At first I was kinda shocked and perplexed that you’d make such an insultingly flippant and dismissive post but then I remembered from another thread how strongly you felt about this topic and I was just disappointed.
I don’t follow my man, chesspal, guitarpal, what was insulting about it?
Good God, zz tipped over his king a month ago and the angry crowd has ironically reset the guillotines daily cutting off his imaginary head.
Oh Dear Lord If a big part of all this comes down to semantics I’m gonna scream…
… “jail them” is what microbet meant by violence in regards to drugs being illegal and he should’ve explained that.
I’m not sure I follow the talk between you and smrk, but this is the primary meaning of what I said, but I don’t want to rule out all of the murder and kidnapping and police shootings and military actions that go along with drugs being illegal. This is a point I try to make often, but some people who consider themselves pragmatic realists (who doesn’t?) tend to think some policy is good, but it’s just the execution that they are against. That some super duper well meaning people with President Jeb Bartlett at the helm could run the DEA or ICE or whatever in just a super great way. And that’s just magical thinking. The possibly unintended consequences were never really unforseeable and to not foresee them at this point is ludicrous. But, yeah, locking people up is violence too.
1 Like
This is all coming down to fucking semantics. Draft should have been a draft of worst politicians. Who can argue with that. But it was guillotine draft.
Ugh it should have been fun, but semantics ruined it.
1 Like
and yes it shouldn’t have been a guillotine draft
it should have been a worst people in politics draft
1 Like
My thing is that if this semantic point hasn’t been hammered out after four (?) threads and is a big catalyst of this kerfuffle, my mind is gonna be blown.
2 Likes
How are we so fucking bad worst politician draft vs guillotine draft is causing this. God damn it.
3 Likes
lol
It’s DodgerIrish’s fault obv:
His posting didn’t seem that much worse than when people start talking about guillotines, tbh.
Most of it seemed like stuff you’d hear on Chapo.
8th post in the NBZ thread
I’m not pro guns, I’m for a significant amount of gun control and very rarely advocate for others to buy guns. In extreme cases it makes sense. That thread was an extreme case. My general stance is to allow shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles and ban semi-automatic weapons, while allowing for a very narrow program for concealed carry with extensive background checks and training.
If you can’t see a difference between being okay with a milkshake dumped on someone’s head and like actual violence, I don’t know what to tell you. Being okay with milkshaking is not being pro violence by any definition used in rational society.
Meanwhile you somehow take issue with me and others calling Trump and the cabinet officials literally responsible for separating families and inflicting suffering upon women and children monsters, because you think we should have empathy for the Trump administration people, but you have a problem with me being ok with a protester milkshaking the people inflicting suffering? God forbid a rich dude making children suffer gets his shirt stained.
As for your comment about micro, he’s a good poster, but like it’s pretty easy not to piss anyone off on this subject matter when your position is that it’s cool if we just say anything goes. No kidding nobody is pissed about micros posting on this: he hasn’t posted anything that people who agree with me find reprehensible as far as I know, and he doesn’t have a problem with a no holds barred approach to the discourse here, so the people who want to use violent rhetoric are not arguing with him either. It’s easy not to piss people off by being Switzerland. And that’s not intended as a shot at micro, he’s following what he’s comfortable reading and associating with and he hasn’t made any bad posts as far as I know.
I still find it amusing that I’m the one being blamed for people leaving when a) I’m not the only reg who has expressed a big issue with this/NBZ/etc and who may leave over it, probably 4-5 of the 10-12 best/highest volume posters are not cool with it and jman is probably gone already over it, and he was for sure in that top 10-12 over the last few years if not on the new site and b) we’ve had posts on this site fantasizing about ways the president could get killed by the secret service, contemplating the merits of using ethnic cleansing rhetoric toward right wingers, and suggesting that another 9/11 wouldn’t be a bad thing.
But somehow I’m the problem for speaking out passionately and angrily about that stuff. For fucks sake, read that back again.
We’ve had posts on this site fantasizing about ways the president could get killed by the secret service, contemplating the merits of using ethnic cleansing rhetoric toward right wingers, and suggesting that another 9/11 wouldn’t be a bad thing.
God you are dramatic it’s like 3am go to bed
2 Likes
Can’t wait to find out why there are another 144 new posts since yesterday.
Are you really both-sidesing actual fucking Nazis killing people with a silly thread?
2 Likes
You have it backwards. Milkshaking someone is infinitely more violent than a guillotines thread.
8 Likes
I’m going to attempt to make a positive suggestion here to you. If you want to make your position intelligible, you need to clarify what kind of violence y/o talk of violence, in what particular circumstances, you object to.
- You are a self-identified US liberal. That makes you a pro-capitalist. Rent, the wage system, loans at interest (aka capitalism) require institutional and systematic and constant applications of violence to continue existing. It’s patently absurd you to claim you are against violence… flat out.
1a. Some questions: what are your opinions regarding cops using violence to do evictions? How about people advocating that the cops continue using violence while doing evictions? What about somebody saying, in apparent seriousness, that absentee landlords who order up violent evictions should suffer the same? What about someone, in an obvious joke, saying that such landlords should be evicted? Also, above ITT you made a claim that violence is generally against whatever your internal morality might happen to be. How consistent is this internal morality you speak of… does it reject violence by absentee landlords equally with the other examples of violence it rejects?
I’m going to suggest that when you use the term “violence”, you aren’t talking about violence, in general, at all. It seems that what you are talking about would better be described as…
“extra-legal and direct physical harm to people”.
My suggestion is that you start to explicitly use such a qualification when discussing your concerns, and going forward stop describing your concerns as generically regarding ‘violence’, which implies all and every one of it’s various forms and manifestations.
2,3. ITT you claimed have directly claimed that you have no problem seeing certain things outlawing, or advocating that certain things be outlawed. Once again, such laws are only enforced with institutional, systematic, and constant applications of violence. It’s patently absurd you to claim you are against violence… flat out.
- In English, the word ‘violence’ includes breaking things, along with harming beings.
7 Likes
The only intellectually consistent way to ask that your poker politics forum not have a thread about decapitating public figures is to renounce capitalism and embrace anarcho-socialism.
2 Likes
LOL no. That’s gotta be about the funniest thing I’ve heard today. How about this…
Since only a particular subset of violence is under discussion here ITT, let’s not muddy the subject by using the generic term.
Like… Let’s assume football and badminton are sports. Football has significant CTE issues. Badminton does not. OK? If I wanna talk about CTE issues only in football…
I’m much better served by saying “Football needs to be changed because of the CTE issues” -vs- saying “Sports needs to be changed because of the CTE issues”. The reason being is that if I say the more generic term “sports” here, is that other peeps are going to muddy the waters by jumping in and talking about badminton.
Got it?
2 Likes
I think Johnny said the thread was a bad idea and had intellectually consistent reasons without renouncing or embracing capitalism or anarcho-socialism.