Politically motivated violence thread

[BugI02]

I'm not sure what your point is.

That since both qualify as ancient history for her, she could have meant either the 'arrest them and march them away' trope or the 'line them up for the firing squad' trope. As GP says, meanings change; why argue about it

Is it another Rorschach Test? Did someone leave the Overton Window ajar?

Who do you think those 60s anarchists were calling out for execution?

 

[BugI02]

Lot of things 60 years ago mean different things today.

Today, I'd probably answer "5.11" if someone asked me "What's your bag?"

Lord Darlington would; well, not approve, but at least understand

 

[jamil]

That since both qualify as ancient history for her, she could have meant either the 'arrest them and march them away' trope or the 'line them up for the firing squad' trope. As GP says, meanings change; why argue about it

Is it another Rorschach Test? Did someone leave the Overton Window ajar?

Who do you think those 60s anarchists were calling out for execution?

The 60s activists were threatening violence. That seems obvious because they were violent. I don't think the brat was calling for violence. She claims she's a pacifist. It looks to me like she's been putting leaders "up against the wall" of her shame mob. Do what I say or we'll shame you. That's what she's saying.

 

[eldirector]

The 60s activists were threatening violence. That seems obvious because they were violent. I don't think the brat was calling for violence. She claims she's a pacifist. It looks to me like she's been putting leaders "up against the wall" of her shame mob. Do what I say or we'll shame you. That's what she's saying.

Well, considering words ARE violence, it is all the same.

Additionally, an actual pacifist does not shame.

All I am really doing is pointing out her (and her "handlers'") hypocrisy. That, of course, is the hallmark of their ideology. Say and do whatever you want, but expect others to only hear your so-called "good intentions".

 

[chipbennett]

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'm going to make DoggyDaddy's day. You're conflating appropriateness of expression with appropriateness of the idea/content being expressed.

The former is a matter of censorship/prior restraint, which I agree 100% with you is not a view consistent with conservative principles. The latter is a matter of debating ideas, and is the purpose for engaging in debate through public discourse.

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law — the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.


Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of law-breaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated.

Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

- Louis Brandeis, Whitney v California

 

[jamil]

Well, considering words ARE violence, it is all the same.

Additionally, an actual pacifist does not shame.

All I am really doing is pointing out her (and her "handlers'") hypocrisy. That, of course, is the hallmark of their ideology. Say and do whatever you want, but expect others to only hear your so-called "good intentions".

Dude, stop it! I haven't **** yet.

 

[jamil]

I'm going to make DoggyDaddy's day. You're conflating appropriateness of expression with appropriateness of the idea/content being expressed.

The former is a matter of censorship/prior restraint, which I agree 100% with you is not a view consistent with conservative principles. The latter is a matter of debating ideas, and is the purpose for engaging in debate through public discourse.

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law — the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.


Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of law-breaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated.

Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

- Louis Brandeis, Whitney v California

Ohh. You said the C-word.

 

[chipbennett]

Okay, but now I'll expect you to anytime someone uses any of those phrases.

Seriously though, she did say that she meant it as holding people responsible, but I also think that holding them responsible means mob-shaming. Because it's what they do. It's what she does. Her entire unhinged UN monologue was that. Trying to shame the West for not being even more ape**** than they are about climate change. Yet she doesn't say **** about holding China or India or Russia accountable.

I never joined in the outrage mob to begin with. My reaction to the Climate Brat has always been . I was having a meta-conversation that seems now, I think, to have mostly concluded.

 

[jamil]

Yeah. I'd way rather talk about this. I can't stop laughing.

Well, considering words ARE violence, it is all the same.

Additionally, an actual pacifist does not shame.

All I am really doing is pointing out her (and her "handlers'") hypocrisy. That, of course, is the hallmark of their ideology. Say and do whatever you want, but expect others to only hear your so-called "good intentions".

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I'm going to make DoggyDaddy's day. You're conflating appropriateness of expression with appropriateness of the idea/content being expressed.

*SNIP*

Well, to be honest, I appropriated Alpo's outrage over the use of the word "conflate".

 

[BugI02]

But for that to be cultural appropriation, that would imply Alpo has ..... uhhh, never mind














Good morning, Alpo

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I was really hoping to get the diagonal.

 

[jamil]

I was really hoping to get the diagonal.

Where's "that's not a good look for you"?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Where's "that's not a good look for you"?

It's like music bingo, you can't fit all the good stuff on one card. Obviously that's on the back page.

 

[jamil]

It's like music bingo, you can't fit all the good stuff on one card. Obviously that's on the back page.

I think I've seen it on twitter more than "Oof". I mean, that one is pretty universal anyway.

 

[BugI02]

Where's "that's not a good look for you"?

I think I've seen it on twitter more than "Oof". I mean, that one is pretty universal anyway.

Nice pick. No nit will ever feel safe with you around

I say 'A' for effort

 

[JettaKnight]

I was really hoping to get the diagonal.

All the different fonts are problematic.



Does that help?

 

[JettaKnight]

I think I've seen it on twitter more than "Oof". I mean, that one is pretty universal anyway.

Minnesotan SJW?

 

[spencer rifle]

Minnesotan SJW?

You might mean "Uff-da."

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Careful, there are a lot of really good "Bingo!" gifs.

Might need to make a card for every user...

Obviously Leadeye's free space is "Follow the money"
bw's might be "TDS" or "nevertrumpers"... or even ""
Jamil's card would be full of various lengths of asterisks.