Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?

[DonaldD]

What statistics, and which Democratic leaning demographic would that be?  People who attack minorities, or Mexicans specifically?

How about if I instead used Patrick Wood Crusius or Dylann Roof as examples?  The point being that crunch's post pretended that left wing violence is a bigger problem than right wing violence, and that it might turn deadly - as opposed to right wing violence, which would not.

[Fenring]

I was talking about actual violence, not rhetoric, as I think Grant was and to whom I was responding and about which I thought you were triangulating in your response.

First Crunch brought up antifa, then you replied about other kinds of violence, then Grant expanded your discussion about violence by bringing in international violence (which I take to have been an effort to explode your point into an absurd scale to show that it was problematic), then after a couple more replies I chimed in to mention what I thought Grant was trying to say. But I believe the first post on this page outright about violent acts was yours.

The second is that you don't mention the equivalent violent rhetoric from the right.  Is that another subset that you don't need to mention, or is the right not guilty of that?

I asked TheDrake about that in response to his post. I don't hear that kind of rhetoric, a possible reason being that I have far more left-leaning people on my social media. So my conclusion that far-left people do seem to employ violent rhetoric does not exclude the possibility that right-wing people do the same.

The third interesting thing is that you explicitly stated that you weren't opining whether Crunch was right or not.  In fact, your post equivocated on everything, as I tried to point out, apparently unsuccessfully.

My OP that you're discussing was exclusively meant to try to place Grant's comments in context and explain why, despite being written trollishly to make a point, they were in fact making a point. While I do have views on these things that post was not intended to express them. I did not state that I don't have any. What you think is equivocation (a term you use incorrectly, I might add) is in fact me separating my ability to analyze text written by others from my ability to have my own conclusions on the topic. Sometimes I post analysis, not opinion; I tend to avoid posting opinion too often.

I've seen the enemy referenced variously as "Nazis", "white supremacists", "racists", "slavers", and some non-literal but still violent-sounding rhetoric about Trump supporters.

Interesting (the fourth thing, I guess) that you accuse leftish people of talking about violence against groups that openly espouse violence against people they don't like.  That doesn't count, either?

It's irrelevant to the point, especially since most people making these posts never have and never will come into contact with these groups. But your comment reminds me of Gangs of New York a little bit; as long as the person your screaming and waving the crowbar at is "a real SOB" then it's ok, right?

[Seriati]

Democrats follow two concepts that are different from the Right. The first is "the end justifies the means." The second is the idea of the "wink and the nod." Whatever a Leftist wants to do can be rationalized by lying about the opposition and making them somehow worthy of being insulted and harassed. Maxine Waters very much must stay away from mirrors. The second concept is what allows them to stay acceptable to the complicit media. No matter how nice they sound, their people understand to read between the lines. When they hear:"Live and let live", they understand the Maxine Waters idea of "No apologies - just trash them!"

This is a really good example of the irrational right attacks against Democrats for purely emotional reasons.

Not really.  The left is solidly characterized by an ends justifies the means philosophy and by media cover for identical events treated differently.  That's why, you end up with leftist politicians taking such irrational positions as supporting Iranian terrorists to criticize the President they see as the bigger threat to themselves, or say Obama telling everyone he was against gay marriage, because he has to say that to get elected.  It's also why they have no problem with using regulation and the Courts in ways that violate the Constitution to achieve goals they can't get by a Democratic vote.

As to the latter you can see it real time in the VA governor's mansion, where a politician got caught in blackface and is not only still in office, the "controversy" has practically disappeared. There is zero chance that if this were a Republican governor it wouldn't be getting daily play as "proof" of the tolerance of racism in the Republican party.

Let's look at what you said in parts, with simple and obvious counter-examples or each:

• " Democrats follow two concepts that are different from the Right. The first is "the end justifies the means."
  * You don't give any examples, which would be very helpful to understand what you mean, but I'll counter that Trump is stonewalling Congress on impeachment by refusing to allow any member of the Executive to testify or turn over documents. That is unprecedented and the basis for one of the articles of impeachment.

That's not a "counter," it's just a whine.  What's the end?  And what are the means?  Literally, Trump is testing the system by telling Congress to go to the courts rather than conceding what would be an exceptional concession by the executive branch.  Congress literally is asserting that saying "impeachment" overrides 250 years of separation of authority doctrines.  Go to court.

By the way, the entire House impeachment is an open exercise in the ends justifying the means.  Why'd they skip due process?  To get to the ends of impeachment. Why'd they refuse cross examine by the President?  It would have interfered with the ends of impeachment to hear if there was a justification.  Why'd they insist on voting on a rush basis?  They needed to reach the ends of impeachment on a political timing.  Why are they delaying sending the articles over?  Sending them over to be exposed as unfounded interferes with keeping the "impeached" tag on Trump.

I mean honestly, there's no way to square that impeachment with a belief in the means matters as well as the result.
 

• "The wink and a nod"
  * How about Trump only going on FOX network or an example comparable to Trump accusing multiple Democrats of treason for disagreeing with him?

In what way is that a wink and a nod?  Do you even understand what this means?  Bloomberg news announces that they won't in "good conscious" produce negative information on the Democratic nominees (because that's "unfair" if they won't do it on Bloomberg), but see no reason that the same should apply to the Republicans (even though Bloomberg is actively campaigning against Trump more than the Democrats).

Or how about Adam Schiff never being held to account for multiple lies, and Devin Nunes being repeatedly attacked where he's telling the truth?

Or if a Bernie rally is disrupted by a Trump supporter, Trump is promoting violence, and if a Bernie supporter is paid to disrupt a Trump rally, Trump is promoting violence. 

It's a wink and a nod.  No matter what behavior the left engages in, it's "not the same thing," or an "honest mistake." 

• "Maxine Waters very much must stay away from mirrors."
  * This is just plain childish nastiness, where you follow Trump's example of attacking people for their looks.  As for childish, how about Trump calling Adam Schiff "little Adam Schitt"?  Can you give an example of any Democrat doing anything like that?

I think the comment referred to Waters being incredibly nasty, partisan and an open liar, not her unattractiveness.

• "No apologies - just trash them!"
  * What's with your obsession with Maxine Waters?  How about Doug Collins saying on TV that "Democrats love terrorists"?

Do you take offense at that?  Maybe you have a comment on every time a leftist reporter has openly lied about Trump, or the Republicans generally being racist?  Of course not, because when a left politician seems to care more about a notorious terrorist that's not legitimate to flag (wink), and when a left reporter decides to lie about racism and tag the right, that is legitimate (cause you know the end justifies the means).

I think your post shows a kind of "political regression to the mean," by which some Republicans are shedding their traditional conservative principles and becoming just like Trump -- mean.

Projection.

[Lloyd Perna]

How do you know a Nazi when you see one?

Where is this list of Undesirables?  I want to make sure I'm not on it.

Wearing Nazi paraphernalia or espousing Nazi beliefs is a good indicator. I admit there can be a problem of target identification so one shouldn't be too quick to punch.

It's not that hard to find a list of who Nazis intend to murder wholesale.

So Andy Ngo is a nazi?

What about John Blum and Adam Kelly?

[Seriati]

So, by my reckoning, left-wing terrorism would be rooted in (a partial list I cadged from elsewhere) organizations such as communists, socialists, animal rights activists, anti-white racists, LGBT extremists, attackers inspired by Black Lives Matter, and ethnic or national separatists who embrace Socialism.

Don't forget pretty much all violent protests, all suppression of political speakers (or even speakers with an unwelcome message), and antifa.  Or my new personal favorite, leftist prosecutors who refuse to prosecute "low level" crimes (thanks to big money Democrats deciding to "influence" the country by funding these campaigns and then undermining the laws that they can't get changed - ends/means).  Middle and lower class residents terrorized by uncontrolled crime and poverty.

Right Wing terrorists include (a partial list I cadged from elsewhere) white nationalists, neo-Confederates, non-socialist secessionists, anti-communists, fascists, anti-Muslim attackers, anti-immigration extremists, sovereign citizens, bombers who targeted the IRS, militia movements, and abortion clinic bombers.

Big ole list of nonsense.  Most of those have no party they are not right wing, and some are left wing.  The biggest set of fascists in the country are the anti-fa/liberal professor conglomerate.  Just because they brand against it, doesn't mean they aren't living it.  They are huge advocates of central government, thought suppression  and cancel culture generally.

Honestly, the only group there that is legitimately described as right wing were the abortion clinic bombers and they were ruthless suppressed.

[TheDrake]

ADL report for 2018

Since the discussion on the statistically irrelevant shootings won't go away, I'll link to data, not some report I remembered from a while back or an article about it.

It is interesting that the BI article that linked me to it ran with a headline "All of the extremist killings in the US in 2018 had links to right-wing extremism, according to new report".

The report itself says "almost all" including 2% Islamist. Either way, it doesn't tell us who is the most violent, just who is the most lethal - at best.

[TheDeamon]

FWIW, using the epithet "center left state terrorism" only declares your biases, but is a meaningless term. People who commit acts of terrorism always have a reason, cause or agenda, but (by definition, I think) government actions against its own citizens can't be called terrorism.  Once terrorists gain control of a country we usually call their campaigns against the freedoms of the citizenry martial order, civil law enforcement, oppression or go all the way up to genocide, the same names they called what the previous regime had done.

So Hitler's SS and Brownshirts cannot be called terrorists because they operated with the support of the Government? In the case of the SS, they were part of the Government.

