7 ms·

Were you scared of the women’s March murdering you after they “stormed” the capitol? https://twitter.com/EgSophie/status/1048634940169048064?s=20 https://twitte

Were you scared of the women’s March murdering you after they “stormed” the capitol? https://twitter.com/EgSophie/status/1048634940169048064?s=20 https://twitter.com/EgSophie/status/1048634940169048064?s=20

jakelazaroff 6y ago
This is like hearing someone at a bank saying they were scared a masked robber was going to murder them, and responding “were you scared of the customer who came in before them murdering you too?” The terrorists who stormed the capital on Wednesday have a history of violence and connections to various far right extremist and terrorist groups. They came carrying weapons, zip ties and bombs. Don’t pretend there’s no difference between the two groups.
- Damorian 6y ago
  And the last 6 months of race riots? I'll take a few smashed windows and pictures taken in congress over tens of millions in burned and stolen property, assaults and murders in basically every city in the country. "Only my side's political violence is acceptable." That's what I get from facebook.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    The BLM protests — the overwhelming majority of which were peaceful [1] — stretched over 6 months and involved thousands of events and millions of people. After all that… 19 people died [1]. The terrorist attack yesterday exceeded a quarter of that death toll in a matter of hours. I don't know how to explain that invading our nation's capitol with the intent of capturing and murdering politicians is different than breaking into a Target. [1] https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/ https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_during_the_George_Floyd_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur...
    - Damorian 6y ago
      I appreciate you taking the time to tell me how to think. I know what I saw both locally and on TV. You can give me as many bubble-filtered thoughts as you like, but you're trying to convince me that I saw and experienced something that I didn't see and experience. Let me know when I can't get my wife's medication again because right wing ""terrorists"" smashed up my pharmacy, or when parts of my city are completely off limits for violence, or when one the teachers in my school district gets arrested for assaulting somebody filming them burning a car. I'm not losing sleep over congress getting delayed for a couple of hours. I'll keep my perspective that all political violence is bad, and that I want little to do with politics in general, but one side of extremists in particular has caused more problems for me than another.
- ufmace 6y ago
  Let's play paraphrase and switch sides! The terrorists who have been rioting all across America for the last 6 months have a history of violence and connections to various far-left extremist and terrorist groups. They have roamed the cities carrying out attacks with bricks, molotov cocktails, blinding lasers, pepper spray, and other weapons. They have planted bombs and carried firearms. They have been endorsed wholeheartedly by every mainstream media source and many Democrat elected representatives.
  - mint2 6y ago
    Except what you’re saying is false. Democrats overwhelmingly condemned the riots and violence during the BLM protests. But most protests and protestors were peaceful and they supported those ones. If everyone is going to knowingly twist facts like your post does, there is no point in even trying to debate.
    - ufmace 6y ago
      It's a demonstration. I'm only twisting the facts about as much as /u/jakelazaroff did in the post I replied to. By his rules, if somebody in a group was once involved in violence, no matter what the story of it was, you can claim that it has a "history of violence". If a left-wing activist found a photo of somebody posing with somebody they call a "far right extremist and terrorist", then you can claim that they have "connections to various far right extremist and terrorist groups". If somebody associated with the movement once carried some sort of weapon, then you can smear the entire group as carrying it. If some violent act, like planting a bomb, happened around their thing but nobody is sure who did it yet, then you can ignore that the true perpetrator is unknown and just smear the whole movement as being associated with it. I don't see you attacking /u/jakelazaroff for doing these things. Why should I believe you're interested in having an actual debate? If his side is permitted to spread propaganda full of vague accusations and wild exaggerations, then why shouldn't I respond in kind? Why should I accept the argument that "most protests and protestors were peaceful" when your side spends all its time trying to ignore anything peaceful my side does and smear everyone with the worst interpretation of the worst thing that happened?
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  Your argument amounts to “When we do it, it’s okay.” It’s founded on the presumption of bad faith, which is bad faith in itself. The fact is that the only people who died during the 1/6/21 event were part of the protestors.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    "Your argument amounts to, 'when a customer enters the bank, it's okay.'" Just because two groups have opposing political aims doesn't mean they're equivalent. One attempted to take our nation's capital by force, the other attempted a sit in. Show me literally one single source that indicates the Women's March people were out for blood. Were there any casualties? Injuries? Was there even any fighting? Your fact is false, by the way. The terrorists murdered a Capitol Police officer. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/capitol-police-officer-killed/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/capitol-police-offic...
