Why aren't we having a National conversation about Leftist violence?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You refer to me as Pee Wee and then claim I am upset..

Seriously.


And Frankly? Like you have been holding back and now you need to reveal your earthshaking Dr. Phil psychoanalysis?
Christ.

Please stop.

Being frank means being direct to the point. You do seem upset to me.

And the Pee Wee reference was about the "I know you are but what am I" reasoning. I won't tell you that you should know that though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Repeats itself. WTF does that even mean?

Oh , people disagree and kill each other, history has exactly replicated itself once again. People are wary of other cultures, big news. History repeats itself, xenophobia exists.

And you are the one who accused me of making simpleton blanket statements...

I was talking about how fascists came to power. Hitler was elected. He went to jail for violence and wrote Mein Kampf. When he came out he claimed to have turned over a new leaf and tried nonviolent means to power. He didn't take long to revert burning the reichstag in the days after the election. I would say Mussolini with his bombast and claims to Italian greatness are the more apt comparison. You really need stormtroopers to be compared to Hitler. Benito was elected too.

We are talking about the specific presidential election. Youre hardly coherent anymore. Maybe you should just stop.

[pgardn]

I was talking about how fascists came to power. Hitler was elected. He went to jail for violence and wrote Mein Kampf. When he came out he claimed to have turned over a new leaf and tried nonviolent means to power. He didn't take long to revert burning the reichstag in the days after the election. I would say Mussolini with his bombast and claims to Italian greatness are the more apt comparison. You really need stormtroopers to be compared to Hitler. Benito was elected too.

We are talking about the specific presidential election. Youre hardly coherent anymore. Maybe you should just stop.

Now you are just running in circles.

Therefore I am not coherent.
Excellent.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now you are just running in circles.

Therefore I am not coherent.
Excellent.

You not being able to follow along is not my problem. As I stated before the racist xenophobia, calls for violent response to protest, and stark nationalism are similar to the rhetoric used by European fascists coming to power in the early 20th century. It's important to remember that in light of recent events because history does have a tendency to repeat itself. This is doubly concerning due to the fact of the uneducated nature of Trump supporters as a whole.

You seem too obtuse to piece it together so I helped. AT least you stopped putting that slave morality on me.

[pgardn]

Being frank means being direct to the point. You do seem upset to me.

And the Pee Wee reference was about the "I know you are but what am I" reasoning. I won't tell you that you should know that though.

No it means being candid. Which implies you could have been holding back something before.

"I know you are but what am I?" Wtf?

I said you understand what I am pointing out but diverting. Which you were. And I said we both know this. This is name calling? Cmon. Just stop already.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No it means being candid. Which implies you could have been holding back something before.

"I know you are but what am I?" Wtf?

I said you understand what I am pointing out but diverting. Which you were. And I said we both know this. This is name calling? Cmon. Just stop already.

Words have many definitions. That you pigeonhole down to one and insist denotes your scope.

I asked you to justify the "I know you are but what am I" response to how I characterize the Darrin account and you failed already.

[pgardn]

You not being able to follow along is not my problem. As I stated before the racist xenophobia, calls for violent response to protest, and stark nationalism are similar to the rhetoric used by European fascists coming to power in the early 20th century. It's important to remember that in light of recent events because history does have a tendency to repeat itself. This is doubly concerning due to the fact of the uneducated nature of Trump supporters as a whole.

You seem too obtuse to piece it together so I helped. AT least you stopped putting that slave morality on me.

Yes. History repeats itself. There will be more human conflict.
Simplistic BS.

Quit trying to stretch those links to make a point I'm not debating.

No violence at Trump rallies. Just leave the idiots alone or protest peacefully. But you wanna extend this continuously.

I can't stop you. so keep going, I will just paste this back in I guess.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes. History repeats itself. There will be more human conflict.
Simplistic BS.

Quit trying to stretch those links to make a point I'm not debating.

No violence at Trump rallies. Just leave the idiots alone or protest peacefully. But you wanna extend this continuously.

I can't stop you. so keep going, I will just paste this back in I guess.

That is not what I said. I am more concerned about an authoritarian regime taking over the country. I am not talking about conflict. Nuance is hard for you.

I am not going to say that there is never a reason to become violent at a political rally. Sorry I won't use that type of slave morality.

[pgardn]

Words have many definitions. That you pigeonhole down to one and insist denotes your scope.

I asked you to justify the "I know you are but what am I" response to how I characterize the Darrin account and you failed already.

What?

I said the article was in bringing this up as a very clear response to the violence at Trump rallies. That subject could be addressed in many different cases. It's not some new insightful debate and also used at an inappropriate moment IMO.

[pgardn]

That is not what I said. I am more concerned about an authoritarian regime taking over the country. I am not talking about conflict. Nuance is hard for you.

I am not going to say that there is never a reason to become violent at a political rally. Sorry I won't use that type of slave morality.

Well then don't respond to my point with your extensions into other subject areas. You responded to my post. Go back and read again. Keeping on subject is difficult for you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What?

I said the article was in bringing this up as a very clear response to the violence at Trump rallies. That subject could be addressed in many different cases. It's not some new insightful debate and also used at an inappropriate moment IMO.

