Read 49251 times

  • stoat
  • The Legend

    • 2085

    • March 05, 2019, 06:36:13 pm
    • seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #520 on: February 05, 2021, 10:13:25 am »
Quote
Quote from: stoat on Today at 08:31:08 am
Well of course I 100% blame the patriarchy and systemic misogyny. Women have been oppressed by men for thousands of years. In fact the US was built on the oppression of females who have historically been underprivilged in all areas of life. They do the worst jobs they get the lowest pay, they suffer the most violence at the hands of men. They only got the vote 100 years ago. It's no wonder that poverty and systemic oppression lead some of them to turn to crime. Home life, parenting and personal responsibility have nothing to do with it.

Please understand her unique situation...she was only fighting against the patriarchy by fighting on behalf of a president who grabs women by their pussies and a political party that uses religious doctrine to take away women's  reproductive rights

Interesting, so do you think if George Floyd had turned out to be a rapid Trump supporter, BLM would have disowned him? Or put another way, if Ashli Babbit had been a POC, would BLM be showing an interest? I guess they would be since they're apparently not a political movement.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2021, 10:48:16 am by stoat »


  • waygo0k
  • The Legend

    • 4539

    • September 27, 2011, 11:51:01 am
    • Chungnam
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #521 on: February 05, 2021, 10:49:08 am »
One was a terrorist literally killed in the act of trying to harm (some might argue assassinate) elected officials and police...the other was a convicted felon who had repaid his debt to society, and was slowly tortured to death for allegedly using fake money.

Pick your battles wisely.


  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1608

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #522 on: February 05, 2021, 11:33:40 am »
More's the point, if duck's had one leg they would surely swim in circles, would they not?



« Last Edit: February 05, 2021, 11:38:39 am by Adel »


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #523 on: February 05, 2021, 11:47:32 am »
You can say both her and Floyd made bad decisions that led to tragic outcomes or that both were unarmed victims of bad policing but going "but but but..." for one or the other just shows political bias.


  • T_Rex
  • Super Waygook

    • 253

    • April 23, 2019, 08:10:20 am
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #524 on: February 05, 2021, 11:50:51 am »
She was killed for trying to break through a barricade.

But there was much more outrage over Trump's tweet about shooting looters.




  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1608

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #525 on: February 05, 2021, 11:55:20 am »
You can say both her and Floyd made bad decisions that led to tragic outcomes or that both were unarmed victims of bad policing but going "but but but..." for one or the other just shows political bias.
Sounds like a rather linear argument completely lacking in nuance.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #526 on: February 05, 2021, 11:57:35 am »
Sounds like a rather linear argument completely lacking in nuance.
Actually, the nuance is in being able to grasp the potential framing for both side of the argument in both directions. It says that in both directions there are points to be made, however you have to be consistent. You can't apply one set of standards because you support the politics of one side and then dump the standards for the other. We all do it, but it's important for us to try and limit and reduce that impulse.


  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1608

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #527 on: February 05, 2021, 11:58:09 am »
She was killed for trying to break through a barricade.

But there was much more outrage over Trump's tweet about shooting looters.





The location of the barricade here is critical, not to mention there were guns drawn before she attempted to breach said barricade.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #528 on: February 05, 2021, 11:59:20 am »

The location of the barricade here is critical, not to mention there were guns drawn before attempted to breach said barricade.
If "Trump's goons" had shot an unarmed protestor attempting to burst through a barricade around the White House, what would your reaction have been?


  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1608

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #529 on: February 05, 2021, 12:04:25 pm »
If "Trump's goons" had shot an unarmed protestor attempting to burst through a barricade around the White House, what would your reaction have been?

I believe I've already responded to this ridiculous hypothetical Marti. Perhaps you'd like to flick back a few pages of this same thread to reveal it. I'd quote it myself but frankly engaging in your bullsh*t tomfoolery is growing tiresome!


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #530 on: February 05, 2021, 01:54:34 pm »
I believe I've already responded to this ridiculous hypothetical Marti. Perhaps you'd like to flick back a few pages of this same thread to reveal it. I'd quote it myself but frankly engaging in your bullsh*t tomfoolery is growing tiresome!

I don't see anything resembling a cogent response.

Just admit that your standard for whether someone should be shot is "I like them vs. I don't like them."


