MAGAThread XX: A Journal of the Plague Year

[Cannot think of a name]

A reasonable idea on its face, but it usually functions in practice throughout history (including the US today) as the inverse-- "if you're not willing to shake hands with the opposition, then destroy them."

I wouldn't say most often. Violence is common but coexistence is more common than mass killing.

That doesn''t at all seem like the standard you were stomping your feet about earlier, and there are certainly some deep complications, but no one wants that dumbass can of worms re-opened.

Plus, there's a more pressing and immediate issue...

I have to ask again...you do understand how impeachment works, right? That if Trump is impeached not only is it just Trump that is impeached but it would have to be done in cooperation with Republicans in office? And that Republicans cannot be forced to impeach the president-where that true we would have impeached this asshole last year and wouldn't be here right now.

Just what is it exactly do you think it is that's being proposed?

It's absolutely the same standard, the condemnation of violence and the refusal to make excuses for it. Conservatives seem ready to do that and my concern is pursuing impeachment might dissuade them.

If you're worried about republican congressmen committing acts of terrorism let me assuage your fears; less than half of them would probably do that.

Well, that had nothing to do with what I asked.

This has been productive.

[Des-Bal]

Well, that had nothing to do with what I asked.

This has been productive.

It absolutely did, where do you think I'm evading the issue?

[Cannot think of a name]

Well, that had nothing to do with what I asked.

This has been productive.

It absolutely did, where do you think I'm evading the issue?

Completely? Your answer was a complete non-sequitor.

[Des-Bal]

Completely? Your answer was a complete non-sequitor.

You said I was espousing a different standard and I explained how I wasn't.

You argued impeachment would require the support of republican congressmen, I pointed out that congressmen weren't the only people to be concerned with.

[Cannot think of a name]

Completely? Your answer was a complete non-sequitor.

You said I was espousing a different standard and I explained how I wasn't.

You are, but I also said we're not going down that road again.

You argued impeachment would require the support of republican congressmen, I pointed out that congressmen weren't the only people to be concerned with.

So the threat of terror means we shouldn't hold people to account?

EDIT: Wait, I need to expand on that. The threat of terror is exactly the reason it's in the Republican's best interest to cut out Trump like a tumor. If they don't, if they don't define the Republican Party within a set of lines that doesn't include the kind of things that Trump has engaged in and encouraged then the Republican Party will forever be more beholden to the literal worst of themselves at the cost of the ones who do not identify with jackasses storming the capitol building. That kind of disassociation isn't punishment, it's life saving surgery.

Which is why, despite your dogged insistence that it didn't happen, civil rights protesters constantly repudiated violence and often policed it themselves, which made calls for them to do it again as a racist mob sacked the capitol building do it again so extremely tone deaf.

Having the leadership of the party re-assert their leadership rather than concede it to Trump is not 'putting the boots on people' or 'putting them down,' it's the party defining itself, and honestly has nothing to do with the Democrats as it is taken as a given that they do not approve.

[Des-Bal]

You are, but I also said we're not going down that road again.

So the threat of terror means we shouldn't hold people to account?

EDIT: Wait, I need to expand on that. The threat of terror is exactly the reason it's in the Republican's best interest to cut out Trump like a tumor. If they don't, if they don't define the Republican Party within a set of lines that doesn't include the kind of things that Trump has engaged in and encouraged then the Republican Party will forever be more beholden to the literal worst of themselves at the cost of the ones who do not identify with jackasses storming the capitol building. That kind of disassociation isn't punishment, it's life saving surgery.

Which is why, despite your dogged insistence that it didn't happen, civil rights protesters constantly repudiated violence and often policed it themselves, which made calls for them to do it again as a racist mob sacked the capitol building do it again so extremely tone deaf.

Having the leadership of the party re-assert their leadership rather than concede it to Trump is not 'putting the boots on people' or 'putting them down,' it's the party defining itself, and honestly has nothing to do with the Democrats as it is taken as a given that they do not approve.

I am not and if you don't want to defend the things you say don't say them.

No, the prospect of getting out of the hole is more appealing than the castigation of those who got us here if we cannot have both. Or to keep with your metaphor without neoadjuvant therapy this tumor may be inoperable.

[Cannot think of a name]

You are, but I also said we're not going down that road again.

So the threat of terror means we shouldn't hold people to account?

EDIT: Wait, I need to expand on that. The threat of terror is exactly the reason it's in the Republican's best interest to cut out Trump like a tumor. If they don't, if they don't define the Republican Party within a set of lines that doesn't include the kind of things that Trump has engaged in and encouraged then the Republican Party will forever be more beholden to the literal worst of themselves at the cost of the ones who do not identify with jackasses storming the capitol building. That kind of disassociation isn't punishment, it's life saving surgery.

Which is why, despite your dogged insistence that it didn't happen, civil rights protesters constantly repudiated violence and often policed it themselves, which made calls for them to do it again as a racist mob sacked the capitol building do it again so extremely tone deaf.

Having the leadership of the party re-assert their leadership rather than concede it to Trump is not 'putting the boots on people' or 'putting them down,' it's the party defining itself, and honestly has nothing to do with the Democrats as it is taken as a given that they do not approve.

I am not and if you don't want to defend the things you say don't say them.

No, the prospect of getting out of the hole is more appealing than the castigation of those who got us here if we cannot have both. Or to keep with your metaphor without neoadjuvant therapy this tumor may be inoperable.

To the first metaphor, you cannot get out of the hole unless you stop digging, to the next, then the tumor will kill the patient.

[Des-Bal]

To the first metaphor, you cannot get out of the hole unless you stop digging, to the next, then the tumor will kill the patient.

Reconciliation is how you stop digging. One of the great things about neoadjuvant therapy is that a tumor can be operable.

In either case the ultimate issue is what the conservative reaction to the capitol siege can and cannot bear. I am confident it can bear de-escalation I am not confident it can bear the first impeachment and conviction of a US president.

[Diahon]

To the first metaphor, you cannot get out of the hole unless you stop digging, to the next, then the tumor will kill the patient.

Reconciliation is how you stop digging. One of the great things about neoadjuvant therapy is that a tumor can be operable.

In either case the ultimate issue is what the conservative reaction to the capitol siege can and cannot bear. I am confident it can bear de-escalation I am not confident it can bear the first impeachment and conviction of a US president.

reconciliation is how you keep on digging certain mines, including the most important of them -- that trump's brand of authoritarianism is perfectly okay, may we have another, pretty please?

[Cannot think of a name]

To the first metaphor, you cannot get out of the hole unless you stop digging, to the next, then the tumor will kill the patient.

Reconciliation is how you stop digging. One of the great things about neoadjuvant therapy is that a tumor can be operable.

In either case the ultimate issue is what the conservative reaction to the capitol siege can and cannot bear. I am confident it can bear de-escalation I am not confident it can bear the first impeachment and conviction of a US president.

Well, maybe if you clutch those pearls hard enough they'll turn into diamonds.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I dont know about you but I'm not ready to reconcile with people who desire to do me and my family serious harm. I dont think I need to make more of an effort than them considering I don't wake up in the morning and wish ill on anyone for their race or politics, and I dont want a fight.

[Senkaku]

Reconciliation is how you stop digging.

Asking people to unconditionally “reconcile” with their would-be murderers is a funny way of trying to avoid violence.

[Cannot think of a name]

Reconciliation is how you stop digging.

Asking people to unconditionally “reconcile” with their would-be murderers is a funny way of trying to avoid violence.

"Hello, 911? There's a mob breaking into my house!"
"Have you tried forgiving them? It's the only way to move on. If we arrest them, they might be mad."

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Reconciliation works sometimes. However, whrn it comes to the far right, it allows them another opportunity to abuse your trust. Civility politics is the death of resistance against dangerous movements.

[Diahon]

Reconciliation is how you stop digging.

Asking people to unconditionally “reconcile” with their would-be murderers is a funny way of trying to avoid violence.

i mean, look at the congresspeople and their staff in the capitol -- republican and democrat alike -- going kumbaya with the people who might have plotted with the insurrectionists to capture and kill them!

ain't that reconciliation sweet?

[Jedi Council]

About four years too late.

They get zero credit for abandoning him when the thing they have been warned about for years finally happened. They get zero credit for anything when sensible people have been ripping their hair our trying to show Trump for the dickweed charlatan that he is for years, and were ignored time and again.

I don’t regret supporting Trump though, because what he did manage to do before 2020, including tax cuts, formation of anti-China bloc in Asia, border security, etc. was good

So then the riot was worth a few right wing policy successes?

[Des-Bal]

I dont know about you but I'm not ready to reconcile with people who desire to do me and my family serious harm. I dont think I need to make more of an effort than them considering I don't wake up in the morning and wish ill on anyone for their race or politics, and I dont want a fight.

Trumpeteers threatened to blow up my office, and after a series of hostile interactions and in person death threats a member of my family has flipped the script on the second amendment and purchased a gun in case their neighbors try to murder them because of their race.

I'd love to see Trump in prison and I'd love to see his son join him. I'm not talking about giving people what they deserve I'm talking about the clearest path to peace.

The issue is not wanting to reconcile and not wanting to fight are contradictory goals. Is the best way to capitalize on the enemy's disgust with an act of violence by calling on them to prove their commitment? I think it's going to re-entrench them and it's going to require to make excuses for the attack on the Capitol until some nutbars feel justified in the next thing.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I don't see how reconciliation is possible until Trump concedes he lost.

[Cannot think of a name]

I dont know about you but I'm not ready to reconcile with people who desire to do me and my family serious harm. I dont think I need to make more of an effort than them considering I don't wake up in the morning and wish ill on anyone for their race or politics, and I dont want a fight.

Trumpeteers threatened to blow up my office, and after a series of hostile interactions and in person death threats a member of my family has flipped the script on the second amendment and purchased a gun in case their neighbors try to murder them because of their race.

I'd love to see Trump in prison and I'd love to see his son join him. I'm not talking about giving people what they deserve I'm talking about the clearest path to peace.

The issue is not wanting to reconcile and not wanting to fight are contradictory goals. Is the best way to capitalize on the enemy's disgust with an act of violence by calling on them to prove their commitment? I think it's going to re-entrench them and it's going to require to make excuses for the attack on the Capitol until some nutbars feel justified in the next thing.

But insisting that people who have been fighting against police brutality and for civil rights stretching back 400 years who were called 'sons of bitches' when they kneeled need to 'self reflect' on the violence that happened on the fringe of their movement because it 'is part of a pattern' that contributes to the violence at the capitol? And that won't lead to entrenchment and isn't part of a centuries long pattern of marginalizing the fight for civil rights in this country?

You sure have a lot of excuses for right wing violence and a lot of strict demands for those struggling against actual grievances.

It's a good look.

[Kowani]

I don't see how reconciliation is possible until Trump concedes he lost.

*admits he lost fairly
none of this "voter fraud" "stolen election" "cheating democrats" nonsense

[Juristonia]

Reconciliation only works if the people you want to reconcile with have stopped being a flaming pile of assholes first.
You can't reconcile with someone who is still determined to punch you in the face.

[Cannot think of a name]

Reconciliation only works if the people you want to reconcile with have stopped being a flaming pile of assholes first.
You can't reconcile with someone who is still determined to punch you in the face.

But if we just give in they might be good this time. They pinkie swear.

[Juristonia]

Reconciliation only works if the people you want to reconcile with have stopped being a flaming pile of assholes first.
You can't reconcile with someone who is still determined to punch you in the face.

But if we just give in they might be good this time. They pinkie swear.

And if we don't, we're the real bad guys here!

[Des-Bal]

But insisting that people who have been fighting against police brutality and for civil rights stretching back 400 years who were called 'sons of bitches' when they kneeled need to 'self reflect' on the violence that happened on the fringe of their movement because it 'is part of a pattern' that contributes to the violence at the capitol? And that won't lead to entrenchment and isn't part of a centuries long pattern of marginalizing the fight for civil rights in this country?

You sure have a lot of excuses for right wing violence and a lot of strict demands for those struggling against actual grievances.

It's a good look.

I've made zero excuses for anyone's behavior and never expected anyone to do more than abstain from committing or endorsing political violence. It seems asymmetrical because you compulsively read out the litany of wrongs justifying and minimizing violence when you support those who perpetrate it. That is exactly what I anticipate the trumpeteers will do once the shock wears off.

The neat thing about using a litany to justify things is that it gets bigger every year and the bigger it gets the more bodies you can sweep under it.

[Cannot think of a name]

But insisting that people who have been fighting against police brutality and for civil rights stretching back 400 years who were called 'sons of bitches' when they kneeled need to 'self reflect' on the violence that happened on the fringe of their movement because it 'is part of a pattern' that contributes to the violence at the capitol? And that won't lead to entrenchment and isn't part of a centuries long pattern of marginalizing the fight for civil rights in this country?

You sure have a lot of excuses for right wing violence and a lot of strict demands for those struggling against actual grievances.

It's a good look.

I've made zero excuses for anyone's behavior and never expected anyone to do more than abstain from committing or endorsing political violence. It seems asymmetrical because you compulsively read out the litany of wrongs justifying and minimizing violence when you support those who perpetrate it. That is exactly what I anticipate the trumpeteers will do once the shock wears off.

The neat thing about using a litany to justify things is that it gets bigger every year and the bigger it gets the more bodies you can sweep under it.

No man, that's just your inability to see past your self righteousness. I haven't justified a goddamn thing and it's weird that you think I have. Instead what I've done is continued to point out your flawed premises that you keep clinging to like a life raft.

No one has made excuses for violence then or now during the civil rights protests, you have just kept insisting that they continue to repudiate it while the smoke hasn't even cleared during a right wing attack. I merely pointed out that doing so is part of a long pattern of dismissing and marginalizing the struggle for civil rights.

That's not making an excuse for violence, that's pointing out your bullshit premise is bullshit.

No one made excuses then or now for the violence that happened at CHOP, the organizers were concerned about it when CHOP began because 'enlightened' folk like you that have dutifully played their role that has upheld the white supremist agenda by clutching you pearls, and were concerned about the violence that happened.

That's not making excuses for violence, that's just your bullshit premise.

Pointing out that when CHOP wasn't able to prevent all violence over the course of 10 days during tense times the entire community, who were for the most part were holding townhall discussions, providing medical care, and creating art, were met with rubber bullets and tear gas...that to suggest that was a 'successful' use of violence when CHOP was then and in your own words now used to diminish and dismiss the struggle for civil rights was a flawed premise.

That there was a direct line between the violence that happened at CHOP and the right wing militia fueled violence and the left needed to take inventory was ridiculous on its face when the very same people that sacked the capitol building were also the ones that have been showing up at peaceful protests all summer disrupting them and driving cars throough them. And unlike the civil rights movements that often took measures to quell violence in their own ranks, elected officials made excuses for them and even went so far as to make the act of driving their cars through protesters legal. AFTER someone had taken a life doing so. And that while the smoke cleared on their attack it was tone deaf at best and part of a long history of racism at worst to look at white right wing violence and cluck your tongue and say, "Well...those civil rights activists sure have a lot to answer for."

That's not making excuses for left wing violence, that's pointing out that your bullshit premise once again let's the violent right off the hook.

I pointed out that you have twisted yourselves into pretzels to make a false equivalence about escalating violence without looking at the well documented continued rise of right wing domestic terrorism and the continued refusal to address it. That we would have to look through twisted prisms to find a way to blame the left for this while meanwhile right wing militias aim guns at police to defend a rich white rancher with little consequence.

Pointing out that your premises are god-fucking-awful is not making excuses. That was just something you guys pulled from your asses along with your terrible premises.

But saying that the left needs to continually apologize like you're some sort of ideological ED 209 while wringing your hands that there might be a shred of consequence for the elected officials who have abused their office and used it to encourage and endorse violence because some of their feelings might get hurt, that is some of that high grade hypocrisy you like to accuse others of and could do with some of that self reflection you keep prescribing.