1068
Anon searches for normal politics
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
1068 points (100.0% liked)
Greentext
4472 readers
1700 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yes, I agree! It's the OTHER guys who are to blame this!
Like, share and retweet BTW if you want them prosecuted for their crimes.
Enlightened centrist moment
There’s a reason you’ve never heard the term “enlightened partisan”
You heard a compliment? A moth nosediving into a campfire is more enlightened than centrists are, the reason only centrists get called enlightened is because it's a sarcastic remark
Luckily, sarcasm is my love language.
Now stop sweet talking me, you handsome, intelligent bastard.
I remember when those crazy Democrats got a bunch of their voters to storm the Cap- oh wait…
You’re acting like this didn’t literally just happen.
Or this, back in 2018.
They also definitely never bombed the Capitol.
Those are all right wing conspiracy theories.
All of those things did happen, but they are worlds apart from Jan 6.
Your first link is clearly a peaceful demonstration; they didn't even damage any property as far as I can tell. The article calls it "civil disobedience," and apparently the vast majority were arrested for "demonstrating in the Capitol". I shouldn't have to remind you that the Jan 6 insurrectionists destroyed property and murdered people with the express intent of taking over government.
Your second link is again a peaceful demonstration. People were again arrested for "unlawfully demonstrating". There is no mention of any destruction of property or injury. And again, they were not trying to seize the government.
Your third link is closest. There was obviously destruction of property and while no one got hurt, someone absolutely might have[1]. But even then, this was not an insurrection by and for the Democrats; it was from a fringe left group. Democrats immediately and to this day condemn the attack. Jan 6 was orchestrated by the leadership of the Republican party, and still receives support from said leadership.
Anyway, this is you:
[1]: The bombers did make an effort to not hurt people: they gave 30 minutes notice, and the explosion happened in the early hours of the morning. But something could still have gone wrong.
Ah, yes, but the point is that we went from “Democrats would never…” to “Democrats actually did (but it’s different)”.
As for January 6th, none of the protestors had actually planned to enter the Capitol, and neither did Trump tell them to. He only told them to march towards the Capitol building to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”.
The deaths that occurred that day have all been ruled as accidents, i.e. nobody was deliberately murdered.
The damage, which was initially reported as likely exceeding $30 million was later quietly corrected down to only about $1.5 million.
Basically, almost every single thing you likely believe about that event has been blown wildly out of proportion, but you probably never heard about any of this because outrage is what sells clicks and ad impressions, the truth doesn’t.
Well, anyways… I guess this means I’m not quite as enlightened and morally superior as the guy in your meme.
Yes, Trump and the GOP party leadership spent months plotting to overthrow a legitimate election, but when it came time to do so, one line in a speech sounded nice. Then the protest started getting violent and destructive. To be clear, they were doing this for him (in the sense that they wanted him to continue to be president). He could have shown up and told them to stop and they would have. But he didn't. He made no meaningful attempt to stop it at all. He did, however, say something nice earlier in the day. That's true.
Yes, I said murdered when I should have said manslaughtered. Sorry. The protest was still violent. I've seen the footage; they managed to make me feel sorry for a cop.
I did never make a claim as to the level of damage. I've never really thought about the dollar amount; it's more about the fact that they broke in. If someone broke into my house, I wouldn't be worried about the dollar amount of the damage. I'd be worried about what that means about their intent.
You are being obtuse. None of the differences you've pointed out are salient. None of the similarities you have implied are. The post you replied to never said "Democrats would never...", nor did I. And I disagree that Democrats actually did. The examples you gave are nothing like January 6th, except in facile similarities like the location of the events. I will say though, I agree that you aren't enlightened or morally superior.
My point was mainly proving that the idea that "Democrats would never storm the capitol" was wrong. Yes, January 6th was perhaps still more violent than Democrats' previous attempts to do so, but if it's about the amount of violence each party is guilty of, all we have to do is look at riots in the wake of George Floyd's death that happened a mere 6 months later in many cities across the US, and continued for a very long time. Those protests caused far more death, injury, and property damage than January 6th, and while you could claim that they weren't political in nature, it is a fact that it was overwhelmingly Democrat politicians who supported them, and Democrat voters who attended them.
I'm not really keen to get into an argument about which party is responsible for more violence, since counting up dead bodies seems rather sordid and probably won't help much anyways to convince either of us to change our opinion on anything, so I propose we call this one a draw and simply say "both parties are perfectly willing to use violence in pursuit of their political goals and have clearly demonstrated this in the past".
So, to recap:
Someone pointed out that Republicans did January 6th, a violent attempt to seize control of the government by overturning the results of the election. You then gave examples of Democrats supposedly doing the same thing. I pointed out that none of the examples you gave were anything like January 6th. You then gave reasons why January 6th wasn't bad. I pointed out that none of those reasons changed the fact that it was a violent attempt by Republicans to seize control of the government by overturning the results of the election. You still have not provided an example of the Democrats doing the same thing.
Now you say, well, people from both parties do violence sometimes, so let's call it a draw. I appreciate the wisdom of making a strategic retreat, but no. You made bad arguments. Now you have to admit you are wrong one of two ways. You could just be explicit, come out and say it. More likely you'll do it implicitly, by changing the subject or not responding at all.
