I'm not equivocating the two, although re-reading my post I can see I left that impression. The violence in each case is disturbing to me, in different ways and for different reasons.
I'm merely trying to sort out why the response to, and consequences of, the violence of one side seems so disproportionate to that of the other side, seeing as we both seem to agree violence is harmful to a civil society.
So far, the only answer I can discern essentially comes down to "because I agree with my side more than yours", in which case, the side with the bigger mob will always win, rather than an honest discussion of ideas.
Even if you disagree, if you set aside your hostilities and assume I say this in good faith for just a moment, I don't think it's that great of a stretch to see why this would be confusing.
I believe that you are speaking in good faith. I like to think I am as well. I guess reading your initial comment, I assumed that you were saying the overwhelmingly peaceful protests associated with George Floyd were the same as those who peacefully participated in the protests but not in the violent insurrection; but I just can’t think of the peaceful maga protesters in the same light as those peacefully protesting for fairer policing. I agree with you that it’s very nuanced, but I make a distinction because of the visuals and results of the assault on the Capitol by the extremes of their group. Furthermore, one side worships Trump and his actions while the other just fundamentally wants fairer and better police.
I know my post came out as aggressive, that was not right. For that I apologize and believe you were not equivocating.
(Trying to convey nuance on mobile is hard, sorry for word soup)
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. You were completely right to call out my initial post, it was poorly worded.
Much as you said, regardless of the issue, we can often agree on what's right or wrong from a moral standpoint, but still it's intrinsically hard to view the core issue being fought for in the same light as we view the other side.
Generally speaking, I don't believe folks on the left want an unfair election system, nor that folks on the right want violent or discriminatory policing, but we each start with an assumption of which problem is more pressing, and from there it becomes easy to make several leaps of judgement.
Conveying nuance is hard... not just on mobile :) but across the board.
What I'm struggling the most to sort out here, is how I can feel that we all as a nation still generally want the same things on paper, and yet it can feel so much like we have nothing in common at all. Somehow, there's a large gap to be bridged there.
I think you've hit the nail on the head in your third paragraph; most people are reasonable and in agreement on most things but through our nature, culture or a mix a both, we tend to assume the worst of each other and project the worst on each other at the first opportunity. I know I'm not immune from this reaction. Sadly, this reflexive animosity is really what distracts most of us from harmful legislation and actions.
I wish you well :-) Thanks for the discussion - the back and forth is nice and allows one to stake/state their position more eloquently.
I'm merely trying to sort out why the response to, and consequences of, the violence of one side seems so disproportionate to that of the other side, seeing as we both seem to agree violence is harmful to a civil society.
So far, the only answer I can discern essentially comes down to "because I agree with my side more than yours", in which case, the side with the bigger mob will always win, rather than an honest discussion of ideas.
Even if you disagree, if you set aside your hostilities and assume I say this in good faith for just a moment, I don't think it's that great of a stretch to see why this would be confusing.