We need one standard of non-violence

Trump is correct about this. Threatening violence against the President is just not right. Of course, I wonder how right wingnuts reacted to Ted Nugent.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/failing-career-president-goes-after-snoop-dogg-for-shooting-trump-clown-in-music-video-114328944.html

I think we on the Left have to condemn us because, after all of the mock lynchings of Obama that were carried out over the last 8 years, the Right has absolutely NO CREDIBILITY to do so.

So, um, uh, if he apologizes, that admits wrongdoing, making jail time more likely, not less likely. I mean, right? Jail time is for whatever society deems illegal, right?

The President is hung in effigy on a regular basis. I doubt that anyone takes it seriously but for those who do I would refer them to the great ones in the study of non violence. I would have them read Thoreau........although he does annoy me at times. I would have them read Ghandi. I would have them study the writings of AJ Muste with whom I was privileged to work in the final year of his life.

I would have them understand that when you stand up for your convictions you will pay the price. I have been assaulted by the NYC police..........by construction workers at a facility that made nuclear submarines

Spent more time in jail than most people spend in a Starbucks...........Actually I think the jails were the better deal

You must decide for your self.........at one point do you go from being a liberal to being a radical But like Edith Piaf I can truly say " I regret nothing"

I am so goddamn sick of the 'Trump was right about this' or the 'give credit where credit is due' every time some boast he makes comes true or someone on the opposition goes too far. He is not commenting about threats against the Presidency, he is only concerned with threats against himself. Do you really think he gave two sh1ts about threats against Obama, Bush II, or Clinton? This man is willfully on the wrong side of history. The only use he has for any of us is whatever he can get. He is not worthy of your praise, regardless of the reason you give it. And if you're thinking that we need to take the high road here so that his supporters think well of us, think again. Better that you just take no road.

tjohn said:

Trump is correct about this.

Red_Barchetta said:

I am so goddamn sick of the 'Trump was right about this' or the 'give credit where credit is due' every time some boast he makes comes true or someone on the opposition goes too far. He is not commenting about threats against the Presidency, he is only concerned with threats against himself. Do you really think he gave two sh1ts about threats against Obama, Bush II, or Clinton? This man is willfully on the wrong side of history. The only use he has for any of us is whatever he can get. He is not worthy of your praise, regardless of the reason you give it. And if you're thinking that we need to take the high road here so that his supporters think well of us, think again. Better that you just take no road.

tjohn said:

Trump is correct about this.

This is a very good point.

During the campaign Donald joked about "the Second Amendment people" doing something to Hillary if she was elected and got to select SCOTUS nominees. He's a hypocrite.

Klinker said:

Red_Barchetta said:

I am so goddamn sick of the 'Trump was right about this' or the 'give credit where credit is due' every time some boast he makes comes true or someone on the opposition goes too far. He is not commenting about threats against the Presidency, he is only concerned with threats against himself. Do you really think he gave two sh1ts about threats against Obama, Bush II, or Clinton? This man is willfully on the wrong side of history. The only use he has for any of us is whatever he can get. He is not worthy of your praise, regardless of the reason you give it. And if you're thinking that we need to take the high road here so that his supporters think well of us, think again. Better that you just take no road.

tjohn said:

Trump is correct about this.

This is a very good point.

Trump is a gutter dweller. Does that mean we need to follow him there?

Michael Savage was recently attacked on the street. I bet many of you feel he deserved it. But would be outraged if it happened to, say, Rachel Maddow.

Gilgul said:

Michael Savage was recently attacked on the street. I bet many of you feel he deserved it. But would be outraged if it happened to, say, Rachel Maddow.

There is a bias. Because its not all simple black and white.

For example, I wouldn't feel outrage if someone like Hitler was attacked on a street. Whereas if Gandhi was, I would.

we've been through this discussion before when the neo-nazi guy was punched at the inauguration. I wouldn't personally punch a Nazi. But it doesn't bother me if someone else does.

So to get back to the OP, how can you then be upset if one whose position you support is punched? You can not. Without all the contortions that have become de rigueur.

Gilgul said:

Michael Savage was recently attacked on the street. I bet many of you feel he deserved it. But would be outraged if it happened to, say, Rachel Maddow.

Who attacked Savage? What were the circumstances.

Some years back a Lyndon LeRouche supporter walked up to Henry Kissinger at Newark Airport and called him a child molester. Mrs. K hit the guy. She was acquitted in Newark Municipal Court on a charge of assault on the basis of being provoked.

Not everyone supports non-violence.

http://forward.com/news/364726/pulling-no-punches-in-fight-against-alt-right-and-neo-nazis/

So you are appalled when a Nazi gets punched?

Gilgul said:

So to get back to the OP, how can you then be upset if one whose position you support is punched? You can not. Without all the contortions that have become de rigueur.

tjohn said:

Trump is a gutter dweller. Does that mean we need to follow him there?

Of course not. We don't need to do anything. Let his sycophants and liars hold him up as a beacon of non violence.

It's settled then. Political violence is ok as long as we can justify it either by what we think about the person being attacked or by what we think the person being attacked thinks or says.

Justification is in the eyes of the perp and situational.

A very flexible standard, guaranteed to keep everyone sleeping well at night on the side of the angels.

No principles, just agendas.

Jackson_Fusion said:

It's settled then. Political violence is ok as long as we can justify it either by what we think about the person being attacked or by what we think the person being attacked thinks or says.

Justification is in the eyes of the perp and situational.

A very flexible standard, guaranteed to keep everyone sleeping well at night on the side of the angels.

No principles, just agendas.

Way to make generalizations, dude. As a liberal, a public thread popped up on my Facebook about punching Nazis and how it was okay. I blocked the user and the content. I don't care how much I disagree with Trump and his minions, I am anti-violence. In fact, I am anti-ad hominem attacks as well. Make your point, but curb your fists and your words.

it's not "justified" by what we assume about people. It's justified by what we know people have done. I'm putting "justified" in quotes because it's not justified in a legal sense. A person who punches a Klansman or a Nazi should be prosecuted the same as anyone else. And I personally wouldn't punch someone. But I'm not going to deny that seeing a guy spouting racial, ethnic or religious hatred and using violent rhetoric getting a punch in the face seems like just desserts.

Here's Randy Cohen, former author of "The Ethicist" weighing in. He is adamant that punching anyone for their ideas is wrong. But, he also said:

This next question is not really an ethical question. But did you personally watch the video of Richard Spencer being punched?
I did not. It wasn't because I was averting my glance; I just didn't see it. I would make one other exception. I have read about images of Richard Spencer being punched set to music. That sort of thing. To delight in a kind of comeuppance when someone is hoisted by his own petard—when someone who advocates violence against others meets a kind of of nonlethal violence—to enjoy hearing about that, that's not a crime. That's not an ethical transgression. That's asking more of human beings than they can resist. When someone who's truly despicable gets punched in the nose, you commit no ethical transgression by enjoying that idea. Now we're describing—

Schadenfreude.
Yes, yes. In the recesses of my heart, do I take any pleasure in this? Well, yes. Would I advocate this as an action or defend the action? Well, no. There are no thought crimes. If in your heart of hearts you're enjoying this, well, you do no one any harm. But no, you do not get to go out and respond to contemptible political ideas with physical ideas.

http://www.newsweek.com/richard-spencer-punch-nazi-ethicists-547277

I don't know where to post this....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/19/white-house-bomb-threat-man-arrested-car-claim

I'm not disputing the gravity of this situation, nor the veracity of the report, nor am I equating violence-in-effigy to various trespassers with unknown intent on your head of state's residence/office/person. The timing, however, is curious: what with all the reports and discussions of not-so-terrific diplomatic performance, and concern about domestic reception of the Budget reforms, the Health Care act, the proposed appeal of the temporary halt to the second EO on travel/immigration... suddenly we have three trespassers with foul play on their minds. H'm.

(Our previous government was great at this; we told them that even though they changed leader and got back in, we knew their tricks and didn't like them crying 'wolf' all the time. They're only a little better)

Violence is never justified.

Except of course, when it is. Which is often.

Anyone who is "anti-violence" - tell us that you will not violently set yourself upon some person who is attacking your child. Or who is attacking you.

What most people really mean is that violence is only justified when applied to violence. And ideas and speech rarely (some would say never) reach this threshold.

So the question is whether actions, like speaking, that don't involve damaging physical contact with another (i.e. violence) ever reach a threshold that justifies a violent reaction.

Maybe they do sometimes. There is a difference, for example, between punching a Nazi and shooting a Nazi. Maybe punching them is appropriate, given the inherent violence of their words and beliefs.

Or maybe not. But that's the real discussion to be had. What does violence actually mean? Is oppression by a government violent, even if it doesn't meet the strict definition? And are we then justified in physically attacking that government anyway? Is promoting a belief system that, at the very least, implicitly encourages violence, violent itself?

The whole issue here is a just a question of proportionality.

personally, I think punching Nazi's is ok.

But you want to be the arbitrator of who is a "nazi". That makes you judge jury and executioner.

white supremacists who quote Nazi propaganda are probably Nazis.

they tend to stand out.

is it that hard to comprehend? if someone is making threatening statements about you personally, or your family, or your religious beliefs or your race, these are personally offensive, and these statements are assaults as they threaten harm, so you have some choices to make.

Ignore it and hope it goes away. Confront it and defend yourself verbally. Attack it with enough force to make someone think twice about doing it again.

Its a menu on a scale of responses and its not always cut and dried about which to choose.

So where does your justification of vigilantism end?

so I guess some of you think it's morally worse to punch a Nazi in the nose than it is for someone to be an actual Nazi.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

And I would think that you would all realize that sanctioned vigilantism never ends well.

Gilgul said:

Two wrongs do not make a right.

And I would think that you would all realize that sanctioned vigilantism never ends well.

You're absolutely right and as soon as the frequency of that first wrong diminishes the second wrong will no longer be considered. Sounds fair doesn't it?

it's not vigilantism.

It's a damn punch.

Gilgul said:

Two wrongs do not make a right.

And I would think that you would all realize that sanctioned vigilantism never ends well.