BLM, Capitol Riot, Hypocrisy and False equivalency -Split from: Blow to US Democracy

[MigL]

Umm, windows are one thing, Zap.
Would you feel better if you were one of the 5 killed at the Capital, or on of the 18 killed during the BLM protests?

And lets not confuse the issue with self defense; we are discussing perpetrating violence, up to and including the death of innocent bystanders.
At both protests people were there by choice, and some ( not all ) willfully harmed ( and killed ) innocents.

In my opinion, violence is violence, no qualifiers.
I recognize that others may have a different opinion, as you've stated ( personally, I would have used hate crimes as an example )
But it's like pulling teeth trying to get others ( hi, INow  ) to admit they qualify their violence.

 

33 minutes ago, zapatos said:

while the Capitol rapscallions simply didn't like the result of a fair election.

Ahh, but here's the rub, those 'rapscallions' ( interesting choice of word ) firmly believe they were saving the country from an insurrection mounted by the Democrats, to steal an election which D Trump actually won. In their minds, they were modern day G Washingtons, rebelling against an attempt to install an illegitimate Government.
They were told so by their/your President !

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

Ahh, but here's the rub, those 'rapscallions' ( interesting choice of word ) firmly believe they were saving the country from an insurrection mounted by the Democrats, to steal an election which D Trump actually won. In their minds, they were modern day G Washingtons, rebelling against an attempt to install an illegitimate Government.
They were told so by their/your President !

Their frame of mind will brought up in court and the judges might take that into account. What matters most is what the majority who passed the laws thought. The perpetrator may think they were justified but the courts will deal with them according to the law and according to precedent.

People are generally judged by the standard of a "reasonable" person, and people who believe they were saving their country from an insurrection  mounted by the Democrats will not be judged "reasonable". Their cases will be judged by the same standards used as with the 60 or so court cases we've already seen regarding the "stolen election".

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

In my opinion, violence is violence, no qualifiers.

So no difference between killing a person for fun or killing a person in self defense...

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

And lets not confuse the issue with self defense;

I'm not confusing it. I am saying qualifiers do exist, and that was an easy and obvious example. 

36 minutes ago, MigL said:

Would you feel better if you were one of the 5 killed at the Capital, or on of the 18 killed during the BLM protests?

Depends. Were the circumstances the same for all 23 killings? If they were the same, I would feel the same. If they were different I might feel differently about them.

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Their frame of mind will brought up in court and the judges might take that into account. What matters most is what the majority who passed the laws thought. The perpetrator may think they were justified but the courts will deal with them according to the law and according to precedent.

People are generally judged by the standard of a "reasonable" person, and people who believe they were saving their country from an insurrection  mounted by the Democrats will not be judged "reasonable". Their cases will be judged by the same standards used as with the 60 or so court cases we've already seen regarding the "stolen election".

So no difference between killing a person for fun or killing a person in self defense...

I'm not confusing it. I am saying qualifiers do exist, and that was an easy and obvious example. 

Depends. Were the circumstances the same for all 23 killings? If they were the same, I would feel the same. If they were different I might feel differently about them.

I'm guessing you might not feel a thing...but admittedly just a guess as I've never been dead.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm guessing you might not feel a thing...but admittedly just a guess as I've never been dead.

True, but that's the question I was asked so I gave it my best shot.

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Umm, windows are one thing, Zap.
Would you feel better if you were one of the 5 killed at the Capital, or on of the 18 killed during the BLM protests?

2-3 of those 5 weren't actually killings.

 I think I think if you read up on the more casual police brutality you'd understand where they're coming from.   terms of the actual protests there were please National Guard random federal officers and counter-protesters all mixed in.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Endy0816

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, MigL said:

So you explanation is that ALL the violence at BLM protests was perpetrated by 'planted' fascists, who want to discredit the BLM movement ?
Or do you mean that they had signs which stated their intent, but the violence happened 'accidentally' ?

Neither, the police are quite adept at inspiring violence at an otherwise peaceful protest.

Like I said, the difference is the intent on the part of the protester's and I think there's little doubt the Trump army intended violence, when they descended on the capital, because they didn't get their way in the polls; so no, the two aren't equivalent.

You can't/shouldn't just dismiss a legitimate protest because some of them defended themselves when attacked.

Violence is never Ok, is more of an excuse to deny legitimacy in this context; I have every sympathy with pacifism as an ideal, but then I've never been attacked for waving a banner.

13 hours ago, MigL said:

Well, since INow wants to look at motivation, all those idiots at the Capital did, in fact, believe that the election was illegally 'stolen', and so, their 'cause was ( to them ) just and legal.

The difference is, they used that motivation as an excuse to be violent, rather than a reason to protest.

[MigL]

Look all I've said is , if you feel violence has qualifiers, and is justified in some case, just say so.
Don't say violence is always bad, but in some cases its acceptable.
If you are attacked and have the option of leaving/walking away, then killing in so called self defense is not justified either; and everybody at a protest is there voluntarily and has the choice of leaving.
But that's my opinion; I realize thee are others.

And another thing...

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

so no, the two aren't equivalent.

I never said that they were.
Everyone else keeps on bringing up this 'equivalency' as they compare the two protests. All I've said is that violence is wrong in either protest.
So why id I get accused of 'whataboutism,' when you guys are doing it ?

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

I never said that they were.
Everyone else keeps on bringing up this 'equivalency' as they compare the two protests. All I've said is that violence is wrong in either protest.

 

23 hours ago, MigL said:

the two protest events DO have violence in common.
That applies to both, and, and, in that respect they ARE equivalent.

 

[Ken Fabian]

My opinion - not sure it counts as any kind of legal principle - (most of) those who stayed peacefully outside the Capitol might be considered legitimate protesters - neither rioters nor insurrectionists - but those that entered crossed more lines than one. Even the ones who followed after the police were overwhelmed, who clashed with none, did no damage, stole nothing, shouted no death threats were directly involved in something more serious than protest. No-one does thorough investigation quite like the FBI - arrest all that entered and let the courts sort them out.

I said "most of" those outside would be just protesters but it may be some were working in coordination with others who had gone inside, eg as spotters watching for police or National Guard reinforcements to let those inside know. I am not aware of any but the more committed and organised elements might have done that.

And yes, if elements of BLM - which, so far as I know, tries for non-violent protest - or extremist Antifa or Wobblies who don't - or whoever else who turns violent and destructive... arrest them and let the courts sort it out.

[MigL]

Couldn't agree with you more, Ken.
Because violence ( and other crimes ) remain illegal, no matter how noble the cause.

I realize you're trying to 'educate' me, INow, but I have to quote Matthew 7:5 to you
( and because I think Biblical quotes would annoy you  )

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

But I appreciate your efforts, brother  .

 

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

- (most of) those who stayed peacefully outside the Capitol might be considered legitimate protesters - neither rioters nor insurrectionists - but those that entered crossed more lines than one. Even the ones who followed after the police were overwhelmed, who clashed with none, did no damage, stole nothing, shouted no death threats were directly involved in something more serious than protest.

This is where my head was UNTIL I read that previous post of yours. “Nah, they were just there like at a rally... sure, they doubt the election results, but whatever.  They’re just regular old Tom, Dick, and Sally’s out holding signs and taking photos.”

But you made a point that gave me pause... that made me view things differently. Majority of them DID want to overturn a free and fair election, to throw away votes they didn’t like, and circumvent the process. That in itself is a type of sedition. It’s a desire to overthrow our democratic principles and our republic. 

Sure, everyone exists along a spectrum and some were more aggressive/extreme than others who were meek and mild, but NONE of them were there supporting our legal processes or allowing the justice system to sort through the claims of fraud.

The sincerity of their beliefs isn’t relevant. They felt they knew better than those in charge and were acting like vigilantes who desired to replace the actual election results with their own personally preferred winner.

In short, they were trying to overthrow our government. That’s a well made point I can’t simply ignore or dismiss. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Dude, I’m an experienced wood worker now. I wear safety glasses. No splinters in these eyes.  
 

Matthew 13:13
Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

My opinion - not sure it counts as any kind of legal principle - (most of) those who stayed peacefully outside the Capitol might be considered legitimate protesters - neither rioters nor insurrectionists - but those that entered crossed more lines than one. Even the ones who followed after the police were overwhelmed, who clashed with none, did no damage, stole nothing, shouted no death threats were directly involved in something more serious than protest. No-one does thorough investigation quite like the FBI - arrest all that entered and let the courts sort them out.

I said "most of" those outside would be just protesters but it may be some were working in coordination with others who had gone inside, eg as spotters watching for police or National Guard reinforcements to let those inside know. I am not aware of any but the more committed and organised elements might have done that.

And yes, if elements of BLM - which, so far as I know, tries for non-violent protest - or extremist Antifa or Wobblies who don't - or whoever else who turns violent and destructive... arrest them and let the courts sort it out.

Agree with all of that.

For MigL and INow:

Matthew 5:19...And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for. thee that one of thy members should perish, and. not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

For Republicans I think this means do not let the offensive results of the election let you deviate from the path of righteousness as you see it.

For Democrats I think it means do not allow yourself to listen to anything you know not to be true.

My translation: Keep your eyes in your head and stop quoting the Bible!

😷

[MigL]

This is getting serious !
Now we're going Biblical on each other.

Just kidding.
Didn't know so many of us atheists could quote the Bible.

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Matthew 5:19...And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for. thee that one of thy members should perish, and. not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

For Republicans I think this means do not let the offensive results of the election let you deviate from the path of righteousness as you see it.

For Democrats I think it means do not allow yourself to listen to anything you know not to be true.

For the rest of us it means, let's try to understand our fellow human's before we cast them/and us into Dante's Devine comedy. 

[MonDie]

On 1/23/2021 at 11:45 AM, MigL said:

D Trump just lit the fuse ( or recognized the flaw ), it can't all be blamed on him; this is uncharacteristic behavior for the American people, on both sides of the political spectrum.
Does the end justify the means now?
Is violence and destruction warranted when you think your cause is just ?
Whatever happened to reasoning and discourse ? Has it been replaced by emotional response ?

The implicit logic behind domination conservatism.

(A) In a just society, people who don't deserve it are not stripped of their natural rights nor constitutional rights.

(B) It's true--I'm patriotic.

(C) I'm assuming it was probably your fault.

(B+C)  Authority figures will back me up and reinforce my assumptions.

(B+C+BC)  They're taking away your rights, not mine.

[iNow]

This video was shared by the House managers during the impeachment hearings. It brings clarity and perspective to what really happened on January 6. It’s a hard one to watch, but a good one with which to be familiar. More videos are available. This was just the opening... real events. Real news. Really used as evidence in the US Senate.  Flagged as inappropriate by YouTube viewers. 
 

 

https://youtu.be/i9Xd5s0boWc

 

[MonDie]

On 1/24/2021 at 8:40 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Titled: "Look Who's Still Rioting" by Wall Street Journal published Jan 21, 2021

https://www.wsj.com/articles/look-whos-still-rioting-11611272972

"Portland police say some rioters carried “pepper ball guns, electronic crowd control weapons similar to Tasers, large fireworks, shields and rocks” and that “weapons were seized including Molotov Cocktails, knives, batons, chemical spray and a crowbar.” No doubt mostly peaceful protesters, as CNN likes to describe this sort of thing."

Many armed persons were not acting in coordination with the protests, but were actually members of controversial right-wing groups.  This issue was raised after Jimmy Dore was criticized for getting chummy with a "Boogaloo boy" on air.  There is video of black protestors verbally accosting armed individuals who tried to join the protests.  

[iNow]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

This video was shared by the House managers during the impeachment hearings.

What a random post for someone to neg rep. I have little hope for the continuance of reasonable exchange of ideas and mature dialog in our world if even SFN is now infected with this type of absurdity 

Edited February 14, 2021 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

18 hours ago, MonDie said:

Many armed persons were not acting in coordination with the protests, but were actually members of controversial right-wing groups.  This issue was raised after Jimmy Dore was criticized for getting chummy with a "Boogaloo boy" on air.  There is video of black protestors verbally accosting armed individuals who tried to join the protests.  

Hi Mon Die

Would you have a link to that?

[naitche]

I don't defend the violence occurring on either side, but but pretty sure 'cancel culture' and de-platforming played a huge role in what occurred at the Capitol, and will likely provoke more unrest and polarisation while it continues.

If perspectives are denied as illegitimate, not to be voiced, there is going to be mistrust of the institutions allowing that to happen. 

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, naitche said:

I don't defend the violence occurring on either side, but but pretty sure 'cancel culture' and de-platforming played a huge role in what occurred at the Capitol, and will likely provoke more unrest and polarisation while it continues.

If perspectives are denied as illegitimate, not to be voiced, there is going to be mistrust of the institutions allowing that to happen. 

I agree. It’s been amazing watching all those republicans who voted to impeach Trump get censured by their local state governments, and Trump attack McConnell saying it was critical to end his political career because he made a speech which failed to show sufficient submission and fealty, or who have abandoned Fox News for having the audacity to call the state of Arizona for Biden during the election, or fleeing Facebook for Parlor for having the audacity to fact check posts claiming to be news, or boycotting Nike for presenting an advertisement featuring Colin Kapernick, or any of the countless other times the right has pushed to cancel people for not agreeing with them 100%. It’s getting out of hand. 

[MigL]

The 'right' cancels the 'left' all the time, as INow states.
The 'left' also cancels the 'right' frequently.
But the people we are attaching those labels to, are still there.
And their concerns and needs are not 'cancelled' at all, and will arise again, even stronger, when the next election comes around.

If things don't change, America will be remembered as the nation that could not be brought down from the outside, but was destroyed from within, because neither side was willing to compromise.

I am encouraged by Cindy McCain, after being censured by the Arizona GOP, who said "I"m a life-long Republican, but I'm an American first, and will do what is best for my country"
More Americans, and certainly more politicians, need to start thinking that way.

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

The 'right' cancels the 'left' all the time, as INow states.

Just to be clear, most of my examples were of the right cancelling themselves. 

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I am encouraged by Cindy McCain, after being censured by the Arizona GOP, who said "I"m a life-long Republican, but I'm an American first, and will do what is best for my country"
More Americans, and certainly more politicians, need to start thinking that way.

Indeed, she’s continuing to speak with the honorable voice of her late husband... whom Trump also cancelled in a manner of speaking 

[naitche]

On 2/17/2021 at 1:09 PM, iNow said:

I agree. It’s been amazing watching all those republicans who voted to impeach Trump get censured by their local state governments, and Trump attack McConnell saying it was critical to end his political career because he made a speech which failed to show sufficient submission and fealty, or who have abandoned Fox News for having the audacity to call the state of Arizona for Biden during the election, or fleeing Facebook for Parlor for having the audacity to fact check posts claiming to be news, or boycotting Nike for presenting an advertisement featuring Colin Kapernick, or any of the countless other times the right has pushed to cancel people for not agreeing with them 100%. It’s getting out of hand. 

Yes.

So you see how that aids extremism, and polarisation when identity is politicised.

When characterisations and spread sheets decide where a person must stand, 'as opposed to'  Humanity as a whole.

How acceptance of a Characterisation reduces the diversity and response- ability of an assumed identity.

Imposes additional qualification.

 

To reduce diversity.

[iNow]

I think I can guess at what you’re saying, but the ambiguity prevents me from confirming.