06-11-2024, 08:21 PM
(06-11-2024, 06:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Your not caring to search for examples doesn't surprise me. And not caring is not having. This is the epistemic equivalent of a bounced check.
Sure, more examples for which you don't care to search. I'm no longer accepting checks. Cash from now on. ok?
Nah. Dill doesn't set any rules here, not are you my father. You know the second statement is true, yet you refuse to concede it. It's interesting to say the least.
Quote:A third of your lengthy post is unsecured "evidence" of various kinds. E.g. Impressions, unsupported assertions etc. Including a final paragraph free-associating to whatever you don't like about Capitol police and Dems, designated (without embarrassment!) as "the cherry on top."
And it is framed as nothing other than exactly that. Of course your "source" provides no details, as I took pains to point out, yet you don't question that. I think I raised some legitimate concerns about the wording used by that source and provided examples of why they should concern anyone. I can understand why you'd prefer to duck that, but your doing so is noticeable.
Quote:And two thirds is you continuing to prove what was never in dispute, namely that the Floyd riots led to more property damage than the Capitol riots.
That's why I ''dodged" what was never the issue. I'm addressing your discussion of stats in a different post.
Oh, not just property damage, but injuries and deaths as well. Considerably more.
Quote:So to recap: The topic of this thread is "Clearing up Trump Trial misinformation." The core of that misinformation --disinformation really--is that Trump is an innocent man convicted by Biden's weaponized DOJ and the "fake news" media. In response to FBR wondering whether riots would have followed an acquittal, Luvnit asserted that unlike ANTIFA and Floyd rioters, THE RIGHT IS ON A MISSION OF PEACE.
Did he use a "mission of peace'? I certainly wouldn't agree with that, certainly not the right as a whole. It wouldn't change a single point I made either way.
Quote:That's already off center. A logical comparison of Trump and his GOP and Biden and his Democrats, to assess the prime actors' inclination to violence, would have to focus on, at least--
1. Biden's character. Did he instigate a plot to overthrow a valid election which lead to a riot, death and destruction, and over 900 felony convictions? Did he float the possibility of pardoning felons convicted in the Floyd riots? Call them "patriots"? His son is in court now. Is Biden doxing the judge's family? Calling the legal system a sham? The prosecutor "deranged" and a "dumb son-of-a-*****, while warning us all that his followers or "the nation" won't tolerate a guilty verdict? Or is he promising to abide by the verdict, and NOT to use his office for personal goals, e.g., pardoning his son.
No. Nor has anyone claimed otherwise.
Quote:2. Dem leaders' behavior: are they calling the system a "scam," the press "liars," and taking time out of Congress to show up at the courthouse to show solidarity? Are they normalizing and legitimating their presidents violent rhetoric? Or are they too saying "let the system work"? Regarding the Floyd riots, did they make a show of supporting those convicted of violence and property destruction, like visiting them in prison? Did they attribute the violence to FBI plants or MAGA protestors operating under false flag?
With the Capitol riots? No. With the BLM riots? Most certainly.
Quote:3. Regarding past non-MAGA violence in the country, did Biden direct any of that? I.e., call BLM to march to a police precinct and "take your country back"? or tell ANTIFA to "Stand back and Stand by?" Did BLM members then speak of responding to the president's call? If the answer to those questions is no, then equivalence fails.
I'd argue that tacitly, at the very least, condoning riots is bad. Not as bad as actively directing them, no. But did Trump not say to be peaceful? You can argue that he didn't mean it, but he did say it. He certainly didn't condone setting up an autonomous district within US borders and label it a "summer of love". He didn't help raise bail money for people arrested for attempted murder as our current VP did. Again, you seem to think riots only matter when they have a certain goal, and not at other times. I can agree that the 01/06 riots were abhorrent and a stain on our history. I do not use them to excuse the riots of others. I also do not think the Capitol riot being "worse" in any way lessens the impact of the dozens of BLM riots. Your position only works if you're seeking a direct, point by point, equivalence. I'm not. I'm being empathetic to the tens, if not hundreds, or thousands of people who had their lives upended by months of rioting.
Quote:When I noted that Trump himself did not seem to be on board with that MISSION OF PEACE, given his flouting gag orders and endangering family members of court officers, you could have affirmed your support for the rule of law there, but went instead with the false equivalence between the Floyd and Capitol riots, famously crafted in 2020 by Hannity and Fox friends--who also happen to be the primary engines of the current Trump trial disinformation this thread was intended to address. You refer to my "type" and my "side." Is Fox your side then? The Trump right? Or are just offering "balance" using their whattabout?
I don't think Trump said anything illegal. I certainly don't agree with his statements, for the most part. But, again, I have a hard time with a left leaning person clamoring for the rule of law considering what I've experienced the past four years.
Quote:And when I further flagged your imprecise use of the term "leftist," which collects all manner of non-aligned actors into one bag responsible for riots, reminded you that "mostly peaceful" is not some "leftist standard," and explained what the actual term of comparison was, you unleashed a firehose of abusive language, at one point positioning yourself, hivemind-like, as speaking for all forum members except my "cabal." Nevermind that most of the people you respect in the forum do not ascribe to the BLM whattabout. While that far right from which you distance yourself does ascribe to it. That's basically your "we" on this issue--virtually everyone who regularly attacks "leftists." But it's "pathetic" if I associate you with the right.
This is an odd screed as no one could reasonably infer any of that from the post you're responding to. Are you now addressing posts outside the scope of this conversation? It would seem counter productive to do so, especially when this discussion was proceeding rather amicably. Perhaps this is the response I should prepare for when you're confronted by arguments you cannot even begin to address? Such as the methodology and definitions used by a source you used to make an objective claim? Seeing as this is your 7th or 8th attempt at this post I'd expect a little more organized and coherent response. Unfortunately, this reads as rather angry and ill intended.
Quote:Still attempting to explain why "leftists" think the Capitol riot more consequential than billions of dollars of property damage in Portland or Minneapolis, I switched from the broken windows figure to the body analogy--a stroke vs a broken arm--and your response was to continue to affirm, figuratively speaking, that the broken arm involved way more tissue damage.
No, I affirmed that either injury is significant to the one upon whom it is inflicted.
Quote:I could also assert that some unspecified "we" understands YOUR desire to minimize the actions of your ideological compatriots in comparison to the Floyd protests. That SSF finds property damage (and/ or body counts) to be more important doesn't negate the fact that Trump tried to overturn an election and continues to threaten democracy. etc. But I find such "we understand" assertions completely null as evidence; no support for rational argument.
Of course, one could argue that Dill finds an attempt to overturn an election, as half-hearted as it was, more important than dozens dead, scores injured and billions of dollars in property damage. I also think you'd have a hard time framing this now borderline screed as a "rational argument" as well.
Quote:Simply claiming to understand someone's "desire" is no form of proof, even asserted from some hivemindish 1st person plural. That's what external evidence is for. When you do get around to offering something like external evidence (billions in property damage; arson of a police station), it's about what isn't in dispute, namely that more property damage followed from the Floyd protests that turned to riots than at the Capitol, where for the first time in history a US election almost fell to a coup.
A US election came nowhere close to falling because of a coup. As disgusting an event as I believe 01/06 to be at no point did it come to even 1% of succeeding as a coup. Your hyperbolic reframing of it actually diminishes what it was, as does any extremist retelling of a story. It was bad enough without you embellishing it to absurd levels. Your flailing attempts here actually do more to minimize the event than the most die hard Trump supporter's best effort.
I'm not exaggerating when I say I expected a much more coherent response given the time and effort you apparently devoted to it. It almost makes me a little sad, in a way.
