3 ms·

Use your imagination, or, read some history.

gruez 7mo ago
>or, read some history. If you're trying to make a veiled reference to the french revolution, keep in mind that's also ostensibly what the Jan 6th rioters thought they were doing, though arguably a lighter version. "Let's have a violent revolution to kill the elites" sounds like a great idea, until you realize that it works for the other side as well.
- hananova 7mo ago
  Thing is, they did get everything they wanted with a bit of a delay. So in essence they proved that violent uprisings work.
- kgwxd 7mo ago
  That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM. J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period. BLM was individuals responding to seeing, _with their own eyes_, power being blatantly abused _by government officials_, live on TV, many, many times.
  - gruez 7mo ago
    >That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM. Since when did I bring in BLM? >J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period. So your only objection to Jan 6th was that the person inciting political violence was a government official and/or there wasn't "evidence" (whatever that means)? Nothing about violence itself? I guess a non-government official calling for the CEO of JPM or Ben Bernanke to be decapitated, citing some gini coefficient graphs is fine?
    - kgwxd 7mo ago
      > Since when did I bring in BLM? You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM, people seeing, with their own eyes, blatant abuse of power, and acting, sans "leader". We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it. > So your only objection... People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but, since I can see why the roles played by government officials requires special consideration (extraordinary powers, supposedly granted by "The People", checks and balances, and such), if Biden had done even 1 of the hundreds of things Trump had, I would still be on the same side of this argument. Would you be?
      - gruez 7mo ago
        >You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM So saying that political violence is bad, and pointing out an example where the other side did political violence is "both-sides"? >We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it. Again, you haven't answered my question. It sounds like you wouldn't have any issue with Jan 6th if Trump wasn't involved, and it was just grassroots election denialism. >People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but No, I specifically referring to "veiled reference to the french revolution", which implies some sort of political violence, not just something like BLM protests.
  - joe_mamba 7mo ago
    >with no evidence Nick Shirley and other indie journalists did investigations and found you can easily fraud election in places with no voter ID like Cali. But don't let distracted by the facts. >BLM was individuals responding to seeing, _with their own eyes_, power being blatantly abused _by government officials_, live on TV, many, many times. Yeah, all those innocent businesses and property deserved to get looted and torched because a cop killed a guy breaking the law high on fentanyl. It's totally acceptable and tolerant. If something from the government bothers you, you are now legally and socially allowed just rob a Nike store and brn down some cars in the city center.
    - kgwxd 7mo ago
      Nick Shirley and other "indie journalists" doing "investigations", is very far from "fact". And nowhere near justification for attempting to overthrow a government. Curious though, did they "find that out" by doing it end-to-end? Pseudo-intellectual "deductive reasoning" does not actually prove anything, other than the bad-faith nature of the person presenting it as evidence. Didn't say any of that should be legal. Anyone arrested for that deserved it. And anyone pardoned, should not have been. Do you agree? If Biden had told those people directly that he loved them, and they should keep up the good work, I'd be on here objecting to it just as much.
      - joe_mamba 7mo ago
        >Anyone arrested for that deserved it. And anyone pardoned, should not have been. Do you agree? Agree butt... >attempting to overthrow a government. J6 Storming the capital is not the same thing as overthrowing a government. It's more like cosplaying to overthrow the government while the actual government watches and laughs. You can't overthrow any government until you have the full support of the military. Why can't democrat supporters see and analyze anything else happening in their back ayrd besides being forever stuck on J6? Everyone agrees it was bad, now can we move on to the present issues at hand? >"deductive reasoning" does not actually prove anything Deductive reasoning is everything. If there's loopholes that allow crimes to happen in theory, then crimes will 100% happen in practice. Do you agree? Pretending it's not actual evidence, is how criminals(and governments) get away with crime, because they never investigate those issue, when their exploitation benefits them. Same like with the Minnesota somali childcare fraud. Isn't it convenient that we can't consider it fraud until the government investigates itself and it rarely does and when it does it finds nothing because they're in cahoots with the scammers as they all get kickbacks?
- tombert 7mo ago
  Mapping out the actual "ethics" of the J6 people has been difficult for me. It butts up against how I generally define "good" and "bad". For an easy example, a guy murdering his wife for the insurance money is someone that I can pretty easily call "bad". That's would be hurting someone to enrich yourself, which I think we can agree is pretty bad. But on an "individual morality" level, it's hard for me to directly condemn the J6 people. If they genuinely believed the election was stolen, and if they genuinely believed that the only way to save America was by invading the capital, and they were willing to do it at great risk to themselves with very little personal benefit, it's hard for me to directly say that they're "bad" people. Dumb, misguided people doing a bad thing, but they're doing what they think is right. To be clear, I think the J6 people were very stupid, and I think it's horrible that the orange idiot lying about some election fraud in order to overthrow democracy is a very very very bad thing.
- tryauuum 7mo ago
  to be honest, the only downside with this idea is that in case you succeed, you are left with a group of people who like killing elites (and who can switch their definition of "elites" to include you)
joe_mamba 7mo ago
>read some history History books say that ...oh ...starts flipping frantically ... oh no! Yeah, no that's not gonna happen and you also don't want that.

gruez 7mo ago

>or, read some history. If you're trying to make a veiled reference to the french revolution, keep in mind that's also ostensibly what the Jan 6th rioters thought they were doing, though arguably a lighter version. "Let's have a violent revolution to kill the elites" sounds like a great idea, until you realize that it works for the other side as well.

hananova 7mo ago
Thing is, they did get everything they wanted with a bit of a delay. So in essence they proved that violent uprisings work.
kgwxd 7mo ago
That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM. J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period. BLM was individuals responding to seeing, _with their own eyes_, power being blatantly abused _by government officials_, live on TV, many, many times.
- gruez 7mo ago
  >That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM. Since when did I bring in BLM? >J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period. So your only objection to Jan 6th was that the person inciting political violence was a government official and/or there wasn't "evidence" (whatever that means)? Nothing about violence itself? I guess a non-government official calling for the CEO of JPM or Ben Bernanke to be decapitated, citing some gini coefficient graphs is fine?
  - kgwxd 7mo ago
    > Since when did I bring in BLM? You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM, people seeing, with their own eyes, blatant abuse of power, and acting, sans "leader". We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it. > So your only objection... People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but, since I can see why the roles played by government officials requires special consideration (extraordinary powers, supposedly granted by "The People", checks and balances, and such), if Biden had done even 1 of the hundreds of things Trump had, I would still be on the same side of this argument. Would you be?
    - gruez 7mo ago
      >You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM So saying that political violence is bad, and pointing out an example where the other side did political violence is "both-sides"? >We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it. Again, you haven't answered my question. It sounds like you wouldn't have any issue with Jan 6th if Trump wasn't involved, and it was just grassroots election denialism. >People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but No, I specifically referring to "veiled reference to the french revolution", which implies some sort of political violence, not just something like BLM protests.
- joe_mamba 7mo ago
  >with no evidence Nick Shirley and other indie journalists did investigations and found you can easily fraud election in places with no voter ID like Cali. But don't let distracted by the facts. >BLM was individuals responding to seeing, _with their own eyes_, power being blatantly abused _by government officials_, live on TV, many, many times. Yeah, all those innocent businesses and property deserved to get looted and torched because a cop killed a guy breaking the law high on fentanyl. It's totally acceptable and tolerant. If something from the government bothers you, you are now legally and socially allowed just rob a Nike store and brn down some cars in the city center.
  - kgwxd 7mo ago
    Nick Shirley and other "indie journalists" doing "investigations", is very far from "fact". And nowhere near justification for attempting to overthrow a government. Curious though, did they "find that out" by doing it end-to-end? Pseudo-intellectual "deductive reasoning" does not actually prove anything, other than the bad-faith nature of the person presenting it as evidence. Didn't say any of that should be legal. Anyone arrested for that deserved it. And anyone pardoned, should not have been. Do you agree? If Biden had told those people directly that he loved them, and they should keep up the good work, I'd be on here objecting to it just as much.
    - joe_mamba 7mo ago
      >Anyone arrested for that deserved it. And anyone pardoned, should not have been. Do you agree? Agree butt... >attempting to overthrow a government. J6 Storming the capital is not the same thing as overthrowing a government. It's more like cosplaying to overthrow the government while the actual government watches and laughs. You can't overthrow any government until you have the full support of the military. Why can't democrat supporters see and analyze anything else happening in their back ayrd besides being forever stuck on J6? Everyone agrees it was bad, now can we move on to the present issues at hand? >"deductive reasoning" does not actually prove anything Deductive reasoning is everything. If there's loopholes that allow crimes to happen in theory, then crimes will 100% happen in practice. Do you agree? Pretending it's not actual evidence, is how criminals(and governments) get away with crime, because they never investigate those issue, when their exploitation benefits them. Same like with the Minnesota somali childcare fraud. Isn't it convenient that we can't consider it fraud until the government investigates itself and it rarely does and when it does it finds nothing because they're in cahoots with the scammers as they all get kickbacks?
tombert 7mo ago
Mapping out the actual "ethics" of the J6 people has been difficult for me. It butts up against how I generally define "good" and "bad". For an easy example, a guy murdering his wife for the insurance money is someone that I can pretty easily call "bad". That's would be hurting someone to enrich yourself, which I think we can agree is pretty bad. But on an "individual morality" level, it's hard for me to directly condemn the J6 people. If they genuinely believed the election was stolen, and if they genuinely believed that the only way to save America was by invading the capital, and they were willing to do it at great risk to themselves with very little personal benefit, it's hard for me to directly say that they're "bad" people. Dumb, misguided people doing a bad thing, but they're doing what they think is right. To be clear, I think the J6 people were very stupid, and I think it's horrible that the orange idiot lying about some election fraud in order to overthrow democracy is a very very very bad thing.
tryauuum 7mo ago
to be honest, the only downside with this idea is that in case you succeed, you are left with a group of people who like killing elites (and who can switch their definition of "elites" to include you)

joe_mamba 7mo ago

>read some history History books say that ...oh ...starts flipping frantically ... oh no! Yeah, no that's not gonna happen and you also don't want that.