Republican Politician Shot: Steve Scalise

[Soontir C'boath]

snip trolling

Not really much more to say here.

It's not trolling when people out there sincerely actually believe and act upon these type of notions, but certainly bury your head in the sand.

And let's not forget, you're the one who rode in like a white knight at 5k lumens like a dumbass with Pat.

[The Romulan Republic]

snip trolling

Not really much more to say here.

It's not trolling when people out there sincerely actually believe and act upon these type of notions, but certainly bury your head in the sand.

Except you clearly don't believe it. You're just doing some rather hack parody to get a rise out of me.

And let's not forget, you're the one who rode in like a white knight at 5k lumens like a dumbass with Pat.

Opposing murder and terrorism makes me a "white knight", now?* Or are you referring to something else?

Edit: And if you did believe it, you'd be a nutcase/idiot. So, which is it? Troll or moron?

[Soontir C'boath]

What the fuck? My first post wasn't directed at you, you stupid fuck. You hadn't even posted in it yet for fuck's sake.

You and Pat are the ones that took it down the road I never intended it to go in.

Final edit: And what's the problem with seeing things in other people's views? There's no need for a fucking echo chamber here either.

[The Romulan Republic]

The post I was referring to as trolling, in case it wasn't clear, is this one:

Surely you understand there is a difference between a crazy person killing random people (Sandy Hook) for non political motives and a targeted assassination for political motives. For some ends, say general gun control arguments, the distinction is meaningless. For LOTS of other reasons, it makes a big difference.

The simple fact is citizens murdering their democratically elected leaders, for whatever reason whether good or bad to any particular point of view, is a much bigger deal than the killing of other citizens. At least it was when Giffords was the target, maybe the board has changed its mind since then.

All of what you say has nothing to do with calling it what it is, a false flag op, but thanks for playing.

I am disgusted but not surprised by the number of people either tiptoeing around calling this what it is (domestic terrorism), or seeming outright supportive of it.

I'm not supportive of anything that didn't happen in the first place. He's as far we all know alive. He could have very well just faked his surgery stay.

And yeah, God damn you Soontir C'boath for making me agree with Patroklos, but this is nothing like Sandy Hook. And yeah, if this had been a Republican out to shoot Democrats, this board would be screaming to high heaven. But I guess its okay when your tribe does it?

What does this have to do with this being a false flag op? Don't connect the first paragraph with the second. They're separate for a reason. That's your reading comprehension problem.

If the Left starts adopting the tactics of Right wing extremists, its going to escalate and escalate. Is that what you people want? Or are you just in denial about that possibility?

Again, what does this have to do with this being a false flag op? 66 year old guy who happens to support Bernie and is now dead instead of taken alive like many other white people? Yea right.

You can also bet that this is going to be used by Trumpers and Centrist Democrats alike to brand Bernie supporters and progressives generally as dangerous radicals and terrorists.

That's what makes it a perfect false flag op. Duh.

And no, there's nothing wrong with seeing other peoples' views. In fact, most of the time, its a commendable thing. Unfortunately, political violence and that kind of civilized discourse don't tend to go hand in hand, which is one of many reasons for my position in this thread.

Hell, I'm the one who got told that I'm "cosplaying as a leftist" because I don't support terrorism. So I find it a little funny that you're directing this critique at me.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying your false flag nonsense was advocating violence. Just incredibly stupid and needlessly provocative.

[Dragon Angel]

I'm not going to get into the greater argument here since we have already been through this before, TRR, but I do want to point out some things...

It was not Democrats that destroyed the Republican Party, turning the Party of Lincoln into the Party of Trump. It was Republican hardliners and Tea Partiers, and those who pander to them.

The Republican Party is far from destroyed. Being discredited on an unprecedented scale, sure, but "destroyed"? Not until they are reduced to a single digit number of states, and/or the entire party fractures into splinter groups warring against one another.

Be careful not to prematurely declare victory.

And the extremists won't stop at saying that we should assault and kill the other side. They never do. Next it'll be the Centrists and "fake leftists" like me (ie anyone who disagrees with them) who should be targeted, for being "collaborators". Then maybe it'll be Christians, because a lot of Christians are socially conservative, so why not paint them all with the same brush? Maybe throw in the Muslims and Jews too.

Do you like, pay any attention to any "far left" groups or are you making mouth noises? While I can't deny there are many who would like to get up close and personal with the right wing, there is definitely not a widespread desire to do the same with liberals, centrists, (...Jews? Seriously what the fuck TRR?), et. al. As much as many of them are disgusted at liberals and the spinal fragility of the center.

Even with shit like Trump's Second Amendment Solutions line, there was a measure of sympathy for Hillary and a total disgust that Trump would literally invite people to shoot her.

[Soontir C'boath]

@TRR What I wrote still stands and isn't trolling. What you wrote had nothing to do with the two different points I was making in my first post. You combined them together which was never my intention. Maybe if you understood that, you'd know why I responded in the manner that I did.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not going to get into the greater argument here since we have already been through this before, TRR, but I do want to point out some things...

It was not Democrats that destroyed the Republican Party, turning the Party of Lincoln into the Party of Trump. It was Republican hardliners and Tea Partiers, and those who pander to them.

The Republican Party is far from destroyed. Being discredited on an unprecedented scale, sure, but "destroyed"? Not until they are reduced to a single digit number of states, and/or the entire party fractures into splinter groups warring against one another.

Be careful not to prematurely declare victory.

I think you misunderstand my point (though I very much hope that the far Right will pay for its actions with political defeat in the long run).

My point is not that they have ceased to be a power in American politics. It is that they have ceased to be a positive force in American politics, and moreover, that they have been perverted into something that is in opposition to nearly everything that they once stood for. Hence the contrast between the Party of Lincoln (which fought a Civil War to overthrow slavery and preserve the integrity of democracy and the Union against Treason) and the Party of Trump (which has betrayed both democratic principles and the Union, and panders to Neo-Confederates and White Nationalists). Its basically the same point I was trying to make when I chose the quote in my sig.

