Right-wing vs. Left-wing Clashes [MOD NOTE POST #1]

The Legend Of Kira

Over the last few months some people have said its only " white supremacists " groups like Antifa target & attack etc, from this past weekend, here is an African American Trump supporter getting attacked & punched for the thoughtcrime of being a Trump supporter .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvsPv_NQSuk

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/video-black-trump-supporter-sucker-punched-holding-milo-book/

Sweetemotion

Man charged for trying to blow up Confederate statue.

Surely this would have been an act of domestic terrorism, god knows what damage he could of done.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/HPD-HFD-FBI-on-scene-overnight-at-Rice-11946918.php#photo-13869373

Nody

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Man charged for trying to blow up Confederate statue.

Surely this would have been an act of domestic terrorism, god knows what damage he could of done.

I'm not sure it would; the reason being this:

The park ranger spotted him kneeling in the bushes by the 112-year-old Confederate statue, explosives in hand.

Was he trying to harm the statue? she asked.

Yes, he said. He didn't like the guy.

If he was trying to blow it up to cause harm, to swing opinion etc. it would be a much more clear cut case but simply for not "liking the guy" I'm not sure would be enough. The definition I'm referring to is:

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

AnGaelach

Nody wrote: »

I'm not sure it would; the reason being this:
If he was trying to blow it up to cause harm, to swing opinion etc. it would be a much more clear cut case but simply for not "liking the guy" I'm not sure would be enough. The definition I'm referring to is:

Then it probably would qualify under those requirements, regardless of what he said. It was an act of intimidation against property to further social/political goals.

Nody

AnGaelach wrote: »

Then it probably would qualify under those requirements, regardless of what he said. It was an act of intimidation against property to further social/political goals.

The prosecutor disagrees so far at least:

Schneck, charged Monday with attempting to maliciously damage or destroy property, was ordered into federal custody pending a court hearing later this week. If convicted, he could face up to 40 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Seeing how he's described:

School acquaintances described him as an awkward loner who struggled with social interactions.
"I can't even think of a single friend he had, to be perfectly honest," said one former classmate at Memorial High School, where he was known as "Ace" for his initials.

During their senior year of high school, the former classmate said, Schneck wrote a "manifesto" dedicated to some of the school's popular girls, decrying how their boyfriends treated them and saying he could have done better.

After high school graduation in 2010, the two lost touch and Schneck's classmate didn't hear news of him again until charges were filed against him several years ago.

"None of this is surprising," the former classmate said. "He seems a bit disconnected from reality."

I'd honestly not be surprised if he literally speaking simply did not like the guy and decided to blow it up for that reason. The guy has already been caught having several bombs etc. at home back in 2010. From the description I'd guess some three or four letter acronym would most likely apply where we have a highly intelligent yet socially inept person who don't know how to interact in society who simply decided to blow it up. Not because of pushing a social agenda but simply because he did not like the guy/the statue and thought it was ok to do (in his mind). He needs a mental evaluation to help deal with what ever are the root causes here and to be on a watch list for life due to his tendency to build bombs at home but that does not necessary make him a terrorist but a dangerous individual all the same.

Christy42

Nody wrote: »

The prosecutor disagrees so far at least:
Seeing how he's described:
I'd honestly not be surprised if he literally speaking simply did not like the guy and decided to blow it up for that reason. The guy has already been caught having several bombs etc. at home back in 2010. From the description I'd guess some three or four letter acronym would most likely apply where we have a highly intelligent yet socially inept person who don't know how to interact in society who simply decided to blow it up. Not because of pushing a social agenda but simply because he did not like the guy/the statue and thought it was ok to do (in his mind). He needs a mental evaluation to help deal with what ever are the root causes here and to be on a watch list for life due to his tendency to build bombs at home but that does not necessary make him a terrorist but a dangerous individual all the same.

I would still default something like this to terrorism.

It does raise some interesting questions about terminology though.

If you kill the president because he is the president it is an assissination but what if you kill him because he slept with your wife or a personal gripe. Is it then murder?

Billy86

Christy42 wrote: »

I would still default something like this to terrorism.

It does raise some interesting questions about terminology though.

If you kill the president because he is the president it is an assissination but what if you kill him because he slept with your wife or a personal gripe. Is it then murder?

I would agree with this as terrorism most likely, but for the the president one would likely put it down to murder. Let's say for example if Trump and Jared Kushner got involved in some big fight because the latter cheated on the former's daughter while the former just wants to get into his daughter's pants, and it ended in Kushner stabbing or shooting Trump, who died. It's not a political motive so I wouldn't put it down as terrorism.

Does anyone know what he didn't 'like' about Lee though? Because most of what we know about the man would be based in politics.

Nody

Christy42 wrote: »

I would still default something like this to terrorism.

It does raise some interesting questions about terminology though.

The definition of terrorism is the political aspect of it; it's what makes it a step worse than the base crime itself in the same way hate speech is a step worse than an insult because of the added on judgement due to the style.

If you kill the president because he is the president it is an assissination but what if you kill him because he slept with your wife or a personal gripe. Is it then murder?

Bad example I'm afraid; murder over homicide would come from the preparation and intention of doing bodily harm. A better example would be if I kill someone by hitting them with a car (Barcelona for example) the context of why I hit them with the car would play in. If I did it intentionally to cause fear it's terrorism, if I did it with intent to kill the guy sleeping with my wife it's murder, if I did it because I had sunshine in my eyes it's likely classified as homicide or even manslaughter.

Same outcome in terms of causing death(s) with the same tool (a car) but due to the reasoning, preparation and overall goal with the action different angles for prosecution.

Christy42

Nody wrote: »

The definition of terrorism is the political aspect of it; it's what makes it a step worse than the base crime itself in the same way hate speech is a step worse than an insult because of the added on judgement due to the style.

Bad example I'm afraid; murder over homicide would come from the preparation and intention of doing bodily harm. A better example would be if I kill someone by hitting them with a car (Barcelona for example) the context of why I hit them with the car would play in. If I did it intentionally to cause fear it's terrorism, if I did it with intent to kill the guy sleeping with my wife it's murder, if I did it because I had sunshine in my eyes it's likely classified as homicide or even manslaughter.

Same outcome in terms of causing death(s) with the same tool (a car) but due to the reasoning, preparation and overall goal with the action different angles for prosecution.

Yeah upon reflection the example was not that great or relevant.

Still it is hard to see the dislike of a historical figure bot being political in some way.

Nody

Christy42 wrote: »

Still it is hard to see the dislike of a historical figure bot being political in some way.

We're lacking information here so this is 100% speculation but seeing the personality type it could be a dislike of the stone, the shape, association of being rejected at the statue etc. rather than the person shown at the statue. This is where the whole political (and mental) aspect comes into play in the judgement of the reason which we have basically a one liner to go by only

20Cent

Trump implied that he intends to pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio during his speech last night.

He added: “Was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job? He should have had a jury. I’ll make a prediction. I think he’s going to be just fine.

But the president stopped short of pardoning Arpaio, telling the crowd, to their visible disappointment: “But I won’t do it tonight because I don’t want to cause any controversy.”

Arpaio was convicted of ignoring a judges order to stop targeting coloured people at traffic stops. Could see this kicking off Rodney King type protests and unrest if he does it.

Tony EH

Billy86 wrote: »

Does anyone know what he didn't 'like' about Lee though? Because most of what we know about the man would be based in politics.

Nothing to do with Robert E. Lee.

The statue is of a man called Lt. Dick Dowling.

...an Irish immigrant who lived in Houston and fought for the Confederacy, was erected in 1905 to honor rebel soldiers who died at the Battle of Sabine Pass.

It's merely a monument to Confederate veterans.

Billy86

Ah, turns out I was getting it confused with the Charlottesville one.

Manic Moran

Utter stupidity. "Lee" is a common name in various Asian countries. There are a number of Asians who live in the US. Something to do with the US being a multi-national melting pot... Some Asians have, for whatever reason, decided to start giving their kids more or less American names. Names like John... or Robert.

Now, if you are an Asian whose name is "Robert Lee", you are discriminated against.

"ESPN has removed a sports commentator from covering an American football game in Charlottesville because he has the same name as Civil War General Robert E Lee."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41022954

Tony EH

Manic Moran wrote: »

Utter stupidity. "Lee" is a common name in various Asian countries. There are a number of Asians who live in the US. Something to do with the US being a multi-national melting pot... Some Asians have, for whatever reason, decided to start giving their kids more or less American names. Names like John... or Robert.

Now, if you are an Asian whose name is "Robert Lee", you are discriminated against.

"ESPN has removed a sports commentator from covering an American football game in Charlottesville because he has the same name as Civil War General Robert E Lee."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41022954

This is all getting terribly silly.

Billy86

Manic Moran wrote: »

Utter stupidity.

Or just fake news from one of the most prominent spreaders fake news out there.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/08/22/espn-pulls-announcer-robert-lee-off-virginia-game-charlottesville-protests/592458001/

According to an ESPN executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the situation, ESPN asked Lee if he would be more comfortable calling another game but gave him the option to stay. Lee chose to switch assignments, and ESPN accommodated him.

This would never have been an issue at all, except for the fact that it was leaked to Clay Travis of Outkick the Coverage, who frequently critiques ESPN and has accused the company of having a liberal bias.

Travis wrote about it on his Web site Tuesday night and it exploded into a national story, with Travis appearing on Tucker Carlson's Fox News program.

manual_man

Billy86 wrote: »

Or just fake news from one of the most prominent spreaders fake news out there.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/08/22/espn-pulls-announcer-robert-lee-off-virginia-game-charlottesville-protests/592458001/

It's become an issue because ESPN made it an issue. Yet another sad example of pandering to idiots who will seemingly get offended by ANYTHING. They asked Mr Lee would he be "more comfortable" covering another game. So basically put him under pressure to acquiesce when there was no good reason to do so. And for one i'm glad it's blown up in their face because this kind of lunacy needs to end.

20Cent

manual_man wrote: »

It's become an issue because ESPN made it an issue. Yet another sad example of pandering to idiots who will seemingly get offended by ANYTHING. They asked Mr Lee would he be "more comfortable" covering another game. So basically put him under pressure to acquiesce when there was no good reason to do so. And for one i'm glad it's blown up in their face because this kind of lunacy needs to end.

The switch wasn't made because his name might cause offence. It was because of the meme's, jokes and whatnot that would result from the alt right.

Billy86

manual_man wrote: »

It's become an issue because ESPN made it an issue. Yet another sad example of pandering to idiots who will seemingly get offended by ANYTHING. They asked Mr Lee would he be "more comfortable" covering another game. So basically put him under pressure to acquiesce when there was no good reason to do so. And for one i'm glad it's blown up in their face because this kind of lunacy needs to end.

No, it has not become an issue because ESPN asked a guy -called Robert Lee, who was set to commentate (apparently in his first game as it was opening weekend of the season), in Virginia just days after protests charged by white supremacy led to violence and death- if he was comfortable calling the game or would prefer to be moved to another game.

It has become an issue because the likes of Tucker Carlson and the guy on there lied about what happened, making it fake news. If this were not the case, the story would be "ESPN offers commentator change to switch games due to name" rather than "ESPN removes commentator due to name".

manual_man

20Cent wrote: »

The switch wasn't made because his name might cause offence. It was because of the meme's, jokes and whatnot that would result from the alt right.

Oh god, no. Not a meme!

Billy86

manual_man wrote: »

Oh god, no. Not a meme!

How dare ESPN look to protect their own staff and give them choices at the same time, how f***ing dare they!!

Christy42

manual_man wrote: »

It's become an issue because ESPN made it an issue. Yet another sad example of pandering to idiots who will seemingly get offended by ANYTHING. They asked Mr Lee would he be "more comfortable" covering another game. So basically put him under pressure to acquiesce when there was no good reason to do so. And for one i'm glad it's blown up in their face because this kind of lunacy needs to end.

Where are you getting all this pressure on him from? Near as I can see you made it up. There is nothing to suggest that ESPN would have cared much had he kept on his original assignment.

But sure the lunacy of paying attention to what a staff member wanted has to end.

manual_man

Billy86 wrote: »

No, it has not become an issue because ESPN asked a guy -called Robert Lee, who was set to commentate (apparently in his first game as it was opening weekend of the season), in Virginia just days after protests charged by white supremacy led to violence and death- if he was comfortable calling the game or would prefer to be moved to another game.

It has become an issue because the likes of Tucker Carlson and the guy on there lied about what happened, making it fake news. If this were not the case, the story would be "ESPN offers commentator change to switch games due to name" rather than "ESPN removes commentator due to name".

Right so they put the commentator under pressure, when they shouldn't have done so.

There's absolutely zero justification for them having asked Mr Lee to do this. Unless they were afraid that somehow a lot of people would not be able to distinguish between a deceased confederate war general and an Asian sports commentator in 2017. If somehow some people would have gotten offended by Mr Lee commenting on this game, then it's those people themselves that are the problem.

Christy42

manual_man wrote: »

Right so they put the commentator under pressure, when they shouldn't have done so.

There's absolutely zero justification for them having asked Mr Lee to do this. Unless they were afraid that somehow a lot of people would not be able to distinguish between a deceased confederate war general and an Asian sports commentator in 2017. If somehow some people would have gotten offended by Mr Lee commenting on this game, then it's those people themselves that are the problem.

You keep restating the assumption that they put him under pressure and are then getting outraged at it based on your own assumption.

Unless you back up that assumption the rest of the posts are meaningless as you have based your arguments on it.

The decision seems to have been taken for Mr. Lee's benefit. Not the random people getting offended you have made up.

Billy86

manual_man wrote: »

Right so they put the commentator under pressure, when they shouldn't have done so.

There's absolutely zero justification for them having asked Mr Lee to do this. Unless they were afraid that somehow a lot of people would not be able to distinguish between a deceased confederate war general and an Asian sports commentator in 2017. If somehow some people would have gotten offended by Mr Lee commenting on this game, then it's those people themselves that are the problem.

They didn't put him under pressure. Are you accusing my employer of putting me under pressure when they asked how I would feel about switching sites earlier in the year? I decided not to, by the way.

It was a case of attempting to shield a young, unknown commentator in what appears may have been his first game on the network from the mockery of the alt right - yet also giving him the option if he wanted to soldier on with it. 'Luckily' for us however, FOX were more than happy to spin that into the outrage of 'PC librul madness again!!'

manual_man

Christy42 wrote: »

You keep restating the assumption that they put him under pressure and are then getting outraged at it based on your own assumption.

Unless you back up that assumption the rest of the posts are meaningless as you have based your arguments on it.

The decision seems to have been taken for Mr. Lee's benefit. Not the random people getting offended you have made up.

It's because i'm being honest with myself that the simple act of asking him, was, yes, putting him under pressure. An issue was thus made when there shouldn't have been one.

We all know the situation. Your boss, or bosses, approach you and ask if you if you "might consider" this, or might consider that. Often the words "now you don't have to", and "don't feel under any pressure" are used. And all the while you as the employee, feel under pressure to acquiesce because you know the outcome your boss(es) want.

It all comes down to this irrational fear of offending that has infected many areas of society. It's destructive and contagious. And if people, and companies, don't stand up against it, then it continues to spread.

pitifulgod

manual_man wrote: »

It's because i'm being honest with myself that the simple act of asking him, was, yes, putting him under pressure. An issue was thus made when there shouldn't have been one.

We all know the situation. Your boss, or bosses, approach you and ask if you if you "might consider" this, or might consider that. Often the words "now you don't have to", and "don't feel under any pressure" are used. And all the while you as the employee, feel under pressure to acquiesce because you know the outcome your boss(es) want.

It all comes down to this irrational fear of offending that has infected many areas of society. It's destructive and contagious. And if people, and companies, don't stand up against it, then it continues to spread.

Would you want to start a media career as a figure of ridicule for the alt right? That is what they do. So yep, I very much think that they were considering his well being.

manual_man

Billy86 wrote: »

They didn't put him under pressure. Are you accusing my employer of putting me under pressure when they asked how I would feel about switching sites earlier in the year? I decided not to, by the way.

It was a case of attempting to shield a young, unknown commentator in what appears may have been his first game on the network from the mockery of the alt right - yet also giving him the option if he wanted to soldier on with it. 'Luckily' for us however, FOX were more than happy to spin that into the outrage of 'PC librul madness again!!'

Shielding him from what exactly? A few online memes? For real? This is absolutely absurd. If what you're truly afraid of in life is a few memes and online ridicule, from people you probably have next to nothing in common with in the first place, then it's a sad indictment on anyone who changes their actions to accomodate such "fears". All it can accomplish is to embolden those who would seek to do the ridiculing in the first place.

Billy86

manual_man wrote: »

Shielding him from what exactly? A few online memes? For real? This is absolutely absurd. If what you're truly afraid of in life is a few memes and online ridicule, from people you probably have next to nothing in common with in the first place, then it's a sad indictment on anyone who changes their actions to accomodate such "fears". All it can accomplish is to embolden those who would seek to do the ridiculing in the first place.

You're aware how much damage being a walking punchline can do to someone's media career even after they are established? And it's not like this guy is even "not an Al Michaels or Martin Tyler", as best I can tell this was due to be his first ever game at this level.

So yes, they were protecting the guy personally and professionally and gave him the choice not to be "dropped" but to switch games. And there is absolutely zero wrong with that whatsoever.

Christy42

manual_man wrote: »

It's because i'm being honest with myself that the simple act of asking him, was, yes, putting him under pressure. An issue was thus made when there shouldn't have been one.

We all know the situation. Your boss, or bosses, approach you and ask if you if you "might consider" this, or might consider that. Often the words "now you don't have to", and "don't feel under any pressure" are used. And all the while you as the employee, feel under pressure to acquiesce because you know the outcome your boss(es) want.

It all comes down to this irrational fear of offending that has infected many areas of society. It's destructive and contagious. And if people, and companies, don't stand up against it, then it continues to spread.

You are just making stuff up at this stage. My bosses frequently ask which projects different people would prefer to be on and then assign us accordingly (as best they can so no project is short handed). I have never felt under any pressure. Can a boss never ask an employee a question about what they want? How can you be a good employer without this information coming in occassionaly?

A company has to be able to solicit feedback from its employees. Especially if they are worried the employees might not be completely comfortable doing something. Seemingly this is impossible without pressuring the employee?

It is a complete stretch to say that ESPN honestly cared where he went and reads more like someone attempting to take offense over a simple company action.