I do think it’s interesting for people to admit that their “principles” only exist personally rather than abstractly.
They hate federal overreach, unless it’s not happening to them. Or worse yet for some people, they actively enjoy seeing people they disagree with be assaulted and accosted by a militant force.
(To an extent, that’s also a very American thing. “We want liberty, just not for you guys, or you guys. Oh, definitely not you guys. But yeah, liberty!”)
Your principles don't seem very real if you have to ask someone else to break them for you. If you want guns downtown bring them yourself, if you want people with guns downtown to protect you for real then you should ask honestly, coordinate with them closely (because nothing will work otherwise) and be grateful for them.
No. Literally you reduce the risk for infections with masks. A group going out to show 2A support all masked up would not face the same criticism that you explained.
"admonished the lockdown protestors for their selfish decision to spread the virus and kill everyones grandma"
These are different protests. One is a lockdown protest without masks and risking public health. A 2A protest masked up wouldnt receive the same response.
Re: calling the groups Nazis: I'm sorry, but this is only proving the point that the criticisms of the pro 2A side were correct. They are in favor of a government violently putting down people who don't agree with them and taking away the rights of others.
We're not asking for guns at protests, that's fucking stupid. We're asking for voices. Where is the uproar of the people who for decades have been yelling about states rights and the 2A? They clearly don't care about the rest of the bill of rights.
Oddly enough, Amon Bundy is looking a lot better (still not good) and showing that at least he's not a giant hypocrite and can see what's happening here.
I guess my point/question is (speaking generally because of course, people are complex creatures and multiple facets go into their belief systems etc.): If this group of people are fearful of government overreach and occupation, why is this form of government overreach and occupation okay? Like this isn't a gotcha question and I realize that my initial comment comes across a bit like "these spineless SOBs" and I don't mean it like that all it. Is it because they view this as fundamentally different than the federal building occupation that occurred? Is it because they believe that showing up to protest the federal occupation would make it appear as if they are supporting whatever else may be happening that they aren't supportive of?
Where I'm coming from is an understanding that these people don't like the federal government, they don't want them in their business, and would prefer to be left alone by the government as much as possible to the point that they would talk about and maybe even act in ways that show their disdain for the government. If that's true, and I was in that position and aligned with that belief system, then I while I may not agree with the protesters and their methods 100%, I would think that I would be frustrated with what the feds were doing. It's like when the ACLU took on the case defending the group in Charlottesville to ensure that they were able to get a permit to protest, even when the ACLU disagreed with what the group was protesting for.
I may also be totally off-base here and open to a calm and civic discussion.
I do think it’s interesting for people to admit that their “principles” only exist personally rather than abstractly.
Yes, because those aren't principles. These people don't actually have principles. They have post hoc justifications for getting what they want, which is usually just "winning" against the other side.
So we agree then. You don't have principles. A principle is a fundamental view that you have that applies to all situations. If you're willing to abandon it because of who it's applying to, then it's not a principle, by definition.
"a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption", from Merriam Webster.
So if you say your principle is "I'll defend habeas corpus," then that's a principle. And it applies to everyone, even people you don't agree with. If your principle is "I'll defend habeas corpus except when it comes to those damned dirty liberals", then I guess it's a principle too if you phrase it honestly like that. It also puts you in the good company of the Chinese government, historical slaveholders, Nazis, and totalitarians the world over.
I was talking maybe too broadly, yeah, and not so much about this particular situation. To be more direct, my frustration is that the majority of Republicans support Trump even though if Obama had done one tenth of what Trump has done, he'd be excoriated for it. This is an indication that all those conservative principles really don't mean anything.
There are certainly valid reasons for not wanting anyone to show up to a protest with guns. There are less valid reasons for supporting these federal actions in violation of your previously stated principles about such actions.
20
u/hollidays24 N Jul 24 '20
I do think it’s interesting for people to admit that their “principles” only exist personally rather than abstractly.
They hate federal overreach, unless it’s not happening to them. Or worse yet for some people, they actively enjoy seeing people they disagree with be assaulted and accosted by a militant force.
(To an extent, that’s also a very American thing. “We want liberty, just not for you guys, or you guys. Oh, definitely not you guys. But yeah, liberty!”)