2 ms·

This is typical of today's divisive atmosphere. Do you remember the other BLM (Bureau of Land Management) protests in Oregon? I recall outraged partisans deman

This is typical of today's divisive atmosphere. Do you remember the other BLM (Bureau of Land Management) protests in Oregon? I recall outraged partisans demanding federal intervention, while claiming that the ranchers were enjoying special privileges due to their race. I believe they called them "vanilla ISIS". Of course individuals within any movement will vary, but generally speaking, partisans want to use the power of the state against their ideological opponents. When it is used against them, they predictably cry foul.

NPMaxwell 6y ago
I think maybe the issue here is that the press did not cover the unidentified federal agents arresting the BLM protesters. The result is that it looks like the treatment of the Portland protesters is different.
chowells 6y ago
Do you actually believe that graffiti and a couple small fires rise to the same level of criminality as an armed takeover of federal land? It's fully possible to believe the federal government should put a stop to armed takeovers of federal land and not be involved in graffiti on non-federal property without it being a partisan thing. The problem is that people believe the protests in Portland are violent riots. They aren't. As long as people are manipulated so easily, I guess real policy discussions aren't going to happen.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  I'm not looking for equivalency in that sense. On one hand you have arsonists seeking to destroy federal property. On the other you had armed (not specifically violent) men occupying federal property. One of these men was shot. The equivalence is the partisan hypocrisy. There are several sources citing violence in Portland. Even left leaning sources acknowledge this. When you dismiss someone's view you disagree with as "manipulated", you illustrate the larger point I was making.

2 ms·

This is typical of today's divisive atmosphere. Do you remember the other BLM (Bureau of Land Management) protests in Oregon? I recall outraged partisans deman

by aww_dang 6y ago

NPMaxwell 6y ago
I think maybe the issue here is that the press did not cover the unidentified federal agents arresting the BLM protesters. The result is that it looks like the treatment of the Portland protesters is different.
chowells 6y ago
Do you actually believe that graffiti and a couple small fires rise to the same level of criminality as an armed takeover of federal land? It's fully possible to believe the federal government should put a stop to armed takeovers of federal land and not be involved in graffiti on non-federal property without it being a partisan thing. The problem is that people believe the protests in Portland are violent riots. They aren't. As long as people are manipulated so easily, I guess real policy discussions aren't going to happen.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  I'm not looking for equivalency in that sense. On one hand you have arsonists seeking to destroy federal property. On the other you had armed (not specifically violent) men occupying federal property. One of these men was shot. The equivalence is the partisan hypocrisy. There are several sources citing violence in Portland. Even left leaning sources acknowledge this. When you dismiss someone's view you disagree with as "manipulated", you illustrate the larger point I was making.