Yes, but that gets into an agreement of terms. Define self-defense. Both of you may have different opinions on what that is, and what you call violence another may consider legitimate self defense.
To give an example, one of Alex Jones rhetorical tricks is to say they only need to be defensive, not attacking first. Then a min or two later he’ll say the dems are already attacking you and your children, and that you’re already in a war.
He doesn’t want to use the words directly to incide violence because he could be criminally charged, but he still wants to incite it. He’s also told people who asked him when it time to get the guns that God will tell them. He’s also stated he considers the voice in his head messages from God.
That’s someone using it disingenuously of course, but for some people just preventing or pushing back on clear intentions and threats is enough. The crowds at say Charlottesville chanting “Jews will not replace us” and attended by people recorded in private screaming
“Little fucking kikes. They get ruled by people like me. Little fucking octaroons. My ancestors fucking enslaved those little pieces of fucking shit.”
Later, he continued, “Those pieces of shit get ruled by people like me. They look up and see a face like mine looking down at them.”
To many, this shows clear intent and will to kill and enslave people like me, so how far do I have to let them get on with their plans before I can defend myself?
Well usually laws say that the defense must be proportional to an attack. If someone threatens you with words you probably shouldn’t decapitate them.
Keep your cool and provoke them and watch their suffering if that’s enjoyable for you. I know for me it is.
Today some priest crossed himself when he saw me. It was fucking hilarious and honestly semi arousing. Like imagine an adult man being so fucked up, suddenly your problems seem small.
I don’t disagree with your points about words, especially in one on one conversations, or rather small groups. In stuff like organized events, protests at places like women’s clinics etc, it gets a bit murky. Because the offense there isn’t just words, they are concerted efforts to intimidate people. Anti abortion activists will shout, heckle, and condemn women going into such clinics, even if they’re not there for abortion (most of these places, including Planned Parenthood, often a target) also provide just general health for women. Contraceptives, pregnancy testing and planning, STD education, treatment, testing, mental health concerns, wellness and preventative care.
By hindering access and intimidating people away, they are causing more harm than simply words, and so I think it’s right for people to counter protest. Not to punch them first or anything, but to show up in contrast of the bigots and in support of those who need the help. Not necessarily self defense, but still correct imo.
Finally, relying of law of the land is an easy barometer to use, but it only works if those laws are actually fair. In apartheid states like South Africa used to be, or the USA used to be, would you agree with the laws of self defense there? Where for instant someone of my skin color could never defend myself against a slave owner?
Many of the people you may be arguing with may not agree that the law adequately protects them. Some I may agree with, and some I may think is crazy. Many situations are nuanced and can’t be defined sown to a slogan or term. Lots of people who say “punch a nazi” don’t mean going down th> e street, finding and assaulting a nazi for no reason. They mostly mean be prepared to fight back, and don’t fall victim to the paradox of tolerance.
It is not “tankie” to defend yourself from Nazis, and protect others from Nazis.
Can you read? I said self defense
Yes, but that gets into an agreement of terms. Define self-defense. Both of you may have different opinions on what that is, and what you call violence another may consider legitimate self defense.
To give an example, one of Alex Jones rhetorical tricks is to say they only need to be defensive, not attacking first. Then a min or two later he’ll say the dems are already attacking you and your children, and that you’re already in a war.
He doesn’t want to use the words directly to incide violence because he could be criminally charged, but he still wants to incite it. He’s also told people who asked him when it time to get the guns that God will tell them. He’s also stated he considers the voice in his head messages from God.
That’s someone using it disingenuously of course, but for some people just preventing or pushing back on clear intentions and threats is enough. The crowds at say Charlottesville chanting “Jews will not replace us” and attended by people recorded in private screaming
To many, this shows clear intent and will to kill and enslave people like me, so how far do I have to let them get on with their plans before I can defend myself?
Well usually laws say that the defense must be proportional to an attack. If someone threatens you with words you probably shouldn’t decapitate them.
Keep your cool and provoke them and watch their suffering if that’s enjoyable for you. I know for me it is.
Today some priest crossed himself when he saw me. It was fucking hilarious and honestly semi arousing. Like imagine an adult man being so fucked up, suddenly your problems seem small.
I don’t disagree with your points about words, especially in one on one conversations, or rather small groups. In stuff like organized events, protests at places like women’s clinics etc, it gets a bit murky. Because the offense there isn’t just words, they are concerted efforts to intimidate people. Anti abortion activists will shout, heckle, and condemn women going into such clinics, even if they’re not there for abortion (most of these places, including Planned Parenthood, often a target) also provide just general health for women. Contraceptives, pregnancy testing and planning, STD education, treatment, testing, mental health concerns, wellness and preventative care.
By hindering access and intimidating people away, they are causing more harm than simply words, and so I think it’s right for people to counter protest. Not to punch them first or anything, but to show up in contrast of the bigots and in support of those who need the help. Not necessarily self defense, but still correct imo.
Finally, relying of law of the land is an easy barometer to use, but it only works if those laws are actually fair. In apartheid states like South Africa used to be, or the USA used to be, would you agree with the laws of self defense there? Where for instant someone of my skin color could never defend myself against a slave owner?
Many of the people you may be arguing with may not agree that the law adequately protects them. Some I may agree with, and some I may think is crazy. Many situations are nuanced and can’t be defined sown to a slogan or term. Lots of people who say “punch a nazi” don’t mean going down th> e street, finding and assaulting a nazi for no reason. They mostly mean be prepared to fight back, and don’t fall victim to the paradox of tolerance.