U.S. Politics- SCOTUS 2: The Election Strikes Back

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I have to confess, for like a second or two, I wondered if this could be real. 

It's not like the actual news are any less crazy. 

It's a genuine problem for parody sites

[DMC]

Wasserman was busy yesterday, with 5 ratings changes over at CPR (half the direct links are paywalled) all in the Dems' favor:

• FL-6th: Open, PVI R+7 - moved from Safe to Likely Republican (Incumbent Trump button man Ron DeSantis is running for governor)
• FL-16th: Vern Buchanan (R), PVI R+7 - moved from Likely to Lean Republican
• IL-13th: Rodney Davis (R), PVI R+3 - moved from Likely to Lean Republican
• ME-2nd: Bruce Poliquin (R), PVI R+2 - moved from Lean Republican to Tossup (Poliquin is the only GOP House member in New England)
• MI-8th: Mike Bishop (R), PVI R+4 - moved from Lean Republican to Tossup

Assuming they defend their own seats (and take GOP-held seats that are listed as Likely/Lean Dem), the Dems will need 15 of the current 24 Republican Tossup seats - or 15 of the 50 GOP seats ranked Tossup or Lean Republican - to take back the House.

[DanteGabriel]

8 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

Cue Dantegabriel and Kalbear to come in and call me a racist, or a nazi, or a racist nazi.  I’m not sure why those guys hate me, but I agree with their right to do so.

Here, let me get you a few more nails for that cross you're carrying around. I never called you a Nazi, but don't let me interfere with a white man's ability to rewrite his narrative or claim that he's the true victim of racism.

My own views on punching Nazis are more complicated, as previous arguments with Manhole back in the day showed. Until 2016 I was much more comfortable with the "violence is never the answer" angle, but watching Nazis take advantage of the complacency and tolerance of others has caused some reconsideration. I think this essay makes some excellent points about the cost of letting Nazis and trolls do their thing:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/12/17561768/dont-feed-the-trolls-online-harassment-abuse

The article, let's be clear, does not prescribe violence as a solution. But neither does it accept just ignoring a loud racist yelling in public spaces. I'm a little more accepting of corrective physical chastisement for the maladjusted racists of society. A Nazi who yells slurs in people's faces deserves whatever he gets.

(Cue SweetPea or Frog Eater to tell us the same logic applies to minorities getting beaten by cops for running or mouthing off)

 

[James Arryn]

5 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

That is because Americans as a whole value property over people. That is why when a protest can turn chaotic and into a riot they cry over broken windows of stores more so than they do over the dead body of an innocent person that led to a breaking point. 

A consumrist nation told their status and worth is based upon what they own and how much they make and can buy from how much they make.
 

In certain states, hate speech can be considered a fighting / combat word and a violent response like a punch is perfectly justified. 

The guy totally desrved the punches he was hit with, just like every bigot that gets their ass handed to them totally deserves it. 

Not shocked that the typical sympathizers of bigots are crying about it. 

Probably because they use racial slurs and don't want to get smacked in the mouth when caught.

 

Dude, you’re kind of painting with a broad brush here. I have never used a racial slur...or even had a racist thought...in my life, and I am not at all comfortable with the response to words being violence, however much I can understand the motivation. So, call me a crypto-racist or tell me my priorities are out of date, but man I’m telling you the fists, bullets and batons aren’t any harder today than in Gandhi’s time, nor does hate breed anything but more hate.  

Now, that said, in this case the guy was throwing out actual violent threats along with his slurs, and the guy who responded did so with cool deliberation which...well, I wish we weren’t doing this, but if you’re going to do it this is better than other ways.

[aceluby]

Fuck that, the dude was looking for a fight, got one, and got his ass kicked.  Simple as that.  If this was an old white dude doing the same to a young white dude saying the same thing and acting the same way, it would have turned out the exact same.  This isn't about hate speech (though he did sprinkle that in there to start the fight), this is about an old fucker running his mouth to the wrong person.  Full stop (apparently this is cool?  Not sure....).  Want to run your mouth?  Fine, but don't be surprised when you get punched after starting a fight.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

I don't know whether this is a radical position (it's certainly popular enough on this board), but it is an extremely dangerous one. Think about it: who gets to decide which language is off-limits? There's a wide variety of slurs with several for practically every race, nationality, religion, etc. Are all of them worthy of retaliation with physical violence? And if not, what makes some of them different from others?

