Xenon, the White Supremacist
-
@jon-nyc said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
I’m discussing a really specific topic (like about whether governments should allow protestors to close highways) and my interlocutor is having an entirely different discussion
Forgot to respond yesterday, apologies....
No, the government should not allow protestors to close highways. I thought I was clear when I said, "Get a permit." Sorry if I wasn't.
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. He was silent when statues in Toronto were defaced in the name of BLM. Yet, putting an upside-down Canadian flag on a statue is an outrage.
DeBlasio was silent when BLM shut down the George Washington Bridge in September 2020. Trudeau stood in solidarity with Indian farmers who protested and blocked streets last year.
So yeah, some protests are good, and some are bad, depending on what's being protested. My point, which I think you missed, is that breaking the law is breaking the law. Period.
If blocking streets is breaking the law now, lock 'em up.
If it was breaking the law back then, why weren't they locked up then?
Standing "in solidarity" with one group because of your political stance on an issue should be irrelevant. Block a street - get arrested as far as I'm concerned.
Honk honk? A nuisance as well. There are restrictions in every city and town as to noise. Follow the law.
My apologies for not being clear.
-
@jon-nyc said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@lufins-dad said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
On the other side, how the hell do you compare a group of protestors parking trucks at intersections to groups of thugs that blocked streets by jumping on vehicles and breaking the windows with ball bats. Any attempt at equivalency disqualifies your argument, period.
This happens a lot on TNCR. It’s like there’s two entirely separate conversations going on. I think I’m discussing a really specific topic (like about whether governments should allow protestors to close highways) and my interlocutor is having an entirely different discussion - namely, who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys? Which tribe is better than which?
That’s really the only way to make sense of George’s response to me and your comment above.
Note my earlier comment. The truckers are illegally blocking intersections? Go in and start removing them. Don’t wait 2-3 weeks. If you wait 2-3 weeks, then you have legitimized their protest.
-
@jon-nyc said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@renauda said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
@jolly said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
Stop and look how the Ottawa protest has been framed (and I do mean framed) in Canadian media. I often complain about the bias of American media. Nice to know our friends to the North are not one whit better.
Since you posted that shitshow Tucker Carlson presented on the protests, I have made a point of checking daily what Fox News is posting about it on their website.
Hate to tell you but what Fox is posting bears little or no relation to what is actually happening here or how resentful the vast majority of Canadians are feeling towards these protests. In fact I would it put it to you that Fox is deliberately publishing outright lies with intent to sow disinformation and incite militancy. A lot of what it gets appears to come from Rebel News, a Canadian fake news site that caters to the lunatic fringe of the Canadian anglophone right wing - you know, the same vermin with the arms and ammo that were arrested Monday am at the Coutts border crossing.
I saw a compilation on Twitter of various right wing Fox hosts practically begging the audience to start similar mayhem here.
Begging is a bridge too far.
Support? Why, yes! And it makes sense at a very elemental level. Does any government in a free society have the power to mandate its citizens or subjects do something totally useless (or almost so) and back that edict up with the power (Force. All power emanates from the barrel of a gun) of the government?
Let's say all citizens of New York are ordered to paint their faces blue, and if it is not done, all New York citizens will be subject to fines, arrest and imprisonment. Would it make sense to protest that mandate by peaceful means?
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
Only if New Yorkers were prohibited from wearing matching non polyester accessories to augment their blue faces.
Let’s say we all start playing silly bugger.
That said, jon is correct, lines tend be drawn along tribal affiliations and sympathies. I see what is currently happening in Ottawa as an illegal occupation holding a seditious agenda insidiously masquerading as a citizens’ peaceful protest against vaccine mandates and government over reach. The peaceful trucker’s protest train left the station three weeks ago. Home grown extremists hijacked the demonstration and are using truckers and anti mandate sympathizers as pawns. The events are such that a majority in Parliament along with several provincial premiers also see it that way and are addressing the threats through legislative and legitimate means.
Likewise, it is of little consequence to me whether others view our politicians as maintaining a double standard with regard to past protests and protesters. There is a double standard and the politicians of all parties are all guilty of it. That is the nature of political life and I’m really not all that interested in hearing or reading other people drone on about it in relation to the here and now. What does interest me and I do care about is ending this occupation sooner rather than later. So if takes the full coercive power the state to meet that objective, then make it so.
To quote another Trudeau from another time, “the bleeding hearts can just go ahead and bleed”.
-
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.
-
@jon-nyc said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
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.
-
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.
Education is extremely important.
-
@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.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@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.
Education is extremely important.
-
@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.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@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.
Education is extremely important.
-
@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.
-
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.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@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.
-
@jon-nyc said in Xenon, the White Supremacist:
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?
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@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.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
