3 ms·

> Did you forget the context of this thread already? Did you forget saying that people joined OWS out of incoherent rage, and defending the troops who actually

by wnight 15y ago

> Did you forget the context of this thread already? Did you forget saying that people joined OWS out of incoherent rage, and defending the troops who actually did join the armed forces to kill innocent people? Who painted racist slogans on munitions, etc? > My remarks that those of us opposed to SOPA should engage in more organized action rather than throwing in with Occupy were in response to this comment: Oh, I see. Your baseless slander of tens of thousands was because someone had said we should join forces with them. No problem then. > You still haven't explained how I'm a murderer by proxy and you aren't. I didn't say I'm not. To the degree that I am, and yes it involves a lot of avoiding taxes, I am trying to stop it. You on the other hand support the troops, etc, and are unwilling to apply your incoherent rage rhetoric to the actual destructive elements of society. For all that you (may not have) voted for any war-mongers, you certainly support the conservative status-quo in your willingness to speak out against Occupy, etc. For instance, you call Occupy members a net drain on society. Perhaps they even are (or rather, the needless police presence is...). But any society pursing a baseless war needs to be drained of its resources before it can use them to kill more innocent people. > So what gives you the right to call me a murderer by proxy? Huh? What gives me the right to call you something? Rather, what do you think removes my right to call you something? > ... but how would you know if I did? You'd have said so. And you wouldn't defend the troops. For instance you'd have commented that the racist motivations they had and the armed forces' willingness to recruit them despite this (because of?) was the reason why you couldn't support them regardless of their superficial motivations such as "justice". > Does that mean you are by proxy guilty of everything that's happened in the Occupy camps that you defend? Did I defend blanket-defend Occupy? That'd be like defending Anonymous or any other non-group. As long as there's one under-cover Scientologist causing trouble I can't speak for them as a group even if the rest were all certified angels.

philwelch 15y ago
I never said anyone joined OWS out of incoherent rage; I said incoherent rage was the end result. If anything you're the one guilty of baseless slander, as if every member of the military was a racist war criminal. If anything, you're only demonstrating my point about OWS not being the kind of people to make a political coalition with.
- wnight 15y ago
  > I never said anyone joined OWS out of incoherent rage; I said incoherent rage was the end result. No. You didn't: > "The 'Occupy' movement is a sinking ship run by anarchists. It's literally an expression of incoherent rage." You said the movement is literally an incoherent expression of rage. And not only did you claim OWS was run by someone, which is wrong, you said it was anarchists, which is a contradiction. > If anything you're the one guilty of baseless slander, as if every member of the military was a racist war criminal. Not at all. That's accurate. Well, they may not all be racists - some may merely be okay supporting racists. But they're all war criminals, except maybe Bradley Manning. Soldiers aren't just allowed to protest and refuse to follow illegal orders, they're required to do so. The war against Afghanistan was clearly under false pretenses as there wasn't a good reason to believe Osama was doing anything other than passing through Afghanistan if he was there at all, and the war against Iraq was under false pretenses as there obviously (even in the beginning) were no WMDs and the USA had been forgiving of Saddam's murderous purges in the past. Now suddenly Bush's poll numbers were in the toilet and they want to attack someone. Anyone who knew anything, which is a moral prerequisite for picking up a gun and killing someone, knew the wars were a sham. All good soldiers deserted, refused to fight, leaked documents, or otherwise sabotaged the war effort. Everyone else involved, from cook to gunner, is guilty of aiding and abetting wholesale murder. It's the standard we applied to the Nazis and we were right to do so. > If anything, you're only demonstrating my point about OWS not being the kind of people to make a political coalition with. Absolutely. An non-organization like OWS can't be bribed into supporting anything odious. They'd never support a coalition because nobody could guarantee they wouldn't attack their "partner" if that organization acted contrary to any given OWS-member's interests. You'd want a more "politically savvy" group, and a strict organization which would kick out misbehaving members so that they'd toe the party line, to partner with.

by wnight 15y ago

philwelch 15y ago

I never said anyone joined OWS out of incoherent rage; I said incoherent rage was the end result. If anything you're the one guilty of baseless slander, as if every member of the military was a racist war criminal. If anything, you're only demonstrating my point about OWS not being the kind of people to make a political coalition with.

wnight 15y ago
> I never said anyone joined OWS out of incoherent rage; I said incoherent rage was the end result. No. You didn't: > "The 'Occupy' movement is a sinking ship run by anarchists. It's literally an expression of incoherent rage." You said the movement is literally an incoherent expression of rage. And not only did you claim OWS was run by someone, which is wrong, you said it was anarchists, which is a contradiction. > If anything you're the one guilty of baseless slander, as if every member of the military was a racist war criminal. Not at all. That's accurate. Well, they may not all be racists - some may merely be okay supporting racists. But they're all war criminals, except maybe Bradley Manning. Soldiers aren't just allowed to protest and refuse to follow illegal orders, they're required to do so. The war against Afghanistan was clearly under false pretenses as there wasn't a good reason to believe Osama was doing anything other than passing through Afghanistan if he was there at all, and the war against Iraq was under false pretenses as there obviously (even in the beginning) were no WMDs and the USA had been forgiving of Saddam's murderous purges in the past. Now suddenly Bush's poll numbers were in the toilet and they want to attack someone. Anyone who knew anything, which is a moral prerequisite for picking up a gun and killing someone, knew the wars were a sham. All good soldiers deserted, refused to fight, leaked documents, or otherwise sabotaged the war effort. Everyone else involved, from cook to gunner, is guilty of aiding and abetting wholesale murder. It's the standard we applied to the Nazis and we were right to do so. > If anything, you're only demonstrating my point about OWS not being the kind of people to make a political coalition with. Absolutely. An non-organization like OWS can't be bribed into supporting anything odious. They'd never support a coalition because nobody could guarantee they wouldn't attack their "partner" if that organization acted contrary to any given OWS-member's interests. You'd want a more "politically savvy" group, and a strict organization which would kick out misbehaving members so that they'd toe the party line, to partner with.