Hey, complain to Piven. She’s the one who held up the 1934 riots as an example of what she’s hoping for. I’m just giving you the context.
There is a large difference between “unruly” and “violent.” I’d also like to see a violent sit in. Does it involve shin kicking? I suppose if the target was low enough to the ground that a groin kick wouldn’t be impossible. There’s better passages to be used to make your case. To attempt to stretch sit ins and the term “unruly” as preaching violence is silly.
There’s also a double standard here. To call a CEO a robber baron is inciteful but to suggest that Frances Fox Piven wants to bring about the collapse of the government isn’t?
And I still don’t see how even the more egregious passages, the calls for riots that are truly objectionable, are justification for death threats. Some of her ideas are borderline stupid, but instead of attacking them we should simply be rounding up ammunition to pump into an elderly woman. I’ll once again ask for Sam Stone or magellan01 to explain to me how her ideas justify the death threats she has recieved, but I’m expecting only crickets.
No, I wouldn’t. Here’s some of the things you claimed were in that article:
Sometime after the post I’m now replying to, you wrote
But you provide nothing other than a link to an article, and I dispute your assertions as not being factually accurate. You then respond with “uh huh, they are too”. :rolleyes:
Quote the parts of that article that support what you claim she wrote, Sam. Go ahead.
No one has vanished. I’m still here. So that’s another assertion of yours that I’ve shown to be a lie.
You idiot, that link is to HER article - the very one we’re talking about. It’s the source of the debate. You are capable of reading it yourself. Probably.
Okay, admit it - you’re not actually reading what I post, are you? I already did that. I almost quoted the entire damned piece.
Only on your special planet.
Not my planet, monkeyboy.
You idiot, I know what article it is. And your assertions about it’s contents are false. I read the post where you offered lots of quotes, but didn’t see one where Piven wrote “I want people to harm others with violence”. I did read you saying that she wrote that a few times, tho, some of which I quoted in my last post. You are a liar.
Well, it’s true that she didn’t literally say, “I want to harm others with violence”. It’s also literally true that I never said she did. Does that make you the liar?
Also, while she doesn’t literally say that, anyone with two functioning brain cells and a tiny shred of objectivity can see that she’s talking about a whole lot more than peaceful sit-ins and marches. Every example she offered of the kind of thing she ‘hoped for’ had violence as part of it. She specifically says that the protests have to become ‘more disruptive’ to work, and she talks about targeting individuals who are ‘accessible’. You’d have to be an obtuse idiot to not get what she’s talking about.
If Glenn Beck wrote anything half this inflammatory, your ears would be smoking.
Of course they don’t justify death threats. What made you think I condoned death threats?
But what makes you think Glenn Beck is responsible for them? If all he did was point out the hateful stuff she wrote, then isn’t she ultimately responsible for the passions she incites in her opponents?
Let me ask you - If Keith Olberman presented on his show an article written by some Republican who called for violence against liberals, and as a result some liberal sent death threats to the Republican, would it be Olbermann’s fault?
Now, I never saw the Beck show in question - I can’t stand watching the guy. Do you have a clip or a transcript of something he said that was untrue and inciting to violence in this specific case?
Please show me the quote from her where she is hoping for violence. Or where she said people should go be violent, which is what you accused her of writing.
People can be unruly without being violent.
People can be disruptive without being violent.
I have no idea how you contort “accessible” to mean anything related to violence.
Where is the call for violence which you asserted she made? Where is it, Sam?
It isn’t there. You lied. You lied about it; it’s what you do. You tell lies. And always the same way, too: this cite says ‘x’ and then when we go read it, we see that ‘x’ was never said at all. You’re the one trick pony, Sam. It seems to be all you’ve got.
Oh for God’s sake. Try reading her article with comprehension. If you can’t read what she wrote and see that she’s calling for riots and intimidation, I don’t know what to tell you, other than that you’re a piss-poor thinker.
I have a lot of friends who are lefty activists (in environmental matters, mostly) and regularly participate in acts of civil disobedience*. When you see a bunch of people getting arrested at an anti-moutaintop removal rally, odds are I know most of them.
It surprises me how much time and energy they put into training both themselves and their peers to do it right. They focus on ways that they can be disruptive enough to get their point across and not so much that the disruption outweighs that point. And the biggest focus of their training is how to keep things from getting out of hand and turning ugly. Most of these people are dedicated pacifists, but beyond that they know that a single act of violence or significant property damage undermines everything they’re trying to do.
At most of these events I’ve been around, people like them make up the overwhelming majority.
My point is that well-trained activists like these would strive to create a demonstration that might “look like” the ones in Greece, that would definitely be disruptive, and that would carefully target the disruption to maximize impact, but they would also be fighting like hell to make sure violence didn’t happen. I also suspect that is pretty well understood when they talk among themselves, so that they don’t feel the need to clarify that they’re not endorsing violence.
- I’m told they prefer “civil noncompliance”, because “only slaves and servants are ‘obedient’”.
Grow up, would ya. :rolleyes:
Your childish whining is interupting the beautiful cricket music.
And as we now know from one of them flipping sides in the UK there has been extensive use of Police agent provocateurs in the environment movement living under cover for years. A trial has just collapsed and other convictions likely to be over turned as the police have been found withholding video evidence that proves their innocence.
Never said you did. Just asking questions. One of the many things I have in common with Columbo. It seemed to me that you were spending a lot of time and energy defending Mr. Beck and denouncing Mrs. Fox Piven (Mrs Piven? I hate three name folk.) without addressing the truly abhorent part of all this. A 70+ year old woman is getting death threats. Who says America lacks patience?
Ole Glenn never just points something out. In my experience with the show (I’ve watched his Fox show and listened to his AM show a bit) if he spends time talking about an aged liberal, it’s because they are a clear and present danger to the american way of life. He’ll go on about the founding fathers for a bit. Might go for the chalkboard. Possibly even shed a tear because he loves this country so much and is so scared for it. That’s his schtick. He’s big on apocalyptic scenarios. President Obama, for example, isn’t just a bad president or someone he wants to see fail. President Obama is the greatest threat to the american way of life ever and he wants to take the country from you (hypothetical you that is. I don’t think Obama is after Canada).
If it were possible for Mr. Olbermann to simply point to an article and say “Hey. This article has some statements that I disagree with,” then no. However Olbermann (two “n” in Glenn. Two in Olbermann. Somebody get my chalkboard!) couldn’t well do that without proclaiming the author of the article to be the “Worst person in the world” and going on a five minute rant to explain why they are the worst person in the world. Glenn has his conspiracies. Keith has his hyperbole. So to answer the question accurately, yep. If Keith spent five minutes getting people all fired up on how PJ O’Rourke is the worst person in the world and he started getting death threats, I’d hold him small “r” responisble as well.
Actually no. I’ve asked for it twice now to find out whether my assumption is correct or not. Googled a bit, but could only find blog articles referencing the current and not the start. This leaves me with my previous experience to draw conclusions. Like I said above: Dude has a pattern. He names a liberal, ties them to the administration, points out their philosophy (usually in a heavily spun fashion), and ties them to the riots in socialist Europe. Then he gleefully proclaims that the same apocalyptic fate awaits America. The chalkboard gets brought out if he’s on Fox (doesn’t work on the AM dial). Tears may be shed. Blah blah founding fathers blah blah.
TLDR: Glenn Beck: "They are taking our country from us!
He virtually never threatens violence and is quick to skate back to “Just kidding” when he gets caught out, but the threats aren’t the dangerous bit. It’s the combination of imminent disaster from the efforts of sinister leftists who are now in power. That’s what tipped Byron Williams over the edge. That’s why I think he’s responsible this time.
And of course, all this is my theory based upon by experience with Glenn Beck. If anyone can find a transcript, quotes, video, puppet show, or whatnot that proves me to be in error, I’ll correct.
Ah, good catch. That’ll teach me for skim-reading :o
I haven’t been following along, but is this the part of the Nation article that kicks off the controversy?
Brainy G isn’t the kind of guy to slink away after inciting the rabble with an intellectually dishonest post…that’s my trick.
Sure would like to see him come back and make an assesment.
If it is, it’s been grossly misrepresented here and elsewhere. That looks like a fairly realistic view of the scale protests would need to reach in order to have any effect on public policy. All that excerpt says is that strikes and riots would have to happen on a large scale to be “effective”. Which is true.
Nowhere in that excerpt does it say “go burn something down”. Does it say it somewhere else?
No. Sam and The others are lying sacks of shit. Sam in particular is willing to say anything so he can be perceived as winning the debate.
You’re assuming her “like” is supposed to apply to size and size only. That seems like more than a stretch.
Yes, original poster, somebody should DO SOMETHING.
Because Beck criticized the far-left idiocy advocated by Piven, and some unstable dumbasses later gave her death threats, clearly it’s Beck’s fault.
Maybe we should arrest everybody who criticizes liberals’ bad ideas. Or at least shut them down so no one can hear them.
Or, maybe – and I’m just spit-balling ideas here – we could hold the people who make violent threats responsible for their actions. And let whoever wants to criticize whomever have at it.
And would I put it past lefty haters of Beck to do that on his web site? Why no, no I wouldn’t.