Let's Talk Politics

"You instantly blame BLM and left wing progressives"

I never mentioned either.

"the riots mostly antagonized if not completely staged by your proud boys"

That is a big claim. I suppose you will trot out that evidence? Some? Sure. Mostly if not completely? That needs support.

"If a person is opposed to Antifa, they are in dangerous territory."

I oppose those groups that try to silence speech and/or start/participate in riots. I don't think that is dangerous territory.

"I would say that every summer we’re going to have this kind of vigorous protest. My hope is that it will be nonviolent. I would hope that we can avoid riots because riots are self-defeating and socially destructive. I would hope that we can avoid riots, but that we would be as militant and as determined next summer and through the winter as we have been this summer."

--MLK in 1966

"Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking."

--MLK in 1967

This is the change of heart sometimes used to justify riots today. I would point out that the other method resulted and groundbreaking legislation ('64 and '65) and that this change of heart resulted in more riots and no legislation. Plus, if you rightfully claim that the violence to black people resulted in a violent backlash, then you can expect their violence to be met with a violent backlash in return. Which brings me back to my point that progress is hampered by violence, not facilitated. Except in acts of war, of course, which the goal is to kill people and destroy things in order to subjugate your target or run out an invading force, or otherwise coerce a group to some purpose.

I suspect a survey of rioters would demonstrate that most of them are not thinking about any of those points in that eloquently written paragraph detailing the struggle of the past 150+ years. But the few that are, I submit, are grossly misguided on how to effect more progress and build on the prior successes their ancestors achieved. And those that are oblivious to these sacrifices are equally nescient of the damage they are doing to the cause of those who suffered through it for their sake. Self-Interest and Selfishness are not the same thing.

"You certainly blamed BLM and leftists for riots."

I never mentioned either of them. I went back and checked. I did blame some of the Antifa sub-groups for violence and rioting and attempts to silence free speech, also known as deplatforming in the modern vernacular. As I said in my earlier remarks that got you all hot and bothered, "Some Antifa groups really do want to silence speech and start riots. You can be against them and not be fascist."

"Surely you have seen the evidence regarding the proud boys and fascists causing violence"

Yes.

"You are ignorant of Antifa."

Not really. You're the one that said Antifa has been around forever. But, as Danny calls it, the FA has only been around about a century or so. I stated correctly that there are Antifa sub-groups, and you agreed.

"So logically if you are opposed to anti-fascism, you are either ambivalent to fascism or you are pro fascism."

Terrible reasoning on your part. It is the false dilemma fallacy. Let me correct you with the same exact phrasing I started with but I'll put it in the form of a syllogism so you can see how to properly organize your thoughts using valid logical forms.

1. I am against any group that resorts to violence and rioting and attempts to silence free speech.
2. Some Antifa groups really do want to silence speech and start riots.
3. You can be against them and not be fascist.
4. Therefore, I am not fascist, but do oppose some antifa sub-groups.

Perfectly sound logic, incorporating all the things I said that you have railed against, and properly excluding all the false dilemmas, strawmen, and other reasoning shortfalls your mind ran to for reasons I am not qualified to diagnose but would want to get advice on if I found myself with such sloppily reasoned streams of thought. You need a logic refresher and I am uniquely qualified to teach you.

I can now use your reasoning to get an absurd conclusion:

1. Some Antifa groups really do want to silence speech and start riots.
2. You self-identify as Antifa.
3. Therefore, you want to silence speech and start riots.

Thank god I don't think like that. I would have no friends.

"I am tempted to just blow you off as a racist"

I expected that was coming but didn't want to jump the gun.

The political landscape in America these days is a circle, like a clock face. At 12 you have moderates, then you start moving to the right or left, and at 3 and 9 you have some rank partisans but still in the functioning political system, but then you start getting to the extreme right and left and at 6 they are almost indistinguishable from one another in their radicalism, jumping to conclusions, labeling anyone they come across as the Other, excusing violence and willing to silence speech they don't agree with or not give a listen to ideas they either don't understand or don't want to understand. You didn't really read anything I wrote in an attempt to understand what I was writing, but you read it thinking already of how you were going to attack it.

"If you do not relate to these things, that is your privilege.

Black Lives Matter!"

The double entendre was not wasted on me.

What's the name of your group again?

"I never denied it and lavished praise on your eloquent delineations. My single contention here has been that rioting will not make it better and will hamper efforts to improve the situation. I could not have been more plainly spoken."

Sure you could have. You could have answered the question. What is more plain that yes or no?

Never denying it and agreeing to it are two different things. I agreed to your point because it is legitimate. You chose not to agree with mine but to comment on my eloquence.

While my eloquence is undeniable, simply pointing that out is not acceptance of the idea that it is understandable why Blacks are resorting to violence. It is denial by ommission.

So, are you ever going to say the magic words?

Thanks Donald.