[Seriati]

The point of punching Nazis and other fascists isn't about doing violence to people you hate, it's about doing violence to people before they're in a position to do violence to you (which is what they say they're going to do). Some of us are on the list of undesirables and we're not sanguine about waiting until after they start putting us in camps to start fighting back.

I see does that mean you now support the Bush preemptive war doctrine and think Trump was right to take out Iran's spymaster and terrorist planner?  After all that would be a less radical version, since the targets have in fact already done the horrible things, and aren't just "Nazis" because someone wants to punch them.

[TheDeamon]

Violent solutions aren’t not all terrorism. Terrorism specifically involves the use of innocent blood to convey a public relations message.  Roman crucifixions for example conveyed the message that slavery isn’t the worst thing that can happen to you.

So I guess you'd argue that capital punishment is an act of terrorism by the state? Actually that's a dangerous question, because you might answer yes...

The Romans at least made a pretense of not crucifying the innocent. At least for varying definitions of "innocent."

Generally speaking, it was reserved for criminals, or rebels.

Terrorists target more randomly, and in many cases want innocents to be harmed as it helps get those same persons involved in the process, one way or the other.

[TheDrake]

Terrorists target more randomly, and in many cases want innocents to be harmed as it helps get those same persons involved in the process, one way or the other.

That doesn't seem that different from "Shock and Awe" or "kill terrorists families", etc.

[TheDeamon]

The point of punching Nazis and other fascists isn't about doing violence to people you hate, it's about doing violence to people before they're in a position to do violence to you (which is what they say they're going to do). Some of us are on the list of undesirables and we're not sanguine about waiting until after they start putting us in camps to start fighting back.

Too bad it seems to be the Anti-Fa aligned people who seem to want to do things to me, or those around me if only because many of them happen to either support Trump openly, or defend Trump(and others) from the more extreme positions people are staking out.

So does that mean I need to punch an Anti-Fascist? So counter-productive.

[NobleHunter]

I see does that mean you now support the Bush preemptive war doctrine and think Trump was right to take out Iran's spymaster and terrorist planner?  After all that would be a less radical version, since the targets have in fact already done the horrible things, and aren't just "Nazis" because someone wants to punch them.

I am unsurprised you can't tell the difference between American imperialism and resisting oppression.

[TheDeamon]

1.  People who believe the government is on the verge of taking away their guns.

Plenty of high ranking government officials have flat out said they'd love to do this. It's not paranoia when people are telling you they want to do something. 

2. People who believe the government or illuminati is spraying them with dangerous chemicals from aircraft.

This one isn't party specific. Popular portrayals may make it seem like a right-wing thing, but there are plenty of leftists who believe much the same thing, or derivatives thereof. Organic food much? Didn't you know it's to keep you safe from all those chemicals the government(and its corporate overlords) is placing in our food supply man? That's totally counter-culture/left-wing BS. This one hits both sides equally, IMO.

3. People who believe Ukraine is behind the 2016 election interference.

Not what has been claimed. And you're probably being deliberately obtuse about this. Ukraine is demonstrably involved in interference in the 2016 election campaign, only in support of Hillary(against Trump). Ukraine doing something to interfere in an election does nothing to exclude other nations from also engaging in interference of their own.

4.  People who believe the Clintons had Epstein murdered.

What about the people who believe Trump had Epstein murded? Or the ones who think the Brit's had it done to protect Prince Andrew?  Epstein also cuts multiple ways, and seems to have partisan adherents on all sides. Of course, there also is the "deep state" action theory, in that Epstein may have been an intel operative a'la Blacklist type thing.

5. People who believe George Soros funds Christianity Today.
6.  People who believe there are pedophile rings being run out of pizza parlors.

Not touching those ones.

7. People who believe American Nazis are about to start rounding people up and put them into camps.

Considering the wide variability in who is "The American Nazi" in this context, I'm not sure how to even address this. And that says a lot about the state of our politics where Anti-Fa being left-wing makes it evident they claim to believe the Republicans are literal "Nazi's in waiting." While Anti-Fa themselves appear to be the proverbial Nazi's from the view of Center-Right of the American Political Spectrum.

[TheDrake]

Not what has been claimed. And you're probably being deliberately obtuse about this. Ukraine is demonstrably involved in interference in the 2016 election campaign, only in support of Hillary(against Trump). Ukraine doing something to interfere in an election does nothing to exclude other nations from also engaging in interference of their own.

This keeps coming. It is a more specific thing, where people argue that the DNC was hacked by Ukraine and not russia.

We got a Senator on board with this theory.

URL

Sen. John Kennedy said Sunday that despite the U.S. intelligence community's unwavering conclusion that Russia was behind the 2016 theft of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign, he believes it's possible Ukraine was to blame.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace asked Kennedy if he believed Russia or Ukraine was behind the computer hack.

"I don't know, nor do you," Kennedy replied.

Wallace said, "the entire intelligence community says it was Russia."

"Right, but it could also be Ukraine," Kennedy said. "I'm not saying that I know one way or the other."