I get it. I don't like getting into losing arguments either.
No, someone said “yeah I remember when those crazy Democrats got a bunch of their voters together to storm the Capitol” and then I gave 3 examples of when they DID, in fact, do that.
Basically, the claim was that “Democrats would never…”, so that’s what I set out to disprove.
All you’re doing now is moving goalposts in order to make those events appear more reasonable when it was your side doing them, so you can continue vilify the other side for doing the same thing. Which means you are excusing political violence while simultaneously opposing it.
That’s not tenable position, you understand? It’s just wanting to have your cake and eat it, too.
Moving the goalposts is saying the opposite of "the Democrats did" is "the Democrats would never" (when you first attempted this shift I pointed out that neither I nor the person you responded to made this claim, which is still true).
Moving the goalposts is saying that a peaceful protest that took place in the capitol is somehow "storming" the capitol in the same sense as January 6th.
Moving the goalposts is saying that a fringe group that never had the support of the Democratic party and was not made up of Democratic voters was the Democrats.
Moving the goalposts is ignoring an extremely important aspect of January 6th; an attempt to seize control of the government, which to my knowledge has never happened at the behest of the Democratic party.
You know what? Let's move the conversation a little in the direction you've tried to take it, if you really want. I'll affirm this:
No member of the current Democratic party leadership would never encourage Democratic voters to behave violently, to illegally occupy the capitol building, or to seize control of the government via undemocratic means. And, if some democrats do any of these, they will condemn it; if they have the power, they will stop it. By current Democratic party leadership, I mean Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and other similar figures. Candidates who are popular but marginalized in party structure do not count. For instance, I don't think Bernie Sanders would either (except maybe occupying the capitol building), but he's not part of Democratic party leadership. This is assuming that their views do not change significantly from where they are at present via unforeseen events.
And, I affirm this is plainly not true of Republican party leadership (Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy/Mike Johnson, Mitch McConnell etc.), given the events leading up to, on, and after the January 6th insurrection. (And I will point out that since I made the strong claim of "no member would" above, proving this claim/disproving that claim means "any member did")
Freudian slip or intentional exit loophole? Yes, you really wrote it like that, I just highlighted the double negation to draw your attention to it. But as it is written, I would agree, and here is why. Yes, not everyone in this video is part of the Democratic party leadership, some of them are just prominent members or supporters, but you'll definitely see some of the people you explicitly mentioned doing some of the things you'd say they would never do. And it's good to hear that you condemn all of this, but they DID say it, that is not up for dispute.
Now I'm looking forward to you showing me video proof of your claim about Republican leadership calling for violence on or around January 6th, because apart from Trump telling people to "fight light hell" (followed by the reminder to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"), I haven't seen any. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, I'm well aware that I am biased and may have just as big of a blind spot as you do.
Ah, you caught me. Anyway, sure, you win. Have a nice life.
In that case, well played, Sir. Until next time.
This site is SO much better than reddit. On reddit your downvotes would have hidden the truth that people over there don't want to see, but here we can just see the truth and how many people were pissed off that you tried to get their heads out of the sand.
Uh… okay? Not sure what you’re getting at, the only thing that tells me is that you’ve never actually taken a look at the modlog or you would know that banning and censorship are alive and well on here as well, but in Lemmy’s defense, I will say that at the least they ARE more transparent about it. On Reddit, you can’t even see what was removed without third party hacks, and those never catch everything.
"Don't support a genocide" and "Hang Mike Pence"
Same diff
Yes, Democrats would never do that sort of thing.
Which conservatives would likely in turn point out as being hypocritical, since Democrats used to literally lynch black people up until the Civil Rights era.
At some point you gotta realize that 95% of politics is literally just the “Spider-Man pointing at Spider-Man” meme.
Hi Spider-Man
Gotta love the "Democrats were the party of the KKK" argument, I'll check off the bingo square.
Cool, I’ll check “appeal to mockery” off mine, and I’ll get read to check “appeal to common opinion” as well because I just have a feeling that’s what’s coming next.
It'd be nice but unfortunately there's too many batshit republicans in office to pass any laws for that to happen.
Like I said, it's the OTHER guys who are at fault for this.
Therefore, we need more prosecutions and also guillotines. There can be no peace on earth until the other guys are all dead.
Can't wait for you to start using them. Or are you going to keep posting sarcasm to hide the fact that right wingers are terrible people?
Yes, the OTHER guys are terrible people. If WE did something terrible, it's only because THEY forced our hands by being terrible people first. But they started it!
Seriously dude, there are 5-year-olds out there who are more mature than you.
What a weird way to express butthurt. But you do you I guess
Thanks for proving my point.
There are more batshit insane Republicans then there are batshit insane Democrats.
Now happy?
“Even if we are sometimes bad, the other guys are always worse.”
THIS... Literally, god forbid we try to have reasonable debate and actually listen to the other side. All this "my way or the hogh-way" BS is fucking annoying...
What, you don't agree with the FACT that the other guys are a bunch of despicable low lives and criminal child abusers for whom death would be too merciful of a punishment? Fuck outta here with those conspiracy theories, you just want to enable them.
Bro what? 😆
😉