Thug punches woman at feminist rally and feminists defend him

[Spectral]

thats the problem with the world: people want to be an asshole and take a shit on someone else, and then cry when they get wiped.

Agreed, people being verbally belligerent, getting in someone's face, and being antagonistic being smacked in a fashion that doesn't hurt anything but their pride is basically a good thing. There's zero chance you'd get my to give this guy a guilty verdict if I were sitting on a jury.

- - - Updated - - -

f you are on the "wrong" side of the isle, these people don't care about your rights.

Do you really want to defend the "right" to do the journalistic equivalent of "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you"?

[Acidz]

She definitely deserved a good punch in the face, so props to the "thug".

[veehro]

it's like people have zero understanding of the words instigator, agitator, inflammatory, ect...
The assault part of assault and battery isnt putting your hands on someone else, it's being a fucking dick/cunt.
thats the problem with the world: people want to be an asshole and take a shit on someone else, and then cry when they get wiped.

How can you instigate some one that preaches acceptance tolerance and an end to violence towards women?

If a person came up to me and was obnoxious in my face i would just leave. I don't respond to violence to simple words.

I just don't understand how some of the people in this forum think its ok to assault some one just because they are annoying.

And the level of victim blaming is also funny.

So let me get this straight. If anita sarkeesian is being as obnoxious and annoying as possible on twitter saying stuff like "its only white men responsible for school shootings" and people say stuff back at her. then thats cyber violence, that is abuse, that is why she went to the UN to complain about the missogyny on the internet directed at women.

But if an annoying reporter pesters some one at a POLITICAL rally. And she gets assaulted. Thats fine, it wasn't a hard punch, he just tried to break her camera etc etc. WHile the other feminists around wearing pussy hats (yes thats what they are litteraly called) her tell her that she is the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed, people being verbally belligerent, getting in someone's face, and being antagonistic being smacked in a fashion that doesn't hurt anything but their pride is basically a good thing. There's zero chance you'd get my to give this guy a guilty verdict if I were sitting on a jury.

- - - Updated - - -


Do you really want to defend the "right" to do the journalistic equivalent of "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you"?

https://twitter.com/exposes_racism/s...68178994135040

I assume you're also fine with this woman being knocked down then because she threw the first punch and was "obnoxious" by not allowing the man to walk in a public space?

[Machismo]

It's not about being pro woman, it's about being pro Democrat and pro liberalism. If you are on the "wrong" side of the isle, these people don't care about your rights. It's all a democratic show to drum up support via identity politics.

Just like when conservatives don't care about LGBT freedoms, minority freedoms, or religious freedoms of non-Christians. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Spectral]

https://twitter.com/exposes_racism/s...68178994135040

I assume you're also fine with this woman being knocked down then because she threw the first punch and was "obnoxious" by not allowing the man to walk in a public space?

More or less, yeah. The level of violence isn't really called for (just like the OP's video), but hey, when you deliberately fuck with people, sometimes you get cold-cocked. A society where deliberate antagonism is occasionally met with a punch is a more polite society. So, yeah, he probably shouldn't actually crack her one, but I don't really care.

- - - Updated - - -

Just like when conservatives don't care about LGBT freedoms, minority freedoms, or religious freedoms of non-Christians. Thanks for clearing that up.

I understand your point on LGBT rights.

Which minority and religious freedoms do you feel are typical for conservatives to oppose? I'm an atheist and I can't say I've ever experienced any religious freedom being obstructed or even any threat of such.

[Machismo]

How can you instigate some one that preaches acceptance tolerance and an end to violence towards women?

If a person came up to me and was obnoxious in my face i would just leave. I don't respond to violence to simple words.

I just don't understand how some of the people in this forum think its ok to assault some one just because they are annoying.

And the level of victim blaming is also funny.

So let me get this straight. If anita sarkeesian is being as obnoxious and annoying as possible on twitter saying stuff like "its only white men responsible for school shootings" and people say stuff back at her. then thats cyber violence, that is abuse, that is why she went to the UN to complain about the missogyny on the internet directed at women.

But if an annoying reporter pesters some one at a POLITICAL rally. And she gets assaulted. Thats fine, it wasn't a hard punch, he just tried to break her camera etc etc. WHile the other feminists around wearing pussy hats (yes thats what they are litteraly called) her tell her that she is the problem.

- - - Updated - - -



https://twitter.com/exposes_racism/s...68178994135040

I assume you're also fine with this woman being knocked down then because she threw the first punch and was "obnoxious" by not allowing the man to walk in a public space?

What we saw, was the guy assault her camera, not her. The guy in your video bum rushed someone far smaller than him. He instigated the physical contact.

[Machismo]

More or less, yeah. The level of violence isn't really called for (just like the OP's video), but hey, when you deliberately fuck with people, sometimes you get cold-cocked. A society where deliberate antagonism is occasionally met with a punch is a more polite society. So, yeah, he probably shouldn't actually crack her one, but I don't really care.

- - - Updated - - -


I understand your point on LGBT rights.

Which minority and religious freedoms do you feel are typical for conservatives to oppose? I'm an atheist and I can't say I've ever experienced any religious freedom being obstructed or even any threat of such.

Well, conservatives support stop-and-frisk policies, and some even support monitoring Muslims and mosques. Some have even called for the banning of mosques in towns. There's also the issue of trying to stop Satanists from displaying statues.

[Sliske]

Maybe he just believes no special treatment should be given to either gender.

You mean the actual definition of equality?

What're you retarded or something?

Anyways - guy pushed camera, not punched woman in face. Lying generally doesn't work when you have video evidence that goes against what you say. You could've even said "Guy pushes camera into Womans face violently" and i'd be on your side IF we could see the womans face. We can't , so we don't even know if THAT would be true.

So right now what you're gunning at is "Guy pushes camera, after warning people to get out of his face"

Who is in the right and who in the wrong? Both i'd say - slightly favouring the camera people. When you use violence, you instantly dig yourself a hole.

How legal is it to push someones camera? Eh, fuck knows. Destruction of property is a crime, is assault of property? And while we're at it - is it legal to jam a camera in the guys face? This law seems to change every 10 blocks you walk, so its hard to tell.

Either way, spoiler alert - getting in peoples faces results in tension. Tension results in violence. I'm sure the camera people don't actually care, and are actually very happy that it happened. It was probably their original goal when they left for work that morning "I really hope someone hits me, will give me lots of traffic.. ah shit, he only pushed my camera.. guess I can trick white knights into thinking he punched me anyway"

Ugh

Bring on the nukes

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/exposes_racism/s...68178994135040

I'm fucking fuming.

THESE ANARCHISTS, LITERALLY RUNNING THROUGH THE STREET, SMASHING PROPERTY AND SHOUTING "FUCK ALL POLICE, FUCK ALL PRESIDENTS" upon losing a fight, INSTANTLY turn to the fucking cops and ask for help.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

I don't even need to fucking give an analogy here. It fucking writes itself.

YOU PEOPLE ARE SO FUCKING SELF AWARE

Stop trying to be a fucking anarchist so it will make a good blog post and GO THE FUCK HOME.

[Spectral]

I mean, atheism is kind of easy to hide in that people tend to just assume every white person is Christian and you may very well not spend a lot of time in areas where people are particularly religious. Good luck running for president while openly atheistic though. There's also a lot of low level stuff with people generally being rude and condescending about it. I imagine it's worse in areas with higher concentrations of religiosity, frankly. It's still the least trusted "religious" affiliation in the US.

Yeah, but this is a lot different than any actual loss of rights. It'd be nice if people had higher opinions of atheists, but I can't really legislate that. All I can really do about it is being a pleasant, non-snarky asshole towards religious folks and cause them to revise their opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

What we saw, was the guy assault her camera, not her. The guy in your video bum rushed someone far smaller than him. He instigated the physical contact.

Pushing someone's camera into their face isn't really that much different from running into someone. I guess there's some degree of difference in likelihood of damage, but either person could wind up with broken nose, both are likely to have minor contusions.

In either case, the basic lesson is that if you're an asshole to someone, sometimes they're going to be an asshole back. You may or may not be legally in the right, but you're still going to get smacked occasionally. Ask Richard Spencer.

[Machismo]

Yeah, but this is a lot different than any actual loss of rights. It'd be nice if people had higher opinions of atheists, but I can't really legislate that. All I can really do about it is being a pleasant, non-snarky asshole towards religious folks and cause them to revise their opinion.

- - - Updated - - -


Pushing someone's camera into their face isn't really that much different from running into someone. I guess there's some degree of difference in likelihood of damage, but either person could wind up with broken nose, both are likely to have minor contusions.

In either case, the basic lesson is that if you're an asshole to someone, sometimes they're going to be an asshole back. You may or may not be legally in the right, but you're still going to get smacked occasionally. Ask Richard Spencer.

I agree, every time I have been punched, I was asking for it... sometimes literally.

[veehro]

I'm fucking fuming.

THESE ANARCHISTS, LITERALLY RUNNING THROUGH THE STREET, SMASHING PROPERTY AND SHOUTING "FUCK ALL POLICE, FUCK ALL PRESIDENTS" upon losing a fight, INSTANTLY turn to the fucking cops and ask for help.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

I don't even need to fucking give an analogy here. It fucking writes itself.

YOU PEOPLE ARE SO FUCKING SELF AWARE

Stop trying to be a fucking anarchist so it will make a good blog post and GO THE FUCK HOME.

They are litteral comunists having the red hammer and sickle flag and the red and black flag that symbolizes anarcho comunism.

Even in the video the guy was "can i speak to my COMRADE" which is the word comunists used in order to be more gender neutral.

They call themselves anti fascists but they are actual marxists doing violence towards any one thats not on their ideology.

The most ironic thing is that they destroyed a starbucks and the window of a bank, both of which paid money to hillarys campaign.

These people can't be less self aware even if they tried

[Dextroden]

Yeah, but this is a lot different than any actual loss of rights. It'd be nice if people had higher opinions of atheists, but I can't really legislate that. All I can really do about it is being a pleasant, non-snarky asshole towards religious folks and cause them to revise their opinion.

- - - Updated - - -


Pushing someone's camera into their face isn't really that much different from running into someone. I guess there's some degree of difference in likelihood of damage, but either person could wind up with broken nose, both are likely to have minor contusions.

In either case, the basic lesson is that if you're an asshole to someone, sometimes they're going to be an asshole back. You may or may not be legally in the right, but you're still going to get smacked occasionally. Ask Richard Spencer.

There's an irony in people cheering a person for punching a nazi in the face but consider it too violent to push a camera out of your face.

[Dextroden]

I mean, it was just a question of opposition. SCOTUS miraculously defended atheism very early on, so it's basically a settled issue, but I'd consider any attempt to instate a Christian theocracy (de facto or otherwise) an affront to the religious rights of all non-Christians.

I'm starting to think we need to become a Christian theocracy so people will be right when they start talking about it.

[Spectral]

There's an irony in people cheering a person for punching a nazi in the face but consider it too violent to push a camera out of your face.

Yeah, some consistency would be nice. Obviously the incidents (running into a protestor blocking the way, punching Spencer, pushing the camera) aren't all exactly the same and proportionality matters, but these things are all in the same ballpark. I think we should all basically acknowledge that the "victim" in each case probably both deserved to be smacked, but probably shouldn't be, but we kinda don't care because they're being assholes.

[Dextroden]

Yeah, some consistency would be nice. Obviously the incidents (running into a protestor blocking the way, punching Spencer, pushing the camera) aren't all exactly the same and proportionality matters, but these things are all in the same ballpark. I think we should all basically acknowledge that the "victim" in each case probably both deserved to be smacked, but probably shouldn't be, but we kinda don't care because they're being assholes.

It's just that whole thing about "You shouldn't go to violence in politics" is a load of horseshit. Same with a lot of slogans about not being a shit human.

[Hotmail]

Just a civilian exercising his right to privacy by defending himself against an overbearing journalist.

He probably attracted the attention of every "tough guy on a mission" in a five kilometer radius by punching that woman, but sometimes you just have to set boundaries. Hopefully she is not one to overplay the victim card.

[Annoying]

Yeah, but this is a lot different than any actual loss of rights. It'd be nice if people had higher opinions of atheists, but I can't really legislate that. All I can really do about it is being a pleasant, non-snarky asshole towards religious folks and cause them to revise their opinion.

In terms of your original question, I wouldn't say that we see much "loss of rights", more that we see specific privileges granted in opposition to the constitution. Things like wanting to insert religion into education and legislation. Plenty "threat of such" happening on those fields.

Just a civilian exercising his right to privacy by defending himself against an overbearing journalist.

A "right" that doesn't exist in public. No expectation of privacy in public.

[Dextroden]

In terms of your original question, I wouldn't say that we see much "loss of rights", more that we see specific privileges granted in opposition to the constitution. Things like wanting to insert religion into education and legislation. Plenty "threat of such" happening on those fields.

And if you pay attention to the other religions, they want that spot, too.

Abrahamic religions are troublesome like that. But, people only focus on one or two. Not all.

[Bombercloner]

Seemed like the woman was trying to deescalate the situation, told the reporter to get security. I feel like the situation was handled appropriately. The guy should get assault charges, not be attacked by a mob of angry people.

[Farrarie]

she didn't do anything wrong to be assaulted if he was a trump supporter he would have been crucified