Antifa mob attacked a woman protesting peacefully outside Wi Spa in Los Angeles. The spa was at the center of a recent viral video where a woman complained to staff that a person with a penis exposed their genitals to women & girls. pic.twitter.com/o4YUHgYaru
We don’t need to feel bad about sharing stuff that is true from right wingers, we need to wonder why no left wing sites will even show this video. But look how the mostly male crowd taunts her, saying she can walk away but every time she turns her back on them, they move in to attack. So she can only stand with her back against the wall so she can at least see what attack is coming next.
At the risk of indulging in the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, I am not sure we should take Andy Ngo’s word that it was ANTIFA. The problem with ANTIFA is that it is more an idea than an organisation, so it is far too easy for it to be tagged by the right or misused by the left.
That said, whoever those thugs are, they are wrong, ignorant and malevolent. And that woman needs a free lifetime supply of whatever luxury item she likes for standing up to that mob.
True, but I did see something yesterday that appeared to be an announcement or advertisement or whatever of an Antifa protest against the Wi protest. I don’t know for sure that it was really Antifa but if not it was imitation-Antifa so it might as well be.
If conservatives are standing up to protect women, then I’m all for it, and there is no reason to think this isn’t the case. The self proclaimed lefties who think conservatives are a problem for trans rights, just because they are conservatives, are putting too much emphasis on their political leanings, and the attempt to politicize everything isn’t productive and misses the point. It’s irritating to me that just because someone belongs, more or less, due to their other political ideologies, on the right, that their opinions are worthless. This just isn’t true. I saw this very thing at a blog I visited recently, which claims to promote “free thought”, while simultaneously dismissing, out of hand, anything said by anyone who has a conservative outlook on things. All I can say to that is that they are missing half the picture, even if they might disagree with one or more of their positions. It is possible for conservatives to have agreeable opinions on things, and have valuable things to say, they aren’t all raving lunatics.
No small thanks goes to Trump’s promotion of an extremely divisive climate, which some people apparently are still stuck with. The fact that Trump still wields this much power over them is unfortunate. Being intolerant of half the population, no matter which political side you’re on, isn’t very bright.
The alleged conservatives they were dismissive of, were in fact Abigail Schrier and Harriet Hall, of which neither is stupid or dismissable on political grounds. The works in question, Schrier’s book and Hall’s review, were not about political positions, not in the slightest. Yet they are dismissed because Schrier’s book was pubished by a Christian publisher or some such irrelevant garbage. Too conservative to be of any value apparently.
twiliter, I admit that when I saw the Publisher of Shrier’s book I was concerned about the origins and meaning of her message, but I put that aside, read the book, and am pleased I did. She had a lot of worthwhile things to say and she said them well. I am oblivious to her politics, but her politics should carry no weight in evaluating her book and the case she makes.
Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I learned that in the 1970s when my Church (Presbyterian) insisted I had to follow the laws of Man and submit to conscription for an immoral war, whereas my theological enemies (Roman Catholics) insisted we follow the laws of God and were supportive of anti-war efforts.
And she may have gone to a conservative press because a mainstream press would not touch the book, afraid of the outrage of the permanently outraged juveniles. And probably at least some in their company that are vocal advocates of trans attempts to take over women’s spaces.
Roj @7 This is what I mean. Political ramifications are generally pretty far down the list of things to take into consideration for me, but it seems to be some kind of prefilter for a lot of people. The way the prefilter works was apparent to me when I saw some of the comments on the blog I referred to above. No dissent allowed (because you’re conservative) is not a good motto.
It’s really what’s made me turn a corner; I peak trans’d by 2017 and now I’m just sick of all this “us vs. them” shit. I reject *all* authoritarianism and want to at least try to see the humanity even in my enemies.
I remember the days when certain lefty blogs would decry sexist taunts even against people that they considered vile. I remember seeing pushback from Myers himself whenever some douchebro would pipe up with something like “I know we disapprove of calling people bitches, but surely this person qualifies!” but all that is gone.
Instead, not only is it becoming cool to taunt women with ‘bitch’ and ‘karen’, the category of people vile enough to be called such has been broadened to include all people that know what the sexes are.
Oh and on a related note, there is also the fact PZ and what seems like two thirds of his commenters are now endorsing arson against Canada’s churches.
Holms @14, between the arson cheerleading, the dancing on people’s graves, and boasting about high handed moderating that happened years ago, I’m going to need a good excuse to look around at that place again. Lame blogs are a dime a dozen.
I just want to observe that not being a fan of Andy Ngo’s isn’t the same as avoiding all conservatives. I’ve been sharing observations from David Frum and Bill Kristol (for example) for ages.
Also I’ll clarify that I’m ok with speaking ill of the dead, I’ve done it myself, however celebrating someone’s death (in this case Rumsfeld) is something completely different. Shows a lack of maturity for one, but I won’t get into it.
#16 PZ posted about some churches in Canada catching fire, with arson currently suspected but not confirmed. His take is that while it is not good for atheists to commit arson against churches, it is fine for indigenous Canadians to do so now that we’ve been hearing about these mass graves.
Not only that, it will probably build up some sympathy for the church. People tend to be more sympathetic to someone when the other party commits violence against them. Let the church crumble to dust trying to explain the mass graves…one of these days, I hope the crimes will catch up with them. They have been hemorrhaging members for some time now.
My only wish (likely not to be granted) is that the church will end up having to pay compensation, not a trivial sum they can laugh off, but enough to truly hurt. And then they will be forced to repent their own sins. (I hate using a religiously loaded word like sin, but it is probably more evocative of what I mean to say than most secular counterparts. I suppose “evils” would work.)
I would like to see the church metaphorically burned down because it is corrupt and evil, but physically burning it down is a bad idea.
Excusing violence is a very dangerous path. This should be obvious, but here we are.
twiliter:
If conservatives are standing up to protect women, then I’m all for it, and there is no reason to think this isn’t the case. The self proclaimed lefties who think conservatives are a problem for trans rights, just because they are conservatives, are putting too much emphasis on their political leanings, and the attempt to politicize everything isn’t productive and misses the point. It’s irritating to me that just because someone belongs, more or less, due to their other political ideologies, on the right, that their opinions are worthless. This just isn’t true
Given the way things have been going, it seems more pressing than ever that we undergo a political maturation as a society and start treating party affiliation as mere affiliation rather than religious allegiance. People’s interests cannot be so easily categorized as to be put into two (ballot) boxes, and people’s relationship to political parties is poisonous and maladaptive. Political parties are supposed to be manifestations of collective political will composed of aligned political values. The whole thing breaks down when political parties determine political values for the people.
We don’t need to feel bad about sharing stuff that is true from right wingers, we need to wonder why no left wing sites will even show this video. But look how the mostly male crowd taunts her, saying she can walk away but every time she turns her back on them, they move in to attack. So she can only stand with her back against the wall so she can at least see what attack is coming next.
Disgusting.
Brave woman!
At the risk of indulging in the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, I am not sure we should take Andy Ngo’s word that it was ANTIFA. The problem with ANTIFA is that it is more an idea than an organisation, so it is far too easy for it to be tagged by the right or misused by the left.
That said, whoever those thugs are, they are wrong, ignorant and malevolent. And that woman needs a free lifetime supply of whatever luxury item she likes for standing up to that mob.
True, but I did see something yesterday that appeared to be an announcement or advertisement or whatever of an Antifa protest against the Wi protest. I don’t know for sure that it was really Antifa but if not it was imitation-Antifa so it might as well be.
If conservatives are standing up to protect women, then I’m all for it, and there is no reason to think this isn’t the case. The self proclaimed lefties who think conservatives are a problem for trans rights, just because they are conservatives, are putting too much emphasis on their political leanings, and the attempt to politicize everything isn’t productive and misses the point. It’s irritating to me that just because someone belongs, more or less, due to their other political ideologies, on the right, that their opinions are worthless. This just isn’t true. I saw this very thing at a blog I visited recently, which claims to promote “free thought”, while simultaneously dismissing, out of hand, anything said by anyone who has a conservative outlook on things. All I can say to that is that they are missing half the picture, even if they might disagree with one or more of their positions. It is possible for conservatives to have agreeable opinions on things, and have valuable things to say, they aren’t all raving lunatics.
No small thanks goes to Trump’s promotion of an extremely divisive climate, which some people apparently are still stuck with. The fact that Trump still wields this much power over them is unfortunate. Being intolerant of half the population, no matter which political side you’re on, isn’t very bright.
The alleged conservatives they were dismissive of, were in fact Abigail Schrier and Harriet Hall, of which neither is stupid or dismissable on political grounds. The works in question, Schrier’s book and Hall’s review, were not about political positions, not in the slightest. Yet they are dismissed because Schrier’s book was pubished by a Christian publisher or some such irrelevant garbage. Too conservative to be of any value apparently.
