Whataboutism and “OMG hYpOCrasy!” is really the last argument the right has, isn’t it?
Downplaying your side’s contributions to the normalization of political violence accomplishes what exactly?
There you go!
Good question Trump voter.
It would be intellectually honest to acknowledge that occupying capitol buildings, forcing the vice president of the United States and others to flee the halls of government is of a wildly different degree and importance than any protest/riot/violence/looting that happened this summer.
Others have already pointed out that very few supported the violence, but even for those who do, there would be nothing hypocritical about standing for those actions but being against, you know, storming the capitol. It’s not about the motivation behind the action, it’s that violence against governmental institutions is an assault against the core of America, in a degree that violence against private businesses, bad as it might be, does not hold a candle to.
Nobody AFAICT is claiming, or has ever claimed, that it does.
It’s called “medical facts”, and it has nothing to do with the justice or otherwise of the cause.
The epidemiological impact of moderate numbers of people (generally not “vast crowds”) gathering outdoors, mostly if not all distanced and mostly if not all masked, on COVID-19 spread has been shown to be very small if not entirely negligible.
Now, what would be inconsistent or dishonest would be if liberals were widely advocating for or approving of unmasked high-density indoor gatherings in the name of liberal causes, and only condemning them when conservatives engage in them. But that’s not the case.
Liberals have been supporting the rights of everybody to engage in public protest activities in a manner that complies with public-health protocols, and discouraging everybody from engaging in activities that blatantly violate those protocols, no matter what they may think about the “justice” or otherwise of the cause inspiring the activities. Consistency and honesty: check and check.
More false equivalences on your part. The vast majority of progressives, and even most people who could fairly be described as “radical anarchists”, are infinitely more rational and aware of social and political reality than the right-wing “Kraken conspiracy loons” whom you’re trying to sweep under your bothsidesist rug.
Even a significant subset of American religious fundamentalists are more rational and fact-aware than the right-wing conspiracy loons, although of course their Venn diagram shows substantial overlap of the circles.
You deliberately cast a vote for the re-election of Donald Trump a bare two months ago, and you sit here now trying to persuade us that you’re in favor of encouraging rationality in US electoral politics? What part of “you voluntarily voted for a notoriously incorrigible liar, fantasist, grifter, vicious slanderer, cheat and irrationalist” are you still failing to understand?
That is true, but it also doesn’t answer my question. How is pointing out hypocrisy of other members in other contexts in any way related to your main argument that mob violence in this specific instance is wrong?
~Max
Because the conversation takes place in a larger context.
Let’s say it’s you and me conversing. Pretend that I supported mob violence earlier this year.
You argue that today’s protests are wrong because they are a form of mob violence and mob violence is wrong. I agree that the protests today are wrong because it’s mob violence and mob violence is wrong.
Why on earth do you think it would be constructive to then point out how, during the BLM protests earlier this year, I argued that mob violence was right? What do you stand to gain from such a post?
~Max
Oh for fuck’s sake, no it doesn’t. You know that and everyone knows you know that. Stop trolling, stop whatabouting.
Shush!
It would depend on why you supported the previous mob violence. Do you not understand continuity or context? When you debate someone or have a discussion it’s about how one thinks as much as what one thinks. If you think end justifies means you come at life with a different perspective then process is important.
The constructive aspect occurs if one re-examines why they think a particular why and why what they thought was right is not right. The reason there is so much anger and hypocritical pushback against the comparison is the comparison is making these fools rightfully uncomfortable.
Silence yourself, Moron!
This is my thread…
It’s a thread for pointing and laughing at you. If you had any sense you’d shut your blather-hole. But you like being an asinine supporter of traitors.
So go stick a cactus up you ass. Idiot.
Of course you have no cite of that, you slandering fool! That’s how you sad folks operate. Make an unfounded assertion and preen in fake moral superiority. That’s boring isn’t it? Try engaging in an honest discussion instead of being despicable.
I would say it’s ironic how well you describe yourself, but I’m sure you know that… trollololol lolol lolol
I’m afraid you will have to spell it out for me, if I am ignorant of these concepts, I am ignorant of my ignorance. At best, I could see you asking politely why I agree with you this time when I disagreed with you last time, out of curiosity to understand my way of thinking. But that would not further your argument, it would not attack my argument (which is identical to yours), and therefore it would not be relevant to the narrow topic under consideration: today’s protesting.
A private message would be more appropriate, IMO. Not only will it avoid a hijack, it also spares me the embarrassment of admitting that I was wrong in front of the entire board. And don’t write me your theory about me using ends-justifies-the-means logic, that’s poison in the well. If you’re legitimately interested, ask and wait for my answer.
This is, I should add, affording you every benefit of the doubt.
~Max
Cite for you being a blithering idiot who embarrasses yourself constantly?
Your posts are my cite.
What’s your position on calling someone a Nazi or a White Supremacist for acting like a Nazi or a White Supremacist?
Because “advocating free speech” and “advocating following a democratic process” can be (and sometimes are) dishonest characterizations of “acting like Nazis and White Supremacists.”