Questions remain about the Minnesota rampage. Anti-abortion extremism may shed light : NPR
By: Odette Yousef (NPR)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
June 21, 20256:00 AM ET
Odette Yousef
Investigators are still examining possible motives for the killing of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, and the shooting of another legislator and his wife. In a press conference on Monday, Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson described the rampage as a "rare" political assassination. Much of the public discourse has focused on whether the suspect, Vance Luther Boelter, is from the political right or the political left. But people close to Boelter have said he did not discuss politics.
Instead, some scholars who focus on the far right and anti-abortion violence say it may be more insightful to examine Boelter's religious background and views on abortion. Among the evidence that investigators are examining are notebooks belonging to Boelter containing detailed notes on dozens of other presumed targets that included Democratic public officials and abortion rights supporters. Scholars say it is reasonable to consider the rampage in Minnesota within the well-established pattern of anti-abortion violence that has taken place over many decades in the U.S., and its ties to conservative Evangelical Christian movements.
"They ... have this idea that you, as devout Christians, need to do something to stop [abortion] — not just to oppose it, but to eliminate it," said Carol Mason, chair of the humanities at the University of Kentucky. "And this goes back to a kind of 'leaderless resistance' that the militia movement named in the late '80s, and that the anti-abortion movement has practiced for a long time."
The suspect in the shooting of 2 Minnesota lawmakers had a 'hit list' of 45 officials
Researchers who have looked at Boelter's apparent connection with a fast-growing strand of Evangelical Christianity say that it may shed some light. This movement, referred to as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), frequently invokes the terminology and imagery of war when discussing political and spiritual enemies, including those who support abortion rights.
"It's reasonable to be concerned in the present that this movement we call the New Apostolic Reformation, is priming the pump for anti-abortion and other kinds of violence in our society now," said Fred Clarkson, a senior research analyst at Political Research Associates. "There's been a decided uptick in the rhetoric and vision of violence in the United States from apostolic leaders for some time."
Clarkson said within NAR circles, abortion is spoken of as a "demonic enterprise," and that institutions and individuals that permit or support it are considered enemies.
"The question is, at what point does the rhetoric meet the reality?" he said. "At what point do individuals or perhaps organized groups, perhaps large groups, begin to take action against the 'enemies of God' and the 'demonic forces'?"
Boelter spoke about abortion, modern-day prophets and apostles
Close associates of Boelter, as well as speeches he made at Christian gatherings while living in Africa two years ago, portray a man whose worldview was fundamentally shaped by his religious beliefs. He was deeply opposed to abortion, and railed against churches that don't share that view.
"Many churches in America didn't listen to Jesus. They're divided. This little group here, this little group here, this little group here," he said during one of those sermons, pausing frequently as an interpreter translated his words into French. "And the enemy, the devil, comes through and rips everything apart. The churches are so messed up, they don't know abortion is wrong, many churches."
At another point in the same sermon, Boelter spoke about his belief that the various churches in the U.S. would, one day, unite.
"God is going to raise up apostles and prophets in America to correct his church," he said.
"Nobody talks like that unless you're a part of the NAR," said Clarkson. "Nobody's talking about God sending apostles and prophets to correct the church in America unless you're somehow influenced by NAR. That's strong evidence."
Clarkson also said it's noteworthy that Boelter graduated from the Christ for the Nations Institute in Texas. CFNI is rooted in Pentecostalism and adheres to conservative teachings about gender, marriage and sexual identity. Clarkson said the institute also promoted religious doctrines that were considered unusual at the time of its founding, in 1970.
"One of them was the idea that all of the Christian denominations and doctrines of traditional Christianity — Catholicism and Pentecostalism and even much of evangelicalism — were wrong," he said. It was also distinct in its belief in modern-day prophets and apostles.
"And the apostles and prophets have direct communications with God. He talks with them. They talk with Him," Clarkson said. "So that was a pretty radical thing."
Clarkson said the CFNI's teachings became the "tap root" of the NAR community today, which similarly upholds modern-day prophets and apostles within the network.
The CFNI has issued a statement condemning the violence in Minnesota.
"We are absolutely aghast and horrified that a CFNI alumnus is the suspect," the statement reads, in part. "This is not who we are. This is not what we teach. This is not what we model."
'Dad went to war last night'
According to an investigator's affidavit filed in relation to the federal complaint against Boelter, he allegedly sent a group text message to his wife and other family members in the hours after the rampage occurred. It read, "Dad went to war last night ... I don't wanna say more because I don't wanna implicate anybody."
Language invoking "war" and "battles" are deeply embedded in the culture of the NAR, particularly when it comes to discussion of social and political positions that they disagree with, said Clarkson. He said this stems from the NAR's pursuit of "dominion" — a term that refers to the aspiration to take control over every aspect of society and impose Old Testament Biblical law. The movement's emphasis on the Old Testament is significant, Clarkson said, because in it, major figures are warriors. Though nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults describe themselves as Christian, NAR leaders frequently couch their struggle for political domination in similar terms, as waging battle against the currents of larger society.
National
Once-fringe activists are fighting to be the voice of the anti-abortion movement
"They don't see that as metaphorical or something that only happens in the heavens, [or] in the 'spirit world' in some way," Clarkson said. "But rather, it's going to involve Christians of the right sort of taking power to create the kingdom of God, and to take what they call 'dominion' over society."
Although the NAR community is decentralized and doctrinally diverse, leading figures within it consistently deploy dehumanizing and inflammatory rhetoric when it comes to abortion. In a doctrinal publication issued on the topic, NAR apostle Lou Engle articulated that position.
"We think that abortion is a simple solution to a social problem, but what we don't know is that it is actually fueling the demonic realm over a whole culture," he wrote. "... Sacrificing of babies is fueling the demonization of our nation. Without God's mercy through interceding and acting to stop abortion, a day of reckoning is coming to the U.S."
Dehumanizing narratives about abortion are now mainstream
While narratives that describe abortion as "ritual child sacrifice" that empowers demons are consistent across the NAR, they are not limited to that movement.
"As someone who has studied the anti-abortion movement for a long time, you don't have to be part of a fringe Christian network to have seen and heard images and stories about abortion as a matter of demonic child sacrifice," said Mason, whose scholarship has focused on the rise of the right since the 1960s and anti-abortion violence. "Those images have been floating around for a long, long time and they are now being deployed, I think, in more and more venues and higher volumes."
Mason said that this has been the result of decades of rhetorical shifts that even incorporated anti-Semitic myths about "blood libel." She says this rhetoric has evolved into a radicalized, anti-abortion ideology among many conservative Christians in the U.S.
"Abortion used to be seen as a sin, like adultery or blasphemy. But over time, it became not just a sin, it became evil. And to some it became the worst evil," she said. "Until people were convinced that abortion is not simply a matter of terminating a pregnancy, but is actually a full scale genocidal industry meant to serve an evil satanic global cabal whose mission it is to wipe out Christian civilization."
Mason said there is evident frustration being felt within the far right that, since the Dobbs decision, estimates of abortion actually went up. The movement that had long seen the overturning Roe v. Wade as an important step toward achieving the elimination of elective abortion has been contending with a more complicated result. This has increased concern over escalating rhetoric and the possibility that individual actors will feel compelled to take matters into their own hands.
"That apocalyptic narrative says that we're in a battle between good Christian forces and evil demonic forces and that we must do something now, lest we deal with the wrath of God," said Mason. "And so there's a sense of urgency that comes with this."
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [sandy-2021492]
Tags
Who is online
130 visitors
abortion is nothing more than the latest reason for thumpers to wage war on those they deem to be less than properly pious ...
I have been saying it for years now. . .these conservative types can not leave people alone and "well-enough." They wish to be the boss of life in the country and potentially on the planet. And yet, will be the first to yell, "persecution" when some one attempts to interact, manipulate, harm, or remove a right, privilege, or (tax status) from their programs.
This is the story the right wing wishes would go away.
They have embraced Christian Dominionism. They own what Dominionists do.
[✘]
god needs their help kick starting armageddon ....
Really? Do they "own" it, or is it that some people, through their own bigoted biases, simply assign it to them?
