DC Unrest Megathread

[DaleCooper]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

I've stopped trying to figure out on which thread to post these things:

https://mobile.twitter.com/MikeBalsamo1/status/1351608517673840643?s=20

[DaleCooper]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

You know, I reread your posts and I think this is just a misunderstanding. I think you're right that the threats from the father are based on a warped sense of what familial loyalty should be. But I don't think anyone should be sympathetic to that kind of behavior.

[Badger]

A rioter from Texas threatened to shoot his children if they told the FBI that he participated in the riots at the Capitol.

A Texas man with ties to a right-wing extremist group threatened to shoot his children if they told the FBI he traveled to Washington to storm the Capitol with other President Trump supporters, according to court documents.

Guy Reffitt threatened his daughter and son while arguing with them about his role in the Capitol siege, his wife told an FBI agent, according to the court papers filed in Washington, DC.

“If you turn me in, you’re a traitor and you know what happens to traitors … traitors get shot,” Reffitt allegedly said to his kids.

I give you the pro-life, pro-family party, ladies and gents.

"Killing my kids to own the libs! Who needs kids when I can have four more years of President Trump!?"

Nothing unhinged or irrational about that.

The motivation there has nothing to do with Trump or "owning the libs."   It's unbridled rage at the prospect of betrayal from a family member.  It is sadly entirely predictable that some people would react in such a way.

Jesus, you will defend Trump and these terrorists at every turn

I think it's actually worth understanding social dynamics beyond merely whether something is good or bad.  That really annoys people for some reason but it's important if you ever want to solve things or even just keep things from getting worse.

People right now are being encouraged to turn in their family members.  If you support that, you need to at least recognize that some people won't have the character to respond in a healthy way when it happens to them.

You tell him, Shua! Thank goodness we had such a smarty smart person like you around to explain to us the completely understandable rationality behind threatening to murder one's own children.

Checkmate libtards!

[Badger]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

[Badger]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

" I've incoherently rambled on at length. vearing between foolish and outright alarming, but feel free to ask me follow up questions!"

Hard pass.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

" I've incoherently rambled on at length. vearing between foolish and outright alarming, but feel free to ask me follow up questions!"

Hard pass.

If you don't want to attempt a constructive engagement with my posts, kindly stop wasting my time.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

I have a question, albeit a broad one.

Don't you think it's a little weird that, in the wake of a mob storming the seat of American democracy, interrupting the discharging of the duties of Congress, and very nearly resulting in serious bodily harm for elected officials, the entirety of your comments seem to be about defending the people who perpetrated this attack or who appear to have (to be generous) inspired it? Like, even if all your claims were 100% correct, don't you think it's a little curious that this seems to be your sole focus? What do you think it might say about you that your priority seems to be playing defense for people aligned with the side that did this (again, whether or not the specific points you bring up in their defense are accurate or not) rather than condemning it?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

I have a question, albeit a broad one.

Don't you think it's a little weird that, in the wake of a mob storming the seat of American democracy, interrupting the discharging of the duties of Congress, and very nearly resulting in serious bodily harm for elected officials, the entirety of your comments seem to be about defending the people who perpetrated this attack or who appear to have (to be generous) inspired it? Like, even if all your claims were 100% correct, don't you think it's a little curious that this seems to be your sole focus? What do you think it might say about you that your priority seems to be playing defense for people aligned with the side that did this (again, whether or not the specific points you bring up in their defense are accurate or not) rather than condemning it?

I don't see any danger here that their actions aren't being condemned enough.  I do see a great deal of danger in promoting the dehumanization of all those in attendance (and extended by association to large swaths of the American population).

[Badger]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

I have a question, albeit a broad one.

Don't you think it's a little weird that, in the wake of a mob storming the seat of American democracy, interrupting the discharging of the duties of Congress, and very nearly resulting in serious bodily harm for elected officials, the entirety of your comments seem to be about defending the people who perpetrated this attack or who appear to have (to be generous) inspired it? Like, even if all your claims were 100% correct, don't you think it's a little curious that this seems to be your sole focus? What do you think it might say about you that your priority seems to be playing defense for people aligned with the side that did this (again, whether or not the specific points you bring up in their defense are accurate or not) rather than condemning it?

I don't see any danger here that their actions aren't being condemned enough.  I do see a great deal of danger in promoting the dehumanization of all those in attendance (and extended by association to large swaths of the American population).

Yes, you inmate contrarian. How terrible that we should dehumanize a white supremacist aligned traitorous seditious cop killing Lynch Mob. Why can't we look on their good side such as how they some of them were nice to their pets and, at least those parents not threatening to murder their kids in their sleep, nice to their family. What WERE we thinking?? Thank you so much for sending us straight.

And by setting us straight, I meant confirming where your true sympathies really lie. Not that it was ever really that much in question, mind you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

I have a question, albeit a broad one.

Don't you think it's a little weird that, in the wake of a mob storming the seat of American democracy, interrupting the discharging of the duties of Congress, and very nearly resulting in serious bodily harm for elected officials, the entirety of your comments seem to be about defending the people who perpetrated this attack or who appear to have (to be generous) inspired it? Like, even if all your claims were 100% correct, don't you think it's a little curious that this seems to be your sole focus? What do you think it might say about you that your priority seems to be playing defense for people aligned with the side that did this (again, whether or not the specific points you bring up in their defense are accurate or not) rather than condemning it?

I don't see any danger here that their actions aren't being condemned enough.  I do see a great deal of danger in promoting the dehumanization of all those in attendance (and extended by association to large swaths of the American population).

Hiding behind other people's condemnations is a dodge. The point is not whether the Sum Total of Condemnation is sufficiently high or not. Who f**king cares? It's not like any of us condemning it has any impact of what happens. The point is whether YOU, Shua, are interested at all in condemning it. Not out of some grand utilitarian calculus, but just because condemning it is the right thing to do, because it would show that you actually care about broader values beyond the standard partisan back and forth.

It's just difficult to believe that you even care about what happened to the Capitol, when none of your posts contain even the slightest hint of a negative emotional reaction to them. I don't know if in your heart of hearts you believe they were right or wrong to do it, and I don't even think that's the point. I think you've just decided that, right or wrong, they're part of "your" team and you have to stand by them, and this is more important to you than standing by democracy itself. I keep hoping to be proven wrong.

[Badger]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

I have a question, albeit a broad one.

Don't you think it's a little weird that, in the wake of a mob storming the seat of American democracy, interrupting the discharging of the duties of Congress, and very nearly resulting in serious bodily harm for elected officials, the entirety of your comments seem to be about defending the people who perpetrated this attack or who appear to have (to be generous) inspired it? Like, even if all your claims were 100% correct, don't you think it's a little curious that this seems to be your sole focus? What do you think it might say about you that your priority seems to be playing defense for people aligned with the side that did this (again, whether or not the specific points you bring up in their defense are accurate or not) rather than condemning it?

I don't see any danger here that their actions aren't being condemned enough.  I do see a great deal of danger in promoting the dehumanization of all those in attendance (and extended by association to large swaths of the American population).

Hiding behind other people's condemnations is a dodge. The point is not whether the Sum Total of Condemnation is sufficiently high or not. Who f**king cares? It's not like any of us condemning it has any impact of what happens. The point is whether YOU, Shua, are interested at all in condemning it. Not out of some grand utilitarian calculus, but just because condemning it is the right thing to do, because it would show that you actually care about broader values beyond the standard partisan back and forth.

It's just difficult to believe that you even care about what happened to the Capitol, when none of your posts contain even the slightest hint of a negative emotional reaction to them. I don't know if in your heart of hearts you believe they were right or wrong to do it, and I don't even think that's the point. I think you've just decided that, right or wrong, they're part of "your" team and you have to stand by them, and this is more important to you than standing by democracy itself. I keep hoping to be proven wrong.

(Insert Standing ovation gif)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

I have a question, albeit a broad one.

Don't you think it's a little weird that, in the wake of a mob storming the seat of American democracy, interrupting the discharging of the duties of Congress, and very nearly resulting in serious bodily harm for elected officials, the entirety of your comments seem to be about defending the people who perpetrated this attack or who appear to have (to be generous) inspired it? Like, even if all your claims were 100% correct, don't you think it's a little curious that this seems to be your sole focus? What do you think it might say about you that your priority seems to be playing defense for people aligned with the side that did this (again, whether or not the specific points you bring up in their defense are accurate or not) rather than condemning it?

I don't see any danger here that their actions aren't being condemned enough.  I do see a great deal of danger in promoting the dehumanization of all those in attendance (and extended by association to large swaths of the American population).

Hiding behind other people's condemnations is a dodge. The point is not whether the Sum Total of Condemnation is sufficiently high or not. Who f**king cares? It's not like any of us condemning it has any impact of what happens. The point is whether YOU, Shua, are interested at all in condemning it. Not out of some grand utilitarian calculus, but just because condemning it is the right thing to do, because it would show that you actually care about broader values beyond the standard partisan back and forth.

It's just difficult to believe that you even care about what happened to the Capitol, when none of your posts contain even the slightest hint of a negative emotional reaction to them. I don't know if in your heart of hearts you believe they were right or wrong to do it, and I don't even think that's the point. I think you've just decided that, right or wrong, they're part of "your" team and you have to stand by them, and this is more important to you than standing by democracy itself. I keep hoping to be proven wrong.

I've never understood uttering the words "I condemn this" as an intrinsic and necessary good in itself, and I'm not going to be bullied or shamed into the ritual.

[ProudModerate2]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

I have a question, albeit a broad one.

Don't you think it's a little weird that, in the wake of a mob storming the seat of American democracy, interrupting the discharging of the duties of Congress, and very nearly resulting in serious bodily harm for elected officials, the entirety of your comments seem to be about defending the people who perpetrated this attack or who appear to have (to be generous) inspired it? Like, even if all your claims were 100% correct, don't you think it's a little curious that this seems to be your sole focus? What do you think it might say about you that your priority seems to be playing defense for people aligned with the side that did this (again, whether or not the specific points you bring up in their defense are accurate or not) rather than condemning it?

I don't see any danger here that their actions aren't being condemned enough.  I do see a great deal of danger in promoting the dehumanization of all those in attendance (and extended by association to large swaths of the American population).

Hiding behind other people's condemnations is a dodge. The point is not whether the Sum Total of Condemnation is sufficiently high or not. Who f**king cares? It's not like any of us condemning it has any impact of what happens. The point is whether YOU, Shua, are interested at all in condemning it. Not out of some grand utilitarian calculus, but just because condemning it is the right thing to do, because it would show that you actually care about broader values beyond the standard partisan back and forth.

It's just difficult to believe that you even care about what happened to the Capitol, when none of your posts contain even the slightest hint of a negative emotional reaction to them. I don't know if in your heart of hearts you believe they were right or wrong to do it, and I don't even think that's the point. I think you've just decided that, right or wrong, they're part of "your" team and you have to stand by them, and this is more important to you than standing by democracy itself. I keep hoping to be proven wrong.

I've never understood uttering the words "I condemn this" as an intrinsic and necessary good in itself, and I'm not going to be bullied or shamed into the ritual.

Change your temporary Atlas name to "Fuzzy shua" please.

[LtNOWIS]

George Washington University has a nice database of all of the court records related to the January 6 siege. So far there are 112 federal cases, and roughly 30 DC local cases. A good start by the feds so far.

https://extremism.gwu.edu/Capitol-Hill-Cases

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Was driving in the suburbs yesterday and passed an electronic billboard with an fbi ad asking for people to provide any info on the Capitol riot.

In Louisiana? Haha fitting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

I have a question, albeit a broad one.

Don't you think it's a little weird that, in the wake of a mob storming the seat of American democracy, interrupting the discharging of the duties of Congress, and very nearly resulting in serious bodily harm for elected officials, the entirety of your comments seem to be about defending the people who perpetrated this attack or who appear to have (to be generous) inspired it? Like, even if all your claims were 100% correct, don't you think it's a little curious that this seems to be your sole focus? What do you think it might say about you that your priority seems to be playing defense for people aligned with the side that did this (again, whether or not the specific points you bring up in their defense are accurate or not) rather than condemning it?

I don't see any danger here that their actions aren't being condemned enough.  I do see a great deal of danger in promoting the dehumanization of all those in attendance (and extended by association to large swaths of the American population).

Hiding behind other people's condemnations is a dodge. The point is not whether the Sum Total of Condemnation is sufficiently high or not. Who f**king cares? It's not like any of us condemning it has any impact of what happens. The point is whether YOU, Shua, are interested at all in condemning it. Not out of some grand utilitarian calculus, but just because condemning it is the right thing to do, because it would show that you actually care about broader values beyond the standard partisan back and forth.

It's just difficult to believe that you even care about what happened to the Capitol, when none of your posts contain even the slightest hint of a negative emotional reaction to them. I don't know if in your heart of hearts you believe they were right or wrong to do it, and I don't even think that's the point. I think you've just decided that, right or wrong, they're part of "your" team and you have to stand by them, and this is more important to you than standing by democracy itself. I keep hoping to be proven wrong.

I've never understood uttering the words "I condemn this" as an intrinsic and necessary good in itself, and I'm not going to be bullied or shamed into the ritual.

And that's fine. If you did it solely out of peer pressure it would mean less than nothing.

It's just very telling that you didn't feel the need to express any kind of negative sentiment about this of your own initiative. It'd be great if you seriously reflected on this, but I get that owning the libs is much more fun.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

I have a question, albeit a broad one.

Don't you think it's a little weird that, in the wake of a mob storming the seat of American democracy, interrupting the discharging of the duties of Congress, and very nearly resulting in serious bodily harm for elected officials, the entirety of your comments seem to be about defending the people who perpetrated this attack or who appear to have (to be generous) inspired it? Like, even if all your claims were 100% correct, don't you think it's a little curious that this seems to be your sole focus? What do you think it might say about you that your priority seems to be playing defense for people aligned with the side that did this (again, whether or not the specific points you bring up in their defense are accurate or not) rather than condemning it?

I don't see any danger here that their actions aren't being condemned enough.  I do see a great deal of danger in promoting the dehumanization of all those in attendance (and extended by association to large swaths of the American population).

Hiding behind other people's condemnations is a dodge. The point is not whether the Sum Total of Condemnation is sufficiently high or not. Who f**king cares? It's not like any of us condemning it has any impact of what happens. The point is whether YOU, Shua, are interested at all in condemning it. Not out of some grand utilitarian calculus, but just because condemning it is the right thing to do, because it would show that you actually care about broader values beyond the standard partisan back and forth.

It's just difficult to believe that you even care about what happened to the Capitol, when none of your posts contain even the slightest hint of a negative emotional reaction to them. I don't know if in your heart of hearts you believe they were right or wrong to do it, and I don't even think that's the point. I think you've just decided that, right or wrong, they're part of "your" team and you have to stand by them, and this is more important to you than standing by democracy itself. I keep hoping to be proven wrong.

I've never understood uttering the words "I condemn this" as an intrinsic and necessary good in itself, and I'm not going to be bullied or shamed into the ritual.

And that's fine. If you did it solely out of peer pressure it would mean less than nothing.

It's just very telling that you didn't feel the need to express any kind of negative sentiment about this of your own initiative. It'd be great if you seriously reflected on this, but I get that owning the libs is much more fun.

How about you send me a poll with a "how much do you disapprove of this on a scale of 1-10" every time there's an event you'd like me to express my sentiments on.  Would that satisfy you?

[Ferguson97]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

I have a question, albeit a broad one.

Don't you think it's a little weird that, in the wake of a mob storming the seat of American democracy, interrupting the discharging of the duties of Congress, and very nearly resulting in serious bodily harm for elected officials, the entirety of your comments seem to be about defending the people who perpetrated this attack or who appear to have (to be generous) inspired it? Like, even if all your claims were 100% correct, don't you think it's a little curious that this seems to be your sole focus? What do you think it might say about you that your priority seems to be playing defense for people aligned with the side that did this (again, whether or not the specific points you bring up in their defense are accurate or not) rather than condemning it?

I don't see any danger here that their actions aren't being condemned enough.  I do see a great deal of danger in promoting the dehumanization of all those in attendance (and extended by association to large swaths of the American population).

Hiding behind other people's condemnations is a dodge. The point is not whether the Sum Total of Condemnation is sufficiently high or not. Who f**king cares? It's not like any of us condemning it has any impact of what happens. The point is whether YOU, Shua, are interested at all in condemning it. Not out of some grand utilitarian calculus, but just because condemning it is the right thing to do, because it would show that you actually care about broader values beyond the standard partisan back and forth.

It's just difficult to believe that you even care about what happened to the Capitol, when none of your posts contain even the slightest hint of a negative emotional reaction to them. I don't know if in your heart of hearts you believe they were right or wrong to do it, and I don't even think that's the point. I think you've just decided that, right or wrong, they're part of "your" team and you have to stand by them, and this is more important to you than standing by democracy itself. I keep hoping to be proven wrong.

I've never understood uttering the words "I condemn this" as an intrinsic and necessary good in itself, and I'm not going to be bullied or shamed into the ritual.

And that's fine. If you did it solely out of peer pressure it would mean less than nothing.

It's just very telling that you didn't feel the need to express any kind of negative sentiment about this of your own initiative. It'd be great if you seriously reflected on this, but I get that owning the libs is much more fun.

How about you send me a poll with a "how much do you disapprove of this on a scale of 1-10" every time there's an event you'd like me to express my sentiments on.  Would that satisfy you?

You’re weird

[Antonio the Sixth]

Lol, why the hell would we go easy on a felony criminal because they are threatening to murder their children? I find it impossible to believe that someone would seriously make the argument that a person wanting to murder their own children is evidence that the law shouldn't pursue that person.

Yes, it would definitely be weird if someone was arguing that.

No one here has any idea what you are trying to argue, shua, and I suspect that includes yourself.

And no, that's not because anyone here lacks your self-perceived Galaxy brain level of analysis, but because you have crossed the border from your usual status of inscrutable to being outright incomprehensible.

I don't know what the point of comments like this are.  If you have a specific question about something I said, feel free to present it!

I have a question, albeit a broad one.

Don't you think it's a little weird that, in the wake of a mob storming the seat of American democracy, interrupting the discharging of the duties of Congress, and very nearly resulting in serious bodily harm for elected officials, the entirety of your comments seem to be about defending the people who perpetrated this attack or who appear to have (to be generous) inspired it? Like, even if all your claims were 100% correct, don't you think it's a little curious that this seems to be your sole focus? What do you think it might say about you that your priority seems to be playing defense for people aligned with the side that did this (again, whether or not the specific points you bring up in their defense are accurate or not) rather than condemning it?

I don't see any danger here that their actions aren't being condemned enough.  I do see a great deal of danger in promoting the dehumanization of all those in attendance (and extended by association to large swaths of the American population).

Hiding behind other people's condemnations is a dodge. The point is not whether the Sum Total of Condemnation is sufficiently high or not. Who f**king cares? It's not like any of us condemning it has any impact of what happens. The point is whether YOU, Shua, are interested at all in condemning it. Not out of some grand utilitarian calculus, but just because condemning it is the right thing to do, because it would show that you actually care about broader values beyond the standard partisan back and forth.

It's just difficult to believe that you even care about what happened to the Capitol, when none of your posts contain even the slightest hint of a negative emotional reaction to them. I don't know if in your heart of hearts you believe they were right or wrong to do it, and I don't even think that's the point. I think you've just decided that, right or wrong, they're part of "your" team and you have to stand by them, and this is more important to you than standing by democracy itself. I keep hoping to be proven wrong.

I've never understood uttering the words "I condemn this" as an intrinsic and necessary good in itself, and I'm not going to be bullied or shamed into the ritual.

And that's fine. If you did it solely out of peer pressure it would mean less than nothing.

It's just very telling that you didn't feel the need to express any kind of negative sentiment about this of your own initiative. It'd be great if you seriously reflected on this, but I get that owning the libs is much more fun.

How about you send me a poll with a "how much do you disapprove of this on a scale of 1-10" every time there's an event you'd like me to express my sentiments on.  Would that satisfy you?

Okay, cool. Keep being disingenuous. You must think you're very clever, but everyone sees right through you.

[The Dowager Mod]

Could you guys maybe get back on track?
I don't want to start banning people from this thread, But I will.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Could you guys maybe get back on track?
I don't want to start banning people from this thread, But I will.

The hell?? This is directly relevant to the topic of the thread.

[Horus]

Shua is known for being a contrarian on pretty much everything. Not sure why you guys are letting him rile you up.