08-02-2022, 12:42 PM
(08-02-2022, 11:06 AM)hollodero Wrote: 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.
Yeah, I get that you're not familiar with her to that degree. Honestly, don't waste your time getting to that point, I certainly wish I was less familiar with her.
Quote: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.
Yes, it is absolutely true that there are people who knee jerk this response and use it when it's clearly an attempt at obfuscation. The problem is that all such comparisons get lumped into this category and in so doing I think it's pushing a lot of moderates towards that extreme camp. Like I said, when you're told that what you're seeing with your own two eyes isn't true you begin to wonder if the extremists don't have a very good point. They don't, as we both agree, but you're certainly setting them up to look that way when you discount valid criticisms in this vein.
Quote: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.
The problem is that well before Floyd's murder we were bombarded about how dire this situation was, millions will die if we don't "flatten the curve". Don't see your friends and family, stay inside as much as possible, wash your hands after touching any surface as Covid can survive for days on any surface! The the protests start and the same damn "experts" are on TV saying that attending protests is perfectly safe, just wear a mask. The severe inconsistency is what rankles, because I've continually stated that an inconsistent opinion is a worthless opinion. To anyone even slightly inclined to view it as such, it looked like the restrictions were a lie, that they weren't important and that it's ok to violate them if you're angry enough. As you correctly stated, the issue was radioactive at that point and it would have taken leadership, at any level, to display some real courage and stand up and say no, the restrictions are important, just like we've been saying for months. But we have nothing close to that level of integrity at any level of government.
Quote:I am so sorry about that.
Yeah, it sucked, especially for my father.
Quote: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.
I really addressed this above so I won't repeat here. I do appreciate the kind words, thank you.
Quote: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.
I think the term terrorism gets thrown around far too casually, so I would agree. I certainly wouldn't throw them in Gitmo. But only getting a few years, which means you're out in less than one? No thanks. You're (not you personally) only fueling the perception that left wing violence is handled with kid gloves and right wing violence is treated as a national emergency. There is absolutely a perception of a two tiered justice system based on ideology right now and Biden's DOJ is doing nothing but reinforcing it. Yet another crack in the foundation that is only widening.
