Accusation of being misleading seems like projection
Re: Argument misleading (March 5)
One person claiming to be an exception to a generalization and that they are a “law-abiding Canadian” that approves of violent political tactics does not negate the generality, since it lacked the qualifier “all”, and especially if they’re using a broader definition of political violence than the other person was. The generalization “all political violence is bad” depends on what qualifies as political violence in that context.
There’s a small matter of faulty logic regarding past examples of people using violence for political ends. The letter-writer seems to follow the reasoning that since violence was used by certain groups in the past, and important freedoms were won by those groups, that therefore the violence was responsible for those freedoms being won. That may be true in some cases, but it’s not necessarily true in all cases, especially if one can historically prove that some violence actually held back, rather than advanced, some of the causes being fought for, so then theoretically it may have delayed accomplishing the goal. What, pray tell, was I cherry-picking?
I was simply pointing out that violence is situational and that using it doesn’t always have the desired results, even if it’s justifiable, and sometimes it’s futile, so then people have to use their heads when determining whether it’s worth it, especially if the ballot box exists as an option. What exactly was “intentionally misleading” about it? Accusing me of intentionally misleading people sounds like some IMAX level projection.
I never appointed myself supreme and absolute arbiter of commendable vs. condemnable violence. Considering the letter-writer has previously indicated that their reading comprehension is without fault, the only other possibility is they like to routinely deliberately misrepresent others’ positions. I wonder what the letter-writer thinks of political violence that actively harms those the activists in question claim to be helping or speaking on behalf of.
Trump is already out of office so who cares; letting him live rent-free in your head like that can’t be healthy. Bringing up the Trump quote about fine people on both sides isn’t the gotcha the letter-writer thought it was. I don’t believe a person can be both a bigot and a fine person.
The riots this past summer were in cities represented and run by left-wing Democrat party governments for many decades. They control their local police. They’re the system that is systemically perpetuating the unbalanced power dynamic. They embody the systemic systems of stuctural institutions. They could make positive changes for the minority communities who overwhelmingly vote for them all in a second and yet choose not to. Let that sink in.
April J. Gibson
Duncan