ACP45 wrote:
"Let me put this in terms even Democrats can understand.
Let's say a white police officer k**led a black man who did nothing wrong. Unlike G****e F***d, this man had not committed any crime, did not resist arrest, didn't have f******l in his system and had no record of violent crime. Assume this poor guy was a law-abiding, taxpaying, churchgoing American and that the cop k**led him for the crime of "driving while black."
How do the police react? They say the shooting was righteous.
They refuse to investigate. There is bodycam footage, but they refuse to release it. And get this: They refuse to allow anyone to even talk about it. If any cop talks about it, he loses his job. If anyone in the black community talks about it, social media will suspend them or ban them for life.What would all of that mean to you? Guilty as charged, right? The police must be covering up a crime. No one who's innocent acts like that, right?
Guess what? That's equivalent to the reaction (or, should I say, overreaction) of liberals, Democrats and assorted socialists and c*******ts when Republicans make accusations of massive v***r f***d in the 2020 p**********l e******n.I thought we're all allowed to have our opinion in America. I thought we have free speech. I thought we have a right to investigate. I thought we have a right to see the videotapes. I thought we have a right to forensic audits.
The fix is in. It's crystal clear to me now that not only was the e******n r****d but so is everything post-e******n. It's simple psychology. Just look at the absurd reaction, or overreaction, by Democrats."
https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2021/05/09/heres-how-you-know-democrats-r****d-and-stole-the-2020-e******n-n2589148"Let me put this in terms even Democrats can ... (
show quote)
Unfortunately, this post didn’t have the effect on l*****ts it should have.
Let me take a stab at why I think that is.
The logic in the OP is based on false equivalency.
You see, this analogy assumes that it would be possible for the l*****t mind to “equate” the death of “American liberty” with the death of an “innocent black man”.
That is because, well, two reasons actually, first, for the left mindset, America is “systematically r****t”, therefore, in their twisted reasoning, cannot even be conceived of at all by them as somehow being “innocent” to begin with (in fact it’s questionable if l*****ts even value “liberty” as being a “virtue” at all; based on their actions, it’s clearly not an important one of any priority at all). Secondly, all b****s being accosted by cops are already determined by l*****ts to be victims based on the inherent “institutional r****m” against such that could only be the cause (in the their mind) why an LEO would even accost a poc to begin with. Thus the plain logic of the post is simply lost on the l*****t mind. It may as well have been written in Swahili.
Furthermore, for l*****ts, the death of a black person, or any other person of color, is only important if it is perpetrated by a white LEO, (or any other person, including another poc, that has been brainwashed and indoctrinated by whom they have already predetermined and labeled as “w***e s*********ts”). This is made abundantly clear by how they can magnify the extent of “innocent” b****s k**led by cops and practically totally ignore the huge amount of b****s k**led by other b****s. Therefore, death of “American liberty” to a Marxist liberal can be more reasonably equated to something as inconsequential to then as the death of any poc in, for example, the ghettos by other poc’s, or by a******n. The article thus falsely assumes that l*****ts could possibly have any sympathy or loyalty or even appreciation for “American liberty” to begin with.
Bottom line is, the major failure, (in this otherwise extremely logical attempt at reasoning with l*****ts on their own level), grossly underestimates the “immunity to reason” the left has inoculated themselves with by their ability to apply “double standards” at will against any reasonable attacks against their ideology. The only rule they play by with alternative viewpoints is, heads we win, tails you lose. That imbalance is precisely what the OP attempted to balance, but fails on that very score!
It is a major shortcoming in such an exchange that conservatives maintain their conviction to do unto others as they would have others do to them. L*****ts have no such moral convictions, there is only their agenda of ideology at all cost.
When the ends justify the means, as it is with l*****ts and their Marxist agenda, anything that contradicts or challenges their agenda is by that fact alone to be negated out of hand. No reasoning to the contrary is even allowed, let alone entertained.
And that is why any and all such reasoning with l*****ts is futile.
So, the l*****t mind twists the original post to be, in their view, evidence enough for them against the view on the part of the author of the article. Why? Because it was written against supporting their agenda, and that is all they need to know. Their bigotry is thus enforced, rather than challenged, as was intended by the original post. Why? Because anything that challenges their agenda is by that fact alone evidence to them of an inferior mind that can’t even grasp their “higher purpose” of “social justice”. And therefore any defense of their agenda on their part, no matter how illogical or unsubstantiated or immoral, or even <gasp> r****t on their part, is superior to any conservative position, no matter how logical, constitutional or moral. Because for them the ends justify the means. That’s why calling for and supporting non-peaceful r**ting on their part is virtuous, but resistance of any kind against their agenda is to be renounced as r*******n and anarchy and punished to the full extent of the law and public peer pressure.
That is why only a personal moral awakening will ever be able to pierce the void of their “inoculation of immunity” from common sense and true, godly morals.
But that’s just my opinion.