Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Inauguration Violence?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Well the generally socio-economically disadvantaged black people rioting in Baltimore, are quite different from the mostly educated white people involved in the Occupy protests, for example. Generally minorities and marginalized groups will tend to lean liberal. So in the US that includes Blacks, Hispanics, LGBT people, poor people, Muslims, atheists etc. Usually marginalized groups have little in common with each other aside from the fact that the mainstream of their society has marginalized them. And then quite aside from those types of groups the 'liberals' in the US would include environmentalists, hippies, the Christian Left, progressives, communists, etc. And quite a few posters here have a tendency to label anyone and everyone who regularly votes democrat as a "liberal", which would include a swathe of different types of people.
    You claimed I was "grouping together a large number of disparate groups of people".... they YOU expand my comment to include your groups. Again, I was speaking generally, and, whether you intend to or not, you're making my point.

    Well if you think about the words, conservatives want to 'conserve' the status quo, while liberals want change. Liberals, kind of by definition, tend to challenge established power whereas conservatives tend not to. So it should be generally unsurprising that on the whole liberals tend to have the harder time of achieving their goals and have an inherently bigger task ahead of them, and are thus likely to use proportionately stronger methods.
    So, yeah, liberals tend to be more violent and chaotic. As opposed (and you either implied or mentioned this) to the REAL "civil rights" movement which was purposefully and decidedly non-violent.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      You claimed I was "grouping together a large number of disparate groups of people".... they YOU expand my comment to include your groups. Again, I was speaking generally, and, whether you intend to or not, you're making my point.
      You've lost me.

      So, yeah, liberals tend to be more violent and chaotic. As opposed (and you either implied or mentioned this) to the REAL "civil rights" movement which was purposefully and decidedly non-violent.
      Eh? What is the "REAL" civil rights movement??? Do you mean MLK Jr? But what about Malcolm X, who supported violence? Most civil rights movements in history have had in them various advocates of violence and various advocates of non-violence. The Woman Suffrage movement, for example had both. Nelson Mandela and his campaign against apartheid in South Africa is an example of a person who started off with one strategy (violence) and later decided he preferred the other strategy (non-violence). And it took an entire war to end slavery.

      Obviously all civil rights movements in history have been "liberal" by definition as they promoted social change and furthering equality to more people over and against the existing social hierarchies of the day. But they have had a wide spectrum of views on the usefulness of violence in achieving their ends. I would say that studying history tells us that non-violence tends to be the more successful strategy. But various different liberals today pursuing a variety of strategies is no different to any other time in history.
      Last edited by Starlight; 01-16-2017, 07:11 PM.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        You're grouping together a large number of disparate groups of people there under the single banner of 'liberal'. Some favor the use of violence, some do not.
        But the groups that current promote violence are by and large on the left.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          You've lost me.

          Eh? What is the "REAL" civil rights movement??? Do you mean MLK Jr? But what about Malcolm X, who supported violence? Most civil rights movements in history have had in them various advocates of violence and various advocates of non-violence. The Woman Suffrage movement, for example had both. Nelson Mandela and his campaign against apartheid in South Africa is an example of a person who started off with one strategy (violence) and later decided he preferred the other strategy (non-violence). And it took an entire war to end slavery.

          Obviously all civil rights movements in history have been "liberal" by definition as they promoted social change and furthering equality to more people over and against the existing social hierarchies of the day. But they have had a wide spectrum of views on the usefulness of violence in achieving their ends. I would say that studying history tells us that non-violence tends to be the more successful strategy. But various different liberals today pursuing a variety of strategies is no different to any other time in history.
          I cannot help but notice that the one who promoted non-violence grew up in a Christian home and was a Christian minister who wanted everyone to live together in peaceful harmony while the one who promoted violence was a Muslim who preached segregation (although after his trip to Jerusalem he largely renounced violence).

          Just sayin'

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            But the groups that current promote violence are by and large on the left.
            Um, well violence in support of achieving goals of political change, yes, because political change is kind of by definition on the 'left'. Those advocating violence in support of the existing establishment and its power hierarchies (e.g. wanting more war, torture, death penalty, supporting the use of police violence against criminals etc) are kind of by definition on the 'right', and in total support several orders of magnitude more violence than the left does.

            I cannot help but notice that the one who promoted non-violence grew up in a Christian home and was a Christian minister
            Well sure. I think the life of MLK Jr is probably the single most useful and accurate lens through which to view the life of Jesus - both advocated for social change and created a movement around them with a view to helping and including outcast minorities in their societies and deliberately chose non-violent strategies to do so. That said, there have been plenty of Christian ministers who have been part of the KKK, or who in the Civil War fought for or endorsed the South and Slavery.

            However, on this forum, at least, it is liberal atheists who generally endorse non-violence (e.g. I would be a pacifist / conscientious objector in war, object strenuously to the US's many and various wars and to their use of torture, and am a strong critic of overuse of violent force by police), whereas the US evangelicals here tend to be pro-war pro-torture pro-police-violence etc. This is perhaps not surprising given that, as my first paragraph noted, liberals on the whole tend to endorse violence less often and in less cases than conservatives generally tend to do. That follows fairly straightforwardly from the basic political definitions where liberals are concerned for freedom for all while conservatives are concerned with enforcing and defending existing hierarchies of power.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Um, well violence in support of achieving goals of political change, yes, because political change is kind of by definition on the 'left'.
              Fascinating rationalization and excuse making for the left's violent political tendencies.

              Meanwhile, here in the U.S. just eight years ago the left controlled the White House and had overwhelming (as in unstoppable) control of both Houses of Congress and those on the right were none to happy with what they were doing.

              Did those "Tea Partiers" start rioting? Did they attack police, emergency medical personnel, reporters...? Did they trash businesses and vehicles? Or did they do something even more radical and regain control of the White House, Congress (as well as most governorships and state legislatures) by organizing and voting the left out and themselves into power?

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Fascinating rationalization and excuse making for the left's violent political tendencies.
                I do seem to recall something recently about armed occupation of a federal building by a right-wing Bundy group.

                Meanwhile, here in the U.S. just eight years ago the left controlled the White House and had overwhelming (as in unstoppable) control of both Houses of Congress
                The US would be in a much better situation right now if that had been true. They only had unstoppable control for 4 months which ended unexpectedly when Ted Kennedy died, and due to having only a 1-vote margin in the senate they were only able to pass legislation that was centrist enough to appease the most-right-wing democratic senators. Hence they couldn't even manage to pass things like a medicare public-option.

                and those on the right were none to happy with what they were doing.
                Those on the right were insane idiots utterly deluded by the Faux News propaganda machine.

                Did those "Tea Partiers" start rioting?
                No they were just a joke. Tiny rallies that the right-wing corporate media nonetheless covered relentlessly because the rich media bosses agreed with the pro-rich policies being advocated by the nutbars in the Tea Party.

                Did they attack police, emergency medical personnel, reporters...? Did they trash businesses and vehicles?
                Does seizing and occupying federal buildings count? Trump's people certainly had various threatening words to say to many reporters. The Tea Party itself was covered by a highly sympathetic media, so why should they have been critical of reporters? Generally Tea Party rallies with ~10 people in attendance got more media coverage than Bernie Sanders marches with ~10,000 people in attendance, because the rich corporate media bosses love the right and hate the left. Part of why America is so insanely far to the right on the political spectrum, and why people in America are indoctrinated into thinking that the Republican policies are sane or remotely plausible, is because your media is a lot bigger and richer and more corporate than in most of the rest of the Western world and their wealth gives them an incredible right-wing bias, so they pretend that all the Republican policies of screwing over the middle class in order to funnel wealth into the pockets of the rich should be taken seriously rather than laughed out the door.

                Or did they do something even more radical and regain control of the White House, Congress (as well as most governorships and state legislatures) by organizing and voting the left out and themselves into power?
                Nope. There were many forces at work in Trump's victory - primary among them was that the Democratic party were stupid enough to field the single most disliked nominee in the polling history of their party as their nominee. And, even so, Trump still lost the popular vote to her - despite massive efforts at voter suppression on the part of the Republicans across the country to subvert democracy by preventing democratic-leaning demographics from being able to vote. There were, of course, quite a number of other contributing factors, but on the whole I wouldn't rank the Tea Party as being at all among the factors that contributed to any republican victories, and I suspect their general existence was counter-productive and more likely to have turned more voters off the Republicans than it attracted.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Scotland's Sunday Herald has it right with regard to Trump's Inauguration day:

                  Highly unprofessional from what is supposed to be a professional publication if you ask me.
                  Last edited by Darth Ovious; 01-17-2017, 07:33 AM.
                  “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Good!
                    Eh, the last time a bunch of hippies and bikers got together, it didn't go over so well.

                    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...-a-violent-end

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      Eh, the last time a bunch of hippies and bikers got together, it didn't go over so well.

                      http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...-a-violent-end
                      I remember that. I mean who hires Hells Angels for security?
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Of course, conservative activist/fraudster James O'Keefe has already been caught on video trying to bribe liberals to riot at Trump's inauguration. So if there is violence it will be hard to know whether it's violence conservatives have paid for to try and 'prove' their narrative that liberals are violent, or whether it's actual sincere opposition to Trump.
                        derp. He was trying to get liberals to admit on camera that they supported violence, not actually trying to make them be violent.

                        I can't believe that you libs keep dissing Breitbart when you keep using trash sources like boingboing. What the heck is the matter with you?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                          Highly unprofessional from what is supposed to be a professional publication if you ask me.
                          I just laugh at their ignorance.

                          As I've said, my only regret voting for Trump is that his policies are going to make the lives of liberal morons better even as they continue to stamp their feet in protest.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            Um, well violence in support of achieving goals of political change, yes, because political change is kind of by definition on the 'left'. Those advocating violence in support of the existing establishment and its power hierarchies (e.g. wanting more war, torture, death penalty, supporting the use of police violence against criminals etc) are kind of by definition on the 'right', and in total support several orders of magnitude more violence than the left does.
                            Both the left and the right want political change. It's nonsense to state that that's something only the left wants. Change is very much a platform of the right, especially as the current status quo is about as far away from the traditional values and ethical mores conservatives cherish. At this point, it might actually be more accurate to say that liberals are less for change than conservatives, and that's the primary reason they were so adamantly against Trump's administration well before he was even inaugurated.


                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            However, on this forum, at least, it is liberal atheists who generally endorse non-violence (e.g. I would be a pacifist / conscientious objector in war, object strenuously to the US's many and various wars and to their use of torture, and am a strong critic of overuse of violent force by police), whereas the US evangelicals here tend to be pro-war pro-torture pro-police-violence etc. This is perhaps not surprising given that, as my first paragraph noted, liberals on the whole tend to endorse violence less often and in less cases than conservatives generally tend to do. That follows fairly straightforwardly from the basic political definitions where liberals are concerned for freedom for all while conservatives are concerned with enforcing and defending existing hierarchies of power.
                            With maybe 1 or 2 trolly exceptions, the vast majority of people on this forum do not want more war, torture, people on death row, or police violence. And don't think it goes without notice that you pitted "liberal atheists" vs "US evangelicals" rather than "atheists" vs. "Christians". You did that because you know for a fact that there are a number of Christians on this forum who also generally endorse non-violence, who are largely pro-pacifist, who object to the use of torture, who are against the death penalty, etc. Even a few people you could classify as "evangelical"...like me! And we all know that you don't really endorse non-violence. You endorse the worst kind of violence, the murder of the unborn and the newborn.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              You've lost me.
                              That doesn't seem to be difficult these days.

                              Eh? What is the "REAL" civil rights movement??? Do you mean MLK Jr?
                              The one that actually made remarkable changes, yes.

                              But what about Malcolm X, who supported violence?
                              Yeah, yesterday was MLK day in the US --- MX day is... um.... oh, that's right, we don't have one!
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                I do seem to recall something recently about armed occupation of a federal building by a right-wing Bundy group.
                                A) The right would acknowledge that as extremist, I'd think.
                                2) Was there violence? Looting? Destruction of property?
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                126 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                326 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X