My statement was anecdotal and this is a fair point. I was not alive then.
That isnāt what he is doing. He didnāt say the violence is moral if the people behind it are moral. He is saying that if you compare what is believed: anti-racism vs racism, aside from the violence, then you can make a distinction. He played the video of Trump saying there were good people on both sides. So racists are good people when compared to non-racists?
But are his beliefs less evil? Because that is what Cuomo was discussing.
Thatās exactly what heās doing or there is absolutely no reason for him to be doing it. He put a ābutā at the end of a general condemnation of violence. A ābutā negates the first part by definition. Itās like offering an apology with a ābutā at the end. An apology with a ābutā isnāt an apology. āNazis who drive cars into crowds are bad, but at least they arenāt killing millions of babies.ā There is only one reason there is a ābutā at the end of a condemnation, to negate the condemnation.
Letās not forget the justified outrage and condemnation at Trump when (as you point out) he did this same thing. Presumably, we agree in condemning trump for his relative moral-ism.
And yes, there are some racists who are morally far superior to non-racists. Non-violent racists are relatively more moral than violent non-racists. However, I donāt put ābutsā attached to my condemnations of racism.
A person who does violence negates all value in their abstract ābeliefsā. An antifa member that believes in political violence is more evil than a KKK member who believes in non-violence.
He put a but because Trump was unwilling to condemn racism.
You might want to rethink that. If someone opposed to racism punches someone in anger, the belief that racism is wrong loses its value? This is the mistake you are making when it comes to Cuomo. He is saying to not let the actions of some people reflect upon the message. He called out those who do, like Antifa, for making the discussion turn from the message to the violent actions on its behalf. He called out Trump for not being willing to make that distinction.
What about the ends? Is the KKK member less evil if he uses non-violent means to further his agenda? Is a person living under an oppressive regime, oppressive by our standards, evil if he uses violent means to overthrow the government and bring about democracy? Were the people who tried to assassinate Hitler in order to bring about political change evil? What about the Founding Fathers?
The one who starts it is most wrong. And, once you start showing up with ice picks you definitely arenāt on the right side, either. Youāre just another person looking for justification to hurt someone. This fudging just seems irresponsible.
Cuomo condemned the violence. He is saying that if they are equivalent as far as violence goes, it doesnāt mean that their beliefs are equivalent. If anti-Nazis attack Nazis, we can say it was wrong to use violence but we wouldnāt say being anti-Nazi is wrong and we wouldnāt say that because the Nazis were attacked, that Nazis are good.
1 Like
And he should have stopped there.
And the president should have made a distinction between racists and those who oppose them rather than say there were good people on both sides.
1 Like
According to him he was talking about the people who were there solely to oppose taking down confederate statues. Despite opposing him, this seems more plausible than truly believing he was including the actual white supremacists in the good people category.
And no, I donāt believe simply opposing the removal of confederate statues makes one a white nationalist or supremacist.
I wouldnāt know about that. He has spoken of Putin and Kim Jong in terms that ignore they are dictators who do not believe in civil rights. Maybe his default mode is to kiss ass.
Can we judge them by the company they keep? I mean, if they arenāt automatically racist, maybe they should not mix in with them.
What about allying with racists? That doesnāt seem like the best way to get that message across.
Is this the same POTUS who caved like a bitch on global TV while 10 feet away from Americaās most powerful enemy?
The hell does plausible matter anymore?
Nope, I agree. But neither is having violent elements show up at your non-permited counter rallies.
No ābuts.ā I donāt like the idea that he treats these people like a bullied child.
āNow you know what Iāve told you about punching people, young man! Still, I meanā¦ā
Condemn them (antifa) and then move on. Donāt use them to make some point that is still kind of encouraging, really.
It is the very same.
Gotcha. Just checking
Strange times
If itās encouraging itās because people (mis)understand things out of convenience. So those who say Cuomo was not condemning violence say that because that is what they wanted to believe since he is part of the āleftistā media. And any antifa members who think he is doing some wink wink when it comes to violence do so because that is what they wanted to believe anyway. One thing though, antifa hates Cuomo, hates CNN.
I can just hear this right wing condemnation of Nazis similar to what Coumo did. āLetās first be clear about one thing, Nazis are bad, they are losers and killing people is wrong. That said, drawing moral equivalence between them and people that kill babies for a living is BS. Nazis chemically murdering Jews with the good intention of trying to make their country better arenāt morally the same as people who kill babies out of a motive of convenienceā¦ā
Wow, that would be quite the ringing condemnation of Nazis thereā¦ not.
Who is killing babies?
Isnāt Gab providing such a space for people to publish whatever they feel like?