(Jan 14, 2021 09:35 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 14, 2021 09:04 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Should Trump be held responsible for the “insurrectionists” taking over the Capitol in riots? Trump told these people that he loved them and that the election was fraudulent - but is that rhetoric responsible for the rioters?
Yes...he bears some responsibility for the unrest of his devoted masses. He gives them something to be outraged about and to fight over--the lie that the election was rigged. It's not like all his rightwing fanatics aren't already pissed at the government for various reasons. Drain the swamp! Remember? He just adds one more reason for revolt, and that's enough to push them over the edge from protest to riot.
I think that Trump is reaping a bit of what he's sown, but the trouble I'm having with all of this MR, is why was it ''okay'' for violent protests to go on after the death of George Floyd, but it's not okay when riots fall under another social justice/political reason? My point being - violent riots should never be what anyone turns to in hopes of bringing about change. But, Democrats wouldn't help the innocent business owners when their shops were being burned down, and looted. Violence and chaos went on for months, but the Democrats didn't condemn that behavior. It just seems suspicious when the very same behavior that they're condemning now, they didn't condemn last year. I'm not saying ''all'' Democrats didn't condemn it, but the media portrayed all of the rioting as mainly peaceful protests. It was anything but.
"Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior as being inconsistent with the argument's conclusion(s). This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. It is used frequently, with "whataboutism" being one particularly well known instance of this fallacy. The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke's 1614 stage play The Cittie Gallant as the earliest use of the term in the English language."---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatabouti...20argument.
Well, I guess that answers my question.
Nice one MR. I was going to suggest that objecting to the behaviour of a state isn't really comparable with(to?) seizing control of a state.
(Jan 15, 2021 02:12 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]Nice one MR. I was going to suggest that objecting to the behaviour of a state isn't really comparable with(to?) seizing control of a state.
Ah, moron leading a moron. The only place where people seized control of anything was the CHOP/CHAZ, in Seattle, which included a police precinct and lasted about a month. The US Capitol breach only lasted 6 hours.
And MR doesn't understand what he cites...apparently fooling you. Whataboutism (tu quoque) is when something is justified by saying the other side did it too. No one here is saying that the Capitol breach was justified, hence no tu quoque. They are saying the left are baldfaced hypocrites for suddenly condemning what they excused and praised for months on end from leftist protesters.
Syne Wrote:Ah, moron leading a moron. The only place where people seized control of anything was the CHOP/CHAZ
You really haven't understood what "Stop the steal" is about.
I'm not sure why we (not ''we'' as on this forum, but ''we'' as in US society) can't find common ground with this discussion.
Here's something that's changing the landscape, though - liberals who are more moderate are being pulled into the radical left's ideas of ''social and political justice.'' I call it ''eating your own,'' but at the end of the day - we are heading towards a grim reality that only one voice will be heard. Twitter wants to shut down accounts from Republican groups, who aren't espousing anything radical, but there seems to be this knee-jerk reaction to assuming that all Republicans are advocating what happened at the Capitol, recently.
But, is it a knee-jerk reaction, or just drama and virtue signaling?
(Jan 15, 2021 09:37 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]Syne Wrote:Ah, moron leading a moron. The only place where people seized control of anything was the CHOP/CHAZ
You really haven't understood what "Stop the steal" is about.
No, you're an ignorant foreigner who doesn't understand. "Stop the steal" is about having real investigations and reforms to prosecute and stop voter fraud, not about breaking the law. Two wrongs don't make a right...and we have to keep reminding the immoral left.
(Jan 15, 2021 05:28 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure why we (not ''we'' as on this forum, but ''we'' as in US society) can't find common ground with this discussion.
Here's something that's changing the landscape, though - liberals who are more moderate are being pulled into the radical left's ideas of ''social and political justice.'' I call it ''eating your own,'' but at the end of the day - we are heading towards a grim reality that only one voice will be heard. Twitter wants to shut down accounts from Republican groups, who aren't espousing anything radical, but there seems to be this knee-jerk reaction to assuming that all Republicans are advocating what happened at the Capitol, recently.
But, is it a knee-jerk reaction, or just drama and virtue signaling?
It's just virtue-signalling and rhetoric that justifies their censorious nature. You can't find common ground with people who want to suppress your freedoms.
lol ^ I missed something. What text and who is the “fat slag?”
I’m confused. Lol ^
Anyway, what do ya’ll think Trump is doing in his last days in office? I’ve been reading that he may face legal problems when vacating the WH. The news will be so boring, soon. ^_^
DeNiro...and is the other actor from Fight Club?
Do you like this movie, Love?