Old Thread About Election Consequences

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

lord_pabulum said:

ml1 said:

lord_pabulum said:
The above post is a good example of vitriol with an emphasis on violence.

 oh the humanity!

It's ok if you are pro-violence, there are plenty of extremist groups you could join.  You might have to move though.

 seriously?

 ml1 questioning violence?


Same person, ml1, who advocates violence, rather than discussion, to resolve issues (namely, punch a nazi in the nose rather than attempt to persuade).
ml1, when will punching a nazi in the nose not be enough?

when will you take up punching those who support the Janus decision?
or, when will you take up more violent means against nazis (because punching them in the nose has not been effective)?
Can you agree that violence should be avoided and additional speech encouraged with those who have viewpoints which all of us strongly disagree with (such as nazis)?

 I'm still ok with people punching Nazis.  I'm not a pacifist and never claimed to be one. 

The rest of your post is just nonsense.

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

 ml1 questioning violence?
Same person, ml1, who advocates violence, rather than discussion, to resolve issues (namely, punch a nazi in the nose rather than attempt to persuade).
ml1, when will punching a nazi in the nose not be enough?
when will you take up punching those who support the Janus decision?
or, when will you take up more violent means against nazis (because punching them in the nose has not been effective)?
Can you agree that violence should be avoided and additional speech encouraged with those who have viewpoints which all of us strongly disagree with (such as nazis)?

Since you brought this up, how’re you making out with the PEN report, the New Yorker article (if there’s a firewall, it’s worth the cover price) and the Weinstein video?

 I will get to them (probably over the weekend).

Back to the issue at hand.  Can you agree that violence should be avoided and additional speech encouraged with those who have viewpoints which all of us strongly disagree with (such as nazis)?

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

lord_pabulum said:

ml1 said:

lord_pabulum said:
The above post is a good example of vitriol with an emphasis on violence.

 oh the humanity!

It's ok if you are pro-violence, there are plenty of extremist groups you could join.  You might have to move though.

 seriously?

 ml1 questioning violence?


Same person, ml1, who advocates violence, rather than discussion, to resolve issues (namely, punch a nazi in the nose rather than attempt to persuade).
ml1, when will punching a nazi in the nose not be enough?

when will you take up punching those who support the Janus decision?
or, when will you take up more violent means against nazis (because punching them in the nose has not been effective)?
Can you agree that violence should be avoided and additional speech encouraged with those who have viewpoints which all of us strongly disagree with (such as nazis)?

 I'm still ok with people punching Nazis.  I'm not a pacifist and never claimed to be one. 
The rest of your post is just nonsense.

 What your position (punching nazis position) does is work towards normalizing violence in our society to resolve issues that most persons would otherwise resolve with more speech.

I'm ok with normalizing violence toward Nazis and white supremacists.  Let's try and remember what normalizing the white supremacist ideas has led to in the history of this country.  Hint: a lot worse stuff than Richard Spencer being punched in the nose.

How white Americans used lynchings to terrorize and control black people

I should also add, that I personally wouldn't punch a Nazi.  Here's what an ethicist has to say about someone like me getting satisfaction out of seeing someone else punch a Nazi:

Why do you think people who are smart and relatively civil in their regular lives are taking joy in the punch?

There are no thought crimes. So it's hard not to feel some glee when a proponent of physical violence against others is himself the victim of the very act he prescribes. I'm not saying you don't get to feel good when someone punches Richard Spencer in the nose. You would have to be superhuman and a more moral person than I not to feel some happiness that he received just the treatment he was advocating for others. But that doesn't make it right to do it.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jppmn4/we-asked-an-ethicist-if-its-ok-to-punch-nazis-in-the-face

I now understand that the holocaust and WWII resulted from the Social Democrats not trying harder to persuade the Nazis that they were wrong in their beliefs.

Thank you for the history lesson.

ml1 said:
I'm ok with normalizing violence toward Nazis and white supremacists.  Let's try and remember what normalizing the white supremacist ideas has led to in the history of this country.  Hint: a lot worse stuff than Richard Spencer being punched in the nose.
How white Americans used lynchings to terrorize and control black people

So, a bunch of idiotic white supremacists are legally (obtained permits or whatever) marching down the street.  They are set upon by a mob with bats and pitchforks, who kill a few and put some in hospital.  This is normal in the 21st century for you then.

ml1 said:
I'm ok with normalizing violence toward Nazis and white supremacists.  Let's try and remember what normalizing the white supremacist ideas has led to in the history of this country.  Hint: a lot worse stuff than Richard Spencer being punched in the nose.
How white Americans used lynchings to terrorize and control black people

 To summarize, you don't desire to reduce oppression inflicted by vigilantes.  You just want the vigilantes to act against those you despise.  Who will you despise tomorrow?

drummerboy said:

 The "Dems" who convincingly chose her over Bernie obviously didn't think she was toxic. Nor did the majority of the country who voted for her.
To say nothing of the fact that all of this "toxicity" was created by a hostile press corps (i.e. largely the NYT). Emails and speaking fees and Benghazi!! don't seem so important these days, does it?

 Can we have some historical perspective? When Hillary lost the nomination to Barack by a close margin and then Barack made her the top cabinet officer she became a leading candidate, and when Biden declined to seek the nomination she became the presumptive nominee.

We have President Trump PRINCIPALLY because the Republican Party failed to do whatever was necessary, whether in accordance with or in violation of its rules, to stop him!

A lot of energy here on addressing those who didn't vote Hillary in 2016 when those energies might be better spent stopping the current carnage with lobbying members of congress regarding Supreme Court nominees and preparing for the all important November 2018 election.

lord_pabulum said:

ml1 said:
I'm ok with normalizing violence toward Nazis and white supremacists.  Let's try and remember what normalizing the white supremacist ideas has led to in the history of this country.  Hint: a lot worse stuff than Richard Spencer being punched in the nose.
How white Americans used lynchings to terrorize and control black people

So, a bunch of idiotic white supremacists are legally (obtained permits or whatever) marching down the street.  They are set upon by a mob with bats and pitchforks, who kill a few and put some in hospital.  This is normal in the 21st century for you then.

no.

This goes back to something I probably wrote a year ago that apparently stuck in RFA's craw at the time.  I mentioned being ok that people have taken to punching someone like Richard Spencer in the face.  In the sense that a punch in the face is "violence," he's now coming into a discussion all these months later saying I'm a proponent of "violence."  And I'm not a proponent of indiscriminate violence.  I'm also not someone who would personally engage in violence.

The world really isn't a place of extremes and rigid rules.  Of course I'm not in favor of armed vigilantes killing people at a demonstration.  OTOH, if a white supremacist is given a mostly humiliating but not destructive blow to the nose, I'm not going to be upset by it.

And if folks really can't see how Nazis and KKK members aren't a special case, and not just someone with a different POV, I guess there's no way that I'm going to convince anyone otherwise.

ml1 said:

This goes back to something I probably wrote a year ago that apparently stuck in RFA's craw at the time.  I mentioned being ok that people have taken to punching someone like Richard Spencer in the face.  In the sense that a punch in the face is "violence," he's now coming into a discussion all these months later saying I'm a proponent of "violence."  

 I thought it had to do with telling someone parked in a crosswalk across from Arturo's that someone was going around keying cars that did that.

Speaking of "punching" Nazis:

https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/the-irish-man-who-saved-hitler-26713584.html

LOST said:

ml1 said:

This goes back to something I probably wrote a year ago that apparently stuck in RFA's craw at the time.  I mentioned being ok that people have taken to punching someone like Richard Spencer in the face.  In the sense that a punch in the face is "violence," he's now coming into a discussion all these months later saying I'm a proponent of "violence."  

 I thought it had to do with telling someone parked in a crosswalk across from Arturo's that someone was going around keying cars that did that.

yes, that too.  

and then there was the person who wrote that running up a big popular vote margin would be like hitting someone with a "blunt object" and other folks were aghast, claiming that using that image was also a literal call to violence.

Some people just a) don't understand a joke and b) don't understand metaphors.  It's like arguing with five-year-olds or people for whom English is a second language and don't get the nuances. 

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Klinker said:

sbenois said:
^^^^This

 Sure, but, in the grand scheme of things, which mistake had more of an effect on the election, folks voting for Stein or the Dems choosing a candidate so toxic that she could lose to a flaming orange pile of poop?  You seem very determined to blame the Stein voters (who I do, indeed hold responsible for some portion of this debacle) but you are very reluctant to admit that the HRC back room juggernaut shares some of the blame. 
If people are unwilling to be honest about what really happened it is hard to see how we will avoid these pitfalls in the future.

 I should be drawn and quartered for this, but I can't resist. Hillary was the nominee because she GOT MORE VOTES than the guy who temporarily, and opportunistically,  decided to be a member of the party.. Full stop. Whatever her faults, we Dems chose her. All of us!  Despite  the bb's, and her own failures, she still WON, just not in the right places. So yes, those phony dems who would not support her bear FULL responsibility for this. Get over it, and help us right the wrong. 

 Surely, at this late date, you cannot be so thick that you don't understand that progressives are upset with the process, not the election results.  If you either are that stupid or are going to pretend that you are that stupid, I don't think you are going to be capable of having a meaningful conversation.

ETA: I should say that the members of the democratic wing of the Democratic Party would have OBVIOUSLY preferred that Bernie won all of the primaries so that he could have beat Trump in the general.  That said, I, like so  many of my "bros" (both male and female), held my nose and voted for the ham sandwich with the D next to her name, even though the meat was rancid and the bread was moldy.

