@ Max_S I did, and that conflicts with what he was posting earlier. @ k9bfriender I flat out stated if they initiated/followed through with their implied threat there would be a fight after I called 911. He seems to think that if the angry mob is supporting his view point, they are not capable of threatening or initiating any threat of violence let alone acting on it. By engaging in this activity they are initiating the confrontation and engaging in the use of force The whole point of a large group of people doing this (mob) is the threat of physical harm to someone (weaker/less members) who resists, that is why my response is/has always been "piss off” to them. They are initiating it, they want a confrontation, they want vengeance, they want “mob justice”. There is no debate about mob rule, it is entirely based on firepower/muscle/overwhelming your opponent, that is not based on the rule of law, and people that support/use it need to be dealt with. And contrary to many on this board it is coming from the left not the right.
I said earlier our view points on this matter are so far apart it was a waste of time engaging further, but since this has become the norm here, I should probably continue. I will never comply to that mentality, if I appear to do so it is only for a strategic advantage in the fight (yes, a fight will be had. that is the point of a mob “forced compliance”), once I think I have an advantage (right or wrong) I will respond to their force with my own and defend myself. You seem to want people to comply to the mob because you agree with them, and are fine with the tactics used as long as it promotes your viewpoint. I do not, you seem to want to use the threat of force/or actually use of it in the case of burning businesses down and have people stand aside and not oppose you, because you are for “peace/justice”. You are not, you are for violence and mob rule, a “might makes right society”.
Since someone else brought up guns at some of these riots, yes, it is a threat to the rioter/looter to have someone protecting the property point or threaten you with a gun, but you do not have a right to destroy/take other people’s property without their permission. you do not have a right to get in my face and demand I do what you say (authoritarian much?), you do not have a right to be free of the consequences of your choices/actions. If you choose to do harm to someone else or their property, they have every right to defend it along with anyone else helping to defend it.
You also do not have the right (maybe I should say based on reality) to declare you are “peaceful” so any mob tactics used are okay, and anyone who opposes them are the real threat.
You seem to think this, but for absolutely no reason but to serve your own internal narrative, not based on anything that I have said.
If they were MAGA hat wearers demanding that I give lip service to their movement, I would feel exactly the same way.
Yes, my viewpoint is that if an asshole gets in your face, that does not justify violence. It means that they are an asshole. If being an asshole justified violence, then my knuckles would be the size of grapefruits by now.
What you seem to be saying is that you want to engage in violence, you want to hurt people, and are looking for an excuse to do so. You say that once you have the advantage, you would then initiate violence on them. Isn’t that exactly the “might makes right” mentality that you are about to condemn?
All your bullshit about what I want or what I am for is all based on delusions that seem to make you terrified of what is not nearly as frightening a world as you perceive it to be.
The fact that there was no violence perpetuated by this “mob”, even after they did not “submit to mob rule” means that all your irrational panic is unjustified.
Had you been there, and violence ensued, it would be entirely because you made the choice to initiate violence.
You are correct, facsists often use state supported civilians to help them to fight against people speaking out.
If, for instance, they allowed and encouraged and even coordinated with violent groups to assault protesters, or they provided support to militia who murdered them, then that would be a fascist act.
You are operating under the principle that anyone that you don’t like is a fascist. People protesting against government policies is the opposite of fascism.
These guys were assholes, but not fascists.
This is about a question poised by the op, and you are trying to turn it into a fake narrative. To make it simple for you, if “an angry mob gets into my face and confronts and demands I do something” they are initiating the threat of force, not me! I will respond with me telling them to “piss off”, if after that they respond with with force I will defend myself and return that force (fight). I did not initiate anything, I did not grab a mob to harass someone. i did not get into anyone’s face, I did not threaten someone from the start. They did! And yes, if someone threatens you with violence, it is justified to respond in kind.
You are the one creating a fake narrative, as they did not respond with force.
You need to work on your quoting, you ability to see who is being responded to, and also on paying attention to the actual facts of the case under discussion.
I have said, repeatedly, that these were assholes, and I do not condone their actions.
The question is whether their actions rose to the point of justifying violence against them. You say yes, I say no. That is the only disagreement here. All the other stuff is just blather that you choose to put out there with no relevance to anything in this thread.
What part of the “Op” do you not get? The question was, “What would you do if an angry mob demands you raise you fist in support”. After that it has nothing to do with what did or did not happen in this one situation. You are trying to twist things around to you are the one hurt and everyone else is attacking you unjustly.
What “Facts”, this is an op asking what would you do in this circumstance. I answered.
You initiate violence, then violence is justified to defend yourself against you.
Which he used as a specific example being the one in question.
The OP did not say any of the things that you are saying.
Any other specifics are hypothetical that you have made up to justify violence.
I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to refer to, sounds like just more feckless whining to me.
Right, and the OP didn’t say anything about violence. He used an example, and then asked what you would do if protesters demanded that you join them in solidarity to their cause.
Everything else, you made up.
So, what you are saying is that, if an asshole gets in your face, then if you respond to their assholery with violence, then using violence against you is now justified, correct?
(I could be wrong, your odd use of pronouns isn’t clear)
Um, yes if someone demands by the threat of force (that is what a mob is) to do something you are justified to respond in kind.
Would you like to continue your charade of “well this doesn’t count as force but this does” concerning a mob?
Actually, write something coherent to argue with first.
If that’s what a mob is, this wasn’t a mob. If this was a mob, that’s not what a mob is.
These people were being jerks, but they were not threatening force. We’ve been over that in great detail. What they did didn’t meet the legal definition of threatening force. What they did did not contain any specific threats of force. They didn’t touch anyone. When someone didn’t comply, they didn’t escalate with any threat of force. When someone continued to not comply, the worst that happened was that one of them kept talking to that person.
Describe them as intimidating, sure. Describe people as feeling threatened, okay. But when you suggest that there was a threat of force, you’re specifically and objectively wrong.
Again, this was an “op” asking a question of what would you do in this circumstance. I do not care if this mob did not have the stones to follow through with the implicate threat of force/violence or not. But do not try and argue that gathering a large gathering of people (mob) to surround someone is not a threat of violence, i doubt you would be saying that if they were white and wearing MAGA hats.
Ahh, someone is confused by implied and inferred.