|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:On August 16 2017 19:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 16 2017 18:13 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 16 2017 06:23 Danglars wrote:
Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics. Let's play that game again: "Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too." Oh yeah, that works! Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill. Gne what? I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms. You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow. But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview. No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument?
Biff's actual point (as far as I understand it) is that Trump saying that people pulling down statues of Confederates will next want to pull down statues of Washington is not a reasonable statement.
Do you disagree with that point, or are you just arguing details for the hell of it?
|
|
|
|
|
On August 17 2017 00:12 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:On August 16 2017 19:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 16 2017 18:13 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics. Let's play that game again: "Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too." Oh yeah, that works! Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill. Gne what? I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms. You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow. But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview. No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? Biff's actual point (as far as I understand it) is that Trump saying that people pulling down statues of Confederates will next want to pull down statues of Washington is not a reasonable statement. Do you disagree with that point, or are you just arguing details for the hell of it?
My point is that equating Lee who fought a war to keep slavery going and Washington who owned slave in a society that worked that way is just as stupid as saying that you can equate Churchill to Hitler because he didn't like jews either.
I am targetting the reasoning not the people, and I am amazed that anyone could interpret it as a comparison between Hitler and Lee.
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:On August 16 2017 19:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 16 2017 18:13 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics. Let's play that game again: "Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too." Oh yeah, that works! Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill. Gne what? I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms. You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow. But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview. No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument?
That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common.
Biff said "saying A is like B is as dumb as saying C is like D (very dumb)". You seem to be responding "so you're saying A is like C?!?! How dare you!".
|
On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:On August 16 2017 19:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 16 2017 18:13 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics. Let's play that game again: "Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too." Oh yeah, that works! Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill. Gne what? I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms. You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow. But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview. No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common.
If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence!
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:On August 16 2017 19:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 16 2017 18:13 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics. Let's play that game again: "Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too." Oh yeah, that works! Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill. Gne what? I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms. You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow. But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview. No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence!
Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find.
I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!"
|
This discussion is surreal.
|
On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:On August 16 2017 19:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 16 2017 18:13 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics. Let's play that game again: "Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too." Oh yeah, that works! Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill. Gne what? I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms. You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow. But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview. No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence!
Mike Godwin gave us all an exception for this topic to talk about Nazis on the internet, since they were real Nazis. I think the exception applies here, so Hitler is allowed. Your point is invalid. Please send all complaints about this exception to Mike Godwin.
|
All this seems like an inevitable result of Donald's "counterpuncher" compulsion. Here's the way this is supposed to go:
(Violent extremist on the right commits some violent act)
Democrats: Look how awful the far right is.
Republicans: That's horrible. We denounce that guy, the groups he's associated with, and everything he stands for.
Then Dems can try to score points by blaming the right for not policing its tone enough, while Republicans can say "let's come together in this time of tragedy and denounce that group none of us support." It's not hard to remember this process because that's exactly what happened after the Congressional baseball shooting. Both xDaunt and Danglars took a swing at blaming liberals for fomenting violence, but nationally not much blame game happened - Paul Ryan gave some speech about "you shoot at one of us, you shoot at all of us" and everybody seemed pretty content to denounce the extremism and come together.
But Trump is defensive. He bristles at the idea of having to denounce someone on "his side" - maybe it feels too close to an apology, which he famously eschews. Instead he wants a good non-specific denunciation that doesn't come across as admitting fault; thus you get "on many sides." When he's forced to denounce the hate groups specifically he does, but when he keeps getting attacked he needs to counterpunch. What about antifa? What about the alt-left? When you think about it the protesters were right, it IS terrible to be tearing down a statue of Lee. You liberals would tear down a statue of George Washington!
We've seen these kinds of political tactics before. When someone on your side is being criticized you have to decide if they're in your tent or not. If they are, you defend them, or distract, or change the subject to the other side's faults - anything to run interference. If they're not in your tent you denounce them, and join the chorus of people criticizing them.
What surprises and offends so many on the left is that Trump has chosen the former. Like most Trump scandals, what's so baffling is there was no reason it had to go like this. He could have just denounced from the beginning, or after being criticized he could have just said "I thought this was implied but I denounce all those groups. Now let's move on." And the fuss would have died down pretty quick, certainly as soon as there was something else to talk about.
Instead we get about as unconvincing a denunciation as you could imagine, and then right back to the political interference tactics like they're still on his side. By counterpunching when the hate groups are criticized, he's inadvertently revealing that he considers it a strike at him if someone criticizes them.
|
On August 17 2017 00:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:On August 16 2017 19:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 16 2017 18:13 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics. Let's play that game again: "Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too." Oh yeah, that works! Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill. Gne what? I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms. You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow. But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview. No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence! Mike Godwin gave us all an exception for this topic to talk about Nazis on the internet, since they were real Nazis. I think the exception applies here, so Hitler is allowed. Your point is invalid. Please send all complaints about this exception to Mike Godwin.
But that's not even the point. I am not comparing anyone to nazis, just using a universaly agreed evil to make an understandable ad absurdum.
That's bitterly ironic that the subject of that discussion are actual nazis.
|
On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:On August 16 2017 19:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 16 2017 18:13 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics. Let's play that game again: "Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too." Oh yeah, that works! Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill. Gne what? I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms. You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow. But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview. No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence! Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find. I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!"
I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example.
But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes fighting over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him!
|
The president didn't say this, which people who listened to the president's own words know, so this is just Graham looking out for his own skin at the expense of throwing the president under a straw bus. For people who claim to be so serious about denouncing extremism, they seem actually faster to denounce the president for political bread crumbs. And a lot of people who would never otherwise give a second thought to the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells of the world are quick to cite them in times like these.
|
|
|
On August 17 2017 00:45 oBlade wrote:The president didn't say this, which people who listened to the president's own words know, so this is just Graham looking out for his own skin at the expense of throwing the president under a straw bus. For people who claim to be so serious about denouncing extremism, they seem actually faster to denounce the president for political bread crumbs. And a lot of people who would never otherwise give a second thought to the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells of the world are quick to cite them in times like these.
the presiden't didn't say what?
i'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that. as you link to a statement by graham, involving graham's interpretation of what the president said; but it's mostly just a statement by graham.
it's also utter nonsense to call it throwing the president under a bus. graham has hated trump for quite some time now and has shown it time and again; throwing under the bus as an expression only applies to allies, not enemies.
|
On August 17 2017 00:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:45 oBlade wrote:The president didn't say this, which people who listened to the president's own words know, so this is just Graham looking out for his own skin at the expense of throwing the president under a straw bus. For people who claim to be so serious about denouncing extremism, they seem actually faster to denounce the president for political bread crumbs. And a lot of people who would never otherwise give a second thought to the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells of the world are quick to cite them in times like these. the presiden't didn't say what? i'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that. as you link to a statement by graham, involving graham's interpretation of what the president said; but it's mostly just a statement by graham. it's also utter nonsense to call it throwing the president under a bus. graham has hated trump for quite some time now and has shown it time and again; throwing under the bus as an expression only applies to allies, not enemies.
It's not my link, it's a tweet from StealthBlue, it's not a long statement and only indirectly quotes the president saying one thing, that a dead girl is morally equivalent to neo-Nazis.
|
On August 17 2017 00:54 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:47 zlefin wrote:On August 17 2017 00:45 oBlade wrote:The president didn't say this, which people who listened to the president's own words know, so this is just Graham looking out for his own skin at the expense of throwing the president under a straw bus. For people who claim to be so serious about denouncing extremism, they seem actually faster to denounce the president for political bread crumbs. And a lot of people who would never otherwise give a second thought to the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells of the world are quick to cite them in times like these. the presiden't didn't say what? i'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that. as you link to a statement by graham, involving graham's interpretation of what the president said; but it's mostly just a statement by graham. it's also utter nonsense to call it throwing the president under a bus. graham has hated trump for quite some time now and has shown it time and again; throwing under the bus as an expression only applies to allies, not enemies. It's not my link, it's a tweet from StealthBlue, it's not a long statement and only indirectly quotes the president saying one thing, that a dead girl is morally equivalent to neo-Nazis.
The president said there were good people at the Neo-Nazi rally. That is impossible, since good people would have left after seeing the neo Nazis and KKK members. Good people do not willingly march side by side Neo Nazis.
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:On August 16 2017 19:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 16 2017 18:13 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Because that's totally the same than fighting a civil war against abolition and becoming an idol of south racist nostalgics.
Let's play that game again:
"Hitler was bad, but let's not forget Churchill was anti semitic too."
Oh yeah, that works! Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill. Gne what? I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms. You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow. But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview. No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence! Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find. I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!" I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example. But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him!
I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point.
|
I still don't understand how you can compare neo nazis and violent opposers of neonazis. Sure, when it's about hitting each other, they are pretty equal. But usually that's where the similarities end. One side is consisting of people following or tolerating a philosophy of genocide and the other side wants to punch those people in the face. If they were actually political opposites, you would see Neonazis battling with the G20 protesters but strangely you don't see that. It's because one side is a movement built around an ideology (and stupidity) and the other side consists of a range of people with various political motivations that are united by their desire to punch somebody and not feel like the bad guys for doing it.
Of course that makes both sides guilty of escalating violence, commiting assault and should be treated equally before the law. Both sides should get the same message of the president: "Violence is no solution and violent protests no matter against what will not be tolerated." And then he needs to say that the ideology of one side of those protests leads to genocide and can not be tolerated.
And should we have a protest where extremist socialists call for murdering all business owners to establish a proletariat i expect him to condemn this philosophy in the same way, even if they battled in the streets with neonazis before.
|
Well, if Bannon's agenda was to leverage this as a way to turn the publicly-viewable widening gap between Congressional Republicans and Trump into a gaping fissure, he's certainly accomplished that. Or maybe his agenda is sabotaging the tax reform, jobs council, and infrastructure plans, because that's also happened.
It's clear no Bannon disowning is going to happen at this point. He can feed this too directly into Trump's ear as "all those people misunderstanding you, even the Congressional GOP, shhh shhh baby, me and the alt-right are here for you."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
