That is one nasty group of fellas, right there.
When Chuck Norris goes to sleep, he first checks under the bed for Cheney
Then explain WHY pussy-grabbing is so much worse. It doesn’t cause physical harm but it is humiliating and demeaning and a violation of a person’s body. Well so is having a woman hit you and not being able to do anything about it. I even gave you an out. All you have to say is the sexual nature of the crime that makes it worse. Or that it is predatory in nature. There ya go. I came up with 2 reasons pussy-grabbing is worse and you havn’t come up with any other than “It’s worse because it is.” And me pointing out how they are similar doesn’t mean I thing they’re the same. I’m pointing out that by YOUR arguments they are the same as both cause no injury yet cause feelings of violation and humiliation. How do YOU distinguish the two (feel free to pick one of my reasons).
And I notice you avoided my other point. If the Nazi were a woman and a man pushed her around without hurting her, would you admire him?
General remarks: Admiring some criminals is as American as apple pie! Many films present criminals in a sympathetic light. Clive Bundy acquires his own supporters. And some criminals, like the terrorists of 1776 or Martin Luther King are almost universally regarded as great role models.
The Kindergarten syllogism: S admires X; X is a criminal; Mass murderer Y is also a criminal; therefore S admires Y.
is so devoid of any nuance, so intellectually dishonest, that I won’t waste everyone’s time by typing a rebuttal. Let’s just write “Your farts stink” as a signal that debate has sunk to a worthless level.
The OP title is my own question! I do find myself admiring Felarca, but I also feel that her movement may be counterproductive, and that the targets for her assaults are, like her, unhappy young truth-seekers who feel political processes are leaving them behind. In a better world, some sort of dialog might improve understanding. I’m afraid the attacks shown in the video just increase polarization.
But the fact that her methods may fail doesn’t stop me from admiring Felarca emotionally. Why her and not Clive Bundy? Perhaps some Dopers admire Bundy and despise Felarca. I see the one motivated by ideals I admire, and the other motivated by greed. (Others might agree but call Felarca the greedy bitch and Bundy the man of ideals.)
So I’ve mixed feelings about Felarca. But I certainly do not take the position of magellan01 that the antifa terrorists whose assaults didn’t seem to ever threaten severe injury are worse than the stabbings by the Nazis. (And I’m sure many right-wing Dopers would have been delighted if the Nazis had brought guns and killed Felarca and other “antifas.”)
I’m afraid many of us have a tendency to jump to conclusions, to extrapolate from one comment and classify another poster unfairly. I apologize for that in general, and apologize for reacting that way to one of your posts. (If you want a more specific apology you’ll have to link to a specific post.)
You ask “Is Felarca likely to assault me [Pepper]?” I dunno. Are you a neo-Nazi?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Men are generally stronger than woman, and there may sometimes be an implicit threat of rape or sexual violation. Even when physical force is unlikely women may be revulsed by words and leers. In some contexts (billionaire Trump molested women unknown to him sitting next to him on airplanes) the male power doesn’t come from muscles but from the power to deploy lawyers or ruin someone’s life.
So, yes, pussy grabbing is “sexual” and “predatory.” As you already knew. Mr. Pepper and I have turned over a new leaf and are trying to understand each other. May we do the same? Start by telling me why you ask questions to which you already know the answer. (Although I’m not sure you do know the answer — you still seem to claim that for the billionaire to grab an unwilling stranger’s pussy is no more reprehensible than for a petite woman to push a Nazi who is trying to provoke her.)
Is yours some sort of test, Saint Cad ? "I won’t debate till we know if septimus can spell ‘predatory’ "? Or is it a lawyer’s trick: “Everybody knows the blood on the cloth is Joe’s but if prosecutor forgets to ask the lab tech that question directly, I can get a mistrial.”?
You tell me why you insist we waste our time on a subdebate to which the answers should already be pretty clear; then we can move forward.
Well, if I were given the choice between being smacked in the ribs by someone who clearly doesn’t know how to throw a punch, whom I don’t want to hit back at because it wouldn’t look good, and having some skeevy billionaire in a position of power over me grabbing at my crotch, I know which one I’d pick.
That said the woman was guilty of assault, and the white supremacist guy was clearly trying to get assaulted. Maybe that rises to incitement to riot, but riot is also what the antifa crowd was there for. A plague on both their houses.
Well, if I were given the choice between being smacked in the ribs by someone who clearly doesn’t know how to throw a punch, whom I don’t want to hit back at because it wouldn’t look good, and having some skeevy billionaire in a position of power over me grabbing at my crotch, I know which one I’d pick.
That said the woman was guilty of assault, and the white supremacist guy was clearly trying to get assaulted. Maybe that rises to incitement to riot, but riot is also what the antifa crowd was there for. A plague on both their houses.
I suppose I’m someone who could be mistaken for a neo-Nazi – since, in the specific post of yours that I have in mind, you apparently jumped to the mistaken conclusion that I was a Trump voter.
Leave aside that we’d participated in threads where I’d declared for Hillary Clinton; just take that thread on its own terms: you didn’t ask whether I was a Trump voter; as far as I can tell, you merely assumed it, and thus launched into a stream of invective: “stupidity” this and “ignorance” that – and “immoral cretin”, even.
And that pained me then; it pains me now. Because if someone who happens to be ignorant of my position can make that mistake, then possibly someone like Felarca would assault me upon mistaking me for a neo-Nazi; and possibly someone like you would admire her for it, upon making the same mistake; and possibly someone like that cop on the scene would stand by without lifting a finger to help.
But that’s all a bit of a ‘time-wasting subdebate’, isn’t it? The real point is, you don’t actually believe she’s like unto King or the Founding Fathers – because you’ve noted that (a) while you think her approach will enrage and stupefy some, (b) you doubt that her approach will actually do any good. Minus that justification, the comparison seems to vanish like ice cream in the sun; she’s just someone who you never doubted had committed assault – and who, for all I know, may assault me next.
I’ve tracked down the post by The Other Waldo Pepper that caused such consternation, not just by me but by several. It took the contrary position in a thread on the theme that Trump was a dangerous racist.
Yes, Mr. Pepper, some of us do consider the lawbreakers == lawbreakers tautology to be wacky, if the left-side of the equation includes a kid brought to U.S. as an infant who is leading an exemplary life, and the right side equates to incarceration, deportation and other punishment for his crimes.
Setting that aside, I did not find your post clear. It could have been accompanied with an “I didn’t support Trump but …” if you wanted to clarify your views. After all, you were effectively defending Trump and his supporters in a thread against them.
Your insistence on facile tautologies, like “lawbreakers are lawbreakers”, is on display in this thread as well. I admire Ms. Felarca so you assume I admire Jack the Ripper as well. Ms. Felarca pushed a Nazi trying to provoke her, so you assume she’ll push you also if you come up with one of your brilliant lines like “lawbreakers are lawbreakers” in her presence.
Your previous complaint is ironic, since I’ve used the term “Kindergarten syllogism” in this thread. Perhaps you should focus on the quality of your argumentation.
And again, you’re jumping to facile conclusions. We all admire MLK, but did Malcolm X or the Black Panthers also advance the black-rights cause? I don’t know. In previous threads I’ve learned that many or most Dopers regard John Brown as a despicable terrorist, but his actions may have freed millions.
Your phrase “vanish like ice cream in the sun” seems to imply that if not 100% certain Felarca is a force for good, than I’m 100% certain she’s an evil force. In fact my psychological difficulty is quite opposite to yours. Instead of arriving at black-white conclusions, I dither between “45%? … or 55%?” without ever coming to easy answers!
I could have, yes. And you could have asked, rather than making an assumption and jumping to a conclusion. And, when you were corrected in the very next post, you could have apologized; or simply acknowledged it, noting it in passing.
You didn’t bother to think beforehand, and didn’t bother to comment afterward.
And your ability to fall short of that – assuming that “I” am a “Trump voter” – well, that’s even worse than a facile tautology; it’s a display of ignorance, and a display of stupidity given how easy it would’ve been to ask a question instead.
Have I said that? Of course not. Do you assume it? Apparently. Do you ask, instead of jumping to that conclusion? Don’t be ridiculous; you’re septimus, you don’t have the time or the inclination to remedy your ignorance with a single question.
I carefully prefaced my claim with a “possibly” and a “for all I know, may” – and you of course read that as me assuming that she would.
It’s a failing of yours, on display as before.
Did I claim otherwise?
Er, no; it’s that you’re 100% certain she committed assault – that you “never doubted that she was guilty of assault” – and that such an approach, which you doubt will do any good, “will serve only to enrage and stupefy”. “Nor do I approve of violence”, you added right after that. After all, by your own words there, what’s to approve of?
Because your argument in support of her, just like the Joe Mixon case and countless other ones we never hear about, boiled down to “It’s no big deal because she didn’t physically injure him.” My point was that the same can be said for pussy-grabbing [which we all agree is bad] so by YOUR argument it’s no big deal right? Then we had “Yeah but pussy-grabbing is a humiliating violation.” Yeah but so is getting hit by a woman and having to take it otherwise the guy is the one at wrong and can even be arrested. You don’t think it’s humiliating for that to happen? You don’t think it’s a violation when a man doesn’t want to be touched but the woman does it anyways. You don’t see the double standard that if a man did the exact same thing that you would be pitting HIM.*
Here’s the point. You condone and admire what she did. I disagree with you completely and what I am trying to get across is that your reasons for condoning what she did could also, very easily, be arguments for condoning pussy-grabbing (which I assume you don’t condone). So why does she get a pass - and even your admiration. And again, go beyond “Didn’t inflict injury.” or ignoring how he was humiliated and violated.
Also, can we infer from your position that it is OK (even admirable) to lay hands on someone exercising their constitutional rights and promote violence on them provided
a) You are not the one causing physical injury.
b) Their viewpoint is unpopular.
*I assume as much. You still refuse to answer that question.
Well, let me answer your question to avoid the charge of refusing.
Yes, I continue to believe many male-female interactions are permissible one way, but not with genders reversed. Does that make me some sort of chauvinist?
I’ve never had my pussy grabbed (not having one at all) but I strongly suspect that most Dopers would agree with me. The pussy grabbing is a far graver assault than non-injurious pushing. Why not start an IMHO Poll and find out whom Dopers agree with?
In fact the relative gravity of pussy grabbing and minor pushing seems so clear to me, that I wonder if there’s some trick wording in your comments, that you’re ready to deploy as a Gotcha! If not … Yes, please do start the IMHO Poll. Obviously one of us has a very strange idea of social norms and will be woken up.
Somehow, the fact that it was a white supremacist, and knowing what they stand for, even though the LAW says we can’t assault him … I find myself not giving a fuck about his well being.
No gotcha. Just a simple question. Do you have a better argument for supporting what she did (aggressively touching him without permission, humiliating him) beyond “She didn’t cause physical harm.”?
Also I’m curious, why is OK for a woman to do what she did to a man but not OK for a man to do that to a woman (assuming of course he doesn’t hurt her or grab her pussy).
I find it utterly amazing how many on the left believe it is OK to physically attack someone exercising their constitutional rights as long as you disagree with them.
My feelings, exactly.
We’re going around and around in circles. Will you stipulate in no uncertain terms that pussy grabbing is far far worse than the assault Felarca committed? (That’s how this sub-subdebate got going.)
And I’ve already stated that I admire John Brown the Murderer. Given that “concession” what possible purpose is served by your trying to narrow down the specific ratio of approval/dispproval I might feel for Ms. Felarca’s actions?
Depends how cute she is.
Deal wit it.
So people could employ admirable violence on you for your stupid point of view? Does your reptilian brain think beyond democrat good! Republican bad! ?
Are you volunteering to step up?
Neither you nor anyone else will “shame” me into feeling anything good toward a Nazi. As for employing “admirable violence” on me, that’s something guys like that want. So why should I give a damn about him?
The law can deal with her, but I am NOT required to care about that other asshole, one tiny bit.