Two days ago a thread was started in GD with the title “I think Timothy McVeigh’s actions were not an entirely unreasonable reaction to Ruby Ridge and Waco.” This thread title is an exact quote from one of the Board’s right-wingers.
Whatevs. Just one piece of Trump’s Make America Dirty Again program will kill 1400 Americans annually, it is estimated, so McVeigh’s murdering 169 may seem like chicken-feed in right-wing calculus. A small price to pay so gun nuts can say “See? We psychopaths can kill you commie Feds even without guns so you may as well let us keep our assault rifles!”
Nevertheless I was stunned to read the following response. It came very early in the thread; no one else had offered any comparison between mass murder and non-violent crime:
The people who condoned damage to a statue as a protest are hypocrites if they object to the murder (as “protest”) of 169 humans. Simple as XYZ. Got it.
Oh, I’m sure Bricker accepts that in some legal codes, human life is valued above petty property — (He’d point to subsection (b) of paragraph 12 of §301-62 of the Virginia Blah Blah and laugh at our ignorance not knowing about Estate of McGillicuddy vs Mrs. McGillicuddy in which an appeals court in Wyoming held by a 2-1 judgment that statue breakage did not justify murdering a husband :smack: ) — but it would never occur to most humans to make any comparison between minor property damage and mass murder.
In another thread, Bricker objects to blacks “disrespectfully” taking a knee during the anthem — they should write their Congressmen instead if they have a problem with white police.
I could find more and more posts like these, but it would nauseate me. And of course he’s still bragging about how smart the GOP is to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters.
What happened? When I first came to the Board, Bricker seemed to be an intelligent and fair-minded right-winger. Has wallowing in the cesspool of today’s GOP left him drinking the same fetid Kool-Aid as the crooks and hypocrites that have taken over that Party use to gull the stupid?
Nothing happened to Bricker. He’s always been a psychopathic shitpile who thinks his adorable Socratic whataboutism makes him an authority on morality.
Do you mean an upbringing “amidst minimal economic resources,” or “neglected or wrongly instructed by adults”? Serious question. I’m guessing the former.
Bricker’s position is consistent with the accepted legal principle of proportionality. It’s the basic idea that the punishment should fit the crime. No surprise.
Toppling a statute was done in a manner that contravened law. Blowing up the federal building in OKC was done in a manner that contravened law. Pointing out this commonality in no way implied that the penalty imposed should be the same for both offences.
Right, but Bricker’s argument isn’t about the penalty. It’s about the distinction people make between small crimes and major crimes. He’s saying - Hey, this small crime and this big crime are both crimes, therefore, if you hate the big crime, then you’re a nasty liberal hypocrite for applauding the small crime.
The problem for that argument is that it’s a false equivalence to pretend that their aren’t any moral differences in knocking over a racist statue and blowing up a federal building & preschool, killing and injuring hundreds of people.
Bricker isn’t arguing that we should impose the same penalty, but that we should impose the same moral condemnation equally, regardless of intent or body count.
If you made three trips to Las Vegas last year, losing $3000, losing another $3000, then winning $2000 you are guilty of tax evasion if you didn’t report the $2000 winnings whether the casino filed W-2G or not. Yes, you can then deduct the losses — Did you keep receipts? Did you ask the casino for your estimated loss forms?
In many jurisdictions it is illegal to turn right at a stop sign unless you first come to a complete stop.
It is absurd to imagine that all crimes can be compared morally.
That Bricker made an equivalence between petty vandalism and mass murder to make a claim of liberal hypocrisy demonstrates that he has completely lost his grip on reality.
To be fair to Bricker, he did post later in the thread…
I haven’t followed the whole thread closely, don’t know if he’s withdrawing his entire argument from the start, or just some portions or details thereof.
Especially when they don’t jive with your heartfelt feelings. Nitpick all you like. Sorry Bricker makes you feel inadequate. Too bad you don’t get to have your own version the facts.
