Politically motivated violence thread

[BugI02]

Heck ya!

He's almost labeling them as "enemy of the people."

Or [STRIKE]'journalist' 'opinion writer'[/STRIKE] 'occasional guest columnist'

Might wanna stay away from the embassy

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube;bQVsyvuij20]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQVsyvuij20[/video]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

A special prosecutor has been appointed in the Jussie Smollett case

https://twitter.com/marknyt/status/1164916376978558976

 

[KLB]

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/0...webb-special-prosecutor-judge-michael-toomin/

 

[jamil]

Heck ya!

He's almost labeling them as "enemy of the people."

C'mon man. That's a pretty lousy moral equivalence you're making there, don't you think?. Labeling the "other" with something like "enemy of the people" doesn't imply anything stronger than not supporting or voting for them. While I don't condone such labels, I don't think calling them that is even in the same order of magnitude as indiscriminately lumping everyone who has voted for Trump or wears a MAGA hat as a racist who must be irradiated. Now. The language he used could possibly be interpreted that the evil that needs irradiating is racism. I really doubt that was the intent. Looking at his twitter feed, that dude is ****ing crazy.

 

[T.Lex]

C'mon man. That's a pretty lousy moral equivalence you're making there, don't you think?

In fact, no. There is absolutely a moral equivalency, unless the word "enemy" has lost all intensity.

I will concede that my familiarity with the phrase is more historical, though, thus it has a certain... imperative connotation.

If a diluted, American-politics euphemism is all that is attributed to it, then maybe you have a point.

Don't get me wrong, the Aslan dude's gross generalization is properly ridiculed. But, that rhetoric is 100% mirrored by "the other side."

Compare his "scourge that must be eradicated from society" to Lenin's decree in 1917:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/28.htm

Members of leading bodies of the Cadet Party, as a party of enemies of the people, are liable to arrest and trial by revolutionary tribunal.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

In fact, no. There is absolutely a moral equivalency, unless the word "enemy" has lost all intensity.

I will concede that my familiarity with the phrase is more historical, though, thus it has a certain... imperative connotation.

If a diluted, American-politics euphemism is all that is attributed to it, then maybe you have a point.

Don't get me wrong, the Aslan dude's gross generalization is properly ridiculed. But, that rhetoric is 100% mirrored by "the other side."

Compare his "scourge that must be eradicated from society" to Lenin's decree in 1917:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/28.htm

Except Trump, in calling the MSM the "enemy of the people" hasn't called for their execution like this guy did with Trump supporters. At least that's my interpretation of the term "eradicated". He's calling for violence against Trump supporters. Trump is simply saying that the media can't be trusted. YUUUUUGE difference.

 

[jamil]

In fact, no. There is absolutely a moral equivalency, unless the word "enemy" has lost all intensity.

I will concede that my familiarity with the phrase is more historical, though, thus it has a certain... imperative connotation.

If a diluted, American-politics euphemism is all that is attributed to it, then maybe you have a point.

Don't get me wrong, the Aslan dude's gross generalization is properly ridiculed. But, that rhetoric is 100% mirrored by "the other side."

Compare his "scourge that must be eradicated from society" to Lenin's decree in 1917:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/28.htm

Dude. I think you’re losing touch with reality here. I’m sure there are some radical right wingers who think “the enemy” should be eradicated in the same way Reza Aslan wants for the people who voted for Trump. But that’s one of the things that make the two cases so different. The guy who tweeted that, Raza Aslan, is pretty mainstream. He’s a professor, a TV host, he’s a blue-check bonafide member in good standing of the Twitterotti woke, with a not huge, but much larger platform than most.

The right wingers who might say they want to eradicate the people who voted for, say, Obama, aren’t mainstream. In fact, I’ve never heard the equivalent language from any right winger. I’d have to go over to Stormfront to find it. They have no platform. They’re not mainstream. They’re fringe. But we don’t have to go far to find people who want to eradicate their “enemies” on the left. It’s on MSNBC. It’s on CNN. It’s as mainstream as any media outlet.

We both agree that it’s not okay to say that just because someone voted for a president you don’t like, everyone who voted for them should be eradicated. When it comes to right wingers tweeting things like that, Twitter seems to figure out that’s a violation of their policies and those people get banned. The media seems to lose that bit of moral clarity when it comes to people they agree with saying it.

It seems to me you brought it up on INGO to say it’s hypocritical to scorn the left for that kind of talk when they’re doing the equivalent. What I pointed out is that the right, at least the people on INGO who call Democrats “the enemy”, aren’t saying these “enemies” should all be eradicated. It’s not that calling political enemies is right. I think it’s wrong. But the degree to which it’s wrong isn’t equal to saying also that those people should be eradicated. Digging through semantics won’t save your argument.

 

[2A_Tom]

They will eradicate themselves when they try to eradicate us.

 

[2A_Tom]

 

[Brad69]

You guys know that Reza Aslan is a cannibal ?

He ate part of a humans brain !

Dude needs to be shunned!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m3feCtT61Cc


BTW

Tuisi Gabbard is a Hindu and was irate over this idiot!
https://www.thequint.com/news/world...aslan-cnn-believer-over-portrayal-of-hinduism

He was also fired from CNN for being a a$$
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/reza-aslan-interview-cnn-trump-podcast

This dude is a hate monger not a reasonable person by anyone’s standards!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You'll recall Andy Ngo, the journalist that was "beaten" by Antifa... went on to Joe Rogan's podcast to talk about it.

Well Joe Rogan just retweeted this.

https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/1164961745099788288

It's a chain, so if you view that one, you can scroll down through the rest of it. Seems Andy isn't so innocent, and likes to encourage political violence himself... and frame it dripping in propaganda.

Amazing new footage emerges from a lawsuit showing Andy Ngo laughing as Patriot Prayer members plan an attack on patrons of a local bar.

The twenty-minute video was posted by Portland journalist @alex_zee, and it is astonishing

A note: Right-wing writer @MrAndyNgo is with the PP group the entire time as they plan out their attack. He smiles as they joke about being outnumbered. There's no way he couldn't know the group was planning on instigating violence against people at Cider Riot.

After several more discussions about weaponry, wind direction for mace, and being outnumbered, the group calls fellow members to recruit backup. They decide to go ahead with their plan to ambush the patrons at Cider Riot and start a brawl

And they accomplish their goal.

From the Portland Mercury

One of the allegations by the owner of Cider Riot is that his patrons were injured by bricks thrown into the patio. Well, check out these images from the video showing a woman with a brick in her hand. Andy is the guy in blue. Thanks to @ayeleeyan for posting these stills.

And of course, Andy also posted misleading footage after the attack. He shows a woman aggressively approaching Patriot Prayer members in hysterics, and then a Patriot Prayer member hits her with some kind of club.

 

[JettaKnight]

You'll recall Andy Ngo, the journalist that was "beaten" by Antifa... went on to Joe Rogan's podcast to talk about it.

Well Joe Rogan just retweeted this.

https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/1164961745099788288

It's a chain, so if you view that one, you can scroll down through the rest of it. Seems Andy isn't so innocent, and likes to encourage political violence himself... and frame it dripping in propaganda.

What????

I do believe I was called out for questioning his journalistic chops.


EDIT: That's some seriously damning photos of PP. Helmets, masks, bricks in hand...

Antifa is so far left, and PP is so far right that they meet on the opposite side of lawfulness and integrity. Their message, whatever it is, is lost under their blood lust.


They're akin to little kids who fight, "Not me! He's the bad guy!"

 

[T.Lex]

Dude. I think you’re losing touch with reality here.

Or, maybe I'm just familiar with the origin story of the "enemy of the people" phrase.

I’m sure there are some radical right wingers who think “the enemy” should be eradicated in the same way Reza Aslan wants for the people who voted for Trump. But that’s one of the things that make the two cases so different. The guy who tweeted that, Raza Aslan, is pretty mainstream. He’s a professor, a TV host, he’s a blue-check bonafide member in good standing of the Twitterotti woke, with a not huge, but much larger platform than most.

I consider the INGOers who regurgitate the "enemy of the people" vitriol to be pretty mainstream, too. I do not know "woke," other than I am confident that they, like I, woke up this morning.

I do not know how "woke" Trump is, but I can't think of anyone with a bigger... platform than he.

We both agree that it’s not okay to say that just because someone voted for a president you don’t like, everyone who voted for them should be eradicated.

Nor should it be ok to label those who disagree as treasonous "enemies of the people" - but that's where we are.

(As a total aside, I have no idea about the qualities that make someone "woke" or the degrees of "wokeness" or multi-hyphenate-wokenocity, so I probably won't even get into a discussion about that.)

When it comes to right wingers tweeting things like that, Twitter seems to figure out that’s a violation of their policies and those people get banned. The media seems to lose that bit of moral clarity when it comes to people they agree with saying it.

The lack or moral clarity abounds. Or, perhaps more accurately, the abundance of rhetorical hypocrisy is astonishing.

