"I would politely ask you to remain respectful and adult in your comments. On topic comments that are refreshingly intelligent would be welcome. (and surprising, but that's an aside)."
Coming from someone who so rarely offers comments that are "respectful", "adult" (although some do stray into "adult" as in inappropriate territory) or "of topic", it seems excessive to demand that other must always be all three of those simultaneously.
More "Do as I say, not as I do."
Dan: ""You throw a ball like a girl" is stupid for an 8th grade boy to say. It's sexist and misogynist for an adult man to say. Your attack words are like that."
The problem with this statement is that it
ignores the biological fact that women and girls do throw differently
then men/boys. The physiology and muscle makeup of women/girls is
different from men/boys, which means that throwing differently is not an
insult (although it can be), but a statement of fact. The hips play
an important role in throwing, and women's hip structure is different
than men's.
This isn't to say that there aren't some women/girls who can't throw in a similar manner to men/boys, but we don't base things on exceptions. I went to the Google to check this out, and like so much, it seems clear from the results that the difference in throwing is pretty much just accepted as reality.
Dan: "3. When I cite commonly known data (the number of women who've been sexually assaulted, the huge number of women who've been sexually harassed, the age of the universe, that rain is wet, that snow is cold, etc), I will probably not provide a source for it. It's commonly known. It's easily discovered and is something that you, as an adult, should know."
Here we have Dan using one of his "cheat codes". He
declares something "commonly known" and it therefore exempts him from
having to actually back up his claims. It's his get out of jail free
card to say anything he wants without having to provide proof. I'd
point out that it is literally impossible for him to provide an accurate
"age of the universe" within, say, 100,000 years.
"4. On the other hand, because of your (Marshal) history of
citing "facts" and "data" that is not widely known or accepted OR that
is just flatly wrong, YOU have to provide a source. It's the cost for
you to post here because of your history of referring to conspiracy
theories and false claims. You don't have to like it, but it's just the
reality."
Now we see the blatant "Do as I demand, not as I
do." strategy. I'll note that "commonly known" is not a measure of
Truth or accuracy. So, when Dan applies this subjective standard
(Which really means "What Dan "knows or has heard") it's not about
accuracy or Truth it's about hiding from having to do what he demands of
others. I appreciate him stating this double standard with such
clarity.
"Now, if you post something that's commonly known, I may
not demand that of you. If you cite that cars produce pollution, for
instance, well, of course, that's a known thing. BUT if you want to make
claims about disputable theories, YOU will have to support your claim.'
This
bit of condescending bullshit simply means that Dan can demand that you
prove things at will (hostage taking?), while he'll never do the same.
"That's the same when you make stupidly false claims like "Dan is lying..." when it's not a case of me lying."
Even when Dan's lies or falsehoods are demonstrated, Dan still won't acknowledge his falsehoods/lies/misstatements.
"5.
Disrespectful, rude and unsupported or simply false claims will not
remain on my blog. Speaking of women in demeaning, condescending or
vulgar ways will NOT remain here. Making off topic commentary will not
likely remain."
74 comments:
What's incredible is his demand for that "adult, respectful" conversation when all you've highlighted points to an outrageous lack of adult respectfulness by virtue of the double standards. DAN get's to decide what's common knowledge in all things, regardless of whether or not the issue is commonly debated or even known by the vast majority of people. As you say, it's a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card to avoid having to do what he demands of others.
But just for the sake of discussion, let's say I present something I believe is common knowledge, self-evident or "plain for all to see". How does that assertion absolve me of the obligation to prove my position on the subject at hand? It doesn't. It's a deflection. And worse, were I to actually say such a thing without providing supporting evidence, what's the common response from Dan? It's usually something along the lines of "Well, I've never seen it!"
Dan doesn't seek truth or knowledge. He asserts what he prefers is truth and knowledge and should he expend actual effort to provide some data from an actual source one can study, it's not necessarily more substantive than that it agrees with what he wants to believe is truth and/or knowledge, and thus is not the "hard data" he would demand of us.
As to his "hard data" and sources, I can't think of one which didn't provoke in me a multitude of questions (in those rare cases where there was an actual study of at least some quality). Posing those questions elicits nothing more substantive than "you think you know more than the experts!", as if his "experts" are way beyond my ability to understand. All of Dan's offerings intended to "prove" one of his favored sexual disorders are normal do not come close to doing so, but do nothing but explain how the disordered behaviors exist. More to the point, they explain the disorder as apart from the normal, meaning it's not normal at all! So the source doesn't even provide what it was presented to provide and certainly doesn't satisfy any objective request for evidence or proof. But no matter. Dan provided and that's good enough.
On the other hand, when evidence is provided on the basis of his strict criteria for what constitutes proof, it's never enough, but one is never given a reason why or how it's in any way falling short. It just is and that's all you need to know.
This is neither adult nor respectful of an opponent in discourse. It is, however, more evidence of his blatant and inveterate dishonesty.
The problem with this statement is that it ignores the biological fact that women and girls do throw differently then men/boys.
That does not change the fact that for adult men (or boys, really) to say with a sneer, "you throw like a girl," is a sexist insult. It is used intentionally, regularly as an attempt to smear someone, say something BAD about someone because the "throw like a girl." AS IF there were something wrong with throwing like a girl. THAT is the point of the gibe and it is, therefore, sexist and generally perceived to be sexist.
It's not sexist to say, "you know, I've noticed that men often throw balls differently than men do... what causes that? Is it something physiological or does it have to do with how the different genders tend to be raised..." That's a real, reasonable question. It's intent is not to smear or insult someone for "for throwing like a girl..." But generally, when it's used, it's used as a smear, as if throwing like a girl is shameful.
But why do I have to even explain that?
As to rape rates, are you saying you are NOT aware of how shamefully, oppressively common sexual assaults/rapes are? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it IS common knowledge to at least anyone who listens to the news that research has consistently shown that sexual assaults happen to something like 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 women.
"That's the same when you make stupidly false claims like "Dan is lying..." when it's not a case of me lying."Even when Dan's lies or falsehoods are demonstrated, Dan still won't acknowledge his falsehoods/lies/misstatements.
AS SOON as you point to ONE PLACE where I've lied, I will be glad to do so. Generally, what you point to are places like disagreements, not lies. But by all means, POINT TO EVEN JUST ONE spot where I've lied.
That ball remains, as always, in your court.
"I'd point out that it is literally impossible for him to provide an accurate "age of the universe" within, say, 100,000 years."
And that may matter IF I made a claim that we objectively know the age of the universe within 100, 000 years. But I haven't. Scientists haven't. What we DO know, objectively, is that the universe is nowhere NEAR being roughly 6,000 years old. This, according to observable, measurable data.
Right?
Thus it is we established that the universe is billions of years old, not thousands.
Right?
No lie or misunderstanding there on my part, right?
Dan
"The problem with this statement is that it ignores the biological fact that women and girls do throw differently then men/boys."
I don't think I finished my point in my earlier comment, so...
The problem with this is, it's entirely missing the point. The point is not that there are physical differences between men and women, the problem is using these differences to insult someone, as if being like a woman in some way is a problem. People who say "you throw like a woman" or "girly man" are deliberately trying to be insulting in the comment.
Just to help you understand the point you appear to be clearly missing. Never is, You throw like a girl intended to be a compliment. Never is Girl man intended as a compliment.
Dan
Hilarious is Dan's suggestion that saying he throws like a girl is an insult to girls and women. But that's like saying, "I'd call him a horse's ass, but that's an insult to horses' asses." So Dan's objection is another intentional lie by him because he well knows what it means and that it has no negative connotation to women except that in general, they don't throw well. When Dan can't find fault in positions we take in opposition to his, he creates them with crap like this. It's a lie, because Dan's a liar.
"Coming from someone who so rarely offers comments that are "respectful", "adult" (although some do stray into "adult" as in inappropriate territory) or "of topic","
Intriguing. "So rarely." Really?
How about looking at ANY of your posts where you can support this unsupported charge?
Can you find even ONE of your posts where the majority (or all) of my comments are not on topic, rational or adult?
I suspect you won't and it's because you can't, but you tell/show me.
Maybe you have a low or perhaps irrational bar of what constitutes adult, rational and/or adult, but you show me. If you can support your unsupported charge, I can learn and do better, but unsupported claims are just a form of slander and gossip, aren't they?
Dan
Take your recent Robert Jackson post... I challenge you to find even ONE comment I made that isn't rational/reason-based. I'm not saying you should agree with my reasoning, just that each of my comments were good-faith rational.
I challenge you to find even ONE comment I made that isn't respectful.
I challenge you to find even ONE comment I made that isn't adult... OR that is indecent, as you suggested.
I began that post with clear, direct Yes, No answers to your questions (ie, Yes, I believe in objective morality as a concept). I then proceeded to note what I've been noting consistently...
"At the same time, I'm noting the reality that none of us can PROVE objectively our notion of a transcendent moral law or the details - that YOU can't, that Jackson couldn't, that I can't - and yet, because some actions are so self-evidently wrong that it is imperative that we draw some lines that should not be crossed and stick to it by common assent."
That is, I respectfully, rationally and, yes, humbly, noted that none of us can objectively prove our opinions on morality. I've never seen you do this or even TRY to do this. I've done searches and read books and, far and away, rarely to never have seen ANYONE even try to objectively prove their moral opinions. Given that I've never seen ANYONE produce objective proof for their moral opinions, how is it NOT rational or humble to admit I've never seen data to support the claim? How is that not adult and respectful?
I'll wait for a respectful, rational response.
Dan
"He declares something "commonly known" and it therefore exempts him from having to actually back up his claims."
The advantage of referring to something as "widely known" when it is, in fact, "widely known," is that people on the outside of this commonly known knowledge, the uninformed can easily Google and get answers. Because it is widely known, for instance, what the rape/sexual assault rate is, when one googles "sexual assault rate" or "how many women raped, " etc, multiple answers from multiple sources pop up right away.
On the other hand, when one googles "objective proof for morality," nothing much clear and direct and definitive pops up.
Widely known is easily established.
How is this mistaken, irrational, off topic, disrespectful or not adult?
Dan
I had said...
"Now, if you post something that's commonly known, I may not demand that of you. If you cite that cars produce pollution, for instance, well, of course, that's a known thing. BUT if you want to make claims about disputable theories, YOU will have to support your claim.'
To which, Craig responded...
This bit of condescending bullshit simply means that Dan can demand that you prove things at will (hostage taking?), while he'll never do the same.
Here's your chance to help me learn:
What specifically is condescending about my position? Is it not reasonable that something as commonly known as auto pollution does not need a citation but making claims about disputable theories DO need documented support?
What specifically is irrational, condescending or otherwise wrong with that position? Because in good faith reality, that seems to me to be incredibly reasonable, to a degree that we all should be able to agree with it.
Help me learn.
Or, conversely, admit it is reasonable and you just misspoke.