And my point in bringing it up here is that I do not wish to see the same thing happen to the Left- to see its own internal extremists highjack it and turn it into a despotic force.

Do you like, pay any attention to any "far left" groups or are you making mouth noises?

I do not join with or associate with groups that support zero compromise or political violence myself. But I've had enough unpleasant exchanges with those who do hold such views to have some idea of how they tend to think.

While I can't deny there are many who would like to get up close and personal with the right wing, there is definitely not a widespread desire to do the same with liberals, centrists, (...Jews? Seriously what the fuck TRR?), et. al. As much as many of them are disgusted at liberals and the spinal fragility of the center.

Not right now. But my point is that extremists tend to become more and more radical as a conflict escalates. A few years ago, I would have been on the Leftward fringe in America on many issues. Now, I'm being told that I'm not a real Leftist because I don't support violence against the Right. Or, to take a less extreme example, I'm pretty sure I recall being accused of being a paid troll during the 2016 election for not supporting Bernie or Bust nonsense.

How much longer before people are saying that we need to extend political violence to anyone who isn't Left-wing enough (by whatever standard they use)?

Maybe (God willing), things will never go that far. But if enough people acted the way the advocates of violence want, we would likely find ourselves in a state of civil war. And in war, everyone is expected to take a side, and if you're not with "Us", you're with "Them".

Even with shit like Trump's Second Amendment Solutions line, there was a measure of sympathy for Hillary and a total disgust that Trump would literally invite people to shoot her.

Yes, the vast majority of Leftists don't want to shoot Centrists. Most don't even want to shoot Republicans, and would oppose those who do (which is a point that the advocates of violence on the Left seem to miss).

But the worse things get, the more normalized and widespread political violence becomes, the more pressure their will be to just "pick a side". That is my point.

[Ralin]

I see you're just carying your ad hominems across from the previous thread. Predictable. You can't defend your arguments on the merits, so you do so by trying to attack my character.

Your 'arguments' (in this case a vigorous defense of the right to support neo-Nazis and advocate violence against refugees, denying rights to gays, etc without fear of reprisal) come directly from the fact that this is ultimately just a game for you. You will never be denied work or housing for looking gay or Muslim or some shit. So no, not an ad hominem to point out that your opinion is fucking irrelevant since you're not the one being threatened and never will be.

Yes, there is a certain level of street violence in America. It does not logically follow that we should do everything in our power to create more of it.

Your argument amounts to: "We're sliding down a slippery slope, so why not just jump off a cliff?"

No you idiot, the argument is that this has already fucking happened and we should respond accordingly. Your argument boils down to thinking that the proper response to people being lynched and curb-stomped in the street, often by the police, is to scrupulously obey the law and never in any way infringe on the rights of the people who support Trump.

I spent half the spring volunteering for the BC Green Party, and am an active member and volunteer for Democrats Abroad.

Oh, bully.

Of course, I know none of that matters, because violent extremists don't think any action counts unless it involves violence.

No stupid, many, even most forms of action don’t involve violence. There are plenty of ways to contribute. But when you go out of your way to finger wave and clutch your chest in shock over the mere suggestion of anything even slightly illegal? You’re doing more harm than good. There’s a reason why King got to thinking that the milquetoast middle was more of a threat to black people than the outright Klanners and racists.

I see that the importance of public sympathy, in either politics or war, completely escapes you.

But you don't want to make things better. Just hurt the people you don't like.

People who are hardcore against racism, violence against minorities and literal fascism and would totally have voted against Trump and his ilk IF ONLY those damned leftist nuts had quietly protested instead of getting rowdy with the police are a vanishingly small demographic.

Its pretty obvious from the context of your post in this thread that you are condoning and defending this shooting.

I’m not defending it. That doesn’t mean I have to give a shit about Republican guy’s welfare or be in any way sad about it.

That you dance around explicitly saying it (presumably to avoid legal trouble) does not change that, nor make you any less of a repulsive and morally bankrupt human being.

Dumbfuck, I live in China and I’m posting on a website hosted in Canada. Exactly what legal trouble do you think I’m worried about?

[Dragon Angel]

My point is not that they have ceased to be a power in American politics. It is that they have ceased to be a positive force in American politics, and moreover, that they have been perverted into something that is in opposition to nearly everything that they once stood for. Hence the contrast between the Party of Lincoln (which fought a Civil War to overthrow slavery and preserve the integrity of democracy and the Union against Treason) and the Party of Trump (which has betrayed both democratic principles and the Union, and panders to Neo-Confederates and White Nationalists). Its basically the same point I was trying to make when I chose the quote in my sig.

This is a topic for another thread, but it can without a doubt be argued their ceasing to be anything positive began long before Trump or the Tea Party. Long before even Bush. Think Southern Strategy or Reaganite level of long.

I do not join with or associate with groups that support zero compromise or political violence myself. But I've had enough unpleasant exchanges with those who do hold such views to have some idea of how they tend to think.

So... You admit, then, you haven't had much contact with people who would describe themselves as anarchist, communist, antifascist, etc. You also admit that you have little experience to base this opinion on. Understood.

Not right now. But my point is that extremists tend to become more and more radical as a conflict escalates. A few years ago, I would have been on the Leftward fringe in America on many issues. Now, I'm being told that I'm not a real Leftist because I don't support violence against the Right. Or, to take a less extreme example, I'm pretty sure I recall being accused of being a paid troll during the 2016 election for not supporting Bernie or Bust nonsense.

How much longer before people are saying that we need to extend political violence to anyone who isn't Left-wing enough (by whatever standard they use)?

Maybe (God willing), things will never go that far. But if enough people acted the way the advocates of violence want, we would likely find ourselves in a state of civil war. And in war, everyone is expected to take a side, and if you're not with "Us", you're with "Them".

When the Left starts hunting down Jews, that will be when I'll worry. Then again, that wouldn't exactly be the Left now, would it.

Honestly, I was reminded of the cow dung idea that is "horseshoe theory" when you began trash talking those groups. Even I don't fully agree with some of them and I don't seriously believe they are going to round up liberals one day and throw them into work camps or worse, turn into Nazis...

Yes, the vast majority of Leftists don't want to shoot Centrists. Most don't even want to shoot Republicans, and would oppose those who do (which is a point that the advocates of violence on the Left seem to miss).

But the worse things get, the more normalized and widespread political violence becomes, the more pressure their will be to just "pick a side". That is my point.

This is getting close to rehashing our old discussion again, but while I hope it doesn't come down to that, it is being increasingly seen that violence may not be avoidable. Anecdotal, but I have seen quite a few people who were ardently nonviolent starting to accept that possibility. Flagg also mentioned Attica as a riot that brought about change; I'll bring up Stonewall.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ralin, stop wasting my time.

If all you're going to offer are insults and ad hominems based on assumptions about my life and circumstances, because you find it easier to score cheap points debating me personally than debating the topic, then there is nothing more to say.

And yes, it is an ad hominem. Privilege may lead to bias, but "You are privileged" is not necessarily the same as "You are wrong". The definition of an ad hominem is attacking the speaker rather than the argument. You have not demonstrated that my arguments are false.

And anyone can be a victim of terrorism. Anyone can be "collateral damage". So yeah, I feel threatened.

The claim that I am defending/supporting Neo-Nazis simply because I do not believe Republicans should be assaulted and murdered in the streets is also bordering on defamatory, in my opinion.

[aerius]

If you believe that the problems in the US can be solved through peaceful means and that the country can be reformed to fit your ideals without violence, then yes, feel free to condemn all acts of violence by any party on any side.

If, on the other hand you believe that the issues & divisions in the nation have gone beyond the point where peaceful resolution is possible, then that changes things a bit doesn't it? I don't know if we're there yet since we haven't seen mass nationwide protests that shut down every major city for days, but if that happens and we still don't get results, it may well be time to water that tree of liberty with blood.

[Broomstick]

We haven't seen that level of conflict since the 1860's. Thank god. Americans are far too inventive when it comes to new and horrible ways to conduct violent conflict.

(Yes, there was violence in the 1960's, but the closest we came to shutting down an entire city for "days" were the Detroit riots of 1967. The 1992 Los Angeles riots and the 1965 Watts riots were close contenders, but were only partial city-shutdowns.)

[Joun_Lord]

If you believe that the problems in the US can be solved through peaceful means and that the country can be reformed to fit your ideals without violence, then yes, feel free to condemn all acts of violence by any party on any side.

If, on the other hand you believe that the issues & divisions in the nation have gone beyond the point where peaceful resolution is possible, then that changes things a bit doesn't it? I don't know if we're there yet since we haven't seen mass nationwide protests that shut down every major city for days, but if that happens and we still don't get results, it may well be time to water that tree of liberty with blood.

The problem seems for alot of people to be the question of when its time to water that tree, when its the time for action because the time for talk has went bye bye. Some would say the time is now, some would say the time has been now since Trump was elected, others might say it was time when Obama was elected, still others might say the time is not yet here and we should be working to prevent it while others says the time is not yet here but its coming inevitably.

Some seem to almost be looking forward to the cessation of peace, some think its a good thing. Others don't want it to happen but think it might and don't want to be caught flat-footed by it.

Most would agree that if things get too bad then the time for revolution will be upon us. But again the question is when. Look at the idiots at Malheur, those goddamn pieces of shit that I'd like to see......spend alot of time behind bars. They tried to start the revolution and nobody really showed up. The very town they occupied was at best divided, all the support from law enforcement and politicians was at best tepid and limp. They thought the time for revolution was upon us, they were mistaken.

There are certainly some of the left that see the possibility of drastic action taken too, even revolution. Even the most charitable sort see cause for concern under Trump in a manner that even a regular Republican president would not elicit. That fact he is such a maverick has some more concerned then a regular politician who might be a shitbag but one that you know more or less where they stand. Things could get really bad in future.

Unfortunately some like the piece of shit shooter think the time for action is now and are going to try to hurt people. And being a bit cold about it, will hurt the cause that some might be willing to fight and die for if it comes to that. This shooter fuck tried to murderize some random political asshole, attempted to kill people with little provocation. A revolution based on fantasy and insanity, a revolution predicated on attempted murder without really even a cause to justify it beyond "not us".

Will any future actions be repeats of the ball game shooting? A repeat of Malheur where nobody shows up?

Questions that need an answer but unfortunately I don't think we have one.

My personal opinion is generally only violence should be met with violence. Violence or the legitimate threat of it. If someone is in real peril either actively or coming into a state of peril one must act to preserve themselves and others. We live in a society were rightfully people are criminals if they attack someone with no cause, if they or other were not in danger. I think the same is true in even politics, the damned political process. If they come at with words, we respond in kind. If they come at us with fists, again respond in kind. But we do not throw the first punch unless the other is cocking his arm back to give us a black eye or a bloody nose or a subdural hematoma.

Unfortunately I don't think anyone can agree when the opposition is cocking their arm back or whether we should just cold cock them now.

[Patroklos]

If you believe that the problems in the US can be solved through peaceful means and that the country can be reformed to fit your ideals without violence, then yes, feel free to condemn all acts of violence by any party on any side.

If, on the other hand you believe that the issues & divisions in the nation have gone beyond the point where peaceful resolution is possible, then that changes things a bit doesn't it? I don't know if we're there yet since we haven't seen mass nationwide protests that shut down every major city for days, but if that happens and we still don't get results, it may well be time to water that tree of liberty with blood.

If Ralin truly believes what he is saying, if he really believes violence is the solution and totally warranted and in fact the superior moral option due to the circumstances he describes, why is he not engaging in it?

By his own standards he is full of shit until he practices what he preaches. The irony here is that he is himself what he claims TRR to be.

We have had internet tough guys like Ralin on here before. The usual result is a quick ban.

[Simon_Jester]

You can also bet that this is going to be used by Trumpers and Centrist Democrats alike to brand Bernie supporters and progressives generally as dangerous radicals and terrorists.

You fail to grasp that we don't greatly care about that because decades of experience has shown it doesn't matter. Republicans don't need reality on their side to do any of those things. It doesn't matter what pretext they use or invent; their base will eat it up all the same. Trying to prove that we're totally the respectable and peaceful leftists doesn't make a damned bit of difference other than distract from actually working to improve things.

The Republican base is about 25% of the American population, as demonstrated by this being the percent of the American population that actually voted for Trump. Convincing the other three quarters of things is still important, believe it or not.

Why on Earth would a leftist want to escalate the violence when the right has more guns and far more people in the military? We won't win that fight.

Because some people are morons who think that their self-righteousness is a form of body armor.

Why on Earth would a leftist want to escalate the violence when the right has more guns and far more people in the military? We won't win that fight.

It gets shit done? Just look at the Attica riots. The main complaints prisoners had were dealt with.

That worked because there was no mass movement of Americans willing to say "yes, machine-gun prisoners" or form voluntary militias of thousands of armed men to shoot prisoners. Stonewall worked because while most Americans were (especially by today's standards) massively homophobic, few or no people actually wanted to say "have the police beat gay people to death."

Violence is extremely unreliable as a tool for getting what you want in politics, to say the least, because once it is set in motion it's nearly impossible to control.

And the extremists won't stop at saying that we should assault and kill the other side. They never do. Next it'll be the Centrists and "fake leftists" like me (ie anyone who disagrees with them) who should be targeted, for being "collaborators". Then maybe it'll be Christians, because a lot of Christians are socially conservative, so why not paint them all with the same brush? Maybe throw in the Muslims and Jews too.

Do you like, pay any attention to any "far left" groups or are you making mouth noises? While I can't deny there are many who would like to get up close and personal with the right wing, there is definitely not a widespread desire to do the same with liberals, centrists, (...Jews? Seriously what the fuck TRR?), et. al. As much as many of them are disgusted at liberals and the spinal fragility of the center.

Even with shit like Trump's Second Amendment Solutions line, there was a measure of sympathy for Hillary and a total disgust that Trump would literally invite people to shoot her.

TRR still has a point.

This is exactly what radical VIOLENT movements do. Look at the Soviet communists- first they allied with Kerensky to be rid of the Czar, then they turned the knives on the Mensheviks. Violent factions will always drive out nonviolent "fair-weather friends" of their own movement who cannot be relied on to comply with and support their violence against political enemies.

Insofar as the far left is massively unlikely to do what TRR describes, it is because the far left in the US is utterly unlike the pro-violence, murder-thy-opponents culture that TRR is criticizing. If they became that which he is criticizing, they would do as he describes, because that is what radical violent political factions always do. There's a reason Martin Niemoller's poem became so famous as an iconic description of the experience of an intellectual under Nazi tyranny.

[Dragon Angel]

TRR still has a point.

This is exactly what radical VIOLENT movements do. Look at the Soviet communists- first they allied with Kerensky to be rid of the Czar, then they turned the knives on the Mensheviks. Violent factions will always drive out nonviolent "fair-weather friends" of their own movement who cannot be relied on to comply with and support their violence against political enemies.

Insofar as the far left is massively unlikely to do what TRR describes, it is because the far left in the US is utterly unlike the pro-violence, murder-thy-opponents culture that TRR is criticizing. If they became that which he is criticizing, they would do as he describes, because that is what radical violent political factions always do. There's a reason Martin Niemoller's poem became so famous as an iconic description of the experience of an intellectual under Nazi tyranny.

Oh, yeah, I'm not denying that. As you say though, the far left in the US is vastly different from the far left of Soviet Russia. There are different contexts around both groups of movements, and different reasons for being. Thus it is utterly unfair to compare them with each other, or to descend into a slippery slope that declares "this group will become the other".

Mostly I get into this thoughtline because these discussions tend to become nuance-less declarations of "violence is always good" versus "violence is always bad". Rabid assumptions are also made which makes people in far left groups roll their eyes out of their sockets. This is something elements of the Left are guilty of too, where nuance disappears or is just left to die. I don't want these events to be forgotten for that reason.

Could the US far left ever approach this in some indeterminate future? It's not impossible. Is it likely at all right now? No.

[Simon_Jester]

Okay, but the underlying point here is that when you say "killing our political opponents is good, I wish it would happen more often," you aren't just on a slippery slope. You're standing at the top of a slope, slippery or otherwise, and saying "gee, I sure wish we were at the bottom!"

It doesn't matter if the slope is slippery or not, No grease is required on the slope, ideological killers will descend the slope regardless, because the very act of killing people over ideological disagreement creates an incentive to keep going.

We call 'slippery slope' arguments fallacious when they fail to provide evidence that once you start going in a certain direction you will predictably continue in that direction. In this case, there is ample historical evidence for what happens to ideological movements that begin by killing ideological enemies, starting with the Jacobins and the Terror- or with the religious wars of earlier centuries.

...

So when speaking to an individual who, specifically and personally, is advocating for more political killing...

It's totally reasonable to say "hey, you do realize that if we actually follow your ideas to their logical conclusion, the end result is going to be a succession of bloody purges that will destroy not only our mutual enemy, but also the moderates and non-violent allies on your own side?" Because that is exactly what has happened over and over, on both the left and the right.

I'm not arguing that there's no grounds to dispute TRR's specific examples of what the American left might do if suddenly every member of the American far left woke up with a brain lesion and turned into a violent fanatic... Those examples may strike you as cringeworthy. But it's critical that we recognize that whatever nits we may pick there, that is not the point. The point is that once a large revolutionary or quasi-revolutionary movement embraces killing and lawlessness to destroy enemies who, on the whole, are themselves remaining within the nominal boundaries of constitutional law...

Well, that's not a slippery slope, that's the would-be guerilla ideologues taking a swan-dive down the slope whether it's greased or not.

