CHUDs, TERFs, SJWs, Bernie Bros: Is it okay to insult opponents?

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Ah, I see we’ve reached the point in the discussion where we all pretend that terms like “racist” and “fascist” are vague and unknowable, impossible to define or recognize.

This, just over two weeks since a group of domestic terrorists stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election, sporting Confederate flags and t-shirts with Nazi slogans.

I’m actually surprised it took this long to get here.

Not really. Apparently you have this magical ability to just work it out by watching a video of people holding Trump flags

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Far enough.

By your theory as everyone at the Capitol protests not involved in the storming of the building is the same as those who stormed the building, then everyone who was doing the looting in the BLM/ANTIFA riots was just a BLM ANTIFA

There was no protest at the Capitol. It was a coup.

That you continue to lie about this and minimize what happened only speaks to the disingenuousness of your argument.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Yet get called CHUDS (or whatever it was) by posters

Lets look at who are being referred to as CHUDS...

1. Insurrectionists - people who smashed and bashed their way into the Capitol building with the stated intention of killing congressmen, carrying the weapons and equipment necessary to carry out their stated threat.

2. Adherents to the bat-**** crazy QAnon conspiracy theory. Remember, these morons believe that politicians, Hollywood stars, and other high profile people are part of a powerful, world-wide cabal involved in child sex trafficking, killing and eating children, extracting their blood and processing it to make an elixir to extend their lives, all controlled by Hilary Clinton, who runs the entire operation out of the (non-existent) basement of a Connecticut Avenue DC Pizza joint.


"CHUDS" is not a strong enough term for them

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Not really. Apparently you have this magical ability to just work it out by watching a video of people holding Trump flags

When they’re using that flag to beat a cop next to a guy in a Nazi shirt, it doesn’t require magic.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

"CHUDS" is not a strong enough term for them

“Cop killers” or “domestic terrorists” would probably be more accurate.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Lets look at who are being referred to as CHUDS...

1. Insurrectionists - people who smashed and bashed their way into the Capitol building with the stated intention of killing congressmen, carrying the weapons and equipment necessary to carry out their stated threat.

2. Adherents to the bat-**** crazy QAnon conspiracy theory. Remember, these morons believe that politicians, Hollywood stars, and other high profile people are part of a powerful, world-wide cabal involved in child sex trafficking, killing and eating children, extracting their blood and processing it to make an elixir to extend their lives, all controlled by Hilary Clinton, who runs the entire operation out of the (non-existent) basement of a Connecticut Avenue DC Pizza joint.


"CHUDS" is not a strong enough term for them

I just find it odd that people can't see a differentiation between the idiots who stormed the building and those just standing outside holding dumbo Trump flags, yet suddenly can between BLM protesters and looters and rioters.

[Cavemonster]

I don't see why you're calling him a Nazi, just because he's wearing a tan uniform.
But what about the swatika band on his arm?
That's an ancient Buddhist symbol! Are you bigoted against Buddhists?
The mustache?
Oh, so you have a problem with Charlie Chaplin now?
Why is he giving the Nazi Salute then?
You're saying he's not allowed to stretch his arm? Stretching is healthy!
He's clearly literally dressed as Hitler!
How do you know it isn't a Halloween costume?
It's January. And he's handing out copies of Mein Kampf.
I see, you want to burn books now don't you? I see who the real fascist is.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Lets look at who are being referred to as CHUDS...

1. Insurrectionists - people who smashed and bashed their way into the Capitol building with the stated intention of killing congressmen, carrying the weapons and equipment necessary to carry out their stated threat.

2. Adherents to the bat-**** crazy QAnon conspiracy theory. Remember, these morons believe that politicians, Hollywood stars, and other high profile people are part of a powerful, world-wide cabal involved in child sex trafficking, killing and eating children, extracting their blood and processing it to make an elixir to extend their lives, all controlled by Hilary Clinton, who runs the entire operation out of the (non-existent) basement of a Connecticut Avenue DC Pizza joint.


"CHUDS" is not a strong enough term for them

I'm pretty sure that term has been in use on this forum long before January 6, and has been used to describe a wide variety of Trump supporters, not just the 2 categories above.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by cullennz

I just find it odd that people can't see a differentiation between the idiots who stormed the building and those just standing outside holding dumbo Trump flags, yet suddenly can between BLM protesters and looters and rioters.

The BLM protesters were the ones protesting, and the looters and rioters were the ones looting and rioting. All totaled, it was about a 90/10 split, so not really too hard to distinguish one from the other, nor is it difficult to see that the overwhelming majority of these people were peaceful protesters.

Feel free to provide the breakdown between right wing terrorists intent on invading the Capitol and the people who were just there to hang out with right wing terrorists intent on invading the Capitol.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The BLM protesters were the ones protesting, and the looters and rioters were the ones looting and rioting. All totaled, it was about a 90/10 split, so not really too hard to distinguish one from the other, nor is it difficult to see that the overwhelming majority of these people were peaceful protesters.

Feel free to provide the breakdown between right wing terrorists intent on invading the Capitol and the people who were just there to hang out with right wing terrorists intent on invading the Capitol.

The numbers of arrested for entering the building have been published.

I thin you can work it out yourself

[lionking]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The BLM protesters were the ones protesting, and the looters and rioters were the ones looting and rioting. All totaled, it was about a 90/10 split, so not really too hard to distinguish one from the other, nor is it difficult to see that the overwhelming majority of these people were peaceful protesters.

Feel free to provide the breakdown between right wing terrorists intent on invading the Capitol and the people who were just there to hang out with right wing terrorists intent on invading the Capitol.

At the expense of being called a fascist sympathiser, do you have anything to support this? I accept that the majority were bona fide protestors, but 90/10? I doubt it.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I'm pretty sure that term has been in use on this forum long before January 6, and has been used to describe a wide variety of Trump supporters, not just the 2 categories above.

No use looking at me. I only started using the term less than a week ago!

[JoeMorgue]

Of course the "Oh my God how do we know who is really a real true in their heart of heart racist (or Nazi or Facist or whatnot)? Lookit me wring my hands over where to draw the line! I SAID LOOKIT ME WRING MY HANDS!" things isn't an honest argument.

How do I know this? Because we get the same nonsensical pettifogging, with the same passion, from the same people, about not being able to "draw the line" no matter how far from the line we are. It doesn't matter if the person we're talking about legally changed his name to Racist M. Racistperson and is on QVC hawking his new book 'My Life as a Racist, That's Right, I Said Racist!" the exact same 'OH WHOA IS ME BUT HOW DO WE KNOW WHO'S A RACIST OH BOTHER BOTHER BOTHER" discussion is going to happen, at the same volume, on top of it.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Of course the "Oh my God how do we know who is really a real true in their heart of heart racist (or Nazi or Facist or whatnot)? Lookit me wring my hands over where to draw the line! I SAID LOOKIT ME WRING MY HANDS!" things isn't an honest argument.

How do I know this? Because we get the same nonsensical pettifogging, with the same passion, from the same people, about not being able to "draw the line" no matter how far from the line we are. It doesn't matter if the person we're talking about legally changed his name to Racist M. Racistperson and is on QVC hawking his new book 'My Life as a Racist, That's Right, I Said Racist!" the exact same 'OH WHOA IS ME BUT HOW DO WE KNOW WHO'S A RACIST OH BOTHER BOTHER BOTHER" discussion is going to happen, at the same volume, on top of it.

Wow. And your drawing the line ability is so perfectly accurate?

Know what? I think your posts in his thread are nothing but performance art. If that comment makes me a nazi or racist in your view, that says something about you, not me.

[dann]

Originally Posted by cullennz

I just find it odd that people can't see a differentiation between the idiots who stormed the building and those just standing outside holding dumbo Trump flags, yet suddenly can between BLM protesters and looters and rioters.

I can think of at least one very obvious difference: All the Trump fans on Jan. 6 responded to invitations to Stop the Steal! by participating in The Storm. The BLM protesters didn't respond to invitations to loot and riot. On the contrary, many of them tried to stop the looting, not just in the case of the umbrella man.
Is that difference so hard for you to acknowledge?

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Ah, I see we’ve reached the point in the discussion where we all pretend that terms like “racist” and “fascist” are vague and unknowable, impossible to define or recognize.

This, just over two weeks since a group of domestic terrorists stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election, sporting Confederate flags and t-shirts with Nazi slogans.

I’m actually surprised it took this long to get here.

The courts beat us to it by at least a decade. "Racist" is essentially meaningless.

https://www.vondranlegal.com/can-cal...famation-claim

From the Link:

This week's legal research comes from the case of a Covington Catholic Nick Sandmann suing CNN for defamation. Here are excerpts from CNN's brief opposing the claim (which sources say the case has now been settled) and arguing that you can call someone a racist and that is not against the law:

3. Characterizing someone as racist is a nonactionable opinion as a matter of law Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false.

This principle was reaffirmed just months ago in another defamation case where a minor plaintiff sued the press over alleged implications of racism arising out of his perceived support for President Trump. In McCafferty v. Newsweek Media Group, Ltd., plaintiff and his parents sued Newsweek over a report titled “Trump's MiniMes,” alleging in part that the report implied plaintiff “supported or defended racism.” 2019 WL 1078355, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2019), appeal filed, No. 19-1545 (3d Cir. Mar. 12, 2019).

The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the report did not reasonably convey any implication of racism – and that even if it did, “labeling someone a racist without more, though undoubtedly uncomplimentary, is non-actionable opinion.”

Here, Sandmann frames a portion of his defamation claim, Statement 42, around a guest column posted on CNN's website and clearly labeled “commentary” and “opinion,” about “the racist disrespect of Nathan Phillips, a Native American elder, by Nick Sandmann and his MAGA-hat clad classmates of Covington Catholic High School.” Compl. ¶ 207(c).

As the precedent reflects, Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

Footnotes:

See also Stevens v. Tillman, 855 F.2d 394, 402 (7th Cir. 1988) (“In daily life ‘racist' is hurled about so indiscriminately that it is no more than a verbal slap in the face,” and thus falls “comfortably within the immunity for name-calling.”); Squitieri v. Piedmont Airlines, Inc., 2018 WL 934829, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2018)

(“Statements indicating that Plaintiff is racist are clearly expressions of opinion that cannot be proven as verifiably true or false.” (collecting cases)); Forte v. Jones, 2013 WL 1164929, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013)

(“the allegation that a person is a ‘racist' . . . is not actionable because the term ‘racist' has no factually-verifiable meaning”); Edelman v. Croonquist, 2010 WL 1816180, at *6 (D.N.J. May 4, 2010)

(“characterization of [plaintiffs] as racists is a subjective assertion, not sufficiently susceptible to being proved true or false to constitute defamation”).

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Of course the "Oh my God how do we know who is really a real true in their heart of heart racist (or Nazi or Facist or whatnot)? Lookit me wring my hands over where to draw the line! I SAID LOOKIT ME WRING MY HANDS!" things isn't an honest argument.

How do I know this? Because we get the same nonsensical pettifogging, with the same passion, from the same people, about not being able to "draw the line" no matter how far from the line we are. It doesn't matter if the person we're talking about legally changed his name to Racist M. Racistperson and is on QVC hawking his new book 'My Life as a Racist, That's Right, I Said Racist!" the exact same 'OH WHOA IS ME BUT HOW DO WE KNOW WHO'S A RACIST OH BOTHER BOTHER BOTHER" discussion is going to happen, at the same volume, on top of it.

If someone calls me a Nazi or a racist it's pretty easy for me to prove them wrong because I don't hold any Nazi views and haven't said anything racist. My defense to the "insult" would be "show me what I've said or done that indicates that could apply to me", and they can't because I'm not. My panties remain untwisted because I know I'm in the clear.

Which leads me to believe the people who cry the loudest about being "termed" things do so because they know damn well they've said and done things that make it applicable. Dorothy L. Sayers had a great line: “Because, though nine-tenths of the mud might be thrown at random, the remaining tenth might quite easily be, as it usually was, dredged from the bottom of the well of truth, and would stick."

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by dann

I can think of at least one very obvious difference: All the Trump fans on Jan. 6 responded to invitations to Stop the Steal! by participating in The Storm. The BLM protesters didn't respond to invitations to loot and riot. On the contrary, many of them tried to stop the looting, not just in the case of the umbrella man.
Is that difference so hard for you to acknowledge?

A good example from Louisville on this matter is here.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

If someone calls me a Nazi or a racist it's pretty easy for me to prove them wrong because I don't hold any Nazi views and haven't said anything racist. My defense to the "insult" would be "show me what I've said or done that indicates that could apply to me", and they can't because I'm not. My panties remain untwisted because I know I'm in the clear.

Which leads me to believe the people who cry the loudest about being "termed" things do so because they know damn well they've said and done things that make it applicable. Dorothy L. Sayers had a great line: “Because, though nine-tenths of the mud might be thrown at random, the remaining tenth might quite easily be, as it usually was, dredged from the bottom of the well of truth, and would stick."

If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide, amIrite!

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

If someone calls me a Nazi or a racist it's pretty easy for me to prove them wrong because I don't hold any Nazi views and haven't said anything racist. My defense to the "insult" would be "show me what I've said or done that indicates that could apply to me", and they can't because I'm not. My panties remain untwisted because I know I'm in the clear.

Which leads me to believe the people who cry the loudest about being "termed" things do so because they know damn well they've said and done things that make it applicable. Dorothy L. Sayers had a great line: “Because, though nine-tenths of the mud might be thrown at random, the remaining tenth might quite easily be, as it usually was, dredged from the bottom of the well of truth, and would stick."

https://forge.medium.com/what-it-mea...t-fbeef3839e47

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Ah, I see we’ve reached the point in the discussion where we all pretend that terms like “racist” and “fascist” are vague and unknowable, impossible to define or recognize.

It's not that the terms are vague and unknowable, it's that they're used so indiscriminately that, as (Orwell?) observed, if A calls B a fascist about all we can infer from that is that A does not like B.

I would also point out that the meanings of words change over time. Merriam-Webster recently revised the dictionary definition of racism and there is pressure for more change.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide, amIrite!

A truism that's usually offered as a criticism of surveillance. It doesn't work as a criticism of judgment. Try it as a legal defense: "Members of the jury, you may have done something wrong yourselves! Therefore you cannot convict my client!" You'd be better off with "let he who is without sin throw stones"...which failed to get the speaker off of his own capital charges, IIRC.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

https://forge.medium.com/what-it-mea...t-fbeef3839e47

That "all whites are racists" bit is hilarious especially when you combine it with "White Fragility". After decades of racists being (rightly) portrayed as nasty, evil people (think Chuck Connors in Roots), these diversity consultants are shocked and saddened to find that white liberals don't embrace being labeled with the term.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

No use looking at me. I only started using the term less than a week ago!

I used the search function to look it up. The first use I found on the forum was in November 2019, by Suburban Turkey.

I've never seen it outside this forum, but I don't do politics on any other social media platform, so it's not likely I would encounter it elsewhere.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

A truism that's usually offered as a criticism of surveillance. It doesn't work as a criticism of judgment. Try it as a legal defense: "Members of the jury, you may have done something wrong yourselves! Therefore you cannot convict my client!" You'd be better off with "let he who is without sin throw stones"...which failed to get the speaker off of his own capital charges, IIRC.

I was highlighting something more akin to "thoughtcrime", but a good old "he without sin cast the first stone" works too.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

I was highlighting something more akin to "thoughtcrime", but a good old "he without sin cast the first stone" works too.

Except it doesn't, in this situation. I was once mean to a beagle and hid its toy. Does that mean I cannot denounce someone who invaded the Capitol and beat up a cop?

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

What a compete load of unmitigated, self-serving bollocks!

If I am dealing with, or debating with a racist, a fascist, a white supremacist or a neo-nazi, I am not, repeat not going to cut them a single piece of slack; I am not going to treat them with respect, because they do not deserve any! None! None at all!

Neither am I going down the path of acknowledging that their opinions are different from mine, and they are entitled to those opinions. Racists are scum! Fascists, neo-Nazis and white supremacists are also scum.

If there is anything I have learned in my 65+ years on this planet is that not everyone is entitled to a opinion. The above-mentioned deplorables do not deserve, nor will they get from me, a fair hearing. Neville Chamberlain tried that approach in 1938/39 and it resulted in five years of war and 85 million deaths.

I have zero interest in being civil towards these deplorable, barely human excuses for people. I will bloody-well call them out for what they are, and I don't give a fat rat's arse if it offends them or hurts their feelings.

Another thing you'll have to watch out for his someone else determining that you are an X, or a Y, or a Z, and they then are justified to insulting you, denying you your opinion, etc.

Your standard is that you can insult, hurt their feelings, show no respect, and deny their right to an opinion, and that same standard can be used against you. By your standard, you'll be in a similar situation as Christopher Hitchens' summary of Sir Thomas More in "A Man For All Seasons" (at 8:15 or so):

Quote:

At one moment, More is arguing with a particularly vicious witch-hunting prosecutor . . . And More says to this man, “You’d break the law to punish the Devil, wouldn’t you?” And the prosecutor, the witch-hunter says, “Break it? I’d cut down every law in England if I could do that, if I could capture him.” And More says, “Yes, you would, wouldn’t you, and then, when you’ve cornered the Devil and the Devil turn round to meet you, where will you run for protection, all the laws of England having been cut down and flattened? Who would protect you then?”

There is a way out of that situation, though.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by cullennz

The numbers of arrested for entering the building have been published.

I thin you can work it out yourself

So nothing to support your assertion then, thanks.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by lionking

At the expense of being called a fascist sympathiser, do you have anything to support this? I accept that the majority were bona fide protestors, but 90/10? I doubt it.

You’re right, I was off on the number.

It’s actually 93/7:

Quote:

The vast majority of demonstration events associated with the BLM movement are non-violent (see map below). In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

The courts beat us to it by at least a decade. "Racist" is essentially meaningless.

https://www.vondranlegal.com/can-cal...famation-claim

From the Link:

This week's legal research comes from the case of a Covington Catholic Nick Sandmann suing CNN for defamation. Here are excerpts from CNN's brief opposing the claim (which sources say the case has now been settled) and arguing that you can call someone a racist and that is not against the law:

3. Characterizing someone as racist is a nonactionable opinion as a matter of law Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false.

This principle was reaffirmed just months ago in another defamation case where a minor plaintiff sued the press over alleged implications of racism arising out of his perceived support for President Trump. In McCafferty v. Newsweek Media Group, Ltd., plaintiff and his parents sued Newsweek over a report titled “Trump's MiniMes,” alleging in part that the report implied plaintiff “supported or defended racism.” 2019 WL 1078355, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2019), appeal filed, No. 19-1545 (3d Cir. Mar. 12, 2019).

The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the report did not reasonably convey any implication of racism – and that even if it did, “labeling someone a racist without more, though undoubtedly uncomplimentary, is non-actionable opinion.”

Here, Sandmann frames a portion of his defamation claim, Statement 42, around a guest column posted on CNN's website and clearly labeled “commentary” and “opinion,” about “the racist disrespect of Nathan Phillips, a Native American elder, by Nick Sandmann and his MAGA-hat clad classmates of Covington Catholic High School.” Compl. ¶ 207(c).

As the precedent reflects, Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.

Footnotes:

See also Stevens v. Tillman, 855 F.2d 394, 402 (7th Cir. 1988) (“In daily life ‘racist' is hurled about so indiscriminately that it is no more than a verbal slap in the face,” and thus falls “comfortably within the immunity for name-calling.”); Squitieri v. Piedmont Airlines, Inc., 2018 WL 934829, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2018)

(“Statements indicating that Plaintiff is racist are clearly expressions of opinion that cannot be proven as verifiably true or false.” (collecting cases)); Forte v. Jones, 2013 WL 1164929, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013)

(“the allegation that a person is a ‘racist' . . . is not actionable because the term ‘racist' has no factually-verifiable meaning”); Edelman v. Croonquist, 2010 WL 1816180, at *6 (D.N.J. May 4, 2010)

(“characterization of [plaintiffs] as racists is a subjective assertion, not sufficiently susceptible to being proved true or false to constitute defamation”).

*jerk off motion*

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

It's not that the terms are vague and unknowable, it's that they're used so indiscriminately that, as (Orwell?) observed, if A calls B a fascist about all we can infer from that is that A does not like B.

I would also point out that the meanings of words change over time. Merriam-Webster recently revised the dictionary definition of racism and there is pressure for more change.

Hopefully, we will someday reach the point when terms like “racist” and “fascist” are used with the same pinpoint definitional accuracy that the right uses for terms like “socialist” and “communist”.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Except it doesn't, in this situation. I was once mean to a beagle and hid its toy. Does that mean I cannot denounce someone who invaded the Capitol and beat up a cop?

Which situation?

Charged with being a "racist", you have no defense because the accusation is un-falsifiable. Your claims to be "innocent" are just that- claims, and many define the term "racist" to include all people who are white (or white-adjacent). The only way to clear your name would be to challenge how "racism" is defined - a challenge which in itself can be deemed racist. Almost the definition of a "witch hunt".

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Except it doesn't, in this situation. I was once mean to a beagle and hid its toy. Does that mean I cannot denounce someone who invaded the Capitol and beat up a cop?

The issue is never, ever, ever "oh I wring my hands over where to draw the line".

The issue is always, always, always that the line will be immediately erased. Or more accurately, intentionally put in the wrong place.

The Jogger thread showed this beautifully. A certain poster outright called another a racist after the second made an obvious satirical joke. These two had interacted for like a decade, and there should have been no reasonable pretext for misunderstanding.

But the first drew the line at a comically unreasonable point, basically at "anyone who does not parrot me or backslap my every word". IIRC, no apology or retraction was given when other posters pointed out that the first was being a horse's ass.

And that's where the pissy name-calling invariably goes. (G)you judge wrong, and think that you are clear to insult whoever you please that dares to disagree on any point, under the faux banner of being a right-minded poster.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

*jerk off motion*

A motion you seem to have perfected.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

A motion you seem to have perfected.

Here’s you defending the right wing terrorists who stormed the Capitol and calling them “(mostly) peaceful protesters”.

Tell me more about the importance of definitional accuracy.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Here’s you defending the right wing terrorists who stormed the Capitol and calling them “(mostly) peaceful protesters”.

Tell me more about the importance of definitional accuracy.

Yes, I guess you pointed out that very thing much more succinctly in post #169 of this thread.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Yes, I guess you pointed out that very thing much more succinctly in post #169 of this thread.

What “very thing”? Please be specific as it relates to the violent coup at the U.S. Capitol that you have previously defended as a (mostly) peaceful protest.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You’re right, I was off on the number.

It’s actually 93/7:

Tbf, thousands of those demonstrations were small town affairs with suburban mommies and hipster kids. The party was in the several hundred large, violent and destructive demonstrations. Several hundred major riots is a pretty serious problem that is not minimized by comparing with thousands of 50-marching-suburban-mommies breifly walking down small town main streets.

[Matthew Best]

The proportion of violent protests is much greater if you exclude all the peaceful protests.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Tbf, thousands of those demonstrations were small town affairs with suburban mommies and hipster kids. The party was in the several hundred large, violent and destructive demonstrations. Several hundred major riots is a pretty serious problem that is not minimized by comparing with thousands of 50-marching-suburban-mommies breifly walking down small town main streets.

For someone arguing against sweeping "pissy" name calling of groups to dismiss them, you sure did chose to use "suburban mommies" twice in a very civilized fact based description of smaller protest events.