Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: Marshmallow Marshall

Search: Search took 0.14 seconds.

  1. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    We could all find something in common to hate? Like how about shitty wifi? fuck that guy
    Yes, unte agastin our comon enenemyŁ

    Fuc lag
  2. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    In this thread you have posted:

    - Several deflections, whataboutisms, and posts changing the direction of the thread multiple times.
    - Many claims, every single one of which is unsubstantiated and which you've not posted a single piece of evidence for. Anyone asking for evidence is completely ignored, as you deflect the argument yet again. I challenge you to show me a post in this thread for which you've shown any proof of. Just one.
    - An argument in which you genuinely contradict yourself within the same argument.

    These are habits that have been pointed out by multiple people, I'm just more honest about it. Notice that I disagree and have disagreed with others, though I'll discuss things differently with them because it's actually possible to stay on topic, get evidence and facts, and have discussions with them, rather than discussing conjecture, conspiracy theories, and summaries of talk shows.

    This isn't an attempt to stifle you or even insult you. It's me trying to get through to you that the way you argue is so flawed that it's not even useful to discuss these types of topics with you. The reason you're getting it more from me is because, frankly, pretty much everyone else has already given up, meanwhile I'm a stubborn fucker who can't let things go.

    But if it's not welcome, I suppose I can give up as well. My intention wasn't to insult the person, but point out flawed arguments and thinking.
    I don't mean to be an asshole by saying this. I just feel like it's necessary to highlight the issues here because it causes tensions needlessly and hurts the ability to have healthy debates (and even just discussions).
    If you don't want to insult people and you just want to prove them wrong, attack their logic. Don't do... this.
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I had a bit of a longer response typed up but I figured I didn't want to go through the effort of reading more word salad and cognitive dissonance. It really does feel to me like Oberon legitimately has not developed the facilities for critical reasoning of his own and other's arguments, and seems to be posting contradicting ideas here, all based off of feelings (or more accurately, what Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro have told him to feel) with not a shred of evidence yet to back anything up.

    Time to get this thread back on topic.



    Like really, it's not helping anyone, and it's just not nice. If you truly feel like you're talking to a brick wall and that it's not useful to anyone, well then... just stop, I guess?
    And by the way, I tend to agree with you more than with Oberon on politics when it comes to "classic left-right" arguments, so this isn't me taking any side but the side of logical, healthy discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    It's interesting because it's a way for me to talk to someone who I normally would never associate myself with, and there's no strings attached. Either one of us can leave at any time with no consequence.

    It's a way for me to see a completely different political mindset and I can choose to adapt or adopt the things that I like and I can just laugh at the ones I don't.

    He's made a couple of interesting arguments before, and he's making me do my research. If nothing else, I'm educating myself and that's never a bad thing.
    That's why talking with people who aren't in your echo chamber is good, yep. Like Exeter who made me define more clearly in my mind the importance of democratic tradition earlier, and have a sneak peak in why in the world would people not want democracy for non-religious reasons lol (and I must say it does make some sense, even though I definetly don't want it).
    Good post btw.
  3. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Also I disagree on Pinochet :P I would personally support Pinochet if given the choice between a literal Marxist and him.
    ...
    VENCEREMOS INTENSIFIES

    I guess Pinochet was slightly better than Stalin, so I'll grant you that? That's just picking between two highly deadly poisons, though.
  4. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I just hate everyone whose name starts with the letter M.
    That’s why I hate @Marshmallow Marshall
    Right, mag.
  5. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    MM you’re still painting Exeter’s views in a very dim light that I do not agree with. Exeter is obviously not suggesting Stalinist style surveillance amd thought police; if you look at Freedom House’s ranking Singapore is ‘Partly Free’ overall and Unfree when it comes to press freedom. Please hold off with the Stalin comparisons.
    "Still" painting? Also, I already addressed this point:

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    And if you're going to say I picked highly authoritarian people instead of "soft" ones, well, you're right, but there is no such thing as a stable soft authoritarian regime. If someone has enough power to "imprison dissidents", as you say, he can and very likely will take over completely and establish a regime similar to the one Franco established government-wise.
    You even agreed with my conclusion here by saying you didn't expect the kind of government in place there would last, so I think we are in agreement here? Unless we THUNDERDOME here
  6. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Exeter350 View Post
    As I answered to doug, ideally arguments will be backed by “reason”, but in actuality, that may not be the case, as is happening in the US now.

    However, I understand your point about lack of democracy and power abuse. I suppose this goes back to your earlier point about needing a failsafe to authority to safeguard power of the people.



    It would never have been allowed to get to that stage in the first place.

    The moment people started to make baseless accusations and inflammatory rhetoric, they would’ve been barred from running.

    i.e. Trump would’ve been ousted at the early stages in 2016 and the problem would never have become this big.

    As it is currently, the situation will need to managed delicately - Exactly how I cannot say. However to prevent such problems from arising in future, they should implement more stringent preventive measures.



    Unfortunately, no. He’s the authority, voted in by the public. He has should have the authority to imprison dissidents, not the other way around.

    However, as explained above, such a person would never have been allowed into office at all in the first place. He does not have what it takes to wield such authority.
    You're right. I never said we lived in a perfect world with perfect democracies though lol. We just should strive to cultivate the best world possible, and that indeed comes back to my point about the failsafe.

    It would indeed never have been allowed to get there in the first place, but then we would be talking about a completely different country.

    "Never having been allowed into office at all in the first place [when you're a crappy leader]" in this sense is an authoritarian utopia (and it being an utopia is the reason why authoritarianism is bad). If all authoritarian leaders were skilled and good-willed, authoritarianism would be amazing and superior to democracy (even a democracy with skilled and good-willed leaders). However, since most leaders are mediocre and since their goodwill is... debatable (especially when they want all the power for themselves), democracy is needed.
    Some examples of people who got into office in authoritarian regimes in different contexts: Hitler (elected and then basically self-proclaimed dictator), Stalin (not elected, under an authoritarian regime with great "political conformity", a bit like what you're advocating for), and, to take less universally hated people, Franco and Pinochet (through a coup d'état). As far as I know, none of these were amazing.
    And if you're going to say I picked highly authoritarian people instead of "soft" ones, well, you're right, but there is no such thing as a stable soft authoritarian regime. If someone has enough power to "imprison dissidents", as you say, he can and very likely will take over completely and establish a regime similar to the one Franco established government-wise.
  7. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Exeter350 View Post
    You’re right, Stop the Steal crossed the boundaries like you described earlier.

    In the case of violence, I think it’s pretty clear cut that it should be shut down.

    However, even before that stage, there are other negative outcomes that could be prevented.
    For instance, civil unrest, peaceful protests, strikes, social disharmony / divisiveness, etc.

    Isn’t it better to nip the problem in the bud, rather than wait for it to escalate to riots before saying “Ok, it’s time to stop”?
    Those other problems, while not as extreme as violence, can still have significant, far-reaching and subtle consequences on the country.

    And while I admire your willingness to let those Stop the Steal people propagate their ideas and protest as long as it isn’t violent, I wouldn’t do the same.

    If I analyse their arguments and conclude that their cause is misguided, based on misinformation / disinformation, I would not allow them to disrupt the peace. Whether violent or peaceful, their actions will impact others in society.

    There may be a chance that my conclusion is wrong, but letting the problem drag on forever is not the solution either. There has to be a cut-off time to make a decision. The protesters will not like it, because they think they’re right, but they have to accept the judgment of the authorities. Failing that, they have to be isolated where they cannot stir further unrest, i.e. imprisonment.

    All to avoid the consequences of civil unrest. Not just the violence, but the effects of discontent and disharmony.
    https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...ing-riots.html

    Inciting riots or violence is not legal. If people are only voicing their discontent peacefully, you have to defeat them by reason and not by prison... else, there is no democracy, and the lack of democracy leads to forms of power abuse I shouldn't have to talk about given how much history has given examples of this. This is even more important than attempting to protect some level of nation stability. The only exception I see to this is in a time of total or very important and large-scale war, during which the country's very integrity is threatened if its citizens are not strictly united (and it'd eventually lead to death of democracy anyway if such a war was to be lost).

    Plus, that's a lot of discontent people. Doing what you suggest would probably result in an actual civil war that would probably involve something like a third of the whole country on the Trumpist side (if half the country voted for Trump, I daresay there are some among those who are sane enough not to want Secession War 2.0). It's not like you can throw them all in jail and expect no resistance when they feel like they have to defend their liberties; doing this would just give them a halo of righteousness and morality.