I'm reminded of a useful passage by Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

When we apply this to politics, the devil in question isn't necessarily the group of 'enemies' you originally started cutting down laws for. It can be a faction of your own party. It can be the secret police you founded to hunt down the 'enemies' in the first place. It can be almost any group that is sufficiently inured to violence, because such a group will nearly always be run by a smart thug. Smart thugs tend to win political contests with intellectuals, when violence is on the table as an option.

[Dragon Angel]

Okay, but the underlying point here is that when you say "killing our political opponents is good, I wish it would happen more often," you aren't just on a slippery slope. You're standing at the top of a slope, slippery or otherwise, and saying "gee, I sure wish we were at the bottom!"

It doesn't matter if the slope is slippery or not, No grease is required on the slope, ideological killers will descend the slope regardless, because the very act of killing people over ideological disagreement creates an incentive to keep going.

I'm not sure what position you're divining from me or anyone else here. When I say "violence does not have to be always good, but also does not have to be always bad" I don't implicitly mean "murdering political opponents is A-OK in my book". There are not a lot of people who would explicitly call for others to pop caps into Republicans. There is always that deep section of the brain that may "look the other way" emotionally when it happens of course, but for almost every person who, say, cheered on Richard Spencer being socked live, they are also people who did not actively desire for Spencer to be shot dead live.

We call 'slippery slope' arguments fallacious when they fail to provide evidence that once you start going in a certain direction you will predictably continue in that direction. In this case, there is ample historical evidence for what happens to ideological movements that begin by killing ideological enemies, starting with the Jacobins and the Terror- or with the religious wars of earlier centuries.

If we're still talking about riots and not the Reign of Terror, on the other hand, it can't be denied there were violent occasions that had some hand in jump starting some kind of movement.

That's a problem with crafting theories about the future here. Evidence for and against the necessity of some measure of violence exists in the past, and right now, there are so many undetermined variables. You or I could argue what may happen all we want, but in the end, we may end up using different events in history that had their own reasons for being, their own means to execute, their own conclusions. I'm not advocating for politicians to get pumped full of lead, but that does not mean I have to forget the importance of Stonewall, Attica, ...

Which was my point, it's the conflation of this attempted assassination with those riots that can be very problematic. Different degrees of violence under different contexts, where one degree may go much too far. Many people assume the far left will inevitably en masse advocate for a bloody civil war, when that is not the desire of most of the sane people in it.

So when speaking to an individual who, specifically and personally, is advocating for more political killing...

It's totally reasonable to say "hey, you do realize that if we actually follow your ideas to their logical conclusion, the end result is going to be a succession of bloody purges that will destroy not only our mutual enemy, but also the moderates and non-violent allies on your own side?" Because that is exactly what has happened over and over, on both the left and the right.

I'm not arguing that there's no grounds to dispute TRR's specific examples of what the American left might do if suddenly every member of the American far left woke up with a brain lesion and turned into a violent fanatic... Those examples may strike you as cringeworthy. But it's critical that we recognize that whatever nits we may pick there, that is not the point. The point is that once a large revolutionary or quasi-revolutionary movement embraces killing and lawlessness to destroy enemies who, on the whole, are themselves remaining within the nominal boundaries of constitutional law...

Well, that's not a slippery slope, that's the would-be guerilla ideologues taking a swan-dive down the slope whether it's greased or not.

I'll be concerned if ever that actually becomes accepted in a widespread scale. I'm not disputing that it is possible. I'm saying the possibility is so remote right now that it's like worrying a car will suddenly run me over on a completely empty street, on any street at all.

Another thing never to assume is that discourse about what sort of violence is desired does not happen within these circles. Many may feel like violence is of some degree is necessary, but it is a very rare event where someone tries to throw a monkey wrench of "perhaps we should go on a mass shooting of Republicans on Capitol Hill" and goes unchallenged. There are some people who have been itching for a massive conflict. Most people just simply are not.

I'm reminded of a useful passage by Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

When we apply this to politics, the devil in question isn't necessarily the group of 'enemies' you originally started cutting down laws for. It can be a faction of your own party. It can be the secret police you founded to hunt down the 'enemies' in the first place. It can be almost any group that is sufficiently inured to violence, because such a group will nearly always be run by a smart thug. Smart thugs tend to win political contests with intellectuals, when violence is on the table as an option.

If it reaches this point. Again, I believe now is much too early a point to craft theories so definite. Don't mistake my lack of concern for it developing so badly as a lack of watchfulness for the movement degenerating to such a degree.

Let me know if something is unclear here, I'm writing this under the influence of sedatives and not actually feeling sleepy enough to actually rest.

[Lord Revan]

I think Simon's point is that there's no "this far and no futher" avaible here and once you start advocating violence as viable means of getting rid of your political enemies history has shown that it pretty much always decends into paranoid brutality, there's a saying in Finland (might exist in USA as well I dunno) that goes "if you give the Devil your little finger, he'll take the whole hand" I think this applies to political violence and why I'm categorically against political violence in any form.

[The Romulan Republic]

My point is not that they have ceased to be a power in American politics. It is that they have ceased to be a positive force in American politics, and moreover, that they have been perverted into something that is in opposition to nearly everything that they once stood for. Hence the contrast between the Party of Lincoln (which fought a Civil War to overthrow slavery and preserve the integrity of democracy and the Union against Treason) and the Party of Trump (which has betrayed both democratic principles and the Union, and panders to Neo-Confederates and White Nationalists). Its basically the same point I was trying to make when I chose the quote in my sig.

This is a topic for another thread, but it can without a doubt be argued their ceasing to be anything positive began long before Trump or the Tea Party. Long before even Bush. Think Southern Strategy or Reaganite level of long.

I don't disagree, though I would say that Trump is the ultimate culmination of the path Nixon started the Republican Party down.

The point is, the Republican Party could have, at any time, collectively turned aside from that path. They didn't, by and large. Even those who did not personally support extremism tended to keep their mouths shut, and tolerate the extremists amid their ranks.

I don't want the Left to make the same mistake.

So... You admit, then, you haven't had much contact with people who would describe themselves as anarchist, communist, antifascist, etc. You also admit that you have little experience to base this opinion on. Understood.

Not quite what I said. I've conversed with more than a few of them at length.

In any case, my argument regarding the tendency of extremists to hijack a movement, and become more and more extreme and "us vs. them" in their thinking, is one that history has shown time and again can apply to extremists of all stripes.

When the Left starts hunting down Jews, that will be when I'll worry. Then again, that wouldn't exactly be the Left now, would it.

Honestly, I was reminded of the cow dung idea that is "horseshoe theory" when you began trash talking those groups. Even I don't fully agree with some of them and I don't seriously believe they are going to round up liberals one day and throw them into work camps or worse, turn into Nazis...

My point was not that they'll turn into Nazis.

It was that violent extremists tend to see the world in terms of "Us vs. Them", and see anyone who doesn't fit into their little bubble as the enemy.

Maybe it won't be Jews, or Muslims. Maybe they'll stop at Centrists and Christians. Or maybe somewhere else. These were meant as examples of where extremist thinking could lead, not declarations of how I perceive the radical Left today. The point is that once you start down the road of terrorism and political violence, things are going to get more and more polarized, more and more "Us vs. Them".

This is getting close to rehashing our old discussion again, but while I hope it doesn't come down to that, it is being increasingly seen that violence may not be avoidable. Anecdotal, but I have seen quite a few people who were ardently nonviolent starting to accept that possibility. Flagg also mentioned Attica as a riot that brought about change; I'll bring up Stonewall.

Violence can bring change, of course.

The question is weather it is the only, or best means to bring change. Because violence tends to involve a lot of innocent people get hurt, with no guarantee that it will end with just a few riots, or that your side will win, or that what comes after will be any better than what came before. The list of revolutions that replaced one despot with another is very, very long.

And the fact that more and more people are accepting it, normalizing it, terrifies me. Because that makes it more and more likely that people will see it as an option, or even an inevitability. Which increases the likelihood that one day, it will be. There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't want to see Americans die because a bunch of angry progressives, reacting on understandable fear and anger at a temporary political set-back, pushed us into a conflict that we did not need to fight. And I especially do not wish to see the country polarized into violent extremists on the Left, vs. violent extremists on the Right, with no place left for those of us who actually believe in democracy and the rule of law.


Let me ask you, and all the advocates of political violence on the Left, two questions:

1. Did you support preemptive strikes against Iraq?

2. Would you support US troops assaulting or murdering civilians of a country we are enemies with, even if they have not taken up arms against us, soley on the basis of their political affiliation?

If the answer to either of those questions is "no"...

Why would you support doing so to your own countrymen?

[Soontir C'boath]

While Ralin has his own thing in which if he plans on killing tens of millions of Republicans, well he can have a go of it, sure. At the end of the day, the real power to behold and fight against is not fellow Americans, but the government and right now Republicans are in control of it looking to potentially killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people by kicking them off of their health insurance, damaging the planet by ignoring Climate Change and eliminating environmental protections, destroying our education system with seedy for profit colleges and charter schools, etc, etc.

People blame the German people for letting the Nazi Party gain and keep its power without any resistance if any. An uprising may have to be in the works not to make the same mistakes. Especially if the establishment Democrats in power keep their heads in their asses.
______
Right wing militias are a thing. Looks like left wing militias need to form as well.
______

1. Did you support preemptive strikes against Iraq?

No, but with Republicans looking to pass a healthcare bill that will likely kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, would it really be a pre-emptive strike on our part when it comes down to it?

2. Would you support US troops assaulting or murdering civilians of a country we are enemies with, even if they have not taken up arms against us, soley on the basis of their political affiliation?

No, but they are killing civilians just because they are towel heads, which is worse, laughing about it on their camera feeds in their Apaches, and not getting tried in military court, but it seems we are content to sit in our chairs and do nothing about it though.

[Soontir C'boath]

Violence can bring change, of course.

The question is weather it is the only, or best means to bring change. Because violence tends to involve a lot of innocent people get hurt, with no guarantee that it will end with just a few riots, or that your side will win, or that what comes after will be any better than what came before. The list of revolutions that replaced one despot with another is very, very long.

Sounds like you summed up what war is perfectly. Congratulations. Now we all just need to be like Georgia and be taken by Russia. Or have we already?

[Dragon Angel]

Not quite what I said. I've conversed with more than a few of them at length.

In any case, my argument regarding the tendency of extremists to hijack a movement, and become more and more extreme and "us vs. them" in their thinking, is one that history has shown time and again can apply to extremists of all stripes.

The issue though is you're making broad and absurd conclusions over a series of smaller groups (I use the term "far left" because that is what US politics would call them and it is less obnoxious than listing every group at once) and their beliefs that right now are not at such a level. I am somewhat frustrated here because you only give me a vague metric of "more than a few" that makes me wonder about your authenticity on this matter.

There are many who wouldn't be averse to political compromise without violence, as long as that does not mean "compromise all our rights in the process a.k.a. The Democrat Stratagem" which they justifiably complain liberals in this country allow. Before you latch onto that, I know you have spoken out against this before, but you do need to realize there are shades of gray in this seeming black and white image you have.

My point was not that they'll turn into Nazis.

Can you not reductio ad absurdum Jews into this conversation then because your tendency to be hyperbolic can confuse it.

It was that violent extremists tend to see the world in terms of "Us vs. Them", and see anyone who doesn't fit into their little bubble as the enemy.

Maybe it won't be Jews, or Muslims. Maybe they'll stop at Centrists and Christians. Or maybe somewhere else. These were meant as examples of where extremist thinking could lead, not declarations of how I perceive the radical Left today. The point is that once you start down the road of terrorism and political violence, things are going to get more and more polarized, more and more "Us vs. Them".

Okay, extremist thinking could lead there. Are far left groups not in constant discussion as to whether or not we are going down a dark path by massacring Christians? (There are very many Christians who would consider themselves one of them.) Are far left groups now widely accepting that we should beat up liberals?

