[flagged]
> The majority of "militia members" are just like me, middle age ex-military guys who lost their kids to an unfair, biased and broken "family court" system.
I can believe that and really I expect it. The majority of any movement aren't really true believers trying to burn things down.
How do you reconcile that with the militia group members that are planning and plotting and acting to burn things down? The most visible example was the January 6 attack, but of course there are plenty more.
Are they just segregated into different groups? Are there a few around but you think of them as ineffectual cranks? Do the groups, in this way, have different circles: the hard core, maybe another layer, and the people who like to hang out?
The majority of any movement aren't really true believers trying to burn things down, but some movements do try to burn things down. People just there to socialize sometimes find they supported something awful and turned a blind eye, when they should have done something or at least walked away. A genuine question: With everything happening, doesn't that cross your mind?
Cite? I mean, really, what?
Ironic given I reserve that title for ISIS who seems to have just recently radicalized another person to run over a bunch of people in New Orleans.
I have no particular love for these militias, but I’m not ignorant enough to believe the stuff media goes about parroting.
Luckily that was never asserted.
That's a strawperson. It doesn't have to be all. Groups that call themselves 'militias', arm and train themselves, plan violence, and sometimes perpetuate it. It's reasonable for the public to be concerned about them.
If that's true, your accusation makes sense.
You don't even need the other person; you can have these conversations by yourself. Or if you need to feel like you're socializing with someone, just tell me what to post and I'll post it for you.
Here: 'I disagree with the premise that American media spins American militias to be far worse than they actually are.' Now you can respond!
An far better approach is, ask; be curious. People have wildly different ideas than you. Here you cut all that off and reduce the world to the narrow range of what you can think of, and the even narrower range your expectations. The great advantage of talking to others is they have different ideas totally outside and independent of yours.
Baseless accusations are not ok, even if they are commonplace on social media. They are morally wrong. Bearing false witness is a sin. I don't want to be accused, to have this put on me; nobody does.
It's hard to take you seriously when you're doing the same thing that you're labeling as morally wrong. It's the internet, and we're anonymous for the most part, I have absolutely zero expectations of you.
But yeah, that's how a conversation goes. You made a claim (that was wrong), I have told you it's wrong now, and thus the conversation goes. Trying to assert your form of communication is morally superior is quite an interesting take, but to each their own.
Anyways, as I predicted, we'll be at an impasse here, because apparently my communication method is far too immoral for your tastes.
> I have absolutely zero expectations of you.
You wrote: "I'm sure you disagree with the premise that American media spins American militias to be far worse than they actually are." That's an expectation.
This makes so little sense as to border on unhingery.
Are you discussing assassinating politicians with your militia members? Did any of them march on the Capitol? If not, you’re not comparable to AP3. (If so, um, call a lawyer and a psychiatrist.)