Protestors vs. Rioters

[DJQuag]

What's even worse is people read and listen to this Hannity/Maddow newspaper.

[wmLambert]

Real honest to goodness people are wondering about the Blue States' release of criminals just before the rioting. Also, the instantaneous turn around of looters and rioters released within a few hours of being arrested so they can go back out onto the streets.

[wmLambert]

...I don't know from smarmy, you tell me .  How about this?

  You do know from smarmy. because you were so angry someone put Cruz's picture on that meme when you know in your heart that you deserved that honor.

Funny they put Cruz on there, when he is certainly not smarmy nor unctious. Remember he has photographic-like memory for the spoken word. When he says something, you can be sure it is accurate and not posing disinformation.

The Democrats have made a paradigm of "reading between the lines." They may be forced to say something in front of the camera for the record, but they know their followers understand that what they say is not really what they mean. The politician who leaps to mind about "Smarmy" speechifying is Pelosi.

[Kasandra]

...I don't know from smarmy, you tell me .  How about this?

  You do know from smarmy. because you were so angry someone put Cruz's picture on that meme when you know in your heart that you deserved that honor.

Funny they put Cruz on there, when he is certainly not smarmy. Remember he has photographic-like memory for the spoken word. When he says something, you can be sure it is accurate and not posing disinformation.

The Democrats have made a paradigm of "reading between the lines." They may be forced to say something in front of the camera for the record, but they know their followers understand that what they say is not really what they mean. The politician who leaps to mind about "Smarmy" speechifying is Pelosi.

I'll say two things about your post.  First, that you never fail to disappoint.  Second, Thou mewling doghearted plebian!

[NobleHunter]

Of course, Trump never says anything that needs interpretation by his followers. Good thing projection is a sin of Democrats, eh?

[wmLambert]

...I'll say two things about your post.  First, that you never fail to disappoint.  Second, Thou mewling doghearted plebian!

Still smarmy and proving it. Everyone wondered why the criminals were let out because of Coronavirus - not just me. Everyone wonders why those arrested for rioting and looting were back out on the streets immediately. You are so smart, explain to us why the Blue state politicians did this.

What we see is simple to understand - but let me explain it to you, anyway. Blue State politicians control the states that screwed up the most with the Wuhan flu. They sent Covid-19 infected patients to senior nursing homes, they send a man to jail for playing catch in a park with his little daughter without masks in an isolated location, but release dangerous criminals into the street because of that same flu. The actions are not just illogical but worth looking at. These Blue State politicians issued unConstitutional fiats that destroyed the economy. No buying seed, but you can buy pot. The protests and rioters are coordinated - and the leading actors are all Democrats. Please explain the innocent coincidences.

But do it in such a manner that you can blame it on Trump. ...The Straw man, of course, not the good man.

Then end with another smarmy insult.

[wmLambert]

Just watching another interview with Rudy Giuliani talking about listing AntiFa as a domestic terrorist group. One of the things he said was apt. If they become classified as terrorists we may be able to get into their books and see how much George Soros has been paying them. Such thoughts are not outré, they are wondered by everyone.

One of the statements Rudy made was that the George Floyd murder was an opportunity to foment unity, because all the police denounced what Derek Chauvin did. At the same time - the incidents of police on Black outrages have been dramatically lessened and moving in the right direction. These protests should be supporting that momentum, not putting the brakes on it, and denouncing what is happening.

[Kasandra]

Just watching another interview with Rudy Giuliani talking about listing AntiFa as a domestic terrorist group. One of the things he said was apt. If they become classified as terrorists we may be able to get into their books and see how much George Soros has been paying them. Such thoughts are not outré, they are wondered by everyone.

One of the statements Rudy made was that the George Floyd murder was an opportunity to foment unity, because all the police denounced what Derek Chauvin did. At the same time - the incidents of police on Black outrages have been dramatically lessened and moving in the right direction. These protests should be supporting that momentum, not putting the brakes on it, and denouncing what is happening.

