[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


I heard today trump in court told they judge abs other that he would tell his guards to be aggressive if protester through tomatoes at him appearanlty he is scared of friut And tomotoes


File: 1651290089271.jpg (15.06 KB, 225x225, 1:1, index.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Yeah remember the good old days, when people threw aluminum cans at performers they didn't like, and everyone just laughed it off as haha funny.  Ah the good old days.  Oh wait, that's only when it's someone we don't like...
>"No one has ever done that"
>flying cans in the artwork indicating exactly what the cans are intended for

Where's the "sobbing in court" part?  Funny that wasn't included in the video.  I wonder why...  Are you sure Rachel Maddow wasn't the one sobbing?

It's not even plausible deniability at this point.  It's just delusion.


File: 1651290967788.png (400.39 KB, 596x772, 149:193, Untitled.png) ImgOps Google

Oh hey, would you look at that...

When you tell people to bring cans with the intention of throwing them, and then you bring cans with the intention of throwing them, then don't be surprised when people start making contingency plans for your thrown cans.  Whether you actually did it or not is irrelevant.

But even if you say "no one's actually done that" - you'd be wrong, because people have done that.


This takes literal seconds of searching to confirm.

Brace for the video of Maddow crying on camera for being proven wrong yet again.

If there were any real arguments being presented, I'd be happy to entertain them.  But in their desperation to prove Trump wrong/weak/etc., they expose themselves as fools pushing demonstrably fake narratives.


That's assault, so yeah seems reasonable to respond forcefully.


On the one hand, assaulting individuals whacking speakers at some event on their heads or the rest of their bodies with thrown objects is obviously criminal battery that can't be allowed. They ought to be arrested. Opinions don't matter. Crime is crime.

At the same time, it's transparently not ethical for thugs to beat up those assailants (or even merely 'suspected assailants' who didn't actually do anything) and send them to the hospital. That's, at best, vigilante revenge. And revenge is not justice.

I see no good sides here. Just various bad sides. Alas.


The state's been particularly politically minded when it comes to 'justice' as of late.
It's to be expected, when the state refuses to engage fairly regardless of one's affiliation, people'll inevitably take matters into their own hands.

Vigilantism isn't ideal, because it's often flawed.
Not because vigilantism is inherently wrong.
Revenge is not inherently contradictory to justice. Revenge can absolutely be a form of justice.
The sole requirement is that it be just.


In what seems like a conflict between anarchists and fascists, honestly, I fail to see why I as a believer in centrist democracy should emphasize that much with either side.

Anarchists undertaking assault and battery just because they're heard something verbally that they happen to dislike are a threat to democracy and civil order.

Fascists chomping at the bit to commit acts of political violence who use the excuse of being attacked to engage in the widespread causing of injury and/or death both among attackers as well as on innocent people considered 'in the way'... they're just as much a threat to democracy and civil order.

Innocents should be protected from both of these groups.


I'd say the main issue is your painting of the political sides.
You point to ideologies, not actions, to define these parties.
I'm not even sure it's anarchists vs fascists.

For me, the primary issue is simply the actions taken.
I don't care who you are, I don't care what you believe.
You could be a black radical neo-nazi campaiging for anarchistic islamism, you could be a white racial oligarchy campaiging for some grand pyramid of social hierarchy set in place by machines.
It makes no difference as to whether or not the actions taken are wrong.

If someone attacks you, there's nothing wrong with responding in kind.
I don't care their politics. Their politics are irrelevant.
The aggressor is the one who commits an immoral act. Whether the individual attacked is hoping for it, planning for it, whatever, the immoral act is that first punch.


If someone attacks you, it's only just to respond in kind, against them specifically.

It is transparently not just for you to respond against other parties who've nothing connecting them to your attacker.

It is also transparently not just for you to enact radically disproportionate responses on an attacker, such as shooting someone who threw a piece of paper at you or whatever else you choose to do in an unreasonable fashion.

I genuinely don't understand why anything I just said is disagreed with.


Largely because I felt the framing was questionable. Lot of leaps and such, I didn't feel were warranted, and a focus on affiliation I found unneeded.


I get the feeling that your bias in favor of the fascists in this situation is making you see their activities through rose-colored glasses, to be honest.

Vigilantism is wrong. Full stop.


Well your saying that rather demonstrates my point.
You're focusing on political sides over actions.

Anyway; vigilantism is not inherently wrong


I'm looking at things through actual context rather than through a self-serving narrative. I prefer reality to ideology. It's better.

While I can't say that vigilantism is always wrong in every circumstance, it's obviously wrong in most, and in modern America in 2022 the fact that the current right-wing is screaming its lungs out with its desire to enact vigilante "revenge" at anybody viewed as in their way is quite horrid, although I guess not surprising.


We've not cited specific examples beyond the particular article above.
I've seen no evidence of individuals who were not guilty of such violence being hurt by any one in this scenario.
If it's of debate between hypotheticals, we can change them perpetually to little effect.

Anyway just a moment ago you said 'full stop' that vigilantism was wrong. I'm glad that you've reconsidered your position


I'm not sure what else to say.

Fascists chomping at the bit to commit vigilante violence are a fundamental social problem.

This exists regardless or whether or not they can claim some prior attack either real or perceived as a justification.

We need objective rule of law.


Then don't give them the excuse. That seems the easiest route.


They don't need an excuse. They'll shoot up your synagogue or bomb your church no matter what. They just need to perceive an attack.


If they do such things without excuse, they're not likely to find any support with nonextremists


That's not true at all. Fascists already get widespread support from general conservatives. They're members of the movement in good standing.


No.  No they do not.


I'm not sure what to say other than "yes, they do, please be aware of the world outside".


Unless we've radically divergent views of fascism, no, they quote objectively do not.


We probably have to agree to disagree. I've seen nothing but praise for American facist military groups from conservatives. Perhaps you've seen otherwise.


Perhaps you can give an example? I've seen nothing but condemnation from conservatives as well as most anyone else for any remotely far right group. Especially the violent ones



So I'm just giving a quick skim here, but these guys don't sound like fascist so far. Nor does the article even call them far right.

Militias aren't uncommon if that's what you're pointing out.
But there's obviously a difference between militias and violent groups bombing buildings or shooting churches, no?
And likewise, militias, at least in the US, seem predominantly anti-government, which is why you get names like 'oathkeepers' or '3%ers' or other such items invoking the constitution and the revolution that founded the nation.
Seems the perspective is usually one of armed resistance to tyranny, as opposed to armed support of it.


Fascists are antigovernment, though, that's why they organize as militias. They're also against tyranny and oppressive states. Not a surprise that they'd use patriot icons.

The difference is, of course, that they want a new kind of absolute government and a new kind of tyranny to replace the old one. Hence why if you look up the Oath Keepers specifically you see them justly described as far right and fascists.


>Fascists are antigovernment, though, that's why they organize as militias.
Fascists are authoritarians first and foremost.

>They're also against tyranny and oppressive states.
Definitely not.  No.  What is your definition of fascist, if it's not most simply first and foremost a totalitarian state?

>Hence why if you look up the Oath Keepers specifically you see them justly described as far right and fascists.
By who?

I can find sources calling Obama an Islamist. Didn't make it true


Are you really not able of understanding that Amercisn fascists claim to be patriotic, libertarian, antigovernment, and so on in opposition to the current U.S. government as a part and parcel of their agenda of replacing it with a right-wing state to benefit right-wing people?


It just appears downright contradictory and conspiratorial besides.

I've no cause to believe these groups want to replace the US with a fascist totalitarian government.

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]