2 ms·

>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

by gruez 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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.

by gruez 8mo ago

kgwxd 8mo 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 8mo 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.