Take a stand on political violence

[ThatRobGuy]

the governed are often left to accept that control with little or no recourse. In which case the governed have the right to raise the level of social discourse beyond what would otherwise be generally accepted social norms. When or if that discourse rises to the level of violence isn't something that can be regulated away... it's the right of the abused to oppose their abuser.

That's false.

In democratic systems there is recourse, but that recourse is limited (in proportion to how many people share their positions vs. ones who don't)

So that recourse is to be able to convince at least 51% of the population that your position is correct position. "I'm going to just shoot the people responsible for my opinion not being the majority opinion" isn't a valid approach (if we want to have a civilized society).

It's a rather warped view for one to think "I'm being abused" because 70% of the other "governed" people don't agree with them on an issue.


In this recent case, the right leaning people who are against certain aspects of trans rights are just as "governed" as the left leaning people who are in favor of those aspects.

"Governance should be considered oppression and victimization when my side is losing" isn't a sustainable model.

 

[Bradskii]

Come on @Bradskii, you're better than that. That's like asking why I can't see that 'thou shalt not kill' is a reasonable boundary, even if I advocate for the right to kill in self defense. Of course thou shalt not kill is a reasonable boundary, but there are still circumstances in which people have the right to kill. One truth doesn't negate the other.

All that I'm contending is that the abused have the right to oppose their abuser. Certainly you don't find that to be unreasonable... do you?

I agree. But you did say that you didn't see the need for boundaries. And it's where we place those boundaries, where we draw the line in the sand is the bone of contention. There's justifiable homicide. There are just wars. But we are talking about recent events when someone was shot and killed for holding to views and expressing them in the public marketplace of ideas to which someone disagreed.

I'm certain that we both agree that the line was most definitely crossed.

Yes, we're all controlled by rules and regulations, and for the most part we accept that control with little dissension. But once you accept the premise that the abused have the right to oppose their abuser, then black and white suddenly becomes grey, and you're forced to accept the fact that while some wives will never confront their abusive husbands others will go above and beyond what society might deem to be appropriate. What seemed at first blush to be a reasonable stance to take, will unfortunately, and unavoidably have deleterious effects.

It's a dichotomy that we simply have to accept when we accept that life isn't perfect, and absolutes aren't absolute. Things will happen that we don't want to happen. Like allowing people to drink or own guns, you do so with the knowledge that innocent people are going to die. You don't want them to die, but you know that they will. It's the same with political violence. You're not advocating for it, but you're accepting it as a consequence of something that you do want. The right of the people to protest against their government.

And again I agree. Life is not black and white. And it drives me to distraction when people treat it as such. One would have to be extremely naive not to realise that at some point, somewhere, at some time, someone is going to cross that line we drew.

I remember discussing Trump with my wife before the election. We both realised that he was in with a chance. But we both agreed that should he win there was a fair chance he wouldn't see out his term. That there would be, out of the very many people who abhorred everything he stood for, some extremist who would decide to kill him. And let's face it, we were a couple of inches away from being proved right in his first few weeks. But that doesn't mean I'd support that action. I'd shed no tears, but I wouldn't class it as someone's right to do it.

So yeah, I don't have a problem with political violence, because I know from whence it comes.

I know where it comes from as well. But I do have a problem with it. Knowing why somebody goes to an extreme is the explanation for his or her actions (invariably a male). It isn't an excuse for it.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Okay, I'm just gonna throw this out there... I don't have a problem with political violence. In the realm of political discourse people have a right to express themselves, and that expression exists on a spectrum from benevolent to violent. I understand the idea that there need to be boundaries, but I don't see why.

Consider the aforementioned abused wife:


Politics is specifically about exercising control over the behavior of others, just as the husband does in the above scenario. But with all due respect to @Landon Caeli's response, the governed are often left to accept that control with little or no recourse. In which case the governed have the right to raise the level of social discourse beyond what would otherwise be generally accepted social norms. When or if that discourse rises to the level of violence isn't something that can be regulated away... it's the right of the abused to oppose their abuser.

If you hadn't noticed... people are crazy. They're not always going to respond as passively as you want them to and I have absolutely no problem with that. In the end, people have a right to be people, whether we like it or not.

We all know that the left wing democrats, even on this forum, have been openly stating that the status quo isn't working, and that people need to get out, start cussing at people, and breaking stuff to get their message across...

...I just don't see why it has to be that way. Whose rights are *actually* being taken away? Who exactly is being "controlled"? The trans people? How, I don't think it's true... I still think people are 'acting' like their rights are being deprived - in the most free country on earth no less. It just comes off like theater to me.

It all makes no sense.

 

[Ellesmere]

PRESIDENT TRUMP: “My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it,”

The president went on to list other acts of political violence — including the attempted assassination of him
last year in Butler, Pennsylvania — but didn’t mention attacks against Democrats, such as the killing of a member of the Minnesota House in June or the arson attack of Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro home in April.

On Friday, Trump further escalated his attacks, telling Fox News that left wing radicals are the problem!"” and implied right-wing radicals are not.

“The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime,” the president said on “Fox & Friends.”

“The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible, and they’re politically savvy.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/13/politics/trump-rhetoric-democrats-charlie-kirk

***********************************************************************************************

1) Where has all this self-righteous moral outrage been since 1975 for the 391 politically motivated murders attributed to right-wing extremist - those same radicals that President would have us believe that their only motivation is "they don't want to see crime!"

2) Right-wing extremists have been responsible for 63% of all politically related deaths since 1975 - as compared to the 10.5% attributed to their left-wing counterparts!

3) That translates into a 6:1 ratio - 6 deaths traceable to right wing radicals for every 1 conducted by the left-wing

4) Not only has the President subjecting the nation to his own self-serving, politically motivated rant as to who is responsible for politically motivated deaths that have no basis in reality but his words will only further inflame an already volatile situation!

5) Abdicating his role where the President is expected to attempt to unite the nation during times of crisis, Trump demonstrated just how "unpresidential" he has become by refusing to even acknowledge the assassination attempt on the Democratic Pennsylvanian Governor and the execution of the Head of the Democratic Caucus in the Minnesota House and her husband, while misrepresenting the actions of right-wing extremists!

 

[rebornfree]

I'm not in the USA, but I agree that all political violence is to be condemned. I also think that the rhetoric needs to tone down.

We've had 2 MPs (opposite parties) murdered here, in the UK, in the last few years. I felt angry that someone should kill our elected representatives (whether I agreed with their policies or not). Above all, two people have been killed and their loved ones bereaved. However, at a much more minor level, someone has decided that our choice of elected representatives was not good enough. It was an afront on democracy. The country (no doubt with a few exceptions) came together after each murder.

I know I've said it before, but I think it helps political discourse that our MPs have free votes on moral issues. So trans, homosexuality, assisted dying, abortion etc. are not party political issues. 'Left' means supporting more public investment and 'right' more private ownership. It's largely different views on economic models, although both main parties support a mixed economy.

I wish you did the same in the States - I think you would be less divided on party lines - but it's not for me to tell another country how to manage itself!

Anyone here from other European countries, Canada, Australia or New Zealand? I'm just wondering if moral issues are tied into party politics where you are. Just curious.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I'm not in the USA, but I agree that all political violence is to be condemned. I also think that the rhetoric needs to tone down.

We've had 2 MPs (opposite parties) murdered here, in the UK, in the last few years. I felt angry that someone should kill our elected representatives (whether I agreed with their policies or not). Above all, two people have been killed and their loved ones bereaved. However, at a much more minor level, someone has decided that our choice of elected representatives was not good enough. It was an afront on democracy. The country (no doubt with a few exceptions) came together after each murder.

I know I've said it before, but I think it helps political discourse that our MPs have free votes on moral issues. So trans, homosexuality, assisted dying, abortion etc. are not party political issues. 'Left' means supporting more public investment and 'right' more private ownership. It's largely different views on economic models, although both main parties support a mixed economy.

I wish you did the same in the States - I think you would be less divided on party lines - but it's not for me to tell another country how to manage itself!

Anyone here from other European countries, Canada, Australia or New Zealand? I'm just wondering if moral issues are tied into party politics where you are. Just curious.

Having the ability to choose from more than 2 parties really changes the game. Here's a plot of the swedish parties on a 2D plot, with economic policy (vänster - left and höger - right) on the horizontal axis and the GAL-TAN (Green Alternative Libertarian - Traditional Authoritarian Nationalist) values on the vertical axis.

So in Sweden, yes I would say that there are some moral issues in party politics. However, it is most often possible to find a party that is a good fit. I have marked in red the previous government (left-aligned), and in blue the present minority government (they govern with the support of SD, right-aligned). As you can see, the only political space not occcupied are the traditionalist, hardcore leftists.

NB! the GAL-TAN scale is not without its detractors, I'm just using it as a proxy for the cultural dimension. Also this is Sweden, you'll find plenty of people in M (Moderaterna) that are pretty progressive on a global scale.

Perhaps this would be better in the politics sub-forum?

 

[rebornfree]

Thank you so much for replying Stopped_lurking. That's really interesting. Yes, I think I should move this to a political sub-forum. If I do, would you be willing to copy your answer there please? Many thanks.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Thank you so much for replying Stopped_Lurking. That's really interesting. Yes, I think I should move this to a political sub-forum. If I do would you be willing to copy your answer there please? Many thanks.

Yes

 

[rebornfree]

Thank you.

 

[Larniavc]

but I think those that are elderly might want to opt for the pistols unless they are in really good shape.

This is why America needs gun control!

I’ll see myself out.

 

[Larniavc]

and Gen-X'ers

Too much effort.

 

[Larniavc]

I don’t have any interest in ever going near a lathe because of The Video.

if you know, you know.

When I did CDT lessons at school we had all those big drills and lathes and such. All we were told was to tuck our ties in.

 

[rebornfree]

Anyone here from other European countries, Canada, Australia or New Zealand? I'm just wondering if moral issues are tied into party politics where you are. Just curious.

I've now asked this in Discussion and Debate - Politics - General Political Discussion - 'Parliamentary System in Your Country' thread . Please reply there and thank you to Stopped_lurking for doing so. I need to log off now, but will reply later.

 

[iluvatar5150]

When I did CDT lessons at school we had all those big drills and lathes and such. All we were told was to tuck our ties in.

IIRC, the individual in this situation was wearing some sort of jacket, reached across the top of the lathe, and his sleeve got caught. It was a very powerful lathe.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

know I've said it before, but I think it helps political discourse that our MPs have free votes on moral issues. So trans, homosexuality, assisted dying, abortion etc. are not party political issues. 'Left' means supporting more public investment and 'right' more private ownership. It's largely different views on economic models, although both main parties support a mixed economy.

I wish you did the same in the States - I think you would be less divided on party lines - but it's not for me to tell another country how to manage itself!

While I can see how that would work parliamentary systems with more than 2 parties that are well represented (where concepts like coalitions are a norm, so they're used to voting along side another party on certain issues, but not on all the others)

I have doubts about whether that would work in our system.

1) Perhaps it's a difference in perception, but here, anything that involves any usage of tax implications is going to be perceived as a "political issue". For example, you mentioned abortion, the moment there's anything on the table about public funds being used to facilitate it, it becomes "political"

2) In our system, it would still trend toward the same two factions we have today. There are outliers in a select few cases, for instance, Rand Paul will often vote with the democrats on matters of drug legalization, or a New England republican legislator will vote in favor of abortion, but that's not the norm.

Here in the US, if you tell me what views a person holds on gay rights, the environment, and abortion...knowing those 3 pieces of information, I'll be able to approximate what their views are on gun control or universal healthcare, and in 90% of cases, my guesses would be right.

So it wouldn't really change outcomes all that much. Most of the people on the left/right who favor more/less public investment would be using their "free votes on moral issues" the same way they currently vote on those issues today. Some of that is due to the fact that the two parties have voters that have various "purity tests"... and to a degree, I get it. With so many options typically available in a primary, why would anyone rally behind a person who only shares 70% of their views when there are options available that share 95% of their views?

 

[Landon Caeli]

IIRC, the individual in this situation was wearing some sort of jacket, reached across the top of the lathe, and his sleeve got caught. It was a very powerful lathe.

I bet he won't do that again.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I bet he won't do that again.

He won't be doing much of anything again.

 

[Larniavc]

IIRC, the individual in this situation was wearing some sort of jacket, reached across the top of the lathe, and his sleeve got caught. It was a very powerful lathe.

Oh dear.

 

[partinobodycular]

It's a social contract to which we all agree.

I suppose that fundamentally this is the thing that I'm questioning... the validity of some so-called 'social contract'. With all due respect to the powers that be, my assent to it is tacit only. Neither do I accept that it has any authority beyond that which I personally choose to give it, regardless of whether or not someone has the power to impose it on me.

Don't confuse this with a call for anarchy, it's not. It's simply to point out that there are certain truths that we hold to be self-evident and that foremost among them is the right of the abused to oppose their abuser. It's not enough to simply assert that the right to vote constitutes the limit of my right to oppose injustice under the auspices of some so-called social contract.

I assert that the right of the abused to oppose their abuser supersedes any supposed social contract, and that I can't expect to set boundaries on what others may do in defense of that right. It would be like the abusive husband being allowed to set the boundaries on what the wife may do in response to that abuse.

As I pointed out earlier, people are crazy. They won't always respond as passively as we want them to. The consequence of that is that people will cross boundaries that we don't think that they should, but it's not for me to say whether that response is inappropriate or not... I'm not walking in their shoes.

 

[DaisyDay]

Karl Rove, Turdblossom as Bush fondly named him, has a interesting, in a good way, take on this:

​

​

[T]here has been a disturbing and growing undercurrent in our national conversation and on the internet, a pronounced emphasis on “they” and “them.” Charlie would be alive but for “them.” “They” killed him. “They” are responsible for his death. “They” must be made to pay.​

​

No. Charlie Kirk wasn’t killed by “them.” “They” didn’t pull the trigger. One person did, apparently a young man driven by impulse and a terrible hate. If there were a “they” involved, law enforcement would find “them” and the justice system would hold “them” accountable. But “he” and “him” are the correct pronouns for this horrendous act….​

​

Using Charlie’s murder to justify retaliation against political rivals is wrong and dangerous. It will further divide and embitter our country. No good thing will come of it.​

​