"Actual Violence"
11/7/14 20:56![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSome of you might remember something I posted four years ago about right wing thug Mike Vanderboegh and his blog call for loyal patriots to smash the windows of Democratic Party Offices. The result -- surprise surprise! -- was the smashing of windows in several Democratic Party Offices. Mr. Vanderboegh opined that he wasn't promoting "actual violence." “How ambiguous is it if I say break windows? Am I saying kill people, absolutely not,” he said.
As I pointed out, the comments section on his blog didn't exactly jibe with his insistence that, oh mercy no, he wasn't talking about KILLING people. They included:
“Today it was bricks, tomorrow it will be ???? The fuse has been lit.”
“We need to track these highly respectable representatives (cough) down to their residences. Where we can then present them a Hallmark card (cough) kindly requesting they consider the Contitution when they vote.. Rocks and bricks are optional but torchs, pitch forks, tar and feathers are encouraged!!”
“As we know, our society has its roots in broken windows - not to mention tar-and-feathers (always horrible, often fatal) and bullets!”
“I wonder if the brain dead socialist in Washington would get the idea if it happened a lot more often. Would a wrist rocket and some ball bearings help get the idea across?”
“I bought a pistol belt and load bearing harness at the Army/Navy surplus store today. Haven't worn one since 1981. Fits real nice.”
“Good thing 223 ammo is still cheep and available. just bought another 1000 rds for 'target' pratice. these clowns are the best gun and ammo salesman in the world.”
“4" PVC Pipe End Cap Portable Compressed Air Tank Hose Pipe Fittings Valve Expanding Foam for Sabot Brick Paint, Scope, Laser Rangefinder, and compensator optional. Use of above parts left to the imagination of the reader.”
“They're all whining about bricks...... Just wait until it turns to bullets.”
I was assured by Sandwich warrior that what ol' Mike REALLY meant was not "do what we say, or we'll kill you," but "leave us alone or we'll kill you." "Leave us alone," meaning, "don't vote for or pass any legislation we dislike."
The old dear is in the news again, and that bit about "absolutely not" advocating killing people...? Well, let's just say Mr. Mike has recently confirmed pretty much what a lot of us already know about what "Open Carry" is really all about. While making a speech at an Open Carry Rally he made the following comments:
...“We like to think that all our fellow Americans, even those who plainly state that they are committed to stealing our liberty and our property and attempting to control our very lives, are merely suffering from differences of opinion that can be overcome by the right mix of persuasion or electoral politics,” Vanderboegh said.
“Yet how many of us have tried such methods with every fiber of our being and fallen short?” he continued. “Not because we were wrong, but because those of the other side were impervious to such arguments, to such tactics, for they believe completely in their right to their appetites for our liberty, our property, and our lives with all the religious fervor of a pagan worship of naked power wrapped in a catechism of lies."
These "fellow Americans" who have been unaccountably unconvinced by his earlier "arguments" of hurling bricks through windows, are therefore, he told the crowd, “domestic enemies of the Constitution,” and as such we need to told:
"that failing all other appeals to peaceful means, that the founders’ solution to such tyranny is still available, still potent, and still waiting, for when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizenry still gets to vote.”
i.e. "be CONVINCED by our arguments, dammit, or we'll shoot you."
I wonder what rationalizations I'll hear from certain quarters if one day one of these maniacs opens fire with his "bullets/votes" on a Democratic Politician -- or just a Democratic voter.
As I pointed out, the comments section on his blog didn't exactly jibe with his insistence that, oh mercy no, he wasn't talking about KILLING people. They included:
“Today it was bricks, tomorrow it will be ???? The fuse has been lit.”
“We need to track these highly respectable representatives (cough) down to their residences. Where we can then present them a Hallmark card (cough) kindly requesting they consider the Contitution when they vote.. Rocks and bricks are optional but torchs, pitch forks, tar and feathers are encouraged!!”
“As we know, our society has its roots in broken windows - not to mention tar-and-feathers (always horrible, often fatal) and bullets!”
“I wonder if the brain dead socialist in Washington would get the idea if it happened a lot more often. Would a wrist rocket and some ball bearings help get the idea across?”
“I bought a pistol belt and load bearing harness at the Army/Navy surplus store today. Haven't worn one since 1981. Fits real nice.”
“Good thing 223 ammo is still cheep and available. just bought another 1000 rds for 'target' pratice. these clowns are the best gun and ammo salesman in the world.”
“4" PVC Pipe End Cap Portable Compressed Air Tank Hose Pipe Fittings Valve Expanding Foam for Sabot Brick Paint, Scope, Laser Rangefinder, and compensator optional. Use of above parts left to the imagination of the reader.”
