If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

You seem to think you have some objective view on reality from the outside or some such. You're just as susceptible to paranoia and bias as everyone else, and you're reading these videos the way you want to.

The first video shows practically nothing. The second video shows a group of men pulling on a flag and Harris striking the man with a flashlight after he claims the man tried to use the flag to ram his friends. Nothing here is definitive about anything. Talking about "proof" that Harris attacked first is confirmation bias and seeing exactly what you want to see in the visual evidence.

I'm not saying Harris is innocent or undeserving of retaliation. I am saying that the video evidence of the later sequence (i.e. the white guys beating the shit out of him) is demonstrably worse than either of those two videos. In both of the videos you posted, we can see people pulling on a flag and brief physical assault. The video of Harris's beating is an extended sequence of assault by multiple actors assaulting one person (emphatically not an inanimate object like a flagpole).

EDIT: put it this way--there is such a thing as an appropriate response. The response by the rioters at C-ville was inappropriate and disproportionate in the extreme. They continued to attack Harris after he no longer posed any threat, if he even did in the first place (and sure, he probably did; but neither of the videos above are proof that his attack was the "first").

In the case of the pro-choice kick, that was an inappropriate reaction to which the victim showed remarkable restraint. Hell, I'd have been fine if she pushed him back; but she didn't, and that guy's suffering the consequences for it. The entire video is fairly conclusive and the situation is clear. That's not the case in any video evidence of Harris's "first" assault.

"Reality is subjective dude"

Yeah ok

 

[Dak]

Kavanaugh was confirmed with probably precisely the same number of votes as would have been without all the circus Dems tried to introduce. An NPR poll showed that the whole fiasco really fired up Republicans, while Democratic voters were already about as fired up as they could be. Seems like the manufacturing of grievance was a losing move. I guess we will see in another month, but the real shame here is that a Kavanaugh confirmation had legitimate issues related to the 4th amendment, which no Democrat was interested in. Instead, they - including hypocritical shitstains like Booker - tried to use trumped up allegations of a non-legal basis to fire up a base, because the base was too ignorant to care about actual legal matters and because the Democratic leaders are more than happy with the trashing of the 4th amendment. While the Cathedral in the US continues to pretend like they have all the numbers and ethics, worldwide the agenda is slowly beginning to fall. It may not fail ultimately, but there's an inter and intra national realignment underway. I don't know how it's going to turn out but we all live in very interesting times, as much as a curse as that may be.

 

[Einherjar86]

"Reality is subjective dude"

Yeah ok

Reality isn't subjective. Reality's reality--but none of us have a monopoly on it, or any privileged (read: objective) perspective.

It remains the case that you and I and every human being can only have a perspective on reality, but that doesn't mean reality reduces to our perspectives. If we're going to call reality anything, the best we can say is that it's an impossibly complex assemblage of all perspectives (on which, logically, there is no total perspective). Ronald N. Giere calls this "scientific perspectivism," and he backs it with Ian Hacking's contingency thesis--i.e. that "knowledge is grounded in the local contingencies of its production or construction and, in principle, could have been significantly different without necessarily being significantly worse." Perspectives are conditioned by their historical context and view things in particular ways. For humans, this means viewing events with values toward which we're predisposed; and for inanimate observing apparatuses (like video recorders) it means viewing reality according to the specs to which they're built and the directions their users point them. In both cases, we're looking at reality through perspectives, which automatically limits and conditions what we perceive.

The other crucial aspect of perspectivism is that relations between perspectives are dictated by uncertainty. This doesn't mean we can't know anything, but it does mean that some information inevitably--and logically--escapes the domain of the perspective. There are examples of this in the natural and social sciences, and at this point it's basically an accepted tenet of scientific and philosophical thought that knowledge isn't the exorcism of uncertainty, but rather that uncertainty is built into knowledge. Knowing entails non-knowing.

To the videos above, I'll say again that they offer no proof as to the beginning of the (or any) assault. There is uncertainty and, given the scope and complexity of the Charlottesville riots, I don't think the videos prove anything.

In the case of the guy who kicked the pro-lifer, however, there isn't much uncertainty at all.

 

[CiG]

Well, the guy who kicked the pro-lifer I'm at least willing to believe he meant to hit her phone, the way he wound up the kick seemed more like a class-clown act rather than genuine aggression. Can't say the same for that other guy, he seemed pretty intent on making contact on that guy's head with his weapon.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, if we're trying to boil it down to retaliatory violence, how can we be sure the guy with the flag pole wasn't trying to ram it into the people pulling on it, and Harris was trying to stop him? If you watch the video, it's impossible to tell how much pushing/pulling was actually going on.

Furthermore, the problem with allowing retaliatory violence is that once you do, you open the floodgates. You can't measure violence so as to calculate how much should be allotted in return, or determine when the balance is paid. It strikes me as completely foolhardy to think we can use video evidence, of all things, to make such determinations. It's a purely value-based judgment.

 

[CiG]

Well, if we're trying to boil it down to retaliatory violence, how can we be sure the guy with the flag pole wasn't trying to ram it into the people pulling on it, and Harris was trying to stop him? If you watch the video, it's impossible to tell how much pushing/pulling was actually going on.

We can't, all I'm saying is - in the absence of the full context being known to us, going solely by what video we have of both incidents - Harris displayed a genuine intention to commit bodily harm and Fruitcake Swayze displayed a genuine intention to commit harm to property in an attempt to be edgy.

 

[Einherjar86]

How does a video demonstrate a "genuine intention"? All it displays is an action. Harris claims he was trying to knock the pole out of the guy's hands; the kicker claims he was trying to kick the woman's phone.

Why is one more genuine than the other?

 

[CiG]

The woman was holding her phone in-front of her face so the kick intended for the phone could very easily accidentally hit her face, Harris claims he swung for the pole in the man's hands which was held at waist level yet he completely seems to hit him in the face shown by the way the man's head snaps backwards. I mean... either he's a lying cunt or an inaccurate loser.

 

[Einherjar86]

Right... because it's impossible that at the moment he swung the flashlight toward the pole the man holding it wasn't either pulled toward Harris or didn't lunge forward.

Again, it's ridiculous to think we can assess the situation from the video evidence.

 

[CiG]

Right... because it's impossible that at the moment he swung the flashlight toward the pole the man holding it wasn't either pulled toward Harris or didn't lunge forward.

Disingenuous twat, I didn't say it was impossible, but swinging at someone's waist is a different movement to swinging at someone's head. Watch the video HBB posted, Harris swings in a wide vertical arc so unless his shoulder was dislocated and that was the only way he could swing downward it makes no fucking sense to swing low in that way.

If you look closely Harris didn't just hit the guy in the head but it seems like he hit him in the back of the fucking head.

 

[Einherjar86]

I've watched the video, multiple times. He hits him in a glancing blow off the front/side of his head.

I can't believe you're claiming to discern what Harris's "point" was from this evidence. It's purely presumptuous. As long as people keep appealing to this as suggestive of anything, I'll keep rolling my eyes.

 

[CiG]

Roll your eyes all you like, you haven't addressed what I said about the way his body moves when he strikes. He's quite blatantly not aiming for the pole which is at waist level just by the way he strikes and the angle of his shoulder etc.

 

[Dak]

Aiming for the pole wouldn't have even done anything. The claim makes no sense. But we see what we want to see I guess.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I've watched the video, multiple times. He hits him in a glancing blow off the front/side of his head.

I can't believe you're claiming to discern what Harris's "point" was from this evidence. It's purely presumptuous. As long as people keep appealing to this as suggestive of anything, I'll keep rolling my eyes.

No more presumptuous than the Canadian aiming only for the phone.

 

[CiG]

@Dak Yeah that's also true. Why swing a weapon at another weapon? Nobody would do something like that, even as an instinct it makes very little sense since we're humans with fingers and thumbs and strong arms. A normal person would use their hand and grab the weapon and yank it away.

Some of the shit people will believe due to partisanship is hilarious.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Goes deeper than partisanship. Trump was the sole Republican willing to say that both sides have a right to voice their opinions, and the sole Republican to call out violence on the left. Average Republicans are terrified of ever siding against a black person.

 

[CiG]

Republicans are pathetic, same with the U.K. Conservatives. Just weak-willed limp-dick status-quo scumfucks who think opposing the left/being right-wing means being a few steps behind the progressive agenda. If communists took over the country today the Republicans would be arguing for a return to liberal feminism.

 

[Dak]

Republicans have been cucking it up for a long time eg Boehner. Never would have thought Graham would have found some balls. McCain dying has probably helped. Hatch telling those harpies to grow up was great.

I'll reiterate I'm not a fan of Kavanaugh, but if lines are hardening between a worldwide tyranny of adult daycare and the lack thereof, I'll stick with the lack thereof. Enemy of my enemy and all that.

 

[Einherjar86]

@Dak Yeah that's also true. Why swing a weapon at another weapon? Nobody would do something like that, even as an instinct it makes very little sense since we're humans with fingers and thumbs and strong arms. A normal person would use their hand and grab the weapon and yank it away.

You're trying to project rationality onto people whose tempers are flaring and all of whom are already on edge. Nothing about the situation is "normal," and people won't act as expected.

Some of the shit people will believe due to partisanship is hilarious.

How have I stated a belief about anything? You've turned this whole discussion around on me as though I'm the one making outrageous claims based on inconclusive evidence. All I've said is that we can appeal to that video as evidence for completely different interpretations.

You're actually the one choosing to believe something based on--I can only assume--some predisposition you have to whatever occurred. And unless you have forensic training and experience analyzing body movements in violent situations, what expertise can you claim?

Again, I simply find it ridiculous how definitive you and others are when it comes to the Harris video/situation.

 

[CiG]

You're trying to project rationality onto people whose tempers are flaring and all of whom are already on edge. Nothing about the situation is "normal," and people won't act as expected.

I also said I don't think it makes sense if we're talking instincts.

You're actually the one choosing to believe something based on--I can only assume--some predisposition you have to whatever occurred. And unless you have forensic training and experience analyzing body movements in violent situations, what expertise can you claim?

I didn't even know about this Harris incident until I saw it here and I've already implied several times that it's plausible the Canuck was aiming for the woman's phone and hit her face because both potential targets are inches apart. Harris however, going by the footage, didn't do anything to indicate he was aiming at waist level and the arc of his swing was aimed high and what a shock, he landed high.

Dunno about you but I've been in/seen enough fights to understand something as basic as how body language telegraphs intent. The Canuck telegraphed his kick by pivoting his hip and doing a slight bounce with his feet. Harris telegraphed his head-strike with the angle of his shoulder and elbow and just now I've also noticed that he's seemingly looking at the man's head area as he swings, if he was aiming for the pole at the man's waist he would have been looking downward in that direction because who the fuck strikes a target while not looking at it? Is he Bruce Lee? Or is he some kind of sociopath who looks at targets with only his eyes while he keeps his head level?

I personally just think you're desperate to have a black victim at the hands of the whitenats with no ambiguity or chance that the black guy was in the wrong.