Jump to content

BLM, Capitol Riot, Hypocrisy and False equivalency -Split from: Blow to US Democracy


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

And of course, YOU (and those who think like you ) are the arbiters of right and wrong.

This really is getting personal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This video was shared by the House managers during the impeachment hearings. It brings clarity and perspective to what really happened on January 6. It’s a hard one to watch, but a good one with which

Yeah. Let's make it clear that taking over parts of cities using intimidation and violence, and excluding authorities and police, can only reasonably count as "protest" and not insurrection. Orwe

If you had stopped there, I would have given you a +1 also. Unfortunately you misguidedly went on about 'whataboutism', when some of you guys are the biggest offenders. Anytime JC or I ( and a

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

You claim that some violence is good if it's for the right cause; and some is bad if it's for the wrong cause.

Really? Where did I do that, exactly?

You see, I ask because I recall doing EXACTLY the opposite. 

Let’s check the game tape and send this one to the booth:

 

10 hours ago, iNow said:

We can all agree that violence on either side is wrong and should be avoided.

Yep. Exactly the opposite of what you claim. 

I’m gonna flag you for roughing the poster, penalize you 20 yards, and give you a loss of down. Just don’t let it happen again. 

48 minutes ago, MigL said:

If you don't like how we interpret what you write, maybe you shouldn't write it that way

I’m confident that my writing is clear, my points unambiguous, and that one must try very hard to twist my words into what you’re currently asserting. 

On 1/7/2021 at 7:56 PM, iNow said:

We must be reading different threads. I recall ALL of us saying that there’s no place for violence but that we support the cause. 

 

On 1/7/2021 at 7:56 PM, iNow said:

And yes, there’s a massive difference between asking for our police to stop murdering black people and some small handful of people going too far by breaking a door at the local Target store... and baiting millions of people for months to believe that their votes were stolen from them and getting them to think their freedoms are being pissed upon... lathering them up until they start consistently threatening civil war, talking openly about murdering their neighbors, and just yesterday actively stormed our government capitol (both in DC and local capitol buildings across the states) in an insurrection attempt complete with weapons and bombs. 

 

On 1/8/2021 at 10:36 AM, iNow said:

I have a vastly different recollection of these discussions and recall ALL of us saying violence is not okay and that we deplore it. I requested a direct quote or two as evidence to demonstrate what resulted in MigLs alternative understanding in case I was mistaken

 

On 1/8/2021 at 4:13 PM, iNow said:

I really wish you’d stop derailing the thread by asking me to defend claims I haven’t made. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

This really is getting personal.

Not to worry Zap, friends should be able to talk about this sort of stuff.

 

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Really? Where did I do that, exactly?

Well, you're willing to excuse violence perpetrated in the BLM protests, because those protesters feel they are being discriminated against by Police/Justice System.
When did violence gain a case sensitive meaning ?
Violence IS violence.
Whether there is an equivalence ( or not ), is immaterial.
And I never made any such claim, I was accused of doing so.
Complaining of me misinterpreting you, when you misinterpret me, seems a little one-sided.

Would it help alleviate Zapatos' concerns if I included 'smiley faces' with my posts ? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MigL said:

Not to worry Zap, friends should be able to talk about this sort of stuff.

 

Well, you're willing to excuse violence perpetrated in the BLM protests, because those protesters feel they are being discriminated against by Police/Justice System.
When did violence gain a case sensitive meaning ?
Violence IS violence.
Whether there is an equivalence ( or not ), is immaterial.
 

Is there any case where you would consider employing violence against the State justified?

You have blacks being killed for no reason in their own homes by the 'lawful authorities' on the one hand and a group wanting to overturn a democratic election and hang a fellow conservative on the other.

Edited by Endy0816
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Is there any case where you would consider employing violence against the State justified?

Yes. Where my ( or those I care about ) life and liberty  is threatened; otherwise, no.

