4 ms·

When people use violence in the name of a cause then i think the cap fits. Also i think you’re making a false equivalence here. There is a not insignificant fr

When people use violence in the name of a cause then i think the cap fits. Also i think you’re making a false equivalence here. There is a not insignificant fraction of them willing to be violent because because they either don’t (or don’t want to) understand how democracy works. I think it’s fine to lump those people together as domestic terrorists.

adnzzzzZ 6y ago
>I think it’s fine to lump those people together as domestic terrorists. You can do that, but after many people in power and including in this site supported BLM riots earlier this year this rings hollow. It's clear most people don't care about violence being a limit given that violence was used tremendously throughout the entire year in all those protests and supporting them was the trendy position among the elites, that now suddenly decided violence must be opposed at all costs and those who support it must be terrorists. Give me a break. Call it for what it is, when one side uses violence it's good, when the other uses it it's bad, because this is a battle, and in a battle all that matters is punishing your enemies and rewarding your friends. I'm glad that this is becoming more and more clear as time passes and all pretense of principles is being dropped, and anyone with any sense can see that this is true.
- virtual_void 6y ago
  This is still false equivalence. BLM Didn't use violence to achieve their goals. Quite the opposite they were consistently attacked by police dressed up like the army, heaving people off the streets. Where were the police in DC? This wasn’t a protest it was a violent attempt to overthrow. Call it what it is indeed.
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    >BLM Didn't use violence to achieve their goals. I don't know how you can reconcile cities being burned, statues toppled, police stations being overtaken, parts of a city being declared an autonomous zone with "violence wasn't used" but whatever, discussion is clearly pointless. I will re-state my claim: this is a battle, and in a battle all that matters is punishing your enemies and rewarding your friends. When you defend the BLM riots yet condemn this one you're engaging in that behavior. You can disagree with me all you want but that's the truth to anyone who has any sense.
    - virtual_void 6y ago
      Perhaps saying there was no violence is overstating it but it was a very different scale with very different intent abhorrent in either case. People are undoubtedly angry because they are seeking to be treated equally. To not be murdered by the police. There’s still such an astonishing amount of injustice and yet they didn’t try to overthrow the government. The crux of my argument is that these two groups are not comparable. One seeks equality and the other seeks to go against democracy and attempt a coup. This is what i mean by false equivalence.
- ericb 6y ago
  Reasonable people don't defend violence in either case. You are you defending violence with whataboutism. And advocating for Machiavellianism. Gross.
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    What's gross is people defending the burning down of small businesses during a pandemic. Either way, reasonable people who don't defend violence in either case are irrelevant, because things happen through violence regardless. What are you going to do about it when a horde of BLM rioters comes for your business and burns it down? Have a peaceful conversation with them about how much you don't think violence will solve the problem? No, you either have a gun or you don't.
    - virtual_void 6y ago
      Why are you now arguing about covid? The point of your argument is that violence is inevitable and therefore good?
- andrewzah 6y ago
  People supported BLM -protests-, not riots. The media has worked very hard to conflate the two. Nobody wants our cities to be destroyed. That was also general rioting, not people specifically targeting the U.S. Capitol building and going after the politicians inside in order to interfere with the election process. It's not really comparable unless you omit all context.
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    President Trump supported the Capitol -protests-, not the invasaion. The media has worked very hard to conflate the two. Nobody wants our institutional buildings to be invaded. That was also a general and very peaceful invasion, not people specifically targeting small businesses during a pandemic and burning them down for no reason other than because they can. It's not really comparable unless you omit all context.
    - virtual_void 6y ago
      Some people clearly do want it. It happened. If trump didn’t want it he could have stopped it with the platform he has / had.
      - throwaway201103 6y ago
        Well, he did tell people to calm down and go home. May have been some of the tweets that were quickly taken down?

adnzzzzZ 6y ago

>I think it’s fine to lump those people together as domestic terrorists. You can do that, but after many people in power and including in this site supported BLM riots earlier this year this rings hollow. It's clear most people don't care about violence being a limit given that violence was used tremendously throughout the entire year in all those protests and supporting them was the trendy position among the elites, that now suddenly decided violence must be opposed at all costs and those who support it must be terrorists. Give me a break. Call it for what it is, when one side uses violence it's good, when the other uses it it's bad, because this is a battle, and in a battle all that matters is punishing your enemies and rewarding your friends. I'm glad that this is becoming more and more clear as time passes and all pretense of principles is being dropped, and anyone with any sense can see that this is true.

virtual_void 6y ago
This is still false equivalence. BLM Didn't use violence to achieve their goals. Quite the opposite they were consistently attacked by police dressed up like the army, heaving people off the streets. Where were the police in DC? This wasn’t a protest it was a violent attempt to overthrow. Call it what it is indeed.
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  >BLM Didn't use violence to achieve their goals. I don't know how you can reconcile cities being burned, statues toppled, police stations being overtaken, parts of a city being declared an autonomous zone with "violence wasn't used" but whatever, discussion is clearly pointless. I will re-state my claim: this is a battle, and in a battle all that matters is punishing your enemies and rewarding your friends. When you defend the BLM riots yet condemn this one you're engaging in that behavior. You can disagree with me all you want but that's the truth to anyone who has any sense.
  - virtual_void 6y ago
    Perhaps saying there was no violence is overstating it but it was a very different scale with very different intent abhorrent in either case. People are undoubtedly angry because they are seeking to be treated equally. To not be murdered by the police. There’s still such an astonishing amount of injustice and yet they didn’t try to overthrow the government. The crux of my argument is that these two groups are not comparable. One seeks equality and the other seeks to go against democracy and attempt a coup. This is what i mean by false equivalence.
ericb 6y ago
Reasonable people don't defend violence in either case. You are you defending violence with whataboutism. And advocating for Machiavellianism. Gross.
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  What's gross is people defending the burning down of small businesses during a pandemic. Either way, reasonable people who don't defend violence in either case are irrelevant, because things happen through violence regardless. What are you going to do about it when a horde of BLM rioters comes for your business and burns it down? Have a peaceful conversation with them about how much you don't think violence will solve the problem? No, you either have a gun or you don't.
  - virtual_void 6y ago
    Why are you now arguing about covid? The point of your argument is that violence is inevitable and therefore good?
andrewzah 6y ago
People supported BLM -protests-, not riots. The media has worked very hard to conflate the two. Nobody wants our cities to be destroyed. That was also general rioting, not people specifically targeting the U.S. Capitol building and going after the politicians inside in order to interfere with the election process. It's not really comparable unless you omit all context.
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  President Trump supported the Capitol -protests-, not the invasaion. The media has worked very hard to conflate the two. Nobody wants our institutional buildings to be invaded. That was also a general and very peaceful invasion, not people specifically targeting small businesses during a pandemic and burning them down for no reason other than because they can. It's not really comparable unless you omit all context.
  - virtual_void 6y ago
    Some people clearly do want it. It happened. If trump didn’t want it he could have stopped it with the platform he has / had.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      Well, he did tell people to calm down and go home. May have been some of the tweets that were quickly taken down?