3 ms·

I generally agree with the message of the protests but I feel like what's going on in Portland isn't being widely covered by the media. I am a long standing de

I generally agree with the message of the protests but I feel like what's going on in Portland isn't being widely covered by the media. I am a long standing democrat for many years and it is becoming really difficult to stand behind the message when the activists have no agenda, want to continue doing this and there is no end in sight. I absolutely resent federal forces defending the courthouse. If protestors want to burn it down (there are many videos of them trying to), what do you do? May be we just allow these people to burn it down if that means it is going to bring change. Then there is this: How do you defend protestors who want to overthrow the United States? Proof: https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1284512759934267392 https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/128451275993426739... Had to create throwaway account just to hide my identity - I am kind of terrified of everything right now. Both left and right are going insane, truth is smeared and it is difficult to have a level headed, HN-like conversion which is what makes this place wonderful. We need to be extremely vigilant. Please I beg every one of you. I know it is pretty taboo to even be centrist around here, my plea is to fact check everything. What I am seeing as a 10 year subscriber to NYT is simply no coverage of extreme violence and absurdity of demands these protestors are creating. I have and stand by a lot majority of protestors that are actually peaceful - like the NY City march and SF protests, but Portland is on another level. I no longer support it.

Shared404 6y ago
Thank you for verbalizing what I am unable to. I personally believe that there need to be large changes across the structure of gov, but to the direction of less, and not more. I have not followed the protests in Portland in depth, just enough to know that in at least portions (block? blocks?) the fed has completely reignited brutality in response to protests. Is there more info you have to available to share, or a good place to find unbiased info? I lurk Reddit, but that is very biased in either direction at any given thread.
- throwaway-facts 6y ago
  The slight sliver of hope in NYTimes is that today they wrote a story that is somewhat backtracking from full force support of the protestors: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/us/protests-divisions-blm.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/us/protests-divisions-blm... Quoting NYTimes: > hurled an open pocketknife at the officers guarding the courthouse; they have used power tools, crowbars and bolt cutters to yank down a fence Yep, this is going on definitely. And now we have some level of coverage. Edit: removed the link to that twitter account, I checked the messages he is posting, totally insane. "Unknown liquid" hurled at cops, it's just water. Then the guy is talking about how masks are harmful to lungs. I am sorry.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    Thank you for the link. Reading it now. The pocketknife attack appears to be according to the Portland Police Bureau. As this is a non-neutral party, I'm not sure what to believe barring video evidence. I could lean either way on that incident, or violence in general. What it comes down to in my mind is which side is the aggressor. In this particular instance, the protesters appear to be the initial aggressors, attacking the building (Which I don't really care about) while people were still inside (Which I do care about). That being said, most of the violence that I have seen from these protests has been firmly instigated by police, so if you take that into consideration, the police could (should?) be considered to be the initial aggressors. In short, it's a mixed up situation with no good answers I can see. Thoughts? Edit: Also this -- > bricks were lobbed at firefighters who were attempting to extinguish the blaze. He said he suspected that white supremacists were behind the violence. Context for above quote: Protesters/"Protesters" set a dump truck on fire in Richmond VA. Any thoughts on something similar to this happening in Portland to discredit protests? Second edit: Going offline now. Will read/continue any further discussion tomorrow, if anyone wishes to.
ars 6y ago
> I know it is pretty taboo to even be centrist around here It is incredibly hard to be a centrist - both sides hate you and downvote your messages. It's constantly demoralizing and makes you question yourself. But then you go out in the real world and see that most of the actual humans on the planet are centrist, and you feel better.
notmyfriend 6y ago
The bi-party system has to go for a real change to happen. Reform the congress seats to be based proportional representation and add more members. Say 10 congressmen. Party who achieves 20% gets 2 congress people etc. This lets the lunatic fringe create their own parties and leaves the traditional parties straddling the center.
ctdonath 6y ago
We jail arsonists for good reason. “Burn the courthouse for change” isn’t centrist, it’s delusional.
- Shared404 6y ago
  It's escalation. Not even unreasonable imho. The protesters were attacked. They did not escalate before this. After being attacked, their options are to continue being attacked with no recourse, or counterattack. I personally have 0 issue with burning the courthouse. As with the previous violent protests, my issue comes with damage to civilian property.
  - ctdonath 6y ago
    The protestors were not attacked. They have a well established process of “peaceful” used as a shield for provocateurs, as though individuals are not responsible for the whole mob. The peaceful have recourse to identify and expel the violent, but don’t. I have major issues with burning a courthouse - the nexus of polite functioning society, the recourse of civilian peace. Burn that, and the recourse for civilian property damage is vigilante violence - don’t go there. What we see is outright insurrection, from mob to mayor, attempting to break our lawful government for an admitted imposition of communism. Don’t go there.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      > The protesters were not attacked. All of the protests started peacefully, including Portland. It was police violence that escalated things in the beginning. I recognize that they were not attacked _at that site_, but they were definitely attacked. > They have a well established process of “peaceful” used as a shield for provocateurs If you are breaking laws you will get hit with the laws. I'm not denying that. No one with their head on straight is calling violent protest peaceful. In addition, there is evidence for PD's/alt-right inciting violence at protests to discredit them. I don't know if this is happening at Portland however. > I have major issues with burning a courthouse ... the recourse of civilian peace. The whole point of the protests is that this recourse has already failed. > What we see is outright insurrection ... for an admitted imposition of communism. While individuals may feel that way, I don't and I'm pretty sure most protesters don't. The fact that some of the leaders have talked about socialized health care A) Doesn't mean that's the point of the protests. B) Isn't communism. By this logic, Trumps support of the white power movement [1] displays on the entire Republican party. [1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-tweets-deletes-protest-video-includes-supporter-yelling/story?id=71501284 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-tweets-deletes-protest... Edit: I'm not looking for confrontation here, I'd really like to get a better understanding of the situation. Right now, it really does look to me like the protesters -- not rioters attacking private property -- are in the right.
Chris2048 6y ago
So, who gets to burn down government buildings, and who doesn't?
- Shared404 6y ago
  Good question. I would say, that if there are large scale protests which are interrupted with brutality from government entities, burning down government buildings is not a wise action, but also not an unreasonable one -- from an ethical point of view.

