There's a reason you're reacting to my comparison of these people to ISIS, rather than suggesting that ISIS recruitment videos be permitted. ISIS represents something "beyond the pale", so obviously bad that it's okay if we censor it because it's dangerous and seditious.
You object to the comparison because it's an attack. We all know ISIS is bad, so the only reason to comparing these people to them is to make it seem like they're bad too, even though they're trying to say a lot of reasonable things if someone would just listen with an open mind!
Obviously, not everyone on r/DonaldTrump is down to invade the capitol. I'm sure there are plenty of people who support ISIS that don't support their violence either. No group is homogenously made up of cartoon villains. But that doesn't mean we need to be fine with the recruiting grounds for their most violent sects.
To be clear, your rhetorical position is the exact same as mine. You're perfectly fine with the exact same censorship you're ostensibly criticizing. You just want the line to be drawn somewhere else.
It is certainly looking that way to me. At least ~80% of them. They're all going along with this bullshit apart from a few more principled ones who are in it for the money/ self enrichment only.
I think it's unfortunate that you feel this way, especially if it's without any evidence. I wouldn't say that 80% of liberals are communists and socialists. I think this mentality will only further the division between sides.
I don't believe most conservatives agree with his rhetoric, they just like his policies for the most part. They probably don't even like him much, they just dislike the direction the democratic side is going enough to vote for him.
> I don't believe most conservatives agree with his rhetoric, they just like his policies for the most part. They probably don't even like him much, they just dislike the direction the democratic side is going enough to vote for him.
"I don't care for Hitler's rhetoric, I just voted for the Nazis because I think he has some good ideas about infrastructure and I like his jobs plan" doesn't exactly come across as sympathetic. Especially not after it becomes obvious where the trains are going.
If you're a conservative or a Republican who supports Trump for his politics alone, or because he was the R and you hate the D, the moral thing to do as of January 6 is to disavow Trump entirely, and look for another candidate who supports his views, or perhaps consider supporting a third party. Not to dig in and continue making excuses for him and his supporters.
Can you be upset and disavow what someone says but still support them? The instant someone says something "bad" they should be just thrown out?
I don't agree with a lot of what Trump says, but I don't hold him accountable for others' actions unless he specifically called for violence which I don't think he did in this case. He does say some questionable things, but has always disavowed violence on both sides.
Obama has promulgated lots of anti-police rhetoric, and there are some who would blame him for certain attacks on police. I disagree with things he said, but would not blame him for any of that.
If you truly can't see any relationship between Trump's rhetoric and the behavior of his extremist base - particularly with the conspiracy theory of the 2020 election being stolen from him - a conspiracy theory he continued to spread at every available moment and which provided the impetus behind numerous incidents of violence leading up to the events at the Capitol just days earlier - then we may be at an impasse.
As far as I can tell, Obama is considered "anti-police" simply because he supports BLM, but BLM have legitimate concerns about police violence and systemic racism in law enforcement, and voicing those concerns doesn't make one anti-police. I have yet to find an "anti-police" statement made by Obama which condemns all police and calls them all evil, that is at all equivalent to the vitriol or paranoia in Trump's rhetoric.
It seems like a false equivalence drawn between the two.
There are people out there that are crazy, and will use anything to justify their actions. Unless he called for a specific action, I don't see how he is to blame. It would be setting a bad precedent to blame or punish anyone that said something provacative that is not explicitly a call for inciting harm/violence. People need to be held responsible for their own actions.
I believe Obama used carefully picked statistics to say there is widespread racism in the police. There are likely racist people/cops, but I don't believe there is evidence to suggest widespread racism.
