Conservative Speaker Attacked at UMKC

[Liriena]

It's an acceptable take, even if I don't quite agree.

What do you disagree with?

I don't agree with the notion that glitterbombing, while arguably an act of battery, is ethically wrong as a form of protest.

[Des-Bal]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

The definition of assault varies by jurisdiction, but is generally defined as intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Physical injury is not required. 

Why are you okay with assault?

Offensive contact actually occurred through the squirting. It's battery not assault.

[Nazeroth]

What do you disagree with?

I don't agree with the notion that glitterbombing, while arguably an act of battery, is ethically wrong as a form of protest.

I think it's ethically wrong to throw things on people for no good reason other than you disagree with them.

[Nilrahrarfan]

This is what happens when you let leftists run your nation: they WILL become blood-thirsty or otherwise aggressive, and conservatives get the short end of the stick.

[Yusseria]

What do you disagree with?

I don't agree with the notion that glitterbombing, while arguably an act of battery, is ethically wrong as a form of protest.

Assaulting someone isn't a form of protest.

Its, ya know, assault. And assaulting someone for disagreeing with you is ethically wrong.

[Yusseria]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

Why are you okay with assault?

Offensive contact actually occurred through the squirting. It's battery not assault.

Okay.

[Liriena]

Technically true, I'll give you that.

Although describing the use of glitterbombs and spraying people with lavender as "attack" still seems a bit exaggerated.

I'd say assaulting someone counts as an attack.

But beyond the legalese, we can and should acknowledge the material differences in gravity. This conservative speaker didn't get his head smashed in with a bike lock. He didn't even get smacked on the head with an egg. He got glitterbombed, which might legally be considered an attack, but colloquially, the word "attack" has very heavy connotations, and I'd say there's a very blatant dissonance between those connotations and the actual visual of being glitterbombed.

[North Arkana]

This is what happens when you let leftists run your nation: they WILL become blood-thirsty, and conservatives get the short end of the stick.

Well, leftists tend to end up dead when conservatives run countries, so lets call it even and drop it, yeah?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

This is what happens when you let leftists run your nation: they WILL become blood-thirsty, and conservatives get the short end of the stick.

Again, I am not arguing that the act in question wasnt battery, but describing glitterbombing someone as blood thirsty is a bit of an exaggeration.

[RiderSyl]

What do you disagree with?

I don't agree with the notion that glitterbombing, while arguably an act of battery, is ethically wrong as a form of protest.

If you're going to ethically protest, then glitter the stage before he gets on it. Cover the stage in rainbows. Start glitterbombing each other. Don't glitterbomb the dude expressing the ridiculous views. One, it's assault, and two, it's only going to popularize him.

[Liriena]

This is what happens when you let leftists run your nation: they WILL become blood-thirsty, and conservatives get the short end of the stick.

Supports: Fascism, National Anarchism, Storms, Atheism, Dictatorship

Yeaaaaah, I'd advice conservatives in this thread not to fall for this person's faux concern.

[Nazeroth]

This is what happens when you let leftists run your nation: they WILL become blood-thirsty, and conservatives get the short end of the stick.

Supports: Fascism, National Anarchism, Storms, Atheism, Dictatorship

Yeaaaaah, I'd advice conservatives in this thread not to fall for this person's faux concern.

your signature is literally no differen't, it's just of a differen't political flavor....

[Des-Bal]

I don't agree with the notion that glitterbombing, while arguably an act of battery, is ethically wrong as a form of protest.

It's pretty wrong. If you make it impossible for some one to speak you deny any potential for a civilized exploration of our differences. This sends the message to the right that the opposition doesn't want to talk, it entrenches the idea that our differences are intractable and presents disruption and violence as more attractive alternatives. Do you seriously want politics to devolve into a left v right battery contest?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

This is what happens when you let leftists run your nation: they WILL become blood-thirsty, and conservatives get the short end of the stick.

Well, leftists tend to end up dead when conservatives run countries, so lets call it even and drop it, yeah?

Normal conservatives don't normally kill leftists. Fascists do.

[Liriena]

This is what happens when you let leftists run your nation: they WILL become blood-thirsty, and conservatives get the short end of the stick.

Well, leftists tend to end up dead when conservatives run countries, so lets call it even and drop it, yeah?

the far right: "leftists are blood thirsty murderers who will glitterbomb you to death!!!!"

also the far right: "ackshually, Pinochet did nothing wrong and raping illegally imprisoned with dogs before dropping them off helicopters is good"

[Yusseria]

I'd say assaulting someone counts as an attack.

But beyond the legalese, we can and should acknowledge the material differences in gravity. This conservative speaker didn't get his head smashed in with a bike lock. He didn't even get smacked on the head with an egg. He got glitterbombed, which might legally be considered an attack, but colloquially, the word "attack" has very heavy connotations, and I'd say there's a very blatant dissonance between those connotations and the actual visual of being glitterbombed.

It's not "legalese" by itself. It's also the principle of it. We all have bodily sovereignty, yes? You shouldn't touch someone or put things on someone unless they consent to it, yes?

I'd you violate that person's bodily sovereignty (especially with the intention of trying to shut down their speech) then you're attacking them. Inherently.

You don't get a free pass to be a shitty person just by being a leftist and deluding yourself into thinking you're a more morally virtuous person than a conservative.

[Mettaton-EX]

This is what happens when you let leftists run your nation: they WILL become blood-thirsty, and conservatives get the short end of the stick.

um. this was in america. and specifically in missouri.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Supports: Fascism, National Anarchism, Storms, Atheism, Dictatorship

Yeaaaaah, I'd advice conservatives in this thread not to fall for this person's faux concern.

your signature is literally no differen't, it's just of a differen't political flavor....

I can see how being against fascism and authoritarianism is the same as being for fascism and dictatorial government.

[Liriena]

Supports: Fascism, National Anarchism, Storms, Atheism, Dictatorship

Yeaaaaah, I'd advice conservatives in this thread not to fall for this person's faux concern.

your signature is literally no differen't, it's just of a differen't political flavor....

Your enlightened centrism is appreciated, but fishhook theory tells us that you are probably closer to them than I am.

[RiderSyl]

This is what happens when you let leftists run your nation: they WILL become blood-thirsty, and conservatives get the short end of the stick.

See. This is why, while I hold the view that "it shouldn't have happened, this was assault, nothing good came from this"... I end up sounding supportive of the assault. Because I keep on having to dispel sensationalist comments like these.

[Torrocca]

Lavender oil and glitter is attempted murder!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

The definition of assault varies by jurisdiction, but is generally defined as intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Physical injury is not required. 

Why are you okay with assault?

That's a loaded question. :^)

This is what happens when you let leftists run your nation: they WILL become blood-thirsty, and conservatives get the short end of the stick.

>America
>Being run by leftists

Fucking lmao. This is the 14/88 hot take I'd expect from a Fascist.

[Nazeroth]

This is what happens when you let leftists run your nation: they WILL become blood-thirsty, and conservatives get the short end of the stick.

See. This is why, while I hold the view that "it shouldn't have happened, this was assault, nothing good came from this"... I end up sounding supportive of the assault. Because I keep on having to dispel sensationalist comments like these.

this is dumb, it shouldn't even be a debate.

[Mettaton-EX]

Well, leftists tend to end up dead when conservatives run countries, so lets call it even and drop it, yeah?

Normal conservatives don't normally kill leftists. Fascists do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton

[Nazeroth]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

Why are you okay with assault?

That's a loaded question. :^)

This is what happens when you let leftists run your nation: they WILL become blood-thirsty, and conservatives get the short end of the stick.

>America
>Being run by leftists

Fucking lmao. This is the 14/88 hot take I'd expect from a Fascist.

you confuse NatSoc with Italian Fascism

[Liriena]

Well, leftists tend to end up dead when conservatives run countries, so lets call it even and drop it, yeah?

Normal conservatives don't normally kill leftists. Fascists do.

[coughs in strikes violently suppressed on American soil under right-wing governments since the 19th century]