Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

If you disagree with any 'Trump is a nazi' narrative bigly enough in public, woke corporations will deplatform you and deny you their services.

Do you have any examples of this?

I would be disinclined to call Trump a Nazi because he has not committed murder on the scale of the Nazis.  I'm not worried about this getting me in trouble. 

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

13 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Do you have any examples of this?

I would be disinclined to call Trump a Nazi because he has not committed murder on the scale of the Nazis.  I'm not worried about this getting me in trouble. 

Forbes’s recent statement. Calls from democrat politicians to list Trump ‘sycophants and fabulists ‘and deny them employment or the ability to hold office. Wear a MAGA hat. Smile in a manner that is potentially smirkish. Question the validity of the election results, stuff like that.

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

Question the validity of the election results, stuff like that.

This is a pretty good one. I would not hire anyone either who does that. Same as I wouldn't hire anybody who is a Q believer. It suggests a level of being unhinged from the world. At this point, anyone who denies the validity of the election results is denying the validity of our court system, since they have gone through the alleged evidence as required by law. It's a very dangerous belief, as we saw in the events at Congress (it's one step away from sedition, and 170+ people did take that step). In a free and rational society, irrationality is discouraged and people on average act against irrationality. Especially irrational is denying the validity of an election without evidence. 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was every allegation of fraud proven false by forensic examination of the ballots?

Were the elections in every state carried out according to their own and federal constitutional requirements?

Most cases were dismissed on standing and other jurisprudential findings , not on a full hearing of evidence or discovery.

Did TX and seventeen other states irrationally petition SCOTUS ? Sycophants the lot ?

 

 

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

Was every allegation of fraud proven false by forensic examination of the ballots?

Almost all the lawsuits did not make an allegation of fraud which is the tell tale sign of a public relations stunt rather than a fraud. Those allegations were made only in public speeches, not in the courtroom.

Even judges appointed by Trump threw cases out because they were not credible.

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

I'm not sure you realize that she wasn't simply on the other side of the door. She was climbing over a shattered window with the help of 2 other people instead of waiting for the door to be breached. As far as I know, they stopped trying to breach the door after she was shot. 

 

 "Climbing over" is a fabrication - The glass is seen to be almost impenetrable, after the efforts of the two men to break it. She is clearly seen this side of the window/door, the camera cuts to the gunman's hands and the shot is fired. All within 5-10 seconds. She could not have had the time. Show me the evidence for what you believe you see.

Really, with your talk of treason and so forth, and now this, you are rationalizing the facts to fit your narrative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Video shows fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol

This clip has pausing and rectangular highlighting of identifications as considered relevant by the 'editor'.

The declaration from within the audience, several of which were beating their way though the doors, "He's got a gun" was repeated, as the sounds of the beating on the doors continued.

The shot is fired and the beating of the doors also comes to a cessation.

1:35 the officers in front of the door begin their exit, the windows already cracked behind them.
1:40 several begin repeated striking the doors, the windows appear to be giving way.
1:58 "He has a gun" is heard repeated close enough to the microphone to be picked up, not sure how it might relate to the din of the activity further from the mic.
2:11-2:14 perhaps as much as 2:10-2:14 pause introduced by the editing.
2:14-2:15 shot fired.

Was Ashli Babbitt the target or the consequence of a bullet fired into the crowd. I am not privy, as yet, of the relationship of the sights to the officers visual field. Significant to me is the continued beating of the doors overlapping with the announcement of the gun's presence for 12 to 13 seconds.

That's nearly 30 seconds of standing behind a set of doors, watching the progress of the doors giving way under the pummeling by this mob.

<edited>The 2:11-2:14 pause shows the red and white pattern of Ashli Babbitt's backpack. The officer targeted where the bullet was sent. She had raised herself above the crowd, drawing(distracting?, isolating?) the attention of the officer from the rest of the commotion.</edit>

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I didn't make any comment about government intervention, I simply stated that if you disagree loudly enough with whatever woke narrative is the narrative du jour you will be treated publicly as a pariah.

First they came for the Christians but I was not a Christian and remained silent. Then they came for the Conservatives but I was not a Conservative and remained silent, then they came for the Trumpians, but I was not a Trumpian and was silent. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up.

That's a thing I picked up about the Leftist/Socialist, the craving to enact revenge and pay back as well as stifling dissent and to cut off any future (democratic, ideological) challenges to their power. You are going to see a growing witch-hunt, in the work-place, the business community, universities, broader society and by punitive laws and dictates.

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

This is a pretty good one. I would not hire anyone either who [questions the validity of the election results]. Same as I wouldn't hire anybody who is a Q believer. It suggests a level of being unhinged from the world.

What happened to "Question with boldness even the existence of a God"? (Thomas Jefferson)

You should be able to question anything.

Why won't Democrats allow the question to be asked (or answered)? That's what I want to know. I mean, if they didn't cheat, surely an investigation would prove that, and then the question would be answered, and would go away. But they won't allow an investigation, and they are actively trying to silence people who bring up evidence or even "red flags." Intimidation of witnesses -- or pundits -- is not the kind of thing that innocent people do.

What they and you are both saying is, "I'm evading the issue, and you'd better evade it, too -- or else."

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

Video shows fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt in the Capitol

 

Was Ashli Babbitt the target or the consequence of a bullet fired into the crowd. I am not privy, as yet, of the relationship of the sights to the officers visual field. Significant to me is the continued beating of the doors overlapping with the announcement of the gun's presence for 12 to 13 seconds.

That's nearly 30 seconds of standing behind a set of doors, watching the progress of the doors giving way under the pummeling by this mob.

<edited>The 2:11-2:14 pause shows the red and white pattern of Ashli Babbitt's backpack. The officer targeted where the bullet was sent. She had raised herself above the crowd, drawing(distracting?, isolating?) the attention of the officer from the rest of the commotion.</edit>

What's clearer is a missing glass pane in this video. And Babbitt lifting herself up. The doors weren't giving way, they were bending with the strain, I think. Yet, the narrow 18 inch window would have been hard enough to enter for a slim woman, never the husky men. She was plainly followed and targeted by the cop who instead could have knocked her back on her ass with one blow. Let's not take away his heroic action to save the Republic. One shot fired against sedition and insurrection by a ragtag handful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Forbes’s recent statement.

Please quote or link so I can see what you're talking about.

17 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Calls from democrat politicians to list Trump ‘sycophants and fabulists ‘and deny them employment or the ability to hold office.

How many democrat politicians?  Does this refer to anything other than employment by the federal government?  Is there any definition or clarification of what they mean by "Trump ‘sycophants and fabulists ‘"?

18 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Wear a MAGA hat. Smile in a manner that is potentially smirkish.

How do you justify including this?

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

What's clearer is a missing glass pane in this video. And Babbitt lifting herself up. The doors weren't giving way, they were bending with the strain, I think. Yet, the narrow 18 inch window would have been hard enough to enter for a slim woman, never the husky men. She was plainly followed and targeted by the cop who instead could have knocked her back on her ass with one blow. Let's not take away his heroic action to save the Republic. One shot fired against sedition and insurrection by a ragtag handful.

So there is no glass pane in the opening Ashli Babbitt chose to climb thru, I think I can concur with that.

1:54-1:55, the window in that door appears to be flapping in a different rhythm to the beat of the frame. Was it the pistol that appeared from the left hand side of the frame that fired the shot? Given the video's focus, the officer would have had to cross the foyer/hallway to get to the opening Ashli was climbing though.

Between my martial arts training and ccw training and trying to envision myself on the other side of that entrance - too much information too fast, I'm still with the policeman (yet again) on this one.

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

You should be able to question anything.

And you are able to question anything. But you're conflating this with somehow living consequence-free and implicitly denying others their right to assembly.

A Nazi could style himself as "simply questioning whether Jews are evil baby-eaters," but that doesn't mean that I should be forced to hire him, give him a platform to express his views, befriend him, or whatever. If I don't want to associate myself with him, that is enough: he has the right to question, I have the right to fire. And yes, the people who are continuing to question the validity of this election, at this point, are divergent with reality. Not so much as Nazis, and in ways that might be understandable to a degree (given that they are being lied to constantly by figures they trust; though their mistakes lie earlier in their own personal timelines). But they diverge with reality nonetheless. That's a fair reason not to want to hire someone.

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

Why won't Democrats allow the question to be asked (or answered)?

Haven't they? Hasn't the question been asked multiple times, and answered by scores of people in various departments, and justices of differing political ideology (including Trump appointees)? Trump just hasn't liked any of those answers, and so he continues to "ask the question" as though he hasn't received any. Because of course. Because he was never going to accept any answer that wasn't him remaining President.

He was always going to call "fraud" in the event of his losing, facts be damned. He'd intimated that he would do as much before the 2016 election, too, and that he would only accept the results if he won. How people can take him seriously in this is beyond me. And yet the courts looked at these claims and gave them a hearing, over months, and found no call for any injunction or further investigation or to rule in his favor in the slightest (despite the fact that Trump's lawyers sought claims far more limited in scope than he or his team were making in press conferences, when it came time to sign their names to documents; there is fraud afoot after all, and they are party to it).

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

That's what I want to know. I mean, if they didn't cheat, surely an investigation would prove that, and then the question would be answered, and would go away.

That's not true. The question will never be "answered" to QAnon satisfaction. It will never go away. The goalposts will always be moved. If you could have your dream investigation, then there would be questions about that: the leadership and membership, and scope of inquiry, and whether or not there was collusion with the Dems, payoffs by Soros, and on and on and on. Then you would want an investigation into the investigation.

There are sometimes real conspiracies in the world, but conspiracy-thinking is itself a phenomenon that, unfortunately, we must strive to understand with increasing urgency in the modern world. It interprets lack of evidence to prove the initial conspiracy as evidence of a yet-deeper conspiracy, covering up the first.

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

But they won't allow an investigation, and they are actively trying to silence people who bring up evidence or even "red flags." Intimidation of witnesses -- or pundits -- is not the kind of thing that innocent people do.

What they and you are both saying is, "I'm evading the issue, and you'd better evade it, too -- or else."

Not going to speak for anyone but myself, but of course we ought not evade. We ought to question, consider, investigate, and ultimately -- conclude. And then our conclusions are subject to further evidence, further inquiry, and can be amended or even overturned, but there must be a point at which we are no longer "seeking answers," having found them to our satisfaction. And there are thorny epistemological questions in and among this, I will admit, but we must take care not to fault someone else for having reached the point of conclusion before we have, given that these activities are necessarily individual, and depend upon individual context (in terms of the evidence one has, one's powers of reasoning, etc.).

In this case, for instance, I watched things play out thus: before the election, it was observed that, due to COVID and the increased role of mail-in ballots, and how Democrats were encouraging mail-in voting while Republicans were downplaying the need for masks, social distancing, etc., it was highly likely that in-person voting would be weighted towards Trump and mail-in voting would be both large, and weighted towards Biden. On the night of the election, that played out exactly as anticipated.

It was also supposed by many -- and I assumed, knowing the character of politics generally and Trump quite specifically -- that if Trump had a lead in certain swing states on election night, that he would attempt to claim "victory" in those states, despite mail-in ballots not being fully counted. That he would then put up a fight to either shut down further vote counting or to minimize the results of that counting. And that played out exactly as anticipated, too.

Thus, that Biden made up ground and then surpassed Trump in several areas as counting went on was not, to me, suggestive of any fraud, but exactly what was expected. But to others, they "went to bed with Trump in the lead" and woke up to find that Biden had overtaken him, and they were primed and encouraged to think that this was evidence of some kind of conspiracy. To join in an effort to "stop the steal," by which it was meant to throw out the votes of fellow Americans and overturn the results of an election that has been judged fair, by every individual and agency empowered to make such a determination.

That's the bloodless version, of course. In reality, it was sickening to watch our democracy undermined in such fashion, anticipated though it was -- and it's only gotten worse. But I'm never going to convince you of this. Because that's how it goes: as soon as I tell you that "lizard men aren't real," you'll see that as evidence that I must be one of the lizard men. It's either that, or admit that your worldview is deeply corrupted -- and that, to put it mildly, is not an easy feat.

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

Let's not take away his heroic action to save the Republic. One shot fired against sedition and insurrection by a ragtag handful.

Are you saying that in spite of whatever particular error he made to shoot the woman in your view, he was still heroic for making the effort to fight back against sedition and insurrection? I can agree with that, but I think it is a bit strange then for you to call this a cold-blooded killing. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

There are sometimes real conspiracies in the world, but conspiracy-thinking is itself a phenomenon that, unfortunately, we must strive to understand with increasing urgency in the modern world. It interprets lack of evidence to prove the initial conspiracy as evidence of a yet-deeper conspiracy, covering up the first.

Nice! Thank-you.

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

So there is no glass pane in the opening Ashli Babbitt chose to climb thru, I think I can concur with that.

1:54-1:55, the window in that door appears to be flapping in a different rhythm to the beat of the frame. Was it the pistol that appeared from the left hand side of the frame that fired the shot? Given the video's focus, the officer would have had to cross the foyer/hallway to get to the opening Ashli was climbing though.

 

From the moment the weapon emerged in view, it never deviated from its aim at the open window where she was. I.e. it was always seen obliquely to the camera view, not once pointing at the main doors and the men hammering on the glass. He did not have to move across the hallway, only angled in slightly closer to make the shot. I reckon at 2-3 meter range. Point blank.

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

Are you saying that in spite of whatever particular error he made to shoot the woman in your view, he was still heroic for making the effort to fight back against sedition and insurrection? I can agree with that, but I think it is a bit strange then for you to call this a cold-blooded killing. 

You missed my sarcasm. One individual woman with, l think I heard, a dozen others insurgents in the hallway is not an "insurrection". It is a bunch of nasty hooligans. I still claim it was cold-blooded killing, making an example by executing one rioter.

Whom I was quite impressed with were the two officers who stood with backs to the doors facing them, calm under great pressure. But they made no resistance, which is odd.

And I don't understand how this half-dozen hooligans we see could have gotten that far. After she fell, the armed men in riot gear were there instantly, so obviously were always very close. Why were they not deployed to prevent access to the doors? Why allow the battering of the doors? Why wasn't she prevented from behind from climbing up in the first place?

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus, that Biden made up ground and then surpassed Trump in several areas as counting went on was not, to me, suggestive of any fraud, but exactly what was expected. But to others, they "went to bed with Trump in the lead" and woke up to find that Biden had overtaken him, and they were primed and encouraged to think that this was evidence of some kind of conspiracy. To join in an effort to "stop the steal," by which it was meant to throw out the votes of fellow Americans and overturn the results of an election that has been judged fair, by every individual and agency empowered to make such a determination.

 

It isn't suggestive to you that something may be afoot in that Biden made up ground in counting of absentee/mailed ballots in the areas he needed to win the states he needed? And only in those areas, he won what he needed to win and not what he didn't?

Every individual and agency empowered to make such determination? Did you read the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision and the dissenting opinions?

"During oral arguments in this case, Justice Jill J. Karofsky made  the  following  statement  (among  others)  to  the  President's attorney:  "You want us to overturn this electionso that your king  can  stay  in  power,  and  that  is  so  un-American."    When  a justice  displays  such  overt  political  bias,  the  public's confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is destroyed." From a footnote in a dissenting opinion.

The dissenters in this case show rather convincingly that "laches" was wholly misused to render a majority decision to not even look at the merits of the challenges.

Wisconsin is just one example of the type of legal remedy that was afforded to the Trump campaign. The unprecedented amount of mail in/ absentee balloting that is an obvious invitation to fraud and malfeasance gave ample opportunity to bad actors to manipulate the counts in myriad ways. Proof that that did not occur is sourly lacking and that lacking only furthers conspiratorial passions, those passions I fear where and are being stoked purposely , after all it is what the Color Revolution playbook calls for.

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

From the moment the weapon emerged in view, it never deviated from its aim at the open window where she was. I.e. it was always seen obliquely to the camera view, not once pointing at the main doors and the men hammering on the glass. He did not have to move across the hallway, only angled in slightly closer to make the shot. I reckon at 2-3 meter range. Point blank.

Was she there when the gun first appeared, or was he targeted on the missing pane of glass as the most vulnerable zone to penetration, and she was the first to attempt to enter via that avenue?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

And only in those areas, he won what he needed to win and not what he didn't?

This is astonishing. Yes, that's how it works. If you win, by definition, you don't win what you don't need. You can't win by not winning what you need. Because if you need something to win, then you can't when. You are blaming Biden for winning what he needed to win. What, do you want them to also when things that he didn't need to win? You would just say the same thing in that case: he only won what he needed to win. What could he win that he didn't need to win?

34 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Every individual and agency empowered to make such determination? Did you read the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision and the dissenting opinions?

The US court system works in a way that every single individual and agency empowered with making determinations doesn't need to make that determination. That's how voting works, not courts. You have no say in what the court decides besides appeal. 

40 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

The dissenters in this case show rather convincingly that "laches" was wholly misused to render a majority decision to not even look at the merits of the challenges.

"There was dissent!" doesn't demonstrate anything about the truth. Fallibility is why appeal exists. But rationally, courts have decided that appeal has to stop at some point. The accusations consistently failed to meet the epistemic standards required for further investigation, as determined by many courts. The dissent didn't win, because the argument was not convincing. You are blaming courts for not being convinced by the dissent. How can you say the dissent was convincing if no one was convinced? Maybe you were convinced, but you are not a judge and you lack the relevant knowledge and experience in voting law to make the final call.

53 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Proof that that did not occur is sourly lacking

Yeah, you can't prove a negative. You can't provide evidence of something that doesn't exist. It's like saying "prove that nothing exists". 

56 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

those passions I fear where and are being stoked purposely

Yeah, good argument for why Donald Trump has become a danger to this country. Provoke people by getting them to truly believe in an arbitrary claim, get them to insist that the arbitrary claim needs to be investigated, then unleashing that chaos upon Congress. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Laches was used to refuse to hear the allegations. 

Lack of diligence is a pretty good reason not to hear a case.

29 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

the claims weren't adjudicated on their merits.

Merit implies that a claim is at least not arbitrary. 

 

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...