3 ms·

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 shou

by 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.
        iab 5y ago
        Not only is it relevant, it has been the basis of my entire argument. Whether or not someone does something awful because they lack the ability to express themselves any other way apart from violently, isn't a failure of mine. That lies entirely with them. Also; note how your argument has devolved from talking about the issue, to talking about "people like (me)" - this happens often when people argue from emotion, not reason. I also never said I hated anyone - that is your (mistaken) inference, which again lends credence to the fact that this is an emotional trigger for you.

by iab 5y ago

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.
      - iab 5y ago
        Not only is it relevant, it has been the basis of my entire argument. Whether or not someone does something awful because they lack the ability to express themselves any other way apart from violently, isn't a failure of mine. That lies entirely with them. Also; note how your argument has devolved from talking about the issue, to talking about "people like (me)" - this happens often when people argue from emotion, not reason. I also never said I hated anyone - that is your (mistaken) inference, which again lends credence to the fact that this is an emotional trigger for you.