I'm noticing a bit of hysteria about a small group of protesters who decided that protesting with weapons was the best way to make their point.
I'm going to start with the obvious, that this was a really bad idea. That anyone thinks that carrying weapons as part of a protest is a good idea is beyond me. While I might agree with the point they were trying to make, I simply can't agree that carrying weapons helped them make their point more effectively. I'd argue that they actually detracted from any legitimate points they were trying to make by their actions
With that said, let's point out a couple of facts.
First and most important, the protest was peaceful, respectful, quiet, and no one was threatened.
Second, the same people with their panties twisted have a history of silence when it comes to ANTIFA, BLM, and other groups of armed leftist protesters who've shown a history of violence, or directly threatened people (including police with violence or death). These folx didn't get this worried about leftist protesters laying siege to a police station, including use of Molotov Cocktails, or dropping large chunks of concrete on the heads of police from overpasses. Beyond that, these folx didn't get nearly this worked up over the various instances we've see on riots, including burning, and looting when they agreed with the perpetrators.
To be clear, this post isn't about the protesters, I am completely against the use of violence in protests, I'm against the threat of violence or harm as a part of a protest. I disagree with carrying arms at these protests because it leads some to conclude that simply carrying a weapon is an implicit threat. It leads people to overlook the reality that these armed protesters were peaceful, and caused no harm. they damaged nothing and besieged nothing. It clouds the issues.
My problem is the people who who get all bent out of shape by calm, peaceful armed protesters who they disagree with, while not showing the same level of outrage for the violent, armed protesters who they agree with.
It's interesting that it's "privilege" to engage in a peaceful, nonviolent, protest while carrying not brandishing,slung, holstered, possibly not even loaded) firearms. Yet it's not "privileged" to engage in violence, arson, looting, destruction, assault, all while armed.
It is obvious that this hand wringing, panty twisting, beta male whining isn't anything but more of the same double standards we expect from certain people.
21 comments:
I'm not fully aware of the details that those protesters had on their list of grievances, but I have no particular problem with their being armed. 2nd Amendment issue may have been a part of their purpose for protesting, and as some states are involving police enforcement of even the more idiotic of restrictions, there is less chance of police enforcement when many of the protesters are armed. So in that sense, bringing one's gun actually is exactly what should have been done, since the purpose of the 2nd is at play...government overreach.
But the point you're making is absolutely valid and just another example of the "progressive" double standard. It is always present. When the Occupy jokers were everywhere, dissent was a good thing and an American thing. When people oppose the shut-down, they're radical, threatening, deplorable.
Art,
I’m not either. Although now they’ve been branded as racist despite no apparent evidence.
Look I understand that carrying weapons might be 100% legal and within their rights, my point is that doing so doesn’t help them in any way and actually detracts from whatever legitimate points they were making. I’m not arguing right, I’m arguing that they’re providing a distraction.
Even so. The fact that the left ignores the fact that this was a peaceful protest, while also ignoring violence on their own side, says plenty.
Of course, distractions will be sought by the left who cares little about facing the actual point. Bring no guns...nothing would change but that which the left chooses to use to avoid the point. Rational Americans with legitimate arguments need to focus on explaining everything and challenging the left to focus on the point and defend their opposition.
As I delete nonsensical, off-topic comments by the troll who surely wanted to post his comments here, it occurred to me that I haven't heard any of those protesters explain why they brought their weapons. That is, except for one, who simply said he always carries his handgun openly. I've seen people in Indiana carry on their hips. Then, I read where they brought their weapons in order to attract attention from media so they could have the opportunity to air their thoughts. Yet, aside from that one dude, I've not as yet found anyone else being asked. Curious, yet it would be harder for the anti-gun, leftist media to portray them as radical if they were actually allowed to speak.
It doesn't matter, apparently, that one of the top state cops insisted the protesters were peaceful.
Gov. Whitless also made comments about the protesters being racist and such. I don't know where that comes from. I looked at a lot of pictures on line, from various sources. I saw only one flag that was the typical Confederate flag and it had a silhouette of a rifle and words to the effect of "come and take it". No other indications that would justify a claim of racists in the crowd. I know that most of those bearing rifles were allegedly from some militia group, and perhaps they were also white supremacists. But I don't know one way or the other. Aside from that, the few pics I saw with any images of swastikas were not of nazi groups, but references to the Governor's nazi-like edicts. The only arrest was one protester assaulting another protester. Apparently he grabbed a flag from the other guy.
Yet, I saw several attempts to portray these people as threatening. The troll even asserted death threats were made, but he provided no links to anything that would support such a claim. I found nothing thus far.
Art,
Which supports my point. By being armed, they have ammunition to their critics and detracted from their message. They probably caused more harm than good.
Just to put this out there to give a more well-rounded View of the story. (...and not because I think you'll understand or respond to what I'm actually saying.)
1. Most antifa types are not violent. Far and away, most antifa types are not violent. It's a tiny minority that have been the problem.
2. With that said, I believe that in most Progressive circles, certainly my Progressive circles, we are not comfortable with antifa or their tactics.
Of course, it goes without saying that we oppose any violence. But beyond that, we oppose antifa imitating the far-right tactics of bringing guns and threats of violence to protests.
3. Which gets to the heart of the problem. Antifa is a movement that's been around as long as fascism has been around. These are people who have been opposed to fascists, and that is a good thing, and they've been willing to oppose Fascism and the violence of fascism by meeting it with violence.
In the modern context of the US antifa movement, it has arisen not because the left is violent, but because the right has been bringing guns to protests. The right has been bringing threats of violence and intimidation to protests.
Antifa arose not because of leftist values, but because of right wing actions. If the right-wing was not bringing weapons to protests and getting involved in violence, there would be no antifa movement.
It is ironic that you accuse the left of being silent in the face of antifa when you are silent about the reasons for antifa. As always, context and motives matter.
1. This is quite a claim of fact, either prove it or retract it.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/17/liberals-cheer-as-antifa-violence-escalates/
https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-far-left-violence-extremism-deadly-year-opnion-1477065
https://www.wsj.com/articles/portland-considers-antimask-law-aimed-at-antifa-violence-11563442203
2. Again, this is quite a claim of fact, prove it or retract it. If you are so opposed, why have you been so quiet about your opposition?
AHHHHH, the undefined royal we that you trot out to make it seem like you represent some larger, undefined, unidentified group of people.
3. So, does the fact that it's been around for a while have anything to do with folks on the left getting way more upset about a peaceful, protest last week that ANTIFA brutally assaulting a gay journalist? https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/andy-ngo-portland-antifa
Yet one more claim of fact without proof. Are you really suggesting that ANTIFA brutally beating a gay journalist is because of some "right wing" people "bringing guns" to a protest? How do you excuse ANTIFA violence from 2019 and earlier because of some peaceful protesters in 2020?
It's not me accusing the left of being silent about ANTIIFA, it's the reality that the left IS silent about ANTFA. Even as you claim to disagree with them, you simultaneously provide justification for their actions. Now it's cowardly, milquetoast, wimpy, spineless justification, but justification (or excuses) nonetheless.
Of course, you ignore the fact that I've clearly and repeatedly condemned the presence of firearms at a peaceful protest. Hell, you can't even acknowledge the reality that the recent protest was peaceful and nonviolent, despite the presence of firearms.
Not only that, but your limited defense of ANTIFA, ignores the other examples I've given where the left is quiet on violence.
As happens more often, your comment reinforces the point of my post. I understand that you want pretend that leftist violence isn't a thing, and that it's justified. If you're seriously going to offer "the other guys do it" as your justification, then you have to be willing to apply that same standard evenhandedly. If your past is any example, then it's doubtful that you will. Just like it's incredibly unlikely hat you'll prove your claims objectively or stop justifying behavior you claim to dislike.
Craig... It's not me accusing the left of being silent about ANTIIFA, it's the reality that the left IS silent about ANTFA.
Ha. Prove it.
And where is the right speaking out against the gun-toting, confederate flag-carrying, nazi-quoting right wingers who show up at such events?
And where is your recognition that the ANTI-fascists ONLY EXIST on the Left because of the ACTUAL fascists and those posing threats on the Right? Where is your recognition that ACTUAL nazis and racists and violent types (and those who threaten violence) SHOULD be opposed and denounced? Even here, in your post where you give a milquetoast "i wish they wouldn't..." sort of disagreement with them, you go on to default defend them and give them a pass.
You can't NOT call out the violent, gun-toting man-boys on your side on the one hand and then denounce the ones on the Left who respond to their threats of violence with their own threats of violence. Not and be taken seriously.
If your side is "starting it," then the onus is on you to remove the log from your own eye (and it IS a log) before you complain about the speck of dust in the eye of the other side.
Craig... 1. This is quite a claim of fact, either prove it or retract it.
There is no data to support a claim that most antifa types are violent. I SEE NO DATA TO SUPPORT such a claim and thus, believe it is rational to conclude that this is reality. IF YOU HAVE DATA to suggest otherwise, the onus is on YOU to provide that data.
Craig... 2. Again, this is quite a claim of fact, prove it or retract it.
What I said was that IN MY CIRCLES and in progressive places I HAVE SEEN, I have never seen a violent Antifa EXCEPT insofar as showing up with guns in response to the GUNS ON THE RIGHT is a threat of violence itself. But threats of violence IN DEFENSE of those on the Right is not the same as an unprovoked threat of violence.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/swastika-flag-trump-pence-michigan/
It's interesting that if you Google "Nazi flag at Michigan rally" this is the first thing that comes up. If you stick with the piece long enough you find out that not only was the picture "miscaptioned" (ie lied about), you find out that it's likely that the person with the flag is possibly a Sanders supporter.
As a result of a quick Google search, I find story after story that alleges the presence of NAZI and Confederate flags, but none of those stores show pictures of the flags. The link below has multiple links to stories where no confederate of NAZI flags are present.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/media-smear-michigan-lockdown-protesters-confederate-flag-canard/
I'm also going to point out that when BLM engaged in exactly this sort of gridlock protest, (some of which included actual violence, and actual specific threats of violence) the broader cross section of the political left, and the media endorsed this sort of protest as appropriate.
I guess the "the other guys did it" excuse doesn't look quite so good now.
If you google Confederate flag April 2020 protest, you can see what I've seen in Kentucky, confederate flags flying at a rally at our state capitol. Which is factually true of other states.
"At least five sitting Kentucky lawmakers spoke — Maddox, Rep. Stan Lee, R-Lexington; Rep. David Hale, R-Wellington; Rep. Kim King, R-Harrodsburg; and Sen. John Schickel, R-Union — to a crowd waving two confederate flags, several American flags and several flags saying “Liberty or Death.”"
Read more here: https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article242436221.html#storylink=cpy
If you google Nazi protest april 2020, you get stories like this one where someone was holding up a phrase used at Auswitz...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/auschwitz-condemns-nazi-coronavirus-protest-sign
If you try to turn a blind eye to it, it is, I guess, easy not to see. But I suggest not turning a blind eye to the violence, racism, nazism and threats of all this "to the tyrants" coming from people on the right.
I have not seen any suggestion of Nazi flags, nor did I make that suggestion. But the facts are that there are neo-nazis and racists and Klan types who are thriving and growing ON THE RIGHT since Trump's election.
Facts are facts.
"White nationalist hate groups have grown 55% in Trump era, report finds "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/white-nationalist-hate-groups-southern-poverty-law-center
Again, if you want to turn a blind eye to the violence and threats of violence FROM THE RIGHT that have given rise to in-kind responses from a tiny minority on the Left, you are welcome to do so and, truth be told, I expect no less from you. But if any rational people are reading, I just wanted to provide the more complete story, for their sake, if not yours.
But I do hope for better from you and do hope that you will condemn the violence/threats of violence coming from the Right that are resulting in in-kind responses from some on the Left. I do hope you'll take seriously Jesus' recommendation to remove the plank first from your own eye.
I hope that for you and all those on the Right like you, who have thus far, largely turned a blind eye to the nazis, white nationalists, racists and those threatening violence on the Right. Lord, make it so.
"Ha. Prove it."
"And where is the right speaking out against the gun-toting, confederate flag-carrying, nazi-quoting right wingers who show up at such events?"
Instead of proving your claims, you pivot to trying to hold me to a standard you refuse to meet. Not surprising.
RE: NAZI and Confederate flags. I distinctly remember the uproar over NAZIs marching in Skokie, IL back in the 70"s. I also remember a consensus on pretty much all sides of the political spectrum that the first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech included speech that many (even most people) might find offensive. I'm unaware of any change in the first amendment, or any SCOTUS decision that would limit speech merely for being offensive. As far as the protests in MI last week, I've seen not photographic evidence of either NAZI or Confederate flags. Even if there were, the bearers certainly have the right to carry them.
Having said that I've seen "right wing" commentators being critical of the protests. I've seen some examples, but will have to go back and look for links, given your assumption that I'm lying if I don't post links. So, you'll have to shut up and be patient before you start spewing.
I'll simply point out that if you aren't going to prove your claims (and try to make me prove your claims false), then I see absolutely no reason to do what you won't do.
But, I appreciate your doubling down on your "the other guys did it first" as an excuse for the leftist violence you deny exists.
You really haven't explained why peaceful, nonviolent, nonthreatening, protesters carrying firearms in 2020 provide an excuse for the brutal attack on an unarmed gay journalist in 2019. You really haven't provided an explanation how non-violent, peaceful protests are actually violent, racist protests. Don't worry, I don't expect one, just pointing out the obvious.
Since you aren't going to prove your claims, answer my questions, or do anything but repeat your "the other guys did it first" excuse, and you don't seem to comprehend that demands that I do what you won't aren't likely to be productive, I'll leave you to your contradictions.
Perhaps you didn't read my post carefully. My post was specifically referring to the recent protests in MI that have cause so many on the left to wet themselves, get their panties in a twist, and get very vocal on social media. Not about some protest in KY that hasn't gotten any national coverage that I've seen, nor been referenced by the wet, twisted panties crowd that I'm referring to.
However, I'll address your point specifically.
I did the google search you suggested and found nothing about anything in KY. I checked your link and found a picture of ONE confederate flag. As I pointed out earlier, display of things that offend some people is protected by the first amendment (US flag burning). While I don't agree with those doing so, they are peacefully and nonviolently availing themselves of their first amendment rights of free speech and free assembly. Further, the article you linked didn't mention any actual violence. I'm trying to understand why you seem to be advocating preventing people from exercising their constitutional rights guaranteed under the first amendment. These are the rights that you insist as "self evident" and sacrosanct.
This massive increase you cite is that these (unnamed) groups expanded from roughly 85 groups to roughly 155 groups. I note that they don't mention actual numbers involved. But, if you want to argue that the "existence" of these groups justifies vigilante violence against anyone "on the right", then man up and make that argument. Of course, the SPLC isn't exactly the most unbiased and problem free organization. It's pretty much a pot/kettle situation.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-liberalism
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/17/southern-poverty-law-center-hate-groups-scam-column/2022301001/
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/splc-in-turmoil-as-problems-festered-where-was-its-board/
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center?source=search_google_dsa_paid&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIysCbqYCb6QIVNT6tBh2TFguzEAMYASAAEgIt_PD_BwE
If you want to hang your hat on one estimate, by one organization, which has it's own problems. go right ahead. But don't ever complain if anyone else uses sources you consider biased in the future.
Unlike, you I'm not turning a blind eye to actual violence on either side of the spectrum (especially after months/years of local left wing groups engaging in and threatening violence), it's something that I've lived in proximity to for the past few years. Also, unlike you, I'm trying to focus on actual violence, not on trying to twist a peaceful, non violent protest into a raging mob of "white supremacist NAZIs". I'm secure enough to stand by and watch expressions of free speech that offend me personally, without feeling a need to prevent people from exercising their rights under the first amendment.
The problem that you have is that in your zeal to make a point, you've gone beyond the topic of the post, and simply engaged in trying to take the focus away from the topic.
Of course, your default to the "the other guys did it" is simply pathetic. The only way that this argument works is if you apply it equally to everyone, which you won't.
Maybe it'd me more productive if you weren't trying to turn peaceful, non violent protests, into violent, racist rampages when the evidence doesn't support your claims.
This is why I'm largely giving up talking with you, Craig. Because everything you THINK I'm saying is absolutely NOT what I'm saying and it's just too much work to wade through all your misunderstandings of things I've never said.
Of course, your default to the "the other guys did it" is simply pathetic.
Of course, I DO NOT DEFAULT to "the other guys did it." I'm noting that context matters.
If I hear, "Ralph Johnson punched a man in the face and knocked him to the ground!" I'd be appalled. HOWEVER, if Ralph Johnson hit the man and wrestled him to the ground WHILE DEFENDING a child from an attack from the man, then I would NOT be appalled by Ralph's behavior. Rather, I'd be congratulating him.
You're ignoring the deadly violent types who are the villains in this, not "Ralph." It's like you're leaving off the important facts of the story in an effort to demonize Ralph.
There are confederate flags, racists and Nazis signs at the Michigan, Kentucky and all the protests that I've seen these last two weeks. These are deadly dangerous zealots representing your side of the partisan divide and your side must denounce them. I'm not saying you need to try to take away their right to ugly speech, but you need to clearly denounce it and KEEP denouncing it and ostracizing and marginalizing these dangerous thugs.
When you say, "But the other guys are being violent, too..." - LEAVING OUT the facts that they're responding to violence with violence - you are minimizing the violence by the Neo-Nazis, the racists and the thugs that are a problem with the modern conservative movement.
I'm done.
This is from a comment by Dan that was off topic at another post, it's more appropriate here.
"Which is to say, to put a point on it, we are not seeing large groups of liberals out protesting these isolation measures. We DO see conservatives doing so, and doing so while breathing threats and posturing violence."
What's interesting is that you are willing to broad brush thousands of people engaged in a legitimate, peaceful, non violent protest as "breathing threats and posturing violence" when there is no indication of either of those on any large scale.
Further, you've excused ANTIFA from vocalizing threats and engaging in violence, and ignored repeated examples of other leftist groups making actual, vocal, threats and engaging in actual violence.
Your moral code is certainly screwed up when you ignore actual physical harm by those on your side, while condemning imaginary non harm on the other side.
Look, if you want to embrace violence to combat violence, then man up and admit it. Stop playing around.
You've endorsed, by ignoring it, the brutal ANTIFA attack on an unarmed journalist. You're making the leap that if some "right wing" group somewhere engaged in violence, then it's OK for ANTIFA to engage in violence anywhere.
I get that it's difficult for you to cling to the fiction that liberals are committed pacifists, when there is more and more evidence to the contrary. But you defending violence, while saying that liberals are against violence is absurd.
"Of course, it goes without saying that we oppose any violence.", then announce that violence is appropriate in "context"
"There are confederate flags, racists and Nazis signs at the Michigan, Kentucky and all the protests that I've seen these last two weeks."
I've seen one confederate flag pictured from the MI protest, and one from the KY protest. Again, you're willingness to broad brush the majority with the actions of a tiny minority is troubling. There was one "NAZI" sign that I saw in the coverage of the MI rally, except it wasn't pro NAZI so I'm not sure you can count that.
"You're ignoring the deadly violent types who are the villains in this,..."
What "deadly violence" occurred in MI or KY last week?
When you say "deadly violent types" do you realize that you are drawing conclusions about people based solely on their appearance? That you are essentially engaging in profiling? That the actual statistics related to gun violence disagree with your prejudiced judgementalism.
Look, if you want to grow a spine and just admit that violence in defense of self or others is justified and appropriate, then you might regain some credibility.
But, we're not talking about violence as a direct result on an unprovoked attack or in defense of someone else. I realize that you've chosen to defend ANTIFA, while ignoring the other examples, even ignoring ANTIFA's brutal assault on an unarmed gay journalist (an assault captured on video), but you are assuming that ANTIFA NEVER strikes first. That ANTIFA is justified in using violence today, because of something that happened last year. That ANTIFA is justified in destroying the private property of those who ARE NOT harming them in any way. That ANTIFA is justified in not obeying or attacking the police.
I've frequently and repeatedly condemned violence across the board as an way to handle political disagreements.
I've criticized people on my side for less than violent protests on occasion. What I've never done is to justify political violence. Certainly not outside the context of the Revolutionary War. The difference between us is that you are calling non violence violent. You're stereotyping people based on appearance, and imputing motives to them based on those stereotypes.
You're right that I criticized the MI protesters for what amounts to bad PR. There is a good reason for that, it's because I'm aware enough to realize that they DID NOT engage in or threaten violence. Because the reason for their protest was legitimate, but the means they used detracted from their protest.
So, if you're going to justify violence when you perceive it benefits your side, go right ahead. If you're going to ignore actual violence by liberals, in favor of of getting your panties in a wad over non violent violence, go right ahead.
I've needed something to laugh about, I'm sure I'd laugh at your groupie's comments if I read them, so that leaves yours to laugh at instead.
"This is why I'm largely giving up talking with you, Craig. Because everything you THINK I'm saying is absolutely NOT what I'm saying and it's just too much work to wade through all your misunderstandings of things I've never said."
This from a guy who banned me for saying something I never said, attributing to me motivations, intentions and meanings my words do not convey. Dan has no problem intentionally perverting my words in order to protect his laughable positions and his grace-embracing hatred of Donald Trump, but continually whines about obvious, logical conclusions drawn from his own words while never managing to explain his way out of them.
Just this past weekend I listened to Ben Shapiro criticizing protesters bringing rifles to the Michigan protest. His position was very similar to Craig's. Personally I have no problem with it, as I don't believe it would matter to the leftist media, politicians and liars like Dan, as they would simply find some other way to demonize good people with righteous objections to government actions. If the media wasn't concerned enough to interview gun-toting protesters about their meaning, or to report what they were told (very likely since it likely wouldn't have reinforced the narrative they wished to present about them), then it's shameful to pretend one can know what their intentions were. Shapiro and Craig focused on the optics of doing so. Lefties like Dan focus on what they need these protesters to be in order to dismiss them.
I also understand the reaction of many to Confederate flags. I have no problem with them unless they are part of some known racist group. It is cheap and lazy to presume anyone who has any reverence for Confederate flags are racist as if racism and a love for slavery is all the south is about. I wouldn't brandish one because I'm an American and not a citizen of some separatist group like the southern states once were. The Confederate flag is no more than a flag for what does not exist, except for the love of the south. There are other ways to express that love, but to each his own.
As I've already stated, no nazi-themed signs or banners were identifying protesters as nazis as far as I've been able to determine thus far. They've all been referencing the state actions against its people in the name of "keeping them safe". The protests express the feeling that protesters don't need the state to do what they can do for themselves.
In this discussion, Dan has again pushed the false narrative that nazis and white supremacists are right-wing. While certain aspects of their ideologies bear superficial similarities to right-wing ideology, no honest person can insist such groups are truly right-wing as conservatism does not deal in identity politics. That's a left-wing thing. But people like Dan as so desperate to defend the horrors of their beliefs that it is essential that they demonize the other side of the divide in order to lessen the reality of their corruption in the eyes of those who don't take the time to really see.
Art,
Dan has a history of taking the arguments of others, re stating them in a way that fits his stereotypes, and arguing against or responding to his version of an argument. He's deleted and banned many of us for things we haven't done. Lord knows how many times he's deleted my comments for not "answering", when the comments clearly answer the questions asked. As you've seen here, he has no compunction about attributing intentions and characteristics to people he's never met, it's easier to argue against something he's constructed to argue against than it is to find the truth.
As for the carrying of guns. I've been clear that I believe that is was a distraction from whatever their legitimate points were and that it added nothing positive to the situation. But none of that matters. The narrative insists that guns=violence therefore it's just a matter of ignoring the orderly, peaceful nature of the protest. Then you just add on a little made up motivation and you protect the narrative.
It's interesting that these protests, the spike in gun purchases, and other things directly strike at the heart of the guns=violence narrative, yet the facts get ignored. In the case of the MI protests, we had men with firearms protesting in a peaceful, non violent, none threatening manner which got panties in wads all across the country. Yet protesters without firearms, (yet armed nonetheless) who engage in violent, threatening, protests which cause actual harm to actual people and actual private property get justified as appropriate.
What Dan has done here, is to simultaneously argue that pacifism/non violence is a bedrock tenet of liberalism, and that violence is justified and appropriate in certain circumstances. In essence, he's making the standard argument for using violence to defend others or defend one's self. Now, he appears to also be arguing for preemptive defense (group X has been violent in the past, therefore we must be violent to prevent them from being violent), and for vigilantism, and ignoring the fact that these leftist groups frequently attack the police, as well as attack innocent bystanders and destroy property.
It's a strange attempt to hold a strict pacifism (on behalf of an entire movement), while simultaneously arguing that violence is necessary, because of "the others".
RE the confederate flag.
I personally can understand that it's possible to mentally separate the flag from racism. But again, it serves no purpose. Even if the carrier of the flag is not racist, the potential for negative consequences seems too high to justify it's display. Further, knowing that a large number of people see it as an explicitly racist symbol, what is achieved be displaying it and antagonizing people.
I get, and support, the first amendment rights of people to do and say things that will offend people. I just think that there is a degree of wisdom and maturity that would guide most people away from doing so.
The bottom line is that while the Gadsen flag fits the protest, the confederate flag really doesn't.
Let's look at the death numbers in MI.
53 counties with 0-5 deaths
20 counties with 6-50 deaths
2 counties with 51-100 deaths
4 counties with 101-1945 deaths
So, just on raw numbers alone, we can see that the vast majority of the deaths are concentrated in 4-6 counties. So, it seems reasonable to suggest that those counties might need to behave differently than the other counties.
69% of the deaths are in people 70 and older
18% of the deaths are in people 60-69
Perhaps it might make sense to focus the lock down on this high risk segment of the population and start to allow the rest of the population to start to resume a more normal life.
The rate of increase on cases in MI is slowing.
Both the number of cases per day and the number of deaths per day are trending down.
https://www.freep.com/in-depth/news/nation/coronavirus/2020/04/11/michigan-coronavirus-cases-tracking-covid-19-pandemic/5121186002/
I guess that looking at all of the data is maybe a better plan.
How many deaths from canceled (non Wuhan) surgeries is an acceptable number to "flatten the curve"?
Post a Comment