6 ms·

> And the side that decides that being banned from social media or being made fun of means the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of progressive

by proc0 5y ago

> And the side that decides that being banned from social media or being made fun of means the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of progressive techies is the one that needs to practice empathy. I think you are downplaying what is going on. Did you forget social media banned POTUS? Millions of people voted for this person, and that banned caused extreme division in the U.S. (I think that was the plan, but that's a different matter). If he was so dangerous and a dictator, why did he step down!? One side is alienating millions of people, calling them names, and shutting them down. What do you think will happen? They will just take it with a smile? (please answer this, it's an important question, how should they take it?) > fascists thrive on projecting a aura of menace and intimidation and righteousness and cultivating a sense of respect and authority that justifies their violent ideology What is the end goal? The rhetoric you're using isn't going to end with both sides drinking tea and chatting together. Is that what people want? Let's keep insulting them and provoking them until they break and then AHA! there it is! They are being violent! Got 'em! If we add fuel to the fire, we are provoking, and we are no better than the violent people. If you don't acknowledge these are humans with genuine concerns, then you are dehumanizing them, and again, we shouldn't be surprised where that goes.

iab 5y ago
Violence is a choice; “Don’t be surprised if I become violent from what you said” is how your argument can be condensed. This is unacceptable.
- proc0 5y ago
  > Don’t be surprised if I become violent from what you said Imagine I walk up to someone and insult them to their face and when they try and defend themselves verbally they are shutdown and not able to speak by a mob around them. This keeps happening again and again and that person starts to visibly get flustered and wanting to fight. I then justify my insults by pointing out how this person likes to fight and is probably a violent, dangerous individual... what should I expect? Should I be surprised when they punch me in the face? One side is provoking, and bullying people, then shutting them down, and then complaining that they are becoming more and more extreme, while using that as a justification. At some point we have to realize, we are asking for this and pretending to be innocent. Saying that they have a choice, is disingenuous. I see both sides wanting violence, but only one side is being honest about it.
  - iab 5y ago
    What's telling in your response, is that you didn't refute what I said; with enough of a verbal altercation, violence is inevitable and justified. Everyone should be free to express their opinions without the threat of violence. To say that people do not have a choice, in this country, is farcical. The more I can ridicule people who threaten violence when their demands aren't met, the happier I will be.
    - proc0 5y ago
      Well, you didn't accurately summarize my point. It's not just from demands, it's from getting verbally attacked and also not having the ability to verbally defend. It's also hard to summarize in a comment here so I attempted to illustrate an example, but you are the one completely ignoring it and not addressing it. That's fine, let me just clarify, I don't condone Gaetz (I've only heard of him) or what he is saying, and I don't condone any violence or call for it (and I'm trying to prevent it as much as I can). I am able to see both extremes quite clearly. I think both extremes are wanting violence, but only one side is being direct about it. Ridiculing them is just asking for more extreme behavior, it's not like they will learn from that.
      - iab 5y ago
        I believe the summary was quite accurate, but in case it wasn't clear, let me also clarify; in the general case, violence is not justified. In the specific case that you mentioned, violence is also not justified. This is quite a clear, delineated boundary. With respect to "not having the ability to verbally defend", do you recognize the contradiction in posting that on a public discussion of someone expounding their viewpoints, being covered by national media? This shared fiction of being unable to "defend" is victim-mentality, and used as a shortcut to resort to the threat of violence, which was really the intent anyway.
        proc0 5y ago
        > do you recognize the contradiction in posting that on a public discussion of someone expounding their viewpoints, being covered by national media? He's not speaking for himself. He's voicing a huge number of people's frustration. Also, this isn't out of nowhere, it's been years in the making. Every year it gets more extreme on both sides. I'm in SV, and it is in my best interest to prevent this, not to justify some moral high ground, as BOTH sides are doing. The evidence of who is actually correct, in my opinion, is in who can prevent the violence. If not tolerating them actually prevents it, then great, I'm probably wrong and overreacting, but I really don't see this being effective.
rektide 5y ago
> If he was so dangerous and a dictator, why did he step down!? Did he? When? He had endless court battles going, he was getting shot down in state after state after state but endlessly starting new litigations. When did we ever feel like a real transition was ever going to be allowed to happen? How many days after January 6th? How many days before January 20th? When if ever did Biden's people get allowed into the White House, when did a transition actually start if ever? I 100% agree with parent, the rhetoric is absolutely warranted. Truth matters. What's happening has been deeply deeply anti-democratic, has been ardently fascist. Factually fascist. There's a lot of situations where we need to try to come together. A wide part of the American political spectrum has been one of snakes & liars for my entire life & truth & democracy has fallen too far down their ladder of concerns to be engagable with honestly. At this point, civilization's mandate to defend ourselves against this persistent harm is paramount. We must prioritize seeing the situation real-ly over trying to build bridges, for, so far, it seems like a radical extremist element only wants to burn every bridge they can & incite zeal & anger & violence.
- proc0 5y ago
  > but endlessly starting new litigations. Exactly. He was still following the law. You don't think an actual dictator would have been a little bit more effective at holding power? And who attempts an insurrection without guns and gives up immediately? An actual insurrection would have been a bloodbath. I agree with your last point, we need the center to build the bridge, and start closing the gap. Failure to do so could mean we all suffer from it anyway.
  - rektide 5y ago
    Following the law... and telling his followers to revolt & overthrow the government.
    - proc0 5y ago
      Once again, if that had been the case, he was either not as dangerous as people thought, or that didn't happen. Otherwise millions of people would have shown up with guns and it would have been a bloody revolution.
strangattractor 5y ago
>If you don't acknowledge these are humans with genuine concerns Are their concerns genuine? Are Jewish space lasers an actual concern? Are microchips really in vaccinations? Do SV companies actually have the ability to stifle their speech? Clearly he seems to be getting his message out despite them. We are at least discussing things on HN rather than threatening to shoot him. My brother believes that the Grand Canyon was made by Noah's flood and the Earth is less than 6000 yrs old. There is no rational discussion to be had or debate to be won. We don't agree on basic facts. I agree that mocking has not worked. The problem seems to be intensifying. From my perspective the GOP has elected representatives that do not respect compromise, policy or law. The Fat Orange Man stepped down only because he had no other options (for now). Yes - I do expect them to take it with a smile:) I expect them to return with ideas and policies that will make them win at the ballot box not threaten me with violence or take away people ability to vote. We live in a Democracy that values the peaceful transition of power. That is why it has worked. Trump, Green and Gaetz are dangerous precisely because they do not. Nazi Germany wasn't made in a day or one speech.

by proc0 5y ago

iab 5y ago

Violence is a choice; “Don’t be surprised if I become violent from what you said” is how your argument can be condensed. This is unacceptable.

proc0 5y ago
> Don’t be surprised if I become violent from what you said Imagine I walk up to someone and insult them to their face and when they try and defend themselves verbally they are shutdown and not able to speak by a mob around them. This keeps happening again and again and that person starts to visibly get flustered and wanting to fight. I then justify my insults by pointing out how this person likes to fight and is probably a violent, dangerous individual... what should I expect? Should I be surprised when they punch me in the face? One side is provoking, and bullying people, then shutting them down, and then complaining that they are becoming more and more extreme, while using that as a justification. At some point we have to realize, we are asking for this and pretending to be innocent. Saying that they have a choice, is disingenuous. I see both sides wanting violence, but only one side is being honest about it.
- iab 5y ago
  What's telling in your response, is that you didn't refute what I said; with enough of a verbal altercation, violence is inevitable and justified. Everyone should be free to express their opinions without the threat of violence. To say that people do not have a choice, in this country, is farcical. The more I can ridicule people who threaten violence when their demands aren't met, the happier I will be.
  - proc0 5y ago
    Well, you didn't accurately summarize my point. It's not just from demands, it's from getting verbally attacked and also not having the ability to verbally defend. It's also hard to summarize in a comment here so I attempted to illustrate an example, but you are the one completely ignoring it and not addressing it. That's fine, let me just clarify, I don't condone Gaetz (I've only heard of him) or what he is saying, and I don't condone any violence or call for it (and I'm trying to prevent it as much as I can). I am able to see both extremes quite clearly. I think both extremes are wanting violence, but only one side is being direct about it. Ridiculing them is just asking for more extreme behavior, it's not like they will learn from that.
    - iab 5y ago
      I believe the summary was quite accurate, but in case it wasn't clear, let me also clarify; in the general case, violence is not justified. In the specific case that you mentioned, violence is also not justified. This is quite a clear, delineated boundary. With respect to "not having the ability to verbally defend", do you recognize the contradiction in posting that on a public discussion of someone expounding their viewpoints, being covered by national media? This shared fiction of being unable to "defend" is victim-mentality, and used as a shortcut to resort to the threat of violence, which was really the intent anyway.
      - proc0 5y ago
        > do you recognize the contradiction in posting that on a public discussion of someone expounding their viewpoints, being covered by national media? He's not speaking for himself. He's voicing a huge number of people's frustration. Also, this isn't out of nowhere, it's been years in the making. Every year it gets more extreme on both sides. I'm in SV, and it is in my best interest to prevent this, not to justify some moral high ground, as BOTH sides are doing. The evidence of who is actually correct, in my opinion, is in who can prevent the violence. If not tolerating them actually prevents it, then great, I'm probably wrong and overreacting, but I really don't see this being effective.

rektide 5y ago

> If he was so dangerous and a dictator, why did he step down!? Did he? When? He had endless court battles going, he was getting shot down in state after state after state but endlessly starting new litigations. When did we ever feel like a real transition was ever going to be allowed to happen? How many days after January 6th? How many days before January 20th? When if ever did Biden's people get allowed into the White House, when did a transition actually start if ever? I 100% agree with parent, the rhetoric is absolutely warranted. Truth matters. What's happening has been deeply deeply anti-democratic, has been ardently fascist. Factually fascist. There's a lot of situations where we need to try to come together. A wide part of the American political spectrum has been one of snakes & liars for my entire life & truth & democracy has fallen too far down their ladder of concerns to be engagable with honestly. At this point, civilization's mandate to defend ourselves against this persistent harm is paramount. We must prioritize seeing the situation real-ly over trying to build bridges, for, so far, it seems like a radical extremist element only wants to burn every bridge they can & incite zeal & anger & violence.

proc0 5y ago
> but endlessly starting new litigations. Exactly. He was still following the law. You don't think an actual dictator would have been a little bit more effective at holding power? And who attempts an insurrection without guns and gives up immediately? An actual insurrection would have been a bloodbath. I agree with your last point, we need the center to build the bridge, and start closing the gap. Failure to do so could mean we all suffer from it anyway.
- rektide 5y ago
  Following the law... and telling his followers to revolt & overthrow the government.
  - proc0 5y ago
    Once again, if that had been the case, he was either not as dangerous as people thought, or that didn't happen. Otherwise millions of people would have shown up with guns and it would have been a bloody revolution.

strangattractor 5y ago

>If you don't acknowledge these are humans with genuine concerns Are their concerns genuine? Are Jewish space lasers an actual concern? Are microchips really in vaccinations? Do SV companies actually have the ability to stifle their speech? Clearly he seems to be getting his message out despite them. We are at least discussing things on HN rather than threatening to shoot him. My brother believes that the Grand Canyon was made by Noah's flood and the Earth is less than 6000 yrs old. There is no rational discussion to be had or debate to be won. We don't agree on basic facts. I agree that mocking has not worked. The problem seems to be intensifying. From my perspective the GOP has elected representatives that do not respect compromise, policy or law. The Fat Orange Man stepped down only because he had no other options (for now). Yes - I do expect them to take it with a smile:) I expect them to return with ideas and policies that will make them win at the ballot box not threaten me with violence or take away people ability to vote. We live in a Democracy that values the peaceful transition of power. That is why it has worked. Trump, Green and Gaetz are dangerous precisely because they do not. Nazi Germany wasn't made in a day or one speech.