Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: InOBU
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 08:02 PM

To echo our Brother Norton here, most of us, even at the extreems of opinon are more alike than not, and that is what makes Mudcat great. I think of the differences we have had between myself and Richard Bridge, and GeorgeH, and well, there is something in folks who are drawn to people's music that makes for some kind of commonality.
Cheers all, Larry

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 07:57 PM

No I wouldn't call it hyperbole. If he'd been inbdulging in hyperbole he'd have been advising the readers, for example, to maybe chop the pacifist up into tiny pieces and marinade him, rather than just punch him on the nose.

a href="http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/rhetoric/terms/tropes.html">Here is a page I found listing and defining various rhetorical tropes. The one included here that comes closest to fitting Mr Hagedorn's piece is "parable". But as parables go, not a classic.

I've still got a feeling there's a better term for it. Well, there are plenty of better terms for it, such as "armchair bullying", and some a lot less polite than that - but I mean a technical rhetorical term.

And mousethief, I was pleased you stuck inverted commas on those "anarchists" you mentioned - but then you dropped them later in the paragraph. Most anarchists I've ever known, and there are a good few, are as wholly opposed to the kind of terrorist atrocity that happened of September 11th as they are to any kind of state or commercial violence. (They'll just be inclined to point out that these latter types of violence continually kill even greater numbers of unfortunate people.)

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 02:05 PM

InObu - You are most correct in the assertion that anger comes from fear. At least in my experience. And the old "Fight or Flight" syndrome really kicks in. The courage to walk away and invite potential enemies to dinner is one that I strive for - and like most - struggle with and probably fail more than I succeed. But it is certainly the goal.

Someone said that "Courage is the ability to overcome fear." And from that same courage comes my heros. I've witnessed courage many times in my life and am continually awed by it. In ALL of its forms.

We are much more alike than we are different and it is those similar qualities that bind us. The differences are what make us unique.

My hat is off to you and those like you my friend - I believe that deep down you provide inspirational love to the rest of us. At least to me. Love is "Doing something" and not just a feeling.

Steve

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 02:00 PM

Not to mention that not all PACIFISM is religion-based.

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: mousethief
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 01:51 PM

Sorry: 17-MONTH-old daughter. Always prufrede.

Alex

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: mousethief
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 01:46 PM

1. It's not irony it's hyperbole. Learn the tropes before you venture into the ring.

2. How is allowing someone to hit you cowardly? On the contrary, hitting someone who you know won't hit you back is cowardly. Allowing someone to hit you and not hitting back takes a great deal of physical courage (not to mention self-control).

3. In a totally different direction, they had an article in yesterday's Seattle Times about so-called "anarchists" from Eugene, Oregon. They are quietly celebrating the 9/11 attacks. They are the ones who bussed on up to Seattle and smashed windows during the WTO meetings back in '99 or '00 or whenever that was. Their credo is that all power structures should be eliminated. Their "leader" is a 58-year-old ex-hippie from Haight-Ashbury. It seems to me that if you want the world to be without power structures, you must change people so that they can get along without the safety-net that power structures provide. Among other things they must feel free from attack and random violence. So perpetrating random violence works directly against the possibility of decreasing the world's power structures. And how blessedly sweet it is to give your basest instincts and most inhuman impulses free head, and call that a virtue. Remind me not to invite these guys to dinner. Ironically the leader dude was sitting with his 17-year-old daughter in his lap during the interview. What kind of a world would it be for her, if the "police state" weren't there to punish would-be molesters or abductors? If she were killed by one of his anarchsit buddies (may it never come to pass!), would he rejoice that the "power structures" were shown to be incomplete and inefficient to protect her, the way he rejoices that they couldn't protect the World Trade Center?

Alex

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: InOBU
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 01:18 PM

Dear Norton 1: A word about anger... I have been dealing with a lot of anger at our Friends Meeting, often among people who came to Quakerism late in life. In the experience of our folks it has been my observation, as well as that of Elias Hicks, one of our great philisophical lights, that anger is generally a bi-product of fear. We strike out to cure our fear by passing it on to another. We all have to find our courage one place or another. I find some courage in the fact that fear has no good by products, unless you are really fast! So, I try to face folks like Hagedorn et al, and in fact in inviting him to diner, rather than getting angered and hitting out at him, well, I hope some progress is made. Yup, we all faced violence, also, some who live out in the country don't see as much as we who have 8 million neighbors, but there you are, in a crowded city one has to take calls for violence serriously as there are a lot of folks who may act on it, even calls made in jest, but the real trick is to act without fear.
Happy holidays. larry

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 12:28 PM

Went back and read the thing again. I guess the reason I can't take it as seriously as some are, is that it's simply BADLY WRITTEN. If you ARE trying to be ironic, then you need to have the skills to carry it off. If you're trying to "stick it" to one group or another, you have to show consistency of purpose. The writer is simply not that skilled...it's a technical mish-mash. Not at all like reading something by Charlie Krauthammer that you might think idiotic. His "Bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age" bit of a few weeks ago, got me riled....but only because he used dishonest rhetoric, ALONG with serious writing skills.

The guy who wrote this is simply an amateur (like most of us!)

Rick

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 11:51 AM

True story Larry - the reality is that there isn't a community on earth that has not had violence visited on them. Not one. It doesn't make it right - but there it is.

I don't take it seriously because to do that only gets me mad. If I get mad I get stupid. If I get stupid I visit violence in some form on others (either verbally, mentally, or physically) and that doesn't seem to always solve things. So I think to lighten up might be a good thing for me.

Steve

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 11:49 AM

'Pacifiots', now that was a fine neologism in the context of this thread.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: InOBU
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 11:24 AM

Funny thing is the same folks who are saying that it is just funny and we should lighten up, would likely get rather miffed if some one made some terrible joke about the Taliban getting violent on the US, some folks only take it serriously when the abuse is directed at them. Note that they ignore the fact that all of us who grew up in pacifist communities have seen violence directed at members of our communities, either they say we are liars or the violence is not that important. Oh well, that is what makes horse races, as my dad used to say, horse races or beer hall uprisings... Cheers, Larry

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 10:20 AM

Dorothy Day - I once met her at a conference she was speaking at. She was great. As for canonisation - I doubt if she'd have objected to the idea, she valued traditional stuff like that. She'd have probably said they'd got the wrong person, and that they should have canonised her mentor Peter Maurin

Peter Maurin had a great way with words - here is a sample of a couple of his Easy Essays

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 10:09 AM

I know Americans traditionally don't do irony as much as some other cultures

Could well be you're right there Grab. And in this case if Christopher Hagedorn was trying for irony, but I don't think he got there.

Irony is when you say something with the intention of conveying the opposite meaning. "This is a fine state of affairs" when some catastrophe has happned is ironic. Jonathan Swift suggesting that eating Irish babies would be a good way of dealing with poverty in Ireland was ironic.

And that wasn't what Christopher Hageborn was doing. He clearly isn't a covert pacifist advising people to beat up pacifiots as a way of demonstrating the futility of violence, or the absurdity of saloon-bar militancy. I'm not too up on the figures of speech to describe ways of being funny, and there surely is a word for the rhetorical trope in which he was indulging in this piece. I suppose you could call it pacifist-baiting.

But it definitely wouldn't count as "irony". I don't think it counts as funny either.

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 09:35 AM

Same old pretentious, self important, humorless Guest -

Try to have a good holiday season anyway - K?

Steve

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 09:27 AM

same old pretensious, self important, humorless Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Grab
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 08:24 AM

Come on guys, does irony really need a preface saying "this is a joke" in 10-foot-tall letters? If you can't spot irony, buy yourself a metaly-detector...

And for god's sake, don't ever, _ever_ read Jonathan Swift. Or Private Eye. Or Punch. Or the SatireWire website. Or Douglas Adams. After all, we all _know_ these are actually serious and that's how life really is - they couldn't be meant non-seriously, could they? Jonathan Swift really _did_ mean that the poor should eat babies. And Jesus really meant that a person wouldn't notice that he literally had a log stuck in his eye. And I hope no sports commentator ever says "That was an easy catch - anyone who couldn't make that should be taken out and shot."

I don't understand anyone's concern that this could be taken seriously. Irony as a communication method is well-known in literature and in comedy. I know Americans traditionally don't do irony as much as some other cultures, eg. the British, but you must still know the concept, right?

Graham.

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 07:34 AM

Lock-step makes for terrible dancing...

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: InOBU
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 07:14 AM

Thanks Rick, as ever you are a great solace and ally in the good fight, lock step is worrisome. I hope that the meaning of the paragraph is not changed by spelling "herd" with a "U". Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 28 Nov 01 - 01:15 AM

Larry, that's the finest paragraph I've read from you on Mudcat. here it is again...

"Hi Wandering Minstral... I was thinking of what happened to you, and of other acts of violence against us, and of the comment by one of our Mudcat friends that I know someone who has experienced every form of discrimination, or what ever the quote was. For those who are comfortably ensconced in the great majority, who never step out of line, it must be odd how those of us who do not live their circle of conformity, experience so much that he hasen't. Well, that is what it is to live by one's values and not by the common motion of the hurd. And, in the margins - we meet others who have similar experiences. Cheers, Larry "

Me again:

And as you well know, I sometimes think you DO over-react (like with this article) so I'm not in lock-step with you, but thanks for a fine bit of 'soul-writing'.

Rick

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: InOBU
Date: 27 Nov 01 - 09:56 PM

Hi Kev:
Never met her, but Dorthy Day was a neighbor here on the lower east side, I have a huge number of friends over at the Catholic Worker. My favorite story of her comes from my friend Father Pat Mulloney, who was framed and jailed for recieving money in the Rodchester Armored Car Robbery - conspiracy to recieve funds with persons unknown... but I digress, he formed a not for profit corporation to help homeless kids on the lower east side. Dorthey said to him that he sold out for forming a corporation! They are talking about Canonizaiton for her... I think we would see her rise from the dead if they tried!
Cheers... now of to follow the link... Larry

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 01 - 09:15 PM

What Inobu wrote there set me thinking about the saying about "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" - so I checked out where it comes from; and it appears that it was Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker, saying that was what Christ came to do, and that was what the Catholic Worker was there to do.

And, in the way that the net works, looking for this led me to something even more relevant - an article about pacifism Dorothy Day wrote a month after Pearl Harbour (I suppose I could have signed in as GUEST: Dorothy Day and posted it, but I prefer blue clickies and using my own name.)

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: InOBU
Date: 27 Nov 01 - 05:33 PM

Hi Wandering Minstral...
I was thinking of what happened to you, and of other acts of violence against us, and of the comment by one of our Mudcat friends that I know someone who has experienced every form of discrimination, or what ever the quote was. For those who are comfortably ensconced in the great majority, who never step out of line, it must be odd how those of us who do not live their circle of conformity, experience so much that he hasen't. Well, that is what it is to live by one's values and not by the common motion of the hurd. And, in the margins - we meet others who have similar experiences.
Cheers, Larry

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 01 - 12:34 PM

Great. Much funnier than the original. Well, to me anyway, but maybe not to some...

- LH

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: sophocleese
Date: 27 Nov 01 - 10:24 AM

I didn't find the article particularily humourous (but I'm not a great fan of the Three Stooges either). The analogy is faulty and he repeats the absurd proposition that patriotism means silently surrendering thought and conscience to someone else. If he wanted to make the analogy clearer and funnier with a similar moral he could have suggested:

HOW TO DEAL WITH PEACE ACTIVISTS

With all of this talk of war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against those who terrorized us on September 11, 2001. These activists may be alone or in a gathering; most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their allies, here are the proper rules of etiquette: 1. Listen politely while this person explains his or her views. Strike up a conversation, if necessary, and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments ranging from political to religious to humanitarian. 2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose. 3. Immediately render yourself unconscious by hitting yourself on the head with a frying pan (red-hot "patriots" have the option here of shooting themselves in the head instead). 4. When the person gets up off the ground, they will be very angry, and they may try to hit you, but you won't know because you will be unconscious and defenseless. 5. When you come three, sorry, to. Try to discover if the pacifist either kicked you while you were down or, finding you unconscious and unable to respond, ran around hitting street people, beggars etc. who look like you. 6. If the pacifist didn't do either of these things sit down and hurt your head again by thinking about why. 7. There is a distinct possibilty that the pacifist will realize that he/she was dealing with a mentally disordered person and will have kindly taken you to a hospital. Smile nicely at all the people in white coats, take all the pretty coloured pills that they give you and say it is because YOU are a true patriot and love America.

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 27 Nov 01 - 09:48 AM

It takes both sides of the highway to have a middle of the road. I'm not a Quaker, not a pacifist, and not a warmonger. But I can be all three depending on the situation.

Too bad you had to get hit partner. I don't know that it was necessary to get one's faith tested like that - I admire that you could do it. Know a couple of Quakers that stagger my imagination with what they have done.

Peace to you and all in this thread for the Christmas Season. Or at the least what you can find of it.

Steve

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: A Wandering Minstrel
Date: 27 Nov 01 - 09:37 AM

If you hang out a proposition like this guy Hagendorn has, someone will want to test it.

A true story....

On my quitar bag there is a prominent sticker saying "Quakers for Peace", One evening some time ago I was packing my guitar away at the end of a session when a young man who'd obviously had a couple too many came by. He stopped and looked at my case. "You a Quaker? he asked". "Yes" I said. "You don't believe in violence then?" he asked "No! I said. He then hit me. I was upset and angry but I sat on my hands. When he saw I wasn't going to do anything he called me a F******g Coward and went away.

I'm lucky as this is the only time my belief in this has been tested. I have Friends of an older generation who drove ambulances, unarmed, on battlefields and sat in prisons for their belief. Sometimes it takes a lot more courage to be hurt for what you think is right than to go and bay for blood with the rest of the pack.

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Raptor
Date: 27 Nov 01 - 09:08 AM

I have nothing against pacifism or any isms for that matter. And I applaud Larry for his "putting his money where his mouth is" in going to see if he can help in situations he feels he might be of use.

I just think that getting upset over an article in the paper that should be taken as a joke as it is so abserd is a mistake.

This post should be called "Thug calls for laughter in a time when we need it more than anything."

Jack Please don,t make fun of my puntuation I'm no better at it than spelling. (jk)if thats allowed.

Humor is important.

Raptor

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 01 - 08:26 AM

Larry:

As to Sheiks being mistaken for Moslems, I think most sheiks are Moslem. Perhaps you meant Sikhs?

A.

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: InOBU
Date: 27 Nov 01 - 07:43 AM

My dear friend David:
The reason that I know many folks who have been hard done by, is that I have been an activist for social justice since I was a baby, growing up in a Quaker family who are usualy folks who put their bodies in the way of oppression, and a lawyer for the despretly poor and under represented. Now, a lot of folks, "beak off" about stuff, as our friend Raptor says, that they have only read about. I tend to go, when I had strong beliefs that wrongs where happening in the northern counties of Ireland, I went. When I heard that 3/4 of an Indian community were arrested for trying to stop hydro electric dams from destroying their community - I went, to see if my expensive education to do a little good.
As to hate speach being protected, it - like pornography, has limits to its protection. Those limits come about when someone acts on the suggestions of the speaker. What passes for funny in one situation becomes less funny in other times, such as these.
All the best
Larry

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 01 - 01:57 PM

But it doesn't stand up as any kind of argument anyway. Punching people is not the same as killing them, no more than answering back is.

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: heric
Date: 22 Nov 01 - 01:30 AM

Since I'm the only one who mentioned cops, in blatant thread drift, and now we're onto "racist cops," somehow, I might mention that the dead stick man was white, as were the cops. (FWIW?) But we digress. . . . Back to punching friends in the nose.

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Gary T
Date: 22 Nov 01 - 12:20 AM

Norton1 (Steve) nailed it right here--"If you take this seriously you are in deeper trouble than the speaker."

The proposed method is patently absurd. Therein lies the humor, and the obvious clue that it is in no way meant to be taken literally.

If you don't care for this approach to making a point, fine. If you don't personally see it as funny, fine. But to make accusations based on the clearly ridiculous assumption that it is meant to be taken with any degree of seriousness suggests to me a penchant for going out of one's way to miss the point.

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: ddw
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 11:30 PM

Good try, leprechaun, but you'll never make a dent in Larry's zeal for finding a wrong under every rock. I sometimes think he spends all his waking hours and most of his sleeping time looking for things to be upset about.

It's also curious that for every situation he personally knew somebody who was hard done by for just that kind of thing.

david — thinking the whole thing is making a mountain out of a molehill....

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: leprechaun
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 11:21 PM

'Tis too funny.

What's funny is the editor's journalistic punch in the nose got inobu so riled up he fired off this rabid foamin' at the mouth diatribe and lashed out with this thug challenge.

How peaceful art thee.

I have personally seen violent gangs of so-called peace activists hurling rocks and spears at their fellow humans. But they rationalized it as OK because of their natural frustration at the jack-booted thugs/army of occupation/lackeys of corporate Amerika/racist cops bla bla bla. Ghandi they ain't. One sweet peacenik threw a sharpened skilsaw blade that sliced my buddy's achilles tendon. And then they whined about brutality because they got tear-gassed.

Hate speech is sometimes protected in the USA, as long as it's directed at the fashionably correct group - like cops or business people.

Flamin' leprechaun

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: InOBU
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 10:19 PM

A call for violence is only free speach if it has no consiquence. If any of you out there think there is a right to publicly call for violence against anyone, and by the way an attack on pacifism is an attack on religions, Mennonite, Quakers, Orthodox Jews, Adventists, all of us who used to meet in jail at the start of every war, well, anyone who thinks one can get away with this trash as free speach should read "Hate On Trial" by Morris Dees. It follows the case he brought against Tom Metzger, who made a speach calling for violence against forigners, that speach inspired violence, and ol' Tom got sued, and as Dees says, "I don't believe in censorship, I believe in sueing a man hard enough to shut up his mouth." Well he did, and Tom lost everything.
So there you are. Go ahead and call for violence, but remember, the KKK headquarters in Georgia is now the home of the Southern Poverty Law Center after another law suit against "free speach". Hate speach is not protected in the USA.
All the best,
Larry

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 05:50 PM

The man's clearly never come up against a fist-fighting pacifist. I'd like to think he might some time if he tries this.

Punching somebody back just isn't the same as dropping a bomb on a bunch of refugees from a safe height. It's not even analogous.

I note he advises doing this to women as well as men. An equal opportunity yob.

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 05:44 PM

Ain't free speech the bomb??

What does this mean? He asked curiously.

Steve

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 04:49 PM

Raptor, from the density of exclaimation marks on your posts I would suggest it is you who should lighten up. And No. It is not a joke it is an editorial.

It is Hyperbole to make a point. The point being that anyone who speaks out against the current US goverment's reponse to the events of Sept 11, is an antiamerican Pacifist and should be ridiculed at best, nosed-punched at worst. I don't think it is a specific attack against pacifists. But by using the label "pacifist" he was able to include a childish joke in his editorial.

Bush has already tried to give billions to his oil industry cronys in the name of fighting terrorism. Everyone is trying to wrap thier own agendas in this event. Idiots like Hagedorn are trying to help the current government do so. I don't blame him for trying, just as I don't blame people for speaking out. It is called democracy. It is called checks and balances. Its called free speech.

Is it funny? Depends upon how narrow you mind is. I think Christopher Hagedorn, Editor is an ignorant ass. Ain't free speech the bomb??

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Raptor
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 04:20 PM

Oh my gawd! Leno was on t.v. last night and he said "why did the chicken cross the road?"
In my religion we eat chicken, So leno is saying that we should let all the chickens go walk across the road to freedom, So he is picking on my religion!!!
This is no joke!!
Lets get all upset!
And Invite him over for dinner!!
OR Could it be we just don't get the JOKE?

Raptor

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 03:46 PM

I think it is called "Free speech."

It is a joke.

And as I have stated innumerable times - I fought so that everyone can have their say. Not just the Quakers or the Nazis.

I guess I agree with the, "If you take this seriously you are in deeper trouble than the speaker." We have called it "Flaming" and being a "Troll" in other threads.

Steve

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 03:23 PM

Nothing always works.

As different people are at different stages of development, experience, and awareness...what is right and appropriate conduct for one person in a given situation may be completely wrong and inappropriate conduct for another person...in that same situation!

Thus one prescription for action is unlikely to suffice for all individuals. This is why what are deemed acceptable rules of behaviour in a certain situation may be quite different for a child, an adult, a cop, a soldier, or an ambulance attendant, for example.

A person who is timid or cowardly by nature may need most to learn to stand up and defend himself. A person who is a bully by nature may need most to learn to forgo violence in favour of more constructive behaviour. Same circumstance, entirely different lesson needed!

Insecure little egos cannot accept this, however, and insist that everyone act exactly the same way they would...in every situation...regardless of who they are...and that is an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation if ever there was one.

If we were all somehow made the same, the World as we know it...as a place where you can learn and accomplish something new...would be over.

- LH

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Pseudolus
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 03:23 PM

I might be out on this Island by myself but I think we've taken this in entirely the wrong way. He states right up front that the email made a good point "with humor". Clearly (at least to me) he is stating that the analogy is directed at the US and that the US should fight back, not that we should really be punching pacifists in the nose.

Now, is it in bad taste? I think so. Mis-timed? Absolutely. Whether it was meant as an analogy or as a joke I didn't like it but take it for what it is. I don't believe the intent here is to incite although the result may be exactly that which is why I don't like it. His intent was to make the point that the U.S. should fight back.....imho.

I happen to agree with the notion that "sometimes when you've been punched in the nose you have to punch back". I agree that a pacifist has the right to his/her opinions and should not fear physical harm for speaking out. But I also feel that calling this article nazi trash is an over-reaction.

Just my humble opinion,
Frank

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 03:22 PM

If it's a joke,
1) It's not funny
2) It's not clear - nay, there is no vague fragment of a shadow of a hint, whatsoever, the author is being ironic.
3) Anybody who can think this proves the point that pacifism should be ridiculed this way, likely holds the view that punching people truly is a preferred method of debate.
4) I looked for a point. Trust me, I really looked. The only one I found is that if terrorists from somewhere else don't get you, some fathead from your own country will, because in the world this 'author' lives in, speech is only free if you're bigger than the guys who disagree with you.

So, if it's irony, it sucks. If it's straightforward, it sucks. Conclusion: it still sucks.

If someone thinks they can make a go of the "this proves something," please explain, not just WHAT it proves, but HOW you think it manages to prove it. Ain't got no logic...

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: PeteBoom
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 03:18 PM

oops.... lousy spelling....

"Afghanistan General Service Medal (1878-80)"....

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 03:16 PM

Nothing at all misleading or judgemental about the title of this thread, is there? Saying that the writer is a thug who's telling people to actually punch pacifists is as big a sham as anything in the article, in my opinion.

You don't have to worry about people reading this article and going out to commit violence against people of other religions--People who do that can't read in the first place.

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: PeteBoom
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 03:14 PM

Driving home from band practice the other night, I passed a group with signs out in a park downtown, across from the relatively new arena. Conveniently enough, I got caught by a red light long enough to see they were not protesting some entertainment going on AT the arena (get a few of those each year) - they were peace "demonstrators" making a point. I'm not sure what point they were making though. I was reminded of the Woody Allen line - "Carrying signs and shouting slogans with 50 people in front of 100 people is 'demonstrating.' Doing the same thing by yourself is 'acting like an ass'."

Their demonstration was going on at night - they were not there when I WENT to practice 3 hours before. They were there when no one was around.

I found out later the group that was sponsoring the demonstration. Rather than "pacifists" in the true sense, they were simply opposed to THIS military action. They did not mind military intervention in Kosovo or Somalia, but the objected to the strikes in Afganistan. I called them up later and asked what the difference was. They said we were morally wrong to take the stand we did. I am still waiting for them to tell me what the "correct" stand was supposed to be. Ah well.

Went through my collection of odds-and-ends. Got out two old British campaign medals. I figure the Brits can change the dates and be ready to go with the new versions based on my originals - they are "Afganistan General Service Medal (1878-80)" and the "Kabul to Kandahar Star (1880)."

Big sigh.

Pete

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Raptor
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 03:07 PM

This article was obviously a joke to remind people that pacifism is not the best way to deal with the recent issues!
I must have missed the part where he says pick on people because of thier religion!
Do you people spend a lot of time looking for things to beak off about?
Lighten up for christsakes!!!!
Raptor

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 02:55 PM

But you must admit, it teaches, and rams home the point about how peacefull response to violence doesnt always work; does it????

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 02:47 PM

Larry, I understand your concerns, and if I were the editor I probably would have insisted that this be written in a less provocative way. Regrettably, we have always had people who are intolerant of others, and have always had to deal with nut-cases also. But I did want to suggest that this might have been something less than the "call for violence against pacifists" that your initial post indicated.

I am one of those who dislikes taking anything I read or hear at face value, and likes to challenge assumptions (my own and others'). So I have a question for anyone who happens to be reading this: Do we have more intolerance of Muslims, and attacks on Muslims for their faith, in the US now than we did before September 11th? I know that many of us assume we do, but most of what I have heard is anecdotes rather than statistics. So I don't know if it's happening more now, or I'm just hearing more about it now. Does anyone know the answer to that?

Subject: RE: Thug Calls for violence v. Pacifists
From: InOBU
Date: 21 Nov 01 - 02:46 PM

Hi Dan: As we all know who have grown up in the Irish community, those with the biggest mouths do the least, I don't think I have much ot fear from our freind the editor. Anyone who calls for punching Quaker women in the nose, does not deserve my fear. Thanks for the concern though, to all,
All the best - Larry