Read 49066 times

  • T_Rex
  • Super Waygook

    • 253

    • April 23, 2019, 08:10:20 am
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #600 on: February 17, 2021, 08:24:01 am »


  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • I am a geek!!

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #601 on: February 17, 2021, 08:32:18 am »
I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious here, but... ...not all causes are equal.


  • stoat
  • The Legend

    • 2085

    • March 05, 2019, 06:36:13 pm
    • seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #602 on: February 17, 2021, 09:02:35 am »
Yes, BLM is a tiny cause in the great scheme of things - the number of unarmed black people killed by Police officers in the US is 135 people in the last 6 years.  About the same proportionally as those killed in the rioting.

Extinction Rebellion, on the other hand claims it's fighting for the survival of the entire planet, so I guess would be more than justified in leaving a few bodies in their wake. 


  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • I am a geek!!

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #603 on: February 17, 2021, 09:08:15 am »
Give it a few more years.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #604 on: February 17, 2021, 09:29:09 am »
"Very fine people" chose to march alongside white nationalists, at a rally organised and publicised by...white nationalists...to protest the removal of a statue glorifying a brutal slave owning seditionist who didn't want public statues glorifying himself in the first place.

"but you're changing history"  :laugh: :laugh:

Given the above has been demonstrated over pages in a separate thread 2 years back, I won't be going back and forth with you over it. Just laying down the context of the "hoax".

PS: take down statues of any slave owning founding fathers too and put them in museums alongside R. E. Lee...sheeeeeit!
Pretty much any cause will attract extremists, that does not invalidate their cause nor make the people awful. Palestinian independence is not invalidated simply because Hamas exists. BLM is not invalidated because some nutjob decides to shoot some cops.

Often in causes events are hastily organized around causes that have exploded in the news, usually by front organizations with generic names. It's unfortunate that people aren't careful but it's not surprising it works, specifically because that is what it is designed to do.

All that aside, it doesn't change the fact that the media and Trump's opponents deliberately misrepresented his comments. It's a fact- Trump DID NOT call Nazis and white supremacists "very fine people." He condemned them totally. It is there on video tape.

Why can't you admit that?


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #605 on: February 17, 2021, 09:34:42 am »
Well done  Marti. You've presented quite an array of links there to bolster your case of whataboutism.  :laugh:
Actually the point of the post was
1. Discredit a source often cited here
2. Confirm that Trump-Russia was a sham.
3. Point out how your opposition to Trump policies was manufactured and your outrage is based on partisanship. I actually am willing to acknowledge there is probably a fair amount of nuance in all of these and of course, Biden as a politician has to try and differentiate himself from his opponent. But maybe you should in turn acknowledge that your hyperventilating over certain Trump policies was media induced and they weren't the horror that was claimed.
4. Debunk one of the most prominent lies about Trump.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #606 on: February 17, 2021, 09:53:44 am »


I don't like to talk politics on online forums, but I have to point out, in addition to what Kyndo said about not all causes are equal, that the language in your infograph is so biased that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. 

For example:  Capitol riot:  Encouraged only by fringe political groups.  Maybe once it was underway and the blowback started happening, but what about before? 

As another example:  BLM protests:  23 people killed.  How many of those were protesters killed?  Over half?  I assume Kyle Rittenhouse's victim is included in this 23.   Do you blame the African Americans for the violence at a lynching?

Lastly, the conclusions.  You can always assume your source is biased when it speaks in absolutes.  No outrage from the BLM protests?  Were you outraged, as it seems?  There, I just disproved the conclusion. 


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #607 on: February 17, 2021, 09:57:14 am »
I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious here, but... ...not all causes are equal.
Well both causes are based on a perception of reality that is not wholly fact-based (though I'd contend that BLM is much closer to the truth).

1. BLM is justifiably based around a core truth- systemic racism in policing. However there is some truth to the scope of the problem not being as widespread. When you look at the actual number of incidents, this isn't a source of mass death (specifically cop shootings). On the other hand an overlooked part is that mass incarceration probably is a cause of mass reduced life expectancy and policing has contributed to that.

The big problem is BLM chose to focus on some high-profile cases where the facts did not support their conclusions. They made the same mistake as the police- Prejudged the evidence and stereotyped the actions of the other. Of course just like the cops, there were many cases where they were right and things were open and shut. Like the existence of law enforcement, overall BLM is a net benefit to society, but like law enforcement it is not error-free and could stand to listen to some critiquing.

Riots are on the rioters, not BLM.

2. As far as the vote thing, you agreed that the process could have been more transparent. I think you'd also agree that events in US history have led to a massive distrust in government that cuts across party lines. There was a reason both parties had massive anti-establishment waves in 2016. "Rigged and stolen" was the language first used by Sanders supporters. The DNC also didn't really deny putting their thumb on the scale for their preferred candidate. Is it surprising that some people did not trust official government representatives (i.e. Congress) and the media, two institutions that have single-digit levels of trust amongst the American public? And if they genuinely believed it, aren't they justified in their mind in taking strong measures to prevent it?

Of course the problem is the evidence to support their claim is circumstantial. While in my book it justified a top-to-bottom complete audit and probably an overhaul, that's not the same as rioting.

Riots after Michael Brown weren't justified, but they certainly were understandable given built up mistrust of the system.

3. Is it worse to attack the Capitol building or local shops to show your outrage? Your government or your neighbor?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 10:31:00 am by Mr.DeMartino »


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #608 on: February 17, 2021, 10:06:23 am »
I assume Kyle Rittenhouse's victim is included in this 23.   
I would not prejudge the Rittenhouse case and be sure to look at ALL of the evidence and give his defense a fair shake. It's the same thing we ask cops to do with citizens and suspects.

Also be sure to understand self-defense and justification laws clearly.

Based on what I've seen, this case is going to hinge on Rittenhouse being in possession of a firearm across state lines and being at the scene, not so much the shoot itself. Unless Rittenhouse decided to assault someone first and that wasn't on tape.

If you already think he's guilty then I would brace yourself for disappointment in his trial.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #609 on: February 17, 2021, 10:56:03 am »
to protest the removal of a statue glorifying a brutal slave owning seditionist who didn't want public statues glorifying himself in the first place.

PS: take down statues of any slave owning founding fathers too and put them in museums alongside R. E. Lee...sheeeeeit!
I think using 21st century morals in totality to judge 19th century people is questionable. While even by the standards of the time, Lee was behind the times. However, by the standards of his time, place and circumstance, Lee was not "brutal."

As far as sedition, given that the entire identity of the US is based on revolution and sedition, it is not surprising that such a thing occurred. We also forget that at the time, the country was a far looser one. A far greater number of people did not travel much and had much stronger bonds of community and kinship.

The reason the Southern states and populace were given license to honor their leaders was because we wanted to unify the country. Treating your vanquished foe like a respected adversary is often better than placing your boot on their face. "Where was Hitler born? At Versailles" is the often cited example. Perhaps history would have been far more unfortunate if we had gone the harshest way. Perhaps brutal reprisals and massive redistribution would have been as effective as such policies under Mao or Stalin and while well intended, caused far worse postbellum life expectancy for both black and white. Of course, it might have been much better. Just you can't be so certain.

If you want unity, then you often need to embrace tradition. Pretty much wiping the founding trailditions (Edit- I'm not editing this because it's awesome that 'trailditions' is fine with the spellchecker) of your country, still embraced by the majority, would likely lead to massive disunity and upheaval in short order. Disunity and upheaval tend to result in poor outcomes for the third largest ethnic group in a country at something like 11-13% of the population. In your efforts to finally vanquish centuries dead foes, it is unwise to jeopardize your future.

I am consistently amazed at how people in the year 2021 have more hatred and loathing towards long dead Confederates and Revolutionaries than the people who actually fought them. Something about that is not healthy psychologically.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 11:19:01 am by Mr.DeMartino »


  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • I am a geek!!

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #610 on: February 17, 2021, 11:12:38 am »
Well both causes are based on a perception of reality that is not wholly fact-based (though I'd contend that BLM is much closer to the truth).
I'm not commenting on the relative morality/necessity of either riot. I just want to point out that tabulating the effects of a movement and weighing them against each other is completely irrelevant if one doesn't take their causes into consideration.

To do so would result in (after a bit of reductio ad absurdum)  stuff like the following:

-The Allies destroyed billions of dollars of infrastructure and shot hundreds of thousands of people.
- Jim Jones didn't directly kill anybody other than himself.
 Ergo, the Jonestown Massacre was the morally superior of the 2 incidents.


  • waygo0k
  • The Legend

    • 4533

    • September 27, 2011, 11:51:01 am
    • Chungnam
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #611 on: February 17, 2021, 02:40:55 pm »
I think using 21st century morals in totality to judge 19th century people is questionable. While even by the standards of the time, Lee was behind the times. However, by the standards of his time, place and circumstance, Lee was not "brutal."

By the standards of the early 20th century, Hitler wasn't "brutal"...I mean, millions had already died in European warfare 20 years before and European imperialists had spent the previous decades committing "normal" acts of ruling in their empires across the Americas, Asia and Africa. Subjugation, massacres, torture...etc. Just the regular stuff for that time.

Moreover, the Japanese were doing the same things during the same period! So we obviously can't label the Japanese nor Nazis as brutal based on 21st century standards...it was pretty "normal" for them to do what they were doing at the time!


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3022

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #612 on: February 17, 2021, 07:09:41 pm »

I am consistently amazed at how people in the year 2021 have more hatred and loathing towards long dead Confederates and Revolutionaries than the people who actually fought them. Something about that is not healthy psychologically.

What are you on about?

They WENT TO WAR against them, shot and killed them, treated them as enemies to the country.   Dunno how much more hate and loathing you want.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #613 on: February 17, 2021, 09:48:54 pm »
What are you on about?

They WENT TO WAR against them, shot and killed them, treated them as enemies to the country.   Dunno how much more hate and loathing you want.
You clearly haven't read much on the subject, particularly on Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

Are you even aware of the terms of surrender and how generous they were? At what special provisions were given? At how the soldiers treated each other? At what happened when the Confederates stacked arms? Ever read about Stones River?

You should also understand that the attitude of private soldiers towards other private soldiers is much less one of hatred. Even general officers up to Grant wanted to move on and didn't let hatred consume them.

Lincoln didn't hate them. Grant didn't hate them. Jospeh E. Johnston was a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral.

4 years of brutal warfare and just trying not to get mowed down at Cold Harbor or your 10th straight day of a 4oz ration of corn meal as your only food tends to transfer the hatred towards the mucky mucks and not some conscripted private in blue or grey.

At one point they considered forcing Grant to rescind his terms of surrender and enforcing harsh treatment. Grant refused and it was understood that if such an order had been given, either Grant would have resigned or marched on Washington and if he resigned the Army of the Potomac would have mutineed.

The war was over. They were sick of killing. And they'd taken their last order from some fatcat in Washington who saw them as a tool.


  • gogators!
  • Waygook Lord

    • 5234

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #614 on: February 17, 2021, 10:02:46 pm »
Lots of neo-Confederate babble from the usual suspects who are tying themselves up in knots as they try to deny the obvious.

"The war was over."  Not for the South it wasn't.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3022

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #615 on: February 17, 2021, 11:43:25 pm »
You clearly haven't read much on the subject, particularly on Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

Are you even aware of the terms of surrender and how generous they were? At what special provisions were given? At how the soldiers treated each other? At what happened when the Confederates stacked arms? Ever read about Stones River?

You should also understand that the attitude of private soldiers towards other private soldiers is much less one of hatred. Even general officers up to Grant wanted to move on and didn't let hatred consume them.

Lincoln didn't hate them. Grant didn't hate them. Jospeh E. Johnston was a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral.

4 years of brutal warfare and just trying not to get mowed down at Cold Harbor or your 10th straight day of a 4oz ration of corn meal as your only food tends to transfer the hatred towards the mucky mucks and not some conscripted private in blue or grey.

At one point they considered forcing Grant to rescind his terms of surrender and enforcing harsh treatment. Grant refused and it was understood that if such an order had been given, either Grant would have resigned or marched on Washington and if he resigned the Army of the Potomac would have mutineed.

The war was over. They were sick of killing. And they'd taken their last order from some fatcat in Washington who saw them as a tool.
This is just bizarre.  Who's the fatcat we're talking about? Be specific, thanks.

And what the eff does Cold Harbor have to do with anything?  You just blathering, eh?

Oh, and please talk about Johnson's role in the lack of penalties. 

Next you're going to say the Civil War wasn't about slavery ...
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 01:01:10 am by Mr C »


  • waygo0k
  • The Legend

    • 4533

    • September 27, 2011, 11:51:01 am
    • Chungnam
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #616 on: February 18, 2021, 05:44:13 am »
4 years of brutal warfare and just trying not to get mowed down at Cold Harbor or your 10th straight day...

I dunno man...was it really brutal though? We can't exactly judge the time by 21st century standards. That kind of warfare was pretty normal for them at that time.


  • stoat
  • The Legend

    • 2085

    • March 05, 2019, 06:36:13 pm
    • seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #617 on: February 18, 2021, 06:16:36 am »
I don't think you really get this judging things by different standards idea. You can look at the Nazi holocaust and the American civil war and compare them with events that have happened before and since and deduce they were particularly brutal events in history. What's not useful is to make judgments on the morality of historical figures by modern standards, or you'll end up writing everyone off as evil in one way or another. 


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #618 on: February 18, 2021, 08:38:11 am »
I dunno man...was it really brutal though? We can't exactly judge the time by 21st century standards. That kind of warfare was pretty normal for them at that time.
Actually it wasn't normal. The Civil War saw the transition from large open field battles, emphasizing maneuvers and organized line of battle to static trench warfare. The defensive firepower of the rifled musket changed things completely. From 1861-1863 battles, with the exception of the Seven Days, battles were singular events. Grant's Overland Campaign was a constant slog of battle after battle that completly shocked the public with its casualties. The end result was the Siege of Petersburg- World War I in 1864.

There were also the states of medicine, sanitation, nutrition, hygeine, etc. of the time. A curious mish mash of the modern and the medieval that often had the worst of both.

The scale of casualties too was something far beyond any war America fought before or since.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #619 on: February 18, 2021, 08:41:11 am »
Lots of neo-Confederate babble from the usual suspects who are tying themselves up in knots as they try to deny the obvious.

"The war was over."  Not for the South it wasn't.
Nothing says "Neo-Confederate" like constantly emphasizing the actions of Grant and Lincoln.

Are you going to actually cite facts or are you just going to attach labels and hope no one asks you for facts?

If you aren't knowledgeable about something, the correct response is to learn and do your own research, not insult the person for pointing out facts.