Society/Culture Can we please stop equating the risk posed by left wing extremists with that of right wing extremists?

[Taylor]

See that wasnt that hard was it?

Ok so you think it's sensible for women to advocate for male violence against women (as long as she starts it first, and thus the violence is 'justifiied').

Note: You're not just supporting male on female violence here. You're supporting advocating for it, as a woman.

Next question:

Do you (or would you) tell your significant other (Tinder date, Husband, Boyfriend or whatever) that he is justified (to use your words) in 'laying you out', but only should you kick it off first?

Yes or No?

Allow me to present a circumstance to you. A woman is not in her rational mind, she is armed, she is attacking children. She lives in the world where men aren't able to use violence against her. Children die.

Clearly that isn't an acceptable outcome, that is entirely what I am referring to.

As I said before, if we are mature grown ups we can talk about the reality that there is going to be circumstances where men need to deliver violence against women to protect. It's literally what it's for in you.

 

[Malifice]

Allow me to present a circumstance to you.

That wasn't the circumstance you were talking about above. You literally said a woman deserves to be 'layed out' by a bloke if she 'squirrel grips' his balls, and you also said that its proper for women to be advocating this exact position to other women (and men).

My turn for a hypothetical.

Your daughter comes to your house with a black eye, broken jaw and missing a few teeth. Her (male) partner 'layed her out, whooped her ass and dropped her with a single punch' (again, using your own words here).

You discover she was slapping him at the time, and then tried to squirrel grip his balls.

Do you tell her:

1) It's her fault, and the violence he used against her was justified, or
2) The violence he used against her was not justified?

 

[Taylor]

That wasn't the circumstance you were talking about above. You literally said a woman deserves to be 'layed out' by a bloke if she 'squirrel grips' his balls, and you also said that its proper for women to be advocating this exact position to other women (and men).

My turn for a hypothetical.

Your daughter comes to your house with a black eye, broken jaw and missing a few teeth. Her (male) partner 'layed her out, whooped her ass and dropped her with a single punch' (again, using your own words here).

You discover she was slapping him at the time, and then tried to squirrel grip his balls.

Do you tell her:

1) It's her fault, and the violence he used against her was justified, or
2) The violence he used against her was not justified?

If she was bringing violence, in this case sexual violence with intent to cause serious hard like squeezing your berries as hard as possible would then I would understand his violent reaction. I'd still be furious.

I can hold two concurrent positions at once.

I refuse to deal in absolutes and rigid mandatory sentencing like positions that strip away all the important things about a circumstance.

We can agree that there is a big difference between a man applying force in a single punch to protect himself from serious physical harm and a man following his target to ground to continue delivering blows when there is clearly no more fight or danger there.

I guess I need to ask you a question to clarify this for me;
Do you think there is no circumstance where it is reasonable for a man to deliver violence to a woman?

 

[Chief]

If she was bringing violence, in this case sexual violence with intent to cause serious hard like squeezing your berries as hard as possible would then I would understand his violent reaction. I'd still be furious.

How would that be proportionate at all?

 

[Taylor]

How would that be proportionate at all?

Because a single strike to get the release from something that is a literal torture technique is measured.

Following on and getting revenge is not.

 

[Chief]

Torture technique?

I think you’re trying to verbalise a specific situation that any of us can rebut with a way to defuse or end without knocking out the female.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

It's interesting how the conversation went from pegging a can at the back of someones head, to squeezing balls.

Theres a few degrees of separation there, regardless of hypotheticals.

 

[Taylor]

Torture technique?

I think you’re trying to verbalise a specific situation that any of us can rebut with a way to defuse or end without knocking out the female.

Which is fine, I'd appreciate not being knocked out if it were me trying to ruin your day/cause permanent damage to you - but it would be reasonable if you did.

Because there are circumstances where violence against anyone is justified.
It's also a horrible thing.

Both are true at once and we can be mature enough to discuss it or we can dive into cult dogma.

 

[Taylor]

It's interesting how the conversation went from pegging a can at the back of someones head, to squeezing balls.

Theres a few degrees of separation there, regardless of hypotheticals.

One is clearly revenge, one is self defense in the act of being assaulted. Two very clearly different things and it shows how bad the first is when compared to the second, assuming we are mature enough to discuss it on the contexts.

 

[Chief]

it were me trying to ruin your day/cause permanent damage to you

Ruin my day?

 

[Taylor]

Ruin my day?

I can't speak to every motivation of someone who would bring violence to you, we are discussing a hypothetical including nut jobs (pun intended)

 

[Gralin]

Jumped the ******* shark hard

 

[Chief]

Here's a good rundown on the law of assault in Victoria:

Assault (common) offences in VIC | Criminal legal

There are a number of assault offences that someone can be charged with under Victorian law.

victoria.criminallegal.com.au

- IMHO throwing the can is common assault, and throwing it back causing a wound needing stitches might be intentional or reckless causing of injury.



Common Assault
Under Section 23 of the Summary Offences Act 1966, common assault refers to an assault perpetrated against one person by another, where the injuries are fairly superficial. While common assault still carries the possibility of a prison sentence, it is considered to be the least serious assault related offence. The law states that any person who unlawfully assaults or beats another person is guilty of common assault.

A person found guilty of common assault is liable to imprisonment for 3 months, or 15 penalty units.

Aggravated Assault
Under Section 24 of the Summary Offences Act 1966, a person convicted of assault or battery on any male child under 14 years old, or any female – where the severity of the assault is aggravated and cannot be punishable under common assault – is guilty of aggravated assault.

A person found guilty of aggravated assault is liable to imprisonment for 6 months, or 25 penalty units.
Any person, who in company with any other person or persons assaults another person, is guilty of aggravated assault.

A person found guilty of this offence is liable to imprisonment for 1 year.

Any person, who by kicking or with any weapon or any other instrument, assaults another person, is guilty of aggravated assault.

A person found guilty of this offence is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

Causing Injury Intentionally
Under Section 16 of the Crimes Act 1958, a person who, without lawful excuse, intentionally causes serious injury to another person is guilty of an offence.

A person found guilty of this offence is liable to imprisonment for 20 years.

Causing Serious Injury Recklessly
Under Section 17 of the Crimes Act 1958, a person who, without lawful excuse, recklessly causes serious injury to another person is guilty of an offence.

A person found guilty of this offence is liable to imprisonment for 15 years.

Grievous Bodily Harm
The term grievous bodily harm refers to the act of intentionally causing serious harm to a person, designed to cause serious wounding, rather than a single blow or similar. An example of this would be setting a dangerous trap with the intention of seriously injuring a person with it.

This article provides basic information only and is not a substitute for a professional or legal advice. Being involved in the criminal or police process can be quite demanding, rigorous, and time consuming.

 

[Chief]

Smoko calls it unAustralian:

 

[Boronia67]

Lets be clear here. I denounce extremism and terrorism in all its forms. Islamic, ethno-nationalist, left wing and right wing. You name it.

But I am getting sick to death of the usual crew trying to play down the threat posed by right wing extremism. We've seen recent examples of far right wing extremism time and time again in Christchurch, Norway, Calgary, Oklahoma, Charleston, El Paso, Poway etc etc. Right wing extremists and neo-fascists, radicalised online (via social media sites like 8kun, 4chan, Stormfront, and increasingly twitter, Facebook and Youtube).

Mosques, Churches, Synagogues, Government buildings and employees and other sites targeted by radicalised right wingers. Mass shootings. Bombings. Car attacks. All the hallmarks of Islamic terrorism, replete with internet radicalisation of disenfranchised angry young men (and it's always men) convinced of some sort of 'clash of the cultures' and the need to kill civilians, women and kids 'for a greater good'.

And the problem of radicalised RWNJ's is growing at a rapid rate.

In Australia, Right wing extremism accounts for 40 percent of ASIO's counterterrorism efforts:



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-22/right-wing-extremists-asio-islamic-state-tactics/12690002

In the USA, far right wing terrorism accounts for the majority of all terrorist incidents since 1994, committing 2/3 of all plots and attacks in 2019, and over 90 percent to May 2020:



https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

And the irony of the above, is you always see the usual flood of right wingers storming in to defend the above, or downplay it. The very same people that were prepared to denounce all Muslims on account of Islamic terrorism, and called for draconian laws and banning of radicalised Islamic extremists and preachers, are now pushing for the Lauren Southerns and similar far right wing agitators of the world and their 'freedom' to spruike their sh*t, and radicalise even more people.

Even worse, they try and label loosely aligned anti-fascist groups as 'terrorists' and draw this false equivalency between them and the radicalised neo-fascist mass murderers from the Right or from the Islamic extremist variety (none of whom I'll name here, may they all rot in Hell).

It's about time that false equivalence was called out for what it is. A deflection and a denial by right wingers and neo-fascists about the evils of the very far right wing ideologies they hold so dear.

Instead of downplaying and deflecting, the real question is: What can be done about the surge in neo-fascist and far right wing terrorism?

How many people have right wing extremist killed in Australia ?

Soft Gun laws tend to exist in places where right wing extremist kills. The truth is in America homicide is more likely to be committed by demographics who vote for the democrats.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

How many people have right wing extremist killed in Australia ?

Soft Gun laws tend to exist in places where right wing extremism kills. The truth is in America homicide is more likely to be committed by demographics who vote for the democrats.

An Australian right wing extremist killed 51 people in NZ recently.

 

[Malifice]

How many people have right wing extremist killed in Australia ?

Narrow question?

Our home grown Aussie RW extremist went to NZ to carry out his plot, where he killed 51 odd people.

The other plots here by RW extremists have been foiled thanks to ASIO.

 

[Malifice]

The truth is in America homicide is more likely to be committed by demographics who vote for the democrats.

Men vote for all parties, not just the Democrats.

 

[Boronia67]

An Australian right wing extremist killed 51 people in NZ recently.

Narrow question?

Our home grown Aussie RW extremist went to NZ to carry out his plot, where he killed 51 odd people.

The other plots here by RW extremists have been foiled thanks to ASIO.

So in a country with a population of 26 million right wing extremist have killed 0 people ?

Tough gun laws is the answer

 

[Boronia67]

Men vote for all parties, not just the Democrats.

 

[Malifice]

So in a country with a population of 26 million right wing extremist have killed 0 people ?

Tough gun laws is the answer

We have tough gun laws. Its the reason the Australian RW Extremist went to NZ to carry out his attack.

What about explosives? RW extremist Timothy McVeigh used a bomb to kill 168 people in the USA, where guns are easy to get.

 

[Malifice]

View attachment 1284801

Now adjust those stats by poverty, and the ethnic disparity disappears.

Explain this:

In 2020, there were 8,977 murder offenders in the United States who were male, which is almost seven times the number of female murder offenders in the same year.

Not only is it 'men' that are the leading demographic for murder (and by a country mile), you cant make that disparity disappear by factoring in poverty either.

 

[Lethality]

Now adjust those stats by poverty, and the ethnic disparity disappears.

It doesn't have to be an ethnic disparity, poverty works as well. Poor people probably vote democrat more

 

[Malifice]

It doesn't have to be an ethnic disparity, poverty works as well. Poor people probably vote democrat more

Not only do poor people in the USA tend not to vote, but middle class voters vote Republican more than Democrat.

college-educated voters are more likely to support putative workers’ parties, while non-college-educated ones tend to favor conservatives.

Why Americans Don’t Vote Their Class Anymore (nymag.com)

 

[Malifice]

It doesn't have to be an ethnic disparity, poverty works as well. Poor people probably vote democrat more

Also for what its worth, 'Men' (far and away the most violent demographic, committing most of the murders, and virtually all terror attacks and mass shootings) tend to favor the Republicans.

In 2018 and 2019, the Democratic Party held a wide advantage with women: 56% of female registered voters identified as Democrats or leaned toward the Democratic Party, while 38% identified as Republicans or leaned toward the GOP. This stands in contrast to men, among whom 50% were Republicans or GOP leaners and 42% identified as or leaned Democratic. This gender gap has been slowly growing wider since 2014.

How U.S. men and women differ in voter turnout, party identification | Pew Research Center