Current Events > i like how redhats went from NO SHUTDOWN to PROTESTS BAD DEADLY to NO SHUTDOWN

(+) Yeah! (+)

Generally, the people who are taking issue with the protests are more taking issue with the hypocrisy.

When people protested the shutdown, or when President Trump announced a rally, the immediate response from many (including a decent chunk of this very board) was "oh my god they're literally going to kill people"

Meanwhile, the huge protests (that are, in many cases, also burning down buildings and turning violent) are fine because it's 'more important' than anything the right cares about.

It's pure hypocrisy. Fine for me, not for thee, etc.

---

Seems to be a mix of people. There are definitely blatant hypocrites who changed opinion the second the protests started, but many were just pointing out the hypocrisy. Whether people justify the protests based on thinking the movement is more important than COVID or not, it's still hypocrisy regardless.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Generally, the people who are taking issue with the protests are more taking issue with the hypocrisy.

When people protested the shutdown, or when President Trump announced a rally, the immediate response from many (including a decent chunk of this very board) was "oh my god they're literally going to kill people"

Meanwhile, the huge protests (that are, in many cases, also burning down buildings and turning violent) are fine because it's 'more important' than anything the right cares about.

It's pure hypocrisy. Fine for me, not for thee, etc.

Please don't conflate riots with protests. And yes, many people see BLM as a worthier cause than a simple political rally.

---

Guide posted...

And yes, many people see BLM as a worthier cause than a simple political rally.

Hence the hypocrisy.

"Our gatherings are fine because it's something we believe in. You're not allowed to gather for something you believe in, though. We're more important."

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Hence the hypocrisy.

"Our gatherings are fine because it's something we believe in. You're not allowed to gather for something you believe in, though. We're more important."

100%!

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Hence the hypocrisy.

"Our gatherings are fine because it's something we believe in. You're not allowed to gather for something you believe in, though. We're more important."

Protests of 100-200 people outside where more than half the people are wearing masks vs. 20,000 people packed indoors who believe wearing masks is basically 1984


---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Hence the hypocrisy.

"Our gatherings are fine because it's something we believe in. You're not allowed to gather for something you believe in, though. We're more important."

I hate when this is attempted to be used as an argument. It's not about whether you believe a thing, it's about why you believe it, the reasoning behind it.

But I mean, the rally can go ahead. It's mostly their relatives that will take the hits.

---

tiornys posted...

"Economic damage from shut downs is bad but unchecked Covid spread would be worse" isalso a real perspective, and is not incompatible with "gathering to protest is a reasonable risk to run if the cause is important enough, especially if we follow safety guidelines outside of the protest".

Yep, most people on all sides do at least have some amount of consistency if you figure out what their priorities are.

---

Guide posted...

I hate when this is attempted to be used as an argument

Sorry that you hate the truth

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Sorry that you hate the truth

This is just stupid, why even bother.

---

Guide posted...

This is just stupid, why even bother.

Gob explained it perfectly. You attempted to deflect without making it obvious, but it didnt fool anyone.

---

Guide posted...

I hate when this is attempted to be used as an argument. It's not about whether you believe a thing, it's about why you believe it, the reasoning behind it.

Corona doesn't care why you're protesting.

karlpilkington4 posted...

Gob explained it perfectly. You attempted to deflect without making it obvious, but it didnt fool anyone.

Gob explained a thing that isn't really an argument.

RustyFerret posted...

Corona doesn't care why you're protesting.

Never said it does.

---

RustyFerret posted...

Corona doesn't care why you're protesting.

Unfortunately he doesn't understand this, even when he says he does.

---

The funny thing is that, in the same position, you would say "yeah go ahead and attack me without addressing the argument".

But I don't have to, because I already know you can't.

---

Guide posted...

The funny thing is that, in the same position, you would say "yeah go ahead and attack me without addressing the argument".

But I don't have to, because I already know you can't.

The arguments already been made to you. You simply think deflecting, is a solid argumentative defense of your ideas.

---

The blm protesters/losers are not universally wearing masks, many of them aren't.

---

You're doing the thing where it doesn't really matter what the response to you is, thus neutralizing the purpose of response and turning this into a "no u/i want the last post".

I'll try in earnest one more time:

It's not about whether you believe a thing, it's about why you believe it, the reasoning behind it. Can you consider the reasoning behind this? Why simply believing in something doesn't give it any validity?

---

Guide posted...

I hate when this is attempted to be used as an argument. It's not about whether you believe a thing, it's about why you believe it, the reasoning behind it.

And I take it, then, that you believe yourself to be righteous and of good intentions while your political opposites are...not righteous, and of bad intentions? I don't understand your self-appointed authority to judge the validity of another person's views.

Making exceptions for your own cause just after condemning others? I find that to be hypocritical. You should know better.

---

That's just disingenuous framing, Gob. We judge the validity of other views constantly, this is how we have a concept of right and wrong, in factual, argumentative, and moral senses. You're doing it to me right now.

---

Guide posted...

It's not about whether you believe a thing, it's about why you believe it, the reasoning behind it. Can you consider the reasoning behind this? Why simply believing in something doesn't give it any validity?

So you're admitting that your beliefs don't trump science? If not, please explain, because I'm trying to ignore the contradicting points that you've made in three sentences.

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

So you're admitting that your beliefs don't trump science? If not, please explain, because I'm trying to ignore the contradicting points that you've made in three sentences.

Where all, in the very point you addressed and called a deflection, did I even bring up science, or that my beliefs do or do not trump it? What contradicting points have I made?

---

Guide posted...

Where all, in the very point you addressed and called a deflection, did I even bring up science, or that my beliefs do or do not trump it? What contradicting points have I made?

You said

It's not about whether you believe a thing, it's about why you believe it, the reasoning behind it. Can you consider the reasoning behind this? Why simply believing in something doesn't give it any validity?

Its either a contradiction or a major error on your part.

---

karlpilkington4 posted...

You said

Its either a contradiction or a major error on your part.

This is a misinterpretation on your part. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt in that it's not willful misinterpretation, even though that's very common in these scenarios. You seem to be trying to be genuine, so I'll try. And I'm going to be redundant to try and be as clear as possible, forgive that.

---

As I said, simply believing in something doesn't give it any validity. It is the reasoning behind those beliefs, literally why you believe it.

As in, you can believe in something for any reason. The act, the verb of believing, being in the position of holding a belief, doesn't make it as valid as any other belief.

There is the belief that lizard people control the government. The reasoning behind that is poor, thus reducing or eliminating the validity of that belief.

There is belief that dinosaurs were around millions of years ago. The reasoning behind that is solid, thus granting validity to the belief.

The statement I take issue with, that Gob used, is that simply having a belief makes it equally as valid as any other beliefs. No. There's nothing inherently equal about differing beliefs. What matters, as if I haven't said it enough times, is the reasoning that leads to the belief.

Again I'm being redundant to be as clear as I possibly can be. Do you see what I mean, now?

Am I being clear?

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Generally, the people who are taking issue with the protests are more taking issue with the hypocrisy.

When people protested the shutdown, or when President Trump announced a rally, the immediate response from many (including a decent chunk of this very board) was "oh my god they're literally going to kill people"

Meanwhile, the huge protests (that are, in many cases, also burning down buildings and turning violent) are fine because it's 'more important' than anything the right cares about.

It's pure hypocrisy. Fine for me, not for thee, etc.

Yeah, this pretty much. The hypocrisy between both has been insane this year. No consistency at all. There's been like a million protesters and there's lots definitely not wearing masks but 20k at a rally is throwing everybody into a fit.

For the record, I've always maintained both are stupid and should be avoided. It's mostly privileged white people that keep going "it's for a good cause".

You'll notice places like CHOP are basically devoid of black people. Hundreds of white people role playing. This is becoming more and more a white vs white thing at this point.

---

The point of social distancing, masks, hand washing, etc. is to slow the spread of the virus so we don't overwhelm health systems. People who are protesting for George Floyd/BLM and otherwise observing safety guidelines are expanding their personal risk and the risk of other protestors, but are otherwise limiting the spread beyond protestors.

If I thought most or all of the people who intend to attend the planned rally would otherwise be observing safety guidelines, I would worry less about it. If the planned rally didn't involve 10's of thousands of people, I would worry less about it. If the local health system near the rally had a lot of free capacity to deal with a potential spike in cases, I would worry less about it. None of these are the case.

As for the earlier protests against the safety measures, it's clear those people had no interest in observing the safety measures outside the protests. Therefore they represent not just a nexus where the virus can easily move into different population groups but also a vector that will likely spread the virus within those (non-protestor) population groups.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Hence the hypocrisy.

"Our gatherings are fine because it's something we believe in. You're not allowed to gather for something you believe in, though. We're more important."

In what reality is "racism is bad, and cops should stop killing black people" an equal or less worthy goal than a Trump rally?

Curious to see how you equate and compare the two.

---

Guide posted...

That's just disingenuous framing, Gob. We judge the validity of other views constantly, this is how we have a concept of right and wrong, in factual, argumentative, and moral senses. You're doing it to me right now.

All I'm doing is pointing out your self-righteousness.

You claim to be justified in judging some views to be less valid than your own, without acknowledging that such an assessment is, too, one of your personal views that others can freely judge.

You do not have a high

Guide posted...

There is the belief that lizard people control the government. The reasoning behind that is poor, thus reducing or eliminating the validity of that belief.

In your opinion, yes, that belief is invalid. You know it to be untrue with your entire being. Yet, the people who believe it do find validity in their own belief, thus it is valid to them. Believe it or not, validity is not black and white. There is no one person who has the authority to determine which beliefs are valid and which beliefs are not.

To claim that power is to achieve absolute arrogance.

Guide posted...

The statement I take issue with, that Gob used, is that simply having a belief makes it equally as valid as any other beliefs. No. There's nothing inherently equal about differing beliefs. What matters, as if I haven't said it enough times, is the reasoning that leads to the belief.

So, in essence, you are attacking the reasoning of people who disagree with you politically. You are attempting to invalidate their views while, on the exact same token, attempting to validate your own. You have decided to value your own opinion over the opinions of others, based on your own metrics for validity and 'reasoning'

It is arrogant to do so. Don't be arrogant. Either gatherings are okay, or gatherings are not okay. I think gatherings are okay, so long as one knows the risks. Honestly, I don't know why people are mocking the idea of a consent form/waiver to attend the rally--it is the height of responsibility to guarantee that every person in attendance understands the risk of attending.

---

Guide posted...

Am I being clear?

Yes this post is much clearer, but it still comes down to you saying, "my beliefs are superior to yours", at least that's how you are coming across. Especially when your earlier post was this :

And yes, many people see BLM as a worthier cause than a simple political rally.

---

In seeing the degree of technicality I went for, I'd ask for the same in return.

Gob, we figure validity through formal argument. You're just arguing against a tone, at this point.

---

So, in essence, you are attacking the reasoning of people who disagree with you politically. You are attempting to invalidate their views while, on the exact same token, attempting to validate your own. You have decided to value your own opinion over the opinions of others, based on your own metrics for validity and 'reasoning'

Yes, attacking reasoning is argument, and how we figure shit out. Though I'm not doing that here, I'm just explaining how assigning equal validity to beliefs, based on the sole value of them being beliefs, doesn't make any sense at all.

And I mean, you agree. You're arguing right now. If you thought beliefs held equal validity on the mere basis of being believed, you wouldn't be arguing at all.

---

Skype posted...

In what reality is "racism is bad, and cops should stop killing black people" an equal or less worthy goal than a Trump rally?

In what reality is "Racism is bad, and cops should stop killing black people" the whole story? It lacks nuance, and it paints an unfair picture of the situation. It isn't "cops should stop killing black people," it's "acab," or "disband the police," or "defund the police," or "every cop is racist."

Inoffensive statements like the one in your post are fair and fine, but that statement does not capture the complete view of the movement. If you believe wholeheartedly in your support of the protests (and the riots that sometimes accompany them,) then you should be willing to fully espouse their views in detail without sanitizing the wording or neglecting to mention the less palatable details.

---

Guide posted...

And I mean, you agree. You're arguing right now. If you thought beliefs held equal validity on the mere basis of being believed, you wouldn't be arguing at all.

No, see, what you're doing is attempting to invalidate the right to argue at all.

A rally, a protest, a gathering, whatever you like to call it--it is a form of mass argument, a large statement made by attending. It is a way of supporting a belief, or bolstering a view point by putting visible numbers behind it.

To allow one rally and attempt to shame and invalidate another, you are attacking the right to make statements and attempting to silence them with slipshod reasoning.

"This rally shouldn't happen because of covid-19, but this rally should because I personally think it's important"

---

Not at all, because I never made the argument for it. It was a statement I haven't even bothered to back up. This whole tangent came about because of the false equivalence of beliefs, and the tangent is where my argument lies.

There are whole other topics to be made, where I can argue about how the trump rally is stupid and blm is good, and that would be direct argument, not this meta. But, I mean, I'm sticking to the guns here and now.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

In what reality is "Racism is bad, and cops should stop killing black people" the whole story? It lacks nuance, and it paints an unfair picture of the situation. It isn't "cops should stop killing black people," it's "acab," or "disband the police," or "defund the police," or "every cop is racist."

Inoffensive statements like the one in your post are fair and fine, but that statement does not capture the complete view of the movement. If you believe wholeheartedly in your support of the protests (and the riots that sometimes accompany them,) then you should be willing to fully espouse their views in detail without sanitizing the wording or neglecting to mention the less palatable details.

No. What it started as was "racism is bad and cops should stop killing black people". Those people were then beaten, told to shut the fuck up, stand for flag you son of a bitch, shut up and dribble, and shit along that line of thinking. Then cops continued to murder black people and throw hissy fits when they are held accountable. Then when people took the streets in overwhelmingly peaceful protests the cops teargassed them, destroyed medical supplies, threw flashbangs into medic tents, arrested journalists and specifically targeted legal observers. So yeah, now it's acab, defund and disband the police, and all cops are racist (because if they aren't, they sure as fuck seem super comfortable allowing racist cops to do whatever they want). There is your fucking nuance.

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

So yeah, now it's acab, defund and disband the police, and all cops are racist

Thank you for your admission. I personally find all of those statements to be ridiculous and offensive, but at least you're willing to say them out loud so I can tag you.

<3 Have a normal one, dude.

Guide posted...

This whole tangent came about because of the false equivalence of beliefs, and the tangent is where my argument lies.

One political belief must be given the same consideration as any other, else freedom of speech is at risk. You're not talking about personal disagreement, here. We're talking about people making active efforts to get the government to step in and prevent President Trump from holding a rally under some bogus covid-19 concerns. Not to say that covid-19 is bogus, or that concerns are invalid...but it's disingenuous to put so much effort into blocking a rally without also putting equal effort into blocking the protests.

If the motive was to prevent the spread of covid-19, people shouldn't be playing politics by picking and choosing which gatherings they personally agree with.

Anyway, to your point about some views being more reasonable than others, you might be right--but no ideas should be censored indirectly by trying to leverage unrelated laws and restrictions against them. Trying to silence a Trump rally by citing covid-19 is just using the pandemic as an excuse.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

In what reality is "Racism is bad, and cops should stop killing black people" the whole story? It lacks nuance, and it paints an unfair picture of the situation. It isn't "cops should stop killing black people," it's "acab," or "disband the police," or "defund the police," or "every cop is racist."

Except people are still getting teargassed, shot at with rubber bullets, hit with batons even when they're peacefully protesting (see Lafayette Park).

It's completely disingenuous to say it's become the latter because it doesn't fit your conservative narrative.

---

Skype posted...

Except people are still getting teargassed, shot at with rubber bullets, hit with batons even when they're peacefully protesting

Is this before or after the order to disperse has been given?

---

Skype posted...

Except people are still getting teargassed, shot at with rubber bullets, hit with batons even when they're peacefully protesting (see Lafayette Park).

It's completely disingenuous to say it's become the latter because it doesn't fit your conservative narrative.

People were "peacefully protesting" in Philly. What they dont tell you is they were "peacefully protesting" in the middle of a active highway and ignoring the police's orders multiple times to get off. People were "peacfully protesting" in Washington. What they dont tell you is police had to block off the area because of a church fire the day earlier, and people wouldnt leave, and then they started throwing frozen water bottles and rocks at police.

Idk anything about Lafayette park, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the cops didnt just start beating people for the fun of it.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

but it's disingenuous to put so much effort into blocking a rally without also putting equal effort into blocking the protests.

False equivalence. The rally as currently set up is much more dangerous than the protests are with regards to COVID-19.

Funny, liberals went from LOCK DOWN!!!!

To MASS PUBLIC GATHERINGS OK VIA 'PEACEFUL' PROTESTS!

Back to LOCK DOWN!!

---

tiornys posted...

False equivalence. The rally as currently set up is much more dangerous than the protests are with regards to COVID-19.

Whats this based on? Please present actual data, thanks.

---

Skype posted...

In what reality is "racism is bad, and cops should stop killing black people" an equal or less worthy goal than a Trump rally?

Curious to see how you equate and compare the two.

Where is the evidence that George Floyd was killed because of racism? Everything is about race to you..total number of whites killed by police is larger than number of blacks. If you want to bring up "well whites are a higher percentage of the population" you should remember that blacks commit violent crime at higher rates and are more likely to resist arrest, so the potential for unpleasant encounters with the police is higher for blacks.

When we see a video of a black being assaulted by a white, it's immediately called racism and brings up discussions about white supremacy and "systemic", or "institutional" problems....but all the videos that show whites being assaulted by blacks? Race has nothing to do with it, they're just unfortunate individual incidents that aren't related to anything else. It's just people being jerks, that's all!

See the video of the old white lady that was punched? If the races were reversed, it would be all over tv, and the victim's name would become a household name

---

Bullet_Wing posted...

@Gobstoppers12 You keep dodging and refusing to address this point

"It's slightly less likely for this gathering of tens of thousands of people to spread covid-19, so we should completely ignore the risks."

We also don't have data for it. Remember when people were screaming about the beaches being cluttered? If they were upset about the beaches, they must be equally upset about the protests, else they play their hand as purely political and using the virus as an excuse to call for censorship.

---

https://i.imgur.com/sBnWPEj.jpg
---

your basing your thoughts of a entire group of people based off of the actions of a few hundred......whats that called?

---