3 ms·

Because violence to advance a cause the powers agree with is suddenly protected under free speech all the same. Many have pointed out that the storming of the

Because violence to advance a cause the powers agree with is suddenly protected under free speech all the same. Many have pointed out that the storming of the capitol was not too dissimilar to many of the b.l.m. riots which were also often coördinated and featured chants of killing police officers. And it very much seems that whichever side one be on very much dictates how both are treated with both sides claiming that it is about violence irrespective of speech, but it's quite clear that the tolerance for violence is quite a bit lower when it concern an ideology one does not agree with.

klmadfejno 6y ago
The sentiment you're trying to express here is empathy. There is more empathy for people protesting racial injustice and the murder of minority groups than there is for people waving hate group symbols and trying to kill political leaders. I don't see a need to demand a system void of empathy. It's not a one side issue. It's not right vs. left. In the case of parler, it's largly Nazi vs. not Nazi, and that's a particularly easy case to judge. Parler does not represent conservative America, even if the extremists at the rally claim otherwise. It represents a mix of violent hate groups and conspiracy theorists. The small proportion of BLM activists that were actively violent do not represent liberal America. Everyone has a choice. Everyone identifying as conservative can point at the white supremacists in DC and say "Those are my people" or "Those are not my people".
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > The sentiment you're trying to express here is empathy. There is more empathy for people protesting racial injustice and the murder of minority groups than there is for people waving hate group symbols and trying to kill political leaders. I don't see a need to demand a system void of empathy. Every man considers the group for which he fights oppressed and the group that fights against him a “hate group”, and every man has cherry picked statistics to show it. > Everyone has a choice. Everyone identifying as conservative can point at the white supremacists in DC and say "Those are my people" or "Those are not my people". And the same applies to the the more extreme and violent parts of the b.l.m. movement. As is usual, and as I criticized, you cherry pick the most violent parts of “the other group” to make your point, while showing the more moderate of your own to front them as the good guys.
zamalek 6y ago
I live not far from Capitol Hill in Seattle, so the worst was pretty close to me. I grok free speech. You can't outlaw some speech that is considered immoral because that speech may equate to the future moral high ground. Gay rights, as one example, would never have happened were there a moral gatekeeper on speech. I deeply understand this. There's a difference. Firstly, much of what you attribute (or what was attributed to BLM by right-wing propaganda) was in fact the anarchist faction and their leader in Seattle (in addition to the police). The anarchist faction (and Nazis at other times) always cause a shitshow during Seattle protests, irrespective of the specific protest. CHAZ/CHOP was truly bizarre, but it was inherently peaceful. People were growing cabbages. This story rings true across America in varying ways and, while there is no doubt that some BLM protesters were violent: * BLM never committed sedition by invading the federal capitol. * BLM was protesting against the very perpetrators of the violence and casualties that occurred during the protests: the police and right-wing extremists. * BLM attempted protest peacefully for the expansion of rights. MAGA violently rioted for the limitation of rights. The violence during the BLM protests is proof of the BLM claims. > the tolerance for violence is quite a bit lower when it concern an ideology one does not agree with. The police literally stood aside for the MAGA seditionists, but opened fire on peaceful BLM protestors due to the threat of a pink umbrella. Yes, this is very true, but likely not in the way you mean to suggest. And racist speech is protected and has been protected by the American Supreme Court on multiple occasions (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). Racist violence is not protected and nor is BLM violence.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > The police literally stood aside for the MAGA seditionists, but opened fire on peaceful BLM protestors due to the threat of a pink umbrella. Yes, this is very true, but likely not in the way you mean to suggest. That seems to be exactly what I meant to suggest with it. Whom do you think the police agrees with? Suddenly violence is given more leeway by it. > And racist speech is protected and has been protected by the American Supreme Court on multiple occasions (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). Racist violence is not protected and nor is BLM violence. Speech is simply earlier ruled “violence” by the courts whenever it be speech the court doesn't agree with.

klmadfejno 6y ago

The sentiment you're trying to express here is empathy. There is more empathy for people protesting racial injustice and the murder of minority groups than there is for people waving hate group symbols and trying to kill political leaders. I don't see a need to demand a system void of empathy. It's not a one side issue. It's not right vs. left. In the case of parler, it's largly Nazi vs. not Nazi, and that's a particularly easy case to judge. Parler does not represent conservative America, even if the extremists at the rally claim otherwise. It represents a mix of violent hate groups and conspiracy theorists. The small proportion of BLM activists that were actively violent do not represent liberal America. Everyone has a choice. Everyone identifying as conservative can point at the white supremacists in DC and say "Those are my people" or "Those are not my people".

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> The sentiment you're trying to express here is empathy. There is more empathy for people protesting racial injustice and the murder of minority groups than there is for people waving hate group symbols and trying to kill political leaders. I don't see a need to demand a system void of empathy. Every man considers the group for which he fights oppressed and the group that fights against him a “hate group”, and every man has cherry picked statistics to show it. > Everyone has a choice. Everyone identifying as conservative can point at the white supremacists in DC and say "Those are my people" or "Those are not my people". And the same applies to the the more extreme and violent parts of the b.l.m. movement. As is usual, and as I criticized, you cherry pick the most violent parts of “the other group” to make your point, while showing the more moderate of your own to front them as the good guys.

zamalek 6y ago

I live not far from Capitol Hill in Seattle, so the worst was pretty close to me. I grok free speech. You can't outlaw some speech that is considered immoral because that speech may equate to the future moral high ground. Gay rights, as one example, would never have happened were there a moral gatekeeper on speech. I deeply understand this. There's a difference. Firstly, much of what you attribute (or what was attributed to BLM by right-wing propaganda) was in fact the anarchist faction and their leader in Seattle (in addition to the police). The anarchist faction (and Nazis at other times) always cause a shitshow during Seattle protests, irrespective of the specific protest. CHAZ/CHOP was truly bizarre, but it was inherently peaceful. People were growing cabbages. This story rings true across America in varying ways and, while there is no doubt that some BLM protesters were violent: * BLM never committed sedition by invading the federal capitol. * BLM was protesting against the very perpetrators of the violence and casualties that occurred during the protests: the police and right-wing extremists. * BLM attempted protest peacefully for the expansion of rights. MAGA violently rioted for the limitation of rights. The violence during the BLM protests is proof of the BLM claims. > the tolerance for violence is quite a bit lower when it concern an ideology one does not agree with. The police literally stood aside for the MAGA seditionists, but opened fire on peaceful BLM protestors due to the threat of a pink umbrella. Yes, this is very true, but likely not in the way you mean to suggest. And racist speech is protected and has been protected by the American Supreme Court on multiple occasions (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). Racist violence is not protected and nor is BLM violence.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> The police literally stood aside for the MAGA seditionists, but opened fire on peaceful BLM protestors due to the threat of a pink umbrella. Yes, this is very true, but likely not in the way you mean to suggest. That seems to be exactly what I meant to suggest with it. Whom do you think the police agrees with? Suddenly violence is given more leeway by it. > And racist speech is protected and has been protected by the American Supreme Court on multiple occasions (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). Racist violence is not protected and nor is BLM violence. Speech is simply earlier ruled “violence” by the courts whenever it be speech the court doesn't agree with.