5 ms·

False equivalence. Looting commercial districts (while objectionable) is not the same as falsely claiming a federal election was stolen and looting the Capital.

phkahler 6y ago
OK. The dems ran around for 3 years claiming the Russians somehow handed Trump the 2016 election.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  "We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling." - Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chair https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-statement-on-senate-intel-release-of-volume-5-of-bipartisan-russia-report https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-s...
  - YarickR2 6y ago
    Now you trust Republicans.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    Nowhere near enough to actually influence the election.
    - djur 6y ago
      What information do you have that allows you to make that determination? It was a very close election.
      - lliamander 6y ago
        The fact that the Senate report itself does not question the outcome of the 2016 election would be a big one. The fact that Russian operation was much smaller that either candidate's political campaigns. Also, just the general lack of evidence that it was a decisive factor.[1] [1]https://time.com/5573537/mueller-report-russia-election-interference/ https://time.com/5573537/mueller-report-russia-election-inte...
        djur 6y ago
        Neither the Senate report nor the Mueller report attempted to determine whether the Russian operations affected the outcome of the election, as your article indicates: > [D]id those Russian efforts actually swing the outcome of the 2016 contest? ... Mueller's report does not attempt to answer this politically charged issue. Indeed, that article explains quite clearly how it's not possible to say with certainty ("nowhere near enough") whether the outcome of the election was changed or not. You can't compare the impact of the stolen DNC and Podesta emails with campaign expenditures.
- thrwawy12345 6y ago
  Amazed to see this being downvoted. We really do live in multiple realities in this country.
redflame8 6y ago
What does CHAZ stand for again? Remind me
whatshisface 6y ago
Perhaps the people who were looting commercial districts would have looted the Capitol if they were put in the same situation. Perhaps the people who looted the Capitol would have looted storefronts if they had been mad at what they represented. There's one way to look at it where you have a generalized trait of not caring about following the law when you're surrounded by a large group, a trait that some people have, and that can be activated whenever the right circumstances arise.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  But they didn't and that is all that matters here.
  - zdragnar 6y ago
    But they did: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-george-floyd-protests-washington-dc-a9540716.html?amp https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-hous...
    - rorykoehler 6y ago
      Looks like the police did their jobs (for once).
      - zdragnar 6y ago
        The lack of police amd national guard response to the Capitol siege is a direct result of the media coverage of the BLM protests- both the mayor and security officials didn't want to look bad, or make matters worse. It is worth pointing out that, prior to this, right wing protests have actually been very peaceful. Protesting tax rates really isnt enough to rile up the radical elements. "Stop the Steal" apparently was, and definitely caught them flat footed.
- eganist 6y ago
  > Perhaps the people who were looting commercial districts would have looted the Capitol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
berneezy3 6y ago
The looting and rioting after the George Floyd incident (as a separate event from the peaceful protests) were not limited to commercial districts. Across multiple cities, government buildings and police stations were vandalized/looted. In an extreme case, in Portland, the federal courthouse was set on fire. Also, the post-George-Floyd looting/rioting persisted for far more than a day. An example is the CHOP zone in Seattle, which lasted for 3 weeks before protesters were forcibly removed. This doesn't absolve the Capitol Hill rioters either, but simply describing the BLM looting "looting commercial districts" downplays the amount of damage done. In my opinion, I think reasonable questions to ask are: over what period of time did the violence persist, what amount of value was destroyed, and how many lives were claimed during the looting.
- res0nat0r 6y ago
  > over what period of time did the violence persist, According to BLM the violence against them has persisted since the founding of the country. Rioting against being systemically killed for generations and destroying property because nothing else you do changes the system is absolutely fundamentally different than storming Congress because your cult leader and GOP officials have lied to you, you're dumb enough to believe it, and cause you to commit insurrection. There is no comparing the two no matter how many times people try and draw up this false equivalence.
  - mlang23 6y ago
    I disagree. I used to be left-leaning for at least 20 years. But this sort of argument from the left, simply claiming "our cause is the better cause" has opened my eyes. I can no longer support the left, because of their bigottery.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
ghufran_syed 6y ago
Because destroying people's businesses and livelihoods is more worthy somehow than damaging a political symbol where the damage will be paid for by taxpayers as a whole? They both seem morally wrong to me - The description "Damaging other people's property" seems applicable to both, or "equivalent", you might say?
lliamander 6y ago
A government sponsored media outlet giving justification to the victimization of innocent civilians is much worse.

phkahler 6y ago

OK. The dems ran around for 3 years claiming the Russians somehow handed Trump the 2016 election.

GavinMcG 6y ago
"We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling." - Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chair https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-statement-on-senate-intel-release-of-volume-5-of-bipartisan-russia-report https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-s...
- YarickR2 6y ago
  Now you trust Republicans.
- lliamander 6y ago
  Nowhere near enough to actually influence the election.
  - djur 6y ago
    What information do you have that allows you to make that determination? It was a very close election.
    - lliamander 6y ago
      The fact that the Senate report itself does not question the outcome of the 2016 election would be a big one. The fact that Russian operation was much smaller that either candidate's political campaigns. Also, just the general lack of evidence that it was a decisive factor.[1] [1]https://time.com/5573537/mueller-report-russia-election-interference/ https://time.com/5573537/mueller-report-russia-election-inte...
      - djur 6y ago
        Neither the Senate report nor the Mueller report attempted to determine whether the Russian operations affected the outcome of the election, as your article indicates: > [D]id those Russian efforts actually swing the outcome of the 2016 contest? ... Mueller's report does not attempt to answer this politically charged issue. Indeed, that article explains quite clearly how it's not possible to say with certainty ("nowhere near enough") whether the outcome of the election was changed or not. You can't compare the impact of the stolen DNC and Podesta emails with campaign expenditures.
thrwawy12345 6y ago
Amazed to see this being downvoted. We really do live in multiple realities in this country.

redflame8 6y ago

What does CHAZ stand for again? Remind me

whatshisface 6y ago

Perhaps the people who were looting commercial districts would have looted the Capitol if they were put in the same situation. Perhaps the people who looted the Capitol would have looted storefronts if they had been mad at what they represented. There's one way to look at it where you have a generalized trait of not caring about following the law when you're surrounded by a large group, a trait that some people have, and that can be activated whenever the right circumstances arise.

rorykoehler 6y ago
But they didn't and that is all that matters here.
- zdragnar 6y ago
  But they did: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-george-floyd-protests-washington-dc-a9540716.html?amp https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-hous...
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    Looks like the police did their jobs (for once).
    - zdragnar 6y ago
      The lack of police amd national guard response to the Capitol siege is a direct result of the media coverage of the BLM protests- both the mayor and security officials didn't want to look bad, or make matters worse. It is worth pointing out that, prior to this, right wing protests have actually been very peaceful. Protesting tax rates really isnt enough to rile up the radical elements. "Stop the Steal" apparently was, and definitely caught them flat footed.
eganist 6y ago
> Perhaps the people who were looting commercial districts would have looted the Capitol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

berneezy3 6y ago

The looting and rioting after the George Floyd incident (as a separate event from the peaceful protests) were not limited to commercial districts. Across multiple cities, government buildings and police stations were vandalized/looted. In an extreme case, in Portland, the federal courthouse was set on fire. Also, the post-George-Floyd looting/rioting persisted for far more than a day. An example is the CHOP zone in Seattle, which lasted for 3 weeks before protesters were forcibly removed. This doesn't absolve the Capitol Hill rioters either, but simply describing the BLM looting "looting commercial districts" downplays the amount of damage done. In my opinion, I think reasonable questions to ask are: over what period of time did the violence persist, what amount of value was destroyed, and how many lives were claimed during the looting.

res0nat0r 6y ago
> over what period of time did the violence persist, According to BLM the violence against them has persisted since the founding of the country. Rioting against being systemically killed for generations and destroying property because nothing else you do changes the system is absolutely fundamentally different than storming Congress because your cult leader and GOP officials have lied to you, you're dumb enough to believe it, and cause you to commit insurrection. There is no comparing the two no matter how many times people try and draw up this false equivalence.
- mlang23 6y ago
  I disagree. I used to be left-leaning for at least 20 years. But this sort of argument from the left, simply claiming "our cause is the better cause" has opened my eyes. I can no longer support the left, because of their bigottery.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

ghufran_syed 6y ago

Because destroying people's businesses and livelihoods is more worthy somehow than damaging a political symbol where the damage will be paid for by taxpayers as a whole? They both seem morally wrong to me - The description "Damaging other people's property" seems applicable to both, or "equivalent", you might say?

lliamander 6y ago

A government sponsored media outlet giving justification to the victimization of innocent civilians is much worse.