Furthermore, keep in mind that, in this country at least, the idea of violence in self-defense is a much less radical one than what you've stated above (unlike your statement, it's a pretty common means of defense in court) and this will eventually occur to the alt-right. A lot of people think that the people who respond to words with violence are fighting against evil and that makes their actions acceptable, but if you consider history, it is far more likely that they're merely providing the fire in which a much greater evil is forged and tempered...

I don't know, this seems justifiable (the video, not the argument you're making). If you walk around on public platforms yelling things at people, you might get knocked out by the dude you're yelling out. The argument you're making isn't even about race, really, it's about dickwads running their mouths in public. Should they be beaten for it? I think the politics forum here would say the racial aspect makes this a feasible way of dealing with someone, but I take your argument and say, yeah, in the context of how the man in the video was behaving? It doesn't matter the kind of hate speech he's yelling. Someone ought to kick his stupid ass.

My favorite part in the vid is when the guy takes off his glasses, puts them away, and then beats the dude up.

[Zorral]

11 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

I should know better than to jump in here, but that is disgusting.  And I’d say the same for anyone whom was sucker punched.  Words are not a reason for violence, period (or as you kids like to say, full stop).  The 1st Amendment protects “hate speech”, SCOTUS ruled on that, I think (not being snarky I don’t read or watch political news anymore).  It’s okay (okay is not the right word, perhaps lawful) to hate people for whatever reason; they’re blond, or better looking than you, or have a nasally voice.  As long as you don’t bring it to violence.  I mean, two of your hero’s said that; violence begets violence, and words are wind.  There is also the old adage of “sticks and stones”, but I’ll wager you guys don’t adhere to such.

Cue Dantegabriel and Kalbear to come in and call me a racist, or a nazi, or a racist nazi.  I’m not sure why those guys hate me, but I agree with their right to do so.

Your problem is that you are wilfully blind to what is right in front of your eyes, ears, nose and throat.

Words are also violence.  As you say, violence begets violence.  Don't want violence visited on the vile nazi right rethug etc.?  Tell them to halt their verbal violence towards everyone and everything that isn't Them.  But wait -- they also commit physical violence on people and things and institutions -- you know putting up lynching exhibits in public institutions and spaces, calling cops on black kids doing jobs, yelling n--- at people standing on subway platforms, arresting women for wearing a Puerto Rican pride t-shirt, telling women who are elected members of congress and the senate to sit down and shut up.

So, whadya gonna do?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

That is because Americans as a whole value property over people. That is why when a protest can turn chaotic and into a riot they cry over broken windows of stores more so than they do over the dead body of an innocent person that led to a breaking point. 

A consumrist nation told their status and worth is based upon what they own and how much they make and can buy from how much they make.
 

In certain states, hate speech can be considered a fighting / combat word and a violent response like a punch is perfectly justified. 

The guy totally desrved the punches he was hit with, just like every bigot that gets their ass handed to them totally deserves it. 

Not shocked that the typical sympathizers of bigots are crying about it. 

Probably because they use racial slurs and don't want to get smacked in the mouth when caught.

 

Fuck off with that bullshit. 

Your whole shtick of accusing people who voice their priciples of being secret, closet Nazi racists is getting really fucking old.

Did the guy deserve to get punched? Yes.

Did he deserve to (potentially) get killed by being thrown into subway tracks twice? Hell no.

I'm sympathetic to antifa and their direct actions methods. But no antifa groups I've seen are advocating potential deadly assault when mere racist invective is used.

[Zorral]

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I have to confess, for like a second or two, I wondered if this could be real. 

It's not like the actual news are any less crazy. 

Yesterday was Friday 13th . . . It's the worst thing that could happen to Love Island to have the orange nazi blimp baby in his diapers assaulting the babes all over the tv screens.  It would pull down the franchise so far.

[Altherion]

10 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

BORING

Try harder.

Nazi's already get all the advantages, punching the bitches out is merely an emotional catharsis for the doomed masses.

But the masses would be a lot less doomed without this. The people you dislike are slowly realizing that 1) two can play this game and 2) law enforcement authorities dislike both the left and the right, but they dislike the left quite a bit more than they dislike the right. For example:

Quote

 

Mykel Mosley walked out of the Vancouver Mall and saw something that made him angry: a pickup flying what he says was a Donald Trump flag.

The African-American teenager yelled out an obscenity about Trump.

Two men got out of the truck, and chased Mosley, one of them spinning him briefly to the ground.

...

The May 11 incident at the Vancouver Mall has not resulted in any charges against Toese.

Mosley — the teenager he pursued — was held for several nights in a juvenile-detention center as a “threat to public safety, according to Clark County court records.

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But the masses would be a lot less doomed without this. The people you dislike are slowly realizing that 1) two can play this game and 2) law enforcement authorities dislike both the left and the right, but they dislike the left quite a bit more than they dislike the right. For example:

 

Examples like that and police abuse of their power are among the reasons offered by some for the justification for violent actions.  Your example just reinforces their position.  Police favoring right wing groups is a big part of our total problem.

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Examples like that and police abuse of their power is one of the reasons offered by some for the justification for violent actions.  Your example just reinforces their position.  Police favoring right wing groups is a big part of out total problem.

The obvious racism and corruption of police forces is what caused groups like the Black Panthers to arise in the first place and start exercising their Second Amendment rights. Of course, that's about the time that the liberty uber alles crowd like Ronald Reagan decided that Second Amendment rights could be curtailed after all.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

The obvious racism and corruption of police forces is what caused groups like the Black Panthers to arise in the first place and start exercising their Second Amendment rights. Of course, that's about the time that the liberty uber alles crowd like Ronald Reagan decided that Second Amendment rights could be curtailed after all.

And Reagan was wrong.  That is without question.

[Altherion]

9 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Examples like that and police abuse of their power are among the reasons offered by some for the justification for violent actions.  Your example just reinforces their position.  Police favoring right wing groups is a big part of our total problem.

Yes, like most tendencies towards violence, these are mutually reinforcing. But hey, if you believe that

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Words are also violence.

then the police did exactly the right thing in detaining the teenager as a threat to public safety.

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

then the police did exactly the right thing in detaining the teenager as a threat to public safety.

Nope. Yelling 'fuck Trump' is not the same as the shit yelled at the man in the video.  You know better ffs.

[Bonnot OG]

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

Nope. Yelling 'fuck Trump' is not the same as the shit yelled at the man in the video.  You know better ffs.

Nah, he really doesn't. 

[Kalbear]

Note that while it is technically true that words are not the same thing as violence, we have a whole lot of law and case studies and legal precedent about people being provoked into violence and thus being either innocent of assault or only subject to lesser charges. The notion that violence isn't a particularly surprising answer to this sort of thing is basically ignoring all of human sociology. 

The other notion is that for the most part, people who espouse no violence against people who insult them tend to not have the ability to be particularly offended or worse, terrorized, by anything due to privilege. It's one thing to be called a faggot by someone; it's another to hear that word and know that it's going to result in a beating. Thus, the words can harm people in disproportionate ways, and thus it is reasonable (to me) to harm the person using those words in a proportionate way to the harm they attempted to inflict.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Note that while it is technically true that words are not the same thing as violence, we have a whole lot of law and case studies and legal precedent about people being provoked into violence and thus being either innocent of assault or only subject to lesser charges. The notion that violence isn't a particularly surprising answer to this sort of thing is basically ignoring all of human sociology. 

The other notion is that for the most part, people who espouse no violence against people who insult them tend to not have the ability to be particularly offended or worse, terrorized, by anything due to privilege. It's one thing to be called a faggot by someone; it's another to hear that word and know that it's going to result in a beating. Thus, the words can harm people in disproportionate ways, and thus it is reasonable (to me) to harm the person using those words in a proportionate way to the harm they attempted to inflict.

Is there an objective criteria for determining what violence is properly proportionate to the words offered or is this purely case by case?  I can see your point but I do wonder what happens when, as Altherion points out, those you disagree with start using the same tactic to justify their violent actions?  Inherently subjective situations don’t work well when placed into legal frameworks.  To be clear this does happen in legal frameworks but if many on various sides start claiming their violence is justified based on others speech law will seek an objective way to limit that violence.

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, LongRider said:

Nope. Yelling 'fuck Trump' is not the same as the shit yelled at the man in the video.  You know better ffs.

There are obvious differences in the nature of the person doing the insulting, the people insulted and the weight placed on the insults by certain segments of society. However, it does not appear that these differences were important to the people insulted and, perhaps more importantly, to law enforcement.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Is there an objective criteria for determining what violence is properly proportionate to the words offered or is this purely case by case? 

Well the law does love itself a "reasonable person" test. I mean it wouldn't be particularly hard to think of vicious insults that no "reasonable" person would take passively.

Certainly, in order. to live in a free society, we all must be able to take a lot of offense, without acting violently. But, surely there are some types of insults, that go beyond the pale, in which the insulted might be forgiven. Of course that would depend on the level of violence used too.