grifters gonna grift, and you're gonna keep falling for it. no matter how silly the whataboutism, no matter how ridiculous the false equivalence, you uncritically buy into it if it just fits your narrative.

if you just questioned her ridiculous whataboutism for a second, you'd realise that violent outbreaks, often incited by the police and establishment forces, have not just been a part of protests against social injustice since this summer. go back to the suffragette and civil rights movements - they all had incidents that those in power tried to label as 'terrorism' and the 'end to civil discourse', aiming to discredit the movement and its goals as a whole.

trying to paint this failed violent coup, the attempt to overturn a democratic election - directly, and not very subtly incited by the president himself, as just the latest example / escalation of an alleged order that's falling apart, that was originally destroyed by BLM and antifa though, is just a desperate effort to give conservatives a narrative to somehow blame the 'violent left' for this, while at the same time discrediting their goals of racial justice and police accountability.

she can protest and inb4 all she wants, that doesn't change the FACT that it very much IS a whataboutism, and a transparent and silly one at that. one that doesn't even begin to make any sense if you just had the slightest regard for history and context, or even just the mental capacity and honesty to distinguish between protesting police violence / racial discrimination discrimination, and attempting a coup over a lost election.

she surely knows that though. she is just serving a specific audience, trying to remain relevant in her media bubble. you, however, don't. people like you are her gullible target audience. you read it, don't even take a second trying to think about it critically - you just copy paste it, and promote it as "very good" - probably because it makes you feel better about 'your side', and because she used some nice sounding big boy keywords that you have been trained to regard as good and just, lol.

This post was edited by fender on Jan 9 2021 10:27pm

what is racial justice

That's not what she's arguing. The reaction of the media and intellectuals to the looting, arson and violence over the summer merely are the most recent and striking example of the crumbling "liberal order" that she's talking about. It's exhibit A for her argument that norms were already broken and the sense of reality already out of whack all across society, not just within the ranks of lunatic hardcore-Trumpers.

And no, when there were bursts of violence at events of the suffragette or civil rights movement, you didnt have the leading newspapers and intellectuals in the country voice and publich opinion similar to "yes, we literally mean abolish the police" or "the case for looting". Nor did such whacky arguments make inroads with the normies from the middle of society.

Basically, you're ignoring all substantial arguments that Bari Weiss (and me) made, just so you can arrive at your predetermined conclusion that the article must be whataboutism.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 9 2021 10:31pm

I'm pretty sure the CCP is the one planting these stupid ideas.

Nah, similar ideas were already present in fringe lefty circles during the 90s and 2000s, long before the CCP became a powerful actor of world politics. It's just that these ideas have seeped into the mainstream discourse over time, the overton window has constantly lurched to the left for at least 15 years, if not longer. Imho, this is also the reason why so many people are so receptive to even the most hamfisted, crude attempts - by Trump or other populists - at moving the overton window in the other direction again.

But we're getting off-topic...

what was before the CCP?

How To Brainwash A Nation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMZGGQ0ERk

i remember a debate once. this guy was a scholar of some kind some university. he said "if I was wrong dont you think I would know it" thats how weird people can get. Even the "smart" ones....maybe especially the "smart" ones.

This post was edited by TiStuff on Jan 9 2021 11:13pm

Coming from the guy who continuously falls for Russian disinformation campaigns, your accusation doesn't hold very much weight.

The Democrats haven't complained about social distancing during the protest because they know its all fake.

Half a million people

the fact that you uncritically bought into the far right media obsession with looting and violence (not that by police though) - outright ignoring the overwhelming peaceful majority of the movement, and their goal: an end of police violence and racial discrimination - and now construct your whole 'argument' based on that deliberate mispresentation, just further proves my point about you not being a critical thinker, and her article resonating with gullible fools like that.

you even directly confirm my analysis that she's trying to re-contextualise the coup, the attempt to overturn a democratic election because your candidate lost, by suggesting it's just the latest exhibit of already broken "norms" - and then arbitrarily pointing to the blm movement to suggest they are responsible.
why not point to the many incidents of right wing trump fanatics committing acts of terrorism (mass shootings, bombings, death threats) in his name? why not point to conservative media's incitement that lead to the acts of terrorism (bombings, murder) against abortion providers? they also had peaceful protests in favour of their respective goals.

there is no reason or objective distinction, no logically coherent justification for her choice of framing. it's just a transparent effort to discredit blm and make you people feel better about yourselves.

and yes, during previous movements for social justice you had both: powerful people and their institutions trying to smear their goals by focusing on acts of violence, and others highlighting how that is a distraction, an attempt to discredit the cause, or even that violence is an adequate means under specific circumstances - you really need to brush up on your civil rights movement history if you're genuinely unaware of that, buddy.

you're basically just doubling down on her (and thus your) dishonest whataboutism (uncritical regurgitation thereof) here. all while still ignoring the fundamentally different natures of the movements, one addressing a real and systemic problem, looking for justice, equality, and accountability - and the other one mad about losing an election, trying to abolish democracy to keep their leader in power.

you know, this one guy woke up one night and heard a burglar in his home. he got up, grabbed his baseball bat, took a good swing at the intruder, and managed to drive him off. a month later he used that bat to mercilessly bash his wife's head in. he did that because a stranger on the internet told him, without any evidence though, that she's a murderer, and he would be her next victim. he simply couldn't understand how anybody would blame him for that - he thought using his baseball bat had become established and accepted practice, so what's the difference? that man's name? barry 'albert einstein' white.