Mayor Lori Lightfoot inciting violence

[bmw]

I know Bryce posted this in the Roe thread, but it deserves its own topic.



Your thoughts?

I don't even know where to start with this one. Let's start with the obvious parallels to the "Trump insurrection" that the left has been obsessed with for nearly a year and a half. The big difference though is that Trump called for his supporters to "peacefully" fight. Here, the mayor has literally called for LGBTQ+ members to grab their weapons and fight for a victory.

How is Lori Lightfoot not sitting in a jail cell RIGHT NOW? How is her tweet still active 12 hours after being posted? How does she still have a twitter account? Oh, that's an easy one.

(a) Her name is not Donald Trump
(b) She is a Democrat
(c) She is an LGBTQ+ supporter
(d) She is black
(e) She is the mayor of Chicago

[Deleted User 9015]

good

[bmw]

So you support people grabbing their guns, marching to the Supreme Court and/or the Justice's homes, and "fighting for victory?"

[Deleted User 9015]

That's clearly what she's calling for isn't it?

[Bryce]

That's clearly what she's calling for isn't it?

It sure as hell sounds more inciteful of violence and a lot more insurectiony than, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,"

[Deleted User 9015]

That's clearly what she's calling for isn't it?

It sure as hell sounds more inciteful of violence and a lot more insurectiony than, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,"

So were gonna see lefties storming the capitol now? I'll timestamp this.

[bmw]

She literally called for people to take up "arms" and "fight." Literally. Not figuratively. Not vaguely. But clearly and concisely. And she did so on a hot-button issue - possibly the most hot-button topic in the country, especially right now.

If that isn't inciting violence, I don't know what is.

btw - if somebody DID take up arms and go shoot somebody, would she be responsible?

[Deleted User 9015]

She literally called for people to take up "arms" and "fight." Literally. Not figuratively. Not vaguely. But clearly and concisely. And she did so on a hot-button issue - possibly the most hot-button topic in the country, especially right now.

If that isn't inciting violence, I don't know what is.

btw - if somebody DID take up arms and go shoot somebody, would she be responsible?

So you're in the same camp as Bryce? I'll def timestamp it then.

[Bryce]

So were gonna see lefties storming the capitol now? I'll timestamp this.

I said nothing about storming the Capitol. You should be reminded that their are THREE branches of government in our representative republic. They are co-equal.

Some have marched in front of justice's homes and some have marched in front of the Supreme Court building. If that isn't an attempt at judicial intimidation, I don't know what is. THAT is against the law for a reason

[bmw]

She literally called for people to take up "arms" and "fight." Literally. Not figuratively. Not vaguely. But clearly and concisely. And she did so on a hot-button issue - possibly the most hot-button topic in the country, especially right now.

If that isn't inciting violence, I don't know what is.

btw - if somebody DID take up arms and go shoot somebody, would she be responsible?

So you're in the same camp as Bryce? I'll def timestamp it then.

Just so we're clear; your argument is that her speech doesn't rise to the level of incitement because even though she literally called on people to pick up their weapons and fight, the people whom she called on to do that aren't likely to do so. Is that your argument?

And moreover, Trump's WAS incitement because even though he didn't call on people to engage in violence, his supporters are the type likely to engage in violence anyways?

[Deleted User 9015]

So were gonna see lefties storming the capitol now? I'll timestamp this.

I said nothing about storming the Capitol. You should be reminded that their are THREE branches of government in our representative republic. They are co-equal

It sure as hell sounds more inciteful of violence and a lot more insurectiony than, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,"

Okay Bryce.

Just so we're clear; your argument is that her speech doesn't rise to the level of incitement because even though she literally called on people to pick up their weapons and fight, the people whom she called on to do that aren't likely to do so. Is that your argument?

And moreover, Trump's WAS incitement because even though he didn't call on people to engage in violence, his supporters are the type likely to engage in violence anyways?

If you want my honest thoughts, here they are.

a.) What she said was dumb, but no one cares about what she has to say. She's the Mayor of Chicago and mayors don't have a great track record of having their voices heard.

b.) What she said was figurative, not literal. Again, it was dumb, but I have seen bosses in emails say "this is a call to arms!" when they are asking people to get serious about something threatening the business and stuff like that. I would assume that most times when someone says "this is a call to arms!" they aren't calling for violence at all.

c.) I get the inclination here that people do understand Trump held a role in whipping those idiots on January 6th into a froth, but they don't want to acknowledge it because they are so engaged in goofy political bullshit, that acknowledging that Trump held a role is almost like acknowledging that "their side" isn't as perfect as they'd like to think. Things like the whole abortion protests and such have become a way to say "WELL WHAT ABOUT?" and frankly, whataboutism is a dopey move to drag conversation off-topic.

As an aside, quoting on phpBB is headachy, Xenforo would be a lot better. Its a heavy boat of forum software, but jesus christ is phpBB aged.

[bmw]

For the record, my position on Trump's behavior on January 6th has always been that it was unprofessional but never rose to the level of incitement. I find Lightfoot's statements to be clear incitement. The word "arms" even appears in the 2nd Amendment, and it clearly and unequivocally refers to weapons. The fact that she doesn't have the same size microphone that Trump had is irrelevant. It only takes one crazy person to take her comments literally and go on a killing spree. And the city of Chicago certainly has its fair share of crazies.

[bmw]

And to finish on that "whataboutism" complaint, this particular whataboutism is quite a doozy. Let's re-phrase exactly what Lightfoot said and pretend Trump had said it, but in the context of the election and on January 6th:

To all my supporters - Democrats are coming for you next. This moment has to be a call to arms.

We will not surrender our country without a fight - a fight to victory!

What would have been the consequences of those 2 tweets? I can tell you that (A) he would have been impeached AND removed from office, and (B) would have either been convicted or awaiting trial on an arrest for incitement. That is a fact.

[Deleted User 9015]

For the record, my position on Trump's behavior on January 6th has always been that it was unprofessional but never rose to the level of incitement. I find Lightfoot's statements to be clear incitement. The word "arms" even appears in the 2nd Amendment, and it clearly and unequivocally refers to weapons. The fact that she doesn't have the same size microphone that Trump had is irrelevant. It only takes one crazy person to take her comments literally and go on a killing spree. And the city of Chicago certainly has its fair share of crazies.

So when the guy running an underperforming walmart stands up on a chair and screams "THIS IS A CALL TO ARMS!" he's inciting violence. Got it.

[bmw]

Except you kind of conveniently left out the words "fight" and "not surrender" and "victory." You also kind of left out the fact that Wal Mart's sales numbers won't exactly rile up a minimum wage employee the same way that overturning Roe will rile up the pro-abortion fanatics.