4 ms·

> I have stated facts, not opinions. Facts can be falsified, opinions cannot. If you list a single statement I've stated that is an opinion, or a false fact ple

> I have stated facts, not opinions. Facts can be falsified, opinions cannot. If you list a single statement I've stated that is an opinion, or a false fact please do point it out. You seem to be under the delusion that if you only state facts and never state your opinion, no one will notice that you're arguing for an opinion. Yes, you're doing a good job of stating a very small percentage of the facts which supports the opinion that Eugene Debs was a proponent of violence. You haven't explicitly stated that it is your opinion that Eugene Debs was a proponent of violence, but given you're only accepting facts that supports that opinion, I think it's pretty obvious what your opinion is. Whether you state your opinion or not, it's obvious that you have an opinion, and it's obvious what your opinion is. And I'm not even saying it's a bad thing that you have an opinion: I have an opinion too. Everyone has opinions. Bias is unavoidable. My only objection is that it's absurd that you're trying to present yourself as having no bias. > [Trump tweets encouraging peace] > So is Trump now very firmly a believer in peaceful protest? If those Tweets were the only things in evidence, I'd be happy to say that Trump is firmly a believer in peaceful protest. Those Tweets aren't the only things in evidence, though[1]. > Or is it now somehow different because it's somebody you have a negative view of saying such things, and not somebody you have a positive view of saying such things? It's somehow different because there's more evidence than just those tweets[1]. If there's more evidence that Debs was a proponent of violence, I'd be happy to consider it, but so far all you've presented is that he was proximal to violence. Believe it or not, I'm actually not 100% convinced that Trump was involved in the January 6 attacks--simply because I am aware there's a lot of evidence I haven't looked at. It hardly matters--there's plenty of other reasons to think he's a horrible human being--but I'd prefer not to form opinions when I know I haven't looked at most of the evidence. [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/12/23/1145209559/jan-6-committee-final-report https://www.npr.org/2022/12/23/1145209559/jan-6-committee-fi...

kerkeslager 3y ago
And by the way, there's plenty more evidence that Debs was a pacifist besides that one quote you're objecting to: "Summarizing Debs's thought in this period, the historian David A. Shannon wrote: "Debs's desideratum was one of peace and co-operation between labor and capital, but he expected management to treat labor with respect, honor and social equality"."[1] "Debs said in part: 'Your honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the form of our present government; that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in the change of both but by perfectly peaceable and orderly means.'"[1] "In 1924, Debs was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Finnish Socialist Karl H. Wiik on the grounds that "Debs started to work actively for peace during World War I..."[1] "On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful meeting to rally support for the strike from railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois."[2] "Debs first welcomed the military, believing that they would help to keep the peace and allow the strike and boycott to continue peacefully."[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
- somenameforme 3y ago
  [edit: This was in response to your previous post, but self-forking conversation tends to lead to a mess, so I am replying here - I believe it largely applies to your response to yourself as well in any case] I'm not starting with an opinion and then seeking facts to support it. That's the beauty of the past - I don't really care about Debs one way or the other. If anything I'd be quite aligned with him on many things, particularly his views on imperialism. But I tend to give near 0 weighting to words and opinions, because assuming the truth of words is itself little more than a proxy for a view on the person saying them. The reason I gave Trump as the example there is to emphasize that I think most people also intuitively think this way, and only resort to words when convenient. In either case, I give immense weighting to actions, and in this regard I see nothing to support the notion that Debs wasn't more than fine with violence. The Pullman Strikes were not a one-off thing. Debs was also involved in the Burlington railroad strike of 1888 [1], and it also turned violent. And in general taking a role in labor conflicts in the 19th to early 20th century was an implicit acceptance of violence. It was an era when workers were cheap and easily replaced. Nobody cares about a bunch of people running around with signs - companies would simply hire new workers, 'strike breakers.' So strikers would respond to this by carrying out sabotage, attacking or intimidating the strike breakers, and so on. The rare time strikes ended peacefully tended to be when the strikers were able to get some form of leverage, like convincing a town to boycott the business. I also hold no judgement against this either. To me it's just another interesting part of history. And I can see many parallels between the past, and the present. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_railroad_strike_of_1888 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_railroad_strike_of_...
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    I see you've ignored the posts where I listed the inaccuracies in your earlier statements, and continued to troll anyway. If this were like most social networks that allow Blocks for people like you, everyone would have Blocked you already. You can reply to this with hundreds of more words of blather, but I won't be responding any further.
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

kerkeslager 3y ago

And by the way, there's plenty more evidence that Debs was a pacifist besides that one quote you're objecting to: "Summarizing Debs's thought in this period, the historian David A. Shannon wrote: "Debs's desideratum was one of peace and co-operation between labor and capital, but he expected management to treat labor with respect, honor and social equality"."[1] "Debs said in part: 'Your honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the form of our present government; that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in the change of both but by perfectly peaceable and orderly means.'"[1] "In 1924, Debs was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Finnish Socialist Karl H. Wiik on the grounds that "Debs started to work actively for peace during World War I..."[1] "On June 29, 1894, Debs hosted a peaceful meeting to rally support for the strike from railroad workers at Blue Island, Illinois."[2] "Debs first welcomed the military, believing that they would help to keep the peace and allow the strike and boycott to continue peacefully."[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike

somenameforme 3y ago
[edit: This was in response to your previous post, but self-forking conversation tends to lead to a mess, so I am replying here - I believe it largely applies to your response to yourself as well in any case] I'm not starting with an opinion and then seeking facts to support it. That's the beauty of the past - I don't really care about Debs one way or the other. If anything I'd be quite aligned with him on many things, particularly his views on imperialism. But I tend to give near 0 weighting to words and opinions, because assuming the truth of words is itself little more than a proxy for a view on the person saying them. The reason I gave Trump as the example there is to emphasize that I think most people also intuitively think this way, and only resort to words when convenient. In either case, I give immense weighting to actions, and in this regard I see nothing to support the notion that Debs wasn't more than fine with violence. The Pullman Strikes were not a one-off thing. Debs was also involved in the Burlington railroad strike of 1888 [1], and it also turned violent. And in general taking a role in labor conflicts in the 19th to early 20th century was an implicit acceptance of violence. It was an era when workers were cheap and easily replaced. Nobody cares about a bunch of people running around with signs - companies would simply hire new workers, 'strike breakers.' So strikers would respond to this by carrying out sabotage, attacking or intimidating the strike breakers, and so on. The rare time strikes ended peacefully tended to be when the strikers were able to get some form of leverage, like convincing a town to boycott the business. I also hold no judgement against this either. To me it's just another interesting part of history. And I can see many parallels between the past, and the present. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_railroad_strike_of_1888 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_railroad_strike_of_...
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  I see you've ignored the posts where I listed the inaccuracies in your earlier statements, and continued to troll anyway. If this were like most social networks that allow Blocks for people like you, everyone would have Blocked you already. You can reply to this with hundreds of more words of blather, but I won't be responding any further.
- kerkeslager 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]