The Christopher Handley Yaoi Case and Child Pornography Laws

[AchtungAffen]

The wife of Gore went nuts over the lyrics of a song. Don't know much of that issue, I must say.

While I'm a heavy smoker, I do support smoking-ban, as I respect other people who don't smoke and don't wanna get smoked by me or other smokers. It's a health issue, DIRECTLY, not a theory about the morals of good and evil.

I'm also anti-gun. Why the hell does anybody have to have a gun? Don't you people understand the more guns around, the more will be fired, the more people gonna get killed by them? Is that logic so hard to understand? What's wrong with Obama wanting to have a federal record of handguns? Don't you think that would help at least a little fighting gun crime? This is also a crime and health issue, not crazy theories about banging underage 2D charas.

Hillary Clinton fills her mouth with morality the same as La Crista. What they do after? Eh? Nothing I hear? Just blabber?

Wild speculations against FPS games and recoding arts like Marylin Manson and NIN after the Columbine incident.

And I bet you're telling me only one side of the aisle got freak about that...

The 2 party system is the deepest fundamental problem in the US. I sincerely hope that a time traveling device is invented soon so that I can have the pleasure of kicking the holy hell out of Henry Clay for instigating this mess.

I have to laugh everytime I hear US or UK citizens, or for that effect, EU citizens in general talking about shrinking govt to be drowned in the bathtub. Or when they cry about 2 party system.

Heh, first, you got it too, way too easy to say anything about shrinking government. 'Tseems you have no fucking idea what that means in terms of reality. Sadly I got to know that, not because I wanted or studied, but because it came as a default on the country I live in. Govt is drowned on the bathtub quite easily... and guess what comes after that? HEh.

As for 2 party system. Yeah, cry while you still have them, because you don't want to know what happens when such structure breaks down. I also had the disgrace to experience that kind of shit, and frankly, I don't think you'd like it.

Many people on both sides of the aisle might fill their mouths about morality. But while it doesn't become real action, like for example, absitenence only sex ed, then there's no problem. Just dumbasses filling their mouths, tryin to get political points from dumbass audiences. Unless you get another round of the Worried Housekeepers or Moms association and end up banning alcohol. I wonder which side of the aisle where they... con right or libtard left?

[Holy Diver]

The moral values types probably think that Yaoi is a "gateway" to more vulgar child related abuses.

But the magic of hentai is that people can pursue any sick, twisted fetish without actually doing it. For instance I am a fan of Guro, but you don't see me acting it out.

As for the whole right-left debate, the voters are torn between Scylla and Charybdis, no matter who you vote for you will get screwed.

P.S. I'm just kidding about the whole Guro thing. Or am I?

[NemZ]

Achtung, I respectfully disagree. Leaving it at that.

[Synapsid]

Then why do they typically lead the charge against violence and sex in video games and imposing all manner of 'nanny state' laws?

Both major American parties want to impose their own standards of what should and should not be tolerated on everyone else, and in both cases it is usually more about appealing to a demographic than upholding a deeply held value.

Actually the movement against Sex and violence in video games is primarily a Republican/ moralist idea, The most high profile anti video game violence democrat was Joe Lieberman, who was a surrogate for McCain .
Furthermore the charge for the Corporate Nanny (police?) state is lead by the GOP, and it’s members have been (with the backing of ISPs) some of the most vocal opponents of Net Neutrality legislation. As according to Ted Stevens the net is nothing more than a set of tubes that needs to be watched.
This is in part due to demographics, as the Democrats are composed of a wide coalition of different groups while the GOP is increasingly become the Grumpy Old (white men) Party.(I wonder if their meetings look like SEELEs?)

The anti-smoking campaign.

The anti-gun campaign.

All manner of health food movements, most notably the push to ban various ingredients.

Hillary Clinton's outspoken attacks on Rockstar Games because of the 'Hot Coffee' incident.

Wild speculations against FPS games and recoding arts like Marylin Manson and NIN after the Columbine incident.

Note that in each of these cases it's not just that critics suggest these things are bad for public consumption, but that they moralize the issue as something wrong and evil, a menace to be eradicated rather than a choice to educate people about. Anything to stir up emotion and deaden rational discourse...

The 2 party system is the deepest fundamental problem in the US. I sincerely hope that a time traveling device is invented soon so that I can have the pleasure of kicking the holy hell out of Henry Clay for instigating this mess.

Some of them aren’t based of free speech and have negative externalities. For example some people are very sensitive to second hand smoke (I actually have nasty allergic reactions to it) Dr. BrickHaus was right when he wrote about it! While reading (online pirated copies) of peer reviewed journals I found that cigarettes emit the intensely toxic Hydrogen cyanide. Eliminating toxic ingredients from food such as Aspartame, that breaks down into Methanol and Formaldehyde isn’t anything wrong as it stops the quasigovernmental corporate entities from abusing citizens.
Hillary Clinton and the other 90s era Liberal Republicans/Wall street Democrats, are mostly interested in going along with the flow of upper class America, and have as of recent events fallen out of power within the party. Gun control was actually a movement started by Nixon and Regan’s Law and Order platforms, and simply incorporated by Clinton. Most of the current generation of Democrats are not Anti Gun, Particularly as many of the newer members are Southern Exmilitary like Virginia’s Jim Web.
As for the Columbine speculation: it was almost exclusively based of social conservatives who saw the counter cultural movements as being conductive to crime. (Ironically NIN’s Reznor is a anti Bush Lefty)
Henry Clay, while an Elitist wasn’t the source of the Two party system. Jefferson believed a opposition party was necessary to oppose the Torryish Federalist party and began the trend. And of course the influential Whig Torry (later Liberal Conservative) system arose out of Hanoverian England, and even before that the Roman Republic (that influenced our system) had it’s Populare and optimates.

[NemZ]

I'm not even remotely trying to say the GOP is any better in this regard, just that they aren't alone. Both parties are full of oppressive moralizers... they just use different means to rationalize it as anything other than an attack on personal liberty.

Before Clay the various revolving door of parties disagreed on principles of governance but otherwise were generally amiable. After Clay's questionable influence in resolving a highly contested presidential race we see the rise of the first stable party built almost entirely on an 'us vs. them' mentality. When any system of democratic government breaks down into stable parties it means the politicians are playing the game rather than voting their conscience; that they are more concerned with winning than salvaging their integrity.

[Formless One]

I'm also anti-gun. Why the hell does anybody have to have a gun? Don't you people understand the more guns around, the more will be fired, the more people gonna get killed by them? Is that logic so hard to understand? What's wrong with Obama wanting to have a federal record of handguns? Don't you think that would help at least a little fighting gun crime? This is also a crime and health issue, not crazy theories about banging underage 2D charas.

Been over this before, but this is one of those things that would apply to NemZ examples of things that are a matter of education. People who are educated about guns (NOT necessarily people who have been taught how to use them, although that can be part of it) are safer about them. Most people forget that people in the old days (like the old west) used guns all the time, but there was actually almost no such things as gun crime. People understood what a gun could do to someone and what the consequences of misusing a gun were. The thing that changed was that fewer people had to use them in their every day lives, so people got more ignorant about what they could do, and as a result, the people who were using them were not the kinds of people who understood the consequences of their actions. At the same time, the people who weren't using them started misunderstanding the reality of them, giving them many mythical qualities that would have you believe that they are all powerful killing machines that could misfire at any moment (a patiently untrue myth, as most of the things that could possible cause a gun to injure the user were engineered out of the designs long ago). Does this sound like a populace that can be trusted to use guns? You don't even have to worry about teaching more people to shoot, just make clear to people what guns are and are not, and have a proper safety course for those who want to learn and own one.

The same problem underlies many other social issues. Drugs and alcohol are another example, since the issue is with substance abuse, a problem that a more educated populace shouldn't have a problem with. (I mean to talk about soft drugs like marajuana which are not intrinsically addicting or inherently dangerous, as opposed to, say, amphetamines which will fuck your life up in short order) Or environmental issues, which have fought quite a bit of ignorance to get recognition. Or the LGBT rights movement, which has to fight against things like "its a choice!" and other crap. The public is effectively pretty stupid culturally, because so many stupid ideas are allowed to memetically spread and strangle rational thinking and politics.

Hillary Clinton fills her mouth with morality the same as La Crista. What they do after? Eh? Nothing I hear? Just blabber?

Not for lack of trying, I bet.

And I bet you're telling me only one side of the aisle got freak about that...

I'm... pretty sure the big myths about violent video games have been debunked by better people, but the biggest single refutation that always worked for me was the fact that the government statistics on youth crime have consistently shown that youth crime has been falling during the same time period as the rise of the video game industry, and continues to fall as a general trend.

I have to laugh everytime I hear US or UK citizens, or for that effect, EU citizens in general talking about shrinking govt to be drowned in the bathtub. Or when they cry about 2 party system.

Heh, first, you got it too, way too easy to say anything about shrinking government. 'Tseems you have no fucking idea what that means in terms of reality. Sadly I got to know that, not because I wanted or studied, but because it came as a default on the country I live in. Govt is drowned on the bathtub quite easily... and guess what comes after that? HEh.

As for 2 party system. Yeah, cry while you still have them, because you don't want to know what happens when such structure breaks down. I also had the disgrace to experience that kind of shit, and frankly, I don't think you'd like it.

I think you misunderstand. People want to replace the two party system with a multi-party system that would more adequately represent the people. NOT replace it with a one party system or a tyranny of some kind. I don't know where you live, but the abolishment of the two party system does NOT automatically lead to BAD THINGS.

And as for the power of government, this has been something that is somewhat personal among people, but a disturbing trend throughout the Bush administration was the grabbing of powers that are either questionable or outright unconstitutional, such as the Patriot Act, domestic spying, the torture scandels that have been unending throughout, and in general most of the things related to the so-called "War on Terror" (RE: McCarthy-esque witch hunt). Its not so unreasonable to ask our government to dial some of that power back for the good of us all.

Many people on both sides of the aisle might fill their mouths about morality. But while it doesn't become real action, like for example, absitenence only sex ed, then there's no problem. Just dumbasses filling their mouths, tryin to get political points from dumbass audiences. Unless you get another round of the Worried Housekeepers or Moms association and end up banning alcohol. I wonder which side of the aisle where they... con right or libtard left?

Well, the one thing that is a problem is the fact that in the U.S., there really isn't a Leftist party in the first place. The Democrats are more liberal then the Republicans, but its a matter of degree. By any other countries standards, the Democrats are actually conservative.

[birdyofthemoongoddess]

It's one thing if the said pornography depicts seven year olds or something (actually, in one of the Gravitation Megamix's, Eiri has a flashback about when he was young and had sex with Yuki Kitazawa so... that was a little creepy) but... come on! If the porn has sixteen year olds... they're so close to being adults!! erg... (then, I suppose, the author could just say that they're 18... if they really wanted to, it would possibly work)

God, if they went after erotic writing... *dies*

: (

[AchtungAffen]

I have to laugh everytime I hear US or UK citizens, or for that effect, EU citizens in general talking about shrinking govt to be drowned in the bathtub. Or when they cry about 2 party system.

Heh, first, you got it too, way too easy to say anything about shrinking government. 'Tseems you have no fucking idea what that means in terms of reality. Sadly I got to know that, not because I wanted or studied, but because it came as a default on the country I live in. Govt is drowned on the bathtub quite easily... and guess what comes after that? HEh.

As for 2 party system. Yeah, cry while you still have them, because you don't want to know what happens when such structure breaks down. I also had the disgrace to experience that kind of shit, and frankly, I don't think you'd like it.

I think you misunderstand. People want to replace the two party system with a multi-party system that would more adequately represent the people. NOT replace it with a one party system or a tyranny of some kind. I don't know where you live, but the abolishment of the two party system does NOT automatically lead to BAD THINGS.

I'm not talking about a single party nor anything. But when an hystorical power structure of 2 parties breaks down, you might end up with one BIG party, a fragmented opposition which in real terms, doesn't exist. Thus you end up with clans, olygarchies, plutocracies, mobs, and everything that comes to take power once the govt institutions supposed to handle them fail.

It might stabilize with time. But the immediate, 5-10 years or more since the structure breakup will be a MESS. We haven't stabilized yet, still waiting for the breakup of the surviving party.

As for guns: yeah, educate people and whatever you want. I would really love for people to take certain aptitude tests and get a real license (driver license like) before being able to get guns. But the question is: Why have guns? I can understand sport, not so much hunting (when it's not a necessary part of a society's life), but just having the firearms "in case" it's not that smart. Why don't we educate people in driving Abrahms and firing sabots or building nuclear weapons too? They will be educated... but why do they need to drive tanks or build nuclear weapons... "in case" if you want... the same argument.

[Space Penis]

The moral values types probably think that Yaoi is a "gateway" to more vulgar child related abuses.

But the magic of hentai is that people can pursue any sick, twisted fetish without actually doing it. For instance I am a fan of Guro, but you don't see me acting it out.

As for the whole right-left debate, the voters are torn between Scylla and Charybdis, no matter who you vote for you will get screwed.

P.S. I'm just kidding about the whole Guro thing. Or am I?

In a similar vein, I am reasonably sure that fans of tentacle rape don't go around sprouting numerous additional appendages with which to violate young schoolgirls with.

Although I could be mistaken.

[RockManBalls]

These cases always get so much attention and eventually fail hilariously, ultimately doing nothing but highlighting something no one cared about before. Boycott Marilyn Manson and sales skyrocket. Hold Congressional hearings on Grant Theft Auto and sales skyrocket. This is just free advertisement for Yaoi. Thank God. Doujin will not become illegal in the U.S., you know, so long as you don't plaster some to the side of your car.


As long as the Internets, pr0n and 4chan exists, everything will be all right.
--Yui Ikari

[AchtungAffen]

You're tellin me if I go to the US I can't be an Itasha, plastering my car with stencils of underage 2D charas during scat scenes? Oh the Humanity!!

[Formless One]

They will be educated... but why do they need to drive tanks or build nuclear weapons... "in case" if you want... the same argument.

No its not. I see your strawman, and shoot him in the head. There is no equivalence, nor has anyone ever said that there is one, between battlefield artillery and personal firearms, let alone WMDs and personal firearms, yet this fallacy crops up again and again and again among anti-gun people. The fact is that those weapons are for use by nations for doing what nations do in times of war, while personal firearms for civilians have very different uses and purposes.

Also, I know that it can be hard for people who aren't American to really understand the notion that we have a right reserved for us to rise against our own government if, in the future, it ever becomes corrupted past the point of salvation. It is a part of our basic constitution, and is there as a failsafe should the time ever come. Frankly, it is one of those things that would happen anyway if the shit hit the fan hard enough (arms smugglers are a known and clever lot), but the founders of the country wanted to ensure that the populace of this country would be prepared for that time long before it ever happens. It is almost as much a cultural thing as anything else, and so I don't pretend that other people will understand why some Americans actively defend that right so fervently. Personally, I think that it is worth the risks, because idealogically, I think that it is better to have an armed populace and an honest government then an unarmed populace and a tyrrany.

Of course, our government is not exactly honest, but its not so bad considering what it could be. Or what it might turn into given current trends...

As for the two party thing: there is always the possibility that the state of things will fall to shit, but the fact of the matter is, the system that is in place where two parties control almost all political decisions and everything is presented as if it is polarized effectively creates a scenario where there really is no difference between the two parties that effectively changes much when one or the other takes power. It looks like it, but in fact, the two are constantly forwarding the same kinds of imperialist or puritanical agendas. It is like having one coin with two faces. Its a farce, a false dichotomy, and gives no real choice to the voters. What you are talking about has already happened in a much more subtle way in America, and most people do not realize it.

You're tellin me if I go to the US I can't be an Itasha, plastering my car with stencils of underage 2D charas during scat scenes? Oh the Humanity!!

Just because you or I do not understand it does not make it wrong. Real child pron is wrong because it abused children, but this stuff has no victim. That makes judging it a lot more difficult, and is the reason that the issue is over something as vague and subjective as "obscenity". Which of course is why such questions as "obscene to who?" or "Where do we draw the line of obscene?" come into play. No one has yet given a concrete or satisfactory answer to either of those questions, and regardless of morals, that makes it dangerous and scary.

[RockManBalls]

Just because you or I do not understand it does not make it wrong. Real child pron is wrong because it abused children, but this stuff has no victim. That makes judging it a lot more difficult, and is the reason that the issue is over something as vague and subjective as "obscenity". Which of course is why such questions as "obscene to who?" or "Where do we draw the line of obscene?" come into play. No one has yet given a concrete or satisfactory answer to either of those questions, and regardless of morals, that makes it dangerous and scary.

Which is precisely why this sort of legal action always ends in defeat. America for all its flaws eventually comes around to sanity. Or at least an uneasy middle-ground.

[AchtungAffen]

No its not. I see your strawman, and shoot him in the head. There is no equivalence, nor has anyone ever said that there is one, between battlefield artillery and personal firearms, let alone WMDs and personal firearms, yet this fallacy crops up again and again and again among anti-gun people. The fact is that those weapons are for use by nations for doing what nations do in times of war, while personal firearms for civilians have very different uses and purposes.

