Bill Bucko

Is it rational to HATE those who threaten your loved ones?

37 posts in this topic

AT LAST a public voice speaks out IN DEFENSE OF THE GOOD and dares to say the same things that for a year and a half I've been viciously smeared for saying!

From http://www.drhurd.co...e-You-Hate.html

Let's get something straight here. Hatred can be rational.

I happen to HATE the following things:

Slavery.

Serfdom and dictatorship.

Busybodies.

Control freaks.

Government bureaucrats undermining doctor care.

Government mandates and government regulations.

Presidents, Senators and other politicians who act as if they "care" when really they're just trying to seize and hold on to personal power. Politicians who claim to be upholding individual rights for all when, in practice, they sacrifice the rights and well-being of some for the sake of favored others.

The reason I HATE these things is because I LOVE the following things:

Freedom.

Liberty.

Individual rights.

Reason and rationality, the things freedom is supposed to make safe -- especially in the all-important arena of medicine.

Free markets and freedom of competition in all areas -- especially medicine!

It's rational to HATE something when the reason you HATE it is because it's undermining or destroying something you LOVE. ...

Do you love your spouse? Your child? Your pet? Your house?

If you love or value anything in a meaningful way, you will quite naturally and logically feel hatred towards anyone who threatened these values.

A rapist, a murderer, a thief, an arsonist -- anyone who seeks to undermine or destroy that which you love? Do you mean to tell me you don't hate someone or something which threatens what's most important to you? Do you mean to suggest that you don’t hate what they’re trying to do?

I’m making a psychological point here. I'm talking about the necessary psychological basis for a free society. It’s crucial to developing and maintaining self-esteem to grasp what I’m saying. A humble society will never be a free one. If people continue to bow their heads in humble uncertainty, and become ashamed when told not to disagree with authority (when authority is so clearly wrong), then freedom, liberty—and all we hold dear, and most of us take for granted—are surely doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's rational to HATE something when the reason you HATE it is because it's undermining or destroying something you LOVE."

As some of you know, for a year and a half I've been viciously smeared by a clique of phony alleged Objectivists who accuse me of advocating violence, merely because I HATE the bastards who are forcing Death Panels on my loved ones, because I brand them as criminals, and because I say they are evil -- more evil than, say, a gunman who shoots people. [Ayn Rand, of course, made that same comparison in "Collectivized Ethics." And she was speaking merely of Medicare, not of Death Panels!]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DR. HURD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first I have read that anyone has been attacking you over this topic in the name of Objectivism. Along with hatred of threats to values are also contempt, loathing, despising, etc. What arguments are being given to oppose this and how did it become turned into personal attacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was smeared on Facebook by a clique consisting of Klaus Nordby, Chip Joyce, Steve Rogers, Rob Flitton et.. al. -- the gang who later formed the so-called "Checking Premises" org. Self-appointed experts on Objectivism, all of them. Though not a one of them had read "The Virtue of Selfishness" -- or if they had, they utterly failed to grasp what Miss Rand said about marauding politicians vs. marauding gunmen. For details, see

http://www.facebook.com/notes/bill-bucko/does-congresswoman-giffords-respect-human-life/173530166021755

More recently, Harry Binswanger viciously and gratuitously smeared me as an alleged advocate of violence, on his HBL list. I warned him that he had made himself legally liable for defamation and libel; and I have not heard of any further attacks from him.

Betsy's FORUM is too clean a place to talk at length about that cesspool of alleged Objectivists. So any further discussion, I'd like to move to Facebook, where I am known, not surprisingly, as Bill Bucko.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Violence" in itself says nothing about the moral context, so anyone focusing *solely* on any actual advocacy or actual use of violence as wrong/immoral is operating on an intrinsicist ethics.

One could perfectly realistically say that in WW2, both the Nazis and the American military used loads of violence - were they morally the same? Is a cop shooting at an armed robber who's killed 2 innocent people wrong? etc. Is a socialist using violent means (i.e. government force) to enforce socialist edicts a decent person because he's operating legally?

Context certainly matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was smeared on Facebook by a clique consisting of Klaus Nordby, Chip Joyce, Steve Rogers, Rob Flitton et.. al. -- the gang who later formed the so-called "Checking Premises" org. Self-appointed experts on Objectivism, all of them. Though not a one of them had read "The Virtue of Selfishness" -- or if they had, they utterly failed to grasp what Miss Rand said about marauding politicians vs. marauding gunmen.

Never heard of them. Looking now (briefly) at their group-writing pronouncements and the tone, it's another case of 'there it goes again'. Don't you have better things to do?

I don't use facebook and am apparently not authorized to see what is posted there:

This content is currently unavailable

The page you requested cannot be displayed right now. It may be temporarily unavailable, the link you clicked on may have expired, or you may not have permission to view this page.

More recently, Harry Binswanger viciously and gratuitously smeared me as an alleged advocate of violence, on his HBL list. I warned him that he had made himself legally liable for defamation and libel; and I have not heard of any further attacks from him.

Has he retracted it?

Betsy's FORUM is too clean a place to talk at length about that cesspool of alleged Objectivists. So any further discussion, I'd like to move to Facebook, where I am known, not surprisingly, as Bill Bucko.

I wasn't interested in seeing them further publicized or becoming embroiled in their personal jousting carried on under the banner of 'The Philosophy', only in what the gist of the aberrant arguments are against what is on the face of it obvious from your description in connection with the Hurd article. If you don't want to get into it here it's ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own—I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!" - Hank Rearden, Atlas Shrugged, Part 2, Chapter 4, The Sanction of the Victim.

Hmm - sounds *violent* ... maybe they should add Ayn Rand to their little lists. Oh, let's not forget Ragnar Danneskold eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil O., thanks for the very apposite quote from "The Sanction of the Victim."

Evw, there actually weren't any real arguments on the other side--other than "it's wrong to compare politicians to criminals" [though Miss Rand certainly did]. It was really no more than a bunch of shouting, on their part, that since I expressed hatred for congresswoman Giffords (because of her threat to my loved ones) I was ipso facto approving of her shooter.

I.e. those experts on Objectivism were unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between "hate your enemies" and "shoot your enemies."

In Binswanger's case, he ignored my careful 3,000 word defense, in which I supported my position with quotes from Ayn Rand, such as:

“CRIMINALS are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors—the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions—perpetrated by mankind’s GOVERNMENTS … When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men’s deadliest enemy.” “Man’s Rights” (emphasis added)

"If one values human life, one cannot value its destroyers."

"The Ethics of Emergencies"

“If you hold on to the vision of any value you love—your mind, your work, your wife or husband, or your child—and remember that that is what the enemy is after, your shudder of rebellion will give you the moral fire, the courage and the intransigence needed in this battle.” Ayn Rand, “The Age of Envy”

I cited repeatedly the core of my position: that Giffords (and everyone else responsible for forcing obamacare on us) was THREATENING MY LOVED ONES, WITH THEIR DEATH PANELS (from which they exempted themselves and their families). I said they had committed 3 overt crimes: perjury (in taking the oath of office), sedition (in reversing the constitutional roles of government and the people), and conspiracy to commit mass murder (through Death Panels).

Binswanger totally ignored the issue of Death Panels, or the fact that innocent lives were at stake. He chose to talk only about "socialized medicine" (which sounds a lot less deadly):

"In the descent to dictatorship, there does come a point at which

participating in the regime becomes a crime. That is part of the

theme of the superb movie "Judgment at Nuremburg." But

casting a legally objective vote for socialized medicine falls

miles short of that division."

To him, obamacare was established by a "legally objective vote," which he evidently expects us to respect. He offered no other argument.

Do you see anything “legal” or “objective” in all the chicanery, bribery, deliberate fraud, and violation of congressional rules they perpetrated---not to mention the violation of the Constitutional provision that taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, and above all the illegal USURPATION of powers denied them by the Constitution, the “supreme law of the land”?

Binswanger and his fellow apologists elevate voting into a fetish. But voting is merely one element of legitimate governance, and by far not the most important one. (Adherance to the Constitution—as the best procedural method we have to protect individual rights—is the most important one.) Do they know what the Founding Fathers said about the limits of federal power? Have they ever read the Tenth Amendment?

Or have they ever considered the fate of Socrates? Aren’t they advancing the same philosophic error that killed him? the belief: “they voted, so it’s legitimate”?

If Congress votes to kill all the Jews, is that legitimate, too? No?? Well, Congress HAS in fact voted to kill all the countless tens of thousands every year whom the Death Panels choose to doom. WHERE is there any difference in principle between that, and killing the Jews? Do Jews possess rights that medical patients lack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Harry Binswanger is not here to present or defend his position, Bill's views of Dr. Binswanger's position must be evaluated in that context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is rational to hate?

Not on any chronic, continuous basis. Hatred is a painful emotion. As such, painful emotions leave callouses, eventually making it impossible to feel much of anything, not even hatred.

Hatred is thus appropriate for immediate threats, providing extra energy to deal with those threatening iminent harm to oneself or loved ones.

As for long term threats, like those on the initial poster's list, such persons involved in such threats are definitely not worth the emotional energy involved in hatred. In her novels, Rand's characters didn't generally think about evil persons except at such times it was necessary to deal with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. But it's necessary to deal with the tyrants in Washington NOW.

Isn't the death threat against our loved ones a sufficient reason to act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent over 15 years as a Montessori teacher, caring for hundreds of wonderful 3-5 year olds. During that time I took it for granted that if their lives were ever threatened, it was my job to FIGHT to protect them.

I never had to--THEN.

But times are sadly different. Murderous collectivists, out to enslave all Americans, have taken over the federal government and have usurped the power of life or death over us. I can do no less than to FIGHT for my beloved children, NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can do no less than to FIGHT for my beloved children, NOW.

I agree, Bill, but how do we get meaningful results in the here and now? (It seems to me that by being involved in education, you're doing a hell of a lot.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. But it's necessary to deal with the tyrants in Washington NOW.

Such rhetorical flourishes are off the mark. my CD-ROM dictionary defines "tyrant" as:

"1 : an absolute ruler : despot

"2 : a ruler who governs oppressively or brutally

"3 : one who uses authority or power harshly".

Occasionally abuses of power do not a tyrant make.

Isn't the death threat against our loved ones a sufficient reason to act?

The question assumes facts not in evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Occasionally abuses of power do not a tyrant make.

Occasional?

It's a non-stpp assault on our rights, 25/8. (Does murdering just one person make you a murder or not?)

The question assumes facts not in evidence.

Are you under the impression that the further centralization of healthcare, a process that was well underway long before Obama's Change, isn't going to cost lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is rational to hate?

Not on any chronic, continuous basis. Hatred is a painful emotion. As such, painful emotions leave callouses, eventually making it impossible to feel much of anything, not even hatred.

Hatred is thus appropriate for immediate threats, providing extra energy to deal with those threatening iminent harm to oneself or loved ones.

As for long term threats, like those on the initial poster's list, such persons involved in such threats are definitely not worth the emotional energy involved in hatred. In her novels, Rand's characters didn't generally think about evil persons except at such times it was necessary to deal with them.

He didn't advocate wallowing in it as a permanent state of life. But that doesn't mean that deserved hatred is only temporary either. An evil person who deserves to be despised, hated or loathed continues to deserve it. You don't have to think about it all the time to recognize the permanence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occasionally abuses of power do not a tyrant make.

Occasional?

It's a non-stpp assault on our rights, 25/8. (Does murdering just one person make you a murder or not?)

The question assumes facts not in evidence.

Are you under the impression that the further centralization of healthcare, a process that was well underway long before Obama's Change, isn't going to cost lives?

There is more than enough evidence to see that the destructive, statist and collectivist assaults on our rights and the precedents being set extend well beyond Obama health control. They permeate government agencies. There have been several books published documenting Obama's deliberate attacks on constitutionally limited government. Even the effects of Obama health control itself extend beyond medical care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more than enough evidence to see that the destructive, statist and collectivist assaults on our rights and the precedents being set extend well beyond Obama health control. They permeate government agencies. There have been several books published documenting Obama's deliberate attacks on constitutionally limited government. Even the effects of Obama health control itself extend beyond medical care.

Liberal Fascism has been brewing in our political DNA since the time of Alexander Hamilton. You can start with the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. It became manifest in the doings of Abraham Lincoln who unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus. And was blatantly obvious in the doctrines of Woodrow Wilson, a front line liberal fascist. The United States has been going to hell since 1794.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the effects of Obama health control itself extend beyond medical care.

All the way to taking over student loans, ie, taking over academia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, evw and JohnRgt.

If the Marxist psychopath in the White House doesn't like a law, he just suspends it by decree. If he wants more power, he grabs it. In spite of the Constitution. How anyone can doubt that the regime is after total control over us, is beyond me.

Anyone who seeths and festers with such power-lust that he has to seize more power each and every week, is a psychopath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When arguing against those urging self-destructive and possibly suicidal actions, there comes a time when one says, "Go ahead. Do it," even if it wouldn't quite, uh, make my day.

Various individual have argued, if not for, then at least toward armed insurrection.

After agreeing that long term hatred is a bad idea, Bill Bucko says, "But it's necessary to deal with the tyrants in Washington NOW."

How does he plan to deal? "I can do no less than to FIGHT for my beloved children, NOW," Bucko said. So, go ahead, fight, and possibly get your ass shot off.

Needless to say, an armed insurrection would not prevail. The U.S. government is militarily too powerful, and the population would be unsympathetic. NOW is a particularly bad time for Objectivists to reach for their rifles.

In the meantime, sitting around hating nefarious politicians who continually scheme to further expand governmental power, as well as their supporters in academia and the media, is a vast waste of emotional energy. The appropriate emotion toward such malefactors is contempt, that is, when thinking about them at all.

In terms of NOW, the best we can hope for is to defeat Obama and replace him with a moderate Republican whose plans for expanded government is a bit more modest.

Ayn Rand wrote at length about how the dominant philosophy works to implements its ideas -- more and more consistently as time goes on. Our best hope is in replacing the dominant philosophy with Objectivism. It's going to be a long struggle, and allowing ourselves to be eaten up by hatred in the meantime is personally and politically self-defeating. Hateful rhetoric is self-defeating, which is why the liberal contingent continually strives to misconstrue (misconscrew) even the mildest of reproaches as hate speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... So, go ahead, fight, and possibly get your ass shot off. ...

You make several unwarranted assumptions about me and my position; as well as about the future of the country. To assume that U.S. armed forces would violate their oath of office and side with a dictatorship rather than the people, is insulting to them

And it is simple-minded (to say the least) to assume there is only one way to FIGHT.

American patriots were fighting against British tyranny in a variety of ways, long before the 18th of April, 1775.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When arguing against those urging self-destructive and possibly suicidal actions, there comes a time when one says, "Go ahead. Do it," even if it wouldn't quite, uh, make my day.

Various individual have argued, if not for, then at least toward armed insurrection.

After agreeing that long term hatred is a bad idea, Bill Bucko says, "But it's necessary to deal with the tyrants in Washington NOW."

How does he plan to deal? "I can do no less than to FIGHT for my beloved children, NOW," Bucko said. So, go ahead, fight, and possibly get your ass shot off.

Needless to say, an armed insurrection would not prevail. The U.S. government is militarily too powerful, and the population would be unsympathetic. NOW is a particularly bad time for Objectivists to reach for their rifles.

In the meantime, sitting around hating nefarious politicians who continually scheme to further expand governmental power, as well as their supporters in academia and the media, is a vast waste of emotional energy. The appropriate emotion toward such malefactors is contempt, that is, when thinking about them at all.

In terms of NOW, the best we can hope for is to defeat Obama and replace him with a moderate Republican whose plans for expanded government is a bit more modest.

Ayn Rand wrote at length about how the dominant philosophy works to implements its ideas -- more and more consistently as time goes on. Our best hope is in replacing the dominant philosophy with Objectivism. It's going to be a long struggle, and allowing ourselves to be eaten up by hatred in the meantime is personally and politically self-defeating. Hateful rhetoric is self-defeating, which is why the liberal contingent continually strives to misconstrue (misconscrew) even the mildest of reproaches as hate speech.

Ayn Rand also wrote in terms of "fighting for the future". It did not mean that she advocated violence, which -- like Bill Bucko -- she opposed.

As Bill wrote on this very thread:

As some of you know, for a year and a half I've been viciously smeared by a clique of phony alleged Objectivists who accuse me of advocating violence, merely because I HATE the bastards who are forcing Death Panels on my loved ones, because I brand them as criminals, and because I say they are evil -- more evil than, say, a gunman who shoots people. [Ayn Rand, of course, made that same comparison in "Collectivized Ethics." And she was speaking merely of Medicare, not of Death Panels!]`
More recently, Harry Binswanger viciously and gratuitously smeared me as an alleged advocate of violence, on his HBL list. I warned him that he had made himself legally liable for defamation and libel; and I have not heard of any further attacks from him.

These continued personal attacks through accusations and insinuations by Jim Austin against Bill Bucko as allegedly advocating violence are worse than smears inappropriate on the Forum. They are libelous accusations of a felony, which is itself a crime.

Likewise, Austin's personal attacks against him as being allegedly "eaten up by hatred" and engaging in "hateful rhetoric" are baseless, personal accusations against Bill for defending and fighting for his values.

Bill started this thread in praise of Michael Hurd's article When What You Love is Under Attack -- Of Course You Hate, and quoted:

I’m making a psychological point here. I'm talking about the necessary psychological basis for a free society. It’s crucial to developing and maintaining self-esteem to grasp what I’m saying. A humble society will never be a free one. If people continue to bow their heads in humble uncertainty, and become ashamed when told not to disagree with authority (when authority is so clearly wrong), then freedom, liberty—and all we hold dear, and most of us take for granted—are surely doomed.

Austin's echoing liberal 'anti-hate rhetoric' is anti-value, moral intimidation. As Hurd wrote:

They throw around the word "hatred" as if it's supposed to intellectually and morally disarm you. It's not only Obamacare, but a lot of issues. You're supposed to think, "Oh, no. Somebody said I'm hateful. I better stop opposing Obamacare, then."

I call this an attempt to morally and psychologically disarm you. It won't work with me, and it need not work with you, either.

The left confuses the deserved hatred, loathing, etc. against them for what they are doing as 'violence' because they are anti-value and can't tell the difference between raw hatred and denunciation of attacks on values. The left has a long history of falsely packaging thought and action: they commit violence themselves in the name of 'free speech', and they assume that anyone who denounces them must be threatening 'violence'.

Forum members are supposed to know better than to be cowed by this nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... So, go ahead, fight, and possibly get your ass shot off. ...

You make several unwarranted assumptions about me and my position; as well as about the future of the country. To assume that U.S. armed forces would violate their oath of office and side with a dictatorship rather than the people, is insulting to them

In any insurrection, the first responders would be the FBI and/or BATF. Such an insurrection would most likely go the way of the whackos at Waco or Ruby Ridge.

In other circumstances, first responders could be state National Guard units. Experience in the 1960s indicate a tendency to be somewhat trigger-happy.

In terms of the attitude of America's military personnel, their's no evidence that they regard the current government as a dictatorship. All evidence is that they consider our government righteous and are willing to put their lives on the line for their commander in chief.

... So, go ahead, fight, and possibly get your ass shot off. ...

And it is simple-minded (to say the least) to assume there is only one way to FIGHT.

American patriots were fighting against British tyranny in a variety of ways, long before the 18th of April, 1775.

Yes. They destroyed private property. They physically assaulted individuals. They rioted. Some got their asses shot off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand also wrote in terms of "fighting for the future". It did not mean that she advocated violence, which -- like Bill Bucko -- she opposed.

When Rand wrote about "fighting for the future," she definitely meant advocacy: writing books, articles, letters to the editor, speaking up on any available forum.

However, Bucko wrote about it being "necessary to deal with the tyrants in Washington NOW," about our government being a "dictatorship." Under such tyranny and dictatorship, advocacy is not much of an option. Tyrants suppress opposition advocacy. Violence is required to overthrow a dictatorship, as in insurecction, uprising, rebellion, revolution.

If Bucko didn't really mean it, if he really opposes violence, then it must that his references to tyranny and dictatorship is just so much rhetorical overkill, which itself isn't all that helpful.

As Bill wrote on this very thread:

As some of you know, for a year and a half I've been viciously smeared by a clique of phony alleged Objectivists who accuse me of advocating violence, merely because I HATE the bastards who are forcing Death Panels on my loved ones, because I brand them as criminals, and because I say they are evil -- more evil than, say, a gunman who shoots people. [Ayn Rand, of course, made that same comparison in "Collectivized Ethics." And she was speaking merely of Medicare, not of Death Panels!]`
More recently, Harry Binswanger viciously and gratuitously smeared me as an alleged advocate of violence, on his HBL list. I warned him that he had made himself legally liable for defamation and libel; and I have not heard of any further attacks from him.

Bibswanger might well have decided not to risk litigation with someone who has already marginalized himself.

These continued personal attacks through accusations and insinuations by Jim Austin against Bill Bucko as allegedly advocating violence are worse than smears inappropriate on the Forum. They are libelous accusations of a felony, which is itself a crime.

It's just a matter of taking Bucko at his words, particularly his latest submission

Likewise, Austin's personal attacks against him as being allegedly "eaten up by hatred" and engaging in "hateful rhetoric" are baseless, personal accusations against Bill for defending and fighting for his values.

Bill started this thread in praise of Michael Hurd's article When What You Love is Under Attack -- Of Course You Hate, and quoted:

I'm making a psychological point here. I'm talking about the necessary psychological basis for a free society. It's crucial to developing and maintaining self-esteem to grasp what I'm saying. A humble society will never be a free one. If people continue to bow their heads in humble uncertainty, and become ashamed when told not to disagree with authority (when authority is so clearly wrong), then freedom, liberty—and all we hold dear, and most of us take for granted—are surely doomed.

Austin's echoing liberal 'anti-hate rhetoric' is anti-value, moral intimidation. As Hurd wrote:

They throw around the word "hatred" as if it's supposed to intellectually and morally disarm you. It's not only Obamacare, but a lot of issues. You're supposed to think, "Oh, no. Somebody said I'm hateful. I better stop opposing Obamacare, then."

I call this an attempt to morally and psychologically disarm you. It won't work with me, and it need not work with you, either.

Like the liberal contingent, his guy has fallen into the habit of using standardized thought patterns regardless of context. I was not the first to use the word "hate." That was in the title of this thread. I merely pointed to the psychological consequences of continuous and chronic hatred, to which Bucko responded "True."

In a different context, like Germany during the 1920s and '30s, hateful rhetoric was practical. It worked. It won adherents.

Nowadays, not so much. People in America believe political leaders should be benevolent, benign, and, dare I say it -- nice! Mean spirited, strident and shrill rhetoric turns people off.

The left confuses the deserved hatred, loathing, etc. against them for what they are doing as 'violence' because they are anti-value and can't tell the difference between raw hatred and denunciation of attacks on values. The left has a long history of falsely packaging thought and action: they commit violence themselves in the name of 'free speech', and they assume that anyone who denounces them must be threatening 'violence'.

Forum members are supposed to know better than to be cowed by this nonsense.

Forum members should consider consequences of hate -- both personnal and practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites