[stale2002]

> Preferably equivalently specific plans, which amount to "our intent is to physically harm police officers and destroy a police precinct" at a minimum.

I'll take a crack at this. I could just site your own post where you say the following:

" If you're going to take a stance that violence is absolutely never valid, that's an interesting opinion that I don't believe I share".

It kinda seems like you are at least implying that you support the violence that happened during those riots. So your post right here would be one example of people endorsing violence.

[joshuamorton]

The context we're in is advocation for violence prior to the events. Are you looking for cheap rhetorical points, or are you actually trying to engage thoughtfully (as the person I'm responding to is)?

> people endorsing violence.

Note how you've shifted from "advocating for" to "endorsing" and what I asked for was 'specific plans, which amount to "our intent is to physically harm police officers and destroy a police precinct"'.

So can you explain how my statement that, hypothetically, violence may be acceptable in some situations, is a specific plan to harm police officers? With the added assumption that such people should then, you know, show up and do a violence. All of those things were present with Parler. Unless you're claiming that

1. I made statements specifically advocating for violence against in advance of the 3rd precinct protests

2. I then showed up to those protests and committed acts of violence (or, alternatively, I have a large enough following that my followers did the same)

You haven't done what I asked.

[stale2002]

If even you yourself are at the very least implying that you might support the violence, then really it should not be surprising or an out there claim that other people at the riots also supported the violence, is the point.

Feels like a weird thing to push back on. You kinda admit that you personally might support the violence. If even you admit this, then really you should not be pushing back hard on this assumption that other people also supported it.

It should not be an out there claim, that other people supported the violence, when you are kinda implying that you support it yourself.

I just don't think that you should act flabergasted, or surprised, or indignant, or demand large amounts of specific evidence, at someone making a claim that other people supported or wanted violence to happen, given that you kinda are saying that you support it yourself.

> The context we're in is advocation for violence prior to the events

"Nobody advocated for violence before it happened, but now that it did happen I definitely think that the violence is justified!" feels like a pretty poor argument to me.

If you are going to imply that the violence was justified, then really you should not push back on this idea that other people thought it was justified to, and endorsed it prior to the event.

[joshuamorton]

I'm not asking for examples of people saying what the protestors did was okay. I agree that there's lots of that. I'm asking for examples of the violence being planned or premeditated. Those are two different things. The "line" appears to be in between those two things, and people (like you!) appear to be equivocating between them when they aren't the same.

> support it yourself.

My (hypothetical!) lack of objection to generic violence is not the same as active planning and encouragement of specific violence. And I find your repeated attempts to equivocate between the two rather confused.

I'm asking for examples of the second, the active specific planning and incitement of violence. You're avoiding engaging with that request, likely because, as I believe, you can't find examples of that kind of behavior.

[stale2002]

> My (hypothetical!) lack of objection to generic violence is not the same as active planning and encouragement of specific violence.

Yes there are varying levels of support. But frankly if you are going to take a position that is kinda moderately in favor of violence, then you really should not be pushing back so hard at the possibility that there are other people who were a bit more supportive of the violence than you are.

That is what I am pointing out. I'd put you at a 5/10, on the "is this person trying to justify the violence that happen". So if an average/random person such as yourself are going to moderately support the violence, then you really should not be so flabergasted at the suggestion that there were other people that were closer to an 8/10 on the "do they support violence" scale.

[joshuamorton]

If such a thing would be so unsurprising, you should have no problem finding and citing those examples. Your only justification so far seems to be a combination of "both sides are the same" and "well some people don't object to all violence".

My argument is that, well no, both sides aren't the same, as shown by the fact that only one set of protestors was openly advocating for and planning to attack people. The burden of proof is on you to show that they both sides are in fact the same. I obviously can't prove a negative, and so far you haven't provided anything concrete.

[stale2002]

> "well some people don't object to all violence".

Actually, after rereading the original comment, I'd have to say not some people. Instead Id say you specifically. You specifically pretty much tried to said that the violence was justified.

Ex: you said this, which is a not so subtle attempt to justify the violence:

"of the opinion that violence may be an acceptable response to injustice, well, there's a whole lot more reason to believe that BLM protestors have justification for their claim of injustice ".

> well no, both sides aren't the same

Specifically you, kinda do seem at least to be pretty similar to the "other side" actually, after rereading your comment, in that you attempted to imply that the violence actually was justified, and that it therefore "may be acceptable".

Your comment was a pretty clear attempt to say that this violence could have a "justification" that would make it "acceptable".