4 ms·

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 cam

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...

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...