Their loss.
(Shrier is her name, sorry for the misspelling)
twiliter, I admit that when I saw the Publisher of Shrier’s book I was concerned about the origins and meaning of her message, but I put that aside, read the book, and am pleased I did. She had a lot of worthwhile things to say and she said them well. I am oblivious to her politics, but her politics should carry no weight in evaluating her book and the case she makes.
Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I learned that in the 1970s when my Church (Presbyterian) insisted I had to follow the laws of Man and submit to conscription for an immoral war, whereas my theological enemies (Roman Catholics) insisted we follow the laws of God and were supportive of anti-war efforts.
And she may have gone to a conservative press because a mainstream press would not touch the book, afraid of the outrage of the permanently outraged juveniles. And probably at least some in their company that are vocal advocates of trans attempts to take over women’s spaces.
iknklast, I did read somewhere (here?) that was the case. I hope she held a long spoon as she supped with the de’il. :-)
Roj @7 This is what I mean. Political ramifications are generally pretty far down the list of things to take into consideration for me, but it seems to be some kind of prefilter for a lot of people. The way the prefilter works was apparent to me when I saw some of the comments on the blog I referred to above. No dissent allowed (because you’re conservative) is not a good motto.
Or to bastardize Emerson, “I hate politics, tell me what you know.” Because of course, he hated quotations. :P
It’s really what’s made me turn a corner; I peak trans’d by 2017 and now I’m just sick of all this “us vs. them” shit. I reject *all* authoritarianism and want to at least try to see the humanity even in my enemies.
I remember the days when certain lefty blogs would decry sexist taunts even against people that they considered vile. I remember seeing pushback from Myers himself whenever some douchebro would pipe up with something like “I know we disapprove of calling people bitches, but surely this person qualifies!” but all that is gone.
Instead, not only is it becoming cool to taunt women with ‘bitch’ and ‘karen’, the category of people vile enough to be called such has been broadened to include all people that know what the sexes are.
Oh and on a related note, there is also the fact PZ and what seems like two thirds of his commenters are now endorsing arson against Canada’s churches.
Holms @14, between the arson cheerleading, the dancing on people’s graves, and boasting about high handed moderating that happened years ago, I’m going to need a good excuse to look around at that place again. Lame blogs are a dime a dozen.
I just want to observe that not being a fan of Andy Ngo’s isn’t the same as avoiding all conservatives. I’ve been sharing observations from David Frum and Bill Kristol (for example) for ages.
What’s this about arson…?
@16 Goes without saying, I was just seeing the contrast. Yeah, there have been some Catholic churches burned down over the grave site discoveries.
Also I’ll clarify that I’m ok with speaking ill of the dead, I’ve done it myself, however celebrating someone’s death (in this case Rumsfeld) is something completely different. Shows a lack of maturity for one, but I won’t get into it.
(also sorry for being so far off topic) ;)
#16 PZ posted about some churches in Canada catching fire, with arson currently suspected but not confirmed. His take is that while it is not good for atheists to commit arson against churches, it is fine for indigenous Canadians to do so now that we’ve been hearing about these mass graves.
Jeezus. Yes that’s just what Canada needs right now, more fires.
Not only that, it will probably build up some sympathy for the church. People tend to be more sympathetic to someone when the other party commits violence against them. Let the church crumble to dust trying to explain the mass graves…one of these days, I hope the crimes will catch up with them. They have been hemorrhaging members for some time now.
My only wish (likely not to be granted) is that the church will end up having to pay compensation, not a trivial sum they can laugh off, but enough to truly hurt. And then they will be forced to repent their own sins. (I hate using a religiously loaded word like sin, but it is probably more evocative of what I mean to say than most secular counterparts. I suppose “evils” would work.)
I would like to see the church metaphorically burned down because it is corrupt and evil, but physically burning it down is a bad idea.
Excusing violence is a very dangerous path. This should be obvious, but here we are.
twiliter:
Given the way things have been going, it seems more pressing than ever that we undergo a political maturation as a society and start treating party affiliation as mere affiliation rather than religious allegiance. People’s interests cannot be so easily categorized as to be put into two (ballot) boxes, and people’s relationship to political parties is poisonous and maladaptive. Political parties are supposed to be manifestations of collective political will composed of aligned political values. The whole thing breaks down when political parties determine political values for the people.