Serious when is violence acceptable?

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
GatoDelFuego why dont you answer your own question instead of accusing others of having meltdowns lol? "what type of 'violence' is justified to stop right wing extremists" seems to be the question youve set yourself. why you need steelwit to answer this question that has nothing to do w the content of her post is kind of strange. if you cant come up with an answer to that question, or are too uncomfortable, that should tell you a lot.

further, why are you so concerned to see the act of calling out 'right wing extremism' as an incitement of 'violence' against right wing extremists? just because we're pointing them out=/= saying that ' violence' (!!!) (sounds really bad but could just mean arresting them for the crimes they commit) should be done to them
 
Last edited:
That kind of behavior it’s part of the reasons that makes people think that radical groups ain’t shit
 
BTW, if you want to think about politicians taking advantage of violence to garner votes... go have a look at Brazil.
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
1. Being confused at you and laughing at the conspiracy theorists is not "Having a meltdown."

2. Ah, so that's why you deleted my post, so you could lie and try to make it sound like I said "Yes." For the record, all, I said "No."

3. She, not he. Just FYI.
1. You're right, but typing
??? Were you Stretch Armstrong in a former life? My point is 90% "For all the Smogonazis' insistence that LIB'RULS ARE TEH VIOLENT ONES, lolno, here's the horrific proof debunking every talking point in this turd of a thread"
sure is

2. Where the hell do I lie, or imply your answer anywhere in my post? I don't see an answer to my question anywhere in your post either.
Screenshot_20181025-134920__01.jpg




GatoDelFuego why dont you answer your own question instead of accusing others of having meltdowns lol? "what type of 'violence' is justified to stop right wing extremists" seems to be the question youve set yourself. why you need steelwit to answer this question that has nothing to do w the content of her post is kind of strange. If yu cant come up with an answer to that question, or are too uncomfortable, that should tell you a lot.

further, why are you so concerned to see the act of calling out 'right wing extremism' as an incitement of 'violence' against right wing extremists? just because we're pointing them out=/= saying that ' violence' (!!!) (sounds really bad but could just mean arresting them for the crimes they commit) should be done to them
I want her to answer because she's the one that brought up the bombing. Her first post is an example of extreme violence committed by right wingers. I would argue that nobody on the right (or anybody with a brain) thinks this kind of political terrorism is acceptable. All iI asked to steel was "do you think similar violence from leftists is acceptable" since the nazis have "struck first"? I'm genuinely curious, since steel hasn't posted their opinions on justifiable violence. A direct answer would have been fine.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
lol ur genuinely curious about steelwit? but youre also convinced that no one on the left or right thinks this type of violence is justified? why is what she supports in question here, but not support for rightwing extremism?

if i support arresting right wing extremists or if i support denying white supremacists a platform, is that inciting violence against them now?

again, you seem to dismiss any suggestion that a large segment on the right is apologetic for this acts or sees them as justified

and you refuse to answer your own question even as you point out how genuinely curious you are about steelwit's answer
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
“No one thinks this is acceptable” is just a gaslighty front for “both sides are out of control we need to be more moderate” apologism. When it’s demonstrably true that the scale of violence is punching racist fuckheads who tout the virtues of genocide in the mouth versus literal serial bombings, and myriad killings. “Richard Spencer is a good example” when compared to Heather Heyer why is it not blatantly obvious that literally one side is vastly more dangerous than the other. Even entertaining the idea that punching the figureheads who raise the voices and preach their hatred which leads to these extreme acts of violence is considered to be something even in the same fucking category as the violence of these literal neo-nazis is ludicrous.
 

GatoDelFuego

The Antimonymph of the Internet
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
lol ur genuinely curious about steelwit? but youre also convinced that no one on the left or right thinks this type of violence is justified? why is what she supports in question here, but not support for rightwing extremism?
I'm convinced nobody thinks mailing bombs is justified

if i support arresting right wing extremists or if i support denying white supremacists a platform, is that inciting violence against them now?r
No

again, you seem to dismiss any suggestion that a large segment on the right is apologetic for this acts or sees them as
justified
do you mean unapologetic? I don't know. That's why my first post in this chain was "who on the right thinks this is acceptable?" (Sure, larpers on 4chan maybe)
and you refuse to answer your own question even as you point out how genuinely curious you are about steelwit's answer
my question, or the question you keep telling me I'm asking? Idon't like going in too many different directions in one post, but I don't think violence is ever justified. That's just me, though.
 
All iI asked to steel was "do you think similar violence from leftists is acceptable" since the nazis have "struck first"? I'm genuinely curious, since steel hasn't posted their opinions on justifiable violence. A direct answer would have been fine.

*rubs temples* For the third bloody time, no.

EDIT: They caught the bastard. Cesar Sayoc, an obsessive Trump fanboy and rally-goer with a history of threatening his future victims over Twitter and a creeper van plastered in printed-out Trump memes. I'm going to say it's probably not a false flag.
 
Last edited:
1st clip: those clips are obviously made in a jesting manner. trump didn't go say "go harass reporters", he was clearly making fun of the fact that some guy body slammed a reporter which I don't think is a very tasteful joke but its definitely not "go send fake bombs to democrats" or "go beat democrats up". the retweet of trump beating up cnn is obviously a joke and is referring to trump being against cnns "fake news" as trump likes to call it, he wasn't saying or implying that people should go pin cnn down and beat the shit out of them that seems like common sense to me.

oh wow trump said "dont be too nice, remove the hand that protects their head when entering the car" well damn i guess thats an excuse to beat some left wingers within an inch of their life at the immediate direction of our lord and savior donald trump

second clip: this is actually crazy that you think this is a call to violence or "defending white supremacy"... "fighting this violence of lies with an iron fist of truth" is CLEARLY not inciting some sort of civil war or endorsing gun violence against democrats.
fighting a violence of lies
with and iron fist of truth
its simply mirroring violence and lies with a defense of an iron fist of truth, not saying "fighting democratic protesters with some NRA approved rifles".

seriously. i'm trying to see how you interpreted this in this way. loesch was talking about how left wingers use their platforms to push their message and incite protests which way too often become violent or destructive in some way until "police are forced to do their jobs" which means putting a stop to anarchy and then the protesters claim that police are doing things unjustly. don't see how this is endorsing violence in any way.

now if you want to see legitimate calls of violence and harassment:

maxine waters "God is on our side... if you see anybody from that cabinet in a resteraunt... in the department store... in a gasoline station... you get out and create a crowd... and you push back on them... and you tell them they're not welcome anymore anywhere"
Hillary Clinton "you can't be civil.."
senator tim kaine "fight in the streets"
david harbour "go out and punch some people in the face"
donny deutsch "we need a revolution, people need to start taking to the streets"
don't get me started on the numerous entertainment and media people with their ridiculous things like Kathy Griffin's severed head stunt, the public theater caesar that looked suspiciously like trump, snoop dogg shooting trump in a music video,
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/books/review/trumps-next-chapter.html

"The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger.

The Makarov misfired.
The Secret Service agent at the president’s shoulder heard the click, spun into a crouch. He registered the scene instantly, drawing his own weapon with razor-edge reflexes.
The Russian tasted failure. He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost.
It did not come.
He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first.
“Here,” the agent said politely. “Use mine. …”"
etc.

rhetoric shouldn't be compared here... seriously. I can dislike trump and right wing clownies without harassment and fantasizing about murder and revolution
 

Asek

Banned deucer.
cant be borhted watching the clips, im sure theyre absolutely damning but rhetoric deployed be politicians and elites can incite violence and certain responses in people without explictly saying 'i want you to go and beat the shit out of a democrat'. coded language stirring people to react negatively to policies surrounding affirmative action designed to benefit disadvantaged minority groups has been deployed for decades at this point for example. its not like theyre gonna come out and say you should oppose this policy because it benefits african americans more - theres a difference between what is LITERALLY being said and what politiciansd what u to pick up. as for violence from the right wing i distinctly remmebr trrump saying that violence at the unite the right rally was an issue on 'both sides' as if the white supremacists incl the guy who drove his car into the protestors were somehow at the same degree of danger to society as the counter protesters. what kindof message do you think this sends?
 

Surgo

goes to eleven
is a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
the difference here is that there are no right wing political (or media / entertainment for that matter) figures endorsing this violence
"Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise" -- Donald Trump

"He's walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing, I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you." -- Donald Trump

"Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court. Don't worry about it." -- Donald Trump

"Maybe he should have been roughed up." -- Donald Trump

These all seem like "legitimate calls of violence and harassment" to me.
 
"If [Hillary] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people - maybe there is, I don’t know." - Donald Trump.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
The issue is the left tries to intellectualize Antifa. They're just punching the people who deserve to be punched. They're just silencing the people who deserve to be silenced. "No Organization is perfect."

Here's the reality on left wing vs right wing violence in the last two years:
At Trump's inauguration Antifa is smashing in windows and causing mayhem.
Multiple mobs of Antifa and other Democrat activists were tearing down public property consisting of statues of historical figures they don't like.
In Charlottesville Antifa shows up with clubs to intimidate and threaten the remaining 1000 white supremacists in America that had all gathered with their tiki torches. One of the white supremacists panicked in the battle, got into a car and ran someone over. If Antifa hadn't showed up hiding behind their masks, weapons in hand Heather Heyer would probably be alive today.
Rand Paul's ribs were broken by a disgruntled neighbor because of his political differences.
A Bernie Bro shot up a congressional baseball game and nearly killed Republican House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.
Countless incidents of Antifa violence occur on a regular basis. Every time they show up they pick a fight with the city police department because they are on the "cops are pigs" and "law enforcement is racist front to back (A gem from my Senator, Elizabeth Warren)" trains.
At least 4 Republican officials are harassed in restaurants with the tacit endorsement of this tactic from Maxine Waters.

During and after all of this, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder call for"not when they go low, we go high. When they go low we kick them." and "you can't be civil with people who oppose what you stand for politically." After Rand Paul's ribs were broken. After members of Congress were literally shot over politics. At no point in any of these incidents does the press say that Democrats really ought to tone down the "get in their face" and "don't let them eat in peace" style rhetoric. There were no editorials from major newspapers condemning Hillary Clinton for calling for incivility after Republicans were nearly murdered in the last year, though some Democrats facing re-election told her to can it (to their credit.)

Then this one wackjob with an arrest record stretching back decades starts sending crudely made pipe bombs, none of which detonated, all of which were intercepted.

Suddenly, stoking violence wasn't background political discourse anymore for the left. But of course everything was the fault of Bad Orange Man, not two years of nonstop apologia for "Bash the Fash." A quick internet search will find a pro-violence quote from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump in short order. I care more about apologia for actual instances of specific violence than dumb statements.

The right does have it's own problem in this:

They truck way too easily in conspiracy theories because our media shows every single indicator that it has an explicit political bias willing to suppress anything that counters the preferred Democrat narrative. That's why Donald Trump's "The Fake News media are the enemy of the American people" resonates so much. The media have been manifestly awful and one-sided since Bill Clinton was President and his routine roughing up of women and other abuses of status / privilege needed cover.

Because now every single time a Republican says something untoward or overheated, this wackjob is going to be brought up.
But every time a Democrat amped up the volume on political violence after Bernie Bro actually shot Congressmen up, the media decided not to mention it. At no point did major media say something like "against a backdrop of intimidation, shootings, and political violence directed against Republicans, Hillary Clinton made a statement that you cannot be civil with people who oppose what you stand for. Clinton stated Democrats could be civil after they were handed back political power."

Even I was willing to jump of the false flag train if this guy - who was so obviously incompetent and whose targets explicitly included nearly all the Democrats most vocally supporting violence over the last 4 weeks - wasn't caught in a short period of time. Fortunately he was. We found out he was a nutjob whose record of threats, intimidation, and violence long predate Barack Obama's election.

I wonder how many press outlets are still calling him the "MAGABomber." They didn't call the guy who shot up Steve Scalise and all those other Congressmen the "BernieGunner." And the "BernieGunner" actually had victims that were physically harmed.

Finally, on Trump and dumb things he says to parlay this back to the original topic: A lot of those were in the context of people coming to his rallies and roughing up his supporters. In other words a lot of it was justified self-defense. His suggestion he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue wasn't, it was a distasteful joke, but it wasn't a call for someone else to shoot up 5th Avenue. The Gianforte body slam comments were just dumb. Reporters can be obnoxious, entitled, invasive, and dishonest - but it's wrong to body slam them in the moment even if you know they're just going to lie about you back at the press office.

My take on the broader topic of justifiable violence:

As a person, you can use violence in self defense of an escalating or presently mortal threat. I don't think your life needs to be in danger before you respond with violence, but if escalation could lead there you have sufficient grounds to exceed proportional force if it would end the escalation more peaceably.

Police and Military instances of violence are a more complicated matter. Inherent in any policing is the threat to use force. The objective of the police force is to minimize the possibility of individuals with malevolent intent exercising unjustifiable acts of violence. Military force justification is even murkier as militaries have the additional justification of acting in long term national interests and have no realistic options for proportional vs overwhelming force on the individual level. A single MOAB can cause a proportional impact politically, but it's overwhelming if you're in the blast radius. "You will lose a war if you attack our country" is the bottom-line message of a competent military.
 
My main issue with this whole debate is that it's too preoccupied with literal physical violence, which is not meaningful. Like if I punch someone in the face, we'll all agree that's violence. If I steal someone and lock them in my basement but don't physically strike them, I think most would agree that that is violence. But when the state does that (to like, literal children, for example), it's not violence somehow? A lot of people are pointing fingers about violence predicated on the idea that it's only justified in 'self-defense,' but self-defense from what?
 

Asek

Banned deucer.
In Charlottesville Antifa shows up with clubs to intimidate and threaten the remaining 1000 white supremacists in America that had all gathered with their tiki torches. One of the white supremacists panicked in the battle, got into a car and ran someone over. If Antifa hadn't showed up hiding behind their masks, weapons in hand Heather Heyer would probably be alive today.
 
"Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise" -- Donald Trump

"He's walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing, I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you." -- Donald Trump

"Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court. Don't worry about it." -- Donald Trump

"Maybe he should have been roughed up." -- Donald Trump

These all seem like "legitimate calls of violence and harassment" to me.
all of these are obvious jokes... dumb jokes, often in bad taste as trump has a tendency to make... but still obvious jokes. are you seriously blind to context or are you just ignoring it to fit your narrative? compare it to the literal anger and hysteria of some of the left wingers I linked.

also, nice post deck knight
 
well shit "try not to hurt him but if you do ill defend you in court" man we got a fuckin hitler right here

tcr blinded to obvious context by hysterical trump hate lol

when trump starts ordering the rounding up and killing of jews or other ethnic minorities then you can make all the hitler comparisons u want
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
DurzaOffTopic
Why do you think the president should be making "jokes" telling people to kill his opponents?

If people in this thread are going to see them for what they really are, do you really think the nutjobs who actually committed these attacks didn't see it that way?

Trump already rounded up ethnic minorities and imprisoned children. It took five years after Hitler was elected for kristallnacht to happen. We already have large numbers of nazis storming the streets and these far-right terrorist attacks. You're gonna be the guy sitting in our Nuremberg Trials saying "the german people knew nothing was wrong", aren't you?

Edit: PS Got zero interest in "x side is bad cause only they are violent", so don't even try to fall back on crying about someone punching a nazi
 
Last edited:
DurzaOffTopic
Why do you think the president should be making "jokes" telling people to kill his opponents?

If people in this thread are going to see them for what they really are, do you really think the nutjobs who actually committed these attacks didn't see it that way?

Trump already rounded up ethnic minorities and imprisoned children. It took five years after Hitler was elected for kristallnacht to happen. We already have large numbers of nazis storming the streets and these far-right terrorist attacks. You're gonna be the guy sitting in our Nuremberg Trials saying "the german people knew nothing was wrong", aren't you?

Edit: PS Got zero interest in "x side is bad cause only they are violent", so don't even try to fall back on crying about someone punching a nazi
I don't think the president should be making jokes about telling people to kill his opponents, I don't think the president should be making jokes at all actually given his track record with them. but thats not what hes doing. Killing and punching somebody is definitely different. However he's clearly joking.

The people in this thread want to see trump as a hitler x2 because it makes them feel justified. the right wing nutjobs don't want that and they're in it for their own shit because they clearly have a warped mind. a psychopath will still be a nutjob regardless if somebody makes a comment to them jokingly or not.

rounding up illegal immigrants who are literally breaking the law is significantly different from taking an innocent ethnic group and literally mass killing them.

seriously, do you think that trump is just like hitler? genuine question because I think thats preposterous but I think you might actually believe it? do you think that trump is legitimately going to end up committing genocide or something smaller because honestly I don't see any indication of it anywhere but the delusional left wing. most democrats don't actually think trump is hitler and can hold an honest conversation about it

im also ethnically jewish and almost offended by the comparison

Edit: PS Got zero interest in "x side is bad cause only they are violent", so don't even try to fall back on crying about someone punching a nazi
dunno what this shit means so i guess we dont have an issue with it

also heres a pm u sent me two years ago lol
I understand that sometimes the decisions of Cong management rubs alt-righters the wrong way, and that it doesn't always seem fair when your posts get deleted or you get infracted. And while I stand by my decision, there is a way that you can appeal this.

FireBot mods are generally more right-wing, and have worked hard in the past to make sure that people can appeal Cong decisions. Together, we work to ensure that everyone is treated absolutely fairly. If you'd like to plead your case, that you are not a toxic user in general, please feel free to consult Rodan, a prominent FireBot mod.

Have a nice day.


you seem to have the false assertion that people are significantly more extreme then they are
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top