4 ms·

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.

by iab 5y ago

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.
        iab 5y ago
        It is in everyone's interest to prevent this, everywhere. However, the argument as it is being framed is that armed violence is an acceptable, proportionate response to slights from the private sector. There is no acceptable basis for this, which is why ridicule is deserved.
        proc0 5y ago
        > There is no acceptable basis for this That's irrelevant. Your moral high ground is irrelevant once it happens. Oh well. I can't control what's going, I just know hating or ridiculing the other side won't solve anything. You are not pushing for a solution, and therefore are encouraging the conflict to reach its inevitable explosion. I don't see you or people like you as any better than them. I hope you consider this further. I can only hope for the best.

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.

by 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.
      - iab 5y ago
        It is in everyone's interest to prevent this, everywhere. However, the argument as it is being framed is that armed violence is an acceptable, proportionate response to slights from the private sector. There is no acceptable basis for this, which is why ridicule is deserved.
        proc0 5y ago
        > There is no acceptable basis for this That's irrelevant. Your moral high ground is irrelevant once it happens. Oh well. I can't control what's going, I just know hating or ridiculing the other side won't solve anything. You are not pushing for a solution, and therefore are encouraging the conflict to reach its inevitable explosion. I don't see you or people like you as any better than them. I hope you consider this further. I can only hope for the best.