3 ms·

> “BLM, the people who want their tax dollars to go to alternatives to policing” You’re coloring one ideology all good and another all bad. Not all MAGA people

> “BLM, the people who want their tax dollars to go to alternatives to policing” You’re coloring one ideology all good and another all bad. Not all MAGA people stormed the capital any more than all BLM supporters burned down a police precinct, took over city hall in Seattle and literally seceded from the union. We have a lot of problems. The primary one is our inability to see that they are spread evenly across the ideological spectrum.

mattnewton 6y ago
The OP used them as an example of how “the left” would feel if a cause they cared about was censored. I meant it only to show how silly the comparisons was to me. There simply isn’t a comparion to storming the capitol to try to stop the democratic process. The CHAZ was not BLM “ceding from the union,” they tried some poorly thought out experiment in no policing. I’m not judging the entirety of a Maga movement, or the right, or even a “stop the steal” crowd. I am judging those who stormed the capitol and those who directly egged them on, who are being deplatformed in the article. > We have a lot of problems. The primary one is our inability to see that they are spread evenly across the ideological spectrum. Another contender for primary problem is the widespread use of false equivalencies and “both sides” to excuse whatever is inconvenient without nuance.
- listless 6y ago
  Good points - I mostly agree with 1 of them. 1) Storming the capital is far more concerning than some hippies setting up shop in Seattle. But I would contend that that these two extremes are pushing each other to more extremes and there is a distortion that whoever acts last is the current problem. Prior to the capitol incident, the fringe left had a monopoly on disgraceful behavior and unchecked violence in the streets. What would have happened had Trump actually won? 2) I think that rejecting the "both sides" argument _is_ the removal of the nuance.

mattnewton 6y ago

The OP used them as an example of how “the left” would feel if a cause they cared about was censored. I meant it only to show how silly the comparisons was to me. There simply isn’t a comparion to storming the capitol to try to stop the democratic process. The CHAZ was not BLM “ceding from the union,” they tried some poorly thought out experiment in no policing. I’m not judging the entirety of a Maga movement, or the right, or even a “stop the steal” crowd. I am judging those who stormed the capitol and those who directly egged them on, who are being deplatformed in the article. > We have a lot of problems. The primary one is our inability to see that they are spread evenly across the ideological spectrum. Another contender for primary problem is the widespread use of false equivalencies and “both sides” to excuse whatever is inconvenient without nuance.

listless 6y ago
Good points - I mostly agree with 1 of them. 1) Storming the capital is far more concerning than some hippies setting up shop in Seattle. But I would contend that that these two extremes are pushing each other to more extremes and there is a distortion that whoever acts last is the current problem. Prior to the capitol incident, the fringe left had a monopoly on disgraceful behavior and unchecked violence in the streets. What would have happened had Trump actually won? 2) I think that rejecting the "both sides" argument _is_ the removal of the nuance.