Is Harassment of Public Figures Acceptable: Your Sincere Opinion

[bennyboy]

Acceptable to whom?

As far as I'm concerned, the harm both to me and mine and to civilized society in the long term is currently so great that I have little interest in pretending to participate in a social contract.

This is the republitard modus operandi: fuck everyone-- take away clean water, health care, education, opportunity, fuck everyone. And then as soon as someone gets uppity, start crying about the constitution and your legal protections. "Wahhhh I just supported fracking, and dozens of kids in the nearby town died of cancer. . . but that guy has no right to throw eggs at my new house! Wahhhh I voted to legalize a complete ban on abortion, pretending it wasn't because I'm a religious asshole, and now all the people standing around my house with signs and shouting are harassing meeeeeee!"

I think it's getting to the point where harassment needs to come at the end of a crowbar, personally. Cuz if their brains aren't all over the sidewalk, they're going to keep fucking everybody.

[vulcanlogician]

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?

No. I do not advocate a carbon copy of Plato's system to be implemented anywhere. I think democracy is far better than Plato gave it credit for. But at the same time, only a fool would call democracy a perfect system. Democracy has flaws. And, as citizens in a democratic system, we would do well to pay attention to our system's inherent foibles. To that end, I find Plato's criticisms of democracy especially useful in diagnosing many of America's contemporary political problems.

Take, for instance, congressional gridlock. Sure, plenty of us can point out that compromise between both parties would result in the accomplishment of certain goals (say, balancing the budget). If both parties want to balance the budget, this ought to be able to be done. And yet, it hasn't been done. One party supports cutting spending to balance the budget while the other wants to raise taxes on the rich. A compromise should have been reached here, because any idiot can figure out how to solve this problem: employ both solutions. Duh. But have we been able to solve this issue? No! Gridlock has been a problem since 2008, and despite all the talk from both parties about resolving it, we haven't made any progress at all. Democracy has failed in that regard.

So how do we fix this problem? Again... easy answer... easy solution. The electorate needs to (wisely) refrain from reelecting those who dig in their heels and resist compromise. The problem is: democracy isn't able to make this happen. Why? The electorate is too easily manipulated by those with an agenda. People want to vote their party. People want to vote for candidates who echo their value system and worldview... even if those people are killing compromise and sending our country down the shitter. As Plato points out, democracy presents a paradox: the many are supposed to be the rulers, but the real rulers end up being "those who can manipulate the many." 

Add to this Henry David Thoreau's concern: "The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure." Recount the Iraq War... same principle at work there.

I could go on... but I won't.

***

To touch on the other thing you mentioned: though, in many ways, Plato's ideal system resembles a dictatorship, there are several key features that distinguish it. I think it is important to recognize that 

1) The guardians (philosopher kings) are not allowed to possess wealth or even get married. They share all things with one another. They must be the kind of people who can live like learned monks. And this is precisely the kind of existence that Plato imagined for them.

2) Guardians are to be selected first from the people who seek and love knowledge for its own sake, love truth, and do not deal in falsehoods. From among this group, those who display moral worthiness are eligible to become guardians.

3) To his own disservice, Plato thought that once you found these guardians that you could thereafter "breed" them, unfortunately causing him to propose a system of eugenics in Book VI of the Republic. Epic fail, Plato. But the reader can easily ignore Plato's departure into absurdity and focus instead on the system of education he proposes in Book II... the system which leads to the selection of guardians in the first place. Plato is one of the earliest advocates of a robust system of public education, beside which even our modern systems pale in comparison.

4) The essential facet of Plato's system is that reason is to be in charge. Rulers ought to be logical and reasonable as opposed to ambitious or desirous. For that reason, democracy might score a few more points (in Plato's view) the more educated the populace is. Aside from Plato's own academy, which was open to all interested students and provided free of charge, education in ancient Athens was typically expensive and available only to wealthy aristocrats. Athenian democracy put power into the hands of the uneducated masses, which is one of Plato's chief complaints.

[Amarok]

I also think Pundits who hold shitty idea's are fair game too .Take the recent and totally justified take down of professional Uncle Tom Candace Owens. Sorry bitch you don't get to tell people to get over there "oppression complex" and then cry oppression.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Here is today's example of left-wing agitators intruding into the private lives of others. Some BLM protesters felt the need to show up at a WEDDING! HERE

Otherwise, I'm sure the following kind of thuggery has been going on since the dawns of our republic: Sihk Attacked and

[Angrboda]

Here is today's example of left-wing agitators intruding into the private lives of others. Some BLM protesters felt the need to show up at a WEDDING! HERE

Otherwise, I'm sure the following kind of thuggery has been going on since the dawns of our republic: Sihk Attacked and

The Democratic leadership in Congress is decrying recent "acts of violence" against 10 House Democrats and one Republican, including one report of a cut gas line at the house of the brother of one member of Congress.

The most recent report came from US Rep. Harry Mitchell, AZ, whose spokesman, Adam Bozzi, said in a statement that the congressman received physical threats, including threats on his life, both before and after a vote on health care reform.

A brick was thrown through the window of the district office of Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter in Niagara Falls, in upstate New York, while Bart Stupak, the conservative Democrat whose deal with the White House on abortion funding curbs provided the crucial last few votes for passage of the bill, reported getting calls from people wishing that he "bleed, get cancer and die."

Representative James Clyburn, the highest ranking black lawmaker, said he received a fax with an image of a noose.

Even the families of representatives aren't immune to the backlash, apparently. The Albemarle County Fire Marshal's Office and the FBI have concluded, in a joint statement, that a severed gas line outside of the house of Rep. Tom Perriello's (D-Va.) brother was "an act of vandalism." Perriello supported the overhaul measure and an activist involved in the "tea party" movement reportedly posted the brother's address on an internet forum - apparently thinking it was the congressman's - and urged angry opponents to pay him a visit.

Tea Party Getting Violent? 10 House Dems Report Threats, Vandalism

Atlanta — A violent brawl at one Tea Party rally Saturday laid bare the raw emotions now wrenching American society.

Tea Partiers took to the streets Saturday to protest President Obama’s promised immigration reforms, which would offer some illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

In Fort Lauderdale, Fla., however, counterprotesters from ANSWER – an antiwar, pro-immigration reform group – also took to the streets, with one blaring, “Amnesty, yes. Racists, no,” from a bullhorn. When two Tea Party activists entered their protest zone, a fight erupted as Tea Party and ANSWER protesters kicked and punched one another and spilled into the middle of a busy intersection.

Violence at Tea Party rally: bare-knuckle politics in the streets

If anything, the Tea Party set the tone for what has come later. The original violence and harassment politics seemed to start with them. Or do you have examples that go back further?

[robvalue]

I don't find harassment acceptable, no. What some people consider harassment, I will often disagree with.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If anything, the Tea Party set the tone for what has come later.  The original violence and harassment politics seemed to start with them.  Or do you have examples that go back further?

The Weather Underground comes to mind. Both Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne were close allies of Obama. However, despite being terrorists they do not seem to have been active for quite some time. And I think any fair minded person looking at the behavior of the Tea Party rallies versus Occupy Wall Street protests has to admit that Occupy wall street protests were far and away more radical and disruptive. Anyone can find pictures of random people holding signs advocating violence at either. It is pointless to say, "you started it". The more important question is "who will end it?"

Otherwise thank you for your examples. I think we can both agree that attacks on politicians in their private lives is unacceptable. Are you aware of any prominent conservative apologists for the attacks you cited, journalists or pundits similar to Jesse Waters. Or celebrities, not random crazies, calling for the assassination of Trump such as Johnny Depp, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, and the Julius Cesar play in New York. NEWSWEEK Ted Nugget comes to mind, but he wasn't exactly holding a severed head.

[Angrboda]

If anything, the Tea Party set the tone for what has come later.  The original violence and harassment politics seemed to start with them.  Or do you have examples that go back further?

The Weather Underground comes to mind. Both Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne were close allies of Obama. However, despite being terrorists they do not seem to have been active for quite some time. And I think any fair minded person looking at the behavior of the Tea Party rallies versus Occupy Wall Street protests has to admit that Occupy wall street protests were far and away more radical and disruptive. Anyone can find pictures of random people holding signs advocating violence at either. It is pointless to say, "you started it". The more important question is "who will end it?"

The weather underground was a small cell of terrorists. The Tea Party and Liberal demonstrators are grassroots mass movements. You're being disingenuous comparing the two, if not outright equivocating.

[downbeatplumb]

My sincere opinion, is that the rightwing grievance complex has become a parody of itself.

[Amarok]

So this thread has devolved into a petty tit for tat and bringing up ancient grudges.

meh