Unit2Sucks said:
going4roses said:
Unarmed for the most part ? Are you serious?
Take the L.
He claims not to be defending it so just consider his few hundred word lecture to be an expository justification.
If you ignore the weapons, they were unarmed. He also wants you to ignore the fact that much of his justification is based on false narratives propagated by right wing media which the enablers and promoters used to foment the sort of crazed actors who perpetrated Jan 6.
BG blames bad people he doesn't agree with and ignores the bad people he tends to agree with. The reality is that Jan 6 happened because the Big Lie and the right wing echo chamber radicalized a bunch of radical whitist morons. Not because protests against police brutality happened last summer. You have to be pretty dense to ignore the actual predicate to Jan 6 in order to invent a reason to blame people who BG and other conservatives disagree with. But here we are.
How many people were shot by the Jan 6 protestors? The only gunfire was from the capital police. Was the capital taken by force with weapons brandished? It was not. It was overrun by a mob. A mob far lest geared up than a typical antifa "protestor."
There you go again - mischaracterizing what I actually said and then creating false dichotomies. Everything is either or with you. No consideration on your part that events can have more than one contributing cause.
I specifically said the Jan 6 mob was not justified. Twice. My comments were directed at explaining why people felt their actions were in any way acceptable - not as a justification but an explanation. It is no different than looking at any other crime and asking why the person did what they did. There were plenty of people explaining why progressive protestors resorted to violence/property damage last year. How is that different. An explanation is not a justification or excuse.
The highlighted statement are just absurd. Where did I ignore or excuse the Jan 6 protestors (who as a technical matter, I don't agree with)? I specifically condemn the Jan 6 protestors and stated they were WORSE than the other events/protestors I also found objectionable. In what world is that ignoring? In what world is that a justification for Jan 6? Only in your bizarre world - your personal echo chamber.
And to your false dichotomy, you suggest that the "Big Lie" and an echo chamber radicalized people. Maybe so. Lots of people have radical ideas. Most don't act on them. So we're back to asking why in this case they did. And part of the reason (I never said the entire reason) is what happened with the BLM protests and other events, where the left engaged in similar tactics. Clearly there were other contributing causes, including what you refer to as the big lie.
Why do you assume, without evidence, that I disagree with the cause that BLM was protesting (in fact I don't). What I do disagree with - on both sides - is political violence. And my central point is that political violence leads to more and worse violence. Hence my calling Jan 6 an escalation (i.e., worse).
While you're on your high horse, I'm going to ask you to join me in condemning all political violence, including the property damage caused by rioters and antifa in places like Minnesota, Portland and Seattle. Do you condemn those people and their tactics unconditionally even if you are perhaps sympathetic to their cause?
Yes or no. I'll wait.