p.s. some more evidence just showed up.
15 hours ago, necrovore said:
Trump never asked for anyone to do anything like this.
Apparently you didn’t watch his incendiary speech to the protesters yesterday morning. So I strongly disagree with your statement, which has absolutely no basis of fact.
5 hours ago, necrovore said:
Dupin has provided even more evidence, which I didn’t have, and as a result I’m even more sure of it than before
The link in question provided some evidence that a few people wanted to blend into the crowd. That isn’t evidence that the whole thing was a false flag operation, nor does it add even a small amount of support for the idea that the entire thing was a false flag operation. Take it for exactly what it is, don’t read into it.
For the rest of this I would say that your claim doesn’t look arbitrary anymore, but I will still emphasize that I think the reasons are very bad and the evidence is very poor. Going in order from your link
Moving the barricades suggest numerous possibilities, so many that we can’t conclude anything. One could be that those cops agreed with the objective of the protesters so they wanted to help them directly. Or they were threatened (those cops aren’t allowed to have guns). Maybe they wanted to instigate a situation. Maybe they acted independently. You really can’t conclude anything other than the barricades were not moved by the protesters.
The video of the cop. I don’t know how someone interpreted that as him “leading the protesters” rather than avoiding the protesters. Trying to slow them down, while at the same time trying not to get trampled. I couldn’t hear where anyone said “they’re here”, but it makes sense in the context. Who is “they”? Maybe someone the photographers saw earlier and wanted to point that out.
The video of the guy saying that antifi was bussed in, what indication do we have that they were antifa? The vehicles are unmarked. They could have been buses from the rally that just happened, where it would make sense to bus people in to attend the rally. Or the buses were rented before hand to help transfer protesters in support of Trump. The guy is speculating who he thinks they are, without giving any reason to think so.
The BLM protester and the guy with the communist symbol tattoo. This might be the closest thing to some evidence, albeit very weak and only the tiniest amount of evidence that this was a false flag operation. I would respond in the same way as I did to Dupin’s link. It’s one thing to claim that some of the protesters were antifa, but it’s another thing to suggest that it was a false flag operation. I suspect you will say that independently all these things don’t say that it is a false flag operation, but that putting them together does suggest it.
But what is a good explanation and fits the evidence exactly is that most of it is exactly what it seems, and some people were pretending to blend in. Both can be true at the same time.
12 hours ago, 2046 said:
But part of a virtuous action is that it is done in the right way, at the right time, for the right reason.
Let me know when you have the “right way” at the “right time” for the “right reason.” Until then your fluffy idealism is boring and unhelpful to the people on the ground desperately trying to preserve whatever remains of the American spirit against the tide of socialists and socialist sympathizers.
14 hours ago, 2046 said:
This is not Peikoff’s view of the arbitrary, nor the view of the Aristotelian metaphysical and epistemological tradition, wherein something’s mere logical conceivability does not confer possibility.
Would you say it is proper to say that the Humean view can be labeled metaphysically possible? I’m trying to think of the best term to use. I know you were responding to Necro, but I was getting at the idea that although the scenario doesn’t contradict the rules of how reality operates, there is no evidence to say that this happened. Or stated another way, how would you characterize something like “you drank coffee this morning”? I have no evidence that this occurred, but it is a reasonable guess because so many people do.
5 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
Would you say it is proper to say that the Humean view can be labeled metaphysically possible? I’m trying to think of the best term to use. I know you were responding to Necro, but I was getting at the idea that although the scenario doesn’t contradict the rules of how reality operates, there is no evidence to say that this happened. Or stated another way, how would you characterize something like “you drank coffee this morning”? I have no evidence that this occurred, but it is a reasonable guess because so many people do.
I think it’s more imaginative possibility. If something is conceivable, where conceivable is taken to be its imagination doesn’t entail a logical contradiction, then it’s possible. So on this view, it’s equally as possible that I had coffee this morning as I didn’t have coffee, as it is possible I have 3 eyes, or am immortal. But squared circles aren’t possible.
I think necro is shifting the goalposts. He’s actually changed what he said. He’s said at first, “probably,” and his hunch is based on something else that happened in the past. That’s just a basic logical fallacy. And I think it’s Humean in the sense that the only way to get “possibility” out of that is to widen the sense of possibility such that every matter of fact, and its contrary, is possible, because it can never imply a contradiction.
Now he’s saying no, I’m only saying there’s some elements are present and that’s lending itself to support possibility, but nothing more. That’s fine but “there are elements here” is redundant with “there is evidence here.” It’s a mere repetition. What are the elements here? It’s not clear what he regards those to be. I think it’s “the way the media is treating the situation” or “Biden could gain from this.” But those are just non sequiturs. Sloppy logic.
Keep in mind that what we ought to do, and are permitted to do, depends on the facts of the situation, and what it is reasonably for us to believe the facts of the situation are. If the people that stormed the Capitol believed certain things because of not just sloppy logic but epistemic vice, their cause is unjust. That is, had the election been stolen, or had they reasonable grounds to believe so, (or if they were objecting democracy itself), then they might have justification to storm the Capitol and prevent the certification.
But they don’t. They make basic logical fallacies at every step. “Trump won” or “stop the steal” isn’t a even commitment to a battery of evidence that Trump won. They can’t even present it in an unambiguous way where you could even tell what it is they’re saying. It’s muddled. It’s more like the equivalent of the folks in the Black Hole at a Raiders game with their costumes and face-paint. It’s more just hooliganistic performance for the feelsgood team against the feelsbad team.
46 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
Let me know when you have the “right way” at the “right time” for the “right reason.” Until then your fluffy idealism is boring and unhelpful to the people on the ground desperately trying to preserve whatever remains of the American spirit against the tide of socialists and socialist sympathizers.
Extremely uninterested in being helpful to you or them
Even more evidence… it just keeps coming…
From today’s New York Times:
Chief Steven A. Sund of the Capitol Police … defended the actions of the officers as “heroic,” despite widespread criticism over how easily they were overrun by the mob of Trump supporters.
…
In a pair of videos … a woman who has a Make America Great Again flag draped around her can be seen stepping up to a ledge next to a door to the Speaker’s Lobby, a long hallway with portraits of former speakers of the House. As soon as she steps up to the ledge next to the door, a loud bang can be heard, and she falls to the ground. …
…
Chief Sund said his agency had placed the officer who shot Ms. Babbitt on administrative leave and that the officer’s police powers had been suspended. He did not identify the officer.
17 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
But do we deserve this?
Agreed- America deserves better than to be a nation defined by anarchy and violence.
On 1/6/2021 at 6:33 PM, necrovore said:
he process hasn’t even played out yet and, without interference, could conceivably have come out Trump’s way. There is no reason for Trump to have interfered with it, or to have encouraged anyone else to – and there is every reason for the Democrats to have done so.
It was clear that the objections would fail and Biden’s win would be certified. So there is no reason for the Democrats to have interfered with it, or to have encouraged anyone else to – and there is every reason for Trump to have done so.
20 hours ago, necrovore said:
if it were genuinely stupid, it would be unimportant and could be ignored
Communism and Naziism were genuinely stupid, but they were important and it would have been a very bad mistake to ignore them.
10 hours ago, necrovore said:
the way the media are lying about Trump “inciting violence” when he did nothing of the kind
Trump may not have explicitly incited violence, but he came very close to it by telling an emotionally aroused mob to go to the Capitol and show “strength”.
What’s not easy to stomach is the leftists cum Socialists unctuously claiming the moral high ground, they have never had that right. One standard for others (Insurrection! Mobs! Riots! Anarchy!) and another for themselves (“Peaceful protests…”)was permitted them by supporters and tacitly by their political opponents alike - simply because they purportedly care for ‘the minorities’. Which they don’t, it’s a show. Find enough disaffected people, especially of minority ‘tribes’ to believe your sympathy and promises of personal gain, you can have a majority. And forget about individualism… The Democrats’ greedy ambitions and power-hunger have never been clearer as lately, and now I think, maybe, for some it will slowly dawn what Trump was up against, what he was for, and that he’d seen through them early. Apparently, he wasn’t egotistically “only out for himself” like nearly all of people I hear and read ignorantly believe. The Democrat Left was already at work dividing the nation before he came on the scene and the GOP was ineffectual to deal with that. But beautifully twisted by the despicable MSM and intelligentsia was that HE was the divider, especially racial. Which was ‘the narrative’ that stuck. They had four years to plan a strategy of how to grasp power back, and weren’t caught napping this time.
1 Like
6 hours ago, MisterSwig said:
Let me know when you have the “right way” at the “right time” for the “right reason.” Until then your fluffy idealism is boring and unhelpful to the people on the ground desperately trying to preserve whatever remains of the American spirit against the tide of socialists and socialist sympathizers.
The American spirit is this type of chaos? Then I guess BLM had a lot of American Spirit.
A proponent of Capitalism who supports of this type of behavior is actually a proponent of Crony Capitalism.
To justify the violence is ultimately making another “public good” argument that socialists make.
Officially creating an environment of chaos, lawlessness, physical aggression is NOT the solution to “eliminating” socialists and socialist sympathizers. The right way is to use the free speech that already exists. Otherwise, you’ll end up pushing for fascism … fascism over socialism.
1 Like
5 hours ago, necrovore said:
Even more evidence… it just keeps coming…
"Person tries to break into a building and gets shot in the process " makes perfect sense. What are you trying to argue? That’s what happens when you initiate force. I’m going to hope you’re not referring to the first video in your link.
I mean, you don’t seem to be arguing for a false flag operation anymore. You seem to be saying “there were agitators who were not Trump supporters”. Great. What’s your point? That somehow the actual Trump supporters were innocent? That they were manipulated and don’t deserve punishment? That the agitators outnumbered the Trump supporters? I don’t even know what you’re saying anymore.
In other words: evidence of what? You couldn’t possibly mean evidence of a false flag operation. A false flag isn’t just the presence of agitators, it’s that the entire event was orchestrated and planned by a different group and caused by a different group. Trump asked the people himself to go there, and wanted them to show strength, and said that the day would be a big day.
1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:
Trump may not have explicitly incited violence, but he came very close to it by telling an emotionally aroused mob to go to the Capitol and show “strength”.
We can objectively say that as president of the United States, he did not use the power vested in him by the Constitution to rapidly quell the protest. He could have quickly made an unambiguous condemnation of all people who broke into the capitol building. He could have immediately called in the National Guard. It is easy to argue that he made a minimal and weak effort to defend the Constitution by means of a weak and nearly absent defense of Congress.
Conflating ALL of Trump supporters with President Trump, and he with ALL of them - has been the fallacious product of the media all along. No one is omnipotent and people have no single consciousness.
One could surmise that Trump wanted to exhibit that great numbers of Americans were not going to be cowed into a socialist USA by his invitation to go there, but who is that cynical to think he wanted the small minority of bad ones to invade and disrupt? I find the claims ludicrous that he incited them or even privately wanted them to cause violence at the Capitol. To what ends? How could that change any procedures at this late stage?
His last speech was fine and conciliatory.
How false flaggy would it get , if Congress was briefed on intel from FBI that said antifa was going to infiltrate and agitate the Trump supporters with the intent to target the Capitol? And then the Capitol Police refused help from different agencies the day of ? And then the Chief of the Capitol Police resigns after denying being read into the intel, does that get false flaggyish?