You were literally were lessening the blame and you changed your stance since then.DColeKC wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 2:50 pmThat's such a bullshit response. I'm not attempting to lessen the blame for what happened, which is what making excuses is. I'm talking about the fact that yesterday's speech by Trump wasn't the only thing that caused the situation to happen. This was a long time coming and one of many components that fueled the fire and divisiveness involves the way the anti-trump crowd has acted and spoken as well.flyingember wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 1:59 pmYou just used whataboutism in this paragraph.DColeKC wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 1:24 pm
I'm not making excuses for anyone. Why can't you be honest? I'm talking about what led up yesterday and yes, Trumps rhetoric 100% was much of it, if not most of it, but that doesn't mean the people who have name called and trashed Trump supporters didn't have a part in firing up his base. I've been saying this for years now. It's not smart calling half the population names and insulting their intelligence over a vote cast. The divisiveness wasn't solely due to Trump and his supporters.
"Trump was at fault, but what about the people name calling?"
That method is a propaganda method used to make excuses. You literally just made excuses after saying you're not making excuses.
Trump went out to a group of people and told them to march on the capital. No one name calling him made him do that or anyone do what he said.
There is no excuse to storm the capital or to become violent. This is a bigger picture argument I'm making. Much like the death of George Flyod alone wasn't the reason our country saw historic protests this summer but years and years of racial injustice fueled that fire. Until some of you get off the idea that I'm "always defending Trump", you'll never look at my posts with a clear view.
You said Trump was to blame, but don't forget about these people too, they have part of the blame. That's what you do to try and lessening the blame.
You're doing the equivalent of
Teacher to Child: You hit Friend and took their toy, that is not ok
Child: But they stuck their tongue out, they're partially to blame
There's ethical arguments on if bad actions are ethical because they intend to have a good result, or if their actions need to be ethical for the results to be ethical, but that's an entirely different argument than you're making
You're saying someone's moral stance should depend on the morality of others. That they can treat others badly if they perceive they were treated badly first. You know the opposite of the old saying, slap them back if they slap your cheek
And then to be entirely wrong about the sequence of events that led to your point.
I don't think you're doing much more than giving a pro-Trump knee jerk reaction.