"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 21:06 (UTC)Yeah, the guy who went to an Occupy protest.
You understand that it's not only the right who has anti-government viewpoints, right?
Jeff, this is pathetic. Why are you pretending not to understand how the English language works?
I don't know. Why are you resisting calling these rare? Why are you acting like some sort of rhetorical nightmare has been unleashed upon the country?
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:08 (UTC)Did you look at that "likes" page?
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:10 (UTC)And basically nothing has come of it. That's the point.
Did you look at that "likes" page?
I did.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:21 (UTC)My husband goes to just about every baseball game he can get tickets to. Last week, for the first time ever, he watched a performance of La Traviata with me and a few friends.
Does his watching that opera once make him an opera aficionado and not a baseball fan?
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/14 21:26 (UTC)I certainly see some stuff not traditionally dedicated to the right, and I'm also not foolish enough to think that what someone likes or follows on a social network is representative of what they believe or think.
Does his watching that opera once make him an opera aficionado and not a baseball fan?
That's effectively the argument you're making. Small sample = full story.
The same thing you're doing, by the way, with this continued crusade against language you can't comprehend.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 00:21 (UTC)It's a pretty good indicator.
paft: Does his watching that opera once make him an opera aficionado and not a baseball fan?
bdj That's effectively the argument you're making. Small sample = full story.
I'd only be "doing the same thing" here if the bulk of those likes that dealt with politics were going to liberal and left wing sites, and only one or two to right wing sites. We both know that's not the case.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 11:50 (UTC)Based on what? Hey, maybe the government should start poking in people's library records, right? After all, the books someone reads is a pretty good indicator of what they believe, too, right?
I'd only be "doing the same thing" here if the bulk of those likes that dealt with politics were going to liberal and left wing sites, and only one or two to right wing sites. We both know that's not the case.
But seeing as you don't know what the bulk of his activity was, only what he chose to "like" on a single social network, it's exactly what you're doing.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 21:51 (UTC)Based on the realities of communication. I suppose we could just try telepathy as a means of figuring out someone's beliefs, but reading and listening to what they write and say and do is probably more reliable.
bdj: Hey, maybe the government should start poking in people's library records, right?
No.
bdj: After all, the books someone reads is a pretty good indicator of what they believe, too, right?
Yes, actually, they can be. Someone, for instance, looking over my book collection could reasonably deduce that I enjoy reading 19th century novels, am interested in history and propaganda, enjoy cooking, and have a marked left-wing bias, in spite of the very few right wing tomes I've included.
But, no, that does not mean it's desirable for the government to keep track of what everyone is reading.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 21:53 (UTC)The realities of communication, as it were, suggest not that a person's reading list is predictive, but can often be quite the opposite. As you yourself have noted.
Somehow, the selection you've opted to use has resulted in you making a call you're in no position to make. That's the key issue here.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:04 (UTC)That is not what I said. But then, you know that.
I'm curious about what you imagine we should use to determine what someone's POV is if not the things they say, write, and do?
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:05 (UTC)We should do that! We should not simply select one area, however, and assume it's the complete picture.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:11 (UTC)No indeed! Someone, for instance, looking at my copy of Jerry Falwell's "Listen America" MIGHT conclude that I'm an old member of the Moral Majority -- until they saw the rest of my library, which includes many, many MORE books highly critical of the Religious Right and of a definite liberal bent.
Kind of like looking at a couple of liberal "like" links on Facebook and concluding someone was a liberal -- until noticing the many, many more right wing links.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:15 (UTC)Because, again, looking at someone's Facebook tells you everything you need to know, right? What one "likes" on Facebook is everything to know?
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:35 (UTC)It can certainly be a pretty good indication of someone's politics, religion, etc.
Is it your premise that Miller had all those likes just to be funnin' us?
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:36 (UTC)It's my premise that you're not getting a full accounting, but you're talking about Miller as if you have one anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:48 (UTC)Because there is no rational alternate theory.
bdj: The fact that he also showed up at at least one Occupy event leads me to believe this case might not be so cut and dry.
Does the fact that I have one book by Jerry Falwell make my liberalism not so cut and dried?
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:50 (UTC)More that evidence is driving the bus here, not theories.
Does the fact that I have one book by Jerry Falwell make my liberalism not so cut and dried?
If I'm only looking at your library, maybe. That would be foolish, though, wouldn't it?
(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 22:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/7/14 23:39 (UTC)