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      Show me one source that proves that the trump supporters were “out for blood.” The point of the protest was not to “take the capital by force.” That’s cartoonish and unrealistic. The point was to express disapproval of the election results. Where do you get your information from? Sicknick died as a result of a blood clot in his brain. His death was not the direct result of any protestors actions.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Show you a source that says the people who murdered someone were out for blood? You say he died due to a blood clot in his brain, but the police statement says that he died due to injuries sustained while physically engaging with protestors, and a homicide investigation is open. Not literally everyone was there to take the capitol, obviously. But that was the point for many people. This was entirely predictable. See [1] [2] or especially [3], wherein someone back in December describes exactly what ended up happening. Why bring guns and zip ties if you're not there for violence? [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-01-08/us-capitol-storming-planned-for-weeks-online-social-media/13039302 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-01-08/us-capitol-st... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/extremists-made-little-secret-ambitions-occupy-capital-weeks-attack-n1253499 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/extremists-made-little... [3] https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1341016471795843080?s=20 https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1341016471795843080?s...
nwsm 6y ago
Was I scared by people sitting on the Capitol steps [sic]? No I was not.
runarberg 6y ago
Again, there is room for nuance. There is a fundamental difference between storming the house with the intent of stopping a democratic process (the confirming of the next president) and marching to it to deliver a message.
brayhite 6y ago
I sincerely hope you don't mean this to be comparable. Beating police with batons? Stealing their riot shields? Spraying them with mace? Stealing property from the capitol? You and I both know that if all the folks did yesterday was go into the Capitol and march and chant in the halls, they'd be framed as deranged lunatics who might've gone a bit too far - not domestic terrorists. Show me the video evidence from the women's march where they coordinated a group to push into the police while yelling for "fresh patriots" to come to the front line and push back.
- beerandt 6y ago
  That's part of the point. The left was basically allowed to freely enter the Senate building, in an attempt to sway the ongoing confirmation vote of a scotus justice, and met little to no police resistance, and it was celebrated by the media. Replace "confirmation" with "certification", and "scotus justice" with "president," and what's the difference, politically?
  - forserious 6y ago
    I said this above. You are arguing in bad faith. "basically" is doing a lot of work in your argument. No one is compelled by this. It is clear that they are two completely separate events. One was dangerous. The other was not. Again, I'll say it directly to avoid confusion. You are arguing in bad faith.
    - ufmace 6y ago
      You're right, the women's march protests were far more dangerous. At the recent "storming", all of the representatives were evacuated, and nobody was directly threatened. The one women who came a little too close to breaking into where some VIPs were was shot in the neck and died. Meanwhile, the media and law enforcement approved of the women's march protestors. They were free to roam around the capitol and physically harass and menace elected representatives suspected of not approving of their side. Including at times cornering them alone in elevators. They bragged about all of this and cheered each other on.
blueblob 6y ago
In this false equivalence you're trying to make, did the people in the women's march come with zip ties to kidnap congressmen? Did they come to interfere with the electoral process? Did they steal? Were they violent?
- forserious 6y ago
  You're right to call this false equivalence. I think it's a mistake to argue the specifics. The parent comment here is arguing in bad faith.
forserious 6y ago
This comment is why having this discussion is so difficult. To anyone not invested emotionally in this conversation, it's clear that your point isn't making a valid point. They are not equivalent actions. You're pretending they are to try to lend cover to the truly harmful action that just took place. We can call a spade a spade without pretending that everything else is also a spade. To be clear, I am directly saying that you are arguing in bad faith. I hope it is clear that this is not an attack on you as a person. I am attacking your idea directly, not you.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  How are they not equivalent? Both were organized protests intended on occupying the capitol for the sake of airing out their political grievances. What truly harmful action took place that was caused by the protestors? Be specific. The only difference that in can see is that during the 1/6/21 event, the police were called in. They attacked and killed 4 protestors.
  - seppin 6y ago
    Maybe you don't know that 60 Capital Police were seriously injured, 15 remain in the hospital, and one is confirmed dead from the attack. Maybe you don't know that of the 4 rioters that died, one had a heart attack (unconfirmed), one was shot and the others were trampled (by the mob). Maybe you didn't know that congresspeople from both sides of the isle hid in closets and under desks, terrified and afraid for their lives. Maybe you just didn't know these things, and got them wrong. But when confronted with them, you aren't going to say "oh sorry I was mistaken." You will respond with whataboutism and other deflection, to preserve your worldview that this wasn't a mob and Trump didn't do anything wrong, etc. Which was OP's point. This isn't a good faith discussion. You are either ignorant of the truth (and will respond poorly when confronted with it), or you know the truth and are cynically lying about reality to win a rhetorical game. This is the nature of all bad faith political discussion, which is why I (try to) avoid it all together.
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago

jakelazaroff 6y ago

This is like hearing someone at a bank saying they were scared a masked robber was going to murder them, and responding “were you scared of the customer who came in before them murdering you too?” The terrorists who stormed the capital on Wednesday have a history of violence and connections to various far right extremist and terrorist groups. They came carrying weapons, zip ties and bombs. Don’t pretend there’s no difference between the two groups.

Damorian 6y ago
And the last 6 months of race riots? I'll take a few smashed windows and pictures taken in congress over tens of millions in burned and stolen property, assaults and murders in basically every city in the country. "Only my side's political violence is acceptable." That's what I get from facebook.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  The BLM protests — the overwhelming majority of which were peaceful [1] — stretched over 6 months and involved thousands of events and millions of people. After all that… 19 people died [1]. The terrorist attack yesterday exceeded a quarter of that death toll in a matter of hours. I don't know how to explain that invading our nation's capitol with the intent of capturing and murdering politicians is different than breaking into a Target. [1] https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/ https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_during_the_George_Floyd_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur...
  - Damorian 6y ago
    I appreciate you taking the time to tell me how to think. I know what I saw both locally and on TV. You can give me as many bubble-filtered thoughts as you like, but you're trying to convince me that I saw and experienced something that I didn't see and experience. Let me know when I can't get my wife's medication again because right wing ""terrorists"" smashed up my pharmacy, or when parts of my city are completely off limits for violence, or when one the teachers in my school district gets arrested for assaulting somebody filming them burning a car. I'm not losing sleep over congress getting delayed for a couple of hours. I'll keep my perspective that all political violence is bad, and that I want little to do with politics in general, but one side of extremists in particular has caused more problems for me than another.
ufmace 6y ago
Let's play paraphrase and switch sides! The terrorists who have been rioting all across America for the last 6 months have a history of violence and connections to various far-left extremist and terrorist groups. They have roamed the cities carrying out attacks with bricks, molotov cocktails, blinding lasers, pepper spray, and other weapons. They have planted bombs and carried firearms. They have been endorsed wholeheartedly by every mainstream media source and many Democrat elected representatives.
- mint2 6y ago
  Except what you’re saying is false. Democrats overwhelmingly condemned the riots and violence during the BLM protests. But most protests and protestors were peaceful and they supported those ones. If everyone is going to knowingly twist facts like your post does, there is no point in even trying to debate.
  - ufmace 6y ago
    It's a demonstration. I'm only twisting the facts about as much as /u/jakelazaroff did in the post I replied to. By his rules, if somebody in a group was once involved in violence, no matter what the story of it was, you can claim that it has a "history of violence". If a left-wing activist found a photo of somebody posing with somebody they call a "far right extremist and terrorist", then you can claim that they have "connections to various far right extremist and terrorist groups". If somebody associated with the movement once carried some sort of weapon, then you can smear the entire group as carrying it. If some violent act, like planting a bomb, happened around their thing but nobody is sure who did it yet, then you can ignore that the true perpetrator is unknown and just smear the whole movement as being associated with it. I don't see you attacking /u/jakelazaroff for doing these things. Why should I believe you're interested in having an actual debate? If his side is permitted to spread propaganda full of vague accusations and wild exaggerations, then why shouldn't I respond in kind? Why should I accept the argument that "most protests and protestors were peaceful" when your side spends all its time trying to ignore anything peaceful my side does and smear everyone with the worst interpretation of the worst thing that happened?
CyberRabbi 6y ago
Your argument amounts to “When we do it, it’s okay.” It’s founded on the presumption of bad faith, which is bad faith in itself. The fact is that the only people who died during the 1/6/21 event were part of the protestors.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  "Your argument amounts to, 'when a customer enters the bank, it's okay.'" Just because two groups have opposing political aims doesn't mean they're equivalent. One attempted to take our nation's capital by force, the other attempted a sit in. Show me literally one single source that indicates the Women's March people were out for blood. Were there any casualties? Injuries? Was there even any fighting? Your fact is false, by the way. The terrorists murdered a Capitol Police officer. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/capitol-police-officer-killed/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/capitol-police-offic...
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    Show me one source that proves that the trump supporters were “out for blood.” The point of the protest was not to “take the capital by force.” That’s cartoonish and unrealistic. The point was to express disapproval of the election results. Where do you get your information from? Sicknick died as a result of a blood clot in his brain. His death was not the direct result of any protestors actions.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Show you a source that says the people who murdered someone were out for blood? You say he died due to a blood clot in his brain, but the police statement says that he died due to injuries sustained while physically engaging with protestors, and a homicide investigation is open. Not literally everyone was there to take the capitol, obviously. But that was the point for many people. This was entirely predictable. See [1] [2] or especially [3], wherein someone back in December describes exactly what ended up happening. Why bring guns and zip ties if you're not there for violence? [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-01-08/us-capitol-storming-planned-for-weeks-online-social-media/13039302 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-01-08/us-capitol-st... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/extremists-made-little-secret-ambitions-occupy-capital-weeks-attack-n1253499 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/extremists-made-little... [3] https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1341016471795843080?s=20 https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1341016471795843080?s...

nwsm 6y ago

Was I scared by people sitting on the Capitol steps [sic]? No I was not.

runarberg 6y ago

Again, there is room for nuance. There is a fundamental difference between storming the house with the intent of stopping a democratic process (the confirming of the next president) and marching to it to deliver a message.

brayhite 6y ago

I sincerely hope you don't mean this to be comparable. Beating police with batons? Stealing their riot shields? Spraying them with mace? Stealing property from the capitol? You and I both know that if all the folks did yesterday was go into the Capitol and march and chant in the halls, they'd be framed as deranged lunatics who might've gone a bit too far - not domestic terrorists. Show me the video evidence from the women's march where they coordinated a group to push into the police while yelling for "fresh patriots" to come to the front line and push back.

beerandt 6y ago
That's part of the point. The left was basically allowed to freely enter the Senate building, in an attempt to sway the ongoing confirmation vote of a scotus justice, and met little to no police resistance, and it was celebrated by the media. Replace "confirmation" with "certification", and "scotus justice" with "president," and what's the difference, politically?
- forserious 6y ago
  I said this above. You are arguing in bad faith. "basically" is doing a lot of work in your argument. No one is compelled by this. It is clear that they are two completely separate events. One was dangerous. The other was not. Again, I'll say it directly to avoid confusion. You are arguing in bad faith.
  - ufmace 6y ago
    You're right, the women's march protests were far more dangerous. At the recent "storming", all of the representatives were evacuated, and nobody was directly threatened. The one women who came a little too close to breaking into where some VIPs were was shot in the neck and died. Meanwhile, the media and law enforcement approved of the women's march protestors. They were free to roam around the capitol and physically harass and menace elected representatives suspected of not approving of their side. Including at times cornering them alone in elevators. They bragged about all of this and cheered each other on.

blueblob 6y ago

In this false equivalence you're trying to make, did the people in the women's march come with zip ties to kidnap congressmen? Did they come to interfere with the electoral process? Did they steal? Were they violent?

forserious 6y ago
You're right to call this false equivalence. I think it's a mistake to argue the specifics. The parent comment here is arguing in bad faith.

forserious 6y ago

This comment is why having this discussion is so difficult. To anyone not invested emotionally in this conversation, it's clear that your point isn't making a valid point. They are not equivalent actions. You're pretending they are to try to lend cover to the truly harmful action that just took place. We can call a spade a spade without pretending that everything else is also a spade. To be clear, I am directly saying that you are arguing in bad faith. I hope it is clear that this is not an attack on you as a person. I am attacking your idea directly, not you.

CyberRabbi 6y ago
How are they not equivalent? Both were organized protests intended on occupying the capitol for the sake of airing out their political grievances. What truly harmful action took place that was caused by the protestors? Be specific. The only difference that in can see is that during the 1/6/21 event, the police were called in. They attacked and killed 4 protestors.
- seppin 6y ago
  Maybe you don't know that 60 Capital Police were seriously injured, 15 remain in the hospital, and one is confirmed dead from the attack. Maybe you don't know that of the 4 rioters that died, one had a heart attack (unconfirmed), one was shot and the others were trampled (by the mob). Maybe you didn't know that congresspeople from both sides of the isle hid in closets and under desks, terrified and afraid for their lives. Maybe you just didn't know these things, and got them wrong. But when confronted with them, you aren't going to say "oh sorry I was mistaken." You will respond with whataboutism and other deflection, to preserve your worldview that this wasn't a mob and Trump didn't do anything wrong, etc. Which was OP's point. This isn't a good faith discussion. You are either ignorant of the truth (and will respond poorly when confronted with it), or you know the truth and are cynically lying about reality to win a rhetorical game. This is the nature of all bad faith political discussion, which is why I (try to) avoid it all together.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago