4 ms·

> I don't see the "obvious classism". Author isn't talking about demonstrations or protests, author is talking about extremists blowing things... Don't try and

> I don't see the "obvious classism". Author isn't talking about demonstrations or protests, author is talking about extremists blowing things... Don't try and dismiss entire movements with the acts of but a few extremists. Without the movement, you don't have May Day in 1919: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#May_Day_1919 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare#May_Day_1919 Also, without context, you're argument seems reasonable, however WITH context, it does not. During class warfare, your poor and disenfranchised are AT WAR with the rich and wealthy. Of course these people have no recourse for representation from the elite, nor do they have police protection. After years of struggles with police and politicians, I find it insulting to claim that any engagements are terrorism, and that all of it is under the pretense of war. Just look at the locations of these events... > Their only long-term effect was the further marginalization of the political left in the USA, as they became associated with violence. Actually the labour movements had gotten the most concessions out of government between 1918 and 1940. If you disagree, again, feel free to explain how labour laws inhibit society from being truly free/prosperous. > Terrorism gave us nothing except fear, violence, and death. In every place it has shown up it has actively worked against the causes it purports to advance (see: OWS and rioting). OWS are terrorists? Now I know you're a shill. People should really take note of these type of subtle propoganda, and get informed. http://www.iww.org/ http://www.iww.org/

potatolicious 13y ago
> "Don't try and dismiss entire movements with the acts of but a few extremists." You're mistaking my argument for my political stance. I am quite far on the left, thanks. The violent actors that are attracted to just about any cause do not represent the cause, but they are an easy scapegoat to be used by the opposition, and this scapegoating works. Short of changing human nature, this is the limitation we have to work with. Every violent act in the name of some cause directly works against said cause, even if its perpetrators are themselves a minority. A single violent actor in your midst cancels out the credibility of hundreds, if not thousands, of peaceful participants. We can whine all day about how unfair this is, but tough, this is the way public perception works. This is why as supporters of whatever cause you believe in, it's of critical importance to root out the violent elements within your group. > "OWS are terrorists? Now I know you're a shill. People should really take note of these type of subtle propoganda, and get informed." Jesus, go back to /r/conspiracy already. Look at my posting history, you think I get paid to write this shit? This is what I hate about talking to people like you, I express one thing you find disagreeable, but no, I can't possibly hold that opinion in good faith, I must be paid, I must be a planted agitator. OWS aren't terrorists, but their protests around the country (outside of NYC itself, which remained relatively peaceful) were mired with rioting, looting, and violence. It made the movement completely toxic to any support from political moderates. Over time it became largely associated with crackpots and extremists, and they never gained the support of the undecided everyman. OWS died because of its violent internal elements. You think people didn't identify with OWS? Nearly everyone I know identifies with the core complaints of OWS, but very few ever participated in their protests, because they were known to be violent, because nobody wanted to be in the same crowd as black bloc assholes smashing windows. There is a reason why MLK Jr. preached heavily for non-violence, because every window smashed, every store looted, erases the hard work of many, many more people. > "During class warfare, your poor and disenfranchised are AT WAR with the rich and wealthy. Of course these people have no recourse for representation from the elite, nor do they have police protection." Really? Really? That's the best you can come up with, after bringing up single-payer health care in Canada? One of the greatest (if not the greatest) achievements in Canadian history? The one that was won without a single bullet or a single bomb? The one that was hard-fought by people in the political process, by shrewd leaders? You brought that up and now you're saying that there is no recourse other than violence? No recourse for the everyman except to take up arms? Jesus.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  Well you've changed my mind. I definitely don't think you're a shill. > OWS aren't terrorists, but ... were mired with rioting, looting, and violence. It made the movement completely toxic to any support ... Over time it became largely associated with crackpots and extremists ... they never gained the support of the undecided everyman. OWS died because of its violent internal elements. You're a sheep. You preach non violence and think that any protest with elements of violence as illegitimate. The main message of OWS was of solidarity, hence the whole complexity of the group. You missed that point entirely, even though you say most people you know identifies with their grievances. So in summary, you don't believe in protests, as you don't believe in outliers or subverters as being separate from the core grievances of the whole movement. Because of this, you dismiss any movements or protests you or others may find hopeful, because others who share different philosophical underpinnings, are also involved in the narrative. > Jesus, go back to /r/conspiracy already. Absolutely. Here's something to mull over while you beg the government to reform itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods It's extremely easy to shout terrorist and praise pacifism and trust your government. The hard thing to do is become outcasted by sheeple like you who think this massively powerful set of institutions has your interests at heart. I'd much rather go to /r/conspiracy then be told me someone like you that terrorism is the biggest problem towards social change and not government central planning of socio-economic development.... Excerpt: "Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense." TLRD: You need to seriously rethink your sheepest trust in institutions based from Monarchy, and governed mostly be the elite. You need to stop dismissing theories and actions against oppression as negative and opposed to progress, as that pretty much enforces the belief that the government (US specifically) isn't the one creating/causing/permitting an enormous amount of negative events globally for special interest group gains. The War on Drugs, The War on Minorities (Prison System), The War on the Internet, and The War on Terror, are all legitimized by your sheepest trust in their creators continued success.... Oh Look... : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6771306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6771306 Trust them. Be peaceful. People like me are the problem. Definitely not the ones with the money supply and army...
waps 13y ago
I find it weird how socialists latch on to every source of violence and claim it as their own, even when it's very obvious it's something else. Most leftist terrorism, in Greece for example, was directed and controlled from within the Soviet Union, and had the goal of military conquest behind it. That is very well understood now. It had nothing to do with what Greece's populace wanted. The irony of the article is that it attempts to use today's terrorist actions and claim them for collectivism. In fact al qaeda started by bombing soviets, because they were collectivist. They got help from the US (because collectivist systems hated religion up to two decades ago. Marx hated religion, as is very well known). As if that wasn't proof enough you have the "arab spring" and what it was really pushing. That's pretty clear at this point. In Egypt, Lybia, ... and it wasn't collectivism. It wasn't equality. It was the very opposite of that. It was pushing an extreme view of repressive, very capitalist religion. One that espouses a slave-based economy, and a form of society that has a reputation across the planet for being by far the worst society for a slave to live under. A religion that pushes selling humans. A religion that praises trading, pillaging the earth, and all you seem to hate, to a far greater extent than our capitalist system does. 9/11 and related bombings were executed by people associated with this system, not with collectivism of any kind. Another massive self-deception is that most of these collectivists, at least the ones discussing it in European cafes where I live, are universally part of this "elite". But they themselves are innocent, see, because they "try to help". Not by working, obviously. It "somehow" escapes their attention that most people in the cafe nextdoor, the cafe that used to be filled with car mechanics, drivers and ... and now is filled with call center employees, hate them for this. And they hate them because they can effectively do nothing and discuss collectivism all day. To me, the article reads like another intellectual looking at society, and seeing exactly what he thought was going on all along. Like with the Egypt "revolution" for democracy. Hah ! In reality US society is fraying in hundred different small ways, mostly due to pressures coming from the outside. But the basic problem is this : We have 7 billion people on this planet, and we only need ~1 billion or so for the economy. That 1 billion figure is dropping fast, and we've reached the point where the US's 300 million are not isolated from it any more. But you know what ? Historically, that's only strange if you look at the last 100 years. If you look at the last 1000 years, that's merely the status-quo.

potatolicious 13y ago

> "Don't try and dismiss entire movements with the acts of but a few extremists." You're mistaking my argument for my political stance. I am quite far on the left, thanks. The violent actors that are attracted to just about any cause do not represent the cause, but they are an easy scapegoat to be used by the opposition, and this scapegoating works. Short of changing human nature, this is the limitation we have to work with. Every violent act in the name of some cause directly works against said cause, even if its perpetrators are themselves a minority. A single violent actor in your midst cancels out the credibility of hundreds, if not thousands, of peaceful participants. We can whine all day about how unfair this is, but tough, this is the way public perception works. This is why as supporters of whatever cause you believe in, it's of critical importance to root out the violent elements within your group. > "OWS are terrorists? Now I know you're a shill. People should really take note of these type of subtle propoganda, and get informed." Jesus, go back to /r/conspiracy already. Look at my posting history, you think I get paid to write this shit? This is what I hate about talking to people like you, I express one thing you find disagreeable, but no, I can't possibly hold that opinion in good faith, I must be paid, I must be a planted agitator. OWS aren't terrorists, but their protests around the country (outside of NYC itself, which remained relatively peaceful) were mired with rioting, looting, and violence. It made the movement completely toxic to any support from political moderates. Over time it became largely associated with crackpots and extremists, and they never gained the support of the undecided everyman. OWS died because of its violent internal elements. You think people didn't identify with OWS? Nearly everyone I know identifies with the core complaints of OWS, but very few ever participated in their protests, because they were known to be violent, because nobody wanted to be in the same crowd as black bloc assholes smashing windows. There is a reason why MLK Jr. preached heavily for non-violence, because every window smashed, every store looted, erases the hard work of many, many more people. > "During class warfare, your poor and disenfranchised are AT WAR with the rich and wealthy. Of course these people have no recourse for representation from the elite, nor do they have police protection." Really? Really? That's the best you can come up with, after bringing up single-payer health care in Canada? One of the greatest (if not the greatest) achievements in Canadian history? The one that was won without a single bullet or a single bomb? The one that was hard-fought by people in the political process, by shrewd leaders? You brought that up and now you're saying that there is no recourse other than violence? No recourse for the everyman except to take up arms? Jesus.

tokenizer 13y ago
Well you've changed my mind. I definitely don't think you're a shill. > OWS aren't terrorists, but ... were mired with rioting, looting, and violence. It made the movement completely toxic to any support ... Over time it became largely associated with crackpots and extremists ... they never gained the support of the undecided everyman. OWS died because of its violent internal elements. You're a sheep. You preach non violence and think that any protest with elements of violence as illegitimate. The main message of OWS was of solidarity, hence the whole complexity of the group. You missed that point entirely, even though you say most people you know identifies with their grievances. So in summary, you don't believe in protests, as you don't believe in outliers or subverters as being separate from the core grievances of the whole movement. Because of this, you dismiss any movements or protests you or others may find hopeful, because others who share different philosophical underpinnings, are also involved in the narrative. > Jesus, go back to /r/conspiracy already. Absolutely. Here's something to mull over while you beg the government to reform itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods It's extremely easy to shout terrorist and praise pacifism and trust your government. The hard thing to do is become outcasted by sheeple like you who think this massively powerful set of institutions has your interests at heart. I'd much rather go to /r/conspiracy then be told me someone like you that terrorism is the biggest problem towards social change and not government central planning of socio-economic development.... Excerpt: "Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense." TLRD: You need to seriously rethink your sheepest trust in institutions based from Monarchy, and governed mostly be the elite. You need to stop dismissing theories and actions against oppression as negative and opposed to progress, as that pretty much enforces the belief that the government (US specifically) isn't the one creating/causing/permitting an enormous amount of negative events globally for special interest group gains. The War on Drugs, The War on Minorities (Prison System), The War on the Internet, and The War on Terror, are all legitimized by your sheepest trust in their creators continued success.... Oh Look... : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6771306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6771306 Trust them. Be peaceful. People like me are the problem. Definitely not the ones with the money supply and army...

waps 13y ago

I find it weird how socialists latch on to every source of violence and claim it as their own, even when it's very obvious it's something else. Most leftist terrorism, in Greece for example, was directed and controlled from within the Soviet Union, and had the goal of military conquest behind it. That is very well understood now. It had nothing to do with what Greece's populace wanted. The irony of the article is that it attempts to use today's terrorist actions and claim them for collectivism. In fact al qaeda started by bombing soviets, because they were collectivist. They got help from the US (because collectivist systems hated religion up to two decades ago. Marx hated religion, as is very well known). As if that wasn't proof enough you have the "arab spring" and what it was really pushing. That's pretty clear at this point. In Egypt, Lybia, ... and it wasn't collectivism. It wasn't equality. It was the very opposite of that. It was pushing an extreme view of repressive, very capitalist religion. One that espouses a slave-based economy, and a form of society that has a reputation across the planet for being by far the worst society for a slave to live under. A religion that pushes selling humans. A religion that praises trading, pillaging the earth, and all you seem to hate, to a far greater extent than our capitalist system does. 9/11 and related bombings were executed by people associated with this system, not with collectivism of any kind. Another massive self-deception is that most of these collectivists, at least the ones discussing it in European cafes where I live, are universally part of this "elite". But they themselves are innocent, see, because they "try to help". Not by working, obviously. It "somehow" escapes their attention that most people in the cafe nextdoor, the cafe that used to be filled with car mechanics, drivers and ... and now is filled with call center employees, hate them for this. And they hate them because they can effectively do nothing and discuss collectivism all day. To me, the article reads like another intellectual looking at society, and seeing exactly what he thought was going on all along. Like with the Egypt "revolution" for democracy. Hah ! In reality US society is fraying in hundred different small ways, mostly due to pressures coming from the outside. But the basic problem is this : We have 7 billion people on this planet, and we only need ~1 billion or so for the economy. That 1 billion figure is dropping fast, and we've reached the point where the US's 300 million are not isolated from it any more. But you know what ? Historically, that's only strange if you look at the last 100 years. If you look at the last 1000 years, that's merely the status-quo.