link of this brutalized suspect doing that?You know I just have a hard time feeling bad for people who pull bystanders out of their cars to beat them to death.
link of this brutalized suspect doing that?
If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence. But which types?
This question has taken on some urgency in the past few years, as professed defenders of social justice have clashed with professed defenders of free speech on college campuses. Student advocates have protested vigorously, even violently, against invited speakers whose views they consider not just offensive but harmful — hence the desire to silence, not debate, the speaker. “Trigger warnings” are based on a similar principle: that discussions of certain topics will trigger, or reproduce, past trauma — as opposed to merely challenging or discomfiting the student. The same goes for “microaggressions.”
That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.
You know I just have a hard time feeling bad for people who pull bystanders out of their cars to beat them to death.
How could they do this to someone that is a part of anti bad guy squad? They're ANTI-BAD GUYS! ITS IN THE NAME!
Tl;drDon't need it because I can apply my patented Leftist Logic System (TM) to deduce how the officers could reach a state where they need violence.
You see, words are violence (source: NYT) in the Leftist Logic System (TM). Allow me to quote the linked article:
Under this assumption we can say that being a policephobe is actually a symptom of white fragility. Policephobic language is violent at it's core and so the police should not be faulted for defending themselves. Policephobia induces triggering of past trauma in police officers and because of this, according to the NYT article linked above, it is not only reasonable it's scientifically reasonable to effect violence on a rioter for their speech.
From this we can further derive the following lemma: police officers using violence to insure compliance of rioters causing trouble is derives from the basis of antifa and BLMs deeply seated policephobia which has no place in a modern progressive society.
It's weird how leftists cannot apply their own system of logic to themselves. These police officers can only deal with the trauma of policephobia through self defense. If they simply turned their minds inward and asked why they are policephobes maybe they would protest instead of riot.
Tl;dr