I see a lot about rage from the APL. I see groups like Jane's Revenge calling for a day of rage, I see examples of rage directed against conservatives, and the like. What I rarely see is rage from conservatives. Maybe J6 was rage, but compered to the rage on Lake St, it seems pretty tame. I certainly hear about conservative rage, but I certainly have never felt rage, nor have I ever seen any of my conservative friends engage in rage. Maybe there's some weird projection thing happening.
Tuesday, June 28, 2022
Rage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
70 comments:
You're confusing the senseless, "WE want to make the rules just like white men have always done!" anger and violence and oppression of the Right with the righteous anger against oppression of the left. Well, and of God.
" Depart from me ye wicked into the fires of hell for what you fail to do for the least of these you fail to do for me."
Rage to a lesser degree? Anger is low rage, I'd say. Frustration precludes anger which precludes rage. I'm wondering if perhaps there's a need for some degree of rage from the conservative side. Not getting pissed seems to result in things getting worse. All the rage we see from the left should have righteous anger to counter it. I can't see that time when this crap will lessen without it. I really can't and I don't want to see it come to that, but how can it not given their willingness to inflict harm when not getting their way?
Y'know...some have openly expressed a longing for a time when those like me pass away (as if I won't be replaced by younger people like me). But the way things are going, I'm not up for living forever anymore, anyway. Any time the Lord's ready to call me Home, I'm ready to go.
Interesting, that Dan provides no actual examples of this alleged "right wing" rage (other than J6 which didn't seem like rage to me). Certainly no examples of anyone actually saying what he quoted, or anything comparable to the left wing rage on display in 2020. No answers to the questions asked over the last few weeks either.
But we do get justification for left wing rage, though. Because it's righteous anger that justifies cleaning out pillaging liqueur stores, grocery stores, drug stores, burning and destroying things for days. That's "righteous" anger and exactly what God wants.
I guess in Dan's world, political leftists don't end up in Hell, they're all "righteous".
I understand, anger, frustration, disappointment, and the like. But rage, I'm just not seeing, hearing, or feeling this alleged right wing rage that the APL claims is so prevalent.
I figure that God's timing is perfect and when it's my time, it's my time. Would I like to stay around to see my kids and future grand kids, absolutely. Do I want to live in the dystopian, hellscape that we see in an increasing number of DFL run cities, not particularly. I've given up any strong eschatological position, but am definitely on the side of wanting to go home before things get really bad.
I'm going to have to write down your answers because I can never remember:
What does APL mean?
What does DFL mean?
I decide a while ago that I'd use APL for the American Political Left. It was less typing.
DFL is what they call the democrat party up here in the people's republic. I've gotten used to it and it's easier to type...
Craig...
" I'm just not seeing, hearing, or feeling this alleged right wing rage that the APL claims is so prevalent."
I'm guessing this is because we all tend to live in our little echo chambers. But it's out there.
And yes, the Jan 6 insurrectionists, frothing at the mouth, busting in windows, destroying property, chanting "hang Mike Pence!" and breathing threats against other politicians, that is a perfect example of far right irrational and dangerous rage.
You've not been watching the Jan 6 investigations, I guess? Maybe you should.
How about Marshal getting SO upset and emotional about the idea of drag queens reading to children (gasp!!) that he's threatened violence if HE saw it and said he'd be inclined to pay for any conservatives who opt to assault drag queens and their supporters... is that NOT a perfect example of irrational and dangerous right wing rage?
Or have you read any right wingers ranting about Drag Queen Story Time?
Some examples of the rage that causes LEO to identify white conservatives/white supremacists as our main concern for violence in the US:
"“The men were described as extremely aggressive with a threatening violent demeanor causing people to fear for their safety,” Kelly said in a statement. In addition to the hate-crime probe, authorities have also launched an investigation of whether the Proud Boys’ actions “annoyed or harassed children,” which is a violation of the penal code."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/13/proud-boy-drag-queen/
https://news.yahoo.com/gop-anti-lgbtq-hysteria-spreading-094501121.html
"We received hate mail. We received threats. You name it — we received it," said Sébastien Gauthier, a spokesperson for the city.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/libraries-threats-all-age-drag-1.6501247
My co-worker's Christian mother threw an ashtray at him when he came out and kicked him out of the house.
Several others in my circles have been called all manner of vile names by THEIR CHRISTIAN PARENTS and disowned. One gentleman's mother kicked him out of their house (at 17, I think) and took all his clothes and belongings, set them in a pile in his yard and started a bonfire, burning all his belongings.
More later. If you want examples, they're out there in multitudes. Unfortunately.
RE: APL, DFL... why not just say Left and Dem and not be confusing?
Craig...
"Certainly no examples of anyone actually saying what he quoted"
What I quoted was a summary of the very popular (in right wing circles) "Great Replacement Theory" conspiracy theory...
""WE want to make the rules just like white men have always done!"
GRP Sources:
"Payton Gendron, who was indicted by a grand jury for killing 10 people May 14 at a Tops Friendly Markets in a predominantly Black neighborhood in Buffalo, repeatedly cited “the great replacement” theory as his motive for the shooting, according to authorities. Other deadly shooters have been similarly inspired, including the men responsible for the murder of 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, and for shooting 23 people at a Walmart in El Paso in 2019."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/02/great-replacement-theory-rises-again-ending-tragedy/
I'd say that KILLING people of color for fear of having your white voice/power deleted or overwhelmed by "those" people is a perfect example of the dangerous, senseless rage of white conservatives. How are you missing these examples?
From the horse's mouth:
"So I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term 'replacement', if you suggest the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the third world," he said.
"But they become hysterical because that's that's what's happening actually. Let's just say it. That's true."
"In other words you're being replaced and there's nothing you can do about it so shut up!" he says before laughing hysterically in another clip from a later show in April 2021.
"Our country is being invaded by the rest of the world."
In another clip from that month, he said: "I'm going to state unequivocally the country is being stolen from American citizens as we watch."
And in a final clip from September last year, Carlson references the theory by name. "In political terms, this policy is called the 'Great Replacement,' the replacement of legacy Americans with more obedient people from faraway countries."
Those instances don't account for all the times Carlson has promoted the idea, as an investigation by The New York Times found 400 instances where he talked about Democrats and others trying to force demographic change through immigration."
https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-promotes-replacement-theory-viral-video-1706823
More examples...
"Testifying to the January 6 committee in Washington, Shaye Moss said she received “a lot of threats. Wishing death upon me. Telling me that I’ll be in jail with my mother and saying things like, ‘Be glad it’s 2020 and not 1920.’”
That was a reference to lynching, the violent extra-judicial fate of thousands of Black men in the American south.
Moss also said her grandmother’s home had been threatened by Trump supporters seeking to make “citizen’s arrests” of the two poll workers."
“I’ve lost my name and I’ve lost my reputation. I’ve lost my sense of security, all because a group of people starting with [Trump] and his ally Rudy Giuliani decided to scapegoat me and my daughter Shaye, to push their own lies about how the presidential election was stolen.”
Freeman also said: “There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere. Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you?
“The president of the United States is supposed to represent every American. Not to target one. And he targeted me, Lady Ruby, a small business owner, a mother, a proud American citizen who stood up to help Fulton county run an election in the middle of the pandemic.”
Freeman said she had been forced to leave home for two months."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/21/january-6-hearings-georgia-elections-workers-mother-daughter-testify
"Election officials and their families are living with threats of hanging, firing squads, torture and bomb blasts, interviews and documents reveal. The campaign of fear, sparked by Trump's voter-fraud falsehoods, threatens the U.S. electoral system.
Late on the night of April 24, the wife of Georgia’s top election official got a chilling text message: “You and your family will be killed very slowly.”
A week earlier, Tricia Raffensperger, wife of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, had received another anonymous text: “We plan for the death of you and your family every day.”
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-georgia-threats/
"She’s been called everything from a “wack job” to a “fucking bitch,” but only recently did she admit that she gets regular death threats, too.
In a Vanity Fair cover story, Ocasio Cortez — who is the youngest woman to have ever been elected into Congress — details how she has faced the near-constant threat of danger...
According to Vanity Fair, one of her first death threats came barely one month into her first term representing New York’s 14th District. A Coast Guard lieutenant and self-proclaimed white nationalist was arrested hoarding a stockpile of guns with a plot to kill Ocasio-Cortez, vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and others. At the same time, the freshman congresswoman's basic rights to privacy were not respected when a right-wing outlet published paparazzi photos revealing her home address."
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/10/10131438/aoc-death-threats-harassment-vanity-fair
Because I choose to be more precise. "left" covers more than politics, and "Dem" doesn't work for me. How about you let me choose how I handle things on my blog?
I think Art asked for the examples, but I'll point out that it's just one more time that we get to see some variation of "The other side does it." as a defense/excuse/rationalization/justification for left wing racism, threats, and vitriol.
Strangely enough, you make a specific CLAIM about your alleged quote, but don't actually provide a specific source for your quote.
"I'd say that KILLING people of color for fear of having your white voice/power deleted or overwhelmed by "those" people is a perfect example of the dangerous, senseless rage of white conservatives. How are you missing these examples?"
In the exceedingly rare instances when this might happen, I'd agree. But we usually don't take the rare exceptions, and treat them as the rule. Or broad brush the people with the actions of others.
Nice anecdotes, but still no actual source for your quote.
"I'm guessing this is because we all tend to live in our little echo chambers. But it's out there."
Then stop guessing because you always guess wrong. IF I was in a conservative "echo chamber" then I'd be hearing this alleged rage, but I'm not.
