"Don't Tread On Me, but Imma Tread on Your Head" say Rand Paul Supporters

Curbstomping a political oppentent is...


  • Total voters
    54
Status
Not open for further replies.
I heard the UN provides a service monitoring elections and such for fairness.
 
To Karalysia and Traitorfish: There are such things as misogynistic men. Of course there are also non-misogynistic men, and boys should be educated to be the latter sort. However, if someone must be misogynistic (and too many people have been brought up like that, and will doubtless continue to be brought up like that in many families and many cultures for many generations to come) it is clearly preferable that they also be chivalric and not just a misogynistic thug.

Chivalry is basically a necessary, and therefore appropriate, intermediate stage between utterly barbaric treatment of women, as was, or even is, found in more primitive societies, and more not having to "treat" women at all in any way as such, because it is not considered the social responsibility of a man to engage in this sort of treatment and for the woman just to sit there and be treated.

Therefore, it is a necessary dichtonomy when applied to more primitive societies, viz. tea-party society. How are these people to even contemplate behaving with true respect to women if they are perfectly willing to beat them to the ground and stamp on their head? These people must not be encouraged to act with true respect, because this is a lost cause, but rather with chivalry, because such a concept is probably not so utterly alien to their bigoted mindset.
 
I heard the UN provides a service monitoring elections and such for fairness.
So does OECD. I think we have some people from OECD watching every second election or so in Norway. They don't really find much to complain about - it's Norway after all - but it's still nice to know that they're there and watching. :)

I'm not sure, but if I recall correctly, Americans don't think much about foreigners watching and judging whether their elections are fair or not...
 
Of course. USA #1!
 
No. Not at all. Just because they want to be treated like men, doesn't mean a man should hit them. Ever. Even when being attacked by a woman (even one who "insists on acting like men!), a man should only act to restrain, and go at all no further.
Real men don't hit people period.
 
To Karalysia and Traitorfish: There are such things as misogynistic men. Of course there are also non-misogynistic men, and boys should be educated to be the latter sort. However, if someone must be misogynistic (and too many people have been brought up like that, and will doubtless continue to be brought up like that in many families and many cultures for many generations to come) it is clearly preferable that they also be chivalric and not just a misogynistic thug.

Chivalry is basically a necessary, and therefore appropriate, intermediate stage between utterly barbaric treatment of women, as was, or even is, found in more primitive societies, and more not having to "treat" women at all in any way as such, because it is not considered the social responsibility of a man to engage in this sort of treatment and for the woman just to sit there and be treated.

Therefore, it is a necessary dichtonomy when applied to more primitive societies, viz. tea-party society. How are these people to even contemplate behaving with true respect to women if they are perfectly willing to beat them to the ground and stamp on their head? These people must not be encouraged to act with true respect, because this is a lost cause, but rather with chivalry, because such a concept is probably not so utterly alien to their bigoted mindset.
But we do not live in "more primitive societies", so it is not at all a pertinent dichotomy. It may be found in certain individual cases, I'll grant you, but that's not an argument for it's retention as a social institution.

Certainly, I'm not of the opinion that promoting female personhood in opposition to misogyny promotes a harsher misogyny. That sounds too much like the argument for "benevolent slavery" for me to treat it without at least some suspicion.

Real men don't hit people period.
"Real men" is a pretty iffy concept. It attaches too much virtue to the essentialising of cultural constructs, which is... Questionable.

That is wrong. If you think back at history or use your imagination, I'm sure you can find at least a few cases were violence was a necessity.
"Good men, women, and others only hit the right people, and only when necessary". There, now everybody's happy! ;)
 
Wow. Perhaps we are not referring to the same event. I am talking about the two guys with nightsticks intimidating voters during the 2008 election in Chicago. That the Justice Department declined to press charges on, allegedly by pressure to not do so from the White House.
Really, man? That's who you meant when you said the Black Panthers? Those guys aren't Black Panthers.


1.
Kara called the Tea party white, right-wing extremists (an untrue and politically-motivated labeling) and so yes there is a comparison there to the black extremist group.

2. I love to use the two MSNBC idiots in derogatory ways the same way other people here love to use FOX, Beck and O'Reilly. When people use the same kind of terms I hear on those shows, I suspect them of watching those shows like they agree with what they say.

What reason is there for me to post on a forum where I guess 90% of the posters are on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum for me, if not to argue and make fun of MSNBC and their talking heads the way they do with FOX, Beck and O'Reilly?

You want something productive? That curbstomping was terrible, not reflective of the Tea Party at all, but will be used to further the image of the Tea Party as extremists by those who disapprove (IE democrats, liberals, progressives and the trifecta of idiocy that is Olbermann, Maddow and Shultz).

