EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6629
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 23 2017 21:47 Kickstart wrote: My take is that while that is an unfortunate state of things, it is still better to know what these people think. How would you know that racism was a problem if all these people you see doing these things were instead silent about it? If they were silent you would assume it didn't exist because we are in the 21st century after all and by now racism and scapegoating would be at extremely low levels. Now you know its a big problem and that you must combat it. We don't need people to stop being racist at heart, we just need them to have the discipline to not act out. Much like we don't need employees to love the boss, simply have the discipline to do their jobs. Humans will always be hateful to *something*, it is much better and realistic to have social and legal systems to counteract that natural hate and xenophobia than it is to assume that love will take over their hearts and people stop being racists. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On January 23 2017 21:47 Kickstart wrote: My take is that while that is an unfortunate state of things, it is still better to know what these people think. How would you know that racism was a problem if all these people you see doing these things were instead silent about it? If they were silent you would assume it didn't exist because we are in the 21st century after all and by now racism and scapegoating would be at extremely low levels. Now you know its a big problem and that you must combat it. The problem is that when they are open about their bigotry they can pass it on to their children much easier, which only perpetuates the cycle. The common feeling that racism was a thing of the past was a symptom of this silence, and had the silence continued for 2 or 3 generations it might actually be the case as it became a forgotten remnant of a time since past and represented by the extreme margins. When it is in the mainstream, regardless of positive or negative context, the knowledge of its existence spreads to kids who didn't realize it existed, and now might be pulled into that life as something they identify with. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
Its definitely not an easy problem to fix, but violence just escalates problems. The solution as always has to revolve around coordinated action in communities and local governments, to say that this behaviour will meet with more severe punishments, that racism won't be tolerated. It sounds Orwellian but I think people taking smartphone videos of people displaying racist behaviour and then taking it to the police might be a way forward. But it has to be within the law. Also I think it is easy for people to attack people related to the movement. Rather than being an assault on a racist per se, it could be an assault on someone who simply wants to have more white national pride, in the same way as black people do. I am extremely skeptical that protesters on the streets are wise enough to make fine distinctions between the types of people they are targeting. If you are wearing a "make America great again hat", you will probably be attacked if someone does decide to become violent. But anyway, what I find really troubling is that there has been way too much media bias and division this election. If anyone is seen as supporting trump, it is exclusively seen as being due to racism, xenophobia, etc. all the usual words. That is why the protests are so violent, it is impossible to conceive of trump or any of his supporters as being anything but racist. People end up dehumanizing each other, in which case any and all things are allowed, especially violence. But when you analyze the facts, you just see that people are more concerned about illegal immigration than anything else, and that they don't take Trump too seriously. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
You seem to be saying that only legal actions are actions worth taking. All I'm saying is that there are millions of people who know that not to be the case, and some think punching a stupid nazi is a good place to start. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
People have the right to defend themselves against violence, to form volunteer police forces and so on. There are many, many things that can be done under the law. If there actually are discriminatory laws, then they should fight to elect people to have those laws changed, to get their message out in the media and so on. In the mean time, if they are being discriminated against, then yes I am okay with people fighting for their rights because there comes a point when one must fight a tyrannical government in any political system. But this isn't what we're talking about. As far as I understand there isn't widespread support for racism in any state in the USA. So the use of violence, an extreme solution, is not warranted. And the millions living in communities dominated by violence, is a non sequitur. If that violence is illegal, then they can appeal to the state for further aid and learn self defence otherwise. The specific claim that racist attitudes should be met with physical violence is not the same as people having violence being done upon them, and needing to protect themselves. One is instigating violence, the other defends against it. Anyway gotta go! | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21705 Posts
On January 24 2017 00:43 radscorpion9 wrote: Fundamentally you have two options. Either resolve your differences through violence or through coordinated political action. I simply think the latter is preferable and more realistic to bring change rather than escalation. People have the right to defend themselves against violence, to form volunteer police forces and so on. There are many, many things that can be done under the law. If there actually are discriminatory laws, then they should fight to elect people to have those laws changed, to get their message out in the media and so on. In the mean time, if they are being discriminated against, then yes I am okay with people fighting for their rights because there comes a point when one must fight a tyrannical government in any political system. But this isn't what we're talking about. So the use of violence, an extreme solution, is not warranted. And the millions living in communities dominated by violence, is a non sequitur. If that violence is illegal, then they can appeal to the state for further aid and learn self defence otherwise. The specific claim that racist attitudes should be met with physical violence is not the same as people having violence being done upon them, and needing to protect themselves. One is instigating violence, the other defends against it. Anyway gotta go! As far as I understand there isn't widespread support for racism in any state in the USA. One could argue that point considering the strait up discriminating voting laws that Republicans keep trying to push through at the state level that actually pass and need to be struck down by the courts.Its come a long way and its a lot less open then it used to be but racism is very much alive in the US. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 24 2017 00:43 radscorpion9 wrote: Fundamentally you have two options. Either resolve your differences through violence or through coordinated political action. I simply think the latter is preferable and more realistic to bring change rather than escalation. People have the right to defend themselves against violence, to form volunteer police forces and so on. There are many, many things that can be done under the law. If there actually are discriminatory laws, then they should fight to elect people to have those laws changed, to get their message out in the media and so on. In the mean time, if they are being discriminated against, then yes I am okay with people fighting for their rights because there comes a point when one must fight a tyrannical government in any political system. But this isn't what we're talking about. As far as I understand there isn't widespread support for racism in any state in the USA. So the use of violence, an extreme solution, is not warranted. And the millions living in communities dominated by violence, is a non sequitur. If that violence is illegal, then they can appeal to the state for further aid and learn self defence otherwise. The specific claim that racist attitudes should be met with physical violence is not the same as people having violence being done upon them, and needing to protect themselves. One is instigating violence, the other defends against it. Anyway gotta go! There is no one advocating for mass violence. There is one guy getting punched when he showed up in the middle of riled up crowed of people he has threatened to wipe out in his literature, and he got punched when they tried talking to him and he denied the stances he took. One event is not a statement of purpose, it is a random nazi getting punched when he wasn't in his safe space, that's it. So far he have 1 nazi vs all the men and women the alt right has beaten, humiliated, killed, and blackmailed over the past many many years. If all it takes is one punch for the other side to say "let's talk" then throw that one fucking punch needed to make them stop killing and destroying women and minorities. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 23 2017 18:19 Acrofales wrote: You call it an illusion, I call it reality. Life on the margins has gotten consistently better throughout the last 70 years. Margins will, of course, exist forever. But it isn't even a close comparison. Being a poor African is better today than it was in the 50s, and the same for being a poor minority in the US. That's not to say the number of disgruntled people who feel marginalized has diminished, but that's because feeling marginalized is subjective, whereas whether you have a home, enough food and relatively few diseases that kill your babies is an absolute measure of how shitty people have it. the "illusion" i was referring to was that politics had been banished, that true peace without the undercurrent of constant violence reigned. the "illusion" is that liberal democracy has removed politics from the question "what is the right way to govern?" and replaced it with a dry technologism. but since you brought it up, let's reframe this issue of global capitalism within the liberal order. 2 billion people live in abject poverty today. that was the entire population of the earth a hundred years ago. we are creating entire earths populated by a necessary underclass. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
Dude should get arrested for punching a nazi; assaulting people is illegal. A nazi getting sucker punched is pretty funny though (in large part because it wasn't a particularly life threatening level of violence against him). Spencer deserves no sympathy and it's hilarious that he's tucked his tail between his legs and is trying to be a victim now as if the things he stands for weren't way worse than what happened to him. Fortunately they don't have to be mutually exclusive. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 23 2017 20:20 Thieving Magpie wrote: If his most recent article says: Then would it be safe to say that people responding to his words be acting in self defense? Especially when his speech is literally asking to wipe out a race? Especially since it's written in an article that suggests whites are currently victims of genocide and that they should respond in kind to blacks? Let's look at the first amendment. Looking at those words, were Spencer's first amendment rights violated? Given that the man is speaking of "black genocide" and may be advocating for it without directly saying so, it may very well be the case that the guy is saying shit that could be considered hate speech and perhaps should be prosecuted. Not punched in the face in the street. I disagree with the notion that punching him would be effective because "it's humiliating". As for "were Spencer's first amendment rights violated?", well no. I never said his first amendment rights were violated, but my advocating violence against him, you're putting very little weight under the first amendment. Part of the first amendment is the implicit notion that the government will protect you from physical harm if you try to say something. Of course I'm seeing the cheap rhetoric of "so Spencer should have police officers protecting him at all time?" and that's not what I'm saying. I think that the guy who attacked Spencer should be charged for battery or whatever. I fucking loathe Spencer probably more than most people here but I still don't think punching him is right, nor is it effective. And even if it were effective, what the fuck ever? Murdering people is an even better way to silence them, but I don't think we should murder people when they say unsavory things. Let the courts do that shit. Until then, I don't see "black genocide" on the horizon just because this scumbag white nationalist is spouting shit on street corners. And if this punch actually saved us from the Great American Hitler by bruising his ego, just wow. Thanks epic punch guy for saving everyone. Summary: Spencer is a cunt and him getting punched is funny. Still, don't punch nazis unless you're doing it in self defense. If you punch a nazi you should be prosecuted. Or punched right back. That is all. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 24 2017 01:38 Djzapz wrote: Given that the man is speaking of "black genocide" and may be advocating for it without directly saying so, it may very well be the case that the guy is saying shit that could be considered hate speech and perhaps should be prosecuted. Not punched in the face in the street. I disagree with the notion that punching him would be effective because "it's humiliating". As for "were Spencer's first amendment rights violated?", well no. I never said his first amendment rights were violated, but my advocating violence against him, you're putting very little weight under the first amendment. Part of the first amendment is the implicit notion that the government will protect you from physical harm if you try to say something. Of course I'm seeing the cheap rhetoric of "so Spencer should have police officers protecting him at all time?" and that's not what I'm saying. I think that the guy who attacked Spencer should be charged for battery or whatever. I fucking loathe Spencer probably more than most people here but I still don't think punching him is right, nor is it effective. And even if it were effective, what the fuck ever? Murdering people is an even better way to silence them, but I don't think we should murder people when they say unsavory things. Let the courts do that shit. Until then, I don't see "black genocide" on the horizon just because this scumbag white nationalist is spouting shit on street corners. And if this punch actually saved us from the Great American Hitler by bruising his ego, just wow. Thanks epic punch guy for saving everyone. Summary: Spencer is a cunt and him getting punched is funny. Still, don't punch nazis unless you're doing it in self defense. If you punch a nazi you should be prosecuted. Or punched right back. That is all. There is no movement to punch spencer. They walked up to him and talked. He denied everything he stood for to their faces, then got punched for bullshitting them. That's it. The same thing would happen in a bar. If pushed, they would give the same punishment of throwing them in jail overnight to cool off. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13956 Posts
You can't stay on the moral high ground of equality and tolerance if you advocate for descrimination and intimidation. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On January 24 2017 02:30 Sermokala wrote: If he had been killed by the punch or the fall after the punch he would have been made into a martyr for nazies and we would never hear the end of it. The fact that people would advocate any sort of violence to combat different viewpoints no matter how abborant is shameful. You can't stay on the moral high ground of equality and tolerance if you advocate for descrimination and intimidation. I dont think anyone here is advocating for either of those things. I don't even know why the conversation has gone on for as long as it has. Both sides agree that it shouldn't have happened. Some people just tried elaborating on the motivation of the person who threw the punch, and others took that as condoning violence, which it clearly isn't. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13956 Posts
On January 24 2017 02:42 Trainrunnef wrote: I dont think anyone here is advocating for either of those things. I don't even know why the conversation has gone on for as long as it has. Both sides agree that it shouldn't have happened. Some people just tried elaborating on the motivation of the person who threw the punch, and others took that as condoning violence, which it clearly isn't. People are advocating for punching nazies and saying that it was okay that the guy was punched. The fact that its okay to them because of his beliefs is discrimination and the violence they feel is appropriate because of his beliefs is intimidation. I would read the last couple pages again if you don't think people are arguing that it should have happened or not. There was even a gun control joke. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
| ||
