(06-25-2019 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 09:07 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 08:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Looks like there were some right-wingers filled with righteous anger after Obama was elected in 2008: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/...rack-obama

How do you know they were right-wingers? My father-in-law, a lifetime straight ticket Democrat, could have had the same reaction.

But in any case, this discussion has drifted. It originally was about a sense of righteousness in one's cause or position, not anger. I don't think Obama was angry when he made his comment about people "clinging to their guns and religion", and I don't think Hillary was angry when she made here "deplorables" speech. The righteousness portion is about smugness, not anger. "We're better than you, because you lack understanding like we have".

I am sure some people were upset in 2009 at Obama being elected, and others were upset that he was black. But you didn't see the widespread movements including violence over his election we saw with Trump, nor did we see a widespread and long lasting movement to have him removed for unfitness.

So, yes, some right wingers did some stupid stuff. But nowhere as widespread and long lasting as the stupid stuff done by left wingers the last three years. What were the equivalents of the Antifa riots back then? What was the equivalent of the Russia collusion witch hunt? Maybe there were a few people calling for impeachment, maybe not, but anything like the numbers now?

True, I don't have data to back this up, just my eyes and ears, but if one would kindly refer me to the database in which I can find these statistics, I would be glad to reference them.

I love the way a string of anecdotal incidents involving 1-4 people are construed to be a movement similar to the Resistance.

Sorry... I remembered racist violence after the 2008 elections and so I looked it up. That was the first thing that came to mind. I'm sure there's plenty more to be found if one has the time (which I currently don't). I did not mean for my post to be looked at as a definitive catalog on this topic.

Remember that church that I recently linked where the police detective was calling for gay people to be put to death? I wonder what was said in that church (and many others like it) after the 2008 election.

Maybe a lot of the same, or maybe it was people talking about how crazy Brother Cop is. Your assumptions are just...assumptions. Seemingly based on a stereotype.

Still trying to make a single cop, or even a single church, equivalent to the organized anti-right actions and the widespread calls for impeachment?

My assessment stands, that although there are self-righteous people on both sides, at this time the preponderance is on the left. Although some of those people on each side just grumble, some take action based on a feeling that the righteousness of their cause justifies the actions, and the preponderance of those are on the left.

JMHO.

Going to take more than a story about some guy(s) in East Bumfick acting/talking bad to change that.

.

I think I might actually take this another step. I dont think I would know more than about 5 people (all self-avowed racists and former clients) that would think the actions cited in the SPCL report as being 'justified' in any way, shape or form.

One prevalent message from the left (especially re: Antifa) is that the actions are not good, but that Antifa's beating the crap out of the racists is *far* better morally than the converse (i.e. the racists beating the crap out of the Antifa).

Does 'justification' have varying levels? That is, one level being a complete justification of action (i.e the resulting action was right and proper given the justification) and the other level being a relative justification (the Antifa beating the crap out of racists is bad, but morally better that the converse situation).

Or is this expressing too much anger for some?

I don't think that the beating up of racists is justified.

To be clear, I don't have any idea if you are an angry person or not. It's not my business either way. Your posts that are full of unnecessary GD's and F'ns would likely be read as more angry than the posts of OO, George, and Owl#'s (for example). It doesn't bother me beyond having to wade through the implied cursewords to get to your points. I didn't think that you would be so sensitive about that observation as I related it to the previous topic. I am sorry that I brought it up.