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 20th March 2017, 08:53 PM   #1681
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,065
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
With respect to this restatement...

1) What do you think constitutes street-fighting?
I have no unusual interpretation. Fighting...on the street. As opposed to, say, in a ring.

Quote:
2) Do you think that someone using words alone and expressing an opinion is considered "provoking" to an extent that you believe justifies using violence against them?
Yes they can. The concept of 'fighting words' sums it up pretty well, although I probably endorse a broader interpretation than the courts. From Wikipedia:

Quote:
Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target...It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.
An important distinction: upthread, poster theprestige is quoted as musing about whether fascism should be revisited. His (I assume male) posting is thoughtful and rational, clearly not inciting or fighting words. Neo-nazis like Richard Spencer are IMHO absolutely trying to provoke hatred and violence, and when they succeed, they cannot don the martyr's mantle.

Does that make my position any clearer?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
Thermal 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 20th March 2017, 10:23 PM   #1682
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,224
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Something I found that applies to this discussion, a quote from actual anarchists:

"Instead of attacking impersonal symbols of justice, we think that it is very important to transpose our hostilities to the personal environment of the enemy, their homes, offices, hangouts and vehicles. We know that to authority ”nobody is irreplaceable” but we also know that a personal hit against one of them would instill fear in another 100. "

https://insurrectionnewsworldwide.co...open-proposal/

Hooboy! Doesn't that just make you ache to live in a world of their creation?
Ah, the nice people of the CCF. So what is the problem this time?
caveman1917 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 21st March 2017, 04:26 AM   #1683
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,586
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Ah, the nice people of the CCF. So what is the problem this time?
What's the problem with using fear and intimidation to get your way?

You tell me. Is it a problem?
Mycroft 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 21st March 2017, 05:04 AM   #1684
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,224
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
What's the problem with using fear and intimidation to get your way?
You mean the state?

Quote:
You tell me.
No, feel free to go ahead. And let's remember that your claims about my "disciplinary history" concern just me calling you a fascist (as opposed to your peculiarly still-unsupported other claims regarding it) over the issue of Israel. Just as a quick comparison here, the CCF has over 9 years injured one person in what you call "using fear and intimidation to get your way" whereas I think you'll find the Israeli state to have killed numerous people over 9 years on the same basis.

Quote:
Is it a problem?
Well, clearly not to you or anyone else who supports a state, let alone the Israeli one, for starters. The real question is: why is it suddenly a problem now, especially when having obviously OOM less impact?

Last edited by caveman1917; 21st March 2017 at 05:07 AM.
caveman1917 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 21st March 2017, 07:41 AM   #1685
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,586
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You mean the state?
No, but how clever of you to turn our paradigms inside out and reveal this unique and surprising alternative perspective!

Oh wait, did I say clever? I meant tedious.

It's also a tu quoque argument.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No, feel free to go ahead.
Go ahead and what?


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Just as a quick comparison here, the CCF has over 9 years injured one person in what you call "using fear and intimidation to get your way" whereas I think you'll find the Israeli state to have killed numerous people over 9 years on the same basis.
And comes the obligatory knee jerk tu quoque deflection.

Do you receive training in that? Does someone tell you that you're never to discuss criticism of your methods and ideology, but always instead to turn that criticism to something else?



Well, clearly not to you or anyone else who supports a state, let alone the Israeli one, for starters. The real question is: why is it suddenly a problem now, especially when having obviously OOM less impact?[/quote]
Mycroft 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 21st March 2017, 07:53 AM   #1686
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Well, clearly not to you or anyone else who supports a state, let alone the Israeli one, for starters.
Who here is surprised by caveman's need to inject his hatred for Israel into unrelated conversations?

Nobody? That's what I thought.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 21st March 2017, 09:48 AM   #1687
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,529
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I have no unusual interpretation. Fighting...on the street. As opposed to, say, in a ring.



Yes they can. The concept of 'fighting words' sums it up pretty well, although I probably endorse a broader interpretation than the courts. From Wikipedia:



An important distinction: upthread, poster theprestige is quoted as musing about whether fascism should be revisited. His (I assume male) posting is thoughtful and rational, clearly not inciting or fighting words. Neo-nazis like Richard Spencer are IMHO absolutely trying to provoke hatred and violence, and when they succeed, they cannot don the martyr's mantle.

Does that make my position any clearer?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
It seems to me that Richard Spencer has taken great pains to voice his opinions in a legal, peaceable fashion that avoids incitement. You are condoning violence against him not because he has actually incited violence, but because you believe his ideas give you license to indulge in violence against him.

Do you disagree? Cite one occasion on which you believe Spencer has incited violence. Don't cite his beliefs generally: Cite a specific time and place where he uttered speech or otherwise expressed his ideas in a way that you believe was clearly inciteful.

Last edited by theprestige; 21st March 2017 at 09:50 AM.
theprestige 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 21st March 2017, 11:00 AM   #1688
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,358
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It seems to me that Richard Spencer has taken great pains to voice his opinions in a legal, peaceable fashion that avoids incitement. You are condoning violence against him not because he has actually incited violence, but because you believe his ideas give you license to indulge in violence against him.

Do you disagree? Cite one occasion on which you believe Spencer has incited violence. Don't cite his beliefs generally: Cite a specific time and place where he uttered speech or otherwise expressed his ideas in a way that you believe was clearly inciteful.
His very being is an heretical affront to the emperor of mankind. By the virtue of him being what he is he is an enemy to the imperium of mankind and must be held accountable for his heresy.

Just saving you the time of waiting for a reply.
sadhatter 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 21st March 2017, 12:35 PM   #1689
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,651
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It seems to me that Richard Spencer has taken great pains to voice his opinions in a legal, peaceable fashion that avoids incitement. You are condoning violence against him not because he has actually incited violence, but because you believe his ideas give you license to indulge in violence against him.

Do you disagree? Cite one occasion on which you believe Spencer has incited violence. Don't cite his beliefs generally: Cite a specific time and place where he uttered speech or otherwise expressed his ideas in a way that you believe was clearly inciteful.
Spencer is generally very careful to avoid fighting words or inflammatory language, that does not make the crap he is peddling any more acceptable.
Problem is that Spencer's ideas have violence inherent in them;violence has to be employed in carrying them out.
Look, I think Spencer has a right to spout his garbage but let's not try to portray him as some sort of reasonable man. He is still a reprehensible bigot.
Or do you find reprehensible bigots acceptable so long as they irritate the "Progs"...
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 21st March 2017, 01:18 PM   #1690
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,933
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Spencer is generally very careful to avoid fighting words or inflammatory language, that does not make the crap he is peddling any more acceptable.
Problem is that Spencer's ideas have violence inherent in them;violence has to be employed in carrying them out.
Look, I think Spencer has a right to spout his garbage but let's not try to portray him as some sort of reasonable man. He is still a reprehensible bigot.
Or do you find reprehensible bigots acceptable so long as they irritate the "Progs"...

What does "acceptable" mean? I can accept that a neighbor of mine may be a reprehensible bigot. What does it mean to not accept that?

It seems like some people here want to say it's okay to attack someone like Spencer without actually committing to that belief.
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 21st March 2017, 02:53 PM   #1691
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,224
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Go ahead and what?
Go ahead and tell us what you think the problem is with the article by the CCF you quoted. At first one might think that you have some sort of problem with what you call "using fear and intimidation to get your way"[*] but clearly, based on your earlier positions re Israel, you don't have an inherent problem with that even if it's OOM worse on the measure of "using fear and intimidation to get your way" than the CCF could be accused of.

So go ahead, Mycroft, explain in full what you consider to be the problem with that CCF statement you quoted.

* and even that language and framework of understanding is pure propaganda on your part, but let's ignore that. See, that's how bad your arguments are, we can even ignore most of what's problematic about them and they still immediately fall apart.

Last edited by caveman1917; 21st March 2017 at 02:56 PM.
caveman1917 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 21st March 2017, 03:01 PM   #1692
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,224
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Spencer is generally very careful to avoid fighting words or inflammatory language
"Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!" ... *Nazi salutes from audience*
caveman1917 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 21st March 2017, 03:23 PM   #1693
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,586
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
At first one might think that you have some sort of problem with what you call "using fear and intimidation to get your way"[*]
Yep, that's it.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
but clearly, based on your earlier positions re Israel...
I disagree with your characterization of my opinions on Israel, but I commend your efforts to sneak in your knee-jerk tu quoque argument. It's still a fallacy, but damn you were sneaky in trying to work it in there.
Mycroft 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 21st March 2017, 03:28 PM   #1694
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,224
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Yep, that's it.
Clearly not, from earlier claims you've promoted you do not hold such a position. Hence your argument is rejected.