"And yes, the Jan 6 insurrectionists, frothing at the mouth, busting in windows, destroying property, chanting "hang Mike Pence!" and breathing threats against other politicians, that is a perfect example of far right irrational and dangerous rage."
Got it, a couple of hundred people who went off the deep end for a couple of hours. Of course you can't find any other examples, certainly nothing on the scale of the various left wing riots/occupations/attacks we've seen since about 2016. It's interesting that the j6 rioters literally killed no one, did some minor damage to property, and left of their own accord, yet the 2020 rioters were constantly excused because they only engaged in property damage.
"You've not been watching the Jan 6 investigations, I guess? Maybe you should."
How many times do I have to answer this?
"Or have you read any right wingers ranting about Drag Queen Story Time?"
No, but coming from someone who wrote a whole blog post defending "ranting", I find this amusing. Or was that one more of the double standard? Rants are OK for Dan, but not for anyone else. Do "rants" automatically and always equal "rage"?
You've done an excellent job of pulling some random stories together (including unproven anecdotes), but you haven't demonstrated actual "rage", and you certainly haven't demonstrated any widespread "rage" among the majority of anything.
But I guess that you're experience in your echo chamber is much more valid than my experience being exposed to all sorts of viewpoints.
Craig...
"that we get to see some variation of "The other side does it." as a defense/excuse/rationalization/justification for left wing racism, threats, and vitriol."
EXCEPT - as always - that is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT
...it's NOT what I said. Ever. In fact, I have been abundantly clear that I OPPOSE responding violently and dangerously just because the other side does it.
I don't know how to make it any more clear.
ANY time you think, "Huh, Dan is saying he thinks left violence is okay because the right is doing it..." JUST STOP. REMEMBER THIS CONVERSATION. Then remember, "Oh, wait, no. Dan is literally NOT saying that. He's saying the opposite of that." Because I'm not.
Noting the reality that oppressed people will often times eventually respond to violence with violence is NOT defending that violence. It's noting a reality of oppression and violence and what people can expect in response. Noting that reality is NOT defending the violence. But what it IS doing is trying to get to the source of the violence.
The slave who finally strikes his "owner" down before the owner can beat him again is responding violently to violence and that's not good. But the SOURCE of the violence was the slave-owner.
The abused woman who one day kills her husband before he can kill her is responding with violence and that's not good, but the SOURCE of the violence was the abusive husband.
The people who have lived under oppression and abuse of a police system who (perhaps) respond by rioting and catching garbage cans on fire are responding to violence with violence and that's not good. But the SOURCE of the violence was the violent police system.
Craig...
"still no actual source for your quote. "
THE QUOTE IS MINE, summing up what angry white conservatives are saying. THERE IS NO SOURCE FOR THE QUOTE. THE QUOTE IS MINE.
Understand? I can't believe you're so obtuse and have SUCH difficulty understanding that you are actually failing to understand, even after I explained it to you.
Now, rather than being hung up on the irrelevant, why not acknowledge the reality of conservative white rage/threats/violence? Stop downplaying it and just acknowledge it's a real problem, just like is obvious and has been identified by LEO.
Left wing rage brought us (an incomplete list).
2014 Ferguson
2015 Baltimore
2016 Charlotte
2016-2021 Portland
2017 DC
2020 Kenosha
2020 Twin Cities
2020 Seattle
2021 @40 Crisis Pregnancy Centers across the country
These are some of the left wing riots that involved violence, destruction, and death/injury. Given the fact that the twin Cities riots alone caused over 2 billion in damage (mostly in minority/immigrant filled neighborhoods), it's conceivable that the total bill is well in excess of 5-6 billion all told.
Against that, Dan can only bring up J6. Which pales in comparison.
This is NOT to use the left wing riots/carnage to justify J6. J6 was unequivocally wrong, the moment it went from a peaceful protest, to storming the capitol, no question about it. Those who broke the law are being punished. But if the claim is that right wing rage is a significant problem, it seems reasonable to compare it with left wing rage, to determine if the claims about right wing rage are accurate.
I've posted links that document much more rioting and expressions of rage by the left. I also have to note that many on the left cling to the Gov Whitmer "kidnapping" as an example of "right wing" action when it's pretty clear that it was significantly driven by the FBI.
https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots-cost-property-damage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_and_protests_of_the_2020%E2%80%932022_United_States_racial_unrest
https://minnesotareformer.com/2020/11/30/from-building-damage-to-police-payouts-the-costs-of-floyds-killing-are-piling-up/
"you haven't demonstrated actual "rage", and you certainly haven't demonstrated any widespread "rage" among the majority of anything."
?????
I mean, really.
???? WTAF?
DEATH THREATS aren't "actual rage..."?? Calling women abusive names and threatening their lives is not ACTUAL RAGE? KILLING PEOPLE is not actual rage??
What in the name of all that is holy and good and decent are you talking about?
Of course, that's actual deadly, indecent, dangerous rage. That, and passing on stupidly false claims to spur that existing fear and rage is actual rage and it's dangerous. Because of course it is.
Craig...
"you certainly haven't demonstrated any widespread "rage" among the majority of anything."
? What does this mean? Do you think I've said that the vast majority of conservatives are raging and dangerous?
I haven't.
Nor are the vast majority of Democrats/liberals.
On the other hand, the vast majority of conservatives DO believe deadly dangerous false claims like the election was stolen and these stupidly false claims, repeated over and over to fearful, angry people who are also being told over and over about a "great replacement theory" conspiracy... SOME ELEMENT of that vast majority ARE acting out in violence and rage and deadly threats and abuses. As my data shows. As rational thinking supports. As LEO report.
What are you talking about, I haven't demonstrated "actual rage...?"
Once again, Dan's keen to over-hype what he regards as right wing sins (note the many quotes from a single mass casualty shooter, followed by his connecting his actions to Tucker Carlson's accurate reporting on the issue of "the Great Replacement", a theory pushed by lefties and recognized as true by honest people paying attention.
At the same time, Dan's even more keen to downplay the sins of his own, often excusing them on the basis of what he needs to believe is a just cause (racist police hunting black dudes) as he accuses right-wingers of acting on lies. But no one lies like the left and Dan has all sorts of merit badges for that.
Then there's the truly loathesome, misogynistic and "Civil War!" type of "commentary" you can find in the comments section in places like Alex Jones' swamp...
Speaking of the young woman who testified against Trump yesterday:
"She'd look good with her hair pulled back getting doubled ended"
"What a load of bullshit, yeah that hoe needs to be sent to Detroit, she got like a modeling job for revlon or some shit lined up, yeah, they need to burn her at the stake and cut the head off let the soccer fags play footsies with it and then dump her body in the back room so the congress fags can like steal body parts"
"I just heard that Liz Chewme has just won her primary. Looks like she has a lot of support from her role in the Jan 6 conmittee"
"She looks stinky yest infectly stink."
"Is she blowing Hunter"
"What a cunt"
"BUT MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS COMING OVER THE BORDER ALL GOOD THIS SH!T NEEDS A CLEAN UP REAL FAST !!! WAR PATH TIME !!! NEW WAYS AND TACTICS TO TAKE THEM DOWN ON WAY !!! "
https://www.infowars.com/posts/democrat-committees-star-witness-mocked-for-claiming-trump-tried-to-hijack-limo-on-jan-6/
All the misspellings and bold all caps are all theirs.
That was just a SMALL sampling on ONE story on ONE nutjob conservative website. Crazy, misogynistic people can always be found raving and raging and have been doing so throughout history. And on the conservative side, you can almost always count on finding a great deal of loathing and hatred and disgusting abuse sent especially towards women.
I'm not even ON conservative websites regularly and I know it's patently obvious there's all manner of vicious, sickening raging violence being spewed regularly.
How do you not know this?
Before I post Dan's most recent bunch of comments, I want to point out the fact that my point IS NOT that there are absolutely zero right wing types that demonstrate rage. My point is that the NARRATIVE is that all right wing types are seething with rage and that it's present everywhere.
So when Dan comes up with random examples, he's not really arguing against the point I've made, but rather pointing out the obvious. That some people of all stripes exhibit rage.
Finally, his uncritical acceptance of any testimony in the J6 hearings that confirms his bias is troubling. Especially when we get immediate contradictions of this testimony.
"Noting the reality that oppressed people will often times eventually respond to violence with violence is NOT defending that violence."
Defending, excusing, justifying, rationalizing, whatever.
"THE QUOTE IS MINE, summing up what angry white conservatives are saying. THERE IS NO SOURCE FOR THE QUOTE. THE QUOTE IS MINE."
So you quoted yourself? Why would you quote yourself? Why would you make up something, quote it, instead of actually providing actual quotes of people saying what you claim they are saying?
"Understand?"
Now I understand that you were quoting yourself. I apologize for misunderstanding.
"You're confusing the senseless, "WE want to make the rules just like white men have always done!" anger and violence and oppression of the Right with the righteous anger against oppression of the left. Well, and of God."
Absolutely nothing in the text or context of that indicates that you are quoting yourself. If there are actually people saying that, why not quote them?
"I can't believe you're so obtuse and have SUCH difficulty understanding that you are actually failing to understand, even after I explained it to you."
I can't believe that you seem to be incapable of entertaining the thought that you could possibly have been unclear or done a poor job communication. This notion that it's always the other party is both an expression of hubris, and incredibly annoying. I guess you've given up embracing grace.
"Now, rather than being hung up on the irrelevant, why not acknowledge the reality of conservative white rage/threats/violence? Stop downplaying it and just acknowledge it's a real problem, just like is obvious and has been identified by LEO."
Strangely enough, I've managed to focus on your unclear quote of yourself, and address everything else you've mentioned. It isn't that hard, you should try it sometime.
"DEATH THREATS aren't "actual rage..."?? Calling women abusive names and threatening their lives is not ACTUAL RAGE? KILLING PEOPLE is not actual rage?? What in the name of all that is holy and good and decent are you talking about?"
1. Well, those things could also be explained by mental illness, drug use, and other factors. Although none of these singular incidents demonstrate the widespread, generalized rage assumed by he narrative.
2. Given that all of these things are currently being engaged in by the APL, it seems strange that you don't specifically call out these behaviors on the left.
3. The problem with your CYA, general, vague, milquetoast "condemnations", is that those are far outweighed by your continued, specific, mention of "right wing" examples while virtually never citing left wing examples.
"What does this mean? Do you think I've said that the vast majority of conservatives are raging and dangerous?"
Well, since the original post doesn't refer to you once, I think it strange that you've concluded that it's about you. Narcissistic much? I'm referring to this wider notion that there is some sort of generalized rage on the right, yet I never actual hear people on the right calling for widespread rage. I hear and see it in the left. I see individuals on the right who might be expressing rage, but I don't see the right as the monolithic, rage filled, rage motivated, mass of Berzerkers that is portrayed.
You play into this by pushing the narrative, and not giving equal weight to left wing rage, but that's because you seem to be one of those who passively repeats talking points.
"On the other hand, the vast majority of conservatives DO believe deadly dangerous false claims..."
No, I was wrong. You are actively peddling the false narrative that the "vast majority" of conservatives are on the rage train.
FYI, it's possible and likely that one can believe that the 2020 election was manipulated or stolen, yet not be enraged by that belief. Hell, Hillary and the left have been claiming that the 2016 election was stolen for the past 6 years, but that doesn't seem to register with you. Strangely claims of stolen elections don't get you worked up when your heroes make them.
"Nor are the vast majority of Democrats/liberals."
No one claimed otherwise. Unfortunately, the reality is that since 2014, the vast majority of damage, harm, and actual kinetic rage has all come from the left. This notion that 15 inbred, survivalists who might get into a stand off out in the wilderness is equal to thousands of leftists burning and looting city blocks is absurd.
It's simply another example of Dan overstating the sins of the right while downplaying the sins of his own. What's more telling about Dan's penchant for this behavior is how he must dig up examples from sites like "InfoWars" (Do you ever visit that site, Craig? I don't. It never even comes to mind unless morons bring it up. I don't think it has widespread appeal at all.). In the meantime, we're seeing the lefty rioting and screaming in rage once again because of the righteous SCOTUS ruling.
When does Dan ever "embrace grace"? Well, in tolerating the rage of his own, rationalizing it as a response to "oppression"...that catch-all term he uses to rationalize immorality and disorder of any kind he favors. The problem is all the "oppressing" is coming from his side, too, just like the vast majority of enraged outbursts of every degree. Lying, projecting, oppressing, raging...that's more leftist behavior than right-wing behavior. The irony is we on the right have more justification.
Dan,
The problems with you list of unsourced, out of context, anecdotes are several.
1. They don't represent the majority of conservatives, to pretend that they do is simply wrong.
2. If these are from a social media account, or similar, there's no way you can demonstrate who most of them really are, let alone make 100% accurate judgements about their politics or state of mind.
3. I've literally provided you with multiple examples over the past several years (some in a recent thread) of liberals saying the same sorts of things about SCOTUS justices, and about random conservatives. You never deal with those.
4. I find your anecdotes to be vile and disgusting and find people who lower themselves to these sorts of vitriolic attacks to be beneath contempt.
5. The implied comparison of your small number of unsourced anecdotes, with the list of actual examples of left wing kinetic rage that we've seen burning and looting our cities since 2014 doesn't even begin to balance the scales.
6. You said something the other day about how "It's just the sort of thing you expect on Twitter." (words to that effect) Strangely enough, I guess you only expect and excuse that from those on the left.
"SMALL sampling on ONE story on ONE nutjob conservative website."
Exactly my point. When you and folks like you take this "SMALL sampling on ONE story on ONE nutjob conservative website.", and try to advance the narrative that this "SMALL sampling on ONE story on ONE nutjob conservative website." represents the "vast majority" of conservatives, you're simply slandering a lot of people.
Craig...
"try to advance the narrative that this "SMALL sampling on ONE story on ONE nutjob conservative website." represents the "vast majority" of conservatives, you're simply slandering a lot of people."
???
I repeat what I already have made abundantly clear endlessly.
Do you think I've said that the vast majority of conservatives are raging and dangerous?
I haven't.
I've not said that. I'm NOT saying that. READ my words and understand. And for the love of all that is holy and good and rational, stop making these stupidly false claims because you don't understand my clear words. And have the decency to apologize for the stupidly false claim that you're making now that I pointed it out and clear it up for you.
Dan...
"On the other hand, the vast majority of conservatives DO believe deadly dangerous false claims..."
Craig...
"No, I was wrong. You are actively peddling the false narrative that the "vast majority" of conservatives are on the rage train."
I pointed out a fact, not a false narrative, that the majority of the modern GOP believes the stupid false claims about a stolen election. That's a fact. There's no opinion involved. It's demonstrated by the polls and by the polls and just by observation.
Do you doubt that the majority of the GOP isn't still believing believing these stupidly false claims about a stolen election? If you recognize this, why in the name of all that's holy are you not calling out conservatives for this dangerous, dangerous false belief?
Once again and for the last time, I did not say the majority of conservatives are on "the rage train." Not my words. Nothing I've said. Those are your words.
Do you understand these two simple realities?
Before I address Dan's recent comments. I'm going to point out the reality that I've provided a list of left wing rage being lived out in the real world, and he hasn't addressed any of those examples specifically.
"I repeat what I already have made abundantly clear endlessly."
That's quite a claim, given that this comment thread isn't that long. "endlessle" that's pretty impessive.
"Do you think I've said that the vast majority of conservatives are raging and dangerous?"
No, I HAVE said that there is a narrative being spread that conveys the impression that conservative rage is a major, widespread problem. I'm sorry if your narcissism confuses you and leads you to think everything is specifically about you.
"I haven't. I've not said that. I'm NOT saying that. READ my words and understand. And for the love of all that is holy and good and rational, stop making these stupidly false claims because you don't understand my clear words. And have the decency to apologize for the stupidly false claim that you're making now that I pointed it out and clear it up for you."
Because repeating yourself over and over endlessly doesn't make you look unhinged at all. Especially when you have to misrepresent what I actually said to work yourself up into this state.
"I pointed out a fact, not a false narrative, that the majority of the modern GOP believes the stupid false claims about a stolen election. That's a fact. There's no opinion involved. It's demonstrated by the polls and by the polls and just by observation."
Blah, blah, blah, please repeat yourself some more. Perhaps endlessly.
"Do you doubt that the majority of the GOP isn't still believing believing these stupidly false claims about a stolen election?"
Yes, I do. Is it reasonable that this "vast majority" believes that the 2020 election was significantly flawed, but not specifically "stolen"? How can we really know is we don't see the actual question asked that elicited this response? Why is it OK for Hillary to continue to insist that the 2016 election was "stolen", and to have her claims uncritically reported as fact?
"If you recognize this, why in the name of all that's holy are you not calling out conservatives for this dangerous, dangerous false belief?"
Because it's not dangerous. Do you realize that a large majority of left wing folks believe that the police kill thousands of innocent, unarmed, black men every year? Given the actual carnage that's resulted from this false belief, shouldn't you be doing more to combat that false narrative?
"Once again and for the last time, I did not say the majority of conservatives are on "the rage train." Not my words. Nothing I've said. Those are your words."
OK
"Do you understand these two simple realities?"
Yes, I understand that your realities rely on misrepresenting what I've actually said, and your insistence on believing that everything I say refers to you.
But please, ignore the realities that I've been pointing out as you insist that left wing rage isn't significant. I'm sure the thousands of people who had their neighborhoods devastated since 2014 will agree with you.
"Do you realize that a large majority of left wing folks believe that the police kill thousands of innocent, unarmed, black men every year? Given the actual carnage that's resulted from this false belief, shouldn't you be doing more to combat that false narrative?"
This is a great point. What's more, there's far less evidence for this belief than the belief the election was stolen. Regardless of your position, I do indeed believe it was stolen. But my belief did not spring up the day after the election. It grew as time passed. It grows still, given how quickly the Dems will arrest people for merely being among those who believe it. And of course, as you point out, those like Hillary continue to believe 2016 was a stolen election. Morons like John Lewis refused to attend Trump's inauguration, as he refused Bush 43's as well. Each GOP win was contested to one degree or another and most often, if mentioned at all by the leftist media, was regarded as just and noble actions on the part of those Dem morons who did so without basis.
But as to rage...there's far more from the left about those who expressed any about the election, which is an ironic truth. And of course, again, the rage we're now seeing over the just SCOTUS overturning of Roe is just the latest example.
And BTW, to repeat the truth...the "Great Replacement Theory"??? Promoted and sought by the left, and only acknowledged with dismay by the right. That some wackjobs also see it and use it as an excuse to engage in mass casualty shootings doesn't make them "right-wing", no matter how badly lying lefties like Dan so desperately need them to be.
Art,
I think the problem with the Great Replacement Theory, is that there enough DFL politicians advocating for immigration policies that sound really similar to the theory, that it's east to conflate that actual policies being proposed with the Great Replacement Theory. From what I've read, the theory is pretty far out. Yet, I've hard plenty of DFL folks advocating for things like fast track, unlimited, full citizenship to illegals. Of course when you add that to the attitude behind LBJ's cynical advocacy for civil rights, (If we pass this the niggers will vote for Democrats for 200 years) or words to that effect. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the fast track, unlimited, full citizenship folks are assuming that the immigrants will feel indebted to them and vote for them in perpetuity. Now, anyone with half a brain knows that doing something like offering unearned citizenship in exchange for votes would be bribery, and we know the DFL would never try to buy votes. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, just ignore Biden trying to buy votes with the paltry gas tax holiday.
Tucker Carlson ran a montage of Dems and Dem media hacks commenting on the coming demographic change due to the influx of foreigners (legal or not) and what a good thing that will be for some reason. This goes back to Biden's senatorial days, if I recall his specific snippet among them. My point is that to then have ANYONE on the right accept that premise, how does it become a "conspiracy theory" as opposed to a straight up legit conspiracy to see it come to pass, as their many border destroying efforts demonstrate? And of course, there's absolutely no doubt how conservative Christians...and most specifically WHITE conservative Christians...are constantly targeted by the left as the bullseye. Dan, for example, can't wait to see "my kind" die off. To what end, if not to more easily enact their sick culture and to supplant that which does the most good?
The "GRT"...regardless of how it is presented and by whom...is merely a response to what is actually happening. Again, it is no "theory" at all, but portrayed as insanity by the very people who need as many people looking elsewhere as possible. It's how they do things when reality interferes...they deflect and distract. That's what the Jan 6 hearings are all about. To distract and deflect.
As to your "long list" of presumed bad behavior by those on the left, I think you're speaking of the mostly peaceful protests such as in Ferguson, MO. From Wikipedia, starting with the day of the shooting of ANOTHER black man, Michael Brown, by police...
"On August 9, the evening of the shooting,
residents had created a makeshift memorial of flowers and candles in the spot where Brown died.
[Peaceful protest/remembrance - DT]
According to Mother Jones, an unidentified policeman
allowed their dog to urinate on the memorial and
police vehicles later crushed the memorial.
[provoking violence on the part of the police, not the protesters - DT]
Mother Jones reported that these incidents inflamed tensions among bystanders, according to Missourian state representative Sharon Pace, who told the reporters for the magazine, "That made people in the crowd mad and it made me mad."
The FIRST violent provocation (setting aside the shooting of Brown, a long line of black men killed by police officers and lynchers in our nation's real history), was from the police.
Is that the violence and rage you're speaking of? Were the police officers liberal?
Next...
"Some people began looting businesses, vandalizing vehicles, and confronting police officers who sought to block off access to several areas of the city. At least 12 businesses were looted or vandalized and a QuikTrip convenience store and gas station was set on fire, as well as a Little Caesars."
WHO were the looters? Liberals who were enraged? What were they enraged about? Was the rage justified?
Do you have ANY proof that these were liberals acting out liberal rage with no just cause? Please present it.
"The Quiktrip looting was captured on video by activist Umar Lee leading to over 30 arrests."
Ah, one of the peaceful protesters helped identify the looters to help the police capture the looters. Who were they? Were they avowed liberals who were just enraged? What were their motivations?
Answers?
"Many windows were broken and several nearby businesses closed on Monday. The people arrested face charges of assault, burglary, and theft."
Again, were these liberals acting out in a rage? Or were they simply opportunists and criminals, taking advantage of a situation?
"Police used a variety of equipment, including riot gear and helicopters, to disperse the crowd by 2:00 a.m. Two police officers suffered minor injuries during the events."
The police responded to what has been noted to be a MOSTLY peaceful protest with weapons of war. Is that provocative? Can you see how it would be to the protesters?
At what point do you want to hold the police accountable for provoking stone and water bottles being thrown at them IN RESPONSE to their tear gas and tactical gear and flashbomb tactics?
Like that. SHOW me somewhere with data that these acts of bad behavior/looting, etc were random instances of rage by specifically liberals who were just mindlessly angry and violent VS some peaceful protesters who were pushed and pushed and harmed and provoked by the police who responded in kind (but at a much smaller scale, since they didn't have the militarized weaponry the police had) VS simply opportunists and criminals who were attempting to take advantage of a situation for self-enrichment.
I'll wait for you to provide ANY support to say that 100, 1,000, 10,000... or even ONE of these violent actions were acts of rage specifically by liberals who were unprovoked.
Until you have DATA to support this claim, I don't give it any more credence than if you were saying that the unicorn monkeys were secretly invading churches and lighting the baptism pools on fire. You see, gossip, slander and unsupported innuendo is fairly useless, as far as I'm concerned.
Dan,
Your ability to belatedly, selectively, cherry pick the long list of left wing carnage apart and act as if you can somehow justify/excuse/rationalize the burning and looting that was part and parcel of everyone of those riots is impressive. The reality is,that by any objective measure, the costs of left wing riots (money/lives/injuries/harm to innocents) exponentially out strip the J6. Hell, at least the J6 protesters were doing their damage to the people who actually bear some responsibility for the shape of the country.
I guess you missed the links I provided with all sorts of data.
This fantasy that these riots weren't from people on the left is pathetic. The fact that you simultaneously tell us that riots from the "oppressed" are the natural state of affairs, then tell us that all those riots were "opportunists" and outside agitators. Is simply bullshit. I watched hours of live/local TV coverage, the folks looting Chicago/Lake liqueur store were local leftists.
The excuses are amusing, but I'm a finite man, with finite time, and I'm not going to waste it trying to rebut your excuses for the police responding to rioters who wouldn't disperse or peaceful protesters who chose to violate the law.
Y'all burned and looted multiple poor neighborhoods in cities that are as blue as any where in the country.
Craig...
"Your ability to belatedly, selectively, cherry pick the long list of left wing carnage apart and act as if you can somehow justify/excuse/rationalize the burning and looting that was part and parcel of everyone of those riots is impressive."
And...
"This fantasy that these riots weren't from people on the left is pathetic."
And...
"This fantasy that these riots weren't from people on the left is pathetic."
Etc
Don't tell me what your guesses are. Prove it.
Maybe some of these instances are from liberals. What's pathetic, is white conservative guys with NO expertise expecting us just to concede the point to them with no proof. We don't trust you. We don't care who you think did it. Show us the data or shut up.
Not sure what your failing to understand about this. if you want to make a claim, support it. Basic adult life.
Once again, law enforcement officers and agencies and experts do not identify liberals as a major threat to violence in the US. They identify conservative white men and white supremacists as THE major threat of violence. That's the simple reality. Start by pulling the jagged log out of your eye and make room for your brain and then, and only then, start talking about specks it's specs in other's eyes.
Dan simply lies, and among the most egregious here is referring to Michael Brown and "another black man shot by police", when the truer description is, a man shot by an officer after being stopped for robbing a store and then trying to fight with the cop. Or, we could be more concise and say, "another punk" justly shot by a cop. Those who rioted over this were NOT in any way justified, as they did so under the false premise Brown was surrendering and shot for reasons of racism and police brutality. These "protesters" didn't even bother to get the facts before daring to protest anything. They simply bought once again into the lie they're targeted by racist cops and gosh darn it that needs to stop.
Personally, pretending the story of the police dog pissing on a memorial to Brown actually happened, what kind of moron erects a memorial to a thug, anyway? If my brother acted the way Brown did, or Floyd did, or Martin did, or Garner did, I would not allow any memorial erected on the street to stand. I'd tear it down myself out of shame that my brother was a thug and died because of it.
But that's because unlike Dan, I don't listen to the wrong black voices.
Rage and conservative white supremacists...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/03/us/mom-tries-to-help-extremist-son-sidner/index.html
It just keeps going on and will keep going on and when liberals like me say something, it's not going to matter. It's going to to be people like you, Craig, to see the light and start speaking out against this actual threat and stop making comparisons to black protesters.
There's no serious comparison.
"Don't tell me what your guesses are. Prove it."
1. (To use your frequent claim) The statements are self evident. The issues being rioted over were issues that the left supports. As you point out 90%+ of blacks are DFL (left wing) supporters, while the vast majority of the rioters were black (per TV coverage).
2. If you continually refuse to prove your claims, why should anyone take your demands seriously.
3. Even the left wing media, refers to the riots of 2020 as "BLM riots".
4. CHAZ/CHOP were based on left wing principles/agendas.
This notion that the extensive list of riots above (and others not listed) were somehow not riots around left wing issues, by leftists is absurd. The pathetic clams that the riots were all "plants" or "agitators" (as if there aren't left wing agitators" or whatever are laughable.
What a pathetic joke.
We're still left with ONE right wing "riot", against multiple left wing riots.
"There's no serious comparison."
You're right. There's no serious comparison between one anecdotal story about one person who "embraced hate", or a couple hundred mostly peaceful protesters who caused a small amount of property damage, to thousands of people burning and looting between 2014 and 2020. Or between these small incidents and taking over the center of a city for months. You are correct. The damage caused by leftists rioting is much more serious.
FYI, if you are going to continue to insist that the voting patterns of black voters (90%+ voting for the left wing DFL) prove that blacks overwhelming support left wing programs and positions, then you can't deny the reality that a similar percentage of black rioters are left wing. It's basic statistics.
Art,
I think the problem is that Dan really believes the narrative. He might be one of the people who believes the lie that between 1 and 10 thousand unarmed, innocent, black people are killed by police each year. I really think that he believes that it's possible to disconnect violent actions by protesters, from the response by police. I think that he really believes that several years of attacks on, threats against, and violence against police who were doing their jobs is completely disconnected from how police react to an aggressive crowd threatening them. I think he really believes that decades of DFL "oppression" in cities like MPLS make riots inevitable, and that the rioters are justified. He might personally disagree with their methods, but he's clearly prepared to rationalize the rioting. The problem is that the (primarily local) news coverage doesn't support his fantasies.
Also you address the reality that the vast majority of the poster children for these left wing riots were less than upstanding citizens.
This notion that "hate=rage" or that people with vile beliefs are full of "rage" is just not supported by reality.
So, we can see your answer is, "No. I have NO WAY of proving what I'm claiming. I THINK IN MY HEAD that it must be liberal black folk doing the rioting as a liberal talking point... BUT I have literally NOTHING to support my claim."
Got it.
Craig... "We're still left with ONE right wing "riot", against multiple left wing riots."
No, we're left with law enforcement officials recognizing that conservative extremists are a real threat to the nation based on the DATA they have and what we've seen with multiple real world attacks in the US from people we know to be affiliated with conservative worldviews.
We have no serious real world threat from left wing extremists.
That's what we're left with.
That, and the reality that you continue to support the right wing extremists by portraying them as a less serious threat than left wing extremists. We see who you're siding with and defending.
Open your eyes and see what the rest of us see.
It's not too late to save your credibility.
Craig...
"He might personally disagree with their methods, but he's clearly prepared to rationalize the rioting."
I and Dr King recognize the reality that oppressed people will eventually strike back. Do you think King was wrong to recognize that reality?
In what world is recognizing the reality of situation in some way defending it?
Those who oppress (in our nation, it's long been white conservative men, by and large, and their women allies) WILL eventually, by THEIR oppression, see a rioting or violent response to THEIR oppression. It's human nature.
Do you think that the oppressed who respond to the oppressive violence are to blame for the scenario, or were the violent oppressors?
Do you think the abused women who lash out in violence against their abusers are to blame for the scenario, or was the abusive husband?
Open your eyes. Get on the side of Dr King and just try to recognize reality and THEN you and I can be in a place to fight against violence.
More white wing rage:
""Gonna come protest in front of your house this weekend. We know where your family is and we're going to get you, you little c***sucker," another man says, adding, "Gonna get your wife, gonna get your kids."
"You're going to swing for f***ing treason, you communist f***," a third caller tells the congressman."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-rep-kinzinger-publishes-unhinged-voicemail-threats-left-by-trump-supporters-173631901.html
Marshal's racism is showing. He said...
"referring to Michael Brown and "another black man shot by police", when the truer description is, a man shot by an officer after being stopped for robbing a store and then trying to fight with the cop. Or, we could be more concise and say, "another punk" justly shot by a cop."
What black people are often saying (just read or listen to their words) and what I'm hearing them say is that, "WHY IS IT that time after time, a mass killer who is white - like Payton Gendron, Dylann Roof Nicholas Schock, this killer yesterday, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc - can be gently arrested by the police, but a black man or woman wanted for writing a bad check or for selling loose cigarettes, or for having a legal gun in his possession, or BEING ASLEEP IN HER OWN BED can be killed. THAT's the injustice that black people are writing about, talking about in church and in the community.
https://newsone.com/playlist/white-arrested-with-by-police/
For years folx like Dan have bitched that racist white folks don't care about social justice issues. They've also abused King's quote about riots being the language of the unheard. So now Dan wants us to believe that he's acknowledging that the riots since 2014 have been the oppressed fighting for justice following King's rubric, and that blacks are monolithically committed to left wing/progressive/liberal causes, while simultaneously NOT believing what we watched with our own eyes. Those thousands of (by your definition) left wing blacks that we literally watched burn and loot multiple cities, they have no agency in this at all. They are either speaking the language of the unheard, or they've been led astray and duped by a bunch of crafty "right wing" opportunists and agitators. These people apparently sophisticated enough to know that they've been duped.
Oh, the hell with this. The notion that Dan is literally trying to argue that these folks who he's described as fighting for "justice", are simultaneously not left wing is simply absurd. So what if the mainstream media calls the riots "BLM Riots", the mainstream media isn't left wing (well 2% of them aren't). Of all the stupid things Dan's tried to bullshit, this notion that the riots around race and "justice" are somehow NOT left wing riots is just stupid.
I guess calling something self evident as if that settles the issue, only works when Dan does it.
If these riots weren't left wing inspired, then who is responsible?
I guess denying reality is now a rational tactic. More than 10 left wing riots/occupations/etc since 2014, and only one right wing incident.
If we include the Occupy protests and the amount of "peaceful" damage they left in their wake, we could probably up the damage from left wing activities.
"I and Dr King recognize the reality that oppressed people will eventually strike back. Do you think King was wrong to recognize that reality?"
Wow, Dan puts himself before King, pretty gutsy. I think that it's a kind of banal truism, and not particularly profound. All one has to do is look at history to see multiple examples of "the oppressed" rising up against their oppressors. Just because King made a catchy slogan out of rebellion, doesn't really mean anything. Are you suggesting that the riots we've seen since 2014 are examples of "oppressed people rising up"?
"In what world is recognizing the reality of situation in some way defending it?"
1. Are you "recognizing the reality" that the riots between 2014 and 2021 were examples of "the oppressed" rising up against their oppressors?
2. As I've put it multiple times, you can call it defending/rationalizing/excusing/justifying, or any number of other things. I don't care what word you use, the intent seems the same.
3. If it's "human nature" to rise up against oppressors in violence, than how can your possible condemn "human nature"? If it's "human nature" then why wouldn't you be encouraging humans to act according to their "human nature"?
4. "Do you think that the oppressed who respond to the oppressive violence are to blame for the scenario, or were the violent oppressors?" I think that all human beings have agency and responsibility for their actions. Are you suggesting that the arsonists, rioters, looters, and those who injured others in the riots mentioned above are "to blame" for their actions?
5. "Do you think the abused women who lash out in violence against their abusers are to blame for the scenario, or was the abusive husband?" I believe that if one acts in self defense, then the legal consequences of one's actions are mitigated or excused. I believe if the "reaction" is not directly related to the "action", that the issue gets more complicated. Are you claiming that the thousands of rioters/looters/arsonists/thieves/etc that we watched destroy multiple neighborhoods are the direct, specific, analog to an abused wife?
6. Because King was such a moral exemplar.
Still pretending like anecdotes aren't mirrored or exceeded by the same thing from the left. I guess your "Twitter behavior" excuse only applies to one side.
OHHHHHHHHHHHH, Art is a racist.
Answering Craig's questions/points... at least some of them.
"1. Are you "recognizing the reality" that the riots between 2014 and 2021 were examples of "the oppressed" rising up against their oppressors?"
I'm saying we literally don't know, by and large, who committed any looting/rioting NOR their motivations. I don't know and any time I've asked you to support your claim, you've made it clear you don't know and can't support your hunch.
COULD it be some left leaning people? Could be. WE DON'T KNOW. COULD they be some opportunists, apart from any political leanings? Could be. WE DON'T KNOW.
That's just the reality of it.
"2. As I've put it multiple times, you can call it defending/rationalizing/excusing/justifying, or any number of other things. I don't care what word you use, the intent seems the same."
The intent on my part is to be accurate about what we know and what we don't know. Racist or simply uninformed presuppositions and guesses don't mean a thing to me. Not sure why that's odd to you.
IF this tiny minority of lootings DOES turn out to be from actual progressive black (or other) people who are outraged with historic police abuses that seem unending to so many of our black citizens, well, then the explanation would be that they feel like they've been abused and oppressed til they can stand no more and feel like, "what the hell, let's fight back mindlessly..." In which case, IF that's the case, it's an example of abused/oppressed people pushing back with some limited violence (not the violence of the white supremacists that is a deadly threat according to law enforcement officials, but still, violence) that is rising because of historic oppression. And the ROOT blame, in that situation, are the literal oppressors.
"3. If it's "human nature" to rise up against oppressors in violence, than how can your possible condemn "human nature"? If it's "human nature" then why wouldn't you be encouraging humans to act according to their "human nature"?"
Because not all things "human nature" are rational or work to the ultimate good.
If liberals DO respond with actual violence (again, not the violence of the known conservative white supremacists who are identified by LEO as THE serious threat to our nation of overt violence and killing, but still, violence) and the result is, as King noted, that the oppressed lose the support of the majority who don't want to see them oppressed, then that violence (whose root cause is from the oppressors, keep in mind) is undermining a better world for them.
But it's hard to blame women, black people, LGBTQ people who see rights slipping away from them saying, "Respond peacefully and nothing changes. Respond with violence and nothing changes, but at least we got some revenge and our pound of flesh..." I GET that frustration that so many black people, women and LGBTQ folks (and others) are expressing, but STILL, it's not in the long time best interest of the oppressed to respond to the oppression with violence.
It's ~1/3 of the nation that supports or leans towards supporting the conservative white supremacist "MAGA" types. We have the majority... UNTIL we start responding with violence. This is what I counsel any of my liberal friends who are spouting off violent rhetoric (even if they don't pursue violence in the way that so many conservative white extremists are doing). EVEN THOUGH, the 1/3 has a voice that is outsized thanks to our system that has given more power to older, whiter, more conservative populations than the nation at large. Or only hope is to stay steady and wait for the conservatives to die out or be won over and the system changes away from one so apartheid-like.
What's hard to understand about any of that?
Craig...
" I think that all human beings have agency and responsibility for their actions. Are you suggesting that the arsonists, rioters, looters, and those who injured others in the riots mentioned above are "to blame" for their actions?"
They have their own blame, whoever they are and whatever their reasons were. BUT, oppressed people striking back are responding to the oppression and the oppression was unjust and the oppression was the root cause. We must not lose sight of that. Or try to hide that reality.
The oppressors/abusers are the root cause.
Repeat that over and over until you believe it and understand it.
Craig...
"Are you claiming that the thousands of rioters/looters/arsonists/thieves/etc that we watched destroy multiple neighborhoods are the direct, specific, analog to an abused wife?"
It's a comparable analog, not a direct analog. For one thing, the abused wife is a single person in a single instance of unjust abuse. An abused people are not directly comparable to the individual instance. But it's comparable.
Are you claiming that it isn't?
Craig...
"6. Because King was such a moral exemplar. "
Good God in heaven. Yes. Yes, he was. I KNOW that the racists and oppressors don't really believe it, but yes, King was a great moral exemplar. He was not a perfect man, of course, but then, no one is. What are you suggesting? That because King probably had some (many?) affairs, that is not a great moral exemplar?
Then you fail to understand morality as it relates to human lives. And grace. By that measure, King David (A man after God's own heart) was no moral exemplar.
But King had more morality in his little finger than his opposition did at his worst, most evil day of his life.
Of course. Do you doubt this?
"OHHHHHHHHHHHH, Art is a racist."
But I AM, Craig! I hate white-guilt "progressives" who pretend to be Christian telling me I'm a racist when I speak the truth about the punks he defends. I'm not supposed to hate anybody, but it seems like he really wants me to hate white pantywaists like him. At the very least, I'm incredibly disgusted by frauds like him!
"Are you suggesting that the riots we've seen since 2014 are examples of "oppressed people rising up"?"
That's exactly what he's doing. He has no legitimate basis for doing so, but only the alleged anecdotal stories he hears from the black voices he insists we need to hear...again and again without questioning them in any way.
"What black people are often saying (just read or listen to their words) and what I'm hearing them say is that, "WHY IS IT that time after time, a mass killer who is white - like Payton Gendron, Dylann Roof Nicholas Schock, this killer yesterday, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc - can be gently arrested by the police, but a black man or woman wanted for writing a bad check or for selling loose cigarettes, or for having a legal gun in his possession, or BEING ASLEEP IN HER OWN BED can be killed. THAT's the injustice that black people are writing about, talking about in church and in the community."
This is really easy to answer. Of the three dudes Dan mentioned, none of them attacked the cops who arrested them. Schock might have struggled, or he was gassed from being restrained by citizens until the cops arrived. Because of the myth of the racist cop is one upon which way too many blacks...particularly in the inner cities...have been raised, they too often become immediately confrontational. What's more, most of them are already known criminal types eager to up their street cred by not taking crap from cops. Rather than follow Chris Rock's recommendations, the do just the opposite and either get returned fire or a well deserved beating for being assholes. THAT is the truth and unfortunately, too many in the black community choose to ignore this very easy to learn lesson.
Even Breonna Taylor died as a result of her boyfriend shooting first. To bring her up in these discussions demonstrates the level of deceit and distortion of the perceptions of too many in the black community as well as asshat white progressives who are just liars.
"Answering Craig's questions/points... at least some of them."
Some, but not all. I guess that's an improvement over the answering few or none of late.
Interesting that you "don't know" anything about the rioters in question despite their signs, shirts, demographic make up, etc, but you know every exact detail about the "right wing" rioters. What an interesting fund of knowledge.
"And the ROOT blame, in that situation, are the literal oppressors."
Excellent point. The rioters aren't to blame for their actions, have no agency, no responsibility, and are simply following their human nature. But you're not excusing/rationalizing/defending/justifying their actions.
"But it's hard to blame women, black people, LGBTQ people who see rights slipping away from them saying, "Respond peacefully and nothing changes. Respond with violence and nothing changes, but at least we got some revenge and our pound of flesh..." I GET that frustration that so many black people, women and LGBTQ folks (and others) are expressing, but STILL, it's not in the long time best interest of the oppressed to respond to the oppression with violence."
The rioters aren't to blame for their actions, have no agency, no responsibility, and are simply following their human nature. But you're not excusing/rationalizing/defending/justifying their actions.
"What's hard to understand about any of that?"
Absolutely nothing, it's exactly what I would have predicted you'd write. You admit your ignorance, then you excusing/rationalizing/defending/justifying their actions.
Craig...
"Absolutely nothing, it's exactly what I would have predicted you'd write."
And...
"The rioters aren't to blame for their actions, have no agency, no responsibility, and are simply following their human nature. But you're not excusing/rationalizing/defending/justifying their actions. "
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I WROTE. I didn't say people who riot weren't to blame or to be held accountable.
You read my words but fail to understand.
And on and on and on and on.
Perhaps that's why you can read what many black people say and fail to understand their words and meaning.
Perhaps that's why you can read the words of the Bible and fail to understand plain meanings.
Given your track record of so consistently failing to understand what I've written (while all the time writing things like "It's exactly what I would have predicted you'd write..." citing words that I DIDN'T WRITE!), I would just strongly counsel you to stop assuming your reading comprehension is sound.
"They have their own blame, whoever they are and whatever their reasons were. BUT, oppressed people striking back are responding to the oppression and the oppression was unjust and the oppression was the root cause. We must not lose sight of that. Or try to hide that reality."
In other words, the reality is, that the rioters are to blame for their actions. "BUT", they're really not to blame. The "oppressors" (who strangely all happen to be left wing themselves" are really to blame. The rioters aren't to blame for their actions, have no agency, no responsibility, and are simply following their human nature. But you're not excusing/rationalizing/defending/justifying their actions.
"The oppressors/abusers are the root cause."
You repeating this excuse doesn't make it True. It's just your excusing/rationalizing/defending/justifying their actions.
"It's a comparable analog, not a direct analog. For one thing, the abused wife is a single person in a single instance of unjust abuse. An abused people are not directly comparable to the individual instance. But it's comparable."
Interesting that you'd suggest comparing a single. specific, abuser who is abusing a single, specific abused is a good comparison for a mob of hundreds/thousands of rioters who may or may not have actually been abused. Especially since those rioters chose to primarily take their rage out on others who've been "abused", NOT on their DFL "oppressors". As usual. a shitty analogy.
"Are you claiming that it isn't?"
Given that you can't point to one single rioter who was taking out their rage on one specific person who specifically "oppressed" them, but instead mostly took out their rage on others who've (theoretically) "oppressed" them. Then these "oppressed" rioters (in a general sense because who knows how many of them vote) went and voted their "oppressors" back into office to fix the "oppression" they rioted against.
"What are you suggesting? That because King probably had some (many?) affairs, that is not a great moral exemplar?"
I'm suggesting the for someone who did great injustice to his wife, and oppressed her, to be held up a some great moral exemplar is perhaps overstating the case. Especially given his lack of remorse or repentance (as far as we know).
"Then you fail to understand morality as it relates to human lives. And grace. By that measure, King David (A man after God's own heart) was no moral exemplar."
Except that David showed public remorse and repentance. Despite the name, King was no King David.
"But King had more morality in his little finger than his opposition did at his worst, most evil day of his life."
Please provide objective proof of this fantastical claim.
"Of course. Do you doubt this?"
Interesting, a variation of your "self evident" proof strategy. As if simply saying "Of course" somehow makes your unproven claim True.
Until you prove your claim, I'll doubt it.
Craig...
"Given that you can't point to one single rioter who was taking out their rage on one specific person who specifically "oppressed" them, but instead mostly took out their rage on others..."
1. We don't know who these rioters are, by and large, nor their reasons for rioting. Just as a point of fact.
2. You are presuming that they are, largely, "left wing" rioters and that they're full of rage, correct?
3. You don't like the analogy to an abused person striking back because I "can't point to a specific person" they're striking back against, in retaliation for that oppression.
IF (IF IF IF IF) the rioters are largely "left wing" (and again, entirely unproven at this point), answer this: Is that what you THINK I was suggesting with my analogy? That the rioters (IF they were left wing/liberal types) were trying to strike back against individual oppressors?
Is that what you think I was suggesting?
If you recognize that's not the case, what DO you think I'm suggesting? Think it through. You can do this.
Or how about this: With your unproven presumption that these were left wing rioters who are enraged and thus, acting out, why do YOU think they are enraged? What are they lashing out against?
We know that the real and identified threat of conservative white wing anger and violence is coming from a place of feeling that they are being "replaced" and they want "their" America back. In other words, it coming from a place of racist and cultural presumption and arrogance, antipathy and outright hatred for "the Others" who they perceive are replacing them. This is a known point about the deadly right wing rage that is out there, leading to so many of these actual mass shootings and deadly violence.
But why is it, do you think, these presumed (by you) liberal protesters are rioting?
Let me tell you some facts about rage:
LGBTQ folks ARE enraged and frightened. They are deeply concerned that their rights - which have been hard-won for them and at some deal of real personal risk - are at risk of being taken away. They are ANGRY and living in fear. I've personally had three friends get married in the last couple of weeks - speeding up their wedding plans out of fear of having that liberty taken from them. They're working on wills and legal paperwork now, while it's all still legal. They're considering if they have to move from one of the more oppressive states where it's less and less welcoming and even dangerous.
Do you understand this very real fear and rage?
Women and their allies are enraged right now. They are being told that THEY can no longer make THEIR medical decisions because some religious zealots have decided that THEIR RELIGIOUS HUNCHES trump women's liberty and rights. Even conservative women are outraged about this. They're angry and want things to change. They are worried that, should their 10 year old daughter be raped and impregnated, they will be denied the option of making THEIR OWN medical decisions about what to do. This is already happening.
Do you understand this real fear and rage?
Black people are often enraged. They live in a nation that has always actively, systematically devalued them and limited their rights. From the outright oppression of slavery, to the outright oppression of Jim Crow days, to the outright terrorism of policing and lynching back in OUR lifetimes, to the more systemic remnants of this oppressive racist reality. They see that their sons and daughters are more likely to be imprisoned, killed by police, live in poverty than the sons and daughters of white families.
Do you understand this real fear and rage?
If not, why not?
"1. We don't know who these rioters are, by and large, nor their reasons for rioting. Just as a point of fact."
You're ignorance and inability to engage in deductive reasoning isn't the issue here.
Are American black folks not 90%+ left wing?
Is it reasonable to conclude that in any large gathering of American black folks, that the large majority of them are left wing based on demographics and voting patterns?
Were there significant numbers of American black folks who engaged in the rioys listed above?
Given that CHAZ/CHOP was majority white folks, are you really suggesting that the CHAZ/CHOP folks were not left wing?
"2. You are presuming that they are, largely, "left wing" rioters and that they're full of rage, correct?"
1. I'm concluding that there is some degree of "rage" inherent in people who burn, loot, attack, and destroy things that don't belong to them.
2. I'm concluding from their shirts, placards, posters, hats, chants, and interviews that it is unlikely that they were right wing people spouting left wing talking points.
"3. You don't like the analogy to an abused person striking back because I "can't point to a specific person" they're striking back against, in retaliation for that oppression."
Yes. In your analogy it's (usually) a 1:1 ration abuser to victim. In the case of the riots, you'd be hard pressed to find any specific individual, specifically oppressed, by any specific individual in a position of power. Now if you want to make the argument that the entire DFL controlled system is effectively one person, that's fine, but your analogy still fails. The rioters didn't primarily destroy things that belonged to the DFL "oppressors" (one police station), they primarily destroyed private property owned by fellow BIPOC and immigrants. The "oppressors" didn't suffer (they all hired armed private security), thir fellow "oppressed" were the ones they harmed. It would be like an abused wife, killing her husband's co worker, because her husband was abusing her.
"Is that what you THINK I was suggesting with my analogy? That the rioters (IF they were left wing/liberal types) were trying to strike back against individual oppressors?"
I was thinking that it's a shitty analogy. That is one reason why it's shitty.
"Is that what you think I was suggesting?"
I have no idea what you were suggesting, your shitty analogy sucked so bad that your hidden meaning stayed hidden. But please, ask the same question multiple times in the same comment.
"If you recognize that's not the case, what DO you think I'm suggesting?"
Don't know, don't care. It's all completely off of the topic of this post.
"With your unproven presumption that these were left wing rioters who are enraged and thus, acting out, why do YOU think they are enraged?"
Don't know specifically. It could be because they are in the majority of people who believe the lie that between 1000-10,000 unarmed, innocent, black people are killed by cops each year.
"What are they lashing out against?"
Apparently the same DFL controlled local and state governments that they re elect every election.
"Let me tell you some facts about rage:"
Apparently I can't stop you from continuing down your off topic rant.
"Do you understand this very real fear and rage?"
Do I understand that left wing politicians are stoking this fear and rage for political purposes, and some people might be buying in to it, I guess.
"Do you understand this real fear and rage?"
Strangely enough, I keep seeing significant numbers of women who actually understand what's happened and are not buying into the fearmongering and the attempts of the DFL to gain a political advantage from this.
"Do you understand this real fear and rage?"
The common thread through all of these rhetorical questions is that they assume that all "LQBTQXYZPDQ", all women, and all blacks, are all equally fearful and expressing rage. Do I perfectly understand every possible permutation on the spectrum, no. I'm one finite human. Do I understand that there is a spectrum and that most of those groups aren't at the extremes,yes? Do I understand that between the Biden recession, rampant inflation, shortages in stores, the negative repercussions/increases in crime brought on by the "Defund the Police" folks, and hundreds of black people being shot by other black people in the streets of DFL controlled cities, that there are plenty of things for folks to be worried about.
"If not, why not?"
Who says I don't?
I feel like I need to repeat what should be blindingly obvious. This post is about a narrative that is prevalent among the MSM and much of APL social media. The narrative claims that there is some sort of vast, generalized, far reaching, "rage" among conservatives. Yet, I don't see it. Sure there are individuals, or small groups that might show "rage", but not among the majority of mainstream conservatives. There was a fair amount of coverage of some sort of "right wing" group who marched around somewhere to celebrate Independence Day. Now all of the pictures and video I saw showed a small group of people carrying flags, marching in straight ranks and files, in complete silence, at a normal walking/marching pace. While I probably wouldn't agree with their message, if I cared enough to research it, I definitely agree with their 1st amendment rights to peaceably assemble being exercised. Yet somehow this quiet/silent, controlled, peaceful, parade, is being characterized as representing all conservatives and as an example of this alleged "rage" that the narrative supposes.
Ultimately, I can and have given plenty of examples of left wing rage (or the appearance thereof), simply as a counterpoint to this narrative. What I haven't seen is any examples of this broad based, widespread, generalized, "rage" everyone is talking about.
Strangely enough, Dan just gave s stirring (if irrelevant and off topic) defense of left wing rage and of how necessary it important it is.
I guess we've circled back to the old double standard we see from the APL. X is bad when we accuse the other guys of doing it, but it's justified when our guys do it.
Craig...
"American black folks not 90%+ left wing?"
No. Black people in polls identify strongly more conservative. In this poll, it suggests 25 identify as conservative and 43% as moderate. It's just that they vote overwhelmingly as Democrats because of the policy positions and general racist-leaning attitudes of the GOP.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-many-black-voters-are-democrats-even-when-they-arent-liberal/amp/
Dan likes to use the word "oppression" (and it's variants) as if it makes his weak case any stronger. It does not given the word is so amorphous as used by him. But then, ambiguity has always been Dan's friend when he seeks to defend the indefensible. What's worse, in too many (if not all) cases, Dan relies on what some black people tell him in determining who has suffered "oppression" and to what degree (if any). He doesn't confirm those stories in any way...not that he's described here...and he blatantly refuses to acknowledge the details of any cases to which those black voices might point. Again I refer to the various cases of thugs being shot by cops after refusing to comply with lawful commands, and also the frequency with which cops are met with combative suspects.
Dan likes to pretend that "oppression" is an actual thing in this day and age in the United States. And while it's true we see oppressive behaviors by his side of the ideological divide far more frequently than from the right, he continues with the fraud. He likes to refer to "historically oppressed" as if it justifies or rationalizes criminal behaviors from those he would still regard as "oppressed". But the past means nothing when the oppression of the past is...in the past. It can't be stressed enough that if true stories of oppression are rampant, then why are only cases of criminal behavior resulting in the deaths or injuries to suspects those which are presented to prove the point? Where are real tales of innocent people minding their own business until racist cops roll up to harass? Such cases, to the extent they event exist, are certainly isolated events to the extent that pretending they're justification for continuing the fantasy of "oppression" are no better than outright lies...sincerely believed or not. True Christians who fancy themselves champions of the cause are not helping by allowing the fantasy to persist.
As to what political persuasion are those who riot, burn, loot and assault during protests we're to believe are otherwise peaceful, Dan needs to provide proof that they are victims of agents provocateurs rather than just the worst of the leftist mob doing what the worst of the leftist mobs do. I would hope that the majority of leftist protesters and marchers are sincere in their desire for positive change, even while being wrong about the source of their misery. But to pretend that a portion of them aren't exploiting those false perceptions to rationalize their criminality is rank bullshit.
When Dan speaks of "oppression"...historically or otherwise...he's intending to lie once again. It's what he does.
Interesting, Dan wants to have his cake (blacks overwhelmingly vote DFL) and eat it too (they're really conservative). Impressive that you found one poll to feed your narrative.
Strangely enough, in literally every city where riots occurred the "oppressors" who wield the power and who have for decades all have one thing in common. The capitol (D) after their name on the ballot. But if you want to argue that these "conservative" black folks consistently vote for liberal democrats because the agree with liberal policies oven though those democrats are the one's who've been "oppressing" them and those policies have led to the current state of urban American cities, I won't try to stop you.
Art,
Obviously "oppress" and it's variants convey a certain emotional message when used. The problem with these types of terms (oppress, racism, anythingphobe, and the like) is that they are so overused and thrown out in all situation that they now mean everything and therefore nothing. If one was to place the "oppression" we see in the US on a continuum and compare it to the real oppression worldwide, I suspect that you'd see the US on the extreme end of the less oppressive axis of the graph. As a matter of fact, the US rates pretty high on the "freedom index". But if you live in a world where your biggest area of "oppression" is that your right to unlimited, elective, abortion will be decided legislatively rather than by judicial fiat, I can see how that's much worse than being killed because you're a Christian or some such nonsense.
To be fair, this need to feel "oppressed" is IMO much more a result of our lifestyle as a country where the poorest among us are considered middle class or better on a worldwide scale. In a world where entire countries live on $2 a day or less, being oppressed in America for the majority of "the poor" means having a place to live, the ability to control the climate in your home, indoor plumbing, at least one car, access to public transit, TV, cell phones, and all sorts of things considered luxuries by the majority of the world's poor.
When "we don't get our way" is translated as "oppression", it doesn't look good. The fact that a bunch of old, white, liberals like Dan are pushing this fear of "oppression" doesn't look good. This notion that it's only conservatives who believe their "conspiracy theories" is bullshit. The majority of liberals believe that between 1000-10,000 unarmed innocent black men are killed by police. The definition of "mass shooting" keeps getting changed without telling anyone to move the narrative.
Dan just needs these people to be "oppressed" so he and his old, white' liberal buddies can position themselves as the protectors of the "oppressed" who just can't do it by themselves. Ignoring the fact that cities run by liberals with liberal policies are the worst places in the country.
Since you're responding to Dan's off topic bullshit, I'll indulge it.
Craig...
"The common thread through all of these rhetorical questions is that they assume that all "LQBTQXYZPDQ", all women, and all blacks, are all equally fearful and expressing rage."
Why? Why does it "assume" this? Says who?
I didn't say, nor do I assume this.
LGBTQ folks, women, racial minority groups are not monolithic groups of course and I never said that. Of course. Maybe it's my fault. You read my words like, "women and their allies" and maybe you presumed I meant ALL women... but then, why would you think that's what I meant? Do you think that I think ALL women, etc, are opposed to the GOP? That's wholly irrational.
But the reality not all of those in these groups are alarmed, horrified and/or angry does not change the reality that large numbers - significant majorities - are angry about this.
Are you able to see that?
And dispense with your patronizing condescending mansplaining about how all these people in these groups are just being led by liberal politicians. Do you understand why they're actually angry?
63% of women want abortion kept legal.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
But DAN and "the liberals" are telling women what they want and need and this majority of silly little women/girls believe these old white liberal men. It's NOT that Craig and conservative men (and some 35% of women) are the ones telling women what they can and can't decide about abortion and their medical decisions.
LGBTQ folk everywhere are talking about their real concerns post Roe being ripped away... (and truly, if you don't know this, you're not listening to LGBTQ people... it's all everyone is talking about and making political calls to their representatives about.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-27/whats-next-after-roe-v-wade-lgbtq-americans-worry-their-rights-at-risk
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/02/1102491352/abortion-rights-roe-wade-same-sex-marriage-obergefell-leaked-supreme-court
But it's only because this vast majority of LGBTQ folks are silly little children who somehow were brainwashed by those evil old liberal men forcing their opinion on them - not the other way around. And Craig and the conservative minority are the ones who TRULY know what's best for LGBTQ folks, if they'd just listen to them (or at least, follow the laws they'd like to put in place/are putting in place). Tell me the truth, Craig: Do you REALLY think the majority of LGBTQ folks aren't worried and angry even just a little about losing their rights? And NOT because I'm telling them they should be worried. I'm listening to THEIR concerns and being an ally.
If you think that, you're just not connected to mainstream LGBTQ world.
The percentage of black people who think police violence is a "very serious" problem raised from 73% in 2015 to 83% in 2020 (with 14% saying it's a moderate problem).
https://apnews.com/article/us-news-ap-top-news-racial-injustice-politics-police-728b414b8742129329081f7092179d1f
But this is all because Dan and the liberals in the media and DC have brainwashed black people into believing in myths and the police force has NO serious problem?? You know black people are so easily swayed by a good news story.
Is THAT likely? Or is it more likely that media is just reporting the real world stories and the Democrats are just listening to/being led by the concerns of this vast majority of black people, and not the other way around?
Is there no end to your condescension and White Man-splaining? Do you EVER stop and think, You know, I really should listen to more of these people in these groups who HAVE experienced real world oppression?
Humble yourself. Listen to others. NOT ME. Listen to LGBTQ folk, to women who aren't conservative extremists, to black people - the majority voice.
Listen.
"Why? Why does it "assume" this? Says who?"
Because of the language you chose to use. "LGBTQ folks", "Women", "Black people". these terms clearly indicate all of each group. You chose not to use modifiers with any of the terms, and I'm stuck using the standard English language meaning for the imprecise terms you used.
"Why" because of the terms you chose to use. "Why does it assume this?", Standard English Language grammar. "Says who" Technically you did, or whoever decided that the terms you used meant everyone in those groups.
"but then, why would you think that's what I meant?"
Because I read and understand English.
"Do you think that I think ALL women, etc, are opposed to the GOP?"
No idea, but you do make a lot of wild unsupported claims, so who knows.
"Are you able to see that?"
If you mean did I literally point that reality out earlier, then yes.
"And dispense with your patronizing condescending mansplaining about how all these people in these groups are just being led by liberal politicians."
When you "mansplain", it's good, but when anyone else does it's bad. OK, they're also led by liberal black leaders, liberal feminists, liberal LGBTQXYZPDQ activists.
Do you understand why they're actually angry?
"63% of women want abortion kept legal."
So, irrelevant on multiple levels.
"But DAN and "the liberals" are telling women what they want and need and this majority of silly little women/girls believe these old white liberal men."
Well since Roe was literally imposed by a group of old, liberal, white, men, I guess it's ok when you like what the Old, liberal, white men, do.
Yes, you've got us, it's all a big scheme to force laws to be legislated by legislators at the state level. Oh the horror of allowing the legislative process to work the way it was intended.
"The percentage of black people who think police violence is a "very serious" problem raised from 73% in 2015 to 83% in 2020 (with 14% saying it's a moderate problem)."
That's awesome. What does the actual data say about "police violence"?
https://nypost.com/2021/02/27/cases-of-police-brutality-against-black-people-are-overestimated/
https://www.policemag.com/596346/half-of-surveys-very-liberal-respondents-believe-1-000-or-more-unarmed-black-men
If 83% of black people believe a narrative that doesn't align with the actual data, how does one reconcile that? Does one simply allow them to believe a false narrative? Does one expect them to accept the data and react accordingly?
Yet strangely enough, the majority of black people want more police rather than less.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/352304/black-confidence-police-recovers-2020-low.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx
https://www.newsweek.com/81-black-americans-dont-want-less-police-presence-despite-protestssome-want-more-cops-poll-1523093
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/police-reform-polls-white-black-crime.html
How does one reconcile your claim that 83% of black people think police violence is a major concern, yet they clearly want more police to deal with the greater threats they face?
Again, when people's beliefs and fears conflict with the data, how does one deal with that?
"But this is all because Dan and the liberals in the media and DC have brainwashed black people into believing in myths and the police force has NO serious problem??"
Maybe not "all" but how can you deny the reality that BLM was founded and still pushes a false narrative? How do you reconcile the reality that the data doesn't support your narrative? How do you explain that the cities where the police problems are the most public are mostly cities run for decades by the DFL?
"Is THAT likely?"
Given the number of high profile stories that the MSM hyped that turned out to be false, yes.
"Or is it more likely that media is just reporting the real world stories and the Democrats are just listening to/being led by the concerns of this vast majority of black people, and not the other way around?"
Yet, when the data contradicts the narrative, why wouldn't one follow the data? If the "vast majority" of black people believe a false narrative, isn't it proper to show them the Truth?
"Is there no end to your condescension and White Man-splaining?"
I know, pointing out reality and data is a white male thing. Black people don't need to look at what the data says, they believe their fears, why tell them the Truth. BUt hey, nice job at adding in the passive aggressive, ad hom attacks.
"Do you EVER stop and think, You know, I really should listen to more of these people in these groups who HAVE experienced real world oppression?"
No. Because I do listen to all sorts of people on all sides of these issues, and I look at the data. I don't define Truth by opinion polls.
"Humble yourself. Listen to others. NOT ME. Listen to LGBTQ folk, to women who aren't conservative extremists, to black people - the majority voice."
Coming from someone who is possibly the least humble person I interact with, who's making and incredibly condescending demand, I find this disgusting. Your idiotic insistence that you define me and who I listen to is an egregious example of hubris.
"Listen."
You don;t listen to conservative members of these groups, I listen to all sorts of view points. I'm also citing data instead of opinion polls. But please, more of your mansplaining, white, liberal, condescension.
But it's good to see that you still don't have any interest in staying on topic.
Craig,
Citing data and facts doesn't work for Dan. Only anecdotal stories told by people who believe in myth matters.
I have no doubt many black people believe what Dan wants us to take as fact. But numbers do not equal truth or reality. And when we're not given all the details, why should we give such tales any value? They're incomplete. Let's look again at how it works:
Almost all of the examples of blacks being abused by cops are those involving blacks with criminal records who are being combative with those cops doing their jobs. ANYone being combative with a cop is putting that cop's life at risk. They are not obliged to simply give up their lives because some asshat is pissed about the cop lawfully detaining them. Dan listed a few white guys who did not get put down by cops. But those white guys were not combative with the cops who detained and then arrested them, which is why they still breathe. Too many black dudes regard every confrontation with cops as an affront confirming the urban myth of racist police brutality. White-guilt asshats like Dan are more than willing to allow that level of bullcrap persist rather than stand up and say what Chris Rock has said about how not to get your ass kicked by a cop. No. Dan will simply join in the party instead of looking at reality and data. Dan's a clown.
Art,
As I pointed out, a significant number of people believe that between 1000-10,000 unarmed, innocent, black men are killed by LE annually. Many people believe the false narrative of BLM, to the point of rioting. Dan seems unable to differentiate between what people believe, and what is True.
Further, "police violence" runs on a spectrum from mild to deadly, and from justified to unjustified. To treat the LEO who shoots a suspect who is actively shooting at him, or trying to hit him with a car, the same as the cop who shot Justine Damond is stupidly absurd and simply intended to paint a false picture. As you note, each case is different and should be judged that way. But it's easier to drive a narrative when you jumble a lot of things together that really aren't the same.
Post a Comment