States? What about insurgents using WMD's or tanks. What about a wacky religious group wanting to see the end of days using a nuke? After all the purpose is essentially the same, both firearms (personal, assault or whatever) than any other type of weapon. They're all designed to destroy. They might be different tools for different situations, but they all perform the same function. Destroy, deterr, defend, whatever you want to call that.

Why, if I'm allowed to have a tool that's designed to kill, am I gonna be restricted in which tool I want. I might feel that's in my safety and liberty sake for me to have a bunch of nukes so the state doesn't come here and take money from me to bailout AIG. If I have nukes at home, they will never press me for money, and I don't want to pay those execs a gotdamn thing! YEEEHAAAA!

Weapons are weapons, not chitlins, cars or soap. Weapons are designed with a specific purpose which really doesn't change between them all: harm. If it fails to harm, you should wonder if it's a weapon. But not everything that harms is a weapon. rigt?

Besides, for civil citizenry to have weaponry, poses a danger to citizens themselves. Having a nuke, a tank or a Luger might change just the "harm" proportion, but not its definite essence and finality.

And I always have to laugh at most pro-gun people I've met on the internet. I've been robbed quite a few times at gun point. I felt the fear of having a cannon pointed at your cock, head, stomach, whatever. Yet, do you see me advocating for more guns? No, never. I'll always advocate for less weaponry, because the less of it available, the less deaths it will cause. Logical, ain't it? Have you ever faced a gun pointed at you and ready to take shot? Why the fuck do you think you need guns?

Also, I know that it can be hard for people who aren't American to really understand the notion that we have a right reserved for us to rise against our own government if, in the future, it ever becomes corrupted past the point of salvation. It is a part of our basic constitution, and is there as a failsafe should the time ever come. Frankly, it is one of those things that would happen anyway if the shit hit the fan hard enough (arms smugglers are a known and clever lot), but the founders of the country wanted to ensure that the populace of this country would be prepared for that time long before it ever happens. It is almost as much a cultural thing as anything else, and so I don't pretend that other people will understand why some Americans actively defend that right so fervently. Personally, I think that it is worth the risks, because idealogically, I think that it is better to have an armed populace and an honest government then an unarmed populace and a tyrrany.

Oh man you sure make me laugh. Do you really think if the govt went "evil", a handgun armed civil citizenry would be able to fight cops, military forces, etc? Of course not, so I bet you advocate heavier weaponry for civilians. Ok, why not an Abrahms tank? Or ballistic missiles? After all, you're gonna need lots of that to overthrow a waywards US govt considering its military strength. And besides that, wasn't Bush admin the biggest traitor against your own democratic institutions? I never saw any gun advocate rise against that (in fact, probably most gun advocates were extatic during The Passion of the Bush... at elast the NRA was) . BEsides, what about the militia clause on your constitution? Do you really think it was put there as embellishment, or has a central role in what the founding guys wanted on that ammendment??

As for the two party thing: there is always the possibility that the state of things will fall to shit, but the fact of the matter is, the system that is in place where two parties control almost all political decisions and everything is presented as if it is polarized effectively creates a scenario where there really is no difference between the two parties that effectively changes much when one or the other takes power. It looks like it, but in fact, the two are constantly forwarding the same kinds of imperialist or puritanical agendas. It is like having one coin with two faces. Its a farce, a false dichotomy, and gives no real choice to the voters. What you are talking about has already happened in a much more subtle way in America, and most people do not realize it.

So you think there ain't no difference between a con backed political party and a liberal one? LEt's start with, for example, ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX ED, or not giving help to Africa's clinics if they perform abortions and shit (advancing human misery suffering pain and death). Do you really think it's the same? DO YOU REALLY THINK KERRY WOULD HAVE INVADED IRAQ???

No, both parties are different, even when their sponsors might swap sides time and time again. In fact, both parties force themselves to difference themselves, if not, without a minimal polarization, they can't rally no base. We're this, not other. You belong here, not there. Basic human feelings which mostly guide our actions. Not only Mill type o' things, Durkheim had it right too on morale and it's 3 new aspects.

[NAveryW]

I wish you guys would keep this thread about manga and child pr0n...

[Formless One]

I'm taking this to a new thread, Achtung. Except the gun part, we already have a thread for that, so my reply to that will be found there.

Suffice it to say, I think that most of these social problems are blown waaaaayyy out of proportion, when the real problem is with the society being under-educated in a real and fundamental way.

