What the left has devolved to.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-02-2017, 04:31 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 03:13 AM)taramarie Wrote: SOME have gone overboard yes. Both sides take away rights in the name of their freedom. Not all participate in it though.

Except, both sides don't.  Only one side regularly attacks people from the other side, or resorts to burning things down.

Now, I agree that only some progressives are engaging in organized violence.  Too many are apologists for this kind of inexcusable violence, though.

(02-02-2017, 04:15 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: As a general rule, I suspect if Trump continues to ignore non-violent protest, continuing his policies without showing any sign that protests will effect him, the protests aren't apt to stay non-violent.  I'm not advocating violent protest, but I anticipate protests are going to get more violent.  Trumps persona is not one that backs down.

I've been trying to watch the spiral of violence, and this does seem to break new ground, at least in recent history.  This was organized and thought through.  The black clad protestors were masked and had a uniform of sorts.  With video cameras everywhere these days, this seems prudent.  The style of uniform reminds me more of the KKK than the fascists of the 1930s.  The old fascists wore pseudo military outfits and left their faces exposed.  Still, if you are trying to ask whether a group more resembles the brownshirts or the KKK, they aren't nice people.

It does not remind me much of the 1960s protests.  There were few masks and no uniforms back then.  The crowds of protestors were much much larger.  Early days, though.

While the black clad agitators were reported as throwing molotov cocktails and commercial grade fireworks, there were apparently no major injuries?  While the action was correctly described as violent, this suggests that the protestors were ready to take it only so far.

Like that, for example.

Too much of the conversation here is deciding which vile stereotype applies to whom.  I'm not interested in name calling, determining who is the fascist.  I'm not advocating violence.  Trying to understand what is going on is not the same as apologizing for what is going on.  Neither side reminds me particularly of the 1930s.  This moment in history is unique.

I am interested in how spirals of violence work.  It takes two to spiral.  If non-violence doesn't work, expect violence.  The government not responding to violence with violence helps defuse the spiral.  I believe the above principles would hold no matter which side is is protesting, and which side controls the government.

For decades, here, and in the old forum, various people have been predicting and advocating revolution, civil war, succession and other dire circumstances one might expect in a fourth turning.  My response has generally been to ask if people are seeing a spiral of violence escalating.  Up until this point, I haven't seen it.  The Ruby Ridge / Waco / OKC spiral died after OKC.  The Black Lives / Blue Lives Matter spiral was real, but didn't get beyond the lone shooter level.  Thus, you don't see me on threads concerned with things like California drifting out to sea, or various maps proposing red / blue divisions.

Here we have a fairly large organized group planning a violent act in such a way as they can get away and do it again.  While I don't have a great feel for Trump, it seems possible he won't respond gently, won't avoid escalating.

That could become a big deal.  It could be much more important than who calls who a fascist.

For the record, I intensely dislike where Yiannopoulos is coming from, what he is advocating.  However, I'll still favor free speech for deplorables... and the right to protest deplorables non-violently.  Yiannopoulos isn't worth significantly escalating a spiral of violence, though.