I'm surprised that the left doesn't look at the DC riots of 1/20/21 the same way they look at 1/6. I wonder why.
Or why the protesters/rioters of 9/28/18 weren't accused of trying to disrupt congress in the excercise of it's constitutionally mandated duties?
This doesn't even touch the riots in the summer of 2020, or Ferguson, or Baltimore.
It seems reasonable to conclude that there are two responses to rioting to effect political change. You can either condemn all rioting, or support rioting when you agree with the rioters.
9 comments:
Craig... "You can either condemn all rioting, or support rioting when you agree with the rioters."
Ah, but in a complex world, context matters. Context always matters.
IF you have a people who have been oppressed, harmed, abused, molested and
IF that happens for years, for decades, for centuries and
IF while peacefully protesting, the police start shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters
IF suddenly something snaps in some portion of those people and they riot...
One need not support the rioting to say, Well, it's reasonable, considering the context.
Of course. You know this, right?
IF, on the other hand, you have a group of privileged people who have never been actually oppressed, as a group and
IF these historically privileged people are fed a lie about an election and
IF they choose to believe the lie, that the election was stolen - when it clearly was not and it was just a stupidly false claim that should be obvious to all - and
IF THOSE privileged people lash out stupidly, causing harm and saying that THEY were oppressed when it was all a clear lie
Then one can condemn the rioters. Period.
Context always matter. You're an adult. You know this.
And, as noted, there is a difference between saying it's understandable (Riots are the language of the unheard) and saying it's good. Most people on the Left I have heard - including BLM - have said that the riots were counter-productive and not endorsed.
So, this line of thinking just fails on every point, doesn't it?
Context always matters.
"Of course. You know this, right?"
Yes, I do know that you were going to come up with some bullshit that supported or excused the behavior of the rioters, looters, and murderers that participated leftist riots. I could have predicted it. You chose exactly the option I thought you would choose.
"So, this line of thinking just fails on every point, doesn't it?"
No, it doesn't. You've simply offered excuses to legitimize the riots on the left, while condemning the riot of the "right". I'd say that semantic games and bullshit aren't enough to falsify anything. Especially since you just chose one of the options I gave. Of course, you are also trying to pretend that the DC riots were something that hey weren't.
"Context always matters."
Except when you decide it doesn't.
We'll, even if you don't think so, all the rational adults know context matters.
What Trabue means is:
When a riot is mostly "black folk," Antifa, and other LEFTIST radicals, it's okay.
When a riot is composed mostly of "privileged" white folks (are there any other kind of while folk?), then it should be soundly, roundly condemned.
So Dan thinks "privileged" people cannot be justified in being pissed off enough to lose their self-control, while it's OK for lefties to riot and defend by saying they're "oppressed". Got it. There's no comparison between what happened on Jan 6 and any of the many leftist rioting predicated on lame reasoning, such as racism and the like. Nor is there any comparison between how lefties responded, excusing the worst examples while over-hyping the example with the least destruction, simply because it's presumably "pro-Trump" in their eyes.
Dan,
I've never said context doesn't matter, and if you're going to make these sorts of claims, you should probably back them up with actual evidence. Further, when you choose to ignore context, it simply illustrates once more your double standards.
More news from experts about the threat from the far right. But sure, listen to Marshal. He's a better authority than, you know, experts.
"The Justice Department is establishing a specialized unit focused on domestic terrorism, the department's top national security official told lawmakers Tuesday as he described an “elevated” threat from violent extremists in the United States...
“We have seen a growing threat from those who are motivated by racial animus, as well as those who ascribe to extremist anti-government and anti-authority ideologies,” Olsen said..."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-dept-creating-unit-focused-152654110.html
Strange that those descriptors describe leftist groups like ANTIFA, and BLM.
Yeah...not on reference to "the far right" at all. Evidently, Dan believes what he needs to believe while ignoring history.
Post a Comment