My Photo

« timely, timeless, and amusing | Main | veep talk and the Indian diaspora »

August 10, 2020


I feel very ambivalent about the word "appropriate" in that sentence.

nous, my apologies for mischaracterizing your earlier statement. thank you for expanding on your thoughts here.

the question of when violence is justifiable is a really difficult one. you could simplify the discussion by just saying "never" but I don't think that's accurate. it's certainly not consistent with our own history.

different people are going to draw the line in different places.

for me, personally, as long as people have some kind of lever over the conditions they live under, and those conditions are not literally harmful or threatening, then I don't see a justification.

whether that describes life for everybody in this country or not, is just not a question I can answer.

in general, I think non-violent means have been more successful in this country than violent ones. mostly that has involved absorbing the violence of other people, so it can be a big ask. but overall, it seem to be the more successful path, in this country.

what this country looks like after November, remains to be seen.

I seem to have a lot of time on my hands today.

the institutions of our government will survive this just fine.

If what we see now is what "the institutions of our government surviving just fine" looks like, then I'd say we're in red alert territory.

Optimism is nice. Reality is mandatory.

Indeed, anarchists could easily be seen as a (not even necessarily exceptionally extreme) variety of libertarians.

Violent ones wouldn't be libertarians.

If what we see now is what "the institutions of our government surviving just fine" looks like, then I'd say we're in red alert territory.

A truer word was never spoke.

While there are connections to libertarian ideas, there are also links to communism and other philosophies of the left, and anarchism stands in opposition to nationalism and capitalism.

There's anarcho-capitalism.

Voting by mail, particularly during a pandemic, is a peaceful means of exercising political power. But Marty (and many others outside this little blog community) seems to want to take that away over hypothetical fraud, while ignoring empirical evidence to the contrary, and also while complaining about political violence (some of which is imaginary). It's neat trick of logic.

I, for one, think it's absolutely DEPLORABLE how far-left people dressed up as Federal Law Enforcement without insignia, and abducted and assaulted peaceful protesters and random bystanders.

russell - no apology necessary. I would not say that you mischaracterized the argument. I'm just noting that rioting, like war, is a sort of "politics by other means," but, like war, is not always a productive means and that it always comes with a cost (which is why I won't give it blanket endorsement).

If the cost of the status quo is heavier to the aggrieved than the cost of the violence and its inevitable response, then rioting becomes an alternative.

if the cost of putting down the riots to maintain order becomes heavier than the benefit of maintaining the status quo for those opposing change, then change becomes an alternative.

As for CharlesWT anarcho-capitalism and non-violence, those two things are not essentially linked. Medieval Iceland often gets cited as a historical example, but the proto-anarcho-capitalism of the Thing existed alongside a long tradition of bloodfeuds that wiped out entire families.

Speaking of which, Icelandic literature is a good place to think through the arguments that Piven and Cloward make for social welfare and civil unrest. Gísla Saga is a good one for working through this.

Thomas Edsall

Violent ones wouldn't be libertarians.

Charles, are you trying to claim that libertarians are inherently non-violent? Because the number of libertarians who have staged confrontations with government folks just doing their job to enforce the law, while waving heavy weapons, suggests otherwise.

To be more succinct, libertarians are against initiating violence. The non-aggression principle. They're OK with using violence to defend persons and property.

When that defense is justified is the question. It's like George Zimmerman "standing his ground" or what happens when people "resist arrest." Hell, Timothy McVeigh may have believed that he was defending himself, others, his property, or others' property. Draw your lines into a fig leaf.

imma go out on a limb and assert that very few people initiate violence without thinking that they're righteously defending persons and property. and those few who do are most likely mentally ill.

the problem is that what's righteous for you isn't necessarily righteous to anyone else.

Charles, I can relate, since I have often argued that the reactionaries who are so prominent in our political system are not really conservatives. No matter what they themselves claim. But I, and you, must acknowledge that reality that the vast majority of the population doesn't use our definition -- however correct we may be.

A lengthy op-ed piece in Haaretz about the right wing paramilitary groups mobilizing for the aftermath of the presidential election:

I appear to have lost two duplicate posts about a Haaretz op ed to the spam filter. The op-ed is "Agitators, infiltrators, white supremacists and civil war accelerationists: How America's far right vigilantes and militias are arming and organizing to counter a potential 'Democratic coup'"

Can't seem to post the link without running afoul of the spam trap.

There's a lot of info in the op-ed as well. It's not just a think piece.

wj: Spam liberation accomplished.

"But there is, even beyond JT, a thread that violence will be the outcome of a Trump win and that would be understandable if not acceptable."

We haven't yet had the savage killing violence required in any polity in response to the LAST election stolen by Trump and his trump-branded traitorous Republican Party:

We waited to see.

Now .... we see.

High-powered gun sights purportedly add acuity to reclaimed vision.

All conservatives/republicans have the "T" for Trump brand sizzled into their asses.

Acceptable, never.

Understanding, nah.

I don't find the violence of the American Revolution and the Civil War either.

Like a cold-blooded mother-effing conservative, I find that violence and the violence to come necessary.

There had never been a Trump win.

And, spare the good people here comparison with me.

They don't like it either.

It's worse than that. Over 600 sorting machines have been removed from offices across the country and won't be replaced before the election and then they promise to remove many more the day after.

Netflix movies are held up. Medical prescriptions are not arriving, under efficient subhuman republican rule.

Deliver the litter, the sooner the better, or we'll loose the dogs of savage hell on the perpetrators:

Peace and Love .. later.

An even-handed look at what's up with the USPS.

"Jane, Dara, and Matt on the health and history of the postal service, the political games being played, and what it means for November's election."
The Weeds: WTF is happening with USPS (Podcast)

nous, good Haaretz piece. I was struck by this, among much else, in light of our recent discussion with Marty about the violence in Portland (and of course there is more about that in the piece itself):

Most recently, and a drastic example, was a pipe bomb attack on protesters in Portland, Oregon: the perpetrator has been identified as an ex-Navy SEAL with a history of posting antisemitic Nazi propaganda and Soros conspiracy theories on social media.

Pure, delighted EVIL telling us who HE and HIS are going to murder:

For the record, I would never eat a republican on account of the predatory brain worms feeding in their blood, and their children are so ugly and Covid-diseased that the thought of raping them has never crossed my mind.

Raising them as RINOs in decent families and raising their taxes, yes, that's occurred to me, but they'd probably rather be raped and eaten on account of the way they are being raised as gibbering jackels.

Can I believe a President of what used to be referred to as the United States of America answered that question in the way he did?

I guess I have to.

right wing nutjobs present the greatest threat of political violence in the US. Now, and for some years.

The freaking FBI says so. I take their word for it.

I've already yelled at Marty enough for one day, so whatever. But you're not going to persuade him, or basically anyone who thinks like him, of the plain truth of it. He doesn't, and they don't, want to hear it.


But the Proud Boys haven't shown up anyplace there werent already vi[lent protests

is just f***ing wrong. Plainly and factually wrong. The Proud Boys show up places and start fights. It's what they do. It's how they earn their little Proud Boy merit badges. They're brownshirts.

People who engage in political dialog at all from a left-of-Goldwater point of view have all had the experience, daily at times, over the last couple of decades of listening to their counter-parties going on at length about how conservatives have all the guns and when the shit hits the fan all the liberals are either going to cry like babies or get shot. Or maybe both.

We don't get much of it here, at least not anymore, because folks like that weren't made to feel at home. But you can find that quality of conversation anytime you like, 24/7.

Conservatives need to clean their own damned house before they come here giving any of us lectures about left-wing violence.

If anyone wants to watch something relevant but distracting, please start the series "A French Village." It's a fictional account of the years of German occupation, and the rise of the Resistance.

It's available a lot of places: MHZ, I think, for one, but Hulu, Amazon Prime (incomplete there), and other services. Well worth it, and maybe also worth a discussion here.

Something Marty won't have seen, and will never fold into his view of what's happening:

Seattle police on Thursday retracted an earlier claim that protesters camped at what has been dubbed "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" were extorting nearby businesses, according to The Seattle Times.

Police chief Carmen Best walked back prior statements made by her own department, which have since circulated widely and attracted condemnation from conservative critics of the protesters.

At a Wednesday news conference, Assistant Seattle Police Chief Deanna Nollette had told reporters: "We've heard, anecdotally, reports of citizens and businesses being asked to pay a fee to operate within this area. This is the crime of extortion," Fox News reported.

The report became a headline item in several other right-leaning news and commentary pieces, including on the New York Post, PJ Media, and One America News Network.

But later on Thursday, Best emphasized those claims effectively only have the status of rumor, and that nobody had formally reported anything to the police.

I'm going to assume that Marty was simply unfamiliar with their agenda and history.

Proud Boys, this time with link.

Brief note on the Democratic convention:

I think I'm the most blatantly partisan Democrat here. I'm wearing the flag tonight.

Thank y'all for acknowledging that I'm a Democrat, and have been one since I've been here, for my entire life, and maybe as a legacy. Thanks, Dad and Mom, for indoctrinating me to try harder to be a better democrat, Democrat, and liberal. Those words are mine.

More dangerous to the Republic than the Proud Boys and company, the latter of whom will at least make themselves available to be gunned down in broad daylight when THEY start the violence:

These big boys are scurrying rat f*cking traitors who will have to be hunted down to the ends of the Earth at great expense to the raised taxes of republican scum throughout the country who will be sent the bill for the noble work of patriots.

Bringing QAnon to certain fatal justice will take some specialized expertise. I'm sure someone in the dreaded and maligned deep state knows who and where they are.

And then there is the matter of the awful public choreographed pageantry of Trump's and Pence's and their buttlickers' pathetic howling exits from this world.

The most notable thing about the Proud Boys is they have very few members for the publicity they get. They had a big DC rally, 250 people.

I'm not worried about the rising tide of far right hate groups, the cant recruit enough members to be any real danger. Left wing hate groups fill the streets of cities. They scare me.

It only took two

Hate.....such a terrible word. There are many brands of political "extremism" (cf. George Washington, traitor to the Crown), but hate, well hate is a particularly prominent attribute of right wing extremism....hatred of Jews. Hatred of blacks. Hatred of "Mexcans". It is the lifeblood of reactionary politics, the idea of "the other".

Just watched Barack Obama's really excellent speech. God, I hope enough previously non-voting Americans did...

Three, if you count Newt Gingrich.

Four, if you count Tom Delay.

Five, if you count Dick Armey.

Six, if you count Rush Limbaugh and a host of murderous conservative hit men talk jocks.

Seven, if you count Pat Buchanan.

Eight and counting, if you count the entire leadership and membership of the NRA, among whom was Timothy McVeigh.

As I've noted before, the husband of one my best friends and a federal employee was murdered by McVeigh and company on that day.

The building in Denver that my former wife worked in at the time of the bombing, and that I had worked in years earlier, was cased by McVeigh and company as a potential target as well.

The payback coming to the conservative movement goes much, much further back than whatever outrage Trump committed this morning on the twatting machine.

To quote my late father-in-law when he described his "epiphany" while standing in the fuselage of a World War II bomber over France when he was a callow 18 years old, on maybe his third mission, and a hot shard of Nazi metal opened up a hole at his feet and passed within inches of his testicles and his nose before exiting the top of the plane, "Those f*ckers are trying to kill me!"

Left wing hate groups fill the streets of cities. They scare me.

Best to stay home, then.

I'm a little less scared now that terrorist Bannon is temporarily not filling the streets, well, until he is pardoned by Beelzebub.

As a law and order Democrat, I favor the death penalty for him.

It can be done the right way, or it can be done the wrong way.

Too bad for him that the rule of law won't be restored for some time.

JDT, about those criminal referals in your 7:16 post. Let's hope Barr does his usual job and rules it should simply be ignored. Because a) that ups the odds that Trump won't bestir himself to issue them all preemptive pardons on his way out the door. And b) a new administration is then free to take up the requested investigation and file charges.

I'm a little less scared now that terrorist Bannon is temporarily not filling the streets

Actually, you should be celebrating Bannon et al. on this. Far better they just stole the donated money than that it got spent on actual wall construction. With all the environmental damage that uselessness would entail.

Yet more institutional sabotage by the mysteriously traitorous and malignant conservative movement:

Hate.....such a terrible word.

BLM - hate racism and getting shot.
antifa - hate fascists.
Portland anarchists - hate federal buildings, apparently.

I'm not a racist and I'm gonna shoot anybody, I'm not a fascist, and I'm not a federal building. So I personally feel safe from that left-wing hate.

If I had a business in some areas of Portland, or Seattle, or a handful of other places, I would probably worry about vandalism and looting. Not a trivial thing. But my understanding, from my limited exposure to folks who actually do have those things, is that they have mixed feelings about all of it. I'm happy to let them speak for themselves.

The protests in some American cities have been profoundly disruptive, in some specific and fairly narrow areas of those cities. I'm happy to let the people who live in and govern those cities sort out how to handle that.

People that hate other people because of their skin color, or their ethnic or national background, or their gender or sexual identity, or their religion or lack of same, are a different kettle of fish.

People who consider themselves superior to other people on the basis of any of that, and think they are entitled to bully or exclude or deny the rights and standing of other people because of any of that, are incompatible with a free and open society. Their values are incompatible with anything this nation and society claims to stand for.

I don't support vandalism and looting. I don't support disruptive public actions for their own sake. I think there are profound problems with policing in this country, but I think the "all cops are bad" attitude displayed by many in the anarchist community is foolish and counter-productive.

All of that said, I see a distinction between people who hate other people for their essential natures, and people who hate people who are in the first category.

I'm not in either category, but I'm sympathetic to the latter. I'm not, to say the least, sympathetic to the former.

All kinds of hate out there. Some is earned.

Not sure if Marty will bother to read this, but bellingcat has a detailed discussion of what happened in Portland

The abduction filmed on the 15th did not happen in a vacuum. As other local reporters have noted, it was the end result of more than six weeks of escalating state violence against largely nonviolent demonstrators.

Right wing looting and vandalism against the United States Post Office and American voters.

Left wing hate groups fill the streets of cities.

this is a fantasy.

...six weeks of escalating state violence against largely nonviolent demonstrators.

It's the macro version of this:

The video shows Ujiri headed to the court to celebrate with players, his hand on an all-access pass that he appeared to be tucking into his jacket. It sounds like someone tells Ujiri to show the pass to Strickland, but before he can, Strickland appears to put a hand on Ujiri’s chest and shove him, telling him to “back the [expletive] up.”

Ujiri says, “What are you pushing me for? I’m the president of the Raptors.”

Strickland puts both hands in his chest and shoves him again. At that point, Ujiri does push Strickland back.

Push someone until they push back, then you can say it was their fault. This is nothing new. In fact, I'd say it's ancient.

The usual suspects, yesterday, today, and unless they are removed from this Earth, all of our tomorrows:

Curt Schilling bums me out. He pitched for the '93 Phillies team that went to the WS. They lost, but it was a great run, and I was 25 years old - the perfect age for all the revelry going on. Lenny Dykstra always seemed like a jerk, so no surprise or disappointment when he proved it beyond a doubt.
Schilling was tough but affable, or so it seemed back then. He was downright heroic with the 2004 Red Sox. Now he's dead to me.

first comment on that Atrios link:

How in the world did QAnon not discover this deep state conspiracy first?

Democrats and liberals in America need food and beverage tasters:

Yeah, baseball is berry, berry good to even the shitheads:

As a man of faith, he says. No kidding.

Like any crypto-Christian canceling employee of FOX, hateful conservative movement Tourette's Syndrome can break out even during the play-by-play.

They can't help it.

To not use language in a professional setting that they obviously use constantly in their private conversations would just be too politically correct.

Rod Dreher uses the term Weimar Germany/America to express the same slur, while of course, musing about why he might have to vote again for Hitler, despite everything he knows about the latter.

In his favor, Brennaman was following FOX style book guidelines.

I don't know how he got through all of those Jackie Robinson anniversary baseball broadcasts without torpedoing his career long before this.

He didn't even manage to do a Santorum "the blahs".

The "fog" capitol of the world.

The "faaa....ct" capitol of the world.

The "faa...aaaaaa" a long, long way to run .... world.

The fa... ahmmm .. cigarette .. that's it ... capitol of the world. Anyone got a match?

Nope, enunciated just as clear as a bell.

Like when Archie Bunker asked Sammy David Junior if he'd like cream or sugar in his EYE.

Davis. Wrong guy, right eye.

By the way, Bannon was nabbed by the Post Office.

one of the frigate capitals of the world!

By the way, Bannon was nabbed by the Post Office.

karma has a little-known wicked sense of humor.

And Bannon is getting prosecuted by the Southern District of New York. In spite of Trump/Barr putting in new management.

But perhaps Trump didn't actually know him, and he only counts as a disgruntled ex-employee....

If a) the Bannon indictment, and b) the Trump tax returns saga, are examples of "the institutions of our government surviving just fine" , and I guess against all odds they are, what is clear is that they will not survive just fine if Trump wins again. Bannon will be pardoned, if found guilty and if he has enough on Trump to be threatening, and the ongoing decimation of the various regional benches and prosecutorial offices will ensure that Trump is no longer inconvenienced by such legal outcomes,

I think Kamala Harris is a good, sensible pick, but on the basis of her speech at the convention not much of an inspirational orator (delivery, not content). Hopefully who she is and what she's done and is capable of will be more important than how she says what she says.

peaceful, not-at-all-racist, 'conservatives' filling the streets of cities.

I read it lj, I didn't read anything that disputes what I said in the first place. Months of recurring violence against property and police. In every instance the police gave warnings. It couldn't have been a clearer description.

BTW, pointing out there were some peaceful protesters doesnt change any of the above.

BTW, pointing out there were some peaceful protesters doesnt change any of the above.

well, i guess the bar has been set.

heal thyself 'conservative'.

and not another word until you've eliminated the problem.

...but on the basis of her speech at the convention not much of an inspirational orator (delivery, not content).

It is hard to judge from a speech given to an empty room, though. I mean, Obama did pretty well, but he's an exceptional speaker with more of that kind of experience (talking through a camera) after 8 years of being president. Getting those pauses for applause adds a lot, as does having to speak over ambient crowd noise. It's tough to pull off if you're not used to it.

i'll be happy if she can get through two paragraphs without ridiculous nonsensical boasting or trying to gaslight us.

anything beyond that is gravy.

That's true, hsh. Although Michelle did rather brilliantly. To the extent that it matters (and let's hope it doesn't), we'll hope for better as the fight goes on, and that her interactions with Pence tell the real story better.

Nevah hoid of any of 'em.

What wall?

Months of recurring violence against property and police. In every instance the police gave warnings.

This seems pretty accurate, to me. The recurring violence here, with rare exceptions, is generally vandalism, throwing stuff at cops, spraying graffiti on public buildings, setting small fires, blocking traffic.

I get that you find it disturbing. I find it disturbing, too.

I also find it disturbing that there are highly organized bands of heavily armed Nazis and/or white nationalists, people who are committed to violence as a path, trying to spark a civil war. Literally. By attending otherwise peaceful demonstrations and starting fights and committing acts of vandalism and mayhem. Also, by killing cops. Also, by murdering people as those people attend religious services and generally go about their daily lives. Dozens of people, hundreds of people, murdered. Out of sheer hate for who they were.

The latter concerns me far more than the former. You appear to see things the other way around.

To each their own.

Behind Barrs:

are there any former Trump campaign officials who haven't been charged with something?

Come to think of it, that is an excellent question.

Maybe Corey Lewandowski? Never charged (as far as I know), just accused of manhandling a female reporter and then lying about it, with supporting video proof of the incident.

Well, how about this?

The centers helping child abuse victims have seen 40,000 fewer kids amid the pandemic.

Child abuse reports began to plummet across the country — not because it wasn’t happening, but because teachers, doctors and others had fewer ways of catching it. Now, a new survey of children’s advocacy centers across the country offers some of the clearest data yet on the scope of this gap in child abuse reporting. The centers, which provide support for families and children as abuse cases move through the justice system, reported serving 40,000 fewer children nationwide between January and June of this year than the same period last year, from 192,367 children in 2019 down to 152,016 this year, a 21 percent drop, according to the National Children’s Alliance, an accrediting body for a network of 900 children’s advocacy centers.

Expect a Trump statement (perhaps at the convention next week?) touting the drop in child abuse during his administration. From someone who opposes testing for ccovid-19 because it would shot more cases, expect nothing less.

any problem can be solved by ignoring it until the next guy has to deal with it.

a classic Trumpian solution!

loving this J Rubin piece.

Seventh, Democrats have gone out of their way to show that they love America as it is now — not as it was whenever Trump thinks it was great. They embrace the diversity, the triumph of women, the technological innovation, the immigrant story and the notion that we reinvent America in each generation. They have embraced not only members of their own party but all Americans.

Eighth, once upon a time Republicans resisted moral relativism and postmodern deconstructivism. Now it is Democrats who summon us to stick to the facts, debunk crackpot theories, demand we hold ourselves up to standards of decency and civility, and praise scientific inquiry. Conservatives used to understand that objective reality was itself a check on authoritarian government; now they simply invent conspiracies to justify power grabs.

Ninth, the Democratic Party is now the party of family values. Democrats extol the Biden clan and its collective resilience. They bemoan the destruction of a family by overzealous and inhumane immigration enforcement. They are concerned with the anxiety of parents about their children’s schools and pay attention to the loss of loved ones who have been forced by the pandemic to die alone. Meanwhile, in the other party, a serial divorcé and philanderer rips children from their parents’ arms and waves off parental concerns over children heading back to school during a pandemic. The GOP cares no more for families than it does for the truth.


The chickens come home to ...... die:

Omelet you know right now that this has all the makings of an eggstraordinary cock up.

A fustercluck with feathers, indeed.

