CDZ 80 Year Old "Coldcocks" Anti-Trump Protestor: What If Tables Were Turned?

[jwoodie]

Lerat's say a KKK protester showed up at an NAACP meeting holding a sign that said "F--- You, N------." In response, an elderly Black Man takes a swing at the younger protester. Would you have the same sense of outrage against the NAACP as has been expressed against Trump? If not, why not?

 

[Coyote]

I suppose it depends but that is really an apples and oranges comparison.

Comparing a political protestor to the KKK is quite an exageration.

A more accurate comparison would be if a protester showed up at a Bernie rally holding a rude sign and an 80 old Bernie supporter punched him - would we show the same outrage at Bernie as at Trump?

My answer would be - it depends. If Bernie had been egging on and encouraging violence with his statements, then yes I would be as outraged. If Bernie had not been engaging in that behavior or rhetoric - then no, I wouldn't be outraged at the candidate, but rather the behavior of the individual.

 

[Coyote]

I watched the video and here's what I observed. A disorderly protester being escorted out of the rally. He was waving and making some sort of gestures with his hand. A man stepped up and sucker punched him.

There is no indication that this protester was a member of any sort of hate groupe (like the KKK) nor was he carrying any signs with derogatory or hateful epitaphs.

The comparison is an utter failure.

 

[jwoodie]

I watched the video and here's what I observed. A disorderly protester being escorted out of the rally. He was waving and making some sort of gestures with his hand. A man stepped up and sucker punched him.

There is no indication that this protester was a member of any sort of hate groupe (like the KKK) nor was he carrying any signs with derogatory or hateful epitaphs.

The comparison is an utter failure.

Your equivocal response is an utter failure. Among other things, you deceptively characterize the protester as "waving and making some sort of gestures with his hand." As you know, he was flipping off the entire audience (and assumably matching that gesture with his words). Thus my alternative scenario was apt, whereas your description is transparently dishonest. Also, the reference to the KKK in my example is certainly an appropriate counterpoint to the Black Lives Matter movement, which has been heavily involved in these political protests.

 

[320 Years of History]

Lerat's say a KKK protester showed up at an NAACP meeting holding a sign that said "F--- You, N------." In response, an elderly Black Man takes a swing at the younger protester. Would you have the same sense of outrage against the NAACP as has been expressed against Trump? If not, why not?

I would if the NAACP's speaker(s) to their intended and legit NAACP supporters in audience granted their imprimatur to assault the KKK members who showed up and exercised their 1st Amendment rights so as to deny the speaker(s) unfettered exercise of their own.

I would not feel the same way if the NAACP's speakers(s) ignored the protesters or if they merely instructed the event's security personnel to show the KKK protesters to the door and resumed with their speeches and presentations once that had been done.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Lerat's say a KKK protester showed up at an NAACP meeting holding a sign that said "F--- You, N------." In response, an elderly Black Man takes a swing at the younger protester. Would you have the same sense of outrage against the NAACP as has been expressed against Trump? If not, why not?

Not the same. Your dindu 80 year old thug is going to be ponying up the dough to his victim and possibly some jail time.

 

[Coyote]

I watched the video and here's what I observed. A disorderly protester being escorted out of the rally. He was waving and making some sort of gestures with his hand. A man stepped up and sucker punched him.

There is no indication that this protester was a member of any sort of hate groupe (like the KKK) nor was he carrying any signs with derogatory or hateful epitaphs.

The comparison is an utter failure.

Your equivocal response is an utter failure. Among other things, you deceptively characterize the protester as "waving and making some sort of gestures with his hand." As you know, he was flipping off the entire audience (and assumably matching that gesture with his words).

It was impossible to tell in the video but I'll take your word for it. How is flipping the bird at an audience equivelant to a derogatory sign aimed at a particular ethnic/racial/etc group? He's a disorderly protester being escorted out. Flipping the bird and yelling what ever obscenities he was yelling is not speech aimed at particular groups such as your example. There is nothing that differentiates him from any other disorderly protester at political event.

Thus my alternative scenario was apt, whereas your description is transparently dishonest. Also, the reference to the KKK in my example is certainly an appropriate counterpoint to the Black Lives Matter movement, which has been heavily involved in these political protests.

It was and example that, to put it mildly, stretched the concept of "apt" to the point of ridiculous. Is there any evidence that this young man IS a member of the Black Lives Matter movement, first off.

Secondly - has the Black Lives Matter movement engaged lynchings, murder, and other similar acts the KKK is known for?

 

[320 Years of History]

Secondly - has the Black Lives Matter movement engaged lynchings, murder, and other similar acts the KKK is known for?

Thank you!!!

The KKK's history of violence is more than enough to have them removed from a private event simply because they showed up.

 

[jwoodie]

Lerat's say a KKK protester showed up at an NAACP meeting holding a sign that said "F--- You, N------." In response, an elderly Black Man takes a swing at the younger protester. Would you have the same sense of outrage against the NAACP as has been expressed against Trump? If not, why not?

