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 natu…
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.