“They're all whining about bricks...... Just wait until it turns to bullets.”
I was assured by Sandwich warrior that what ol' Mike REALLY meant was not "do what we say, or we'll kill you," but "leave us alone or we'll kill you." "Leave us alone," meaning, "don't vote for or pass any legislation we dislike."
The old dear is in the news again, and that bit about "absolutely not" advocating killing people...? Well, let's just say Mr. Mike has recently confirmed pretty much what a lot of us already know about what "Open Carry" is really all about. While making a speech at an Open Carry Rally he made the following comments:
...“We like to think that all our fellow Americans, even those who plainly state that they are committed to stealing our liberty and our property and attempting to control our very lives, are merely suffering from differences of opinion that can be overcome by the right mix of persuasion or electoral politics,” Vanderboegh said.
“Yet how many of us have tried such methods with every fiber of our being and fallen short?” he continued. “Not because we were wrong, but because those of the other side were impervious to such arguments, to such tactics, for they believe completely in their right to their appetites for our liberty, our property, and our lives with all the religious fervor of a pagan worship of naked power wrapped in a catechism of lies."
These "fellow Americans" who have been unaccountably unconvinced by his earlier "arguments" of hurling bricks through windows, are therefore, he told the crowd, “domestic enemies of the Constitution,” and as such we need to told:
"that failing all other appeals to peaceful means, that the founders’ solution to such tyranny is still available, still potent, and still waiting, for when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizenry still gets to vote.”
i.e. "be CONVINCED by our arguments, dammit, or we'll shoot you."
I wonder what rationalizations I'll hear from certain quarters if one day one of these maniacs opens fire with his "bullets/votes" on a Democratic Politician -- or just a Democratic voter.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 20:32 (UTC)That's pretty reductive, but not surprising.
Your link mentioned Occupy once. And the logic is pretty faulty too, since Theodore Olson argued against California's Prop 8 before the Supreme Court and is against discrimination of gay marriage, that must make him a lefty too?
Meanwhile Jerad Miller was supporting Cliven Bundy's protests, making threats precisely mentioned in the OP.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:03 (UTC)It's just the facts.
And the logic is pretty faulty too, since Theodore Olson argued against California's Prop 8 before the Supreme Court and is against discrimination of gay marriage, that must make him a lefty too?
Not at all. We can't and shouldn't assume ideology from cases lawyers take on alone.
Meanwhile Jerad Miller was supporting Cliven Bundy's protests, making threats precisely mentioned in the OP.
Pretty reductive, but not surprising.
It's not as if the Cliven Bundy situation dealt only with right wing beliefs, after all. The way the OP puts it, though, you'd expect everyone who went to Bundy's ranch to start a war. It's not happening.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:22 (UTC)Jeff, doesn't it bother you that the only way you can argue here is by pretending the English language doesn't work the way most English speakers use it?
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:27 (UTC)I don't know. Let's test it - are you willing to admit that your concerns here are about rare situations that does not appear to show any real relationship with the language you're concerned with?
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 00:23 (UTC)It's pretty dishonest.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 11:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 21:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 21:55 (UTC)I do my best to answer whatever questions are posed to me, and I'm under no obligation to answer ones that are clearly distortive in nature.
I have already dealt with your bizarre use of the term "rare" by applying it to a real-world situation.
Indeed you have. I don't know why you think it helped you, though.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:07 (UTC)There is nothing "distortive" in asking you what you have read on the subject being discussed.
bdj: Indeed you have. I don't know why you think it helped you, though.
Then by all means, address that example and show it how it hurt my case.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:14 (UTC)You took things that were considered somewhat rare and said "hey, since this somewhat rare thing is something to prepare against, so too are these." Then we find that the things you're concerned about basically never happen, statistically speaking. So why should we even be concerned?
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:40 (UTC)So since "statistically speaking," muggings never happen, we should not be concerned about it or take precautions when there is a series of those "statistically non-existent muggings" in a neighborhood?
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:43 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:16 (UTC)Not all of them. *shrug*
Not at all. We can't and shouldn't assume ideology from cases lawyers take on alone.
Works for individuals too.
It's not as if the Cliven Bundy situation dealt only with right wing beliefs, after all.
Reductive, again.
The way the OP puts it, though, you'd expect everyone who went to Bundy's ranch to start a war.
The OP didn't mention Bundy.
It's not happening.
So you claim.....
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:20 (UTC)I agree! Like I said in the comment you replied to: "some of which are apparently actually not ideologically consistent"
It's okay that you missed that.
Reductive, again.
What's reductive is assuming Bundy = right, but whatever works for you.
The OP didn't mention Bundy.
