Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

[gmalivuk]

If "battery" means contact was made, and "aggravated" means a weapon was involved, then both the shoving and the black eye are (non-aggravated) assault and battery.

Different jurisdictions have lots of different ways of cutting up the definition, but the important point is that within any such division there's always going to be a (sometimes quite wide) range of actual acts and levels of violence.

[SDK]

Where do you draw the line? I'm not comfortable with the idea of someone dictating which ideologies you can hold without being assaulted, which is in itself a fascist way of doing things.

It's not about which ideologies you can hold, it's about which types things you can loudly and publicly promote and recruit for. My answer is: not genocide.

Do you think citizens performing the violence against genocide-promoters is the best way to do that? Obviously you think it's acceptable, but is it ideal?

In other words, would you support making genocide-promotion illegal and have the government perform that violence on your behalf? Or again in other words, is the only reason you're promoting this violence now because you believe the government is not willing to change and enforce that law?

[slinches]

We can discuss our differences on that basis and maybe come to some sort of mutual understanding and respect, even if we still disagree. I don't even know where to begin with iamspen's statement.

You'll have a reasonable discussion with a Nazi to find mutual understanding and respect? Yeah, you get right on that.

Did iamspen just call me a Nazi?

(I hope you just didn't read that properly. You should probably make sure you understand what the other person is saying before accusing them of being a Nazi sympathizer since that is definitely not what slinches just said.)

I definitely did not imply SDK (or anyone else in this thread) is a Nazi sympathizer. If anyone interpreted something I said as that, it was not my intent at all.

And, iamspen, when I said "I don't even know where to begin with your statement", it wasn't meant as an attack. It's just that there's really nothing to rationally argue with. It was a statement that I felt was wrong because it was based on emotion (specifically schadenfreude at inflicting pain on Nazis). It was letting that emotion override reason that I was exasperated with.

[SDK]

iamspen implied that you were a Nazi sympathizer because you would dare to have a reasonable discussion with me. You were fine.

[iamspen]

I implied no such thing. I merely stated that actual Nazis are being treated by some as a minority political group with which one can have reasonable discussions and debates, and expressing my own exasperation that we're treating Nazi-vs-not-Nazi conversations in the same manner as we would treat, say, pro-abortion-vs-anti-abortion discussions (i.e. both sides have valid points of view and should be listened to and treated respectfully). The scars of rampant historical Nazism still color nearly every aspect of our civilization, yet we're still dealing with people who are saying "Hold up a minute, we should listen to what these people have to say and, if necessary, refute them." The simple reality is, Nazism has ALREADY been successfully refuted thousands of times over, and people who nonetheless espouse their ideals exist well outside the spectrum of normal discourse.

[morriswalters]

That really isn't your problem if your a member of antifac is it? The Law codifies how it resolves conflict. His problem revolves around his decision to act according to his conscience. If he believes the Law is invalid, he has to make a moral decision, not a legal one. But if he goes before the judge and in front of the jury, he has to convince them. They need to see it as moral.

I assume that it is moral for him since he chose to act. My question does his response align with my perception of what is acceptable. The question isn't do I hate Nazi's. That's an ad hominem. The question is, did his act serve some purpose that I find acceptable or sympathetic if I sit on a jury. And this is only going to be true if the contacts ends in charges. Otherwise it's moot.

More generally it is about public perception. Which seems to be your role. That seems adequate.

[ObsessoMom]

You do know that the persecution of Christians was GREATLY exxagerated by the church itself, right?

You do know that the relatively few persecutions that actually did happen--sometimes when just about begged for by publicity-seeking Christians with persecution complexes--lent credibility to the exaggerations?

I think Nazi demonstrators are publicity-seeking enough to WANT people to punch them in public, because getting punched legitimizes their claims of white victimhood and reinforces their self-image as heroes suffering for the good of society.

Also, I find it laughable that so many people in this thread think that the idea of taking a punch for a cause will deter impressionable people from looking to the Nazis for a sense of purpose in their lives and a sense of belonging. The idea of finally finding something worth suffering for tends to appeal to such people. My college roommate got sucked into a cult for the similar reasons. She happily drained her bank account and cut her ties to family and friends, because those sacrifices proved her devotion to the new group. So I doubt that the possibility of getting punched is going to be the deal-breaker for any prospective Nazi.