It seems to me you brought it up on INGO to say it’s hypocritical to scorn the left for that kind of talk when they’re doing the equivalent. What I pointed out is that the right, at least the people on INGO who call Democrats “the enemy”, aren’t saying these “enemies” should all be eradicated. It’s not that calling political enemies is right. I think it’s wrong. But the degree to which it’s wrong isn’t equal to saying also that those people should be eradicated. Digging through semantics won’t save your argument.

Semantics and history are different.

"Enemy of the people" is not the same as "nattering naybobs of negativity." (Whatever those are.)

 

[BugI02]

Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch

'Enemy of the people' == Trump is ... Stalin? Wait! I thought that was Bernie?

And "We're better than that" (well, not me. I'm an 'enemy of the sanctimonious')

We know! Wake us when you get some new material

You come across like a bad horror story writer, all dark portents and sinister omens

"Look! Look! Here comes Trump to kill us all!"

 

[jamil]

Or, maybe I'm just familiar with the origin story of the "enemy of the people" phrase.



I consider the INGOers who regurgitate the "enemy of the people" vitriol to be pretty mainstream, too. I do not know "woke," other than I am confident that they, like I, woke up this morning.

I do not know how "woke" Trump is, but I can't think of anyone with a bigger... platform than he.



Nor should it be ok to label those who disagree as treasonous "enemies of the people" - but that's where we are.

(As a total aside, I have no idea about the qualities that make someone "woke" or the degrees of "wokeness" or multi-hyphenate-wokenocity, so I probably won't even get into a discussion about that.)


The lack or moral clarity abounds. Or, perhaps more accurately, the abundance of rhetorical hypocrisy is astonishing.


Semantics and history are different.

"Enemy of the people" is not the same as "nattering naybobs of negativity." (Whatever those are.)

You’ve beat around some bushes but you neglected to address the point. I never said “the enemy” rhetoric wasn’t morally wrong. I said it isn’t the moral equivalence of saying people need to be eradicated. Historical **** doesn’t matter in semantics. Meaning is local and dependent on context. Moral clarity isn’t a binary. It requires the ability to accurately resolve amplitude.

And there is some amplitidinal distance between calling for the eradication of the people you disagree with and saying someone is the enemy. If you say the people you disagree with should be eradicated, you are implicitly identifying them as your enemies. If you’re only saying they’re the enemy—I’m not denying the moral amplitude here, just speaking relatively—you still have room to advocate for a nonviolent disposition. And of course, if you’re going with eradication as your ultimate disposition, then that’s a moral equivalence.

If you’re going to argue it, argue against that. Prove your case that within the context of the original statements, they’re morally equivalent. Prove there is no difference in moral amplitude between the two.

 

[jamil]

What????

I do believe I was called out for questioning his journalistic chops.


EDIT: That's some seriously damning photos of PP. Helmets, masks, bricks in hand...

Antifa is so far left, and PP is so far right that they meet on the opposite side of lawfulness and integrity. Their message, whatever it is, is lost under their blood lust.


They're akin to little kids who fight, "Not me! He's the bad guy!"

Well, now there’s some evidence what Patriot Prayer is about. I had given them the benefit of doubt, but I think they’ve removed the doubt. And it looks like Andy Ngo is likely pretty much done.

 

[T.Lex]

If you’re going to argue it, argue against that. Prove your case that within the context of the original statements, they’re morally equivalent. Prove there is no difference in moral amplitude between the two.

Prove that those who use the phrase "enemy of the people" (including Trump) are ignorant of the actual meaning of the phrase? "Context" here is like defending those who say "*****rdly" is a bad word because they don't know what it means.

Ok.

The Lenin quote in one of my posts above is a good starting point. Stalin really gave it the "eradication" angle.

Did some quick googling to confirm my recollection, and here's a decent overview.
https://www.econlib.org/enemy-of-the-people/

And actually, wiki does a solid job regarding the origins, too, although it clearly has an anti-Trump bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

There is no difference in moral amplitude between the two phrases.

Oh, unless you want to use semantics to say, "Well, Trump doesn't mean it like THAT (because he's ignorant of that meaning)." But then you'd have to prove he's ignorant of it. He's one of the smartest people in history according to his supporters.

ETA:
Oh snap. The forum censor dictionary is ignorant of a certain word synonymous with "miserly" that starts with an "n."

 

[Leadeye]

Need something like Thunderdome where these fringe people can beat each other up without damaging anything or creating a disturbance. Televise it so they get what they are really after, attention.

 

[T.Lex]

Need something like Thunderdome where these fringe people can beat each other up without damaging anything or creating a disturbance. Televise it so they get what they are really after, attention.

Sounds like a solid pitch to Fox TV for a new reality show.