Dan
"I'll note that "commonly known" is not a measure of Truth or accuracy. "
That would depend on what we're talking about. When I cite concerns women have about the sexual harassment to sexual assault spectrum and I cite the data that 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 women have experienced some level of sexual assault, I'm citing the data of police reports about sexual assault, as well as other research.
It IS objectively demonstrable that a horribly large percentage of women have experienced sexual assault. What is "commonly known " about the data IS true, in that case.
Likewise, the age of the universe being billions of years old, that bit of commonly known data is true, and Likewise, that the age of the universe is NOT only thousands of years old, that is a fact and a truth.
Where am I mistaken? Where am I being irrational, where am I not being an adult, where am I being condescending or rude?
Dan
" That does not change the fact that for adult men (or boys, really) to say with a sneer, "you throw like a girl," is a sexist insult. It is used intentionally, regularly as an attempt to smear someone, say something BAD about someone because the "throw like a girl." AS IF there were something wrong with throwing like a girl. THAT is the point of the gibe and it is, therefore, sexist and generally perceived to be sexist."
It can be that, yet it can also be an completely, biologically, mechanically accurate assessment of how someone throws. In any case, that doesn't change the reality that men/boys/women/girls have significant structural/muscular/biological differences in their bodies that result in them doing the same basic action in different ways.
"But why do I have to even explain that?"
Because your condescending and annoying.
"As to rape rates, are you saying you are NOT aware of how shamefully, oppressively common sexual assaults/rapes are? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it IS common knowledge to at least anyone who listens to the news that research has consistently shown that sexual assaults happen to something like 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 women."
No, I AM saying that there is at least some data that I've seen that calls into question how accurate that number represents the actual risk of an average woman. Much like people with multiple divorces skew the divorce rate statistics, I suspect that some demographic groups of women skew the overall numbers. In any case, "common knowledge" does not equal being factually true.
"AS SOON as you point to ONE PLACE where I've lied, I will be glad to do so. Generally, what you point to are places like disagreements, not lies. But by all means, POINT TO EVEN JUST ONE spot where I've lied."
I do it regularly, you ignore it when I do, and you pull this bullshit.
"And that may matter IF I made a claim that we objectively know the age of the universe within 100, 000 years. But I haven't. Scientists haven't. What we DO know, objectively, is that the universe is nowhere NEAR being roughly 6,000 years old. This, according to observable, measurable data."
You claimed that the "age of the universe" is something that is "commonly known" and that you are not going to cite a source for. Now you admit that you cannot tell us within 100,000 years how old the universe is. Good job at shooting yourself in the foot there. But you do seem to know objectively to a 100% certainty how old the universe is not, interesting.
"Right?"
If you say so.
"Right?"
If you say so. But that's not within 100,000 years. Is it?
"No lie or misunderstanding there on my part, right?"
Did I say that that specific claim was either? Well no, I did not. What I did say is that the "age of the universe" is something you claim is "commonly known" yet you clearly DO NOT KNOW what the "age of the universe" is.
"I don't think I finished my point in my earlier comment, so..."
You literally said virtually the exact same thing in your earlier comment, but obviously forgot that you did so (after a short period of time), yet expect us to blindly trust your memory when it comes to things you said years ago.
"Intriguing. "So rarely." Really?"
Ok, rarely might be a bit of an exaggeration/hyperbole/sarcasm.
"How about looking at ANY of your posts where you can support this unsupported charge?"
I've literally (in the literal meaning of the word literally) written entire posts where you've done so. You regularly accuse me of being a "rapist enabler", "racist", of supporting the Klan and all sorts of things which are a) lies, b) not adult.
"Can you find even ONE of your posts where the majority (or all) of my comments are not on topic, rational or adult?"
Sure. I could absolutely find a post where a significant number of your comments are off topic. Some of this is because I indulge your penchant for off topic diversions more than I should. So it's kind of my fault for enabling you.
"I suspect you won't and it's because you can't, but you tell/show me."
It's common knowledge.
"Maybe you have a low or perhaps irrational bar of what constitutes adult, rational and/or adult, but you show me. If you can support your unsupported charge, I can learn and do better, but unsupported claims are just a form of slander and gossip, aren't they?"
When I ask you to prove your claims, you frequently choose not to do so. When I point out this double standard, you ignore it. In this case, if I was to go back and find posts where you've gone off topic, all that would mean is that you would immediately launch a barrage of comments that would attempt to demonstrate that you were really "on topic" if one stretches "on topic" so broadly it becomes meaningless. Which would then take this thread off topic.
Are you really claiming that you don't regularly make "off topic" comments?
FYI, the point of the post is to draw attention to your double standard.
"Take your recent Robert Jackson post... I challenge you to find even ONE comment I made that isn't rational/reason-based. I'm not saying you should agree with my reasoning, just that each of my comments were good-faith rational."
Why should I "take" that one post out of the context of the vast number of posts/comments that exist on my blog? Because you were very careful to (for one whole post) be better than you usually are? Because you self label your comments the way you perceive them?
A comment from Dan made at 1:49 May 14, 2004. Let's dissect.
"Based on your subjective, individual, hunches there is no way you can answer yes. Based on your subjective, individual, hunches there is no way you can answer yes. SO what you do is decide to speak for YHWH and to put your words in His mouth. To invoke YHWH is the source of your moral code, seems to be the only possible way to reach a transcendent moral code, yet you deny the ability to prove your own claims. Why would anyone simply accept your condescending version of YHWH's words as anything except your own subjective, individual, interpretation?
"I challenge you to find even ONE comment I made that isn't respectful."
"SO what you do is decide to speak for YHWH and to put your words in His mouth."
The above quot is unproven, factually inaccurate, and completely false. I'd suggest that making this sort of unproven claim while providing zero evidence is in fact not "respectful'.
"I challenge you to find even ONE comment I made that isn't adult... OR that is indecent, as you suggested."
I'd suggest that making shit up, putting words in my mouth, pretending that I've said things or made claims that I haven't is not "adult". As for "indecent", (other than telling such blatant falsehoods could be considered "indecent", this one comment is tame by your standards.
If you think that you making shit up and acting as if it represented something I've said or should have to prove is is "respectful" of "humble", then I'd be forced to conclude that you don't know what those words mean.
Like so much of your "analysis" you cherry pick one thread out of thousands, pick one which is short with few comments from you, pick one where you were clearly trying to be more "adult" and "respectful", and offer it as if it is representative.
"The advantage of referring to something as "widely known" when it is, in fact, "widely known," is that people on the outside of this commonly known knowledge, the uninformed can easily Google and get answers."
The advantage of you doing so is that it takes the responsibility away from you to prove the claims you make (as you point out).
"Because it is widely known, for instance, what the rape/sexual assault rate is, when one googles "sexual assault rate" or "how many women raped, " etc, multiple answers from multiple sources pop up right away."
It's strange how often I post a "widely known" (the fact that you literally are misquoting yourself is hilarious as if substituting "widely" for "commonly" helps) fact yet you demand that I "prove" or provide "evidence" (and artificially limit what evidence/proof you'll accept) while you peddle this bullshit. Of course the existence of multiple (sometimes contradictory or at least not in agreement hits) doesn't "prove" the claim you made.
"On the other hand, when one googles "objective proof for morality," nothing much clear and direct and definitive pops up."
Strange, when I Googled it, there were quite a lot of hits. The problem is that "clear and direct" are subjective measure based on your biased hunches.
"Widely known is easily established."
Which doesn't mean that "widely known" absolutely equals True is a factually accurate statement.
For years it was "widely known" that eggs caused high cholesterol in humans was were to be avoided or minimized in human diets. Yet, that "widely known" information was false.
It was "widely known" that "The Science" told us that "social distancing" of "6'" would "stop the spread of COVID". This so "widely known" that it was rigidly enforced. Yet, we now know that there was absolutely no scientific support for this made up bullshit. It was "widely known" that the COVID "vaccine" would "protect" people from COVID. Fauci "widely" repeated this claim. Yet we now know that it was false. It was "widely known" that Trump colluded with Russia to affect the 2016 election. We now know that the entire Trump/Russia collusion narrative was 100% false.
I could go on, but it seems pointless. "Widely known" does not equal True.
"How is this mistaken, irrational, off topic, disrespectful or not adult?"
Again, with claiming that a few comments on one thread represents the thousands of comments on thousands of threads at this blog alone?
"Here's your chance to help me learn:"
Or give you more stuff to ignore, more likely.
"What specifically is condescending about my position? Is it not reasonable that something as commonly known as auto pollution does not need a citation but making claims about disputable theories DO need documented support?"
That the very nature of the comment makes my point that you hold yourself to a different standard than you demand of others, that you alone get to determine what "common knowledge" is exempt from proof or evidence, the substitution of a vague/general claim as an example of the more specific claims you are making, just to name a few problems. As it so often does, your "tone" drips condescension.
"What specifically is irrational, condescending or otherwise wrong with that position? Because in good faith reality, that seems to me to be incredibly reasonable, to a degree that we all should be able to agree with it."
Because asking the same question twice before I have the chance to answer is always "respectful' and "adult".
"Help me learn."
OK. To try to take one specific, cherry picked example from a vastly larger sample size and to pretend that the one cherry picked example is representative of the entirety of your comments spread over multiple years/blogs/threads is unhelpful to say the least. I never said that you are never all of the things you demand of others, just that your demands are one more example of demanding others follow a standard that you do not follow. When you take something I've said, construct a straw man, and argue against the straw man, it's not a winning formula. Self serving, absolutely. Winning, no.
A blind pig can find an acorn every once and a while. You self servingly demonstrating that you are able (for short periods of time) to put forth the effort to hold yourself to a similar standard that the one you demand of others, doesn't negate the years of history that tell a different story.
"That would depend on what we're talking about."
You could have just acknowledged that "commonly known" does NOT equal true and left it at that. Instead you have to go into your self justifying shuck and jive bullshit to demonstrate that in this one case that it really does.
"When I cite concerns women have about the sexual harassment to sexual assault spectrum and I cite the data that 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 women have experienced some level of sexual assault, I'm citing the data of police reports about sexual assault, as well as other research."
The problem is that you seem unaware of what the term "cite" means. You seem to think that your making a vague general reference to what is "commonly known" somehow magically means that you have cited specific "data of police reports" and "other research", when you haven't.
For example, we just learned that the FBI uniform crime data does not include multiple high population, high density, urban cities with high crime rates. Do you not think that that might skew this "data" you haven't cited? But it's irrelevant. You specifically claim you have cited" specific data, when you have absolutely not done so. To make that claim is a lie. To pretend that claiming that something is "common knowledge" as a way to hide the fact that you've lied about a specific, fact claim that you have made seems problematic to say the least.
"It IS objectively demonstrable that a horribly large percentage of women have experienced sexual assault. What is "commonly known " about the data IS true, in that case."
1. You claiming that something is "objectively demonstrable" without objectively demonstrating your claim is laughable.
2. "Large number" is a vague, general, subjective claim at best.
