Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun Mar 07 03:30:34 PST 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / About "whataboutism"
Rugian
Member
Thu Jan 14 08:21:57
About “Whataboutism”

When turnabout is never fair play

William Voegeli
January 12, 2021

Many things are complicated—but not everything. If you condemned the Antifa/Black Lives Matter violence that took place around the country in 2020, as all conservatives did, then you must condemn the Trumpist riot at the U.S. Capitol in 2021. Period.

Suppose, however, you spent last summer applauding the riots, or dissembling about them, or dismissing them. In that case, to deplore last week’s violence credibly is not so simple. If you demand that your political adversaries adhere to a principle, but exempt people whose cause you endorse from having to comply, then that preference you enjoy boasting about is not really a principle. It is not a standard of conduct applicable to all, in other words, but just another rhetorical device used for political combat.

If you’re Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for example, a question in July about mobs toppling statues in public spaces elicited not a denunciation but a koan: “People will do what they do.” Indeed, people will do what they do. Some people, for example, will break into the Capitol and occupy the Speaker’s office. But limiting oneself to the serene observation that this is what they do would constitute a grave failure to repudiate an offense against law, order, and democracy.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, who won a Pulitzer Prize for creating the New York Times’s “1619 Project,” also expressed equanimity and even pride regarding last year’s unrest. “It would be an honor,” she said, if the burning police stations and looted stores came to be described as the “1619 Riots.” In any case, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.” Hannah-Jones went on to explain, “Any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property, but these are not reasonable times.” Reasonable people also say that mobs should not overrun the seat of government or be gratified if someone calls that assault the “1776 Riots.” But if declaring “these are not reasonable times” changes everything, then the loophole devours the rule, or even the idea of having rules.


EYE ON THE NEWS
About “Whataboutism”
When turnabout is never fair play
William Voegeli
January 12, 2021
Many things are complicated—but not everything. If you condemned the Antifa/Black Lives Matter violence that took place around the country in 2020, as all conservatives did, then you must condemn the Trumpist riot at the U.S. Capitol in 2021. Period.

Suppose, however, you spent last summer applauding the riots, or dissembling about them, or dismissing them. In that case, to deplore last week’s violence credibly is not so simple. If you demand that your political adversaries adhere to a principle, but exempt people whose cause you endorse from having to comply, then that preference you enjoy boasting about is not really a principle. It is not a standard of conduct applicable to all, in other words, but just another rhetorical device used for political combat.

If you’re Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for example, a question in July about mobs toppling statues in public spaces elicited not a denunciation but a koan: “People will do what they do.” Indeed, people will do what they do. Some people, for example, will break into the Capitol and occupy the Speaker’s office. But limiting oneself to the serene observation that this is what they do would constitute a grave failure to repudiate an offense against law, order, and democracy.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, who won a Pulitzer Prize for creating the New York Times’s “1619 Project,” also expressed equanimity and even pride regarding last year’s unrest. “It would be an honor,” she said, if the burning police stations and looted stores came to be described as the “1619 Riots.” In any case, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.” Hannah-Jones went on to explain, “Any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property, but these are not reasonable times.” Reasonable people also say that mobs should not overrun the seat of government or be gratified if someone calls that assault the “1776 Riots.” But if declaring “these are not reasonable times” changes everything, then the loophole devours the rule, or even the idea of having rules.

When protesters surrounded a Seattle police station, forcing officers to evacuate it, and declared the adjacent area an “autonomous zone,” mayor Jenny Durkan was reassuring: “Don’t be so afraid of democracy.” Civic and political leaders in Philadelphia were equally non-judgmental about the shattered glass and boarded stores on their streets. “I don’t think we need to be parsing whether there needs to be looting,” said one city council member. Rioting was “understandable but regrettable,” Jesse Jackson said in June, a quasi-criticism no one would think to apply to the Capitol Hill mob.

