On Political Violence

[MadAmosMalone]

As promised, here's the article I mentioned a few posts back. It was written before the election but take a look.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-t ... lks-about/

[Durandal_1707]

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.

Whoever came up with that name for the fanbase can't have been a history buff.

But they're still smarter than <person posting the political viewpoint that I disagree with>!

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

I haven't watched the review yet and will wait to comment on the question until I do, but to me the fact that a B5 show can illicit so many passionate (and conflicting) opinions speaks volumes as to the power and thoughtfulness of the show.

It's odd to me that TNG seems to have the reputation of being the most cerebral sci-fi show around, when B5 really outdoes it in terms of real world relevance (as does BSG and DS9).

[Durandal_1707]

It's odd to me that TNG seems to have the reputation of being the most cerebral sci-fi show around

It does?

Maybe compared to the original show...

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

It's odd to me that TNG seems to have the reputation of being the most cerebral sci-fi show around

It does?

Maybe compared to the original show...

Just my observation of some of the behavior of some of the Trekkies who worship at the altar of Roddenberry (and TNG gets props for being the closest to his vision) and those casual fans who don't know a lot about sci-fi. I could be mistaken/observing a sampling bias, of course.

As far as the issues that Chuck brought up, to me it gets too complicated for one axiom or hard and fast rule to apply in all cases. Generally I agree with Chuck that violence is counterproductive. To take a recent example, some of the violent activity by some Black Lives Matters participants has not only been hypocritical and counter to the fight against racism in all its forms, but counterproductive and serving to escalate a racial divide. When violence becomes an option, it's all too easy to shut down rational thought and lose whatever moral high ground you may have to stand on. It makes it too easy to glorify one person and dehumanize another, as if we weren't all humans with our own strengths, defects, and foibles.

At the same time, I can't say that I believe that violence has never been effective. You could argue that John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry expedited the process of ending slavery; you could also argue about the enormous cost that came about as a result. I think the times that violence might be effective or morally justified have to be carefully weighed and rationally considered. I don't think that we're obliged to "tolerate intolerance." Maybe it comes down to what this morally despicable person or group is actually doing (e.g. it's ok to stop Nazis who are out actually doing Nazi things). Ultimately I agree with Chuck that one individual doing violence against another merely for holding a (perhaps despicable) opinion isn't justified.

[Arkle]

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."

Very well put.

[Wild_Kraken]

The thread has been split because it's strayed off the topic of the episode.

[Rocketboy1313]

The thread has been split because it's strayed off the topic of the episode.

Snappy title.

Though I can't disagree with the decision.

[Rasp]

I cant stand the authoritarians on either side as you know... still violence is the last choice but I cant dismiss it as if there isn't a time or place where it becomes necessary-we're just not there quite yet. I think both authoritarian sides should stop dictating morality and just leave each other alone and stop using goverment as a cudgel to push their social agenda and both should be goddamn ashamed of themselves for degrading the freedoms of the people. There is a line always has been but we're bordering on differing versions of Christian Sharia being forced on us from both ends and its disgusting.

Sometimes good fences make good neighbors.

[StrangeDevice]

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.

And as he also points out, there are no easy answers. The decision there has to be your own, I can't and won't tell you how to live your life. There are people who are unreasonable, those who will not listen, those who abide by extremist views that people should be persecuted for one reason or another. That will remain, it cannot be changed, but what can be altered is whether or not someone -- you, I or anyone else on or reading the forum -- recognizes an opportunity to change a person's mind without having to raise a hand against them and again, that won't be everyone, but it will be someone.

Think of it, if you can convince one person from the opposing camp who is willing to listen that your point of view is equally valid then you've won. You have helped them to understand who you are, reminded them that you are a human being with thoughts and feelings just as valid as theirs are. And I know what it feels like to be persecuted, to be hated, to be reviled for something as simple as gender or age. I know what that feels like. I'm not saying that you shouldn't resist those who seek to harm you (help yourself to help others, etc.), but it's important to still be lucid enough to realize when you can get through to someone and gain tolerance, even an understanding of someone different. A window to change one person because that one person still makes an impact on the world. They might even carry that new consideration with them into places you'd never be able to reach otherwise.