“Politicians calling on people to confront others in public places is part of the problem.”
FWIW, I really haven’t heard any politicians telling their followers to accost people in restaurants, etc (of course, somebody will instantly send a link showing just that!
But what I see going on is that one person sees a public figure in a restaurant, etc. and they’re incensed by the actions of that person and they notify others via their own media to come to that space and give them a piece of their mind. And part of that (and I can only verify this from my own side) is that Democrats are telling Democrats that they’ve been wimps/push-overs for too long and it’s time to start fighting back. I could NOT disagree with this more…having everyone bullying and attacking and obstructing will set up a fire in this country that will be hard to put out. From my own viewpoint, I truly long for a leader with decent manners, good sense, respect for others, and good smarts (and who also reads books!) to emerge from all of this.
Unfortunately, it is typically seen as a choice between bad and worse. Either fight back against bullies, or submit to being a victim of bullies. Of course, the result is hardening of positions where each side sees the other as a treasonous threat to the nation, eventually leading to a civil war, or an unfree state where one side successfully suppresses the other (whether “legitimately” due to having an actual majority, or by disenfranchising enough of the other to have minority rule).
I think of it as in this case, police & FBI are highly mobilized to catch this person (guy, almost for sure) before he kills someone. Public shaming/restaurant disturbances - I don’t like them, but it is a misdemeanor at most. Equating them is “whataboutism” in full force.
I find booing someone at a restaurant to be incredibly uncivil. But it is not threatening, nor is it assault. Depending on how long it goes on, it could be construed as harassment, disturbing the peace, or something of that nature. I agree with the “whataboutism” comment above, though.
^^But booing and heckling are still a symptom of the problem. Any disrespect is a form of violence.
The name calling, the labeling of a political party or branch of the media as an enemy of the people, the broadcast condemnation of groups of people has to stop.
Even here in the threads of the cafe there are frequent implications that if one poster disagrees with another the other must be wrong and has flaws- the hosiery threads for example where those who wear them are labeled as old fashioned or it’s implied they don’t care what they look like, for example.
Different doesn’t mean wrong. Somehow people in our country need to relearn how to disagree without making character assessments or disrespecting and disregarding or trying to destroy one another.
As long as we are talking about restaurants, we still aren’t talking about this terrorist act of sending pipe bombs to public political figures and news outlets.
Jake Tapper posted a photo of the one at CNN - on his Twitter feed. The stamps did not appear to be cancelled. But if any did go through the postal system, they have photographs of everything that passes through their system. Should be able to track to a specific mailing location.
I might say disrespect/disruption is a form of aggression.
Engendering fear is wrong, to me. I dont see why we can’t (at least somewhat) agree that all forms of aggression, violence, physical threats, retribution. etc, are wrong, without trying to rank them. Yes, we personally fear a package bomb more than a heckler.
Nope, it isn’t. That’s not what violence is. Violence is “involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” You might thing disrespect is uncivil, or impolite, or uncalled for, or inappropriate, but none of that transmutes it into violence. Violence is a specific thing. Conflating violence and speech is particularly dangerous because it provides cover for those who wish to engage in violence in response to speech. If someone talking at you is “violent,” then why aren’t you permitted to engage in other violence as self-defense? That is why the law draws a sharp distinction between speech and conduct.
Intparent. I already said physical assault is worse. But why is this thread arguing? Why are some posing their views as more right or righteous? We’ve got a problem with a society half laissez faire and half into denigrating or threatening others. Endorsed by a prime example of putdowns and mockery.
Saying our wheels are off the track is not whataboutism.
There is most definitely a difference between verbally confronting an elected official and sending a bomb that has the potential to kill your target or an innocent bystander. Let’s be very clear about that. As someone who has travelled to DC for the purpose of speaking to my Republican senator because he will never make himself publicly available in his own state, I can assure that it is incredibly frustrating to watch your representative vote without any explanation or defense of his positions and without any opportunity for input. That isn’t how representative democracy is supposed to work. And although I don’t encourage or condone booing a government official or representative, I certainly would take the opportunity to ask such a person hard questions if I saw them in public because that is the only opportunity for such an exchange. If Republicans want to ignore the existential threat of climate change, support a lying president and scandal ridden administration, strip healthcare from its citizens, and give tax breaks to the wealthy, then they damn well better be prepared to explain those choices. I would happily sit down with any of them and explain my positions and answer any questions he might have and I’m not an elected official!
I think what worries me is the slippery slope of people getting inured to violence as part of the political discourse. People tend to believe that the violence really isn’t as bad as it is. People tend to be optimists. And the optimism is what sinks the ships of democracy, I fear.
The violence is encouraged and the violence escalates and continues until there comes a time, potentially, when a strong-armed person feels the need to step in (or jumps on the opportunity to step in ) and calm the situation with military force. This feels potentially like the slippery slope to fascism as was seen in Italy in the 1920s.
At the time, no one could quite believe that Mussolini 1) could really be that violent, so they gave him a pass over and over and 2) could really intend to upend democracy and become a strongman, so they gave him a pass over and over.
And fascism was the result. A violent, brutal regime.
Here is an article from the NYT today that discusses Mussolini in light of the murder of the reporter at the Turkish embassy.
Lessons to be learned, the article is called. It’s so important to read this, I think.