 

4 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

You have blacks being killed for no reason in their own homes by the 'lawful authorities'

No, you have groups 'protesting' against 'blacks being killed for no reason', by hurting innocent people, destroying property, and taking over cities.
I think I have made my stance against any kind of violent protests well known on this forum.
Everyone has the right to protest, but that right ends when it starts infringing on the rights of others.

PS
The certificate for the site seems to have expired ?
Company firewall wouldn't let me on at work.
Had to wait till I got home

Edited by MigL
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MigL said:

Well, you're willing to excuse violence perpetrated in the BLM protests, because those protesters feel they are being discriminated against by Police/Justice System.

I really don't know what to tell you at this point, mate. I'm explicitly stating that violence on either side is wrong and to be avoided. Then in response, you're claiming I support violence so long as it's for a cause I also support. That is plainly untrue. It is false. I have shared specific quotes of myself stating without equivocation that violence is wrong.

As I know you're not a troll and are not likely misinterpreting me on purpose, I'm left only to conclude that you have a serious bias against my words and a blind spot in your understanding. You are misinterpreting and misrepresenting my stance. You are then arguing against that misrepresentation. It's a classic strawman, even if guided by good intentions and sincere beliefs. Please stop doing that. 

It's now been 3 weeks since the last time you levelled these false claims against me in this very thread. Shall I look for this false claim to reappear 3 weeks from now around Valentines Day?

Just wondering how long it will be before I have to YET AGAIN clarify my stance that we are aligned about peaceful protests being okay and that we are also aligned that violence has no place in it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

Yes. Where my ( or those I care about ) life and liberty  is threatened; otherwise, no.

The problem is by that point it can be too late. The cop 'thought his life was in danger' as you reached for your passport or if lucky you are locked up a few years for being in the vague vicinity of someone they were looking for.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

No, you have groups 'protesting' against 'blacks being killed for no reason', by hurting innocent people, destroying property, and taking over cities.
I think I have made my stance against any kind of violent protests well known on this forum.
Everyone has the right to protest, but that right ends when it starts infringing on the rights of others.

I would normally agree, but in this case the underlying causes were again ignored until once more riots broke out. At some point have to ask what it will take to break the cycle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, iNow said:

Just wondering how long it will be before I have to YET AGAIN clarify my stance that we are aligned about peaceful protests being okay and that we are also aligned that violence has no place in it. 

Am I wrong in thinking that the American revolution could not have taken place without violence? From the little I know of it violence was definitely involved. This violence seemed to begin against the legitimate authorities. Does this mean you disapprove of the manner in which the revolution took place? I'm not trying to trap you, or trip you up. I am genuinely puzzled and seek clarification.

Just to anticipate possible questions, I believe there are times when violence is justified. I haven't decided whether such justification exists, on either side, in the USA today. I merely note I don't place an eternal embargo on violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Does this mean you disapprove of the manner in which the revolution took place?

No, and there must admittedly be some nuance involved here. Despite my strong pushback against MigL, I acknowledge my previous several posts inaccurately imply a black and white binary state on this issue of violence. Instead, it's a fine line. Apologies in advance for the long post... I'll work to tighten up my thoughts on this as we proceed... 

Protests against unfairness in the system should be peaceful. Calling attention to asymmetries in policing and imprisonment and economic inequity itself should nearly always be peaceful, and exceptions rare. I don't support destruction of private property or harm to individuals and neighbors. We gain allies in the fight on principle when we express ourselves peacefully and on the merits, and we lose allies when pockets of violence arise and absorb all of the attention.

The violent actions of the tiny few outliers wind up overshadowing the actions of the great many. The most important messages of the cause are lost amid the shade cast by the bright light of fires in our streets and violence in our cities. We keep seeing here even at SFN as we spend page upon page upon page talking about the 4 people who set a fire in Portland or Seattle instead of the 4 Million people who did not and who were calling attention to their just cause.

Simply: I'm against violence for reasons of principle, morality, AND strategy.

When we see violence in things like the George Floyd protests, it tends to be conducted against innocent targets... against private property and personal businesses which have nothing whatsoever to do with the cause or the systemic issues at play. It harms those who are not involved and does nothing to improve the situation. It's not focused in a way that will drive the change we seek. It simply creates easy enemies and caricatures for simplistic attack by "the other side." This is also why we saw so many false flag operations with police and rightwing nationalists pretending to be BLM setting fires and breaking windows... so many ridiculous fear-stoking claims about the millions of antifa... they knew it would deteriorate support for the cause and distract/derail us from the more important conversation. They were right, and that's exactly what happened. Even here...  

Everyone should welcome protest that drives change and pushes for police accountability, but that protest should NOT involve setting cars on fire in peoples driveways or breaking the windows at the local gas station or Target supercenter. I can empathize with the anger felt by those doing these things, but I don't condone their actions. Both can be true at once, and this is the point I've been trying (and failing) to convey here throughout. 

Likewise... Protests against government should also be peaceful whenever possible. I don't support storming the halls of our congress with zip ties, tazers, and shouts that we should hang elected officials in the gallows just erected 100 feet away on the capitol lawn. By all means, express your protest peacefully... make the case about election fraud, and do so with evidence. Gain the hearts and minds of those who disagree with you... make your case in court... but don't engage in vigilantism or mob "justice" like a bunch of rabid dogs. 

You asked me about American Revolution, and I will say peaceful attempts WERE made... for decades. Even the Declaration of Independence itself was peaceful. It was only after the King sent troops in response to it that the peace was broken. One can argue that was a similar insurrection and that we'd not have a country without it. That's fair. There surely are times when violence is in order once all other peaceful options are exhausted. Peaceful options had not, however, been exhausted with BLM. The peaceful approaches were the overwhelmingly majority. The violence was marginal at best and is being exaggerated... That's the point. 

What constitutes an appropriate response is also contingent on how the government responds to said peaceful protest. If the defenders of an unjust government use violence to suppress peaceful protest or to imprison those with whom they disagree (like the thousands of Navalny supporters Putin just arrested in Russia this weekend, for example), then perhaps violence is needed, but it still IMO must be tied to an underlying cause which is itself just and fair and which cannot be more successfully addressed by other means.

When the government seeks to suppress peaceful protestors, that is perhaps when it is time to look to the words of founders like Thomas Paine who said, "when struggling to defend rights against tyranny, it is the violence which is done and threatened to our persons which conscientiously qualifies the use of arms." ... but not before. 

At the end of the day, what we consider violent and acceptable is subjective. I don't advocate or support it in the vast majority of cases. There will be exceptions, though. For me, BLM was NOT one of those exceptions. I felt peaceful protest was used 99.9% of the time, and that the movement would have been better received and more effective had that 0.01% not occurred. These threads at SFN are evidence enough of this... Look at how people perceive it. Look at how I'm being misinterpreted as supporting violence because I agree with their cause. Look at how far away we all are from discussing the actual issues which needs to be addressed.

For these and other reasons, I don't support violence, even though across the vast chapters in the book of history I'm sure we can find a handful of exceptions that we agree seem to warrant it. 

 

tl;dr: Civic resistance is sometimes justified, and that those who oppose injustice and tyranny are sometimes permitted violence in self-defense. To be clear, this isn’t the same as suggesting that protesters ought to resort to arms.

 

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

I merely note I don't place an eternal embargo on violence.

Nor do I, and I appreciate you calling me out on it. 

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MigL said:

 

Other than that example with regards to INow, there is also Swansont's from the top of the last page.
I commented on the uncharacteristic behavior of American protesters, both at the Capital and during the Summer BLM/G Floyd protests; I expect those kind of violent protests in other countries.
Swansont immediately commented that I was making an equivalence, when, in effect, HE was.
And someone liked his comment.

I would like to know where I made that comment.

I see where I asked a question, and where you replied, and where I mentioned that your meaning hadn't been clear. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to the topic title; the difference is intent.

BLM had banner's that explained why they're protesting...

And the easiest way to discredit that explination, is to provoke violence...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2021 at 1:57 PM, swansont said:

Did you just “both sides” sedition and insurrection?

That seems like a 'loaded' question to me.
Almost an accusation.

 

On 1/25/2021 at 11:31 AM, swansont said:

where I mentioned that your meaning hadn't been clear. 

I would think it was your question that had ( not so ) hidden meaning.

 

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

BLM had banner's that explained why they're protesting...

And the easiest way to discredit that explination, is to provoke violence...

So you explanation is that ALL the violence at BLM protests was perpetrated by 'planted' fascists, who want to discredit the BLM movement ?
Or do you mean that they had signs which stated their intent, but the violence happened 'accidentally' ?

If the former, you had better provide some credible evidence, or are you gonna go Trump on us, and claim 'fake news'?
If the latter, the next time I punch someone out, I'l be holding a sign that says " Friendly Discussion"; I'll let you know how it holds up in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

That seems like a 'loaded' question to me.
Almost an accusation.

 

I would think it was your question that had ( not so ) hidden meaning.

 

I can’t do anything about how you interpreted what I asked/said, or your choice to assign a hidden meaning to it. You made statements about two different (to my mind) kinds of actions, and then made some summary statements that seemed to apply to both. It seemed like you were equating them, but rather than responding with that assumption, I asked a question, to give you a chance to clarify.

The problem with “If you don't like how we interpret what you write, maybe you shouldn't write it that way.” is it requires mind-reading, which is not really a good-faith position. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@MigL Hope you don't mind, but I'm gonna take our PM exchange into the thread here (keeping your point unquoted, will share my reply here instead).

We're still talking passed each other. While I said I can understand the underlying motivations, I have NOT made excuses for violence perpetrated in the name of BLM. There is violence happening as part of the movement. I don't agree with it. I'm not making excuses for it. I'm not pretending it doesn't exist. 

My primary point has been that the violence is the extreme outlier in BLM. It's marginal. It's super rare. It's uncommon. It's been inflated as a rightwing talking point. There has been violence. Some of it came from BLM protestors unprovoked. Some was provoked by police being too heavy handed and hitting peaceful protestors with clubs and firing tear gas into the faces of unarmed grandmothers. Some of it was rightwing extremists engaged in false flag operations. 

My primary point has been that it's a mistake to focus so much energy there... another example of of our white privilege. In these threads, people keep saying "it's horrible that another innocent black man was killed by another cop in another city, but destroying property has to stop." Yeah, okay... but try saying instead, "It's horrible that property is being destroyed, but these continued killings of innocent black men by police has to stop."  See the difference? The pushback is saying you're prioritizing the wrong part... not that the violence is acceptable because it was done by "my team."

Focusing so much on the tiny amounts of violence happening at the extreme margins of the movement distracts us from dealing with the issues motivating the movement itself. I'm not making excuses for the violence. I'm saying it's so rare that bringing up so often suggests an agenda, whether you're conscious of it or not. 

Please stop saying I support the violence. Please stop suggesting I'm making excuses for it. I'm simply not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come in late on this debate, but I believe what I have to say is relevant.

Yesterday we celebrated Australia Day, the day in 1788 that 11 ships anchored in what today is known as Sydney cove or Circular Quay, after sailing out from Mother England and 8 years after Captain James Cook mapped the east coast of Australia.

Many terrible things followed in the next few decades, with the dispossession of lands from the local indigenous population, as well as rape, and murder in establishing the colony of Sydney and moving beyond the east coast into a land near as big as mainland USA.

In celebrating Australia Day [and I am still slightly hung over from that] protest marches also took place in most capital cities, by primarilly indigenous folk, against the many injustices that took place creating this nation, and in changing the date, as in their eyes, January 26th 1788 was simply to them "Invasion Day" 

The protest march in Sydney was predicted to be about 6000 strong which was going against the established covid 19 rules of no more then 500 people. Negotiations took place between the leaders of the protest movement and the Police, where a solution was found in that the protest marches would split up into groups of 500, separated sufficiently to enable all who wanted to take part, to take part, as well as obeying covid 19 rules. The marches in Sydney were all peaceful with the BLM movement in the USA being one focus of the local discontent, as well as the prime reason of changing the date.

That didn't stop the usual extremist appearance that happens in many reasonable protests, albeit not until the end of the marches, when a lone idiot of some white supremest movement was arrested, along with four others that resisted Police directives.

I remember many years ago when a young union delegate, marching in one of the Anti Vietnam war moratorium marches, that were also peaceful, until some extreme members of what was known then as "the socialist Labor League" began ripping down street signs, until [not the Police] but the majority of fair dinkum anti Vietnam war protesters physically stopped them until their arrests.

https://www.news.com.au/national/australia-day-police-vow-crackdown-on-invasion-day-protests-across-the-country/news-story/7c1abc3c0672086fdeae0c57a6f0fc83

The lone idiot was not in the Sydney march but in Canberra... "Canberra, a man wearing a Make America Great Again cap and waving an Australian flag was forcibly removed from an Invasion Day rally by three men in bikie colours. As he drove away, the assembled crowd cheered." from the link......

 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only part I focused on was the violence.
And this applies to Swansont also; the two protest events DO have violence in common.
That applies to both, and, and, in that respect they ARE equivalent.
As a matter of fact, one could argue that there has been much more violence perpetrated during the Summer's BLM protests than there was at the Capital. See here  https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/06/08/14-days-of-protests-19-dead/
It is the 'symbolism' of the events that makes the Capital insurrection much more damaging.
If you have any doubt about my meaning, I suggest a re-reading of the OP; it focuses on the violence of current protests, NOT comparisons between different protests.

I will throw you a bone, INow, this part

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

Some was provoked by police being too heavy handed and hitting peaceful protestors with clubs and firing tear gas into the faces of unarmed grandmothers.

is accurate.
There was a disproportionate response to the two protests in question, but, as I did not set out to compare, or equate, the two, did not mention it.
The two different protests were only mentioned in the OP as they both involve violence.
And, almost as if to prove the point, Beecee has posted about the relatively peaceful protests in Australia.
We used to have protests like that in the US; what has happened ?
( that was the intent of the OP )

Edited by MigL
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

the two protest events DO have violence in common.
That applies to both, and, and, in that respect they ARE equivalent.

I anticipated this point and will highlight that this is why I keep focusing on violence in the BLM protests being the exception only seen at the margins. It wasn’t the primary activity nor the central strategy. It was the outlier, and was often provoked by police. 

The same cannot be said of the siege in Washington DC. The violence there was the point. It was the central motivating principle of the event. Insurrection was the primary purpose for being there. 

Surely this is a valid rebuttal and I’m not splitting hairs unreasonably, right?

1 hour ago, MigL said:

We used to have protests like that in the US; what has happened ?

One side keeps talking of violent takeover of the government and actively planning a 2nd civil war. That puts a new and important lens on the framing of the conversation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My view - those engaged in offensive violence and property destruction should be subject to investigation and prosecution, regardless of their political leanings. I expect BLM instigators of violence already have been or will be. But I do think there are differences here; Capitol insurrectionists were all there to overthrow the elected government and whilst not all were violent or destructive those that weren't were still there in support of that goal. The few instances of protestors acting to prevent cornered police being assaulted or murdered deserve some (faint) praise but not immunity from prosecution.

Did the insurrectionists believe their actions were protected by the US constitution, even that they were defending the constitution? Although if armed citizens had risen up to fight off Capitol rioters that seems more in line with my (admittedly not-American) understanding of it. It seems like the "right" to take up arms against their own government would only ever be upheld if they succeeded - making the US no different to any other form of government; failed insurrection will always be illegal.

They seemed - even reasonably - to believe they had the support of then President Trump and the Republican Party. That incitement seems the greater and more damaging crime to me and ought not be passed over, even whilst those on the ground should still be prosecuted. It was not all direct incitement but, in a time of extreme fire danger, tossing out incendiary rhetoric anyway makes them culpable - or should. I expect the inciters, if prosecuted at all - I doubt any that other than Trump himself will - they will be "punished" only indirectly, like civil actions for libel eg Dominion voting machine company vs Guilliani and Powell, or indirectly by Cancel Culture means. Trump may perhaps lose the right to run for US President - yay - but probably keep his Secret Service protection and Presidential pension. The insurrectionists - some of them - will actually go to prison and perhaps have their right to vote and to bear arms restricted, which may actually hurt more. No equality under law to be found there.

BLM protestors - for the most part (the sincere ones) - appear to want equality under the law enforced, especially equality of treatment by the enforcers of law.

Edited by Ken Fabian
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

One side keeps talking of violent takeover of the government and actively planning a 2nd civil war. That puts a new and important lens on the framing of the conversation. 

And let's hope that your congress, both sides, vote honestly and logically for the impeachment of the redneck rebel rouser that urged that mob on.

28 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

BLM protestors - for the most part (the sincere ones) - appear to want equality under the law enforced, especially equality of treatment by the enforcers of law.

Sadly though, just has occurred in Australia, the truth and sincerity in a movement/protest for justice, is often infected with the extreme agendas that others see as an excuse to push.

And as it often happens, then the extremes of the other side, they then use that as an excuse to paint all with the same brush in attempts to discredit them. As is often said, politics is a dirty business...a shame it isn't always an honest business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

I anticipated this point and will highlight that this is why I keep focusing on violence in the BLM protests being the exception only seen at the margins. It wasn’t the primary activity nor the central strategy. It was the outlier, and was often provoked by police. 

The same cannot be said of the siege in Washington DC. The violence there was the point. It was the central motivating principle of the event. Insurrection was the primary purpose for being there. 

And I don't want to split hairs either, but this is another example of the 'whataboutism' that I previously accused you of.
You claim that you've done a search, but cannot find any instances in your previous posts, but I don't think you realize you are doing it.
You are trying to justify that one violence is worse than the other by invoking motivation.
Whereas I lump all violence together as unwarranted and bad, you compare different instances of violence, and proclaim one is worse, and the other, better.
Maybe we could just ask the victims which is better 🙂 .
( I added the smiley face so Zapatos doesn't get overly concerned )

 

23 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Did the insurrectionists believe their actions were protected by the US constitution, even that they were defending the constitution?

Well, since INow wants to look at motivation, all those idiots at the Capital did, in fact, believe that the election was illegally 'stolen', and so, their 'cause was ( to them ) just and legal. And, as INow says of the BLM protests, that was their central strategy; the B+E, property damage, and violence was only at the 'margins'. Hell, most of the idiots from the Capital, captured on video, look like they're sightseeing.

26 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

They seemed - even reasonably - to believe they had the support of then President Trump and the Republican Party.

Indeed.
Never mind that D Trump is a power-hungry moron, and they are idiots for believing him; they had the support of the sitting President!
If the President orders you to go to war, do you question the legality, and refuse ?
That would have been great for all those who didn't want to go to Vietnam; they had to come to Canada instead.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, beecee said:

And let's hope that your congress, both sides, vote honestly and logically for the impeachment of the redneck rebel rouser that urged that mob on.

Never gonna happen, mate. If only hope were a viable strategy. 
 

