Words do matter. I suspect you’re not from the area and was sardonically calling you out for hyperbole that you’re repeating on the internet.

I don’t feel called out.

I have no idea how you’re not comparing those two, but trying to argue what you meant is pointless.

Having made zero attempt to seek understanding, you are now dismissively declaring it impossible. Maybe you should make an attempt to understand? Try asking questions? Share what your thought process is?

It certainly looks like you’re trivializing actual genocide by mentioning it at all in this context.

Then you don’t know what it means to trivialize genocide. There is a parallel in the state violence I’m referring to and it is often literally the same people engaging in it and receiving it. I am not comparing the genocide itself to anything else at the moment. If you belabor that point any further without even attempting to understand, I will have to assume you are here in bad faith.

Whatever Dems in general are up to. I’m just saying I’m not interested in arguing about any of that, regardless of how much I agree with you or not.

If this is meant to be an example of where I went in a tangent, you will need to be much more specific. Like saying what I actuallh did and how it is tangential. Talking about self-identifying liberals is not itself a tangent, that’s who my very first comment addressed and it was directly related to the content of the article posted.

I don’t think we’re going to convince each other on the issue over the internet, but IMO you have a marginally less black-and-white view of what happened than the Fall of Minneapolis people.

There is nothing inherently correct or good about nuance or complexity or wrong or bad about black and white. What matters is whether the idea communicated is true. Every topic can be broken down into more and more detail and context until one can no longer identify patterns. One can also take a topic and completely miss the important factors because they have arrived at a false, simple answer.

So… I don’t get anything from you repeatedly taking about nuance. If there is a salient contradictory point about what I’ve said, I await it.

If you insist on saying that the situation was black, then you’re wrong. It wasn’t white either, but that’s just because your worldview can’t handle the nuance. As one example of the nuance, yes journalists got arrested, but that was not with Walz’s approval

The following quote doesn’t even say that it was without approval, as if that even matters. Was every cop involved in that fired and brought up on charges for first amendment violations? Then the signal is: no consequences, keep doing that. Looking at how the cops and national guard behaved, it is also very clear what the nature of their preparation was and how they were overseen. One minute past curfew and the tear gas and rubber bullets come out. Attempts to kettle. Seemingly Indiscriminate shots, including at people running away. These are the personnel overseen by the state and this is state violence. They were also not called back as a result of any of this. On the contrary, their numbers were increased so as to “clear the streets”. You can cut to the quick easily if you just lay attention to the actual actions taken and not just the PR.

As someone with a clear personal recollection you are surely aware of this.

I’m not saying he was perfect, but I would go so far as to say that I bet you wouldn’t have done better in his shoes.

I would have done infinitely better.

Anyways, you ignored about 2/3 of what I said. Why is that?