ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Yesterday, 03:12 PM   #1761
mgidm86
Master Poster
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,853
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Untrue, unfair, and a blatant strawman. I assert outright that the measures they took were likely in preparation for being attacked by the marchers, as Trump supporters are known to be violent towards those with whom they disagree.
Bull.

Well, judging from past protests (like the one this thread is based on) I would say that the anti-Trumpers are far more likely to be violent than the Trump supporters.

Masked anti-Trumpers used pepper spray and carried baseball bats to the Berkeley riot, as well as other events. Some of these people want violence so that they can show everyone how bad Trump supporters are.

If others out there feel the same way you do about violence then it's really not surprising is it?

Last edited by mgidm86; Yesterday at 03:13 PM.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:43 PM   #1762
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,229
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You wrote "forming a human wall." And then claimed that the Pro-Trump marchers "closed in on them."

Meaning, of course, the "human wall" which they had constructed. That is what we call the "they were coming right for me!" defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU
Getting a little slippery with the quoting. I wrote 'the protesters claimed they were forming a human wall.' The full quote from varwoche's link:

Quote:
Counter-protesters said before the march began that they planned to try to stop the march's progress with a "human wall."
They evidently had not done so, as seen in the videos and photos. But even so, is joining hands to form a human wall not a legitimate form of protest? Is a sit-in then also 'asking for it'? More to the point, there were 20-30 counter protesters, and two thousand or so marchers. They could literally walk around a human wall so small, even if it had been formed. By 'closing in', I obviously refer to the violence that the Trump supporters demonstrably instigated: in case you missed it, pro-Trumps attacked the media for the opening move.
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:47 PM   #1763
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,229
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Bull.

Well, judging from past protests (like the one this thread is based on) I would say that the anti-Trumpers are far more likely to be violent than the Trump supporters.

Masked anti-Trumpers used pepper spray and carried baseball bats to the Berkeley riot, as well as other events. Some of these people want violence so that they can show everyone how bad Trump supporters are.
I would disagree that the masked crew was specifically anti-Trumpers. From your OP article:

Quote:
The protest turned violent around 6 p.m. when dozens of masked anarchists, dressed in black and wearing backpacks, emerged from the otherwise peaceful crowd.
Sounds like the actual protesters were peaceful, and the hell-raisers had assimilated into them. From another article covering Berkeley (linked below):

Quote:
“We had a controlled environment up until the moment when the black bloc arrived,” Bennett said. Black bloc protesters, who dress in all black and keep their faces covered with bandannas, have become a fixture of Bay Area demonstrations in the past decade, particularly in Oakland. They tend to attach themselves to peaceful protests before breaking out to start shattering windows and vandalizing property.
I think the posters here who assume the Berkeley rioters were anti-Milo/Trump have it all wrong. They may be anti-Trump, but they are just as anti-Clinton (a corporatist) They...just...want...to...bust...****...up.


Quote:
If others out there feel the same way you do about violence then it's really not surprising is it?
The way I feel about violence? You mean how I avoid it, and do not use it against others? Or do you mean how I don't buy into the canned narrative that the poor 'lil Trump supporters are being beaten up on by the bad ol' Left? Don't forget, the Orange County 'scuffle' was reported to have been started by pro-Trumpers attacking the media.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...201-story.html
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:15 PM   #1764
Jules Galen
Illuminator
 
Jules Galen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Who gets to decide when specific words mean you're guilty of the other guy punching you out?
If you purposevely contribute to violence through words, the you can not wholly claim self defense.

For example, if some guy where I live walks up to a huge bike and starts bad-mouthing his mother, and then a fight begins where Biker is "shot in self defense", then guy who shot the Biker can't really claim "self defense" and hope to get away with it.

I mean, if you let this kind of baloney slide (i.e, read above), then you set up situations where someone can provoke another attack with the sole purpose of killing them in self defense.

For this reason, I was very upset at the charges that were pressed against George Zimmerman, considering he did everything he could to provoke Trayvon to attack....and then killed Trayvon in "self defense".
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:23 PM   #1765
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,785
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
. But even so, is joining hands to form a human wall not a legitimate form of protest?
Legitimate? What an interesting question. As if some sorts of protest could be legitimate, while others not.

On the other hand, there's the question of legality. Generally, forming a barrier and preventing people from using public space would be illegal. The right to peaceably assemble is guaranteed in the constitution, but by forming a human chain to restrict movement, they've moved beyond peaceable, into the realm of physical force. The Trump supporters themselves would probably need a permit, or they would be, at the very least, required to allow free access to the areas on which they were assembling.

I'm sure there is a lot of case law deciding when a group can or cannot get together in public spaces, but my guess is that any action which deliberately blocks either vehicle or foot traffic would be illegal. Any action where such restriction would be an inevitable consequence, i.e. because you are having a horde of marchers in the street and they will block traffic due to the sheer number of people, will require a permit.


Quote:
Is a sit-in then also 'asking for it'?
Uhhh....yeah. Is this a trick question? Most sit ins are illegal. They are generally conducted on someone else's property. The point of them is generally to do something that forces someone to either take you seriously, possibly giving in to your demands, or arrest you, creating really bad publicity.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:58 PM   #1766
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Could you clarify this? It could mean a couple different things (or nothing at all).
If the anti-fascist protesters wouldn't be there, would that stop the fascists from being violent? No. If the fascists wouldn't be there, would that stop the anti-fascists from being violent? Yes. Heck, would that stop the anti-fascists from even showing up in the first place? Yes.

You presenting this as a brawl likely whenever the "two sides meet" ignores that the presence of the other side is only a decisive factor for one side.

Quote:
Yes, but the expose` was mostly posting the personal information of individuals, exactly the kind of thing the good guys tend not to do.
Apparently there was some comparative propaganda film study which found that US films portrayed the Soviets as the "bad guys" and themselves as the "good guys" whereas Soviet films portrayed Americans as naive and misled by their leaders.

Quote:
Protesting and demonstrating for ideology is one thing
Which ideology exactly are we talking about here?

Quote:
and posting the equivalent of online Wanted Posters is another
What equivalent of online wanted posters?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:53 PM   #1767
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,229
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Legitimate? What an interesting question. As if some sorts of protest could be legitimate, while others not.
Of course some could be legitimate and others not. Why does this seem odd? For example, if someone robbed a marijuana dispensary claiming that they were protesting a gasoline tax, I would opine that that was not a legitimate form of protest.

Quote:
On the other hand, there's the question of legality.
The primary definition of 'legitimate' (linked below) is: according to law; lawful. Isn't it odd that you make such a strong distinction between that and 'legality'?

Quote:
Generally, forming a barrier and preventing people from using public space would be illegal. The right to peaceably assemble is guaranteed in the constitution, but by forming a human chain to restrict movement, they've moved beyond peaceable, into the realm of physical force. The Trump supporters themselves would probably need a permit, or they would be, at the very least, required to allow free access to the areas on which they were assembling.
I'm sure there is a lot of case law deciding when a group can or cannot get together in public spaces, but my guess is that any action which deliberately blocks either vehicle or foot traffic would be illegal. Any action where such restriction would be an inevitable consequence, i.e. because you are having a horde of marchers in the street and they will block traffic due to the sheer number of people, will require a permit.
In an article linked below, Berkeley students form a human wall to prevent only white students access to a bridge leading to campus, forcing many to hop from rock to rock across a stream to cross. In the included video, you may note that police were on scene throughout. While I am not familiar with Cali law, it would seem that restricting freedom of movement as a form of protest is in perfectly legal...even in this case where it was racially motivated (although the protesters were in fact protesting which floor their groups 'safe space' was on. You can't make this stuff up).

Quote:
Uhhh....yeah. Is this a trick question? Most sit ins are illegal. They are generally conducted on someone else's property. The point of them is generally to do something that forces someone to either take you seriously, possibly giving in to your demands, or arrest you, creating really bad publicity.
Not a trick question, but I think you missed it's point. TBD said you cannot claim self-defense if you are attacked when you have knowingly exposed yourself to a 'threat'. I disagree with this, and a sit-in serves as a good illustration: just because you engage in protest, it does not give others the right to assault you or negate your ability to claim self-defense against an assault.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/legitimate

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/26/vi...rs-built-a-hum
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:20 AM   #1768
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,229
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If the anti-fascist protesters wouldn't be there, would that stop the fascists from being violent? No. If the fascists wouldn't be there, would that stop the anti-fascists from being violent? Yes. Heck, would that stop the anti-fascists from even showing up in the first place? Yes.

You presenting this as a brawl likely whenever the "two sides meet" ignores that the presence of the other side is only a decisive factor for one side.
I disagree that those who you call the anti-fascists would stop being violent. I think they would develop a more serious concern with the corporatist Left. Or the apathetic Center. Or the paperboy.

Quote:
Apparently there was some comparative propaganda film study which found that US films portrayed the Soviets as the "bad guys" and themselves as the "good guys" whereas Soviet films portrayed Americans as naive and misled by their leaders.
...uh...good to know...

Quote:
Which ideology exactly are we talking about here?
In context, pretty much any.

Quote:
What equivalent of online wanted posters?
If you forgot, please reread. If you are playing that weird game where you feign having no idea what is being discussed, then nevermind.
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:41 AM   #1769
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I disagree that those who you call the anti-fascists would stop being violent.
Your disagreement is meaningless. If, on the other hand, you have evidence then feel free to share it.

Quote:
...uh...good to know...
And hence so much for empty appeals to what purportedly "good guys" would do - if even the official Soviet propaganda machine can beat you on that kind of "argument" then that is quite telling as to its strength.

Quote:
In context, pretty much any.
In context there is so far only fascism. Feel free to point out these "pretty much any" ideologies for which was purportedly being protested.

Quote:
If you forgot, please reread.
I didn't forget, I'm calling BS on it.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:10 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.