Unit2Sucks said:

---

It's sad how many people in this country think this is okay.

---

SPOILER ALERT: ^^^not a response to the terrorizing of cities for a week but to DJT rhetoric.

> Outrage? Outrage? Outrage?

snip from an oscar winning biker flick, Breaking Away, seen ~1980 in the Albany Cinema on Solano.

grreat script / lines, or maybe you just had to be there..
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078902/quotes

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

---

No one said it was a good thing, you made that up. Sadly, Baghdad's Iraq Museum was looted with many artifacts lost forever. Much of this looting occurred before U.S. troops arrived.


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/looting-iraq-16813540/

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

---

No one said it was a good thing, you made that up.

---

I dunno, when I said roughly the same thing Rumsfeld said there a bunch of people here told me I was defending looting. So I guess he was too.

Antifa is not behind the rioting:
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/antifa-trump-fbi/tnamp/?__twitter_impression=true

chazzed said:

---

Antifa is not behind the rioting:
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/antifa-trump-fbi/tnamp/?__twitter_impression=true

---

Wasn't their finding just limited to DC? I think most people were noting that the protest in DC were mostly peaceful.

chazzed said:

---

Antifa is not behind the rioting:
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/antifa-trump-fbi/tnamp/?__twitter_impression=true

---

That's good news if true. So we can eliminate those crazy leftists and focus on the rest of the crazies.

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

We need to hold our past leaders accountable for institutional racism. This starts with the president and Attorney General.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

---

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

---

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?

---

sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.

And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

Should the government make it a requirement for the President to eternally appoint a black Attorney General in order to help fight institutional racism in this country? God knows it didn't help last time or does institutional racism really exist?

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

---

Apparently it's very difficult.

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

---

Apparently it's very difficult.

---

Apparently, what's difficult is going on vacation with your family

BearForce2 said:

---

chazzed said:

---

Antifa is not behind the rioting:
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/antifa-trump-fbi/tnamp/?__twitter_impression=true

---

That's good news if true. So we can eliminate those crazy leftists and focus on the rest of the crazies.

---

The looting obviously has nothing to do with America. I mean it's never happened before.

China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela and American Samoa are the obvious actors, tearing down all the racial harmony we've built together. It will all be in Bearlyamazing's report.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

---

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?

---

sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.

And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

---

I agree that we have had some non-hostile discussions. I have also had a few reasoned discussions with sycasey where I thought he was being reasonable. This is not one of them.

I also understand you think I am being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse, but I also feel the same about your post. And I also think you lack a bit of empathy yourself.

And here is why.

• Who here has said anything in the past about supporting Rumsfeld's stance on looting? But just because some Republican said something over a decade ago about looting in Iraq after a war, that somehow shows the Republicans here supported looting? Because Rumsfeld said something about Iraq in support of looting in Iraq and because we are not willing to have empathy for looter in our neighborhoods or even think that destroying local businesses is related to Floyd, we are hypocrites? May I then point to all of the stupid things that the mayor of New York has said and then claim that people here are hypocrite irrespective of whether they supported what the mayor said?
• Why is there such need to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes overreact. Would that be acceptable to you in response to Floyd and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?
• And comparing the black community with Kurds and Shiite Muslims in Iraq when Saddam was in charge is just ridiculous and an unneeded hyperbole. When did we use chemical weapons to wipe out a neighborhood? When did we pick up random members solely for the purposes of torturing?

I think I am done with this conversation. I don't have any regard for the arguments you or sycasey are making on this topic, and clearly you do not as well. We will not reach an understanding here and will only result in turf wars that won't help anyone.

BearForce2 said:

---

chazzed said:

---

Antifa is not behind the rioting:
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/antifa-trump-fbi/tnamp/?__twitter_impression=true

---

That's good news if true. So we can eliminate those crazy leftists and focus on the rest of the crazies.

---

Well, apparently, Antifa is not even a real thing, right?

BearForce2 said:

---

Should the government make it a requirement for the President to eternally appoint a black Attorney General in order to help fight institutional racism in this country? God knows it didn't help last time or does institutional racism really exist?

---

I'd settle for a candidate for POTUS having to pass a 6th grade vocabulary, spelling and civics test.

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

---

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?

---

sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.

And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

---

I agree that we have had some non-hostile discussions. I have also had a few reasoned discussions with sycasey where I thought he was being reasonable. This is not one of them.

I also understand you think I am being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse, but I also feel the same about your post. And I also think you lack a bit of empathy yourself.

And here is why.

• Who here has said anything in the past about supporting Rumsfeld's stance on looting? But just because some Republican said something over a decade ago about looting in Iraq after a war, that somehow shows the Republicans here supported looting? Because Rumsfeld something about Iraq and because we are not willing to have empathy for looter or even think that destroying local businesses is related to Floyd, we are hypocrites? May I thenI point to all of the stupid things that the mayor of New York has said and claim that people here are hypocrite irrespective of whether they supported what the mayor said?
• What is there to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes over react. Would that be acceptable to you and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?
• And comparing the black community with Kurds and Shiite Muslims in Iraq when Saddam was in charge is just ridiculous and an unneeded hyperbole. When did we use chemical weapons to wipe out a neighborhood? When did we pick up random members solely for the purposes of torturing?

I think I am done with this conversation. I don't have any regard for the arguments you or sycasey are making on this topic, and clearly you do not as well. We will not reach an understanding here and will only result in turf wars that won't help anyone.

---

1. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.

2. sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.

3. As for the looters, I think most of them are pure asshats either out to steal or destroy things for fun. I also think they are a small percentage of protesters using the protests as cover and that others are smearing all the protesters with the actions of looters. I also think that yes there are people who are just fed up and can't take it anymore and they loot and destroy.

4. I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

---

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?

---

sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.

And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

---

I agree that we have had some non-hostile discussions. I have also had a few reasoned discussions with sycasey where I thought he was being reasonable. This is not one of them.

I also understand you think I am being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse, but I also feel the same about your post. And I also think you lack a bit of empathy yourself.

And here is why.

• Who here has said anything in the past about supporting Rumsfeld's stance on looting? But just because some Republican said something over a decade ago about looting in Iraq after a war, that somehow shows the Republicans here supported looting? Because Rumsfeld something about Iraq and because we are not willing to have empathy for looter or even think that destroying local businesses is related to Floyd, we are hypocrites? May I thenI point to all of the stupid things that the mayor of New York has said and claim that people here are hypocrite irrespective of whether they supported what the mayor said?
• What is there to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes over react. Would that be acceptable to you and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?
• And comparing the black community with Kurds and Shiite Muslims in Iraq when Saddam was in charge is just ridiculous and an unneeded hyperbole. When did we use chemical weapons to wipe out a neighborhood? When did we pick up random members solely for the purposes of torturing?

I think I am done with this conversation. I don't have any regard for the arguments you or sycasey are making on this topic, and clearly you do not as well. We will not reach an understanding here and will only result in turf wars that won't help anyone.

---

---

1. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?

2. sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.

Again, you are going off on a tangent. Why does what Rumsfeld say matter to us or show hypocrisy for those posting here? I don't even remember Rumsfeld saying what he said. How could I be faulted for not accusing him of supporting looting when I was not even aware of that statement he made? Do I need to remind people that both Clinton and Obama were originally against gay marriages? I don't recall people here calling them bigots. Does that mean people here can no longer support gay marriages? In order for me to think showing understanding to looters is excusing looters, I have to look up every possible statement any Republican has ever made and then pretext my objection by saying I also object to each of those prior statements made by any Republicans, including comments made in a completely unrelated context? Does that mean that mayor of New York saying shutting down the city is crazy and that people need to go to local restaurants right before the SIP means all of the liberals here supported that stance and now are hypocrites for as recently as last month accusing Republican governors of being indifferent to science and not caring about death?


3. As for the looters, I think most of them are pure asshats either out to steal or destroy things for fun. I also think they are a small percentage of protesters using the protests as cover and that others are smearing all the protesters with the actions of looters. I also think that yes there are people who are just fed up and can't take it anymore and they loot and destroy.

I don't care how much good reason anyone has to be angry, I will not excuse or try to understand and mitigate my disdain for those who cause great harm. I don't care if a police officer saw his closest partners killed by criminals who happened to be black, I would not try to understand him for police brutality resulting form his anger for past wrongs. I don't care if a school shooter was bullied for 10 years and felt he had nothing to lose and wanted to shoot up his classmates. I don't give a ***** I don't need to excuse evil by saying they were part of this world that is evil. You showing empathy for looters and those shooting cops in the back the head makes me feel the same way about you as you would for someone who tried to justify why we must be understanding to those cops who killed Floyd. You wouldn't think those people are compassionate.

4. I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.

First of all, YOU are the one who was comparing the plight of the black community with Iraq. All I said was that Rumsfeld's statement was made in the context of a transition from a dictatorship, and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship. You ran with that to compare the plight of Iraqis and the plight of the black community. Please show me where I stated in my original post comparing the black community with Iraqis. Saying we are not transitioning form a dictatorship means I don't empathize with the black community? What!?! I never compared the black community with Iraqis in my original response to sycasey. YOU DID THAT, and now you say I am showing lack of empathy for dismissing the the black community's suffering? That is dishonest and beneath you. My point was that the quote from Rumsfeld (and quite honestly I was learning about that statement for the first time reading what sycasey linked) was that looting may be the first step in transitioning from a dictatorship to a democracy. YOU ARE THE FIRST ONE TO PUT BLACK COMMUNITY AND KURDS ON SOME SUFFERING SCALE. It was ONLY in response to your comment that Kurds and Shiites did not suffer under Saddam as much as the black community is suffering that I reminded you no one in our government has launched a chemical weapon to wipe out a black neighborhood.

calbear93 said:

---

Well, apparently, Antifa is not even a real thing, right?

---

nationally, apparently not, for legal defense purposes / deniability. but you know all this, shirley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

Quote:

---

Movement structure

Antifa is not a unified organization but rather a movement without a hierarchical leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals. The movement is loosely affiliated;it has no chain of command, with antifa groups instead sharing "resources and information about far-right activity across regional and national borders through loosely knit networks and informal relationships of trust and solidarity". Activists typically organize protests via social media and through websites. Some activists have built peer-to-peer networks, or use encrypted-texting services like Signal. Chauncey Devega of Salon described antifa as an organizing strategy, not a group of people The antifa movement has grown since the 2016 United States presidential election. As of August 2017, approximately 200 groups existed, of varying sizes and levels of activity.

---

smh said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Well, apparently, Antifa is not even a real thing, right?

---

nationally, apparently not, for legal defense purposes / deniability. but you know all this, shirley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

Quote:

---

Movement structure

Antifa is not a unified organization but rather a movement without a hierarchical leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals. The movement is loosely affiliated;it has no chain of command, with antifa groups instead sharing "resources and information about far-right activity across regional and national borders through loosely knit networks and informal relationships of trust and solidarity". Activists typically organize protests via social media and through websites. Some activists have built peer-to-peer networks, or use encrypted-texting services like Signal. Chauncey Devega of Salon described antifa as an organizing strategy, not a group of people The antifa movement has grown since the 2016 United States presidential election. As of August 2017, approximately 200 groups existed, of varying sizes and levels of activity.

---

---

So they are a real thing, but, since they are anarchists, they don't have good governance and structure? Whatever. Someone should put some mustard on you.

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

---

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?

---

sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.

And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

---

I agree that we have had some non-hostile discussions. I have also had a few reasoned discussions with sycasey where I thought he was being reasonable. This is not one of them.

I also understand you think I am being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse, but I also feel the same about your post. And I also think you lack a bit of empathy yourself.

And here is why.

• Who here has said anything in the past about supporting Rumsfeld's stance on looting? But just because some Republican said something over a decade ago about looting in Iraq after a war, that somehow shows the Republicans here supported looting? Because Rumsfeld something about Iraq and because we are not willing to have empathy for looter or even think that destroying local businesses is related to Floyd, we are hypocrites? May I thenI point to all of the stupid things that the mayor of New York has said and claim that people here are hypocrite irrespective of whether they supported what the mayor said?
• What is there to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes over react. Would that be acceptable to you and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?
• And comparing the black community with Kurds and Shiite Muslims in Iraq when Saddam was in charge is just ridiculous and an unneeded hyperbole. When did we use chemical weapons to wipe out a neighborhood? When did we pick up random members solely for the purposes of torturing?

I think I am done with this conversation. I don't have any regard for the arguments you or sycasey are making on this topic, and clearly you do not as well. We will not reach an understanding here and will only result in turf wars that won't help anyone.

---

---

1. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?

2. sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.

