Is Harassment of Public Figures Acceptable: Your Sincere Opinion

[Amarok]

When someone calls half of the electorate "deplorable" or "bitter clingers" it only reinforces the perception that that someone holds them in contempt. Building resentment against you isn't a good way to earn votes.

The reason your response means little to me is that (while I quoted Clinton), I was channeling Plato. Plato doesn't attribute much importance to "how one is perceived" or "how good one is at earning votes." And nor do I. These things are secondary to an actual ability to perform well in a given office. Democracy, for all its merits, does have the downside of being largely based on public illusion.

I think Plato's thoughts are pertinent here. Particularly "the ship of state" wherein the electorate is portrayed as a bumbling shipowner whose inability to perceive things clearly leads to the exaltation of people who can exploit his limited perceptive capacities. Individuals who can "capture the public imagination" find their way into power, while those who actually know what they're doing and can actually solve the problems at hand are pushed to the wayside because they aren't very good at manipulationg the public.

---

Conceive something of this kind happening either on many ships or one. Though the shipowner surpasses everyone on board in height and strength, he is rather deaf and likewise somewhat shortsighted, and his knowledge of seamanship is pretty much on the same level. The sailors are quarreling with one another about the piloting, each supposing he ought to pilot, although he has never learned the art and can't produce his teacher or prove there was a time when he was learning it. Besides this, they claim it isn't even teachable and are ready to cut to pieces the man who says it is teachable. And they are always crowded around the shipowner himself, begging and doing everything so that he'll turn the rudder over to them. And sometimes, if they fail at persuasion and other men succeed at it, they either kill the others or throw them out of the ship. Enchaining the noble shipowner with mandrake, drink, or something else, they rule the ship, using what's in it; and drinking and feasting, they sail as such men would be thought likely to sail. Besides this, they praise and call 'skilled sailor,' 'pilot,' and 'knower of the ship's business' the man who is clever at figuring out how they will get the rule, either by persuading or by forcing the shipowner, while the man who is not of this sort they blame as useless. They don't know that for the true pilot it is necessary to pay careful attention to year, seasons, heaven, stars, winds, and everything that's proper to the art, if he is really going to be skilled at ruling a ship. And they don't suppose it's possible to acquire the art and practice of how one can get hold of the helm whether the others wish it or not, and at the same time to acquire the pilot's skill.

---

My observation as well nice too see someone else sees it as well

---

• Primarily by electing someone else.
  Publicly advocating for your cause.
  Distributing literature.
  Petitioning officials.
  Assembling to organize and peaceably demonstrate.
  

Not by stalking individuals and their families and intimidating them in their private lives. When that becomes the norm then no one will want to be in public service. What goes around comes around.

The fewer ghouls like the ones you're carrying water for who want to be in public service...the better.

When the law has failed, and our shared ideology has been subverted...shame is the final recourse before violence.  What goes around comes around...indeed.

This is true

---

Holding someone in contempt is not harassment..and some people really are contemptuous.

Like you, for example.  Casting the assholes who set public policy as victims..rather than..oh, IDK, the public that the policy plays out in.

Especially when they deserve our contempt

[Aroura]

Personally, I do not know of any prominent conservatives agitating protesters or liberal public figures that have been intimidated publically, or notable conservative pundits defending such behavior. Maybe some of the more left-leaning AF members could provide some examples to further the conversation.

My friend, you really are out of touch.  You think harassing people is a one sided political behavior? You could easily find it if you bothered to even look. I mean, I'm aware that liberals also engage in terrible behavior.  What kind of bubble do you live in where you do not see the other side?

See conservatives harassing actress Kelly Marie Tran off of twitter with their anti-SJW diatribes and telling her to kill herself (and then defending the diatribes by saying, hey, she never said that was why she quit twitter! As if that was a defense of being a bullying asshole).  

Jesse Waters of Fox News regularly harassed numerous writers at HuffPo. Even ambushing them.

See Trump himself harassing every famous liberal who has ever spoken publicly about their dislike of him.  Even mildly.

Jeesus, basically EVERY conservative pundit right now that defends Trump, is defending someone who regularly harasses and bullies those of his political opposition.

[RoadRunner79]

More and more some political activists feel it is acceptable, even necessary, to harass public figures while those public figures are peaceably going about their daily lives. Most recently, Candace Owens:

HERE

This appears to be at least tangentally related to Maxine Waters's agitating her supporters:

HERE

There seems to be some dispute about whether or not Sarah Huckabee Sanders was actually harassed out of the Red Hen resturant, but it is clearly a fact that at least one prominent member of the press, Jennifer Rubin, has recommended that public figures be hounded for life:

HERE

Personally, I do not know of any prominent conservatives agitating protesters or liberal public figures that have been intimidated publically, or notable conservative pundits defending such behavior. Maybe some of the more left-leaning AF members could provide some examples to further the conversation.

Similarly, it seems speaking engagements by conservatives such as Ben Shapiro are routinely accompanied by large crowds of protesters, attempting to shut down the venues, and many turn violent. Again I am not aware of similar occurrences when the speakers are left-leaning. Again examples that further the conversation are welcome.

And I would be remiss if I did not mention the violent events inspired by left-wing rhetoric like the attempted assassination attempt on Republican congressmen while playing softball HERE, the and the attack on the Alliance Defending Freedom HERE

Just to be clear, I don't want to assume that all political violence comes from the left, it is just that prominent left-wing pundits, journalists and politicians claim that Trump's rhetoric inspires violence. I simply have not seen evidence that that is the case whereas the examples I provided above seems to suggest just the opposite.

Comments?

I thought that there where protests outside of Maxine Waters house?

But no, I don’t agree with the types of harassment, intolerance, and violence as a mode of political voice that we seem to be heading to.

[Neo-Scholastic]

When someone calls half of the electorate "deplorable" or "bitter clingers" it only reinforces the perception that that someone holds them in contempt. Building resentment against you isn't a good way to earn votes.

The reason your response means little to me is that (while I quoted Clinton), I was channeling Plato. Plato doesn't attribute much importance to "how one is perceived" or "how good one is at earning votes." And nor do I. These things are secondary to an actual ability to perform well in a given office. Democracy, for all its merits, does have the downside of being largely based on public illusion.

I think Plato's thoughts are pertinent here. Particularly "the ship of state" wherein the electorate is portrayed as a bumbling shipowner whose inability to perceive things clearly leads to the exaltation of people who can exploit his limited perceptive capacities. Individuals who can "capture the public imagination" find their way into power, while those who actually know what they're doing and can actually solve the problems at hand are pushed to the wayside because they aren't very good at manipulationg the public.

---

Conceive something of this kind happening either on many ships or one. Though the shipowner surpasses everyone on board in height and strength, he is rather deaf and likewise somewhat shortsighted, and his knowledge of seamanship is pretty much on the same level. The sailors are quarreling with one another about the piloting, each supposing he ought to pilot, although he has never learned the art and can't produce his teacher or prove there was a time when he was learning it. Besides this, they claim it isn't even teachable and are ready to cut to pieces the man who says it is teachable. And they are always crowded around the shipowner himself, begging and doing everything so that he'll turn the rudder over to them. And sometimes, if they fail at persuasion and other men succeed at it, they either kill the others or throw them out of the ship. Enchaining the noble shipowner with mandrake, drink, or something else, they rule the ship, using what's in it; and drinking and feasting, they sail as such men would be thought likely to sail. Besides this, they praise and call 'skilled sailor,' 'pilot,' and 'knower of the ship's business' the man who is clever at figuring out how they will get the rule, either by persuading or by forcing the shipowner, while the man who is not of this sort they blame as useless. They don't know that for the true pilot it is necessary to pay careful attention to year, seasons, heaven, stars, winds, and everything that's proper to the art, if he is really going to be skilled at ruling a ship. And they don't suppose it's possible to acquire the art and practice of how one can get hold of the helm whether the others wish it or not, and at the same time to acquire the pilot's skill.

---

As I understand him, Plato advocates a kind of benevolent tyranny by an elite class that is at odds with America's founding principle of self-governance, i.e. a republic of the people, as opposed to Philosopher Kings lording over their subjects. Is that truly the direction you believe America should go?

[Amarok]

Personally, I do not know of any prominent conservatives agitating protesters or liberal public figures that have been intimidated publically, or notable conservative pundits defending such behavior. Maybe some of the more left-leaning AF members could provide some examples to further the conversation.

How about all the times James O'Keefe has done it . But even if we granted your claim it never happens (there are many many many more examples ) That does not invalidate it .

---

I thought that there where protests outside of Maxine Waters house? 

Even if there was not that's not an argument 

But no, I don’t agree with the types of harassment, intolerance, and violence as a mode of political voice that we seem to be heading to.

Too bad it's none of those things and is a totally valid tactic at holding government officials responsible.

---

As I understand him, Plato advocates a kind of benevolent tyranny by an elite class that is at odds with America's founding principle of self-governance, i.e. a republic of the people, as opposed to Philosopher Kings lording over their subjects. Is that truly the direction you believe America should go?

Some needs to read more  Plato

[Neo-Scholastic]

Personally, I do not know of any prominent conservatives agitating protesters or liberal public figures that have been intimidated publically, or notable conservative pundits defending such behavior. Maybe some of the more left-leaning AF members could provide some examples to further the conversation.

My friend, you really are out of touch.  You think harassing people is a one sided political behavior? You could easily find it if you bothered to even look. I mean, I'm aware that liberals also engage in terrible behavior.  What kind of bubble do you live in where you do not see the other side?

That's why I'm reaching out to see things from another perspective.

See conservatives harassing actress Kelly Marie Tran off of twitter with their anti-SJW diatribes and telling her to kill herself (and then defending the diatribes by saying, hey, she never said that was why she quit twitter! As if that was a defense of being a bullying asshole). 

I guess I'm focusing on direct personal confrontations, not twitter mobs or media attacks. For years and years public figures have received threatening letters and such. Social media diatribes are an awful extension of that. That's an unfortunate part of being a public figure but one that is well known. There are crazy people out there. And I agree, with respect to online verbal attacks and pornshoping, seems to be an equal opportunity plague. It seems though that this kind of direct and coordinated disruption of public servants is different.

Jesse Waters of Fox News regularly harassed numerous writers at HuffPo. Even ambushing them.

Please tell me more. Was he personally ambushed by someone physically popping out from hiding to confront him or are you using ambush figuratively?

See Trump himself harassing every famous liberal who has ever spoken publicly about their dislike of him.  Even mildly.

Yes, Trump is the Don Wrinkles of politics. Has he ever called on his supporters to physically pursue his political opponents or justified anyone who had?

Jeesus, basically EVERY conservative pundit right now that defends Trump, is defending someone who regularly harasses and bullies those of his political opposition.

Physically? Intent on pursuing left-leaning public officials and disrupting their private lives? Or are we talking about hyperbolic rhetoric expressed on public platforms. Is there not a difference?

[Amarok]

I gave a clear example and even if the right was not doing this it does not invalidate it .

[Aegon]

See Trump himself harassing every famous liberal who has ever spoken publicly about their dislike of him.  Even mildly.

Yes, Trump is the Don Wrinkles of politics. Has he ever called on his supporters to physically pursue his political opponents or justified anyone who had?

Donald Trump Tells Crowd to 'Knock the Crap Out Of' Hecklers

Donald Trump told supporters Monday to “knock the crap out of” would-be hecklers at a campaign rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

“If you see somebody with a tomato, knock the crap out of them,” Trump said, referencing another incident with a protestor.

Trump was in Iowa last week when a protestor threw a tomato—and missed. Protests are frequent at his rallies, with the disruptions protesting the rhetoric of some of the GOP front-runner’s talking points.

Trump said he would even pay for any legal fees that supporters incurred stopping a tomato-thrower. The theory was quickly put to the test when Trump spotted a protestor and had them removed.

Man accused of attacking rally protester says Trump inspired him

Donald Trump supporter Alvin Bamberger is accused of assaulting a protester at a 2016 campaign rally in Kentucky.

But if the 75-year-old veteran lost his cool at the Louisville rally, he did so at the "urging and inspiration" of his President, Bamberger alleges in a lawsuit against Trump.
"Trump and/or the Trump campaign urged and inspired Bamberger to act as he did," according to the Ohio resident's claim, which was filed in Louisville federal court on Friday

I didn't see a tomato in the protester's hand, for the record.

[Amarok]

But as i have said it does not matter if the right does it .It does not invalidate it as a tactic .

[Neo-Scholastic]

So if a protester attends a rally intent on heckling, creating a disturbance, attempting to physically assault the president by throwing things at him people should stand-by a watch? I'm not sure if they are truly comparable but certainly worthy of consideration. Thank you for your examples.