It exists as a concept in the same way freedom exists as a concept. People claim to represent it and often resort to violence to promote it, but it isn't something organized or well-defined. The parameters tend to shift depending on who is using it for their cause.
That is not to say that some organized groups don't wave an Antifa banner.
I think thus far it is fairer to say when violence happens people blame a nebulous concept rather than just assuming some dumb ass teenager who had no clue what the riot was in aid of just rocked up to cause trouble, so far I have seen a lot of right wing and media blame of a non existent organization but I have yet to see any one in court proclaim they are soldiers of antifa and they are fighting for minorities everywhere which I would expect in any vaguely political case, hell even the numpty proud boys claim to be defending Canada when they go into the dock
I didn't spend any time on that website, so I have no comment.
You should learn to take that stance on most issues.
Quote:
I understand the Reason foundation owns the magazine and is basically the Koch brothers foundation.
Glad you can admit the obvious.
Quote:
But I am interested to see examples of where the publication itself has been so manipulative. I read Reason.com from time to time and they seem to be one the least partisan (as in Democrat vs. Republican) publications out there. They are ideological in terms of being small-l libertarian/ small government types, but that isn't the same as examples of misinformation, manipulation, etc.
How about being identified by the US Senate as part of the movement to promote climate science denial? Would that be good enough? Probably not.
"Despite polling that shows over 80 percent of Americans favor action to reduce carbon pollution, Congress has failed to pass comprehensive climate legislation. The 19 Senators delivered over five and half hours of remarks describing the activities, backers, and affiliates of 32 denier groups. Each Senator called out one or more organizations, including the Advancement of Sound Science Center; the Acton Institute; Americans for Prosperity; American Legislative Exchange Council; the American Petroleum Institute; the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy; the Cato Institute; the Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Competitive Enterprise Institute; the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation; the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity; the George C. Marshall Institute; the Global Climate Coalition; the Heartland Institute; the Heritage Foundation; the Hoover Institution; the Hudson Institute; the James Madison Institute; the John Locke Foundation; the Lexington Institute; the Locke Institute; the Manhattan Institute; the Mercatus Center; the Nevada Policy Research Institute; the Pacific Research Institute; the Reason Foundation; the Science and Public Policy Institute; the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy; the Virginia Institute for Public Policy; and the Western Fuels Association."
What do a lot of these interests have in common? Koch funding and directly contributing disinformation in the climate science discussion.
Quote:
They are certainly pro-market, although they don't seem to be explicitly pro-fossil fuel (very regularly anyway).
Really? Just did a search for fossil fuels on their website and it returned 744 articles. Fracking returned 327. Drilling returned 473. Oil returned 4,345 articles. Coal returned 1,216. Natural gas returned 1,160. Gas returned 4,738.
No fixation on fossil fuels there.
Quote:
As far as publications go, they don't seem to promote a private agenda any more than say The Washington Post with Bezos or the NYT with Sulzberger. If you have sufficient critical thinking skills, you can gauge the merit of an argument or piece without needing to refer to the name at the top of the paper or on the cover of the magazine.
How about this beauty currently on the front page?
Your big case is a Democrat senator complaining about climate change on the senate floor and naming Reason?
You did a search for tobacco and oil on their website?
You linked an article complaining that California hasn't opened playgrounds? Calgary has opened playgrounds.
Not very compelling.
No need to put more effort into this, I was just wondering if you could back up you claim. I'm satisfied with the answer to that question at this point.
(Reason is generally focused on freedom - if people want to smoke, let them smoke, etc. Not being anti-smoking is much different than being pro-smoking. I think that's where you have gone astray. It's false logic along the lines of Ibram Kendi.)
And your problem is you would argue the sky was green just to be contrary on something. You dismiss everything but present nothing to back any of the ridiculous crap you say. Hundreds and hundreds of pro-tobacco and pro-fossil fuels articles, all dismissing science and presenting "alternative facts," summarily dismissed under the guise of "freedom loving." You're the cut from the same cloth as Laura Ingraham. Not worth arguing with you. I should have followed the advice of others.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
And your problem is you would argue the sky was green just to be contrary on something. You dismiss everything but present nothing to back any of the ridiculous crap you say. Hundreds and hundreds of pro-tobacco and pro-fossil fuels articles, all dismissing science and presenting "alternative facts," summarily dismissed under the guise of "freedom loving." You're the cut from the same cloth as Laura Ingraham. Not worth arguing with you. I should have followed the advice of others.
I just wanted to see if I was missing something. I wasn't.
Continuing on with the weekly polling data update here are the trends.
We will acknowledge that Trump is a clear winner in Alaska (3), Idaho (4), Montana (3), Wyoming (3), Utah (6), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Nebraska (5), Kansas (6) Oklahoma (7), Missouri (10), Arkansas (6), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Tennessee (11), Kentucky (8), Indiana (11) and West Virginia (5).
Trump has South Carolina (9) leaning his way.
Trump = 117 electoral college votes.
We will also acknowledge that Biden is a clear winner in California (55), Oregon (5), Washington (12), Illinois (20), New York (29), Massachusetts (11), Rhode Island (4), Connecticut (7), New Jersey (14), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Maryland (10) and DC (3).
Biden has Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), Minnesota (10), and Maine (4) leaning his way.
Biden = 220 electoral college votes.
This leaves the follow as battleground states. Data from Real Clear Politics averages (trend indicates riser).
Texas (38) moves into battleground state territory - Trump +3.6 (trend Trump +1.0)
Iowa (6) moves into battleground state territory - Tie (trend Biden +3.0)
Electoral College Projection
Trump (encumbent) - 185 vs Biden - 353
We'll also add some important Senate races as they provide interesting context to possible swings in given states and should help normalize expectations from some of the polling.
Arizona - Kelly (D) vs McSally (R)* - Kelly +5.5 (trend McSally +1.5)
North Carolina - Cunningham (D) vs Tillis (R)* - Cunninghan +5.2 (trend Cunningham +1.0)
Michigan - Peters (D)* vs James (R) - Peters +4.5 (trend Peters +1.0)
Maine - Gideon (D) vs Collins (R)* - Gideon +6.0 (trend Gideon +1.0)
Iowa - Greenfield (D) vs Ernst (R)* - Greenfield +2.6 (trend Greenfield +2.3)
Montana - Bullock (D) vs Daines (R)* - Daines +1.6 (trend Bullock +.4)
Colorado - Hickenlooper (D) vs Gardner (R)* - Hickenlooper +7.4 (trend Hickenlooper +2.4)
Minnesota - Smith (D)* vs Lewis (R) - Smith +8.7 (flat)
Georgia - Ossoff (D) vs Perdue (R)* - Perdue +3.3 (trend Ossoff +1.0)
Alabama - Jones (D)* vs Tuberville (R) - Tuberville +8.0 (flat)
Texas - Hegar (D) vs Cornyn (R)* - Cornyn +7.5 (trend Hegar +1.5)
New entry!!! - South Carolina - Harrison (D) vs Graham (R)* - Tie (trend Harrison +7.0)
Senate projection - Republican 49 vs Democrat - 51
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 09-24-2020 at 09:28 PM.
Reason: Adding SC and Lady G making it a race!
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
The Iowa movement is interesting in part because three of the absolute best-rated (A+ on 538) pollsters were in the field last week and all found the same near-dead heat in the presidential race and narrow lead for Greenfield. It's rare to get a cluster of really high quality polls in the same place at the same time, this far out from the election.
The Iowa movement is interesting in part because three of the absolute best-rated (A+ on 538) pollsters were in the field last week and all found the same near-dead heat in the presidential race and narrow lead for Greenfield. It's rare to get a cluster of really high quality polls in the same place at the same time, this far out from the election.
The people of Iowa hate phoney politicians more than no other state, Ernst stumbling around avoiding questions on Trump and towing the party line on his impeachment likely killed her.
And your problem is you would argue the sky was green just to be contrary on something. You dismiss everything but present nothing to back any of the ridiculous crap you say. Hundreds and hundreds of pro-tobacco and pro-fossil fuels articles, all dismissing science and presenting "alternative facts," summarily dismissed under the guise of "freedom loving." You're the cut from the same cloth as Laura Ingraham. Not worth arguing with you. I should have followed the advice of others.
When I see you arguing with BoLevi New Era, I worry it's just a reflection of how I feel in the golf thread, when you tell me I shouldn't hit blades but get a set of game improvement irons as a 15 handicapper. It's confronting and makes me self reflect.
My post wasn't directed at you or whatever conversation you were having with afc. It was in reference to BoLevi and 2Stoned and their over-dependence on false equivalence by actually suggesting two very different things, that might both be valid issues, are equivalent (when they obviously are not).
Which two very different things did I equate to being one and the same?
I think thus far it is fairer to say when violence happens people blame a nebulous concept rather than just assuming some dumb ass teenager who had no clue what the riot was in aid of just rocked up to cause trouble, so far I have seen a lot of right wing and media blame of a non existent organization but I have yet to see any one in court proclaim they are soldiers of antifa and they are fighting for minorities everywhere which I would expect in any vaguely political case, hell even the numpty proud boys claim to be defending Canada when they go into the dock
How would you characterize the people who set up the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Uh, anarchists are not far-left. They are not far-right. They are ANARCHISTS. They don't believe in the value of any ideology and reject it all.
You might want to read some political history (aren't you a professor or something?) Anarchists oppose private property and formal government imposed by force. They believe that given the proper ideological instructions, a voluntary communitarian society will spring up when state authority is deposed. One of the main strains of anarchism is anarcho-communism. In political models they're placed in the far left of the spectrum.
Anarchists were part of virtually every leftist movement of the 19th and 20th centuries. They vied with Marx over the direction of the Hague Congress. They were active in the Paris Commune, joined the Bolshevik coalition in the Russian Revolution, and played a central role in the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War.
And of course anarchism is an ideology. Anarchists have written tomes and tomes of political theory and programs. You've never heard of Mikhail Bakunin? Peter Kropotkin? Pierre-Joseph Proudhon? Propaganda of the deed?
Anarchists set up the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone is Seattle. The movement is more than just a bunch of kids smashing windows.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 09-25-2020 at 09:49 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
How would you characterize the people who set up the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle?
a bunch of morons, but generally an unorganized and wholly reactive bunch of morons who did little damage other than making a mess and becoming a laughing stock, what violence happened in Seattle was caused by the police using teargas and flash grenades and right wing counter protestors, while I think the CHOP zone was a ludicrous #### show it was a largely peaceful #### show except when right wing nutters drove their cars at them or the cops tear gassed them.
It was not organized, in fact lack of organization was its predominant feature and while I have no doubt the idiots that were there would loudly proclaim their solidarity with Antifa and BLM they weren't 'members' of anything, they were idiot kids playing out their anti establishment fantasy for a week or so
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
You might want to read some political history (aren't you a professor or something?) Anarchists oppose private property and formal government imposed by force. They believe that given the proper ideological instructions, a voluntary communitarian society will spring up when state authority is deposed. One of the main strains of anarchism is anarcho-communism. In political models they're placed in the far left of the spectrum.
Anarchists were part of virtually every leftist movement of the 19th and 20th centuries. They vied with Marx over the direction of the Hague Congress. They were active in the Paris Commune, joined the Bolshevik coalition in the Russian Revolution, and played a central role in the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War.
And of course anarchism is an ideology. Anarchists have written tomes and tomes of political theory and programs. You've never heard of Mikhail Bakunin? Peter Kropotkin? Pierre-Joseph Proudhon? Propaganda of the deed?
Anarchists set up the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone is Seattle. The movement is more than just a bunch of kids smashing windows.
Yes, I misspoke to frame it in the general state of American politics. You're description is academically more accurate, but also out of touch with the current representatives of the "anarchist movement" in the United States. The people involved in the movement in the US are not textbook anarchists who dwell on political philosophy and the dream of a communitarian state. These are people who don't give a #### about anything except defying those in power and getting a chance to break some #### along the way. These are not people who sit around drinking tea and discussing the failures of laissez-faire policy, these are social misfits who are more pissed at society because they don't fit in, and want to express their pent up outrage toward anyone they perceive as being involved in their social isolation. For every one true anarchist in the mix, there are 99 social rejects that are looking to stir it up.
My old foster son proclaims himself to be 'Antifa', he used to be a crack dealer on the DTES but he is bright and I got him to give up dealing and go to UBC where he took Philosophy, the part of him that was drawn to being in a gang and rolling on other gangs means now in his late 20's he is drawn to the romantic fantasy of fighting Proud Boys and manning the barricades of East Van, he is undoubtdly capable of violence and if riots broke out in Vancouver he would be down there breaking stuff up but he was doing that as a crack dealer long before he decided he was an anarcho syndicalist or what ever he claims to be this week, which will be wholly different from last week or next week
a bunch of morons, but generally an unorganized and wholly reactive bunch of morons who did little damage other than making a mess and becoming a laughing stock, what violence happened in Seattle was caused by the police using teargas and flash grenades and right wing counter protestors, while I think the CHOP zone was a ludicrous #### show it was a largely peaceful #### show except when right wing nutters drove their cars at them or the cops tear gassed them.
It was not organized, in fact lack of organization was its predominant feature and while I have no doubt the idiots that were there would loudly proclaim their solidarity with Antifa and BLM they weren't 'members' of anything, they were idiot kids playing out their anti establishment fantasy for a week or so
They were organized enough to keep the police out for weeks.
Indeed, the police seemed hesitant to go in and do police things.
