Why do people cover up for anyone rioting?
Why can't we all agree that vandalizing property is bad regardless of which side does it?
shareI think we do all agree that.
I'd like to hear from which people on this site disagree.
Half the people here will swear that ALL democrats fully support , and indeed organised , a summer of "burning looting rioting" but obviously that is a republican fantasy and complete lie.
Really, all those months of looting, rioting, destroying and killing by the leftist BLM/Antifa is a fantasy and complete lie?
shareIts a lie that its got anything to do with democrats any more than republicans. (unlike J6)
You mean the dozens of federal agents and leftist BLM/Antifa rioters embedded in the J6 crowd?
shareAnd they tricked all you patriots into an attempted coup did they?
Arnt you embarrassed about that?
Shouldnt all the upstanding, flag waving, maga trump fans have said " Hey ! stop that! We're disappointed that Mr Trump has lost the election but lets at least respect the Flag , Our Nation and the democratic process."
There was no attempted coup.
The real coup occurred when “they” rigged and stole the election.
J6 was their cover for it.
Explain the "mostly peaceful" meme and the fact that lefties are constantly supporting and defending blm and antifa.
sharethe mostly peaceful was some dick doing a newsreport , not Democrat Policy book
the other bit is even more vague
you show me a specific " lefties are constantly supporting and defending blm and antifa."
and then I'll explain it.
Like in said in my initial reply to the OP nobody is defending rioting , much less the entirety of the democrat party.
1. It was not. It was a whole narrative supported by the media as a whole and with the support of libs from all fronts of the public debate.
2. There are too many examples to narrow it down to one. And narrowing it down to one, loses the fact that the issue is a HUGE FUCKING FOREST, not a single tree.
Mostly peaceful is true though. 97% of the protest (protests were country wide) was peaceful while the minority did most of the damage.
shareYeah this is true , the magas just discount them from the sample set
LOL. You counting the time the murders spent on the bus to get to where they killed the guy, to gin up the numbers? LOL.
Also, the tactics of all wearing masks so that the "minority" of actual attackers, can melt into the mob to avoid arrest? That is coordination and accomplish-ing.
We know the BLM protests were mostly peaceful.
We also know there was isolated property damage. We know there were incidents of right wing people such as the Proudboys who instigated violence and property damage to tarnish the peaceful protests in the minds of people like you. We know some people took advantage of the incidents to loot stores. All this ithat wasn't peaceful protest s to be condemned.
The violence did not "burn down our cities" as is often said. It does not negate the peaceful protests. It was not an excuse for the violence that ensued on Jan 6, 2021.
"Mostly peaceful" is shit talk. There were like TWO DOZENS DEATHS. There was nearly a billion dollars in damages. Whole communities were permanently scarred. The next time some leftard whines about a "food desert" I will laugh in their face.
Oh, btw, here is a lib defending blm.
The vast majority of those killed were BLM protestors, including two by your favorite child vigilante.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled
Mmm, you really expect to be taken seriously, when you call the two armed attackers who attacked and tried to murder Rittenhouse, "protestors"?
LOL!!
They were protesting. They were killed and are included in the numbers you quoted of people killed at the protests. Stop gas lighting
shareThey were protesting, looting, destroying, burning and trying to murder someone.
shareYep. Their leaders, the released madman child molestor, publicly asserted his intent to murder a member of the group, that Rittenhouse was a member of, just a few hours earlier.
I can't help but wonder what would have been discovered, if the DEMOCRAT prosecutor had not ordered the cops to NOT investigate the rioters phones.
Vast majority? So the innocent people killed during the “summer of love” should be discounted because the “vast majority” of those killed were BLM protesters?
My god, people are warped these days.
Perhaps you missed: "All this ithat wasn't peaceful protest is to be condemned."
shareNo, I caught it. I also caught the majority of your post, including the stuff you led with. It is clear tha tyou are toeing the Party Line, in minimizing the problem of political violence, in order to maintain it as a viable tool for the Left.
I don't care whose "line" you think I'm toeing, I tell the truth.
And I don't toe the White Nationalist Party line like people who always bring up the protests over George Floyd's murder by police, whenever the January 6th attack on the US Capitol are mentioned.
As if those who caused damage and injury during the protests got away without being prosecuted, lol!
You should submit your entire statement to "The Babylon Bee" as a satire.
shareThe summer(Read: 100+ days) of rioting absolutely happened... we all watched on TV, Social Media, Web sites, etc...
________________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of 'Liberalism'."
-President Ronald Reagan
https://youtube.com/shorts/jPbGsvoNKMw?feature=share
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Fascism+Hypocrisy.
I hate how everyone turns it into a right vs left issue when it is simply right and wrong. Looting and rioting is bad whether it is blm or the people at the capital.
shareWell, the people on the right agree, the people on teh left, don't. So.... it is a right vs left issue.
shareI am afraid I have to disagree with your statement. Just like how I have seen people excuse the riots for blm I have seen people attempt to excuse January 6th as well. Please do not be a person that covers up for a side. Wrong is wrong regardless of who is doing it. I did not pick a side I said all of it is unacceptable.
shareDo they really? Or do they point out the real possiblility of outside agitators, or the violations of the rights of the acccused?
Big difference between wanting civil rights respected and denying that a riot was a riot.
I have seen many try their best to excuse that event. It reeks of desperation and covering for a side. You will not hear me make any excuses for the riots blm does. Do not excuse what corrupt people on the right do either. This is why our country is in shambles, we need to reach some sort of common ground. That starts with calling out evil no matter who and where it comes from. Civil rights is a separate conversation. Anyone who is involved in a riot on any side should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No exceptions. Discussing alleged crimes and civil rights is another thing entirely. I am talking about someone caught dead to rights causing vandalism, or looting and rioting needs to be punished. That is unacceptable.
shareWe on the RIght, have ONE riot to try to live down. Those on the left have HUNDREDS.
That one riot was an aberration. THe organizations involved, don't normally riot. Indeed, I'm not aware of ONE other riot, that was started by either the Proud BOys or the Oath Keepers.
Antifa? BLM? Very different story. Rioting is so common with them, that the media STILL insists on referring to violent criminal activity from them as "protests" or the rioters as "protestors".
I understand your point in the op. But your dislike of this being political, ,doesn't change the fact that it is a political issue.
The Left is for political violence. The right is not.
See and again rather than agree you have to get that shot in about the left. So even if we agree about the left having more riots does that mean no corruption is on the right? There are plenty of people who blindly support something without looking into it. People who were cheering for blm rioting and looting were awful and ignorant. Same can be said for the people who support the police no matter what action they take. There is good and bad in everything and to blindly align yourself with a specific side is dangerous. That leads to people covering for their side rather than telling the truth and being honest. Also you can't say anyone who is left is for rioting. There are liberals who do not believe in that stuff. Lets stop vilifying each other. There are upstanding conservatives and liberals out there.
I do not think one side has all the answers. There are times the right has a point and there are times the left has a point. We have many issues going on in this world and rather than reach common ground people want to fight and cover for a side. What about the homeless people and homeless vets in this country? Health care?
You can't ignore the divide. You try and the left will either shut you down, or use the issue to advance their agenda.
I did not ignore the divide. Part of the reason there is a divide is because no one will call out their side even when they are in the wrong. So we should all be able to agree on being able to call out wrongdoings on either side. You disagreeing with that? If so that is part of the problem. The right has an agenda as well. Common ground is what is key here. It seems people on both sides are not interested in that. A shame really.
Dude. YOu are falling for the trap. The commies are all about getting you to live up to YOUR standards, and thus eat your own, but they will never do the same.
When you support that, you are being nothing but a useful dupe.
Are you old enough to remember the way the FEMINISTS rallied around Bill fucking CLinton?
Calling out either side for corruption is not falling for a trap. It is being non partisan, objective and fair. You do not seem to be interested in being fair only to play for a team which is unfortunate honestly.
We are not talking about Bill Clinton we are talking about right and wrong. I do remember that but that has no relevance to what we are talking about.
HOld one side to the rules while allowing the other side to do what ever they want to win,
is falling for a trap.
Bill Clinton is a fine example of the behavior I spoke of. Plenty of right leaning figures were destroyed for far less cause than his behavior. But when fighting against "sexism" or "sexual harrassment" clashed with the lefty agenda,
those who were so happy to destroy either right leaning or non-partisan males, suddenly shit canned their principles and threw Monica and Flowers under the bus without hesitation.
And that had huge real world impact. Elections changed. Policies were NOT changed. Policies that hurt people.
HOld one side to the rules while allowing the other side to do what ever they want to win,
is falling for a trap.
Which I never did let one side do whatever they want. I called out the actions of blm and any group who riots. What you do not like is me not wanting to take your exact stance. Someone disagreeing with your stance is not letting one side get away with whatever they want. That is a problem you have. Do not twist words or misinterpret them.
Again no Bill Clinton is irrelevant to this conversation. Lets get back to my initial statement. If ANYONE riots or does something wrong it should be condemned. This has nothing to do with which political party, gender or race. Wrong is wrong and right is right.
So you going to ignore anything corrupt done by republicans and only hyper focus on the wrongdoings by democrats? Come on man be better than that. You telling me every policy or actions done or actions supported by republicans is squeaky clean and perfect?
share
When you call out the actions of blm, you are throwing a pebble into the ocean, plop, no ripples.
When you call out the conservatives, you are joining in the lynch mob.
Ignoring the reality of that is falling into a trap.
The story of hte riots is one of MASSIVE and long lasting riots on the left, ONE riot on the Right, and the riots of hte left being swept under the rug and the ONE riot of the right being the center of a massive propaganda and social and political war.
Oh it is not just blm I will call out I will call out all the other corruption done by democrats as well. This goes for both groups though. The republicans have some issues other than the January 6th incident as well. So no again you are boxing me into a corner and figuring you have me pegged. I call out corruption no matter where it comes from.
I did not just call out conservatives, I called out how people want to cover up for their side and that does happen.
And I condemned rioting period. I also condemn anything which is wrong regardless of which side it is on. Like I said before republicans have their own issues just like the democrats. We need to reach common ground.
Ignoring the context of what is happening is not reasonable.
shareAnd I never did. Regardless of which side is worse should we not call out wrongdoing no matter where it comes from? So are you saying we should just look the other way when a republican does something wrong? I am trying to humor you. So lets say democrats are worse in this particular issue. So because of that if a riot breaks out from the right we go yeah but still not as bad as the democrats therefore we bypass it. Is that what you are saying?
shareNope. But don't let the left stampede us into a crackdown, because of one riot while ignoring their far worse behavior.
Which, btw, is what is happening.
Good at least you can agree with that. However all too often I see well yeah but that side is a worse. That is not a good approach to take because two wrongs do not make a right. That should not be happening that is wrong.
Thing is though all these politicians who commit crimes should be locked up and charged. It makes me sick the amount of privilege the rich and the politicians have in this country.
I also do not like how it has become about pissing off another side as opposed to what is best for the country. That is also dangerous as well.
On the other hand, refusing to face the reality that one side is far worse, is equally dangerous.
Especially when that side has shown that they are willing and able to "weaponize" or abuse government power, AND corporate power AND really just about any and all jobs or responsibility in the pursuit of destroying their enemies.
See and this is where we disagree. In this aspect you can say okay one side is worse. However if you look at the entire picture there are ways in which the republican party is worse than the democratic party. You refusing to see that is also dangerous. You assume the republican party is better in all aspects which I would not say that about any side. So let me ask a simple question. Is it possible to be liberal and not support the wrongdoings of the democratic party but support positive policies in which they support? I assume you do not stand by bad policies republicans support. Am I assuming too much?
If you support them by giving them power to do the bad shit, then your NOT support of their wrong doing is a purely intellectual and irrelevant excersize.
I've seen it many times. Long time dems/libs who are very upset about something, but in the end, they still vote dem and support the machine, and the bad shit. Often because they, despite their disgust with teh dems, insist on believing the nonsense from teh media about the republicans being pure evul.
Same can be said if a republican does something wrong. I have seen it on that side as well. Oh well that is bad but I am still voting republican. How is that any different? You are basically stating the only way someone is moral is if they vote for a republican. You would not like that if someone swung that logic the opposite way now would you?
shareYou are referring to LID/DID/RINOs which are members of the Uniparty swamp.
Anyone can play dress-up, anyone can identify as however they want, and register as anyone while been fakes and frauds.
Sure it can be said. And technically TRUE.
But the shit the republicans bring with them is NOTHING like teh shit the dems are bringing with them.
You watching any of the hearings on the weaponization of government by the dems? It's pretty fucking outrageous.
I disagree with that. I do not favor one side over the other. It all depends on the context of what you are talking about. In some ways I believe the republicans are worse and in certain scenarios I think the democrats are worse.
I have been yes. I also know though that lots of these politicians should be in jail. The benefit of being rich and a politician comes in handy doesn't it?
The republicans do NOT have widespread support among BIG MEDIA and BIG TECH, who are happy to betray their professional and ethical responsibilities in support of the conservative agenda as we have seen that the dems DO.
Thus the left is the whole next level of shit.
The Right does not employ political violence the way the left has been doing either.
Oh they have influence in many areas outside of big tech or media. We all see how many followers some of their biggest talking heads have online.
So because the left has more widespread that makes them worse? So lets flip it, if the right had all the big media and tech behind them you think they would behave themselves?
1. They don't have a population base that is willing to ignore their professional and ethical responsibilities in favor of the agenda.
2. As a group...? Hard to say. We could look at various leaders and discuss hypotheticals. BUT, it is a hypothetical. The Republican base is not radicalized like the dem base is. Thus they have capabilities that are not open to the republicans and they have used them without hesitation or mercy.
I would beg to differ. Plenty of their talking heads have a fanbase more than willing to look the other way no matter how corrupt it is. As long as it fits their agenda and pisses off the other side they are more than willing to support it.
I do not believe any group would behave themselves if they had dominion over something. It is the same way that I do not believe any big wig corporation would behave and do the customers right if they had no competition. It is why competition is good obviously. My reason for believing this is look at the oil companies. They have no competition and rake in billions but still raise prices and price gouge whenever they see fit. There are plenty of terrible republicans that do not have the countries best interest at heart. Finding a candidate who has the countries best interest at heart is a tough thing to find these days.
1. Not talking about fans. I'm talking about people in positions of responsibility that ignore their responsibilities to instead being political agents.
2. Perhaps. But the point is that today and for the foreseeable future, teh dems have the... paradigm to operate as a organized, coherent group and the repubicans do NOT. Thus the dems are worse, or BETTER at abusing power. Clear example is the 400 to 1 riot ratio.
This happens on the right as well.
So any group who has majority would not behave. So your thinking of putting the republicans in the majority would not be any better. So why support either group having dominion? Why can't I dislike Trump and Biden? I do despise rioters of any kind. You have this attitude that in order to be moral I have to like Trump.
1.Not anything like the left has done. It has become NORMAL on teh left to assume that anyone that does nto agree, is a bad person. That is not a common belief on the Right.
2. Nope. Y Ou are ignoring a real problem. Why?
I again disagree. You have basically all but said you are not moral if you do not support Trump currently. That guy is a liar and a fraud. Also what did I open with? I said there are good moral people on either side of the spectrum. You agree to that or no?
I am not ignoring anything. You want me to like a republican candidate and I do not. I think Trump is not a good candidate.
[deleted]
No it was a question to see if you were fair and objective. You openly stated that republicans are better than democrats. Which what you are alluding to is that people who vote republican are better people and more moral.
No willful blindness is what you are doing. You are partisan obviously. You claim republicans to be good and moral. You cling to a side. I think both sides are corrupt as hell. Like I said before there are corrupt things on either side. Plenty of conservatives cover up for the wrongdoings of religions. If we are against grooming of children and we crucify Hollywood I am fine with that. However that means the Catholic church needs to be called out also.
1. Pointing out that a group is more radicalized politically is NOT stating the each or every individual is MORALLY SUPERIOR. And I backed up my points with examples of behavior that you see vastly more on one side than the other.
These beliefs and behaviors I pointed to are real. You have refused to face that, instead preferring to make moral conclusions based on my pointws, and then act as though they were the points I made and that they were made in a vacuum without any support or evidence and then you just sort of spin them to sound as though I was being unreasonable. When I was being realistic about the issues.
You seem to have a self image of yourself as more balanced and nuanced than most and thus emotionally invested in resisting the reality that the dems/lefties are the bad guys today.
2. The church has been/is being called out and held accountable for it's behavior. HOLLYWOOD is taking some heat, but by and large is NOT going to be held to any accountability. It is also worth noting that the Church is a dying force, losing power and relevance and impact every day.
By and large HOLLYWOOD nad the lefties are WINNING the culture war. Hollywood, has and will weather criticisms, sometimes cancelling a show or something, but the people in question keep their careers and will come back to their sick agenda(s) again from a slightly different angle, eventually getting away with it.
That you want to ignore the difference there, and just condemn both, equally and push back against both equally, ignoring the fact that the situations are HUGELY different,
is you being blind.
The partisan divide is real. THe behavior and actions of the two sides have real differences. Recognizing that one side is more radical and/or fucked up, is not a failure of objectivity.
You conveniently only highlighted the flaws of the democrats while leaving out the big long list of the flaws of the republicans. So no that was a rather sly move but anyone with a brain can see what you are doing. Let me hear the flaws of the republican party from you. Go into detail like you did with the democrats. Not simple buzzwords I can highlight many flaws that they do. The dumb biased conspiracy theories, them wanting to omit history, their want to support big corporations, how they view homelessness and how they support some the big corrupt talking heads. I do not deny that lots of democrats are bad but there are so many bas republicans it is not even funny. You are doing your best to put the generalization on republicans being good. I do not see it that way.
The Catholic church has 1.3 billion worldwide. No I would not say it has lost power whatsoever it still has major influence on society. They have the power to influence certain laws despite them not paying lots of taxes for years. Notice I only mentioned the Catholic church many other religions have this type of influence as well. There are more religious people than not. I did not even get into the big religious talking heads like Joel Osteen and many others. Why is it you never heard about grooming children from the right when it came to that but gay people and Hollywood get called that constantly? People choose what they consume. No one is forcing anybody to watch anything. If you do not like your kid watching a movie it is the parents job to stop them from watching it. No one is held hostage and forced to pay money to watch a film.
Hollywood is facing backlash currently and it deserves it. Many big budget films are failing. Thing is it is up to what people support. Vote with your wallet. If I do not like a project I do not support it, it is as simple as that.
1. Your list is not true. For example, the accusations that republicans want to omit history is just not true. The republicans do NOT want hard core lefties to use public education to indotrinate our young with anti-American and anti-white racist ideas. Those are not "Buzzwords" that is the reality of the Left seeking to abuse their responsibilities and power as I have already discussed.
2. It is a dying institution in this country. It has been adn will continue to be held accountable.
3. Hollywood is losing money but not changing it's behavior and there seems to be no sign that it will. The....financial elite class seems to have no ability to concieve that the other side might be right. An extremely clear example, forgive me for jumping to another business BUT it is such a nice clear example. BUD LIGHT. There has been no accountability for the CEO. He was the one that hired a young woman to run his ads and he signed off on increased "diversity and blah, blah blah" at the ccost of insulting his core customers. Why is HE not held acountable?
No it is true. Praiger University attempts to groom people to deny history. Anti-white? So is educating people on the history of slavery, as well as the Holocaust anti white or is it the truth? Anytime that stuff gets brought up people who deny that type of stuff get upset. Check out this analysis on an ad covered by praiger university. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX3Z2CmmDwo
So no retort to the 1.3 billion members then? That is only Catholicism by the way.
Don't you hold them accountable by not giving them money? I do not get it. If I felt that strongly about something I would not
Huh, I'm starting it, and I hope you appriciate that. First sentence he admits that some of the books contained elements of CRT, "as though that is unconscionable"...
IT IS. CRT is based on an extremely racist and anti-American foundation. Then he goes on to talk about some books that were banned, giving HIS person spin them with ZERO discussion of what they actually contained that was found to be offensive.
He mentioned one book about an African America basketball player being banned, as though who would not talk about a basketball player?
For all we know from what he said, the basketball player explicitly stated that American whites were all inherently racist. Which is a tenent of CRT, btw.
I will try to go into it more. But, his opening is not very convincing. Could you just give me what you thought was his best point or example?
Look at the ad itself. You have heard of Praiger University right? That is something Steven Crowder, Chris Christie and the rest of those people support. I also do not agree with you about CRT. Fact check me about this honestly. You need to watch the entire video. His point about when we look at other countries it is black and white. However when it comes to our own wrongdoings they try to gaslight and downplay the wrongdoings of the past. I appreciate you looking into the video. That is more than most are willing to do.
share1. Why do you NOT agree about CRT?
2. it is easy to find examples where we do treat other countries "black and white". It is also easy to find examples where we are very sensitive to their concerns or interests.
3. Your welcome. I will still try to finish the vid.
Because history is history. MLK was a great black leader would I want them to omit his wrongdoings simply because he was a good role model for black people? No tell the truth. Sometimes the truth does shed light on wrongdoings by a particular group. If it was up to Florida or a place like Alabama they do not want anything taught which showcases whites in a bad light. Do I mistreat white people based on the past no. It is important to acknowledge historically bad things though. The Germans have done a great job distancing themselves from the horrific events of the Holocaust and Germany is better for it. To be clear I am talking them as a society not race. I am also against editing of cartoons or old movies because things might be deemed offensive. If anything I think it showcases how far we have come as a society. To omit that is taking away the benefit of seeing the progression. I can censor content myself I am an adult I do not need someone to do it for me.
Yes but do you see my point? Why do people that are extreme conspiracy theorists deny the Holocaust happened? If this was another group they would not deny it. I feel that happens because they do not want it tied to their race. Can I acknowledge when black people make themselves look bad yep same way I can for whites or any other race for that matter.
Cool. I just can't stand Praiger U or a lot of those big talking heads.
1. Why are whites, as a group, defined by the pro-slavers, when they where the minority almost our entire history?
2. So you DO want to "tie" the actions of Columbus to modern white kids, based on race? That seems very unhealthy to our modern and future society and culture.
3. Why?
I did not say they were defined by pro slavers. I said people like to omit anything which paints them in a bad light. This is a classic trope lots of conservatives use. Oh look someone is criticizing America they hate America! No perhaps they are pointing out the issues with some of the things in America. You feel slavery paints your race in a bad light therefore we should not learn about it.
Nope never said that. Nobody is responsible for something they had nothing to do with. However it is important to learn about history so we can learn from it.
Folks like Steven Crowder? Praiger U or Chris Christie? Hmm you have seen what has happened with Crowder lately right? You know how much of a grifter that guy is? How about how lovely he treated his now ex wife in that leaked video? How about his former coworkers exposing his work environment? Praiger U attempting to paint Columbus as some saint boy scout. I could go on and on.
Ugh. At three minutes. He has made a LOT of opinion statements and finally mentioned an example, A cartoon of Columbus stating "it is better to be taken as a slave than killed".
His point was that we only give such nuance with OUR own sins, and never with our enemies, (counter example Iran).
First counter point. Comparing apples to oranges, ie Historical issue to current conflict.
Second issue. Columbus was not American. Why are we responsible for his sins?
Third issue. "Better" doesn't mean "Good" and people, even children know that. It is "BETTER" to shot with a 22 cal, than a 357 magnum, but NO ONE would take that to me it is still not very BAD.
And finally it is NOT denying history. It is clearly talking about slavery.
I am not saying anyone is responsible for Columbus's sins. Let me ask this though why is it such a controversial discussion when bringing up his sins? Why do people get so defensive and defend him at all costs? Even just stating his issues gets the right wing mob after you. I have had several run ins with people who adore Steven Crowder. Which he is an adament defender of Colmbus.
If historical conflict coincides with current conflict how is it apples to oranges?
Same can be applied to your comments about republicans and democrats. Just because you argue one being better does not mean one is good. This also applies to Trump and Biden no matter who you prefer. Both are not good.
It is trying to gaslight and downplay slavery though. Which is part of history.
1. You used HIM, a Italian sailing for Spain, as part of "us".
2. Because it is never just "mentioning" his sins, but TEARING HIM DOWN to be a villian.
3. Iran is not an historical conflict, it is a CURRENT conflict. That is why it is different than discussing history.
4. Correct. My stating that republcians are better than dems is NOT stating that they are good. NOw if I go further and make a point such as, "At least the repubican party still supports Free Speech adn Due Process" thus they are the GOOD GUYS TODAY, that is a different statement.
5. No, it is not. It is discussing slavery as history instead of as part of the current racial conflict. It is refusing to use slavery to make current day political points, especially based on any type of GROUP RESPONSIBILITY, which is a basic tenent of CRT, btw. Not that such thinking is limited to CRT. It is found massively on teh left today.
No I did not.
Not true. I said if you merely mention his sins people get all defensive about it. I can openly admit to MLK's sins without getting defensive. Also at what point is someone a hero or a villain? Colombus has quite a bit of sins on his hands. However you assume anyone who criticizes him tears him down as a villain. So how do you criticize him without it being a problem?
Which is why it is not apples to oranges then, like you originally claimed. Also Iran is still part of historical conflict even if it is current.
I do not agree republicans are by default better than democrats. This is where we disagree. I think both are corrupt in their own ways. I think the two party system should be dealt away with. Also they believe in free speech? Yeah not from what I see. They are more than willing to silence someone who mentions history that does not paint them in a positive light.
I believe it is. So is there no racial conflict going on today then?
2. Because he is so often attacked.
3. How is Iran part of an historical conflict"?
4. Not wanting CRT, taught in public schools is not censorship. Republciains are pro-free speech and pro due process and dems are NOT. That is the reality. If you don't like it, take it up with all the liberal dems who are making it that way.
5. How is SLAVERY part of the racial conflict today?
Constantly attacked or constantly criticized? Now let me ask the question again how do you criticize him without people getting defensive?
I thought we went over that? So are you saying that because it is current that makes it not part of history?
Technically that is actually. Censorship definition is suppression of speech, communication, or other information. I do not have the power to make them change that. I am against all forms of censorship fyi.
I did not say slavery was. I asked if there is racial conflict going on today?
1. Wait for the current fad of attacks to die down.
2. Yes.
3. Nope. If you or some teacher wants to write a book about slavery from a CRT pov, go right ahead. But you do NOT have the RIGHT to teach that shit in public schools.
4. My point was that we, the RIght, do NOT want slavery taught as part of the current racial political divide, which it is.
And yes, there is "racial conflict" going on right now. But what is the point of mentioning that in this context, if you do not think that crt is using slavery in it?
So wait until the fad dies down in order to voice genuine criticism? How long is this grace period? So go by feelings and be afraid to voice criticisms based on that? Something tells me your side would not be willing to do that yet you expect that from others.
I do not follow that logic. Okay though if we are going by that logic it still does not detract from the point. You are doing that to try and omit a legit point.
Then that is a form of censorship. So then do you believe religion has a place being taught in schools?
As I pointed out earlier places like Alabama or Florida do not want slavery taught period. They want that omitted completely.
So then if there is the way to close that gap is by knowing history correct? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
1. Grace period? Odd phrasing. You can't expect to stand out from the mob, if you are "walking" with the mob. If you see a dogpile, don't join in and people won't lump you in with the dogpilers.
2. Except it's not a legit point. We do NOT only do nuance with ourselves and not our enemies.
3. It is not censorship to oppose bad ideas being taught in schools. I don't see the relevance of religion.
4. The examples I have seen have generally been at best, spin and at worst complete lies.
5. How does do you see teaching about slavery "closing the gap today" and exactly what do you think we are in danger of "repeating"?
Criticizing him is not walking with the mob. Marching with the mob would be screaming about him being the villain. Criticizing him is a different thing altogether. Anytime someone dares to criticize him people lose their minds. It raises the question of why? Is Columbus some boy scout? You not allowed to criticize him?
Wrong it is a legit point.
So then we are allowed to oppose something being taught from a conservative perspective? Which means religion has no place in schools correct?
Praiger University's ad online proves otherwise. As does Florida and Alabama.
Why omit it? So should we not teach about slavery period? Education is about learning the truth, even if uncomfortable. The minute you start omitting aspects and going well that makes certain people uncomfortable bigotry only grows. There are folks who want to deny the Holocaust do you see the harm in doing that? It encourages people to be able to do something like that in the future and not feel any kind of guilt or remorse about it. The country does not need more division it has enough of that already.
