Hill by Carver

Hill by Wanda Gray

Hill at Lake Springfield at Hilltop Pavilion

Hill at Doling Park

​

Where ever you are in Town, one of those should be at least fairly close to you.

Muffuletta actually.

Absolute fucking scumbag.

I liked bourbon and Beale though.

Shame.

Springfield was not laid out with that in mind. It was not laid out with the idea of large traffic flow in and out of the city center ever being needed, but rather used bypasses to get heavy traffic around and past town.

Now is that a good idea? In hindsight probably not. At the time those choices were made? I mean who knows. A city's road layout is a cumulation of countless choices by a LOT of different planners and interests over generations.

But the real question is, if we all agree it's a problem, and will likely only become more of a problem as the population grows, then we have to ask....what do we do about it?

The only think you really can do is imminent domain probably tens of millions of dollars worth of property in the areas you'd need to put a new major thoroughfare in, get the budget to build such a thing in addition to those imminent domain costs, and then have the city deal with the extra congestion during the like 4-8 years it would take for such a project to be completed.

Maybe that is what needs to happen, take national and chestnut and expand them into major thoroughfares with offramps instead of lights. Sure, sounds great probably, but it would obviously be an immensely costly and painful process.

And of course no matter how good of an idea it may be, you'd have hundreds of people in the community, and on threads just like this one, talking about how the city doesn't' care about people and this is a terrible idea and they are destroying historic neighborhoods and they should all lose their jobs so on so forth. I mean we can hardly put in a beaver themed gas station in a spot no one lives at without pissing off half the town.

To the whole top portion of your reply, good context on where you are coming from. I'm no slouch on political philosophy myself, but I find history to be more informative. Political Philosophy is only one ingredient, often times running a distant second or third in importance to other ingredients. History tells us the cake that actually came out of the oven. The end result cake is what actually manifests in reality and actually hurts or helps us, and is what really matters. Not that the philosophy side isn't useful and interesting.

​

So, with that in mind, once ounce of historic precedent is worth a 10 pounds of theory and philosophy, at least in my book.

"However, when it comes to taking to the streets to protect communities directly and confront fascists and their propaganda face-to-face, it has practically always been the far left—and anarchists in particular—that has stepped up to the plate."

Again, I simply do not think you are correct on the basic facts.

All of the largest and most effective social demonstrations of the last several generations have involved the far left, sure. Sometimes even had leadership comprised of or at least including the far left, but the effort was carried out by a great many people of varying ideologies.

MLK was arguably among the far left of his day, sure, but the million man march wasn't a million far left radicals. Hell it wasn't even a majority of far left radicals, the participants consisted largely of a mass of somewhat left of center and centrist folks who agreed on that issue, but otherwise likely wildly disagreed on a great many things.

The BLM rallies weren't streets packed with radical anarchists. Radicals were among them sure, but a very large percent of those who attended (not counting as "legitimate" attendees the agitators and miscreants just where to capitalized on the chaos of course), were people who agreed and cared very strongly about THIS issue, but otherwise had a variety of political and ideological leanings.

Since we are talking about the Patriot Front who spun off of other groups in the aftermath of the Unite the Right rally in 2016, let's talk about the counter protest at Unite the Right where that lady got killed. Not a throng of radical anarchist lefties. People of massively varying ideologies, generally left of center, who's common factor was not liking the Alt right.

The same can be said for literally any large scale protesting against some sort of authoritarianism. How about back to the Occupy Wallstreet movements? Disaffected youth mostly, I'd be willing to put $1000 bucks down that if you could dig up a few hundred of the occupy wallstreet protestors as a random sampling and ask them what their political ideology was then, and is now, you'd have a very small percentage self identifying as anarchist, and only somewhat more than average identifying as any variety of far left.

So yeah, in terms of social action against harmful authoritarianism that actually has some efficacy, I think you are flat wrong about there being any particular correlation between participation in that and the "far left".

​

But, I am missing a nuance to your point, and I know I am, and I am getting to it. If what you are saying is that if you have a rally where the nazi guys are carrying sonnenrad shields and paramilitary getups and posturing violently, but not actually carrying out any attempted power grab or violence, which group is mostly likely to show up with their own balaclavas and scarves and bike helmets, and posture violent back at them, and potentially get into a street brawl. Then yeah I agree that's probably gonna be your more radical lefty element. But that's also completely worthless and likely actually makes things worse.

If you are talking about the above scenario but the nazis are actually attempting wide spread violence or a power grab, then it will be the actual police and/or armed forces that put a stop to that, not a biker gang of anarchist college kids.

If the nazis have entered congress and slowly taken political power, then the party that will step up to stop them is the moderate element that occupies the opposing caucus, and the voters who elect them. Once again, not the anarchists.

As far as I can tell, there is no level on which the anarchist response is genuinely meaningful or helpful or anything other than hollow chest thumping unless it is allied to a much larger body of the average citizenry.

All we are then left with is "are the anarchist more likely to bluster back at them?" and maybe I'll grant you that, sure, but that's not really saying much.

And I'm not saying anarchists SHOULDN'T oppose Nazis, of course they should, I am just saying that being an anarchist has nothing to do with it, we all should.

And to your point about totalitarianism, I'll try to keep it short. I didn't say totalitarianism, I said authoritarianism. if I were to be more specific, I'd say nationalist populist authoritarianism especially. Even more especially of the brand centered around a key charismatic figure or dynasty.

And to your last point about totalitarianism not being well defined. I'd encourage you not to get hung up on that. None of this is well defined, and in fact it can't be. What is the far left even? Ask some people it means those who want to abolish currency and live in a network of loosely allied kubutzes. Ask some others and the far left means anyone who thinks universal healthcare might be a good idea. What does anarchism even mean? Ask 20 different anarchists at random and you'll get at least 3 or 4 distinct notions.

I have learned through hard conversations that almost all political labels are a sort of fuzzy contextual bell curve. Is that frustrating and inconvenient? Sure, but that's just how it be.

You might wanna work on that.

And yes, I agree that you can’t spend your whole life worrying about every little thing.

But when others are worrying about something that matters, don’t butt in and nay say. Understand that even if you don’t personally care, it’s still worthwhile, and if you can’t be supportive then at least be silent. Why on earth would you be in here criticizing people that are trying to take down nazi advertising?

I guess there’s no point debating about something mattering with a nihilist right?

I will just say your idea of social responsibility is, in my view, anemic. You benefit from the actions and intuitions of others who have a better civic sense than you. I guess that’s as it should be.

I also don’t think I it is accurate or true that out of the, probably, thousands of fascist surges that have taken place across the countries of the world in the last century, that it was the far left that did the work to quash those. It’s the average citizenry and standard institutions of a country, wherever they happen to fall on the political spectrum, that serve to keep those influences repressed. It’s not like everyone else could care less and it’s only these anarchist nazi-buster groups going around doing the work. I simply don’t think that’s historically accurate.

What I do think is historically accurate is that when a country becomes destabilized by radicalizing influences, the other radicalizing influences in the same country often become more extreme in response to that environment. But I’d say, again historically speaking, that rarely makes things better.

But clearly you aren’t a Dum Dum, and must have something in mind when you are saying these things. So maybe that would help me understand your position. Can you tell me what historical case you are thinking of where the average citizenry of a country shrunk away from standing up to fascism and it was left to the anarchist or other far left influences to save the day? The only such occurrences I can think of are times when the far left wing that took over turned out to be just as authoritarian and bad as what they supplanted, and nobody thinks of them as having saved the day in hindsight. As far as I’m concerned authoritarianism is the bad guy of the story of the 20th century and whether that authoritarianism wears a lefty or a righty coat isn’t terribly relevant.

But I’ll wait for your examples you have in mind. Thanks.

I mean, it’s easy to say “awh, ignore it, just laugh” but these are the same fuckers that did the unite the right rally and killed a lady. These are the same people that go out and play war in their Militia groups in the forest. It’s easy to say “awh just ignore it” until someone ends up hurt or dead.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

That’s just common sense.

Or….do your small part or oppose fascism. Ya know…like a decent sensible morally sane human being.

I don’t think that is, historically speaking, true. After all the single largest and costliest anti-fascist effort in human history was carried out by an alliance between the government la and citizens of the communist authoritarian left and the average post enlightenment neo-liberal western nation governments and citizenry….no?

That is to say, I suspect that a remarkably small % of those who fought in or supported the fight against Nazis and Italian racism were the far left of their day. The far left obviously participated, of course, but were only one very small slice of the anti-fascist pie, and of course woefully inadequate to the task of defeating them alone.

Thus kinda my point. Anti-fascism should be universalized to pretty much all of us that aren’t fascists and Nazis. Not branded as the effort of one particular ideology.

I just don’t think it’s a very wise idea, and I am advising against it.

But the kind of people willing to print up a bunch of stickers with an anarchy sign on them aren’t likely, obviously, to agree with me.

Nobody is going to be able to reply to this with any good advice. Your question is too vague. You are clearly worked up and itching for a fight. Is your position reasonable? Does it warrant the fight you want to have? Is there a legal grounding? What kind of law are we talking about?

A lawyer’s job, in theory anyway, isn’t to get what you think is right, but to get you the result that is legally warranted.

I REALLY don’t like branding eye anti-nazi effort as a pro anarchism effort.

Nazism is all of our problem, whether we are anarchist or not. I fucking hate Nazis. I fight against Nazis. But I also happen to think that anarchism is a terrible idea.

I personally, from a strategic standpoint, would rather the anti-nazi effort being just and only that, an anti nazi effort, not a vehicle for propagating or promoting anarchism. So that way the anti-nazi effort is universalized.

Obviously the people printing these stickers don’t agree, they obviously think anarchism is great and think branding the fight against Nazis as an anarchism effort is appropriate.

I would just like to advise that’s not the best idea. Reasonable and good people can both hate Nazis and also not be keen on anarchy.

But what if that’s not true? Are you demanding he lie in order for you to forgive him?

You are correct, when speaking of Hickman, that people with malicious beliefs and a history of shitty behavior are not as easily forgiven as otherwise good and productive members of the community when they make a mistake.

But that's exactly appropriate and as it should be. Serial offenders and dick wads get cut less slack that mostly good people who make a rare terrible mistake. That's a very normal thing and a healthy social dynamic.

So, I dunno, I guess we are talking about personal perception and there is no arguing someone out of an opinion.

To me this is a bad thing the guy did, he is rightly deserving of the criticism he got. He owes an enormous apology to the family, which he gave, owes the proper delivery of the funds, which he did, and the family certainly has the right to bear a grudge against him for a long time.

But otherwise, for just some other John Q Public member of the community to deem this unforgivable....seems silly to me.

But it's what you feel, so it is how it is.

So it’s literally impossible for him to make amends and be forgiven? At least by you?

In have to ask, what would a guy who made this fella's mistake need to do to make it right? At least according to you.

Like me, let's pretend I did something similar. I had offered a % of my intake towards a local family or cause, and had gotten preoccupied with other things and totally forgotten to actually cut the check for $1200 or whatever it was.

Ok so, I realize I've made this terrible mistake. Realize I've caused harm, and want to make amends and do the right thing to atone for my mistake.

What is the right course of action?

I think most people would say very publicly owning up to the mistake with no excuses other than pure failure on your own part, and then immediately following through with the money you'd pledged would be the right thing to do.

I think most people would consider that to be the right and proper thing needed to atone for the mistake.

But you seem to not think it's enough. So then I must ask you, what would be enough in your view? Not to make you not angry at the person, anger takes time to go away, but for you to say "They've done everything they can to make this right and atone properly for the mistake they made."

I don't know the Thai Express guy. I've never eaten there. I have no loyalty to him whatsoever. But I do know that people fuck up, and when they do they should be able to make amends, assuming the fuck up isn't something unforgivable.

My entire stake in this conversation is trying to understand why some people think the guy hasn't done the right things to make amends, and understand what more people expect in a situation like this? Obviously the most ideal answer is "not have fucked up in the first place"....but that's not reality. People will always fuck up.

I think he said in his public statement earlier today that he did today.

Didn't he issue a personal apology to the family and deliver the funds essentially immediately, like within a day, of the story breaking.

I said above "a mea culpa was issues and amends were made"

But you seem to disagree. You claim he needs to "make sufficient effort to resolve the situation", like what else?

I agree he caused hurt to the family. But what can you possible do other than apologize and deliver on what you neglected to do? Seems that's the proper course of action.

I dunno if you did that on purpose, or if you actually don't know any better.

My general rule is "assume no malice until given a good reason to think otherwise" so I am going to assume you didn't know any better.

But to answer your questions directly it, it's very hard to say how many people ascribe themselves to, let's say, heavily activistic political wings, but it's a good bet that there are a fair few.

Everyone already answered the right answers. Just want to add that there is a healthy enough bald eagle population in our part of the world that honestly just about any permanent body of water in the area has a decent chance of having a bald eagle visit on occasion. Even people with big ponds (as long as they are stocked) will occasionally see a bald eagle on their property.

It's the classic conundrum. Decrying something obviously by it's very nature brings more attention to it than not decrying it. Will that extra attention in a critical form hurt and diminish the influence of the thing, or increase it?

It can easily go either way. For example, let's take some cults, like Nexium or Scientology. They would have been much better off if left allow and allowed to recruit in their own ways among circles that were safe for them to do so. Exposure and large amounts of public attention and criticism didn't empower them, it collapsed them in the case of Nexium and has seriously hurt their recruitment in the case of scientology. There are lots of cases like this.

But some times, something like Trump for examples, thrives off the free media of even negative or critical coverage and is aided by it.

It's hard to tell which it's gonna be, but I can say that I think it's better for humanity, for people and their souls, to unabashedly decry and publicly renounce evil, instead of ignoring it and hoping it shrinks and goes away.

neo Nazis.

It's a liiiiitle bit more complicated than that. But not much more.

You're out here doing God's work.

​

Beating these jagovs back into shameful obscurity will have to be a community effort. Problem is penetrating their circle and figuring out who they are. I've made attempts at it, but as best I can tell they communicate primarily on discords and whatsapp or telegram groups and most of them have no idea who each other are.

You'll never be rid of this kind of filth, but is just part of, I dunno, civilizational maintenance that every so often this social gunk builds up and you gotta flush it out and clean it up.

If anyone has any ideas or thoughts on how to penetrate these groups, PM me. I've not had much luck alone.

Seems like nobody acted with malice or ill intent. Restaurant owner did wrong, but not out of ill will, he did so unintentionally (if we take him at his word, which I see no reason not to). The parents were right to be mad, but nobody here is a villain. Mea Culpa has been issued and amends have been made.

Seems to me like that's as far as the story needs to go.