Just thought I'd throw out an idea that might give us a better chance going forward. Would we have a better outcome if in the next round we lobby our party for a wider range of candidates. I'm also for more debates.

Campaign speeches have great sound bites but often don't give me the answers I'm looking for. With several debates, sometimes I get lucky and hear something that gives me a new perspective.

If a candidate is promising free college or lower property taxes, I want to hear how they intend to pay for it. If a candidate is strong on domestic policy, I want to hear clarity on foreign policy. These are simplistic examples but I may find a candidate charismatic and then hear a lack of knowledge in an area I find important.

I thought the GOP had a wild amount of nominees, too many to get in depth answers during the debates.  But the Dems had only 3 candidates and I think 3 debates. So does anyone think it would be worth pressing the Democratic Party to give us a bigger choice?  We all know at least a few who are thinking of running. We may have our own ideas.

As for the super delegates if we don't want them we need to start lobbying now. Maybe if people sent back the donation request emails, with a "not till you dump the super delegates" they might latch on to the one person one vote concept. Of course we still have to deal with gerrymandering and the electoral college but it never hurts to be proactive.

 I think Lord P, as a Trump supporter,  is just expressing an understandable concern about his nose.

Klinker said:
 I think Lord P, as a Trump supporter,  is just expressing an understandable concern about his nose.

Only if you believe it’s lengthening, because he has stated more than a few times that he isn’t one. (Independent who voted for Gary Johnson, as I recall.)

ml1 said:

LOST said:

ml1 said:

This goes back to something I probably wrote a year ago that apparently stuck in RFA's craw at the time.  I mentioned being ok that people have taken to punching someone like Richard Spencer in the face.  In the sense that a punch in the face is "violence," he's now coming into a discussion all these months later saying I'm a proponent of "violence."  

 I thought it had to do with telling someone parked in a crosswalk across from Arturo's that someone was going around keying cars that did that.

yes, that too.  
and then there was the person who wrote that running up a big popular vote margin would be like hitting someone with a "blunt object" and other folks were aghast, claiming that using that image was also a literal call to violence.
Some people just a) don't understand a joke and b) don't understand metaphors.  It's like arguing with five-year-olds or people for whom English is a second language and don't get the nuances. 

 Apparently some people don't understand what a metaphor is, either. 

ETA: You are correct Mr Schmidt

ml1 said:

Some people just a) don't understand a joke and b) don't understand metaphors.  It's like arguing with five-year-olds or people for whom English is a second language and don't get the nuances. 

This is like something SHS would say in defense of Trump retweeting GIFs with him hitting HRC with a golf ball or body-slamming CNN -- which many folks got lathered up about. 

If one thinks jokes about hitting someone with a blunt object and punching nazis are ok, one should also think Trump jokes are ok.  

the "blunt object" post wasn't mine.  It also wasn't a joke, it was a metaphor.  Big popular vote margin="blunt object."

If you think that's a call for violence, I guess I better be careful around you that I don't suggest that the Warriors killed the Cavaliers in the Finals this year.

Klinker said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 I should be drawn and quartered for this, but I can't resist. Hillary was the nominee because she GOT MORE VOTES than the guy who temporarily, and opportunistically,  decided to be a member of the party.. Full stop. Whatever her faults, we Dems chose her. All of us!  Despite  the bb's, and her own failures, she still WON, just not in the right places. So yes, those phony dems who would not support her bear FULL responsibility for this. Get over it, and help us right the wrong. 

 Surely, at this late date, you cannot be so thick that you don't understand that progressives are upset with the process, not the election results.  If you either are that stupid or are going to pretend that you are that stupid, I don't think you are going to be capable of having a meaningful conversation.


ETA: I should say that the members of the democratic wing of the Democratic Party would have OBVIOUSLY preferred that Bernie won all of the primaries so that he could have beat Trump in the general.  That said, I, like so  many of my "bros" (both male and female), held my nose and voted for the ham sandwich with the D next to her name, even though the meat was rancid and the bread was moldy.

 Personal attacks aside, I fully understand that so-called "progressives" have a b!tch about the way things went. BECAUSE THEY LOST. And they feel, as they try to find a meaning other than the unattractiveness of their candidate for that loss, that the Democratic "machine" stole that nomination. Very understandable, if wrong. But you keep pushing this $hit, though the election is long OVER. 

I have a suggestion, to which I think many of us more traditional dems would agree. FORGET 2016, and work toward developing a message that we can ALL stand behind. Let your perceived wrongs go, and help develop a positive, truly progressive theme for 2018, and then we can use that to start the process of choosing who should be the presenter of that program for 2020.

While I totally understand why people think it's "OK to punch a Nazi", and how that can feel good, I think it's a mistake.  