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

since INow wants to look at motivation

Again, this doesn’t feel like a fair or valid summary of my stance. I’m unsure how this is what you came away with from my comments 

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

Capitol insurrectionists were all there to overthrow the elected government

This is inaccurate. Many were their with this intention. Many with military backgrounds arrived with mission objectives and equipment needed to execute it. Many support a 2nd civil war and some wore T-shirts saying “Camp Auschwitz” and slogans that “6 Million Wasn’t Enough,” or beat officers to death with fire extinguishers and flag poles, but not all were there to overthrow the government.

Unless this a wording issue and your mention of “insurrectionists” is intended to be a subset of everyone who breached the capitol?

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

but not all were there to overthrow the government.

I think that is exactly why most were there. Not knowing quite how that might be achieved, sure. Duped into believing they were "saving" America, sure. But I think the overwhelming majority were there hoping to prevent the President-elect becoming President - some directly but most indirectly, ie by chanting "stop the steal" and "hang Mike Pence" to get him to refuse to recognise Biden in his ceremonial role, supported by Republicans within the Capitol, but yes, they were there to demand the election result be dismissed to allow Trump to steal victory and participated in storming the building to do so. I call that insurrection.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

the truth and sincerity in a movement/protest for justice, is often infected with the extreme agendas that others see as an excuse to push.

I don't disagree; those who advocate and provoke and participate in violence and destruction should be subject to investigation and prosecution. I suspect a reasoned and reasonable response to legitimate concerns would defuse the protests of the sincere.

Edited by Ken Fabian
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, MigL said:

You are trying to justify that one violence is worse than the other by invoking motivation.
Whereas I lump all violence together as unwarranted and bad, you compare different instances of violence, and proclaim one is worse, and the other, better.
Maybe we could just ask the victims which is better 🙂 .
( I added the smiley face so Zapatos doesn't get overly concerned )

First of all, thanks for thinking of me! 😁

It is my belief, supported by all major governments in the world (AFAIK) that some acts of violence are worse than others. As an example, if two people are in a fight and one is killed, the government has usually deemed that the killing is worse if you were the aggressor in the fight, and better if you were defending yourself.

The difference between the penalty applied in the case of the fight is determined by what society has deemed 'worse' or 'better'. Generally speaking, society frowns on the aggressor and smiles on the defender.

Of course that doesn't mean everyone in the society agrees, only that some level of the majority agrees. 

What we are really doing here is telling everyone what our own personal worldview is with respect to violence and what we feel is 'better' and 'worse'.

In my mind it mostly has to do with fairness or reasonableness. I feel the Capitol folks who broke the law were 'worse' than BLM folks who broke the law where the lawbreaking was comparable. It seems clear to me that blacks were generally  offered little redress to their complaints (it is a fact that blacks experience violence from police disproportionately to whites), while the Capitol rapscallions simply didn't like the result of a fair election. Therefore, breaking a window of a store during a BLM protest is wrong and should be punished, but is not as bad as breaking a window at the Capitol during an insurrection.

From a personal standpoint, I guess I would feel better knowing that my window was broken by someone who did it in a fit of rage over one of their own dying for illegally selling individual cigarettes, rather than by someone who is trying to overturn my vote because he's a sore loser.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

Duped into believing they were "saving" America, sure. But I think the overwhelming majority were there hoping to prevent the President-elect becoming President - some directly but most indirectly, ie by chanting "stop the steal" and "hang Mike Pence" to get him to refuse to recognise Biden in his ceremonial role, supported by Republicans within the Capitol, but yes, they were there to demand the election result be dismissed to allow Trump to steal victory and participated in storming the building to do so

I have to agree with your framing. These behaviors were all attempts to overthrow a legitimately elected government. Thank you for clarifying and reinforcing your point. I missed it the first time. 

44 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It is my belief, supported by all major governments in the world (AFAIK) that some acts of violence are worse than others. <...> What we are really doing here is telling everyone what our own personal worldview is with respect to violence and what we feel is 'better' and 'worse'.

This is another excellent way to frame the discussion. Thank you for introducing it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.