Odd Legal Question

[robkelk]

Maybe I'm just too socially conservative for my own good here, but BLM/ANTIFA from where I'm sitting (and most news you get is likely edited to hide THEM being the instigators) are just political terrorists with better publicity. The MAGA morons involved on January 6 were just as bad only they don't benefit half as much from the media carrying water for them.

If anything, I despise both. Violence from either is not needed or justified to achieve political ends. I have too much faith in democracy apparently, but I believe far more can be accomplished, entirely within the law, than will ever be done outside of it. Anyone who approves of either side using terror, arson, assault, or murder registers my disgust, as no place that calls itself civilized can afford to tolerate such things. If people cannot peaceably petition for redress of grievances, regardless of their political side, I have no tolerance for it.

Well, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about these groups.

BLM: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of people who are upset about the number of non-white people being killed by police. Their goal is the reform of the criminal justice system to treat everyone equally. Often impersonated by people who want to discredit them.

ANTIFA: Not actually a group; rather, a loose collection of left-wing people who are against facism. They use "both nonviolent and violent direct action" instead of policy reform. "Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views". (Which to me sounds suspiciously like Wikipedia's definition of Libertarianism.)

MAGA: The GOP's 2016 and 2020 campaign slogan.

If those are incorrect, then please update the Wikipedia articles. Don't forget to provide sources - they insist on citations.

Wikipedia wipes its own backside with the concept of objectivity and cowers behind what they consider reliable sources for any political topic to pretend otherwise. There is good reason no school worthy of the name will allow you to cite Wikipedia articles as sources for an assignment. The stuff that they haven't politicized is decent enough, but they will bend over backwards to declare sources that make their cause celebres look good as reliable sources and then use that to frame their position on those topics under the false light of objectivity. Their political objectivity on any contemporary topic is worth less than my last bowel movement.

And Brent, thanks for explaining this whole thing in a way where an organized conspiracy makes sense.

I refer you to this ATT page..

If you don't like that source, then supply another source that can be read outside of the USA.

Rob, I was not attacking you, I was saying Wikipedia's objectivity on social and political issues is worthless and has been for at least a decade now. They cower behind reliable sources as a shield, and what they consider reliable sources is even more baldly obvious in their political bias. As someone who studies history, they write hagiography for what they like and Two Minutes Hate level things about whatever they don't. Much like the Nazi fanboy we kicked off ATT (since you brought that up), I won't take anyone who says Hitler did nothing wrong seriously, and on political and social commentary on any topic within the last decade or so, Wikipedia is objectively worthless and cannot talk about anything in that regard without trying to frame the argument to suit the views of their editors while they carefully and selectively choose "reliable sources" that agree with them for the fig leaf of objectivity.

Again, this is not an insult to you and was not intended as such. I consider the study of history very important. I'm a devout Christian, but I'll happily admit my faith has a lot of horrific moments in its entire history worthy of shame and I don't shrink from admitting it. I'm a proud American, but our history is streaked in blood and we have disgraces in our national past I have no problem owning up to it because refusal to acknowledge the past without bias means one cannot learn any honest lesson from it. Ergo, anything that purports to profess fact and instead shows naked bias and has the brass to claim otherwise has my disgust due to my love of discerning the truth as divorced from any bias for or against that truth.

That completely ignores my point.

I presented definitions from a source that's available worldwide.

You proceeded to attack the source, ignoring the content - that's a straight-up classic Ad Hominem fallacy.

When I called you on it, I asked you to provide an alternate source for definitions.

In reply, you doubled down on the Ad Hominem and failed to "supply another source that can be read outside of the USA".

At this point, I can only assume that you are not interested in debating the actual issue.