3 ms·

> 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 s

by 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 proc0 5y ago

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.