Shooting at San Diego Synagogue

[Cloud_Strife]

The discrimination and punishment of transpeople for the crime of existing.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

violence for some people always comes with the connotation of physical force applied, for other's it doesn't. looking a bit, I found it came from latin violentia (noun) which means something akin to impulsiveness, passion, vehemence, impetuousness, rashness a.o. It has lots of connotations, many of them not related to physical force, and I'm sure the word underwent a lot of change to go from "impulsive" to "applying physical force", and going from Latin to French to English, so why wouldn't it again change its meaning when humanity's forms of violence undergo a great change? words can stay the same, but their meaning comes to mirror the beliefs of its current society - our believes on what does and doesn't constitute violence have simply, undoubtedly changed.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is a problem with this metaphor. What is the omelette in this scenario?

Making America great again, obviously. Who cares if you have to hurt minorities in the grand game of making nationalism about the benefit to the citizen???

 

[Lexicus]

Making America great again, obviously. Who cares if you have to hurt minorities in the grand game of making nationalism about the benefit to the citizen???

Right, this is exactly my point: the 'omelette' here is the discrimination, the infliction of harm. Just like there is no meaning to MAGA beyond restoring discrimination.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not in the minds of people who are willing to overlook the discrimination. That said, you have highlighted a very important implicit urge that will rest in some of his base. Remember, some are willing to overlook. And some want the discrimination. Crafting your message, so that others see that the discrimination is the goal, is worthy. I will try to figure out how to do so as well

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The cruelty is the point

 

[Lexicus]

Not in the minds of people who are willing to overlook the discrimination.

Those people seem to be more interested in tax cuts than anything to do with nationalism.

 

[Senethro]

The threat of violence should be regarded as violence the same way the threat of torture is regarded as torture.

 

[El_Machinae]

Those people seem to be more interested in tax cuts than anything to do with nationalism.

Yes. As I said, if you have political permission to generate 3% growth with 4% deficits, and are allowed to run deficits that are greater than the increase in salary, you are a political juggernaut

People who want discrimination don't actually care about deficits. People who want tax cuts don't actually care about deficits. People who want wage increases don't actually care about deficits. And you can mix and match the above words when it comes to discrimination or oppression of minorities that conservatives have a hard time feeling empathy for

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Making America great again, obviously. Who cares if you have to hurt minorities in the grand game of making nationalism about the benefit to the citizen???

Minorities are citizens though.

The threat of violence should be regarded as violence the same way the threat of torture is regarded as torture.

That rationale allows people to initiate violence on alleged "threat". If you're okay with physically attacking false flaggers or a guy punching his girlfriend because she threatened to get him fired, then by all means use such rationale.

I hold that there's a flaw in quoted reasoning which such examples should make self-evident.

 

[rah]

I don't know about that. The girl friends threat could still be considered violence regardless of whether the boy friend punches her.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't know about that. The girl friends threat could still be considered violence regardless of whether the boy friend punches her.

By Senethro's reasoning, he could claim "self defense" in doing so. I'm rejecting that reasoning, and by extension reasoning that allows other arbitrary acts of "violence in defense".

 

[Senethro]

Minorities are citizens though.



That rationale allows people to initiate violence on alleged "threat". If you're okay with physically attacking false flaggers or a guy punching his girlfriend because she threatened to get him fired, then by all means use such rationale.

I hold that there's a flaw in quoted reasoning which such examples should make self-evident.

I'm not arguing in favour of disproportionate escalation, thx. I'd also regard differently the use of violence by private citizens (very nearly always illegitimate) with the violence of the state. (legitimate when within prescribed boundaries)

 

[El_Machinae]

Minorities are citizens though.

You don't say. And yet, these minorities are being demonstrably deprived of income and having their resumes destroyed.

They might not be the right type of citizen, I guess.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not arguing in favour of disproportionate escalation, thx.

How do you manage a solid standard for "disproportionate"? Reputation/job loss could do more long-term damage than a single punch, or it could do less.

In this hypothetical and quite a few others you're necessarily asserting illegitimate violence on both sides.

You don't say. And yet, these minorities are being demonstrably deprived of income and having their resumes destroyed.

I don't doubt this is a problem. What's the scale? Do you have a source for this?

 

[Senethro]

How do you manage a solid standard for "disproportionate"? Reputation/job loss could do more long-term damage than a single punch, or it could do less.

In this hypothetical and quite a few others you're necessarily asserting illegitimate violence on both sides.

yo, lets just go back to my original statement that set you off mr top logic

In a society where you need money to survive, depriving someone of the ability to earn a living using the state is a form of violence.

note the word "state". I don't want to get silly with you about your examples between private citizens

 

[TheMeInTeam]

yo, lets just go back to my original statement that set you off mr top logic

• Threat of violence = violence. -->
  
• Threat of job loss (which you allege is violence) = violent threat. -->
• Time for some "self-defense"!

That probably isn't your actual belief system, but it's your position as-written.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In a society where you need money to survive, depriving someone of the ability to earn a living using the state is a form of violence.

No it isn't. And even if it were, that's not a valid description of the situation.

Not really. You and others damage your own standing with your misuse of words to the point I felt like pointing out how silly it is. Admittedly, it's also very annoying for me to read.

100% agree. You have a situation that (from the one article linked to) just sounds like open discrimination against transgender people. That is "a bad thing" on its own merit. But describing it as violence is just silly, and seems to be just an excuse to label people as "transphobes", even if they agree that it's a bad thing.

 

[Lexicus]

You realize that if I refer to the thing as "violence" and people understand what I mean, there is no actual basis to call my use of the word incorrect? The point of language is to convey sense, ideas, not to conform to your dumbass rules.

 

[Senethro]

No it isn't. And even if it were, that's not a valid description of the situation.

Don't tell it to me, tell it to those living in apartheid states. (or 1930s Germany w/e)

Injust regimes are maintained through implied (and actual) use of violence.