4 ms·

Their skew is more obvious when the author starts discussing the demographics and social issues sections. I also can't stomach an equivocation of the protests w

Their skew is more obvious when the author starts discussing the demographics and social issues sections. I also can't stomach an equivocation of the protests we had over the summer to the protests we just experienced at the Capitol. Nuance and context has never been a skill of these types, though.

zepto 6y ago
What statements you are reading as equivocation? I can’t see where the author makes any comparison between the two at all, but perhaps I missed something. Also, it seems like you have just dismissed the author entirely as a ‘type’. Again I don’t see how that helps.
- shakezula 6y ago
  They boiled down demographics and social issues to a bunch of "categories" but I'm not allowed to call them a "type"? That seems unfair. They point out that in the last two months there's been 2 different Capitols, one stormed by the right, one stormed by the left. On face value, that's true, but they're implicitly declaring them as equally bad. It just lacks the context or nuance of _why_ each of them happened. One of them was a response to police brutality and extra-judicial killings of their community members, and the other was an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected President, or at least stall the process for it. You can be critical of the CHAZ (which I am) and still recognize that it wasn't anywhere near the same as storming our nation's Capitol with the intent of stalling and disrupting the election process for our President. I'm probably what most would call a socialist, and I'm all for discussions about labor and wages and class consciousness, and that seems like what this author is, albeit in a hamfisted way, getting at, but they're just coming across as a smug to me.
  - zepto 6y ago
    ‘They boiled down demographics and social issues to a bunch of "categories" but I'm not allowed to call them a "type"? That seems unfair.’ You’re going to need to provide a quote for that. I don’t see where they did this, in fact I see the opposite. They criticized the boiling down of demographics and social issues to categories. As to calling it ‘unfair’. I don’t see what fairness has to do with this. Adopting a political opponent’s harmful strategies just makes you no different from them. It doesn’t make the strategy helpful. I really don’t see anything they say that implies that the author sees equivalence between these two acts. What is certainly true is that the two ‘sides’ see their own acts as justified and the other sides as unjustified. I personally agree with you that there is no parity between the two. Trump attempted a coup, whereas BLM staged a protest to get their grievances heard. You can extrapolate from CHAZ to a desire to undermine our democratic process, but you have to extrapolate a very long way, whereas no extrapolation is needed in the case of the Capitol riots. However I just don’t see where the author is ‘implying’ they are the same. Only that they both symptoms of the deeper problems that are being described.

zepto 6y ago

What statements you are reading as equivocation? I can’t see where the author makes any comparison between the two at all, but perhaps I missed something. Also, it seems like you have just dismissed the author entirely as a ‘type’. Again I don’t see how that helps.

shakezula 6y ago
They boiled down demographics and social issues to a bunch of "categories" but I'm not allowed to call them a "type"? That seems unfair. They point out that in the last two months there's been 2 different Capitols, one stormed by the right, one stormed by the left. On face value, that's true, but they're implicitly declaring them as equally bad. It just lacks the context or nuance of _why_ each of them happened. One of them was a response to police brutality and extra-judicial killings of their community members, and the other was an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected President, or at least stall the process for it. You can be critical of the CHAZ (which I am) and still recognize that it wasn't anywhere near the same as storming our nation's Capitol with the intent of stalling and disrupting the election process for our President. I'm probably what most would call a socialist, and I'm all for discussions about labor and wages and class consciousness, and that seems like what this author is, albeit in a hamfisted way, getting at, but they're just coming across as a smug to me.
- zepto 6y ago
  ‘They boiled down demographics and social issues to a bunch of "categories" but I'm not allowed to call them a "type"? That seems unfair.’ You’re going to need to provide a quote for that. I don’t see where they did this, in fact I see the opposite. They criticized the boiling down of demographics and social issues to categories. As to calling it ‘unfair’. I don’t see what fairness has to do with this. Adopting a political opponent’s harmful strategies just makes you no different from them. It doesn’t make the strategy helpful. I really don’t see anything they say that implies that the author sees equivalence between these two acts. What is certainly true is that the two ‘sides’ see their own acts as justified and the other sides as unjustified. I personally agree with you that there is no parity between the two. Trump attempted a coup, whereas BLM staged a protest to get their grievances heard. You can extrapolate from CHAZ to a desire to undermine our democratic process, but you have to extrapolate a very long way, whereas no extrapolation is needed in the case of the Capitol riots. However I just don’t see where the author is ‘implying’ they are the same. Only that they both symptoms of the deeper problems that are being described.