I would if the NAACP's speaker(s) to their intended and legit NAACP supporters in audience granted their imprimatur to assault the KKK members who showed up and exercised their 1st Amendment rights so as to deny the speaker(s) unfettered exercise of their own.

I would not feel the same way if the NAACP's speakers(s) ignored the protesters or if they merely instructed the event's security personnel to show the KKK protesters to the door and resumed with their speeches and presentations once that had been done.

It appears that you are proposing incomplete alternatives and are impliedly assigning Trump to one of them. I do not think that he gave official permission or endorsement for assaulting any of the protesters (who do not have 1st Amendment rights to deny those rights to others).

On the other hand, I do not believe that it is incumbent on the original speaker to remain otherwise mute while meekly requesting that these protesters be shown to the door. For many people, Trump represents the exposure of our eroding Constitutional rights under the guise of political correctness. Thus his refusal to be muzzled has become on of his greatest attributes.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Lerat's say a KKK protester showed up at an NAACP meeting holding a sign that said "F--- You, N------." In response, an elderly Black Man takes a swing at the younger protester. Would you have the same sense of outrage against the NAACP as has been expressed against Trump? If not, why not?

If the NAACP encouraged the act of violence....which is exactly what Trump did....I would be looking at them as responsible just as I am looking at Trump.

What a great thread! You've thought it through so well.

 

[jwoodie]

I watched the video and here's what I observed. A disorderly protester being escorted out of the rally. He was waving and making some sort of gestures with his hand. A man stepped up and sucker punched him.

There is no indication that this protester was a member of any sort of hate groupe (like the KKK) nor was he carrying any signs with derogatory or hateful epitaphs.

The comparison is an utter failure.

Your equivocal response is an utter failure. Among other things, you deceptively characterize the protester as "waving and making some sort of gestures with his hand." As you know, he was flipping off the entire audience (and assumably matching that gesture with his words).

It was impossible to tell in the video but I'll take your word for it. How is flipping the bird at an audience equivelant to a derogatory sign aimed at a particular ethnic/racial/etc group? He's a disorderly protester being escorted out. Flipping the bird and yelling what ever obscenities he was yelling is not speech aimed at particular groups such as your example. There is nothing that differentiates him from any other disorderly protester at political event.

Thus my alternative scenario was apt, whereas your description is transparently dishonest. Also, the reference to the KKK in my example is certainly an appropriate counterpoint to the Black Lives Matter movement, which has been heavily involved in these political protests.

It was and example that, to put it mildly, stretched the concept of "apt" to the point of ridiculous. Is there any evidence that this young man IS a member of the Black Lives Matter movement, first off.

Secondly - has the Black Lives Matter movement engaged lynchings, murder, and other similar acts the KKK is known for?

1. Flipping the bird and yelling obscenities at the audience is just the same as holding a sign with the same message. Is your argument that an NAACP audience should be accorded more protections than a Trump audience?

2. Whether or not this adult man is technically a member of Black Lives Matter is immaterial. His methods and actions are the same. Would it help if I changed my example to a KKK "sympathizer?"

3. The Black Lives Matter movement has explicitly called for the murder of police. The KKK of today is practically nonexistent as a political entity. How much longer can you keep playing that tune?

 

[jwoodie]

Lerat's say a KKK protester showed up at an NAACP meeting holding a sign that said "F--- You, N------." In response, an elderly Black Man takes a swing at the younger protester. Would you have the same sense of outrage against the NAACP as has been expressed against Trump? If not, why not?

If the NAACP encouraged the act of violence....which is exactly what Trump did....I would be looking at them as responsible just as I am looking at Trump.

What a great thread! You've thought it through so well.

What if I changed my example to a Nation of Islam meeting? Would your response be the same?

 

[320 Years of History]

[QUOTE="jwoodie, post: 13771360, member: 39025"...For many people, Trump represents the exposure of our eroding Constitutional rights under the guise of political correctness. Thus his refusal to be muzzled has become on of his greatest attributes.[/QUOTE]

And so it was with all who eventually showed themselves to be despots.

 

[Coyote]

I watched the video and here's what I observed. A disorderly protester being escorted out of the rally. He was waving and making some sort of gestures with his hand. A man stepped up and sucker punched him.

There is no indication that this protester was a member of any sort of hate groupe (like the KKK) nor was he carrying any signs with derogatory or hateful epitaphs.

The comparison is an utter failure.

Your equivocal response is an utter failure. Among other things, you deceptively characterize the protester as "waving and making some sort of gestures with his hand." As you know, he was flipping off the entire audience (and assumably matching that gesture with his words).

It was impossible to tell in the video but I'll take your word for it. How is flipping the bird at an audience equivelant to a derogatory sign aimed at a particular ethnic/racial/etc group? He's a disorderly protester being escorted out. Flipping the bird and yelling what ever obscenities he was yelling is not speech aimed at particular groups such as your example. There is nothing that differentiates him from any other disorderly protester at political event.

Thus my alternative scenario was apt, whereas your description is transparently dishonest. Also, the reference to the KKK in my example is certainly an appropriate counterpoint to the Black Lives Matter movement, which has been heavily involved in these political protests.

It was and example that, to put it mildly, stretched the concept of "apt" to the point of ridiculous. Is there any evidence that this young man IS a member of the Black Lives Matter movement, first off.

Secondly - has the Black Lives Matter movement engaged lynchings, murder, and other similar acts the KKK is known for?

1. Flipping the bird and yelling obscenities at the audience is just the same as holding a sign with the same message. Is your argument that an NAACP audience should be accorded more protections than a Trump audience?

Why yes. It is.

No. My argument is that your attempted analogy is totally faulty because you attempted to take a generic out of control protester and draw a parallel with a racist KKK member (who's organization represents a legacy of violence) as if they were somehow equivalent.

As far as "audience protections" - they all deserve the same "protections", in other words they can call in security to escort the disorderly person out.

2. Whether or not this adult man is technically a member of Black Lives Matter is immaterial. His methods and actions are the same. Would it help if I changed my example to a KKK "sympathizer?"

Actually, whether or not he is IS material. As far as the video shows, he's just another angry protestor, and that is it. The only actual difference I see is you seem to be turning this into a racial issue. You "assume" he must belong to or in someway support BLM because he's black. If he were white would you be attempting to find equivalency with the KKK?

3. The Black Lives Matter movement has explicitly called for the murder of police. The KKK of today is practically nonexistent as a political entity. How much longer can you keep playing that tune?

Have they murdered anyone? Hung strange fruits from trees? Committed arson?

Like I said - you are stretching your example to try to make it fit a racist template.

 

[Coyote]

Here's something else to think about - how far can free speech go without accountability for it's consequences? We place limits on free speech when it comes to public safety, for example promoting violence.

Has Donald Trump crossed that line? That is another thing left out of your example. If the NAACP rally speaker had a habit of this kind of talk, then is he absolved of the violence that his audience might engage in as a result of it (for example punching a protester as he is being led out by the police)...when this is the message the audience has been getting:

“Part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long [to kick them out] is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore”

"If you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Knock the hell out of them. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise."

“Maybe he should have been roughed up,” he said. “It was disgusting what he was doing.” (this on a black protestor who was tackled, beaten and kicked by a group of men at a Trump rally for chanting "Black Lives Matter")


Compare that to how other candidates handle protesters.

 

[jwoodie]

[QUOTE="jwoodie, post: 13771360, member: 39025"...For many people, Trump represents the exposure of our eroding Constitutional rights under the guise of political correctness. Thus his refusal to be muzzled has become on of his greatest attributes.

And so it was with all who eventually showed themselves to be despots.[/QUOTE]

Therefore, we should all accede to being muzzled?

 

[jwoodie]

Why yes. It is.

No. My argument is that your attempted analogy is totally faulty because you attempted to take a generic out of control protester and draw a parallel with a racist KKK member (who's organization represents a legacy of violence) as if they were somehow equivalent.

You can't have it both ways.

Actually, whether or not he is IS material. As far as the video shows, he's just another angry protestor, and that is it. The only actual difference I see is you seem to be turning this into a racial issue. You "assume" he must belong to or in someway support BLM because he's black. If he were white would you be attempting to find equivalency with the KKK?

Aren't you doing that with Trump supporters?

Have they murdered anyone? Hung strange fruits from trees? Committed arson?

Killing cops?

Like I said - you are stretching your example to try to make it fit a racist template.

Just to illustrate that you are doing the same.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Lerat's say a KKK protester showed up at an NAACP meeting holding a sign that said "F--- You, N------." In response, an elderly Black Man takes a swing at the younger protester. Would you have the same sense of outrage against the NAACP as has been expressed against Trump? If not, why not?

If the NAACP encouraged the act of violence....which is exactly what Trump did....I would be looking at them as responsible just as I am looking at Trump.

What a great thread! You've thought it through so well.

What if I changed my example to a Nation of Islam meeting? Would your response be the same?

I don't know what you are getting at. Your question was answered. You don't like like the accurate answers. You are now asking more questions.

No matter how you slice it, Trump is wrong here. Trying to find others who might also be wrong doesn't change that.

 

[320 Years of History]

Therefore, we should all accede to being muzzled?

No, not at all. We should all be aware enough of the hard lessons learned by others who were beguiled by seeming reasonable, well intentioned and aspiring "top dog" leaders, be they in our own nation's history or in others'. We all should well understand high level human nature so that we can recognize minor differences and see them for what they are, minor, that is, that those details affect the "trees" but not the "forest." Lastly, we all must in understanding human nature at a high level does not change, or at least has not in literally thousands of years, which means that given sufficient power, at the individual level, a despotic-seeming leader is more likely to change for the worse not the better.

The measure of a man is what he does with power.
― Plato​

 

[Toronado3800]

Do we agree:

1 the old man should not of hit him

2 the black man was out of line himself but was no threat as he was being escorted out

3 Trump encouraged violence. I thought I even read after the fact Trump or his team offered to pay the old man's legal fees.