Please quote the part of the article that states that. He starts off the article discussing Trumps provocations and then talks about people like you with your blanket dismissals. He then talks about multiple times where violent protest ended up in change stating that blanket statements such as yours are unfounded. He gets what I am talking about. You cannot apparently.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well then don't respond to my point with your extensions into other subject areas. You responded to my post. Go back and read again.

if it applies it applies. not my fault you struggle to keep up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What?

I said the article was in bringing this up as a very clear response to the violence at Trump rallies. That subject could be addressed in many different cases. It's not some new insightful debate and also used at an inappropriate moment IMO.

You just described yourself.
Congrats.

Damn you cannot even keep up with yourself. Are you drinking or something?

[pgardn]

Please quote the part of the article that states that. He starts off the article discussing Trumps provocations and then talks about people like you with your blanket dismissals. He then talks about multiple times where violent protest ended up in change stating that blanket statements such as yours are unfounded. He gets what I am talking about. You cannot apparently.

No.

Its simple.

Dont respond with violence given the Trump events.

Then stop.
Simple.

Again. This article could be used for a myriad of events that occur everyday around the world. This is not a revolution.

[pgardn]

Damn you cannot even keep up with yourself. Are you drinking or something?

Ahh now you play AA counselor.
Stellar.

Keep chasing your tail. The irony of your responses is amusing.

[pgardn]

if it applies it applies. not my fault you struggle to keep up.

Thats the problem.

It does not address what I have stated and your extensions.
And now we got the emoticons.
Reaching new levels of rubbish.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No.

Its simple.

Dont respond with violence given the Trump events.

Then stop.
Simple.

Again. This article could be used for a myriad of events that occur everyday around the world. This is not a revolution.

There is no similar blanket condemnation. Given that was a central point of his article you're just wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thats the problem.

It does not address what I have stated and your extensions.
And now we got the emoticons.
Reaching new levels of rubbish.

I just quoted what you said. Your ability to keep up is what is rubbish. I used the emoticon because it's reaching comic levels.

[pgardn]

There is no similar blanket condemnation. Given that was a central point of his article you're just wrong.

No you are wrong.

Again, this article could be used much more usefully for other events and bottom line it has implies the use of violence should be used in certain cases (but condemns it) Speaking out of both sides of the mouth. It's obvious and fraudulent. It's linked to the Trump events.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No you are wrong.

Again, this article could be used much more usefully for other events and bottom line it has implies the use of violence should be used in certain cases (but condemns it) Speaking out of both sides of the mouth. It's obvious and fraudulent. It's linked to the Trump events.

Again he doesn't subscribe to your slave morality of a universal answer but instead says each case must be looked at individually because sometimes violence does work for the greater good. He does so with examples.

You are blinded by your ego's own worldview and fail to anticipate that of others.

[pgardn]

I just quoted what you said. Your ability to keep up is what is rubbish. I used the emoticon because it's reaching comic levels.

The keeping up is not the problem. It's you being disingenuous.

[pgardn]

Again he doesn't subscribe to your slave morality of a universal answer but instead says each case must be looked at individually because sometimes violence does work for the greater good. He does so with examples.

You are blinded by your ego's own worldview and fail to anticipate that of others.

You are simply blinded by your ego.
Thats enough. You keep rehashing the same crap.

But don't let that stop you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is the thesis of the article:

As a result, a litany of think-pieces and condemnations from liberal media and politicians are making their rounds to make it clear how unacceptable and counterproductive any violence or rioting is, urging people to “listen to the other side,” and to use “legitimate means“ to fight Trump’s rise—ignoring the possibility of fascism in the US rising with it. Those who stray from this nonviolent narrative, like Emmet Rensin, an editor at Vox who tweeted that people should riot when Trump comes to town, face swift and punitive redress, urging them to fall back in line. Amidst the hot takes and denunciations from liberals, they all seem to miss a few key points. First, they misplace the blame. Second, they misunderstand the desired outcome from violent resistance and those protesting Trump in general. And third, they ignore the history of successful violent insurrection in the US, instead favoring the elementary school version of history in which nonviolence is the only means of struggle that’s ever achieved a thing.

and you were complaining about my discussion of fascism as an aside.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Point 1

Point one. These denunciations of violence from anti-Trump protestors rest on the misguided view that the divide Trump’s exposed is a typical political disagreement between partisans, and should be handled as such. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Trump might not be a fascist in the 20th century European sense of the term—though many of his supporters are—but he might represent its 21st century US version. There’s no doubt he’s expanded the Overton Window to include rhetoric previously well outside its bounds. His calls for a “deportation force“ to expel 11+ million people from the country, his claims that most Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals, his calls to keep databases of Muslims and to enact a total ban on Muslims entering the country, his rampant sexism, his mocking people with disabilities, and his propensity for lying have brought the already pathetic state of US political discourse to astoundingly precarious lows. Treating this like politics as usual allows it to become politics as usual, and those who do so risk complicity ushering in a new era of fascist politics in the United States.

You at no point address his point that this isn't politics as usual where your blanket statements make sense. That last line I find particularly compelling. Trump becoming status quo is a real danger and worth fighting against.

[pgardn]

Fuzzman
Fuzzman
Fuzzman

Violence is counterproductive During Trump rallies.
Period.

Now you can continue with the but, but...
You act like I want the man elected.
I am telling you this violence is part of how you get him elected.

End of story.

If you wish to go through the French Revolution with me and discuss when violence was necessary and when violence was counterproductive we can create another thread.