Self-righteous vandals

[Starlight]

Perhaps you should focus your attention on the actual "white supremecist terrorist organizations" rather than on the anti-fascists. Interesting how conservatives have turned anti fascism into a bad thing and interesting too how you automatically accept the notion that the violence and the inflaming of lawlessness is coming from Antifa when the FBI calls white supremecist groups the greatest terrorist threat, despite Trump and Barrs claims to the contrary.

Indeed, the projection is palpable.

And they make up an imaginary boogeyman 'antifa' and ascribe all sorts of wacko claims to it. Despite the FBI noting antifa wasn't involved in anything that has happened lately.

They just need to pretend to themselves they have someone they should be afraid of.

[Starlight]

Do you approve of the violent tearing down of statues

I'm not sure I approve of that sentence. Are you implying that the act of tearing down a statue is itself an act of violence? (Toward the statue? Toward social norms?) Or are you implying that the removal of a horrific monument to evil men who fought for slavery and against america, is, in and of itself, necessarily a 'violent' act?

Or do you have actual proof of physical violence enacted against human beings at the site of the statue being torn down? Because I'm doubting that.

It seems like both you and the OP opinion piece think adding the word 'violent' to every other sentence is a good way to turn people against these protesters, even though nearly all your uses of the word 'violent' seem to be unjustified.

[Starlight]

Nor should it surprise me that you can't simply denounce violence or anarchy.

I see very very little difference between the political positions 'anarchist' and 'libertarian'. You seem to be friends with plenty of self-styled libertarians on this board. Yet you want me to denounce the anarchists? What do you see as being the difference?

I denounce totally the use of excessive force and violence by the powerful against the powerless - e.g. by the state acting in authority toward the citizens it should be protecting and nurturing.

I don't have a general comment to make about violence going the other way - from the populace toward the state, from the powerless toward the powerful. Political violence by the citizens is complex and nuanced. I am neutral toward it as a whole. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes not. We've seen in history times when the populace has wrested its freedom from dictators, overthrown tyrants. I am not going to tell people not to fight for their rights! I do sometimes wonder whether non-violent protests have tended to historically be more successful than violent ones, but I don't know the answer to that. (ps. I just had a browse of the scientific data and it looks like there are differences in different time periods as to which method tends to be more successful. It looks like in the present day, non-violence tends to be a far more successful method for promoting change)

[Cow Poke]

I have only denounced the pulling down of these statues.

That wasn't addressed to you, Leon.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not sure I approve of that sentence. Are you implying that the act of tearing down a statue is itself an act of violence? (Toward the statue? Toward social norms?)

Have you seen any statues taken down in civil manner?

Or are you implying that the removal of a horrific monument to evil men who fought for slavery and against america, is, in and of itself, necessarily a 'violent' act?

If they are that "horrific" (do you hear spooky music in your head when you describe them like that?), it shouldn't be a problem to handle it through civil means, like a city ordinance, proposition, whatever.

Or do you have actual proof of physical violence enacted against human beings at the site of the statue being torn down? Because I'm doubting that.

If I think your house is "horrific" - should I invite a much of my friends over to tear it down?

It seems like both you and the OP opinion piece think adding the word 'violent' to every other sentence is a good way to turn people against these protesters, even though nearly all your uses of the word 'violent' seem to be unjustified.

Sometimes I think you can't possibly be this nutty in real life.


ETA: " evil men who fought for slavery and against america " ---- wow, ain't THAT a boatload of crap! They were fighting "against america [sic]"

[Cow Poke]

Indeed, the projection is palpable.

Add REALLY spooky music here.

[JimL]

Do you approve of the violent tearing down of statues, Jim? Would you claim that is NOT vandalism?

No, I don't. I would claim, and have claimed which you'd know had you been been following, that it is vandalism.

[Cow Poke]

No, I don't.

That's good to know. Thanks.

I would claim, and have claimed which you'd know had you been been following, that it is vandalism.

Well, I know this is really hard for you to accept, but you say so many goofy things that I don't always catch any serious things you say. Its like you can't just say something without adding some kind of snark to it.

But thanks for our answer, such as it is.

[JimL]

You just destroyed your own claim that the antifa and liberals are not the ones being violent and vandalizing statues and buildings.

How did I do that, Sparko? I'm sure that liberals have been guilty of tearing down statues, but I don't doubt for a second that white supremecist conservatives are doing the same . That's how they operate. They say see, look they're even tearing down statues of Washington and Jefferson now. As far as buildings burning in the protests, that is more likely to have been the work of conservatives who infiltrate the protests and teach their members how to use torches to that end, again to make the protesters look bad. But who is actually responsible in any particular case is speculation on both our parts. But you should at least support the antifascists stance if not their tactics. Seems you're more supportive of the white supremecists though.

[JimL]

Have you seen any statues taken down in civil manner?



If they are that "horrific" (do you hear spooky music in your head when you describe them like that?), it shouldn't be a problem to handle it through civil means, like a city ordinance, proposition, whatever.



If I think your house is "horrific" - should I invite a much of my friends over to tear it down?



Sometimes I think you can't possibly be this nutty in real life.


ETA: " evil men who fought for slavery and against america " ---- wow, ain't THAT a boatload of crap! They were fighting "against america [sic]"

They seceded, they were fighting against America, and they were fighting for an evil cause.

[JimL]

That's good to know. Thanks.



Well, I know this is really hard for you to accept, but you say so many goofy things that I don't always catch any serious things you say. Its like you can't just say something without adding some kind of snark to it.

But thanks for our answer, such as it is.

Project much, Mr snark?

[Cow Poke]

Project much, Mr snark?

You've had a bee your bonnet for several days now, young man!

[Starlight]

Here's a counter to the antifa-is-so-violent fear-mongering falsehoods of the OP, from WaPo today. They fact check it as a 'whopper' of a lie.

[JimL]

Here's a counter to the antifa-is-so-violent fear-mongering falsehoods of the OP, from WaPo today. They fact check it as a 'whopper' of a lie.

Exactly, and then Trumps corrupt AG Barr comes out and accuses Antifa without a shred of evidence, never once mentioning the supremecists groups of whom members thereof were actually arrested. Trumpsters have been taught, and have learned well, to only believe what the Administration tells them and to disregard actual facts.

[MaxVel]

Here's a counter to the antifa-is-so-violent fear-mongering falsehoods of the OP, from WaPo today. They fact check it as a 'whopper' of a lie.

80 federal charges and it's the four supposed 'boogaloos' who are really to blame for all the violence.

Inaccurate reporting about Trump (no surprise).

Yeah, there is no Antifa, it's all those dastardly 'far right' types.


If Antifa is what it's claimed to be in the first and second sentences, then the Jones quote doesn't exactly disprove that Antifa was involved.


Low grade, credulous, 'reporting' - the WaPo again.