Author Topic: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?  (Read 88792 times)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #150 on: December 03, 2018, 06:50:13 PM »
I carefully read all your responses, and your explanation for why you don’t provide sources.

I do provide sources velcro, I just think you ask for them in bad faith.  It's a tactic for you.

Quote
I ask this respectfully:

Do you expect readers here to trust your statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because you “have memories” that back them up?

I do expect that readers here react in good faith, and you know what, for the most part they do so.  Very little of the statements that anyone makes on here are so far out of the common knowledge as to require exceptional proof.  And I do think that people can trust I've read what I say I've read, though I've never required they do so.

Quote
Do you expect that when you make a controversial statement, we are responsible for finding the external verification, not you?[/b]

Depends on what makes it "controversial"?  For the most part, the only thing that makes the things I've said "controversial" is that you personal object to them.  Not because you have any evidence they are untrue mind, if that were the case it would be something else, only because as a tactic if you "object" you seem to believe it proves the opposite.

And I would be happy to give more support for something that is more controversial.  Though, to the extent it's a conclusion there may not be such a thing as support in the way you seem to want.

Quote
I think I speak for everyone on Ornery when I say that the answer to those questions need to be “no” in order to have any fact-based and rational discussion here.

I think others have told you you don't speak for them.  Fact-based rational discussion is benefited by sourcing, but it's not a necessary condition.  The sky is blue, whether or not a citation to it is proffered.  Of course, the sky is also not blue, in other circumstances, again whether or not a citation is proffered. 

Even without a citation, one can often contribute by pointing out logical fallacies and inconsistencies. 

I'm still not seeing what actual benefit there is to your apparent rule - Seriati is always wrong and the inverse is true - unless Seriati deigns to provide the entire record of his facts process, the "analysis" that you seem to think I'm having someone else do on my behalf and the conclusions that are reached.  Are you under the mistaken impression that conclusions I reach are the work of someone else, to whom I could cite?

In this case, I think it's fairly indisputable the basis on which I described that Antifa is more of a threat than racists - specifically the size of the group that tolerates them.  I've put forward a number of reasonable explanations, and even some references (not just links) to why I think that.  It's still a conclusion.  Whether they are larger in raw numbers, I believe so based on indirect reporting and their impact, but I don't have any good direct sources for that proposition.

It's also a conclusion that the numerous statements you can find from their members endorsing violence, the media summaries of their beliefs, the famous "quotes" attributable to them (like 'punch a nazi') that it should have stood to common knowledge that political violence is core to their beliefs.  It's not even clear to me that you dispute this, only that much like a grammar argument, you want a very specific recitation to be added to the record or for me to acknowledge a loss of points? 

Quote
You don’t like my “internet poll”, conducted by Reuters/ipsos/University of Virginia?  As I said, show us another one.  But right now that is the only data anyone has provided.

Is it?  Or did you miss the rest?

In any event, I found the poll non-credible, I don't have a like/not like view on it.  It also doesn't address the question that was presented in the thread so even by your count there is no data on the thread.

Quote
Quote
Essentially dead?  As no person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization.  As in, even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  From the fact that no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism, that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity.

In order to prove that is is not opinion, you need to provide facts to back the statements up.  That is the definition of opinion - if you have no facts, it is opinion.

Removed the garbage banter that was between the two points.  You are correct, if I wanted to prove it in a court I would have to do so.  Do I have to do so on an internet board?  Not really, most people are capable of reaching a conclusion based on what I said and their own personal knowledge on the topic.  Only someone who doesn't know enough to discuss would ask for proof from ground zero, or alternatively, someone using the demand as a tactic. 

There's an entire history of legal theory development that has blended into social science research specifically because of the decline and disapparence of open racism.  How do you maintain the claim of a racist society when you can't find racists in numbers?  Whether you believe it or not really doesn't trouble me.  Asking me to "prove" it just seems childish. 

In any event, I pointed you the the SLPC, which is a source after your own heart, and even there you'd have trouble showing anything but a massive decline over decades.

Quote
No person that openly acknowledged being a racist could function in ordinary society or not suffer extreme ostracization. Provide facts, not anecdotes, to prove this.

Lol.  You didn't like the story I linked?   I don't know what walk of life you are in that an open racist is not ostracized, but this is as close to common knowledge as it gets. 

Quote
Even secretly reported numbers had dropped well below 1% of the popoulation (from highs where virtually everyone was a racist).  Provide facts about the “well below 1%”, and about “virtually everyone was a racist”  Polls, not anecdotes.

You need a poll to know that the history of America was racist?  That whites owned blacks and justified it as a natural right of the superior race?  That in our living memories, open racism was common and the KKK had millions of members?

You understand the entire premise of the claims people have made on here about the Southern Strategy are premised on the general level of racism being common knowledge?

The 1% number is what I remember from an MSNBC graphic on the Rachel Maddow Show.  I've also seen over the years various surveys that show self identified racists as a vanishingly small portion of the population.  It's hard to find any such older data on Google because of the way it's algorithms work.  I did link to the 538 data a while back, and it definitely showed the declining trend - in both parties - up to exactly the point of Obama's election (but it was tracking the much broader category of attitudes - not hard racism).

Quote
no intellectual movement endorsed any concept of racism.  Provide facts that “no” intellectual movement did this.  Not a single one.

I'm just declining that nonsensical request.  it's certainly possible that there are some out there, however, I don't think any reasonable person misunderstood what I meant when I said that.  Nor is the inability to prove a negative even remotely prejudicial to the validity of what I said.

On the other hand if you think I'm "lying" or whatever the heck you think I'm doing, evidence of a major intellectual movement endorsing racism should be easy to find and cause me to "eat" my words.

Quote
that anti-racism predominated every learning opportunity. Provide facts that “every” learning opportunity had this characteristic.  Every one.

I don't think anyone was confused by what I said.  But on the off chance everyone else here is so dogmatic that they can't parse the meaning of that sentence, which I serious doubt, anti-racism dominates higher education to such an extent as to be virtually the exclusive credo and any contrary credo is ruthlessly suppressed.

I'm not aware of any institution of higher learning that openly endorses white on black racism.

Quote
These are perfectly valid opinions.  I would not disagree with some of them, if they were not grossly exaggerated to the point of absurdity.   But they simply are not facts.

What's interesting is that you're almost being logical here, but not quite.  You don't know if they are facts, well except in a purely hyperbolic sense that no one in conversational English is acting legitimately when they use it dispute a statement.  It's actually, once a again, a false conclusion (that they are not facts) that you are asserting.

They may be facts, they in theory may not, that's independent of whether I prove them.

Quote
I pointed out the true characterization, but your reply seems to disagree.  Prove me wrong. Or admit that they are opinions.  I don't care which.

Well except, you didn't point out "true characterizations."   You no more established facts than you claim I did, in fact in many cases you seem to think objecting to a statement is proof of its inverse (unless I jump through imaginary hoops set by you to "reestablish the fact," in which case you can throw out a conflicting link and think you've won the day). 

I think I've spent a good bit more time on substantive argument than you have.

Quote
That's quite the reading comprehension fail.  Is it bad faith or just trolling again?

You've pulled this out like it was unfair?  Your response grossly mischaraterized my response, leading me to conclude that it was a failure to comprehend them or just a troll.  You seem to think your highly technical and essential non-substantive response was good faith of some sort? 

Quote
Really, your entire argument style is burden shifiting, you call me a liar,
I'm giving you an F on your research.

The inference from your challenge about whether I have sources or its "just" my opinion after my statement that I read it in multiple places from multiple members of Anti-fa, is that I am lying.  I also seriously doubt that anyone looking into the topic in good faith failed to find similar quotes, hence the "F."

But I do find your selective editing, once again, interesting and deliberately designed to mislead.  The full quote is here:

"I have memories, and you have google, knock yourself out.  Really, your entire argument style is burden shifiting, you call me a liar, notwithstanding the information being widely available, and then sit back to nit pick citations that will always have failings.

There literally hundreds of quotes on this topic, I'm giving you an F on your research."

What legitimate purpose was there to edit the quote?

Quote
This is literally true.  Demanding a source for every claim and then assuming the inverse is true is a burden shift.  No one has time to track down a citation for every sentence.

You seem to find this insulting?  It's just true, the standard to cite every sentence exists no where.  Not to mention, in compiling this list you ignored all substance, every reference and every citation, which kind of proves to me that there is no good faith behind your requests.

Quote
Hard to tell exactly, but I count somewhere around 11 or 12 direct personal attacks.

You seem to have confused personal attacks with critiques of style and argumentation in many cases.  Given that you seem to dedicate entire posts to complaining directly about me to an "audience" for whom you seem to think you speak, it seems incredible that you'd make the claim.

Quote
Certainly false accusations, unsupported in any way. Many of your statements are flatly contradicted by things I have posted.

Well I'm not going to reread your entire history of obsessive focus on my posts to see if you've "contradicted" me.  Mostly you seem to think a challenge is the same thing as a response and then move forward as if it were a refutation.  Once again, I find myself "feeding" you when I probably shouldn't.

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #151 on: December 08, 2018, 07:51:45 AM »
velcro,

Even if the entire clause following "I think I speak for everyone on Ornery" was a statement that was agreeable to me it would still be true that you don't speak for me when you say it.

That may be your interpretation, but to the best of my knowledge it is in contradiction to common usage. We can agree to disagree on that point.

To avoid the conflict of your interpretation, could you please just tell me if you agree or disagree with the statements?

-Readers are not expected to trust statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because a poster “has memories” that back them up.

-Readers are not expected to find the external verification when a poster makes a controversial statement.


Quote
you used that deliberately strong language to create the impression that everyone here is united against what you perceive Seriati was doing in his posts, and that is flatly untrue.

Ok, prove that it is flatly untrue.  Find someone besides Seriati who disagrees with the two statements above.  It should be very simple if you know that my statement is flatly untrue.  And note, this is independent of what I perceive Seriati has done.  This is an independent statement of expectations of readers.  So any distractions on this point that Seriati does or does not practice them is worthy of discussion separately, but should not be used to, well, distract.

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #152 on: December 08, 2018, 08:22:51 AM »

You claimed I “rarely fail to make personal attacks”.

Quote one personal attack I made in this thread.  Hell, quote one personal attack I made in the last 6 months.  Then say where I called you a liar.

I will donate $25 to the charity of your choice if you can find one personal attack. $50 if you can find 11 in 6 months, to compare to your 11 in 3 days.

I looked back a few months and the worst I found was that I said that if you made claims and did not provide sources, people on Ornery would not trust you. And I made a crack about “semantic gymnastics” in reference to your distracting from the actual points being made.  After calling me a liar, you attributed a false quote to me, and I replied that if you don't provide sources to back up your quote, I would call you a liar, with a smiley face after.  I never followed through, even though you never provided the documentation for the false quote. 

I also noticed that you called me a liar multiple times, but never actually got around to proving it, or even providing a single quote of where I lied.

Please stop calling me a liar when you have nothing to back it up.
Please stop saying I attack you unless you have quotes to back it up.


With about 2000 words in the last post, Seriati did not address this.

The offer for the $25 donation has been retracted.

Back to the actual argument, Seriati initially said

Quote
Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.

Now he says

Quote
Whether they are larger in raw numbers, I believe so based on indirect reporting and their impact, but I don't have any good direct sources for that proposition.

Thank you for the clarification.  That agrees entirely with my point all along, i.e. you have no solid facts to support the original statement. Memories, claims of reading things (that we have no sources for, so we must trust your interpretation of your readings implicitly), social media feeds, but no facts.

I have polls from respected news organizations/universities to say that the two groups have equivalent size and support.

That simple summary of the situation has not changed.

And please note, despite what Seriati says, I did not claim anything about Antifa, or their non-existent "statement of belief".  I am only saying that Seriati is getting out over his skis when he makes sweeping claims like this without evidence.


Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #153 on: December 11, 2018, 10:32:11 AM »
-Readers are not expected to trust statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because a poster “has memories” that back them up.

-Readers are not expected to find the external verification when a poster makes a controversial statement.

Quote
Find someone besides Seriati who disagrees with the two statements above.

That's a fools errand, since even I don't disagree with those statements.  No is expected to trust statements implicitly (by which you seem to mean that one can't dispute claims).  I do expect them to understand the claims are made in good faith and with a basis (which is were you routinely fail).  Relying on the honesty of the other person (while acknowledging they may be wrong or you may disagree with their conclusions) is the basis of conversation.  Disputing a claim in good faith is always welcome, disputation as a tactic not so much.  People on here share their knowledge and expertise all the time, and you either trust that they are honest in what they share or not.

Again you are not remotely the arbiter for what is controversial.  If I said Donald Trump is 100% truthful in all things that would be a controversial statement requiring extraordinary proof, if on the other hand I said those fact checking Donald Trump are often being misleading as well that's not a controversial statement.

Quote
It should be very simple if you know that my statement is flatly untrue.  And note, this is independent of what I perceive Seriati has done.  This is an independent statement of expectations of readers.  So any distractions on this point that Seriati does or does not practice them is worthy of discussion separately, but should not be used to, well, distract.

And you wonder why I say you're trolling me.  You seem to have an obsessive focus on me.  Very little of which is focused on disputing the actual arguments made, and almost all of it on process attacks (which again, are not proof of the inverse).
« Last Edit: December 11, 2018, 10:34:18 AM by Seriati »

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #154 on: December 15, 2018, 12:08:43 PM »
Quote
Relying on the honesty of the other person (while acknowledging they may be wrong or you may disagree with their conclusions) is the basis of conversation.

This is a good starting point.  But when people make claims that are false, "relying on honesty" is no longer the guiding principle.  You may honestly believe your claim is true, but the claim is in fact false.  It is not about your honesty.  It is about the truth or falsity of your claim.

For example:

Seriati wrote:
Quote
Of course, I recommend the original NYT article, in which it is very clear that it's not just "two" occasions.  [that Blumenthal said he served in Vietnam] https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html

...Now that said, it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not, but it certainly sounds possible given the number of times he spoke on the issue, the impression given and his deliberate stories about "when we came back."

As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate [finding only two occasions], or this just a false representation.

I searched carefully, and there were just "two occasions".  I say your claim is false. I am focusing "on disputing the actual arguments made"

I do not "rely on your honesty".  I ask that you provide some evidence besides "I read it somewhere".

You may have misremembered.  That is fine. I will not criticize you for that.
You may have some other sources that you have drawn your conclusion from.  Provide the sources and the reasoning, and we can discuss it.

Readers are not expected to trust statements implicitly, with no external verification, simply because a poster “has memories” that back them up.

But in this case, you have provided absolutely no external verification.  If you have something, show it.  If I missed it in your link, pull out the actual quotes.  If it is somewhere else, provide the source.  If you don't, then do not expect anyone to trust your statements.  As the bolded words above say.  The words you "don't disagree with".

I offered $50 to the charity of your choice if you provide evidence for more than two occasions.  Twice.  You never responded.
I will extend that for a week.

I call out people who post things that I believe are false.  I don't have an obsessive focus on you.  You happen to be the person who does it the most often.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #155 on: December 15, 2018, 12:25:59 PM »
So let me get this straight: good faith conversation requires not only honest intent...but that all statements made accurate and true? Does this include repetitions of news items, or also statements about philosophy/metaphysics? Like if you say "I think I speak for everyone on Ornery", according to your own standard you need to be called out as making a false statement, since you provided no signed affidavit or link to a source showing that others have acknowledged that you speak for them. So what you said was apparently both cited without source and also factually false. But then maybe I could also call it out because speaking on behalf of others without their consent is rude (a social impropriety) or even prideful (by a Christian standard a sin, and therefore wrong by definition). So you can see how many angles of attack can be levied against a statement that from your perspective seemed self-evident, and that using your standard (that only true and cited statements are permissible in civilized dialogue) you would have it be nearly impossible to discuss anything at all in a civilized fashion. Posts would end up looking like an academic paper with more citations than content.

I could call you out on "then do not expect anyone to trust your statements" line: is this meant to be a moral point, about human trust, or a point about academic cleanliness? If the former, why should one have to morally trust a statement made on the internet? Take people's comments for what they are and enjoy (or not). If the latter, I would argue that our conversations rarely even intend to have that level of rigor. So you see, again, statements that you think are self-evident would require intense amount of explanation, possible requiring upwards of a 50 page paper to begin to justify. Even a working definition of what "trust" might mean in this context could be an insurmountable goal. It's difficult to imagine that you've taken up the project of enforcing standards of discourse on the internet, and so that's why one is left with the notion that you're hounding one particular user.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #156 on: December 15, 2018, 02:20:26 PM »
Quote
Of course, I recommend the original NYT article, in which it is very clear that it's not just "two" occasions.  [that Blumenthal said he served in Vietnam] https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html

...Now that said, it's unclear from the NYT's whether Trump's claim about him telling war stories is supportable or not, but it certainly sounds possible given the number of times he spoke on the issue, the impression given and his deliberate stories about "when we came back."

As far as I can tell, either your research was completely inadequate [finding only two occasions], or this just a false representation.

I searched carefully, and there were just "two occasions".  I say your claim is false. I am focusing "on disputing the actual arguments made"

It's interesting that you included the link I provided in your quote.  There are more than 2 instances referenced in that link, and there is express claim that Blumenthal acknowledge one of them and said that he may have made misstatements on other occasions (plural) as well.  How then am I to take your response?  Did you not read the linked materials, did you ignore them?  You failed to acknowledge that one could speak to people in CT and have discovered other instances as well.

Quote
I do not "rely on your honesty".  I ask that you provide some evidence besides "I read it somewhere".

Why, so that you can not read it?  And then restate your original claim as if it were not provided?

Quote
But in this case, you have provided absolutely no external verification.  If you have something, show it.  If I missed it in your link, pull out the actual quotes.  If it is somewhere else, provide the source.

And this is why I say you're trolling.  If you read the piece you'd have seen more than two instances.  If you spent anytime actually looking for sources you would have similarly found more than two instances.

I read that failing as either proof that your demand is nothing more than a tactic and not a true request for actual information, or worse proof that you don't comprehend what you read, which makes the idea of providing you with basic citations an even bigger waste of time.

Quote
I offered $50 to the charity of your choice if you provide evidence for more than two occasions.  Twice.  You never responded.
I will extend that for a week.

I did respond.  I just didn't agree to play your game.

Quote
I call out people who post things that I believe are false.  I don't have an obsessive focus on you.  You happen to be the person who does it the most often.

Lol, sure you do, and if I'm not the only who's noticed your focus, how do you explain that away?  Or do I need to provide you quotes on that too?

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #157 on: December 15, 2018, 03:25:18 PM »
 Maybe I’m missing something, but I feel that Velcro‘s three marks are being taken out of context, and some of these arguments feel like out right bullying to me.   From people that I’ve never thought of as bully us.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #158 on: December 15, 2018, 04:00:38 PM »
Maybe I’m missing something, but I feel that Velcro‘s three marks are being taken out of context, and some of these arguments feel like out right bullying to me.   From people that I’ve never thought of as bully us.

Not sure which clauses you mean exactly. I'm mainly reacting to what I perceive as bullying.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #159 on: December 15, 2018, 09:43:00 PM »
I see us more as sitting around the lunch table shooting the breeze and not so much in a courtroom under oath providing evidence on a case. Maybe that's just me though. If I have an issue with something I just state my case and then someone has their rebuttal and usually that's it and it's time to move on. Everyone has their say and it's all good. No need to make a federal case out of everything. But it's all good. If people want to play the paper chase like we're law school students in Harvard, you know whatever floats your boat.

oldbrian

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #160 on: December 17, 2018, 10:31:12 AM »
I just re-read Seriati's NYTimes article, and could only find 2 instances where Blumenthal was quoted as saying he was 'in vietnam' or 'we returned from vietnam'.
The rest of the article was about other publications describing him as having been there, and that Blumenthal never corrected them.  The quote later on sounded like it was the same "when we returned" as the 2nd quote.

So yeah, Seriati, the NYT article only provided 2 instances, although they alluded to others, insinuating that the 3rd party descriptions must have been told that by Blumenthal.
I didn't go back and re-read the entire thread, so Seriati might have mentioned some other actual quotes


From an outside point of view, it looks like Velcro and Seriati are sensitized to each other by now, and everything seems like a big deal, which if it was any other poster (in either direction) they would not even notice it.

ADDED:
Ah.  The 3rd quote was from a dedication of a Vietnam memorial.  Probably different from the 'Bridgeport rally' in 2003.
So 3 instances, but 2 were almost verbatim of each other, so I thought they were the same thing.

So Seriati was right on the article.  Velcro and I both failed reading comprehension.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2018, 10:37:58 AM by oldbrian »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #161 on: December 17, 2018, 11:13:00 AM »
So since this seems to be causing undue confusion, to clarify this is a NY Times article, reporting on a controversy that had already been reported in CT papers, that was written pre-Trump and contemporaneously to the conduct in 2010.

As support for what I said, you have the following, emphasis added:

Quote
But what is striking about Mr. Blumenthal’s record is the contrast between the many steps he took that allowed him to avoid Vietnam, and the misleading way he often speaks about that period of his life now, especially when he is speaking at veterans’ ceremonies or other patriotic events.

Quote
Sometimes his remarks have been plainly untrue, as in his speech to the group in Norwalk. At other times, he has used more ambiguous language, but the impression left on audiences can be similar.

You seem to be running from the negative assumption that because they cited to specific events the claims they make about frequency are "unproven."  The article goes to flat out say things like

Quote
But the way he speaks about his military service has led to confusion and frequent mischaracterizations of his biography in his home state newspapers. In at least eight newspaper articles published in Connecticut from 2003 to 2009, he is described as having served in Vietnam.

Which is unlikely to have resulted from 2 (or 3 statements) never repeated again.  It's also incredibly improbable that a politician in campaign mode who may make multiple speeches to multiple groups a day, says anything, just once.  Repeating the same formulation over and over again is how a "misconception" (of if we were talking about Trump on this thread a "lie") ends up in a person's public biography on a state and national basis.  I can't reasonably read an article that talks in plural terms throughout, and clearly involved contemporaneous research into multiple events and probably multiple local media sources should be reconstrued nearly a decade letter as a statement that he only made such claims 2 or 3 times.

In any event, the constrast on this thread where statements from Trump that may in fact have been true are labelled lies is in fact telling, which was half the point.

Pete, I'd be happy to have pleasant conversations again.   But I'm not agreeing to play a game where I (and only I) have to provide academic journal writing levels of citation or "concede" that whatever claim I made must be false and the opposite unproven claim be true. 

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #162 on: December 18, 2018, 06:04:31 AM »
 Thank you for explaining, Seriati.

 I thought the objection was only to the phrase “I think I speak to everyone when I say  X”  which really means nothing more then  “Don’t we all agree with X as a general principle? “

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #163 on: December 18, 2018, 12:44:43 PM »
I thought the objection was only to the phrase “I think I speak to everyone when I say  X”  which really means nothing more then  “Don’t we all agree with X as a general principle? “

I was objecting to precisely this, in context of it being used to suggest that everyone was against Seriati on that particular point.

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #164 on: December 20, 2018, 08:42:44 AM »
Seriati said there were three statements.  Here are two:

Quote
“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

Quote
In 2003, he addressed a rally in Bridgeport, where about 100 military families gathered to express support for American troops overseas. “When we returned, we saw nothing like this,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “Let us do better by this generation of men and women.”

"Sometimes" does not prove 3.
"Other times" does not prove 3.
"unlikely to have resulted from 2 (or 3 statements) never repeated again (your opinion)" does not prove 3.

Seriati still says
Quote
There are more than 2 instances referenced in that link,
and
Quote
And this is why I say you're trolling.  If you read the piece you'd have seen more than two instances.  If you spent anytime actually looking for sources you would have similarly found more than two instances.

I have asked you over and over and over to just list the actual words.  You don't.  You just keep repeating that the proof is in the link.  I think you are mistaken. 

If you provide those words, I will admit I missed an important detail.  I will apologize profusely if you show me the clear link.  I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice if you just type those words.

Or, you can continue your insistence that they exist, but for some reason you don't supply them.

You have absolutely no reason to avoid providing that third statement.  Unless of course, it does not exist.

Prove me wrong.

velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #165 on: December 20, 2018, 08:50:21 AM »
I see us more as sitting around the lunch table shooting the breeze and not so much in a courtroom under oath providing evidence on a case. Maybe that's just me though. If I have an issue with something I just state my case and then someone has their rebuttal and usually that's it and it's time to move on. Everyone has their say and it's all good. No need to make a federal case out of everything. But it's all good. If people want to play the paper chase like we're law school students in Harvard, you know whatever floats your boat.

if I am at a lunch table shooting the breeze, and my friend says "Everybody knows that Tom Brady has the most completed passes in the NFL!", I am going to politely point out that he is wrong.  Because he is wrong, and because he is stating it as an obvious hard fact.  If he said "Tom Brady is the best quarterback ever", I wouldn't bat an eye.

That is not making a federal case.  That is not requiring "academic journal writing levels of citation".  That is not "playing the paper chase".  That is calling BS when someone makes stuff up and expects you to just believe it because they said it.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #166 on: December 20, 2018, 10:39:17 AM »
Quote
If he said "Tom Brady is the best quarterback ever".

Four pinnochios. By any objective standard, it is quite clear that Drew Brees is the best quarterback ever, the GOAT, and shall never be surpassed as long as people continue to play football. Even after genetically modified quarterbacks are playing on a 500 yard field on Mars Colony.

GEAUX SAINTS!

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #167 on: July 01, 2019, 06:55:14 PM »
The attack on Andy Ngo this weekend reminded me of this thread. For those unaware, Ngo is a journalist in Portland that covers a lot of demonstrations, particularly Antifa.

During the demonstration last weekend, Ngo was coated with “milkshakes” that were really made of quick dry cement- the idea is that an alkaline burn would result as it dried. He was robbed and severely beaten and ended up hospitalized with a brain bleed. On social media, many of the blue check journalists were silent or supported the beating to varying degrees. The vast majority of media and activists came down on the side of “he was asking for it” whether they condemned it or not (some lightly objected).

The police did not get involved as Portland’s mayor has directed them to allow Antifa to run amok. The police may get involved later as there’s tons of video and people can be identified. Or maybe they won’t. Who really knows.

That there was not universal condemnation of this is unbelievable. That so many justified or supported it is alarming. The violence and support for it is ratcheting up.

 

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #168 on: July 01, 2019, 07:45:32 PM »
Quote
The police did not get involved as Portland’s mayor has directed them to allow Antifa to run amok.
Was this confirmed?  The story I found on this (had to google it as I got no idea who this is, or what you were talking about), had one person quoted who was speculating that was probably the case.

As a rule I'm skeptical about Antifa hysteria.  (aka "leftist savages" in the piece I read)  But sounds pretty bad for the mayor and chief of police if it they were issuing orders to do nothing as it got out of control. 

If they are pants-on-head-crazy enough to order the police not to do their job to avoid... what?  A violent response?  Then they're all on their way out and gonna be spending a long time in courtrooms.  Self-solving problem. 

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #169 on: July 01, 2019, 11:24:48 PM »
Velcro, thank you for succinctly and thoroughly explaining your view.  I am well answered.  (In retrospect I’m embarrassed for not having followed. Thank you for your In retrospect I’m embarrassed for not having followed. Thank you for your patience. You feel that an adversary is mischaracterizing an exchange.  I’ve done shocking things on and off this forum when I felt that way.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #170 on: July 12, 2019, 11:17:13 AM »
Quote
During the demonstration last weekend, Ngo was coated with “milkshakes” that were really made of quick dry cement- the idea is that an alkaline burn would result as it dried.

Well, you source Crunch was full of it.  There was no cement in the milkshake.  Because if there were, it would have been immediately noticeable.

We know this because, unlike those who made the accusation, someone tried putting cement in a milkshake to see what would happen.

Quote
The splatter looked nothing like a milkshake. It looked like wet concrete.

Two hours later, the cement-milkshake mixture coating our dummy was still squishy and wet. It had not dried, as quick-drying concrete is supposed to do.

Conclusion: It's definitely possible to mix quick-drying cement with a vegan milkshake—but the result would be immediately obvious and would leave behind a telltale mess that's tough to clean up....

But a concrete milkshake is distinctive, as we learned. It's gritty, clumpy and a dark color.

Take a look at a photo of Ngo doused with a milkshake.

Compare it to the photos in the article.  Which type of "milkshake" looks most similar?

This was more "fake news" from the purveyors of, and creators of, the term "fake news." :)


D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #171 on: July 12, 2019, 11:29:06 AM »
When one is attempting to contradict conspiracy plots or an outrageous claim, it's best to do so with something more... concrete.  :P 

Honestly, I don't think anyone cares how fast / if the mixture hardens, nor would consistency of the mixture prove or disprove much of anything. 

It either did or did not contain chemical irritants. 

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #172 on: July 12, 2019, 12:21:45 PM »
Quote
During the demonstration last weekend, Ngo was coated with “milkshakes” that were really made of quick dry cement- the idea is that an alkaline burn would result as it dried.

Well, you source Crunch was full of it.  There was no cement in the milkshake.  Because if there were, it would have been immediately noticeable.

We know this because, unlike those who made the accusation, someone tried putting cement in a milkshake to see what would happen.

Quote
The splatter looked nothing like a milkshake. It looked like wet concrete.

Two hours later, the cement-milkshake mixture coating our dummy was still squishy and wet. It had not dried, as quick-drying concrete is supposed to do.

Conclusion: It's definitely possible to mix quick-drying cement with a vegan milkshake—but the result would be immediately obvious and would leave behind a telltale mess that's tough to clean up....

But a concrete milkshake is distinctive, as we learned. It's gritty, clumpy and a dark color.

Take a look at a photo of Ngo doused with a milkshake.


Compare it to the photos in the article.  Which type of "milkshake" looks most similar?

This was more "fake news" from the purveyors of, and creators of, the term "fake news." :)

They have pictures of Antifa doing it at the event. Many bragged online about doing it. Perhaps the photos were faked and everyone is lying. IT could happen.

Andy Ngo still ended up in the hospital so what's your excuse for that?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 12:25:45 PM by Crunch »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #173 on: July 12, 2019, 12:41:19 PM »
Does it really matter what was in it? It's still assault, any way you slice it. If you don't want people to distort what you threw on somebody, don't throw anything at people. If I threw a shamrock shake at you, I doubt you'd be less angry knowing that it wasn't toxic.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #174 on: July 12, 2019, 01:11:42 PM »
Umm, having your day ruined and being embarrassed is a far cry from being chemically attacked.  Yes.  I'd be less angry.  I'd also not need medical treatment or risk permanent scarring / disfigurement or permanent blindness. 

Don't be silly.  We should indeed punish people who 'assault' others with eggs or... shamrock shakes, but there IS a difference. 

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #175 on: July 12, 2019, 01:28:52 PM »
I just get the sense that people are far too willing to laugh off pies, paint, custard, and whatnot. Tee hee hee, look at the bad man with the dirty suit. Don't be daft about him going to the hospital, it didn't have to be about the "milkshake chemicals", he was f-ing beaten.

And as far as that substance goes?

Quote
His lawyer claims Ngo suffered a "brain bleed" from the assault. Jim Ryan, a reporter for The Oregonian chronicled the competing rallies by protestors from the left and right, as well as the attack on Ngo.
According to Ryan, police said that some of the masked goons may have laced their favorite milkshake projectile with "a substance similar to quick-drying cement." And so, a conservative journalist received his -- in the view of these radical left protesters -- "just desserts."

The Oregonian isn't really known for being a right wing lunatic website. Nor are the Portland police given to calling a beverage similar to cement. Note that the police didn't say it WAS cement, and by the way, cement != concrete.

Quote
Cement comprises from 10 to 15 percent of the concrete mix, by volume. Through a process called hydration, the cement and water harden and bind the aggregates into a rocklike mass. This hardening process continues for years meaning that concrete gets stronger as it gets older.

The gritty stuff is sand and rock. Which is not cement, it is concrete. Now, it is always possible that the police didn't understand that nuance, but I think they'd know the difference between a milkshake and one that had irritating chemicals in it.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #176 on: July 12, 2019, 02:06:57 PM »
Quote
They have pictures of Antifa doing it at the event. Many bragged online about doing it. Perhaps the photos were faked and everyone is lying. IT could happen.

And pigs could fly, too.  Let's talk about what actually did happen instead of what maybe, might, could've, etc.  The photos we have indicate there was no concrete involved.  And exactly who bragged about putting concrete in the milkshakes?  Obviously it was not the person who threw it at Ngo.  If there is no evidence that photos were faked and no evidence that there was concrete in the shake, let's not assume it "could" be true.  Otherwise, you can start a discussion about why pigs fly. :)

Quote
Andy Ngo still ended up in the hospital so what's your excuse for that?

Well, he apparently didn't end up in the hospital because of a milkshake that was thrown on him.  So what am I excusing?  ???

And his hospital stay, from whatever reason, does not affect the fact that, from the evidence that we have, there was no concrete in the milkshake.  You were wrong in saying that there was.

And while we're on the subject, what about this:

Quote
Man it sure is weird how every time a fascist gets hit in the face with some food we have a week long discourse about left wing political violence but every time a fascist murders people we're treated to a smorgasbord of excuses of how it's not political.

Maybe we need a bit more perspective on the degrees of violence.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #177 on: July 12, 2019, 02:12:43 PM »
[hyperpartisanship]With almost 24/7 accusations of being hypocrites slung at the right, they salivate at attempts to pin that label on the left.[/hyperpartisanship]  ;)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #178 on: July 12, 2019, 02:22:18 PM »
Quote
They have pictures of Antifa doing it at the event. Many bragged online about doing it. Perhaps the photos were faked and everyone is lying. IT could happen.

And pigs could fly, too.  Let's talk about what actually did happen instead of what maybe, might, could've, etc.  The photos we have indicate there was no concrete involved.  And exactly who bragged about putting concrete in the milkshakes?  Obviously it was not the person who threw it at Ngo.  If there is no evidence that photos were faked and no evidence that there was concrete in the shake, let's not assume it "could" be true.  Otherwise, you can start a discussion about why pigs fly. :)

Quote
Andy Ngo still ended up in the hospital so what's your excuse for that?

Well, he apparently didn't end up in the hospital because of a milkshake that was thrown on him.  So what am I excusing?  ???

And his hospital stay, from whatever reason, does not affect the fact that, from the evidence that we have, there was no concrete in the milkshake.  You were wrong in saying that there was.

And while we're on the subject, what about this:

Quote
Man it sure is weird how every time a fascist gets hit in the face with some food we have a week long discourse about left wing political violence but every time a fascist murders people we're treated to a smorgasbord of excuses of how it's not political.

Maybe we need a bit more perspective on the degrees of violence.

Did you miss my entire post?

Police said it had something like cement, reported by a reputable news outlet. Does your photo matter more than that? Nobody ever said concrete.

Any degree of violence is unacceptable, especially punching someone in the head. And particularly unacceptable when directed at a journalist while covering an event.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #179 on: July 12, 2019, 02:23:50 PM »
Just to make it perfectly clear, THIS is quick drying cement.

edit: after reading a lot more, apparently everybody and their cousin thinks cement is concrete so I withdraw the distinction.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 02:37:58 PM by TheDrake »

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #180 on: July 12, 2019, 02:44:59 PM »
IDK if it's a northeastern thing, but even I use them interchangeably in all but official documents on blueprints.  :P

The only people who seem to care much are the vendors selling cementicious such-and-such product.  ;)

Further, the linked type of cement tends to be "liquid applied _" or "bonding agent"  Just to further complicate things.

Either way, none of which would I want splashed on my person.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 02:48:41 PM by D.W. »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #181 on: July 12, 2019, 02:57:12 PM »
Don't be silly.  We should indeed punish people who 'assault' others with eggs or... shamrock shakes, but there IS a difference.

Just out of curiosity, would you still be in favor of a lighter punishment if it were say anti-gay activists throwing Shamrock shakes on people at a gay pride parade?  Or it were people throwing animal blood on PETA activists? 

To me if we're going to have an idea of "hate crimes" then people who engage in hate should be accountable.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #182 on: July 12, 2019, 04:32:36 PM »
Just to make it perfectly clear, THIS is quick drying cement.

edit: after reading a lot more, apparently everybody and their cousin thinks cement is concrete so I withdraw the distinction.

I don't? Cement is an ingredient in Concrete. But it isn't exactly the same thing. but as all concrete has cement, the layperson tends to consider it one and the same.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #183 on: July 12, 2019, 04:37:56 PM »
Don't be silly.  We should indeed punish people who 'assault' others with eggs or... shamrock shakes, but there IS a difference.

Just out of curiosity, would you still be in favor of a lighter punishment if it were say anti-gay activists throwing Shamrock shakes on people at a gay pride parade?  Or it were people throwing animal blood on PETA activists? 

To me if we're going to have an idea of "hate crimes" then people who engage in hate should be accountable.
I would yes.  There is a huge difference to me between 'attacks' which are more vandalism of clothing / embarrassment type attacks and those that are genuinely dangerous.

As was pointed out, the discussed incident also involved physical assault.  But that put aside, WHAT is being thrown or splattered onto someone means a lot to me in determining the penalties/charges the perpetrator should face.

In case I was unclear, I don't suggest giving people throwing 'just a milkshake' or 'just an egg' a free pass.  I just would suggest you hit someone throwing dangerous things at people with more strict charges/sentences.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #184 on: July 12, 2019, 07:21:26 PM »
Don't be silly.  We should indeed punish people who 'assault' others with eggs or... shamrock shakes, but there IS a difference.

Just out of curiosity, would you still be in favor of a lighter punishment if it were say anti-gay activists throwing Shamrock shakes on people at a gay pride parade?  Or it were people throwing animal blood on PETA activists? 

To me if we're going to have an idea of "hate crimes" then people who engage in hate should be accountable.
I would yes.  There is a huge difference to me between 'attacks' which are more vandalism of clothing / embarrassment type attacks and those that are genuinely dangerous.

As was pointed out, the discussed incident also involved physical assault.  But that put aside, WHAT is being thrown or splattered onto someone means a lot to me in determining the penalties/charges the perpetrator should face.

In case I was unclear, I don't suggest giving people throwing 'just a milkshake' or 'just an egg' a free pass.  I just would suggest you hit someone throwing dangerous things at people with more strict charges/sentences.

I disagree. If you throw a milkshake to embarrass someone it's obviously just as bad as throwing acid or going old school and punching them in the face.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #185 on: July 12, 2019, 07:30:53 PM »
I've never had a milkshake thrown in my face but I have been punched in the face. 

I'm totally for trying the milkshake next time instead of the fist... 

But maybe that's just me. 

as long as it's not mixed with super glue type stuff that could blind me or hits me like a minty smelling brick I suppose...  :P

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #186 on: July 13, 2019, 02:25:45 PM »
I can't imagine a scenario where somebody throws a milkshake on me that doesn't end in a fist fight.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #187 on: July 14, 2019, 09:02:42 AM »
IDK if I've always been prone to deescalation or if my time with a CPL changed my opinion, but I can't imagine a scenario I started a fist fight over a milkshake.  Though several where that could be a prelude to someone else starting it I guess. 

If your assumption is A automatically leads to B, then I guess I understand why some see it as 'just as serious'.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #188 on: July 14, 2019, 09:18:51 AM »
IDK if I've always been prone to deescalation or if my time with a CPL changed my opinion, but I can't imagine a scenario I started a fist fight over a milkshake.  Though several where that could be a prelude to someone else starting it I guess. 

If your assumption is A automatically leads to B, then I guess I understand why some see it as 'just as serious'.

So if we changed "milkshake" for "whiffle bat" does the calculation change much?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #189 on: July 14, 2019, 10:12:13 AM »
Well, I'd have to modify things somewhat. If a friend threw a shake on me as a joke. But a masked figure who has been yelling profanities and insults at me first? Maybe different from the one off milkshake tossing we've seen in Europe, which obviously didn't end in physical reprisal.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #190 on: July 14, 2019, 01:46:11 PM »
Quote
So if we changed "milkshake" for "whiffle bat" does the calculation change much?
I grew up with siblings.  The whiffle bat I DO have experience being hit with.  :P

So no.  No change haha

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #191 on: July 14, 2019, 01:48:13 PM »
Drake does bring up a good point though.  If I thought I was likely to be the target of a hate crime, and someone was berating me in public before the event, I may very well believe they meant me a lot more harm than some viral video of me covered in a normal shake.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #192 on: July 15, 2019, 10:25:07 AM »
I think you guys are missing the point.  How likely is someone to avoid expressing their political opinions where there is a risk of physical violence.   The point of the milkshakes, the beatdowns, the full on masks and riot gear is to make it clear that engaging in Constitutionally protected political speech will cause you to risk your life.  Mothers with children, better stay home, elderly?  keep it to your self cause it may kill you.  Disabled?  Taking your life into your hands if you show up.  Heck, walking by yourself to a legitimate protest?  Too bad for you you that was stupid.

It's political terrorism, and it works, there are already people afraid to express perfectly legitimate positions because they fear being assaulted.  This is a direct assault on our ability to operate as free society.  Everyone should be taking it seriously.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #193 on: July 15, 2019, 11:16:02 AM »
I'm confident in saying everyone DOES take it seriously.  Just about every incident gets a lot of coverage.  And not just because of partisan outrage on one side.  It's thankfully a rare occurrence, and thus, newsworthy. 

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #194 on: July 15, 2019, 11:27:47 AM »
D.W., I disagree.  Coverage in this case actually spreads the intimidation message, especially in how its done.  If they were trying to help they'd be condemning it and holding police and mayor's to account for how they are policing, instead they are doing exactly what the terrorists want and focusing on the views of the victims and the real harms they are receiving.

Most common line to me in these stories, is the one liner, "The police did not make any arrests in connection with the event."   That tells you everything you need to know.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #195 on: July 15, 2019, 12:16:04 PM »
Don't know what to tell ya.  If these things didn't make the news, that omission would be shown as "proof" that the 'left controlled media' were trying to hide it.  If it is reported on, apparently it's playing into the hands of terrorists.

Quote
Most common line to me in these stories,
Makes it sound like an epidemic.  Which I don't agree that it is. 

Any time police or mayor's don't do their job, they should be held to account (and/or sued).  As some like to point out often, our country is still a lot better off than the alternatives in this regard.

At the risk of pushing buttons, I will say that my generation and, I would think the one before it, were raised with some not too subtle propaganda against certain far-right themes.  That some are susceptible to (what they view as) provocation is not shocking to me.

Those breaking the law should be arrested and prosecuted, beyond that I find it hard to get worked up about it as a threat to civil discourse rather than isolated criminal acts.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #196 on: July 15, 2019, 12:49:30 PM »
I will say there is always a "but" in the coverage. It is perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about what violent actors want. News should be telling us what Antifa wants, just like describing what ISIS wants.

CNN and other outlets do bring people on who downplay and excuse the Antifa actions. Kind of like how you saw coverage of the IRA where people condemned the methods, and then went on to talk about the oppression of the Irish by the English and the root causes of the conflict. And then pointing out how nice the IRA was to call the pub they were bombing so that people would get out in time. Which, of course, didn't always work out.

It isn't so monolithic. For instance, this piece on CNN is a full on condemnation, full stop.

This quote is particularly poignant.

Quote
Let us cease viewing this issue as too complicated. It really is not. While some minimize assaults like the one on Ngo because the assembly may have been "mostly peaceful," this risks tacitly condoning the behavior of those in the group who are prone to violent acts. Making excuses for violence because the offenders are adherents to your particular political views makes you a partisan apologist and a hypocrite.

Another article in the Washington Post

This article also makes no apologies.

However you have this:

Quote
Dartmouth College lecturer Mark Bray has gone from a relatively unknown academic to a sought-after news commentator in the short time since white supremacists clashed with counterprotesters at the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville.

Bray is the author of a new book on antifa, the far-left activist movement whose members advocate using any means necessary, including violence, to combat white supremacy. In the span of just a couple of weeks, dozens of national news outlets have turned to him to help explain the movement as debate has raged over how the country should deal with a rising tide of violent racism.

But Dartmouth officials are unsettled. Bray has made no secret about his belief that violence is, in some circumstances, justified. In turn, the university has sought to distance itself from him.

During an appearance on “Meet the Press” last week, Bray argued that “when pushed, self-defense is a legitimate response to white supremacist and neo-Nazi violence.”

“We’ve tried ignoring neo-Nazis in the past. We’ve seen how that turned out in the ’20s and ’30s,” Bray told host Chuck Todd. “A lot of people are under attack, and sometimes they need to be able to defend themselves.

Dartmouth President Philip J. Hanlon repudiated Bray in a statement, saying he was “supporting violent protest.”

“As an institution, we condemn anything but civil discourse in the exchange of ideas,” Hanlon said. “The endorsement of violence in any form is contrary to Dartmouth values.”

I once again recuse myself from how the TV programs work for the most part, I've abandoned them entirely. There may be a completely different vibe by the babbling heads compared to the written articles in many outlets.

I'm not sure if you can say Bray and his ilk are not taking it seriously, but they are condoning it.

Of course BLM and other events have turned into violence as well, but the right doesn't need vigilantes when they have cops to use tear gas, pepper spray, and other violent methods disproportionate to the situation. Or have we all forgotten the peaceful UC Davis protestors that got soaked in pepper spray?

There were a whole lot of cop-apologists who didn't care much about those rights to free speech.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #197 on: July 16, 2019, 01:30:32 PM »
I'm confident in saying everyone DOES take it seriously.  Just about every incident gets a lot of coverage.  And not just because of partisan outrage on one side.  It's thankfully a rare occurrence, and thus, newsworthy.

Not really. If it's a conservative on the receiving end, especially a white male, it's likely to be ignored.

But if it is a racial minority, or a woman, particularly if they're liberal, it's getting wall to wall coverage. Jussie Smollet anyone?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Why do democrats embrace an ideology of hate and violence?
« Reply #198 on: October 11, 2019, 08:05:36 AM »
Quote
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey proclaimed Thursday as “Love Trumps Hate Day” in the city, in solidarity with protests against Trump.

Thus

Quote
Left-wing rioters attacked supporters of President Donald Trump leaving a rally in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Thursday evening — assaulting them in groups, setting fire to pro-Trump hats, and attacking the police.

Quote
Local Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter Liz Sawyer noted there were several hundred rioters, and that some were singling out Trump supporters and surrounding them in groups before attacking them.

The left is ratcheting up the violence.