[Synapsid]

Yeah, this thread was kind of supposed to be about the government censoring our First Amendment rights, not a increasingly contentions discussion on the Second Amendment.

Well, the one thing that is a problem is the fact that in the U.S., there really isn't a Leftist party in the first place. The Democrats are more liberal then the Republicans, but its a matter of degree. By any other countries standards, the Democrats are actually conservative.

It's true; our political system is a charming copy of the Victorian era political system(On a interesting note Obama has much in common with Benjamin Disraeli ) , Complete with its own Conservative party, and a moderate/Liberal party. I certainly wouldn't be against a powerful Radical/Labor party entering the scenes, but with the democratic now party moving closer to a (internationally centrist) Social justice stance, the need for Labor is less pressing. Of course our demography, and winner take all election system mean third parties won't be viable, still many nations have been transitioning to a Proportional Representation system, and I don't see why we couldn't do the same.

I'm not talking about a single party nor anything. But when an hystorical power structure of 2 parties breaks down, you might end up with one BIG party, a fragmented opposition which in real terms, doesn't exist. Thus you end up with clans, olygarchies, plutocracies, mobs, and everything that comes to take power once the govt institutions supposed to handle them fail.

It might stabilize with time. But the immediate, 5-10 years or more since the structure breakup will be a MESS. We haven't stabilized yet, still waiting for the breakup of the surviving party....

...As for 2 party system. Yeah, cry while you still have them, because you don't want to know what happens when such structure breaks down. I also had the disgrace to experience that kind of shit, and frankly, I don't think you'd like it.

That is an intresting point, and unfortunate result to the break down of a party system, please go into more detail, that is if you don't mind telling us Achtung-san.

Actually much of what you've described seems to be present down here in (nonSoviet) Georgia, a decade ago the old democratic party had most of its institutions incorporated into the Republican base, and up until 2006 the state was a virtual one party system. Of course the Republican party's national upheaval has "Trickled down" and Georgia, previously a impregnable Red State has become more of a mosaic. The GOP seems to have many of its members leaving to splinter parties such as Libertarian, and Constitutionalist. The schism is partly illustrated by Paleo Cons like Bob Bar and their supporters leaving the party, and while the splinter parties have no real chance of winning elections, their growing size is illustrated by the fact that they've seized a considerable minority of the electorate in recent votes.
After loosing Virginia (by 7%), and NC (and hanging onto Georgia by less than 5%)the Republicans, eager to avoid any further humiliation, have poured all their recourses into our Georgian Senate runoff. Over the past week I've actually seen swarms of Giuliani employees driving around in loudspeaker vans and planting giant signs all over the place. Yet it all amounts to nothing more than pushing on a string; there seems to be no local enthusiasm amongst the local population, and these workers are all paid staffers using GOP equipment.

Regardless of the political situation, or possibly because it corruption has become almost systemic, local government and institutions are arranged about a sort of self supporting "Good ol boy" system, and often the interests of business leaders who can politically support and influence process is prime. For example the Sheriff of Cherokee (a county in the greater Atlanta region) was recently in hot water because of tax fraud: he created his own nonexistent charity as so to dodge taxes (his excuse being that he didn't know it was wrong), yet he retained his office because no other individual had the backing from the local oligarchs, while state officials wouldn’t investigate a local ally, and as such he faced no serious challenge. So yes I do get what you mean by balkanized de facto one party states.

Oh man you sure make me laugh. Do you really think if the govt went "evil", a handgun armed civil citizenry would be able to fight cops, military forces, etc? Of course not, so I bet you advocate heavier weaponry for civilians.

There was the Bolivian gas Insurrection, where a mass strikes coupled with workers, miners, and farmers wielding tools, rifles, and dynamite overthrew Bolivia’s century long, Bush backed Apartheid regime. That said the relative success of the revolt was largely a fluke: Goni’s military was weak, the overwhelming indigenous majority was against him, and the police deserted.

The overall potential and results are messy, and fairly bleak: Similar revolts in Loss Angeles and France have only succeeded in temporarily driving out the local authorities, while often uninvolved civilians are the main victims., and are ultimately put down when the National Guard arrive. Still an armed opposition, even if militarily uncompetitive can render large areas of a major nation ungovernable, through sustained attacks against government organs, and assassinating officials.

[Mr. Tines]

Anyone drifting this thread off-topic who hasn't got their place on this diagram should rectify this omission. That way we can all see up front when someone else's position is wrong-headed by default.

[AchtungAffen]

First, the Bolivian insurrection had on one place govt paramilitary forces (no handguns), and on the other paramilitary backed by the rich white Bolivians who wanted to secede. I'm talking about the last unrest there, were no govt was overthrown. It started with Evo Morales and he's still there.

Besides, Bolivia's govt can and has been drowned in the bathtub several times, it's army in shatters. Can't compare that to an insurrection in the US. Besides:

Still an armed opposition, even if militarily uncompetitive can render large areas of a major nation ungovernable, through sustained attacks against government organs, and assassinating officials.

You mean like assymetric warfare? Anyways, Bolivia had no cluster bombs, white phosphorus or 500lb bombs. I'm not so sure if a handgun armed resistance, even morally, would sustain much of that.

Besides, nowadays, specially in the US, I really doubt such extremes (populace armed in revolt) is necessary to overthrow the govt. As thing stand today 'tseems more probable that once support is lost, the govt might fall alone without need of monkey fighting.


As for the 2 party system breakup. There's something very particular about one of them 2 parties (traditional parties here), Peronismo. It can be right, left, con, lib, anything. There are extreme left peronists, and extreme right peronists. They can be anything, because more than doctrine it's a movement. The other traditional party was the Radicales, which were somewhat middle, with points towards left and right.

The thing is that after 10 years of Menem (peronista) and all the mob like corruption of his govt (he was a great politician, but he was an asshole who fucked the country in the ass) people were eager for change. They elected a Radical, De la Rúa, who formed a coalition govt with many other smaller parties, all joined together against Peronismo. But in the modern history of this country, no president belonging to other party than Peronismo could ever finish their mandates. More than anything, because Peronismo is like the Republicans: bad opposition.

Well, De la Rúa govt became kinda weak, the economic situation turned bleak, and the forces of Duhalde (through proxies), the peronista who lost the election to De la Rúa, instigated what we used to call the "mazorcas" or shock groups from political parties, and in the end gained a popular movement against the president. I had prefered an institutional finish, but people had no more patience, and the forces of peronismo were pressing strong. In the end the president had to fly away in a chopper from the Rose House. And guess who ended up being provisional president then? Duhalde... He did a good job though, but his sucecssor, Kirchner, once president went all out against Duhaldes power.

So you got the biggest opposition party to peronistas in tatters. You got many new parties with many new figures, but all in all couldn't sum up to anything. And then you got an hegemonic peronismo reigned by a dinasty (Kirchner and wife) in power without any visible opposition.

And now 'tseems that even that party is breaking up... so I expect a lot more problems.

One more thing: during the interregno between De la Rúa and Duhalde, there was a strong social conmotion. There were truckloads of monkeys assaulting entire neighborhoods, the streets in the capital looked like the Gaza strip. Eve I got hit by rubber bullets and tear gas. 'twas a mess. And even before De la Rúas exit, the forces of Duhalde within the cops made em do execution like stuff during some social protests (ex- train station Avellaneda now popularly called Dario & Maxi for the two kids killed by coppers that day at point blank range with a fucking shotgun with live ammo).

Well, there's a lot to talk about that time in our local history. If you're interested, please do tell me. I'll do my best to convey what I saw, felt and thought during those hard times.

[Enki v.2]

These cases always get so much attention and eventually fail hilariously, ultimately doing nothing but highlighting something no one cared about before. Boycott Marilyn Manson and sales skyrocket. Hold Congressional hearings on Grant Theft Auto and sales skyrocket. This is just free advertisement for Yaoi. Thank God. Doujin will not become illegal in the U.S., you know, so long as you don't plaster some to the side of your car.


As long as the Internets, pr0n and 4chan exists, everything will be all right.
--Yui Ikari

Historically, this has been accurate. It's happened over and over. The problem is, it might be that this topic is one of the few things that falls through the cracks: I imagine that lots of people stocked up on LSD right after it got banned; has it been legalized yet? Despite the fact that it's ostensibly less dangerous than beer and cigarettes, in terms of long term health effects. I think it might partially be due to the amount of people on each side of the moral grey area: GTA sales soared because the number of people who play video games who are likely to boycott GTA on the moral grounds of tits are close to nil, whereas the LSD-taking hippies vs the LSD-hating non-hippies was more of an even fight, with both sides moralizing to each other.