Freedom of speech?

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't think anyone is concerned about this person getting their teeth knocked out. I doubt anyone here give a crap about that person at all.

On the other hand, I personally care a whole lot about the normalization of violence against people one disagrees with, and I personally care a whole lot about the unabashed lauding of the aggressor who knocked this guy's teeth out, and I personally care a lot about the bloodthirsty zealots who celebrate people getting their teeth knocked out because they feel morally superior and believe that violence against beliefs is justified on that basis.

I don't think I'm alone in holding that view.

This person is a Proud Boy, a voluntary association with a group that explicitly espouses, and has acted upon, calls for fascistic violence.

That's why.

The fact that he failed as an organizer and his buddies left his ass out to dry if funny, but doesn't really change that his intentions are violence.

There's no "time outs" in this fight, he showed up undermanned and got his ass kicked. Sucks for him.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Would you honestly feel guilty for killing a Proud Boy in self defense, assuming the shooting was consistent with legal/moral requirements of such things?

I wouldn't feel at all bad about saving my own life, or someone else's life, from an armed fascist. I wish Huber had a gun when he heroically confronted Rittenhouse, he might still be alive if he had.

Unilateral disarmament isn't peace, it's surrender.

This is a baffling perspective. You feel justified in carrying a firearm to a protest on the assumption that you might have to use it in self-defense... yet in the very same post, you demonize Rittenhouse who used his firearm in self defense during a protest.

In my view, you hold some extremely hypocritical beliefs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This person is a Proud Boy, a voluntary association with a group that explicitly espouses, and has acted upon, calls for fascistic violence.

That's why.

The fact that he failed as an organizer and his buddies left his ass out to dry if funny, but doesn't really change that his intentions are violence.

There's no "time outs" in this fight, he showed up undermanned and got his ass kicked. Sucks for him.

From reading many of your posts, I infer that your intentions are violent.

By your own logic, are people justified in initiating violence against you?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This is a baffling perspective. You feel justified in carrying a firearm to a protest on the assumption that you might have to use it in self-defense... yet in the very same post, you demonize Rittenhouse who used his firearm in self defense during a protest.

In my view, you hold some extremely hypocritical beliefs.

I don't think Rittenhouse had a lawful self defense claim. it's not complicated.

I generally think that open carry is a terrible thing and probably ought to be unlawful in nearly every circumstance, and it's something often done with the clear purpose of intimidating other through the implicit threat of a firearm. I think the trial will show that Kyle did not have a lawful self defense claim and just committed ordinary murder. Only time will tell.

Conceal carry is another matter altogether.

 

[portlandatheist]

The notion that the state should have a monopoly on violence has been and integral part of Western civilization and political philsophoy for hundreds of years. The break down of that social contract can be a prelude to civil war or other spasms of violence. This very old concept isn't only for people who are "centrists" or people who are equivocating "both sides".

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is a baffling perspective. You feel justified in carrying a firearm to a protest on the assumption that you might have to use it in self-defense... yet in the very same post, you demonize Rittenhouse who used his firearm in self defense during a protest.

In my view, you hold some extremely hypocritical beliefs.

Well for one thing ST is talking about actually obeying the law instead of having a minor illegally open carrying an assault rifle in a different state. BUt clearly gun laws don't matter and looking for trouble is the same as worrying that your peaceful protest will be attacked.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd like to reiterate the post that you "missed".

I abhor political violence. The fact that "one side" does it more doesn't make it more acceptable when it's coming from "the other side".

I deplore aggression. I deplore aggression in the form of military engagements that are not purely defensive. I also deplore aggression in the form of self-righteous vigilantes who feel justified forcing their views on other people through violence. The fact that military aggression has a larger overall impact does not make idiotic vigilantes more acceptable to me.