In the wake of last week’s riot, formulations like these have become deeply embarrassing. What is to be done? One option would be for the people who put them forward, and their many political allies, to admit the obvious: since riots are bad—utterly, always, and everywhere—justifying them, or praising them with faint damns, is also colossally irresponsible. The people who set last summer’s fires, looted stores, or assaulted motorists and pedestrians should be condemned, and the people who made excuses for their behavior should be ashamed. Reader, you are borne through life with a sunnier view of human nature than I if you are dismayed that no such apologies or retractions have yet been offered.

A different response to conservatives who have started 2021 by rudely calling attention to the riot apologists of 2020 is: Shut Up. A more sophisticated way to say Shut Up is to accuse conservatives whose memories go back more than three months of engaging in “whataboutism.” This is the position of University of Wisconsin political scientist Kenneth R. Mayer, who believes that any public official “who does not immediately and unequivocally condemn [the Capitol riot] without using the words ‘I understand,’ ‘but,’ or any variant suggesting that the rioters had a point but went too far, should forfeit their right to hold public office.” Furthermore, “any elected official who engages in ‘whataboutism,’ or complains that the other side does it too, should leave next.”

Similarly, “Whataboutism is the last refuge for someone who can’t admit they’re wrong,” says journalist Tod Perry, who demands that we “stop equating Trump’s Capitol insurrection to Black Lives Matter protests.” The Atlantic’s David A. Graham also declares that conservatives’ “complaints about double standards are mostly whataboutism and don’t carry much weight.” After last week’s rioters had been expelled from the Capitol Building, a Republican congressman noted with approval that “at least for one day I didn’t hear my Democrat colleagues calling to defund the police.” Such responses, Jeremy W. Peters of the New York Times scolded, were “full of whataboutism, misdirection and denial.”

What exactly is this whataboutism which conservatives have committed so flagrantly? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as, “The practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.” Also, “the practice of raising a supposedly analogous issue in response to a perceived hypocrisy or inconsistency.” The term came into use in the twentieth century, often to describe a rhetorical gambit wherein any criticism or question about the Soviet Union’s human rights violations elicited an objection about the West’s transgressions. In 2001, my Murray Hill neighbor was the comedian “Professor” Irwin Corey, then an 87-year-old unreconstructed Marxist. On the afternoon of 9/11, after both towers of the World Trade Center had collapsed, I walked past Corey, outside his townhouse in mid-harangue: “Well, what about what our country did to the Indians?”

Whataboutism offends against the good-faith pursuit of truth and clarity by evading a legitimate question and dragging in irrelevancies. Whether or not 9/11 was evil has nothing to do with the Trail of Tears. Nor am I obliged to accede to the stipulation that I must first denounce whatever historical crime you happen to mention before you consent to take note of the shocking atrocity that took place downtown a few hours ago.

To nail conservatives for whataboutist responses to the Capitol riot requires demonstrating conduct like Irwin Corey’s, or that of some Soviet apparatchik responding to a question about the Gulag with one about Jim Crow. When Senator Marco Rubio and commentator Ben Shapiro, for example, complain about media double standards—lenient for BLM, severe for MAGA—Graham dismisses the “superficial parallels” and Peters the “false equivalencies.” We should, of course, reject false equivalencies—because they’re false. But to complain about false equivalencies necessarily implies that there are true equivalencies.

It also strongly implies that different cases, though not identical, can be comparable in ways that fairly illuminate some underlying question. If whataboutism entails “raising a supposedly analogous issue in response to a perceived hypocrisy or inconsistency,” then raising plausibly analogous issues in response to a demonstrable hypocrisy or inconsistency does not qualify as whataboutism. Whether issue X is or isn’t analogous to issue Y, whether inconsistency Z is apparent or real, irrelevant, or germane—these disagreements become elements of any fair debate. And because it is legitimate for one side to raise such questions, it is illegitimate for the other side to use facile, tendentious accusations of whataboutism to rule them out of order. The point of that tactic is not to win a debate but stifle it.

