If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

You already claim to be irritated by what you see as political rhetoric inciting violence--not actions, just rhetoric.

If that video doesn't strike you as rhetorically pugnacious, then your scope needs to be reset.

It hyperbolizes the impact of mob violence in America and associates it unquestionably with the left, all the while insinuating civil unrest (if not outright hostility) and encouraging its viewers to purchase guns.

I'm not making an anti-gun argument here. I'm saying that if the NRA ad isn't rhetorically inciting violence, then neither is leftist political rhetoric. You need to accept both.

Specifically which part of the ad? Because I can isolate specific statements and quotes by leftists ("what do we want, dead cops, when do we want them, now"), but I get the impression that you're saying the ad feels like violent rhetoric.

I was saying that the conversation in this thread has been skewed disproportionately toward what I think is a hyperbolic fear of violence coming from "the left"--blanket statement, no further specification. But there were references--and many in the past--to the violence coming from antifa as a left-wing group.

Well fuck me if the left doesn't have to be held accountable for violence sometimes.

I said that the same point needs to be made about antifa, which is not a recent group but has a long history, and has not always been identifiable as left-wing or, even less so, democratic.

When has it been not identifiable as left-wing?

My comment wasn't insinuating that you were a member of antifa.

Yes I understand that, I was using it as an example to demonstrate what I saw as a fallacy on your part. Antifa doesn't have a monopoly on opposing fascism, just like the Tea Party didn't have a monopoly on small government advocacy, yet you seemed to be suggesting that it is unfair to tar the left with the actions of Antifa because there are anti-fascists on the right.

If I have that right, it was a very dumb point. If I don't, I apologize and just ask for a further clarification of what you were saying.

I consider myself left-wing, and I consider myself part of the nonviolent majority. So it's tiresome to constantly see my tribe being called the tribe of violence, being associated with antifa and rampant mob violence, not to mention gun violence against republican politicians.

Well sure, I bet it sucks, but that's not an argument or anything. Sometimes I lose hours arguing with the right about the ridiculous misuse of the term liberal (as I do consider myself a liberal I feel a certain impulse to debate people who use it as a slur) but it doesn't mean I'm going to just overlook the ridiculous things going on within the left more broadly.

Especially when, within the left, the overwhelming mentality seems to be:

Smear the right as Nazis and then promote the idea that it is perfectly well within the boundaries of civilized discourse to physically assault or just silence Nazis. The left is overwhelmingly complicit in the rhetoric of dehumanization of the opposition and then we all act shocked when, lo and behold, people on the right are treated like inhuman things.

From the countless random assaults on Trump voters, to de-platforming, to #PunchANazi, to an attempted massacre of Republican congressmen, to the BAMN organization, I see no reason to sweep this away flippantly because you don't like seeing your tribe being blamed for things.

 

[Einherjar86]

Specifically which part of the ad? Because I can isolate specific statements and quotes by leftists ("what do we want, dead cops, when do we want them, now"), but I get the impression that you're saying the ad feels like violent rhetoric.

Rhetoric can be imagery as well as words, and that ad contains connotations of violence. I would love to see what Barthes would have done with it, were he still alive.

The quotes you just cited don't reflect the popular attitude of most leftists. And if you think they do, then that betrays the political rhetoric of the media sources that you frequent. The vast majority of democratic voters don't want dead cops; but it makes for a more powerful movement on the right if most of its members believe the left is comprised of bloodthirsty zombies.

Alternatively, I can cite numerous examples of purportedly right-wing violence, but I'm not proclaiming that they reflect general right-wing attitudes. This is what you're doing when you say that the democrats are fanning the flames of violence.

Well fuck me if the left doesn't have to be held accountable for violence sometimes.

It should--but so should the right, and we shouldn't promote blanket statements that the left and right are encouraging violent behavior. We should acknowledge the purported politics of those who commit violence, but we shouldn't assume that the rhetoric and core values of an amorphous group of people are, de facto, violent.

When has it been not identifiable as left-wing?

Since WWII, antifa groups have been comprised of people on the left and right, and those who proclaim to adopt neither. Anarchy promotes neither left- nor right-wing values.

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising

Antifa are not new. They're a latter-day version of the anarchists and "black bloc" groups who, over the years, have often challenged police and broken windows during May Day protests in Seattle and Portland. Their membership is hard to track, but it appears to be expanding beyond the West Coast. They are also embracing other leftist causes beyond just fighting white supremacists.

Still, their numbers are tiny in relation to the mainstream political left. And, say experts, it's misleading for right-wing groups to suggest that the Antifa are more violent than right-wing extremists.

Yes I understand that, I was using it as an example to demonstrate what I saw as a fallacy on your part. Antifa doesn't have a monopoly on opposing fascism, just like the Tea Party didn't have a monopoly on small government advocacy, yet you seemed to be suggesting that it is unfair to tar the left with the actions of Antifa because there are anti-fascists on the right.

If I have that right, it was a very dumb point. If I don't, I apologize and just ask for a further clarification of what you were saying.

Your comment only holds true if we agree that antifa is definitively a left-wing group. It attracts leftists for sure, but it's a historically anarchist group. You can make your argument that as of today it's a primarily leftist movement, but then all that suggests is that movement membership fluctuates. There's nothing essentially leftist about antifa, it just happens to attract leftists at this given historical moment.

From the countless random assaults on Trump voters, to de-platforming, to #PunchANazi, to an attempted massacre of Republican congressmen, to the BAMN organization, I see no reason to sweep this away flippantly because you don't like seeing your tribe being blamed for things.

But you do this and ignore the "countless" acts of violence from the right, and you deny that rhetoric pieces like the NRA ad foster violence thoughts in the minds of their viewers. Do you actually think there isn't a single right-wing voter who watched that video and had violent thoughts toward democrats? Come on man...

But see, I don't extend those violent thought to all right-wingers, or to republicanism/conservatism in general. In fact, there were lots of NRA members who were pissed at that ad. I watch your posts on this board, and your trend is to single out leftist violence and ignore right-wing violence. What's more, you seem to believe that every act of violence by purported leftists is indicative of some rotten core in leftist thoughts or values.

It's important to understand how/why political ideology can effect reprehensible behaviors, but that doesn't mean you can qualify some consistently essential flaw that secretly drives the words and behavior of that political group.

 

[Dak]

I thought the NRA ad was cringeworthy but "inciting violence" is a bit much.

 

[Einherjar86]

If a small group of leftists shouted that they wanted "dead cops," but the vast majority of leftists heard that and cringed, then saying that those comments incited violence could also be said to be "a bit much."

 

[rms]

canada

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Support Female Filmmakers (As Long As They “Behave”)

 

[CiG]

Rhetoric can be imagery as well as words, and that ad contains connotations of violence. I would love to see what Barthes would have done with it, were he still alive.

The quotes you just cited don't reflect the popular attitude of most leftists. And if you think they do, then that betrays the political rhetoric of the media sources that you frequent. The vast majority of democratic voters don't want dead cops; but it makes for a more powerful movement on the right if most of its members believe the left is comprised of bloodthirsty zombies.

Alternatively, I can cite numerous examples of purportedly right-wing violence, but I'm not proclaiming that they reflect general right-wing attitudes. This is what you're doing when you say that the democrats are fanning the flames of violence.

Perhaps that Black Lives Matter chant doesn't represent most leftists (in my experience, it certainly represents a huge chunk of the left's mentality) but does the overwhelming majority of the left support or denounce Black Lives Matter itself?

I disagree with many on the right who say that Black Lives Matter are violent, but they're certainly guilty of violent rhetoric (as well as just general street protest property damage and stupidity).

The problem I see is that even if you wanted to, you would be hard-pressed to show any large amount of support for right-wing violence on the right, whereas we both know I can spend 10 minutes digging up tons and tons of support for left-wing violence.

Hell, fairly moderate left-wing friends of mine on Facebook were sharing memes that actually justified the attempted Republican congressmen massacre. On the other hand I have many alt-right friends (we can both agree that the alt-right is not moderate) and not one of them shared anything or said anything that justified or glorified the disgusting attack by a right-wing terrorist, who drove into a crowd of Muslims recently in the United Kingdom.

Of course this is not an objective measure of anything, but for me it is an unavoidable reality.

It should--but so should the right, and we shouldn't promote blanket statements that the left and right are encouraging violent behavior. We should acknowledge the purported politics of those who commit violence, but we shouldn't assume that the rhetoric and core values of an amorphous group of people are, de facto, violent.

Actually, I am perfectly fine with tarring the entire right or the entire left with the violence of a small but not insignificant chunk on either side, because what I am seeing is the non-violent moderate masses in many cases are performing apologia for the actions.

The violence needs to stop and it won't stop if the so-called moderates are being apologetic and getting away with it by giving back-handed denunciations of the violence.

"What they did was wrong, but..." kinds of things are bullshit.

Since WWII, antifa groups have been comprised of people on the left and right, and those who proclaim to adopt neither. Anarchy promotes neither left- nor right-wing values.

Antifa =/= generic anti-fascism. These movements are the children of the Red Brigade for example, Antifa has nothing to do with the right.

Your comment only holds true if we agree that antifa is definitively a left-wing group. It attracts leftists for sure, but it's a historically anarchist group. You can make your argument that as of today it's a primarily leftist movement, but then all that suggests is that movement membership fluctuates. There's nothing essentially leftist about antifa, it just happens to attract leftists at this given historical moment.

Antifa has been overwhelmingly leftist since the 1980's. Feel free to prove that Antifa is not overwhelmingly left-wing if you like.

But you do this and ignore the "countless" acts of violence from the right, and you deny that rhetoric pieces like the NRA ad foster violence thoughts in the minds of their viewers. Do you actually think there isn't a single right-wing voter who watched that video and had violent thoughts toward democrats? Come on man...

But see, I don't extend those violent thought to all right-wingers, or to republicanism/conservatism in general. In fact, there were lots of NRA members who were pissed at that ad. I watch your posts on this board, and your trend is to single out leftist violence and ignore right-wing violence. What's more, you seem to believe that every act of violence by purported leftists is indicative of some rotten core in leftist thoughts or values.

It's important to understand how/why political ideology can effect reprehensible behaviors, but that doesn't mean you can qualify some consistently essential flaw that secretly drives the words and behavior of that political group.

Perfectly happy to criticize right-wing violence.

When the left, even the mainstream left, get in on the #PunchANazi hashtag then yeah, I do think the left has a problem at its core right now. Not to mention what they're doing on campuses, smearing people as bigots, getting them fired or blacklisted, essentially ruining peoples' lives.

I disagree that I overwhelmingly single out leftists, I haven't been here long enough for you to really judge my political trends accurately anyway, but I have posted about the alt-right a decent amount and I personally consider Islamic terrorism and extremism as right-wing.

If you're killing people in the name of a radically conservative ideology, that is right-wing.

 

[Dak]

I don't think Islamic extremism can be fit into left or right wing conceptualizations. It's against western politics entirely.

 

[CiG]

That assumes that only the west deals with Islamic terrorism though.

 

[Dak]

That assumes that only the west deals with Islamic terrorism though.

No it doesn't. The political structures in pretty much every country at this point mimic European originated structure, except maybe China (off the top of my head). These structures are inherently secular but informed by a Catholic/Christian heritage. From an Islamic extremist point of view, all rotten to the core.

 

[CiG]

No it doesn't. The political structures in pretty much every country at this point mimic European originated structure, except maybe China (off the top of my head). These structures are inherently secular but informed by a Catholic/Christian heritage. From an Islamic extremist point of view, all rotten to the core.

So how does this explain Islamic sectarian terrorism?

 

[Dak]

So how does this explain Islamic sectarian terrorism?

An infidel is an infidel?

 

[CiG]

An infidel is an infidel?

Bomb that infidel mosque because muh western imperialism?

 

[CiG]

http://www.whio.com/news/national/p...is-fat-person-reality/Xf0OghecQzz2uIWQq754xM/

She actually peeked over his shoulder and spied his private texts in order to be offended and be a victim.

Reminds me of when The Hitch said this:

When doctor Samuel Johnson had finished his great lexicography, the first real English dictionary, he was visited by various delegations of people to congratulate him, including a delegation of London's respectable womanhood who came to his parlor in Fleet street and said "doctor we congratulate you on your decision to exclude all indecent words from your dictionary" and he said "ladies I congratulate you on your persistence in looking them up."

If people are determined to be offended, if they will climb up on the ladder, balancing it precariously on their own toilet cistern to be upset by what they see through the neighbour's bathroom window, there's nothing you can do about that.

 

[Einherjar86]

Perhaps that Black Lives Matter chant doesn't represent most leftists (in my experience, it certainly represents a huge chunk of the left's mentality) but does the overwhelming majority of the left support or denounce Black Lives Matter itself?

I disagree with many on the right who say that Black Lives Matter are violent, but they're certainly guilty of violent rhetoric (as well as just general street protest property damage and stupidity).

BLM aren't violent, you're right--but neither do they frequently deploy violent rhetoric. And I wouldn't condone violence from BLM, or the use of violent rhetoric; but I would sympathize seeing as black men live in perpetual fear of being gunned down by police without apparent just cause.

The problem I see is that even if you wanted to, you would be hard-pressed to show any large amount of support for right-wing violence on the right, whereas we both know I can spend 10 minutes digging up tons and tons of support for left-wing violence.

Actually, I am perfectly fine with tarring the entire right or the entire left with the violence of a small but not insignificant chunk on either side, because what I am seeing is the non-violent moderate masses in many cases are performing apologia for the actions.

I think this is hogwash. You think you can drudge up evidence for widespread support of violence on the left? I don't think you can.

You think when Scalise was shot, democrats made excuses for the violence? This is absurd.

There is a legitimate and serious difference between trying to understand the social conditions of violence and justifying violent action. You seem to think that just because people on the left point to alternative causal factors for violence, that means we're justifying violence. That's not the case at all.

Antifa =/= generic anti-fascism. These movements are the children of the Red Brigade for example, Antifa has nothing to do with the right.

Antifa has been overwhelmingly leftist since the 1980's. Feel free to prove that Antifa is not overwhelmingly left-wing if you like.

I know that Antifa (capital-A) is a predominantly left-wing group. I'm saying that the modern left doesn't have a monopoly on anti-fascism, and that Antifa derives from groups that aren't definitively left-wing, nor is it essential that it remains left-wing. The article I linked made my point. I'll leave it at that.

When the left, even the mainstream left, get in on the #PunchANazi hashtag then yeah, I do think the left has a problem at its core right now. Not to mention what they're doing on campuses, smearing people as bigots, getting them fired or blacklisted, essentially ruining peoples' lives.

Everything you mention is the underwhelming and distanced minority. The vast majority of college campuses aren't interested in emulating Berkeley or in encouraging violence against the right. You think it's an epidemic because you're buying into some seriously biased narratives that want to paint the left as an unraveling political network spiraling toward violence.

I disagree that I overwhelmingly single out leftists, I haven't been here long enough for you to really judge my political trends accurately anyway, but I have posted about the alt-right a decent amount and I personally consider Islamic terrorism and extremism as right-wing.

Really? It feels like you've been here forever...

I won't make any more assumptions like that, it was a spontaneous remark. You're right that you do often make comments criticizing the right.

I still disagree with your wide critique of the left as supporters of violent rhetoric. I'm still honestly not even sure what this means...

If someone supports violent rhetoric, then doesn't that mean that they support violent action? If not, then it must mean that they think there are alternative reasons for violence and/or violent rhetoric. But, as I've said above, I don't think that suggesting alternative reasons for violence and violent rhetoric automatically qualifies as justification for that behavior. I can say that the historical mistreatment of blacks is a causal factor in their cultural situation today, and that it fuels criminal behavior; but that doesn't mean I condone criminal behavior or that blacks shouldn't be held accountable for crime. And I'm not an anomaly in this regard.

 

[rms]

And I wouldn't condone violence from BLM, or the use of violent rhetoric; but I would sympathize seeing as black men live in perpetual fear of being gunned down by police without apparent just cause.

at least we see how effective the narrative is

 

[Einherjar86]

Not all black men, obviously. But it's true that many do.

Gotta use that inductive reasoning man.

 

[rms]

the amount of times you make sensationalist claims for non-whites is ridiculous.

Castile was arrested 54 times and that doesn't even count every meeting with police. He was shot less than 2% of the time. so perpetual

 

[CiG]

BLM aren't violent, you're right--but neither do they frequently deploy violent rhetoric. And I wouldn't condone violence from BLM, or the use of violent rhetoric; but I would sympathize seeing as black men live in perpetual fear of being gunned down by police without apparent just cause.

I would definitely disagree with that, as well as your sympathies in support of violence or violent rhetoric because black men feel fear.

Also, anecdotal but as someone who has grown up in extreme poverty within minority communities, I highly, highly doubt that black people live in perpetual fear of police, at least nowhere near as much as they live in perpetual fear of gang violence, thieves and so on.

Not that it is in any way a justification for the way Black Lives Matter acts at least half the time, especially since they choose to focus on police related incidents and never do anything for the huge numbers of black people who are victims of intra-community violence.

I think this is hogwash. You think you can drudge up evidence for widespread support of violence on the left? I don't think you can.

You think when Scalise was shot, democrats made excuses for the violence? This is absurd.

There is a legitimate and serious difference between trying to understand the social conditions of violence and justifying violent action. You seem to think that just because people on the left point to alternative causal factors for violence, that means we're justifying violence. That's not the case at all.

No I am not doing that, I have no problem with discussing and suggesting alternative causal factors for violence. But I am telling you I have seen with my own eyes multiple instances of leftists and Democrat voters acting apologetic about the attempted massacre, some even downright talking positively about it.

Of course, I understand that a lot of it might be a form of hyperbolic bravery because nobody was killed, I think if someone were killed there would probably be a lot less of it.

Call it absurd all you like, that doesn't cause me to forget what I have seen.

I know that Antifa (capital-A) is a predominantly left-wing group. I'm saying that the modern left doesn't have a monopoly on anti-fascism, and that Antifa derives from groups that aren't definitively left-wing, nor is it essential that it remains left-wing. The article I linked made my point. I'll leave it at that.

No the link didn't make your point in my view, your position on this seems nonsensical to me.

Everything you mention is the underwhelming and distanced minority. The vast majority of college campuses aren't interested in emulating Berkeley or in encouraging violence against the right. You think it's an epidemic because you're buying into some seriously biased narratives that want to paint the left as an unraveling political network spiraling toward violence.

No dude, I am not saying that these hysterical and illiberal examples represent the desire of the entire left, I am saying that those people doing it are on the left and that is an important piece of information and I am saying that unless we start intellectually combating these people, groups, movements etc it is only going to get worse and worse.

It's a cancer on the left, I don't want the left to rot out and die. I respect the left, I am a liberal myself honestly and if the left rots out and delegitimizes itself, we'll have nothing to stem the tide of race realists, ethno-nationalists, the alt-right and so on.

I think the same thing is happening on the right, Antifa starts a violent protest for example, now we have violent right-wingers reacting and it will keep mounting. I think that is clear from what is happening lately.

We now have the alt-right and it is actually growing in popularity, and fast as shit too, so I just can't respect someone that pretends like the shitty elements on the left aren't growing fast and are a non-issue.

Really? It feels like you've been here forever...

I won't make any more assumptions like that, it was a spontaneous remark. You're right that you do often make comments criticizing the right.

Thanks I appreciate it. It only seems like I'm one-track minded with the left because I think they're the obvious shitheels right now, but lately I am focusing much more on the alt-right. They are terrifying to me, honestly.

I still disagree with your wide critique of the left as supporters of violent rhetoric. I'm still honestly not even sure what this means...

If someone supports violent rhetoric, then doesn't that mean that they support violent action? If not, then it must mean that they think there are alternative reasons for violence and/or violent rhetoric. But, as I've said above, I don't think that suggesting alternative reasons for violence and violent rhetoric automatically qualifies as justification for that behavior. I can say that the historical mistreatment of blacks is a causal factor in their cultural situation today, and that it fuels criminal behavior; but that doesn't mean I condone criminal behavior or that blacks shouldn't be held accountable for crime. And I'm not an anomaly in this regard.

I think people who use violent rhetoric are acting emotionally and irrationally for the most part, it's the people who speak deadly seriously about violence that I worry about (Antifa, alt-right, jihadists etc)

Nope, you can assert that but you cannot prove that.

I see hip hop culture and thug glorification playing a larger part in black crime than a history of slavery and Jim Crowe. [shrug]

 

[CiG]

And if you're not worried about increasing violence and acceptance of violence in normal moderate politics, consider that a poll was done showing that around 42% of Republicans were okay with Greg Gianforte bodyslamming that journalist.