Again, you are going off on a tangent. Why does what Rumsfeld say matter to us or show hypocrisy for those posting here? I don't even remember Rumsfeld saying what he said. How could I be faulted for not accusing him of supporting looting when I was not even aware of that statement he made? Do I need to remind people that both Clinton and Obama were originally against gay marriages? I don't recall people here calling them bigots. Does that mean people here can no longer support gay marriages? In order for me to think showing understanding to looters is excusing looters, I have to look up every possible statement any Republican has ever made and then pretext my objection by saying I also object to each of those prior statements made by any Republicans, including comments made in a completely unrelated context? Does that mean that mayor of New York saying shutting down the city is crazy and that people need to go to local restaurants right before the SIP means all of the liberals here supported that stance and now are hypocrites for as recently as last month accusing Republican governors of being indifferent to science and not caring about death?


3. As for the looters, I think most of them are pure asshats either out to steal or destroy things for fun. I also think they are a small percentage of protesters using the protests as cover and that others are smearing all the protesters with the actions of looters. I also think that yes there are people who are just fed up and can't take it anymore and they loot and destroy.

I don't care how much good reason anyone has to be angry, I will not excuse or try to understand and mitigate my disdain for those who cause great harm. I don't care if a police officer saw his closest partners killed by criminals who happened to be black, I would not try to understand him for police brutality resulting form his anger for past wrongs. I don't care if a school shooter was bullied for 10 years and felt he had nothing to lose and wanted to shoot up his classmates. I don't give a ***** I don't need to excuse evil by saying they were part of this world that is evil. You showing empathy for looters and those shooting cops in the back the head makes me feel the same way about you as you would for someone who tried to justify why we must be understanding to those cops who killed Floyd. You wouldn't think those people are compassionate.

4. I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.

First of all, YOU are the one who was comparing the plight of the black community with Iraq. All I said was that Rumsfeld's statement was made in the context of a transition from a dictatorship, and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship. You ran with that to compare the plight of Iraqis and the plight of the black community. Please show me where I stated in my original post comparing the black community with Iraqis. Saying we are not transitioning form a dictatorship means I don't empathize with the black community? What!?! I never compared the black community with Iraqis in my original response to sycasey. YOU DID THAT, and now you say I am showing lack of empathy for dismissing the the black community's suffering? That is dishonest and beneath you. My point was that the quote from Rumsfeld (and quite honestly I was learning about that statement for the first time reading what sycasey linked) was that looting may be the first step in transitioning from a dictatorship to a democracy. YOU ARE THE FIRST ONE TO PUT BLACK COMMUNITY AND KURDS ON SOME SUFFERING SCALE. It was ONLY in response to your comment that Kurds and Shiites did not suffer under Saddam as much as the black community is suffering that I reminded you no one in our government has launched a chemical weapon to wipe out a black neighborhood.

---

C'mon man. You are just being ridiculous now.

sycasey drew a parallel between his comments about looters at BLM protests and Rumsfeld comments about looters in Iraq. As you say "All I said was that Rumsfeld's statement was made in the context of a transition from a dictatorship, and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship." That is a straight comparison between the plight of Iraqi protesters and the plight of African American protesters so you can distinguish Rumsefeld's comments as being more justified than sycasey's. There is no other way to interpret that than the behavior of Iraqi's is more justified based on their circumstances. There is absolutely no relevance that Iraqis were in a dictatorship otherwise.

So I read this post as "I never compared African Americans and Iraqi's. You did that. All I did was compare African Americans and Iraqi's. But I never compared African Americans and Iraqi's."

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

---

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?

---

sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.

And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

---

I agree that we have had some non-hostile discussions. I have also had a few reasoned discussions with sycasey where I thought he was being reasonable. This is not one of them.

I also understand you think I am being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse, but I also feel the same about your post. And I also think you lack a bit of empathy yourself.

And here is why.

• Who here has said anything in the past about supporting Rumsfeld's stance on looting? But just because some Republican said something over a decade ago about looting in Iraq after a war, that somehow shows the Republicans here supported looting? Because Rumsfeld something about Iraq and because we are not willing to have empathy for looter or even think that destroying local businesses is related to Floyd, we are hypocrites? May I thenI point to all of the stupid things that the mayor of New York has said and claim that people here are hypocrite irrespective of whether they supported what the mayor said?
• What is there to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes over react. Would that be acceptable to you and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?
• And comparing the black community with Kurds and Shiite Muslims in Iraq when Saddam was in charge is just ridiculous and an unneeded hyperbole. When did we use chemical weapons to wipe out a neighborhood? When did we pick up random members solely for the purposes of torturing?

I think I am done with this conversation. I don't have any regard for the arguments you or sycasey are making on this topic, and clearly you do not as well. We will not reach an understanding here and will only result in turf wars that won't help anyone.

---

---

1. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?

2. sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.

Again, you are going off on a tangent. Why does what Rumsfeld say matter to us or show hypocrisy for those posting here? I don't even remember Rumsfeld saying what he said. How could I be faulted for not accusing him of supporting looting when I was not even aware of that statement he made? Do I need to remind people that both Clinton and Obama were originally against gay marriages? I don't recall people here calling them bigots. Does that mean people here can no longer support gay marriages? In order for me to think showing understanding to looters is excusing looters, I have to look up every possible statement any Republican has ever made and then pretext my objection by saying I also object to each of those prior statements made by any Republicans, including comments made in a completely unrelated context? Does that mean that mayor of New York saying shutting down the city is crazy and that people need to go to local restaurants right before the SIP means all of the liberals here supported that stance and now are hypocrites for as recently as last month accusing Republican governors of being indifferent to science and not caring about death?


3. As for the looters, I think most of them are pure asshats either out to steal or destroy things for fun. I also think they are a small percentage of protesters using the protests as cover and that others are smearing all the protesters with the actions of looters. I also think that yes there are people who are just fed up and can't take it anymore and they loot and destroy.

I don't care how much good reason anyone has to be angry, I will not excuse or try to understand and mitigate my disdain for those who cause great harm. I don't care if a police officer saw his closest partners killed by criminals who happened to be black, I would not try to understand him for police brutality resulting form his anger for past wrongs. I don't care if a school shooter was bullied for 10 years and felt he had nothing to lose and wanted to shoot up his classmates. I don't give a ***** I don't need to excuse evil by saying they were part of this world that is evil. You showing empathy for looters and those shooting cops in the back the head makes me feel the same way about you as you would for someone who tried to justify why we must be understanding to those cops who killed Floyd. You wouldn't think those people are compassionate.

4. I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.

First of all, YOU are the one who was comparing the plight of the black community with Iraq. All I said was that Rumsfeld's statement was made in the context of a transition from a dictatorship, and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship. You ran with that to compare the plight of Iraqis and the plight of the black community. Please show me where I stated in my original post comparing the black community with Iraqis. Saying we are not transitioning form a dictatorship means I don't empathize with the black community? What!?! I never compared the black community with Iraqis in my original response to sycasey. YOU DID THAT, and now you say I am showing lack of empathy for dismissing the the black community's suffering? That is dishonest and beneath you. My point was that the quote from Rumsfeld (and quite honestly I was learning about that statement for the first time reading what sycasey linked) was that looting may be the first step in transitioning from a dictatorship to a democracy. YOU ARE THE FIRST ONE TO PUT BLACK COMMUNITY AND KURDS ON SOME SUFFERING SCALE. It was ONLY in response to your comment that Kurds and Shiites did not suffer under Saddam as much as the black community is suffering that I reminded you no one in our government has launched a chemical weapon to wipe out a black neighborhood.

---

C'mon man. You are just being ridiculous now.

sycasey drew a parallel between his comments about looters at BLM protests and Rumsfeld comments about looters in Iraq. As you say "All I said was that Rumsfeld's statement was made in the context of a transition from a dictatorship, and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship." That is a straight comparison between the plight of Iraqi protesters and the plight of African American protesters so you can distinguish Rumsefeld's comments as being more justified than sycasey's. There is no other way to interpret that than the behavior of Iraqi's is more justified based on their circumstances. There is absolutely no relevance that Iraqis were in a dictatorship otherwise.

So I read this post as "I never compared African Americans and Iraqi's. You did that. All I did was compare African Americans and Iraqi's. But I never compared African Americans and Iraqi's."

---

Whatever. You have lost it. You are being beyond ridiculous. Now I see that you will make any argument, make any false connection or make any false inference. and make any claim to avoid admitting you are wrong. Now I look back, you have never really try to see any counter argument and all you do is accuse others of not listening when you refuse to listen. I've had enough of this. I can write the same thing plainly 10 million times and you will read only what you want to read and avoid the clear reading to instead draw false inferences. You and I are done.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

---

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?

---

sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.

And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

---

I agree that we have had some non-hostile discussions. I have also had a few reasoned discussions with sycasey where I thought he was being reasonable. This is not one of them.

I also understand you think I am being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse, but I also feel the same about your post. And I also think you lack a bit of empathy yourself.

And here is why.

• Who here has said anything in the past about supporting Rumsfeld's stance on looting? But just because some Republican said something over a decade ago about looting in Iraq after a war, that somehow shows the Republicans here supported looting? Because Rumsfeld something about Iraq and because we are not willing to have empathy for looter or even think that destroying local businesses is related to Floyd, we are hypocrites? May I thenI point to all of the stupid things that the mayor of New York has said and claim that people here are hypocrite irrespective of whether they supported what the mayor said?
• What is there to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes over react. Would that be acceptable to you and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?
• And comparing the black community with Kurds and Shiite Muslims in Iraq when Saddam was in charge is just ridiculous and an unneeded hyperbole. When did we use chemical weapons to wipe out a neighborhood? When did we pick up random members solely for the purposes of torturing?

I think I am done with this conversation. I don't have any regard for the arguments you or sycasey are making on this topic, and clearly you do not as well. We will not reach an understanding here and will only result in turf wars that won't help anyone.

---

---

1. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?

2. sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.

Again, you are going off on a tangent. Why does what Rumsfeld say matter to us or show hypocrisy for those posting here? I don't even remember Rumsfeld saying what he said. How could I be faulted for not accusing him of supporting looting when I was not even aware of that statement he made? Do I need to remind people that both Clinton and Obama were originally against gay marriages? I don't recall people here calling them bigots. Does that mean people here can no longer support gay marriages? In order for me to think showing understanding to looters is excusing looters, I have to look up every possible statement any Republican has ever made and then pretext my objection by saying I also object to each of those prior statements made by any Republicans, including comments made in a completely unrelated context? Does that mean that mayor of New York saying shutting down the city is crazy and that people need to go to local restaurants right before the SIP means all of the liberals here supported that stance and now are hypocrites for as recently as last month accusing Republican governors of being indifferent to science and not caring about death?


3. As for the looters, I think most of them are pure asshats either out to steal or destroy things for fun. I also think they are a small percentage of protesters using the protests as cover and that others are smearing all the protesters with the actions of looters. I also think that yes there are people who are just fed up and can't take it anymore and they loot and destroy.

I don't care how much good reason anyone has to be angry, I will not excuse or try to understand and mitigate my disdain for those who cause great harm. I don't care if a police officer saw his closest partners killed by criminals who happened to be black, I would not try to understand him for police brutality resulting form his anger for past wrongs. I don't care if a school shooter was bullied for 10 years and felt he had nothing to lose and wanted to shoot up his classmates. I don't give a ***** I don't need to excuse evil by saying they were part of this world that is evil. You showing empathy for looters and those shooting cops in the back the head makes me feel the same way about you as you would for someone who tried to justify why we must be understanding to those cops who killed Floyd. You wouldn't think those people are compassionate.

4. I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.

First of all, YOU are the one who was comparing the plight of the black community with Iraq. All I said was that Rumsfeld's statement was made in the context of a transition from a dictatorship, and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship. You ran with that to compare the plight of Iraqis and the plight of the black community. Please show me where I stated in my original post comparing the black community with Iraqis. Saying we are not transitioning form a dictatorship means I don't empathize with the black community? What!?! I never compared the black community with Iraqis in my original response to sycasey. YOU DID THAT, and now you say I am showing lack of empathy for dismissing the the black community's suffering? That is dishonest and beneath you. My point was that the quote from Rumsfeld (and quite honestly I was learning about that statement for the first time reading what sycasey linked) was that looting may be the first step in transitioning from a dictatorship to a democracy. YOU ARE THE FIRST ONE TO PUT BLACK COMMUNITY AND KURDS ON SOME SUFFERING SCALE. It was ONLY in response to your comment that Kurds and Shiites did not suffer under Saddam as much as the black community is suffering that I reminded you no one in our government has launched a chemical weapon to wipe out a black neighborhood.

---

C'mon man. You are just being ridiculous now.

sycasey drew a parallel between his comments about looters at BLM protests and Rumsfeld comments about looters in Iraq. As you say "All I said was that Rumsfeld's statement was made in the context of a transition from a dictatorship, and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship." That is a straight comparison between the plight of Iraqi protesters and the plight of African American protesters so you can distinguish Rumsefeld's comments as being more justified than sycasey's. There is no other way to interpret that than the behavior of Iraqi's is more justified based on their circumstances. There is absolutely no relevance that Iraqis were in a dictatorship otherwise.

So I read this post as "I never compared African Americans and Iraqi's. You did that. All I did was compare African Americans and Iraqi's. But I never compared African Americans and Iraqi's."

---

Okay, so you massively edited while I was typing so there is a lot more to respond to.

1. So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!!

2. First of all, this argument might have had some merit, but it doesn't now that you read Rumsfeld statement and then made arguments to distinguish it. Second of all, the point isn't that Rumsfeld is a Republican and made a statement. The point is that his statement was noncontroversial, and no one at the time, including Republicans thought that it was. Because the statement IS NONCONTROVERSIAL. Those of us supporting the (NON-LOOTING!!!!!!) portion of the protests know exactly what the conservatives are doing here. Tying peaceful protesters and those that support them to those that do violence as a means to smear them because quite frankly even if they acknowledge what happened to Floyd is wrong they want to protect the general practices of police that are the subject off the protests by smearing the protesters.

3. I get it. I disagree. The hate u give little infants f's everybody.

OaktownBear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

---

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?

---

sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.

And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

---

I agree that we have had some non-hostile discussions. I have also had a few reasoned discussions with sycasey where I thought he was being reasonable. This is not one of them.

I also understand you think I am being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse, but I also feel the same about your post. And I also think you lack a bit of empathy yourself.

And here is why.

• Who here has said anything in the past about supporting Rumsfeld's stance on looting? But just because some Republican said something over a decade ago about looting in Iraq after a war, that somehow shows the Republicans here supported looting? Because Rumsfeld something about Iraq and because we are not willing to have empathy for looter or even think that destroying local businesses is related to Floyd, we are hypocrites? May I thenI point to all of the stupid things that the mayor of New York has said and claim that people here are hypocrite irrespective of whether they supported what the mayor said?
• What is there to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes over react. Would that be acceptable to you and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?
• And comparing the black community with Kurds and Shiite Muslims in Iraq when Saddam was in charge is just ridiculous and an unneeded hyperbole. When did we use chemical weapons to wipe out a neighborhood? When did we pick up random members solely for the purposes of torturing?

I think I am done with this conversation. I don't have any regard for the arguments you or sycasey are making on this topic, and clearly you do not as well. We will not reach an understanding here and will only result in turf wars that won't help anyone.

---

---

1. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?

2. sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.

Again, you are going off on a tangent. Why does what Rumsfeld say matter to us or show hypocrisy for those posting here? I don't even remember Rumsfeld saying what he said. How could I be faulted for not accusing him of supporting looting when I was not even aware of that statement he made? Do I need to remind people that both Clinton and Obama were originally against gay marriages? I don't recall people here calling them bigots. Does that mean people here can no longer support gay marriages? In order for me to think showing understanding to looters is excusing looters, I have to look up every possible statement any Republican has ever made and then pretext my objection by saying I also object to each of those prior statements made by any Republicans, including comments made in a completely unrelated context? Does that mean that mayor of New York saying shutting down the city is crazy and that people need to go to local restaurants right before the SIP means all of the liberals here supported that stance and now are hypocrites for as recently as last month accusing Republican governors of being indifferent to science and not caring about death?


3. As for the looters, I think most of them are pure asshats either out to steal or destroy things for fun. I also think they are a small percentage of protesters using the protests as cover and that others are smearing all the protesters with the actions of looters. I also think that yes there are people who are just fed up and can't take it anymore and they loot and destroy.

I don't care how much good reason anyone has to be angry, I will not excuse or try to understand and mitigate my disdain for those who cause great harm. I don't care if a police officer saw his closest partners killed by criminals who happened to be black, I would not try to understand him for police brutality resulting form his anger for past wrongs. I don't care if a school shooter was bullied for 10 years and felt he had nothing to lose and wanted to shoot up his classmates. I don't give a ***** I don't need to excuse evil by saying they were part of this world that is evil. You showing empathy for looters and those shooting cops in the back the head makes me feel the same way about you as you would for someone who tried to justify why we must be understanding to those cops who killed Floyd. You wouldn't think those people are compassionate.

4. I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.

First of all, YOU are the one who was comparing the plight of the black community with Iraq. All I said was that Rumsfeld's statement was made in the context of a transition from a dictatorship, and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship. You ran with that to compare the plight of Iraqis and the plight of the black community. Please show me where I stated in my original post comparing the black community with Iraqis. Saying we are not transitioning form a dictatorship means I don't empathize with the black community? What!?! I never compared the black community with Iraqis in my original response to sycasey. YOU DID THAT, and now you say I am showing lack of empathy for dismissing the the black community's suffering? That is dishonest and beneath you. My point was that the quote from Rumsfeld (and quite honestly I was learning about that statement for the first time reading what sycasey linked) was that looting may be the first step in transitioning from a dictatorship to a democracy. YOU ARE THE FIRST ONE TO PUT BLACK COMMUNITY AND KURDS ON SOME SUFFERING SCALE. It was ONLY in response to your comment that Kurds and Shiites did not suffer under Saddam as much as the black community is suffering that I reminded you no one in our government has launched a chemical weapon to wipe out a black neighborhood.

---

C'mon man. You are just being ridiculous now.

sycasey drew a parallel between his comments about looters at BLM protests and Rumsfeld comments about looters in Iraq. As you say "All I said was that Rumsfeld's statement was made in the context of a transition from a dictatorship, and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship." That is a straight comparison between the plight of Iraqi protesters and the plight of African American protesters so you can distinguish Rumsefeld's comments as being more justified than sycasey's. There is no other way to interpret that than the behavior of Iraqi's is more justified based on their circumstances. There is absolutely no relevance that Iraqis were in a dictatorship otherwise.

So I read this post as "I never compared African Americans and Iraqi's. You did that. All I did was compare African Americans and Iraqi's. But I never compared African Americans and Iraqi's."

---

Okay, so you massively edited while I was typing so there is a lot more to respond to.

1. So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!!

2. First of all, this argument might have had some merit, but it doesn't now that you read Rumsfeld statement and then made arguments to distinguish it. Second of all, the point isn't that Rumsfeld is a Republican and made a statement. The point is that his statement was noncontroversial, and no one at the time, including Republicans thought that it was. Because the statement IS NONCONTROVERSIAL. Those of us supporting the (NON-LOOTING!!!!!!) portion of the protests know exactly what the conservatives are doing here. Tying peaceful protesters and those that support them to those that do violence as a means to smear them because quite frankly even if they acknowledge what happened to Floyd is wrong they want to protect the general practices of police that are the subject off the protests by smearing the protesters.

3. I get it. I disagree. The hate u give little infants f's everybody.

---

You are showing your true colors.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?

And your false assumption that me stating that something Rumsfeld said long time ago in the context of a transition from a dictatorship is not applicable means I am comparing Iraqi's suffering to black community's suffering is beyond ridiculous. Go back and read what you and sycasey wrote. We are hypocrites for calling out those who excuse looters since we did not criticize Rumsfeld. Again I had no idea Rumsfeld even said that, and I definitely never said that I agree with him. Why am I a hypocrite because Rumsfeld said something about looting in the context of a transition from a dictatorship?

And how does that make me indifferent to the black community or how does that even mean I am comparing Iraqis to the black community? It's like me saying that by bringing up something relating to Middle East from Rumsfeld means you and sycasey are showing indifference to what happened in Syria. Beyond stupid.

And please don't delude yourself into thinking your heart is not full of hate.

OaktownBear said:

---

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

---

No, looting, for any reason, is a malevolent pathology. To "understand" it is to rationalize it, regardless of whether you condone it or not.

But we'll be sure to save this and the many other logically challenged posts as a reminder when the circumstances lead you to take a non understanding position

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Okay, so you massively edited while I was typing so there is a lot more to respond to.

1. So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!!

2. First of all, this argument might have had some merit, but it doesn't now that you read Rumsfeld statement and then made arguments to distinguish it. Second of all, the point isn't that Rumsfeld is a Republican and made a statement. The point is that his statement was noncontroversial, and no one at the time, including Republicans thought that it was. Because the statement IS NONCONTROVERSIAL. Those of us supporting the (NON-LOOTING!!!!!!) portion of the protests know exactly what the conservatives are doing here. Tying peaceful protesters and those that support them to those that do violence as a means to smear them because quite frankly even if they acknowledge what happened to Floyd is wrong they want to protect the general practices of police that are the subject off the protests by smearing the protesters.

3. I get it. I disagree. The hate u give little infants f's everybody.

---

You are showing your true colors.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?

And your false assumption that me stating that something Rumsfeld said long time ago in the context of a transition from a dictatorship is not applicable means I am comparing Iraqi's suffering to black community's suffering is beyond ridiculous. Go back and read what you and sycasey wrote. We are hypocrites for calling out those who excuse looters since we did not criticize Rumsfeld. Again I had no idea Rumsfeld even said that, and I definitely never said that I agree with him. Why am I a hypocrite because Rumsfeld said something about looting in the context of a transition from a dictatorship?

And how does that make me indifferent to the black community or how does that even mean I am comparing Iraqis to the black community? It's like me saying that by bringing up something relating to Middle East from Rumsfeld means you and sycasey are showing indifference to what happened in Syria. Beyond stupid.

And please don't delude yourself into thinking your heart is not full of hate.

---

Yeah, OTB doesn't "support looters" but he does "understand it".LOL. Every sentence he voices his disapporval of looting, violence, and murder is preceded and followed by a 1500 word essay focused on more important matters. Like words.

calbear93 said:

---

Now I see that you will make any argument, make any false connection or make any false inference. and make any claim to avoid admitting you are wrong. Now I look back, you have never really try to see any counter argument and all you do is accuse others of not listening when you refuse to listen.

---

Who, OTB? No, he would never...

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I remember when Republicans said looting was a good thing:

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2003/04/11/Rumsfeld-Looting-is-transition-to-freedom/63821050097983/

Quote:

---

Rumsfeld seems to be taking a hands-off approach to that possibility.

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression and people who have had members of their family killed by that regime, for them to be taking their feelings out on that regime," he said. "And I don't think there's anyone in any of those pictures ... (who wouldn't) accept it as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom."

---

---

Sycasey, you can't be serious.

• Are you or are not defending LOOTING? If not, you are not saying the same thing Rumsfeld said.
• We are not Iraq and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship
• And you want to align yourself to Rumsfeld?

What are you conveying? Maybe I missed it.

---

I don't think this is difficult.

Rumsfeld: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "ho hum. Nothing to see here."

sycasey: "While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression"

Republicans: "How dare you defend looters! Antifa! Antifa!"

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

---

OK, but we are not Iraq and we are not bunch of tortured masses having lived under one man's dictatorship. I promise I won't hold what Democrats supported about other countries and translate that to what we should do in our own country. So, maybe it's just me but this seems like such a stretch that it's really beneath you. And if you are not in support of rioters or excusing it. What disagreement do you have with those like me who are upset by it?

---

sycasey has said over and over again that he doesn't support looting. He has said he understands the anger behind it. I don't see that he has said that you can't be upset by it. He is responding to he and others being accused of supporting it by merely expressing that he understands it. Rumsfeld did not support looting either. He merely expressed understanding.

And I'm sorry, we have some great conversations, but I keep coming back to empathy. Your first sentence is just a dramatic lack of understanding. Does it matter that it is one man's dictatorship? When as a result of slavery and historical oppression the current state of the median Black family is to have one tenth the wealth and less than half the income of the median White family. When income is about half even factoring in educational attainment. When Whites and Blacks have the same rates of drug usage but Blacks are 6 times more likely to be convicted of a drug crime? When too many police treat too many Blacks as prima facie criminals? When too many Black are killed by police. And your response is they don't have as much right to be mad as an Iraqi.

I disagree. They've been oppressed for far longer. It makes no difference to them that the oppression is from one guy or a couple hundred million. In fact I'd argue that the latter is worse.

---

I agree that we have had some non-hostile discussions. I have also had a few reasoned discussions with sycasey where I thought he was being reasonable. This is not one of them.

I also understand you think I am being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse, but I also feel the same about your post. And I also think you lack a bit of empathy yourself.

And here is why.

• Who here has said anything in the past about supporting Rumsfeld's stance on looting? But just because some Republican said something over a decade ago about looting in Iraq after a war, that somehow shows the Republicans here supported looting? Because Rumsfeld something about Iraq and because we are not willing to have empathy for looter or even think that destroying local businesses is related to Floyd, we are hypocrites? May I thenI point to all of the stupid things that the mayor of New York has said and claim that people here are hypocrite irrespective of whether they supported what the mayor said?
• What is there to empathize with looters? Do you really believe the people who are truly angry about Floyd and want change are the ones who are looting local neighborhoods? Is that what you are seeing? We must be living in a different world. And do you believe empathizing with criminals causing harm to people who are particularly vulnerable makes one decent? What if someone were to say: No, I don't condone police brutality, but, considering how many police officers are injured, I also understand why they may sometimes over react. Would that be acceptable to you and show that they truly are against police brutality? Would that show how much empathy I have? No, there is no excuse for police brutality. There is no excuse for racism There is no excuse for mayhem or looting or burning down local neighborhoods. There is of course a reason for everything. I am sure that even tiki torch carriers have had tough childhoods, lack of parental guidance, etc. I don't give a ***** They are still scum, right? Do I really need to empathize with them? Do I need to empathize with criminals, Antifa, or armed militants causing havoc right now? No, I don't. So, sorry. You don't really seem to have empathy with the right people. How about the small business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality. You mentioned before that I show too much focus on one over another. I have not seem anything other than passing comments from you for middle class store owners. Where is your empathy for them?
• And comparing the black community with Kurds and Shiite Muslims in Iraq when Saddam was in charge is just ridiculous and an unneeded hyperbole. When did we use chemical weapons to wipe out a neighborhood? When did we pick up random members solely for the purposes of torturing?

I think I am done with this conversation. I don't have any regard for the arguments you or sycasey are making on this topic, and clearly you do not as well. We will not reach an understanding here and will only result in turf wars that won't help anyone.

---

---

1. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, but I don't get the response that I'm demonstrating lack of empathy. I get you don't think you are exhibiting lack of empathy, but nothing you argued about me was an empathy question. Which leads me to believe that using the word empathy has not been effective for me in trying to reach you with my argument. Because I am genuinely trying to reach you. Your response indicates that I'm not reaching you, not because you disagree, but because your repeat back of my argument is not what I am saying.

Why is your lack of equal concern for middle class shop owners who may not be adequately insured and who may have debt and now cannot support their family (many of them in the black community) not an empathy question for you?

2. sycasey did not say that Rumsfeld or Republicans supported looting. In context, people were upset because looters destroyed and stole great treasures of antiquity. Rumsfeld never supported looters, but expressed understanding. I would point out that there is every reason to believe that there were just as many looters in Iraq stealing for personal gain as there were here. Again, sycasey's point was that NO ONE ACCUSED RUMSFELD OF SUPPORTING LOOTERS. So people should stop disingenuously accuse him of supporting looters.

Again, you are going off on a tangent. Why does what Rumsfeld say matter to us or show hypocrisy for those posting here? I don't even remember Rumsfeld saying what he said. How could I be faulted for not accusing him of supporting looting when I was not even aware of that statement he made? Do I need to remind people that both Clinton and Obama were originally against gay marriages? I don't recall people here calling them bigots. Does that mean people here can no longer support gay marriages? In order for me to think showing understanding to looters is excusing looters, I have to look up every possible statement any Republican has ever made and then pretext my objection by saying I also object to each of those prior statements made by any Republicans, including comments made in a completely unrelated context? Does that mean that mayor of New York saying shutting down the city is crazy and that people need to go to local restaurants right before the SIP means all of the liberals here supported that stance and now are hypocrites for as recently as last month accusing Republican governors of being indifferent to science and not caring about death?


3. As for the looters, I think most of them are pure asshats either out to steal or destroy things for fun. I also think they are a small percentage of protesters using the protests as cover and that others are smearing all the protesters with the actions of looters. I also think that yes there are people who are just fed up and can't take it anymore and they loot and destroy.

I don't care how much good reason anyone has to be angry, I will not excuse or try to understand and mitigate my disdain for those who cause great harm. I don't care if a police officer saw his closest partners killed by criminals who happened to be black, I would not try to understand him for police brutality resulting form his anger for past wrongs. I don't care if a school shooter was bullied for 10 years and felt he had nothing to lose and wanted to shoot up his classmates. I don't give a ***** I don't need to excuse evil by saying they were part of this world that is evil. You showing empathy for looters and those shooting cops in the back the head makes me feel the same way about you as you would for someone who tried to justify why we must be understanding to those cops who killed Floyd. You wouldn't think those people are compassionate.

4. I wasn't saying you displayed lack of empathy for the looters. I was saying you displayed lack of empathy for the African American community by dismissing their grievances in comparison to the Iraqi's. Without going down a rathole of who has/had it worse, I think that is inappropriate. So basically no matter how much oppression someone faces, it won't match being Jewish in Nazi Germany, so the response can be "it's not like you are Jewish in Nazi Germany". Or, hell, you know Count Dracula? No, the REAL Count Dracula. He was known as the impaler. He impaled people all the time. Oh, no. Wait. Not that way. He had a six foot long pike driven through your ass and out your mouth. They perfected a way to do this so you died real slowly. Once, facing an approaching invading army that he had no hope of defeating he did this to hundreds of innocent people, his own people so that the invading army would see this and freak out and go back. So, you know, some people might think that is even worse than the Nazi's. Point being that humans have done a lot of horrible things and I don't think you have to be the worst treated in history to have a grievance.

First of all, YOU are the one who was comparing the plight of the black community with Iraq. All I said was that Rumsfeld's statement was made in the context of a transition from a dictatorship, and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship. You ran with that to compare the plight of Iraqis and the plight of the black community. Please show me where I stated in my original post comparing the black community with Iraqis. Saying we are not transitioning form a dictatorship means I don't empathize with the black community? What!?! I never compared the black community with Iraqis in my original response to sycasey. YOU DID THAT, and now you say I am showing lack of empathy for dismissing the the black community's suffering? That is dishonest and beneath you. My point was that the quote from Rumsfeld (and quite honestly I was learning about that statement for the first time reading what sycasey linked) was that looting may be the first step in transitioning from a dictatorship to a democracy. YOU ARE THE FIRST ONE TO PUT BLACK COMMUNITY AND KURDS ON SOME SUFFERING SCALE. It was ONLY in response to your comment that Kurds and Shiites did not suffer under Saddam as much as the black community is suffering that I reminded you no one in our government has launched a chemical weapon to wipe out a black neighborhood.

---

C'mon man. You are just being ridiculous now.

sycasey drew a parallel between his comments about looters at BLM protests and Rumsfeld comments about looters in Iraq. As you say "All I said was that Rumsfeld's statement was made in the context of a transition from a dictatorship, and we are not transitioning from a dictatorship." That is a straight comparison between the plight of Iraqi protesters and the plight of African American protesters so you can distinguish Rumsefeld's comments as being more justified than sycasey's. There is no other way to interpret that than the behavior of Iraqi's is more justified based on their circumstances. There is absolutely no relevance that Iraqis were in a dictatorship otherwise.

So I read this post as "I never compared African Americans and Iraqi's. You did that. All I did was compare African Americans and Iraqi's. But I never compared African Americans and Iraqi's."

---

Forget it Jake, it's calbear93 town.

GBear4Life said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Okay, so you massively edited while I was typing so there is a lot more to respond to.

1. So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!!

2. First of all, this argument might have had some merit, but it doesn't now that you read Rumsfeld statement and then made arguments to distinguish it. Second of all, the point isn't that Rumsfeld is a Republican and made a statement. The point is that his statement was noncontroversial, and no one at the time, including Republicans thought that it was. Because the statement IS NONCONTROVERSIAL. Those of us supporting the (NON-LOOTING!!!!!!) portion of the protests know exactly what the conservatives are doing here. Tying peaceful protesters and those that support them to those that do violence as a means to smear them because quite frankly even if they acknowledge what happened to Floyd is wrong they want to protect the general practices of police that are the subject off the protests by smearing the protesters.

3. I get it. I disagree. The hate u give little infants f's everybody.

---

You are showing your true colors.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?

And your false assumption that me stating that something Rumsfeld said long time ago in the context of a transition from a dictatorship is not applicable means I am comparing Iraqi's suffering to black community's suffering is beyond ridiculous. Go back and read what you and sycasey wrote. We are hypocrites for calling out those who excuse looters since we did not criticize Rumsfeld. Again I had no idea Rumsfeld even said that, and I definitely never said that I agree with him. Why am I a hypocrite because Rumsfeld said something about looting in the context of a transition from a dictatorship?

And how does that make me indifferent to the black community or how does that even mean I am comparing Iraqis to the black community? It's like me saying that by bringing up something relating to Middle East from Rumsfeld means you and sycasey are showing indifference to what happened in Syria. Beyond stupid.

And please don't delude yourself into thinking your heart is not full of hate.

---

Yeah, OTB doesn't "support looters" but he does "understand it".LOL. Every sentence he voices his disapporval of looting, violence, and murder is preceded and followed by a 1500 word essay focused on more important matters. Like words.

---

When I read his prose about how he doesn't condone looting but he understands, I kept visualizing what Chris Rock said about OJ.

But according to sycasey and oaktownbear, we really should empathize with the looters because Rumsfeld said something over 10 years ago about looting in Iraq. That much is clear.

calbear93 said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Okay, so you massively edited while I was typing so there is a lot more to respond to.

1. So THAT would be an empathy question, which you did not raise in the first post. However, since I never supported the looters it is irrelevant. And sycasey never supported the looters. I feel terrible for the shop owners. You accused sycasey of something he didn't do. You are now spreading that to me. No one supported the looters. No one said you shouldn't be angry with the looters. Looters bad. Looters bad. Looters bad. Sycasey asked you for an example of someone here supporting the looters. You provided one. He said he didn't agree. He is asking you and others to stop saying we support looters. You keep responding with arguments about why we shouldn't support looters. And we respond by saying we don't support looters and asking you to stop saying we support looters. I don't know what else to say on this point. other than, oh yeah. I DON'T SUPPORT LOOTERS!!!!

2. First of all, this argument might have had some merit, but it doesn't now that you read Rumsfeld statement and then made arguments to distinguish it. Second of all, the point isn't that Rumsfeld is a Republican and made a statement. The point is that his statement was noncontroversial, and no one at the time, including Republicans thought that it was. Because the statement IS NONCONTROVERSIAL. Those of us supporting the (NON-LOOTING!!!!!!) portion of the protests know exactly what the conservatives are doing here. Tying peaceful protesters and those that support them to those that do violence as a means to smear them because quite frankly even if they acknowledge what happened to Floyd is wrong they want to protect the general practices of police that are the subject off the protests by smearing the protesters.

3. I get it. I disagree. The hate u give little infants f's everybody.

---

You are showing your true colors.

When did I say you support looters? Please quote me. I said you are excusing looters and empathizing with looters. Are you not?

Let me apply your reasoning to something similar. No one here is saying they excuse police violence. But I suppose as long as one claims he does not support police violence (especially in all caps), it should be fine if he writes that he "understands" why police may use excessive violence in light of how much crime is committed in inner city and how many cops are killed every year. In that case, would you would really think - I guess it's all fine since he stated HE DOESN'T SUPPORT POLICE VIOLENCE. No?

And your false assumption that me stating that something Rumsfeld said long time ago in the context of a transition from a dictatorship is not applicable means I am comparing Iraqi's suffering to black community's suffering is beyond ridiculous. Go back and read what you and sycasey wrote. We are hypocrites for calling out those who excuse looters since we did not criticize Rumsfeld. Again I had no idea Rumsfeld even said that, and I definitely never said that I agree with him. Why am I a hypocrite because Rumsfeld said something about looting in the context of a transition from a dictatorship?

And how does that make me indifferent to the black community or how does that even mean I am comparing Iraqis to the black community? It's like me saying that by bringing up something relating to Middle East from Rumsfeld means you and sycasey are showing indifference to what happened in Syria. Beyond stupid.

And please don't delude yourself into thinking your heart is not full of hate.

---

Yeah, OTB doesn't "support looters" but he does "understand it".LOL. Every sentence he voices his disapporval of looting, violence, and murder is preceded and followed by a 1500 word essay focused on more important matters. Like words.

---

When I read his prose about how he doesn't condone looting but he understands, I kept visualizing what Chris Rock said about OJ.

But according to sycasey and oaktownbear, we really should empathize with the looters because Rumsfeld said something over 10 years ago about looting in Iraq. That much is clear.

---

You are defined by the company you keep.

GBear4Life said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Expressing that you may understand why years of repression would lead to anger that can be triggered by an act of murder against one's people and that leads someone to act out by looting does not mean you support looting.

---

No, looting, for any reason, is a malevolent pathology. To "understand" it is to rationalize it, regardless of whether you condone it or not.

But we'll be sure to save this and the many other logically challenged posts as a reminder when the circumstances lead you to take a non understanding position

---

I am sure deep down inside, he is also sympathizing with police officers who commit violence against the public because years of putting their lives in danger and seeing the most horrendous crimes can lead someone to use excessive force from time to time. His heart is just that big that he can put himself in the shoes of every criminal and understand where they are coming from. I have not excused the criminal cops who killed Floyd so he must view me as lacking empathy.