Politically motivated violence thread

[Leadeye]

The celebrities or the unemployed?

Or Both, unemployed celebs.

 

[2A_Tom]

Vancouver is a beautiful city, very engaged in movie making. Let the celebs go there and ruin Canada.

 

[chipbennett]

Caveat: I'm old. I might have to side with But on this, to the extent of acknowledging other meanings exist

"Up against the wall mother******" also referred to the cops placing an individual (often a protester) under arrest, came from the hands on the wall, feet back and spread them preface to a pat down and arrest

Just a wild hunch, but I doubt said police officers were pointing flowers at said individuals in order to compel compliance.

I fail to see how this context/interpretation exonerates the Climate Brat in any way.

 

[chipbennett]

Have you ever been asked to do something that you couldn’t because of circumstances, and you say, “my back is against the wall”. You’re not saying you’re literally facing a firing squad. Listen to the video. She’s not threatening them with death. English isn’t her first language. I’d not assume she means what people are inferring uncharitably.

So, it seems that your contention is that she's not threatening death per se, but rather just run-of-the-mill violence, in order to compel world leaders to act according to her will - and the conclusion is that what she said is therefore acceptable?

 

[chipbennett]

I personally believe that Greta is a pawn being used by handlers. Her personality/delivery is offputting. I do not like her as a person and am opposed to her (not really hers) message.

I can see that what she said was not a threat of violence and see how some attempted to make it out to be.

My point is that some will always look for the most derogatory/inflammatory way to take Trumps words. No matter how much it is debunked. There is no reasoning with them.

The term is implacable.

What was it then, exactly?

What does it mean to put someone up against the wall, if not to use the threat of violence to compel some action?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So, it seems that your contention is that she's not threatening death per se, but rather just run-of-the-mill violence, in order to compel world leaders to act according to her will - and the conclusion is that what she said is therefore acceptable?

Hate the term acceptable these days... as though speech needs to fit standards or requirements, otherwise we are shamed or told what we meant, even if we didn't mean it.

It's about as tame as "bite the bullet"... no one is literally biting a bullet... or beating a dead horse... or killing two birds with one stone...

Why do we need to also police speech that we, deep down, know isn't intended to mean what some are pushing it to mean?

I recall a similar situation where you were citing actual definitions of "renegade" to excuse the use of "renegade jew" to be completely innocuous a while back.

Right and Left like to mix up literal and figurative when it fits their arguments, and it's exhausting.

I prefer the proper response to this to be nothing more than a soft chuckle... or a brisk exhalation of air from the nose... and move on to actually important things from actual important figures.

 

[chipbennett]

Hate the term acceptable these days... as though speech needs to fit standards or requirements, otherwise we are shamed or told what we meant, even if we didn't mean it.

It's about as tame as "bite the bullet"... no one is literally biting a bullet... or beating a dead horse... or killing two birds with one stone...

People did, actually, literally bite bullets. It was part of battlefield medicine, when no anesthesia/pain-killing medicine was available while performing an amputation or other painful procedure. The patient would literally bite down on a bullet as a means to help endure the pain.

I have no idea what this phrase has to do with the discussion at hand.

Why do we need to also police speech that we, deep down, know isn't intended to mean what some are pushing it to mean?

And yet, no one can articulate any context or meaning that implies anything other than using the threat of violence to compel.

I recall a similar situation where you were citing actual definitions of "renegade" to excuse the use of "renegade jew" to be completely innocuous a while back.

Um, ok? I don't remember that discussion. Seems rather non sequitur here.

Right and Left like to mix up literal and figurative when it fits their arguments, and it's exhausting.

There is no mixing up of literal or figurative here. Both the literal and figurative uses of "put them up against the wall" imply the use of violence.

I prefer the proper response to this to be nothing more than a soft chuckle... or a brisk exhalation of air from the nose... and move on to actually important things from actual important figures.

My response to the Climate Brat is primarily an eyeroll. I'm more interested in those who carry water for her.

 

[actaeon277]

When having bullets removed, I prefer to bite a leather belt.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

People did, actually, literally bite bullets. It was part of battlefield medicine, when no anesthesia/pain-killing medicine was available while performing an amputation or other painful procedure. The patient would literally bite down on a bullet as a means to help endure the pain.

