[QUOTE=Polar Iceman]
OK.
It seems that our society has surrendered to the fascists.
We no longer have free speech, freedom of assembly, or freedom of association.
We are not allowed to express non PC opinions, and are not allowed to defend ourselves.
We cross the thought police at grave risk.
George Orwell was a prophet; it’s just that he was a little early with his dates.
[/QUOTE]
Now we’ve definitely crossed over into Looking-Glass Land.
I must inform you that your education in constitutional law has been sadly lacking. The Freedom to Punch Annoying People in the Face Amendment never passed.
ANyone else having quoting issues with this thread?
Anyway.
OK, so you’ve gone from filling your alt-right Bingo card to filling our your whiny emo teen complaint card?
Hint: A person yelling at you is not a fascist. Not being allowed to punch someone who is saying mean things does not mean you are being prevented from defending yourself. You still have the right to free speech and assemblt, but so do other people and countermarches/assemblies/protests are going to happen.
That’s not though police, that’s just people having the same rights you have.
…and you obviosuly never read Orwell or you wouldn’t even have an internet to be on whining about not being allowed to punch people.
vir·tue sig·nal·ing
noun
the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue.
“it’s noticeable how often virtue signaling consists of saying you hate things”
Ah, a new Alt-right term for people of good character as opposed to being low-character scumbags without a moral compass like they are.
I’ll take it as a compliment.
Scumbags always want to attack people better than they are, because the very existence of those people shows the scumbags who they really are inside. That hurts their feelings and shows their internal excuses and twisted moralizations for the lies they really are.
The OP wants to be able to punch an uppity woman who dares to confront a man and put the harpy in her place. And now he’s surprised that he’s not getting universal approval for it.
What a ridiculous overreaction. I don’t remotely condone this woman’s behavior, but it’s hardly unique to human history. People have been mean, loud, angry, harassing jerks throughout time. Red Pill enthusiasts are not uniquely oppressed in this regard, nor is this phenomenon any sort of new development. It’s not even a particularly egregious instance, from a historical perspective. The government, in this case, has done nothing to infringe anyone’s rights. I think if we have to watch that shitty film to properly discuss the legal ramifications of punching someone for yelling at you, you should have to take a government course that teaches you what fascism is. Or at least look it up in the dictionary.
I, a liberal, have used the term ‘‘virtue-signalling’’ with a straight face, because I have noticed a tendency among my brethren to get carried away with villifying targets of interest to the point that their lives are ruined. Some of them turn individuals into teachable moments for their long-winded lectures, with the end result being a consequence that far outweighs the crime. Those ladies and their taco stand in Portland would be a good example of virtue-signalling run amok. I truly don’t believe it is intentional, but it is at best useless and at worst harmful. That is why I left social media, to distance myself from that contingent as much as I could.
By the OP’s definition, expressing an ethical opinion about anything is ‘‘virtue-signalling.’’ There is no virtue-signalling in this thread by any negative definition, except maybe from the guy using the unfair treatment of men as a platform to spew his confused, ill-informed ideology about ‘‘liberal fascism’’ while attacking actual men in this thread who have been treated unfairly.
It’s certainly true that “people have been mean, loud, angry, harassing jerks throughout time.” This is the first time, however, that they’ve been able to act that way towards white men in the United States without the full force of American society coming down on them like a ton of bricks. Some of those white men are having trouble handling this.
Just to be clear, I think that woman was being shitty. She just wasn’t being shitty in any kind of special, unique, new, original, or interesting way. I could list about twenty instances in American history where violence against certain controversial groups was pretty normalized. I’m thinking of the political conflict leading up to the revolutionary war, clashes between strikers and scabs at the turn of the century, women being beaten by the police for protesting in favor of suffrage, the Civil Rights Movement, Stonewall, abortion protesters, the backlash against Anita Sarkeesian, etc. etc. etc. History is littered with examples. I guess if you think it’s unusual to be treated this way for having controversial opinions, and you think this is a particularly shocking or egregious instance of such a phenomenon, you’ve been pretty sheltered up until this point.
Violence aimed at political groups is a hallmark of fascism, peaceful protests are not.
No, we do. “We” includes everyone, though, not just groups you like. The protestors have the right to assemble and speak too, and that’s what they were doing.
You can defend yourself from violence, not from words. Remember that “free speech” thing you were talking about, one sentence ago?
Being shouted at is not a grave risk.
In 1984, the power of the state is used to crush unorthodox political ideas, and ensure one-party rule. At the University of Toronto, some protestors yelled at some people.
Hmmm, y’know, they just don’t seem all that comparable.
