Xenon, the White Supremacist

[jon-nyc]

@George-K

But to try to make my point more clear, the same folks who either cheered or ignored the BLM protests, not only here in the US, but also in Canada (Trudeau took a knee, if you recall), are all about law and order now.

Surely you’ve noticed most of the law and order crowd from 2020 cheering this on?

I know, “but these aren’t nearly as violent as BLM….” And that’s true. But not every protest was violent, and I didn’t see anyone forgiving traffic blocking in 2020 as long as no violence occurred.

On the contrary, several GOP states even passed bills eliminating liability for drivers that strike protesters blocking roads. None of those bills have a clause saying “but only if there’s violence”

Like I said in my earlier post, this little Venn diagram intersection where I sit is nearly empty. Disappointingly but predictably so.

[Doctor Phibes]

@jon-nyc said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

@George-K

But to try to make my point more clear, the same folks who either cheered or ignored the BLM protests, not only here in the US, but also in Canada (Trudeau took a knee, if you recall), are all about law and order now.

Surely you’ve noticed most of the law and order crowd from 2020 cheering this on?

I know, “but these aren’t nearly as violent as BLM….” And that’s true. But not every protest was violent, and I didn’t see anyone forgiving traffic blocking in 2020 as long as no violence occurred.

On the contrary, several GOP states even passed bills eliminating liability for drivers that strike protesters blocking roads. None of those bills have a clause saying “but only if there’s violence”

Like I said in my earlier post, this little Venn diagram intersection where I sit is nearly empty. Disappointingly but predictably so.

Yeah, most people will support a right to protest, but I don't see anybody having a right to stop other people from doing their jobs, and block traffic from getting through for days on end.

There's a real lack of self-awareness from both sides on this. Well, that's a charitable interpretation, at least.

[Horace]

That vaccine mandates are an overextension of government authority over individual rights is a reasonable point that can be held by reasonable people. No fictitious narrative required. The BLM protests on the other hand require belief in fictitious narratives. Which is not to say that none of those against mandates believe in fictitious narratives. I’m sure there is a strong contingent within that group who do. But it’s not necessary. The extrapolation of George Floyd to systemic cop on minority violence was always a fictitious narrative, and 100% of the outraged protesters were all in on it.

[Doctor Phibes]

@horace said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

That vaccine mandates are an overextension of government authority over individual rights is a reasonable point that can be held by reasonable people. No fictitious narrative required. The BLM protests on the other hand require belief in fictitious narratives. Which is not to say that none of those against mandates believe in fictitious narratives. I’m sure there is a strong contingent within that group who do. But it’s not necessary. The extrapolation of George Floyd to systemic cop on minority violence was always a fictitious narrative, and 100% of the outraged protesters were all in on it.

Freedom to protest isn't a function of whether you believe in what the people are protesting over, or whether you agree with them as 'reasonable' people.

[Horace]

@doctor-phibes said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

@horace said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

That vaccine mandates are an overextension of government authority over individual rights is a reasonable point that can be held by reasonable people. No fictitious narrative required. The BLM protests on the other hand require belief in fictitious narratives. Which is not to say that none of those against mandates believe in fictitious narratives. I’m sure there is a strong contingent within that group who do. But it’s not necessary. The extrapolation of George Floyd to systemic cop on minority violence was always a fictitious narrative, and 100% of the outraged protesters were all in on it.

Freedom to protest isn't a function of whether you believe in what the people are protesting over.

Sure. To the extent the trucker protesters are breaking the law, I’m all for law enforcement putting an end to it through wherever force is necessary. But if force is used to end it, those sympathetic to the trucker protest’s point will note the double standard.

[Doctor Phibes]

@horace said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

@doctor-phibes said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

@horace said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

That vaccine mandates are an overextension of government authority over individual rights is a reasonable point that can be held by reasonable people. No fictitious narrative required. The BLM protests on the other hand require belief in fictitious narratives. Which is not to say that none of those against mandates believe in fictitious narratives. I’m sure there is a strong contingent within that group who do. But it’s not necessary. The extrapolation of George Floyd to systemic cop on minority violence was always a fictitious narrative, and 100% of the outraged protesters were all in on it.

Freedom to protest isn't a function of whether you believe in what the people are protesting over.

Sure. To the extent the trucker protesters are breaking the law, I’m all for law enforcement putting an end to it through wherever force is necessary.

But you're drawing a distinction between stuff you agree with (protesting vaccine mandates) and stuff you don't like (protesting systemic racism you don't believe exists)

Supporting freedom of speech is easy when people are saying things that you or I think are reasonable.

[Horace]

@doctor-phibes said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

@horace said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

@doctor-phibes said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

@horace said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

That vaccine mandates are an overextension of government authority over individual rights is a reasonable point that can be held by reasonable people. No fictitious narrative required. The BLM protests on the other hand require belief in fictitious narratives. Which is not to say that none of those against mandates believe in fictitious narratives. I’m sure there is a strong contingent within that group who do. But it’s not necessary. The extrapolation of George Floyd to systemic cop on minority violence was always a fictitious narrative, and 100% of the outraged protesters were all in on it.

Freedom to protest isn't a function of whether you believe in what the people are protesting over.

Sure. To the extent the trucker protesters are breaking the law, I’m all for law enforcement putting an end to it through wherever force is necessary.

