All I see in this thread is people implying that Clinton will definitively win. With their "Will Trump accept the results of the election?" and "Clinton will draw the line with this guy when president." All I see is polling that is still dangerously close and millions of people who are still supporting/voting for Trump. Despite all the talk of "no ground game", alienating the republican base, and gaffes coming out of every orifice (alright, mostly one orifice), Trump still has at least 40% of the vote. That is likely at least 50,000,000 million people voting for Trump.
Not to sink the SS High Spirits.
The polls are not dangerously close. Hillary is going to win. She had an electoral advantage against any Republican. That it is Trump clinches it barring some unprecedented turnout that his ground game simply cannot accomplish.
The prevailing sentiment around here is that if David Duke were on the Republican ticket he'd still floor out around 35-40% against Clinton. That he has roughly 40% is troubling but not at all surprising.
+31
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
At the very least, that's vandalism. Politically motivated, at that.
If someone spray painted a swastika on Mel Brooks' star, we'd be pretty pissed. Trump is a terrible person, but he hasn't crossed an event threshold that makes doing things that are otherwise illegal and disrespectful ok.
What would be considered crossing this line o'yours.
Enough to tear up everything with his name on it? Substantially more than we've seen to this point. Even the thing about not accepting the results that had so many people running for their fainting couches isn't enough to warrant illegal destruction as a political statement.
I was hoping for specifics on what crosses the line, but I was speaking more towards the destruction of the star. I mean, he's instigated violence against people at his rallies. I just wonder that if that doesn't cross the line, what does?
Well, we can start with that it would need to be something that we don't already have laws on the books for. Inciting violence, sexual assault, etc; everything that Trump has been doing/accused of this election is something that we have laws defining appropriate punishments for. We are, after all, a nation of laws. This being what the kerfuffle about Trump's reluctance to state outright that he would respect the results of the election has been about; by law that's what he has to do.
If we're going to throw a fit over him not following the laws of this country, we need to follow them ourselves. Petty vandalism is illegal, and we shouldn't be condoning it.
And yet where is that response for incitement of violence, or active threats?
...
Are you suggesting that people in this thread have condoned people getting attacked at his rallies rather than lividly opposing it?
Lolwut? Not even a little. I was speaking to the fact that Trump has. Thought that was a known thing that didn't need context in here.
So it's Hillary's birthday today? Feels like there's room for a "Doesn't look a day over 45!" joke for whoever gets to introduce her at one of her events today.
i think some here are blowing the Walk of Fame thing out of proportion a bit. this isn't about erasing Trump from history, its about saying that he wont be honoured. frankly i think his star should have been taking away months ago and its a gross oversight that it has remained so long. so if you happen to be one of the many, many, many people that he has insulted, denigrated or vilified then i can only imagine how insulting it must be to see that monument remain.
honestly, i'd saw the calls earlier in the thread for news outlets to not mention Trump in any capacity come November 9th is much closer to erasure of him than this single act. like it or not Trump has secured his place in history and he belongs in the history books as a stark warning to future generations. he does not however deserve be honoured or lauded as a titan of industry, whether that be real estate, entertainment or otherwise.
Schultz imagined a show tentatively called Trump Takeover. Plotlines—which Schultz developed with the help of a writer friend, Louis Cimino—were prescient. They imagined an episode in which America would be “in a state of virtual collapse,” according to draft materials for the show.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
A star is just something you buy when your famous enough. It has no special prominence or recognition.
Doesn't excuse the vandalism, but its not like it was a sacred monument.
the people who give them out may have given up on their meaning, the thousands of tourists to flock to see those stars each year however bestow them with an inherent value. otherwise no one would bother to pay for them. its still news when someone gets one, as shown just yesterday when Hugh Laurie was given his.
All I see in this thread is people implying that Clinton will definitively win. With their "Will Trump accept the results of the election?" and "Clinton will draw the line with this guy when president." All I see is polling that is still dangerously close and millions of people who are still supporting/voting for Trump. Despite all the talk of "no ground game", alienating the republican base, and gaffes coming out of every orifice (alright, mostly one orifice), Trump still has at least 40% of the vote. That is likely at least 50,000,000 million people voting for Trump.
Not to sink the SS High Spirits.
Both McCain and Romney got more than 40% of the popular vote and lost, decisively, in the electoral college.
Yeah people act like they have meaning, but really its just paying for a spot and they give you one. Usually done to promote something recent rather than a life time of work.
Like Bruce Willis only got one recently despite being a star forever and it was just to promote a movie I don't even remember.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Schultz imagined a show tentatively called Trump Takeover. Plotlines—which Schultz developed with the help of a writer friend, Louis Cimino—were prescient. They imagined an episode in which America would be “in a state of virtual collapse,” according to draft materials for the show.
It's like Trump read (a synopsis) of the scripts and thought it was a portent of the future and decided to run for President because of it.
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
A star is just something you buy when your famous enough. It has no special prominence or recognition.
Doesn't excuse the vandalism, but its not like it was a sacred monument.
the people who give them out may have given up on their meaning, the thousands of tourists to flock to see those stars each year however bestow them with an inherent value. otherwise no one would bother to pay for them. its still news when someone gets one, as shown just yesterday when Hugh Laurie was given his.
That made news because it was Hugh Laurie. There were three other stars granted in October, none of which made the news.
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
At the very least, that's vandalism. Politically motivated, at that.
If someone spray painted a swastika on Mel Brooks' star, we'd be pretty pissed. Trump is a terrible person, but he hasn't crossed an event threshold that makes doing things that are otherwise illegal and disrespectful ok.
What would be considered crossing this line o'yours.
Enough to tear up everything with his name on it? Substantially more than we've seen to this point. Even the thing about not accepting the results that had so many people running for their fainting couches isn't enough to warrant illegal destruction as a political statement.
I was hoping for specifics on what crosses the line, but I was speaking more towards the destruction of the star. I mean, he's instigated violence against people at his rallies. I just wonder that if that doesn't cross the line, what does?
Well, we can start with that it would need to be something that we don't already have laws on the books for. Inciting violence, sexual assault, etc; everything that Trump has been doing/accused of this election is something that we have laws defining appropriate punishments for. We are, after all, a nation of laws. This being what the kerfuffle about Trump's reluctance to state outright that he would respect the results of the election has been about; by law that's what he has to do.
If we're going to throw a fit over him not following the laws of this country, we need to follow them ourselves. Petty vandalism is illegal, and we shouldn't be condoning it.
And yet where is that response for incitement of violence, or active threats? If the worst "our side" is doing is vandalizing a stupid fucking piece of concrete against their active violence and assault I'm cool with that exchange. Sorry, I'm certainly not as refined as some of you ladies and gents. You can be the better man, I absolutely respect that...but I'm okay with moments of slipping from that sentiment.
I'd definitely like there to be some kind of law enforcement response to Trump's behavior at rallies, but clearly those with jurisdiction are seeing issues with finding a way to enforce those things without it looking (or actually being) like the state shutting down a major party candidate for President. There are definitely difficulties there, and I share the frustration that leads to things like this vandalism and probably the campaign office fire, though I don't condone the illegal methods.
Dr. King has a quote about how riots are the language of the unheard. I can condone some kinds of illegal behavior based on circumstances, and if we're being truthful I have participated in some back in the day. But now is not the time to take jackhammers to things with Trump's name on them. In part because we are, in fact, being heard to the tune of 10% or so leads in most polls, and in part because that kind of behavior just feeds the persecution complex of Trump's supporters and inflames their will to do something violent in retaliation.
You handle threats like Trump by ridiculing them, defeating them fair and square by rules already set out, and grinding them into the dust of history peacefully. Americans in general don't just drop their beliefs and walk away because they experienced political violence, quite the opposite in most cases. We don't need to resort to that, and shouldn't. Because it is counterproductive and every little act like this costs us more of the moral highground.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
+7
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
edited October 2016
Fair enough. I suppose that's still the differentiator between myself and most liberals. I don't care much for morality as a tool. I care for what's right, and there have been times where doing what's right hasn't particularly held much of a higher moral calling. Now granted, I'm not attaching that to a stupid piece of cement, just the overall matter of violence as a response to a situation.
"I don't care to be good, I care to be whole."
Crayon on
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Yeah, we don't need to take jackhammers to things with Trump's name on them. The onwers are already doing that.
Trump supporters held up Clinton "target practice" posters at a rally in Florida Monday, with a bulls-eye framing her face.
Two days earlier in Virginia Beach, one Trump backer hoisted a plastic Hillary Clinton head on a stick, while others waved target signs. And several weeks ago, two armed Trump supporters protested outside the congressional campaign office of a rural Virginia Democrat, in what they said was a gesture of solidarity with closet supporters of Trump.
Federal and state law enforcement officials say such incidents have heightened their concerns about violence in the final two weeks of the long and bitter Presidential campaign, and well beyond that if Donald Trump loses and refuses to accept the vote as legitimate.
Branden Belloni, a Trump supporter at the Florida rally, told NBC News' Hallie Jackson that he didn't think his Hillary bulls-eye poster was threatening, or sent the wrong message to his 8-year-old son, who was standing next to him. He had pulled the third-grader out of school to attend the event.
"I'm not a violent person," he said, "I don't teach my son to be violent. You know … it's a humor thing."
Well that entire story is pretty disturbing. It is like everyone forgot about what happened to Gabby Giffords and the people she was with.
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
Schultz imagined a show tentatively called Trump Takeover. Plotlines—which Schultz developed with the help of a writer friend, Louis Cimino—were prescient. They imagined an episode in which America would be “in a state of virtual collapse,” according to draft materials for the show.
His suits don't even fit in a cartoon
+5
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
Trump supporters held up Clinton "target practice" posters at a rally in Florida Monday, with a bulls-eye framing her face.
Two days earlier in Virginia Beach, one Trump backer hoisted a plastic Hillary Clinton head on a stick, while others waved target signs. And several weeks ago, two armed Trump supporters protested outside the congressional campaign office of a rural Virginia Democrat, in what they said was a gesture of solidarity with closet supporters of Trump.
Federal and state law enforcement officials say such incidents have heightened their concerns about violence in the final two weeks of the long and bitter Presidential campaign, and well beyond that if Donald Trump loses and refuses to accept the vote as legitimate.
Branden Belloni, a Trump supporter at the Florida rally, told NBC News' Hallie Jackson that he didn't think his Hillary bulls-eye poster was threatening, or sent the wrong message to his 8-year-old son, who was standing next to him. He had pulled the third-grader out of school to attend the event.
"I'm not a violent person," he said, "I don't teach my son to be violent. You know … it's a humor thing."
Well that entire story is pretty disturbing. It is like everyone forgot about what happened to Gabby Giffords and the people she was with.
Yea i dont really consider the walk of fame star to be anything especially precious. If people were trying to erase him from the history books, or demand he take his name off buildings, i could understand being upset.
Walk of fame star? Psssh. Its a walk of fame for entertainment and joy, not racism and hate.
Lots of people that spew hate are "famous" and they dont get a star, and if they paid for one every single person here would be raging against it.
Maybe if trumps star was so important to him he shouldnt be a spewing hate and violence and selfishness.
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
Morality as a rhetorical tool isn't inherently moral, just useful when you are the one who can claim morality. It's the favorite move of every religious bigot ever. That's not what I'm saying.
Strategically, it makes much more sense to hold that kind of response in reserve for when it's not an escalation but a response. Your example of punching a KKK member is a good one; it's still the black guy committing assault in that case. Even if it's justified, it's a bad idea for that and a number of other reasons.
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
And if I find it perfectly acceptable to shoot your political opponents who threaten your fundamental right to own guns?
0
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
Morality as a rhetorical tool isn't inherently moral, just useful when you are the one who can claim morality. It's the favorite move of every religious bigot ever. That's not what I'm saying.
Strategically, it makes much more sense to hold that kind of response in reserve for when it's not an escalation but a response. Your example of punching a KKK member is a good one; it's still the black guy committing assault in that case. Even if it's justified, it's a bad idea for that and a number of other reasons.
Black mask*, not black guy. Sorry, it might just be a local way we describe protestors who wear black bandanas.
I find it to be an excellent idea, but that's just me and my militant uobringing to be fair. I realize the complexities of the situation, and the philosophy behind nonviolence, but there sure is something real special about seeing a racist get popped.
+1
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
And if I find it perfectly acceptable to shoot your political opponents who threaten your fundamental right to own guns?
Yes, the most extreme situation is really a good way to have a discussion. I don't feel at any point I condoned murder. But hey, you be you.
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
And if I find it perfectly acceptable to shoot your political opponents who threaten your fundamental right to own guns?
Yes, the most extreme situation is really a good way to have a discussion. I don't feel at any point I condoned murder. But hey, you be you.
Okay, so is the line property destruction? Like saying burning down certain types of churches? Or maybe just destroying the business of certain suspect groups?
I mean you clearly think fists are okay, but what about clubs? Or maybe shooting people with birdshot? Won't kill them most likely, just maim or blind them.
I'm just trying to figure out what degrees of violence are okay to undertake against the people I disagree with.
e: Also-when you punch people in the head they can die. People die from 1 sucker punch to the head.
I don't want someone to deface Trumps star. I want the people who own it to move it after the election to a new attraction, the Walk of Shame, which is just the alley behind the building, where employees on break can stub their cigarettes out on it.
+8
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
And if I find it perfectly acceptable to shoot your political opponents who threaten your fundamental right to own guns?
Yes, the most extreme situation is really a good way to have a discussion. I don't feel at any point I condoned murder. But hey, you be you.
You were talking about smugly enjoying and passively approving of assault, just because you don't like the person being assaulted. It's not a reductive argument to look at the murder angle given the context of the election and the materials posted on the last page.
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
And if I find it perfectly acceptable to shoot your political opponents who threaten your fundamental right to own guns?
Yes, the most extreme situation is really a good way to have a discussion. I don't feel at any point I condoned murder. But hey, you be you.
Okay, so is the line property destruction? Like saying burning down certain types of churches? Or maybe just destroying the business of certain suspect groups?
I mean you clearly think fists are okay, but what about clubs? Or maybe shooting people with birdshot? Won't kill them most likely, just maim or blind them.
I'm just trying to figure out what degrees of violence are okay to undertake against the people I disagree with.
e: Also-when you punch people in the head they can die. People die from 1 sucker punch to the head.
so you're drawing a line from removing a name off of a fancy pants sidewalk attention star to shooting someone with bird shot because "it probably wont kill them" ?
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Probably more because he talks about enjoying seeing KKK members be physically attacked.
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
Morality as a rhetorical tool isn't inherently moral, just useful when you are the one who can claim morality. It's the favorite move of every religious bigot ever. That's not what I'm saying.
Strategically, it makes much more sense to hold that kind of response in reserve for when it's not an escalation but a response. Your example of punching a KKK member is a good one; it's still the black guy committing assault in that case. Even if it's justified, it's a bad idea for that and a number of other reasons.
Black mask*, not black guy. White hood*, not white guy. Sorry, it might just be a local way we describe protestors who wear black bandanaswhite robes.
I find it to be an excellent idea, but that's just me and my militant uobringing to be fair. I realize the complexities of the situation, and the philosophy behind nonviolence, but there sure is something real special about seeing a racist get popped. bitch/fag/raghead/beaner/coon put in their place.
tinwhiskers on
0
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
And if I find it perfectly acceptable to shoot your political opponents who threaten your fundamental right to own guns?
Yes, the most extreme situation is really a good way to have a discussion. I don't feel at any point I condoned murder. But hey, you be you.
Okay, so is the line property destruction? Like saying burning down certain types of churches? Or maybe just destroying the business of certain suspect groups?
I mean you clearly think fists are okay, but what about clubs? Or maybe shooting people with birdshot? Won't kill them most likely, just maim or blind them.
I'm just trying to figure out what degrees of violence are okay to undertake against the people I disagree with.
e: Also-when you punch people in the head they can die. People die from 1 sucker punch to the head.
Violence, historically, has been used both by the oppressed and the oppressor. It has been wielded by people who felt it necessary, to have an action that demands to be heard and be responded to. To remove violence as a response removes something I feel that has been necessary to enact change and progress. You can disagree on the methodology, but I'm not particularly fond of equating punching a violence racist who would sooner drag you behind his truck to burning down a church simply because you don't like black people, or Christians or any other group that doesn't have violent tendencies as an MO.
It's pretty obvious that you're attempting to springboard a single statement into making it as extreme and horrific as possible to prove a point. So just get to your point, unless you just want to keep going with examples that anyone here clearly would have a problem with.
Probably more because he talks about enjoying seeing KKK members be physically attacked.
i suppose. But even that is a gross mischaracterization of what Crayon was saying. Its really verging on violating the "good faith" rule we all agree to most times. Like people are trying to box Crayon into something he didnt really say, so they can make a point.
Not trying to swoop in and save Crayon here, no doubt he/she is smarter than myself and can handle such things
Morality is only a tool when it can be used to convince others. Which it has been rather useful for in this specific election.
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
Morality as a rhetorical tool isn't inherently moral, just useful when you are the one who can claim morality. It's the favorite move of every religious bigot ever. That's not what I'm saying.
Strategically, it makes much more sense to hold that kind of response in reserve for when it's not an escalation but a response. Your example of punching a KKK member is a good one; it's still the black guy committing assault in that case. Even if it's justified, it's a bad idea for that and a number of other reasons.
Black mask*, not black guy. Sorry, it might just be a local way we describe protestors who wear black bandanas.
I find it to be an excellent idea, but that's just me and my militant uobringing to be fair. I realize the complexities of the situation, and the philosophy behind nonviolence, but there sure is something real special about seeing a racist get popped. bitch/fag/raghead/beaner/coon put in their place.
Yeah. This is where I stop talking to you because if this is seriously your argument without seeing the giant error, then kind of fuck you.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Is there a certain satisfaction in hearing about someone "getting what they deserved," well sure. I daresay we all feel that way. That doesn't mean that is a good thing to nurture.
The baser part of human behavior, especially the "low justice" of physical assault and harm, is what we have our social laws and constructs to prevent. Just because everyone loves the part of Blues Brothers where the Illinois Nazi's get torn apart doesn't mean we should go about doing so, nor calling those who do heroes or giving them a pass for performing illegal and violent actions. It isn't justified, even if we like to think it just from our personal perspectives.
Its a question explored in all of our vigilante films and tv series for a reason. As social creatures we like to think the easy path to "justice," to take matters into our own hands, is immensely satisfying. But in the end it is unregulated and uncontrolled, and when you go eye for an eye we all end up blind (or probably just dead). The law protects everyone (or it should) in the US, which is why terrible people with terrible opinions, like Westboro, have the right to do their shit. Because doing something to stop it causes a slippery slope that will always end up applying to the things that are good and kind in this world.
So even while we feel satisfaction at Trump's star being broken, that guy should get arrested for vandalism. Even while that KKK member probably socially deserved a good smackdown, the guy who did it should be arrested for assault. We shouldn't embrace those darker, baser aspects of human instinct and rage because in the end they are always destructive and not just to those we don't like, but always to ourselves as well.
Vandalism, violence, and encouraging violence are not things we should approve of. We can and should be better than that.
Destroying Trump's property is not a good way to protest against him, because it lets him immediately discredit you as just a vandal.
It is in a way, because what he values most is that name recognition. He spent money to draw attention to himself and that probably bothers him more than knowing that he is ripping apart the countries constitution in a bid to gain MORE recognition.
I think there are circumstances in which this particular vandalism is acceptable, but that these circumstances were not obviously met. I think a lot more people are sympathetic to, as an example, the janitor that broke the stain glass window at Yale. IMO, this vandalism was justified because:
1) The harm of the objects existence was greater than that of its destruction
2) Non-violent, legal means were first attempted to have the object removed
3) The vandal was willing to submit to the legal consequences of his actions
In the Trump Star case, 1 is not clearly demonstrated, and 2 is almost surely not present. That is not to say that there are no other mitigating circumstances but it's not clear that any exist to justify the lack of other attempted methods of removal which is, to me, a bare minimum requirement before one can reasonably take a stance of justified or ethical destruction of property.
Posts
The polls are not dangerously close. Hillary is going to win. She had an electoral advantage against any Republican. That it is Trump clinches it barring some unprecedented turnout that his ground game simply cannot accomplish.
The prevailing sentiment around here is that if David Duke were on the Republican ticket he'd still floor out around 35-40% against Clinton. That he has roughly 40% is troubling but not at all surprising.
Lolwut? Not even a little. I was speaking to the fact that Trump has. Thought that was a known thing that didn't need context in here.
honestly, i'd saw the calls earlier in the thread for news outlets to not mention Trump in any capacity come November 9th is much closer to erasure of him than this single act. like it or not Trump has secured his place in history and he belongs in the history books as a stark warning to future generations. he does not however deserve be honoured or lauded as a titan of industry, whether that be real estate, entertainment or otherwise.
Doesn't excuse the vandalism, but its not like it was a sacred monument.
pleasepaypreacher.net
http://fusion.net/story/361280/trump-tv-cartoon-exclusive-images/
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
the people who give them out may have given up on their meaning, the thousands of tourists to flock to see those stars each year however bestow them with an inherent value. otherwise no one would bother to pay for them. its still news when someone gets one, as shown just yesterday when Hugh Laurie was given his.
Both McCain and Romney got more than 40% of the popular vote and lost, decisively, in the electoral college.
Like Bruce Willis only got one recently despite being a star forever and it was just to promote a movie I don't even remember.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's like Trump read (a synopsis) of the scripts and thought it was a portent of the future and decided to run for President because of it.
That made news because it was Hugh Laurie. There were three other stars granted in October, none of which made the news.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
I'd definitely like there to be some kind of law enforcement response to Trump's behavior at rallies, but clearly those with jurisdiction are seeing issues with finding a way to enforce those things without it looking (or actually being) like the state shutting down a major party candidate for President. There are definitely difficulties there, and I share the frustration that leads to things like this vandalism and probably the campaign office fire, though I don't condone the illegal methods.
Dr. King has a quote about how riots are the language of the unheard. I can condone some kinds of illegal behavior based on circumstances, and if we're being truthful I have participated in some back in the day. But now is not the time to take jackhammers to things with Trump's name on them. In part because we are, in fact, being heard to the tune of 10% or so leads in most polls, and in part because that kind of behavior just feeds the persecution complex of Trump's supporters and inflames their will to do something violent in retaliation.
You handle threats like Trump by ridiculing them, defeating them fair and square by rules already set out, and grinding them into the dust of history peacefully. Americans in general don't just drop their beliefs and walk away because they experienced political violence, quite the opposite in most cases. We don't need to resort to that, and shouldn't. Because it is counterproductive and every little act like this costs us more of the moral highground.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
"I don't care to be good, I care to be whole."
Well that entire story is pretty disturbing. It is like everyone forgot about what happened to Gabby Giffords and the people she was with.
AniList
Morality outside that context is a goal and a guide. I don't see anything to gain in moral terms by treating vandalism as a good thing in this situation.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I find it a perfectly acceptable response to a man who has bred the toxicity he has, the same way I have a smug smile on my face when I've seen a KKK member get popped in the mouth by a black mask.
I don't find using morality as a tool to convince people particularly moral in and of itself, so I can't entirely agree with that-but I can understand it on some level.
oh, i don't think they forgot.
Walk of fame star? Psssh. Its a walk of fame for entertainment and joy, not racism and hate.
Lots of people that spew hate are "famous" and they dont get a star, and if they paid for one every single person here would be raging against it.
Maybe if trumps star was so important to him he shouldnt be a spewing hate and violence and selfishness.
Morality as a rhetorical tool isn't inherently moral, just useful when you are the one who can claim morality. It's the favorite move of every religious bigot ever. That's not what I'm saying.
Strategically, it makes much more sense to hold that kind of response in reserve for when it's not an escalation but a response. Your example of punching a KKK member is a good one; it's still the black guy committing assault in that case. Even if it's justified, it's a bad idea for that and a number of other reasons.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
And if I find it perfectly acceptable to shoot your political opponents who threaten your fundamental right to own guns?
Black mask*, not black guy. Sorry, it might just be a local way we describe protestors who wear black bandanas.
I find it to be an excellent idea, but that's just me and my militant uobringing to be fair. I realize the complexities of the situation, and the philosophy behind nonviolence, but there sure is something real special about seeing a racist get popped.
Yes, the most extreme situation is really a good way to have a discussion. I don't feel at any point I condoned murder. But hey, you be you.
Okay, so is the line property destruction? Like saying burning down certain types of churches? Or maybe just destroying the business of certain suspect groups?
I mean you clearly think fists are okay, but what about clubs? Or maybe shooting people with birdshot? Won't kill them most likely, just maim or blind them.
I'm just trying to figure out what degrees of violence are okay to undertake against the people I disagree with.
e: Also-when you punch people in the head they can die. People die from 1 sucker punch to the head.
You were talking about smugly enjoying and passively approving of assault, just because you don't like the person being assaulted. It's not a reductive argument to look at the murder angle given the context of the election and the materials posted on the last page.
so you're drawing a line from removing a name off of a fancy pants sidewalk attention star to shooting someone with bird shot because "it probably wont kill them" ?
Violence, historically, has been used both by the oppressed and the oppressor. It has been wielded by people who felt it necessary, to have an action that demands to be heard and be responded to. To remove violence as a response removes something I feel that has been necessary to enact change and progress. You can disagree on the methodology, but I'm not particularly fond of equating punching a violence racist who would sooner drag you behind his truck to burning down a church simply because you don't like black people, or Christians or any other group that doesn't have violent tendencies as an MO.
It's pretty obvious that you're attempting to springboard a single statement into making it as extreme and horrific as possible to prove a point. So just get to your point, unless you just want to keep going with examples that anyone here clearly would have a problem with.
i suppose. But even that is a gross mischaracterization of what Crayon was saying. Its really verging on violating the "good faith" rule we all agree to most times. Like people are trying to box Crayon into something he didnt really say, so they can make a point.
Not trying to swoop in and save Crayon here, no doubt he/she is smarter than myself and can handle such things
Destroying Trump's property is not a good way to protest against him, because it lets him immediately discredit you as just a vandal.
Yeah. This is where I stop talking to you because if this is seriously your argument without seeing the giant error, then kind of fuck you.
The baser part of human behavior, especially the "low justice" of physical assault and harm, is what we have our social laws and constructs to prevent. Just because everyone loves the part of Blues Brothers where the Illinois Nazi's get torn apart doesn't mean we should go about doing so, nor calling those who do heroes or giving them a pass for performing illegal and violent actions. It isn't justified, even if we like to think it just from our personal perspectives.
Its a question explored in all of our vigilante films and tv series for a reason. As social creatures we like to think the easy path to "justice," to take matters into our own hands, is immensely satisfying. But in the end it is unregulated and uncontrolled, and when you go eye for an eye we all end up blind (or probably just dead). The law protects everyone (or it should) in the US, which is why terrible people with terrible opinions, like Westboro, have the right to do their shit. Because doing something to stop it causes a slippery slope that will always end up applying to the things that are good and kind in this world.
So even while we feel satisfaction at Trump's star being broken, that guy should get arrested for vandalism. Even while that KKK member probably socially deserved a good smackdown, the guy who did it should be arrested for assault. We shouldn't embrace those darker, baser aspects of human instinct and rage because in the end they are always destructive and not just to those we don't like, but always to ourselves as well.
It is in a way, because what he values most is that name recognition. He spent money to draw attention to himself and that probably bothers him more than knowing that he is ripping apart the countries constitution in a bid to gain MORE recognition.
1) The harm of the objects existence was greater than that of its destruction
2) Non-violent, legal means were first attempted to have the object removed
3) The vandal was willing to submit to the legal consequences of his actions
In the Trump Star case, 1 is not clearly demonstrated, and 2 is almost surely not present. That is not to say that there are no other mitigating circumstances but it's not clear that any exist to justify the lack of other attempted methods of removal which is, to me, a bare minimum requirement before one can reasonably take a stance of justified or ethical destruction of property.