Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

If I say "riot" I am branded indelibly with being a Trump- dictator-Hitler supporter.

I'm saying that if someone has an actual fear that is based in reality of saying that it was merely a riot, that's a good thing. The statement amount to pretty close to a direct verbal attack on the United States, close to the level of "death to America". The people that want to say this, desire to say this, is because they see something desirable in the people who started the insurrection (they don't see it as an insurrection, they see it as saving the country from attackers). 

If someone is afraid to say there was merely a riot because they will be labeled a "dictator supporter", I don't think there is basis in reality. There might be some people who do that, sure. Big deal. People are mean sometimes. Most people are rational of that could clarify what you mean. If you don't mean that you support those in the group who were violent, and clearly condemn the violence, then you can say that. Then people will probably be fine. They might not like you a lot, but I don't think you would fall into the "my life is going to be utterly ruined" territory. That territory is for the people who would refuse to unambiguously condemn the violence, or still claim that the election was an absolute sham and stolen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 593
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

14 January 2021 We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for th

Also there's an argument to the effect that, well look, the representatives in Congress deserve this. While, strictly speaking, this is correct, it doesn't follow merely from that fact that this is th

Posted Images

It was a riot. But not merely a riot.

Any riot can be classified as a revolt as in "a movement or expression of vigorous dissent". (webster)

The question is "against whom".

When no government, no governmental elements are involved, then it does not go further than being a riot.

"the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government" is an insurection. (Findlaw)

It was a riot at the wrong time and the wrong place.

Furthermore, when there are gates, police, and a government in session, being delayed by what the rioters are doing, it falls into one of the legal definitions of sedition:

"To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States; or
To take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof."(Findlaw)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

I wish this were hyperbole,

but ev'ry word is most assured.

The drooling beast has been released.

It circles 'round our hallowed ground,

awaiting weak and fearful fools.

They bleat and squeal before they kneel,

before the beast begins to feast.

Outstanding. Author please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Confirming what I assumed, Swig. That's a rare talent you have. Song writer and poet?

Yes, but I'm focused on nonfiction writing now. Occasionally a poem will pour out of me like old blood from a fresh incision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I'm saying that if someone has an actual fear that is based in reality of saying that it was merely a riot, that's a good thing. The statement amount to pretty close to a direct verbal attack on the United States, close to the level of "death to America". The people that want to say this, desire to say this, is because they see something desirable in the people who started the insurrection (they don't see it as an insurrection, they see it as saving the country from attackers). 

 

The question: when is "a movement" a "protest" a "riot", or an "insurrection"?

Answer: depends upon who says so.

The "protests are not gonna stop - everyone beware - and they should not stop": Kamala. (And Colbert admits he knows the protests are happening across the country - but he just hasn't seen them reported at the time. A dead giveaway of soft media 'coverage').

At 5.20 in.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The "protests are not gonna stop - everyone beware - and they should not stop": Kamala. (And Colbert admits he knows the protests are happening across the country - but he just hasn't seen them reported at the time. A dead giveaway of soft media 'coverage').

Could be soft coverage as you say, but she or both of them didn't seem to advocate riots. (protest as in not breaking anything) If they do, that's going to be a problem. To call for disallowing peaceful protests would destroy free speech rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Could be soft coverage as you say, but she or both of them didn't seem to advocate riots. (protest as in not breaking anything) If they do, that's going to be a problem. To call for disallowing peaceful protests would destroy free speech rights.

Excuse me, ET. But were things not being broken as she was speaking? "Beware".

That is utterly disingenuous on her part.

This was covert incitement, a sanction, from an important figure, to continue doing what the "protesters" were doing, and all through the upcoming elections to keep the intimidation of the voting public going.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

This was covert incitement, a sanction, from an important figure, to continue doing what the "protesters" were doing, and all through the upcoming elections to keep the intimidation of the voting public going.

Yes I would have to agree. Similar to what Trump is accused of doing. The whole thing is very unfortunate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

That is utterly disingenuous on her part.

She was talking about protests, because that's what she was asked about. Given the context, it's best to interpret "beware" in the sense of "pay attention to what protesters ask for, because is not going to go away, nor should they go away". We can't conflate protesters with rioters. You can condemn rioters for their violence, and you can condemn the people that literally said someone should be killed, separately from condemning protesters who are nearby. In the same way you shouldn't condemn protesters outside of the Capitol building as insurrectionists because they were nearby. I can condemn the insurrectionists separately from the people supporting the idea of a protest outside of the Capitol. And I even can condemn rioters who had no particular motive for different reasons. 

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Similar to what Trump is accused of doing. The whole thing is very unfortunate.

I wouldn't say this is inciting. It would make sense to ask her "do you see a difference between protesters and the rioters", so if anything, Colbert failed to ask her to clarify. She was being asked questions, it's different than giving a speech outside of an interview. Trump had a very different context: at a rally with people making even more severe incitement just before. He wasn't responding to a question, he was making a call to action at a rally. Incitement requires more than unfortunate wording. 

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The question: when is "a movement" a "protest" a "riot", or an "insurrection"?

Answer: depends upon who says so.

Okay, but I don't care about the subjectivity of other people. It isn't a subjective thing, it can be defined objectively.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Similar to what Trump is accused of doing. The whole thing is very unfortunate.

I wouldn't say this is inciting. It would make sense to ask her "do you see a difference between protesters and the rioters", so if anything, Colbert failed to ask her to clarify. She was being asked questions, it's different than giving a speech outside of an interview. Trump had a very different context: at a rally with people making even more severe incitement just before. He wasn't responding to a question, he was making a call to action at a rally. Incitement requires more than unfortunate wording. 

I guess I should say it is potential inciting. I would agree with you if in fact BLM does not riot. But if six months in the Biden Presidency, they are still rioting, I would see this as one of the causes. I would hold her responsible, just as i hold Trump responsible for Jan 6.

If Trump was "a cause" based on context, based on the history and what is going on around you, then this is in the same category.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

But if six months in the Biden Presidency, they are still rioting, I would see this as one of the causes.

I guess we could put it into proximal and distal causes. And in this case the distance would be so great that she is not legally blameworthy or not the efficient cause. Trump is much closer both in time and space, not to mention a greater position of authority to the people who look up to him. I'm sure plenty of the most hardened and philosophically aware BLM protester does not look to Kamala as an ideological ally, and certainly not the very few rioters who had an ideological reason to destroy property ("the capitalists stole from us first so we are retaliating").

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not evidence of a false flag, that's evidence of an agent provocateur. Do you even know what a false flag is? I don't think it means what you think it means. A false flag isn't an instance of one person instigating people. You need significantly more evidence before you can even remotely say "something is off, this might be a false flag ". 

So far, it really does all makes sense and fits together fine. You are looking for "the one narrative to bind them all" without bothering to say "the whole thing is chaotic and messy and by nature there isn't just one primary actor or organization for the complete story, but many moving parts which interact". The actual story can't be distilled into something like "it was a false flag committed by antifa" or even something like "100% of people attending the protest wanted to violently overturn the election results". Philosophically, it's easy enough to see that the driving force was the emotion of the most insistent Trump supporters. 

Do you seriously deny that there were people there who advocated for Trump and supported Trump, wanted to use force in the Senate itself, and wanted to cause material harm against the US government? 

I'm being incredibly specific so you can defend yourself. If you do deny that, I can safely reject you as a fringe lunatic on the level of "Bush did 9/11". If you don't deny that, then be more careful about your words. 

By the way, even actual leftists think this guy you mentioned is an opportunist. He isn't part of any organization, apparently few people like him. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2021/01/16/robert-gehrke-what-we/  very poor candidate for any organized effort, although he certainly would be someone who knows how to navigate a riot without being hurt. If a journalist wants to enter a dangerous place, they should find someone who won't endanger them to show them around. So much for one person, there were so many other people arrested...

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Yes I would have to agree. Similar to what Trump is accused of doing. The whole thing is very unfortunate.

11 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Yes I would have to agree. Similar to what Trump is accused of doing. The whole thing is very unfortunate.

 

The similarity - if not moral equivalence - of the two events, at the least should have been given approximately equal airtime. The mainstream media, even more than the utterances of these two politicians, is what should be held morally culpable.

If one condemns the one action on principle one must equally condemn the other. Or lose one's moral credibility.

With Harris's statement, next to no news exposure was given that I can tell. Not many people even know of that Colbert interview. And if one googles the topic, one simultaneously reads apologists on that page who claim "No, Kamala didn't say that, she didn't mean to incite the riots, she referred to peaceful protests - etc."

Well, show us where she distinguished one from the other? She knew what she was saying and implying, no one could be so blind as not to know, and ongoing street violence was what she encouraged .

With Trump and this Capitol riot -  thousands of times more exposure; the news media have only ramped up their denunciation of his supposed incitement, and few people are bold enough to try to justify his choice of words.

The extent that the media control not only our information, but dictate our moral standards has been the biggest most loathsome feature of the last decade. Simply: A news outlet raises some issue or some person often enough, with plentiful, articulate talking heads echoing each other in unison- and - presented in a manner of either admiration or disgust, and the minds and moralities of the masses are brainwashed. They will fervently believe the narrative given them, especially where it coincides with their prior feelings.

The monopolistic stranglehold by the leftist media has been THE source of frustration for many thinking conservatives. Their case is seldom heard.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Okay, but I don't care about the subjectivity of other people. It isn't a subjective thing, it can be defined objectively.  

You'd agree that a thinker needs to do both. Pay attention to the subjectivity of other people - that's our lives and political surrounds at stake and they the majority get to decide - AND without fail to insist on objective standards. In that sense, one needs to "care" and be aware about others' lack of logic and standards and be prepared to call them out. The virtue of justice...

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The monopolistic stranglehold by the leftist media has been THE source of frustration for many thinking conservatives. Their case is seldom heard.

Yes and no. There is nothing preventing you or I from creating a server/service to push our side of the argument. There is no law against it.

This is an area where there is no point subscribing to the victimhood of the right wing. And if it is not the law preventing the "free speech", then it is the culture. If it is the culture, then "we" have not been competent in getting our point across.

That is where Ayn Rand was a world champion at getting "the point across".

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, necrovore said:

More evidence that it was a false-flag. Apparently even a CNN reporter was helping to fake it.

Maybe the last appeal to reason that I have is this: https://imgur.com/gallery/fVspGxA

But it's also interesting for anyone who is curious to see how far people got into the Senate and to what extent they even felt safe. And it's pretty bad that a cop was complicit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Yes and no. There is nothing preventing you or I from creating a server/service to push our side of the argument. There is no law against it.

This is an area where there is no point subscribing to the victimhood of the right wing. And if it is not the law preventing the "free speech", then it is the culture. If it is the culture, then "we" have not been competent in getting our point across.

That is where Ayn Rand was a world champion at getting "the point across".

Yeah? :) Well give or take the several billions to invest and risk, the finding of capable and talented manpower and all the rest - anyone could do it... And still an uphill battle against the ensconced media who'd pull out all stops, illegal if necessary and dirty, to block any ideological competition. Not to say I think this can't be done. Or won't be.

Up until a few decades ago, the mainstream media played fair. There was an attempt at impartiality, accuracy and balance in their reportage. So there was little need for an opposing viewpoint. All that's thrown out now. They have a single audience they chose to play to and boost, the Left. No one conservative, liberal conservative, and even libertarian has representation on the media or social media. They are a de facto monopoly.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

No one conservative, liberal conservative, and even libertarian has representation on the media or social media. They are a de facto monopoly.

This thread ought not become a clearinghouse for Trumpist grievances, but... how in the world can you believe such a thing? I know there's been movement lately by some prominent, private social media businesses, Twitter, Facebook and others -- and especially in light of the Capitol assault -- to curb elements that are actively fomenting violence or spreading dangerous disinformation, but is that what you mean? Otherwise, you represent yourself on social media.

Perhaps there's some disconnect between us as to the meaning of "conservative" or "libertarian"? Or do you think that if you tweeted about believing in smaller government, or whatever, that you would somehow be prevented from so doing? Are you aware of the tons of conservative and libertarian content available on, say, YouTube? Do you understand that we are, ourselves, currently having this conversation through an online medium dedicated to hosting libertarian discussion (leaving alone whether Objectivism is "libertarian," though it certainly is)? Are you aware that, despite the "de facto monopoly," Yaron Brook has a podcast?

As to the larger media, I know it's been a talking point for decades that the mainstream media (however that's defined) is slanted towards the left -- but I've also listened to a ton of conservative talk radio in that time, and witnessed the rise of Fox News, and more recently places like OANN and Newsmax; there's Breitbart and National Review, and the Federalist, and Reason, and on and on and on. The Wall Street Journal may not have bitten for the "Hunter Biden laptop" scandal, but they are not liberal. Fox News has the highest rated cable news shows, year-in and year-out, and they have been fawning over Trump for years -- right up until the point where he pursued a line of conspiracy theory to overthrow a democratic election (and even then, many of their pundits remained solidly on his side, to their deep shame). Are you familiar with the Sinclair Broadcast Group?

How, then, are conservatives not represented "on the media or social media"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure you are talking about the "mainstream" media, Don Athos? With the exception of Fox News, you point to podcasts and local radio stations and forums etc. which don't command the numbers/influence the msm has. And as for "fawning" I hear the identical over Biden/Harris.

One could ignore this observer, since his is obviously a right wing bias...

https://www.leader-call.com/opinion/columnists/mainstream-media-is-the-real-dangerous-virus/article_0b7bed36-6aae-11ea-bdb4-af0101a9c922.html

 

"At outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today, it has been proved over and over again, that if you don’t fall in step with the hate-Trump, liberal agenda that those media outlets are ramming down the throats of Americans, then you will be fired".

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be frank, Yaron Brook and other Objectivist intellectuals in podcasts and many articles I read, have displayed a constant Leftist bias for some time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.leader-call.com/opinion/columnists/the-purge/article_910d54a0-5764-11eb-b1d9-53b3a6dd92c5.html#tncms-source=article-nav-next

More from the "right-winger" journalist who can-safely-be-ignored for being right wing. Damn, he picks up precisely what I've been going on about. Especially how a devastating pandemic was made into a political football instead of putting politics aside for now, in an all-out bipartisan effort. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Up until a few decades ago, the mainstream media played fair.

When did the media ever play fair? As long as the press has existed, people have accused it of being necessarily petty, unfair, or improperly biased. I don't know what time of impartiality you're talking about. American press always had an axe to grind against someone, going all the way back to before the revolution. The Boston massacre was a wild media exaggeration of an unfortunate event, making it seem like the British soldiers murdered a bunch of people on purpose when in fact they were provoked into a confusing situation and opened fire (that should sound familiar, and this was 230 years ago). 

If you want to suggest that somehow the press was more fair in the 60s, not sure what you're talking about. Who are you thinking of? The New York Times? They were not any less  biased than they are now. It has always been slightly left-leaning, pretty centrist overall. Still is. Back in the 60s you probably could have said that it had a bias for the North. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...