Unless you think that Russia and the Ukraine hacked the DNC more or less simultaneously, you do have to pick one or the other for this specific action.

[Fenring]

TheDeamon,


I think Grant was including the Nazi thing into that list not to argue the merits or equivalence of any of those in particular, but rather in order to suggest that the notion that any Americans are in active danger from the 'fascists' in question is far-fetched enough to group it among fringe theories and paranoia. Basically "punch a Nazi" is roughly equivalent to "the illuminati is watching me all the time" in terms of what premises you have to believe for the statement to hold any water. I agree that some things on Grant's list are far less ridiculous than others, but I don't think that was really the point. IMO he could have selected more far-fetched theories if I'm interpreting his intent correctly.

[TheDeamon]

I have far more left-leaning people on my social media than right, so I'd be interested to hear if the scenario is proportionately mirrored on the other side. Is it quite normal for you to see regular (as in, daily) messages from right-wingers memeing about punching or doing other violence to these people? "Gotta go punch us some Mexicans!" kind of message? And I mean literally this, and not the sort of innuendo which suggests disliking illegal immigrants and which you might draw the inference that they'd like to round them up. I'm talking about straight-up saying it. If such memeing is mirrored exactly on the right-wing spectrum it wouldn't suprise me, I suppose, but I haven't seen it.

I've seen it in "safe spaces" for the Right or in cesspools like comment sections.

I've been privy to stuff "like that" from right-wing types going back into the early 1990's. Something to keep firmly in mind about most of that right-wing Rhetoric:
They don't "attack first" as their position is more historically American in outlook, Battle of Lexington and Concord(although nobody knows who shot first), The Alamo(although Americans started that war), The Civil War(Fort Sumter), and Pearl Harbor among others. They're waiting for "the Left" to "strike first" in such a blatant manner that they can unleash the dogs of wars and unleash hell on Earth once more. But they're going to allow one solid attack first, before they try to finish it. Which is the other part of the mix: "We won't start it, but we're damned well going to finish it."

While "punch a Nazi" is an "attack first" doctrine.

Edit: on reflection: The "right wing" rhetoric I mention above is probably closer to being capable of being called "Center-Right" in many respects, at least in respect to other "right wing groups" such as actual neo-nazis, white supremacy groups, and some militia groups many of whom are probably more than eager to help start a fight as well, much like their left-wing counter-parts. Of course, I don't consider those groups "ring wing groups" as properly fitting into the Right-Wing of the american spectra, but whatever.

[TheDeamon]

Terrorists target more randomly, and in many cases want innocents to be harmed as it helps get those same persons involved in the process, one way or the other.

That doesn't seem that different from "Shock and Awe" or "kill terrorists families", etc.

Military campaigns are a more diverse discussion topic. It is also goes back to the refrain from another recent discussion (Iran) about "the Unwritten Rules of War" that you won't find in a treaty.

Specifically the matter of not explicitly targeting high ranking government/military officials, but how you would instead target locations of "military value" in their own right, and possibly timing the attack to happen while the ranking official is present.

Counter-Terrorism is another ball of wax when dealing with a terrorist. That's one where you strike when you know where they are, assuming "collateral damage" can be avoided/minimized. So using missiles to blow up a house the terrorist is believed to be in makes it a "military target" due to the nature of how terrorism works.

That the terrorists family is possibly killed in the process, is "collateral damage" as they say. They didn't attack the house to kill the family members(although there are elements of guilt-by-association in their case). They attacked to kill the terrorist, and possibly passed up other chances due to "collateral damage" concerns.

Meanwhile, the terrorist would have attacked to kill their target(such as they had one), and simply not cared about others being harmed. If anything, the terrorist would probably seek out the option to maximize the death toll in general. Which makes a big difference between a military attack and a terrorist one.

[NobleHunter]

I've been privy to stuff "like that" from right-wing types going back into the early 1990's. Something to keep firmly in mind about most of that right-wing Rhetoric:
They don't "attack first" as their position is more historically American in outlook, Battle of Lexington and Concord(although nobody knows who shot first), The Alamo(although Americans started that war), The Civil War(Fort Sumter), and Pearl Harbor among others. They're waiting for "the Left" to "strike first" in such a blatant manner that they can unleash the dogs of wars and unleash hell on Earth once more. But they're going to allow one solid attack first, before they try to finish it. Which is the other part of the mix: "We won't start it, but we're damned well going to finish it."

While "punch a Nazi" is an "attack first" doctrine.

Edit: on reflection: The "right wing" rhetoric I mention above is probably closer to being capable of being called "Center-Right" in many respects, at least in respect to other "right wing groups" such as actual neo-nazis, white supremacy groups, and some militia groups many of whom are probably more than eager to help start a fight as well, much like their left-wing counter-parts. Of course, I don't consider those groups "ring wing groups" as properly fitting into the Right-Wing of the american spectra, but whatever.

