Media Narrative on Violence at Trump Rally's

[S. Misanthrope]

I can't believe I'm seeing this Maddow segment praised on the left, right, and libertarian sides. She's not even able to keep the smirk off her face as she carefully presents feelings first, conclusions second, and a smattering of facts and evidence last.

 

[thebeardslastcall]

There was a time when I could tolerate hearing some of her show (not that I ever tuned into her show). That time is not now. She's just another worthless entertainer and opinion pusher that uses 'news' for her skits. Best not to give her traffic.

[neeeel]

I find the actual things shown in the video, the rhetoric, the thrown elbow, the baying crowd, quite disturbing to watch. perhaps thats what its meant to do, I dont know . I dont have the full story, for sure

[dsayers]

She's not even able to keep the smirk off her face as she carefully presents feelings first, conclusions second, and a smattering of facts and evidence last.

So why perpetuate it?

[shirgall]

I can't believe I'm seeing this Maddow segment praised on the left, right, and libertarian sides. She's not even able to keep the smirk off her face as she carefully presents feelings first, conclusions second, and a smattering of facts and evidence last.

 

It's that cheerleader training of hers. Go, team, go... never mind why.

[S. Misanthrope]

So why perpetuate it?

Am I perpetuating it? How so?

[dsayers]

Am I perpetuating it? How so?

Your description makes it sound as if this isn't worth people's time, but more people will spend time on it because you've linked it. Not saying you shouldn't. I'm curious as to your motivation.

[S. Misanthrope]

It's the end that really kills me:

 

"American presidential politics did not get this way on its own. This is the work of an American presidential candidate who deliberately made this happen." ~Maddow

 

So it's the guy who's been on the political scene for a few months (years, if you want to count his prior bid where he was in the periphery) who is responsible for the state of political discourse, not Maddow and her colleagues in the media, who've been race-baiting for the past 30+ years. Right, that makes sense. Insanity.

Your description makes it sound as if this isn't worth people's time, but more people will spend time on it because you've linked it. Not saying you shouldn't. I'm curious as to your motivation.

Gotcha. I felt it was worth my time to view this, because it's worth my time to understand a particular phenomenon I'm witnessing. I'm part of the Objectivist community, which is one of the few places where people generally recognize that the media is hugely dishonest with a leftist bias, that anti-white institutionalized racism exists and is immoral, that self-interest deserves praise instead of scorn, etc. Yet they nearly universally hate Trump. Many of them specifically praised this Maddow segment to me recently, and...well, I'm just baffled.

So that's what I'm hoping to unravel, and I don't think it can be done very easily without linking the segment. At least when I played it, there were no ads, so I don't think I'm putting dollars in Maddow's pockets, at least not very directly. If there's a better way to avoid that, I'd love to hear it!

I haven't linked the segment anywhere else, because I don't want her influence to spread. I doubt anyone on this forum will be taken in by her rhetoric, so I felt it was fine to post it here. I posted the following to FB, obliquely referring to the segment without naming it at all:

"The media are not your friends. They are not honest. They do not suddenly become honest when they happen to dislike someone you also dislike, or when they happen to support someone you also support. Stop. Feeding. Them. No more dollars, no more clicks, no more unearned authority or fame. It's the Internet age. Primary sources are accessible as never before. Yeah, it's a lot of work. Do the work. Or don't do the work and get out of the way of those who do."

[vahleeb]

I'm so confused about all of this. Is the one angle that the protesters incited violence and thereby are suppressing free speech? And the other angle is that Trump is inciting violence with his rhetoric? Is it clear that the protesters were majority responsible for initiating the use of force/violence/aggression, whereas the Trump supporters were largely peaceful? I feel like I'm missing something.

Here's the raw video from that night in Chigago, it's pretty long (about 90 minutes) but you can see for yourself and decide who were the instigators and who weren't.

Raw videos are probably the closest thing we can get to eye-witnessing the news for ourselves (because there is no narration, no editing and no editorialising).

 

http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/…/92731905-raw-video-…

 

 

Gotcha. I felt it was worth my time to view this, because it's worth my time to understand a particular phenomenon I'm witnessing. I'm part of the Objectivist community, which is one of the few places where people generally recognize that the media is hugely dishonest with a leftist bias, that anti-white institutionalized racism exists and is immoral, that self-interest deserves praise instead of scorn, etc. Yet they nearly universally hate Trump. Many of them specifically praised this Maddow segment to me recently, and...well, I'm just baffled.