[SDK]

I implied no such thing.

Yes, you did, but I already acknowledged that I assume you said it in error. I'm not sure why else you would respond to slinches by assuming he wanted to find mutual understanding and respect with a Nazi when he was addressing me directly.

The relevant parts of the conversation:

I feel like if a Nazi's face has an impactful encounter with a fist, the person at fault for the punch is, in almost all cases, the Nazi simply for being a Nazi, regardless of the morality of such a punch.

This seems so backwards to me that I actually find it scary how many people on this forum hold to this belief.

I may not agree with you [SDK] on some things like hate speech laws, but at least I can understand and relate to your viewpoint. We can discuss our differences on that basis and maybe come to some sort of mutual understanding and respect, even if we still disagree.

You'll have a reasonable discussion with a Nazi to find mutual understanding and respect? Yeah, you get right on that.

The only reason I brought it up is because I want you to acknowledge that error and try harder to understand your opponent's point of view in the future.

[CorruptUser]

You do know that the persecution of Christians was GREATLY exxagerated by the church itself, right?

You do know that the relatively few persecutions that actually did happen--sometimes when just about begged for by publicity-seeking Christians with persecution complexes--lent credibility to the exaggerations?

I think Nazi demonstrators are publicity-seeking enough to WANT people to punch them in public, because getting punched legitimizes their claims of white victimhood and reinforces their self-image as heroes suffering for the good of society.

Also, I find it laughable that so many people in this thread think that the idea of taking a punch for a cause will deter impressionable people from looking to the Nazis for a sense of purpose in their lives and a sense of belonging. The idea of finally finding something worth suffering for tends to appeal to such people. My college roommate got sucked into a cult for the similar reasons. She happily drained her bank account and cut her ties to family and friends, because those sacrifices proved her devotion to the new group. So I doubt that the possibility of getting punched is going to be the deal-breaker for any prospective Nazi.

And yet, Dick d'Spencer hasn't been in public much since he injured someone's fist with his face. Nazis join the group to feel powerful, not to feel oppressed.

[Chen]

The only reason I brought it up is because I want you to acknowledge that error and try harder to understand your opponent's point of view in the future.

I assume that the you referred to above where you put [SDK] was the royal you and iampsen implied that trying to discuss anything civilly with a Nazi was impossible, not YOU in particular.

[SDK]

Yes, I agree that's where iamspen likely read it wrong. If you read slinches post with a bit of care, is it not clear that he's talking to me specifically? Maybe I'm being too hard on him. I just felt like this wasn't the first time someone on this board had been mislabeled a Nazi sympathizer thanks to a misunderstanding.

[iamspen]

I'm still reading the pronouns as inclusive of whomever is reading the post, not you specifically, even after your accusations against me, which, if true, does mean that I was in error, but also doesn't negate my points; it only means I stated them at an awkward time and perhaps to the wrong people.

[SDK]

Fair enough. I am 100% sure slinches meant me specifically, but that may be because I've talked to him about this topic previously. Carry on, and apologies for derailing the thread.

[Zamfir]

And yet, Dick d'Spencer hasn't been in public much since he injured someone's fist with his face

From his POV, those Charlottesville marches must count as serious successes? I am open to the idea that, on average, some violence helps to scare people away from Nazism. I am not convinced, but perhaps.

For the specific case of Richard Spencer though, it's just wrong. He's now America's most famous nazi, and he can rally supporters like never before. Perhaps that would have happened anyway, but the punch doesn't seem to have done much to stop him either.

If there's good in The Punch, it's in the satisfaction that it gave to people, not in some clear result against Spencer's progress.

[slinches]

Fair enough. I am 100% sure slinches meant me specifically, but that may be because I've talked to him about this topic previously. Carry on, and apologies for derailing the thread.

Yes, just to make it 110% clear, I was responding to SDK specifically.

[Sableagle]

Even if we just consider it in absolute terms of alive or dead, I doubt you or anyone else would be able to come up with and stick to some kind of rigorous mathematical relationship between X and Y in the statement, "It is acceptable to cause the deaths of up to X people in order to save Y other people."

It is acceptable to cause the deaths of up to 5,000,000,000 treacherous, egotistical, racist, sadistic, murderous child-molesters in order to save 2 children.

