US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[gap]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

By the way what the heck is a Gap?

Has that always been your user name?

Yes, since 01-26-2011.

A gap is a lack of continuity or a problem to solve, like the Atlantic gap, and incidentally it is also my full name's acronyme.

Why are you so surprised? Don't you like it?

[Dowly]

Is the sudden call for unity and healing acknowledgement that Trump was divisive and a bad president for the country?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by gap

Well, that depends. I am against any type of unnecessary violence, but we must agree that not all the good or bad causes are the same.

What is this necessary violence of which you speak? And is it legal?

Protesting because people of a certain skin colour are killed by cops for trivial reasons (something that, from my European perspective, is happening way too often for being a mere coincidence), is not the same as protesting for an electoral fraud that, so far, someone's favorite candidate has failed to prove.

Non violent protest is a right in America. The cause is irrelevant. And what does stealing a flat screen TV have to do with protesting an unjust death?

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by gap

Yes, since 01-26-2011.

Why are you so surprised? Don't you like it?

Okay with me ... welcome to the Radio Room

[mapuc]

What judgment will the history books give Trump. What will it be written in the American history books about 20 years from now.

Of course no one knows it would be nothing than speculation.

Markus

[Buddahaid]

Before or after the book burning?

[gap]

Originally Posted by u crank

What is this necessary violence of which you speak? And is it legal?

That's a though question actually. The answer might depend on one's religious beliefs, political views and moral convictions, as well as on the same definition of the term "violence".

For me and talking in general, violence can only be considered necessary when used in self defense or in defense of someone else against other's violence. It must be proportionate to the aggression that it is supposed to contrast, and it must stop as soon as that aggression ends.

I am pretty sure that this definition doesn't come too far from the definition of self-defense in most legal systems. You might agree with it or not. In both cases, you could as well ignore the adjective "unnecessary" and re-read my message. My point wouldn't be affected by that omission.

Originally Posted by u crank

Non violent protest is a right in America. The cause is irrelevant.

Yes, in all the democratic countries it is, even outside America, but when protesting involves committing crimes, what could have been be a totally rightful protest might turn into an offense.

Indeed, the severity of any criminal offense depends mainly on its nature, but the motive and circumstances should be considered too. Just to keep on with the point above (please don't think that my examples apply to the letter to the topic we are discussing), killing a man in an excess of self-defense is not the same as doing it for stealing his money. Both actions are bad and both are to be punished, but under the moral point of view they are hardly comparable.

Originally Posted by u crank

And what does stealing a flat screen TV have to do with protesting an unjust death?

Actually nothing. I hope the thieves to be prosecuted without any mitigation and punished according to law.

[gap]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Okay with me ... welcome to the Radio Room

Thank you mate.

As you can see from my post count I am not totally new to the Radio Room, but I must admit that I mostly enjoy discussing games and mods, so I am not too active in the General Topics section. My bad.

Seeing what is going on in the USA and knowing that many respectable Subsim buddies are from there, I was curious to read their first-hand reports and points of view on the recent episodes. Having been lurking around this thread for a while, and having learned a lot from it, out of gratitude I thought I could as well drop a couple of comments, but soon I will dive again at periscope depth.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by gap

That's a though question actually. The answer might depend on one's religious beliefs, political views and moral convictions, as well as on the same definition of the term "violence".

Well you seem to suggest that there was a necessary form of violence related to protest. Forgive me if I missunderstood. We were talking about protesting for a cause. Hopefully you would agree then that there is no legitimate form of violence regardless of the cause. In a Liberal Democracy 'one's religious beliefs, political views and moral convictions' cannot be an excuse for violent protest.

In the article I linked the author makes it plain. If you condemn the violent protests of last summer in America then you must condemn what happened on Jan. 6th. If you excuse those riots for any reason then this ... "If you demand that your political adversaries adhere to a principle, but exempt people whose cause you endorse from having to comply, then that preference you enjoy boasting about is not really a principle."

[Catfish]

Didnt he already explain the difference here?

[BrucePartington]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Before or after the book burning?

Brilliant. That actually cracked me up.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Didnt he already explain the difference here?

Indeed and I believe I apologized for that misunderstanding here.

Originally Posted by u crank

Well you seem to suggest that there was a necessary form of violence related to protest. Forgive me if I missunderstood. We were talking about protesting for a cause.

[gap]

Originally Posted by u crank

Well you seem to suggest that there was a necessary form of violence related to protest.

Not at all. Unless your foolish purpose is to overturn democracy for establishing some other regime, in a democratic country there is no space for violent protests. Recurring to them is both lamentable and idiotic because any modern state has enough means to supress them.

Originally Posted by u crank

Forgive me if I missunderstood.

No problem mate, my bad for not making myself clear enough

Originally Posted by u crank

We were talking about protesting for a cause. Hopefully you would agree then that there is no legitimate form of violence regardless of the cause. In a Liberal Democracy 'one's religious beliefs, political views and moral convictions' cannot be an excuse for violent protest.

Yes, I agree. Yet, there are good causes and bad causes with infinite degrees of mixing between the two extremes. Someone recurring to violence for defending his own interests will only delegitimize his good reasons and possibly amplify the weak points in his own line of thinking.

Originally Posted by u crank

In the article I linked the author makes it plain. If you condemn the violent protests of last summer in America then you must condemn what happened on Jan. 6th. If you excuse those riots for any reason then this ... "If you demand that your political adversaries adhere to a principle, but exempt people whose cause you endorse from having to comply, then that preference you enjoy boasting about is not really a principle."

I got his point but I simply don't agree with the parallelism he seems to suggest. If someone excused the crimes committed during BLM protests, no matter what, he made a terrible mistake. That said, Imho the one defended by BLM is a damn good cause tuned into uprising, thievery and violence because of its questionable methods.

Conversely, the one sponsored by "Proud Boys", "Q-Anon" and the likes could have been a legitimate cause if it wasn't for the stubborn ego of its "concealed" leader, for his lack of respect of the institutions he is representing, and for the credulous attitude of his supporters. The result is that a potentially rightful protest has now turned into violence and sedition.

All in all, the one parallelism I see between the two "incidents" is the use of violence, which I blame in both cases, but neither of them can be dismissed as a sudden and transient outburst of violence. They should be considered separately and wisely addressed, each one for its peculiarities, so to make sure that never again they will happen.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by gap

I got his point but I simply don't agree with the parallelism he seems to suggest.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. And I am not debating the right or wrong of any cause. Simply put, any peaceful protest for any cause is ok. Any violent protest for any cause is not. If that is not the case then who is the arbitrator of the just causes?

[Rockstar]

I don't know which is worse. The kooks and crazy conspiracy theorists which think the election was stolen. Or the kooks and crazy conspiracy theorists that think Trump is the mastermind behind a plan to overthrow democracy and the U.S. government.