Completely agree with condemning violence, especially violence on the left. Unfortunately, many of the left’s movements descend into chaos because of a lack of discipline and strategy. I saw this with the fizzling of the Occupy movement which had a noble beginning, but then became a grab-bag of left wing causes from climate change to Fre…
Completely agree with condemning violence, especially violence on the left. Unfortunately, many of the left’s movements descend into chaos because of a lack of discipline and strategy. I saw this with the fizzling of the Occupy movement which had a noble beginning, but then became a grab-bag of left wing causes from climate change to Free Palestine. It lost focus and thereby lost power. Non-violence works, but it also must be laser focused.
This not a criticism but a genuine question...why modify agreement with condemning violence with "especially" on...any side? If we accept the proposition that violence in the cause of political and / or social change is bad, why should it be more strenuously or frequently condemned in one broad group as opposed to another? Perhaps a natural human reaction to seeing people associated with one's own group engaging in behavior condemned in another group? Perhaps not "housecleaning" but more of a personal affront to one's own personal values and the broad values of the larger group that one identifies with?
Anyway, for me injured is injured, dead is dead, destroyed is destroyed. Admittedly an easy statement for me to make, since I claim no hard and fast membership in any particular group beyond that referred to as American. And human.
Just trying to understand the thought behind that statement...
Whoa just saw these comments and super regretting putting “especially” in my comment 😂. The Dem establishment definitely condemned the violence, and I personally only witnessed peaceful protest. The sentiment behind “especially” is because I want the left to hold the moral high ground, and I believe wholeheartedly in the change the violent acts are trying to bring about… the ending of police brutality. The right engages in violence because of lies, the left engages in violence because of truth. But violence is the least effective and practical means of creating that change. My comment is based in pure pragmatism. If we want to see true reform, we must try to be like John Lewis, not the white bro counter protestors hitting people with skateboards. So yes, I am harshest on my friends on the left because I want actual change to happen. Violence is easy. Putting one’s own emotions aside for the cause is much harder.
I have to confess I find this comment troubling. If the strategy of the violent left is to rain destruction on our cities until police brutality ends, is the only reason to condemn this strategy is that it is unlikely to work? I would have thought the moral high ground would be to condemn violence because it is wrong, not that it is pragmatically ineffective. The Biden Justice Department declined to prosecute the officer who shot Jacob Blake. Are we so sure the Kenosha rioters were engaging in violence because of truth? To not condemn violence on moral grounds is to abandon the American project of political reform through reasoned debate, peaceful protests to raise issues, and finally democratic concensus.
Just curious if you have much experience with American cities. I am regularly in or near NYC, Newark, Paterson and live in Dover NJ. There is not strategy to rain destruction on cities. A few cities did have prolonged periods of rioting. Most did not. Riots are not new in America and should be understood as expressing something real. So it is that we cannot but understand that African Americans are upset - at least some are. By the way, even the Jan 6 riot is an expression or real upset. And re Kenosha - surely those who protest and riot are stirred up. But stirring up is something that also is part of legitimate political life - so folks like Al Sharpton have led chants of no justice, no peace.
Want to say thanks for the reply, though I realize it was directed at all the commentors who spoke of this. Pretty much an answer I was expecting, having read a number of your posts over time. But it does make things a bit more clear.
Just goes to show what an effect one little word can have on the perceived meaning of all the others surrounding it. But I don't think anyone, myself included, could fault the motive behind that post, or the explanation that followed.
The moral high ground can sometimes be tricky terrain to navigate when passions run high. And both sides claim it as their own come hell or high water. And these days one man's truth is another man's lie. Often seems like an intractable problem that will only beget more skateboards upside heads.
Don't know what the answer to that is, other than it's not more skateboards. Maybe, in small part, more talk...like just happened here?
We probably don't always tread the same political path. But it's good to be in the same plot of woods. Props for speaking your mind the way you do.
It was a totally valid critique! I just have the terrible habit of plunking my caffieneless digits on yee ol’ smart phone before, I dunno… waking up and thinking first 😂. I always enjoy the smart critique this group provides. Thank you for the kind words!
All well and good to consider all violence and condemn it. But it helps to note that whatever support for violence on the left fizzled - and never was popular among elected Democrats. So they did not campaign with fists raised etc. On the right, something entirely different occurred.
So it is good to be reminded about those who did apologize for violence. But let's not exaggerate its importance.
As an older person, I remember riots from the 60s and they appear from time to time. They are always bad but they also must at least be understood. So we as a nation tried to understand the unrest in the 60s. Similarly, we must also reckon on the reasons for the unrest last year.
"Completely agree with condemning violence, especially violence on the left. "
Why especially on the left? Or am I to understand this as a person of the left doing housecleaning on her side?
Charlie wrote about bothsidesism yesterday. A crucial difference between the left and right at this moment is that Trump is actively supporting the violent actors on the right and Biden is condemning violence all around. In other words, Biden is attempting to defend the ideals of democracy and constitutional governance while Trump is attempting to blow them up in service to his delicate ego.
Completely agree with condemning violence, especially violence on the left. Unfortunately, many of the left’s movements descend into chaos because of a lack of discipline and strategy. I saw this with the fizzling of the Occupy movement which had a noble beginning, but then became a grab-bag of left wing causes from climate change to Free Palestine. It lost focus and thereby lost power. Non-violence works, but it also must be laser focused.
This not a criticism but a genuine question...why modify agreement with condemning violence with "especially" on...any side? If we accept the proposition that violence in the cause of political and / or social change is bad, why should it be more strenuously or frequently condemned in one broad group as opposed to another? Perhaps a natural human reaction to seeing people associated with one's own group engaging in behavior condemned in another group? Perhaps not "housecleaning" but more of a personal affront to one's own personal values and the broad values of the larger group that one identifies with?
Anyway, for me injured is injured, dead is dead, destroyed is destroyed. Admittedly an easy statement for me to make, since I claim no hard and fast membership in any particular group beyond that referred to as American. And human.
Just trying to understand the thought behind that statement...
Whoa just saw these comments and super regretting putting “especially” in my comment 😂. The Dem establishment definitely condemned the violence, and I personally only witnessed peaceful protest. The sentiment behind “especially” is because I want the left to hold the moral high ground, and I believe wholeheartedly in the change the violent acts are trying to bring about… the ending of police brutality. The right engages in violence because of lies, the left engages in violence because of truth. But violence is the least effective and practical means of creating that change. My comment is based in pure pragmatism. If we want to see true reform, we must try to be like John Lewis, not the white bro counter protestors hitting people with skateboards. So yes, I am harshest on my friends on the left because I want actual change to happen. Violence is easy. Putting one’s own emotions aside for the cause is much harder.
I have to confess I find this comment troubling. If the strategy of the violent left is to rain destruction on our cities until police brutality ends, is the only reason to condemn this strategy is that it is unlikely to work? I would have thought the moral high ground would be to condemn violence because it is wrong, not that it is pragmatically ineffective. The Biden Justice Department declined to prosecute the officer who shot Jacob Blake. Are we so sure the Kenosha rioters were engaging in violence because of truth? To not condemn violence on moral grounds is to abandon the American project of political reform through reasoned debate, peaceful protests to raise issues, and finally democratic concensus.
Just curious if you have much experience with American cities. I am regularly in or near NYC, Newark, Paterson and live in Dover NJ. There is not strategy to rain destruction on cities. A few cities did have prolonged periods of rioting. Most did not. Riots are not new in America and should be understood as expressing something real. So it is that we cannot but understand that African Americans are upset - at least some are. By the way, even the Jan 6 riot is an expression or real upset. And re Kenosha - surely those who protest and riot are stirred up. But stirring up is something that also is part of legitimate political life - so folks like Al Sharpton have led chants of no justice, no peace.
It’s both morally wrong and ineffective. It can be both things.
I was reacting to the "pure pragmatism" phrasing. You've clarified things for me and I'm no longer troubled.
Want to say thanks for the reply, though I realize it was directed at all the commentors who spoke of this. Pretty much an answer I was expecting, having read a number of your posts over time. But it does make things a bit more clear.
Just goes to show what an effect one little word can have on the perceived meaning of all the others surrounding it. But I don't think anyone, myself included, could fault the motive behind that post, or the explanation that followed.
The moral high ground can sometimes be tricky terrain to navigate when passions run high. And both sides claim it as their own come hell or high water. And these days one man's truth is another man's lie. Often seems like an intractable problem that will only beget more skateboards upside heads.
Don't know what the answer to that is, other than it's not more skateboards. Maybe, in small part, more talk...like just happened here?
We probably don't always tread the same political path. But it's good to be in the same plot of woods. Props for speaking your mind the way you do.
It was a totally valid critique! I just have the terrible habit of plunking my caffieneless digits on yee ol’ smart phone before, I dunno… waking up and thinking first 😂. I always enjoy the smart critique this group provides. Thank you for the kind words!
All well and good to consider all violence and condemn it. But it helps to note that whatever support for violence on the left fizzled - and never was popular among elected Democrats. So they did not campaign with fists raised etc. On the right, something entirely different occurred.
So it is good to be reminded about those who did apologize for violence. But let's not exaggerate its importance.
As an older person, I remember riots from the 60s and they appear from time to time. They are always bad but they also must at least be understood. So we as a nation tried to understand the unrest in the 60s. Similarly, we must also reckon on the reasons for the unrest last year.
"Completely agree with condemning violence, especially violence on the left. "
Why especially on the left? Or am I to understand this as a person of the left doing housecleaning on her side?
Charlie wrote about bothsidesism yesterday. A crucial difference between the left and right at this moment is that Trump is actively supporting the violent actors on the right and Biden is condemning violence all around. In other words, Biden is attempting to defend the ideals of democracy and constitutional governance while Trump is attempting to blow them up in service to his delicate ego.
I don't believe the "left" participated
on Jan 6.
Because Samantha is of the left*, and recognizes the importance of holding the high ground.
* Please forgive me if you're not and I'm putting words in your mouth.