"Are those talons?" Napoleon Dynamite might well arsk.

We may have reached beak Trump.

Wattle we do?

Flock if I know.

Maybe ugh will hatch a theory, but we haven't had a peep out of him in months.

He should come out of his shell.

The chickenhawks on the right will accuse the chickens of being actor provocateurs and like Joseph Welch did in 1963 regarding another plucked-over minority, accuse liberals of trying to create a fowl Soviet Chicken Republic right here in River City.

You just know this failure by the Postal Service must be Obama's fault somehow.

My best guess: it's because the Post Office was without any Board members when he left office. (Because McConnell wouldn't approve anyone he nominated. But why confuse the issue with facts?)

Thanks for reading that Marty. I'd suggest that it's on you to give a link to some information that supports what you think. Otherwise, folks like me are going to infer what you read and what you didn't. For example, at the end of the Bellingcat piece, there is a discussion of the 'pipebomb' and some of the statements by Chad Wolfe. A brief excerpt:

This is certainly very sneaky. By stating it “appears” to be a pipe bomb the statement avoids addressing the fact that no actual pipe bomb has ever been found and no one has been charged for possession of one. Despite the Acting Secretary Wolf’s claims that these demonstrators are intensely violent, the vast majority of the crimes he attributes to them are simple acts of vandalism

I'm left to infer that your fear is like the fear held by Amy Cooper, the woman who called the police on the black man in Central Park. I'm sure you are scared, just as I'm sure that Cooper was scared, just as I was scared as a 5 year old by having to go to bed when the music from Perry Mason came on the TV. However, there is really no justification for that fear, but all of the reportage has it so that you think that graffiti is something that puts you in fear of your life.

Cooper was swiftly fired by her employer and charged with a crime. However, the person who she called the police on said that he didn't want her to suffer any further consequences (I found the article title "Birdwatcher not cooperating with investigation into Central Park ‘Karen’ Amy Cooper" interesting because it seems to flip the blame onto the black man. I believe this is purposeful, if you look at the Post's editorial here, it notes this
when he wasn’t really threatening, just being creepy. (How many birdwatchers carry doggy treats just so they can lure illegally off-the-leash canines?)

When he specifically said that he does that because so many people fail to obey the leash law.)

This seems to summarize the conflict. On an interpersonal level, you may have people you know who have these irrational fears and you may try to talk them out of it, but if you can't, you guide the conversation to avoid the hotspots. On a societal level, at a certain point, those people who can't seem to shake themselves of their fears are going to get ground up and spat out.

This blog operates in an in-between space, where things try to be interpersonal, we try to take an interest in what each other is doing and communicate our interests and thoughts, even though it is unlikely that we will ever meet, but because we don't meet, it ends up mirroring the societal. When a contentious subject comes up, there's depending on who it is, a push to pile on or an urge to disengage. How we do this is everyone's individual responsibility. But it all starts with you posting about how scared you are without any kind of information to back up your thoughts, which leads me to think that you really have no basis for this.

I get that it can't be pleasant to be dissected here or to post things that then get torn up by everyone. But your plea to GftNC about how she isn't "privy to the hours I spend being the moderate in discussions with my more Trump cultist friends", you want to cast yourself as the person in-between the crazy anarchists here and all the 'Trump cultists'. As you started this out, you said

Ffs, we are experiencing Civil Rights Era weather underground violence today. The building violence is all from the left and it isn't civil disobedience, its f'ing violence.

Yet, when asked to provide information to support this, you simply return to tropes. If you really want to be where you think you are, you might think about backing up what you say with some references. Otherwise, you are going to get beat up by the people who view this as a societal space and ignored by the ones who view this as interpersonal.

You are left to infer whatever you please. Oddly, no amount of violence on the left is impossible to handwave away.

That was way too many words to make no point whatsoever, or to obscure your point to make it seem it wasn't a purely personnel attack.

I get beat up here regularly with my complete knowledge and obvious consent. I do, though, get to pick which topics I want to take a real drubbing on and the ones I want to make a quick point and catch the arrows on my way out.

Personal- personnel odd correction i wonder how I misspelled it.

Oddly, no amount of violence on the left is impossible to handwave away.

Weather Underground - I condemn it.

Pulling people out of cars and beating the crap out of them - I condemn it.

Smashing windows, setting fires, looting and general random acts of destruction and mayhem - I condemn it, mostly because it's pointless and harmful. Plus, it's not your stuff, so you don't get to trash it or set fire to it.

Getting in fights with cops I can understand in some cases, in other cases I condemn it. It depends. Even when I can understand it, I don't see the upside.

Getting in fights with fascists, I don't agree with as a tactical matter. I don't think it accomplishes anything useful, it gives the fascist bully boys exactly what they want, and it's generally not justifiable on the basis of self-defense. If they come to your mosque or synagogue or peaceful protest and try to kill you first or beat the crap out of you first, different story.

But I have to say I don't have a huge ethical problem with people who want to punch Nazis. I just think it gives them exactly what they want, so it seems self-defeating. Why make a Nazi happy?

Non-violent protest, I basically never condemn. Even if it creates inconvenience and discomfort for some folks.

Hope that clarifies my own personal "hand-waving". Some folks here will give a little more leeway than I do, most probably will give less.

So actually, "no amount of violence on the left is impossible to handwave away" is false. Quit saying it, because it's a lie.

We're just not sufficiently upset about Portland and Seattle and Minneapolis to suit you. Even though some of us probably are.

If it makes you happy to persist in your belief in our general blindness and hypocrisy, carry on. There is no doubt bugger-all we can do to make you think otherwise.

I am in pretty much complete agreement with your first few paragraphs russell, and appreciated your earlier recognition that there was some level of violence growing on the left.

I should have specifically mentioned that in my comment. My apology.

Shorter me:

Do you actually want to talk about the civil unrest that is going on - what is justifiable, what isn't, where the lines are? - or do you just want to come here and tell us all that we're just a bunch of liberal hypocrites living in our little bubble?

The first is of interest. The second is not.

If you want to say that none of it is justifiable, all of the civil unrest going on in Portland, or Seattle, or Minneapolis, or wherever, is out of bounds and just freaking wrong, that's a credible point of view. But present it as such. Explain why you think that.

Who knows, maybe you're right. Try not leading with insults, you might be more persuasive.

You think you're getting a "drubbing", but people are just trying to get you to justify the generally rude opening you made into this thread.

It's completely up to you how you want to engage here.

I should have specifically mentioned that in my comment. My apology.

Cool, no worries. Apologies are not needed.

Clarity, however, is helpful.

I appreciate the response.

Oddly, no amount of violence on the left is impossible to handwave away.

Oddly, you seem to be unable to post a single link that supports what you say.

I'm on the other side of the Pacific, so I may have to infer more than people living in the states, but given the fact that everyone seems to be calling you out, I'd put more faith in my take than in yours. It is 'personal' because I'm talking to you, but I spend a lot of words because I want to be clear and not simply toss a remark that might be taken as an insult. Unlike Russell, I don't think you are lying, I think you really believe that there is a tidal wave of left wing Weather Underground style violence and no matter how much you disagree with Trump and his allies, you have to side with what you think are the lesser of two evils. I think fear is a motivating factor for you and the reason you don't post links is that you are scared of being proved wrong. Fear is a terrible thing, and when it comes from a lack of analysis, it has you reacting to things that aren't there. But other than than, wrs.

You know what scares the shit out of me? Republican elected officials.

Trump administration bars FDA from regulating some lab tests, including for coronavirus

Because if we are to (reluctantly) do testing, heaven forbid we have quality tests. It just makes it harder to disparage the results and claim we're actually doing brilliantly.

I entered this thread stating I was not going to engage. For a variety of reasons. In between some macro stuff we have discussed the ongoing violence and I think my view is clear that it is not justified and is dangerous. I also don't support the Proud Boys but I'm pretty sure almost nobody does. No one I know anyway, in either camp.

So my view is, the greater danger is violence that is justified and tolerated.

The one link that described the violence in the key cities supported my position completely, why would I go find another at that point?

I actually don't feel like in this thread I've taken much of a drubbing, I've been beat up more quite often.

But to your point russell, I do sometimes just want to state that there is a pov or set of facts that I feel is being obviously ignored. I delete a lot of those when I know I don't have the time or energy to take my drubbing. So yes, I do knowingly control how and when I engage.

Unlike Russell, I don't think you are lying

I don't think Marty is lying. I think he believes things that are not true.

Hope this is short enough to keep your attention, it will be mostly your own words.

Just for the record, here is your first comment:

Ffs, we are experiencing Civil Rights Era weather underground violence today. The building violence is all from the left and it isn't civil disobedience, its f'ing violence.

Yall sit here jawing about monsters under the bed while real, dangerous people are rioting and beating people across the country daily.

Such bs. When Joe wins and the people who actually respect the law take their open carry weapons and quietly wait for the next election, or noisily wait for the next election, will anyone here admit to being wrong?

