Republican candidate 'body-slams' Guardian reporter in Montana

[Ralin]

It'll actually do the exact opposite and make them become more organized and militant.

That's already happening. People like that don't need a pretext to become violent because if none presents itself they'll invent one.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm just going to assume Ralin is trolling for reactions, so yawn.

Go fuck yourself. I don't troll. Ever.

Calling you a troll is the more generous assumption.

The alternative is that you are sincerely advocating assault on any member of a particular political faction, regardless of weather they've even done anything violent or illegal themselves. In other words, advocating terrorism.

[Ralin]

The alternative is that you are sincerely advocating assault on any member of a particular political faction, regardless of weather they've even done anything violent or illegal themselves.

No, not any member. Just when no one who matters will get hurt. I also support shunning them socially, firing them from jobs, failing them if they're a student, denying them access to businesses and services, etc. We do not live in an apolitical world where people should be able to support racism, torture and mass murder and then just go about the rest of their day in peace.

In other words, advocating terrorism.

Nah, advocating progress.

Political violence has already come to America. The many, many people Trump and his supporters want to hurt don't get to opt out from the consequences of him being president when they're living their lives. Why should these fuckers be able to expect anything better?

[Gandalf]

It sounds like a weird redux of the Obama 2012 discussion, just substitute slamming a guy for an unaccountable drone strike program.

Thing is, the drone strike program was a policy matter, not just terrible personal behavior. Body-slamming a reporter is something this guy did personally, he didn't propose to pass a law mandating that all left-leaning newspaper reporters get a weekly body-slam or something.

Regarding Obama... if you think it's unforgivable that he was randomly blowing up designated Very Bad Men with Hellfire missiles, that's fine and you can make a case for it. But that wasn't an issue with Obama's behavior, it was an issue with him doing something in his capacity as president that was wrong.

Your version of the question I'm trying to ask Houser might look something like:

"So, you've got a choice between a presidential candidate who says he plans a drone strike program, versus one who says he doesn't. How much personal vice are you prepared to tolerate in the 'no drones' candidate?"

...

On the one hand, you can always argue that a drone campaign that could kill thousands of people is much less bad than any personal vices the 'no drones' candidate could possibly commit personally.

On the other hand, a candidate whose personal behavior is corrupt and brutish (e.g. Trump) is very likely to be lying or acting in bad faith when he makes a promise like 'no drones,' so at what point does his personal character inform your opinion of his likely policy stance?

I see from whence you're coming, but I'm seeing it as "what the person does with power." In one case, the power is sheer physical force, in the other it's the power of the Big Chair.

[The Romulan Republic]

The alternative is that you are sincerely advocating assault on any member of a particular political faction, regardless of weather they've even done anything violent or illegal themselves.

No, not any member. Just when no one who matters will get hurt. I also support shunning them socially, firing them from jobs, failing them if they're a student, denying them access to businesses and services, etc. We do not live in an apolitical world where people should be able to support racism, torture and mass murder and then just go about the rest of their day in peace.

In other words, advocating terrorism.

Nah, advocating progress.

Political violence has already come to America. The many, many people Trump and his supporters want to hurt don't get to opt out from the consequences of him being president when they're living their lives. Why should these fuckers be able to expect anything better?

Using violence to intimidate people for political purposes is pretty nearly the dictionary definition of terrorism, actually.

And if you think that that will do anything other than lead to an escalating cycle of violence, you are being very naive. Go down that road, and you are more likely to find yourself fighting a civil war than easily silencing those opinions you find unacceptable.

Nor do you have any more right than the neo-fascists to decree which human beings have a right to physical safety and to express their political views. Once private citizens start taking that into their own hands, on any side and for any reason, it chips away at the fabric of a democratic system.

That said, should a private individual choose not to hire, associate with, or do business with a Trump supporter, that is their right. Though I would not grant professors the right to fail students for their political views, if they do the course work. If it was at a state-funded/public university or school, it would probably be a First Amendment violation. And frankly, if anyone needs access to more education, and the accompanying exposure to alternative viewpoints, its the far Right.

I mean, for fuck's sake, you are seriously arguing that upwards of 40% of the American electorate should be denied employment or education and subjected to random street violence. That is despotic on a scale that even many of the Trumpers do not advocate, or at least not openly.

How does that quote go again, about he who fights monsters? I do not wish to see the Left become as despotic as the far Right, simply to satiate some angry liberals desire for payback.

[Flagg]

The alternative is that you are sincerely advocating assault on any member of a particular political faction, regardless of weather they've even done anything violent or illegal themselves.

No, not any member. Just when no one who matters will get hurt. I also support shunning them socially, firing them from jobs, failing them if they're a student, denying them access to businesses and services, etc. We do not live in an apolitical world where people should be able to support racism, torture and mass murder and then just go about the rest of their day in peace.

In other words, advocating terrorism.

Nah, advocating progress.

Political violence has already come to America. The many, many people Trump and his supporters want to hurt don't get to opt out from the consequences of him being president when they're living their lives. Why should these fuckers be able to expect anything better?

Don't bother. It's not worth it. Even if you're right, you're wrong.

[houser2112]

The Democrats putting up such a guy qualifies as something "I can't imagine". Going by the example of Trump advocating violence against people who disagree with him, it doesn't surprise me that the Republicans would.

I'm trying to get people to think seriously about what they would do if the physical roles were reversed, though, without flipping the ideological ones. You can say "but that would never happen!" all you want, and I'm not even disagreeing with you. But it's still an important question.

How much personal vice (and viciousness) are you prepared to tolerate in a candidate who agrees with you? From the sound of it, an honest answer to that question in your case might help one understand why Republicans are so slow to desert Trump even as he blatantly violates countless principles of good government and acts massively corrupt on every level.

I guess that depends on how we define our terms. If we're talking "vices", I'm willing to tolerate quite a bit. I really couldn't care less who a politician chooses to bump uglies with, provided that person does not pose a security risk to the nation. I don't care if they smoke like a chimney.

As far as "viciousness", none at all. Politicians that lose their cool to such a degree that they're willing to assault someone they disagree with (or condone it being done) is unacceptable. Corruption to the degree we've seen Trump to have is unacceptable. Ignorance of and /or willful disregard of Constitutional principles is unacceptable. Acting like a buffoon and alienating long-time allies is unacceptable.

[Flagg]

The Democrats putting up such a guy qualifies as something "I can't imagine". Going by the example of Trump advocating violence against people who disagree with him, it doesn't surprise me that the Republicans would.

I'm trying to get people to think seriously about what they would do if the physical roles were reversed, though, without flipping the ideological ones. You can say "but that would never happen!" all you want, and I'm not even disagreeing with you. But it's still an important question.

How much personal vice (and viciousness) are you prepared to tolerate in a candidate who agrees with you? From the sound of it, an honest answer to that question in your case might help one understand why Republicans are so slow to desert Trump even as he blatantly violates countless principles of good government and acts massively corrupt on every level.

I guess that depends on how we define our terms. If we're talking "vices", I'm willing to tolerate quite a bit. I really couldn't care less who a politician chooses to bump uglies with, provided that person does not pose a security risk to the nation. I don't care if they smoke like a chimney.

As far as "viciousness", none at all. Politicians that lose their cool to such a degree that they're willing to assault someone they disagree with (or condone it being done) is unacceptable. Corruption to the degree we've seen Trump to have is unacceptable. Ignorance of and /or willful disregard of Constitutional principles is unacceptable. Acting like a buffoon and alienating long-time allies is unacceptable.

The problem with vices is that if they are particularly frowned upon/taboo (even if perfectly legal) they can be used for extortion purposes, and not necessarily for money. And yes, I know that falls under "security risk", but I wanted to elaborate on that bit.

As far as "viciousness", it depends. If it's McCain style, like verbally and physically mocking his fellow Senators with disabilities (he once verbally and physically mocked Ted Kennedy who was recovering from an illness on the Senate floor), making homophobic "jokes" at the expense of children (He once asked "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father!" ) and the infamous "Bomb, bomb, bomb! Bomb, bomb, Iran!" at a campaign speech (IIRC, it may have been another public, recorded event).

But if it's "viciousness" (lawful) in the course of defending the US and/or its allies, it can come in handy.

[Broomstick]

The alternative is that you are sincerely advocating assault on any member of a particular political faction, regardless of weather they've even done anything violent or illegal themselves.

No, not any member. Just when no one who matters will get hurt. I also support shunning them socially, firing them from jobs, failing them if they're a student, denying them access to businesses and services, etc. We do not live in an apolitical world where people should be able to support racism, torture and mass murder and then just go about the rest of their day in peace.

In other words, advocating terrorism.

Nah, advocating progress.

Political violence has already come to America. The many, many people Trump and his supporters want to hurt don't get to opt out from the consequences of him being president when they're living their lives. Why should these fuckers be able to expect anything better?

Congratulations. You have become the enemy.

[The Romulan Republic]

The alternative is that you are sincerely advocating assault on any member of a particular political faction, regardless of weather they've even done anything violent or illegal themselves.

No, not any member. Just when no one who matters will get hurt. I also support shunning them socially, firing them from jobs, failing them if they're a student, denying them access to businesses and services, etc. We do not live in an apolitical world where people should be able to support racism, torture and mass murder and then just go about the rest of their day in peace.

In other words, advocating terrorism.

Nah, advocating progress.

Political violence has already come to America. The many, many people Trump and his supporters want to hurt don't get to opt out from the consequences of him being president when they're living their lives. Why should these fuckers be able to expect anything better?

Congratulations. You have become the enemy.

Pretty much. Oh, the targets are different, and perhaps more deserving, but when you become that broad in who you consider "undeserving" of basic rights, then innocent people will get hurt too. And the tactics proposed, if anything, or more extreme and despotic than the far Right's.

That this sort of attitude is becoming more and more common and accepted on the Left worries me a great deal. I don't think Trump will last. I think he stands a real chance of being impeached before his first term is out, though of course it would not do to be complacent. But in the long run, my worry now is that current events will result in a Left which is every bit as despotic, extremist, unwilling to compromise, and dangerous as the Right.

I see people on the Left who want to expand the definition of treason. I see people on the Left who argue strenuously that random street violence against their political opponents is not only justified but necessary. I see people on the Left who think that we should never compromise with anyone who isn't "Bernie or Bust", or third party. I see us becoming the enemy, as you put it, and then it doesn't really matter who wins, does it? Democracy and civil rights lose.

Are we really no better than the Right, that as soon as we face a defeat we resort to the same tactics?

[Zwinmar]

Left, right, whatever. They are are controlled by the same oligarchs who think they have the right to be rich on the backs of the peasants. I don't care who you are; if you think violence is the right answer to silence dissenting opinion, then you are wrong.

On the right we have fascism and on the left socialism, both are known for their purges and the results from both result in the exact same thing: death to the people they label as 'disruptive' or whatever euphemism that is in vogue at the time and place, while those in power just gather more to themselves.

[The Romulan Republic]

While I agree about political violence, the insipid "Both sides are the same" argument, in all of its forms, is and objectively inaccurate and dangerously over-simplified false equivalency, the primary results of which are to encourage political apathy and disengagement (or political extremism), and to normalize the worst elements of politics as no different from the best. After all, Trump doesn't look so bad if he's no different from a Clinton or a Sanders, for example, does he? He may even look more appealing, in a certain twisted light, because at least he doesn't hide that he's a piece of shit (though not for lack of trying). And why should voters bother to participate in politics, or expect anything but corruption and deceit from their leaders, if they're all just the same?

I consider this argument an outright undemocratic one, and arguably the greatest political lie of our time.

Edit: Of course, the fact that people like Ralin would make the Left little different-in methods if not in goals-from the worst of the Right, that they would in essence make the lie come true, is not lost on me.

