Kulturkampf

[benji]

One thing I always side eyed about the alt-right was how they didn't praise Hitler enough. Even top leaders of GamerGate like Joanne and Zack Snyder were saying things like "Hitler was terrible" and that always made me feel they were sus. All those alt-right book reading lists from back when that was the big alt-right trend rarely included Mein Kampf. When I'd go through likes and follows, rarely were they liking tweets praising Hitler or following Hitler, when people tell you who they are, listen.

[Polident]

Oh but when Ye praises Hitler, it’s a problem. The Times doesn’t care about black people.

[HaughtyFrank]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1717037488546381933?t=vT-YYAy0-5otpAk9-g6fCA&s=19[/tweet]

Attend a protest or call your representative to get extra course credits. That seems unusual

[HaughtyFrank]

[Cauliflower Of Love]

If there's one thing about hitler, is that they were organizers

[HaughtyFrank]

[Nintex]

Dutch parliament barely passed this motion to condemn the phrase: "Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea" as a call to violence and the destruction of Israel.

Against condemning the phrase:

Spoiler: liberals, greens, left, alt-right (click to show)(click to hide)

SP (communists)
PvdD (animal rights party)
GL (Greens)
DENK (Islamist party, is currently promoting a 1 state called Palestina as the "final solution" to the Jewish problem)
BIJ1 (marxists)
VOLT (liberal pro-EU movement)
Fractie Den Haan (hijacked the seat of the party for elders, long story)
D66 (liberal democrats)
PvdA (labour party)
FvD (pro-Russia, pro-Palestine, anti-WEF, 4chan party)

For condemning the phrase:

Spoiler: conservatives, right and christians (click to show)(click to hide)

CU (Christian Socialists)
Ja21 (conservatives, offshoot of FvD)
BBB (populist farmers party)
VVD (liberal conservatives)
Gr. van Haga (landlords, offshoot of FvD)
SGP (Evangelicals)
PVV (Geert Wilders freedom party)
Lid Omtzigt (Christian conservative, currently leading the polls with his new party)
CDA (Christian Democrats)

Didn't vote:

Spoiler: clowns (click to show)(click to hide)

Gundogan (former VOLT member, booted because VOLT zoomers accused her of sexual harrasment)

Ephraim (former Jewish FvD treasurer)

Now that it has been designated a call to violence, the justice department could decide to act on it (but they likely won't).
It is pretty shocking and frankly quite scary that not just the left but also the liberals have decided to give Hamas language a free pass in our streets. 
They used to call these sort of motions and resolutions "political theatre" and would simply abstain from voting.

Very different from Germany where the socialist chancellor is considering deportations of anti-semitic Muslims and France where liberal Macron sends the army and riot police into the streets to kick the shit out of 'em.

[benji]

"the stoic serious hero" WAAAHOOOOO

Now that it has been designated a call to violence, the justice department could decide to act on it (but they likely won't).
It is pretty shocking and frankly quite scary that not just the left but also the liberals have decided to give Hamas language a free pass in our streets. 

Nah, free speech is more important than your pants wetting over words.

[Uncle]

are they joking

nsmb mario ducking was slavishly committed to the model they had designed and realistic actions he could perform, keeping him visually "on brand"

new mario ducking looks like the original "goofy" hiding-under-hat from mario 3

[jorma]

Dutch parliament barely passed this motion to condemn the phrase: "Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea" as a call to violence and the destruction of Israel.

Against condemning the phrase:

Spoiler: liberals, greens, left, alt-right (click to show)(click to hide)

SP (communists)
PvdD (animal rights party)
GL (Greens)
DENK (Islamist party, is currently promoting a 1 state called Palestina as the "final solution" to the Jewish problem)
BIJ1 (marxists)
VOLT (liberal pro-EU movement)
Fractie Den Haan (hijacked the seat of the party for elders, long story)
D66 (liberal democrats)
PvdA (labour party)
FvD (pro-Russia, pro-Palestine, anti-WEF, 4chan party)

For condemning the phrase:

Spoiler: conservatives, right and christians (click to show)(click to hide)

CU (Christian Socialists)
Ja21 (conservatives, offshoot of FvD)
BBB (populist farmers party)
VVD (liberal conservatives)
Gr. van Haga (landlords, offshoot of FvD)
SGP (Evangelicals)
PVV (Geert Wilders freedom party)
Lid Omtzigt (Christian conservative, currently leading the polls with his new party)
CDA (Christian Democrats)

Didn't vote:

Spoiler: clowns (click to show)(click to hide)

Gundogan (former VOLT member, booted because VOLT zoomers accused her of sexual harrasment)

Ephraim (former Jewish FvD treasurer)

Now that it has been designated a call to violence, the justice department could decide to act on it (but they likely won't).
It is pretty shocking and frankly quite scary that not just the left but also the liberals have decided to give Hamas language a free pass in our streets. 
They used to call these sort of motions and resolutions "political theatre" and would simply abstain from voting.

Very different from Germany where the socialist chancellor is considering deportations of anti-semitic Muslims and France where liberal Macron sends the army and riot police into the streets to kick the shit out of 'em.

it's pretty wild that the dutch parliament thinks they can decide what an ancient plo slogan akshually means 

[benji]

[jorma]

i fucking knew something was up when i saw that red tinted profile pic earlier in the thread 

[Polident]

You’re telling me a guy who looks like that is a wanker? Wow. I had no idea.

[HaughtyFrank]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ArmandDoma/status/1717364505053970633?t=hlkY5tAY-DtxJ_DucgyrHQ&s=19[/tweet]

[benji]

https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1717037488546381933

Attend a protest or call your representative to get extra course credits. That seems unusual

[Nintex]

[hide]I noticed that quite a few corporate clients have put compliance with UN Human Rights and all sorts of sustainability stuff in the terms of and conditions of their new contracts.[/hide]

[HaughtyFrank]

It's just like in my animes Martin Scorsese movies

[Polident]

Actually stunned at how tearing down posters of hostages is a thing. Like their cult belief that it’s a hoax… still, why. Even Alex Jones has more tact.

[HaughtyFrank]

Actually stunned at how tearing down posters of hostages is a thing. Like their cult belief that it’s a hoax… still, why. Even Alex Jones has more tact.

I don't know how they can't understand how it makes them look like absolute assholes and at worst endorsing what happened in Israel. If you actually wanted to do something for Palestine you could put your own posters up of civilians who were killed.

Or maybe they exactly understand what it looks like when they tear down the posters because they actually mean it.

[Potato]

Couldn't decide if more appropriate here or in international politics thread. Ultimately decided here based on the Twitter profile info.

[benji]

Couldn't decide if more appropriate here or in international politics thread. Ultimately decided here based on the Twitter profile info.

Good choice:

[Nintex]

Actually stunned at how tearing down posters of hostages is a thing. Like their cult belief that it’s a hoax… still, why. Even Alex Jones has more tact.

It really shows who the bad and the good guys are.

When we see the rainbow flags, climate signs, pussy hats and Palestine flags and whatnot we make fun of it and we ridicule them but by and large we respect their rights to protest and we don't destroy property. Yet the left wing lunatics and their migrant friends destroy even the most small outing of mourning from the jews. Flowers trampled, flags torn apart, posters torn down. The police even recommends not showing Israeli flags in public in many countries. Its sickening.

[Potato]

Couldn't decide if more appropriate here or in international politics thread. Ultimately decided here based on the Twitter profile info.

Good choice:

Damn, I checked back on the last page and didn't see it. Oh well, at least thebore.net hive mind is working fine.

[Potato]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/SnowWhiteNews/status/1717969003359211962?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet[/tweet]
But the chuds said it was Snow White and the seven differently abled people of color!!!!

[benji]

It really shows who the bad and the good guys are.

When we see the rainbow flags, climate signs, pussy hats and Palestine flags and whatnot we make fun of it and we ridicule them but by and large we respect their rights to protest and we don't destroy property. Yet the left wing lunatics and their migrant friends destroy even the most small outing of mourning from the jews. Flowers trampled, flags torn apart, posters torn down. The police even recommends not showing Israeli flags in public in many countries. Its sickening.

You don't tolerate the intolerant, you liberate society from them:

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: 'fire'. It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War.

The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and 'philosophies' can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the 'marketplace of ideas' is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the 'end of ideology', the false consciousness has become the general consciousness--from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don't have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters.

Withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives, to the political Right--these anti-democratic notions respond to the actual development of the democratic society which has destroyed the basis for universal tolerance. The conditions under which tolerance can again become a liberating and humanizing force have still to be created. When tolerance mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society, when it serves to neutralize opposition and to render men immune against other and better forms of life, then tolerance has been perverted. And when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual, in his consciousness, his needs, when heteronomous interests occupy him before he can experience his servitude, then the efforts to counteract his dehumanization must begin at the place of entrance, there where the false consciousness takes form (or rather: is systematically formed)--it must begin with stopping the words and images which feed this consciousness. To be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media. Where the false consciousness has become prevalent in national and popular behavior, it translates itself almost immediately into practice: the safe distance between ideology and reality, repressive thought and repressive action, between the word of destruction and the deed of destruction is dangerously shortened. Thus, the break through the false consciousness may provide the Archimedean point for a larger emancipation--at an infinitesimally small spot, to be sure, but it is on the enlargement of such small spots that the chance of change depends.

...

The tolerance which was the great achievement of the liberal era is still professed and (with strong qualifications) practiced, while the economic and political process is subjected to an ubiquitous and effective administration in accordance with the predominant interests. The result is an objective contradiction between the economic and political structure on the one side, and the theory and practice of toleration on the other.. The altered social structure tends to weaken the effectiveness of tolerance toward dissenting and oppositional movements and to strengthen conservative and reactionary forces. Equality of tolerance becomes abstract, spurious. With the actual decline of dissenting forces in the society, the opposition is insulated in small and frequently antagonistic groups who, even where tolerated within the narrow limits set by the hierarchical structure of society, are powerless while they keep within these limits. But the tolerance shown to them is deceptive and promotes co-ordination. And on the firm foundations of a co-ordinated society all but closed against qualitative change, tolerance itself serves to contain such change rather than to promote it.

These same conditions render the critique of such tolerance abstract and academic, and the proposition that the balance between tolerance toward the Right and toward the Left would have to be radically redressed in order to restore the liberating function of tolerance becomes only an unrealistic speculation. Indeed, such a redressing seems to be tantamount to the establishment of a "right of resistance" to the point of subversion. There is not, there cannot be any such right for any group or individual against a constitutional government sustained by a majority of the population. But I believe that there is a "natural right" of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extralegal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate. Law and order are always and everywhere the law and order which protect the established hierarchy; it is nonsensical to invoke the absolute authority of this law and this order against those who suffer from it and struggle against it--not for personal advantages and revenge, but for their share of humanity. There is no other judge over them than the constituted authorities, the police, and their own conscience. If they use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence but try to break an established one. Since they will be punished, they know the risk, and when they are willing to take it, no third person, and least of all the educator and intellectual, has the right to preach them abstention.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

UNDER the conditions prevailing in this country, tolerance does not, and cannot, fulfill the civilizing function attributed to it by the liberal protagonists of democracy, namely, protection of dissent. The progressive historical force of tolerance lies in its extension to those modes and forms of dissent which are not committed to the status quo of society, and not confined to the institutional framework of the established society. Consequently, the idea of tolerance implies the necessity, for the dissenting group or individuals, to become illegitimate if and when the established legitimacy prevents and counteracts the development of dissent. This would be the case not only in a totalitarian society, under a dictatorship, in one-party states, but also in a democracy (representative, parliamentary, or 'direct') where the majority does not result from the development of independent thought and opinion but rather from the monopolistic or oligopolistic administration of public opinion, without terror and (normally) without censorship. In such cases, the majority is self-perpetuating while perpetuating the vested interests which made it a majority. In its very structure this majority is 'closed', petrified; it repels a priori any change other than changes within the system. But this means that the majority is no longer justified in claiming the democratic title of the best guardian of the common interest. And such a majority is all but the opposite of Rousseau's 'general will': it is composed, not of individuals who, in their political functions, have made effective 'abstraction' from their private interests, but, on the contrary, of individuals who have effectively identified their private. interests with their political functions.

...

In the United States, this tendency goes hand in hand with the monopolistic or oligopolistic concentration of capital in the formation of public opinion, i.e., of the majority. The chance of influencing, in any effective way, this majority is at a price, in dollars, totally out of reach of the radical opposition. Here too, free competition and exchange of ideas have become a farce. The Left has no equal voice, no equal access to the mass media and their public facilities - not because a conspiracy excludes it, but because, in good old capitalist fashion, it does not have the required purchasing power. And the Left does not have the purchasing power because it is the Left. These conditions impose upon the radical minorities a strategy which is in essence a refusal to allow the continuous functioning of allegedly indiscriminate but in fact discriminate tolerance, for example, a strategy of protesting against the alternate matching of a spokesman for the Right (or Center) with one for the Left. Not 'equal' but more representation of the Left would be equalization of the prevailing inequality.

Within the solid framework of pre-established inequality and power, tolerance is practiced indeed. Even outrageous opinions are expressed, outrageous incidents are televised; and the critics of established policies are interrupted by the same number of commercials as the conservative advocates. Are these interludes supposed to counteract the sheer weight, magnitude, and continuity of system-publicity, indoctrination which operates playfully through the endless commercials as well as through the entertainment?

Given this situation, I suggested in 'Repressive Tolerance' the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for 'the other side', I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy.

If the choice were between genuine democracy and dictatorship, democracy would certainly be preferable. But democracy does not prevail.

[Uncle]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/SnowWhiteNews/status/1717969003359211962?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet[/tweet]
But the chuds said it was Snow White and the seven differently abled people of color!!!!

if true that looks even worse

that's like sub shrek from 20 years ago??

imagine being this passionate about snow white of all things

[Potato]

George RR Dwarf in the back just chillin'

[Polident]

See, I can respect this. If you’re gonna go for it, go for it.

[benji]

Never go full Anne Frank.

[Nintex]

See, I can respect this. If you’re gonna go for it, go for it.

Kanye gets in trouble for a little brutalism while the left proudly wears the likes of Che Guevara on their shirts 

Guess who doesn't like the gays