Vandals Hit Black Churches During Weekend Pro-Trump Rallies

[The Three Palins]

Here’s a good idea

Random 4chan kids shouldn’t be enforcing the law, neither should police who care more about projecting their toughness than anything. We need to have a system like the French, where the military does the job of law enforcement, civilian police have proven to be bad at their job

Nope. That’s a very bad idea.

The idea of rejecting some volunteers as Mentally Unsuitable, instead of just a height and BMI test (for police) isn't bad. I also doubt the Military takes on any volunteer who has been a member before and left under shady circumstances (as the US police forces do). And requiring all police to undergo tough physical training including suffering and obedience to rather unreasonable orders, to make them obedient to superiors when in service OR to weed them out, all seem like good aspects of military induction which should apply to police.

Mind you, that's for the hard core of police who have to attend dangerous crime scenes. Such 'hardening' is not desirable in most police work, and when not in fear of their lives I think regular people could do police work without extra discipline being beaten into them. We could get by with far fewer military-style police (though they would need high pay to account for danger), if there was a co-operating force, with concealed weapons and college education, to do paperwork and community liaison, investigation, serving non-violent warrants, giving out parking tickets and all the other stuff the militarized elite resents having to do at all.

As both hard and soft police would have to work together, and the respect towards those doing the most dangerous work would be automatic, I thing giving the soft police rank over the hard police might serve to redress that balance. If the hard cop thinks "this job sounds a bit dangerous I'll just take it myself without telling the softies" they'll have to think twice because that would be acting without orders.

[Esternial]

This is why the second amendment is so important in America, so people can protect themselves from violent looters, vandals and anarchists

Boggles the mind how countries without one can even continue to exists with all the looting and vandalising.

[Vassenor]

This is why the second amendment is so important in America, so people can protect themselves from violent looters, vandals and anarchists

Boggles the mind how countries without one can even continue to exists with all the looting and vandalising.

You mean the world outside the United States isn't just constant violence because the average man on the street can't own semi-automatic rifles?

[The Giant Space Wyrm]

Some of these anti-violence arguments about protests remind me about school bullying punishments.

"Yes, we know the bully punched you in the face and continued to do so repeatedly, but because you kicked him back we have to treat you and him the same because of our zero-tolerance policy, so here are your 2 weeks of suspension and remember to get a teacher next time okay?"

Sure violence is bad, but treating both sides as equally bad without context is stupid.

[The Three Palins]

Boggles the mind how countries without one can even continue to exists with all the looting and vandalising.

You mean the world outside the United States isn't just constant violence because the average man on the street can't own semi-automatic rifles?

Oh it's worse than that. To kill bad people they have to come within arm's reach, to bludgeon or stab them. Good people are understandably reluctant to take that risk, meaning more bad people escape unpunished. And worse, sometimes it's the good person who comes off second best. Just for trying to defend their family, their honor or their property by attacking a bad person. Sometimes they even die!

Just imagine if infringements like background checks and nonzero purchase prices didn't exist, and every man woman and (16+) child in the US had a gun! There would be literally no bad people any more. Just a few in mountain hideouts where no good law-abiding citizen can get a bead on them.

The murder rate would go down even lower than in is now! And after a few years of 50-100 thousand self-defense killings per year, even those unregrettable deaths would shrink to zero. There wouldn't be anyone even a little bit bad, still left alive. Well maybe a few young ones, in country towns where the grocer and the butcher have mercy on shoplifters.

[The Three Palins]

Some of these anti-violence arguments about protests remind me about school bullying punishments.

"Yes, we know the bully punched you in the face and continued to do so repeatedly, but because you kicked him back we have to treat you and him the same because of our zero-tolerance policy, so here are your 2 weeks of suspension and remember to get a teacher next time okay?"

Sure violence is bad, but treating both sides as equally bad without context is stupid.

That policy makes sense, in the way that legal punishment makes sense despite seeming unjust.

You get punished for fighting back because fighting is banned. Who started it can't be taken into account, because that would only displace the bully's aggression from you (who thinks they can defend themselves) onto some other kid (who knows they can't and doesn't try). It's giving the bully a choice between suspension and a punch in the head (you) or just plain suspension (a weaker or more timid kid). That is a perverse incentive to the bully and from the "law"s point of view that's the only thing that matters. You getting the satisfaction of hurting the bully back, does not come into it ... because you're not the problem.

If you do after all want revenge, or to "teach a lesson" to the bully, you're going to have to unmistakeably beat that bully in a fight. Unless they're way weaker than you, you'll never have the time to do that in school. You do it some quiet place after school. Even if you land 4 or 5 good blows on them, for their 1 on you, they'll still think they won. It's part of the bully mindset: they're not afraid of you, but you should always be afraid of them and not want to fight again. That requires that they won the fight, no matter how it actually went. Even if the fight ended with them running away. The only thing that will break that delusion is if they have a smart friend who sets them straight, or they wake up on the ground with you pissing on their face.

It's actually braver to leave it to the school authorities. You're taking punches (hopefully rolling with them or fending them off) so some other kid doesn't have to.

[Page]

Some of these anti-violence arguments about protests remind me about school bullying punishments.

"Yes, we know the bully punched you in the face and continued to do so repeatedly, but because you kicked him back we have to treat you and him the same because of our zero-tolerance policy, so here are your 2 weeks of suspension and remember to get a teacher next time okay?"

Sure violence is bad, but treating both sides as equally bad without context is stupid.

That policy makes sense, in the way that legal punishment makes sense despite seeming unjust.

You get punished for fighting back because fighting is banned. Who started it can't be taken into account, because that would only displace the bully's aggression from you (who thinks they can defend themselves) onto some other kid (who knows they can't and doesn't try). It's giving the bully a choice between suspension and a punch in the head (you) or just plain suspension (a weaker or more timid kid). That is a perverse incentive to the bully and from the "law"s point of view that's the only thing that matters. You getting the satisfaction of hurting the bully back, does not come into it ... because you're not the problem.

If you do after all want revenge, or to "teach a lesson" to the bully, you're going to have to unmistakeably beat that bully in a fight. Unless they're way weaker than you, you'll never have the time to do that in school. You do it some quiet place after school. Even if you land 4 or 5 good blows on them, for their 1 on you, they'll still think they won. It's part of the bully mindset: they're not afraid of you, but you should always be afraid of them and not want to fight again. That requires that they won the fight, no matter how it actually went. Even if the fight ended with them running away. The only thing that will break that delusion is if they have a smart friend who sets them straight, or they wake up on the ground with you pissing on their face.

It's actually braver to leave it to the school authorities. You're taking punches (hopefully rolling with them or fending them off) so some other kid doesn't have to.

This is quite a perverse attempt at altruism. Should it also apply to rape? Don't punch a rapist in the teeth in the hope they'll get off you, because if you do make it harder for them they'll go find a victim who won't resist?

Would you extend this even to murder?

Say there is a serial killer coming after you. Let's say on one side of the room is a blunt object which you can throw at them. It won't incapacitate them but it will hurt enough that they no longer want to bother with you. They will leave and go look for an easier victim. On the other side of the room is a button which activates a camera which capture the killers face for the first time. If you go to it you will be defenseless and get murdered, but police will recover the footage and be able to put the killers' face all over the news which might lead to their capture. What do you do?

[The Huskar Social Union]

But they are not racist guys.

[Loben III]

But they are not racist guys.

Is it possible to be racist against buildings?

[The Giant Space Wyrm]

But they are not racist guys.

Is it possible to be racist against buildings?

If you hate them enough maybe? personally, I have a bit of a grudge against brick houses now that I think about it... oh no.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Some of these anti-violence arguments about protests remind me about school bullying punishments.

"Yes, we know the bully punched you in the face and continued to do so repeatedly, but because you kicked him back we have to treat you and him the same because of our zero-tolerance policy, so here are your 2 weeks of suspension and remember to get a teacher next time okay?"

Sure violence is bad, but treating both sides as equally bad without context is stupid.

It is not even possible to determine who is the bigger bully in these conflicts. Tell me, are Ustase worse or not as bad as Chetniks? In the Judeo-Christianized world it is cool to be a victim and it is not cool to be a murderer. So both sides claim that they are in self-defense and the other side is the bully.

P.S. In Assyrian, Greco-Roman or Mongol societies it is the other way around. People were actually proud of murder, rape, torture and robbery so Assyrian version of neo-Nazism would not have covered anything about supposed Jewish wrongs against Germans or Holocaust denial. Instead it would be “We successfully exterminated X amount of Jews, Slavs etc and that’s awesome.”

[Dumb Ideologies]

If Trump people have been doing this they are very foolish. Churchgoers are often relatively socially conservative and therefore the types of people inclined perhaps to oppose the more radical demands of the political side of the BLM movement etc.

Sometimes I think some of these people want to be despised.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

If Trump people have been doing this they are very foolish. Churchgoers are often relatively socially conservative and therefore the types of people inclined perhaps to oppose the more radical demands of the political side of the BLM movement etc.

Sometimes I think some of these people want to be despised.

Unpack “socially conservative”. Christianity (or Islam) is really its own axis.

It doesn’t make much sense to claim that Roman warriors were less socially conservative than Christians for raping men and hence by definition were not strictly heterosexual.

Once you get deep into real social conservativism as opposed to more Christianity you can get into really harsh things. Christianity and Islam as well as other religions do sometimes serve as a barrier beyond which the social conservativism is not even visible.

[SD_Film Artists]

It's just peaceful protests and the minorty who actually did engage in violance are a de-centralised leaderless group which means that no form of culpability could or should be held to them.

I'm kidding, of course attacking black churches is inexcusable crime. Let's however look at the same logic that the other 'side' used.

[Vassenor]

But they are not racist guys.

Is it possible to be racist against buildings?

That's not what's being said and you know it.

[SD_Film Artists]

But they are not racist guys.

I heard that one of them had a black friend.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Is it possible to be racist against buildings?

That's not what's being said and you know it.

Yeah I doubt that claim is in good faith. I mean you can’t technically be antisemitic against buildings even though they might be synagogues and Jewish businesses. What the attack aimed at was hurting Jewish owners of such property and robbery.. So the attack was still antisemitic.

[The Huskar Social Union]

But they are not racist guys.

Is it possible to be racist against buildings?

I know you think you are clever.

But you aren't.

[The Three Palins]

That policy makes sense, in the way that legal punishment makes sense despite seeming unjust.

You get punished for fighting back because fighting is banned. Who started it can't be taken into account, because that would only displace the bully's aggression from you (who thinks they can defend themselves) onto some other kid (who knows they can't and doesn't try). It's giving the bully a choice between suspension and a punch in the head (you) or just plain suspension (a weaker or more timid kid). That is a perverse incentive to the bully and from the "law"s point of view that's the only thing that matters. You getting the satisfaction of hurting the bully back, does not come into it ... because you're not the problem.

If you do after all want revenge, or to "teach a lesson" to the bully, you're going to have to unmistakeably beat that bully in a fight. Unless they're way weaker than you, you'll never have the time to do that in school. You do it some quiet place after school. Even if you land 4 or 5 good blows on them, for their 1 on you, they'll still think they won. It's part of the bully mindset: they're not afraid of you, but you should always be afraid of them and not want to fight again. That requires that they won the fight, no matter how it actually went. Even if the fight ended with them running away. The only thing that will break that delusion is if they have a smart friend who sets them straight, or they wake up on the ground with you pissing on their face.

It's actually braver to leave it to the school authorities. You're taking punches (hopefully rolling with them or fending them off) so some other kid doesn't have to.

This is quite a perverse attempt at altruism. Should it also apply to rape? Don't punch a rapist in the teeth in the hope they'll get off you, because if you do make it harder for them they'll go find a victim who won't resist?

Would you extend this even to murder?

Say there is a serial killer coming after you. Let's say on one side of the room is a blunt object which you can throw at them. It won't incapacitate them but it will hurt enough that they no longer want to bother with you. They will leave and go look for an easier victim. On the other side of the room is a button which activates a camera which capture the killers face for the first time. If you go to it you will be defenseless and get murdered, but police will recover the footage and be able to put the killers' face all over the news which might lead to their capture. What do you do?

Pretty much all of that was covered in my post. Effective self-defense against a bully in school is definitively winning the fight. Since you don't have time to achieve that (except in the bizarre corner case that the bully is much smaller and weaker than you) you can't defend yourself, to the standard of "they will never try that again".

This element of "it will all be over soon whichever course you take" is unlike any of your examples.

At best you give the bully a disincentive to bully you again. At worst you give the bully a strong incentive to ambush you out of school and show you what he thinks of this "fighting back" stuff. By your boldness in a situation where you know teachers will intervene soon, or even students if you're at serious risk of being killed, what the bully sees is not bravery. It's cowardice. If they're much stronger and bigger than you, you're not going to "finish" the fight down in the woods behind the old factories. He knows it. You know it. By not just fending off the blows and calling for help, you're presenting a red rag to a bull and sure, it's the bully's fault if they attack you outside school, and it's their fault if you further enrage them by fighting back, and it's their fault if they're so angry they kill you. So actually what, denying any agency in that is like saying it makes no difference if you hit someone or not. If it's in self defense, it's justified but being justified and allowed does not mean it is always the best course of action.

Whether or not it's a crime, it has consequences, and bizarrely enough the victims of crime who have no confidence in their ability to defend themselves come off a lot better than those who have false confidence. Ie they try and fail to defend themselves and only succeed in enraging their attacker.

I urge you again not to try to apply school rules about fighting, to crime outside school. Imagine if we went the other way, and applied the whole legal apparatus for adults in society, to children in school. Does that seem even remotely a good idea?

[Libertyvilla]

Interesting how now everyone is screaming violence when the right wing when the shitshow in Portland was caused by left wing groups but they were simply "protests." Not taking any sides but it's fact.

[CoraSpia]

People vandalising things is bad no matter who does it. Don't vandalise things.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So, some Trump supporters acting like trash? Color me not surprised.

[Vassenor]

Interesting how now everyone is screaming violence when the right wing when the shitshow in Portland was caused by left wing groups but they were simply "protests." Not taking any sides but it's fact.

Conversely, funny how Black Lives Matter marches justify tear gas and rubber bullets but Trumpists tearing down signs at churches and stabbing people is OK to leave alone.

[SD_Film Artists]

I'm curious why the chuches had BLM banners. It seems like the vandals were more agaisnt the BLM politicisation rather than the church itself; not that it makes the arson any less illegal.

[Nakena]

I'm curious why the chuches had BLM banners. It seems like the vandals were more agaisnt the BLM politicisation rather than the church itself; not that it makes the arson any less illegal.

https://twitter.com/MetropolitanAME/sta ... 9813965826