JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

[Valmy]

There are so many things wrong with this.

Such as?

Are you kidding me?

I don't think Zoupa said that.

If there are "so many things wrong" with what he said, surely you can name at least one.

Violence against political opponents is antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. WW2 wasn't fought about the right of people in Western democracies to use violence against political opponents.

I agree. And I am kind of annoyed we got here. I thought we were talking about cancel culture stuff not straight up illegal retaliation.

[Maximus]

There are so many things wrong with this.

Such as?

Are you kidding me?

I don't think Zoupa said that.

If there are "so many things wrong" with what he said, surely you can name at least one.

Violence against political opponents is antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. WW2 wasn't fought about the right of people in Western democracies to use violence against political opponents.

Fascism is also antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. Fascism isn't merely political opposition: it's opposition to democracy itself. It's an ideology designed to use democratic norms to undermine them. It builds using displays of "strength" through threats and violence. I have no problem with someone showing the lie in that.

[grumbler]

There are so many things wrong with this.

Such as?

Are you kidding me?

I don't think Zoupa said that.

If there are "so many things wrong" with what he said, surely you can name at least one.

Violence against political opponents is antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. WW2 wasn't fought about the right of people in Western democracies to use violence against political opponents.

Fascism is also antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. Fascism isn't merely political opposition: it's opposition to democracy itself. It's an ideology designed to use democratic norms to undermine them. It builds using displays of "strength" through threats and violence. I have no problem with someone showing the lie in that.

So the way to "show the lie" about "displays of 'strength' through threats and violence" is to display your 'strength' through threats and violence?

Maybe you should rethink this "violence to solve violence" stance.

[Sheilbh]

Fascism is also antidemocratic and incompatible with an open society. Fascism isn't merely political opposition: it's opposition to democracy itself. It's an ideology designed to use democratic norms to undermine them. It builds using displays of "strength" through threats and violence. I have no problem with someone showing the lie in that.

So the way to "show the lie" about "displays of 'strength' through threats and violence" is to display your 'strength' through threats and violence?

Maybe you should rethink this "violence to solve violence" stance.

Of course it's astonishing that after the violence in the Unite the Right rally, the violence by these Boogaloo supporters, two attacks on Synagogues, the El PAso shooting etc that we are talking about left-wing violence. In relation to fascism that's one of the striking things from Richard Evans' (really excellent) books on the rise of the Third Reich and the Third Reich in power is that the Nazis cause far, far more violence than any of their opponents, including the Communists, but are able to portray themselves as the defenders/restorers of order.

[grumbler]

Of course it's astonishing that after the violence in the Unite the Right rally, the violence by these Boogaloo supporters, two attacks on Synagogues, the El PAso shooting etc that we are talking about left-wing violence. In relation to fascism that's one of the striking things from Richard Evans' (really excellent) books on the rise of the Third Reich and the Third Reich in power is that the Nazis cause far, far more violence than any of their opponents, including the Communists, but are able to portray themselves as the defenders/restorers of order.

Yep.  Violence creates chaos, and chaos is a ladder.

Nazis are better Littlefingers than democrats. Why anyone thinks that increasing the level of violence will hurt the Nazis more than democracy, I don't know.  But, here we are.

[Admiral Yi]

Of course it's astonishing that after the violence in the Unite the Right rally, the violence by these Boogaloo supporters, two attacks on Synagogues, the El PAso shooting etc that we are talking about left-wing violence. In relation to fascism that's one of the striking things from Richard Evans' (really excellent) books on the rise of the Third Reich and the Third Reich in power is that the Nazis cause far, far more violence than any of their opponents, including the Communists, but are able to portray themselves as the defenders/restorers of order.

You mentioned in this thread or another the conflict between individual and group rights: this is an example.

I don't think various acts of violence at Charlottesville committed by alt-righters or elsewhere make violence against some other alt-righter acceptable.  Either it's acceptable to punch a guy who gives the Nazi salute or it isn't.  Association with the beliefs of others who have committed violence does not in my book make one an acceptable target of violence.

[Josquius]

e

Of course it's astonishing that after the violence in the Unite the Right rally, the violence by these Boogaloo supporters, two attacks on Synagogues, the El PAso shooting etc that we are talking about left-wing violence. In relation to fascism that's one of the striking things from Richard Evans' (really excellent) books on the rise of the Third Reich and the Third Reich in power is that the Nazis cause far, far more violence than any of their opponents, including the Communists, but are able to portray themselves as the defenders/restorers of order.

You mentioned in this thread or another the conflict between individual and group rights: this is an example.

I don't think various acts of violence at Charlottesville committed by alt-righters or elsewhere make violence against some other alt-righter acceptable.  Either it's acceptable to punch a guy who gives the Nazi salute or it isn't.  Association with the beliefs of others who have committed violence does not in my book make one an acceptable target of violence.

Isn't this showing the attitude he was talking about?

The nazis are literally murdering people.

But we talk about whether it's OK that sometimes they get punched.

[Admiral Yi]

Isn't this showing the attitude he was talking about?

The nazis are literally murdering people.

But we talk about whether it's OK that sometimes they get punched.

So what?  Should I save my key stroke quota?

[Sheilbh]

You mentioned in this thread or another the conflict between individual and group rights: this is an example.

I mean it was a more about a podcast I think by the Cato Society with a (liberal) political philosophy professor on the tension within liberalism between rationality (enforcing the rights of individuals) and pluralism (respecting the rights of individuals to freely associate). My exec summary was shit and lead to a lot of posts that were actually quite interestingly addressed by the professor at the time.

I don't think various acts of violence at Charlottesville committed by alt-righters or elsewhere make violence against some other alt-righter acceptable.  Either it's acceptable to punch a guy who gives the Nazi salute or it isn't.  Association with the beliefs of others who have committed violence does not in my book make one an acceptable target of violence.

That's not the point I was making. The point I'm amking is that in our discourse and this thread there's a lot of chat about left-wing violence while in the US there's been several far-right terrorist attacks, in the UK the police have said that the far-right is the fast growing and in some areas most dangerous counter-terrorist threat. It seems weird the number of posts etc about punching a Nazi v dealing with far-right terrorism. It's criticism of the discourse around political violence, not about that guy.

[Admiral Yi]

It's discoursable because it's controversial.  If I were to post "Neo Nazis should not run over or gun down peaceful protestors" it would not generate a very vibrant discussion.

[Eddie Teach]

It's discoursable because it's controversial.  If I were to post "Neo Nazis should not run over or gun down peaceful protestors" it would not generate a very vibrant discussion.

Yep. We're talking about leftwing violence because it has defenders.

[Sheilbh]

It's discoursable because it's controversial.  If I were to post "Neo Nazis should not run over or gun down peaceful protestors" it would not generate a very vibrant discussion.

I mean it would be nice if the President were that clear. The President and the Attorney General have made very clear repeatedly that their focus is on "left-wing violence". I don't know if they've ever mentioned the boogaloo murders etc.

And also I don't think general condemnation stopped the discourse around Islamic terrorism. Even if you condemned the action the next stage was how do you counter radicalism, which focused on things like education, community leaders etc. I feel like that's probably something worth talking about here too - there are clear international links between right-wing terrorists linking to similar people and communicating online. How do we address the networks and the radicalisers? Part of the reason that I think we don't is that a number of those figures repeatedly cited by the Christchurch terrorist for example have been re-tweeted by the President.

[PDH]

Being treated as a woman isn't a right.

No, too often it is more a combination of right, left, slap.

Ouch.

Too often it's the truth.

[Admiral Yi]

I mean it would be nice if the President were that clear. The President and the Attorney General have made very clear repeatedly that their focus is on "left-wing violence". I don't know if they've ever mentioned the boogaloo murders etc.

"Trump sucks."  Now there's an inflammatory statement.

And also I don't think general condemnation stopped the discourse around Islamic terrorism. Even if you condemned the action the next stage was how do you counter radicalism, which focused on things like education, community leaders etc. I feel like that's probably something worth talking about here too - there are clear international links between right-wing terrorists linking to similar people and communicating online. How do we address the networks and the radicalisers? Part of the reason that I think we don't is that a number of those figures repeatedly cited by the Christchurch terrorist for example have been re-tweeted by the President.

Sure, we could try to toss some theories about sexual insecurity and lack of breast feeding or whatnot.  I'm guessing we'd still have a few minutes left in the day to discuss left wing violence.

[grumbler]

It's discoursable because it's controversial.  If I were to post "Neo Nazis should not run over or gun down peaceful protestors" it would not generate a very vibrant discussion.

Yep. We're talking about leftwing violence because it has defenders.

This. ^

There's nothing controversial here about right-wing violence, hence nothing really worth saying about it, other than "yeah, but who doesn't condemn it, here?"

That people here think that left-wing violence is somehow acceptable whereas right-wing violence is not is a controversy amenable to discussion.

Double standards have been the meat and potatoes of this forum since forever.