|
Mel Mudkiper posted:
AdjectiveNoun posted:
I'm not sure "blame" is a useful approach here. I can understand and even sympathize, but that doesn't mean it's ok for someone take out all their pent-up rage and frustration from all the systemic stress they face every day, out on one random rear end in a top hat who happens, for a brief moment, to crystallize that rage out into a personal avatar of oppression. I mean, I can understand and even sympathize with the protagonist of Falling Down, but that doesn't mean it's ok to shoot up a McDonald's. The appropriate response to systemic issues is systemic action, not violent outbursts against particularly egregious assholes. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Jul 20, 2015 |
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
Don't get anywhere without race riots and stonewalls unfortunately, the right will never respect the movement enough to change until you burn down some of their buildings Why do you think this is okay in their minds but none of them will touch blacklivesmatter with a 10 foot pole? Ferguson and Baltimore would be my guess. I'm not sure I'd equate a richly deserved cold cocking with a mass killing either
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Only line she crossed was failing to actually hospitalize the little poo poo and leave him eating through a tube for the rest of his life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Only line she crossed was failing to actually hospitalize the little poo poo and leave him eating through a tube for the rest of his life. That would have been a disproportionate response, but I'm solidly in the "be a dick, get hit" camp. Again, there is a world of difference between expressing your opinions in good faith (a basic right of all people, no matter how reprehensible they may be) and deliberately provoking someone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
The suppression of minority rights is something that has been kept the status quo for quite some time by a specific subset of people in this country. A group that Shapiro belongs to. This group have also often, historically and currently, used violence against these same minorities to maintain the status quo. Even further, the members of these minority groups are frequently under represented and misrepresented in media. The fact that we have groups of people still fighting for basic, fair treatment in 2015 is kind of insane, but the only reason that is the case is because of people like Shapiro, specifically. He and people like him stand in the way of that. When liberals advocate peace and diplomacy, they are called pansies, whimps, pussies, hippies. When liberals peacefully protest they are called whiners, complainers and losers. When a liberal grabs a dude by the neck for stepping over the line, they are called violent maniacs with no respect. It's horseshit because I know for a FACT that conservatives spend a lot of time sharing stories of street justice to anyone who listens. But the moment it is turned against them suddenly they care about fair treatment under the law. Ben Shapiro did what he did because he felt no fear of consequence for his action. It is no different than someone on the street hurling slurs at someone or abusing them, knowing full well that they would be protected by society. Shapiro wouldn't have disrespected some huge, mean looking redneck dude in the same way. What Zoe did might not be technically legal, but it was absolutely deserved. I feel like the LGBT community definitely needs to be able to defend themselves by any means necessary, especially given the history of their treatment in this country. Maybe grabbing a couple of assholes by the neck will scare the stereotypes out of their pathetic little brains.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
I'm torn on this. On the one hand, yes, it wasn't the best decision for her to put her hand on his shoulder and say what she said, although I have no idea what he expects to get out of suing. On the other hand, he's a hypocritical shitlord. Him and his kind harp constantly on how important masculinity is and how to be "real" men, and yet he's suing a woman because she touched his shoulder. It was the same with Crowder suing the guy who punched him. Right or wrong, I was always taught that if you're a man and you run your mouth and get your rear end kicked, you take your licks and don't go snitching. Of course, the best outcome is that he takes it to court and the judge laughs him out of the courtroom. Imagine all the crybaby articles he'd write about being so oppressed because he's not allowed to be a little antagonistic poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Ideally it would go to a judge that has a wicked sense of humor, and would write in detail about how the plantiff was obviously feeling overwhelmingly threatened (in physical, social, and sexual senses) and was paralyzed with fright, thus allowing the defendant to commit said act of assault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
I'm just waiting to find out what Rush and Hannity have to say about it before I weigh in. They tell me what to think and neiher of them have covered the story yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Ben Shapiro did what he did because he felt no fear of consequence for his action. It is no different than someone on the street hurling slurs at someone or abusing them, knowing full well that they would be protected by society. Shapiro wouldn't have disrespected some huge, mean looking redneck dude in the same way. What Zoe did might not be technically legal, but it was absolutely deserved. I feel like the LGBT community definitely needs to be able to defend themselves by any means necessary, especially given the history of their treatment in this country. Maybe grabbing a couple of assholes by the neck will scare the stereotypes out of their pathetic little brains. This sums up my feelings nicely
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Maybe grabbing a couple of assholes by the neck will scare the stereotypes out of their pathetic little brains.* *not recommended in states with Stand Your Ground and concealed carry laws
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
It's the grown up equivalent of going to the principal. If it goes to a judge hopefully they will watch the entire video and determine that Shapiro was trying to provoke a response.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Through BigotTears I located a Right Wing Media source called Charisma News http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/50612-prophetic-voice-offers-reason-to-hope-after-vote-for-immorality And this is amazing Woman has prophetic vision about America quote:I felt the Lord saying:
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
How do people always seem to remember the exact wording of their prophecies given to them by God, like I'd understand if you condensed it down to the gist of things but getting the whole quote at once from one listen is pretty impressive I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:The suppression of minority rights is something that has been kept the status quo for quite some time by a specific subset of people in this country. A group that Shapiro belongs to. This group have also often, historically and currently, used violence against these same minorities to maintain the status quo. Even further, the members of these minority groups are frequently under represented and misrepresented in media. The fact that we have groups of people still fighting for basic, fair treatment in 2015 is kind of insane, but the only reason that is the case is because of people like Shapiro, specifically. He and people like him stand in the way of that. Said much, much better than I could have. Dr. Faustus posted:*not recommended in states with Stand Your Ground and concealed carry laws This one wouldn't help as much as a couple harmless public cold cockings. Why punch an altar boy if you can punch a pope? Honestly in this case they're likely showing off their piece to double intimidate you and that is a classic assault scenario. Get their name somehow and either a) sue them or b) find their address and slash their tires in the night
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
To turn the situation around: if I go up to some Klan member at a rally and start going off on him about how he's a worthless piece of poo poo who secretly wants it up the rear end and I wished Sherman had finished the job and I hope his daughter gets gang-raped walking home from school, I'm probably going to get hit, and (up to a limit) I deserve it. I'm not stating my opinions or trying to engage with him, I'm just being as offensive as possible and that's not what the protections on Free Speech are about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:It's horseshit because I know for a FACT that conservatives spend a lot of time sharing stories of street justice to anyone who listens. But the moment it is turned against them suddenly they care about fair treatment under the law. Call me a pansy whiny liberal but I think we should care about fair and equal treatment under the law all the time. "Street justice" is bad whether it's a Freeper throwing the punches or a LGBT activist. That said there's certainly a time and place for violence in pursuit of political goals, but that time and place isn't the middle of a televised debate; you've agreed to participate civilly, even if the other guy isn't living up to that bargain. Voyager I posted:To turn the situation around: if I go up to some Klan member at a rally and start going off on him about how he's a worthless piece of poo poo who secretly wants it up the rear end and I wished Sherman had finished the job and I hope his daughter gets gang-raped walking home from school, I'm probably going to get hit, and (up to a limit) I deserve it. I'm not stating my opinions or trying to engage with him, I'm just being as offensive as possible and that's not what the protections on Free Speech are about. Well, yeah, but that's also how Fred Phelps makes his money. Literally, the whole "God Hates Fags" schtick is designed to get people so angry they throw punches, then the Phelps clan sues. And there's a reason that the courts have let him get away with that, and the reason is that maintaining that bright line between violence and speech is, in fact, actually what the protections of free speech are about. You don't get a license to break someone's face just because they're saying mean things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Lemming posted:How do people always seem to remember the exact wording of their prophecies given to them by God, like I'd understand if you condensed it down to the gist of things but getting the whole quote at once from one listen is pretty impressive I think. I mean if it were actually a divinely-granted vision you'd kind of expect people to remember it better than some random dream. Cause all-powerful deity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Call me a pansy whiny liberal but I think we should care about fair and equal treatment under the law all the time. "Street justice" is bad whether it's a Freeper throwing the punches or a LGBT activist. The problem with that though is that it again assumes an even playing field. Ben Shapiro, and other bigots like him enjoy the special privelege of being able to openly attack and psychologically assault various minority groups, knowing full well that as straight white man (and as a Christian, when relevant) they could never be assaulted in the same way. It is a special immunity. There is not much you can say to a white person to dehumanize them the way a LGBT or ethnic or religious minority can be dehumanized. Hence the famous Louis C.K. joke. So in this way, there ISN'T equal treatment under the law as it is currently written, because the very existence of entire groups of people can be called into question, dissected, disrespected, disgraced and more in the public eye, which feeds into a society that then takes those ideas and acts on them, sometimes violently, against those minority groups. So a bigot getting grabbed on TV, or knocked out in front of a crowd, to me, really isn't some horrendous crime. It is not equal to a bigot doing the same thing to whatever minority they hate. Bigots have a huge legal shield to sow seeds of discontent and the potential for violence and harm against minority groups, and there is nothing those minority groups can do about it. They can't even fight fire with fire because they simply do not occupy a place in society where their words have any where near the amount of influence. Context matters, especially historical context, and until we no longer have a society where some people are treated as second class citizens, I simply cannot condemn those people for making a show of force and defending themselves in very public ways. Insisting everyone "play fair" under the current legal structure is like insisting a fair fight between a 200lb 6'5 heavy weight and someone half their size who has been shoved into the ring against their will. Sure there are rules in the ring, but the fight isn't remotely fair, and insisting that both fighters in the ring be treated as though they were true equals is only going to get the small one hurt or worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Everyone posting about this should actually watch the video because Shapiro is blatantly trying to get a rise and Zoe barely touches him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:I was serious about this from before. If a reasonably concise poo poo has been taken on Alex Jones somewhere I'd appreciate getting pointed in that direction. Alex Jones can only show you the door, it's up to you to walk through it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODZE5peUfWQ
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Everyone posting about this should actually watch the video because Shapiro is blatantly trying to get a rise and Zoe barely touches him. Yeah this a bunch of handwringing over nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
First on CNN: Palin calls both McCain and Trump heroes CNN once again proving why it belongs in the right wing media thread. quote:"I have the good fortune of knowing both John McCain and Donald Trump well," Palin told CNN in an email. "Both men have more in common than the today's media hype would have you believe. Both blazed trails in their careers and love our great nation." CNN's desperation is so sad. quote:"Trump is the candidate giving voice to untold millions of fed-up Americans witnessing a purposeful destruction of our economy and the equal opportunity for success that made America exceptional," Palin said. "We're watching career politicians throw away our kids' future through bankrupting public budgets and ripping open our porous borders which, obvious to all us non-politicians, puts us at great risk." Noted non-politician Sarah Palin, folks. It really is amazing just how wormy she is. Darkman Fanpage fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
All this Shapiro court case poo poo is just making me think what a great episode of The Good Wife it would make.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I'm just waiting to find out what Rush and Hannity have to say about it before I weigh in. They tell me what to think and neiher of them have covered the story yet. They probably won't mention it at all because they think him suing after the panel was over instead of using it then and there as an opportunity to grandstand makes him look like a pussy. They would kill for that kind of opportunity and the snot-nosed pretender blew it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:How does it feel to be a swift boater? William Calley was just courageously laying down fire in a high combat area, too!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:William Calley was just courageously laying down fire in a high combat area, too! Nice. When My Lai Massacre was happening, McCain was pulling fellow aviators out from burning aircraft aboard Forrestal and helping torture victims hold their sanity, while declining early return ahead of others. Did you get your congratulory letter from Jeb Bush already? What's your idea for name? Skyhawk veterans for truth? (Though you'd never been able to hold yourself together even for one combat flight over Hanoi SAM alley so I guess you can't be a Skyhawi veteran. ) Is Kerry like a concentration camp guard? Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:The problem with that though is that it again assumes an even playing field. . . . . For what it's worth, I agree with all of this *except* to the point where you start initiating physical attacks. I definitely agree with you that there's a power imbalance, and I agree that oppressed people should not have to "play fair" at all times even when the deck is stacked against them in advance. I just see the initiation of physical violence as a bright line that should not be crossed, for a lot of reasons (moral, strategic, etc.). I also understand why other people *wouldn't* agree with me on that. This is probably one of the biggest and oldest fault lines within left-wing American circles, dating back to King and Malcolm and beyond, and I doubt we'll settle it here today. Otherwise yeah we've probably wrung all the debate out of this particular topic that we can.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:How does it feel to be a swift boater? Who's "we"? Cuz I have plenty of military relatives and grew up in a town with a lot of air force/joint base families and people would totally poo poo on the losers who crashed often that they'd known.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:For what it's worth, I agree with all of this *except* to the point where you start initiating physical attacks. I definitely agree with you that there's a power imbalance, and I agree that oppressed people should not have to "play fair" at all times even when the deck is stacked against them in advance. I just see the initiation of physical violence as a bright line that should not be crossed, for a lot of reasons (moral, strategic, etc.). One thing to keep in mind is that I'm drawing a distinction between degrees of violence. Causing someone moderate pain or intimidation in response to deliberate verbal abuse is acceptable, but delivering real injuries is not. Obviously this is a nebulous line and actually determining what is or is not reasonable would be a nuanced decision, so I suppose in the end we're better off with having a general law against physical aggression and then letting judges decide whether the particulars of a case demand a serious punishment or 1 hour community service. Vahakyla posted:Nice. When My Lai Massacre was happening, McCain was pulling fellow aviators out from burning aircraft aboard Forrestal and helping torture victims hold their sanity, while declining early return ahead of others. This bears further emphasis. John McCain easily had the social status to sit out the war entirely like some other notable politicians of his generation. Instead he put himself into active duty where people got to shoot missiles at his plane. Voyager I fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Who's "we"? Cuz I have plenty of military relatives and grew up in a town with a lot of air force/joint base families and people would totally poo poo on the losers who crashed often that they'd known. Well, making GBS threads as in ridicule is not what I meant. I was more meaning about the type of discreting of all service during war time. I had coffee with a pilot who crashed one of the brand new purchase F18s of the Finnish Air Force. He still flies, despite plowing one into the ground due to slight recklessness. Everyone calling ridicule to crash record is different than people saying that maybe six years at a torture camp and heroic deeds aren't worth poo poo what with the ruined airframes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
The best thing to come out of the Shapiro/Zoe incident: 1) the judge gives her a weak sentence or dismisses charges after the trial 2) throughout the trial, Zoe's legal team demands that Shapiro and his team refer to her in her proper pronoun. They call him to the stand and allow him to be himself so that he gets contempt of court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Everyone posting about this should actually watch the video because Shapiro is blatantly trying to get a rise and Zoe barely touches him. I saw it right after it happened and depending on the state and the judge I could see the case going either way, at least if you only consider the technical definition of the law
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Man this person is super super mad about information technology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:For what it's worth, I agree with all of this *except* to the point where you start initiating physical attacks. I definitely agree with you that there's a power imbalance, and I agree that oppressed people should not have to "play fair" at all times even when the deck is stacked against them in advance. I just see the initiation of physical violence as a bright line that should not be crossed, for a lot of reasons (moral, strategic, etc.). I understand, but I am also not advocating murders or anything like that. I just feel that when we have oppressed people, for whom the actual legal system has often failed sometimes by design, that they should be allow to make the spread of hate speech "risky" by way of "consequences", since that speech is far, FAR from harmless to them because it, in of itself, can be damaging directly, and also inspires the continuation of organized and sometimes legalized bigotry which can lead to actual physical harm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:The best thing to come out of the Shapiro/Zoe incident: As much as I'd love to see that happen, I have a feeling Shapiro (and/or his dad) is gonna try to judge-shop a friendly Republican-appointed judge to rule in his favor, like James O'Keefe and his dad did get out of wiretapping Mary Landrieu's constituent office with nothing but probation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I understand, but I am also not advocating murders or anything like that. I just feel that when we have oppressed people, for whom the actual legal system has often failed sometimes by design, that they should be allow to make the spread of hate speech "risky" by way of "consequences", since that speech is far, FAR from harmless to them because it, in of itself, can be damaging directly, and also inspires the continuation of organized and sometimes legalized bigotry which can lead to actual physical harm. Hieronymous Alloy is saying, and I agree on this point, that there is no situation in which any violence, even "small" violence like this, should ever be allowed. You disagree and suggest that in this particular circumstance (and presumably in other circumstances), some level of violence is justified (or even desirable?) We do agree that we want this to end well for Zoey Tur and not for Ben Shapiro. Where we differ is that I'm not willing to risk my own right to talk poo poo to someone and not fear violence in order to achieve that end. You think it is worth this risk, and we're not going to come to agreement on this point. The best we can do is for me to acknowledge that you understand the negative repercussions of creating a case for legalizing violence in response to speech, and for you to acknowledge that I am not trying to minimize the lovely situation that Zoey Tur was, and is, in when I say that I'm not willing to risk our civil society in allowing her revenge, satisfying as it is. I'm curious what we *can* do about this kind of situation. The correct response to this kind of thing is public shame; but we can't shame Ben Shapiro; people who disagree with him already know he's a human turd, but the people who do agree with don't care what we think. However, we can shame the enablers. How did he let Shapiro continue to misgender Zoey on the air like that? How did such activity get past the network's standards and practices board? What if it was someone on the show calling another a guest a "kike" or a "friend of the family"? We should go after those people for creating an atmosphere were Shapiro was able to put Tur in the position she was in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Skrewtape posted:Where we differ is that I'm not willing to risk my own right to talk poo poo to someone and not fear violence in order to achieve that end. You think it is worth this risk, and we're not going to come to agreement on this point. Part of the disagreement is that I don't view this as a right in the first place. I wouldn't include such speech under the protections of freedom of expression because the objective of a person being verbally belligerent is not to express their beliefs, but to marginalize or provoke their target. Why should someone seeking to be provocative be protected from their success? I suppose a better argument against it would be that it is not the place of citizens to dispense justice, but if we follow down that avenue then we need to also have legal consequences for verbal harassment. Ben Shapiro's provocative hate speech and punching him in the stomach for it should be on equal legal ground. Voyager I fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:Part of the disagreement is that I don't view this as a right in the first place. I wouldn't include such speech under the protections of freedom of expression because the objective of a person being verbally belligerent is not to express their beliefs, but to marginalize or provoke their target. Why should someone seeking to be provocative be protected from their success? You do realize that if being provocative with your words gave a person legal standing to physically assault you the entire gay rights movement would have been beaten to death decades ago. I don't think you are thinking this through very well or understanding the legal precedents that would be unleashed by something like this. There are already legal consequences for verbal harassment but being a smug little poo poo like Shapiro was doesn't begin to fall under that definition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:You do realize that if being provocative with your words gave a person legal standing to physically assault you the entire gay rights movement would have been beaten to death decades ago. Let me clarify my position: 1. When I say 'provocative', I mean it in the very literal sense that the person is seeking primarily to anger the listener and provoke them into hostile action. Expressing an unpopular opinion for its own sake, even loudly and in public, is not provocation. The Klan staging a rally outside the capitol to make their beliefs known would be protected speech. Getting in someone's face and calling them a dirty friend of the family to make them angry would not. 2. I am condoning a very limited degree of physical violence in these situations. Punching a physically sound adult in the arm hard enough to make them go 'ow' and leave a bruise would probably be the limit of appropriate responses in anything but the most egregious situations, and an actual beating would never be on the table. I don't agree with a legal structure where what Ben Shapiro did is acceptable and protected within the bounds of the law but what Zoey did was not. EDIT: on further reflection, this probably isn't tenable as an actual policy. While I maintain that the principles behind it are sound, in the real world it doesn't hold up. I feel like there are defenses to be made against the argument that it is not the place of citizens to dispense justice, but the real issue is how unfairly it could be prosecuted. If, for example, Ben was a well-built ex-marine and Zoey had the physique of a weedy hipster, physical violence would be unavailable as a tool for her and indeed the threat would likely be inverted if she attempted to match Ben's rhetoric. The law would presumably still find against Ben as the initial instigator, but a form of justice that is available only to the strong is not justice. The only difference is that now we're back to defining power in physical terms rather than through wealth and position. Voyager I fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
What you should be doing is arguing for more of a limitation on oppressive speech, then, as opposed to an expansion of violence. Violence *can* be a net benefit at times, but it should also never be freely allowed, and thus only protected under the law when it is non aggressive escalation and purely defense. The solution you're looking for is a broader definition of hate speech when it includes a majority class purposefully trolling a minority with the specific purpose of trying to force them to have an understandable reaction and break the law themselves. Which would apply directly to the Westboro (sic?) analogy earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 14:32
|
|
