Hint: I'm not the only one. When everyone else is calling you out for your weak justification and weird spin, it's probably not everyone else that's wrong.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
British MP caught on camera mandhandling Greenpeace protester
- Thread starter Blue Lou
- Start date
This guy sees himself as a real Greg Gianforte, huh.
Republican U.S. House candidate body slammed a Guardian reporter on the eve of his special election. No video, but audio recording and plenty of witnesses. He wins the election, serves only community service/counseling, wins again in 2018. Gets praised for the assault by President Dumbass.
It's like civil disobedience, it's not allowed, and thats kinda the point. Provoking an idiotic, unproportional response like this is what you secretely hope for. Greenpeace struck gold here, I congratulate them.
The denial.
His fucking mugshot is him smiling like a goon.
This world...
No, it doesn't miss the point.
Your first reaction after watching a clip about a man slamming a woman protester on a column, grabbing her by the neck, was to come in the thread to say that you "understand".
After that, all the completely irrelevant Greenpeace argument started, trying to justify and spin your initial assessment.
If you say that you "understand" an act of violence like that, you might not be giving an actual approval, but you are implicitly saying that you wouldn't do it maybe, but you understand (and therefore justify partially) who did it.
No amount of spin from your side will ever change this.
You "understand" taking a woman dressed in an evening dress by the neck because Greenpeace are bad or whatever.
Saw right wing figures on Politics Live try and claim that she could have had a knife or acid in her bag and he made a reasonable call. Fucking disgusting. Getting as bad as American cops where massive force is used against people they claim they suspect could have had weapons, but in reality under any sort of common sense assessment of the situation would say they were absolutely harmless and the force used was so over the top as to be grotesque.
He grabs her by the neck and holds her neck all the way through this clip. Completely uncalled for and I dread to think the violence he uses in daily life with loved ones,
He grabs her by the neck and holds her neck all the way through this clip. Completely uncalled for and I dread to think the violence he uses in daily life with loved ones,
It's not an irrelevant argument. If an employee told you to put yourself willfully in dangerous situations, are they not responsible to a degree? I'm not spinning anything, my position has been the same. I understand acts of violence because people can have violent nature's that when not tempered with a conscious effort for improvement will come out. This is not a justification for that behavior because we can and do behave better. It's a simple concept to grasp.
Should people be choked and forcibly removed from places violently for protesting
"no"
Are people capable of doing that if triggered somehow
"yes"
Does this make them right in behaving that way?
"No"
You can't do what you did in the thread and then try to deflect into a "wrong target" argument. If you feel so strongly come to the States and join protests. There are tons.
We can talk about that but the issue is how you've behaved in the thread so contextually this reads like victim blaming.
Seeing more of it, seems like there was 20-30 of them and clearly a normal protest was likely obvious to the people in the room before he man handled her away so he really doesn't have an excuse. Shocking security at the event to let it even get that far, it obviously could be different but then you could probably tell a lone nut job or two compared to this lot of peaceful protesters, he just lost it and unlikely to have tried that with a guy.
But you don't understand it, because your "understanding" is based on hypercritical and assumptions.
It doesn't matter how many hypothetical Greenpeace protestors this man might have dealt with in the past, in this specific instance he used excessive force on a person half his size.
That's not understandable, at all. The excessive force part.
Everything else is beside the point.
User Banned (1 Day): Trolling and spamming over multiple posts
So what you are telling us is that because violence is part of the human nature, we can understand it but not justify it in this context?
Do you post the same in threads discussing murders, thefts, etc.? Because after all, many studies point out how that is also a bit part of human nature and what other bullshit spin.
Look, I get that you want to be the philosopher here and try to elevate yourself in some sort of Socrates bullshit speech, but your first reaction was to write that you understand what he did.
No amount of sophism can spin that.
It's a simple concept.
EDIT. I'm not sure you writing "K" is anything but a childish behaviour that I'd really like to not see on a forum that is supposed to be better than this.
Reported. That's 3 times you've done that now, if you can't respond properly, don't.
Exactly.
No, that guy is a lecturer in law and an expert witness in self defence cases giving his opinion on whether there's a case here. There are two experts discussing it in the article, and one seems more positive about any case than the other, but neither of them agrees with the court of public opinion that this is an open and shut case of assault.
FWIW I found the article interesting because it went against my expectations and what I thought reasonable.
Last edited:
See also the legal opinion in that BBC article, which says the exact opposite.
That's no man defending the room from a potential threat. That's a guy who's constantly annoyed he was born after women got the vote unnecessarily snapping at a poor woman.
Then the law is wrong, because it certainly is completely immoral. The guy has no standing whatsoever to escort her out, morally speaking. She does not provoke him in any way. He completely invades her space, he touches her, hurts her, pushes her, pulls her, and completely restricts her freedom of movement and place. If that's not wrong by the law, the law needs to be changed.
What surprises me then, is that the lawyers are not mentioning it, yet speak of it as if it's obviously not a cause of an extremely immoral act and a blatantly unjustifiable attack on another person. There's something fishy about that. Or did they talk about the morality of it and I somehow missed that?
He was full of rage the second he saw her, what kind of reaction is that? Man must hate women something fierce.
Brilliant.
Too right, Limmy.
Brilliant.
Too right, Limmy.
Last edited:
That video is so fucking creepy it looks like it was shot by David Lynch. Room full of rich psychos casually watch a man choke a woman and drag her away like a caveman and then go back to socializing like it's normal.
Ye gods!
Yes, what is the right way to physically hold a woman against her will? How can we be sure she isn't a suicide bomber? You call it assault, I call it leadership. /s
Yes, what is the right way to physically hold a woman against her will? How can we be sure she isn't a suicide bomber? You call it assault, I call it leadership. /s
She could have been a suicide bomber so he reversed her direction and took her outside. As you would.
"Well non-violence was obviously off the table, and of course it's a woman, so what is he supposed to grab her by the boobies or pussy? You know people would get all offended if he did that. Clearly choking her was the only reasonable thing to do."
