Afghanistan back under Taliban rule

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

I mean I can show concern for the regular people of Afghanistan instead of being callous about the situation, or sit there and talk about the fact that some people in this word, many of them liberals, genuinely still have a heart and don't live in "24/7 cynical a**hole mode" that no longer believes anything good is real, and some here will throw a bitch fit at me for it. Funny.

World doesn't have a heart. And most people do have hearts only when it benefits them or their loved ones.

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Though I don't mean the common decent people who don't accept all that crap. Those poor people just need the chance to get the heck out of there. I feel badly for them that this is what became of their home and they might never be able to go back, but if anything... well, if any of them still carry any bad ideas that their culture needs to let go of, then those who may have to live as immigrants now somewhere else will have no choice but to adapt to a new home and let those things go. Then end up raising a next generation with a fresh viewpoint.

It was tried in European countries and results were not satisfactory - descendants of migrants, even well-adjusted migrants, were much more militaristic and more fanatical about their culture, than their parents.

And most do carry bad ideas from their homes, because, this is literally all they know. And they won't relinquish them, just, because, you've asked them. Its hardwired in their brains and, if this problem is to ever be resolved, most optimal way would be to "force" their countries to adopt Western values. Something like what have been done to Japan. And even than, Japan is very backwards on many issues.

This is like trying to destroy North Korean regime - you can kill Kim and his cronies, but most people still will be slaves of the regime, for years to come, even if it is a different regime. Because, this is all they know.

The same had happened in Russia, where people, most of which were not accustomed to having freedoms or personal property, always end up choosing "Tsars", because, this is something them and their ancestors have been accustomed to. They literally don't know how to live differently.

This is why, in my personal opinion, the greatest crime of any oppressive regime, is not even dead people they create in their wake (especially left regimes), but the fact that they rob people of any chance to become something greater, by putting them into conditions, where they don't even KNOW they have this chance.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Sumac

World doesn't have a heart. And most people do have hearts only when it benefits them or their loved ones.


It was tried in European countries and results were not satisfactory - descendants of migrants, even well-adjusted migrants, were much more militaristic and more fanatical about their culture, than their parents.

And most do carry bad ideas from their homes, because, this is literally all they know. And they won't relinquish them, just, because, you've asked them. Its hardwired in their brains and, if this problem is to ever be resolved, most optimal way would be to "force" their countries to adopt Western values. Something like what have been done to Japan. And even than, Japan is very backwards on many issues.

This is like trying to destroy North Korean regime - you can kill Kim and his cronies, but most people still will be slaves of the regime, for years to come, even if it is a different regime. Because, this is all they know.

The same had happened in Russia, where people, most of which were not accustomed to having freedoms or personal property, always end up choosing "Tsars", because, this is something them and their ancestors have been accustomed to. They literally don't know how to live differently.

This is why, in my personal opinion, the greatest crime of any oppressive regime, is not even dead people they create in their wake (especially left regimes), but the fact that they rob people of any chance to become something greater, by putting them into conditions, where they don't even KNOW they have this chance.

Look at us. We've been conditioned to believe it HAS to be either the Democratic or Republican way. We're literally conditioned to believe that voting third party is practically throwing your vote away. It's the American regime, and there are enough crazies on both sides willing to kill and die to keep things going the way they are.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Look at us. We've been conditioned to believe it HAS to be either the Democratic or Republican way. We're literally conditioned to believe that voting third party is practically throwing your vote away. It's the American regime, and there are enough crazies on both sides willing to kill and die to keep things going the way they are.

It not always was like that. From what I've understood for most of the time, except for the civil war, people were able "agree to disagree" in US.

And this is what made US different from many other countries, and arguably it was its greatest strength, until recently, when Left leaning elites decided to establish total control over population by portraying everyone who disagrees with them as backwards murderous psychopaths or Nazis and eradicating even chance at "disagreement" or "alternate opinion".

[IndigoErth]

More of his ilk? You seem to be either missing or ignoring that towing a party line wasn't a priority for him because he used the party as a useful idiot for his own benefit. Throwing out bait expecting people to bite so he can gain support.

One of the most blatantly transparent pandering moments had to be when he decided to go take pictures holding up a bible, like the theists, esp the Evangelicals, were supposed to be impressed if he waves those pictures in front of them and stay in line offering their support.

If he was really going against party loyalties, then he aught to have been working with some Dems at least once in a while, trying to push for greater bipartisanship, but he didn't. He only pushed the theme that they were enemies.


Bucking loyalties and maybe leaning more into unaffiliated moderates who want to work for the nation, not a party, would be great. But it's no good to us as a nation if people can't see the difference between doing that and, like Trump, just using a party for their own interests.

Forgoing loyalties should not mean electing people who carry on about space lasers while punishing people who themselves bucked their own party by criticizing Trump despite the backlash they knew they'd get for it.

Originally Posted by Sumac

It not always was like that. From what I've understood for most of the time, except for the civil war, people were able "agree to disagree" in US.

And this is what made US different from many other countries, and arguably it was its greatest strength, until recently, when Left leaning elites...

It's definitely not a recent shift, it has been BS boiling under the surface for decades, and no, pointing at the Left and saying "they did it and they do these meanie things" is no different than how the Right has always treated the Left and aren't justified in it either.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

It's definitely not a recent shift, it has been BS boiling under the surface for decades, and no, pointing at the Left and saying "they did it and they do these meanie things" is no different than how the Right has always treated the Left and aren't justified in it either.

It was not until last decade, when Left went more radical and decided to consider everyone who was even questioning them to be "Nazis".

[IndigoErth]

Little presumptuous to try to tell Americans about our own political history. If you really think this is all new, somehow I doubt you've really looked too hard at the longtime roots of all this crap in our political history, at least going back a generation, not any more than I've looked at your country's.

This stuff has been going back and forth for decades, a lot of it seeming to center around the 1950s, but still has some roots from earlier decades.

People today who might find some person online calling them a Nazi are hardly getting accused in any literal sense that it ruins lives. The Right's era of McCarthyism, fear mongering about communists and false allegations, however, wasn't so harmless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion and treason, especially when related to communism and socialism.[1]

The term originally referred to the controversial practices and policies of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin), and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting from the late 1940s through the 1950s.[2] It was characterized by heightened political repression and persecution of left-wing individuals, and a campaign spreading fear of alleged communist and socialist influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents.[2]

After the mid-1950s, McCarthyism began to decline, mainly due to Joseph McCarthy's gradual loss of public popularity and credibility after several of his accusations were found to be false, and sustained opposition from the U.S. Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren on human rights grounds.[3][4] The Warren Court made a series of rulings on civil and political rights that overturned several McCarthyist laws and directives, and helped bring an end to McCarthyism.

If you look at how things are today, it didn't really even stop, the same BS accusations are happening.

Other things adding fuel to the same fire, the religious right stemming from the 1970s.

There is no sudden "just this decade" change on either side, there is a lot of longtime activity that feeds into the present climate.


Supposedly a lot of McCarthy's fellow party members were afraid to stand up to him, out of fear of hurting their own political careers. Nothing ever changes.



edit: Except this lady. (Who I have to add this for because I found it rather interesting.) This is the kind of congress member we need today who doesn't fall into party loyalists and puts her own self on the line for the good of the nation.

The Senator Who Stood Up to Joseph McCarthy When No One Else Would

Margaret Chase Smith was the first woman to serve both the House and the Senate and always defended her values, even when it meant opposing her party

“It is high time we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom.”

Those words, spoken by Margaret Chase Smith, freshman senator from Maine, never mentioned Joseph McCarthy by name, but it was abundantly clear to all who listened that her criticisms were leveled directly at him. Her speech represented a highlight for the congressional maverick with a career full of similar moments of bipartisanship.

Earlier that day, June 1, 1950, Smith had bumped into the bombastic Wisconsin senator as they made their way to work. Only four months earlier, McCarthy had delivered an inflammatory speech claiming 205 people working in the State Department were secretly communists. Since then, Smith had been closely following his words and actions, meant to undermine the Democratic party and seed suspicion everywhere.

According to journalist Marvin Kalb, the senators’ interaction that morning was a prelude of what was to come. McCarthy regarded Smith and noted, “Margaret, you look very serious. Are you going to make a speech?”

“Yes, and you will not like it,” she responded.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism,” Smith said, in another thinly veiled jab at McCarthy’s tactics. Importantly, she was also quick to point out the Truman administration had failed to do enough to prevent the spread of communism at home and abroad. But her conclusion called on all politicians, regardless of party affiliation, to stand for the defense of civil liberties.

“It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life,” said Smith.

It was a remarkable moment, not only because Smith was a woman, or the first person to speak out against McCarthy, but because she was willing to speak out against her fellow Republicans. Again and again over the 32 years she spent in Congress, Smith defended her values, even when it meant opposing the GOP—and even when it cost her personally.



When McCarthy began his accusations of communism run amok in the American government, Smith, like many others, was initially concerned that he might be right. She had been a fervent anti-communist throughout her political career and introduced a bill to outlaw the Communist Party in 1953, three years after her speech against McCarthy. What she didn’t agree with were her colleague from Wisconsin’s tactics—the fearmongering, the smearing of reputations, and finding people guilty before they had a chance to defend themselves.

“She was worried that what [McCarthy] was doing was undermining the anti-communism movement, that his methods were going too far,” says historian Mary Brennan, author of Wives, Mothers, and the Red Menace.

It soon became clear that McCarthy had grossly exaggerated his claims. By the spring of 1950, Smith said, “Distrust became so widespread that many dared not accept dinner invitations lest at some future date McCarthy might level unproved charges against someone who had been at the same dinner party.” Smith decided to act, since no one else seemed willing to, and gave her speech with the support of only six other Republican senators.

McCarthy’s response was typical of his behavior to any critics: he dismissed her, nicknaming Smith and her colleagues “Snow White and the Six Dwarfs.” Meanwhile, media outlets like the Saturday Evening Post shamed Smith and her co-signers for being communist-sympathizers, calling them “the soft underbelly of the Republican Party.”

Silly name calling... sounds familiar.

“I don’t know that she would’ve felt a lot of loyalty to the Republican Party the way some others did. There was a sense that they didn’t like what McCarthy was doing, but he was attacking the Democrats and that was good. And she came along and said, that’s true, but he’s undermining our cause and that’s bad.”

Despite being briefly sidelined by McCarthy for standing her ground, Smith remained a savvy enough politician to survive. She held a record for casting 2,941 consecutive roll call votes between 1955 and 1968, which was interrupted only by her recovery from hip surgery. And in 1964, she announced she was running for President. Though she never made it past the primaries, she still became the first woman to have her name put in for nomination for the presidency by a major political party.

If I was alive back then, who knows if I would have agreed with much of her politics, but still has my respect.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

People today who might find some person online calling them a Nazi are hardly getting accused in any literal sense that it ruins lives. The Right's era of McCarthyism, fear mongering about communists and false allegations, however, wasn't so harmless.

Funny thing, back than USSR indeed had a lot of agents in USA and McCarthy, even as zealous as he was, was not far off the mark. The whole thing could have been handled better, but chasing commies away was a good thing. In general, making commies BTFO is a good thing any place any time.

Also, saying that online harassment from the Left doesn't ruin lives is hilarious: its not only ruin lives, but some people even committed suicide, under pressure of the Twatter mob. But, I guess, every time, when Left attack, harass or kill someone, from Stalin to Twatter trash it doesn't count, since "those people were bad and got consequences for their own doings".

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Other things adding fuel to the same fire, the religious right stemming from the 1970s.

There is no sudden "just this decade" change on either side, there is a lot of longtime activity that feeds into the present climate.

Supposedly a lot of McCarthy's fellow party members were afraid to stand up to him, out of fear of hurting their own political careers. Nothing ever changes.

Tell me any difference between Religious Right and modern Left, outside of ideologies motivating them.

Also, show me which popular Democrats, who matter, gonna stand up to Biden and Occasional Cortez, without fear of being called every name under the sun by their allies.

You're right only about one thing - things don't change.
Just different figureheads take place supported by the same elites, manipulating population to their own ends.

[The Deadman]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

L
People today who might find some person online calling them a Nazi are hardly getting accused in any literal sense that it ruins lives. The Right's era of McCarthyism, fear mongering about communists and false allegations, however, wasn't so harmless.
.

You must not go on Twitter, where people will literally find someone's employer if they're deemed a "nazi" by someone with an anime avatar.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Look at us. We've been conditioned to believe it HAS to be either the Democratic or Republican way. We're literally conditioned to believe that voting third party is practically throwing your vote away. It's the American regime, and there are enough crazies on both sides willing to kill and die to keep things going the way they are.

Although jeeze... pick any Democrat president or any Republican president from entirely different eras of US history. You will find wildly different stances on just about everything, including slavery.

Point is different presidents "president" differently. Trump was crude but he wasn't towing any party line... we need more of his ilk. I'm not saying Trump clones, but people similarly bucking party blind loyalties with empty smiles.