You're a specimen that should be researched in the future.  You are perhaps the most gullible right wing sycophant I've ever seen, believing and parroting everything that crosses in front of your eyes from the most suspect and unreliable sources as if it is gospel.

Sad, even more than sad.

[wmLambert]

..You are perhaps the most gullible right wing sycophant I've ever seen, believing and parroting everything that crosses in front of your eyes from the most suspect and unreliable sources as if it is gospel.

Sad, even more than sad.

More smarmy insult - with no attempt to exonerate Soros, who according to you has never funded AntiFa and Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. What is really funny is that you missed the part about me being against disinformation - not about being pro-GOP or pro-Trump. If I mention the honest and truthful side that contradicts disinformation, do not pretend that is sycophancy. If you cannot dispute stated facts that refute your opinion, you always look to insult. Why continue Laughter by Intimidation when you know it is a discredited debate fallacy? You're not stupid - just obstinate.

[NobleHunter]

More smarmy insult - with no attempt to exonerate Soros, who according to you has never funded AntiFa and Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. What is really funny is that you missed the part about me being against disinformation - not about being pro-GOP or pro-Trump. If I mention the honest and truthful side that contradicts disinformation, do not pretend that is sycophancy. If you cannot dispute stated facts that refute your opinion, you always look to insult. Why continue Laughter by Intimidation when you know it is a discredited debate fallacy? You're not stupid - just obstinate.

You've provided no facts, just assertions.

[wmLambert]

You've provided no facts, just assertions.

No, I've said Soros has admitted funding AntiFa, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street. Those are facts. I did provide a link to an interview with Soros where he admitted giving $18 billion to change the USA political system. But no worry, if you are even slightly proficient, you can find your own sources that prove that - Heaven knows nothing I say will satisfy you.

Just on local TV coverage, we've seen an AntiFa guy bragging that his tattoo was paid for by George Soros. How many things must you see before you get the idea? Look up "Open Society Foundation" to help your searches. Go to YouTube to hear Soros explain in his own words. Don't take my word for anything. Look past the complicit search engines and dive down to get at the truth. You can do it.

[NobleHunter]

No, I've said Soros has admitted funding AntiFa, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street. Those are facts. I did provide a link to an interview with Soros where he admitted giving $18 billion to change the USA political system. But no worry, if you are even slightly proficient, you can find your own sources that prove that - Heaven knows nothing I say will satisfy you.

Just on local TV coverage, we've seen an AntiFa guy bragging that his tattoo was paid for by George Soros. How many things must you see before you get the idea? Look up "Open Society Foundation" to help your searches. Go to YouTube to hear Soros explain in his own words. Don't take my word for anything. Look past the complicit search engines and dive down to get at the truth. You can do it.

You know it's a meme to say Soros paid for things, right?

[TheDrake]

I'd be delighted to see a quote where Soros said he was funding Antifa. I'd be even more interested to know who he wrote the check to. I'm not about to plow through a 24 minute video, point out how you've misinterpreted or misquoted what he exactly said, and then have my response ignored.

[DJQuag]

So...look. From my side of things, I don't mind Black Lives Matter. There's that instinctual part of me that because I'm white I start to get annoyed, but then I remember the name isn't about excluding whites, but drawing attention to black people's lives who were unnecessarily cut short by police interaction.

Antifa, I get there are some people doing bad things in it's name out there, but at the end of the day it's a really broad movement like 4chan's Anonymous. There is no central command, there is no one set of things that we can possibly hold them all accountable for.

And Occupy Wall Street...refresh my memory, but weren't they just a bunch of younguns/hippies that set up camps to inconvenience the money changers trying to make their way to the temple to do their business? What did they do to offend you so much you'd bring them back up like fifteen years later? Is it the idea behind the movement? Do you perhaps disagree with the metrics showing that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is diminishing?

[wmLambert]

So...look. From my side of things, I don't mind Black Lives Matter. There's that instinctual part of me that because I'm white I start to get annoyed, but then I remember the name isn't about excluding whites, but drawing attention to black people's lives who were unnecessarily cut short by police interaction.

Antifa, I get there are some people doing bad things in it's name out there, but at the end of the day it's a really broad movement like 4chan's Anonymous. There is no central command, there is no one set of things that we can possibly hold them all accountable for.

And Occupy Wall Street...refresh my memory, but weren't they just a bunch of younguns/hippies that set up camps to inconvenience the money changers trying to make their way to the temple to do their business? What did they do to offend you so much you'd bring them back up like fifteen years later? Is it the idea behind the movement? Do you perhaps disagree with the metrics showing that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is diminishing?

All three groups are composed of individuals, some who appear in all of them. Do not think of these groups as country clubs who vote on members. The more amorphous a group is, the easier it is to manipulate. These groups have never gone away, especially in the era of Trump, where the Leftist groups swarm social media.

In the days when John Kerry was protesting the Vietnam War, his group was led by a phony soldier with stolen valor. The FBI always put counter agents within these groups to get info on them. It has not discontinued the process now. I wish the DOJ was openly exposing these people, but until they do, treat them with caution.

[DJQuag]

I'm not surprised there are members between all three groups. Leftist ideology is leftist ideology. I only wish I had the spare money to be able to bop around helping them all, but at the same time I'm unsuprised that there are young rich people with time and money to spare.

I'll ask again, where are you getting this information about shadowy cabals and Soros being literally Satan. I'm asking in good faith. Even if I disagree with it in the end (and I definitely do now,) I'm willing to look at your sources with an open mind.

[TheDrake]

I was delighted to notice that wmLamberts Soros video was posted by a Flat Earther Channel. Their other videos include

"Nasa Fan Calls the Cops on Someone for Eating Burrito"
"Mouse in space: NASA BUSTED AGAIN"
"9/11 Signifying Destruction of Holy Kaaba - The Golden Ratio 1,618.."
"TRANSVESTIGATION Bill Gates is a WOMAN"
"Adrenochrome Harvesting and The Zionist Elite"

That last one I really had to look up. Luckily They helpfully included a FAQ under their freaky video.

The Elite are said to run massive child trafficking rings all around the world, buying and selling children for their own pleasure. Children are heavily used since they experience a huge spike of adrenaline from the pineal gland. In 2018, NCMECreports 424,000+ missing children every year in America.
A lot of the Elite are addicted to the substance. They participate in what is called ‘Spirit Cooking‘ and have parties surrounding the subject of human sacrificing. These people sacrifice children, eat the bodies, drink the blood and worship dark gods. This stuff tends to be quite addicting. Many who try the drug tend to have a hard time coming off it.
One prime example of the Elite and the famous drug is the example of Al Gore. Al Gore while using the airport was said to be carrying suitcases filled to the brim with blood.

[Fenring]

Actually, TheDrake, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that last one. The way elite uber-people think, it is entirely plausible that they would think something just like that. It's the billionaire version of Paltrow's crystals. And incidentally I do believe that there are high-up pedophile rings around, as well as prostitution rings. Child trafficking is a major problem in the world, and who do you think benefits from it? None of this is to take away from your general point, which is well placed.

[TheDrake]

Fen, it starts out somewhat plausible if a little farfetched, but human sacrifice and suitcases full of blood? Particularly that the title is anti-semitic on top.

[DonaldD]

Oh great - somebody is actually linking to a site espousing blood libel

That's beyond shameful.  Being completely credulous and ignorant only excuses so much

[wmLambert]

Project Veritas has released inside videos of AntiFa training activists. This is no longer something you can ignore. Accusing them is one thing. Seeing them do it is another.

[Fenring]

Fen, it starts out somewhat plausible if a little farfetched, but human sacrifice and suitcases full of blood? Particularly that the title is anti-semitic on top.

I didn't follow that link above, just saying I've heard of it in various forms. In the abstract the powerful preying on the weak and defenseless shouldn't come as a surprise. And there are weird occultists out there, to say nothing of people doing shocking things just because they are shocking to make themselves feel above it all.

[wmLambert]

...I was delighted to notice that wmLamberts Soros video was posted by a Flat Earther Channel.

An interview in which Soros is doing all the talking needs to be dismissed because of why? Where videos get archived is interesting. Many things are taken down because they don't agree with those who own the servers. Wikipedia does that. Old stories about a political rival stays up forever on CNN, MSNBC, and other MSM, but a story that doesn't fit their mantra gets taken down because "The news cycle has covered that sufficiently so it no longer needs to stay available." I saw that contemporaneously with the Clinton "The Grand Staircase - Escalante National Monument (Kaiparowits "monument")" It was gone almost instantly, but has slowly reemerged and can now be found. Not the original news - but the cleaned-up versions.

When the MSM deletes records of important stories, they sometimes miss those sites who archive them with coded titles.

Lara Logan has several interviews on AntiFa. Here is one: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6161083038001#sp=show-clips

Here is the Project Veritas video: https://www.wnd.com/2020/06/undercover-video-shows-antifa-teaching-hurt-someone/

[ScottF]

I’m challenged by people legitimately, peacefully protesting. I know it will mostly disappear after November, but I have questions for those holding signs.

Is there a specific policy, law or other “thing” that we should be examining and/or changing? War protesters want the war to end, PETA want animal products and cruelty banned, immigration protesters want to change laws to make it easier (or harder) for immigrants to enter the US. In all these examples there are tangible steps that have explicit results. All I ever hear on this topic is the need for “honest conversation” or a “national dialogue”. Wtf does that mean? The only thing I’ve seen resembling something actionable is “defund the police”. I suppose that’s something to at least argue.  Everything else seems like mushy, vague, feel-good nonsense. Not much different than Gal Gadot and other celebrities wistfully singing Imagine when the covid lockdowns began. Umm, ok?

And if I see one more company post (in large white font over a black square) “Acme Co. stands for equality and against racism” I’m going to puke. Really? Acme stands against racism? The courage and conviction to publicly state something like that in today's political environment is stunning. Years from now, people will remember that Acme made it known that they stood against racism, against a sea of others who stood for it.

[ScottF]

 I know posting this is going to severely impact my career, and could ostracize me from society but you know what? I literally don’t care:

***racism is bad***

Yes you read that right. Punish and pillory me however you want, I stand by my words.

[ScottF]

It probably seems crazy to do something like this, but if I get even one of you to open your eyes and start thinking the same way, it’s worth whatever backlash I might get.

[Kasandra]

In all these examples there are tangible steps that have explicit results. All I ever hear on this topic is the need for “honest conversation” or a “national dialogue”. Wtf does that mean?
...
And if I see one more company post (in large white font over a black square) “Acme Co. stands for equality and against racism” I’m going to puke. Really? Acme stands against racism? The courage and conviction to publicly state something like that in today's political environment is stunning. Years from now, people will remember that Acme made it known that they stood against racism, against a sea of others who stood for it.

I agree with your consternation.  After LBJ's Civil Rights Act, young people of my generation thought the problem was solved.  MLK Jr.'s Dream speech was irresistibly perfect.  Done and dusted.  Things only got worse when the hated "establishment" found other ways to impose its will on blacks by thwarting school and housing integration, through unfair policing and sentencing, and state disenfranchisement of voting registration, access to polling stations, and confiscation of voting rights for felons or even (in Alabama) those convicted of "moral turpitude".

That was all very real in the 1960's.  I've come to realize that much of what we now suffer from is the ongoing backlash from "white" America (of which I am a member) to the progress we thought had been made.

We don't need another conversation today any more than we needed LBJ or MLK to start a conversation back then.  We need continuous protest and effective demands for equal consideration to force change in all institutions of society.  It will never be done and dusted, so it has to never take a break like we fools did back then.

I confess that I'm speaking with both regret and a bit of guilt that we got distracted by the war in Vietnam and women's rights, which were winnable arguments, and somehow never returned to the greater challenge.  Or maybe we got married, had babies and started working and had no time to think more about actually doing anything about it, even if most of us (many of whom I am still friends with) never stopped thinking and talking about it.

Companies do have a small role in all this, but the problem is in the fabric of society itself. 

[DJQuag]

ScottF

The issue being put forth is how minorities face disproportionate attention and response from a police force that has an aggressive and arrogant culture that also kills innocent whites.

That perhaps both the racial bias and the police culture issue  are something that should be looked at.

I'm kind of skeptical that you didn't actually get that, but on the off chance you didn't, that's the entire point of peaceful protests.

Some hippie inconvienced you with a sign somewhere, it annoyed you, and you went out asking questions on why they're doing it. You got an answer whether you agree or not. And that's why protestors shut down roads.

[Fenring]

That perhaps both the racial bias and the police culture issue  are something that should be looked at.

That doesn't jive with the word on the street. The hit topics to blog and protest about are only -isms. You will not see protest signs calling for better police/community relations. You won't see placards about police precincts armed with tanks, or about civil forfeiture. Neither will you see anyone calling for better policy in de-escalation, nor regarding the thin blue line. Especially this last item you would think would be front and center, but it's not. The object right now is racism, and nothing else.

I understand ScottF's point. First of all there's the issue of rampant and frankly ugly virtue signalling, which to me is walking on the ashes of the dead just as much as any other self-serving maneuver. Then there's the issue of corporate co-opting, which is perhaps more amoral but still pathetic. And regarding what the protests are calling for, I actually think they are not calling for anything. I mean, if you ask an individual they may have ideas, but all social media posting I see on the topic has one objective: to make people angry and stir up that anger. Anger is fine when in the service of a great goal, but if anger itself is the final end then that's just an exercise in tapping the adrenaline and endorphin button over and over. I hope that there are some people involved who want to see society healed. Most of the far left-leaning people on my social media seem to vary between the anxious "I told you we're all screwed, and the racists are probably coming for us next" and the militant "Gear up, let's go get'em boyz!!!" I don't hear anyone interested in other facets of this, at least not publicly.

[TheDeamon]

I know posting this is going to severely impact my career, and could ostracize me from society but you know what? I literally don’t care:

***racism is bad***

Yes you read that right. Punish and pillory me however you want, I stand by my words.

I'd dare venture out on a limb and say it's worse than bad in a great number of cases.

[TheDeamon]

That doesn't jive with the word on the street. The hit topics to blog and protest about are only -isms. You will not see protest signs calling for better police/community relations. You won't see placards about police precincts armed with tanks, or about civil forfeiture. Neither will you see anyone calling for better policy in de-escalation, nor regarding the thin blue line. Especially this last item you would think would be front and center, but it's not. The object right now is racism, and nothing else.

They're doing their part to further the cause of #activism. After the dust settles, they'll go back to their normal routine and completely forget about it. Until it starts trending again on social media. Then they'll do the #dance all over again, but not really do anything actually meaningful about it.

I understand ScottF's point. First of all there's the issue of rampant and frankly ugly virtue signalling, which to me is walking on the ashes of the dead just as much as any other self-serving maneuver. Then there's the issue of corporate co-opting, which is perhaps more amoral but still pathetic. And regarding what the protests are calling for, I actually think they are not calling for anything. I mean, if you ask an individual they may have ideas, but all social media posting I see on the topic has one objective: to make people angry and stir up that anger. Anger is fine when in the service of a great goal, but if anger itself is the final end then that's just an exercise in tapping the adrenaline and endorphin button over and over. I hope that there are some people involved who want to see society healed. Most of the far left-leaning people on my social media seem to vary between the anxious "I told you we're all screwed, and the racists are probably coming for us next" and the militant "Gear up, let's go get'em boyz!!!" I don't hear anyone interested in other facets of this, at least not publicly.

No, the new thing that seems to now be in vogue in many social media circles is to stir up conservatives by finding photos of soldiers fighting WW2 and declaring them to be AntiFa.

Some of the earlier ones claimed anti-Fascist, and they do get some bites on that, but not nearly what they see when go with AntiFa instead.

It's like they're completely clueless about AntiFa having been the name of a Communist para-military group formed in Germany in 1932. Or that the left-wing Anarcho-Communist groups of 1950's Germany resurrected the term AntiFa during the 1950's where it has remained in use since.

And they're making like they're completely befuddled and confused when people get confused and upset when people start insulting them for dishonoring the memories of the same soldiers they claim to be honoring.

[Fenring]

Saw an unironic post on my social media last night I think, which a supposed photo of a letter being mailed out by Trump's admin, telling people they should join "Trump's army". That phrase did appear in the photo, but no idea if it's a legit letter (maybe someone here has received one?). Anyhow all I could see in the letter was that it was soliciting people to join the cause, probably a solicitation for donations or something. But anyhow the social media caption was "Trump trying to raise an army against liberals" or something like that, with the comment "This is EXACTLY what happened with Hitler". The person sharing this evidently believes that Trump is about to burn down the Reichstag. Actually I've seen it suggested before many times that he wants to establish himself as a dictator for life.

Anyhow I mention all of this because it's being posted in the wake of Floyd's death, and clearly has some connection to Trump's commentary about wanting to take on the looters and rioters. So to the extent that the social media posts are mostly about racism, I thought I'd add in that I do see some that hearken back to the 70's regarding The Man and how it's a police state. I guess that's sort of wholesome in a nostalgic kind of way.

[ScottF]

I think what protesters probably want is more visible empathy. That might be a big difference between liberal and conservative, the liberal feels strongly that empathy should be expressed and vocalized, and the conservative may feel similar empathy, but isn’t as motivated to express it for stoic or other reasons.

Obviously this is easy to poke at by saying Conservatives often don’t have empathy, or that liberals are emotionally irrational but those are lazy counters. If I feel as strongly about certain kinds of injustice and would like to see them rectified, but *don't* go out of my way to express it beyond thinking/discussing a fix, it’s viewed as uncaring. More emotionally driven people feel better expressing empathy in public ways. It’s not wrong vs right but more a wiring thing. Where it gets ugly is when the less expressive individual is called out for not being visibly empathetic. This is part of the underpinnings of signaling.

[Fenring]

It’s not wrong vs right but more a wiring thing. Where it gets ugly is when the less expressive individual is called out for not being visibly empathetic. This is part of the underpinnings of signaling.

That would be a sensible appraisal, but the bug in the ointment is that in a fiercely partisan landscape even a natural difference in inclinations will degenerate into a hypocritical distortion. On the one hand, a call for empathy becomes instead a demand to publicly show certain things at prescribed times, and only for the hottest topics. And likewise, the call for law and order, eschewing emotional displays, becomes a nod and a wink towards leaving corrupt mechanisms in place, since it's mostly 'other people' targeted by it.

[ScottF]

It’s not wrong vs right but more a wiring thing. Where it gets ugly is when the less expressive individual is called out for not being visibly empathetic. This is part of the underpinnings of signaling.

That would be a sensible appraisal, but the bug in the ointment is that in a fiercely partisan landscape even a natural difference in inclinations will degenerate into a hypocritical distortion.

So...this:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

[TheDeamon]

Anyhow I mention all of this because it's being posted in the wake of Floyd's death, and clearly has some connection to Trump's commentary about wanting to take on the looters and rioters. So to the extent that the social media posts are mostly about racism, I thought I'd add in that I do see some that hearken back to the 70's regarding The Man and how it's a police state. I guess that's sort of wholesome in a nostalgic kind of way.

Ah, you stumbled upon the other part of the "language game" that is now being played in all of this as well.

The leftists are saying "rioting is a legitimate form of protest" (They didn't like it when I brought up the riots in Baltimore under Lincoln)

But as they've waved their magic wand and legitimized rioting as legitimate, (and some will extend that to looting as well as that inevitably follows rioting) they have turned his comments about confronting rioters into "confronting protesters."

Certain left-leaning media outlets also have gone out of their way to not call rioters, rioters. They too have taken the above editorial memo to heart and call them protesters instead.

[ScottF]

One man's protester is another's freedom fighter. Pass the bricks, grab some free Nike’s and, oh yeah almost forgot, “defund the police!”

[Crunch]

From npr

In essence, "decolonizing your bookshelf" is about actively resisting and casting aside the colonialist ideas of narrative, storytelling, and literature that have pervaded the American psyche for so long

So we’re in the book burning phase.

[ScottF]

Anyhow I mention all of this because it's being posted in the wake of Floyd's death, and clearly has some connection to Trump's commentary about wanting to take on the looters and rioters. So to the extent that the social media posts are mostly about racism, I thought I'd add in that I do see some that hearken back to the 70's regarding The Man and how it's a police state. I guess that's sort of wholesome in a nostalgic kind of way.

Ah, you stumbled upon the other part of the "language game" that is now being played in all of this as well.

The leftists are saying "rioting is a legitimate form of protest" (They didn't like it when I brought up the riots in Baltimore under Lincoln)

But as they've waved their magic wand and legitimized rioting as legitimate, (and some will extend that to looting as well as that inevitably follows rioting) they have turned his comments about confronting rioters into "confronting protesters."

Certain left-leaning media outlets also have gone out of their way to not call rioters, rioters. They too have taken the above editorial memo to heart and call them protesters instead.

rioter = protester
looter= undocumented shopper

[TheDeamon]

oh yeah almost forgot, “defund the police!”

That is by far one of the dumbest options offered. Certain funding should be reallocated. But the reality is, that for most police departments across the nation they are under-paid, under-manned, and under-trained. You don't fix that by cutting they budgets, you fix it by giving them better funding and exercising better judgement on what is being funded.

Yes please to more "community policing" where officers can spend more time on foot and engaging with neighborhood instead of cruising by in their police cruiser. But to do that, you need more police, not fewer.

[Kasandra]

The leftists are saying "rioting is a legitimate form of protest" (They didn't like it when I brought up the riots in Baltimore under Lincoln)

It's moronic to even suggest that "leftists" think that rioting and protesting are equivalent.  I'm very disappointed that you would succumb to that partisan attack buzzspeak.

Certain left-leaning media outlets also have gone out of their way to not call rioters, rioters.

That's scurrilous demonization.  Name any outlet that has pointed at rioters and called them protesters.

[Fenring]

It’s not wrong vs right but more a wiring thing. Where it gets ugly is when the less expressive individual is called out for not being visibly empathetic. This is part of the underpinnings of signaling.

That would be a sensible appraisal, but the bug in the ointment is that in a fiercely partisan landscape even a natural difference in inclinations will degenerate into a hypocritical distortion.

So...this:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

Actually, I meant the opposite! Although you are right that people assume bad character when they see a bad result (which is akin actually to the critical theory lens of seeing an uneven result as implying a fault in the system's integrity). But I actually meant that each side in its turn actually becomes a hypocritical distortion of their own position, as a result of needing to defeat the other side over and above being true to their side. So it's not so much (in my argument) that people relentlessly see tortured hypocrisy, but rather than they inevitably succumb to tortured hypocrisy. This is why I think both sides are so obsessed with pointing to hypocrisy on the other side - because they're both correct.