If they purposely court their political support, and enable their extremism with approbation, they own it.
And they have.
[✘]
Nope. Charlottesville's antisemitic "Jews will not replace us!" march was all by the right.
The left has not courted antisemitism. The right has courted the "moral majority" since Reagan's days, at least.
Who is "they" and how have they approved of what this guy did?
While the neo-Nazis were certainly antisemitic, the march was not "all by the right". The right is no more monolithic than the left is. The claim is about as valid as saying all men bear the guilt of wife beaters by virtue of being male.
[✘]
You are correct, but those on the right have framed anyone who dares admit they're against the indiscriminate bombing of innocent Palestinian women and children as "antisemite's" because a rightwing conservative faction in control of the government in Israel happen to be the ones doing the bombing.
But of course, the actual antisemitism has historically always come from the right. Rightwing religious conservatism and rightwing fascism are two sides of the same Christo-fascist coin.
The only shift in opinion among them has been a trend towards no longer viewing Jews as a threat to their faith and a murderer of their Lord Jesus, but as a "necessary evil" that needs to be there on the plains of Megiddo for the prophecy the Christo-fascists have anxiously been awaiting for decades if not centuries. That's why they pretend to be defenders of American Jews while also attacking them for daring to overwhelmingly vote Democrat as if they aren't smart enough to vote for their own interests or for the party that as a whole is actually FAR less antisemitic.
I trust you can follow the conversation and find to whom the pronoun refers. It's not a long thread.
So, everyone on the right, then. What about the second part of my question?
actually it was.
or alt-right, which is a euphemism for white supremacist
Actually, it wasn't. The "right" is made up by quite a few different viewpoints. Just because white supremacists are put on the right side of the political divide doesn't mean they represent the right, even though many on your side of the argument tries hard to make it seem as if it's homogenous. An extremist tactic.
The assertion wasnt that every person on the right is a bigot, it was that everyone at the tiki torch march was from the right. They were.
The name was "Unite the Right", Drakk. The left was not a part of it, other than to protect a synagogue from the antisemitic "Unite the Right" marchers.
Correct. The leftist didn't bring their weapons until the next morning.
That contradicts most factual accounts of the events.
Now you are going to both sides the Charlottesville white supremacist rally. Pitiful.
Did leftists march under the "Unite the Right" banner, Jack?
Like anybody cares.
What we know they DID was arm themselves, and then leave the permitted area for their protest specifically to march over and initiate violence with the RWNJs. Then we know they refused to leave after the entire shitshow was declared an unlawful riot.
So this bullshit where people try to make excuses for their premeditated acts of violence is not going to fly.
"The left was not a part of it, other than to protect a synagogue from the antisemitic "Unite the Right" marchers.".... Bull. Shit.
The hell they weren't. They were at least half of it. The instigating half.
Ah, the expected evasion.
You and Drakk keep on playing like anybody's going to believe bullshit claims that "Unite the Right" was carried out by leftists.
Well, I guess I should applaud you for being so open about your support for the 'Unite the Right' side of that rally. That's the side where one rightwing nut job rammed his car into a crowd of peaceful protesters maiming several and killing one. That's the side with the Nazi's and confederate flag waving fucking open blatant racists marching alongside their fellow rightwing bigots chanting "Jews will not replace us!". Funny none of that seemed worthy of a mention.
So, thanks for making it blatantly clear which side you've taken in the fight to save our constitutional Republican from the confederate flag waving Nazi supporting antisemitic immigrant hating rightwing conservative fascists. Please do tell us more about how they were the ones with the permit so they're the ones who were somehow wronged by the people who, for some reason that seems unclear to you, dislike Nazi's marching in our streets.
Or, alternatively, you could at least pretend to acknowledge that condemnation of one set of criminals does not imply support for another.
Or... more accurately.... one rightwing nut job rammed his car into a crowd of unlawful rioters maiming several and killing one.
Correct. When people break the law, their ideology ceases to matter. They could have been screaming "save the autistic puppies" for all I care.
Yes. The adult side. The side with grown ups. The group that thinks the right to free speech applies to everybody, no matter how stupid, provided they follow the law while they do it.
Our constitutional Republic does not require salvation from 200 idiots with tiki torches. Nor does it require salvation from 10,000 BLM idiots, 400 unwashed OWS idiots living in a park, or however many anti-ICE idiots came out last weekend.
It never has.
The only thing in need of saving are lovely liberal feelings. They find it simply unbearable that other people be allowed to shout stupid slogans at the sky. Apparently they feel entitled to some sort of monopoly on the practice.
Please do tell us more about how these "peaceful protesters" who happened to be armed with blunt instruments all left their legal protest to start an unlawful riot by initiating a fight with assholes they knew were looking for one.
What you won't acknowledge is that this started as an ugly protest of RW lunatics, with the disease in their minds on display for all to see.... UNTIL.... the fucking Looney Left Brigade showed up to start a street fight and announce "don't forget about us... we're just as sick in the head as these other assholes."
So is your assertion here that these lefties did nothing wrong or merely that the crimes they committed were acceptable because, you know, "feelings"?
It's not up to them. Who gives a fuck if they don't like Nazis marching in the streets? It's an enumerated constitutional right... which they have no problem exercising and also no problem denying to other people. Land of the free and all that...
Personally, I dislike anybody marching in the streets. Unless they're accompanied by a marching band, I consider them complete morons. It's not 1960 anymore. But the Constitution says we have to allow these idiots to assemble so it's not up to me.
You don't get to pick and choose who gets to say what. The Constitution protects speech you find objectionable, or it doesn't protect any speech at all.
Still going for the lie that they were illegal rioters, I see.
Doesn't look like they were rioting to me. it looks like they were walking as a group.
Your disingenuous characterization will win you some brownie points with Trump, though. Have they rebuilt LA yet? /s
So, by the fact that included the word "Right", it therefore is representative of the right's views, ideologies and goals?
And, please, don't tell us the equally batshit crazy opposition present at Charlottesville is representative of the left wing, although if you wanted to make the case that they come closer than the white supremacists do, I'd find that believable.
An easy sell, I suppose, to many on the Left. From my perspective, they didn't give a damn about that. They just thought they finally had something they clearly saw as so evil that no one would object when they turned the event violent. That is, they thought they could finally release their inner Che Guevara and no one would object. In reality, they just sat down at the table and pushed their chips all-in, escalating the situation. They are as guilty of that woman's death for intentionally escalating things as the guy who drove the car, in my opinion.
No, they didn't. They marched under the "Our feelings justifies our actions" banner. A banner demonstrably far more violent.
Depends on what you're talking about. If you mean the actual march by white supremacists, for the reasons that the white supremacists intended, [removed] [✘] If you mean the entirety of what happened at the event, then yeah, the violence was initiated by the left. And, in my opinion, it was premeditated. The Left, thinking it has the right to physically go down and beat the crap out of anyone who they don't like is just as extremist and wrong as Germany's Brownshirts.
Which comes from the idea that if Jack (or myself) do not view this event as you do, signing up with your ideology, then we must, by default, support the nutjobs on the right. That there is a third, fourth or fifth way to view this event doesn't register with you.
I'd guess that would be because sane people don't attribute the actions of one person, or even several, as applying to all. It doesn't. This is attested to by the fact that there hasn't been another Charlottesville. There would have been many of them, had the white supremacists been representative of the right wing. Instead, the LWNJ's treated Charlottesville as a caricature of those on the right and escalated the whole thing.
Great example of an extremist view. Anyone who doesn't toe your political view of a subject therefor supports the other side; a consistently Leftist tactic.
He's been trying to, but you aren't listening. Free speech is a thing in this country. It doesn't depend on whether you like what they have to say or not. They don't need your permission or approval to say it. Nor is it a license or justification to do violence upon them. There lies something much closer to actual fascism.
You take one isolated snapshot of events and present it as representative of the whole and claim Jack is the one being disingenuous? That's laughable.
Opposing antisemitism is "batshit crazy", is it?
Thanks for letting us know how you feel.
Thomas was responding to a false characterization of "one isolated snapshot of events" presented by Jack.
What a bunch of fucking garbage.
The idea that no one should protest hundreds of neo-Nazis , Ku Klux Klan, open white supremacists, and other antisocial deviants marching down the streets of their town is wishful thinking, at best. It is common for such displays of unbridled hate to be opposed by counter protesters. Your claim that "the left" started the violence is unsupported , by among other things the fact that the alt-right groups were found liable in court for causing the violence. The fact is, that like any large scale confrontation the actual violence began here and there, with pushing and shoving by individuals and it quickly escalated.
Your implication that all the Nazis etc wanted was a peaceful march around the Robert E Lee statue is preposterous.
[✘]
Read it again. Jack didn't "present" it. He was responding to what Dismayed Patriot said.
Yes, it is. Thing is, though, is that it was being protested. Peacefully, in the beginning. But then they left the site they actually had a permit for and physically attacked the other group. That's the part that isn't okay.
Two thirds of Americans support deporting illegal immigrants, although they differ on how it should be done. Going by your apparent reasoning, should those who support what the government is currently doing to deport them go down and attempt to beat the stuffing out of all those who are protesting against the effort?
Okay, let me reword it, then.
Depends on what you're talking about. If you mean the actual march by white supremacists, for the reasons that the white supremacists intended, it seems to me to be a grade school tactic to attempt to mischaracterize what Jack and I are saying to mean anything remotely like that, as nothing either of us said suggests such. If you think differently, show us where we have said that the Leftists caused white supremacists to do the rally in the first place.
If you mean the entirety of what happened at the event, then yeah, the violence was initiated by the left. And, in my opinion, it was premeditated. The Left, thinking it has the right to physically go down and beat the crap out of anyone who they don't like is just as extremist and wrong as Germany's Brownshirts.
Thomas's description of events was accurate. Jack's was false.
No. Opposing antisemitism is not batshit crazy. Thinking that because you (the general, impersonal you) have the right to do violence on someone else because you feel your views justify it is what's crazy. That's how I feel and my guess is Jack feels the same. I think you know this.
In what way was it false?
Here is a fairly long article about the violence, too long to reasonably post in entirety here.
Charlottesville timeline - How white supremacist protests turned deadly over 24 hours - Washington Post
I dont see anything in there that shows the fault for the violence belongs to the left.
I dont think there is any doubt that some of the violence was initiated by the left and some was initiated by the right.
What is not in dispute is that the nazi kkk groups came to Charlottesville hoping and planning for violent confrontation.
I don't disagree.
I don't disagree with this, either. I would only add that it is equally true that counter protestors had the same plan.
In my opinion, the counter protestors gave the white supremacists exactly what they wanted. A violent confrontation. Since white supremacists don't have the ability to read the room (meaning national support for their cause) they figured it would ignite some sort of response from white people on the right. It demonstrably did not, as nothing like Charlottsville has occurred since. Not because of the actions of the violent counter protesters, but because white people on the right have no sympathy for white supremacist positions.
In my opinion, the counter protesters were primarily concerned with the emotional high of "taking a stand", as if the future of America depended on what they did in that moment. It did not. I know this because I grew up in an area of what the news called a "white nationalist hotbed". Looking back, I suppose white nationalists chose our area because it was solidly conservative, imagining, I suppose, that they would find a sympathetic audience for their insanity.
They didn't. I recall two minute segments of "rallies" conducted by these people on the news. They'd stand around in a park or on the steps of some government building in their cosplay uniforms and, for most people as far as I could tell, was like watching people stripping naked and smearing themselves with jelly and peanut butter. There wasn't any counter protesters. There wasn't any violence. They were just largely ignored or, at best, looked at as some sort of weird, but gross, natural phenomenon.
More importantly, it was revealed that, in reality, they were actually involved in criminal activities. Not political ones. Just common, everyday criminal acts. And most of them ended up in jail. In the end, no one was surprised. In the end, the conservative community they thought they could infect with their ideology was their greatest enemy.
The point of all of this is that the right doesn't want to be Nazis. They have no sympathy for the cause. If it were otherwise, we'd have had scores of Charlottsville's by now. We haven't even had one.
Ask yourself why Trump said there were good people on both sides, there is a reason, and in my opinion it is not flattering to his constituents.
Well, the isolated snapshot that I presented was taken when the group was rammed by the car. So his characterization of them as "unlawful rioters" is misleading at the best.
I believe they were in the process of dispersing at the time. If you have information to the contrary, I will be more than happy to look at it.
And you're welcome to it, but considering your conclusion you must be sitting at the bottom of a well because that is one massively myopic perspective.
Well, that one just crossed the Rubicon into an irrationality that even the most limber of mental gymnasts wouldn't attempt. Talk about batshit crazy, that's like infected Wu Han wet market bat shit crazy.
Nothing irrational about it. While no one could possibly state with certainty what might have happened if the counter protestors had not reacted violently to the white supremacists, how likely do you think it would be that the guy in the car would have had the opportunity to do what he had done? If they had declined to riot, if they had not acted aggressively toward the guy in the car, if a dozen other ifs other than giving the violence the supremacists wanted rather than acting within the law, might not that woman be alive today?
If people had not been on their emotional, virtue signaling high horse that day, what would have happened? A bunch of idiots moving around spouting an ideology few people resonate with, then they go home while the news cycle makes them look like the idiots they are.
The United States didn't need saving that day. That was just as much a fantasy of the idiots on the left as the idiots on the right had about their own march.
It may be that organized white supremacist groups are "tiny" , people dont generally want to lend their name to an obvious hate group. It could get them fired from their job or have other ramifications.
There are millions of white racists in this country. Millions. There is a spectrum, and they are not all equally bigoted, but there are millions of white racists in this country.
THAT is why Trump said "good people on both sides" - he didnt want to get on the wrong side of his political base.
It's an easily verifiable fact.
It's a fact that stomps all over the "protesters are peaceful" propaganda you routinely try to sell, so I expect you'll deny that, but the facts are easy to find. There is a timeline.
The assembly was declared an unlawful riot at 11:35am. At that point... "protesters" became "unlawful rioters". The governor declared a state of emergency at 11:52am.
The car was driven into the crowd between 1:40 and 1:45. There was still a crowd of people participating in an unlawful riot.
They were ordered to disperse over 2 hours earlier, which means their continued presence there is unlawful. Do you see how this works?
It's interesting that you equate the introduction of the concept that protesters are actually accountable for their actions with Trump. Is that why you find him so threatening?
Well, since the footage you provided wasn't the car that caused the death and has no context, it's hard to take it as evidence. As I understand it, the car that killed the woman is likely the car behind the van shown "ramming" the crowd but only did so because it had been rammed from behind. This is indicated by the fact that the crowd's focus in the aftermath is not on the van hitting the protestors but the car behind it.
The police had declared both the white supremacist protest and the counter protest as illegal once the violence started. Not misleading at all.
If they were dispersing, great. Doesn't excuse what had happened prior to that.
It was obviously premeditated. They brought weapons.
No. It wasn't. You simply find it uncomfortable.
The facts on that day are easily verifiable.
By taking clubs and starting a street brawl? Yes. It absolutely fucking is.
This is a ridiculous comment. Unless they were actually rioting it wasnt an unlawful riot. Failure to disperse? Maybe.
You and Drakkonis are parroting the "unite the right' defense at their trial (which they lost). They claimed to be the real victims that day.
I've resigned myself to the fact that I live in a nation of emotional idiots who feel better after they shout at the sky. I don't like it, but it is what it is.
I am absolutely not going call people who leave their protest with clubs to go to another protest and start a street fight "peaceful". It's insane. These people go into anaphylactic shock at the slightest introduction of accountability. Too bad.
Out of curiosity, what did they actually achieve that day? Do tell? Other than making themselves indistinguishable from the most horrifically reprehensible people in America.
I implied no such thing. That is you projecting your own nonsense again.
I have read the opinions of kkk, nazi, and other white supremacists that were there that day and involved, and their opinions are that they were the innocent victims.
In court, the decision was reached that that was not true.
You are, probably unknowingly, following the nazi and kkk response that failed in court.
That's not how that works.
No, you're inventing that again because it's easier than assigning any accountability whatsoever to leftists.
Well John, maybe... just fucking maybe... there are more opinions than theirs and yours. I dunno. Just given the number of people on planet earth, it seems likely.
FFS.
And here we go again. Introducing irrelevancies in order to craft a narrative you think we follow because you can't address the actual argument.
Your argument, that the violence was the fault of the "left" is an argument that has been used by the neo-nazis etc, themselves.
How that is irrelevant is beyond me. You are repeating the defense the kkk etc used to try and avoid responsibility , and they lost.
They probably also argue that water is wet. That doesn't mean it isn't.
Your entire view on this is rooted in your identity politics, which are utterly irrelevant in the face of actual facts.
Watch it again. It is exactly when the incident occurred. The car came from the part of street obscured by the building, it plowed into people and there were two cars in front of it. It plowed into the crowd, smashing into people and automobiles. They are the automobiles that you can see from that vantage point. I picked that video because it showed the crowd of people, obviously not rioting.
Watch from this angle if you do not believe me.
I couldn't care less what their argument is. Further, I didn't say the violence was the fault of the left, although it may be. I said they initiated it, which is what the supremacists wanted. If the left had not initiated the violence, if they had just stayed where they originally were, perhaps nothing at all would have happened, but that is now in the realm of speculation.
Regardless of who's responsible, my argument is that just because you don't like what someone else is saying or what they stand for is not justification to do violence upon them. It is really that simple. Are you arguing otherwise?
Which is designed to do what? Prove that the left did not attack the supremacists? That the left did no violence? What's the goal here?
Funny, they didn't look like they were rioting to me.
Last I knew, you had to be actively engaged in riotous activities in order to be a rioter, so they are not rioters. You know "look and see".
We know the characterization that you put on here. We have seen it many times before. All I can do is wonder how you can walk right up to the truth and leave it lying, dying on the sidewalk.
It's ok. we STILL love you and respect your rights, no matter if you don't recognize when the President is trying to hollow out democracy and sell off the country to the highest bidder. Going once....
Maybe if you looked at other footage other than the ones that show what you want them to???
They were.
But they could be setting buildings on fire and you'd still call it a "peaceful protest".
That's not how that works.
Wow. Talk about a prime example of the "She was askin for it!" defense. First, I've seen the footage of Charlottesville, I was watching it live that day, and to claim the peaceful protesters were "rioting" is a GROSS overstatement. Were there some screaming at the dipshits flying their swastikas and confederate flags? Yes. Were there some plastic bottles and other random shit thrown by both sides at times? Yes. Was it a "riot" started by anti-fascists? Fuck no. That's complete horseshit fed to gullible rightwing morons by the very bigoted Nazi's and confederate flag flyers that some apparently have been conned into defending.
Second, the argument that if "they" had not acted "aggressively" towards the FUCKING MURDERER then she might be alive is about the lamest, most brainless, dumbest defense I've ever heard. The very idea that the peaceful protesters were somehow responsible for Heathers death is beyond moronic, it's the kind of blatant stupidity that adds weight to the argument supporting lobotomies being brought back into use.
If Heather and her protester friends are responsible for her death, then I guess that would make any Republican or even Trump himself responsible if anyone shoots at them or decides to run them over with their car. It's not the liberal's fault, it was Trump who keeps acting aggressively towards liberals that's the ones who would be responsible for his own assassination, right? /s
This whole discussion is one of the stranger things I've seen here in a while. I guess now we know where Trump got the motivation to say there were good people on both sides.
which means what ?
Tell me. What would have happened if nobody paid any attention to the supremacist idiots while they were in Charlottsville? They had their stupid, embarrassing to watch tiki torch parade, showed up at the statue and they were the only one's there? Or the next day? Showed up, made their speeches but no one showed up other than them? Answer? Nothing. Nothing would have happened other than looking like clowns they are but with media coverage of the fact.
I watched it as it was happening, too. What I saw was counter protesters just as prepared for violence as the supremacists were. Helmets, shields, clubs, mace and the rest. It was completely unnecessary and only served to escalate everything. Now, you can create whatever self-serving narrative out of my words that you wish, but it seems obvious to me that the young woman would likely still be alive if the counter protestors had not interfered with the supremacist's constitutional right to a legal assembly. Instead, the counter protesters gave the supremacists exactly what they wanted. Brilliant.
This is the most important question of the entire event. You will not get a rational answer.
No, I don't expect I will. I'll just get a lot of emotions.
So, basically, you're saying Americans should just ignore this move towards rightwing fascism and white supremacy and just let them march in the streets with their tiki torches waving swastika flags and shouting antisemitic chants. Those folk should remain completely unconfronted, unchallenged, just like how conservatives choose never to confront pro-choice activists and BLM activists, right? Thanks for reminding me of how conservatives handle things, they just ignore the protest, take the insult and walk away, right? /s
So let's get this straight. It's apparently okay for conservatives to confront and protest what they see as socialism, pro-choice advocates, proposed gun laws, and the growing acceptance of the lgtbq community, and if any of those liberals or gays runs over a protesting conservative it's the vile liberal's fault! Right? But if a conservative runs over a liberal protesting conservatives marching with Nazi flags, pushing fascism and protecting memorials to confederate slave owners, then "she was askin for it!" and it was her fault. Right? That is exactly your claim, unless you are saying no one should ever protest, conservatives included, unless they accept the fact that if they get killed, it was their fault for daring to protest.
The rightwing conservative hypocrisy truly knows no bounds. All anyone with more than half a brain can do is shake their heads and walk away from these kinds of debates because it feels like continuing this conversation is not only a waste of time, it's likely just confusing the opposition with concepts they're clearly incapable of wrapping their tiny minds around.
So, you're just going to keep manufacturing narratives for me, huh? Knock yourself out. When you want to have an actual discussion, get back to me.
So much wrong in one sentence. Wow.
Movement? This was a gathering of Nazi idiots from across the entire country... and they came up with 200 people. That's not a movement. That's a small frat party.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the Constitution guarantees their right to assemble their group of complete idiots just like it guarantees your right to assemble yours when you protest ICE or an inauguration or the existence of banks or whatever stupid ideas drive you into the streets.
So yes. Sit the fuck down and let people scream at the sky, just like you expect them to let you do it.
Now you're catching on.
Who are you claiming has said that? Citation? Or is this just more of your vivid imagination?
No "D" - God does not. But, I would guess that would depend on the God they serve, eh?
Thomas's video shows no rioters, other than the one driving the car that killed a woman because he came from Ohio with the intent to kill commit violence because, as you say, he
along with the tiki-torch carrying neo-Nazis.
Bullshit, Drakk.
You and Jack piled on after George accused the left of courting antisemitism.
I pointed out that the antisemitism in Charlottesville existed entirely on the part of the right. You said it wasn't "all on the right", but, when you couldn't support that leftists were the ones marching in support of the "Jews will not replace us" mantra, you then moved that goalpost to include all acts of violence committed that day, rather than the ones committed in the name of the march's self-appointed goal, which included a healthy dose of antisemitism.
"Unite the Right" was entirely a right-wing march, Drakk. No leftists supported it.
That's why, when I pressed on that point, Jack had to evade. Because he and you knew that "Unite the Right" really was an entirely right-wing movement, despite your denial of the same.
Now, speaking of grade-school level mischaracterizations, let's look at this one.
The march absolutely was all by the right. That is not the same thing as saying that all of the right was marching. That's you trying to mischaracterize my words. Either that, or you didn't understand them. Which would you rather?
They are, by definition, participating in an unlawful riot.
Not the case. My comments were a reaction to everything said from comment 2 to 2.1.5 . You and others were most definitely including all of the right as being responsible for what the supremacist idiots did at Charlottsville. It is you who then moved the goal post from the right in general to the miniscule portion of the right that represents the white nationalists.
I'll choose door number three. The one where I understand them and does not misrepresent them. This whole thread began with the accusation that the right as a whole is responsible for Charlottsville. Just go back and read it for yourself. Don't blame me because I stuck with the original accusation, while you tried to move it to something else.
First, I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to take quotes from different people, stich them together and then present it as something someone has actually said.
Second, since you did stitch in Jacks quote into mine, you could at least have highlighted the right word that he was pointing out as the correct way to put what Thomas had mischaracterized. That is it should have read...
Jack had made the word change to what Dismayed Patriot had said, changing "peaceful" to "unlawful" to make his point. Jack made this point in 2.1.25, at which time Thomas hadn't even posted his vid yet. Where you went wrong was 2.1.40
I asked you in 2.1.42 in what way Jack was wrong, which becomes an even more relevant question considering Jack didn't even address Thomas until 2.1.50, in which he explains why Thomas' vid doesn't prove what he thinks it does.
The most relevant portion of Jack's post here is highlighted in red. Even though the rioters were just standing around, the fact that the whole event by all parties was considered unlawful made them rioters by not dispersing, whether they were peacefully not dispersing or not.
I think it important to point out that, had the rioters done what they were told, the woman's death would have likely not have happened. The police, city government and the governor were trying to prevent that very thing from happening and it likely wouldn't have, if they had obeyed the order. They didn't and bear at least some responsibility for what happened. I know 'responsibility' is anathema to many of the left but it's still true.
Just illustrating the hypocrisy in your accusations against leftists. You apply words to leftists that you won't apply to RWers, even when they kill somebody. I used the quote tool to specify which words were yours and which were mine.
In fact, you blame leftists for Heather Heyer's death. "What if they'd just stayed home?" Do you ever ask the same about the people who actually showed up armed to intimidate and incite?
No.
The word "accountability" gets thrown around a lot in this thread. But only in regards to one side. The left should sit down and be quiet when the right makes threats. If they respond, they're being emotional and they're culpable for the violence that ensues. Not the right, who made the threats in the first place.
And that sort of approbation is why the right owns the outcome when the results of this lack of accountability results in deaths. The criminal elements of the far right are being mollycoddled, just like here, with blame for their actions shifted to those they kill, or at least to the left. Hell, we have somebody here who repeatedly tries to blame Tim Walz.
Which was never made.
I spoke specifically of the Unite the Right march, which was entirely right-wing in origin. That's why I mentioned the chant they were using. You decided I included the left, who were NOT using antisemitic chants, but who were there to counterprotest the antisemitism. To ignore that specification requires a serious degree of misunderstanding, willful or otherwise, on your part.
The farther you get into the libertarian spectrum, the more you see this sort of thing. I think these two guys mean well enough, but their philosophy stinks.
Nobody is talking about the Nazis because you're only defending the behaviors of one group. If you were defending the Nazis, you'd get the same pushback. It's not hypocrisy.
You have defended the behavior of one group because their ideology aligns with yours and you find the other ideology unacceptable. If the Nazis had behaved exactly the same way the liberals did, you would condemn the same behaviors you have been defending. And rightfully so.
That's not to say you're a hypocrite, either. You're just using a different litmus test.
Your focus throughout the discussion has consistently been on the ideology of the people in question. Drak and I are focused on the behaviors of the people in question.
You, Thomas, John, and others view ideology as the primary driver. You comments have been very consistent in supporting that thought process. That's why you are all incredulous at the suggestion that people should just stay home and allow Nazis to broadcast their hateful ideology. That worldview is also why you all equate condemnation of a behavior with support for the opposing ideology. That's not what it is at all. That's not how we think.
Drakk and I view behavior as the primary driver. (He can correct me if I'm wrong). Our view is that no matter your ideology, it does not justify leaving your protest and marching to somebody else's with clubs in hand. Nor does it justify carrying on with the event after it was declared a riot and they were ordered to disperse. Drakk and I struggle to figure out what you think the behavior accomplished.
All behaviors bring consequences, not all of which are intended. People are responsible for their behaviors. In this case, some behaviors of the liberal protesters were absolutely illegal. Some absolutely contributed to Heather Heyer's death by increasing the opportunity and likelihood of violence. Did they intend that? No. Are they still responsible? Yes.
It is. . .important. . . that the protesters be thought of and defined as rioting—rather the case or not. Otherwise, it is just a protest and those are allowed by constitution law. That is, a protest can not be "both sided" as violent. . . but a RIOT can be "both-sided."
You would likely have no choice but to take a different. . . perspective had someone you knew got the short end of that occasion with the car. But, that is what lacking empathy get 'us.'
Tell me what do you think of another set of circumstances where Kyle Rittenhouse showed up at a protest with his weapon "in his hand." He got off scot-free, and though the case is settled and done. . .what would be the libertarian logic for Rittenhouse being there in the first place. . . beyond it was a city street and a dark night of freedom to go where he pleases?
You again make the mistake of accusing those who refuse to follow your ideology with lack of morality. Don't worry, we're used to it.
His behavior was ridiculous and unacceptable. He's lucky somebody didn't shoot him. Had they done so, he would bear most of the responsibility in that.
He was charged with the wrong crimes.
Let's look at another situation. I'm curious about your views on Ashli Babbit. (She stormed the US Capitol as part of the Jan 6th riots, and was shot and killed during the melee.) Did she "have it coming"? Or was she a victim?
No, she did not have it coming (whatever that is supposed to mean). She was in the wrong place at the wrong time. . . stepping through a broken window casement in an officially restricted zone. . .how often in a day (or night) do you find persons doing that without consequences? I could say her behavior was "ridiculous and unacceptable," and wish she was here alive with us. No, she was not a victim as she was in a 'trespass' state to begin with at any point she could have desisted her conduct—she did not relent and sadly was stopped dead in her tracks. No pun intended.
Other left leaners here on NT have argued that she deserved what happend.
She was. Let's admit that her own decisions put her there. Behaviors often have unintended consequences.
I couldn't agree more. I would say that's one of the best assessments I've heard so far.
Why bother with telling me what "other left leaners" argue? It is superfluous.
Glad you like my "assessment."
Glad we agree on Rittenhouse and Babbitt, both, being in protest places where they did not belong. Now that I think about it, I am not sure the Capitol "protest" was authorized by the city of D.C. Maybe you know if they had permit to be on the grounds in such numbers?
To provide context for the unusual question.
I don't. IMO it most certainly doesn't matter.
Just like Charlottesville, whatever permit they might have had certainly didn't authorize the behaviors they enacted or the crimes they committed.
Speaking of context. . . a capitol permit would have given them PERMIT to be on the premise on the day OF. Afterall, a SIGNIFICANT and PERFUNTORY process was happening in the midst of the facility, a constitutional process with a deadline.
It would not have given them permission to be inside.
At least I hope it wouldn't have. I'd hate to think you could go into the police department, fill out the permit application, and list "Nancy Pelosi's office" as the location.
You make a good point, though. If they did have a permit, then there are a lot of parallels with the Charlottesville riots.
Hey, I am a libertarian.... am I also on the spectrum?
You put that very well. You identified the problem perfectly.
And, trial/s.
Hahahahaha! No, as a matter of fact, those are activities that I would consider unlawful and riotous (of the nature of a riot : turbulent: participating in riot)
I feel sorry that you can't draw that distinction in your mind between peaceful people holding signs that say,"Hate has no place here," and people set on violence. I think it's just a goddamn shame. It is a good thing that police officers can, at least sometimes, tell and respect the difference.
To use your logic we should all just sit inside and do nothing. The system will apparently correct for something it wasn't designed to handle. It will be alright.
America is being ripped out of our grasp by autocratic fucktards and apparently you just want us to sit back and take it.
Fuck that.
What makes you think that I have discriminated in the images and videos that I have seen regarding this occurrence of hate and the natural response to it? What gives you this ability, or more rightly, what makes you think you have the ability, to peer into my brain to see what I have and have not viewed?
This particular gathering was not on the same location as the one earlier in the day. I believe that it was just inside of the area declared by the governor to be the scene of an "unlawful riot". The people were not rioters, as Jack would have you believe, because they were not involved in rioting. They were protesters.
From Google, when asked the question: If an area is declared the scene of a riot, does that automatically make everyone there a rioter?
It was a bunch of fucking racist assholes who deemed themselves to be "The Right". All of these racist, xenophobic assholes were marching around with their tiki torches and chanting "Jews will not replace us".
By Jack's logic, that means that it is their fault entirely. One demonstrator goes astray and the whole shooting -match is out the door and should have stayed home.
Don't. It's not about your feelings.
Riiiiight. Like these? Hint... these are not the Nazis. But I'm sure the club he's holding originally had a "no hate" sign on it.
How about this guy:
I'm sure he carries that spray can with him wherever he goes. You never know when a peaceful barbeque might break out and they need to start the grill.
Oh look! Here's a sign. I'm sure "GTFO You Fascist Scum" translates to "Hate Has No Place Here" in some language.
And another sign. With a "mostly peaceful" death threat.
And here we have another sign. Apparently it slipped off the that nice young man's club while he was accidentally peacefully beating that crippled Nazi on the ground.
If the only options you can come up with are "sit inside and do nothing" or "take clubs and start another violent riot", then yeah... you should sit inside. You never know when the next Kyle Rittenhouse is likely to show up. While you're there, you might work on some type of strategy that isn't completely emotional and idiotic.
While you're sitting inside, I'd suggest reading some American history. You'll come to realize the system can absolutely handle this and yes, it will be alright.
In and ideal situation, I would want you to come up with a plan involving more intellectual effort and a higher degree of effectiveness than shouting at the sky or starting a street fight with another group of morons.
I'm not actually hopeful about that, so I would settle for you accepting the idea that lunatic leftists are as accountable for their actions as the RWNJs they hate.
I'm not hopeful about that, either, so we'll just leave it at... go figure out how to make some money and stop whining. Your militant revolution isn't ever going to happen, and meanwhile you've got bills to pay.
Your attempt to remain conflated is noted, as is your attempt to paint me as uneducated and lazy.
On this Independence Day, I would like for you to contemplate the fate of what was to become the United States of America if the pillar of public demonstration were unavailable to its citizenry. This nation was built on activism and only through activism, protest, civil disobedience, even riot and outright war could the country advance towards a "More perfect Union".
If the people do not show up and stand up for what they believe in, democracy dies. There are most certainly other parts that are less visible and equally important, but without the palpable personal participation of a large contingent of fellow citizens, bad-faith actors can and will corrupt the system to their schemes. They are doing it right now, and the longer we sit on our hands, the more they corrupt and the harder it becomes to get the nation back on course.
Your individual participation is encouraged but not required. I am sure that others will do your part for you. /s
I don't need to paint anything. Your continual commitment to this fantasy that absolutely any left wing protest is necessarily peaceful paints a more damning picture than I could manage if I were trying.
Are we contemplating "the pillar of public demonstration" or "the pillar of public demonstration with clubs where we beat the shit out of old guys with canes while they're on the ground"? Just want to be clear.
"This nation was built on protests" seems an odd claim for you to make while you're attempting to justify your lovely lefties violently denying the Constitutional right of other people to protest.
So I guess protesting is OK as long as they believe the same things you do. Convenient how that works.
You are trying and failing to defend the utterly indefensible (again), simply because the assholes in question agree with your ideology. Congratulations, you are now indistinguishable from Trump supporters who defend the Jan 6 riots.
Riiiiight. I can definitely see how street brawls are staples of democracy. I was under the impression it had more to do with the ballot box, but clearly that was short sighted of me.
Sounds good. I'll let you be in charge of marching around screaming at the sky, beating up cripples, and claiming it's all "peaceful".
Agree that they were racist assholes. Don't know if they thought they represented the entire right. More likely, they thought they might shift the right to their way of thinking, in my opinion.
And? So what??? Literally, so what? Did Hitler come back to life? Has anyone started rounding up Jews? Where's the great Nationalist Socialist uprising?
Are you pretending to not understand Jack's clearly stated logic or is it possible you still just don't get it? The moment the counter protesters left their designated area for the purpose of confronting the supremacists they all "went astray". Some of them were armed, so it isn't as if the rest of the "peaceful protesters" didn't know what was coming.
They should have just stayed where they were. Got interviewed by the media. Informed people how to make a difference in ways that were legal and more effective. Instead, every single one of them went down there thinking that the fate of America depended on them. That America would fall unless they defeated the "enemy". They screamed at them as if that was somehow going to change their minds rather than simply make themselves look like lunatics just as unhinged as the supremacists were.They physically attacked them, as if they had every legal and moral right to do so. An enemy who hadn't attacked anyone until after they were being attacked when all they had been doing was exercising their constitutional rights.
And you know what? That made the counter protesters, all of them for the past couple of decades, the bigger threat to America by far than the supremacists ever could be. Do you know why? Because they think they are above the law. They think they have the right, based on their emotional reaction to some issue, to forcibly make people submit to their will. And if they don't submit, they think they're perfectly within their rights to do whatever they want to make them. Attack the police, sometimes killing them. Burn things down, be it buildings, cars or whatever. Block streets with the intent to hinder travel. Throw soup on art, buildings, people or whatever else. Go into speaking engagements and not allow people to speak if they don't promote their preferred ideology. Take over campuses, buildings and loot businesses. Prevent law enforcement from carrying out their duties.
And the big question is, at what point are they going to kick it up a notch? Start arming themselves. Start blowing stuff up? Because it's a pretty small step, at this point.
P.S.
And how does what the counter protesters did make democracy stronger? Going around rioting seems like the opposite of democracy to me. Seems more like some people trying to force other people to their will.
Interesting. You say this, but then later say...
First, kudos for channeling Marx on the second quote. Second, why bother with the first quote if the second more accurately reflects what you believe. That is, it's obvious you believe the second one so why keep trying to pretend these protesters were peaceful? Why not just admit that it doesn't really matter to you whether they were peaceful or not? It's the "cause" that justifies everything, right?
What makes you think the system isn't designed to handle it and just what is that "something" it apparently can't handle?
There is a pattern to these protest conversations.
It starts with "there wasn't any violence", moves through "only a few people were violent", to "property damage isn't violence, so the fires don't count", to "it was self defense", to "it was justified because they said mean things".
The most delusional ones are nonsense like this thread where we're pretending people who are clearly violating the law are somehow peaceful and righteous. The other version of that is people who actually get arrested at these things who claim THEY were at a peaceful protest because THEY didn't actually set fire to anything.
There is no level of violence they won't defend from people who match their ideology. At no point can they allow accountability to be assigned for any action taken by anyone in their cause.
We're talking about the people who are currently defending and making excuses for Hamas. It's staggering.
And your continued attempts to portray me as saying "absolutely any left wing protest is necessarily peaceful" tells everyone who can read words and understand what they are reading that you have no serious argument, no discernable path between full on riot and peaceful protest, no distinction between a rioter and a bystander, a rioter and a protester. It is digital for you: One person steps out of line and a million are besmirched. One person, one day, and a whole movement is written off as extremist and violent. As it is with all of your arguments, by your use of the "From the one to the many" fallacy, you spread your specious argumentation with as large a brush as you can find and put your sanctimonious bull crap on top for flavor. To wit:
Put your slanderous words in someone else's mouth. I have stated publicly and repeatedly that violence is wrong and have no problem with the police arresting violent people, be their actions directed against people or property.
You are not even talking about the same time period or location as I am, but, because they both happened on the same day, in the same city, you feel confident to paint every single person on the streets after the Governor's declaration an "unlawful rioter," and hence not worthy of any consideration. They died? That is ok with you. That is exactly what your argumentation is saying.
Again with defamatory remarks. I am not defending the rioters, but you seem to be having difficulty with your comprehension. You bringing in the events of two hours earlier shows just how little seriousness your argument has.
See above. Get some new material, this schtick is getting old.
Agreed. The question is, why? The left going farther left isn't something that is happening naturally, in my opinion. There's someone, or a group of them more likely, who are doing the pushing. Personally, I think it is something along the lines of a kind of insurgency based on some form of neo-Marxism. Too many colleges are pushing pseudo-intellectualism using things like critical theory and postmodern thought to come up with what is essentially bullshit and doesn't reflect the reality of the human condition. Instead, it's just designed to motivate emotional thinking and actions.
"Nazis are bad!", they cry. Well, no shit. So what about that means you have to go out and peacefully scream at them or beat the shit out of them or stalk them until you've destroyed their life? What about that makes acting like what you're fighting against okay?
And, if they really are justified in doing what they do to those they disagree with, doesn't that mean I and those who think as I do can do the exact same thing to them? You know, go and peacefully beat the shit out of them?
Hmmmm, lets see,
That should be enough for even the most ani-demonstrative fellow to realize that the right to protest is not just allowed, it is essential, so much so that it is enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the First Amendment. Right up front.
So, it was obviously important to the framers of the CotUS because they realized that somewhere down the line, someone was going to try and take those rights from the people, and they did not want that to happen. Those rights are the bedrock of our society. Through the application of those rights to speak, to spread their ideas, to assemble, to petition the government.
Fast forward to today, you see the administrations wanton disdain for those rights and the abuse of governmental authority in a multitude of cases. Which makes your question seem quaint.
The Constitution was written to be followed by the people in power. It can handle adversarial branches fighting with each other, but it was not written for the eventuality of bad faith actors controlling each of the three branches and thereby, for all intents and purposes, annulling the checks and balances built into it. And that is what we have right now in Washington. The three branches are in power and they are not playing by the rules. What is worse is the Supreme Court is just winking and nodding at this full scale corruption of government, allowing it to proceed. Now, finally, we can see that what Donald Trump was always caterwauling about, the system being rigged, is now, and it will stay that way if allowed to persist much longer.
He has already destroyed our standing politically and scientifically. He is working on destroying us monetarily. The world no longer trusts us. They fear us and probably are pretty angry with us too. We were the shining city on the hill. If Trump is allowed to follow through on his ill-conceived and frankly stupid agenda, we will yesterday's news much sooner than I had ever thought possible.
Above are the reasons that I, gladly and with pride, protest. The real question should be: Why isn't everyone?
Yeah. That's great and all, but what about the people who disagree with you? Do they get a vote in this democracy of yours or only those with your ideology? I mean, what if they see the system you want in place as corrupt? Because all these people you seem to be talking about standing up are the ones who agree with you, not anyone else.
And since voting in your form of democracy seems to consist of protests rather than ballot boxes, is the right supposed to start acting like the left does? Should we start occupying colleges until all the progressive faculty are forced out? Should we start showing up at school boards in districts that teach objectionable materials to children and just shout them all down and disrupt the proceedings, preventing any business getting done? Should we invade leftist speaking engagements and do the same thing? Should we stand on highways and streets, not letting people live their lives? In short, should we start doing all that the left does?
Is this your democracy?
Gosh, I don't know. Maybe because most sane people don't want a civil war?
Or do you think all Americans agree with your ideological view of what America Should be? Do you think even half of them do?
I perfectly understand what Jack is trying to convey. He has said it multiple times in multiple threads: If she hadn't been an unlawful rioter, she wouldn't be dead, and he does not care. What I am saying is this occurred in a different location than the earlier riots, and there were no alt-right protesters there at the time. The alt-right and left-wing rioters had been detained and the remainder of the protesters had been dispersed. The main kerfuffle was over and had been. No matter how much you or Jack or anyone else try to spin this into victim-blaming, the people who were rammed by the automobile were not rioters.
No they aren't.
You are falling into the trap that Jack sets (and falls into) whenever he discusses protesting of any sort. Guilt by association, and trying to follow reasoning from the one to the many. You cannot possibly know the motivations of all of the protesters. You do not, as a single human being, possess the ability to know why each and every person is there. So you take a person or a few people who happen to be acting badly and unlawfully and you ascribe their motivations (which you also do not know) to the whole of the protest movement. Bingo, they are all bad so whatever happens to them doesn't really matter to you. You just went through this exact logic in the quote above.
So, Jack does this, now you have done the same thing, how many more of you are out there that fall straight into this same trap? Trump plays this game every day. I will give him one thing: He sure can play a mark. And the priceless part of it all is that 1) they don't realize they are being played, and 2) they will argue incessantly about how they are "right" and not being played.
Mmmm, you should probably stop. Your defense of J6 is credible...
What are you talking about?
Do you really think that I don't think that everybody in America should get to vote? Ideology? I want the people we elect to to follow the Constitution. I really do not see that as an ideology that is far from the central tenets of most Americans. And if someone says," No, I don't want to follow what the Constitution says and means," I think that I would encourage them to start working to change what they do not like about it.
You seem to be laboring under some serious misunderstandings about what I represent and what I stand for.
Am I liberal? Your damn fuckin straight. That said, I am also (lower case) libertarian. What that boils down to is someone who believes that every person has rights and those rights must be respected. I also realize that, in order to maintain a civil society, certain laws and rules must be followed because humans cannot achieve by themselves what they can achieve by working together. Just go out in the middle of the woods and try to , say, get to the moon. You're not going to do it. It cannot be my way always there is by necessity a give and take relationship between each of us. Balancing this give and take relationship is the hard part. So I am not some weird creature hauled in from the hinterlands who wants to tell someone just how it will be, but rather just someone who wishes that people didn't need to be at each other's throats quite so much because it seems so much more beneficial for all to just cooperate a tad bit more.
The current administration is the reason, the "who" I am protesting. I feel deeply that they have made a mockery of the Constitution and what used to be considered normal behavior in government. In the process they have weaponized the government against certain people and institutions that, for whatever spurious reason, Donald Trump dislikes. All of this they have done openly and with total disregard of constitution and law. These are facts. Donald Trump should be in jail (my opinion for the part that he played in creating and maintaining the fraudulent "Stop the Steal" movement which culminated in the riots and partially successful but ultimately failed insurrection at the Capitol of the US on January 20th, 2021.
If democracy is truly precious to you, I would suggest that you start paying closer attention to what is going on because it is going away, quickly.
Don't make me laugh...
Too late
You think I want a civil war? I protest because I DON"T want a civil war.
I think that American people, when left to their own devices and not prodded towards this or that action by politicians of one flavor or the other, trying to gain traction as a "D" or an "R", Believe in the Golden Rule and treating each and every human being with dignity.
Am I wrong? I surely hope not.
Your views on the validity of protests and what forms are acceptable, of course. You know, the thing we've been talking about the entire time? This was made clear in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the post you are referencing.
And, based on the totality of the things you've said so far, that's exactly right. To show you, let me give you an example.
During the Biden admin, somewhere between eight and ten million illegal immigrants entered the country. Rather than do his duty as president and try to stop it, Biden and the Dems actually encouraged them. Most of the country was against this, as evidenced as being one of the major reasons Trump got re-elected.
Did the right go out and "protest" because of that in any manner that even resembles what the left consistently does? No. Trump held rally after rally, talking about the problem and people came to see him talk about it. They listened to him and then they voted.
Now Trump and the Republicans are in power. Trump, whether you like it or not, is trying to deport as many of them as he can find, which is not against the law. Whether the way he is doing it is legal or not is something for the courts to decide but even if they are legal, do you think all these protests would stop? No, they would not. And you support that, even if you may not agree with them on deportation, although I think you likely do.
This is a small example of what differs between us on this subject. If the ballot box doesn't go your way, you think it's perfectly justified to just toss it and get on with the voting that matters to you. Protests, whether violent or not.
See, what makes your argument about "peaceful" protesters is that if they are hanging around in one that isn't peaceful, then they're really not peaceful. The only exceptions I would make are those who actively try to stop the violent ones, but I've seen very little of those kinds of people acting. And I've watched lots of footage of violent protests. I watch the people in them, trying to understand them. If the peaceful protesters were really peaceful, they wouldn't go anywhere near where the police are. They'd leave as soon as things got violent. They wouldn't block streets they had no permit to do. They wouldn't try to be the most peaceful hemorrhoids they could be without violence just to gain attention, which is just passive-aggressive violence.
In other words, rather than just accept what the vote brought about, they drop the democracy they claim to defend and try to force their will on everyone who voted against them. Put another way, because they didn't get their way, democracy is now in danger and we have to fix it, apparently because the only way the vote could have failed is because of anti-democratic means.
Let's get something straight. I don't fall into anyone's trap. My position does not come from Jack. My position is my own, arrived at on my own. Jack and I simply have, apparently, very similar views on this subject, as well as others. I don't say what I say because of Jack's, or anyone else's, position on anything. I just refer to Jack because he's better than I am at leaving the unnecessary stuff out and getting to the heart of the matter.
No, you don't. You prove it in the rest of the paragraph.
You say that the remainder of the protesters had been dispersed. No, they hadn't. That's obvious in the vid you posted. They only moved location, not dispersed. That is not a moral judgement. It is not a comment concerning what is right or wrong. It is simply a fact that those people were not dispersed, since standing around in a group is the opposite of dispersed. There's no victim blaming. There's simply recognition of the highly probable fact that if they had dispersed those people would not likely been run over by the car or, at the very least, not so many of them.
Again...
... did nothing to protect them from what should not have happened but did. They did not listen to the authorities to disperse and they paid the price for it. That they couldn't or didn't see something like this happening doesn't matter that it did. That they thought they had the right to not disperse didn't protect them, either. The authorities ordered the people to disperse for the general welfare and safety of the people but they thought they knew better than the authorities. The fact that they should have been safe from such a thing doesn't matter. It is inarguable that they were not safe from it, since it happened.
But, rather than understand this point, you make the ridiculous claim that Jack and I are victim blaming. So, likely, people who think the same as you aren't going to learn anything from that event. Like, maybe if the authorities declare something a riot and everyone to disperse, maybe, for the safety of everyone, we ought to do that. And, if they can learn to do that, maybe they can ask questions like, why does violence break out so much? Maybe because what we're doing, the way we're behaving is more akin to English football hooligans confronting each other at a match rather than actually protesting. From there, maybe they can start thinking about how best to protest without the likelihood of violence breaking out. Dunno, but it's a thought.
Let me just say that your assumptions of my character and propensity towards voting, protest, and democracy are wrong. Your last statement shows your prejudice:
This is antithetical to the current protests that I am involved with and, as stated, anti-democratic in and of itself. I have no issue with the voting system. We have been voting for a long time and have developed quite the robust methodology to ensure fairness and accuracy. 2020 was free and fair, but somehow we ended up with a failed insurrection and a President who still claims it was rigged. The 2024 election was free and fair. It was disappointing in so many ways, but it was free and fair. I am not contesting that at all.
So put your paintbrush away and listen for once.
The current administration is using methods that are unconstitutional and illegal to accomplish its ends, not the least of which is avoiding due process rights. All people have rights. There are no "greater than" or "less than" people. There are just people all of whom have the right to due process. Period. By allowing to go unchecked these abuses of power, we risk the whole of this experiment.
Have fun. I have to attend to more important things.
The problem here is that we really cannot expect to have logical discussions with those who believe Trump is God's Gift. Imagine believing he is even Christian! Can't, can you? See what I mean? MAGA true believers are immune to reason...
I don't have to portray you as anything. Your own posts do that.
Right. So you've moved to phase two. "Only a few people were violent". Sorry to cloud the issue with facts, but those photos show a lot more than one person. And those are only a few of the photos. Your Ministry of Truth rewrites aren't fooling anyone.
Still in phase two, I see. We're talking about the same event. The ridiculous attempted rationalization that this was somehow a "peaceful protest" because they weren't beating up crippled Nazis at that exact moment is as juvenile as it is feeble. It's the equivalent of claiming that the Capitol riot was somehow a totally different, unrelated event than Trump's speech.
That's how that definition works.
To Drakk's point, the authorities declared the whole shitshow an unlawful riot and ordered everyone to disperse for their own safety . Had they complied and ceased their illegal activity, Heather Heyer would still be alive.
You have been doing so consistently. You merely want to pretend that people who remained and an unlawful riot hours after being ordered to disperse are somehow not rioters. That's not how it works.
Ah here we are. We've moved to phase 4. Violence is justified. So do you fancy yourself a modern revolutionary? Explain how that's going to work.
Again, very odd thing to stand on while you defend those who attempted to deny people their right to assemble.
Because we're unwilling to accept your little manifesto as factual, accurate or valid.
You surely do love to paint.
Don't get any on you.
Well if I treat paint like you do accountability I won't need to worry.
You obviously do not know how I treat accountability. Otherwise you would have left this conversation quite some time ago.
Your posts are what I call "High Functioning Trolling." Sometimes, I push your buttons and make you squawk. The rest of the time I just ignore your attempts to smear my character, because, high functioning or not, the rule is "Don't Feed The Trolls", because it only leads down an endless series of you trying to provoke a ticketable offense by creeping along between insulting and slanderous content.
But i'ts ok. I still love you and respect your right to say whatever it is that is on your mind.
My last statement shows my prejudice towards you? How do you take something like the quote above, which uses the word "they" rather than "you" to indicate who I am talking about and turn it into something that is about you and your character?
Couldn't care less. You're not the subject here. What has been is what took place in Charlottsville and, by extension, the tendencies of the left concerning protests. I am responding to what you say in this discussion concerning protests, not making assessments about your character. What you're claiming here amounts to claiming defamation simply because I oppose your views on the subject.
I can see this has devolved into something not worth pursuing any longer. Thanks for the conversation and have a nice day.
Prejudice -- meaning bias not necessarily directed in towards or away from any particular individual.
Have an awesome day. I hope that it goes well for you.
Prejudice- an A.I. overview of the definition.
Since you began by claiming I'm judging you personally, your use of prejudice on my part is either intended to indicate prejudice against you personally or you are speaking incoherently, making one claim in one sentence and another, unrelated claim in the next. Would not any rational person not find then...
...rather evasive? If not, then you must be referring to what I've said over the course of this conversation. If so, what, exactly? What have I said that addresses you and the kind of person you are rather than addressing what you have said?
To be clear, this is no longer about protests. This is about you claiming I'm making assumptions about your character. I have not said one disparaging thing about you. I have not made a single disparaging remark. In fact, I haven't said one personal thing about you. I have only argued the issue, which was about protests and our respective views about them.
We can all see your posts. You have absolutely refused to accept any accountability being placed on any liberal on this entire day, or any other.
You keep whining about people trying to "smear" you or "portray" you or "paint" you or whatever. You're just objecting to is the use of your own words.
If you don't want an abortion, don't get one...problem solved.
Welcome to the right wing media.. Demonize it, put it down, make fun of it, criticize it.. Next thing you know, the whole right wing hates it, (which is what they do best). Some examples?
Muslims
Palestinians
Liberals
Progressives
etc etc etc...
This is not who we are??? Really? Then where did Boelter get his ideas. He went to your "school"
thumpers are rapidly approaching an "alamo syndome" scenario on their madrasas ...
It amazes me that you don't see your own view of this tragedy as being as extremist as Boelter's.
[✘]
[✘]
Now if someone was to do something similar to their enterprises. . . Oh snap!
We do have a dividing line between country and religion. It's called the constitution which states religion is to be freely expressed - meaning in houses of religion, and governance is to be expressed in houses of civic authority.
There is good reason for this. Our government does not make religious (church, temple, mosque) dogmas, customs, traditions, and as it turns out government should not EXPRESS religious affiliated programs or (holy/holi—) days. . . and thus, as it turns out 'being nice' to have religious 'days' honored by the state ought not to occur.
Now then, just imagine how un-empowered religious leadership and personages would feel if the government fell into the hands of people who would remove their civic 'presence' and tossed it back to the religious establishments alone.
[✘]
Basically, these people are "wannabe murders." God (of Peace) has instructed no one to take up the sword of vengeance or made 'baptisms" of blood! Such people have gotten out of ahead of God, thus there "faith" is erroneous and "of this world." That is, their attitudes and their conduct is self-serving.
You know, for a grouping of people who are allegedly looking for the advent of the 'end-times,' these people do not trust in God to use the timetable God has prepared (Alpha to Omega) in God's own time: The 'appointed time' for the end.
"Oh ye of little faith."
Those who do evil so so-called, "good" can come out what they 'do.' Big failures.
Edit:
Those who do evil and call it, "good" can be called out for what they 'do.' Big failures.
I am not sure what churches of any kind have to do with non-church-goers getting abortions.