Republican candidate 'body-slams' Guardian reporter in Montana

[The Romulan Republic]

It's not terrorism if it's an uprising.

I'm afraid I don't find this discussion amusing.

Let's keep in mind MLK didn't get anywhere by just his own peaceful protests alone. He would point to the Black Panthers with their guns to show what would be a worse outcome for everyone if his movement wasn't listened to and on a related note, it was potential black gun owners that made Reagan of all people sign a ban on assault weapons.

Certainly, it is a fair point that those who ignore peaceful protests may find themselves facing violence instead. That, however, is not the same as advocating terrorism as a tactic or a solution (which to my knowledge, MLK didn't- he may have pointed to the possibility of violence if a peaceful solution could not be reached, but he pursued the peaceful solution first, even, ultimately, at the cost of his own life). Nor is this remotely like what Ralin is advocating.

Ralin is literally saying that upwards of 40% of the American populace should be denied employment, denied education, and targeted by terrorist violence for no apparent reason other than because they hold a view he finds offensive, and he wants to see them suffer. That is evil.

And take this piece of undiluted arrogance:

Not a problem. There is absolutely no danger of 'the Left' becoming as bad as neo-Nazis or white supremacists. Anyone who isn't part of the far right is automatically a better person than them by virtue of not being a Nazi or a white supremacist.

That kind of ironclad self-assurance that "we" are innately superior to "them" (and its corollary: that any atrocity your side commits is justified as long as it is against "them") is the mindset of a fanatic. It is the mindset of people who herd Jews into cattle cars. It is the mindset of people who burn little children because God tells them that infidels must die.

Which is part of why I decided that there was no point in trying to converse with him further. There are, generally, only two answers to that level of fanaticism: mockery (in public discourse), or force (if they try to put their beliefs into action).

[Ralin]

Ralin is literally saying that upwards of 40% of the American populace should be denied employment, denied education, and targeted by terrorist violence for no apparent reason other than because they hold a view he finds offensive, and he wants to see them suffer. That is evil.

Oh my god, Trump supporters might suffer for openly supporting racism, sexism, homophobia and the murder of refugees! The horror!

Newsflash genius: The point of actively making it socially unacceptable to support shit like that is to get the racists you are so deeply concerned about to realize that their opinions are unwelcome and either change them or shut up and not act on them.

That kind of ironclad self-assurance that "we" are innately superior to "them" (and its corollary: that any atrocity your side commits is justified as long as it is against "them") is the mindset of a fanatic. It is the mindset of people who herd Jews into cattle cars. It is the mindset of people who burn little children because God tells them that infidels must die.

Which is part of why I decided that there was no point in trying to converse with him further. There are, generally, only two answers to that level of fanaticism: mockery (in public discourse), or force (if they try to put their beliefs into action).

Please TRR, tell me more about how fighting back against people who openly support killing or otherwise hurting large swathes of the population who have done nothing to warrant it is exactly as bad as killing or brutalizing people for being black, gay, trans, Muslim, looking like they might be gay, trans or a Muslim, etc?

Which is part of why I decided that there was no point in trying to converse with him further. There are, generally, only two answers to that level of fanaticism: mockery (in public discourse), or force (if they try to put their beliefs into action).

And you've made it abundantly clear you'll never, ever put your money where your mouth is when it comes to force, or even refrain from tut tut-ing people who do. So I think I'm pretty safe.

I'm afraid I don't find this discussion amusing.

I don't find having to talk down a suicidal friend who was terrified about going homeless again once Trump starts taking a knife to social services amusing.

See TRR, this more than anything is why you annoy the crap out of people. It's not just your tendency to go chicken little whenever Trump goes boo. It's the fact that when you get down to it, this is all mostly an intellectual exercise for you. You're insulated enough that you can afford to dither about niceties like whether it's proper to punish people for advocating pro-Trump shit or how we should totally respect all the legal rights of neo-Nazis because when it comes down to it you know you're not going to get your ass beaten no matter how things work out. Check your goddamn privilege, and also fuck you for making me non-ironically say that.

[The Romulan Republic]

On the subject of political violence/terrorism, weather it is justified, and weather it is acceptable to use it against more than a hundred million people simply for holding an opinion that you find offensive, I have nothing to say that I have not already said.

As for the rest:

And you've made it abundantly clear you'll never, ever put your money where your mouth is when it comes to force, or even refrain from tut tut-ing people who do. So I think I'm pretty safe.

Naturally, since I did not threaten you, unless you consider pointing out the fact that you may find yourself on the wrong side of the law, with all that entails, a threat.

I don't find having to talk down a suicidal friend who was terrified about going homeless again once Trump starts taking a knife to social services amusing.

My sympathies to you and your friend.

However, it does not disprove my position. Do you think innocent people never die as a result of political violence?

See TRR, this more than anything is why you annoy the crap out of people. It's not just your tendency to go chicken little whenever Trump goes boo. It's the fact that when you get down to it, this is all mostly an intellectual exercise for you. You're insulated enough that you can afford to dither about niceties like whether it's proper to punish people for advocating pro-Trump shit or how we should totally respect all the legal rights of neo-Nazis because when it comes down to it you know you're not going to get your ass beaten no matter how things work out. Check your goddamn privilege, and also fuck you for making me non-ironically say that.

Ad Hominems.

I have even less interest in debating my personality, character, motives, or (presumed) circumstances than I do in debating justice with a fanatic. I am not the topic of this thread.

[Raw Shark]

I am not the topic of this thread.

That is true. You do, however, spell poorly.

[Ralin]

On the subject of political violence/terrorism, weather it is justified, and weather it is acceptable to use it against more than a hundred million people simply openly supporting subjecting people to murder, violence and oppression for not being of the appropriate race, gender, religion or sexuality, I have nothing to say that I have not already said.

There, I fixed it for you.

However, it does not disprove my position. Do you think innocent people never die as a result of political violence?

Of course they do, Little Lord Fauntleroy. That's happening right now as we speak. Stopping that is the goddamn point I'm talking about, and part of that means fighting back against the people causing it.

Ad Hominems.

I have even less interest in debating my personality, character, motives, or (presumed) circumstances than I do in debating justice with a fanatic. I am not the topic of this thread.

Not an ad hominem, because your 'think of the poor racists!!!' bleating comes directly from your own insulation and lack of stakes in the matter.

[Simon_Jester]

Making this into a war about who can fight dirtier, the would-be fascists or the self-imagined anti-fascists, is a very bad idea.

Right doesn't make might, you see; there is no guarantee that your side would win. Even if the movement started righteous, and somehow preserved its righteousness and willingness to care for unfortunate Americans, even after having rendered many millions of other Americans so deeply unfortunate themselves... what if you lose?

I'm reminded of a quote from A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper:
"So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!"

Sir Thomas More:
"Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"

William Roper:
"Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"

Sir Thomas 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 is 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, do 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!"

[K. A. Pital]

But if you flat-out refuse to fight, your rights will be taken from you. No rights exist in vacuum. They are won in struggle.

[Zaune]

Nobody's really saying that, though, even if we all have wildly different positions on when resorting to violence is justified and who it should be employed against.

However, as I've pointed out elsewhere on this forum when the issue has come up, a principled stand against employing violence in anything but the narrowest definition of self-defence is going to end with us being trampled under the boots of factions who aren't so principled. Taking the ostensible high road and refusing to fight back against bullies doesn't make them get bored and give up, it makes them get even more sadistic because they think you're an easy target. If appeals to higher authority are met with indifference, or if higher authority are the bullies, then the only thing left to do is hit back and hit hard enough to make the bullies as scared of you as they want you to be of them.

But that doesn't constitute an excuse to become a bully yourself. To continue the schoolyard analogy, what I'm endorsing is coming to school with a sockful of marbles in your pocket, nailing the school bully hard enough to break his nose when he tries to rough you up and giving him a solid kick in the nuts for good measure. What Ralin's proposing is closer to coming to school with your dad's Glock and putting a couple of bullets into the bully, his friends, his little brother and the teacher who let him off with a stern warning because "boys will be boys", then stopping off to set his house on fire before running for the border.

[K. A. Pital]

I find a great deal of resistance actions justified just because the system is so hideous (you only find out the true depth of how awful things are with age, I guess, and that is how you become a double brewed cynic of my kind). But I agree Ralin is going too far.

The problem, though, is that he's discussing going too far. But the actual situation is that the population is doing almost nothing notable, nothing I could call a solid resistance action. This encompasses peaceful acts too. It's not even OWS level. Much weaker.

[The Romulan Republic]

You gotta love how Ralin's argument against me now basically boils down to "You're obviously just privileged and have no real stakes in the issue, because anyone who actually cared would agree with me." The arrogance is incredible, but its the usual faith in the self-evident superiority of their position that all fanatics possess.

[The Romulan Republic]

But if you flat-out refuse to fight, your rights will be taken from you. No rights exist in vacuum. They are won in struggle.

Rights can be lost if they are not defended, but there is more than one valid and useful form of struggle, and which forms are necessary and justified depends on the situation. There is a vast gulf between "no action" and "armed force", and which forms of struggle are most appropriate and effective depend on circumstances. Just as it is not a binary choice between "Fight an armed revolt" and "Lose all our rights."

As I have said many times, I am not arguing that fighting is wrong in all circumstances. I am arguing against those who rush to embrace that option, rather than holding it as the last resort, a "necessary evil" when all other options have failed. Much as I would argue against a preemptive military strike on a foreign nation.

I do not want to see our options prematurely limited to only the most desperate and destructive course of action, either by those who are afraid that their is no other option, or those who are eager for an excuse to sate their blood lust.

And I also think that if we're going to have a discussion on when violence is necessary, we need to start by differentiating between necessity, and violence simply for the sake of pay back. For all his vitriol, Ralin doesn't impress me as someone who thinks that Trump is a dictator who can only be resisted by force. Hell, look at how he described my view of Trump:

"...your tendency to go chicken little whenever Trump goes boo."

If Ralin were sincerely arguing that he believes violence to be necessary to preserve our democracy, I'd still disagree with him, strenuously, but I don't even think that's what he's doing. He just wants payback.

So we need to start by differentiating between "necessary violence" and "I just want to see them bleed."

[Simon_Jester]

But if you flat-out refuse to fight, your rights will be taken from you. No rights exist in vacuum. They are won in struggle.

What's problematic is initiating an unprovoked, uncoordinated 'fight' against everyone who supports an ideology one hates, without a clearly defined target, by randomly harassing everyone even broadly associated with the ideology, whether THEY would ever actually have wanted to fight YOU or not.

At that point, you're not fighting to protect your rights. You're starting a war- a war you may not win.