Rage against factual impingement upon your fantasy world util you’re blue in the face, but it ain’t Bricker’s fault. Now let’s see how shooting the messenger proceeds…
I’m sure that somewhere in the recesses of what’s left of his soul, even Dear Counselor comprehends that petty vandalism and mass murder are different crimes qualitatively.
It’s his eagerness to accuse liberals of hypocrisy, and his Pavlovian recourse to Tu Quoque (“Your ilk condones vandalism but condemns our ilk when we express annoyance at the pernicious federal government, annoyance so severe we resort to mass murder”) that nauseates us, that makes it hard to see how American democracy can be salvaged when his ilk continues to spread lies and hatred.
And notice how reluctantly he comes to the defense of McVeigh’s victims — mostly government workers (so incompetent lazy Democrat-voting scum I’m sure) — (and presumably celebrates the separation of toddlers from their parents to discourage asylum seeking) while he pontificates over and over and over until we want to retch about his deep love for the Christian foetuses Democrats apparently enjoy murdering. :eek: “My ilk reluctantly killed 169 in Oklahoma while Democrats murder millions of babies! We win!! We are more moral!!!”
He cackles with glee like a constipated whore-monger when his precious Republicans cheat to win an election, but scolds like a constipated preacher if the Dems find a tactic to recover and he thinks he can dredge some counter from a tired old lawbook. The only consistency in his arguments is … ***the constipation!
Indeed, he had the presence of mind to realize his position was becoming untenable and chose not to keep building on it. That makes for a nice contrast from the people on this board who seem addicted to doubling down as if it was a heady mix of cocaine and meth.
Cop to citizen: Sir, you failed to stop at the “Stop” sign.
Citizen: Well, I slowed down!
(Cop removes baton, begins bashing citizen about the head and shoulders…)
“You want me to stop? Or just slow down?”
I didn’t see anything atypical about it. Someone had put forth principled reasons for a moral stance that defies the law, and Bricker is just ignoring those and pretending that morals are entirely arbitrary. He doesn’t actually argue why the principles are wrong or invalid, because “he doesn’t do moral arguments.” So he’s limited to arguing that the rule of law is necessary, and thus claiming his opponent does not believe this, whether directly or by implication.
I mean, LHOD specifically cited the lack of any particular harm to others as part of the reason he supported the statue being demolished. That alone was enough to show that McVeigh’s actions and the actions of those tearing down the statue were not analogous under the framework given. But that’s what Bricker claimed.
I wouldn’t have cared if he actually tried to argue that LHOD’s criteria weren’t good enough. Instead, he tried to change the argument so that he could win. I’m not saying Bricker is alone in this, but I do notice this from him more than others. Though I do note that I usually disagree with him, which makes it easier to notice.
That is his secret sauce. He is able to recognize when pushing a position is on the verge of making people disregard him. Being disregarded would mean that he could no longer throw sand in the gears, making people tired, grinding down opposition to his tribe (whichever of his tribes happens to be in question). Don’t mistake it for changing his mind or position. That “nice contrast” is a tactical maneuver to keep you listening to him.
I’m sorry** Bricker** hurt you, Septimus, but it’s not really his fault. He’s just not that into you. You need to move on, all this dwelling on what might have been is unhealthy. There’s plenty of fish in the sea.
Oh, I’m not holding any particular regard for Bricker and I am certainly not complimenting or congratulating him. I have no doubt at all that he still seeks the magic formula that forever proves that all liberals are hypocrites. It’s just that he knows, at least some of the time, when an argument is a loser and should be abandoned. Of course, he still hasn’t done so for the voter ID thread so I make no assumption that this is a general character trait of his, just that in this one particular case he recognized discretion was the better part of valor. The OP of this thread can find many better examples to pit Bricker for.
In some it isn’t? (in our parts we call that a California turn.) < (heh, did I just answer my question?)