[Zaune]

Ralin, I am an overt advocate of abandoning the Left's blanket policy of unconditional non-violence to the point where I'm probably on a terrorism watchlist and even I think you're going too far. Retaliation in kind against specific acts of intimidation or outright violence, or even pre-emptive acts of violence against specific individuals who there is valid reason to believe are knowingly and intentionally subverting the rule of law to push their agenda? That's one thing. Actively persecuting people just for their political opinions is quite another.

Punish people for their deeds by all means, but not for the thoughts in their head.

[The Romulan Republic]

I shall continue to adhere to my position that violence should be used only when absolutely necessary for the purposes of defence, either of oneself or others, against an immediate deadly threat, not for retaliation and intimidation, because that is the only position that I believe to be consistent with the preservation of a democratic system, the rule of law, and the individual rights to life and liberty.

This is presuming, of course, a situation where the rule of law has not already completely gone out the window and large scale violence (I mean on the level of a genocide or civil war, not the occasional riot or a relatively small spike in hate crimes or terrorists attacks) is already occurring. If, God forbid, we had reached a point where the Rubicon had already been crossed and a state of war was in effect, then offensive violence would likely have become a necessity, as wars are not generally won through defensive action alone.

However, I would much prefer that we do all in our power to prevent such a state from occurring in the first place, rather than rushing headlong toward it. Especially when, as seems to be the case with Ralin's argument, it is not because of any mistaken perception of necessity, but simply out of a desire to dish out some payback.

Even if you care nothing for the lives and liberties of your opponents (and you should), political violence does not only harm the "guilty".

[Zaune]

Your definition of self-defence is rather narrower than mine. Retaliation with equal or greater force for the purpose of deterring further attacks is necessary if the lawful authorities are indifferent or worse, complicit.

Which is not the same thing as collective punishment, however, which is what Ralin's strategy would come down to. Democracy in much of the Anglosphere may well be at or near the point where Mutually Assured Lynching is necessary to keep the level of discourse at the level of civility expected of a sixth-form debating society, but let's at least keep the threshold for dispensing mob justice higher than "being a bit of a dick".

[The Romulan Republic]

Your definition of self-defence is rather narrower than mine. Retaliation with equal or greater force for the purpose of deterring further attacks is necessary if the lawful authorities are indifferent or worse, complicit.

But what level of indifference or complicity is sufficient to justify violence? There is a certain level of incompetence and corruption in any large organization. The threshold has to be substantially higher than that to justify abandoning the rule of law, which is what the actions you propose ultimately come down to.

This is part of why I set the threshold at a breakdown of the rule of law, as one of the scenarios that might justify violence. Or, alternately, the system as a whole being complicit in violence against its people. I do set the bar very high, but considering the stakes, and the implications of condoning extra-legal violence, I consider it best to be cautious.

I certainly don't believe that we are at the point where violence is justified, overly-broad "fuck the cops" rhetoric aside. After all, it is the FBI that is spearheading much of the investigation against Trump, and the FBI director who was aledgedly fired rather than halt the investigation at the President's command or promise his loyalty. I've had a lot of bad things to say about Comey in recent months, but in this case, it appears to me that he conducted himself as any law enforcement officer of a free country should aspire to.

Which is not the same thing as collective punishment, however, which is what Ralin's strategy would come down to. Democracy in much of the Anglosphere may well be at or near the point where Mutually Assured Lynching is necessary to keep the level of discourse at the level of civility expected of a sixth-form debating society, but let's at least keep the threshold for dispensing mob justice higher than "being a bit of a dick".

As I said, I don't think we're at the point of violence being necessary, but I do worry that we could be pushed to that point by those who are too quick to embrace violence and rule out other options.

I also think that you are making a very dangerous assumption in believing that retaliatory violence (to the point of murder) would ensure greater civility, rather than leading to escalating radicalization and back and forth retaliation. It strikes me as all to much like the myth of the "short, victorious war", a fantasy that has done great harm throughout human history.

I am also not a supporter of retaliatory violence in general, or of political violence (violence to advance a political agenda), but I draw a distinction between retaliatory or political violence, and defensive violence. Defensive violence means that you do what you must to defend yourself/defend others, or, in an actual state of war, to bring the war to a speedy conclusion, and no more.

Anything beyond that, and you have chosen to become the aggressor, and the consequences of that are on your hands. I do not want the Left to become the aggressors.

[Flagg]

Left, right, whatever. They are are controlled by the same oligarchs who think they have the right to be rich on the backs of the peasants. I don't care who you are; if you think violence is the right answer to silence dissenting opinion, then you are wrong.

On the right we have fascism and on the left socialism, both are known for their purges and the results from both result in the exact same thing: death to the people they label as 'disruptive' or whatever euphemism that is in vogue at the time and place, while those in power just gather more to themselves.

Wow, do you write every episode of 'South Park' or just the really obnoxious on the nose Golden Mean Fallacy bullshit ones?

I also wasn't the slightest bit aware that socialist countries like Canada, most of Western Europe, and the United States of America has death camps and gulags operating. And I guess the fact that the Fascist Nazi Germany and the Communist USSR were totalitarian regimes had nothing to do with all the cracking down on dissent and mass murder of their own citizens.

[Flagg]

Ralin, I am an overt advocate of abandoning the Left's blanket policy of unconditional non-violence to the point where I'm probably on a terrorism watchlist and even I think you're going too far. Retaliation in kind against specific acts of intimidation or outright violence, or even pre-emptive acts of violence against specific individuals who there is valid reason to believe are knowingly and intentionally subverting the rule of law to push their agenda? That's one thing. Actively persecuting people just for their political opinions is quite another.

Punish people for their deeds by all means, but not for the thoughts in their head.

I'm not the guys biggest fan, but I get where Ralin is coming from. Not to put words in his mouth or pretend to read his mind, I think he's coming from a position of frustration because the right in this shriveling Republic have, both in the recent and not so recent have literally gotten away with murder and with the ascension of President Peckerwood they have become emboldened quite a bit. And the worst of it is the vile and disgusting normalization of violent white supremacists and outright Nazis under the guise of the infuriating term "Alt-Right".

I know that I'm just as disgusted and frustrated.

[Zaune]

I get that. Indeed I sympathise quite strongly, being stuck in a country where the issue is in some ways worse. (If more even-handed, in a twisted sort of way; English racists are racist against everyone, even other white people.)

But if we start targeting people for revenge attacks just for having an opnion we don't like then I feel we are crossing a line we really, really don't want to cross. If not because we're commited to equality under the law even for people we despise, then for the eminently practical reason that only listening to people you agree with on important issues actively makes you stupider.

[The Romulan Republic]

I, likewise, understand feeling anger at the situation, or fear. I do to (though I also feel them about some on the Left). If I were guided only by my anger and fear towards Right wing extremism, I would probably be calling for violence too. And I cannot imagine how much worse it must be if you are, say, a woman, or a Muslim, or Latino in Trump's America.

But rage and fear make for poor advisors. They do not stop to consider things like Justice, or consequences, or innocent bystanders.

[Flagg]

I get that. Indeed I sympathise quite strongly, being stuck in a country where the issue is in some ways worse. (If more even-handed, in a twisted sort of way; English racists are racist against everyone, even other white people.)

But if we start targeting people for revenge attacks just for having an opnion we don't like then I feel we are crossing a line we really, really don't want to cross. If not because we're commited to equality under the law even for people we despise, then for the eminently practical reason that only listening to people you agree with on important issues actively makes you stupider.

I don't know, being from FL and casting my first vote for Gore only to essentially have it stolen and then over the next 6 weeks hearing shit for brain fucks out in public laughing about how they volunteered at polling places and were "Making dumb niggers show their drivers licenses and none of the dumb monkeys knew it wasn't legal, hurr hurr hurr!" gives me a unique perspective. Frankly I heard worse from these people than anything Ralin has said.

