Cracking Nazi Skulls?

For chatting about non-political topics.

Hot topic: The perils of exercise, Lapidary, food, gardening, brewing & Gallipoli/Anzac Day.

Special feature: WWIi Operation Manna/Chowhound.
.

Open to guest posting.

Moderator: johnsmith

Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Off Topic is for fairly serious discussion of things other than politics and current affair.

Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby mothra » 25 Jul 2018, 15:58

Billy Joel Doesn't Know Why More People Aren't Cracking Nazi Skulls
"Those creeps are going to march through the streets of my country?" he asked David Marchese. "Uh-uh."


Billy Joel doesn't usually discuss politics. In the past, he's pointed to the fact that people don't want to hear a wealthy entertainer sounding off about the economy, and so he's mostly continued with his Madison Square Garden residency without delving into the putrid waters of contemporary political discourse. But Donald Trump has made that sort of surface neutrality a challenge. Last year, after Trump favorably compared Nazis to people who actively dislike Nazis, Joel wore a Star of David on stage at MSG; in an interview with Vulture's David Marchese, published this morning, Joel explained that decision:


Wearing the Star of David wasn’t about politics. To me, what happened in Charlottesville was like war. When Trump said there were good people on both sides—there are no good Nazis. There are no good Ku Klux Klan people. Don’t equivocate that shit. I think about my old man: Most of his family was murdered in Auschwitz. He was able to get out but then got drafted and went in the U.S. Army. He risked his life in Europe to defeat Nazism. A lot of men from his generation did the same thing. So when those guys see punks walking around with swastikas, how do they keep from taking a baseball bat and bashing those crypto-Nazis over the head? Those creeps are going to march through the streets of my country? Uh-uh. I was personally offended. That’s why I wore that yellow star. I had to do something, and I didn’t think speaking about it was going to be as impactful.


He goes on to blame the "terrible" state of America squarely on Trump, and he's openly furious about the government's decision to separate families at the US-Mexico border: "These children are being ripped away from their parents and then the U.S. can’t find them? This is insane. This is the antithesis of America."


https://noisey.vice.com/en_us/article/3kykkj/billy-joel-donald-trump-marchese-interview-2018?utm_source=nfb
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby mothra » 25 Jul 2018, 16:05

So, what do we reckon, people? Is it okay to punch a nazi?

Speaking for myself, i have a strict non-violence ethic but understand fully why someone would want to meet the violence of hatred and disunity with violence.

I do think ultimately, if we allow ourselves to be drawn into violence, peace and freedom will be the ultimate sacrifices ... and the representatives of those groups sacrificed will be the least empowered ... yet how else do we meet such violence and foulness?

Should freedom of speech come at the price of incitement to hatred?
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby johnsmith » 25 Jul 2018, 16:11

mothra wrote:So, what do we reckon, people? Is it okay to punch a nazi?


if people hadn't started punching back FD wouldn't most likely not be here :scare
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5791
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby Auggie » 25 Jul 2018, 22:05

I think, legally, the limit on free speech should be 'inciting violence' or where speech would likely 'lead to lawlessness'.

On a societal level, individuals have a civic imperative to espouse 'responsible speech'.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby mothra » 26 Jul 2018, 15:20

Auggie wrote:I think, legally, the limit on free speech should be 'inciting violence' or where speech would likely 'lead to lawlessness'.


So you consider that Billy Joel has misspoke; you would idealise consequences for him?

Your second point is a difficult one. It would be impossible to legislate for it. Does the dissemination of the idea that certain groups of people are inferior and even toxic not ultimately lead to lawlessness? Does obstructing traffic by leading a peaceful protest?

Auggie wrote:On a societal level, individuals have a civic imperative to espouse 'responsible speech'.



That's all very true but it's little more, in actual terms, than expecting people to be nice. At least to couch things in a way that is as inoffensive as possible.

Isn't this the objective of political correctness?
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby Auggie » 26 Jul 2018, 18:35

mothra wrote:Your second point is a difficult one. It would be impossible to legislate for it. Does the dissemination of the idea that certain groups of people are inferior and even toxic not ultimately lead to lawlessness? Does obstructing traffic by leading a peaceful protest?


I'm not 100% sure of the legal subtleties behind it. I used this example from a decision of the American Supreme Court as to what they believe is the limit to free speech (whilst this doesn't apply to us in Australia, it's a useful frame of reference).

From my understanding (and this is very limited on this subject), imminent lawlessness would be something of the following: a group of people are gathered around in the local city square; each person is holding a baseball bat (or baton) on their person; the ring leader is standing on his/her platform espousing hatred for a particular group, saying things like: "they are pigs, and their wealth must be confiscated", or "the enemies of nation are all around us." Whilst not direct 'calling to action' or inciting violence - the fact that they are holding baseball bats in the local square indicates a threat of imminent lawlessness. The police would then legally be allowed to apprehend the members.

Second, I think what you are also referring to is whether or not speech will at some point in the indetermined future lead to lawlessness. I don't know where the law can or cannot stand on this point. It's a grey area. What I can say for sure in my opinion, is that obstructing traffic is not an act of lawlessness because it constitutes an 'inconvenience' rather than an unlawful act.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby Auggie » 26 Jul 2018, 18:36

mothra wrote:Isn't this the objective of political correctness?


Correct.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby mothra » 26 Jul 2018, 19:00

Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:Your second point is a difficult one. It would be impossible to legislate for it. Does the dissemination of the idea that certain groups of people are inferior and even toxic not ultimately lead to lawlessness? Does obstructing traffic by leading a peaceful protest?


I'm not 100% sure of the legal subtleties behind it. I used this example from a decision of the American Supreme Court as to what they believe is the limit to free speech (whilst this doesn't apply to us in Australia, it's a useful frame of reference).

From my understanding (and this is very limited on this subject), imminent lawlessness would be something of the following: a group of people are gathered around in the local city square; each person is holding a baseball bat (or baton) on their person; the ring leader is standing on his/her platform espousing hatred for a particular group, saying things like: "they are pigs, and their wealth must be confiscated", or "the enemies of nation are all around us." Whilst not direct 'calling to action' or inciting violence - the fact that they are holding baseball bats in the local square indicates a threat of imminent lawlessness. The police would then legally be allowed to apprehend the members.

Second, I think what you are also referring to is whether or not speech will at some point in the indetermined future lead to lawlessness. I don't know where the law can or cannot stand on this point. It's a grey area. What I can say for sure in my opinion, is that obstructing traffic is not an act of lawlessness because it constitutes an 'inconvenience' rather than an unlawful act.



I see you dodged the question of Billy Joel. Complicated, isn't it?

But before i continue:

Under the summary offences Act 1988, section 6, obstructing traffic is an offence. It states that: “a person shall not, without reasonable excuse (proof of which lies on the person), wilfully prevent, in any manner, the free passage of a person, vehicle or vessel in a public place.”


https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/protesting-and-obstructing-traffic-what-are-my-rights/


But in your scenario there is both the incentive and clear means with which to act upon incentive present. Is that your qualifier? You can say whatever horrible things you like providing you're not saying them to people who are physically armed?

What about actual arms, and the fists attached to the ends of them? Heads, feet?
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby mothra » 26 Jul 2018, 19:02

Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:Isn't this the objective of political correctness?


Correct.


And yet many cite political correctness as a catalyst for the degradation of comment and behaviour. Hell, some even blame it for Trump getting in.

Incitement?
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby Auggie » 26 Jul 2018, 19:41

mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:Isn't this the objective of political correctness?


Correct.


And yet many cite political correctness as a catalyst for the degradation of comment and behaviour. Hell, some even blame it for Trump getting in.

Incitement?


You make a good point about the first sentence. It doesn't promote positive interaction between peoples. Regarding the second point, from a legal perspective I don't know how to accommodate that. From a civil perspective, it can incite discord and dislike for the other.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby Auggie » 26 Jul 2018, 19:49

mothra wrote:I see you dodged the question of Billy Joel. Complicated, isn't it?


I didn't answer this question because I'm not sure what you were trying to say.

mothra wrote:Under the summary offences Act 1988, section 6, obstructing traffic is an offence. It states that: “a person shall not, without reasonable excuse (proof of which lies on the person), wilfully prevent, in any manner, the free passage of a person, vehicle or vessel in a public place.”


https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.a ... my-rights/


But in your scenario there is both the incentive and clear means with which to act upon incentive present. Is that your qualifier? You can say whatever horrible things you like providing you're not saying them to people who are physically armed?

What about actual arms, and the fists attached to the ends of them? Heads, feet?


Regarding the traffic offence, my personal view is that the right to peaceably protest trumps that law. Why? I don't know. Peaceful protest has always been a hallmark of democracy and of a free society. Where peaceful protest has occurred that has obstructed traffic, I am not aware of any arrests or prosecutions made.

In the scenario I outlined, I was just giving an example at the top of head. Fists, feet and head could qualify and the intricacies of the law are for courts to determine (in my view). I think the key word here is 'imminent' - which means that violence is likely to proceed from the speech within the 'immediate' present.

Legislation is often very difficult to get right - either it's too lax or it's too strict - maintaining a balance is very difficult to achieve.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby johnsmith » 26 Jul 2018, 20:23

Auggie wrote:
Regarding the traffic offence, my personal view is that the right to peaceably protest trumps that law.


the right to protest is about the right to be heard.

you can protest anywhere, why protest on a road? there are often many road users who have nothing to do with your complaint.

protesting on a road is not about being heard, it's about trying to force your issue onto others.

There are some exemptions to that, for example I agree with workers picketing the entry to a workplace to make a point. Where bargaining position is concerned, workers are in a losing position from get go. The employer typically has all the muscle, while the worker has very little. When negotiating that creates a very unbalanced bargaining position. The employees right to picket is only of the few muscles they can flex.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5791
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby Auggie » 26 Jul 2018, 20:40

johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:
Regarding the traffic offence, my personal view is that the right to peaceably protest trumps that law.


the right to protest is about the right to be heard.

you can protest anywhere, why protest on a road? there are often many road users who have nothing to do with your complaint.

protesting on a road is not about being heard, it's about trying to force your issue onto others.


Sure, that's probably the case. I guess the question is whether or not it should be a summary offense under the law. I don't think it should be, and I don't think that in practice it is enforced.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby mothra » 27 Jul 2018, 13:26

Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:I see you dodged the question of Billy Joel. Complicated, isn't it?


I didn't answer this question because I'm not sure what you were trying to say.


Did you read the OP? Do you think Billy Joel should be sanctioned for saying we should "crack Nazi skulls"? Do you consider that incitement to violence or an understandable response to the increase in Nazism from a person whose family was decimated by the holocaust?

If we are to assume that the ideology of Nazism is inherently violent, is meeting it with violence incitement or self defence?
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby Auggie » 27 Jul 2018, 13:32

mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:I see you dodged the question of Billy Joel. Complicated, isn't it?


I didn't answer this question because I'm not sure what you were trying to say.


Did you read the OP? Do you think Billy Joel should be sanctioned for saying we should "crack Nazi skulls"? Do you consider that incitement to violence or an understandable response to the increase in Nazism from a person whose family was decimated by the holocaust?

If we are to assume that the ideology of Nazism is inherently violent, is meeting it with violence incitement or self defence?


Not at all, he shouldn’t be sanctioned. And no I dont consider this to be inciting violence any more than any other inidividual calling for the death of communists or rightists.

In any case, Joel’s comment can’t be taken in the same vein as a ringleader of thugs leading a group. Joel is an individual expressing an opinion.

Edit: yes I totally understand his response.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby mothra » 27 Jul 2018, 13:38

Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:Isn't this the objective of political correctness?


Correct.


And yet many cite political correctness as a catalyst for the degradation of comment and behaviour. Hell, some even blame it for Trump getting in.

Incitement?


You make a good point about the first sentence. It doesn't promote positive interaction between peoples. Regarding the second point, from a legal perspective I don't know how to accommodate that. From a civil perspective, it can incite discord and dislike for the other.



You equate expecting people to be inclusive and sensitive with their language with the use of pejoratives and hate-speech?

I wonder often why people so resent being asked to be considerate. I suspect it is because it exposes their own prejudices to the light and instead of owning them, the reflexively react with derision.

I personally find the backlash to political correctness highly disproportionate and indicative of those rebelling's resentment at sharing power.

I'm troubled by how you interpreted my question. I wasn't looking for agreement, i was hoping to lead you contrast the intent of those who are critical of others ... and to take into consideration the vast differences in the ways they impact upon society.

Personally, i may find 'person-hole cover' overkill ... but it doesn't seem to me to warrant as much vehemence as 'sand nigger'. It interests me that people equate them as causal factors in societal discord.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby mothra » 27 Jul 2018, 13:42

Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:I see you dodged the question of Billy Joel. Complicated, isn't it?


I didn't answer this question because I'm not sure what you were trying to say.


Did you read the OP? Do you think Billy Joel should be sanctioned for saying we should "crack Nazi skulls"? Do you consider that incitement to violence or an understandable response to the increase in Nazism from a person whose family was decimated by the holocaust?

