Read 49247 times

Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #440 on: January 14, 2021, 10:52:36 am »
Guys just stop responding to him, it's what he feeds off of because he is a contrarian troll addicted to defending the indefensible. Just ignore him, don't engage with him. Just stay on topic and continue to discuss details about the fact that his side committed sedition and insurrection tried to assassinate members of Congress and the VP and killed a cop.
You know Mayor Haggar, it might do you a world of good to question things, instead of going with the first impulse that enters your brain and stubbornly and stupidly sticking with it.

Have you ever changed your opinion or explored things on here? It's always you declaring things to be a certain way, in blunt terms, then insulting anyone who doesn't agree.

Anyways, again, if you're do concerned about the safety of the country, why are you on here constantly arguing with me about it?


  • L I
  • Waygook Lord

    • 6983

    • October 03, 2011, 01:50:58 pm
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #441 on: January 14, 2021, 10:55:16 am »
 The heavily armed sniper who gunned down police officers in downtown Dallas, leaving five of them dead, specifically set out to kill as many white officers as he could.

https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/dallas-police-shooting.amp.html

 During the standoff, Mr. Johnson, who was black, told police negotiators that “he was upset about Black Lives Matter,” Chief Brown said. “He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”




  • waygo0k
  • The Legend

    • 4539

    • September 27, 2011, 11:51:01 am
    • Chungnam
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #442 on: January 14, 2021, 11:00:18 am »
The heavily armed sniper who gunned down police officers in downtown Dallas, leaving five of them dead, specifically set out to kill as many white officers as he could.

https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/dallas-police-shooting.amp.html

 During the standoff, Mr. Johnson, who was black, told police negotiators that “he was upset about Black Lives Matter,” Chief Brown said. “He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”




You do realise BLM told him to take a hike when he approached them right?

White nationalists LOOOOOOVE misrepresenting the facts.


  • waygo0k
  • The Legend

    • 4539

    • September 27, 2011, 11:51:01 am
    • Chungnam
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #443 on: January 14, 2021, 11:01:54 am »
That Snopes link is debunking a specific meme. I got the info here:
_________________

At least twelve police officers have been shot in the line of duty as riots and protests raged throughout the country following the death of George Floyd.

https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/12-police-officers-shot-during-100000431.html

A number of these police officers have been killed in the line of duty, including retired St. Louis police captain David Dorn, Santa Cruz County Deputy Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller, and contract security officer Dave Patrick Underwood.

Mostly thanks to white nationalists targeting police.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #444 on: January 14, 2021, 11:02:49 am »
That Snopes link is debunking a specific meme. I got the info here:
_________________

At least twelve police officers have been shot in the line of duty as riots and protests raged throughout the country following the death of George Floyd.

https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/12-police-officers-shot-during-100000431.html

A number of these police officers have been killed in the line of duty, including retired St. Louis police captain David Dorn, Santa Cruz County Deputy Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller, and contract security officer Dave Patrick Underwood.
I just  wonder if you can read.  NONE of these were on-duty police officers killed during protests.  NONE OF THEM.  The Shay Mikalonis case is certainly sad.  And David Dorn's death, while tragic, occurred while he was protecting a friend's jewelry store and was a retired cop who was not on duty.  Underwood's tragic death did not occur at a protest, just some anti-cop drive-by murderer.

By pointing this out, I am in no way trying to defend violence, either against cops or protesters.  I'm just pointing out untruth.

Let's compare:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 11:05:07 am by Mr C »


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #445 on: January 14, 2021, 11:06:44 am »
Mostly thanks to white nationalists targeting police.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings
Question, how did you get "mostly" from 12 cops shot by citing an article where two were killed?

Not that I disagree with what Mr. C pointed out. Those were off duty killings. It might be significant if they were moonlighting in uniform. Otherwise you can't call them a police death. L I's point is weak.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #446 on: January 14, 2021, 11:16:44 am »
I do think the broader point of having to apply the "mostly peaceful" standard fairly is valid. That goes for both BLM and these Trump protests. You can call both mostly peaceful based on % that engaged in violent vs. destructive vs. unlawful vs. completely civil. Or you can condemn the events as a whole and their supporters.

But you cant tar one whole side of the political spectrum using one standard while insisting that we focus on the conduct of the majority when it comes to the side you support. We have to try and be fair and impartial.


  • L I
  • Waygook Lord

    • 6983

    • October 03, 2011, 01:50:58 pm
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #447 on: January 14, 2021, 11:26:11 am »
A poster asked how many police were killed during BLM protests. The answer is zero? Also, how many black protesters were killed by police? Appears to be zero. I’m reading there were dozens of deaths but these were due to opportunists looting. Not really protesters if they are just looking to make a quick buck. (Or are they? I dunno.) Billions in property damage via the arson and looting. And we really should admit the protests led to thousands of deaths because of the spreading of coronavirus.


  • L I
  • Waygook Lord

    • 6983

    • October 03, 2011, 01:50:58 pm
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #448 on: January 14, 2021, 11:44:37 am »
Let's compare

Injured protesters against killed cops is not a fair comparison. Better to do against injured cops (of which there were many).


  • L I
  • Waygook Lord

    • 6983

    • October 03, 2011, 01:50:58 pm
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #449 on: January 14, 2021, 11:48:17 am »
You do realise BLM told him to take a hike when he approached them right?

White nationalists LOOOOOOVE misrepresenting the facts.

I’m gonna call you out as being factually inaccurate here. If you can prove me wrong on this I’ll eat humble pie. If not, you will.


  • L I
  • Waygook Lord

    • 6983

    • October 03, 2011, 01:50:58 pm
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #450 on: January 14, 2021, 12:02:47 pm »
Johnson "liked" the Facebook pages of black nationalist organizations such as the New Black Panther Party, Nation of Islam, and Black Riders Liberation Army.

On Facebook, Johnson posted an angry and "disjointed" post against white people several days before the attack.

_______________

He was a member of the local New Black Panther  chapter for six months before having a falling out; that’s what waygo0k is thinking of.


  • L I
  • Waygook Lord

    • 6983

    • October 03, 2011, 01:50:58 pm
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #451 on: January 14, 2021, 12:08:38 pm »
My point is potential for violence exists on both sides. We don’t like it. Thankfully it is rare, but we should work to make it more rare. And also appreciate our lives when thinking about how statistically uncommon it is (thanks to the hard work of many). The word is actually getting safer. Radicalization online is a problem, but the internet can also tempter it ...


  • L I
  • Waygook Lord

    • 6983

    • October 03, 2011, 01:50:58 pm
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #452 on: January 14, 2021, 12:14:11 pm »
Here’s an example:
___________________ _

Islamic terror has been trending down for five years.

Some American officials said this would never happen.

America has failed to properly fight terrorism, said former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, so it “has spread, gaining countless new adherents.”

Others said fundamentalism’s demand for religious obedience over individual freedom means “peace is not possible.” Muslims will never embrace Enlightenment ideals like individual freedom and separation of church and state.

But Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, of the group Ideas Beyond Borders, calls that view “ignorant.” He says Middle Eastern young people are moving away from fundamentalism. Surveys do show Middle Eastern youth are becoming less religious and less trusting of religious leaders.

Faisal credits the internet. “Facebook, the social media entry to the Middle East, has been kind of revolutionary.” It introduced young people to American sitcoms. “Friends” and “Seinfeld,” subtitled in Arabic, “show you what good life looks like.”

https://www.johnstossel.com/more-good-news/

After Faisal escaped Iraq and discovered the freedoms of America, he started Ideas Beyond Borders, which translates articles and books about individual rights into Arabic. They also make short videos about these ideas.

His social media following grew quickly. One of his Facebook pages has 3.5 million likes. “People were searching for it,” he says in my newest video because, “This was the first time the ideas of freedom and liberty were available in Arabic.”







  • waygo0k
  • The Legend

    • 4539

    • September 27, 2011, 11:51:01 am
    • Chungnam
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #453 on: January 14, 2021, 12:31:15 pm »
I’m gonna call you out as being factually inaccurate here. If you can prove me wrong on this I’ll eat humble pie. If not, you will.

He "liked" those groups...did they influence or agree with him?

And again, he approached several groups about shooting white people...they told him to take a hike. Something you refuse to accept.


  • L I
  • Waygook Lord

    • 6983

    • October 03, 2011, 01:50:58 pm
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #454 on: January 14, 2021, 12:38:31 pm »
OK, so you admit you misspoke when you said this?

You do realise BLM told him to take a hike when he approached them?

It wasn’t BLM but some other groups? Who didn’t want him because the sexual harassment charge in his history apparently. I don’t think he opened up with, “Hi, I’d like to join your group to kill some white people.” If he did they’d be thinking, “Reject this undercover agent.” (Also, the people in these groups are mostly good and don’t hope for the deaths of others. Hopefully.)
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 12:44:26 pm by L I »


  • L I
  • Waygook Lord

    • 6983

    • October 03, 2011, 01:50:58 pm
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #455 on: January 14, 2021, 12:46:59 pm »
And again, he approached several groups about shooting white people...they told him to take a hike. Something you refuse to accept.

They just told him to take a hike ... but didn’t alert the authorities to a potential killer?


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #456 on: January 14, 2021, 02:16:26 pm »
He "liked" those groups...did they influence or agree with him?
Fair point. Do you apply it equally to RWers? We should be consistent on this. If a mass shooter likes a RW cause, that cause should not have to answer for his crimes simply because he "liked" them.

Or are you one of those people who say "This shouldn't be placed at the foot of BLM, but in the case of a RWer, then it's perfectly justifiable to blame them en masse"?

I think no matter what group, it should take more than some "likes" to blame a group or organization.



  • waygo0k
  • The Legend

    • 4539

    • September 27, 2011, 11:51:01 am
    • Chungnam
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #457 on: January 14, 2021, 02:40:58 pm »
Fair point. Do you apply it equally to RWers? We should be consistent on this. If a mass shooter likes a RW cause, that cause should not have to answer for his crimes simply because he "liked" them.

Or are you one of those people who say "This shouldn't be placed at the foot of BLM, but in the case of a RWer, then it's perfectly justifiable to blame them en masse"?

I think no matter what group, it should take more than some "likes" to blame a group or organization.



It would apply to right wingers if they didn't consistently spout white nationalist nazi bullshit.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #458 on: January 14, 2021, 02:45:45 pm »
It would apply to right wingers if they didn't consistently spout white nationalist nazi bullshit.
Let me clarify, are you suggesting that the standard we should apply is based on the ideology of the person in question, not the behavior they engage in? Isn't that pretty subjective?


  • waygo0k
  • The Legend

    • 4539

    • September 27, 2011, 11:51:01 am
    • Chungnam
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #459 on: January 14, 2021, 02:55:34 pm »
How do you separate nazi ideology from nazi behaviour?

How do you separate QAnon ideology from QAnon behaviour?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 03:15:58 pm by waygo0k »