The left wants to dictate a narrative and not have that narrative
challenged. You want to ignore inconvenient context.
But it is good to see a leftist willing to drop all this nonsense about
"white privilege", without the "whataboutism" of racial disparities there
can be no such thing.
> The very essence of this style of "argument" is to completely ignore
> something and basically use the childish comeback, "I know I am, but what
> are YOU?"
What a bad argument. If it snows a dozen times in a winter with many
feet of snow someone could look at only at the mild days and say we had a
mild winter, and anyone who pointed out the snow would be guilty of your
> It's the "Two wrongs equals a stalemate" method of arguing.
Why don`t you think it is possible to look at different things correctly
and in the right context, and then compare those two things?
> that method of arguing to have any merit, you really have to come up with
> a counter-argument that has the same weight.
Haven`t read below but I`m sure we`ll be treated with a leftist putting
his thumb on the scale.
> This is where the false
> equivalency comes in. When trying to defend something by pointing out
> something somebody else did that is "just as a bad" - it truly has to be
> "just as bad" because, if it isn't, then it's a specious (usually,
> desperate) argument.
It isn`t a specious argument when it is a correct one based on facts.
Have you seen any interest at all expressed in the media or by leftists
about white people shot by police? The left wants to write a narrative and
have that narrative not be challenged, they want it accepted without
scrutiny. They want their assumptions treated like facts, and acted upon
as if they are factual.
> Conservative media talking point is to say the riots that occurred this
> summer in the wake of the George Floyd incident "weighs" the same as the
> incident that occurred at the capitol.
No, the George Floyd riots were worse.
> Here's why this is a false equivalency - and I really shouldn't have to
> point this out:
> With regards to the George Floyd protests that turned into riots - were those
> rioters encouraged by the President of the United States who had taken an
> oath of office to defend our country?
The President told the people to go and protest peacefully.
Kamala Harris was raising money to pay the bail of people arrested
during the Floyd riots.
> Was there really anybody of any
> substantive, political standing who thought that there should be violence in
> these protests? Was it really a left-wing thing? Was it really a political
> thing? No! It was racial outrage, pure and simple. It wasn't the first time
> - and probably won't be the last time - that such protests occur as long as
> racism continues to play a significant role in American culture.
So you are in favor of violence, but you want to be the one who decides
which violence is legitimate and which violence isn`t.
You are in favor of lynch mobs as long as you are on the side that
determines who gets lynched. You want the assumption of guilt without due
> Did the summer riots threaten our democracy? No.
How is rule of the mob not a threat to democracy?
> Dumbasses taking
> advantage of a protest and breaking store windows to steal a pair of New
> Balance athletic shoes is hardly the same as breaking into our nation's
> capitol in order to "Hang Mike Pence!" and to stop a constitutional
> procedure with the intent of overturning a presidential election.
You agree with violence *you* think is the result of legitimate
grievances, but you are against violence that *you* think is the result of
ideas that aren`t legitimate. Because leftists are so fair and unbiased
they can be trusted to determine such things.
> That's a false equivalency!
BLM has the political power to have their sins overlooked or forgiven.
Trump supporters do not.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN