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?
you are now dismissively declaring it impossible
I mean that I can’t read your mind, and it doesn’t enhance discussion for me to assume what you meant.
There is a parallel in the state violence I’m referring to
Wait, so you are comparing the two, contradicting your previous comment?
tangent stuff
Feel free to argue about it with someone else. I have no interest in arguing about what Dems in general are doing, I’m answering specific claims about Walz.
One can also take a topic and completely miss the important factors because they have arrived at a false, simple answer.
Yes, this is exactly what you’ve done, due to black and white thinking.
Looking at how the cops and national guard behaved
You’re confused about the situation. I don’t think we’re getting anywhere, so let’s agree on “Fuck MPD”. If you or anyone else is interested, Wikipedia has a pretty good list of police violence during the protests. It’s long, but includes lots of incidents outside of the Twin Cities as well. It can be hard to tell who exactly is responsible for which actions, because a lot of reporting just says “police”, without delineating between MPD vs the National Guard vs other forces. I don’t like cops, but blaming Walz for the MPD doesn’t make sense. Blame this weasel or this piece of shit.
Interestingly, the most objectionable thing that I remember (the “light 'em up” thing) may have been people unaffiliated with the police or National Guard:
And it’s unclear which agency the officers in the video are from. Both Minnesota National Guard spokesperson Army Lt. Col. Kristen Augé and Minneapolis Police Department spokesperson Garrett Parten told USA TODAY the men in the video were not part of their organizations.
Of course, you have to balance that against the very real possibility of them lying about it.
Anyways, you ignored about 2/3 of what I said. Why is that?
I was picking the most relevant bits, as otherwise conversation tends to explode in size exponentially.
EDIT: If you want to do a better job of representing hexbear to the wider fediverse, read this and self-crit:
“Gish gallops” are intended to bamboozle the uninformed audiences of spoken debates; you can’t “Gish gallop” in an online text conversion. Stop carrying water for genocide enthusiasts.
You can and they did.
I hope you and the other commenter both someday achieve the maturity to look back on this conversation and be embarrassed. I further hope you’ll move beyond embarrassment and realize that it’s part of growing up to make mistakes like that.
I mean that I can’t read your mind, and it doesn’t enhance discussion for me to assume what you meant.
Did you know that if you don’t understand something, you can ask questions? Nobody requires being combative or dismissive.
Wait, so you are comparing the two, contradicting your previous comment?
The two what? If you can answer this question correctly, you will understand what I am actually comparing. If one of the two things is genocide, you will have failed to understand. Feel free to ask questions.
tangent stuff
Feel free to argue about it with someone else. I have no interest in arguing about what Dems in general are doing, I’m answering specific claims about Walz.
Your idea of what a tangent is is entirely opaque, including whatever you think you are “quoting”. It feels like you are talking to yourself, really. Please make a reattempt by quoting what I actually said and then telling me why you think it is a tangent. Or by replying with enough context for me to have any idea what you’re talking about.
Yes, this is exactly what you’ve done, due to black and white thistated
You seem to have missed the point. Can you tell me what my point was? I also said that it is possible to fail to see patterns due to over-contextualization. Why was I saying that? I think I stated it directly.
You’re confused about the situation. I don’t think we’re getting anywhere, so let’s agree on “Fuck MPD”.
Perhaps you could deign to tell me how I am confused.
It can be hard to tell who exactly is responsible for which actions, because a lot of reporting just says " police"
It seems that you might be the confused one? My knowledge does not come from a Wikipedia article, but you are revealing that this is your level of understanding.
Interestingly, the most objectionable thing that I remember (the “light 'em up” thing)
Remember from what? Were you ever on the street? Anywhere near Washington and 35th? Do you have contacts with those who engaged? Did you watch weeks of footage? Anywhere? I wouldn’t ask but you’ve leaned pretty heavily on alleging your personal recollection and the implication that you are local but I get the sense that you were just a remote observer like most people that didn’t actually follow very closely. Being tens or hundreds of miles away whole watching TV news would not make you an authority of any kind, just so you know.
I was picking the most relevant bits, as otherwise conversation tends to explode in size exponentially.
Define relevant. My impression is that you ignored the direct challenges. I would rather not go back and repeat myself. That would be silly, don’t you think? But if you just ignore the inconvenient statements we won’t really get anywhere.
So, don’t you remember any of the things I have listed? Do you not see the connection between Walz calling in the National Guard to crush the George Floyd protests and state violence? Or in the crushing of the protests? Do you not understand that tear gas and rubber bullets and arrests are state violence? Do you not understand that a lack of consequences for cops, soldiers, etc is a green light in response to “bad behavior” (it is actually the desired behavior, hence a lack of consequence). Your memory of events is good, right? Hence the questioning of whether I am local and an appeal to how well you remember all of this, eh?
These are the things you apparently think are irrelevant. Oh dear.