[TheDrake]

I've been trying to narrowly define hypocrisy to only mean what it is supposed to mean. Like decrying drug users for being moral deadbeats, and then being exposed as a drug user yourself, and most particularly if it is the same drug, or if you've make a blanket assertion about drug users in total. If you support the death penalty, but not abortion, that is not hypocrisy. It may be logically inconsistent, but not hypocrisy.

Whether I always succeed in that vigilance is open for debate, but I try my best.

[TheDeamon]

If you support the death penalty, but not abortion, that is not hypocrisy. It may be logically inconsistent, but not hypocrisy.

How is supporting the death penalty but opposing aborting logically inconsistent?

In one case, a jury of 12 people found somebody guilty of committing a crime punishable by death.

In the other case, a lone women decided somebody who is only guilty of existing should be punished by death.

What I do find logically inconsistent is the group that holds to the latter example as being acceptable, but the form is unacceptable(bonus points if that lone woman also happens to be part of that 12 person jury).

[TheDrake]

If you support the death penalty, but not abortion, that is not hypocrisy. It may be logically inconsistent, but not hypocrisy.

How is supporting the death penalty but opposing aborting logically inconsistent?

In one case, a jury of 12 people found somebody guilty of committing a crime punishable by death.

In the other case, a lone women decided somebody who is only guilty of existing should be punished by death.

What I do find logically inconsistent is the group that holds to the latter example as being acceptable, but the form is unacceptable(bonus points if that lone woman also happens to be part of that 12 person jury).

I don't want to turn this into that debate. Let's just agree that no matter what else, it isn't hypocrisy.

[Fenring]

I've been trying to narrowly define hypocrisy to only mean what it is supposed to mean. Like decrying drug users for being moral deadbeats, and then being exposed as a drug user yourself, and most particularly if it is the same drug, or if you've make a blanket assertion about drug users in total. If you support the death penalty, but not abortion, that is not hypocrisy. It may be logically inconsistent, but not hypocrisy.

Whether I always succeed in that vigilance is open for debate, but I try my best.

This is reasonable, but could be broadened into any generalized version of "you don't really value the thing you claim to value." Where it gets dicey is there are various 'flavors' of hypocrisy, ranging from "natural human weakness (failing to live up to one's own standard)" all the way to the other side where we have "the morality game is a puppet show to control minds." In the middle is where we see a lot of people wanting to feel like they have the moral upper hand but not caring enough about the log in their own eye. The NT quote is a fairly good benchmark of the typical case we see in daily life that pisses us off without being actually malevolent. Now that I think about it there's another axis of hypocrisy beyond being dishonest about what you're saying, which is the delusions of grandeur axis. This can be roughly stated as "I really believe what I am saying for other people, but I am above them and subject to different rules." This is a real thing, and is perhaps lurking beneath some of what we see on the other axis, but I think the two can exist independently (i.e. the elite/egalitarian axis, and the weakness/deceit axis). 

[Kasandra]

Sometimes the concept of hypocrisy is overridden by competing biases, where for instance ardent 2A rights defenders are afraid when they see a black man carrying a gun.  The drug example can be complicated in the same way depending on who the other person using the drug is.  The worst example are "family values" spouting conservatives whose family values platforms don't necessarily apply to themselves.  There's a saying that a conservative is a liberal whose been mugged and a gay rights defender is an anti-gay rights activist whose child comes out as gay.

[ScottF]

BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

The good news is apart from the injuries themselves, those 27 police officers were largely uninjured.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-52954899?__twitter_impression=true

[Kasandra]

BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

The good news is apart from the injuries themselves, those 27 police officers were largely uninjured.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-52954899?__twitter_impression=true

What do you make of that?

[NobleHunter]

BBC headline: “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London”

The good news is apart from the injuries themselves, those 27 police officers were largely uninjured.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-52954899?__twitter_impression=true

That was the protest were a horse said ACAB and took out its rider with a traffic light?