    There's also a big thing you're missing... Trump himself isn't cooling things down at all. Should he be arrested too?
  8. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are arguably not private entities.
    B-but that's a far left view! FREE BUSINESS!!!!! /s

    They very much are private entities (even though they're very strong ones).
    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    First law of mega government is:

    Magoroth is banned from talking politics. A handler will be with him 24/7 ensuring he doesn't partake. If discovered to have made another political thread, he is to be immediately shot into the sun.
    You mean MAGA government
  9. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Exeter350 View Post
    In my country, it’s only enforced against our citizens. On the giant social media platforms, e.g. Facebook & Twitter, accounts are usually tied to real world identity, so it’s possible to enforce.

    During this election, there was a large Facebook group (>300k members) called “Stop the Steal” in which US citizens were organising protests against election fraud. However, this was shut down by Facebook, prompting backlash from the group admins about how it’s unwarranted and against free speech.

    Since many here know that some of the election fraud accusations have been debunked as either false alarms, minor data entry mistakes or straight-up lies,
    What do you think of these troublemakers who refuse to listen to “facts and logic” and still want to organise protests? What if it escalated into riots and civil war?

    Isn’t it better to just shut them down early to prevent the situation from escalating?
    Having heard their arguments and looked into it, and answering their concerns, there should be no further need to discuss this further.

    Or are the Stop the Steal admins right, that shutting them down was wrong, and that they should’ve been allowed to protest?
    Things have to be put in context first. Stop The Steal was deleted for inciting violence (literally having a #civilwar...). The movement crossed the line I talked about earlier: the line beyond which free speech does not protect you anymore. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/t...ook-group.html

    However, straight up shutting the movement down for contesting the official version of things would result in a "Streisand effect" strenghtened by the righteousness provided by the stifling of free speech the movement would be a victim of, as wrong as they may be. Therefore, Facebook was right to shut the page down, but it wouldn't have been if they hadn't incited violence.

    Just as a disclaimer I feel like I have to add, I'm not begging the question by supposing free speech is inherently good without explaining why: my last post about trust in governments and the importance of democratic tradition explains it.
  10. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    I did not make the claim that 'saying that someone's views are stupid' suppresses free speech. It depends on who says it.
    If Distorted says someone's views were stupid (assuming that someone were THERE, on the discord, and assuming that it was intended to reach that someone), it is pretty evidently made to stifle speech.
    If I say it? Who gives a shit? But it's a completely different matter when someone 'in charge' does it. Imagine if Justin Trudeau went ahead and said "oops is a retard and nobody should listen to him". How would you feel?

    Also, you're still talking about legal issues lol when I already agreed that from a legal standpoint you are totally in your right to ban someone from your site for being a Trump supporter. Just remember that when Slaol swung his admin dick around, he got demoted. For admin abuse. You or anyone, for that matter, hypothetically banning Trump supporters would fall in the same scenario for me.
    I completely agree with every single word of this post and strongly support that view, by the way.
  11. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    This thread is performance art.
    It currently is full of clever and civil discussion. Which, without wanting to throw barbs to ruin this beauty, strongly differs from the origins of the thread :P.
  12. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Spoiler : Exeter long post :
    Quote Originally Posted by Exeter350 View Post
    I was thinking of the false election fraud accusations actually, some of them being straight-up lies.
    These people should not be allowed to go free.

    However, I understand the point about “going against the official talk”.
    We recently implemented a controversial Fake News Act which gives the authorities the power to remove online content that is deemed as fake news.
    Ideally it would be used to only remove content that’s misinformed, misleading or manipulative.
    However this power can easily be abused to declare anything as “fake news”.

    There is definitely a concern.
    However I trust in my government.
    As with all ideals, it’s important to also track the actual “performance” of the ideal.
    There are many criticisms / concerns about how things are run here, yet the outcome is overall positive (arguably, but to me it is).



    That is a good enough start.

    Businesses, politicians, celebrities, etc have powerful influence over how the public thinks and feels.

    Their words should be kept in check. Not by the public (which would end up with a populist culture where dumb ideas can be propagated as long as they are popular), but by the government.

    News companies that publishes sensationalised, misleading or unrest-inciting news? Slap them with hefty fines or completely shut them down.

    Celebrities who take a stance on politics in an attempt to sway the lazy masses? Chuck them into jail, penalise them with heavy fines, and ban them from their profession for life.

    The public has the responsibility to think for themselves, not be fed thoughts from news outlets and celebrities.

    Of course, the outcome is very much dependent on how capable & morally upright the government is.
    In the hands of an incompetent or corrupt government, this authority can be easily misused or abused.

    Again, ideals can sound great in theory, but it’s also important to evaluate their actual execution & performance.
    Any governance style can have its pros and cons.
    The question is whether the pros have been realised and the cons have been validated.
    Otherwise we could well be promoting the benefits of a system that doesn’t work, and refusing to adopt a system out of paranoia.

    Ahh, so that's the fundamental point we differ on: the inherent trust in our government. I believe in some sort of "power corrupts" reality, for the simple reason that if people can do something that benefits them without getting in trouble for it, they will most likely go for it. Hence why democratic tradition is extremely important.

    For example, in the UK, since there is no unified written Constitution, the Parliament could (in theory) revoke laws that guarantee British citizens' freedom. Their extremely long-standing democratic tradition (under an extremely large meaning, it stems from as far as the Magna Carta (1215), putting limits encoded in laws to the absolute royal power) protects them from such a thing: it would never be accepted by the people, and the power in place would be overthrown. That is the power of democratic tradition: protecting from power abuse by the "power of the people", which would revolt if its rights were to be taken away; this, in turn, makes governments stop considering blatant authoritarianism as something even possible when the country's democratic tradition is strong.

    The USA's democratic tradition (which has been strongly present ever since the country's foundation, despite the significant flaws in its democratic system) seems to have severely declined over the last decades, and I'm honestly unsure of what has caused this. Perhaps the end of the Cold War removed "the enemy" against which the nation was united in its ideology, although that is only a theory of mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by thedougler View Post
    I absolutely hate how support of totalitarian censorship is being normalized in 2020. The answer to free speech you don't like is never censorship. The answer is more free speech. If your idea has more merit than theirs, then it will win out if it is sufficiently backed up by facts and logic. The Streisand Effect is a thing, and whenever Big Brother Twitter, Google and Facebook try to hide a story, they just end up fanning the flames of conspiracy.
    I completely agree with this. It's sad how people aren't learning from the lessons of the past on this point: making the State (or any entity) almighty is never good.
    That being said, it becomes necessary at some point to stifle "free speech" when it crosses a basic line, which is the line of threats, violence and oppression (grosso modo).
  13. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Exeter350 View Post
    Those people running their mouths ought to be thrown in jail for 30-40 years and slapped with life-destroying fines for inciting national-level unrest.

    Am I the only one who sees a problem that people are allowed to shoot their mouths off irresponsibly without repercussions?

    The whole “freedom of speech I can say whatever I want you can’t do shit to me” system sucks, seriously. People are not held accountable for their words. Talk about a complete lack of responsibility.
    Inciting violence is a crime, and I've seen some things that were really borderline, yeah. Like an article concluding that Americans were legitimate in "resorting to blows in time"...
    However, what you're suggesting here seems to be much wider than just jailing for some time those who incite violence; it rather extends to people disagreeing with the "official talk", and that is a very dangerous thing. Plus, as terrible as it is, Trump is still president as of now (and he will remain president until January the 20th)... and he is not making things smoother himself.
  14. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Zedus View Post
    You have 2 parties who wanted to spit on the problems of the people and lobby only the interests of their sponsors. And no way some real, 3rd party can appear in USA without being sponsored by some fat wallet. All american people is like buridan donkey between a bunch of shit and another bunch of shit. And you call that "democracy".
    I completely agree. But I'm not American, I'm French, and we have something that looks like actual democracy here. No "great electors", no two-party system. :P

    Also, one candidate being less horrible than the other doesn't mean he's good. Just less bad.
  15. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Zedus View Post
    That's really funny to see the "contest" between two absolutely identical parties, which pretend to have fundamental differences.
    This used to be true, but Trump changed American politics significantly. He actually does things differently (badly, but differently). Acting like COVID doesn't exist, having no green plan whatsoever, leaving international organizations, etc. is definetly not "absolutely identical" to the usual "American style".
  16. Replies
    193
    Views
    95,012

    ►►Re: TRUMP TEARS THREAD◄◄

    Remember that those are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If you support and respect Biden like I do, then you should not be the one opening fire first. Yes, you're trolling, but you could also say Trump has been trolling the world for 4 years with his, uh, diplomatic approach. It doesn't do much good :P.
Results 1 to 16 of 16