There are 2 primary reasons why.  First, when you initiate violence unprovoked, you start to surrender the moral high ground and the nazi in question can start to paint himself as the victim.  I think you run the risk of introducing perception problems.

The other thing that worries me is the definition of a nazi.  I've seen many people painted as nazis and/or white supremacists who clearly aren't.   I've seen Ben Shapiro(an orthodox jew who is also a conservative) been called a nazi.  I've seen Dave Rubin(a Jewish married gay man) called a nazi, homophobe, etc.  

In a charged environment where we seem all too eager to label one another, I'm not sure I'd sign up for initiating violence on anyone because of a label. 

Can we all agree that we should hope for the most electable Democrats on the ballot this midterm?   Left, right, or central?   If a Socialist has no chance against a Republican, I don’t want them on the ballot.  We’re at risk of losing even more than we’ve already lost if we can’t take the House. A day like that would be second only to Trump’s win as saddest day in politics in my lifetime.  

Terp: I think the post below is my favorite of everything I've ever read that you have posted.  Thank you for reminding me of these principles.  I do fear the future in our beloved country and parts of me despair over it.  I do think we all need to prepare ourselves for the worst but we don't need to provoke it.

terp said:
While I totally understand why people think it's "OK to punch a Nazi", and how that can feel good, I think it's a mistake.  
There are 2 primary reasons why.  First, when you initiate violence unprovoked, you start to surrender the moral high ground and the nazi in question can start to paint himself as the victim.  I think you run the risk of introducing perception problems.
The other thing that worries me is the definition of a nazi.  I've seen many people painted as nazis and/or white supremacists who clearly aren't.   I've seen Ben Shapiro(an orthodox jew who is also a conservative) been called a nazi.  I've seen Dave Rubin(a Jewish married gay man) called a nazi, homophobe, etc.  
In a charged environment where we seem all too eager to label one another, I'm not sure I'd sign up for initiating violence on anyone because of a label. 

terp said:
While I totally understand why people think it's "OK to punch a Nazi", and how that can feel good, I think it's a mistake.  
There are 2 primary reasons why.  First, when you initiate violence unprovoked, you start to surrender the moral high ground and the nazi in question can start to paint himself as the victim.  I think you run the risk of introducing perception problems.
The other thing that worries me is the definition of a nazi.  I've seen many people painted as nazis and/or white supremacists who clearly aren't.   I've seen Ben Shapiro(an orthodox jew who is also a conservative) been called a nazi.  I've seen Dave Rubin(a Jewish married gay man) called a nazi, homophobe, etc.  
In a charged environment where we seem all too eager to label one another, I'm not sure I'd sign up for initiating violence on anyone because of a label. 

 You don't think espousing Nazi-like values is a provocation?

ok.

drummerboy said:

terp said:
While I totally understand why people think it's "OK to punch a Nazi", and how that can feel good, I think it's a mistake.  
There are 2 primary reasons why.  First, when you initiate violence unprovoked, you start to surrender the moral high ground and the nazi in question can start to paint himself as the victim.  I think you run the risk of introducing perception problems.
The other thing that worries me is the definition of a nazi.  I've seen many people painted as nazis and/or white supremacists who clearly aren't.   I've seen Ben Shapiro(an orthodox jew who is also a conservative) been called a nazi.  I've seen Dave Rubin(a Jewish married gay man) called a nazi, homophobe, etc.  
In a charged environment where we seem all too eager to label one another, I'm not sure I'd sign up for initiating violence on anyone because of a label. 

 You don't think espousing Nazi-like values is a provocation?

ok.

 Are you arguing such a provocation is equivalent to physical violence?

terp said:
While I totally understand why people think it's "OK to punch a Nazi", and how that can feel good, I think it's a mistake.  
There are 2 primary reasons why.  First, when you initiate violence unprovoked, you start to surrender the moral high ground and the nazi in question can start to paint himself as the victim.  I think you run the risk of introducing perception problems.
The other thing that worries me is the definition of a nazi.  I've seen many people painted as nazis and/or white supremacists who clearly aren't.   I've seen Ben Shapiro(an orthodox jew who is also a conservative) been called a nazi.  I've seen Dave Rubin(a Jewish married gay man) called a nazi, homophobe, etc.  
In a charged environment where we seem all too eager to label one another, I'm not sure I'd sign up for initiating violence on anyone because of a label. 

your point about the counter-productiveness of hitting Nazis is a good one, and the best argument against it.  To allow nazis and white supremacists to claim victimhood works against trying to refute them.  But that's a pragmatic argument, and not really a moral argument.  

With regard to defining Nazis -- we can safely define it as the people who march and chant "blood and soil" or carry/wear swastikas.  I think we can all agree that those people really are Nazis.

and getting back to jokes about hitting cars or people, yes I'm guilty of thinking some of them are funny.  Like this one:

and in a similar vein, at the 4:05 mark: