On Political Violence

[Rocketboy1313]

Strawman: "What? So anyone who advocates that minorities are less than human is suddenly the bad guy?"
Me: "Yeah."
Strawman: "And I suppose you would try to label their constitutionally protected speech about wanting to segregate or annihilate minorities as hate speech?"
Me: "I think that is one of the definitions of hate speech, yes."
Strawman: "And I suppose you think that speech you close mindedly label 'hate speech' should be silenced?"
Me: "Yes, as it is demonstrably harmful to the social order and the minority communities whose destruction it is calling for. Hate Speech is not protected by the constitution. It is kind of a form of assault."
Strawman: "How regressive. Just because you disagree with someone's advocacy of hate and violence you want them to stop advocating hate and violence."
Me: "Yes. And I would go so far as to say that if they keep advocating for violence in a public place I should be able to respond with violence of my own as an act of long term self defense against what they are advocating both verbally and in writing to their receptive audiences."
Strawman: "You know who else took away people's free speech? The Nazis. You are just a leftist Brown Shirt."
Me: "I think you need to stop talking because you don't know what words mean."
Strawman: "Fascist!"

[Wargriffin]

This is why I prefer Orks to humans

The ORKIEST ORK IS THE RIGHT ORK!

[MadAmosMalone]

A major problem with American society today is the average person's refusal to engage with ideological opponents, even in the same manner and platform. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you say you have blocked people over what seems to me to be a rancourous, but not excessively long tit-for-tat.

Even if I disagree, I am willing to listen, or sometimes skip past, but I view the urge to design a dissent-free universe as today's opiate of the masses.

Me too. I don't think it's just the US either. The whole world seems to be an "outrage culture" anymore. I have not sent anyone on a one way trip to my ignore list over this thread despite disagreeing with many. I don't live, and don't want to live, in an ideological echo chamber. Neither do I want to live in a place where having a dissenting opinion will lead to a hospital stay. The lack of acceptance of opposition, the willingness to "agree to disagree," is disturbing.

Let's take the election as an example. Half of the people I know were Trump supporters and I disagreed with them. The other half were Clinton supporters and I disagreed with them too. By voting third party, the right wingers in my group were mildly upset with me but the left wing people were utterly incensed. The right wingers were at least willing to have a civil discourse about why I don't like Trump. The Democrats, on the other hand, clammed up and will not discuss politics with me at all any more. They're all friends and family so I'm not worried about being assaulted but the fact they will not even try to argue their point is very troubling.

[Wargriffin]

A major problem with American society today is the average person's refusal to engage with ideological opponents, even in the same manner and platform. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you say you have blocked people over what seems to me to be a rancourous, but not excessively long tit-for-tat.

Even if I disagree, I am willing to listen, or sometimes skip past, but I view the urge to design a dissent-free universe as today's opiate of the masses.

Me too. I don't think it's just the US either. The whole world seems to be an "outrage culture" anymore. I have not sent anyone on a one way trip to my ignore list over this thread despite disagreeing with many. I don't live, and don't want to live, in an ideological echo chamber. Neither do I want to live in a place where having a dissenting opinion will lead to a hospital stay. The lack of acceptance of opposition, the willingness to "agree to disagree," is disturbing.

Let's take the election as an example. Half of the people I know were Trump supporters and I disagreed with them. The other half were Clinton supporters and I disagreed with them too. By voting third party, the right wingers in my group were mildly upset with me but the left wing people were utterly incensed. The right wingers were at least willing to have a civil discourse about why I don't like Trump. The Democrats, on the other hand, clammed up and will not discuss politics with me at all any more. They're all friends and family so I'm not worried about being assaulted but the fact they will not even try to argue their point is very troubling.

you'd probably find this article interesting
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/21/her ... elections/

[Dragon Angel]

Please note that Milo Yiannopolous has outed at least one transgender student leading to that person being harassed. His words ARE a very real threat to certain people. Should the Berkley protests have turned violent? No, but that doesn't make them the real bullies or whatever.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yi ... aukee.html

Yeah, with that, the undocumented immigrants thing, and Milo's extensive history of inciting harassment campaigns against others (usually women) and libel (again, women), among others, this guy's "free speech" is one of the last things I consider important. It isn't free speech to hang someone out for the dogs to eat, and that trans student's university utterly failed her. My violin for Milo is so small it has disappeared via quantum teleportation to another person infinitely more deserving.

