Read 36353 times

  • 745sticky
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1290

    • March 26, 2020, 01:52:57 pm
    • Korea
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #800 on: March 12, 2021, 02:08:48 pm »
If you believe in criminal justice reform, then you have to practice it and that means you have to be consistent.

"The police disproportionately target people of color and hit them with longer sentences" does tend to turn to "that (white) dude is guilty, lock him up for life" pretty quick

which isnt to say either of those statements are untrue (and especially with some crimes i can 100% understand wanting the harshest possible sentence) but the goal should be people of color being treated fairly and receiving shorter (or at the very least fair) sentences rather than people of color being treated fairly and white people receiving equally unjust sentences.

this is definitely a difficult conversation when were talking about extreme stuff like murder, but scale it back a bit and think in terms of drugs and stuff like that - the goal should be decriminalization and nobody gets arrested, not everybody gets arrested equally


  • Adel
  • Expert Waygook

    • 917

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #801 on: March 12, 2021, 02:12:32 pm »
In fairness to Marti, his latest ploy is more about deflecting the blame for the events of Jan 6th towards a disproven and discredited American far-right conspiracy theory to protect his cult leader hero!  :laugh:
In the end he's convinced no-one and only really encouraged people to ignore his pish posh style of argument.
Nonetheless, the insurrection leader has created deep division inside the GOP. I'm not sure how Liz Cheney and Mitch McConnel's responses to the events fit within this supposed partisan framework that Marti speaks of.   
« Last Edit: March 12, 2021, 02:15:13 pm by Adel »


  • 745sticky
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1290

    • March 26, 2020, 01:52:57 pm
    • Korea
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #802 on: March 12, 2021, 02:40:45 pm »
In fairness to Marti, his latest ploy is more about deflecting the blame for the events of Jan 6th towards a disproven and discredited American far-right conspiracy theory to protect his cult leader hero!  :laugh:
In the end he's convinced no-one and only really encouraged people to ignore his pish posh style of argument.
Nonetheless, the insurrection leader has created deep division inside the GOP. I'm not sure how Liz Cheney and Mitch McConnel's responses to the events fit within this supposed partisan framework that Marti speaks of.

apparently the proud boys leader was a "prolific" FBI informant, although that still doesnt account for the rest of them

plus theres idiots like baked alaska/fuentes/etc who were there for clout and youtube content, as dumb as that sounds. and im sure a sizeable amount were also maga chuds who heard about the "plan" somewhere or the other and decided to tag along


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #803 on: March 12, 2021, 04:59:24 pm »
Well, I'll concede it is partisan if you'll concede that it's only partisan because the Republican Party stands firmly against democratic elections in America.
How do the Republicans stand firmly against democratic elections? The reason they thought the election was stolen, which by the way, in their view, is about protecting democratic elections, is because they felt that there were shenanigans and that there was a lack of transparency and that some of the challenges were being shut down using circular reasoning. Now those claims might well have been been made using shoddy reasoning and delusional thinking, but that was still their motive. And even a moderate like Kyndo agreed that the process did lack something in transparency. The tone of the response was much more "How dare you question this? Sit down, shut up" rather than "We invite you in to be a part of this process and do as thorough an examination as possible." Furthermore, it's not like the left hasn't protested elections and declared people illegitimate- Bush 2000, Bush 2004, Georgia Governor, claims of voter suppression. And there have been actual cases of small-scale election fraud.

Now the evidence to support large-scale ballot fraud at the moment is scant. And leaping to "It was stolen" vs. "Lets audit" is a whole nother kettle of fish.

Anyways, it wasn't the Republican Party that rigged a primary election in 2016 and 2020. It was the Democrats openly putting their thumbs on the scales both times. Say what you will about the GOP, but they said "Let the vote by the vote and let the people choose. It is not our place to put our thumbs on the scale" in 2016. The Democrats did not.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #804 on: March 12, 2021, 05:06:41 pm »
"The police disproportionately target people of color and hit them with longer sentences" does tend to turn to "that (white) dude is guilty, lock him up for life" pretty quick
Exactly. The same people howling about cops lighting up people under the slightest pretext and courts overcharging people simply to get money out of them are the people now trying to claim this was a full on coup and insurrection. Calling this an insurrection and a coup is the same as dropping a guy for waving around a butter knife "Well theoretically he could get lucky and hit someone's jugular at just the right angle and with enough force so as to kill them, therefore we're justified in firing 50 shots into him." Theoretically these people were trying to take over, so lets declare them insurrectionists.

For some reason posters like Adel, MayorHaggar, and Mr. C feel like they "lose" something by it merely being a violent civil disturbance and not a full on coup. Lose what and why? I have no idea.

