US Capitol Breached

Status
Not open for further replies.

Worth a watch. The worst may be yet to come unless lethal force starts to be massively used against them in self-defense IMO.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. Elitism is a normative position that the elite deserve to rule for some reason; meritocracy is a form of elitism. Indeed, part of the elitist ideology could precisely be that any sufficiently capable person will rise to be part of the elite.

Edit: this is not the only sense of elitism, I suppose, but I think it's relevant here.
But in most cases who the elite are is defined on a case by case basis. In the end it is a particular group or groups. Putin's cronies are the elite in Russia today; high level CCP officials are them in China. In your meritocracy, it is those who qualify as meritorious. If one does not qualify, well, then you are out of luck. In Africa it is often one of several tribes in a region or nation. Elitism is a cultural/social construct supported through politics or power or both.
 

Worth a watch. The worst may be yet to come unless lethal force starts to be massively used lethal force is used against them in self-defense IMO.

In World War 2 they talked about "peace of our time" and "sitzkrieg" (or "sitting war"). They were like, "War? What war? ". There was a period of about 9 months between France declaring war and anything actually happening. In Civil War 1, there was a relatively quiet period between Lincoln getting elected and Bull Run. People even brought picnic baskets to watch (biiiiig mistake!).

People don't get it. These people are openly talking about taking up arms, and killing specific people. They have already said that it will be Trump or war. They need to be arrested for terroristic threats immediately, and if that riles them to arms, then take them out.
 
Some friends screen grabbed what was on Parler and I don't even want to share it. It's gruesome and at times specific and methodical. It's not all scattershot nonsense.
 
I hope three-letter government agencies are up to the task of arresting all of them.

edit: some people here seem to think that I'm sadistic or want to see people dead for the fun of it when I say much more lethal force should have been used against them. Many of them have already said they will return if their demands aren't met. The only thing at this point that will stop it is by killing them when they pay their second visit, and thus setting the example for any others who think it would be worth it.
 
Last edited:
Some friends screen grabbed what was on Parler and I don't even want to share it. It's gruesome and at times specific and methodical. It's not all scattershot nonsense.

Yes, all of the congressmen should be dressed in bulletproof clothes and be armed as they go to work for the indefinite future. I am serious.
 
Why?
 
In other news, what a respectable Republican Colin Powell is.

 
But in most cases who the elite are is defined on a case by case basis. In the end it is a particular group or groups. Putin's cronies are the elite in Russia today; high level CCP officials are them in China. In your meritocracy, it is those who qualify as meritorious. If one does not qualify, well, then you are out of luck. In Africa it is often one of several tribes in a region or nation. Elitism is a cultural/social construct supported through politics or power or both.

My meritocracy? I'm not into meritocracy, I'm a True Leveller. I believe people are of equal social worth, that all human lives are equally and infinitely valuable.

But enough of my ramblings...I await the proceedings of January 20th with trepidation and great interest. I really hope that this doesn't mark the beginning of a lot more far-right terrorism, but I'm afraid it does...

Some friends screen grabbed what was on Parler and I don't even want to share it. It's gruesome and at times specific and methodical. It's not all scattershot nonsense.

Yeah, great.
 
That congressman are in such a danger that they have to wear a bulletproof shirt to go to work.
That is unthinkable in Korea. Even most conservative people wouldn't think of directly harming our politicians.
They may insult them a lot online and protest on the street and yell at them but directly harm them?
 
They have already tried, and are threatening to do it again. Watch the videos I've been posting and see the threats hobbsyoyo mention on Parlour. This is the tip of the iceberg.
 
They have already tried, and are threatening to do it again. Watch the videos I've been posting and see the threats hobbsyoyo mention on Parlour. This is the tip of the iceberg.
exactly why I am baffled. There is rising discontent with our government because of Covid 19... BUT even then we wouldn't go head charge to National Assembly and trash the place. Some MIGHT want to do it but it is NOT widespread enough to put it in action.
 
I cited 3 of your posts with specific #s from different pages and I dont have the luxury of hiding behind anyone, they dont protect me, they protect your echo chamber from me. Nobody reports you out of spite much less get you banned, so to accuse me of trying to hide is rich coming from a human lie detector yelling insults from a safe space. The page I linked was the start of that debate and it went for several pages. Here it is:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/george-floyd-and-protesting-while-black.658605/page-150
I said you downplayed last year's riots and there's the proof:
You quoted Malcolm X, not MLK. But when others did quote MLK and I disagreed with his argument you criticized me twice. How dare I question MLK's logic! So was it wrong for me to assume you agreed with MLK? You do agree with him, right?
"A reasonable tolerance for the collateral damage". That was you defending looters, arsonists and people attacking cops and others who were in the way. Do you understand the people most hurt by the riots are black? Burn it all down! There goes the neighborhood Target and with it 30-40 jobs.
*sigh* More lies?!? Just more tiresome goalpost switching, strawmanning and and lying. First, you blatantly and intentionally misrepresent my post. I said:
Sommerswerd said:
I will add that the Klan, and their underlying ideology is evil, repugnant and should be opposed at all costs, including violent and illegal means if necessary. To quote Malcolm X... "by any means necessary". https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ing-while-black.658605/page-150#post-15815748
You were defending the Klan, as usual, by trying to equate them to BLM. I was stating that I rejected that analogy totally and I quoted Malcolm X to add emphasis to my position. Now you're intentionally selectively misquoting me to try to make your dishonest point. In other words you're lying... again. On top of that, you're dishonestly doubling down, and trying to gloss over another falsehood that you levied against me even in the face of the fact that you looked it up and realized it was false. You demanded that I admit that I quoted MLK in my supposed support of riots saying quote:
Why is it a lie? Do you deny citing MLK on the subject of riots?
I denied that accusation directly, saying , quote:
Yes I deny it, and I say again, that you're an effing liar, and you shame the dignity of MLK by mentioning his name
So you accused me of quoting MLK in support of riots and I correctly declared that was a lie. Your response, rather than to just admit you were wrong and apologize, was switch the goal post to me quoting Malcolm X.
 
Last edited:
You quoted Malcolm X, not MLK. But when others did quote MLK and I disagreed with his argument you criticized me twice. How dare I question MLK's logic!
Wait, what?!? "others did quote MLK"?!? So you're strawmanning me with the arguments of others? But more importantly... you think you can just mix up MLK and Malcolm X and just gloss over it like it doesn't matter? MLK and Malcolm X are two totally different people!!! But it makes sense that a person with your particular ideology would hand wave something like that... afterall its just the other black Civil Rights guy, right? So easy to mix those up, right?

Of course you mix up MLK and Malcolm X in your mind! Of course you do! Why wouldn't you, given what we all know about you? And then hand wave it as if to say, "Whatever, close enough, same difference... that other black guy." And then to make matters worse, you double down on it, to try to switch the goalpost to what other people said about MLK, and some vague claims about me criticizing your criticisms??, as a lame excuse to try and get yourself out of blatantly misquoting me, and blatantly mixing up MLK with Malcolm X???

The bottom like is that whole argument was me calling you out for defending the Klan... again. So for you to try and bring that up again now, as you try to equivocate BLM and the MAGA coup, is just another example of you defending the Klan... again.

In referencing the damage that was caused during BLM protests and saying that reasonable tolerance was to be expected, I intentionally did not specify how much damage or tolerance was reasonable, because that was not the point. The point was that the underlying cause of BLM was just, whereas the Klan's cause was not, and your attempts to equate the two and thus hold them to the same standard, specifically when it came to the damage caused, was invalid and repugnant.

Finally, your original, dishonest claim was that
You spent months downplaying violent protests damaging the economic bases of neighborhoods across the country.
I responded by saying I did nothing of the sort, and after scouring the thread for days, all you could come up with is ONE post (rather than the "months" you claimed) where I quoted Malcolm X (not MLK) to add emphasis to my calling you out for defending the Klan. Nothing whatsoever about me dismissing "damaging the economic bases of neighborhoods across the country." In other words, you lied.

So once again, you're lying, doubling down on your lies, defending the MAGA protesters by, among other things, representing them as simple vandals rather than violently attempting to overthrow the government, plus you're again defending the Klan... again.

You've been exposed. Just quit while you're behind.
 
Last edited:
This is absolutely was an attempted coup, whether or not everyone in the crowd was there for that purpose there were enough there with guns and zipties and tasers and pipe bombs and molotov cocktails that clearly intended to commit violence with the aim of stopping a peaceful transition of power. These people wanted to, by force, overturn Democracy and keep Trump in power.

Argue semantics all you want, but that sounds like an attempted coup to me.
 
@Sommerswerd not to be an ass, but out of curiosity: What do MLK and Malcolm X have to do with the terrorists who attempted the coup at the capital building? :confused:
 
@Sommerswerd not to be an ass, but out of curiosity: What do MLK and Malcolm X have to do with the terrorists who attempted the coup at the capital building? :confused:
TL;DR Berzerker was accusing me of previously quoting MLK in defense of riots, ostensibly in an attempt to accuse me of hypocrisy for not doing the same in defense of the MAGA coup. I responded that his claim was a lie, and he has been squirming and goalpost switching to try and defend his false claim since, including mixing up Malcolm X with MLK.
 
Well, you're talking to someone who thinks that Trump and his MAGA supporters and Malcolm X and his supporters both have a lot of things in common, so maybe I should not continue that discussion. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom