i got fed up of the left several years ago, and now i'm fed up with the right too. if the left are doing the rioting the right are dead against it. if the right are doing the rioting then the left are dead against it. there are liars and hypocrites on both sides. they both think they're right but they're as bad as each other
i got fed up of the left several years ago, and now i'm fed up with the right too. if the left are d
The right are as bad as the left? In attitude but not in behavior or scale (hardly anyone is far right). Anyway, there isn't just two sides, there are extremes on both, which are to be abhorred by anyone sensible, but conservatives and actual classical liberals are perfectly reasonable positions on either side.
The right are as bad as the left? In attitude but not in behavior or scale (hardly anyone is far rig
that's a good point. it's just that i've seen so much lies and manipulation across the spectrum i don't think there is a good side. neither side is clean
on the left i'm basically suspicious of anyone who tries to give more power to the government. they either don't know what they're doing or they're deliberately trying to trick people into giving the government the power to control people's lives, like they do in China. another thing i hate about the left is how they persecute Israel, the only liberal state in the Middle East, while saying nothing about Iran hanging gay people
on the right i'm suspicious of people like Lauren Southern, who paints herself as a libertarian but reportedly supports the identitarian movement in Europe. another is Katie Hopkins, who speaks the language of individualism but then talks about Muslims like they're all one person with one idea. i've had enough of those collectivist lies
i'll tell you someone i *do* like though, and you may have heard of him. his name is Dave Rubin and he did a speech at Oxford several years ago. he's a breath of fresh air
that's a good point. it's just that i've seen so much lies and manipulation across the spectrum i do
Crony-Leftist: In order to fix all of these problems that were caused by an overly large and incompetent government, I propose we give the government more power and less accountability, and if you disagree with me you're a NAZI! Also BLM and the Force is female etc.
Crony-Rightist: My goodness, this person is a SOCIALIST! I disagree with this SOCIALIST for I am a CPAITALIST, as you can see from my proposed policy of less government accountability and more government power! Also Jesus is cool, plus whatever hot social issue was being pushed by the SOCALIST one or two electoral cycles ago...
Crony-Leftist: *gasps and points* Nazi!
Crony-Rightist: Smelly Communist!
(Crony-Leftist and Crony-Rightist start sticking their tongues out at each other, blowing raspberries etc.)
Crony-Leftist & Crony-Rightist: Just remember, we are the only two choices! Anyone who suggests that you can get by with a LESS centralized government is clearly insane!
Crony-Leftist: In order to fix all of these problems that were caused by an overly large and incompe
you know i've thought the same thing for a long time. it's a game of good-cop bad-cop where both parties pretend to oppose each other while secretly working together. this is to placate people by tricking them into thinking they're voting for change, when in fact they're voting for more of the same
it makes it even harder to get rid of the duopoly with first-past-the-post voting systems, because many votes don't even count for anything then
there is one thing that could help however. it's too late now because the election is over for another four years. but that gives ample time to spread the following message: if you hate either party, boycott them both and vote for something else
you know i've thought the same thing for a long time. it's a game of good-cop bad-cop where both par
That works when there's voting integrity. If both parties are working together they will not allow a third party to take hold. Look at what's taking place right now - the government is going full tyranny. The only solution at this point is overthrow.
That works when there's voting integrity. If both parties are working together they will not allow a
So here's the thing: I will generously concede that a portion of the BLM movement has been racists against white people using that as a means to justify their racism. But their module operandi has been majoritively peacefully protesting and when shit went south a minority started rioting. Conversely, the capitol hill protest went south because a minority of protesters decided to fuck everything up for everybody because they came with the intent of rioting. I think that matters. Every BLM riot I've seen the police started it by pepper spraying people or shooting people with rubber bullets first. I acknowledge that rioting isn't the answer but honestly when people are attacked, that's one of the few situations where I would say violence is justified
So here's the thing: I will generously concede that a portion of the BLM movement has been racists a
nobody has a problem with the idea that black people shouldent be shot just for being black. Also Nobody has a Problem with Opposeing Police Brutality and the abuse of authority by law enforcement... when this happends.
Sometimes it does, and it should be opposed, sometimes people cry wolf and play the race card.
Same with the Protests, if you want to march down my street waveing a flag and chanting how your sick of being mistreated by cops by all means do so. Make sure you have the proper perments to assembly or whatever you need in that state/city to lawfully protest and more power to you.
The issue people I know who dont care for BLM myself included have is the Communist, Anti Capitalist and destructive Underpinnings meny of the leaders of the BLM movement have bee very foreword about.
Smashing windows and stealing shit wont liberate black people or crack down on police brutality. It's just an excuse for a buncha of thugs to steal and rob and destroy and it pollutes the message.
I was and AM perfectly fine with the stop the steal pro trump rally at the capital building, right up untill some of them broken INTO the building and started to riot. it's not as.. horrendously off point as smashing up a target at least your directing your ire against the SOURCE of your ire instead of somebodys privite bussiness but it was still unlawful and At that moment I no longer supported it.
nobody has a problem with the idea that black people shouldent be shot just for being black. Also No
So first and foremost, surprisingly enough more than a desirable amount of people seem way too comfortable with the idea of black people being persecuted or, god forbid, shot simply because they are black. It genuinely concerns me and is something that I legitimately fear. I am not speaking hyperbolically and hope that some day that it's not something that I won't have to care about
That being said, my next point that I should emphasize is that I have very ambivalent senitments about the riots, or at least the first one, for 2 reasons: that the BLM riots are little more than wanton destruction of an uninvolved 3rd party who had nothing to do whatosever with police brutality, but also that the only way that I even found out about the problem at all was because of the riots. Specifically only when the news started reporting it in my state. I didn't even know who George Floyd was until after the first riot had happened. The raising of awareness did do good in my eyes but the means to get it was corrupt. I can't be too critical of it though given that it was only in the face of people literally dieing and only after peaceful protest didn't work. I draw great umbrage with doing anything malign to somebody who did nothing wrong but looking at the circumstances it seems that the, the first riot at least, was a burning of the trees to save the forest so to speak. Likewise I do feel that calling them bastards is a bit apathetic towards their circumstance but in that same formality that I bestow them and their treatment of others' livelyhood it's only fair that I give that same sentiment to you. Any successive riot thereafter, to me at least, felt more like them going with a, "well it worked the first time..." mentality which seems rather fucked.
lastly, something that I think should be emphasized is that while I personally disagree with some of your points that doesn't mean that I think there is not merit in your opinion or point of view. Quite the opposite, one of the biggest reason I follow Roary despite disagreeing with many of his views is that hearing the opinion of the opposition allows for input other than solely what you agree with. If anything I hope that you, Roary, or anybody else who reads this comment could draw: that being open to the opinions to those of the opposing party is the best check and balance to having a sane mindset. Otherwise you're stuck in an echoe chamber, and given the current state of affairs I think we all can agree that those should be avoided...
So first and foremost, surprisingly enough more than a desirable amount of people seem way too comfo
the only stance I have for BLM is the same as my stance on the trump riots or any other protest. Keep it civil, and keep it on point.
BLM protesting police brutality, Ok yeah sure. Civil and one point.
BLM Smashing windows and screaching about how it's all Capitalism/americas fualt and everything is systemicly racist and we need to beg for forgiveness, no, now we have a problem.
I maintain this no matter what protest is happening. I also want people to be safe and to be treated equally and fairly, I also Cant ignore the consequences of Cuase and Effect.
It's a messy uncomfortable situation.
the only stance I have for BLM is the same as my stance on the trump riots or any other protest. Kee
That's fair, but I should pose the question what happens when nobody listens to your protest? Or worse yet, when somebody becomes violent against you during your protest? I would say that's an isolated instance where violence is justified. Obviously, I would defer to civilly resolving the issue. Violence should never be the default, but when you are protesting and you're getting pepper sprayed or shot with rubber bullets what else are you to do?
That's fair, but I should pose the question what happens when nobody listens to your protest? Or wor
well self defense comes into play if people are being violent twords you during your protest. I should point out self defense does not mean Somebody throws a punch at you so now you get to kick the shit out of them in order for self defense to count you have to use the minimum amount of necessary force for your own protection and must attempt to withdrawal and deescalate when and if appropriate. This means if your being attacked your allowed to fight back to protect yourself, but are expected to take every reasonable measure to remove yourself from the situation. Especially in a public situation.
As for people not listening to your protest, you have the RIGHT to address grievances you do not have the Expectation of desirable redress of said grievances.
Now in reality protests, there kind of annoying, and that draws a lot of attention and that's entirely the point. and there are peoples whos job it is, to represent you and listen to your grievances if they do not as a Social group you have the power to act with your vote. These people know this and, if there smart will pay attention to your grievances or lose your vote to somebody who will.
At no point during any of this does getting ignored grant you justification to use violence. Violence is a self defense last resort only. we live in a society, society functions because we agree not to use force on each other and we agree to ALLOW our system of governance to use force were necessary to maintain said social order.
well self defense comes into play if people are being violent twords you during your protest. I shou
I should ask then where does the line get drawn in the sand? Would you agree with something like the Boston tea party? Because that was also a destruction of private property. Or harriette tubman's protests for prohibition? Destruction of property has been a part of protest in amercan history for a long time. I concede that yes it by no means a morally good thing to do but its unfortunately the things that gets reults and is more often than not something that is escalated into not the default. People pay attention when their shit starts getting broken. That in no way means that it's okay, but when all else fails what is there to do?
One thing we do agree on thougg is that yes, your vote and the political representatives that you elect are the means one should use to make change happen. But I would argue there's a great deal of nuance a problems present in thay system as is. Thats a discussion for another day. The point I want to emphasize is that if your politician loses, doesn't make change happen, or can't make change happen what then? Because that's an element of why things are this tense. When people dont get the change they're fighting for eventually theyre gonna snap. Hell, literal wars were fought over change not happening. Thats how the revoluvionary and civil war came about. A group of people wanted a change from their government and it fell on deaf ears so they fought to make it happen. It isnt that bad yet and I hope it doesnt get that bad but it's a double standard to say todays people want a change with rising tensions when the people then did virtually the same thing
I should ask then where does the line get drawn in the sand? Would you agree with something like the
I think the line int he sand is on conduct and on WHO your strikeing against. the bosten tea party was not the way most people think it was there was, and there were at the time meny patriots who DISAGREED with it Benjamin frankling amoung them He even offered to pay the East Indian tradeing company for the tea.
My stance is I dont think you should destroy privite property if YOU MUST destroy soemthing then go after the focus of your ire at the very least, Smashing a target and looiting itm fucking pointless, Standing in front of capital hill and protesting the election, much more on point.
But it still diddent give that group of extreamists any right to assualt capital hill that is a bridge to far.
I think the line int he sand is on conduct and on WHO your strikeing against. the bosten tea party w
I do have a pretty good understanding of the circumstance surrounding that specific protest. That being said: I can get behind and support protesting against the object of your ire not an uninvolved 3rd party, but something that I think should be mentioned is that while Franklin didn't fully agree with the Boston tea party he did defend it to the British empire which was what lost him his position as postmaster. I think that is something that should be considered here. I am willing to defend the BLM riots despite disagreeing with them destroying citizens' businesses. I don't like the idea of somebody who did nothing wrong having their business destroyed, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that it didn't accomplish good
I do have a pretty good understanding of the circumstance surrounding that specific protest. That be
well it sounds like I will be looking for a new postmaster!
In all seriousness I can understand your position on this just fine. I also would have defended the tea party at the time but I still think it diddent do over much to harm the british crown, that being said, that was the whole point they were going after the king in protest of the unfair taxes. When you loot a target how does that stop police brutality?
ah well... I think weve made our points and beaten this topic to death...poor choice of words?
well it sounds like I will be looking for a new postmaster! In all seriousness I can understand yo
"So first and foremost, surprisingly enough more than a desirable amount of people seem way too comfortable with the idea of black people being persecuted or, god forbid, shot simply because they are black"
Utter bullshit! That is a fucking media lie and we're not putting up with it anymore. We will fight you, and I do mean physically fucking punish you with our fists, if you keep trying to push that now. We are on the verge of all out civil war and you are STILL pushing the divide with this overused lie! Stop trying to gaslight people, you fucking prick!
Also, I'll disagree with all of you that violence IS necessary in circumstances where there is no other option - such as a government that has suddenly and maliciously enslaved its population. At that point you can't reason with them and violent revolt is more than valid.
You guys need to grow a pair and learn how to push back on people exploiting and abusing you.
P.S. - You can't get rid of racism. You CAN provide protection against it though. This stupid fucking crusade on thought-crimes must end.
"So first and foremost, surprisingly enough more than a desirable amount of people seem way too comf
"Utter bullshit! That is a fucking media lie and we're not putting up with it anymore. We will fight you, and I do mean physically fucking punish you with our fists, if you keep trying to push that now. We are on the verge of all out civil war and you are STILL pushing the divide with this overused lie! Stop trying to gaslight people, you fucking prick!"
That's not gaslighting, I have no intention of gaslighting anybody, that opinion is one that was formed of my own personal life experience not the media, and if you are honestly becoming violent against me when I am not against you then you are the one attacking me for a thought crime not the other way around. I am a reasonable person, if you are honestly dropping all options for reason and resorting to violence by the points I've made then I would say that's you are unwilling to see the other person's perspective and physically attacking them because thats easier. Violence isn't the answer when someone is reasoning with you.
"Also, I'll disagree with all of you that violence IS necessary in circumstances where there is no other option - such as a government that has suddenly and maliciously enslaved its population. At that point you can't reason with them and violent revolt is more than valid."
I'm confused, it sounds like you are saying that violence was justified in the isolated instance where someone is first violent with you: which was my point in that comment. I dont agree with the M.O. of the BLM riots but I do think that if someone is violent to you then you should naturally be justified in using violence in self preservation.
"You guys need to grow a pair and learn how to push back on people exploiting and abusing you"
Who's "you guys" in the that statement? The people who've mixed feelings about the riots? Because that sentiment is born from empathy towards the suffering on both sides. The business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality getting their business destroyed is awful. I acknowledge that and think the riots did great damage because of that. But the protestors who got pepper sprayed after trying to peacefully protest an unjust murder of a man is also damaging and I acknowledge that.
"Utter bullshit! That is a fucking media lie and we're not putting up with it anymore. We will fight
"That's not gaslighting, I have no intention of gaslighting anybody, that opinion is one that was formed of my own personal life experience not the media, and if you are honestly becoming violent against me when I am not against you then you are the one attacking me for a thought crime not the other way around. I am a reasonable person, if you are honestly dropping all options for reason and resorting to violence by the points I've made then I would say that's you are unwilling to see the other person's perspective and physically attacking them because thats easier. Violence isn't the answer when someone is reasoning with you."
You are sitting there pushing the same lies. Therefore you ARE gaslighting us. Telling us it's one way when we know it's the other. Just because you repeat it ten-thousand times doesn't make it true.
" if you are honestly becoming violent against me when I am not against you then you are the one attacking me for a thought crime"
That's a circular argument so take it the fuck elsewhere. I'm not telling YOU what to think, I'm telling you not to tell ME what to think. Shove it.
"I'm confused, it sounds like you are saying that violence was justified in the isolated instance where someone is first violent with you: which was my point in that comment. I dont agree with the M.O. of the BLM riots but I do think that if someone is violent to you then you should naturally be justified in using violence in self preservation."
Do you know nothing of the history of The United States of America? Do you not think that the Revolutionary War was necessary? Think they just did it because they were butthurt one day like what they left likes to say?
See the difference is that you're trying to compare what I'm saying to BLM. That's deflection and projection. I want to be able to stand up for myself without being called racist for simply breathing. It's utter hypocrisy and we have every human right to stand up against it. Even if that means violence because in case you haven't noticed BLM damn sure doesn't shy away from it themselves.
Go be a pacifist somewhere other than in a comment to me.
"Who's "you guys" in the that statement? The people who've mixed feelings about the riots? Because that sentiment is born from empathy towards the suffering on both sides. The business owners who had nothing to do with police brutality getting their business destroyed is awful. I acknowledge that and think the riots did great damage because of that. But the protestors who got pepper sprayed after trying to peacefully protest an unjust murder of a man is also damaging and I acknowledge that."
You. You specifically, Aeolicservant. Simply because you're being a pedantic little shit with this comment. I'm not calling for burning down our fucking neighborhoods and attacking people for ideological differences. I'm speaking on peaceful citizens who just want to be left the fuck alone. We've been bullied long enough, no more excuses.
So why don't you tell us why we have to hold this higher standard than those attacking us? Because it's feel-good? Yeah you can tell that to the Communist's bullet.
"That's not gaslighting, I have no intention of gaslighting anybody, that opinion is one that was fo
"You are sitting there pushing the same lies. Therefore you ARE gaslighting us. Telling us it's one way when we know it's the other. Just because you repeat it ten-thousand times doesn't make it true."
If I am telling you of an opinion or belief that I have based off my own personal life experience, which has actually happened, then that is not only not me gaslighting you, that is also me informing you of an absolute truth. If I say that I don't trust squirrels because they can do things like fuck you up for seemingly no reason, and that was based off the experience that I got fucked up by a squirrel for seemingly no reason that's not me gaslighting you. That me telling you of a belief that I have based off of something that actually happened. An example of trying to gaslight you is despite you having never interacted with squirrels I said something to the effect of: "hey you remember that time you got fucked up by a squirrel? You bled for like 2 weeks straight. Shit was so fucked up it like fucked you up for seemingly no reason." That's what gaslighting is. One is somebody telling you something they believe to be true and backing it with their personal experience, and the other is actively trying to make you question reality and fabricating false information. If you honestly believe that I was gaslighting you than please, tell me what part of my comment specifically was gaslighting, because I simply pointed out that there were people who were comfortable with the idea of black people being persecuted for being black and it was a concerning amount to me. Nothing you say about gaslighting will change that belief I have. I not only have seen them and heard what they have to say my family associates with them. If you think that's gaslighting then I have to ask: do you think that racism in any capacity exists? Because I have seen it first hand. And not the liberal view that: if you don't support the BLM riots then you're racist. I mean actual undeniable racism. The kind where they want to go back to the times of lynching people
" I'm not telling YOU what to think, I'm telling you not to tell ME what to think. Shove it."
I'm not telling you what to think! I never did! Where on earth did you get that idea? I stated my opinion in a place where it was unpopular. That in no way is me telling you what to think. Instead, I would argue that's similar to this very journal entry that Roary made right here! It's obivous I am in the minority when it comes to ideals here, but I think there is merit in hearing what I have to say despite it being the unpopular opinion. Much like Roary's take on the subject is the unpopular opinion in the furry community in general. I think that's a good check and balance to hearing both sides of the argument and forming an unbiased opinion for one's self. I came with the intent of not only convincing others of my own belief, but to hear what you have to say as well. Is that not how an exchange of ideas is supposed to work?
"Do you know nothing of the history of The United States of America?"
That right there is deflection and projection. I'm not making personal attacks or deflecting to who knows history better. I am citing examples that I think are relevant and parallel to what's happening now. If you think that's an apples to oranges comparison then tell me how. I clearly do not see the differences you do so then explain it to me. Like I said before: I am a reasonable person. I'm here to hear what you have to say AS WELL AS to make my point.
"You are sitting there pushing the same lies. Therefore you ARE gaslighting us. Telling us it's one
"So why don't you tell us why we have to hold this higher standard than those attacking us? Because it's feel-good? Yeah you can tell that to the Communist's bullet."
You don't. I haven't said that. and you defending yourself and your property is something that I would say is justified violence. I genuinely do not understand where you are drawing all this from. There is no higher standard that I expect you to adhere to that I don't expect anybody else to be held to. Violence you use in defense of yourself and your property is not you being racist. At no point have I insinuated that it was. I only pointed out that the people who ARE racists do exist and that it's a number that concerns me.
"Go be a pacifist somewhere other than in a comment to me."
what are you talking about? I literally made an argument stating where I thought that violence was justified if you are first met with violence. That is literally the opposite of pacifism. Moreover there's a very strong difference of pacifism and being rational. If I am not violent towards you and you are towards me andI call you out on that: that's not me expecting you to be a pacifist, that's me expecting you to be reasonable. If someone honestly says something you don't like and you're reaction is to physically assail them then you are being unreasonable. Plain and simple.
"You. You specifically, Aeolicservant. Simply because you're being a pedantic little shit with this comment. I'm not calling for burning down our fucking neighborhoods and attacking people for ideological differences. I'm speaking on peaceful citizens who just want to be left the fuck alone. We've been bullied long enough, no more excuses."
I have been transparent about my feelings about all of the riots including the BLM riots which I am guessing you're referring to. That I have highly ambivalent sentiments towards them, I haven't called for burnings of any neighborhoods. If I have please cite specifically where I said that I think that there should be burnings of any neighborhood whatsoever. What I have said is that I think the BLM riots have done good but that does not justify the damage they caused. In no way does that mean that I think they are something that SHOULD have occurred only that it wasn't solely a bad thing. And I have been receptive to the peaceful citizens that want to be left alone. I even pointed out that I think that they were an uninvolved 3rd party that attacking was wrong.
"Do you not think that the Revolutionary War was necessary? Think they just did it because they were butthurt one day like what they left likes to say?"
I do, but much like the revolutionary war, I think the BLM riots are necessary. I think that calling them butthurt one day is incredibly reductive and ommiting much of the nuance of the situation but isn't entirely an inaccurate description of what happened. They were people who wanted to be represented, didn't recieve the representation, and as a result went to war over it. Even that is a very simplistic boiled down version the revolutionary wars' conception but the parallels are still there
"So why don't you tell us why we have to hold this higher standard than those attacking us? Because
I would like to pointout i DID say the violance can be a last resport... I never said violance was ALLWAYS bad.. just that it should be the very last thing you reach for.
I would like to pointout i DID say the violance can be a last resport... I never said violance was A
