re: Notice how the Neo prog filth narrative is shifting off guns? GEOTUS responds

No, I'm certainly not wanting to kill anyone at all. That's for sure!

quote:

---

But it's almost like they are scared to cut ties with this violent movement out of fear of losing votes.

---

Interestingly I think that's a similar basis for Trump's response to Charlottesville, although I think it was more specific to not having a strong enough ideological understanding of Nationalism, so he wasn't sure how to address it so to not criticize the entire ideological movement.

This became more clear when Bannon, who was probably his Nationalism ideological guide, was able to succinctly and effectively articulate the differences and provide a scathing criticism of the "ethno-nationalists," the White Nationalists in this case.

quote:

---

Interestingly I think that's a similar basis for Trump's response to Charlottesville, although I think it was more specific to not having a strong enough ideological understanding of Nationalism, so he wasn't sure how to address it so to not criticize the entire ideological movement.

This became more clear when Bannon, who was probably his Nationalism ideological guide, was able to succinctly and effectively articulate the differences and provide a scathing criticism of the "ethno-nationalists," the White Nationalists in this case.

---

Both sides lie down with dogs and then only point out the fleas on the other guy.

What? When did I disrespect your family? Who are you?

Yeah, I can agree the ANTIFA scum have been more violent since Trump was elected. The White Nationalist movement has been more active, but they're more about show of force and intimidation by numbers. I don't think they've promoted violence as a whole. Can certainly see how the Dylan Roofs of the world can feel a call to action, though.

quote:

---

Yes, and I agree; but since November only one is promoting violence.

Can you at least come to the table on that?

---

I think we can acknowledge that the losers on the fringe left have been more violent, at least as noticeable group, but I also think we should acknowledge that the groups on either side who are violent and/or hateful, are the fringe minority of that side. They just do things to make the news, while intentionally seeking attention to make it even more obvious.

Moral Relativism is the playground of The Left . They do it here by equating 500 guys on the Right who have been completely marginalized and disavowed by Republicans to 50,000 guys on the Left who get funded by the Left, have full participation in all the Institutions controlled by The Left , and who get audiences with American Democratic Presidents ( BLM). Their message is also glorified throughout social media, receives favored status in the MSM and is the de facto default setting for CNN, ESPN, the NYT, WAPO, CBS,ABC, NBC, hundreds of movies, television shows etc . There is ZERO equivalence within our culture. Whereas the thugs on The Right are universally repudiated and reviled, those on the Left are celebrated and rewarded.

quote:

---

I'm not going to get into a big long debate with you about this tonight; but you did admit it then used the word "but....blah blah blah the other side" which nullified anything you said previously.

---

I didn't say BUT to nullify what I said previously. I just think that in political discussions, people tend to find the examples of the worst on the other side and the generalize it to the entire side, so they can lazily dismiss any argument. The left does it just as frequently to the right, it just isn't as prevalent here, since there are far fewer.

quote:

---

Although, you admitted it; there is no compromise with people like you.

---

People like me?

quote:

---

But there is really only one side that is committing the violence on a regular basis.

---

This is what I mean. I don't think this is necessarily your intention, but when we're talking about "sides" compromising hundreds of millions of people, then defining the despicable acts of thousands as A SIDE, accidentally (or intentionally in many cases) ends up including the hundreds of millions not committing them via guilt by association. It's the same thing that often happens when the actions of a few cops, are generalized to the group as a whole. Then it becomes a pro-LEO and anti-LEO debate, when it should be about addressing the problems of the few LEOs.

quote:

---

How much more do you think the right can take it?

---

Take what exactly? I can see, and have seen, that they can't take the toxic debate from the left. I can get behind that because it's far more pervasive. But if you're referring to violence, then we're back to that small group of perpetrators, and similarly, small group of victims. So it's not really about the vast majority of anybody, although I think we should still criticize violence nonetheless.

A major basis for my viewpoint, while anecdotal, is that my experiences have allowed me to have a lot of meaningful interactions and meaningful friendships with people all across the political spectrum. And when I reflect on normal everyday interactions, and the meaningful principles and values that are shown and stated, it's difficult to differentiate the political views of these individuals. For the most part, they go about their lives much the same way trying to fulfill many of the same goals and values. They are nothing like the ridiculous people and examples we see on television.

But when we get into these types of political discussions, we get into the typical in-group and out-group mentality, and use those ridiculous examples we see on TV to define the entire other side, and make it seem like everyone on that side is the ridiculous example and shares nothing in common with "my side."

And believe it or not, while it seems like I'm just supporting that other side, I'm just trying to defend against what I just described, it just happens that the left is the one that is the "other side" here. BUT I defend the "right" when my left-wing friends and acquaintances do the same to the right. After the election, I did it when a person tried to argue that those who voted for Trump were essentially doing it from a bigoted stance. Well my parents and many of my friends voted for Trump, and they didn't vote for him for those reasons at all, so I specifically laid out the rational arguments that were made here incidentally.

So you can say I'm unwilling to compromise, and I do feel strongly about this, so maybe I am. BUT I'm not doing it because I am trying to solely defend the left; I'm doing it because I believe the generalization is wrong and counterproductive.

I told you I'm not arguing with you tonight. And I didn't read that book you wrote.