@jeffcliff@p@stux@sj_zero Stux is a retard who parrots every single normie leftist idea with absolutely no cognitive input of his own, so yeah it's his team.
> I'm not aware of any group on the US left calling for political violence.
They have those, yes.
Lea DeLaria: “You don’t want to do this. But here’s the reality: This is a fucking war. This is a war now, and we are fighting for our fucking country. And these assholes are going to take it away. They’re going to take it away. Thank you, [Supreme Court Justice] Clarence ‘Uncle’ Thomas. Joe, you now have the right to take that bitch Trump out. Take him out, Joe. If he was Hitler, and this was 1940, would you take him out? Well, he is Hitler. And this is 1940. Take him the fuck out! Blow him up, or they’ll blow us up. Facts.”
> Plenty of other places where there wasn't a risk of bystanders being hit.
If you've dehumanized the bystanders, then how much does that risk matter? For example, see other remarks in this thread, like @zop 's remarks in https://7td.org/objects/e6d7015a-5bba-44e5-88bd-758d10351802 : "The MAGAts are already conducting warfare against the United States and its citizens." If a person believes that there is a war going on, they're not going to be that perturbed if they hit some "enemy combatants".
@jeffcliff > I agree that it's most likely a left leaning patriot
Why? Aside from the somewhat flippant counterargument I already offered, I'm not aware of any group on the US left calling for political violence. Unlike on the right where this is par for the course these days among Team Orange Felon.
Secondly, even if a leftist shooter was conceivable, they wouldn't have chosen a political rally. Plenty of other places where there wasn't a risk of bystanders being hit.
What I think is more likely than either is that it wasn't a leftist *or* someone hired by GoP strategists. I can think of 2 other groups who have a motive;
1) The surveillance agencies; interfering in democratic elections and assassinating political leaders unfriendly to their interests has been common practice for decades. As we saw from 2016-2020, they're no fans of Agent Orange. The best argument against this is they would have succeeded (again, JFK).
@sj_zero > Besides, it's looking increasing like it's a far left American. Which it would make sense for it to be.
You mean like the one who killed JFK (see the movie and Bill Hicks' comments)? In reality, the sort of leftist who might consider that "the ends justify the means" is generally not the sort who knows which end of a gun you point at people, let alone an elite sniper. It's just as likely to a be a Reichstag fire style tactic by the Orange Felon's campaign.
Follows directly. The PRC may not be "your guys" but in that moment while doing the thing you want them to do and you apologized for and you defended, that guy is "your guy".
Besides, it's looking increasing like it's a far left American. Which it would make sense for it to be.
I deleted the post moments after writing it because I don't really feel like getting into a dumb political argument.
But it's pretty simple: If you're sitting there cheering for an attempted assassination, or apologizing for it, then the assassin is one of "your guys".
I hate a lot of politicians, and joking aside I don't want any of them assassinated. I want Justin Trudeau to lose in disgrace and go live out his days in California, not painting the steps of parliament. If someone tried to kill Trudeau, even with all he's done, I'll condemn that guy because once assassinations hit the table, they stay on the table, and it won't take 80 years for republics to end.
@jeffcliff@strypey@p@stux@sj_zero Dwaine Dixon, the man who brandished a rifle threateningly in front of James Fields, causing him to flee in a panic and drive through the protestors who were attacking his car at Charlottesville, was a member of the antifa group Redneck Revolution/Rebellion and also a professor at NC state.
@strypey@p@stux@jeffcliff@sj_zero The context of Charlottesville is that the folks defending the statue -- who ran the gamut from yes fascists but also standard issue conservatives, were attacked by the left-wing protesters.
James Fields attempted to flee in his vehicle but was surrounded by a mob. They began to smash up his car. That's when Dwayne Dixon brandished his rifle at Fields.
The false narrative is that fields drove into a crowd with the intent to kill, but the reality is he was hunted down by the left-wing mob and his vehicle attacked. He drove into the crowd only to escape what he felt was his imminent death, due to Dixon threatening him with his rifle.
@samjayganges@p@stux@jeffcliff@sj_zero OK, not disinfo then. Just irrelevant to today's discussion. This guy was *openly* advocating for armed force to defend his community against armed fascists. He wasn't advocating for stealthy initiation of lethal force against political actors. Connecting this to today's events is a *huge* leap.
@StarProphet@strypey@SilverDeth@stux@jeffcliff@sj_zero Yeah, movies you have a guy nailing six headshots with a handgun at a hundred feet. Four hundred feet with an AR-15 on top of a hot roof, you're not going to be able to hit a guy's ear and avoid his head.
@SilverDeth@p@stux@jeffcliff@sj_zero > I do not think the Reichstag Fire involved a margin of error so slim that a stiff breeze was the difference between success and an exploding head
Agreed. I don't think this is a likely explanation. Although, hypothetically it's possible that the shooter was supposed to hit the crowd vaguely near the Orange Felon, and only hit him at all because they missed.
I don't think a leftist shooter is any likelier, for reasons I've explained in other posts.
Donnie is one Quarter-pounder-with-Cheese away form a McStroke. Minus the obvious lunacy of shooting at your catspaw's HEAD, the excitement of this could flat out drop him.
This does nothing to help Team A, and Team B would never dare something so risky. Particularly as Pedo-Muppet Biden is in the middle of a nuclear-core meltdown as it is.
I bet good money this was some ANTIFA backbencher or tranny loon thinking he was "sAvInG uS aLl fRoM OMG hItLer!!!!"
> It's just as likely to a be a Reichstag fire style tactic by the Orange Felon's campaign.
A bullet goes by the guy's face and hits his ear. I do not think the Reichstag Fire involved a margin of error so slim that a stiff breeze was the difference between success and an exploding head. In one, a fake case of arson was used, and in the other, a bullet went through a man's ear, other bullets struck people behind him. It is extremely *unlikely* that this claim would be present for any sort of reason other than to force the association.
If you want a false flag that is close to the Reichstag Fire--property crime conducted under cover of night with no deaths or injuries--this is closer: pelosibrick.png
ah yes Wellington, NZ ... where an insanely nice but batshit crazy with power PM ran a government that ripped an infant from its parents because the infant needed an operation, and the parents wanted to use their own blood donor (who happened to be unjabbed). I lived in Welly for 3 years, and all my friend are still 100% fine with everything that happened, one who needed brain surgery but denies he has vaccine injury.
Every violent riot and strange happening in the United States has been a controlled media operation. The state withheld the full video of George Floyd for months, and the majority of Americans still haven't seen it (and if you watch both full body cam videos, they tell a very different story).
The world media is powerful. People were shot in Rotterdam for protesting the lockdowns. Germans raided a doctor who was live streaming. The world has gone through horrific events in every nation.
..and for the most part, they're directed if not tightly controlled. Groups like the Council on Foreign Relation, the World Economic Forum, the European Union parliament all have players that want the world they are collectively trying to usher in.
We are in a very different world today; one that moves fast where messages can reach from you to me in less than a second where two centuries ago it would take two weeks to four months to just send a letter (and it may or may not make it). It allows for a degree of technocratic control never once imagined.
Something a lot of these people don't realize. America in 2024 isn't Stockholm, it isn't Wellington, and to be fair (since I'm a canuckistani) it isn't Ottawa either.
If you're not in the US and you look around and try to judge what's going on there based on the leftists you know, then you're going to make a mistake. "Oh well the people around me are ok" -- yeah, that's great, neither Stockholm, nor Wellington, nor Ottawa are potentially already in a low key civil war. America certainly appears to be. If in any of our countries we had just one of the major political events of the past 8 years it'd be part of our history we talked about forever, but the US keeps getting hit with one after another after another, and the reaction with the US only shows how fractured a society they have -- something insane happens and half of people are actually kinda game. The level of low key civil war is so intense that people in other countries think it's chill to pick sides and say it's ok for you to kill your hated political opponent, which I need to point out isn't normal!
Imagine if any one of our countries had violent riots break out for 6 months in a bunch of our cities, killing dozens of people and causing billions of dollars of property damage. That would be the most defining moment of our generation. If someone tried to shoot Pierre Poilievre, that'd be shocking to the conscience, not something to cheer about! Same with Christopher Luxon, same as if someone tried to kill Magdalena Andersson. But we don't think about that because the toxicity of US politics is so normalized.
So when you go "Well the leftists in our countries are so normal so they wouldn't do that" -- well it's a different country and the Americans have done that repeatedly so stop thinking with your local common sense.
They tried to kill Trump with rican and such before already. This isn't even a new event.
edit: Oh yeah, that one was even from Canada. There have been a few people trying to kill him since becoming POTUS.
edit 2 for those that can't click links:
A woman from Quebec who in 2020 sent ricin-laced letters to then-president Donald Trump and eight Texas law enforcement officials has been sentenced to 22 years. While the poisoned packages were intercepted before they could reach their intended targets, 55-year-old Pascale Cecile Veronique Ferrier was hit with a slew of biological weapons charges.
She pleaded guilty on all nine counts earlier this year and agreed to the prison term as part of a plea deal, but it was only on Thursday that US District Court Judge Dabney L Friedrich signed off, making it official.
I don't think he was actually crazy. I mean, Harvard let Nazis--I mean, patriotic German-Americans who took advantage of the liberal immigration policy afforded by Operation Paperclip, sorry--do MK-ULTRA experiments on him, sure, and he seems to have been worse for the wear but his essay isn't unhinged.
> But staged political assasinations? There's plenty of historical precedents for conspiracies where a lone nutter takes the fall.
Non-staged political assassinations are the more common case.
> Let's just say I remain sceptical.
> *Former* President.
The guy that keeps saying "Orange Felon" wants to correct me on leaving off "former" in a post where I speculate that only half a percent of the country is able-bodied, I imply that everyone sending cash to a V-tuber is physically disabled, and I go on to say that half of the lunatics in the US are on fedi and the other half is guys trying to murder their ex-girlfriends.
Now, some people might speculate that these are the telltale signs of a facetious post, people might suspect that the author was just having some fun, and they might go on to say that you were fact-checking a joke. Thank god you saw through that! :bidensmug::trumpkissr: bombs_away--china_all_the_time_ft._donald_trump.mp3
All generalisations are false. I get that lone nutters occasionally cause big damage. The Unabomber is a good example. But staged political assasinations? There's plenty of historical precedents for conspiracies where a lone nutter takes the fall. Let's just say I remain sceptical.
> That leaves 50k people, minus one, who was shooting the president
> Regardless of what the official narrative turns out to be, I'd be very surprised if the shooter was really acting alone.
People want big events to have big causes. I wouldn't be surprised if the shooter was acting totally by himself. There are 350m people here, so if we discard the elderly and the NEETs and the hikikomori and the people giving actual money to V-tubers, we have at least 2-3 million able-bodied people, 1% rate of lunacy, say 200k lunatics of sound body. Half of those people were on fedi at the time, what were the other 100,000 lunatics doing? What is it, like half the guys that are 30 and under are virgins nowadays? (Pathetic.) So 50k were plotting to shoot their ex-girlfriend, ex-wife, whatever. That leaves 50k people, minus one, who was shooting the president.
Regardless of what the official narrative turns out to be, I'd be very surprised if the shooter was really acting alone.
> I'd not rule anything out but you seem eager to rule out a commie
Fair point. My intent is to caution against leaping to that conclusion, as a lot of people are doing in this thread alone. There are plenty of other motives for doing this, arguably more plausible ones.
@p@strypey@jeffcliff@sj_zero "ethics" is always a weird argument because if i'm a deontologist and you're a consequentialist then depending on my duty we will never agree despite arguing some outcome is ingroup/outgroup ethical.
> As for the Orange Felon thing, I refuse to name him in public because I try not to feed trolls.
Ha, good luck with that, but if it was merely an attempt to avoid the name, a neutral term would suffice.
> It's not illogical, but that's not the same thing. His actions were definitely unhinged.
Different set of ethical axioms. If you replaced your axioms with his, then it would be difficult to say he was unhinged. This is no different in principle from what I said earlier: if you think Trump is Hitler, assassination sounds much more reasonable. If you don't think we live in a society :shiggy:, then how bad is it *really* to behave in an anti-social way?
Society is an abstract thing; you do not need to hallucinate in order to perceive society as vastly different than a person sitting next to you and watching the same society. I can say I disagree with his conclusions and methods, but I can't say he was crazy.
It's not illogical, but that's not the same thing. His actions were definitely unhinged.
As well as failing ethics 101, they also had huge negative consequences for NVDA groups doing environmental defence for years afterwards, in the US and beyond. Was involved in them in Aotearoa in the 90s, can confirm.
Fair point on the former President thing. Yes, I was being pedantic. As for the Orange Felon thing, I refuse to name him in public because I try not to feed trolls.
Ethics get complicated there too -- if you're a consequentialist, do you go by the actual consequences or the intended consequences? If the former then what is ethical can only be chosen in retrospect so you're trying to predict what will be ethical by trying to predict future outcomes. If it's the latter, then incorrect consequences can justify overall wrong actions as justified even if successful implementation will always result in negative outcomes because you're just wrong.
That's where imo you do need a base of deontological ethics, hard lines you don't cross, because otherwise you can find yourself either never knowing what is ethical until after the fact leading you down a rabbit hole of betting against God predicting the future, or you can break your whole ethical system by biasing what you think the consequences will be unconsciously. You can the consider consequentialist perspective for more complicated ideas once you stop yourself from doing things you'll regret later if you get the consequences wrong or sometimes even if you're right -- if you become an ethical monster you might be right but you still have to live with yourself afterwards.
@sj_zero we did but the propserity was built on hiding the slavery somewhere else.
i think stalin and lenins folley was obsessing over "match and overtake" the west, which was dependent on a permanent underclass, using a socialism concept that is supposed to not have an underclass. a nontrivial amount of their problems ultimately come from trying to wring more blood out of a stump if only one more person got sent to jail, rather than idk
And what's really interesting is that the commies themselves refute themselves. Western civilization produced a kind of utopia with universal suffrage, limited suffering, vast material wealth, and virtually no war. Despite that, the commies claim the path to utopia was immoral therefore the end result is immoral.
@not_br549@J@0@kirby@stux@jeffcliff@sj_zero That's the thing, we don't have to remember. Why would we need to know? London, Paris, Tokyo, Guangzhou, Bangkok, done: something for everybody.
"Oh, you find Tajikistan" HELL NO I AIN'T KNOW HOW TO FIND TAJIKISTAN ON THE MAP, THAT IS THE NAVY'S JOB
"Oh, but I wanted to see the Hungarian folk dancing and" SHUT UP, WE WILL GO BY "LITTLE HUNGARIA" ON THE WAY BACK FROM THE AIRPORT
So, Bulgaria? I don't even think @meso knows where it is.
it's hard to keep track of those details, when they slide off the map with most of the Schwarzes Meer. it was simpler to just draw a keg of Pulver . .
there is a long list of places Americans can't find on a map. Vietnam, before 1960; Iraq before 1990; Afghanistan before 2003; Bulgaria -- where is Bulgaria, anyway?
This year, Europeans cease ranting about our politics. :eagle911:
Most especially Nazi bullshit. They've got Golden Dawns in the EU Parliament. They have had a Hitler, we rescued their asses from their own Hitler. We had no Hitler. Not that we've had the best presidents we possibly could, but none of them was Hitler, none of them had to be forcibly removed. They are not the experts on maintaining a Zero-Hitler region. They should be listening to the US. Come_unto_me,_ye_opprest.jpg humoristiche_karte_von_europa_im_jahre_1914.jpg
@SilverDeth@jeffcliff@not_br549@sj_zero@strypey Socialists have an absurd belief that words create reality, rather than that words are a form of lossy compression used as a wire format for ideas. Arguing terminology is equivalent to arguing what other people are *allowed* to *mean* when they speak.
> You're implicitly acknowledging that "commie" is an intentionally vague term of abuse, like "idiot", not a reflection of real world political beliefs or allegiances ; )
I am not. I am saying that if an insult ("idiot") may be used without permission, a neutral classification may be used without permission.
@p > I don't self-identify as an idiot but people call me an idiot without my permission. I don't need anyone's permission to call them a commie
You're implicitly acknowledging that "commie" is an intentionally vague term of abuse, like "idiot", not a reflection of real world political beliefs or allegiances ; )
@p > I think they should put quotes around the "an" in "ancom"
These days there are a lot of tankies who call themselves anarcho-communists for some reason. But that doesn't mean anarcho-communists are all tankies. Maybe tankies are doing this due to their real numbers being tiny?
Akin to how fascists like to call themselves libertarians when their numbers are small. But that doesn't mean all libertarians are fascists. Right?
> As an anarchist, surely you know that "antifa" and "left" are categories that overlap, but are far from the same thing.
Well, I said he was "probably a commie", you said "probably not a leftist"; you've used the terms interchangeably.
They can call themselves whatever they want and I, like Eazy-E before me, will call a spade a spade and get paid.
:eazye: Semantics are a spook anyway. :stirner:
> There are also plenty who don't.
Antifa is an attempt to rebrand commies to sound less gulag-friendly. I don't know of anyone using the Antifa™ brand that are not also ancoms (let alone a large enough number that they can no longer be dismissed as rounding error). They love clipping words, the Comintern probably mandates it. I think they should put quotes around the "an" in "ancom" but I'm not going to argue terminology.
How they self-identify isn't relevant to me. The primary activity of European anarchists and socialists has been and continues to be bitter arguments over terminology. Lenin is writing a tortured essay trying to explain how owning a cat isn't counterrevolutionary. You know the "USSR wasn't real communism" meme, but have you read Mussolini's last interview before he was assassinated? The interviewer asks him about the USSR and Mussolini responds by dismissing the question, on the grounds that the USSR "isn't real socialism". We've got this doodle Engels made, it's the source of the famous caricature of Max Stirner, but the actual drawing is some sort of shouting match, a bunch of useless dickheads that are more insistent on terminology. I was innoculated against this at a very young age when, some time around the time I saw my thousandth tedious essay about how one thing or another was "not punk rock" in a poorly xeroxed zine, I realized that it was a complete goddamn waste of time and that if you let them, these people will spend all of their time on it. Fine, let them, as long as they don't do it near me. "What is punk rock? It's not music or the liberation of music from the labels and the radio stations, DIY ethos, a culture of participants instead of bystanders, it's about none of that: punk rock is about arguing incessantly about the definition of 'punk rock' and the music is getting in the way, please unplug those amps until you have all understood and accepted the error of your ways and started using the words in a way that I approve."
The terms that I use are for me to use. I don't self-identify as an idiot but people call me an idiot without my permission. I don't need anyone's permission to call them a commie. engels_doodle.jpg
@p > I don't know of anyone using the Antifa™ brand that are not also ancoms
Maybe that reflects the limits of your social network rather than the extent of the social networks that produce antifa activity? Very likely it varies from country to country too. In my experience there have been at least as many tankies involved as left-anarchists.
@p > Didn't take the "antifa" stuff out of his Instagram bio, though, apparently
As an anarchist, surely you know that "antifa" and "left" are categories that overlap, but are far from the same thing. Sure, there are plenty of antifascist militants who identify as leftists. There are also plenty who don't.
Didn't take the "antifa" stuff out of his Instagram bio, though, apparently. To someone that is unfamiliar with our election process, this might look like a contradiction, but someone that knows how primaries work would recognize this. It doesn't get much news coverage, but it's not really a secret: cross-registering is pretty common.
Some states allow you to vote in whichever party's primary you want, most do not: you can only vote in the primary election for the party that matches your registration. This became a common strategy a long time back: register as a member of the opposing party, then vote in their primary so that you can get the weaker candidate on the ballot. In the case of a run-off or a national election, the weaker candidate doesn't even have to win, just drag the race out for longer: when the members of a party are running against each other, they tend to pander to the far corners of their party's base, and then they have to do an abrupt shift to the center to try to appeal to undecided voters, and the longer the primary goes on, the harder that gets. ActBlue, where the kid sent his money, is one of the companies that advocates the strategy of cross-registering to game primaries.
Registering for a party is free, can be changed any time, it's not like in other countries: it doesn't affect anything besides primaries and opinion polls that ask how you're registered.
Uh-huh. But the Orange Felon's attempt to avoid a peaceful handover of power in 2020 - which even *his VP* agreed was appropriate - that *alone* means he's definitely a Pinochet. So if you don't want a Pinochet in your top public office, however dirty it might make you feel to vote for the other candidate, that's what you do.
> I could just say Convicted Felon, which would be a neutral statement of fact.
There is no such thing; you ought to know that. If I refer to Biden as "that crackhead's dad" or "the senile child-molester", these are facts, but "It's true!" does not mean it's neutral, and which things you decide to highlight are *more* relevant than the stance you take. See attached. So please, don't screw with me, man: it's one thing to talk, it's another to stretch my credibility and insult my intelligence, and it makes it difficult to assume good faith.
> Mumbling Joe.
"Child-Rapist Joe", if you were trying to make the point effectively.
> But faced with a binary choice that includes Pinochet, you pick the other one.
We're not anywhere near Pinochet vs. Allende, which was my initial point: you do not appear to have a reasonable understanding of US politics. McCombsShaw1972--agenda_setting.pdf
@p > if it was merely an attempt to avoid the name, a neutral term would suffice
Sure. I could just say Convicted Felon, which would be a neutral statement of fact. But I don't think trolls holding political office is a neutral thing and the terms I choose reflect that.
Please don't read this as a hearty endorsement for Mumbling Joe. This is not a choice between a Pinochet and an Allende. But faced with a binary choice that includes Pinochet, you pick the other one.