4 ms·

Oh my goodness. this is simply something else. This is why the country is so divided. Despite my dislike of left-wing insurrections, like seattle's chop, in wh

Oh my goodness. this is simply something else. This is why the country is so divided. Despite my dislike of left-wing insurrections, like seattle's chop, in which they actually did install a government [1] for a few days before American forces reclaimed it, it would be absolute hyperbole to believe that it was in any way an actual threat to American sovereignty. Or when protestors broke into the Supreme Court to overturn the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh, no one compared it to the civil war. How hyperbolic can we get? And yet, hyperbole like yours is not only tolerated by mainstream news sources, it is parroted by elected officials, other news outlets, and regular people. It's absolutely insane. [1] By all measures, Raz the warlord's occupation of chaz qualifies as having been, for a few days, the sovereign government of that area. They enforced a law, punished criminals, taxed people, and provided safety, all the while preventing other forces from doing the very same. This meets any reasonable definition of sovereignty.

spoonjim 5y ago
Did the Chaz idiots have 147 of 435 House members vote to certify their independence from the US?
- iammisc 5y ago
  I'm afraid I don't understand what you're referencing exactly.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Despite my dislike of left-wing insurrections, like seattle's chop, in which they actually did install a government [1] for a few days before American forces reclaimed it, it would be absolute hyperbole to believe that it was in any way an actual threat to American sovereignty. Right, it was a (trivial, both in scale and plausible durability) threat to territorial integrity, not sovereignty or Constitutional order. Unlike Jan. 6, which sought to enforce the President's stated desire to overturn his electoral defeat, a desire in which the insurrectionists were joined by a substantial number of lawmakers, and sought to coerce or remove key opponents (most critically the Vice President acting as President of the Senate, under a theory that electoral votes could be arbitrarily discarded by whoever was serving in that position, which the President and his allies endorsed and advocated but the VP had publicly rejected.)
- iammisc 5y ago
  > Right, it was a (trivial, both in scale and plausible durability) threat to territorial integrity, not sovereignty or Constitutional order. Okay but five people died because the American government did nothing.
HelloMcFly 5y ago
> This is why the country is so divided. Bad faith false equivalencies like yours? Couldn't agree more! Protestors disrupted Kavanaugh's hearing, they didn't try to overturn his confirmation after the fact. And even had they attempted to (not even sure what this looks like since GOP controlled the presidency and the Senate), that is far cry from attempting to overthrow the democratically-elected leader of our country with tacit and explicit support from government officials, weapons, and much malicious intent. And comparing Jan. 6 to CHAZ is honestly a total joke not even worth acknowledging further.
- iammisc 5y ago
  I guess, I don't really get it. I'm happy to denounce Jan 6 as terrible. I just don't understand the hyperbole, and because I don't denounce it enough that's seen as many as bad faith. On the other hand, God forbid you express concerns over the summer of violence we saw in 2020, because then you're just exagerating. I am frankly exasperated at continuously having to keep track of not only what I ought to feel but also what level of passion I need to express my thoughts with in order to be taken in good faith. I am willing to take it in good faith that you honestly believe Jan 6 is basically the worst thing to happen since the civil war. I don't really get how you can say that, but I don't think you're being disingenuous, or even malicious, in your statement of equivalence. Unfortunately, since I don't see it the same way and don't feel Jan 6 is as bad as you make it out to be, I am apparently not only misguided or hyperbolic (what I believe you are) but -- as you've claimed -- a government abolitionist who lacks integrity.
  - HelloMcFly 5y ago
    Let me be specific: when you drew an equivalence of severity between the events of Jan. 6 and A) the CHAZ and B) protests for Kavanaugh's confirmation, you made it very hard for me to believe that you're operating in good faith. You don't need to be in the streets protesting for shit, I don't need you calling your reps to ask them to support an independent commission. But I do need it to not be compared to situations that are not laughably benign by comparison. > I am willing to take it in good faith that you honestly believe Jan 6 is basically the worst thing to happen since the civil war. I didn't say that and I don't believe it. I reread my words, I don't feel I communicated such a sweeping conclusion / assessment. > I am apparently... a government abolitionist who lacks integrity. I attacked your argument, you've made it an attack on you. I don't know you, but that comparison was whack, be it bad faith, naivety, or ignorance. In my opinion, of course, however misguided, hyperbolic, or otherwise.

spoonjim 5y ago

Did the Chaz idiots have 147 of 435 House members vote to certify their independence from the US?

iammisc 5y ago
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're referencing exactly.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Despite my dislike of left-wing insurrections, like seattle's chop, in which they actually did install a government [1] for a few days before American forces reclaimed it, it would be absolute hyperbole to believe that it was in any way an actual threat to American sovereignty. Right, it was a (trivial, both in scale and plausible durability) threat to territorial integrity, not sovereignty or Constitutional order. Unlike Jan. 6, which sought to enforce the President's stated desire to overturn his electoral defeat, a desire in which the insurrectionists were joined by a substantial number of lawmakers, and sought to coerce or remove key opponents (most critically the Vice President acting as President of the Senate, under a theory that electoral votes could be arbitrarily discarded by whoever was serving in that position, which the President and his allies endorsed and advocated but the VP had publicly rejected.)

iammisc 5y ago
> Right, it was a (trivial, both in scale and plausible durability) threat to territorial integrity, not sovereignty or Constitutional order. Okay but five people died because the American government did nothing.

HelloMcFly 5y ago

> This is why the country is so divided. Bad faith false equivalencies like yours? Couldn't agree more! Protestors disrupted Kavanaugh's hearing, they didn't try to overturn his confirmation after the fact. And even had they attempted to (not even sure what this looks like since GOP controlled the presidency and the Senate), that is far cry from attempting to overthrow the democratically-elected leader of our country with tacit and explicit support from government officials, weapons, and much malicious intent. And comparing Jan. 6 to CHAZ is honestly a total joke not even worth acknowledging further.

iammisc 5y ago
I guess, I don't really get it. I'm happy to denounce Jan 6 as terrible. I just don't understand the hyperbole, and because I don't denounce it enough that's seen as many as bad faith. On the other hand, God forbid you express concerns over the summer of violence we saw in 2020, because then you're just exagerating. I am frankly exasperated at continuously having to keep track of not only what I ought to feel but also what level of passion I need to express my thoughts with in order to be taken in good faith. I am willing to take it in good faith that you honestly believe Jan 6 is basically the worst thing to happen since the civil war. I don't really get how you can say that, but I don't think you're being disingenuous, or even malicious, in your statement of equivalence. Unfortunately, since I don't see it the same way and don't feel Jan 6 is as bad as you make it out to be, I am apparently not only misguided or hyperbolic (what I believe you are) but -- as you've claimed -- a government abolitionist who lacks integrity.
- HelloMcFly 5y ago
  Let me be specific: when you drew an equivalence of severity between the events of Jan. 6 and A) the CHAZ and B) protests for Kavanaugh's confirmation, you made it very hard for me to believe that you're operating in good faith. You don't need to be in the streets protesting for shit, I don't need you calling your reps to ask them to support an independent commission. But I do need it to not be compared to situations that are not laughably benign by comparison. > I am willing to take it in good faith that you honestly believe Jan 6 is basically the worst thing to happen since the civil war. I didn't say that and I don't believe it. I reread my words, I don't feel I communicated such a sweeping conclusion / assessment. > I am apparently... a government abolitionist who lacks integrity. I attacked your argument, you've made it an attack on you. I don't know you, but that comparison was whack, be it bad faith, naivety, or ignorance. In my opinion, of course, however misguided, hyperbolic, or otherwise.