Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

Response to a terror attack should be to respond to the terrorists, through state approved means.

Burning flags, tearing down statues in mob justice style gatherings, and being general ne'r-do-wells is not the appropriate way to deal with terrorists.

It is not wrong to point that out.

"Mob justice" refers to killings, beatings, or running people out of town.  A statue isn't a person.  You're conflating violence and non-violence.

And that still doesn't answer my question.  We were talking about antifa's "violence" before either of those things happened.  Hell, I think it came up within a couple hours of the attacks.  What is it about the Charlottesville attacks that made you want to go extra hard on the counterprotestors?  Why are the perceived misgivings of the counterprotestors relevant here?

There has been plenty of antifa violence and harassment in the past.

here is one:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/25/former-college-prof-arrested-for-antifa-bike-lock-attacks-in-berkeley/

edit: ok that is some shitty right wing site, but they were the first link that had the arrest news and the video on the same page.

Far right tabloid AND Berkley.  Antifa conspiracy theories double whammy.

What's great about antifa is every time anyone mentions them killing people.  I google the word antifa + another word like killing, attack, harassment etc.  And the first relevant news result is inevitably either Briebart or similar, or a news article about the thing I'm googling happening to antifa.  For example, for months if I googled "antifa murder", I would get years old references to anti-fascists being killed by neo-nazis in Europe.  One time I got a 2012 murder on the first page (of an antifa member, not by one).

"Mob justice" refers to killings, beatings, or running people out of town.  A statue isn't a person.  You're conflating violence and non-violence.

I must say, I wasn't happy going to university when they were burning cars and buses and blowing up dustbins on campus. Even though no one was being murdered.

Not my point.  If we're going to discuss whether a movement is violent or not, drawing a comparison between organized protesters and tar-and-feathering mobs (or apparently, lynch mobs) is useless at best.  Its like if we were discussing religiously-motivated terrorism and someone brought up "militant atheists."

What you're describing sounds like a riot, although I don't know what specific thing you're referring to.  A riot, a "mob justice style gathering", and knocking down a statue are all 3 different things.  I would define a riot as violent, but as I understand it riots are less political movements and more anger boiling over.

[wierd]

I think you are suffering from a misunderstanding of the definition of "violence".

It does not need to have human on human trauma to be considered violence.  Observe:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violence

violence
noun
mass noun

    1Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
    ‘violence erupted in protest marches’
    ‘domestic violence against women’
    ‘the fear of physical violence’
    ‘screen violence’

    1.1Law The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

2Strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.
‘the violence of her own feelings’

The destruction of the statue via mob action qualifies as mob violence by the oxford definition. Sorry bro, but it does.

[Antioch]

The factual truth of someone hitting another person with a bikelock and getting arrested for it is not influenced by who is reporting it when the act is obviously caught on camera.

[Arx]

My point is that the difference between ripping down a statue and burning a bus is the amount of fire and the property being damaged. Nothing more, really. Just a point to ponder - why do you consider the one okay and the other not? (Genuinely something just to consider - I'm not trying to argue or anything. I have a stance, I am content in it, and I doubt it'll change.)

[wierd]

I will also have to shoot down EH's narrow definition of mob justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

My use of the term in relation to the statue removal is quite in line with that article, and with the historical definitions it uses.

[EnigmaticHat]

My point is that the difference between ripping down a statue and burning a bus is the amount of fire and the property being damaged. Nothing more, really. Just a point to ponder - why do you consider the one okay and the other not? (Genuinely something just to consider - I'm not trying to argue or anything. I have a stance, I am content in it, and I doubt it'll change.)

Because they aren't the same thing.  But we can't really talk about that until you explain who "they" are in your post and what specifically happened.

The factual truth of someone hitting another person with a bikelock and getting arrested for it is not influenced by who is reporting it when the act is obviously caught on camera.

So post a link then.  But if its to Berkley I'm going to make fun of you.

I think you are suffering from a misunderstanding of the definition of "violence".

It does not need to have human on human trauma to be considered violence.  Observe:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violence

violence
noun
mass noun

    1Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
    ‘violence erupted in protest marches’
    ‘domestic violence against women’
    ‘the fear of physical violence’
    ‘screen violence’

    1.1Law The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

2Strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.
‘the violence of her own feelings’

The destruction of the statue via mob action qualifies as mob violence by the oxford definition. Sorry bro, but it does.