But you're drawing a distinction between stuff you agree with (protesting vaccine mandates) and stuff you don't like (protesting systemic racism you don't believe exists)

Supporting freedom of speech is easy when people are saying things that you or I think are reasonable.

You mean, I have a point of view? And when did I ever not support free speech? I think when I say I support law enforcement enforcing the law, I establish all necessary fair mindedness. We all have our points of view concerning who we do or do not agree with. And I never said racism doesn’t exist, don’t put those words in my mouth. The narrative around George Floyd goes far beyond the existence of racism.

[Doctor Phibes]

@horace said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

And I never said racism doesn’t exist, don’t put those words in my mouth. The narrative around George Floyd goes far beyond the existence of racism.

I said systemic racism, not racism, and whether or not you think it exists is really irrelevant to the discussion - that's the point I'm making. If people believe something that you think is ludicrous, they still have a right to protest it. Obviously, they don't have a right to set fire to cars or burn down buildings, or kick people in the head.

The problem on both sides is that people are supporting protests they agree with, and condemning ones for causes they don't like. There needs to be consistency for how the rules are applied, independent of the stupidity or otherwise of the cause.

[Doctor Phibes]

And to get Renauda's point about people not knowing what they're talking about, I've seen how my home country is characterised over here in the media and online. It is frequently laughably inaccurate.

[Horace]

@doctor-phibes said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

And to get Renauda's point about people not knowing what they're talking about, I've seen how my home country is characterised over here in the media and online. It is frequently laughably inaccurate.

The racism narrative about america would be laughably inaccurate if there was any humor value to the most widespread and socially destructive conspiracy theory on the planet.

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

@George-K

But to try to make my point more clear, the same folks who either cheered or ignored the BLM protests, not only here in the US, but also in Canada (Trudeau took a knee, if you recall), are all about law and order now.

Surely you’ve noticed most of the law and order crowd from 2020 cheering this on?

I know, “but these aren’t nearly as violent as BLM….” And that’s true. But not every protest was violent, and I didn’t see anyone forgiving traffic blocking in 2020 as long as no violence occurred.

On the contrary, several GOP states even passed bills eliminating liability for drivers that strike protesters blocking roads. None of those bills have a clause saying “but only if there’s violence”

Like I said in my earlier post, this little Venn diagram intersection where I sit is nearly empty. Disappointingly but predictably so.

IIRC, Law & Order crowd didn't get overly excised about BLM until things started to become violent. Now, after that, yes, it was get tough time. And if the truckers are burning down buildings or killing people, the Canadian government should disperse them, using force if necessary.

Secondly, what is the more true and worthy cause, when considering the two groups? Systemic racism that does not exist to near the extent claimed or basic freedom to be the master of one's body?

[Doctor Phibes]

@jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

Secondly, what is the more true and worthy cause, when considering the two groups? Systemic racism that does not exist to near the extent claimed or basic freedom to be the master of one's body?

Once again, that's not the point. Whether you or I agree with people shouldn't have any impact on whether they should be allowed to protest or not.

[Horace]

@doctor-phibes said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

@jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

Secondly, what is the more true and worthy cause, when considering the two groups? Systemic racism that does not exist to near the extent claimed or basic freedom to be the master of one's body?

Once again, that's not the point. Whether you or I agree with people shouldn't have any impact on whether they should be allowed to protest or not.

Did anybody here say the trucker protesters should be allowed to break the law? Maybe I missed it.

[Renauda]

@jolly

And if the truckers are burning down buildings or killing people, the Canadian government should disperse them, using force if necessary..

Thanks for clarifying that requirement. I’ll let the integrated task force in Ottawa know that they’ll have to hold off on actions until those requirements have been met.

In fact, I’ll get right on it.

You are, I hope, joking.

[Jolly]

Hurry on over to Ottawa!

There's going to be a My Pillow parachute drop. You could snag one while helping to support a worthy cause!

[Larry]

In a free society, government is given the right to rule by the people. The people do not have freedoms because the government's gives it to them. Since government is granted the right to rule by the people, those people can take away the government's right to rule.

The process for doing so is the ballot box - as long as both sides are following the rules. But if a government is not following the rules, the people have the right to protest, and if necessary, remove the government. Laws enacted by that government that declare it illegal to do so are meaningless. When a government makes it illegal for the people to participate in their right to protest that government peacefully, it is not the people violating the law, it is the government violating the law. And if the government refuses to acknowledge the people's right to protest peacefully, demand change, etc... then the people have the right to overthrow that government, by force if necessary.

The key here is to remember just who it is that runs the show. The people run the show.

[Mik]

@jon-nyc said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

I don't understand your point George. I was comparing one set of demonstrators blocking the highways to another. That they were blocking the highway is I need to know. I don't need to have some threshold level of vandalism to also occur in order for me to come to a conclusion.

I'd have been all for removing the BLM guys from the highways even if the summer riots of 2020 had not occurred at all.

Yup.

[Renauda]

Police action against Ottawa protesters reported as imminent. Police presence has been steadily increasing during the past several hours. One convoy organizer already arrested.

[George K]

So, what happens if the truckers unblock the streets, stop honking, get a permit, and behave within the bounds of the law?

[LuFins Dad]

@George-K said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:

So, what happens if the truckers unblock the streets, stop honking, get a permit, and behave within the bounds of the law?

Do you see them being approved for the permit?