The briefs filed by the whataboutism prosecutors fail to satisfy any reasonable burden of proof that the many rationalizations of the BLM riots have no place whatsoever in any discussion of the MAGA riot. To a considerable degree, they simply reiterate the regrettable-but-understandable framing from last summer: the BLM riots were not justified, but neither were they really unjustified. “Violence against businesses and police stations is wrong,” writes Graham, but “Black Lives Matter demonstrators were protesting about a real problem.” Perry does the same thing: “Property destruction and violence should never be tolerated no matter who’s involved. But what we break and why we break it is important.”

Both contrast BLM’s genuine and urgent grievances with the spurious ones about vote fraud that fueled the MAGA riot. Even if one stipulates the point, however, the problem with saying “but these are not reasonable times,” as Hannah-Jones does, remains. Because there is no injustice-validation tribunal to predetermine whose complaints merit suspending the ordinary strictures against rioting, the question is crowdsourced. People will decide for themselves about taking it to the streets. And once they do, there is no guarantee that MAGA will be unique in abusing this prerogative. Looters tore apart Chicago’s North Michigan Avenue shopping district in August, resulting in 13 police officers being injured and the arrest of more than 100 people, because of rumors spread on social media that police had shot an unarmed 15-year-old on the South Side. What actually occurred was that a 20-year-old convicted felon, subsequently charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder, was wounded after he fired on police officers.

In any case, debating which rioters are more aggrieved only compounds the underlying problem: contending that any grievance qualifies the otherwise categorical rejection of rioting puts us on a slippery slope to a dangerous place. Perry inadvertently conveys how dangerous by claiming that the BLM riots were not really all that riotous. “The Black Lives Matter protests had no intention of being destructive,” he says, citing a study that determined that “93% of the 7,750 demonstrations . . . were peaceful.” In other words, 7 percent—some 543 demonstrations—were not peaceful. Because the report, by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, examined an 89-day period from May 26 to August 22, 2020, that works out to an average of more than six violent events per day during last summer’s mostly peaceful BLM demonstrations. It appears that the property damage from these austere, placid gatherings totaled between $1 billion and $2 billion, and that some two dozen people were killed amid the prevailing tranquility.

Unlike Graham’s and Perry’s granular anti-whataboutist arguments, Jeremy Peters makes his case from 30,000 feet. “Trump sympathizers were quick to try to shift the focus from the destructive scene in Washington,” he writes, “and revive months-old stories about the fires and looting.” It is strange, in general, to assert that riots that occurred whole, entire months ago—gosh, who can even count how many?—are self-evidently unrelated to a more recent riot. It is a particularly odd dismissal of the hazy, archaic past coming from a reporter for the New York Times, which mentioned the 1955 murder of Emmett Till in 82 different stories over the course of 2020.

In May 2018 Times contributor Lindy West defended the cancellation of Roseanne Barr’s television show, a skirmish in the “cancel culture” wars. It is “our collective responsibility” to fight racism and hate, West wrote, “and right now cultural power is all we have.” West did not expand on her use of the first-person plural, but it was pretty clear that if you had to ask, you weren’t part of it. The “cultural power” that “we have” is a strong clue. It’s the power exercised by media and academic institutions, in particular, opinion leaders shaping the national conversation to determine which stories get told, which voices heard, which arguments taken seriously.

The whataboutism indictments mean that we, who wield this cultural power, can deliver crazy and dangerous pronouncements during one historical circumstance, and then a few months later use that power to decree that the earlier pronouncements are irrelevant to whatever points we’re making today. Cultural power means never having to say you’re sorry and never having to feel you’re constrained. Go ahead: take outrageous positions or issue preposterous formulations today, confident that if they make you or us look bad in the future, we, the culturally powerful, will join together to manufacture a consensus that even alluding to those embarrassments is now impermissible. It will be as if they never happened. Kant’s categorical imperative about committing or defending only those actions you would uphold as universal principles is ground down to a speed bump. Cultural power demolishes universality with situational assertions of relativity: That was then; this is now. If some annoying troll complains about our inconsistency or hypocrisy, we’ll respond with accusations of whataboutism, an update of the credo voiced by Eric Stratton in Animal House: You f---ed up. You took us seriously.

At the same time, conservatives do not really have the option of not taking the culturally powerful seriously, precisely because they are powerful. And as of 2021, they are far more powerful, adding political power to the cultural kind with Democrats in charge of the presidency and both houses of Congress. This power is augmented by economic power, demonstrated in Amazon, Apple, and Google’s shock-and-awe kneecapping of the social-media startup Parler. The culturally powerful have graduated from gatekeeping the national conversation to interdicting conservatives’ private conversations. As the fictional woke sage, Titania McGrath, warned on Twitter (which has banned “her” in the past): “The wonderful thing about being on the right side of history is that we can encourage big tech censorship without any fear that it might one day be used against us.”

Coming on top of sweeping accusations of whataboutism, the destruction of Parler is an ominous escalation. The culturally powerful appear less and less culturally responsible, less inhibited by a sense of concern for the whole polity, by any notion that viewpoints they do not share are entitled to respect—or even oxygen. Unless a new president who has promised to heal wounds is not just a front man for a nomenklatura that intends to settle scores, de-escalation is imperative. It is time to entreat the culturally powerful to assess their obligations carefully and wield their powers scrupulously. To them, I say: What about it?

http://www...outism-and-political-hypocrisy
Rugian
Member
Thu Jan 14 08:22:56
Figured this needed to be posted ever since the leftists on this forum discovered a new favorite buzzword that they now mindlessly spam.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 14 08:28:35
Its actually more gaslighting than it is whataboutism.

We are being asked to accept that there is nothing special about trying to overthrow government. Its just like any other demonstration that gets out of hand.

Boys will be boys after all.
werewolf dictator
Member
Thu Jan 14 08:56:58
the recent "coup attempt" with the viking-horned-man and podium-thief was about as much of a top-down plot by trump.. as the reichstag fire was a top-down coup plan by the communist leadership of stalin.. jan6 and reichstag fire are also similar in cynical attempt to use them to consolidate one-party rule

other things not planned top-down.. altamont as like manson family killfest.. or the who stampede planned as top-down mass slaughter
Dakyron
Member
Thu Jan 14 09:01:40
Nothing worse than a hypocrite and Washington is full of them. The media is full of them.

UP is full of them.

jergul
large member
Thu Jan 14 09:15:02
The duality of man is a feature, not a bug.
Delude
Member
Thu Jan 14 09:38:59
A "new" buzzword, and the usage of it on these forums has been used for years.
Dukhat
Member
Thu Jan 14 10:01:50
Rugian:

1. Doesn't know what whataboutism is.
2. Googles it and copypastas long article from far-right guy that noone will ever read.
3. Thinks he has owned the libs.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 10:10:50
The butthurt from Rugian is very strong. Drown your emorage in some more alcohol, buddy.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:13:02
"We are being asked to accept that there is nothing special about trying to overthrow government. Its just like any other demonstration that gets out of hand."

Your assuming that 1 the Capitol riot was an attempt to install a new government.

2. That hordes of rioters organized by communists calling for the mordsr of rich white people and the overthrow of the capitalistic system is NOT trying to overthrow the government.

You of all people shpuld know that " Marxists" by definition are pro violence and revolutionary.Like Jan2sen hating black people.
Delude
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:24:30
"Your assuming that 1 the Capitol riot was an attempt to install a new government."

Well when law enforcement officials are investigating and indicated that concept is more probable than not....

Point number 2.

You're unbelievably retarded.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:30:12
Because the founders of BLM have not called themselves Marxists....oh wait they do describe themselves as Violent Marxists ( a little redundant I guess)
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:31:45
lol, the FBI bulletins going out are very specifically stating that the lies about the election being stolen "may lead some individuals to adopt the belief that there is no political solution to address their grievances and violent action is necessary."

So, yeah, it's pretty obvious that violent extremists, fueled by Trump's lies and misinformation, are out to damage and/or overthrow the standing government.

I don't know how far you have to have your head up your ass (or Trump's) to not see that, but please let us know when you figure it out.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:32:38
Retard Rod 2.0 ignoring the reality of BLM actually is. Or is he just too stupid to understand? Hmm.
Delude
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:34:42
"Because the founders of BLM have not called themselves Marxists....oh wait they do describe themselves as Violent Marxists ( a little redundant I guess)"

Yeah, this has been addressed and dismissed. Don't think law enforcement has a bulletin worrying that the BLM is trying to overthrow the government. Keep living the dream retard.
Delude
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:35:24
WoO, words are difficult.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:41:07
Any idea that runs counter to Retard Rod 2.0's agenda is difficult for him. He's not a smart person, that much is obvious. But I know plenty of people who aren't smart, but aren't deluded and confused like he is.

The idea that co-founders of BLM describe themselves are Marxists, but that BLM is far more complex and diverse than just the co-founders probably isn't too difficult for his level of intelligence (if I'm being honest). It's just that it damages the narrative he clings to, so he discards it. Notice this a key ability that allows Trump fluffers to remain Trump fluffers through anything.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:46:02
Obviously woo can not read. I said they were organized by violent communists. This is a fact.Not that BLM members are all Commies.

But it is clearly founded and run by by them.This is not disputed, and openly admitted.
Delude
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:47:14
Again incorrect.
Delude
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:47:30
WoO, he just made your point.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:50:23
He does that quite a lot without realizing it. Now he'll fall back on his typical tactic of saying something like, "All I'm talking about is the leaders. If you're reading into the rest of BLM, that's your problem."

It's pretty common for people like him. They express their objectively incorrect (and agenda-driven) beliefs as implications, and when they get called out on them, they claim they never said or implied anything like that. Then the next day, you'll find them elsewhere sputing the same things again.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:52:32
The only real difference between Retard Rod and Retard Rod 2.0 is that the original didn't really do that. I think Retard Rod 2.0 knows he's pretty much always wrong and is using that tactic to make himself feel like he gets some internets victories or something like that.
Delude
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:52:42
That is very HR'esqe.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 11:54:31
Not really, at least as I recall. Among all his faults, I don't recall playing games like that as being one of them. He was pretty direct. Always wrong, but pretty direct in it nonetheless. That's my recollection, at least.
Delude
Member
Thu Jan 14 12:00:33
Eh, I recall the 7 stages of hot rod post from YEARS ago that highlighted those characteristics, that's why I am skeptical and think he did act that way at times. /shrugs
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 12:04:42
Hmm, it's definitely possible that I'm just remembering incorrectly.
Delude
Member
Thu Jan 14 12:07:21
It's been too long. I do remember habebe from years ago too. So, did he recently return? I've gone on a hiatus myself.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 12:26:59
No idea at all on that one.
Delude
Member
Thu Jan 14 12:37:10
Oh well...
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 14 12:50:32
Ah, yes falling back on EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.What a concept.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 14 13:01:27
Woo, Now feel free to correct me im wrong, but just the other day I was talking about how things can be misleading when you stick strictly to certain definitions without considering context.

You argue against that at the time, arguing for strictly adhering to technical definitions.

A Marxist by definition supports the overthrow of the capitalist system.

"The last capitalist we hang is the one who sold us the rope"_Marx

Now the difference here is that these people ( BLM founders/organizers) publicy and openly identify as well trained Marxists.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 13:15:14
Yes, we all know you're now going to feed us a line of bullshit about how you brought up the co-founders of BLM identifying as Marxists just to only point that out. That it had nothing to do with your views of BLM as a whole or the larger discussion going on. You just brought up that point right out of the blue for no reason other than to point it out. Right...
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 13:16:48
What I argued is that you conveniently toss out strict definitions when it does not suit your agenda and cling to them when it does. This is what I'm talking about when I say you're not very smart.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 14 13:24:22
Projecting a bit?

It's funny, you often claim I said "ABC" but can not quote me as ever saying it, you then claim it was somehow implied.

However when I clearly point out what I said with actual quotes you disregard it.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 14 13:27:22
As for strict definitions, the difference here is that the founders in question self identify as such.

Trump on the other hand, has not claimed to want to overthrow the government.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 13:32:11
Nah, all Trump has done is to use the Presidency to undermine the framework of the government, free and fair elections, and embolden and enable far-right extremists groups who want to overthrow the government because they believe Trump's bullshit. He has been rightly impeached, should be convicted (probably won't since most Republicans are still afraid of him), and should be barred from holding any kind of office ever again.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 13:34:48
"However when I clearly point out what I said with actual quotes you disregard it."

Again, your tactics are crystal clear and don't hold any sway. I'll continue to call you out on your bullshit lies and you'll continue to play the victim.
Delude
Member
Thu Jan 14 13:36:06
"A Marxist by definition supports the overthrow of the capitalist system."

First define "overthrow."

Secondly, you are aware "by definition" there are many different theories of Marxism and it isn't defined as one. So, you started off with your claim with a false pretense. (hence why you're being casually dismissed)

Now, we can sit here and make a series of threads on how you are wrong when it comes to the understanding of a socioeconomic theory. And I am sure as it compares to other economic theories, which includes and in-depth discussion about capitalism, that we would, most likely find, that you don't understand that theory either.

So to recap; "marxist by definiton." wrong. You. "re-tard"

Yay!
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 14 13:44:18
Woo, Glad to see that you realize I was right.

Is deluded your multi?
Delude
Member
Thu Jan 14 13:45:21
Oh here we go.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 13:58:44
lol, what kind of dysfunctional brain does a person need to have to believe what I posted was agreeing he was right? I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Retard Rod was an idiot and probably one of the least intelligent people I've ever encountered. He was probably borderline mentally impaired in terms of low IQ.

But I think Retard Rod 2.0 is worse off. He may actually qualify for a mental disability.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 14 13:59:49
Btw, in all honesty, you should get that checked out. That sort of thing should not go undiagnosed. There are programs that can actually help you.
Dakyron
Member
Thu Jan 14 14:43:38
Habebe is so fucking stupid he could probably go on disability, so its a credit to him that he continues to work, despite his severe limitations.
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jan 18 02:20:19
[WoO]: "So, yeah, it's pretty obvious that violent extremists, fueled by [DNC media's] lies and misinformation, are out to damage and/or overthrow the standing government."

True, true. We did see a tremendous amount of data showing that BLM was addressing an illegitimate narrative of widespread police brutality ("systemic racism") and that they were willing to take a number of actions to achieve their ends, including,
- setting fire to police departments, civilian businesses, and federal buildings in pursuit of their new order ( http://www...ouse-set-fire-during-protests/ and http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-buildings-are-damaged-looted-after-george-floyd-protests-riots/569930671/ )
- abolition of police departments so that they could have their own partisan brute squads who profile and approach non-POC suspects, as was modeled in the CHAZ/CHOP's violent removal of political opponents and enforced borders, covered in the media as entirely peaceful hippie movements; in Minneapolis, an abolition movement that was favored unanimously by BLM-supporting council members but ultimately softened by the mayor ( http://www.npr.org/2020/12/10/944938471/minneapolis-shifts-8-million-in-police-funding-but-keeps-force-at-current-level )
- Attempting to storm federal buildings, such as the Portland courthouse, Vegas' Foley Federal Building ( http://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/5-charged-with-damaging-federal-buildings-during-blm-protest-2123868/ ), federal buildings in L.A. ( http://www.courthousenews.com/two-federal-courthouses-in-la-damaged-during-protest/ ), the Ohio Supreme Court building ( http://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/06/ohio-supreme-court-assessing-damage-to-building-from-weekend-protests.html ), etc.
- attacking any out-group members for recording their illegal activities ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2161&v=I54apP0Xsuc&feature=youtu.be )
- threatening GOP leaders with the guillotine ( http://twitter.com/i/status/1299170978233298946 )
- Following and threatening GOP figures such as Rand Paul in the Capital streets ( http://twitter.com/justinwmmoyer/status/1299213853813813248?lang=en )
- organizing to storm the White House with counter-intelligence tactics and organizational structure, though I'm sure that they would have changed their minds if the police barricades weren't as strong as those at the Capitol Building, bless my ignorance! (Tactics/leadership structure: http://lpmisescaucus.com/news/intelligence-gathering-at-protests-by-j-d/ )
- Using a narrative of a total and absolute enemy to fuel their flawed discourse (the "Nazi" enemy who is of one cloth and indistinguishable at all levels, whether a conscientious objector or a true fascist-saluting skinhead)