Naw, you'll just find a picture of some guy with a rifle and get the vapors while ignoring people in black masks looting and pulling people out of cars and beating them.

Just to repeat, I don't think you are lying when you most recently say

I entered this thread stating I was not going to engage.

But when you believe that you stated something you didn't, you should expect some shit.

Texan Republican Party subhumans go full QAnon.

The violence now is nothing.

Do you hear that in the distance?

It's coming.

I'm glad that Marty runs in purer company than I do. I used to train in martial arts with a bunch of people who were friends with 3%ers and ex-operatives who, prior to C-ville would say that if you were in a vehicle when leftist protesters showed up, you hit the gas because it's self-defense. They all laughed when students got pepper sprayed for protesting fee hikes and they all thought George Zimmerman was a second amendment hero.

Still do, from what I can tell.

MRAs and QAnons and preppers. They are dotted across the US. Some of them are police officers. Some of them run training seminars for police forces. Some have done keynotes for the NRA.

They have friends and training partners in Europe, too. Some of those are known right wing nationalists.

The ones I knew weren't always bad, but I watched the whole bunch go down the rabbit hole in the last decade.

I know a bunch of leftist activists, actual communists, BLM supporters and antifa types, too. None of them own a single firearm. I'm not claiming that there aren't any others that do. I know better than that. I'm just saying that none of the leftists I know build their identity around violence the way that those guys I trained with did.

None of the ones I know advocate for violence or for arson or destruction. What they refuse to do is to accept that the violence of black bloc minority delegitimizes the cause. I can't fault that.

What scares me most in all of this is that I'm hearing my evangelical family repeating the things that the 3%ers are saying and sliding all apocalyptic, and I don't know of any argument that will shift them out of seeing this as a literal war.

You think things are bad now. Just wait until the climate goes the next step towards environmental collapse. The apocalyptic certainty is just getting started.

I've just decided to vote in person.

I want to be fucked with by republican vermin.

One dead Trump in the White House could be a good omen of many to follow:

What scares me most in all of this is that I'm hearing my evangelical family repeating the things that the 3%ers are saying and sliding all apocalyptic, and I don't know of any argument that will shift them out of seeing this as a literal war...

That is the Trump election campaign right there:
"If you want a vision of your life under a Biden presidency, think of the smouldering ruins in Minneapolis, the violent anarchy of Portland, the blood-stained sidewalks of Chicago and imagine the mayhem coming to our town and every single town in America."

He has the paranoid vote.

Re JDT's 11:43 link.
Trump, routinely, accuses his opponents of things the he is doing. We know that. So if he is accusing Democrats of being a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles, we can reasonably conclude . . . .

wj, unless you believe Jabbabonk to be Satan, this would be absurd. The guy worships no one but himself and expects the same from his followers.

Always remember, it is what it is:

It's his dupes, the tens of millions of them, you gotta squeeze until they squeal, even if they do end up in a Jersey landfill, the louses.

Well. Just watched Joe Biden's terrific speech.

I kept thinking of the film Bridge of Spies, where the extraordinary Mark Rylance, playing the Russian spy, tells Tom Hanks why he thinks of him as "stoikiy muzhik" (a description that becomes even more significant towards the end of the film, though I cannot find a clip of that):

The contrast between Biden and Trump could really not be starker.

I also don't support the Proud Boys but I'm pretty sure almost nobody does. No one I know anyway, in either camp.

So my view is, the greater danger is violence that is justified and tolerated.

violence that is justified is ... just. doesn't seem right to condemn something that's just.


how much you think violence is tolerated and how much violence you think actually occurred is subjective and, not surprisingly, pre-determined by where you stand on other things...

The split in the polls on whether the protests were violent or peaceful is striking. The Post-Schar School survey found that 43 percent believe that the protests were mostly violent and that an identical share think they were mostly peaceful. Opinions diverge sharply by ideology, with 70 percent of liberals saying they were mostly peaceful and 60 percent of conservatives concluding they were mostly violent. In fairness, a majority (66 percent) thought that neither the police nor the protesters but “other people acting irresponsibly” were responsible for the violence.


Clearly, what seemed obvious to many people on the left and center-left — that the police greeted protests against violence with violence — was not apparent to all. The political polarization evident in the reactions is also significant: As the debates continue, Americans may gravitate further toward “their” side’s view; the president will certainly try to make that happen by hammering on his “law and order” message.

golly. what a shocker.

The comments to this entry are closed.