×

Do you think preemptive political violence against Neo-Nazis/Alt-Righters/Neo-Fascists can be situationally justified? by outrageously_smart in AskALiberal

[–]sbaker93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. You can't respond to words with violence. That's escalating the situation. It's not always hate speech and bigots that are the minority party.

You are a minority or a political dissenter. If Neo-Nazis were to get in power, you are either forcefully displaced, incarcerated or murdered.

If that situation existed then that would be in self-defense, and I would support violence. But what you're proposing is initiating the first strike. It's not self defense if you're the aggressor.

You witness that Neo-Nazis successfully mobilize a substantial amount of people in your country (via internet, demonstrations, what have)

I'd protest. I'd elect officials who represent my values. I would not support any businesses/people that were neo-nazis. But it is my belief that responding to words with violence is wrong. Socially ostracizing people that have deplorable rhetoric/beliefs is sufficient from my perspective.

Their party, while not as aggressive in their messaging, is having reasonable success in elections (assume a multiparty system)

Then I need to be more active in voting and electing officials that represent my interest. I can't physically attack someone with non-aggressive messaging because I don't like their beliefs. I also can't assume their beliefs/motives if their messaging is not aggressive. How can you expect to change anyone's mind if you just threaten them with violence for having a different view from yours? There's no discourse that way.

The government and the democratic institutions appear to either be willfully ignorant of the threat and/or implicitly supportive

Then elect officials that aren't willfully ignorant/implicitly supportive. Fuck run for office yourself. But responding to nonviolent rhetoric with violence isn't right.

My philosophy is all speech is free speech. If we say "hate speech" isn't allowed then if neo-nazis do come to power they can brand talk of equal treatment as "hate speech". Everyone is allowed to speak their mind. But we're allowed to respond to that speech accordingly (e.g. elect different officials, stop supporting their businesses, nonviolent marches in opposition). You should respect everyone's right to speak, but you don't have to respect what they say.

Do you believe that in this case political violence turns into self-defense?

Yes, on the first one. No on the other three bullet points because meeting, talking, and elections aren't violent. The first one is physically restraining you. If they deprive YOU of your constitutional rights that's instigating. But if they use legal means of associating and electing officials that's not attack YOU even if you don't like what they believe.

If not, what would it take?

I'm not sure. It would have to be something pretty big. Despite the flaws of the US I still think the system of gov't and culture are great. I have a lot of faith that neo-nazi's wouldn't rise to majority power in the current system. But if they did, it wouldn't be enough for them to be elected. I'd have to see them actually institute policy that would deprive me of my rights or initiate violence against the minority.

Waiting for the Neo-Nazis to gain a substantial amount of power and for them to terrorize us first, so we have a legitimate justification to strike back strikes me as pretty stupid, doesn't it?

It doesn't to me because I believe things like free speech/inclusion are what makes society so great. If we stop allowing free speech then what are you protecting? I think it's a larger set of values that we promote. To abandon some of those values to protect others is not a compromise I'm willing to make.

What is the earliest point one should take it to the streets?

For me, it would actually have to be when they have policy depriving me of my rights or when they turn to violence. The reason I oppose a preemptive self-defense is because that's a slippery slope. If we can resort to violence because of what we think someone might do then where does it end? We're punishing people before a crime has been done. You're considered innocent until proven guilty in this country. The punishment doesn't fit the crime if a crime never even occurred. I think that would turn more people against you than maintaining support for your cause.

The Social Democrat's timidity in the lead up to the Machtergreifung is considered a mistake, isn't it.

I'm not familiar with the details of this. Could you elaborate?

Not too long ago Starbucks refused to let a police officer use the restroom telling him it was for paying customers. Don't remember Starbucks closing 8000 stores for sensitivity training toward police. by optionhome in Conservative

[–]sbaker93 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

the police officer was white

E: I'm sorry. Why am I being down voted? The point was that one policy should apply to all races equally. I agree police aren't a race. I was pointing out that the races in question were white treatment versus black treatment. Not black versus officer.

I AM SO SICK OF THE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM by BostonBeatles in healthcare

[–]sbaker93 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not exclusive to America. The average wait time for medical services in Canada is 25 weeks (6 months), and they have national health care.

Regardless, I'm really sorry to hear that. Is your insurance through the government or is it a private plan? It can sometime be that the hospital doesn't want to deal with the lower reimbursement rate of programs like medicaid. So they'll be dicks and only offer appointments further out, at really shitty times, or with PAs/nurses instead of MDs/DOs. You might have better luck if you show up in person to schedule.

Even with private plans you can sometimes just get better service out of network. I've gone to a doctor out of network and negotiated to just pay cash for the appointment, but I'll have my insurance cover the prescriptions. If you just need something like a physical, you could go to Walgreens. They'll definitely take walk ins. Regardless, that totally blows. I hope you're able to find someone that can help!

CMV: If you can't accept the fact that your child might turn out to be gay, you shouldn't have children by thrustrations in changemyview

[–]sbaker93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're talking about gay kids though, not trans kids. There's no irreversible harm in supporting your kid's gayness.

My bad, I tend to group the whole LGBTQ group together for examples, but you're right he's specifically asking for gay children. For specifically gays/lesbians here's a study from the NIHM saying "rates suggest that US gay and bisexual males have more than a 3-fold increased risk of ever attempting suicide in comparison with their heterosexual male counterparts". I just picked suicide because I think everyone would agree suicide is bad and there's clear data on it. I'd argue that bullying/social problems might be a motivating factor, but I don't know how that'd be verified in a study.

Side note, to your specific example, prepubescent kids identifying as trans would typically be put on puberty blockers. The irreversible stuff typically starts later.

Thanks for the info!

The Timberwolves need to fire Tom Thibodeau by VenerableHate in nba

[–]sbaker93 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Perspective:

  • 1 seed v. 8 seed (there have only been two upsets at this seeding ever)
  • rockets have 6th best defense in the league

  • timberwolves have the 22nd best defense in the league

  • rockets have 2nd best offense in the league this year (10th all time)

  • timberwolves have 4th best offense in the league this year (34th all time)

  • Despite this disparity the t-wolves could be 1-1 in the series if a couple more shots dropped in game one.

The reality is KAT is getting outplayed by Capela. His usage is at the same rate as Butler and Crawford. Thib's isn't bad at defense. He's renowned for his defense in the league. KAT is the problem with the defense, and he isn't giving his regular offensive contribution. So he's dead weight right now.

CMV: If you can't accept the fact that your child might turn out to be gay, you shouldn't have children by thrustrations in changemyview

[–]sbaker93 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply!

Saying, " I'll only love you if you do this, or that" is something I don't think you should do.

So the way I interpret this is that you're equating loving the child with loving their behavior. I think you can love the child, but not love what they're doing.

I agree you should love the child regardless of their sexual orientation, but I understand why the parent might not want their child to be gay. Being gay has a lot of additional challenges associated with it. Just as a parent wouldn't want their child to face the additional challenges a child with autism will face the parent may not want his child to be subjected to the extra challenges that gay people face. An example of a challenge for an LGBTQ individual is that people with gender dysphoria have a 41% chance of attempting suicide in their lifetime. This is on par with the rate of people that contemplated/attempted suicide in individuals with autism (35%).

When you have a child, there are many outcomes you should be prepared for. They may be born premature, they may be born with an ill-functioning heart or lungs. They may be born gay.

I disagree that parents should be prepared for all outcomes because right now we can screen for some outcomes (e.g. down syndrome) and abort the fetus. So parent's actually avoid some of the outcomes you're referencing. Currently, you don't need to justify your reason for aborting a fetus. So if you could screen for gay-ness in the future you could in theory abort gay fetuses. We definitely shouldn't do that. I just wanted to point out we currently have a way of parents controlling that they have a child without certain conditions.S

"If someone considers homosexuality wrong, even on religious grounds, and can't accept their kid's sexuality, they will inevitably damage that kid"

I agree with this. I think not accepting/allowing the child to be their authentic self is detrimental to their mental health in every scenario. I think there's a lot of complexity to this though because sometimes it can be hard to identify when you need to encourage or discourage the behavior. An example would be that 80% of children were found to grow out of gender dysphoria by the time they hit puberty. So if a parent accepted that their child wanted to transition with hormone treatments/surgery before puberty 4 out of 5 children would have regretted their decision. But in the 1 out of 5 children where gender dysphoria persists past puberty that child's transition will be harder based on how their body developed during puberty. So both the early acceptance (i.e. encouraging the behavior) and wait and see approach (i.e. discourage the behavior) both have significant irreversible outcomes of each choice, but you can't be certain which choice is correct until after the fact.

TL;DR

I disagree you should be prepared for all outcomes when you are trying to have a kid (e.g. screening for down syndrome then aborting fetus). You can love the child, but not want them to be gay. Being gay or having gender identity issues has extra challenges for both the child and the parent. It isn't necessarily just about not wanting your child to have sex with someone of the same sex. You may just want to minimize the challenges your child faces in life, and it's difficult to discern when you should encourage or discourage certain behaviors.

CMV: If you can't accept the fact that your child might turn out to be gay, you shouldn't have children by thrustrations in changemyview

[–]sbaker93 15 points16 points  (0 children)

not offering your child unconditional love and support because they're gay does make you unfit to be a parent.

would you say not offering unconditional love and support to a child with autism makes you unfit to be a parent?

CMV: Parenthood should require licensure and regulation. by Rathwood in changemyview

[–]sbaker93 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How does the state restrict peoples natural ability to produce children? Do they chemically castrate people to ensure they aren't pregnant until the state approves or do they seize your child until they deem you're "fit" by their standards? Even worse, could the state impose abortions on women if they felt they wouldn't make a good mother?

If a deadbeat knocks up a girl how can she attend counseling without a partner? Are we confiscating kids from responsible parents solely because the child is not in a two parent household? Do we confiscate children if we don't agree with how the child is being raised (e.g. are racists not allowed to have children b/c we fear they'll propagate their beliefs to their children)? If our goal is to minimize the cycle of behaviors that are detrimental to society as a whole (e.g. producing children prone to proverty, criminal activity, and low achievement) why not just go to eugenics and select for only the children with the best chance of success?

It's not the state's responsibility to care for the child. It's the parent's responsibility to care for the child. To enact the kind of policy you're describing would require one giving up control over their own body and their own family to the state. Just because some people have advantages over others based on their parents decisions doesn't mean they have any less of a right to an autonomous family structure free of government intervention.

Gordon Hayward’s psychological recovery and why he doesn’t attend games by Die4MyTiggers in bostonceltics

[–]sbaker93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The OP has a pulled quote which makes it sound like he's not watching games but the actual article indicates that at this point in the season he is comfortable watching games. So I'm all good. I'm happy he's comfortable watching games. I should have read the article from the start, not just OP's post (which I think is a bit misleading). Very hyped he's at a place where he can watch them. I think that's going to be huge for getting him integrated more quickly next year. Can't mesh with players if you don't know how they play!

Gordon Hayward’s psychological recovery and why he doesn’t attend games by Die4MyTiggers in bostonceltics

[–]sbaker93 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

good dude! The quote I pulled was in the body of the text of OPs post.

I read the article to see where it was pulled from and it appears that Hayward is watching the games at this point "Gradually, Hayward made it past halftime, extracting more joy from Celtics’ victories as he notched a few of his own"

It's not a narrative though. I'd be disappointed if he wasn't watching the games. I'm happy he's watching them though!

Gordon Hayward’s psychological recovery and why he doesn’t attend games by Die4MyTiggers in bostonceltics

[–]sbaker93 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is /r/iamverysmart to another level. You’re really digging your heels in right now that you know better that Gordon, our front office, our coaches, his doctors, his sports psychologists, and other former players.

I didn't say any of that.

You’re saying he can’t feel a certain way because his life is better than yours.

no

He’s still a human.

I know he's still human.

Sounds like this is mostly about jealousy for you and you’re fucking reaching hard to justify it.

I highlighted all the good things in his life I'd hoped would allow him to feel comfortable watching games. I was saying I can't think of a better atmosphere in which an injured player would feel comfortable supporting their team, but I respect that fact that he doesn't.

Gordon Hayward’s psychological recovery and why he doesn’t attend games by Die4MyTiggers in bostonceltics

[–]sbaker93 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Telling someone else how they should feel. I don’t think you should have the feelings/thoughts you are having because of X,Y,Z. Disappointment in someone for an thoughts they are having which may be uncontrollable or invasive.

you're angry at me for feelings/thoughts I have which may be uncontrollable or invasive lol

Gordon Hayward’s psychological recovery and why he doesn’t attend games by Die4MyTiggers in bostonceltics

[–]sbaker93 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I am sympathetic to the fact that he does not feel up to it. I am disappointed that he is not up to it when he is financially stable, has family/identity outside of sports, support of the franchise, a promising future with an up and coming franchise.

Gordon Hayward’s psychological recovery and why he doesn’t attend games by Die4MyTiggers in bostonceltics

[–]sbaker93 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

“I could usually make it to halftime,” he says, “and then it would be like, All right, I’m done, I have to turn this off.”

Gordon Hayward’s psychological recovery and why he doesn’t attend games by Die4MyTiggers in bostonceltics

[–]sbaker93 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I was told the CBA defines his work and that I don't. The CBA was used as justification to discredit what I was saying. So I asked where in the CBA am I being discredited. If you have an issue with bringing in the CBA ask u/davemoedee not me.

Bottom line is I'm disappointed he feels that the only way he can contribute to the team is on the court. I respect the fact that he doesn't feel up for it, but I'm allowed to be disappointed.

Gordon Hayward’s psychological recovery and why he doesn’t attend games by Die4MyTiggers in bostonceltics

[–]sbaker93 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair critique. I wasn't just saying he's rich though. I was saying that I'd hoped he could handle watching/attending the games because of the benefit it would add to his integration (e.g. learning his future teammates play tendencies) and the benefit his physical presence could bring (e.g. offering advice to the younger players in game based on what he saw).

The reason I was disappointed is that I hoped he'd be able to handle not playing because externally it looks like "his life is pretty sweet". He is rich, but he also just signed a max contract over the summer so he won't need to worry about money ever again. He also has a family (wife/kids). So he's not just defined by work. He has an identity outside of work. He has a support network. His team is the second seed and has a bright future. He's expected to make a full recovery from his injury. There's not a lot left that could be going right for him while injured. It's disappointing that he can't watch games, but I respect the fact that he feels he can't mentally do it. I just don't think there's a scenario that exists that would allow him to watch games if he's injured. This is the best scenario I could conceive of for a player to feel comfortable supporting his team and he doesn't feel like he can. So I accept that he's not in a place to watch games, but it's disappointing all the same.

Gordon Hayward’s psychological recovery and why he doesn’t attend games by Die4MyTiggers in bostonceltics

[–]sbaker93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not saying he isn't injured or he shouldn't be paid. I'm saying that not watching/attending games is going to make his integration harder and the team is worse off for it. If he needs it he needs it, but it's not a "aw poor guy" thing for me. His life is pretty fucking sweet. He's expected to make a "full recovery" from his injury. The worst thing to happen to him up until the ankle injury was that he was the national runner up to an NCAA championship. I'm disappointed he's unable to watch/attend games, but if that's what he needs okay.

Gordon Hayward’s psychological recovery and why he doesn’t attend games by Die4MyTiggers in bostonceltics

[–]sbaker93 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Where in the CBA does it say his work is limited to what he does on the court?

Gordon Hayward’s psychological recovery and why he doesn’t attend games by Die4MyTiggers in bostonceltics

[–]sbaker93 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

He can do what he wants, but the team as whole is not going to be better off because he doesn't watch/attend games. It will take longer for him to figure out how to integrate into the system and to learn his teammate tendencies. His teammates are also missing out on the knowledge that Hayward has to impart on the younger roster.

If he can't bring himself to attend games because he won't get to play then okay. That's just the type of person he is, and that's fine.

Gordon Hayward’s psychological recovery and why he doesn’t attend games by Die4MyTiggers in bostonceltics

[–]sbaker93 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

He isn't skipping out on any work I've no idea how people keep coming to that conclusion because he doesn't sit courtside.

Because of the two sentences I said in the first paragraph... "If he's not watching the games he's missing out on opportunities to learn how to better integrate himself around the roster for next year. He's missing out on opportunities to impart knowledge he's gained from his high BBIQ to the younger teammates." His contribution to the team isn't limited to what he can do on the court, and it is selfish to not be there for their playoff run. Do you think he's going to be able to better integrate himself without having watched the C's games this season?

Kevin Garnett, arguably one of the most passionate and fierce competitors to ever play, didn't sit courtside during the recovery from a much less gruesome injury for similar reasons.

I'll take your word on that. Just because KG did something doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Ultimately if the team is okay with it then it doesn't matter what I think.

Lastly, using a "hot wife" as evidence of stability is laughable

Remove the word "hot". My point was his life is awesome. He has a support network and his financial situation is set as he signed a max contract over the summer.

and any injury not diagnosed as career-ending is recoverable?

No, that's not what I said. He specifically, however, is expected to make a "full recovery". Do you think he will not return from injury?