Yes politics is gang warfare now, and that started with all the anti-Bush rhetoric years ago (funny how Obama and the dems love to point out how divisive FOX is but nobody used to say a word about MSNBC). The Tea Party now are being called extremists, racists, you name it, because they represent a large part of the population that does not approve of Obama, the democrats, or really anything the government has done. The country is headed in bad direction and it's about damned time people are doing something about it, and that's voting these incumbents out of office and wanting to repeal Obamacare until a proper bill is introduced that won't stomp all over our basic freedoms.

You will always get a few bad apples in a party.
The difference between Fox and MSNBC is that Fox's main pundits are intellectually dishonest, whereas MSNBC's are merely biased. Additionally, MSNBC doesn't try to hide its bias, whereas Fox still considers itself Fair & Balanced when it is anything but. Rachel Maddow is especially reliable in presenting honest news.
 
But some of us, Traitorfish, do live in more primitive societies. Some of us are not as educated as others; sometimes, in fact extremely frequently, this is systematic to a culture and not on an individual basis. Misogyny is culturally implanted in the minds of many people. In many parts of the world, it is too early, I think, to abandon chivalry without it simply being replaced by violence towards women.

There are a lot of these people, you know. They are endemic to society throughout the world, particularly in places like the less culturally advanced areas of the USA, and even more so in the Third World, but even in the UK. To convince them that chivalry is wrong without firmly securing in their mind that misogyny is wrong too would be dangerous and unprincipled, and you cannot firmly secure both those things in the perspective of a culture without allowing more than a generation for each fact to sink into that culture's psyche.

In fact, in all probability, there always will be a lot of misogynists. I cannot believe that it will ever be eradicated; it is too natural, natural in the wrong way. Chivalry, or some equally delusional substitute, must be shown as a social norm to these people to prevent them from being violent, and this will be the case now and until humans' brains are suddenly all enlightened simultaneously by some wierd supernatural force. :p
 
These things are true, yes. However! That does not mean that there is no value in education, especially for those who should know better, which is to say the vast majority of Westerners. "Don't hit anyone" certainly isn't a more regressive message to send than "Don't hit girls". Those to whom this is simply too difficult a concept to grasp are a particular collection of awful, awful people, and are their own special problem.

I mean, really, if "Don't hit anyone" becomes, in your head, "Hit everyone", then you have problems which extend rather further than internalised sexism.
 
I guess it's easier to pipe up the "violent BLACK panthers with their clubs"...
 
1.
Kara called the Tea party white, right-wing extremists (an untrue and politically-motivated labeling) and so yes there is a comparison there to the black extremist group.

2. I love to use the two MSNBC idiots in derogatory ways the same way other people here love to use FOX, Beck and O'Reilly. When people use the same kind of terms I hear on those shows, I suspect them of watching those shows like they agree with what they say.

What reason is there for me to post on a forum where I guess 90% of the posters are on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum for me, if not to argue and make fun of MSNBC and their talking heads the way they do with FOX, Beck and O'Reilly?

You want something productive? That curbstomping was terrible, not reflective of the Tea Party at all, but will be used to further the image of the Tea Party as extremists by those who disapprove (IE democrats, liberals, progressives and the trifecta of idiocy that is Olbermann, Maddow and Shultz).

Yes politics is gang warfare now, and that started with all the anti-Bush rhetoric years ago (funny how Obama and the dems love to point out how divisive FOX is but nobody used to say a word about MSNBC). The Tea Party now are being called extremists, racists, you name it, because they represent a large part of the population that does not approve of Obama, the democrats, or really anything the government has done. The country is headed in bad direction and it's about damned time people are doing something about it, and that's voting these incumbents out of office and wanting to repeal Obamacare until a proper bill is introduced that won't stomp all over our basic freedoms.

You will always get a few bad apples in a party.

1. Kara did not compare them. He mentioned both in the same post, and that's why you think that. If there is a comparison, why would he make it? Considering he supports the black panthers and doesn't support the tea party. It wouldn't be in his interest to make a comparison of something he doesn't like with something he does. Don't just read my post, read his too. You'll see what I'm talking about.

2. When I bring up O'reilly or Beck, its usually topical and never in the middle of a completely different conversation. I have no problem with Olbermann and Maddow being mentioned, but throwing them into a really unwitty jab at the end of a post is just a non-sequiter and not really contributing anything to the discussion.

3. Politics wasn't gang-warfare like it is now in the Bush days. It was after Obama's presidency when the right who had drolled on and on about always supporting your president was suddenly in full "SOCIALISM!" mode and roadblocking every effort of the administration for their own goals. Understandably, this angers leftists, but don't act like we fired the first shots. On top of that, the tea party doesn't represent a majority of Americans. They are directly funded by the Republican establishment and even then, only 15% or so Americans actually support them. The healthcare bill is unpopular because its not what we wanted. America wanted single payer, but got jipped.

4. As a side note: using poor debate tactics can't be covered up by "thats what the opposition does". If you see it, be a man and respectably outline why you don't think its applicable. Don't just keep arguing and add another weapon to your arsenal.
 
Traitorfish, that's a very large and dominant collection of awful people who comprise a very large proportion of the world's population, and are sometimes very prevalent. Really, this person who kicked the woman in the head in the example could have done with a good grasp of chivalry. It would have done him and the woman both a lot of good in the circumstances. Would he or any like-minded people have taken, "Don't hit anyone," on board? I think not. People like him just aren't non-violent like that, by nature. Even if people can understand the statement, they don't necessarily agree with it, and there are perfectly good reasons to hit people. In some people's minds, "good reasons" might include "you got in my way." Such people need chivalry.

A more regressive message is sometimes necessary for more regressive people, and there are a lot of them.
 
Politics wasn't gang-warfare like it is now in the Bush days.


America's more polarized now than it's ever been! Once the "other side" gets in, it's always culminating in American politics going to hell in a handbasket because the guys that used to be in power suddenly become radicalized militants, right? Don't fall into such a silly, nonsensical trap (trope?)
 
Traitorfish, that's a very large and dominant collection of awful people who comprise a very large proportion of the world's population, and are sometimes very prevalent. Really, this person who kicked the woman in the head in the example could have done with a good grasp of chivalry. It would have done him and the woman both a lot of good in the circumstances. Would he or any like-minded people have taken, "Don't hit anyone," on board? I think not. People like him just aren't non-violent like that, by nature. Even if people can understand the statement, they don't necessarily agree with it, and there are perfectly good reasons to hit people. In some people's minds, "good reasons" might include "you got in my way." Such people need chivalry.

A more regressive message is sometimes necessary for more regressive people, and there are a lot of them.
Well, firstly, I would contest that the head-stomper was simply a sociopath. The fact that he was willing to engage in the public head-stomping of political opponents seems to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt.
Secondly, I'm honestly not sure at what point we disagree. Are you suggesting that we can only begin arguing against chivalry when the entire world has fully and entirely absorbed it? When will that be? As you yourself suggest, a performance of chivalry doesn't necessary suggest it's internalisation.

I, at least, feel capable of not hitting women without any code of honour dictating it, and I don't need to hold doors and pay for dinners to demonstrate that. Not true of everyone, but true of enough to be worth saying so, and I would give our fellow posters enough of the benefit of the doubt to include them in this category.
 
I never justified it, but you seem to be preoccupied with the BLACK panthers

Seriously...of course BLACK Panthers....it is the label they use isnt it? Negro Panthers or African-American Panthers just doesnt sound as cool, imho.

whilst ignoring the longer, and lets be honest, much more serious problems of denial, intimidation, cheating and other forms of fiddling with the minority vote, something which you seem reluctant to touch. I wonder why.

Wonder all you want. I will say breaking the law is breaking the law regardless of who does it or their party affiliation. Fair enough?
 
You fail to get what I mean, and probably purposely as well. And it's always easy to fall on the "violent ethnic minority". And if you do say that, where is your outrage? Concern? Disgust? None.
 
Well, firstly, I would contest that the head-stomper was simply a sociopath. The fact that he was willing to engage in the public head-stomping of political opponents seems to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt.
Secondly, I'm honestly not sure at what point we disagree. Are you suggesting that we can only begin arguing against chivalry when the entire world has fully and entirely absorbed it? When will that be? As you yourself suggest, a performance of chivalry doesn't necessary suggest it's internalisation.

I, at least, feel capable of not hitting women without any code of honour dictating it, and I don't need to hold doors and pay for dinners to demonstrate that. Not true of everyone, but true of enough to be worth saying so, and I would give our fellow posters enough of the benefit of the doubt to include them in this category.

I'm not quite sure what we disagree about either. I suppose I recognise that chivalry has a place in modern society whereas you don't. Is that it?

At any rate, of course you can argue against chivalry, and I agree with you that it is fundamentally a bad attitude, but honestly not when you're talking about this sort of man who would happily attack a woman (or for that matter a man, but the woman is the point of our discussion). They need chivalry in order to restrain their barbarism. You don't; I don't; we both know that; sensible people don't need it in general; a lot of people, who admittedly probably aren't looking at this forum, do need it.

You're right to think that it's a thoroughly bigoted and utterly incorrect concept, but wrong to dismiss it totally without nodding to its social necessity.
 
Seriously...of course BLACK Panthers....it is the label they use isnt it? Negro Panthers or African-American Panthers just doesnt sound as cool, imho.
To double down on Useless's point, they aren't even the Black Panthers. They're a couple of crackpots trying to steal the name while the real Black Panthers denounced them. I tried to bring this up earlier but you must have not known what I was alluding to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom