Capitol rioter compares attacks on her to treatment of ‘Jews in Germany’

[childeye 2]

There is nothing cynical about what I said. It is a simple statement of truth and validated many times over by posts and threads here on CF.

It sounded to me like you made a sweeping claim that "Woke liberals" will count any person who isn't 100% for liberal causes, an election denier, even if they aren't. You can't prove that claim no matter what you've seen posted on CF.

 

[disciple Clint]

There's nothing wrong with any of those if used properly. Consider that saying "consider the use of these terms..." and then describing the group of people who use those terms is no different from saying "the people who use these terms" or "these people who use these terms" or "you all who use these terms" or "y'all who use these terms", etc.

Do you think that playing semantics covers up things like hypocrisy?


Do you have several examples that will validate your claim that these terms are "typically used by people who have complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from their own actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc.,"??? If it's so "typical" then it should be easy for you to rattle off 5 to 10 objectively verifiable examples.


What kind of compassion are you looking for? Is it compassionate to wish for a person to turn to Christ and get help to turn from self-destruction? Because I expressed that in the OP, but it seems you find that be not "even a miniscule [sic] of compassion for the woman who undoubtedly made a very poor decision". It's odd that as a Christian you find it to be a complete lack of compassion to wish for someone to turn to Christ to turn from self-destructive ways. I think the "compassion" you're looking for is the same she's looking for when she says she wants people to just change their minds and just accept and love her but also accept all her views.

And to say she "undoubtedly made a poor decision" is not only a gross understatement but it's not even the case here. She didn't make just one poor decision, she made many on top of many. And they weren't just "very poor" decisions, they were all part of a pattern of decisions rooted in rebellion, hate, violence, and mostly pride. Why play it down? Well, because you are from the same end of the political spectrum so you feel it reflects poorly on you, and it does, but it reflects even more poorly on you that you play it down rather than acknowledge that what she did was much worse than just "a very poor decision.". And you lose credibility because of that.

There is no proper way to use terms that broad brush an entire group of people, most of us are very aware of what is being done when people say things that suggest that all ____( fill in the blank) are alike and should be expected to act and believe in a predetermined way. I could come up with several examples but I avoid using examples or making statements that discriminate against groups of people. apparently your knowledge of compassion is limited base on what you have written in this post. Yes this woman made a mistake, possibly many mistakes, just as the rest of us make mistakes and exercise poor judgment. I do not know if those decisions were "rooted in rebellion, hate, violence, and mostly pride". And you do not know that either, but I am not going to presume to judge her or her motivations beyond acknowledging that she made some mistakes. I take it seriously when Jesus said "judge not lest you be judged". I am not at all concerned about your opinion of my credibility. The people who have read a few of your posts undoubtedly see a consistent pattern.

 

[bekkilyn]

It sounded to me like you made a sweeping claim that "Woke liberals" will count any person who isn't 100% for liberal causes, an election denier, even if they aren't. You can't prove that claim no matter what you've seen posted on CF.

Of course I could prove the claim. Anyone could. You just have to look around practically everywhere to see what is obvious to those who aren't already fully indoctrinated. It's not just CF, but all of social media, media in general, and various woke-infested institutions. "Tolerance for me but not for thee" is one of their most beloved mottoes as they attempt to suppress and ban the speech of anyone who disagrees with them even on just one issue, and cancelling anyone they can including their own should anyone fall out of line just a smidgen.

(And it's not "liberal causes"...it's specifically "woke liberalism". There once was a time when being liberal would include valuing and upholding the free exchange of ideas rather than being all about the politically correct identity Marxism that it currently strives to enforce.)

 

[JustOneWay]

(And it's not "liberal causes"...it's specifically "woke liberalism". There once was a time when being liberal would include valuing and upholding the free exchange of ideas rather than being all about the politically correct identity Marxism that it currently strives to enforce.)

Woke. Interesting. Sounds like a good thread to make. Perhaps one already has? You realize woke has not come about because of liberals, right? It was more about racial injustice, and now includes other injustices. Woke isn't just for liberals, don't you know?

 

[childeye 2]

Of course I could prove the claim. Anyone could.

You can never prove that every "Woke" liberal in America claims Liz Cheney believes Trumps' Big Lie.

 

[KCfromNC]

So they have to censor opinion A in order to get your agreement on opinion B?

Follow the party line or they're not a real "insert favorite sports team here" fan. Welcome to modern conservative political theory.

 

[JustOneWay]

Erase the posts of yours on this thread that were ANYTHING BUT written in the spirit of a mutual understanding...and I for one would be more than willing to applaud your proposal of an agreement that lawlessness needs to stop.

Better yet, if you delete your CF account and step away from the keyboard, I will applaud your silence in the forum.

I don't need any applause and am not looking for approval. You either agree or disagree with no strings attached.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

There is no proper way to use terms that broad brush an entire group of people,

None at all? Are you sure? Because I can think of many examples, including Biblical ones.

most of us are very aware of what is being done when people say things that suggest that all ____( fill in the blank) are alike and should be expected to act and believe in a predetermined way.

You mean like these?

(stating that the entire msm has inadequacies)

under what pretense does Trump become responsible for the inadequacies of the msm? Oh yes I forgot, rule number one, if anything is pointed out as being your administrations responsibility or for that matter if you knowingly botch anything, immediate deflect it by blaming Trump.

(grouping together all of BLM/ANTIFA groups into one massive supergroup and blaming them for "one billioin in property damage")

If we are talking about the BLM/ANTIFA you are quite correct there is no comparison to the over one billion in property damage and several people killed to say nothing of the number of injured police officers, the Capital riot pales in comparison.

(lumping together "the people who made that graphic" and all of the NYT and CNN as having bias and therefore losing credibility)

have you considered that the people who made that graphic might have some bias of their own. NYT has lost a good deal of credibility as has CNN

(lumping together your friends and identifying expected behavior of the group when they drink liquor)

If I opened a bottle of wine around my friends they would take it as a sign that they should be on their best behavior even considering that there would be no future need for the cork.

Well, talk about losing credibility.......

I could come up with several examples but I avoid using examples or making statements that discriminate against groups of people.

I don't believe you at all. Apparently it's not "typical" at all and you can't even come up with just a few examples so you are giving an excuse.

Or perhaps you are trying not to dig a deeper hole in your claim that behavior is "typical" among a certain group of people and you know that by identifying such a group of people you would be directly exposing your hypocrisy in bemoaning how others paint a group of people with a broad brush stroke? "Typical" is a description of something that is regularly occurring - the question is, with or by who? Is it a certain group? Can you identify examples? Oh yeah, "something something don't want to cite examples, something....." ....Riiiiiiight....

I could come up with several examples but I avoid using examples or making statements that discriminate against groups of people.

So you made a claim about certain behavior being "typical" about groups of people and you realize now that if you cite examples then you are demonstrating that you actually do make statements that discriminate against groups of people. Got it!!! (We all can see it!!!)

apparently your knowledge of compassion is limited base on what you have written in this post.

Limited to Christ? OK. Tell me, what compassion is greater than Christ Himself? Please explain.

Yes this woman made a mistake, possibly many mistakes, just as the rest of us make mistakes and exercise poor judgment. I do not know if those decisions were "rooted in rebellion, hate, violence, and mostly pride".

Well then either you lack discernment or you are choosing not to discern because you don't want to be critical of someone who espouses your own political agenda.

And you do not know that either, but I am not going to presume to judge her or her motivations beyond acknowledging that she made some mistakes.

Oh, I do know that, I can discern. The Word of God doesn't tell us to just accept everything everyone does but to evaluate and make judgments.
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Funny but earlier you had no problem judging the "bias" of all the people in the msm/NYT/CNN, and no problem judging BLM/ANTIFA, and no problem judging the woman in the OP as having made a mistake... Hmmm....

I take it seriously when Jesus said "judge not lest you be judged".

First, when Christ said that, He was referring to judgment in the sense of meting out justice, not in the sense of judging righteous judgment whereby you evaluate something to understand it according to Scripture. Let me know if you need further explanation about that.

But even so, you have no problem judging me as you are doing throughout this very post. Not to mention your judgment of msm/NYT/CNN and BLM and ANTIFA....

I am not at all concerned about your opinion of my credibility. The people who have read a few of your posts undoubtedly see a consistent pattern.

So now you're lumping together all "the people who have read a few of [my] posts" and speaking for them?

What pattern have all of them seen? Should be an easy answer for you since you're the one bringing it up. Can you back up your assertion??? Or were you just lumping people together and speaking for them based on the behavior and views you believe they should have???

apparently your knowledge of compassion is limited base on what you have written in this post.

That's quite a judgment of me. Why do you address my opinion on compassion if you're "not at all concerned about" it??? I think we all know why.

Yes this woman made a mistake, possibly many mistakes,

Who are you to judge her and determine that she made a mistake, let alone many??? How do you make that judgment after excoriating me for "judging"??? You seem certain she "made a mistake" - what is the basis of that judgment you are definitively making?

just as the rest of us make mistakes and exercise poor judgment.

So you do use judgment? Earlier you told me you don't use judgment because you thought that Christ said not to judge. Of course, right after that you judged the woman as having made a mistake. Which is it? Which story do you want to proceed with? Can you make up your mind between your two contradicting stories??? Do you judge or not judge?

I do not know if those decisions were "rooted in rebellion, hate, violence, and mostly pride".

And yet you somehow know to judge them as "a mistake" or "possibly many mistakes". If you were able to judge them as such then how do you not know what they are rooted in? If her actions are not rooted in anything wrong then how are they wrong? Are you saying a good tree can somehow produce bad fruit?

And you do not know that either, but I am not going to presume to judge her or her motivations beyond acknowledging that she made some mistakes.

So you are going to assume that her motivations were such that they were not evil or sinful motivations and that her mistakes were innocent mistakes that anyone could have made. So you judged her motivations; you judged them favorably but you made your judgment. And you here admit that you judge her as having done wrong and you try to sugar-coat it as "mistakes".

 

[durangodawood]

I don't care who did what....if someone beats a cop in Washington State or at the nation's Capitol, I want to see them punished. I do not condone violence, stealing or other crimes. This isn't a contest between left and right to see which is side is worse. Can't we just agree all of this lawlessness is wrong, and needs to stop?

Have to disagree.

I care that we had an attempt to install an un-elected govt in the USA. I especially care that so many Americans condone that goal even if they recoil at cops getting beaten.

 

[rambot]

When you deny the results of an election are valid, you are an election denire.
When you are against vaccines, you are an anti-vaxxer.
When you fear transgender people being in society, you are transphobic.
When you side with groups that push white nationalism, you are a white nationalist.
When you deny that climate change is real, you are a climate change denier.

What I don't understand is why the persecution complex. If you are against the vaccine, then why feel persecuted for being called an anti-vaxxer? If you are against the election results then why feel persecuted for being called an election denier? And so on...

Well, the woman in the OP is a perfect example of what you are also demonstrating here. Conservatives these days want to be accepted and have their views accepted and validated while at the same time not being called things that describe their views.

They want to deny the election was valid, but don't call them election deniers or they will scream persecution! They want to deny that the threat of climate change is real, but don't call them climate change deniers or they will scream persecution! The woman in the OP said it in the video of her interview with TODAY - she wishes people would just change their minds about her and love her and accept her and all her views also. Huh??? Seriously??? You want to be treated in the exact opposite way you are treating others?

Thank you for inadvertently illustrating my point with a parallel example to the woman in the OP.

To an extent I see their point.
I try to teach my kids that labels are not nice ways to identify people. I don't want my children calling other people jerks, idiots etc.

That said, I'm not convinced the poor persecuted right wing would really notice if we start doing what I tell my kids to do. The nuance of sayingy "Youre talking like a racist/election denier/transphobe/etc", I don't think is going to make much difference. Much like most humans they don't like it when they are labelled with negative descriptors. What's odd is that they don't seem to have seen the correlation between what they say and the labels.

 

[bekkilyn]

Woke. Interesting. Sounds like a good thread to make. Perhaps one already has? You realize woke has not come about because of liberals, right? It was more about racial injustice, and now includes other injustices. Woke isn't just for liberals, don't you know?

So-called "systemic racial injustice" through a lens of critical pedagogy i.e. critical race theory which is a form of identity Marxism that uses race instead of class. While there may be a few people on the right who have been duped into this indoctrination, thinking that it really is about injustice, it's been entirely embraced by the woke left.

 

[bekkilyn]

You can never prove that every "Woke" liberal in America claims Liz Cheney believes Trumps' Big Lie.

Irrelevant if it's not about the narrative that needs to be enforced.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In most cases, that's not what happened. Take for instance, the guy with the horns and face paint. He reportedly "stormed into" the senate chamber. But in the video, he simply walked in--escorted by a capitol police officer who just told him to remain peaceful, which he did. For that, he's now in prison for 41 months.

Chansley, like others who entered the Senate chamber was charged with obstruction of a proceeding [ 18 USC 1512(c)(2) ] given that it was difficult for the Senate to meet if some guy with a spear was in the presiding officer's chair. ( He was also charge with civil disorder [18 USC 231] for acts that impeded law enforcement. Not everyone in the Chamber was so charged.)

While in the chair, Chansley left a threatening note for the Vice President.

One other person who was on the Senate dias with Chansley (and can be seen in various photographs with him in the chamber, and did not carry a weapon leave a threat and who aided rather than impeded the police got 8 months on the same charge.

Paul Hodgkins charged on February 9, 2021

 

[childeye 2]

Irrelevant if it's not about the narrative that needs to be enforced.

The only narrative being discussed is your narrative that "Woke liberals" would count anyone, including Liz Cheney, as an election denier because she's not a "Woke liberal".

You said: "You should know by now that unless you completely agree with woke liberalism 100% then you're automatically an election denier ...

 

[Albion]

You can never prove that every "Woke" liberal in America claims Liz Cheney believes Trumps' Big Lie.

Are you saying that, logically speaking, there must be a few of them somewhere?

 

[childeye 2]

Are you saying that, logically speaking, there must be a few of them somewhere?

I'm saying the positive prejudice of grace through faith is opposite to the negative prejudice of cynicism through distrust. In a left/right dichotomy cynicism works the ends against the middle and grace moves the ends towards the center.

 

[bekkilyn]

The only narrative being discussed is your narrative that "Woke liberals" would count anyone, including Liz Cheney, as an election denier because she's not a "Woke liberal".

You said: "You should know by now that unless you completely agree with woke liberalism 100% then you're automatically an election denier ...

Which is an entirely true statement and is proven every day here on CF, social media, the media in general, and practically every woke institution. It's not about my narrative. I'm a left-leaning independent who has rejected the woke poison and can therefore see what is more than obvious.

 

[childeye 2]

Which is an entirely true statement and is proven every day here on CF...

You claim this is an entirely true statement:
"You should know by now that unless you completely agree with woke liberalism 100% then you're automatically an election denier ..."

I suspect that you might point me to a poster who claims that if you're on the fence, 50/50, then you have denied the official account from every government election official who says that Biden legitimately won with 100 % certainty. But election officials are not "Woke Liberals".

 

[rambot]

Chansley, like others who entered the Senate chamber was charged with obstruction of a proceeding [ 18 USC 1512(c)(2) ] given that it was difficult for the Senate to meet if some guy with a spear was in the presiding officer's chair. ( He was also charge with civil disorder [18 USC 231] for acts that impeded law enforcement. Not everyone in the Chamber was so charged.)

While in the chair, Chansley left a threatening note for the Vice President.

One other person who was on the Senate dias with Chansley (and can be seen in various photographs with him in the chamber, and did not carry a weapon leave a threat and who aided rather than impeded the police got 8 months on the same charge.

Paul Hodgkins charged on February 9, 2021

200 years ago, ALL of these people would have been strung out and hung up by their necks with barely a thought.

Now, 6 months in prison likens them to being systemically gassed by an oppressive regime.

Nonsense. For a group that LOOOOVES thinking about the Constitution as a sacred, immutable document, they sure don't like justice being foisted upon them when the contradict it. Perhaps justice of a more primitive time would help them understand since that is where there understadning of the constitution seems hinged.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, it's white privilege.

You mean protesting while white?