Jan 6 Hearings

[hollodero]

(08-01-2022, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

Yes, I thought about Trump even, and I sure argued in that manner (benefit of the doubt is gone at a certain point), and asked myself in other matters whether this is awful on its own or just because it's coming from Trump. It was a counterargument used all the time (aka "you just hate the guy"), and in rare instances it was a fair counter, in most it was not. This particular case of video one, I don't know which one it is. Overall, I am not really trying to defend Maxine Waters, who at best was deliberately reckless in her choice of words for sure.

(08-01-2022, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

But I was not argueing against valid critizism. If anyone on this board or FOX or anyone speaks the words you just spoke, I will not discount this critizism, as I do not discount yours (for the most part at least). Pointing this out is not the issue, on the contrary it's a good thing. Where I run into problems is your argument of creating balance through a counternarrative. In the Rittenhouse case, that would be the counter of declaring this guy a hero, which FOX et al. did. This is not in the name of balance, it's just using the same instruments of distortion that gets critizised, and this is what I consider to be equally wrong; meaning this is the point where I'd say, either critizise the initial distortion of the media or engage in that behaviour yourself to counter it, but you can't do both. Not directed at you, but at your point about balance.

(08-01-2022, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

But it doesn't. Oversimplified, if these decisions were up to me, with the information and the experts opinions I'd probably get in such a position, I could see myself agreeing with the restrictions as the best way to protect the populace. But then the Floyd thing happened, and that is just a different decision to make. Even as a believer in the restrictions, would I really use my power to disperse protests, counter with heavy police force, water throwers and whatnot (you'd know more about the measures to dissolve the gatherings), would I think that's still the best thing to do for society. And that's not even a question of ideology or if I believe the protesters' grievances are legit, it's just these folks are angry and this would make them even way angrier, maybe resulting in unrest and violence lasting for years to come. I'd possibly let it be, for that imho is the reality of such decisions, they can seldomly be noble and principled and all that, they are often lousy, messy compromises, decisions between two bad outcomes and which own belief to betray. At least that's the way I see it, and so that it does not mean the restrictions were BS to begin with.

(08-01-2022, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

I am so sorry about that.

(08-01-2022, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.  

Yeah I get that sentiment. It would be seen as racist, though it would not be, that's the reality of things and it stinks. And trying to carry that hot iron, I have to agree that those that are ultimately to blame are the organizers of the protests. All citizens were asked to respond accordingly to what was indeed a health crisis and they chose not to comply and knew they would get away with it. I'm not defending them (though I understand their anger), I do have understanding for the decision makers that reached the again messy compromise to let them get away to avoid lasting riots and unrest. It might have been the most sensible reaction, even if it's a bad and unfair one.
Just to be clear, I'm certainly not point blank defending every measure taken in the name of Covid. Like the heartbreaking one that led to your parents not even getting to say their proper goodbyes. These stories make me sad and again I am so sorry for them and for you.

(08-01-2022, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.  

Maybe. I just wonder if the word terrorism should not be restricted to even more severe actions, or else it might be a slippery slope and more and more crimes get painted as such if there's no line. I think it was you who brought up what we do with terrorists. And not to defend these guys, but I would not be in favor of them being sent to Guantanamo.