If we are to assume that the ideology of Nazism is inherently violent, is meeting it with violence incitement or self defence?


Not at all, he shouldn’t be sanctioned. And no I dont consider this to be inciting violence any more than any other inidividual calling for the death of communists or rightists.

In any case, Joel’s comment can’t be taken in the same vein as a ringleader of thugs leading a group. Joel is an individual expressing an opinion.

Edit: yes I totally understand his response.


Where is the distinction between appealing to people to crack Nazi skulls and inciting them to racial or gender violence?
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby Auggie » 27 Jul 2018, 13:53

mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:Isn't this the objective of political correctness?


Correct.


And yet many cite political correctness as a catalyst for the degradation of comment and behaviour. Hell, some even blame it for Trump getting in.

Incitement?


You make a good point about the first sentence. It doesn't promote positive interaction between peoples. Regarding the second point, from a legal perspective I don't know how to accommodate that. From a civil perspective, it can incite discord and dislike for the other.



You equate expecting people to be inclusive and sensitive with their language with the use of pejoratives and hate-speech?

I wonder often why people so resent being asked to be considerate. I suspect it is because it exposes their own prejudices to the light and instead of owning them, the reflexively react with derision.

I personally find the backlash to political correctness highly disproportionate and indicative of those rebelling's resentment at sharing power.

I'm troubled by how you interpreted my question. I wasn't looking for agreement, i was hoping to lead you contrast the intent of those who are critical of others ... and to take into consideration the vast differences in the ways they impact upon society.

Personally, i may find 'person-hole cover' overkill ... but it doesn't seem to me to warrant as much vehemence as 'sand nigger'. It interests me that people equate them as causal factors in societal discord.


In the first case, I’m not sure I said that. But if I did, it wasn’t my intention. I agree that we all have a civil imperative to be respectful and courteous to the other. I think it’s possible to discuss highly sensitive topics in a reasoned and courteous manner.
Regarding political correctness, I watched a video of a discussion recently about the Telford incident in England. This panel reached the conclusion (and now there is a parliamentary inquiry into it) that the police in England refused to anything about the gromming gangs in England because they didn’t want to come across as ‘racist’ or bigoted. It was revealed that these grooming gangs were disproportionately people from Pakistan and Bangladesh origin.

Now, if this is completely true (I’m sure there are other factors involved) but if it’s true that the police refused to do anything for fear of being called racist, then this is political correctness gone too far to the point that the police can’t adequately enforce the law.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby Auggie » 27 Jul 2018, 13:57

mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:I see you dodged the question of Billy Joel. Complicated, isn't it?


I didn't answer this question because I'm not sure what you were trying to say.


Did you read the OP? Do you think Billy Joel should be sanctioned for saying we should "crack Nazi skulls"? Do you consider that incitement to violence or an understandable response to the increase in Nazism from a person whose family was decimated by the holocaust?

If we are to assume that the ideology of Nazism is inherently violent, is meeting it with violence incitement or self defence?


Not at all, he shouldn’t be sanctioned. And no I dont consider this to be inciting violence any more than any other inidividual calling for the death of communists or rightists.

In any case, Joel’s comment can’t be taken in the same vein as a ringleader of thugs leading a group. Joel is an individual expressing an opinion.

Edit: yes I totally understand his response.


Where is the distinction between appealing to people to crack Nazi skulls and inciting them to racial or gender violence?


It’s a good question. I don’t know but what I would say is that because Nazism became such a threat to the whole world, causing unprecedented atrocities, and because we prosecuted the ideology of Nazism on a total war scale, it is acceptable to criticise Nazism due to these reasons.

Other races don’t have any such history with the world and haven’t posed any threat in that manner. Some of the right point to islamism as being s global threat but I don’t think it’s serious enough to pose a significant threat to the world, and because there’s been no war over islam, we haven’t prosecuted the idea to the fullest extent.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1838
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby mothra » 27 Jul 2018, 14:04

Auggie wrote:
In the first case, I’m not sure I said that. But if I did, it wasn’t my intention. I agree that we all have a civil imperative to be respectful and courteous to the other. I think it’s possible to discuss highly sensitive topics in a reasoned and courteous manner.
Regarding political correctness, I watched a video of a discussion recently about the Telford incident in England. This panel reached the conclusion (and now there is a parliamentary inquiry into it) that the police in England refused to anything about the gromming gangs in England because they didn’t want to come across as ‘racist’ or bigoted. It was revealed that these grooming gangs were disproportionately people from Pakistan and Bangladesh origin.

Now, if this is completely true (I’m sure there are other factors involved) but if it’s true that the police refused to do anything for fear of being called racist, then this is political correctness gone too far to the point that the police can’t adequately enforce the law.



I suspect there are many cases in which leniency is performed owing to fear of being perceived to be profiling. I would hasten to add that there are a great many more cases in which profiling is the case.

I think blaming political correctness is hitting the broad side of the barn, don't you?

We have to look at the big picture. In the lpast few decades, we have been increasingly asked to consider the feelings and sovereignty of brown people, women, disabled people, non-binary people, different religions, etc. For most of history, these groups have been tremendously prejudiced against.

There is still significant negative feeling towards these groups and much of that is new. It stems from those unwilling being forced into behaviours and speech that denotes respect for these groups.

They resent it. Hard.

Now, if at times, the axe falls to the advantage of ill-doing previously marginalised groups, i would look to the behaviour of those marginalising as the causal factor, not the push to be culturally and in other ways sensitive.

It's too easy to claim backlash. It absolves those complicit of all responsibility.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby mothra » 27 Jul 2018, 14:32

Let me put it to you this way:

I used to have a bumper sticker that said "Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty". I had to take it off because it made people so mad. I actually got rammed once, fortunately, my daughter wasn't inside at the time.

People would hang out their widows to abuse me. Made people absolutely furious. Absolutely fascinated me.

As you reminded me the other day (although i hadn't really forgotten), i am thought of by some as 'self-righteous'. I have never claimed to be superior in any way to anyone. I have never even claimed to be right. I just am a peaceful, non-violent, non-hating, feminist vegetarian who considers all people to have worth and lessons to teach. I reject utterly the notions of superiority and inferiority and believe sincerely that we are all equal

This absolutely infuriates people ... almost as much as the fact that however hard they try, they can not make me lose my temper.

In a thread only last night, it was put forward that i post threads to bait people so i can attack them. This is the furthest from the truth. I see Ozpol and now this forum as a platform to inform, agitate and recruit support for things i care about. I'm often genuinely surprised at the hatred they attract.

I started a thread on the painful and inhumane removal of the eyestalks of female prawns without anaesthetic because i was horrified by it and wanted people to know, sign the petition i provided and hopefully make ethical choices when purchasing their prawns. They're still going on about it ... how i was just trolling to make myself superior. It was trashed from the first post and went on for dozens of pages ... mostly abusing and taunting me.

You see, it was easier for them to attack and discredit me than to adjust their own behaviours and question their own ethics.

I got what i wanted though. Some good folk signed and were grateful for the information, and that's what i'm after. Just one small change would suit me. I'm an activist. It's part of what i do.

But asking people to think outside themselves can make them very angry. It's one of the biggest hurdles society has to face.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby johnsmith » 27 Jul 2018, 14:39

mothra wrote:I used to have a bumper sticker that said "Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty". I had to take it off because it made people so mad. I actually got rammed once, fortunately, my daughter wasn't inside at the time.

People would hang out their widows to abuse me. Made people absolutely furious. Absolutely fascinated me.


:b :b :b Why?
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5791
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby johnsmith » 27 Jul 2018, 14:41

mothra wrote:As you reminded me the other day (although i hadn't really forgotten), i am thought of by some as 'self-righteous'. I have never claimed to be superior in any way to anyone.


I suspect it's more the case that person accusing you of a superiority complex in fact has an inferiority complex. But rather than admit it and then deal with it, they project it onto you. It's far easier to accuse you of being high and mighty than it is face up to and then deal with ones own shortcomings.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5791
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby mothra » 27 Jul 2018, 15:57

johnsmith wrote:
mothra wrote:I used to have a bumper sticker that said "Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty". I had to take it off because it made people so mad. I actually got rammed once, fortunately, my daughter wasn't inside at the time.

People would hang out their widows to abuse me. Made people absolutely furious. Absolutely fascinated me.


:b :b :b Why?


Image


Seriously though, i expect they thought by virtue of being asked to consider it, they became aware of how very out of sync with it they were and it made them feel bad about themselves which they then turned into me being 'preachy' to avoid introspection.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Cracking Nazi Skulls?

Postby johnsmith » 27 Jul 2018, 16:10

it's such a mundane bumper sticker though. Imagine becoming enraged over that.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5791
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Next

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron