Paul Pelosi attack

[Narz]

i understand from the op where you're coming from, you understand this is a bad thing, but you're rhetorically reproducing the legitimacy of the assault at the same time

Politicians are corrupt and people feel powerless. I'm not legitimizing the assault. You can understand the mentality of someone who does something awful without condoning it.

I already said that I pity him over the drunk driving stuff. That's not something you do at his age without a drinking problem, in my judgment

Driving drunk risking the lives of others is pitiable, it's a mental illness, but being a wackadoo conspiracy nut is as well, no?

Really rich guy has emotional problems that even using insider information to steal more money than he could ever spend can't solve. Crazy conspiracy guy thinks he's metting out vigilantly justice. They're both broken people & we wouldn't have one without the other.

The absurdly rich and greedy depend on the gullible & ignorant (if the masses were actually educated they would demand reform) and the gullible and ignorant need fantasy, a sense of mission to avoid total despair.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Politicians are corrupt and people feel powerless. I'm not legitimizing the assault. You can understand the mentality of someone who does something awful without condoning it.


Driving drunk risking the lives of others is pitiable, it's a mental illness, but being a wackadoo conspiracy nut is as well, no?

Really rich guy has emotional problems that even using insider information to steal more money than he could ever spend can't solve. Crazy conspiracy guy thinks he's metting out vigilantly justice. They're both broken people & we wouldn't have one without the other.

The absurdly rich and greedy depend on the gullible & ignorant (if the masses were actually educated they would demand reform) and the gullible and ignorant need fantasy, a sense of mission to avoid total despair.

So don't vote for the corrupt ones, don't take delight in their family misfortunhe.

1 case of drunk driving in a lifetime is not proof that Paul Pelosi has a problem with alcohol abuse. You're really reaching to justify the conclusions you've made.

 

[Angst]

Politicians are corrupt and people feel powerless. I'm not legitimizing the assault. You can understand the mentality of someone who does something awful without condoning it.

the problem is tone

you can explain why something has happened without reproducing the rhetoric of the perpetrator

 

[Narz]

How you figure I'm taking delight? Not shedding a tear doesn't mean I'm happy about it. I'm neutral really. Of all the trauma and abuse going on everyday this doesn't really move me, I'm just interested in it sociologically.

If your definition of criminal is getting caught & getting consequences, sure he's not a criminal.

 

[Narz]

the problem is tone

What's the problem w my tone?

you can explain why something has happened without reproducing the rhetoric of the perpetrator

What rhetoric? That the old man is a greedy scheming parasite? I mean is that rhetoric wrong? He probably doesn't inject baby blood or whatever that latest qanon thing is but does he represent many things wrong w the world? Obviously. Nowhere have I said he deserves to be assaulted in his home.

What specific am I saying that you think is wrong?

As I've said @ least twice you can understand a pathology w/o condoning it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

What's the problem w my tone?

What rhetoric? That the old man is a greedy scheming parasite? I mean is that rhetoric wrong? He probably doesn't inject baby blood or whatever that latest qanon thing is but does he represent many things wrong w the world? Obviously. Nowhere have I said he deserves to be assaulted in his home.

What specific am I saying that you think is wrong?

As I've said @ least twice you can understand a pathology w/o condoning it.

I await your examination of the business dealings of the spouses of all the other members of Congress.
It has no relevance to the attack on him.

 

[Narz]

I'm sure they're all corrupt to some degree.

I'm not saying crazypants studied their dealings & chose the most corrupt based on his analysis. Who knows he may not have even known Paul's name.

 

[Farm Boy]

Intruder in Trudeau's home left threatening note on a line of butcher knives

Trudeau says he and his wife, Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau, have had some “very serious discussions” over the past 24 hours about the extensive travel his role as leader…

nationalpost.com

Trudeau also had a break in at his house, followed by threats.

It actually surprises me more that, despite all the rhetoric, politicians aren't attacked more often.

There are a huge number of people who are rather convinced that deaths among the elite are the only real long-term option. But at the same time, people are less insane and violent than I think. Weird! Especially given the huge number of personalized murders. People will kill someone they know, but are much less likely to kill someone they think is oppressing them

It takes a fracture of the soul to take another's life. Poirot, I think.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm sure they're all corrupt to some degree.

I'm not saying crazypants studied their dealings & chose the most corrupt based on his analysis. Who knows he may not have even known Paul's name.

He knew his surname.

 

[El_Machinae]

I await your examination of the business dealings of the spouses of all the other members of Congress.

I find this a weird take. The leader of a party should be under more scrutiny than 'all other members of Congress'. But also, someone is not under any obligation to jump through other hoops, complaining about all other things, when they complain about something. Now, asking someone to complain about something worse is fair (imo), since tackling the worst problems first at least makes tactical sense.

I think people should really also believe Narz when he says "understanding is not condoning".

There's talk of tone, but this push back against the idea that corrupt families will get tire-ironed is concomittantly causing the impression that 'what they do is okay'.

Also, I think there's a broader discussion. The United States is entering the phase of a debt-cycle where people think that violence against the elites is now a plausible option. But, like, isn't that true? A gerontocracy makes a hyper-millionaire instead of writing laws against people-with-authority being banned from actively trading. This is a problem that's either solved by violence or by ... defending the gerontocracy? No. Obviously, something needs defending. But defending the corruption, if it's on your side, doesn't work.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I find this a weird take. The leader of a party should be under more scrutiny than 'all other members of Congress'. But also, someone is not under any obligation to jump through other hoops, complaining about all other things, when they complain about something. Now, asking someone to complain about something worse is fair (imo), since tackling the worst problems first at least makes tactical sense.

I think people should really also believe Narz when he says "understanding is not condoning".

There's talk of tone, but this push back against the idea that corrupt families will get tire-ironed is concomittantly causing the impression that 'what they do is okay'.

Also, I think there's a broader discussion. The United States is entering the phase of a debt-cycle where people think that violence against the elites is now a plausible option. But, like, isn't that true? A gerontocracy makes a hyper-millionaire instead of writing laws against people-with-authority being banned from actively trading. This is a problem that's either solved by violence or by ... defending the gerontocracy? No. Obviously, something needs defending. But defending the corruption, if it's on your side, doesn't work.

No understanding or compassion for a victim in anything Narz has posted.

 

[Gorbles]

but this push back against the idea that corrupt families will get tire-ironed is concomittantly causing the impression that 'what they do is okay'.

I think this is as unhelpful an assumption to make as the one you believe people are making of Narz.

Concomittants for all, or concomittants for none. Can't have it both ways. When people try to it's because they feel more one way than the other, and that's just a fancy way of saying bias. Which we all have, but I (for one) am not being a mediator here

 

[Angst]

What's the problem w my tone?

What rhetoric? That the old man is a greedy scheming parasite? I mean is that rhetoric wrong? He probably doesn't inject baby blood or whatever that latest qanon thing is but does he represent many things wrong w the world? Obviously. Nowhere have I said he deserves to be assaulted in his home.

What specific am I saying that you think is wrong?

As I've said @ least twice you can understand a pathology w/o condoning it.

ok i'm doing other stuff so this will be some concentrated jargon, sry about that

so stuff like highlighted sentence

greedy scheming parasite = vice vice infestation. bad bad requires-cleansing (medicine, surgery, whatever, technically cleansing; we all know parasites are supposed to be removed, cleant, from the body). it's applied idealistic biopolitics in language here too, talking about society as a body and negative elements of that society "as parasites", as infections, sicknesses, degradation, etc.
seeing society as a healthy body where unhealthy things are to be removed is the mode of rhetoric for people like the assailant here. it's also the mode of rhetoric for other people, but it's core to alt-righters and trumpets. the phrasing and understanding is that since there are parasites you need to cure society through "surgery"
so - corruption runs deep in the us government, i mean, yea. it's true
but talking about the victims here through the very same framework as the assailant - it is why someone earlier compared it to talking about someone dressing slutty in the context of rape
whether the politicians are corrupt or not, you're reproducing the framework of speech of people that are applying "societal surgery" by breaking into someone's house with a hammer, ready to maim.
you can demonstrate frustration at corruption while not rhetorically embodying the kind of thinking that is used to legitimize murder ^^

it's very very clear that you don't believe the assailant is in the right, that you rightfully identify corruption in the government, and that you have plenty of sympathy for the victims here. but it's like... going a bit extreme here, but trying to outline it as clearly as possible, quoting mein kampf when defending jews? that's the deal with the situation here, it's how they speak

like i'm not trying to correct you here; i'm lining out why some of the reception in this thread was taken aback at the phrasing "Hard to feel too bad for this criminal" as the very start of your whole OP; it's the lead-in; the first and most foremost part you talked about

i know your political position so i know it's basically just unfortunate phrasing, i'm just outlining the reason people are a bit miffed. ^^

 

[El_Machinae]

I think this is as unhelpful an assumption to make as the one you believe people are making of Narz.

I'm not making that assumption. I'm talking about the impression.

I'll be my own judge, but CFC definitely has a bias when it comes to sympathy (or pushback against lack of sympathy) and corruption getting violenced. Pushing too hard, tribally, against a lack of sympathy is going to be interpreted. Plus, remember, she posted the "I await your", which then invites introspection and, uh, extrospection.

I think that the "I await your" really might be a conversation ender, and that might be what triggered my response (I'll make note of that for myself). But I've also likely entered a different parsing of the problem. imo, we're either in the world where the corrupt elite might need violence to displace or we're not. Paul Pelosi isn't enough on 'my side'. If violence is warranted, I'm pretty sure people like him end up on the chopping block. Or it's not warranted. I definitely think we're in the low-boil of society asking that question.

I've often expressed that people need to be careful to be sympathetic towards the collateral damage of necessary violence. But then we sort people into whether they're really 'collateral'.

 

[bernie14]

ok i'm doing other stuff so this will be some concentrated jargon, sry about that

so stuff like highlighted sentence

greedy scheming parasite = vice vice infestation. bad bad requires-cleansing (medicine, surgery, whatever, technically cleansing; we all know parasites are supposed to be removed, cleant, from the body). it's applied idealistic biopolitics in language here too, talking about society as a body and negative elements of that society "as parasites", as infections, sicknesses, degradation, etc.
seeing society as a healthy body where unhealthy things are to be removed is the mode of rhetoric for people like the assailant here. it's also the mode of rhetoric for other people, but it's core to alt-righters and trumpets. the phrasing and understanding is that since there are parasites you need to cure society through "surgery"
so - corruption runs deep in the us government, i mean, yea. it's true
but talking about the victims here through the very same framework as the assailant - it is why someone earlier compared it to talking about someone dressing slutty in the context of rape
whether the politicians are corrupt or not, you're reproducing the framework of speech of people that are applying "societal surgery" by breaking into someone's house with a hammer, ready to maim.
you can demonstrate frustration at corruption while not rhetorically embodying the kind of thinking that is used to legitimize murder ^^

it's very very clear that you don't believe the assailant is in the right, that you rightfully identify corruption in the government, and that you have plenty of sympathy for the victims here. but it's like... going a bit extreme here, but trying to outline it as clearly as possible, quoting mein kampf when defending jews? that's the deal with the situation here, it's how they speak

like i'm not trying to correct you here; i'm lining out why some of the reception in this thread was taken aback at the phrasing "Hard to feel too bad for this criminal" as the very start of your whole OP; it's the lead-in; the first and most foremost part you talked about

i know your political position so i know it's basically just unfortunate phrasing, i'm just outlining the reason people are a bit miffed. ^^

Straight to Godwin's law, but violence against the government is a modus operandi of various ideologies....some expecting some sort of "collective consciousness" being to arise from the womb of capitalism.....imagine that!

 

[Gorbles]

I'm not making that assumption. I'm talking about the impression.

I'll be my own judge, but CFC definitely has a bias when it comes to sympathy (or pushback against lack of sympathy) and corruption getting violenced. Pushing too hard, tribally, against a lack of sympathy is going to be interpreted. Plus, remember, she posted the "I await your", which then invites introspection and, uh, extrospection.

I think that the "I await your" really might be a conversation ender, and that might be what triggered my response (I'll make note of that for myself). But I've also likely entered a different parsing of the problem. imo, we're either in the world where the corrupt elite might need violence to displace or we're not. Paul Pelosi isn't enough on 'my side'. If violence is warranted, I'm pretty sure people like him end up on the chopping block. Or it's not warranted. I definitely think we're in the low-boil of society asking that question.

I've often expressed that people need to be careful to be sympathetic towards the collateral damage of necessary violence. But then we sort people into whether they're really 'collateral'.

Impressions are implicitly assumptions. People could well be concerned about the impression Narz was giving, and this is exactly the argument Angst has been trying to outline for a bunch of posts. To lend more bias to the existence of the assumption is what's actually going on here, and nearly everybody is doing it (you, Narz, the people you're all debating with, etc). I'm probably doing it with this post.

It's why I deleted most of my original reply that I boiled down to "lol". Because I realised it was a semantic dead-end of going around another person's opinion when in a different context (if the victim were different) I might have a similar reaction. There is nuance given the context, but not enough to make that tangent worthwhile. So I quit while we (and the thread as a whole) were ahead, at the time

Paul Pelosi isn't on anyone's side here in CFC (as far as I'm aware). But people are going to weight violence against relations of members of one party differently to members of another, even if in both cases they're innocent bystanders (in the context of political associations, I'm presuming their marriage goes back decades). You can call it tribal if you want, it's a fair word, but it applies to everyone with a stake in the politics of it. It applies to Narz starting his reaction with that value judgement just as much it does people doing the inverse / reverse.

This is a lot of words to say that if we're talking about impressions, and you want to mediate the bias of those impressions, in my opinion you should've prolly done what I did and simply not gotten involved. Not only can everyone argue for themselves, but it gets way too easy to insert your own bias into what should be a mediating position. And then you're stuck on the whole "not enough on my side" thing, when that's not really pertinent to him getting assaulted with a hammer. If a male GOPer's wife got smacked with a nine-iron (presuming she was as on the sidelines as Paul Pelosi is), would you support the people saying "I don't have any sympathy for criminals like her", or would you be disapproving of that kind of line?

This whole critical angle of the ruling class doesn't seem bipartisan in my experience. And it's funny to me, because both parties in the US are right-wing by most Western countries' standards. But there definitely seems to be more defense of criticism of the Democrats vs. the Republicans - but here's the kicker. It's not even left-leaning criticism. It's criticism that sounds like it came off of FOX News (at the very least, to someone unfamiliar with Paul Pelosi's life). It certainly would be a right-wing media thing to do, to crawl over the victim's life and find things to broadcast about it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm not making that assumption. I'm talking about the impression.

I'll be my own judge, but CFC definitely has a bias when it comes to sympathy (or pushback against lack of sympathy) and corruption getting violenced. Pushing too hard, tribally, against a lack of sympathy is going to be interpreted. Plus, remember, she posted the "I await your", which then invites introspection and, uh, extrospection.

I think that the "I await your" really might be a conversation ender, and that might be what triggered my response (I'll make note of that for myself). But I've also likely entered a different parsing of the problem. imo, we're either in the world where the corrupt elite might need violence to displace or we're not. Paul Pelosi isn't enough on 'my side'. If violence is warranted, I'm pretty sure people like him end up on the chopping block. Or it's not warranted. I definitely think we're in the low-boil of society asking that question.

I've often expressed that people need to be careful to be sympathetic towards the collateral damage of necessary violence. But then we sort people into whether they're really 'collateral'.

I tend to think an elderly man attacked by an intruder is a victim and deserves sympathy, regardless of who his wife is, how he (legally) made his money and any mistakes he made in the past.
Apparently not.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, looking back, I really do think it was the 'I await your' that got me. There's a lesson there. I then went back and looked at that person's historical 'fairness' about such things. Plus (and I think I'm correct) that the suggestion that 'all of Congress' is not really necessary when the other people is looking at a leader in the organization.

FTR, I also don't have much sympathy for him. Or, if I do, it's suppressed nearly immediately. There are about one billion people ahead of him in line. So, if I do feel sympathy, I find that I quickly push it back into its appropriate place in line. Suggesting that I push it forward, out of order, seems to be performative.

There could also be a different conception of sympathy here. I think it's obvious that I'm sorting into some level of priority, where the emotion motivates action. And then there's the knee-jerk "huh, it's sad that his life hurts more than it should". They're different concepts.

 

[Narz]

No understanding or compassion for a victim in anything Narz has posted.

You can say a few words

greedy scheming parasite = vice vice infestation. bad bad requires-cleansing (medicine, surgery, whatever, technically cleansing; we all know parasites are supposed to be removed, cleant, from the body). it's applied idealistic biopolitics in language here too, talking about society as a body and negative elements of that society "as parasites", as infections, sicknesses, degradation, etc.
seeing society as a healthy body where unhealthy things are to be removed

The body is not healthy hence its suspectabity to parasites.

Clearly hammer weilding idiots arent the answer to the problem.

There are others here who call for violent revolution and mass jailing of political opponents tho.

you can demonstrate frustration at corruption while not rhetorically embodying the kind of thinking that is used to legitimize murder ^^

I'm not embodying that kind of thinking.

 

[Kaitzilla]

The forum doesn't really do sympathy posts.

Breaking News! Members of Congress shot in Virginia.

This hasn't even made it onto the net yet. I'm seeing it on CBS news. Rep Steve Scalise is the only name released so far. He's the Republican majority whip of the House. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/14/virginia-gop-baseball-practice-shooting-multiple-people-shot.html House Majority...

forums.civfanatics.com