Re-boot The fight is still on

[JettaKnight]

This is not what I'm referring to. Are you purposefully making an attempt at redirection? My initial comment was a response about why those arrested may not reflect who the instigators were in the crowd on Wed, and now you've taken us here because orange man bad.

There's a reason it's called "mob logic". There may not be a clear cut reason that day, for that specific action.

Some group over there goes up on the steps, then another group sees they did that and goes to the door, then others see that and group inside, then others see and run to an office...

You know it's wrong, but you see everyone else doing it, so it becomes right.

Next thing you know, you're justifying it, with words like, "It's mine, I'm a taxpayer!" or "Nancy doesn't belong in that office so I'm taking this!" or "These people stole my freedom, so I'm taking these Nike shoes!"

 

[buckwacker]

There's a reason it's called "mob logic". There may not be a clear cut reason that day, for that specific action.

Ok, I don't how to say this more clearly, you're arguing a point I did not make. If you would like to discuss the one I did make, we can continue. Otherwise, shrug emoji. Dang it, what happened to those?

 

[JettaKnight]

Ok, I don't how to say this more clearly, you're arguing a point I did not make. If you would like to discuss the one I did make, we can continue. Otherwise, shrug emoji. Dang it, what happened to those?

Here's what you said:

I think what many forget is that these antifa/anarchist types do not always participate in the mob activity. They often get it started and fade away as the mob they have whipped up does their thing. It would be interesting to look at the events\individuals that stirred emotions to a sufficient level for people to decide to rush the building rather than take inventory of those arrested inside.

You want to identify the instigators, not the followers? Am I correct?

Try : dunno :

 

[buckwacker]

Here's what you said:


You want to identify the instigators, not the followers? Am I correct?

Try : dunno :

Yes, the claim was made that the antifa types were not there\involved because they weren't among those arrested or photographed in the Capitol. I was simply pointing out that proves nothing of the kind for the reasons I listed.

When I quote\reply, it looks like it did before the software change with the text between ['quote]s and all the options at the top including emojis are there but not active.

 

[JettaKnight]

Yes, the claim was made that the antifa types were not there\involved because they weren't among those arrested or photographed in the Capitol. I was simply pointing out that proves nothing of the kind for the reasons I listed.

So, are you implying that there may have leftist agent provocateurs inciting the crowd, and they deftly slipped out the back?

 

[buckwacker]

So, are you implying that there may have leftist agent provocateurs inciting the crowd, and they deftly slipped out the back?

Now you're catching on. It's been their MO in situations where their presence isn't welcome. It happened in some blm protests before they devolved into routine riots.

 

[foszoe]

I think what many forget is that these antifa/anarchist types do not always participate in the mob activity. They often get it started and fade away as the mob they have whipped up does their thing. It would be interesting to look at the events\individuals that stirred emotions to a sufficient level for people to decide to rush the building rather than take inventory of those arrested inside.

Let's apply this to a BLM rally that turns violent

 

[JettaKnight]

Now you're catching on. It's been their MO in situations where their presence isn't welcome. It happened in some blm protests before they devolved into routine riots.

Why ignore Occam's Razor? There's a perfectly valid and simple explanation.

The President (and many, many others) have been banging the drum over stolen elections and patriots needing to fight, there's a huge protest, mob rule takes over, and BAM!


If you think the folks that are dedicated enough to travel to DC on that day are already in the mindset for this, then you haven't been paying attention. That rhetoric was here, but far, far, far tamer than the rhetoric out of countless other places.

 

[buckwacker]

Let's apply this to a BLM rally that turns violent

Now you're catching on. It's been their MO in situations where their presence isn't welcome. It happened in some blm protests before they devolved into routine riots.

Gotta keep reading

 

[JettaKnight]

Let's apply this to a BLM rally that turns violent

Let's not. I know what you're getting at - why are Trump supporters innocent patsies, but BLM protestors are hellbent thugs that want to loot and burn.

But really, I'd like to stick with one thing - "why is it hard to accept that people in my tribe do things I thought they never would?"


And Buckwacker, is that it? Is it hard to accept that 2A conservatives would storm the Capitol on their own volition?


Otherwise, you'd have to admit that these, independent, free thinking, liberty-loving, patriots were easily manipulated by their sworn enemy.

 

[foszoe]

Gotta keep reading

My only objection a minor one is the use of the word some why not all BLM?

 

[JettaKnight]

My only objection a minor one is the use of the word some why not all BLM?

Perhaps he's not binary like some, and believes that some protestors cared about racism in a peaceable way?

 

[buckwacker]

Why ignore Occam's Razor? There's a perfectly valid and simple explanation.

The President (and many, many others) have been banging the drum over stolen elections and patriots needing to fight, there's a huge protest, mob rule takes over, and BAM!


If you think the folks that are dedicated enough to travel to DC on that day are already in the mindset for this, then you haven't been paying attention. That rhetoric was here, but far, far, far tamer than the rhetoric out of countless other places.

I realize you want to keep steering back to Orange man bad, but it has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. There are a number here that pride themselves on being open minded, not prone to emotional, biased opinions, careful to consider all the facts. The statement I responded to (no antifa) was made by such an individual and I tried to point out the hypocrisy.

 

[buckwacker]

My only objection a minor one is the use of the word some why not all BLM?

Because some started with people already spooled up just waiting to bust windows and burn ****. Also blm has a lot of commie anarchist ties within the org now.

 

[JettaKnight]

Because some started with people already spooled up just waiting to bust windows and burn ****. Also blm has a lot of commie anarchist ties within the org now.

Indeed. The org is toxic.

1. There's a lot people (of color) that don't even know there's a BLM org.
2. There's a lot of people (of color) pissed off that a bunch of commies have stolen the phrase, "Black Lives Matter"

 

[JettaKnight]

I realize you want to keep steering back to Orange man bad, but it has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. There are a number here that pride themselves on being open minded, not prone to emotional, biased opinions, careful to consider all the facts. The statement I responded to (no antifa) was made by such an individual and I tried to point out the hypocrisy.

Now you're just setting up a straw man.

I guess I don't know exactly what point you're trying to make.


There's no reason whatsoever to believe ANTIFA, Soros, the Vatican, or any other boogeyman caused this. To do so is just another way to remove any uncomfortable feeling that conservatives are humans too, and subject to the same feelings, outrage, and mob actions as anyone else.


PS - have a great weekend INGO! Jetta's out!

 

[jamil]

It seems like when it is a claim they disagree with, then it is up to the person citing/making said claim to provide any and all documentation asked for

When it is a claim they agree with, only people disputing it are required to support their position

I think it boils down to you're always wrong and should always list the sources of your wrongness in detail so they can be attacked or ridiculed

Like I said before. If you're interested in finding out if there's any truth to it, you'll fact check it yourself. If you're just interested in winning an argument on the internet, you'll pragmatically follow whichever course suits that purpose.

 

[BugI02]

I'd have to tell somebody to take their conversation to another thread, not just make an observation on an existing thread.

You should know this, I hear it was one of the questions on the INGO Civil Service exam.

So, FMJ for Jr Mod?

 

[jamil]

Because some started with people already spooled up just waiting to bust windows and burn ****. Also blm has a lot of commie anarchist ties within the org now.

Antifa are the commie anarchists. BLM wants a top heavy traditional MAO style communist government. Antifa and BLM are allies because they both want a communist revolution, but that's where their ties end. They've had a falling out, so to speak.

 

[jamil]

Ok, I don't how to say this more clearly, you're arguing a point I did not make. If you would like to discuss the one I did make, we can continue. Otherwise, shrug emoji. Dang it, what happened to those?

used to be the shrug emoji. So now I use ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ when I want to make the effort.