Jan 6 Hearings

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-01-2022, 09:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe not. But on the other hand, not doing it in a vacuum more or less unaovoidably lets expectations factor into the judgment, and that's a fine line.

I would counter that a person's pattern of behavior eventually leads to them not getting the benefit of the doubt.  Is that not an argument that we've heard used against Trump on numerous occasions?  I certainly think Waters qualifies in this regard.

Quote:I will not found a fan club.

Nor will anyone else. 

Quote:OK, I get this thought, but imho that's also a fine line. In short, if one has an issue with the media's one-sided coverage, one can complain about it, or one can mimic that behaviour in the name of balance. I find it tough to do both. In the end, this will always lead to escalatory means and a chicken vs. egg debate on who's to blame. And I would be especially opposed to the idea when it's about downplaying the Capitol storm through false equivalencies in the name of balance. I get it, but I'm not buying it.

Here I cannot agree.  You cannot discount a valid criticism simply because others will use that criticism to minimize or excuse unacceptable behavior.  This line of thinking is why trust in the media is in the toilet.  Bad faith actors will always conduct themselves in that regard.  You only push more people into their camp when you deny the evidence of people's own two eyes.  The ideal solution would be for the media to actually conduct themselves in a fair and impartial manner.  This strikes me as a less than likely outcome.  The less palatable solution is to acknowledge when the media is being biased, e.g. the following pic;



An even better example is the coverage of the Rittenhouse incident and trial.  The media was near universal in condemning the kid, some going so far as to label him a white supremacist.  Hell, someone on this very board, the day after the shooting, posted a picture of the kid in a police explorer uniform like it was some gotcha proof of his ill intent.  Meanwhile you have myself and Bel pointing out that it's as clear a case of self defense as we've ever seen, and we are not on the same ends of the political spectrum by any means.  But, aside from Fox, the media has been full square behind the BLM protests, regardless of the damage caused, or the people injured or killed and equally opposed to anyone who dares to point that out.  Respectfully, when you defend this, or rather dislike it being pointed out, because to not do so only gives ammunition to people who would act in the same fashion for right wing protests, you're only adding fuel to the fire.  Either we can acknowledge what is fair or we contribute to what is unfair.  We cannot control those who would act in bad faith, we can only act in good faith ourselves.  I think Bill Maher is a good example of a far left liberal who has realized this and is speaking out accordingly.

Quote:Yeah, I recognized that too. The defense for that I came up with would be that enforcing restrictions is a tough call to make even for a supporter of covid measures. If you insist on quarantine laws, maybe forcibly disperse protesters even, it's adding fuel to the fire. These people were angry and at least in my perspective, they had plenty reason to be. Now authorities forbid black protests? Imho a difficult position.

Oh, I get why it was done.  But all it did was show that the restrictions were largely bullshit.  Either this was a public health emergency or it was not.  I got to see my mother for exactly ten minutes, while she lay dying in the hospital for five days.  My father didn't get to sit with her in her dying moments after being married to her for over fifty years.  But the protestors can run around in public elbow to elbow, in dense groups thousand strong, because enforcing the mandates we were all told we had to live by would be seen as racist?  All while some of them loot businesses, commit arson and assault and, in some extreme cases, murder people?  Seriously, eff that argument with a rake.  

Quote:Was it though? I really am uncertain about the definition of that term, but in my own interpretation, I always believed that to be terrorism, a deed must in any case include a distinct plan to potentially kill people. Which, not to diminish burning police cars, these guys possibly did not have. But yeah, just my definition.

Well, technically terrorism is any criminal act used to try and effect political change.  Setting a police car on fire with Molotov cocktails may not have directly injured anyone, in this instance, but the intent behind doing so is rather obvious.  I don't think you have to cross the line to actual murder to make it a very serious crime.