The problem we're having is that some people want us all to identify "anyone with skin naturally darker than mine" and/or "anyone following an Ibrahimic religion other than my version of Christianity" as a treacherous, egotistical, racist, sadistic, murderous child-molester by default.

I'm not saying it's right to feel this way, but I do feel this way: if someone had gone down the street at Charleston with a Hawker Hurricane and shot up the line of torches with eight .303 machine guns I'd have called it well done ... as long as they missed everyone not taking part in that march. I'm a bit sick of Nazi types.

[idonno]

Even if we just consider it in absolute terms of alive or dead, I doubt you or anyone else would be able to come up with and stick to some kind of rigorous mathematical relationship between X and Y in the statement, "It is acceptable to cause the deaths of up to X people in order to save Y other people."

It is acceptable to cause the deaths of up to 5,000,000,000 treacherous, egotistical, racist, sadistic, murderous child-molesters in order to save 2 children.

I'm pretty sure the cost of disposing of 5,000,000,000 bodies is far to high to justify this. That money could be put to uses that would save many more lives.

[gmalivuk]

Well to be fair, "morally acceptable" isn't the same as "morally the best option".

[sardia]

Even if we just consider it in absolute terms of alive or dead, I doubt you or anyone else would be able to come up with and stick to some kind of rigorous mathematical relationship between X and Y in the statement, "It is acceptable to cause the deaths of up to X people in order to save Y other people."

It is acceptable to cause the deaths of up to 5,000,000,000 treacherous, egotistical, racist, sadistic, murderous child-molesters in order to save 2 children.

I'm pretty sure the cost of disposing of 5,000,000,000 bodies is far to high to justify this. That money could be put to uses that would save many more lives.

So, the nazi zombies have finally overrun us. We should go World War Z and start walling off the infected.

[duodecimus]

A question for people bringing up 'where do you draw the line about who is punchable'.

In what world is someone claiming to be actively working towards genocide not across the 'stop with violence' line?

I've watched streams where people have been raided by swat via an anonymous tip about a bomb as a joke; because you have to take that seriously.

Wouldn't 'Hey there's a nazi gathering going down at X, please send a swat team.' also warrant a full response?

Is genocidal hate speech just too big to be believable?

I'm sorta not understanding why nazism =/= terrorism.

[Liri]

Is genocidal hate speech just too big to be believable?

Yeah, exactly.

Despite genocides happening since WWII, they haven't been of or by white folks, or at least the right kind of white folks. The Holocaust is passing out of cultural memory, and Cambodia, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Darfur don't seem to be able to refresh things for us.

[Quercus]

Wouldn't 'Hey there's a nazi gathering going down at X, please send a swat team.' also warrant a full response?

Is genocidal hate speech just too big to be believable?

I'm sorta not understanding why nazism =/= terrorism.

Genocidal hate speech isn't illegal in the US, and support for changing the first amendment is so low (2017 state of the first amendment survey shows 69% disagreeing that it "goes too far") that it is really not an imminent political prospect. If the Constitution, and the supreme court's interpretation of it in Brandenburg vs. Ohio, didn't give people the right to organise atrocities as long as they don't say they're going to do it next Tuesday (violent speech is only illegal if the incitement to violence is both "directed to" and "likely to" produce "imminent lawless action") the US wouldn't be in this mess and this thread wouldn't exist.

[CorruptUser]

Is genocidal hate speech just too big to be believable?

Yeah, exactly.

Despite genocides happening since WWII, they haven't been of or by white folks, or at least the right kind of white folks. The Holocaust is passing out of cultural memory, and Cambodia, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Darfur don't seem to be able to refresh things for us.

Yugoslavia is like, 150% white. Dagestan and Georgia also had genocides in the 90s. In fact, just about every Soviet breakaway had a celebratory genocide. Ever meet a Kazakh? Blue eyes blond hair white; where all the Volga went after WWII, the women anyway, there's a reason you never heard of the Volga.

Genocides only stopped in western Europe because it's stable. Let Britain or Holland collapse politically and economically, and then we will see just how tolerant they really are.

[gmalivuk]

I have met a lot of Kazakhs, but none with blond hair.

[Liri]

Is genocidal hate speech just too big to be believable?

Yeah, exactly.

Despite genocides happening since WWII, they haven't been of or by white folks, or at least the right kind of white folks. The Holocaust is passing out of cultural memory, and Cambodia, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Darfur don't seem to be able to refresh things for us.

Yugoslavia is like, 150% white. Dagestan and Georgia also had genocides in the 90s. In fact, just about every Soviet breakaway had a celebratory genocide. Ever meet a Kazakh? Blue eyes blond hair white; where all the Volga went after WWII, the women anyway, there's a reason you never heard of the Volga.

Genocides only stopped in western Europe because it's stable. Let Britain or Holland collapse politically and economically, and then we will see just how tolerant they really are.

Note that I said "the right kind of white folks". Former Soviet Bloc types clearly don't count.

[Sableagle]

In terms of European genocides later than the Armenian one and the Jewish / Roma / Polish / gay / disabled / communist one, there is indeed Yugoslavia to consider. I'd encourage people to watch part 1 and then part 2 of Warriors (the BBC two-part Yugoslavia film, not the Gangs of New York thing) in full.

[eSOANEM]

Wouldn't 'Hey there's a nazi gathering going down at X, please send a swat team.' also warrant a full response?

Is genocidal hate speech just too big to be believable?

I'm sorta not understanding why nazism =/= terrorism.

Genocidal hate speech isn't illegal in the US, and support for changing the first amendment is so low (2017 state of the first amendment survey shows 69% disagreeing that it "goes too far") that it is really not an imminent political prospect. If the Constitution, and the supreme court's interpretation of it in Brandenburg vs. Ohio, didn't give people the right to organise atrocities as long as they don't say they're going to do it next Tuesday (violent speech is only illegal if the incitement to violence is both "directed to" and "likely to" produce "imminent lawless action") the US wouldn't be in this mess and this thread wouldn't exist.

This is why the US' constitutional fetishism is so dangerous. Viewing foundational documents (or even intents) as sacrosanct inevitably leads to the preservation of some harmful traits that either had not been thoroughly considered (modern 1st and 2nd amendment battles) or that the founders didn't consider harmful (slavery). Not that it matters, but the founding fathers of the US knew this which is why they included an amendment process. The constitution absolutely is and should be mutable but the US school system gives people an almost idolatrist view of it that is profoundly dangerous

[ucim]

This is why the US' constitutional fetishism is so dangerous.

...but the point of free speech isn't free speech. It's limiting the powers of government over its subjects. Letting government decide what you can and cannot say is a very dangerous direction to go in. If you decide to go in that direction, it's important to realize that you are giving more power to the governmnet, a government that could be ruled by an orange dictator in no short order.

The sword is sharp on both sides.

Jose

[Liri]

The constitution absolutely is and should be mutable but the US school system gives people an almost idolatrist view of it that is profoundly dangerous

It varies. We read the communist manifesto, for example.

[CorruptUser]

Is genocidal hate speech just too big to be believable?

Yeah, exactly.

Despite genocides happening since WWII, they haven't been of or by white folks, or at least the right kind of white folks. The Holocaust is passing out of cultural memory, and Cambodia, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Darfur don't seem to be able to refresh things for us.

Yugoslavia is like, 150% white. Dagestan and Georgia also had genocides in the 90s. In fact, just about every Soviet breakaway had a celebratory genocide. Ever meet a Kazakh? Blue eyes blond hair white; where all the Volga went after WWII, the women anyway, there's a reason you never heard of the Volga.

Genocides only stopped in western Europe because it's stable. Let Britain or Holland collapse politically and economically, and then we will see just how tolerant they really are.

Note that I said "the right kind of white folks". Former Soviet Bloc types clearly don't count.

There's Zimbabwe which ethnically cleansed the white farmers. Do British people count as the right kind of white? South Africa has seen an exodus of white people too, losing 1/6 the white population, though that's less deliberate cleansing. As the onion refers to them, "cast out of a land not rightfully theirs"

[ivnja]

The constitution absolutely is and should be mutable but the US school system gives people an almost idolatrist view of it that is profoundly dangerous

One thing to remember when talking about education in the US is that "the US school system" is a misnomer. Each state sets its own standards, and there are over 14,000 individual school districts nationwide, each with the power to set their own curriculum within their state's guidelines. There's obviously still a lot of overlap, and things can be said about overall trends (which I assume is what you intended), but everything is so decentralized that blanket statements about what is and isn't taught in the US are often misleading, if not untrue.

In my district, for example, most of the time that we spent on the Constitution was looking at the amendments and the context behind why, throughout the country's history, the particular changes were made. We did spend a lot of time discussing the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) and why those specific limits on the federal government's power over its citizens were seen as so important, as well as how subsequent court cases have shaped the interpretations of the first two in particular over the years. In school districts in other states where the Boards of Education are made up of individuals with different political philosophies and goals from ours, the treatment of the Constitution may be (presumably is) different.

[gmalivuk]

This is why the US' constitutional fetishism is so dangerous.

...but the point of free speech isn't free speech. It's limiting the powers of government over its subjects. Letting government decide what you can and cannot say is a very dangerous direction to go in. If you decide to go in that direction, it's important to realize that you are giving more power to the governmnet, a government that could be ruled by an orange dictator in no short order.

The sword is sharp on both sides.

Jose

A dictator who doesn’t care about the Constitution isn't going to be limited by its restrictions on government power what the fuck?

[morriswalters]

Orange dictator. Really? That sounds very much like a stab at the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I have noticed his makeup has improved, no more raccoon eyes.

[CorruptUser]

I have met a lot of Kazakhs, but none with blond hair.

We had a few in my hometown, the one I knew was a blue eyed blonde. Like I said, probably not ethnically Kazakh, but one of the Volga who were forcibly relocated there after WWII, but family was ashamed to admit actual origins. Also knew a Ukrainian from work who was 100% ethnically Polish, but considered himself Ukrainian. That's what happens when Russia decides to play musical countries.

My hometown was... weird in that we had immigrants and refugees from basically everywhere despite being Bumfuck, Nowhere.

[ivnja]

This is why the US' constitutional fetishism is so dangerous.

...but the point of free speech isn't free speech. It's limiting the powers of government over its subjects. Letting government decide what you can and cannot say is a very dangerous direction to go in. If you decide to go in that direction, it's important to realize that you are giving more power to the governmnet, a government that could be ruled by an orange dictator in no short order.

The sword is sharp on both sides.

Jose

A dictator who doesn’t care about the Constitution isn't going to be limited by its restrictions on government power what the fuck?

Presumably he means Trump and is accusing him of being a would-be dictator. And the more power the government legally holds, the less anyone can legally do stop someone like him. The fact that there are legal checks on his power is what has already sunk several of the more hateful ideas that he's tried so far to enact.

Along those lines, I don't think it's at all fair to dismiss the widespread US distrust toward speech restrictions as "constitutional fetishism." Nazis are an extreme case; the things they say are vile, and they cannot be allowed to achieve any of their goals. It's a moral quandary for sure for serious free-speechers who don't support them - it's hard to listen to their speech and not want them to be shut down. When they commit physical violence, which is already illegal, those involved need to be punished. When they make specific threats, which we have collectively agreed is a limit we do place on speech, those making the threats need to be punished and the threatened actions cannot be allowed to be carried out - and this is something that the government needs to take seriously and actually address. But the speech in itself, no matter how awful it is, doesn't kill. These assholes could march through the middle of downtown chanting until they're blue in the face, and as long as all they do is that, nothing else happens. When they move beyond speech, then the government should come down on those actions. We can abhor the content of what they say without making it illegal for them to express their ideas in public. I personally feel similarly about the "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" and "What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!" chants - if not about the movements and protests that have spawned them - but I don't want to see those folks thrown in jail for it either.

I'm certainly not going to claim that if the government cuts off Nazi speech, we're going to wake up soon in 1984. But every restriction against speech does set a precedent, and I don't trust that the ban of a "special case" now won't be used to justify other restrictions later. I am always going to lean toward erring on the side of too much freedom rather than too little. That is, I think, the position that several posters in this thread are arguing from.

And to return to the original point of discussion in the thread, while the First Amendment limits only the government, I also really don't like the idea of Antifa or anyone else throwing the first punch to get people to shut up. I absolutely understand the motivation. I don't think it's immoral, even, but I still don't like it. Counter-protest, outnumber them and drown them out in the streets (Boston was a great example of people coming together for this), line up to protect synagogues and mosques and minority neighborhoods, defend yourselves and others if attacked, but don't be the first to throw down.

[Quercus]

Along those lines, I don't think it's at all fair to dismiss the widespread US distrust toward speech restrictions as "constitutional fetishism." Nazis are an extreme case and the things they say are vile, and they cannot be allowed to achieve any of their goals. It's a moral quandary for sure for serious free-speechers who don't support them - it's hard to listen to their speech and not want them to be shut down. When they commit physical violence, which is already illegal, those involved need to be punished. When they make specific threats, which we have collectively agreed is a limit we do place on speech, those making the threats need to be punished and the threatened actions cannot be allowed to be carried out - and this is something that the government needs to take seriously and actually address.

I think the issue for me, and the reason I've been bringing up constitutional fetishism is the assumption I see often that the current state of the Constitution has got everything exactly right, in specifics as well as in principles. Brandenberg vs. Ohio requires threats to be imminant (and deliberately so) as well as specific, and that requirement has been interpreted extremely strictly by the courts. Just removing the word imminent from there would go a long way towards combating the sort of speech that is threatening and dangerous and currently legal, without, IMO, restricting much else. Right now all you have to do is leave out any mention of timescale, and perhaps discourage people from acting immediately, and you are then in the clear to publicly exhort people to murder others.

[ucim]

A dictator who doesn’t care about the Constitution isn't going to be limited by its restrictions on government power what the fuck?

So... why bother with laws at all?

Please read Ivnja's response. He understands what I am saying, and I agree with his comments.

...the reason I've been bringing up constitutional fetishism is the assumption I see often that the current state of the Constitution has got everything exactly right...

I don't see that assumption made. What I see is respect for the thought that went into those original documents; thought that doesn't seem to be very common nowadays because it's eclipsed by partisanship, where whatever method achieves the result you want is promoted as the right method. It is respect for that thought process that leads to a hesitation to mow down what was carefully thought out.

The Constitution is changeable. It has been changed before. But it's (rightly) a big deal and deserves much careful thought before doing so.

Just removing the word imminent from [Brandenberg vs. Ohio] would go a long way towards combating the sort of speech that is threatening and dangerous and currently legal, without, IMO, restricting much else

This is not at all obvious. IMO this is the nose in the camel's tent. Many other groups want to restrict speech too; there will certainly be consequences there.

The thing about freedom of speech however is that it imposes an obligation on everyone else - that is, to actually think about any speech you hear before acting on it (including agreeing or disagreeing). It's part of the "eternal vigilance" democracy requires. This is where the United States is falling down (aided and abetted by the advertising and big data industries). The underlying problem isn't that Nazi are saying hateful things, it's that people are absorbing those hateful things they hear, without so much as a second's thought. Our attention is what gives speech its power.

Jose

[Quercus]

...the reason I've been bringing up constitutional fetishism is the assumption I see often that the current state of the Constitution has got everything exactly right...

I don't see that assumption made. What I see is respect for the thought that went into those original documents

That's encouraging to hear. Viewing this, as I am, at a distance, it's possible that I'm seeing an amplification of more than usually dogmatic and rigid positions (as those tend to be the most visible), and I'm glad to hear reports that the conversation is actually more nuanced.

[Thesh]

I'd guess that 99% of the time founder worship is about just looking for a justification for why the law should benefit conservatives when they don't want to consider the consequences. That is, cruel and unusual punishment, separation of church and state, rights of criminals, etc. are just guidelines, but the second amendment and disproportionate representation by design, well, "the founders did that for a reason" which is just saying "I don't give a shit about the problems".

[ucim]

I'd guess that 99% of the time founder worship is about just looking for a justification for why the law should benefit conservatives when they don't want to consider the consequences. That is, cruel and unusual punishment, separation of church and state, rights of criminals, etc. are just guidelines, but the second amendment and disproportionate representation by design, well, "the founders did that for a reason" which is just saying "I don't give a shit about the problems".

In other words, what I said here: "...eclipsed by partisanship, where whatever method achieves the result you want is promoted as the right method."

Oh... and conservatives are not the only partisans. Saying so is itself an example of the wrongthinking I am referring to.

Jose