mormont Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Who's excited about that? The only person seeming excited about mob behaviour is Trump. You know, despite all that tough talk quoted above, I'm betting that if Trump ever got into a physical fight, he'd be one of those guys that just puts their head down and mills their hands around frantically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 18 minutes ago, mormont said: Who's excited about that? The only person seeming excited about mob behaviour is Trump. You know, despite all that tough talk quoted above, I'm betting that if Trump ever got into a physical fight, he'd be one of those guys that just puts their head down and mills their hands around frantically. Seems to me there were plenty of people on both sides of the aisle excited to throw down. That rally was actually a nice metaphor for how I view politics in this country - extremist assholes on both sides of the aisle sucking all the air out of the room and projecting their own narrow agendas so they can validate their shitty views to themselves. How can you honestly look to assign blame to a single person for that disaster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Zelt, I do see where you are coming from. However, Trump seems to delight in this "tough-guy" crap. I can hold him responsible for his personal bellicosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 26 minutes ago, zelticgar said: Seems to me there were plenty of people on both sides of the aisle excited to throw down. That rally was actually a nice metaphor for how I view politics in this country - extremist assholes on both sides of the aisle sucking all the air out of the room and projecting their own narrow agendas so they can validate their shitty views to themselves. How can you honestly look to assign blame to a single person for that disaster? A guy who says he'll cover the legal bills of anyone who assaults a protester at his rally is...somehow not endorsing assaulting protesters? That's not just verbal support, that's material aid. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/trump-once-said-he-would-pay-legal-fees-for-people-who-beat-up-protesters-now-that-its-happened-can-he/ (source for him saying he'd cover legal bills) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Sorry folks I'm calling bullshit on this one. If you buy into the narrative that this was all caused by Trump it is just condoning violence. It's basic human behavior. If I goad you with words and you behave with violence you don't get to hide behind that defense that I talked mean to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 1 minute ago, zelticgar said: Sorry folks I'm calling bullshit on this one. If you buy into the narrative that this was all caused by Trump it is just condoning violence. It's basic human behavior. If I goad you with words and you behave with violence you don't get to hide behind that defense that I talked mean to you. "Mr Trump was repeatedly interrupted by the protesters, whom he called a "disgrace". These latest clashes come just a day after a Trump supporter was charged with assault after multiple videos showed him punching a protester at a campaign rally in North Carolina. The billionaire later said that the supporter's actions were "appropriate". -from http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35791008 Remember, this is the guy who sucker-punched a completely peaceful protester, and the impression from the BBC article is that the Trump supporters were responsible for starting much of the actual fighting. And, if you threaten me with physical harm such that I do believe that I am in danger of being physically assaulted, in many places, I do get to hide behind the defense that you talked mean to me. Was this all caused by Trump? No, of course not, but were his words a huge factor in encouraging his supporters to attack protesters? Yeah, I think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 I am not sure, but I am inclined to believe Trump acting as some sort of Agent Provocateur can be held legally liable for the escalating violence at his rallye. But that's a question for the lawyers here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, zelticgar said: Sorry folks I'm calling bullshit on this one. If you buy into the narrative that this was all caused by Trump it is just condoning violence. It's basic human behavior. If I goad you with words and you behave with violence you don't get to hide behind that defense that I talked mean to you. But that's not what has happened at all. It isn't protesters reacting to Trump's mean words with violence, it's: Trump says all manner of mean things > protesters talk mean to Trump > Trump tells supporters they ought to hurt protesters > protesters continue saying mean things to Trump > Trump supporters start hurting protesters > Trump continues to encourage supporters to hurt protesters > last night happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 OAR, not sure what planet you are living on but I can guarantee you that people on both sides of the aisle attended that event with the expressed purpose of starting trouble. You a making this sound like it was a bunch of peace nicks getting the shit kicked out of them by evil Trump supporters. Give me a break. The whole thing was just a meeting of two equal groups of assholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: But that's not what has happened at all. It isn't protesters reacting to Trump's mean words with violence, it's: Trump says all manner of mean things > protesters talk mean to Trump > Trump tells supporters they ought to hurt protesters > protesters continue saying mean things to Trump > Trump supporters start hurting protesters > Trump continues to encourage supporters to hurt protesters > last night happens The issue is not that "protesters talk mean to Trump", it's that they interrupt his events thereby attempting to prevent the expression of political ideas by a form of coercion (namely, shouting them down). I have absolutely zero sympathy for the protesters here -- if they held a rally nearby explaining why they believe what Trump is saying is bad, that would be one thing, but people who try drown out ideas they disagree with by pure noise are usually scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, zelticgar said: OAR, not sure what planet you are living on but I can guarantee you that people on both sides of the aisle attended that event with the expressed purpose of starting trouble. You a making this sound like it was a bunch of peace nicks getting the shit kicked out of them by evil Trump supporters. Give me a break. The whole thing was just a meeting of two equal groups of assholes. Well I certainly didn't witness every violent interaction last night, but the ones I have seen have Trump supporters instigating the violence. I haven't seen video of a protester throwing a sucker punch. It seems to me you're making an assumption about the protesters and standing it up against the firm evidence of violence from Trump supporters to force a false equivalence. On top of that, basically every campaign gets protesters, without this violence. The events with violence this year have had one common factor- Trump and Trump supporters. Just now, Altherion said: The issue is not that "protesters talk mean to Trump", it's that they interrupt his events thereby attempting to prevent the expression of political ideas by a form of coercion (namely, shouting them down). I have absolutely zero sympathy for the protesters here -- if they held a rally nearby explaining why they believe what Trump is saying is bad, that would be one thing, but people who try drown out ideas they disagree with by pure noise are usually scum. I borrowed Zelt's phrase. Sure they're being purposely disruptive. That's not violence. Whether you're sympathetic toward disruptive protest or not... YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 Trumps problem is that he has talked about hitting protestors or punching them, or have them taken out on stretchers. Makes him look like he is promoting violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 18 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: I borrowed Zelt's phrase. Sure they're being purposely disruptive. That's not violence. Whether you're sympathetic toward disruptive protest or not... YMMV. No, it's not violence -- but it is coercive suppression of political speech. And, as you can probably guess from my previous posts, no, I'm not sympathetic to disruptive protest in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Altherion said: No, it's not violence -- but it is coercive suppression of political speech. And, as you can probably guess from my previous posts, no, I'm not sympathetic to disruptive protest in this context. Yes, I could have guessed. Usually it's just coercive delay of political speech though, the protesters yell and get thrown out and the speech goes on. Not really silencing anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 1 hour ago, zelticgar said: Seems to me there were plenty of people on both sides of the aisle excited to throw down. That rally was actually a nice metaphor for how I view politics in this country - extremist assholes on both sides of the aisle sucking all the air out of the room and projecting their own narrow agendas so they can validate their shitty views to themselves. How can you honestly look to assign blame to a single person for that disaster? You're falling into the 'false equivalency' trap: the idea that if there's fault on both sides, they must be exactly equally to blame. Which is not true, as you well know. Yes, some protesters turned up expecting and looking for a fight. Now, why was that? Did they come up with that notion out of nothing? Or did Trump create it, by his vocal and public encouragement of previous incidents of physical violence at his events? Think of it like this. You go to a bar and get in a fight. Yeah, that's your fault. But... if the bar is one where the owner acts responsibly, he's not at fault. If the bar is one where the owner laughs uproariously every time a fight breaks out, and publicly encourages his patrons to brawl, then yeah, he's taking a healthy share of the blame. You can let Trump off the hook if you like, but don't pretend that's even-handedness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 While disruption and the heckler's veto is the exclusive province of the left, and it happens all the time (just ask Bernie with BLM), we shouldn't take a lying conman like Trump's word that he was forcibly silenced. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/uncategorized/trump-is-loki/ Quote If you want to go to a Trump rally as a Trump hater you are free to do so. If you want stand up and unfurl a Bernie Sanders banner at a Trump rally you are free to do so. You are not free to yell, to interrupt the proceedings, or to incite or create violence. If you are escorted out, you must do so peacefully. Outside the rally you have to obey the laws too. The protest-to-get-thrown-out strategy is a problematic one for the protester because it can create greater sympathy for the speaker with his audience. But the protestor doesn’t care; he’s already responding to a set of perverse incentives. He believes he is doing something righteous by interfering with someone else’s speech, and he is always supported by a cohort of people who agree with him. They are always standing up for something greater in their minds. But when a protest is hyper-organized, as this one evidently was, something else is at work. There’s no David v. Goalith dynamic of the lone protestor against the powerful speaker and his audience. Instead, you have a sneak attack by a guerrilla group that is stronger than anyone knew at first glance. And the purpose of many such guerrilla actions is to attack to provoke a counter-attack that will garner sympathy for the guerrillas, who can say they were merely expressing their outrage and were set upon by goons. Thus you have protestors who start throwing bottles and attacking the cops who are just trying to keep the peace—but say they are doing so because they are so disappointed at the “hate.” And then they play victim. It’s straight out of the Marxist-Leninist street-game playbook, and only a historical illiterate or a fool or someone who is sympathetic to the tactics would deny it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 5 minutes ago, Commodore said: While disruption and the heckler's veto is the exclusive province of the left, and it happens all the time (just ask Bernie with BLM), we shouldn't take a lying conman like Trump's word that he was forcibly silenced. The left uses the heckler's veto while the right uses, you know, the filibuster. Which is the more dangerous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said: Yes, I could have guessed. Usually it's just coercive delay of political speech though, the protesters yell and get thrown out and the speech goes on. Not really silencing anyone. Yes, but sometimes a delay has very nearly the same effect as silencing somebody. In the current situation, forcing the postponement of the rally in Chicago to some date more than 3 days from now is as good as cancelling it altogether -- there's no point in holding rallies after the vote has taken place. Of course, no rally could possibly have gotten this much media exposure so it might be that the protesters did Trump a favor after all. He is trying to spin it as an effort by the Grand Alliance of Bad People Who Did Not Make America Great which succeeded in getting the rally postponed, but energized America in the process (presumably to vote for him on Tuesday): Quote “The organized group of people, many of them thugs, who shut down our First Amendment rights in Chicago, have totally energized America!” Trump posted on Twitter on Saturday morning. Trump cancelled the event, citing security concerns, as fights broke out inside the venue among Trump supporters and protesters, some of whom were Black Lives Matter activists and others who were wearing “Muslims United Against Trump” shirts. Who knows, it might work. After all, nobody cares enough to protest or counter the protesters at Cruz or Rubio rallies -- or those of Clinton, for that matter. In fact, the only protests that have drawn media attention seem to have happened at Trump or Sanders events which I find more than a little curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: The left uses the heckler's veto while the right uses, you know, the filibuster. Which is the more dangerous? Democrats don't use the filibuster? Using it "less" doesn't mean it isn't used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted March 12, 2016 Share Posted March 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Democrats don't use the filibuster? Using it "less" doesn't mean it isn't used. I'm making a greater point; traditionally, the people employing the "heckler's veto" are generally those who get the short end of the stick in terms of government policy. (I really do not like the filibuster, though, which is another matter entirely.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.