It is indeed a problem, fueled from the top by an increasingly unopposed media conglomeration. Their goal seems to be to remove the checks of the Republic (the senate, the Electoral College, the courts, and even the protections of the non-stated U.S. capital, which will enable unfettered control over federal buildings) so that they can have a one-party authoritarian state. To do this they have flooded their media with misinformation, employed strategic intellectual dishonesty (comparing a disorganized mob of Trump supporters on one day to thousands of organized BLM protestors over months), and used sensationalism to trick useful idiots into conceding free speech to tech monopolies and government surveillance programs.

It's a good thing that they were ready to spout lines of "treason" and "insurrection" so quickly and so fiercely. Just saying those words makes me want to ignore all of the evidence and just look at how bad those words make the objectively lesser actions of the Trump supporters. Because I wholeheartedly agree with DNC media, I truly believe that Zip-Tie Man and his potentially *several* compatriots represent every single Trump voter in the Capitol Building — nay! every one in the *country*! — and I am thus ready to initiate reeducation programs and pogroms. This couldn't possibly backfire. Let us believe the DNC's myths and give them the full powers of their one-party government. Let us forgo the levelheadedness of the OP's arguments. Now is the time for vengeance! The DNC said so! The memes have confirmed these truths.

I remember seeing a meme that said that even a failed attempt at a coup still counts as a coup, which means that Zip-Tie Man proves the entire narrative! And, in my intellectual dishonesty, I can even ignore Nancy Pelosi's attempted coup wherein she wanted military leaders to ignore Trump's orders. I can ignore the military leaders who plotted to leave Trump in the dark about troop numbers overseas. I can ignore BLM's attempts to seize federal properties and guillotine the president. It's great! I don't have to grow from this *at* *all*! My side is absolutely correct, so anything we do cannot possibly be in error. "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Jan 18 10:10:38
Goddamn, CC has turned into such a fucking retard. From pseudo-intellectual, though admittedly idiotic, musings into just plain hackish, delusional bullshit. You used to be at least amusing, now you're just sad and pathetic.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 18 12:18:22
CC makes me think retard should be gendered. A retardette would sound better.
Dakyron
Member
Mon Jan 18 12:35:37
We knew she was a retard when she went on and on about TDKR and how great it was, when it was clearly the worst of the Nolan Batman movies, and it was not close.
werewolf dictator
Member
Mon Jan 18 12:51:58
cc gets prolix but her post made many excellent points as well as showing humor
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Jan 18 14:33:25
Not a good sign when the "Russian government shoots down meteors with missiles" guy supports you, lol.
werewolf dictator
Member
Mon Jan 18 16:15:21
i too would be very angry at world if i could never understood elementary school math much less irony
Rugian
Member
Mon Jan 18 16:17:00
Lots of insults, but nothing in terms of a rebuttal.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Mon Jan 18 17:38:26
Trump fluffers and other delusional retards can't be reasoned with. There is no point. When someone is that detached from reality, there is no hope for them.
delude
Member
Mon Jan 18 18:49:14
Instances of riots vs. law enforcement detailing the intricacies and holding press conferences elaborating that the attack on the capitol was coordinated.

Thanks CC, your wall of text was amazing. Sincerely.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share