Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Reminds me of Trumpism.  Trump's base believed everything he said, even if there was no evidence for it ("The election was stolen!") and even if it went against science ("Don't wear masks!").

Vilifying a group of people, cuz "science." Classic.

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

 

12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

No. I'm not fond of making predictions or anticipating human events that are largely out of my control. I anticipate the sun coming up each morning and me writing down my thoughts.

I'm sorry for making that assumption then.  I assumed (since the only 2 ways for human beings to deal with each other is with words or with bullets) that this

On 1/19/2021 at 8:50 PM, MisterSwig said:

And I doubt anyone can convince either of us to switch sides. That's why "free speech" time is just about over. 

was a not-very-tacit embrace of the latter.  My mistake.

 

12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

As for a civil war, are you sure we aren't in one already? Should Civil War 2.0 look like 1.0?

No; we can be certain that it wouldn't look anything like the last one.  But since "war" usually involves maximizing the other guy's casualties I don't think what's currently going on can be described as anything more than a prelude to it.  Between January Sixth and (primarily) last summer there has been arson, destruction, robbery and many other horrible things - but not even Antifa has done anything in the deliberate attempt to rack up a body count.  YET.

To be clear, I don't want to equivocate between January Sixth and last summer (and please feel free to let me know if I err) because last summer was objectively far worse across-the-board.  That was a real horror show.  But there is symbolic magnitude to January Sixth that most of my comrades on the right seem to be missing (and which lends credence to the 9/11 comparison, even though I do think it's a bit of a stretch) which is that those on the right have finally joined in the lawlessness too - with rocks and bones of their own.  And by assaulting the Senate while it was in session they made it crystal clear that they (if not you or I) are done with words.

I knew exactly what Antifa was (which is not "just an idea") and I'd gotten used to the fact that there was a band of politically-motivated marauders loose in my world.  Now I'm trying to come to terms with the fact that there are two.  And I'm pretty pissed off about it and I don't think I'm alone in that.

12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Two hostile tribes of apes screaming and swinging animal bones at each other.

Disgusting, isn't it?  If there was any chance of convincing those apes to start behaving like bona fide men, wouldn't that be the real goal to strive for?  Maybe not the easiest one, sure; but certainly the goal with the lowest body count and the highest potential payout?

 

12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Most people are too weak, too unskilled, or too poor to create and sustain a completely independent farm. Even if you have the minimal funds, strength and skillset, one bad season or disaster and you're toast. The great minds and laborers of the past developed farms to support villages and cities, sedentary societies. Not everyone can do it. It's hard work. In addition to the right environment, it requires a lot of knowledge about various subjects, and a lot of grit and determination from a strong individual.

I have many things to say about this, but for now I'll content myself with this:

 

In this digital age aren't there degrees of isolation one can choose for oneself?  You don't have to go without electricity or running water; if Facebook or the media (or whoever else) is doing something you consider evil you can simply refuse to do business with them, as an individual.  I deleted my own Fascistbook account last fall and I'm currently trying to determine all the different ways I'm currently doing business with Amazon and what it'd take for me to stop.  I imagine that Amazon will be much more difficult than Facebook (since most such companies are giving all of us a myriad of different services that we don't even notice, for free) and also because that's how I watch Andromeda, but it's essentially the same kind of achievement.

Finally, on a truly irrelevant point, have you seen the first season of Andromeda (before the entire writing staff was swapped out)?  If you haven't then you MUST.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2021 at 7:07 PM, whYNOT said:

Although not as bad as the Capitol attack, which, in turn, who can think was anything comparable to 9/11? (like some drama queens feel). Keeping a sense of proportion is every bit Objectivist, I believe.

I agree.  I heard the same pair make the same comparison (although I believe it was on YouTube) and although I do think it's a bit of an exaggeration it does still make sense to me (although I'd have to watch that video again to tell you if it's for the same reasons they named).

 

9/11 was a statement, from a faith-based group of people, to Americans at large.  It said that they wanted us to accept their ideas, not through any sort of discussion but through brute intimidation.  What did "trust in the plan" refer to if not faith (and technically idolatry) and what was the Sixth if not brute intimidation?  Even if we grant that Trump only wanted a peaceful demonstration of numbers, even that would be for a less brutish and more political sort of intimidation.

 

So although I agree that the 9/11 comparison is a bit over-the-top in degree, in categorical terms it is correct.  It's an excellent analogy.  How you feel about it is between yourself and God, so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

To be clear, I don't want to equivocate between January Sixth and last summer (and please feel free to let me know if I err) because last summer was objectively far worse across-the-board. 

It's important to remember these things are significantly different. January 6th was done in the name of Trump, with the minority in it perhaps just because it was chaotic. Any riots in the summer were not generally done in the name of anything but taking advantage of the chaos of protests. That isn't to say no one participated in riots without any ideological reason, but that the majority had no ideological reason. It doesn't matter though, January 6th wasn't only a riot, there was a clear insurrection involved among the people inside. I'm not saying either one is less bad, just that they are so different that I don't think I can say which is worse. 

45 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I knew exactly what Antifa was (which is not "just an idea") and I'd gotten used to the fact that there was a band of politically-motivated marauders loose in my world.

I also think it's important not to equivocate the kind of organizations involved here. Riots of the sort during the summer aren't the type of riot that have a clear motivation other than expressing frustration at civil disorder (or the general conditions of their life". Also, yes Antifa is a relatively loose organization, but it is not the same degree of organization like the Proud Boys or Oathkeepers. So be careful not to characterize the Capitol insurrection and riots as the right wing version of the summer. There are clearly articulated grievances ("stop the steal"), clearly identifiable individuals and organizations, and precisely directed at the US federal government. Not to say that Antifa is not an enemy, but we should identify clearly *how* different groups pose different threats. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Not to say that Antifa is not an enemy, but we should identify clearly *how* different groups pose different threats.

It's an interesting question.  Which is objectively worse: the blunt force of many disorganized little thugs or the acute force of a few dedicated maniacs?  Since I can't currently think of a way of taking up either side without falling afoul of the infamous Tu Quoque I'll have to leave it unanswered, for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

It's an interesting question.  Which is objectively worse: the blunt force of many disorganized little thugs or the acute force of a few dedicated maniacs?  Since I can't currently think of a way of taking up either side without falling afoul of the infamous Tu Quoque I'll have to leave it unanswered, for now.

TQ a variation of argumentum ad hominem:

----

Types of Ad Hominem Fallacy

"There isn’t just one type of ad hominem fallacy. Let’s look at the different types of ad hominem arguments you might find.

Abusive - This is where the person is directly attacked. (i.e. This is why a woman shouldn’t do a man's job.)

Circumstantial - Personal circumstances motivate a person's argument, so it must be false. (i.e. This car is proven to get great gas mileage. Yeah right! You just want my sale.)

Guilt by Association - Due to an association to something negative, an argument is discredited. (i.e. Pol Pot was evil and against religion. All people against religion are bad.)

Tu Quoque - Past actions discredit your argument. (i.e. You don’t believe that cheating is bad when you cheated on your wife.)"

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Past actions discredit your argument". Some variations.

A. You cannot hold that violent rioting is bad since you violently rioted (/justified violent riots) yourself.

B. You believe that rioting is good/justifiable when it's in your cause and bad/unjustifiable in anyone else's.

C. You did such and such therefore I can do the same.

I think the point being that a person can be objectively correct: initiating violence is bad... And subjectively wrong or vicious: ...[but] when I choose it it is good.

So the first necessary effort is to separate the argument from the individual. And assess it in seclusion: True/false, good/bad. (Exercise is good).

And the second action is to re-combine argument with individual to point out his double standard/self-contradiction/hypocrisy. This part seems a justifiable ad hominem. In moral justice, YOU cannot get away with advocating and doing what you please when it conveniently suits YOU.

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

I think the point being that a person can be objectively correct: initiating violence is bad... And subjectively wrong or vicious: ...[but] when I choose it it is good.

I don't know why you brought it up, but 'A' is just an example of "when I choose it, it is good". People just as easily can think "I think it's bad, I did it, and when I choose it it's still bad". Again, I don't even know why you brought this up. The point of my post was that the summer and the Capitol insurrection and riots are significantly different events. These events are wrong for different reasons. 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

but not even Antifa has done anything in the deliberate attempt to rack up a body count.  YET.

More important than racking up a body count is getting what you want, which usually entails the surrender of your enemy. That is, unless you're a psychotic mass murderer, in which case you'll probably lose followers at a rapid clip once they realize you're insane. So to me war is about the means to effecting a surrender or retreat, not necessarily mass death and destruction. Though sometimes mass death and destruction will be necessary to cause the end of the conflict. It depends on various factors, including the philosophy, will and power of your foe.

"That's why 'free speech' time is just about over" means people tend to resort to violence when talking doesn't work. There's also the option of walking away, but, like I said, what if that's not a viable option for you? Or, maybe you think you have the right to what's being taken and you're willing to stay and fight for it. Just because you resort to violence doesn't mean you're wrong. Again, that depends on various factors, like who initiated the conflict and why.

10 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

And by assaulting the Senate while it was in session they made it crystal clear that they (if not you or I) are done with words.

Some are done with words. Only a relatively small subgroup stormed the castle. And their action was appropriately directed at the politicians. Compare that with the left, whose violence and hatred is aimed at America generally. They rioted across the country, destroying many cities, businesses, monuments, and harming random citizens in the streets. They don't carry American and Trump flags into combat, they carry Antifa and BLM flags.

So, I say it's time to pick a side. The debate is over. Granted, there is no ideal to be found, but one side is beyond the pale.

11 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

If there was any chance of convincing those apes to start behaving like bona fide men, wouldn't that be the real goal to strive for?

I think there is a chance for the right to behave like men and defend America, or some semblance of it. As for the left, no chance in hell. They should be run out of town ASAP. Politically they're absolute garbage and a threat to civilization.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

In this digital age aren't there degrees of isolation one can choose for oneself?

Sorry, I'm going to bail on the "walk away" conversation. I'm not interested in walking away from the fight.

11 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Finally, on a truly irrelevant point, have you seen the first season of Andromeda (before the entire writing staff was swapped out)?  If you haven't then you MUST.

Okay. I'll check it out. It doesn't take much to convince me to watch sci-fi.

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

I don't know why you brought it up, but 'A' is just an example of "when I choose it, it is good". People just as easily can think "I think it's bad, I did it, and when I choose it it's still bad". Again, I don't even know why you brought this up. The point of my post was that the summer and the Capitol insurrection and riots are significantly different events. These events are wrong for different reasons. 

 

Why would you think I was replying to you? The interesting point for me is that tu quoque is a category of ad hominem as I suspected.

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

... that the summer and the Capitol insurrection and riots are significantly different events. 

 

Do you imply that the summer riots/protests were morally justified?

If so, why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

They need to show more independence when it comes to believing what he says.

I can't see the dependent belief at work (whatever Trump says, goes); I saw and recognize still, the identical values in the nation he holds as they hold. Which is independent to each. Maybe, they too will never accept a Left-Socialist-Nanny state...?

There is this too: to a far lesser degree do the Conservative-Christians enshrine a political leader, he is after all, as they are, subordinate to God - and all that stuff. The secularist, authoritarian, dictatorial, 'moral' leader is the Left's substitute for an absolute 'God'. They are much more prone to slavish dependence upon 'the Leader'.

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

Why would you think I was replying to you

I didn't, but I don't even know what it was a response to in Harrison's post. 

32 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Do you imply that the summer riots/protests were morally justified?

You must've missed the last sentence. I said they were both wrong for different reasons. 

2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

They rioted across the country, destroying many cities, businesses, monuments, and harming random citizens in the streets. They don't carry American and Trump flags into combat, they carry Antifa and BLM flags.

Aren't we missing something crucial here, namely that the majority of rioters were not carrying any particular kind of metaphorical or real flag? I struggle to see any ideological motivation behind any riots in the summer. In Portland, I would agree with you, but beyond that, they were effects of social unrest rather than ideological goals. People don't need to be compelled to riot. 

2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

whose violence and hatred is aimed at America generally

I think the Proud Boys are aiming their hatred at America as well. I've unambiguously said that the insurrectionists are a threat to America and are traitors. Just on ideological levels, I think BLM hates America as much as the Proud Boys. They both probably claim to love the geographical area, but they both hate the actual fundamentals. I think they both would want to create a new America with a new Constitution with their new rules and equal destruction of individual rights. Although you might say that BLM is worse because of general hatred to America, I'm saying the same general hatred is present in the right wing groups. If you want to pick a side, this should not be a basis to decide. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I think there is a chance for the right to behave like men and defend America, or some semblance of it.

You want us to descend to "Might is Right". And men are Brutes.

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

It's almost too bad the 'insurrectionists' on the 6th didn't take a more European approach and instead had used water cannon trucks to spew sewage . Much better visual and symbology.

Fake news. Without knowing about it the liability would be far to great with all that bacteria flying all over the place. Is this the thinking pattern used to determine that there was massive fraud in the election?

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

Is this the thinking pattern used to determine that there was massive fraud in the election?

I didn't notice this, but I just realized that the thought pattern here is "we should literally take a shit on America". Nothing symbolically says "I hate America" more than spewing sewage and fecal matter all over the Capitol. Once you adopt that attitude, consistency doesn't matter anymore, just "owning the libs" even if it also means unironically owning yourself. 

 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Why were they so willing to accept his attack on masks and his groundless claims of a stolen election? 

Nice to see you haven't changed your original mantras. Groundless? How did you know that - until they were found to be ...groundless. Why would Trump have to tamely submit without a full inquiry, given there were some suspicious circumstances? True, I think there was and is some denial going on by he and his supporters about the results, but at the time who knew? But he and they knew, full well, this election was the most important one, about the future direction of the USA and they wouldn't automatically accept the result until trying all avenues open to them.

It's not as if the Democrats were not in denial about an election for 4 years solid - was it? And strange, that no media I've seen have taken them to task about their lies and manufactured deceits, character attacks, and money and time wasted in that "groundless" pursuit.

To repeat, Trump wasn't "lying": he clearly genuinely believed/s fraud to have occurred, so at most he was in error.

So let's agree they were both in denial. And from reputation, I would not have put it past the Democrats to have tried to rig the election.

His "attacks on masks" finds favor with me, being for personal choice re: masking - and against lock downs - from the start, as you'd know in another thread. Essentially: the freedom to independently choose what's good for one's own life, without Gvt. mandates, therefore trusting the people to make up their own minds like adults and go on functioning normally, or mask or to self-isolate, etc. The complete antithesis to nannyism. Are you finding it preferable for the bureaucrats to tell you and force you what to do with your life and health? And anyway, there was controversy then and now about masks. With almost total masking in most countries, It hasn't prevented further outbreaks.

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

To repeat, Trump wasn't "lying": he clearly genuinely believed/s fraud to have occurred, so at most he was in error.

You're either lying or you somehow believe Trump's lie. If he believed there was fraud, he would have spent some of that money he raised on making his cases stick. Instead, he kept the money.

Quote

“In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake” (italics added). More than one court has held that the “heightened scrutiny” Rule 9(b) requires also applies to claims of election fraud.
But what does “with particularity” actually mean? In simple terms, a plaintiff alleging fraud must describe the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged fraud. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/trumps-lawyers-election/617064/

Trump appointed Judges threw out these cases. That's the smoking gun that you lie about. No error here.

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

You're either lying or you somehow believe Trump's lie. If he believed there was fraud, he would have spent some of that money he raised on making his cases stick. Instead, he kept the money.

Trump appointed Judges threw out these cases. That's the smoking gun that you lie about. No error here.

 

"Lie: intentional false statement".

A guy says he saw a plane flew over, the other says, no, it was a bird. And proves as much. Was the first "lying" in order to - intentionally - deceive, or merely mistaken?

Get it?

"He kept the money". This to you is proof of intent to personally profit? Not for future campaigning in order to overturn the Democrats? Maybe Trump saw the folly in throwing more money at making "his cases stick". Maybe a Republican revival could use the donations? Do you believe they are going straight into his pocket?

 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/12/trump-fraud-claims-fundraising-436188

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the Congressmen and Senators that publicly stated they would challenge several slates of electors and force a reading into the Congressional record of evidence of irregularities suddenly , not ?

The tacit explanation is , I suppose, the ‘insurrectionists’ committed such egregious acts , that they changed their minds ? They seemed willing to risk their future political careers on arguments they held at 10 am about events that transpired in Nov , but those factors became less relevant after the riot /insurrection? How so? 

The PA state legislatures sent a letter and a different slate of electors because they believed the slate proffered was illegitimate have they since retracted because of insurrection? I have no idea ,maybe they have but I haven’t heard that . The only evidence that may exist in manipulating vote tallies can only be found by examining the physical ballots, has that happened?. The states that violated their own voting laws and constitutional processes have not had any court proceedings to wit , have they?

The rioters should have used shit trucks instead of physical force on people, maybe they would have still raised their objections , still not sure why they didn’t raise them, what did the loss of life on the 6th have to do with what happened in Nov?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Maybe Trump saw the folly in throwing more money at making "his cases stick"

And maybe Stalin believed in laissez fair capitalism. He saw the folly in respecting individual rights so he just acted like communist. We can both play at arbitrary statements.

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...