As the Warsaw Ghetto how their attempt to "finish it" went.

You need to have a certain kind of privilege in order to wait for the other side to hit first.

[Grant]

Plenty of high ranking government officials have flat out said they'd love to do this. It's not paranoia when people are telling you they want to do something. 

This is basically the exact same thing NH is saying.  There is someone out there saying they want to do this.  Take away your guns.  Put you into a camp. Nazis.  High ranking government officials.  It's always somebody out there.  It doesn't matter how few there are, or how unlikely their plans are to come to fruition, or how much general support these proposals have.  It's always a threat. 

That's why it's dangerous.  You take something small and insignificant and turn it into a threat.  This threat justifies your behavior.  You can do anything when you're threatened.  Anti-fa uses the threat of Nazis to excuse their actions.  Other people use the threat of government officials to excuse their actions.  They divide all of society, all of history, into left vs right.  Us vs them. 

[TheDeamon]

Not what has been claimed. And you're probably being deliberately obtuse about this. Ukraine is demonstrably involved in interference in the 2016 election campaign, only in support of Hillary(against Trump). Ukraine doing something to interfere in an election does nothing to exclude other nations from also engaging in interference of their own.

This keeps coming. It is a more specific thing, where people argue that the DNC was hacked by Ukraine and not russia.

We got a Senator on board with this theory.

URL

Sen. John Kennedy said Sunday that despite the U.S. intelligence community's unwavering conclusion that Russia was behind the 2016 theft of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign, he believes it's possible Ukraine was to blame.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace asked Kennedy if he believed Russia or Ukraine was behind the computer hack.

"I don't know, nor do you," Kennedy replied.

Wallace said, "the entire intelligence community says it was Russia."

"Right, but it could also be Ukraine," Kennedy said. "I'm not saying that I know one way or the other."

Unless you think that Russia and the Ukraine hacked the DNC more or less simultaneously, you do have to pick one or the other for this specific action.

Distraction and deflection.

Do a Google search on Alexandra Chalupa and her activities involving Ukraine in 2016.

[TheDrake]

I've read all about Chalupa and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

[Grant]

I've read all about Chalupa and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

A hill of bean chalupas. 

[TheDrake]

I've read all about Chalupa and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

A hill of bean chalupas.

That's pretty cheesy.

[Kasandra]

1.  People who believe the government is on the verge of taking away their guns.

Plenty of high ranking government officials have flat out said they'd love to do this. It's not paranoia when people are telling you they want to do something.

I assume you can give us some names of people who have done just as you say they did.  If there are "plenty" I would think you could rattle of a goodly number of them.  If you can't, well, ...

The rest of that post of yours is awe-inspiring for the straight faced nonsense you spew.  I'm frankly stunned that you give credence to half of what you say, and not in a good way.

[Pete at Home]

I've been privy to stuff "like that" from right-wing types going back into the early 1990's. Something to keep firmly in mind about most of that right-wing Rhetoric:
They don't "attack first" as their position is more historically American in outlook, Battle of Lexington and Concord(although nobody knows who shot first), The Alamo(although Americans started that war), The Civil War(Fort Sumter), and Pearl Harbor among others. They're waiting for "the Left" to "strike first" in such a blatant manner that they can unleash the dogs of wars and unleash hell on Earth once more. But they're going to allow one solid attack first, before they try to finish it. Which is the other part of the mix: "We won't start it, but we're damned well going to finish it."

While "punch a Nazi" is an "attack first" doctrine.

Edit: on reflection: The "right wing" rhetoric I mention above is probably closer to being capable of being called "Center-Right" in many respects, at least in respect to other "right wing groups" such as actual neo-nazis, white supremacy groups, and some militia groups many of whom are probably more than eager to help start a fight as well, much like their left-wing counter-parts. Of course, I don't consider those groups "ring wing groups" as properly fitting into the Right-Wing of the american spectra, but whatever.

As the Warsaw Ghetto how their attempt to "finish it" went.

You need to have a certain kind of privilege in order to wait for the other side to hit first.

In Chess, white meanest you strike first and black means you wait for the other side to act first

[TheDrake]

Look, the whole gun grab comes down to whether you are talking about some guns or all guns. Plenty of high ranking officials have talked about making certain kinds of guns illegal. Plenty have talked about denying access for certain kinds of people. As far as I know, none of them advocate for removing all guns from all private citizens.

[Kasandra]

Then why, pray tell, was Obama working with the UN secretly to ban all guns from the US? 