 

 

Even objectivists have a "confirmation bias" that they can't keep in check. If they think Trump's bad or wrong they'll pounce on him just like everyone else as soon as they get the opportunity. In your shoes, I'd just link them the raw video. If they're really objectivists then they have to watch it.

[Mister Mister]

  Obviously I'm not on the side of the protesters or the media, but isn't he, in these clips, endorsing violence against people you disagree with?

[S. Misanthrope]

Obviously I'm not on the side of the protesters or the media, but isn't he, in these clips, endorsing violence against people you disagree with?

Retaliatory violence/self-defense, no? I'm still in the process of watching all of these with more context than Maddow shows, so I could be wrong about that.

[Mister Mister]

well he seemed to imply that it was unfair that someone raises their middle finger, a guy elbows him, and only the guy who threw the elbow is legally punished...

[vahleeb]

well he seemed to imply that it was unfair that someone raises their middle finger, a guy elbows him, and only the guy who threw the elbow is legally punished...

 

Technically the guy who elbows is at fault, both legally and morally, if the middle finger is the only "violation". The middle finger is avoidable and ultimately without any consequences. 

 

However, if in order to throw you the middle finger, the guy broke into your house and actively disrupted your activities and posed threats to your security, then the elbow is no longer an initiation of force.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is basic common sense, no?

[neeeel]

Technically the guy who elbows is at fault, both legally and morally, if the middle finger is the only "violation". The middle finger is avoidable and ultimately without any consequences. 

 

However, if in order to throw you the middle finger, the guy broke into your house and actively disrupted your activities and posed threats to your security, then the elbow is no longer an initiation of force.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is basic common sense, no?

 

The elbow seemed a pretty clear example of initiation of force to me. 

[vahleeb]

neeeel, in both contexts that I have described?

[neeeel]

Even if we accept that your scenario is true, thats not what is happening in the moment of the thrown elbow. The person is leaving, or being escorted out, he isnt attacking anyone, or initiating force against anyone. The guy just walks up to him and throws the elbow.

 

If someone breaks into your house, and is then leaving, or being escorted by police, you dont get to take out your anger or whatever on him by a physical blow.  There is no way that thrown elbow is self defence, or defence of anyone else

[vahleeb]

You're absolutely right, neeeel. I didn't realise you were referring to a specific event. But yes, the case you describe is grounds for legal action, does qualify as force and further more it's just chicken shit behaviour.

 

Can you point me to a timestamp from the video, just so we're both talking about the same thing?

[neeeel]

7:13

[vahleeb]

Thanks, neeeel. I stand by the assessment in my previous post. It is grounds for legal action, it is initiation of force.

 

However, the guy that was hit is clearly not restrained in any way and he does seem to continue the taunting while on his way up the stairs. So I will take the chicken shit label back.

 

I also stand by my original assessment about what happened in Chicago: there is a great deal of responsibility that needs to be placed with the "protesters" and there is literally no one in the media speaking out about this.

[neeeel]

Thanks, neeeel. I stand by the assessment in my previous post. It is grounds for legal action, it is initiation of force.

 

However, the guy that was hit is clearly not restrained in any way and he does seem to continue the taunting while on his way up the stairs. So I will take the chicken shit label back.

 

I also stand by my original assessment about what happened in Chicago: there is a great deal of responsibility that needs to be placed with the "protesters" and there is literally no one in the media speaking out about this.

 

Is taunting grounds for the initiation of force? 

 

I am not disagreeing with you about the protesters. I dont know the full story, but I am sure that they did some crappy things. Still doesnt excuse this guy hitting someone with his elbow, as far as I can see

[S. Misanthrope]

And supposedly Trump lamented that "only" the guy throwing the elbow went to jail.

Isn't that a reasonable thing to lament? The guy receiving the elbow was previously disruptive (aka violent and/or threatening) to the point that he was forcibly removed from the premises. Both were violent, but only one was taken to jail. How is that fair?

[vahleeb]

neeeel, we're talking about two separate events. The elbow was thrown in North Carolina I think, the video I posted was in Chicago.

 

To answer your question: is taunting grounds for the initiation of force? I'd argue that is the wrong question. Because within the context it's the taunting itself that is the initiation of force. You can argue that the problem was being solved already (they were in the process of being forcefully removed from the premises) and you would be right, but looking in the greater scheme of things, where the guy being removed was obviously not accepting responsibility for his actions but was actually doubling down with his behaviour and where precedent has already been set in the sense that none of the "protesters" at Trump rallies had been arrested to that point in time (despite there being serious legal grounds for it - the Tresspass Act that Stef's alluding to in his last Trump defence video) wouldn't the Trump supporter feel justified in hitting? What about if the guy walking up the stairs was cursing out loud? It certainly seems like that's what he would/could be shouting and what about if the guy that hit, was there with his wife, or with his mother or with his children, or maybe he was there with other people's wives or children that he knew? Wouldn't he feel obligated to hit in order to end the cursing? Would that still qualify as initiation of force? I don't think so because he is obviously stopping an aggression. Obviously we can't know the circumstance and unless they come out we can't pass absolute judgement, but to decry it it as pure initiation of force when there is at least one possible and quite plausible case where it would not be, I think is assuming too much.

 

It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you think that verbal aggression is on a different level than physical aggression therefore you reason that whomever throws the first punch is guilty of initiation of force. But targeted verbal aggression (think of bullying) is absolutely an initiation of force and non-targeted verbal aggression (think of a guy cursing randomly on the street) is not an initiation of force as long as you can walk away, this changes however if the seemingly non-targeted aggression happens in a confined space that you need for an activity.

 

Let me give you an analogy: if you and I have been buddies all our lives, meet regularly and at no great cost to either of us, then if we're meeting at a diner for lunch and a conversation and some dude is just playing loud music on an 80s boom box to the point where you can't hear a word i'm saying, then we're always free to get up and move away from him, or continue the conversation at a later date. But if you and I only have that one chance to meet and exchange ideas and we have planned it in advance and sunk a lot of money in getting it to happen, then the guy with the boom box is obviously initiating force (past the amount that is ignorable) because he's obviously denying our experience and if he wouldn't listen to reason and turn his stereo down, then absolutely I'd be justified in forcing him to stop, even more so if instead of meeting at a diner (public place) we were meeting in a hotel room or in my house (privately organised event).

[neeeel]

 Because within the context it's the taunting itself that is the initiation of force.

 

I question this. Are you saying that taunting is justification for phyisical violence on the taunter? I dont see how that is possible, especially given that taunting is subjective.

 

 

 You can argue that the problem was being solved already (they were in the process of being forcefully removed from the premises) and you would be right, but looking in the greater scheme of things, where the guy being removed was obviously not accepting responsibility for his actions but was actually doubling down with his behaviour and where precedent has already been set in the sense that none of the "protesters" at Trump rallies had been arrested to that point in time (despite there being serious legal grounds for it - the Tresspass Act that Stef's alluding to in his last Trump defence video) wouldn't the Trump supporter feel justified in hitting? What about if the guy walking up the stairs was cursing out loud? It certainly seems like that's what he would/could be shouting and what about if the guy that hit, was there with his wife, or with his mother or with his children, or maybe he was there with other people's wives or children that he knew? Wouldn't he feel obligated to hit in order to end the cursing? Would that still qualify as initiation of force? I don't think so because he is obviously stopping an aggression. Obviously we can't know the circumstance and unless they come out we can't pass absolute judgement, but to decry it it as pure initiation of force when there is at least one possible and quite plausible case where it would not be, I think is assuming too much.

 

 

I dont really care what the protester had previously done. I dont care if he felt obligated to hit him or not. The only allowable use of violence under the NAP is self defence, or defence of others. Neither was the case in this particular instance of elbow throwing. Your argument allows me to beat up a criminal that is being taken away by police.

 

Who gets to decide what is verbal agression? Who gets to decide at what point physical aggression is justified? What if I take offence to a comment about my hair? Do I get to punch you in the face? This seems to me to be a slippery slope to microagressions and safe spaces.

 

 

 

It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you think that verbal aggression is on a different level than physical aggression therefore you reason that whomever throws the first punch is guilty of initiation of force. But targeted verbal aggression (think of bullying) is absolutely an initiation of force and non-targeted verbal aggression (think of a guy cursing randomly on the street) is not an initiation of force as long as you can walk away, this changes however if the seemingly non-targeted aggression happens in a confined space that you need for an activity.

 

 

Ye, the guy couldnt walk away, he was at least 5 metres away from the person, and instead of walking 5 metres in the opposite direction, he walks 5 metres TOWARDS the guy and elbows him in the face. I dont understand why you are defending this.

 

 

Let me give you an analogy: if you and I have been buddies all our lives, meet regularly and at no great cost to either of us, then if we're meeting at a diner for lunch and a conversation and some dude is just playing loud music on an 80s boom box to the point where you can't hear a word i'm saying, then we're always free to get up and move away from him, or continue the conversation at a later date. But if you and I only have that one chance to meet and exchange ideas and we have planned it in advance and sunk a lot of money in getting it to happen, then the guy with the boom box is obviously initiating force (past the amount that is ignorable) because he's obviously denying our experience and if he wouldn't listen to reason and turn his stereo down, then absolutely I'd be justified in forcing him to stop, even more so if instead of meeting at a diner (public place) we were meeting in a hotel room or in my house (privately organised event).

 

 

playing a boom box is not initiating force. By that argument, requiring that the person turn off his boom box is initiating force. You are denying his experience and you wouldnt listen to reason, the fact that you only have 1 chance to meet your friend is irrelevant. Its obviously a flawed analogy, because you have to construct a "one off" instance in order for it to even start to make sense.

[Mister Mister]

neeeel, in both contexts that I have described?

 

Yes, the police were already removing the person.  If someone shows up at my house, and won't leave when I ask, so I call the police, the police show up and remove them from my house, and while I am leaving they call me an asshole, then I punch them in the face, that is assault.

[S. Misanthrope]

To me, the point is not that the elbow guy should not go to jail. It's that the other guy should also go to jail. Both should go to jail. But only one actually did, which shows unfairness in favor of the Trump protesters.

[neeeel]

To me, the point is not that the elbow guy should not go to jail. It's that the other guy should also go to jail. Both should go to jail. But only one actually did, which shows unfairness in favor of the Trump protesters.

 

which guy? What did he do that deserves jail time?  I am not saying he didnt do something, but the whole thing is very murky for me. Should he go to jail for trespassing? Breach of the peace?

[S. Misanthrope]

which guy? What did he do that deserves jail time?  I am not saying he didnt do something, but the whole thing is very murky for me. Should he go to jail for trespassing? Breach of the peace?

The guy who was elbowed should have been arrested. I didn't say he should serve jail time, or that his crime was equal to the guy who threw the elbow's. I only said that he should have been arrested and charges considered/investigated.

 

I haven't had any luck finding a video of what got him ejected, but the video of the punch indicates to me that there's a reason he was being escorted out by security. If you attend a person's event and they ask you to leave, doing anything other than leaving peacefully likely violates some law. I'm inferring from the fact that security was escorting him that he did something in the "other" category.

[vahleeb]

neeeel, you are changing my example to fit your narrative. I specifically constructed the example in order to illustrate that a) verbal aggression counts as initiation of force and b) if someone breaks into a private event with the purpose to disrupt the communication between two parties it counts as an initiation of force.

 

Read it again, please. If somebody is spewing bad language that counts as initiation of force. Are you saying that I am not allowed to stop someone from cursing in front of my children or in front of my wife? I have conceded to you already that it is escalation of force, I have also conceded to you that under the current law it is actionable. I am stumped however as to how and why you refuse to perceive the possibility that verbal aggression counts as the initiation of force. That's like literally saying all verbal abuse in fine as long as you don't hit. Is this the principle you are basing your argument on?

 

Coming back to the analogy you threw out, I did put it together that way specifically because the situation it is analogous to (a Trump rally within a state) qualifies perfectly as a one off. All of these people that participate in the rallies don't follow Trump's campaign around the country like groupies, the participate in the ONE OFF event that is hosted in their city. I specifically put forward the hotel room case to bring into question that the guy had broken into a private event which is literally equal to trespassing.

 

@mellomama: I think legally freedom of speech applies to public places not to private events (I'm not a lawyer but I heard this banter a few years back). Good rule of thumb is: if you have an organiser and a stated purpose for an event and that stated purpose is not "free exchange of ideas" then there is no freedom of speech there nor are you under the protection of the first amendment ("it is not my job to give you a platform").  The protesters that disturb the Trump rallies are not infringing on the first amendment either, but they are definitely chargeable under the Trespass Act of 2011 (actually passed in 2012). However, an infringement of the first amendment can be argued for what happened in Chicago, because the event had to be cancelled altogether due to "protests" both inside the venue as well as outside.

[neeeel]

neeeel, you are changing my example to fit your narrative. I specifically constructed the example in order to illustrate that a) verbal aggression counts as initiation of force and b) if someone breaks into a private event with the purpose to disrupt the communication between two parties it counts as an initiation of force.

 

Read it again, please. If somebody is spewing bad language that counts as initiation of force. Are you saying that I am not allowed to stop someone from cursing in front of my children or in front of my wife? I have conceded to you already that it is escalation of force, I have also conceded to you that under the current law it is actionable. I am stumped however as to how and why you refuse to perceive the possibility that verbal aggression counts as the initiation of force. That's like literally saying all verbal abuse in fine as long as you don't hit. Is this the principle you are basing your argument on?

 

 

 

Im not sure where I changed your example? Perhaps I am being dumb but can you point it out to me?

I notice that you didnt address any of the points I brought up in my previous post

I know you keep saying that verbal aggression is initiation of force. Your example didnt show that, it was just you asserting that it was. How does that work? Who decides what is verbal aggression and what isnt?You have still to define "verbal aggression" in any way. Currently its very vague as to what you mean by it.

No, you are not allowed to stop someone from cursing in front of your wife and children. You can leave ( or if on your property, ask/force them to leave). 

Again, its very vague as to what you mean by "cursing in front of your wife and children". If its just a guy screaming and cursing at the sky because his football team has lost, does that count? As mello says, if its a credible threat, then yes, you need to protect yourself and your family. So if its a guy yelling threats and invading personal space, sticking their face right into yours or your wifes face, then you act to get your family to safety. That might involve ( but doesnt automatically mean ) physical violence against the guy. Walking up to a guy in the street and elbowing them in the face because they swore, is insane, in my opinion, perhaps thats not what you mean when you talk about it, but as I said, its very unclear as to what you mean by verbal aggression and "swearing in front of", and currently your argument includes that scenario. You dont like that he swore in front of your wife and children, therefore, you get to use force against him.

 

If the police are escorting a thief out of my house, and I swear at him , call him a f**king thieving b****** , is he then justified in punching me? I am sure you will say no, but why not? Your argument currently allows this scenario..

[regevdl]

Here's my take overall and it doesn't require us to spend hours sifting through raw video or analize media video and those things.  

 

A few years ago, Obama 'updated' a federal law HR347 that prohibits protesting around government buildings or anywhere Secret Service is or government officials.  Trump and other candidates are protected by Secret Service during their campaign and rallies and such are considered 'government business'.  Therefore those areas are HR347 enforced zones.  Free speech in terms of protesting, is prohibited.  

 

With that said.  We can debate whether the law itself is constitutional or not.....and actually, credit to the Libertarians at the time who tried to have this discussion with people when the law was updated (the law has been around for a few decades...Obama did not create the law from scratch).

And no one listened.  They were met with 'shut up you tin foil hat right wing nut case paranoid freak.." and such.  

 

So the public went on blissfully ignorant of what this law is and when it would rear it's ugly head.  Enter Campaign 2015/16.  

People get all bent out of shape getting kicked out of Trump rallies and trying to make him appear as a tyrant when they are so foolish.

This law prohibits them from protesting at his or any rally.  It is a federal crime.  So when they see Trump simply telling his security 'get them out of here'.... he is actually doing them a favor...because he could push for their arrest and federal charges against them.  But instead, he just orders for their removal and they can go about their life, blissfully unaware how close they came to being charged with a federal crime if Trump was the tyrant they want to make him appear to be.

 

Again, I am not supporting the law or anything, just speaking in the current matrix of laws and statist reality. 

 

Even if this law did not exist, he could still run his rallies as he sees fit.  The tickets ARE open to the public but once they enter the rally area, it is a private event and he can then dictate how he sees fit.  Just like those parties where everyone needs to wear 'white'...they can kick you out if you have on another color, etc.  

 

People need to focus on the REAL crimes of free speech infringment and that is the Commisson of Presidntial Debates.  This is the head of the snake on the 2 party monopoly.  

 

Now, beyond ALL of that...the way these people 'protest' is by agitation.  It's like me sticking my finger close to your face and shouting 'I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you! " and if you get all pissy and annoyed and shove my finger out of your personal space I wail and flail and cry foul. 

 

These are the same cry-bullies that obstructed media at the Missouri campus incident and cried about 'safe space' and keeping people away as to not trigger the delicate fragile minds of their peers.  ok.... so where in the hell are they giving Trump supporters 'safe space'.  

 

Peaceful protesting is NOT interlocking arms and circling around obstructing people's movement and casually waiting for someone to bump into this unpredictable blob of people and cry out and pounce on them. 

 

Also, it's not peaceful protesting with Trump = Hilter signs.  The fact that people THINK or BELIEVE that is peaceful protesting is astounding.  That is absolutely passive aggressive provocation.  Have any of these brilliant protestors done a social experiement and put on a Trump shirt and showed up to a Bernie or Hillary Rally with a Hillary = Hitler or Bernie = Hitler and observed how they are greeted and treated?  My guess is... no.  and the answer is no  because they know they will be met in the same toxic manner as they are treating the Trump supporters.

 

 

I am sure I am preaching to the choir here but I just can't stand what is now commonly viewed as 'peaceful protest'. Just because they aren't punching someone in the face it's peaceful protest.  Total B.S.  Their is provocational protesting and this is exactly what they do and they love to lower the standards of what's even considered peaceful protest.  

 

These people are so sick and mental if they think Trump is a tyrant.  I'm not saying he is our beacon of free society or anything but the fact that they demonize him on such a viscious level and they defend societies that actually ARE tyrranical (the middle east theocracies).  It's astounding the level of cognitive dissonance.

[vahleeb]

To your point about "verbal aggression": My understanding of initiation of force is that a credible threat is the only form of speech that counts.

 

I think I understand your points about the first amendment.

Just to clarify: your position is that verbal aggression qualifies as initiation of force only if threatening bodily harm and having those threats be credible (in other words if I say I'm gonna knock your teeth out and look like I can pack a punch it is initiation of force, but if I'm all flabby armed and skinny and look like I could fall apart if someone shook me a little harder, then it no longer qualifies).

 

If I'm wrong please correct me about your framework.

 

However, assuming that I have understood correctly then would you qualify the following situation as initiation of force?

 

You have composed a song, are blessed with some musical talent, and you decide to share this gift with the world. As a result you take to the streets, harmonica in hand to sing this song to the world. And wherever you set up and get ready to sing, I show up next to you and start making monkey noises. You go elsewhere, I follow you. Eventually you give up and go home, or... fall asleep on a park bench if you'd like not to quit. I have been popping amphetamines so I can stay awake longer than you. Does my behaviour qualify as initiation of force under your guidelines?

[S. Misanthrope]

To your point about "verbal aggression": My understanding of initiation of force is that a credible threat is the only form of speech that counts.

 

I think I understand your points about the first amendment.

I see it like this:

Trump pays for venue for rally

Venue temporarily becomes his property

Trump invites supporters onto his property for purpose of rally

Non-supporters come in for purpose of disrupting rally <--this is initiation of force

Trump and supporters forcibly eject non-supporters <--this is retaliatory force

[neeeel]

I see it like this:

Trump pays for venue for rally

Venue temporarily becomes his property

Trump invites supporters onto his property for purpose of rally

Non-supporters come in for purpose of disrupting rally <--this is initiation of force

Trump and supporters forcibly eject non-supporters <--this is retaliatory force

 

You missed out "trump supporter walks up to a protester who was leaving, and elbows him in the face"

This has nothing to do with ejecting someone

[Guest Gee]

You missed out "trump supporter walks up to a protester who was leaving, and elbows him in the face"

This has nothing to do with ejecting someone

 

Enthusiastic ejection 

[shirgall]

  Obviously I'm not on the side of the protesters or the media, but isn't he, in these clips, endorsing violence against people you disagree with?

 

Isn't it more like "treat the protesters the way they are treating everyone else"? Welcome everyone, but if they are jerks, there's no need to be nice to them.