Shared404 6y ago

Thank you for verbalizing what I am unable to. I personally believe that there need to be large changes across the structure of gov, but to the direction of less, and not more. I have not followed the protests in Portland in depth, just enough to know that in at least portions (block? blocks?) the fed has completely reignited brutality in response to protests. Is there more info you have to available to share, or a good place to find unbiased info? I lurk Reddit, but that is very biased in either direction at any given thread.

throwaway-facts 6y ago
The slight sliver of hope in NYTimes is that today they wrote a story that is somewhat backtracking from full force support of the protestors: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/us/protests-divisions-blm.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/us/protests-divisions-blm... Quoting NYTimes: > hurled an open pocketknife at the officers guarding the courthouse; they have used power tools, crowbars and bolt cutters to yank down a fence Yep, this is going on definitely. And now we have some level of coverage. Edit: removed the link to that twitter account, I checked the messages he is posting, totally insane. "Unknown liquid" hurled at cops, it's just water. Then the guy is talking about how masks are harmful to lungs. I am sorry.
- Shared404 6y ago
  Thank you for the link. Reading it now. The pocketknife attack appears to be according to the Portland Police Bureau. As this is a non-neutral party, I'm not sure what to believe barring video evidence. I could lean either way on that incident, or violence in general. What it comes down to in my mind is which side is the aggressor. In this particular instance, the protesters appear to be the initial aggressors, attacking the building (Which I don't really care about) while people were still inside (Which I do care about). That being said, most of the violence that I have seen from these protests has been firmly instigated by police, so if you take that into consideration, the police could (should?) be considered to be the initial aggressors. In short, it's a mixed up situation with no good answers I can see. Thoughts? Edit: Also this -- > bricks were lobbed at firefighters who were attempting to extinguish the blaze. He said he suspected that white supremacists were behind the violence. Context for above quote: Protesters/"Protesters" set a dump truck on fire in Richmond VA. Any thoughts on something similar to this happening in Portland to discredit protests? Second edit: Going offline now. Will read/continue any further discussion tomorrow, if anyone wishes to.

ars 6y ago

> I know it is pretty taboo to even be centrist around here It is incredibly hard to be a centrist - both sides hate you and downvote your messages. It's constantly demoralizing and makes you question yourself. But then you go out in the real world and see that most of the actual humans on the planet are centrist, and you feel better.

notmyfriend 6y ago

The bi-party system has to go for a real change to happen. Reform the congress seats to be based proportional representation and add more members. Say 10 congressmen. Party who achieves 20% gets 2 congress people etc. This lets the lunatic fringe create their own parties and leaves the traditional parties straddling the center.

ctdonath 6y ago

We jail arsonists for good reason. “Burn the courthouse for change” isn’t centrist, it’s delusional.

Shared404 6y ago
It's escalation. Not even unreasonable imho. The protesters were attacked. They did not escalate before this. After being attacked, their options are to continue being attacked with no recourse, or counterattack. I personally have 0 issue with burning the courthouse. As with the previous violent protests, my issue comes with damage to civilian property.
- ctdonath 6y ago
  The protestors were not attacked. They have a well established process of “peaceful” used as a shield for provocateurs, as though individuals are not responsible for the whole mob. The peaceful have recourse to identify and expel the violent, but don’t. I have major issues with burning a courthouse - the nexus of polite functioning society, the recourse of civilian peace. Burn that, and the recourse for civilian property damage is vigilante violence - don’t go there. What we see is outright insurrection, from mob to mayor, attempting to break our lawful government for an admitted imposition of communism. Don’t go there.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    > The protesters were not attacked. All of the protests started peacefully, including Portland. It was police violence that escalated things in the beginning. I recognize that they were not attacked _at that site_, but they were definitely attacked. > They have a well established process of “peaceful” used as a shield for provocateurs If you are breaking laws you will get hit with the laws. I'm not denying that. No one with their head on straight is calling violent protest peaceful. In addition, there is evidence for PD's/alt-right inciting violence at protests to discredit them. I don't know if this is happening at Portland however. > I have major issues with burning a courthouse ... the recourse of civilian peace. The whole point of the protests is that this recourse has already failed. > What we see is outright insurrection ... for an admitted imposition of communism. While individuals may feel that way, I don't and I'm pretty sure most protesters don't. The fact that some of the leaders have talked about socialized health care A) Doesn't mean that's the point of the protests. B) Isn't communism. By this logic, Trumps support of the white power movement [1] displays on the entire Republican party. [1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-tweets-deletes-protest-video-includes-supporter-yelling/story?id=71501284 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-tweets-deletes-protest... Edit: I'm not looking for confrontation here, I'd really like to get a better understanding of the situation. Right now, it really does look to me like the protesters -- not rioters attacking private property -- are in the right.

Chris2048 6y ago

So, who gets to burn down government buildings, and who doesn't?

Shared404 6y ago
Good question. I would say, that if there are large scale protests which are interrupted with brutality from government entities, burning down government buildings is not a wise action, but also not an unreasonable one -- from an ethical point of view.