Trumpanzee attacks

[HomerJS]

Climate is turning violent but that tone was set at the top. Trump was the only candidate that advocated for violence.

Don't forget the middle school kids intimidating Hispanic students with "built the wall" chant

 

[zinfamous]

Climate is turning violent but that tone was set at the top. Trump was the only candidate that advocated for violence.

Don't forget the middle school kids intimidating Hispanic students with "built the wall" chant

the party of personal responsibility is again angry at the bear for being repeatedly poked.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Difference between these two cases/people: what was the muslim Delta employee doing to instigate the anger/assault/violence from the redneck Trump supporter?

I think it would be very much relevant to distinguish between violence directed against real instigation (not that I condone it), and violence directed against people just, well, being alive. Or are we just going to keep dancing down False Equivalence avenue for the next 4 years?

Fair point.

We have to balance false equivalence against the slippery slope. The only distinction I see is sympathy for the victim. I feel tremendous sympathy for the airline employee. I feel none for the white supremist.

The people who harass Muslim women for wearing hijabs or sucker punch someone else are the lowest form of scum. Violence is violence, although I respect that you don't condone it even if you believe there is a distinction.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Bigot harassing women Vrs. women slugging hate monger. What fool thinks these two things are the same?

 

[zinfamous]

Bigot harassing women Vrs. women slugging hate monger. What fool thinks these two things are the same?

I'm sure BlueMax has an opinion here.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Bigot harassing women Vrs. women slugging hate monger. What fool thinks these two things are the same?

Well in a court of law both would be considered assault.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Hopefully he shares a prison cell with a lonely, burly A-rab to teach him a few things about new cultural experiences.

Same goes for the coward that sucker punched Richard Spencer (switch A-rab cellmate with a Nazi of course).

 

[BurnItDwn]

I would gladly punch Richard Spencer without it being a "sucker punch."

 

[agent00f]

Well in a court of law both would be considered assault.

Hopefully he shares a prison cell with a lonely, burly A-rab to teach him a few things about new cultural experiences.

Same goes for the coward that sucker punched Richard Spencer (switch A-rab cellmate with a Nazi of course).

Only one of them is a hate crime, even if many people are going to have real trouble figuring that one out.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Only one of them is a hate crime, even if many people are going to have real trouble figuring that one out.

Let me guess. It is the one where the perpetrator acted with a heart and mind full of hate.

 

[agent00f]

Let me guess. It is the one where the perpetrator acted with a heart and mind full of hate.

I love being right.

 

[theeedude]

Dude has a punchable face, it is what it is.

 

[woolfe9998]

Hopefully he shares a prison cell with a lonely, burly A-rab to teach him a few things about new cultural experiences.

Same goes for the coward that sucker punched Richard Spencer (switch A-rab cellmate with a Nazi of course).

While I agree that the legal consequences should be the same between the two, because we are supposed to be living under the rule of law, and exceptions can't be made when the victim is a piece of crap like Spencer, the two actions cannot be equated in any moral sense. Take the most extreme hypothetical: two people get punched in the face, one is Adolph Hitler, and the other, an innocent 5 year old girl eating an ice-cream cone in the park. Both acts are illegal. Yet there the similarity ends. Can you honestly say that your sympathies for the two victims would be equal, or that the perpetrators are equally bad people? These actual real world cases are obviously not quite as extremely polarized as my fictional example, but they actually aren't immensely far off from them either. Given that, I don't understand your equal desire to see each perpetrator suffer. Both ought to be prosecuted in whatever way the law prescribes. I would just leave it at that.

 

[woolfe9998]

Starbuck1975 said:
The only distinction I see is sympathy for the victim. I feel tremendous sympathy for the airline employee. I feel none for the white supremist.

Well in a court of law both would be considered assault.

Agreed on both counts. The reason I quote both is to emphasize that these two positions are totally compatible. Saying that two people should both be prosecuted doesn't mean that our sympathies for each victim are equal.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Only one of them is a hate crime, even if many people are going to have real trouble figuring that one out.

I agree that attacking someone over political beliefs isn't a hate crime. Still a crime.

While I agree that the legal consequences should be the same between the two, because we are supposed to be living under the rule of law, and exceptions can't be made when the victim is a piece of crap like Spencer, the two actions cannot be equated in any moral sense. Take the most extreme hypothetical: two people get punched in the face, one is Adolph Hitler, and the other, an innocent 5 year old girl eating an ice-cream cone in the park. Both acts are illegal. Yet there the similarity ends. Can you honestly say that your sympathies for the two victims would be equal, or that the perpetrators are equally bad people? These actual real world cases are obviously not quite as extremely polarized as my fictional example, but they actually aren't immensely far off from them either. Given that, I don't understand your equal desire to see each perpetrator suffer. Both ought to be prosecuted in whatever way the law prescribes. I would just leave it at that.

Has little to do with sympathy. I think Richard Spencer is primarily a useful idiot to polarize and draw racial lines over political issues that don't need them. I don't care at all about him personally. However, creating a culture where assault is justified when the political motive is favored is basically a de facto ban on freedom of speech. When the law decides to make examples of certain politically-motivated crimes but not others, it shows inequality of the law (and yes agent00f I'm aware that American justice has always been full of bias along racial, sexual, economic, etc lines). While the guy that punched Richard Spencer may get away only because he concealed his identity (happened in DC and the feds are probably going to be more strict), other states such as California and Washington have a history of turning a blind eye to ANTIFA violence, even when the perpetrator's identity is known. This is because people think "Eh, they deserved a punch to the face, whatever".

In these specific cases, neither victim was doing anything instigating at the time. The woman in the airport was sitting quietly, Spencer was apparently answering an interviewer's questions on Pepe the Frog. Perhaps motive could be argued to be different (the guy that punched Spencer could have done it impulsively for fame as well), so I won't argue each criminal should receive the exact same sentence. The criminal in this story probably deserves to be punished more severely, but not because of his choice of victim.

 

[Jhhnn]

Fair point.

We have to balance false equivalence against the slippery slope. The only distinction I see is sympathy for the victim. I feel tremendous sympathy for the airline employee. I feel none for the white supremist.

The people who harass Muslim women for wearing hijabs or sucker punch someone else are the lowest form of scum. Violence is violence, although I respect that you don't condone it even if you believe there is a distinction.

Lots of different ways to look at it. Trump calls for violence, gets violence, is the simplest answer I can come up with. He should know better than to summon those demons. Not even his massive ego can control them.

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree that attacking someone over political beliefs isn't a hate crime. Still a crime.



Has little to do with sympathy. I think Richard Spencer is primarily a useful idiot to polarize and draw racial lines over political issues that don't need them. I don't care at all about him personally. However, creating a culture where assault is justified when the political motive is favored is basically a de facto ban on freedom of speech. When the law decides to make examples of certain politically-motivated crimes but not others, it shows inequality of the law (and yes agent00f I'm aware that American justice has always been full of bias along racial, sexual, economic, etc lines). While the guy that punched Richard Spencer may get away only because he concealed his identity (happened in DC and the feds are probably going to be more strict), other states such as California and Washington have a history of turning a blind eye to ANTIFA violence, even when the perpetrator's identity is known. This is because people think "Eh, they deserved a punch to the face, whatever".

In these specific cases, neither victim was doing anything instigating at the time. The woman in the airport was sitting quietly, Spencer was apparently answering an interviewer's questions on Pepe the Frog. Perhaps motive could be argued to be different (the guy that punched Spencer could have done it impulsively for fame as well), so I won't argue each criminal should receive the exact same sentence. The criminal in this story probably deserves to be punished more severely, but not because of his choice of victim.

Calling Spencer a "useful idiot" is implying that someone else is pulling his puppet strings. I see nothing to indicate that Spencer is any more or less than what he appears to be: a white supremacist hate monger. I think what you're trying to do here is whitewash who he really is to make it easier to equate the two acts.

So far as equal legal consequences, well of course, because that is precisely and exactly what I said in the post to which you replied. I don't know if so-called "ANTIFA violence" is being ignored in certain states, but if that is true, then I agree. It absolutely shouldn't be. The nature of the motive for the crime shouldn't affect the response of law enforcement. That, however, doesn't make either the perps or the victims equal in every sense of the word. Only in the legal sense.

 

[kage69]

The reason I quote both is to emphasize that these two positions are totally compatible. Saying that two people should both be prosecuted doesn't mean that our sympathies for each victim are equal.

There it is folks.

Eloquent as usual woolfe. *clap*

 

[Starbuck1975]

Lots of different ways to look at it. Trump calls for violence, gets violence, is the simplest answer I can come up with. He should know better than to summon those demons. Not even his massive ego can control them.

Trump has this historic opportunity to take a wave of populism and channel it towards something constructive. He had the opportunity to perhaps be one of America's great Presidents. Yet he chooses to bring out the worst in people and caters to the lowest common denominator instead of striving for greatness.

 

[UberNeuman]

Trump has this historic opportunity to take a wave of populism and channel it towards something constructive. He had the opportunity to perhaps be one of America's great Presidents. Yet he chooses to bring out the worst in people and caters to the lowest common denominator instead of striving for greatness.

So did G.W. Bush. Something about Republican's DNA that only exists to ruin all.

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump has this historic opportunity to take a wave of populism and channel it towards something constructive. He had the opportunity to perhaps be one of America's great Presidents. Yet he chooses to bring out the worst in people and caters to the lowest common denominator instead of striving for greatness.

That never was his message. He said give in to the dark side. Too many Americans were willing to do just that.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That never was his message. He said give in to the dark side. Too many Americans were willing to do just that.

My point is he didn't have to go dark. He had the wind in his sails as the populist candidate willing to take on the status quo and bureaucracy. Such a lost opportunity.

 

[Jhhnn]

My point is he didn't have to go dark. He had the wind in his sails as the populist candidate willing to take on the status quo and bureaucracy. Such a lost opportunity.

That wasn't how he won the primary. He pandered to fear & bigotry when he announced his candidacy-

http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/

He crushed his primary opponents with that message. He has no Sanders-like qualities. That's never been the basis of his appeal.

 

[zinfamous]

My point is he didn't have to go dark. He had the wind in his sails as the populist candidate willing to take on the status quo and bureaucracy. Such a lost opportunity.

That's ignoring his fundamental nature. He only ever had one opportunity here, and that is to go completely dark. It is simply who he is: a racist cuntwaffle.

 

[blankslate]

When we get great remix videos like this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkw_ybhY7eo

It's hard for me to be mad at someone who punches a Nazi...

c'mon let's be real he's a Nazi.

_____________