[Grant]

Plenty of high ranking officials

I will personally burn a Marie Laveau Black Arts voodoo candle on the next *censored*ing Ornerian who writes "high ranking officials" on here.  This is not the Soviet Union or the New York Times.  Do not talk to me about "high ranking government officials".  That's reporter BS speak for "some jackass who is my anonymous source and is a meter-maid for the Capitol Police but I can't tell you that".   Do not test me. 

https://www.hexwitch.com/hex-black-arts-marie-laveaus-new-orleans-voodoo-sp.html

[Seriati]

I see does that mean you now support the Bush preemptive war doctrine and think Trump was right to take out Iran's spymaster and terrorist planner?  After all that would be a less radical version, since the targets have in fact already done the horrible things, and aren't just "Nazis" because someone wants to punch them.

I am unsurprised you can't tell the difference between American imperialism and resisting oppression.

The irony in your post is amazing.

[TheDeamon]

Edit: on reflection: The "right wing" rhetoric I mention above is probably closer to being capable of being called "Center-Right" in many respects, at least in respect to other "right wing groups" such as actual neo-nazis, white supremacy groups, and some militia groups many of whom are probably more than eager to help start a fight as well, much like their left-wing counter-parts. Of course, I don't consider those groups "ring wing groups" as properly fitting into the Right-Wing of the american spectra, but whatever.

As the Warsaw Ghetto how their attempt to "finish it" went.

You need to have a certain kind of privilege in order to wait for the other side to hit first.

Welcome to America, and it isn't a "White Privilege" item either. I know plenty of minorities who are veterans who are of a comparable mindset. The Vets are probably the biggest cadre of people with that kind of mindset. But there are plenty of others as well.

We have a history of taking "big hits" and getting back up and continuing on to victory despite early losses. It's also trained into the service members, which is part of why the Veterans are such a big contingent for that, they've been trained to think that way--once an attack has been made, adapt and respond. Preferably by going Patton on the other guy -- make them die for their cause, rather than the opposite.

It may be wishful thinking on their part, that they'd be able to achieve anything assuming they weren't removed "in the first round" as it were. Doesn't mean they won't try. Also, the Warsaw Ghetto didn't have a large population trained in unconventional warfare, or access to a lot of other tools that exist now. If the Poles had access to the information superhighway(in particular the Anarchists Cookbook) before the Germans invaded, things might have been a bit different. Or maybe they wouldn't have been.

The bigger difference is we're talking a United States Civil War 2.0 in this scenario, not Poland vs Germany. The Civilian Population has a lot of firearms in their possession. Also a Civil War v2.0 scenario throws all kinds of things on the proverbial skids for the Military and many of other portions of the Government, without specifics it's all a wild shot in the dark because of how many variables there are in the mix with respect to the "Citizen Soldier."

[Kasandra]

Plenty of high ranking officials

I will personally burn a Marie Laveau Black Arts voodoo candle on the next *censored*ing Ornerian who writes "high ranking officials" on here.  This is not the Soviet Union or the New York Times.  Do not talk to me about "high ranking government officials".  That's reporter BS speak for "some jackass who is my anonymous source and is a meter-maid for the Capitol Police but I can't tell you that".   Do not test me. 

https://www.hexwitch.com/hex-black-arts-marie-laveaus-new-orleans-voodoo-sp.html

High ranking officials.  I say HIGH RANKING OFFICIALS!  PM me and I'll let you know the email address to send it to.

[Seriati]

While "punch a Nazi" is an "attack first" doctrine.

It's more than an attack first doctrine.  An attack first doctrine would be what they teach at rape protection classes, you see the man reaching out - jab him in the nose, the throat or the balls.  You may be wrong and have just committed assault, but if you let him get a hold of you it's largely over.  It's a reaction to an actual threat without waiting for punch to land, but it's not walking into a cafe and taking down every man there just cause they are men and you're acting before they act.

Punch a Nazi is a suppression of dissent doctrine.  You label someone, whether or not they are any kind of  threat, as a "Nazi" and low and behold you are now authorized to beat them all day, every day, no matter what they are doing.  It's a status definition.  In effect, their existence is illegal and you have the moral authority to attack them without mercy in all contexts at any time without regard to any actual threat.  There is no circumstance where these people believe they are morally wrong to attack the person labelled "Nazi" - how could there be, that person is an eminent threat.

That is very different than a strike on Iranians that have been directly involved in terrorism and that are continuing to organize terrorism.  An equivalent would be an actual Nazi from a German prison camp, not some poseur in a Nazi uniform that mostly just wants to act tough and spew hate.   The equivalent to "punch a Nazi" would be if someone determined they were entitled to murder all Americans of Iranian descent because they have the status of Iranian and that is by definition a threat.  You can find some moron somewhere that will say that's a good idea, but no serious number of people in this country would agree or allow it to happen, in fact, we go far far out the other side to prove we don't hold people accountable for crimes of people that just happen to look similar.

[TheDrake]

It depends on what you mean by Iranian. Coming from Iranian descent? Waving Iranian flags around shouting death to America? Being a "nazi" or white supremacist is a choice, and more like the latter.

[NobleHunter]

I love that the reaction to "make sure the person you're punching is really a Nazi" is "you're going to label everyone you dislike a Nazi." Especially from someone who seems to be okay with invading a country and then calling anyone who resists a terrorist.

[Seriati]

It depends on what you mean by Iranian. Coming from Iranian descent? Waving Iranian flags around shouting death to America?

I meant to use an example to make the point clearer.  I don't mean anything by Iranian.

Being a "nazi" or white supremacist is a choice, and more like the latter.

I disagree.  Being  labelled a "Nazi" by antifa is not a choice, well other than a choice to have some political opinion that they decide they hate or see as possibly something that what they view as a Nazi might agree with.  Punching a Nazi is way beyond punching a self identified Nazi.

I love that the reaction to "make sure the person you're punching is really a Nazi" is "you're going to label everyone you dislike a Nazi." Especially from someone who seems to be okay with invading a country and then calling anyone who resists a terrorist.

NH cause that's what they do.  The media/DNC label everyone with whom they disagree on anything as someone from a category it's okay to punch.  Every Republican is a "racist" is engaged in a "War on women" and is trying to "take away" your health care and hates everyone in the whole LGBTQ spectrum.  It's all a great big lie.  Designed to make you feel entitled to just fight them on everything no matter how reasonable cause they are by definition evil and okay to punch.

As far as your latter point, is pretty much just a libel.  There's nothing out there written or expressed by me that justifies it.

Iran sponsors terrorism.  That's a fact.  We didn't invade Iran.  That's a fact.  There's nothing about the current situation that justifies your mealy mouthed implication that we are wrongly labeling Soleilman as a terrorist because he's defending his country that we've wrongfully invaded.

[NobleHunter]

Antifa is not the DNC or the Media. You might want to recognize that not everyone on the "Left" is engaged in a monolithic conspiracy to take down the GOP. You are aware antifa predates Trump, right?

You shouldn't have brought up Bush next to assassinating Soleiman if you didn't want associations made between them.

[Fenring]

Antifa is not the DNC or the Media. You might want to recognize that not everyone on the "Left" is engaged in a monolithic conspiracy to take down the GOP. You are aware antifa predates Trump, right?

Although Antifa gets mentioned here more often than it probably actually appears IRL, the argument being made isn't about violence outright but about violence-endorsing ideology. So although Antifa can be included in that discussion I think it's a mistake to restrict it to Antifa. The difficulty with a radical group isn't when it's an isolated island with no support, but when many people generally hold with their belief even if not with their extremism. The underlying belief system - which does include punch a Nazi - is not an Antifa one but quite widespread. And I think punch a Nazi is probably only one step removed from 'Republicans are all racists', which in turn is probably only one step removed from 'unfriend me now if you support slavery or Trump.' These examples are not all the same song but do have a similar tune.

[Kasandra]

Antifa is not the DNC or the Media. You might want to recognize that not everyone on the "Left" is engaged in a monolithic conspiracy to take down the GOP. You are aware antifa predates Trump, right?

You shouldn't have brought up Bush next to assassinating Soleiman if you didn't want associations made between them.

It's a variation on the usual black-vs-white or my-team-vs-your-team thinking that I find myself arguing against way more on Ornery than should be necessary.  If I go back over the last few months since I returned here, it's interesting how many posts correct blanket misstatements and fringeworthy condemnations of democrats, "the left" and liberals.  And how pointless the effort usually is. It's almost as if those terms are synonyms for the lock-step "state" and those in government or the media who oppose them are "free" to be natural people with minds of their own.  As if.

[Kasandra]

Antifa is not the DNC or the Media. You might want to recognize that not everyone on the "Left" is engaged in a monolithic conspiracy to take down the GOP. You are aware antifa predates Trump, right?

Although Antifa gets mentioned here more often than it probably actually appears IRL, the argument being made isn't about violence outright but about violence-endorsing ideology. So although Antifa can be included in that discussion I think it's a mistake to restrict it to Antifa. The difficulty with a radical group isn't when it's an isolated island with no support, but when many people generally hold with their belief even if not with their extremism. The underlying belief system - which does include punch a Nazi - is not an Antifa one but quite widespread. And I think punch a Nazi is probably only one step removed from 'Republicans are all racists', which in turn is probably only one step removed from 'unfriend me now if you support slavery or Trump.' These examples are not all the same song but do have a similar tune.

Can you think of a right wing group to which you would attach such a mindless adherence to violent tendencies?

[Fenring]

Can you think of a right wing group to which you would attach such a mindless adherence to violent tendencies?

Yeah, most of the Republicans who ran in 2016. Carpet bombing indeed.

But like I said, I'm not sure there's an equivalency in ordinary day-to-day social media interactions (like 'punch a tree hugger') although that may be due my being exposed to more left-leaning people than right. But if I was going to try to draw a distinction between the right and the left in America, it seems to me that the left prefers to look for people to hate within America, whereas the right prefers to look for enemies to **ck up abroad. Foreigners, basically. I wouldn't dare to suggest which is more problematic, as each type of desire to hurt will carry with it its own set of problems.

[TheDrake]

NH cause that's what they do.  The media/DNC label everyone with whom they disagree on anything as someone from a category it's okay to punch.  Every Republican is a "racist" is engaged in a "War on women" and is trying to "take away" your health care and hates everyone in the whole LGBTQ spectrum.  It's all a great big lie.  Designed to make you feel entitled to just fight them on everything no matter how reasonable cause they are by definition evil and okay to punch.

I'd love to see you try to demonstrate widespread endorsement of physical violence by the media and the DNC.

[Lloyd Perna]

Kyle Jurek, a Bernie Sanders Field Organizer has this to say:

"Do you even think, that some of these, like, MAGA people could be "re-educated?" asks the Veritas journalist

"We gotta try, so like, in Nazi Germany after the fall of the Nazi party, there was a *censored*-ton of the populace that was *censored*ing Nazi-fied," said field organizer Kyle Jurek.

"Germany had to spend billions of dollars re-educating their *censored*ing people to not be nazis. Like, we're probably going to have to do the same thing here," he added. "That's kind of what all Bernie's whole *censored*ing like "Hey, free education for everybody - because we're going to have to teach you not to be a *censored*ing Nazi""

"there's a reason Joseph Stalin had gulags," adding "And actually, gulags were a lot better than what the CIA has told us that they were. Like, people were actually paid a living wage in gulags, they had conjugal visits in gulags, gulags were actually meant for like re-education."

“[The] greatest way to break a *censored*ing billionaire of their privilege and their idea that their superior, go and break rocks for 12 hours a day. You’re now a working class person and you’re going to *censored*ing learn what the means, right?”

[TheDrake]

That's a nice random anecdote, Lloyd, about a union field organizer in Oakland ambushed by the infamous O'Keefe, maker of many deceptively edited videos. O'Keefe must have moved fast, the Oakland campaign office just got announced yesterday.

His statements are obviously over the top and ridiculous.

[Lloyd Perna]

I think it illustrates the point that many on the left are very comfortable equating "MAGA people" with Nazi's.  I live in Massachusetts, this type of thinking is all over my facebook feed.

[DonaldD]

In a country of 350 million, and with probably hundreds of thousands actively looking for "bad things the other team has said", I find it unsurprising that one's Facebook feed is filled with things that make one angry.  It's basically Facebook's whole business case right now.

[Seriati]

In a country of 350 million, and with probably hundreds of thousands actively looking for "bad things the other team has said", I find it unsurprising that one's Facebook feed is filled with things that make one angry.  It's basically Facebook's whole business case right now.

When it's bad behavior from the left, "Wink, Nod."  All sides are guilty, they are just random outliers, everyone's FB feed being filled with leftist hate is just anecdotes not evidence, punching "up" is different.

[Fenring]

punching "up" is different.

All the other parts of this debate aside, I have to confess that I have a bit of a pet peeve of "punching up" when it's used as a motte and bailey; oh we didn't really mean that, it's just fighting oppression.

[DonaldD]

When it's bad behavior from the left, "Wink, Nod."

For the past year or two, Ornery has become an echo chamber for people with specific persecution complexes and tendencies toward building specific straw men.

[Kasandra]

When it's bad behavior from the left, "Wink, Nod."

For the past year or two, Ornery has become an echo chamber for people with specific persecution complexes and tendencies toward building specific straw men.

It wasn't completely different before that, but my sense is that a majority of the members I have found missing since I returned were those somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.  A small number who remain are almost immune to rebuttals and even redefine terminology to fit their point of view.  I'll be leaving soon again and will come back in another year or so to see if they're the only ones left (I mean right, of course).

[Grant]

For the past year or two, Ornery has become an echo chamber for people with specific persecution complexes and tendencies toward building specific straw men.

I'm going to have to push back on that.  Ornery is probably the least echo chamberish place I see on the internet.  You can't say that water is wet without somebody writing an essay on 1)Water is not wet, 2)wet doesn't objectively exist, 3)depends on the temperature of the water, or 4)there is no spoon.  There is no single political or philosophical POV in primacy here.  This place is about as eclectic as it can get, as long as I'm here.  Whenever I leave, however, the quality of writing and argumentation degrades horribly. 

On the other hand, there seems to be some source of echo chamberish thought going on within particular subsets.  It's not necessarily going on HERE, or ANYWHERE in particular.  The overriding tune of the piper is "the other side is wrong, the other side is bad, the other side is out to get me or get somebody, and we're 2 minutes to midnight from a crisis that will dwarf all other crises".  The echo chamber is American political discourse and involvement.  From citizens to politicians to media to intellectuals to family to friends to workplace and especially the internet.  The great conversation has become the great crusade/inquisition.