Correct. You know the origins and meanings of phrases that are used today, but have no weight in how they're actually meant. Who in the world that says "bite the bullet" actually knows that? Much like "put them against the wall" having more of a "put the pressure on them" connotation that it has today.

I have no idea what this phrase has to do with the discussion at hand.

Just examples of connotation/denotation, which... to me... seems to be what this is about.

And yet, no one can articulate any context or meaning that implies anything other than using the threat of violence to compel.

Above, in the rare cases I've heard it (and maybe it's more prevalent in other countries?), it just has a "put the pressure on" thing to it.

Um, ok? I don't remember that discussion. Seems rather non sequitur here.

I bring it up because you're doing the "Here's what it literally means" thing again, without giving room for the speaker to have intended a different meaning.

My response to the Climate Brat is primarily an eyeroll. I'm more interested in those who carry water for her.

I don't think she has any friends here. But there are some here that don't have the outrage machine cranked to 11. I'm floating around a 3 or 4 right now. Easy listening.

 

[jamil]

So, it seems that your contention is that she's not threatening death per se, but rather just run-of-the-mill violence, in order to compel world leaders to act according to her will - and the conclusion is that what she said is therefore acceptable?

No, I don't think she was threatening violence. I'm saying that she's saying that they should put pressure on leaders so that they would do their job. Based on other things she's said, she thinks their job is to force the West to stop using fossil fuels (she doesn't seem to be advocating that China do anything different). Obviously I disagree with what she's saying, but that doesn't mean I have to say she's saying things she's not saying to make that point.

 

[jamil]

Hate the term acceptable these days... as though speech needs to fit standards or requirements, otherwise we are shamed or told what we meant, even if we didn't mean it.

It's about as tame as "bite the bullet"... no one is literally biting a bullet... or beating a dead horse... or killing two birds with one stone...

Why do we need to also police speech that we, deep down, know isn't intended to mean what some are pushing it to mean?

I recall a similar situation where you were citing actual definitions of "renegade" to excuse the use of "renegade jew" to be completely innocuous a while back.

Right and Left like to mix up literal and figurative when it fits their arguments, and it's exhausting.

I prefer the proper response to this to be nothing more than a soft chuckle... or a brisk exhalation of air from the nose... and move on to actually important things from actual important figures.

That's all? I should at least get to use naughty words. If nothing else, at least call her a mascot. I really liked that one.

 

[jamil]

Correct. You know the origins and meanings of phrases that are used today, but have no weight in how they're actually meant. Who in the world that says "bite the bullet" actually knows that? Much like "put them against the wall" having more of a "put the pressure on them" connotation that it has today.



Just examples of connotation/denotation, which... to me... seems to be what this is about.



Above, in the rare cases I've heard it (and maybe it's more prevalent in other countries?), it just has a "put the pressure on" thing to it.




I bring it up because you're doing the "Here's what it literally means" thing again, without giving room for the speaker to have intended a different meaning.




I don't think she has any friends here. But there are some here that don't have the outrage machine cranked to 11. I'm floating around a 3 or 4 right now. Easy listening.

Backs against the wall also means being cornered. Like giving someone no other choice but to do the thing they want. It doesn't imply violence. It implies putting political pressure on leaders until they have to do what they want. Cancel culture puts companies and celebrities and twitteratti's back against the wall all the time. No one's getting shot. Plenty of people getting canceled. Seems like we'd be more productive not chasing red herrings.

 

[chipbennett]

Backs against the wall also means being cornered. Like giving someone no other choice but to do the thing they want. It doesn't imply violence. It implies putting political pressure on leaders until they have to do what they want. Cancel culture puts companies and celebrities and twitteratti's back against the wall all the time. No one's getting shot. Plenty of people getting canceled. Seems like we'd be more productive not chasing red herrings.

It is implying figurative force. It is a figurative threat of violence. As I asked Acateon: why does the person who is against the wall/cornered have no other choice? Why can the person not simply walk away from the wall/out of the corner?

I am mostly fascinated by the incredible lengths some are going to deny that the words she used mean what they mean. I readily concede that she didn't know the meaning of the words she used. Her ignorance, however, does not absolve her of the ramifications of using the words she chose.

The most productive such ramification would be her taking a (figurative) seat and (literally) shutting up.

 

[2A_Tom]

The last time we had this lively a conversation was when I tried to diffuse a situation by making a joke.

I was accused of cultural appropriation (supposed Ebonics), plagiarism for not attributing a quote to the only person that has ever uttered those words (that he didn't even speak it Ebinically), and totally not feeling the pain of the incident (that I was in no way referring to).

 

[Doug]

Greta Thunberg does not have enough education or life experience to understand that her remarks would be seen as threatening.
This is the problem when you take seriously the policies children recommend and the things children say.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It is implying figurative force. It is a figurative threat of violence. As I asked Acateon: why does the person who is against the wall/cornered have no other choice? Why can the person not simply walk away from the wall/out of the corner?

I am mostly fascinated by the incredible lengths some are going to deny that the words she used mean what they mean. I readily concede that she didn't know the meaning of the words she used. Her ignorance, however, does not absolve her of the ramifications of using the words she chose.

The most productive such ramification would be her taking a (figurative) seat and (literally) shutting up.

Cross posting from the Global Warming thread... Chip, what does the term "holding their feet to the fire" as regards to pressuring our representatives to vote against gun control laws mean to you? Does it mean we literally need to build a fire and literally hold their feet in that fire, physically torturing them until they vote the way we want them to? Or does it simply mean to apply political pressure on them to vote the way we want them to?

 

[chipbennett]

Cross posting from the Global Warming thread... Chip, what does the term "holding their feet to the fire" as regards to pressuring our representatives to vote against gun control laws mean to you? Does it mean we literally need to build a fire and literally hold their feet in that fire, physically torturing them until they vote the way we want them to? Or does it simply mean to apply political pressure on them to vote the way we want them to?

Figurative idioms have literal, historical origins, which may impact the appropriateness of using an idiom in given situations. Consider at least three:

1. Hold one's feet to the fire
2. Put one up against the wall
3. Hold a gun to one's head

All could have been used in the situation being discussed. Would all, some, or none have been appropriate if used? Why or why not?

Could it possibly be that the historical origin of two of these idioms refers to execution/murder, and one refers to something far less (torment/torture - injury, but not death)? Could it be that one is regularly still used in the literal sense today, one is still used in the literal sense today - though far less-frequently today, regularly used in the literal sense in our lifetimes - and one has largely not been used in its literal sense for hundreds of years?

Unless you know of people still having their feet held to the fire as a form of torture, that is.

(For all I know, China could still use this and other forms of torture?)

Holding one's feet the the fire, as an idiom for holding someone responsible, has been an accepted part of our lexicon for over half a century. As far as I know, neither of the other two phrases used in the same way idiomatically is now or has ever been similarly accepted.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Figurative idioms have literal, historical origins, which may impact the appropriateness of using an idiom in given situations. Consider at least three:

1. Hold one's feet to the fire
2. Put one up against the wall
3. Hold a gun to one's head

All could have been used in the situation being discussed. Would all, some, or none have been appropriate if used? Why or why not?

Could it possibly be that the historical origin of two of these idioms refers to execution/murder, and one refers to something far less (torment/torture - injury, but not death)? Could it be that one is regularly still used in the literal sense today, one is still used in the literal sense today - though far less-frequently today, regularly used in the literal sense in our lifetimes - and one has largely not been used in its literal sense for hundreds of years?

Unless you know of people still having their feet held to the fire as a form of torture, that is.

(For all I know, China could still use this and other forms of torture?)

Holding one's feet the the fire, as an idiom for holding someone responsible, has been an accepted part of our lexicon for over half a century. As far as I know, neither of the other two phrases used in the same way idiomatically is now or has ever been similarly accepted.

Somehow I don't think Ray Wylie Hubbard was talking about a firing squad...

[video=youtube;erikrks4KqY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erikrks4KqY[/video]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Again... "accepted", "appropriateness", to who? Why is anyone that considers themselves right-leaning trying to judge how acceptable or appropriate someone else's speech is?

There's a whole thread for that kind of thing.

At least you haven't said "problematic" or "toxic" yet... I hope.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Again... "accepted", "appropriateness", to who? Why is anyone that considers themselves right-leaning trying to judge how acceptable or appropriate someone else's speech is?

There's a whole thread for that kind of thing.

At least you haven't said "problematic" or "toxic" yet... I hope.

I haven't seen him say "conflate" yet either.