On more than one occasion, you've presented views that seem to imply that I should choose the "lesser" evil, and support it. I refuse to do so. You see this as a choice between a great evil and a minor evil, and look no further. I see a choice between evil and good, and hence I will choose good. I reject your false dichotomy as nothing more than a thinly-veiled appeal to might makes right.

Suburban Turkey, as far as I can tell, you actively and consciously choose an evil approach as a means of retaliation, in preference to a good approach.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

From reading many of your posts, I infer that your intentions are violent.

By your own logic, are people justified in initiating violence against you?

Do I have a record of violence comparable to the Proud Boys? No. Am I a member of an explicitly violence-oriented street gang? No. Do I wear the uniform of a brownshirt intimidation squad? Also no.

It would probably be difficult for most people to identify me as an enemy on account of me taking no steps to engage in wanton intimidation tactics.

If you see me walking down the street wearing a Red Guard hat, swing away.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think Rittenhouse had a lawful self defense claim. it's not complicated.

If you go to a "peaceful" protest fully armed, with the expectation of a violent confrontation, I don't think you've got a lawful self-defense claim either. See - it works both ways.

You don't have any claim to moral superiority here. Just because you strongly believe yourself to be in the right doesn't actually make you right. It just makes you a true believer.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If you go to a "peaceful" protest fully armed, with the expectation of a violent confrontation, I don't think you've got a lawful self-defense claim either. See - it works both ways.

You don't have any claim to moral superiority here. Just because you strongly believe yourself to be in the right doesn't actually make you right. It just makes you a true believer.

Many people went to that protest fully armed, and only one committed multiple murder.

Perhaps you can parse the difference. Intentions matter.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you go to a "peaceful" protest fully armed, with the expectation of a violent confrontation, I don't think you've got a lawful self-defense claim either. See - it works both ways.

So did the KKK get of properly in the Greensboro massacre? Did the carrying of some guns by those in the death to the Klan march justify the klan open firing like the courts decided?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The notion that the state should have a monopoly on violence has been and integral part of Western civilization and political philsophoy for hundreds of years. The break down of that social contract can be a prelude to civil war or other spasms of violence. This very old concept isn't only for people who are "centrists" or people who are equivocating "both sides".

Very much yes.

 

[Thermal]

Would you honestly feel guilty for killing a Proud Boy in self defense, assuming the shooting was consistent with legal/moral requirements of such things?

Yes, pretty much no matter what the circumstances. Not a fan of killing. When I was on the volly Rescue Squad, I had the pleasure of making last ditch efforts to bring corpses back to life. I don't take dead humans as cheap fodder for argumentation anymore.

I wouldn't feel at all bad about saving my own life, or someone else's life, from an armed fascist. I wish Huber had a gun when he heroically confronted Rittenhouse, he might still be alive if he had.

How well do you train to fire in the streets in uncontrolled mobs? Honest question: how do you practice to not hit bystanders in various scenarios, like having your fingers or a knee already broken? The odds of something going wrong in a violent crowd are far too high to introduce a gun into one.

Unilateral disarmament isn't peace, it's surrender.

I live in a no-carry State. We have not surrendered to anything.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The notion that the state should have a monopoly on violence has been and integral part of Western civilization and political philsophoy for hundreds of years. The break down of that social contract can be a prelude to civil war or other spasms of violence. This very old concept isn't only for people who are "centrists" or people who are equivocating "both sides".

The monopoly of violence is contingent on the cops being impartial, non political wielders of that violence.

Clearly Portland has demonstrated that the police are not just "calling balls and strikes".

I think you're quite right. The cops are probably the most responsible for the current atmosphere of street violence because of their refusal (until very recently) to actually police their right wing allies.

After the cops arrested Swinney, the Proud Boy rallies became rather dull affairs. Turns out going to jail is something that most of these would be brownshirts doesn't actually want to happen. Imagine how much chaos could have been prevented had the PPB not been so permissive with right wing brownshirts for years.

 

[johnny karate]

You've misunderstood. first off, I didn't offer a rationalization, I admitted that there were some violent rhetoric that I was unaware of - not that I "didn't pay attention to it", but that I literally do not see them because those people are on ignore for good reason.

You’re trying to create daylight between “didn’t pay attention to” and “ignore”. There isn’t any.

The bottom line is, you turn a blind eye to what one side is doing and then make a declaration that the bad behavior is only coming from the other side.

Do you understand that people seeing you do that might think that you’re being disingenuous?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do I have a record of violence comparable to the Proud Boys? No. Am I a member of an explicitly violence-oriented street gang? No. Do I wear the uniform of a brownshirt intimidation squad? Also no.

It would probably be difficult for most people to identify me as an enemy on account of me taking no steps to engage in wanton intimidation tactics.

If you see me walking down the street wearing a Red Guard hat, swing away.

You advocate for and laud violence against certain groups of people. Hell, you laud violence against people that you merely perceive as being potentially associated with a certain group of people.

Why is your advocation for violence less of a threat?

 

[phiwum]

Could you provide a link to any threads Meadmaker has started to specifically decry the Proud Boys or right wing violence in general?

First, I don't know any threads Meadmaker has started about violence at all. He certainly did not start this thread.

I personally would be more likely to start a thread about leftwing violence than right because I think that a number of folks around here support things like coldcocking a Proud Boy and I think that there is some chance of discussion. I don't know anyone who supported, say, what the right did at Charlottesville and it would be utterly useless to try to talk to such a person. I wouldn't try to talk sense to a leftwinger who advocated deadly attacks against the right either. That kind of violence is just so beyond the pale that I expect we all agree it is heinous.

Milder forms of violence, like punching out someone you regard as fascist, are the sorts of topics that may be open for debate.

Obviously, I can't speak for Meadmaker, so I've substituted my own approach. The fact that I criticize leftwing violence doesn't mean I accept more heinous acts from the rightwing. Rather, I see no point in adding "Gosh, I don't think you should run over innocent people in a car!" to an ongoing discussion.

Truth be told, I never said Kim Jong Un shouldn't execute people with an anti-aircraft gun either. Just so you don't mistake my silence for consent, I'll say it now. It's bad to execute people with an anti-aircraft gun.

Oh, and Hitler. He was bad too.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You advocate for and laud violence against certain groups of people. Hell, you laud violence against people that you merely perceive as being potentially associated with a certain group of people.

Why is your advocation for violence less of a threat?

You might think the threats of the left and right are similar, but the data has been in for years. People like me who are "advocating for violence" to your ear are objectively less dangerous.

How does the incontrovertible fact that the right wing is overwhelmingly responsible for political violence this country square with your perceptions? Have you considered that your perception may be faulty?

maybe it is telling that this thread about left wing violence is about a man losing a couple teeth from a punch, where threads about right wing violence often involve gunmen firing into crowds of unarmed people. Perhaps that should indicate something to you.

The Left, no matter how you define it, is objectively less violent. It's not even close. Your inability to accept this is extremely suspicious. Frankly, I don't believe it's sincere.

 

[phiwum]

Seems to me that people who claim to abhor political violence would care a lot about being accurate about the levels of political violence coming from each side.

By all objective measure, the right wing is the overwhelming source of violence at these events. "Both sides" may technically be true, but elides the tremendous disparity of violence that is quite obvious.

I reckon I've explicitly said that the rightwing violence has been largely worse than the leftwing violence, with the only case of parity I can think of is one shooting by someone on the left side of the aisle.

I believe Meadmaker has said the same.

So, who precisely is failing to recognize the difference in degree here? I haven't noticed anyone.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I reckon I've explicitly said that the rightwing violence has been largely worse than the leftwing violence, with the only case of parity I can think of is one shooting by someone on the left side of the aisle.

I believe Meadmaker has said the same.

So, who precisely is failing to recognize the difference in degree here? I haven't noticed anyone.

This comment was largely directed at Emily's Cat.