Skip to main content
20 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 1, 2017 at 18:56 comment added Drunk Cynic Reporting from Politico, sharing the details of a Department of Homeland Security warning that was provided to the Law Enforcement parties of Virginia on the 9th of August, demonstrations indications and warnings that both sides intended to act violently. Link: politico.com/story/2017/08/29/…
S Aug 23, 2017 at 10:50 history suggested Ellie K CC BY-SA 3.0
removed utm tracking tags; minor grammar and spelling corrections
Aug 23, 2017 at 9:29 review Suggested edits
S Aug 23, 2017 at 10:50
Aug 21, 2017 at 23:19 history edited aroth CC BY-SA 3.0
added 538 characters in body
S Aug 21, 2017 at 20:00 history suggested Pharap CC BY-SA 3.0
Declaring the acts of a single person as the act of an entire 'side' is misrepresentation
Aug 21, 2017 at 16:49 review Suggested edits
S Aug 21, 2017 at 20:00
Aug 21, 2017 at 16:23 comment added rath The controversy comes from the implication that (1) there was approximately the same amount of violence from both sides, or that (2) the violence from one side somehow excuses or lessens the violence committed by the other. Both are false. I submit to you that, having watched the President's speech, the implication itself is false. Nowhere did he imply (1) or (2) as numbered above. Of course I might be mistaken, so if someone could kindly provide me with a pertinent timestamp
Aug 21, 2017 at 12:46 review Suggested edits
Aug 21, 2017 at 12:50
Aug 20, 2017 at 20:19 comment added sgf I see nothing in the specific quote the OP put in that supports your statement that Trump is trying to create an equivalence between the two sides anymore than, say, that he tries to counteract a percieved one-sidedness in media coverage. Skeptically asking: How do you know what Trump means, as opposed to what he says? Your interpretation seems valid to me, but it's not the only one that is.
Aug 20, 2017 at 8:48 history edited Sklivvz CC BY-SA 3.0
Restructured to emphasize the facts first. Moderated an exaggeration.
Aug 20, 2017 at 8:44 comment added Sklivvz There are many forums where debating political opinions is OK. Unfortunately, this site is not one of them. I've nuked yet another diatribe. We've extensively debated in meta whether it's appropriate to debate a larger context of an answer instead of its literal meaning, with the conclusion that as long as the facts are clearly stated and the literal answer is given, a little space for context is allowed. I believe this answer is in that spirit.
Aug 18, 2017 at 19:42 comment added Doug Spoonwood "Trump is using rhetoric to assert a false equivalence. His argument is that since both sides committed some amount of violence they are therefore as violent/deplorable/bad as each other." I do not see that he has made this argument when he chooses to specifically name one person with a corresponding specific criminal act (he called someone a murderer), while not even mentioning the specific criminal acts of anyone else. I do not see how he made this argument when he denied putting anyone on a moral plane, and such an equivalence requires a moral plane to make sense.
Aug 18, 2017 at 19:41 comment added NPSF3000 "Only one side employed a tactic used by terrorists, deliberately driving a vehicle into a crowd of people." Do you have any evidence that a side did this an not just one individual, possibly antagonized by a violent protest?
Aug 18, 2017 at 17:44 comment added Drunk Cynic Improvised Melee weapons is partly inaccurate; many of the individuals that participated had poles, batons, and shields, demonstrating premeditation. Within the fog of war though, there improvised weapons were employed.
Aug 18, 2017 at 16:41 vote accept kingfrito_5005
Aug 18, 2017 at 10:59 comment added James_pic This answer would be improved by concrete numbers on some of these things (how many protesters were arrested from each group, or how many injuries were sustained by each group), if these numbers are available.
Aug 18, 2017 at 3:21 history edited aroth CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 2 characters in body
Aug 18, 2017 at 0:34 history edited aroth CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1 character in body
Aug 17, 2017 at 21:51 comment added Sklivvz Deleted a diatribe. Let's not debate definitions, tyvm.
Aug 17, 2017 at 16:52 history answered aroth CC BY-SA 3.0