3. The fact that you have offered one cherry picked bit of "common knowledge" that might be reasonably accurate, doesn't mitigate the point of the post. (Making this whole line of bullshit "off topic")
4. None of these empty claims helps to demonstrate that "common knowledge" equals True.
5. Isn't finding the Truth about something the most important thing?
"Where am I mistaken? Where am I being irrational, where am I not being an adult, where am I being condescending or rude?"
The very fact that you ask the same questions repeatedly before I even have the opportunity to read than, let alone answer them is all of the above. As is your implication that because you have the theoretical ability to do something in one or two threads somehow proves that you don't do those things regularly and haven't got a documented history of doing them.
Again, the point of the post is that you demand standards of behavior from others that you do not hold yourself to. Since none of this self serving bullshit demonstrates that the point of the post is factually incorrect, I guess this is all "off topic". Which, kind of proves my point.
Art,
I'll get you your comments at some point. I'm sure that they were cogent, concise, and on topic.
Now you admit that you cannot tell us within 100,000 years how old the universe is. Good job at shooting yourself in the foot there.
You DO know that 100,000 years of the estimated 13 billion years of the universe is 0.0007 accurate? THAT is tremendously accurate. Do you think that being .0007 uncertain indicates wildly inaccurate or uncertain?
It doesn't. It just doesn't.
You regularly accuse me of being a "rapist enabler", "racist", of supporting the Klan and all sorts of things which are a) lies, b) not adult.
1. You post no link to support your claim.
2. Nonetheless, it is likely true that I DO say things like "when one mocks women who've reported a rape, or regularly doubts women who report sexual assault, that enables rapists," but that is a reasonably true and good-faith response. OF COURSE, using words like that empowers/enables rapists. And when Trump leads with comments like "Mexico is sending us their thugs and rapists... and there were many good people on both sides" when speaking of murderous racists, that, TOO, emboldens and empowers racists. The racists TELL us that they are emboldened and empowered by such words.
There is a difference between saying "Craig is a racist-enabler or a rapist-enabler" and saying, "Those words you're using do, in fact, enable racists/rapists..." In the latter, I'm making a good faith critique of your words and raising reasonable concerns.
Do you think you're above having your words critiqued, especially on such vital matters as racism and rape? I don't think so for my words, nor for your words or for Trump's words. Good faith, rational adult disagreements may be difficult to hear, but it doesn't indicate a lie nor does it indicate a lack of adult reasoning. Indeed, trying to shut down that kind of language could be a lack of adult reasoning.
In other words, when I (and others) in good faith disagree with words that some conservatives use and raise good faith concerns, that's not a lie nor irrational.
Do you disagree?
Do you think you're lying when you use strong words when you disagree with me or Biden?
When I ask you to prove your claims, you frequently choose not to do so.
When you ask me to prove something unprovable, yes, I don't do the impossible. I can't and therefore won't prove that God is objectively established as having blessed gay folks marrying, ANY MORE than you can prove God objectively opposes the same.
But otherwise, I think I do generally support my claims. The rape claim, for instance, that is widely known, I gave my proof by noting that it is widely known and saying because it is widely known, you can just google it and find multiple supports for what I'm telling you.
IF I am citing some obscure and unknown data, then I remain glad to provide links and generally do.
This is an example of an unsupported claim which amounts to just more gossip and slander.
Like so much of your "analysis" you cherry pick one thread out of thousands, pick one which is short with few comments from you, pick one where you were clearly trying to be more "adult" and "respectful", and offer it as if it is representative.
It was just the most recent and easiest to find (for you... saving you the trouble of having to look back at old posts) and so, for that reason, I looked at it as an example. To no one's surprise, when I looked at that post, there was nothing especially there to support your claim. IF it were truly rare, then that post with multiple lengthy comments from me, you'd suspect that a good faith reader would find something.
But I see you're backing down from the false claim that it's rare that I am not respectful, rational, adult or on-topic. Still, your words above treat it like this is some anomaly where, you CHARGE without support, that I was "clearly trying to be more "adult" and "respectful"" but of course, that did not enter my mind specifically for that post any more than I'm almost always front of mind about being respectful and rational. It's what I strive to do as a matter of habit. And yes, there are times I will employ sarcasm which could be considered disrespectful, and even more rarely, curse words. But then, that truly is a rare occasion, just as you occasionally use curse words.
At any rate, this is just another example of a false claim from you (saying I was specifically and as an exception being polite and reasonable) without any support.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/01/27/the-stat-that-1-in-5-college-women-are-sexually-assaulted-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/?sh=e598c4e22170
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/10/15/is-it-really-true-that-1-in-3-female-undergraduates-are-sexually-assaulted-at-usc/?sh=41ce4aae1bec
https://www.laloyolan.com/news/11-bq-with-evan-gerstmann/article_0e528462-f450-5f09-85f4-77cf2633cbeb.html
In my Google search for rape statistics, I found a gentleman who has written some interesting things about the "commonly known" rape statistics. He, and I, are very clear that rape/sexual assault is serious and that the amount of rape/sexual assault should not be minimized or trivialized.
What IS being argued is that if the "commonly known" statistics are inaccurate or based on bad data or flawed methodology, then the conclusions drawn from that data will also be flawed. The question is, or should be, how many women are subject to rape and sexual assault. Those accurate numbers should be important, and the number of rapes/sexual assaults should be a concern regardless of whether it's 1 in 1000 or 20 in 100. It's all illegal, it's all bad, it all should be punished.
I did a Google search to find out how many women report multiple sexual assaults, and was unable to find a simple, clear number in the first few pages of results. It seems like this would be a good piece of information to have in this discussion. I also noticed that instead of FBI/DOJ crime data being prevalent, I saw a lot of advocacy organizations which clearly have a agenda. It's been argued that advocacy organizations (not being professional journalists for particular outlets) might be tempted to skew the data in ways that will help their cause.
https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/04/22/boston-alvin-campbell-rape-case-police
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/maryland-law-allows-convicted-rapist-to-attend-baltimore-high-school-public-not-informed
https://msmagazine.com/2023/02/23/california-law-rape-sexual-assault-statute-of-limitations/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/03/nyregion/rape-conviction-new-york-court.html
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-rape-kits-are-awaiting-testing-in-the-us-see-the-data-by-state/
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/san-diego-district-attorney-not-filing-charges-in-alleged-rape-of-minor-by-sdsu-football-players/509-c49817cb-9d6d-45b6-a96e-dd6f2d22c4b3
https://abc7.com/long-beach-sexual-assault-miguel-avila-da/13995357/
https://kdvr.com/news/problem-solvers/blinders-on-denver-da-refused-7-of-10-felony-rape-cases/
One thing I'm finding is my searches is that it seems rare for rapists to actually get convicted. Or more rare than it should be. DA's failing to charge, thousands of rape kits unprocessed, charges dropped or not prosecuted all seem like regular occurrences.
I'm not an expert, but I'd be willing to bet that the more rapists the justice system fails to incarcerate drives the total number of rapes. I'd also be willing to bet that more prosecutions/convictions would drive the number of rapes down as well.
None of this is really "on topic", and none of this is at all about minimizing the horror or rape (FYI the Israeli hostage that Hamas brutally raped on 10/7 was just found dead. Where are the tears for her? Or the outrage at Hamas for using rape as a weapon?). But it does go directly to my assertion that what is "common knowledge" or "widely known", might not actually be True.
I would absolutely want to see the most accurate numbers on actual rapes and sexual assaults be reported. I absolutely support either the death penalty, castration, or lifetime solitary confinement for those convicted of rape. I also support harsh penalties for those who falsely report rapes, or report consensual sex as rape. Beyond the fact that this is vile behavior, it wastes resources that should be devoted to actual victims.
In short, "commonly known" or "widely" accepted are NOT measures of what is True or False. Therefore to hide behind those terms so as to avoid proving one's claims is the act of a coward or one who lives by a double standard.
Again, I am emphatically NOT demeaning, minimizing, or otherwise saying anything negative about any actual victims.
"You DO know that 100,000 years of the estimated 13 billion years of the universe is 0.0007 accurate? THAT is tremendously accurate. Do you think that being .0007 uncertain indicates wildly inaccurate or uncertain?"
No, it makes my point that your "common knowledge" might be "common" but it's not necessarily accurate or True. Or are you saying that you can objectively prove that the universe is exactly 1.3 billion years old, within 100,000 years either way.
It's strange, because I've heard different age of the universe numbers for years, but now you know with precise accuracy.
"It doesn't. It just doesn't."
You're right, these attempts to defend your un proven claims are not on topic. The topic is your double standard, not your claims.
1. No, because we all know that you do so.
2. Nonetheless, when you accuse ME of doing those things without proof, that constitutes lying. It also assumes that your bullshit formulations are objectively true.
"There is a difference between saying "Craig is a racist-enabler or a rapist-enabler" and saying, "Those words you're using do, in fact, enable racists/rapists..." In the latter, I'm making a good faith critique of your words and raising reasonable concerns."
Not if you can't prove your claims, which you haven't.
"Do you think you're above having your words critiqued, especially on such vital matters as racism and rape?"
No. Of course, I don't think that you criticizing "your words" that you have claimed that I have said is criticizing "my words". You regularly accuse me of saying things, without a single bit of evidence, then you criticize your straw man.
"I don't think so for my words, nor for your words or for Trump's words. Good faith, rational adult disagreements may be difficult to hear, but it doesn't indicate a lie nor does it indicate a lack of adult reasoning. Indeed, trying to shut down that kind of language could be a lack of adult reasoning."
That's the difference between us. When I criticize your words I directly quote you. You just make shit up and pretend I said it.
But excellent job of going off topic, while trying to pretend that you don't.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes. Your self justifying response assumes facts not in evidence.
1. "Good faith".
2. The accuracy and context of the words you are critiquing.
3. The factual accuracy of the critique.
"Do you think you're lying when you use strong words when you disagree with me or Biden?"
Again with the off topic double standard. You demand that I provide specifics, while you throw out this vague, unsupported, bullshit.
But, I'll humor/enable you once.
When Biden and his surrogates say REPEATEDLY that inflation was at 9% when Biden took office, I can say that this is demonstrably a lie.
"When you ask me to prove something unprovable, yes, I don't do the impossible. I can't and therefore won't prove that God is objectively established as having blessed gay folks marrying, ANY MORE than you can prove God objectively opposes the same."
Again the double standard. You make these claims with absolutely zero evidence. I have to note that you've moved the goal posts here. My comment was about you proving "your claims". By definition your claims ARE your claims. If you can't prove them, don't make them. If you insist on making them, be prepared to be held to the same standard you demand of others.
"But otherwise, I think I do generally support my claims. The rape claim, for instance, that is widely known, I gave my proof by noting that it is widely known and saying because it is widely known, you can just google it and find multiple supports for what I'm telling you."
You claiming that you do something is not proof. Your repeating yourself, is not proof. You self proving your claims "because you say so", is not proof.
in any case it's off topic and irrelevant because the topic is your double standard and this just makes your double standard more obvious.
