Democrats = Antifa = BS

[phiwum]

I disagree. I want to see more of that kind of thing. More protests of all (peaceful) kinds. Civility doesn't matter anymore.

Bullhonkies.

We have to return to a civil society, a place where disagreement doesn't make one my enemy, generally speaking.

 

[Belz...]

Bullhonkies.

We have to return to a civil society, a place where disagreement doesn't make one my enemy, generally speaking.

Interesting. Loss of civility has been a bad thing, but the solution of some is to do the same, rather than seek to bring civility back.

I'm honestly not sure which of the two options is better.

 

[phiwum]

Do you believe that about protests in general or specifically protesting elected officials in restaurants?

Surely, it depends on the protest.

Protesting elected officials in restaurants does no political good. Many other forms of protest also do no political good (shutting down rush hour traffic in the morning commute seems terribly counterproductive to me).

Other forms may well inform the public.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Selected passage from David Wong's "Vote Like the Fate Of The World Depends On It" (minor language cleanup to comply with the MA)
http://www.cracked.com/blog/vote-like-fate-world-depends-it/ (Link contains some foul language)

You might not have guessed this because I'm so well-adjusted, but I spent every Sunday growing up hearing that the Apocalypse was imminent -- within the year, maybe within the month or the hour. I would call the congregation "doomsday preppers," but here's the thing: They weren't prepping at all. They talked like the apocalypse was coming, describing in chilling detail how soon, the godless government would start beheading Christians. But they weren't spending their spare time stocking water, canned goods, or fuel. They walked out of those sermons about the impending starvation and pestilence and then went home to watch the Chicago Bears.

I don't think they were lying about their beliefs; it's just that those beliefs didn't exist anywhere outside of their skulls. They certainly didn't extend to their feet, which could have carried them to the hardware store to get water purification pills and a (censored) of batteries. They never propelled them to the library to study insurgency and guerrilla tactics. They believed the climactic battle with Satan was at hand, but they didn't believe it.

I'm bringing this up now because today I can open up my Twitter feed and see a meme about how only guns and guillotines will end the Trumpocalypse, followed minutes later by that exact same user lavishing praise on Red Dead Redemption 2. ("I'm 70 hours in and barely scratched the surface!")

So now, on the eve of a vote that can reverse the tide of history, I'm curious to see. All that talk for the last two years about how we're living under the new Hitler, do people really believe it? Or is it just, like, a thing we say?

 

[uke2se]

Bullhonkies.

We have to return to a civil society, a place where disagreement doesn't make one my enemy, generally speaking.

I agree. And the way (the only way as far as I'm concerned) to do that is to make sure the people who killed civility lose all power. To do that, civility can't be a factor.

Winning at all costs. Learn from the right or perish.

 

[uke2se]

Surely, it depends on the protest.

Protesting elected officials in restaurants does no political good. Many other forms of protest also do no political good (shutting down rush hour traffic in the morning commute seems terribly counterproductive to me).

Other forms may well inform the public.

Protesting elected officials in elevators did seem to have had an effect though, however slight.

So, restaurants - no, elevators - yes?

 

[Belz...]

Selected passage from David Wong's "Vote Like the Fate Of The World Depends On It" (minor language cleanup to comply with the MA
http://www.cracked.com/blog/vote-like-fate-world-depends-it/ (Link contains some foul language)

If one doesn't act on their beliefs, can we say they hold that belief at all?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The fact that Democrats haven't spent the election season calling Republicans Nazis is a testimony to their civility.
Trump, otoh, has called Democrats enemies, traitors, evil, criminals, liars and cheaters.
Civility is very much the problem of one party's leader at the moment.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If one doesn't act on their beliefs, can we say they hold that belief at all?

Without getting too deep into hair splitting, no I don't think we can.

Like I've said for a long time if all this passion and anger doesn't translate into voter turnout, it really does have to be dismissed as just showy, lookit me nonsense.

And like David Wong said in the full article I've never wanted to be wrong about anything more in my life... but I really don't think I am.

Protesting, screaming, harassing people... this is fun. It's primal and visceral and makes you feel good. Voting is boring, there's no catharsis, no feedback.

This really is a "Put your money where your mouth is" moment for the current wave of Liberalism/Progressivism for me.

 

[phiwum]

...especially from somebody whose initial claim was not that they're equal but that the far less violent side is somehow worse.

And the Republican legislator who was targeted with a gun had been voting for the Republicans' bills to deprive Americans of medical care, knowing perfectly well that that would kill thousands per year; shooting at people who vote for mass murder, or even treat mass murder of peasants as a legitimate thing for the aristocracy to vote on at all, is public defense at least, and potentially also self defense.

******* ridiculous.

Not how a democracy works. This is a public policy dispute. The GOP has not installed death camps to eradicate minorities.

We can well think that the GOP's policies result in needless deaths. If so, we should shout that from the rafters, with evidence. It is not an excuse to gun them down, for God's sake.

Itching for a civil war, are you? Eager for the GOP faithful to respond in kind and plug a few Dems, so that you can, what, hunker down and protect your little bunker?

Read too much teen dystopian fiction perhaps?

 

[phiwum]

Interesting. Loss of civility has been a bad thing, but the solution of some is to do the same, rather than seek to bring civility back.

I'm honestly not sure which of the two options is better.

Bringing civility back is a tall order. It means playing decently when your opponent won't.

The alternative is to adopt his tactics and to pretend that, no matter, once you regain power, you'll turn all decent and good again. Sure. That's bound to happen.

 

[Stacko]

******* ridiculous.

Not how a democracy works. This is a public policy dispute. The GOP has not installed death camps to eradicate minorities.

We can well think that the GOP's policies result in needless deaths. If so, we should shout that from the rafters, with evidence. It is not an excuse to gun them down, for God's sake.

Itching for a civil war, are you? Eager for the GOP faithful to respond in kind and plug a few Dems, so that you can, what, hunker down and protect your little bunker?

Read too much teen dystopian fiction perhaps?

You're too easily dismissing that people literally have skin in the game of this public policy dispute. If the end legislation from the dispute would result in my death or the death of a loved one, I doubt I would be as dispassionate about it as you would like.

 

[phiwum]

I agree. And the way (the only way as far as I'm concerned) to do that is to make sure the people who killed civility lose all power. To do that, civility can't be a factor.

Winning at all costs. Learn from the right or perish.

Sure. Win at all costs, and then you can bring back civility.

But why would you? You've already given up the moral high ground, hardened your hearts to concerns about honesty, decency and respect and (by hypothesis) crushed your opponent.

And then, noble being you are, you suddenly reverse course, become decent and reasonable again.

Yes, history is littered with examples of those who've adopted horrible means to gain power, only to relinquish those means and open the process back up to their former opponents, no harm done.

Which one of us is the realist here?

 

[uke2se]

Bringing civility back is a tall order. It means playing decently when your opponent won't.

The alternative is to adopt his tactics and to pretend that, no matter, once you regain power, you'll turn all decent and good again. Sure. That's bound to happen.

What's the solution then? Quick as you like. Election today.

 

[phiwum]

Protesting elected officials in elevators did seem to have had an effect though, however slight.

So, restaurants - no, elevators - yes?

Elevators in the halls of government power? Yeah, I can deal with that. I'd prefer it was a bit less confrontational, but Flake is a man of principle who could be swayed by effective argument in that way.

Not an elevator in one's own residence, say.

 

[uke2se]

Sure. Win at all costs, and then you can bring back civility.

But why would you? You've already given up the moral high ground, hardened your hearts to concerns about honesty, decency and respect and (by hypothesis) crushed your opponent.

And then, noble being you are, you suddenly reverse course, become decent and reasonable again.

Yes, history is littered with examples of those who've adopted horrible means to gain power, only to relinquish those means and open the process back up to their former opponents, no harm done.

Which one of us is the realist here?

Then you can sit on your ivory tower and look on as the GOP sweep every election.

At least you never gave up the moral high ground. That's just as good as stopping dangerous GOP policy, right?

 

[JoeMorgue]

What's the solution then? Quick as you like. Election today.

Vote. The thing that, statistically speaking, the young people doing the most protesting and "The End is Nigh"ing are least likely to do. The one thing built within the system that actually matters but for some reason the "DIS IS DA MOST IMPORTANT MOMENT IN HISTORY!" people sharing memes online seemingly never want to do.

Right now political outrage in the US is still largely at the "Well we've tried doing nothing and we're all out of ideas." stage.

 

[phiwum]

If one doesn't act on their beliefs, can we say they hold that belief at all?

You pragmatist, you. (Philosophical sense, William James, etc.)

 

[uke2se]

Elevators in the halls of government power? Yeah, I can deal with that. I'd prefer it was a bit less confrontational, but Flake is a man of principle who could be swayed by effective argument in that way.

Not an elevator in one's own residence, say.

I'll get the word out.

 

[phiwum]

You're too easily dismissing that people literally have skin in the game of this public policy dispute. If the end legislation from the dispute would result in my death or the death of a loved one, I doubt I would be as dispassionate about it as you would like.

And so you would assassinate Congressmen involved in the decision?

I'm not dispassionate. I'm just not a friggin' nutcase. The exact same reasoning (with some less reliable beliefs) is precisely what led to the Squirrel Hill shooter, a man who felt aggrieved by the dastardly invasion sponsored by the Jews, a man losing his race to other races because of this invasion.

Of course, you and I regard both the facts and the values (race matters) as nonsense. But the same fundamental reasoning that would justify shooting Republicans is used to kill Jews.