Conservative Speaker Attacked at UMKC

[Nilrahrarfan]

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.

In this case, "Blood-thirsty" refers to wanting to attack someone, no matter what methods used. "Battery" is always attacking someone. Unless you're referring to Energizer, of course.

[Torrocca]

That's a loaded question. :^)



>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

They're both still Fascism at the end of the day. :3

[RiderSyl]

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.

It isn't. People just keep dropping in here sensationalizing the event, and anyone that tackles the sensationalism sounds like they're supporting what happened when they're not.

[Liriena]

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?

Ideally.

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.

You make a fair point... but I am a more morally virtuous person than most Daily Wire pundits, I think. Not because I'm some sort of paragon, but because the bar is obscenely low.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

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.

In this case, "Blood-thirsty" refers to wanting to attack someone, no matter what methods used. "Battery" is always attacking someone. Unless you're referring to Energizer, of course.

Basically you're admitting to using sensationalist language in incorrect terms then. Dousing someone with glitter is not wanting to physically harm some one to the point of seeking blood. Which is generally what blood thirsty means.

[RiderSyl]

In this case, "Blood-thirsty" refers to wanting to attack someone, no matter what methods used.

There is only one definition of blood-thirsty.
It's "eager to shed blood".

[Nilrahrarfan]

In this case, "Blood-thirsty" refers to wanting to attack someone, no matter what methods used.

There is only one definition of blood-thirsty.
It's "eager to shed blood".

Well, then, I'll edit it. Expect me to expand it.

[Gormwood]

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"

Couldn't get a copy of the schedule. So when are the left supposed to be defenseless sissies the right can knock over easily and when are they supposed to be bloodthirsty monsters that make conservatives shit their pants? Is it on a lunar cycle?

[Andsed]

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?

Ideally.

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.

You make a fair point... but I am a more morally virtuous person than most Daily Wire pundits, I think. Not because I'm some sort of paragon, but because the bar is obscenely low.

You know saying who is and is not more morally virtuous than someone else is entirely subjective right?

[Liriena]

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?

To be fair, modern politics have been violent since their inception. This idea that politics used to be a simple peaceful exchange of ideas is historical revisionism. It's not ideal, sure, but violence has always been a part of modern politics. We've merely convinced ourselves that it's not... well... mostly because those who've encouraged want to restrict the political spectrum. It's just hegemony in its purest form.

[Telconi]

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?

Ideally.

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.

You make a fair point... but I am a more morally virtuous person than most Daily Wire pundits, I think. Not because I'm some sort of paragon, but because the bar is obscenely low.

The sad part is, you actually believe this.

[North Arkana]

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"

Couldn't get a copy of the schedule. So when are the left supposed to be defenseless sissies the right can knock over easily and when are they supposed to be bloodthirsty monsters that make conservatives shit their pants? Is it on a lunar cycle?

Dunno, I don't think they updated their mailing list. I haven't gotten one either.

[Liriena]

Ideally.


You make a fair point... but I am a more morally virtuous person than most Daily Wire pundits, I think. Not because I'm some sort of paragon, but because the bar is obscenely low.

The sad part is, you actually believe this.

Do I actually believe that I'm a better person than Ben Shapiro? Yeah, definitely. I'm flawed as hell and I have a lot of improvement ahead of me, but at least I can claim that I'm not currently a paid shill whose greatest accomplishment in life is stealing valor from the great liberal philosophers of the western hemisphere and mutilating the meaning of their work to push a conservative, anti-modernist agenda and take a dump on trans people.

[Nilrahrarfan]

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?

To be fair, modern politics have been violent since their inception. This idea that politics used to be a simple peaceful exchange of ideas is historical revisionism. It's not ideal, sure, but violence has always been a part of modern politics. We've merely convinced ourselves that it's not... well... mostly because those who've encouraged want to restrict the political spectrum. It's just hegemony in its purest form.

Says the feminist who uses spambot tactics to get their ideology across

[Liriena]

To be fair, modern politics have been violent since their inception. This idea that politics used to be a simple peaceful exchange of ideas is historical revisionism. It's not ideal, sure, but violence has always been a part of modern politics. We've merely convinced ourselves that it's not... well... mostly because those who've encouraged want to restrict the political spectrum. It's just hegemony in its purest form.

Says the feminist who uses spambot tactics to get their ideology across

I'm sorry what?

[Telconi]

The sad part is, you actually believe this.

Do I actually believe that I'm a better person than Ben Shapiro? Yeah, definitely. I'm flawed as hell and I have a lot of improvement ahead of me, but at least I can claim that I'm not currently a paid shill whose greatest accomplishment in life is stealing valor from the great liberal philosophers of the western hemisphere and mutilating the meaning of their work to push a conservative, anti-modernist agenda and take a dump on trans people.

I didnt question the belief, I know fully well what you believe, I just find it sad that you believe that.

[Des-Bal]

To be fair, modern politics have been violent since their inception. This idea that politics used to be a simple peaceful exchange of ideas is historical revisionism. It's not ideal, sure, but violence has always been a part of modern politics. We've merely convinced ourselves that it's not... well... mostly because those who've encouraged want to restrict the political spectrum. It's just hegemony in its purest form.

I'm not talking about how things used to be, I could not possibly care less how things used to be. I limit my interests to what could be and I don't see any reason an open and nonviolent exchange of ideas is impossible or undesirable. If we get to the let's all batter each other place I don't see that as being positive.

[Liriena]

Ideally.


You make a fair point... but I am a more morally virtuous person than most Daily Wire pundits, I think. Not because I'm some sort of paragon, but because the bar is obscenely low.

You know saying who is and is not more morally virtuous than someone else is entirely subjective right?

Sure.

Do I actually believe that I'm a better person than Ben Shapiro? Yeah, definitely. I'm flawed as hell and I have a lot of improvement ahead of me, but at least I can claim that I'm not currently a paid shill whose greatest accomplishment in life is stealing valor from the great liberal philosophers of the western hemisphere and mutilating the meaning of their work to push a conservative, anti-modernist agenda and take a dump on trans people.

I didnt question the belief, I know fully well what you believe, I just find it sad that you believe that.

I'm sorry that you feel sad.

[Nilrahrarfan]

Says the feminist who uses spambot tactics to get their ideology across

I'm sorry what?

Nothing against you as a person, but your ideology tends to be defined as radical feminism. And since I'm a fascist, I see your ideology as a danger to this country.

[RiderSyl]

To be fair, modern politics have been violent since their inception. This idea that politics used to be a simple peaceful exchange of ideas is historical revisionism. It's not ideal, sure, but violence has always been a part of modern politics. We've merely convinced ourselves that it's not... well... mostly because those who've encouraged want to restrict the political spectrum. It's just hegemony in its purest form.

Says the feminist who uses spambot tactics to get their ideology across

What kind of non-sequitur shit is this?

[Mystic Warriors]

You got anything to add here? No? Ok

You haven't really given me much to work with so I'm kind of stuck on your continuous failure to make a coherent argument, petulance, willful ignorance, and the fact that you're referring to all statistics and yet haven't presented a single one. I don't even disagree with your conclusion but everything you're saying is ridiculous.

Let's just ignore the links and him not providing sqwat. Just ad hominem attacks.

[Liriena]

To be fair, modern politics have been violent since their inception. This idea that politics used to be a simple peaceful exchange of ideas is historical revisionism. It's not ideal, sure, but violence has always been a part of modern politics. We've merely convinced ourselves that it's not... well... mostly because those who've encouraged want to restrict the political spectrum. It's just hegemony in its purest form.

I'm not talking about how things used to be, I could not possibly care less how things used to be. I limit my interests to what could be and I don't see any reason an open and nonviolent exchange of ideas is impossible or undesirable. If we get to the let's all batter each other place I don't see that as being positive.

An open and nonviolent exchange of ideas isn't impossible or undesirable, but clutching our pearls at relatively innocuous acts of battery because it's not as ideal as having a rational debate where only the most logical ideas win is... kind of an ideological dead weight.

[Mystic Warriors]

Violent leftists at it again attacking peaceful conservative speakers.

If you ignore logic...

[Liriena]

I'm sorry what?

Nothing against you as a person, but your ideology tends to be defined as radical feminism. And since I'm a fascist, I see your ideology as a danger to this country.

Wow... I'm a radfem? And I didn't even have to read any radfem literature to get there?

[Nazeroth]

you confuse NatSoc with Italian Fascism

They're both still Fascism at the end of the day. :3

I guess Stalinism is the same as Trotsky then :3