4 ms·

It's very easy to blame the other side for things when it fits a narrative, but your second example link is most notably missing a shred of evidence that "the l

It's very easy to blame the other side for things when it fits a narrative, but your second example link is most notably missing a shred of evidence that "the left" (what does that even mean? Lumping in Communists and the Green Party, too?) is responsible. I agree with you that behaviors in this election have been concerning, but taking a victim stance and just blindly pointing at a side is probably most concerning of all because it isn't really refutable despite your edit.

artursapek 10y ago
Oh come on. Did you see the graffiti addressing the "Nazi Republicans"? That was clearly a partisan act.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  Based on what? That someone who doesn't like Republicans must be from the "other team" without any other possibility remotely existing? How about instead of asking us to refute you, please prove your accusation against "the left," specifically for the North Carolina example that you feel is clear. I'm eager to hear your evidence that an entire side of the political spectrum was responsible for the act. Oh, come on, indeed.
  - artursapek 10y ago
    After seeing what Project Veritas has revealed, it's abundantly clear that the left is perfectly okay with using this kind of domestic terrorism as a tactic against their opponents. So while there's no hard evidence in the North Carolina case, I think it's a safe assumption. They've earned that reputation. Like it or not, this is pretty much a game between two teams. Independents have no reason to lash out like that. I wish we had more than two major parties - I really do.
    - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
      Put another way, you have absolutely no evidence a particular team you dislike was responsible for a specific event, but you're more than willing to blame them publicly for it based on something totally unrelated and even more flimsy because a reputation has developed in your mind (and the minds of those like you), and you're willing to surrender all logic to arrive at your position. Then, ironically, you talk about partisanship while missing how partisan your own remarks are. It's disgusting to watch people attack "the left" and "the right" as a boogeyman. It's "you're not on my team, so you're part of a grand conspiracy to take down my team," which is a line of thinking that has never, ever been dangerous in American history. I'm from "the left" and I find your examples abhorrent. What does that make me? Did I miss the meetings where we gang up on the poor folks from "the right?" Please prove your accusation regarding, specifically, "the left." I'm still waiting. One question I have is how all the parties on "the left" coordinate. Do we all have dirty tricks operatives who meet between all the parties over here? Or is this a unilateral Democrat conspiracy?
      - artursapek 10y ago
        You're right - I was wrong to blame that particular event on "the left". I lumped it together in the same sentence with another event that can be blamed on them with hard evidence. I'll admit that I was wrong to lump them together like that. However, this is really beside the point. My original comment was simply trying to explain why Trump supporters are shy to show their political stance. The violence against the headquarters in North Carolina is still a completely valid reason for that - a building got firebombed because it was used by people with a particular political stance. So it doesn't really matter whether it was committed by liberals or some other group I'm not aware of, and I didn't mean to make that accusation the focus of my comment (though you latched on to it nonetheless).
        jsmthrowaway 10y ago
        No, your not-so-subtle accusation that "the left" was responsible for burning down that building is the whole point because you are galvanizing your side based on a fear-based rhetoric and a complete disregard of facts. You're now trying a different tack several replies into this thread because you've realized I am correct; your apology and reversal is very hollow given that mere minutes ago you were advising me to "oh come on" and just admit that the event is clearly partisan. I "latched on" to this particular claim because your own citation comes with absolutely no proof that "the left" was responsible and it is trivial to demonstrate the tactic that you are employing. Which you at least admit, to your credit. The point is that many groups in history have played the for us/against us cards much like you're doing here, and the results have never been positive. I also find it infinitely fascinating that you've assumed a group is responsible for the event, even in this last comment. One crazy person is not an effective narrative to leverage, and groups were initially blamed for Oklahoma City, too, if I recall.

artursapek 10y ago

Oh come on. Did you see the graffiti addressing the "Nazi Republicans"? That was clearly a partisan act.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
Based on what? That someone who doesn't like Republicans must be from the "other team" without any other possibility remotely existing? How about instead of asking us to refute you, please prove your accusation against "the left," specifically for the North Carolina example that you feel is clear. I'm eager to hear your evidence that an entire side of the political spectrum was responsible for the act. Oh, come on, indeed.
- artursapek 10y ago
  After seeing what Project Veritas has revealed, it's abundantly clear that the left is perfectly okay with using this kind of domestic terrorism as a tactic against their opponents. So while there's no hard evidence in the North Carolina case, I think it's a safe assumption. They've earned that reputation. Like it or not, this is pretty much a game between two teams. Independents have no reason to lash out like that. I wish we had more than two major parties - I really do.
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    Put another way, you have absolutely no evidence a particular team you dislike was responsible for a specific event, but you're more than willing to blame them publicly for it based on something totally unrelated and even more flimsy because a reputation has developed in your mind (and the minds of those like you), and you're willing to surrender all logic to arrive at your position. Then, ironically, you talk about partisanship while missing how partisan your own remarks are. It's disgusting to watch people attack "the left" and "the right" as a boogeyman. It's "you're not on my team, so you're part of a grand conspiracy to take down my team," which is a line of thinking that has never, ever been dangerous in American history. I'm from "the left" and I find your examples abhorrent. What does that make me? Did I miss the meetings where we gang up on the poor folks from "the right?" Please prove your accusation regarding, specifically, "the left." I'm still waiting. One question I have is how all the parties on "the left" coordinate. Do we all have dirty tricks operatives who meet between all the parties over here? Or is this a unilateral Democrat conspiracy?
    - artursapek 10y ago
      You're right - I was wrong to blame that particular event on "the left". I lumped it together in the same sentence with another event that can be blamed on them with hard evidence. I'll admit that I was wrong to lump them together like that. However, this is really beside the point. My original comment was simply trying to explain why Trump supporters are shy to show their political stance. The violence against the headquarters in North Carolina is still a completely valid reason for that - a building got firebombed because it was used by people with a particular political stance. So it doesn't really matter whether it was committed by liberals or some other group I'm not aware of, and I didn't mean to make that accusation the focus of my comment (though you latched on to it nonetheless).
      - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
        No, your not-so-subtle accusation that "the left" was responsible for burning down that building is the whole point because you are galvanizing your side based on a fear-based rhetoric and a complete disregard of facts. You're now trying a different tack several replies into this thread because you've realized I am correct; your apology and reversal is very hollow given that mere minutes ago you were advising me to "oh come on" and just admit that the event is clearly partisan. I "latched on" to this particular claim because your own citation comes with absolutely no proof that "the left" was responsible and it is trivial to demonstrate the tactic that you are employing. Which you at least admit, to your credit. The point is that many groups in history have played the for us/against us cards much like you're doing here, and the results have never been positive. I also find it infinitely fascinating that you've assumed a group is responsible for the event, even in this last comment. One crazy person is not an effective narrative to leverage, and groups were initially blamed for Oklahoma City, too, if I recall.