Donald Trump encouraged his supporters to protest and tried to maximize how angry they were while making claims about the election not much different in magnitude then the Russia hysteria. They then went on to break into the capitol and interrupt the counting of the electoral college votes. Everyone including conservative commentators seem to agree this escalation was his fault for encouraging them to protest. I would like to compare this invisible inferential leap to some other examples. During the BLM riots high ranking dems said things like “there needs to be unrest in the streets”, “if you see anybody from that cabinet…you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore anywhere” after riots, fires and violence Kamala Harris said protesters should not let up and asked for donations to bail rioters out of jail. Unlike conservative commentators over the past few days, there were no liberal or leftist commentators saying it was obvious Democrats or the media were inciting violence.
Often, writers will try and organize essays to present ideas in an interesting and coherent way. Similarly, writers will often proofread their essays to correct obvious typos.
I applaud the author of this essay’s decision to do neither of those things. The development of literature relies on people breaking from established conventions. Kudos!
As you alluded to, the hypocrisy and faux outrage demonstrated by punditry on the left is far from novel. The blindness with which everyday left-leaning folk (apart from hardcore leftists) parrot these points is in my estimation more a result of scapegoating and naïve cheering on of “my team vs your team” akin to what takes place in sports.
Now, I do believe on left ideological fringe they believe in a nefarious justification of their rioting vs other rioting - which you allude to but do not explicate. However, the fact that right wing punditry and establishment Republicans are standing with the left establishment and backing the condemning of Trump and his tenuous links to capitol riots is primarily an example of establishment vs anti-establishment more so than I would label it as a left vs right thing.
The establishment dems and repubs have much more in common than not, and what Trump represented was a figure who would not be controlled by the establishment. That is why once he moved out of power the condemnations materialized across the board.
"Now imagine if the supreme court had thrown the election to Trump, you don’t think every last democrat would be encouraging as much anger as possible and demanding as much protest and noise as they could muster. Do you not think they would attempt to burn the Supreme Court building to the ground then offer that hey what did they expect they had it coming."
That didn't happen after Bush v. Gore. Admittedly, those were simpler times.
Often, writers will try and organize essays to present ideas in an interesting and coherent way. Similarly, writers will often proofread their essays to correct obvious typos.
I applaud the author of this essay’s decision to do neither of those things. The development of literature relies on people breaking from established conventions. Kudos!
yeah daddy trump can do no wrong
great post shithead
As you alluded to, the hypocrisy and faux outrage demonstrated by punditry on the left is far from novel. The blindness with which everyday left-leaning folk (apart from hardcore leftists) parrot these points is in my estimation more a result of scapegoating and naïve cheering on of “my team vs your team” akin to what takes place in sports.
Now, I do believe on left ideological fringe they believe in a nefarious justification of their rioting vs other rioting - which you allude to but do not explicate. However, the fact that right wing punditry and establishment Republicans are standing with the left establishment and backing the condemning of Trump and his tenuous links to capitol riots is primarily an example of establishment vs anti-establishment more so than I would label it as a left vs right thing.
The establishment dems and repubs have much more in common than not, and what Trump represented was a figure who would not be controlled by the establishment. That is why once he moved out of power the condemnations materialized across the board.
"Now imagine if the supreme court had thrown the election to Trump, you don’t think every last democrat would be encouraging as much anger as possible and demanding as much protest and noise as they could muster. Do you not think they would attempt to burn the Supreme Court building to the ground then offer that hey what did they expect they had it coming."
That didn't happen after Bush v. Gore. Admittedly, those were simpler times.