  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1608

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #531 on: February 05, 2021, 02:41:59 pm »
Quote
Quote from: stoat on January 09, 2021, 10:27:50 am
Fine but be consistent though. Next time an unarmed black person gets shot by the police for ignoring instructions/breaking the law/posing a physical threat , come down in the police's side.
]

Ok dude. Next time I hear about an African Americans shot as they video themselves breaking into and rioting in the Capitol building while ignoring the direction of armed people officers I'll be sure to post my support for the rule of law right here!  :laugh:

Honestly, I wonder why I bother tutoring you with your literacy issues Marti! You're seldom grateful.

Working on any more works of fiction ?


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #532 on: February 05, 2021, 02:53:43 pm »
]

Honestly, I wonder why I bother tutoring you with your literacy issues Marti! You're seldom grateful.

Working on any more works of fiction ?
But that wasn't the same issue. This wasn't about race. This was about protesters at the White House. What if one of them had burst through a barrier and was unarmed. Would you say "Fine, rule of law"

No you wouldn't. Stop pretending otherwise. You'd be on here screaming about Trump's thugs. The fact that you can't even admit your bias is what's bothering. Just be like "Yeah, I'd probably have a different take. That's what we all do." Maybe recognize that you should apply the same standard you'd apply to that situation to the capital incident.

For the record, I generally think NOT shooting is a good step. Either that or just mow EVERYONE down. This half-assed shit just leads to this situation. I think the Capital Police did a good job. All in all, we got a pretty good outcome. It could have been a lot worse either way. In other countries these kinds of incidents tend to end with someone getting Ghadaffied OR with the police mowing down 75 people. People are critical, but I think they did a pretty good job. Let them run around and take their stupid selfies. If any of them draw guns and try to shoot someone, put em down but recognize the difference between Horn and Spear guy taking a selfie vs. Camo guy with AR-15 trying to break down a door.

You just lump them all together and declare them the worst. No nuance. No consideration. Just "I hate you, so you deserve the worst in life."

Such primitive, juvenile thinking.


  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1608

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #533 on: February 05, 2021, 03:10:46 pm »
But that wasn't the same issue. This wasn't about race. This was about protesters at the White House. What if one of them had burst through a barrier and was unarmed. Would you say "Fine, rule of law"

No you wouldn't. Stop pretending otherwise.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Were does one begin ?
Sorry Marti, I've just bought a new runabout suitable for going a reasonable distance offshore and I'm far more interested in organising my fishing trip this weekend.
Fare thee well!


  • tylerthegloob
  • The Legend

    • 2952

    • September 28, 2016, 10:46:24 am
    • Busan
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #534 on: February 05, 2021, 03:11:41 pm »
they did a fine job considering they were wildly unprepared. had they been more prepared they wouldn't have had to barricade doors and shoot that poor woman. they absolutely should not have been able to run around and there is definitely room for something between "security here is a joke" and "mow everyone down"... i mean talk about half-assing it
more gg more skill


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #535 on: February 07, 2021, 05:54:15 am »
Hmm it's Super Bowl Sunday and we're still talking about the fact that Republicans assaulted the Capitol and tried to assassinate multiple members of congress and their VP.

Hmmmm.

Inb4 "I never said..." or "what I meant was..."





  • T_Rex
  • Super Waygook

    • 253

    • April 23, 2019, 08:10:20 am
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #536 on: February 07, 2021, 07:07:27 am »
Imagine being a lying snowflake and an enemy of free speech.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #537 on: February 07, 2021, 10:23:23 am »
Hmm it's Super Bowl Sunday and we're still talking about the fact that Republicans assaulted the Capitol and tried to assassinate multiple members of congress and their VP.

Hmmmm.

Inb4 "I never said..." or "what I meant was..."




I already called being wrong a few pages ago.

It's not that hard.


  • Adel
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1608

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #538 on: February 08, 2021, 02:14:08 am »
Imagine being a lying snowflake and an enemy of free speech.






  • stoat
  • The Legend

    • 2085

    • March 05, 2019, 06:36:13 pm
    • seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #539 on: February 08, 2021, 06:46:56 am »
Talking of snowflakes, what was that about Democratic politicians in tears in congress over the terrible ordeal they might have nearly experienced in the Capitol  :smiley:
« Last Edit: February 08, 2021, 07:37:14 am by stoat »