Clearly the person arested with a weapon outside of Justice Kavanaugh's house who appears to have intended to kill him, and the people (Ruth Sent Us) who've provided locations for Justice Barret's children's school, must be right wing terrorists because there apparently are no other kinds.
I guess that Schumer's threats to Justice Kavanaugh can be ignored because there's no way his threats could have inspired the protesters/killer who've gone after Kavanaugh.
I also guess that Schumer's threats of retaliation against Justices if they don't decide cases the right way couldn't possibly construed as an inappropriate attempt to force SCOTUS to reach certain conclusions under the threat of force/violence/retaliation.
Certainly there can't be a political motive behind the DFL controlled congress failing to pass a bill providing increased security for SCOTUS justices.
"insurrection, an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt."
Given the above legal definition of insurrection, and the reality that there are currently people actively engaged in (at least) attempted or threats of violence against SCOTUS justices, it seems as though we are in the midst of what could be termed an insurrection. Given that SCOTUS is a part of the "established government or governing authority", this seems like an appropriate characteriztion.
As a more general statement, the recent trend of engaging in violence or threats of violence in order to pressure courts or juries to determine the outcomes of cases based NOT on the law and the evidence, but out of the fear of violence, seems troubling.
Attacks on various crisis pregnancy centers (many of them explicitly Christian).
June 6, 2022 in Buffalo NY
May 8, 2022 in Wisconsin
June 3, 2022 in DC
May 3, 2022 in Illinois
May 8, 2022 in Keizer OR
May 7/8, 2022 in Denton TX
May 3, 2022 in Austin TX
May 27, 2022 in Lynnwood WA
June 7, 2022 Asheville NC
May 8/9/10. 2022 Manassas VA
May 5/6, 2022 Portland OR
I find it hard to believe that "Right Wing Terrorists" are targeting crisis pregnancy centers, but you never know. Obviously these haven't made much of a splash on the MSM national news, but you'd think that a string of 11 violent attacks on abortion clinics would have been front and center in the MSM national news.
27 comments:
But don't you know? It's only "insurrection" when the violence is turned on the left! Just like it's only abuse to use one's political power to destroy one's political enemies when a leftist is targeted for legal action. See how it works? That's what the Jan 6 committee is all about!
Real threats of violence are indeed disturbing. That's why people like us consistently and always call it out and call it wrong. That's why it's disturbing when we have serious threats of right wing white nationalist violence and a president who courted and promoted them and people like you remain silent.
We see that you only are concerned
- Or at least only express concern - when it's directed towards a conservative. It'd be easier to take you seriously if you would call out trump and his violent supporters which are much more numerous and a much more serious threat according to the experts.
You want to be taken seriously? Follow the January 6 investigation and support the recommended outcomes because it is clear the president and his right wing supporters attempted to undermine a free Republic.
"That's why people like us consistently and always call it out and call it wrong."
Really. Please show me an example of you or "us" specifically condemning the attempt on Kavanagaugh's life. Please show me a specific example of your or "us" condemning the doxxing of Barrett and her children? Please show me what the DFL controlled congress is doing to increase security for SCOTUS justices?
I guess threats or examples of left wing violence just don't generate the same level of excitement from you and "us", do they?
"- Or at least only express concern - when it's directed towards a conservative."
Categorically false. I expressed much more than "concern" about the events of 1/6. I expressed extensive concern for the innocent victims of the riots of 2020. I could go on.
What I'm doing here is pointing out the relative silence from you and "us" when left wing violence happens.
1. You "taking me" seriously isn't something I care about or strive for. I suspect you'll always find a reason not to (unless I blindly agree with everything you say), therefore I just don't care.
2. You would be "taken seriously" if you'd spend as much time , volume, and vitriol, going after left wing violence and threats of violence as you do "right wing".
3. You'd also have more chance of being "taken seriously" if you'd acknowledge when the left wing narratives about "right wing" violence are proven false. The bullshit Whitmer kidnapping nonsense, and the "multiple people killed by rioters/protesters on 1/6.
I've advocated trying and punishing those involved in crimes on 1/6 from 1/7. It's interesting how a protest/riot that lasted for like a couple of hours, never actually got close enough to any legislatures to cause them harm, and caused minimal damage, is an "attempt to undermine a free republic", while ongoing protests, threats, attempts to kill a SCOTUS justice, and to threaten the children of another aren't attempts to "undermine a free republic". Or how actual threats of violence aimed at jurors with the avowed intent to influence the outcome of a criminal trial aren't attempts to "undermine a free republic". Maybe you're unaware that the Judicial branch is coequal to the executive and legislative branches, and an attempt to subvert the legal process is just as much an "insurrection" as 1/6.
I'll wait until the partisan hearings are over before I weigh in. I'll say this. If the 1/6 hearings result in more fortifying of the US Capitol building and house/senate office buildings and more armed security, then y'all better be proposing the same measures for schools. As far as I'm concerned students are more valuable than the entirety of the legislative branch.
FYI, your pet "conservative" Liz Cheney. When she read one of Trump's tweets into the record the other day, she left out part of the tweet, I wonder why she would have done that. Maybe because adding "Go home with love and peace" doesn't fit the narrative.
I could be wrong, but if an organization called "Shut Down DC" was planning to "Shut Down SCOTUS" on Monday, doesn't that seem like it could be considered an insurrection?
Strangely enough when left wing groups shut down various cities like these folks are planning, y'all don't seem bothered by it.
Indeed. From my perspective, my initial concern is outrage with every report of a violent criminal act perpetrated by one or more people against one or more others. It's not until details come out that my outrage shifts along with it. It can ebb and flow depending on those details. Sometimes, it's hard not to assume as details emerge. For example, the Floyd situation provoked the assumption of a thug getting himself killed again. That turned out to be the case, as initial coroner reports...later altered under pressure to appease race-hustlers...confirmed. At the same time, I was concerned about the optics as presented in the initial cell phone video. Officer Chauvin seemed a bit too nonchalant as he pinned Floyd to the street (hands in pockets).
The Jan 6 incident also provoked outrage, which also shifted when details came out, most of which suppressed by Dems, media and other Trump-haters, because while I detest bad behavior, I detest it more when perpetrated by "my own"...particularly knowing how the lying left with exploit it politically, as we've seen them do ever since that day up until the clown show they're putting on now. But like Craig, I expect to see true violations punished commensurate with the level of criminality, because that's what actual Americans do. They demand justice. The left aren't real Americans, so their demands for justice are based on nonsense, such as all the rioting in the summer of 2020 proved.
The difference regarding how soon a lefty versus an honest person publicly responds to an act of violence is a matter of the details. If violence was perpetrated upon a white person or a conservative and often upon Christians, the leftists will say nothing until pressured to do so. The honest person waits for details. The honest person needs as much legit details as possible to assess how to respond appropriately. Unlike the leftist, partisanship is not a factor for the honest person, except to wade through it to get to the truth. The left needs to push a narrative. The rest of us want peace, justice and for leftists to want those things as well.
The short version is as follows. I believe that all rioters, regardless of their cause or affiliation should be arrested, prosecuted, and if convicted be sentenced to the maximum possible. It's a really simple concept, yet so many on the left want to build in excuses for the folks on their side of the aisle. Rioting against the government is bad no matter who does it, or how justified they believe they are.
Peaceful protests, awesome. Riots or threats of riots, bad.
I'm looking into your accusations of alleged pro choice advocates attacking "crisis pregnancy centers" (designed to look like a place to go get information about abortions, but they are anti-abortion and try to dissuade people from having abortion). I'm seeing that attacks have indeed occurred, but can find no evidence so far of anyone being found guilty of doing the attacks. Were they pro- or anti-choice? We do not appear to know, yet.
We see in some cases at least one group calling itself "Jane's Revenge" taking responsibility but, according to at least one source, "There is no direct evidence that a nationwide group called “Jane’s Revenge” exists or that such a group was responsible for the Wisconsin arson attack."
So, yes, whoever is doing these vandalisms and fire bombings are clearly in the wrong. If it's people dedicated to a pro-choice position who are desperately lashing out in response to a possible end of Roe V Wade, they are wrong. If it's an anti-abortion group trying to make it look like pro-choice people are doing it, they're wrong and doubly wrong (for the attacks and for the false implication that it's pro-choice types of groups).
1. Every attack I mentioned has been reported in local news media and is readily available.
2. Yes, crisis pregnancy centers are places to go where women are given alternatives to abortion and support for those alternatives. They're very up front about who they are and what they believe. It sounds like you don't want anyone but a representative of an organization that profits from abortion to be able to talk to pregnant women. Are you really suggesting that these centers be prevented from counseling pregnant women? That they deserve to be damaged and threatened?
3. Most of these crimes occurred fairly recently and are likely still under investigation. That doesn't change the reality of this recent rash of attacks and death threats since the SCOTUS leak.
4. "Were they pro- or anti-choice? We do not appear to know, yet." What an absolutely stupid cop out. Given the fact that we haven't seen any evidence of any of the fake hate crimes that plagued us over the last couple of years, perpetrated by pro life folks, and given the fact that pro abortion folks are actively threatening violence against SCOTUS justices, egged on by Chuck Schumer, I think it's reasonable to conclude (until proven otherwise) that these are pro abortion folks.
Again, with your inability to simply say that a particular action or series of actions is wrong. You have to find a way to raise the possibility that all violent actions are really "right wing, pro lifers".
I grant you that this is the closest I've seen you get to an unequivocal condemnation of people on your side (although you've avoided the actual assassination attempt, and the doxxxing of Barrett's children), but I'll give you credit, it's closer. At least you're not offering excuses or justifications.
5.
Maybe a little more research on Jane's Revenge might have been a good idea. Maybe they're like BLM and don't have a highly structured national organization and are "far left" splinter groups loosely affiliated under this banner?
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/13/janes-revenge-abortion-group-claims-vandalism-des-moines-pregnancy-center/7611008001/
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251518/what-is-janes-revenge-pro-abortion-vandalism
https://www.influencewatch.org/organization/janes-revenge/
https://pregnancyhelpnews.com/pro-abortion-jane-s-revenge-issues-night-of-rage-threat-if-scotus-overturns-roe
I find it amazing how easy it is to find info right after journalism student Dan claims he can't find any.
Craig stupidly, falsely claimed...
"Again, with your inability to simply say that a particular action or series of actions is wrong."
What I ACTUALLY, LITERALLY said...
yes, whoever is doing these vandalisms and fire bombings are clearly in the wrong.
If it's people dedicated to a pro-choice position who are desperately lashing out in response to a possible end of Roe V Wade, they are wrong.
If it's an anti-abortion group trying to make it look like pro-choice people are doing it, they're wrong...
I do not know HOW to be more clear to say that an action is clearly wrong than saying: "THEY WERE WRONG."
Are you needing me to say "They are REALLLLLLLLLY wrong..."? Would that make a difference?
OR, can you just admit you misspoke and made a stupidly, observably false claim?
Do the right thing, Craig. Admit it and move on.
Craig made another stupidly false insinuation, saying...
"Maybe a little more research on Jane's Revenge might have been a good idea."
What makes you think I DIDN'T research them? I mentioned their name, right? ...as people who claimed to take responsibility, right? And then I pointed out the reality that, as far as I can see, no one from a Jane's Revenge group has been identified and so we don't know their identity, do we?
For what it's worth, I SUSPECT that they're probably left-leaning antifa types as they say they are. But I'm just acknowledging the reality that we don't know.
You know, like good journalists should do when they don't know.
Admitting something is unknown and unproven is a good, rational thing. Especially in an age where so many on the right are okay with using utilitarian-style "ends justifies the means" kind of reasoning. Hell, Trump and you two regularly make stupidly false claims in an effort to demonize the "other side..." because making false claims is okay as long as it helps your partisan position... then how do we know your type aren't also false flagging attacks on anti-abortion places?
Finally, the most clear and unambiguous statement that left wing folks could be engaging in wrongdoing I've ever seen. Only one little equivocation, much better.
"What makes you think I DIDN'T research them?"
Enough, being the key concept. You clearly didn't do enough research.
"I mentioned their name, right?"
As did I.
"...as people who claimed to take responsibility, right?"
But then you had to equivocate and throw in conditions. Just couldn't leave it at the plain unambiguous statement.
"And then I pointed out the reality that, as far as I can see, no one from a Jane's Revenge group has been identified and so we don't know their identity, do we?"
What the hell does this have to do with anything? You won't take them seriously unless they individually identify themselves?
"For what it's worth, I SUSPECT that they're probably left-leaning antifa types as they say they are. But I'm just acknowledging the reality that we don't know. You know, like good journalists should do when they don't know."
And yet I provided multiple sources that label them as "left wing", yet you still hold out this hope that all of the reporting is wrong. Because you don't know their identities. Maybe these criminals have chosen to obscure their identities in order to avoid apprehension and prosecution. Maybe we'll never know, and you'll still be holding out hope that the information is wrong.
I could be wrong, but which political side is using the slogan "By Any Means Necessary"?
"then how do we know your type aren't also false flagging attacks on anti-abortion places?"
Well given the number of high profile claims of racist attacks (Smolette, the girl in Wisconsin who claimed she was doused with acid, the NASCAR "noose", the SF "noose", etc) it's possible that some right wing folks have adopted that sort of false flag tactic. But there's certainly no reason to think so at this point.
Craig...
"Just couldn't leave it at the plain unambiguous statement."
Dan...
"whoever is doing these vandalisms and fire bombings are clearly in the wrong."
Factually speaking, there is NOTHING ambiguous about "CLEARLY IN THE WRONG."
I don't know how to help you with your word understanding.
Re: which political side is using "by any means necessary..."
Well again, I hear it from both/all sides.
Malcolm X righteously said...
"We declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being,
to be respected as a human being,
to be given the rights of a human being in this society,
on this earth, in this day,
which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary."
An oppressed people saying NO MORE is a righteous thing. And as we saw, he didn't engage in actually "any means necessary."
That DID happen when conservative types said "We're going to drop destructive nuclear bombs on Japan - TWICE - to end this war, even if it means killing innocent men, women and children..." We actually engaged in evil actions that more closely fit the "any means necessary" notion, to actually include evil actions.
And we see that Trump wanted to overturn the election results by "any means necessary..."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/10/07/trump-wanted-doj-to-overturn-election-by-any-means-necessary-senate-report-details/?sh=2e1b89862dd4
And Trump supporters wanted to take down reporters "by any means necessary..."
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-supporters-take-reporters-down-by-any-means-necessary/a-56209632
I suspect that some far left anarchists have espoused that notion, like these...
https://www.bamn.com/stoptrumpscoup/
Of course, what the antifa and anarchists are opposing, what Malcolm X was opposing was actual oppression (in the case of MX) and a growing threat of white nationalists and anti-democratic/anti-human rights actions.
Whereas, when Trump and some of the MAGA crowd say it, they're talking about conspiracy theories and false claims of "stolen elections."
And, of course, any hints of violence and "any means necessary" sorts of language is denounced by those on the left, at least those in power and more visibly speaking for the Left.
Whereas, with Trump, you have the actual president and actual leaders of the GOP engaging in utilitarian "any means necessary" sorts of language.
So, sort of apples and rotten oranges.
"Well again, I hear it from both/all sides."
Really. Let's hear some examples of any on the right using it as much as BLM and the like have used it.
Strangely enough the phrase was used by Franz Fanon and Jean Paul Sartre long before Malcom X used it. It was and is currently used to justify left wing violence.
FYI, Truman and his advisors were avowedly, self identified, proud liberals. Don't let history get in the way. FYI, the use of nuclear weapons was 100% preventable by the Japanese leadership. They chose to ignore the multiple warnings, the first bomb, and intentionally sacrifice their subjects. I've provide ample evidence of this indisputable fact the last time you threw up this bullshit smokescreen, yet you cling to some bullshit narrative.
The notion that Trump is a conservative, or that he was trying to incite violence is scant. But you keep living in your fantasy world and trying to excuse the violent excess of the left by blaming the right.
This notion that you can justify left wing violence while condemning left wing violence is absurd, but not unexpected.
Trump isn't the president anymore, get over it. Schumer, however, is still a major leader in the DFL controlled congress and I guess it's OK for him to threaten SCOTUS justices.
"And, of course, any hints of violence and "any means necessary" sorts of language is denounced by those on the left, at least those in power and more visibly speaking for the Left."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....
That could be the funniest, most self serving thing you've ever written. The notion that your condemnation of leftist violence gains credibility when you try to justify it makes me wonder about your cognitive ability.
I guess expecting Biden to do anything to stop the protesters breaking federal law would be too much to ask. It's almost like he's encouraging them. And the strong definitive statement after the assassination attempt of Justice Kavanaugh was impressive. Except, neither he or Dan have specifically condemned Kavanaugh's would be assassin.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/14/bombings-churches-brett-kavanaugh-abortion/
I've heard as many as 40, but it looks like at least 22.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251553/map-vandalism-attacks-continue-at-pro-life-centers-across-us
I'm sure this gives great comfort to the victims of these left wing, pro abortion attacks.
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/pro-life-facilities-are-under-attack-a-top-doj-official-called-them-fake-clinics/
Yet Dan still clings to the hope that at least one of these will be a "false flag" so he can spin a narrative that none of these were violent actions by left wing, pro abortion, liberals.
More and more Dan's arguments regarding problematic behavior on his side of the political spectrum just boils down to some version of, "It's somebody else's fault."
Pretty weak if you ask me.
RE: "Pretty weak if you ask me..."
Your side has the racists, the white supremacists, the Trump-type corrupt liars and utilitarism-believers, the "might makes right" types, the anti-LGBTQ crowd, the irrational conspiracy theorists, the "election was stolen" and "covid is fake news" and "climate change is a hoax" and "the press is the enemy of the state" types and everyone who isn't for is us against us types. Your side is consistently irrational and opposed to the "least of these" and in favor of the rich and powerful and oppressors.
I'm siding with the poor and marginalized. I recognize that it's just not the same when the oppressed respond with violence (if and when they do) as when the powerful oppressors respond with violence. I'm still and always clear that I don't think any violence is a good solution... I'm just noting that it's apples and rotten oranges comparing the few on the Left who strike out against oppression with vandalism and looting (IF IF IF IF it's anyone on the Left doing it) than it is when another white kid or young man kills more black people or attacks LGBTQ people or advocates violence against the already-oppressed.
So, don't talk to me about "weak" sides to be on.
I'll take the side of the least of these every time and, if you take Jesus anywhere near literally, you really should, too.
Once again Dan chooses to miss the point. Obviously both sides have adherents that are problematic, only an imbecile would deny this reality. Where your weakness comes in is when you choose to excuse those who lie, riot, attempt assassination, destroy private and public property, engage in arson, etc by saying "Well, your side does it.". "The other guys do it.", is simply an incredibly bad excuse for those on your side who engage in these sorts of things.
Speaking of really stupid lies, how about Biden's whopper that the record high inflation he's presiding over is less than "in every other major industrial country in the world"?
Craig...
"when you choose to excuse those who lie, riot, attempt assassination, destroy private and public property, engage in arson, etc by saying "Well, your side does it."."
Last time: I LITERALLY never said that.
I LITERALLY do not believe this.
Nothing I said can LITERALLY be taken to mean this.
You are LITERALLY making a false claim.
You are LITERALLY making an obviously stupidly false claim.
Seriously, Craig. Given your record of ENTIRELY not understanding my words and repeating back what you THINK I've said, only to get it entirely backwards and wrong... WHY do you have any confidence in your ability to understand the news, the Bible or any written material or conversations?
Let me break it down for you:
You said, in regards to my position about accusations of those on the Left perhaps rioting (and once again, I MUST remind you that we don't know who the rioters or looters were... the leadership was not supporting violence and it's literally an unknown who was responsible for the violence against properties) that I simply said, "It's someone else's fault..." That is, if BLM supporters are rioting, then I think it's not their fault.
THAT is not what I have said. I said that the violence should not happen and is not helpful, WHOEVER is doing it.
And I've noted the reality that Dr King and others have noted, "Riots are the language of the unheard."
People who riot and loot are responsible for their actions and should be held accountable. HAVING SAID THAT, I'm nothing the Grand Canyon chasm of difference between the BLM supporter (if they exist) who throws a garbage can on a police car while protesting POLICE VIOLENCE is a world of difference away from the white supremacist who terrorizes and kills black people because they think "their way of life is being threatened" or "they are being replaced by people of color."
ONE set of actions comes from a place of opposition to injustice. The other comes from a place of racism.
Oh, he's not doing that at all, Craig. He'll only criticize his own when forced to do so, not on his own volition. As for our side, it more like we don't have to criticize our own because the Dan-types voiced their criticisms first and we're just the next in line.
And more than saying "your side does it", Dan says, "your side is worse" or "our side has a legit grievance and therefore are justified".
This idiot likes to speak of the oppressed (while murdering people still in the womb---yeah, he's absolutely complicit in every damned example of it!) and pretends having one's vote trashed by election irregularity and fraud...and then being told one is lying or delusional and dismissed like a child for complaining...is somehow not oppression and thus not a legit grievance.
And he NEVER criticizes Biden for the many lies he's told and continues to tell...lies which are more than the opinions and hyperbole of Trump, but actual lies which carry consequences. Indeed, the lies of the left about Trump were far worse than any alleged lie told by Trump and we're suffering greatly the consequences of those lies right now.
There is no example, certainly not Jan 6, of any right-wing violence that comes close to the criminality and destruction of those Dan claims are justified because of their belief in that which isn't true. "...when another white kid or young man kills more black people..." as if that happens anywhere near as often as blacks murder whites, Asians or other black people!! "...attacks LGBTQ people..." Also not happening except to attack their immoral behavior and constant fascism against morality and those who seek to promote it. "...advocates violence against the already-oppressed." as Dan does in his continued support for abortion.
Dan's a clown and clearly enjoys the role.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/letter-abortion-group-janes-revenge-open-season-pro-life-pregnancy-centers
https://janesrevenge.noblogs.org/2022/06/15/janes-revenge-another-communique/
"You have seen that we are real, and that we are not merely pushing empty words. As we said: we are not one group but many. You have seen us in Madison WI, Ft. Collins CO, Reisertown MA, Olympia WA, Des Moines IA, Lynwood WA, Washington DC, Ashville NC, Buffalo NY, Hollywood FL, Vancouver WA, Frederick MA, Denton TX, Gresham OR, Eugene OR, Portland OR, among others, and we work in countless locations invisibly. You’ve read the communiqués from the various cells, you’ve seen the proliferating messages in graffiti and elsewhere, and you know that we are serious.
We were unsurprised to see thirty days come and thirty days pass with no sign of consilience or even bare-minimum self-reflection from you who impersonate healthcare providers in order to harm the vulnerable. History may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes, and we’ve already seen such stanzas where medical autonomy is stripped away, humanity is increasingly criminalized, and merely surviving becomes largely untenable.
Your thirty days expired yesterday. We offered an honourable way out. You could have walked away. Now the leash is off. And we will make it as hard as possible for your campaign of oppression to continue. We have demonstrated in the past month how easy and fun it is to attack. We are versatile, we are mercurial, and we answer to no one but ourselves. We promised to take increasingly drastic measures against oppressive infrastructures. Rest assured that we will, and those measures may not come in the form of something so easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti. Sometimes you will see what we do, and you will know that it is us. Sometimes you will think you merely are unlucky, because you cannot see the ways which we interfere in your affairs. But your pointless attempts to control others, and make life more difficult, will not be met passively. Eventually your insurance companies, and your financial backers will realize you are a bad investment.
From here forward, any anti-choice group who closes their doors, and stops operating will no longer be a target. But until you do, it’s open season, and we know where your operations are. The infrastructure of the enslavers will not survive. We will never stop, back down, slow down, or retreat. We did not want this; but it is upon us, and so we must deal with it proportionally. We exist in confluence and solidarity with all others in the struggle for complete liberation. Our recourse now is to defend ourselves and to build robust, caring communities of mutual aid, so that we may heal ourselves without the need of the medical industry or any other intermediary. Through attacking, we find joy, courage, and strip the veneer of impenetrability held by these violent institutions.
And for the allies of ours who doubt the authenticity of the communiqués and actions: there is a way you can get irrefutable proof that these actions are real. Go do one of your own. You are already one of us. Everyone with the urge to paint, to burn, to cut, to jam: now is the time. Go forth and manifest the things you wish to see. Stay safe, and practice your cursive.
—Jane’s Revenge"
Just more evidence for Dan to ignore, minimize, downplay, or excuse.
"WHY do you have any confidence in your ability to understand the news, the Bible or any written material or conversations?"
I'd go find the quotes, but it wouldn't matter. Hell you've accused me of all sorts of bad things for quoting you in the past.
Because I'm a reasonably intelligent sentient, human who can understand the Engilsh language.
"ONE set of actions comes from a place of opposition to injustice. The other comes from a place of racism.,"
Oh, look. Dan justifies the BLM rioter who burns down a police station, loots a store, or endangers the lives of innocent women and children, because it comes from "opposition to injustice". All the while pretending that the increasing violent acts against crisis pregnancy centers, and the assassination attempt of Justice Kavanaugh (and the doxxing of Barret's children) isn't coming from "left wing" folks.
This level of commitment to a narrative might be admirable if the narrative wasn't false.
Dan,
Two simple questions.
1. How many LEO's, and innocent civilians, were killed during all of the riots of 2020?
2. How many unarmed black people are killed by police annually?
Art,
I can't think of an example of Dan criticizing violence, lying, or the like, when engaged in by someone or some group on the left where he's condemned them without adding some disclaimer about the "right" doing the same or worse. In this very thread he's tried to imply that this recent surge in violence and threats of more violence might be a "false flag" situation. Yet strangely, he's quick to lump virtually every "mass shooter" (driver) into this vague "right wing, white" category even when they're not. It's a commitment to a narrative or an ideal that doesn't represent reality.
"Last time: I LITERALLY never said that."
You're right that you literally did not use the exact words in the exact order of my paraphrase. What you actually do is more insidious and less honest. You use phrases like those below to give lip service to those on the left who engage in violence, while pretending that all of the riots since Ferguson haven't been that bad, while trying to shift the blame to "the other". Your attempts to justify the left wing violence because it's for "justice" is simply bullcrap.
"An oppressed people saying NO MORE is a righteous thing."
"ONE set of actions comes from a place of opposition to injustice."
"If it's people dedicated to a pro-choice position..."
" I'm just noting that it's apples and rotten oranges comparing the few on the Left who strike out against oppression with vandalism and looting (IF IF IF IF it's anyone on the Left doing it)"
But it's a somewhat clever, albeit disingenuous, tactic.
I love Dan's protests when caught indicting himself. The "I literally never said that" might be literally true, but only because he didn't literally say the exact words, as you indicated. I've countered it with the perennial, "not in so many words", which means what was claimed he said he merely said in a different way. And it doesn't require that he intended it to be received as our paraphrase charges. But it's a dodge, and for your first example, an incredibly hypocritical one:
"An oppressed people saying NO MORE is a righteous thing."
Dan believes he gets to choose what constitutes a legitimate "righteous thing" by "an oppressed people" he gets to label as such. (I know Dan...you literally never said that. Spare me.)
The BLM rioters protested a false claim, proven false based on law enforcement statistics and a simply review of facts. Thus, they are not oppressed in the manner suggested and their cry of "no more" is to say "no more" to something which isn't happening. (No. That does NOT mean that brutality by cops never occurs or that racists cops don't exist. It's a matter of frequency and that is far, far lower than the race-hustlers say and gullible white-guilt leftists believe.
The Jan 6 protesters, on the other hand, have far more evidence in support of their claim the election was stolen, despite asshats referring to it as "The Big Lie" because to honestly investigate claims would likely result (or at least possibly result) in four more years of an effective president who benefited far more Americans than even the last GOP president did. To be denied a legitimate hearing, as the many complaints failed to receive, the cry of "no more" was justified and being denied is oppression, to have an illegitimate president installed instead. We're certainly oppressed now in so many ways NO ONE was during Trump's presidency.
Jan 6, therefore was "ONE set of actions comes from a place of opposition to injustice." And the left is constantly "striking out" in violent ways using a false claim of injustice and oppression. Dan supports that. He says so routinely...in not so many words.
Post a Comment