Quote:
I disagree with your characterization of my opinions on Israel, but I commend your efforts to sneak in your knee-jerk tu quoque argument. It's still a fallacy, but damn you were sneaky in trying to work it in there.
It's not a fallacy to point out that your position is internally inconsistent and reject it on that basis. As much as you might not want it to be, the error regarding consistency is yours.
caveman1917 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 21st March 2017, 03:54 PM   #1695
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Spencer is generally very careful to avoid fighting words or inflammatory language, that does not make the crap he is peddling any more acceptable.
Problem is that Spencer's ideas have violence inherent in them;violence has to be employed in carrying them out.
Look, I think Spencer has a right to spout his garbage but let's not try to portray him as some sort of reasonable man. He is still a reprehensible bigot.
Or do you find reprehensible bigots acceptable so long as they irritate the "Progs"...
Acceptable?

I don't approve of nor support his viewpoints. My "acceptance" isn't required no matter how I look at it.

But my lack of approval and support certainly don't justify violence in response to words. And it most assuredly doesn't lead me to approve of someone else's violence against someone whose beliefs I find reprehensible.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 21st March 2017, 03:55 PM   #1696
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,586
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Clearly not, from earlier claims you've promoted you do not hold such a position. Hence your argument is rejected.
Which claims?


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It's not a fallacy to point out that your position is internally inconsistent and reject it on that basis. As much as you might not want it to be, the error regarding consistency is yours.
We've talked about whataboutism before, and this is pretty much the same thing.

As far as what my opinion is, I'm the better authority than you, wouldn't you agree?
Mycroft 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 21st March 2017, 08:08 PM   #1697
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,065
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It seems to me that Richard Spencer has taken great pains to voice his opinions in a legal, peaceable fashion that avoids incitement. You are condoning violence against him not because he has actually incited violence, but because you believe his ideas give you license to indulge in violence against him.

Do you disagree? Cite one occasion on which you believe Spencer has incited violence. Don't cite his beliefs generally: Cite a specific time and place where he uttered speech or otherwise expressed his ideas in a way that you believe was clearly inciteful.
Rhetorical demand for citation? You say yourself Spencer does not deliver deliberately inflammatory rhetoric designed to rouse the rabble. He is also a cowardly liar (in his famous 'getting punched' video, he is asked if he likes black people. He nonchalantly responds 'Sure, why not?' I don't believe it needs to be demonstrated that this is a bald-faced lie). His infamous 'Hail Victory' following President Trump's inauguration and tweets such as 'The [New England] Patriots even call their Blacks 'White' [referring to running back James White]' tend to create verbal or physical confrontations, even if unintentional, per the Wikipedia definition of fighting words. So yes, I think his publicly declared beliefs suffice to be fighting words.

Last edited by Thermal; 21st March 2017 at 08:16 PM.
Thermal 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 21st March 2017, 08:45 PM   #1698
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,358
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Rhetorical demand for citation? You say yourself Spencer does not deliver deliberately inflammatory rhetoric designed to rouse the rabble. He is also a cowardly liar (in his famous 'getting punched' video, he is asked if he likes black people. He nonchalantly responds 'Sure, why not?' I don't believe it needs to be demonstrated that this is a bald-faced lie). His infamous 'Hail Victory' following President Trump's inauguration and tweets such as 'The [New England] Patriots even call their Blacks 'White' [referring to running back James White]' tend to create verbal or physical confrontations, even if unintentional, per the Wikipedia definition of fighting words. So yes, I think his publicly declared beliefs suffice to be fighting words.
All those things are dick moves, none are worthy of violence. None are even worthy of condoning violence against him. I always considered myself on the low end of normal as to how high my bar is for responding with violence or condoning others committing it. I have a bit of a survivalist streak , I believe in putting your money where your mouth is if you are going to threaten someone, and in general that being able and willing to defend yourself to the best of your ability is more responsibility than right.

Check any post I have made in threads involving weapons, self defense, or any similar topic (hell I'd say a decent chunk of threads I have started could be classified as such. ) and I believe the general consensus is that I'm a bit liberal to say the least writh my views on how easily one should resort to force.

I want to say this, because I would like to underline my point of reference when I say, if your bar for violence is set at these examples, it is much too low. Absurdly low, so much so that a team of trained dwarves have been mining for the last 5 years to set it.

Seriously, if those are examples, even moderate ones of what you consider worthy of violence or even condoning violence, you should seriously think about a more peaceful philosophy.

This is coming from a user whos only thread worth mentioning is about knives. Let that sink in.
sadhatter 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 21st March 2017, 10:35 PM   #1699
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,224
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Which claims?
I'm not going to bother looking it up again, so let's quickly do a rerun of the important bit:

Are you opposed to the state? If no, do you concede that "using fear and intimidation to get what you want" is (part of) the modus operandi of the state?

Quote:
We've talked about whataboutism before, and this is pretty much the same thing.
This blah blah blah isn't getting you out of being challenged on the consistency of your position.
caveman1917 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 22nd March 2017, 08:47 AM   #1700
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,065
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
All those things are dick moves, none are worthy of violence. None are even worthy of condoning violence against him. I always considered myself on the low end of normal as to how high my bar is for responding with violence or condoning others committing it. I have a bit of a survivalist streak , I believe in putting your money where your mouth is if you are going to threaten someone, and in general that being able and willing to defend yourself to the best of your ability is more responsibility than right.
Agreed on self-defense. I have spent the better part of my adult life in sparring gear, and have had the opportunity to test its effectiveness, like many have. Upthread, you made comments on what you thought my beliefs were, I asked you to clarify because they were way off (you didn't). For clarity, because you don't seem to get it: I don't personally attack anyone. But I understand that others can have a whole different way of seeing things, and are entitled to their different worldview. A white supremacist is mostly just a cowardly douche to me, but I can empathize with someone for whom it cuts closer to the bone. That's when an 'opinion' can become fighting words. Try to picture being black, and hearing Spencer say that the N.E Pats call their blacks White. Oh, yeah. Them's fighting words.

Quote:
Check any post I have made in threads involving weapons, self defense, or any similar topic (hell I'd say a decent chunk of threads I have started could be classified as such. ) and I believe the general consensus is that I'm a bit liberal to say the least writh my views on how easily one should resort to force.

I want to say this, because I would like to underline my point of reference when I say, if your bar for violence is set at these examples, it is much too low. Absurdly low, so much so that a team of trained dwarves have been mining for the last 5 years to set it.

Seriously, if those are examples, even moderate ones of what you consider worthy of violence or even condoning violence, you should seriously think about a more peaceful philosophy.
My philosophy is pretty peaceful. That doesn't mean I insist others adopt it, or that I can't apply a different standard to different people. Is that wrong?

Quote:
This is coming from a user whos only thread worth mentioning is about knives. Let that sink in.
Ok, I'll bite. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Am I supposed to think 'Ooooooh, that sadhatter, he craaaaazy. He...he...posted a thread about knives. Are you suggesting that you cut people? That your street name is really madslasher? Or maybe we should get together and work on a breathalyzer controlled laptop; I sometimes think it's a good idea to post after tilting back a few too many, too. Lo siento, hermano.
Thermal 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 22nd March 2017, 09:20 AM   #1701
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,358
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Agreed on self-defense. I have spent the better part of my adult life in sparring gear, and have had the opportunity to test its effectiveness, like many have. Upthread, you made comments on what you thought my beliefs were, I asked you to clarify because they were way off (you didn't). For clarity, because you don't seem to get it: I don't personally attack anyone. But I understand that others can have a whole different way of seeing things, and are entitled to their different worldview. A white supremacist is mostly just a cowardly douche to me, but I can empathize with someone for whom it cuts closer to the bone. That's when an 'opinion' can become fighting words. Try to picture being black, and hearing Spencer say that the N.E Pats call their blacks White. Oh, yeah. Them's fighting words.



My philosophy is pretty peaceful. That doesn't mean I insist others adopt it, or that I can't apply a different standard to different people. Is that wrong?



Ok, I'll bite. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Am I supposed to think 'Ooooooh, that sadhatter, he craaaaazy. He...he...posted a thread about knives. Are you suggesting that you cut people? That your street name is really madslasher? Or maybe we should get together and work on a breathalyzer controlled laptop; I sometimes think it's a good idea to post after tilting back a few too many, too. Lo siento, hermano.
Bounced right off ya, tends to happen when you read half the post.

If you think you are peaceful you are sadly mistaken, and if you think only condoning violence in regards to your examples makes it better, it doesn't, just makes you wrong and cowardly.
sadhatter 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 22nd March 2017, 09:33 AM   #1702
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,065
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Bounced right off ya, tends to happen when you read half the post.

If you think you are peaceful you are sadly mistaken, and if you think only condoning violence in regards to your examples makes it better, it doesn't, just makes you wrong and cowardly.
How so, sadhatter? I say responding to fighting words with fighting can be acceptable, but that those involved are still subject to rule of law and the possibility of either punishment or jury nullification. What is wrong or cowardly about that?

ETA: and I am peaceful, no matter what you project on me. I say with no small amount of pride that I have not even tried to hit anyone in anger for over a quarter century, despite a few assaults and breaking up fights.

Edited by Locknar:  Edited, breach of rule 0 & rule 12; please do not alter member names.

Last edited by Locknar; 22nd March 2017 at 10:52 AM.
Thermal 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 22nd March 2017, 09:36 AM   #1703
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,586
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I'm not going to bother looking it up again...
Because you know it's not there to find, and have a peculiar inability to admit to being wrong when you overstep.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Are you opposed to the state? If no, do you concede that "using fear and intimidation to get what you want" is (part of) the modus operandi of the state?
Are you kidding? You blow off every question I put to you but somehow think you can interrogate me?

I'll tell you what, answer a few questions of mine and I'll answer yours. We can put the "di" back in "dialog".

Do you think getting your way by fear and intimidation is wrong?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
This blah blah blah isn't getting you out of being challenged on the consistency of your position.
I hope you realize that my being consistent or not has nothing to do with whether breaking windows, burning cars and sending letter bombs is using fear and intimidation to get your way. Correct?
Mycroft 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 22nd March 2017, 09:52 AM   #1704
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,358
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
How so, sadhatter? I say responding to fighting words with fighting can be acceptable, but that those involved are still subject to rule of law and the possibility of either punishment or jury nullification. What is wrong or cowardly about that?

ETA: and I am peaceful, no matter what you project on me. I say with no small amount of pride that I have not even tried to hit anyone in anger for over a quarter century, despite a few assaults and breaking up fights.
Edited by Locknar:  Edited to correct member name
I seem to have hit a nerve, you have resorted to literal name calling and trying to prove yourself manly.

But fact remains your bar for condoning violence is lower than someone who is seen as heavy handed in regards to self defense. Objectively you are a more violent person than I, if this bothers you, which is obvious it does, I can't change that, only you can. Get on that, if ya could.

Last edited by Locknar; 22nd March 2017 at 10:52 AM.
sadhatter 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 22nd March 2017, 12:43 PM   #1705
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I say responding to fighting words with fighting can be acceptable, but that those involved are still subject to rule of law and the possibility of either punishment or jury nullification. What is wrong or cowardly about that?
I disagree with your assessment.

First, I don't believe that your assessment of what constitutes "fighting words" is in keeping with current legal interpretations. For consideration:
https://www.thefire.org/misconceptio...rds-exception/

Secondly, I think your application of "fighting words" is flawed. Fighting words aren't protected free speech - which means that they are allowed to be censored by law. That doesn't mean that they are accepted justification for violence.

At the end of the day, regardless of whether you think they constitute fighting words or not, those words neither justify nor excuse acts of violence in response.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 22nd March 2017, 01:11 PM   #1706
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,529
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Rhetorical demand for citation?
It's only rhetorical if empty rhetoric is all you have.

Quote:
You say yourself Spencer does not deliver deliberately inflammatory rhetoric designed to rouse the rabble.
And you agree.

Quote:
He is also a cowardly liar (in his famous 'getting punched' video, he is asked if he likes black people. He nonchalantly responds 'Sure, why not?' I don't believe it needs to be demonstrated that this is a bald-faced lie).
There's a lot to unpack here. But first, let's be clear:

Cowardice does not justify violence. Lying does not justify violence. Even the two things together do not justify violence.

Also, cowardice and lying are not the same as fascism, Nazism, or any other -ism that you have so far listed as justifying a violent response. This is either special pleading, or else horrific antisocial madness on your part.

Okay, now to unpack. "Cowardly liar"? Think about this. He could have answered the question in an inflammatory way, but he didn't. Instead he gave an answer that was much less aggravating. It may be a lie, but it's totally reasonable. People lie about their beliefs all the time, to avoid confrontation. In many situations, it's the polite thing to do. Discretion is the better part of valor, but to you it's an excuse to beat them up.

Punching someone because you think they're lying is the bully's art. Punching someone because you think they're lying is the wife-beater's art. Punching someone because you think they're lying is the torturer's art. That's where we're at, now: You say it's okay to punch Spencer for lying about what he really believes. Of course, if he told you the truth about what he believes, you'd say it was okay to punch him for that, too.

So it's not really about punching him for being a liar. It's about punching him for what he really believes. Or rather, it's about punching him for what you imagine he really believes. Not only can you not give any real examples of incitement to violence, you can't even cite his actual beliefs. Punch him for lying about what he believes? That you can condone, even though you have no idea what those beliefs are.

Quote:
His infamous 'Hail Victory' following President Trump's inauguration and tweets such as 'The [New England] Patriots even call their Blacks 'White' [referring to running back James White]' tend to create verbal or physical confrontations, even if unintentional, per the Wikipedia definition of fighting words. So yes, I think his publicly declared beliefs suffice to be fighting words.
More to unpack!

Again, to be clear: none of these are fascism.

If offensive jokes on Twitter are the bar for violence, there should be a lot more people in the ER with concussions from well-earned elbows to the head. There should be a lot of comedians, pundits, and incontinent corporate spokespeople walking around with richly-deserved broken noses and black eyes.

Finally, "tend to create verbal confrontations"? That's how low your bar is? If you'd said he deserved to be heckled for lying about his beliefs, or for his tasteless tweets, that would be one thing. But you're saying he deserves to be beaten. Not for actually inciting violence, not even for actually advocating a racially segregated fascist state (does he even do that? do you even know?) but for lying about his beliefs (you think) and for telling bad jokes on twitter.

At this point, you have done more to promote violence and undermine civil society than Richard Spencer.
theprestige 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 22nd March 2017, 07:39 PM   #1707
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,065
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
I seem to have hit a nerve, you have resorted to literal name calling and trying to prove yourself manly.
Not at all. And it wasn't name-calling, it was a teasing reference to the previous post. Please accept my apologies for offending you; I will keep your sensitivities in mind in the future.

Quote:
But fact remains your bar for condoning violence is lower than someone who is seen as heavy handed in regards to self defense. Objectively you are a more violent person than I, if this bothers you, which is obvious it does, I can't change that, only you can. Get on that, if ya could.
Thank you so much for your helpful advice.
Thermal 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 22nd March 2017, 08:07 PM   #1708
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,065
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I disagree with your assessment.

First, I don't believe that your assessment of what constitutes "fighting words" is in keeping with current legal interpretations. For consideration:
https://www.thefire.org/misconceptio...rds-exception/
Agreed, but I already said as much (and thank you for the link):

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
...The concept of 'fighting words' sums it up pretty well, although I probably endorse a broader interpretation than the courts...
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat
Secondly, I think your application of "fighting words" is flawed. Fighting words aren't protected free speech - which means that they are allowed to be censored by law. That doesn't mean that they are accepted justification for violence.
Also agreed. Their use can, though, be justification for an assault charge. It is not much of a stretch to then interpret a violent reaction as being a form of self-defense to an assault. Again, with the caveat that it is not a slam-dunk defense; I know it is not and am not arguing that it is, but that I think it sometimes could/should be

Quote:
At the end of the day, regardless of whether you think they constitute fighting words or not, those words neither justify nor excuse acts of violence in response.
I believe we have juries comprised of our peers to make such determinations. Most would, I assume, generally agree with you. But I think a strong case could be made for a jury to consider nullification in some circumstances.
Thermal 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 22nd March 2017, 09:19 PM   #1709
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,065
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
...There's a lot to unpack here. But first, let's be clear:

Cowardice does not justify violence. Lying does not justify violence. Even the two things together do not justify violence.
Agreed, but that is not remotely being argued. You demanded a citation where Spencer specifically incites violence. I pointed out that Spencer lies about his views out of convenience, so his speech will not always be a reliable indicator of his position. His more private speaking and website publishing I think are more revealing than what he has the courage (or lack thereof) to say in public. No justifications regarding lying or cowardice.

Quote:
Also, cowardice and lying are not the same as fascism, Nazism, or any other -ism that you have so far listed as justifying a violent response. This is either special pleading, or else horrific antisocial madness on your part.
Special pleading is requiring an exception without justification. I am taking the time to provide (arguable) justification, so that does not fairly apply. So it's 'horrific antisocial madness'. This is your reasoned evaluation?

Quote:
Okay, now to unpack. "Cowardly liar"? Think about this....
Addressed above, that he is demonstrably a two-faced liar is solely about the credibility of his public speaking, not part of any justifications.

Quote:
More to unpack!

Again, to be clear: none of these are fascism.
Agreed. Not claimed, but agreed.

Quote:
If offensive jokes on Twitter are the bar for violence, there should be a lot more people in the ER with concussions from well-earned elbows to the head. There should be a lot of comedians, pundits, and incontinent corporate spokespeople walking around with richly-deserved broken noses and black eyes.
I think there is a rather large difference between a comedian making an off-color joke and a white supremacist making hateful/derogatory jokes against a protected-status minority group. But I don't hold a tweet as a standard, it was presented as an example of how I interpret fighting words: speech which a reasonable person would expect to elicit a violent reaction.

Quote:
Finally, "tend to create verbal confrontations"? That's how low your bar is?
No. That was referencing Wiki's definition of fighting words, not setting any bar.

Quote:
If you'd said he deserved to be heckled for lying about his beliefs, or for his tasteless tweets, that would be one thing. But you're saying he deserves to be beaten. Not for actually inciting violence, not even for actually advocating a racially segregated fascist state (does he even do that? do you even know?) but for lying about his beliefs (you think) and for telling bad jokes on twitter.
The above, in toto: simply untrue (except that I have advocated ridicule as the best weapon against him and his ilk). I have never said he or anyone else deserves to be beaten, particularly not for lying about his beliefs, nor for jokes, bad or otherwise. A white supremacist making derogatory black 'jokes' is not good-natured ribbing- it is hate speech.

Quote:
At this point, you have done more to promote violence and undermine civil society than Richard Spencer.
So I keep hearing.
Thermal 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 23rd March 2017, 04:58 AM   #1710
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,586
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post

At this point, you have done more to promote violence and undermine civil society than Richard Spencer.
You so had me up to this point. Beautifully articulated, very well said, but Richard Spencer works on a larger scale than a fistfight.
Mycroft 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 23rd March 2017, 08:29 AM   #1711
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,065
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Okay, now to unpack. "Cowardly liar"? Think about this. He could have answered the question in an inflammatory way, but he didn't. Instead he gave an answer that was much less aggravating. It may be a lie, but it's totally reasonable. People lie about their beliefs all the time, to avoid confrontation. In many situations, it's the polite thing to do. Discretion is the better part of valor, but to you it's an excuse to beat them up.
Forgot to reply to this while responding to the larger red herring argument:

You say Spencer was prudent to publicly lie for fear of being aggravating, inflammatory, and confrontational. Does that not rather clearly suggest that his words would otherwise have incited a violent reaction? That they might be...you guessed it...fighting words? You also seem to suggest that lying was the polite thing to do. No. His comments about minorities are delivered without regard for politeness. It was simply cowardice- to start firing off his racist tripe on a public street would likely get him more than a rebuking punch. To repeat, though, his lying and cowardice have nothing to do with anything but his credibility as a speaker.

Quote:
...Or rather, it's about punching him for what you imagine he really believes. Not only can you not give any real examples of incitement to violence, you can't even cite his actual beliefs. Punch him for lying about what he believes? That you can condone, even though you have no idea what those beliefs are...Not for actually inciting violence, not even for actually advocating a racially segregated fascist state (does he even do that? do you even know?) but for lying about his beliefs (you think) and for telling bad jokes on twitter.
Yes, I am familiar with his Alt-Right site and his suggestions of 'peaceful ethnic cleansing' and the like. We acknowledge that Spencer is cunning in how he speaks publicly, to maintain credibility. To use the popular example, in his recent closed door speech, he openly says 'Hail Victory'. If you respond to anything, please respond to how this can be anything but an obvious allusion to Nazi propaganda, and his clear endorsement of it. It is not a question of what I think his beliefs are. They are as clear as can be, even with the cowardly lying.
Thermal 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 23rd March 2017, 01:03 PM   #1712
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Agreed, but I already said as much (and thank you for the link):
Glad it was useful

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Also agreed. Their use can, though, be justification for an assault charge. It is not much of a stretch to then interpret a violent reaction as being a form of self-defense to an assault. Again, with the caveat that it is not a slam-dunk defense; I know it is not and am not arguing that it is, but that I think it sometimes could/should be
I cant' think of a situation where I would consider violence in response to "fighting words" to be self-defense... Fighting words don't qualify as credible threats.

Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I believe we have juries comprised of our peers to make such determinations. Most would, I assume, generally agree with you. But I think a strong case could be made for a jury to consider nullification in some circumstances.
I wouldn't condone juries nullifying clear violations of a just and fair law just because they think someone else's beliefs deserve such a response. I would find that to be more a threat to a just society than any words could be, and to stand against the foundations of the US.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat 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 23rd March 2017, 02:02 PM   #1713
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Punching someone because you think they're lying is the bully's art. Punching someone because you think they're lying is the wife-beater's art. Punching someone because you think they're lying is the torturer's art. That's where we're at, now: You say it's okay to punch Spencer for lying about what he really believes. Of course, if he told you the truth about what he believes, you'd say it was okay to punch him for that, too.
Whatever. Get used to it. The Liberals have changed. from now on, there we be less holding hands about the campfire while singing "Kumbaya", and more punching conservatives and Tea Partiers and Alt right and such in the mouth until they learn to keep their mouth closed.
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 23rd March 2017, 05:06 PM   #1714
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Whatever. Get used to it. The Liberals have changed. from now on, there we be less holding hands about the campfire while singing "Kumbaya", and more punching conservatives and Tea Partiers and Alt right and such in the mouth until they learn to keep their mouth closed.
Do you think that becoming bullies and thugs will win votes?


ETA: Isn't the desire to avoid the use of violence and intimidation to censure ideas kind of the entire basis behind speech being protected in the US?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 23rd March 2017 at 05:08 PM.
Emily's Cat 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 23rd March 2017, 06:26 PM   #1715
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,529
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Whatever. Get used to it. The Liberals have changed. from now on, there we be less holding hands about the campfire while singing "Kumbaya", and more punching conservatives and Tea Partiers and Alt right and such in the mouth until they learn to keep their mouth closed.
Using violence to suppress speech? That's not what MD is talking about.
theprestige 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 23rd March 2017, 06:38 PM   #1716
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Do you think that becoming bullies and thugs will win votes?


ETA: Isn't the desire to avoid the use of violence and intimidation to censure ideas kind of the entire basis behind speech being protected in the US?
Yes.

People respect strength.
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 23rd March 2017, 07:34 PM   #1717
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,358
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Yes.

People respect strength.
You keep thinking that.

Meanwhile the adults will find a way to fix your mess.
sadhatter 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 23rd March 2017, 07:54 PM   #1718
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
You keep thinking that.

Meanwhile the adults will find a way to fix your mess.
You mean the same adults who elected Trump?

I don't think so....and it's not my mess.

Anyways, I figure the people who elected Trump are Power junkies - unlike the better people, brute force impresses them. So, I figure the Liberals have come to the conclusion that a "Punch in the Mouth" works better with guys like these than a respectful, well-reasoned argument. I figure the Libs have concluded that Trump Supporters are just dumb animals, and they should be dealt with as such.

In the future...I advise you to stop taking everything so personally.
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 23rd March 2017, 08:27 PM   #1719
Thermal
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,065
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Glad it was useful


I cant' think of a situation where I would consider violence in response to "fighting words" to be self-defense... Fighting words don't qualify as credible threats.
Ok, that's fair. Self-defense is admittedly a stretch. In most (all?) U.S. States, the idea of provocation is still a mitigating factor when considering guilt and sentencing. The courts do consider whether one was provoked into violence; I think my POV is only a small step beyond the current legal views (Imma have to dig in my heels about being a threat to civilized society). Do you agree that provocation is a mitigating factor? If so, is it possible that publicly voicing hateful views could constitute a form of preemptive provocation? At least possibly?

Quote:
I wouldn't condone juries nullifying clear violations of a just and fair law just because they think someone else's beliefs deserve such a response. I would find that to be more a threat to a just society than any words could be, and to stand against the foundations of the US.
I think the hilited is highly subjective, in particular with loosely defined terms like provocation (ie: what is and isn't reasonable). Would you consider any words to be sufficient to get rowdy in response to? If the words suggested a credible threat to your personal safety, would you?
Thermal 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 23rd March 2017, 08:42 PM   #1720
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I cant' think of a situation where I would consider violence in response to "fighting words" to be self-defense... Fighting words don't qualify as credible threats.

No they don't but, they can easily negate the self-defense "Defense".

For example, if some guy talks to a Mexican or a Biker about his Gonads on his Mother's Chin, then whatever happens next may not be determined "self defense". Self-Defense, would be conflict de-escalation...and no provocation! Many people lose sight of this and end up on the wrong side of the law too often.

Lots of guys in Prison for this.
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
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 01:28 PM.
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.