Not true BigT. Burning, looting, and assault is not peaceful. Just because the media and leftists parroted the tactics of Baghdad Bob or the ministry of truth does not make the peaceful protest narrative accurate.
This is a public service announcement. Do not engage with the Octoputz; he is not here for reasoned debate… he is a Trollololol lolol lolol
You get a “projection” stamp. Now consult with the hive/snarkers and try to come up with an original label. I’d be embarrassed with your lack of creativity.
Aww, look how cute it is when its flailing all eight arms! <3
I imagine you feel like a Nixon supporter in '74.
~Max
Not really. I just find the hypocrisy and double standards with regards to cheering on political violence amusing and sad. Where was this outrage and 200 threads when police stations were burned, etc?
You are not even wrong, I already told you that me and virtually all Democrats did condemn the violence; Trump, the one you voted for, even after the violence observed claimed that he loves the rioters.
You are very special octopus, go home.
i JuSt DoNt GeT wHy YoU aNd BiDeN wOnT cOnDeMn ThE vIoLeNcE
What’s your angle? Even assuming people are hypocrites with double standards - when people come around to reason, don’t call them hypocrites. To do so is to indicate that your goal here is destructive, rather than constructive.
~Max
I’m sorry, can you find an example of someone on this board cheering for violence? I think you’re confusing reality with the cosplay world in your head again.
I’m sure he can. Doesn’t make him right or any less of a troll, though; but he will find a single sentence advocating violence and then claim victory.
It’s not meant to be destructive. It’s to point out that calling someone a Nazi for advocating free speech and someone a White supremacist for advocating following a democratic process instead of mob violence is in fact dishonest and counterproductive.
It’s like warning folks that appeasement only emboldens the violent, there is no pleasure in seeing the violent become emboldened.
Oh I’m sure he’s got a trove of bookmarks for this eventuality. I’m just curious whether it’ll be something like “yay, violence is good when my side does it” or it’s more of a weak stretch like “I understand why they’re mad”.
Either way, if we’re tired of made-up bullshit, we have to challenge stuff that sounds like made-up bullshit. Maybe we’ll be wrong sometimes, but we can’t let it go.
But, in my opinion, calling people who agree with you hypocrites for agreeing with you has a destructive effect. Maybe you only meant to point out hypocrisy for the sake of pointing out hypocrisy, but the message received is “I don’t really care about my position, only about pointing out how you’re wrong”.
If you can’t see that, that’s your problem.
~Max
Concerning police brutality? I understand why people are mad as well. I don’t criticize that. I criticized the looting, the mass arsons, the assault, the vandalism and the lack of action and explicit encouragement from politicians on the left and the media. It was inexcusable and moral high ground was lost. In all seriousness, do we really want a nation where the faction willing to employ the most violence in the jurisdiction of sympathetic politicians dictate who can go where and who can say what?
They don’t agree with me. They agree this particular instance of political violence is destructive. They don’t agree that mob rule in general is.
But this is a blatant contradiction.
~Max
No it’s not. It’s two conditions and you truncated the full argument. Each one needs to be true. I mean if I say 1+1 is 2 and you agree and I say 1+2=3 and you don’t agree we aren’t in agreement for the set of statements. Selective outrage and disapproval is hypocritical and that is the problem.
Pretty much every poster condemned the violence. We just said we understood it
You, on the other hand. condoned violence against the peaceful protesters. And you used it as an excuse to attack the underlying cause. Any violence anywhere was enough for you to condemn everyone.
Yet here, you claimed that there was no violence when they’d already stormed the building, and then couldn’t bring yourself to actually condemn the violence itself or the cause in this case, which you should condemn even if it wasn’t violent, since it’s about overthrowing the election.
You keep trying to act like we’re the bad guys, but you lie about our positions, ignore what we were actually mad at you about, and play around with how lightly you can get away with condemning the insurrection and coup attempt.
All the while gloating in a very troll-like manner.
Maybe it is a problem in some broader debate, but only one instance is under present consideration.
~Max