I’m not going to debate which act of mob violence has merit. I don’t think any do. Implicitly or explicitly encouraging mob violence has no place in a functioning democracy. Period.
What would they have actually accomplished? Now if their goal was to harm congressmen and congresswomen? Well, put me on the side of they should have met with lethal force. Yes, an actual plan to harm elected leaders is more serious than burning down a foot locker. Was that their goal though or did they just make it further than they thought they’d get and do some rampaging?
All that said, it is inexcusable. So is attacking a federal courthouse or burning down police stations.
Nobody excused those acts. They just pointed out that the vast, vast majority of BLM protestors didn’t take part in those acts.
But you continue to pretend that anyone who points this out to you is A-OK with burning footlocker and police stations.
No I’m not. I’m being awfully redundantly clear that I don’t endorse mob violence regardless of stated goal. It’s tedious actually. But it’s important to be clearly against this sort of unruliness.
So you’re supportive of the 93% of nonviolent BLM protestors?
It would be wise to “. . . consistently denounce mob violence as a threat to democracy.”
True, but that would assume both political sides were wise-neutral observers instead of ideological loyalists, which isn’t likely to happen in this lifetime.
In terms of right to assemble and protest in a truly peaceful fashion? Of course. I even agree with a good portion of the message such as ending police brutality and criminal justice reform.
If that’s the case, I don’t think your opinion is all that different from the opinion of your so-called hivemind. I haven’t seen anyone here who approves of burning courthouses or footlockers, though I could be wrong.
I see the destruction of federal, city, and state property by the left in the same light I see the attack on the WH and congressional buildings by conservatives. Conservatives are culpable for the destruction in DC., but that doesn’t negate the destructive behavior of the left, the downplaying of which appears to be a priority on this site.
The idea that majority-unarmed groups of liberals and conservatives who faced multiple law-enforcement agencies and the potential of national guard call-out, were capable of overthrowing a state or federal government is absurd. Also absurd is the idea that an armed and organized domestic militia could secretly prepare itself and conduct a surprise coup in this age of surveillance technology, where one Facebook selfie could reveal far more than bad teeth.
In any event, we can now all look forward to peace, tranquility, economic security, universal love, and global respect now that Joe Biden in soon to be in charge. Fire up your doobies, we are soon to become One with the Cosmos! (see me for good real-estate deals)
It all circles back around to ideological differences that
You almost pulled off that “one side is as bad as the other” bit…but you just couldn’t stop yourself from revealing which side you support by finishing with
To your point, If my home or business is burned to the ground, I don’t really care what the moral justification was.
That said, a violent angry mob storming the Capital to interrupt the process of Presidential succession because they didn’t like the results of the last election strikes at the very core of American democracy.
As opposed to the peace, tranquilly, economic security, universal love and global respect we enjoyed under Republican Presidents George W Bush (“hanging chads”, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, 2008 Financial Crisis) and Donald Trump (“Fake News”, COVID19, economic depression, BLM protests, DC riots, whatever happens in the next two weeks)?
It’s just ass-covering bothsidesism. It’s an attempt to con people into believing that because we’re not in fact going to instantly attain uninterrupted “peace, tranquility, economic security, universal love, and global respect” in the Biden administration, therefore the Trump administration was essentially no different and it’s all just the normal swings and roundabouts of functioning two-party politics.
Move along, folks, everything’s fine, no crypto-authoritarian democracy-undermining Republican agenda to see here…
Wow, I really thought you were far too intelligent to fall into the trap of equivalenting the behaviour of left vs right criminal gatherings - really thought you’d see through that and accept that although riots in one state Capitol whilst completely unacceptable are nothing like as costly to the US as an attempted overthrow of a duly elected president.
I’ll give you a way out here and make it easy - I do not want to try diminish the crimes of BLM or any other party for riot or damage to state or federal assets in any way - is that OK for you.
Such riots are unlwaful, costly and impactful to individuals and businesses.
All that said, attempted overthrow of the government is by any measure not only as bad materially in terms of BLM riots etc, it is much more damaging in terms of the US constitution, it is damaging to its prestige around the world and reveals previously unexamined fragilities in US law and Consitution, it weakens the US internally, the spread of right wing propaganda has damaged the US beyond words and seriously damaged respect and trust in the Federal Government by its own citizens - the credibility of the electoral proces will have to be rebuilt and this is not just a case of repairing a few window or replacing some walls and doors.
Can you not see the difference and would it not be better for your own credibility to agree, rather than continue down the road of denialism, smokescreen and obfuscation? It takes a better person to see and admit than the one that continues with discreditable point scoring in order to support and maintain a personal ego - so which are you, the better person?
It’s not uncommon to favor one side over the other and still recognize the flaws in both. I couldn’t care less what others think of my political preferences, and I suspect you don’t much care either.
It could be argued that when you’re trying to pretend that the massive anti-democracy and anti-governance manipulations underpinning the operations of your side are really no worse than the ordinary problems and imperfections of the other side, you’re not really “recognizing the flaws in both”
Many wrong things to correct in your post I see. First, the WH has not been attacked since the English burned it down and it sure was not attacked yesterday. Except, of course, if you mean the behaviour of the current tenant is and attack and has been for the last four years (I guess you don’t, rethorical question). I call straw man.
Of course “there is no evidence that 100% of the protestors intended to commit violent acts”, many people, good people, only condoned the actions of the more violent thugs. And they enjoyed them merrily too, from a safe distance. But they were not ready to put themselves at risk of jail (he, he, he…) or social media shame. They may be dumb, but they are no fools (unlike those who are and felt so in the right that they gave interviews to the media stating their name and what they had done while exiting the premises red handed).
Just to be sure I get you right: Are you defending those people?
From your point of you view you are absolutely correct. From my point of view I’m correct. It’s my point, that I’ve obviously failed to make, that when politicians, the media, universities, etc. excuse mob violence as a legitimate means of advancing a political/ideological agenda they are in fact attacking the intellectual foundations of classical, Western liberalism.
These attacks are not just physical like the riots of the summer, the employment of a Heckler’s Veto to shut down speech, violence to cancel people, the bum rush of Congress, etc. they are also intellectual attacks on the legitimacy of robust free speech and freedom of thought. This isn’t bothsiderism or whatever denigrating attempt to belittle legitimate complaints.
If you care about democracy it’s not just physical symbols of democracy that need to be preserved/protected, at all levels of government I might add. You also need to be vigilant against those who undermine the philosophy that makes democracy and liberty possible. I’m not seeing that here. I see a one-sided attack that puts all the blame on Trump and Republicans.
Now with regards to overthrowing the government, there was literally 0 chance of that happening when that mob hit the Capitol. They’d need the US Army or a significant portion of the populace to have a chance. This was an event that should never have happened but in terms of being an immediate existential threat is being overhyped.
The dangers are more insidious. The mutual distrust and hatred of each side and the willingness to advocate extreme, unconstitutional measures to solve the so-called problem aren’t going to diminish and it’s in many actors interest to seek to amplify the discord.
Precisely. These protestors bludgeoned a capitol police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. Can you imagine what would have happened had they gotten a hold of one of their actual targets like Pence or Pelosi?
Killing black people is not one of the ideals of this nation. So protesting the killing of black people is not an assault on the ideals of self government.