Who is Taylor Taranto?

[85SugarVol]

@lawgator1

I’m still curious as to how you know this -
“He should never see the light of day.”

He may deserve a lengthy term. The accusations sound terrible. But are we there yet?

Has he stood trial? Was he convicted? Did he plead out?

 

[RockyTop85]

It is challenging to answer with any accuracy. Does one video show what happened to the folks in frame over the course the video plays? Yes. Do I understand the events prior to the video beginning? No. That lack of understanding doesn't absolve any single person from responsibility for their actions. The lack of understanding affects my ability to judge to totality of the circumstances. I am not supporting anyone, especially a LEO getting beaten by others. There should be a trial and punishment for those found guilty.
Additionally, that video (or videos) may not be representative of everyone (or most) who were gathered.

These are justifications for not letting the video reverse overall conclusions about the event in its totality, they don’t actually address the interplay between the video and the erroneous statement of fact.

It seems like putting the cart before the horse to reaffirm one’s belief in the overall conclusion without first grappling with accuracy of the underlying facts. Because what is the inherent value of overall conclusions that aren’t predicated on an accurate version of the facts?

For someone who, like you, never even expressed any conviction about that particular statement of fact, it should have been an easy question. For example, “It was more than 4 or 5 people, but still agree that it was mostly peaceful,” seems more harmless than trying to dance around like this when I was explicit that the value of the video was simply to disprove the erroneous statement of fact, not overall conclusions.

So what is the motivation to avoid putting discussion of the the facts first and to avoid committing to anything that puts the overall conclusion in doubt? I have two theories I’ll share but I’m interested in whether anybody else is even aware that they’re doing this.

 

[McDad]

These are justifications for not letting the video reverse overall conclusions about the event in its totality, they don’t actually address the interplay between the video and the erroneous statement of fact.

It seems like putting the cart before the horse to reaffirm one’s belief in the overall conclusion without first grappling with accuracy of the underlying facts. Because what is the inherent value of overall conclusions that aren’t predicated on an accurate version of the facts?

For someone who, like you, never even expressed any conviction about that particular statement of fact, it should have been an easy question. For example, “It was more than 4 or 5 people, but still agree that it was mostly peaceful,” seems more harmless than trying to dance around like this when I was explicit that the value of the video was simply to disprove the erroneous statement of fact, not overall conclusions.

So what is the motivation to avoid putting discussion of the the facts first and to avoid committing to anything that puts the overall conclusion in doubt? I have two theories I’ll share but I’m interested in whether anybody else is even aware that they’re doing this.

Either you were ambiguous in your questions about the video wrt the larger discussion, or I misunderstood. Based on your clarification today, I will modify my answer accordingly.

Full disclosure, I haven't watched any video of Jan 6 and haven't read any official reports or opinion pieces. My only exposure to the events are the discussions in this forum. What intrigued me in the past few days is the interplay between (potentially) exaggerated numbers of violence by some compared to an official report which quantified violence incidents. That report also gave description to many of the acts deemed violent.

If a video exists showing 6 people beating another, then one would have to admit the count of violent people exceeds more than 5. I am comfortable with that reality. I am also at peace at a total count of violent acts and violent people captured on video. Where I will disagree with the qualification of violence is the legal threshold (spitting, pushing, etc) and what I consider to be "real" violence (hitting, beating, etc). Is there a hundred of such acts which meet my standard? If so, great, let's be willing to objectively call it out.

I hope that provides the insight you are seeking. Happy to distill it down further if you want.

With all that shared, I will reserve judgement the context of what is seen in the video. I don't think that reservation is extraordinary considering how other videos of other events have been misleading.

Lastly, my most controversial opinion of the Jan 6 protesters and rioters is they did it the "right" way. If a group is unhappy with government, then rioters and proteters should attack and disrupt government institutions and government officials. I think that is a much better approach than destroying one's one residential and commercial community.

 

[RockyTop85]

Either you were ambiguous in your questions about the video wrt the larger discussion, or I misunderstood. Based on your clarification today, I will modify my answer accordingly.

Full disclosure, I haven't watched any video of Jan 6 and haven't read any official reports or opinion pieces. My only exposure to the events are the discussions in this forum. What intrigued me in the past few days is the interplay between (potentially) exaggerated numbers of violence by some compared to an official report which quantified violence incidents. That report also gave description to many of the acts deemed violent.

If a video exists showing 6 people beating another, then one would have to admit the count of violent people exceeds more than 5. I am comfortable with that reality. I am also at peace at a total count of violent acts and violent people captured on video. Where I will disagree with the qualification of violence is the legal threshold (spitting, pushing, etc) and what I consider to be "real" violence (hitting, beating, etc). Is there a hundred of such acts which meet my standard? If so, great, let's be willing to objectively call it out.

I hope that provides the insight you are seeking. Happy to distill it down further if you want.

With all that shared, I will reserve judgement the context of what is seen in the video. I don't think that reservation is extraordinary considering how other videos of other events have been misleading.

Lastly, my most controversial opinion of the Jan 6 protesters and rioters is they did it the "right" way. If a group is unhappy with government, then rioters and proteters should attack and disrupt government institutions and government officials. I think that is a much better approach than destroying one's one residential and commercial community.

I think that’s mostly fair with respect to everything but the last paragraph and will sadly have to throw away all my conclusions about why nobody would contradict “only 4 or 5.”

I don’t agree with changing the definition of assault that’s been agreed upon for 300ish years. Once we get into splitting hairs over dozens of instances of spitting on someone, pushing in the context of police trying to bodily keep a mob separate from their targets and crushing officers between doors and doorframes, and spraying police with chemical irritants, then I think that’s evidence of a compromised perspective.

Roughly 1000 people have been charged. About 350 charged with assault. About 700 people have been convicted. <100 convicted of assault. I don’t even know how many did nothing to be charged with. Focusing on “mostly peaceful” as a percentage of people engaged in physical violence may be an incomplete framing, but it’s factually accurate that the percentage is <50%, even by a traditional definition of “violence.”

Also, disagree with “right” in the last paragraph, but “better” is accurate. I think self-determinative government is a fundamental human right but under a self-determinative system the “right” choices when you find the government to be intolerable is to follow the established rules or migration.

 

[McDad]

I think that’s mostly fair with respect to everything but the last paragraph and will sadly have to throw away all my conclusions about why nobody would contradict “only 4 or 5.”

I don’t agree with changing the definition of assault that’s been agreed upon for 300ish years. Once we get into splitting hairs over dozens of instances of spitting on someone, pushing in the context of police trying to bodily keep a mob separate from their targets and crushing officers between doors and doorframes, and spraying police with chemical irritants, then I think that’s evidence of a compromised perspective.

Roughly 1000 people have been charged. About 350 charged with assault. About 700 people have been convicted. <100 convicted of assault. I don’t even know how many did nothing to be charged with. Focusing on “mostly peaceful” as a percentage of people engaged in physical violence may be an incomplete framing, but it’s factually accurate that the percentage is <50%, even by a traditional definition of “violence.”

Also, disagree with “right” in the last paragraph, but “better” is accurate. I think self-determinative government is a fundamental human right but under a self-determinative system the “right” choices when you find the government to be intolerable is to follow the established rules or migration.

I would be surprised, given your profession, if you were squishy on defining assault. Assault has a well defined, legal meaning. In the real world, it is squishy. Just like I can have a strong legal case but have no justice for my loss.

Pushing is not assault to me. Pushing someone down and they crack open their skull is. In that way, the 350 charged with assault doesn't do anything for me pro or con about the seriousness of Jan 6. Or, how badly people behaved.

 

[LouderVol]

No one is saying it was worse than PH or 9/11 except for you clowns. You saying there are only 4 or 5 guilty of violence tells me all I need to know. You either fast forwarded or closed your eyes as well. Or just avoided those videos altogether.

and as I clarified the 4/5 is what I am considering real violence. I don't consider pushing a cop real violence that counts towards a "coup".

 

[LouderVol]

I think that’s mostly fair with respect to everything but the last paragraph and will sadly have to throw away all my conclusions about why nobody would contradict “only 4 or 5.”

I don’t agree with changing the definition of assault that’s been agreed upon for 300ish years. Once we get into splitting hairs over dozens of instances of spitting on someone, pushing in the context of police trying to bodily keep a mob separate from their targets and crushing officers between doors and doorframes, and spraying police with chemical irritants, then I think that’s evidence of a compromised perspective.

Roughly 1000 people have been charged. About 350 charged with assault. About 700 people have been convicted. <100 convicted of assault. I don’t even know how many did nothing to be charged with. Focusing on “mostly peaceful” as a percentage of people engaged in physical violence may be an incomplete framing, but it’s factually accurate that the percentage is <50%, even by a traditional definition of “violence.”

Also, disagree with “right” in the last paragraph, but “better” is accurate. I think self-determinative government is a fundamental human right but under a self-determinative system the “right” choices when you find the government to be intolerable is to follow the established rules or migration.

the violence wasn't just with against the cops with their backs against a literal wall. There are plenty of videos of violence from both sides in the open areas in front of the Capitol. Don't pretend these cops were in a do or die situation as a thin blue line between the mob and the downfall of this nation.

The downfall didn't happen, even with people claiming the cops gave up and peacefully let people into the Capitol.

 

[RockyTop85]

the violence wasn't just with against the cops with their backs against a literal wall. There are plenty of videos of violence from both sides in the open areas in front of the Capitol. Don't pretend these cops were in a do or die situation as a thin blue line between the mob and the downfall of this nation.

The downfall didn't happen, even with people claiming the cops gave up and peacefully let people into the Capitol.

Just stop. I’m embarrassed for you.

Police just attacked these innocent protestors who violently forced their way past barricades and if police had simply let them in the building before members of congress got out, they would have held hands and sang kumbaya with the people they later chanted about hanging and they wouldn’t have had to beat the police with sticks and drag them down stairs and crush them in doorways.

Trying to redefine violence after the AOC joke was ironic, but this is a whole other level of stupid.