secret military project to create zombie soldiers is compromised by a mad scientist who, who really really believes in reaching across the isle. He finds a way to spread the poison on ballets, and intentionally spreads different strains on Donkey ballots than Elephant ballots. The majority of peeps who are none of the above are infected by handling those pesky "I voted" stickers.

Ok. I guess I was just wildly lucky the times I've shot and guessed that pulling the triggerish thing would make those bullety things fly out at what I was pointing at.

Redneck Revolt is the most famous of recent history. I knew some vets in my former city who would go into the woods together (probably like 10 of them) and do military style practice. All left leaning guys. I would guess there's a lot of small groups spread throughout the country like that.

Very interesting. I had never heard of them. I skimmed the wiki page, but had to stop for fear I might try to join up.

Yeah, but Redneck Revolt are anti-Donkey.

Redneck Revolt San Diego and IWW SDGMB are formal allies.

That doesn't matter to what my statement was about.

Greeeeeer shows up and predictably this thread is now a Superfund site

True. But it is completely relevant to HighNoonMotherFkr's Donkey-Elephant civil war fantasy.

@HighNoonMotherFkr: How about this fantasy:

Say 100 registered Donkeys are picked at random. Same with the Elephants. Then they were pitted in some kinda paint-ball war games, or something similiar.

Are you still guessing +2200 Donkeys and -2200 Elephants ?

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/106...296016385?s=19

I've said more than once that my favorite longish-posting posters are you, S_T!, Fly... and Well Named. So, trying to read this thread (with 'try' being the operative word, as it appears not all the posts were even moved here) is some combination of watching your parents arguing about getting a divorce and watching your children scream in the backseat during a long road trip, and it's hard to not have overlapping, conflicting biases.

That said, the bolded is utter insanity.

I mean, even in the very next post you wander closer to the correct answer:


Perhaps 'status quo' and 'norm' are loaded terms but there are two in play. One is that there hasn't been a war on American soil in seven score years and the other is that ~every significant change in world history has been the result of violent threats,violence, or war.

Now, I'm probably the most pessimistic, pro-violence person ITF but I'd like to think I'm not so far beyond jaded that I can't recognize and appreciate the genuine article of unbridled optimism when I see it. Like, one time, dealer, right? We're due! Maybe we can have positive change with minimal causalities and show that we, humans, are not at our core just stupid and cruel animals.

Spoiler alert: we are. But the pessimists being right again doesn't necessarily make the optimists wrong.


p.s.

pre-trump 2016


Glad you guys are on board, I guess. There's rough sailing ahead.

"That said, the bolded is utter insanity."

Like I said, there's going to have to be a reckoning for people to understand that right wing ideals are quietly more popular than we think, and that the people who cling to them, even if it's in a form of soft anxiety or aversion to conflict with white supremacists, and that many are more clever at pretense than a lot of the front-line red shirt deplorables. 2018 America is nothing more than the success of pretensive postures in causing a large amount of political confusion.

Many of these people will be incredibly articulate, in academia, and be able to link to incredibly interesting social research. They will play both sides and contain in them surely enough empathy and good-will to confuse. They might even be confused themselves.

I guess I'll leave it to you guys where well named fits. We can't even get consensus if he was a mod of p7, I was already told I was a mental patient or something blah blah meow chow by jalfrezi for suggesting he was (spoiler alert: he was). So I'm well aware we might not align on characterizing someone with 10k posts or whatever. But I think if you take my point, that well named in fact wants Tucker Carlson to have a platform and doesn't want him at all harassed, which should not be a big leap for a dude who moderated and was defensive over an overt Nazi playground forum on 2p2...and then from there wonder WHY he's so interested in hippie punching the left over bothering Tucker and why he seems to genuinely revel chatting with Nazis all day and then does the "oh you're not listening, I have no time for 2p2 internet posting, this is all tomfoolery, good day" shtick when called out on it -- I think you get a clear picture of a guy who seems pretty wedded to having white supremacists be given a seat at the table.

And yeah, if I had to bet where sympathies will eventually land for people who are almost insistent that white supremacists be platformed, and who seem gleeful to moderate their forums if it helps keep it viable and around, who show up to scold the left for hypothetically doing violent things to Tucker then scurries off and runs out of time when his history as a Nazi forum mod and beard stroker is repeated -- I think I know where I'd bet well named goes on the spectrum and where he'd line up in the end in some binary world where he had to choose between fascism and socialism, and critically, forgetting well named, don't forget there are surely millions like him.

yea ok

you know who i am tho, tiny dick mother****er

If the below is the exchange you're referring to, my comments re. the dramatic change in your posting style had nothing to do with whether well named was a mod or not (which I was wrong about).

Heck yeah, this guy knows what's up.

Two things for now:

1. I'm gonna finish reading the thread before I engage fully. I had the 2nd mos posts in p7 so I don't think an appeal to my own authority would be fallacious, but I can't run my mouth about specifics ITT yet. I'll say though there was a reason the joke about me being well named's anger translator started.

2. I'm pretty sure well named would be overjoyed to see Carlson lose everything and be relegated to blogging at livejournal, which I'm not sure is even a thing anymore. He just hopes we won't need the glue and glass.

Spoiler alert, again: We're gonna need the glue and glass.

" I'm pretty sure well named would be overjoyed to see Carlson lose everything and be relegated to blogging at livejournal"

Why do we keep taking this at face value? Well named's impulse was to first hector everyone about not being violent with Tucker Carlson in response to a newsstory about how his door was knocked on and his driveway defaced. Sure, he can *say* that -- see my point earlier about pretense -- but the total picture doesn't really suggest that, in fact suggests the opposite, that a guy who went to bat for the righteousness of a Nazi hangout on 2p2 and whose first impulse is to punch left when Tucker whines about feeling any discomfort in life PROBABLY actually quietly wants Tucker to have a platform, and the post-hoc "well he can be made uncomfortable so long as you do it in some tepid fashion like an advertiser boycott" is the thing to mollify you from calling him deplorable trash, which I'll remind he also sort of wandered into a few times how much angst he gets being called names on the internet. That is, he seems self-aware enough and sensitive enough that he spends a lot of time trying to calibrate himself so that doesn't happen.

So I think the total picture is of a guy who seems really wound up in "give white supremacists tons of public space to operate" whose pretensive bull**** is to convince you, the common sense person who is like "no wait giving these people platforms is a huge problem?" that he's on your side so you'll temper your resistance to Tucker Carlson and Nazi forums, places and things he seems to actually wants to persist. Again, 50k foot view, well named totality of agency seems to be "give Nazis a lot of public space to communicate" and then run interference against opponents of Nazi platforms, or as Trolly expertly put it, a high-end FoldNDark gambit ("oh we're sympaticos, but can you consider taking a nicer tact with Tucker? Oh, I hate those internet Nazis, but can we give them a space to hear them out?")

dude

I like the posters who didn’t oversee Nazi subforums.

The only effective way to mod that forum was to take a hard line against bigotry and issue fast and ever-increasing temp bans until posters ether changed (ha) or didn't post again (chez will protest this is what he was doing, but he was notably lenient with his pet nazis).

In other words, that 2+2 forum itself was unsustainable.

tl;dr

The quote doesn't contain anything Carlson says. I assumed article linked below the quote is just a source because that's a usual convention. If Carlson is as racist as you claim he is it should be very easy to link to what he wrote or what he said directly. I mean linking to an opinion piece when discussing someone's stance is pretty ****ty.

I've done it for fun. I was reading this discussion before and seen someone doing it. I hoped it wouldn't detract from the core of the argument. I think it's a funny way of writing it because of how Trump made it a winning slogan if his campaign and managed to push it despite it being ridiculously impractical.

Man, seriously, how is it even relevant? I have enough reasons to think I am pretty smart. I would still argue the phrase fits as not enforcing immigration laws creates a situation where risk takers don't bear the consequences of the risk. Instead honest law abiding people do. It might not be perfect. I will use more descriptive phrase from now on.

Because USA has a policy of accepting certain number of immigrants and how many are already there influences that. For many people the only choice is to stand in line which often means entering a lottery like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa

Obviously immigration is needed in US. If it weren't for illegal immigrants coming by the million it would be easier for people standing in line to get in as the pool of work visas or green cards would be higher. Here is a popular law professor explaining the concept:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=Jky5Oj7ZErQ

It seems to me that you are not acknowledging an argument for deporting illegal immigrants at all and you don't see a problem of "line skipping". If that's the case it won't be possible to have any debate with you as the problem is objectively there, the only debate is about how sever it is and what we should do about it. This is acknowledge by about everybody on the left and right side. I mean even Obama and Clinton acknowledged it in their speeches specifically pointing to being tough as important part of the policy. It's obvious there is a problem and some way of dealing with it is needed.

The debate is about balancing the costs of enforcement (both economic suffering caused) and costs of not enforcing the law strongly enough (flipped incentives for honest law abiding immigrants, getting demographic you can't control, crime raising around border crossing etc.).

It's not that weird. When you see angry mobs harassing a political pundit it's a reason to be concerned no matter what the pundit's views are. I watched a few interviews conducted by Carlson but I don't watch that much TV and especially not Fox News outside the presidential election season. He always sounded very reasonable to me that's why I am surprised he gets so much hate here. Now I see that it's usual: doesn't agree with me -> racist, at least on this forum.

Again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=Jky5Oj7ZErQ

Or if you can do 7 minute video, here is Hillary Clinton:
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/pol...migration.html

I mean, not acknowledging that there is a problem that allowing illegal immigrants creates in incentives for both law-abiding to-be immigrants as well as working class legal immigrants and citizens is a total loon territory. It's the simplest concept there is: if you can skip the line without consequences you hurt people waiting in that line. If there are illegal immigrants who work they create downward pressure on working class salaries.
It's so obvious even Bernie Sanders understands it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0


Again, I've read the quote and assumed the link is there to point to the source. That's a normal way of arguing. You don't quote a few lines of opinion and link to the huge wall of text with a few Carlson's quotes inside surrounded by big paragraph of pure opinion writing. After skimming to find Carlson's quotes I don't even see anything remotely controversial in there, let alone pointing to fascism. In fact I am surprised the few selected quotes point to him being concerned about working class issues. I think he wouldn't qualify to run a Republican with those views.

If you break the law intentionally then "peaceful" isn't an excuse to avoid violence if you don't want to reverse your actions when asked. Society accepted violence as a way of enforcing laws long time ago and it's not something commonly argued about. If I walk over to your house and camp in the living room with my buddies being totally non-violent you are justified in using violence removing me or calling for people who will do that for you.
What kind of hippy commune world would that be if we can't use violence to enforce laws. Paradoxially the only way to make it kinda work would be to build huge walls everywhere so totally non-violent - just camping here don't end up living for free in someone's house or feeding off someone's work.

It's against the law to cross the border without papers. If you are doing it you should be forcefully removed. This is acknowledge by ****ing everyone but the looniest fringe utopia believers.
Even Bernie Sanders wants to enforce the borders for **** sake.

Meanwhile I am still waiting for to an answer to: