I read your "opposing shit-for-tat" comment as a scatalogically colorful equivalency argument (i.e., "tit-for-tat").  For myself, I would never frame these two examples in the way you did.  They are night and day.

Marc

I agree with Marc on this one.  There is no link between these two events, including no evidence that one was in response to the other.

And there are other problems with your statement. You seem to be implying that all Trump supporters are racists because SOME were carrying Confederate flags, and suggesting that race was the motive behind the capitol riot; which as far as I am aware, is incorrect.  The rioters were trying to prevent the certification of the election results because they believed Biden won through fraud.  

I'm sure there were racists among the mob, but that had nothing to do with the attack. 

Finally, the rioters breaking into the capitol building and smearing feces on the walls (among the other despicable acts they committed) should be universally condemned.  But "carrying the confederate flag" should not be lumped in with their crimes.  Promoting the flag is a legitimate example of free speech.  It may not be speech that we agree with, but again, it is speech that we should tolerate, because not doing so weakens our own first amendment rights.

Racist speech,  and other forms of speech that we disagree with should be opposed by speaking out against it; not silencing people.  

 

"I'm sure there were racists among the mob, but that had nothing to do with the attack."

I am not sure I agree with that statement.  Race is a YUGE factor (overt or closeted) among Trump supporters.  And these were HARDCORE Trump supporters.

Marc

In this instance, Trump convinced these people that Biden stole the election, and they attacked the capitol in hopes of somehow overturning the election results.  So race was not a factor.  

I think its important to point that out, because if we're crying wolf, it erodes our credibility such that accusations of racism are less potent at times when they are actually warranted. 

======================================================

John,

But it does determine the consequences of their actions.

As I said many times before, if these were POC that were insurrectionists, the HazMat team would still be collecting up organs from the Capital grounds and leave the blood stains behind as a reminder for other POC that would think of doing such a thing again.

If waving a confederate flag inside the Capital (or other places where Covid-45 hold rallies) while trespassing ain't displaying their racist motives, then what is?

I find that POC tend to be less concerned with the "hardcore racists", because those guys are assholes and would probably be assholes regardless of their racism. And those guys are obvious, so you see them coming. It's the more insidious and pervasive forms of racism that are the problem.

From my perspective, a lot of support for Trump seems to stem from cultural anxiety. Trump supporters perceive POC, women, non-cishet people expressing their voices and asserting their places in American society, and believing that it is a zero-sum game, thinking that means they are losing something. They view Trump as the means to get that back. What else does "Make America Great Again" mean? And how is that not motivated in part by racism?

"But it does determine the consequences of their actions.  As I said many times before, if these were POC that were insurrectionists, the HazMat team would still be collecting up organs from the Capital grounds and leave the blood stains behind as a reminder for other POC that would think of doing such a thing again."

I'm not sure I agree with you on that, but for the sake of discussion, lets say you're right.  Isn't that a separate issue?  Now you're talking about law enforcement who broke up the riots potentially being racist.  If there's some indication of that, its worthy of discussion, but whether the police are racists has nothing to do with the motives of the people who attacked the capitol. 

There are statues that some people also want to bring down that are more controversial: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, etc.  Maybe picking one that celebrates a treasonous, racist,. slaver like Jefferson Davis wasn't the best hill to climb on to illustrate your point.

Marc

The question here isn't whether we should revere Jefferson Davis, or whether we think he is worthy of a monument.  

The question is how deeply we believe in the first amendment.  If somebody else thinks Davis is worthy of a monument, do we believe in free speech enough to allow them to erect it?  Or do we tear it down to silence them, steal pieces of the monument, and hold them hostage until the people who erected it say the things we want them to say, etc.?

I am NOT defending racism.  I am defending the right of a person to express an opinion that is contrary to my own, and I'm saying we should all be willing to do the same as Americans. 

You have been consistently trying to justify racism no matter your response to this issue.

Defend all you want.

Time to ignore.