Something they DEFINITELY don't want you to see: Proud Boys & Latinos For Trump

[Ghostmaker]

  Free speech is fine and well.  I would say though, when a person is an avowed marxist or communist, that means a good deal more than just having an opinion.  Such a person is going to act and use money and everything they can within their risk tolerance to destroy the existing government/system.  It is one of the requirements to install marxism/communism.  It is a system marked in ALL cases by raging totalitarianism when implemented on a state level.  People who espouse these sorts of beliefs are stated, flat out enemies of the United States as it has functioned to this point.  I guess "hope and change" means wreck the existing system with commie bullshit.

By the same token, though, I would say that the Sovereign Citizen movement are enemies of U.S. as it has functioned to this point. They are fundamentally opposed to federal and even state governments. There are many other movements that are opposed to the current state of the country, and desire radical change.

The question is -- should these enemies of the state be "bathed in napalm" as SHARK suggests? Or should they be imprisoned for speaking out in favor of radical change?


One argument is that it is necessary. If we don't have crackdowns to kill or lock up communists, then we will lose our way of life. However, this doesn't match up with my observation. There have been a lot of countries that have taken a hard-line "kill-the-communists" approach in the past, like South Korea. However, those governments have been very unstable. South Korea went through multiple coups / revolutions - likewise Chile and others with similar stance. By contrast, the U.S. has always had strong free speech rules - and has allowed the Communist Party USA to exist publicly since its founding over a century ago, along with other radical groups.

Opposing communists with words and evidence rather than secret police isn't weak -- it appears to be a more successful strategy of opposition.

The problem with the "kill-the-communists" approach here in Korea is that after literal DECADES of this everyone started to roll their eyes at it. A while back the North sunk a South Korean boat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking) and a whole slew of South Koreans I talked to didn't believe the North was behind it, including a lot of very much not-radical businessmen that I talked to who were utterly and completely unwoke (engineers, a marketing executive, etc. etc.) . They'd lived through so much anti-communist propaganda under the dictatorship that at this point they take anything talking about the North's provocations with a huge amount of salt.

I think that a lot of the right's unhinged screeching about communists everywhere will have the same effect. Blaming every single thing on communists just makes people roll their eyes and not believe it, even when real actual card carrying communists are killing people. Actual communists are really bad for a whole slew of reasons but the tendency on the right to lump everyone to the right of Pinochet together into once vast communist horde does nothing but help actual communists.

It certainly doesn't help that the Left have whitewashed communism. A handful of neo-Nazis show up somewhere, and they get mobbed by counter-demonstrators. A bunch of college kids show up in Hammer and Sickle tee shirts, shouting that AmeriKKKa needs to be smashed? Well, that's their opinion, man.

Che Guevara shirts. Nuff said.

[Pat]

Che Guevara shirts. Nuff said.

A communist who spent his whole life fighting capitalism survives primarily as a piece of mass market merchandise worn by people who have no idea who he really was.

[jhkim]

Probably because for all the danger posed, the Norks are really incompetent. ....

Oh, yes, another one of those side effects of communism. Remember when Mao wanted to outdo all other countries in steel production, they produced massive amounts of extremely low-quality steel (I think they melted down pots and pans to meet the state demands), and some people got killed in the process (of course).

That's a feature of communism, yes.

And remember, if you had the nerve to point out 'hey, this isn't gonna work', well, you were a 'wrecker' and needed to be shipped off to the camps for proper reeducation.

So would you agree that this sort of "reeducation" and forced conformity to government-mandated thinking is inherently a bad thing? I think that this is fundamentally morally wrong, and further shows the emptiness of the system that demands authoritarian compliance. It causes a spiral of incompetence and oppression where the government doesn't have to show results or truth, instead just punishing opposition.

And the results aren't stable. Most totalitarian communist governments have fallen apart, as with non-communist totalitarian states. The U.S. has the strongest free speech rights, and is also the oldest functioning democracy.

One argument is that it is necessary. If we don't have crackdowns to kill or lock up communists, then we will lose our way of life. However, this doesn't match up with my observation. There have been a lot of countries that have taken a hard-line "kill-the-communists" approach in the past, like South Korea. However, those governments have been very unstable. South Korea went through multiple coups / revolutions - likewise Chile and others with similar stance. By contrast, the U.S. has always had strong free speech rules - and has allowed the Communist Party USA to exist publicly since its founding over a century ago, along with other radical groups.

Opposing communists with words and evidence rather than secret police isn't weak -- it appears to be a more successful strategy of opposition.

    No.  It is weak.

Do you have any sort of argument or evidence? To generalize a little more, would you say that a totalitarian government that doesn't tolerate dissent is inherently stronger than a democracy? Because it's weak to allow disagreement?

[Snowman0147]

Che Guevara shirts. Nuff said.

A communist who spent his whole life fighting capitalism survives primarily as a piece of mass market merchandise worn by people who have no idea who he really was.

A perfect summary of most sjws that drank the kool aid.

[oggsmash]

Probably because for all the danger posed, the Norks are really incompetent. ....

Oh, yes, another one of those side effects of communism. Remember when Mao wanted to outdo all other countries in steel production, they produced massive amounts of extremely low-quality steel (I think they melted down pots and pans to meet the state demands), and some people got killed in the process (of course).

That's a feature of communism, yes.

And remember, if you had the nerve to point out 'hey, this isn't gonna work', well, you were a 'wrecker' and needed to be shipped off to the camps for proper reeducation.

So would you agree that this sort of "reeducation" and forced conformity to government-mandated thinking is inherently a bad thing? I think that this is fundamentally morally wrong, and further shows the emptiness of the system that demands authoritarian compliance. It causes a spiral of incompetence and oppression where the government doesn't have to show results or truth, instead just punishing opposition.

And the results aren't stable. Most totalitarian communist governments have fallen apart, as with non-communist totalitarian states. The U.S. has the strongest free speech rights, and is also the oldest functioning democracy.

One argument is that it is necessary. If we don't have crackdowns to kill or lock up communists, then we will lose our way of life. However, this doesn't match up with my observation. There have been a lot of countries that have taken a hard-line "kill-the-communists" approach in the past, like South Korea. However, those governments have been very unstable. South Korea went through multiple coups / revolutions - likewise Chile and others with similar stance. By contrast, the U.S. has always had strong free speech rules - and has allowed the Communist Party USA to exist publicly since its founding over a century ago, along with other radical groups.

Opposing communists with words and evidence rather than secret police isn't weak -- it appears to be a more successful strategy of opposition.

    No.  It is weak.

Do you have any sort of argument or evidence? To generalize a little more, would you say that a totalitarian government that doesn't tolerate dissent is inherently stronger than a democracy? Because it's weak to allow disagreement?

       Unity is always stronger than diversity.  This is a simple fact. 

[HappyDaze]

       Unity is always stronger than diversity.  This is a simple fact.

Citation?

[oggsmash]

       Unity is always stronger than diversity.  This is a simple fact.

Citation?

Life.  Play on a footall team where every one has their own ideas about success.  Then play one one where everyone is in unison. 

[HappyDaze]

       Unity is always stronger than diversity.  This is a simple fact.

Citation?

Life.  Play on a footall team where every one has their own ideas about success.  Then play one one where everyone is in unison.

Even on a successful football team, there is diversity in ideas of success and motivation. That doesn't mean they can't play in unison. If you look at the members beyond just the aspect of being football players, then the diversity is more apparent.

[Pat]

       Unity is always stronger than diversity.  This is a simple fact.

Citation?

Life.  Play on a footall team where every one has their own ideas about success.  Then play one one where everyone is in unison.

Play in a football league where every team has different ideas about success. The best team wins, the rest learn from the experience, and play evolves and improves over time. Then imagine a theoretical league where every team is in unison. Nobody learns anything.

Unity helps individual units work as a group. Diversity allows new ideas to emerge.

[shuddemell]

       Unity is always stronger than diversity.  This is a simple fact.

Citation?

Life.  Play on a footall team where every one has their own ideas about success.  Then play one one where everyone is in unison.

Play in a football league where every team has different ideas about success. The best team wins, the rest learn from the experience, and play evolves and improves over time. Then imagine a theoretical league where every team is in unison. Nobody learns anything.

Unity helps individual units work as a group. Diversity allows new ideas to emerge.

Yes and no. Diversity is only valuable as long as the group is working to a common goal ... Winning games and tournaments would be the goal. Now consider diversity that is juxtaposed to the common goal. Let's say one of your players plays simply because he likes hitting people, at the expense of the play, the team and the common goal. So he hits and tries to hurt people rather than playing strategically and with sportsmanlike behavior. Unity is the common goal, and diversity can help or hinder, depending the intent of the diverse. Diversity, in and of itself is neither a strength or weakness, it just is. It's how you apply it that matters.

[Pat]

Diversity is only valuable as long as the group is working to a common goal ...

Disagree. A counter example is abstract knowledge. A lot of value has come out of intellectual pursuits that didn't seem to serve any goal at the time, but which turned out to be useful in the future. Humans catalog, collate, and create a body of knowledge that can be referenced to solve future problems. The lack of a goal sometimes is the goal.

Agree that diversity isn't an absolute strength or weakness, though. It's a tool.

[Trond]

Of course nowadays "diversity" generally means "not white men". We (myself and some coworkers) literally had this explained to us by someone working in the NSF.

[jhkim]

Play in a football league where every team has different ideas about success. The best team wins, the rest learn from the experience, and play evolves and improves over time. Then imagine a theoretical league where every team is in unison. Nobody learns anything.

Unity helps individual units work as a group. Diversity allows new ideas to emerge.

Yes and no. Diversity is only valuable as long as the group is working to a common goal ... Winning games and tournaments would be the goal. Now consider diversity that is juxtaposed to the common goal. Let's say one of your players plays simply because he likes hitting people, at the expense of the play, the team and the common goal. So he hits and tries to hurt people rather than playing strategically and with sportsmanlike behavior. Unity is the common goal, and diversity can help or hinder, depending the intent of the diverse. Diversity, in and of itself is neither a strength or weakness, it just is. It's how you apply it that matters.

The problem with the sports metaphor is that a totalitarian state with no free speech isn't necessarily an effective way to develop team unity. Most often, the free speech suppression serves to reduce team spirit and unity rather than increasing it. In a unified totalitarian state, citizens still have disloyal thoughts -- they just only voice them in secret.

I agree that diversity is neither a strength or a weakness - but as far as free speech goes, suppressing free speech doesn't create actual unity - just lip service at best, and likely eventual revolution.

[Ghostmaker]

Play in a football league where every team has different ideas about success. The best team wins, the rest learn from the experience, and play evolves and improves over time. Then imagine a theoretical league where every team is in unison. Nobody learns anything.

Unity helps individual units work as a group. Diversity allows new ideas to emerge.

Yes and no. Diversity is only valuable as long as the group is working to a common goal ... Winning games and tournaments would be the goal. Now consider diversity that is juxtaposed to the common goal. Let's say one of your players plays simply because he likes hitting people, at the expense of the play, the team and the common goal. So he hits and tries to hurt people rather than playing strategically and with sportsmanlike behavior. Unity is the common goal, and diversity can help or hinder, depending the intent of the diverse. Diversity, in and of itself is neither a strength or weakness, it just is. It's how you apply it that matters.

The problem with the sports metaphor is that a totalitarian state with no free speech isn't necessarily an effective way to develop team unity. Most often, the free speech suppression serves to reduce team spirit and unity rather than increasing it. In a unified totalitarian state, citizens still have disloyal thoughts -- they just only voice them in secret.

I agree that diversity is neither a strength or a weakness - but as far as free speech goes, suppressing free speech doesn't create actual unity - just lip service at best, and likely eventual revolution.

>warns of the dangers of totalitarian states and no free speech

Irony isn't your strong point, is it?

[oggsmash]

  Diversity is a weakness since it simply = no white straight males.  As the word is defined it is a fine thing.  As it is practiced by policy makers, it is as toxic as arsenic.
jhkim you keep acting as if the choice is full freedom or secret police.  That is a retard argument.  There is a massive difference in allowing communist and marxist doctrine to be funded and pushed (at taxpayer expense) versus everyone ratting on neighbors about looking at the wrong book.   You are far left.  Or at least you would have been 15 years ago.  Now you are just left.  When suddenly you find yourself on the right, and do not understand how you got there, enjoy how those commies you felt should be able to grow like cancer feel about that.

  As for heading for revolution, yes the USA is headed that way.  So you feel it is just fine and well to let all the anti government types meet up and discuss their grievances without having every 5th person in the room be employed by any number of federal agencies spying on them?