But, as has been repeatedly pointed out, you haven’t shown (and I don’t know of) any evidence that “politicians, the media, universities, etc.” actually did “excuse mob violence as a legitimate means of advancing a political/ideological agenda” on the part of BLM and other left-wing protestors.
Did they support peaceful protests and demonstrations for BLM and related causes? Sure. Did some of them say that some acts of violence and property destruction, while regrettable and counter-productive, were to some extent understandable? Sure. Did some of them say that some acts of civil disobedience, such as nonviolent “Occupy”-style sit-ins and encampments in public places, are legitimate? Sure.
But actually excusing actual mob violence and declaring it to be “legitimate”? Nope, not AFAICT. If you claim differently, it’s time for you to come up with a cite.
100s of millions of dollars of damage, assaults with deadly weapons on police, burning courthouses and police stations, attacking elected officials, violently assaulting people for holding a different point of view actually is a more accurate description and yes that is an assault on the ideals of democracy.
I know in my city, there were BLM protests and violence, including arson, directed at a courthouse, a police precinct building, and a justice center that contains a jail. In some of those cases, perimeters were set up around the buildings, as should have been done at the capitol. Huge reactions (over the top) by the police occurred from individuals touching, shaking, or making momentary incursions past those barriers. The entire assembly would be “declared unlawful” and tear gassing, etc. would ensue.
I supported the need to protect those public buildings, and to take strong action when people actually tried to or did break in, or were trying to or actually did set fires.
The capitol should have been defended much better, and a stronger response should have happened when a large number of people became a threat.
I think it’s important to not lump all BLM protests in as presenting the same issues.
This is significant in terms of moral judgment.
Already pointed out as a straw man, and also: Maybe not violence, but I’m pretty sure 100% of the people who broke into the Capitol building, and also those who entered after the breaking, actually committed a crime.
A tiny percentage of the many BLM protestors who were tear gassed and otherwise physically assaulted were the ones actually committing crimes.
No, it is not more accurate. The overwhelming majority of the protests were peaceful. But you want to ignore that overwhelming majority of peaceful protest and only talk about the small minority of rioting that damaged property. This is the opposite of trying to be accurate.
One hundred percent of the protestors were trying to overturn the outcome of a democratic election. Trying to overthrow democracy is a lot worse than arson or looting.
Yes. BLM protestors predominantly wanted to peacefully effect change in our system of policing and government. There were also some nonpeaceful people who joined in.
The people who invaded the Capitol were trying to violently overthrow our system of government to make their preferred leader remain president after he was defeated in a democratic election.
Dude, while you’re sitting here scolding us for the existence of a small minority of violent left-wingers in this past summer’s overwhelmingly peaceful BLM protests, your fellow Trump voters are out on social media planning for further violent attacks in protest of what they delusionally persist in considering a “stolen” election.
If you’re really opposed to political violence, you need to be trying to persuade your side to see that point. Not sitting here comfortably explaining to all us violence-rejecting liberals why so-called “cancel culture” is just as dangerous to democracy as breaking into a legislative building with the aim of taking legislators hostage and preventing the certification of a legitimate election, don’cha know.
I don’t post on any pro-Trump or majority right wing or majority Republican sites. Furthermore, if I did I highly doubt I’d have any more influence there than I do here. People are prone to believe what they wish, regardless of cites or evidence. It’s shameful that people are willfully myopic to push an ideology. I can’t help the right wing loons any more than you can help the left wing loons.
What would I say in those circles? “Um guys, political violence is bad!” The thing is, everyone rational knows that and speaks out against it. The irrational or the evil promote or excuse it.
But let’s stop talking about violent rioting and talk about peaceful protest.
Do you feel peaceful protest should be allowed? Yes or no.
Do you feel that the police killing an ongoing series of black people in questionable circumstances is a cause that justifies peaceful protest? Yes or no.
Do you feel rejecting the results of an election because you don’t agree with the outcome is a cause that justifies peaceful protest? Yes or no.
It’s a question because a lot of people, and I include myself, would say that trying to overturn the outcome of a democratic election because you do not agree with the result is not a good cause. I do not support the cause of the people who were protesting against the election this week. Their cause is wrong.
As for the cause of BLM, you say that you support that cause as long as it’s being protesting over in a peaceful manner. So I must assume you supported Colin Kaepernick and the other athletes who knelt down during the national anthem. That was undeniably a peaceful protest for that cause.
Can you provide a link to the posts you made so we can see how you supported Kaepernick’s protest and the cause?
I specifically asked you if you felt these were causes that justified peaceful protest. I asked you for your opinions on the worthiness of these causes.
It’s justified if people wish to do so. There is no further requirement. None. Zilch. Worthiness is not a consideration. At all. I can’t make it any more clear that people don’t need to run things by the Party, the admins, the mods, mom or dad, or whomever to exercise their rights.
Some of this is from the pit so be forewarned.
Anyways, I hoped I passed whatever silly test you think you are administering. I don’t believe in freedom and liberty for pet classes and special people only. I think freedom and liberty are important for every human and I have consistently argued for such. Double standards while a feature and not a bug on social media, web forums, and the media aren’t really something that should be advocated when the topic is as important as individual rights and individual freedoms.
You asked if they are justified or should be allowed. I said absolutely. There is nothing else to add.
Now what about your insinuation that I am somehow insincere or hypocritical that prompted the Kaepernick question. You still think that that was some sort of gotcha?
