You keep making remarks about me that aren't true Yes. Do you think that assaults against police should never be reported? Yes. Do you think that actions of rioters shouldnt be discussed? If not then stop bitching about me bringing up this one when there have been others brought up and you didn't bitch once I didnt bring them up in the same breath. I posted an article about Rand Paul and useful idiot decided to play a game of whataboutism, which was incredibly disingenuous. That comment about both came afterwards. Nice try dude, but no dice.
I believe that assaults against police should be reported and prosecuted. And they are, generally speaking. I believe the actions of rioters should be discussed. I think linking the actions of rioters to the actions of police brutality reads as attempt to create false equivalence between the two. I will take you at your word that you did not intend this. If in a thread about crime in general, Poster A is talking about shoplifting and then Poster B talks about murder, and Poster A says "I find it interesting that as soon as one side posts about shoplifting, the other side posts about murder. Both shoplifting and murder are bad and shouldn't happen," I think most people would raise an eyebrow about that.
Bullshit. The reason I said what I said was because I read about the cop getting punched in the face in the Rand Paul article. I related that point to the ongoing discussion about the protests over police misconduct, which is directly related to the Rand Paul situation. That's not whataboutism. That's a real concern about many people being more upset about a cop getting punched than a man getting killed by people ostensibly charged with serving and protecting citizens. Again, you may not be included in that group. It's still worth talking about. All of this isn't happening in a vacuum. If you just wanted to talk exclusively about cops getting hurt, a thread entitled 'Trouble in America" might not be the place.
T.R. said it. Shame on you. If T.R doesn't want his words misconstrued, he needs to be more clear in what he is saying.
He said absolutely nothing of the sort and was completely clear. Clear speech may seem confusing to (you) people who are looking for ulterior motives (you), but that's your problem.
I don't believe T. R. said (or even believes) that Paul's harassment is the same as Floyd's murder. Where did he say that?
I believe it was this post to which @garamet is referring: If so, he seems to be saying "yea, George Floyd was murdered. But, that was yesterday. TODAY, Rand Paul was questioned by protesters!!" Now, I'm certain, somewhere on Wordforge, @T.R has expressed his outrage at the murder of George Floyd. However, that's not what this post says. And, anyone who has posted on Wordforge in the last ... 15 years knows, it's not about what you said previously, it's what you said in this post. I can say "I have nothing against guns" all day long, but the minute I post about a school shooting, I'm accused of being a gun grabber. If you don't want to be treated one way, then don't treat others that way.
I see, but that post (IMHO) isn't indicating the two are the same, just that discussing the Floyd murder in relation to the Paul incident isn't what he thinks we should be doing. Which I don't agree with, obviously. And he's right that some people are just as outraged over what's happened since the Floyd murder as they were over the murder itself--if not more so. That's my whole point. People are just as outraged--or even more outraged--over a cop getting punched or a building getting burned down than a man getting murdered by a public servant. That's not okay. But TR hasn't really indicated his feelings on the subject--just that he wants to discuss the Rand incident completely independently of the issue of police misconduct/brutality.
Nothing wrong with that. However, as I've had to learn, it's always best to clarify statements on wordforge. If what garamet said is a misrepresentation of what he said, then he should have just backed it out, apologized, then restated his post in a manner that couldn't be misconstrued. Goddess knows, ... that's what I've been told since day 1 here. Not that I've done so. I can be pretty stubborn like that. But, then ..., I also don't cry because people take my statements out of context. Either ignore it, or correct it. But, don't cry about it.
You're an optimist, aren't you? @T.R 's taken a page from His Boy Donnie - say something, then when you get blowback, claim you never said it.
Then the problem is you thinking the thread is about just one issue. It isn't. I should know as I'm the one who started it . The title of the thread is "Trouble in America" not "Police brutality". Police brutality is just one part of the problem. We also have rioters destroying buildings, innocent police being targeted by thugs, idiots thinking they have the right to barricade streets with their bodies, angry motorists running them over, and innocent people being harassed by thugs because they refuse to join the cult. I know leftforge would love to close their world off and pretend that one side is always in the right, but it isn't. All those issues are a part of this thread. I'm not interested in comparing which is worse because its stupid and only a lame attempt to justify violence.
I made my feelings known about George Floyd on May 27 in this very thread. Go back to page one and scroll down. And no I'm not going to repeat myself. It's not my job to repeat my feelings on an incident four months later. I would have to do that every time I post something new that leftforge misconstrued and that would be a full time job with no pay or benefits. Forget it.
Disclaimer: I don't condone violence. I don't participate in violent acts. I'm practically Gandhi, but much more well-fed. But...why is some political violence acceptable while some is not? Not many Americans would dispute the justice of the cause fought for in the American Revolution. But the British weren't exactly the evil tyrant overlords they're often portrayed as. So...why is it bad for people to act violently against a system they feel disenfranchised by in 2020, but not in 1775?
Who said it was acceptable? And again with the comparisons. My feelings are this..violence against innocent people is wrong. Period. There is no justification for burning businesses, attacking innocent people in the street, attacking cops nor cops overstepping their authority in the "heat" of the moment. I've been very consistent about this.
Maybe @T.R should start a separate thread about Rand Paul. Or spend the rest of the day and probably half of tomorrow posting "I never said that!"
Relax, I'm not attacking your position. Just asking a general question: when is political violence acceptable? Is it ever acceptable?
Define political violence as harm caused to persons or property in support of or to effect political or social change, I guess. The parameters are broad; while there may be a specific target in mind, innocent collateral damage is bound to occur. Examples...the aforementioned beginning of the American Revolution...the French Revolution...the Paris Commune...the European unrest of 1848...the anarchist movement in the late 19th century US...the Russian Revolution...Weimar Germany in the early 30s...the Civil Rights movement and the riots in 1968...today's situation around BLM... All cut from the same cloth, or no? Dependent on each individual situation? Or does the righteousness of political violence depend on the perspective and political leanings of the observer? One thing's for sure, the victors write the history books.
Except that's not what we are seeing today. Innocent people ARE being targeted on purpose. The numerous non government buildings set on fire and non government people beaten up in the streets weren't accidents. Political change is what this is all about?What did the small business owner who lost everything have to do with george floyd? What did the innocent police officer who was gunned down just for wearing a uniform have to do with George floyd? What about people who can't get to work because a barricade of idiots are blocking the streets have to do with George floyd? Sorry, but I'm not buying the excuse that it's all justified. This is criminals being criminals. Nothing more.
No one's saying "it's all justified," numbnuts. If you could just post something once in a while without absolutes, you might be taken a little more seriously.
Who said it was all justified? In every single instance of political violence I cited above, innocent people were targeted and damage was done that had nothing to do with the overarching cause of the unrest. Do you think every American Patriot was an upstanding, principled revolutionary? That no poor French bastard couldn't get to work because someone was blocking the road? That's the unfortunate thing about violence--innocent collateral damage is unavoidable. There will always be those who take advantage of political unrest to commit wanton violence. So. Are you honestly saying that every single instance of violent unrest in the last few months has nothing to do with a political cause? That it's all criminals committing wanton acts of violence or property damage for the hell of it? 100 percent? Come on. You know better. Not agreeing with a cause does not make everyone associated with it a non-political criminal. You may not agree with their motivations, but there are some people out there committing 'political violence.' Again, you may not agree with their motivations, but you can't paint them all as common criminals. Otherwise you're no different than the British reacting to the Tea Party.
