Right Wing Regressives Need to Stop

[Forty Two]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -play.html

Ok, so some toolbag righties stormed a stage and disrupted a performance of Julius Caesar where Trump was depicted as Caesar. One asshat declared that the blood of the congressman who was shot the other day by the left wing nutter was on their hands.

They were properly removed from the performance and if they committed any crimes, like assault, they should have been arrested. I hope they were. It's abominable behavior, and they should not be engaging in these tactics. Regardless of how offensive someone might find a play depicting the President being assassinated, there is nothing at all illegal about it and it is free speech. We have plenty of movies where Presidents get assassinated, and otherwise treated poorly. They're killed, kidnapped, maimed, ridiculed, mocked, etc.

Putting on a play of Julius Caesar in modern context, with the President of the US as Caesar, is not a threat or any sort of incitement. If people see a play like that, and act violently,then that violence is their responsibility, not the responsibility of the people putting on the play.

It is not free speech to go into a private establishment theater and disrupt the performance. The theater security can remove them, and if called, the police should remove the offenders from the establishment, which is private property (even if it is open to the public to buy tickets).

[pErvinalia]

Yebbut Hillary.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I appreciate the attempt at 'balance', but I don't find this little bit of political theatre to be particularly objectionable (the shouting right-wingers, rather than the Julius Caesar). Disrupting a performance is a legitimate form of protest, in my opinion. Condemning this action seems to be motivated by a hyper-developed concern over law 'n order.

On the other hand, I enjoyed this dishonest attempt to dismiss the Obama Julius Caesar vs. the Trump version: "The Many Differences Between 'Obama-Caesar' and 'Trump-Caesar'"

The political landscape was such in 2012 that Melrose believed it plausible that—I’m not making this up—those affiliated with the Tea Party, “Birtherism,” Mitch McConnell’s GOP, and/or—wait for it—the Cato Institute could be “so passionate about their beliefs and find the current situation so dire that they would resort to assassinating the president [.]”

In reality, of course, no one from any of these groups ever so much as threatened Obama or any or his supporters. Tea Party rallies looked like Memorial Day and Fourth of July parades, with participants leaving public areas cleaner than they found them.

Inability to use a search engine in conjunction with selective memory, anyone? Just one example out of many: 'Tea Party Politician on Obama: “Assassinate the fucken nigger and his monkey children”'

[Forty Two]

I appreciate the attempt at 'balance', but I don't find this little bit of political theatre to be particularly objectionable (the shouting right-wingers, rather than the Julius Caesar). Disrupting a performance is a legitimate form of protest, in my opinion. Condemning this action seems to be motivated by a hyper-developed concern over law 'n order.

Well, we can agree to disagree. I don't think if there was, for example, and LGBT parade that fundamentalist Christian or Muslim groups have some legitimate right to "disrupt" the performance of the parade. They have the right to protest it - to be out in public and speak their mind. But, to stop it from happening by standing in front of it, or getting into the parade groups and bollocksing up performances? They have no such right.

This is not an "attempt at balance." This is application of principles consistently. This kind of behavior is ridiculous. It's why the Democratic National Convention, for example, will haul protesters out of the room when they get disruptive.

For me, condemning the action does not have anything to do with a hyperactive sense of law and order. It's not really excessive to suggest that people buying tickets to a play ought to get to see the play. If there is a play, or a speaker, at a private venue, then there ought to be some right to be able to speak and perform without being disrupted. Obviously, the location matters - if a person decides to set up their performance in an open, public location where anyone is allowed to be there, then that's not the same as theater or reserved/rented facility or area.

If I host a family gathering, for example, by properly reserving a section of a public park for Saturday afternoon, I ought to be able to utilize the park without "disruption." If protesters want to do their thing in a different or adjacent area of the park ,then that's their right.

On the other hand, I enjoyed this dishonest attempt to dismiss the Obama Julius Caesar vs. the Trump version: "The Many Differences Between 'Obama-Caesar' and 'Trump-Caesar'"

The political landscape was such in 2012 that Melrose believed it plausible that—I’m not making this up—those affiliated with the Tea Party, “Birtherism,” Mitch McConnell’s GOP, and/or—wait for it—the Cato Institute could be “so passionate about their beliefs and find the current situation so dire that they would resort to assassinating the president [.]”

In reality, of course, no one from any of these groups ever so much as threatened Obama or any or his supporters. Tea Party rallies looked like Memorial Day and Fourth of July parades, with participants leaving public areas cleaner than they found them.

Inability to use a search engine in conjunction with selective memory, anyone? Just one example out of many: 'Tea Party Politician on Obama: “Assassinate the fucken nigger and his monkey children”'

Jules Manson? Never heard of him. But, he sounds like a racist lunatic. LOL. I think the overall reference to the Tea Party as being peaceful and non-threatening is accurate. Obviously, there are exceptions in every group. I'm no fan of the Tea Party, though, as I disagree with them on most issues.

[laklak]

I disagree that ruining my night that I paid for is a legitimate form of protest. A theater is not a public space. Fuck these retards, fuck the antifas, fuck all these assholes. They all need to calm the fuck down.

[NineBerry]

But what about that tea in Boston? Someone had paid for that, as well.

[laklak]

At that time my ancestors were still grubbing potatoes in Ireland, except for the few that were shagging sheep in Wales.

[Forty Two]

But what about that tea in Boston? Someone had paid for that, as well.

Dutchy should weigh in on that. The Tea Party was undertaken because the Brits enacted the Tea Act of 1773, which lowered tariffs on the British East India Company, so as to give it, specifically, an unfair monopoly on importation of teas to the American Colonies. The Dutch tea traders were the most effected, being completely undercut by the BEI Co's ability to undercut everyone's prices. The Merkins were nonplussed by such shenanigans, basically seeing it as a tyranny of the British crown via taxation. Dumping the tea was a big "fuck you" to the British government and it's crony, the BEI Co, which was unfairly discriminating against the Merkins and others, like the Dutch.

The Brits, of course, were incensed and enacted the "Intolerable Acts" as a result which closed Boston to merchant shipping, established formal British military rule in Massachusetts, made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America, and required colonists to quarter British troops. That pretty much sealed the deal, that there would be a revolution.

All such acts are wrong and right at the same time - like in quantum flux - until someone wins the fight. If the Crown won, a lot of people would have hanged. Since the Merkins won, then they got to say who the patriots were, and who were the nasty tyrants. I.e., the brits were wrong, and the tea party folks dumping the tea were wrong. Both sides were willing to shoot it out to see who won, and then invent their own myth upon victory.

[Brian Peacock]

The British East India Company was also Europe's biggest importer of opium.

Anyway, I agree with 42, right-wing snowflakes need to shut the fuck up.

[BarnettNewman]

Someone needs to explain to them that having a safe space =\= I'm secretly a bigot.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I appreciate the attempt at 'balance', but I don't find this little bit of political theatre to be particularly objectionable (the shouting right-wingers, rather than the Julius Caesar). Disrupting a performance is a legitimate form of protest, in my opinion. Condemning this action seems to be motivated by a hyper-developed concern over law 'n order.

Well, we can agree to disagree. I don't think if there was, for example, and LGBT parade that fundamentalist Christian or Muslim groups have some legitimate right to "disrupt" the performance of the parade. They have the right to protest it - to be out in public and speak their mind. But, to stop it from happening by standing in front of it, or getting into the parade groups and bollocksing up performances? They have no such right.

A more accurate equivalence would be the performance of a pro-fascist play in a public park. Such an event is, in my opinion, a legitimate target for non-violent disruption.

This is not an "attempt at balance." This is application of principles consistently. This kind of behavior is ridiculous. It's why the Democratic National Convention, for example, will haul protesters out of the room when they get disruptive.

Again, an inaccurate equivalence. People who attend a political convention do so at the sufferance of the party holding the convention. As well, there is a long and proud history of disruptive demonstrations at political conventions, in particular by credentialed delegates.

For me, condemning the action does not have anything to do with a hyperactive sense of law and order. It's not really excessive to suggest that people buying tickets to a play ought to get to see the play.

What sucker bought tickets to attend this free performance?

If there is a play, or a speaker, at a private venue, then there ought to be some right to be able to speak and perform without being disrupted. Obviously, the location matters - if a person decides to set up their performance in an open, public location where anyone is allowed to be there, then that's not the same as theater or reserved/rented facility or area.

This was an event presented for free in a public park, FYI.

If I host a family gathering, for example, by properly reserving a section of a public park for Saturday afternoon, I ought to be able to utilize the park without "disruption." If protesters want to do their thing in a different or adjacent area of the park ,then that's their right.

Your argument so far has depended on false equivalencies. A family gathering is not the same as a free public performance of a play with blatant political content.

Jules Manson? Never heard of him. But, he sounds like a racist lunatic. LOL. I think the overall reference to the Tea Party as being peaceful and non-threatening is accurate. Obviously, there are exceptions in every group. I'm no fan of the Tea Party, though, as I disagree with them on most issues.

Yes exceptions in every group. Unfortunately some revel in portraying those they oppose in a negative light by focussing on those exceptions, as if they were definitive.

That wasn't my point, though. The author of that piece was simply lying when he said that "no one from any of these groups ever so much as threatened Obama or any or his supporters." I spend time on a Tea Party site, and have for many years. They regularly used violent imagery and language during Obama's presidency, including stuff practically identical to the one I cited.

[rainbow]

If I host a family gathering, for example, by properly reserving a section of a public park for Saturday afternoon, I ought to be able to utilize the park without "disruption." If protesters want to do their thing in a different or adjacent area of the park ,then that's their right.

Your argument so far has depended on false equivalencies. A family gathering is not the same as a free public performance of a play with blatant political content.

Nothing to be gained from trying to teach logic to Farty, I'm afraid.

[Forty Two]

I appreciate the attempt at 'balance', but I don't find this little bit of political theatre to be particularly objectionable (the shouting right-wingers, rather than the Julius Caesar). Disrupting a performance is a legitimate form of protest, in my opinion. Condemning this action seems to be motivated by a hyper-developed concern over law 'n order.

Well, we can agree to disagree. I don't think if there was, for example, and LGBT parade that fundamentalist Christian or Muslim groups have some legitimate right to "disrupt" the performance of the parade. They have the right to protest it - to be out in public and speak their mind. But, to stop it from happening by standing in front of it, or getting into the parade groups and bollocksing up performances? They have no such right.

A more accurate equivalence would be the performance of a pro-fascist play in a public park. Such an event is, in my opinion, a legitimate target for non-violent disruption.

What's the difference? What about "the performance of an anti-fascist play in a public park." Is such an even, in your opinion, a legitimate target for non-violent disruption? If not, why not? Are individual rights to freedom of expression dependent on the content/point of view being expressed?

Obviously, each individual can have their own view as to what other political positions are abominable and worthy of protest. Some people think homosexuality is worthy of protest. Others think the patriarchy is worthy of protest. Some think fascism is worthy of protest. Others socialism and communism. The issue of whether a protester has the right to disrupt a performance, however, ought not be, under the law, dependent one person or group's opinion as to the relative merits of the point of view expressed. Don't you agree?

Also, the disruption that we're talking about is running up and jumping on the stage and preventing the participants from being able to put on the performance, and hollering in the crowd of a theater, when the theater owner has instructed that noise should be kept down during the performance.

Now, breaking the theater owner rules is not, per se, a crime. But, once you break the rules, and they try to haul you out, then the failure to leave is trespass. That is a crime in most jurisdictions.

This is not an "attempt at balance." This is application of principles consistently. This kind of behavior is ridiculous. It's why the Democratic National Convention, for example, will haul protesters out of the room when they get disruptive.

Again, an inaccurate equivalence. People who attend a political convention do so at the sufferance of the party holding the convention. As well, there is a long and proud history of disruptive demonstrations at political conventions, in particular by credentialed delegates.

It's a perfectly accurate equivalence, as people who attend a play, do so at the sufferance of the party holding the play.

There is a long history of disruptive demonstrations, and there is just as long a history of those individuals being hauled out so the convention can go on. The difference is that a political convention is INTENDED to have people screaming and yelling in the audience at many times throughout. In a play, the audience is supposed to be quiet so the play can go on.

For me, condemning the action does not have anything to do with a hyperactive sense of law and order. It's not really excessive to suggest that people buying tickets to a play ought to get to see the play.

What sucker bought tickets to attend this free performance?

Conceptually. It doesn't matter if the tickets were free or cost $1. The ticketed attendees ought to get to see the play.

If there is a play, or a speaker, at a private venue, then there ought to be some right to be able to speak and perform without being disrupted. Obviously, the location matters - if a person decides to set up their performance in an open, public location where anyone is allowed to be there, then that's not the same as theater or reserved/rented facility or area.

This was an event presented for free in a public park, FYI.

Sure, but they had to reserve the area for a block of time.

Look at it this way. Would your position be the same if the play featured an LGBT cast, and the protesters were from the Westboro Baptist Church telling them they were going to burn in hell, and running onto the stage in just the same way as happened in the Julius Caesar case? If not, don't just say that it's not equivalent - explain what about it makes it different. Where would one come up with the idea that it would be legitimate protest in the Julius Caesar case, but not legitimate in the LGBT case?

If I host a family gathering, for example, by properly reserving a section of a public park for Saturday afternoon, I ought to be able to utilize the park without "disruption." If protesters want to do their thing in a different or adjacent area of the park ,then that's their right.

Your argument so far has depended on false equivalencies. A family gathering is not the same as a free public performance of a play with blatant political content.

Sure it is. People have every right to protest me, just as they have every right to protest Trump. There is no distinction in the right to free expression in this regard. Maybe they don't like my profession, or opinions. Maybe it's pErvin and his friends, and they want to protest my toxic ideas. You think there is a legal distinction here? What is it?

Jules Manson? Never heard of him. But, he sounds like a racist lunatic. LOL. I think the overall reference to the Tea Party as being peaceful and non-threatening is accurate. Obviously, there are exceptions in every group. I'm no fan of the Tea Party, though, as I disagree with them on most issues.

Yes exceptions in every group. Unfortunately some revel in portraying those they oppose in a negative light by focussing on those exceptions, as if they were definitive.

Certainly, some do, like those who have portrayed Trump supporters in a certain negative light...

That wasn't my point, though. The author of that piece was simply lying when he said that "no one from any of these groups ever so much as threatened Obama or any or his supporters." I spend time on a Tea Party site, and have for many years. They regularly used violent imagery and language during Obama's presidency, including stuff practically identical to the one I cited.

I agree he overstated. People on both sides use absolutes improperly. He should have said nobody of any prominence or importance.

[Forty Two]

Someone needs to explain to them that having a safe space =\= I'm secretly a bigot.

It kinda does, though. Traditionally, the definition of bigot is someone who is intolerant of persons holding different opinions. A "safe space" is often used to exclude people who hold different opinions from the persons seeking "safety." In that regard, a safe space is bigoted. It's not racial bigotry, of course.

[pErvinalia]

I don't believe Lemmy was talking about the legalities of protest. Protest has never meant solely legal activities.