And it's maddening that more people, including liberals, don't recognize that fact of him. But yet defend him anyway because "IT'S FOR FREE SPEECH!" Either they don't have any clue what he does, or they don't think it is that important to remember. I dearly hope the reason isn't the latter.

You are comparing people fighting back against people who are like the Brownshirts of being like the Brownshirts.

Well, I'm not sure that's quite fair. There are lots of Firefly fans who are good and productive members of society, and...

Oh. Brown shirts.

Never mind.

I have to admit, this made me giggle, because this has been in the back of my mind for the last year.

[Admiral X]

Admiral X invoked 1984 to attack me, when he really should've used it to attack you.

I invoked it the regressive left in general because they seem to be using it as an instruction manual. Actually I quite agree with him when it comes to the complete lack of empathy from the regressive left, which gets displayed quite frequently.

Good on them for shutting it down.

Yeah, good on them for beating a man unconscious, attacking anyone they thought was guilty of wrongthink and the police, and vandalizing public property. It was all worth it to keep someone they didn't like from speaking.

I think in the end Chuck's point is IT DOESN'T MATTER if he deserves it or not, thats just moral grandstanding in a subtle attempt to justify the beating.

The point is Violence does not solve the problem properly 'Unless you goal is to kill the guy then it solves it perfectly, I can't sit here with all of history behind me and say Violence is never the solution, I'll say Violence should be the last solution after others have been exhausted'

Very much my line of thinking as well. It's also generally been the message Star Trek has had, yet here there are a bunch of Trekkies who seem real keen on engaging in mob violence or at least cheering it from the sidelines. Crazy.

Strawman: "What? So anyone who advocates that minorities are less than human is suddenly the bad guy?"
Me: "Yeah."
Strawman: "And I suppose you would try to label their constitutionally protected speech about wanting to segregate or annihilate minorities as hate speech?"
Me: "I think that is one of the definitions of hate speech, yes."
Strawman: "And I suppose you think that speech you close mindedly label 'hate speech' should be silenced?"
Me: "Yes, as it is demonstrably harmful to the social order and the minority communities whose destruction it is calling for. Hate Speech is not protected by the constitution. It is kind of a form of assault."
Strawman: "How regressive. Just because you disagree with someone's advocacy of hate and violence you want them to stop advocating hate and violence."
Me: "Yes. And I would go so far as to say that if they keep advocating for violence in a public place I should be able to respond with violence of my own as an act of long term self defense against what they are advocating both verbally and in writing to their receptive audiences."
Strawman: "You know who else took away people's free speech? The Nazis. You are just a leftist Brown Shirt."
Me: "I think you need to stop talking because you don't know what words mean."
Strawman: "Fascist!"

Yeah, you're definitely arguing with a straw man.

[Admiral X]

A major problem with American society today is the average person's refusal to engage with ideological opponents, even in the same manner and platform. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you say you have blocked people over what seems to me to be a rancourous, but not excessively long tit-for-tat.

Even if I disagree, I am willing to listen, or sometimes skip past, but I view the urge to design a dissent-free universe as today's opiate of the masses.

Me too. I don't think it's just the US either. The whole world seems to be an "outrage culture" anymore. I have not sent anyone on a one way trip to my ignore list over this thread despite disagreeing with many. I don't live, and don't want to live, in an ideological echo chamber. Neither do I want to live in a place where having a dissenting opinion will lead to a hospital stay. The lack of acceptance of opposition, the willingness to "agree to disagree," is disturbing.

Let's take the election as an example. Half of the people I know were Trump supporters and I disagreed with them. The other half were Clinton supporters and I disagreed with them too. By voting third party, the right wingers in my group were mildly upset with me but the left wing people were utterly incensed. The right wingers were at least willing to have a civil discourse about why I don't like Trump. The Democrats, on the other hand, clammed up and will not discuss politics with me at all any more. They're all friends and family so I'm not worried about being assaulted but the fact they will not even try to argue their point is very troubling.

The scary part is that, for me, I'm hearing a lot of the same stuff the various extremist groups have said when attacking moderates, which basically boils down to "you're enabling evil." John Cleese brought this up in a sketch he did in the '80s about extremism and how there was getting to be too much of it in politics. For me, the bewildering part is how much more hatred they have for the very small percentage of people who voted for a third party because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for one of the main candidates, yet they seem to ignore the vastly larger number of people who didn't vote at all. As for why they won't try to argue their point, I'd say it comes from a number of reasons. One is that they don't really understand why themselves, as they are mostly just going off of what others have said. They're like the sheep bleating "four legs good, two legs bad." The other is that, much like the religious right, it comes down to them not wanting to have any dealings with what they see as evil. They've convinced themselves that they are right, and everyone else is either stupid or evil, so they have no desire to argue or educate the people they look down on. They also convince themselves that they represent some kind of "moral majority," so even if they're somehow proven wrong on that point, they'll default back to the "no compromise with evil" reasoning.

[MadAmosMalone]

you'd probably find this article interesting
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/21/her ... elections/

Thanks for the link. Reading it now. If I can dig it up, I'll share a similar link with you about the political left's lack of self examination. In the meantime I do wanna say I love your Marcus quote in your sig. I actually use that one a lot.

The scary part is that, for me, I'm hearing a lot of the same stuff the various extremist groups have said when attacking moderates, which basically boils down to "you're enabling evil." John Cleese brought this up in a sketch he did in the '80s about extremism and how there was getting to be too much of it in politics. For me, the bewildering part is how much more hatred they have for the very small percentage of people who voted for a third party because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for one of the main candidates, yet they seem to ignore the vastly larger number of people who didn't vote at all. As for why they won't try to argue their point, I'd say it comes from a number of reasons. One is that they don't really understand why themselves, as they are mostly just going off of what others have said. They're like the sheep bleating "four legs good, two legs bad." The other is that, much like the religious right, it comes down to them not wanting to have any dealings with what they see as evil. They've convinced themselves that they are right, and everyone else is either stupid or evil, so they have no desire to argue or educate the people they look down on. They also convince themselves that they represent some kind of "moral majority," so even if they're somehow proven wrong on that point, they'll default back to the "no compromise with evil" reasoning.

That's what troubles me most, the broad definition of "hate speech." Nothing I have said, or have ever said, denigrates or abuses individuals or marginalized groups. I do not advocate genocide, subjugation or abuse. I do, sincerely, want to understand other perspectives. The only way to do that is through dialog. Shutting down the process of that dialog, well, it just leads to violence doesn't it?

[StrangeDevice]

That's what troubles me most, the broad definition of "hate speech." Nothing I have said, or have ever said, denigrates or abuses individuals or marginalized groups. I do not advocate genocide, subjugation or abuse. I do, sincerely, want to understand other perspectives. The only way to do that is through dialog. Shutting down the process of that dialog, well, it just leads to violence doesn't it?

The problem is that there are proponents on each side who both have very good arguments, but are divided because people automatically assume that the extremist represents that particular view. On the topic of immigration, any sensible discussion seems to be "We should help these people" (immigrants) vs. "We should help these people" (ourselves). Both come from the same place, just with different established terms, but the way that one side is inclined to demonize the other, you'd think it'd be book burnings at Westboro and bible burnings at Cape Kennedy. Nothing breaks down a legitimate discussion about the efficacy of a view than attaching a crazy person to it who claims this is how everyone thinks.

What makes it worse is that both sides want their views to be respected, yet neither side is willing to even try teaching the other about the benefits to their particular methodology of thinking. Reasonably, rationally, sensibly. That's what's splitting the States straight down the middle, people aren't listening to each other. No one ever said you had to agree, but if you can at least listen then there can be the start of some kind of dialogue.

I have a very good and close friend who is the polar opposite of me politically and I find quite a number of his views frustrating, but I'm not going to take a chair to his face because he says something I disagree with. Defending yourself against extremists, I understand, but don't fall into the trap of believing that everyone on that opposing side are extremists. There is little to be gained for yourself or how you think by painting people with broad strokes, do not believe that all on a particular side are inherently evil because you are doing the crazies jobs for them. Everyone can be the victim of human beings who believe they are absolutely correct and the sad truth is that no one is. That's not how life works. There are no absolutes.

Which circles neatly around to one of Babylon 5's main messages which is that you need both. There must be both left and right, liberal and conservative, because if there isn't, then your society grows to the point of unravelling or withers into nothingness by cruel attrition. There must be both.

[Dragon Angel]

Everyone can be the victim of human beings who believe they are absolutely correct and the sad truth is that no one is. That's not how life works. There are no absolutes.

Which circles neatly around to one of Babylon 5's main messages which is that you need both. There must be both left and right, liberal and conservative, because if there isn't, then your society grows to the point of unravelling or withers into nothingness by cruel attrition. There must be both.

The trouble with this logic is it assumes one needs to find a "sensible middle ground" between positions that morally should never have a middle ground. Is there a middle ground between "LGBTQs should not be able to marry" and "LGBTQs should have the right to marry" without going into the separate-but-equal "civil unions" disaster? Is there a middle ground between "trans people should be able to use bathrooms of their identified gender" and "trans people should be barred from those bathrooms"? Is there a middle ground between "Muslims should be allowed to live in peace" and "Muslims should be banned from entering the country and stigmatized at every turn"?

Then there are moments where it appears people on the other side are not even operating on objective facts. Or, they are acting intentionally dishonest. Let's bring up the refugee situation, for instance: Trump and other Republicans have been claiming the United States has much too weak of a vetting program, when in fact until he was elected we had one of the strictest vetting programs on the planet. Refugees had to wait up to two years to be resettled into this country. The issues with "illegal Mexicans" are another morass entirely; there is a Pew Research study that demonstrated we actually had a net negative amount of illegal immigrants entering the country. It renders the claim entirely moot unless one is hellbent on continuing to believe in "alternative facts".

I'm one to say the left/center/right spectrum is somewhat simplistic when it comes to representing political views, but as it is, it keeps seeming the people I'm opposed to are not only unwilling to lend an ear, not only unwilling to have a shred of empathy, not only unwilling to acknowledge the humanity of people like me (a trans woman, btw), but now since the last several months, unwilling to acknowledge reality.

And people on the Left are being unreasonable now?

I've hung around in enough leftist communities to know they are most certainly not without flaws. There are indeed toxic people in them, some only there for their own self-gratification rather than for actual activism. But, to equate them with the Right, it's just madness, especially in today's context. It's like saying a = b, where a = 10 and b = 10,000. It's Golden Mean thinking. If a person on the Right disagrees with my rights or my very existence, how the hell am I supposed to relate to them? "Hello chaps how would you like a cup of tea and biscuits?" "Sure! Also, I think you should have all your rights stripped and you should be forced to live in mental torture."

As for what Daryl Davis does, the man is a hero. However, you cannot realistically expect everyone to be willing to adopt his methods. In the context of trans people, the murder rate is sky high and the rate of suicides comparative. We've only really begun in the last several years to have real recognition on a governmental scale, and not only that, there are groups of non-trans (cis) gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who ironically shit on the idea that gender identity and the ability to switch from your born sex is a real thing. Do you expect every one of them to be able to have patience for those like Milo, who has a special grudge in his "provocateur" ways against trans people? Or Cathy Brennan, who for those not in the know makes it a life long goal to harass trans women, including committing actions like doxing?

It's easy for those who don't suffer those kinds of horrors to say everyone who is marginalized should act like Daryl Davis, but Sisko said it best: "It is easy to be a saint in Paradise, but the Maquis do not live in Paradise". The conversation cannot continue unless our basic humanity is acknowledged, and we are acknowledged to have all the rights of any straight, cis person. And you know what? This is how the Right appears to the Left.