"IF I am citing some obscure and unknown data, then I remain glad to provide links and generally do."
If you say so. But thanks for admitting that you only sometimes "provide links" when you subjectivity determine that something is "obscure or unknown". It is hilarious when you prove my actual point (about your double standard), and somehow think it's a win for you.
Dan admits that my claim is accurate, that he doesn't always support or prove his claims, then claims that my pointing out what he just admitted was "gossip and slander".
"It was just the most recent and easiest to find (for you... saving you the trouble of having to look back at old posts) and so, for that reason, I looked at it as an example. To no one's surprise, when I looked at that post, there was nothing especially there to support your claim. IF it were truly rare, then that post with multiple lengthy comments from me, you'd suspect that a good faith reader would find something."
So, you use recency bias as your criteria to "prove" your claim about thousands of posts/comments spread over multiple blogs. Pretty weak.
"But I see you're backing down from the false claim that it's rare that I am not respectful, rational, adult or on-topic."
Not so much backing doan as acknowledging that you have trouble with exaggeration/hyperbole/sarcasm and I should probably note the occasions when I engage in those.
"Still, your words above treat it like this is some anomaly where, you CHARGE without support, that I was "clearly trying to be more "adult" and "respectful"" but of course, that did not enter my mind specifically for that post any more than I'm almost always front of mind about being respectful and rational."
Because it is an anomaly. You saying something, repeating yourself and acting as if that is the same level of proof you demand from others is ridiculous.
"It's what I strive to do as a matter of habit. And yes, there are times I will employ sarcasm which could be considered disrespectful, and even more rarely, curse words. But then, that truly is a rare occasion, just as you occasionally use curse words."
The difference is that I'm NOT demanding a different standard of behavior from you than I expect from myself. Your inability to comprehend the actual topic of this post, after I've clearly articulated it multiple times is both concerning and affirming.
"At any rate, this is just another example of a false claim from you (saying I was specifically and as an exception being polite and reasonable) without any support."
Again, another claim from you with absolutely ZERO proof. It's hilarious when you do what you are bitching about me doing to prove that you don't do what you just did.
This thread of comments suggests something I've held as true for some time: the more Dan tries to defend himself, the more he validates the conclusions his initial words provoked.
When Dan uses the cowardly "common knowledge" canard, the reality is it's far more accurate to say "what is commonly believed to be true", which would at least hold off responses until evidence for the "believed to be true" part can be confirmed as true, though that evidence never comes from Dan, because it's "common knowledge" and therefore if we desire confirmation, we have to try to find it ourselves.
But the double-standard is in how this is not in any way acceptable to Dan were the roles reverse. More than that, the quantity and quality of evidence we do provide is never accepted as having supported our claims, positions or opinions, so long as Dan gets to decided if it does. And of course, if it contradicts or disproves Dan's claims, positions or opinions, it's not acceptable evidence.
Throwing like a girl.
This isn't offensive except to Dan, likely because he throws like a girl. Girls generally don't throw like boys. Setting aside women athletes who've developed their throwing motion, girls' mechanics is abysmal, resulting in low accuracy, power, distance, etc. Take an average boy and he will always throw in a manner which gets him picked for either side in a pick-up game. Boys who throw like girls will, if picked at all and allowed to play with the others, be picked last because they throw like girls.
So girls throw a particular way boys don't in general and that's a fact. If a boy throws in a manner which more compares to the typical girl, it's a statement of fact first, which is why it offends the the boy who throws like a girl. He doesn't want to be regarded as such. Girls might be offended, but their offense taken is unjustified given their inability to throw well, and that offense taken is generally a false understanding of the claim made against the boy who throws like a girl. There's nothing wrong with a girl throwing like a girl, provided she isn't needed to throw in the first place. But there's a big problem with guys throwing like girls and most definitely when they're required to throw well, as they more often are compared to girls.
Dan's objection to the term "girly-man" is also dishonest in suggesting it insults women. Women are expected to act in a more girly manner. Men are expected to act in more manly manner. When feminist girly-men like Dan whine on about "THE PATRIARCHY!!" (Oh, the horror!), he's parroting all the bullshit feminists spew regarding men in general, as if all men are the same. He, like them, generalizes about men from a leftist feminist perspective, because Dan, being a girly-man, can't think for himself.
I recently stated at Dan's that good men are dangerous men. He's deleted multiple attempts to respond to his girly response. Good men overcome evil because they're more dangerous to the evil people than the evil people are to good people. When I state I'm unconcerned about an entire population being wiped out to preserve and protect good people, that sort of comprehensive danger leads to fewer attempts to attack and oppress good people. And here's where Dan's lying comes in: Dan wants to portray this reality stated plainly as some kind of proof that for me, violent response is a first step. That's his first inclination when the statement itself in no way suggests such a thing. It's no more but another expression of peace through strength. And no amount of promoting kindness and love will end the reality of the presence of evil in this fallen world. Good men NEED to be dangerous and Dan lies about what that means and was disrespectful and insulting in his response my having stated it.
Another point "commonly believed to be true" is the age of the universe. Dan thinks science has confirmed a few things, when it's never gotten beyond the theoretical, all of which is based on only that which can be observed now, rather than then. This is a big problem with those who condescend to the "Young Earthers". A recent viewing of a documentary about Genesis revealed there indeed men of science who reject the "billions of years" theories for reasons related to the available data and evidence. The snobs speak of a "God of the gaps" type of perspective by these scientists and researchers, but they never come close to defaulting to such a thing. And while their conclusions may indeed yet be debated, it does demonstrate that what Dan prefers to accept as true is no more confirmed by science than anything else related to a time when no one existed. If I can find the documentary, I'll post the title and then Dan can not put in the effort to find anyone who can respond to the conclusions of these men of science...because he won't. He'll just dismiss it all as "not convincing" or contrary to "common knowledge" which doesn't really exist.
As to lying, I've taken to point out his lies as they happen. He does nothing to defend against the charge when leveled against him. Indeed, mostly he ignores he's even been called out, never mind trying to prove his false claims. He still hasn't backed up any suggestion of racism or sexism on my part, preferring to simply accuse me of it when my comments conflict with his chosen (not supported) positions. And to stupidly insist that our word enable rapists and racists is rank bullshit. For one thing, why focus on how evil people respond to comments or infer meanings not conveyed? For example, Trump is neither sexist (despite digging babes) or racist. But Dan likes to pretend that his public comments enable rapists (who need no words from Trump to appease their lusts) or racists (who will, like Dan, twist anything to rationalize their hatred). And of course, like Biden, despite actual transcripts which cannot be mistaken, Dan lies about what Trump said referring to Mexicans crossing our borders illegally, the people on both sides of the statue debate in Charlottesville and of course Dan's favorite, the Billy Bush interview. Dan's simply a liar.
(Uh oh! Did you turn off comment moderation?)
Ignore my last and this one, too. Evidently you checked in and posted one of my two intended comments and I thought comment moderation was disabled. Then I realized the second one WASN'T posted, likely because I was still typing it when you posted the first. Senior moment, I guess.
Art,
I believe that you are correct. I suspect that it's something that is ingrained in him and that moving outside of his normal pattern, even for a few comments, is hard. It's interesting that he considers vulgar language and the like inappropriate and not adult at his blog, he freely justifies his use of it to attack me at my blog. He also seems to forget that we have along written history of Dan's comments, although I wish I would have archived them.
You are correct in that the reason why "throws like a girl" is effective (either as insult or motivation) is that (given the biology) it's not natural for a boy to throw like a girl. Likewise there's no reason for a girl to be offended, because they throw like they were designed to throw.
But, let's take this a bit further. What does NOT offend Dan is when a biological boy, with all of he musculoskeletal, structural, and hormonal advantages that come with being a boy, decides to compete with girls who literally can't throw as well because biology.
As women's sports become more popular, I seen a recent trend of girls who proudly proclaim that they "throw like a girl". It's a point of pride to be a high level women/girl's athlete and to be among the best at their sport. They don't want to throw like what they are not, they want to be the best women/girl's athletes they can. Although, that is now being slowly taken from them as well.
At this point, isn't "girly man" just a recycled SNL bit that has to be said in a fake Austrian accent? As an insult, it seems a bit archaic and foolish. But, TBH, if a dude acts like a girl (as the 50+ year old on a girls team recently) he is literally being a "girly" "man" and the appellation is not inaccurate.
Much like Lewis' description of Aslan (not tame but good), I agree that one of the historic roles of men is to be "dangerous", although I'd say that it's a controlled dangerousness. It's more a a capacity to be dangerous, if the circumstances warrant it. I've said for years that if I'm alone and get mugged that I'm much less likely to avoid violence until unavoidable. But, if I'm with my wife, kids, nieces, mom, grand kids etc I'd be much more likely to use force to protect them.
Between Col Jessup and his speech about men who stand on walls, to Kipling's "O makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep", to "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” and “We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”, there is a common thread.
However, not all dangerous men are good. Yet that simply means that good men must be willing to stand between dangerous bad men and society.
Butker was right when he talked bout men needing to do hard things. West Point had it exactly right with "O God, our Father, Thou Searcher of Human hearts, help us to draw near to Thee in sincerity and truth. May our religion be filled with gladness and may our worship of Thee be natural.
Strengthen and increase our admiration for honest dealing and clean thinking, and suffer not our hatred of hypocrisy and pretence ever to diminish. Encourage us in our endeavor to live above the common level of life. Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half truth when the whole can be won.
Endow us with courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice and knows no fear when truth and right are in jeopardy.
Guard us against flippancy and irreverance in the sacred things of life. Grant us new ties of friendship and new opportunities of service. Kindle our hearts in fellowship with those of a cheerful countenance, and soften our hearts with sympathy for those who sorrow and suffer.
Help us to maintain the honor of the Corps untarnished and unsullied and to show forth in our lives the ideals of West Point in doing our duty to Thee and to our Country.
All of which we ask in the name of the Great Friend and Master of all.".
I know it's fashionable in some circles to talk of civil war and such, but the reality is that whatever side the "Dan's" of the world are on is going to lose. None of the "Dan's" will ever pick up arms and fight for a cause. They'll expect the government to do their dirty work for them, but won't take into account that those who do their dirty work, aren't men like them. The likelihood that the majority of the military is going to do the "Dan's" dirty work is low.
"But just for the sake of discussion, let's say I present something I believe is common knowledge, self-evident or "plain for all to see". How does that assertion absolve me of the obligation to prove my position on the subject at hand? It doesn't. It's a deflection. And worse, were I to actually say such a thing without providing supporting evidence, what's the common response from Dan? It's usually something along the lines of "Well, I've never seen it!""
I'll go one better. Let's say that one could produce hard evidence that global temperatures had not materially warmed over the last 250 years. You know good an well that Dan would fall back on his stock excuses for any data he doesn't like. "I've never seen it.", "It didn't come from one of my approved information sources.", "But the models tell us...", "But it's common knowledge". It's like he has these tropes that he'll deploy when needed that (in his mind) absolve him from contrary data.
But that' still not the issue. The issue is that he throws those out with impunity, while demanding that we jump through his hoops to produce data that proves our point as long as he approves of the source. It's the unmitigated gall of the double standard. The rest is all bullshit. It's simply his "Do as I say, not as I do." attitude.
As I pointed out, while enabling his off topic diversion, the data for rapes/sexual assaults in the US is fraught with procedural problems, vague definitions, and assumptions. What's funny is that these problems actually hurt the women who really are raped.
"Trans woman" (a chick with a ????) claims to be a woman and ends up raping his female cellmate is the perfect metaphor for the APL. They care about rape victims as long as it helps move their narrative, but will take the convict who claims he's "trans" over biological women every time.
Illegal immigrant rapes a kid and gets out on bail or isn't charged? Sorry kid, immigrants are untouchable right now. European rape/gang rape numbers have skyrocketed, but the obvious common denominator will get you cancelled if you mention it publicly. Hamas rapes women and children on10/7, "Well that's icky, but look at what the IDF did to those human shields.".
It's a double standard, and Dan clearly embraces it.
Art,
I've posted everything that was in moderation, If something is missing, let me know.
Oh no...nothing's missing. My error was in seeing my first to two comments posted after I submitted the second, not thinking it likely occurred while I was still in the process of writing the second. Totally my bad. No worries.
No sweat, I just wanted to make sure. I do occasionally delete comments accidentally and always try to let the authors know so they can be rewritten.
"None of the "Dan's" will ever pick up arms and fight for a cause."
The peacemakers won our Civil Rights fight without engaging in violence.
We are winning the fight for LGBTQ rights without engaging in violence.
Women won the right for human rights in the US without engaging in violence.
It's as if you all just start with the notion of violence as the way to solve things in the fight for justice and human rights.
Listen to the wisdom of the peacemakers... King, Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Mandela, etc etc... and Jesus, of course.
Be blessed.
There will be no civil war because those opposed to civil and human rights have already lost. To the degree that white nationalists and "christian" nationalists choose to engage in violence, it will just hasten their own extinction.
Dan
"The peacemakers won our Civil Rights fight without engaging in violence.
We are winning the fight for LGBTQ rights without engaging in violence.
Women won the right for human rights in the US without engaging in violence."
If you say so. The problem is that when you take a quote of mine out of context, and insert it into a completely different context, then you end up with idiocy.
"It's as if you all just start with the notion of violence as the way to solve things in the fight for justice and human rights."
No, it's not. This is a complete and total misrepresentation of what I said, and the point I was making.
"Listen to the wisdom of the peacemakers... King, Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Mandela, etc etc... and Jesus, of course."
Wow, putting Jesus last and comparing those folks to Him, cheeky. Although the fact that you're still taking what I said out of context, and responding to the resultant straw man, doesn't make you look particularly good. It also ignores the eruptions of left wing, violent, riots we've seen over the last 10 years or so.
"There will be no civil war because those opposed to civil and human rights have already lost. To the degree that white nationalists and "christian" nationalists choose to engage in violence, it will just hasten their own extinction."
Oh, well, as long as Danthustera makes these sorts of decrees Ex Cathedra and speaks with such authority I guess we must bow to him and his hunches.
Again, excellent job ignoring the black, left wing, rioters, anarchists, looters, and arsonists that have been proliferating over the past 10 years.
The problem is that there have been zero "white nationalist" or "christian nationalist" outbreaks of violence and destruction that even come close to comparing with the violence and destruction brought about by those on the left over the past 10 years. J6 was smaller, less violent, less destructive, and shorter than any of the left wing rampages of late. Hell even if we go back to the LA riots after Rodney King we don't see anything comparable from your bogymen.
Excellent job of moving off topic, constructing a straw man to argue against, and pushing your false narrative. Well done.
But, you (again) made my point. In the event of it becoming necessary, folx like you will not take up arms to defeat anyone. Thus you'll lose.
Wow, putting Jesus last and comparing those folks to Him, cheeky.
You misunderstand. King, Gandhi, Mandela, etc... they all LEARNED their peacemaking and NVDA practices from Jesus*. So, OF COURSE, Jesus, in the sense as he's the one who, more than anyone, modeled what peacemaking and nonviolent direct action can look like and taught the importance of it.
Sorry if that was not clear.
* You are aware of that bit of history, I presume?
"You misunderstand. King, Gandhi, Mandela, etc... they all LEARNED their peacemaking and NVDA practices from Jesus*. So, OF COURSE, Jesus, in the sense as he's the one who, more than anyone, modeled what peacemaking and nonviolent direct action can look like and taught the importance of it."
You and you inability to perceive sarcasm, hyperbole, and similar make it challenging to communicate without inserting warnings for you in my comments.
But, again you pronouncements must not be disputed, so...
"Sorry if that was not clear."
I'm used to you not being clear, it's a regular occurrence.
"* You are aware of that bit of history, I presume?"
No, I'm just the ignorant moron you presume me to be.
Note to self. Either stop using sarcasm, hyperbole and similar when responding to Dan or insert a parenthetical note to Dan to warn him.
The problem is that there have been zero "white nationalist" or "christian nationalist" outbreaks of violence and destruction that even come close to comparing with the violence and destruction brought about by those on the left over the past 10 years. J6 was smaller, less violent, less destructive, and shorter than any of the left wing rampages of late.
I GET that this is what you think in your head, turning a blind eye to the threat of the white nationalists and "christian" nationalists and their calls and active plans for civil war. That IS what you think, in your head.
But justice and legal experts - people who research this kind of thing - disagree with your personal little opinion. They say the data is that white nationalist type violence and threats are the ones that have been on the rise since the 1970s, with a big boost coming from Trump and his allies who have provided a safe haven for the violent white nationalists.
So, given the choice of listening to Craig - some random white guy on the internet - and legal experts and researchers, well, I guess I'll listen to the experts and the data.
Random white guy testimony is only worth... well, not much, on its own.
"In 2017, DVEs remained a persistent source of violence, with Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists (RMVEs)6 advocating for the superiority of the white race and Anti-Government or Anti-Authority Violent Extremists (AGAAVEs) – primarily Anarchist Violent Extremists (AVEs),7 Militia Violent Extremists (MVEs),8 and Sovereign Citizen Violent Extremists (SCVEs)9 – presenting the greatest threats of violence."
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report.pdf
https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/images/Kleinfeld_fig_10-1.png
While the rise of this complicated group started in the Nineteen Nineties, certain events during the twentieth century caused increases in White Supremacist activity. Some of these events include the September 11th terrorist attacks,
President Obama’s 2008 Election and Presidency
including his 2012 Re-Election, the 2016 election,
and President Trump’s Presidency.
In the Twenty-First century, the use of social media and individuals’ reliance on the twenty-four-hour media circuit has allowed people to transition from hiding who they are under the white hoods and robes to being able to hide behind a made-up username and the Internet binary, that is domains of anonymity.
https://digitalcommons.newhaven.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=nationalsecurity-mas
https://azmirror.com/2022/08/23/white-nationalism-fueled-by-social-media-is-on-the-rise-and-attracting-violent-young-white-men/
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg36563/html/CHRG-116hhrg36563.htm
https://nij.ojp.gov/taxonomy/term/white-supremacists
"I GET that this is what you think in your head, turning a blind eye to the threat of the white nationalists and "christian" nationalists and their calls and active plans for civil war. That IS what you think, in your head."
No, you clearly don't "get" anything, least of all what I actually said. I'm not denying that there aren't a few fringe groups out there (on both sides, likely) that are saying all sorts of crazy stuff. What I AM saying is that those few, fringe folks haven't done anything on the scale of the left wing violence and destruction we've seen over the past 10 years or so.
"But justice and legal experts - people who research this kind of thing - disagree with your personal little opinion. They say the data is that white nationalist type violence and threats are the ones that have been on the rise since the 1970s, with a big boost coming from Trump and his allies who have provided a safe haven for the violent white nationalists."
I just have to note that this claim was made with absolutely zero evidence offered. I also have to note that this unsupported claim does not actually address what I actually said. In fact it dodges it completely. The reality is that theses groups going from 5,000 members to 10,000 members is statistically doubling, yet those numbers are insignificant when compared to the tens/hundreds of thousands of left wing rioters, looters, and arsonists that we've seen over the past 10 years. Further, when I searched for hard numbers of these scary bogymen, I don't seem to recall being able to find hard, definitive numbers of this massive threat. I'll simply note that Dan also fails to quantify this threat or find one event that matches the left wing violence of the last 10 years in scale or damage.
"So, given the choice of listening to Craig - some random white guy on the internet - and legal experts and researchers, well, I guess I'll listen to the experts and the data."
The problem is that you are not "listening to" me, you're ignoring what I actually said in favor of straw men that buttress your bogyman narrative.
"Random white guy testimony is only worth... well, not much, on its own."
It's why I usually support what I say (when it's not an opinion), and why I ignore most everything you say.
"In 2017, DVEs remained a persistent source of violence, with Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists (RMVEs)6 advocating for the superiority of the white race and Anti-Government or Anti-Authority Violent Extremists (AGAAVEs) – primarily Anarchist Violent Extremists (AVEs),7 Militia Violent Extremists (MVEs),8 and Sovereign Citizen Violent Extremists (SCVEs)9 – presenting the greatest threats of violence."
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/fbi-dhs-domestic-terrorism-strategic-report.pdf
While this may be true on some level, it misses the actual point that I actually made.
https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/media/images/Kleinfeld_fig_10-1.png
"While the rise of this complicated group started in the Nineteen Nineties, certain events during the twentieth century caused increases in White Supremacist activity. Some of these events include the September 11th terrorist attacks,
President Obama’s 2008 Election and Presidency
including his 2012 Re-Election, the 2016 election,
and President Trump’s Presidency.
In the Twenty-First century, the use of social media and individuals’ reliance on the twenty-four-hour media circuit has allowed people to transition from hiding who they are under the white hoods and robes to being able to hide behind a made-up username and the Internet binary, that is domains of anonymity."
Again, nothing is quantified, nor does this address my point. What would help you in the furthering of your narrative that we should live in fear would be you being able to produce evidence of events by these people where tens/hundreds of thousands of people ran riot for days, burning, looting, and destroying innocent people's homes and businesses. But you can't so you resort to this bullshit.
https://digitalcommons.newhaven.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=nationalsecurity-mas
https://azmirror.com/2022/08/23/white-nationalism-fueled-by-social-media-is-on-the-rise-and-attracting-violent-young-white-men/
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg36563/html/CHRG-116hhrg36563.htm
https://nij.ojp.gov/taxonomy/term/white-supremacists
Nothing you provided had any definitive numbers to quantify this dire threat, nor did any of it document anything close to the left wing riots, looting, and arson we've been treated to for about 10 years.
I'll give you credit, you are committed to both the straw men and the bogymen narrative. Your fear of a few hundred/thousand fringe nuts who live out in the middle of nowhere and rarely if ever move beyond exercising their first amendment rights of free speech and free assembly is impressive. Irrational, but impressive.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/number-of-hate-groups-declined-in-2021-but-proud-boys-chapters-surging-says-splc
What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! According to PBS and the SPLC, the number of "hate groups" is DECLINING!!!!!
Several articles in, not one guesstimate of how many people we are talking about.
Still no numbers, even guesses, but I'm noticing that the definition of "white supremacy" is very fluid and not very helpful. I'm also noticing a trend of treating people who use their first amendment rights to express their views (however vile and hateful, speech is protected), as if they had actually engaged in violent behavior. I'm also noticing a trend of lumping certain acts together (church burning) and assuming that the motivations is 100% "white supremacy".
Why am I doing Dan's research for him.
The irony is that I'm supplying multiple sources of actual experts going in detail about the data and problem while you provide nothing to support your wild claim of "hundreds of thousands " (!!) (AAAAAAHHH!!!) of allegedly violent alleged liberals... and you complain I'm not supporting my claim.
Strikes 1, 2, 3.
Dan
"What I AM saying is that those few, fringe folks haven't done anything on the scale of the left wing violence and destruction we've seen over the past 10 years or so."
Just an unsupported false claim, worth its weight in excrement.
Fyi, one of the links I gave you showed the number of violent incidents over the last decade plus. It demonstrates that
Far right
Anti-abortion
Anti big government
...and other conservative groups committed far and away the most attacks and gives numbers.
Read for understanding.
Also, the various experts from justice and legal groups are not making it up... or do you suspect a vast conservative/moderate conspiracy amongst the various legal experts?
Dan
"The irony is that I'm supplying multiple sources of actual experts going in detail about the data and problem while you provide nothing to support your wild claim of "hundreds of thousands " (!!) (AAAAAAHHH!!!) of allegedly violent alleged liberals... and you complain I'm not supporting my claim."
The real irony is that your "experts" can't identify how many actual people we are talking about. The best number I was around 1200 "groups", with no definition of what "group" consisted of. Further, I was quite clear that I was talking about comparing ACTIONS with ACTIONS, not actions with words. SO, for example, find me a "white supremacist" event that came close to doing as much damage or causing as much harm as the Twin Cities riots of 2020 (I'm singling out ONE left wing example). Show me ONE "white supremacist" event which had as large a crowd is the Twin Cities riots in 2020. That's what I've asked for, specific examples that are similar to the various left wing riots that we've seen regularly since @2015.
Strike 1. You choose to focus on "proving" something I haven't asked for.
Strike 2. You can't/won't provide a number of "white supremacists" in the US.
Strike 3. Your "data" seem mostly concerned with people's speech, not their actions.
Maybe you can actually provide what I've asked for, next time.
"Just an unsupported false claim, worth its weight in excrement."
No, it's just you choosing to ignore reality. I'm going to simpllify and focus on only ONE of the destructive left wing riots we've seen in the past 10 years or so, the Twin Cities riots. Obviously, including additional left wing riots would add to the cumulative totals.
The 2020 Twin Cities riots were the second largest period of civil unrest in US history, causing over $500,000,000 in damage. Simply watching the available television coverage tells us that there were many thousands of rioters spread out over a large area.
SO, show me the comparable "white supremacist" event in the last 10 years.
"Fyi, one of the links I gave you showed the number of violent incidents over the last decade plus. It demonstrates that
Far right
Anti-abortion
Anti big government
...and other conservative groups committed far and away the most attacks and gives numbers."
Yet none of those compares in either number of participants, amount of damage, or length or the event to the ONE left wing event I've offered in comparison.
"Read for understanding."
I did, and none of what I read told me even an estimate of how many actual individuals we are talking about in the vast horde of "right wing" groups you'd have everyone fear. They have an estimate of a number of "groups", but no definition of what constitutes a "group". They were also quite clear that the vast majority of this "right wing" threat comes from things that could only be defined as speech. Are you seriously suggesting that these people be denied their first amendment right to free speech or peaceful assembly?
"Also, the various experts from justice and legal groups are not making it up... or do you suspect a vast conservative/moderate conspiracy amongst the various legal experts?"
No. I suspect that there are some folx who feel the need to gin up fear of these "right wing" bogymen to advance an agenda. I suspect that there are plenty of folx who would like to deny these people their right to free speech and assembly because they are offended by the content of that speech. I suspect, based on the last time you brought this up, that many of these crimes are unsolved with no suspects and the the motives are inferred rather than based on evidence. I suspect that the numbers of these groups are inflated by including groups that are pro-life but do not engage in violence.
BUT, none of that matters since you can't provide what I asked.
1. A total number of these "right wing" extremist individuals in the US.
2. Any examples of any "right wing" events that compare in number of participants and amount of damage/harm, to the 2020 Twin Cities riots. (Let alone the rest of the left wing riots)
If you could, I suspect you would have. You haven't, so I can only conclude that your insistence on "proving" all these other things is to hide your inability to provide what I asked for.
Some of the actual data about your slanderous and unsupported allegations/gossip/fear mongering...
"So far, only one charging document explicitly links the accused to an extremist group and none seem to describe especially crafty criminals. Most of the accused are Minnesota residents, with just over half living in Minneapolis or St. Paul.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office is prosecuting Ivan Harrison Hunter, a resident of Boerne, Texas, on a charge of riot after he allegedly fired 13 rounds from a semi-automatic rifle inside the Third Precinct on May 28, the day it was set aflame.
Hunter is a self-proclaimed member of the anti-government extremist group Boogaloo Bois...
[Far RIGHT extremist, not liberal -dan]
The vast majority — 520 of the 612 — were in Minneapolis. All but 26 of those were dismissed. The City Attorney’s Office decided to drop all cases in which charges were related to peaceful protest and prosecuted only the cases involving other criminal conduct, like DWI or possession of a gun without a permit...
Research shows that most demonstrations contain three types of people:
Protesters who are not supportive of destruction — typically the majority of the group;
protesters who are supportive of destruction, who account for a small minority;
and a small number of people who are not protesters and embed themselves in the crowd with criminal intent..."
https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/05/27/one-year-later-few-charges-for-the-arson-and-destruction/
Few of the people charged — if any — so far seem to fit the profile of the organized, politically motivated criminals and provocateurs that Minnesota officials initially claimed were responsible for the mayhem."
https://minnesotareformer.com/2020/07/15/no-arrests-in-most-destructive-arson-following-death-of-george-floyd/
In summary:
One politically motivated person arrested, and he was a right wing conservative extremist.
The VAST majority are peaceful.
There are some criminals using it as an opportunity to steal for profit, not for political reasons.
NO support for the false slander of "hundreds of thousands" of liberals running amok.
Dan
Most Americans, no matter their political affiliation, do not believe that violence is a solution to domestic political divisions, according to this latest poll. But Republicans were more likely than Democrats or independents — and slightly more likely than the population overall – to say force may be needed to course-correct...
[Trump] speeches often attempt "to convince people the country is going downhill, that things are awful and only he can fix them," said Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and author of "Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America."
McQuade added that authoritarians across history have deployed this tactic, conjuring fear to manipulate people's emotions."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/1-in-5-americans-think-violence-may-solve-u-s-divisions-poll-finds
Note the numbers:
12% of Democrats think violence may be needed to "save" our country
28% of Republicans believe this!
18% of Democrats think the president should be above the law/ not convicted of crimes
34% of Republicans believe this!
Read it and weep.
Dan
Two questions, two simple questions.
1. How many of these scary, "white supremacist" bogymen actually exist in the US?
2. Name one "right wing" event which compares in size and scope of damage to the Twin Cities riots (just focusing on that one event right now)?
The rioters in the Twin Cities were grossly undercharged in terms of the numbers. The one specific thing I did see numbers on was that over 1,000 people stormed, looted, and burned the 3rd precinct. So cherry picking one arrest, given the thousands who got off uncharged is absurd.
Let's use some Dan math.
Dan claims that 90% of blacks are liberal.
The majority of the rioters and looters that our local/national news showed us live and in color were black.
Therefore, it's reasonable (following Dan's claim) to conclude that 90% of the black rioters were liberal.
Further, this sort of "social justice" "defund the police" rioting aligns almost entirely with the ethos of the APL, and goes against the ethos of the APR. Again, simple logic tells us that these were left wing rioters, rioting over left wing issues.
But, still two questions unanswered. Just more smoke.
So, in summation:
1. Craig made an allegation of hundreds of thousands of violent liberals which he can't support and doesn't even try to support. As if the crazy allegation is able to stand on its own (it's not.)
2. White evangelicals are huge supporters of "christian nationalism" with some half of conservatives and GOP types affirming at least some support for "christian nationalism."
3. White Christian nationalists are WAY more likely to support violence to "restore" the nation to the "right path" than the rest of the nation.
4. There are so many white nationalists (with some cross over with "christian" nationalists, but not the same group exclusively) who lean towards violence that the Justice Department, the FBI and other law enforcement types identify them as a serious threat for violence/terrorism in the US.
5. This is not true to anything like the same degree for liberal extremists (which makes sense, given how liberals/Democrats tend to NOT believe that violence should be used to make the nation right).
6. We don't know the numbers of violent white extremists belonging to or identifying with white extremist groups, nor do we have any data that shows the number of violent liberal extremists.
7. NONETHELESS, while there is SOME level of concern about liberal extremists, the experts in the field do not identify them as the same sort of risk as conservative extremists.
8. It goes without saying that Craig does not know a number of violent "liberal extremists," but he appears fairly certain that they're more of a threat and in larger numbers than white nationalists/conservative extremists. This, in contrast to what the actual experts think.
9. Of those arrested in Craig's story of "proof" of violent liberals, the data shows that the violence was not typically from those who were liberal/moderate protesters. Of the more serious convictions, at least one WAS an extremist, but he was a CONSERVATIVE extremist. Others were just opportunists looking to steal and using the circumstances to enrich themselves, according to their words and their convictions.
10. Nonetheless, Craig is pretty sure that he "knows" that there are more liberal violence advocates... in spite of all the data.
Here's some more data to help point out the problem with your unsupported hunches:
Christian nationalism adherents are nearly seven times as likely as Christian nationalism rejecters to support political violence. Four in ten Christian nationalism adherents (40%) agree with this statement about patriots resorting to violence, compared to only 22% of sympathizers, 15% of skeptics, and 6% of rejecters.
etc, etc...
https://www.prri.org/research/a-christian-nation-understanding-the-threat-of-christian-nationalism-to-american-democracy-and-culture/
More data:
Number of hate groups in the United States in 2022, by type
https://www.statista.com/statistics/740008/us-hate-groups-by-type/
(Hint, liberal or black nationalist types are not listed. At all. Period.)
FBI Hate crimes data, 2022:
"On the Rise: The data reveals that hate crime incidents increased by 794 in 2022.
There were 11,634 cases, compared to 10,840 in 2021.
Race-Based Crimes: Hate crimes rooted in race, ethnicity or ancestry remain the most common. There were 6,557 reported incidents in 2022. Anti-Black or African American incidents —numbering 3,421 — were more than three times higher than the next highest racial or ethnic category.
Religion-Based Crimes: There were 2,042 reported incidents based on religion. More than half of these (1,122) were driven by anti-Jewish bias. Incidents involving anti-Muslim (158) and anti-Sikh (181) sentiments remained at similar levels compared to 2021.
LGBTQI+ Targeted Crimes: Incidents targeting gay men reached 1,075, while anti-lesbian incidents numbered 622. Both categories recorded their highest totals in the past five years and increased by more than 10% since 2021. A significant increase of nearly 40% was observed in reported anti-transgender incidents (totaling 338) compared to 2021."
https://www.justice.gov/crs/highlights/2022-hate-crime-statistics
Not that you'll find it compelling, the SPLC list of hate groups over time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups
Note: There should not be a false equivalency made between white nationalists and black nationalists. White nationalists have always oppressed and marginalized black folks because of the white nationalist biases. Black nationalists arise in response to white nationalist/white oppression.
Saying, "We deserve to be safe from white people" is objectively not the same as "We want to get rid of the awful black folks living amongst us."
Responding violently (which is not good, fyi) against violent oppression does not mean that both groups are equally violent.
Listen to the experts. Look at the data.
Just because it "feels" like, to you, that we have a larger problem with liberal violence does not make it so and your hunch is not above critique. When you can respond with expert opinion and data, then you can start making your case. Until then, it's just a slanderous claim.
"On the Rise: The data reveals that hate crime incidents increased by 794 in 2022.
There were 11,634 cases, compared to 10,840 in 2021."
"Hate Crimes" seems to be a subjective term, based less on the actual motivation of the perpetrator than on the demographic of the victim. Further, these seems to be no indication in this bit of "data" that indicates that 100% of these were committed by whites. Further, based on what you've offered here, it doesn't say how many of those were convicted.
"Race-Based Crimes: Hate crimes rooted in race, ethnicity or ancestry remain the most common. There were 6,557 reported incidents in 2022. Anti-Black or African American incidents —numbering 3,421 — were more than three times higher than the next highest racial or ethnic category."
In a country of 330,000,000 (and adding thousands of illegal immigrants daily), you're living in fear based on 1.14% of the population being victimized by "hate crimes"? Remember when you made such a big deal about how we shouldn't blame all Muslims for the actions of a small minority? Remember when you announced that only 1% of Muslims were terrorists? (based on no data whatsoever) Remember when I pointed out that 1% of Muslims is 19,000,000? Now you're living in fear because (at most 3,421) a tiny percentage of the US population commits "hate crimes"?
"Religion-Based Crimes: There were 2,042 reported incidents based on religion. More than half of these (1,122) were driven by anti-Jewish bias. Incidents involving anti-Muslim (158) and anti-Sikh (181) sentiments remained at similar levels compared to 2021."
I guess the fact that you have no data on the demographic of the perpetrator means that you are simply assuming that these crimes were all committed by white people.
"LGBTQI+ Targeted Crimes: Incidents targeting gay men reached 1,075, while anti-lesbian incidents numbered 622. Both categories recorded their highest totals in the past five years and increased by more than 10% since 2021. A significant increase of nearly 40% was observed in reported anti-transgender incidents (totaling 338) compared to 2021.""
Again, you're simply assuming two things. 1. That each of these (reported?) crimes has a unique perpetrator, 2. That the perpetrator was white.
"Not that you'll find it compelling, the SPLC list of hate groups over time:"
1. No. The SPLC is an orginization with serious credibility problems, and stand to benefit by identifying more "hate groups" rather than less. They are clearly not an approved, real, journalistic source and (other than your double standard) I'm surprised that you offer anything from them.
"Note: There should not be a false equivalency made between white nationalists and black nationalists. White nationalists have always oppressed and marginalized black folks because of the white nationalist biases. Black nationalists arise in response to white nationalist/white oppression."
Wow, you just made that up so that you can excuse and ignore violence committed by blacks.
"Saying, "We deserve to be safe from white people" is objectively not the same as "We want to get rid of the awful black folks living amongst us.""
That's pretty racist, doesn't answer my two questions, and makes you look kind of stupid, but I'll allow it.
"Responding violently (which is not good, fyi) against violent oppression does not mean that both groups are equally violent."
Again, Thus Spake Danthustera. So let it be written, so let it be done. FYI, these last few aren't really "data" as much as they are you trying to pass off your hunches as facts.
"Listen to the experts. Look at the data."
I have, and you still haven't/can't answer my two simple questions.
1. Actually this is a false representation of what I said, therefore a straw man, therefore not worth expending any more time over.
https://apnews.com/article/tear-gas-protests-black-lives-matter-police-32b9317942e6fd26889cae65753ad001
Interesting, Dan denies that there were hundreds of thousands of left wing rioters involved in the left wing riots since 2014 (I'll exclude the LA riots of 1992). Yet AP (an approved "real" journalistic organization) reports 119,000 rioters were injured since 2015 (which excludes Ferguson). So how is it possible that there were more rioters hurt, than Dan claims participated? Further, I get the crowd size estimation is not an exact science (but it's pretty good). I find it strange that I have not found one source that provides estimates of the number of rioters anywhere. Seems like that would be valuable information for the cities and police to know, doesn't it? Finally, Dan's premise is that we need to ignore what we've seen with our won eyes, if it can't be proven to his satisfaction.
2. "huge" is not a number. "huge" is relative. "Huge" doesn't answer my question. "huge" doesn't connected anyone to any specific action.
3. "Supporting violence" ( a vague, undefined, imprecise charge) is protected first amendment speech at worst. It's not violence, it's not even a conspiracy to commit violence. I'd also be willing to bet that "support violence" for many/most is more about supporting the theoretical possibility of violence in defense of an attack. But since you provided no "data" on this (just your pronouncement) I have no idea what this means. Other than it's a convenient bogyman for you to live in fear of.
4. Still no number, not even an estimate.
5. You're right. Because your made up claim about some pollyannaish hunch you have about liberals is obviously True absent any "data".
6. Finally, an actual answer to one of the actual questions I actually asked. The answer is that Dan lives in fear of bogymen, yet he has no idea how many there are. That's totally rational.
7. Because if you repeat something often enough, you believe that other will accept it as Truth.
8. This is Dan making up some unfounded, bullshit and pretending like it represents anything I have actually ever said or think. Classic straw man.
9. If you say so. I'll note that Dan chose to use "arrested" as his subjective measure, not convicted. I wonder why.
10. Because Craig has watched the news in the last 10-11 years, pays attention, and accepts reality. Dan still can't answer the question this point was designed to obfuscate.
Here's some more data to help point out the problem with your unsupported hunches:
Still one question unanswered entirely, and one where the "answer" is, "We have absolutely no idea, but we know it's a lot. Probably millions.".
Yet AP (an approved "real" journalistic organization) reports 119,000 rioters were injured since 2015 (which excludes Ferguson). So how is it possible that there were more rioters hurt, than Dan claims participated?
? I've not said (look at my words for understanding) that there were not hundreds of thousands of protesters about police violence over the last decade.
I've stated the DATA that the VAST majority of those people are not violent/did not support violence.
I've stated the DATA that YOU falsely suggested that hundreds of thousands of liberal protesters were violent. YOUR words:
those numbers are insignificant when compared to the
tens/hundreds of thousands of left wing
rioters, looters, and arsonists that we've seen over the past 10 years.
You have not begun to prove EVEN that it was "only" tens of thousands, much less "hundreds of thousands" much less even hundreds of liberal protesters who were violent. As a point of fact, you have not done this.
I'm pointing out the demonstrable fact that your "hundreds of thousands" of violent leftwingers is objectively, stupidly false and slanderous. Idiotic gossip meant to instill fear in your fellow conservatives minds and hearts, in spite of reality. Now, you may sincerely believe it and not INTEND to be fearmongering, but when you have no data to support such a ridiculously false claim, that's what it does.
The modern GOP is a party bathing in a mudpit of fear and anger. Your words are part of that problem.
I've pointed to the DATA that shows that some small portion of liberal protesters may have engaged in violence (sometimes in response to police violence of the violence of conservative attackers... sometimes on their own as an ill-advised strategy) but that the vast majority are not doing that.
I've pointed to the data that some of the violent actors were conservative disruptors.
I've pointed to the data that some of the violent actors were just criminals using the opportunity to enrich themselves, NOT part of any liberal agenda.
Look at the data. Understand what I'm actually saying.
YOUR false claim of "tens/hundreds of thousands" is false and stupidly false.
"I've not said (look at my words for understanding) that there were not hundreds of thousands of protesters about police violence over the last decade."
I'm done with this irrelevant diversion from the remaining unanswered question you keep dodging.
"I've stated the DATA that the VAST majority of those people are not violent/did not support violence."
Well, the "I've stated..." therefor it must be True proclamation. Very impressive. If I have to choose between the evidence I saw with my own eyes, and Dan's "I've stated" bullshit, I know which I'll choose. The fact that you can cherry pick and massage one small bit of data (ignoring the fact that the MPD clearly chose not to charge the majority of rioters) and extrapolate that across the swath of left wing violent rioting since 2014 is an impressive bit of legerdemain.
"I've stated the DATA that YOU falsely suggested that hundreds of thousands of liberal protesters were violent. YOUR words:"
Yet in this case your "I stated" proclamation is factually incorrect. Because as you quote, I did not say definitively that it was hundreds of thousands, but that it was between "tens and hundreds" of thousands. Now if you're claiming that the aggregate total of all of the rioters, looters, arsonists, of all of the left wing protests we've seen since 2014 is less than 10k, then prove that. Otherwise, be accurate with what you claim I said, and answer the question you've been dodging.
"You have not begun to prove EVEN that it was "only" tens of thousands, much less "hundreds of thousands" much less even hundreds of liberal protesters who were violent. As a point of fact, you have not done this."
As I have said, if 119,000 rioters were injured at left wing protests since 2014, it stands to reason that the total number was significantly more than that and that concluding that 10%+ meet your definition of "violent" is not unreasonable. As I stated, estimates of numbers seem to be highly protected for some reason. What's hilarious is that if you could provide "proof" that I was wrong you would have done so. But you haven't so you choose to focus on this bullshit instead of showing me even ONE "right wing" event that compares is size, harm, and damage to ONLY the Twin Cities riots (let alone all the rest).
"I'm pointing out the demonstrable fact..."
1. If this is a "demonstrable fact", then why haven't you demonstrated that fact to be 100% True?
2. No you haven't. You've offered precisely ZERO "proof" of what the actual numbers of rioters at the various left wing riots since 2014.
3. Yet you have no problem ratcheting up fear based on the unknown number of your "right wing" bogymen. My point isn't to instill fear, it's to drive home the fact that your "right wing" bogymen have done nothing that compares in scale to the left wing riots since 2014.
"The modern GOP is a party bathing in a mudpit of fear and anger. Your words are part of that problem."
Irrelevant. But you continue to assume that I blindly defend the GOP the way you blindly defend the DFL. If it helps to divert attention from you providing me with the information I've asked for, I can see why you do it.
"I've pointed to the DATA that shows that some small portion of liberal protesters may have engaged in violence (sometimes in response to police violence of the violence of conservative attackers... sometimes on their own as an ill-advised strategy) but that the vast majority are not doing that."
No you haven't. You've pointed to the some arrest data and have extrapolated that into your fantasy that there weren't large numbers of rioters, looters, arsonists, and generally violent left wing protesters. Of course then you top off your fantasy by excusing the left wing violence because it wasn't their fault. They chose to riot, chose to ignore lawful police instructions, and somehow thought there would be no consequences. FAFO. FYI, the MPD was vastly outnumbered, even after the MANG finally showed up (because DFL Governor Walz had to let things run rampant for a couple of days, doncha know)
The double standard is strong. As is your refusal to provide what I've asked you to. Although your ability to ignore that fact and focus on attacking me is impressive.
"I've pointed to the data that some of the violent actors were conservative disruptors."
The presence of a tiny number of "conservative disruptions" has no bearing on the number of people rioting. It has no bearing on your inability to provide a comparable "right wing" event in size and scope of harm. It has no bearing on the actions of the vast majority of the other rioters. It's just your excuse for not providing what I've asked and to absolve the rest of the rioters, looters, and arsonists of blame. Everything is "conservatives" fault. It's a convenient trope, but not helpful.
"I've pointed to the data that some of the violent actors were just criminals using the opportunity to enrich themselves, NOT part of any liberal agenda."
So, the protest which they used to cover their activity was a left wing protest. The "peaceful" left wing protesters did nothing to prevent these "criminals" from freely causing vast amounts of harm to small business owners and immigrants. Of course there you go making shit up, arguing against a straw man, and crowing about your victory over that straw man. I never once claimed that the rioting, looting, and arson was part of a "liberal agenda", you just made that shit up.
"Look at the data. Understand what I'm actually saying."
I did, and it doesn't provide me with the one piece of information I asked you for. It's just you making excuses for the violence that goes hand in hand with every left wing protest since 2014.
"YOUR false claim of "tens/hundreds of thousands" is false and stupidly false."
You haven't proven that to be the case. You can't prove that to be the case. You haven't proven much of anything. Lots of extrapolation, misrepresenting what I said, and bullshit.
All of it because you can't provide me with ONE example of a "right wing" event comparable in size and scope to any of the left wing riots since 2014, or to the Twin Cities riot in particular. Seriously, name one massive "right wing" event where looting and burning buildings were front and center.
You can't, because there isn't one. Yet instead of admitting the flaw in your fearmongering, you blow some.
I do so find great amusement when you call something "demonstrable", then fail to demonstrate that claim. You do know what "demonstrable" means, don't you?
I don't think you're understanding. You claim "tens to hundreds of thousands " of violent, looting liberals.
WHERE IS THE DATA FOR THAT STUPIDLY FALSE CLAIM?
I'll make it easier for you:
WHERE IS THE DATA for the claim that there were even tens of thousands of violent protesters/looters of ANY partisan viewpoint?
Do you know what 10,000 people look like?
Dan
Craig...
"I do so find great amusement when you call something "demonstrable", then fail to demonstrate that claim.
I do so find great sadness for you and our nation when you I demonstrate something with data and you fail to undersand that I DID demonstrate that claim.
Dan
Craig...
"All of it because you can't provide me with ONE example of a "right wing" event comparable in size and scope to any of the left wing riots since 2014, or to the Twin Cities riot in particular..."
Sigh.
To point out the obvious:
From Wikipedia, which summarizes what is shown in multiple places:
"The FBI estimates that between 2,000 and 2,500 people entered the Capitol Building on January 6, with some vandalizing and looting"
And which notes that hundreds have been convicted of various crimes in that riot that was also an insurrection. Specifically by right wing agitators. Pretty serious stuff.
On the other hand, you have provided NO proof of hundreds (much less thousands, much less TENS OR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS!!! AAAAAAAGGGHHHH!!!!!!!) of specifically liberal protesters engaged in violence.
I get that you appear to want to blame ALL the bad behavior that happened on liberals, instead of the criminals or rightwingers who've been caught. But just because you REALLY want to blame all black protesters for the actions of some criminals and right wingers, does not constitute proof... does not make it so.
Just another white man trying to blame a bunch of black people for the actions of a few.
Jim Crow is dead, son. Let it go unless you have something like proof.
So, with over a thousand demonstrated right-wing extremists on Jan 6 with NO proven liberal protesters, you've done lost the fight. Apologize to the good black protesters and move on.
Look. I'll even show you how it's done:
There were thousands and thousands of conservative protesters at the Jan 6 rally, and yet, only 2,000 engaged in violence and vandalism and other crimes. I do not blame the non-criminal protesters for the actions of the insurrectionists.
See how it's done?
Dan
You do know what "demonstrable" means, don't you?
Dan
More data from more research...
"Although incidents from the left are on the rise, political violence still comes overwhelmingly from the right, whether one looks at the Global Terrorism Database, FBI statistics, or other government or independent counts.3 Yet people committing far-right violence—particularly planned violence rather than spontaneous hate crimes—are older and more established than typical terrorists and violent criminals. They often hold jobs, are married, and have children. Those who attend church or belong to community groups are more likely to hold violent, conspiratorial beliefs.4 These are not isolated “lone wolves”; they are part of a broad community that echoes their ideas.
Two subgroups appear most prone to violence. The January 2021 American Perspectives Survey found that white Christian evangelical Republicans were outsized supporters of both political violence and the Q-Anon conspiracy, which claims that Democratic politicians and Hollywood elites are pedophiles who (aided by mask mandates that hinder identification) traffic children and harvest their blood; separate polls by evangelical political scientists found that in October 2020 approximately 47 percent of white evangelical Christians believed in the tenets of Q-Anon, as did 59 percent of Republicans.5 "
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-political-violence-in-the-united-states/
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/right-wing-extremist-terrorism-united-states
Dan
More...
"In the early 1970s, American political violence was perpetrated more often by radicals on the left and focused largely on destroying property, such as government buildings, said Rachel Kleinfeld, who studies political conflict and extremism at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank. “There were many, many bombings, but usually at night, or after called-in warnings,” she said. “The goal was not to kill people; it was to affect decisions” by policymakers.
In contrast, much of today’s political violence is aimed at people – and most of the deadly outbursts tracked by Reuters have come from the right. Of the 14 fatal political attacks since the Capitol riot in which the perpetrator or suspect had a clear partisan leaning, 13 were right-wing assailants. One was on the left."
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-politics-violence/
Dan
"WHERE IS THE DATA FOR THAT STUPIDLY FALSE CLAIM?"
Are you denying that the cumulative total of rioters for every left wing protest since 2014 was less than 10,000?
My own eyes and news coverage.
The fact that over 119,000 are bitching about police meanness.
"WHERE IS THE DATA for the claim that there were even tens of thousands of violent protesters/looters of ANY partisan viewpoint?"
Because repeating yoursefl, before I have a chance to respond/answer is the absolute best way to be clear.
See above. See previous comments where I addressed this.
"Do you know what 10,000 people look like?"
Yes.
"I do so find great sadness for you and our nation when you I demonstrate something with data and you fail to undersand that I DID demonstrate that claim."
I find even greater sadness when I consider that you actually think that you've demonstrated something when you haven't.
"Sigh."
Ohhhhhhhh, the "acting put upon when it's pointed out that you haven't done what's been asked of you" ploy.
To point out the obvious:
"The FBI estimates that between 2,000 and 2,500 people entered the Capitol Building on January 6, with some vandalizing and looting"
Are you suggesting that the j6 protest was greater in scope, participation and damage than the 2020 Twin Cities riots? Let alone the total of the left wing riots between 2014-2024?
"And which notes that hundreds have been convicted of various crimes in that riot that was also an insurrection. Specifically by right wing agitators. Pretty serious stuff."
This is both irrelevant to what I asked you to prove, and non responsive.
"On the other hand, you have provided NO proof of hundreds (much less thousands, much less TENS OR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS!!! AAAAAAAGGGHHHH!!!!!!!) of specifically liberal protesters engaged in violence."
Watch the media coverage of every left wing riot between 2014 and 2024.
"I get that you appear to want to blame ALL the bad behavior that happened on liberals, instead of the criminals or rightwingers who've been caught. But just because you REALLY want to blame all black protesters for the actions of some criminals and right wingers, does not constitute proof... does not make it so."
1. Just following your example.
2. Pointing out that the riots between 2014 and 2024 were ALL based around left wing issues, left wing grievances, and engaged in by left wing actors, is just pointing out reality.
3. Still haven't given em what I've asked for.
"Just another white man trying to blame a bunch of black people for the actions of a few."
Lie.
"Jim Crow is dead, son. Let it go unless you have something like proof."
Bullshit, still can't provide what I asked for.
"So, with over a thousand demonstrated right-wing extremists on Jan 6 with NO proven liberal protesters, you've done lost the fight. Apologize to the good black protesters and move on."
Since you haven't provide me with ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of a right wing event which comes close to the scope and damage of the left wing riots or '14-'24, let alone the singular May 2020 riots in the Twin Cities, I think you've just decided that you've "won" by declaring victory even though you haven't provided what you were asked to provide.
"Look. I'll even show you how it's done:"
No you won't, because you can't.
"There were thousands and thousands of conservative protesters at the Jan 6 rally, and yet, only 2,000 engaged in violence and vandalism and other crimes. I do not blame the non-criminal protesters for the actions of the insurrectionists."
Impressive goal post move.
"See how it's done?"
Yes, I see how you moved the goal posts and still haven't provided what I asked for.
"You do know what "demonstrable" means, don't you?"
Yes, although you apparently think that labeling something "demonstrable" which you haven't demonstrated to be True is all you need to do.
Dan,
You can keep presenting all of the "evidence" you want. But if it doesn't address the two things I asked for, it's worthless.
Focus on doing what I asked, and you'll be fine. Then I don't have to wade through more bullshit that doesn't address what I've asked for.
Or just admit that you can't, move on, and stop blowing smoke.
1. How many of these "right wing" bogymen are there? Not how many "groups" or "groups" are increasing, but how many actual people are there.
2. Name one actual right wing event that caused as much damage, harmed as many people, and was as large or larger that any or all of the left wing riots from 2014-2024.
It's not hard. Two simple things that I've asked for repeatedly, yet you haven't provided.
If you post anything other that specific responses to those two questions, I'm not wasting my time with any more bullshit.
Post a Comment