Someone says “you (insert arbitrary outgroup) should not exist/be here” is not violent? They say it repeatedly and organize events around this to spread the mindset and you call it not violent? They should be allowed to express their opinion until it becomes tangible and problematic for said outgroup?
…naaah man, fuck that…
Also that twat called for it, wtf is wrong with those nutjobs. From the article:
As a crowd gathered behind him, he said: ‘All of you who throw water are cowards. You don’t actually want to fight for what you believe in.’
One responded: ‘I’ll fight you, b****’, before telling Moffitt to get a job.
Has quite some “guns are no problem, prove me wrong” and getting shot vibes.
They should be allowed to express their opinion until it becomes tangible and problematic for said outgroup?
Yes. Exactly. That is the fundamental basis of a free society and the legal system. The line is drawn at tangible actions and imminent threats.
You do not get to physically assault people based on hypothetical future crimes you imagine their words might lead to. Using physical violence to punish someone preemptively before anything “tangible” has actually happened isn’t justice. Redefining offensive speech as “violence” is just a rhetorical cheat code you are using to grant yourself permission to throw the first punch.
Also that twat called for it… As a crowd gathered behind him, he said: “All of you who throw water are cowards.”
“Fight for what you believe in” is arguably the most common idiom in all of political activism. When labor unions say “fight for your rights,” or progressive activists say “fight for climate justice,” they aren’t asking for a literal fistfight. You know exactly what that phrase means.
Deliberately misinterpreting a standard political metaphor as an invitation to a physical brawl is the definition of arguing in bad faith.
Furthermore, throwing liquid on someone is legally physical battery. The mob had already started the physical altercation. He was calling them cowards because they were hiding in a crowd throwing things at a single person instead of actually defending their beliefs with their words.
Your entire argument boils down to intentionally twisting a common figure of speech so you can fall back on the classic abuser’s defense: “Look at what he was saying, he was asking for it.”
I see your point about my argument being lacking. There is a reason I dont like such discussions, I am not very good at or patient enough for them.
But, I also just disagree with the sentiment of basically unconditional “free speech”. If there is clear bad faith behind there gotta be consequences, not just waiting for the law. And yes, before you write another wall, I also agree this is a problematic line of thinking
Actually, he was entirely right about them. He accurately pointed out that they were too cowardly to do the actual, hard work required to fight for their beliefs through the democratic process.
Throwing fists from the safety of a mob is a lazy shortcut for weak people who can’t win an argument. They aren’t heroes defending society. They are just violent, lazy thugs who earned their jail cells.
They should be allowed to express their opinion until it becomes tangible and problematic for said outgroup?
Yes. Exactly. That is the fundamental basis of a free society and the legal system. The line is drawn at tangible actions and imminent threats.
Wow, imagine being the person arguing that groups like the Nazis should be allowed into power and killing others before it’s time to fight back.
“Ah yes, let’s let these people who want to kill and exterminate others lie their way into being able to control all the resources of the government and of course the military before we try to fight back”.
You’re either a massive idiot useful to such people at best, or you’re arguing in bad faith hoping you’ll be in the in-group so you can kill those you hate on uneven ground as a coward at worst.
Someone says “you (insert arbitrary outgroup) should not exist/be here” is not violent? They say it repeatedly and organize events around this to spread the mindset and you call it not violent? They should be allowed to express their opinion until it becomes tangible and problematic for said outgroup?
…naaah man, fuck that…
Also that twat called for it, wtf is wrong with those nutjobs. From the article:
Has quite some “guns are no problem, prove me wrong” and getting shot vibes.
Yes. Exactly. That is the fundamental basis of a free society and the legal system. The line is drawn at tangible actions and imminent threats.
You do not get to physically assault people based on hypothetical future crimes you imagine their words might lead to. Using physical violence to punish someone preemptively before anything “tangible” has actually happened isn’t justice. Redefining offensive speech as “violence” is just a rhetorical cheat code you are using to grant yourself permission to throw the first punch.
“Fight for what you believe in” is arguably the most common idiom in all of political activism. When labor unions say “fight for your rights,” or progressive activists say “fight for climate justice,” they aren’t asking for a literal fistfight. You know exactly what that phrase means.
Deliberately misinterpreting a standard political metaphor as an invitation to a physical brawl is the definition of arguing in bad faith.
Furthermore, throwing liquid on someone is legally physical battery. The mob had already started the physical altercation. He was calling them cowards because they were hiding in a crowd throwing things at a single person instead of actually defending their beliefs with their words.
Your entire argument boils down to intentionally twisting a common figure of speech so you can fall back on the classic abuser’s defense: “Look at what he was saying, he was asking for it.”
I see your point about my argument being lacking. There is a reason I dont like such discussions, I am not very good at or patient enough for them.
But, I also just disagree with the sentiment of basically unconditional “free speech”. If there is clear bad faith behind there gotta be consequences, not just waiting for the law. And yes, before you write another wall, I also agree this is a problematic line of thinking
He was asking for exactly what he got.
Actually, he was entirely right about them. He accurately pointed out that they were too cowardly to do the actual, hard work required to fight for their beliefs through the democratic process.
Throwing fists from the safety of a mob is a lazy shortcut for weak people who can’t win an argument. They aren’t heroes defending society. They are just violent, lazy thugs who earned their jail cells.
Wow, imagine being the person arguing that groups like the Nazis should be allowed into power and killing others before it’s time to fight back.
“Ah yes, let’s let these people who want to kill and exterminate others lie their way into being able to control all the resources of the government and of course the military before we try to fight back”.
You’re either a massive idiot useful to such people at best, or you’re arguing in bad faith hoping you’ll be in the in-group so you can kill those you hate on uneven ground as a coward at worst.