Reductive, yet again, since we're talking about a broad topic in which the type of language we'd see at the Bundy protests fits.
So you claim.....
Based on the evidence presented, yes.
Do you have anything to add to this at all at this point?
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:33 (UTC)Says the guy who doesn't get the implications that attending an Occupy march would rules out any influence by far right ideology or rhetoric cf the OP
What's reductive is assuming Bundy = right, but whatever works for you.
Well, that's not an example of reductive, since I'm not selectively ignoring anything as you have.
Based on the evidence presented, yes.
*Selective evidence and selective reading.
Do you have anything to add to this at all at this point?
Yes, this comment :-)
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:36 (UTC)Certainly not my claim or belief. Who espoused this?
Well, that's not an example of reductive since I'm not selectively ignoring anything as you have.
Except parts of the comments you reply to. :)
Selective evidence and selective reading.
I agree, the claims made by the OP are selective in nature. That's the problem.
Yes, this comment :-)
And what a fine, fine showing it is.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:50 (UTC)I'm glad that you agree with Paft's OP then, since it was about rhetoric influencing potentially violent actions.
Except parts of the comments you reply to. :)
Well, not regarding Jerad Miller.
I agree, the claims made by the OP are selective in nature. That's the problem.
I don't agree. I think it's more to do with your selective reading of the evidence offered.
And what a fine, fine showing it is.
*wink*
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:56 (UTC)Oh, don't get confused here. The OP's entire premise isn't supported by the evidence, which is a wholly separate issue than what showing up at Occupy protests might entail.
Well, not regarding Jerad Miller.
Which is funny since that's exactly where you ignored a key point, but let's not get derailed further on this.
I don't agree. I think it's more to do with your selective reading of the evidence offered.
Maybe you can start showing where I've selectively read the evidence as opposed to this awfully tired song and dance?
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 23:13 (UTC)Thanks, but I'm good.
The OP's entire premise isn't supported by the evidence,
No true Scotsman.
which is a wholly separate issue than what showing up at Occupy protests might entail.
You brought it up. Not Paft, and not me.
Which is funny since that's exactly where you ignored a key point.
Not at all, because considering all of his influences and his various beliefs isn't ignoring anything.
Maybe you can start showing where I've selectively read the evidence as opposed to this awfully tired song and dance?
My theory is that you can't believe a person who is on the right could be responsible (just like you are very agnostic about racism by anyone who identifies as conservative or libertarian, or any other number of issues), so that's why you raised Miller's attending the Occupy march, without any further qualifications (you even suggested that some examples were more left, it was just ambiguous enough not to be clear.
And even if it's clear (and it's not) that Miller wasn't clearly aligned with the far right, regardless of all that, it supports the OP notion that rhetoric by far right venues, personalities, (certainly gun culture) had some influences on his attacks.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 23:23 (UTC)I wouldn't have had to correct you otherwise, so you weren't.
No true Scotsman.
Inapplicable to what you replied to.
You brought it up. Not Paft, and not me.
Keep in mind the context of bringing up Occupy in terms of this discussion. You've now completely lost the plot.
Not at all, because considering all of his influences and his various beliefs isn't ignoring anything.
I agree! That's why we should do exactly that, and yet there seems to be pushback in doing so.
My theory is that you can't believe a person who is on the right could be responsible (just like you are very agnostic about racism by anyone who identifies as conservative or libertarian, or any other number of issues), so that's why you raised Miller's attending the Occupy march, without any further qualifications (you even suggested that some examples were more left, it was just ambiguous enough not to be clear.
You'd be wrong, which is part of the problem with your perception of me. People on the right have done horrible things. That's why we should focus on them when discussing them, as opposed to taking people who aren't really/firmly on the right and trying to make a bigger issue out of something as a result. It's not honest.
And even if it's clear (and it's not) that Miller wasn't clearly aligned with the far right, regardless of all that, it supports the OP notion that rhetoric by far right venues, personalities, (certainly gun culture) had some influences on his attacks.
That still hasn't been proven at all. For all we know, he may have heard something at his Occupy march, or he may have simply acted on his own. Of course, if evidence is available, now is a great time to present it.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 23:34 (UTC)I don't think that's a true statement.
That still hasn't been proven at all. For all we know, he may have heard something at his Occupy march, or he may have simply acted on his own. Of course, if evidence is available, now is a great time to present it.
Your hand waving and ignoring the evidence is noted.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 11:50 (UTC)And your evidence?
Your hand waving and ignoring the evidence is noted.
And which evidence am I ignoring? What have I missed, specifically?
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 15:10 (UTC)I'm impressed that the three of you have conducted this excellent conversation and nothing got solved!
We are doomed as a species D: