Necessitating Violence

[New Edom]

It's worth noting that homicide victims are majority men, by a wide margin (77.4% are men).

Now it does also seem LGBT people are at a significantly higher risk for... well, almost everything bad. However, women, in this context and compared to men, are really the privileged class when it comes to being victims of violence.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... micidemain

The majority of felons are also men. Are men now dirty criminals?

When determining whether a group is "at risk" for violence, you can't just look at the murder rate. You have to look at the motives, and then shave off any crime against that group where the motive wasn't hate.

The other problerm is analysis of crime itself. People like the OP are saying crime is on the rise against women, transgender people and so on--however there are reports from the US Dpt of Justice that contradict this. In general criminology reports in much of the Western world suggest that violence crime is decreasing.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

As women, LGBT people, and people of color get slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis, I'm starting to think it's necessary the left take a no tolerance approach — by that, I mean by using violence.

It's worth noting that homicide victims are majority men, by a wide margin (77.4% are men).

Now it does also seem LGBT people are at a significantly higher risk for... well, almost everything bad. However, women, in this context and compared to men, are really the privileged class when it comes to being victims of violence.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... micidemain

Yes, men are definitely killed more often for being men than women are for being women. Now stop threadjacking.

[Galloism]

It's worth noting that homicide victims are majority men, by a wide margin (77.4% are men).

Now it does also seem LGBT people are at a significantly higher risk for... well, almost everything bad. However, women, in this context and compared to men, are really the privileged class when it comes to being victims of violence.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... micidemain

Yes, men are definitely killed more often for being men than women are for being women. Now stop threadjacking.

I think you'd have trouble, in the west, in finding a significant number of women killed 'for being women'.

[The Forsworn Knights]

Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. Went so far as to condemn his own followers for resorting to violence, and he is one of the most legendary men in recent civil rights history.
Now imagine a world where he incited riots (Which would have ultimately just led to all his followers, himself included getting butchered.)
He would be regarded as a brutal thug and a terrorist, as he would have ceded the high ground and shown himself to be willing to destroy everything he worked for for no reason whatsoever.

[New Edom]

It's worth noting that homicide victims are majority men, by a wide margin (77.4% are men).

Now it does also seem LGBT people are at a significantly higher risk for... well, almost everything bad. However, women, in this context and compared to men, are really the privileged class when it comes to being victims of violence.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... micidemain

Yes, men are definitely killed more often for being men than women are for being women. Now stop threadjacking.

Generally violent crime stats have been steadily going down in the West. Generally women are treated quite well in the West. there are more public campaigns about women's health, distres to women gets more media attention, and violence against women is generally taken very seriously.

This is also part of popular culture. You are more likely to generate sympathy towards a female character who is treated violently, regardles of her social background. If you would like literary, film and television prof of this I will gladly provide it.

In Common Law, there are provisions that exist in which one can challenge the status quo. It works, even if it can be very hard work. There has been a lot of progress towards equality. Women and transgender people have a great deal of equality. Thereare few places of higher learning in Canada or the United States that do not make provisions and show serious concern for women's rights, gay rights and so on.

I have for much of my life supported women's rights, gay rights and transgender rights, even where I disagreed with ideas held by peopel who also upheld such rights, because I believe in the importance of individual rights and freedoms within a liberal democracy. It is important to remember what has taken place historically and understand that great achievements have been made. It's wrong to ignore this and build up a notition of oppresion that would oppress others in the name of freedom, especially without examning the matter very carefully.

[Zoice]

Bullshit OP. Freedom of expression is incredibly important. Don't go full regressive

[Republic of the Cristo]

Im sorry, but after reading your OP, i must state that i believe you are completely overreacting to a situation that is completely in your favor.

You are a libertarian soclist if I recall correctly. You're for the whole down with religion and tribalism thing right? In which case you guys are winning on nearly every front. Gay marriage is legal in the United States and western Europe. Anyone who is disapproving of gay marriage either has to keep their head down or they are excommunicated from their peers and dubbed a homophobe. If a black person does not begin shooting, any act of police violence ( even justified) is meet with massive riots. So called " feminist " laws are being proposed every single day on capital hill and often are passed. Christianity is at an all time low in the US.

What are you angry about? That we aren't currently being massacred in mass. There are already riots across the US by the BLM, what do you want, a civil war?

[The Two Jerseys]

It's worth noting that homicide victims are majority men, by a wide margin (77.4% are men).

Now it does also seem LGBT people are at a significantly higher risk for... well, almost everything bad. However, women, in this context and compared to men, are really the privileged class when it comes to being victims of violence.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... micidemain

Yes, men are definitely killed more often for being men than women are for being women. Now stop threadjacking.

Calling out your bullshit claims that women are being "slaughtered in the streets" because they are women by providing concrete evidence to the contrary is not threadjacking by any measure.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Yes, men are definitely killed more often for being men than women are for being women. Now stop threadjacking.

Calling out your bullshit claims that women are being "slaughtered in the streets" because they are women by providing concrete evidence to the contrary is not threadjacking by any measure.

If only someone was doing that.

[Arcipelago]

Now I'm afraid the left is going to start shooting us up....oh wait they hate guns...never mind

[Costa Fierro]

Calling out your bullshit claims that women are being "slaughtered in the streets" because they are women by providing concrete evidence to the contrary is not threadjacking by any measure.

If only someone was doing that.

They have. Just because you're not willing to accept that doesn't mean the facts don't exist.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

If only someone was doing that.

They have. Just because you're not willing to accept that doesn't mean the facts don't exist.

His excellency has graced us with his presence and excellently infallible remarks.

[Costa Fierro]

That's nice Galloism, but in presenting a counter narrative and clearly abusing your free speech means now we have to introduce your kneecaps to a bat . . .

A bat? Gallo has a lightsaber!

But it's to send a message, not permanently disfigure. Lord Vader only choked people that displeased him, remember?

[Costa Fierro]

His excellency has graced us with his presence and excellently infallible remarks.

It's not hard to be infallible when the argument being presented is "why can't I assault people I don't like?"

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

His excellency has graced us with his presence and excellently infallible remarks.

It's not hard to be infallible when the argument being presented is "why can't I assault people I don't like?"

If only this were what you were responding to and not Gallo trying to connect unrelated things in an unrelated context in an unrelated thread. Take it to moderation if you're so concerned that it's not a real threadjack, because right now you're just complicit in it.

[Costa Fierro]

If only this were what you were responding to and not Gallo trying to connect unrelated things in an unrelated context in an unrelated thread. Take it to moderation if you're so concerned that it's not a real threadjack, because right now you're just complicit in it.

As women, LGBT people, and people of color get slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis

And, pray tell, what country would this hyperbolic statement fit?

I'm starting to think it's necessary the left take a no tolerance approach — by that, I mean by using violence.

I'm all for self-defence when it's necessary but I get the subtle feeling you aren't talking about self defence but rather, preemptive violence targeting perceived "enemies".

Is there any inherent virtue in free speech?

Yes, when it isn't being abused by people to spread hate or to incite violence and when it isn't being limited by people who are professionally offended.

What argument is there, beyond a religious and occult idea of being "endowed by our creator" with the right to perpetuate injustice?

What "perpetual injustice" are you referring to? Are you seriously suggesting that society condone violence against people with whom you share different opinions with? Because that would be rather problematic and would be a backwards step with regards to civil rights and liberties.

Consider that bigots already defend rape, murder, and harassment — of course they will object to that assertion, because they themselves have a vested interest in protecting themselves as well as criminals (if any overlap exists) — so is the right to violent expression, by association, not cause for alarm?

Bigots are in the minority of people in most countries and, save for a few states in the union, have no real influence on public policy. Although I am more interested in what you consider to be "bigotry".

If anything, the cause for alarm is coming from your idea that people should be able to use violence to suppress people who have different opinions. If anything that is much, much more concerning than some random whackjob going on about rape or harassment. I, for one, don't want to be the target of such violence when I argue that men are subject to higher murder rates than women are.

Or perhaps it is that they are calling for more than mere expression. While, if this expression had no indirect effects, it might be acceptable, it instead causes irreparable harm that we would combat with violence if it occurred directly. When a legislator passes an order, that is not mere expression.

When a legislator passes legislation, then it becomes a problem and direct action should be taken against it, although said action should not be violent in nature. However, if someone says it as an opinion or as an expression, then what gives you the right to commit an act of violence against them?

Is it not right, then, to react to the causes and perpetrators of violence with violence?

You can fight fire with fire, sure. But that doesn't mean you won't get burned in the process, or lose control of your own fire.

Is the historic bloc is to be replaced, is it not necessary to act on it as it has acted on us?

Because perpetuating a cycle of violence only causes more problems than it solves. Is the statement "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" incorrect?

What do you dare to think, NSG?

I don't dare to think, because I know this exercise in psuedo-intellectualism for the advocation of the most inherently unintellectual acts against individuals is more indicative of your inability to engage in a civilised debate and your perverse ideas that suppressing opinions you disagree with is just and that this entire argument is morally unjustifiable.

Your turn.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

So bright. Here's where I dared speak to you:

They have. Just because you're not willing to accept that doesn't mean the facts don't exist.

His excellency has graced us with his presence and excellently infallible remarks.

The way conversations usually work is that when someone criticizes your remarks, they're talking about what you just said, not what you said hours ago.

[The Two Jerseys]

Calling out your bullshit claims that women are being "slaughtered in the streets" because they are women by providing concrete evidence to the contrary is not threadjacking by any measure.

If only someone was doing that.

You mean something like posting a link to the FBI webpage that says that 77.4% of murder victims are male, that 53% of murder victims were killed by someone they knew, and that murder victims are more likely to be killed over money or drugs than anything else?

You know, exactly like Gallo did?

Face it, there's clearly no proof whatsoever that Alex and his droogs are roaming the streets murdering random women for kicks.

[Costa Fierro]

The way conversations usually work is that when someone criticizes your remarks, they're talking about what you just said, not what you said hours ago.

Not really criticism but more snarky. If you want to actually criticise something, I've provided my initial response to this thread that is on page nine.

I'm quite happy to try and fathom your justifications for violence against people you disagree with.

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

Holy fucking Simone de Beauvoir.

The FBI reports 83% of gender-bias motivated hate crimes are against women.

Please. Stop. Threadjacking. The poor men being subject to the consequences of patriarchy is not the topic. Whether or not it's necessary to use violence to prevent that is.

[Galloism]

They have. Just because you're not willing to accept that doesn't mean the facts don't exist.

His excellency has graced us with his presence and excellently infallible remarks.

It's been a long time since I was regularly called 'his excellency'. Brings back some good memories.

[Geilinor]

Holy fucking Simone de Beauvoir.

The FBI reports 83% of gender-bias motivated hate crimes are against women.

Please. Stop. Threadjacking. The poor men being subject to the consequences of patriarchy is not the topic. Whether or not it's necessary to use violence to prevent that is.

It's not. How the hell do you use violence to stop violent crime? Unless you support the death penalty, of course.

[New Edom]

Holy fucking Simone de Beauvoir.

The FBI reports 83% of gender-bias motivated hate crimes are against women.

Please. Stop. Threadjacking. The poor men being subject to the consequences of patriarchy is not the topic. Whether or not it's necessary to use violence to prevent that is.

Can you refute the FBI and other law enforcemnt in the West's statistics on how violent crime is genrally declining in most western nations? Can you refute what I said earlier that women's claims of concern about violence and discrimination are actually taken more seriously than those of men? Can you refute the fact hat overwhelmingly ther has been social acceptance of women in public life? Can you refuge the fact that it is a lot easier to get people to be sympathetic with a female character in trouble in a movie, video game or television show than amale character?

[Galloism]

Holy fucking Simone de Beauvoir.

The FBI reports 83% of gender-bias motivated hate crimes are against women.

Please. Stop. Threadjacking. The poor men being subject to the consequences of patriarchy is not the topic. Whether or not it's necessary to use violence to prevent that is.

30 incidents in a year. Wow, that's clearly 'slaughter in the streets'.

(well, 30 including male and female. 25 were female and 5 were male.)

By comparison, there were 25 against the transgender, 8 against gender noncomforming, and 728 anti-white.

[Costa Fierro]

Holy fucking Simone de Beauvoir.

The FBI reports 83% of gender-bias motivated hate crimes are against women.

Please. Stop. Threadjacking. The poor men being subject to the consequences of patriarchy is not the topic. Whether or not it's necessary to use violence to prevent that is.

Your original post stated that "women, LGBT and people of color get slaughtered in the streets on a daily basis". That's a fairly bold and rather unsubstantiated claim. Someone posts that women are not the primary victims of murders, meaning they aren't being slaughtered in the streets and has the statistics to back said post up. That's not a threadjack, it's just an internet debate.

You made a claim, said claim has been proven false and you're now you're angry your preconceived notion who was suffering from the most violence was proven wrong and that we should be discussing your argument over whether or not it's necessary to use violence to prevent it.

And yet you won't respond to my initial post where I directly address your opening post and your argument?