U.S. Politics: A City Upon A Hill Has Lost It's Shine.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Are you for real?  Like, it's impossible for me to imagine that you are this dense and this confused about something so basic.

This is your logic:

"He directed violence at transgender folks, so we better let him keep doing it."

"He promoted violence against Muslims so better let him be President."

"He planned to send Jews to the gas chambers so it was just as well that a complacent population didn't stand in his way."

Never once said any of these things. I don't know who you're quoting here, but if you were arguing with that person, these would be effective points.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So he did it what, 3 months after the fact? And only after this whole free speech rally blew up in his face, but not because of the prior violence?

That's at least 3 months less outage, doxxing and harassment.

The point is blocking his speech at a physical venue didn't stop him from doing it. That was the justification that was provided.

[Tywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 

Just because someone is doing something doesn't mean that you reward them with more space to continue doing that something.  

But the protests have provided Milo with an even larger platform. Do you deny that?

Also, I know you and ME never get along, but you both should consider being less hostile to one another. That's the only way you'll each have a chance to try and get your points across in a productive manner.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Never once said any of these things. I don't know who you're quoting here, but if you were arguing with that person, these would be effective points.  

Is it incorrect about your logic? Basically, you're saying that if someone can do something reprehensible in another way you might as well let them do that thing and not take action, as far as I can tell, because if they manage to do it later then the previous actions were for nothing.

Which basically nullifies any kind of protest that doesn't end up solving things right away, save killing the person in question. That's kind of an odd logical stand to be on, mind you - that you're against violence except when it solves the problem in totality - but okay, that's something.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Could always be worse. My long time fuck buddy told me she's getting married on Wednesday (I feel bad for that poor bastard), on Thursday I went into work and there was no running water or working bathrooms, and I had to point out to my bosses that they were violating multiple OSHA regulations by forcing us to stay and on Friday they nearly fired me for BS reasons.

So the job hunt begins.......

Yeah sounds pretty shitty, good luck w/the job hunt!  Actually, reminds me that I worked for OSHA a few times when I was a temp in DC.  The manager was a douche.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

The point is blocking his speech at a physical venue didn't stop him from doing it. That was the justification that was provided.

It stopped him from doing it then, didn't it? Which was the goal. He had threatened to do X, blocking his speech prevented him at that time from doing X. 

That he did so later in another venue that couldn't be blocked the same way is immaterial, unless you're suggesting that he should have been killed instead.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

But the protests have provided Milo with an even larger platform. Do you deny that?

I deny that. He had a very large platform prior to that, it increased his visibility for a bit until the pedophilia stuff came back, and now he's smaller than before. He lost Breitbart, after all. He has basically facebook, and that is pretty limited.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Is it incorrect about your logic? Basically, you're saying that if someone can do something reprehensible in another way you might as well let them do that thing and not take action, as far as I can tell, because if they manage to do it later then the previous actions were for nothing.

Which basically nullifies any kind of protest that doesn't end up solving things right away, save killing the person in question. That's kind of an odd logical stand to be on, mind you - that you're against violence except when it solves the problem in totality - but okay, that's something.

The claim here that was made was that the protest that occurred at the Milo Berkeley event was justified due to the fact that he was going to out Transsexual students at that event. My very simple point here is that protest did nothing to prevent him from doing that. That's it. You're drawing a moral connect the dots here that has nothing to do with my point.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It stopped him from doing it then, didn't it? Which was the goal. He had threatened to do X, blocking his speech prevented him at that time from doing X. 

That he did so later in another venue that couldn't be blocked the same way is immaterial, unless you're suggesting that he should have been killed instead.

Had he had this information (which apparently he claimed to prior to the event) he could've posted it up that very night. So either he was lying about having the information or he decided to shelve it in favor of playing the victim in front of the ensuing media orgy. 

So yeah, it maybe prevented him from doing it for a fairly short period of time. I suppose that's something, as you say.  

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

The claim here that was made was that the protest that occurred at the Milo Berkeley event was justified due to the fact that he was going to out Transsexual students at that event. My very simple point here is that protest did nothing to prevent him from doing that. That's it. You're drawing a moral connect the dots here that has nothing to do with my point.

But it did stop him from doing it, for three months. You seem to be ignoring that entirely. And it absolutely stopped him from outing transsexual students at that event FOREVER, because he will never get to that at that event. 

Now, you can say it wasn't justified because it didn't stop him from doing something horrible FOREVER, in which case I challenge you on that - so what? Is your point that unless you can stop someone from doing something forever it's never justified? Follow through that logic, please. Because this is what @Dr. Pepper is calling you on - that it appears that your objection is either that it didn't stop someone doing something eventually so you shouldn't ever take action, or it didn't stop someone from doing something eventually and therefore you need to take final action. Which do you prefer?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

But it did stop him from doing it, for three months. You seem to be ignoring that entirely. And it absolutely stopped him from outing transsexual students at that event FOREVER, because he will never get to that at that event. 

