[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

[Koumei]

Pretty much nails China on the head right?
Well, at least the peoples republic of china.
Not the other china in think.

And if it weren't so sad, one could laugh at the fact that as per part of that definition, Antifa is actually a fascist movement as well.

A big point of fascism is opposition to collectivism, socialism, communism and workers' rights in general. And for all that people still call China a communist country, that bit is pretty accurate. Usually. It's kind of a weird mixture over there with a dart board of what is and isn't state-regulated/owned.

Antifa, on the other hand, do not exalt nation and race, don't stand for dictatorial leaders or economic and social regimentation, and are not against communism. So while you did a great job reciting what some tool on twitter or reddit felt clever saying when they were defending neo-Nazis, you're not actually remotely in the ball park of being correct.

[DSMatticus]

Antifa is just "anti-fascist," and their only noteworthy trait beyond that is an openness to destructive and violent forms of protest. But fascism isn't a fucking blood disease, and you don't catch it by punching nazis in the face. Fascism is authoritarian nationalism (as in, racially pure ethnostate nationalism). Using violence to resist authoritarian nationalism does not make you an authoritarian nationalist. The soldiers who survived Normandy did not wake up the next day with stupid moustaches and a strange craving for Jewish flesh (for to fight Hitler is to become Hitler, apparently).

"Antifa are just left-wing nazis" is the most baffling bullshit talking point I have ever heard, or at least it would be if I hadn't read enough about the civil rights era to know that racist assholes and the media did the same thing to civil rights protesters - calling them all black supremacists, because clearly resisting white supremacy makes you a black supremacist.

[Username17]

I don't think they do. In particular, places like the US (supposedly) have protection from cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable force. In general, states possibly might be within legal rights (questionable but if so it's a sign of a corrupt state, see NK), but definitely aren't within moral rights to use any amount of force...that's crazy talk.

States definitely do have the right to use any amount of force they want to enforce their own laws. If Saudi Arabia wants to stone women to death for adultery or North Korea wants to shoot people for modifying radios to recieve South Korean broadcasts, they do have a right to do that. That's what it means to be a state. You are well within your rights to not like it, but those things will only change from the internal political systems of those countries or invasion and conquest from another state, because states do in fact have a right to use any amount of force to enforce their own laws. States have a monopoly of force in their own jurisdictions and the only limits to its use are the ones they set for themselves.

Now let's get a little bit closer to the case at hand. When a regional government wants to do a thing and the national laws and the high court tell them that they can't, and they do it anyway, then it falls to the national government to force compliance on the issue. And in that case, the ammount and form of coercion is entirely up to the national government. If the national government doesn't feel it's important, they may just let it slide. If the national government does feel it's important, they can withold federal funds or send in the tanks or anything in between. That is a choice that is solely in the hands of the national government.

And when a regional government makes its declaration that they are going to violate the orders of the high court, they are doing so knowing full well that a response with tanks rolling down the street is very much on the table. They can't not know that, because that's always the case for every act of rebellion. In every country. All the time.

Case in point:



Other case in point:



You presumably support the national government sending tanks in the first instance to enforce national laws on school desegregation. And you presumably don't support sending in the tanks in the latter case to enforce Chinese single party rule. But that's not because you're inconsistent, it's because you're in favor of desegregation and opposed to the inflexibility of the Chinese political system.

Now, whether you support the regional government or the national government in any particular confrontation thus has (or should have) nothing whatever to do whether or not the regional declarations were illegal on a national basis or whether the national government sent paramilitaries to beat the crap out of people. Those are simply results of structural factors of who has power at what level of government, not the rightness or wrongness of any particular side.

So if you wanna make the argument that the Spanish government is in the wrong, you can't just show pictures of protesters fighting with police. That proves nothing. You have to make an argument that the goals of the local government are right and the goals of the national government are wrong. That's it. That's all you have to do, but also all you can do.

So, every single person who condemned the actions of the Spanish national government: why do you think it's a good idea for relatively wealthy Catalonia to stop sending federal transfers to pay for social programs in poorer Extremadura? That's what this revolt is about. Why do you support that goal?

-Username17

[Kaelik]

And when a regional government makes its declaration that they are going to violate the orders of the high court, they are doing so knowing full well that a response with tanks rolling down the street is very much on the table. They can't not know that, because that's always the case for every act of rebellion. In every country. All the time.

Case in point:

Except that when the US wanted to integrate schools, they used force (or threatened to) against the people trying to stop it/officials refusing to do it, instead of innocent bystanders who did nothing wrong.

What you are advocating for is the equivalent of using the army to shoot black children for not integrating fast enough.

But am really glad you backed 10000000% off your obviously wrong claim that it was rebellion and war and therefore all violence is fine.

[Stahlseele]

Welp,
Spain/Catalonia debacle keeps on going.
Thousands protesting for a united spain and against the catalon independence.
And if catalonia does not stop with the independence stuff they are going to lose their partial autonomy.

[Dimmy]

So Trollman and Zinegata actually do think the Catalonia kerfuffle constitutes rebellion, Ancient History no doubt meant well but happened to be flat-out wrong, and Stahlseele's just a jerk on my Block list. (For which, mea culpa; somebody whose avatar is Comedian from Watchmen obviously isn't somebody worth talking to in the first place. It's a red flag like a Pepe avatar.)

Also, by default, I guess I have to side with Kaelik and Phlapjackage on this topic...and most especially with Mask and his "clusterfuck" statement.

And saddest of all, Trollman has gone right off the deep end and accused most of this forum of being friggin' Burmese genocidaires. Sir, is there a...change in your personal life that's not going too well? Getting enough sleep? Eating and pooping on a regular schedule? Maybe you should step back from the forums for a week or two until that's settled.

Anyway, thank you folks; that's all I needed to know.

[Zinegata]

So, every single person who condemned the actions of the Spanish national government: why do you think it's a good idea for relatively wealthy Catalonia to stop sending federal transfers to pay for social programs in poorer Extremadura? That's what this revolt is about. Why do you support that goal?

-Username17

I think you're giving the Catalonian independence supporters too much credit Frank.

Yes, the core of Catalan discontent lies with the relative wealth imbalance and transfers. However, I don't think the lunatics running the regional government understand that or are trying to address that. Indeed, my sense is that they are just feeding off this discontent to serve a much simpler and baser purpose - which is to keep themselves in power.

It's worth noting again that the Catalan "referendum" wasn't even a thing until September of this year, whereas real independence referendums tend to be discussed and decided upon years in advance.

That's the reason why the Catalan unionist parties walked out of parliament and they - rather than the national government - went to the Spanish Supreme Court to have the referendum declared illegal. They rightly saw that it was just an attempt at a Kim Jong Un-style rubber stamp election - with no time for international observers or election monitors from opposing parties to be setup - and yet you have morons in this thread still believing that the referendum wasn't rigged and that it was the Spanish government "interfering with the will of the people" despite a 90% (rigged) pro-independence result. Probably more people showed up at the million-man rally in Barcelona to reject the independence vote than actually voted.

And in any case Catalan was demanding immediate independence after the vote, which is completely insane even if Spain and the EU cooperated with them.

The delusional people in this thread - and most of the pro-independence Catalanians - probably think that life will proceed as normal in Catalan after independence; they just stop reporting to Spain. However, in reality - as Scotland discovered - becoming a new state formed from an existing EU member doesn't confer automatic EU membership. That means Catalan doesn't have access to freedom of movement, and has has to negotiate trade deals with every country in the world. From scratch.

So even if the EU and Spaniards totally bend over and be nice, what this means for Catalan is that they will be unable to travel outside of their for months while the new wonderful independent Catalan government has to complete the task known as "issuing new passports to all of its citizens". And, given the Catalanian government's petulant attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if they started blaming Spain/EU for their own inability to issue passports in a timely manner when their citizens start complaining they can't see friends or business associates in Madrid.

That's why real independence referendums don't rush things. It's a multi-step process. The region and the international community first have to agree that independence is happening first. Then they spend a much longer amount of time figuring out what the new country will look like and how it will be related to the rest of the world.

As it stands, Catalan can declare "independence" tomorrow and be anything from a Anarcho-Liberal mess to a Theological Dictatorship where Puigdemot is Supreme Ruler for Life.

That the Catalan government itself clearly hasn't thought of the real consequences of nationhood thus points to only two possibilities: The whole referendum is a publicity stunt to try and gain leverage in negotiations with the Spanish government - leverage that is vanishing as the Spanish government gets pissed at the unnecessary trouble, or Puigdemot is just again using this as a wedge issue to prop up his power because his governance is not exactly stellar (alternatively he's truly insane and believes himself destined to make Catalonia independent, but that's usually an after-effect of trying to cling to power).

Either way, it's not going to end well for everyone involved.

[Zinegata]

So Trollman and Zinegata actually do think the Catalonia kerfuffle constitutes rebellion

Rejecting the Supreme Court to hold a rigged election to justify a unilateral declaration of independence opposed by a large segment of Catalonians themselves is very much rebellion.

It's just that nobody wants to call it that because it demonstrates the fragility of democratic institutions and of the uncomfortable reality that all of the cherished Western "rights" - such as freedom of expression - are only made possible due to state's ability to use force. That also why laws on "sedition" still exist.

Ideals, by themselves, don't stop bullets. Moreover encouraging a rebellion just to prop up a largely failed Catalan government and presidency really goes to show which side doesn't value actual human life in favor of meaningless pronouncements about their moral superiority.

And saddest of all, Trollman has gone right off the deep end and accused most of this forum of being friggin' Burmese genocidaires.

Trollman's been accusing people of worse things for years. It's just that Denners have gotten bored in this echo chamber and decided to turn on him for once.

Moreover Trollman isn't accusing people of committing genocide. He's accusing you of being hypocrites because you spend so much fucking time supporting a political stunt and bleeding your hearts over Catalan while actual genocides like the Rohinga go unmentioned.

That's the reason why I decried the "lawyering" going on, which is basically how a lot of members of this forum - like Kaelik - lost their grip on reality long ago. You all still keep thinking you can argue your way into proving that you're not shitty people.

The reality is simpler. Being a good person isn't based on how many Internet debates you win. It's based on what you actually do on a day to day basis. What you did on this thread was to lie about what other people say ("Trollman said we supported genocide!") in order to try to win an Internet argument and then posture about your moral superiority afterwards.

That makes you an actual shitty person.

[Zinegata]

No, the real trouble is the glorious royal police of Spain curbstomping hundreds of unarmed people whose biggest "crime" was voicing their opinion while most other european governments go "this is fine".

No the real trouble is you're a moron who can't separate what you feel versus that a state is actually supposed to do, because you're an entitled brat who believes the bullshit that your vote matters.

They were not "voicing their opinion". They were committing a crime by voting in an illegal election designed to deny at least 1 million Catalans of their right to reject a silly and stupid "independence".

Secondary is the bit where you try to shift goalposts so hard, like you had claimed that most of the people stayed at home because they didn't want to vote, to which I pointed out the threat of the majesty's cops breaking their bones if they attempted to vote may've played as much if not a bigger part.

Since you apparently don't understand, let me make it clear for you: The vote was rigged. You supported a Kim Kong Un-style rubber stamp elections.

Want to prove otherwise? Where were the international monitors? Where were the monitors from the opposition parties? Where is the investigation about the widespread claim that "flying votes" (same person voting multiple times) were not only allowed, but encouraged? Why the enormous discrepancy between the results of neutral pollsters before the election regarding support for independence (40%ish) compared to the results that are being reported exclusively by Catalan pro-independence officials (90% yes)?

No, saying "Evil Spanish Police" beat us up doesn't answer any of these questions. Indeed, it only points to how you never even bothered to consider that the Spanish police were the good guys trying to prevent a rigged vote!

Again, spoiled brats who haven't seen how elections can be rigged shouldn't try to speak to adults who know how democratic systems actually work, and how "voting" is merely a portion of it. You can't even tell a real vote from a fake one. That's why you want to whine so hard about "goalpost shifting".

[Dogbert]

And if it weren't so sad, one could laugh at the fact that as per part of that definition, Antifa is actually a fascist movement as well.

Look, anyone who actually tells you the "many sides" bullshit when we're talking about opposing a faction of Daleks set on racial cleansing campaign via either murder or exile is either a nazi or a troll (but then I already said all I had to say about the topic HERE).

I can only hope your animosity towards so-called "antifa" is kneejerking from flashbacks of the old authoritarian left (since the alternative would be you being a complete monster), but even if that was the case, the authoritarian left right now is the LEAST of our problems, the daleks are a more immediate danger to people's lives (not just freedom, not just first-ammendment rights, their LIVES) and they must be opposed, they must be fought, they must be erradicated.

[Zinegata]

I mean, it's clear that trying to uphold said consensus through soft power and brute transactional politics is failing, so if you value the liberal-conservative consensus as much as I believe Frank does, Operation Zero Tolerance is suddenly on the table. Any stick to beat a dog, after all.

It's not panic or a natural response. It's the way nation-states actually work. It's the way they've been working since the Peace of Westphalia in the 1640s.

Moreover the idea that accusing people of rebellion or sedition is "taboo" in the First World is of very recent vintage to begin with - dating mostly from when the Soviet Union collapsed and people began to think that war and conflict were no longer possible.

In reality wars and conflict still happen all the time. It's just that the West (and the majority of Denners) don't see it because only brown people get shot.

But the conflicts are still there, even in the "First World" where the use of guns is mostly taboo (for now).

And all of the events you mentioned - Trump, Brexit, etc - are merely demonstrations of how there are those who are willing to do whatever it takes to win. Lying to the public to weaken the unity of the state (sedition, Brexit) is not taboo for them. Getting support from foreign agents to undermine the state (treason, Trump) is not taboo for them. Holding illegal elections that seek to marginalize the opposition (rebellion, Catalan) is not taboo for them.

That you immediately conflate opposition to actions that undermine the democratic system as "Operation Zero Tolerance" points to the wider problem - which is that you are unable to even admit that your system is being undermined and attacked to begin with.

Democracies throughout history have collapsed multiple times to dictatorship and demagoguery. That's the whole reason why modern systems have mechanisms in place to prevent dictators and demagogues from hijacking the process. That you've not only refused to use these mechanisms - but actively condemn and deny their usage - is the real reason why "liberalism" is losing and losing very badly.

[Zinegata]

I can only hope your animosity towards so-called "antifa" is kneejerking from flashbacks of the old authoritarian left (since the alternative would be you being a complete monster), but even if that was the case, the authoritarian left right now is the LEAST of our problems,

I'm pretty sure he was just mocking the dictionary definition of Fascism with that comment because of how onion-skinned people have become and call everything that involves any kind of violence as Fascist.

[phlapjackage]

I don't think they do. In particular, places like the US (supposedly) have protection from cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable force. In general, states possibly might be within legal rights (questionable but if so it's a sign of a corrupt state, see NK), but definitely aren't within moral rights to use any amount of force...that's crazy talk.

And yet the US of A is one of those backwards hellholes with the deathpenalty still enforced . .

You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to defend the US - rather, it's just that it's the only system I'm (somewhat) familiar with and felt I knew enough to use it as an example. You'll note also I added the "(supposedly)" part in my post, to acknowledge that the US does a shitty job here.

States definitely do have the right to use any amount of force they want to enforce their own laws. If Saudi Arabia wants to stone women to death for adultery or North Korea wants to shoot people for modifying radios to recieve South Korean broadcasts, they do have a right to do that. That's what it means to be a state. You are well within your rights to not like it, but those things will only change from the internal political systems of those countries or invasion and conquest from another state, because states do in fact have a right to use any amount of force to enforce their own laws. States have a monopoly of force in their own jurisdictions and the only limits to its use are the ones they set for themselves.

Yeah I agree that legally, states have the right to set their own laws, including use of force. My point was, usually states have laws about proportionality of force (or are backwards hellholes like NK and the US). You say that states have a right to use any force they want, meaning legal right. I'm not sure that's correct...but I don't know enough about Spanish law to really contradict it, so my post was half-assed at best.

[Username17]

When you reject the rulings of the high court of your country, there is absolutely no limit to how high the use of force from the national government can go in order to enforce it. If the high court says "X" and you say "I don't care, I'm doing ¬X anyway!" then you're in revolt. If the executive branch lets you do it, that's a constitutional crisis. Otherwise, the executive branch decides how much force they want to use in order to enforce the ruling.

If you go into revolt for a noble cause, that's a noble thing. But it's noble precisely because you're making a stand for the right thing that could very much get you killed. If you go into revolt for a bad cause, then only horrible people will make statues to you and crowds of good people will later tear them down.

When the police fight protesters, we cheer for the protesters when those protesters are freedom riders. But equally, when the police fight protesters we cheer for the police when the protesters are klansmen.

The fact that police used violence to enforce the national government's position after a local group unilaterally defied a supreme court ruling in an effort to bring about the dissolution of the Spanish state is not particularly surprising. In order to make that condemnable, you'd have to provide some amount of evidence that disolving the Spanish state is a positive thing that we should support. We take sides in conflicts because those sides are right, not because one side does or does not control the police at any given moment.

You can't support these rebels just because they are rebels. You have to provide some justification for why you think their cause is just and good. It's very weird that everyone seems to be skipping that bit.

-Username17

[Koumei]

I thought the majority of people here understood that bit, and had a bigger problem with the "A bunch of people show up to vote, including voting against secession, and maybe they've been mislead into believing it's a legitimate legal referendum and maybe they haven't but are just making their non-binding opinion heard anyway. Then the police come in and wail on them with batons and hit them with double-team leaping chest-stomps (not hyperbole)." part.

If the story of this had been "Police round up Catalonian officials and Spain finds them guilty of sedition or treason or something. Voters somewhat perplexed by turn of events." then this debate likely wouldn't be happening.

[maglag]

I thought the majority of people here understood that bit, and had a bigger problem with the "A bunch of people show up to vote, including voting against secession, and maybe they've been mislead into believing it's a legitimate legal referendum and maybe they haven't but are just making their non-binding opinion heard anyway. Then the police come in and wail on them with batons and hit them with double-team leaping chest-stomps (not hyperbole)." part.

If the story of this had been "Police round up Catalonian officials and Spain finds them guilty of sedition or treason or something. Voters somewhat perplexed by turn of events." then this debate likely wouldn't be happening.

Word.

[phlapjackage]

I thought the majority of people here understood that bit, and had a bigger problem with the "A bunch of people show up to vote, including voting against secession, and maybe they've been mislead into believing it's a legitimate legal referendum and maybe they haven't but are just making their non-binding opinion heard anyway. Then the police come in and wail on them with batons and hit them with double-team leaping chest-stomps (not hyperbole)." part.

If the story of this had been "Police round up Catalonian officials and Spain finds them guilty of sedition or treason or something. Voters somewhat perplexed by turn of events." then this debate likely wouldn't be happening.

Word.

Double word

When you reject the rulings of the high court of your country, there is absolutely no limit to how high the use of force from the national government can go in order to enforce it.

This is the bit that's sticking in my craw I think - for backwards hellholes like NK and the US, this is probably true. But for countries with laws and all that, I don't think this can be said unilaterally - like, do you know specifically that Spain's laws say this? Now again, I'm not saying force can't be used, etc. I'm saying there must be some kind of proportionality written into the laws for the use of force. Even war has international laws about this.

[Omegonthesane]

I thought the majority of people here understood that bit, and had a bigger problem with the "A bunch of people show up to vote, including voting against secession, and maybe they've been mislead into believing it's a legitimate legal referendum and maybe they haven't but are just making their non-binding opinion heard anyway. Then the police come in and wail on them with batons and hit them with double-team leaping chest-stomps (not hyperbole)." part.

If the story of this had been "Police round up Catalonian officials and Spain finds them guilty of sedition or treason or something. Voters somewhat perplexed by turn of events." then this debate likely wouldn't be happening.

Indeed - this was the only reason I weighed in at all. Rounding up the specific government subsets that organised the faux referendum would have been justifiable with the right evidence; sending riot police to beat the crap out of random voters does absolutely nothing to stop a rigged referendum and just makes Spain look totalitarian. It's counterproductive.

[Username17]

This is how it works everywhere. The cops tell you to disperse. If you don't, they do various crap to intimidate you. If you still don't disperse, they start beating the shit out of you. If that doesn't seem like it's working they start shooting rubber bullets. If that doesn't seem like it's working they shoot real bullets. There is no limit to the amount of force the police can and will bring to enforce the law as interpreted by the courts. None.

I've been on both sides of this. Sometimes the police are beating up anti-war protesters. Sometimes the police are beating up Neonazis.

The rightness or wrongness of beating protesters has everything to do with the rightness or wrongness of the protest. If the police tell you to disperse and you say 'No' then you have accepted that the cops are very likely to hit you with sticks. Whatever point you are trying to make had better be worth it. Either way, the cops are just doing their job and the actual debate is the rightness or wrongness of the protest or the law it is protesting.

And if that sticks in your craw, then honestly I guess that's just tough shit. Because no one has ever figured out a way to have rule of law on a national scale that isn't backed up by unlimitedly escalating force. Even countries that don't have the death penalty for those who break the law still have lethal force for those who refuse to submit to the law in the first place. How else could society possibly be structured?

-Username17

[Stahlseele]

And if it weren't so sad, one could laugh at the fact that as per part of that definition, Antifa is actually a fascist movement as well.

Look, anyone who actually tells you the "many sides" bullshit when we're talking about opposing a faction of Daleks set on racial cleansing campaign via either murder or exile is either a nazi or a troll (but then I already said all I had to say about the topic HERE).

I can only hope your animosity towards so-called "antifa" is kneejerking from flashbacks of the old authoritarian left (since the alternative would be you being a complete monster), but even if that was the case, the authoritarian left right now is the LEAST of our problems, the daleks are a more immediate danger to people's lives (not just freedom, not just first-ammendment rights, their LIVES) and they must be opposed, they must be fought, they must be erradicated.

It stems partly from that and partly from personal experience with these idiots during the G20 summit in Hamburg. Which is where i live. And work. Pretty much right in the middle of that clusterfuck. Which should never have been done in a major city to begin with but was.
And there was not a single right wing thing anywhere in sight and yet they imported 20.000 of their thugs and basically rioted through hamburg for almost 3 days. They fucking had their own armored water cannon armed car there for fucks sake. Them and their whole "not on our side, enemy, kill" stance are a problem. Nobody with that kind of attitude can ask for any sort of leniency from me and expect to get away with it. If your solution is to act as bad as the fascists you claim to fight, then you get lumped in with the lot.

I can only hope your animosity towards so-called "antifa" is kneejerking from flashbacks of the old authoritarian left (since the alternative would be you being a complete monster), but even if that was the case, the authoritarian left right now is the LEAST of our problems,

I'm pretty sure he was just mocking the dictionary definition of Fascism with that comment because of how onion-skinned people have become and call everything that involves any kind of violence as Fascist.

Yes, that also in part.

I don't think they do. In particular, places like the US (supposedly) have protection from cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable force. In general, states possibly might be within legal rights (questionable but if so it's a sign of a corrupt state, see NK), but definitely aren't within moral rights to use any amount of force...that's crazy talk.

And yet the US of A is one of those backwards hellholes with the deathpenalty still enforced . .

You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to defend the US - rather, it's just that it's the only system I'm (somewhat) familiar with and felt I knew enough to use it as an example. You'll note also I added the "(supposedly)" part in my post, to acknowledge that the US does a shitty job here.

Yes i was. If i was mistaken, i apologize.

[maglag]

This is how it works everywhere. The cops tell you to disperse. If you don't, they do various crap to intimidate you. If you still don't disperse, they start beating the shit out of you. If that doesn't seem like it's working they start shooting rubber bullets. If that doesn't seem like it's working they shoot real bullets. There is no limit to the amount of force the police can and will bring to enforce the law as interpreted by the courts. None.

I've been on both sides of this. Sometimes the police are beating up anti-war protesters. Sometimes the police are beating up Neonazis.

The rightness or wrongness of beating protesters has everything to do with the rightness or wrongness of the protest. If the police tell you to disperse and you say 'No' then you have accepted that the cops are very likely to hit you with sticks. Whatever point you are trying to make had better be worth it. Either way, the cops are just doing their job and the actual debate is the rightness or wrongness of the protest or the law it is protesting.

And if that sticks in your craw, then honestly I guess that's just tough shit. Because no one has ever figured out a way to have rule of law on a national scale that isn't backed up by unlimitedly escalating force. Even countries that don't have the death penalty for those who break the law still have lethal force for those who refuse to submit to the law in the first place. How else could society possibly be structured?

-Username17

Besides the usual "rich people get away with blatant illegal stuff", Spain currently has the following system:
-Skip right to beating the voters filthy rebels (or protestors as you're calling them now).
-Dispersing is not an option, beat them until they're on the ground and then beat them some more while your fellow royal thugs pin them down, as shown in the recorded footage.
-Forget to bring bullets/tanks, meaning 40% of the filthy rebels/protestors succeed at their wicked plan of voting destroying Spain.
-?
-Spain still standing despite 40% of the locals breaking through!

This is, by your logic the only way Spain could remain a nation-state is by sending death squads after those 40% who succeeded in not being beaten up defying them. They did not submit to the law! Society can not possibly exist while they draw breath!

[Kaelik]

I personally remember when Alabama officials, including the SC justice, decided they weren't going to recognize the US SC decision that gay marriages are constitutionally allowed.

The US sent in the army to shoot up random strangers on the street for the crime of rebellion. They definitely didn't unseat the Alabama SC justice and order officials to enforce it or anything.

I thought the majority of people here understood that bit, and had a bigger problem with the "A bunch of people show up to vote, including voting against secession, and maybe they've been mislead into believing it's a legitimate legal referendum and maybe they haven't but are just making their non-binding opinion heard anyway. Then the police come in and wail on them with batons and hit them with double-team leaping chest-stomps (not hyperbole)." part.

If the story of this had been "Police round up Catalonian officials and Spain finds them guilty of sedition or treason or something. Voters somewhat perplexed by turn of events." then this debate likely wouldn't be happening.

This.

[Username17]

Have any of you mouth breathers ever been to a mass protest or are you just a bunch of armchair whiners?

Look, large scale protests require permission from the government or they are illegal uprisings. In democratic countries, the government is supposed to grant that permission for all reasonable requests.

When a large scale protest does not get permission, and it happens anyway, the police will order it to disperse. If the crowd does not disperse, the police will start beating the shit out of people. That's how it fucking works. That is how it has always worked. That is probably how it is always going to work!

If the police tell a crowd of people that their grouping is illegal and they need to disperse, and those people don't disperse, and the police beat the shit out of them, that is not an unexpected outcome. That is not a cause for outrage. That's just how things work, have always worked, and will always work.

Causes for outrage include (and are not limited to):

• Governments refusing to give permission to reasonable requests for large gatherings (see: Singapore's treatment of Gays or Turkey's treatment of Kurds).
• Governments putting unreasonable restrictions on gatherings (see: Russia's "free speech zones")
• Causes which are obviously in the right getting the shit kicked out of them whether they are breaking the rules or not (see: Greenpeace in Europe or Secularists in Saudi Arabia).

Again and still, if you want people to have sympathy for Catalonian Separatists, you have to show that the Catalonian Separatist movement is actually in the right. You don't get to skip that part. People getting the shit kicked out of them after defying a police order is only noble if the police order was unreasonable and the cause is just.

-Username17

[Omegonthesane]

So apparently saying that it was counterproductive and stupid to throw "disperse the crowds no matter the cost" measures at a glorified opinion poll that would later be declared rigged and illegal and also nonbinding regardless of the outcome is exactly the same thing as espousing sympathy for separatists.

The vote itself was not outright stopped by the police response. The vote itself was not, alone, an existential threat. Or any kind of threat. What the Catalonian government did with the vote in the morning might reasonably be seen as a threat, but they'd have done that regardless. The only, and I mean only, thing that was achieved by telling the referendum voters to disperse was bad PR.

[phlapjackage]

Again and still, if you want people to have sympathy for Catalonian Separatists, you have to show that the Catalonian Separatist movement is actually in the right. You don't get to skip that part. People getting the shit kicked out of them after defying a police order is only noble if the police order was unreasonable and the cause is just.

Ok, as was said before by Kaelik(?), I'm glad you've backed down from the position of "this is WAR!" and that it was ok for the police to start shooting people. Now it's just an illegal assembly/protest.

And I hope that people getting the shit kicked out of them by police gathers sympathy if there was no violence on the part of the protestors, pretty much no matter what the cause. It always will be and always should be a cause for outrage.