Both signs point to no, and I'm not convinced they will point to yes in the foreseeable future.

The question is weather it is the only, or best means to bring change. Because violence tends to involve a lot of innocent people get hurt, with no guarantee that it will end with just a few riots, or that your side will win, or that what comes after will be any better than what came before. The list of revolutions that replaced one despot with another is very, very long.

That'll be something I will never say, and is something I believe you or perhaps Simon_Jester to a lesser extent are ascribing to me. Violence is neither the only or best means to bring change. I view it as a desperation measure, which can only be stopped if the government and the authorities stop putting people into situations where they feel they need to be desperate.

I'm pretty sure also that, with the exception of the few loons who want a violent revolution no matter what, those who will look the other way on political violence do not actually want violence to happen. They just want to live in peace and honestly, probably, would not care if we didn't have a fully anarcho-communist government or whatever despite their stated affiliation. Not many people are that much of an ideologue if they can maintain a stable equilibrium in their lives.

Just as what occurred in the Civil Rights Movement, present the oppressed with an alternative path to satisfy their desires (a desire to live with equal rights, equal opportunity, and a full quality of life) and they will abandon the extremes. No one except the few wants to die in battle.

And the fact that more and more people are accepting it, normalizing it, terrifies me. Because that makes it more and more likely that people will see it as an option, or even an inevitability. Which increases the likelihood that one day, it will be. There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't want to see Americans die because a bunch of angry progressives, reacting on understandable fear and anger at a temporary political set-back, pushed us into a conflict that we did not need to fight. And I especially do not wish to see the country polarized into violent extremists on the Left, vs. violent extremists on the Right, with no place left for those of us who actually believe in democracy and the rule of law.

I can't devote emotional or intellectual bandwidth on clairvoyance that, at the very best, has only a high single digits percentage chance of happening. I don't want this mass conflict to happen either, in case that isn't clear by now.

1. Did you support preemptive strikes against Iraq?

No, but a. This was set in the early 2000s, a different time under a different economy and coming still from decades of economic prosperity at home, and b. This was based on such false pretenses that were blatant even only after a few years passed. This is not a good example at all, because the effects of massively cutting healthcare and people drinking lead are quite material today.

2. Would you support US troops assaulting or murdering civilians of a country we are enemies with, even if they have not taken up arms against us, soley on the basis of their political affiliation?

No, because not only does the United States absolutely suck at intervention, but also because having your military intentionally massacre civilians is a crime against humanity.

If the answer to either of those questions is "no"...

Why would you support doing so to your own countrymen?

This is a loaded question. Can you restate it without immediately declaring me as actively wanting blood in the streets, thanks.

[Dragon Angel]

I think Simon's point is that there's no "this far and no futher" avaible here and once you start advocating violence as viable means of getting rid of your political enemies history has shown that it pretty much always decends into paranoid brutality, there's a saying in Finland (might exist in USA as well I dunno) that goes "if you give the Devil your little finger, he'll take the whole hand" I think this applies to political violence and why I'm categorically against political violence in any form.

Bear with me here as this example uses fiction to illustrate a point, but are you familiar with the Prime Directive in the Star Trek universe? In all the series, it's often used in ways where there is religious adherence to the doctrine, rather than human judgement in how to use it. "We cannot interfere with the internal affairs of another civilization" is a fine and morally justifiable principle, but what if a civilization is about to die because their planet is about to explode? What if you have the power to intervene, and save that civilization? What if they are completely powerless? Would you stand idly by and watch billions die?

There is always that possibility someone will grow up to become an intergalactic Hitler. There is always that possibility that by intervening, you will irreparably alter their development and send them into a Dark Age that may last centuries. Still, would you not feel that saving billions of lives vastly outweighs those possibilities?

I believe this is the level of clairvoyance we are attempting to deal with. Just as civil war did not erupt after the mid-20th century, it is not a guarantee that civil war will erupt in the early 21st century. We can look at the worst examples of history and learn very little, or we can also look at the morally gray areas of history and learn that, sometimes, life just does not fit into a perfect binary of zero and one.

[Simon_Jester]

While Ralin has his own thing in which if he plans on killing tens of millions of Republicans, well he can have a go of it, sure. At the end of the day, the real power to behold and fight against is not fellow Americans, but the government and right now Republicans are in control of it looking to potentially killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people by kicking them off of their health insurance, damaging the planet by ignoring Climate Change and eliminating environmental protections, destroying our education system with seedy for profit colleges and charter schools, etc, etc.

People blame the German people for letting the Nazi Party gain and keep its power without any resistance if any. An uprising may have to be in the works not to make the same mistakes. Especially if the establishment Democrats in power keep their heads in their asses.
______

Right wing militias are a thing. Looks like left wing militias need to form as well.

I would argue that we're a lot better off relying on the law to keep violence off the table.

Imagine saying "I don't like what this obnoxious fratboy is saying and he's talking about pouring goop on my car, I'm going to beat him up!"

Now, maybe if you win, you end up in a better outcome than you would have gotten by other means. If nothing unexpected goes wrong with the "beat him up" plan, you win. There is an ideal world where your 'pre-emptive strike' works.

But you have no guarantee of winning the fight with the fratboy. Even if you win, you have no guarantee of thriving in the long term conditions where things like assault charges come into play. You certainly have no guarantee of thriving in the long term conditions where this becomes a habit and you routinely assault people who offend against you.

Modern liberal civilization works, works in the empirical sense that it creates greater degrees of freedom, wealth, and collective achievement than any competing system. But it works through means that are subtle and sometimes hard to understand on an instinctive level. In particular, it does NOT work through raw animalistic violence directed against its internal enemies.

You can run a feudal state that way, you can run a grey oppressive dictatorship that only gradually runs itself into the ground that way. You can't run a functional modern democracy that way. And fantasies about purging the state of your political enemies really are fantasies. What will actually end up happening if you try it is very different from what you think will happen.

So saying "why don't we fight as dirty as we think our enemies are going to fight?" is a very dysfunctional approach to trying to win any kind of a long term struggle. Your best-case realistic scenario is destroying the thing you were fighting over, and it only gets worse from there.

---

I'm not sure what position you're divining from me or anyone else here. When I say "violence does not have to be always good, but also does not have to be always bad" I don't implicitly mean "murdering political opponents is A-OK in my book". There are not a lot of people who would explicitly call for others to pop caps into Republicans.

Me, I'm happy as long as we can look at and acknowledge the validity of a criticizing someone who would pop those caps. And do so without smothering them in #NotAllAntiRepublicans.

My perception is that you were inadvertently doing the smothering thing. Remember that he started out by saying "What happens if we become a party where only one point of view, the most extreme and violent one, is considered acceptable?" It was a hypothetical question. A counterfactual.

There is a natural human urge to go " #NotAll________ " whenever we see something that looks like a criticism or a false claim, about a category we identify with. This urge is very strong. I've been trying to back up and recognize it and train it out of myself, and I'm sorry if I bothered you when I tried to apply the 'back up and train' thought process to your post.

We call 'slippery slope' arguments fallacious when they fail to provide evidence that once you start going in a certain direction you will predictably continue in that direction. In this case, there is ample historical evidence for what happens to ideological movements that begin by killing ideological enemies, starting with the Jacobins and the Terror- or with the religious wars of earlier centuries.

If we're still talking about riots and not the Reign of Terror, on the other hand, it can't be denied there were violent occasions that had some hand in jump starting some kind of movement.

One riot occurring in one place can have a desirable effect in certain contexts. In most contexts it's just a riot, at best does no long term good, and at worst does damage to a good cause.

But when we scale it up to "embrace the pro-violence fringe of your own movement," this becomes disastrous. The pro-violence fringe will first take over the state at the expense of non-violent factions with similar goals (the Bolsheviks driving out the Provisional Government), then the thugs will take over the fringe movement at the expense of the intellectuals (Stalin taking over after Lenin's death), then the thugs will purge everyone who isn't a thug and ultimately the revolution will be betrayed, because it carried the seeds of its own destruction.

There are ways to have a successful revolt against an oppressive government, but being respectful towards the most violent fringe of one's movement isn't on the list.

The Republicans are in grave danger of experiencing this exact process over the next few decades, and the main thing stopping it is the set of basically peaceful civil institutions the US has. The same set that also stops us on the left from profiting by a shift to political violence, even if we wanted to.

That's a problem with crafting theories about the future here. Evidence for and against the necessity of some measure of violence exists in the past, and right now, there are so many undetermined variables. You or I could argue what may happen all we want, but in the end, we may end up using different events in history that had their own reasons for being, their own means to execute, their own conclusions. I'm not advocating for politicians to get pumped full of lead, but that does not mean I have to forget the importance of Stonewall, Attica,...

Which was my point, it's the conflation of this attempted assassination with those riots that can be very problematic. Different degrees of violence under different contexts, where one degree may go much too far. Many people assume the far left will inevitably en masse advocate for a bloody civil war, when that is not the desire of most of the sane people in it.

Okay, but when there is a specific person present in the room who is favoring escalating violence, seems willing to approve or at least give a free pass when an enemy gets assassinated, and who is insulting and berating people for being 'fake leftists' for saying assassinations are bad (or even that riots are bad)...

Disagreeing with that person, specifically and individually, is appropriate. As is pointing out that their position, followed to its logical conclusion, creates the sort of slide into exclusionist revolutionary thuggery I just described.

When the people saying "let's form militias, and it sounds pretty good if some of our political enemies get assassinated!" are right there in the room, it is not a good time to go talking about how such people are an insignificant fraction of the left. Or to say that there is no need to debate against such people.

I'll be concerned if ever that actually becomes accepted in a widespread scale. I'm not disputing that it is possible. I'm saying the possibility is so remote right now that it's like worrying a car will suddenly run me over on a completely empty street, on any street at all.

TRR was saying "Fred, you do realize that if you pursue a policy of dancing in the middle of streets, and insulting and trolling people who tell you that dancing in the middle of streets is bad, sooner or later you're going to get hit by a car?"

You replied with "that's silly, there's no cars anywhere on this street for half a mile in either direction!"

This seems like a miscommunication about the meaning of the words 'if' and 'then.' Or, as I mentioned, a #NotAllAntiRepublicans move touched off by the sensation that "the left" was being challenged on what it is, not warned about what it would be unwise to become.

Another thing never to assume is that discourse about what sort of violence is desired does not happen within these circles. Many may feel like violence is of some degree is necessary, but it is a very rare event where someone tries to throw a monkey wrench of "perhaps we should go on a mass shooting of Republicans on Capitol Hill" and goes unchallenged. There are some people who have been itching for a massive conflict. Most people just simply are not.

Over time, the Overton window will tend to switch towards 'mass shootings of political enemies' if, whenever the advocates of mass shootings ARE challenged, they are met with trolling and derision. It is not helping if, in addition to being trolled and derided, those who speak out against mass shootings are also smothered with #NotAllAntiRepublicans.

I'm reminded of a useful passage by Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

When we apply this to politics, the devil in question isn't necessarily the group of 'enemies' you originally started cutting down laws for. It can be a faction of your own party. It can be the secret police you founded to hunt down the 'enemies' in the first place. It can be almost any group that is sufficiently inured to violence, because such a group will nearly always be run by a smart thug. Smart thugs tend to win political contests with intellectuals, when violence is on the table as an option.

If it reaches this point. Again, I believe now is much too early a point to craft theories so definite. Don't mistake my lack of concern for it developing so badly as a lack of watchfulness for the movement degenerating to such a degree.

I wouldn't say it's so much a lack of watchfulness/concern, as a question of whether it's contextually appropriate to dispute why people are saying what they say.

Let me know if something is unclear here, I'm writing this under the influence of sedatives and not actually feeling sleepy enough to actually rest.

[ker-huggity]