I'm talking about shit like "rounding up the "sandniggers", burning down their mosques, and putting them in concentration camps that only gave them Spam to eat". These weren't hushed conversations in a stairwell, they were outdoor-voice (only spoken in-doors) so I got it all. Like nuking Mecca and any "libtards" that complained would be sent there to die of radiation poisoning while building a church to the "real god" Jesus.

I'm just glad I moved to a more civilized state before the 2008 elections or I wouldn't have been able to pretend not to fucking hate the 40+ year old women who tattle-tailed on each other like they were 5 anymore.

And really, there's no way to peacefully protest anymore. You can have news crews from around the world filming, and the pigs will send in their goons if they think the protesters are gaining traction with the public, and rarely do you see the armed men in riot gear injured anywhere close to the degree as an Iraq war vet getting a skull fracture from a "flash bang" or a kid shot in the fucking face with a rubber bullet. But then sometimes you'll have elderly sit-in protesters chained together who don't get sprayed with mace or pepper spray. Instead the jackbooted hind-legged walking swine will just soak cotton swabs in their pepper spray, hold an elderly victims eyes open, and apply it directly to their eyeballs.

But if you have a bunch of guns, a bunch of fellow armed dipshits, and put your female family members between you and what passes for law enforcement these days because you owe the government over $1,000,000 USD in fees for your cattle to graze on taxpayer owned land the pigs will back down because black innercity youth can be shot to pieces, but blue eyed blonde ubermenschen would be bad PR.

So yeah, sometimes the feeling that violence may be necessary comes over ones self. It's almost immoral if it doesn't, IMO.

[Raw Shark]

Speaking as a hazel-green-eyed, brown-haired, pale-ass nocturnal vampire ubermench, I like to think that protesting can make some difference. Maybe we don't win, but maybe somebody will notice. Does that make me a pie in the sky optimist? Perhaps. But I will try until I die. When the pigs took away the tents down at Occupy, I showed them how to build igloos. Never give up. Never surrender.

[Ralin]

Using violence to intimidate people for political purposes is pretty nearly the dictionary definition of terrorism, actually.

Yeah, and?

And if you think that that will do anything other than lead to an escalating cycle of violence, you are being very naive.

I vastly prefer an escalating cycle of violence to a steady stream of violence aimed at people unlucky enough to be the target of right-wing bigotry.

Go down that road, and you are more likely to find yourself fighting a civil war than easily silencing those opinions you find unacceptable.

Again I say, have you not been paying attention for the past few years? We've already started down that road.

Nor do you have any more right than the neo-fascists to decree which human beings have a right to physical safety and to express their political views. Once private citizens start taking that into their own hands, on any side and for any reason, it chips away at the fabric of a democratic system.

Donald Trump is president of the United States. Our democratic system has failed and it's only going to get worse. I absolutely have more right to make those judgments than neo-fascists, because I don't advocate racism, homophobia and denying basic rights to women.

If not private citizens than who? The police who endorsed Trump through their largest union and who were already part of the problem? The judges who Trump will eventually start flat out ignoring or removing whenever they rule against him?

Though I would not grant professors the right to fail students for their political views, if they do the course work. If it was at a state-funded/public university or school, it would probably be a First Amendment violation.

No one's asking you to give them the right to do it.

I mean, for fuck's sake, you are seriously arguing that upwards of 40% of the American electorate should be denied employment or education and subjected to random street violence.

So basically what they support doing to any number of other people for much worse reasons? Sounds great to me.

That is despotic on a scale that even many of the Trumpers do not advocate, or at least not openly.

Frankly I look forward to the rise of a flat out dictator so long as it's a dictator with the right principles. America doesn't deserve democracy.

How does that quote go again, about he who fights monsters? I do not wish to see the Left become as despotic as the far Right, simply to satiate some angry liberals desire for payback.

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.

[The Romulan Republic]

I've had enough. When you openly acknowledge that you are advocating terrorism against upwards of forty percent of the American voters, then we have moved past the point of debate and to the point of me using the report button.

[Soontir C'boath]

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

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.