But I suspect its that same impulse that leads to shoddy justification shootings- deep seeded personal animus towards what those people represent in their minds. These guys are going to pay and it will feel good to hurt them. In the words of Philip Brailsford: "You're f*cked"


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #805 on: March 12, 2021, 05:18:25 pm »
apparently the proud boys leader was a "prolific" FBI informant, although that still doesnt account for the rest of them
Yeah, if the main group that everyone blames is being headed by an informant, that just adds even more skepticism to the official version of events. We already have that. Then we have questions about the police and their orders. And finally we have a decided lack of interest in finding QAnon. Not saying I smell a rat, but there is definitely an odor.

That being said, like, all of that can be true and it can still be the case that 90% of those thugs and idiots who stormed the place had nothing to do with any of that and it still happened and those things just are all separate.

Still the longer we see people in the news claim this was a violent coup, driven by QAnon crap, and the government does nothing to go after alleged violent coup inciter QAnon, the safer we can be in determining who really is behind QAnon.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2535

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #806 on: March 12, 2021, 06:24:48 pm »
Exactly. The same people howling about cops lighting up people under the slightest pretext and courts overcharging people simply to get money out of them are the people now trying to claim this was a full on coup and insurrection. Calling this an insurrection and a coup is the same as dropping a guy for waving around a butter knife "Well theoretically he could get lucky and hit someone's jugular at just the right angle and with enough force so as to kill them, therefore we're justified in firing 50 shots into him." Theoretically these people were trying to take over, so lets declare them insurrectionists.

For some reason posters like Adel, MayorHaggar, and Mr. C feel like they "lose" something by it merely being a violent civil disturbance and not a full on coup. Lose what and why? I have no idea.

Here's an analogy:  your desire to arrest the actual rioters compares to cops arresting the guys on street corners selling dime bags while the volume traffickers go free.  We want to get the guys at the top, responsible.  See?  That means Donald Trump.

According to whom, you ask?  How about:

“Would anybody have marched on the Capitol, and overrun the Capitol, without the president’s speech? I think it’s pretty much definitive that wouldn’t have happened,” said Christopher Miller, a hawkish Special Forces veteran chosen by Trump to replace former Defense Secretary Mark Esper days after the 2020 presidential election.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2021, 05:21:13 am by VanIslander »


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2535

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #807 on: March 12, 2021, 06:26:43 pm »
How do the Republicans stand firmly against democratic elections? The reason they thought the election was stolen, which by the way, in their view, is about protecting democratic elections, is because they felt that there were shenanigans and that there was a lack of transparency and that some of the challenges were being shut down using circular reasoning. Now those claims might well have been been made using shoddy reasoning and delusional thinking, but that was still their motive. And even a moderate like Kyndo agreed that the process did lack something in transparency. The tone of the response was much more "How dare you question this? Sit down, shut up" rather than "We invite you in to be a part of this process and do as thorough an examination as possible." Furthermore, it's not like the left hasn't protested elections and declared people illegitimate- Bush 2000, Bush 2004, Georgia Governor, claims of voter suppression. And there have been actual cases of small-scale election fraud.

Now the evidence to support large-scale ballot fraud at the moment is scant. And leaping to "It was stolen" vs. "Lets audit" is a whole nother kettle of fish.

Anyways, it wasn't the Republican Party that rigged a primary election in 2016 and 2020. It was the Democrats openly putting their thumbs on the scales both times. Say what you will about the GOP, but they said "Let the vote by the vote and let the people choose. It is not our place to put our thumbs on the scale" in 2016. The Democrats did not.

Heaven sake, the GOP of Arizona (rev) is trying to pass a law giving their legislature the capacity to literally overturn the vote of the people of their state without needing to even give cause.

And by the way, the Democratic Party's method of choosing their candidates is entirely up to them, what does the GOP have to do with it?  (Oh, maybe they thought the other guy would be easier to defeat?)  In any case, if you don't like it, join the party and try to change it.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2021, 05:26:32 am by VanIslander »


  • Adel
  • Expert Waygook

    • 917

    • January 30, 2015, 12:50:26 am
    • The Abyss
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #808 on: March 12, 2021, 11:38:39 pm »
Wow...this is all unhealthy and ignorant. 
Ignorant of what exactly?  Your reference to 'this' is vague at best.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2021, 05:19:37 am by VanIslander »


  • VanIslander
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • 2350

    • June 02, 2011, 10:12:19 am
    • Seogwipo, Jeju Island
    more
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #809 on: March 13, 2021, 05:24:50 am »
Stop the insults.
Don't attack the character of posters.

Be hard on the problem, not the people.
Criticize the message, don't shoot the messenger.

Be civil. Debate. Get along.

Follow the Terms of Service.