Hit +examples.  None of the example sentences use it like that.  No modern human I've ever met uses it like that.  You ever heard of demolition described as violence against walls?  Vandalism isn't legally considered a violent crime.  Dictionaries are imperfect because language is a living thing that evolves over time.  Additionally it varies based on context; if for example two scientists talking about science use the word proof that would mean something different than two laymen.  Since we're not using jargon it makes sense we'd use the common usage of the word, which is against human beings or animals.  On top of all that, if we're going to quote dictionaries, Cambridge defines violence as needing to be against people; their definition excludes destruction and must be targeted against people.  That and the mostly archaic "violent storm" usage, although that of course is not how we're using it.  Sorry bro, I'm an English major.

[Arx]

My point is that the difference between ripping down a statue and burning a bus is the amount of fire and the property being damaged. Nothing more, really. Just a point to ponder - why do you consider the one okay and the other not? (Genuinely something just to consider - I'm not trying to argue or anything. I have a stance, I am content in it, and I doubt it'll change.)

Because they aren't the same thing.  But we can't really talk about that until you explain who "they" are in your post and what specifically happened.

I don't particularly want to discuss it (which is why I said I wasn't trying to get into an argument). I just thought you might like to think about why you consider the one rioting and the other peaceful protesting. If you're content to dismiss them out of hand as not being the same thing, that is your prerogative.

The factual truth of someone hitting another person with a bikelock and getting arrested for it is not influenced by who is reporting it when the act is obviously caught on camera.

So post a link then.  But if its to Berkley I'm going to make fun of you.

Do things that happen in Berkley not matter any more...? Is there something I'm missing that makes anything that happened in Berkley a far-right fabrication or something? Did you not look at the article he linked that included a video...?

[wierd]

My point is that the difference between ripping down a statue and burning a bus is the amount of fire and the property being damaged. Nothing more, really. Just a point to ponder - why do you consider the one okay and the other not? (Genuinely something just to consider - I'm not trying to argue or anything. I have a stance, I am content in it, and I doubt it'll change.)

Because they aren't the same thing.  But we can't really talk about that until you explain who "they" are in your post and what specifically happened.

The factual truth of someone hitting another person with a bikelock and getting arrested for it is not influenced by who is reporting it when the act is obviously caught on camera.

So post a link then.  But if its to Berkley I'm going to make fun of you.

I think you are suffering from a misunderstanding of the definition of "violence".

It does not need to have human on human trauma to be considered violence.  Observe:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violence

violence
noun
mass noun

    1Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
    ‘violence erupted in protest marches’
    ‘domestic violence against women’
    ‘the fear of physical violence’
    ‘screen violence’

    1.1Law The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

2Strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.
‘the violence of her own feelings’

The destruction of the statue via mob action qualifies as mob violence by the oxford definition. Sorry bro, but it does.

Hit +examples.  None of the example sentences use it like that.  No modern human I've ever met uses it like that.  You ever heard of demolition described as violence against walls?  Vandalism isn't legally considered a violent crime.  Dictionaries are imperfect because language is a living thing that evolves over time.  Additionally it varies based on context; if for example two scientists talking about science use the word proof that would mean something different than two laymen.  Since we're not using jargon it makes sense we'd use the common usage of the word, which is against human beings or animals.  On top of all that, if we're going to quote dictionaries, Cambridge defines violence as needing to be against people; their definition excludes destruction and must be targeted against people.  That and the mostly archaic "violent storm" usage, although that of course is not how we're using it.  Sorry bro, I'm an English major.

You must not have looked very hard, as Clairence Thomas has said such.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/07/clarence-thomas-questions-cross-burning-case_n_1000569.html

Supreme Court justices don’t ask questions only to learn from the advocates before them. Often, a justice will use the advocate as a conduit to teach the rest of the Court what that justice already knows. By asking Dreeben if he was “understating the effects of the burning cross,” Thomas was trying to amplify Dreeben’s unheeded argument that the “signal of violence” conveyed by a burning cross is “like a sword of Damocles hanging over the person whose head has been threatened.”

The actual burning of a cross itself physically harms no-one, but it is an act that conveys intent and anger, which causes distress, for the purposes of effecting a forced and unwanted change.

Compare with the forcible removal of a monument, where it exhibits an intent and anger, which causes distress, for the purposes of effecting a forced and unwanted change.

If one of those things is violence, then the other thing is violence as well, and dont you even dare try to pull a no true scottsman on that, or try an appeal to emotion fallacy. I wont accept either.

[scriver]

I think you are suffering from a misunderstanding of the definition of "violence".

It does not need to have human on human trauma to be considered violence.  Observe:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violence

violence
noun
mass noun

    1Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
    ‘violence erupted in protest marches’
    ‘domestic violence against women’
    ‘the fear of physical violence’
    ‘screen violence’

    1.1Law The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

2Strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.
‘the violence of her own feelings’

The destruction of the statue via mob action qualifies as mob violence by the oxford definition. Sorry bro, but it does.

Hit +examples.  None of the example sentences use it like that.  No modern human I've ever met uses it like that.  You ever heard of demolition described as violence against walls?  Vandalism isn't legally considered a violent crime.  Dictionaries are imperfect because language is a living thing that evolves over time.  Additionally it varies based on context; if for example two scientists talking about science use the word proof that would mean something different than two laymen.  Since we're not using jargon it makes sense we'd use the common usage of the word, which is against human beings or animals.  On top of all that, if we're going to quote dictionaries, Cambridge defines violence as needing to be against people; their definition excludes destruction and must be targeted against people.  That and the mostly archaic "violent storm" usage, although that of course is not how we're using it.  Sorry bro, I'm an English major.

Sorry bro, you're wrong about this. Violent is used as synonymous with wild and furious behaviour all the time. Would you say that punching a hole in the wall with his fist isn't violent behaviour? Because nobody with any knowledge of English would.

For god's sake, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt that this was just some usage you had happened to miss out on, but it's literally there in the dictionary you linked:  extreme force:
We were all surprised at the violence of his anger/rage.
The storm turned out to be one of unexpected violence.

And then you assert that this is archaic, based on what? The C2 symbol means that it is "proficient" English usage level. Googling "violent storm" brings up lots of examples of it being used. You're just pulling this argument out of your arse. Sorry bro, maybe you should have majored in something else.

[Antioch]

I am not even sure what we are discussing now.

Is it that antifa and other far-left groups don't use violence? Is it that the far right uses more violence than the far left?

Because I think the far right uses more violence than the far left. But I don't see how that makes those in the far left that do use violence any less assholes.

[Neonivek]

Because I think the far right uses more violence than the far left. But I don't see how that makes those in the far left that do use violence any less assholes.

Part of it is also how often it is reported and echoed. (though yeah the Far Right probably use more violence)

The Far Right groups typically have rather indefensible positions that have absolutely no shred of sympathy. You are usually excused for hating them.

The Far Left groups typically on the surface have rather moral ideas and use people as props to illicit sympathy, though if you dig beneath the surface or pay attention to their actions you find that they aren't the best people. If you hate them you often, by extension, hate those they advocate for at least as far as social conventions go.

[wierd]

The irony of invoking the same logic as the nazis, namely-- the very existence of the hated group is intolerable, and justifies my hate and violence-- also does not seem to sink in, as evidenced by even some of the statements here in this thread.

If I am hard on the left leaning people of this thread, it is because I expect and demand better from them. I see them becoming exactly the thing they rail against, and it displeases me greatly.

When they try to weasel out of it with no true scottsmen, appeals to emotion fallacies, shameless enshrinement of systemic biases, et al--- I get a bit hostile, and start whipping out the neutral sources, and neutral rhetoric to try and rein them back into the straight and narrow path of progress, and away from violence and hate.

[Neonivek]

If anything... You would think the left would be the ones who would be the most against Mob Justice.

Since, you know, their entire fight for ages was against Mob Justice...

Then again the Left has also fought against Censorship for ages... and today, more and more, they want to use it extensively.

So maybe that is just how the Paradigms shift.

[Antioch]

I get the impression that there were fights during the entire day before the car murder.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000005363670/charlottesville-virginia-white-nationalist-protests.html

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: RE: picking sides (click to show/hide)

The irony of invoking the same logic as the nazis, namely-- the very existence of the hated group is intolerable, and justifies my hate and violence-- also does not seem to sink in, as evidenced by even some of the statements here in this thread.
If I am hard on the left leaning people of this thread, it is because I expect and demand better from them. I see them becoming exactly the thing they rail against, and it displeases me greatly.

What is your opinion on lefties being violent against what they see as existential threats to their lives. Are their actions not then defensible, becoming violent to save their own kin?

If anything... You would think the left would be the ones who would be the most against Mob Justice.
Since, you know, their entire fight for ages was against Mob Justice...
Then again the Left has also fought against Censorship for ages... and today, more and more, they want to use it extensively.
So maybe that is just how the Paradigms shift.

Could just be how left wing people aren't a hive mind and can simultaneously support censorship and free speech, because they consist of individuals who act in accordance with their own agendas