1. If you see a mob heckling someone, that is not the time to try nuanced criticism. That your possibly well intentioned and serious words might be lost in teh din of braying asses, is unfortunate but to be expected. Is there some reason that you need to criticize Columbus right now, that it cannot wait a few years?
2. It's wrong. WE do not do that. We if anything are OVERLY critical of ourselves and too sympathetic to our enemies.
3. You are being sloppy with terms. CRT teaches anti-white racism and anti-Americans AS FACTUAL HISTORY AND CURRENT EVENTS. Your statement ie "religion has no place in schools", could be taken as a desire to not allow any MENTION of religion in history, which would be stupid. And it feels like you are being sloppy on purpose, trying to set up a gotcha.
4. Give your best example, in context.
5. No, you made two possibly valid claims ie "Closing the gap" and "repeating". i want to know what you meant by that, becuase I see the OPPOSITE happening with thee way you support doing it now.
And I do not buy that even waiting a few years would make any bit of difference. I think that even if it was 15 years later they still would not tolerate anyone criticizing Columbus. I think you know that also.
Disagreed. I think we are not critical enough of ourselves. Anytime someone criticizes America in good faith tons of times you get called anti American. We think America is the best and therefore we are above taking advice or learning from anyone else.
That is the whole point I am making. So would you like it if religion was omitted completely? Religion is part of history. I have no issue with it being discussed. However if we take your approach we have the right to not want it mentioned period. If you teach it, it will be told from a certain perspective. I do not believe it is anti white either. I think anything which goes over history of them you deem as anti white. So lets ask this how do you teach about the Holocaust and have it not make certain people uncomfortable?
Certain schools restrict teaching race in classrooms. Once a law banned the Bible for vulgarity and violence suddenly they got all upset. Some wanted the adventures of Huck Finn and the Great Gatsby banned. Notice I am fine with religion being taught but you don't get to have it both ways. So who decides what books are appropriate and which books are not?
I already presented my point on this and you are ignoring it. I think learning about history even when uncomfortable helps society. Right now you are hung up on CRT. Lets roll it back. You are addressing my ideas lets drop CRT whether we agree on it or not. Should slavery be taught in schools? Yes or no? Even if it makes certain people uncomfortable? Or do we govern how we teach based on what makes people uncomfortable? Do we go by the law or by feelings?
1. Quite likely. HOw would you expect someone to distinguish you from the dog pile?
2. How do YOU distinguish between good faith criticism and bad faith criticism/anti-Americanism?
3 The examples I have seen have NOT omitted slavery. So, let's keep it real, ok.
4. "Both ways" here is a cop out. That I don't want lefty educators teaching anti-americanism, does not mean that I do not get to want religion's role in us histtory taught.
5. If you did, i did not understand it. I want to know how you see "Closing the gap" and "repeating".
So then you just admitted that even waiting that long would not change anything. So in other words you can't criticize Columbus in any way shape or form without it being a problem. Which then leads me to say I do not believe people hate people vilifying him. I think that they hate people criticizing him in any way shape or form.
This is quite subjective. Criticizing this country for it's bad policies or laws that do more harm to society than good is not bad faith. Criticizing corporations, or government for bad things is not bad faith. If you do not credit America for any positives that would be in bad faith.
They attempt to omit slavery. If Florida had it's way slavery would not be mentioned.
Okay then what is anti Americanism in your eyes then?
If society is not taught the injustices of the past it is in risk of repeating those same things in the future. Discrimination happened in the past. There are instances where it happens today as well. By learning of discrimination history it teaches us going forward why discrimination is bad and harmful to society. It also can humble us and make us not be so full ourselves to think we have no flaws in this country.
1. The problem is the dog pile, not those that are annoyed by the dog pile.
2. But it IS possible to criticize a BAD POLICY, but in a way that is not constructive. Sure, say, SLAVERY for example, one could easily criticize that, but do it in such a way that suggests that it defined America to the point that it was and still is a bad place full of bad people.
3. Err, if they are talking about slaves learning skils then tehy are clearly discussing the issue. So, your claim seems to be false.
4. Anti-Americanism is hostility and/or bias against America. Why do you ask?
5. There is ZERO danger of a student or ANYONE in this country today, not hearing about discrimination. That is not a reasonable concern. What IS a reasonable concern is dwelling on past injusticies can be divisive for the students being taught the CRT lessons.
Disagreed. You want to put the issue entirely on the dog pile group and place no blame on those who dismiss legit criticism of Columbus.
So then why when slavery is brought up do people get defensive? This goes back to my point about Columbus there is no bringing it up without people getting defensive.
Nope that is coming at it from an angle to gaslight. They have many tactics. If they can't get it omitted completely then lets twist and gaslight folks.
Hostility towards America is different from criticizing it. You can criticize it without being anti American.
That is your opinion. I think it is a big concern. That makes it to where discrimination is more likely to occur going forward. So in history what you saying is do not teach about anything which makes anyone feel uncomfortable?
1. The dogpilers are the one creating the problem.
2. Because their is a vast number of people that use that to criticize America in bad faith.
3. OR, they talked about it appropriately, the bad faith anti-Americans cherry picked though a whole curriculum, found something they could use out of context to talk shit.
4. You can. But that is why my answer was NOT "criticism" but "hostility and bias". Soo... why are you confused? I was perfectly clear.
5. Your concern was if not for discussing slavery, the student would not hear of discrimination. That is not a reasonable concern. Also, the strawman? Weak.
I disagree. I think the people who do not want to hear him criticized at all are also creating a problem.
That is a poor excuse to dismiss anything someone has to say. So because there are a few who do it in bad faith that gives someone an excuse to dismiss someone with a legit point?
And gaslighting can occur as well. Do not deny that there are folks who gaslight.
Because you are making excuses for people getting defensive even when the criticism is legit and not in bad faith.
Not what I said, I said that makes it more likely that discrimination can occur going forward. This is only a tiny piece of discrimination and there are many forms of it. Slavery is part of history whether it makes you or others uncomfortable or not. To omit it is to deny history.
1. So, if you were to see a dogpile and someone said something that seemed in support of the dogpile, how would you distinguish if that individual was part fo the bad faith people or not?
2.Wait, you asked me why people get "defensive", now you are saying they dismissed your point. Just checking, you are not denying that many people use slavery in bad faith to just attack America, right?
3. No one, outside off the fringe, is gaslighting in defense of slavery.
4. People get defensive when they are attacked. That is not an EXCUSE, that is a GOOD REASON. You cannot ignore the context of the discusion. If there is a massive bad faith attack based on using slavery to justify anti-americanism, why would you ignore that, and attack in teh same direction as teh braying mob?
5. It is what you said, but fine, dropping that, moving forward. This country has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 60s. YOur concern seems vastly overrated. While your concern about the abuse of this, to foster racial divsion by inflamming old wounds, seems greatly UNDERRATED.
It only seems like a dogpile because you do not want anyone to criticize him. To a hammer everything looks like a nail. Listen to their points as opposed to shutting down the minute you realize they may not be big on Columbus.
No I said it is a convenient way to dismiss someone's point. When they get defensive that then leads them to dismiss the point and not listen. Nope I did not deny that. Are you denying that some people do not want you to say one negative thing about Columbus?
Absolutely not true. There are still white supremacists who will gladly gaslight people. Steven Crowder gaslights quite a bit and has quite the huge following. I would not want people catering to my feelings either. Slavery should be taught whether you like it or not.,
See and again you act as if every time someone gets defensive they are being attacked. If the conservatives had their way not one negative thing would be said about Columbus. I did not ignore it. You are acting as if this goes one way while I can acknowledge wrong on both ends. Do people on your side ever get defensive even when the criticism is legit? If you answer no that is a blatant lie and you know it.
Nope that is not what I said. It is against the law for a police officer to violate someone's rights. Does that mean it does not happen? As we have seen laws are often broken more often than people care to admit. Poor logic on your end. My concern is overrated in your opinion. So then whatever makes people uncomfortable in history we omit it then? History should be taught I am not for catering to your feelings sorry.
1. Well, that's odd. We've been talking about mob/dog piles for days, and you didn't seem to have a problem with it before, but suddenly, you realize that you don't know what I am talkgin about?
Yeah, I'm not going to be able to credit that.
2. SOME people? Sure. MOST would be willing to have a nuance discussion, if the bad faith people were not there throwing shit bombs during the discussion.
3. This nation has had a bi-partisan consensus on equality for blacks since the mid 1960s. Any attempt to pretend that w.s. are significant is silly. Please drop that shit.
4. I made my point very clear. IF there is a braying mob, why would you WANT to make a comment in teh same direction, and why would you think that you could have a nuanced discussion while the braying mob is being retarded, bad faith assholes?
5. This issue is not about making people "uncomfortable". If you don't have the balls to be honest about the issue, don't bother replying.
Um? I specifically addressed your point about the dog pile. I asked you why people get so defensive and you responded because people dogpile. You acted as if every person who gets defensive is justified because everyone dogpiles. That is not true. Please do not be deceptive now.
I sincerely doubt that. I have seen many folks place their fingers in their ears the minute they know which way you lean politically. Or if you criticize someone they idolize. So no sorry I do not buy that.
Nope I am not dropping that. You using that as a means to act as if they never try to influence culture is dismissed. I am aware of the bi-partisan agreement but I also realize the power of corruption and evil as well.
So then your solution is say nothing negative about Columbus then got it. That furthers my original point.
Yeah I believe it is. Facts do not care about feelings.
1. I said nothing about "everyone" dogpiling. THe point stands. The dogpile is real. Everyone who is thus attacked, is justified in getting "defensive".
2. Well, i'm speaking of me and mine here, so... perhaps you might want to ask yourself, why you look like part of the dogpile.
3. Then expect your credibility to drop accordingly. w.s. are an irrelevant fringe.
4. I can't think of anyway to have a nuanced discussion with braying assholes throwing shit bombs during it. You think of something, let me know. Until then, you trying is you making a mistake.
5. Your belief is not fact. It is your OPINON, and a DAMN self serving one here too. YOur dishonesty is noted.
And my original point stands. People are allowed to criticize him and just because they do does not mean they are attacking him.
And you might want to look at why people are getting defensive even if someone is raising a legit point.
Lol you think I care what credibility you give me? Your credibility had dropped with me by downplaying that. Since you want to play that game right back at you.
Lol nice evasion. So you are refusing to admit there are people who oppose him in good faith.
Slavery is not my belief it is a fact. Also the point stands people want anything which makes them uncomfortable omitted from history.
1. If you want to try to have a reasonable discussion while braying asses are throwing shit bombs, then that in on you.
2. NO, it makes complete sense to me. You seem to be the one not getting something painfully obvious.
3. How many w.s. are there in this country?
4. No, I'm sure there are. And some day, when the anti-American shit talkers are gone, maybe we can have a nuanced historical discussion. Until then, it is kind of silly to try.
5. Aw, classic lefty move, pretending to misunderstand me, and then addressing a point that I did not make. My point stands. No one is uncomfortable discussing slavery. We are just not going to let lefties use it to race monger and hate monger.
Nowhere did I talk about having conversations with unreasonable people. Typical conservative move nice deception.
What makes sense to you is not logical that much is obvious.
How do you go about calculating that?
So then we have no right to say anything negative about Columbus. Way to prove my original point. Let me know when it is okay to criticize him.
Nope I believe it is about your comfort. I am about abiding by laws not feelings.
1. LOL. Good try. That is a fail on your part.
2. Don't know what to tell you.
3. You are arguing that they are signficant. So, you must have some idea. How many are there?
4. lol. No one said anthing about no "right". You were the one whining that people got defensive. I was addressing YOUR complaint.
5. No one is uncomfortable talking about slavery. Our position is that we will not allow it to be used to race monger and hate monger today.
You were caught being deceptive. It is my pleasure to keep you honest. No thanks is necessary you are welcome.
I know you have provided nothing but excuses.
No back to my question how do you calculate how many there are? Once you provide me a way to calculate them I will be happy to oblige.
I did and I asked you how we criticize him. You responded by saying you will be grouped in with the dogpilers. So in other words you can't say one negative thing about Columbus.
Oh I think you are uncomfortable talking about slavery. You have shown that behavior.
1.Gaslighting noted.
2. Said the liar.
3. THe same way you count any group. Plenty of people out there happy to tell you have many of any group is out there. Google how many amish there are. BOOM. There you go. Answer 367k. So, how many w.s. are there? You claim they are signfiicant. So you must have some idea.
4. You join in a lump, you are the one doing the lumping. That's on you. If I saw some group of assholes talking false and unfair shit about say.... YOU, I wouldn't consider that the time to make a fair but constructive cititism of you. That would be retarded of me. You can't have a nuanced and serious discussion while retarded assholes are throwing shitbombs. Your pretense of not getting this is... not credible.
5. No, I have not. If you think I have, then you are extremely poor at perception. That you said that, shit cans ALL your other claims that you think ANYONE is uncomfortable talking abou tit. I am EXTREMELY comfortable about it. I am also extremely BORED talking about it. It is like a dead horse that has been beaten to the point of being a big red stain in a hole in the ground. BORING.
Your deceit is dismissed again.
I lied about nothing that is you who did that.
So then you do not need me to list it then do you? Google it yourself. You are a big boy. I am not playing your game. The point stands they still have some influence in the world today. Did I say they are the majority and rule the world? No but they still exist and attempt to influence laws. When you have folks like Kanye West also it does not help that he idolizes Hitler as well. You know he has a big following.
Criticizing Columbus is not joining the dogpile. So go ahead and tell me when it is okay to criticize Columbus. I guess we have to wait a few decades. Joining the dogpile is being antagonistic and arguing in bad faith. Big difference and you acting like it is not is you being evasive and deceptive.
Yes you have. This is typical conservative behavior. You are bored because you know you can't refute anything about it. History is history. I am sorry you do not enjoy it being taught. I am glad you are not in charge of the school system. Sit down and let the educators do their job. There is a reason you do not teach. You would be terrible at it.
There are an insignficant fringe. You can't find number on them because people like you need to be able to lie about them being significant.
Sure it is. You see people making hysterical and untrue accusations and you join in in the attack. YOUR complains might be more nuances, but you are still joining the same attack.
Nope. That is you ignoring everything I said. Like an asshole.
Give me ONE thing about slavery, that I "can't refute".
No even if I provided a number you would lie about it. You do this on purpose to be deceptive. How many racist people exist? Answer that question for me.
No that is another lie. So like I said then you can't say anything negative towards Columbus. You admitting that is proving my original point.
Nope it is me realizing you have nothing of substance to say. Your comment on the bi partisan agreement was meaningless and added nothing to the conversation. It is okay though the republican party is being exposed for the corrupt vile humans they are. Which shows they are no better than the democrats. Hunter Biden and Trump both belong alongside each other in a prison cell. Ok so then answer this is slavery a good thing yes or no?
1. No hard numbers exist. Or at least have been released. Every claim, if you dig far enough, ends up being based on some for of shit talk.
2. DUDE. What I said makes complete sense. You are talking shit, becuase you cannot argue against it in any real way.
3. My comment on the bi-partisan consensus in this ccountry, was a completely relevant response to YOUR pretense that there is a signficant number of people that defend slaverly. Those people have not had a voice in national politics since the mid 60s. Any pretense otherwise is nothing but shit talk. You are welcome to try to support your absurd claim.
Every claim? So I am supposed to believe you have investigated every claim? Anyways even if I was to supply a number you would claim they are insignificant.
No it does not! So answer the question then how do you criticize Columbus in good faith?
They have a voice they just do not have control over the legal system. Another lie from you. Kanye West has a voice, Steven Crowder has a voice. Do not play dumb man come on.
1. Every time some lefty has claimed that they are relevant and we have looked at any supporting "evidence" or links, and it is always some form of shit talk.
The information is not available. Make of that what you will.
2. Wrong question. You whined that people get defensive. But as I pointed out, it is reasonable for people to be defensive when they are attacked. You are the one that is confused by that.
3. They have no voice in national policy. It is absurd to claim that they do.
West? Kanye West is a fucking BLACK MAN, you fool. And he is NOT in any policy position. You are being hysterical.
We as in any conservatives? Yeah I am sure you guys were totally fair and unbiased when looking into those claims... If the information was not available then why is it still being reported? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Allen,_Texas_mall_shooting
And you denied people getting defensive when people criticize him in good faith. So nope wrong.
That is not what you originally said. You said they had no voice. Also just because they do not have a voice in policy at the moment, does it mean they can not form one by influencing people.
So because a person is black that means they can't be against their own? He can influence people to vote a specific way which influences policies.
1. No, we as in the lefty making hte claim and me. No lefty has been able to find any hard numbers to support their claim about w.s. being significant.
2. I did not deny that people were defensive.
3. LOL. Give me your best example of that supposedly happening since the mid 1960s.
I just posted an article of a shooter who held white supremacist beliefs. Also you are a biased conservative I do not trust your judgement.
Lol then how do you criticize Columbus and it be ok?
First acknowledge that black people can be against their own.
1. I asked you how many nazis there were in the country and you post a link about ONE guy. Are you saying there is ONE guy? LOL.
Did you try to google the number and were not able to find it?
This btw, is going just like I said it would, based on the other times. THe more you try to support your position, the more clear it will be that there is nothing to support your position but shit talk.
2. I don't know. Look for a setting where all the shit throwers are banned? Course, I'm not 100% sure that would work for you...
Say, why is it so important to discuss Columbus to you anyways? It's pretty old history. It's not like there is a lot of drama over spice routes or vorages of exploration today.
3. Sure. Yes, that is true. A black man can be hostile to his own. It is highly unlikely he would be a nazis as you claimed. Now, give me your best example of a policy that you think nazis or w.s. managed to "influence" thus demonstrating that they have a voice in national politics (since the mid 60s).
And I was going to see if you would acknowledge one's existence period. You wanting a specific number is you playing a game. The point is they still exist. You also never answered my question. Since you want to play games lets play. How many people that racist against whites exist. I want a number.
No I did not google it because how do you go about calculating that? Seems like it could be on the rise though with talking heads attempting to deny the Holocaust happened. Lets not get caught up in numbers that is not what matters, what matters is the people who are trying to cater to that belief set. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism
Exactly you do not know. Thanks for proving my point. Finally you were honest about something.
Lol it is old? So you mean it is history? What a dumb statement. My point is any historical figure can be discussed and criticized in good faith.
Unlikely does not mean it can not happen. I never said they had influence over policies. I said they have a voice still. When you have talking heads giving you a platform it can encourage people to give them a voice in policy again if you are not careful. Lets take a look at the prison system for an example. Ask yourself a simple question. Who is treated better by the judicial system rich or poor people?
Oh I have plenty to support my position it is you who has done the trash talking.
1, The discussion was you arguing they are a signficant political force and me saying that they are a politically irrelevant fringe. Finding ONE GUY, is irrelevant. Sure, HAPPY to acknowledge that there is at least one. Whoop dee freaking doo.
2. Mmm, interesting point trying to turn it around on me. BUT, Nazis/w.s. are more than "people who are racist against blacks". Much vaguer... OR is the important take away there, how sloppy you were/are with your terminology. When you say nazis, are you really thinking just any white racist? No matter how slight their "racism" is?
3. If you are arguing that htey are a significant political force then numbers DO matter. People do not try to cater to irrelevant fringe forces.
4. YOur point that people are defensive? I did not deny that. YOu wanted a solution. Actually I think you just wanted to whine about people you don't llke.
5 That might be what you WANT for any historical figure to be discussed and/or criticized in good faith. THe people that are sabotaging that for you, are the shit throwers. Insteaed you want to blame the people that are being attacked. That is not rational of you.
6. So, I ask you to give your best example of w.s. influencing a policy against blacks, and you try to change the discussion to Rich or Poor people in prison?
See and that is why I did not provide a number. I can find way more than one. Notice how you dismiss it completely? When they are trying to influence laws that is rather significant. You underestimate what they could achieve simply because they are not the majority. White supremacy is starting to ramp back up you just refuse to see it.
No when I said Nazi I am referring to people who subscribe or align with that belief set. It does not just have to be white people, which is why I mentioned Kanye West as well as that shooter I cited. You failing to comprehend that is on you not me.
Nope they actually do not. Funny when I mentioned there are 1.3 billion Catholics worldwide you said nothing. If the Catholic church has that many members are you denying it has influence? This is why I do not waste my time citing numbers I did it earlier and you dodged it.
Your solution was IDK. So no you gave no solution. All you said was to not joining the dogpile. Which is saying that anytime you criticize Columbus it is joining the dogpile. Which is untrue and deceptive from you.
Nope I admitted there are people who criticize in bad faith. Which is why I asked how you go about criticizing Columbus without it being a problem. So no I blamed no one your lie is noted.
No no no. Answer the question. This leads to another. Who is treated better by the judicial system the rich or the poor? You won't answer this because you know it gives me ground. So lets see you answer the question this leads into me showcasing laws which discriminate against black people. Go ahead and answer.
1. When trying to support the idea that a group is signficiant, you need to show that they are a sizable group. I was NOT setting the bar to be "the majority", that was unfair and stupid to say. In the context of you being COMPLETELY unable to support your claim, talking about them "ramping up" is just panic mongering. ARE YOU ADMITTING THEY ARE A TINY NUMBER?
2. So, BELIEF set. Got it. So, to turn it aroudn how many share the BELIEF set of the reverse?
OK. mmm. How many support the idea of a society that massively discriminates against whites in favor of minorities, though law and policy and practice, in all walks of life?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/247046/americans-support-affirmative-action-programs-rises.aspx
About 60% of the country.
Ok, now your turn.
3. I am not denying that hte church has influence. The world wide numbers are of little impact HERE, especially in the context of the point about church child abuse.
Are you admitting that hte nazis/w.s. numbers are tiny?
4. If you are true in that you want to do nuanced and fair criticism, then we are on the same page in that we want real discussion. And thus we should both be against the dogpilers and shit talkers. BUt you don't seem to be...
5. Mmm, even if I was wrong, that would be a mistake of mine, not a lie. That was not rational of you, again.
6. Rich people can afford better lawyers and thus get better "treatment" from teh legal system. Poor people, both white and black, get worse. SO, let's see those "laws".
No that is actually a stipulation you have made up. A minority group can have influence and be powerful. You wanting to act as if a tiny number is insignificant is another attempt from you to gaslight. Especially if a bad group grows in number. I never once claimed they were the majority or even a huge number. I said they have some influence that can't be brushed aside.
Again how would I go about calculating that? How many of them proudly openly admit that belief set? Are there any that hide behind the scenes?
So let me get this straight you think affirmative action discriminates against whites? Also lets still examine this whites still make more money and are the majority in this country. So you failed yet again.
You acted as if religion has no influence anymore. The 1.3 billion only covered Catholicism. That is not including all the other religious belief sets. Why is it child abuse gets ignored by the right when it comes to religion but they openly call it out on any liberal group such as Hollywood? I am fine with it being called out period but seems the right only cares if liberal groups do it.
I never said the numbers were big, you are putting words in my mouth. I said they are growing and have influence of some kind. You saying they do not matter is not something I believe. I do not underestimate people like you do.
We should also be against people getting defensive when someone is arguing in good faith. This goes both ways wise guy.
No that would be a lie. You have proven to be deceptive. I do not believe you made an honest mistake. I think you are lying.
Okay so poor people get treated worse. So why is it more black people are locked up for drug crimes? Even among poor people? That does not strike you as odd?
1. You are claiming that they have influence. I am claiming that they do not. Yes, a small group can have influence, if they have brilliant members or money or strong ideas. Are you claiming that w.s. have briliant leaders or strong ideas? They certainly don't have money, lol.
2. Well, first of all, it is somewhat telling that I have to tell you how to support your position. Second of all, try turning around what I did. Search for how many support massive institutionalized discrimination against blacks. OR, maybe how many voted for the last w.s. candidate for President David Duke. Two suggestions. But you got to do SOMETHING.
3. When dealing with limited resources, you can't discrimate in favor of one group, without discriminating against another. That is simply math. So, no, it's not a fail for me, it is me demonstrating the massive support anti-white racism has. DEAL WITH IT.
4. Well, I don't talk about it much, because ever time I hear about it, it is because someone got caught and held accountable. NOt much for me to do there. And it's not a political issue. No one openly supports it, so, what is there to talk about?
5. ARE YOU ADMITTING THEY ARE TINY?
6. You got someone being massively attacked, tehy will be defensive. That is impossible to avoid. Indeed, they SHOULD be defensive. They are being massively attacked. You are being very, very unreasonable here.
7. Dick move on your part. Normal human reaction. When proven wrong, instead of learning, double down on your postions with more irrationality. Sorry to be part of your radicalization.
8. If true, at a guess, could be any number of reasons. Obvious two off the top of my head would be different behavior, and geography. And no, it doesn't strike me as odd. It is competely normal for different groups to have different outcomes.
Strong ideas which certain folks are influenced by yes. Also I know certain people subscribe to that ideology but are discreet about it. I even think certain people in positions do think that way they just are not vocal about it.
No it is because you are try to downplay it and create dumb stipulations. I am asking because there is no way to accurately calculate that. You seem to think that racism can not be discreet and it has to be blatant in order to recognize it. When people want to downplay or minimize slavery that is a form of gaslighting.
It is a fail from you. Whites are the majority and have more money on average deal with that. You can't dispute that then you want to turn around and play the victim.
Lol how convenient. Why is it you whine about the church having no influence yet as I demonstrated has a huge number. Then all you hear about from the right is about abuse to children in Hollywood. Yet radio silence when it comes to religion. That speaks volumes. We should be calling it out and discussing it no matter where it comes from.
Where did I ever say they were big? Once you provide that you can get an answer. I will help you out I never said they were big. Your gotcha attempt is failing here.
Nope even when someone criticizes Columbus in good faith they still get defensive. I have seen this happen as well. Getting attacked ok get defensive but when it is in good faith they shouldn't get defensive. Your lie and deceit is again waved away.
You mean where I proved that you were wrong? So which is it were you wrong or were you lying? I am giving you a chance to own up to it being a mistake. Even though I have my suspicions if you admit to being wrong I will take it.
Not if it is true. Oh different groups different outcomes interesting. So then that leads to this. Is that moral, just and fair? We already established that rich get treated better so now why is it fair one group gets more targeted?
1. OR, confirmation bias on your part. You are at this point, arguing that their (nazis/w.s.) influence is shown by people in positions, secretly thinking w.s. shit, while saying otherwise. But you just KNOW they are thinking it.... A-hem.
2. I'm not trying to create dumb stipulations. If it is a real issue, there should be some way of showing that. If you can't show any real world effects or signs,.......... that's sort of telling....
3. Neither one of those facts contradiction my point. You do realize that, right? THINK. You CAN'T discrimination in FAVOR of someone without disccriminating AGAINST someone else.
4. Strangely, when we talk about that, there IS pushback, thus there is debate. And again big churches in nigerial have no influence HERE.
5. No gotcha, I just want to be clear. ARE YOU ADMITTING THAT THEY ARE TINY?
6. I remember a panel discussion I saw once, with Ben Shapiro. THey put Ben next to a large, mentally ill man, that literally put his hands on Ben's neck and threatened him with grave bodily harm, and WHILE THAT WAS HAPPENING, the other lefties were trying to engage Ben in "nuanced" debate. Yeah, your empathy for others, is not quite that bad, but you are on the same wavelength.
7. Lost the thread. Seems you are being a dick though.
8. I didn't claim it was fair. But YOU have done NOTHING to show that it is cause wacism. NOTHING. Simply showing disparate outcomes means NOTHING. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. UTTER FAIL.
Yeah because not all people who subscribe to that ideology are going to announce it loudly and proudly. It is not like claiming to be Christian where the majoirty of the world will support that.
People dying from people subscribe to that ideology even if small is an effect on the world.
Yeah it actually does. The playing field is not even. Therefore that is why those programs are created. We need to do our best to make this world as fair as possible. Even with these programs in place whites face less poverty and are the majority.
Pushback from what? Hollywood? I am a reasonable person. However I am not going to let you guys get away with letting religion getting away with grooming kids. Either it all kids called out or none of it does no exceptions. There is plenty of pushback when religion gets criticized as well. So it works both ways even though you like to play like it is on one side.
I believe I answered this already. I never said they were the majority or big in number. So yeah but just because they are small does it mean they should be underestimated. Also more exist than you are caring to admit.
You have nothing to support that. You say I talk trash? Wow pot meet kettle. I have never advocated harming anyone for having different views. I just unlike you am willing to call out when people get defensive over legit criticism.
Nope I have maintained more class than you have actually.
So then if it is not fair that means there are problems then. I wonder what those problems could be? Outcomes actually tell quite a bit of the story. If the same people do the same thing and legally it is different outcome that raises suspicion. Only a fool would deny this. You act as if it is impossible for it to be racism in the judicial system. So then humor me why is it unfair then?
1. So, to be clear, I have cited generations of national consensus, enacted in law and policy and practice and you have your knowing that some people in power secretly agree with w.s. ideology, but never say anything about it...
DUDE. WAKE TEH FUCK UP. WHY ARE YOU GETTING OFF ON PRETENDING THIS FANTASY?
3. You're conflating shit. Are you looking for legal equality for everone individually, or equal outcomes for GROUPS?
4. Yes. From hollywood and lefties supporting hollywood. And thus, debate and controversy. Without that, the report surfaces and everyone is happy to see the bad guy caught and punished, there is nothing to talk about.
5. STOP talking shit about how many there are, if you cannot back it up with ANYTHING. Especially as in the real world, I have cited the generations of national consensus enacted in law, policy and practice. AND just to drive the point home, you never admitted that their number was tiny. Indeed, here again, you sort of admitted they were small in number, then IMMEDIATETLY AND VAGUELY WALKED IT BACK. pathetic.
6. Same expecting the conservative to deal with unreasonable hostility and hate and at the same time give you a nuanced and calm discussion. That that fails is not on the person being dogpiled. I gave a worse example to showcase the issue. As I explained. Please don't play dumb to dodge it.
7. lol.
8 What tyou did there was raise a question, and imply that it was racism and then try to turn it around so that it is MY responsibility to prove that it is NOT racism. When you are already demonstrated that you are accept as evidence your just KNOWING that some people are secretly thinking evul wacist thoughts. So.... lol. Oh, and btw, as you are doing that to smear people like me, that reflects on point 7, that is ZERO CLASS BABY. ZERO.
I see the tactic you use. You think because something is a policy and a law that gives you grounds to dismiss anyone's claims about incidents occurring. Very convenient but it is deceptive. Just because something is a law or policy does that mean it is honored or followed. Not all who do subscribe to white supremacist ideology are out in the open about it. Some people are behind the scenes.
This is another deceptive tactic from you. You want to look at the outcome without examining the starting point. I do not want equal outcome I want a fair start. I do not think that is too much to ask.
Nope you do not get to let your group slide on this. Plenty of conservatives are more than willing to cover up for religious corruption. See I am for calling Hollywood out as well but I think it all should be called out. You only want the left side's corruption to be called out. So no your side is not innocent of pulling this same move.
Again you can cite law and policy all day long. Was it the Catholic church's policy to cover up for molesting those kids? When I can pull up many attackers who held those belief sets with a simple google search it makes you pivoting to that irrelevant. I never walked anything back. If I was to have claimed they were a big number and then said tiny that would be walking back. You put words in my mouth.
I did not dodge anything. You should be able to criticize Columbus without it being a problem period. Not everyone who criticizes him is joining the dogpile period.
Laugh all you want. You know that is the case.
Lol nope you are dodging. I asked a simple question why is the judicial system not fair? Notice how you glossed over that. I am leading you down a rabbit hole which you will not be able to dispute. You know this which is why you stopped. People like you are why this country is going downhill. Your class went right out the with your arrogance. You play for a team and that is obvious. You are a partisan hack which means you should not be trusted.
1. Our conflict is based on conflicting world views. In my view this nation is defined by it's actions as a group. You keep wanting to look past the stated intentions and action of the whole to find the exceptions, and to define the nation by THAT. That is wrong and more than just wrong, it is grossly unfair and unjust to the vast numbers of good people you are smearing AND it leads to decisions.
2.Deceptive tactic? I asked you a clear adn serious question. WTF is wrong with you?
3. Name the biggest one.
4. The way you keep acting as though they have influence, but are unable to back it up, that is a big problem wtih your world view. AND to be clear, it is very representative of the Left as a whole. If you were to accept and act as the nazis/w.s are an insignificant fringe, we could discuss issues far more constructively.
5. iF you were serious about this, you would blame the people the dog pilers. You are acting like the assholes that put little Ben Shapiro next to the large and mentally ill man and peppered him with "nuanced criticism" while Ben had another man's hand on his fucking neck. You are being completely unreasonable here.
6. LOL.
7. Yes, you asked a question. And in your mind, that puts onus on me now, to prove that it is not wacism. That is not how logic works. If you think it is racism that is at fault YOU have to make that case, not demand that I disprove it. That you can't grasp that, is your brain being irrational to protect your emtional investment in your world view. Your brain knows that your world view is wrong.
Key word there in your view. I did not define the world by exceptions I just factored it in where as you do not want to do that. You want to generalize as a means to dismiss someone's point. I think it is unfair to do that because it gives you an excuse to dismiss someone who is part of the exception. To me that is gross and deceptive.
You asked and I answered. I want an equal fair start not an equal outcome. You want to look at outcome without looking into the start. That is deceptive from you.
I just did. The Catholic church is huge. Why do you hear more about oh gay people are groomers and yet they back that religion fully when it has groomed many children.
I did back it by showcasing there are people who subscribe to that ideology who commit attacks and murders. People lives regardless of even it is one person are not insignificant.
Nice evasion tactic again. See you want to only blame dogpilers. You want to let the people who get defensive for legit criticism off the hook completely. I am willing to call out the dogpilers and people who argue in bad faith towards Columbus. Your brain can't fathom that there are people who criticism him in good faith. You think the only people who criticize him do it in bad faith and all the people who get defensive are attacked. That is false, you and I both know that. Never supported being violent or antagonizing anyone so your analogy does not work or stick sorry.
Like I said laugh all you want.
Nope one question leads to another. You stopped answering because I can prove my case by you answering a few questions. I asked you how it was unfair forget about racism. See but you know that the more ground you give the more likely I come close to proving my point. I have confidence in my view and you are not shaking it. My family are illegal immigrants and we have worked very hard to be productive members of society in America.
1. Disagreeing is not dismissing. Your conflating of hte terms is extremely divisive and harmful.
2. Except your answers seem to mostly be shit like Affirmative Action which is all about outcomes and does NOTHING about the starting point.
3. The catholic church which is just as likely to support lefty causes...no MORE likely to support lefty causes than conservative ones? LOL. That's a fail on your part. Please try again.
4. Small numbers of individuals does not define a society. The harm they commit is real but POLITICALLY AND CULTURALLY the shooters are insiginficant. Why do you want to exaggerate teh importance of these lunatics?
5. You try to have a reasonable discussion whlle there is a shit throwing dog pile going on, that is on you and the shit throwers. It is STUPID of you to expect the person being attacked, to NOT be defensive. HE IS BEING ATTACKED,.
6. lol.lol.lol.lol.
7. I did not stop answering questions, I refused to let you make it MY job to prove a negative. You want to pretend that any unfairness is because wacism, but you know you can't prove that. Or even support it well. Oh, you're an illega. So?
You are not just disagreeing you are dismissing as well. Exceptions do exist and you do not get to dismiss them sorry.
How do black people get an equal starting point when they have less money on average?
Lol nope try again. The Catholic church as I stated before gets supported by many conservative folks. Jim Caviezel is a devout Catholic. They got caught with their pants down several times trying to exploit children. Yet no conservative wants to acknowledge that.
Nope sorry any harm they cause is not insignificant to me. People's lives have value even if it is just one man. People's lives are part of culture. Even if you want to omit politics you do not get to omit culture. I am not exaggerating I just do not overlook it like you do.
I will ask the question again. How do you criticize Columbus and it be ok? Notice you have no answer. Your answer is yeah just do not criticize him because you can't do it in good faith. I reject this notion sorry.
Yep keep laughing.
Nope you refused to answer questions. You want to pretend that it is impossible that any unfairness is due to racism. This works both ways. I am willing to say that not everything which is unfair is due to racism but you won't admit that any unfairness is because of racism. See your double standard? I am an illegal immigrant I will say it loudly and proudly. So um got anything to say about it?
1. If you are offering a few excepts to counter GENERATIONS OF CONSENSUS AND LAW AND POLICY, then I am disagreeing and then it is on YOU to explain how and why an exception or two is more weighty then the rest of the world. YOU have not done that, all you have done is say "dismissing" as though that is an argument.
2. Graduate high school, get a job and wait till after marriage to have kids.
3. Give me the best single example of this defense, for discussion purposes.
4. i specifically stated that the harm was "real". That you felt you needed to lead with making that point I already agreed with, was dishonest of you. Stop gaslighting. It is a sign that you don't believe in your own position.
5. Get the dogpilers to shut hte fuck up, and then we can have a reasonable discussion.
6. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol.
7. Dude IT IS ON YOU TO PROVE YOUR CASE AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING TO DO THAT.
8. You being illegal? Sure. YOu are clearly invested in making excuses for your actions, appearently something like using America's supposed wacism to justify it.
It is not in order to determine it being more weighty than the rest of the world. It is to showcase that it does happen and can not be dismissed. Nice try.
Even when doing that blacks on average have less money than whites do. So blacks have to do that and whites do not is what you are saying? I thought you said it was equal start?
I just did. Religion is widespread. There are more religious people than non religious. Religions which are widespread have an affect on laws and policies as well. You ought to work and Praiger University I am sure you would fit right in.
You said it was harmful and then turned around and said it was insignificant culturally. So which is it?
How would I go about doing that about the dogpilers? Enlighten me. Oh so because a few people argue in bad faith that makes it to where genuine people can't criticize something? Wow that logic is quite telling. You must be lots of fun at parties. So if they do not stop then it gives you the perfect excuse to dismiss legit criticism. I love this logic. You are showing your cards badly here and they are ugly.
Laugh away.
Because you refused to take the conversation further. Why is the system unfair? If it is so easy to debunk me explain why it is unfair? Once you debunk the logic my point will be debunked right? All the proof I need is to look how certain groups get different outcomes for the same laws they break.
You are clearly interested in making any excuse you can for conservatives. I am not going to let you do that. You are a partisan hack. I do not trust you when it comes to judging things fairly.
1. DO you believe in the Southern Strategy Conspiracy Theory?
2. NOT being poor, is a huge step forward. What do YOU want to do about it?
3. If you ask me for an example of lib supporting anti-white discrimination I would give a name and an example of their behavior. Then we could discuss the example seriously. You instead talk shit on large groups of people.
4. The two do NOT conflict. Your pretense otherwise makes no sense. The nazis/w.s. can kick up a single shooter now and then that can hurt people, but they have no cultural or political significance.
5. This pretense that you don't understand how a MOB of bad faith shit throwers make reasonable discussion impossible is not credible.
6. lol lol. lol. lol. lol. lol.. lol.
7. You offered no logic. You assertin racism, but you do nothing more. You try to make it my job to prove a negative. That is the type of shit people do, when they know they cannot support their position.
8. Dude. Save the drama for someone stupid or stoned.
I do not really follow conspiracy theories religiously. I feel like those rot your brain and make you delusional. Now are some conspiracies proven to be true but I do not like to follow them consistently.
It is a huge step forward. Thing is not everyone starts out poor. I thought you said it was equal start? Are you conceding that some start off better than others?
Okay Steven Crowder. You want more names?
They totally conflict I disagree.
And your pretense that someone can't criticize Columbus in good faith because of dogpilers is not credible.
Lol.
Nope I am asking questions to make the discussion go further. You stopped the conversation. Different groups get different legal outcomes for the same exact things. That is all the proof I need pal.
Then do not comment on me being illegal got it?
1. Do you believe in the popular among lefties Souther Strategy COnspiracy Theory?
2. You asked me a question and I answered. Then I asked you a question ie What do YOU want to do to have an "equal start"? Time for YOU to answer the question.
3. Steve Crowder defended teh church abuse of children? I've watched some of his stuff, I never saw anything like that. You sure? Or is this more of the you just "know" what they are thinking stuff?
4. How so? Please explain.
5. I did not pretend that at any point. Indeed, I have repeatedly adn consistently addressed it as though it was possible. I might have even directly stated it was possible. So.... Your point is completely false. Try again.
6. i'm the one laughing. At you. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.
7. I saw a bar fight once. White guy vs a black guy. The bartender said he was calling the cops. THe white guy left, the black guy stayed. The cops showwed up, the white guy did not get arrested, teh black guy did. On paper, someone like you would cite that as evidence of wacism. IN reality, it was the result of other factors. You are being willfully blind.
8. LOL. Fuck that shit. Who do you think you are, to tell me what to say?
I answered that already. Asked and answered.
I did ask that but it showcases that not everyone starts in the same place. Then I showed that some people do that and are still financially struggling. Your answer I addressed and it did not solve the problem.
Oh he has defended many things involving religion. Yet he targets gays or anything liberal. Funny thing is he got exposed being a corrupt piece of trash.
Shootings are going up every year. These mass shooters that are white supremacists you claim to be a of no significance are starting to grow. More and more attacks are on the rise that is how culturally.
No you did not. You kept referring back to the dogpile. Your dishonesty is on full display here.
I am laughing at you being ignorant.
Lol had both of them stayed you would have a point. Since one of them left it is not the exact same now is it? That could not have been a more lousy analogy. If a black guy steals a car and gets locked up and a white guy steals a car and walks away that would be evidence of racism.
I can tell you whatever I want. Do something about it. Cool your jets and put get your ego under control. You do not control anything here.
1. NOpe. You certainly did not. THe way that I have to drag clear answers out of you? That is you being an ass.
2. SO HOW DO YOU IMAGINE HAVING "FAIR STARTS"?
3. That was a lot of shit talk that did not answer the question, when and where did he defend the church abuse of children?
4. Supposedly rising from a start point that is undefined. Could be nothing. The cultural effect of the shootings is nothing. You are just spouting word salad now.
5. The dogpile sabotages any discussion. Me saying that does NOT deny the possibility of valid criticism. That you claim it does, is nonsense.
6. I've laughing at your nonsense.
7. That is the point you moron. There was a factor OTHER THAN RACE, that explained the difference.
8. Errr, did you really forget that you were the one trying to tell me what to do or are you just shit talking some more?
Yep I did. Asked and answered. I DO NOT FOLLOW CONSPIRACIES! That is your answer.
Oh in many ways. Such as giving those with less resources a fair chance from the beginning. Which is why stuff like affirmative action happens.
Look it up. Do I need to hold your hand?
Lol nope. You got schooled here. Reread my post again and weep.
Nope that is a lie from you. Columbus can be criticized. Dogpilers only sabotage if the person criticizing is joining in. Columbus can be criticized in good faith. I know it hurts that your boy scout and God is not worshipped by people anymore.
Because you have no retort.
Which is why I said the exact same thing now didn't I? Epic fail!
I can tell you what I want. Deal with it!
1. No, you did not. Still have not.
2. Vague shit. What do you fucking WANT?
3. This is where you admit that you cannot support your claim.
4. More shit talk.
5. Only an ass would see a dogpile and try to join with a valid point.
6. LOL. Another funny, even more funny this time. Maybe you SHOULD quit your day job.
7. That made zero sense.
8. And I will ignore your request, illegal.
I do not Follow conspiracies. That is your answer.
Asked and answered yet again.
Lol nope. You mention a conspiracy theory to me and then say I can't support a claim? You are free to look it up as well as the glorious treatment of his now ex wife. Crowder was seen as a hero among the right and he is trash.
Criticizing him is not joining in. Your deceit is dismissed.
No it is me looking out for people with less opportunity.
Oh my job is great. Why would I quit it when I make a great living?
The weak mind usually can't comprehend basic things.
Cool so then do not tell me what I can and can not tell you. I am illegal and proud of it. Want to try and deport me now?
Dude you are just being wiilfully obtuse now. We are done.
shareNo I just saw through your bullshit. Keep supporting corrupt republicans and you should be fine. I will support those who deserve it, I will not just be a partisan hack like you. Learn class today brother and make sure Trump gets that wall built. I will be waiting.
shareThose on the left have HUNDREDS.
FFS!
Those riots could be entirely republicans for all we know .
That was a bunch of people protesting police brutality . It is not a left or right thing.
Your J6 riot however , was entirely organised , perpetrated by Republicans for the benefit of Lord Trump.
And dont give me this "ooh undercover democrats made us do it " bullshit , you was up there bare chested waving your shit around .
The antifa and blm riots were leftards. Save the shit talk for someone new to the planet.
shareWell, the people on the right agree, the people on teh left, don't. So.... it is a right vs left issue.
no ,
The BLM rioting is nothing to do with either party.
The J6 rioting was entirely by , and for the benefit of the republican party
The antifa and blm riots were leftard riots, supported by, and often in support of, the DEMOCRAT PARTY.
Your denial is shit talk.
[deleted]
You people did support burning, looting and rioting (not to mention murder). In fact your cult actively encouraged it, not to mention if anyone dared to speak out against the burning, looting and rioting we were told that we were racist and we were supposed to ignore the burning, looting and rioting because a small number of the BLM were being peaceful. Funny how you had nowhere near that level of compassion when it came to 1/6. If you want to get serious about impeaching President Poopy Pants for his role in the murder of David Dorn and dozens of others during their summer of insurrections then great but until then you are an accessory to murder.
sharethe "burning, looting and rioting" was in a good cause .
the 1/6 was pure traitorousness attempting to overturn the democratic vote
Oh I see so rioting is OK if it’s for a cause that you happen to agree with. And I guess David Dorn was expendable along with the over 20 other people who were murdered by far left terrorists? The 2020 Summer of Insurrections was an attempt to take over the government. Black Lives Matter came out and said that they would burn the country to the ground until the police were defunded, they were using terroristic threats to influence policy. Every single BLM insurrection was over 10 times worse than 1/6, the only reason you won’t stop throwing a temper tantrum over 1/6 is because you can use that one to hurt President Trump, your outrage is 100% political.
Also the 2020 BLM insurrections were not for a good cause, it was all based on a lie. Those thugs rioted because they were lied to by the far left media and cult leaders such as President Poopy Pants who told them that there was an interdepartmental conspiracy within every single police department to murder innocent black people so they should go kill the cops before they kill them. Over 20 people died because of the far left’s lies.
No , no it (rioting) is not ok . I thought that went without saying , I was just being a little tongue-in-cheek i guess and giving it the name you guys call it . (also I put it in quotes)
My point is the reason that the totally unjustified , illegal rioting occured IS justified , unlike J6
i.e :
The protest (without the rioting) was a valid point: (police brutality)
the J6 "protest" was not a valid cause: (not liking the result of an election)
Even the “peaceful protesters” during Summer 2020 were NOT justified as their entire premise was based on a basket of lies an disinformation
I don’t condone the people on 1/6 who were breaking windows but the vast majority of the crowd was peaceful as per the hours of video footage that Pelosi hid from us for 2 years as they did have a valid point and we know now that the election was stolen. We didn’t know that on 1/6 but we do know now.