6 ms·

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

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.
    - seppin 6y ago
      > You're right, the women's march protests were far more dangerous. This is beyond bad faith, this is an open "fuck you" to anyone that dares participate in this discussion. To shut it down, to make any sort of dialogue impossible. And you say the left wants to censor, what a laugh.
      - ufmace 6y ago
        The only "bad faith" going on here is the left's pathetic attempt to shut down any mention of the political violence that they have been encouraging and celebrating for the last 4 years and the 6 months of nationwide rioting they've cheered on.
        forserious 6y ago
        You clearly don't understand what a bad faith argument is. Every word you say demonstrates it.
        seppin 6y ago
        "Yeah but what about" isn't a valid respond under any circumstances, especially not when you are trying to deny that you argue solely in bad faith. Your state of denial and victimhood complex make any discussion impossible.
        beerandt 6y ago
        The Equal Protection Clause is literally, the legal/ constitutional application of "Whataboutism." There are many (most) cases whataboutism is merely an excuse or distraction, but here, it's the very basis of the ongoing argument. That most of the left doesn't even realize this is a big part of the problem.
        forserious 6y ago
        More bad faith. You're conflating legal acts with illegal acts. This isn't a case of a double standard. You are arguing that these events are double standards, and they are plainly not. This is the bad faith.
  - beerandt 6y ago
    You make my point exactly: the left portends to have authoritative insight over the intent of others... based only on their biased perception or desire. And that is precisely the problem. You just did it to me. The media does it depending on whether they want "mostly peaceful protests march" or "attempted violent coup."
    - forserious 6y ago
      Please... There is no honest way to suggest that the events of this week are comparable to the events surrounding the protesting of appointments. I will note however, that you're subtly changing the topic when you change your argument from the protests about the appointment of a judge to the "mostly peaceful protests". Again, this is bad faith. You are just moving the goal posts to try and suite your argument. Edit: I conflated the womens march with the protest about the appointment of scotus judge.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

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.
  - seppin 6y ago
    > You're right, the women's march protests were far more dangerous. This is beyond bad faith, this is an open "fuck you" to anyone that dares participate in this discussion. To shut it down, to make any sort of dialogue impossible. And you say the left wants to censor, what a laugh.
    - ufmace 6y ago
      The only "bad faith" going on here is the left's pathetic attempt to shut down any mention of the political violence that they have been encouraging and celebrating for the last 4 years and the 6 months of nationwide rioting they've cheered on.
      - forserious 6y ago
        You clearly don't understand what a bad faith argument is. Every word you say demonstrates it.
      - seppin 6y ago
        "Yeah but what about" isn't a valid respond under any circumstances, especially not when you are trying to deny that you argue solely in bad faith. Your state of denial and victimhood complex make any discussion impossible.
        beerandt 6y ago
        The Equal Protection Clause is literally, the legal/ constitutional application of "Whataboutism." There are many (most) cases whataboutism is merely an excuse or distraction, but here, it's the very basis of the ongoing argument. That most of the left doesn't even realize this is a big part of the problem.
        forserious 6y ago
        More bad faith. You're conflating legal acts with illegal acts. This isn't a case of a double standard. You are arguing that these events are double standards, and they are plainly not. This is the bad faith.
- beerandt 6y ago
  You make my point exactly: the left portends to have authoritative insight over the intent of others... based only on their biased perception or desire. And that is precisely the problem. You just did it to me. The media does it depending on whether they want "mostly peaceful protests march" or "attempted violent coup."
  - forserious 6y ago
    Please... There is no honest way to suggest that the events of this week are comparable to the events surrounding the protesting of appointments. I will note however, that you're subtly changing the topic when you change your argument from the protests about the appointment of a judge to the "mostly peaceful protests". Again, this is bad faith. You are just moving the goal posts to try and suite your argument. Edit: I conflated the womens march with the protest about the appointment of scotus judge.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]