Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 254: Pete's Whine Cave

(+) Yeah! (+)

$900 please
---

Remember, go to https://peteswinecave.com for all of your wine cave needs

---

To carry the discussion from the end of the last topic here:

My point is that your life is equally threatened by a single person who can credibly kill you as it is by a hooded collective who can credibly kill you. It makes no difference that it might be easier for a collective to pull it off if the means and the motive are present for both.
---

it absolutely is.

that's what flags are in the end. businesses don't show the flag to say "hey we're gay," they say it to show their acceptance and support of the community. it's all politics and optics there.

And that's all a cross really is too! Just politics and optics. You think a business is really 'Christian". It's not. The owners may be Christian, but the business itself isn't. Unless perhaps it's a church, but by this argument I should be allowed to go burn a cross outside of Chick Filet.

---

Wang said...

oh hey you care about context here but not in the other two. apply it there too.
also the KKK does it with religious reasons in mind. so the context is what i said.

Yeah, the context of the guy burning the flag at the gay bar is that he will kill gay people if they dont stop being gay. For religious reasons.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

My point is that your life is equally threatened by a single person who can credibly kill you as it is by a hooded collective who can credibly kill you.

it isn't.
go with the most extreme case - a guy with a gun. is a guy with a gun a major threat to your life? absolutely.
is it equally threatened as 10 people with guns? absolutely not. the threat is significantly higher. one person can change their mind in the first situation and hey, threat gone. nine people can choose to do nothing but one guy can decide fuck it, you're dead and now you're dead. they are not equal, in any way, and i do not know how you can think that.

this scenario is one man and you're comparing him to a collective of hooded/masked men and saying the threat isn't significantly different between these two. that's nonsense, the latter obviously is a much bigger threat. one guy yelling at you committing a violent act ain't the same as a bunch of people yelling at you, covering themselves up, and committing the same violent act. the latter is obviously much more dangerous, a much bigger threat, much more intimidating, and much more plausible to leading to escalation.

---

Im trying to figure out where the understanding between both opinions is lacking here

Is the hang up that a cross on a lawn threatens a specific family, whereas a flag at a bar threatens non-specific people?
---

Wanglicious posted...

it isn't.
go with the most extreme case - a guy with a gun. is a guy with a gun a major threat to your life? absolutely.
is it equally threatened as 10 people with guns? absolutely not. the threat is significantly higher. one person can change their mind in the first situation and hey, threat gone. nine people can choose to do nothing but one guy can decide fuck it, you're dead and now you're dead. they are not equal, in any way, and i do not know how you can think that.

this scenario is one man and you're comparing him to a collective of hooded/masked men and saying the threat isn't significantly different between these two. that's nonsense, the latter obviously is a much bigger threat. one guy yelling at you committing a violent act ain't the same as a bunch of people yelling at you, covering themselves up, and committing the same violent act. the latter is obviously much more dangerous, a much bigger threat, much more intimidating, and much more plausible to leading to escalation.

If 10 people kill you, youre not more dead than if one person kills you.

Now when you bring up potential for escalation beyond the initial threat, sure! But thats outside the scope of this argument.
---

Like maybe we just arent defining threat the same way? Theres some breakdown in communication here
---

I wonder how many people defending burning the Pride Flag are also fine with burning say... the Israeli flag.

---

the threat needs to be plausible and the situation changes based on where it's done. a mail slot means you know where a specific person lives and sleeps. an office cubicle means you know where a specific person works. a night club or bar, apart from being a social location, also does not have a target here. it is not the same threat based on the setting. context matters.

you know that there have actually been hate crimes that took place at gay bars, right?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

you know that there have actually been hate crimes that took place at gay bars, right?

Pulse Night Club comes to mind.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

I wonder how many people defending burning the Pride Flag are also fine with burning say... the Israeli flag.

You should be able to burn an Israeli flag as a political statement

You should not be able to burn an Israeli flag at a Synagogue
---

Ashethan posted...

And that's all a cross really is too! Just politics and optics. You think a business is really 'Christian". It's not. The owners may be Christian, but the business itself isn't. Unless perhaps it's a church, but by this argument I should be allowed to go burn a cross outside of Chick Filet.

actually... no, a lot of businesses that would put up a cross or other religious symbols would absolutely consider their businesses to be "Christian." religion ties to people stronger that way, that's exactly my point. let's try to narrow the scope down to a more equal scenario - say it's one guy who burns a cross in front of a Christian's house. the message isn't just "I hate you," it's also "God hates you and you should burn in hell." there is an intended stronger impact and people with religious beliefs hold them incredibly strong. there's overlap between religion and politics obviously but there is a certain area where the former is unique compared to the latter.

with all that said, i do support your right to burn a cross outside chick-fil-a or even a church. blasphemy can absolutely be just political and should protected absolutely. this isn't something i intend to split hairs on either mind you, i don't think it's a big enough difference to be relevant. just was pointing out that a flag and cross are different symbols targeted in different ways, with the latter being intended as more intimidating.

Jakyl25 posted...

Is the hang up that a cross on a lawn threatens a specific family, whereas a flag at a bar threatens non-specific people?

...i mean if we include things like lawn then the flag on the lawn is at risk of starting a fire MUCH easier than a bar since i'm thinking outside of a bar = concrete, lawn = grass.

but you don't see a difference between somebody's home and a bar? really?
because literally any aspect of what makes a threat changes a ton by that fact alone. being threatened by some guy outside a bar is not the same as being threatened by a guy outside your home - this difference should be obvious.

Jakyl25 posted...

Like maybe we just arent defining threat the same way? Theres some breakdown in communication here

i desperately hope so because from where i'm standing what you're saying are things so blatantly obvious not how anything works that you should know that.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

you know that there have actually been hate crimes that took place at gay bars, right?

of course.
but it's still not the same as literally your home or workplace.


---

Jakyl25 posted...

You should be able to burn an Israeli flag as a political statement

You should not be able to burn an Israeli flag at a Synagogue

i support burning it outside a synagogue too.
i'm quite in favor on the right to protest like that.

---

I think the problem here is that you're defining a hate crime as somehow needing to be a threat against a specific person. That isn't how it works.

---

Wanglicious posted...

i support burning it outside a synagogue too.
i'm quite in favor on the right to protest like that.

If you do it at a Synagogue, youre threatening people, not protesting

Unless you somehow make it VERY CLEAR what EXACTLY you mean by the flag burning, which is possible I suppose but then why bother
---

no, my objection was just to this line Jakyl said:

"Burning an LGBT flag OUTSIDE OF A GAY BAR is a direct threat akin to the KKK burning a cross at a black mans house and should be a crime"

i was just saying these two things are not at all comparable or the same, it's apples and oranges because flag isn't a cross, a black man's house isn't a gay bar, and the KKK isn't one guy. that's it. this is not a direct threat akin to any of that.

---

Wanglicious posted...

the message isn't just "I hate you," it's also "God hates you and you should burn in hell." there is an intended stronger impact and people with religious beliefs hold them incredibly strong.

I realize this might not be what youre saying, but if theyre considered differently as threats legally because of this, then ugh. Reminds me of smokers getting extra breaks at work because of what theyre addicted to.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

If you do it at a Synagogue, youre threatening people, not protesting

i would definitely expect you to be arrested for it, for what it's worth. same with burning a cross outside a church or a government flag on the steps of a government building - it's arson. you're making a political statement by committing a crime and ultimately all are acceptable as political speech. it is not inherently a threat, though it can certainly be interpreted as such in all of those cases and any investigation to that is fair.

---

Lets all avoid the fire hazards and agree to protest by pissing on things instead

That way if youre burning shit then theres no mistaking that its a threat
---

Wanglicious posted...

i was just saying these two things are not at all comparable or the same, it's apples and oranges because flag isn't a cross, a black man's house isn't a gay bar, and the KKK isn't one guy. that's it. this is not a direct threat akin to any of that.

Much like with Jakyl's comparison, apples and oranges are perfectly comparable. Both are seeded fruits, and both grow on trees. You can make juice out of both of them. Both are light colored, and begin with a vowel. That they aren't the exact same thing is meaningless to their comparability.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I realize this might not be what youre saying, but if theyre considered differently as threats legally because of this, then ugh. Reminds me of smokers getting extra breaks at work because of what theyre addicted to.

honestly i'm not sure what the rules are, legally. i just know the general argument for religion being valued higher than secular aspects and that we do have that codified in some ways - just look at instances where religious practice gets put at odds with the law. they end up using freedom of expression and freedom to association arguments for a wider front but it's with a clear religious backbone.

---

Like, I would not consider pissing on an LGBT flag at a gay bar to be a threat, nor would I consider doing it to a cross outside a black familys house a threat (just stay on public property)
---

LGBT flag is exactly the same as the American flag. A symbol of pride.

LGBT is just gay pride. American flag is American pride.

Just like a Yankee flag is a Yankee pride, etc.

There is basically zero scenario where burning a LGBT flag should be considered more criminal than burning an American flag inside of America. The American flag should be a sacred symbol within our borders and be met with stiff measures for those who desecrate it.

---

Wanglicious posted...

just look at instances where religious practice gets put at odds with the law.

What are some examples of that. I can only think of wine at communion for kids
---

Jakyl25 posted...

You should be able to burn an Israeli flag as a political statement

You should not be able to burn an Israeli flag at a Synagogue

So you agree anti-zionism is anti-Semitism? Yes? Otherwise what would burning the flag of a foreign nation have to do with the Jewish religion as a whole?

---

Corrik7 posted...

LGBT flag is exactly the same as the American flag. A symbol of pride.

LGBT is just gay pride. American flag is American pride.

Just like a Yankee flag is a Yankee pride, etc.

There is basically zero scenario where burning a LGBT flag should be considered more criminal than burning an American flag inside of America. The American flag should be a sacred symbol within our borders and be met with stiff measures for those who desecrate it.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So you agree anti-zionism is anti-Semitism? Yes? Otherwise what would burning the flag of a foreign nation have to do with the Jewish religion as a whole?

If youre doing it at a synagogue with no other context, your motive clearly is anti-semitism

Like I said, you could ADD the context to make it expressly anti-Zionist, but then why even bother doing it at an American synagogue, unless they are tied to the Israeli government in some way I guess
---

Jakyl25 posted...

What are some examples of that. I can only think of wine at communion for kids

Vaccinations. Medical treatment. Foster Care Protections, Family Leave... healthcare. Way too many areas to be honest.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

If youre doing it at a synagogue with no other context, your motive clearly is anti-semitism

Like I said, you could ADD the context to make it expressly anti-Zionist, but then why even bother doing it at an American synagogue, unless they are tied to the Israeli government in some way I guess

So you see why Anti-zionism can be anti-Semitic and now understand why I said anti-Semitism is rising on the left due to anti-zionism campaigns used to harass the Jewish population on campuses then? Right?

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Vaccinations. Medical treatment. Foster Care Protections, Family Leave... healthcare. Way too many areas to be honest.

Oh fuck okay, I was only thinking of religious practices within the church. Thanks

Most of that when applied to children of religious families is bullshit.
---

Corrik7 posted...

So you see why Anti-zionism can be anti-Semitic and now understand why I said anti-Semitism is rising on the left due to anti-zionism campaigns used to harass the Jewish population on campuses then? Right?

Was I one of the ones arguing with you that it wasnt? My concern with the (presumptuous) wording of the Trump administrations actions was that it would equate ALL anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic hate crime
---

Ashethan posted...

That they aren't the exact same thing is meaningless to their comparability.

it's a fairly meaningless comparison.
try to even it out.

scenario 1: single dude outside gay bar burning an LGBT flag
scenario 2: group of hooded/masked people explicitly against a man's race outside a black man's house burning a cross

now try evening them out until the two threats are similar to each other. for starters the latter has a clear direct threat against an individual and it's their home - this is way more dangerous of a situation. a group of people, also way more dangerous. you're going from level 10 to level 80 real fucking quick between these two and this is obvious by the fact that if you were to mix up the second situation's specifics to the first it would be so, so much worse.

one guy outside a gay bar burning a flag is a lot less threatening than one guy outside a gay man's house burning a flag; one guy outside a gay bar burning a flag is a lot less threatening than a bunch of masked men from a known, violent anti-LGBT group just protesting outside said gay bar. just changing one aspect of that comparison changes the extremity of the situation and the threat level so much that you can't consider them in the same league. let alone adding both of them. it was just a terrible comparison to make. that's all.

---

boy do I ever hate the constant overuse of the phrase "is this the hill you wanna die on" these days but good god does it ever apply to people jumping to defend bigoted trash heaps

---

Wanglicious posted...

it's a fairly meaningless comparison.
try to even it out.

scenario 1: single dude outside gay bar burning an LGBT flag
scenario 2: group of hooded/masked people explicitly against a man's race outside a black man's house burning a cross

now try evening them out until the two threats are similar to each other. for starters the latter has a clear direct threat against an individual and it's their home - this is way more dangerous of a situation. a group of people, also way more dangerous. you're going from level 10 to level 80 real fucking quick between these two and this is obvious by the fact that if you were to mix up the second situation's specifics to the first it would be so, so much worse.

one guy outside a gay bar burning a flag is a lot less threatening than one guy outside a gay man's house burning a flag; one guy outside a gay bar burning a flag is a lot less threatening than a bunch of masked men from a known, violent anti-LGBT group just protesting outside said gay bar. just changing one aspect of that comparison changes the extremity of the situation and the threat level so much that you can't consider them in the same league. let alone adding both of them. it was just a terrible comparison to make. that's all.

Okay I see where we are getting crossed up

Youre really hammering hard the concept of potential to escalate, and in that sense, I agree with every word youre saying

In the moment though, I dont feel any safer knowing theres one guy outside who wants me dead than I would knowing there were 100 guys outside who want me dead, assuming both threats were equally as credible

But yes, the hooded collective is a much bigger issue at large left unchecked
---

Corrik7 posted...

LGBT flag is exactly the same as the American flag. A symbol of pride.

i wouldn't consider it exactly the same at this point and time because the LGBT flag isn't just pride but it's pride from a group that's been heavily persecuted against. it's a symbol rising above that and becoming accepted everywhere. now while some people do take the American flag and the identity of being an American very personally i don't think it quite compares due to that extra bit of meaning the LGBT flag carries in today's world. hopefully in the future the two can be but it's barely been a single generation of full acceptance (see: anti-sodomy laws being canned, government recognizing marriage) and a handful more of tolerance.

mind you i do still thing both are perfectly "fine" to burn in and of themselves. scenarios where the flag burning becomes a threat do exist and that's much easier to do with something like LGBT - or religion - than the American flag, which rarely will be an active threat. what, you're gonna burn it in front of a military base? okay, cool. is anyone going to think you're a threat to said military base? do it in front of a gay bar, some might think you are. do it in front of a gay man's house, definitely a threat. there is a certain point where this action goes from political and rightfully protected speech to something that clearly should not be protected. totally fair to argue where that line should be and while i don't agree that this case is fair the 16 year sentence is largely due to 1) multiple previous felonies, and 2) literally not taking a lawyer of any kind. the guy's either insane or in it for the attention. or both, if he seriously thinks a 16 year sentence is worth this nonsense.

Jakyl25 posted...

Oh fuck okay, I was only thinking of religious practices within the church. Thanks

Most of that when applied to children of religious families is bullshit.

oh i totally agree it's bullshit. just that religion definitely has some codified aspects that protect it so that should be a clear enough mark of how important it can be.

---

Wanglicious posted...

it's a fairly meaningless comparison.
try to even it out.

scenario 1: single dude outside gay bar burning an LGBT flag
scenario 2: group of hooded/masked people explicitly against a man's race outside a black man's house burning a cross

now try evening them out until the two threats are similar to each other. for starters the latter has a clear direct threat against an individual and it's their home - this is way more dangerous of a situation. a group of people, also way more dangerous. you're going from level 10 to level 80 real fucking quick between these two and this is obvious by the fact that if you were to mix up the second situation's specifics to the first it would be so, so much worse.

one guy outside a gay bar burning a flag is a lot less threatening than one guy outside a gay man's house burning a flag; one guy outside a gay bar burning a flag is a lot less threatening than a bunch of masked men from a known, violent anti-LGBT group just protesting outside said gay bar. just changing one aspect of that comparison changes the extremity of the situation and the threat level so much that you can't consider them in the same league. let alone adding both of them. it was just a terrible comparison to make. that's all.

Scenario one points moreso to action directed at what the establishment is / it's patrons have in common. In this example, LGBT.

Scenario two points to a localized action directed directly to your family/home.

Even without the numbers / masks the threat is greater. Unless in scenario one, you stalked someone specifically to that site.

---

Wanglicious posted...

mind you i do still thing both are perfectly "fine" to burn in and of themselves

That's a problem. Desecrating the American Flag should definitely not be fine and should be criminal. I consider it no less than desecrating the graves of your family.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Youre really hammering hard the concept of potential to escalate, and in that sense, I agree with every word youre saying

yeah, because if i'm trying to compare direct threats that's a super important factor. it's not that what this guy did can't be considered a threat but it's just so drastically different i did a double take. i don't disagree with most of what you're saying exactly, we have a difference of opinion of where the line should be, but that sentence just threw me off completely because it seemed like too much of an exaggeration. sorry if i came off like a dick, was a gut reaction of "oh no not him too."

Jakyl25 posted...

In the moment though, I dont feel any safer knowing theres one guy outside who wants me dead than I would knowing there were 100 guys outside who want me dead, assuming both threats were equally as credible

would feel much less safe with the 100 guys.
definitely the 100 guys.
with one guy you can get cops on him pretty easily or he can be talked down or whatever else. even if the worst happens and he's armed, the damage he can do is limited by virtue of being one guy. yes it can be a lot but compared to 100 armed guys...
with 100 guys uhhhh i'm out. i don't think there's many ways to make this an equally credible threat without having the 1 guy extremely violent. it just takes 1 asshole and with 100 of them it means you can be 99% safe and equally as bad as the 1 guy. or to simplify it, one scenario involves a cop car, the other involves an armed police line.

---

Corrik7 posted...

That's a problem. Desecrating the American Flag should definitely not be fine and should be criminal. I consider it no less than desecrating the graves of your family.

this is a real question: is it a crime to desecrate the grave of a family member if youre the one who paid for the grave? I would have guessed that sort of thing was a vandalism charge but you cant vandalize something you own.

I ask because generally the person burning a flag legally owns the flag they are burning. Outlawing that seems like it would infringe on property rights and free speech rights which is bad?
---

Corrik7 posted...

That's a problem. Desecrating the American Flag should definitely not be fine and should be criminal. I consider it no less than desecrating the graves of your family.

Its been upheld as protected speech by the Supreme Court

---

Corrik7 posted...

That's a problem. Desecrating the American Flag should definitely not be fine and should be criminal. I consider it no less than desecrating the graves of your family.

strange counterpoint, with a minor bolded edit:

Corrik7 posted...

Scenario one points moreso to action directed at what the establishment is / it's patrons have in common. In this example, Americans.

Scenario two points to a localized action directed directly to your family/home.

graves of your family is personal.
American flag is something you identify with, a symbol of what you are, but the establishment here is the country, its patrons being citizens.

going a step further, you should absolutely be able to deliver an insult of the highest order to any identifying aspect, whether it be your hair, eyes, height, weight, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. the second you protect one of them you've opened the door to the rest and the first one to creep up is always going to be religion. blasphemy laws are a thing we do not need and that quickly becomes a thing - look at the way Mohammad and Islam is protected even in Europe, even after a French place got shot up over it just a few years ago. you're worried about LGBT on this case using that logic, which is fair, i'll also gladly point to the way China treats any insults on its Pooh Bear of a leader too as something on a similar thread of logic.

edit: there's clear differences in all of those but the idea is still a matter of "how much can you insult part of someone's identity until it becomes illegal?" for what it's worth, Jakyl has stated a few times that he's open to the idea in principle, it's just the specific location here that crosses the line as it becomes a threat in his eyes. with the American flag... it's not really a threat, just insulting. that's why you have to protect its desecration. if that insult is allowed, it should be applied to any insult.

---

Corrik7 posted...

That's a problem. Desecrating the American Flag should definitely not be fine and should be criminal. I consider it no less than desecrating the graves of your family.

Do you think it should be a crime to desecrate the graves of your family if you own the burial plot?
---

Corrik7 posted...

That's a problem. Desecrating the American Flag should definitely not be fine and should be criminal. I consider it no less than desecrating the graves of your family.

Its a piece of cloth.

---

I hate that Xi has to drag Poohs name through the mud.

Now all the people want to call him Pooh because he hates it, but Pooh doesnt deserve that comparison.
---

*walks into topic*

huh this went in a different direction than i expected after seeing ~100 new posts

Without having yet looked comprehensively into the matter beyond the arguments made in this topic so far, my initial impression was that 16 years seems like an excessive sentence on its face, but the more I look into this, the more context appears to be damming.

https://www.kcci.com/article/im-guilty-as-charged-man-says-he-doesnt-regret-burning-church-lgbtq-banner-at-gentlemens-club/27982018

Simply following the links from that original hill article linked here to the Des Moines Register that reported it locally leads to them citing an interview by a local news station where the criminal in question did where he said he was "guilty as charged" (he plead not guilty in court) and "Exactly. I burned down their pride, plain and simple."

Further the Ames Police Chief stated that: "He told the people in the bar that he was going to burn the place to the ground and at that point he made reference to burning 'their flag'"

Now I don't know (and I don't think any of us do because I don't think anyone has posted any insight/reporting from the trial itself) how much these details were presented/factored into the actual case but to me these kind of make the presence of both a hate crime and a threat... pretty damn clear, on top of the whole theft and reckless use of fire charges and the fact that he was apparently considered a habitual offender.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I would have guessed that sort of thing was a vandalism charge but you cant vandalize something you own.

I would think you can not, no. Though it would not be impossible for to be charged for a separate-but-related crime depending on the manner in which it was done.

Some states have laws against "reckless burning" (a similar charge being leveled in the case that originated the discussion) so like if you did so in a way where there was a real chance of your vandalism somehow escalating (say a fire spreading into others' property or something dunno just guessing here) then they might be able to get you on that, but strictly speaking that'd be different.

---

Police said Adolfo Martinez, 30, got into a dispute at the Dangerous Curves Gentlemen's Club at 111 Fifth Street, was kicked out of the bar, and then came back early Tuesday morning.
"He told the people in the bar that he was going to burn the place to the ground and at that point he made reference to burning 'their flag,'" Ames police Cmdr. Jason Tuttle said.

Tuttle said Martinez didn't make his motive clear to officers. But Martinez, now out of jail, did make his motive clear when KCCI went to his house to ask him about the charges Wednesday.
"It's my honor. It is written. It is a judgment and it's written to execute vengeance on the heathen and punishments on the people," Martinez said. "It's my honor to do so. It was an honor to do that. It's a blessing from the Lord."

okay then.
nevermind any criticism i could've possibly had on this case.
not even sure i'm objecting to that sentence now. 16 years between this, him committing felonies beforehand, his lack of wanting a lawyer? yeaaahhh... suddenly i don't have a problem. good judge, good result.

---

See you would have known all of that already if you just follow Full Throttles topics

That flag was indeed hot
---