5 ms·
That anger could be reasonable or not, depending on your opinions.
by brookside 9y ago
That anger could be reasonable or not, depending on your opinions.
- subru 9y agoNo, it's not reasonable. It's a vote, not justification to throw fists or anything in between, even.
- brookside 9y agoThrowing fists is violence, not anger.
- dwringer 9y agoOP edited the original comment to mention an alleged fist fight after getting a slew of responses directed at the "anger" aspect.
- AndrewDucker 9y agoA vote to treat people badly is _absolutely_ a good reason to be angry at someone. If you're voting to take away people's healthcare, or to discriminate against them based on who they love, or their gender, then of course they are angry!
- ams6110 9y agoStill no excuse for physical violence. Votes are how we make decisions in our society. You don't always win. You can argue your position all you want, but you don't get to intimidate others with violence.
- 2017Dude 9y agoWhat if you vote for someone willing to pardon long-overstaying illegal aliens?
- saint_fiasco 9y agoNobody can tell you what to feel, and it's unfair to expect you to not feel angry about stuff that is important to you. But it's fair to expect that you won't get into a fistfight with someone just because they make you angry.
- plandis 9y agoThat's fair but as we keep seeing from radical Conservatives, you can and possibly will be attacked for holding certain views.
- anon1385 9y agoOP said the fight was about a different viewpoint, not voting for a different party. There's a whole world of viewpoints outside the two dominant political parties in the US.
- kurthr 9y ago"I think your kind is an abomination that should be hearded into camps and slaughtered", is a political opinion that might well lead to a fight or 'anything in between'. It has little to do with a vote. Some 'conservative' people now believe it's ok to voice those opponions at work. We don't know what was said based on the parent, and we don't know how it escalated... so maybe that's it? Some people won't be cowed by a publicly aggressive racist... I'd tell my boss that I'm uncomfortable working with them. I'm not a snowflake, if someone else can't handle my speach and the resulting consequences of their own.
- anbende 9y agoAnger at another perspective might be argued to be reasonable. There are some pretty abhorrent perspectives in the world. Getting into a fistfight with someone because they hold a different point of view, no matter how heinous, is absolutely and unequivocally unacceptable. The idea that there are points of view (not actions or laws but ideas) that warrant violence is a large and growing problem.
- classybull 9y agoNot to Godwin it or anything, but... Wasn't the passivity and meekness of the opposition the exact reason fascists were able to rise relatively easily in the intrawar period? Personally, I think the concept that there aren't ideas worth throwing a punch over is equally as repugnant as saying you should punch anyone you disagree with.
- vorotato 9y agoThe position "Your people shouldn't exist", or "Your people shouldn't be in this country" to be specific. Tolerance to all but the intolerant. This is because if we tolerate the intolerant, they'll just eliminate tolerance, and then nobody will get to express their views.
- bsenftner 9y agoYou describe the Paradox of Tolerance: for a tolerant society to exist, it must be intolerant towards intolerance, or the intolerant slowly dominate. This is the paradox enabling many to blindly say Antifa is a racist or fascist organization. No, they are the intolerant side of tolerance laying down the law. Without them, any tolerant society devolves slowly to fascism.
- peoplewindow 9y agoIt's not a paradox, it's just doublethink. The key is to realise that the "Antifa" agenda has nothing to do with tolerance, regardless of what they claim.