Problematic Stuff

[Svartalf]

Do you mean that antifa commit justifiable violence on evil people only? I don't see where the equivalence is false, even less bullshit... sure, given that they tussle with neo nazis and th like, the antifa do try to claim moral high ground... but that claim is where the bullshit lies... their violence is for the sake of committing mayhem. it's not even really politically motivated, not that politically violence is acceptable either... they are like football hooligans tussling with the fans of some other team, only, in their case, the teams are political groups.

[Seabass]

I don't condone Antifa's methods, but to equate them with KKK neo-nazi cunts is just silly. Criminalizing Antifa while the alt-right do whatever the hell they want is downright bananas.

[Svartalf]

the alt right needs be criminalized too. Violence from either side is not acceptable, period.

[pErvinalia]

Do you mean that antifa commit justifiable violence on evil people only? I don't see where the equivalence is false, even less bullshit... sure, given that they tussle with neo nazis and th like, the antifa do try to claim moral high ground... but that claim is where the bullshit lies... their violence is for the sake of committing mayhem. it's not even really politically motivated, not that politically violence is acceptable either... they are like football hooligans tussling with the fans of some other team, only, in their case, the teams are political groups.

WTF? This is just wrong on so many levels. It's absolutely politically motivated. It's in their name! And it most definitely is a false equivalency, as one side are racists and the other side oppose racists. Unless you think that people who oppose racists aren't any better than racists. Which would be a pretty strange position to hold.

[pErvinalia]

the alt right needs be criminalized too. Violence from either side is not acceptable, period.

You've forgotten your French Revolution history...

[Svartalf]

I disapprove of much that the Revolution did... overuse of Dr Guillotin's Machineage is only the start of it.

[Brian Peacock]

Do you mean that antifa commit justifiable violence on evil people only? I don't see where the equivalence is false, even less bullshit... sure, given that they tussle with neo nazis and th like, the antifa do try to claim moral high ground... but that claim is where the bullshit lies... their violence is for the sake of committing mayhem. it's not even really politically motivated, not that politically violence is acceptable either... they are like football hooligans tussling with the fans of some other team, only, in their case, the teams are political groups.

WTF? This is just wrong on so many levels. It's absolutely politically motivated. It's in their name! And it most definitely is a false equivalency, as one side are racists and the other side oppose racists. Unless you think that people who oppose racists aren't any better than racists. Which would be a pretty strange position to hold.

You're missing Svarty's point, or just ignoring it.

[Forty Two]

I guess, but what if the little shit or the nation of Islam guy is your co-worker, or your line manager, or your employer, or your bank manager, or your community police officer, or your mayor, or your congressman, or your president? What does stepping back and saying its a free country achieve (other granting little shits the right to be little shits)? I suppose in the end it all depends on whether you're the target of the vicitimisation or not?

Little shits do have the right to be little shits. Would you want there to be no right to be a little shit?
Whose definition would apply?

There would be a much higher cost to taking away that right, than the fact that such a right exists. Whether someone is a hero or a little shit is not an objective fact - it's a matter of pure opinion. Some people would consider a Nation of Islam person heckling a CIS-male hetero white guy a good thing and the opposite of little shit status (especially if the white guy was labeled "alt right"), others would think it's little-shit territory for sure (especially if he was labeled "alt right").

If the nation of Islam person has no right to be a little shit, whose definition applies? I would cetainly hope not some weird definition which says that Nation of Islam people get to heckle others, while douchebags with Trump hats don't. But there is a train of thought that advocates just that -- a person in an "oppressed group" (whatever that is) gets to act one way, but others don't. If that were to become the state of things, then it would become purely a matter of politics as to who is the little shit, and who is the legitimately oppressed person heckling truth to power....

[Forty Two]

overturning Roe vs Wade...that's been their obsession for the last 45 years, and with the roberts court now featuring kavanaugh, they can get it...

Don't you think that the regulation of abortion should be a matter for the political process? Isn't that what most civilized countries do? I mean, the whole idea of "rights" is an absurdity, isn't it?

[Svartalf]

the right of a person over its own body goes above and beyond the rule of the legislator, especially when the legislature is crammed full of bigots of all sorts. Legislators ought not to rule over such rights except to recognize and protect them.

[Forty Two]

Oh, well, so it must be then that there are no regulations or limitations on abortion in Europe. Stands to reason, since a person's own body goes above and beyond the rule of the legislature. I would imagine there are no legislative acts concerning medical issues of any kind, ingestion of drugs and other substances, and the like.

[Brian Peacock]

I guess, but what if the little shit or the nation of Islam guy is your co-worker, or your line manager, or your employer, or your bank manager, or your community police officer, or your mayor, or your congressman, or your president? What does stepping back and saying its a free country achieve (other granting little shits the right to be little shits)? I suppose in the end it all depends on whether you're the target of the vicitimisation or not?

Little shits do have the right to be little shits. Would you want there to be no right to be a little shit?
Whose definition would apply?

There would be a much higher cost to taking away that right, than the fact that such a right exists. Whether someone is a hero or a little shit is not an objective fact - it's a matter of pure opinion. Some people would consider a Nation of Islam person heckling a CIS-male hetero white guy a good thing and the opposite of little shit status (especially if the white guy was labeled "alt right"), others would think it's little-shit territory for sure (especially if he was labeled "alt right").

If the nation of Islam person has no right to be a little shit, whose definition applies? I would cetainly hope not some weird definition which says that Nation of Islam people get to heckle others, while douchebags with Trump hats don't. But there is a train of thought that advocates just that -- a person in an "oppressed group" (whatever that is) gets to act one way, but others don't. If that were to become the state of things, then it would become purely a matter of politics as to who is the little shit, and who is the legitimately oppressed person heckling truth to power....

Does the problem of the shitiness of little shits depend on whether or not you're the one on the receiving end of their shit?

[Forty Two]

Of course, from an individual perspective, yes. If someone I oppose politically is being a little shit to me, then I obviously don't like it. But, viewing it objectively, have I obtained some right to steal his hat and throw a drink in his face?

Some people think it's just fine to harass people in restaurants because they harbor offensive political opinions and are "little shits" as a result. It's not feasible to have a rule where -- legally - the rightness of harassment depends on the identity of the persons involved. If you reverse the races, or political persuasion, or sex, of the persons involved - the shoe on the other foot test - and the answer would be different, then one is not applying a workable standard - and that standard is one that will entail a larger cost than benefit, in the end.

I would rather live in a country where I have to put up with Nation of Islam shits calling me honkey, and I don't get to snatch their hat and throw drinks in their face, than one where I can do that, but others can't.

[Brian Peacock]

overturning Roe vs Wade...that's been their obsession for the last 45 years, and with the roberts court now featuring kavanaugh, they can get it...

Don't you think that the regulation of abortion should be a matter for the political process? Isn't that what most civilized countries do? I mean, the whole idea of "rights" is an absurdity, isn't it?

What's your view on the Roe vs Wade ruling? Does it benefit society, or is it a ruling which needs revision or rescinding? I ask because you seem to be taking Svarty to task because he thinks the prospect of RvW being overturned is a backwards step.

Do you think a ruling which limited your ability to reproduce, for example, would be acceptable if it was the result of a 'political process'? What about rulings on where you could live, or travel to, or the type of employment you could undertake? I ask because I want to understand your view on the nature of 'political processes', specifically whether you think a 'political process' automatically legitimises or authorises its own outcomes.

[Brian Peacock]

Of course, from an individual perspective, yes. If someone I oppose politically is being a little shit to me, then I obviously don't like it. But, viewing it objectively, have I obtained some right to steal his hat and throw a drink in his face?

Some people think it's just fine to harass people in restaurants because they harbor offensive political opinions and are "little shits" as a result. It's not feasible to have a rule where -- legally - the rightness of harassment depends on the identity of the persons involved. If you reverse the races, or political persuasion, or sex, of the persons involved - the shoe on the other foot test - and the answer would be different, then one is not applying a workable standard - and that standard is one that will entail a larger cost than benefit, in the end.

I would rather live in a country where I have to put up with Nation of Islam shits calling me honkey, and I don't get to snatch their hat and throw drinks in their face, than one where I can do that, but others can't.

I'm going to frame my question in another way because I feel that you're not really engaging with it. What if you were called "Honkey" every day, or worse, or told that you weren't welcome, or that people like you should blah blah blah? What if you were routinely short-changed because of who you are, because of your looks, or your ancestry, presumed political affiliations, or just because you lived on the 'wrong' side of town? What if, wherever you went, you had to keep an eye out for trouble, for the ever-present prospect of little shits giving you shit? What if this is something that not only you had to deal with, but your partner, your kids, your extended family, your community? I invite you to read back over the last few posts in this strand and have another stab at it.