"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.
You seem more concerned with the BLACK panthers and what they are doing Mobboss, rather than the systematic problems that plague minority voters and their votes, which is troubling. The BLACK panthers be it the impersonators or the originals, are NOTHING compared to what is already happening to minority voters.
 
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.
I'm glad to hear they were denounced by the old Black Panther Party, who never in a million years would have tried to use coercive violence.

For real, Hygro? :confused:
 
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?
I think that's about right; we both agree that chivalry was good for the past, and is bad for the future, but differ on the present.

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.
Again, this is where we differ. Those who are still willing to commit acts of violence against women are, I would argue, outliers, and not representative of a social norm. The resolution of the problems they present can't be solved simply by hoping that they catch up with the fourteenth century, nor is that worth all the damage done in waiting for this to happen.
Take this attack, for example- would it really be any worse if the victim was male? I think not. But would we be less shocked by his behaviour? Quite probably. Does this suggest that chivalry (or, at least, the view of gender which it reflects) means an increased concern for violence against women, or simply a lessened concern for violence committed against men? It's a double-edged sword if there ever was one.

After all, I'm not proposing the simple abandonment of chivalry, but a broader reform of our view of gender, of which this is a part. Certainly, its removal alone just allows the uglier parts of contemporary misogyny to flex their muscles more easily, which is really rather counter-productive. Perhaps, then, we don't differ as much as we think?
 
I'm glad to hear they were denounced by the old Black Panther Party, who never in a million years would have tried to use coercive violence.

For real, Hygro? :confused:
The old Black Panther Party was flawed, but that doesn't make these guys Black Panthers for their poor behavior. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
 
I dont even know who those panthers are and what the heck they have to do with the OP. I
 
The old Black Panther Party was flawed, but that doesn't make these guys Black Panthers for their poor behavior. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
It would be like if there's a new al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden comes out and criticizes them because they're too violent. The condemnation doesn't mean a damn thing because it's just the name tags that have changed, not anything else.
 
It would be like if there's a new al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden comes out and criticizes them because they're too violent. The condemnation doesn't mean a damn thing because it's just the name tags that have changed, not anything else.

Wow, no. That's a pretty extreme bias. You have on one hand an organized nationwide black empowerment in a more racially oppressive age, a movement geared towards the conservativization of black people (despite leftwing economic beliefs), and on another you have a couple of 21st century poorly organized wackos.

A more appropriate analogy would be like if there's some small upstart group trying to cause harm and then we put the blame on another country that doesn't threaten us at all but we dislike anyway :mischief:
 
I think that's about right; we both agree that chivalry was good for the past, and is bad for the future, but differ on the present.

Good; that's settled then. :)

Again, this is where we differ. Those who are still willing to commit acts of violence against women are, I would argue, outliers, and not representative of a social norm. The resolution of the problems they present can't be solved simply by hoping that they catch up with the fourteenth century, nor is that worth all the damage done in waiting for this to happen.
Take this attack, for example- would it really be any worse if the victim was male? I think not. But would we be less shocked by his behaviour? Quite probably. Does this suggest that chivalry (or, at least, the view of gender which it reflects) means an increased concern for violence against women, or simply a lessened concern for violence committed against men? Is it, at this point, actually achieving anything other than granting men a slightly bigger ego?
This, as in most things, isn't an issue in isolation. It's part of a much grander and further-reaching transition.

People who are willing to be violent towards women are outliers, certainly, especially in most of the developed world. However, there are plenty of people who I have very little confidence would maintain their non-violence to women were it not for their sense of chivalry.

Certainly, the fact that this woman was attacked is not really any more worthy of mention in itself than any man being attacked, but then again it is more unusual, and, as you said, it inflates men's egos. I don't really think chivalry suggests decreased concern for men at all; given that the whole concept of chivalry is a manifestation of misogyny - hatred for women in favour of men - in the first place, chivalric men ought to have more concern for other men too when compared against their concern for women, the difference being that their concern for men is authentic, whereas their concern for women is merely a manufactured result of their actual contempt for women.

The fact that this was reported at all demonstrates the intrinsic chivalry of culture to-day, as reflected in the media, and rather backs up my argument that chivalry is endemic to the world-view of a lot of people and that to remove it would be rather dangerous. I'm I can't quite see how that second paragraph of your answer really advances your argument, but that might be something to do with it being half past midnight. :p

I certainly agree that it shouldn't be considered in isolation, and that was partly what I was picking at when I started this debate.
 
Wow, no. That's a pretty extreme bias. You have on one hand an organized nationwide black empowerment in a more racially oppressive age, a movement geared towards the conservativization of black people (despite leftwing economic beliefs), and on another you have a couple of 21st century poorly organized wackos.
So the 60s wackos were better organized.
 
This discussion is pointless because we're operating for very different premises.
 
Let's not jump to conclusions here. Okay, some of Rand Paul's supporters roughed up a MoveOn.org rep, but let's not claim that all Republicans are like this.

MoveOn Activist Head-Stomper Identified As Rand Paul Campaign Coordinator

The man who helped tackle a MoveOn.org activist to the ground and stomped on her head last night has been identified as Tim Profitt, a volunteer campaign coordinator for Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul. Profitt apologized for attacking activist Lauren Valle, but told the AP “that the camera angle made the scuffle Monday night appear worse that it was.” “I’m sorry that it came to that, and I apologize if it appeared overly forceful, but I was concerned about Rand’s safety,” Profitt said.

The Paul campaign has cut ties with Profitt, “removing him from his role as Bourbon County campaign coordinator and banning him from campaign events.” Commenting on the campaign’s dissociation from Profitt, Fox News host Shep Smith said, “I suppose if thats the worse that happens to you after you make a conscious decision to step on a woman, then you’ve probably come out pretty well.” Watch it:

Profitt’s accomplice, who held Valle down while he stepped on her head, has been identified as tea party activist Mike Pezzano. Gawker reports Pezzano “belongs to Lexington’s Rand Paul Meetup group and is an “assistant organizer” for Kentucky Open Carry, a group that wants to make it legal to carry firearms openly and in public.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/26/paul-stomper-identified/#disqus_thread

I like how he blame the media for the bad angle. Thank God for Fox News for putting it into perspective. It not like Obama bowing aka bow-gate.
 
And this makes them different than Black Panthers in Chicago how? Maybe the justice department will turn a blind eye to this too via orders from the President, eh?

This is called a "diversion".
 
I’m sorry that it came to that, and I apologize if it appeared overly forceful, but I was concerned about Rand’s safety,” Profitt said.
Yeah, Rand Paul looks soft enough to not be able to properly defend himself against a woman.
And this makes them different than Black Panthers in Chicago how? Maybe the justice department will turn a blind eye to this too via orders from the President, eh?
I must have missed that Presidential order. Do you have a source?
 
You see JR... they All stick together...
 
You see JR... they All stick together...

And the joke group the "New Black Panthers" are the same as the "Black Panther Party" because they are both groups of black people that make white people uncomfortable.
 
People who are willing to be violent towards women are outliers, certainly, especially in most of the developed world. However, there are plenty of people who I have very little confidence would maintain their non-violence to women were it not for their sense of chivalry.
A fair point, although I would counter with the suggestion that such people are probably only held back from violence against men because of a sense of either a social obligation or fear of repercussion, and so represent an inherent risk to society at large regardless. These are people who cannot be satisfactorily dealt with simply by convincing that hitting women is un-manly.

Certainly, the fact that this woman was attacked is not really any more worthy of mention in itself than any man being attacked, but then again it is more unusual, and, as you said, it inflates men's egos. I don't really think chivalry suggests decreased concern for men at all; given that the whole concept of chivalry is a manifestation of misogyny - hatred for women in favour of men - in the first place, chivalric men ought to have more concern for other men too when compared against their concern for women, the difference being that their concern for men is authentic, whereas their concern for women is merely a manufactured result of their actual contempt for women.
I think that ignores the mutual hostility that sexist society breeds among men, and the constant demand for affirmations of masculinity, expressed through hostility towards both women and men. Any system which privileges one group over another encourages the emergence of privilege within any given group, which among men is often asserted by the inflicting of violence upon other men. Men are considerably more likely to commit violence against other men than they are women, and over more trivial causes, for the very reason that men are seen as capable of engaging in violence, a notion which chivalry passively endorses by marking off one particular segment of the population as off-limits.
Anyway, chivalry relies on pretty reactionary notions of gender, as demonstrated by the various comments found here about "women who act like men", and so isn't exactly fool-proof. Which isn't surprising, when you realise that "I don't hit girls" relies on an ultimately understanding of "girls" (perhaps not coincidental an explicitly infantilising term).

(Also, misogyny is better understood as contempt for women, rather than necessarily being actual hatred; the latter isn't quite as nuanced, and so presents an incomplete picture of the issue.)

The fact that this was reported at all demonstrates the intrinsic chivalry of culture to-day, as reflected in the media, and rather backs up my argument that chivalry is endemic to the world-view of a lot of people and that to remove it would be rather dangerous. I'm I can't quite see how that second paragraph of your answer really advances your argument, but that might be something to do with it being half past midnight. :p
Well, it was more a sort of pondering-out-loud than an actual argument, which is why I (apparently ninja-)edited it to something that sounded less like it was trying to reach a definite conclusion. The above is a bit closer to saying something halfway useful.

I certainly agree that it shouldn't be considered in isolation, and that was partly what I was picking at when I started this debate.
Well, if there's one thing that we have come to a conclusion on, it is that this a complex issue! No disagreements, there, I'm sure! :crazyeye:

Yeah, Rand Paul looks soft enough to not be able to properly defend himself against a woman.
Don't you think that this a bit sexist? "She's just a woman, scoff scoff"? :huh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom