The left is starting to embrace political violence to overturn the election results

By -
Living in gentrified Brooklyn is like being a spy in the enemies camp: so long as I don't let on that I am not one of them, I get to pick up on what progressives say when they think no one else is listening.

Well, last night, I got to hear two very ordinary, middle-class progressives talking to each other about how they were only talking and protesting, and that perhaps it was the people taking violent action who really understood what has to be done right now. In the end, they both agreed that probably the rioters are acting appropriately.

Note: they are not about to commit violence themselves. But they are ready to cheer on those who aren't as constrained.

Comments

  1. Lord12:41 AM

    Meanwhile the McVeighs don't bother to stop at talk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah7:13 PM

      This is good: we are seeing leftist violence now on a regular basis, and it is gaining widespread approval on the left. But to show the right is even worse, Lord is able to point to one act of "right-wing" (actually anti-government) violence from over two decades ago, widely condemned by 99.9% of the right.

      Delete
  2. Greg Pandatshang2:24 PM

    I was in a movie theater a couple weeks ago, and in the row behind me were two young women, who I'd guess are maybe undergrad sophomores, not particularly tall or athletic, talking about the Richard Spencer sucker punch brouhaha, pleased as punch. One of them remarked, "If I'd've been there, I would have done more than just punch him!" I'd suggest that this is indicative of the centre-left (and parts of the hard left) reaction to the late unpleasantness: they live in a fantasy world where the possibility that they might not *win* at violence doesn't even occur to them. What are the chances, really, that Luke Skywalker will lose the final duel with Darth Vader? And what are the chances, really, that a short female college kid will fail to give a grown-ass fascist man the beating he obviously deserves? In light of this fantasy, it becomes merely an issue of whether their side will choose to be nice and refrain from violence. No negative consequences (except for maybe the deplorables if they act up).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah8:11 PM

      And it never occurs to them that the other side has all the guns, and pretty much all of the cops and military, on its side.

      Delete
    2. gcallah8:12 PM

      Greg, I'd like to raise your comment up to post level, if you OK it.

      Delete
    3. Greg Pandatshang4:08 AM

      Sure, please feel free to.

      Delete
  3. Ken B7:53 PM

    I agree with you here Gene. Violence is slowly being "normalized" on the left, as was censorship before it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more