Now, you can say it wasn't justified because it didn't stop him from doing something horrible FOREVER, in which case I challenge you on that - so what? Is your point that unless you can stop someone from doing something forever it's never justified? Follow through that logic, please. Because this is what @Dr. Pepper is calling you on - that it appears that your objection is either that it didn't stop someone doing something eventually so you shouldn't ever take action, or it didn't stop someone from doing something eventually and therefore you need to take final action. Which do you prefer?

So the end result to that protest was a three month stay? Yay?

Again, if the goal is to prevent him from outing Transsexual students, then the goal was not achieved. You want to declare a 3 month delay a victory? Okay, you won! Where should I mail the trophy?

[Dr. Pepper]

19 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Never once said any of these things. I don't know who you're quoting here, but if you were arguing with that person, these would be effective points.  

I'm talking about your logic.  Your logic is that if someone does Bad Thing at Place, you may as well let them continue doing Bad Thing at all the places.  Because....reasons.  

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But the protests have provided Milo with an even larger platform. Do you deny that?

Also, I know you and ME never get along, but you both should consider being less hostile to one another. That's the only way you'll each have a chance to try and get your points across in a productive manner.

Again, this is stupid logic.  It's the same as ME where you think someone should be given all the platforms since they are already doing or saying they things they plan to do and say.  That's shit, total and complete shit.  

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

So the end result to that protest was a three month stay? Yay?

Again, if the goal is to prevent him from outing Transsexual students, then the goal was not achieved. You want to declare a 3 month delay a victory? Okay, you won! Where should I mail the trophy?

Fuck yeah it's a victory.  Each day a vulnerable person isn't being attacked due to the violent direction of Milo is a victory.  All those people who could have been attacked but weren't, victory.  

Further victory occurs in other ways, where the population who are against nazis, their directors, their champions, and their sympathizers grows exponentially.  We've had some good protests, and while I remain pessimistic, political scientists feel positively that liberals and other decent folks showing public support could mean good things for upcoming elections.  

[Bonnot OG]

Gotta love how cis straight white men think ignoring an abusive bigoted asshole will make it all go away. 

White moderates in action. Doesn't impact my life, so whine whine whine about anyone that uses direct action, including those that are targets of bigots like Milo. 

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

So the end result to that protest was a three month stay? Yay?

For people who got outed and are now being harassed, being not harassed for 3 months is yay.

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Again, if the goal is to prevent him from outing Transsexual students, then the goal was not achieved. You want to declare a 3 month delay a victory? Okay, you won! Where should I mail the trophy?

The goal was to deny him the ability to out those students at that event. In that they succeeded brilliantly. 

You seem to believe that the goal was to stop him saying anything bad anywhere, and if they didn't do that then they failed. In which case, I ask again - are you encouraging that they should have just assassinated him, and anything less would have been a failure? Or are you saying that you should never do anything to stop things like this because they might be able to do it elsewhere?

[Dr. Pepper]

It's so bizarre that someone who has shown support of the NFL players protesting Trump is so against people protesting another person.  

And on that NFL thing, there was an interesting editorial in the WaPo comparing Kaepernick and Tebow and how these two represent a huge break within the Christianity right now. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/09/24/colin-kaepernick-vs-tim-tebow-a-tale-of-two-christianities-on-its-knees/?utm_term=.1c90475f7c19  

The entire article is worth a read, but this part in particular was most thought-provoking: 

Quote

In many parts of the world it feels as though the church is separating into two versions, one that values personal piety, gentleness, respect for cultural mores, and an emphasis on moral issues like abortion and homosexuality, and another that values social justice, community development, racial reconciliation, and political activism.

One version is kneeling in private prayer. The other is kneeling in public protest.

One is concerned with private sins like abortion. The other is concerned with public sins like racial discrimination.

One preaches a gospel of personal salvation. The other preaches a gospel of political and social transformation.

One is reading the Epistles of Paul. The other is reading the Minor Prophets.

One is listening to Eric Metaxas and Franklin Graham. The other is listening to William Barber and John Perkins.

One is rallying at the March for Life. The other is getting arrested at Moral Monday protests.

 

[Sivin]

18 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

Just proving his point; nice. 

 

 

15 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

I guess I could take that as a compliment.

More directly relevant to YOU: a couple of the ladies in the extended family went the lesbian route.  That doesn't bother him in the slightest because they work hard and are what he terms 'good people.' (not criminals or freeloaders)

From direct experience and posts on the net, there are a huge number of conservatives - perhaps a near majority - who are much like my father: hardworking, honest, compassionate to an extent - but also...'politically limited.'    To me, I see no real reason why that stripe of conservatism should be at such loggerheads with more leftist types. 

The good doctor already had a run at this, but I'll say my piece anyway.

A good number in this thread seem to hold me in some contempt, I understand why. Though I am not aware of any personal insult I might have offered any of you, it seems several don't like it when I (tangentially, I'll contend) condone violence against Nazis. That's fair, in fact I don't begrudge anyone those feelings in the least. For all you know I am an upstanding human being, and the only definitive thing you know about me really is my positive feelings about visiting violence on Nazis. This is unacceptable to you, therefore my broader political and personal feelings must be considered hostile to your own given our established divide of values. 

So when ThinkerX tells me that his father, who sounds as impressively hardworking and generous a man as my own father while simultaneously being active in his community, is a supporter of Donald Trump, I'm afraid you'll have to understand that I have determined him to be an antagonist to my basic life. 

You see, it doesn't matter that Mr.ThinkerX is 'totes cool with the gays he knows personally', he supports a tyrannical imbecile who pushes regressive and nonsensical positions that devalue my mortal existence as surely as a bullet to the head would devalue a Nazi's. Mr.ThinkerX is complicit, merely by personal belief, in the devaluing of my personal being. He is my ideological enemy, a political belligerent and societal cancer to be excised, much like the man he supports. 

So from where I stand we're not so different, all of us here. 

6 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

When you refuse to stand up against the Milo's of the world, you're complicit in normalizing that behavior.  Sure, he could have simply posted from Facebook, and that's another platform where protest could take place, much like massive protest took place over Twitter, where he was eventually banned.

Look, you're cool with this filth being given free unimpeded reign to say things that directly promote violence.  So it's either simple-mindedness, or you're an evil scumbag.  I'm willing to acknowledge that you probably aren't simple-minded.  

People don't "go the lesbian route".  It's not some fork in the road that one contemplates taking, like choosing the country scenic route or the busy urban route.  Saying it doesn't bother your father for the ladies who 'went the lesbian route' is pretty meaningless when he votes in direct opposition to their basic rights.  You can't be 'not bothered' while at the same time actively trying to thwart one's life.

 

From direct experience, there are a huge number of liberals - perhaps a near majority - who are extraordinarily decent and very unlike your father: hardworking, honest, compassionate - and not politically disgusting.  

 

 

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Could always be worse. My long time fuck buddy told me she's getting married on Wednesday (I feel bad for that poor bastard), on Thursday I went into work and there was no running water or working bathrooms, and I had to point out to my bosses that they were violating multiple OSHA regulations by forcing us to stay and on Friday they nearly fired me for BS reasons.

So the job hunt begins.......

Next time call OSHA, then sue the fuck out of your work when they fire you (they will probably peer you out).

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Thanks for answering the question. I can't say I agree with your perception that this was a victory, given the end result though. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's so bizarre that someone who has shown support of the NFL players protesting Trump is so against people protesting another person.  

And on that NFL thing, there was an interesting editorial in the WaPo comparing Kaepernick and Tebow and how these two represent a huge break within the Christianity right now. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/09/24/colin-kaepernick-vs-tim-tebow-a-tale-of-two-christianities-on-its-knees/?utm_term=.1c90475f7c19  

The entire article is worth a read, but this part in particular was most thought-provoking: 

 

Peaceful protest. If you can't see a difference between what Kaepernick and other NFL players are doing and smashing property, throwing explosives and beating people up physically, then you need a new pair of glasses.

[Tywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I deny that. He had a very large platform prior to that, it increased his visibility for a bit until the pedophilia stuff came back, and now he's smaller than before. He lost Breitbart, after all. He has basically facebook, and that is pretty limited.

 

Really? Because I had only vaguely heard of Milo prior to him being shut down at Berkeley. In my eyes it dramatically raised his stature.

That said, the larger point is you should let most of these types talk. That way the masses can here it and respond with, "Oh that's some vile bullshit," and shame the people who traffic in it. It kind of neutralizes it, whereas if you let it fester in the shadows, it can become bigger than you'd ever expect. You know the old cliche, the best disinfectant is sunlight.

12 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Again, this is stupid logic.  It's the same as ME where you think someone should be given all the platforms since they are already doing or saying they things they plan to do and say.  That's shit, total and complete shit.  

No, I'm saying you shouldn't have the default position of denying a person a platform just because you strongly disagree with them. Look, I detest the likes of Milo and Ann Coulter and their ilk, but they should still be able to give a speech or hold a forum at places like Berkeley, so long as they're not actively advocating for violence, which they're not. They're just trolling.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Thanks for answering the question. I can't say I agree with your perception that this was a victory, given the end result though. 

So again, I ask - what is the alternative for you then?

If a protest that stops someone from outing someone only stops them for a time, is it always a failure? Is the only victory in that case killing Milo and others? 

If the NFL players currently protesting do not, somehow, solve black people getting killed by police at high levels, was their attempt in vain? Should they not have tried?