# George Floyd...



## BlackSG91

Some of you might have heard about the death of George Floyd, a black man who died at the hands of police in Minnesota. Here's the graphic footage of his arrest.






;>)/


----------



## BlackSG91

;>)/


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I was saddened to see this. I only wish that this was shocking to me. Although justice will never bring back this mans life, I do hope that punishment will be absolute and expeditious ( especially for the asshole that wouldn't get off of his neck).


----------



## tedtan

I'm surprised it took a couple of days to see a thread on this. I meant to post one but got sidetracked and forgot.




High Plains Drifter said:


> I was saddened to see this. I only wish that this was shocking to me.



Same here. This is all too common here in the states.




High Plains Drifter said:


> Although justice will never bring back this mans life, I do hope that punishment will be absolute and expeditious ( especially for the asshole that wouldn't get off of his neck).



He's a cop. Convict him, sentence him to prison and then let the inmates have at him. Maybe take bets on how long he survives with the monies going to police training programs prevent police abuses like this.


----------



## zappatton2

I've been avoiding actually watching the footage, not to maintain ignorance on the matter, but because it's just too horrifying. Needless to say, they did end up playing it on the news and I did see it, it's just heartbreaking, I don't know what else to say.

A few years ago, when the BLM movement tried desperately to make people aware of black and minority victimization at the hands of authority, the overwhelming reaction of too many white folks, including people in my family, was to make excuses for police action, become personally defensive, or belittle the movement with "Blue Lives Matter" whataboutism. Imagine, being so offended by sports figures taking a knee as protest to such injustice, but not being offended by injustice itself?

Anyone with a conscience should be sickened by the inhumanity of this. All of us, of all ethnic backgrounds, should be doing what we can to make this world better for everyone, should be reviewing our own biases and privileges, and ensuring the power wielded by state-appointed authority figures are conditional to the checks and balances of basic, legally protected civil rights.


----------



## Strobe

There is now looting near the target a mile from my house in St. Paul. That's sad, but it's not the point. We don't have a looting epidemic. We have a systemic issue with police malfeasance, the target of which is largely people of color, and I am mad as hell about it. It needs to end.


----------



## c7spheres

All the cops directly involved should be charged with accessory to muder. Dude killing guy slowy as crowd makes them all aware of it with cops preventing anyone else from helping by blocking them from getting to the person. 
- This is a shame but what's really shameful is all the incidents that happen and they get away with that aren't on video. If they're willing to do this on video as the wrong is being brought to their attention then they are truely evil. That technique is only supposed to be used to initially subdue someone. Once under control they shoul have put him in the back of car. 
- I don't know these cops backgrounds but I think an elephant in the room is the problem with mentally unstable ex military becoming cops to begin with. I wonder if this is the same thing again here.


----------



## BlackSG91

c7spheres said:


> All the cops directly involved should be charged with accessory to muder. Dude killing guy slowy as crowd makes them all aware of it with cops preventing anyone else from helping by blocking them from getting to the person.
> - This is a shame but what's really shameful is all the incidents that happen and they get away with that aren't on video. If they're willing to do this on video as the wrong is being brought to their attention then they are truely evil. That technique is only supposed to be used to initially subdue someone. Once under control they shoul have put him in the back of car.
> - I don't know these cops backgrounds but I think an elephant in the room is the problem with mentally unstable ex military becoming cops to begin with. I wonder if this is the same thing again here.



Don't worry...them police officers will get off scot free when Trump intervenes and gives them pardons like he did with this A-hole below...a war criminal who killed innocent people(women & children).








;>)/


----------



## c7spheres

BlackSG91 said:


> Don't worry...them police officers will get off scot free when Trump intervenes and gives them pardons like he did with this A-hole below...a war criminal who killed innocent people(women & children).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;>)/


 I know what you're saying but I doubt even Trump will pardon these people. Trump is unpopular but he can't be all that bad because Milania married him, and that's true love if I've ever seen it. : )


----------



## Blytheryn

BlackSG91 said:


> Don't worry...them police officers will get off scot free when Trump intervenes and gives them pardons like he did with this A-hole below...a war criminal who killed innocent people(women & children).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;>)/



Not to derail the thread, but wasn’t Gallagher proven innocent? Some other SEAL took the blame?


----------



## BlackSG91

c7spheres said:


> I know what you're saying but I doubt even Trump will pardon these people. Trump is unpopular but he can't be all that bad because Milania married him, and that's true love if I've ever seen it. : )



WAAATTTTTTT?!?!?!?!?!?!?







;>)/


----------



## BlackSG91

Blytheryn said:


> Not to derail the thread, but wasn’t Gallagher proven innocent? Some other SEAL took the blame?



I don't think so...Eddie boy was on trial and good 'ol Donny played a part in getting his medal back.


;>)/


----------



## Ralyks

Blytheryn said:


> Not to derail the thread, but wasn’t Gallagher proven innocent? Some other SEAL took the blame?



Nope. Total Trump pardon and nothing more.


----------



## c7spheres

BlackSG91 said:


> WAAATTTTTTT?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;>)/


 I was being sarcastic. : )


----------



## Alexa run my life

How many of those people recording it jumped in to help?


----------



## tedtan

BlackSG91 said:


> Don't worry...them police officers will get off scot free when Trump intervenes and gives them pardons like he did with this A-hole below...a war criminal who killed innocent people(women & children).



Trump only has power to pardon federal crimes. Any state and local level crimes they are convicted of would stand unless pardoned by the governor.





Alexa run my life said:


> How many of those people recording it jumped in to help?



You mean attempt to fight their way through the other three officers to get a shot at fighting off the fourth?

That wouldn't work out very well for anyone that tried it.


----------



## shadowlife

I hope to see all this outrage and protesting the next time a police officer is killed in the line of duty.


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> I hope to see all this outrage and protesting the next time a police officer is killed in the line of duty.



Why? They're different things.


----------



## narad

Oh, the Onion...

https://www.theonion.com/protestors...ql6itEeICyWiVlNpXZfm6qqH7pnNzuyiTVgUl5rCiQK88


----------



## shadowlife

narad said:


> Why? They're different things.



Were you there when the incident took place?
Or are you basing your opinion of it on a video taken at the end of the situation?


----------



## Alexa run my life

Did the cop say something racist that I missed?


----------



## Alexa run my life

tedtan said:


> Trump only has power to pardon federal crimes. Any state and local level crimes they are convicted of would stand unless pardoned by the governor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean attempt to fight their way through the other three officers to get a shot at fighting off the fourth?
> 
> That wouldn't work out very well for anyone that tried it.


So stand by and record it and not try to help but bitch about it afterwards by burning a store down?


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> Were you there when the incident took place?
> Or are you basing your opinion of it on a video taken at the end of the situation?



Is that supposed to answer my question or is this an additional tangent you'd like to go down?

What situation could you possibly imagine where it makes sense to place your knee on someone's neck when they're lying face-down, handcuffed, while they plead for several minutes about not being able to breathe? Does he pose a thread without the knee in his neck? Is there not any other way to keep him on the ground?

I mean, I don't really expect anything less in this subforum these days, but to defend this... or try to make his death less of a travesty because of the behavior of the riots... really disgusting, guys.



Alexa run my life said:


> Did the cop say something racist that I missed?



Nah, he just killed the guy.


----------



## shadowlife

Alexa run my life said:


> So stand by and record it and not try to help but bitch about it afterwards by burning a store down?



Most people are too much of a coward to put their ass on the line, no matter how loudly they yell about something not being right.


----------



## shadowlife

narad said:


> What situation could you possibly imagine where it makes sense to place your knee on someone's neck when they're lying face-down, handcuffed, while they plead for several minutes about not being able to breathe? Does he pose a thread without the knee in his neck? Is there not any other way to keep him on the ground?



That same individual laying on the ground may have been violently resisting arrest and assaulting the officer in question before he was put on the ground. We'll never know since the video conveniently starts after he is already on the ground.

Your original question doesn't deserve an answer, which is why I ignored it.


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> That same individual laying on the ground may have been violently resisting arrest and assaulting the officer in question before he was put on the ground. We'll never know since the video conveniently starts after he is already on the ground.



It literally would not matter if he had just killed a hundred people. He is detained. He is not a threat. The responsibility of the police officer is to now deliver him into the justice system, not personally lay him out in the street Dredd-style. If you want to kill people where they stand, maybe soldier or drug dealer would be a more appropriate career path.

C'mon guys, I know everything has to be polarized left vs. right and you have to argue for the sake of it, but this is an EASY ONE. It was wrong. There weren't good guys on both sides here.


----------



## shadowlife

narad said:


> It literally would not matter if he had just killed a hundred people. He is detained. He is not a threat. The responsibility of the police officer is to now deliver him into the justice system, not personally lay him out in the street Dredd-style. If you want to kill people where they stand, maybe soldier or drug dealer would be a more appropriate career path.
> 
> C'mon guys, I know everything has to be polarized left vs. right and you have to argue for the sake of it, but this is an EASY ONE. It was wrong. There weren't good guys on both sides here.



For the record, I'm not saying the police officers were justified.
I have a problem with the automatic "police brutality" outrage whenever these situations occur, especially when all the facts aren't known.

As to your first paragraph, have you ever been in life-threatening situation with a person who is trying to injure or kill you?
You might not be so quick to let that person up, whether or not they are "detained".


----------



## zappatton2

narad said:


> It literally would not matter if he had just killed a hundred people. He is detained. He is not a threat. The responsibility of the police officer is to now deliver him into the justice system, not personally lay him out in the street Dredd-style. If you want to kill people where they stand, maybe soldier or drug dealer would be a more appropriate career path.
> 
> C'mon guys, I know everything has to be polarized left vs. right and you have to argue for the sake of it, but this is an EASY ONE. It was wrong. There weren't good guys on both sides here.


Precisely. Thank you for stating it firmly; there's not a lot of grey area with this one, and implying that a certain profession be deified is precisely what leads to this sort of abuse of power. That man did what he did in front of cameras because he felt completely entitled in what he was doing.

To add to this; proper de-escalation training, can't recommend it enough (were it actually the case that a crime was committed and the suspect was aggressively resisting, which the facts so far do not validate).


----------



## High Plains Drifter

shadowlife said:


> Most people are too much of a coward to put their ass on the line, no matter how loudly they yell about something not being right.



"A random citizen intervening in a police arrest" would be irresponsible at the least, absolutely criminal, and would certainly add to the potential for further harm/ injury to all involved... including the victim. It wouldn't be "cowardly" for someone to stay out of it and that decision would have nothing to do with their right to be angered and subsequently "yell about" this mans death "not being right". One doesn't cancel out the other.


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> As to your first paragraph, have you ever been in life-threatening situation with a person who is trying to injure or kill you?
> You might not be so quick to let that person up, whether or not they are "detained".



I have not, but it is not literally my job to detain people who try to harm me.


----------



## shadowlife

High Plains Drifter said:


> "A random citizen intervening in a police arrest" would be irresponsible at the least, absolutely criminal, and would certainly add to the potential for further harm/ injury to all involved... including the victim. It wouldn't be "cowardly" for someone to stay out of it and that decision would have nothing to do with their right to be angered and subsequently "yell about" this mans death "not being right". One doesn't cancel out the other.



I hop no one you care about is ever the victim of police brutality (or any sort of violence), but if they were, would you want people standing around watching, or trying to help them?


----------



## shadowlife

narad said:


> I have not, but it is not literally my job to detain people who try to harm me.



Understood- just realize that all the training in the world can sometimes go right out the window in the heat of the moment.
If they were wrong, let them be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but let's have all the facts first before we convict them from our keyboards or smartphones.


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> Understood- just realize that all the training in the world can sometimes go right out the window in the heat of the moment.
> If they were wrong, let them be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but let's have all the facts first before we convict them from our keyboards or smartphones.



Given that I can't think of any justification where the behavior is appropriate, and we already have many facts + video, and it is also the same assessment reached internally by the local police department, I would say anyone willing to condemn this guy is well within the realm of reasonable logic. I'm willing to walk it back if it turned out he was holding a gun the whole time...

I just think it's funny -- a police officer kills an unarmed, handcuffed man, lying on the ground, and you think the reasonable response is, "Let's get all the facts straight". One fact: the guy's dead. Second fact: had no weapon. Third fact: handcuffed, on the ground. I would say start from the conclusion one reaches with the facts we have, and reassess. Not assume the cop did nothing wrong here, and reassess... I don't know, in a month?


----------



## SpaceDock

Alexa run my life said:


> So stand by and record it and not try to help but bitch about it afterwards by burning a store down?



Are you advocating that bystanders should try to stop police? Are you mental? Burning down the store is mob violence and not something anyone will defend but STOP A COP, WTF are you thinking? Good way to get shot.


----------



## narad

SpaceDock said:


> Are you advocating that bystanders should try to stop police? Are you mental? Burning down the store is mob violence and not something anyone will defend but STOP A COP, WTF are you thinking? Good way to get shot.



These guys will do anything to refrain from passing judgement on the officer who is literally kneeing the guy's neck for 3+ minutes, while at the same time, passing immediate blame on bystanders for not bum-rushing those officers (the same ones that were just a second ago, maybe not doing anything wrong / let's wait until we have all the facts). The mental gymnastics necessary to allow both of these arguments to co-exist would put Simone Biles to shame.


----------



## Randy

Anyone else watch the rioters live stream storming a fucking police station?


----------



## Randy

Alexa run my life said:


> Did the cop say something racist that I missed?



How did I know that even though you're an anti-establishment conspiracy galaxy brain, you'd chime in here to defend the police?


----------



## Alexa run my life

Randy said:


> How did I know that even though you're an anti-establishment conspiracy galaxy brain, you'd chime in here to defend the police?


Well no its just that it immediately turned into a race issue when it probably didn't need to


----------



## Randy

Take your Alex Jones watered down fake conspiracy, conservative gaslighting bullshit somewhere else. You absolutely showed your cards between this and the "Murica is overly dismissive and insulting toward conservatives" schtick.

This is the "I only care about the truth" smokescreen that only applies if it's criticism of liberal policies, but you bend over for cops suffocating unarmed people as long as they're black or as long as it's liberals that are incensed by it. No, don't get on your soapbox about the guy being killed while he was compliant with the police, get on your soapbox about the broken windows at the Target store.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Sigh


----------



## Randy

I don't give a shit if you've got a difference of opinion as long as you're earnest or you're consistent. Arguing this faux-spiracy shit about phones tracking you or whatever, but then jumping straight to 'man why you gotta make everything about race' when a uniformed cop was kneeling on a guys neck and the guy dies is peak contrarian anti-liberal derangement. Can't decide if you like authority or not until you hear what side the Democrat in the room is on.


----------



## jwade

A violent man with an incredibly long history of complaints against him & has killed multiple people in the past, also happened to work as security at the same club as a man he later pinned to the ground with his knee on his neck and slowly choked the life out of him in front of a crowd of terrified civilians.

The murder victim was unarmed, had committed no crime, and was not resisting arrest in any way (yes, there’s video showing things from much farther back).

This now former police officer is a murderer, and it is looking highly likely that this was premeditated. If you defend his actions or those of his three accomplices, you are a disgusting piece of garbage, and you should be ashamed of who you are.


----------



## eggy in a bready

i wonder how many more black folks are going to be killed by a state apparatus with well-known and well-documented white power affiliations before people can finally retire "let's hear both sides of the story"


----------



## c7spheres

- I'd bet if any citizens tried to physically help the person the cops would have probably felt threatened and started opening fire on them to protect themselves.
- Rioting and destroying property of people who were not involved is not going to help. It's why many people probably hate their neighborhoods. It's because of these stupid ignorant hypocrites.
- These officers may get charged and still go free. Though in this case I doubt it, but I wouldn't really be all that surprised.


----------



## BlackSG91

Randy said:


> Take your Alex Jones watered down fake conspiracy, conservative gaslighting bullshit somewhere else. You absolutely showed your cards between this and the "Murica is overly dismissive and insulting toward conservatives" schtick.
> 
> This is the "I only care about the truth" smokescreen that only applies if it's criticism of liberal policies, but you bend over for cops suffocating unarmed people as long as they're black or as long as it's liberals that are incensed by it. No, don't get on your soapbox about the guy being killed while he was compliant with the police, get on your soapbox about the broken windows at the Target store.




MetalHex = METAlhexa run my life 


;>)/


----------



## broj15

There's alot to unpack in this situation so I'll just break it down as coherently as I can:

1) 3rd precinct is up in flames tonight. An absolute win for the people imo. If we can accomplish that with shear numbers and little to no organization or training just imagine what could be done if people were more prepared.

2) the officer in question had 18 complaints filed against him.... 18.... How many of us would still have our jobs if we had 18 complaints filed against us? Further proof that the system is inherently flawed.

3) yes, it was the 1 cop with his knee on the victim's neck, but 3 more stood by making them complicent. There are no good cops. Even "good" cops help uphold a racist and oppressive system. IDC if your uncle or cousin or whoever is a cop and you swear "no no, he's really a good guy". ACAB. Period.

4) law enforcement exists to protect property. Not people.

5) looting/rioting/property destruction is NOT terrorism and is 100% justifiable. It's the actions of a population that is so disenfranchised & at the end of thier rope that they feel as though they have no other option if they ever want to see a measurable amount of change to a system that has repeatedly and unjustifiably targeted them since day 1. Fucking Target & AutoZone (multi million dollar companies) will be FINE. And for further proof, just look at the picture of Moon Palace Books in southern Minneapolis. Other businesses were destroyed and looted, but Moon Palace was left completely untouched. Why? Might have something to do with the massive sign that reads "Abolish Police" hanging up in thier window. Looting and property destruction is not a senseless thing. It's a tactic, and apparently the only one that seems to even be slightly effective against a capitalist system. It's almost like the people in charge care more about money than thier fellow humans.

6) the protests were peaceful until militarized police in riot gear started deploying tear gas & using non lethal ammunition (which can still seriously fuck a person up)

7) Truly peaceful protesters were met with violence at the hands of law enforcement, while just a couple weeks ago heavily armed right wing extremists marched on the capitol building in Michigan because Karen & Robert wanted to get thier haircut and go to Applebee's and the police just stood there like the fucking queen's guard outside of Buckingham palace. It's almost like they only choose to "enforce the law" when whoever is protesting is a perceived threat to the current system (aka capitalism).

8) the murder of George Floyd was executed in the streets in front of many people and then broadcast all over the internet for the entire world to see. If I'm being honest, I believe that Derek Chauvin should meet a similar fate. Lynch him and string him up for the traffic lights for all to see. Make an example out him so that this doesn't happen again.

9) let's not forget Breonna Taylor, a ER tech/former EMT who was shot 8 times in her home when "plain clothes police officers executed a 'no knock search warrant' ". The officers in questions DID NOT identify themselves upon entering the home, causing her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, to open fire on the police believing that they were Intruders. One bullet fired by Walker grazed one lousy pig in the ankle. He is now facing attempted murder charges.

10) Law enforcement had the video depicting the cold blooded murder of Ahmaud Arbery (carried out by a former police officer and his son) for almost 2 months. It wasn't until the video was seen by the public & the ensuing outrage that charges were filed & arrests were made. Once again. The system is broken and EVERY cop is complicent. ACAB. Period.

Edit: I feel ashamed for forgetting this, but there actually was one good cop. His name was Christopher Dorner and he sacrificed his own life so that things like this wouldn't happen anymore. RIP you can't corner the Dorner


----------



## Alexa run my life

Randy said:


> I don't give a shit if you've got a difference of opinion as long as you're earnest or you're consistent. Arguing this faux-spiracy shit about phones tracking you or whatever, but then jumping straight to 'man why you gotta make everything about race' when a uniformed cop was kneeling on a guys neck and the guy dies is peak contrarian anti-liberal derangement. Can't decide if you like authority or not until you hear what side the Democrat in the room is on.


Edit: Nevermind


----------



## narad

broj15 said:


> There are no good cops. Even "good" cops help uphold a racist and oppressive system. IDC if your uncle or cousin or whoever is a cop and you swear "no no, he's really a good guy". ACAB. Period.



This is just as dumb as anything I've read from the opposing view in this thread. What an overgeneralization. There's more than half a million cops out there. There's whole precincts that engage, care about, and look out for their communities, that are basically role models and better-than-your-average-joes. Just donning the suit doesn't make someone a terrible person or complicit in a racist system.


----------



## broj15

narad said:


> This is just as dumb as anything I've read from the opposing view in this thread. What an overgeneralization. There's more than half a million cops out there. There's whole precincts that engage, care about, and look out for their communities, that are basically role models and better-than-your-average-joes. Just donning the suit doesn't make someone a terrible person or complicit in a racist system.



I acknowledge your point & understand why you may believe that, but I will spare us both and go ahead and say that no one will change my mind. I will recognize that there are cops who do BELIEVE that they are fighting the good fight, and on a day to day basis do not commit any wrong doing. But the fact is, is that the justice system as a whole has a strong bias against minorities and I view being a part of it in any form as complacency.

TLDR, I do disagree with you wholeheartedly, but I do so respectfully & appreciate your opinion.

If you do care to have a dialogue I'd do it over pm. I feel like that's a much deeper seated & broader topic than what this thread pertains to so i'd rather not clutter it up.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

I won't get specific, but I am involved in law enforcement. I am also a person of color. I do my best to make our shitty justice system less shitty.

I don't think destroying their own communities, the livelihoods of their brothers, is any way to get back at "the man." Robbing stores owned and run by your neighbors sends a poor message and only hurts yourself. It's like getting mad at someone for shooting you in the foot and instead of shooting/fighting back, you cut your own hand off. It's not just big corporations effected/getting looted, it's small business. Even big businesses employ and in turn feed their neighbors. Large businesses are already strong arming the less skilled/poor workers out. Stealing and looting won't help them or their cause. They need to take the fight to those who wronged them. 

In this case they seem to be doing that on some front. They've set the precinct on fire, and THAT I understand. I wish things COULD be handled peacefully, but people aren't listening to peaceful. I find it terrifying that people can even try to justify hurting themselves to get back at the people who are hurting them. As if somehow running your brothers out of town is going to stop racist corrupt cops from doing what they've been doing. 

I'm not suggesting people calm down because calm hasn't worked. I do however find it incredibly disheartening to think that robbing stores, run on ground level by your neighbors, some owned and operated by them (some of which are probably also barely making it by as is,) is progressing anything in their favor. 

While I wouldn't personally participate, I understand torching the precinct. I don't, on the other hand, understand hurting their neighbors who are also effected by this tragedy. (The death of Floyd and the blatant societal racism I mean.)


----------



## narad

broj15 said:


> I acknowledge your point & understand why you may believe that, but I will spare us both and go ahead and say that no one will change my mind. I will recognize that there are cops who do BELIEVE that they are fighting the good fight, and on a day to day basis do not commit any wrong doing. But the fact is, is that the justice system as a whole has a strong bias against minorities and I view being a part of it in any form as complacency.
> 
> TLDR, I do disagree with you wholeheartedly, but I do so respectfully & appreciate your opinion.
> 
> If you do care to have a dialogue I'd do it over pm. I feel like that's a much deeper seated & broader topic than what this thread pertains to so i'd rather not clutter it up.



I mean, I feel similarly -- I'm not going to have my mind changed into thinking all cops are bastards -- so I don't think discourse is beneficial. 

I agree that the judicial system has long-standing racial biases (and often argue about it here in Japan) but it's a -bias-, it's not the whole thing. It's right there in the word. You can be an officer and hold everyone you encounter with due accountability. In fact, if you are a good person, it is even more reason to view joining law enforcement as an additional good you can do in the world. 

And similarly, you're going to have a much better chance at moving the needle from within the system than outside of it, pushing an agenda of us vs. them that only enforces solidarity among officers of different yokes. So pushing ACAB type rhetoric is likely only making the situation worse IMO, since good cops can't speak out / act out -- they have neither the support of their community or their fellow officers.


----------



## possumkiller

The problem is people keep getting away with shit like this. As long as people get away with it, it will keep happening. I don't understand why when these cops keep being set free after obviously murdering innocent people, nobody comes out to kill them anyway. Even if the system lets them get away with murder, the people should not let them get away with it. I doubt anything will happen to these cops because history already says nothing happens to white cops that murder black people for no reason. The system doesn't punish them and the people do not punish them so why would they be afraid to stop?


----------



## Chokey Chicken

I wouldn't exactly say that. Things are slowly changing. Very slowly, but people are outwardly getting sick of the shit and are starting to not take it sitting down. 

It's worth noting that we went from pretending nothing was happening to putting them on administrative leave to outright immediate firing. They're baby steps, and clearly not enough, but things are (hopefully) shifting. I think it's a very real possibility that these guys, or at least the one, are getting some form of hefty charges. 2nd degree murder doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility. 

Of course time will tell, and perhaps I'm just being too hopeful. I do know that the public at large's trust and patience is waning. Things will need to change or it's just going to get worse.


----------



## gunch

At any rate arresting journos isn’t a good look


----------



## narad

It's even worse from the view on the other side of the vehicle:



"The floor is hot lava! Gotta stay on top of the black guy, can't touch the floor or you're dead!"


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> The problem is people keep getting away with shit like this. As long as people get away with it, it will keep happening. I don't understand why when these cops keep being set free after obviously murdering innocent people, nobody comes out to kill them anyway. Even if the system lets them get away with murder, *the people should not let them get away with it*. I doubt anything will happen to these cops because history already says nothing happens to white cops that murder black people for no reason. The system doesn't punish them and the people do not punish them so why would they be afraid to stop?



There's nothing wrong with posing a question but we've gotta be careful of advocating things like this. 

To the overarching point, it's true that there's a bubble that seems to surround some people, and it goes beyond 'the blue wall of silence'. George Zimmerman was not a cop but the protections he's enjoyed ever since, despite proving himself to be a generally scummy person, tell the tale. Karma seems to be taking a rest, I guess? 

Nothing's gonna change on the systematic police protections, though. The cops have strong unions that limit the powers of their bosses intervention, then the department holds a lot of sway with the DA's office, and the DA's office holds a lot of sway with the criminal courts. That's what makes abuses of power so abhorrent. Because you're carrying out an unnecessary level of force with the understanding that those you visit it upon are put in your care, and with the understanding you're likely in minimal harm (ie: you have a gun, they don't, there's a several of you and one of them, etc). I don't think this country is especially good when it comes to handling abuses of power at any level.


----------



## Alexa run my life

broj15 said:


> You're either trolling, mentally ill, or just a fucking idiot.


Insult reported. 

We'll see how the mods deal with this


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

All "good" cops are complicit with the systematic abuses that are carried out by the "bad" ones. If they weren't, this movie would not have so many sequels.


----------



## narad

Alexa run my life said:


> Insult reported.
> 
> We'll see how the mods deal with this



Without a medical report I'm guessing they'd go with (a), but maybe I'm open to other conclusions.


----------



## Randy

Alexa run my life said:


> Insult reported.
> 
> We'll see how the mods deal with this



Didn't see that. It's been dealt with.

We can argue, we can debate and it's an intense subject, so I expect emotions to run over but we can't advocate killing people FFS and we gotta not name call.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Randy said:


> Didn't see that. It's been dealt with.
> 
> We can argue, we can debate and it's an intense subject, so I expect emotions to run over but we can't advocate killing people FFS and we gotta not name call.


I had a lengthy post typed up last night but deleted it because it wasn't worth it.

I never mentioned Alex Jones, or conspiracies, or phone tracking anywhere in this thread. Actually I never mentioned Alex Jones or phone tracking anywhere. You put words in my mouth....so I wasn't going to bother.

The TLDR was that the cop was totally wrong and killed the man when he didn't have to. It's absolutely disgusting if he gets a slap on the wrist for it. The cop should have eased up when the guy couldnt breathe. This cop should not get away with this.


----------



## philkilla

It would've been nice if the looters waited a day or two before burning the city down.


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> Didn't see that. It's been dealt with.
> 
> We can argue, we can debate and it's an intense subject, so I expect emotions to run over but we can't advocate killing people FFS and we gotta not name call.


Hey now I'm not advocating for anyone to get killed. I'm just saying the peaceful approach has not worked for the black community and armed occupation seems to have worked out great for the rednecks. I don't think the military will help much if they are ordered by trump to take down some angry black rebellion. The military has a huge amount of minorities and I don't see them pulling the trigger on their own people. Granted, there are a lot of white guys that join the military just for the chance to get to kill brown people with no repercussions just like the ones that join the police force. I think those jobs just attract that "type" of person. It's not even that they want to kill a black person, they just want a chance to kill someone (and it just happens to be easier in America to get away with killing black people for no reason). I saw it in Iraq all the time. Americans treated all of those people like they were subhuman. Like they were all the enemy. Guilty until proven innocent and even when proven innocent, still less human than an American. I've seen the same type of shit these cops do to black people in America (and worse) done to Iraqis by American soldiers. There was a patrol coming to fuel up that had the body of some poor asshole thrown in the bed of a hummer like a dead deer only with what must have been a hundred bullet holes in him. Even if he was shooting at them there is absolutely no reason he needed to be shot that many times. That was just sick assholes getting their morbid rocks off just the same as all these cops. That is why when people talk about the high suicide rates of cops and soldiers, it is difficult for me to feel bad. I have seen the crazy sick shit soldiers do. It doesn't surprise me in the least that their conscience can't handle it.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

This whole situation is fucked and I don't expect it to get better any time soon. What the fuck do you expect in a society where people even a few years younger than my parents couldn't marry outside their own race? A lot of the alt-right types I personally know seem to think that just because now, on paper, blacks are equal (especially because we've had a black president, don't cha know!) that somehow you're going to erase that ingrained racism. Go ahead and for hundreds of years say "these brown people are sub-human trash with no rights," then one day, not that fucking long ago, say "welp time to give them rights" and then see how many people can just shake the generations worth of ingrained hate. People will find ways to skirt around it... Hiring, or giving loans to someone named "John Miller" over a "Jamal Washington" or some shit.

We're far too close to our country's troubled past that it's not even in the rear view mirror yet. Racist ass people raised by racist ass people, who were all raised in a racist ass society, and they wonder why people who are legitimately innocent might fucking run. Step on their necks because they had a fake $20. Is $20 really all this guy's life was worth to this cop/these cops? You're really going to crush someone's neck because they may or may not have had a fake $20 bill?

The two incredibly unfortunate things here is, obviously, the death of a person who did not deserve being killed, and people lashing out in a way that is further fucking their already fractured community. I think it's absolutely logical to not be so peaceful about it anymore... Hell, I saw a meme on facebook recently that basically said "you told them to be peaceful and you shit on them when they kneeled quietly at football games." And that's fucking true... People have largely tried being peaceful for a long time and it's done nothing. The entire legal system needs reworking, and it's so deeply ingrained that I don't think it's happening any time soon. I'd hate for more injuries and loss of life, but I find it really hard to care about a police station getting burned down because people have lost hope and confidence (yeah right) in those who are SUPPOSED to protect us.

I don't know how to feel. I don't know, and never will know, how these communities feel. I wish everyone could just take a step back and honestly question why they hate "xyz" race. To question their upbringing. I'll be the first to admit I was brought up wrong and had some shitty views... I remember personally trying to justify the shooting of Cornel Young Jr. It really didn't take too much critical active thought to turn my views around. Why are you gonna kneel on this guy's neck for spending fake money? Why are you, in a 2v1 situation, going to choke out a guy for selling loose cigarettes? Why are you going to shoot an unarmed man in the back? Running or not, he clearly wasn't a threat to anyone. Would you kneel on YOUR kid's neck for spending fake money until he died? Would you choke out your kid if they were selling loose cigs? Shoot your kid in the back for trying to run away, despite knowing they're unarmed and not dangerous? It's sad, and nobody is having the right conversations or taking the right actions to fix it.


----------



## Necris

Señor Voorhees said:


> Hell, I saw a meme on facebook recently that basically said "you told them to be peaceful and you shit on them when they kneeled quietly at football games." And that's fucking true... People have largely tried being peaceful for a long time and it's done nothing. The entire legal system needs reworking, and it's so deeply ingrained that I don't think it's happening any time soon. I'd hate for more injuries and loss of life, but I find it really hard to care about a police station getting burned down because people have lost hope and confidence (yeah right) in those who are SUPPOSED to protect us.


Black Lives Matter were immediately lambasted as being "loud", "unreasonable", and "counter-productive" and eventually were labelled as extremists. Kapernick was told to stay in his lane and "just do his job" once he started using his platform to engage in a peaceful protest, white people didn't want to see it.

The reality, which is revealed again and again, is that in the eyes of society there is no acceptable way for marginalized communities to bring up the subject of police brutality or systemic racism. The insistence that optics must be the primary consideration of any movement and that the victims of these abuses must strive to meet a constantly shifting standard of what is "acceptable" in order for their concerns to be accepted as legitimate at all is ultimately just another tool to demoralize and ultimately silence those who would otherwise speak out.

Chauvin was finally arrested and charged with third degree murder and manslaughter. We'll see what happens to the other cops.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Necris said:


> Black Lives Matter were immediately lambasted as being "loud", "unreasonable", and "counter-productive" and eventually were labelled as extremists. Kapernick was told to stay in his lane and "just do his job" once he started using his platform to engage in a peaceful protest, white people didn't want to see it.
> 
> The reality, which is revealed again and again, is that in the eyes of society there is no acceptable way for marginalized communities to bring up the subject of police brutality or systemic racism. The insistence that optics must be the primary consideration of any movement and that the victims of these abuses must strive to meet a constantly shifting standard of what is "acceptable" in order for their concerns to be accepted as legitimate at all is ultimately just another tool to demoralize and ultimately silence those who would otherwise speak out.
> 
> Chauvin was finally arrested and charged with third degree murder and manslaughter. We'll see what happens to the other cops.



You are very much correct, and I know it's just wishful thinking on my part hoping that the majority of white folks can take a step back and critically think about how things just aren't okay how they are. It's easy to think everything is fine when you don't have to worry about having your neck crushed for committing non-violent crimes, or in many cases just doing absolutely nothing wrong at all.

I didn't watch the videos because quite honestly I'm tired of seeing the same shit time after time. It's heart breaking. That said, I know the alleged crime and I know it didn't warrant the actions given. I also don't know the extent of the other officer's involvement. It seems more likely that if they were just there and didn't actually commit the physical act that killed Floyd, they're probably just looking at manslaughter. Which is still not something good to be charged with, but I can't help but feel that the family won't feel justified unless they all get tried/convicted of some form of murder. I'm glad to see that Chauvin is getting charged with murder of some sort. Because let's be real, what he did was murder. Hopefully this begins to set a new precedent. 

On the plus side, as grim as it may be, it feels like things really are changing... Not fast enough, and it'll probably get much worse before it gets drastically better, but it feels like this time one or two years ago, these fucking scuzzbags would be sitting at home getting paid to do nothing after killing someone.


----------



## Kaura

I just can't understand all this rioting since the murderer cop already got busted and is waiting for his sentence and yet all these people rioting are screaming for justice. Well, that's justice in a civilized nation. You don't go and lynch someone because they did wrong. Just my 2 pennies.


----------



## vilk

Kaura said:


> I just can't understand all this rioting since the murderer cop already got busted and is waiting for his sentence and yet all these people rioting are screaming for justice. Well, that's justice in a civilized nation. You don't go and lynch someone because they did wrong. Just my 2 pennies.



This situation is actually constantly happening on a nation-wide scale and goes mostly unreported. In any other country, like Finland I'd imagine, if something like this happened it would make sense to believe it's a more or less isolated incident and that justice could be appeased for that one event and it would be "over", but unfortunately that's nowhere near the case here.


----------



## eggy in a bready

Kaura said:


> I just can't understand all this rioting since the murderer cop already got busted and is waiting for his sentence and yet all these people rioting are screaming for justice. Well, that's justice in a civilized nation. You don't go and lynch someone because they did wrong. Just my 2 pennies.


the protest was for the most part peaceful until the police came and started doling out the tear gas and flashbangs. that guy who first started the fire at Autozone was allegedly a St. Paul cop. reports of what are most likely agent provacateurs also starting shit.

the state started the riot.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Yeah. They're ending racism one flatscreen TV at a time.


----------



## broj15

For those that haven't seen the man shown in this video breaking the windows of AutoZone (the first business to sustain property damage) is a police officer from St. Paul.... You can even clearly see other protesters telling him to stop AND the person filming say "I don't want a part of that shit" and move away. 

He was sent there by the police to commit property damage allowing them the justification needed to deploy "non lethal" force such as tear gas and non lethal ammunition, which as I said before can still put a person in the hospital. The protests were 100% peaceful up until that point. They literally planted a false flag operator among the protesters in an attempt to justify the use of force and bend the narrative to suit thier will. 

So what was that about how property damage and looting isn't ever justifiable?


----------



## Alexa run my life

broj15 said:


> For those that haven't seen the man shown in this video breaking the windows of AutoZone (the first business to sustain property damage) is a police officer from St. Paul.... You can even clearly see other protesters telling him to stop AND the person filming say "I don't want a part of that shit" and move away.
> 
> He was sent there by the police to commit property damage allowing them the justification needed to deploy "non lethal" force such as tear gas and non lethal ammunition, which as I said before can still put a person in the hospital. The protests were 100% peaceful up until that point. They literally planted a false flag operator among the protesters in an attempt to justify the use of force and bend the narrative to suit thier will.
> 
> So what was that about how property damage and looting isn't ever justifiable?



So the peaceful protesters should have stood by and watched that one supposed undercover cop do that by himself and make him look like a jackass. No one forced them to jump in and make it worse. Nice excuse makingthere.


----------



## possumkiller

broj15 said:


> For those that haven't seen the man shown in this video breaking the windows of AutoZone (the first business to sustain property damage) is a police officer from St. Paul.... You can even clearly see other protesters telling him to stop AND the person filming say "I don't want a part of that shit" and move away.
> 
> He was sent there by the police to commit property damage allowing them the justification needed to deploy "non lethal" force such as tear gas and non lethal ammunition, which as I said before can still put a person in the hospital. The protests were 100% peaceful up until that point. They literally planted a false flag operator among the protesters in an attempt to justify the use of force and bend the narrative to suit thier will.
> 
> So what was that about how property damage and looting isn't ever justifiable?



I hate to break the news but that is nothing new. The same thing happens with all protest groups. Police or FBI plant agents to start violence that allows police to respond with force and the message of the group to be ignored.


----------



## broj15

Alexa run my life said:


> So the peaceful protesters should have stood by and watched that one supposed undercover cop do that by himself and make him look like a jackass. No one forced them to jump in and make it worse. Nice excuse makingthere.




I think you may have a problem understanding the time line or exactly the role a false flag operator plays in this scenario, or how law enforcement abuses power under the guise of justifiable force. Though it was deleted my original point in my last comment directed at you still stands. I'll double down on that. Everyone else started looting and destroying corporate buildings AFTER the police initiated the use of "non lethal" force. They justified that because "someone" started breaking windows. It's really a matter of who cast the first stone: law enforcement.


possumkiller said:


> I hate to break the news but that is nothing new. The same thing happens with all protest groups. Police or FBI plant agents to start violence that allows police to respond with force and the message of the group to be ignored.



Oh I'm well aware. Just felt the need to bring it up in this case especially when people are trying to say that the destruction of property is never justifiable.


----------



## SpaceDock

Alexa run my life said:


> Yeah. They're ending racism one flatscreen TV at a time.



I hope you realize that these comments really make you come off like a troll. I don’t understand why you and a couple others seem to throw out these comments that dont build up any constructive conversation and seem designed to get you attacked by the forum. Do you just like upsetting people or do you actually think that theft invalidates the purpose of these riots? These are low income minority neighborhoods being beaten down by cops and the system. Of course there is going to be theft interspersed with the political demonstration.


----------



## Alexa run my life

SpaceDock said:


> I hope you realize that these comments really make you come off like a troll. I don’t understand why you and a couple others seem to throw out these comments that dont build up any constructive conversation and seem designed to get you attacked by the forum. Do you just like upsetting people or do you actually think that theft invalidates the purpose of these riots? These are low income minority neighborhoods being beaten down by cops and the system. Of course there is going to be theft interspersed with the political demonstration.


No It's a serious matter but I think people are making excuses to loot and vandalize places lile stores. Vandalizing the police station, I can understand....but not Target. That's their community. That's their jobs and livlihoods. Stop trying to start drama by calling people you dont agree with, trolls. Ive already stated my stance on this topic earlier today, go and read it. (Kindly)


----------



## c7spheres

Kaura said:


> I just can't understand all this rioting since the murderer cop already got busted and is waiting for his sentence and yet all these people rioting are screaming for justice. Well, that's justice in a civilized nation. You don't go and lynch someone because they did wrong. Just my 2 pennies.



People want free shit and like to destroy stuff. They're the reason why racist exists to begin with and as said above provocatuers and cops will get the problems started to justify thier uses of force. It's why the best thing to do is not show up to a riot or a protest. Protests don't do anything at all except cause problems. Everyone already knows it's not something people want or like and there's no changing the minds of the people who do want it. It's like trying to talk someone our of thier religion. It's likely not gonna happen. When is the last time a bunch of people protested and the evil fuck they were yelling at said "you know what? you're right. I'm gonna make it all better now."?
- Some of this stuff has to do with race but I think most of it has to do with a war on the poor and the homeless. The more people you can force into your cheap labor camp the better it is for business. They don't care what color you are, they care that you become they're tool. This stuff happens to white people too. It's getting even worse now that a lot of the police and prisons are becoming private. 
- Until people actually unite they won't be united. As long as it's always made into a black/white thing and you have idiots trashing their brotha's store for some free merch then this problem will always exist. 
- The root cause of all these problems is scarcity due to greed and selfishness. It's not even about the have and have-not's, it's about the kind and fair people and the selfish hurtful people. It's about good and evil. You're on either one side or the other. It's a subjective thing yes, but everyone knows they shouldn't be burning shit down, looting and killing in response to this. Everyone know that's wrong. They just want free stuff. If they really wanted to stand up they'd start a killing spree against all the cops, but this isn't really about war or justice for them. It's about free stuff. The people that really want justice and want to fight the actual enemy or system etc are not looting or killing or hating all white people etc., because they actually want change, not just free stuff or to destroy stuff.


----------



## SpaceDock

Alexa run my life said:


> No It's a serious matter but I think people are making excuses to loot and vandalize places lile stores. Vandalizing the police station, I can understand....but not Target. That's their community. That's their jobs and livlihoods. Stop trying to start drama by calling people you dont agree with, trolls. Ive already stated my stance on this topic earlier today, go and read it. (Kindly)



Not trying to start drama, I honestly think you are begging for it with some of your posts. 

What you are writing here is something that we can have a constructive conversation about. I would say that burning and looting a Target is not something I can condone but the members of that mob do not see Target as a part of their community or livelihood. Target is a giant corporation that doesn’t care about these people lives or community. Target is there to take make as much money and supplant as many existing local businesses as possible. These people do not view their minimum wage stocker or cashier job at Target as a livelihood, it is a temporary gig. The lack of involvement, engagement, and ownership for minorities in the businesses of their communities is a big part of the problem.


----------



## Alexa run my life

SpaceDock said:


> Not trying to start drama, I honestly think you are begging for it with some of your posts.
> 
> What you are writing here is something that we can have a constructive conversation about. I would say that burning and looting a Target is not something I can condone but the members of that mob do not see Target as a part of their community or livelihood. Target is a giant corporation that doesn’t care about these people lives or community. Target is there to take make as much money and supplant as many existing local businesses as possible. These people do not view their minimum wage stocker or cashier job at Target as a livelihood, it is a temporary gig. The lack of involvement, engagement, and ownership for minorities in the businesses of their communities is a big part of the problem.


Target cares just as much about lives in poor communities in the same amount that a high end retail store cares about rich people in wealthy communites. Businesses goes wherever they can do business. 

Everyone always says these "giant evil mega corporations" as if it's some wizard of oz that we never see hiding behind a curtain. All corporations are are multiple people with money.

But Target wasn't the focus of my point...its just one of many things apparently being destroyed. Just an example.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

c7spheres said:


> People want free shit and like to destroy stuff. They're the reason why racist exists to begin with and as said above provocatuers and cops will get the problems started to justify thier uses of force. It's why the best thing to do is not show up to a riot or a protest. Protests don't do anything at all except cause problems. Everyone already knows it's not something people want or like and there's no changing the minds of the people who do want it. It's like trying to talk someone our of thier religion. It's likely not gonna happen. When is the last time a bunch of people protested and the evil fuck they were yelling at said "you know what? you're right. I'm gonna make it all better now."?
> - Some of this stuff has to do with race but I think most of it has to do with a war on the poor and the homeless. The more people you can force into your cheap labor camp the better it is for business. They don't care what color you are, they care that you become they're tool. This stuff happens to white people too. It's getting even worse now that a lot of the police and prisons are becoming private.
> - Until people actually unite they won't be united. As long as it's always made into a black/white thing and you have idiots trashing their brotha's store for some free merch then this problem will always exist.
> - The root cause of all these problems is scarcity due to greed and selfishness. It's not even about the have and have-not's, it's about the kind and fair people and the selfish hurtful people. It's about good and evil. You're on either one side or the other. It's a subjective thing yes, but everyone knows they shouldn't be burning shit down, looting and killing in response to this. Everyone know that's wrong. They just want free stuff. If they really wanted to stand up they'd start a killing spree against all the cops, but this isn't really about war or justice for them. It's about free stuff. The people that really want justice and want to fight the actual enemy or system etc are not looting or killing or hating all white people etc., because they actually want change, not just free stuff or to destroy stuff.



As tragic as the death of Mr. Floyd was, I have to ultimately agree with this ^^^ regarding the looting. I'm not commenting on protests or even riots. But it's the looting that ultimately causes me to disconnect with those involved. There is much more hardship that you are instilling upon your community if you are vandalizing, torching, and ransacking any business... locally or internationally based. If someone is part of this, then they are not bringing awareness nor change... and they're not doing it to suit any selfless cause. 

The most positive thing to come out of the news today was that officer Chauvin was arrested. Accountability needs to be the focus here and that includes any police officer that acts negligently or in any abusive/ immoral manner. I hope that George Floyd's death will not be in vain but I'm not necessarily holding my breath. It's up to everyone to move forward and to do so with an elevated mindset of walking in someone else's shoes and to practice restraint, empathy, and humanity... all leaders, all citizens... no matter their race nor their convictions.

I'll continue living every day of my life trying to appreciate how my actions might affect others, and I'll make mistakes. But I think that we owe it to ourselves and to others, to always try to consider other people and situations that are outside of our familiarity. If nothing else, we owe that to society.


----------



## Randy

Regarding the dynamic between looting and injustice

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CAyfFnaJbyL/?igshid=111b96opslzkx


----------



## SpaceDock

Watching protests all across the country tonight. Crazy stuff and I wish we had a leader that could help tamp this down instead of pumping the bellows.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Regarding the dynamic between looting and injustice
> 
> https://www.instagram.com/tv/CAyfFnaJbyL/?igshid=111b96opslzkx



It's a bit of a stretch I feel. I find it difficult to imagine people truly looting with grief and justice in their hearts. If anything the video with the guy smashing the windows highlights how we shouldn't treat protesters as one group -- there are many people out there protesting, and there are some people out there looting, the extent to which these groups overlap is actually a bit unclear, and to glom them together feels like a typical conservative trap of discrediting the voices of the people. 
To say that looting the stores is like some spin on looting the black community/black bodies is an argument that tries to legitimize looting as protesting. 

Looking at the scenes inside the store and at the protests in general, it looks to me like a massive, largely peaceful protest. Separately, a small group of people are trying to capitalize on the disruption and loot. But the effect this has is when I called my mom last night and mentioned "Minneapolis", she replied like, "Oh I know, isn't it terrible, they're looting and setting fire to everything". The looting wasn't supposed to be the headline, and I think emphasizing the disconnect between protesters and looters, especially the numbers of each, is the better take on it. There's a percentage of profiteering scumbags in every community...typically these people go to business school, but in another life, looters. Can't let those guys represent the entire event.


----------



## Randy

YMMV. I think his point about the social contract being broken is spot on. This is what a breakdown of society looks like


----------



## Randy

Arguing that protesting racial injustice needs to be peaceful and not inconvenience people is a favorite conservative troupe. The point being made is simple, you don't treat our people as human beings, we'll make it as painful for you as possible. Being polite got nobody nowhere.


----------



## fantom

Not sure if this was posted, buy CNN reported that the charged cop used to work security at a local club together with the victim. So they already knew each other before the encounter. Kind of makes the situation worse for the cop in my opinion. He should not have been the arresting officer once backup arrived.

Edit: Oh wait, according to the police report the charged officer *was* the backup...


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> YMMV. I think his point about the social contract being broken is spot on. This is what a breakdown of society looks like



I still think he was mostly spot-on, and I found the whole video to be a really fresh and well structured argument. I mean, it's his job to do these sorts of narratives but he's making me feel stupid living in Japan and getting rusty at stringing 2 coherent sentences together off-the-cuff.

But where I separate is not on the grounds of "peaceful protest", but about looting -- stocking up on items and running away with them. If you're out there destroying things, your only incentive to do that is protest and destruction. If you're taking a shopping cart full of autoparts back to your car, I find it a bit disingenuous to shout "Justice for George!" while doing so. I really just view these groups as separate things -- there's peaceful protesters, non-peaceful protesters, and looters. I suspect the split is something like 95/5/1 looking at the actual protest videos, so I feel like it's overall sad to let the 1% become the symbol of the rest.


----------



## eggy in a bready

every time this happens, people are always quick to defend the capital of a corporation over the murder of a black person.

who gives a fuck if a Target gets looted?


----------



## Randy

I have a hard time believing any of those people went to Target with a shopping list. Except one white dude I saw clutching a box of Legos. That guy was planning that for a long time.

Not exactly an endorsement but it's comparable to invaders/conquerors throughout history. It wasn't peaceful negotiations, it wasn't my army versus your army like chess pieces. It's overrunning the cities, pillaging, stealing and burning what's left to the ground.

On a very, very visceral level, this is what people do when broken down to their most basic components. Its chaos. There were a handful of looters but a lot of people just destroying things and picking up anything around them. I don't think looting is heroic but it's a spin-off of the kind of discontent that's been sown. I don't throw out the value of the outrage, the protesting or even the rioting because a couple people pocketed stuff in the process. Would it have been more acceptable if they just burned the whole thing down before anyone got a chance to get inside?


----------



## possumkiller

Their looting is much cheaper for the economy than the looting big businesses and politicians have been doing during the pandemic.


----------



## BlackSG91

I hope that cop that knelt his knees on George Floyd rots in fucking hell!!! What a complete utter asshole and I feel frustrated that this kind of shit happens. That fat fuck of a police officer who was standing by over should have his colon disemboweled. There are good cops and there is FUCKING SCUM!!!


;>)/


----------



## broj15

eggy in a bready said:


> every time this happens, people are always quick to defend the capital of a corporation over the murder of a black person.
> 
> who gives a fuck if a Target gets looted?




I agree with this 100%.

Target and every other corporation has money to burn. Shit, they've been making a killing on toilet paper for the past 2 months.

1 year from now that Target will be repaired and it will be like none of this ever happened but George Floyd will still be dead. Fuck Target and every other major corporation & fuck all thier stockholders too.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## BlackSG91

The street protests continue...I can see this developing into a national crisis. I remember the L.A. riots back in the 90's...you haven't seen nothing yet!




;>)/


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

These protests and riots have done more to bring Americans together in solidarity than Dems and Republicans have done in about 20 years.


----------



## mpexus

shadowlife said:


> That same individual laying on the ground may have been violently resisting arrest and assaulting the officer in question before he was put on the ground. We'll never know since the video conveniently starts after he is already on the ground.




I assume people try to get info as much as they can before replying but its seems its still not the case even when information is so widely available


----------



## Chokey Chicken

eggy in a bready said:


> every time this happens, people are always quick to defend the capital of a corporation over the murder of a black person.
> 
> who gives a fuck if a Target gets looted?



For target's sake? I don't really care. For the sake of the people who live in that community and rely on target for a paycheck? I care a lot. The looted businesses are going to be closed down for a while at least, and a lot of the jobs gone with it. 

And shitting on large corporations also sidesteps the problem of small community owned/non chain businesses that are getting looted and ruined. Insurance might help, it might not if it's bad enough. I remember back during Katrina hearing stories about all state yeeting out of the area so they didn't have to help. I've also lived most of my life in a small community where everyone was barely making ends meet. I watched my entire town basically fold up because of rising rates of everything. 

I don't care about the corporate big wigs, they'll be fine. I care about the poor folks living month to month who this will make it harder for. 

This is why I think if they're going to loot and burn, loot and burn the police station and other political/legal establishments that fail to treat us like fellow humans. Which they at least torched the offending precinct, to which I say good job.


----------



## shadowlife

mpexus said:


> I assume people try to get info as much as they can before replying but its seems its still not the case even when information is so widely available




And what happened in-between the end of that video, and Mr. Floyd being on the ground with someone's knee on his neck?
You're the google expert- where's the video of what happened in the interim?

Man, I hope some of you guys never end up on a jury.
"Trial? We don't need no stinkin' trial- we saw the video on youtube! Send him straight to the electric chair!"


----------



## Cabinet

Have we heard any news on people instigating riots? I'm skeptical that they are all locals. In other places, out of state license plates were spotted, and I think non-residents are more likely to instigate those sorts of things.


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> And what happened in-between the end of that video, and Mr. Floyd being on the ground with someone's knee on his neck?
> You're the google expert- where's the video of what happened in the interim?
> 
> Man, I hope some of you guys never end up on a jury.
> "Trial? We don't need no stinkin' trial- we saw the video on youtube! Send him straight to the electric chair!"



And I'd hate to see you on the jury with the logic you're espousing now. "Well, we don't have footage from every angle of every moment prior to the cops piling up on him for minutes until he was dead, so... non guilty!"


----------



## possumkiller

narad said:


> And I'd hate to see you on the jury with the logic you're espousing now. "Well, we don't have footage from every angle of every moment prior to the cops piling up on him for minutes until he was dead, so... non guilty!"


According to history that is how it will end anyway. They will charge this guy with murder (and the other guys with nothing apparently?) and set a trial that will take forever to even start. They will insist that he will not get a fair trial in the jurisdiction where he committed the murder and get a change of venue to the middle of redneck hell in the woods where they will let him off free.


----------



## mpexus

shadowlife said:


> And what happened in-between the end of that video, and Mr. Floyd being on the ground with someone's knee on his neck?
> You're the google expert- where's the video of what happened in the interim?
> 
> Man, I hope some of you guys never end up on a jury.
> "Trial? We don't need no stinkin' trial- we saw the video on youtube! Send him straight to the electric chair!"


George was handcuffed with hands behind his back for a long time now and three offices grabbing him... did you think he would still try to still avoid arrest in those conditions??? Do you even have a clue what you are saying or implying? Have you ever been handcuffed even just as joke thing with friends? Try it and then tell me how much can you avoid anything with 3 people on top grabbing you, film it and post it please.


----------



## mpexus

Cabinet said:


> Have we heard any news on people instigating riots? I'm skeptical that they are all locals. In other places, out of state license plates were spotted, and I think non-residents are more likely to instigate those sorts of things.



You mean like this?




Curious fact the Umbrella isn't it


----------



## eggy in a bready

legos guy is me ir


Chokey Chicken said:


> For target's sake? I don't really care. For the sake of the people who live in that community and rely on target for a paycheck? I care a lot. The looted businesses are going to be closed down for a while at least, and a lot of the jobs gone with it.
> 
> And shitting on large corporations also sidesteps the problem of small community owned/non chain businesses that are getting looted and ruined. Insurance might help, it might not if it's bad enough. I remember back during Katrina hearing stories about all state yeeting out of the area so they didn't have to help. I've also lived most of my life in a small community where everyone was barely making ends meet. I watched my entire town basically fold up because of rising rates of everything.
> 
> I don't care about the corporate big wigs, they'll be fine. I care about the poor folks living month to month who this will make it harder for.
> 
> This is why I think if they're going to loot and burn, loot and burn the police station and other political/legal establishments that fail to treat us like fellow humans. Which they at least torched the offending precinct, to which I say good job.


yeah, that is sad. undoubtedly there are people who sieze the opportunity to destroy anything around them, regardless of cause or reason


----------



## shadowlife

narad said:


> And I'd hate to see you on the jury with the logic you're espousing now. "Well, we don't have footage from every angle of every moment prior to the cops piling up on him for minutes until he was dead, so... non guilty!"



The only thing I'm espousing is that there should be a full investigation, and all the facts gathered, then a trial and conviction if warranted.
Unlike the majority of people who have the cop tried, convicted, and sentenced based on some video footage that doesn't show the entire incident.

I do think the fact that they worked together previously is a red flag, and it's possible that there may have been some kind of bad blood between them. I think the investigators should definitely look into that aspect.
But that's just me having an open mind, a concept that seems more and more foreign in today's social media based society.


----------



## Viginez

Cabinet said:


> Have we heard any news on people instigating riots? I'm skeptical that they are all locals. In other places, out of state license plates were spotted, and I think non-residents are more likely to instigate those sorts of things.


indeed most of the arrested were no locals (according to a recent statement from the presser).
it seems some groups take advantage of the situation and fund riots.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/16/outside-agitators-ferguson-october-cops


----------



## Kaura

Are the riots still going? The Finnish media keeps pretty quiet about the whole ordeal and I can't get a clear picture of what is going on.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Protesters are blocking highways.....that should put a stop to this racism.


----------



## Viginez

Kaura said:


> Are the riots still going? The Finnish media keeps pretty quiet about the whole ordeal and I can't get a clear picture of what is going on.


do you only have access to finish media?


----------



## Steinmetzify

Buddy of mine lives there and has been keeping me in the loop; his GF is part of a task force assigned to protect the 5th precinct tonight, along with upwards of 1,300 National Guard members, in addition to the 500-700 that were already there.

Word has gotten out that some police personal info has leaked and they’re preparing for it. If one of those cops goes down in his front yard or god forbid something happens to one of their wives or kids, they’re going to have to call in the Army.

This shit is terrible.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

https://www.fox9.com/news/jail-reco...in-minneapolis-riots-have-minnesota-addresses


----------



## Alexa run my life

And just like that, everyone forgot about covid19. Oh and masks. The ones who are wearing masks during these riots are people like antifa who don't wanna be recognized.


----------



## StevenC

Alexa run my life said:


> And just like that, everyone forgot about covid19. Oh and masks. The ones who are wearing masks during these riots are people like antifa who don't wanna be recognized.


Please either stop or try harder.


----------



## Randy

ITT: ARML complains about everything but cops killing unarmed people. Literally everything.


----------



## Kaura

Viginez said:


> do you only have access to finish media?



No, but I don't know any foreign news outlets.


----------



## Necris

The lie of "outside agitators" has long been a favorite tactic of governments facing any sort of civil unrest as it works to deligitmize the movement. The same shit was used against MLK.

Was the real culprit white supremacists, was it antifa, non-descript out of town anti government cells? The media has an answer that suits your biases and deligitimizes the protests at the same time.
They're unlikely to ever produce any physical evidence of these people.

The government will run with its preferred answer, too. Expect vigorous repression of the organized left as the Trump administration government pretends such organizations are "antifa", their favorite boogeyman.

The end result is staring us in the face; misdeeds of cops, the flaws of society, etc. are all forgotten and now the legitimacy of the protests themselves is the discussion.


----------



## c7spheres

High Plains Drifter said:


> As tragic as the death of Mr. Floyd was, I have to ultimately agree with this ^^^ regarding the looting. I'm not commenting on protests or even riots. But it's the looting that ultimately causes me to disconnect with those involved. There is much more hardship that you are instilling upon your community if you are vandalizing, torching, and ransacking any business... locally or internationally based. If someone is part of this, then they are not bringing awareness nor change... and they're not doing it to suit any selfless cause.
> 
> The most positive thing to come out of the news today was that officer Chauvin was arrested. Accountability needs to be the focus here and that includes any police officer that acts negligently or in any abusive/ immoral manner. I hope that George Floyd's death will not be in vain but I'm not necessarily holding my breath. It's up to everyone to move forward and to do so with an elevated mindset of walking in someone else's shoes and to practice restraint, empathy, and humanity... all leaders, all citizens... no matter their race nor their convictions.
> 
> I'll continue living every day of my life trying to appreciate how my actions might affect others, and I'll make mistakes. But I think that we owe it to ourselves and to others, to always try to consider other people and situations that are outside of our familiarity. If nothing else, we owe that to society.


 This looting and vadalism is spreading. It happened in downtown Phoenix last night too. Now "they" come out asking everyone to calm down and be civil.
- This is true. People need to be civil, I agree.
- What "they" don't ever seem to understand is when people try that it doesn't work. After this passes "they" will go back to being their unfair selfish self-serving selves. Since "they" have the money and power they never have to compromise and they aren't fair to people. They are the epitome of poor characters. It's why people hate them. They take advantage of people all the time and treat them unfairly, especially in legal (not ethical) ways. They won't give an inch or a penny unless it's for their convenience. It's why the problems happen. Fair is fair, but people aren't fair so why should they be expected to be civil if that doesn't work and especially if "they" aren't ever fair? This all seems perfectly normal human behavior to me. Continuously force treat people like animals and they will act like them. Everything is going just as it should, it seems. When "civility" is restored then "they" will all just go back to their normal unethical bullshit selves. They only want this to stop right now for their convienence, not because they actually care about resolution. I'd categorize most of "them" as sociopaths. They can't be reasoned with unless they are forced phsically or financially. They only respond to power plays. It's why they have power to begin with. Sorry people. I'm just upset and sick of all this shit. People need to be humans first. This inequality shit needs to end wether that be race, income, economic, standards of living, human rights etc. People are sick of it and if it never ever gets better, ever, then why wouldn't they resort to burn the system down? This all makes perfect sense for those in these positions and willing to fight. Diplomacy is a dead end failure because the powers that be will not have it, because it means they'd lose power and money, and they ain't having that. So round and round we go.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

narad said:


> And I'd hate to see you on the jury with the logic you're espousing now. "Well, we don't have footage from every angle of every moment prior to the cops piling up on him for minutes until he was dead, so... non guilty!"



Perfect counterpoint. Jury's need to fill the gaps and determine was was right or wrong beyond reasonable doubt. At this point, imo, there is no reasonable doubt until they find out he was about to physically kill someone. You don't crush a man's throat because he broke a non violent law/ran from the police.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

eggy in a bready said:


> legos guy is me ir
> 
> yeah, that is sad. undoubtedly there are people who sieze the opportunity to destroy anything around them, regardless of cause or reason




Fair statement. Some people might just not care and are out for themselves in the short term. That shouldn't detract from the reasonable rebellion that is going on. Certainly shouldn't be making headlines alongside a murdered individual. It's sad but not the main topic at hand.


----------



## StevenC

The picture going round of Kaepernick kneeling juxtaposed with Chauvin kneeling sort of sums up "being civil".


----------



## eggy in a bready

Chokey Chicken said:


> Fair statement. Some people might just not care and are out for themselves in the short term. That shouldn't detract from the reasonable rebellion that is going on. Certainly shouldn't be making headlines alongside a murdered individual. It's sad but not the main topic at hand.


looting, rioting, protesting... all of it is part of the same narrative that has been happening in this country since its inception. what do you think is going to happen when people finally lash out after being beaten down for centuries at this point? of course it's not going to look pretty.


----------



## Randy

The message is that authorities like mayors, governors, police, etc are given that authority by the people. When they disrespect and murder the people, with total disregard and expecting impunity, violence and breaking the bonds of standard societal discourse works as a reminder they have that power because we let them. Society works because we let it. Protests, turn riots, turn looting serve as a reminder we can take that privilege away.


----------



## Mathemagician

Just checking in to let you guys know to check Instagram/Twitter/etc. There’s videos of what appear to be undercover cops starting the breaking of glass. There’s footage of Mr. Floyd being manhandled constantly leading up to his death, Target has announced they’ll pay everyone their wages, there is footage of officers covering their body cams with tape while pepper spraying peaceful seated protestors at point blank range, and more. You are unlikely to see it on the news but it’s updating constantly online in real time.

Stonewall Riots, Boston Tea Party, suffragettes, MLK’s marches, this country was built on people protesting. It’s hard to feign confusion over the anger of citizens when their reasoning has been stated repeatedly for decades alongside peaceful protest like I don’t know, kneeling.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Theres nothing that can happen in the public streets that would affect the outcome of the coming case verdict. He's been arrested already. You can all stop rioting now.


----------



## Mathemagician

Why would they go home? No new legislation has been passed, body cams still aren’t 100% mandatory, and there were 4 officers involved in this death and the coroner already cranked out a report that effectively states the man died through no cause of the police officer. - it’s online go read it if you’d like. 

So why would the protestors go home?


----------



## eggy in a bready

Mathemagician said:


> Why would they go home? No new legislation has been passed, body cams still aren’t 100% mandatory, and there were 4 officers involved in this death and the coroner already cranked out a report that effectively states the man died through no cause of the police officer. - it’s online go read it if you’d like.
> 
> So why would the protestors go home?


don't bother engaging them. they're only here to crack off moronic takes


----------



## Viginez

Necris said:


> The lie of "outside agitators" has long been a favorite tactic of governments facing any sort of civil unrest as it works to deligitmize the movement.


rioting, stealing and destroying other peoples property (and possibly lives in the long term) is a movement?
i understand civil protests.
btw, that "lie" about outsiders was told by the citys own mayor.
it's also suspect those media outlets streaming it seem to forget about covid completely now. according to their message in past months this should be a catastrophic scenario now.


----------



## narad

Viginez said:


> it's also suspect those media outlets streaming it seem to forget about covid completely now. according to their message in past months this should be a catastrophic scenario now.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

Mathemagician said:


> Why would they go home? No new legislation has been passed, body cams still aren’t 100% mandatory, and there were 4 officers involved in this death and the coroner already cranked out a report that effectively states the man died through no cause of the police officer. - it’s online go read it if you’d like.
> 
> So why would the protestors go home?




Yup, the coroner report is an irrelevant joke, made even worse by the joke of a criminal complaint that seems to be worded in favor of the supposed defendant. Talking about how big he was and how he actively resisted, as if either of those things matter when he was already detained when they killed him. 

I smell a lot of trouble over the horizon.


----------



## mpexus

The Coroner Autopsy report reminds me of this (and then some white folks wonder why people go Ape shit...):


----------



## mpexus

Also no everybody participating in Riots are douche bags


----------



## possumkiller

Apparently in a lot of places the cops are protesting with the protesters.


----------



## broj15

mpexus said:


> Also no everybody participating in Riots are douche bags
> 
> View attachment 81326


I would say that no one participating in riots is a douche bag, unless standing up for your rights makes you a douche bag. 


Also to everyone still crying "waaaaa they're destroying thier own neighborhoods and cities waaaah" just Google the MOVE bombing. Philadelphia police BOMBED and entire residential neighborhood killing many women and children. 

Also, the CEO of Target has now issued a statement saying showing solidarity with protesters and rioters, saying that Target has ample money to fix the damages and that all employees of damaged stores will still receive thier full paychecks...

So yeah, if you still don't support the protests & riots then you're either a closeted white supremacists or a regular white supremacist.


----------



## gunch

They can mobilize the riot cops that might as well be call of duty juggernauts at this point and the national guard at record speed but where was the PPE for the healthcare workers? This shit is fucked


----------



## Chokey Chicken

Again, that's target. That's not the small family owned businesses, or the other less fortunate businesses. 

I am not a white supremacist either. In fact Im not even white, but go ahead and keep generalizing.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

broj15 said:


> I would say that no one participating in riots is a douche bag, unless standing up for your rights makes you a douche bag.
> 
> 
> Also to everyone still crying "waaaaa they're destroying thier own neighborhoods and cities waaaah" just Google the MOVE bombing. Philadelphia police BOMBED and entire residential neighborhood killing many women and children.
> 
> Also, the CEO of Target has now issued a statement saying showing solidarity with protesters and rioters, saying that Target has ample money to fix the damages and that all employees of damaged stores will still receive thier full paychecks...
> 
> So yeah, if you still don't support the protests & riots then you're either a closeted white supremacists or a regular white supremacist.



You know... I really dig your posts here on SSO. Whenever I've seen your avi come up, I say "Oh it's that broj dude. He's usually got some interesting thoughts" and then I read your comments. 

But damn, man. How in the hell do you make such damming remarks about people that you don't even know the least bit about? I don't understand lumping a bunch of people together with such conviction, when some of those people are simply asking questions, trying to see things thru other people's eyes, feeling genuine sympathy for all those affected, already hating on this current administration, someone whom has always despised the division and inequality that others have faced in this world, and on and on... 

And if others don't automatically side with something as simplistic as "if you don't support the riots..." then you simply label them as white supremacists? That type of hatred can truly diminish one's enthusiasm to learn and to help. How does that bring awareness? How does that garner understanding or support? What a horrible label to blindly start slapping onto others. 

Okay... Have at it... Riot, loot, vandalize. But why knock others down before they've even had a chance to process all of this? At least I realize that you are only one voice and that you don't speak for everyone because I honestly don't think you're helping anything by spitting out such venomous assumptions. .


----------



## Alexa run my life

^ nice post

"They're rioting because they tried peaceful protests and that didnt work".....

.......yeah well I guess a football stadium was the wrong place to try and do that. Go take a knee at the police station as that might actually have an affect on the ones being protested against.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

We had riots and looting in Raleigh last night. Funny how target saying they're still going to pay their employees doesn't comfort the people who don't work at target. Apparently the looters were setting fires outside of buildings that had apartments on the upper floors above the businesses. Funny how it seems like the poorer folks, and around here it's largely black communities, are suffering while the white lawmakers and politicians sit in their cushy comfortable houses unaffected by 90% of this.

Edit: I will not get behind that bullshit "don't protest at football games" nonsense. Protesting is not meant to be pretty or convenient. That is the least offensive and intrusive way a person can peacefully protest and people told them to fuck off.


----------



## narad

Alexa run my life said:


> ^ nice post
> 
> "They're rioting because they tried peaceful protests and that didnt work".....
> 
> .......yeah well I guess a football stadium was the wrong place to try and do that. Go take a knee at the police station as that might actually have an affect on the ones being protested against.



When people go out of their way to shit on absolutely every way black people protest police violence, I really have to question what kind of prejudices you're working with. Obviously becoming a symbol to millions of people, and the attention of the entire country, would be better than your suggestion. A football player really has no power to change things that directly, rather than to inspire a much larger movement of people all over the country, in all walks of life.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

narad said:


> When people go out of their way to shit on absolutely every way black people protest police violence, I really have to question what kind of prejudices you're working with. Obviously becoming a symbol to millions of people, and the attention of the entire country, would be better than your suggestion. A football player really has no power to change things that directly, rather than to inspire a much larger movement of people all over the country, in all walks of life.



When I hear people pissing and moaning about the kneeling all I can think is what the fuck are we supposed to do? Protest from in our homes with the lights off and under a blanket?

Kneeling during football games was huge, imo. It showed that people were listening, even those with money and who might not personally be affected in the same ways. It was seen and heard by so many more people than if you just "kneeled in front of a police station." 

I've said it before and I'll likely say it again, I don't draw issues with people getting fed up and getting violent, I draw issue with people using that anger and hurting themselves while the real enemy just laughs at us from atop their ivory tower. 

I understand and feel the same rage others are feeling, I just think people need to be less short sighted. I can even understand why people WOULD loot. I just think it's short sighted and is doing more harm to ourselves than good.


----------



## Alexa run my life

So all that kneeling at the football games.... How did that work out for police brutality? Have you seen the news in the past week?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Same old MetalHex. He can almost keep it together until it's about minorities.


----------



## mpexus

broj15 said:


> I would say that no one participating in riots is a douche bag, unless standing up for your rights makes you a douche bag.
> 
> 
> Also to everyone still crying "waaaaa they're destroying thier own neighborhoods and cities waaaah" just Google the MOVE bombing. Philadelphia police BOMBED and entire residential neighborhood killing many women and children.
> 
> Also, the CEO of Target has now issued a statement saying showing solidarity with protesters and rioters, saying that Target has ample money to fix the damages and that all employees of damaged stores will still receive thier full paychecks...
> 
> So yeah, if you still don't support the protests & riots then you're either a closeted white supremacists or a regular white supremacist.



Pilling and loathing just for the sake of it is a DOUCHE BAG maneuver and in some places the Forces getting to control it have the order to shot to kill. Serves no Purpose other than trying to take advantage of a chaotic situation. But if you are so at ease with it, just shout to them and say:

- You can Thrash and Pile my House at will.

If you have a Business feel free to Post Signs stating that you allow it and encourage the Pilling and Setting your Business on fire too. Take Photos and then post it please.

I'm not against rioting I'm against stupid actions done in Herd or Mob Behavior where people do things that they would not dare do in normal circumstances because they feel empowered by the huge numbers and stop thinking and become freaking IDIOTS to be polite in my words.

Also who the F are you to call me anything? What the F do you know about me to call me a White Supremacist? Do you even know if I am white? Do you know anything about me? Your assumptions on a simple text I posted makes you look so freaking obtuse that I'm even wondering how you can operate a PC or a Cellphone... still It wasn't me or my country that Elected a president that instead of fixing things prefers to pours Fuel into it... let that sink in on that "special" brain mindset of yours...


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Same old MetalHex. He can almost keep it together until it's about minorities.



I'm imagining some Blade Runner Voight-Kammpf-esque sit down.

_Holden: They're just questions, Alexa. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response. Shall we continue?

Alexa nods, still frowning, suspiciously.

Holden: Describe in single words. Only the good things that come to your mind. About minorities._


----------



## StevenC

Alexa run my life said:


> So all that kneeling at the football games.... How did that work out for police brutality? Have you seen the news in the past week?


Remember when the vice president flew to a football game just to walk out when all the players took a knee?
Remember when a bunch of white supremacists walked around open carrying assault rifles, carrying Nazi flags and running over people, and the president called them good people?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

High Plains Drifter said:


> You know... I really dig your posts here on SSO. Whenever I've seen your avi come up, I say "Oh it's that broj dude. He's usually got some interesting thoughts" and then I read your comments.
> 
> But damn, man. How in the hell do you make such damming remarks about people that you don't even know the least bit about? I don't understand lumping a bunch of people together with such conviction, when some of those people are simply asking questions, trying to see things thru other people's eyes, feeling genuine sympathy for all those affected, already hating on this current administration, someone whom has always despised the division and inequality that others have faced in this world, and on and on...
> 
> And if others don't automatically side with something as simplistic as "if you don't support the riots..." then you simply label them as white supremacists? That type of hatred can truly diminish one's enthusiasm to learn and to help. How does that bring awareness? How does that garner understanding or support? What a horrible label to blindly start slapping onto others.
> 
> Okay... Have at it... Riot, loot, vandalize. But why knock others down before they've even had a chance to process all of this? At least I realize that you are only one voice and that you don't speak for everyone because I honestly don't think you're helping anything by spitting out such venomous assumptions. .


I don't think his comment was venomous at all, it may hurt you to examine why you or someone else may disapprove of the protests. But, it's not wrong to assume that a person who takes issue with the _one _form of action that has been proven to shine a spotlight on this issue is at least sympathetic to white supremacy. Because whether they realize it or not, they're defending the system upheld by it. Especially when they seem to empathize more with inanimate objects and harp on being "civil" instead of focusing on the many dead people victims the system has wiped off the earth. 

And this isn't a hit at the one side of the American political aisle either, I've seen many liberals harping on about being "civil" to the cops brutalizing protestors while they wear full suits of armor, wielding tear gas and batons like they're some operator out in a warzone. Those liberals are white supremacists too, they're still deferring to and defending a system that does not care about black, brown, hell even poor white lives (Those white folks out there aren't being bused in, they live in those cities and they're fed up of having no job or income to return to when this quarantine ends. It's no coincidence that they're out there in large numbers). They aren't wearing hoods or burning crosses on front lawns and they probably don't even know it consciously but they're actions and words have the effect of continuing a broken system.

Give a deeper read into what @broj15 and I are saying just as you are urging him to read what you are saying.


----------



## Alexa run my life

I don't know who Metalhex is but I've seen so far at least 3 accounts joined and banned in the same day. Each one of those people were supposedly Metalhex.


----------



## StevenC

Alexa run my life said:


> I don't know who Metalhex is but I've seen so far at least 3 accounts joined and banned in the same day. Each one of those people I've seen someone call them Metalhex.


MetalHex was the best guy to ever come to this forum and as a result all our favourite accounts get named in his honour.


----------



## Alexa run my life

StevenC said:


> Remember when the vice president flew to a football game just to walk out when all the players took a knee?
> Remember when a bunch of white supremacists walked around open carrying assault rifles, carrying Nazi flags and running over people, and the president called them good people?


You made a non-point and avoided answering my questions


----------



## Chokey Chicken

Peaceful protest, such as the kneeling did do something if you care enough to see it. It pissed some people off, but it brought a lot of people together and on board. A lot more white folks are starting to see that things are fucked up as they are.


----------



## narad

Alexa run my life said:


> I don't know who Metalhex is but I've seen so far at least 3 accounts joined and banned in the same day. Each one of those people were supposedly Metalhex.



Almost like Santa Claus, he's more of an idea than real physical person. But instead of delivering presents, he delivers shitposts and conspiracy theories into the political section of the forum immediately after joining on each visit. And like Santa Claus, he prefers to live in a white neighborhood.


----------



## narad

Chokey Chicken said:


> Peaceful protest, such as the kneeling did do something if you care enough to see it. It pissed some people off, but it brought a lot of people together and on board. A lot more white folks are starting to see that things are fucked up as they are.



Yea, I have a friend who prior to the kneeling and the recent string of police killings (maybe post-Trayvon) said earnestly that racism wasn't a problem in the US. :-/

If people didn't protest these things, didn't explain what it's like to get pulled over as a minority in the US, didn't make sure these cop-kills-guy cases didn't slip to page 2, etc., there's a huge part of the population who I think wouldn't believe it was a modern-day problem. I think the kneeling helped tremendously to bring racism back into minds of people whose lives exist pretty much entirely separate from those kinds of experiences, and that awareness is going to result in millions of small changes, and that's what we need. 

We already have laws that are generally written in ways that are equal for all races, but still major problems with the way things are enforced or enacted within that structure. That's where change needs to happen (like in this instance, actually charging the cops, not letting them cop out to some all-white district for the jury, etc.).


----------



## Andromalia

StevenC said:


> Remember when a bunch of white supremacists walked around open carrying assault rifles, carrying Nazi flags and running over people, and the president called them good people?



I thought that was the case why americans are so in love with guns, to deal with that kind of federal government.


----------



## StevenC

Andromalia said:


> I thought that was the case why americans are so in love with guns, to deal with that kind of federal government.


Not a lot of 2nd Amendment types defending this stand against tyranny.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I don't think his comment was venomous at all, it may hurt you to examine why you or someone else may disapprove of the protests. But, it's not wrong to assume that a person who takes issue with the _one _form of action that has been proven to shine a spotlight on this issue is at least sympathetic to white supremacy. Because whether they realize it or not, they're defending the system upheld by it. Especially when they seem to empathize more with inanimate objects and harp on being "civil" instead of focusing on the many dead people victims the system has wiped off the earth.
> 
> And this isn't a hit at the one side of the American political aisle either, I've seen many liberals harping on about being "civil" to the cops brutalizing protestors while they wear full suits of armor, wielding tear gas and batons like they're some operator out in a warzone. Those liberals are white supremacists too, they're still deferring to and defending a system that does not care about black, brown, hell even poor white lives (Those white folks out there aren't being bused in, they live in those cities and they're fed up of having no job or income to return to when this quarantine ends. It's no coincidence that they're out there in large numbers). They aren't wearing hoods or burning crosses on front lawns and they probably don't even know it consciously but they're actions and words have the effect of continuing a broken system.
> 
> Give a deeper read into what @broj15 and I are saying just as you are urging him to read what you are saying.



Much respect to you. I will continue to scrutinize my own thoughts and actions as I have always done. And I know that many of us are on the defensive at this time. I do realize how many people are hurting right now and I dearly hope that positive things may come to those that have struggled against injustices their entire lives. I certainly don't hold any contempt for anyone. Peace be with you.


----------



## eggy in a bready

StevenC said:


> Not a lot of 2nd Amendment types defending this stand against tyranny.


you'd think this was the perfect opportunity for those tacxlife dorks to swing their dick around with all this chaos going on. guess they only really come out when there's no actual repercussions on the line.


----------



## fantom

Alexa run my life said:


> So all that kneeling at the football games.... How did that work out for police brutality? Have you seen the news in the past week?



If anything, it shows more people should have taken the silent protests seriously before they became tragic.


----------



## DiezelMonster

eggy in a bready said:


> you'd think this was the perfect opportunity for those tacxlife dorks to swing their dick around with all this chaos going on. guess they only really come out when there's no actual repercussions on the line.




Have you seen Bowling for Columbine? the scene where he interviews the Michigan Militia? that was the same one the Oklahoma city bomber was a part of apparently. But if you see those guys, and truthfully any group of white supremacists I've seen interviewed, they are NOT ready for any confrontation. haha they are what INCELS were before the internet haha. Now, not all militia groups or neo nazi's are pushover loudmouth basement dwellers, there for sure are some real "tough guys" But they RARELY want to face repercussions. Kind of the squeaky wheel syndrome. I suppose the only one really ready for action WAS Timothy McVeigh.


----------



## Alexa run my life

fantom said:


> If anything, it shows more people should have taken the silent protests seriously before they became tragic.


Yeah I mean it may caught alot of traction, but what came of it? What was expected to come of it?


----------



## StevenC

Alexa run my life said:


> Yeah I mean it may caught alot of traction, but what came of it? What was expected to come of it?


----------



## Alexa run my life

^ Insult reported.


----------



## diagrammatiks

I just see a question. what insult.


----------



## broj15

Alexa run my life said:


> ^ Insult reported.



Damn, who would've guessed that someone who narcs to the mods on a fucking internet forum "because the mean people called me a name :'(" would also be a massive bootlicker.

Edit: and before you cry "MODS!" On this comment to, Narc and bootlicker aren't insults. It's just calling a spade a spade.


----------



## fantom

Alexa run my life said:


> Yeah I mean it may caught alot of traction, but what came of it? What was expected to come of it?



You mean when a large portion of the country is upset about something being done by the police, which are part of the executive branch of government, and a pro athlete peacefully protests, you would expect the lead of the executive branch to do something, like call for him and other protesters to get fired while publicly backing white supremacists? Ya, I didn't expect much to happen when the people who should act civilly are jackasses instead. But it doesn't mean the protester was wrong. It means the leader screwed up.


----------



## Boofchuck

Alexa run my life said:


> Yeah I mean it may caught alot of traction, but what came of it? What was expected to come of it?


This is what came of it, people are pissed off and escalating because their needs are not being met. This is a continuation of the process, not a separate event.


----------



## c7spheres

- Scottsdale was trashed and looted last night out here in Arizona. Suddenly everyone cares since it's not the downtown area being trashed. Suddenly it's urgent. Now the movement has directed it's efforts to the "evil rich" people or something.
- Now that it's hit the governors home town it's a big deal. There's talk about a statewide curfew where nobody will be allowed out after 8pm. Statewide!? Really? Talk about an over reaction. Sounds personal now. Maybe it should. Maybe the governor will think twice before he lies through is teeth to get what he wants. Probably not.
- They want their excuse, so they will continue ramping efforts of treating people like animals in order to justify it. They're very smart and likely gonna take even more power through this. It's why people shouldn't loot and riot. You can't win the battle this way. From the inside is the only way to win it.


----------



## Alexa run my life

fantom said:


> the police,



You mean, one cop out of thousands and thousands?


----------



## fantom

Was it really just one cop? Has this story only happened once?

If you want to take the blue lives matter stance, I'm 100% with you. The best way to protect public servants is for leaders to acknowledge there is a systemic problem and act on it instead of inciting it.


----------



## shadowlife

Instead of kneeling during sporting events, perhaps pro athletes should use their influence to organize another million man march in DC, and said athletes can be right there, protesting in front of the White House.
The National Anthem has nothing to do with racist police officers, and everything to do with those of us who served this country to defend our freedom, and more importantly, those who lost their lives defending this country. 

As for the current rioting, destruction of property and theft are still criminal acts, and if you engage in them, you should expect to be treated like a criminal, no matter how outraged you are.

Meanwhile, the true thieves in Congress and the corporate boardrooms keep laughing all the way to the bank while people destroy their own cities.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AcnsA49NeS6mKFZTTxattxQ

Welp, now other CONTINENTS are pissed.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Alexa run my life said:


> You mean, one cop out of thousands and thousands?




One cop? How many times has this happened before in the public eye? How many reports does this one cop have? How many cops have acted shitty 8+ times and not been dealt with like this guy? Imagine, that this is the first we've heard of this guy and he's been bitched on a bunch of times. i'm SURE it's just a matter of this ONE cop, nevermind the fact that there were, like, 4 of them. Nevermind the fact that people have complained about him near on a dozen times before... Yeah... It's just this ONE instance.


----------



## StevenC

shadowlife said:


> Instead of kneeling during sporting events, perhaps pro athletes should use their influence to organize another million man march in DC, and said athletes can be right there, protesting in front of the White House.
> The National Anthem has nothing to do with racist police officers, and everything to do with those of us who served this country to defend our freedom, and more importantly, those who lost their lives defending this country.
> 
> As for the current rioting, destruction of property and theft are still criminal acts, and if you engage in them, you should expect to be treated like a criminal, no matter how outraged you are.
> 
> Meanwhile, the true thieves in Congress and the corporate boardrooms keep laughing all the way to the bank while people destroy their own cities.


Jaylen Brown literally led a march today. Try again.


----------



## fantom

shadowlife said:


> Instead of kneeling during sporting events, perhaps pro athletes should use their influence to organize another million man march in DC, and said athletes can be right there, protesting in front of the White House.
> The National Anthem has nothing to do with racist police officers, and everything to do with those of us who served this country to defend our freedom, and more importantly, those who lost their lives defending this country.
> 
> As for the current rioting, destruction of property and theft are still criminal acts, and if you engage in them, you should expect to be treated like a criminal, no matter how outraged you are.
> 
> Meanwhile, the true thieves in Congress and the corporate boardrooms keep laughing all the way to the bank while people destroy their own cities.



Who are you to decide how someone else should peacefully protest? He knelt because he talked to a Marine about how to make a statement without being disrespectful, and it was suggested by the Marine that he kneel.

You know that 2nd amendment that conservatives praise? The amendment is there to allow the people to revolt against the government if they feel the government is not representing the people. You literally just whined about Congress being corrupt. How is this any different then people thinking police are corrupt too?

I agree with you that looting and vandalism aren't going to solve any problems. But don't shit on people for standing up for themselves against a government they find oppressive in the same post you say the government is corrupt.


----------



## Ralyks

fantom said:


> He knelt because he talked to a Marine about how to make a statement without being disrespectful, and it was suggested by the Marine that he kneel.



I cannot emphasize enough how much this fact gets overlooked.


----------



## Alexa run my life

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cbSPIQpvNUUpmAR2iQfdboL15Lc_btKsxCLlBWekJV5xQ

This could make things more interesting as we see things pan out.


----------



## eggy in a bready

fantom said:


> Who are you to decide how someone else should peacefully protest? He knelt because he talked to a Marine about how to make a statement without being disrespectful, and it was suggested by the Marine that he kneel.
> 
> You know that 2nd amendment that conservatives praise? The amendment is there to allow the people to revolt against the government if they feel the government is not representing the people. You literally just whined about Congress being corrupt. How is this any different then people thinking police are corrupt too?
> 
> I agree with you that looting and vandalism aren't going to solve any problems. But don't shit on people for standing up for themselves against a government they find oppressive in the same post you say the government is corrupt.


it doesn't matter to white people how POC's demonstrate. it's an always-shifting standard that's impossible to adhere to.

next time you hear some fool start saying, "well, actually, THIS is how they should have done it..." just tell them to shut the fuck up.


----------



## Randy

It's funny to me that conservatives have a blanket alternative take to this. It's not about taxes, it's not about gun rights or religious rights but somehow or the other, 3 out of 3 conservatives "why they do this tho?"


----------



## Randy




----------



## c7spheres

shadowlife said:


> Instead of kneeling during sporting events, perhaps pro athletes should use their influence to organize another million man march in DC, and said athletes can be right there, protesting in front of the White House.
> The National Anthem has nothing to do with racist police officers, and everything to do with those of us who served this country to defend our freedom, and more importantly, those who lost their lives defending this country.
> 
> As for the current rioting, destruction of property and theft are still criminal acts, and if you engage in them, you should expect to be treated like a criminal, no matter how outraged you are.
> 
> Meanwhile, the true thieves in Congress and the corporate boardrooms keep laughing all the way to the bank while people destroy their own cities.





fantom said:


> Who are you to decide how someone else should peacefully protest? He knelt because he talked to a Marine about how to make a statement without being disrespectful, and it was suggested by the Marine that he kneel.
> 
> You know that 2nd amendment that conservatives praise? The amendment is there to allow the people to revolt against the government if they feel the government is not representing the people. You literally just whined about Congress being corrupt. How is this any different then people thinking police are corrupt too?
> 
> I agree with you that looting and vandalism aren't going to solve any problems. But don't shit on people for standing up for themselves against a government they find oppressive in the same post you say the government is corrupt.


 
@shadowlife isn't deciding how someone else should protest. It reads as a suggestion or idea. This back and forth can go on forever and it doesn't do any good. It can go on forever like with the person you speak of who talked to a Marine how to make a statement without beig disrespectful. I mean, who is the Marine to say what is a non-disrespectful peaceful statement? Is that his official capacity? He's outta line making assumptions for the U.S. military's stance on such issues. Obviously a bit sarcastic but I'm just saying I don't read what he said that way. 



eggy in a bready said:


> it doesn't matter to white people .....


 All white people are the same? I'm not liike that. I'm white.


----------



## shadowlife

fantom said:


> don't shit on people for standing up for themselves against a government they find oppressive in the same post you say the government is corrupt.



Yes, because destroying the property of businesses in your own neighborhood, and stealing things that don't belong to you is how you "stand up for yourself".


----------



## shadowlife

c7spheres said:


> @shadowlife isn't deciding how someone else should protest. It reads as a suggestion or idea. This back and forth can go on forever and it doesn't do any good. It can go on forever like with the person you speak of who talked to a Marine how to make a statement without beig disrespectful. I mean, who is the Marine to say what is a non-disrespectful peaceful statement? Is that his official capacity? He's outta line making assumptions for the U.S. military's stance on such issues. Obviously a bit sarcastic but I'm just saying I don't read what he said that way.





Thank you for apparently being one of the few with some degree of reading comprehension.

One Marine doesn't speak for how every service member and veteran feels, just like one Marine who might think the cop was justified doesn't speak for how every service member or veteran feels.



> All white people are the same? I'm not liike that. I'm white.



And yes, painting with broad strokes is the only thing that some of the people posting here seem to be able to do.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

If no one listens then I guess we're all at an impasse. And if that's the case, then why riot at all? I agree with accountability and I understand at least a good deal of the anger. But has even one single suggestion been made throughout this entire thread in terms of what specific changes need to be made? What exactly are rioters and looters wanting to see happen? If NO ONE listens and NO ONE even attempts to work together, then how can anyone even begin to hope for anything better? 

Is this a "no win/ others will never get it" situation? If so then why protest at all? And I am all FOR protesting. This is justified! But why destroy communities, businesses, and the lives of your neighbors? And why lash out at people of different skin color... people that sincerely care about the plight of their fellow citizens? Without some degree of compassion and compromise then there's really no hope to accomplish anything... right?

I only wish that we could drain the damned swap that is the US government... That's the most corrupt and criminal element that exists in this country imo and no matter what happens in the streets, they will never care about anything outside of their own power, wealth, and greed.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Nevermind


----------



## eggy in a bready

c7spheres said:


> @shadowlife isn't deciding how someone else should protest. It reads as a suggestion or idea. This back and forth can go on forever and it doesn't do any good. It can go on forever like with the person you speak of who talked to a Marine how to make a statement without beig disrespectful. I mean, who is the Marine to say what is a non-disrespectful peaceful statement? Is that his official capacity? He's outta line making assumptions for the U.S. military's stance on such issues. Obviously a bit sarcastic but I'm just saying I don't read what he said that way.


this back and forth isn't doing any good because you aren't really getting the point of this, haha.

it doesn't matter what your perception is if the kneeling was considered respectful or disrespectful or whatever. the point is is that no matter what he would've done, it wouldn't be considered an "appropriate" protest by white people standards. he could march, he could kneel, it's all the same, because whites don't like to see POCs fight for their rights to exist and live peacefully.


----------



## Alexa run my life

High Plains Drifter said:


> If no one listens then I guess we're all at an impasse. And if that's the case, then why riot at all? I agree with accountability and I understand at least a good deal of the anger. But has even one single suggestion been made throughout this entire thread in terms of what specific changes need to be made? What exactly are rioters and looters wanting to see happen? If NO ONE listens and NO ONE and NO ONE even attempts to work together, then how can anyone even begin to hope for anything better?
> 
> Is this a "no win/ others will never get it" situation? If so then why protest at all? And I am all FOR protesting. This is justified! But why destroy communities, businesses, and the lives of your neighbors? And why lash out at people of different skin color... people that sincerely care about the plight of their fellow citizens? Without some degree of compassion and compromise then there's really no hope to accomplish anything... right?
> 
> I only wish that we could drain the damned swap that is the US government... That's the most corrupt and criminal element that exists in this country imo and no matter what happens in the streets, they will never care about anything outside of their own power, wealth, and greed.


That's why voting in different presidents won't ever fix a damn thing. Same shit different asshole


----------



## shadowlife

High Plains Drifter said:


> If no one listens then I guess we're all at an impasse. And if that's the case, then why riot at all? I agree with accountability and I understand at least a good deal of the anger. But has even one single suggestion been made throughout this entire thread in terms of what specific changes need to be made? What exactly are rioters and looters wanting to see happen? If NO ONE listens and NO ONE and NO ONE even attempts to work together, then how can anyone even begin to hope for anything better?
> 
> Is this a "no win/ others will never get it" situation? If so then why protest at all? And I am all FOR protesting. This is justified! But why destroy communities, businesses, and the lives of your neighbors? And why lash out at people of different skin color... people that sincerely care about the plight of their fellow citizens? Without some degree of compassion and compromise then there's really no hope to accomplish anything... right?
> 
> I only wish that we could drain the damned swap that is the US government... That's the most corrupt and criminal element that exists in this country imo and no matter what happens in the streets, they will never care about anything outside of their own power, wealth, and greed.



Excellent post.

Here's another suggestion:

If you think the police are unfair, evil, racist, or whatever, how about you become a police officer and act the way you think a police officer should?
Work hard and get promoted to sergeant, then you can train newer POs how to act correctly as law enforcement officers.
That would be making a difference in trying to correct the problem.

If you're a millionaire athlete, why not buy a house in one of these poor neighborhoods, and use your millions to get the schools fixed up, organize a civilian patrol made up of people from the neighborhood to look out for kid's safety, create sports leagues, campaign for people in local political offices that you believe can make a difference, etc.
Maybe there are pro athletes already doing this- if so, they should be considered heroes, and encourage others to do the same.


----------



## Alexa run my life

eggy in a bready said:


> this back and forth isn't doing any good because you aren't really getting the point of this, haha.
> 
> it doesn't matter what your perception is if the kneeling was considered respectful or disrespectful or whatever. the point is is that no matter what he would've done, it wouldn't be considered an "appropriate" protest by white people standards. he could march, he could kneel, it's all the same, because whites don't like to see POCs fight for their rights to exist and live peacefully.


The funny thing about Kaepernick, wasn't the whole thing for kneeling about inequality and oppression right? Yet he proudly endorsed by Nike, a company who uses sweat shop child labor to make him his fancy gear. He's a fraud!


----------



## eggy in a bready

Alexa run my life said:


> The funny thing about Kaepernick, wasn't the whole thing for kneeling about equality and oppression right? Yet he proudly endorsed by Nike, a company who uses sweat shop child labor to make him his fancy gear. He's a fraud!


bro, take your whataboutisms and your smooth brain and crawl back into whatever stinky maga dumpster you live in and never reply to me again


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> Excellent post.
> 
> Here's another suggestion:
> 
> If you think the police are unfair, evil, racist, or whatever, how about you become a police officer and act the way you think a police officer should?
> Work hard and get promoted to sergeant, then you can train newer POs how to act correctly as law enforcement officers.
> That would be making a difference in trying to correct the problem.



Would you apply this logic to anything else? You go to a hotdog stand and buy a hotdog, but the guy drops it on the floor before giving it to you. Instead of just being able to complain and expect the guy to be doing his job properly, you quit your job and sell all your belongings to purchase a hot dog stand, and for the next 25 years sling the highest quality hotdogs in Manhattan. Sounds ridiculous to me. 

Those who want to become cops, become good cops. Those that don't want to become cops should probably simply expect cops not to kill unarmed handcuffed people. Is that not the lowest possible standard for police??


----------



## shadowlife

narad said:


> Would you apply this logic to anything else?



Yes.

Be the change you want to see in the world.


----------



## eggy in a bready

"be the change you want to see, become a cop and uphold a racist power structure"

couldn't be me


----------



## Alexa run my life

#Allhotdogsmatter


----------



## Alexa run my life

shadowlife said:


> Yes.
> 
> Be the change you want to see in the world.


Exactly. The desire to see the world as ugly and bad makes it ugly and bad


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> Yes.
> 
> Be the change you want to see in the world.



I get you. I decided I wanted political guitar forum posters to provide suggestions that make sense, so here I am.


----------



## zappatton2

shadowlife said:


> Yes.
> 
> Be the change you want to see in the world.


This sort of change needs to happen at the institutional level. It needs to be top-down to be at all effective. And it can come in many forms; specialized training in de-escalation tactics, rather than first-resort aggression and confrontation, sensitivity training when dealing with racialized and traumatized communities, fostering of a culture change within police department that clarify the "public service" role over the "maintaining authority"role. Clear roles that define clear responsibilities, and proper screening and accountability for officers who can't handle legitimized power in a responsible manner. There are all sorts of things that can change a professional culture, given actual leadership.

As things stand, the culture does not foster accountability. It fosters aggression and power trips, a la Standford Prison Experiment. We should demand better. And that's not even getting into all the other institutional and social pressures piled against racialized communities. These ARE things that have practical solutions, they CAN be dealt with productively, but leadership is failing at every level.

And just to add to this, the militarization of the police over the past couple of decades has not helped one bit. Policing is a complex job, it's supposed to be a complex job, wannabe Rambos really shouldn't be part of the equation.


----------



## narad

zappatton2 said:


> As things stand, the culture does not foster accountability. It fosters aggression and power trips, a la Standford Prison Experiment.



However, the Stanford prison experiment was mostly faked.


----------



## c7spheres

eggy in a bready said:


> this back and forth isn't doing any good because you aren't really getting the point of this, haha.
> 
> it doesn't matter what your perception is if the kneeling was considered respectful or disrespectful or whatever. the point is is that no matter what he would've done, it wouldn't be considered an "appropriate" protest by white people standards. he could march, he could kneel, it's all the same, because whites don't like to see POCs fight for their rights to exist and live peacefully.



- I never said either way what I thought about the kneeling protest. I was making an entirely different point replying to another comment that mentioned it. I'm aware the point that was being made. 
- Regarding the kneeling protest people probably saw it as inappropriate for an NFL player/employee to use it's name and image during NFL events to promote a non NFL mandated issue. That's not a peaceful protest. That's a passive agressive protest. There's a huge world of difference. 

- You keep lumping all white people into the same hive-mindset. Can you please stop doing that?


----------



## ryanougrad

I haven't read all the posts in this, I do know that I'm tired of the police in America (before you look at my location I'm an American). The first step is that all law enforcement in the US needs to be put under independent review boards with citizen representatives on the review board. No officer should have a job after 13 complaints. Can you imagine keeping a job if you had that many complaints against you?

For those that think athletes and celebrities shouldn't speak up, the damn president was a TV personality and Regan was an actor. Maybe they should have kept their mouths shut too. I hope every player in the NBA and NFL walks out of their opening games when the season starts back up.

I'm so sick of this I think this needs to escalate. The police in America need to be put in check. I have friends out protesting, this situation makes me sick and embarrassed. I've seen numerous videos of people peacefully protesting and the police responding with violence. These fuckers are shooting like its open season b/c they have non lethal rounds. Our founding fathers established the 2nd amendment for a reason.

I will leave this here for all the people siding with the police:
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


----------



## eggy in a bready

c7spheres said:


> There's a huge world of difference


no there isn't.



> You keep lumping all white people into the same hive-mindset. Can you please stop doing that?


no i can't.


----------



## ryanougrad

eggy in a bready said:


> no i can't.



I know we don't know each other, I'm sure you're angry. I just want to say this approach doesn't help matters. People that are on the fence will turn their backs on change if attitudes like this persist.


----------



## eggy in a bready

ryanougrad said:


> I know we don't know each other, I'm sure you're angry. I just want to say this approach doesn't help matters. People that are on the fence will turn their backs on change if attitudes like this persist.


are you an american?


----------



## ryanougrad

eggy in a bready said:


> are you an american?


Yes. I live abroad now. Have for 2 years if it matters.


----------



## c7spheres

eggy in a bready said:


> no there isn't.
> 
> 
> no i can't.



- The huge world of difference between a peacful protest and a passive agressive protest is quite large. One is peaceful and one is aggressive. If you don't know the difference between peace and aggression then I'd say you're trying to get a rise from people. 

- So you label yourself racist against white's then. I'm sorry about that. I hope one day you'll figure it out that not all whites are the same and most aren't racists. I still have hope for you and don't hate you. Love is the answer.


----------



## Randy

ryanougrad said:


> I know we don't know each other, I'm sure you're angry. I just want to say this approach doesn't help matters. People that are on the fence will turn their backs on change if attitudes like this persist.



In your opinion. I spoke to two adamant anti-violence pacifists today that said 'enough is enough' and they're content to watch the cities burn. Some minds are changing. And besides, it's not meant to be an intellectual appeals, it's meant to be menacing.


----------



## Randy

c7spheres said:


> - So you label yourself racist against white's then. I'm sorry about that. I hope one day you'll figure it out that not all whites are the same and most aren't racists. I still have hope for you and don't hate you. Love is the answer.



So you're arguing institutional racism doesn't exist and black-on-white racism has the same history in this country as white-on-black racism?


----------



## ryanougrad

Randy said:


> In your opinion. I spoke to two adamant anti-violence pacifists today that said 'enough is enough' and they're content to watch the cities burn. Some minds are changing. And besides, it's not meant to be an intellectual appeals, it's meant to be menacing.



I don't know if you read the response I was responding to? I was responding to lumping all whites into a category. 

If you read my post before that, I'm all for escalation. See my post on page 10.


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> So you're arguing institutional racism doesn't exist and black-on-white racism has the same history in this country as white-on-black racism?



'Both-sidesism' benefits the parties currently at the top of the power structure. Anybody got a video of a black cop standing on the neck of a white man until dead while three other guys also hold him to the ground, or nah?


----------



## eggy in a bready

c7spheres said:


> - The huge world of difference between a peacful protest and a passive agressive protest is quite large. One is peaceful and one is aggressive. If you don't know the difference between peace and aggression then I'd say you're trying to get a rise from people.


it is exceptionally disturbing that you consider a black man kneeling silently for self-dermination to be aggressive. it also reinforces my point that white people find any form of black protest to be inherently offensive, no matter how passive. wake up


----------



## Randy

ryanougrad said:


> I don't know if you read the response I was responding to? I was responding to lumping all whites into a category.
> 
> If you read my post before that, I'm all for escalation. See my post on page 10.



I re-read for context. The comment he made was flippant, potentially unfair if you expand it logically beyond that statement, yes. But to the overarching frustrations, there is institutional white privledge in this country and when it manifests itself as white men killing black men to no consequence, it's not unreasonable to point out that white people get that benefit. Likewise, watering down the arguments and marginalizing POC's right to be outraged or seek change is an active endorsement of allowing this to go on.

Based on the number of finger-waggers that've come out of the woodwork in this thread, I think his frustration is ENTIRELY valid. YMMV


----------



## ryanougrad

Randy said:


> I re-read for context. The comment he made was flippant, potentially unfair if you expand it logically beyond that statement, yes. But to the overarching frustrations, there is institutional white privledge in this country and when it manifests itself as white men killing black men to no consequence, it's not unreasonable to point out that white people get that benefit. Likewise, watering down the arguments and marginalizing POC's right to be outraged or seek change is an active endorsement of allowing this to go on.
> 
> Based on the number of finger-waggers that've come out of the woodwork in this thread, I think his frustration is ENTIRELLY valid. YMMV


I agree with you. Frustration is valid, but valid emotions and feelings aren't always productive.


----------



## Randy

I don't think anybody that's supportive of the protests or even the riots are suggesting that should go on indefinitely. There's a time and place for everything, and now is the exact right time for outrage.

If society can't wrap their head around that or are going to command that protesting not inconvenience the same power base it seeks to shake loose, they prove the point of the rioters ten fold.


----------



## c7spheres

eggy in a bready said:


> it is exceptionally disturbing that you consider a black man kneeling silently for self-dermination to be aggressive. it also reinforces my point that white people find any form of black protest to be inherently offensive, no matter how passive. wake up



I don't find the kneeling part or the message he stands for aggressive at all. In fact I mostly agree with it. What it is NOT, is peaceful. It is passive-aggressive behavior because of the methods used. The NFL doesn't owe it to him to lose millions of dollars, to give them their time, to let him use their name, to tarnish it, and their platform, and branding etc. By putting the NFL in that position is an aggressive move. He basically hijacked money and reputation from the NFL. He bit the hand that feeds him and by the NFL not wanting involvment in that does not make them a racist organization. 




Randy said:


> So you're arguing institutional racism doesn't exist and black-on-white racism has the same history in this country as white-on-black racism?


 
- No. I'm not arguing that at all. Why would you suggest that?


----------



## eggy in a bready

re: all white people

yes, i might be slightly hyperbolic about that (maybe). but a vast majority of whites around the world are not empathetic to POC struggles. many are unconsciously causing harm, even though they claim to be allies. these white rioters who are looting and inciting violence despite pleas from black protesters, for instance... doing their part to shape the media narrative and flip this whole protest onto the heads of black folk.


----------



## eggy in a bready

c7spheres said:


> I don't find the kneeling part or the message he stands for aggressive at all. In fact I mostly agree with it. What it is NOT, is peaceful. It is passive-aggressive behavior because of the methods used. The NFL doesn't owe it to him to lose millions of dollars, to give them their time, to let him use their name, to tarnish it, and their platform, and branding etc. By putting the NFL in that position is an aggressive move. He basically hijacked money and reputation from the NFL. He bit the hand that feeds him and by the NFL not wanting involvment in that does not make them a racist organization.


so, an organization who's players are made up of roughly 70% black heritage doesn't think it should involve itself with matters of black self-determination? 

sounds like a fucking slave trade to me.


----------



## Randy

c7spheres said:


> - No. I'm not arguing that at all. Why would you suggest that?



It's implied. If you think Kaepernick's protests were too much, than you lessen the significance of the matter at hand. Accusing a black person of racism as some kind of a co-equal infringement on you frames exactly that.

How would you deal with 500 years of oppression? Give an example what's an effective and appropriate response to being enslaved, tortured and killed by your oppressor for all of your ancestry, and having the threat that you'll be next hanging over your head every day. What's the right way of agitating against that?


----------



## Vairocarnal

The police are supposed to be skilled in de-escalation, so skilled in fact that they are supposed to inherently justify and even necessitate a wider margin of forgivable error due to the considerably larger amount of extraneously dangerous circumstances the police endure. 
I totally agree that police generally act against the best interests of american individuals and societiy at large. Colorado is notoriously lethal to the handicapped, disabled , and more specifically Epileptics. I can't find the articles but I remember that at least two epileptic people of color have died while in police custody due to excessively rough treatment or medical neglect.

I barely survived my encounter. I had a seizure on a public street near downtown Denver. Some rando called 911. A paramedic got my saliva on their skin and decided to charge me with "attempted murder of a police officer with a deadly weapon", a second degree felony. Due to all of the responders being "trained witnesses" it ended up being their word against mine on a professional level. That said, they didn't even try to collect any evidence of the incident and they falsified multiple reports. All are still on active duty and none were so much as written up. Not even a picture of my supposed saliva on their sub-human skin was taken. They didn't even collect a sample to verify that it was my spit. My public defender literally abandoned the case. This is commonplace here. If you were to ask a local neurologist about how the police treat the disabled, chances are they either have a patient that has been attacked by police or they know a colleague, an associate, or an acquaintence that does.

Seems like the rule of law is a joke to authority and anybody that gets trampled underfoot is the punchline.

If police refuse to honor their oaths that they have chosen to take, then they are by definition traitors to their nation and should be treated accordingly. Period.

That said, I believe in actual justice that involves trying people for their crimes. I don't condone the point blank, cold-murder of police but self defense is another story. To me, If someone (no matter their profession) is trying to kill or rape you, or someone you care about, that situation dictates self defense but to murder an officer unprovoked is simply cowardly, to say the least.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/09/06/aurora-police-excessive-force-andre-williams/amp/

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/27/epileptic-man-charged-assault-spitting/amp/


----------



## DiezelMonster

Randy said:


> 'Both-sidesism' benefits the parties currently at the top of the power structure. Anybody got a video of a black cop standing on the neck of a white man until dead while three other guys also hold him to the ground, or nah?



I don't have that video. But I'd LOVE to see it.


----------



## eggy in a bready

Vairocarnal said:


> The police are supposed to be skilled in de-escalation, so skilled in fact that they are supposed to inherently justify and even necessitate a wider margin of forgivable error due to the considerably larger amount of extraneously dangerous circumstances the police endure.
> I totally agree that police generally act against the best interests of american individuals and societiy at large. Colorado is notoriously lethal to the handicapped, disabled , and more specifically Epileptics. I can't find the articles but I remember that at least two epileptic people of color have died while in police custody due to excessively rough treatment or medical neglect.
> 
> I barely survived my encounter. I had a seizure on a public street near downtown Denver. Some rando called 911. A paramedic got my saliva on their skin and decided to charge me with "attempted murder of a police officer with a deadly weapon", a second degree felony. Due to all of the responders being "trained witnesses" it ended up being their word against mine on a professional level. That said, they didn't even try to collect any evidence of the incident and they falsified multiple reports. All are still on active duty and none were so much as written up. Not even a picture of my supposed saliva on their sub-human skin was taken. They didn't even collect a sample to verify that it was my spit. My public defender literally abandoned the case. This is commonplace here. If you were to ask a local neurologist about how the police treat the disabled, chances are they either have a patient that has been attacked by police or they know a colleague, an associate, or an acquaintence that does.
> 
> Seems like the rule of law is a joke to authority and anybody that gets trampled underfoot is the punchline.
> 
> If police refuse to honor their oaths that they have chosen to take, then they are by definition traitors to their nation and should be treated accordingly. Period.
> 
> That said, I believe in actual justice that involves trying people for their crimes. I don't condone the point blank, cold-murder of police but self defense is another story. To me, If someone (no matter their profession) is trying to kill or rape you, or someone you care about, that situation dictates self defense but to murder an officer unprovoked is simply cowardly, to say the least.
> 
> https://www.denverpost.com/2019/09/06/aurora-police-excessive-force-andre-williams/amp/
> 
> https://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/27/epileptic-man-charged-assault-spitting/amp/


holy shit dude, unreal. i'm sorry that happened to you.


----------



## DiezelMonster

Deleted for anger.


----------



## Vairocarnal

My statement is not a reply to anyone. It's just my two cents based on my life experience. Also, for reference, all people in my incident were "white". I believe it would be referred to as a "white on white" incident by most POC observers.




eggy in a bready said:


> holy shit dude, unreal. i'm sorry that happened to you.




I appreciate your consideration, thank you!


----------



## possumkiller

DiezelMonster said:


> I don't have that video. But I'd LOVE to see it.


Why?


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Alexa run my life

Someone just posted this nonsense. I think it's legit too judging by the comments on it


----------



## narad

Alexa run my life said:


> View attachment 81356
> 
> Someone just posted this nonsense. I think it's legit too judging by the comments on it



I guess this is the rapper T.I.'s thing. Rappers are not necessarily the go-tos for having a good understanding of nationwide economics.


----------



## DiezelMonster

eggy in a bready said:


> holy shit dude, unreal. i'm sorry that happened to you.





possumkiller said:


> Why?




Because its about fuckin time? 
The time for passive reaction was gone LONG ago, like 400 years ago. So if a few POC officers want to kneel on the neck of a "guilty" white person, then lets go. 

Do you understand the LENGTH and overall span that this racism represents? Have you the slightest clue?


----------



## broj15

Alexa run my life said:


> View attachment 81356
> 
> Someone just posted this nonsense. I think it's legit too judging by the comments on it



So you're saying that this, a peaceful form of protest is nonsense but rioting in the streets is also nonsense, but Kaepernick taking a knee wasn't the right thing to do either. So then what exactly do you propose that people do?

Still just trying to figure out if you're a really weak troll/some "intellectual" playing devil's advocate or someone who really does lack any form of logicbor reason, so much so that you lack any consistency between you're arguments.

EDIT: no need to report this comment either, since intellectual isn't really an insult even when it's in quotations and used VERY sarcastically.


----------



## broj15

Also, I WILL edit amend this comment for posterity if it end up not being true, but I'm hearing reports from friends on the ground that police in Kansas City have switched from "less lethal" ammunition to LIVE ROUNDS for any and everyone caught out past curfew.


----------



## narad

broj15 said:


> So you're saying that this, a peaceful form of protest is nonsense but rioting in the streets is also nonsense, but Kaepernick taking a knee wasn't the right thing to do either. So then what exactly do you propose that people do?
> 
> Still just trying to figure out if you're a really weak troll/some "intellectual" playing devil's advocate or someone who really does lack any form of logicbor reason, so much so that you lack any consistency between you're arguments.
> 
> EDIT: no need to report this comment either, since intellectual isn't really an insult even when it's in quotations and used VERY sarcastically.



To defend that, I also see such things as nonsense. If you boycott a specific business and go to a competitor, that's flexing some economic power. It has an effect. But what effect does it do to buy your groceries for wednesday and thursday on tuesday, rather than wednesday? If you put off an Amazon purchase for one day, who cares? And to do this during a time when spending is already at record lows across the country and no one is buying shit anyway, makes it that much more poorly thought out to me. Even if it's targetted... like POC, please no buying movie tickets on Wednesday... how does that put pressure on governments and law enforcement?

I don't mind such things because they are protests. I mind them because they seem fundamentally flawed and destined to be ineffectual.


----------



## broj15

narad said:


> To defend that, I also see such things as nonsense. If you boycott a specific business and go to a competitor, that's flexing some economic power. It has an effect. But what effect does it do to buy your groceries for wednesday and thursday on tuesday, rather than wednesday? If you put off an Amazon purchase for one day, who cares? And to do this during a time when spending is already at record lows across the country and no one is buying shit anyway, makes it that much more poorly thought out to me. Even if it's targetted... like POC, please no buying movie tickets on Wednesday... how does that put pressure on governments and law enforcement?
> 
> I don't mind such things because they are protests. I mind them because they seem fundamentally flawed and destined to be ineffectual.




Because people will take notice. Idk why any of y'all opposing this are trying to dress it up as anything other than the obvious: y'all don't want poc to protest or exercise thier rights in any way shape or form because you're content to watch them continue to die. There's really no political stance to be taken here. It's not a dem vs. rep, red vs. blue, or capitalist vs. communist issue at this point. It's a violation of basic human rights, but I guess as long as you aren't the one with a boot to the back (or rather a knee to the neck) then it's just a story on the 10 o clock news and a minor inconvenience cuz your favorite big box stores took a much deserved beating.

Edit: I'll double down on my previous statement that a few of y'all found so offensive: if you oppose POC protesting - in whatever way they see fit - then you are either a blatant or covert white supremacist whether you realize it or not. If you take offense to that then I highly suggest you take some time to ponder just why you find that so offensive. I know I have racist tendencies that are ingrained in me due to the environment I was raised in (predominantly white, rural, Midwestern small town with alot of other blatant white supremacists). I freely admit that. But I take those experiences, listen to the experiences of those that do suffer from systemic oppression and try and learn a thing or two from them when I can.


----------



## possumkiller

DiezelMonster said:


> Because its about fuckin time?
> The time for passive reaction was gone LONG ago, like 400 years ago. So if a few POC officers want to kneel on the neck of a "guilty" white person, then lets go.
> 
> Do you understand the LENGTH and overall span that this racism represents? Have you the slightest clue?


Ok. I was wondering if it was just that you wanted to see anyone in particular murdered or just a white person being murdered by a black person. Why would you LOVE to see video footage of anyone being murdered under any circumstances? 

I dislike seeing footage of police murdering people just as much as I dislike seeing footage of people being murdered by Nazis or anyone else. I don't understand what gives pleasure in seeing someone else die. 

There were a few kids in my unit that loved watching videos of graphic and violent murders and public suicides and the like. My cousin still finds gun camera footage of Muslims being exploded and mutilated hilarious. 

I guess I can kind of see your point thinking that _they _did it to _us _for so long. But how would flipping it around make _you _any better than _they_? Why does anyone need to be murdered by police?


----------



## narad

broj15 said:


> Because people will take notice. Idk why any of y'all opposing this are trying to dress it up as anything other than the obvious: y'all don't want poc to protest to exercise thier rights in any way shape or form because you're content to watch them continue to die. There's really no political stance to be taken here. It's not a dem vs. rep, red vs. blue, or capitalist vs. communist issue at this point. It's a violation of basic human rights, but I guess as long as you aren't the one with a boot to the back (or rather a knee to the neck) then it's just a story on the 10 o clock news and a minor inconvenience cuz your favorite big box stores took a much deserved beating.



I'm saying really no one will take notice if POC refrain from buying stuff for ONE WHOLE DAY. omg, how will the businesses stay open?? Most businesses won't even be able to measure the effect if people go in the next day and buy two-day's worth of stuff.

I can actually be in favor of POCs protest, and still think some ideas are poorly thought out. Stop reading weird prejudices into my comments. For instance, what if I told all people to boycott McDonald's for one minute. Do you think McDonald's cares? Does my movement accomplish anything? I'm saying very bluntly, if POC stop buying things for one day, I don't think it will make any net result in bottom lines and people won't care, and frankly I think people will actually be able to follow it or want to follow it. Feel free to prove me wrong. I know I've heard of similar 1-day boycotts being done previously. I don't remember what they were for...

Or to put another way, in the middle ages, do you think armies walked up and laid siege to a city for one day? Cut them off from food and water, and starved them out, for one day? Laying siege is very effective, but it kind requires a sustained and focused effort. Boycotting is the same principle. This is simply logic.


----------



## broj15

narad said:


> I'm saying really no one will take notice if POC refrain from buying stuff for ONE WHOLE DAY. omg, how will the businesses stay open?? Most businesses won't even be able to measure the effect if people go in the next day and buy two-day's worth of stuff.
> 
> I can actually be in favor of POCs protest, and still think some ideas are poorly thought out. Stop reading weird prejudices into my comments. For instance, what if I told all people to boycott McDonald's for one minute. Do you think McDonald's cares? Does my movement accomplish anything? I'm saying very bluntly, if POC stop buying things for one day, I don't think it will make any net result in bottom lines and people won't care, and frankly I think people will actually be able to follow it or want to follow it. Feel free to prove me wrong. I know I've heard of similar 1-day boycotts being done previously. I don't remember what they were for...
> 
> Or to put another way, in the middle ages, do you think armies walked up and laid siege to a city for one day? Cut them off from food and water, and starved them out, for one day? Laying siege is very effective, but it kind requires a sustained and focused effort. Boycotting is the same principle. This is simply logic.




It comes down to the fact that you're openly criticising something that you have absolutely no right to criticize. Let them protest how they see fit. Doesn't matter if you think it will work or not. Either get on the train, lay on the tracks or don't even bother showing up to the station. It's not your movement and it's not your place to tell people how to run thier movement.


----------



## narad

broj15 said:


> It comes down to the fact that you're openly criticising something that you have absolutely no right to criticize. Let them protest how they see fit. Doesn't matter if you think it will work or not. Either get on the train, lay on the tracks or don't even bother showing up to the station. It's not your movement and it's not your place to tell people how to run thier movement.



I mean, maybe it will have some sort of "togetherness" effect that is beneficial for the movement, but when it comes to talking about economic pressure, we are now in the realm of objective results. If POC want to refrain from buying things for one day out of some sense of solidarity etc., fine, I'm not criticizing that. 

But if they are doing so out of an intent to exert economic pressure on markets in the hopes that it changes police enforcement, which was my reading of that tweet, then I'm afraid there are some cold, objective realities (which I do not control nor influence) that make it difficult to have an effect, absolutely regardless of who is doing it or why. You cannot ignore how economics works when trying to exert economic pressure, I'm sad to say. It would be like saying that in support of George Floyd, all POCs will divide by zero on July 7th.


----------



## StevenC

shadowlife said:


> If you're a millionaire athlete, why not buy a house in one of these poor neighborhoods, and use your millions to get the schools fixed up, organize a civilian patrol made up of people from the neighborhood to look out for kid's safety


This is literally what governments are for.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> This is literally what governments are for.



Use your spare time to catch people committing crimes, and bring them to the station. Pave roads and fix potholes. Put out fires. You know, normal pro-athlete stuff.


----------



## NotDonVito

broj15 said:


> (predominantly white, rural, Midwestern small town with alot of other blatant white supremacists)




you know this shit hits different when you live in a black city, and going out in public right now, at least after dark, is pretty much an invitation to get mugged/beaten

but no lets listen to the guy sitting safely in his cornfield or whatever

that's all i have to say, no re


----------



## Captain Shoggoth

NotDonVito said:


> you know this shit hits different when you live in a black city, and going out in public right now, at least after dark, is pretty much an invitation to get mugged/beaten
> 
> but no lets listen to the guy sitting safely in his cornfield or whatever
> 
> that's all i have to say, no re



yea cause poor black people committing crime is because of the black part right? dingus


----------



## broj15

NotDonVito said:


> you know this shit hits different when you live in a black city, and going out in public right now, at least after dark, is pretty much an invitation to get mugged/beaten
> 
> but no lets listen to the guy sitting safely in his cornfield or whatever
> 
> that's all i have to say, no re



Uuuhhhhh where someone was raised =/ where someone lives currently. It's a crazy thing but people can move out of the place where they grew up to somewhere new. Just an FYI but I live in a city where people have tried to mug me when I was walking home from work late at night. There have been riots in my city and I'd still go out at night because I know what side I stand on.


----------



## eggy in a bready

military police were guarding the skirmish lines last night in DC. get ready for martial law.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Randy said:


> 'Both-sidesism' benefits the parties currently at the top of the power structure. Anybody got a video of a black cop standing on the neck of a white man until dead while three other guys also hold him to the ground, or nah?


No but heres a black cop beating an unarmed black man to show that it is likely not a race issue but a power issue


Not to mention only 13% of all police force is black while 77% is white, so yeah you're going to see more white on black violence videos
https://datausa.io/profile/soc/police-officers


----------



## Viginez

you aren't doing anything with this, only burning down those communities that will take years to recover and destroying lives.
if any this will lead to even more police power in the future, instead of using peaceful protests in a smart way to actuallly achieve something.


----------



## SpaceDock

Trump telling the governors that they are weak and need to drop the hammer. Meanwhile Trump was in a bunker Friday night. Trump is doing a terrible job managing this crisis and I am hoping they march at the White House and give him a wake up call.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

So... George's brother is pleading with rioters to stop the violence and the looting and destruction. What's his suggestion? Vote! Makes sense. I'm done with this thread but I'm thankful that the minority of hateful voices do not represent everyone. Compromise and compassion.. without it, no change will ever come. Rest In Peace, George Floyd and may your family find some degree of solace as they move forward without you.


----------



## Ralyks

Independent autopsy came back.

https://apple.news/AyqzftpifT9qeRnh55dyeNQ

"An independent autopsy ordered by George Floyd's family found his homicide was "caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain," according to early findings from the examination released Monday.

The independent examiners found that weight on the back, handcuffs and positioning were contributory factors because they impaired the ability of Floyd's diaphragm to function, according to the report."

As for Trump telling governor's to be tougher, one, how about addressing the nation instead of hiding in a bunker if you're as tough as you claim to be, and two, he's aware hrs already pissed off many governor's, right?


----------



## Alexa run my life

Ralyks said:


> Independent autopsy came back.
> 
> https://apple.news/AyqzftpifT9qeRnh55dyeNQ
> 
> "An independent autopsy ordered by George Floyd's family found his homicide was "caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain," according to early findings from the examination released Monday.
> 
> The independent examiners found that weight on the back, handcuffs and positioning were contributory factors because they impaired the ability of Floyd's diaphragm to function, according to the report."
> 
> As for Trump telling governor's to be tougher, one, how about addressing the nation instead of hiding in a bunker if you're as tough as you claim to be, and two, he's aware hrs already pissed off many governor's, right?


It's sad he had to die that way


----------



## Señor Voorhees

SpaceDock said:


> Trump telling the governors that they are weak and need to drop the hammer. Meanwhile Trump was in a bunker Friday night. Trump is doing a terrible job managing this crisis and I am hoping they march at the White House and give him a wake up call.



Not that I'm making excuses or caring about his wellbeing, but he's probably forced into that bunker. Believe me, I'd love to see him out and addressing the people right now and he probably thinks he'd win them over. Guy's a total narcissist. Let him go face to face with the hate he's helped breed. (He didn't create it, but he sure as shit stoked the fire pretty fucking hard.)


----------



## Señor Voorhees

eggy in a bready said:


> military police were guarding the skirmish lines last night in DC. get ready for martial law.



I typically call BS on these claims, but it doesn't seem too unrealistic in this case. I'm quite terrified of the rest of 2020.


----------



## eggy in a bready

Señor Voorhees said:


> I typically call BS on these claims, but it doesn't seem too unrealistic in this case. I'm quite terrified of the rest of 2020.


it will happen. and there will be people out there that will welcome it with open arms.


----------



## Drew

c7spheres said:


> I don't find the kneeling part or the message he stands for aggressive at all. In fact I mostly agree with it. What it is NOT, is peaceful. It is passive-aggressive behavior because of the methods used.


Um, hi, welcome to protests. Of course peaceful, silent protest is passive aggressive. It's standing up to a system that outnumbers you, has all the cards, and all the power. You don't protest because you think things are just fine, the v_ery act of protest_ is standing up to a system that oppresses you, and accordingly is going to be interpreted as a form of aggression by the power structure. This has always been the case, and always will. 

This post is just three or four steps removed from "that black boy needs to shut his mouth and know his place."


----------



## Science_Penguin

Ralyks said:


> As for Trump telling governor's to be tougher, one, how about addressing the nation instead of hiding in a bunker if you're as tough as you claim to be, and two, he's aware hrs already pissed off many governor's, right?


----------



## Ralyks

Science_Penguin said:


>



I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

eggy in a bready said:


> it will happen. and there will be people out there that will welcome it with open arms.



I personally know people who would, and it's fucking gross.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Drew said:


> Um, hi, welcome to protests. Of course peaceful, silent protest is passive aggressive. It's standing up to a system that outnumbers you, has all the cards, and all the power. You don't protest because you think things are just fine, the v_ery act of protest_ is standing up to a system that oppresses you, and accordingly is going to be interpreted as a form of aggression by the power structure. This has always been the case, and always will.
> 
> This post is just three or four steps removed from "that black boy needs to shut his mouth and know his place."




Right? Like, the whole fucking point of protesting is to be SOME form of aggressive towards something. Better "passive aggressive" than "burn your house down and/or kneel on your neck until you're dead" aggressive.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Ralyks said:


> I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say.



You mentioned hiding in a bunker instead of addressing the nation, and it just made me think of the time he said it'd be a good idea for Xi Xinping to meet with the HK protesters.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Drew said:


> Um, hi, welcome to protests. Of course peaceful, silent protest is passive aggressive. It's standing up to a system that outnumbers you, has all the cards, and all the power. You don't protest because you think things are just fine, the v_ery act of protest_ is standing up to a system that oppresses you, and accordingly is going to be interpreted as a form of aggression by the power structure. This has always been the case, and always will.
> 
> This post is just three or four steps removed from "that black boy needs to shut his mouth and know his place."


Yeah but blocking cars on highways and smashing windows with skateboards of innocent peoples cars has gone too far and those people will have deserved to get shot if they get shot


----------



## StevenC

Alexa run my life said:


> Yeah but blocking cars on highways and smashing windows with skateboards of innocent peoples cars has gone too far and those people will have deserved to get shot if they get shot


Shame nobody solved the issue already, eh? Pity there's nothing anyone can do about it.


----------



## Drew

Alexa run my life said:


> Yeah but blocking cars on highways and smashing windows with skateboards of innocent peoples cars has gone too far and those people will have deserved to get shot if they get shot


I'm sorry, the adults in the room are speaking.


----------



## Ralyks

Science_Penguin said:


> You mentioned hiding in a bunker instead of addressing the nation, and it just made me think of the time he said it'd be a good idea for Xi Xinping to meet with the HK protesters.



Oh, Trump being a hypocrite again. Gotcha.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

StevenC said:


> Shame nobody solved the issue already, eh? Pity there's nothing anyone can do about it.



I certainly would be outright pissed off if it happened to me, but maybe it's because I'm of sound mind that I understand why they're doing this... We miss flights, we get our commute's blocked. I don't 100% support the looting of local businesses or smashing of innocent people's cars, but... Imagine that THIS is what the world has brought you to. And people STILL don't sympathize and come up with excuses instead of fixing it. I WILL be mad and upset if it ever happens to me personally, but... I get WHY it's happening. I may not agree with the course of action, but... What can you honestly do when nobody listens to you when you talk and you have to shout?


----------



## Alexa run my life

Drew said:


> I'm sorry, the adults in the room are speaking.


The irony is that that's the most childish comment in this thread. Sorry for addressing the crimes that hurt innocent Americans

Back to the news. Heres a pretty good listen.


----------



## Ralyks

Alexa run my life said:


> The irony is that that's the most childish comment in this thread. Sorry for addressing the crimes that hurt innocent Americans
> 
> Back to the news. Heres a pretty good listen.




You just posted a video of Kayleigh McEnany. Please, back to the kids table.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Señor Voorhees said:


> I certainly would be outright pissed off if it happened to me, but maybe it's because I'm of sound mind that I understand why they're doing this... We miss flights, we get our commute's blocked. I don't 100% support the looting of local businesses or smashing of innocent people's cars, but... Imagine that THIS is what the world has brought you to. And people STILL don't sympathize and come up with excuses instead of fixing it. I WILL be mad and upset if it ever happens to me personally, but... I get WHY it's happening. I may not agree with the course of action, but... What can you honestly do when nobody listens to you when you talk and you have to shout?


And I believe that these anarchistic types will do what they're doing for any reason. Just hapoens that this is just another golden ticket reason.

Once they've torn down the system and everything is destroyed with nothing left, they'll be tearing each other from limb to limb.


----------



## StevenC

Alexa run my life said:


> And I believe that these anarchistic types will do what they're doing for any reason. Just hapoens that this is just another golden ticket reason.
> 
> Once they've torn down the system and everything is destroyed with nothing left, they'll be tearing each other from limb to limb.


What is your opinion of the War of Independence?


----------



## Alexa run my life

StevenC said:


> What is your opinion of the War of Independence?


Comparing a tax revolt to a few incidents of cops gone bad, sure. Actually, I would rather see a tax revolt than this.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Alexa run my life said:


> Comparing a tax revolt to a few incidents of cops gone bad, sure. Actually, I would rather see a tax revolt than this.



So you'd be okay with all this if the only thing that changed was the motivation?


----------



## Señor Voorhees

I might be done with this thread... I'm happy there are so many on the side of justice is all I'll say... I hate my fucking life and 90% of the selfishness I see on the day to day. I don't need to think about people trying to justify serial offenders to bring me further down than rock bottom. I'm super happy to see mods not shut the discussion down even though they're on the side of reason despite some people that are spitting venom, but I can't deal with more negativity in my life. Keep fighting the fight, those who can see that things aren't okay... I'm out. i can't deal. Y'all are stronger than me. I wish I could help my fellow man more, but I can't. Just realize that you are all capable of greatness... You just have to look past the shallow digs... Most people coming out in support on this forum I'd bet real money are white and they never felt attacked because they support human rights. 3rd degree murder charges with that criminal report for a single cop is NOT human rights. I wish y'all the best, I really do, and I hope I can stop myself from coming back to this thread, but I just can't deal with knowing that there are people who are THIS callous to human life. Love you, @StevenC, Love you @Randy, Love you and SO many fucking others in this forum... I'm just done with hearing/reading about this sadness. I won't stop trying to be a decent person, no matter how shitty I was in the past, but god fucking damn it does this shit make me sick and I just need out.


----------



## Ralyks

Alexa run my life said:


> Comparing a tax revolt to a few incidents of cops gone bad, sure. Actually, I would rather see a tax revolt than this.



What, and I cannot stress this enough, the fuck?


----------



## Alexa run my life

Señor Voorhees said:


> I might be done with this thread... I'm happy there are so many on the side of justice is all I'll say... I hate my fucking life and 90% of the selfishness I see on the day to day. I don't need to think about people trying to justify serial offenders to bring me further down than rock bottom. I'm super happy to see mods not shut the discussion down even though they're on the side of reason despite some people that are spitting venom, but I can't deal with more negativity in my life. Keep fighting the fight, those who can see that things aren't okay... I'm out. i can't deal. Y'all are stronger than me. I wish I could help my fellow man more, but I can't. Just realize that you are all capable of greatness... You just have to look past the shallow digs... Most people coming out in support on this forum I'd bet real money are white and they never felt attacked because they support human rights. 3rd degree murder charges with that criminal report for a single cop is NOT human rights. I wish y'all the best, I really do, and I hope I can stop myself from coming back to this thread, but I just can't deal with knowing that there are people who are THIS callous to human life. Love you, @StevenC, Love you @Randy, Love you and SO many fucking others in this forum... I'm just done with hearing/reading about this sadness. I won't stop trying to be a decent person, no matter how shitty I was in the past, but god fucking damn it does this shit make me sick and I just need out.


I just typed up a sort of lengthy post as a response to someone and I refreshed the page to see the new post and, now that I have seen that post....I am also out. Please take care.


----------



## StevenC

Ralyks said:


> What, and I cannot stress this enough, the fuck?


Solar cults, man.


----------



## TedEH

I think I'm glad I didn't find this thread until today. What a shitty time 2020 has been.


----------



## eggy in a bready

Martial law is here. Fascism has won.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A_zaHDNCQRWycwDwQB6evKQ

Who's ready for some martial law?


----------



## SpaceDock

Wow, watching Trump use force against non violent protesters so he can say he is enacting marital law and get his photo op with a bible in hand.

edit: just read this is the first time US military has been used against US citizens since 1807! Against people being non violent! For a fucking photo op! This is America!


----------



## c7spheres

Drew said:


> Um, hi, welcome to protests. Of course peaceful, silent protest is passive aggressive. It's standing up to a system that outnumbers you, ....
> 
> This post is just three or four steps removed from "that black boy needs to shut his mouth and know his place."




TLDR;
No matter what always love each other and forgive each other.

- Please don't be part of the problem. I love all types of peoples and that is far from the truth.

- As a side note (not a dig at you Drew) I've noticed many people do not read the entire posts or history of conversations and often do take things out of context or read way to far into things that aren't there. Then people spend half the time defending themselves about untrue things others say they said when in fact they didn't say them. This is a form of trolling is it not?
- This is part of the problem of communication. Most people don't seem to understand the concept of conversation is not the same as a debate. Conversation can have things being said that the person doesn't necesarily subscribe too. Debate is tryinng to argue a point one wants to prevail in one's thinking. Converstation may just be information or potential points of view for the sake of covering the bases of things. Just because someone like me says the Kaepernick thing was passive aggressive doesn't mean I'm against what he did. I'm ok with what he did, but I don't change my thinking and call it something it's not.

- The more we work together and find common ground and stop bickering and arguing about things that derail progress, the better off we'll all be for it.



eggy in a bready said:


> so, an organization who's players are made up of roughly 70% black heritage doesn't think it should involve itself with matters of black self-determination?
> 
> sounds like a fucking slave trade to me.



I think they probably should, but it's a business not a black justice platform. I'm all for what he did, but I'm not gonna call it peaceful, because it wasn't. It was passive aggressive. Though it was non-violent, which is fantastic. If the NFL wants to do that then they should. He went about it the wrong way. It wasn't his decision to make for them. That's one reason why it was passive aggressive. Maybe he should have started a bigger movement from the inside with other players first to be more effective. I think the reality is that he wanted to do something and then it became a big movement. Good. Hope he got what he wanted out of it.
- I'm all for equality, if it's actually equality. Equality is not the day whites become enslaved like blacks were or the day whites are in the same positions blacks have been or are. Equaliity is the day we are actually equal. Unfortunately the way I hear most people (black or white) talk about equality is really just a ruse to elevate themselves regardless of who else is elevated or victimized. What's gonna really NOT suck is when a system of laws and checks and balances are put in place that actually work, but that's not possible until people evolve spiritually. Until then things can still be impoved.
- Something people really don't want to hear is that we actually aren't equal. Hold your horses. Some races or even bloodlines within races have certain traits that give them both advantages and disadvantages, physically and mentally. It doesn't make one better than the other, only better than the other under certain conditions. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but the exception is not the rule. This is why we all need to actually strive towards peace and work together and exploit each others advantages the best we can, with permission. Until this day comes I believe there should be gaurantees put in place for all people. I believe that just because you are born you should have clean food, water, housing, health care, education etc. and not even be forced to do things in exchange for it, yet have incentives in place that would naturally make most people want to contribute. A society that people take pride in being a part in. It's totally possible. People are inherently good. It's the minority of all races of people that are causing the problems for everyone else.
- How about we reform the system by firing all the white cops and replacing them with black cops? Replace everyone at the highest levels of every job and position in all sectors of work for everything.
- Do we honestly beliieve there will be less victims and problems? Of course there won't. If only one race existed on Earth then they would just do all the same things to each other. It's a human condition. Things like greed and lust for power and control exist in everyone. It's a matter of people not being controlled by it.



Randy said:


> It's implied. If you think Kaepernick's protests were too much, than you lessen the significance of the matter at hand.
> 
> How would you deal with 500 years of oppression? Give an example .....



- I don't think Kaepernick's protests were to much. I never said this. I said they were passive-aggressive, not peaceful. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it either. I don't have a problem with it, the NFL did.
- Regarding the how I would deal with 500 years of oppresion? It's a loaded question. It doesn't matter because even if God presented a failure-proof plan (if implemented) writtten in stone, most people would tear it apart and not listen. Oh wait, That sounds familiar.
- It's the main problem with humanity. Not listening or willingness to comprehend, lack of patience, compassion and respect for each other. Most just are not capable because they don't have control over themselves in that way yet. A few have chosen the hard way for everyone.
- If POC really want to have an impact they have to organize and peacfully confront the enemy, which is not white people, it's evil. Evil is practically everywhere, and through the practice of resistance and not giving in to it and taking the higher ground, evil can eventually be triumphed. People do it all the time. By focusing on doing right and good by others then it can be triumphed. It's all happening as we speak. This is gonna be a great time for some for elightenment and others who will fall into obscurity. I know this is all new-agey sounding but it is really true. People want instant results and that's not a common path. It's possible but you can't force it.
- Looking back at America over the last 100 years there have realistically been great strides. With todays society being so fast paced it's bound to resolve even faster.
- We can get there. We've seen the calm before the storm, and now the storm is being weathered, and eventually the storm will be over. Then after we rebuild from the storm it will be a better place. There will still be some things that aren't rebuilt right and need work, but in the big picture of things it will work out. It's just we all want to live during that time. - So until we start actually living that life we won't live that life. It's really that simple. If everyone does what they can and the best they can not only day to day, but moment to moment in life, then at a certain point we will actulaly be living that life. It takes self control and developing that attituted to control one's actions. It takes a lot of work, like working a muscle. If everyone just actually treated everyone kindly and worked through their disagreements with a sincere effort to make it work, along with compromise then we are already on our way. It's about being fair and kind to each other. That means also giving more than you have to or helping people you don't have to also. There is a sacrifce that comes with it. People will take advantage of you for being this way. Do the right things, even if it means you suffer some. Live life knowing you're doing the righteous thing.

- POC with the attitude of being inequal have it wrong. Same as the LGBTQ people. They shouldn't see themselves as inequal, but should see themselves as different. Same with whites too. We are all different and we are not equal. None of us is lesser than the other however, but we are lesser than the other in ceratin ways. We all have special things about us that the other doesn't. This is diversity within diversity. We all deserve to be treated respectfully and equally in certain ways like by police and the law and employers etc. but we all require special things that others may not also. Communicating the sincerity of that to each other can be tricky because we're not the same. Even amongst people of the same group/race there's special indivdualized things needed that some don't need. Like eduacation etc. For example people from one area may not need eduaction like others do etc. We are, to a certain extent, products of our environment.
- If tomorrow suddenly all the "evil" people gave all the "good" people their power and money and started to treat them properly then it would still be on all the "good" people to do the right things with that power and money and to continue treating others in a proper way. If this happened you'd likely see a role reversal over a short time period and the "good" people would now become the "evil" people and vise versa.
- Only some people actually annd sincerely want equality and change, but I many just want power and money. Power and money will not bring equality, but it's a good place to start.


TLDR;
No matter what always love each other and forgive each other.


----------



## c7spheres

TLDR;
No matter what always love each other and forgive each other.



--- Similar to @Señor Voorhees I'm gonna get out of this thread soon. Every single time there is a thread about any sensitive topic here on sso I get upset at some of the things I read, attitutes that come out, misrepresentations of others, tearing down of others, blatant lying to try ot tarnish other's image's, lack of sincerity, and herd mentality, trolling, and the overall agentic state of certain individuals that make it impossible. I'm not calling out anyone specifically here in this thread and have no problems with any of you and consider you some good online freinds/aquantances. I'm glad we can talk about things andbe up front and honest about the ways we feel, and honestly like the in your face and not sugar coated method of things. I can far more brazen in person and typing is a filter of sorts for me. I have been through much in life (like many of us) and honestly have had many full out verbal wars filled with profanity, threats and racist langauages used, and hate speech filled drama with all walks of life friends of mine who'm are POC, LGBTQ disabled etc. and all without actually hating eachother the enitre time. We can work through things and still love eachother and do. I have many long lasting freindships and in all honesty the most important thing is to always keep loving eachother and have a sincere desire to always make thnigs better. This natually leads to arguments and is part of the process. There is a process in which the toxins evil must be bled from the body and soul. This understanding is why when people have love and knowledge and wisdom they can go through these things reletively unscathed. It's all a process. So no matter what always love each other and forgive each other. I'm getting to old to handle the stress. Im only in my 40's but have a lot of miles on me. I gotta be careful even reading stuff. I wish everyone the best and will see you out there in the other threads. I have no issue or bad vibes with any of you and welcome commonucating with you again. Take care.


TLDR;
No matter what always love each other and forgive each other.


----------



## Randy

c7spheres said:


> TLDR;
> No matter what always love each other and forgive each other.



So George Floyd was supposed love that guy's knee off of his throat? Black oppression is just a perception issue on their part? The fuck are you on about?


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> So George Floyd was supposed love that guy's knee off of his throat? Black oppression is just a perception issue on their part? The fuck are you on about?


No Randy, you've got it ass about face. The cop loved having his knee on George Floyd's throat and he forgives Floyd for feeling oppressed.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> No Randy, you've got it ass about face. The cop loved having his knee on George Floyd's throat and he forgives Floyd for feeling oppressed.



Ah, noble guy.


----------



## Randy

c7spheres said:


> I said they were passive-aggressive, not peaceful.



Ah, I got you. Actions have context, even if there's no violence. Ergo, passive aggression.

Just like 'liking' right wing propaganda posts in this thread or equating a race of people being exterminated by the dominant race in this country as just PERCEIVING themselves as unequal. A living lesson in passive aggressivism, look at that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Those posts have so much privilege they shop at J.Crew.


----------



## Vyn

Randy said:


> Ah, I got you. Actions have context, even if there's no violence. Ergo, passive aggression.
> 
> Just like 'liking' right wing propaganda posts in this thread or equating a race of people being exterminated by the dominant race in this country as just PERCEIVING themselves as unequal. A living lesson in passive aggressivism, look at that.



I was just in the process of writing that a peaceful protest simply means a protest without violence. Kneeling is a peaceful protest and it was actually an awesome protest at that - it was high profile, public and got people talking about the issue without setting fire to everything. Now that nothing has been achieved as a result of that protest and POC are still being treated poorly, hell even getting killed, peaceful protesting is out the window and it's time to set fire to everything.

To all those going "Let's have a civil discussion about this" - THEY TRIED FOR HUNDRED OF YEARS AND YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN. Unfortunately with some Americans, unless you pose a risk to their guns or money they refuse to give a shit about anything.


----------



## TedEH

I just watched the video of Trump making his speech about invoking the military....
I'm sure I'm not the first to call it, but Trump is going to start a civil war.

I'm legitimately worried for you guys. And for us, being right next to you guys. And for the world in general when one of the most powerful centres of the world tears itself apart from the inside. We all need to get our collective shit together.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> No Randy, you've got it ass about face. The cop loved having his knee on George Floyd's throat and he forgives Floyd for feeling oppressed.



George Floyd loved being asphyxiated and he forgave Officer Chauvin for ending it so soon. Kumbaya.


----------



## c7spheres

Randy said:


> Ah, I got you. Actions have context, even if there's no violence. Ergo, passive aggression.
> 
> Just like 'liking' right wing propaganda posts in this thread or equating a race of people being exterminated by the dominant race in this country as just PERCEIVING themselves as unequal. A living lesson in passive aggressivism, look at that.






Randy said:


> So George Floyd was supposed love that guy's knee off of his throat? Black oppression is just a perception issue on their part? The fuck are you on about?



- You misunderstand what I said if you think that's what I meant. I don't see what is happening in this country as a funny joke. You're just not in a proper state of mind for a conversation like this right now. Sorry to waste your time. Maybe we can revist it someday. PM me if you want.


----------



## Randy

I'm just matching your level of absurdity. Please tell me what type of zen resolution Kayleigh Maceneny had to share because I didn't watch that trash but apparently you did and liked it.


----------



## c7spheres

Randy said:


> I'm just matching your level of absurdity. Please tell me what type of zen resolution Kayleigh Maceneny had to share because I didn't watch that trash but apparently you did and liked it.


 I love you @Randy . And I forgive you : )


----------



## SpaceDock

^ Damn, I want whatever he’s been smoking


----------



## Randy

c7spheres said:


> I love you @Randy . And I forgive you : )



asl?


----------



## c7spheres

Randy said:


> asl?


 What do deaf people have to do with this!? : )


----------



## eggy in a bready

c7spheres said:


> - You misunderstand what I said if you think that's what I meant. I don't see what is happening in this country as a funny joke. You're just not in a proper state of mind for a conversation like this right now. Sorry to waste your time. Maybe we can revist it someday. PM me if you want.


it's less being in the right state of mind and more your complete inability to grasp the situation at hand.


----------



## c7spheres

eggy in a bready said:


> it's less being in the right state of mind and more your complete inability to grasp the situation at hand.


 
Please drop an education bomb on us then. It's more productive that way. What do you want everyone to know and what do you want everyone to do? Sincerely.


----------



## narad

Seems reasonable.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

c7spheres said:


> Please drop an education bomb on us then. It's more productive that way. What do you want everyone to know and what do you want everyone to do? Sincerely.




Just everything is wrong with the attitudes of so many. Every injustice is attempted to be rationalized. "Oh he could breathe if he obeyed the law" Every attempt to be heard minimized, every form of protest innapropriate, literally in this thread someone said they're blocking highways they deserve to be shot. So blocking a highway warrants being shot but being killed doesnt warrant blocking a highway apparently. 

I'm surprised none of the mouth breathers have said its there own fault they are poor their owners provided food and housing stability for them originally. Like what is up for debate?


----------



## eggy in a bready

c7spheres said:


> Please drop an education bomb on us then. It's more productive that way. What do you want everyone to know and what do you want everyone to do? Sincerely.


start by reading this twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/BootsRiley/status/1266851333438500865

which, i think, is a pretty good explanation of the conditions that have led us to the mess we're currently in.


----------



## possumkiller

SpaceDock said:


> Trump telling the governors that they are weak and need to drop the hammer. Meanwhile Trump was in a bunker Friday night. Trump is doing a terrible job managing this crisis and I am hoping they march at the White House and give him a wake up call.


You know who else was hiding in a bunker uttering incoherent nonsense and telling everyone around him to die for the cause and blaming all of them for his failure while his regime came toppling down?


----------



## possumkiller

narad said:


> Seems reasonable.


I really don't get it. I spent seven years in the army. Three of those years I lived in Iraq. We had all kinds of rules about how and when we were allowed to use deadly force. We had constant classes on Rules of Engagement and Escalation of Force. We had to carry cards on our person at all times with those rules just in case anyone forgot them. Why is that not possible for police?


----------



## c7spheres

eggy in a bready said:


> start by reading this twitter thread:
> 
> https://twitter.com/BootsRiley/status/1266851333438500865
> 
> which, i think, is a pretty good explanation of the conditions that have led us to the mess we're currently in.



- Thanks, I see a lot of what people are saying and agree. The system is basically rigged against us. It's rigged not only against POC, but everyone, and POC moreso because of how they started off in this country and the bad mentality and other discriminatory behaviors that were passed down to whites and other clashing cultures too. 
- I think economic inequality is a large part of the problem for sure. There's no good reason why poverty should exist. It only exsists to fuel the machine.


----------



## SamSam

possumkiller said:


> I really don't get it. I spent seven years in the army. Three of those years I lived in Iraq. We had all kinds of rules about how and when we were allowed to use deadly force. We had constant classes on Rules of Engagement and Escalation of Force. We had to carry cards on our person at all times with those rules just in case anyone forgot them. Why is that not possible for police?



Unless this particular police force has vastly different rules and policies than other police forces, they will have a policy regarding use of force which should include the application of chokes, holds, cuffing, safe duration of holds and restraints, etc.

The likelihood is that the officers disregarded the policy, as opposed to the absence of it.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> Seems reasonable.





SamSam said:


> Unless this particular police force has vastly different rules and policies than other police forces, they will have a policy regarding use of force which should include the application of chokes, holds, cuffing, safe duration of holds and restraints, etc.
> 
> The likelihood is that the officers disregarded the policy, as opposed to the absence of it.



Time has come to get specific, and this covers some good points, but the choke hold/kneel thing is flawed for the reason listed above, and also because you shouldn't limit the tools police have to use in legitimate threats.

The two biggest issues that caused this, unfortunately, are not addressed in these fixes.

The biggest is the overreaction and enforcement of low level crime. Without looking it up, my recollection is that Eric Garner was killed selling loose cigarettes. This guy was killed what, for suspicion of using a forged document or something? If murder and torture isn't on the books as legal sentencing for these crimes or for unarmed non-compliance with an officer, then why are tactics that lead to those outcomes allowed? There's zero reasons for escalation in non-violent crimes.

The second one are the issues with DAs offices and apparently coroners, etc etc. Even if you target individual police or the whole department, the structure in place to prosecute show no interest in accountability. Even if you get it on tape and you get someone to prosecute, they drag their feet or they go soft, poorly instruct the jury, etc. I believe it was the Zimmerman case where he was acquitted and it wasn't until they adjourned before the jury learned they could've opted for lesser charges or that there were criteria they could've considered but weren't directed to etc. Half the reason Amy Klobucher is in trouble for her record is all the "catch and kill" handling of these cases where you sit on them and let them die infront of a grand jury.

You need to address those two items if you're going to get anywhere close to the police issue, and that's before you get into the institutional, societal shit.


----------



## ramses

possumkiller said:


> I really don't get it. I spent seven years in the army. Three of those years I lived in Iraq. We had all kinds of rules about how and when we were allowed to use deadly force. We had constant classes on Rules of Engagement and Escalation of Force. We had to carry cards on our person at all times with those rules just in case anyone forgot them. Why is that not possible for police?



Not only that. Why is it so difficult to train them to de-escalate tense situations? Instead, we have police escalating calm situations for no reason at al.


----------



## sleewell

they should arrest the other officers involved in his killing.

they should also have independent review boards to deal with problem cops. the police dept should not be in charge of policing themselves.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> they should arrest the other officers involved in his killing.
> 
> they should also have independent review boards to deal with problem cops. the police dept should not be in charge of policing themselves.



Police unions in the way of that, which is the next thing. That was the issue here for the last several years, because there were incidents with the local police and people pushed for reforms but the police unions refused any civilian reviews, etc. We had a public safety commissioner and he had zero authority to take literally even the most minor action against any departments. Even something as small as reducing hours or changing shifts. It's a fuckin joke.

But you can't have policeman picketing or walking off the job, so the city just lets it go or it's drawn out in the courts for literally years and years.


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> Police unions in the way of that, which is the next thing. That was the issue here for the last several years, because there were incidents with the local police and people pushed for reforms but the police unions refused any civilian reviews, etc. We had a public safety commissioner and he had zero authority to take literally even the most minor action against any departments. Even something as small as reducing hours or changing shifts. It's a fuckin joke.
> 
> But you can't have policeman picketing or walking off the job, so the city just lets it go or it's drawn out in the courts for literally years and years.


Police have unions? But I thought unions were some kind of evil commie socialist scheme to take over the country and corrupt the youth? I thought they busted up all the unions years ago?


----------



## zappatton2

I will say this, it only took, like, 367 times of seeing actual footage of authority figures killing unarmed black people for the majority of white people to be appalled (brazen psychopaths notwithstanding). People I've argued with over why the deaths of Michael Brown, Sandra Bland, and countless others were not justifiable police action are now sharing BLM memes on Facebook. But you know what they say; 367th time's the charm.

Call me an optimist, but at this rate, I think we might end institutional racism and violence against racialized people in just seven more generations.


----------



## TedEH

I think we're more likely to the the United States as we know it come to an end long before racism comes to any end.


----------



## possumkiller

TedEH said:


> I think we're more likely to the the United States as we know it come to an end long before racism comes to any end.


Hey cmon there! Canada is not immune...
https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/02/...cing-and-failures-protection-indigenous-women


----------



## zappatton2

possumkiller said:


> Hey cmon there! Canada is not immune...
> https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/02/...cing-and-failures-protection-indigenous-women


Ain't that the truth!! At the very least, our government and opposition pay lip service to racism and pledge to do better. It's better than demanding authorities "dominate and subjugate" citizens for protesting racism. But whataboutism aside, we've certainly got our fair share of institutionalized injustice to grapple with.


----------



## Randy

Anyone else seeing the 'single black photo' posts getting disrupted by bullshit messaging rules makers? I've gotta wonder if that's deliberate to break up the solidarity and disenfranchise people to not post their support for fear 'they're doing it wrong'.


----------



## TedEH

Oh I certainly never suggested Canada was immune. Canada is just as likely to be gone before we seriously eradicate racism. But Canada isn't currently tearing itself apart, being goaded towards civil war by it's own leaders. Or at the very least, not in as dramatic or immediate a way.


----------



## c7spheres

Randy said:


> The second one are the issues with DAs offices and apparently coroners, etc etc. .....



I think the report that came out about Floyd proves the system is rigged (at least in certain areas) and then the independent cause of death obtained says something different. One says he was suffocated and one don't. Rigged. Two conflicting conclusions? It just shows that you can get whatever you want and whoever has those resources in their pocket wins. When people in prison say "it wasn't me, I didn't do it!" I bet more people believe them nowaday at least. This system has disenfranchised so many people that it's reached a breaking point and something will change or it will get worse. 



Randy said:


> ............poorly instruct the jury, etc.



- I've been on jurys. At least on the cases I was on it was totally rigged. The Judge and lawyers get together in a room or a lunch break and rig the trial to make it appear like a fair trial. The instructions I received had statements like "you MUST find the defendant guilty" with the MUST capitalized. The instructions say that we must find them guilty if certain evidence is presented. Well the evidence presented or not is at the judges discretion, so that means it's rigged.
- The instructions also say things to scare the jurors like how if we don't find the defendent guilty we can be held in contempt. -- Basically as a juror your only option is to do what they say or refuse to be unanimous causig them a pain. What happened the first time I tried that is I was replaced by someone who would just do what they said. The second time I was just released from duty and the vote was now unanimous. The third time (yeah, they've been summoning me every year since I was 17, to young to even be on a jury, and even though they're only supposed to a maximum of once every 3 years) We were given a choise of severity of charges to find the defendant guilty of, but we were still required to find the defendant guilty based on the instuctions. Only on the lesser charges does the jury have any control over, the main charge is riggedand the trial is a presentation. We were gonna let a guy totally off for being setup by the cops for dealing but were threatened with contempt if we didn't. Cops take the stand individually and seperately and contraticted themselves and everything but it don't matter. It's rigged. At least the trials I was on were. If you ask the judge questions you get a note back saying that the jury isn't allowed to know the law or research the law and it's out of the scope of the jury. WTF!?. 
- What's intereseting is that after the trial is all said and done the judge and lawyers come in and talk to the jury about why they made their decision. When you tell them you didn't have a choise because you thought you'd be held in contempt if you didn't follow the instructions they tell you that they are required by law to do certain things based on the lawyers, da, judge, and the laws previous deals and agreements and that the instructions and actions must be prsented a certain way to ensure the outcome of the trial. Even the judge's hands are tied to a great degree with this stuff. He was actually a really cool judge and knew exactly what we were talking about. The system has everyone by the balls in some way. It's that broken.


----------



## mastapimp

ramses said:


> Not only that. Why is it so difficult to train them to de-escalate tense situations? Instead, we have police escalating calm situations for no reason at al.


I'm sure they are trained to some degree and I once wondered the same thing. But shortly after an incident happened where i live (about 10 years back), I changed my opinion and I now believe they're letting terrible people fill these positions and training only goes as far as the officer is willing to take it. 

I reside in a college town and the police were criticized when they shot an African international PhD student in the face as he was wielding a metal bar when the cops broke into his residence after neighbors reported screaming. The injured student barely survived and took nearly 2 years of recovery to return to his PhD program. Students protested and there was an investigation into the commanding officer. Body cam video was released and it was determined they didn't follow protocol with the use of deadly force and soon after the commanding officer was terminated. As for the officer that was quick to pull the trigger, the media attention exposed that he was busted going around town (while off-duty, but intoxicated) egging suspected prostitutes and drug dealers and was later fired for pulling his gun and threatening to shoot a guy he pulled over for speeding. This guy was a fucking asshole both on and off duty who couldn't control his temper or better judgement. He was trained to react differently to all of these situations, but he chose otherwise.

Around the same time, my wife and I hosted a Police academy graduation party for her brother-in-law and some of his classmates. As I walked into the kitchen to get another drink, I overheard a group of 3 graduates (white country boys) gleefully express their anticipation to get on the streets and keep order. One of them said "I can't wait to chase down a crackhead and knock all of their teeth out!" The other two chuckled along and busted out their crude "ebonics" impersonation of said "crackhead" and a long line of excuses the soon-to-be officers would expect to hear about "those drugs aren't mine...", etc... This really rubbed me the wrong way and the rest of the night I couldn't stop thinking about what a disaster it would be if these guys made it onto the force. Sadly, a lot of times it's who you know that gets you hired, and these guys probably had an in. When a real officer (probably 10 years their senior) arrived to say hi, they straightened up real fast and were quick to kiss his ass with compliments and "yes, sir", "no, sir" formalities.

I mentioned what I overheard to my wife (a psychologist) and she said she wasn't really surprised as personality tests between criminals and cops score the same in many ways. I also brought up what I heard to the brother-in-law a few days later and he stated that at least 2 of those jerks in the kitchen were rejected marines that were loud and aggressive compared to the rest in the academy. His quote was "those are gonna be the bad cops you hear about...I'm hoping to be the good one you don't hear about."

I realized that the training isn't necessarily the issue in these cases. I'm sure these officers have been trained up and down multiple times on how to handle situations, it's just that they get off on their abuse of power. A lot of them are military rejects that have probably been put through hell by their drill sergeants and now it's "their turn" to be the one dishing out punishment. In many cases I don't think these personality types want to deescalate a situation...they just want to wield their authority and show dominance.


----------



## possumkiller

mastapimp said:


> I'm sure they are trained to some degree and I once wondered the same thing. But shortly after an incident happened where i live (about 10 years back), I changed my opinion and I now believe they're letting terrible people fill these positions and training only goes as far as the officer is willing to take it.
> 
> I reside in a college town and the police were criticized when they shot an African international PhD student in the face as he was wielding a metal bar when the cops broke into his residence after neighbors reported screaming. The injured student barely survived and took nearly 2 years of recovery to return to his PhD program. Students protested and there was an investigation into the commanding officer. Body cam video was released and it was determined they didn't follow protocol with the use of deadly force and soon after the commanding officer was terminated. As for the officer that was quick to pull the trigger, the media attention exposed that he was busted going around town (while off-duty, but intoxicated) egging suspected prostitutes and drug dealers and was later fired for pulling his gun and threatening to shoot a guy he pulled over for speeding. This guy was a fucking asshole both on and off duty who couldn't control his temper or better judgement. He was trained to react differently to all of these situations, but he chose otherwise.
> 
> Around the same time, my wife and I hosted a Police academy graduation party for her brother-in-law and some of his classmates. As I walked into the kitchen to get another drink, I overheard a group of 3 graduates (white country boys) gleefully express their anticipation to get on the streets and keep order. One of them said "I can't wait to chase down a crackhead and knock all of their teeth out!" The other two chuckled along and busted out their crude "ebonics" impersonation of said "crackhead" and a long line of excuses the soon-to-be officers would expect to hear about "those drugs aren't mine...", etc... This really rubbed me the wrong way and the rest of the night I couldn't stop thinking about what a disaster it would be if these guys made it onto the force. Sadly, a lot of times it's who you know that gets you hired, and these guys probably had an in. When a real officer (probably 10 years their senior) arrived to say hi, they straightened up real fast and were quick to kiss his ass with compliments and "yes, sir", "no, sir" formalities.
> 
> I mentioned what I overheard to my wife (a psychologist) and she said she wasn't really surprised as personality tests between criminals and cops score the same in many ways. I also brought up what I heard to the brother-in-law a few days later and he stated that at least 2 of those jerks in the kitchen were rejected marines that were loud and aggressive compared to the rest in the academy. His quote was "those are gonna be the bad cops you hear about...I'm hoping to be the good one you don't hear about."
> 
> I realized that the training isn't necessarily the issue in these cases. I'm sure these officers have been trained up and down multiple times on how to handle situations, it's just that they get off on their abuse of power. A lot of them are military rejects that have probably been put through hell by their drill sergeants and now it's "their turn" to be the one dishing out punishment. In many cases I don't think these personality types want to deescalate a situation...they just want to wield their authority and show dominance.


It's the same shit in the military man. Guys are constantly bragging about cutting people up or emptying magazines into a someone, or shooting at a person with the main gun of a tank, or ripping off the ears of detainees, or making detainees fill sandbags and carry them across the compound to build a wall in the hot sun with no rest or water until they drop dead from exhaustion or dehydration or heat stroke. All these motherfuckers are always good ol boys that know how to kiss ass and suck their superior's dicks and play the game when people are watching. There are tons of scumbags like this that somehow manage to masquerade as normal functioning people in society until they get their chance to get their thrills. I think this is a huge problem. It's not just toxic masculinity, it's motherfuckers that are sick in the head and need to be weeded out when they are young for some kind of therapy program.


----------



## possumkiller

https://imgur.com/gallery/5RvPtOX


----------



## High Plains Drifter

possumkiller said:


> https://imgur.com/gallery/5RvPtOX


 
That's fucking disgusting and actually made me nauseous to watch... Jesus.


----------



## possumkiller

High Plains Drifter said:


> That's fucking disgusting and actually made me nauseous to watch... Jesus.


You should see the one my father sent me with border patrol agents in the middle of the desert holding down a cuffed little brown guy while another one beats his naked ass with a wood board so they can watch him flail around in their arms.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## possumkiller

This is wtf I was talking about. These assholes want the respect the military gets. They want the toys the military gets. They want to dress up and play army. But they don't want any of the accountability or discipline.


----------



## Alexa run my life

possumkiller said:


> little brown guy


Are you a racist? I've never seen the phrases like this and "brown people" before joining this site.

Not a good look, dude.


----------



## StevenC

Alexa run my life said:


> I just typed up a sort of lengthy post as a response to someone and I refreshed the page to see the new post and, now that I have seen that post....I am also out. Please take care.





Alexa run my life said:


> Are you a racist? I've never seen the phrases like this and "brown people" before joining this site.
> 
> Not a good look, dude.


Aww man, not even 24 hours


----------



## possumkiller

Alexa run my life said:


> Are you a racist? I've never seen the phrases like this and "brown people" before joining this site.
> 
> Not a good look, dude.


I used to be very racist. Well maybe not as racist as a lot of people I've seen being racist but yes. I was taught to be racist when I was growing up. I try not to do or say racist things but I have learned that sometimes people can be racist without even knowing they are being racist. If I can find the video again I will show you. The only discernable information about the person being abused is that they are a) little b) brown skinned and c) male. I did not use any racial slurs. If you think you are going to try to shame me for describing a person's skin color, you can try I guess. I don't think it was racist.


----------



## vilk

shitposting troll


----------



## Alexa run my life

possumkiller said:


> I used to be very racist. Well maybe not as racist as a lot of people I've seen being racist but yes. I was taught to be racist when I was growing up. I try not to do or say racist things but I have learned that sometimes people can be racist without even knowing they are being racist. If I can find the video again I will show you. The only discernable information about the person being abused is that they are a) little b) brown skinned and c) male. I did not use any racial slurs. If you think you are going to try to shame me for describing a person's skin color, you can try I guess. I don't think it was racist.


I am not trying to shame you, I just never seen so many people use the term "brown people" before reading the politics section of this forum. And I don't know why that term is thrown around so much


----------



## possumkiller

https://imgur.com/gallery/oPMKSNs

https://imgur.com/gallery/eq6X4Xi


----------



## SpaceDock

IMO Brown people is just like saying Black people or White people. None of these are racist or negative, they are just describing the color of said people. Once again, I think you post stuff like this to fire people up or illicit a certain response. Some might call that being a troll but you got really upset when I said that the last time.


----------



## Alexa run my life

SpaceDock said:


> IMO Brown people is just like saying Black people or White people. None of these are racist or negative, they are just describing the color of said people. Once again, I think you post stuff like this to fire people up or illicit a certain response. Some might call that being a troll but you got really upset when I said that the last time.


I just get disgusted when the champions of "I see people, not color" use descriptive terms like peoples skin color, all the freaking time, it makes them look really bad. If they dont see color, stop bringing up color.


----------



## SpaceDock

Well the only people I know who don’t see color are literally colorblind and can still tell what race people are. Saying you don’t see color is dumb, instead we should respect all colors by respecting all people.


----------



## possumkiller

Alexa run my life said:


> I just get disgusted when the champions of "I see people, not color" use descriptive terms like peoples skin color, all the freaking time, it makes them look really bad. If they dont see color, stop bringing up color.


When the hell did I ever say I don't see color. "I see people, not color" sounds like something overcompensating racists would say.


----------



## spudmunkey

Alexa run my life said:


> I just get disgusted when the champions of "I see people, not color" use descriptive terms like peoples skin color, all the freaking time, it makes them look really bad. If they dont see color, stop bringing up color.



IMO, Brown /= equal black. Brown seems more to indicate, basically anybody that isn't white or east asian. It seems like it can include hispanic, indigenous native amaricans, Indian subcontinent, african (eastern, northern and southern/western), etc.


----------



## SpaceDock

They’re all pink on the inside is what I always say


----------



## Alexa run my life

possumkiller said:


> When the hell did I ever say I don't see color. "I see people, not color" sounds like something overcompensating racists would say.


You didn't, byt those people do say that. I sincerely apologize if you're not an overcompensating racist. It's just that you've admitted to being a racist before and all...no pun intended and not being sarcastic


----------



## c7spheres

- I live in Arizona. There are literally millions of little brown people here. I'm one of them and I'm techincally white! If you're small and brown and a guy then you are a little brown guy. Nothing derogatory about it. It's just a fact.
- There's a lot of big white girls from the midwest here too that go to ASU. We call them cornbreads because they are giant thoroughbred creatures raised on midwestern meat and corn diets. Stallion women that I could only dream of handling in the sack, but they would crush me and spit me out like the little brown guy I am. They'd crush me with those long legs. I'm always willing to try though! Yes, it's summer time out here and they are all wearing the skimpy outfits and shorts. Fucking teases : )


----------



## SpaceDock

@c7spheres I really wish I could like your post twice


----------



## Alexa run my life

c7spheres said:


> Stallion women that I could only dream of handling in the sack,


 I'll PM you my number, I want to meet them.


----------



## c7spheres

Alexa run my life said:


> I'll PM you my number, I want to meet them.


 They don't normally give me the time of day, but If you go trottin around ASU they're everywhere. Hundreds of them on the weekends. Your best chance is to find one that strayed from the herd after the bars close and needs a ride or wants to revenge sex her boyfriend she just got in a fight with. Bring your guitar. I wouldn't try anything like that though. It would be wrong.


----------



## Randy

c7spheres said:


> - I live in Arizona. There are literally millions of little brown people here. I'm one of them and I'm techincally white! If you're small and brown and a guy then you are a little brown guy. Nothing derogatory about it. It's just a fact.
> - There's a lot of big white girls from the midwest here too that go to ASU. We call them cornbreads because they are giant thoroughbred creatures raised on midwestern meat and corn diets. Stallion women that I could only dream of handling in the sack, but they would crush me and spit me out like the little brown guy I am. They'd crush me with those long legs. I'm always willing to try though! Yes, it's summer time out here and they are all wearing the skimpy outfits and shorts. Fucking teases : )


----------



## c7spheres

Randy said:


>


 
You nailed it right on the head exactly! That's how you feel out here in the summer! I'm the guy on the right.


----------



## SpaceDock

Randy said:


>



I assume all their pelvis’s were crushed by the cornbreads


----------



## spudmunkey

"The midwest farmers' daughters really make you feel alright"


----------



## c7spheres

spudmunkey said:


> "The midwest farmers' daughters really make you feel alright"


 In my dreams! Maybe someday I'll know. Some sunny day.


----------



## Bentaycanada

Question, did anyone else not take part in the whole #Blackout thing today? 

I was shocked by just how many people / companies I follow that not only took part, but then said they were donating thousands of dollars to groups like BLM.


----------



## Randy

Bentaycanada said:


> Question, did anyone else not take part in the whole #Blackout thing today?
> 
> I was shocked by just how many people / companies I follow that not only took part, but then said they were donating thousands of dollars to groups like BLM.



I appreciate signs of solidarity but I woke up today to people already getting complaints that "they're not doing it right", and I think the last thing you do to people volunteering for your cause (no matter how small the gesture) is make them feel like they're doing something wrong, when they're trying to help you. So right off the bat, I understand the purpose of the gesture and I'm very appreciative of the level of participation, but that's just not the way I personally choose to show support and I can understand other people's reasons for feeling/doing the same.

Overall though, I was very impressed by the amount of companies I saw doing it, and how diverse they were.


----------



## c7spheres

I haven't noticed it anywhere I've went at all. I don't even think I heard about it on the news or anything, curiously.


----------



## TedEH

Randy said:


> I woke up today to people already getting complaints that "they're not doing it right"


Bit of a tangent, but not too long ago today I made an observation and tried to voice the disappointment in what I saw to a slack group I'm part of (vaguely work related, I guess).

What I had observed is that while most of my social internet spaces were packed full of those black display pictures, information about what's going on, stories, comments of support, etc. - and the odd bad take here and there, sure - the tone completely changed in any of the gamer-centric pages I came across. A company would change their own display picture to all black, just like everyone else is doing, and the whole thread would just be full of "get politics out of my games and do your jobs" and "all lives matter, this whole thing is a joke" etc. Some takes were super on-the-nose/blatantly racist. Basically, the most consistent concentration of bad takes and blatant racism I've come across so far came from gaming communities, and this made me feel hugely disappointed.

When I pointed this out, I was immediately met with "have you considered that you're biased towards seeing that because of the things you follow?" and a whole debate about whether or not people are using the hashtags correctly, which had nothing to do with my original point.

So I gave up, and kept the rest of my disappointment to myself, up until posting about it here.


----------



## SpaceDock

Bentaycanada said:


> Question, did anyone else not take part in the whole #Blackout thing today?
> 
> I was shocked by just how many people / companies I follow that not only took part, but then said they were donating thousands of dollars to groups like BLM.



I work for a worldwide Fortune 500 company and I was very surprised when I saw the email from our CEO today supporting BLM and supporting the Stonewall riots as well. 

I can tell you guys that I have had elitist white chrisitian republicans tell me at work how systematic racism is not a real thing and how BLM are cash grabbing terrorists, feels good to be vindicated by my organizations leaders. 

I think most Americans realize that in ten years we will be looking back on this and we know who history will remember as being right. I just keeping praying that we remember this come November.


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> Bit of a tangent, but not too long ago today I made an observation and tried to voice the disappointment in what I saw to a slack group I'm part of (vaguely work related, I guess).
> 
> What I had observed is that while most of my social internet spaces were packed full of those black display pictures, information about what's going on, stories, comments of support, etc. - and the odd bad take here and there, sure - the tone completely changed in any of the gamer-centric pages I came across. A company would change their own display picture to all black, just like everyone else is doing, and the whole thread would just be full of "get politics out of my games and do your jobs" and "all lives matter, this whole thing is a joke" etc. Some takes were super on-the-nose/blatantly racist. Basically, the most consistent concentration of bad takes and blatant racism I've come across so far came from gaming communities, and this made me feel hugely disappointed.
> 
> When I pointed this out, I was immediately met with "have you considered that you're biased towards seeing that because of the things you follow?" and a whole debate about whether or not people are using the hashtags correctly, which had nothing to do with my original point.
> 
> So I gave up, and kept the rest of my disappointment to myself, up until posting about it here.



This matches up with my observations as well. CNN even getting into the act.


----------



## Randy

How come nobody's rioting at Trump Tower or Mar A Lago?


----------



## Chokey Chicken

That CNN article made sense though. I'm stoked that 99% didn't use the blm hashtag. People were using the blm tag to label real up to date events. Everyone and their grandma posting using the hashtag was watering it down and making real news hard to find. I mean that was the theory behind the article, but most people used a different tag so it was irrelevant to write the article. 

It wasn't I'll intentioned in the slightest. But then again, who am I but a simple little brown person. (Not a racial term by the way, especially given the context typically used.)

No shade towards anyone, I really just wanted to share that I think the CNN article is valid, and "Brown people" isn't outright racist depending on context. Most cases are non racist that I've seen. Just means, basically, non-white. I'm not a black person, but I am a brown person. 

I will also say that most of the response I've seen to the blackout was positive outside of axe palace getting accused of virtue signalling for saying they were donating 100% of profits of their next 3 sold guitars towards the cause. (Can't remember the exact charity or whatever but kudos to them all the same for giving a fuck.)


----------



## SpaceDock

Randy said:


> How come nobody's rioting at Trump Tower or Mar A Lago?



No shit, been waiting for this. This isn’t stopping until something happens. No one know what that something gonna be though.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> No shit, been waiting for this. This isn’t stopping until something happens. No one know what that something gonna be though.



An army of Super Soakers full of piss would be a start.


----------



## TedEH

Honestly, the hashtag thing wasn't really what bothered me, it's more how nobody wants to respond or own up to the fact that our community (by our, I mean gaming, since I work in games), has shown itself once again to full of legitimate ignorance and malice. This is absolutely the wrong time for "keep your politics out of my games". I hate using the word toxic, but it is what it is. This is one very LOUD force on the internet, and there was an opportunity to do some good with that, but the ball was dropped. I'm sure that's not the only organized community that could have done better.

But compare that to here, where, as much as there's dissenting opinions, the majority of us are at least thinking globally, are well intentioned, etc.


----------



## Randy

Chokey Chicken said:


> That CNN article made sense though. I'm stoked that 99% didn't use the blm hashtag. People were using the blm tag to label real up to date events. Everyone and their grandma posting using the hashtag was watering it down and making real news hard to find. I mean that was the theory behind the article, but most people used a different tag so it was irrelevant to write the article.
> 
> It wasn't I'll intentioned in the slightest. But then again, who am I but a simple little brown person. (Not a racial term by the way, especially given the context typically used.)
> 
> No shade towards anyone, I really just wanted to share that I think the CNN article is valid, and "Brown people" isn't outright racist depending on context. Most cases are non racist that I've seen. Just means, basically, non-white. I'm not a black person, but I am a brown person.
> 
> I will also say that most of the response I've seen to the blackout was positive outside of axe palace getting accused of virtue signalling for saying they were donating 100% of profits of their next 3 sold guitars towards the cause. (Can't remember the exact charity or whatever but kudos to them all the same for giving a fuck.)



The idea that BLM hashtag is the official aggregate for social justice news is wishful thinking at best. "Just in case" isn't an acceptable excuse for finger wagging people for trying to show support. I just checked #blacklivesmatter on twitter and I got 100 pics and videos of the ground and the back of people's heads.


----------



## Ralyks

I posted a blackout, but I didn't hashtag anything. Didn't seem necessary.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

Randy said:


> The idea that BLM hashtag is the official aggregate for social justice news is wishful thinking at best. "Just in case" isn't an acceptable excuse for finger wagging people for trying to show support. I just checked #blacklivesmatter on twitter and I got 100 pics and videos of the ground and the back of people's heads.



This is fair and I won't argue with you. I honestly feel like the article was written by some well intentioned, though less-than-bright, individual. Especially when only a fraction of the blackout posts I've seen have used the blm hashtag. Perhaps just a contrarian or someone virtue signalling by trying to pretend they're doing us a big ol' favor by telling us we're doing it wrong and that it's actually bad. 

Ngl, I hate and don't use Twitter.


----------



## gunch

Randy said:


> How come nobody's rioting at Trump Tower or Mar A Lago?



Proabably because they're guarded by all big chungus type riot cops


----------



## c7spheres

Something other than BLM should have been used. BLM already stands for Bureau of Land Management and they alrady have their own website and everything. Maybe they could use AALM for African American Lives Matter. Oh wait, that's already taken too for Americans Against Legalizing Marijuana. How about Minority Lives Matter? Oh wait, that's already taken too by the Modern Language Association. How about AACLM for African American Community Lives Matter? Oh wait, that's taken by the Austral Asia College of Learning Management. Welp.. I'm out of ideas.





gunch said:


> Proabably because they're guarded by all big chungus type riot cops



What the hell is that the big ogre the goblins brought to the fight in Lord of the Rings?
- I wonder how that black women cop in the background feels about all this. I bet she feels really outta place in this whole thing.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> I appreciate signs of solidarity but I woke up today to people already getting complaints that "they're not doing it right", and I think the last thing you do to people volunteering for your cause (no matter how small the gesture) is make them feel like they're doing something wrong, when they're trying to help you. So right off the bat, I understand the purpose of the gesture and I'm very appreciative of the level of participation, but that's just not the way I personally choose to show support and I can understand other people's reasons for feeling/doing the same.
> 
> Overall though, I was very impressed by the amount of companies I saw doing it, and how diverse they were.



I joined instagram yesterday and I spent like 45 seconds wondering why the Mayones image wasn't loading.


----------



## TedEH

Chokey Chicken said:


> I honestly feel like the article was written by some well intentioned, though less-than-bright, individual. Especially when only a fraction of the blackout posts I've seen have used the blm hashtag. Perhaps just a contrarian or someone virtue signalling by trying to pretend they're doing us a big ol' favor by telling us we're doing it wrong and that it's actually bad.


For my "Bad Take of the Day", stuff like this is part of why I've always said I'm not an activist and have avoided associations with any movement or group of people you can stick a big label on, even if I agree (or "align", to use the popular parlance) with the general premise behind the grouping. I think intentions are almost always well-meant, but implementation almost always misses the mark in some way. Often it's a small way, doing more good than bad, but not always. There's always something lacking in the execution one way or another. And I don't think it's reasonable to expect or ask any group to align all of their values- just look at all the in-fighting you get in feminism, etc. I would much rather just be honest in my beliefs and act with the best intentions in mind than adhere to the rules and strict value systems of a movement.


----------



## Randy

gunch said:


> Proabably because they're guarded by all big chungus type riot cops



When you approach Trump Tower and the boss meter appears


----------



## jwade

DiezelMonster said:


> I don't have that video. But I'd LOVE to see it.


Why would you want to see that? Are you a psychopath?


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> When you approach Trump Tower and the boss meter appears



I legit 'ed at that


----------



## FancyFish

Been trying to stop myself from posting here because I've been embroiled in anger and frustration on other social media platforms, and sorry if this was already posted, but this kid, Brad Ayala was shot on Saturday. He's living, but required some major surgery. His brother put up a GoFundMe on his twitter, if any of you guys are able to, please donate. Of course all the videos have hit me, but this one hit me the hardest because it reminded me too much of my nephew. Here is also the video of the firing and then the aftermath: video. Just a warning, it is pretty NSFL.
https://twitter.com/edween17/status/1267317401856741376


----------



## Randy

Jesus christ, that's horrific.


----------



## DiezelMonster

possumkiller said:


> Ok. I was wondering if it was just that you wanted to see anyone in particular murdered or just a white person being murdered by a black person. Why would you LOVE to see video footage of anyone being murdered under any circumstances?
> 
> I dislike seeing footage of police murdering people just as much as I dislike seeing footage of people being murdered by Nazis or anyone else. I don't understand what gives pleasure in seeing someone else die.
> 
> There were a few kids in my unit that loved watching videos of graphic and violent murders and public suicides and the like. My cousin still finds gun camera footage of Muslims being exploded and mutilated hilarious.
> 
> I guess I can kind of see your point thinking that _they _did it to _us _for so long. But how would flipping it around make _you _any better than _they_? Why does anyone need to be murdered by police?




Sorry, I was angry and drunk and spouting shit online. I don't know what I believe anymore. So I'll just apologize to everyone for my outburst.


----------



## eggy in a bready

FancyFish said:


> Been trying to stop myself from posting here because I've been embroiled in anger and frustration on other social media platforms, and sorry if this was already posted, but this kid, Brad Ayala was shot on Saturday. He's living, but required some major surgery. His brother put up a GoFundMe on his twitter, if any of you guys are able to, please donate. Of course all the videos have hit me, but this one hit me the hardest because it reminded me too much of my nephew. Here is also the video of the firing and then the aftermath: video. Just a warning, it is pretty NSFL.
> https://twitter.com/edween17/status/1267317401856741376


this is just a reminder to everybody that the police are trying to seriously maim you, if not kill you outright.

that's why they're firing rubber bullets straight at people's faces. that's why they're firing gas canisters directly at people's heads (which is a tactic used by the IDF to kill Palestinian protesters with non-lethal ammunition).

they're attacking everybody indiscriminately, whether you're a protester or not.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A7WpFhoB8TgS4xnVVWtflug

Chauvin now facing second degree murder, and the other cops are being charged with aiding and abbetting a murder.


----------



## possumkiller

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/A7WpFhoB8TgS4xnVVWtflug
> 
> Chauvin now facing second degree murder, and the other cops are being charged with aiding and abbetting a murder.


I mean that's nice and everything but we will have a long wait to see if it actually means anything.


----------



## Ralyks

possumkiller said:


> I mean that's nice and everything but we will have a long wait to see if it actually means anything.



Yeah, that's my concern. If they get off with the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, well, if you think riots are bad NOW...


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/A7WpFhoB8TgS4xnVVWtflug
> 
> Chauvin now facing second degree murder, and the other cops are being charged with aiding and abbetting a murder.



Hmm...I worry about this a bit. The original charges were 3rd. Doesn't a DA generally go after the charges they think they can get to stick? Are they just upping it to 2nd due to public pressure? Or is there enough evidence that they actually do feel like they can get 2nd to stick?


----------



## Ralyks

spudmunkey said:


> Hmm...I worry about this a bit. The original charges were 3rd. Doesn't a DA generally go after the charges they think they can get to stick? Are they just upping it to 2nd due to public pressure? Or is there enough evidence that they actually do feel like they can get 2nd to stick?



Probably a bit of everything. Plus the fact Chauvin already had so many unaddressed complaints against him.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Apparently the person who did the autopsy was the same person who did the autopsy on Epstein.


----------



## InHiding

I've been watching people's videos from the protests. Your cops are literally psychopaths and attack totally harmless and peaceful people also (many of those attacks could be considered attempted murders in my eyes). It's a real shame USA is succumbing to a third world country. I guess that's the way it goes, Rome must fall. Game over man...


----------



## TedEH

Maybe this is a bad take, but part of me can't quite place all the blame on the actual cops. I imagine the same thing would be happening here (I'm in Canada), or anywhere, if we suddenly were living under a president that encouraged the behaviour. I don't doubt that our cops do their own Canadian version of terrible things too. I just don't think "they're all just bad" is a good enough explanation. The Stanford experiment is what comes to mind. Something about the way the role is defined and constructed empowers or encourages people to act the way they do.

I don't mean to take away any personal responsibility for anything that anyone has done, but I think we need to do better than "cops are bad". We need to examine what about the way we've constructed that role empowers or encourages people to act certain ways. And I think it needs to be worked out soon, lest things continue to get worse.


----------



## SamSam

There are many societal issues regarding this that need to be addressed. The fact that this in many people's mind has been reduced down to the opinion that american police officers are simply indiscriminately killing black people, just encourages the public to focus on one facet of a complicated set of concerns. The level of poverty in the states is astounding for a developed country.

The George Floyd killing is without a doubt a disturbing incident, and although I do not know enough about the incident to decide for myself (for what little that matters) whether the initial (the the onus on initial) restraint was justified or not. The fact that he was restrained in such a manner for such an extended period of time is baffling to me. I cannot see how it could in any way be justified, let alone consider how the final outcome could in any manner be justifiable.


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> Police unions in the way of that, which is the next thing. That was the issue here for the last several years, because there were incidents with the local police and people pushed for reforms but the police unions refused any civilian reviews, etc. We had a public safety commissioner and he had zero authority to take literally even the most minor action against any departments. Even something as small as reducing hours or changing shifts. It's a fuckin joke.
> 
> But you can't have policeman picketing or walking off the job, so the city just lets it go or it's drawn out in the courts for literally years and years.



Circling back to this.



> But Biden’s call for more national policing reforms and oversight in the wake of the death of George Floyd — and the perception that he hasn’t shown enough solidarity with law enforcement amid the ensuing nationwide protests and unrest — have created a fissure with law enforcement groups, leaving many who once supported him frustrated by what they regard as political posturing by their one-time ally.
> 
> “Clearly, he’s made a lot of changes the way candidates do during the primary process, but he kept moving left and fell off the deep end,” said Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, the umbrella organization for Police Benevolent Association chapters.
> 
> “For Joe Biden, police are shaking their heads because he used to be a stand-up guy who backed law enforcement,” Johnson said. “But it seems in his old age, for whatever reason, he’s writing a sad final chapter when it comes to supporting law enforcement.”



https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/04/police-groups-joe-biden-300222


----------



## TedEH

I don't mean that to play down the racial element either, but as you said -> it's one facet of a complicated set of concerns. 2020 is giving the whole world a lot to reflect on.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Circling back to this.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/04/police-groups-joe-biden-300222



As a long time blue collar union worker, steward, guide, advocate, and organizer, I can say, without hesitation: fuck police unions.

They are everything the right derides unions for, and more, and are only allowed to exist to uphold the current social structure.


----------



## narad

TedEH said:


> The Stanford experiment is what comes to mind. Something about the way the role is defined and constructed empowers or encourages people to act the way they do.



Since this is the second time I've heard reference to the SPE in a couple days, please note that it has been largely discredited:

_Some of the experiment's findings have been called into question, and the experiment has been criticized for unscientific methodology and possible fraud.[5][6] Whereas the experiment purported to show that prison guards instinctively embraced sadistic and authoritarian personalities, Zimbardo actually instructed the "guards" to exert psychological control over the "prisoners". Critics also noted that some of the participants behaved in a way that would help the study, so that, as one "guard" later put it, "the researchers would have something to work with," which is known as demand characteristics. Variants of the experiment have been performed by other researchers, but none of these attempts have replicated the results of the SPE._

It was a cool idea but it's just shoddy methodology and a lot of top psych guys are no longer teaching it (for what it originally purported to show, at least).


----------



## Randy

Okay, lets just agree both sides have imperfect research *grumble grumble*


----------



## TedEH

Don't get me wrong, I won't speak to the validity of the experiment, and it's not a perfect analogue anyway, but I think there's something to be said for the idea that putting someone in a role, and under pressure to assume that role a particular way, makes them more likely to act out that role, as opposed to assuming all behaviour is rooted in a persons individual inherent "goodness vs evilness" or something like that.


----------



## _MonSTeR_

Interestingly, if the SPE was run with the guards behaving in a way that they thought was expected of them, surely whilst making for the study itself intrinsically flawed, it maybe serves to highlight the issue that when a subject feels a certain behaviour is expected of them, that they’re more likely to adopt that behaviour.

So if you have new guys joining an established organisation...?


----------



## tedtan

TedEH said:


> I think we need to do better than "cops are bad". We need to examine what about the way we've constructed that role empowers or encourages people to act certain ways.



I agree, but I think that rather than the role or how it is constructed, much of the issue can be attributed to 1) the individuals who are hired to be LEO, and 2) peer pressure to fit into the existing status quo within the department rather than to improve upon it.




SamSam said:


> The George Floyd killing is without a doubt a disturbing incident, and although I do not know enough about the incident to decide for myself (for what little that matters) whether the initial (the the onus on initial) restraint was justified or not. The fact that he was restrained in such a manner for such an extended period of time is baffling to me. I cannot see how it could in any way be justified, let alone consider how the final outcome could in any manner be justifiable.



That technique is not allowed in all US law enforcement departments, but when it is allowed, it is intended to be used only until the suspect is compliant (e.g., tens of seconds), certainly not for nearly nine minutes. Given that, the officers involved in GF's death were acting WAY outside the bounds of their authorization to use what is already a questionable technique.


----------



## vilk

Question: What percent of LEO do you suppose have _never_ witnessed abuse of authority, excessive force, etc.?

If the cop saw it happened and did nothing, it's my opinion that they contribute to police violence every day that they again decide not to report the incident. Every morning they wake up and live that day without reporting police abuse that they know of, they are taking another step toward ACAB.

You know what? I will give an ACAB pass to every single officer that has reported every single case of abuse of authority, excessive force, and every other police misdeed they've witnessed. How many of those people do you suppose there are? 10 people? 25? Those are my guesses, but I am genuinely curious. Though I do realize there's no way to truly get this information.

Every single LEO we've caught on camera abusing their power should be publicly outed, the same way we do with sex offenders. Put them in an internet database with a picture of their face right next to the name and home address. Is that scary? Hopefully that makes it a good deterrent.


----------



## TedEH

tedtan said:


> I agree, but I think that rather than the role or how it is constructed, much of the issue can be attributed to 1) the individuals who are hired to be LEO, and 2) peer pressure to fit into the existing status quo within the department rather than to improve upon it.


I don't know that I'd boil it down to just that, but either way you're left with the questions of how did we get there, how do we get out of there, and how do we prevent it from happening again?


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> I don't know that I'd boil it down to just that, but either way you're left with the questions of how did we get there, how do we get out of there, and how do we prevent it from happening again?



Mandatory body cameras, review of all use of force to a body outside of the department, mandatory review of all uses of lethal force by states AG (maybe US AG), guidelines to stop "catch and kill" style non-prosecution (ie: stricter guidelines on how DAs prosecute cases against LEOs). All of those would be a good start. Common sense says you need to reprimand bad behavior NOW and work backward to training correct behaviors for current LEOs and set the criteria for training new ones.

BTW, these are things people suggested earlier in this thread. I don't think anybody was explicitly saying "bad cop, no donut" without implying solutions. There's no reason for this to be interpreted as open ended or vague.


----------



## SamSam

tedtan said:


> I agree, but I think that rather than the role or how it is constructed, much of the issue can be attributed to 1) the individuals who are hired to be LEO, and 2) peer pressure to fit into the existing status quo within the department rather than to improve upon it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That technique is not allowed in all US law enforcement departments, but when it is allowed, it is intended to be used only until the suspect is compliant (e.g., tens of seconds), certainly not for nearly nine minutes. Given that, the officers involved in GF's death were acting WAY outside the bounds of their authorization to use what is already a questionable technique.



I emphasized initial because the knee on the head/neck area would not have been the initial restraint technique. I mean whatever was used to force him to the floor. The knee on neck is an obvious no-go, knee on lower back/shoulder area is an acceptable home for cuffing in the uk. However, the hold would only be used until cuffs are applied at which point you are going to focus on cuffing the second hand.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

TedEH said:


> Maybe this is a bad take, but part of me can't quite place all the blame on the actual cops. I imagine the same thing would be happening here (I'm in Canada), or anywhere, if we suddenly were living under a president that encouraged the behaviour. I don't doubt that our cops do their own Canadian version of terrible things too. I just don't think "they're all just bad" is a good enough explanation. The Stanford experiment is what comes to mind. Something about the way the role is defined and constructed empowers or encourages people to act the way they do.
> 
> I don't mean to take away any personal responsibility for anything that anyone has done, but I think we need to do better than "cops are bad". We need to examine what about the way we've constructed that role empowers or encourages people to act certain ways. And I think it needs to be worked out soon, lest things continue to get worse.



I can get where you're coming from, but I don't think this is terribly accurate. Don't get me wrong, good ol' cheeto man is definitely making certain people more brazen with their racism, but it's not like we didn't have these issues when Obama was in office, who actively decried this kind of shit. (got made fun of at that on a couple occasions.) 

The racism in the police force is a hold-over from the still young racism fed to us from past generations. My parents are young enough where interracial marriage just wasn't allowed. When even my parent's generation struggles to accept people of color, OBVIOUSLY you're going to have lots of older generations and even current generations feeling that "Dem blacks is da devil." A lot of these people were raised thinking people of color are evil, and that because they're not actively going out of their way to hurt them (and only doing it when the opportunity arises) that it means they're not racist/good enough.


----------



## TedEH

Randy said:


> BTW, these are things people suggested earlier in this thread. I don't think anybody was explicitly saying "bad cop, no donut" without implying solutions. There's no reason for this to be interpreted as open ended or vague.


As much as that may not be the sentiment here, it's certainly the sentiment in some places, and to be honest, I thought that was the implicit sentiment behind "ACAB".



Chokey Chicken said:


> good ol' cheeto man


I didn't mean to imply it's all Cheeto Man's fault. I agree that we're dealing with very old structures and valuation systems.


----------



## possumkiller

TedEH said:


> As much as that may not be the sentiment here, it's certainly the sentiment in some places, and to be honest, I thought that was the implicit sentiment behind "ACAB".
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to imply it's all Cheeto Man's fault. I agree that we're dealing with very old structures and valuation systems.


Have you ever dealt with American police? It's not just black people they enjoy beating and shooting, it's just that black people are targeted much more. When I first came back to Florida after getting out of the army, one of the first news stories I saw was police going to the wrong house to arrest a guy. They knocked on the door and when he opened the door they shot him in the face no questions asked. White guy. Most people would rather deal with criminals than with police. American police are like a government sponsored mafia. Or like a gang.

Of course not all the cops are bad. They're constantly weeding out the good ones that pop up every now and then.


----------



## TedEH

This is what I mean -> When I say "maybe we should be more nuanced, lets find answers to these questions", I get the response of "we've figured this out already, why are you asking these questions like we don't know?". One of you is saying "no, we've already established that nobody says/thinks ACAB" while another one of you is saying "they all literally just shoot everyone in the face". Like you don't know you're both in the same thread together.



possumkiller said:


> Have you ever dealt with American police?


When did I say anything about different countries' police? You see, the same happens whenever I compare the Canadian experience to the American one: I am wrong by default.

"Wow, you guys have it rough, that would never happen here."
"Yes it would. You guys are just as racist."

"Wow, looks at these things consistent with cops everywhere"
"No, ours are unique"

Which is it guys? Do you have consensus and I'm an idiot? Or are you all over the place, and probably still think I'm an idiot?


----------



## tedtan

In the US, it will vary quite a bit from one city to the next. And from one individual to the next.


----------



## Ralyks

So the three aiding officers had their bail set at $1 million each


----------



## c7spheres

Ralyks said:


> So the three aiding officers had their bail set at $1 million each


 If they're smart they'll just get out and disappear. Like identity change and get out of the country and be on the run disappear. Even if they get off someone's probably gonna end up lynching them anyways. People don't want a fair trial they want a lynching. I don't trust the system or the people in either case with this one. They might be better off in protective custody and if they get off a withnes protection thing or something.


----------



## Ralyks

c7spheres said:


> If they're smart they'll just get out and disappear. Like identity change and get out of the country and be on the run disappear. Even if they get off someone's probably gonna end up lynching them anyways. People don't want a fair trial they want a lynching. I don't trust the system or the people in either case with this one. They might be better off in protective custody and if they get off a withnes protection thing or something.



So are we talking Jesse from Breaking Bad, or Henry Hill from Goodfellas?

Also, while I sadly don't disagree with you about people wanting a lynching, I am one of those that believe there are fates worse than death.


----------



## c7spheres

Ralyks said:


> So are we talking Jesse from Breaking Bad, or Henry Hill from Goodfellas?
> 
> Also, while I sadly don't disagree with you about people wanting a lynching, I am one of those that believe there are fates worse than death.



- I'm not up on those shows. I saw Goodfellas but can't remember anything about it. 
- The other 3 cops were charged and given a $750k bail. They said two of those cops were only on the job for 4 days. 
- The House says it's gonna draft and present a Police reform bill on Monday. It's being Drafted by the Black Caucus. 
- I caught the very end after Mr. Floyds service on television outside the service showing the funeral attendees and the protesters. It came off as out of place and really bizarre to me while I was watching it. Anyone else notice it?


----------



## Ralyks

Jesse ended up in Alaska to be a carpenter. Henry ended up in what I presumed was Florida, where he orders spaghetti with marinara, and receives egg noodles with ketchup.
This wasn't really a point of me saying all of that, they are just examples to come to mind when people talk about Witness Protection


----------



## possumkiller

TedEH said:


> This is what I mean -> When I say "maybe we should be more nuanced, lets find answers to these questions", I get the response of "we've figured this out already, why are you asking these questions like we don't know?". One of you is saying "no, we've already established that nobody says/thinks ACAB" while another one of you is saying "they all literally just shoot everyone in the face". Like you don't know you're both in the same thread together.
> 
> 
> When did I say anything about different countries' police? You see, the same happens whenever I compare the Canadian experience to the American one: I am wrong by default.
> 
> "Wow, you guys have it rough, that would never happen here."
> "Yes it would. You guys are just as racist."
> 
> "Wow, looks at these things consistent with cops everywhere"
> "No, ours are unique"
> 
> Which is it guys? Do you have consensus and I'm an idiot? Or are you all over the place, and probably still think I'm an idiot?


Yes!
Jesus!

Idiot...














Just joshin. Obviously it's more nuanced. While Canadian police are not immune to being racist bloodthirsty dickwads, it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as pervasive as in American police forces.

There is no system to protect good cops. As soon as good cops try to do anything about the bad cops, they are punished. So most good cops just look the other way. That makes the good cops part of the problem.


----------



## CrushingAnvil

It's concerning how polarising this event/subject is. I think both sides are neglecting the facts - both sides are purely reactionary and ideological. No one seems to be looking at this pragmatically.


----------



## possumkiller

CrushingAnvil said:


> No one seems to be looking at this pragmatically.


Because looking at it isn't going to change anything. People have been looking at it for decades.


----------



## TedEH

possumkiller said:


> Just joshin.


It was my turn to be frustrated that day. I've calmed down. I'm still an idiot, but a calm idiot, at least.



CrushingAnvil said:


> I think both sides are neglecting the facts


What facts are being neglected exactly? I agree that polarization generally isn't good - but I don't think this is a typical case of that. There's not much grey area within the subject of "should police abuse people".


----------



## dax21

Without taking sides, I simply cannot understand nor rationalize people who approve of looting and destruction. And I especially cannot stand virtue-signalling, intellectually dishonest companies that are taking advantage - and make no mistake, because that's exactly what it is - taking advantage of a tragedy for pseudo reddit karma points in a society where average existence consists mostly of brand worship.


----------



## TedEH

dax21 said:


> intellectually dishonest companies that are taking advantage


Who is doing this exactly? The companies that I'm aware of being looted are certainly not benefiting from the situation. What good does "reddit karma points" do when your business has to shut down?

Is looting generally bad? Does it harm people who had nothing to do with the protest? Absolutely. But you're talking about the behaviour of a mob, not an individual person. You can't control what absolutely everyone in a mob is going to to do, so yes, there will be less than ideal actors part of that crowd. There's nothing anyone can do about that. It's going to happen. It doesn't invalidate the work of those who are _not_ participating in that part of the protest. Maybe those particular people are opportunistic. Maybe those people are planted to make the protesters look bad. Maybe some of those people are legit protesters who think it helps the cause in some way. It's likely a mix of all of those things -> But at the end of the day, this part of the discussion is being used to distract from the point the protest is trying to make. It's being used to paint the whole of the protest in a light that would potentially invalidate the protests as a whole. The fact that so many people are talking about the looting instead of the issues being protested against is _exactly_ the point.

If you want to stop the looting, then address the concerns of the protest as a whole, and the looting will end as a side-effect. That's not an endorsement of looting, it's accepting that it's not what's important right now.


----------



## dax21

Saying "looting is merely a side effect of protests" is on the same level as saying "getting killed by cops is merely a side effect of committing crime in the first place and being arrested".

No. No excuses. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions. The mass that is protesting is not a hivemind, otherwise all protests would result in looting and setting entire cities on fire.


----------



## SnowfaLL

dax21 said:


> Without taking sides, I simply cannot understand nor rationalize people who approve of looting and destruction. And I especially cannot stand virtue-signalling, intellectually dishonest companies that are taking advantage - and make no mistake, because that's exactly what it is - taking advantage of a tragedy for pseudo reddit karma points in a society where average existence consists mostly of brand worship.



The point of the "virtual signalling" as you call it from a lot of major companies that actually give a shit about humanitarian concerns, is to make it so ignorant people can't ignore these major issues anymore. A week of uncomfortable social media posts pale in comparison to a large portion of our society being in fear of being shot just walking their dog every day. How are people so tonedeaf or brainwashed to think caring for another human being is "political"??


----------



## TedEH

dax21 said:


> Saying "looting is merely a side effect of protests" is on the same level as saying "getting killed by cops is merely a side effect of committing crime in the first place and being arrested".


Damaging property during a protest is not comparable to an officer killing someone who posed no threat to them. They are entirely separate and unrelated issues.



dax21 said:


> No. No excuses. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions.


Sure. But one issue at a time, and lets not pretend all issues carry the same weight. Issue #1 is the police behaviour the protest is happening for in the first place. Priorities are important.


----------



## dax21

SnowfaLL said:


> The point of the "virtual signalling" as you call it



That's not what I call it.



SnowfaLL said:


> major companies that actually give a shit about humanitarian concerns



Yeah, go on and tell me how these major companies commonly associated with severely underpaid employees and child labor give a shit about humanitarian concerns. If you think any of them care about any of this, you are incredibly naive. All these major companies care about is getting in your good graces so that you would gravitate towards purchasing their next product instead of going to a competing brand.
And it's obviously working.


----------



## StevenC

Unless you're a psychopath, the value of a person's life should be higher than that of a business's inventory.


----------



## SamSam

StevenC said:


> Unless you're a psychopath, the value of a person's life should be higher than that of a business's inventory.



Unfortunately that life is already lost and nothing can change that. All the looting does in my opinion is weaken the genuine protest and makes it easier to justify intervention.



SnowfaLL said:


> The point of the "virtual signalling" as you call it from a lot of major companies that actually give a shit about humanitarian concerns, is to make it so ignorant people can't ignore these major issues anymore. A week of uncomfortable social media posts pale in comparison to a large portion of our society being in fear of being shot just walking their dog every day. How are people so tonedeaf or brainwashed to think caring for another human being is "political"??



It might be a cynical viewpoint but I do agree that the vast majority of companies, and bands for that matter, are posting the black background image with generic text in hope of good will reciprocation.

When public figures post their thoughts and feelings regarding this all (such as Jesse Leach for example) in a genuine manner, I am far more inclined to give the words some thought. Apple or Nike posting that they stand in solidarity or some generic shit really doesn't hold water with their track records. Because in the former example you can actually tell that he has thought about this all and reflected on it before sharing his feelings. So many other public figures just come across as completely disingenuous.


----------



## TedEH

I would argue that the right message, even if delivered disingenuously, is better than no message at all. Even if you think they're only doing so because of the social pressure, consider that this means the social pressure is working. That's what a protest is: applying pressure. Seeing a giant, faceless, all powerful corporation bow down to that pressure tells you that your message is being received on some level. Someone, somewhere at the company recognized that it's important, even if the company as a whole has no idea what's really happening, or even if the showing is sort of in self-defence, so to speak.

Consider also the person who sees that message but doesn't know to read farther into the motivations behind it -> someone who doesn't know the history of the company, or is too young, or is just otherwise not reading any farther past the face value of the message. All they see is "black lives matter". The message has been successfully put in front of another set of eyes. Criticize the motivation behind it all you want, but something positive still comes out of that.


----------



## dax21

TedEH said:


> I would argue that the right message, even if delivered disingenuously, is better than no message at all. Even if you think they're only doing so because of the social pressure, consider that this means the social pressure is working. That's what a protest is: applying pressure. Seeing a giant, faceless, all powerful corporation bow down to that pressure tells you that your message is being received on some level. Someone, somewhere at the company recognized that it's important, even if the company as a whole has no idea what's really happening, or even if the showing is sort of in self-defence, so to speak.
> 
> Consider also the person who sees that message but doesn't know to read farther into the motivations behind it -> someone who doesn't know the history of the company, or is too young, or is just otherwise not reading any farther past the face value of the message. All they see is "black lives matter". The message has been successfully put in front of another set of eyes. Criticize the motivation behind it all you want, but something positive still comes out of that.



I agree with you on all points. I just don't see these half-assed white texts on black backgrounds as "bowing", I see it as a half-assed minimal effort to pander to the mindless masses. When you say "it's better than nothing", you imply that's the only choice - minimal effort or nothing. Why don't these major corporations that are so quick to congratulate and approve of stealing lend a helping hand to the vendors and stores and replenish the inventory that was stolen? Sony in particular went on to say in a well-circulated post that "inventory can be replaced, lives can't". Will they put their money where their mouth is? You and I both know the answer.

These images won't change anything. They won't reduce racism, they won't change no cop's behaviour, they won't make anyone think differently. You don't change culture and status quo through images on the internet.

You do attract shitton of customers however. And that's fine, it's a capitalistic society. I just don't appreciate the dishonesty.


----------



## TedEH

dax21 said:


> you imply that's the only choice - minimal effort or nothing


That's not what I meant to imply.



dax21 said:


> Why don't these major corporations that are so quick to congratulate and approve of stealing


They aren't congratulating or approving -> They are recognizing that it's not the point. To phrase it like you did with the effort thing - you imply that the only choices are condemnation or endorsement. This is not the case.



dax21 said:


> Sony in particular went on to say in a well-circulated post that "inventory can be replaced, lives can't". Will they put their money where their mouth is? You and I both know the answer.


It's very likely that once the world calms down, there certainly will be a lot of people (corporations included) helping society get back on it's feet. You can judge the motivation behind that if you really want.



dax21 said:


> These images won't change anything.





dax21 said:


> You don't change culture and status quo through images on the internet.


I disagree. A lot of culture has moved onto the internet - and while my old-man brain doesn't quite like it - a lot of cultural movement happens via things like memes. All of this is doing exactly what it's mean to: applying social pressure. One image changes nothing, but mountains of the same message being spread across all of the prominent social spaces is going to have an impact. People see it happening. No, it's not going to instantly erase racism, but it makes a clear statement about what society wants and puts it on display for all to see. There's power to that. It's a clear communication of what is deemed acceptable or not.


----------



## possumkiller

Back to what @TedEH was talking about the "all cops are bad" stuff. I read an interesting post from a 19 year police veteran that is still on duty. He trains officers on restraining and many other related things. He says there is no training that says a knee should ever be put on anyone's neck and he goes much deeper about it and how the video turned his stomach and such. He asks people not to judge the other 99% of police based on the actions of 1%.

Edit: Here is the post. https://imgur.com/gallery/Oh7IBLX

My response is that if it really is only 1% and the rest of the police force despise that 1%, then prove it. Do something about it. The 1% are far outnumbered by the 99%. They can't fire 99% of the police force. How about all these good cops show some solidarity amongst each other and take action to demand change? Instead of one cop reporting a bad cop and getting fired, how about all the good cops report the bad cops? They can't fire all of them.


----------



## dax21

TedEH said:


> They aren't congratulating or approving



They are definitely both approving and actively justifying it.



TedEH said:


> It's very likely that once the world calms down, there certainly will be a lot of people (corporations included) helping society get back on it's feet.



Tax-payers money is what is going to help society get back on its feet. And these corporations don't pay taxes to begin with (thanks to the current president), so why would they hand you out anything now? After this dog and pony show, if there are any hand-outs from big corporations, it's sure as hell not gonna go to white people whose business were ransacked. It will instead go to black communities. I am not going to debate whether that is good or bad.



TedEH said:


> I disagree. A lot of culture has moved onto the internet - and while my old-man brain doesn't quite like it - a lot of cultural movement happens via things like memes. All of this is doing exactly what it's mean to: applying social pressure. One image changes nothing, but mountains of the same message being spread across all of the prominent social spaces is going to have an impact. People see it happening. No, it's not going to instantly erase racism, but it makes a clear statement about what society wants and puts it on display for all to see. There's power to that. It's a clear communication of what is deemed acceptable or not.



You are correct about the "culture" part, that is my fault, I poorly expressed myself - I assumed that it would be clear what I alluded to. What I meant to say is that you can't change deeply rooted social and racial paradigms through images on the internet. Pop culture can indeed be both created as well as changed. Regardless, whether there was a singular image that says "black lives matter" or ten billion - the quantity doesn't change the meaning nor the validity. It only amplifies it. And even at that it was counter-productive because plain black images saturated social media so much that it was hard to spot the actual bits of info that were important in those moments. This isn't my opinion but opinion of the protesters by the way.

It's fair to say that I've been slacking both at work and at home these past few days, I've been monitoring a lot of forums, mesage boards and comment sections surrounding the events at hand, as I imagine a lot of others did. And I have yet to see someone go on to say anything along the lines of "you know what, I used to be a wee bit racist, but this helped me see the way, I'm definitely a better person for it, thanks for showing me see the things the way they truly are!".
I did however see an incredible amount of perfectly normal, well adjusted, non-discriminating people write entire paragraphs and essays about how they suddenly started to feel ashamed of being white and how suddenly they feel genuine guilt about something they had nothing to do with.

That's all these images will do.


----------



## spudmunkey

Except for my family that is sharing a "70 police officers have been injured in these protests. Please share this blue square to honor them" pic.


----------



## gunch

People lauded Scandinavian cops for being more level headed and better trained but they’re beating the shit out of protestors in Sweden too


----------



## TedEH

dax21 said:


> "you know what, I used to be a wee bit racist, but this helped me see the way, I'm definitely a better person for it, thanks for showing me see the things the way they truly are!".


I'm too lazy to dig up the post now, but one of these political threads has someone literally say "I used to be pretty racist and my views have changed" - not specifically because of these protest - because you're right, attitudes like that don't stop on a dime, but you can certainly accelerate the change.

What do you think _prevents_ someone who is racist from realizing their mistake? The reinforcement that comes from their environment. If the culture acts as though racism is ok, then it must be ok. If culture is literally screaming "this is not ok", then that reinforcement is gone. If it doesn't change in-built values now, it'll certainly accelerate the rate at which new generations don't accept those views.

For a more immediate change -> What about the confederate statue being removed in Virginia? My own views of what BLM stands for have changed dramatically over the last week or so - and you can't convince me that they haven't. What about the message being sent to kids who are growing up and seeing that society has decided that we don't put up with racism anymore?


----------



## odibrom

Probably late to the party, but violence is never the answer, it only generates more violence... and then there is always someone profiting from that...


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## SamSam

Well going by that argument one could easily argue that we shouldn't have members of society rioting for black lives ended by law enforcement, because the number is minute compared to flu deaths??


----------



## possumkiller

SamSam said:


> Well going by that argument one could easily argue that we shouldn't have members of society rioting for black lives ended by law enforcement, because the number is minute compared to flu deaths??







The point is the same people that were whining about having to stay indoors and calling corvid-19 no big deal are now whining about people protesting and looting.

This is most definitely going to result in many more deaths to the virus. However, I think ending police brutality is something worth slightly more to risk your life for than a fucking haircut.


----------



## SamSam

I appreciate the attempt at humour. However, the impression I got from the is that the message behind it is against criticism of the protest. Not a criticism of the looting.

Therefore I feel my point stands because it addresses the inference made by the joke. It appears to be sarcastic to me, or would you disagree?

Bear in mind I live in acountry where we don't have rightwingers going nuts because they can't enjoy their usual freedoms...


----------



## TedEH

SamSam said:


> the impression I got from the is that the message behind it is against criticism of the protest. Not a criticism of the looting.


The problem is that the criticism of the looting is being used, by some (many?), as a criticism of the protesting. It's an attempt to use one to invalidate the other.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

TedEH said:


> I'm too lazy to dig up the post now, but one of these political threads has someone literally say "I used to be pretty racist and my views have changed" - not specifically because of these protest - because you're right, attitudes like that don't stop on a dime, but you can certainly accelerate the change.
> 
> What do you think _prevents_ someone who is racist from realizing their mistake? The reinforcement that comes from their environment. If the culture acts as though racism is ok, then it must be ok. If culture is literally screaming "this is not ok", then that reinforcement is gone. If it doesn't change in-built values now, it'll certainly accelerate the rate at which new generations don't accept those views.
> 
> For a more immediate change -> What about the confederate statue being removed in Virginia? My own views of what BLM stands for have changed dramatically over the last week or so - and you can't convince me that they haven't. What about the message being sent to kids who are growing up and seeing that society has decided that we don't put up with racism anymore?




It might be me you're referencing. I used to be pretty heavily racist to the point where I'd be one of the ones making excuses for the cops, and would make frequent use of the n-word. (never to anyone's face, but the hate was in my words.) I've never personally hurt anyone, physically or mentally, but I know, and was friends with people who did. I had a big long thing typed up, but I'm already breaking my "I'm leaving the thread" rule I gave myself but I felt it worth chiming in.

I will say that seeing protests, seeing these murders, hearing other people speak out in support of these men, really helped shape my current point of view. It has become impossible to even try/want to defend. (and it's been well over a decade or two for me at this point, so again... This shit ain't new.) This is certainly not to say that white people are evil, or that I'm ashamed to be white... I just realize now that our brothers and sisters need help and to pretend like everything is a-okay is part of the problem. We as white people can't change the past but we can help shape a better and brighter future. This is why I don't get upset when people of color bring up the past... It's not me they are talking about. And I don't need to say "not all *insert group of people here* are like that." I don't need that validation because I show it by the way I act.

We need to just fucking be good to each other.


----------



## possumkiller

Señor Voorhees said:


> It might be me you're referencing. I used to be pretty heavily racist to the point where I'd be one of the ones making excuses for the cops, and would make frequent use of the n-word. (never to anyone's face, but the hate was in my words.) I've never personally hurt anyone, physically or mentally, but I know, and was friends with people who did. I had a big long thing typed up, but I'm already breaking my "I'm leaving the thread" rule I gave myself but I felt it worth chiming in.
> 
> I will say that seeing protests, seeing these murders, hearing other people speak out in support of these men, really helped shape my current point of view. It has become impossible to even try/want to defend. (and it's been well over a decade or two for me at this point, so again... This shit ain't new.) This is certainly not to say that white people are evil, or that I'm ashamed to be white... I just realize now that our brothers and sisters need help and to pretend like everything is a-okay is part of the problem. We as white people can't change the past but we can help shape a better and brighter future. This is why I don't get upset when people of color bring up the past... It's not me they are talking about. And I don't need to say "not all *insert group of people here* are like that." I don't need that validation because I show it by the way I act.
> 
> We need to just fucking be good to each other.


This. Going back and learning about the big incidents that happened when I was a kid really helped as well. I was raised to be a racist redneck so the point of view was really different. Incidents like the Bernie Goetz shootings, Rodney King beating, and Amadou Diallo shooting are no less relevant today. How four cops got away with shooting 41 times at an unarmed man trapped between them and the door to his home from point blank range is fucking disgusting. It's like the thugs having a good ol time blasting away at Murphy in the opening scene of Robocop. Only the thugs are the fucking cops. Even if Diallo was armed and shooting at them, that still does not justify 41 fucking rounds.


----------



## TedEH

Señor Voorhees said:


> It might be me you're referencing.


It might be! Thanks for posting that. I think it makes a pretty clear statement.


----------



## sleewell

well today is good day for George Floyd so there is that... what a total and complete fucking nut job.


----------



## odibrom

... the difference being that when people are confronting nurses they know they won't be killed by them... not so much when confronting the police.

I'll leave another piece of media that I find is spot on by Morgan Friedman (no not the amps people, focus please)...


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## possumkiller

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/05/us/black-lives-matter-dc-street-white-house-trnd/index.html


----------



## Five Ten

sleewell said:


> well today is good day for George Floyd so there is that... what a total and complete fucking nut job.



It is a shame that he is not alive to appreciate such a supposed "good day" for himself


odibrom said:


> ... the difference being that when people are confronting nurses they know they won't be killed by them... not so much when confronting the police.
> 
> I'll leave another piece of media that I find is spot on by Morgan Friedman (no not the amps people, focus please)...





I can not tell if this is in support or defiance of the issues at hand. I love Morgan Freeman, but he does not speak for all people of color, which I am. The solution is in my eyes to actually stop avoiding talking about it and to actually talk about it. You can not pretend the elephant is not in the room. We do need to treat each other not like "white man" or "black man" or "Asian man," but as things are we can not just pretend race does not exist. Being "color blind" is the ideal end goal. Where it does not matter if someone is black/white/asian/hispanic/gay/straight/trans/etc. We can not get to that point until we confront where we are now, and where we are now is that it does absolutely 100% matter if you are one race or another. Black people are treated differently than other races. All races are treated differently. My family was put into camps during world war 2 because they were Asian. This feels to me like what we are actively doing to black people in this country, and even other races including my own. 

You can not know the troubles people of color go through without being of color. A lot of people try, and they will never 100% understand, but they are trying and in turn are trying to make it better. This country is great and amazing. I love it here overall, and it is mostly what I have known my whole life. I have not personally had bad experiences with the police, but I am not part of the demographic that seems to be targeted by them in a worse way than others. Even still, I can tell you that my day to day life is marred by prejudices brought on by racism and, unrelated, sexism. We can not view each other as just other people if we can not first accept that people of color are treated differently. We need to be treated the same before we can pretend that races do not exist.

In short, I agree with Morgan Freeman. I long for a world where it is not "a black man robbed a store" or some other such silliness. At this point in time we can not do that. Race, right now, is a good indicator of how people are treated. "Black people are actively targeted by police more than white people" is a more meaningful statement than "People are targeted by police more than other people." Both are true, but one points out an issue that needs addressed.

Black people will never be seen as just people until we actively talk and fix the issues that are prevalent in this country.

I could very well be misunderstanding your post. People do actively fight nurses because of drugs and stuff but nurses help them without killing them. Police are scary too, especially to black people. Morgan Freeman is speaking of a perfect world, but not the world we live in currently where race does indeed matter. One day we will hopefully get there, but that time is not now. Until then we need to acknowledge races and the differing struggles. That time is nowhere near now.

Apologies if I have misunderstood the points made, but English is not my first language and I could likely just be confused..


----------



## c7spheres

TedEH said:


> .... the same happens whenever I compare the Canadian experience to the American one: I am wrong by default....



- It's because we're jealous. There is no comparison. We see Canadians as financially well off, peaceful pot smokers with a summer home, a winter home, and no jobs to worry about. The water and air is perfectly clean and clear and nobody ever gets sick. There are never any fights or violence and nobody ever yells or argues. The education system there produces only on the genius level. The only worry keeping them up at night is what variety of syrup to put on breakfast in the morniing. It's ok, well have both! After that should we go hunting or fishing before our afternoon nap time? We'll do both and we'll hunt from the boat while we fish too! There are no police because no laws are ever broken. No comparison. That's really how it is up there, is it not?


----------



## TedEH

Nailed it. That's what we're all aboot. In the summer, anyway. In the winter, we're just like the US but with Igloos.


----------



## zappatton2

Well, I just got back from the BLM protest in downtown Ottawa, and it gave me a bit of hope. Not only that people of all backgrounds can get together and fight for the rights of our black brothers and sisters, but that the police there were the extreme opposite of what we've seen on the news. They presented themselves entirely as there to help rather than an occupying force, handing out water bottles and sanitizer, tending to anyone with heat stroke, and not in any way projecting aggression.

Not to paper over the very real abuses and injustices that have come from our local force, including the killing of a black man about four years ago, but it seems the terrible examples of some police forces we've seen in the U.S. are having an instructive effect up here on how not to act. It was a pretty unifying event, at least from where I was standing.


----------



## SamSam

Five Ten said:


> Being "color blind" is the ideal end goal. Where it does not matter if someone is black/white/asian/hispanic/gay/straight/trans/etc.
> 
> Race, right now, is a good indicator of how people are treated. "Black people are actively targeted by police more than white people" is a more meaningful statement than "People are targeted by police more than other people." Both are true, but one points out an issue that needs addressed.
> 
> Black people will never be seen as just people until we actively talk and fix the issues that are prevalent in this country.



Unfortunately you are correct. Many things would need to change for the better before a truly positive, meaningful and permanent change can be made.

There are so many factors and issues which need to be addressed and unfortunately it is impossible to do so without considering race and ethnicity for now.

I know a lot of people don't like to talk about the stats but when you look at violent crime stats and police fatalities, there are several disturbing statistics.

Unfortunately getting up to date stats is very difficult and the 2018 stats seem to be the latest complete list at this point in time. 

Saying that, last year police killed 199 people suffering from mental illness as well. Conflict management seems to be a large issue. But then again, the murder rate in certain areas of the country is very high and those numbers can't really be ignored when considering the use of deadly force by police. It makes for grim reading.


----------



## odibrom

Five Ten said:


> It is a shame that he is not alive to appreciate such a supposed "good day" for himself
> 
> I can not tell if this is in support or defiance of the issues at hand. I love Morgan Freeman, but he does not speak for all people of color, which I am. The solution is in my eyes to actually stop avoiding talking about it and to actually talk about it. You can not pretend the elephant is not in the room. We do need to treat each other not like "white man" or "black man" or "Asian man," but as things are we can not just pretend race does not exist. Being "color blind" is the ideal end goal. Where it does not matter if someone is black/white/asian/hispanic/gay/straight/trans/etc. We can not get to that point until we confront where we are now, and where we are now is that it does absolutely 100% matter if you are one race or another. Black people are treated differently than other races. All races are treated differently. My family was put into camps during world war 2 because they were Asian. This feels to me like what we are actively doing to black people in this country, and even other races including my own.
> 
> You can not know the troubles people of color go through without being of color. A lot of people try, and they will never 100% understand, but they are trying and in turn are trying to make it better. This country is great and amazing. I love it here overall, and it is mostly what I have known my whole life. I have not personally had bad experiences with the police, but I am not part of the demographic that seems to be targeted by them in a worse way than others. Even still, I can tell you that my day to day life is marred by prejudices brought on by racism and, unrelated, sexism. We can not view each other as just other people if we can not first accept that people of color are treated differently. We need to be treated the same before we can pretend that races do not exist.
> 
> In short, I agree with Morgan Freeman. I long for a world where it is not "a black man robbed a store" or some other such silliness. At this point in time we can not do that. Race, right now, is a good indicator of how people are treated. "Black people are actively targeted by police more than white people" is a more meaningful statement than "People are targeted by police more than other people." Both are true, but one points out an issue that needs addressed.
> 
> Black people will never be seen as just people until we actively talk and fix the issues that are prevalent in this country.
> 
> I could very well be misunderstanding your post. People do actively fight nurses because of drugs and stuff but nurses help them without killing them. Police are scary too, especially to black people. Morgan Freeman is speaking of a perfect world, but not the world we live in currently where race does indeed matter. One day we will hopefully get there, but that time is not now. Until then we need to acknowledge races and the differing struggles. That time is nowhere near now.
> 
> Apologies if I have misunderstood the points made, but English is not my first language and I could likely just be confused..



Allow me to begin with a statement that I said before just to give you my perspective: violence is never the answer, it will only generate more violence and there will always be someone profiting from all that suffering. I am forward to protesting for the right to live without hurting anyone else, my moto could be something like this "live and let live". When and if we'll get there is another story.

Another thing I need to sort out on my point of view is that there is only one race here: the human / mankind. The rest is vocabulary and cultural education to segregate people by the suggestion of fear and differences that, in fact, are none. more so, I'm not defying anything nor anyone.

I'm an European from the Iberian peninsula*. I/we are a mix of lots of different people. At a point in time, the Iberian nations were all over the place with Spain and Portugal dividing the world in two, way before the British empire was a thought and about the time of the Italian Renaissance. One could find Asian (from where the sun is born), Indian (from India), African, South American, Arabs and so many more in Lisbon and Madrid either free or slave. It was a hell of a time with also lots of injustices and power abuse. Before that, the Iberian peninsula had been occupied by the Celts, Greeks, Arabs, Vandals (from the northern Europe), Romans and so many other human tribes and civilizations. This to say that my DNA and cultural heritage is all but "pure".

I cannot ever understand what it is like to live in the USA and not be European alike, or as many say W.A.S.P.. All I can say for now is that I feel for you and that you should in fact address all those issues that are exploding in the USA since Trump got in charge. Maybe start with him for good?

It falls upon each and everyone of us to understand that tradition (and somehow culture also) is a weapon that can and will be used by those in charge. Fighting culturally inducted fear and ignorance issues is a freaking scary game. I wish you all the best of luck.

Note*: I say this as this is were I am from and were I currently live. I like to think I belong to Earth and Earth is my home, either at the North Pole or at the Equator line. All men and women are my brothers and sisters and I feel sad when some cannot communicate with each other, or are selfish or somehow abusive. It shows only that we, as a species, still have a long path ahead of us.


----------



## TedEH

I think the message you guys are going for is positive, but lets not completely wash out all history and heritage and pretend that races literally don't exist. The goal is to embrace these things, not hide them away. Acknowledge our mistakes. Recognize that other cultures aren't something to be afraid of. Pretending that nobody is different in any way is just another form of acting afraid of those differences between people, which is what gets us here in the first place. Yes, people are different. People have different backgrounds and physiology and culture and all of those things. The idea is that at this point there is no longer any excuse to wield these differences against each other.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> Except for my family that is sharing a "70 police officers have been injured in these protests. Please share this blue square to honor them" pic.



This reminds me when my mom, who basically uses facebook to follow her sisters and fabric stores, reshared a "Finally a first lady with some class" picture when Trump was elected. 

"Mom, why did you share that?" 
"Oh, I like her." 
"Mom, it's not a pro-Melania pic. It's anti-Michelle-Obama pic."
"Ohhhhhh" 
::sigh::


----------



## BlackSG91

Nothing is going to get done with the little orange man in office. He is just going to be harder and strip you of all your rights. He never backs down and it's time to fight fire with more FIRE!!!




;>)/


----------



## TedEH

I honestly can't judge the seriousness of that post, but I'm going to recommend we not literally endorse killing anyone, cops or otherwise.


----------



## Randy

Well, no but Body Count fuckin slaps.


----------



## BlackSG91

TedEH said:


> I honestly can't judge the seriousness of that post, but I'm going to recommend we not literally endorse killing anyone, cops or otherwise.



So just sitting by and letting shit happen will solve anything...in these days and ages? If you just stand by and act like everything is just going to be okay then you are living in a fantasy world. The more you are passive the more they will take control of you. Don't let up because if you do you will be demoralized & taken away by a police truck!


----------



## BlackSG91

EDIT:



;>)/


----------



## eggy in a bready

Randy said:


> Well, no but Body Count fuckin slaps.


everything about body count is cool as fuck, EXCEPT for the music they make. ice t is a legend, but it's just him yelling over a mediocre metal band lmao


----------



## SamSam

BlackSG91 said:


> Nothing is going to get done with the little orange man in office. He is just going to be harder and strip you of all your rights. He never backs down and it's time to fight fire with more FIRE!!!
> 
> ;>)/



This is not a new problem, what have other leaders done before him? I'm not endorsing him in any way. But come on man.

He's definitely not helping the problem right now, but let's not pretend this issue started a few years ago.


----------



## odibrom

Right, it didn't start a few years ago, but the orange man in charge is feeding it instead of solving the problem or even trying to calm things down. You need a civil desobidience action nation wide and tell the sucker to exit the office... and eventually rethink your democracy...


----------



## c7spheres

I just noticed, he IS orange!  I guess I really never looked at him that closely. I always look at his hair or Melania if she's around for some reason I guess. He's certainly feeding the problem. He needs to get off social media entirely.


----------



## Metropolis

_"George Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison in 2009 for an assault and robbery committed two years earlier. He was convicted after pleading guilty to entering a woman's home and jabbing a gun in her stomach while searching for money and drugs, according to court documents."
_
https://rmx.news/article/article/minneapolis-police-union-chief-george-floyd-had-a-criminal-history

Nice symbol of anti-racism you have there... I would call this karma. Though of course there is lot of wrong how police behaves in USA. It's still in line with hard sentences and gun legislation, which is also another fucked up thing in your country along with too big class distinctions which is breeding ground for street criminals.


----------



## TedEH

I didn't say be passive and do nothing - I said don't murder people. C'mon, it's not that complicated.


----------



## narad

Metropolis said:


> _"George Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison in 2009 for an assault and robbery committed two years earlier. He was convicted after pleading guilty to entering a woman's home and jabbing a gun in her stomach while searching for money and drugs, according to court documents."
> _
> https://rmx.news/article/article/minneapolis-police-union-chief-george-floyd-had-a-criminal-history
> 
> Nice symbol of anti-racism you have there... I would call this karma. Though of course there is lot of wrong how police behaves in USA. It's still in line with hard sentences and gun legislation, which is also another fucked up thing in your country along with too big class distinctions which is breeding ground for street criminals.



I would have thought the karma was going to jail, and not cops killing you in the street over nothing.


----------



## TedEH

Metropolis said:


> Nice symbol of anti-racism you have there...


It wouldn't matter if he had twice the criminal history. That wasn't the point. People aren't just "good" and "bad". He was a person whose death was was not deserved and easily avoidable.

You can't justify wrongdoing by saying "the victim wasn't a saint, so it's fine".

It's worthwhile noting that the news that came out to tell everyone this guy's history came with a statement about how the cops are still talking about the protests in terms of terrorism.


----------



## Metropolis

narad said:


> I would have thought the karma was going to jail, and not cops killing you in the street over nothing.



No, but either way he took a risk of somehting like this occuring to him.



TedEH said:


> It wouldn't matter if he had twice the criminal history. That wasn't the point. People aren't just "good" and "bad". He was a person whose death was was not deserved and easily avoidable.
> 
> You can't justify wrongdoing by saying "the victim wasn't a saint, so it's fine".



It can subjectively matter how his way of living led to certain things. In this case his criminal backround with the police probably mattered too. But yes, it's definetly not black and white.


----------



## TedEH

Metropolis said:


> It can subjectively matter


If his death was not justified, his death was not justified. No amount of criminal background changes that. It didn't "lead to certain things".

The part about his death being undeserved and entirely avoidable, IS, in every sense of the phrase, black and white, unfortunately.


----------



## narad

Metropolis said:


> No, but either way he took a risk of somehting like this occuring to him.



If I'm not acting violently, I don't think anything I do should be taken as a risk of "something like" being choked to death. If I misfile my taxes, do I run the risk of a cop busting in and choking me to death? Hell of a lot more money cheated in that then passing off a fake $20.


----------



## Metropolis

narad said:


> If I'm not acting violently, I don't think anything I do should be taken as a risk of "something like" being choked to death. If I misfile my taxes, do I run the risk of a cop busting in and choking me to death? Hell of a lot more money cheated in that then passing off a fake $20.



Probably doesn't apply to that situation or it can, who knows. By making illegal actions you still take a risk. I'm not saying it justifies anyone getting killed, what I'm saying "it can happen".


----------



## StevenC

Metropolis said:


> _"George Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison in 2009 for an assault and robbery committed two years earlier. He was convicted after pleading guilty to entering a woman's home and jabbing a gun in her stomach while searching for money and drugs, according to court documents."
> _
> https://rmx.news/article/article/minneapolis-police-union-chief-george-floyd-had-a-criminal-history
> 
> Nice symbol of anti-racism you have there... I would call this karma. Though of course there is lot of wrong how police behaves in USA. It's still in line with hard sentences and gun legislation, which is also another fucked up thing in your country along with too big class distinctions which is breeding ground for street criminals.


Oof, worst take of the day is starting early. Going to be hard to top, but we'll see how it goes.


----------



## Metropolis

StevenC said:


> Oof, worst take of the day is starting early. Going to be hard to top, but we'll see how it goes.



That's not a very good answer for this moral philosophy...


----------



## narad

Metropolis said:


> That's not a very good answer for this moral philosophy...



If your moral philosophy is based on karma, it really has no relevance to a society that has laws and procedure. If someone commits an armed robbery, they are tried in front of a jury of their peers, and there is a range of acceptable punishments they must receive based on policy and precedent. That is justice in American society. You writing it off as something one should expect as a possibility when breaking the law is absurd. If I go 5 miles over the speed limit, I should consider that a cop may choke me to death? No. I shouldn't. Because if I pose no risk to the officer, they cannot choke me to death, and I must answer for my crimes in court. End Of Story.


----------



## Metropolis

narad said:


> If your moral philosophy is based on karma, it really has no relevance to a society that has laws and procedure. If someone commits an armed robbery, they are tried in front of a jury of their peers, and there is a range of acceptable punishments they must receive based on policy and precedent. That is justice in American society. You writing it off as something one should expect as a possibility when breaking the law is absurd. If I go 5 miles over the speed limit, I should consider that a cop may choke me to death? No. I shouldn't. Because if I pose no risk to the officer, they cannot choke me to death, and I must answer for my crimes in court. End Of Story.



If I used it as a figure of speech, not a real thing based on anything. Why it's not a possibility when a persons way of life has certain odds, and actions clearly lead to always something? There is nothing absurd in that, and it's not about justice at all.


----------



## StevenC

Metropolis said:


> If I used it as a figure of speech, not a real thing based on anything. Why it's not a possibility when a persons way of life has certain odds, and actions clearly lead to always something? There is nothing absurd in that, and it's not about justice at all.


The point of a criminal justice system is that if someone commits a crime and serves the punishment they should not be met with anything extra judicial. Figure of speech or not, the sentiment was objectively wrong.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

I think it's obsurd to say that because some guy did some bad thing at some point that it warrants excessive action for a future lesser crime. 

Regardless of if the guy was even a murderer child rapist or some shit, he wasn't posing a threat at that particular time so they had no reason to use such excessive force. 

The punishment did not line up with the crime being committed. It was excessive, and it needs to stop.


----------



## zappatton2

Not really adding much to the convo here, but man, if ever there was a placard more on point...


----------



## narad

zappatton2 said:


> Not really adding much to the convo here, but man, if ever there was a placard more on point...
> View attachment 81587



#blacklivesmother


----------



## SnowfaLL

zappatton2 said:


> Well, I just got back from the BLM protest in downtown Ottawa, and it gave me a bit of hope. Not only that people of all backgrounds can get together and fight for the rights of our black brothers and sisters, but that the police there were the extreme opposite of what we've seen on the news. They presented themselves entirely as there to help rather than an occupying force, handing out water bottles and sanitizer, tending to anyone with heat stroke, and not in any way projecting aggression.
> 
> Not to paper over the very real abuses and injustices that have come from our local force, including the killing of a black man about four years ago, but it seems the terrible examples of some police forces we've seen in the U.S. are having an instructive effect up here on how not to act. It was a pretty unifying event, at least from where I was standing.



I'm glad to hear it - I live in downtown Ottawa and although I didnt go as I had to work, I fully support the movement and was so pleased to hear no incidents happened. I've been following the Ottawa reddit all week, there was an annoying troll making multiple threads saying how the organizers of the event were planning rioting and looting, and the Ottawa reddit in general was clearly brigaded by Meta Canada or some shits with 500+ upvotes on comments of "Its a pandemic, why are they protesting?? Was coronavirus a hoax now??" and the like (which never happened since March until the BLM protest was approaching in Ottawa) - its so frustrating that Russia/Conservative troll farms can overwhelm a normal discussion form like Twitter, facebook and reddit to spread their hate.


----------



## Randy

It takes exponentially more work to fill the balloon than it does to poke the hole that lets all the air out. All these little tit for tat complaints "what happened to that guy wasn't right but why are they rioting? What happened to coronavirus? This is just about the election. Obama didn't do anything to fix this, how come they didn't go after him?" etc are all attempts to poke the balloon.


----------



## zappatton2

SnowfaLL said:


> I'm glad to hear it - I live in downtown Ottawa and although I didnt go as I had to work, I fully support the movement and was so pleased to hear no incidents happened. I've been following the Ottawa reddit all week, there was an annoying troll making multiple threads saying how the organizers of the event were planning rioting and looting, and the Ottawa reddit in general was clearly brigaded by Meta Canada or some shits with 500+ upvotes on comments of "Its a pandemic, why are they protesting?? Was coronavirus a hoax now??" and the like (which never happened since March until the BLM protest was approaching in Ottawa) - its so frustrating that Russia/Conservative troll farms can overwhelm a normal discussion form like Twitter, facebook and reddit to spread their hate.


Before the protest, I had heard rumblings about Sons of Odin or one of those other white nationalist groups showing up to disrupt things, but there were literally no traces of right-wing extremism crawling out from the sludge to counter-protest, either from what I saw, or from anything I've read from scanning the local coverage.


----------



## BlackSG91

c7spheres said:


> I just noticed, he IS orange!  I guess I really never looked at him that closely. I always look at his hair or Melania if she's around for some reason I guess. He's certainly feeding the problem. He needs to get off social media entirely.



He's as orange as a Trumpkin. He's all ready for the BIG election after Halloween so he can have another 4 more years of trick or treason.








;>)/


----------



## Daemoniac

Man, some of the comments in here make me question coming back on the site... God damn.


----------



## Randy

Friend the next town over from me said there was a peaceful BLM demonstration in the park downtown and that someone threw a cup of coffee on them, and was waving a Confederate flag. Thought that was a little far fetched until I saw this...


----------



## Necris

I was at a protest a couple days ago. It was entirely peaceful on our part, but a few outside observers were clearly looking to change that and made an effort to provoke a violent response from us towards the end by walking into the mass of our group and trying to shout down a woman who was giving a speech.

I'll probably be at another tomorrow, it's supposed to be peaceful again but by all accounts the town has been preparing for World War III since the protest was first announced and social media has been buzzing with rumors that the town will burn, so that will probably have an effect on the overall police response and the likelihood of "vigilantes".


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Friend the next town over from me said there was a peaceful BLM demonstration in the park downtown and that someone threw a cup of coffee on them, and was waving a Confederate flag. Thought that was a little far fetched until I saw this...
> 
> View attachment 81600



I'm sure there were good people on both sides...


----------



## c7spheres

Anyone ever heard of the term "black privilege" being used? It's a good read. CNN did a thing on it. They both have some understandable points. 
- There is no doubt privileges that whites and blacks get that the other does not.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/us/black-privilege/index.html

- I'm not putting this up to be a troll. I think it's important to get in multiple viewpoints.


----------



## diagrammatiks

c7spheres said:


> Anyone ever heard of the term "black privilege" being used? It's a good read. CNN did a thing on it. They both have some understandable points.
> - There is no doubt privileges that whites and blacks get that the other does not.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/us/black-privilege/index.html
> 
> - I'm not putting this up to be a troll. I think it's important to get in multiple viewpoints.



you didn't even read the fucking article you dum dum.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Metropolis said:


> If I used it as a figure of speech, not a real thing based on anything. Why it's not a possibility when a persons way of life has certain odds, and actions clearly lead to always something? There is nothing absurd in that, and it's not about justice at all.



sure if you commit a crime and serve your time there's a large possibility that a militarized police force will one day murder you.

and if it happens that's karma. 

christ on a stick man. does your brain work before your fingers type.


----------



## Randy

diagrammatiks said:


> you didn't even read the fucking article you dum dum.



Things conservatives are bad at: memes, analogies, and now sarcasm.


----------



## c7spheres

diagrammatiks said:


> you didn't even read the fucking article you dum dum.


 Yes I did. Why you say that? I read it as both sides of people.


----------



## diagrammatiks

c7spheres said:


> Yes I did. Why you say that? I read it as both sides of people.



I'll concede that you looked at some words.


----------



## c7spheres

diagrammatiks said:


> I'll concede that you looked at some words.


 I've read it. You gotta problem with CNN or something? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

No words. There are just no words.


----------



## eggy in a bready

c7spheres said:


> Anyone ever heard of the term "black privilege" being used? It's a good read. CNN did a thing on it. They both have some understandable points.
> - There is no doubt privileges that whites and blacks get that the other does not.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/us/black-privilege/index.html
> 
> - I'm not putting this up to be a troll. I think it's important to get in multiple viewpoints.


hey man, to be completely honest, you should probably go get your head checked.


----------



## StevenC

Ohheee, I needed a good laugh this morning. Thanks guys.


----------



## c7spheres

eggy in a bready said:


> hey man, to be completely honest, you should probably go get your head checked.



- All I did was put a link up from CNN that talks about white and black priviledge. It shows some people believe in it and some don't and it points out factual information.
- The article written is by a 70 year old black journalist for CNN. So whats that make him then?

- If there's things that are wrong in the article or things that people don't agree with then they can put their views here in this thread and explain why. 
- What's the point of this thread if there is no actual open dialog happening? 

- I'm thinking I'd put this article up and we could talk about it and about peoples views on affirmitive action like the article does. Some people view it as black priviledge and some don't. 

- Again, what points are everyone trying to make here in this thread? I don't see any dialog happening other than bashing. This could be a great thread with lots of information and get people thinking about their views. If you want to talk about issues and have dialog then do so. Bashing people isn't a good way to do that. 

- So far all this thread wants to hear or see or read about is that if your white or a cop then you're an evil piece of shit, black people and minoritys are perfect angels in every way and have never done anything wrong ever, and if you don't succomb and cuck over to this ideaology then your part of the problem, a racist, and you're gonna get bashed. They don't want to have a dialog. This is the vibe I'm getting. One big bash fest. 

- I'm one of the only ones I see making an effort here. I'm not bashing anyone, but there are many others bashing people for trying to have an open dialog. 

- I've never said what I believe either way. I've said it before many times. *I'm presenting information and different points of view and I don't subscribe to a lot of these points of view personally*. It's stuff to discuss so we can all learn and understand. If everyone already knows everything or only one point of view will be heard then what's the point?

- There will never be peace or equality if everytime someone is willing and tyring to make peace and extends a hand it gets chopped off. 

- Let's have dialog and present multiple points of views and discuss why we think they are right or wrong and stop bashing. It's not nice.


----------



## StevenC

c7spheres said:


> - All I did was put a link up from CNN that talks about white and black priviledge. It shows some people believe in it and some don't and it points out factual information.
> - The article written is by a 70 year old black journalist for CNN. So whats that make him then?
> 
> - If there's things that are wrong in the article or things that people don't agree with then they can put their views here in this thread and explain why.
> - What's the point of this thread if there is no actual open dialog happening?
> 
> - I'm thinking I'd put this article up and we could talk about it and about peoples views on affirmitive action like the article does. Some people view it as black priviledge and some don't.
> 
> - Again, what points are everyone trying to make here in this thread? I don't see any dialog happening other than bashing. This could be a great thread with lots of information and get people thinking about their views. If you want to talk about issues and have dialog then do so. Bashing people isn't a good way to do that.
> 
> - So far all this thread wants to hear or see or read about is that if your white or a cop then you're an evil piece of shit, black people and minoritys are perfect angels in every way and have never done anything wrong ever, and if you don't succomb and cuck over to this ideaology then your part of the problem, a racist, and you're gonna get bashed. They don't want to have a dialog. This is the vibe I'm getting. One big bash fest.
> 
> - I'm one of the only ones I see making an effort here. I'm not bashing anyone, but there are many others bashing people for trying to have an open dialog.
> 
> - I've never said what I believe either way. I've said it before many times. *I'm presenting information and different points of view and I don't subscribe to a lot of these points of view personally*. It's stuff to discuss so we can all learn and understand. If everyone already knows everything or only one point of view will be heard then what's the point?
> 
> - There will never be peace or equality if everytime someone is willing and tyring to make peace and extends a hand it gets chopped off.
> 
> - Let's have dialog and present multiple points of views and discuss why we think they are right or wrong and stop bashing. It's not nice.


That article can be summed up with: some people think "black privilege" is a real thing, here's why it isn't.

That article is not for starting a conversation, it's for ending one.


----------



## odibrom

On every single conflict engaging a multitude of people with different backgrounds, there is always someone profiting with the suffering of many on either sides of that conflict. Generally, those that profit are in privileged positions and do not engage directly in the conflict. Search and destroy those privileges (I say no to violence) and one will find piece.

Cultural inducted fear is a weapon capable of large scale destruction. Search those who feed this fear and remove their power position of "feeding". The one who feeds has power over the one who is fed, right? The one who feeds creates a dependent relation over the one who is fed, hence the power over the other. However, not all who feeds is evil. The task is to find those that are feeding Bull Shit as a holy grail solution, those are the ones to be purged.

Those that induct segregation by fear or ignorance are the dangerous ones. They won't let one use its most fundamental tool: the brain. They'll tell "you can't and/but only *I* can" so many times that one starts to believe in it and stops thinking by himself.


----------



## Metropolis

diagrammatiks said:


> sure if you commit a crime and serve your time there's a large possibility that a militarized police force will one day murder you.
> 
> and if it happens that's karma.
> 
> christ on a stick man. does your brain work before your fingers type.



Statistically odds are much larger for that... and the death kind of proves that, no matter how blunt it may sound.


----------



## narad

Metropolis said:


> Statistically odds are much larger for that... and the death kind of proves that, no matter how blunt it may sound.



Forget the logic you're using before that that's already flawed. Just focusing on this statement, the death wouldn't prove the odds are greater. If you know/observe someone who rolled a 999,999,999 on a 999,999,999-sided die, wouldn't make it a statistically greater outcome than 000,000,001.


----------



## Randy

c7spheres said:


> Let's have dialog and present multiple points of views and discuss why we think they are right or wrong and stop bashing. It's not nice.



It's a discussion founded on a bullshit premise. The thread was started because a guy was suffocated to death by the police and it's one of a number of examples of a black person committing a nonviolent crime, being unarmed and being killed by the police with no prosecution or oversight until there's video and outrage in the community.

What the fuck is supposed to be the co-equal counterpoint to someone saying it's not right to be targeted based on your race and killed for a nonviolent criminal offense? That's why you're meeting resistance, because you're treating an argument that has no rational counterpoint with "well let's hear everyone out".

The local example I posted was a Black Lives Matter protest and the counter protest was Black People Shouldn't Exist. You think those are co-equal arguments?


----------



## narad

Just kinda weird to see Sesame Street take on this:

https://twitter.com/cnn/status/1269270231383449601?s=21


----------



## shadowlife

c7spheres said:


> -
> - So far all this thread wants to hear or see or read about is that if your white or a cop then you're an evil piece of shit, black people and minoritys are perfect angels in every way and have never done anything wrong ever, and if you don't succomb and cuck over to this ideaology then your part of the problem, a racist, and you're gonna get bashed. They don't want to have a dialog.



Unfortunately, a lot of this thread can be summed up in that one paragraph.

I've posted in this thread and the other one multiple ways in which people can act in a constructive manner to try and change things, and instead of getting dialogue, I've gotten snarky responses like "that's what the government is for".
I have zero respect for people who want to complain about a problem, but when you ask them to roll up their sleeves and do some work to help correct it they reply that someone else is supposed to do it for them.
We are all part of this society, it is up to each one of us to act in a positive way to make it better, and try and correct things that we see as wrong and unjust.

Ask yourselves this- when the lockdowns are over, and you have to go back to work and don't have time to stand in a protest holding up signs, what are you going to do as an individual to try and correct the problem of racial injustice?


----------



## diagrammatiks

shadowlife said:


> Unfortunately, a lot of this thread can be summed up in that one paragraph.
> 
> I've posted in this thread and the other one multiple ways in which people can act in a constructive manner to try and change things, and instead of getting dialogue, I've gotten snarky responses like "that's what the government is for".
> I have zero respect for people who want to complain about a problem, but when you ask them to roll up their sleeves and do some work to help correct it they reply that someone else is supposed to do it for them.
> We are all part of this society, it is up to each one of us to act in a positive way to make it better, and try and correct things that we see as wrong and unjust.
> 
> Ask yourselves this- when the lockdowns are over, and you have to go back to work and don't have time to stand in a protest holding up signs, what are you going to do as an individual to try and correct the problem of racial injustice?



ya that's right whataboutism guy. you make a very compelling point.

so white people what are ya'll gonna do????


----------



## Randy

diagrammatiks said:


> ya that's right whataboutism guy. you make a very compelling point.
> 
> so white people what are ya'll gonna do????



Keep liking eachothers posts criticising POC or their advocates for not literally taking over the government to stop cops from killing them. Brave bunch they are.


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> Ask yourselves this- when the lockdowns are over, and you have to go back to work and don't have time to stand in a protest holding up signs, what are you going to do as an individual to try and correct the problem of racial injustice?



Probably going to start by not voting for Trump. Going to continue to fact check GoldenDragon's posts. Probably going to do some STEM outreach. Probably going to continue to protest for wholistic application review at my universities.


----------



## shadowlife

narad said:


> Probably going to start by not voting for Trump. Going to continue to fact check GoldenDragon's posts. Probably going to do some STEM outreach. Probably going to continue to protest for wholistic application review at my universities.



Respect to you for all that.
Our vote is (or should be) one of our most powerful tools.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Descent

odibrom said:


> On every single conflict engaging a multitude of people with different backgrounds, there is always someone profiting with the suffering of many on either sides of that conflict. Generally, those that profit are in privileged positions and do not engage directly in the conflict. Search and destroy those privileges (I say no to violence) and one will find piece.
> 
> Cultural inducted fear is a weapon capable of large scale destruction. Search those who feed this fear and remove their power position of "feeding". The one who feeds has power over the one who is fed, right? The one who feeds creates a dependent relation over the one who is fed, hence the power over the other. However, not all who feeds is evil. The task is to find those that are feeding Bull Shit as a holy grail solution, those are the ones to be purged.
> 
> Those that induct segregation by fear or ignorance are the dangerous ones. They won't let one use its most fundamental tool: the brain. They'll tell "you can't and/but only *I* can" so many times that one starts to believe in it and stops thinking by himself.



very well said! 

It is all about divide and conquer from the ruling elites, and by ruling elites I don't mean our politicians, but the ones above them that are hugely profiting from keeping us all down or against each other.


----------



## TedEH

I took a day away from the forum / thread. It's still right where we left it.


----------



## Viginez




----------



## StevenC

Viginez said:


>



Man, 5 years on you'd think something would have changed.


----------



## c7spheres

StevenC said:


> That article can be summed up with: some people think "black privilege" is a real thing, here's why it isn't.
> 
> That article is not for starting a conversation, it's for ending one.



I understand he wrote it as a jab at these people and to show people CNN's stance on it is that it's preposterous, but the reality is that many white people are just as poor as minorities and they do not get certain things that blacks in the same income class, areas, or situations get. 
- For these white people there is even less of a chance than for the blacks. Specifically because they're white. They go to the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, make the same low wages at their jobs etc. and they get absolute zero in regards to help. At least the minorities and women get some form of help, little as it may be. 
- To these white people that are in a similar struggle when they see minorities getting "special" treatment and benifits then it's seen as "black priviliege". For those people it's very real. Just because they're white doesn't mean they have no problems and don't deserve any help. If people want equality and actually mean it, then tha means treating people equally. Otherwise it's not equality. 



Randy said:


> It's a discussion founded on a bullshit premise. The thread was started because a guy was suffocated to death by the police and it's one of a number of examples of a black person committing a nonviolent crime, being unarmed and being killed by the police with no prosecution or oversight until there's video and outrage in the community.
> 
> What the fuck is supposed to be the co-equal counterpoint to someone saying it's not right to be targeted based on your race and killed for a nonviolent criminal offense? That's why you're meeting resistance, because you're treating an argument that has no rational counterpoint with "well let's hear everyone out".
> 
> The local example I posted was a Black Lives Matter protest and the counter protest was Black People Shouldn't Exist. You think those are co-equal arguments?



- I don't think that. What I think is that people are either sincere about solving a problem or their not. The only way to do that is work out the problems by bringing up issues and working them out. If it's a soapbox platform then just recruit some propagandists or link to the BLM website and call it a day. 
- As horrible a thing as it is, just because many minorities have been killed unjustly by police and millions more treated unfairly by some of it's citizens and the government, does not mean that whatever a minority says is absolute truth, in the interest of equality, or must be taken without question as the final word on how to solve the problem. Everyone should have a say.
- Regarding your post I'll assume you're talking about the confederate flag waiving people. I think that yes, racists should have their say too. They should be in the room of this world wide discussion explaining what they believe so they can be more understood. They believer what they do for a reason. Yes racism is a taught/learned behavior (imo), and as bizarre as it sounds, racists are victims in a way too. They were taught and brainwashed that way. In a sense they are victims of instituional racism too, but on the opposite side of the spectrum. They're many that later in life finally figure out what happened to them when they were brought up and snap out of it. I saw a good example of this in that Netfilx documentary where the black guy goes and visits all the KKK members and talks with them and many of them quit the KK and become freinds with him. It wouldn't happen without dialog. 



narad said:


> Just kinda weird to see Sesame Street take on this:
> 
> https://twitter.com/cnn/status/1269270231383449601?s=21





Viginez said:


>




- This is really weird. I like the way they presented this message and it was done really well, but it's a slippery slope to say the least. 
- I could see them making one bad move or saying one wrong word and the next thing you know Sesame street will be pulled off the air, looted and set on fire.


----------



## narad

c7spheres said:


> I understand he wrote it as a jab at these people and to show people CNN's stance on it is that it's preposterous, but the reality is that many white people are just as poor as minorities and they do not get certain things that blacks in the same income class, areas, or situations get.
> - For these white people there is even less of a chance than for the blacks. Specifically because they're white. They go to the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, make the same low wages at their jobs etc. and they get absolute zero in regards to help. At least the minorities and women get some form of help, little as it may be.
> - To these white people that are in a similar struggle when they see minorities getting "special" treatment and benifits then it's seen as "black priviliege". For those people it's very real. Just because they're white doesn't mean they have no problems and don't deserve any help. If people want equality and actually mean it, then tha means treating people equally. Otherwise it's not equality.



I mean, literally from your article:

_Still, Foster says she experienced white privilege. She says she only knew that because she happened to live around poor black people. She still had advantages that they did not, she says.

Her black friends would get accused of stealing from stores; she wouldn't, even though she was with them. They would be suspended for missing too many classes or being late; she was placed in a gifted program, even though she also had attendance problems. They were called lazy blacks behind their backs if they missed work at a fast-food restaurant; her behavior was never seen as a reflection on her race._


----------



## Randy

c7spheres said:


> racists are victims in a way too.



Equating the pain of being raised ignorant as the same thing as being raised in an environment where you're killed because of the color of your skin is nonsense. We're done here.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> I mean, literally from your article:
> 
> _Still, Foster says she experienced white privilege. She says she only knew that because she happened to live around poor black people. She still had advantages that they did not, she says.
> 
> Her black friends would get accused of stealing from stores; she wouldn't, even though she was with them. They would be suspended for missing too many classes or being late; she was placed in a gifted program, even though she also had attendance problems. They were called lazy blacks behind their backs if they missed work at a fast-food restaurant; her behavior was never seen as a reflection on her race._



Dude, the guy said racists are victims and their issues need to be heard in the same venue as those they wish to see literally exterminated because of the color of their skin. Keep beating your head against that wall, let me know when you make it to the other side.


----------



## Necris

c7spheres said:


> ...the next thing you know *Sesame street will be pulled off the air, looted and set on fire.*



 I refuse to believe you aren't taking the piss.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> Equating the pain of being raised ignorant as the same thing as being raised in an environment where you're killed because of the color of your skin is nonsense. We're done here.


To quote the great Sean Garrity: "The pain of not having enough pain is still pain, young man."


----------



## Señor Voorhees

shadowlife said:


> Ask yourselves this- when the lockdowns are over, and you have to go back to work and don't have time to stand in a protest holding up signs, what are you going to do as an individual to try and correct the problem of racial injustice?



What I always do... Treat people with respect, and if I can donate time and money to causes, I will. (Been working through the quarantine and was still able to show my support.) I'll continue speaking out against clearly racist people. Will me, as an individual, make a dent? On my own, no, but when millions of individuals adopt this train of thought, then it's no longer an individual.

Not that this matters... I'm not sure what should be done in your eyes. 



Randy said:


> Dude, the guy said racists are victims and their issues need to be heard in the same venue as those they wish to see literally exterminated because of the color of their skin. Keep beating your head against that wall, let me know when you make it to the other side.



I mean, I agree... Let these people speak. I think it's better if they do come out and complain. Maybe I'm thinking too positively, but it shows us much more readily who to avoid and gives logical ammunition against completely non-legitimate grips. We can listen to them, doesn't mean we have to give a shit about their supposed plight.

Also, most people don't think whites are inherently evil... Just that we're in power, we're letting this happen, and we're trying to come up with excuses about how everything is just fine how it is instead of using our majority factor to help fix the issues our ancestors bred into society. You don't have to feel personally guilty about slavery or whatever since that was then and this is now... But "now" is still bad, and we do have a duty to help eradicate the leftover hate from the past. And that includes calling out racist bullshit and not putting up with the unfair treatment our law enforcement puts on people of color.


----------



## TedEH

I get that I'm pretty far removed from the details of American culture, but I don't believe for a moment that impoverished white people have it worse than anyone else specifically on account of their race. I've seen white people bounce back from having nothing, or from becoming addicts or alcoholics etc. It's happened to family. Granted, I've also seen people fail to bounce back and end up dead. Their race was never the determining factor though. 

I absolutely DO believe however, that such an argument might be presented to try to take steam away from those who actually need the support right now. It's just another "all lives matter" but phrased differently.


----------



## Randy

Señor Voorhees said:


> i mean I agree... Let these people speak. I think it's better if they do come out and complain. Maybe I'm thinking too positively, but it shows us much more readily who to avoid and gives logical ammunition against completely non-legitimate grips. We can listen to them, doesn't mean we have to give a shit about their supposed plight.



I mean, great if you're white and you can debate ignorant people as some kind of ideological chess match.

I'm a person of color, I have been bullied and attacked, called every name in the book and had myself and my family threatened by people I don't even know. Let me know when you walk into a diner to get dinner and get called nigger by a table of people you don't know, and how you intellectually disarm people when you're instead afraid for your life because you're just going about your business but other people are picking you out just because of your genes.

I don't see the guy at the rally waving the flag and say "boy, I want to debate that guy". I say okay, well, there's one less place I can bring my mom with me. I hope that guy doesn't go to the same gas station my mom or my sister goes to on their way to work in the morning. So on.

This idea of giving hate groups a venue just because white people want to expose them is great when you're debating this on paper. Not so much when you're living in the crosshairs.


----------



## Boofchuck

I would like to say that very few people actively consider themselves racist. There are different levels of racism from prejudice, discrimination, and systemic racism. Often it is unconscious and takes dialog and empathy to help people understand. 

As a white man I cannot speak for the black experience. But I can get the fuck out of the way and amplify the message. As guitar players I hope you all can understand this.


----------



## Randy

Tbh, I think people have a seat at the table regardless of race absolutely. Its just a matter of what subjects people have that they can speak on factually and trusting what they say, within reason.


I go to my mechanic because my car is making a noise. I don't know what it is, but I describe it to him and he gets an idea what's wrong, puts it on the lift, he tells me and he gives me a price to fix it. We're both part of the conversation, and I defer to his expertise. Likewise, I assume he's acting in good faith but I maintain at least some level of caution. If it's rattling in the back and he tells me the engine is shot and I'm in for $3,000 to rebuild it, I'm understandably skeptical. If what he describes makes sense and the price is reasonable, I don't penny pinch or assume his screwing me and we move forward.

It's a funky analogy but the point being, informed and uninformed people have a role. People with direct knowledge and indirect knowledge play a role. But we respect eachothers contribution by not trying to out-expert the experienced person, or not using the fact we're the informed person to overplay our hand against the other. That's what a mutual, respectful dialogue looks like.

I heavily disagree with the sentiment that white people need to stay out of the way or shut up so black people can have their moment or whatever is out there. I think there's a lot of white people that are ill or underinformed of what life is like for a POC, but that doesn't mean they don't have meaningful contributions at least somewhere in the process.

That's an entirely different thing than saying people literally starting from the position blacks are inferior and have no place in society or shouldn't exist, etc should have a seat at the table. That's not a rational starting point. If we want to analyze where prejudice comes from, there's times and places for that. But talking about systemic racism leading to law enforcement killing black people as some kind of venue for white supremacists to chime in is just totally tone deaf. And no, I probably wouldn't give a black guy saying kill all white people a seat at the table either.


----------



## c7spheres

Randy said:


> Tbh, I think people have a seat at the table regardless of race absolutely. Its just a matter of what subjects people have that they can speak on factually and trusting what they say, within reason.
> 
> 
> I go to my mechanic because my car is making a noise. I don't know what it is, but I describe it to him and he gets an idea what's wrong, puts it on the lift, he tells me and he gives me a price to fix it. We're both part of the conversation, and I defer to his expertise. Likewise, I assume he's acting in good faith but I maintain at least some level of caution. If it's rattling in the back and he tells me the engine is shot and I'm in for $3,000 to rebuild it, I'm understandably skeptical. If what he describes makes sense and the price is reasonable, I don't penny pinch or assume his screwing me and we move forward.
> 
> It's a funky analogy but the point being, informed and uninformed people have a role. People with direct knowledge and indirect knowledge play a role. But we respect eachothers contribution by not trying to out-expert the experienced person, or not using the fact we're the informed person to overplay our hand against the other. That's what a mutual, respectful dialogue looks like.
> 
> I heavily disagree with the sentiment that white people need to stay out of the way or shut up so black people can have their moment or whatever is out there. I think there's a lot of white people that are ill or underinformed of what life is like for a POC, but that doesn't mean they don't have meaningful contributions at least somewhere in the process.
> 
> That's an entirely different thing than saying people literally starting from the position blacks are inferior and have no place in society or shouldn't exist, etc should have a seat at the table. That's not a rational starting point. If we want to analyze where prejudice comes from, there's times and places for that. But talking about systemic racism leading to law enforcement killing black people as some kind of venue for white supremacists to chime in is just totally tone deaf. And no, I probably wouldn't give a black guy saying kill all white people a seat at the table either.




- I agree with all of this under that scope of law enforcment you point out.
- I'd say for the the guy's saying kill all whites or kill all blacks however should have a seat too. It's what they want to say. People don't have to agree with it but everyone deserves their say. That's equality. 
- To be a person that determines who gets to sit at the table to begin with is similar to segregation and seperatism mentality. Who's anyone to say who gets to participate in the conversation? This is why these problems exist right now to begin with. Because of blacks not being heard. Everyone needs to be heard. You don't solve it by continuing a similar tradition of the past. It's easy to see how everything ended up this way though, because it's almost natural for people to keep thinking this way. On the surface it seems a great idea to keep these people out, but it's really just the same thing repackaged, in a sense. In a sense. 
- If you leave anyone out then they will be left out and not have a say in anything which will cause the cycle to continue. Everyone has to hash it out together, even the racists, radicals and anarchists. Even that homeless guy that talks to himself on the corner and everyone thinks is schizo. He just might have a genius solution. People should not be discounted is all I'm saying. I love you Randy. Please don't be angry.


----------



## c7spheres

To everyone... 
I'm in no way meaning to offend. I sincerely want a dialog. Yes, I do believe that POC and racists alike should all be heard. That's freedom of speach. At that point everyone can know what the other believes, how they feel, and what they want. This is eveyone putting it out there. 
- From that point everyone can say what they do and don't agree with and the reasons why.
- After that, everyone can offer their solutions and desired outcomes. 
- From there everyone can go back to bashing and killing eachother.
- OR, maybe, they can start living the part and living the life they claim to stand for and desire. It's up to us to actually live it. 
- The more hate, close mindedness, unwillingness to reach amends and compromises, and straying away from peace that we live out and act upon without thinking, then the longer the evil in the world will prevail and the worse things will get for us all. 
- The problem from all sides that I see is poor communication and insincerity for resolution. Nobody is actually listening to each other with any sincere desire to understand. All sides are interrupting each others ability to speak any full thoughts, they're taking everything out of context, they're reading between lines and extrapolating things that don't exist. They're putting beliefs onto people even when the person is saying that's not what they believe, and they're telling the other persons what they feel or think and so on. They're causing fights and arguments and on and on. 
- As the phrase goes; "You're either part of the solution or part of the problem." Well, the problem people exist on all sides and in abundance. The real minority are the people that are part of the solution, of which, I know I'm a part of. Those with a real desire for peace. Are you? 

- Best wishes to you all.


----------



## Randy

You're entitled to be wrong.

It diminishes the importance of the discussion by allowing extremists who harbor nothing but ill will and prejudice into the discussion to drown out the rational and invested contributors.

Those types were allowed a seat at the table to solve Germany's problems after World War I and that led to the near extinction of an entire race/culture of people.


----------



## Randy

And no, that's not a strawman or Godwin's Law. We're literally talking about whether or not white supremacists and the KKK have a role in discussing race relations and criminal justice reform.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Randy said:


> I mean, great if you're white and you can debate ignorant people as some kind of ideological chess match.
> 
> I'm a person of color, I have been bullied and attacked, called every name in the book and had myself and my family threatened by people I don't even know. Let me know when you walk into a diner to get dinner and get called nigger by a table of people you don't know, and how you intellectually disarm people when you're instead afraid for your life because you're just going about your business but other people are picking you out just because of your genes.
> 
> I don't see the guy at the rally waving the flag and say "boy, I want to debate that guy". I say okay, well, there's one less place I can bring my mom with me. I hope that guy doesn't go to the same gas station my mom or my sister goes to on their way to work in the morning. So on.
> 
> This idea of giving hate groups a venue just because white people want to expose them is great when you're debating this on paper. Not so much when you're living in the crosshairs.



Oh hey, I had no clue you were a person of color! It doesn't change my opinion of you, other than it gives me a bit of perspective. I want to apologize. I didn't mean to imply that people should be free from criticism, and what I'm referring to in my initial statement is people should be able to air their supposed grievances "on the public stage" so to speak. I'll never ever know what it's like to be in your shoes, and I do actively try to make things better. I don't want to go into specifics, as it'd just seem I'd just be trying to win favor/brownie points, but I don't stand for people being outwardly racist in public. I have stood up to people harassing people of color despite being a wimpy little fat white kid at the time. I hope you understand that I'm taking your opinion into heavy consideration the next time I want to pretend like I understand the situation better than others. (especially when I don't know their race or the hardships they've faced.)

I don't think people should be able to wave their flags, especially treasonous racist ones, without being called out. (Trump saying "good people on both sides" or not denouncing outright people affiliated with the KKK infuriates me.) In fact, I don't think ANYONE should be criticism free. My point was that I want people to pretend like they have an argument when they clearly don't. I want them to say "N*****s are dumb, here's why" and everyone jump on them for being scum. I'm also actually sickened that I live in Raleigh, and I found out that about a stones throw away from Hillsborough street, which today I found out has a monument at the end of it dedicated to "our confederate dead." (Link for reference. You can zoom in or google up confederate monument if it doesn't show up right.) https://www.google.com/maps/@35.780...4!1slVPwbn7U7Ao_PbJ3cy4iGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Our country has such a massive boner for defending "our" history that we can't even let go of the even worse part of our history and have to celebrate it on our capital's property. Nevermind that the confederacy wasn't the United States. I hate to be that guy, but it'd be like Germany fighting to keep up statues of Adolf Hitler and waving nazi flags around like they're respectable citizens. We should acknowledge our tragic past and learn from it, not celebrate it.

Again, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to defend what these vile fucks are saying, and I never want them to just say and act vile without repercussion. Admittedly it could still be very wrong, but I wanted them to be able to spew their "concerns" to the masses at large and have it critiqued by what I'm honestly hoping is a better society than it leads on. I want to hope, maybe against hope, that the vast majority would hear these people say their concerns and overall be like "well, fuck you, that's dumb, go to hell" but I can admit that's possibly wishful thinking.

I respect you, I always have since I registered on this forum, and it legitimately upsets me that you've been treated in such a shitty fucking way because the way I know you is that you're a good person. Never met you in person, but the vibes you give off are great. I'll think my opinions through a little more clearly in the future, and I'll still probably fall short, but I'll try and adjust accordingly. I still think people should be ousted and critiqued for the, hopefully, better. I don't want people to be free to say what they want without consequence. In the ideal world people would not have just stood on the sidelines while you get threatened. I know I wouldn't have.

Apologies, these thoughts might not be terribly clear as it's my birthday and 7pm so I've had a few drinks and might not be saying exactly what I want to. As a person of color, your opinion on what is and isn't okay means more than mine is the short of it. I encourage people, especially those personally effected by the way things are, to call me out if I'm out of line, as I encourage YOU to call ME out if I'm out of line at any point in this long ass rant or ANYTHING I've said. Like I said, I can pretend like I understand things, but I never 100% will because I'm white and I don't have those experiences that people of color do. I can only be corrected and try to fix it, which I always actively try to do. I am never against self criticism if it means helping the greater good.

edit: Post edited because it included past saved quotes and stuff. My bad. not trying to hide anything I said or anything.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AWwu44Ba0RxCqLZ7DMIzi8g

So the Minneapolis City Council is pledging to dismantle the police department.


----------



## Boofchuck

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AWwu44Ba0RxCqLZ7DMIzi8g
> 
> So the Minneapolis City Council is pledging to dismantle the police department.


Dismantle and restructure. I hope with a concentration on de-escalation, social services, and a shift away from punitive action.


----------



## Randy

Señor Voorhees said:


> Oh hey, I had no clue you were a person of color! It doesn't change my opinion of you, other than it gives me a bit of perspective. I want to apologize. I didn't mean to imply that people should be free from criticism, and what I'm referring to in my initial statement is people should be able to air their supposed grievances "on the public stage" so to speak. I'll never ever know what it's like to be in your shoes, and I do actively try to make things better. I don't want to go into specifics, as it'd just seem I'd just be trying to win favor/brownie points, but I don't stand for people being outwardly racist in public. I have stood up to people harassing people of color despite being a wimpy little fat white kid at the time. I hope you understand that I'm taking your opinion into heavy consideration the next time I want to pretend like I understand the situation better than others. (especially when I don't know their race or the hardships they've faced.)
> 
> I don't think people should be able to wave their flags, especially treasonous racist ones, without being called out. (Trump saying "good people on both sides" or not denouncing outright people affiliated with the KKK infuriates me.) In fact, I don't think ANYONE should be criticism free. My point was that I want people to pretend like they have an argument when they clearly don't. I want them to say "N*****s are dumb, here's why" and everyone jump on them for being scum. I'm also actually sickened that I live in Raleigh, and I found out that about a stones throw away from Hillsborough street, which today I found out has a monument at the end of it dedicated to "our confederate dead." (Link for reference. You can zoom in or google up confederate monument if it doesn't show up right.) https://www.google.com/maps/@35.780...4!1slVPwbn7U7Ao_PbJ3cy4iGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
> 
> Our country has such a massive boner for defending "our" history that we can't even let go of the even worse part of our history and have to celebrate it on our capital's property. Nevermind that the confederacy wasn't the United States. I hate to be that guy, but it'd be like Germany fighting to keep up statues of Adolf Hitler and waving nazi flags around like they're respectable citizens. We should acknowledge our tragic past and learn from it, not celebrate it.
> 
> Again, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to defend what these vile fucks are saying, and I never want them to just say and act vile without repercussion. Admittedly it could still be very wrong, but I wanted them to be able to spew their "concerns" to the masses at large and have it critiqued by what I'm honestly hoping is a better society than it leads on. I want to hope, maybe against hope, that the vast majority would hear these people say their concerns and overall be like "well, fuck you, that's dumb, go to hell" but I can admit that's possibly wishful thinking.
> 
> I respect you, I always have since I registered on this forum, and it legitimately upsets me that you've been treated in such a shitty fucking way because the way I know you is that you're a good person. Never met you in person, but the vibes you give off are great. I'll think my opinions through a little more clearly in the future, and I'll still probably fall short, but I'll try and adjust accordingly. I still think people should be ousted and critiqued for the, hopefully, better. I don't want people to be free to say what they want without consequence. In the ideal world people would not have just stood on the sidelines while you get threatened. I know I wouldn't have.
> 
> Apologies, these thoughts might not be terribly clear as it's my birthday and 7pm so I've had a few drinks and might not be saying exactly what I want to. As a person of color, your opinion on what is and isn't okay means more than mine is the short of it. I encourage people, especially those personally effected by the way things are, to call me out if I'm out of line, as I encourage YOU to call ME out if I'm out of line at any point in this long ass rant or ANYTHING I've said. Like I said, I can pretend like I understand things, but I never 100% will because I'm white and I don't have those experiences that people of color do. I can only be corrected and try to fix it, which I always actively try to do. I am never against self criticism if it means helping the greater good.
> 
> edit: Post edited because it included past saved quotes and stuff. My bad. not trying to hide anything I said or anything.



Happy birthday! 

Thanks for the input and the kind words. I don't take any issue in what you said or did I intend to target you. I just think when we're on a guitar forum talking to people over the internet from the safety of our keyboard, it's easy to debate these things like a chess match or in theory, but sometimes it's worth reminding that these are real people and real life situations that happen.

You've been respecful in your tone and open to input from a range of perspectives, so don't beat yourself up. This would be a better discussion if everyone was as open as you are. 

I don't think we'll ever totally eliminate racism (as the little kid waving the Confederate Flag will confirm), especially the latent racism you experience in more subtle ways but the question is how it's allowed to manifest itself and how it effects people's lives. When people still die from a legal system that targets people of color, or when people are still targeted for threats or violence unprovoked and there's no legal recourse, I'd say that's a clear indication there's still work to be done. My biggest source of frustration in here is the fact the counter narratives seems to indicate people who AREN'T negatively effected by status quo are the vocal proponents of leaving things as is. That's a slap in the face to people who are living in fear and who are victims of things as they are.


----------



## narad

Señor Voorhees said:


> Oh hey, I had no clue you were a person of color!



You didn't notice his profile pic?


----------



## Randy

I never specified what color!


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> Happy birthday!
> 
> Thanks for the input and the kind words. I don't take any issue in what you said or did I intend to target you. I just think when we're on a guitar forum talking to people over the internet from the safety of our keyboard, it's easy to debate these things like a chess match or in theory, but sometimes it's worth reminding that these are real people and real life situations that happen.
> 
> You've been respecful in your tone and open to input from a range of perspectives, so don't beat yourself up. This would be a better discussion if everyone was as open as you are.
> 
> I don't think we'll ever totally eliminate racism (as the little kid waving the Confederate Flag will confirm), especially the latent racism you experience in more subtle ways but the question is how it's allowed to manifest itself and how it effects people's lives. When people still die from a legal system that targets people of color, or when people are still targeted for threats or violence unprovoked and there's no legal recourse, I'd say that's a clear indication there's still work to be done. My biggest source of frustration in here is the fact the counter narratives seems to indicate people who AREN'T negatively effected by status quo are the vocal proponents of leaving things as is. That's a slap in the face to people who are living in fear and who are victims of things as they are.



One of my side jobs (was) driving for Uber. With CV and racial tensions, I don't think I'll be able to do it again. Talking to other drivers who are still out there, the situation is bad for white drivers. Protesters and s j w s will start debating with drivers, come to the conclusion that the driver is "part of the problem", then one star them, or worse file a complaint to get the fare reversed and the driver deactivated. One white Uber eats driver delivered to a black home recently, told she doesn't tip white drivers, and as 
he was walking away she spit on his back and then threatened him with violence.

But that wasn't my main point, (these kinds of things are nothing new, they is just more tension and aggression out there now.)

I've driven for several years, have thousands of rides, (full time when between contracts) and 60-70 percent of my customers are black. I live in a fairly affluent area surrounded by many poor, mostly minority neighborhoods. Don't want to give too much information, but on most days I am pulled into the murder capital of the east coast. I have seen everything.

But even in my affluent area, I have many customers who live in section 8 housing. It's crazy, you could be in a 2million neighborhood and 3 blocks over there could be a huge section 8 complex, with dirt poor black ppl.

So, having driven, talked to and observed all races of ppl, here are some observations.

I have never had to kick out a black passenger, although I've cancelled rides (for one specific reason I'll mention in a bit.) I've kicked out many white passengers. People get kicked out for being rude, not following directions, lying about having a drink, damaging my car, saying racist or hostile things.

... Will finish tomorrow morning...


----------



## Randy

GoldDragon said:


> One of my side jobs (was) driving for Uber. With CV and racial tensions, I don't think I'll be able to do it again. Talking to other drivers who are still out there, the situation is bad for white drivers. Protesters and s j w s will start debating with drivers, come to the conclusion that the driver is "part of the problem", then one star them, or worse file a complaint to get the fare reversed and the driver deactivated. One white Uber eats driver delivered to a black home recently, told she doesn't tip white drivers, and as
> he was walking away she spit on his back and then threatened him with violence.
> 
> But that wasn't my main point, (these kinds of things are nothing new, they is just more tension and aggression out there now.)
> 
> I've driven for several years, have thousands of rides, (full time when between contracts) and 60-70 percent of my customers are black. I live in a fairly affluent area surrounded by many poor, mostly minority neighborhoods. Don't want to give too much information, but on most days I am pulled into the murder capital of the east coast. I have seen everything.
> 
> But even in my affluent area, I have many customers who live in section 8 housing. It's crazy, you could be in a 2million neighborhood and 3 blocks over there could be a huge section 8 complex, with dirt poor black ppl.
> 
> So, having driven, talked to and observed all races of ppl, here are some observations.
> 
> I have never had to kick out a black passenger, although I've cancelled rides (for one specific reason I'll mention in a bit.) I've kicked out many white passengers. People get kicked out for being rude, not following directions, lying about having a drink, damaging my car, saying racist or hostile things.
> 
> ... Will finish tomorrow morning...




Indeed, we can disagree on a lot of things but I think we can agree there's some shitty people out there and working directly with the public can be a thankless job. Regardless of race or anything else, the hope is that we encounter more good, decent and respectful people than the miserable few that make the work difficult. Glad you're not butting up against that in the midst of all this craziness.


----------



## TedEH

c7spheres said:


> Well, the problem people exist on all sides and in abundance.


This is a really bad take when you're talking about white supremacy. There are not a comparable number of bad actors "on both sides" of racism.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but inviting literally every voice to the table is to make the assumption that all parties want to collaborate and have a goal of coming to an understanding, which is not true at all. White supremacists don't want to debate and come to a mutual understanding. If someone thought you were less than human and likely wanted to kill you, would you invite them into a room to debate the subject? Of course not. They aren't going to have a civilized debate about it with you. They're going to kill you.

When you say:


c7spheres said:


> The problem from all sides that I see is poor communication and insincerity for resolution.


I think you're missing the bigger picture. The problem is not poor communication, the problem is that some people treat anyone who isn't like them as if they're less than human. The problem is that, for a number of reasons, we ignore the lessons of history and allow literal fascism to happen at the highest levels of government. The problem is that people continue to divide themselves along arbitrary lines and approach everything with an us-vs-them mentality. The problem is that people are afraid of whatever they don't know and understand. The problem is the natural human resistance to being challenged on what they already believe. The problem is that there's a resurgence of Nazism and it's happening in North America. The problem is that we're following patterns that have previously led to atrocities being committed against our fellow man.


----------



## odibrom

The "us-versus-them" is fed by competition. When a culture lives on competition, this is what to be expected. It is either in school, job search and progress, sports, academic investigation, news reporting, etc. It begins with "whomever comes first wins". Competition is a lower form of development. Yes, it spikes one to out perform oneself, but at the cost of one's humanity. Mankind survived due to cooperation, not competition. One year's champion is yesterday's newspaper the year next. There will always be someone smarter, stronger, faster, snappier, whatever, that will take one's place on the least expected opportunity. Things really happen when people unite and cooperate towards a common and greater good. Selfishness is a consequence on constant education on competition, on being the first, on the "new" color to buy. It is harvesting one's soul and feeding it to the devil.

... and from that fear grows its roots, fear of being left behind, of being forgotten, of not having achieved whatever there was to be achieved, fear to be outdated by whatever justification one finds fit (skin color, religious creed, gender, age, life style options, food diets). And this then escalates to what we are witnessing at the moment.


----------



## SamSam

odibrom said:


> The "us-versus-them" is fed by competition. When a culture lives on competition, this is what to be expected. It is either in school, job search and progress, sports, academic investigation, news reporting, etc. It begins with "whomever comes first wins". Competition is a lower form of development. Yes, it spikes one to out perform oneself, but at the cost of one's humanity. Mankind survived due to cooperation, not competition. One year's champion is yesterday's newspaper the year next. There will always be someone smarter, stronger, faster, snappier, whatever, that will take one's place on the least expected opportunity. Things really happen when people unite and cooperate towards a common and greater good. Selfishness is a consequence on constant education on competition, on being the first, on the "new" color to buy. It is harvesting one's soul and feeding it to the devil.
> 
> ... and from that fear grows its roots, fear of being left behind, of being forgotten, of not having achieved whatever there was to be achieved, fear to be outdated by whatever justification one finds fit (skin color, religious creed, gender, age, life style options, food diets). And this then escalates to what we are witnessing at the moment.



You know competition isn't just about winning right?


----------



## odibrom

SamSam said:


> You know competition isn't just about winning right?



Quoting myself... "Yes, it spikes one to out perform oneself, but at the cost of one's humanity". Been there, done that, hated every bit of it, trying to get out of its grid.


----------



## TedEH

SamSam said:


> You know competition isn't just about winning right?


To some it is. Do you imagine that Trump thinks of competition in terms of all parties benefiting? The issue is not that competition is in itself unnatural or immoral or something, but it's adversarial by default and isn't a good framework for every context.

Competition to push yourself to do better? Sure. Competition to drive innovation in a market? Maybe. Turning the way we make societal decisions into a big competition maybe isn't always the greatest idea.


----------



## Randy

That's why they call it "race"


----------



## odibrom

Randy said:


> That's why they call it "race"



... lots of different meanings in this "race" word... as in racism and as speed test of some sort... they all fit perfectly, nice pun.

About competition, I'm my only competitor, I'm racing against my yesterday's self, none else There's lots of space at the Sun for everybody...


----------



## Necris

TedEH said:


> This is a really bad take when you're talking about white supremacy. There are not a comparable number of bad actors "on both sides" of racism.


You're talking to a dude who's still pretty sure "black privilege" is a real thing based on the evidence he got from mis-interpreting an article mocking the concept and showing it's only far right lunatics and defensive white men who buy into the idea.
The same guy believes "racists are victims too when you think about it", watched the Daryl Davis documentary and appears to have come away from it believing that the onus falls on members of a minority group to repeatedly place themselves in genuine danger of physical harm, even death, to prove their humanity to a white racist. An action which is almost solely for the benefit of said white racist who, _on the off chance the interactions make any headway at all_, is rehabilitated and pulled from his position at the margins of polite society.

At some point you have to know when to disengage.


----------



## c7spheres

odibrom said:


> The "us-versus-them" is fed by competition. When a culture lives on competition, this is what to be expected. It is either in school, job search and progress, sports, academic investigation, news reporting, etc. It begins with "whomever comes first wins". Competition is a lower form of development. Yes, it spikes one to out perform oneself, but at the cost of one's humanity. Mankind survived due to cooperation, not competition. One year's champion is yesterday's newspaper the year next. There will always be someone smarter, stronger, faster, snappier, whatever, that will take one's place on the least expected opportunity. Things really happen when people unite and cooperate towards a common and greater good. Selfishness is a consequence on constant education on competition, on being the first, on the "new" color to buy. It is harvesting one's soul and feeding it to the devil.
> 
> ... and from that fear grows its roots, fear of being left behind, of being forgotten, of not having achieved whatever there was to be achieved, fear to be outdated by whatever justification one finds fit (skin color, religious creed, gender, age, life style options, food diets). And this then escalates to what we are witnessing at the moment.



I agree 99.9%. That 0.1% that I don't I can't find right now, but I gotta leave a little room. So far 100%



Necris said:


> You're talking to a dude who's still pretty sure "black privilege" is a real thing based on the evidence he got from mis-interpreting an article mocking the concept and showing it's only far right lunatics and defensive white men who buy into the idea.
> The same guy believes "racists are victims too when you think about it", watched the Daryl Davis documentary and appears to have come away from it believing that the onus falls on members of a minority group to repeatedly place themselves in genuine danger of physical harm, even death, to prove their humanity to a white racist. An action which is almost solely for the benefit of said white racist who, _on the off chance the interactions make any headway at all_, is rehabilitated and pulled from his position at the margins of polite society.
> 
> At some point you have to know when to disengage.




*This is 100% untrue. I don't not believe this and even stated it in my earlier comments. I even stated that part of the problem is what you're doing right here. Misrepresenting what people say and advertise false truths about what they believe or say. This is slander unless you didn't happen to read that statement. Look at page 25 of this thread for my post and again at page 26 where I spcifically said this is part of the problem and I don't believe in this. I hope you just didn't read it because of it being so much text, because otherwise it's wrong. *

I don't want to fight with you. I love you and I forgive you. 



TedEH said:


> This is a really bad take when you're talking about white supremacy. There are not a comparable number of bad actors "on both sides" of racism.
> 
> I think I understand where you're coming from, but inviting literally every voice to the table is to make the assumption that all parties want to collaborate and have a goal of coming to an understanding, which is not true at all. White supremacists don't want to debate and come to a mutual understanding. If someone thought you were less than human and likely wanted to kill you, would you invite them into a room to debate the subject? Of course not. They aren't going to have a civilized debate about it with you. They're going to kill you.
> 
> When you say:
> 
> I think you're missing the bigger picture. The problem is not poor communication, the problem is that some people treat anyone who isn't like them as if they're less than human. The problem is that, for a number of reasons, we ignore the lessons of history and allow literal fascism to happen at the highest levels of government. The problem is that people continue to divide themselves along arbitrary lines and approach everything with an us-vs-them mentality. The problem is that people are afraid of whatever they don't know and understand. The problem is the natural human resistance to being challenged on what they already believe. The problem is that there's a resurgence of Nazism and it's happening in North America. The problem is that we're following patterns that have previously led to atrocities being committed against our fellow man.



I get what everyone is saying about this and I agree, but the fact is you gotta extend a hand and invite them. Invite them to a place that has security of the minorities choosing or something. When these radicals get stupid like they always do or get vilent then they'll have just cause to kick them out or kill them if their lives are threatened and take them to jail etc. It could be a consoldated clean up day win for minoriites, unless the they behave themselves, then it will be a slightly productive day in the right direction. Win win.
- A point I wanted to drive home is that there are many racists that want to change and to make things better because they're not really racists.
- There's obviously people commited to their ways, but the people wanting change need a way out too. They can't just snap their fingers and make it all better.
- The reality is that they are under control and have to do certain things or commit certain crimes or else something might happen to them. It's like when you go to prison and are forced into a click you don't want to be part of, like skinheads. You become their bitch for medial tasks and if you don't do what they say then you get hurt or killed or sold as a bitch.
- Even after you get out of prison they may force you to deal or run drugs for them. It's not your fault you're stuck in it, you're just afraid to get hurt or your family hurt too. The cops don't help these people either. It's another reason why prison and police reform is needed. This is similar to blacks who may be in a similar situation with certain gangs using them and forcing them to do things against their will. Not all blacks in gangs want to be either.
- The prisons are where this stuff gets done and a lot of these people also have the cops by the balls to. These people like NeoNazi, Mexican Mafia/ MS13 etc all have way more power than people think and many times are connected to Or do business with cartels involved in drugs, weapons, and human traffiking and money laundering. - These things are also connected in a larger picture to government leaders money and power and military operations. It's also why there's such a large black ops budget for our military so they can do off the books secret and unconstiutional things and things in violation of the UN and international laws too. It's all connected. There's alot of people stuck in this mess that can't get out is all I'm saying. Even people in government are stuck in shit they don't want any part of. It's all connected.


----------



## TedEH

What in the world are you even going on about? Sure, some people get involved in things that they don't really want any part of, but that's not what we're talking about here. You can't blame racism on "some people in gangs".



Necris said:


> At some point you have to know when to disengage.


I appreciate what you mean, but I don't know that I agree. Disengaging and just letting people run with their skewed perspectives of the world is how you end up with "systemic problems". Being passive doesn't progress anything. That's the whole point of the protests right now.


----------



## possumkiller

Found on imgur. I've been saying that shit for years to everyone I talk to. People always want to lay the blame on Hitler because it's convenient but he never killed anyone.


----------



## spudmunkey

possumkiller said:


> People always want to lay the blame on Hitler because it's convenient but he never killed anyone.



Wrong. He killed Hitler.


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> You're entitled to be wrong.
> 
> It diminishes the importance of the discussion by allowing extremists who harbor nothing but ill will and prejudice into the discussion to drown out the rational and invested contributors.
> 
> Those types were allowed a seat at the table to solve Germany's problems after World War I and that led to the near extinction of an entire race/culture of people.





possumkiller said:


> View attachment 81630
> 
> Found on imgur. I've been saying that shit for years to everyone I talk to. People always want to lay the blame on Hitler because it's convenient but he never killed anyone.





spudmunkey said:


> Wrong. He killed Hitler.



Dammit. 3 Hitler quotes in a forum thread requires closing the thread. Sorry, it's a basic internet rule.


----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> Dammit. 3 Hitler quotes in a forum thread requires closing the thread. Sorry, it's a basic internet rule.



Someone needs to do a photoshop mashup of Hitler and Beetlejuice for just such an occasion. Like the old Conan bit, "If they made it (or was it "mated"...I don't remember)".


----------



## TedEH

Just wait 100 years from now, we'll have the same rule for Trump. Reductio ad Trumpium.


----------



## c7spheres

TedEH said:


> What in the world are you even going on about? Sure, some people get involved in things that they don't really want any part of, but that's not what we're talking about here. You can't blame racism on "some people in gangs".


 
- I'm not blaming racism on some people in gangs. 

- Racisms origin has many theorys.

I'll reiterate. 

- What I'm saying is that there are many "racist" people that don't want to be, and really aren't, and want to work towards change, but they may be viewed as racist. 
- I've already layed it out
- If everyone can know what the other believes, how they feel, and what they want then this is a good thing. 
- The problem is when everyone decides they think they know what the other's believe and mean and feel. 

- From that point everyone can say what they do and don't agree with and the reasons why.
- After that, everyone can offer their solutions and desired outcomes.
- From there everyone can go back to bashing and killing eachother.
- OR, maybe, they can start living the part and living the life they claim to stand for and desire. It's up to us to actually live it.

I get what everyone is saying about this and I agree, but the fact is you gotta extend a hand and invite them. Invite them to a place that has security of the minorities choosing or something. When these radicals get stupid like they always do or get vilent then they'll have just cause to kick them out or kill them if their lives are threatened and take them to jail etc. It could be a consoldated clean up day win for minoriites, unless the they behave themselves, then it will be a slightly productive day in the right direction. Win win.
- A point I wanted to drive home is that there are many racists that want to change and to make things better because they're not really racists.
- There's obviously people commited to their ways, but the people wanting change need a way out too. They can't just snap their fingers and make it all better.


----------



## possumkiller

I wonder how trump will be treated afterward. I wonder if he will be invited to all the other stuff former presidents usually get invited to.


----------



## c7spheres

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 81630
> 
> Found on imgur. I've been saying that shit for years to everyone I talk to. People always want to lay the blame on Hitler because it's convenient but he never killed anyone.



- It really is scarier that people obey'd him. This is kinda what I was getting at about people get stuck in it. How many Nazi sodiers do you think really agreed or wanted to go along with this? I'm guessing most were just trying to survive and stuck between a rock and hard place, and rather than be martyrs they chose to save themselves and their family instead. People forget that they treated their own people like shit that didn't go along with it too. 

- I think history is likely to repeat itself through a form of karmic backlash, likely by a POC playing a similar role to Hitler, but this time around they're going to make Hitler look like a kid playing in a sandbox. 
- This next psychopath with todays knowledge, the wisdom of previous wars, the technology and resources available, the pettyness, ignorance, and lack of self control and leniency people have today compared to the past and the expanse and ease at which herd mentality can be created via the interne won't kill milions of people. They're gonna kill billions. Maybe the book of Reveleation is right when it talks of 2/3rds of the people dying. Sounds about right.
Have a nice day 



USMarine75 said:


> Dammit. 3 Hitler quotes in a forum thread requires closing the thread. Sorry, it's a basic internet rule.




I really do wish this site wouldn't allow talk of the taboo subjects like sex, religion, race etc. Unless it's gonna allow a full out uncensored and unregulated talk. I'm not saying that's happened at all here, but eveyone knows if people went all out it would be an instant shut down, and I understand why. It's a guitar forum not a 31 and over adult anything goes site. I get it.


----------



## USMarine75

c7spheres said:


> I really do wish this site wouldn't allow talk of the taboo subjects like sex, religion, race etc. Unless it's gonna allow a full out uncensored and unregulated talk. I'm not saying that's happened at all here, but eveyone knows if people went all out it would be an instant shut down, and I understand why. It's a guitar forum not a 31 and over adult anything goes site. I get it.



The first rule of SSO-After-Dark is...


----------



## c7spheres

USMarine75 said:


> The first rule of SSO-After-Dark is...


 I have never been on any adult site in my life. That is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me bob.


----------



## USMarine75

c7spheres said:


> I have never been on any adult site in my life. That is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me bob.



SSO-hub.


----------



## c7spheres

USMarine75 said:


> SSO-hub.


 Lot's of guitar porn there!


----------



## spudmunkey

c7spheres said:


> I really do wish this site wouldn't allow talk of the taboo subjects like sex, religion, race etc. Unless it's gonna allow a full out uncensored and unregulated talk. I'm not saying that's happened at all here, but eveyone knows if people went all out it would be an instant shut down, and I understand why. It's a guitar forum not a 31 and over adult anything goes site. I get it.



The best communities/forums I've been a part of over the years have all been havilly moderated. The discourse on relevant topics was so much more pleasant when nobody knew who were racists homophobes, etc.


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> Indeed, we can disagree on a lot of things but I think we can agree there's some shitty people out there and working directly with the public can be a thankless job. Regardless of race or anything else, the hope is that we encounter more good, decent and respectful people than the miserable few that make the work difficult. Glad you're not butting up against that in the midst of all this craziness.




Here is what I was going to say last night before I feel asleep.

First off, I have a 4.96 rating driving majority black people and thousands of rides under my belt.

I have never kicked out black passengers, but I have kicked out white passengers. This is because of rudeness, breaking rules, hostile conversation, hiding drinks, or not listening to me. Or saying racist things.

Out of several thousand rides, I only had one "racist" group I had to kick out. They thought they were being clever and saying "veiled" racist things. They probably thought it was okay because I'm white, but they were also saying "veiled" things about people in general and they were entitled assholes, so I kicked them out. Three entitled rich girls and one guy. Law students.

So I've learned driving that there are generally three classes of people: white collar/executive, working class, and not-working.

Both whites and blacks have people in all the categories, but there are many fewer white collar blacks, and many more non-working blacks. (People that live in section 8, single moms who receive assistance to take care of their kids, etc.) I'm not casting judgement on these people.

The people in the "not working" category, usually have drug problems (more whites than blacks) or mental health issues, or both. Sometimes section 8, sometimes homeless. There are quite a few whites I have taken to methadone clinics or halfway houses. I have also driven a couple black drug dealers (I actually put them in the "working" category, they are operating at a higher level of intelligence and motivation, and usually just keep to themselves. Same thing is true of working girls.)

That said, my *least* favorite people come from the executive/white collar group of people, more specifically the women. (Wives of rich men, or who they think are rich, maybe had a secondary career or rich parents.) We are calling these women "Karens" now.

They absolutely have no filters, say disparaging things about people they know (while thinking they are veiled enough and they are clever enough that you can't tell), and just carry a negative vibe. 10/10 entitlement. The conversations are grating, self serving, braggy, etc and I don't like listening to them. Their husbands always pretend to be a big shot. Sometimes the men will call up a coworker to practice their B-talk, but you can tell its always a waste of bandwidth call; the person on the other end is usually a subordinate. The call was made so that I know they are a "manager".

When they are going out as a couple, they pretend to be the "lord and lady of the manor". Appear to have zero personality or connection with each other. Unlike black couples who always seem to have rapport and vibe.

The thing is that as a driver, the most important thing is your bottom line and you will do anything to get tips which is a large part of your earnings. What I've noticed is that with the white collar people, they have a belief that they are better than you. (They don't realize that I have a white collar career, work with people exactly like them.)

I try not to talk about my career because it brings too many questions and they know that their illusion of superiority is broken. You can't break that illusion, if you want any chance of a tip. They have to believe that you are "just a driver". You have to "bow and scrape" and not push back at their fake air of superiority.

IOW, these white people are douchebags and assholes.

That said, I can imagine if black people met these white professionals and were treated the same way they treat me, they would think they were racist. They may actually be racist, but they treat white people "beneath their level" poorly as well. So I think there would be a tendency for black people to label them as racist when they are actually classist. Honestly, these people work 60+ hours a week, don't have much social grace, and don't have the time to be anything but grubby materialists.

Wealthy people seem to live in a bubble of self deception, to somehow justify their good fortune, or perhaps they are engaged in a constant struggle to keep up with their peers and maintain the air of superiority (Dunning Kreuger effect.)

This phenomenon is both conservative and liberal groups. I have gotten this vibe from every ivy league professional I've driven, even ones who are flagrantly liberal. (Its interesting when someone is Harvard or Yale that they always have to insert that into the conversation.) They may be liberal and "for" black people, but they also believe they are "above" black people.

Anyway, now to the poor people. Again, as a driver its all about the bottom line. I have had a couple black people who didn't get their way claim I'm racist, but its all about the bottom line.

As an example, one trip in particular happened back in March before the shutdown. I had a hotel pickup queued up (usually lucrative trips to airport), but then another pickup came in on Lyft that was close by. I had just enough time to stack a low profit trip with the hotel pickup, so I accepted. According to the app, it was just a 3 min trip.

I arrive at the strip mall and there is a black woman at the dollar store with TWO full shopping carts of merchandise. Based on the location and length of the trip, I knew she was going in the wrong direction to section 8 area. So I keep rolling and I cancel the trip. Loading up and unloading a car adds alot of time, and it means I'd probably lose the hotel pickup.

Additionally, it is known in rideshare that black people never tip. I realize its because they don't have much money, but they expect extras like loading/unloading. NFW is 20 minutes of my time worth 3.50. Anyway...

Then she starts texting me, calling me a "racist mf" along with alot of other bad things. This is business so I just ignore and move on. What she doesn't know is that I ditch unprofitable trips from white people all the time, when something better comes on the other app. Not racist, just unable to take a trip that would screw my earnings. We are ICs and don't have to take any trip we don't want.

So I think there is evidence that there are shitty white people who think they are better than other people. And there are situations that black people might misinterpret as racism.


Hands down, the best passengers are working class people, just trying to get to a job, or maybe youngish people (mostly black) who dont have a car and are going shopping or to the doctor.

This may sound crazy, but having driven thousands of people, I would say that the happiest people seem to be black people. They laugh, joke, make banter, or at the very least will just keep to themselves. White people always seem to be chewing on something in the back of their mind and try to exert their superiority.

The absolute unhappiest people I have driven are police officers. I have had two lengthy trips with cops that ended up feeling like counselling sessions. One cop was having marital difficulties and it was obvious that the stress of his job and his tough guy persona that he needed for his job, was taking a toll on his family.

The other cop had a knee injury and couldn't pass physical and was being rolled out of the force before his expected retirement. (He was looking for a security job in the meantime before he could pull his pension.) He had a partner killed several years back and it seemed like he was on the edge of tears at one point just having another person listen to him and empathize. Then it dawned on me that MOST police officers have had someone they personally know killed in the line of duty. Tough job. Tough life.


----------



## SnowfaLL

c7spheres said:


> - It really is scarier that people obey'd him. This is kinda what I was getting at about people get stuck in it. How many Nazi sodiers do you think really agreed or wanted to go along with this? I'm guessing most were just trying to survive and stuck between a rock and hard place, and rather than be martyrs they chose to save themselves and their family instead. People forget that they treated their own people like shit that didn't go along with it too.
> 
> - I think history is likely to repeat itself through a form of karmic backlash, likely by a POC playing a similar role to Hitler, but this time around they're going to make Hitler look like a kid playing in a sandbox.
> - This next psychopath with todays knowledge, the wisdom of previous wars, the technology and resources available, the pettyness, ignorance, and lack of self control and leniency people have today compared to the past and the expanse and ease at which herd mentality can be created via the interne won't kill milions of people. They're gonna kill billions. Maybe the book of Reveleation is right when it talks of 2/3rds of the people dying. Sounds about right.
> Have a nice day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really do wish this site wouldn't allow talk of the taboo subjects like sex, religion, race etc. Unless it's gonna allow a full out uncensored and unregulated talk. I'm not saying that's happened at all here, but eveyone knows if people went all out it would be an instant shut down, and I understand why. It's a guitar forum not a 31 and over adult anything goes site. I get it.



Wow..


----------



## c7spheres

SnowfaLL said:


> Wow..


 Hey, It worked for the book of Revelation and would make a good movie too.


----------



## TedEH

GoldDragon said:


> [a whole lot of stuff]


I get that this might make me sound a bit like an asshole when put up against what I'm sure you intended to be a very sincere point, but that's a whoooooooooole lot of generalizing. For all the comments about "they don't mean to be racist, they just don't understand", I hate to say that your examples sort of fit that description. I don't think you're racist, in the sense that you hold any malice towards anyone. But you really do generalize a lot, which is sort of..... adjacent to prejudice? It very well may be that in your slice of the world, in your profession, in your own experience, things tend to line up that way, but there's soooooooo much more going on outside of that slice.

Like take the story about the lady with the two shopping carts - if you knew the route ahead of time, and only cancelled after you saw the person, it's suuuuuuuuuper easy to read that as prejudice. Nobody can know your real intent, but with the information available to them, I imagine you can see why it looks bad. You made a visual assessment, a generalization, a lot of assumption, and acted on that instead of just following through with what you had agreed to do. Honestly, if they expected you, and even saw you, and you bailed after the fact, even putting the race thing aside, that's kind of a dick move.

I understand your thought process, and I'm not faulting you specifically for that, but remember that the people around you can only see what you _do_, not the thought process that led to it. It's the whole "actions speak louder" thing. And being willing to bend a little bit to help someone out at your own expense isn't the worst thing in the world.


----------



## TedEH

c7spheres said:


> I really do wish this site wouldn't allow talk of the taboo subjects like sex, religion, race etc. Unless it's gonna allow a full out uncensored and unregulated talk.


Realistically, normally things do get moderated around here pretty well, from what I've seen. Lots of threads get shut down when things get out of hand. Recent months have been kind of an exception to the norm - but that's kinda the case with everything right now.


----------



## GoldDragon

TedEH said:


> I get that this might make me sound a bit like an asshole when put up against what I'm sure you intended to be a very sincere point, but that's a whoooooooooole lot of generalizing. For all the comments about "they don't mean to be racist, they just don't understand", I hate to say that your examples sort of fit that description. I don't think you're racist, in the sense that you hold any malice towards anyone. But you really do generalize a lot, which is sort of..... adjacent to prejudice? It very well may be that in your slice of the world, in your profession, in your own experience, things tend to line up that way, but there's soooooooo much more going on outside of that slice.
> 
> Like take the story about the lady with the two shopping carts - if you knew the route ahead of time, and only cancelled after you saw the person, it's suuuuuuuuuper easy to read that as prejudice. Nobody can know your real intent, but with the information available to them, I imagine you can see why it looks bad. You made a visual assessment, a generalization, a lot of assumption, and acted on that instead of just following through with what you had agreed to do. Honestly, if they expected you, and even saw you, and you bailed after the fact, even putting the race thing aside, that's kind of a dick move.
> 
> I understand your thought process, and I'm not faulting you specifically for that, but remember that the people around you can only see what you _do_, not the thought process that led to it. It's the whole "actions speak louder" thing. And being willing to bend a little bit to help someone out at your own expense isn't the worst thing in the world.



You didn't read my post.

I never said anywhere that someone "didn't mean to be racist".

If that is the premise of your whole response,, I didn't read it. (And I didn't).

I relayed a personal experience dealing with large numbers of people of all races in a fairly intimate setting, experience you probably dont have. And as a result I'm told "I probably don't mean to be racist."

Go fuck yourself.

This forum is filled with liberals looking for a boogeyman. Not worth my time anymore.


----------



## c7spheres

spudmunkey said:


> The best communities/forums I've been a part of over the years have all been havilly moderated. The discourse on relevant topics was so much more pleasant when nobody knew who were racists homophobes, etc.



- That makes a lot of sense. 
- What the internet needs is a bicker filter.
- Being a mod would be a hassel. If I was a mod nobody would ever get banned. I'm ok with people talking about literally everything. I think I'm really calloused and it's all just blase' to me at this point. I understand and sometimes forget this is new to some people still. I can't expect people to be able to seperate themselves into an omniscient or 3rd person thought process. 



TedEH said:


> Realistically, normally things do get moderated around here pretty well, from what I've seen. Lots of threads get shut down when things get out of hand. Recent months have been kind of an exception to the norm - but that's kinda the case with everything right now.



- I think the mods do a good job around here too. Three cheers for the sso mods!


----------



## vilk

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.


----------



## c7spheres

So Minneapolis says is going to dismantle the police department. Wonder what they'll do.


----------



## jaxadam

https://www.instagram.com/p/CBHkRhOHKOb/?igshid=1ibs79y6mw32m


----------



## c7spheres

jaxadam said:


> https://www.instagram.com/p/CBHkRhOHKOb/?igshid=1ibs79y6mw32m


 I can't see any of it for some reason. Trying to find other stuff it seems they're still trying to figure it out.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> Wrong. He killed Hitler.



A hero, really.


----------



## zappatton2

c7spheres said:


> So Minneapolis says is going to dismantle the police department. Wonder what they'll do.


Last Week Tonight had a really great episode on this Sunday, I'd recommend checking it out. The premise isn't to make police non-existent; it's to dramatically divert funds from an overburdened and ineffective public service to far more effective ones when it comes to evidence-based crime reduction, and trim and train what remains to only respond to situations it needs to deal with, in a professional manner, within the scope of the public interest (all the public, not just the white ones).


----------



## Strobe

zappatton2 said:


> Last Week Tonight had a really great episode on this Sunday, I'd recommend checking it out. The premise isn't to make police non-existent; it's to dramatically divert funds from an overburdened and ineffective public service to far more effective ones when it comes to evidence-based crime reduction, and trim and train what remains to only respond to situations it need to deal with, in a professional manner, within the scope of the public interest (all the public, not just the white ones).



Yep. TLDR version is, police deal with a lot of stuff. Mental health issues. Drug issues. Homelessness. Lots of things in addition to actual crimes that would be more effectively dealt with by a different kind of professional. You could divert money away from policing and more effectively (not to mention cost effectively) deal with a lot of these problems by addressing root causes, or with people trained in mental health, social workers, etc. From there, you could build a police department up - it would have less non-crime things to deal with (and likely less crime too). When you built it up, it would be smaller, and hopefully better designed with better accountability.

I live right next door and I am in the city a lot (or was until pandemic). I wish St. Paul would consider a similar strategy. This is one of those things that sounds crazy at first, but when you go just a little bit deeper, it sounds crazy not to do it.


----------



## Randy

c7spheres said:


> If I was a mod nobody would ever get banned. I'm ok with people talking about literally everything. I think I'm really calloused and it's all just blase' to me at this point. I understand and sometimes forget this is new to some people still. I can't expect people to be able to seperate themselves into an omniscient or 3rd person thought process.



Mods on this forum no longer have the ability to ban unless it's spam or a flagged IP. We can do other editing type stuff but banning has to be sent to the administrator based on reports filed by members, and he gets to them when he gets to them, and he's not active on here either, so he goes off of what's in the report and past history.

That might sound great but it's been worse for this place and worse for membership and discussion. Things stayed more on topic because a mod could do, say, a month or a week or even a one day ban if someone was totally off the rails, and they'd have the chance to come back and rethink their decorum without necessarily having to change their positions.

NOW, most bans are permanent because he admin doesn't have time to come in and police threads day by day or hour by hour, so it's all or nothing. Likewise, you get trouble members who have no interest in discussion and just literally fire bombing threads, and it devolves into days and days of name calling instead of discussion. That's what your type of "free discussion" yields, and it sucks.


----------



## TedEH

GoldDragon said:


> You didn't read my post.


I certainly did.



GoldDragon said:


> I never said anywhere that someone "didn't mean to be racist".


I didn't say that you did. That phrasing has been used in this thread. I didn't mean to specifically attribute it to you. That's my bad.



GoldDragon said:


> If that is the premise of your whole response,, I didn't read it. (And I didn't).


It was not. You should have read my whole post. I didn't call you racist. I said that optics matter, and I can understand why someone might call you racist even if what motivates your actions aren't racially driven.



GoldDragon said:


> Go fuck yourself.


Likewise, I guess? Maybe I'm being a bit harsh/critical, but sometimes the truth is harsh. People generalize. It happens. I do it too. There's value in introspection and being able to take criticism. I'm sure I've also done things that came across as racist, despite the fact that I wouldn't call myself a racist (most people wouldn't call themselves racist if you asked them). That's sort of what my point is - there's danger is generalizing, and most people care more about actions than intentions in the moment. A lot of what gets called racism after-the-fact is absolutely not intended in the moment, but our generalizations allow it to happen. That's how something becomes "systemic" or just "part of the culture". It's rare that someone sat down and went "you know what, I don't like black people, so I'm going to be a dick to them". But we do little things subconsciously. If I do it too (and I'm sure I do occasionally), you have every right to call me on it.



GoldDragon said:


> This forum is filled with liberals looking for a boogeyman. Not worth my time anymore.


Trust me, I'm not as liberal as you think I am.


----------



## c7spheres

zappatton2 said:


> Last Week Tonight had a really great episode on this Sunday, I'd recommend checking it out. The premise isn't to make police non-existent; it's to dramatically divert funds from an overburdened and ineffective public service to far more effective ones when it comes to evidence-based crime reduction, and trim and train what remains to only respond to situations it needs to deal with, in a professional manner, within the scope of the public interest (all the public, not just the white ones).



Oh yeah, I forgot about that show. I'll check it out. Sounds good.



Strobe said:


> Yep. TLDR version is, police deal with a lot of stuff. Mental health issues. Drug issues. Homelessness. Lots of things in addition to actual crimes that would be more effectively dealt with by a different kind of professional. You could divert money away from policing and more effectively (not to mention cost effectively) deal with a lot of these problems by addressing root causes, or with people trained in mental health, social workers, etc. From there, you could build a police department up - it would have less non-crime things to deal with (and likely less crime too). When you built it up, it would be smaller, and hopefully better designed with better accountability.
> 
> I live right next door and I am in the city a lot (or was until pandemic). I wish St. Paul would consider a similar strategy. This is one of those things that sounds crazy at first, but when you go just a little bit deeper, it sounds crazy not to do it.



These ideas sound alot better. To have the proper professional for the job. I always thought it would be better to not lock up people for non violent drug crimes and do treatment and stuff like that more. Sounds like stuff might actually be on the way for better policing. Maybe they'll come up with a model that works well and othes can adjust accordingly too. Good news.


----------



## TedEH

zappatton2 said:


> Last Week Tonight had a really great episode on this Sunday, I'd recommend checking it out.


I've been watching these as they come out, and I find that show's been doing a great job of summarizing that's going on, and filling in a bunch of gaps I wasn't aware of. Unfortunately, the official channel blocks everything in Canada until several weeks after it's released and often isn't relevant anymore, so I end up searching for re-uploads.


----------



## c7spheres

Randy said:


> Mods on this forum no longer have the ability to ban unless it's spam or a flagged IP. We can do other editing type stuff but banning has to be sent to the administrator based on reports filed by members, and he gets to them when he gets to them, and he's not active on here either, so he goes off of what's in the report and past history.
> 
> That might sound great but it's been worse for this place and worse for membership and discussion. Things stayed more on topic because a mod could do, say, a month or a week or even a one day ban if someone was totally off the rails, and they'd have the chance to come back and rethink their decorum without necessarily having to change their positions.
> 
> NOW, most bans are permanent because he admin doesn't have time to come in and police threads day by day or hour by hour, so it's all or nothing. Likewise, you get trouble members who have no interest in discussion and just literally fire bombing threads, and it devolves into days and days of name calling instead of discussion. That's what your type of "free discussion" yields, and it sucks.



Well, you guys do a great job. Thank you.
- I agree with the banning or temporary banning when people go off the rails and aren't communicating anymore and basically being trolls, but I don't agree with banning just because someone may not agree with the sites or members points of view. I don't know anything about that history with this site. 
- If there are no alternative views then everyone is just stagnant and stroking egos. That's why I try bring up multiple sides of issues even if I don't agree with or promote them. It makes everyone more informed.
- I've only temporarily got into any of these politcal, race, religion or sex topics here on this site to kinda test the waters. I think in the future I have a better idea what the group is looking for. Perhaps other more sensitive things may be left for those who want to know (or care) and can be done via PM or somthing while not cluttering threads.


----------



## possumkiller

Fender custom shop master builder John Cruz just got fired for posting something shitty on social media regarding the protests.


----------



## diagrammatiks

god why would you post that on a public social media page. 

now of all times.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

diagrammatiks said:


> god why would you post that on a public social media page.
> 
> now of all times.



Dude probably thought he was bulletproof. He was at Fender for ages. 

Who knows what he was thinking.


----------



## odibrom

Link for the post please... or was it already deleted? In that case, what has he posted?


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Dude probably thought he was bulletproof. He was at Fender for ages.
> 
> Who knows what he was thinking.



You mean he didn't have tenure?  With Ron Thorn in the house, and other young guys coming up fast, dude should have been walkin' on eggshells. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone get excited about a Cruz masterbuild.



diagrammatiks said:


> god why would you post that on a public social media page.
> 
> now of all times.



Did he used to build guitars while in blackface?


----------



## Kaura

Damn, you gotta be careful what you say. A finnish congressman also got fired after making an insensitive tweet and is now sued by the Floyd family.


----------



## StevenC

Must be a lot of cognitive dissonance involved with working at Fender and also being a racist.


----------



## StevenC

Kaura said:


> Damn, you gotta be careful what you say. A finnish congressman also got fired after making an insensitive tweet and is now sued by the Floyd family.


On the other hand, that tweet is the most tasteless thing I've seen in a long time and fuck that guy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> You mean he didn't have tenure?  With Ron Thorn in the house, and other young guys coming up fast, dude should have been walkin' on eggshells. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone get excited about a Cruz masterbuild.



For real. 



> Did he used to build guitars while in blackface?



I'm not going to post it here.

I can sympathize with disapproval of looting/rioting, but to take aim at protesters is pretty gross. 

It's especially bad since that image (and similar) have been making the rounds more on the toilets of the internet (anonymous imageboards, awful sub-reddits, and white supremacist and adjacent forums) than vanilla Facebook/Instagram.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> On the other hand, that tweet is the most tasteless thing I've seen in a long time and fuck that guy.



Guys, start posting some links please. My googling seems insufficient.

(Found the Cruz one easy enough though)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Guys, start posting some links please. My googling seems insufficient.



Keep it to PMs.


----------



## narad

Related, you should see the shit going on in Japan right now (I mean, it's Japan, so lower your excitement expectation, update your cultural insensitivity expectation).

So the other day there was actually a BLM protest in Osaka, and it was beyond expectations. About 2000 people showed up, marched around peacefully (of course). Naomi Osaka, the famous tennis player who is hafu, tweeted in support of it. She had a ton of negative backlash, people wishing she would die, lots of get out of the country shit, etc. And this just a couple weeks after Hana Kimura, a hafu pro wrestler / reality tv person, killed herself after online backlash (she was like 23).

Then today I see this, a video made by the NHK, the national broadcasting channel. It'd be like PBS's role, with NBC's popularity. It's huge -- it's usually the default channel in gyms and hotels, etc., you see it everywhere. You can get subs in the closed captions:


----------



## diagrammatiks

narad said:


> Related, you should see the shit going on in Japan right now (I mean, it's Japan, so lower your excitement expectation, update your cultural insensitivity expectation).
> 
> So the other day there was actually a BLM protest in Osaka, and it was beyond expectations. About 2000 people showed up, marched around peacefully (of course). Naomi Osaka, the famous tennis player who is hafu, tweeted in support of it. She had a ton of negative backlash, people wishing she would die, lots of get out of the country shit, etc. And this just a couple weeks after Hana Kimura, a hafu pro wrestler / reality tv person, killed herself after online backlash (she was like 23).
> 
> Then today I see this, a video made by the NHK, the national broadcasting channel. It'd be like PBS's role, with NBC's popularity. It's huge -- it's usually the default channel in gyms and hotels, etc., you see it everywhere. You can get subs in the closed captions:




ah japan. you horribly hilariously racist place.

most of asia is the same way.

although that video was just mostly informative.

probably wouldh ave worked better as a text.


----------



## Kaura

narad said:


> Guys, start posting some links please. My googling seems insufficient.
> 
> (Found the Cruz one easy enough though)



It was just a photoshop of Floyd's head painted pink with a text "Pink Floyd", iirc.


----------



## narad

Kaura said:


> It was just a photoshop of Floyd's head painted pink with a text "Pink Floyd", iirc.



Damn, fuck that guy.


----------



## narad

Kaura said:


> Damn, you gotta be careful what you say. A finnish congressman also got fired after making an insensitive tweet and is now sued by the Floyd family.



Also, do you have a link for the information that he's being sued? The more I think about it, the less that makes any sense.


----------



## Kaura

narad said:


> Also, do you have a link for the information that he's being sued? The more I think about it, the less that makes any sense.



I think it might have been fake news or I imagined it since I can't any articles about the suing but the Floyd family attorney talks about the tweet here: https://translate.google.com/transl...//www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000006535011.html


----------



## tedtan

c7spheres said:


> - I'm not blaming racism on some people in gangs.
> 
> - Racisms origin has many theorys.
> 
> I'll reiterate.
> 
> - What I'm saying is that there are many "racist" people that don't want to be, and really aren't, and want to work towards change, but they may be viewed as racist.
> - I've already layed it out
> - If everyone can know what the other believes, how they feel, and what they want then this is a good thing.
> - The problem is when everyone decides they think they know what the other's believe and mean and feel.
> 
> - From that point everyone can say what they do and don't agree with and the reasons why.
> - After that, everyone can offer their solutions and desired outcomes.
> - From there everyone can go back to bashing and killing eachother.
> - OR, maybe, they can start living the part and living the life they claim to stand for and desire. It's up to us to actually live it.
> 
> I get what everyone is saying about this and I agree, but the fact is you gotta extend a hand and invite them. Invite them to a place that has security of the minorities choosing or something. When these radicals get stupid like they always do or get vilent then they'll have just cause to kick them out or kill them if their lives are threatened and take them to jail etc. It could be a consoldated clean up day win for minoriites, unless the they behave themselves, then it will be a slightly productive day in the right direction. Win win.
> - A point I wanted to drive home is that there are many racists that want to change and to make things better because they're not really racists.
> - There's obviously people commited to their ways, but the people wanting change need a way out too. They can't just snap their fingers and make it all better.



Sometimes we as a society determine that certain things are not acceptable, things such as murder, rape, child abuse, and similar. I'm not saying that it's bad to understand the different viewpoints of the people who commit these unacceptable acts, but there is a time and place for the various discussions.

For example, if we were to hold a discussion about how to prevent rape and how to provide support for rape victims, it's probably not a good setting to invite rapists in to share their perspective. That's not to say that we should ignore the rapists' input, but it should be done in a separate setting. A separate setting with behavioral psychologists and FBI agents so we can help to understand rapists better and use that information to help prevent future rapes.

And so it is with racists. We as a society have determined that racism is wrong and that acts espousing racism are unacceptable. As such, we don't need to bring in the KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood to give us their input while we decide how to address the current situation. That's not to say that we shouldn't seek to understand "the enemy", but 1) this is not the appropriate time or place, and 2) given that we have decided that racism is wrong, people espousing it fundamentally do not have equal input with the rest of us; at a fundamental level, we have decided that what they represent is the very thing that we do not want - their input is not equal.


----------



## odibrom

@tedtan 99.9% on your last post. For the missing 0.1% I'd just replace the "FBI" by "specialized crime/law units/agencies". I say this because this is a global input forum and the "FBI" is restricted to the USA only, as far as I know.

Racism is a global problem not only to the USA, although you are in the media spotlights at the moment. Africa is a continent full of racism, as is Asia and, go figure, Europe as well. It's culture embedded and as so it's really hard to purge it. History is the story told by the dominant ones, not by those who were defeated, specially that which happened before media was "a thing"... and we all know how greedy man can be when feels the power of his possibilities.

We must, however, keep pushing the bar towards a cleaner mind set. It starts the way one speaks. An interior analysis must be done by each individual so to find those vocal/cultural expressions that reduce another human being (as a starting point) to something inferior. It spreads easily to gender, age gaps, job positions, creeds/religions, life styles or food choices, pocket sizes and all those crazy stupid phobias. It's all the same, just with a different target. As so, we must act globally and try to see us also part of the problem, 'cause we all have some of these for sure. Let's purge the problem in us first, while helping our beloved ones to also do so and, as a "Pay it forward" kind of action, change the world, bit by bit... how deep in us are we willing to go/dive? What will you find there?


----------



## 1b4n3z

Kaura said:


> I think it might have been fake news or I imagined it since I can't any articles about the suing but the Floyd family attorney talks about the tweet here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=fi&tl=en&u=https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000006535011.html



No suing, just a note to the parliament to do something about it. The party booted him for now, probably not because of a clash of morals but rather of too negative an outburst internationally. I'm sure the tweet was an attempt to rile up the Finnish version of deplorables mostly. It backfired spectacularly and rightly so


----------



## c7spheres

tedtan said:


> Sometimes we as a society determine that certain things are not acceptable, things such as murder, rape, child abuse, and similar. I'm not saying that it's bad to understand the different viewpoints of the people who commit these unacceptable acts, but there is a time and place for the various discussions.
> 
> For example, if we were to hold a discussion about how to prevent rape and how to provide support for rape victims, it's probably not a good setting to invite rapists in to share their perspective. That's not to say that we should ignore the rapists' input, but it should be done in a separate setting. A separate setting with behavioral psychologists and FBI agents so we can help to understand rapists better and use that information to help prevent future rapes.
> 
> And so it is with racists. We as a society have determined that racism is wrong and that acts espousing racism are unacceptable. As such, we don't need to bring in the KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood to give us their input while we decide how to address the current situation. That's not to say that we shouldn't seek to understand "the enemy", but 1) this is not the appropriate time or place, and 2) given that we have decided that racism is wrong, people espousing it fundamentally do not have equal input with the rest of us; at a fundamental level, we have decided that what they represent is the very thing that we do not want - their input is not equal.





odibrom said:


> @tedtan 99.9% on your last post. For the missing 0.1% I'd just replace the "FBI" by "specialized crime/law units/agencies". I say this because this is a global input forum and the "FBI" is restricted to the USA only, as far as I know.
> 
> Racism is a global problem not only to the USA, although you are in the media spotlights at the moment. Africa is a continent full of racism, as is Asia and, go figure, Europe as well. It's culture embedded and as so it's really hard to purge it. History is the story told by the dominant ones, not by those who were defeated, specially that which happened before media was "a thing"... and we all know how greedy man can be when feels the power of his possibilities.
> 
> We must, however, keep pushing the bar towards a cleaner mind set. It starts the way one speaks. An interior analysis must be done by each individual so to find those vocal/cultural expressions that reduce another human being (as a starting point) to something inferior. It spreads easily to gender, age gaps, job positions, creeds/religions, life styles or food choices, pocket sizes and all those crazy stupid phobias. It's all the same, just with a different target. As so, we must act globally and try to see us also part of the problem, 'cause we all have some of these for sure. Let's purge the problem in us first, while helping our beloved ones to also do so and, as a "Pay it forward" kind of action, change the world, bit by bit... how deep in us are we willing to go/dive? What will you find there?




Thanks for the perspective on this guys. For some reason it's makes more sense when put in the context of rape. I also agree that we all need to examine ourselves and how we treat others. Both your guys statements and perspectives I think are really a good way to communicate and a good example for us all. Maybe someday eveyone in the world can communicate in a calm, non aggressive way like this. This is, imo, examples of people who sincerly strive to make the best of things. If people could just get to this stage the world would already be a better place.


----------



## spudmunkey

I posted this photo to facebook. 71 year old Aunt "Mildred" replied.


----------



## c7spheres

possumkiller said:


> Fender custom shop master builder John Cruz just got fired for posting something shitty on social media regarding the protests.



- Fender has to do this because it's making them lose face and losing them money.

- I can't find anything about what he actually did. It must be all deleted by now I guess. 
- "If an item does not appear in our records, it does not exist." - Jocasta Nu


----------



## MaxOfMetal

c7spheres said:


> - I can't find anything about what he actually did. It must be all deleted by now I guess.



It's in the first article when you search "John Cruz Fender".


----------



## c7spheres

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's in the first article when you search "John Cruz Fender".


 Oh, I see it. With the Jeep photo meme. It's obviously distasteful but to destroy a 30 year career over it?


----------



## SpaceDock

This John Cruz guy is obvious as stupid as all the other assholes who don’t understand what is goin on. I am just floored with the idiocy from Trump, conservative commentators, and their followers. I can’t understand how anyone with a shred of humanity isn’t on the side of protesters and this movement.


----------



## ramses

c7spheres said:


> Oh, I see it. With the Jeep photo meme. It's obviously distasteful but to destroy a 30 year career over it?



This is how Trump got elected. Do you all want Trump to get re-elected? I DO NOT want Trump re-elected.

People should be allowed to make stupid mistakes and apologize.


----------



## odibrom

SpaceDock said:


> This John Cruz guy is obvious as stupid as all the other assholes who don’t understand what is goin on. I am just floored with the idiocy from Trump, conservative commentators, and their followers. I can’t understand how anyone with a shred of humanity isn’t on the side of protesters and this movement.



I still can't understand how the orange guy got into the oval room... major facepalm meme/emoji...

@c7spheres thank you for your kind words...


----------



## c7spheres

ramses said:


> This is how Trump got elected. Do you all want Trump to get re-elected? I DO NOT want Trump re-elected.
> 
> People should be allowed to make stupid mistakes and apologize.



How'd he get elected?


----------



## SpaceDock

ramses said:


> People should be allowed to make stupid mistakes and apologize.




They are! I have the utmost respect for people who learn and grow and can admit they were wrong. My attitudes and opinions have changed as I have evolved as a person. This is what normal people do. 

The problem is people like Trump who can never admit they are wrong, even with small dumb stuff like Sharpie Gate. This is the hallmark of raging narcissists. These are the conservatives that can’t admit Trump is terrible or don’t know how to learn about global warming or these racism issues.


----------



## spudmunkey

spudmunkey said:


> I posted this photo to facebook. 71 year old Aunt "Mildred" replied.
> View attachment 81728



To follow up on this, I sent my aunt a private message that said, "You may want to double-check it, in case some of the photo wasn't visible."

Here response: "I saw it."

So...yeah.

About 80% of my family's feed now has becomg all pro-cop/anti protest memes.

Just from today:


----------



## MaxOfMetal

c7spheres said:


> Oh, I see it. With the Jeep photo meme. It's obviously distasteful but to destroy a 30 year career over it?





ramses said:


> This is how Trump got elected. Do you all want Trump to get re-elected? I DO NOT want Trump re-elected.
> 
> People should be allowed to make stupid mistakes and apologize.



Eh, there's mistakes, like opening up the "big side" of the paprika instead of the vented or going in for a hug instead of a handshake, and then there's doing something like this, especially right now. 

An apology that amounts to "sorry I got caught" is pretty much meaningless. 

Dude knew what he was doing, but felt insulated enough that it wasn't going to be a problem (and it probably won't, he'll go to another manufacturer on the DL, get reinstated when this blows over, or roll his own) for him. 

I'm all for second chances and redemption, but I'm also for owning your mistakes and their consequences.


----------



## odibrom

This seams appropriate...






To my understanding, the "There is no others" means we are all one. However, it could be mislead into the exact opposite, meaning, "kill everyone else"... education and perspective should not get overlooked...


----------



## Ralyks

spudmunkey said:


> today:



Because we'd be denied two classic songs representing the Heavy Metal and Hip Hop genres?

Also, Breonna Taylor was sleeping. And the cops were in the wrong house. 

*Yes, I'm aware you're reposting stuff you saw on your feed. I'm just thinking aloud here.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> Also, Breonna Taylor was sleeping. And the cops were in the wrong house.



And the person they were looking was already in custody.


----------



## TedEH

c7spheres said:


> Thanks for the perspective on this guys.


Can I take a moment to highlight that we've witnessed someone's perspective change on the internet, and I think that's great. I have a lot of respect for being willing/able to receive feedback and re-evaluate. We need more of that. I need to do that more often as well.

It might sound sarcastic, but I promise it's not. I think it's a huge thing. When any discussion is important, and our views are challenged, I think it's hugely important to take in the new information and re-evaluate rather than internalize things as antagonistic.


----------



## c7spheres

TedEH said:


> Can I take a moment to highlight that we've witnessed someone's perspective change on the internet, and I think that's great. I have a lot of respect for being willing/able to receive feedback and re-evaluate. We need more of that. I need to do that more often as well.
> 
> It might sound sarcastic, but I promise it's not. I think it's a huge thing. When any discussion is important, and our views are challenged, I think it's hugely important to take in the new information and re-evaluate rather than internalize things as antagonistic.



- Awhile back in this thread I mentioned a thing where a black guy met KKK members and got them to turn that I saw on Netfilx. I finally found it. I'm not sure if it's still on there of not, but this is the kind of thing I was poorly trying to explain we need more of whether it be from a POC or white etc..

- What makes this even cooler is he is a musician too! If he can get these people on this level of organizations to change then it gives a lot of hope to us all I think. Were talking some highranking people in these organizations too that he got to turn. I remembering him talking about how some blacks hate on him for doing it, but I really think that if this type of thing starts to become viral (I know, a bad term for these times) then really big change can happen even faster.

- Here's an article and his story/website. I remember he even talks to NeoNazis at some point too. I think it really shows that people are human and can change once things start to click.
- This is a real life story of music changing the world!

https://accidentalcourtesy.com/

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/5448...0-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes


----------



## tedtan

odibrom said:


> @tedtan 99.9% on your last post. For the missing 0.1% I'd just replace the "FBI" by "specialized crime/law units/agencies". I say this because this is a global input forum and the "FBI" is restricted to the USA only, as far as I know.



Agreed. 

I was responding in the context of the the George Floyd (and all the similar) situation(s) here in the US, but you are absolutely correct that this can, and should, be viewed from a larger perspective as this is an issue around the world.




c7spheres said:


> Thanks for the perspective on this guys. For some reason it's makes more sense when put in the context of rape. I also agree that we all need to examine ourselves and how we treat others. Both your guys statements and perspectives I think are really a good way to communicate and a good example for us all. Maybe someday eveyone in the world can communicate in a calm, non aggressive way like this. This is, imo, examples of people who sincerly strive to make the best of things. If people could just get to this stage the world would already be a better place.



Arguing and name calling doesn't accomplish anything. I'm with you in that I would generally prefer to hear everyone's input, its just not always possible, at least within the same setting.




TedEH said:


> Can I take a moment to highlight that we've witnessed someone's perspective change on the internet, and I think that's great. I have a lot of respect for being willing/able to receive feedback and re-evaluate. We need more of that. I need to do that more often as well.



Agreed. This is a rare thing.




c7spheres said:


> - Awhile back in this thread I mentioned a thing where a black guy met KKK members and got them to turn that I saw on Netfilx. I finally found it. I'm not sure if it's still on there of not, but this is the kind of thing I was poorly trying to explain we need more of whether it be from a POC or white etc.



I didn't intend to overlook this part of your prior post, as I do agree that this type of discourse is a good thing and does sometimes lead to positive changes. I don't think this will yield the overall results we need, but everyone who changes their views away from hate is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Drew

c7spheres said:


> Oh, I see it. With the Jeep photo meme. It's obviously distasteful but to destroy a 30 year career over it?


George Floyd was killed for buying cigarettes with what was allegedly a counterfeit $20 bill. Illegal, sure, but to destroy a 46-year career over it? 

Yeah, I've got no problem firing someone flippantly suggesting we should just run over protesters, during a wave of protests over a senseless act of police brutality, where protesters ARE being run over, often as not by cop cruisers. Want to keep that job? Have some fucking empathy.


----------



## c7spheres

Drew said:


> George Floyd was killed for buying cigarettes with what was allegedly a counterfeit $20 bill. Illegal, sure, but to destroy a 46-year career over it?
> 
> Yeah, I've got no problem firing someone flippantly suggesting we should just run over protesters, during a wave of protests over a senseless act of police brutality, where protesters ARE being run over, often as not by cop cruisers. Want to keep that job? Have some fucking empathy.


 I must have missed the parts that have since been deleted or something.


----------



## TedEH

I wasn't sure if the firing was because of the jeep picture or if there was something else also posted to go with it. I vaguely remember seeing comments that suggested there was more, but if there was, I couldn't find it.


----------



## c7spheres

It looks like more is coming out now about what this was about. The reporter is saying the FLoyd family is saying it was in part personal between them.


----------



## Viginez

it could be very possible this wasn't about racism at all, but some personal stuff. rumors are not new, but nobody cared.
still a horrible way to treat (and kill) an arrested person like that


----------



## narad

Viginez said:


> it could be very possible this wasn't about racism at all, but some personal stuff. rumors are not new, but nobody cared.
> still a horrible way to treat (and kill) an arrested person like that



Still I think it's telling that the officer would do this in broad daylight and on camera, and think he can get away with it. You only do that if you think the justice system in general is going to side with you over the guy on the ground, and you only can think that if you think the justice system doesn't value the kind of person underneath you. I can't imagine the same thing happening with a white middle class woman, for instance, with really nothing else changing.


----------



## TedEH

There's now articles going around about people who have nothing to do with this issue being pressured into making statements about BLM - feels very witch-hunt-y to me.

A bunch of people are mad that a big board game association of some kind isn't making a statement. I understand on one hand that people are nervous about being associated with a group that refuses to make a definitive statement, but at the same time.... why does anyone care about the stance of the board game industry?

Then there's a poetry foundation that DID post their clear support, and people still shat on them for it not being good enough.

I'm never going to be able to get behind the idea that if you're not immediately with something, then you're it's enemy. Not everyone is equipped or in an appropriate position to take on every social issue. It's not the responsibility of the poetry and board game industries of the world to solve racism for us. Maybe there's some hidden context that would warrant wanting those parties to make a statement, but that extra context isn't really visible.

I understand the sentiment of silence being equated to complicity, and I think it's appropriate _in context_. If you're a cop right now, it absolutely applies to you. If you're in the news, it applies to you. If you work in a business in which representation is a significant element of the work, or you have a history of poor race relations, you have ties to law enforcement, or maybe if you've been pulled into current events by being looted or something, or if you're a jerk like me who has to get a word in everywhere you go - I get it, there are some cases where you want a clear statement.

If you're not at all involved and don't want to get involved - I think that's reasonable though.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> There's now articles going around about people who have nothing to do with this issue being pressured into making statements about BLM - feels very witch-hunt-y to me.
> 
> A bunch of people are mad that a big board game association of some kind isn't making a statement. I understand on one hand that people are nervous about being associated with a group that refuses to make a definitive statement, but at the same time.... why does anyone care about the stance of the board game industry?
> 
> Then there's a poetry foundation that DID post their clear support, and people still shat on them for it not being good enough.
> 
> I'm never going to be able to get behind the idea that if you're not immediately with something, then you're it's enemy. Not everyone is equipped or in an appropriate position to take on every social issue. It's not the responsibility of the poetry and board game industries of the world to solve racism for us. Maybe there's some hidden context that would warrant wanting those parties to make a statement, but that extra context isn't really visible.
> 
> I understand the sentiment of silence being equated to complicity, and I think it's appropriate _in context_. If you're a cop right now, it absolutely applies to you. If you're in the news, it applies to you. If you work in a business in which representation is a significant element of the work, or you have a history of poor race relations, you have ties to law enforcement, or maybe if you've been pulled into current events by being looted or something, or if you're a jerk like me who has to get a word in everywhere you go - I get it, there are some cases where you want a clear statement.
> 
> If you're not at all involved and don't want to get involved - I think that's reasonable though.



There was a really good post a few pages back about the significance of normalization. 

The more facets of society that come out for/against a certain issue the more acceptable/unacceptable it gets in aggregate. 

Do you think we'd have same sex marriage or legal pot if only direct stakeholders made thier opinions known?


----------



## odibrom

I think that what @TedEH is saying is some how what Dave Mustain said before with "Because i don't say it, don't mean I ain't thinkin' it"... damn, the whole Megadeth's *Holy Wars*' Lyrics deserves a spot on this thread...

_Brother will kill brother
Spilling blood across the land
Killing for religion
Something I don't understand
Fools like me, who cross the sea
And come to foreign lands
Ask the sheep, for their beliefs
Do you kill on God's command?
A country that's divided
Surely will not stand
My past erased, no more disgrace
No foolish naive stand
The end is near, it's crystal clear
Part of the master plan
Don't look now to Israel
It might be your homelands
Holy wars
Upon my podium, as the
Know it all scholar
Down in my seat of judgement
Gavel's bang, uphold the law
Up on my soapbox, a leader
Out to change the world
Down in my pulpit as the holier
Than-thou-could-be-messenger of God
Wage the war on organized crime
Sneak attacks, repel down the rocks
Behind the lines
Some people risk to employ me
Some people live to destroy me
Either way they die, they die
They killed my wife, and my baby
With hopes to enslave me
First mistake, last mistake!
Paid by the alliance, to slay all the giants
Next mistake, no more mistakes
Fill the cracks in, with judicial granite
Because I don't say it,
Don't mean I ain't thinkin' it
Next thing you know, they'll take my thoughts away
I know what I said, now I must scream of the overdose
And the lack of mercy killings
Mercy killings
Mercy killings
Killings, killings, killings, killings
Next thing you know, they'll take my thoughts away_​


----------



## MaxOfMetal

The folks who make a given company or niche community possible (and profitable) have every right to ask where they stand. Companies and communities have every right not to answer, just as those same people have the right to divest because of the answer (or non-answer).


----------



## TedEH

MaxOfMetal said:


> the significance of normalization.


I understand that, but there's limits. Normalization doesn't mean if you say nothing at all you're an asshole. And it doesn't mean that 100% of everyone has to make a statement. I've been seeing tweets and things go out saying basically "it doesn't matter that you've visibly given support, if you didn't also donate to a charity and tell us about it, you're still a racist and part of the problem". There are so many statements being made in so many places that hunting down people who didn't do a good enough job of being visible in their support isn't doing any favours to anyone.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> "it doesn't matter that you've visibly given support, if you didn't also donate to a charity and tell us about it, you're still a racist and part of the problem"



Where's the lie?

The issue at hand is big, ugly, and entrenched in our society.

Maybe not just giving to a charity or whatever, but there are changes to be made to move everything forward.

Again, it's fine if a company does nothing, it's thier right. It just think there's some nuance to wanting public support for the cause from places that don't immediately make sense to some.

There is a word for folks who are off put not by the message or ideal, but the tone, and it's "asshole". I of course say that mostly joking. I get the emotional response.


----------



## TedEH

MaxOfMetal said:


> Where's the lie?





MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, it's fine if a company does nothing, it's thier right.


These two contradict eachother though - is it a company's right to but out, or is it not? I do think there's some nuance to these things that I'm ignoring to some point, but I also think that some people are just angry and lashing out at anything and everything whether it makes sense or not.

I mean, I've not personally "done" much relatively speaking, I've been busy dealing with other things that are more immediate to me - am I a racist asshole? Even despite my clear support of the issues in a bunch of visible places on the internet?


----------



## narad

TedEH said:


> am I a racist asshole?



Well you might not be racist


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> These two contradict eachother though - is it a company's right to but out, or is it not? I do think there's some nuance to these things that I'm ignoring to some point, but I also think that some people are just angry and lashing out at anything and everything whether it makes sense or not.
> 
> I mean, I've not personally "done" much relatively speaking, I've been busy dealing with other things that are more immediate to me - am I a racist asshole? Even despite my clear support of the issues in a bunch of visible places on the internet?



I don't see how it's contradictory.

Companies have the right to respond how they see fit, while individuals have a right to think that's too little or not. It's two different things. 

I don't hold individuals to the same standard as huge companies. It's all about scale. The best you or I can do is be the best person we feel we can. We don't have the influence (reach or assets) to affect the same change.


----------



## TedEH

It becomes a question of how granular you want to go with those distinctions -
Do we hold every company to the same standards? I don't imagine that a random poetry association has the same scale, visibility, impact, etc., as say Walmart or Twitch or Fender or what have you. Are we looking to a poetry association to lead us in normalizing social standards? If you were talking facebook or youtube, then sure - maybe you would be.

But again, I'm just observing and opining over where that line gets drawn. For every company or individual that does contribute, that's great. To me, it doesn't feel reasonable to hunt down anyone who didn't choose to be an example though. It would appear that this isn't the popular opinion, and I can respect that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> It becomes a question of how granular you want to go with those distinctions -
> Do we hold every company to the same standards? I don't imagine that a random poetry association has the same scale, visibility, impact, etc., as say Walmart or Twitch or Fender or what have you. Are we looking to a poetry association to lead us in normalizing social standards? If you were talking facebook or youtube, then sure - maybe you would be.
> 
> But again, I'm just observing and opining over where that line gets drawn. For every company or individual that does contribute, that's great. To me, it doesn't feel reasonable to hunt down anyone who didn't choose to be an example though. It would appear that this isn't the popular opinion, and I can respect that.



You can get off the cross about how "unpopular" you feel your opinion is. 

People's opinions on the acceptance of whatever stance and action a company or group takes is immaterial to the actual real world effects of that action/inaction/etc. big picture.

Without knowing the specific details of said poetry group example I can't really say who is being overzealous. Is it like four old ladies shooting the shit or a large multinational body with an endowment? Probably somewhere in the middle.

I don't think saying there's a difference between average folks and big companies is overly granular.


----------



## jaxadam

Yes @TedEH, get off the cross.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> Yes @TedEH, get off the cross.






Glen still live down your way?


----------



## TedEH

I don't think company vs. individual is too granular, I think big company vs small company is not granular enough.

Maybe let me walk back and rephrase:
I don't think it's productive to antagonize people who would otherwise be allies.

The board game one, I was able to find some extra context that they were organizing an event, and some other parties attending decided to pull out because the group running it was refusing to make any vaguely supportive statement. I don't really understand the poetry one though.


----------



## diagrammatiks

honestly, if you don't put out a statement saying something or another right now...you're probably going to be on the wrong side of history.


----------



## TedEH

This is purely conjecture, but I imagine that some are hesitant to touch the subject at all, lest they get caught in the crossfire, for lack of a better way to phrase it.


----------



## tedtan

TedEH said:


> I don't think it's productive to antagonize people who would otherwise be allies.



This is something that I've noticed, too.

Even if that ally doesn't do anything to help in the short term, it's still better than losing their support, however minimal it may be, or worse, having them turn against you.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> This is purely conjecture, but I imagine that some are hesitant to touch the subject at all, lest they get caught in the crossfire, for lack of a better way to phrase it.



Some are afraid as they don't want to offend anyone, regardless of the issue. I understand that.


----------



## spudmunkey

A local company that works on multi-billion-dollar projects was first called out for not saying anything. So they posted something saying that they take diversity seriously in their hiring. Then they got called-out for thieir staff still being mostly white/asian. The trouble is that there's only a finite supply of POC in this specific industry, and they aren't as well known as their MUUUUUUUCH larger competition. Finally, they made a public post about donations and further consulting/partnership with a non-profit that focuses on increasing eduction for low-income and POC with the goal of directing more POC into the industry. That finally seems to have quelled the social media grief they were getting.


----------



## spudmunkey

The other thing that's a bit disgusting are the people bringing up his criminal past (and even current criminal activity) as some sort of excuse.

In short, they are saying the police should be able to be judge jury and executioner, and apply lethal force, when there's no immediate danger to anyone.


----------



## TedEH

I've seen that and I've also seen a lot of theories that they knew eachother really well, making it some kind of personal matter - as if that changes anything.


----------



## wankerness

TedEH said:


> I've seen that and I've also seen a lot of theories that they knew eachother really well, making it some kind of personal matter - as if that changes anything.



It does change something if they knew each other - it makes it a hell of a lot more likely that they can charge him with first degree murder if it was him taking out a grudge on the victim instead of him just being a dipshit that likes crushing people.

The guy who said they had a history of butting heads retracted his story and said he had George Floyd confused with some other guy. Still, they definitely worked in the same place for a while.


----------



## TedEH

I meant change anything in terms of the protests, the movement, etc. As in knowing eachother doesn't take steam away from the racial element.


----------



## Drew

c7spheres said:


> I must have missed the parts that have since been deleted or something.


I dug around and found a screencap of it. I forgot what exactly the accompanying post was, something like "lol sounds about right" but it was a picture of a jeep with the front and sides absolutely _covered_ with splattered, streaked, smeared blood, and a caption "I heard protestors were causing traffic jams on (some bridge or highway, I forget). I don't know what all the fuss was about, I had no trouble on my commute this morning." 

I mean, if you wanted to nit-pick the decision to fire Cruz vs some other form of censure, hey, I'd hear you out... But when you have a prominent employee joking openly and proudly about mass murdering protestors over their belief that cops shouldn't kill unarmed black men over petty crimes, that tends to tie your hands a bit, I'd say.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> I dug around and found a screencap of it. I forgot what exactly the accompanying post was, something like "lol sounds about right" but it was a picture of a jeep with the front and sides absolutely _covered_ with splattered, streaked, smeared blood, and a caption "I heard protestors were causing traffic jams on (some bridge or highway, I forget). I don't know what all the fuss was about, I had no trouble on my commute this morning."
> 
> I mean, if you wanted to nit-pick the decision to fire Cruz vs some other form of censure, hey, I'd hear you out... But when you have a prominent employee joking openly and proudly about mass murdering protestors over their belief that cops shouldn't kill unarmed black men over petty crimes, that tends to tie your hands a bit, I'd say.



Original 1950s stratocasters were probably hand-built by old white guys with questionable views on race and tolerance, and Fender was just being on-brand by having Cruz around. You're not going to get the mojo of a 50s-era instrument if it's built by a blue-haired vegan. You need the 50s mentality (and hide glue, also).


----------



## tedtan

Those old Fender guitars were built by Mexicans in California. The new Fenders are built by Mexicans in either California or Baja California.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> Original 1950s stratocasters were probably hand-built by old white guys with questionable views on race and tolerance, and Fender was just being on-brand by having Cruz around. You're not going to get the mojo of a 50s-era instrument if it's built by a blue-haired vegan. You need the 50s mentality (and hide glue, also).


----------



## Viginez

TedEH said:


> I've seen that and I've also seen a lot of theories that they knew eachother really well, making it some kind of personal matter - as if that changes anything.


i think everyone agrees that it was an act of police brutality, even if it was an criminal


----------



## TedEH

Viginez said:


> i think everyone agrees


That's almost never the case 

The way those kinds of things are phrased, I think, make it pretty clear that there's an attempt being made by some to reduce the apparent severity of what happened. 'Cause it's not like you can say, in the current climate, that it was justified, if that's what you think. You just can't say it. You'll get torn a new one. I'm sure some people _want_ to say that though.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's in the first article when you search "John Cruz Fender".



Sweet. I can finally afford a Fender custom shop.

And all it took was 400+ years of oppression, legalized murder, enslavement, Jim Crow, usage of the penal system as modern-day slavery, and denial.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> Sweet. I can finally afford a Fender custom shop.
> 
> And all it took was 400+ years of oppression, legalized murder, enslavement, Jim Crow, usage of the penal system as modern-day slavery, and denial.



Those of course are contributing factors, but really, it was good ol' lack of self awareness that did him in.

All jokes aside, I don't think we're going to see Cruz built FCS stuff go for cheap. Anyone wise to what's going on (and not everyone is) is just going to sit on it for a few months or years, if even looking to sell.

I'm sure there is a dealer out there who recently took delivery on a huge run of John Cruz Masterbuilt Series guitars who is just besides themselves. 

It'll also be interesting to see how committed Fender is to this as far as folks who have Cruz built instruments in process or recently completed/delivered.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> Those of course are contributing factors, but really, it was good ol' lack of self awareness that did him in.
> 
> All jokes aside, I don't think we're going to see Cruz built FCS stuff go for cheap. Anyone wise to what's going on (and not everyone is) is just going to sit on it for a few months or years, if even looking to sell.
> 
> I'm sure there is a dealer out there who recently took delivery on a huge run of John Cruz Masterbuilt Series guitars who is just besides themselves.
> 
> It'll also be interesting to see how committed Fender is to this as far as folks who have Cruz built instruments in process or recently completed/delivered.



See, that's why companies like Framus and PRS have their CS take the credit and not the individual masterbuilder.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> See, that's why companies like Framus and PRS have their CS take the credit and not the individual masterbuilder.



Yeah, I think FMIC is probably the only large, legacy manufacturer that handles thier CS builders like this. Some companies you can name, maybe, the shop manager.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, I think FMIC is probably the only large, legacy manufacturer that handles thier CS builders like this. Some companies you can name, maybe, the shop manager.



Mike Knaggs BID...


----------



## narad

I heard that all the recent Cruz CS guitars have been relabeled as Massah'built.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> I heard that all the recent Cruz CS guitars have been relabeled as Massah'built.



That would absolutely kill on TGP.


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> That would absolutely kill on TGP.


Probably too PC for Rig-Talk.


----------



## ramses

MaxOfMetal said:


> That would absolutely kill on TGP.



Your joke is flying over my head, @MaxOfMetal.

Do you mean that @narad's joke would kill, or do you mean that the "rebranding business idea" would kill?



(honest question)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ramses said:


> Your joke is flying over my head, @MaxOfMetal.
> 
> Do you mean that @narad's joke would kill, or do you mean that the "rebranding business idea" would kill?
> 
> 
> 
> (honest question)



The joke. @StevenC's was better though.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Ralyks

Anyone else see this stuff about Hells Angels and other bikers going to Seattle to beat up Antifa?


----------



## Viginez

Ralyks said:


> Anyone else see this stuff about Hells Angels and other bikers going to Seattle to beat up Antifa?


but can they cross the armed border force? there are checkpoints lol. you cannot cross their border if you don't support open borders...


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/ANFYk-Lo-REObJ8QkFbSx1Q

Surprised FOX NEWS of all places is reporting that the secret service admitted to using tear gas/pepper spray for a Trump photo op.


----------



## BlackSG91

It's about time NASCAR is now getting rid of the Confederate flag thanks to Bubba and BLM. It was a long time coming and I know it is going to upset a lot of white people...but this has been long due!










;>)/


----------



## MaxOfMetal

BlackSG91 said:


> It's about time NASCAR is now getting rid of the Confederate flag thanks to Bubba and BLM. It was a long time coming and I know it is going to upset a lot of white people...but this has been long due!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;>)/


----------



## Randy

~4:10 when the dude gets punched in the back of the head and the cop says he deserves it


----------



## Vyn

Randy said:


> ~4:10 when the dude gets punched in the back of the head and the cop says he deserves it




So in America, I can punch someone in front of a cop and get away with it provided that I'm a racist asshole? Wow.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Randy said:


> ~4:10 when the dude gets punched in the back of the head and the cop says he deserves it



Disgusting. I hope this goes viral and that shitbag cop gets get accountable for his negligence.


----------



## mlp187

JFC man I hate this shit. These people are pure trash. I am so fucking lucky to live in San Diego. For those of you weathering these kinds of dipshits I wish you luck and success.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Vyn said:


> So in America, I can punch someone in front of a cop and get away with it provided that I'm a racist asshole? Wow.



pretty much


----------



## Randy

Vyn said:


> So in America, I can punch someone in front of a cop and get away with it provided that I'm a racist asshole? Wow.





Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Disgusting. I hope this goes viral and that shitbag cop gets get accountable for his negligence.



"Videos interactions between Black Lives Matters demonstrators and counter-protesters on Sunday, including one video of a man hitting a protester in the back of the head, went viral. Some have called for the police officers who witnessed the incident to be disciplined.

Dotson said the officers were outnumbered and couldn’t make an arrest at that time. He said there will be an “independent investigation” of that incident.

“At that time, their focus was on preserving life,” Dotson said.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cincinnati.com/amp/3196430001


----------



## Necris

https://www.krqe.com/news/crime/apd-investigating-shooting-at-tiguex-park/
https://www.abqjournal.com/1466753/apd-protest-shooter-arrested-charged-with-aggravated-battery.html
A member of a right wing militia (who was a former candidate for city council and is also the son of a former county sherrif) shot a guy multiple times at a protest, the guy he shot is currently in critical condition according to reports. I guess we'll get to see if the children of law enforcement are as well shielded from legal consequences for their actions as members of law enforcement are.


----------



## Randy

Necris said:


> . I guess we'll get to see if the children of law enforcement are as well shielded from legal consequences for their actions as members of law enforcement are.



Well considering he wasnt suffocated to death on sight tells me you've already got your answer


----------



## Vyn

Randy said:


> "Videos interactions between Black Lives Matters demonstrators and counter-protesters on Sunday, including one video of a man hitting a protester in the back of the head, went viral. Some have called for the police officers who witnessed the incident to be disciplined.
> 
> Dotson said the officers were outnumbered and couldn’t make an arrest at that time. He said there will be an “independent investigation” of that incident.
> 
> “At that time, their focus was on preserving life,” Dotson said.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cincinnati.com/amp/3196430001



"At that time, their focus was on preserving life,” What a crock of shit.


----------



## Randy

Preserving their own lives, yes.


----------



## Randy

More from the same protest:

Videos show Bethel anti-BLM demonstrators using racial slurs, intimidating protesters

5:10


----------



## odibrom

What it is becoming to look like at the eyes of the rest of the world is that many Americans are just rude ignorant people who take advantage of their economic power (mostly, could be anything actually) to overtake the person next door because of some stupid shit. And when confronted with their shit they won't own it and blame someone or something else. It's like they know what they're doing but won't take the responsibility for it if it goes sideways or is plainly wrong... but what could one expect with the example from that orange guy in office. These guys are just a bunch of bullies...

I don't know the rest of the context of the following picture, but Josh Martin (from Little Tybee, crazy guitar player) posted this in facebook recently:






I think Josh is a fantastic human being, very talented, sensible and intelligent guy. Why the fuck would anyone post this about him? Where's that hate coming from? Why do people think it's OK to shit post things like this about someone else? Where's the decorum, decency, dignity, respectability? Do people have no brains?

I now this happens everywhere and in every country, but once the USA is on the spotlight, this shit surfaces faster from that side of the globe.

Where's the hate coming from? That's a question to think about...


----------



## Randy

Closest thing to good news in this story.

"
The video has since been shared hundreds of times, including by Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, who tweeted about the incident Tuesday night:

“A peaceful protester in Bethel, Ohio was sucker-punched in the head right in front of police officers – and they did nothing about it,” Brown wrote. “These officers’ inaction is shameful. This is why we need the Justice in Policing Act - to hold police accountable.”

Bethel police say the officer pictured in the video was looking away when the incident happened.

Police Chief Steve Teague announced Wednesday the man who was struck has decided to pursue charges against the man who hit him.

Teague says the suspect has been identified and charge will be filed against him Wednesday morning.

Later in the article:

“We’ve got to take this rift away from us and come together, and we’ll all go up to Columbus and fight this fight together. I’ll stand right beside you as long as I believe your cause is just," said one counter-protester.

The two men shook hands and Garnett replied, “I’m getting chills. Look. I got you man. I’m getting chills. I’ve got family too. I didn’t come out here to be violent man."

The men in the group told me the conversation was just the starting point for them to find common ground to bring forth positive change for everyone.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...brings-civility-common-ground/?outputType=amp


----------



## Viginez

interesting take on many topics, incl. the floyd case


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## narad

Viginez said:


> interesting take on many topics, incl. the floyd case




Started okay but got dumb fast, ended with trying to relate the democrats to slavery because the south was democratic at the time (in name only). That's always the breaking point to me if someone is being an idiot or not. It'd be like treating modern day catholics like genocidal crusaders, just because they were both under the banner of catholicism (even less so, since both are really from interpretations of the same beliefs, not just policy positions changing entirely over time while keeping the same name). 

I also think it's pretty funny for this guy to lecture people on how to make money and accumulate wealth, when his shtick is professional youtuber / talking head as the pro-Trump black guy. Talking about the culture of studying hard and going to school, when his income stream is hawking merch.


----------



## Viginez

narad said:


> Started okay but got dumb fast, ended with trying to relate the democrats to slavery because the south was democratic at the time (in name only). That's always the breaking point to me if someone is being an idiot or not. It'd be like treating modern day catholics like genocidal crusaders, just because they were both under the banner of catholicism (even less so, since both are really from interpretations of the same beliefs, not just policy positions changing entirely over time while keeping the same name).
> 
> I also think it's pretty funny for this guy to lecture people on how to make money and accumulate wealth, when his shtick is professional youtuber / talking head as the pro-Trump black guy. Talking about the culture of studying hard and going to school, when his income stream is hawking merch.


so his opinion is dumb, hes an idiot and he sells merch for a living. ok, got it. strong arguments.


----------



## narad

Viginez said:


> so his opinion is dumb, hes an idiot and he sells merch for a living. ok, got it. strong arguments.



It helps if you actually reference the arguments.


----------



## TedEH

I can appreciate what this guy is going for in terms of appreciating the value of personal responsibility, but he talks about it as if you can only operate on one level. You can take personal responsibility AND address the collective experience at the same time. Much of his argument seems to be that he doesn't experience certain things personally, or isn't able to demonstrate that it's an important enough issue to tackle, and I think that's where it falls apart.

Based on the title of the video I was expecting something very different than what it was. Had the message been just that we should be careful about dictating to someone what their experience supposedly is, then I get that. If the message was about avoiding making people feel guilty by default for being white, then maybe there's a good discussion to be had about that. But instead it was just about dismissing the issues that people want to deal with.


----------



## Drew

Viginez said:


> so his opinion is dumb, hes an idiot and he sells merch for a living. ok, got it. strong arguments.


I mean, narad isn't exactly wrong here - once someone starts to argue the Democrats are racist because the Reconstruction-era South was Democratic, without noting how all those Democrats became Republicans in a hurry after Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act, they're pretty much out of credibility.


----------



## Viginez

narad said:


> Talking about the culture of studying hard and going to school, when his income stream is hawking merch.


dude is a former police officer.
not sure why one should disprespect someones job, only because you don't agree with some of his opinions.
also the overwhelmingly positive response in the comments section and likes tells me most people like what he says.


----------



## StevenC

Viginez said:


> dude is a former police officer.
> not sure why one should disprespect someones job, only because you don't agree with some of his opinions.
> also the overwhelmingly positive response in the comments section and likes tells me most people like what he says.


He's not talking about his former job


----------



## spudmunkey

Viginez said:


> also the overwhelmingly positive response in the comments section and likes tells me most people like what he says.



He has 727k subscribers to his channel that has videos called "President Trust restored me hope in America today" from last week, and "Nancy Pelosi CAUGHT pandering to the black vote AGAIN."

The comments section is going to be primarily his subscriber base. Of *course* the comments are going to be more positive. If i shoot at fish in a barrel, if I hit anything, it's likely going to be a fish.


----------



## spudmunkey

spudmunkey said:


> "President *j*ust restored m*y* hope in America today"



*FTFM*


----------



## Viginez

spudmunkey said:


> He has 727k subscribers to his channel that has videos called "President Trust restored me hope in America today" from last week, and "Nancy Pelosi CAUGHT pandering to the black vote AGAIN."
> 
> The comments section is going to be primarily his subscriber base. Of *course* the comments are going to be more positive. If i shoot at fish in a barrel, if I hit anything, it's likely going to be a fish.


this particular video has more than 1mil views, unlike his usual few thousands
it means it was shared more and new viewers joined and liked it


----------



## Boofchuck

I'm signal boosting this. Legal Eagle is a blessing.


----------



## possumkiller

So my dad just sent me a picture of a busty nude black woman smothering a nude white man with her much larger than average bosoms. The caption reads: This white man cant breathe. But you won't see that on the news.


----------



## spudmunkey

Viginez said:


> this particular video has more than 1mil views, unlike his usual few thousands
> it means it was shared more and new viewers joined and liked it



He's had several videos with more views, and 12 with over 700k views. The next one up with more views, "White Priviidlge My A**", has propotionate upvotes, and similar dislikes.

That video is equally stupid, because he's saying that because some white people had adversity to overcome, that it's evidence that white privilidge doesn't exist. He said that because he was the spokesperson of the Tucson police department after being on their force for only 2 years, that this is evidence of a lack of white privilidge because it's an honor that no white office ever had...when it's just as easily-explained that the Tucson police department took more than just his job performance into account, when considering who they wanted as the "face" of their "brand". "I got the best deal possible on my house, probably in the whole community. I bought a house for 166 which was worth 270 when it was built," as some sort of evidence that white privilidge doesn't exist.

He's coming across as either purposefully disingenuis, or ranting about something he doesn't actually understand beyond what he THINKS something is, which isn't what it is.


----------



## Viginez

Drew said:


> ...once someone starts to argue the Democrats are racist because the Reconstruction-era South was Democratic, without noting how all those Democrats became Republicans in a hurry after Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act, they're pretty much out of credibility.



fact?


----------



## runbirdman

Viginez said:


> fact?




Not a myth. Kevin M. Kruse (Princeton University history professor) details his rebuttal to this video in particular in the article. PragerU has an interesting format but relies on D'Souza-esque arguments that are blatantly fasle.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/06/07/prageru’s-influence


----------



## Viginez

runbirdman said:


> Not a myth. Kevin M. Kruse (Princeton University history professor) details his rebuttal to this video in particular in the article. PragerU has an interesting format but relies on D'Souza-esque arguments that are blatantly fasle.
> 
> https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/06/07/prageru’s-influence


this guy questioning the persons/presenters and going on a rant aganst other ones at the same time, instead of looking for an argument to disprove the content doesn't lead to anything, as usual
it's just another distraction from the content of the professor woman itself that actually points out smear campaigns like his
same tactics
putting others in boxes


----------



## runbirdman

It links to a Twitter thread where he goes into detail while citing references about the fallacy presented by the PragerU video. Kruse makes a fairly straightforward argument without "distracting" or "smearing" the "professor woman."


----------



## broj15

Prager U is for the hopelessly indoctrinated. You might as well have posted a link to a Breitbart article. Also using the political landscape & the Dynamics of the 2 dominant political parties during reconstruction & the 1960's to somehow discredit the efforts & policies of the current political party is honestly kinda bullshit. I mean, Reagan called himself a democrat until 1962, and boomers & conservative Americans still bust nuts over that dude. The 2 party system is, was, and will always be bullshit and only serves to help further politicize debates that shouldn't be political. Whether that be wearing a mask to keep yourself and others around you healthy, defunding and reforming a system that has time & time again shown that it's only purpose is to keep poor people poor & maintain the status quo for the economically advantaged, or that maybe some people don't really NEED a billion dollars in thier bank account while people are homeless of go without food.

These are not political issues. These are moral issues. There is no debate. Morality is neither relative or subjective when it comes to the value of human life.

And further more, I feel like the only people who are still trying to debate these things fall into one (or more) of the following groups: explicit white supremacists (neo Nazis, the clan, proud boys, boogaloo Bois, etc.) ignorant white supremacists (meaning that they would deny being racist, but would still call the cops on a minority for no real reason, and are cool with benefitting off of a racist system and have no desire to change that), OR (and this is where the Prager U crowd comes in) the Devil's Advocates: those people who are privileged enough to not be effected by such issues, so to them it's all "up for debate" and thrive on nothing more than doing everything they can to cause frustration for others.


----------



## Viginez

runbirdman said:


> It links to a Twitter thread where he goes into detail while citing references about the fallacy presented by the PragerU video. Kruse makes a fairly straightforward argument without "distracting" or "smearing" the "professor woman."


didn't these covington high school kids sue this professor for defamation? it sounds like hes more of an activist than professor


----------



## runbirdman

Setting aside political arguments about the "Southern strategy," I do need to add to the discourse regarding George Floyd/policing in general. I am a police officer in Tennessee. I am now an administrator for the patrol division, but prior to that, I was a patrol officer for 10 years. Anyone arguing that uses of force by police and the associated accountability is not a broken system has lost their damn mind.

My agency reviews any non-lethal use of force report within the agency. As an administrator, I am asked to rule on the justification, or lack thereof, of the actions of my co-workers and friends. It is a massively flawed system. Then you have agencies who adamantly refuse to wear body cameras because they are stuck with the notion that a ten-week academy has awarded them integrity beyond reproach. Law enforcement is stuck in a cycle of hiring non-qualified and uneducated candidates because the pay is poor in most areas. Non-qualified personnel are then given a badge and gun and told that the insanely remedial academy has given them the power and authority to "save a life, take a life, and give his/her life" in the line of duty.

The United States policing system needs total reform. 

-Police officers should not be tasked with dealing with mental health concerns. Funding should instead be diverted to substance abuse programs and mental health counselors employed on the county and municipal level. These counselors can then respond with police when people are dealing with mental health concerns and act in a security capacity. 
-"Discretion" in policing has unfairly skewed in favor of whites and needs to be discontinued as much as possible. Virtually all traffic violations can be handled by traffic cameras in a non-biased manner. 
-ALL use of force reports should be reviewed by an independent board comprised of police and community members working in unison.
-Body cameras and in-car video can no longer be optional. Every interaction needs to be recorded for posterity. Also, the activation of the camera system needs to be handled by a system out of the individual's control. Most agencies already deal with officers who turn off their video systems and chalk it up to "technical difficulties." Most of the time, these "technical difficulties" are only to have an off-the-record conversation about the event but more nefarious "technical issues" are common. My agency requires all officers to record every second of their 12-hour shift and every lapse in video has to be documented. 

Nothing's perfect but a move towards a higher level of accountability is completely necessary. We can no longer rely on locally elected sheriffs and appointed chiefs to make responsible decisions. There needs to be federal mandates for change to occur. Most citizens have no idea how law enforcement agencies operate on a daily basis and so they often elect or appoint officials that are not equipped to deal with the day-to-day or crises that arise. The only solution is more transparency and accountability.


----------



## runbirdman

Viginez said:


> didn't these covington high school kids sue this professor for defamation? it sounds like hes more of an activist than professor



What was the judgement on the lawsuit you're referencing? Frivolous lawsuits are filed constantly. That lawsuit, in particular, has numerous defendants and the language of the suit is vague at best when it speaks to the acts of defamation alleged against all of the parties involved. They allege defamation _per se_ based on the virality of the social media surrounding the incident. Courts have shown a hesitancy to hear any of these arguments.


----------



## broj15

runbirdman said:


> Setting aside political arguments about the "Southern strategy," I do need to add to the discourse regarding George Floyd/policing in general. I am a police officer in Tennessee. I am now an administrator for the patrol division, but prior to that, I was a patrol officer for 10 years. Anyone arguing that uses of force by police and the associated accountability is not a broken system has lost their damn mind.
> 
> My agency reviews any non-lethal use of force report within the agency. As an administrator, I am asked to rule on the justification, or lack thereof, of the actions of my co-workers and friends. It is a massively flawed system. Then you have agencies who adamantly refuse to wear body cameras because they are stuck with the notion that a ten-week academy has awarded them integrity beyond reproach. Law enforcement is stuck in a cycle of hiring non-qualified and uneducated candidates because the pay is poor in most areas. Non-qualified personnel are then given a badge and gun and told that the insanely remedial academy has given them the power and authority to "save a life, take a life, and give his/her life" in the line of duty.
> 
> The United States policing system needs total reform.
> 
> -Police officers should not be tasked with dealing with mental health concerns. Funding should instead be diverted to substance abuse programs and mental health counselors employed on the county and municipal level. These counselors can then respond with police when people are dealing with mental health concerns and act in a security capacity.
> -"Discretion" in policing has unfairly skewed in favor of whites and needs to be discontinued as much as possible. Virtually all traffic violations can be handled by traffic cameras in a non-biased manner.
> -ALL use of force reports should be reviewed by an independent board comprised of police and community members working in unison.
> -Body cameras and in-car video can no longer be optional. Every interaction needs to be recorded for posterity. Also, the activation of the camera system needs to be handled by a system out of the individual's control. Most agencies already deal with officers who turn off their video systems and chalk it up to "technical difficulties." Most of the time, these "technical difficulties" are only to have an off-the-record conversation about the event but more nefarious "technical issues" are common. My agency requires all officers to record every second of their 12-hour shift and every lapse in video has to be documented.
> 
> Nothing's perfect but a move towards a higher level of accountability is completely necessary. We can no longer rely on locally elected sheriffs and appointed chiefs to make responsible decisions. There needs to be federal mandates for change to occur. Most citizens have no idea how law enforcement agencies operate on a daily basis and so they often elect or appoint officials that are not equipped to deal with the day-to-day or crises that arise. The only solution is more transparency and accountability.




As someone who adamantly believes in the "no good cops" thing, it was honestly really refreshing to read this comment. Not trying to get into a debate over good cop v. Bad cop, but I do have a question for someone in your position: if the system is so badly broken and in need of reform at this point, then why do you still continue to do it? And I really do ask that in the most sincere way possible. I see pictures of cops taking a knee in solidarity with protesters, and I can't help but wonder, if they feel that way and recognize the flaws in the system then why still wear the badge? Is it out of the belief that y'all can help change things from the inside, or that y'all hang on for the moments when you actually do bust a legitimate bad guy?

Once again, if anything comes off as disrespectful it wasn't intended & I do look forward to hearing your opinion on the matter.


----------



## narad

Viginez said:


> fact?




If you think the Republicans didn't become the party more associated with anti-civil rights, maybe you should go check the full vote breakdown on the Civil Rights Act. Funny she didn't talk about those when discussing Myth #2. The strongest divide is north vs south, but clearly the republicans in both regions opposed it more than the respective dems.


----------



## USMarine75

Viginez said:


> fact?






This literally played next lol.

That PragerU vid is so deeply flawed. It's a Baconian Fallacy - it cherry picks only certain historical facts and then draws conclusions based on that.

It also tries to reduce very complex historical occurrences to something far too basic. It's like how basic history books put everyone in to two categories - 0 or 1, Hitler or Jesus. The fact is humans and our history are far too complicated for that. And that video is evidence that you can find evidence for nearly any position, but that doesn't make it true. The overwhelming evidence and scholarly articles contradict her position.

Also, my favorite part was the circular reporting. She referenced the National Review, a known GOP shill publication (which is ok) when citing defense of Republicans. e.g. If I wanted to prove pedophilia should be legal, I probably shouldn't quote a pedophile as my source lol.


----------



## USMarine75

narad said:


> If you think the Republicans didn't become the party more associated with anti-civil rights, maybe you should go check the full vote breakdown on the Civil Rights Act. Funny she didn't talk about those when discussing Myth #2. The strongest divide is north vs south, but clearly the republicans in both regions opposed it more than the respective dems.



Right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/26/what-we-get-wrong-about-southern-strategy/


Also...

“The End of Southern Exceptionalism" is likely what that PragerU professor is cherry-picking from. Basically, it said economic concerns > racist concerns when it came to voting. Again, history is more complicated than GOP=racists and DEMs=nonracists. So it's easy to take small tidbits and misuse them to prove a flawed point like that vid. 

e.g. Was the Civil War about racism? Was it about the racist south vs the nonracist north? No. It was about the south that would not cede its economic model of free slave labor. But what was that economic model built upon? Systemic racism that Blacks were an inferior race (no different than a chair per SCOTUS at the time). Soooo... was it about racism? Yes... but not entirely... but yes. Because it's complicated. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?auth=linked-facebook

But... In the end, it's actions not words that matter. How many times did Rep Steve King say he wasn't a racist?


----------



## runbirdman

I take absolutely no disrespect from your question. The lack of officers willing to deal with criticism is what has landed us in this situation.

I work for an agency and sheriff with similar beliefs and values. Our agency has tried to be at the forefront of accountability within the law enforcement community. It's a relatively small agency (<200 total employees with ~75 uniformed, certified police officers). One of the biggest issues we face as a country is the variability that exists from agency to agency. The sheriff I have worked under for 10+ years could be voted out and replaced with a recidivist Sheriff who disdains reform. Local municipal councils can and will fire good chiefs on a whim.

I say all of that to say, I continue to be a police officer because policing is necessary. I have pulled a husband off of his wife as he was strangling the life out of her. I have arrested someone for DUI as he drove a dump truck in the opposite lane at 60 miles per hour with a .27 BAC. There are some acts that must be stopped immediately and with force if necessary. A move towards more community-centric and specialized policing is necessary, but there are incidents that must continue to be handled by a law enforcement entity. I choose to believe most who call for defunding the police are representing this sentiment instead of full abolishment of law enforcement personnel. 

The agency I work for welcomes members of the community to review all of our reports including use-of-force reports and makes all videos public as soon as they are legally redacted (i.e. juvenile and victim identities). If this attitude were adopted by more agencies, we would have a much clearer path forward as the field changes to become a more responsible arbiter of justice.

I am given the opportunity to argue for reform and actually be listened to. Because I believe a form of our current policing must exist in the interest of community security, I believe that this transparency and willingness to change is required moving forward. However, many agencies don't have this flexibility and that is where I believe immediate reform needs to happen. This is why I continue to argue for federal mandates and legislation requiring community oversight. The law enforcement entity should have constant scrutiny from the community. It should be a direct reflection of what the community wants from the agency. No other outcome should be acceptable. Policies and procedures should face oversight from community leaders and law enforcement personnel acting in an advisory capacity.

While I can constantly rail against unjust policing that occurs out of my authority, I am powerless to affect change to those entities. I am, however, able to fire and issue strict disciplinary measures to the officers falling within my purview. When I rule a use-of-force excessive, the officer is fired. When an officer is caught lying, he is fired. When an officer fails to interact with the public with politeness and sensitivity, he is suspended.

Lastly, there is a selfish aspect. I am vested in my current retirement system and will be able to retire in 9 years. It is hard to say goodbye to that when I still believe I can affect change and be a positive resource in the community,


----------



## TedEH

I've seen similar questions asked before, about why a "good cop" would want to remain being a cop during what's going on currently, and that makes no sense to me. If all the good cops quit, what are you left with? If anything, this is a moment where I would want the best cops to rise to the occasion - start calling out what they can see from the inside, be an example of the kind of law enforcement we need, etc.

Encouraging or expecting the good cops to quit seems counter-productive to me.


----------



## Drew

Viginez said:


> fact?



I'm not sure what exactly this video is, nor do I have any intention of watching it since it's likely alt-right trash, but yes, it's pretty well historically accepted fact that the South went Republican as part of Nixon's "Southern strategy" in the wake of the Civil Rights Act, when Southern Democrats were turned off by the party's embrace of equal rights. That's not to say there aren't racist modern-day Democrats or racists in the North, but any attempt to call the Democratic Party the party of racism in America because of the Reconstruction era and the Republican party the party of equality because of Lincoln is _badly_ incomplete if it doesn't factor into account the political realignment in the 1960s and 1970s, and the fact that a Democrat and a Republican _today_ are very different from Lincoln and the Dixiecrats.


----------



## Viginez

Drew said:


> I'm not sure what exactly this video is, nor do I have any intention of watching it since it's likely alt-right trash


being stuck in your own bubble and ignoring others opinions isn't leading to any achievment, other than more division


----------



## StevenC

Viginez said:


> being stuck in your own bubble and ignoring others opinions isn't leading to any achievment, other than more division


Ignoring Prager U is a very healthy way to operate.


----------



## Edika

Viginez said:


> being stuck in your own bubble and ignoring others opinions isn't leading to any achievment, other than more division



I won't comment on your country's history but this argument doesn't really stand ground if you already know what the other opinion has to say and know it's inaccurate. It should be addressed I agree. Every country has it's fair share of people like that and their only goal is to twist history to fit their agenda, never admitting any fault to their "arguments", even when presented with overwhelming volume of information pointing to the opposite. 

To give a suitable example, antivaxers and their movement has a lot of traction and they seem are free to voice their opinion. I don't need to watch a video from them to know it's incorrect scientifically while they cherry pick and provide distorted information about subjects they don't seem to want to understand. It should be addressed and a discussion should happen, if they're willing to have a discussion that is.


----------



## Viginez

Edika said:


> I won't comment on your country's history but this argument doesn't really stand ground if you already know what the other opinion has to say and know it's inaccurate. It should be addressed I agree. Every country has it's fair share of people like that and their only goal is to twist history to fit their agenda, never admitting any fault to their "arguments", even when presented with overwhelming volume of information pointing to the opposite.
> 
> To give a suitable example, antivaxers and their movement has a lot of traction and they seem are free to voice their opinion. I don't need to watch a video from them to know it's incorrect scientifically while they cherry pick and provide distorted information about subjects they don't seem to want to understand. It should be addressed and a discussion should happen, if they're willing to have a discussion that is.


well, he basically called that black woman professor alt-right-trash (though in his defens he didn't watch it, how could he know).
i don't even know that channel, but upon more research it seems interesting content.
calling someone trash as an argument isn't going to convince me anything.
and yes, it is just an opinion, on the other hand i can clearly see and feel the effects of those already in power (in my country) and it is not good.
if i like some opinions, i will support it, though i'm not really very political, it's just about wrong and right to me.


----------



## StevenC

Viginez said:


> well, he basically called that black woman professor alt-right-trash (though in his defens he didn't watch it, how could he know).
> i don't even know that channel, but upon more research it seems interesting content.
> calling someone trash as an argument isn't going to convince me anything.
> and yes, it is just an opinion, on the other hand i can clearly see and feel the effects of those already in power (in my country) and it is not good.
> if i like some opinions, i will support it, though i'm not really very political, it's just about wrong and right to me.


Prager U is a right wing alternative education channel. It is complete trash. Hence, alt-right-trash.


----------



## wannabguitarist

Viginez said:


> well, he basically called that black woman professor alt-right-trash (though in his defens he didn't watch it, how could he know).
> i don't even know that channel, but upon more research it seems interesting content.
> calling someone trash as an argument isn't going to convince me anything.
> and yes, it is just an opinion, on the other hand i can clearly see and feel the effects of those already in power (in my country) and it is not good.
> if i like some opinions, i will support it, though i'm not really very political, it's just about wrong and right to me.



I gotta ask, why are you so focused on other's criticisms of Prager U and not on the rest of the content in their comments? If you're not familiar with Prager U it's definitely easy to fall for their shtick. To be clear this isn't meant to be an attack at you. As an ex-conservative (I was sucking Ayn Rand's teat through college and my first real job in 2012 was on a GOP Senator's campaign) Prager U scares me. It's a propaganda channel with slick packaging and easily digestible videos that masquerades as an educational channel. The content plays fast and loose with the facts and seems to be more geared towards providing people with talking points to "own the libs" and win the culture war. Whatever the fuck that is. This channel has a number of decent videos that breakdown what exactly is wrong with Prager U's content: 

There are more targeted critiques, but that's a great place to start. In general Youtube politics is going to be fairly bad so I would just recommend reading history books .

The shift between the Republican and Democrat parties in the US is absolutely fascinating and worth reading up on if you want to learn more about the why the current political landscape is what it is. No one of any worth in contemporary politics hides or ignores the fact that the Democrats used to be the party of slavery and the KKK. It's common knowledge, but the parties _have_ changed significantly since then and only fairly recently that's become a talking point. Somehow the past sins of the party invalidate its current attempts at progress? I don't know. I highly recommend Ezra Klein's "This is Why We're Polarized" as a primer (honestly just the section on the shift between the parties would be sufficient). Or just read a lot of Wikipedia on the era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

And for what it's worth you can say you're not very political and just about "right and wrong," but what's right and wrong is very political. That's getting really far off topic though


----------



## Drew

Viginez said:


> being stuck in your own bubble and ignoring others opinions isn't leading to any achievment, other than more division


Opinions, sure.

Matters of fact, however, are not opinions. It is a well documented histrical fact that "Dixiecrats" fled the Democratic party after the Civil Rights Act, in response to some aggressive dog whistle courting on the part of Nixon.

If someone's world view involves ignoring that fact, then their world view is wrong. Full stop.

Any appeal to "listen to others' opinions" or "hear both sides of the story" when one side is lying and factually wrong, and the other side is factually right, is a frontal assault on fact, and an attempt to equate their lies with your truth, and render fact and truth a matter of opinion. It's not. If you think I'm living in a bubble because I choose not to waste time on people who are factually wrong, then I'm not sure what to say here, other than I don't think you understand what you're posting about nearly as well as you seem to think you do. I'll cut you some slack because as, what, an Italian, you may be legitimately unaware of the political realignment I'm talking about here in the States, but if you were an American, I'd have some real concerns about your motivations here.


----------



## zappatton2

Drew said:


> Any appeal to "listen to others' opinions" or "hear both sides of the story" when one side is lying and factually wrong, and the other side is factually right, is a frontal assault on fact, and an attempt to equate their lies with your truth, and render fact and truth a matter of opinion. It's not.


I need to buy a camper to get a bumper sticker big enough to fit this all. Perfectly stated.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## jaxadam

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/mobi...sters/77-0daebac8-3113-4bc5-8b52-cee34bf77da4


----------



## spudmunkey

This morning, 16 family members all shared a meme/jok about someone calling 911 for a robbery, but only being offered counsellors, social workers, etc until the person asks for a sanitation truck, to dump the body of "this poor sap."

I responded that the whole idea is that we want police to be able to do their jobs, but we need to narrow down what their job is, and not having to deal with many things that shouldn't be, and that previous 'defund police" type movements led to the separation of fire departments and EMT/parmedic services from police duties (I have 1 cop but several EMTs and firefighters in my family).

It was greeted with two of the angry face emojis, and a "Shut the fuck up. it's just a joke" which got a heart, and a thumb up emoji.


----------



## Drew

You tried.


----------



## possumkiller

So they're pulling down some old TV episodes because of blackface jokes. 


It's funny but sad that they will bend over backwards to do literally anything apart from what's being asked for.


----------



## narad

possumkiller said:


> So they're pulling down some old TV episodes because of blackface jokes.
> 
> 
> It's funny but sad that they will bend over backwards to do literally anything apart from what's being asked for.



I'm pissed at the Community "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" being pulled. That's one of the best episodes. And it's done to joke about blackface, not actually portray blackface (a character is RP'ing a dark elf).


----------



## diagrammatiks

he's a fucking elf.
gawd.


----------



## TedEH

jaxadam said:


> https://www.firstcoastnews.com/mobi...sters/77-0daebac8-3113-4bc5-8b52-cee34bf77da4


I can't get past the fact that a media organization can't figure out how to screencap a call, instead of jamming a camera and a mic in front of their laptops. I know it's not the point, but I can't unsee it.


----------



## Lorcan Ward

narad said:


> I'm pissed at the Community "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" being pulled. That's one of the best episodes. And it's done to joke about blackface, not actually portray blackface (a character is RP'ing a dark elf).



Well there goes any chance of a Drizzt Do’Urden film in the future. Not that we needed any.


----------



## narad

Lorcan Ward said:


> Well there goes any chance of a Drizzt Do’Urden film in the future. Not that we needed any.



He'll just need to be played by someone other than Ken Jeong.


----------



## possumkiller

I'm not black but I'm pretty sure black people care way more about ending police brutality and systemic racism and really don't give a fuck who voices Cleveland Brown from now on after a white guy was doing it for more than 20 years.


----------



## narad

possumkiller said:


> I'm not black but I'm pretty sure black people care way more about ending police brutality and systemic racism and really don't give a fuck who voices Cleveland Brown from now on after a white guy was doing it for more than 20 years.



While I don't agree with the pulling of episodes like the Community one, what you're presenting is a false narrative where these ideas are in competition. Netflix can no more solve police brutality and systemic racism than federal legislation can set Netflix's programming schedule. If both are things that BLM cares about (which I don't think they are) then they can be pursued independently, with no compromise between them required.


----------



## possumkiller

narad said:


> While I don't agree with the pulling of episodes like the Community one, what you're presenting is a false narrative where these ideas are in competition. Netflix can no more solve police brutality and systemic racism than federal legislation can set Netflix's programming schedule. If both are things that BLM cares about (which I don't think they are) then they can be pursued independently, with no compromise between them required.


My point is all of a sudden everybody is coming out of the woodwork trying to do stupid things to show how much they support black people. Nothing that will have any tangible effects toward what is actually needed and wanted. It's almost like some companies are purposefully going over the top (Golden Girls episode, Family Guy) just to divide people even more. Who the hell asked them to censor anything? How about use the power of celebrity and vast amounts of money to make a real change instead?


----------



## Lorcan Ward

narad said:


> He'll just need to be played by someone other than Ken Jeong.



Now that I'll make an exception for! I suppose Orlando Bloom in blackface is out of the question now.


----------



## diagrammatiks

possumkiller said:


> My point is all of a sudden everybody is coming out of the woodwork trying to do stupid things to show how much they support black people. Nothing that will have any tangible effects toward what is actually needed and wanted. It's almost like some companies are purposefully going over the top (Golden Girls episode, Family Guy) just to divide people even more. Who the hell asked them to censor anything? How about use the power of celebrity and vast amounts of money to make a real change instead?



celebrities...like really don't have that much money man.

plus people refusing to do minority parts will force minorities to get parts. maybe.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> I'm pissed at the Community "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" being pulled. That's one of the best episodes. And it's done to joke about blackface, not actually portray blackface (a character is RP'ing a dark elf).


My day is ruined now.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> My day is ruined now.



It wasn't a swell day for Clan Duquesne either.

Also... Tropic Thunder anyone?


----------



## spudmunkey

I'm not upset about platforms removing things.
a) It's likely temporary, anwyay
b) cases where it's appropriate, content will likely be brought back with an additional title card at the beginning, providing explaination/context.
c) For the most part, it's not that these platforms are buckling to some public pressure about these specific episodes...they are doing it on their own. Nobody was demanding that the Community or the Golden Girls episode be striken from the public record. But, hey...when someone hears that there might be coming to a party with a peanut allergy, you put away all of the snacks that *might* have peanuts. You slowly bring them back out when you confirm which ones aren't actually processed in a plant that also processes nuts, and then when the guest does arrive, you can get the real scoop about if they are actually alergic to peanuts or not. And in the end, the Nutter butter might just have to stay in the cabinet, if you don't want to contribute to challenges for your guests.
d) In my mind, the action reminds of this post-9/11 The Onion article: https://local.theonion.com/not-knowing-what-else-to-do-woman-bakes-american-flag-1819566173 And I can identify with that. I've been feeling broken/helpless every since Monday when I first read Elija McClain's...basically final words. * I can identify with just want to do *something*, even if it's overkill "just to be safe" sort of thing.


*https://i.imgur.com/tBe4oNB.png


----------



## StevenC

spudmunkey said:


> I'm not upset about platforms removing things.
> a) It's likely temporary, anwyay
> b) cases where it's appropriate, content will likely be brought back with an additional title card at the beginning, providing explaination/context.
> c) For the most part, it's not that these platforms are buckling to some public pressure about these specific episodes...they are doing it on their own. Nobody was demanding that the Community or the Golden Girls episode be striken from the public record. But, hey...when someone hears that there might be coming to a party with a peanut allergy, you put away all of the snacks that *might* have peanuts. You slowly bring them back out when you confirm which ones aren't actually processed in a plant that also processes nuts, and then when the guest does arrive, you can get the real scoop about if they are actually alergic to peanuts or not. And in the end, the Nutter butter might just have to stay in the cabinet, if you don't want to contribute to challenges for your guests.
> d) In my mind, the action reminds of this post-9/11 The Onion article: https://local.theonion.com/not-knowing-what-else-to-do-woman-bakes-american-flag-1819566173 And I can identify with that. I've been feeling broken/helpless every since Monday when I first read Elija McClain's...basically final words. * I can identify with just want to do *something*, even if it's overkill "just to be safe" sort of thing.
> 
> 
> *https://i.imgur.com/tBe4oNB.png


You clearly don't watch Community as many times a year as I do.


----------



## TedEH

I don't know that I agree with C. I think there's a lot of public pressure to "end up on the right side of history" as people have been saying lately.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> I don't know that I agree with C. I think there's a lot of public pressure to "end up on the right side of history" as people have been saying lately.


That's a very good point (and a very good thing) but I think there's probably a distinction between general "let's make sure we're not the bad guys in this story" pressure to do some soul searching, vs thousands of irate phone calls a day telling them to pull that episode of Community.


----------



## TedEH

Yeah, I agree in that I don't think there's pressure in the form of direct requests to make changes to voice actors and pull episodes and things like that (at least not very much of it).

But there is very much a pressure to not appear to have done nothing at all. Some might say that doing nothing looks much worse than the token/signal gesture that helps nobody. It's sort of a lose-lose.


----------



## StevenC

Community is the least racist show in the world. The Dean's best friend when he was 6 years old was a black man.


----------



## zappatton2

Some of my best friends are on Community. lol.

Actually, 9/11 is an apt comparison, because right after that, people were sensitive to a lot of things they might not have been otherwise. I think you're all quite right; this won't accomplish much, especially when roping in shows and movies that use blackface as an ironic critique of racism rather than an overt expression of it. But these sorts of things run their course, in the grand scheme, it's my hope that the terribleness of the Trump administration has sensitized a good number of people who were not exactly sensitive to it prior.

Plus, I've got Community of DVD, so as they say in this day and age, I got mine...


----------



## possumkiller

Not all of us are rolling in DVD money.

Some people are lucky if they can afford to keep the internet on long enough to download it illegally.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.tm...ellie-charged-felony-tax-crimes-george-floyd/

So Chauvin AND his estranged wife are in more trouble.


----------



## Ralyks

The Buffalo cops are back on payroll.


----------



## jaxadam

Ralyks said:


> The Buffalo cops are back on payroll.



Do you know this from personal experience?


----------



## Ralyks

jaxadam said:


> Do you know this from personal experience?



My son's mother's family is all in Buffalo, and Grandpa is part of the Working Families party and knows many cops. So, yes.


----------



## jaxadam

Ralyks said:


> My son's mother's family is all in Buffalo, and Grandpa is part of the Working Families party and knows many cops. So, yes.



I just didn’t know if you had a rough weekend and found out firsthand.


----------



## Ralyks

jaxadam said:


> I just didn’t know if you had a rough weekend and found out firsthand.



All weekends are rough when you raise a 5 year old by yourself, and then drop a pandemic on top of that.


----------



## jaxadam

Ralyks said:


> All weekends are rough when you raise a 5 year old by yourself, and then drop a pandemic on top of that.



Have you considered an au pair?


----------



## Ralyks

jaxadam said:


> Have you considered an au pair?



Maybe after I finish my accounting degree and move out of my current place. But I know me. I bring a foreign girl into my home and... yep...


----------



## jaxadam

6 feet apart people!

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/us/us-blm-protests/index.html


----------



## Adieu

jaxadam said:


> 6 feet apart people!
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/us/us-blm-protests/index.html



For some people, the toxic politics and backslide into authoritarianism is as relevant or more relevant a personal threat than corona

If you're young and single, you're highly unlikely to die of covid. You ARE, however, very likely going to have to live with the consequences or emigrate if you passively watch your home devolve into a failed and/or oppressive state


Trust me on that one. I'm a Soviet, so not my first rodeo


----------



## jaxadam

Adieu said:


> For some people, the toxic politics and backslide into authoritarianism is as relevant or more relevant a personal threat than corona
> 
> If you're young and single, you're highly unlikely to die of covid. You ARE, however, very likely going to have to live with the consequences or emigrate if you passively watch your home devolve into a failed and/or oppressive state
> 
> 
> Trust me on that one. I'm a Soviet, so not my first rodeo



But what about Grandma?!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Remember kids, social distancing and the safety of the elderly only matter when the blacks are getting too uppity.


----------



## diagrammatiks

actually are those people are wearing masks. so they are super good.

trust me. I made all my employees wear masks so I wouldn't have to wear one and we are all super healthy.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> Remember kids, social distancing and the safety of the elderly only matter when the blacks are getting too uppity.



Another one of your greatest hits. I hope you’re archiving these for other threads/forums/mass texts.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Remember kids, social distancing and the safety of the elderly only matter when the blacks are getting too uppity.



Or if, gawd forbid, the plebs and proles and ethnics start findin common cause

Quick call in stormtroopers before they decide to eat the rich or worse yet stand up for their rights


----------



## jaxadam

Peaceful protests


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> Peaceful protests




I feel bad for those cops standing around that statue... no shields to block these rock chunks or whatever's being thrown?

At any rate, posting this sort of video and trying to link to BLM protests in general is knowingly disingenuous. A vast majority of protests are peaceful. It's a big country, and if the fringe is 1% of protesters, that still leaves plenty of extremist behavior to capture. But do they (me/others here/BLM protesters) believe it's okay to hit bike cops with rocks or steal TVs? I don't, and I haven't met anyone in real life who thinks otherwise.


----------



## tacotiklah

MaxOfMetal said:


> Remember kids, social distancing and the safety of the elderly only matter when the blacks are getting too uppity.



My hope is this is just you being facetious, but if not...

I would argue that if you're under the threat of being gunned down by the police who historically have been allowed to get off scot free from any criminal or even civil liability, that would constitute a more existential threat than even COVID-19 and therefore there's a good reason to risk even the threat of illness to try and fight against that. From what I can see, people are still wearing masks and there are also actual train medics on hand at a good number of the protests to try and keep people healthy.


----------



## narad

tacotiklah said:


> My hope is this is just you being facetious, but if not...
> 
> I would argue that if you're under the threat of being gunned down by the police who historically have been allowed to get off scot free from any criminal or even civil liability, that would constitute a more existential threat than even COVID-19 and therefore there's a good reason to risk even the threat of illness to try and fight against that. From what I can see, people are still wearing masks and there are also actual train medics on hand at a good number of the protests to try and keep people healthy.



He is. But you can just take the same reply and stick it on any @jaxadam post instead.


----------



## tacotiklah

narad said:


> He is. But you can just take the same reply and stick it on any @jaxadam post instead.



I've run into too many people that have said the same thing unironically online, so I'm never sure.


----------



## BlackSG91

Here is some new leaked bodycam video showing new details of George Floyd's arrest.




;>)/


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> He is. But you can just take the same reply and stick it on any @jaxadam post instead.



Now that’s not entirely true... some of my posts are very serious, I just never like to say which!


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> Now that’s not entirely true... some of my posts are very serious, I just never like to say which!


Ah, the liar's paradox.


----------



## jaxadam

StevenC said:


> Ah, the liar's paradox.



Fuck man I just googled that shit and wikipediaed it or something and man that shit is DEEP YO! You guys are way too smart for me.


----------



## SpaceDock

There was a “Back the Blue” rally near my home town and the police supports beat up the counter protesters after trying the “march them out.” Really making the police look good, they arrested counter protesters even though you can clearly see they were getting the shit beat out of them. Also, I am sharing this video because it really demonstrates the attitude of the police supporters.


----------



## Randy

We had a 'Back the Blue' protest here in Saratoga Springs, and the police were accompanying like a fucking escort. They eventually encountered counter-protesters from BLM and you can see the change in posture and demeanor by the cops in response. Eventually there were arrests and they brought in a fucking Bearcat and military fatigues.

https://dailygazette.com/galleries/...lly-saratoga-springs-disrupted-blm-protesters






In better news, there've been BLM and BTL protests on and off in my smaller rural town and the police remained entirely neutral and were very supportive of the fact it was a peaceful protest on both sides.


----------



## jaxadam

6 feet apart people!


----------



## Randy

RoboHorse


----------



## Choop

There may be nothing more on-brand for bootlicking wack jobs than wearing a shirt depicting the thin blue line flag in the shape of the punisher skull.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> RoboHorse



1 Robohorse apart people!


----------



## BigViolin

...or at least two Danzigs.


----------



## Ralyks

So I guess this goes here since we're talking about shootings, but any thoughts on Kyle Rittenhouse? One of my moderate friends is thinking he acted in self defense, and from all the videos I've tried to watch, I don't see it. Also, why did a 17 year old have a rifle and cross state lines for this?
And people are demanding Tucker Carlson get fired for defending it, but we know that won't happen.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> So I guess this goes here since we're talking about shootings, but any thoughts on Kyle Rittenhouse? One of my moderate friends is thinking he acted in self defense, and from all the videos I've tried to watch, I don't see it. Also, why did a 17 year old have a rifle and cross state lines for this?
> And people are demanding Tucker Carlson get fired for defending it, but we know that won't happen.



Two things for the self defense claim:

1) He went to the party as an aggressor and agitator. 

2) Sure, maybe he was attacked first (we don't know that and everything so far reported points otherwise), but what about the later victims?


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> So I guess this goes here since we're talking about shootings, but any thoughts on Kyle Rittenhouse? One of my moderate friends is thinking he acted in self defense, and from all the videos I've tried to watch, I don't see it. Also, why did a 17 year old have a rifle and cross state lines for this?
> And people are demanding Tucker Carlson get fired for defending it, but we know that won't happen.



The underage skinhead with the assault rifle?

How do we not have a thread about all that new bullshit yet?


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> So I guess this goes here since we're talking about shootings, but any thoughts on Kyle Rittenhouse? One of my moderate friends is thinking he acted in self defense, and from all the videos I've tried to watch, I don't see it. Also, why did a 17 year old have a rifle and cross state lines for this?
> And people are demanding Tucker Carlson get fired for defending it, but we know that won't happen.


Worth keeping in mind, most of the videos that have circulated have evidently either started recording or been trimmed to _after_ he first opened fire - people trying to tackle him and pin him on the ground are trying to take down an active shooter. 

He drove from Illinois to Wisconson to counterprotest the BLM protests after Jacob Blake got shot in the back seven times when cops showed up at a altercation he was trying to diffuse. Where I'm from, if you drive several hours with a gun to kill something, that's not called self defense, that's called hunting.


----------



## Adieu

When the "something" you hunt are human beings, especially those of a certain ethnicity or political position, that's called TERRORISM


----------



## SpaceDock

Ralyks said:


> So I guess this goes here since we're talking about shootings, but any thoughts on Kyle Rittenhouse? One of my moderate friends is thinking he acted in self defense, and from all the videos I've tried to watch, I don't see it. Also, why did a 17 year old have a rifle and cross state lines for this?
> And people are demanding Tucker Carlson get fired for defending it, but we know that won't happen.



In the pre shooting video he said he came out to protect businesses and he was guarding a gas station. One more example of how Thin Blue Line and Blue Lives Matters is more concerned about saving property than people. They do not value human life, but that gas station was worth a killing few people for.


----------



## wankerness

MaxOfMetal said:


> Two things for the self defense claim:
> 
> 1) He went to the party as an aggressor and agitator.
> 
> 2) Sure, maybe he was attacked first (we don't know that and everything so far reported points otherwise), but what about the later victims?



The evidence suggests that the later victims DID attack him - TO STOP HIM. There's now video suggesting the second guy that died tried to rush him with a skateboard to stop him. So, there's no way he gets first degree murder for those, even though it was his fault.

Regardless, the kid was a frickin psycho and I pray he gets the book thrown at him. Of course, given this political hellscape we live in, he's going to be a featured speaker at the RNC in 2024, if not tomorrow. I'm already seeing tons of republicans digging up dirt on the back history of the two dead people, with the implication being that they deserved it and this kid's a hero.

If we don't have a full-blown civil war in this country after the election, I'm going to be pleasantly surprised. Fox and the Republican rageosphere (ex, Tucker Carlson) have got their 40% of the country into such a frothing rage and they're currently weaponizing them. Can't wait for people like this kid to be part of the 50,000 that Trump hired to show up at election booths on election day for "security."


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> The evidence suggests that the later victims DID attack him - TO STOP HIM. There's now video suggesting the second guy that died tried to rush him with a skateboard to stop him. So, there's no way he gets first degree murder for those, even though it was his fault.


I'll confess I'm not 100% up on the legal statues here... but I was always under the impression if someone was shot to death by an active shooter, while trying to stop that active shooter from shooting anyone else, that _was_ considered first degree murder.


----------



## Randy

I'm no legal expert but my general grasp is lethal force to protect someone else's property doesn't qualify as self defense under castle doctrine or even in a stand your ground state. It doesn't matter if the protester acted aggressively toward him, it happened in the context of him defending property he had no authority over. As such, the initial hostile action would be considered him restricting the actions of the protester, not their actions toward him, which would make it a provocation and an escalation. Likewise, everything he did afterward would e considered violence in trying to escape repercussions for his initial law breaking, so those wouldn't be self defense either.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'm no legal expert but my general grasp is lethal force to protect someone else's property doesn't qualify as self defense under castle doctrine or even in a stand your ground state. It doesn't matter if the protester acted aggressively toward him, it happened in the context of him defending property he had no authority over. As such, the initial hostile action would be considered him restricting the actions of the protester, not their actions toward him, which would make it a provocation and an escalation. Likewise, everything he did afterward would e considered violence in trying to escape repercussions for his initial law breaking, so those wouldn't be self defense either.


I've got a sinking feeling about this, like this is a situation tailor-made for Trump to issue a presidential pardon. :/


----------



## wankerness

One obvious and insane byproduct of this is that it's radicalizing swing voters towards Republicans, because Trump has been loudly blasting Evers for not doing anything (Evers condemned the riots and sent in hundreds of national guardsmen, but Trump sent in THOUSANDS!) and trying to convince everyone that this is the kind of thing that will happen all the time under Biden's watch (as if it isn't happening right now all the time under Trump's watch). Most people, somewhat understandably, are far more concerned about their businesses/towns getting torched than they are personally scared of getting shot by cops. Which is unfortunate, but it's just human nature - people don't tend to care if something bad happens to someone else, but if there's a chance it will happen to them, suddenly it's a huge deal. White people don't view it as a possibility that the cops will stop them and shoot them for no reason, so it's hard to make them care as much about that as seeing their town turn into an inferno due to a bunch of agitated little shitbirds who are trying to co-opt a left wing cause to do some damage. 

Biden needs to just come out loudly condemning the property damage shit and admonishing those "protesters" (I know they're a fringe element) more than he's been doing if he wants a chance of winning Wisconsin. I know it's not the morally cool thing to do right now, and it will absolutely lose him enthusiasm from the progressive types who immediately accuse people of not caring about black lives if they so much as frown at the town destruction, but there are TONS of swing voters here who are absolutely going to go Trump over this kind of thing. I deal with them all the time. They don't like Trump, they were leaning Biden, some of them even voted Hillary, but they are *terrified* of rioting and think Biden won't do anything about it. 

Ironic, since Kamala was initially getting dragged over the coals for being a cop. I really think they should play that up right now.


----------



## Randy

Not totally apples-to=apples but this is a case that comes to mind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_David_Smith_killings

Essentially the guy's house had previously been broken into, and he setup cameras, etc. anticipating they'd come back again, then he parked himself in a corner of the basement and shot them dead when they made their way down there.

The fact they broke into his house more than once, the fact he had nowhere to go because he was in the far corner of his basement would typically make this a clear cut case of self defense under the Castle Doctrine. But the case against him basically stated that lethal force wasn't necessary to protect himself or prevent the altercation from happening, he essentially did nothing to deter them and actually encouraged them in so that he COULD use violence against them. That caught two first degree murder conviction.

Obviously it's not as clear cut as that but the point there is that the law takes into account the context in which the interaction occured. This wasn't Rittenhouse protecting his house, this wasn't Rittenhouse protecting his business (even THOSE might be dicey). This was him driving over state lines and 'defending' someone else's used car parking lot in the midst of a protest (riot?) with a weapon he was not legal authorized to carry, past local curfew. 

This isn't a cop using lethal force in the midst of doing his job, the question is was Rittenhouse's life in danger, what actions did he take that got him there and what options did he have to remove himself from the situation. He could've stayed home, he could've not open carried, he could've not provoked a fight over protecting someone else's building, he could've called 911 (he DID use his phone, after all), could've looked for a police officer and turned over his weapon, etc. Because all of this happened during the commission of a CRIME, his actions to "defend himself" thereafter are moot.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I have no faith in this not being a shit show.

Wississippi, even in the more liberal areas are very, very racist.

They're going to make a statue of this kid in Waupaca County. They'll have a festival in his name in Beaver Dam. There'll be pictures of this kid pissing on a picture of Evers in Calvin style on lifted trucks.

I can already smell (because of the diet consisting solely on PBR, beef, and cheese) 45 to 60 year old retirees wearing "Drink Wisconsonably" shirts unironically waiting for Scott Walker (the one true Governor) to make his galaxy brain take known so they have something to shout between beating thier wives and children.

Seriously, fuck this place sometimes.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I have no faith in this not being a shit show.
> 
> Wississippi, even in the more liberal areas are very, very racist.
> 
> They're going to make a statue of this kid in Waupaca County. They'll have a festival in his name in Beaver Dam. There'll be pictures of this kid pissing on a picture of Evers in Calvin style on lifted trucks.
> 
> I can already smell (because of the diet consisting solely on PBR, beef, and cheese) 45 to 60 year old retirees wearing "Drink Wisconsonably" shirts unironically waiting for Scott Walker (the one true Governor) to make his galaxy brain take known so they have something to shout between beating thier wives and children.
> 
> Seriously, fuck this place sometimes.



I did notice that the chief of police sounded like he really liked the kid. Terminology he was using was as if he was acting as a police officer ("use of force" etc).


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> I've got a sinking feeling about this, like this is a situation tailor-made for Trump to issue a presidential pardon. :/



He'd have to be in office still when the terrorist kid gets convicted.... that might take a while.


----------



## Randy

Another thing worth noting, the people saying the protester was the initial aggressor (supposedly threw a rock or brick at him?) doesn't take into account NO other open carry militia were injured or had to use force, yet this guy shot three people. He wasn't targeted just because he was there or just because he had a gun.

Also, side-note, third guy that got shot and survived had a pistol and tried to intervene and he didn't even get off a shot. Another reminder of how bullshit the 'good guy with a gun' thing means in the midst of chaos. This is what the wild west looks like, and the one thing Tucker is right about (even if it's not what he meant) is that having civilians roaming the streets with guns trying to maintain their version of "law and order" is disastrous. For every argument about Dems being wrong for letting the mobs roam the streets, there's a co-equal argument to be made against roaming, armed vigilantism (which is also illegal, BTW).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I did notice that the chief of police sounded like he really liked the kid. Terminology he was using was as if he was acting as a police officer ("use of force" etc).



This is how they groom future officers out here in the Midwest. 

Keep them stupid, make them angry, give them privilege, let them have guns, hope for the "best" with that meaning being hateful fucks who don't like people who aren't mirror images of themselves. 

Some "liberal" folks out here have been openly siding with the murderer. Not because they like him, but because what they hate more.


----------



## Necris

I've been seeing Timothy Snyder's book "On Tyranny" making the rounds again, particularly the opening lines of the 6th chapter _Be Wary of Paramilitaries_: "When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching around with torches and pictures of a Leader, the end is nigh. When the pro-leader paramilitary, the official police, and the military intermingle, the end has come."



Randy said:


> I did notice that the chief of police sounded like he really liked the kid. Terminology he was using was as if he was acting as a police officer ("use of force" etc).



Allegedly one of the right wing "Kenosha Guard" members prior to the shooting was caught on video saying the police informed him that they (police) were going attempt to direct the protestors in the direction of the the "Guard", the police are also on video directly interacting with the members and telling them "we appreciate you guy's we really do" and giving them water.

The militia who shot a protestor while "defending a statue" in Arizona were described as "armed friendlies" by the police on the radio scanner (the shooter being the son of a former sheriff if I recall, I don't remember what page in this thread it's on).

The direct collaboration between law enforcement and right-wing paramilitaries has been observed consistently enough in countries which fell to fascism that it's a very strong sign of fascism taking hold of a country. There are reports predating the George Floyd protests describing collaboration between the police and right-wing extremist groups, but since the George Floyd protests began there's been a significant increase in reports of and articles about the open collaboration between U.S. law enforcement and right-wing paramilitary groups in various areas of the country and occasionally videos of officers directly interacting with these groups.


----------



## spudmunkey

In case I need to specify, I disagree with both of these...but thought I'd share what's out there.


----------



## Randy

No more heroic depiction than chibi.


----------



## SpaceDock

That is repugnant as fuck


----------



## TedEH

That's officially enough internet for today.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> In case I need to specify, I disagree with both of these...but thought I'd share what's out there.



Worth noting those cops that were being protested against let a murderer literally walk past them with his gun hanging off his shoulder and made it back across state lines. So, you know, confirmation that they're kinda shitty at their job.

Also a repeat of the protester getting punched in the back of the head and the cop not doing anything. Absolutely can't grasp the idea that 'their' protesters would ever do something violent.


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> In case I need to specify, I disagree with both of these...but thought I'd share what's out there.




FML, what's next, an animated movie?


Also, commies? Who's directing the troll farm running this? Because this is far too spun and concerted to be grassroots DIY bullshit


----------



## spudmunkey

One question I have: the two people that were shot by Kyle as he was trying to escape: were they near the first shooting? Or did they just hear gunfire, and ran towards the guy who people were shouting was the shooter, trying to take him down and get his weapon? It seems they have checkered pasts, but there's a plausible scenario where they were acting incredibly selfleasly/heroic, no?


----------



## philkilla

BLM is doing a bang up job; glad to have them around


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

What aforementioned friend is saying is a case for self defense


----------



## Randy

philkilla said:


> BLM is doing a bang up job; glad to have them around



Everything's fucked, to look at the last several months and say any one group holds responsibility for it is to lack any objectivity whatsoever. Even people who are in favor of BLM and protests are quick to admit the element that take over when night comes and storefronts start getting torched are a different group that don't care about social justice or anything, they just want to riot and loot.

To call out BLM by name is to target one group and one message when the landscape is several groups and several messages. "Wisconsin militias are doing a bangup job, glad to have them around" "Kenosha law enforcement is doing a bang up job, glad to have them around"


----------



## jaxadam

philkilla said:


> BLM is doing a bang up job; glad to have them around



Phil, you'll need to go to the Political Compass thread to make sure you're in the right quadrant to post in here.

https://www.sevenstring.org/threads/political-compass-thread.343419/

*ducks*


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> Everything's fucked, to look at the last several months and say any one group holds responsibility for it is to lack any objectivity whatsoever. Even people who are in favor of BLM and protests are quick to admit the element that take over when night comes and storefronts start getting torched are a different group that don't care about social justice or anything, they just want to riot and loot.
> 
> To call out BLM by name is to target one group and one message when the landscape is several groups and several messages. "Wisconsin militias are doing a bangup job, glad to have them around" "Kenosha law enforcement is doing a bang up job, glad to have them around"



BLM is the most prolific clique in most forms of media at the moment. If you want to assume my entire basis of objectivity is based on one aspect of the past few months than you're mistaken.

Also, are you trying to say BLM turns into a werewolf once night time hits based on how their behavior changes?? lol


----------



## Randy

philkilla said:


> BLM is the most prolific clique in most forms of media at the moment. If you want to assume my entire basis of objectivity is based on one aspect of the past few months than you're mistaken.
> 
> Also, are you trying to say BLM turns into a werewolf once night time hits based on how their behavior changes?? lol



No, we have BLM in Albany/Schenectady and half of it are old black preachers working with police on community policing, and they're not outside breaking windows and stealing computers at 11:30pm. When I was a younger person with a lot of pent up frustration, I absolutely used any public event as an excuse to make havoc, and I could see "supporting" a cause if it's a means to get out in the street and light more shit on fire. The people doing that have zero concern about outcomes, which is very different than the people organizing events that actually have an identity.


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> No, we have BLM in Albany/Schenectady and half of it are old black preachers working with police on community policing, and they're not outside breaking windows and stealing computers at 11:30pm. When I was a younger person with a lot of pent up frustration, I absolutely used any public event as an excuse to make havoc, and I could see "supporting" a cause if it's a means to get out in the street and light more shit on fire. The people doing that have zero concern about outcomes, which is very different than the people organizing events that actually have an identity.



Well it's good you have some actual good people supporting the cause, but unfortunately it doesn't catch the air waves (and likely never will).

If BLM is already that divisive with their operating force, it would be more beneficial at this point to abandon it and just stick to doing good, without having an acronym attached to it.

From a national perspective (and I'd bet international) BLM has not succeeded in furthering their initiative.


----------



## wankerness

If Trump wins in any legitimate way, it's going to be because of "protesters" destroying things and the threat of it being possible any time the cops do anything wrong. And as we know, cops can't help but murder people all the time in this country. It might not be fair, it might not logically make much sense, but it's driving people around here to Trump's side like crazy. Hold off till Biden's in charge, please. Denounce the little assholes ruining things for everyone like crazy. Do not let Trump take this and run - it's happening under his watch, it should be a no-brainer. It infuriates me that certain sectors of the left wing are espousing this idea that "if people are coming to destroy your store, you must just let them do it and say that it's fine because of racial injustices."


----------



## Randy

philkilla said:


> Well it's good you have some actual good people supporting the cause, but unfortunately it doesn't catch the air waves (and likely never will).
> 
> If BLM is already that divisive with their operating force, it would be more beneficial at this point to abandon it and just stick to doing good, without having an acronym attached to it.
> 
> From a national perspective (and I'd bet international) BLM has not succeeded in furthering their initiative.



Agreed in a few ways, but it's murky. 

I don't personally subscribe to 'BLM' in name because it IS a brand at this point, and it's a mix of having an 'official' structure and also sharing the identity with anyone that chooses to fly their flag. I absolutely know as fact there are people who just want to agitate and be violent, and they can just throw on a BLM shirt or stand in a crowd of them and they become part of it. I don't want my name associated with a brand that easily compromised.

But as far as a concept, 'black lives matter' as a statement, social justice (by way of alternatives to incarceration for NON-violent crime) and addressing the human issues related to crime rather than being heavy handed and escalating ARE entirely sound. Likewise, the disproportionate frequency of force and 'arrest them' as first policy ARE real issues that SHOULD be addressed.

So as far as being murky, I mean that some unified voice is necessary to effect change, I think staying active has increased the likeihood of change (in NYS we already have sweeping law enforcement reform REQUIREMENT in all municipalities) but I think BLM as a brand has become a convenient scapegoat for not changing things. I'd argue some people don't want them to change and they'll use BLM or whatever replaces it as an excuse, but I'll fully admit that BLM as a brand connected to violence has watered down the cause.


----------



## Randy

wankerness said:


> If Trump wins in any legitimate way, it's going to be because of "protesters" destroying things and the threat of it being possible any time the cops do anything wrong. And as we know, cops can't help but murder people all the time in this country. It might not be fair, it might not logically make much sense, but it's driving people around here to Trump's side like crazy. Hold off till Biden's in charge, please. Denounce the little assholes ruining things for everyone like crazy. Do not let Trump take this and run - it's happening under his watch, it should be a no-brainer. It infuriates me that certain sectors of the left wing are espousing this idea that "if people are coming to destroy your store, you must just let them do it and say that it's fine because of racial injustices."



I call bullshit. I said it way earlier or in another thread, the ease with which people are willing to jump straight back to voting for Trump is PURE BULLSHIT. I'd argue they would've made one excuse or the other by election day to switch their vote. Don't fall for it. 

Also, nice time to remind yourself DONALD TRUMP is your President RIGHT NOW. While your stores are being burned down, he's the guy in charge. What's he done to stop it? There's been civil unrest flareups here and there in this country but never sustained in this way and not when he got the job, only after 4 years of his leadership. Before you get Stockholm Syndrome, ask yourself if 4 more years of Donald Trump fixes this and if it magically did, at what cost.


----------



## Randy

Would also like to point out even at the RNC, the Trump campaign couldn't decide if Biden and Harris love letting criminals roam free or if Biden and Harris have a record of being heavy handed (ie: Biden crime bill in the 90s, Harris' record as a prosecutor).


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Would also like to point out even at the RNC, the Trump campaign couldn't decide if Biden and Harris love letting criminals roam free or if Biden and Harris have a record of being heavy handed (ie: Biden crime bill in the 90s, Harris' record as a prosecutor).



This. So much this. Then again, everything I read about the RNC felt like a weird acid trip. But that's for the other thread.


----------



## philkilla

If Biden gets elected we're going to reach the hypothetical normalization phase of a Russian takeover.

If trump gets re-elected we're going to get more riots and probably compressed civil disruption.

If biden gets elected trump will go out kicking and screaming, and his most ardent supporters will sling shit everywhere.

Once again we're stuck with the choice of a douchebag and a turd sandwich.


----------



## Adieu

...eh?

Biden's a Russian asset too?


----------



## philkilla

Adieu said:


> ...eh?
> 
> Biden's a Russian asset too?



I certainly hope not.

I'm implying things would reach a state of "normal". At this point in 2020, nothing would really surprise me.


----------



## wankerness

Randy said:


> I call bullshit. I said it way earlier or in another thread, the ease with which people are willing to jump straight back to voting for Trump is PURE BULLSHIT. I'd argue they would've made one excuse or the other by election day to switch their vote. Don't fall for it.
> 
> Also, nice time to remind yourself DONALD TRUMP is your President RIGHT NOW. While your stores are being burned down, he's the guy in charge. What's he done to stop it? There's been civil unrest flareups here and there in this country but never sustained in this way and not when he got the job, only after 4 years of his leadership. Before you get Stockholm Syndrome, ask yourself if 4 more years of Donald Trump fixes this and if it magically did, at what cost.



this is a real thing that is happening with small town wisconsiners. Plus, data has shown that during civil unrest in the past, affected areas would go hard toward the conservatives. I absolutely do not think Biden would do worse with riots, but that’s how the mainstream is perceiving things, and it’s now what Trump and co are blaring as loudly as possible since it’s about the first attack they’ve found that is actually finding a hold. They were just flailing wildly with bullshit about Hunter and China and “most liberal agenda ever “ that didn’t convince a single person that wasn’t all-in on Trump, but this is starting to have an effect.

that rnc stuff was terrifying. Not to mention all the mainstream right wingers like Tucker Carlson that are calling murder boy a hero. Our future as a country really is entirely dependent on Trump losing, and if rioting continues, that’s going to lessen our chances. Peaceful protests are good, I love what the NBA started, but god, that handful of idiot children looking for an excuse to smash things is playing right into Trump’s hands. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I could definitely see those boogaloo idiots trying to help incite riots and looting since it’s working so well to get us on the verge of serious widespread violence.


----------



## Randy

wankerness said:


> this is a real thing that is happening with small town wisconsiners. Plus, data has shown that during civil unrest in the past, affected areas would go hard toward the conservatives. I absolutely do not think Biden would do worse with riots, but that’s how the mainstream is perceiving things, and it’s now what Trump and co are blaring as loudly as possible since it’s about the first attack they’ve found that is actually finding a hold. They were just flailing wildly with bullshit about Hunter and China and “most liberal agenda ever “ that didn’t convince a single person that wasn’t all-in on Trump, but this is starting to have an effect.



What's he supposed to do about that? They tar and feather him over his crime bill and picking a state AG as his running mate, and he's consistently said he supports MORE funding for police departments. What's he supposed to do, roam the streets with an AR to win these guys votes? I still call bullshit (especially in the context of @MaxOfMetal comments and the Sheriff and Police Chiefs current and previous statements), those people were going to vote Trump.

There was a big write-up on the Hill saying Lincoln Project pollsters say Trump voters are undercounted because they're "shy voters" moreso than they were in 2016 because of how indefensible he's been. Saying they don't like local violence and blame Dems (how liberal is Kenosha anyway?) is a convenient aside to sound justified in their existing prejudices. Also, anecdotes are anecdotes, you can't shape a national campaign over one town.


----------



## Randy

philkilla said:


> If Biden gets elected we're going to reach the hypothetical normalization phase of a Russian takeover.
> 
> If trump gets re-elected we're going to get more riots and probably compressed civil disruption.
> 
> If biden gets elected trump will go out kicking and screaming, and his most ardent supporters will sling shit everywhere.
> 
> Once again we're stuck with the choice of a douchebag and a turd sandwich.



TBH, we _are_ lacking law and order. Across the board. Even if you blame "liberal policing policies" or whatever, Kenosha put in a curfew they did nothing to enforce, let mobs of people roam the streets, and let armed vigilantes roam the streets (also in violation of the curfew) to act as private security authorized with lethal force to protect USED CARS. 

I'm not for abuses of power or bootlicking but the cities burning aren't because liberals or anyone else are telling them to stand down, there's just outright lawlessness and awful selective enforcement of the rules. The cops (and I think National Guard were present?) should have cleared the streets, period. The fact it's wild west city is not good and going to get worse. People breaking windows is bad, people shooting eachother will be worse.


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> TBH, we _are_ lacking law and order. Across the board. Even if you blame "liberal policing policies" or whatever, Kenosha put in a curfew they did nothing to enforce, let mobs of people roam the streets, and let armed vigilantes roam the streets (also in violation of the curfew) to act as private security authorized with lethal force to protect USED CARS.
> 
> I'm not for abuses of power or bootlicking but the cities burning aren't because liberals or anyone else are telling them to stand down, there's just outright lawlessness and awful selective enforcement of the rules. The cops (and I think National Guard were present?) should have cleared the streets, period. The fact it's wild west city is not good and going to get worse. People breaking windows is bad, people shooting eachother will be worse.



Oh you right.

The boogs and Kyle's of America are the least threatening of the armed dudes that could be roaming the streets currently (but that doesn't mean that they arent dangerous).

The actual professional gun owners are sitting back and observing the chaos. 

Just to caveat, anyone that ventures within rock throwing distance of a protest/riot (nearly interchangeable) are just asking for trouble.


----------



## SpaceDock

Randy said:


> TBH, we _are_ lacking law and order. Across the board. Even if you blame "liberal policing policies" or whatever, Kenosha put in a curfew they did nothing to enforce, let mobs of people roam the streets, and let armed vigilantes roam the streets (also in violation of the curfew) to act as private security authorized with lethal force to protect USED CARS.
> 
> I'm not for abuses of power or bootlicking but the cities burning aren't because liberals or anyone else are telling them to stand down, there's just outright lawlessness and awful selective enforcement of the rules. The cops (and I think National Guard were present?) should have cleared the streets, period. The fact it's wild west city is not good and going to get worse. People breaking windows is bad, people shooting eachother will be worse.



My belief is that no amount of policing will ever be what creates law and order. There are so many citizens per police and that is good. The way to achieve peace is not by an authoritarian fist, we see how that plays out all over the world. Peace is achieved by making citizens content with their lives and feel safe. It is the fear of the police that are driving people to the streets, the lack of ownership and opportunity that fuels the looting, and the knowledge that nothing will improve in their lives that causes them to burn down their own cities. We can’t fix this with any amount of law enforcement, we fix this with correcting the inequities in our country.


----------



## philkilla

SpaceDock said:


> My belief is that no amount of policing will ever be what creates law and order. There are so many citizens per police and that is good. The way to achieve peace is not by an authoritarian fist, we see how that plays out all over the world. Peace is achieved by making citizens content with their lives and feel safe. It is the fear of the police that are driving people to the streets, the lack of ownership and opportunity that fuels the looting, and the knowledge that nothing will improve in their lives that causes them to burn down their own cities. We can’t fix this with any amount of law enforcement, we fix this with correcting the inequities in our country.



So essentially not being douchebags to each other? Kinda hard when there's a right and left people can't seem to let go of.


----------



## SpaceDock

philkilla said:


> So essentially not being douchebags to each other? Kinda hard when there's a right and left people can't seem to let go of.



I think there is something to this on a social level, but also making sure that people have access to education, health care, jobs, and maybe most importantly personal growth. Society is a construct, police and law enforcement is a dissuasion, all this can be torn apart like so many great nations before us. What normally does that? Rebellion of their own citizens who feel they are left with nothing to lose.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I mean... I think that a good deal of people know that Biden is the [much] lesser of two evils. It's not even about Biden being a "good" candidate at this point. It's a matter of taking the power out of trump's hands. Most sane and humane people realize that the fabric will simply continue to fray under trumps criminal leadership. 

The violence, rioting, vandalism, etc is undermining what many civil-rights advocates are sincerely fighting for. There must at some point be a mental and physical shift to fighting for the rights of minorities vs antagonizing. You will never rid the US nor the world of racism and you certainly will not bring positive change through repeated violence and destruction but I dearly hope that through a means of legitimate focus, that as a nation we will begin to effectively address the accountability of police and create an honest degree of empathy and change for those that are truly struggling to be heard and to be treated with respect and equality.


----------



## philkilla

Case in point:

Imagine living in the nations capitol, and on a weeknight this is what you do with your free-time

https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPubl.../?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

FTR, I'm a registered independent voter; I'm sure there's similar stuff that happened on the other side but I'm not going to look for it.


----------



## Randy

Wasn't his gun. Supposedly.

_One of Rittenhouse's lawyers said on social media the 17-year-old did not own the AR-15 he was carrying the night of the shooting or bring it across the Illinois/Wisconsin line.

"Kyle did not carry a gun across state line," L. Lin Wood said in a tweet Friday morning. "The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident. The gun never left the state of Wisconsin."_

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...oting-chief-union-defend-officers/5660081002/


----------



## Wuuthrad

They need to put something in all that free water and candy flip the protests, and the police.

Im not joking! People are jacked up on pharmaceuticals and chemical additives- this is not normal behavior. 

People are taught violence and racism and fed garbage through media- garbage in garbage out. 

But why are the powers doing this? That’s what needs to he figured out!


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Wuuthrad said:


> They need to put something in all that free water and candy flip the protests, and the police.
> 
> Im not joking! People are jacked up on pharmaceuticals and chemical additives- this is not normal behavior.
> 
> People are taught violence and racism and fed garbage through media- garbage in garbage out.
> 
> But why are the powers doing this?



Wealth/ greed... always wanting more.


----------



## SpaceDock

This stuff is so out of control. I will never agree with how protests turned into riots and looting, but to have these sickos looking to kill fellow Americans under some guise of justice is beyond fucked. The snopes article I pulled this from has even more of the posts the Kenosha group was making and now all these Republicans trying to justify this kid murdering people is just beyond the pale. 

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/08/28/facebook-militia-group/

I used to think the Trump administration would just bankrupt us or drag us into some BS war, I never thought all the hate and division would have brought us to this. To anyone that thinks this isn’t because of Trump; just look back on Charlottesville, the “sons of bitches” taking a knee, and his Biden’s America fear mongering trash that has people foaming at the mouth. This is Trumps America.


----------



## Wuuthrad

SpaceDock said:


> This stuff is so out of control. I will never agree with how protests turned into riots and looting, but to have these sickos looking to kill fellow Americans under some guise of justice is beyond fucked. The snopes article I pulled this from has even more of the posts the Kenosha group was making and now all these Republicans trying to justify this kid murdering people is just beyond the pale.
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/08/28/facebook-militia-group/
> 
> I used to think the Trump administration would just bankrupt us or drag us into some BS war, I never thought all the hate and division would have brought us to this. To anyone that thinks this isn’t because of Trump; just look back on Charlottesville, the “sons of bitches” taking a knee, and his Biden’s America fear mongering trash that has people foaming at the mouth. This is Trumps America.




I think this is a load of garbage meant to stir people up and incite fear. Sure there’s a few people (like dozens maybe hundreds who are actually being violent) but I think this is a bunch of trolling really.

Shoot I was just watching how they were influencing our last election via social media and surely it’s no different this time!

Buncha fake online accounts pretending to be African Americans switching to Trump too!

I think fear is their last resort, and they are playing what they think is the white mans fear of “losing his history.” 

(btw anyone who actually feels emotional, outside of gut busting laughter, about Trumps 3rd grade history lesson adaptation of Oregon Trail video game last night is probably an idiot and Trump and Co. dam well know it. Guy’s speech writers think they’re so dam clever!) 

By history I mean particularly systemic and institutional racism which economically benefits the apparent ruling ideology that ballyhoos selfish individualism (and denial of global responsibilty and science for example, amongst many other things.) 

This is learned, taught and too often encouraged by social media and it’s by design. Their decades long erosion (and perversion) of the educational system is also to blame.



High Plains Drifter said:


> Wealth/ greed... always wanting more.





I think it’s more than wealth and greed I think that fear comes from within them, and they are echoing it as a sort of last ditch attempt to get re-elected. A relevant Cliche might be “we don’t see things as they are we see things as we are.” 

Or in this case they are projecting and trying to create a reality that really doesn’t exist. (A violent chaos were no one is safe, which is in fact a part of reality for African Americans they have a hand in creating since they ignore its sources, to say the least! They are in fact encouraging the propagation of these ideologies that sometimes lead to violence against those that want to stop racism, while at the same time attempting to prolong the continuation of systemic racism!) 

My fear is that most people don’t really care about systemic change- they don’t want to give up anything, they just want to “get theirs” and want things to return to “normal” (which at this point doesn’t appear to be possible.) 

Maybe that’s just my projection? But seriously who can blame “everyday” people? The system hasn’t provided much of an alternative, designed to keep poor people down regardless of the color of their skin, and even more so this POSPOTUS is working to promote tension and unrest between people of different races (which is a false non scientific category anyway created by ruling class which historically has been used as a belief system and policy to take over the real world for their own evil purposes. 

And as it’s been for so many years now, many people think “why would the system change now with another guy who is pretty much the same old thing?” They relish people who think this way, because it keeps them in power! Smile and swallow the bitter pill and take the lesser of...again and again...

As NIMBY proves to easily and conveniently apply to both L and R sides of political spectrum.


Re. Looting and Destruction of property, the boogaloos started it in Minneapolis! It’s also an old school NYC tactic to burn buildings. Especially landlords or owners of buildings, ala Trump.

I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if he had a hand in inciting violence beyond what’s commonly known already, such as untrained border patrol and military operatives doing security patrol. 

Trump certainly hasn’t said one word about or against the violence against African Americans which started this in the first place! It’s a spit in the face to anyone with a brain really! 

It’s just str8 up lies and more lies from these guys it’s getting ridiculous at this point...


----------



## Randy

Not to sound calloused but I read three 'touching' stories of businesses in Kenosha that got burned and trashed and 'my God why would they do this' and minor footnote that they were fully insured.

Like, yeah it's wrong. Super wrong on several levels but equating someone's video game shop being inconvenienced by having to close for a few weeks while it's rebuilt brand new as being the same thing as protecting your house with your family inside of it from being burned to the ground is bullshit. The fact this started with a kid shooting a guy for dinging cars in a used car lot (that are ALSO probably insured) is still blowing my fucking mind. If you wanted any better indication of how little some people's lives matter, behold how low the threshold is for taking one.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I agree... Fear/ paranoia is a driving mechanism but I feel that the endgame is wealth & greed. As long as they have wealth then they can ignore the rest of society which to them is a society looking for a handout and/ or equality. Having to compromise in any way is an inconvenience that they are not willing to participate in. The greed is entwined with that wealth. Their conscience sleeps as they become more and more desensitized towards a part of society that they feel doesn't directly affect them/ their family. 

Still to this day, these lyrics resonate with me constantly: "Quick to judge, quick to anger.. slow to understand. Ignorance and prejudice, and fear walk hand in hand"


----------



## Jonathan20022

Randy said:


> Not to sound calloused but I read three 'touching' stories of businesses in Kenosha that got burned and trashed and 'my God why would they do this' and minor footnote that they were fully insured.
> 
> Like, yeah it's wrong. Super wrong on several levels but equating someone's video game shop being inconvenienced by having to close for a few weeks while it's rebuilt brand new as being the same thing as protecting your house with your family inside of it from being burned to the ground is bullshit. The fact this started with a kid shooting a guy for dinging cars in a used car lot (that are ALSO probably insured) is still blowing my fucking mind. If you wanted any better indication of how little some people's lives matter, behold how low the threshold is for taking one.



Well if you want to be real about insurance coverage, there's still business from May sitting idly with said insurance companies hassling them and delaying their payouts leaving them empty handed. Not to mention the increased premiums that will destroy any chance of these businesses popping back up. You don't just file a claim and get a full payout 2 weeks later, some insurance companies will fight the claimant until they're bankrupt as well, closing for a few weeks while you get a shiny new store rebuilt isn't reality.

Looting isn't a victimless crime, if protestors/rioters want to destroy some property they should target the police and government agencies instead.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Jonathan20022 said:


> if protestors/rioters want to destroy some property they should target the police and government agencies instead.



just think of all that contraband they have layin around- prolly worth millions before they plant it or sell it... shoot maybe lots more!

you have a great idea here! have you considered getting out there to lead the picket line down to the local 5-0? 

might want to take out a few life insurance policies first, just to be financially prudent...

alternatively, word on the street is the boogaloos are hiring. not sure they pay much, but you won’t get shot by the cops- Hell you can walk away from murder!


----------



## TedEH

Jonathan20022 said:


> Looting isn't a victimless crime



I feel like that's not the point though. I'm sure you could find people who would be willing to say that it's justifiable collateral damage compared to the threats against peoples lives and rights. I can't bring myself to be mad at destruction and theft of property when it's in response to blatant murder. And that's assuming that the looters _aren't_ just a third party bad actor trying to either take advantage of the situation or intentionally manipulate the narrative of the situation.


----------



## Adieu

Looting is getting the point across, though

Bunch of minority faces picketing with posters in the hood sure as hell ain't gonna get noticed by anyone


----------



## Randy

Jonathan20022 said:


> Well if you want to be real about insurance coverage, there's still business from May sitting idly with said insurance companies hassling them and delaying their payouts leaving them empty handed. Not to mention the increased premiums that will destroy any chance of these businesses popping back up. You don't just file a claim and get a full payout 2 weeks later, some insurance companies will fight the claimant until they're bankrupt as well, closing for a few weeks while you get a shiny new store rebuilt isn't reality.
> 
> Looting isn't a victimless crime, if protestors/rioters want to destroy some property they should target the police and government agencies instead.



Okay, would it satiate you more if I said "VERY inconvenienced for SEVERAL weeks?" 

The point still stands, I said looting and rioting is wrong but shooting people for it isn't even close to proportional. Or would you like to mischaracterize my statements further?


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Okay, would it satiate you more if I said "VERY inconvenienced for SEVERAL weeks?"
> 
> The point still stands, I said looting and rioting is wrong but shooting people for it isn't even close to proportional. Or would you like to mischaracterize my statements further?



Property, especially that of the upper classes, has long been held in higher regard than the lives of commoners.... especially minorities in an ex-colony ex-slaver state founded on genocide by an imperialistic superpower.

The people who scrawled them constitutions and bills about the rights of "man" sure as hell were NOT referring to THAT man.

Pretty words hide ugly people


----------



## Jonathan20022

TedEH said:


> I feel like that's not the point though. I'm sure you could find people who would be willing to say that it's justifiable collateral damage compared to the threats against peoples lives and rights. I can't bring myself to be mad at destruction and theft of property when it's in response to blatant murder. And that's assuming that the looters _aren't_ just a third party bad actor trying to either take advantage of the situation or intentionally manipulate the narrative of the situation.



Right, and I was with that line of thinking back in May because people's lives do matter more and greiving is a personal process. But seeing the effects of it and seeing a repeat in late 2020 has me more worried for business owners because the effect is much more damaging in reality.



Randy said:


> Okay, would it satiate you more if I said "VERY inconvenienced for SEVERAL weeks?"
> 
> The point still stands, I said looting and rioting is wrong but shooting people for it isn't even close to proportional. Or would you like to mischaracterize my statements further?



What did I mischaracterize? You seem to think being insured makes the owner's lives easier and that at worst this will be a mild inconvenience and more of a short vacation. I've seen businesses flood yearly in Old Ellicott City that are "fully insured". Insurance companies barely help unless you're turning massive profits to counteract your rising costs and the "inconvenience" of not being able to do anything for months after the fact.

I think we're all past surface level statements at this point, legitimate BLM protestors are hardly the same people looting.

Your point does still stand, and I never said the shooting was justified nor proportional. I didn't even comment on that so why overreact about me putting words in your mouth?

So in return, MY point still stands. Why not loot and attack the buildings for the people responsible for the handling of all these situations?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jonathan20022 said:


> Why not loot and attack the buildings for the people responsible for the handling of all these situations?



This assumes that those who loot and riot are looking for social change, and not a nebulous group of agitators attaching themselves to the situation and using it to their ends. 

That's why you hear of sit-ins and protests at courthouses, police stations, mayor's residences, etc. You'll also notice these usually remain mostly civil as those who want change in earnest tend to go for these more meaningful targets and employ peaceful methods. 

Now, are there logistical reasons to hit "soft" targets? Yes. From a practically standpoint, it's probably not best to charge armed police and guard members and their fortification, especially when the whole reason for the protest is the extra judicial killing of people who look like the. 

Another reason is to bolster support from parties who wouldn't normally have a stake in the matter. Perhaps not for ideological reasons, but for their own ends. 

A business owner who doesn't care about the goals of the movement, probably doesn't want civil disobedience in their neighborhood, so will put pressure on the powers that be to acquiesce to the protesters. 

Anecdotally, living about half an hour from Kenosha, many people reluctantly support the arrest of the officers and removal of their superiors, as well as other initiatives championed by the protesters based purely on the fact they want the civil disobedience and news coverage to end.


----------



## Randy

Jonathan20022 said:


> Your point does still stand, and I never said the shooting was justified nor proportional. I didn't even comment on that so why overreact about me putting words in your mouth?
> 
> So in return, MY point still stands. Why not loot and attack the buildings for the people responsible for the handling of all these situations?



Because my post was primarily about the lack of proportionality of the response, since all the pro-right articles justifying the shooting have focused on the terrible atrocity of people's businesses being burned down to make it an emotional appeal. I read three different articles about that same furniture store, two didn't mention they had insurance (but did mention they have a $1m GoFundMe), only one mentioned they were fully insured and when mentioned the article said "but money is only a small part of this". 

Always have to keep in mind Kenosha looting stories are soaked in the fact the Kenosha Militia and Kyle Rittenhouse went there to protect property. So since you addressed one part of my post and not the totality, it's implied that was the only point you saw worth replying to. I guess you clarified it's not, but the window of just the one reply sounded that way yeah.

Out of this conversation, I'm starting to thing the right answer might have been looting insurance companies


----------



## Randy

Just reading up on the Portland shooting. As much as I don't like Trump or these spin-off groups of right wing activists (or specifically what they were doing in Portland), I stand by my previous statement that the lawless is the biggest problem. I have a hard time believing even if Wisconsin has an open carry policy, that it includes wandering the streets during a riot after curfew with live rounds, or burning buildings down and smashing windows. Same thing with Portland, I dunno what the protestors were up to but I have to think rolling through town in the back of a pickup truck shooting paintball guns and mace randomly into crowds has to break, like, some laws.

I think social justice is necessary, police reforms are necessary and that protesting SHOULD inconvenience folks to provoke a response, but wild west gunning eachother down in the streets and rioting has run its course. I wouldn't say I endorsed rioting but as a means of showing leadership early on that we can revoke the authority we give them, it was a message they needed to get. To me, that time has come and gone, there's nothing that happens after nightfall that's helping anybody's cause, it's basically just become a political battlefield for the fact it's an election year tbh. A couple months from now this (meaning the jockeying for who gets to lead) will be over with but these people will still be dead, it's not worth it.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Randy said:


> Out of this conversation, I'm starting to thing the right answer might have been looting insurance companies



This points to a greater problem, (Usury) which is overlooked (often intentionally) by the focus on protests, their mischaracterizations by politicians, and the subsequent dialogue created by focusing only on violence, law and order, and R vs L and the fear they are selling.

Take a look at the nearly 100 years of Redlining in American cities, which serves as an example of how insidious institutional racism is against African Americans.

Trump has profited from this redline racism and has appointed members to his cabinet whom are directly responsible.

Also a greater case should be made against Usury Law, the foundation of American Capitalism, which takes “immorality” to a whole new level, depending on your beliefs.

Apparently property is of more value than life to some people, which is ironically and quite very sadly not a “Christian” morality, despite their claims!

It’s certainly creating a class divide which directly contributes to the problems we are facing today.


----------



## TedEH

Randy said:


> I think social justice is necessary


The line between social justice and mob justice is a bit too blurry though.

Socially-informed justice? Sure. Socially-delivered justice....? I don't think that's the same thing, and I don't think it's a responsible way to deliver justice.


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> The line between social justice and mob justice is a bit too blurry though.
> 
> Socially-informed justice? Sure. Socially-delivered justice....? I don't think that's the same thing, and I don't think it's a responsible way to deliver justice.



so·cial jus·tice
_noun_

justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities and privileges within a society


----------



## TedEH

The dictionary definition doesn't change what people understand when they see the term. You mean to tell me that we haven't moved towards an age where "social justice" means taking justice into the public's hands? Because I would disagree with that.

The term was used immediately before saying that we should be protesting by inconveniencing people to provoke a response. It's right on that edge of "if you're not one of us, if you're not also an activist, then you're part of the problem". This is the public themselves trying to deliver justice.

I'll restate, using your dictionary definition:
While aiming for social justice, we're ending up somewhere closer to mob justice.


----------



## Randy

Wuuthrad said:


> Trump has profited from this redline racism



Oh yeah, and his father faced a number of lawsuits over exactly that and was the inspiration for a lot of anti-housing discrimination legislation as a result.

More recently, Trump himself tore up Obama-era laws about fair housing and a staple of their 2020 campaign is keeping "those types" out of the suburbs. It's not even a dog whistle anymore, it's explicit. The two rich white folks waving their guns at black protesters has become their spirit animal.

I actually think fair housing and lending practices IS largely ground zero for social justice and, equally, related and unrelated to race.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> The dictionary definition doesn't change what people understand when they see the term. You mean to tell me that we haven't moved towards an age where "social justice" means taking justice into the public's hands? Because I would disagree with that.
> 
> The term was used immediately before saying that we should be protesting by inconveniencing people to provoke a response. It's right on that edge of "if you're not one of us, if you're not also an activist, then you're part of the problem". This is the public themselves trying to deliver justice.
> 
> I'll restate, using your dictionary definition:
> While aiming for social justice, we're ending up somewhere closer to mob justice.



I've never in my life seen "social justice" the way you've described.

Heck, the first time I heard the term en masse was through the pejorative "social justice warrior", which is making fun of those looking for social justice.

Is it a Canadian thing?


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> I'll restate, using your dictionary definition:
> While aiming for social justice, we're ending up somewhere closer to mob justice.



I already denounced mob justice, so your hackneyed definition of social justice doesn't apply to my post nor my sentiment. My point was that there currently is no equal enforcement of rules by those who are granted authority and I don't think the void is filled by mob justice (that's what Kyle Rittenhouse did), it's filled with getting the cops and our leaders to do their damn job. I go back to the example of the Kenosha cops/Sheriffs, Wisc State Police and National Guard letting armed mobs duke it out like Thunderdome well after curfew, and gunshots ringout and they let a murderer carrying the murder weapon walk right past them because they considered him one of the 'good guys'.


----------



## TedEH

I mean, it's just a dumb semantic thing (I don't think I actually disagree with you at all outside of the semantics), but "warrior" (as far as how I've always read it) or even "activist" imply taking action, being combative, etc. I can understand why you would disagree with that - and it's perfectly reasonable to disagree - but I don't think there's much room to debate that some people see it that way.

I suppose I'm just not surprised both that events like what's happening in Kenosha are happening, but also that it's being framed by some people as a "hero finally doing something" against what they see as just a mob.


----------



## TedEH

I suppose another way to describe what I mean is that I don't see two groups of people (looters and protesters), I see a whole range of people who are there for all kinds of reasons. Peaceful protesters? Yeah. Looters taking advantage of the situation who don't care about the cause? That too. People intentionally trying to make protesters look bad? That too. Some people who think that looting is a legitimate and/or necessary form of protest? Also that. People who just want to incite more mayhem? And everything in between.

I mean, if we're going to jump to dictionary definitions to make our points - a "mob" is just a disorderly crowd. Are they a crowd? That part's obvious. Disorderly? I don't think we can call things orderly.


----------



## spudmunkey

Lifted pickup strucks with Trump flags waving, driving without a front license plate (illegal in that state), running red lights to purposefully drive into pedestrians legally crossing at a "WALK" signal, after spraying a cloud of (likely) bear mace...
https://twitter.com/TheRealCoryElia...GA6V1aKZlb2cMWrJMMY6M94jBXdjG2M3V_z97pZxhdKLY 

...after stopping in traffic to shoot random bystanders with paint ball guns.
https://imgur.com/2DAzFA3


----------



## Ralyks

This was what I was given after a friend saw the video of him hitting that girl.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> This was what I was given after a friend saw the video of him hitting that girl.




Colion Noir: I'm a lawyer

Also Colion Noir:





Nothing wrong with telling people to not comply with the law or lie to authorities, though.


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> I suppose another way to describe what I mean is that I don't see two groups of people (looters and protesters), I see a whole range of people who are there for all kinds of reasons. Peaceful protesters? Yeah. Looters taking advantage of the situation who don't care about the cause? That too. People intentionally trying to make protesters look bad? That too. Some people who think that looting is a legitimate and/or necessary form of protest? Also that. People who just want to incite more mayhem? And everything in between.
> 
> I mean, if we're going to jump to dictionary definitions to make our points - a "mob" is just a disorderly crowd. Are they a crowd? That part's obvious. Disorderly? I don't think we can call things orderly.



I have literally no idea what your point is.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> Lifted pickup strucks with Trump flags waving, driving without a front license plate (illegal in that state), running red lights to purposefully drive into pedestrians legally crossing at a "WALK" signal, after spraying a cloud of (likely) bear mace...
> https://twitter.com/TheRealCoryElia...GA6V1aKZlb2cMWrJMMY6M94jBXdjG2M3V_z97pZxhdKLY
> 
> ...after stopping in traffic to shoot random bystanders with paint ball guns.
> https://imgur.com/2DAzFA3



This is probably painfully on the nose


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Colion Noir: I'm a lawyer
> 
> Also Colion Noir:
> 
> View attachment 84459
> View attachment 84460
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with telling people to not comply with the law or lie to authorities, though.



Basically my reaction.


----------



## philkilla

spudmunkey said:


> Lifted pickup strucks with Trump flags waving, driving without a front license plate (illegal in that state), running red lights to purposefully drive into pedestrians legally crossing at a "WALK" signal, after spraying a cloud of (likely) bear mace...
> https://twitter.com/TheRealCoryElia...GA6V1aKZlb2cMWrJMMY6M94jBXdjG2M3V_z97pZxhdKLY
> 
> ...after stopping in traffic to shoot random bystanders with paint ball guns.
> https://imgur.com/2DAzFA3



"Hey let's go block traffic."

"Omg, some a-holes with propaganda machines ran right through us"

Insert surprised pikachu...


----------



## spudmunkey

Nobody was "blocking traffic" except for the traffic light they were stopped at.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Randy

Anyway, who started it and who's right is moot at this point. Both incidents actually confirmation people break the law and the cops do a shit job at taking care of it.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Randy said:


> Anyway, who started it and who's right is moot at this point. Both incidents actually confirmation people break the law and the cops do a shit job at taking care of it.



I’ve heard LEOs say they are not going to work given the current climate. Like it’s “unsafe”

I just don’t get this mentality- Unsafe meaning you can’t be both judge jury and executioner anymore without accountability?

And then Trump is saying Govs like Evers aren’t taking care of it, and he’s bringing in the Nat Guard to sort things out. cuz they can’t.

But watching Evers interview he made it very clear that he gave the WI head of National Guard the directive, and Evers refused Federal help, DHS or Border patrol. He allowed the WI guard to coordinate with the Feds should they need more help which they didn’t since they were already getting help from other states.

Yet Trump is still trying to take credit! Is there anyone or anything he won’t try to manipulate with dishonesty?


----------



## TedEH

Randy said:


> I have literally no idea what your point is.


My original point was that some people DO see "social justice" and "mob justice" to kind of mean the same thing - I know what it's supposed to mean, but to some people, it reads as "we let the mob decide what is just and how to deal with it".


----------



## vilk

philkilla said:


> "Hey let's go block traffic."
> 
> "Omg, some a-holes with propaganda machines ran right through us"
> 
> Insert surprised pikachu...



Y'all don't got traffic signals down there in Jacksonville?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

The intent for the "patriots" to antagonize was obviously firmly in place. Not saying that the details don't matter... They do. But no matter what, physical escalation was going to happen. It's what the trumpers went looking for. They were salivating like dogs.


----------



## jaxadam

vilk said:


> Y'all don't got traffic signals down there in Jacksonville?



None. It is a free-for-all, because it's mostly Teslas on autopilot.


----------



## philkilla

I'm prepared for the outrage over an officer doing his job in Daytona.


----------



## Randy

Yes, a cop shooting a guy that shot at him is exactly the same as compressing George Floyd's neck for 8+ minutes until dead. Everyone's totally overreacting to everything.


----------



## Wuuthrad

philkilla said:


> I'm prepared for the outrage over an officer doing his job in Daytona.



Glock, AR-15, butt plug... or keyboard?


----------



## philkilla

Wuuthrad said:


> Glock, AR-15, butt plug... or keyboard?



Preferably an AR15 shaped buttplug. I do not want to dissapoint anyone.

TBF Randy, the dude shot at the cop first; even if cops are in the right people will still find a reason to riot. 

Reference the guy shooting himself in the face in Minnesota recently.


----------



## jaxadam

philkilla said:


> Preferably an AR15 shaped buttplug. I do not want to dissapoint anyone.
> 
> TBF Randy, the dude shot at the cop first; even if cops are in the right people will still find a reason to riot.
> 
> Reference the guy shooting himself in the face in Minnesota recently.



C’mon now Phil, you’re gonna get the whole city of Jacksonville IP banned!


----------



## Wuuthrad

philkilla said:


> Preferably an AR15 shaped buttplug. I do not want to dissapoint anyone.



Oh Yeah- can’t wait til that “unloads” on social media! You might wanna contact Drakkar for “tips and pointers...” 



jaxadam said:


> C’mon now Phil, you’re gonna get the whole city of Jacksonville IP banned!



Dam! This whole time I thought that kinda thing was sub par for normal down there?


----------



## philkilla

More footage from Kenosha of wanton destruction and physical harm on business owners; it's OK though..just fleshwounds, sucker punches and insurance coverage right??


----------



## TedEH

Woah what - I had just hit play and didn't note where the video had come from and at the end it just all of the sudden becomes a gun thing. You had me right up until "this is culture war to take away our guns".


----------



## philkilla

The gun culture stuff is forgettable and cringe.


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> More footage from Kenosha of wanton destruction and physical harm on business owners; it's OK though..just fleshwounds, sucker punches and insurance coverage right??




Not watching that because I don;t want the Youtube algorithm to start suggesting more stuff like that for me...

...but let's say you're right, and take it at face value - a bunch of protesters were not just protesting, but wantonly going around and destroying private business property.

Not cool. I don't think anyone in this thread is going to say destruction of private property is a positive thing. But, how does that justify a 17-year-old kid from Illinois who couldn't legally carry an AR15, shooting a protester in Wisconsin to protect a car dealership hat he didn't own, didn't know the owner, and had no other personal connection to, beyond that he just decided to hang out there with a gun?

Like, no matter how you dice this, or try to justify his actions in the moment and devoid of broader context, he still crossed state lines illegally carrying a very powerful gun with the intent of, at a minimum, pointing it at some people, and the first rule of carrying a firearm is you never point it at anyone you're not fully prepared to shoot.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> Not watching that because I don;t want the Youtube algorithm to start suggesting more stuff like that for me...



For what it's worth, you can go to your history and remove it. It seems to work pretty well for me.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> Not watching that because I don;t want the Youtube algorithm to start suggesting more stuff like that for me...
> 
> ...but let's say you're right, and take it at face value - a bunch of protesters were not just protesting, but wantonly going around and destroying private business property.
> 
> Not cool. I don't think anyone in this thread is going to say destruction of private property is a positive thing. But, how does that justify a 17-year-old kid from Illinois who couldn't legally carry an AR15, shooting a protester in Wisconsin to protect a car dealership hat he didn't own, didn't know the owner, and had no other personal connection to, beyond that he just decided to hang out there with a gun?
> 
> Like, no matter how you dice this, or try to justify his actions in the moment and devoid of broader context, he still crossed state lines illegally carrying a very powerful gun with the intent of, at a minimum, pointing it at some people, and the first rule of carrying a firearm is you never point it at anyone you're not fully prepared to shoot.



Maybe this post will get me banned just like MG.org.

First of all, that kid shouldn't have been there. 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: at this point, if you going anywhere near protests or riots you're just asking for trouble.

So once again let me state, _He never should have been there.
_
The video gives a reference to the first guy he shot (which isn't even the point of that video) as being a shit head causing trouble.

The other videos on the web show same guy chasing the kid, throwing something and then getting shot. Can't really make a solid assessment based on that.

The second stage where the kid is running towards police lines and you can clearly hear people saying, "get that mother fucker", or "get his ass" etc CLEARLY had the intention to make the situation worse.

First you have the "good guy" with a skateboard trying to hit him in the head, and then the "paramedic" with the bicep modification still grasping his glock that publicly stated on Facebook that he wishes he would've unloaded and wntire magazine into the kid.

So should he have been there? No
Is he a hero? No

Am I sad those guys (all with records btw) got killed and fucked up? Not at all.


----------



## Adieu

Great.

We're ACTUALLY at a point where we got an out-of-state homicidal juvenile who makes a premeditated trip to go running around with a damn assault rifle shooting folks, and people are seriously DEBATING the pros and cons of his behavior


....what the fucking fuck???? It's a terrorist, shoot his ass dead, and then put his parents on trial for aiding and abetting, supplying weapons to a homicidal minor, conspiracy to commit, crossing state lines with criminal intent or whatever the hell that's called, fleeing the scene, harboring a fugitive, and felony contributing to the delinquency of a minor (that's a real thing btw) --- something'll stick


PS and oh wait, weren't "getaway drivers" considered full-fledged participants in murder cases in the eye of the law? ADD MULTIPLE HOMICIDES AND DOMESTIC TERRORISM FOR THE MOM


----------



## Randy

philkilla said:


> Am I sad those guys (all with records btw) got killed and fucked up? Not at all.



That's sociopathy then or at least a total lack of empathy. I don't enjoy seeing violence or death visited on people whether I like them or not. Sometimes it happens out of necessity but to feel anything less than squeamish seeing a person killed or injured is inhuman.


----------



## Ralyks

Also, it wasn't that kids call to determine who lives and dies.


----------



## Millul

It seems like many people deem what the kid did acceptable based on the now-surfaced records of the guys he shot, but...there?s a big BUT (or 2...): the kid didn't know WHO he was shooting, so you cannot justify it based on these guys' previous charges, and...even if...as far as i know, private justice is still NOT a thing in the so called civilized world.


----------



## philkilla

He should've


Millul said:


> It seems like many people deem what the kid did acceptable based on the now-surfaced records of the guys he shot, but...there?s a big BUT (or 2...): the kid didn't know WHO he was shooting, so you cannot justify it based on these guys' previous charges, and...even if...as far as i know, private justice is still NOT a thing in the so called civilized world.



He was in the momemt, defending himself after getting knocked on the ground.

Putting yourself in harms way tends to to have adverse effects for people in the general vicinity.


----------



## Randy

philkilla said:


>




Speaking of this dingle dick, where's his Portland, OR self defense justification video?


----------



## philkilla

If you dm'd him I'm sure he'd put together a compilation for you.


----------



## zappatton2

I should note that I participated in one of the BLM protests here in Ottawa, Canada. In fact, there were protests across the country, in every major city. And none of those protests erupted into an absolute shitshow. Why is that? Canadians and Americans aren't a different species, we're not more or less violent generally. As a society, we still grapple with all kinds of racism, and Indigenous and black Canadians are disproportionately targets for our own authorities. So why the contrast?

I would hypothesize that, 1) our law enforcement has not been militarized to the point that it is trained to violently attack citizens. These protests have been met with a level of aggression from uniformed authority that has only served to agitate protesters rather than give them space to have their voice. And 2), we have not actively, politically or as a culture, legitimized the right-wing extremism that does exist here, but hasn't been fed the oxygen and broad validation it craves to feel enabled to act out on it's homicidal fantasies.

Add sensible gun laws to the mix if you like, but that's a broader sidebar, my point is blaming protesters for fighting for civil rights is absurd; competent governments at the national and municipal levels could have easily prevented so much of this, and made the active choice to make it worse, just to sustain a power system of racial injustice and easy (yet malicious) manipulation of low-information voters.


----------



## Ralyks

zappatton2 said:


> I should note that I participated in one of the BLM protests here in Ottawa, Canada. In fact, there were protests across the country, in every major city. And none of those protests erupted into an absolute shitshow. Why is that? Canadians and Americans aren't a different species, we're not more or less violent generally. As a society, we still grapple with all kinds of racism, and Indigenous and black Canadians are disproportionately targets for our own authorities. So why the contrast?
> 
> I would hypothesize that, 1) our law enforcement has not been militarized to the point that it is trained to violently attack citizens. These protests have been met with a level of aggression from uniformed authority that has only served to agitate protesters rather than give them space to have their voice. And 2), we have not actively, politically or as a culture, legitimized the right-wing extremism that does exist here, but hasn't been fed the oxygen and broad validation it craves to feel enabled to act out on it's homicidal fantasies.
> 
> Add sensible gun laws to the mix if you like, but that's a broader sidebar, my point is blaming protesters for fighting for civil rights is absurd; competent governments at the national and municipal levels could have easily prevented so much of this, and made the active choice to make it worse, just to sustain a power system of racial injustice and easy (yet malicious) manipulation of low-information voters.



Most countries also treat guns as a tool. In the US, guns are treated as a lifestyle.


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> Also, it wasn't that kids call to determine who lives and dies.



Yea, he's going around acting like he's Judge Judy and executioner


----------



## Wuuthrad

philkilla said:


> Am I sad those guys (all with records btw) got killed and fucked up? Not at all.



Are you glad they were killed and fucked up?


----------



## spudmunkey

philkilla said:


> M (all with records btw)



What a shitty fucking "yeah, but". I didn't disagree with much else in your post, but that comment? Do you mean anyone with a record...fuck, man. I can't even finish.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> What a shitty fucking "yeah, but". I didn't disagree with much else in your post, but that comment? Do you mean anyone with a record...fuck, man. I can't even finish.



They don't actually believe that, it's just a cover and dog whistle. 

There is video of Kyle Rittenhouse physically assaulting a young girl, close-fisted punching her in the head, but since he wasn't arrested for it, it didn't happen and in no way shows him to be a violent individual as his victims are being portrayed.


----------



## philkilla

Wuuthrad said:


> Are you glad they were killed and fucked up?



I said I'm not sad. If they valued their lives they wouldn't have traveled a lesser or equal distance (at least one crossed "state lines" as well) to riot, and also wouldn't have antagonized (victim #1) and tried to "disarm" (victims #2 and #3) a kid with a rifle. I'm having a hard time depicting altruism in anything they did.



spudmunkey said:


> What a shitty fucking "yeah, but". I didn't disagree with much else in your post, but that comment? Do you mean anyone with a record...fuck, man. I can't even finish.



No I don't mean anyone with a record. The mere facts that they DO have a record, and what it is for fits the M.O. of what they were trying to accomplish preceding and post altercation.


If the kid didn't have a sling attached to his weapon and he was disarmed and defeated with his own weapon I'd still be indifferent. Why? Because once again he put himself in that situation. There's no rooting for either side; it's just more violence that people lap up and latch on to.

And just as a hunch, if that were to happen I'm willing to bet more than a few people would be rejoicing that instead.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## thraxil

philkilla said:


> I said I'm not sad. If they valued their lives they wouldn't have traveled a lesser or equal distance (at least one crossed "state lines" as well) to riot, and also wouldn't have antagonized (victim #1) and tried to "disarm" (victims #2 and #3) a kid with a rifle. I'm having a hard time depicting altruism in anything they did.



Attempting to disarm someone who's threatening a large number of people doesn't qualify as altruism to you?

I live in South London, right down the street from Borough Market. During a terror attack here a few years ago, we had an unarmed guy shout "Fuck you, I'm Millwall!" (Millwall is a local football club known for being particularly rowdy) and fight off three armed terrorists, giving dozens of other people the chance to escape. We gave him a medal and he's a local hero. I doubt he's paid for a pint ever since. Because trying to disarm an attacker, putting yourself in harm's way to save others is basically the definition of "altruism".


----------



## Wuuthrad

Well if there was any doubt POSPOTUS confirms:

_Police killing Black people is just like playing Golf!_

Just another elite white sport...

Ffs this d’bag truly is nightmare made flesh!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> Well if there was any doubt POSPOTUS confirms:
> 
> _Police killing Black people is just like playing Golf!_
> 
> Just another elite white sport...
> 
> Ffs this d’bag truly is nightmare made flesh!



Man, watching that interview is worth it just for the look on Ingraham's face as she tries to switch subjects to stop him.


----------



## fantom

philkilla said:


> The second stage where the kid is running towards police lines and you can clearly hear people saying, "get that mother fucker", or "get his ass" etc CLEARLY had the intention to make the situation worse.



If it is the same video I saw, the kid ran past (not toward) police and fled the scene. If anything, bystanders witnessed a homicide and saw the kid fleeing the scene. If someone you knew was the victim of a crime, wouldn't you want bystanders to help chase the criminal instead of blaming the person you knew for something completely unrelated to the event that the criminal in no way would have known about? You are victim blaming to justify a twisted worldview.

And funny how you mention that he was going toward police while people were tracking him and failed to mention that he didn't flag down police for help or to explain the situation. That screams self defense, right?! You really think him stopping one police vehicle or the swat truck and saying "I shot someone in self defense and these people are chasing me" would have escalated the situation?!

Also, shooting at people who are running away from you is not self defense.


----------



## spudmunkey

He actually went back to Illinois, and was arrested the next day. Disnt try to stop at the local police station, or his home one, until "tomorrow".


----------



## jaxadam

fantom said:


> Also, shooting at people who are running away from you is not self defense.



As a general statement I agree, but in this specific case I didn’t see shooting at people who are running away.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It's looking like the first victim, Rosenbaum, was shot in the back. There are varied reports, but it seems the two (Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse) had a long verbal altercation and threw a bag or water bottle in Rittenhouse's direction (it didn't hit him) and when Rosenbaum went to walk away, was shot in the back. He turned around to engage and was shot three more times. 

Shortly after, Rittenhouse was knocked down by someone who witnessed the first shooting and narrowly got shot, and it was then Huber (skateboard dude) tried to assist that other individual. Huber was shot once in the chest. 

The last casualty, Grosskreutz, an EMT by trade who was volunteering as a medic for protesters, approached Rittenhouse with his own handgun drawn, but not pointed directly at Rittenhouse, and when Rittenhouse aimed his rifle at him he raised his hands in surrender and was shot in the arm. 

I thought this was one of the better breakdowns not in video format: 
www.fox13memphis.com/news/trending/kenosha-timeline-court-docs-detail-shooter-kyle-rittenhouses-actions-night-protesters-killings/DF3G3T5U65FQVCORO5XZPTR57Y/%3FoutputType%3Damp


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> and it was then Huber (skateboard dude) tried to assist that other individual.



I don't see assisting another individual. At 0:16 I see a guy assaulting someone with a with a rifle on the ground in the head with a skateboard.



MaxOfMetal said:


> and when Rittenhouse aimed his rifle at him he raised his hands in surrender and was shot in the arm.



What I see at 0:20 is Grosskreutz reaching for him when he gets shot in the arm, not holding his hands up in surrender. What I see immediately after that is the guy behind him immediately holding his hands up backing away not get shot.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> I don't see assisting another individual. At 0:16 I see a guy assaulting someone with a with a rifle on the ground in the head with a skateboard.



See the black gentleman in the blue jacket with the white face mask just before Huber gets there. The one who ran up and kicked/knocked Rittenhouse when down.

Also, it is not "someone" it is an active shooter. 



> What I see at 0:20 is Grosskreutz reaching for him when he gets shot in the arm, not holding his hands up in surrender. What I see immediately after that is the guy behind him immediately holding his hands up backing away not get shot.



At about 18 seconds you can see Grosskreutz approach with his hands raised about head level while approaching Rittenhouse.


----------



## nikt

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's looking like the first victim, Rosenbaum, was shot in the back. There are varied reports, but it seems the two (Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse) had a long verbal altercation and threw a bag or water bottle in Rittenhouse's direction (it didn't hit him) and when Rosenbaum went to walk away, was shot in the back. He turned around to engage and was shot three more times.



Some more video material to check, also before the main shooting.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> and when Rittenhouse aimed his rifle at him he raised his hands in surrender and was shot in the arm.



Can you show me this part? I see Grosskreutz flinch at the gunshot to Huber, then continue to approach Rittenhouse. I never saw him raise his hands in surrender then get shot in the arm.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> Can you show me this part? I see Grosskreutz flinch at the gunshot to Huber, then continue to approach Rittenhouse. I never saw him raise his hands in surrender then get shot in the arm.






This is just before the shot. Both arms up.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 84528
> 
> 
> This is just before the shot. Both arms up.



That’s not surrendering, that’s still his flinch covering his head and squatting. I don’t see arms in the air backing away, I see turtling up from the Huber shot, then he literally charges right after. Do you see him literally charge right after, or do you see a de facto surrender? If you watch the video again, he charges Kyle with a gun in his hand then gets shot. The only guy I see surrender is the guy behind that puts his hands clearly up and backs away, and he doesn’t get shot.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> That’s not surrendering, that’s still his flinch covering his head and squatting. I don’t see arms in the air backing away, I see turtling up from the Huber shot, then he literally charges right after. Do you see him literally charge right after, or do you see a de facto surrender? If you watch the video again, he charges Kyle with a gun in his hand then gets shot. The only guy I see surrender is the guy behind that puts his hands clearly up and backs away, and he doesn’t get shot.



I see the flinch, he approaches, keeps his hands up, and then rushes to his right when staring down the gun right before getting shot. I never said he was backing away. 

If he wanted to just shoot Rittenhouse he had ample opportunity.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> I see the flinch, he approaches, keeps his hands up, and then rushes to his right when staring down the gun right before getting shot. I never said he was backing away.
> 
> If he wanted to just shoot Rittenhouse he had ample opportunity.



You said he surrendered. What you say you see is an EMT get shot while surrendering. What I see is a felon charging a guy on the ground with an illegal firearm get shot in the bicep. I’m glad he wasn’t killed.

Now do the Portland “We got a Trumper over here” execution. I’d love to hear your take on it, and I’m shocked it hasn’t been brought up at all.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> You said he surrendered. What you say you see is an EMT get shot while surrendering. What I see is a felon charging a guy on the ground with an illegal firearm get shot in the bicep. I’m glad he wasn’t killed.
> 
> Now do the Portland “We got a Trumper over here” execution. I’d love to hear your take on it, and I’m shocked it hasn’t been brought up at all.



What we're seeing is a *murderer** with an illegal firearm shoot someone who is either a bystander or hero depending on what end of the political spectrum you fall on. 

*People who kill other people are murderers. Plain and simple and all murder is wrong. 

The person who was murdered in Portland should not have been, and his murderers should face prosecution. Full stop. 

I don't know what's worse, you expecting folks to condone murder because they have different political views or your own acceptance of murder for the same reason.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> What we're seeing is a *murderer** with an illegal firearm shoot someone who is either a bystander or hero depending on what end of the political spectrum you fall on.
> 
> *People who kill other people are murderers. Plain and simple and all murder is wrong.
> 
> The person who was murdered in Portland should not have been, and his murderers should face prosecution. Full stop.
> 
> I don't know what's worse, you expecting folks to condone murder because they have different political views or your own acceptance of murder for the same reason.



We’re not even talking about the murder situation, we’re talking about the discrepancy between what you and I see in regard to the EMT. I feel you’re clearly wrong in what you see with the EMT surrendering, so now you have to resort to painting me as a murder supporter, when I clearly even said earlier I’m glad he wasn’t killed. That’s your next step? You can’t back up your EMT surrender position so now I condone murder because of my political views?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> We’re not even talking about the murder situation, we’re talking about the discrepancy between what you and I see in regard to the EMT. I feel you’re clearly wrong in what you see with the EMT surrendering, so now you have to resort to painting me as a murder supporter, when I clearly even said earlier I’m glad he wasn’t killed. That’s your next step? You can’t back up your EMT surrender position so now I condone murder because of my political views?



You have an opinion, I have an opinion. The video at hand supports both unless you have another. 

I don't care if you think I'm wrong. That's okay. It happens. 

I do think you're purposefully framing the situation with disregard to the victims. You don't have to agree with that either.


----------



## philkilla

thraxil said:


> Attempting to disarm someone who's threatening a large number of people doesn't qualify as altruism to you?
> 
> I live in South London, right down the street from Borough Market. During a terror attack here a few years ago, we had an unarmed guy shout "Fuck you, I'm Millwall!" (Millwall is a local football club known for being particularly rowdy) and fight off three armed terrorists, giving dozens of other people the chance to escape. We gave him a medal and he's a local hero. I doubt he's paid for a pint ever since. Because trying to disarm an attacker, putting yourself in harm's way to save others is basically the definition of "altruism".



Threatening a large group by running the opposite direction from them is exactly the same as fighting a group of terrorist, TIL.

I'm convinced you've all watched the minimum amount of clips and evidence from the entire event, or since it's anything involving a black rifle and not supporting your party you're against it.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> I do think you're purposefully framing the situation with disregard to the victims. You don't have to agree with that either.



Where do you get that from? I'm only disagreeing with your definition of surrender. I don't see surrender, that's it. I also said I am glad he wasn't killed, so that's not disregarding the victims. You have to resort to these unrelated jabs because your original assessment is falling apart. My position has only been that I don't consider someone rushing a person holding a rifle on the ground with a firearm in their hand surrendering. I know you never like to be wrong, and I know you also like to get the last word, so have at it.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> Now do the Portland “We got a Trumper over here” execution. I’d love to hear your take on it, and I’m shocked it hasn’t been brought up at all.



I brought it up twice and nobody engaged me about it actually.


----------



## Randy

So have at it. Explain why it's an "execution" with no double standard.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> Where do you get that from? I'm only disagreeing with your definition of surrender. I don't see surrender, that's it. I also said I am glad he wasn't killed, so that's not disregarding the victims. You have to resort to these unrelated jabs because your original assessment is falling apart. My position has only been that I don't consider someone rushing a person holding a rifle on the ground with a firearm in their hand surrendering. I know you never like to be wrong, and I know you also like to get the last word, so have at it.



Why point out that the guy who got shot has a felony on his record or an illegal firearm while not holding the shooter to the same standard? It's not like either would have known in that moment.

Kyle Rittenhouse has also attacked a girl, and also had an illegal firearm. 

So, again, I think you're being disingenuous based on that. If I'm wrong, cool. 

Agree to disagree about the dude who got shot in the arm.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> *threw a bag or water bottle in Rittenhouse's direction*



Self defense confirmed, then. He could've easily been "disarmed and defeated with his own weapon" if that bag hit him.

Worth pointing out that the gun is present as a tool for 'self defense' but then the gun being present now deems any level of force as appropriate since it's assumed they can be "disarmed and defeated" with said weapon. Like you get in a shoving match and the gun barrel is swinging around in the other person's face "uh oh, he could grab that barrel at any moment or I could fall and he could grab it, better shoot him!"


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> I brought it up twice and nobody engaged me about it actually.





Randy said:


> Speaking of this dingle dick, where's his Portland, OR self defense justification video?



You mean when you call the lawyer a dingle dick and wanted his Portland justification video? I guess I didn't take your lack or respect and lack of seriousness very... seriously.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> Kyle Rittenhouse has also attacked a girl, and also had an illegal firearm.



Snopes says this is unproven.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-punch-woman-video/



MaxOfMetal said:


> Agree to disagree about the dude who got shot in the arm.



I'm still waiting on your incontrovertible proof that he was in the act of surrender when he got shot in the arm. I hear a lot of words, but I see video of him rushing the downed gunman with a gun of his own when he got shot in the arm. There's incontrovertible video proof of that. So without unrelated personal attacks, show me where you see a surrender during the act of the shot.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> You mean when you call the lawyer a dingle dick and wanted his Portland justification video? I guess I didn't take your lack or respect and lack of seriousness very... seriously.



Sunday, my guy.



Randy said:


> Just reading up on the Portland shooting. As much as I don't like Trump or these spin-off groups of right wing activists (or specifically what they were doing in Portland), I stand by my previous statement that the lawless is the biggest problem. I have a hard time believing even if Wisconsin has an open carry policy, that it includes wandering the streets during a riot after curfew with live rounds, or burning buildings down and smashing windows. Same thing with Portland, I dunno what the protestors were up to but I have to think rolling through town in the back of a pickup truck shooting paintball guns and mace randomly into crowds has to break, like, some laws.



Also, so you accused nobody of bringing it up but now you mean you didn't count that because my tone was disrespectful?  For the record, I called the guy a dingle dick because of his gross levels of self promotion and the "I'm a lawyer so here's why this is self defense" thing and then selling t-shirts encouraging people to lie to law enforcement. If his position is primarily about full 2A support, full self-defense support and NOT just about pro-conservative politics, you'd think he'd have a video up by now. But because he can't be both in that case, he just didn't say anything and he's waiting for a different narrative to come forward before he sticks his head out of the ground. Didn't need 100% confirmation to speculate self defense on the first shooting in Kenosha that wasn't caught on camera though.


----------



## Randy

So, "execution", you have the floor.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> Sunday, my guy.



Yes, I didn't take that one very seriously either because you immediately accuse the group of doing something wrong, implying they should get what they deserve, right?


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> Snopes says this is unproven.
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-punch-woman-video/





> While we can’t say definitively that this person is Rittenhouse, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support this claim.


----------



## jaxadam

Juries don't convict on circumstantial evidence.

"Your honor, the perpetrator is GUILTY! Just look at the shoes!"

"What, the two perpetrators were wearing similar Crocs?"

"No Your Honor! Just the act of wearing Crocs is the crime!"


----------



## Randy

^
They do, actually.



jaxadam said:


> Yes, I didn't take that one very seriously either because you immediately accuse the group of doing something wrong, implying they should get what they deserve, right?



I called a guy who wasn't present at either event a dingle dick and that implies I thought the guy in Portland got what he deserved? Despite multiple time saying I don't think anyone should be hurt or killed just because I don't agree with or like them? Well let me clarify, I don't think he "got what he deserved".

I said you can't claim Kenosha is three scenarios of self defense and Portland is an execution without being hypocritical. Prove me wrong.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> I called a guy who wasn't present at either event a dingle dick and that implies I thought the guy in Portland got what he deserved?



No, I'm suggesting what you said below implied you don't seem to have any sympathy for the resulting consequences.



Randy said:


> I dunno what the protestors were up to but I have to think rolling through town in the back of a pickup truck shooting paintball guns and mace randomly into crowds has to break, like, some laws.





Randy said:


> I said you can't claim Kenosha is three scenarios of self defense and Portland is an execution without being hypocritical. Prove me wrong.



Where did I say Kenosha was three scenarios of self-defense? You're setting up arguments for me to defend over things I haven't even said. I only refute the position that the EMT was in the act of surrendering at the time he was shot. That's it.

I won’t convince anyone here of anything. I can’t even show video evidence without being personally attacked and suddenly becoming a terrorist sympathizer, so I throw in the towel.


----------



## Randy

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/video/portland-protests-shooting-investigation.html

There's as video and a timeline, though most of it is inconsequential. The actual incident, sounds like Danielson and a friend were walking one way and Reinhoehl and another guy ran across the street toward them and yelled "there's two of them" or something to that effect. You hear some arguing, you SEE and hear mace being sprayed and then you hear the gunshots.

An execution would imply he walked up to the guy and shot him dead in a split second, and all the conservative threads I've seen on this actually LEAVE OUT the macing part. If we're going to use "could be disarmed and defeated with his own weapon" as a self defense justification regardless of the events leading up to it, being maced doesn't fit into that category how?

I'm firmly of the position none of this shit should be happening at all but if you're gonna make arguments for self defense and get super specific, you've gotta be consistent or otherwise it's all posturing.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> I'm firmly of the position none of this shit should be happening at all but if you're gonna make arguments for self defense and get super specific, you've gotta be consistent or otherwise it's all posturing.



Again, see my above post. Where am I suggesting three cases of self-defense? You're continuing to create arguments on points I haven't brought up and expecting me to defend them. For the last time, I'm only refuting the difference between surrendering and flinching.


----------



## Randy

> I dunno what the protestors were up to but I have to think rolling through town in the back of a pickup truck shooting paintball guns and mace randomly into crowds has to break, like, some laws.



No, I'll clarify (even though it says so in the same post). Nobody should've been out there, and doubly if they were breaking the law. The shit going on with the mace and the paintball guns should've gotten them pulled over, mace and guns confiscated and sent home with a summons or they should've been hauled to jail. Likewise, in Kenosha, it was past curfew and none of those people should've been out there, and anyone walking the streets with a long rifle should've been ID'd to confirm they should be there carrying it, again, if there was enforcement, none of those people would've been present when the fatal event occured.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> Again, see my above post. Where am I suggesting three cases of self-defense? You're continuing to create arguments on points I haven't brought up and expecting me to defend them. For the last time, I'm only refuting the difference between surrendering and flinching.



Then I apologize, I'm conflating different arguments from different people.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> No, I'll clarify (even though it says so in the same post). Nobody should've been out there, and doubly if they were breaking the law. The shit going on with the mace and the paintball guns should've gotten them pulled over, mace and guns confiscated and sent home with a summons or they should've been hauled to jail. Likewise, in Kenosha, it was past curfew and none of those people should've been out there, and anyone walking the streets with a long rifle should've been ID'd to confirm they should be there carrying it, again, if there was enforcement, none of those people would've been present when the fatal event occured.



For real.

I can't even drive through Kenosha with out of state plates without being stopped, seeing the lawlessness is nuts.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> Then I apologize, I'm conflating different arguments from different people.



Not only is your apology accepted, but since today is Wednesday, I'm giving you two additional credits for future apologies. These credits never expire, and can be used at the gift shop and cafe for food and beverage purchases.


----------



## Randy

Good, I'm probably going to need them.


----------



## Randy

Story kinda unrelated to current conversation.

Living in a rural area and my in-laws are racists. I've heard stories from before we were together about them saying they would disown my partner if she dated a black guy (I'm a person of color, and my mother is black), we took care of her grandparents for a while and the grandfather would yell the N-word at the TV all the time even if it was watching Wayne Brady on Lets Make a Deal. When the Floyd thing started up, my father in law cornered me and said cops ARE racist and should be because they work the job and see all the criminals are black, etc. Race comes up with them almost every time we're in a room together, and it's been 10 years.

Recently we're going through a protracted legal issue, and we're civil but there's tensions. We were supposed to have a mutual meeting with a lawyer to mediate some things, I had a meeting for work so I couldn't go, so my partner attended along with pretty much the rest of the family. They were primarily in agreement but her one uncle wasn't and he was ornery and loud about it. Afterward my partner said to her dad "Randy was supposed to be here but he had work" and her dad said "it's a good thing he wasn't because things wouldn't have gone as well as they did" and she said "yeah, he probably wouldn't have been happy about [uncle] making all that trouble" and her dad (vocal Rittenhouse supporter) said "yeah, your uncle carries a loaded gun with him everywhere and he wouldn't have hesitated to take the shot".

My life was basically threatened for something I *didn't* do, at an event I *wasn't* present at. Ten years in that family, lots of VERY contentious moments but never anyone threatened to be shot or killed, or even hit until me and I wasn't even there. The only other time I heard violence come up was at my brother in law's wedding where there was only one black guy there (besides myself) and someone asked who it was and who brought them, and my brother in law said "idk, but if he makes any trouble we'll take care of him" gestures toward his gun, when meanwhile the guy was just standing there drinking punch and talking to people. 

So it's hard not to see the "threat" tinged with racism.

Beyond that, I was raised in a 'men are men' kinda family where guys would scrap it out if it came to that. So the idea that anytime a fight *might* come to blows "oh, well my life might be in danger" so shooting a person DEAD as justified is an alien and kinda wimpy prospect to me. Not every person that hits another person (even if it's wrong, or irrational) is trying to beat them to death, that's outrageous and yeah, seems like a convenient excuse to kill a person you obviously already don't like. By design, if you're fighting, you have a reason to want to make the other person go away completely aside from any danger you're actually in.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

This is ridiculous. Equating a rifle to defense against a skateboard. You're the same kind of people saying Trayvon Martin had the sidewalk to hurt Zimmerman with so gun was called for.


----------



## Randy

^
That's a little bit of what I'm talking about, yeah. I haven't heard of a single person being beaten to death or having their gun taken from them and shot to death at one of these protests but apparently it was about to happen to Kyle Rittenhouse three times! It was an escalation in at least two of the cases, if he saw the gun in the guys hand than it was proportional.

You can argue if the law allows for an escalation based on circumstances yeah, but a water bottle or bag or even brick that missed, or skateboard met with deadly force is an escalation. That was my point earlier, the gun being present all of the sudden makes _any_ level of force justified as "they could take the gun and use it on them" without proving that they _would've_. Doubly in the context that they thought they just witnessed a murder.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/5690685002

Looks like Biden is heading to Kenosha.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Randy said:


> Story kinda unrelated to current conversation.
> 
> Living in a rural area and my in-laws are racists. I've heard stories from before we were together about them saying they would disown my partner if she dated a black guy (I'm a person of color, and my mother is black), we took care of her grandparents for a while and the grandfather would yell the N-word at the TV all the time even if it was watching Wayne Brady on Lets Make a Deal. When the Floyd thing started up, my father in law cornered me and said cops ARE racist and should be because they work the job and see all the criminals are black, etc. Race comes up with them almost every time we're in a room together, and it's been 10 years.
> 
> Recently we're going through a protracted legal issue, and we're civil but there's tensions. We were supposed to have a mutual meeting with a lawyer to mediate some things, I had a meeting for work so I couldn't go, so my partner attended along with pretty much the rest of the family. They were primarily in agreement but her one uncle wasn't and he was ornery and loud about it. Afterward my partner said to her dad "Randy was supposed to be here but he had work" and her dad said "it's a good thing he wasn't because things wouldn't have gone as well as they did" and she said "yeah, he probably wouldn't have been happy about [uncle] making all that trouble" and her dad (vocal Rittenhouse supporter) said "yeah, your uncle carries a loaded gun with him everywhere and he wouldn't have hesitated to take the shot".
> 
> My life was basically threatened for something I *didn't* do, at an event I *wasn't* present at. Ten years in that family, lots of VERY contentious moments but never anyone threatened to be shot or killed, or even hit until me and I wasn't even there. The only other time I heard violence come up was at my brother in law's wedding where there was only one black guy there (besides myself) and someone asked who it was and who brought them, and my brother in law said "idk, but if he makes any trouble we'll take care of him" gestures toward his gun, when meanwhile the guy was just standing there drinking punch and talking to people.
> 
> So it's hard not to see the "threat" tinged with racism.
> 
> Beyond that, I was raised in a 'men are men' kinda family where guys would scrap it out if it came to that. So the idea that anytime a fight *might* come to blows "oh, well my life might be in danger" so shooting a person DEAD as justified is an alien and kinda wimpy prospect to me. Not every person that hits another person (even if it's wrong, or irrational) is trying to beat them to death, that's outrageous and yeah, seems like a convenient excuse to kill a person you obviously already don't like. By design, if you're fighting, you have a reason to want to make the other person go away completely aside from any danger you're actually in.



Sorry to hear that. I have lived in the US for 7 years and I have been assaulted and threatened because I am Asian and brown, and at some instances when I grow my facial hair, I look vaguely Latino. I know for a fact that a holistic perspective on racial issues can only be gained when you have experienced racial prejudice yourself. 

And the last few years have been worse. Fact.


----------



## Randy

MASS DEFECT said:


> Sorry to hear that. I have lived in the US for 7 years and I have been assaulted and threatened because I am Asian and brown, and at some instances when I grow my facial hair, I look vaguely Latino. I know for a fact that a holistic perspective on racial issues can only be gained when you have experienced racial prejudice yourself.
> 
> And the last few years have been worse. Fact.



Thanks for sharing and sorry to hear that.

Yeah that's one of the things I think makes people so incensed (at least, it does in my case). I'm not even some kind of politically active, you know, confronting people on social media or going to protests and fighting with people etc. The extent to my political debating is here really, im just trying to live my life and I literally get singled out and accosted for how I look, they literally know nothing else about me. That's what living in a racist society is. Everywhere you go, anticipate being viewed through the lens of your race and expect to be mistreated or looked at skeptically often.

So it's irritating when people act like it either doesn't exist or find red tape or subjective excuses to divert from any gains in fairness. Imagine someone telling you "well, I'd like to treat you like a human being but you didn't sign line 6 on page 43 so come back and try again in another year" and that's basically what it sounds like anytime someone says "I'm not racist but..." blue lives matter, all lives matters, BLM is racist, protesting and rioting are the same, etc etc. It's like, you deserve to not be treated this way but anything you do to stop it is wrong so oh well. It's so draining.


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> Maybe this post will get me banned just like MG.org.
> 
> First of all, that kid shouldn't have been there.
> 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: at this point, if you going anywhere near protests or riots you're just asking for trouble.
> 
> So once again let me state, _He never should have been there.
> _
> The video gives a reference to the first guy he shot (which isn't even the point of that video) as being a shit head causing trouble.
> 
> The other videos on the web show same guy chasing the kid, throwing something and then getting shot. Can't really make a solid assessment based on that.
> 
> The second stage where the kid is running towards police lines and you can clearly hear people saying, "get that mother fucker", or "get his ass" etc CLEARLY had the intention to make the situation worse.
> 
> First you have the "good guy" with a skateboard trying to hit him in the head, and then the "paramedic" with the bicep modification still grasping his glock that publicly stated on Facebook that he wishes he would've unloaded and wntire magazine into the kid.
> 
> So should he have been there? No
> Is he a hero? No
> 
> Am I sad those guys (all with records btw) got killed and fucked up? Not at all.


So, he shot the first guy because he was being a "shit head causing trouble"? That's a far cry from self defense, for one, and last I checked being a "shit head causing trouble" isn't a capital offense, nor is some out-of-state kid with an AR-15 he has no right to carry judge, jury, and executioner. 

Once he shot that first guy, this became an active shooter situation. What would YOU do when confronted with an active shooter? You're one of those first amendment, "it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun" types, right? Here we have a bad guy with a gun - how is that different from "get that motherfucker"?

As Randy, I think, pointed out, anything that happened after this became an active shooter situation can't be used to justify shooting in self-defense, because his subsequent victims had pretty damned good reason to believe they too could be shot at any moment. Which, incidentally, they were.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> So, he shot the first guy because he was being a "shit head causing trouble"? That's a far cry from self defense, for one, and last I checked being a "shit head causing trouble" isn't a capital offense, nor is some out-of-state kid with an AR-15 he has no right to carry judge, jury, and executioner.
> 
> Once he shot that first guy, this became an active shooter situation. What would YOU do when confronted with an active shooter? You're one of those first amendment, "it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun" types, right? Here we have a bad guy with a gun - how is that different from "get that motherfucker"?
> 
> As Randy, I think, pointed out, anything that happened after this became an active shooter situation can't be used to justify shooting in self-defense, because his subsequent victims had pretty damned good reason to believe they too could be shot at any moment. Which, incidentally, they were.



You mean the 2nd amendment right? And no, I'm not one of the stereotypical WiLl NoT bE InFrInGeD types; thanks for the stereotype though.

Now for your question, there's not really a one size fits all. I typically carry a sub-compact (registered concealed carry). If for example, I was shopping and heard shots I would make an assessment if it was prudent to engage based on environment, shooter disposition, cover/concealment and background of the target so as not to risk inadvertent casualties. If I wasn't armed I'd go the other way.

I'd never put myself in a mob type situation with riots in the first place, which is my initial point I alluded to yesterday.


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> You mean the 2nd amendment right? And no, I'm not one of the stereotypical WiLl NoT bE InFrInGeD types; thanks for the stereotype though.
> 
> Now for your question, there's not really a one size fits all. I typically carry a sub-compact (registered concealed carry). If for example, I was shopping and heard shots I would make an assessment if it was prudent to engage based on environment, shooter disposition, cover/concealment and background of the target so as not to risk inadvertent casualties. If I wasn't armed I'd go the other way.
> 
> I'd never put myself in a mob type situation with riots in the first place, which is my initial point I alluded to yesterday.


Oops.  Long fuckin' day, man. 

Ok, so why did this idiot put himself in a mob-type situation with riots? And, why did he feel empowered to shoot someone for being a "shit head"? I think that gets to the crux of why most of this thread doesn't buy a self-defense argument - he was an _active shooter_, do active shooters have the ability to plead self defense when they _continue_ to shoot people?


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> Oops.  Long fuckin' day, man.
> 
> Ok, so why did this idiot put himself in a mob-type situation with riots? And, why did he feel empowered to shoot someone for being a "shit head"? I think that gets to the crux of why most of this thread doesn't buy a self-defense argument - he was an _active shooter_, do active shooters have the ability to plead self defense when they _continue_ to shoot people?



It's all good dude.

And I don't know why, like I said earlier though I don't think he should've been there. Again, my initial assessment of the first shooting was murky; you can't tell exactly what happened.

When I say self defense in regards to the other engagement it is a reference to him defending himself, "in the moment". I am absolutely not, and was not ever comparing it to a self defense situation as if someone was committing B&E at a residence.

My whole qualm is with people rioting, going up in arms and acting belligerent at the tip of a hat.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> What I see is a felon charging a guy on the ground with an illegal firearm get shot in the bicep.



Worth noting (not to you, or at you, and not that you're arguing on the guy's behalf, only quoting this because of it's reference) that even in Colion Noir's video, he says a felon illegally in possession of a firearm is allowed to use it in self defense.


----------



## Choop

philkilla said:


> You mean the 2nd amendment right?



Technically Rittenhouse is too young to legally open carry in Wisconsin.


----------



## philkilla

Choop said:


> Technically Rittenhouse is too young to legally open carry in Wisconsin.



That just adds to his idiot level.


----------



## Choop

philkilla said:


> That just adds to his idiot level.



That and/or his level of brainwashed psychopathy tbh. I only point it out because you were defending his 2nd amendment right and put it out there like you're an experienced and responsible firearms owner, but he doesn't even have the right to have that firearm.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Guy was looking for trouble, crossed state lines with an illegal firearm, thinking he’s some kind of vigilante and shot someone in the head. Then he ran away from that scene. 
Guys were trying to chase him down and disarm him, and he shot them too! 

Kid needs to be prosecuted fully, end of story!


----------



## philkilla

Choop said:


> That and/or his level of brainwashed psychopathy tbh. I only point it out because you were defending his 2nd amendment right and put it out there like you're an experienced and responsible firearms owner, but he doesn't even have the right to have that firearm.



Well that's interesting, because I never explicitly defended his 2nd amendment rights.

Does it bother you that I'm a responsible, experienced and professional firearms owner?


----------



## jaxadam

philkilla said:


> Well that's interesting, because I never explicitly defended his 2nd amendment rights.
> 
> Does it bother you that I'm a responsible, experienced and professional firearms owner?



Responsible?!


----------



## Wuuthrad

philkilla said:


> professional firearms owner?


----------



## jaxadam

Not a lot of people know this but Phil works in the laser tag section at Adventure Landing. So technically...


----------



## philkilla

Yep, learned everything I know there.


----------



## Choop

philkilla said:


> Well that's interesting, because I never explicitly defended his 2nd amendment rights.
> 
> Does it bother you that I'm a responsible, experienced and professional firearms owner?



You mentioned it as if he had 2nd amendment rights, but he doesn't really in this case. It just seems weird to me that a responsible firearms owner could possibly defend someone who was being so blatantly irresponsible.


----------



## Wuuthrad

jaxadam said:


> Not a lot of people know this but Phil works in the laser tag section at Adventure Landing. So technically...



Well thanks for clearing that up, according to this search you never really know!


----------



## philkilla

Lmao, the mind of a liberal is a fascinating thing.


----------



## fantom

As said a few times already: from accounts so far, someone threw a water bottle and pepper sprayed. Self defense is to respond with appropriate level of threat. Shooting someone is not an appropriate level. Let's not conflate whether or not the shooter had 2nd amendment rights. He responded with deadly force to an incident that didn't require it and then fled the scene. The kid is a criminal, whether he intended to be one or not based on his actions in the moment. Once a crime is committed, the self defense argument is completely gone.




Drew said:


> So, he shot the first guy because he was being a "shit head causing trouble"? That's a far cry from self defense, for one, and last I checked being a "shit head causing trouble" isn't a capital offense, nor is some out-of-state kid with an AR-15 he has no right to carry judge, jury, and executioner.
> 
> Once he shot that first guy, this became an active shooter situation. What would YOU do when confronted with an active shooter? You're one of those first amendment, "it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun" types, right? Here we have a bad guy with a gun - how is that different from "get that motherfucker"?
> 
> As Randy, I think, pointed out, anything that happened after this became an active shooter situation can't be used to justify shooting in self-defense, because his subsequent victims had pretty damned good reason to believe they too could be shot at any moment. Which, incidentally, they were.



Good summary.



philkilla said:


> When I say self defense in regards to the other engagement it is a reference to him defending himself, "in the moment"



He didn't have a right to respond to a non lethal threat with deadly force. Here is the Wisconsin self defense law:

_The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. *The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm* unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself_.​I see no way a reasonable person can read this legislation and think he was acting in self defense regardless of why he was in Kenosha with an assault rifle or legally allowed to have it in the first place.



philkilla said:


> Well that's interesting, because I never explicitly defended his 2nd amendment rights



Reiterating for like the 100th time for clarity, the 2nd amendment gives citizens a right to arm themselves to protect from the government.

The kid was not old enough to own the gun
He crossed state lines with a firearm
The 2nd amendment doesn't have anything to do with interactions with private citizens
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with firing a gun for self defense.


----------



## philkilla

fantom said:


> words



So after rittenhouse initiated this whole ordeal, do you think he should've tossed the rifle and curled up into a ball? Or should he have let himself get beat up by an angry mob?

And since you mentioned it, for the 3rd time today I never referenced rittenhouse and the 2nd amendment in the same sentence. Keep taking stuff out of context if you have to though.


----------



## Adieu

philkilla said:


> So after rittenhouse initiated this whole ordeal, do you think he should've tossed the rifle and curled up into a ball? Or should he have let himself get beat up by an angry mob?



#TerroristRights


----------



## SpaceDock

philkilla said:


> So after rittenhouse initiated this whole ordeal, do you think he should've tossed the rifle and curled up into a ball? Or should he have let himself get beat up by an angry mob?.



I think if I killed a man for throwing a trash bag or water bottle at me, and I had actually shot hit, taking his life, killing him in cold blood; my life would be an absolute waste, I would fall to the ground and drop that gun. I would hold his body and pray that I could find some salvation. I might even pray for death. Robbing someone of their life is the worst thing anyone can do, and it robs the lives of everyone they know. If I killed someone, worrying about being beaten up would be the furthest thing from my mind because I would be so destroyed. You know what I wouldn’t do, kill more people right after. 

Peoples lives are worth more than property. I for one would rather die than kill. I pity him and his family for not respecting life. Yes, he is a terrorist ruled by Trump, right wing politics, and trolls on the internet. I am sorry for those who can’t see this. Doing bad things does not fix other bad things. The kid should have showed up with his med kit alone and not the fucking gun if he wanted to help people. He didn’t, he wanted to kill people.


----------



## fantom

philkilla said:


> So after rittenhouse initiated this whole ordeal, do you think he should've tossed the rifle and curled up into a ball? Or should he have let himself get beat up by an angry mob?



Did you watch the video? There were barely any people within 20 ft of him. That isn't exactly a mob threat. And that part where he could have went to at least one of the 3 or 4 police cars that drove by him for assistance. Or the parked swat truck? And he chose to flee the scene?

And why the fuck are we even talking about this. He fucking shot and killed someone at a protest against violence. His life was not threatened before the shooting. He committed a homicide in public. Getting his ass kicked would be letting him off easy and deserved. At least he wouldn't be dead. Why defend this piece of shit? How can you sympathize with him?



philkilla said:


> And since you mentioned it, for the 3rd time today I never referenced rittenhouse and the 2nd amendment in the same sentence. Keep taking stuff out of context if you have to though.



I clearly quoted you saying you didn't talk about it. I know that. My comment about the 2nd amendment was directed at the thread more than you. Apologies for misleading the quote. I didn't mean to imply you said anything about it.

Edit: tried to make it more pc


----------



## possumkiller

What I want to know is how come nobody talks about Megan markle anymore. Not too long ago she was everywhere. Now it's like nobody cares.


----------



## fantom

possumkiller said:


> What I want to know is how come nobody talks about Megan markle anymore. Not too long ago she was everywhere. Now it's like nobody cares.



She and her husband just made a deal with netflix. It's in the news. I'm sure you can binge watch all you want soon enough.


----------



## possumkiller

fantom said:


> She and her husband just made a deal with netflix. It's in the news. I'm sure you can binge watch all you want soon enough.


How tf have I not heard about this? Is it only on tv news or something? I will definitely be waiting for this one.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> How tf have I not heard about this? Is it only on tv news or something? I will definitely be waiting for this one.



I'm confused why do we care???


----------



## spudmunkey

possumkiller said:


> What I want to know is how come nobody talks about Megan markle anymore. Not too long ago she was everywhere. Now it's like nobody cares.



She and her husband encouraged people to vote, and they were "cancelled" by those who venomously spit about "cancel culture", by those who believe encouragement to vote means that you're not only taking a political stance, but that it's against one side or the other.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

spudmunkey said:


> She and her husband encouraged people to vote, and they were "cancelled" by those who venomously spit about "cancel culture", by those who believe encouragement to vote means that you're not only taking a political stance, but that it's against one side or the other.




Well one sides platform features loads of voter suppression so it is kind of picking a side


----------



## spudmunkey

Dineley said:


> Well one sides platform features loads of voter suppression so it is kind of picking a side



How can they be about voter suppression when they are encouraging people to vote so much they should vote TWICE! /s


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## SpaceDock

Extremists are extremists no matter what their religion or country of origin.


----------



## jaxadam

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 84601



https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-15/how-texas-plumbers-truck-wound-isis-hands


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-15/how-texas-plumbers-truck-wound-isis-hands



Amazing the things you can find on Copart


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Amazing the things you can find on Copart





jaxadam said:


> https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-15/how-texas-plumbers-truck-wound-isis-hands



Why they no make a longest-bed supercrew version for all your baller insurgent needs?

Poor backseat terrorists gotta be all cramped in the back of a scab


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Adieu said:


> Why they no make a longest-bed supercrew version for all your baller insurgent needs?
> 
> Poor backseat terrorists gotta be all cramped in the back of a scab



Yeah once you get a taste of super crew life there is no going back. No wonder they are jihading.


----------



## Wuuthrad

SpaceDock said:


> Extremists are extremists no matter what their religion or country of origin.



But more importantly- GMC or Toyota?

I’d be out there in a ‘69 biodiesel VW pickup like: “who wants some pancakes? Get yer pancakes here: 3 for a Dollar!” 

& Free “Kool-Aid” lmao...


----------



## Adieu

Wuuthrad said:


> But more importantly- GMC or Toyota?
> 
> I’d be out there in a ‘69 biodiesel VW pickup like: “who wants some pancakes? Get yer pancakes here: 3 for a Dollar!”
> 
> & Free “Kool-Aid” lmao...



Ford


----------



## possumkiller

Yeah that looks like a late 90s F150 stepside. Yet it only holds the same amount of people and minus the RPG and LMG.


----------



## efiltsohg

fantom said:


> Did you watch the video? There were barely any people within 20 ft of him. That isn't exactly a mob threat. And that part where he could have went to at least one of the 3 or 4 police cars that drove by him for assistance. Or the parked swat truck? And he chose to flee the scene?
> 
> And why the fuck are we even talking about this. He fucking shot and killed someone at a protest against violence. His life was not threatened before the shooting. He committed a homicide in public. Getting his ass kicked would be letting him off easy and deserved. At least he wouldn't be dead. Why defend this piece of shit? How can you sympathize with him?
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly quoted you saying you didn't talk about it. I know that. My comment about the 2nd amendment was directed at the thread more than you. Apologies for misleading the quote. I didn't mean to imply you said anything about it.
> 
> Edit: tried to make it more pc



the video clearly shows that the paramedic hat guy pretended to surrender and then tried to quick draw a pistol. Kyle Rittenhouse would definitely be dead if he acted differently


----------



## efiltsohg

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 84528
> 
> 
> This is just before the shot. Both arms up.



he is literally holding a handgun in this frame


----------



## narad

efiltsohg said:


> the video clearly shows that the paramedic hat guy pretended to surrender and then tried to quick draw a pistol. Kyle Rittenhouse would definitely be dead if he acted differently



Lol, if anyone wanted to shoot Rittenhouse they would have done it in the back as he was running away / tripping over himself. i.e., Rittenhouse would definitely be dead if anyone there with a gun wanted him dead.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Lol, if anyone wanted to shoot Rittenhouse they would have done it in the back as he was running away / tripping over himself. i.e., Rittenhouse would definitely be dead if anyone there with a gun wanted him dead.



Honestly, I think he just couldn't do it. Which is an entirely human response to being in that situation. If he just wanted Rittenhouse dead he had plenty of opportunity.


----------



## Randy

I like how it's a foregone conclusion everyone in that group wanted to tear him limb from limb like zombies or use his gun on him, like there's no possibility they just wanted to disarm him and keep him at bay.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> I like how it's a foregone conclusion everyone in that group wanted to tear him limb from limb like zombies or use his gun on him, like there's no possibility they just wanted to disarm him and keep him at bay.



This has seriously been my thoughts about all of this and surprised it's a scenario barely mentioned. If someone was going to kill Rittenhouse, there were plenty of opportunities.


----------



## Randy

Since it hasn't been mentioned, looks like the Portland shooter gave an interview with Vice and was later tracked by the feds and killed in what appears to be a shootout with the cops.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/09/04/us/portland-protest-suspected-killer/index.html


----------



## Necris

I'm sure there will be an absolute flood of conservatives demanding evidence that he actually fired on officers and insisting that we don't rush to judgement until it appears and that they won't just immediately begin celebrating his death.


----------



## efiltsohg

MaxOfMetal said:


> Honestly, I think he just couldn't do it. Which is an entirely human response to being in that situation. If he just wanted Rittenhouse dead he had plenty of opportunity.





Randy said:


> I like how it's a foregone conclusion everyone in that group wanted to tear him limb from limb like zombies or use his gun on him, like there's no possibility they just wanted to disarm him and keep him at bay.





Ralyks said:


> This has seriously been my thoughts about all of this and surprised it's a scenario barely mentioned. If someone was going to kill Rittenhouse, there were plenty of opportunities.










Kyle Rittenhouse is going to walk largely because antifa retards have even bigger retard friends blabbing on social media


----------



## Randy

efiltsohg said:


> Kyle Rittenhouse is going to walk largely because antifa retards have even bigger retard friends blabbing on social media



Actions speak louder than hearsay from randos. His friend saying he said he WISHED he shot him is nothing next to the fact he didn't. In fact, I don't even think that's admissable in court.


----------



## efiltsohg

actions like "drawing a handgun and trying to point it at somebody lying on the ground?"


----------



## MaxOfMetal

efiltsohg said:


> actions like "drawing a handgun and trying to point it at somebody lying on the ground?"



"somebody"


----------



## Randy

efiltsohg said:


> actions like "drawing a handgun and trying to point it at somebody lying on the ground?"



And not pulling the trigger, yeah.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> And not pulling the trigger, yeah.



Unlike _somebody_ else.


----------



## philkilla

efiltsohg said:


> actions like "drawing a handgun and trying to point it at somebody lying on the ground?"



I wouldn't waste your time trying to point out anything that happened from footage to these guys.

Anything that goes against their grain is absolutely, irrefutably incorrect.


----------



## nikt

I will just leave it here


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


>






nikt said:


> I will just leave it here


----------



## fantom

efiltsohg said:


> the video clearly shows that the paramedic hat guy pretended to surrender and then tried to quick draw a pistol. Kyle Rittenhouse would definitely be dead if he acted differently



You are distorting events and talking without considering the context to fit your narrative.

The medic was the 3rd victim. The medic had every right to believe he was going to be shot and every right to draw a weapon in self defense. The underage kid was a criminal in the act of commiting multiple homicides. The kid could not have been defending himself against the medic even if the medic opened fire on him. Why? Because he had already fired his weapon and killed people. The medic was aware of this and had reason to believe an active shooter might kill him too.

The only event the shooter could have been acting in self defense was the first victim, which all witness accounts seem to show the kid responded with unnecessary violence. If you want to defend the kid, please focus on why he was defending himself in the first encounter. Everything after was a criminal trying to evade capture.


----------



## fantom

Let's try this a different way. If a black guy went to something like bike week in daytona with an assault rifle and killed someone, then started running away. Would you think him killing more people while trying to evade the scene and ignoring cops was self defense?


----------



## Adieu

Not a criminal, a homicidal terrorist on a spree


Lots of people are criminals that don't deserve to be shot at, but not this one


----------



## jaxadam

fantom said:


> Let's try this a different way. If a black guy went to something like bike week in daytona with an assault rifle and killed someone, then started running away. Would you think him killing more people while trying to evade the scene and ignoring cops was self defense?



You realize the whole time he is running down that street he is running TOWARD the police, right? Here’s Gaige’s live stream of Kyle saying “I’m going to the police.”

https://mobile.twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1299853616757583872


----------



## fantom

Terrorist might be going too far. I will agree that the kid deserves to be executed, on the spot or after trial, who cares. He threw his life away trying to be some vigilante and fucking up pretty bad.

I understand why a lot of political discussion has 2 viewpoints. I can see arguments on both sides for taxes, healthcare, immigration, etc. I cannot understand for the life of me why this kid is becoming a symbol for the right. He represents none of the values I was raised under in a conservative household. He should be treated like a piece of trash at best.


----------



## fantom

jaxadam said:


> You realize the whole time he is running down that street he is running TOWARD the police, right? Here’s Gaige’s live stream of Kyle saying “I’m going to the police.”
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1299853616757583872



Thanks for the link. This doesn't explain why he ran by several patrol cars and went home when he had multiple opportunities to stop. I can admit I might be misreading his initial reaction. I still think he fucked up and is a criminal. A black guy doing the same thing probably would have been killed on site. Why does this kid deserve any better treatment?


----------



## philkilla

Adieu said:


> Not a criminal, a homicidal terrorist on a spree
> 
> 
> Lots of people are criminals that don't deserve to be shot at, but not this one



So please describe the political gain he was hoping to achieve in his short lived terrorist campaign good sir.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> You realize the whole time he is running down that street he is running TOWARD the police, right? Here’s Gaige’s live stream of Kyle saying “I’m going to the police.”
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1299853616757583872



Since I'm on an 'actions speak louder than words' kick today, he continued past the cops and drove back home out of state even after the crowd stopped chasing him. Also, his lawyers said it wasn't his gun, it came from Wisconsin and never crossed state lines, which means at some point he ditched it with his friend. A lot of opportunities to "go to the police" there.


----------



## Randy

philkilla said:


> So please describe the political gain he was hoping to achieve in his short lived terrorist campaign good sir.



Depends how you define 'brief'. A day or two of walking the streets with a long gun as a show of intimidation would be a more complete picture of the event, not just the 3 or 4 minutes between shooting three people and escaping unscathed.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> You realize the whole time he is running down that street he is running TOWARD the police, right? Here’s Gaige’s live stream of Kyle saying “I’m going to the police.”
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1299853616757583872



Also, great opportunity to shoot Rittenhouse in the head if he was just out to kill him.


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> Depends how you define 'brief'. A day or two of walking the streets with a long gun as a show of intimidation would be a more complete picture of the event, not just the 3 or 4 minutes between shooting three people and escaping unscathed.



Sure, we could further devolve down a rabbit hole of hypotheticals if you want, or he could loosely describe his "terrorist" actions without even fitting within the textbook definition of terrorism.



Randy said:


> Since I'm on an 'actions speak louder than words' kick today, he continued past the cops and drove back home out of state even after the crowd stopped chasing him. Also, his lawyers said it wasn't his gun, it came from Wisconsin and never crossed state lines, which means at some point he ditched it with his friend. A lot of opportunities to "go to the police" there.



Actions do speak louder than words. As a matter of fact when he said "I'm going to get the police" you can hear the camera man mumble, there's some conferring in the background and then a very clear "GET HIS ASS".

Oddly enough, after that event he still made his way towards the police rather calmly.


----------



## Randy

Well, since you went there



> ter·ror·ism
> /ˈterəˌrizəm/_noun_
> 
> the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.



Law breaking, check. Violence, check. Intimidation, check. Civilians, check. Politics, check.

Not sure how you're debating "political gains" considering the whole event is and was political.


----------



## Adieu

philkilla said:


> So please describe the political gain he was hoping to achieve in his short lived terrorist campaign good sir.



He HAS achieved it. Brilliantly.

He'll probably turn out to have had more of an impact on America than 9-11

He single-handedly elevated the wannabe-soldier-boy rightwing cosplay jackasses to real and present lethal danger level.

You see, terrorists who don't terrorize are quickly relegated to tinfoil hatter political loonie bin.... this fool, for better or worse, reminded America that the armed paramilitary wannabe insurgents calling themselves militias or whatnot are all one dumbass away from bringing Sudanese-style machine gun "politics" to your own back yard

....stay tuned for serial gang rapes of rival tribeswomen and machete mutilations. And if this escalates, start expecting IEDs. Prolly lots of fucking IEDs. Because we're NOT somehow different or special or exempt, all these assholes the world over have been using the same playbook for 2-3 generations now.


----------



## SpaceDock

I just wonder if a left protester kid had shot someone who threw a trash bag at him, then shot multiple other people as he tried to escape from people pissed that he murdered someone would be getting so much defense from the pro gun community and hundreds of thousands donated to his legal defense. 

it is clear that facts are only important to prove bias based on political affiliations at this point, 60 more days. Let’s not burn it down folks.


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> Law breaking, check.


Yep, no one else was doing that.



Randy said:


> Violence, check.


There certainly wasn't anyone else more violent that evening.



Randy said:


> Intimidation, check.



Kyle Rittenhouse FTW again; not sosme 60+ year old man that took a brick to the head getting looters out of his store



Randy said:


> Civilians, check.
> Politics, check.



You have yet to point out his political motive, other than assuming ass much since he wasn't a self proclaimed BLM or black skinny jeans clad "100% Antifa" member



Randy said:


> Not sure how you're debating "political gains" considering the whole event is and was political.



Is it all political? I thought they were rioting because another black man was shot for not listening to officers?

I'm not even debating political gains. He never stated a CLEAR and CONCISE political motive to "go out and be a terrorist".



Adieu said:


> He HAS achieved it. Brilliantly.
> 
> He'll probably turn out to have had more of an impact on America than 9-11
> 
> He single-handedly elevated the wannabe-soldier-boy rightwing cosplay jackasses to real and present lethal danger level.
> 
> You see, terrorists who don't terrorize are quickly relegated to tinfoil hatter political loonie bin.... this fool, for better or worse, reminded America that the armed paramilitary wannabe insurgents calling themselves militias or whatnot are all one dumbass away from bringing Sudanese-style machine gun "politics" to your own back yard
> 
> ....stay tuned for serial gang rapes of rival tribeswomen and machete mutilations. And if this escalates, start expecting IEDs. Prolly lots of fucking IEDs. Because we're NOT somehow different or special or exempt, all these assholes the world over have been using the same playbook for 2-3 generations now.



Same exact impact douchebag "peaceful protestors" have had on your ilk.

Once, one side versus another.


----------



## SpaceDock

philkilla said:


> Yep, no one else was doing that.
> 
> 
> There certainly wasn't anyone else more violent that evening.
> 
> 
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse FTW again; not sosme 60+ year old man that took a brick to the head getting looters out of his store
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to point out his political motive, other than assuming ass much since he wasn't a self proclaimed BLM or black skinny jeans clad "100% Antifa" member
> 
> 
> 
> Is it all political? I thought they were rioting because another black man was shot for not listening to officers?
> 
> I'm not even debating political gains. He never stated a CLEAR and CONCISE political motive to "go out and be a terrorist".
> 
> 
> 
> Same exact impact douchebag "peaceful protestors" have had on your ilk.
> 
> Once, one side versus another.



jump through hoops to justify murdering Americans, check


----------



## philkilla

SpaceDock said:


> jump through hoops to justify murdering Americans, check



I never justified anyone getting killed, just pointed out everything you guys don't want to agree with.

Whatever, it doesn't bother me. 

If this thread and forum is going to remain one sided in every regard, you may as well rename it.


----------



## fantom

philkilla said:


> Oddly enough, after that event he still made his way towards the police rather calmly.



You keep saying that he went towards police, but he didn't interact with them at all. He didn't go to the police. He went passed them and then home. He passed up multiple opportunities to go to the police. Who cares what he said. He changed his mind after the second victim... Or he was just lying to avoid repercussion. Who cares about intent. He fled a crime scene. He is a criminal.


----------



## SpaceDock

philkilla said:


> I never justified anyone getting killed, just pointed out everything you guys don't want to agree with.
> 
> Whatever, it doesn't bother me.
> 
> If this thread and forum is going to remain one sided in every regard, you may as well rename it.



imo carrying this kids water is trying to justify what he did. how might you react if someone was posting about how the okc bomber was misunderstood and had a right to drive around with all that fertilizer


----------



## fantom

philkilla said:


> I never justified anyone getting killed, just pointed out everything you guys don't want to agree with.
> 
> Whatever, it doesn't bother me.
> 
> If this thread and forum is going to remain one sided in every regard, you may as well rename it.



Pointed out everything people don't agree with, so what is your stance? Is what you keep saying your point of view or are you just trying to present a different point of view?

As I said earlier, I understand people having different viewpoints on idealogical issues. The objective information available should have this kid buried with no support. Not even the gun rights counter protestors at the scene seemed interested in standing up for the guy in the few minutes he fled the scene. If anything, they seemed to realize he fucked up. People are so far politicizing this after the fact that they are ignoring the objective truth. It has nothing to do with gun rights, police, civil unrest, or BLM, which I can understand arguing about. The kid is a criminal. The fact the president and extreme right fail to acknowledge reality and prefer to make this an "us vs them" and "free kyle" moment is the bigger problem. Throw the kid under the bus and let society get back to some form of balance. This situation is making people who are moderate see the far right as unreasonable and dangerous.


----------



## SpaceDock

You know, I don’t want Phil or Jax to think that I am just siding on the left because I am drinking that kool aid. I want to point out that if I was a BLM organizer, I would tell people to hold rallies that start in the morning and end by 5. That way all the BLM supporters could go home to spend time with their family and clearly separate themselves from the looters at night who are abusing the protests. There is a lot wrong on both sides but murder, looting, burning, and hate are never acceptable.


----------



## philkilla

SpaceDock said:


> imo carrying this kids water is trying to justify what he did. how might you react if someone was posting about how the okc bomber was misunderstood and had a right to drive around with all that fertilizer



Please tell me your comparing planning, preparing, and refining large amounts of ammonium nitrate and initiation devices to that of carrying a weapon to the same location tons of other people were also carrying weapons to.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> Oddly enough, after that event he still made his way towards the police rather calmly.



Like an absolute psychopath.


----------



## SpaceDock

philkilla said:


> Please tell me your comparing planning, preparing, and refining large amounts of ammonium nitrate and initiation devices to that of carrying a weapon to the same location tons of other people were also carrying weapons to.



I think you know there is no such thing as a perfect analogy. There are plenty of hard core right wingers that in fact do support the OKC bomber, as disgusting as that is.


----------



## efiltsohg

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colu...0200903-susvsg45yndn7pb67l42ywnzn4-story.html


----------



## efiltsohg

fantom said:


> I will agree that the kid deserves to be executed, on the spot or after trial, who cares.



remember everybody, liberals don't support the death penalty, unless you are a 17 year old who shoots a pedophile arsonist who tries to grab your rifle


----------



## fantom

efiltsohg said:


> remember everybody, liberals don't support the death penalty, unless you are a 17 year old who shoots a pedophile arsonist who tries to grab your rifle



I'm not a liberal and I support the death penalty. I have even voted for measures in California to back up the statement (see 2016). Try again

I also said earlier that the medic had every right to open fire and kill the guy. So clearly I don't have a problem with using guns for self defense either. I think we just disagree on what excessive force and self defense mean.


----------



## Randy

efiltsohg said:


> https://www.chicagotribune.com/colu...0200903-susvsg45yndn7pb67l42ywnzn4-story.html



I'd need more context for what the prosecution will be pursuing. I think Rittenhouse walks if it's full first degree murder across the board with no other considerations, but that's the operative term.

Most statutes in most places take overarching context into account and this story changes a lot depending on if you look at it from 1ft away, 500ft away, or 30,000ft away. An example would be contexts in which a 'robbery goes wrong' and the shooter gets first degree murder charges. Even if they didn't go in there intending to kill a person or they even used the gun to shoot the store owner AFTER the store owner opened fire on them, it doesn't matter because it happened in the context of a commission of a crime. Likewise, you have statutes that will charge people who didn't actually pull the trigger, or weren't even in the building with the same first degree murder charge if they were involved in the crime that predicated the shooting.

So yeah, I'd have to see what they have regarding an overarching storyline, especially any footage of the first shooting or any texts/recordings of anything he said before, during or after. One clip, one quote could flip this upside completely because if you prove the first shooting was murder or he went there expecting/hoping to shoot people, everything that happens thereafter falls along with it just like dominos regardless of how "in danger" his life is.

I think that's the only way you get to a first degree murder charge, muchless two. Either the prosecution knows that and they have something that illustrates that in their possession that we don't, or they're deliberately overcharging him expecting they can plead it down or offer the jury a lesser charge as an alternative.

I think first degree murder based just on the one or two videos and witnesses would not convict him, no. But that's got nothing to do with innocence or being 100% verifiable self defense.


----------



## Randy

This is kinda what I had in mind, bolded for relevance.



> Second Degree Intentional Homicide
> 
> Wisconsin statute 940.01(2) provides mitigating circumstances as affirmative defenses to first degree intentional homicide reducing the charge to second degree intentional homicide.
> 
> *Under Wisconsin statute 940.05, second degree intentional homicide is defined as an act by any person causing the death of another human being *or unborn child* with the intent to kill that person* or unborn child or the mother of the unborn child.
> 
> Second degree intentional homicide is a Class B Felony punishable by imprisonment for up to 60 years; additional penalties can be imposed upon a person who has prior felony or misdemeanor convictions.
> 
> Wisconsin defines first degree intentional homicide and second degree intentional homicide with the same verbiage, but there is a substantial difference.
> 
> Second degree intentional homicide is, in essence, common law manslaughter. Wisconsin legislature eliminated the crime of manslaughter when the Wisconsin criminal code was rewritten. Second degree intentional homicide provides stiffer penalties than the previous manslaughter law, and a means by which the state prosecuting attorney can more easily obtain a conviction.
> 
> *There are no affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances available under Wisconsin statutory law to second degree intentional homicide; mitigating circumstances (self defense, coercion, adequate provocation (heat of passion murder), unnecessary defensive force, or prevention of a felony) are only available to the charge of first degree intentional homicide. If the state prosecution either fails to prove or concedes that it cannot prove that mitigating circumstances did not exist, then the charge is mitigated from first degree intentional homicide to second degree intentional homicide.*



EDIT: Further clarification



> Adequate provocation, unnecessary defensive force, prevention of felony, coercion and necessity, which are affirmative defenses to first-degree intentional homicide but not this offense, mitigate that offense to this. When this offense is charged, the state's inability to disprove their existence is conceded. Their existence need not, however, be pleaded or proved by the state in order to sustain a finding of guilty.


----------



## Randy

Time to my Jax impression: I'm shocked that this hasn't been brought up at all!

*Militia members face gun charges, alleged to have come to Kenosha 'to pick people off'*



> The pair arrived in the city Tuesday to participate in a rally to support President Trump, who toured the city and met with local officials.
> 
> Karmo and Smith are members of the 417 Second Amendment Militia in Missouri, the complaint said. The group's Facebook page was taken down as of Friday, but the Kenosha News reported several posts celebrating Rittenhouse and law enforcement.


----------



## spudmunkey

https://abcnews.go.com/US/blue-live...ested-slew-firearms-kenosha/story?id=72808923

"*Blue Lives Matter supporters arrested with slew of firearms outside Kenosha after police received tip about possible shooting, DOJ says*"

Michael M. Karmo, 40, and Cody E. Smith, 33, were arrested at a hotel near Kenosha on Tuesday and charged with illegal possession of firearms, the Department of Justice announced Thursday. According to the criminal complaint against them, they were found with a major cache of firearms and weapons in their vehicle and hotel room that included an AR-15, a shotgun, handguns, a dagger, a saw and magazines.


----------



## fantom

"Both men are barred from possessing firearms because of past criminal convictions."​And that is an example when someone's background is relevant.


----------



## Adieu

Cop-lovin' convicts

I find the mystical empowering properties of racism and fascist movements baffling


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> Time to my Jax impression: I'm shocked that this hasn't been brought up at all!
> 
> *Militia members face gun charges, alleged to have come to Kenosha 'to pick people off'*
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 84627





spudmunkey said:


> https://abcnews.go.com/US/blue-live...ested-slew-firearms-kenosha/story?id=72808923
> 
> "*Blue Lives Matter supporters arrested with slew of firearms outside Kenosha after police received tip about possible shooting, DOJ says*"
> 
> Michael M. Karmo, 40, and Cody E. Smith, 33, were arrested at a hotel near Kenosha on Tuesday and charged with illegal possession of firearms, the Department of Justice announced Thursday. According to the criminal complaint against them, they were found with a major cache of firearms and weapons in their vehicle and hotel room that included an AR-15, a shotgun, handguns, a dagger, a saw and magazines.


----------



## jaxadam

spudmunkey said:


> a dagger, a saw and magazines.



Magazines?! Something tells me these guys weren’t Playboy or Penthouse, but more like Juggs, Cheri, or High Society.


----------



## Adieu

jaxadam said:


> Magazines?! Something tells me these guys weren’t Playboy or Penthouse, but more like Juggs, Cheri, or High Society.



Excons can't own firearms, maybe ammo ownership is a separate charge for em?


----------



## spudmunkey

jaxadam said:


> Magazines?! Something tells me these guys weren’t Playboy or Penthouse, but more like Juggs, Cheri, or High Society.



OK, maybe I'm missing an obvious joke...would they not likely be only bothering to mention the generic "magazines" if they were of this type?


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


>



Ah, so you're more of a Soldier of Fortune guy?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

jaxadam said:


> Magazines?! Something tells me these guys weren’t Playboy or Penthouse, but more like Juggs, Cheri, or High Society.


 
Biggins I hope


----------



## spudmunkey

Dineley said:


> Biggins I hope



*Big 'Uns


----------



## Shoeless_jose

spudmunkey said:


> *Big 'Uns


Damn my memory betrayed me.


----------



## LordCashew

spudmunkey said:


> OK, maybe I'm missing an obvious joke...would they not likely be only bothering to mention the generic "magazines" if they were of this type?


Looks like the one on the right has some nice consistent figuring. Probably not master grade but AAAA+


----------



## possumkiller

LordIronSpatula said:


> Looks like the one on the right has some nice consistent figuring. Probably not master grade but AAAA+


It's the same as the black and tan ones just left of it. It's just a clear frosted plastic instead of colored. What looks like figuring is the follower spring that pushes the cartridges up for feeding.


----------



## LordCashew

possumkiller said:


> It's the same as the black and tan ones just left of it. It's just a clear frosted plastic instead of colored. What looks like figuring is the follower spring that pushes the cartridges up for feeding.


Haha I knew it was plastic. Guess my joke wasn’t funny.


----------



## Drew

efiltsohg said:


> Kyle Rittenhouse is going to walk largely because antifa retards have even bigger retard friends blabbing on social media


The fact that, at the time Kyle Riuttenhouse shot Gaige Grosskreutz, he was an active shooter who had already murdered two people in cold blood, is I think of slightly more pressing concern here than the fact Gaige Grosskreutz had a moment of mercy he now regrets, when confronted with an activ e shooter.

Of course, if he somehow "walks" from the third assault where he just wounded a man, he still has the previous two counts of homicide to contend with.


----------



## efiltsohg

Drew said:


> The fact that, at the time Kyle Riuttenhouse shot Gaige Grosskreutz, he was an active shooter who had already murdered two people in cold blood, is I think of slightly more pressing concern here than the fact Gaige Grosskreutz had a moment of mercy he now regrets, when confronted with an activ e shooter.
> 
> Of course, if he somehow "walks" from the third assault where he just wounded a man, he still has the previous two counts of homicide to contend with.



Identical to Darren Wilson's self defense case. Video evidence of the first man trying to take his gun from him.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> The fact that, at the time Kyle Riuttenhouse shot Gaige Grosskreutz, he was an active shooter who had already murdered two people in cold blood, is I think of slightly more pressing concern here than the fact Gaige Grosskreutz had a moment of mercy he now regrets, when confronted with an activ e shooter.
> 
> Of course, if he somehow "walks" from the third assault where he just wounded a man, he still has the previous two counts of homicide to contend with.



Funny enough, that article @efiltsohg posted a few days ago says the opposite, which is that the third guy makes the BEST case of Rittenhouse acting as the aggressor because the two other guys potentially struck him and had their hand on his gun, the argument the lawyer makes in that op-ed is that Gaige had not touched Rittenhouse or his gun, and even if he had a pistol, it was potentially out of view at the time Rittenhouse shot. Kinda funny how different people view it.

Edit: Also, I don't hear much mention of the first guy who potentially hit Rittenhouse and then turning away as he fired two shots that missed. I haven't watched the video in a week+ and I think that's before the camera gets close to the action but why doesn't that get a lot of attention?


----------



## Randy

Another thought, do we have an official bullet count? Narrative reads one way when it was three people hit, two killed, one 'head shot' (as it was originally reported), one straight to the heart or thereabouts and one or two in a guy pulling a gun, but I think the autopsy on the first guy looked more like what, 5 bullets and maybe more that missed completely, then potentially shots fired and missed on a guy at the scene where he falls, then potentially shots on Gaige without even seeing if he had a pistol.

A lot of people saying of he intended to shoot/kill he would've kept shooting, yeah, but the pattern of the bullets on first guy looking less like taking down a person charging (several shots including at least one in the back) two or more shots on a person that didn't actually touch his gun, and shooting Gaige maybe before he even saw the gun. That shifts the narrative but also, did he have any bullets left? Do we know for sure WHY he stopped shooting?


----------



## Drew

efiltsohg said:


> Identical to Darren Wilson's self defense case. Video evidence of the first man trying to take his gun from him.


Please. Had Darren Wilson shot two other guys immediately before he shot Michael Brown?



Randy said:


> Another thought, do we have an official bullet count? Narrative reads one way when it was three people hit, two killed, one 'head shot' (as it was originally reported), one straight to the heart or thereabouts and one or two in a guy pulling a gun, but I think the autopsy on the first guy looked more like what, 5 bullets and maybe more that missed completely, then potentially shots fired and missed on a guy at the scene where he falls, then potentially shots on Gaige without even seeing if he had a pistol.
> 
> A lot of people saying of he intended to shoot/kill he would've kept shooting, yeah, but the pattern of the bullets on first guy looking less like taking down a person charging (several shots including at least one in the back) two or more shots on a person that didn't actually touch his gun, and shooting Gaige maybe before he even saw the gun. That shifts the narrative but also, did he have any bullets left? Do we know for sure WHY he stopped shooting?


I haven't seen anything yet, but I do recall reading initial reports that the injuries of the first victim were consistent with multiple shots from behind, contradicting Kyle's claim that he shot him once from the front.

EDIT: https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/t...otesters-killings/DF3G3T5U65FQVCORO5XZPTR57Y/

From Fox News of all places, lol. First victim, Rosenbaumn, was shot at least 5 times, incliding once in the back. Second victim seems to have been a single shot in the chest, while trying to disarm the shooter. Third victim, a paramedic on the scene wth a handgun of his own, was shot once in the arm, while his hands were raised and while he still held the gun at the time he was shot, pictures from moments before show it was pointed up in the air with his hands up.

Link rather than in-line insert because the second victim is in the foreground clutching his chest moments after being shot, while Kyle aims at the third victim, and that's not the sort of image you want to stumble upon without choosing to.
https://www.fox13memphis.com/resize...ishing.com/cmg/FCNAUWZQLJHFJGVXHNY7YNSF34.jpg
Interesting to note here, is that Gaige almost looks like he's holding a _badge_ in his other hand. Paramedic ID, maybe? Do they even have those? He subsequently claimed he'd seen Kyle earlier in the night, saw him claiming to be an EMT (which requires you be 18 to be licensed), and with the gun on his back got a bad feeling about it so he and the other EMTs decided to try to avoid him.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Please. Had Darren Wilson shot two other guys immediately before he shot Michael Brown?
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anything yet, but I do recall reading initial reports that the injuries of the first victim were consistent with multiple shots from behind, contradicting Kyle's claim that he shot him once from the front.
> 
> EDIT: https://www.fox13memphis.com/news/t...otesters-killings/DF3G3T5U65FQVCORO5XZPTR57Y/
> 
> From Fox News of all places, lol. First victim, Rosenbaumn, was shot at least 5 times, incliding once in the back. Second victim seems to have been a single shot in the chest, while trying to disarm the shooter. Third victim, a paramedic on the scene wth a handgun of his own, was shot once in the arm, while his hands were raised and while he still held the gun at the time he was shot, pictures from moments before show it was pointed up in the air with his hands up.
> 
> Link rather than in-line insert because the second victim is in the foreground clutching his chest moments after being shot, while Kyle aims at the third victim, and that's not the sort of image you want to stumble upon without choosing to.
> https://www.fox13memphis.com/resize...ishing.com/cmg/FCNAUWZQLJHFJGVXHNY7YNSF34.jpg
> Interesting to note here, is that Gaige almost looks like he's holding a _badge_ in his other hand. Paramedic ID, maybe? Do they even have those? He subsequently claimed he'd seen Kyle earlier in the night, saw him claiming to be an EMT (which requires you be 18 to be licensed), and with the gun on his back got a bad feeling about it so he and the other EMTs decided to try to avoid him.



Disclaimer: I hate watching this video even once, muchless as many times as I have in the midst of this but obviously necessary to discuss the specifics of this.

So, the part I'm talking about is at :14 when a black guy in white pants with a white mask runs at Rittenhouse as he goes down, seemingly kicking him in the head and running off, Rittenhouse rolls onto his back and fires at least one shot errantly into the air and looks fire a second shot in the direction of this guy as he rolls back around, missing both times. I NEVER hear that part mentioned. This is in the context of yes, someone 'attacking him' but not a sustained attack, not with their hand on his gun and the guy is actually running AWAY when that second shit is fired.


----------



## Randy

Also, haven't seen an 'unlawful conduct' exception mentioned yet, so I'll throw that in here


----------



## StevenC

I get the feeling you guys are talking about a different Darren Wilson...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> I get the feeling you guys are talking about a different Darren Wilson...



How many asshole Darren Wilsons can there be?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> So, the part I'm talking about is at :14 when a black guy in white pants with a white mask runs at Rittenhouse as he goes down, seemingly kicking him in the head and running off, Rittenhouse rolls onto his back and fires at least one shot errantly into the air and looks fire a second shot in the direction of this guy as he rolls back around, missing both times. I NEVER hear that part mentioned. This is in the context of yes, someone 'attacking him' but not a sustained attack, not with their hand on his gun and the guy is actually running AWAY when that second shit is fired.


Thanks for leading with the warning - as it happens I'm pretty good at detaching emotionally, but always nice to know what I'm in for. 

A few other things that jump out at me, watching this at 0.25x- 

1) Rittenhouse is on the ground because he straight-up trips. He's never taken down, a couple guys take swings at him but while running past. Between 0:10 and 0:11, he just trips - not sure if he caught his foot on something, just panicked and wasn't used to running at a full sprint, or what, but he goes down head first while no one is even remotely close to him. If we're going to be charitable to Rittenhouse, it's entirely possible that he didn't KNOW he'd tripped over his own two feet, thought someone had tripped him, and that explains a lot of what happens next. 
2) The guy in the white pants - absolutely, he fires two shots at him at VERY close range, and frankly, it's kind of shocking he doesn't get hit. He's running at Rittenhouse, probably isn't planning on giving him a big ol' hug when he gets there, but it turns into a drop-kick in a hurry when he rolls around and points his gun at him. 
3) The guy with the skateboard had started to swing towards Rittenhouse from the side before he opened fire, but when he got there sort of falls onto him with the board in one hand - anyone saying he assaulted Rittenhouse with the skateboard, watch this on slo-mo, he was off balance from avoiding the guy in white pants as he jumped sideways to avoid gunfire and was falling forward - and grabs the gun and tries to pull it from Rittenhouse while getting back up to run away. At 0:17 you can see him taking a couple lurching steps as he's getting up, still half on hands and knees but with one hand around the middle of the gun, trying to take off at a run with his skateboard in one hand, and as he does so Kyle pulls the trigger. I guess the barrel must have been pointing up towards his torso at this point, because he immediately drops the board and clutches his chest. Either way - he's pretty clearly trying to run AWAY from Rittenhouse, and trying to take his gun maybe a second after he opened fire on another guy who was, amazingly, unarmed. 
4) No clue what the medic is doing, exactly - he and Kyle pause, Kyle starts to lower his gun, he starts running sideways. Doesn't SEEM to be trying to point his handgun (right hand?) at him, but Rittenhouse fires again. 
5) Where are the shots at the end coming from? Doesn't seem to be Rittenhouse. 
6) Seriously? People are shouting "Dude right here just shot someone!" while this kid walks down the road, AR15 across his chest, hands up to surrender... and the cops yell "get out of the road" at him??


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Also, haven't seen an 'unlawful conduct' exception mentioned yet, so I'll throw that in here



I feel far, far, far stupider for having accidentally read the comments on that video.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I feel far, far, far stupider for having accidentally read the comments on that video.



Saying this as objectively as possible, it's amazing to me the way 'self defense' and gun-nutter commenters swarm social media and YT posts. Regardless of the objective truths of this case, it's soaked in politics and you can expect a near 50/50 split on what happened here (I know in my life, 95% of people I know call him a murderer and there's a number of them in here as well), but I legit haven't read a single comment that wasn't foaming at the mouth pro-Rittenhouse on any video about this, and I've read hundreds. It's astounding.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Saying this as objectively as possible, it's amazing to me the way 'self defense' and gun-nutter commenters swarm social media and YT posts. Regardless of the objective truths of this case, it's soaked in politics and you can expect a near 50/50 split on what happened here (I know in my life, 95% of people I know call him a murderer and there's a number of them in here as well), but I legit haven't read a single comment that wasn't foaming at the mouth pro-Rittenhouse on any video about this, and I've read hundreds. It's astounding.



Troll farms are working this angle, hard, to cause division

Not sure if it's still mainly Russian spook subsidiaries, shadier backers of the Republicans stateside borrowing their playbook, the mainstream Republican party / Trump campaign, various extremist racial hate organizations trying to astroturf a foothold plus the underclass they managed to fool, or maybe....all of the above?

Prolly all the above


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Troll farms are working this angle, hard, to cause division
> 
> Not sure if it's still mainly Russian spook subsidiaries, shadier backers of the Republicans stateside borrowing their playbook, the mainstream Republican party / Trump campaign, various extremist racial hate organizations trying to astroturf a foothold plus the underclass they managed to fool, or maybe....all of the above?
> 
> Prolly all the above



You don't need a troll farm when you this sort of behavior being praised in the RNC, beaming down into heads of roughly half the US.


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> Troll farms are working this angle, hard, to cause division
> 
> Not sure if it's still mainly Russian spook subsidiaries, shadier backers of the Republicans stateside borrowing their playbook, the mainstream Republican party / Trump campaign, various extremist racial hate organizations trying to astroturf a foothold plus the underclass they managed to fool, or maybe....all of the above?
> 
> Prolly all the above





narad said:


> You don't need a troll farm when you this sort of behavior being praised in the RNC, beaming down into heads of roughly half the US.



Reminds me of a local thing that happened a year or two ago. A small dog on a local bike trail was attacked and I think killed by a pitbull that either broke loose or someone just had off leash. Most communities here are pro-pitbull, so obviously there was some outrage but no real 'movement' against banning the dogs or anything like that.

When the articles about this hit the local newspaper, the comments section BLEW UP. Even a really controversial article yields maybe a dozen or so commenters slugging it out, the pitbull article and it's follow-ups had HUNDREDS of comments from dozens of posters with anti-pitbull usernames and avatars. Not a single recognizable local name or comment, it was all "PITBULLS ARE BRED TO KILL" "PITBULLS ACCOUNT FOR 9 OUT OF 10 ANIMAL ATTACKS" etc. Every time a related article came up for months.

I get the impression someone or somewhere aggregates stories like this and submits them somewhere and tells everyone to jump in. I'd assume something similar is happening with these gun nutter articles/videos, either they're being funneled there or it's even YouTubes algorithm sending people there. Either way, it's absolutely commentary in a bubble. If you sent a neutral person to the comments section of ANY Kenosha shooting YT video, they'd think the US is 99% Ya'll qaeda.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I get the impression someone or somewhere aggregates stories like this and submits them somewhere and tells everyone to jump in. I'd assume something similar is happening with these gun nutter articles/videos, either they're being funneled there or it's even YouTubes algorithm sending people there. Either way, it's absolutely commentary in a bubble. If you sent a neutral person to the comments section of ANY Kenosha shooting YT video, they'd think the US is 99% Ya'll qaeda.


Less so than I used to, but in the first two years of the Trump administration, I used to post a LOT of articles about various nefarious things his administration was up to on my Facebook page, usually with commentary. For the most part, I'd get a handful of generally favorable comments from people I knew, a ton of likes, a couple shares, etc. 

On two occasions, I got a TON of comments from complete strangers. My profile is public so it's not surprising people could physically see anything I post, and I don't really give a shit that people can see anything I shared or wrote, but this was weird because suddenly I'd have a dozen or so trump-aligned people posting on something I'd shared. One in particular, after the Unite the Right rally, I had some honest-to-god white supremacist I was going back and forth arguing with for a day or so. Weirder still, if I had to bet it was actually two or three different people at various points, as the tone and arguments changed pretty drastically from the start to the finish, going from typical hate fueled vitriol to finally an attempt to appeal to reason, that if there were other largely homogenous countries int he world like Japan, why was it wrong to want to have a white homeland? Even if I wasn't suspicious that that particular account was being shared, the only thing I could think was some alt-right message board or something was going around and searching facebook for URLs of articles critical to their cause, then sharing a link to the posts so their members could attack the people sharing them. It was _weird. _


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Less so than I used to, but in the first two years of the Trump administration, I used to post a LOT of articles about various nefarious things his administration was up to on my Facebook page, usually with commentary. For the most part, I'd get a handful of generally favorable comments from people I knew, a ton of likes, a couple shares, etc.
> 
> On two occasions, I got a TON of comments from complete strangers. My profile is public so it's not surprising people could physically see anything I post, and I don't really give a shit that people can see anything I shared or wrote, but this was weird because suddenly I'd have a dozen or so trump-aligned people posting on something I'd shared. One in particular, after the Unite the Right rally, I had some honest-to-god white supremacist I was going back and forth arguing with for a day or so. Weirder still, if I had to bet it was actually two or three different people at various points, as the tone and arguments changed pretty drastically from the start to the finish, going from typical hate fueled vitriol to finally an attempt to appeal to reason, that if there were other largely homogenous countries int he world like Japan, why was it wrong to want to have a white homeland? Even if I wasn't suspicious that that particular account was being shared, the only thing I could think was some alt-right message board or something was going around and searching facebook for URLs of articles critical to their cause, then sharing a link to the posts so their members could attack the people sharing them. It was _weird. _



That IS a troll farm.

Also, expect a lot of these fake accounts to have FEMALE, asian, or hispanic names... also there's another typical subset that often participates in flame wars with these professional trolls as a supporting character, which is so common that I suspect they're fake shills as well: the African-American sounding username with shockingly bad spelling writing some kinda sacriligeous Judeo-Christian "religious fanfic" borderline unrelated to the subject at hand.... kinda makes me wonder if that type of "regular" is a shill meant to "prove" that all non-whites be too weird to coexist with


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Edika

Consider the scenarion that the peaceful protesters fealt that they will be attacked by groups of different political views with bricks, pepper spray etc etc. Non lethal attacks but with the potential of escalation. They then decide to have some of the protestors guard the rest by having part of them brandincing rifles, just to intimidate the people that would attack them to break up the protests. Not the police but other organized groups. Imagine the opposing parties continuing throwing water bottles, swearing, pepper spraying and trying to get the guns from the hands of the people repsonsible for protecting the rest of the protestors.

Would that be an appropriate scenario for those guarding the protestors to open fire to the opposing side because they felt threatened and feared for the lives of the people they were guarding? Would that be considered self defense?

Just to be clear I don't agree with either side carrying guns and duking it out to on the streets like the wild West. The only reason for the above mental excersise is to show that mental bias should not be excusing unlawful behavior. Otherwise get ready for a lot of 
https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6ZsXqj8JGRHQZZwk/giphy.gif

On another note though if it was 17 year old black kid going towards the police to hide from an "angry mob" trying to disarm him with an AR15 strapped to his chest, he would have all of his body mass replaced by lead no asked to get out of there. Honestly anyone with a weapon in a situation like that should have been aprehended with the intention to escalate tensions.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Edika said:


> Consider the scenarion that the peaceful protesters fealt that they will be attacked by groups of different political views with bricks, pepper spray etc etc. Non lethal attacks but with the potential of escalation. They then decide to have some of the protestors guard the rest by having part of them brandincing rifles, just to intimidate the people that would attack them to break up the protests. Not the police but other organized groups. Imagine the opposing parties continuing throwing water bottles, swearing, pepper spraying and trying to get the guns from the hands of the people repsonsible for protecting the rest of the protestors.
> 
> Would that be an appropriate scenario for those guarding the protestors to open fire to the opposing side because they felt threatened and feared for the lives of the people they were guarding? Would that be considered self defense?
> 
> Just to be clear I don't agree with either side carrying guns and duking it out to on the streets like the wild West. The only reason for the above mental excersise is to show that mental bias should not be excusing unlawful behavior. Otherwise get ready for a lot of
> https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6ZsXqj8JGRHQZZwk/giphy.gif
> 
> On another note though if it was 17 year old black kid going towards the police to hide from an "angry mob" trying to disarm him with an AR15 strapped to his chest, he would have all of his body mass replaced by lead no asked to get out of there. Honestly anyone with a weapon in a situation like that should have been aprehended with the intention to escalate tensions.



He wasn't there to protect _people_, he was there specifically (stated on the record) to protect _property_, and property that was not his. 

He was a minor without supervison in another state with an illegal firearm* in a tense situation that authorities decided to not handle.

*It's sort of an interesting overlap of laws, which hasn't been ruled on, but it's at best a gray area.


----------



## Adieu

GRAY area?


It's a minor who travelled far from his home to go on a shooting spree with an assault rifle killing random strangers, how the fuck is that a gray area????


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> GRAY area?
> 
> 
> It's a minor who travelled far from his home to go on a shooting spree with an assault rifle killing random strangers, how the fuck is that a gray area????



I'm not saying it wasn't. It's 99.99% likely that it was illegal for him to be carrying that gun in Wisconsin, but without knowing the finer details, I'm being a little generous. 

This sums it up pretty good: https://jsonline.com/amp/3444231001

tl;dr Wisconsin has exceptions meant for hunting that are very broad and there could be a loophole depending on the court's reading of the law.


----------



## Edika

MaxOfMetal said:


> He wasn't there to protect _people_, he was there specifically (stated on the record) to protect _property_, and property that was not his.
> 
> He was a minor without supervison in another state with an illegal firearm* in a tense situation that authorities decided to not handle.
> 
> *It's sort of an interesting overlap of laws, which hasn't been ruled on, but it's at best a gray area.



Oh I know that. It was just a mental excersise for those defending him to see how outlandish their claim is that he was a good guy and all that crap. If they feel uncofortable with that then it shows the hyprocrisy of their statment.

Plus hardcore conservatives (not necessarily SSO members here) put property above human life and thing that he protestors are more or less scum while it is the opposite for more left leaning individuals. Or you know anyone with a shred of decency. Maybe I'm getting way out of line here and sorry for that it just baffles me that anyone would consider this little psycho's actions acceptable.


----------



## Adieu

Well duh, he's the hero of their race war fantasy


----------



## fantom

Edika said:


> Plus hardcore conservatives (not necessarily SSO members here) put property above human life and thing that he protestors are more or less scum while it is the opposite for more left leaning individuals. Or you know anyone with a shred of decency. Maybe I'm getting way out of line here and sorry for that it just baffles me that anyone would consider this little psycho's actions acceptable.



Or maybe some people just accept that the world has too many people and that many of them dying isn't such a bad thing. Is property more valuable than a specific person? Of course not... Well... Do you think left wing people really have decency or give a crap about people in africa, india, or china that regularly die over their own property? Are they willing to sacrifice their 401k, car, and tennis lessons to help people dying everyday? Are they willing to stop finding chinese sweat farms to buy new pants for $100? Are they willing to cut down on paper products to prevent trees getting destroyed? Of course not.

I guess my point was where is the dividing line where people aren't important anymore? Is it continents? Countries? Or maybe States or cities?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> Or maybe some people just accept that the world has too many people and that many of them dying isn't such a bad thing. Is property more valuable than a specific person? Of course not... Well... Do you think left wing people really have decency or give a crap about people in africa, india, or china that regularly die over their own property? Are they willing to sacrifice their 401k, car, and tennis lessons to help people dying everyday? Are they willing to stop finding chinese sweat farms to buy new pants for $100? Are they willing to cut down on paper products to prevent trees getting destroyed? Of course not.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Edika said:


> Oh I know that. It was just a mental excersise for those defending him to see how outlandish their claim is that he was a good guy and all that crap. If they feel uncofortable with that then it shows the hyprocrisy of their statment.
> 
> Plus hardcore conservatives (not necessarily SSO members here) put property above human life and thing that he protestors are more or less scum while it is the opposite for more left leaning individuals. Or you know anyone with a shred of decency. Maybe I'm getting way out of line here and sorry for that it just baffles me that anyone would consider this little psycho's actions acceptable.



just imagine being really really racist.


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 84866



I've been vehemently saying this kid is a criminal the entire thread. But arguing that people value property over life in a general sense seems hypocritical to me if pretty much everyone in this country is more than guilty of it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> I've been vehemently saying this kid is a criminal the entire thread. But arguing that people value property over life in a general sense seems hypocritical to me if pretty much everyone in this country is more than guilty of it.



And that is a logical fallacy.

"Everyone participates in capitalism/globalization and thus no one actually cares about human life relative to property."

It's classic either/or. Either you live to an unattainable level of social and economic purity or you're just as bad as folks willing to kill fellow citizens for replaceable property that you might not have directly benefited from.

Not to mention the Moral Equivalence.


----------



## Mathemagician

philkilla said:


> Case in point:
> 
> Imagine living in the nations capitol, and on a weeknight this is what you do with your free-time
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPubl.../?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
> 
> FTR, I'm a registered independent voter; I'm sure there's similar stuff that happened on the other side but I'm not going to look for it.










Yeah. Imagine being angry that people who fought integration are still alive and now defending politicians inciting race-based violence. 

Just imagine.


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> And that is a logical fallacy.
> 
> "Everyone participates in capitalism/globalization and thus no one actually cares about human life relative to property."
> 
> It's classic either/or. Either you live to an unattainable level of social and economic purity or you're just as bad as folks willing to kill fellow citizens for replaceable property that you might not have directly benefited from.
> 
> Not to mention the Moral Equivalence.



Not what I'm saying at all. If anything, I'm saying that people seem to care a lot less when they are more disconnected from the consequences. Saying "willing to kill fellow citizens" literally shows a bias where you picked the word "citizen" over "people", because you don't want to value people more disconnected from different cultures or regions of the world. I'm not saying everyone has one extreme or the other or where lies right or wrong, I'm just saying everyone has these biases. Some people seem to have no problem killing people that live 30 minutes away, and I agree they should burn for it. But what level of disconnection causes you to not care?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> Not what I'm saying at all. If anything, I'm saying that people seem to care a lot less when they are more disconnected from the consequences. Saying "willing to kill fellow citizens" literally shows a bias where you picked the word "citizen" over "people", because you don't want to value people more disconnected from different cultures or regions of the world. I'm not saying everyone has one extreme or the other or where lies right or wrong, I'm just saying everyone has these biases. Some people seem to have no problem killing people that live 30 minutes away, and I agree they should burn for it. But what level of disconnection causes you to not care?



Moral Equivalence fallacy.

Partaking in a system that can be brutally unfair does not equal actual murder or manslaughter. 

Buying some slave labor born Levis at Wal-Mart because they're cheap and the other option is "no pants" doesn't equal murder. 

Using a cellphone made by Foxconn because a phone number is required to get a job does not equal manslaughter.


----------



## TedEH

fantom said:


> the world has too many people and that many of them dying isn't such a bad thing





fantom said:


> where is the dividing line where people aren't important anymore?


Are we seriously asking this question?
Because the answer is that people are always important.
Especially if the alternative is to actively take a person's life for the sake of property.

The problem is not that we're drawing lines in different places, it's that we're drawing lines at all regarding the value of a person.


----------



## Adieu

Mathemagician said:


> View attachment 84888
> View attachment 84889
> View attachment 84890
> View attachment 84891
> View attachment 84892
> 
> 
> Yeah. Imagine being angry that people who fought integration are still alive and now defending politicians inciting race-based violence.
> 
> Just imagine.



Gotta love the spelling.


----------



## Mathemagician

Adieu said:


> Gotta love the spelling.



Did you notice they had some sort of super racist version of the clan? Those racists who are now people’s grandparents had a fourth k!

They’re probably out there telling the young racists “Back in my day, we had 4 k’s to stand on. But you weak millennial racists are too weak to fit the full one on your small signs!”


----------



## philkilla

Mathemagician said:


> View attachment 84888
> View attachment 84889
> View attachment 84890
> View attachment 84891
> View attachment 84892
> 
> 
> Yeah. Imagine being angry that people who fought integration are still alive and now defending politicians inciting race-based violence.
> 
> Just imagine.



Oh you're angry grandma wasn't home that evening? Sorry bud.


----------



## Mathemagician

philkilla said:


> Oh you're angry grandma wasn't home that evening? Sorry bud.



I don’t understand this comment. 

You said “I don’t understand people protesting those who support a bigot”. 

I shared images of actual racists protesting to maintain segregation. 

What are you trying to say?


----------



## Wuuthrad

fantom said:


> I've been vehemently saying this kid is a criminal the entire thread. But arguing that people value property over life in a general sense seems hypocritical to me if pretty much everyone in this country is more than guilty of it.



The idea of Carbon Footprint was adopted by BP to fool the consumer that that they were more or less responsible and as a result BP wouldn’t and couldn’t really be held accountable.

But using your logic- why ever buy a guitar made overseas? People do need jobs. The system is designed to level everyone out, or is it?


----------



## philkilla

Mathemagician said:


> I don’t understand this comment.
> 
> You said “I don’t understand people protesting those who support a bigot”.
> 
> I shared images of actual racists protesting to maintain segregation.
> 
> What are you trying to say?



I actually never said that; nice attempt though.

Enjoy your chamber please.


----------



## Ralyks

On a different note, the cops involved in George Floyd’s death are turning on each other.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html?outputType=amp


----------



## Mathemagician

philkilla said:


> I actually never said that; nice attempt though.
> 
> Enjoy your chamber please.



Look if you are going to vote for a certain candidate then do so. Just don’t pretend like it was ever about how people protest. 

Fishing for a flimsy “socially acceptable excuse” is just a transparent attempt at not taking responsibility for your choice. 

It’s just saying “see how can I support that center-right Biden guy and his policies, when a few individual voters weren’t nice?! Now I HAVE to support the authoritarian candidate, his voters behave how I like! Guess it can’t be helped.”

Just own your world views. No need to try to make up a reason you won’t vote for the center-right Biden. You like authoritarians. That’s A-ok, this is America.


----------



## philkilla

Mathemagician said:


> Look if you are going to vote for a certain candidate then do so. Just don’t pretend like it was ever about how people protest.
> 
> Fishing for a flimsy “socially acceptable excuse” is just a transparent attempt at not taking responsibility for your choice.
> 
> It’s just saying “see how can I support that center-right Biden guy and his policies, when a few individual voters weren’t nice?! Now I HAVE to support the authoritarian candidate, his voters behave how I like! Guess it can’t be helped.”
> 
> Just own your world views. No need to try to make up a reason you won’t vote for the center-right Biden. You like authoritarians. That’s A-ok, this is America.



You literally created an entire narrative, and compared a video of "protestors" cursing and giving old ladies the middle finger to photos of the Civil rights movement from the 50's.

Congratulations.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> On a different note, the cops involved in George Floyd’s death are turning on each other.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/national/floyd-minneapolis-police-blame/2020/09/10/b6367c1c-f37c-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html?outputType=amp




Interesting.

So, one senior bully plus two overgrown middle aged idiot rookies who presumably joined only because their unemployment ran out and they couldn't land another job.... and a yes-man who maintains he was on crowd control and shouldn't be counted as a participant

America's finest. Lol.

Maybe this tragic story will finally open the country's eyes to what manner of former schoolyard villains and useless n'er do well henchmen types ACTUALLY typically make up what they mistake to be "the fine men and women in uniform", and what authoritarians fantasize and idealize as "the best of us"


----------



## Mathemagician

philkilla said:


> You literally created an entire narrative, and compared a video of "protestors" cursing and giving old ladies the middle finger to photos of the Civil rights movement from the 50's.
> 
> Congratulations.



How are the protestors different aside from the reason they’re protesting? 

In the 1960’s US Marshall’s had to escort a small child to her new school due to the threat of angry racists. 

Last month, a few people flicked off wealthy donors leaving a political event for an openly racist politician. 

YOU literally said “I’m not going to even look for bad behavior by others, this is just unacceptable to me!”

During those protests in DC, Trump fans showed up and drove through crowds. 

Trump fans also protested while fully armed at government buildings against masks and shut downs to look big & bad. 

But getting “flicked off” is just way way to far! Oh my pearls! Snowflakes.


----------



## vilk

philkilla said:


> You literally created an entire narrative, and compared a video of "protestors" cursing and giving old ladies the middle finger to photos of the Civil rights movement from the 50's.
> 
> Congratulations.


Then how about you set us straight then, Phil. Why did you post the video? Why did you call dudemans granny a racist (or whatever your dumb fucking troll shitpost is supposed to mean).

This forum is for discussion, which you don't seem to be even attempting to do. Just drop bombs and run. Stir and fling shit. You might as well send your resume to the Russian troll farm since you're already working for them without pay. 

Or prove me wrong and engage with Math. Or stop posting here.


----------



## philkilla

Mathemagician said:


> How are the protestors different aside from the reason they’re protesting?
> 
> In the 1960’s US Marshall’s had to escort a small child to her new school due to the threat of angry racists.
> 
> Last month, a few people flicked off wealthy donors leaving a political event for an openly racist politician.
> 
> YOU literally said “I’m not going to even look for bad behavior by others, this is just unacceptable to me!”
> 
> During those protests in DC, Trump fans showed up and drove through crowds.
> 
> Trump fans also protested while fully armed at government buildings against masks and shut downs to look big & bad.
> 
> But getting “flicked off” is just way way to far! Oh my pearls! Snowflakes.



Once again, attempting to put words in my mouth; I never said anything like that. If anything, I have pointed out misgivings on both sides, regardless of the amgry reactions I've received.

I was done with this thread, because having any sort of discussion with fanatics like you via the internet is futile.

Really? A snowflake comment?? Please dude, don't try to goad me into triggering you.


----------



## philkilla

vilk said:


> Then how about you set us straight then, Phil. Why did you post the video? Why did you call dudemans granny a racist (or whatever your dumb fucking troll shitpost is supposed to mean).
> 
> This forum is for discussion, which you don't seem to be even attempting to do. Just drop bombs and run. Stir and fling shit. You might as well send your resume to the Russian troll farm since you're already working for them without pay.
> 
> Or prove me wrong and engage with Math. Or stop posting here.



I posted that video two weeks ago. 

It is from an open source media site, posted by protestors.

It was posted in reference to the context of that page.

You expect me to engage mathemagician because he wants to pick a fight over a forum post from two weeks ago?


----------



## vilk

Another dodge. Literally proving my point. (and LOL at @ "but I posted it _2 whole weeks ago!!_)

Please go back to being "done with this thread". Don't let the door hit you on the ass.


----------



## philkilla

vilk said:


> Another dodge. Literally proving my point. (and LOL at @ "but I posted it _2 whole weeks ago!!_)
> 
> Please go back to being "done with this thread". Don't let the door hit you on the ass.



I'm not dodging anything; there was plenty of discussions I was part of here. I even went so far as to settle some differences privately.

If it was worth discussing with the dude, I'd do so privately. Your whole drive is to try and egg me on to having a public dispute with you so you can like and dogpile with your friends.

Maybe you should spend more time practicing guitar, and less time trying to stir up drama from _a whole two weeks ago._


----------



## Mathemagician

philkilla said:


> Once again, attempting to put words in my mouth; I never said anything like that. If anything, I have pointed out misgivings on both sides, regardless of the amgry reactions I've received.
> 
> I was done with this thread, because having any sort of discussion with fanatics like you via the internet is futile.
> 
> Really? A snowflake comment?? Please dude, don't try to goad me into triggering you.




To be clear - You linked a video and said “this is bad how could they?”

I shared images of anti-integration protests and asked “how could they?” 

No insults or name calling. But you accuse me of “picking a fight” when I have been 100% supportive of your preference for an authoritarian. 

You are entitled to your beliefs, I only took issue with you presenting a protest as some sort of grave insult to decency. So that’s what I focused on. The protest comments. 

As far as you LEAPING at the chance to change the subject to suddenly denounce the use of the word “snowflake” goes. 
I’m just scrolling through the authoritarian troll handbook and taking buzzwords that look as goofy in writing as they do when people say them out loud. That was just some flavor and spices for reader’s amusement.


----------



## vilk

philkilla said:


> I'm not dodging anything; there was plenty of discussions I was part of here. I even went so far as to settle some differences privately.
> 
> If it was worth discussing with the dude, I'd do so privately. Your whole drive is to try and egg me on to having a public dispute with you so you can like and dogpile with your friends.
> 
> Maybe you should spend more time practicing guitar, and less time trying to stir up drama from _a whole two weeks ago._


I'm intrigued by this logic. Shitpost and troll openly in the discussion forum, but save the intelligent debate for the private messages, to avoid being dogpiled.

Look, you can call this place a 'chamber' all you want, but the regular posters here know that it isn't, and we have people disagree all the time and have smart, civil debates. You know who gets dogpiled? Users that make arguments in bad faith, dodge discussion in lieu of drive-by's, make weird ad hominem attacks that don't resolve the point, make preposterous excuses for why they refuse to engage in discussion, etc.

You're not convincing anyone.


----------



## philkilla

@Mathemagician I didn't vote for an authoritarian; nice assumption though.

@vilk you're the regular poster. You only agree with people that align with your political affiliation. This is the first time you've engaged me after I've spent weeks discussing things with other people, and it was based on a post from two weeks ago. 

You can call it a shitpost all you want, it doesn't bother me. The reality is you charging me at not engaging with mathemagician is a shitpost. Your whole discourse today has just been to get a rise out of me, develop some clout (?), and make a mockery because you have nothing better to do with your time.

I'm not going to both DM'ing you because you've made it clear you are only seeking drama at this point.


----------



## vilk

Getting a rise out of you is the very last thing I want. In case you missed it, I'll reiterate exactly what it is I'm trying to achieve:



vilk said:


> stop posting here.





vilk said:


> Please go back to being "done with this thread".



Please _don't_ reply.


----------



## philkilla

Ralyks said:


> On a different note, the cops involved in George Floyd’s death are turning on each other.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/national/floyd-minneapolis-police-blame/2020/09/10/b6367c1c-f37c-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html?outputType=amp



I'd be surprised if they weren't all rallying against Chauvin together.


----------



## Randy

Fwiw

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3466920001

Re: Grosskreutz
"Others online have tried to smear his character by claiming he's a felon who wasn't legally allowed to possess the handgun he carried the night of the protest.

He does not have a felony record, according to online court records."


----------



## Randy

Also obviously Jax and Phil are both gone, I'll remind anyone following this thread that mods don't have the ability to ban, only Alex does and he's not active here much so the only thing he has to go off of are reports. I nor at any of the mod team decide nor do we have any idea how long the bans are.

I will absolutely admit this subforum skews to the left but I have no personal issue with jax or phil or most of the members we have right now, even if I disagree with their politics or their tone or whatever sometimes. But politics are touchy (why a lot of forums ban them all together) and things get more heated than they do in the rest of the board, so you get more reports which mean more moderation. 99% of the time at this point, something gets reported, Alex can see the post in question alongside the report and decide how he wants to handle it.

I just want to put that out there before anyone jumps to concluding this is SSO banning conservatives and that's that. Mods can't ban people, Alex isn't active here and has never indicated what his politics are, he OFTEN ignores or offer alternatives to bans even on posts mods report, and bans (even for repeat offenders) are temporary and pretty brief 99% of the time. When people argue, posts get reported, when posts get reported all Alex has to go off of is what's in the post and what's in the report. That's a reminder to be mindful of what you say and how it is going to look from third party when asked to step in.


----------



## vilk

For the record, one of my close personal friends (which I don't have many) is/claims to be conservative, or at the very least an Ayn Rand worshipper, and we have long face to face discussions about it. The dude is too smart, and he's always backing up his points with logic based reasoning, long, intelligent answers, historical knowledge, etc. So maybe I set the bar a little too high. Sorry for derailing threads.


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> But politics are touchy (why a lot of forums ban them all together) and things get more heated than they do in the rest of the board, so you get more reports which mean more moderation.



Well... you're just a snowflake beta cuck who can't handle that Schecter > Ibanez.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> Well... you're just a snowflake beta cuck who can't handle that Schecter > Ibanez.



You guys should arrange to meet behind the bleachers and punch each other to establish schoolyard hierarchy


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> You guys should arrange to meet behind the bleachers and punch each other to establish schoolyard hierarchy



The paint Ibanez uses turns frogs gay, dammit! And Randy supports that?!







I can prove it.

This was Tim Henson before he got an Ibanez sig:





Sorry... back OT.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> *posts leather clad bear*



Whatever you say, bro.


----------



## fantom

So cnn posted an interview with the 3rd shooting victim. Dude is regularly getting death threats. Wtf is wrong with people.


----------



## possumkiller

Doesn't everyone in America get death threats?


----------



## Ralyks

possumkiller said:


> Doesn't everyone in America get death threats?



Only from my ex when we were together.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> Doesn't everyone in America get death threats?



Only from dear ol mom


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Only from dear ol mom


Listen, she brought you into this world, man, and she can bring you right back out if she wants to.


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> You only agree with people that align with your political affiliation.


Can we just pause for a second and unpack this a little bit? 

This is the "politics and current events" forum. We're here talking politics. With that as background, when you accuse someone of "only agreeing with people that align with your political affiliation," what you're saying, in the context of a politics sub-forum, where we're _discussing politics_, is "you only agree with people who agree with you." 

I mean, isn't that blindingly self-obvious?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Drew said:


> Can we just pause for a second and unpack this a little bit?
> 
> This is the "politics and current events" forum. We're here talking politics. With that as background, when you accuse someone of "only agreeing with people that align with your political affiliation," what you're saying, in the context of a politics sub-forum, where we're _discussing politics_, is "you only agree with people who agree with you."
> 
> I mean, isn't that blindingly self-obvious?



I think the point being made is that people spurn obvious facts and claim "fake news" if it contradicts their view point.

There is no longer a commonly accepted truth.


----------



## Drew

Dineley said:


> I think the point being made is that people spurn obvious facts and claim "fake news" if it contradicts their view point.
> 
> There is no longer a commonly accepted truth.


While there may be some element of truth to this, I think the poster in question here is just making increasingly desperate attempts to spin his way out of a hole.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Drew said:


> While there may be some element of truth to this, I think the poster in question here is just making increasingly desperate attempts to spin his way out of a hole.




Omg I misread the original quotes as to what was going on. Yes agreed.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Must watch imo for anyone interested in this issue: 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/investigation/policing-the-police/


----------



## Ralyks

Anyone else thinking Kentucky is going to be on fire tonight?


----------



## broj15

Ralyks said:


> Anyone else thinking Kentucky is going to be on fire tonight?



Kinda hope so. They had an opportunity to do the right thing and didn't. They could've even passed down manslaughter charges but naw, let's give one of 'em some bullshit charge and set the bail at $15k. I can't help but wonder if the people in the adjacent apartment he endangered but didn't injure were white.

Also, gotta reiterate the irony of naming a law after a victim of police brutality but then letting the pigs that killed her walk away with a slap on the wrist.


----------



## Randy

I'm sure I'm gonna piss off either gun nutters or some BT supporters with this, but THIS along with the Kenosha thing is exactly the reason why I'm on the extreme end of gun ownership/usage especially with regard to protection. What happened to Breonna Taylor was fucking bullshit and so are no-knock warrants in general, but as the law is laid out, the cops are authorized to do it and it's bad luck for you when it happens and even worse luck if you open fire not knowing who it is. 

It should be a wake-up call to change the law but as far as the cops being legally culpable based on it the way it's written, nope. There's no mechanism that says "if the police enter the apartment and the homeowner doesn't know who it is, the cops are expected to just stand there and get shot to death". There's a lot of no-knock warrants that get served (as bullshit as they are) and the homeowners DON'T get killed, because they don't open fire blindly into whoever came through the door.

BT family should sue the shit out of the police department and state's AG, law should change completely regarding no-knock policy, economic policy and public safety policy should change so that people don't see the door kicked in and instantly assume it's a gang of murderers, or likewise, PDs should be doing more effective policing that they're not reduced to kicking random people's doors in this way. Also, yeah, I hope some people would be more thoughful about blindly opening fire on anything that comes through the door. This time it was the cops but a lot of times it's someone's son or daughter coming sneaking back in after a late date.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I'm sure I'm gonna piss off either gun nutters or some BT supporters with this, but THIS along with the Kenosha thing is exactly the reason why I'm on the extreme end of gun ownership/usage especially with regard to protection. What happened to Breonna Taylor was fucking bullshit and so are no-knock warrants in general, but as the law is laid out, the cops are authorized to do it and it's bad luck for you when it happens and even worse luck if you open fire not knowing who it is.
> 
> It should be a wake-up call to change the law but as far as the cops being legally culpable based on it the way it's written, nope. There's no mechanism that says "if the police enter the apartment and the homeowner doesn't know who it is, the cops are expected to just stand there and get shot to death". There's a lot of no-knock warrants that get served (as bullshit as they are) and the homeowners DON'T get killed, because they don't open fire blindly into whoever came through the door.
> 
> BT family should sue the shit out of the police department and state's AG, law should change completely regarding no-knock policy, economic policy and public safety policy should change so that people don't see the door kicked in and instantly assume it's a gang of murderers, or likewise, PDs should be doing more effective policing that they're not reduced to kicking random people's doors in this way. Also, yeah, I hope some people would be more thoughful about blindly opening fire on anything that comes through the door. This time it was the cops but a lot of times it's someone's son or daughter coming sneaking back in after a late date.



 100%

FWIW, the city settled with the family for $12 million. They got off easy. The most bullshit part of that is that taxpayers and not the perpetrators are picking up the tab.


----------



## fantom

Randy said:


> I'm sure I'm gonna piss off either gun nutters or some BT supporters with this, but THIS along with the Kenosha thing is exactly the reason why I'm on the extreme end of gun ownership/usage especially with regard to protection. What happened to Breonna Taylor was fucking bullshit and so are no-knock warrants in general, but as the law is laid out, the cops are authorized to do it and it's bad luck for you when it happens and even worse luck if you open fire not knowing who it is.
> 
> It should be a wake-up call to change the law but as far as the cops being legally culpable based on it the way it's written, nope. There's no mechanism that says "if the police enter the apartment and the homeowner doesn't know who it is, the cops are expected to just stand there and get shot to death". There's a lot of no-knock warrants that get served (as bullshit as they are) and the homeowners DON'T get killed, because they don't open fire blindly into whoever came through the door.
> 
> BT family should sue the shit out of the police department and state's AG, law should change completely regarding no-knock policy, economic policy and public safety policy should change so that people don't see the door kicked in and instantly assume it's a gang of murderers, or likewise, PDs should be doing more effective policing that they're not reduced to kicking random people's doors in this way. Also, yeah, I hope some people would be more thoughful about blindly opening fire on anything that comes through the door. This time it was the cops but a lot of times it's someone's son or daughter coming sneaking back in after a late date.



Nailed it. The issue with the situation was the no-knock warrant and unidentified officers breaking into a home (legally). Both the officers and the family were put in a shitty situation. If activists want to address the real problem, they should petition to change laws regarding how warrants are issued and served. Unidentified plain clothes officers breaking into anyone's home is not a show of force, it's an escalation. But there was no criminal liability

Edit: looks like they already banned no-knock warrants. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/us/louisville-breonnas-law-no-knock-warrants-ban/index.html


----------



## Chokey Chicken

That's the unfortunate truth. The laws are just garbage and unfortunately, as frustrating as it is, this was actually my expected outcome. It doesn't feel good, but quite technically (and it kind of grosses me out to say this) justice, as far as the law goes, was served.

Not moral justice, as the laws were/are garbage, but you can't just decide to say "you're legally allowed to do this thing" then say "welp, you get charges for doing that legal thing." The real problem was that what happened was legal... Honestly, who expects to kick a door down at 3am and not have the home owner confused and trying to defend themselves. Nobody with friendly intentions does that... The fact that the law dictated that was okay is ridiculous. 

No knocks are shit, this situation was/is shit, and nothing about it feels any amount of good.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Also, yeah, I hope some people would be more thoughful about blindly opening fire on anything that comes through the door. This time it was the cops but a lot of times it's someone's son or daughter coming sneaking back in after a late date.



Cops with battering rams tend to be a lot less subtle than juveniles on their walk of shame

Besides, if you don't have any kids or roommates and your significant other is in bed with you, there ain't supposed to be anyone coming through the door


Also, on a side note, police on a no-knock who don't identify themselves ARE unidentified armed intruders. And you're legally ALLOWED to kill em dead in many states.

And while guns do make messy outcomes more likely....you're also allowed to whack em in the head with your choice of baseball bat, hammer, axe, etc. It's a perfectly natural reaction to some fat fuck breaking through your door unannounced in the middle of the night.

Most countries, even authoritarian traditions like modern Russia or the old Soviet Union, have strict laws that a cop identify themselves in any interaction with the public, and a person out of uniform who doesn't state their name and rank is acting as any other random dude and not an officer of the law.

Btw, there's usually verbal warnings or warning shot rules, or the British-style "armed police" self-introduction required before weaponry can be used. Yes, that's right, even totalitarian and authoritarian regimes generally forbid running around guns blazing without a proper warning and demand to surrender and comply. And tend to jail or even EXECUTE cops who violate that shit.


----------



## possumkiller

Adieu said:


> Yes, that's right, even totalitarian and authoritarian regimes generally forbid running around guns blazing without a proper warning and demand to surrender and comply. And tend to jail or even EXECUTE cops who violate that shit.



Whoa whoa whoa...

I'm gonna need a citation if you're trying to tell me that pinko commie putinland is safer from the police than the good old God fearing US of A.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> Whoa whoa whoa...
> 
> I'm gonna need a citation if you're trying to tell me that pinko commie putinland is safer from the police than the good old God fearing US of A.



Of course it is

My dumbass, wino Russian uncle has been arrested for drunkenly assaulting the police at least 3 times, including once in my company

That one time he got kicked OUT of a holding cell after punching an officer (WHILE already detained). Senior officer said "get that shithead out of here".... and off he went. I got fined $5 USD for drunk in public though.

The other two times, he went before a judge. $8 fine once, case dismissed the other time. In which case he was drunk on the subway, SAW a cop, and proceeded to run up an kick him in the behind "because cops pissed him off" (to which he plead GUILTY)

Nope nobody shot him or roughed him up


----------



## Adieu

Cops can't shoot you in Russia.

One rookie famously made the newspapers after he was put ON TRIAL for shooting a bloodied, butt-naked man who charged at him brandishing a severed penis. Yes, you read that right. Severed penis. Outdoors. In the snow. At night.

Because he panicked and didn't fire a warning shot or otherwise try to resolve (?) this non-lethally... apparently there is a PROCEDURE to be followed for this kind of thing.


----------



## Adieu

I once dated a Russian cop. Paper pusher, but still had an issued weapon... always kept it in the gun safe at the office and carried pepper spray and a tazer.

Because she lived in a rough shit neighborhood and felt she'd quickly end up getting fired for brandishing it or jailed for using it in self defense if she had it.


----------



## possumkiller

Adieu said:


> Of course it is
> 
> My dumbass, wino Russian uncle has been arrested for drunkenly assaulting the police at least 3 times, including once in my company
> 
> That one time he got kicked OUT of a holding cell after punching an officer (WHILE already detained). Senior officer said "get that shithead out of here".... and off he went. I got fined $5 USD for drunk in public though.
> 
> The other two times, he went before a judge. $8 fine once, case dismissed the other time. In which case he was drunk on the subway, SAW a cop, and proceeded to run up an kick him in the behind "because cops pissed him off" (to which he plead GUILTY)
> 
> Nope nobody shot him or roughed him up


Really? WTF? I got drunk at a July 4 BBQ at my dad's house and walked down the street to my aunt's house. She was driving home drunk from the same party and ran me over in her driveway. She called the ambulance and the cops showed up. Never even bothered to check her for alcohol but followed me to the hospital because I was uncooperative (probably from being black out drunk and hit by a car and not wanting to go to the hospital because I couldn't fucking afford it) and loud. I woke up in a cell the next morning with four counts of felony battery on law enforcement looking at a possible 20 years in prison. I was thankful to get away with just one count of felony battery and three years of probation and a felony record that ruined my life and caused me to never find any kind of meaningful employment again. The battery was brushing an officer's ass with my fingers as I was moving in the bed, hitting a nurse on the cheek with the heart monitor wire from my fingertip as I made a hand gesture pointing across the room, putting my arm around a nurse's neck to help pull myself up (the police said I tried to choke her to death, the nurses said otherwise but not in court of course), and some other nonsense that I don't even remember. It's been over ten years ago now and I still can't get past the background check phase of any decent job opportunity. One of the other reasons I jumped at the chance to move to Poland.


The american justice and corrections system is just another capitalist money making scheme. They wait to catch you or entrap you just to get you into processing. Once you are into the process, they are going to get their money. You are either wealthy enough to pay them off and get off with nothing but money lost, or you are going to spend money on attorneys and court fees and processing fees and all kinds of other bullshit fees, or you are going to go to prison and your stay will be paid by the tax payers into the system. Or they just get the pure fun and joy of killing you.

America is a shithole country that used to put up a nice facade. It's that fine ass girl in high school that everyone wants to be with and always gets her way and is the most popular and bosses everyone around but she's actually dead inside because when she goes home she gets beaten and abused and raped by her daddy and brothers and uncles and cousins.


----------



## Adieu

Everywhere is fucked up in its own way

Russian cops tend to use their badges for personal gain. But they'll also pick their battles because they have "better" things to do than enjoy screwing with little people to improve their mood.

If you're a proper criminal, they'll put you away to keep up the facade of doing their jobs well. If you're a little shit with some weed or some property damage, they'll make a modest profit off not charging you and move on. Minor "fines" like public urination or something? "Collected" on sight, off the books, from your pocket into theirs. If you're drunk and disorderly, they may or may not relieve you of something valuable or a couple big bills in your posession, and send you on your merry way once you sober up to move on to something more interesting.

The hassle of charging some drunk who took a swing at one of em... does not figure into it.

Besides, that's probably 15 nights in a cell with community service during the day if they DO get it to stick. Attempted assault with no grevious harm isn't gonna get a felony conviction there. They'd have to fake serious injury and go through the hassle of collecting medical evidence even to file it as a felony, and then there's the matter of getting it to stick.


----------



## diagrammatiks

There's almost no where on earth other then literal failed states where the police are also the military where the police as much power and fire power as the USA. 

my business partner routinely honks at cop cars and yells at the police here.


----------



## Adieu

Seriously

Everybody in America tiptoes around cops like they got an expired visa, an eightball of coke, and a bunch of kiddie pron on their person...at the same time.

If people acted that nervous around cops in other countries, THAT would be seen as suspicious as hell behavior.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

To be fair, most countries also don't have as many red-necks or average civilians who, if so inclined, are also armed like the military.

A quick Google shows that there are about 120.5 guns per hundred people in the states. If you take the guns away from the police, it would be a different kind of not pretty.

I'm short, American culture is kinda gross. One problem breeds another, breeds another.

And that's another example, Adieu. We tip-toe around cops because they ARE overzealous. That tip toeing IS seen as suspicious so you get targeted. A problem leading to another problem. And we're now at the point where people are now so scared, after tip toeing fails they think their going to die so they run or fight. As a result, people do die, frequently unjustified in any moral way. A lot of non violent offenders getting killed or hurt. 

We need some hefty police reform sooner rather than later.


----------



## nightflameauto

Adieu said:


> Cops can't shoot you in Russia.
> 
> One rookie famously made the newspapers after he was put ON TRIAL for shooting a bloodied, butt-naked man who charged at him brandishing a severed penis. Yes, you read that right. Severed penis. Outdoors. In the snow. At night.
> 
> Because he panicked and didn't fire a warning shot or otherwise try to resolve (?) this non-lethally... apparently there is a PROCEDURE to be followed for this kind of thing.


That's the makings of the best Dethklok song ever.

No-knock warrants are bullshit to begin with, but no-knock warrants served by plain-clothes so even if the person inside SEES the perpetrators they won't know they're cops, are several orders of magnitude beyond bullshit.


----------



## Randy

It's also dangerous AF. Who would want to charge into someone's house unannounced and unarmored? It's a stupid policy.


----------



## bostjan

Growing up in Detroit in the 1980's, I've personally known two people shot and killed by the police. Neither of them would have ever hurt anyone, I believe wholeheartedly. Granted that Detroit is a piss poor representation of urban USA, it does seem like there is a non-negligible chance of being killed by the police in just about any US city, over some misunderstanding or whatever.

I don't think this is getting any more likely to happen; I think it's all just better visibility. But the problem is that the public has no attention span for this sort of thing. Does anybody even still remember Philando Castile? All the dude did was tell the cop calmly that he had a permit for a concealed weapon and the cop shot him a bunch of times in front of his family and there were no criminal repercussions. And that was just what, two years ago? If a civilian had done that to another civilian, it would have been second degree murder and 20+ years.

Maybe the cops are not the most horrible people, but, I tell you what. You can argue with me about this if you want, but these are not the brightest and best people in the country who are shooting innocent people (or choking them or braining them with flashlights or whatever). Either way, the problem is in the system itself, though. Better screening and better training are necessary, but there also need to be palpable consequences for criminal negligence. Even if the cops are trained that they have to wear a body camera and taught not to get trigger happy, they still will do it at an unacceptable rate as long as they don't have the deep-rooted perception that those behaviours will have serious consequences for them personally. Also, what the hell is up with this crap where the body cameras are intentionally muted for 2 minutes?

The problems in the system are not going to get fixed over-night, but, as long as we are backpedalling and not making progress toward the right direction, we are at risk of an uprising. You arm Americans, you arm the police, then you have the police start slaughtering Americans with disregard for any consequences and an executive branch of government who is cool with that. There are only two ways that develops and plays out. Not condoning either of those, I'm just making an observation that it only gets uglier until some cooler heads start to prevail.


----------



## fantom

It is important for people to distinguish criminal vs civil law. Criminal law means the AG prosecutes someone on behalf of the people (and the victims usually don't get to decide anything other than whether or not they will cooperate and be a witness). In this case, the cops were not criminally charged because they didn't break a law.

Civil law, on the other hand, is the family prosecuting the cops (as individuals or a government entity). Considering they chose to settle for $12 million, they had a case and chose to end the situation quickly. So saying the cops got away with it legally is not true. The department had to settle a civil case.


----------



## bostjan

fantom said:


> It is important for people to distinguish criminal vs civil law. Criminal law means the AG prosecutes someone on behalf of the people (and the victims usually don't get to decide anything other than whether or not they will cooperate and be a witness). In this case, the cops were not criminally charged because they didn't break a law.
> 
> Civil law, on the other hand, is the family prosecuting the cops (as individuals or a government entity). Considering they chose to settle for $12 million, they had a case and chose to end the situation quickly. So saying the cops got away with it legally is not true. The department had to settle a civil case.



I mean, it is against criminal law to murder someone, so I am unclear on what your point is.


----------



## Ralyks

Also, that 12 million came from the taxpayers


----------



## fantom

bostjan said:


> I mean, it is against criminal law to murder someone, so I am unclear on what your point is.



From the cop's perspective, they were returning fire. That isn't murder. Maybe homicide, but honestly it wasn't even a homicide. At best it was manslaughter if they overreacted.



Ralyks said:


> Also, that 12 million came from the taxpayers



You keep saying that... So the taxpayers have incentives to go to their city council meetings, vote for good candidates, run for office, and change the laws, which they did. Would you prefer the family was not paid or that the money came out of thin air?! What do you think the city could do here beside pay damages and revoke no-knock warrants? It seems like they are trying to make things right and prevent similar occurrences in the future.


----------



## bostjan

fantom said:


> From the cop's perspective, they were returning fire. That isn't murder. Maybe homicide, but honestly it wasn't even a homicide. At best it was manslaughter if they overreacted.



Ok, I suppose I'm not even 100% clear on which case we are talking about. Is it Breonna Taylor?

Thought experiment. Say my someone took my tractor. Say I assume my neighbour did it. Say I kick in their door to see if they have it. Say that there is exchange of gunfire when I do so. Say that a sleeping girlfriend is over at the neighbour's house and is shot by me in the confusion, as I was trying to kill someone else in the household. Since there was intent on my part, in this scenario, to do fatal harm to someone, a US court would most likely decide on a second degree murder charge, or some qualified version of second degree murder.

According to _written_ law, the cops would face the same scrutiny and culpability. I understand that according to _case_ law, this is not so, but that's another discussion.

Also, dude, manslaughter is a criminal act. No one anywhere with any knowledge of law is going to say otherwise. And furthermore, homicide is the killing of a human. "_t wasn't even a homicide" is incorrect.

So, is your point that the cops involved in the Breonna Taylor killing did not break any criminal law, or just that, from the broader perspective, cops don't ever break criminal law when they kill people?_


----------



## Ralyks

fantom said:


> You keep saying that... So the taxpayers have incentives to go to their city council meetings, vote for good candidates, run for office, and change the laws, which they did. Would you prefer the family was not paid or that the money came out of thin air?! What do you think the city could do here beside pay damages and revoke no-knock warrants? It seems like they are trying to make things right and prevent similar occurrences in the future.



Umm I only said it that one time.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> You keep saying that... So the taxpayers have incentives to go to their city council meetings, vote for good candidates, run for office, and change the laws, which they did. Would you prefer the family was not paid or that the money came out of thin air?! What do you think the city could do here beside pay damages and revoke no-knock warrants? It seems like they are trying to make things right and prevent similar occurrences in the future.



The city has over a billion dollar budget, that $12 million is a drop in a bucket. It's not going to really force any change, at least from financial pressure. 

Heck, Louisville runs at a deficit over three times that annually and that doesn't push folks to enact much change year over year. 

They'll just short-change an essential service like transit or DOT or DPW.

The funds should really come directly from the department and FOP. I guarantee that this shit wouldn't happen as much if the dues went up every time there was a settlement.


----------



## Randy

Policeman's unions are great at 'protecting officers' when it comes to blocking release of disciplinary records but they'll let their guys get sent into someone's fucking apartment unannounced without body armor. Blue Union Dues Matter > Blue Lives Matter apparently


----------



## broj15

I think what it all boils down to is a lack of transparency within the investigation and a lack of accountability for law enforcement as a whole.
We "trust" law enforcement officers to keep the peace, enforce the law, and walk the streets with a lethal weapon and the training to "effectively" use it if the situation (apparently) warrants it. I feel like that means that law enforcement officers, and the judicial system as a whole should be held to a higher standard than your average American citizen. But instead things get covered up, let slide, glossed over, whatever you wanna call it. Either way no one gets any more than a slap on the wrist. One of the officers involved in the shooting of Breonna Taylor has what? 50+ formal complaints on his file? Idk about y'all but if I had even half as many complaints against me at my job I wouldn't have a job anymore. So when it's a police officer taking the life of an unarmed citizen due to poor training, bad judgement, shear incompetence, or whatever then why are the consequences not nearly as harsh as they would be for a private citizen.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Growing up in Detroit in the 1980's, I've personally known two people shot and killed by the police. Neither of them would have ever hurt anyone, I believe wholeheartedly. Granted that Detroit is a piss poor representation of urban USA, it does seem like there is a non-negligible chance of being killed by the police in just about any US city, over some misunderstanding or whatever.
> 
> I don't think this is getting any more likely to happen; I think it's all just better visibility. But the problem is that the public has no attention span for this sort of thing. Does anybody even still remember Philando Castile? All the dude did was tell the cop calmly that he had a permit for a concealed weapon and the cop shot him a bunch of times in front of his family and there were no criminal repercussions. And that was just what, two years ago? If a civilian had done that to another civilian, it would have been second degree murder and 20+ years.
> 
> Maybe the cops are not the most horrible people, but, I tell you what. You can argue with me about this if you want, but these are not the brightest and best people in the country who are shooting innocent people (or choking them or braining them with flashlights or whatever). Either way, the problem is in the system itself, though. Better screening and better training are necessary, but there also need to be palpable consequences for criminal negligence. Even if the cops are trained that they have to wear a body camera and taught not to get trigger happy, they still will do it at an unacceptable rate as long as they don't have the deep-rooted perception that those behaviours will have serious consequences for them personally. Also, what the hell is up with this crap where the body cameras are intentionally muted for 2 minutes?
> 
> The problems in the system are not going to get fixed over-night, but, as long as we are backpedalling and not making progress toward the right direction, we are at risk of an uprising. You arm Americans, you arm the police, then you have the police start slaughtering Americans with disregard for any consequences and an executive branch of government who is cool with that. There are only two ways that develops and plays out. Not condoning either of those, I'm just making an observation that it only gets uglier until some cooler heads start to prevail.



America needs to make a show of EXECUTING cops who cross the line, Chinese-style. Rinse and repeat until message received loud and clear.


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> America needs to make a show of EXECUTING cops who cross the line, Chinese-style. Rinse and repeat until message received loud and clear.



Good luck getting executed without trying to pass a fake $20 bill.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Good luck getting executed without trying to pass a fake $20 bill.



Eh, it's as easy as sleeping in your own home, or playing video games in your living room.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Eh, it's as easy as sleeping in your own home, or playing video games in your living room.



Sounds like we need a people-who-chill-around union.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

bostjan said:


> Ok, I suppose I'm not even 100% clear on which case we are talking about. Is it Breonna Taylor?
> 
> Thought experiment. Say my someone took my tractor. Say I assume my neighbour did it. Say I kick in their door to see if they have it. Say that there is exchange of gunfire when I do so. Say that a sleeping girlfriend is over at the neighbour's house and is shot by me in the confusion, as I was trying to kill someone else in the household. Since there was intent on my part, in this scenario, to do fatal harm to someone, a US court would most likely decide on a second degree murder charge, or some qualified version of second degree murder.
> 
> According to _written_ law, the cops would face the same scrutiny and culpability. I understand that according to _case_ law, this is not so, but that's another discussion.
> 
> Also, dude, manslaughter is a criminal act. No one anywhere with any knowledge of law is going to say otherwise. And furthermore, homicide is the killing of a human. "_t wasn't even a homicide" is incorrect.
> 
> So, is your point that the cops involved in the Breonna Taylor killing did not break any criminal law, or just that, from the broader perspective, cops don't ever break criminal law when they kill people?_




Because the laws are/were so shitty, the cops didn't break laws. It doesn't make what happened morally right, and whoever authorized any of it needs to be beaten, but you can't criminally charge someone of something when they didn't break any laws. We, as rational human beings, know that what happened is wrong and should be criminal, but by written law it wasn't.

Which is why we need absolute reform in the police department as a whole. Someone thought it would make sense to say "kick down a door at 3am, what could go wrong?" Tons of ill informed decisions and stupid policies were used, but it was by the (poorly written) book, aside from the firing on an unseen target. We need smarter, more mentally fit, people on the police force, not Billy Bum-Fuck who barely graduated high school with an itchy trigger finger and anger issues.

As an aside, I find it interesting that people, in defense of the police, want to make a big deal about guy being a drug dealer or whatever... Okay? Not ONE person thought that a drug dealer might have a gun and open fire if a bunch of plain clothes guys kicked the door down at 3am? That was their only option? Seems like that lends even more credence to criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter. Or at least SOMETHING against whoever authorized this shit show no-knock move. This was not an unforseen outcome unless you're missing pieces of your brain.


----------



## bostjan

People keep saying that the officers did not break the law.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html - they were required by law to knock and announce, despite confusion about the orders.

It is also illegal for any person, officer or not, to "spray and pray," meaning that, in order to lawfully discharge a firearm in self-defense, Kentucky law requires you to be able to see the person who is the actual threat and aim directly at them.

These are not just procedural laws, they are very serious. If someone not in uniform behaved at all the same way in the state of Kentucky, that person would be locked away forever. Killing a person in self defense is only justifiable if self defense can be justified, and in this case, it is not. Killing a person in "not self defense" is unjustifiable homicide, i.e. murder.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

I should probably make myself more clear. I think it's definitely possible, even likely, that laws were broken. I just think it's hard to prove in court and if all procedures were followed (I don't think they announced, which would then nullify everything and put them 100% legally at fault, but as I say later, good luck proving they didn't.)

The guy who fired blindly was the only one charged. According to that article, and Walker himself, they did knock. I can't speak to if they announced. They may or may not have. (good luck proving they didn't. Body cameras when please? ) Up until just now I thought it WAS a no knock warrant, but apparently they switched it to a knock and announce. The one guy who is alive that was there said they knocked, so police can claim they announced (even if they didn't) and it's a matter of he said she said. 

Again, police are given authority to do certain things so it's pointless saying "anyone else." The police aren't just "anyone else", they're given authority. (which is why we really need to be more selective of Who we give that authority to.) Civilians will never be given the authority to enter someone's home forcibly, the police were. When given a warrant, no knock or otherwise, they WILL enter the property if you don't respond, and it's technically legal. They, because of shitty laws and terrible judgement, legally entered the property. Walker, reasonably, opened fire. The police returned fire, which makes sense if it weren't for the shitty negligent decision to not wait for the fucking morning or something. 

Besides the absolutely ridiculous decision to make a move on a warrant at 1am, the most puzzling thing for me is that the police fired 20 bullets and as far as I can see the only injuries were to the police officer and Breonna. What kind of incompetence must you show to fire that many times, hit a non-target 5 times, and your target (the one with the gun) wasn't hit at all?

Basically if it went how the police say it did, then the only law technically broken was the blind fire and they charged him for that. There's no way to prove it happened otherwise, especially when one of the only people actually there corroborated part of the police's story, contradicting what others are trying to say.

I think they knocked, then just kicked the door in expecting to do the whole "policegetdownsearchwarrant" shit, (which would be out of line and definitely making the entry illegal.) but got shot at first. I personally think the police were wrong, and I think they deserve manslaughter charges. But law isn't enforced because of feelings. (per se.)

Things have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Literally the only thing that would make this an illegal act is if they didn't announce. And reasonable doubt is as easy as saying "the neighbor who was out for a smoke heard no knock and no announcement. Walker said they knocked, so that neighbors statement means nothing. Is it possible that they were knocking for a while before walker heard it? Could they have been announcing before Walker got out of bed and he just didn't hear it?"

We have no way of knowing, no matter how strongly we feel, and it's fucking frustrating because if they just had body cams, these fucking picks wouldn't stand a chance. And this is all beside the fact that they logically (not legally) shouldn't be executing such a shitty warrant so late at night. At the very least, if I were one of the involved officers, I wouldn't be able sleep at night knowing that my moronic actions, legally or not, took a life. Maybe I'm a snitch, but I wouldn't think twice about ratting myself or anyone else out if I knew a wrong this terrible stemmed from my or their actions. Justified by law or not, I would feel like dirt... NOT trying to defend my shitty actions/name.

But then again, I'm not a horrible person, which I whole heartedly believe the involved officers are. I don't know how you can kill someone innocent, justified or not, and not feel shitty about it and worry more about your job and how you did the "legal and right thing" or whatever BS they said.


----------



## Adieu

Uhm, you seem to be confused as to how guns work.

Actually, 20 shots and 5 hits is bewilderingly accurate shooting.

They just shot the wrong person. Very effectively. And when they shouldn't have been shooting anyone at all.

And, on a side note, whatever the hell cops and or her boyfriend were or were not doing to each other, Taylor was a BYSTANDER. Shooting a bystander is always a fucking crime.

It SHOULD have been up to the courts to decide whether this is anything from accidental manslaughter to premeditated murder (arguing that cops created a violent showdown situation intentionally out of nothing in hopes of killing someone --- not saying this is true or not, just an option).... but shooting an unarmed person multiple times and leaving them to die is always a crime.


----------



## possumkiller

Adieu said:


> shooting an unarmed person multiple times and leaving them to die is always a crime.


Unless you're a cop. Where have you been?


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> Unless you're a cop. Where have you been?



I'm Russian

Back home, only IMPORTANT people get protected from prosecution. Nobody gives two fucks about some grunt cop, and would actually probably gleefully hang him out to dry and make a show of it because such things play out well in the press... and hey, it's a just a fucking cop so lowly he still runs around with a gun kicking doors instead of riding desk and making bank.... it's the perfect sacrificial pawn to satisfy the masses.

They'd seriously doubt even his mama cares about what happens to him.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Mother of the year, Wendy Rittenhouse, is hopping on the RWNJ circuit. 

Completely predictable.


----------



## Randy

Yeah, I saw her taking selfies with Michelle Malkin while her son dodges extradition 20 miles away.


----------



## fantom

broj15 said:


> One of the officers involved in the shooting of Breonna Taylor has what? 50+ formal complaints on his file? Idk about y'all but if I had even half as many complaints against me at my job I wouldn't have a job anymore



I'm not trying to argue here or take a side, but this statement feels off to me. Let's make one assumption: BT's boyfriend did shoot first to defend their home.

In the other case, Kyle Rittenhouse shot someone with a record and everyone argued (rightfully) that the record of the victim shouldn't matter because it was independent of the events that led up to the incident. So how is a cop with 50 complaints any different if he is in a situation that he has to return fire? Those 50 prior complaints don't mean anything if he has someone shooting a gun at him.

I will completely agree that cops with that many negative complaints should be out of a job or stuck doing paperwork for eternity. That makes the department and leadership liable to me. But I fail to see what a prior complaint list has to do with someone's behavior at the time of the incident.


----------



## Adieu

Because that's like an article about an Uber driver mentioning his 2.1* rating


....except Uber, unlike the po-po, at least pretends to have standards.


----------



## broj15

fantom said:


> I'm not trying to argue here or take a side, but this statement feels off to me. Let's make one assumption: BT's boyfriend did shoot first to defend their home.
> 
> In the other case, Kyle Rittenhouse shot someone with a record and everyone argued (rightfully) that the record of the victim shouldn't matter because it was independent of the events that led up to the incident. So how is a cop with 50 complaints any different if he is in a situation that he has to return fire? Those 50 prior complaints don't mean anything if he has someone shooting a gun at him.
> 
> I will completely agree that cops with that many negative complaints should be out of a job or stuck doing paperwork for eternity. That makes the department and leadership liable to me. But I fail to see what a prior complaint list has to do with someone's behavior at the time of the incident.




You must not have read the entirety of my comment. Like I already said, cops should be held to a higher standard then that of the average US citizen because we "trust them" to have discretion (or a complete lack there of) to use deadly force to enforce the law. So yes, when you put on the badge, strap on the vest and gun, and willingly accept that responsibility then you are immediately on the hook for your previous actions. If they wanna change that then they need to either A) rethink the position of law enforcement in modern society or B) raise the fucking bar and actually train these people to handle thier shit in the stressful situations they'll encounter.
And the whole Kyle Rittenhouse situation is a total false equivalency, as is bringing up the previous record of George Floyd or anyone killed by law enforcement. Kyle, nor any LEO has the right to PASS JUDGEMENT on a person. That's not the job of some private citizen cosplaying as militia man or of law ENFORCEMENT officers. That responsibility is to be left to the judges, prosecutors, and above all else a jury of thier peers.

Edit: this isn't a personal dig against you, but I find it funny that whenever someone says "not trying to argue here, but..." It's almost always followed up with a counterpoint which is, at best, a friendly debate and at worse an argument.


----------



## fantom

No personal dig taken. Your point makes sense, I just don't see how it is relevant in a life threatening situation. Maybe I haven't been in enough (or any) situations where someone is shooting at me to know how anyone should behave, law enforcement officer or not. Maybe that goes to your point of more training?


----------



## broj15

Once again, sorry if my statements seem a bit harsh, but thanks for being chill.
I do think that more training is definitely one of many solutions to the problems with law enforcement as a whole in this country. I never been actually shot at, but I have been in situations where I've been confronted by someone brandishing a fire arm, and had I been armed at the time I can't definitively say what I would've done, and Its not something I like to think about.
At the same time though, considering the location of Breonna Taylor's apartment, had her bf not known exactly who it was kicking in the door (entirely possible considering the warrant was served at night and it's presumed that they were both asleep) his reaction of opening fire on what he probably thought was someone (not law enforcement) running up on his home for drugs, money, possessions, etc. Is totally valid, bit also speaks to a much deeper issue. And that issue brings me onto another point: while I don't think that completely abolishing law enforcement is the ultimate solution, I do think that most police departments are grossly over funded and that those funds could be put towards other things such as social workers trained in conflict resolution & de-escalation, community support to help curb/eliminate poverty & homelessness, and community outreach (and not the bs pr friendly white cops shooting hoops with black kids in the hood community outreach).
Maybe if we'd been doing things like that instead of militarizing the police we wouldn't have communities where Breonna Taylor's BF's first reaction is to open fire when he hears a group of footsteps coming down the hallway.

Edit: I don't really enjoy his music anymore but lately I've been reminded about the Johnny Hobo line where he says "I don't wanna kill a cop. What I want are neighborhoods where they don't have to get called when the shit goes down". Idealistic as that may be, I feel like striving towards a society like that will ultimately lead to progress.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...-were-told-make-comments-sympathetic-n1241581

That can't be good


----------



## cip 123

fantom said:


> I'm not trying to argue here or take a side, but this statement feels off to me. Let's make one assumption: BT's boyfriend did shoot first to defend their home.
> 
> In the other case, Kyle Rittenhouse shot someone with a record and everyone argued (rightfully) that the record of the victim shouldn't matter because it was independent of the events that led up to the incident. So how is a cop with 50 complaints any different if he is in a situation that he has to return fire? Those 50 prior complaints don't mean anything if he has someone shooting a gun at him.
> 
> I will completely agree that cops with that many negative complaints should be out of a job or stuck doing paperwork for eternity. That makes the department and leadership liable to me. But I fail to see what a prior complaint list has to do with someone's behavior at the time of the incident.


I see the point about BT's boyfriend firing first a lot as a counterpoint to justify the officers shooting. But as an outsider it perplexes me since Americans seem to go on and on (it dominates even our news cycles when there is a mass shooting) about the need for guns as defence and safety. Like if someone breaks in you have the legal right to shoot them don't you? isn't that how it works?

Maybe I missed some context but it's weird when outsiders here "We need guns for protection" But when they're used for that purpose someone ends up in jail, and another dead.


----------



## StevenC

cip 123 said:


> I see the point about BT's boyfriend firing first a lot as a counterpoint to justify the officers shooting. But as an outsider it perplexes me since Americans seem to go on and on (it dominates even our news cycles when there is a mass shooting) about the need for guns as defence and safety. Like if someone breaks in you have the legal right to shoot them don't you? isn't that how it works?
> 
> Maybe I missed some context but it's weird when outsiders here "We need guns for protection" But when they're used for that purpose someone ends up in jail, and another dead.


Not in all states. Some you're only allowed to use deadly force in response to to it.

And people only argue for that law when it's a white person's house.


----------



## tedtan

Also, we are not allowed to use force, deadly or not, against police, even if we do not know that they are police (e.g., plain clothed, unidentified).


----------



## tedtan

Also, we are not allowed to use force, deadly or not, against police, even if we do not know that they are police (e.g., plain clothed, unidentified).


----------



## StevenC

tedtan said:


> Also, we are not allowed to use force, deadly or not, against police, even if we do not know that they are police (e.g., plain clothed, unidentified).


Which basically means it's a pointless law unless you are shooting at someone you 100% know is not police.


----------



## cip 123

tedtan said:


> Also, we are not allowed to use force, deadly or not, against police, even if we do not know that they are police (e.g., plain clothed, unidentified).


1. Isn’t that the point of the 2nd amendment? Like if they start to infringe on your rights a public militia can start which would inherently be against police/state?


2. If they’re unidentified how can you be held accountable?


Again I’m an outsider I might miss context here


----------



## MaxOfMetal

cip 123 said:


> 1. Isn’t that the point of the 2nd amendment? Like if they start to infringe on your rights a public militia can start which would inherently be against police/state?
> 
> 
> 2. If they’re unidentified how can you be held accountable?
> 
> 
> Again I’m an outsider I might miss context here



No context missing.

Welcome to America.


----------



## tedtan

MaxOfMetal said:


> No context missing.
> 
> Welcome to America.



This. It doesn't make sense.

But neither does police officers in plain clothes serving a warrant at 3:00 AM by knocking your door down and barging in.

We have a lot of outdated, nonsensical and/or contradictory laws here that need to be updated reviewed for overall consistency.


----------



## cip 123

My head hurts now, good luck over there seems like you need it


----------



## Ralyks

cip 123 said:


> My head hurts now, good luck over there seems like you need it



You have no idea...


----------



## SpaceDock

IMO 2nd amendment works great for rich white people who want to kill someone on their property, “defend”themselves in vigilante justice, and for fear monger politicians in the pocket of the NRA to continue pushing gun sales. It fails legal carrying minorities, poor white people, anyone unlucky enough to find themselves in possession of a legal weapon around the police, and any American who has been a victim of gun violence. 

The 2nd itself can be read any number of ways, from only a militia should get guns to everyone should get guns. 

To me I am horrified that all of this violence in America is pushing even more people to go out and buy weapons.


----------



## bostjan

Don't forget Philando Castille, who calmly informed a police officer during a traffic stop that he had a legal permit to carry a weapon - the cop fired seven times at him from close range (and missed twice, which is also BS on its own, considering there was also a woman and a 4 year old in the car). So the Second Amendment means the right to self defense, unless if you are a minority or the person attacking you wears a badge. Also keep in mind that courts in some states have rules that "qualified immunity" applies to off duty cops as well. So if an off duty cop, regardless of his criminal history, shoots you in a bar fight, even if you weren't trying to fight anyone, he can claim that he was scared and you looked vaguely like the person who started the fight, and he would be off the hook, at least in most states.


----------



## possumkiller

So two white cops in maine can be quickly fired and face criminal charges for beating a porcupine to death.


----------



## Randy

Photos capture moment Lee Keltner is shot dead amid dueling Denver protests


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Photos capture moment Lee Keltner is shot dead amid dueling Denver protests



When should we be expecting the "Free Mathew" shirts and bumper stickers?


----------



## Randy

2 for 2 on a Trump guy getting shot dead pepper spraying someone. I thought they were the armed leaders of the second Civil War that we all needed to worry about?


----------



## mbardu

So will that guy also get a 1M$ GoFundMe for his efforts, or does that only work when killing a couple of _radical antifa leftists_.


----------



## Necris

Pinkerton (no, really, an actual Pinkerton) vs Right Winger is a real life manifestation of the Spiderman pointing meme.
Like clockwork, the far-right are trying to claim the Pinkerton guy was actually an Antifa member even though the police have ruled out any ties to Antifa.


----------



## zappatton2

I'm wondering at what point two right-wing militias end up mistaking each other for the opposite side and exchanging gunfire, until one side yells "white power" and the other exclaims "boy, is _my_ face red".


----------



## Randy

Necris said:


> Pinkerton (no, really, an actual Pinkerton) vs Right Winger is a real life manifestation of the Spiderman pointing meme.
> Like clockwork, the far-right are trying to claim the Pinkerton guy was actually an Antifa member even though the police have ruled out any ties to Antifa.





zappatton2 said:


> I'm wondering at what point two right-wing militias end up mistaking each other for the opposite side and exchanging gunfire, until one side yells "white power" and the other exclaims "boy, is _my_ face red".



Further embodied in this altercation, by the fact the argument started between the Trumpy here and a guy in a 'Black Guns Matter' shirt.


----------



## Randy

Looking super remorseful for what he did


----------



## spudmunkey

You mean using his stimulous money to have someone in another state buy a gun for you?

How many felonies does that make for all involved on his "team", before ever even firing a single bullet that night?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> You mean using his stimulous money to have someone in another state buy a gun for you?
> 
> How many felonies does that make for all involved on his "team", before ever even firing a single bullet that night?



Out here a "straw purchase" is a G felony, similar to habitual DWIs or certain kinds of sexual assault. The maximum penalty is up to 10 years in jail and/or $25k in cash.


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> Out here a "straw purchase" is a G felony, similar to habitual DWIs or certain kinds of sexual assault. The maximum penalty is up to 10 years in jail and/or $25k in cash.



Is the scenario worse because it was for someone across state lines, or does that not matter for this law?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> Is the scenario worse because it was for someone across state lines, or does that not matter for this law?



It doesn't look like Wisconsin has anything in stone that would lead to a harsher punishment. 

That said, his buddy is pretty much screwed, which is why he's cooperating.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Kyle’s mom re. Joe Biden “i will take him down”


----------



## MaxOfMetal

The kid never had a chance.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> The kid never had a chance.



Honestly I almost have to give him props for growing up under her care and still knowing how to operate a computer. 

Wouldn't be great if dem ads were running about Kyle and ending with "Gun Reform Now!" and running that interview with his mom and ending with "Education Reform Now!"


----------



## Randy

Utah coffee company rejects any connection to Kyle Rittenhouse after being pictured in brand t-shirt


----------



## Ralyks

https://jp.reuters.com/article/instant-article/idUSKBN28R33L

Wasn't sure where to put this but seeing how it involves the riots, this seemed right. Basically a whistleblower was pressured to exaggerate the violence and destruction cause by leftists from all of the protests.


----------



## c7spheres

Man, I thought @BlackSG91 was finally back, but no. Where has she been? Worried about her. She hasn't logged in since August. I hope the covid didn't get her or something. We miss you @BlackSG91 !


----------



## Randy

She was permabanned


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> She was permabanned



Should we ask, or....


----------



## Randy

She had this really weird unhinged rant in some thread, but she was a habitual line stepper that was banned a couple times before this.


----------



## c7spheres

Bummer. Still hope she's doing well.


----------



## Randy

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/lo...cle_0423093f-50b9-5dd5-916b-4cf1c0417b4f.html

Classy kid. Worth noting that is was his mom that brought him there.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Wuuthrad

"It is important to note that the $2 million came from a dubious Internet fundraising campaign, and the defendant and his family did not post any money toward that bond. As a result, the defendant is free from custody with minimal incentive to comply with his bond conditions. He posted no money so he has no financial stake in the bond. He is already facing the most serious possible criminal charges and life in prison, so in comparison, potential future criminal penalties are insignificant. Indeed, the defendant has already demonstrated his carefree attitude by going to a bar immediately after his arraignment on January 5, 2021 and drinking 3 beers in the company of known "Proud Boys" while flashing white supremacist signs and wearing a 'Free as (expletive)' shirt."

"Rarely does our community see accused murderers roaming about freely. As a result, the defendant’s bond requires him to update the Court in writing within 48 hours of any change of address or telephone number."



https://www.fox6now.com/news/kenosha-county-da-says-kyle-rittenhouse-has-violated-bon


----------



## BlackSG91

Wuuthrad said:


> Kyle’s mom re. Joe Biden “i will take him down”




I wonder how Kyle's sweet mommy dearest will take down Joe? Maybe with Kyle's murder weapon? Also I would like to say that 'Kyle' is a soft name for a soft person. I would bet any money that anyone named Nicky, Vinny, & Tony would beat the shit out of Todd, Kyle, & Tucker!




;>)/


----------



## Ralyks

Welp, guilty on all charges.


----------



## budda

That's accountability, not justice.


----------



## Ralyks

Of course, that depends on if everything gets overturned in an appeal because of Maxine Waters.


----------



## SpaceDock

I am glad to see the verdict, but I am seeing so much news on how police violence is about race and race relations. I know that by percentage of population POC are killed by police much more than whites, but really I think we just have a police problem. 

What I continue to see is that cops just cross the line being overly aggressive in almost all situations without using the discretion they should be using. Kill someone over $20, kill someone over selling single cigarettes, kill someone over traffic violations. Beat up old ladies for shop lifting, beat up children for running away, beat up drunk girls for not listening. Why is it that cops will create a crime much more offensive than the original crime and get away with it? If I beat someone for stealing 20 bucks, I would go to jail for assault. For a cop, it’s all in a days work. This is what we need accountability on. Cops need to be the lesser offender in all these crimes, not escalate because they can.


----------



## TedEH

It can be both of those things. Lack of police accountability plus poor race relations, whether they're distinct issues or not, means you'll have a lack of police accountability in race relations. Even if they're distinct issues, instances are prevalent and overlapping.


----------



## Louis Cypher

I see already this morning that Carlson & Hannity have already had their say on the verdict. I'm not posting the video or their comments coz they are as disgusting as you would expect from the two of them


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

I’ve already had a person I suspect isn’t exactly mentally healthy tell me what I’m guessing are the right wing talking points. And let me just say it’s disgusting. There’s no possible way any sane person can justify what happen to George Floyd. Fentanyl or not, makes no difference to me. These hyped up mall cops need to learn how to de escalate situations instead of fighting fire with nuclear weapons.


----------



## Rosal76

Louis Cypher said:


> I see already this morning that Carlson & Hannity have already had their say on the verdict.


 
That laugh Carlson does at the end of the interview with Ed Gavin. My God, that was unbelievably weird. Carlson's laugh is more fake than anything Donald Trump had said/tweeted in the 4 years.


----------



## zappatton2

Rosal76 said:


> That laugh Carlson does at the end of the interview with Ed Gavin. My God, that was unbelievably weird. Carlson's laugh is more fake than anything Donald Trump had said/tweeted in the 4 years.


----------



## sleewell

really nothing to celebrate. the man is still dead. 



pelosi and waters should both be ashamed for their comments.


----------



## nightflameauto

I'm glad we got the verdict we got, even if it did trigger some really weird fetishized racist rant from my father-in-law. I'm still trying to process some of it. Not sure how I reconcile liking the dude most of the time with the hate filled spittle laced rant we got from him yesterday.


----------



## Drew

This is a _critically_ important first step, all the more so because despite his killing being _captured on video_ and that video blowing holes in the initial police account, the verdict was far from certain, a 13-year-old-boy was shot to death by another cop less than ten miles from the courthouse while trial was ongoing, and the night of the verdict, a 16-year old girl was shot to death by another cop in Ohio. 

What we need isn't a guilty verdict, it's independent and meaningful oversight of America's increasingly militarized police force. However, it's a first step.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> This is a _critically_ important first step, all the more so because despite his killing being _captured on video_ and that video blowing holes in the initial police account, the verdict was far from certain, a 13-year-old-boy was shot to death by another cop less than ten miles from the courthouse while trial was ongoing, and the night of the verdict, a 16-year old girl was shot to death by another cop in Ohio.
> 
> What we need isn't a guilty verdict, it's independent and meaningful oversight of America's increasingly militarized police force. However, it's a first step.


I think another step along the way needs to be de-militarizing the police altogether. Some departments are seriously given the same training that soldiers going to war are given. They are taught to see all people in their jurisdiction as enemy combatants. Which is a ridiculous layout for officers sworn to serve and protect those very people.

I know it's systemic, and it will take generations to sort out properly, but that at the very least needs to be in the discussion at this point.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Cops r bastids obviously...lotta organized crime blue gang violence ...but whose boots ARE these politicians licking? 

This shit is pathetic-



BTW-

The Police protect and serve Property. See Supreme Court or some shit... yup!


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## philkilla

nightflameauto said:


> I think another step along the way needs to be de-militarizing the police altogether. Some departments are seriously given the same training that soldiers going to war are given. They are taught to see all people in their jurisdiction as enemy combatants. Which is a ridiculous layout for officers sworn to serve and protect those very people.
> 
> I know it's systemic, and it will take generations to sort out properly, but that at the very least needs to be in the discussion at this point.



What training are you referring to?


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> What training are you referring to?



Worth a watch:


----------



## diagrammatiks

spudmunkey said:


>




has pelosi always been this insane.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> Worth a watch:




Got me with the hooks, stayed for the context.

There's a LOT to unpack from that video, and I'm glad it John preaching it.

The militarization of the police is super cringey, and the majority of the time totally unnecessary; most of them look like larpers with no knowledge to back it up.

SWAT teams do serve a purpose, but based on how quickly warrants get approved it's easy to see how that could be exploited for the wrong reasons, and very often.

In all of my 17 years as active duty as an infantry dude, my peers and I have always colloquially referred to MP's (military police) as massive cocksuckers, because they're usually out to screw over their fellow Soldiers.

It seems to reason the average cop shares the same mentality.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Worth a watch:



This was one of the triggers for me doing some digging myself and finding out how widespread some of these programs are, especially in larger metropolitan areas. I just don't understand how we got there outside of someone with government ties and shit to sell to the military twisting arms until they're hooked into the police force as well. And by "twisting arms" I'm of course referring to "campaign contributions."


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Louis Cypher

John Oliver has been brilliant on his coverage of the militarisation of the US Police, that Raids story is scary, especially the footage of the officers after a botched raid on the wrong person then asking him to replay their "raid" on his CCTV so they can film on it on their phones?!


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> Got me with the hooks, stayed for the context.
> 
> There's a LOT to unpack from that video, and I'm glad it John preaching it.
> 
> The militarization of the police is super cringey, and the majority of the time totally unnecessary; most of them look like larpers with no knowledge to back it up.
> 
> SWAT teams do serve a purpose, but based on how quickly warrants get approved it's easy to see how that could be exploited for the wrong reasons, and very often.
> 
> In all of my 17 years as active duty as an infantry dude, my peers and I have always colloquially referred to MP's (military police) as massive cocksuckers, because they're usually out to screw over their fellow Soldiers.
> 
> It seems to reason the average cop shares the same mentality.


I've ptobably said this before here, probably within the last three pages of this thread, but my old college advisor had a saying, "if the only tool in your toolkit is a hammer, every problem is a nail." 

There are absolutely times when a SWAT team is appropriate, or when force is necessary when responding to a, sorry Tom Clancy, clear and present danger. Active shooter, barracaded somewhere with hostages, taking shots at anyone who comes into sight, sure. 

But, something that should be abundantly clear to all of us as guitarists, is the things you practice over and over and over again over time become the things you just _do_ when you pick up a guitar. If the _vast_ majority of police training is how to respond aggressively to aggressive threats, then not only are we training them to respond to aggressive threats with aggression (which, eh, training on de-escalation could go a long way here), we're also doing something a lot more subtle and a lot more subversive - we're training them to see _all _problems as aggressive threats, by very nature of the fact that that's all they ever train for. 

That's extremely dangerous, and that coupled with some systemic racism is why seemingly a day doesn't go by where some unarmed black man (or woman... or fuckin' _kid_) is shot to death by the police. That's what happens when the only tool in your toolkit is a hammer - you smash a lot of things treating them as nails.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> I've ptobably said this before here, probably within the last three pages of this thread, but my old college advisor had a saying, "if the only tool in your toolkit is a hammer, every problem is a nail."
> 
> There are absolutely times when a SWAT team is appropriate, or when force is necessary when responding to a, sorry Tom Clancy, clear and present danger. Active shooter, barracaded somewhere with hostages, taking shots at anyone who comes into sight, sure.
> 
> But, something that should be abundantly clear to all of us as guitarists, is the things you practice over and over and over again over time become the things you just _do_ when you pick up a guitar. If the _vast_ majority of police training is how to respond aggressively to aggressive threats, then not only are we training them to respond to aggressive threats with aggression (which, eh, training on de-escalation could go a long way here), we're also doing something a lot more subtle and a lot more subversive - we're training them to see _all _problems as aggressive threats, by very nature of the fact that that's all they ever train for.
> 
> That's extremely dangerous, and that coupled with some systemic racism is why seemingly a day doesn't go by where some unarmed black man (or woman... or fuckin' _kid_) is shot to death by the police. That's what happens when the only tool in your toolkit is a hammer - you smash a lot of things treating them as nails.


This brings to mind the dude who got shot over having an air freshener hanging from his mirror. The police officer who shot him claimed to have thought she grabbed her taser. Which, in and of itself over the supposed offense in front of her is questionable, BUT. . . how much of her reaction was muscle memory from drills and training exercises where the important thing was the ability to quickly draw and aim your weapon? I know if I've practiced a run that lands on the twenty second fret a few hundred times, I don't suddenly grab the 20th during performance. If she drilled grabbing her gun over and over, and kept her taser in a holster or pocket within say, an inch or two of her weapon, that seems destined to lead to bad things in critical moments.

Just one of those thoughts I've had running in my head over the past week or so.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> This brings to mind the dude who got shot over having an air freshener hanging from his mirror. The police officer who shot him claimed to have thought she grabbed her taser. Which, in and of itself over the supposed offense in front of her is questionable, BUT. . . how much of her reaction was muscle memory from drills and training exercises where the important thing was the ability to quickly draw and aim your weapon? I know if I've practiced a run that lands on the twenty second fret a few hundred times, I don't suddenly grab the 20th during performance. If she drilled grabbing her gun over and over, and kept her taser in a holster or pocket within say, an inch or two of her weapon, that seems destined to lead to bad things in critical moments.
> 
> Just one of those thoughts I've had running in my head over the past week or so.


I don't disagree with any of this. 

But, not for nothing, police are evidently trained to keep their gun and their tasers on different sides of their body for exactly this reason (which doesn't prevent muscle memory from taking over)... and, the woman who shot him was the head of the local police union and had advised several other cops who were involved in shootings during subsequent review, which at least opens the door to the explanation that this was pure CYA material.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> I don't disagree with any of this.
> 
> But, not for nothing, police are evidently trained to keep their gun and their tasers on different sides of their body for exactly this reason (which doesn't prevent muscle memory from taking over)... and, the woman who shot him was the head of the local police union and had advised several other cops who were involved in shootings during subsequent review, which at least opens the door to the explanation that this was pure CYA material.



It's definitely CYA.

Every good union steward knows that malice gets you fired, but stupidity gets you re-trained.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Andromalia

That's why I keep telling myself global warming is irrelevant: someone is going to fuck up and press the wrong button way before it's 2050.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> View attachment 99331



Ugh was literally coming here to post about this. Disgusting.


----------



## vilk

Who the fuck is this piece of shit judge?


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> Who the fuck is this piece of shit judge?



The same dingle-dick that made this ruling

Rittenhouse case: Proud Boys link can't be shown, judge says


----------



## MaxOfMetal

As something of a resident (Racine is the next county over from Kenosha) I'm not at all surprised.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Y I K E S


----------



## Adieu

So... crossing state lines as a minor with an assault rifle with an intent to hunt your political opponents is about to be made perfectly legal?


----------



## spudmunkey

"This is a long-held opinion of mine, which very few judges, I guess, share with me. I think the word victim is a loaded, loaded word,"

The prosecution requested that the defense be barred from referring to the people Kyle shot as "rioters, looters or arsonists." since none of them were charged with any of those crimes. The judge denied that, and also barred them from being referred to as "victims".

The prosecution asked for a video to not be shown, of Kyle beforehand, being tossed a bottle of water by police, as that could sway the jury to see Rittenhouse as an extension of the police force. Some say that could sway a jury either way, but Prosecution wanted it barred...the judge is allowing it.

The judge also denied the prosecution's request to bar the publication of images of the witnesses, who fear for their safety because it's such a high-profile, contentious case. He denied it, because months ago one witness shared on social media that he was being subpoenaed.

The defense is allowed to submit any evidence about any vandalism or other illegal activities by the people who were shot, but are not allowing the prosecution to show any photos of video of Kype associating with white supremacist group members, including traveling to Miami to meet with the Proud Boy's national president.

I haven't been able to find if the prosecution would be able to submit video from 15 days before the shootings in which Rittenhouse said he would like to shoot some men he thought were shoplifting from a pharmacy, or video evidence that Rittenhouse attacked a woman in June 2020 as she was fighting his sister (two things the prosecution requested).


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

spudmunkey said:


> View attachment 99679
> 
> 
> "This is a long-held opinion of mine, which very few judges, I guess, share with me. I think the word victim is a loaded, loaded word,"
> 
> The prosecution requested that the defense be barred from referring to the people Kyle shot as "rioters, looters or arsonists." since none of them were charged with any of those crimes. The judge denied that, and also barred them from being referred to as "victims".
> 
> The prosecution asked for a video to not be shown, of Kyle beforehand, being tossed a bottle of water by police, as that could sway the jury to see Rittenhouse as an extension of the police force. Some say that could sway a jury either way, but Prosecution wanted it barred...the judge is allowing it.
> 
> The judge also denied the prosecution's request to bar the publication of images of the witnesses, who fear for their safety because it's such a high-profile, contentious case. He denied it, because months ago one witness shared on social media that he was being subpoenaed.
> 
> The defense is allowed to submit any evidence about any vandalism or other illegal activities by the people who were shot, but are not allowing the prosecution to show any photos of video of Kype associating with white supremacist group members, including traveling to Miami to meet with the Proud Boy's national president.
> 
> I haven't been able to find if the prosecution would be able to submit video from 15 days before the shootings in which Rittenhouse said he would like to shoot some men he thought were shoplifting from a pharmacy, or video evidence that Rittenhouse attacked a woman in June 2020 as she was fighting his sister (two things the prosecution requested).


Prepare yourself for the absolute worse case scenario here and save some disgust and disappointment. This doesn’t look good.


----------



## spudmunkey

At least the deputy was straight enough to eject that one juror who made the "Why did cops shoot Jacob Blake 7 times? Because they ran out of bullets!" joke. Like...what kind of mental patient thinks the murder trial, that you're a juror in, related to the Jacob Blake shooting, is a good place to tell that joke.


----------



## CanserDYI

Adieu said:


> So... crossing state lines as a minor with an assault rifle with an intent to hunt your political opponents is about to be made perfectly legal?


Welcome to America. This is called "Wednesday" here.


----------



## bostjan

Another juror was dismissed. Looks like she had requested to go home due to some discomfort due to pregnancy.

Aside from that, though, this entire trial is a three-ring circus. No matter the outcome, I'm sure everyone will be upset.


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> So... crossing state lines as a minor with an assault rifle with an intent to hunt your political opponents is about to be made perfectly legal?



FWIW (not much), he was given the gun _in_ Wisconsin. His friend already testified about that actually.


----------



## bostjan

As long as your political opponents are also the police/judge's political opponents, why would you expect there to be any punishment in store? Probably, if the shootings hadn't been on video, he'd still be out there free to shoot more.


----------



## Drew

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Prepare yourself for the absolute worse case scenario here and save some disgust and disappointment. This doesn’t look good.


To be fair, this is The Onion, a satire site. But it's not far off the mark. 

This is looking a LOT like it's shaping up to be a probable mistrial. The judge evidently excused the jurors halfway through the proceedings and then went on a 20 minute rant about ANOTHER case of his from 20 years earlier where he was validated, he claimed, on appeal, and spent the duration of the time attacking the media. He's not even pretending to be impartial.


----------



## bostjan

Reminds me of a story someone told me about when he was on a jury panel and one of the jurors said "Well, I _am_ impartial, but you have to admit, he _does _*look* guilty!" Yeah, I bet that was a fair trial...

I guess we will see in several weeks or whatever how this all pans out.


----------



## Miek

Ooof I'm a prison abolitionist but people like Rittenhouse make me think about what I'd do


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## fantom

Just remember, people who back Rittenhouse also want Alec Baldwin in jail for firing a pistol, which he was told was unloaded by the armorer, and killing someone.

Is it just me or is it impossible to have an objective discussion at this point?


----------



## bostjan

fantom said:


> Just remember, people who back Rittenhouse also want Alec Baldwin in jail for firing a pistol, which he was told was unloaded by the armorer, and killing someone.
> 
> Is it just me or is it impossible to have an objective discussion at this point?


But but bbbut, Alec Baldwin is one of those Hollywood elite types.

It is seriously looking like Rittenhouse is going to be acquitted, though, at the moment. I guess we'll see somewhat soon.


----------



## Adieu

America: Now Supporting Underage Terrorists


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Now?


----------



## mmr007

I think *now* on a level that only previously existed in nightmares







Thank you facebook for helping me see that I was wrong. Your analytics on driving internet traffic have helped me see that people who believe what is in this poster exist and live amongst us.


----------



## Adieu

Hmm... gloves to avoid leaving prints?


----------



## spudmunkey

Oh, it gets cringier.


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> Hmm... gloves to avoid leaving prints?



Or prostate exams?


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Or prostate exams?


Self administered.


----------



## AMOS

The testimony by the guy that was shot in the arm proves that he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. He admitted it.


----------



## Adieu

Leaviathan said:


> The testimony by the guy that was shot in the arm proves that he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. He admitted it.



This is America.

Aren't you EXPECTED to point your guns at young males on an assault rifle rampage in the middle of town? Wasn't that the whole fecking argument FOR guns?


----------



## fantom

Leaviathan said:


> The testimony by the guy that was shot in the arm proves that he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. He admitted it.



He raised his hands to surrender, but Rittenhouse didn't lower his gun. So the guy tried to point his gun to defend himself and got shot.... Why does Rittenhouse have permission to aim an assault rifle at someone putting his arms up if that person can't aim a pistol back to defend himself? Seems like a double standard.


----------



## mmr007

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is....oh fuck it

Lets just all have guns so everything ends peacefully


----------



## AMOS

I go by evidence presented in a court, not by the opinions of a bunch of guitar players.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

The idea that someone can show up somewhere dressed for actual fucking war and not expect some kind of proportional response is gaslighting. This shit is all over the place, clueless white people sticking their assault rifles where they don't belong and acting like everyone else is crazy when they're rightfully concerned that some fucking Young Republican is carrying a tool for killing people around campus like it's his book bag.

Call me fucking paranoid but normalizing 17yo white children with assault rifles showing up at public gatherings seems a lot like prepping people for roving gangs of armed proud boys "protecting property." It's not a coincidence he used that specific language and was in a police academy, protecting property is the primary function of the police, and the militant right wing are thugs of the state regardless of what they tell themselves. 



Leaviathan said:


> I go by evidence presented in a court, not by the opinions of a bunch of guitar players.



So, the opinion of one guitar player on evidence presented in court.


----------



## Adieu

So why isn't local police on trial yet for dereliction of duty for not attempting to apprehend him (or, more in line with usual police practice, shoot on sight)???


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Adieu said:


> So why isn't local police on trial yet for dereliction of duty for not attempting to apprehend him (or, more in line with usual police practice, shoot on sight)???



Also, why are we having a sane adult discussion about the right of a _child _to take an assault rifle _anywhere_ and do _anything at all_ with it, much less _defend themselves by_ _killing other people?_ I feel like if he'd stayed at home and beat his dick like a normal 17yo nobody would be dead. Like, maybe he did technically "do the self defense," but there ought to be room to ask if creating the situation in the first place was actually necessary. I hate to invoke South Park but they really nailed this with the "stand your ground" episode.


----------



## narad

Leaviathan said:


> I go by evidence presented in a court, not by the opinions of a bunch of guitar players.



Well ya came to the wrong fuckin' place lol


----------



## Adieu

wheresthefbomb said:


> Also, why are we having a sane adult discussion about the right of a _child _to take an assault rifle _anywhere_ and do _anything at all_ with it, much less _defend themselves by_ _killing other people?_ I feel like if he'd stayed at home and beat his dick like a normal 17yo nobody would be dead. Like, maybe he did technically "do the self defense," but there ought to be room to ask if creating the situation in the first place was actually necessary. I hate to invoke South Park but they really nailed this with the "stand your ground" episode.



Actually, the usual accepted American view on such people is as follows:

MILlTARY AGED MALE INSURGENT COMBATANT

I believe the manual suggests "drone first, investigate never". Rights what rights? Those ended when you travel somewhere to run around with an assault rifle in public.

Even BEFORE ever firing it.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

This is absurd, by showing up with assault rifles you are INSTANTLY escalating an already tense situation. These morons are not breaking any laws by doing so, but to me and many people who don't worship gun culture. The mere sight of a gun let alone a damn assault rifle is intimidating and makes me very uneasy. I really hope there is some sort of accountability here. Otherwise prepare for more of the same, the era of home grown domestic terrorism is going to get much worse before it gets better.
Kyle had an opportunity when the first man and him got into it to run away. He made a choice to play vigilante, in those types of situations a persons true character and bias can come out. Which tells me he has no problem taking another life. He could have ran off to his group of buddies and would've been okay. But he made that choice, choices have consequences. Or at least they should. This man is no hero, he is a coward with a gun. Life is something so precious that we all cherish, and to make that decision of who gets to live and who gets to die is nothing to be taken lightly. It's like some people don't care at all, simply because you support causes different than them. Nobody asked him to defend the property that he claims he was there to keep safe.


----------



## SnowfaLL

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> This is absurd, by showing up with assault rifles you are INSTANTLY escalating an already tense situation. These morons are not breaking any laws by doing so, but to me and many people who don't worship gun culture. The mere sight of a gun let alone a damn assault rifle is intimidating and makes me very uneasy. I really hope there is some sort of accountability here. Otherwise prepare for more of the same, the era of home grown domestic terrorism is going to get much worse before it gets better.
> Kyle had an opportunity when the first man and him got into it to run away. He made a choice to play vigilante, in those types of situations a persons true character and bias can come out. Which tells me he has no problem taking another life. He could have ran off to his group of buddies and would've been okay. But he made that choice, choices have consequences. Or at least they should. This man is no hero, he is a coward with a gun. Life is something so precious that we all cherish, and to make that decision of who gets to live and who gets to die is nothing to be taken lightly. It's like some people don't care at all, simply because you support causes different than them. Nobody asked him to defend the property that he claims he was there to keep safe.



It is frustrating.. In most militaries around the world who are reasonable about gun use, one of the biggest deterrent is the PRESENCE of a rifle. It is often the first point in a defense "use of force" checklist.. Seeing a checkpoint guarded by 2 people with rifles? Probably dont want to mess around there.. Simple concept. If I saw someone in a riot coming at me with a rifle, even if they wern't directly pointing it at me, I'd probably feel threatened.

The prosecution seems to be on the defendants side.. This case was bullshit from the start (jurors, now the horrible prosecution). An underaged kid takes a rifle into a riot, clearly looking for trouble, kills people and you tell me hes going to get no charges, nothing?? This is a fucked up world we live in.


----------



## nightflameauto

SnowfaLL said:


> The prosecution seems to be on the defendants side.. This case was bullshit from the start (jurors, now the horrible prosecution). An underaged kid takes a rifle into a riot, clearly looking for trouble, kills people and you tell me hes going to get no charges, nothing?? This is a fucked up world we live in.


What's fucked up to me is how many people have to be on board with the kid's actions to keep him out of trouble. You mean to tell me nobody involved in the prosecution has qualms about what he did? Nobody on the jury? Nobody involved in the proceeding? I mean, watching the cops celebrate with the kid right after the event was pretty fucked up, but cops in this country are notoriously shitheels to begin with so it wasn't that shocking. But the celebration of killing those you may have a minor disagreement with is terrifying down to the core.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> What's fucked up to me is how many people have to be on board with the kid's actions to keep him out of trouble. You mean to tell me nobody involved in the prosecution has qualms about what he did? Nobody on the jury? Nobody involved in the proceeding? I mean, watching the cops celebrate with the kid right after the event was pretty fucked up, but cops in this country are notoriously shitheels to begin with so it wasn't that shocking. But the celebration of killing those you may have a minor disagreement with is terrifying down to the core.



As a local, absolutely nothing that has happened thus far is at all surprising. Nothing. None of it. If anything I'm surprised this even made it to trial and even more surprised he didn't kill more people.

The only reason this is going to trial and not just swept under the rug is that there's a living victim who happens to be white. If the three were black or indigenous this wouldn't have made it to trial and all videos would have been buried. 

That's how it rolls out here.


----------



## Adieu

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> This is absurd, by showing up with assault rifles you are INSTANTLY escalating an already tense situation. These morons are not breaking any laws by doing so, but to me and many people who don't worship gun culture. The mere sight of a gun let alone a damn assault rifle is intimidating and makes me very uneasy. I really hope there is some sort of accountability here. Otherwise prepare for more of the same, the era of home grown domestic terrorism is going to get much worse before it gets better.
> Kyle had an opportunity when the first man and him got into it to run away. He made a choice to play vigilante, in those types of situations a persons true character and bias can come out. Which tells me he has no problem taking another life. He could have ran off to his group of buddies and would've been okay. But he made that choice, choices have consequences. Or at least they should. This man is no hero, he is a coward with a gun. Life is something so precious that we all cherish, and to make that decision of who gets to live and who gets to die is nothing to be taken lightly. It's like some people don't care at all, simply because you support causes different than them. Nobody asked him to defend the property that he claims he was there to keep safe.



Waaaaiiit up... so having your mom drive you and your assault rifle to another zip code to the site of alleged civil unrest WASN'T a conscious choice to engage in vigilantism all by its lonesome?


----------



## Adieu

Suddenly transporting a weapon to somewhere you weren't invited or expected at and never normally frequent and proceeding to kill people there with said weapon is, imho, CLEAR proof of intent to do harm.

If it's a damn assault rifle, clear proof of intent to kill.

Ooh, somebody maybe-pointed a gun at him? If that rabid jackass showed up waving an assault rifle in YOUR neighborhood, WOULDN'T YOU????


----------



## Drew

SnowfaLL said:


> The prosecution seems to be on the defendants side.. This case was bullshit from the start (jurors, now the horrible prosecution). An underaged kid takes a rifle into a riot, clearly looking for trouble, kills people and you tell me hes going to get no charges, nothing?? This is a fucked up world we live in.


Nitpicking, but the prosecution is on the victim's side. The _judge_ however is pretty clearly on the defendant's side.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Drew said:


> Nitpicking, but the prosecution is on the victim's side. The _judge_ however is pretty clearly on the defendant's side.


I’ve watched it off and on, but today I’m sitting through the whole thing. It does seem that way.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Nitpicking, but the prosecution is on the victim's side. The _judge_ however is pretty clearly on the defendant's side.


You're not supposed to refer to the victim as "victim." That might generate sympathy for the person who was shot, and we can't fucking have that. We gotta protect the shooter.


----------



## mmr007

Thats why I stopped watching news for 6 months. I was so happy. Its true that ignorance is bliss because in this fucked up place there is not much worth knowing anymore except that this country was always going to be a delicate experiment trying to get true multiculturism to work. Then FoxNews and facebook came along and like some invasive species decimated the landscape.


----------



## AMOS

I'm as pro-2nd Amendment as they get, but this guy never should have brought that AR onto the streets, even if he owned it legally. Stay home and lock and load.


----------



## AMOS

mmr007 said:


> Thats why I stopped watching news for 6 months. I was so happy. Its true that ignorance is bliss because in this fucked up place there is not much worth knowing anymore except that this country was always going to be a delicate experiment trying to get true multiculturism to work. Then FoxNews and facebook came along and like some invasive species decimated the landscape.


Are you saying CNN and MSNBC doesn't throw around any fake news or agenda driven material?


----------



## mmr007

Leaviathan said:


> Are you saying CNN and MSNBC doesn't throw around any fake news or agenda driven material?


I reread what I posted and nowhere in my post did I say that. Not saying something is not the same as saying something. Thats a fallacious argument.


----------



## spudmunkey

https://i.imgur.com/yBguS32.mp4


I feel like we all just need a mulligan on this trial. Between shit like this, and then the prosecution presenting evidence they were specifically told not to present, someone video-recording the jury, another juror making jokes about the person whose shooting kicked off the riots that lead to these events...


----------



## Randy

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...e-ai-pinch-to-zoom-footage-manipulation-claim



> “iPads, which are made by Apple, have artificial intelligence in them that allow things to be viewed through three-dimensions and logarithms,” the defense insisted. “It uses artificial intelligence, or their logarithms, to create what they believe is happening. So this isn’t actually enhanced video, this is Apple’s iPad programming creating what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there,” they added.
> 
> Judge Schroeder argued that it was the prosecution — not the defense — that had the burden of proving that Apple _doesn’t_ use artificial intelligence to manipulate footage, demanding that they provide an expert to testify, and didn’t allow the prosecution to adjourn to find that expert before bringing Rittenhouse up for cross-examination.
> 
> The judge suggested that prosecutors could somehow find that expert while they took a brief 20-minute recess. “Maybe you can get someone to testify on this within minutes, I don’t know,” said the judge.


----------



## TedEH

I am 0% surprised both that people don't understand how technology works, and that they'd use that ignorance to their advantage.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...e-ai-pinch-to-zoom-footage-manipulation-claim


What the ever loving fucking fuck?


----------



## Randy

A matter of life and death teetering on the understanding of technology by baby boomers.


----------



## mmr007

Can “The Onion” sue this judge for copy-write or trademark infringement because he is clearly copying their brand


----------



## Randy

I'm just gonna put it out there that I loathe judges, in general. It's amazing how insistent they are about keeping the court "in order" but the most wildly erratic, emotionally unhinged person flailing around and yelling at people is the judge. And this guy takes they unstable showboating to the next level.


----------



## Edika

This is a mistrial and the prosecution should request the judge and some jurors removed. Maybe bring this to federal court (not sure how your system works).
I think the only thing showing the judge's bias more would be if he dropped to his knees and start sucking this deepshits cock. FFS...


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> I'm just gonna put it out there that I loathe judges, in general. It's amazing how insistent they are about keeping the court "in order" but the most wildly erratic, emotionally unhinged person flailing around and yelling at people is the judge. And this guy takes they unstable showboating to the next level.


Sadly, in celebrity level trials, the showboaty judges always end up running the circus.

When I served on jury duty our judge was a very kind and very non-formal woman that treated everyone in the court, from her bailiff to the jurors to the accused, very well. She even took the time when the trial was over to come chat with the jury and make sure we were satisfied with our decision in a very personable way. If all judges behaved the way she did, we wouldn't see shit-shows like this fucking disgrace going down.


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> Can “The Onion” sue this judge for copy-write or trademark infringement because he is clearly copying their brand


When physicists at CERN discovered the Higgs boson, they accidentally slipped us into an alternate universe where The Onion articles are actual reality.


----------



## _MonSTeR_

I don’t even know where to start with that issue on needing to provide an expert on iPads ...

Maybe they should also subpoena Keanu Reeves to testify whether we’re all in the Matrix or not?


----------



## nightflameauto

_MonSTeR_ said:


> I don’t even know where to start with that issue on needing to provide an expert on iPads ...
> 
> Maybe they should also subpoena Keanu Reeves to testify whether we’re all in the Matrix or not?


Oh, we definitely are. And our node is on the tail end of its expected lifespan. Which explains why the simulation is getting so messed up it's starting to wake some of us up to that fact.


----------



## bostjan

I imagine this exchange occurring in the courtroom.

Your honor, I have a few questions for the defendant about his state of mind when he fired the shots.
_Objection!_
Sorry, allow me to rephrase, I have a few questions for the defendant about his state of mind when the shots were fired.
_Objection!_
Umm, when these two victims-
_Objection!_
When these two murderous attackers committed extroverted suicide in front of you, what were you thinking?
_Objection - prosecution didn't address the defendant as our Lord and Savior._


----------



## bostjan

Evidently, the prosecutor made a shocked facial expression in response to one of the judge's rulings, and the judge stopped the case from proceeding for a moment to address the prosecutor's facial expression.

I wish there was video of it, but I'm only seeing it in transcripts.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Evidently, the prosecutor made a shocked facial expression in response to one of the judge's rulings, and the judge stopped the case from proceeding for a moment to address the prosecutor's facial expression.
> 
> I wish there was video of it, but I'm only seeing it in transcripts.


Yeah, the judge really should have saved that explanation for their next golf outing together.


----------



## bostjan

Yeah, I'm sorry, but that bit of it grates on my nerves just as much as all of the other more obvious crap from this judge.

Imagine if a football referee called a penalty on a coach for making a "stinkface" at a questionable call. Fans would riot.

The prosecutor might well have made a face. Shit, I would have made a face if I was a prosecutor in a trial like this and the judge made a call similar to the calls this judge is making in this case. I'd be thinking "what are you going to do, call up the bar association and tell them that I flinched when you ruled that I couldn't cross-examine the main witness?!"


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> Imagine if a football referee called a penalty on a coach for making a "stinkface" at a questionable call. Fans would riot.


Bad example because this happens in basketball a lot.


----------



## Adieu

Bad example, basketball players are (usually) NOT domestic terrorists in a murder trial


----------



## fantom

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Kyle had an opportunity when the first man and him got into it to run away. He made a choice to play vigilante, in those types of situations a persons true character and bias can come out



As much as I think Kyle is guilty, IIRC, the testimonies and FBI video showed him trying to walk away from the first victim and being followed.



Randy said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...e-ai-pinch-to-zoom-footage-manipulation-claim



What the actual hell... Did they just toss out "machine learning" and "logarithm" as a defense with zero understanding what they were talking about? There wasn't a single IT person within a 30 minute drive that could hear this BS and just go on the stand and say the argument makes zero sense?


----------



## Ralyks

bostjan said:


> Imagine if a football referee called a penalty on a coach for making a "stinkface" at a questionable call. Fans would riot.



Actually, that does happen now...


----------



## profwoot

The age of popular superstitions being built up around how tech works (despite expert protest) is upon us.


----------



## Randy

profwoot said:


> The age of popular superstitions being built up around how tech works (despite expert protest) is upon us.



Next up, Rittenhouse was actually at Bible study when this happened and someone deep faked him onto someone else's body.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

fantom said:


> As much as I think Kyle is guilty, IIRC, the testimonies and FBI video showed him trying to walk away from the first victim and being followed.
> 
> 
> 
> What the actual hell... Did they just toss out "machine learning" and "logarithm" as a defense with zero understanding what they were talking about? There wasn't a single IT person within a 30 minute drive that could hear this BS and just go on the stand and say the argument makes zero sense?


 Right, I saw that too. But it seemed to me he could've still gotten away and rejoined the rest his group.


----------



## fantom

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Right, I saw that too. But it seemed to me he could've still gotten away and rejoined the rest his group.


According to his testimony he ran away until he was cornered and had no where else to go.

What surprised me, the transcript makes it seem like he turned his head, turned back around and saw the guy grabbing the barrel, then heard a gunshot, so he reacted and shot.

By this account, the prosecutor is incompetent if he didn't ask, "did you mean to shoot him or did you react to the gunshot?" In like 15 minutes I found in the Wisconsin self-defense law the section that says self defense is waived if the shooter does not intentionally shoot the victim.

Other law in Wisconsin and pretty much every state indicates that self-defense had to match the level of threat and not exceed it. A guy coming at you with a chain is likely not going to kill you. Shoot them once in the leg, not 4 times (including the torso and head).

I get why gun rights people want to justify this as self defense, but they are really overlooking the details of what self-defense means and what situations someone cannot use self-defense as an excuse. I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't stress these points more.


----------



## fantom

profwoot said:


> The age of popular superstitions being built up around how tech works (despite expert protest) is upon us.



"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Or

"Witchcraft to the ignorant, … simple science to the learned." - Leigh Brackett


----------



## TedEH

We say these things like computers/technology haven't been "magic" to the majority of people for as long as they've existed. At this point we're the closest we've ever been to ubiquitous computer savviness, but "closer than ever" is still an almost shockingly low amount of understanding, even among people who depend on it every day.


----------



## zappatton2

Hey, all I know it that any time my computer gives me issues, I just light incense and beseech the computer gods. Works like a charm. Or at least as well as any of the magical charms I also own.


----------



## Adieu

Pfftt... amateur.

Y'all gotta learn to curse in Russian. It's got all the best "incantations" for reviving stuck machinery.


----------



## nightflameauto

I keep a vat of chicken blood on the desk for anointing any machine that acts up. Sometimes we have to sacrifice a goat to appease the gods of technology. The fairies that operate the internals need whupped sometimes too.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> According to his testimony he ran away until he was cornered and had no where else to go.
> 
> What surprised me, the transcript makes it seem like he turned his head, turned back around and saw the guy grabbing the barrel, then heard a gunshot, so he reacted and shot.
> 
> By this account, the prosecutor is incompetent if he didn't ask, "did you mean to shoot him or did you react to the gunshot?" In like 15 minutes I found in the Wisconsin self-defense law the section that says self defense is waived if the shooter does not intentionally shoot the victim.
> 
> Other law in Wisconsin and pretty much every state indicates that self-defense had to match the level of threat and not exceed it. A guy coming at you with a chain is likely not going to kill you. Shoot them once in the leg, not 4 times (including the torso and head).
> 
> I get why gun rights people want to justify this as self defense, but they are really overlooking the details of what self-defense means and what situations someone cannot use self-defense as an excuse. I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't stress these points more.



Well, two things. 

One, I haven't been following this to the level of closeness that this would imply... but the video of him breaking into tears did make the rounds (aside; how the fuck are there video cameras in the courtroom?) and he broke down after the prosecutor had pointedly pushed him on the subject, for a long exchange, that when he said he "was just defending myself," he was well aware that it was lethal force he was using to defend himself, and that when he pulled the trigger he had every reason to believe that the man he was shooting at would die. 

So, one, that sort of DOES answer the "did you mean to shoot him or did you react to the gunshot," since he did get Rittenhouse to explicitly say he pulled the trigger because he feared for his safety, and that he knew he was using lethal force when he did. Since I don't think anyone else in that exchange was carrying an AR15, that also does indicate the level of threat was not being matched when he did, either. 

Two, I'd think it would be FAR more likely for the _defense_ to have tried to ask the question "were you just reacting to the sound of a gun, or did you intend to shoot the victim-excuse-me-rioter," since they would be the ones with the most to gain by bringing up that nuance in the courtroom (the jurors aren't expected to be experts in the law, it's up to the defense to show why Rittenhouse was not guilty and the prosecution to show why he was, and - IMO here - that's the sort of loophole that if you didn't know about it helps the prosecution way more than the defense because it gives him a possible defense for having shot him, if he didn't mean to). But, in any event, the prosecution has established that Kyle pointed the gun at the victim and pulled the trigger with every realistic expectation that doing so would kill the victim, so it's a moot point.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Pfftt... amateur.
> 
> Y'all gotta learn to curse in Russian. It's got all the best "incantations" for reviving stuck machinery.


Oddly, I don't doubt this in the slightest.


----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> But, in any event, the prosecution has established that Kyle pointed the gun at the victim and pulled the trigger with every realistic expectation that doing so would kill the victim, so it's a moot point.


Sure... Except Rittenhouse repeatedly testified that he didn't intend to kill anyone.

Honestly the kid is young enough and made enough stupid decisions that I believe he did NOT have an expectation that bringing an assault rifle, pointing it at someone, and shooting it would kill anyone.

My point was, his intent doesn't matter. He intended to defend himself, yes. But either he didn't intend to use deadly force (and is guilty because he can't use the self defense law) or he intended to use deadly force (and is guilty because he used excessive force).

Am I ok with a lenient sentence because he was acting like stupid kid? Ya. Am I ok with him walking free and society acting like being a young ignorant and reckless kid with no regard for human life is acceptable? Nope


----------



## mmr007

Wait why are we still picking on this kid? I thought it was established already it was ANTIFA dressed as Rittenhouse no?


----------



## Randy




----------



## bostjan

Ritttenhouse is very likely not going to get convicted of the charges the prosecutor brought. I'd say it's more likely that he goes free at this point than that he does any serious time.

But guys, be careful what you say, or else he might come to your house to defend himself with a bazooka.

The way I learned it (which has changed drastically since Treyvon Martin and stand your ground), is that you are not authorized to use deadly force as long as you can simply walk away from the confrontation. If you shoot a guy who swung at you with an improvised weapon, that would be murder. If you shoot a guy who points a gun at you, it's not murder. If you shoot a person who's damaging someone else's property, that's murder. I think it's a simple enough concept that life is worth more than personal property, so self defense stops when it stops being in defense of one's "self" (or another person's life and limb, which I think would be clearer if it were justified as "defense of another person's life and limb," but that's a mouthful, whatever, we live in a soundbyte, I get it). Anyway, under that concept, the very act of going into a riot zone, as a "concerned citizen" from another state entirely, armed with a deadly weapon (meaning an object that has the sole purpose of killing other people), would be premeditation of a violent crime. It doesn't look like the prosecution touched much on that, and maybe it's just the same as it's not a logical world in which we live.

Here in VT, I'm pretty sure a person could be considered conspiring to commit violence for showing up at a bar during a Red Sox game wearing a Yankees hat.  But, if Rittenhouse gets acquitted from all charges entirely, with no lesser charges, it's basically going to tell the rest of the nation to grab their guns and go hang out at protests. And, just following this logical outcome to the next step, picture two right-wingers shooting each other, because they both pointed their guns at each other, because they both happened to be holding a gun whilst attending a riot, which they both did because of the Rittenhouse verdict. Maybe the problem will sort itself out after that almost inevitable event in the future.

Or, who knows, maybe this is all small fry compared to the weird civil stuff that's bound to keep happening as we sail through the age of unbridled police violence, novel deadly diseases, and political leaders who brag about how big their nuclear button is to hostile nuclear dictators.


----------



## fantom

Over/under on number of days between the verdict and an appeal being filed?


----------



## fantom

bostjan said:


> Ritttenhouse is very likely not going to get convicted of the charges the prosecutor brought. I'd say it's more likely that he goes free at this point than that he does any serious time.
> 
> But guys, be careful what you say, or else he might come to your house to defend himself with a bazooka.
> 
> The way I learned it (which has changed drastically since Treyvon Martin and stand your ground), is that you are not authorized to use deadly force as long as you can simply walk away from the confrontation. If you shoot a guy who swung at you with an improvised weapon, that would be murder. If you shoot a guy who points a gun at you, it's not murder. If you shoot a person who's damaging someone else's property, that's murder. I think it's a simple enough concept that life is worth more than personal property, so self defense stops when it stops being in defense of one's "self" (or another person's life and limb, which I think would be clearer if it were justified as "defense of another person's life and limb," but that's a mouthful, whatever, we live in a soundbyte, I get it). Anyway, under that concept, the very act of going into a riot zone, as a "concerned citizen" from another state entirely, armed with a deadly weapon (meaning an object that has the sole purpose of killing other people), would be premeditation of a violent crime. It doesn't look like the prosecution touched much on that, and maybe it's just the same as it's not a logical world in which we live.
> 
> Here in VT, I'm pretty sure a person could be considered conspiring to commit violence for showing up at a bar during a Red Sox game wearing a Yankees hat.  But, if Rittenhouse gets acquitted from all charges entirely, with no lesser charges, it's basically going to tell the rest of the nation to grab their guns and go hang out at protests. And, just following this logical outcome to the next step, picture two right-wingers shooting each other, because they both pointed their guns at each other, because they both happened to be holding a gun whilst attending a riot, which they both did because of the Rittenhouse verdict. Maybe the problem will sort itself out after that almost inevitable event in the future.
> 
> Or, who knows, maybe this is all small fry compared to the weird civil stuff that's bound to keep happening as we sail through the age of unbridled police violence, novel deadly diseases, and political leaders who brag about how big their nuclear button is to hostile nuclear dictators.



Nailed it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> Over/under on number of days between the verdict and an appeal being filed?



Can't appeal an acquittal.


----------



## mmr007

The issues that have caused us to discuss this case are not going away without bloodshed. We are fucked no matter what the result is.


----------



## spudmunkey

In Wisconsin, can the Jury consider lower-level charges? If the state just doesn't have quite enough for an 'intentional" something, could the jury consider "negligent/accidental"?


----------



## Adieu

Can't they try him separately on Federal Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism charges (throw the mom in for good measure) or something?

Frankly, the idea that he killed people and might get away with it is slightly LESS horrifying than the idea that a court might uphold the alleged RIGHT of a minor to travel somewhere with an assault rifle with intent to escalate and start sh!t against his political/racial enemies


----------



## fantom

Adieu said:


> Can't they try him separately on Federal Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism charges (throw the mom in for good measure) or something?
> 
> Frankly, the idea that he killed people and might get away with it is slightly LESS horrifying than the idea that a court might uphold the alleged RIGHT of a minor to travel somewhere with an assault rifle with intent to escalate and start sh!t against his political/racial enemies


Under what jurisdiction? USC 2332b only grants jurisdiction if the act is targeting the federal government. The only way this will come up is if any of the victims was a federal employee. Maybe the 3rd victim was? Even then, you have to overcome his self defense claim.

Just because you know something was wrong doesn't mean the person is guilty. You need to find a law they actually violated... Not throw darts with a jury. The judicial system has to follow the legislation. If the legislation isn't specific or clear, the person didn't do anything illegal. Changing the law requires a legislative change.

This is a fundamental cornerstone of the US government.


----------



## Adieu

Wait, terrorism isn't federally illegal???

Also, isn't it interstate terrorism with intent to literally terrorize residents of other states?


----------



## Miek

fantom said:


> Just remember, people who back Rittenhouse also want Alec Baldwin in jail for firing a pistol, which he was told was unloaded by the armorer, and killing someone.
> 
> Is it just me or is it impossible to have an objective discussion at this point?


i dont want to bring up an old point, but to be fair, as a producer, baldwin definitely has his share of responsibility for that completely preventable death, yeah.



Adieu said:


> Pfftt... amateur.
> 
> Y'all gotta learn to curse in Russian. It's got all the best "incantations" for reviving stuck machinery.


cyka blyat


----------



## Adieu

What looks like "cy" in Cyrillic is actually "su"

PS not in-in the word Cyrillic


----------



## philkilla

mmr007 said:


> The issues that have caused us to discuss this case are not going away without bloodshed. We are fucked no matter what the result is.




Just wait for the mostly peaceful protests to occur.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Oddly, I don't doubt this in the slightest.


I just start speaking Klingon. Any Klingon. Even their greetings sound like cursing.


----------



## Adieu

Nah.

I only learn new languages when they make me money.


----------



## nightflameauto

Adieu said:


> Nah.
> 
> I only learn new languages when they make me money.


My same stance on sex positions. Oh wait, did I say that out loud?


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> Sure... Except Rittenhouse repeatedly testified that he didn't intend to kill anyone.
> 
> Honestly the kid is young enough and made enough stupid decisions that I believe he did NOT have an expectation that bringing an assault rifle, pointing it at someone, and shooting it would kill anyone.
> 
> My point was, his intent doesn't matter. He intended to defend himself, yes. But either he didn't intend to use deadly force (and is guilty because he can't use the self defense law) or he intended to use deadly force (and is guilty because he used excessive force).
> 
> Am I ok with a lenient sentence because he was acting like stupid kid? Ya. Am I ok with him walking free and society acting like being a young ignorant and reckless kid with no regard for human life is acceptable? Nope



Ok, great. Then there's evidence that not only did the prosecution establish that he knowingly used lethal force, they ALSO established her committed perjury when he said he "didn't intend to kill anyone." 

Intent 100% matters - you yourself said that, when you pointed out that Wisconsin law differentiated between someone intending to shoot someone, and someone accidently shooting them when startled with the sound of another gunshot, in your post I was replying to which you then replied to to tell me intent doesn't matter.  



bostjan said:


> The way I learned it (which has changed drastically since Treyvon Martin and stand your ground), is that you are not authorized to use deadly force as long as you can simply walk away from the confrontation.


As I understand, this varies widely state by state, with Florida's castle doctrine being damned near a blank slate for the shooter, while other states having much more restrictive guidelines on when lethal force can be used. 

I'm not sure you're wrong though, with the way this judge has been carrying on, that he'll successfully steer the jury to a not guilty finding. I'm not sure what exactly the prohibition on appealing an aquittal is, but I think petitioning that this be called a mistrial is, well, at least plausible, given the judge's actions throughout the case, and I'm not sure what sort of options the victims' families would have there. 

At a minimum, they should pursue a wrongful death civil case here, though.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> As I understand, this varies widely state by state, with Florida's castle doctrine being damned near a blank slate for the shooter, while other states having much more restrictive guidelines on when lethal force can be used.
> 
> I'm not sure you're wrong though, with the way this judge has been carrying on, that he'll successfully steer the jury to a not guilty finding. I'm not sure what exactly the prohibition on appealing an aquittal is, but I think petitioning that this be called a mistrial is, well, at least plausible, given the judge's actions throughout the case, and I'm not sure what sort of options the victims' families would have there.
> 
> At a minimum, they should pursue a wrongful death civil case here, though.



Yeah, it's another very strange thing about how the law can vary so much from state to state.

But, universally, there is no way to appeal an acquittal. It's all in the 5th Amendment, so it'd be very a very dangerous implication to reverse that for this one case or whatever.

Civil suits could be very much still on the table, though.


----------



## philkilla

I'd love to read the transcript here; please tell me the prosecutor intentionally had his finger on the trigger.


----------



## spudmunkey

Further down in the comments:


----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> Intent 100% matters - you yourself said that, when you pointed out that Wisconsin law differentiated between someone intending to shoot someone, and someone accidently shooting them when startled with the sound of another gunshot, in your post I was replying to which you then replied to to tell me intent doesn't matter



Please reread. I said.

1. If Kyle intended to pull the trigger, he is guilty because self defense doesn't apply.

2. If Kyle did not intend to pull the trigger, he is guilty because he responded with more force than reasonable (he testified that he knew the guy was unarmed minus the chain).

In logic terms. X implies Y. Not X implies Y. Therefore Y is true.

So ya, the intent does not matter.


----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> As I understand, this varies widely state by state, with Florida's castle doctrine being damned near a blank slate for the shooter, while other states having much more restrictive guidelines on when lethal force can be used


Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are not the same thing in Florida. The Michigan self defense laws are similar to Castle Doctrine, but both require you being in your car or on your private property to respond like this.

Stand Your Ground in Florida literally says you don't have to try to run away to use deadly force, which Michigan requires.


----------



## mbardu




----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> Please reread. I said.
> 
> 1. If Kyle intended to pull the trigger, he is guilty because self defense doesn't apply.
> 
> 2. If Kyle did not intend to pull the trigger, he is guilty because he responded with more force than reasonable (he testified that he knew the guy was unarmed minus the chain).
> 
> In logic terms. X implies Y. Not X implies Y. Therefore Y is true.
> 
> So ya, the intent does not matter.


Oh, gotcha, you're saying that he's guilty either way.


----------



## bostjan

fantom said:


> Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are not the same thing in Florida. The Michigan self defense laws are similar to Castle Doctrine, but both require you being in your car or on your private property to respond like this.
> 
> Stand Your Ground in Florida literally says you don't have to try to run away to use deadly force, which Michigan requires.


Wisconsin has Castle Doctrine and not Stand Your Ground.

There are still a lot of ways to look at this. I think most of the media's output regarding the case have simply contributed to the noise. Rittenhouse raised money for Blue Lives Matter, liked guns, shot at cans, etc. I don't think any of that matters considering the prosecution's accusations and the responding defense. Basically, the defense is "Kyle shot these three people because he was in fear of his life, therefore it is self defense." From Wisconsin law:


Wisconsin 939.48 2a said:


> the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.


The defense, therefore, had to prove that Rittenhouse had no other reasonable means to escape.

The prosecution in this case should have just lasered in on that. You can't bring a gun into a tense situation and then shoot everyone and claim self defense because they might have taken your gun and shot you with it. The burden, legally, according to Wisconsin, is on the person with the gun to get the gun out of the situation without the use of violence _if possible by any means._ Rittenhouse could have countered by saying that he couldn't have fled, but it's pretty clear that he could have.

Without a Stand Your Ground doctrine, the defense of "but he swung an object at me" isn't proper legal provocation for shooting them, unless certain exceptions are satisfied, including that you are on your own property.

A couple of things, though:

If two people point guns at each other and one of them is shot, in Wisconsin, that _is_ self defense, probably (obviously a lot of circumstantial things are required to be understood in order to justify it).
If someone attacks you with a melee weapon, and you have no route which to escape (for example you are literally backed up against a wall), and you shoot them, that would likely be considered self defense. Otherwise, if you are on an open road, you are required by law to try to run away first.

But, no matter which side of the political aisle you are on, I think you have a good idea how this case is going to end.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> But, no matter which side of the political aisle you are on, I think you have a good idea how this case is going to end.


By the facts of the case, as you summarize them, he's pretty clearly guilty as this isn't an allowable instance of self defense. 

On the other hand, in a trial overseen by a wildly biased judge, even if the worst of his actions happened with the jury out of the courtroom, it would seem likely that he's steering them to an acquittal. 

And honestly, I think if I had to pick a side I'd say acquitted on at least most charges, but it's hard to say for sure and I could definitely see it going either way.


----------



## jaxadam

philkilla said:


> Just wait for the mostly peaceful protests to occur.


----------



## spudmunkey

Judge, logged in to his Grub Hub account, leaning over to let Kyle see the screen. "Pick something, and I'll add it to the lunch order. Get what you want. I can expense it."*



*that's not what it is...this is a joke.


----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> Judge, logged in to his Grub Hub account, leaning over to let Kyle see the screen. "Pick something, and I'll add it to the lunch order. Get what you want. I can expense it."*
> View attachment 100170
> 
> 
> *that's not what it is...this is a joke.


Without the asterisk, I'd have believed it. This is the world we're in now, and that's a totally and utterly plausible scenario for this trial.


----------



## Adieu

Why do I feel like this clown will end up a movie star or a politician instead of an inmate?


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> Why do I feel like this clown will end up a movie star or a politician instead of an inmate?



"American Sniper 2: Starring Kyle Rittenhouse, Kevin Sorbo, and Gina Carano. Available exclusively on the new OAN TV+ streaming service"


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> Why do I feel like this clown will end up a movie star or a politician instead of an inmate?



Newsmax host


----------



## philkilla

spudmunkey said:


> "American Sniper 2: Starring Kyle Rittenhouse, Kevin Sorbo, and Gina Carano. Available exclusively on the new OAN TV+ streaming service"




So what type of movie will the dead scumbags be featured in?


----------



## spudmunkey

spudmunkey said:


> "American Sniper 2: Starring Kyle Rittenhouse, Kevin Sorbo, and Gina Carano. Available exclusively on the new OAN TV+ streaming service"



Oh, I forgot the tagline:
"When God needed a hero, Kyle answered the call"


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Newsmax host


Dammit, you're right.


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> "American Sniper 2: Starring Kyle Rittenhouse, Kevin Sorbo, and Gina Carano. Available exclusively on the new OAN TV+ streaming service"



It's plausible 

Kevin Sorbo IS a uniquely functional low-IQ individual


----------



## ArtDecade

Adieu said:


> It's plausible
> 
> Kevin Sorbo IS a uniquely functional low-IQ individual



Kevin Sorbo's career haven't been functional in decades.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## bostjan

The jury is asking to see the drone footage that is at the center of the defense's motion for a mistrial. I think that's going to push the issue for the judge and we might never find out what the jury determines...


----------



## philkilla

bostjan said:


> The jury is asking to see the drone footage that is at the center of the defense's motion for a mistrial. I think that's going to push the issue for the judge and we might never find out what the jury determines...



You mean the footage that shows Rosenbaum making his final mistakes?


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> You mean the footage that shows Rosenbaum making his final mistakes?


TIL throwing socks is a murderable offense.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

Yeah, Rosenbaum was just chasing him with fifty other people to give him a hug. The guy who shot the gun just before was just celebrating their new found friendship with Kyle.


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


>



Wtf?

Kevin Sorbo can spell and use punctuation?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Wtf?
> 
> Kevin Sorbo can spell and use punctuation?


----------



## bostjan

Chokey Chicken said:


> Yeah, Rosenbaum was just chasing him with fifty other people to give him a hug. The guy who shot the gun just before was just celebrating their new found friendship with Kyle.


A unarmed mob chasing a guy armed with a rifle is idiotic. A guy with a rifle shooting one of the unarmed guys in the mob chasing him is equally as idiotic, though.

I think we all know that Rittenhouse is likely to walk free from this. I think that whether he is locked up or goes free, ultimately, it sends an equally as dangerous message to society, because either we are saying a) it's okay to insert yourself into a tense and dangerous situation as long as you have a gun and take out a couple of other people who were stupid enough to insert themselves into the same dangerous situation or b) it's not okay to defend yourself from an angry mob chasing you. Thanks to the combination of public stupidity, the incompetence of the prosecution, and the flamboyance of the judge in playing this out as everyone expected (and then acting like it's the media's fault for portraying him for whom he really is), there is no winning outcome.

It's the loss of subtlety that's the real criminal here.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Wtf?
> 
> Kevin Sorbo can spell and use punctuation?


Maybe I'm missing something. Is he still culturally relevant to certain political groups or are we just being shitty toward people with brain injury? I can't tell the difference anymore.


----------



## Adieu

Why isn't ANYTHING done against/to a random youngster running around in public with an assault rifle acting super suspicious (or at all, really) considered automatic legitimate self defense?


----------



## Jonathan20022

bostjan said:


> A unarmed mob chasing a guy armed with a rifle is idiotic. A guy with a rifle shooting one of the unarmed guys in the mob chasing him is equally as idiotic, though.
> 
> I think we all know that Rittenhouse is likely to walk free from this. I think that whether he is locked up or goes free, ultimately, it sends an equally as dangerous message to society, because either we are saying a) it's okay to insert yourself into a tense and dangerous situation as long as you have a gun and take out a couple of other people who were stupid enough to insert themselves into the same dangerous situation or b) it's not okay to defend yourself from an angry mob chasing you. Thanks to the combination of public stupidity, the incompetence of the prosecution, and the flamboyance of the judge in playing this out as everyone expected (and then acting like it's the media's fault for portraying him for whom he really is), there is no winning outcome.
> 
> It's the loss of subtlety that's the real criminal here.



Okay, if we're really going with this perspective on "dangerous situations" then every single person protesting at night is equally inserting themselves into a needlessly dangerous situation as well.

There's literally 0 reason to protest in the middle of the night, and no this didn't happen at 6pm after everyone dipped out of their day job to go protest. The shooting happened at fucking *midnight*, it's easier for bad actors to conceal themselves, makes tracking of events a fucking shitshow. Our right to protest should be exercised, but if there's some reasonable degree of holding intent, then every single person there carries some of the responsibility to a degree.

Regarding the AI/iPad commentary here a few pages back, I tuned into a few of the live streams. The reason the argument was brought up in the first place, was because they were using zoomed in drone footage to determine the angle which Rittenhouse had his weapon set to in this specific moment.




I don't know about any of you, but no matter what position I was in, if my fucking life rested on the balance and this was the "evidence" used to ascertain what I was doing in any given moment. I'd tell the prosecution to fuck off and find better evidence.

Devices that capture media *absolutely *spit out content that is inherently modified via algorithms and AI. *No*, it will not alter clear in focus subjects in a drastic way, but some shit in the background you had to zoom in on? Yeah your device is going to make estimations of what it's seeing and modify the result depending on the device/applications used.

There's an argument to be made for tech illiteracy in antiquated systems, but hold yourself to a higher standard and at least look into the situation. Anyone would contest evidence like that being presented as critical to convicting you on life sentence(s).


----------



## Drew

Jonathan20022 said:


> There's literally 0 reason to protest in the middle of the night, and no this didn't happen at 6pm after everyone dipped out of their day job to go protest. The shooting happened at fucking *midnight*, it's easier for bad actors to conceal themselves, makes tracking of events a fucking shitshow. Our right to protest should be exercised, but if there's some reasonable degree of holding intent, then every single person there carries some of the responsibility to a degree.


I mean, if you're going to make this argument, that's fine... but it then requires some evidence that there WERE bad actors present, Rittenhouse knew there were bad actors present and believed he was shooting one, or was mistaken in his belief that bad actors were present and he was shooting one but at least had robust enough reasons for those beliefs that he was acting in good faith. 

Short of that, you're starting with the presumption that protesters were guilty (which, I'll note, even then doesn't entitle Rittenhouse to shoot them, simply because they were assumed to be bad actors), and the entire premise of the US judicial system is innocent until proven otherwise. Rittenhouse deserves due process, and if the crux of his defense is that people protesting at midnight were probably violent criminals hell bent on murdering him because who else would be out at midnight, that's a pretty poor defense.


----------



## bostjan

Jonathan20022 said:


> Okay, if we're really going with this perspective on "dangerous situations" then every single person protesting at night is equally inserting themselves into a needlessly dangerous situation as well.



That's exactly what I've been saying.



Jonathan20022 said:


> There's literally 0 reason to protest in the middle of the night, and no this didn't happen at 6pm after everyone dipped out of their day job to go protest. The shooting happened at fucking *midnight*, it's easier for bad actors to conceal themselves, makes tracking of events a fucking shitshow. Our right to protest should be exercised, but if there's some reasonable degree of holding intent, then every single person there carries some of the responsibility to a degree.
> 
> Regarding the AI/iPad commentary here a few pages back, I tuned into a few of the live streams. The reason the argument was brought up in the first place, was because they were using zoomed in drone footage to determine the angle which Rittenhouse had his weapon set to in this specific moment.
> 
> View attachment 100235
> 
> 
> I don't know about any of you, but no matter what position I was in, if my fucking life rested on the balance and this was the "evidence" used to ascertain what I was doing in any given moment. I'd tell the prosecution to fuck off and find better evidence.
> 
> Devices that capture media *absolutely *spit out content that is inherently modified via algorithms and AI. *No*, it will not alter clear in focus subjects in a drastic way, but some shit in the background you had to zoom in on? Yeah your device is going to make estimations of what it's seeing and modify the result depending on the device/applications used.
> 
> There's an argument to be made for tech illiteracy in antiquated systems, but hold yourself to a higher standard and at least look into the situation. Anyone would contest evidence like that being presented as critical to convicting you on life sentence(s).



The prosecution has definitely been highly inept throughout much of this process. I don't think any reasonable person would say that they did a good job at this point. And yes, if the prosecution doesn't do their job, it would be unjust to use that as an excuse to convict people.



Adieu said:


> Why isn't ANYTHING done against/to a random youngster running around in public with an assault rifle acting super suspicious (or at all, really) considered automatic legitimate self defense?



Ideally, self defense is only applicable (in Wisconsin) when a person is in fear of their own life. Oddly, this defense removes culpability for both intentional and accidental death. For example, if I reasonably felt threatened, and pulled out a gun and shot at a person who was threatening me (the law does not specify what that means, BTW), and missed, and shot a baby and/or pregnant woman or whatever, I could just say "whoops, sorry, it was self-defense," and Wisconsin would be like "Oh ok, we're good here, carry on." So, Rittenhouse's defense, had he only shot Rosenbaum, could have been that he was shooting at whomever was firing those other shots and missed and hit Rosenbaum multiple times on accident. The state would have likely just shrugged and let him go. 

Where it gets sticky, legally, is that no one was really supposed to be there. Rittenhouse had no business there. He was told by authorities to disperse. The crowd was likely told the same thing. There was a curfew in effect anyway. Where the defense went with this was that these three "shootees" (can't say victims here, so I had to make up a word) were threatening Rittenhouse (which whether they were or not is immaterial in Wisconsin, as long as he reasonably believed he was threatened), so it was self defense. Where the prosecution went was that you can't claim self defense if you instigated the threat, meaning that he wasn't supposed to be there (he wasn't) and he was acting in a threatening manner (he was, but to what extent, we don't know). But, unfortunately for the prosecution, none of these things are worded clearly in the law, like at all, and there really isn't any case law from Wisconsin that parallels this scenario too well. So it is ground breaking in a way. But not at all in a good way.

The way I see it (this is purely opinion) is that, assuming you find yourself in a situation where you are about to be attacked by a mob, and you are armed with a deadly weapon, you are authorized to use that force only when you have no other option. If I'm running away from a mob, and one of the guys in the mob is faster than me and gaining on me, I may suspect that the guy will try to take my weapon and use it against me or other people, but, I should only be able to use that weapon against him once he's within range to take it. That seems to be the case, according to evidence. In the moment that would seem to be self-defense.

Shooting number two. Again, Rittenhouse is being chased. This time the guy (Huber) who caught up to him hit him with a skateboard and tried to disarm him. I'm having a tougher time with this one. A reasonable person would understand that they just killed someone, so people are going to try to disarm me for their own protection, but, an unreasonable person might think that everyone is just out to kill them. Here we get into some actual trouble with the 2nd amendment. You have the right to self-defense, according to the constitution, but if everyone could simply vaporize any person who poses any sort of perceived threat, knowing how crazy some people are, we would all be dead, surely, so you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and say "this is reasonable" and then whatever is not reasonable isn't protected under 2A. From a mile-high view, I doubt Huber intended to kill Rittenhouse, but rather was trying to protect others from being shot. I doubt Rittenhouse understood that, and he probably felt that everyone was trying to kill him. So he shot Huber and killed him, under quite a bit of emotional distress having had just killed someone and actively being chased by a mob.

Shooting number three. Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse to neutralize an active shooter. Rittenhouse shot him and ran away. Again, Rittenhouse was probably not thinking clearly and maybe Grosskreutz would have killed him, because, in his mind, he'd be stopping a potential threat. Maybe the lesson for Grosskreutz to take away from this would be to shoot first. At least, if we throw away the conclusion that he maybe shouldn't have been there at all in the first place, that's probably the most logical conclusion we'd be left with.

This is generally what happens in a world where everyone is amped up on misinformation and political vigor and also armed with a deadly weapon. things will ostensibly devolve into shootings where everyone thinks everyone else is trying to kill them, and maybe they all are trying to kill each other. But, none of these people should have been there in the first place, so, in retrospect, these shootings were almost an inevitable outcome of the poor decision making that led up to the moments themselves.

Huber and Rosenbaum are dead. Did they deserve to die? I don't know, but I guess it doesn't matter. Did Rittenhouse kill them in self defense? Yeah. Does self defense work as a legal defense when you are the aggressor? No. Did the prosecution prove that Rittenhouse was the aggressor? I guess we'll find out soon. But I think the more important angle to this is whether self defense works as a legal defense under nuanced circumstances where you are somewhere neither you nor the person from whom you are defending yourself are supposed to be, and both parties showed up to start trouble with each other. For instance, after the Boston Marathon bombing, would I have been legally in the right if I grabbed a rifle and went down there from Vermont with the intention of apprehending the two guys who were on the run? If I did so, and ended up cornering some random unarmed Chechen guy who was not one of the bombers, pulled my gun on him, and ordered him to freeze, and he charged at me to get away, and I misinterpreted his action as a threat and shot him, would I be able to successfully argue self defense? I don't think so, because that's ridiculous. Right? But, probably in that exact moment, if I discount the rest of the situation, I might honestly and appropriately be able to argue that I truly believed he was going to try to take my gun away and then shoot me with it. The problem isn't in the moment the shot was fired, the problem is in the 100% bad decision making leading up to a situation that has no possible positive outcome.


----------



## Adieu

Wtf?

"Oooh a riot, mom can you drive me? lemme bring my ASSAULT RIFLE" is the effing DEFINITION of a bad actor

Btw, I still firmly believe that it is the disgrace and deriliction of duty of American law enforcement that they didn't threaten to shoot him on sight and didn't follow through after like maybe 3 seconds if he didn't surrender and faceplant into the asphalt. Just for showing up to civil unrest with an assault weapon, never mind firing it.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> TIL throwing socks is a murderable offense.



Yep, throwing socks can be pretty dangerous.


----------



## Jonathan20022

Drew said:


> I mean, if you're going to make this argument, that's fine... but it then requires some evidence that there WERE bad actors present, Rittenhouse knew there were bad actors present and believed he was shooting one, or was mistaken in his belief that bad actors were present and he was shooting one but at least had robust enough reasons for those beliefs that he was acting in good faith.
> 
> Short of that, you're starting with the presumption that protesters were guilty (which, I'll note, even then doesn't entitle Rittenhouse to shoot them, simply because they were assumed to be bad actors), and the entire premise of the US judicial system is innocent until proven otherwise. Rittenhouse deserves due process, and if the crux of his defense is that people protesting at midnight were probably violent criminals hell bent on murdering him because who else would be out at midnight, that's a pretty poor defense.



I'm more or less saying that things like bad actors are more easily concealed at the later hours of a protest if one lasts 10pm onwards.

Rittenhouse could definitely be labeled a bad actor on the basis of how he got there and the reasoning of why. I'm curious what the fuck he means by "our jobs", "my job", in reference to protecting the car lot when the workers testified to that not being true.





Adieu said:


> Wtf?
> 
> "Oooh a riot, mom can you drive me? lemme bring my ASSAULT RIFLE" is the effing DEFINITION of a bad actor
> 
> Btw, I still firmly believe that it is the disgrace and deriliction of duty of American law enforcement that they didn't threaten to shoot him on sight and didn't follow through after like maybe 3 seconds if he didn't surrender and faceplant into the asphalt. Just for showing up to civil unrest with an assault weapon, never mind firing it.



I mean Kyle was illegally carrying an AR, that's true but contingent on being underage and a minor.

He had the charge dropped on a technicality of the AR not being short-barreled which is bullshit, but you're seriously advocating for someone to get their teeth knocked loose by hitting the pavement regardless of age for open carrying when where all conditions met, is perfectly legal in the state this happened in?

The abandonment of self defense for walking into a situation with a deadly weapon is also an interesting take that I see people trip themselves up on when explaining.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

I mean, throwing a bag of deoderant/socks isn't in and of itself all that dangerous, but it does help show intent of the person who threw said bag while charging at the person they threw stuff at, who up to that point, did nothing aggressive and was in fact trying to get away without the use of his gun. In fact, I may be remembering the details wrong, but wasn't Rosenbaum one of the guys who was pushing a literal dumpster fire into a gas station/oil drum outside a gas station? The one seen swinging a chain? What would the outcome have been if Kyle didn't shoot him? As far as I'm aware, there were dozens of people around who weren't happy with Kyle for whatever reason and they were following him as he fled. He fired 7 (8?) rounds total. Every round fired was at someone who was attacking him. Even after shooting the guy in the bicep, he never pointed the gun at anyone who wasn't actively chasing him down/attacking him.

It's a shame that people had to die, but the only people who died/got hurt in this situation are people who were threatening severe bodily harm/death... Doesn't matter that he was "unarmed." Kyle was fleeing before he had hurt anyone. Guy who first got shot was approaching a man from behind with intent to harm. He was two feet away. Chains/fists can do a whole lot of damage, and despite his efforts to leave the area, Rosenbaum made the situation where "he's unarmed and he might be able to harm/kill me" happen. He's willing to body slam his wife/fiance as she walked away, in hindsight what do you think his plans were with Kyle?

Again... Kyle fired 7 (or 8, still can't tell if jump kick guy got shot at once or twice) rounds and hit all but 1 (or 2) of them. He didn't mag dump like you see countless cops do, he didn't flag the crowd of angry protesters, he didn't even point the gun at the guy who was next to Grosskreutz, particularly after he started backing up with his hands up.

Honestly, I don't think Kyle's some sort of hero or anything, but he was just doing what he thought was right. As was everyone there (I hope people somehow thought they were doing a good thing by rolling a dumpster fire into a gas station.) In this case, the question becomes which laws were broken while "doing what you thought was right?" Starting fires vs cleaning graffiti/putting fires out. Chasing someone down vs retreating. Apparently, regardless of how foolish people might think it is, he legally had the gun. (how this is true, I still don't get) He didn't point the gun at anyone that wasn't aggressing. He didn't shoot the first guy when he was 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, or 5 feet away, but only after a gunshot went off and dude was within arms reach. He admitted to bringing the gun to protect himself if he needed to, and given all of the video evidence, unfortunately it looked like he needed to. 

Go ahead and think the laws are stupid and push to have them changed, but as it lies (apparently) everything fell within the laws.


----------



## bostjan

Chokey Chicken said:


> as it lies (apparently) everything fell within the laws.



That's not true, though. For example: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/947/01


----------



## Drew

Chokey Chicken said:


> Honestly, I don't think Kyle's some sort of hero or anything, but he was just doing what he thought was right. As was everyone there (I hope people somehow thought they were doing a good thing by rolling a dumpster fire into a gas station.) In this case, the question becomes which laws were broken while "doing what you thought was right?" Starting fires vs cleaning graffiti/putting fires out. Chasing someone down vs retreating. Apparently, regardless of how foolish people might think it is, he legally had the gun. (how this is true, I still don't get) He didn't point the gun at anyone that wasn't aggressing. He didn't shoot the first guy when he was 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, or 5 feet away, but only after a gunshot went off and dude was within arms reach. He admitted to bringing the gun to protect himself if he needed to, and given all of the video evidence, unfortunately it looked like he needed to.


It's extremely hard to choose sides when you have two people, acting in opposite directions, and doing so because they're "doing what they thought was right." This is pretty much why we have laws, to codify what you can and can't do in the name of what you believe is right. 

@bostjan has done a good job of tying this back to the specifics of Wisconsin law - most notably that, unless Kyle had reason to believe he himself was at risk from someone using lethal force, he was not legally able to use lethal force in self defense to extricate himself from a situation he had put himself in. Yes, someone swung a skateboard at him, yes, he was afraid, but getting hit by a skateboard won't kill you. Getting hit by a couple rounds from an AR15 will. He says he heard a gunshot, but unless it was established someone was shooting at him and I missed it, it was pretty clear that no one he shot at was pointing a gun at _him_ which again means he used a disproportionate amount of force in self defense, which under the criminal code in Wiscnsin is _not_ allowable as self defense. 

There's also the matter that he wasn't legally allowed to be carrying the gun he had, though I believe the judge found some technicality to dismiss that charge under. Either way though, he did not "legally" have the gun he was carrying.


----------



## Drew

Jonathan20022 said:


> I'm more or less saying that things like bad actors are more easily concealed at the later hours of a protest if one lasts 10pm onwards.


...but, again, just because something may or may not be easier after an arbitrary time like 10PM (and I don't agree with you, and nor does the entire right wing media now arguing that it was "Antifa agents" responsible for all the broad daylight violence on Jan 6th), doesn't actually say anything about if there _were_ "bad actors" present on that night on that street. It's a lot easier for a shark to be in a saltwater swimming pool than a freshwater, but that doesn't mean you can't swim in saltwater pools if you want to keep both legs. If you blow up your buddy's saltwater pool because, "bro... sharks are more easily concealed in saltwater pools," then you're going to be down a buddy real fast.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> but getting hit by a skateboard won't kill you.



https://abc7.com/starbucks-fight-santa-ana-man-dies-skateboard/1098183/


----------



## Chokey Chicken

bostjan said:


> That's not true, though. For example: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/947/01



Are you referring to this? "Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor."

He wasn't exactly being disorderly, certainly not more-so than anyone of the other hundreds of people there. People starting fires and chasing people with intent to harm on the other hand is. Firing unprovoked bullets into the air is. In this regard, if he's guilty of such a crime, then everyone there was guilty of this crime and worse. Are you saying him just having a gun, was provocative? Despite him never pointing it at anyone or firing a round and it being legal for him to do so? He wasn't loud, he wasn't violent until people acted violence on him... Is him putting out fires disorderly? What did he do before being chased that can be considered disorderly?

Or was it this? "Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading a firearm, or for carrying or going armed with a firearm or a knife, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm or the knife is concealed or openly carried."

Because, and correct me if I'm reading this wrong, (law is worded in long weird/specific ways that doesn't play well with my adhd) this says he can't be charged with this unless there are facts/circumstances that indicated criminal/malicious intent. The fact that he encountered hundreds of people that night and only the 4 that were actively trying to harm him had the weapon pointed at them/got shot by him kind of goes against criminal/malicious intent, especially when the whole scenario started with him fleeing to avoid harm/causing harm.


----------



## bostjan

Chokey Chicken said:


> Are you referring to this? "Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor."
> 
> He wasn't exactly being disorderly, certainly not more-so than anyone of the other hundreds of people there. People starting fires and chasing people with intent to harm on the other hand is. Firing unprovoked bullets into the air is. In this regard, if he's guilty of such a crime, then everyone there was guilty of this crime and worse. Are you saying him just having a gun, was provocative? Despite him never pointing it at anyone or firing a round and it being legal for him to do so? He wasn't loud, he wasn't violent until people acted violence on him... Is him putting out fires disorderly? What did he do before being chased that can be considered disorderly?
> 
> Or was it this? "Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading a firearm, or for carrying or going armed with a firearm or a knife, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm or the knife is concealed or openly carried."
> 
> Because, and correct me if I'm reading this wrong, (law is worded in long weird/specific ways that doesn't play well with my adhd) this says he can't be charged with this unless there are facts/circumstances that indicated criminal/malicious intent. The fact that he encountered hundreds of people that night and only the 4 that were actively trying to harm him had the weapon pointed at them/got shot by him kind of goes against criminal/malicious intent, especially when the whole scenario started with him fleeing to avoid harm/causing harm.


So... your logic is that if someone else there was committing a crime, then Rittenhouse could not be?!


----------



## Chokey Chicken

bostjan said:


> So... your logic is that if someone else there was committing a crime, then Rittenhouse could not be?!



No, my argument is he wasn't being disorderly. He wasn't loud or disruptive, got attacked by loud disruptive people, and only *then* fired on them. Is he supposed to not fight back because "I gotta be quiet otherwise I'm breaking the law, might as well die then."


----------



## ArtDecade

Chokey Chicken said:


> No, my argument is he wasn't being disorderly. He wasn't loud or disruptive, got attacked by loud disruptive people, and only *then* fired on them. Is he supposed to not fight back because "I gotta be quiet otherwise I'm breaking the law, might as well die then."



I dunno. I am of the group that thinks a bunch of people looking for problems on the extreme sides of both the aisles found exactly the trouble they were looking for. Neither side is innocent and they were clearly made for each other. All of us in the middle are tired of their collective sh!t.


----------



## bostjan

Chokey Chicken said:


> No, my argument is he wasn't being disorderly. He wasn't loud or disruptive, got attacked by loud disruptive people, and only *then* fired on them. Is he supposed to not fight back because "I gotta be quiet otherwise I'm breaking the law, might as well die then."


He's supposed to not go into a riot with the intent of protecting private property belonging to an unaware third party by force. It's pretty well established that he went to Kenosha knowing full well that there was going to be trouble. No one asked him for help protecting their property; he was there to further escalate the trouble.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

bostjan said:


> He's supposed to not go into a riot with the intent of protecting private property belonging to an unaware third party by force. It's pretty well established that he went to Kenosha knowing full well that there was going to be trouble. No one asked him for help protecting their property; he was there to further escalate the trouble.



He did a really bad job of escalating then considering how many people he ran into and didn't hurt or antagonize.


----------



## bostjan

Chokey Chicken said:


> He did a really bad job of escalating then considering how many people he ran into and didn't hurt or antagonize.


Oh, ok, I was unaware that the average number of people shot by each other person there that night was higher than three. I guess we should just nuke Kenosha in that case.

Here's a list of individuals who shot more people than Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha that night:


----------



## Chokey Chicken

bostjan said:


> Oh, ok, I was unaware that the average number of people shot by each other person there that night was higher than three. I guess we should just nuke Kenosha in that case.
> 
> Here's a list of individuals who shot more people than Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha that night:




I'm gonna bow out, but just wanted to share that despite holding different views I have no ill will towards you or anyone else. It's too mentally taxing on me to continue stressing out about this, which ultimately has no bearing on me since I'm not one to go out with a gun into a riot/be the one rioting, but just wanted to say "hey, thanks for the conversation," even if it was a bit stressful for me personally. 

Take care, dude/dudette/whatever you identify as. I sincerely hope this doesn't come off as backpedaling or that I'm being antagonistic. I just have too much on my mind to dwell on this when I have enough irl stuff to worry about without one of my happy places becoming a breeding ground for my anxiety. Cheers!


----------



## CanserDYI

Man, I knew I shouldnt have wandered into this thread. If he's defending Kyle Rittenhouse, you can....


----------



## Randy

ArtDecade said:


> I dunno. I am of the group that thinks a bunch of people looking for problems on the extreme sides of both the aisles found exactly the trouble they were looking for. Neither side is innocent and they were clearly made for each other. All of us in the middle are tired of their collective sh!t.



I'll second this with the exception that everyone should be held legally accountable for what they did. No thunderdome narrative, no "angels vs demons" narrative.


----------



## spudmunkey

The current state of much of the conversation I see (not here...primarily in comments sections and family in Wisconsin on FB):

"I feel like the end result of Kyle's actions, which brought upon this specific trial, require consequences."

"Oh, so you're defending the pedophile he shot? Ugh...dems always defending the pedos..."


----------



## bostjan

Chokey Chicken said:


> I'm gonna bow out, but just wanted to share that despite holding different views I have no ill will towards you or anyone else. It's too mentally taxing on me to continue stressing out about this, which ultimately has no bearing on me since I'm not one to go out with a gun into a riot/be the one rioting, but just wanted to say "hey, thanks for the conversation," even if it was a bit stressful for me personally.
> 
> Take care, dude/dudette/whatever you identify as. I sincerely hope this doesn't come off as backpedaling or that I'm being antagonistic. I just have too much on my mind to dwell on this when I have enough irl stuff to worry about without one of my happy places becoming a breeding ground for my anxiety. Cheers!


Sorry I got a little prickly, and thanks for the dissent. This honestly isn't the most straightforward case, and we have to challenge our ideas to make them better.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

CanserDYI said:


> Man, I knew I shouldnt have wandered into this thread. If he's defending Kyle Rittenhouse, you can....
> 
> View attachment 100247




Final thing I'll say in here, (at least in regards to this situation... Thread title/original topic still triggers me about shitty systemic racism, as well as what spawned these riots.) but I'm neither a he or white, and I've been inclined to side with Kyle so you'd lose whatever you bet, at least against me. lol

edit: I still appreciate the pun. You're... Likely not wrong.


----------



## CanserDYI

Chokey Chicken said:


> Final thing I'll say in here, (at least in regards to this situation... Thread title/original topic still triggers me about shitty systemic racism, as well as what spawned these riots.) but I'm neither a he or white, and I've been inclined to side with Kyle so you'd lose whatever you bet, at least against me. lol


For every one of you, there are 30,000 white, blue-line-flag-toting, maga hat assed Chad's defending a child who was in possession of a weapon who murdered people. If he wasnt there, they'd be alive and everything else would be exactly the same, riots happened with or without Rittenhouse is what I mean, but instead because some dumb assed kid decided to show up with an illegal weapon he shouldn't have even had possession of, two are dead, and the country is in a divide. He wasn't of any help or defense to the police, he was there just as dishonestly as a lot of the rioters.


----------



## Adieu

False.

He WAS the main feature of the riot.

His misguided belief (if at all true, which is a whole separate discussion) that rioting "for the other team" is somehow different is bullsh!t.

Coming to a riot to stir shit with weapons in hand is LITERALLY participating in the damn thing squared.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

CanserDYI said:


> For every one of you, there are 30,000 white, blue-line-flag-toting, maga hat assed Chad's defending a child who was in possession of a weapon who murdered people. If he wasnt there, they'd be alive and everything else would be exactly the same, but instead because some dumb assed kid decided to show up with an illegal weapon he shouldn't have even had possession of, two are dead, and the country is in a divide. He wasn't of any help or defense to the police, he was there just as dishonestly as a lot of the rioters.



Oh believe me, I'm aware that I'm siding with some MAGA/Blue line folks, and that's not the default me. Again it's people starting fires and shooting guns like yosemite sam into the air and then getting shot vs someone who honestly looked like they were trying to do good. I still don't let that sway my opinion on law. At worst, I think he should get the dangerous weapons as a minor charge, but at the same time I'm not sad that he shot a pedophile woman beater who was chasing him and someone who has eight domestic abuse charges who hit him with a skateboard. Guy who lived wasn't legally carrying his gun. All of that aside, you just can't make me feel bad for the people who were shot. There's tons of footage of Kyle doing exactly what he said he was doing and showing more trigger discipline, even during the shootings than most cops I've ever seen. If the cops had Kyle's trigger discipline, this whole ordeal wouldn't even be a thing. Kyle fired 7 (maybe 8 shots) at 4 people who attacked him. He landed 6 of them. Kyle fired, at worst, one more than the amount of rounds the police ("trained professionals") fired at one man. The police landed 4 shots into Blake's back. Kyle hit one shot in the back and is seen clearly on video being approached/attaced by all 4 people. I will never feel bad about pedophile woman beating people being killed. Kyle didn't know, but it shows the guy's character and what would've happened if Kyle didn't pull the trigger. 



Adieu said:


> False.
> 
> He WAS the main feature of the riot.
> 
> His misguided belief (if at all true, which is a whole separate discussion) that rioting "for the other team" is somehow different is bullsh!t.
> 
> Coming to a riot to stir shit with weapons in hand is LITERALLY participating in the damn thing squared.



He didn't stir shit. He cleaned buildings and got chased until a mentally unwell pedophile wife beater chased him.

Alrighty, I'm out for real this time. Gonna ignore this thread from here on out. If you want to respond to me, please don't quote me. I'll ignore the quotes anyway, but you can respond without quoting to leave it to future folk who come in. I'm tired of hearing how you'd rather see a 17 year old kid's brains smashed against the pavement vs a pedo woman beater and serial domestic abuser blow up a town you guys pretend to care about. Or, I guess quote me. I'm still out.


----------



## Adieu

I have no idea who he killed nor do I care if they were on the naughty list.

I do know that my late grandpa woulda said that a 17 yo with a machine gun looking to kill people is a plenty valid target nazi enemy combatant.


----------



## Adieu

Military aged males with rifles in public ain't teenagers. They're TERRORIST COMBATANTS.

Brandishing a rifle in public is literally threatening EVERYONE in the vicinity with deadly force and by the same laws that he's trying to skate on allowing ANYONE to attempt to kill him with anything whatsoever underhand as reasonable self defense.

PS also, a compare and contrast exercise for y'all: when a "regular" teenager from a crappy family brings his illegal gun to a rival hood and shoots people in an altercation, do we usually let him call it self defense? HELL NO, WE STICK HIM IN SUPERMAX FOR LIFE (or on death row)

The only difference I see is that *he* clearly viewed it as rival gang turf ("libs", "people of color", whatever, not sure), while the rest of the locals were like what the hell man, why is there a terrorist with a rifle running amok, how is this happening?


----------



## CanserDYI

Yeah I don't give a shit about his trigger discipline, I don't give a shit about WHO he killed, I DO give a shit about some white priveledged kid going to a city he's not from, for a cause he's not a part of, illegally obtaining a weapon and killing people. The pedo and the wife beater? They suck ass too. But they're not the ones on the stand for murder, are they? Lets say this were swapped, and the dead pedo shot and killed young Kyle Rittenhouse in the same fashion, but it was the rioter, you bet your ass I'd want the same thing for them.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

So the consensus in this forum is "privileged white 17 year old's brains against the floor good, but privileged 3 white guys with huge rap sheets including kid rape and wife beating and domestic abuse are okay?" Gotcha, thanks.


----------



## Randy

Chokey Chicken said:


> So the consensus in this forum is "privileged white 17 year old's brains against the floor good, but privileged 3 white guys with huge rap sheets including kid rape and wife beating and domestic abuse are okay?" Gotcha, thanks.



Show me anywhere that someone you're arguing with said one positive thing about either of the dead dudes.


----------



## Adieu

Paramilitary gangs in the street with assault rifles and politically and racially charged wingnut ideologies = scary dangerous failed state bullsh!t

If you wanna live in Yemen or Afghanistan, go do that. In Yemen and/or Afghanistan. For however long you manage to survive.

Nobody gives a damn about who hit who with a skateboard. That's regular familiar 20th century suburban nonsense. The assault rifle response thing, that's pure 21st century Murican Taliban.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Talking about civil disobedience like it's not something fundamentally meant to inconvenience and disrupt and be messy. That's the point. 

The goal is not to "win hearts and minds", it's to force change. 

In this case, that change is the lack of accountability for the killing of unarmed civilians by the police on the national level. 

It's a direct descendant of the civil rights movement, which was also very messy. 

No one has to agree with the methods, many didn't 60 years ago, but it's important to understand the context.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

Randy said:


> Show me anywhere that someone you're arguing with said one positive thing about either of the dead dudes.



I mean, that's not my point. I'm not even saying anything overtly positive towards Kyle. I'm saying Kyle was passive all day/night, albeit with a rifle in case things went south. Things DID go south, and he shot someone who was trying to hurt/kill him. Maybe people aren't saying "errrrrrrr, Rosenbaum was right" but they're saying he didn't deserve to get shot, when he actively created a situation where it required him to be shot or harmed. And given his past, which we all now know, he earned it. Maybe Kyle didn't know it outright, but he made a decision in the moment, and it turns out that decision was correct... Because a man who body slams their wife deserves to be put to a dirt nap when they're chasing you with intent to kill/harm.

Are you honestly saying you would have just let the guy beat you down? Despite you interacting with hundreds of people on both sides in a non-violent way up to that point? If you're telling me you'd let that sack of trash tackle you and beat you while 50 other people approached, with at least 2 having guns on them, then I'm calling you a liar.


----------



## Randy

Chokey Chicken said:


> I mean, that's not my point. I'm not even saying anything overtly positive towards Kyle. I'm saying Kyle was passive all day/night, albeit with a rifle in case things went south. Things DID go south, and he shot someone who was trying to hurt/kill him. Maybe people aren't saying "errrrrrrr, Rosenbaum was right" but they're saying he didn't deserve to get shot, when he actively created a situation where it required him to be shot or harmed. And given his past, which we all now know, he earned it. Maybe Kyle didn't know it outright, but he made a decision in the moment, and it turns out that decision was correct... Because a man who body slams their wife deserves to be put to a dirt nap when they're chasing you with intent to kill/harm.
> 
> Are you honestly saying you would have just let the guy beat you down? Despite you interacting with hundreds of people on both sides in a non-violent way up to that point? If you're telling me you'd let that sack of trash tackle you and beat you while 50 other people approached, with at least 2 having guns on them, then I'm calling you a liar.



I think trying to relate emotionally to anyone present when this clusterfuck happened is a waste.

My only complaint is the idea that the kid brought the rifle and then the justification for using it to shoot anybody is the idea it was going to be used against him. I won't say whether or not he escalated the situation but the gun being present did. He says himself the guy reach for the gun and fear Rosenbaum would take it and use it on him is why he had to shoot him. He brought the tool he had to protect himself from.

Forget how it played out. It was a crowd of hundreds of irrational, violent people and lawless mod. What if the mob swarmed/overwhelmed him when he was separated from his "group", someone took the gun off him and just shot wildly into the crowd or started mowing down the cops.

The rifle just did not need to be present on the streets, wielded by a civilian to protect property that wasn't his in the middle of a riot. A million ways it could have gone south including the way it did. All the arguments for self defense are in the context of the 5 seconds that precede that specific event but ignore the hours of "getting yourself in the middle of this" that went into it.

Again, trying to relate emotionally to him in the context of a mountain of compounded bad decisions is totally putting the events in a vacuum.


----------



## narad

Jonathan20022 said:


> I don't know about any of you, but no matter what position I was in, if my fucking life rested on the balance and this was the "evidence" used to ascertain what I was doing in any given moment. I'd tell the prosecution to fuck off and find better evidence.
> 
> Devices that capture media *absolutely *spit out content that is inherently modified via algorithms and AI. *No*, it will not alter clear in focus subjects in a drastic way, but some shit in the background you had to zoom in on? Yeah your device is going to make estimations of what it's seeing and modify the result depending on the device/applications used.



Everything you ever saw on a digital video is the output of an algorithm. So if you want to support that idea, are you open to question every case in which digital footage was used? Can't trust 1s and 0s. Let's not forget they're also susceptible to cosmic radiation.


----------



## Randy

Considering like 30 seconds after the first shooting, there was the fucking Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade of cops marching down the street in their direction, I'd imagine if Kyle Rittenhouse as unarmed and just trying to clean up graffiti, and was scared for his life he could have found a cop and/or escaped.

He needed the rifle to protect himself for his altruistic plans for being there? So I'm assuming there were unarmed anti-protestors that were being beaten to death just for being there? If he didn't have a gun, how would the rest of the mob singled him out for execution?


----------



## ArtDecade

When a crowd of dumbasses meets a crowd of dumbasses with guns, chaos ensues. At the end of the day, no one in this clusterfuck was innocent. They got what they wanted - and what they wanted was to hurt each other. Stop with the partisan nonsense, start talking and collaborating, and realize we are all in this together. We have a blip of time together. Let's enjoy it.

Thank for attending my drunk Ted-Talk.


----------



## narad

ArtDecade said:


> Stop with the partisan nonsense, start talking and collaborating, and realize we are all in this together. We have a blip of time together. Let's enjoy it.



I can't. Someone is wrong on the internet.


----------



## TedEH

Chokey Chicken said:


> And given his past, which we all now know, he earned it. Maybe Kyle didn't know it outright, but he made a decision in the moment, and it turns out that decision was correct... Because a man who body slams their wife deserves to be put to a dirt nap


I'm only half following the thread at this point, and not following the story at all, but this sounds like exactly the wrong way to dole out justice regardless of who you think deserves it. You don't just fire guns off in random directions and hope that it hits someone who "deserved it". This reads to me as an emotional reaction instead of a rational one.

Self defence is an argument worth having, IMO, but "he had it coming to him" is not. (Edit: by argument worth having, I mean in general - I haven't followed enough to say re: this context)


----------



## vilk

He went there to kill. He's on video talking about wanting to kill people, then he took an AK to a riot and lit someone up. And then killed two others in "self-defense" after he had already become an active shooter. 

American white supremacist fascist ammosexuals prejac in their jeans over idea of putting down an active shooter... Until it's one of their own.


----------



## Jonathan20022

narad said:


> Everything you ever saw on a digital video is the output of an algorithm. So if you want to support that idea, are you open to question every case in which digital footage was used? Can't trust 1s and 0s. Let's not forget they're also susceptible to cosmic radiation.



Yeah I'm gonna go live on a deserted island to get away from the radiowaves and get my news organically via message in the bottle. I think you know me better than to patronize dude  I've literally listened to the trial for the last 3 - 4 days in the background while I work. 







This is the only piece of evidence that's being questioned, (Other than I guess the gmail video compression bit yesterday ) and the contention was to either use raw footage from the capture device or find a clearer/closer capture of the same incident. 

The jury's interpretation of this image and wether you were brandishing the firearm or not is what sits between you sitting in jail for the rest of your life based on arguing intent. I stand by my point, if any of us were in Kyle's shoes I'd argue a need for better more clear evidence to make that point if that's going to be some key evidence.

 It's a high profile case, if there's ever been a time to worry about and maintain some standard on data integrity now's the time.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> A unarmed mob chasing a guy armed with a rifle is idiotic. A guy with a rifle shooting one of the unarmed guys in the mob chasing him is equally as idiotic, though.
> 
> I think we all know that Rittenhouse is likely to walk free from this. I think that whether he is locked up or goes free, ultimately, it sends an equally as dangerous message to society, because either we are saying a) it's okay to insert yourself into a tense and dangerous situation as long as you have a gun and take out a couple of other people who were stupid enough to insert themselves into the same dangerous situation or b) it's not okay to defend yourself from an angry mob chasing you. Thanks to the combination of public stupidity, the incompetence of the prosecution, and the flamboyance of the judge in playing this out as everyone expected (and then acting like it's the media's fault for portraying him for whom he really is), there is no winning outcome.
> 
> It's the loss of subtlety that's the real criminal here.




Or nothing changes because this is America after all  .
America, where it's already accepted, nay dare I say encouraged, to put yourself in dumb dangerous situations; and where shootings are also pretty much customary, with the guy wielding the biggest stick winning in the end.

Or what else is new? That a young white dude gets to not only walk home with the cops approval after shooting 3 dudes, but then also be celebrated for months as a hero by the right? That sadly also feels pretty mundane for the country at this point, and there hasn't been anything subtle about it for years and years 


TedEH said:


> I'm only half following the thread at this point, and not following the story at all, but this sounds like exactly the wrong way to dole out justice regardless of who you think deserves it. You don't just fire guns off in random directions and hope that it hits someone who "deserved it". This reads to me as an emotional reaction instead of a rational one.
> 
> Self defence is an argument worth having, IMO, but "he had it coming to him" is not. (Edit: by argument worth having, I mean in general - I haven't followed enough to say re: this context)



Plus "he was not a good person he deserved it" is exactly the way right winger integrists comb through the victim's every past action everytime someone with slightly darker-than-white skin gets summarily executed by police.

Remind me what the riots were about, again?


----------



## narad

Jonathan20022 said:


> Yeah I'm gonna go live on a deserted island to get away from the radiowaves and get my news organically via message in the bottle. I think you know me better than to patronize dude  I've literally listened to the trial for the last 3 - 4 days in the background while I work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the only piece of evidence that's being questioned, (Other than I guess the gmail video compression bit yesterday ) and the contention was to either use raw footage from the capture device or find a clearer/closer capture of the same incident.
> 
> The jury's interpretation of this image and wether you were brandishing the firearm or not is what sits between you sitting in jail for the rest of your life based on arguing intent. I stand by my point, if any of us were in Kyle's shoes I'd argue a need for better more clear evidence to make that point if that's going to be some key evidence.
> 
> It's a high profile case, if there's ever been a time to worry about and maintain some standard on data integrity now's the time.



Of course I'd find that an unacceptable quality of evidence. But of course the IPad/AI "logarithms" argument was inane, too. Maybe the destination is the same, but it matters that how we get there isn't built on a BS understanding of how tech works.


----------



## philkilla

mbardu said:


> Remind me what the riots were about, again?



Yet another POS that made poor life choices that ultimately led himself to getting shot up by policemen.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> Yet another POS that made poor life choices that ultimately led himself to getting shot up by policemen.



And a lot of poor policing that led to another POS getting shot up vs. handcuffed and in court.


----------



## _MonSTeR_

philkilla said:


> Yet another POS that made poor life choices that ultimately led himself to getting shot up by policemen.





narad said:


> And a lot of poor policing that led to another POS getting shot up vs. handcuffed and in court.



And round and round and round we go...

Luckily, here in the UK, shootings are a lot less common, but to me as an outsider unfortunately these two posts seem sum up the whole chicken/egg problem


----------



## narad

_MonSTeR_ said:


> And round and round and round we go...
> 
> Luckily, here in the UK, shootings are a lot less common, but to me as an outsider unfortunately these two posts seem sum up the whole chicken/egg problem



I think the difference is that criminals are assumed to be ...criminal. You can't wrap up any form of resistance in a police interaction as justification for shooting people. Police on the other hand are supposed to be smart about how they approach these situations. Watching the Jacob Blake footage, the only thing missing is the Benny Hill soundtrack. What a complete shitshow. And take a look at Rayshard Brooks. Or Philando Castile. These are situations that didn't need to happen if police had better policies and training.


----------



## StevenC

_MonSTeR_ said:


> And round and round and round we go...
> 
> Luckily, here in the UK, shootings are a lot less common, but to me as an outsider unfortunately these two posts seem sum up the whole chicken/egg problem


I'm told in most of the UK police don't even carry weapons. But even here where they all have a gun, there are basically 0 police shootings.


----------



## _MonSTeR_

I think the main thing is that in most of the UK where the police aren't routinely armed the assumption is that things aren't going escalate to a random traffic stop turning into a firefight. 

What frightens me in the Jacob Blake footage is that Blake just seems to carry on like the police aren't even there! Who on earth ignores the orders from police officers with weapons trained on them?!!? And then, when he leans into the vehicle they shoot him. There's literally NOTHING good that goes on in that footage. I'm not pretending to know how to do it better, but I can see if a suspect can logically be assumed to be armed and won't do what he's ordered to do by armed police then things are going to go south, very badly, very quickly.


----------



## CanserDYI

Fuck this country....


----------



## narad

_MonSTeR_ said:


> I think the main thing is that in most of the UK where the police aren't routinely armed the assumption is that things aren't going escalate to a random traffic stop turning into a firefight.
> 
> What frightens me in the Jacob Blake footage is that Blake just seems to carry on like the police aren't even there! Who on earth ignores the orders from police officers with weapons trained on them?!!? And then, when he leans into the vehicle they shoot him. There's literally NOTHING good that goes on in that footage. I'm not pretending to know how to do it better, but I can see if a suspect can logically be assumed to be armed and won't do what he's ordered to do by armed police then things are going to go south, very badly, very quickly.



I mean there was no pressing dangerous situation that they showed up to. And it's not like they were ambushed. They start with distance on Black, and guns, and not really any reason to lose control of the situation. Instead they establish no sense of control of anything, one winds up in a headlock, and they let the suspect get back in the car. My German friend just looked at the event like... what is going on in the US? Do they even train the officers?


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> https://abc7.com/starbucks-fight-santa-ana-man-dies-skateboard/1098183/


Learn something new every day.  

Still, this pretty clearly was not a proportional use of force.


----------



## Drew

Jonathan20022 said:


> This is the only piece of evidence that's being questioned, (Other than I guess the gmail video compression bit yesterday ) and the contention was to either use raw footage from the capture device or find a clearer/closer capture of the same incident.


Actually, it's not. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-two-fatal-shootings-kyle-rittenhous-rcna5094

That's a link to the higher quality drone footage that was released. It's _considerably_ clearer than the low-res image you're using as an example.


----------



## Adieu

_MonSTeR_ said:


> I think the main thing is that in most of the UK where the police aren't routinely armed the assumption is that things aren't going escalate to a random traffic stop turning into a firefight.
> 
> What frightens me in the Jacob Blake footage is that Blake just seems to carry on like the police aren't even there! Who on earth ignores the orders from police officers with weapons trained on them?!!? And then, when he leans into the vehicle they shoot him. There's literally NOTHING good that goes on in that footage. I'm not pretending to know how to do it better, but I can see if a suspect can logically be assumed to be armed and won't do what he's ordered to do by armed police then things are going to go south, very badly, very quickly.



I'm sorry, what wonderfully authoritarian law says that you have to obey some cop UNDER PENALTY OF SUMMARY EXECUTION???

Ignoring the police is a perfectly normal reaction.

Also, half the time they want your ID or some sh!t and tend to yell a lot regardless of the situation, so reaching for your wallet which people often leave in their cars isn't too damn shocking

Btw the whole American nonsense of "oh no don't do that they might feel threatened by that and decide to murder you just in case" is what's wrong here


----------



## Adieu

Russia once put a cop on trial for shooting a bloodied naked man who charged him BRANDISHING A SEVERED PENIS. In the middle of winter.

Because it's not a cop's job to get scared and shoot people.

And you know you're doing it wrong if the RUSSIAN POLICE manage to do better.


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> Russia once put a cop on trial for shooting a bloodied naked man who charged him BRANDISHING A SEVERED PENIS. In the middle of winter.
> 
> Because it's not a cop's job to get scared and shoot people.
> 
> And you know you're doing it wrong if the RUSSIAN POLICE manage to do better.


Yeah, the death penalty is awful and dumb.

Worse yet is police having immunity to administer it.

Worse than that is some 17 year old making that decision. Especially if say he had to break other laws to do it.


----------



## Jonathan20022

Drew said:


> Actually, it's not.
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-two-fatal-shootings-kyle-rittenhous-rcna5094
> 
> That's a link to the higher quality drone footage that was released. It's _considerably_ clearer than the low-res image you're using as an example.



No.. what you are now sharing and what I was talking about are entirely different things.

The video you just shared in that link is of Rosenbaum's murder, these are two completely different points and videos we're talking about. Let's not obfuscate that, the purpose of the video in your link is to determine the interactions right before Joseph died, and to determine if Kyle really feared for his life substantiating a right to self defense.

The image I shared is from an earlier point in the trial and the first time the (iPad/AI/Pinch to Zoom) evidences' reliability on wether Rittenhouse was brandishing his weapon at several points vs just carrying it. There was an assertion that he was just pointing it at people on high alert regularly all night, it was the point to drive *intent* home. It would support the notion that he was there with a rifle definitely to shoot someone dead that night.


----------



## philkilla

_MonSTeR_ said:


> And round and round and round we go...
> 
> Luckily, here in the UK, shootings are a lot less common, but to me as an outsider unfortunately these two posts seem sum up the whole chicken/egg problem



Well I don't know. I've always complied with officers or people in a position of authority that have authorization to disable and kill if they're a threat to someone.

Maybe I'm just wired differently, or maybe I don't have enough of a racial spin on it.


----------



## fantom

Chokey Chicken said:


> So the consensus in this forum is "privileged white 17 year old's brains against the floor good, but privileged 3 white guys with huge rap sheets including kid rape and wife beating and domestic abuse are okay?" Gotcha, thanks.



I agree with you that a few people are blindly political and want him guilty without thinking about what crime he actually committed.

But he isn't innocent. The defense that the first victim was a wife beater / kid raper doesn't work. Are we better off with people like that in jail or dead, maybe? But, assuming Kyle even know the guy was a rapist or domestic abuser, what right does he have to sentence him to death?

As I said many times before, if you are running around in public with an assault rifle, you damned well understand that you will be perceived as a threat. You better understand the situations where it is ok to use that rifle. Kyle didn't. Plain and simple. There is no world where shooting someone 4 times, including the head and back, is an appropriate response to them yelling at you for being there in the first place, then following/chasing you with a chain. Shoot them in the leg and stop shooting, ok. Shoot the ground a few times to scare them, ok. Shoot to kill, not ok. He lost control because he didn't understand the reckless situation he was in. He had no forethought that shooting a guy in the leg would cause them him to fall down. The fact he used excessive force and lost control means self defense makes no sense here.

And after that... He shot at 3 more people, killing 1 of them and maiming another.

Who is the criminal here? Those other victims knew there was an active shooter and it was reasonable for them to assume it was Kyle. So they had every right to assume he was a criminal on the loose. But somehow, you flip it around and assume Kyle knew someone was a criminal so it was ok to kill then while denying that the other victims, who weren't criminals, had no right to defend themselves from an active shooter? Give me a break.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> Well I don't know. I've always complied with officers or people in a position of authority that have authorization to disable and kill if they're a threat to someone.
> 
> Maybe I'm just wired differently, or maybe I don't have enough of a racial spin on it.


It doesn't sound like you live in a free or healthy society.


----------



## narad

fantom said:


> I agree with you that a few people are blindly political and want him guilty without thinking about what crime he actually committed.
> 
> But he isn't innocent. The defense that the first victim was a wife beater / kid raper doesn't work. Are we better off with people like that in jail or dead, maybe? But, assuming Kyle even know the guy was a rapist or domestic abuser, what right does he have to sentence him to death?
> 
> As I said many times before, if you are running around in public with an assault rifle, you damned well understand that you will be perceived as a threat. You better understand the situations where it is ok to use that rifle. Kyle didn't. Plain and simple. There is no world where shooting someone 4 times, including the head and back, is an appropriate response to them yelling at you for being there in the first place, then following/chasing you with a chain. Shoot them in the leg and stop shooting, ok. Shoot the ground a few times to scare them, ok. Shoot to kill, not ok. He lost control because he didn't understand the reckless situation he was in. He had no forethought that shooting a guy in the leg would cause them him to fall down. The fact he used excessive force and lost control means self defense makes no sense here.



But Kyle's like basically a police officer, and police don't shoot to wound. He was just following the procedure of the imaginary job he has.


----------



## ArtDecade

philkilla said:


> Well I don't know. I've always complied with officers or people in a *position of authority that have authorization to disable and kill if they're a threat* to someone.



That's not how things work. That's not how any of this works.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> But Kyle's like basically a police officer, and police don't shoot to wound. He was just following the procedure of the imaginary job he has.



I guess we'll see how he is as a cop in a year or so.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> I guess we'll see how he is as a cop in a year or so.


Jeezuz, I don't know whether to laugh at this or to cry.


----------



## Drew

Jonathan20022 said:


> No.. what you are now sharing and what I was talking about are entirely different things.
> 
> The video you just shared in that link is of Rosenbaum's murder, these are two completely different points and videos we're talking about. Let's not obfuscate that, the purpose of the video in your link is to determine the interactions right before Joseph died, and to determine if Kyle really feared for his life substantiating a right to self defense.
> 
> The image I shared is from an earlier point in the trial and the first time the (iPad/AI/Pinch to Zoom) evidences' reliability on wether Rittenhouse was brandishing his weapon at several points vs just carrying it. There was an assertion that he was just pointing it at people on high alert regularly all night, it was the point to drive *intent* home. It would support the notion that he was there with a rifle definitely to shoot someone dead that night.


I may have misinterpreted an earlier post where you were talking about the higher-quality video, and talking about this still, back to back as saying that this was an example of a screencap from the higher quality video - if so, then my bad, I misinterpreted what you were saying. 

But, I'd definitely challenge the comment that the only thing being debated is whether he was brandishing his gun in that still, and whether this higher quality video makes this a mistrial - the main reason it was presented in the first case was to help determine if the victim was or was not a threat to Rittenhouse's life at the point he opened fire, and this provides a clearer look at that scene.


----------



## ArtDecade

MaxOfMetal said:


> I guess we'll see how he is as a cop in a year or so.



I think Gaetz already offered him a job.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> I guess we'll see how he is as a cop in a year or so.



I'd be happy with that outcome, so long as it keeps him from running for office.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> I'd be happy with that outcome, so long as it keeps him from running for office.


Don't worry, terrorists make for ineffective political leaders in my experience.


----------



## ArtDecade

StevenC said:


> Don't worry, terrorists make for ineffective political leaders in my experience.



Yeah, but Ted Cruz keeps getting re-elected.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I guess we'll see how he is as a cop in a year or so.



That sentient hard boiled egg? I can't see him doing anything that requires physical labor. Podcast host maybe?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Jeezuz, I don't know whether to laugh at this or to cry.



Don't laugh. Having killed two unarmed people he's already one of Wisconsin's (where he's currently of legal age to be a police officer) most experienced law enforcement officers.


----------



## nightflameauto

ArtDecade said:


> Yeah, but Ted Cruz keeps getting re-elected.


Being a rat-faced weasel with a penchant for turning tail when things get hard is hardly terrorism. Some of his policy positions, when he dares to actually have one other than kissing Trump's ass, are borderline, I suppose.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> That sentient hard boiled egg? I can't see him doing anything that requires physical labor. Podcast host maybe?



I'm thinking more the admin of a private far-right FB group for police to blow off steam by fantasizing about raping and murdering the people they're paid to protect.


----------



## bostjan

It seems a lot of people arguing that Huber deserved to die because he had assaulted a woman are missing the tidbit that Rittenhouse had also assaulted a female in July of 2020, and it was recorded on video.

This is also the same kid that, while out on $2M bail, and underage, went out drinking with the "Proud Boys."

From a logical argument, he broke the law by stirring up trouble and bringing a gun illegally into a riot with intent to kill someone. I think that alone really makes it difficult to see the self-defense aspect as black and white. But, if you want to throw all of that out the window and look only at the emotional arguments, this kid is certainly not a nice person, and not a contributor to society. He's a high-school drop-out with multiple recorded violent interactions with the public, including one in which two people died as a result of his actions, and who has demonstrated no respect at all for the law.


----------



## mbardu

Turns out even here we have some people not only tolerating, but actually celebrating police or vigilantes summarily executing citizens in the streets just because someone may have done something wrong in the past. Often just as a post hoc justification too, when the killer had no way to know on the spot.

Wow... Judge Dredd is actually a wet dream for some people.


----------



## mbardu

philkilla said:


> Well I don't know. I've always complied with officers or people in a position of authority that have authorization to disable and kill if they're a threat to someone.
> 
> Maybe I'm just wired differently, or maybe I don't have enough of a racial spin on it.



Yeah you're wired a bit differently if you think the use of deadly force as done in the US is the way things should be. The police is not authorized to kill you. The fact that they often _get away with_ it because of being in bed with prosecutors and because of the weight of their unions does not mean they should be entitled to do so and that they're doing a good job.

Nothing racial about it either. There's just supposed to be this idea that Justice doesn't mean twitchy gun-happy officers killing you on the spot the moment they get startled and justifying it after the fact because maybe you were a bad person one day.

Does it mean the people killed were good people? No. Does it mean they deserved to live? Well first things first, morally nobody is the arbiter of who deserves to live or not. But anyway, legally, the punishment for past crimes and misdemeanors should be determined through laws, statutes and a trial if it gets to that.

The punishment for past crimes and misdemeanors should never be random execution without a trial by police officer, or even worse, by private citizen.


----------



## Adieu

ArtDecade said:


> Yeah, but Ted Cruz keeps getting re-elected.



Dude he only killed the Kennedys, that's a public service not terrorism


----------



## _MonSTeR_

Adieu said:


> I'm sorry, what wonderfully authoritarian law says that you have to obey some cop UNDER PENALTY OF SUMMARY EXECUTION???
> 
> Ignoring the police is a perfectly normal reaction.
> 
> Also, half the time they want your ID or some sh!t and tend to yell a lot regardless of the situation, so reaching for your wallet which people often leave in their cars isn't too damn shocking
> 
> Btw the whole American nonsense of "oh no don't do that they might feel threatened by that and decide to murder you just in case" is what's wrong here



I’m not sure of what law it is, but it does seem to be an unfortunate reality... 

Maybe it’s my white middle class privilege, but no one I know would see any law abiding citizen ignore the police and consider it a perfectly normal reaction.


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> This is also the same kid that, while out on $2M bail, and underage, went out drinking with the "Proud Boys."



...and then shortly after, flew to Florida and was picked up at the airport by the Proud Boys’ national leader.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Dude he only killed the Kennedys, that's a public service not terrorism



You sure about that? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac_Killer


----------



## Adieu

_MonSTeR_ said:


> I’m not sure of what law it is, but it does seem to be an unfortunate reality...
> 
> Maybe it’s my white middle class privilege, but no one I know would see any law abiding citizen ignore the police and consider it a perfectly normal reaction.



Why? Because you're afraid of being murdered in broad daylight?


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> It doesn't sound like you live in a free or healthy society.



So you're implying if I'm doing something illegal, let's say driving 50mph over the legal limit that I should be belligerent and aggressive with police, because that would promote a healthy and free society?


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> So you're implying if I'm doing something illegal, let's say driving 50mph over the legal limit that I should be belligerent and aggressive with police, because that would promote a healthy and free society?


No, I'm saying you shouldn't have to worry about them shooting you.


----------



## bostjan

philkilla said:


> So you're implying if I'm doing something illegal, let's say driving 50mph over the legal limit that I should be belligerent and aggressive with police, because that would promote a healthy and free society?


Huh? How do you get that out of anything anyone said to you?

If we live in a nation where the pervasive belief is that the police will kill you the moment you hesitate to obey the orders that they bark at you, then we do not live in a free and healthy society.

No one is saying drive as fast as you want or otherwise break the law. We know through several examples, many of us firsthand, that the police don't necessarily know shit about the law, and yet they _will_ shoot you the moment you hesitate to follow any shouted command. I personally know not one, not two, but three people who were killed by the police. Two white (one male and one female), one black (male), all three young and not using class-A judgement, but none of them had ever been in trouble with the law prior to being killed by police, and none of them were doing anything threatening at the time they were confronted nor killed.

It's the way it is here, and it's not right. Why should there be so many police shootings? You see them on the news, but I guarantee that what you see nationally isn't even a tenth of what happens. Of the three people I knew who were shot and killed, only one made the local paper, probably because she was a white female shot by a white female cop. The other two didn't even get a one-paragraph story in the local paper. Hell, if the paper printed a story for every kid who was killed by the police in Detroit, the paper wouldn't have room to print anything else.

When Daniel Shaver was shot by police, the entire interaction was recorded, and he was unarmed and begging for his life. He was ordered to do impossible things like get up from a seated position without uncrossing his legs, and then he was shot for not listening. The cop in that case had several engravings on his service weapon. He might as well have kept notches in the stock for how many innocent people he killed, but no, it was stuff like "You're fucked." The cop never did any time for the shooting, and his partner retired with full benefits. Just another day on the job for those guys.


----------



## jaxadam

_MonSTeR_ said:


> but no one I know would see any law abiding citizen ignore the police and consider it a perfectly normal reaction.


----------



## Ralyks

Welp, he's walking.


----------



## Jonathan20022

That's fucking wild, I expected at least 1 of the murder charges to stick and still think the weapons charge dropping is total BS.


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> Of the three people I knew who were shot and killed, only one made the local paper, probably because she was a white female shot by a white female cop. The other two didn't even get a one-paragraph story in the local paper. Hell, if the paper printed a story for every kid who was killed by the police in Detroit, the paper wouldn't have room to print anything else.



I do not know one cop that has killed anyone, except for one guy. Most go their entire careers without discharging their weapon. The one I know was terminated for use of deadly force for unloading his clip on the suspect during a traffic stop. This was right after the suspect jumped out of the car with no warning and unloaded a .357 on him, hitting him 4 times and blowing off his right testicle. He had to move out of the state to get a new job.


----------



## ArtDecade

_MonSTeR_ said:


> Maybe it’s my white middle class privilege, but no one I know would see any law abiding citizen ignore the police and consider it a perfectly normal reaction.



Well, you are in England and your cops aren't routinely killing citizens.


----------



## Drew

Jonathan20022 said:


> That's fucking wild, I expected at least 1 of the murder charges to stick and still think the weapons charge dropping is total BS.


Same, I expected some sort of split decision. 

Prosecution should do exactly what I expected the judge to do if he WAS found guity - move for a mistrial n the basis of the improved video quality that the prosecturion used.  

Anyway, it's a good thing I don't watch NewsMax, otherwise I imagine I'd be seeing a lot of this kid in a brand new commentary gig.


----------



## bostjan

Not surprised at all by the verdict.



jaxadam said:


> I do not know one cop that has killed anyone, except for one guy


You don't know one guy, except one guy? What? I mean, it kind of proves my point.



Drew said:


> Same, I expected some sort of split decision.
> 
> Prosecution should do exactly what I expected the judge to do if he WAS found guity - move for a mistrial n the basis of the improved video quality that the prosecturion used.
> 
> Anyway, it's a good thing I don't watch NewsMax, otherwise I imagine I'd be seeing a lot of this kid in a brand new commentary gig.



This prosecutor is probably the most inept I've seen. If I was the DA, I'd be looking into how I could get him fired right now.

The way this reads to the Proud Boys, KKK, etc., is that it's 100% okay to show up at protests with deadly weapons and whatever happens happens.

That's the scariest part of this.


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> You don't know one guy, except one guy? What? I mean, it kind of proves my point.



Poor choice of words.  I think I meant to type that sentence differently, but what I was getting at is: I know a lot of LEO, and only one has ever used deadly force, and his life is physically and mentally ruined in addition to his career. Unlike your experiences, my experiences dispel the notion that most LEO are blood-hungry and out there shooting everyone up, then getting a trophy for it when they get back to headquarters.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

We'll never really know because the powers that be don't care to track.


----------



## bostjan

jaxadam said:


> Poor choice of words.  I think I meant to type that sentence differently, but what I was getting at is: I know a lot of LEO, and only one has ever used deadly force, and his life is physically and mentally ruined in addition to his career. Unlike your experiences, my experiences dispel the notion that most LEO are blood-hungry and out there shooting everyone up, then getting a trophy for it when they get back to headquarters.


I don't think most of them are. I think a few of them are out there undoing any of the good the majority of them are doing. I also don't think that if a cop shoots a person that it's automatically the cop's fault.

However. When it clearly is the cop's fault, the cop usually faces a totally different level of punishment than anyone else would.

And now we have the precedent that a vigilante should face the same level of systemic protection.

EDIT - What I would like to see is not DEFUND THE POLICE or any such nonsense, but rather that we end the practice of cops covering for each other and getting their own set of rules. I can hear arguments already that being a cop is a dangerous job. But being a soldier is an even more dangerous job at times, and if there's compulsory service, you don't even get the option of saying "naw, I don't want to do that." Yet, if a soldier ups and shoots some civilians, even if their buddies try to cover for them, once they are caught, they face serious consequences. It doesn't make sense.


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> We'll never really know because the powers that be don't care to track.



And it doesn't even need to be "*most* cops are killing people with impunity". But clearly, at least some are doing so, and facing little consequences for their actions - under a system that doesn't seem to change.

Oh, and now apparently it extends to armed civilian right wingers who can also kill without consequence apparently


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> ...
> ... It doesn't make sense.



America in a nutshell


----------



## spudmunkey

I was definitely surprised by the "on all counts" part. Specifically because (and maybe I misunderstood) the jury was able to consider lesser charges than what the prosecution was going for...but herpes they only had a specific limited menu to pic from based on what the actual prosecuted charges were.


----------



## jaxadam

spudmunkey said:


> but *herpes* they only had a specific limited menu to pic from based on what the actual prosecuted charges were.



Autocorrect is a bitch!


----------



## Demiurge

https://www.theonion.com/kyle-rittenhouse-sentenced-to-45-years-of-cpac-appearan-1848090682


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> No, I'm saying you shouldn't have to worry about them shooting you.



Yah I don't, because I'm not a fucking idiot.

If all the "victims" would have thought before they acted, this thread wouldn't have been necessary.


----------



## Choop

philkilla said:


> Yah I don't, because I'm not a fucking idiot.
> 
> If all the "victims" would have thought before they acted, this thread wouldn't have been necessary.



lol.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> Yah I don't, because I'm not a fucking idiot.
> 
> If all the "victims" would have thought before they acted, this thread wouldn't have been necessary.


You're irreconcilably stupid or willfully ignorant. Though having been to Clarksville, makes sense.


----------



## ArtDecade

philkilla said:


> Yah I don't, because I'm not a fucking idiot.



Debatable.


----------



## Louis Cypher

philkilla said:


> If all the "victims" would have thought before they acted, this thread wouldn't have been necessary.


What the actual fuck are you on?


----------



## Adieu

Fuuuuuuck

Any guesses what message this sends to all the wack jobs out there?

Looks like we now officially live in a country where you need to stfu, stay home quiet as a mouse, and bar your windows... or drive a goddamn technical and wear body armor with grenades to the grocery store


----------



## jaxadam

StevenC said:


> You're irreconcilably stupid or willfully ignorant. Though having been to Clarksville, makes sense.



Boy, you're on fire with all of these personal attacks lately. But did you know he's originally from *sigh* Jacksonville?


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> You're irreconcilably stupid or willfully ignorant. Though having been to Clarksville, makes sense.



Thanks for the wanton remark, but I'm actually from Florida...so I guess that makes me worse.


----------



## jaxadam

philkilla said:


> Thanks for the wanton remark, but I'm actually from Florida...so I guess that makes me worse.



Phil, he's not talking about soup buddy...

And man... nothing strikes a nerve more than being made fun of where you're not from!


----------



## bostjan

@philkilla What did Philando Castile do to warrant getting shot?

@Adieu Body armor isn't legal everywhere in the USA under all normal circumstances. The preferred protection method is to strap on enough guns to virtually cover your entire body with them. Not that guns deflect bullets or anything, but they are so revered here that no True American™ would dare to shoot a gun at another gun.


----------



## philkilla

bostjan said:


> @philkilla What did Philando Castile do to warrant getting shot?
> 
> @Adieu Body armor isn't legal everywhere in the USA under all normal circumstances. The preferred protection method is to strap on enough guns to virtually cover your entire body with them. Not that guns deflect bullets or anything, but they are so revered here that no True American™ would dare to shoot a gun at another gun.



That's a loaded question; a quick review of the wiki gives the impression he did nothing at all. He was killed by a cop that couldn't stay calm under pressure.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> Boy, you're on fire with all of these personal attacks lately. But did you know he's originally from *sigh* Jacksonville?


Stunningly, despite the reputation, everyone I know from Jacksonville are actually very decent people.


----------



## Adieu

So wait, taking illegal machine guns across state lines with intent to murder is ok(ish), but body armor can get you locked up?


----------



## jaxadam

StevenC said:


> Stunningly, despite the reputation, everyone I know from Jacksonville are actually very decent people.



Not those yuppies from Ponte Vedra Beach!


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> Not those yuppies from Ponte Vedra Beach!


Everybody I know is from Jacksonville Beach, but not as far South as Ponte Vedra.


----------



## bostjan

philkilla said:


> That's a loaded question; a quick review of the wiki gives the impression he did nothing at all. He was killed by a cop that couldn't stay calm under pressure.


Ok, so it sounds like he got pulled over for a broken tail light and ended up getting murdered by a cop. What did Justine Dammond do to deserve getting shot by a cop?

Do you see where I am going with this? No one in the USA, and I mean _no one_, doesn't ever have the thought cross their mind that they might get blasted by a cop on a trip.

How many felonies have I committed? Zero. How many times have I, personally, had a cop point a gun at me? Two. Once for making noise out late and once for speeding. I was actually making the noise, and I wasn't even actually speeding. Both cops on power trips. During both incidents, I was clean cut, clean shaven, and well dressed. If this is what I've dealt with, I can't imagine someone who is black or has piercings or face tattoos or whatever. This isn't just isolated incidents, and I think you are well aware of that being from here.


----------



## Ralyks

I yield my time, fuck Kyle, fuck Schroeder.


----------



## philkilla

bostjan said:


> Ok, so it sounds like he got pulled over for a broken tail light and ended up getting murdered by a cop. What did Justine Dammond do to deserve getting shot by a cop?
> 
> Do you see where I am going with this? No one in the USA, and I mean _no one_, doesn't ever have the thought cross their mind that they might get blasted by a cop on a trip.
> 
> How many felonies have I committed? Zero. How many times have I, personally, had a cop point a gun at me? Two. Once for making noise out late and once for speeding. I was actually making the noise, and I wasn't even actually speeding. Both cops on power trips. During both incidents, I was clean cut, clean shaven, and well dressed. If this is what I've dealt with, I can't imagine someone who is black or has piercings or face tattoos or whatever. This isn't just isolated incidents, and I think you are well aware of that being from here.



Yah dude, that's horrible shit.

If you apply that logic to any and every encounter with policemen for the rest of your life you're just screwing yourself.

I'm not here attempting to justify people getting smoked by incompetent cops.


----------



## Choop

philkilla said:


> Yah dude, that's horrible shit.
> 
> If you apply that logic to any and every encounter with policemen for the rest of your life you're just screwing yourself.
> 
> I'm not here attempting to justify people getting smoked by incompetent cops.



You did imply that you would have to be a "fucking idiot" to get killed by a cop.


----------



## jaxadam

StevenC said:


> Everybody I know is from Jacksonville Beach, but not as far South as Ponte Vedra.



Jax Beach?! Nothing but a bunch of hippie stoner surfer yoga-doin vegans! Or tatted up crossfitters pounding Captain and Sodas at the Ritz.


----------



## Kaura

Adieu said:


> Fuuuuuuck
> 
> Any guesses what message this sends to all the wack jobs out there?
> 
> Looks like we now officially live in a country where you need to stfu, stay home quiet as a mouse, and bar your windows... or drive a goddamn technical and wear body armor with grenades to the grocery store



Nah, just don't go out starting fires and rioting and you're good.


----------



## bostjan

philkilla said:


> Yah dude, that's horrible shit.
> 
> If you apply that logic to any and every encounter with policemen for the rest of your life you're just screwing yourself.
> 
> I'm not here attempting to justify people getting smoked by incompetent cops.



Okay, so let's apply a little critical thinking here. You take someone, basically anyone, who grew up in a big city like Detroit, Philly, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, New York, whatever, and you figure they likely had a cop on a power trip harass them at some point in their life, and knew at least one person who got smoked by a crazy cop, and then you put that person into a situation where they get pulled over by a normal non-crazy cop, who is trained, that's right _trained_, to believe that he/she can read people's minds to some extent by the way they act. Depending on the jurisdiction, the cop might also be trained to respond to suspicious people aggressively. Of course this person is going to be nervous. It's like taking someone who was attacked by wolves and who's friend was eaten by wolves and throwing them naked into a kennel with a hungry wolf.

We need to fix the problem by looking at how these cops are trained and training them better. Cops are not human lie detectors, no matter how much training they receive, and they can always tell if a person is high just by talking to them, even though they are trained to believe that they can do these things, and they are trained that their abilities are grounds enough to detain people or even shoot them if they don't comply with illegal orders. There's a huge gap in the training. I'm not saying that cops need to go to law school and become paralegals, but you know, that wouldn't be a bad thing. They should, though, at least be taught accurate information. They need to approach policing not with the attitude of kicking ass and chewing gum, but the department can't afford to give them any gum, but rather that there are a lot of people who need their help, and that they are supposed to protect and serve the community. Some precincts are doing that, mostly in small towns, but some aren't, and the big cities like NYC, LA, the D, Naptown, Minneapolis, etc., are training them wrong and it shows. How many police shootings have been happening in Minneapolis in the news lately? Lots. "She startled me" should never ever be a reason why a cop rolled down their squad car window and then shot someone. "He said he had a CCW" should never be a reason for a cop to fire multiple shots at a man during a traffic stop. "I thought it was my taser" is a shit excuse. If it happened once, I would believe it's a bad cop, but almost a dozen shootings in just a few years, all with the stupidest excuses ever, this is systematic.


----------



## ArtDecade

Speaking of cops that give all cops a terrible name, Google a guy named Chad Vorce. Luckily, no one was killed because he wanted to the neighborhood race watch.


----------



## philkilla

bostjan said:


> Okay, so let's apply a little critical thinking here. You take someone, basically anyone, who grew up in a big city like Detroit, Philly, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, New York, whatever, and you figure they likely had a cop on a power trip harass them at some point in their life, and knew at least one person who got smoked by a crazy cop, and then you put that person into a situation where they get pulled over by a normal non-crazy cop, who is trained, that's right _trained_, to believe that he/she can read people's minds to some extent by the way they act. Depending on the jurisdiction, the cop might also be trained to respond to suspicious people aggressively. Of course this person is going to be nervous. It's like taking someone who was attacked by wolves and who's friend was eaten by wolves and throwing them naked into a kennel with a hungry wolf.
> 
> We need to fix the problem by looking at how these cops are trained and training them better. Cops are not human lie detectors, no matter how much training they receive, and they can always tell if a person is high just by talking to them, even though they are trained to believe that they can do these things, and they are trained that their abilities are grounds enough to detain people or even shoot them if they don't comply with illegal orders. There's a huge gap in the training. I'm not saying that cops need to go to law school and become paralegals, but you know, that wouldn't be a bad thing. They should, though, at least be taught accurate information. They need to approach policing not with the attitude of kicking ass and chewing gum, but the department can't afford to give them any gum, but rather that there are a lot of people who need their help, and that they are supposed to protect and serve the community. Some precincts are doing that, mostly in small towns, but some aren't, and the big cities like NYC, LA, the D, Naptown, Minneapolis, etc., are training them wrong and it shows. How many police shootings have been happening in Minneapolis in the news lately? Lots. "She startled me" should never ever be a reason why a cop rolled down their squad car window and then shot someone. "He said he had a CCW" should never be a reason for a cop to fire multiple shots at a man during a traffic stop. "I thought it was my taser" is a shit excuse. If it happened once, I would believe it's a bad cop, but almost a dozen shootings in just a few years, all with the stupidest excuses ever, this is systematic.



Fair enough.

Advocate for change aside from a message board.

Fund a group of like minded individuals that can push said change without applying political or racial bias.

Stop advocating and applauding protests that become riots, and approving of the consensus that it's "just property, no one is getting hurt".


When people act like fucking animals (in the context of every riot of 2020) and they get treated like fucking animals, they have EARNED said treatment.

That's my point.


----------



## bostjan

philkilla said:


> Advocate for change aside from a message board.



Who told you I don't?



philkilla said:


> Fund a group of like minded individuals that can push said change without applying political or racial bias.



I don't have that kind of cash. I've tried such things, but people with enough cash didn't chip in enough.



philkilla said:


> Stop advocating and applauding protests that become riots, and approving of the consensus that it's "just property, no one is getting hurt".



When did I ever advocate any riot? Which protest did I applaud? When did I contend that property damage was okay?



philkilla said:


> When people act like fucking animals (in the context of every riot of 2020) and they get treated like fucking animals, they have EARNED said treatment.
> 
> That's my point.



Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were such animals. None of them would have been people I would have ever had any interest in sitting with and talking over a couple of beers. The thing is that Rittenhouse just became the poster boy for Vigilante justice. Honestly, I don't think he deserved the charges of first degree murder. But the fact that he's not even getting a "no no, bad boy" for hopping into the middle of a riot with a deadly weapon and the stated goal of killing someone is bullshit.


----------



## philkilla

bostjan said:


> Who told you I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have that kind of cash. I've tried such things, but people with enough cash didn't chip in enough.
> 
> 
> 
> When did I ever advocate any riot? Which protest did I applaud? When did I contend that property damage was okay?
> 
> 
> 
> Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were such animals. None of them would have been people I would have ever had any interest in sitting with and talking over a couple of beers. The thing is that Rittenhouse just became the poster boy for Vigilante justice. Honestly, I don't think he deserved the charges of first degree murder. But the fact that he's not even getting a "no no, bad boy" for hopping into the middle of a riot with a deadly weapon and the stated goal of killing someone is bullshit.



I'm merely assuming the same thing about you that the majority of this forum assumes about me. I've got 17 years of honorable federal service and I treat people fairly and build up people that need it; anytime I've brought up experience I'm shamed for having anecdotal experience that amounts to nothing.


If you look up my comment about Rittenhouse a year ago in this thread I mention that NONE of them should have been there, and I don't feel sympathy for any of the dead (for which I was lambasted as a sociopath by @Randy).


----------



## Randy

I don't think I've called you a sociopath in over a year, the statute on that claim has run it's course.


----------



## bostjan

Did I make an unfair assumption about you? I apologize if I did, but I thought we were only talking about the case and what was said over the last few posts.

From the perspective of the case, Rittenhouse had no business trying to be Judge Dredd prowling the streets looking for trouble. Not only did he have no business doing that, he was charged with first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and even though the prosecution in the case was about as useful as a bag of rocks is to a drowning man, the evidence shows clearly that that's exactly what he did. The fact that he was acquitted of such means that it's okay to engage in such behaviour, by precedent. I strongly disagree with that.

Next thing that could happen is two vigilantes show up at a protest, and, unaware of each other, end up shooting each other using the same logic Rittenhouse used to shoot three protesters. And then what?


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> When people act like fucking animals (in the context of every riot of 2020) and they get treated like fucking animals, they have EARNED said treatment.
> 
> That's my point.


That's a slippery slope to argue, considering Rittenhouse acted like a fucking murderer, and in turn EARNED to be treated like a fucking murderer.


----------



## philkilla

bostjan said:


> Did I make an unfair assumption about you? I apologize if I did, but I thought we were only talking about the case and what was said over the last few posts.
> 
> From the perspective of the case, Rittenhouse had no business trying to be Judge Dredd prowling the streets looking for trouble. Not only did he have no business doing that, he was charged with first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and even though the prosecution in the case was about as useful as a bag of rocks is to a drowning man, the evidence shows clearly that that's exactly what he did. The fact that he was acquitted of such means that it's okay to engage in such behaviour, by precedent. I strongly disagree with that.
> 
> Next thing that could happen is two vigilantes show up at a protest, and, unaware of each other, end up shooting each other using the same logic Rittenhouse used to shoot three protesters. And then what?



I still think that kid is dumb as fuck for what he did; good intentions or not.

I hope I don't eat my words, but in most cases you would be hard pressed to see actual professional soldiers or service members from doing what he did (I'm making this statement and precluding the mall ninja/meal team 6 types..)

Guys and gals like us that shoot for hobby and as a profession know better than to put it all on the line for internet clout or misaligned intent.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> That's a slippery slope to argue, considering Rittenhouse acted like a fucking murderer, and in turn EARNED to be treated like a fucking murderer.



No argument there; he made that bed.

The only thing that saved his life (and I've used this point when I train junior marksman in the army) is his use of the sling attached to the rifle.


----------



## Choop

bostjan said:


> Did I make an unfair assumption about you? I apologize if I did, but I thought we were only talking about the case and what was said over the last few posts.
> 
> From the perspective of the case, Rittenhouse had no business trying to be Judge Dredd prowling the streets looking for trouble. Not only did he have no business doing that, he was charged with first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and even though the prosecution in the case was about as useful as a bag of rocks is to a drowning man, the evidence shows clearly that that's exactly what he did. The fact that he was acquitted of such means that it's okay to engage in such behaviour, by precedent. I strongly disagree with that.
> 
> Next thing that could happen is two vigilantes show up at a protest, and, unaware of each other, end up shooting each other using the same logic Rittenhouse used to shoot three protesters. And then what?



I think the whole "I was there to be a medic" angle is just laughably disgusting. The whole point of their presence was intimidation.


----------



## AMOS

bostjan said:


> Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were such animals. None of them would have been people I would have ever had any interest in sitting with and talking over a couple of beers. The thing is that Rittenhouse just became the poster boy for Vigilante justice. Honestly, I don't think he deserved the charges of first degree murder. But the fact that he's not even getting a "no no, bad boy" for hopping into the middle of a riot with a deadly weapon and the stated goal of killing someone is bullshit.



I don't think he'll be a poster boy for anything. It's clear after seeing the videos he wasn't there to intentionally shoot anyone. Vigilantes have clear motives and set out to carry out unlawful shootings. He was the one that was assaulted. Obviously the Jury came to that conclusion. Rittenhouse also gave up his body armor to someone else (something a vigilante wouldn't do)


----------



## AMOS

philkilla said:


> I still think that kid is dumb as fuck for what he did; good intentions or not.
> 
> I hope I don't eat my words, but in most cases you would be hard pressed to see actual professional soldiers or service members from doing what he did (I'm making this statement and precluding the mall ninja/meal team 6 types..)
> 
> Guys and gals like us that shoot for hobby and as a profession know better than to put it all on the line for internet clout or misaligned intent.


I own a shitload of guns and I'm also a Veteran, but I would have been inside my house with them. he made a stupid decision to walk through a riot carrying one (even though WI allows open carry) but he was the one that was assaulted. So in the end he was assaulted for exercising his legal right to carry.


----------



## Adieu

philkilla said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> Advocate for change aside from a message board.
> 
> Fund a group of like minded individuals that can push said change without applying political or racial bias.
> 
> Stop advocating and applauding protests that become riots, and approving of the consensus that it's "just property, no one is getting hurt".
> 
> 
> When people act like fucking animals (in the context of every riot of 2020) and they get treated like fucking animals, they have EARNED said treatment.
> 
> That's my point.



I'm half Ukrainian and half Russian

If it doesn't have a whiff of riot, it's a shit protest and ain't getting nowhere. I *GUARANTEE* IT.

PS and the LESS you riot, the higher the chances of the cops curb stomping you all


----------



## Choop

Leaviathan said:


> I own a shitload of guns and I'm also a Veteran, but I would have been inside my house with them. he made a stupid decision to walk through a riot carrying one (even though WI allows open carry) but he was the one that was assaulted. So in the end he was assaulted for exercising his legal right to carry.



I know technically he wasn't breaking the law by open carrying a rifle, but it'd be disingenuous to pretend that the counter-protestors largely open carrying semi auto rifles at a public protest (over a very heated and sensitive public issue) were not going to escalate the situation. Having firepower out like that in such a brazen way can make people nervous -- it's borderline brandishing except I assume nobody was pointing barrels at anyone else all willy nilly. I'm not saying that this is what you believe, just wanted to bring it up because it really bugs me. I own guns as well and try to be responsible with them, and this whole thing just feels like an abuse of that responsibility.


----------



## bostjan

Leaviathan said:


> I don't think he'll be a poster boy for anything. It's clear after seeing the videos he wasn't there to intentionally shoot anyone. Vigilantes have clear motives and set out to carry out unlawful shootings. He was the one that was assaulted. Obviously the Jury came to that conclusion. Rittenhouse also gave up his body armor to someone else (something a vigilante wouldn't do)


Rittenhouse never gave his body armor to someone else. He claimed to have left his body armor in his car, but later changed his story when investigators found out that his statements were false.

He claimed to be an EMT, but that statement was false.

He didn't live there. He grabbed a gun and went to go stir shit. There's no other reasonable explanation. If you say he was there to help, that also doesn't scan, because he was told repeatedly to leave by police. Instead of leaving, he hung around and eventually shot and killed two other people. The people he shot were armed with "weapons" such as hands and feet and skateboards and plastic bags. The whole narrative that he was there as a do-gooder and he was savagely attacked and had to defend himself is utter bullshit. What happened was that he wanted to go stir up trouble and when he succeeded, he realized he was in over his head, and he shot some people because he was scared and ran out of option because he was stupid.



Leaviathan said:


> I own a shitload of guns and I'm also a Veteran, but I would have been inside my house with them. he made a stupid decision to walk through a riot carrying one (even though WI allows open carry) but he was the one that was assaulted. So in the end he was assaulted for exercising his legal right to carry.



Perhaps he was assaulted because he was carrying a gun. I don't think anyone who knows anything about it has testified one way or the other about what, precisely, started the confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. Open carry in Wisconsin is illegal for anyone under 18. https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2013/chapter-948/section-948.60/


----------



## Choop

bostjan said:


> Open carry in Wisconsin is illegal for anyone under 18. https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2013/chapter-948/section-948.60/



Oh dang, you're right. I dunno why I was thinking he was 18.


----------



## Adieu

By the way, why the hell is INVADING wisconsin from another state in body armor with an assault rifle not illegal in its own right???


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> No argument there; he made that bed.
> 
> The only thing that saved his life (and I've used this point when I train junior marksman in the army) is his use of the sling attached to the rifle.


I have no idea what you mean by that - would you mind elaborating? Asking with legitimate curiosity, not trying to discretely stir shit.


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> By the way, why the hell is INVADING wisconsin from another state in body armor with an assault rifle not illegal in its own right???


He didn't travel with the gun, it was provided to him in Wisconsin.


In other news, my cousin is throwing an impromptu "Ritten-House Party" tomorrow night, and I've specifically been told I'm not invited.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> I have no idea what you mean by that - would you mind elaborating? Asking with legitimate curiosity, not trying to discretely stir shit.



About the sling?

There's a moment in the video where Kyle was on his back and his rifle was being tugged away from him, but he had it slung over his shoulder.

Aside from training marksmanship to juniors when it comes to basic shooting, there's stories of SF and delta guys in iraq/AFG caught in close quarters fights where the sling saved their life.


If he didn't have the sling there wouldn't have been a trial at all.


----------



## AMOS

bostjan said:


> Rittenhouse never gave his body armor to someone else. He claimed to have left his body armor in his car, but later changed his story when investigators found out that his statements were false.
> 
> He claimed to be an EMT, but that statement was false.
> 
> He didn't live there. He grabbed a gun and went to go stir shit. There's no other reasonable explanation. If you say he was there to help, that also doesn't scan, because he was told repeatedly to leave by police. Instead of leaving, he hung around and eventually shot and killed two other people. The people he shot were armed with "weapons" such as hands and feet and skateboards and plastic bags. The whole narrative that he was there as a do-gooder and he was savagely attacked and had to defend himself is utter bullshit. What happened was that he wanted to go stir up trouble and when he succeeded, he realized he was in over his head, and he shot some people because he was scared and ran out of option because he was stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps he was assaulted because he was carrying a gun. I don't think anyone who knows anything about it has testified one way or the other about what, precisely, started the confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. Open carry in Wisconsin is illegal for anyone under 18. https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2013/chapter-948/section-948.60/


I think you're making up your own narrative here when suggesting he had the rifle to stir up some shit. The Jury has spoken, your personal beliefs do not override that.


----------



## Andromalia

Leaviathan said:


> The Jury has spoken, your personal beliefs do not override that.


Seen from the outside, the fact that saif jury had all their black members except one recused show that the verdict was racially motivated, if the judge's behaviour wasn't enough.
It's funny how the USA forgot how to deal with nazis.


----------



## Demiurge

spudmunkey said:


> In other news, my cousin is throwing an impromptu "Ritten-House Party" tomorrow night, and I've specifically been told I'm not invited.



It's one thing to have a differing opinion and to perhaps feel relief that a just decision was made. But a cause to whoop it up while people are dead... what's inside of these people?


----------



## AMOS

philkilla said:


> If he didn't have the sling there wouldn't have been a trial at all.



True, because ANTIFA thugs


bostjan said:


> Perhaps he was assaulted because he was carrying a gun. I don't think anyone who knows anything about it has testified one way or the other about what, precisely, started the confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. Open carry in Wisconsin is illegal for anyone under 18. https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2013/chapter-948/section-948.60/



Wrong, only if an SBR violation restricted him, which is 941.28 "c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28"

The Judge threw out the firearm charge because of this.


----------



## AMOS

Andromalia said:


> Seen from the outside, the fact that saif jury had all their black members except one recused show that the verdict was racially motivated, if the judge's behaviour wasn't enough.
> It's funny how the USA forgot how to deal with nazis.


We knew how to fight them


----------



## bostjan

Leaviathan said:


> True, because ANTIFA thugs
> 
> 
> Wrong, only if an SBR violation restricted him, which is 941.28 "c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28"
> 
> The Judge threw out the firearm charge because of this.


Those are hunting exceptions. Are you saying Rittenhouse had a license to hunt protesters?


----------



## bostjan

Leaviathan said:


> I think you're making up your own narrative here when suggesting he had the rifle to stir up some shit. The Jury has spoken, your personal beliefs do not override that.


Juries don't rule on anything outside the scope of the charges.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> Those are hunting exceptions. Are you saying Rittenhouse had a license to hunt protesters?



I don't know if he had one at the time, but thanks to that verdict, all twitchy right-wingers in America _now definitely do_ have an automatic license to do so.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Adieu said:


> So wait, taking illegal machine guns across state lines with intent to murder is ok(ish), but body armor can get you locked up?




I'm confused, who brought a machine gun? Is this just vague talk regarding laws or are we still talking about the Rittenhouse thing? Semantics, I guess, but nobody had a machine gun. I apologize, I only came into this thread just now thinking it had to do with Kyle and only read the last page or two so I might be missing something.

Unfortunately, I pretty much saw this coming. The laws are so shitty and the loop holes so freakishly large, this is unfortunately the outcome that "should" have happened.

I say "Should" in quotes because we all know it's bogus, but it's what's written on paper. I guess? What about the possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor... Can someone please tell me for real why that was tossed out in detail, because I don't get it. The barrel was too long or something? Doesn't that make the rifle more dangerous? Quite frankly, if that law was violated, and I feel it was, shouldn't all of the other charges stick since he shouldn't have had that particular gun to begin with?


----------



## AMOS

mbardu said:


> I don't know if he had one at the time, but thanks to that verdict, all twitchy right-wingers in America _now definitely do_ have an automatic license to do so.


Some people watch too much MSNBC


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> He didn't travel with the gun, it was provided to him in Wisconsin.
> 
> 
> In other news, my cousin is throwing an impromptu "Ritten-House Party" tomorrow night, and I've specifically been told I'm not invited.



He's testing you. You've been told to stay away, and not join the other kids getting crazy. What would Rittenhouse do?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> He's testing you. You've been told to stay away, and not join the other kids getting crazy. What would Rittenhouse do?



Exactly.

Throw on your butt gloves, grab a rifle, and get "scared for your life" crazy.


----------



## Adieu

It ain't a party without highly flammable liquids... and/or fireworks

Just saying


Yeeehaw

PS don't try this at home


----------



## StevenC

Leaviathan said:


> We knew how to fight them


You certainly know how to breed them


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> You certainly know how to breed them


It's a fairy tale made up by the Progressive Left to bolster their false narrative. Real Neo Nazi's here are pretty rare, go to Europe you'll find plenty.


----------



## AMOS

Where and how the fuck did white supremacy even come into this case? Besides clown in chief Biden spouting off in 2020? There's absolutely no evidence, or facts that Rittenhouse was a Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist or anything similar. Typical far left crap.


----------



## Adieu

Leaviathan said:


> Where and how the fuck did white supremacy even come into this case? Besides clown in chief Biden spouting off in 2020? There's absolutely no evidence, or facts that Rittenhouse was a Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist or anything similar. Typical far left crap.



Because nobody else is particularly horrified by a little black lives matter protest, mayhem or not.. they either support it or genuinely couldn't care less. ESPECIALLY if somebody gets shown looting flatscreens from Target. That's just good TV and a victimless crime.

Europe routinely has things you people would describe as next-level pandemonium and yet NOBODY travels to these things loaded for bear

Also, no seventeen year old ANYWHERE gives a flying fuck about "protecting" strangers' property in the next state over


----------



## Randy

Ya'll victory lapping like it was you on trial.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Ya'll victory lapping like it was you on trial.



Cause some wanna be

They writing fanfics in their heads and wondering if they too could get away with it


----------



## Randy




----------



## wheresthefbomb

Demiurge said:


> But a cause to whoop it up while people are dead... what's inside of these people?



A punisher skull bumper sticker and an autographed copy of Atlas Shrugged


----------



## mbardu

Adieu said:


> Cause some wanna be
> 
> They writing fanfics in their heads and wondering if they too could get away with it



The right wing celebrates all the vigilante shooter and killer cop acquittals the same way they celebrate tax cuts for the rich. Vicariously living their fantasies through the life of others.


----------



## mbardu

Leaviathan said:


> Some people watch too much MSNBC



Some people definitely do. Some MSNBC segments look just as cringy and almost as over the top as Fox.
At least that's what i can gather from a few choice YouTube extracts of each since i don't watch TV.

How is that related at all with the discussion though?


----------



## Randy

My man is teeing off because someone he doesn't know killed two other people he doesn't know and won't be going to jail for it, so it's got him super hyped up for some reason.


----------



## mbardu

Leaviathan said:


> Where and how the fuck did white supremacy even come into this case? Besides clown in chief Biden spouting off in 2020? There's absolutely no evidence, or facts that Rittenhouse was a Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist or anything similar. Typical far left crap.



Like they said for Trump. Maybe he's not _really_ a racist, but all the racist people sure seem to think he shares their cause. Weird. Plus he did do a lot of racist stuff and associations with racists.

So maybe Kyle is not a white supremacist, but white supremacists sure see him as a poster _boy_ for their cause. Even if he doesn't associate with them. Oh but wait, he did associate with them _proudly_ (hehe) and repeatedly


----------



## mbardu

Randy said:


> My man is teeing off because someone he doesn't know killed two other people he doesn't know and won't be going to jail for it, so it's got him super hyped up for some reason.



Like i said, living vicariously their fantasies of armed vigilante (having the bigger gun and ending all those _bad_ people who _deserve_ it like they do in comic books) through the life of others.


----------



## narad

mbardu said:


> Like i said, living vicariously their fantasies of armed vigilante (having the bigger gun and ending all those _bad_ people who _deserve_ it like they do in comic books) through the life of others.



They should at least live vicariously in a Dune-esque world where killing someone involves a test of skill and strength vs. some euro-football-esque sport of trying to feign scared while simultaneously walking around with what is, in the context of the history of human civilization, one of the most powerful handheld weapons ever invented.


----------



## spudmunkey

Leaviathan said:


> There's absolutely no evidence, or facts that Rittenhouse was a Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist or anything similar. Typical far left crap.




Kyle with Proud Boys group members shortly after being released on bond, and being serenaded with "Proud of our Boy" by the group, giving the "OK" sign coopted by the group and white supremacists in general:






The prosecution was prohibited from submitting evidence in the trial that Kyle flew to Florida shortly after the bar gathering and was picked up at the airport by the Proud Boys’ national leader.


Now...that could all mean he was playing along because he's just so socially awkward and didn't want to insult them by saying "no", but...if it signs "OK" like a duck, and sings _Aladdin_ songs like a duck...


----------



## Vyn

I've been keeping a close eye on this thing and there's a few things that really stand out:

1- America is polarised almost to the point of no return and civil discourse has basically died. It's a big/dramatic statement to make for sure, however I don't see where the fault in it is.

2- Obvious one, however America has a massive problem with the concept of authority of any kind. Extreme Libertarianism is just as batshit insane as a totalitarian dictatorship. What Americans don't realise is that their version of Libertarianism is extreme.

3- Observation 2 bleeds into authority figures which results in those in positions of power assuming they can do whatever the fuck they want because they are in power, which furthers observation 2. It's like an enormous postive feedback loop.


----------



## StevenC

How the hell does a child get a giant ass gun to kill people with and anyone thinks that's OK?

Like, where is the responsible gun ownership crowd? Or do we drop that pretense now it's OK to just murder people?


----------



## CanserDYI

Yeah libertarians have me saying "Jesus fucking Christ" more than most groups....


----------



## philkilla

NICE


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> NICE


I can't tell if you agree or disagree, coming from your posts in this thread.


----------



## philkilla

CanserDYI said:


> I can't tell if you agree or disagree, coming from your posts in this thread.



I disagree. A few years ago I'd be flabbergasted...but now he (and Lebron...) is the voice of a generation.

Colin has gone so far as to refer to the NFL as a slave organization, yet he still willingly plays and gets paid.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> I disagree. A few years ago I'd be flabbergasted...but now he (and Lebron...) is the voice of a generation.
> 
> Colin has gone so far as to refer to the NFL as a slave organization, yet he still willingly plays and gets paid.



I'm impressed. The voices of all previous generations were probably all white guys.


----------



## philkilla

narad said:


> I'm impressed. The voices of all previous generations were probably all white guys.



Lmfao what?


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> Lmfao what?



Well it's not cryptic writing so it'd be weird if I just retyped the thing. Though I guess I should clarify "all previous *american* generations".


----------



## spudmunkey

philkilla said:


> Colin has gone so far as to refer to the NFL as a slave organization, yet he still willingly plays and gets paid.



Colin hasn't played in the NFL for almost 5 years.


----------



## philkilla

narad said:


> Well it's not cryptic writing so it'd be weird if I just retyped the thing. Though I guess I should clarify "all previous *american* generations".



So over 50 years of African AMERICAN athletes that were inspirational and not giant pieces of shit meant nothing?

Sweet virtue signaling bud.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> So over 50 years of African AMERICAN athletes that were inspirational and not giant pieces of shit meant nothing?
> 
> Sweet virtue signaling bud.



I don't know exactly what a "voice of a generation" is but I would have thought it was somewhat exclusive thing and probably not so focused on athletes, who have historically had very little platform to speak and not much to say. If like... setting a career rushing yards record is a voice of a generation thing to do, then it wasn't what I had in mind.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> I don't know exactly what a "voice of a generation" is but I would have thought it was somewhat exclusive thing and probably not so focused on athletes, who have historically had very little platform to speak and not much to say. If like... setting a career rushing yards record is a voice of a generation thing to do, then it wasn't what I had in mind.



Muhammad Ali
Serena Williams 
Tiger Woods 
Jackie Robinson
Bo Jackson
Michael Jordan
Arthur Ashe
Magic Johnson
Shaquille O'Neal

https://www.complex.com/sports/2012/02/25-black-athletes-changed-the-world/


----------



## philkilla

jaxadam said:


> Muhammad Ali
> Serena Williams
> Tiger Woods
> Jackie Robinson
> Bo Jackson
> Michael Jordan
> Arthur Ashe
> Magic Johnson
> Shaquille O'Neal
> 
> https://www.complex.com/sports/2012/02/25-black-athletes-changed-the-world/



Not controversial enough; they don't count.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> Muhammad Ali
> Serena Williams
> Tiger Woods
> Jackie Robinson
> Bo Jackson
> Michael Jordan
> Arthur Ashe
> Magic Johnson
> Shaquille O'Neal
> 
> https://www.complex.com/sports/2012/02/25-black-athletes-changed-the-world/



There seems to be some confusion so I'm just gonna point out that to be the voice of a generation, you have to have something to say. Shaquille O'Neal as a voice of a generation? A voice of a generation doesn't make Kazaam.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> There seems to be some confusion so I'm just gonna point out that to be the voice of a generation, you have to have something to say. Shaquille O'Neal as a voice of a generation? A voice of a generation doesn't make Kazaam.



No problem, feel free to disparage their legacy.

And to quote the great Shaq: "Icy to dull the pain..."


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> There seems to be some confusion so I'm just gonna point out that to be the voice of a generation, you have to have something to say. Shaquille O'Neal as a voice of a generation? A voice of a generation doesn't make Kazaam.



You're 100% right

The voice of a generation gropes women, does cameos on Home Alone, and creates fraudulent universities

Sorry Shaq, you too boring and wholesome


----------



## narad

I just think it's telling and really fits into Kaepernick's message (albeit with loaded terminology) about white supremacy in society and in sports. We hit the topic of voice of a generation. Who are examples of these traditionally? Authors, artists, cultural leaders -- people with a [serious] message. And as counter-examples are 9 black athletes, among those guys whose main achievements are playing both football and baseball really well, playing basketball with HIV, playing baseball while black, and playing basketball while making goofy movies and commercials.

It's progress that if making that list today it would be full of black voices, of people who are actually having cultural impact based on their ideas, but also highlights the dearth of examples from previous generations. Even more so if you exclude civil rights leaders.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> I just think it's telling and really fits into Kaepernick's message (albeit with loaded terminology) about white supremacy in society and in sports. We hit the topic of voice of a generation. Who are examples of these traditionally? Authors, artists, cultural leaders -- people with a [serious] message. And as counter-examples are 9 black athletes, among those guys whose main achievements are playing both football and baseball really well, playing basketball with HIV, playing baseball while black, and playing basketball while making goofy movies and commercials.
> 
> It's progress that if making that list today it would be full of black voices, of people who are actually having cultural impact based on their ideas, but also highlights the dearth of examples from previous generations. Even more so if you exclude civil rights leaders.



Your original comment suggested that all previous "voices of a generation" were white, and not only white, but white guys, negating the legacy of authors, artists, and cultural leaders (especially female) -- people with a [serious] message. Ironically, I think there are words for that. Here it is again for reference:



narad said:


> I'm impressed. The voices of all previous generations were probably all white guys.



Phil brought up athletes, which of the ones I listed are all unworthy and uninspiring to you, and apparently don't hold a candle to Colin Kaepernick.

Maybe read through this link again if you think these guys are only inspiring because of HIV status and goofy movies:

https://www.complex.com/sports/2012/02/25-black-athletes-changed-the-world/


----------



## profwoot

Good lord. Guys, language will never be precise enough to allow communication between people deliberately trying to misunderstand one another.

If you think Shaquille O'Neal is/was the voice of his generation, then surely you should at least consider whether your definition of the term matches the generally-understood one before jumping to imply racism? On what issues was he uniquely influential and respected?


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> Maybe read through this link again if you think these guys are only inspiring because of HIV status and goofy movies:
> 
> https://www.complex.com/sports/2012/02/25-black-athletes-changed-the-world/



Millions of people are inspiring. That doesn't mean they have significant cultural influence or an important message. I've never heard "voice of a generation" used to be synonymous with "vaguely inspiring", or applying to thousands of people of each generation (as it would obviously need to be for Shaq to make the cut). Shaq is about as much a voice of his generation as he is a suitable basis for a 2D fighting game. 

I think one of the most frequent examples is Jack Kerouac, or Hunter S. Thompson. Obviously -writers- are a pretty good profession to be in to earn the title of -voice- of a generation.


----------



## StevenC

Wait, are we all just glossing over the fact that Muhammad Ali was wildly unpopular for not going to Vietnam?

And when you say voice of a generation, do you mean voice of a generation or voice of a generation of black people? Because young white people didn't like Jackie Robinson.

And Michael Jordan has only in the past few years felt secure enough as a black man in society to make any political statements. See: republicans buy sneakers too.


----------



## fantom

Honestly, the only modern non-white American I can think of as the voice of a generation is Dave Chappelle (aside from Kaepernick). Maybe the guys from Rage Against the Machine?

Also want to point out... EMTs don't go into potential riots with assault rifles. Afaik, not even military combat medics carry an assault rifle into an active battlefield. I don't think he gave a shit about providing medical aid to anyone. He didn't need a gun to do that.


----------



## philkilla

fantom said:


> Afaik, not even military combat medics carry an assault rifle into an active battlefield. I don't think he gave a shit about providing medical aid to anyone. He didn't need a gun to do that.



Combat medics absolutely carry weapons into combat.


----------



## Adieu

I think one of you means the platoon or whatever dude with the medkit and the several hours of training, while the other means a frontline surgeon or medevac personnel


----------



## fantom

philkilla said:


> Combat medics absolutely carry weapons into combat.



I'm not sure about modern war, but in WW2, Vietnam, and Korea, US medics didn't carry assault rifles. They might have carried a sidearm. According to the Geneva Convention, medics are non-combatants. They are not allowed to engage unless defending fallen soldiers.

Maybe pay attention to the bigger picture? Some stupid kid going into a potential riot with an assault rifle to keep the peace is the direct opposite of what a medic is supposed to do according to international treaties.

If you want to argue it, whatever.


----------



## philkilla

fantom said:


> I'm not sure about modern war, but in WW2, Vietnam, and Korea, US medics didn't carry assault rifles. They might have carried a sidearm. According to the Geneva Convention, medics are non-combatants. They are not allowed to engage unless defending fallen soldiers.
> 
> Maybe pay attention to the bigger picture? Some stupid kid going into a potential riot with an assault rifle to keep the peace is the direct opposite of what a medic is supposed to do according to international treaties.
> 
> If you want to argue it, whatever.



If you're not sure about modern war, why make a point about it?

In some cases our medical carried an M4 in an addition to the issued M17 or M18 pistol; other times we'd issue them a shotgun for ease of movement.

My medic on one of my teams was the beat pistol shot of the entire team.


And bigger picture? The idiot Rittenhouse went there to provide "medical attention". The only idiot that claimed they were a medic was Guage...the same guy that shoved his pistol in the face of someone with an AR.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> If you're not sure about modern war, why make a point about it?
> 
> In some cases our medical carried an M4 in an addition to the issued M17 or M18 pistol; other times we'd issue them a shotgun for ease of movement.
> 
> My medic on one of my teams was the beat pistol shot of the entire team.
> 
> 
> And bigger picture? The idiot Rittenhouse went there to provide "medical attention". The only idiot that claimed they were a medic was Guage...the same guy that shoved his pistol in the face of someone with an AR.



Well if the person in charge of my medical attention for the night killed two people, maimed a third, and never treated a wound, I would be very suspicious of his intentions and training.


----------



## philkilla

narad said:


> Well if the person in charge of my medical attention for the night killed two people, maimed a third, and never treated a wound, I would be very suspicious of his intentions and training.



There's a difference between providing first aid and being a medic..


----------



## Adieu

Yeah, and apparently it's a matter of self-identification more fluid even than 21st century gender

I still call it a terrorist but the fck does this redneck russkie* understand

PS * - in case anyone wants to get offended, I'm referring to myself


----------



## philkilla

Oh around and around we go...


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

Vyn said:


> I've been keeping a close eye on this thing and there's a few things that really stand out:
> 
> 1- America is polarized almost to the point of no return and civil discourse has basically died. It's a big/dramatic statement to make for sure, however I don't see where the fault in it is.
> 
> 2- Obvious one, however America has a massive problem with the concept of authority of any kind. Extreme Libertarianism is just as batshit insane as a totalitarian dictatorship. What Americans don't realise is that their version of Libertarianism is extreme.
> 
> 3- Observation 2 bleeds into authority figures which results in those in positions of power assuming they can do whatever the fuck they want because they are in power, which furthers observation 2. It's like an enormous postive feedback loop.


I'd like to chip in and expound upon this with my own thoughts since you're absolutely accurate here, @Vyn.

Based on watching events in the USA unfold in recent years, especially with what seems to be a "hyper-acceleration" of division in the past year and a half alone, the USA is polarized almost to the point of no return.

Rapidly decreasing education standards due to continual government interference have led to a factually proven, traceable, nationwide drop in intelligence and a rise in susceptibility to the manipulative narratives that the omnipotent mainstream news outlets inundate the populace with 24/7. (If you hear something enough times, repeated by enough people, then it eventually becomes "the truth", right?)

Every event that can be contorted and squeezed to fit within a particular narrative (whether political, sociological, philosophical, or some combination such as socio-political) is caricaturized to the point that any attempts to find "the truth" of the event are rendered null and void by affiliates of the polar sides who utilize social media platforms to openly encourage their friends, family, fans, followers, and viewers to blatantly ridicule, mock, and deny "the truth" because "the truth" does not match their ideal narrative that the affiliates are seeking to push.

In addition, the affiliates of the polar sides take things one step further by instigating online mobs comprised of individuals with lower levels of intelligence and higher levels of unfulfillment in life who essentially function as "non-playable characters" (to utilize a video game term), incapable of thinking independently, and who willingly engage in manic, "foaming-at-the-mouth" behaviors solely for the sake of bolstering their personal worldview while unknowingly also publicly reinforcing the ideal narrative that the polar affiliates are seeking to push.

As a result, civil discourse has basically died in the USA; and any attempts to engage in such are gravely looked down upon as the omnipotent mainstream news outlets continually discourage civil discourse while also encouraging more and more manic, "foaming-at-the-mouth" behaviors through carefully culled rhetoric that is meant to elicit strong, "trigger-finger", emotional reactions from the powder keg that is the populace. (And I am sure that civil discourse will be outlawed to some measure soon enough in the future.)

Is the USA truly lost? Is this "normal" for the USA? (Or has it ever been?)


----------



## Andromalia

Emperor Guillotine said:


> As a result, civil discourse has basically died in the USA



I'm wondering if civil war hasn't actually started. Not with weapons, but with malicious use of the law to wage war on minorities and the poor, complete with slave farms. (ie, prisons)
The next elections will be interesting, to see up to where the far right is willing to go after having setup judiciary traps all over the place to rig elections.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

Andromalia said:


> malicious use of the law to wage war on minorities and the poor, complete with slave farms. (ie, prisons)


Don't let your personal bias blind you to the fact that the left (both far and moderate) does the same thing but with a different facade/approach. The USA's current president and vice president both have extensively documented histories of actively being on the wrong side of legislation that blatantly targeted minorities, suppressed the disenfranchised, and greatly grew the populaces of those prisons that you speak of by cramming them full of minorities and disenfranchised individuals.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

The united states was founded on disenfranchising people and taking their stuff and not much has changed. A lot of white liberalism boils down to protecting whiteness and maintaining these power structures. Rachel Dolezal is a great example. She lied and manipulated people, but what's really interesting is the response from _white _liberals, ie, that she must be mentally ill because no normal white person would ever call themselves black. She said herself that "whiteness does not describe who I am." Again I am not defending or even attempting to validate these statements, but it's clear that whatever else she was Rachel was ultimately a threat to the social construct that is _whiteness,_ and as such it was imperative for white liberals to aggressively deplatform her. Virtue signaling allegiance with actual black amerikans was just a cherry on top.


----------



## StevenC

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Don't let your personal bias blind you to the fact that the left (both far and moderate) does the same thing but with a different facade/approach. The USA's current president and vice president both have extensively documented histories of actively being on the wrong side of legislation that blatantly targeted minorities, suppressed the disenfranchised, and greatly grew the populaces of those prisons that you speak of by cramming them full of minorities and disenfranchised individuals.


Nobody in the rest of the world thinks your president or vice president are left leaning.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

StevenC said:


> Nobody in the rest of the world thinks your president or vice president are left leaning.


Correct, but that’s not the point. They identify that way (i.e. - “for that particular side”). What was the term I used in my previous response? “Façade”?


----------



## SamSam

StevenC said:


> Nobody in the rest of the world thinks your president or vice president are left leaning.



This.


----------



## StevenC

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Correct, but that’s not the point. They identify that way (i.e. - “for that particular side”). What was the term I used in my previous response? “Façade”?


Let me rephrase. 

No leftists in the USA think that either.


----------



## Adieu

Dems are just a center-right party that clumsily flirts with minorties every time they need the votes


----------



## fantom

Just to be clear. The current iteration of Republican America calls non-extreme conservatives "libtards" and "socialists" on a daily basis. Anyone independent is considered to be a Bernie worshipper, which is utterly ridiculous.

This is not an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans. It's an issue of brainwashed extreme right thinking everyone else is extremely liberal instead of considering that they are the fringe and alienating conservatives that didn't buy into Trump. Every time they refer to the media creating sheep, the irony is lost on them.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

fantom said:


> Just to be clear. The current iteration of Republican America calls non-extreme conservatives "libtards" and "socialists" on a daily basis. Anyone independent is considered to be a Bernie worshipper, which is utterly ridiculous.
> 
> This is not an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans. It's an issue of brainwashed extreme right thinking everyone else is extremely liberal instead of considering that they are the fringe and alienating conservatives that didn't buy into Trump. Every time they refer to the media creating sheep, the irony is lost on them.


There are observable far right extremists and observable far left extremists. I think it’s strange how you are intentionally choosing to blatantly ignore one polar side. Bias much?

And as someone who works in the media, I can assure you that the big companies that I’ve worked for do intentionally manipulate stories to push particular narratives and brainwash the populace by inundating the populace with these twisted stories 24/7. They do legitimately “create sheep” (although that is not my personally preferred terminology), which is becoming easier and easier as the USA’s education standards continue to be lowered and the populace’s average level of intelligence continues to noticeably plummet. The inundation is constant. The flooding of twisted stories is constant. Left and right. Democrat and Republican. Whatever label you want to assign to the polar ends. And if you as a worker don’t comply with making every little detail conform to the narrative that is being pushed, then you’ll be ousted from these media companies. Plain and simple. Seen it happen to great writers, reporters, journalists, videographers, and film crew so many times. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just the motus operandi of media companies functioning to serve socio-political agenda.

Meanwhile, the USA’s populace is out in the streets cheering, chanting, marching, and rioting over almost anything because they’ve been conditioned into treating politics like competitive sports and treating their polar alignment like “their sports team” of choice.


----------



## profwoot

Emperor Guillotine said:


> There are observable far rights extremists and observable far left extremists. I think it’s strange how you are intentionally choosing to blatantly ignore one polar side. Bias much?



In case you haven't noticed, the US government has tons of far right extremists in it, and various far-right groups are wreaking havoc constantly. I'm not aware of any far-left extremists in government, and even on the internet I rarely run into any.

Keep in mind that one can be vehemently anti-fascist/trumpist without holding any left-wing views.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

profwoot said:


> In case you haven't noticed, the US government has tons of far right extremists in it, and various far-right groups are wreaking havoc constantly. I'm not aware of any far-left extremists in government, and even on the internet I rarely run into any.
> 
> Keep in mind that one can be vehemently anti-fascist/trumpist without holding any left-wing views.


Are you anti-fascist, anti-Trump, or anti-right-wing?

There are substantial differences between all three.


----------



## narad

Emperor Guillotine said:


> There are observable far right extremists and observable far left extremists. I think it’s strange how you are intentionally choosing to blatantly ignore one polar side. Bias much?
> 
> And as someone who works in the media, I can assure you that the big companies that I’ve worked for do intentionally manipulate stories to push particular narratives and brainwash the populace by inundating the populace with these twisted stories 24/7. They do legitimately “create sheep” (although that is not my personally preferred terminology), which is becoming easier and easier as the USA’s education standards continue to be lowered and the populace’s average level of intelligence continues to noticeably plummet. The inundation is constant. The flooding of twisted stories is constant. Left and right. Democrat and Republican. Whatever label you want to assign to the polar ends. And if you as a worker don’t comply with making every little detail conform to the narrative that is being pushed, then you’ll be ousted from these big companies. Plain and simple. Seen it happen to great writers, reporters, journalists, videographers, and film crew so many times. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just the motus operandi of media companies functioning to serve socio-political agenda.
> 
> Meanwhile, the USA’s populace is out in the streets cheering, chanting, marching, and rioting over almost anything because they’ve been brainwashed into treating politics like competitive sports and treating their polar alignment like “their team” of choice.



Thread is George Floyd not George Orwell  This is a pretty conspiracy level of distortion of the US situation. People who indulge in political debate hate each other always. The only thing that protected the populace from childish name-calling foaming-at-the-mouth frenzies was the fact that there was no way to reach out and connect with them the second someone comes home pissed off from work.


----------



## profwoot

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Are you anti-fascist, anti-Trump, or anti-right-wing?
> 
> There are substantial differences between all three.



I don't agree with your statement and therefore don't know how to respond to your question.


----------



## vilk

Seems plain that in America, one party is pushing for fascism. Only one party is trying to stop American citizens from voting. One party is openly racist (while the other at least _tries _to pretend it isn't). One party has candidates who endorse the KKK and visit Hitler's Castle on vacation. Only one party has been "elected" president without winning the popular vote. One party passes theocratic authoritarian laws (regarding abortion) aimed at harming women and doctors. Only one party pushed false narratives resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands from a coronavirus. 

The Democratic party is deeply flawed, and that's for sure. But if we're looking for someone to blame, there is only one party that is very, very clearly responsible for the United States becoming a shithole country.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

narad said:


> Thread is George Floyd not George Orwell






narad said:


> This is a pretty conspiracy level of distortion of the US situation.


Thanks for immediately dismissing my personal, first-hand experience and observations in the workplace as “conspiracy”. Just immediate downplaying. No evidence. No counter. Nothing aside from your personal subjective theory on things. Yes, you absolutely are entitled to that, but to blatantly downplay/dismiss me when you don’t even reside in the USA, @narad? Come on, man…



narad said:


> The only thing that protected the populace from childish name-calling foaming-at-the-mouth frenzies was the fact that there was no way to reach out and connect with them the second someone comes home pissed off from work.


No, the populace in the USA was *definitely* engaging in that behavior. Pretty sure they are still doing it to this day right now as we speak (err…type).


----------



## zappatton2

There really aren't two equal and opposite sides, though. Sure people like to scream about Antifa (not an actual organized group by the way, just a catch-all term for anti-fascist) and BLM, but most left-inspired protests have been civil-rights protests, for which we can thank many of the rights we currently take for granted. Much of the rioting associated with the events of Trump's term can be linked, not to protesters, but to opportunists taking advantage of the pandemonium created by overreacting police forces (incidentally one of the main things being protested).

There very much is an extremist right (I'm not lumping in conservatives generally here), and it is becoming a genuine terrorist threat, both in my country and yours. The verdict in the case is basically a message to extremists that carrying a gun and hunting the "other side" is now a perfectly defensible option, and frakly, that's pretty horrifying. Handing society to the brown-shirts does not bode well for any so-called liberal democracy.


----------



## philkilla

Emperor Guillotine said:


> when you don’t even reside in the USA, @narad? Come on, man…



That makes them an expert right?


----------



## narad

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Thanks for immediately dismissing my personal, first-hand experience and observations in the workplace as “conspiracy”. Just immediate downplaying. No evidence. No counter. Nothing aside from your personal subjective theory on things.



Your first-hand experience is roughly the definition of what media companies do. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to consider it a bombshell drop that companies want to push narratives for their own benefit, anymore than learning that spiders weave webs for their own benefit. What that has to do on these extremist points about America being polarized past the point of civil discourse... I'm not sure. 

I think if you tune in to areas where fringes of opposing groups exist solely to antagonize each other, then you will see a failure to communicate. As much before as now, except now there are far more opportunities.


----------



## fantom

Emperor Guillotine said:


> There are observable far right extremists and observable far left extremists. I think it’s strange how you are intentionally choosing to blatantly ignore one polar side. Bias much?
> 
> And as someone who works in the media, I can assure you that the big companies that I’ve worked for do intentionally manipulate stories to push particular narratives and brainwash the populace by inundating the populace with these twisted stories 24/7. They do legitimately “create sheep” (although that is not my personally preferred terminology), which is becoming easier and easier as the USA’s education standards continue to be lowered and the populace’s average level of intelligence continues to noticeably plummet. The inundation is constant. The flooding of twisted stories is constant. Left and right. Democrat and Republican. Whatever label you want to assign to the polar ends. And if you as a worker don’t comply with making every little detail conform to the narrative that is being pushed, then you’ll be ousted from these media companies. Plain and simple. Seen it happen to great writers, reporters, journalists, videographers, and film crew so many times. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just the motus operandi of media companies functioning to serve socio-political agenda.
> 
> Meanwhile, the USA’s populace is out in the streets cheering, chanting, marching, and rioting over almost anything because they’ve been conditioned into treating politics like competitive sports and treating their polar alignment like “their sports team” of choice.




Nevermind whatever I wrote before. You think someone who is a moderate conservative is bias for calling out conservatives. Kind of makes my point.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

narad said:


> What that has to do on these extremist points about America being polarized past the point of civil discourse... I'm not sure.


If media companies eliminate civil discourse (or severely fracture the populace into factions that are unable to reconcile with each other, even for just a brief moment), then that would make the populace increasingly more reliant on the media companies as their outlets for intel and to inform them on what’s going on in the world. The media companies would shape opinion and perspective instead of allowing civil discourse to do that. And like I said in a previous response in this thread, there is a verifiable drop in education standards and average level of intellect amongst the populace of the USA. Aren’t dumb people easier to manipulate and persuade of almost anything? (I mean, they certainly are easier to manipulate in order to retain higher viewership; and we all know that viewership = $$$.)

Let’s also not forget that the media new outlets are tools of the federal government in the USA. (Heck, they even teach students that in the public school systems in the USA.) The federal government has used the media outlets to present distractions to the USA’s populace on an endless number of occasions, and they still regularly do it to this day. On top of that, federal politicians are tied to media conglomerates because they constantly lobby for the conglomerate’s interests. In exchange, the media companies "contribute" money to the politicians or push those particular politicians (like during campaign season), or alternatively, the media companies push the agenda that those politicians need to set in order to get certain applicable legislature passed. It then creates a lose-lose situation for the populace as they willingly allow themselves to be manipulated. But ya know...they're just "watching the news, dudes".



narad said:


> I think if you tune in to areas where fringes of opposing groups exist solely to antagonize each other, then you will see a failure to communicate. As much before as now, except now there are far more opportunities.


^ And this right here nails it.



fantom said:


> Dude. Live in one of the more liberal areas of the country.


Hi, I reside in NYC.


----------



## Adieu

NYC isn't really America.

Except the really ghetto parts.

And even then... if you can't turn right on a red light, you ain't in America no more.


----------



## narad

Emperor Guillotine said:


> If media companies eliminate civil discourse (or severely fracture the populace into factions that are unable to reconcile with each other, even for just a brief moment), then that would make the populace increasingly more reliant on the media companies as their outlets for intel and to inform them on what’s going on in the world. The media companies would shape opinion and perspective instead of allowing civil discourse to do that. And like I said in a previous response in this thread, there is a verifiable drop in education standards and average level of intellect amongst the populace of the USA. Aren’t dumb people easier to manipulate and persuade of almost anything? (I mean, they certainly are easier to manipulate in order to retain higher viewership; and we all know that viewership = $$$.)
> 
> Let’s also not forget that the media new outlets are tools of the federal government in the USA. (Heck, they even teach students that in the public school systems in the USA.) The federal government has used the media outlets to present distractions to the USA’s populace on an endless number of occasions, and they still regularly do it to this day. On top of that, federal politicians are tied to media conglomerates because they constantly lobby for the conglomerate’s interests. In exchange, the media companies "contribute" money to the politicians or push those particular politicians (like during campaign season), or alternatively, the media companies push the agenda that those politicians need to set in order to get certain applicable legislature passed. It then creates a lose-lose situation for the populace as they willingly allow themselves to be manipulated. But ya know...they're just "watching the news, dudes".



a.) You describe the press as a tool of the federal government. But it's also perhaps the biggest "check" against the federal government. It is the vehicle through which all the wrongdoings of the government are exposed, and behind every impeachment, at the very start of it, you find journalism. So it is weird in my mind to treat it as this entity that serves the government. It's why Trump tried so hard to discredit the media, so that he could push false narratives from his own platform. It is funny that if you talk about taking away guns, hell no (we need them to protect from the government's trillion dollar armament of advanced weaponry!), but in terms of media, "hey, please take it."

Regarding, "Heck, they even teach students that in the public school systems in the USA", uhmmm.... not in my school.

b.) There's never been greater choice in media as there is now. Both pros and cons to that, but it's clear that trying to stick such a diverse thing as "the media" into a simple box of "tool for the government" is not going to work well.


----------



## philkilla

narad said:


> a.) You describe the press as a tool of the federal government. But it's also perhaps the biggest "check" against the federal government. It is the vehicle through which all the wrongdoings of the government are exposed, and behind every impeachment, at the very start of it, you find journalism. So it is weird in my mind to treat it as this entity that serves the government. It's why Trump tried so hard to discredit the media, so that he could push false narratives from his own platform. It is funny that if you talk about taking away guns, hell no (we need them to protect from the government's trillion dollar armament of advanced weaponry!), but in terms of media, "hey, please take it."
> 
> Regarding, "Heck, they even teach students that in the public school systems in the USA", uhmmm.... not in my school.
> 
> b.) There's never been greater choice in media as there is now. Both pros and cons to that, but it's clear that trying to stick such a diverse thing as "the media" into a simple box of "tool for the government" is not going to work well.



God damn you're dumb.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> God damn you're dumb.



Really?? Seems like usually it's the dumber people who run out of points and resort to insults.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Really?? Seems like usually it's the dumber people who run out of points and resort to insults.


Hey


----------



## philkilla

narad said:


> Really?? Seems like usually it's the dumber people who run out of points and resort to insults.



Just beyond the point of attempting to discuss topics with someone as out of touch with reality as you.

Lmao, and of course @vilk agrees with you.

How ironic.


----------



## Vyn

philkilla said:


> Just beyond the point of attempting to discuss topics with someone as out of touch with reality as you.
> 
> Lmao, and of course @vilk agrees with you.
> 
> How ironic.



If you don't agree with what @narad has to say then debate and discuss it. If you don't see the point in doing that or don't have anything to contribute beyond insults, then why are you replying to narad's comments? Seems kinda pointless and makes you come off as a bit of an ass.

This kind of reply is a perfect example of why I wrote in my earlier post that civil discourse is dead. Someone will post a viewpoint, someone will post opposing said viewpoint and instead of going "we agree to disagree" in the instance of an impasse, one side throws an insult, the other response in kind (because fun fact, people are less likely to discuss shit if you call them names) and before dinner the whole thing is a flame war on the internet at best and a mass shooting at worse (especially in a country with easy access to firearms...)


----------



## philkilla

Vyn said:


> If you don't agree with what @narad has to say then debate and discuss it. If you don't see the point in doing that or don't have anything to contribute beyond insults, then why are you replying to narad's comments? Seems kinda pointless and makes you come off as a bit of an ass.
> 
> This kind of reply is a perfect example of why I wrote in my earlier post that civil discourse is dead. Someone will post a viewpoint, someone will post opposing said viewpoint and instead of going "we agree to disagree" in the instance of an impasse, one side throws an insult, the other response in kind (because fun fact, people are less likely to discuss shit if you call them names) and before dinner the whole thing is a flame war on the internet at best and a mass shooting at worse (especially in a country with easy access to firearms...)



I conducted civil discourse in the past few pages.

Narad simply believes American media is the right answer, and openly uses their disdain of Trump (free real estate yet again) as a reference.

Anything beyond CNN or MSNBC is wildly discouraged around here, and it just blows my mind he's using that as an argument.

"Hey you guys are in the same echo chamber and only like news from this source right? Cool, let's talk about how great it is".


----------



## narad

Vyn said:


> If you don't agree with what @narad has to say then debate and discuss it. If you don't see the point in doing that or don't have anything to contribute beyond insults, then why are you replying to narad's comments? Seems kinda pointless and makes you come off as a bit of an ass.
> 
> This kind of reply is a perfect example of why I wrote in my earlier post that civil discourse is dead. Someone will post a viewpoint, someone will post opposing said viewpoint and instead of going "we agree to disagree" in the instance of an impasse, one side throws an insult, the other response in kind (because fun fact, people are less likely to discuss shit if you call them names) and before dinner the whole thing is a flame war on the internet at best and a mass shooting at worse (especially in a country with easy access to firearms...)



I'm convinced he's playing the meta-game and trying to further prove that America is too polarized to support discourse (the point I was arguing against) by _being_ that counter-example that makes it impossible.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> I conducted civil discourse in the past few pages.
> 
> Narad simply believes American media is the right answer, and openly uses their disdain of Trump (free real estate yet again) as a reference.
> 
> Anything beyond CNN or MSNBC is wildly discouraged around here, and it just blows my mind he's using that as an argument.
> 
> "Hey you guys are in the same echo chamber and only like news from this source right? Cool, let's talk about how great it is".



Wow, a bunch of things I never said or alluded to (CNN/MSNBC), citing the media's disdain of Trump when I posted about Trump's disdain of the media, and mocking me as praising a single news source when my post said the exact opposite. For someone calling me/my post dumb, it doesn't seem like you managed to understand any of it.


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> God damn you're dumb.


Idk man, you should read like one of your posts. They kinda paint a different picture on who's pretty dumb


----------



## StevenC

Why do right wing peeps think left wing peeps watch bad news channels?


----------



## nightflameauto

StevenC said:


> Why do right wing peeps think left wing peeps watch bad news channels?


If your sources are OAN and Fox, you gotta project as hard as you possibly can to justify it.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

Narad is right about one thing: the media outlets can function as a “check” on the USA’s federal government; however, with the blatantly increasing polarization, not all outlets align to serve the same purpose. They all want to serve “their side”, “their sports team” in terms of political agenda.

Maybe I could better explain it this way… CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. all shill manipulated stories to further the liberal/left’s political agenda while also acting as a “check” against the conservative/right’s political agenda and painting the conservative/right side as evil. Then you have Fox News, The Daily Wire, The Washington Post, etc. who all shill manipulated stories to further the conservative/right’s political agenda while also acting as a “check” against the liberal/left’s political agenda and painting the liberal/left as evil.

Where does this lead the USA populace though? They get stuck at an impasse, inundated constantly with manipulated narratives. So eventually, they feel the need to “choose a side” because it makes processing easier on their brains. (And again, I’ll bring up my point here about factually proven, traceable drops in education standards and in average levels of intelligence in the USA.) If individuals are in social circles or families (“tribes”) that opt/vouch for one particular side, then it is no doubt that the influence will cause an individual to align with that side as well. And thus, the polarization continues…

One thing I think is interesting is how the liberal/left media outlets paint absolutely everything that is *not* left-leaning as evil as well. Moderate central sources, third-party analysts, independent figures, unaffiliated talking heads (like Joe Rogan), etc. are all painted as vile, despicable, deplorable, and evil by the liberal/left. And yet, on the flipside, the conservative/right media outlets are so quick to try to adopt everything that is *not* left-leaning and say: “Oh look! They are one of us! They are one of our own! They agree with us!” Again, moderate central sources, third-party analysts, independent figures, unaffiliated talking heads (like Joe Rogan), etc.

I wonder what this says (if anything) about the opposing approaches of the two polar sides…


----------



## fantom

Or Facebook posts from troll farms as unverified sources.


----------



## fantom

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Narad is right about one thing: the media outlets can function as a “check” on the USA’s federal government; however, with the blatantly increasing polarization, not all outlets align to serve the same purpose. They all want to serve “their side”, “their sports team” in terms of political agenda.
> 
> Maybe I could better explain it this way… CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. all shill manipulated stories to further the liberal/left’s political agenda while also acting as a “check” against the conservative/right’s political agenda and painting the conservative/right side as evil. Then you have Fox News, The Daily Wire, The Washington Post, etc. who all shill manipulated stories to further the conservative/right’s political agenda while also acting as a “check” against the liberal/left’s political agenda and painting the liberal/left as evil.
> 
> Where does this lead the USA populace though? They get stuck at an impasse, inundated constantly with manipulated narratives. So eventually, they feel the need to “choose a side” because it makes processing easier on their brains. (And again, I’ll bring up my point here about factually proven, traceable drops in education standards and in average levels of intelligence in the USA.) If individuals are in social circles or families (“tribes”) that opt/vouch for one particular side, then it is no doubt that the influence will cause an individual to align with that side as well. And thus, the polarization continues…
> 
> One thing I think is interesting is how the liberal/left media outlets paint absolutely everything that is *not* left-leaning as evil as well. Moderate central sources, third-party analysts, independent figures, unaffiliated talking heads (like Joe Rogan), etc. are all painted as vile, despicable, deplorable, and evil by the liberal/left. And yet, on the flipside, the conservative/right media outlets are so quick to try to adopt everything that is *not* left-leaning and say: “Oh look! They are one of us! They are one of our own! They agree with us!” Again, moderate central sources, third-party analysts, independent figures, unaffiliated talking heads (like Joe Rogan), etc.
> 
> I wonder what this says (if anything) about the opposing approaches of the two polar sides…


I think you are making everything about media and not about actual people. I don't watch the news or give a shit about mainstream media. I can't stand people filling their 30 minute time slots with the same repeated junk because they have nothing better to report. If I want to know what is happening, I try to check a few different sources, ignoring opinion pieces and looking for facts.

There is a much bigger problem when most sources, including scientific journals, all say the same facts, and then other influential opinionists just lie to stir up their base. If anything, they are intentionally trying to be counterculture.

Take climate change as an example. Scientists who spent their lives understanding this have agreed for more than a decade that we need to take action. Left wing and centrist news reports exactly this. We need to do something. Ya, sometimes they make it sound extreme and ridiculous, but the point is clear. Right wing news just writes off any expert opinions and says it is natural and going to take your jobs.

Or take covid, any reasonable news source was reporting facts, infection rates, recommendations from medical and infectious disease experts. All verifiable by just looking at press releases from any county health officer. The other side has been insulting Fauci. Telling people to take numerous drugs that are dangerous and not proven to help. Or making masks more political than Kaepernick. Like a mask will suffocate you. Hell, many even trying to conflate the flu with covid.

Even my responses in this thread have been about which specific laws were broken and why, and not about gun rights or any other junk.

If you really think there is bias when the information I see is based on facts and expert statement and the other side is based on inciting counterculture, you really need to work in a new industry.


----------



## StevenC

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Narad is right about one thing: the media outlets can function as a “check” on the USA’s federal government; however, with the blatantly increasing polarization, not all outlets align to serve the same purpose. They all want to serve “their side”, “their sports team” in terms of political agenda.
> 
> Maybe I could better explain it this way… CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. all shill manipulated stories to further the liberal/left’s political agenda while also acting as a “check” against the conservative/right’s political agenda and painting the conservative/right side as evil. Then you have Fox News, The Daily Wire, The Washington Post, etc. who all shill manipulated stories to further the conservative/right’s political agenda while also acting as a “check” against the liberal/left’s political agenda and painting the liberal/left as evil.
> 
> Where does this lead the USA populace though? They get stuck at an impasse, inundated constantly with manipulated narratives. So eventually, they feel the need to “choose a side” because it makes processing easier on their brains. (And again, I’ll bring up my point here about factually proven, traceable drops in education standards and in average levels of intelligence in the USA.) If individuals are in social circles or families (“tribes”) that opt/vouch for one particular side, then it is no doubt that the influence will cause an individual to align with that side as well. And thus, the polarization continues…
> 
> One thing I think is interesting is how the liberal/left media outlets paint absolutely everything that is *not* left-leaning as evil as well. Moderate central sources, third-party analysts, independent figures, unaffiliated talking heads (like Joe Rogan), etc. are all painted as vile, despicable, deplorable, and evil by the liberal/left. And yet, on the flipside, the conservative/right media outlets are so quick to try to adopt everything that is *not* left-leaning and say: “Oh look! They are one of us! They are one of our own! They agree with us!” Again, moderate central sources, third-party analysts, independent figures, unaffiliated talking heads (like Joe Rogan), etc.
> 
> I wonder what this says (if anything) about the opposing approaches of the two polar sides…


You can make the argument that Joe Rogan isn't a societal negative. You'd be wrong though.


----------



## jaxadam

philkilla said:


> I conducted civil discourse in the past few pages.



I mean, it is kind of difficult to carry on a serious conversation with people that hold Dave Chappelle and Colin Kaepernick in higher regard than Maya Angelou and Arthur Ashe.


----------



## Jonathan20022

philkilla said:


> I conducted civil discourse in the past few pages.
> 
> Narad simply believes American media is the right answer, and openly uses their disdain of Trump (free real estate yet again) as a reference.
> 
> Anything beyond CNN or MSNBC is wildly discouraged around here, and it just blows my mind he's using that as an argument.
> 
> "Hey you guys are in the same echo chamber and only like news from this source right? Cool, let's talk about how great it is".



Wildly discouraged how? Is @Randy or @MaxOfMetal threatening to ban you from the forum if you mention you get your news elsewhere? 

This is the equivalent of a contrarian entering an inclined area for discussion (Facebook Group/Message Board/Sub-reddit) then nagging that they're getting downvoted or getting angry reacts. And you conducted "civil discourse" until you didn't, you're right. You could have continued but you went low brow due to a lack of retort


----------



## philkilla

CanserDYI said:


> Idk man, you should read like one of your posts. They kinda paint a different picture on who's pretty dumb



Like, please elaborate bro.

Is it my interpretation of how many idiots were involved at the Kenosha riots?

Is it how I broke down anecdotal experience in relation to what happened that evening?

Or is it how I bash modern news media?


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> I mean, it is kind of difficult to carry on a serious conversation with people that hold Dave Chappelle and Colin Kaepernick in higher regard than Maya Angelou and Arthur Ashe.



I'd say it's hard to have a serious conversation with anyone whose reading ability allowed them to reach the conclusion that anyone here fits that profile. You could always quote a post to prove otherwise.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> I'd say it's hard to have a serious conversation with anyone whose reading ability allowed them to reach the conclusion that anyone here fits that profile. You could always quote a post to prove otherwise.



Hey narad, you’re a pretty smart guy. I’ve even seen in the past that you suggest that you’ve passed every metric of intelligence there is. So, it’s pretty disappointing that I would have to point out other posts that you should be able to readily view in order to keep up with all of the content of the thread.

Or maybe do a keyword search of “Dave Chappelle” in this thread.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> I mean, it is kind of difficult to carry on a serious conversation with people that hold Dave Chappelle and Colin Kaepernick in higher regard than Maya Angelou and Arthur Ashe.


Let it be known I think Dave Chappelle is an ass who no one should look up to.


----------



## profwoot

I think the point is that the cable news/Chapelle/Kaepernick enthusiasts y'all keep arguing against don't exist in the thread.


----------



## bostjan

This is almost healthy.

It's been a while since there has been an actual political discussion. It's sort of too bad that it's not in the political debate thread, but oh well.

I'm not sure why anyone is acting the least bit surprised Rittenhouse walked. I had said at least once that it was more likely than the other foreseeable outcomes of the trial.

Based on what the jury was allowed to see, it didn't seem at all right to convict him of 1st degree murder, as the prosecutor was going for.

Maybe we can all agree, democrats, republicans, independents, whatever, that the prosecutor in the case was a knob. If I were his boss, he'd be looking for a new job right about now. I won't be too surprised to hear sometime later that he was disbarred.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> Hey narad, you’re a pretty smart guy. I’ve even seen in the past that you suggest that you’ve passed every metric of intelligence there is. So, it’s pretty disappointing that I would have to point out other posts that you should be able to readily view in order to keep up with all of the content of the thread.
> 
> Or maybe do a keyword search of “Dave Chappelle” in this thread.


So doing that results in literally one post that isn't you and narad just now. Here it is: https://www.sevenstring.org/threads/george-floyd.342276/page-77#post-5342718

Not supportive of your position, and surely not talking about this generation.


----------



## jaxadam

StevenC said:


> So doing that results in literally one post that isn't you and narad just now. Here it is: https://www.sevenstring.org/threads/george-floyd.342276/page-77#post-5342718
> 
> Not supportive of your position, and surely not talking about this generation.





profwoot said:


> I think the point is that the cable news/Chapelle/Kaepernick enthusiasts y'all keep arguing against don't exist in the thread.




Can you guys help me decipher this one then?



fantom said:


> the only modern non-white American I can think of as the voice of a generation is Dave Chappelle (aside from Kaepernick)


----------



## bostjan

"Don't listen to celebrities for political commentary" - everyone I know who has ever voted for a reality TV star (with no political qualifications) for president.

I agree that musicians and actors are generally not good at understanding politics, but this seems to be a side effect of the celebrity culture we currently have in the USA (more like in the West in general), rather than a partisan thing.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> Can you guys help me decipher this one then?



Sure, I'm your huckleberry.

You said:



jaxadam said:


> I mean, it is kind of difficult to carry on a serious conversation with people that hold Dave Chappelle and Colin Kaepernick in higher regard than Maya Angelou and Arthur Ashe.



"hold X in higher regard" is a value judgement. What Fantom said was:



fantom said:


> Honestly, the only modern non-white American I can think of as the voice of a generation is Dave Chappelle (aside from Kaepernick). Maybe the guys from Rage Against the Machine?



Which is to not say they hold Chappelle in higher regard than anyone, but that Dave Chappelle could be a voice of a generation. No value judgement. It is like "TIME's person of the year". It's not synonymous with "smartest person" or "contributed most to society". No one says Hitler was a super great guy (well, some do, but digression), but he was TIME's man of the year in 1938 because of his impact on the world. Typically a voice of a generation is someone with this huge cultural impact, and on that metric, yes, I think Colin is way out in front of Arthur Ashe.

So yea, we can argue about the definition of "voice of a generation" (something I alluded to probably being a problem in earlier posts), but I think you're probably not taking the same meaning out of these posts as their authors are putting in them.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> but I think you're probably not taking the same meaning out of these posts as their authors are putting in them.



You’re right, I’m not a very smart guy, I need things spelled out for me. It would have been much easier for me if instead of you saying “all previous voices of a generation were white men” you said “all previous voices of a generation were white men, with the exception of Maya Angelou and Arthur Ashe”.

Or did you think that maybe even you, with your infallible intellect, might not be taking the same meaning out of the posts as their authors intended?


----------



## StevenC

Also Chappelle is 48 and hadn't been relevant to "young people" in 20 years. Maybe he's the voice of his own generation, but none after that holds him in much esteem, because he stands against what we stand for.

On a different note, Lewis Hamilton is a very publicly outspoken in the name of all things equality black man. He lives by a Maya Angelou quote and us a huge Kaepernick supporter. Weirdly, he has been held to a higher level of scrutiny in his almost two decade public career than any other member of his sport.

Remind me why Colin Kaepernick isn't worthy if reverence though?


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

fantom said:


> If you really think there is bias when the information I see is based on facts and expert statement and the other side is based on inciting counterculture, you really need to work in a new industry.


Not sure if that was an unmerited insult or what...

Look, @fantom, hear me out here. Anytime there is an excessive crackdown, someone somewhere will naturally shout out "this is a violation of my rights!", correct? And not just in the USA. People of the populaces of other first-world countries have exhibited the same behaviors recently as well in response to excessive crackdowns. (Look at what's going on with the riots over in the Netherlands right now.)

Now, in regards to specifically the USA, the liberals/left come in with this over-the-top correction on behaviors, "rules" regarding extreme political correctness, blatant demands for willful censorship, constant cries for deplatforming and even death of individuals, amongst other notions that are perpetuated by both media outlets and online social media attempting to leak into reality. With something that excessive, would it not naturally follow that the someone somewhere would shout out "this is a violation of my rights!", thus giving a rise to a counterculture movement? (When one extreme rises, the opposite eventually is formulated and rears its head.)

It's the same vice-versa as we witnessed under past presidential administrations. In the past two decades, the conservatives/right came in with this over-the-top stance on gun laws, "rules" regarding religious practices, blatant demands for more private business assistance (along with implicitly more corporate deconstruction), less leadership and less government involvement in the lives of the people (including the disenfranchised), cries for the death of individuals, amongst other notions. With something that excessive, it naturally followed that the current iteration of the hardcore liberal/left rose up as a counterculture that is now seeking to take over (if they have not done so already).

This is just a pendulum swinging back and forth. One polar side gets its day. Then the other side gets their day as well. It is an inevitable cycle.

The problem though is the escalating levels of extremism and radicalization, which you have to admit are becoming more and more apparent nowadays in no short part thanks to the blatant manipulation by the media outlets as well as our reliance on social media, which allows us (the citizens) to have an eye on pretty much everything to an extent.



StevenC said:


> You can make the argument that Joe Rogan isn't a societal negative. You'd be wrong though.


How so?

This comment reeks of subjective personal bias.



narad said:


> I'd say it's hard to have a serious conversation with anyone whose reading ability allowed them to reach the conclusion that anyone here fits that profile. You could always quote a post to prove otherwise.











StevenC said:


> Let it be known I think Dave Chappelle is an ass who no one should look up to.


Yikes... Someone doesn't like (or appreciate) comedy.

This comment *also *reeks of subjective personal bias.



bostjan said:


> I agree that musicians and actors are generally not good at understanding politics, but this seems to be a side effect of the celebrity culture we currently have in the USA (more like in the West in general), rather than a partisan thing.


The West's obsession with the notion of "celebrity" is something I'll never understand. And man, I've tried damn hard to understand it while working alongside celebs in the industry that I'm in.

Maybe it's just a result of the West's individualistic cultural philosophy? Maybe to the West the status of "celebrity" is the ultimate expression of an individual being recognized for achievement as...well..."as an individual", even if the person has legitimately achieved nothing. (I'm just spit-balling theories here.) Contrast this to the East's collectivist cultural philosophy which doesn't seem to idolize celebrities to such an insane degree as Western countries, even though celebrities do exist in Eastern countries. But then again, we have counterexamples such as the "idol" music industry in Japan; but that's more for marketing/sales rather than endlessly oogling fan worship for no reason, no purpose, no achievement.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> You’re right, I’m not a very smart guy, I need things spelled out for me. It would have been much easier for me if instead of you saying “all previous voices of a generation were white men” you said “all previous voices of a generation were white men, with the exception of Maya Angelou and Arthur Ashe”.
> 
> Or did you think that maybe even you, with your infallible intellect, might not be taking the same meaning out of the posts as their authors intended?


What did white people in the 60s think of Maya Angelou and the civil rights movement? Was she the voice of a generation or the voice of a generation of black people?


----------



## StevenC

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Not sure if that was an unmerited insult or what...
> 
> Look, @fantom, here me out here. Anytime there is an excessive crackdown, someone somewhere will naturally shout out "this is a violation of my rights!", correct? And not just in the USA. People of the populaces of other first-world countries have exhibited the same behaviors recently as well in response to excessive crackdowns. (Look at what's going on with the riots over in the Netherlands right now.)
> 
> Now, in regards to specifically the USA, the liberals/left come in with this over-the-top correction on behaviors, "rules" regarding extreme political correctness, blatant demands for willful censorship, constant cries for deplatforming (and even death), amongst other notions that are perpetuated by both media outlets and online social media attempting to leak into reality. With something that excessive, would it not naturally follow that the someone somewhere would shout out "this is a violation of my rights!", thus giving a rise to a counterculture movement? (When one extreme rises, the opposite eventually is formulated and rears its head.)
> 
> It's the same vice-versa as we witnessed under past presidential administrations. In the past two decades, the conservatives/right came in with this over-the-top stance on gun laws, "rules" regarding religious practices, blatant demands for more private business assistance (along with implicitly more corporate deconstruction), less leadership and less government involvement in the lives of the people (including the disenfranchised), amongst other notions. With something that excessive, it naturally followed that the current iteration of the hardcore liberal/left rose up as a counterculture that is now seeking to take over (if they have not done so already).
> 
> This is just a pendulum swinging back and forth. One polar side gets its day. Then the other side gets their day as well. it's an inevitable cycle.
> 
> The problem though is the escalating levels of extremism and radicalization, which you have to admit are becoming more and more apparent nowadays in no short part thanks to the blatant manipulation by the media outlets as well as our reliance on social media, which allows us (the citizens) to have an eye on pretty much everything to an extent.
> 
> How so?
> 
> This comment reeks of subjective personal bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes... Someone doesn't like (or appreciate) comedy.
> 
> This comment *also *reeks of subjective personal bias.
> 
> The West's obsession with the notion of "celebrity" is something I'll never understand. And man, I've tried damn hard to understand it while working alongside celebs in the industry that I'm in.
> 
> Maybe it's just a result of the West's individualistic cultural philosophy? Maybe to the West the status of "celebrity" is the ultimate expression of an individual being recognized for achievement as...well..."as individual", even if the person has legitimately achieved nothing. (I'm just spit-balling theories here.) Contrast this to the East's collectivist cultural philosophy which doesn't seem to idolize celebrities to such an insane degree as Western countries, even though celebrities do exist in Eastern countries. But then again, we have counterexamples such as the "idol" music industry in Japan; but that's more for marketing/sales rather than endlessly oogling fan worship for no reason, no purpose, no achievement.


Joe Rogan is an antiscience nutcase, and Dave Chappelle is a TERF who punches down in his comedy. Punching down is objectively not good comedy.


----------



## jaxadam

StevenC said:


> What did white people in the 60s think of Maya Angelou and the civil rights movement? Was she the voice of a generation or the voice of a generation of black people?



I don’t know man, I didn’t grow up in the 60’s. In the 80’s, we looked up to her and learned a lot about her in school. What did you think about her in the 80’s?


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> You’re right, I’m not a very smart guy, I need things spelled out for me. It would have been much easier for me if instead of you saying “all previous voices of a generation were white men” you said “all previous voices of a generation were white men, with the exception of Maya Angelou and Arthur Ashe”.
> 
> Or did you think that maybe even you, with your infallible intellect, might not be taking the same meaning out of the posts as their authors intended?



Well that's quite a deflection from our current topic of you calling out what Fantom said, but if we're switching back to me, fine.

I think Maya Angelou is great, but she's also not a voice of her generation IMO. I mean, her generation is one where black people didn't even have the right to vote and racism was rampant. Her generation, was still a largely white USA with pretty harsh racial views. Hard to be the voice of a generation where that generation was > 50% against inter-racial marriage, etc. Again, it's not a value judgement, it's about impact. And Arthur Ashe... no way...

Again, it will come down to how you define it. I think we're just now reaching a point where black voices are so numerous and so salient in the culture that a vote for "voice of a generation" now would likely include many black candidates. And up to now (let's say 2000s) I don't know of anyone who had similar cultural impact on the youth of America who was non-white. So I basically stand by my earlier statement.

But again, you're just throwing points around based off an insistence on not agreeing to what "voice of america" means as I'm using, and I'm using it in the way that I have seen it used. Which is why I cited Kerouac a few pages back -- not because he's my pick, but he seems to be the most often mentioned example of "voice of america" that I see on the internet. That's not my philosophy, but its impact on youth culture at the time is undeniable. You need examples that are more like that, and less like Shaq, who I believe you also listed?


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> Based on what the jury was allowed to see, it didn't seem at all right to convict him of 1st degree murder, as the prosecutor was going for.



I thought I remembered reading something about the jury (maybe just specifically in some states) being able to consider lesser charges. Do we know if that was the case here?


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> Well that's quite a deflection from our current topic of you calling out what Fantom said, but if we're switching back to me, fine.
> 
> I think Maya Angelou is great, but she's also not a voice of her generation IMO. I mean, her generation is one where black people didn't even have the right to vote and racism was rampant. Her generation, was still a largely white USA with pretty harsh racial views. Hard to be the voice of a generation where that generation was > 50% against inter-racial marriage, etc. Again, it's not a value judgement, it's about impact. And Arthur Ashe... no way...
> 
> Again, it will come down to how you define it. I think we're just now reaching a point where black voices are so numerous and so salient in the culture that a vote for "voice of a generation" now would likely include many black candidates. And up to now (let's say 2000s) I don't know of anyone who had similar cultural impact on the youth of America who was non-white. So I basically stand by my earlier statement.
> 
> But again, you're just throwing points around based off an insistence on not agreeing to what "voice of america" means as I'm using, and I'm using it in the way that I have seen it used. Which is why I cited Kerouac a few pages back -- not because he's my pick, but he seems to be the most often mentioned example of "voice of america" that I see on the internet. That's not my philosophy, but its impact on youth culture at the time is undeniable. You need examples that are more like that, and less like Shaq, who I believe you also listed?



I’ve never even heard of Kerouac. At least you’ve heard of Shaq!


----------



## profwoot

I agree with just about everything in Emperor's latest; both sides are becoming more extreme, as inevitably happens in such a polarized environment. 

The issue as I see it is that on the left, people's hearts seem to be in the right place. Humans should be kind, we should give a shit about equality, democracy and fairness are values worth striving for. On the right, all I see is people feeling threatened by the rising tide of demographic and social change and fighting dirty to hold onto the power and status they used to have by subverting those same values. 

In general everything would be better if people zoomed out a little bit. Sure, liberals are assholes on the internet sometimes. But being an asshole is basically the platform of the republican party now. Do we care about what our society is going to look like in 10 or 20 years, or are we mostly just pissed at how some individuals try to effect change, regardless of what that change is? Personally, I'd rather live in a liberal democracy than fascist dictatorship, so choose your team wisely.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

StevenC said:


> What did white people in the 60s think of Maya Angelou and the civil rights movement? Was she the voice of a generation or the voice of a generation of black people?



I'm not sure what you mean by this post. Is this implying that because not all white people took kindly to folks like MLK or Maya Angelou that they're not considered voices of a generation. Because the civil rights movement really did sway the way a great deal of people thought and treated people, and people like MLK and Maya Angelou were a big part of that.

edit: I could very well be reading this wrong, so apologies if I am.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Joe Rogan is an antiscience nutcase, and Dave Chappelle is a TERF who punches down in his comedy. Punching down is objectively not good comedy.



Joe Rogan's podcast is the only medium through which I have ever heard the sound of someone's eyes rolling, when he was trying to explain the stoned ape theory to an evolutionary biologist.



jaxadam said:


> I’ve never even heard of Kerouac. At least you’ve heard of Shaq!



Presumably Kerouac was not either of our generations.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

spudmunkey said:


> I thought I remembered reading something about the jury (maybe just specifically in some states) being able to consider lesser charges. Do we know if that was the case here?



They basically tossed out the lesser "compromise" charge when they said his rifle was too long and thus somehow not a dangerous weapon. I thought for sure he was going to land that charge.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

StevenC said:


> Joe Rogan is an antiscience nutcase, and Dave Chappelle is a TERF who punches down in his comedy. Punching down is objectively not good comedy.


Message received loud and clear.



narad said:


> Joe Rogan's podcast is the only medium through which I have ever heard the sound of someone's eyes rolling, when he was trying to explain the stoned ape theory to an evolutionary biologist.






StevenC said:


> What did white people in the 60s think of Maya Angelou and the civil rights movement? Was she the voice of a generation or the voice of a generation of black people?


I think Maya Angelou was *the *voice of a generation for black Americans in the 60s; but then later on, her influence broadened as times changed and the populace adapted to the changing societal norms. So she became *a* voice of a generation in the 70s-80s for all Americans (not just black Americans) through her writings and speeches.


----------



## jaxadam

Emperor Guillotine said:


> I think Maya Angelou was *the *voice of a generation for black Americans in the 60s; but then later on, her influence broadened as times changed and the populace adapted to the changing societal norms. So she became *a* voice of a generation in the 70s-80s for all Americans (not just black Americans) through her writings and speeches.


----------



## StevenC

Señor Voorhees said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by this post. Is this implying that because not all white people took kindly to folks like MLK or Maya Angelou that they're not considered voices of a generation. Because the civil rights movement really did sway the way a great deal of people thought and treated people, and people like MLK and Maya Angelou were a big part of that.
> 
> edit: I could very well be reading this wrong, so apologies if I am.


The point being argued is whether there were historic BIPOC voices of a generation before modern times. Jaxadam suggested Maya Angelou as one. 

However, this is a logical fallacy because the time in which you are appreciated matters to being the voice of a generation. Maya Angelou was a very influential person in her time among mostly her own community. Her time was one which, as narad said, was incredibly prejudiced against her. It is very hard to be a voice of a generation if when you do your most important work does not line up with when it resonates with people.

Colin Kaepernick for example is having global crossover appeal for the stand he is taking, or rather knee, as he is/was doing it. Maya Angelou's work is incredibly important, I'm not denying that, but it was not broadly popular in its time.

My point is that crossover appeal is essential to being the voice of a generation, because your message does have to transcend divides within that generation. She was certainly a voice for black people in America, that's indisputable, but that is a different thing.


----------



## Andromalia

bostjan said:


> I'm not sure why anyone is acting the least bit surprised Rittenhouse walked.


Not all of us are american.
What that tells me is that your criminal law is probably as fucked up as your electoral procedures.


----------



## jaxadam

StevenC said:


> The point being argued is whether there were historic BIPOC voices of a generation before modern times. Jaxadam suggested Maya Angelou as one.
> 
> However, this is a logical fallacy because the time in which you are appreciated matters to being the voice of a generation. Maya Angelou was a very influential person in her time among mostly her own community. Her time was one which, as narad said, was incredibly prejudiced against her. It is very hard to be a voice of a generation if when you do your most important work does not line up with when it resonates with people.



So you're suggesting Maya Angelou is not a voice of a generation, and that I'm the only person to make such an outlandish claim? Or are you just punching down?


----------



## Adieu

I'm struggling to summon her image from memory or recall who exactly she was(?)/is.

Pretty sure she was a famous black lady...and, yeah, that's about it.

Actually, no, even the black part was a guess from context.

Sorry? Anyway, this is not to offend anyone, just to state that I agree that she lacks the universal recognition you ascribe to her.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> So you're suggesting Maya Angelou is not a voice of a generation, and that I'm the only person to make such an outlandish claim? Or are you just punching down?


Look, if you don't have any interest in a real argument go somewhere else.


----------



## jaxadam

fantom said:


> the _*only*_ modern non-white American I can think of as the voice of a generation is Dave Chappelle





narad said:


> Which is to not say they hold Chappelle in higher regard than anyone, but that Dave Chappelle _*could*_ be a voice of a generation.



I guess the difference between your reading comprehension and my reading comprehension is that when the word "only" is used, it would negate the word "could". For example, if I said out of all the fruits, I _only_ like oranges, that would not imply that I _could_ like apples. I _only_ like oranges.


----------



## jaxadam

StevenC said:


> Look, if you don't have any interest in a real argument go somewhere else.



Is something bothering you? You are suggesting that I brought up Maya Angelou as a voice of a generation, and that it is a logical fallacy due to your new definition of "voice of a generation" and how the timeline needs to add up, but a quick google search indicates that certainly I'm not the only one that thinks she was.

You will need to get in touch with these people to and explain to them their logical fallacy.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> I guess the difference between your reading comprehension and my reading comprehension is that when the word "only" is used, it would negate the word "could". For example, if I said out of all the fruits, I _only_ like oranges, that would not imply that I _could_ like apples. I _only_ like oranges.



It seems completely tangential to the earlier points. Whether or not Fantom meant that Dave Chappelle is a voice of his generation or the [only] voice of his generation, it wouldn't imply holding him in higher regard than Maya Angelou or any number of other people, because "voice of a generation" does not seem synonymous with "who's your favorite?" or "who is the best" or just to make it completely obvious, "who do you hold in higher regard than". There are lots of people I hold in higher regard than other more influential people who have far greater cultural impact on the youth of America.


----------



## bostjan

Andromalia said:


> Not all of us are american.
> What that tells me is that your criminal law is probably as fucked up as your electoral procedures.


There have been plenty of high-profile cases to prove such already.

But my comment was more directed at how inept the prosecutor was. I imagine that, if I were on trial in France, and the prosecutor violated courtroom protocol, charged me with crime three times worse than reasonable for the situation, and the judge didn't allow any of the best evidence to be shown in court, that I would likely walk away too.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> You will need to get in touch with these people to and explain to them their logical fallacy.



Dude, you know you can type a hell of a lotta names into google + voice of a generation and get hits? The internet is a big place. Try searching without naming a person and see what sorts of names you get.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

jaxadam said:


>


Well-played. 



Adieu said:


> I'm struggling to summon her image from memory or recall who exactly she was(?)/is.
> 
> Pretty sure she was a famous black lady...and, yeah, that's about it.
> 
> Actually, no, even the black part was a guess from context.
> 
> Sorry? Anyway, this is not to offend anyone, just to state that I agree that she lacks the universal recognition you ascribe to her.


Not gonna lie, I bet a bunch of folks reading this thread had to Google her name too for reference. I'm curious as to how many folks have actually read any of her works...outside of a high school classroom.



narad said:


> Dude, you know you can type a hell of a lotta names into google + voice of a generation and get hits? The internet is a big place. Try searching without naming a person and see what sorts of names you get.


Yep. Just Google the term "voice of a generation" and see who/what pops up. Much more universal figures will be the immediate results.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> It seems completely tangential to the earlier points. Whether or not Fantom meant that Dave Chappelle is a voice of his generation or the [only] voice of his generation, it wouldn't imply holding him in higher regard than Maya Angelou or any number of other people, because "voice of a generation" does not seem synonymous with "who's your favorite?" or "who is the best" or just to make it completely obvious, "who do you hold in higher regard than". There are lots of people I hold in higher regard than other more influential people who have far greater cultural impact on the youth of America.



My original point still stands: it is hard _for me_ to have any interaction with the topic of Dave Chappelle being the _only _voice of a generation.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> Dude, you know you can type a hell of a lotta names into google + voice of a generation and get hits? The internet is a big place. Try searching without naming a person and see what sorts of names you get.



Dude, I did, and it's funny... I didn't get anything remotely resembling what was suggested that only I suggested.






So in my cursory google search, it seems more people think of Maya Angelou as a "voice of a generation" than your boy Colin Kaepernick.

But only time will tell, we'll have to see how this generation reacts, because it only matters if it is in the here and now.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> My original point still stands: it is hard _for me_ to have any interaction with the topic of Dave Chappelle being the _only _voice of a generation.



And at the end of this long road it would have been proven that you can't have any interaction with Fantom, vs. what I think was the original point about Philkila being able to have discourse with me!


----------



## Adieu

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Well-played.
> 
> Not gonna lie, I bet a bunch of folks reading this thread had to Google her name too for reference. I'm curious as to how many folks have actually read any of her works...outside of a high school classroom.
> 
> Yep. Just Google the term "voice of a generation" and see who/what pops up. Much more universal figures will be the immediate results.



Wasn't in the curriculum around the turn of the millenium.

And I confess I probably would have guessed "Romanian Jewish activist, maybe?" if she were mentioned outside of a context where her race and origin were pretty obvious


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> And at the end of this long road it would have been proven that you can't have any interaction with Fantom, vs. what I think was the original point about Philkila being able to have discourse with me!



I never said anything about the discourse between you and Phil. I was only stating my point of view. Reading comprehension, remember?

Here's my original quote. Can you show me where I mention you?



jaxadam said:


> I mean, it is kind of difficult to carry on a serious conversation with people that hold Dave Chappelle and Colin Kaepernick in higher regard than Maya Angelou and Arthur Ashe.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> I never said anything about the discourse between you and Phil. I was only stating my point of view. Reading comprehension, remember?
> 
> Here's my original quote. Can you show me where I mention you?



Sure, but the post you were quoting in that reply was about me/Phil. I don't think it matters, but that was the topic being discussed.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> Sure, but the post you were quoting in that reply was about me/Phil. I don't think it matters, but that was the topic being discussed.



So you kind of invent insinuated topics you want to discuss (my quote to Phil that never mentioned you, but you _assumed_) and you initially disregard topics you don't want to discuss (fantom's quote). Here's your original dismissal:



narad said:


> I'd say it's hard to have a serious conversation with anyone _whose *reading ability allowed them to reach the conclusion* that anyone here fits that profile._ You could always quote a post to prove otherwise.



Apparently my original reading ability allowed me to reach the conclusion with fantom, and _only _fantom. See what I did there 

Since we're on the topic of going back into the past, let's revisit this quote of yours:



narad said:


> I'm impressed. The voices of all previous generations were probably all white guys.



Do you still believe the voices of all previous generations were white guys? Can you give some examples?


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> So you kind of invent insinuated topics you want to discuss (my quote to Phil that never mentioned you, but you _assumed_) and you initially disregard topics you don't want to discuss (fantom's quote). Here's your original dismissal:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently my original reading ability allowed me to reach the conclusion with fantom, and _only _fantom. See what I did there
> 
> Since we're on the topic of going back into the past, let's revisit this quote of yours:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you still believe the voices of all previous generations were white guys? Can you give some examples?



I'm just going to blanket wrap these statements for time: you claimed it was hard to have a conversation with someone who holds Dave Chappelle higher than Maya Angelou, and that is still something that no one has stated, or could be directly implied by any previous post. If you want fantom's opinion to clarify if they believe it, ask @fantom


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> I'm just going to blanket wrap these statements for time: you claimed it was hard to have a conversation with someone who holds Dave Chappelle higher than Maya Angelou, and that is still something that no one has stated, or could be directly implied by any previous post. If you want fantom's opinion to clarify if they believe it, ask @fantom



I indirectly implied it based on the word “only”, which as I stated earlier would negate any other choice, be it Maya Angelou or even my boy Shaq.

So, for time, can you quickly wrap up your stance on your quote here:



narad said:


> The voices of all previous generations were probably all white guys.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> I indirectly implied it based on the word “only”, which as I stated earlier would negate any other choice, be it Maya Angelou or even my boy Shaq.
> 
> So, for time, can you quickly wrap up your stance on your quote here:



I mean, I even already did re-iterate my stance:



narad said:


> Again, it will come down to how you define it. I think we're just now reaching a point where black voices are so numerous and so salient in the culture that a vote for "voice of a generation" now would likely include many black candidates. *And up to now (let's say 2000s) I don't know of anyone who had similar cultural impact on the youth of America who was non-white. So I basically stand by my earlier statement.*


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> I mean, I even already did re-iterate my stance:



Thanks, I glossed right over that earlier. That’s your stance.


----------



## fantom

jaxadam said:


> My original point still stands: it is hard _for me_ to have any interaction with the topic of Dave Chappelle being the _only _voice of a generation.


Likewise. I think the sarcasm or hyperbole or whatever you want to call it in my initial post to make a point that I can't think of any went straight over your head and somehow is derailing this thread. I actually didn't have the "maybe..." until later, when I added Kaep and RATM in an edit. Definitely seems to be misunderstood. I was serious about Kaep and RATM. Does that clear things up?

And to support it...

RATM has been political for 20+ years. They made the #1 Billboard spot because the internet chose them as a band to say FU to the record industry and push a social injustice message using the band as the icon.

Kaep, whether you think he would have played or not, torched his career over a social issue that seemed prophetic given this thread is literally about BLM shooting. He will be remembered for it whether you like him or not.


----------



## bostjan

Hearing a lot of conservatives saying now that Rittenhouse should file lawsuits against the news outlets for defamation.


----------



## jaxadam

fantom said:


> Likewise. I think the sarcasm or hyperbole or whatever you want to call it in my initial post to make a point that I can't think of any went straight over your head and somehow is derailing this thread. Definitely seems to be misunderstood. I was serious about Kaep and RATM. Does that clear things up?



 So you were “just joking”? Yeah, I missed that.

Mods, please feel free to delete the past few pages, because @fantom was “just joking”.

I mean… what are some cues I should take in your posts to know when you’re serious? You literally prefaced it with the word “Honestly” so I really gave you the benefit of the doubt.



fantom said:


> *Honestly*, the *only* modern non-white American I can think of as the voice of a generation is Dave Chappelle (aside from Kaepernick). Maybe the guys from Rage Against the Machine?


----------



## philkilla

bostjan said:


> Hearing a lot of conservatives saying now that Rittenhouse should file lawsuits against the news outlets for defamation.



He's going to be a rich man.


----------



## fantom

jaxadam said:


> So you were “just joking”? Yeah, I missed that.
> 
> Mods, please feel free to delete the past few pages, because @fantom was “just joking”.
> 
> I mean… what are some cues I should take in your posts to know when you’re serious? You literally prefaced it with the word “Honestly” so I really gave you the benefit of the doubt.



Dude. If I said, "Honestly, the only quarterback worth hiring is Tim Tebow." You either think I'm serious and clueless about the NFL or you realize I'm making fun of Tim Tebow. Assuming I'm both serious and arguing about it with other people for half a day is a pretty bold move. I would have stepped in sooner and saved you the embarrassment, but I have you on ignore already from prior interactions. So maybe this is less on me?


----------



## fantom

philkilla said:


> He's going to be a rich man.


You mean his lawyers are going to be rich. I'm sure they can just create another GoFundMe. Now if only Matt Gaetz could figure out how to take advantage of this situation to hang out with more teenage girls.


----------



## jaxadam

fantom said:


> Dude. If I said, "Honestly, the only quarterback worth hiring is Tim Tebow." You either think I'm serious and clueless about the NFL or you realize I'm making fun of Tim Tebow. Assuming I'm both serious and arguing about it with other people for half a day is a pretty bold move. I would have stepped in sooner and saved you the embarrassment, but I have you on ignore already from prior interactions. So maybe this is less on me?



What a burn... BUT, I think you're backpedaling now that you realize the folly of holding Dave Chappelle to the high standard of the _only "_voice of a generation". But carry on with them there jokes, they sure are funny! And get that ignore button fixed, you seem to constantly reply to those on your list!

@StevenC @narad How could you guys not let me know this guy was joking? Were you in on it the whole time?


----------



## philkilla

philkilla said:


> He's going to be a rich man.



Well defamation of character (broad term lol); his lawyers will probably go after the Biden admin too.


----------



## bostjan

philkilla said:


> Well defamation of character (broad term lol); his lawyers will probably go after the Biden admin too.


According to Trump, though, you can't sue a sitting president, remember?


----------



## philkilla

bostjan said:


> According to Trump, though, you can't sue a sitting president, remember?



No idea; I didn't hang onto his every word.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

bostjan said:


> Hearing a lot of conservatives saying now that Rittenhouse should file lawsuits against the news outlets for defamation.


Nicholas Sandmann and the Covington Catholic case set a precedent for this kind of legal blowback against the mainstream news outlets.



philkilla said:


> He's going to be a rich man.


You see the resulting fallout of the lawsuits against the media outlets and how the payout has worked for Sandmann thus far?


----------



## philkilla

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Nicholas Sandmann and the Covington Catholic case set a precedent for this kind of legal blowback against the mainstream news outlets.
> 
> You see the resulting fallout of the lawsuits against the media outlets and how the payout has worked for Sandmann thus far?



Multiple millions right?


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

philkilla said:


> Multiple millions right?


$250 million from just the Washington Post. Secondary link here. The settlement with CNN was not publicly disclosed, but it is guaranteed to be another insanely high amount.

Here's the real line to clip from the first link though...


> It’s the teen’s second win in a whopping $800 million defamation battle against a number of news outlets including the Washington Post, CNN, ABC, CBS, The Guardian, The Hill and NBC.



Also, I was absolutely 100% unaware of this before posting my previous comments, but it turns out that Nicholas Sandmann is now in touch with Kyle Rittenhouse. Secondary link here. And then, there was that comment about suing Biden (which probably won't happen).


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Hearing a lot of conservatives saying now that Rittenhouse should file lawsuits against the news outlets for defamation.



Doesn't the media have to present false information for there to be defamation? Last I checked he still took a gun to a protest, got "scared", and killed people. It doesn't seem similar in my mind to the Sandmann case where he was wrongly presented as the aggressor in the situation.


----------



## StevenC

Emperor Guillotine said:


> $250 million from just the Washington Post. Secondary link here. The settlement with CNN was not publicly disclosed, but it is guaranteed to be another insanely high amount.
> 
> Here's the real line to clip from the first link though...
> 
> 
> Also, I was absolutely 100% unaware of this before posting my previous comments, but it turns out that Nicholas Sandmann is now in touch with Kyle Rittenhouse. Secondary link here. And then, there was that comment about suing Biden (which probably won't happen).


The word sought is important here. Literally no competent judge would award that amount and didn't, as you can see from the words "settled out of court". This also means the odds no precedent set.


----------



## philkilla

narad said:


> Doesn't the media have to present false information for there to be defamation? Last I checked he still took a gun to a protest, got "scared", and killed people. It doesn't seem similar in my mind to the Sandmann case where he was wrongly presented as the aggressor in the situation.



The Biden political ad is still out there referring to Rittenhouse as a white supremacist; I'm not a lawyer, but that certainly sounds like defamation of character.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> The Biden political ad is still out there referring to Rittenhouse as a white supremacist; I'm not a lawyer, but that certainly sounds like defamation of character.


He would have to show that he isn't a white supremacist or at least that he's not believably a white supremacist. Him hanging out, associating and doing illegal things with white supremacists is going to hurt any chance he has of not being perceived as a white supremacist. Biden can likely get it thrown out on "fair comment or criticism" on that basis.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> The Biden political ad is still out there referring to Rittenhouse as a white supremacist; I'm not a lawyer, but that certainly sounds like defamation of character.



The one with the proud boys? Is there something where he referred to Rittenhouse directly because that one has a zero percent chance of getting traction. Defamation cases are really tough.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> The one with the proud boys? Is there something where he referred to Rittenhouse directly because that one has a zero percent chance of getting traction. Defamation cases are really tough.



Sadly he won’t be able to respond because he’s been banned. It’s nice to know that when you don’t agree with someone, you can just have them banned. Hope everyone is happy.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> Sadly he won’t be able to respond because he’s been banned. It’s nice to know that when you don’t agree with someone, you can just have them banned. Hope everyone is happy.



"Have them banned"? If you go around posting personal attacks, congratulations, you banned yourself.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> Sadly he won’t be able to respond because he’s been banned. It’s nice to know that when you don’t agree with someone, you can just have them banned. Hope everyone is happy.









Ooh, twice in one week


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> "Have them banned"? If you go around posting personal attacks, congratulations, you banned yourself.



Like @StevenC insulting him earlier calling him irreconcilably stupid and making fun of where he’s from, or telling @mbardu to go fuck himself?

It’s clearly obvious some members have carte blanche, and dog piling of reports is “having them banned”.

So don’t worry, it’s clearly one-sided, and you guys will eventually get what you want.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> The one with the proud boys? Is there something where he referred to Rittenhouse directly because that one has a zero percent chance of getting traction. Defamation cases are really tough.


There was a photo of Rittenhouse used in the video that referred to Trump's refusal to disavow white supremacists. 

It might be a different conversation if the photo included in the video was the one of Rittenhouse wearing a tee shirt with the phrase "Free as Fuck" flashing a white power hand gesture standing with leaders of the Proud Boys. Maybe Rittenhouse will come back and say that he was being ironic or something, but I'd say that, in general, if it talks like a white supremacist and it shoots BLM protesters like a white supremacist, it's very likely a white supremacist.

EDIT: Rittenhouse has recently cleared himself by saying on television "I am not a racist person."


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> Like @StevenC insulting him earlier calling him irreconcilably stupid and making fun of where he’s from, or telling @mbardu to go fuck himself?
> 
> It’s clearly obvious some members have carte blanche, and dog piling of reports is “having them banned”.
> 
> So don’t worry, it’s clearly one-sided, and you guys will eventually get what you want.


I've been trying to get banned here for years, though to be fair I said he was irreconcilably stupid _*or *_willfully ignorant. Happy to stand by what I said to mbardu in the context of him making imaginary arguments and attaching them to me when I was saying the opposite.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> There was a photo of Rittenhouse used in the video that referred to Trump's refusal to disavow white supremacists.
> 
> It might be a different conversation if the photo included in the video was the one of Rittenhouse wearing a tee shirt with the phrase "Free as Fuck" flashing a white power hand gesture standing with leaders of the Proud Boys. Maybe Rittenhouse will come back and say that he was being ironic or something, but I'd say that, in general, if it talks like a white supremacist and it shoots BLM protesters like a white supremacist, it's very likely a white supremacist.



Sure, but there were also just a ton of random other protesters in there too. And it'll be tough for Rittenhouse to full dissociate himself from the proud boys when he's doing photo ops with them.

[oh wow, thought you were being facetious about the signs/shirt]



jaxadam said:


> Like @StevenC insulting him earlier calling him irreconcilably stupid and making fun of where he’s from, or telling @mbardu to go fuck himself?
> 
> It’s clearly obvious some members have carte blanche, and dog piling of reports is “having them banned”.
> 
> So don’t worry, it’s clearly one-sided, and you guys will eventually get what you want.



I can't speak for that, but I didn't flag his post, so you're going to have to come up with some other storyline.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> Sure, but there were also just a ton of random other protesters in there too. And it'll be tough for Rittenhouse to full dissociate himself from the proud boys when he's doing photo ops with them.
> 
> [oh wow, thought you were being facetious about the signs/shirt]
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for that, but I didn't flag his post, so you're going to have to come up with some other storyline.



I never said you did, you seem to think everything is about you. Everyone reading can see it, and I’ve presented the evidence of the strong bias.


----------



## Randy

Reported posts are handled. You don't report it, it doesn't get handled.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> I never said you did, you seem to think everything is about you. Everyone reading can see it, and I’ve presented the evidence of the strong bias.



Well at any rate he's gone. Can we go back to talking about how great MSNBC is now?


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Well at any rate he's gone. Can we go back to talking about how great MSNBC is now?


MSNBC is something I am definitely able to get on my TV.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> MSNBC is something I am definitely able to get on my TV.



Yes, it is readily available and popular in Japan as well.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Yes, it is readily available and popular in Japan as well.


The global cause of liberalism.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

jaxadam said:


> It’s clearly obvious some members have carte blanche, and dog piling of reports is “having them banned”.
> 
> So don’t worry, it’s clearly one-sided, and you guys will eventually get what you want.


A reinforcement of the echo chamber along with a culling of the dissenters? 

Yep, probably. Forums 100% always tend to go that way.


----------



## narad

Emperor Guillotine said:


> A reinforcement of the echo chamber along with a culling of the dissenters?
> 
> Yep, probably. Forums 100% always tend to go that way.



Regardless of whether there is some imbalance in who is reporting who, if he didn't throw insults, he wouldn't have been banned. That's the bottom line. You don't get banned for having a wrong opinion. 

It's a very "conservative" type of point to take reality -- being banned for personally insulting people -- and spin it as an effort to suppress opposing opinions. Next thing you know he'll be back and posting about being "cancelled" in the cancelled thread, vs. violating forum rules and facing consequences. It's just exhausting.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> Regardless of whether there is some imbalance in who is reporting who, if he didn't throw insults, he wouldn't have been banned. That's the bottom line. You don't get banned for having a wrong opinion.
> 
> It's a very "conservative" type of point to take reality -- being banned for personally insulting people -- and spin it as an effort to suppress opposing opinions. Next thing you know he'll be back and posting about being "cancelled" in the cancelled thread, vs. violating forum rules and facing consequences. It's just exhausting.



I was banned in this very thread for having the opinion that no one agreed with, which ironically was just proven in court. I’ve never insulted any members.

So why don’t you speak to why @StevenC can insult people and tell them to fuck off and get a pass, yet my opinion that was just supported by the ruling gets me banned?

I am also perma-banned from the big politics thread for posting memes, which is clearly a big no-no.


----------



## Adieu

StevenC said:


> The global cause of liberalism.



MSNBC? Japan? ...yup, clearly the spitting image of liberalism.


----------



## jaxadam

Emperor Guillotine said:


> A reinforcement of the echo chamber along with a culling of the dissenters?
> 
> Yep, probably. Forums 100% always tend to go that way.



That’s why these threads now only have the same three or four actors constantly participating. I’ve gotten PM’s from plenty of members that have told me they just don’t bother anymore, because they just get dogpiled and banned from other members who have free reign to hurl insults.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> I was banned in this very thread for having the opinion that no one agreed with, which ironically was just proven in court. I’ve never insulted any members.
> 
> So why don’t you speak to why @StevenC can insult people and tell them to fuck off and get a pass, yet my opinion that was just supported by the ruling gets me banned?



Well you have to take that up with the mods but I'm personally very skeptical that _that_ was the reason. I don't even know what opinion you might have had that could have just been "proven in court", apart from there being a jury that would find him innocent. That's pretty much the only thing that has changed.

As for why Steven gets a pass, as pointed out just a few posts above, if it's not reported, it doesn't get handled. Given the amount of batshit opinions I've heard on here over the years, it just doesn't make any sense. Maybe it's the luck of the Irish.


----------



## Randy

Ask adieu how many times he was banned. The OP of this thread is banned and has been several times.


----------



## ArtDecade

Steven is up in Ulster. That's just how people talk there.


----------



## narad

ArtDecade said:


> Steven is up in Ulster. That's just how people talk there.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> Well you have to take that up with the mods but I'm personally very skeptical that _that_ was the reason. I don't even know what opinion you might have had that could have just been "proven in court", apart from there being a jury that would find him innocent. That's pretty much the only thing that has changed.
> 
> As for why Steven gets a pass, as pointed out just a few posts above, if it's not reported, it doesn't get handled. Given the amount of batshit opinions I've heard on here over the years, it just doesn't make any sense. Maybe it's the luck of the Irish.



We don't have time to read every post in every thread. 

I can't speak for the other guys but I went from 7 days a week, 8-hours a day working infront of a computer to doing mostly field work and occasionally checking into the office for updates. I had a lot more time to go through threads, which was also a lot more helpful/useful when we had more mod powers.

So as it stands, I only answer stuff that gets reported. Occasionally I'll have time to actually read a thread and even that is limited to either the latest page or maybe go back one page if I'm looking for context but even that is rare. 

If there's a tit-for-tat, it's rare I'll actually get a chance to dig far enough back to figure out who started it, plus I'm primarily of the opinion if both sides are being equally unreasonable, let them duke it out unless it gets to "that point". And again, that's in the context of how rare it is I can really read any of this in context. Or it HAS to be reported so one of us can be directed there.

FWIW, there's a lot of reports (yes, even by liberal SSO members) that get ignored by either us or bossman. Say half the time or more. And of that remaining portion, about 3/4 of those I delete the offending posts and tell both sides to knock it off and leave it at that. Implying all offenses result in a ban and all those offenders are conservative posters is false. Disproportionately? Sure, but we can agree to disagree on why that is.


----------



## profwoot

Standard fascist playbook is to ALWAYS play the victim. Everything is projection. Victimizing others? Pretend to be the victim. Being a deplorable racist? Accuse others of racism. Constantly trying to censor your opponents? Accuse them of censorship. Glued 24/7 to a cable news propaganda channel? Accuse all other cable news channels of being propaganda and assume your opponents are similarly glued to them. And on and on.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> Well you have to take that up with the mods but I'm personally very skeptical that _that_ was the reason. I don't even know what opinion you might have had that could have just been "proven in court", apart from there being a jury that would find him innocent. That's pretty much the only thing that has changed.
> 
> As for why Steven gets a pass, as pointed out just a few posts above, if it's not reported, it doesn't get handled. Given the amount of batshit opinions I've heard on here over the years, it just doesn't make any sense. Maybe it's the luck of the Irish.



I don’t feel the need to report, even if they insult me. They can make their own bed, and like I said other people, even though they may not actively participate, see it. I actually prefer them to keep talking, because I value differing opinions, but who am I kidding here.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> That’s why these threads now only have the same three or four actors constantly participating. I’ve gotten PM’s from plenty of members that have told me they just don’t bother anymore, because they just get dogpiled and banned from other members who have free reign to hurl insults.


As opposed to the members that just post in these threads to derail them?


----------



## Randy

Not really sure where this discussion is going, let's agree to never ban anybody?


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> I don’t feel the need to report, even if they insult me. They can make their own bed, and like I said other people, even though they may not actively participate, see it. I actually prefer them to keep talking, because I value differing opinions, but who am I kidding here.



You can't say you don't feel the need to report people, and then ask why those people aren't banned. Reporting posts is a necessary action to initiate the review that might result in a ban.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> I don’t feel the need to report, even if they insult me. They can make their own bed, and like I said other people, even though they may not actively participate, see it. I actually prefer them to keep talking, because I value differing opinions, but who am I kidding here.


As a former mod, I try to keep that mental filter in place. I basically only report things that, as a mod, I would have considered warning or suspending someone over, and for me that threshold, especially in a conversation I'm a part of, is pretty high. Disagreeing, even violently and at times with hostility, is one thing - straight up insulting people without even pretending to be trying to have a conversation, or - in this forum, with its various warnings about behavior in the sub-header - protracted trolling with, again, no attempt to even have a discussion, is something that I'll occasionally report a post for. The ironic thing is, I'm far less likely to do this when I've been an active part of the conversation - you sleep in the bed you make, I guess - and even then I've probably reported like three posts all year. I know modding here is a thankless job, so I try not to make it worse.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

profwoot said:


> Standard fascist playbook is to ALWAYS play the victim. Everything is projection. Victimizing others? Pretend to be the victim. Being a deplorable racist? Accuse others of racism. Constantly trying to censor your opponents? Accuse them of censorship. Glued 24/7 to a cable news propaganda channel? Accuse all other cable news channels of being propaganda and assume your opponents are similarly glued to them. And on and on.


This comment is an example of projection.

Man, look, both the conservatives/right and liberals/left engage in every single one of these behaviors to a verifiable, well-documented degree. This isn't a "fascist" thing. This is a "nation of spoiled children" thing, which sums up the USA's populace pretty darn accurately.

The people who have been conditioned by the media to scream "THIS IS FASCISM!!!" at absolutely everything and anything that they personally, subjectively disagree with are an immense root of the problem. That is cold, hard fact that needs to be acknowledged. People who engage in that conditioned behavioral response don't actually understand what fascism truly is. Maybe you need to actually go visit a fascist country, or heck, just Google up legitimate historical examples of fascism and how they played out. Read a book. (I know, I know, asking someone to read nowadays is an utter travesty...) Does the USA have problems? Oh, absolutely. Crooked as every other nation. But don't let your personal bias blind you to the real problem as you engage in your conditioned behavioral response.


----------



## StevenC

Emperor Guillotine said:


> This comment is an example of projection.
> 
> Man, look, both the conservatives/right and liberals/left engage in every single one of these behaviors to a verifiable, well-documented degree. This isn't a "fascist" thing. This is a "nation of spoiled children" thing, which sums up the USA's populace pretty darn accurately.
> 
> The people who have been conditioned by the media to scream "THIS IS FASCISM!!!" at absolutely everything and anything that they personally, subjectively disagree with are an immense root of the problem. That is cold, hard fact that needs to be acknowledged. People who engage in that conditioned behavioral response don't actually understand what fascism truly is. Maybe you need to actually go visit a fascist country, or heck, just Google up legitimate historical examples of fascism and how they played out. Read a book. (I know, I know, asking someone to read nowadays is an utter travesty...) Does the USA have problems? Oh, absolutely. Crooked as every other nation. But don't let your personal bias blind you to the real problem as you engage in your conditioned behavioral response.


Except, and this is important, more people watch Fox than CNN and MSNBC combined despite there being fewer conservative voting folks in the USA.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

StevenC said:


> Except, and this is important, more people watch Fox than CNN and MSNBC combined despite there being fewer conservative voting folks in the USA.


----------



## Xaios

Emperor Guillotine said:


> A thing.


https://deadline.com/2021/11/fox-news-the-five-ratings-october-1234866535/

"In primetime, Fox News was on top with an average of 2.3 million total viewers, a drop of 53% from October 2020. MSNBC averaged 1.2 million, off by 56%, and CNN posted 661,000, down by 73%."

They mention viewership being significantly down from 2020 because of the election cycle last year. Regardless, Fox News had 2.3 million average viewers in October 2021 compared to MSNBC and CNN's combined total of 1.86 million.


----------



## nightflameauto

Emperor Guillotine said:


> This comment is an example of projection.
> 
> Man, look, both the conservatives/right and liberals/left engage in every single one of these behaviors to a verifiable, well-documented degree. This isn't a "fascist" thing. This is a "nation of spoiled children" thing, which sums up the USA's populace pretty darn accurately.
> 
> The people who have been conditioned by the media to scream "THIS IS FASCISM!!!" at absolutely everything and anything that they personally, subjectively disagree with are an immense root of the problem. That is cold, hard fact that needs to be acknowledged. People who engage in that conditioned behavioral response don't actually understand what fascism truly is. Maybe you need to actually go visit a fascist country, or heck, just Google up legitimate historical examples of fascism and how they played out. Read a book. (I know, I know, asking someone to read nowadays is an utter travesty...) Does the USA have problems? Oh, absolutely. Crooked as every other nation. But don't let your personal bias blind you to the real problem as you engage in your conditioned behavioral response.


Back in the eighties us dumbass kids always called the disagreeable types commies too. Some of us grew out of that, some of us got new bugaboo names to call people.


----------



## mmr007

That is not projection...that is fact. It is the fascist playbook. Unless I am misunderstanding the arguments presented here it seems we are back arguing "what aboutisms?" and it is a false equivalency. MSNBC riles up its liberal viewers and Fox riles up its conservative viewers but it's not even close to being the same. Neonazi's say that jews are a threat to our society. The ADL says neonazis are a threat to our society. Are they both equally guilty of raising the temperature through rhetoric? No. One is full of shit and one is presenting facts even though technically they are performing the same act.

MSNBC reports that no US president has been as deferential to a Russian leader as Trump was.....it's a fact. If you are a Trump supporter you may not like hearing it or agree but it is a fact.

Fox News reports that no self respecting US president would wear a tan suit like Obama did....purposely ignoring that their patron saint Reagan often did. Fox lies to generate agitation. MSNBC agitates to generate awareness.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

Xaios said:


> https://deadline.com/2021/11/fox-news-the-five-ratings-october-1234866535/
> 
> "In primetime, Fox News was on top with an average of 2.3 million total viewers, a drop of 53% from October 2020. MSNBC averaged 1.2 million, off by 56%, and CNN posted 661,000, down by 73%."
> 
> They mention viewership being significantly down from 2020 because of the election cycle last year. Regardless, Fox News had 2.3 million average viewers in October 2021 compared to MSNBC and CNN's combined total of 1.86 million.


Thank you for actually providing some citation here, @Xaios.



nightflameauto said:


> Back in the eighties us dumbass kids always called the disagreeable types commies too. Some of us grew out of that, some of us got new bugaboo names to call people.


So, pretty much, you've got the Commies calling other people Commies because extremist-fueled propaganda has everyone convinced that any dissenter who disagrees with them is a Commie with the propaganda serving to further polarize the populace and weaken the populace's ability to unite together. 

So, either we are all Commies, or none of us are Commies?

But now in 2021, the insults/terminology has changed. But other than that, the tactic is the same.


----------



## mbardu

mmr007 said:


> That is not projection...that is fact. It is the fascist playbook. Unless I am misunderstanding the arguments presented here it seems we are back arguing "what aboutisms?" and it is a false equivalency. MSNBC riles up its liberal viewers and Fox riles up its conservative viewers but it's not even close to being the same. Neonazi's say that jews are a threat to our society. The ADL says neonazis are a threat to our society. Are they both equally guilty of raising the temperature through rhetoric? No. One is full of shit and one is presenting facts even though technically they are performing the same act.
> 
> MSNBC reports that no US president has been as deferential to a Russian leader as Trump was.....it's a fact. If you are a Trump supporter you may not like hearing it or agree but it is a fact.
> 
> Fox News reports that no self respecting US president would wear a tan suit like Obama did....purposely ignoring that their patron saint Reagan often did. Fox lies to generate agitation. MSNBC agitates to generate awareness.



I'm more left than most people here, but I wouldn't defend MSNBC and interpret the different _outcomes we see _as a difference of intent or modus operandi from them.
Fox and MSNBC are both trying to get views and $$$ by riling up their audience.
MSNBC is not a selfless beacon bringing us awareness.

It may _appear _that the topics FOX cover are dumb and that the people they defend are indefensible, and that they are time and time again hypocrites...but that's just the hand they're dealt... The right side just has a higher number of terrible leaders and more baggage, so they are harder to defend. It's not FOX's fault  .

But MSNBC is just as sensationalist and hypocritical as FOX. (Justified) reporting on Trump's mental and physical health at every opportunity, sure... but when Biden is visibly unwell...crickets. Criticism of the right's lifestyle and their elected officials' links to business all day long everyday...but the Pelosi/Newsom family cozying up to billionaires is never reported on somehow.
Just like Obama's tan suit, MSNBC also enjoyed reporting on inconsequential stuff like Trump's diet coke and Hamburger habits. Same practices.

FOX is not the one saying that Jews are a threat to society btw so I fail to see how that's relevant. There are extreme people on the left too who say stuff like "all white people are irredeemable racists" or "we should murder all billionaires" or "we should chemically stop puberty for all kids to make things fair"....and you're not making MSNBC accountable for them.

Now, don't get me wrong...I truly believe the right _should _be criticized more. But the "left" (if you can even call it that in the US) is still very far from good, and the MSNBC that's defending them is still a pretty big pile of shit regardless


----------



## mmr007

mbardu said:


> I'm more left than most people here, but I wouldn't defend MSNBC and interpret the different _outcomes we see _as a difference of intent or modus operandi from them.
> Fox and MSNBC are both trying to get views and $$$ by riling up their audience.
> MSNBC is not a selfless beacon bringing us awareness.
> 
> It may _appear _that the topics FOX cover are dumb and that the people they defend are indefensible, and that they are time and time again hypocrites...but that's just the hand they're dealt... The right side just has a higher number of terrible leaders and more baggage, so they are harder to defend. It's not FOX's fault  .
> 
> But MSNBC is just as sensationalist and hypocritical as FOX. (Justified) reporting on Trump's mental and physical health at every opportunity, sure... but when Biden is visibly unwell...crickets. Criticism of the right's lifestyle and their elected officials' links to business all day long everyday...but the Pelosi/Newsom family cozying up to billionaires is never reported on somehow.
> Just like Obama's tan suit, MSNBC also enjoyed reporting on inconsequential stuff like Trump's diet coke and Hamburger habits. Same practices.
> 
> FOX is not the one saying that Jews are a threat to society btw so I fail to see how that's relevant. There are extreme people on the left too who say stuff like "all white people are irredeemable racists" or "we should murder all billionaires" or "we should chemically stop puberty for all kids to make things fair"....and you're not making MSNBC accountable for them.
> 
> Now, don't get me wrong...the right _should _be criticized more. But MSNBC is still a pretty big pile of shit regardless




Ok so a couple of issues I have with this. I never said Fox reported anything about Jews or insinuated. What I said was...two sides can be doing essentially the same activity and one is full of shit and one is justified...it depends on the issue each takes a side about. Sometimes one side can just be plain wrong...not different and we need to respect the difference but wrong.

I don't really watch MSNBC but I have. MSNBC may have reported on Trump's eating habits, but they didn't demean the man over it in the same way Fox did over the tan suit calling into question Obama's suitability (no pun intended) to lead the free world in a tan suit. MSNBC only questioned Trump's eating habits because his health, weight and secrecy over his checkups and claim that he was the most fit president in the history of presidents seemed dubious. Fox was trying to get their viewers mad that a man in a tan suit lead the free world. Not the same thing.

I DID clearly say that MSNBC tries to agitate....I didn't say they were honorable.....to raise awareness. They do. They agitate to bring in viewers because that sells. They have an angle, and an agenda...and even a bias. But they aren't out there lying. Rachael Maddow wears her liberal bias on her sleeve but to equate her with Tucker Carlson is ridiculous.

None of these are true news. They are all just a news sound bite followed by talking heads reminding you what you heard in the sound bite means the end of life as we know it. I don't feel I misspoke about comparing the two but I feel like if I watch MSNBC I have to wade through the bullshit to get to the truth whereas with FOX I have to wade through the bullshit only to find a bigger pile of bullshit


----------



## CanserDYI

I find it funny when Lib's think me and them are on the same side when I tell them I hate right wingers. Its more funny when I say fuck libs and have right wingers think I'm one of them.


----------



## mbardu

Emperor Guillotine said:


> This comment is an example of projection.
> 
> Man, look, both the conservatives/right and liberals/left engage in every single one of these behaviors to a verifiable, well-documented degree. This isn't a "fascist" thing. This is a "nation of spoiled children" thing, which sums up the USA's populace pretty darn accurately.
> 
> The people who have been conditioned by the media to scream "THIS IS FASCISM!!!" at absolutely everything and anything that they personally, subjectively disagree with are an immense root of the problem. That is cold, hard fact that needs to be acknowledged. People who engage in that conditioned behavioral response don't actually understand what fascism truly is. Maybe you need to actually go visit a fascist country, or heck, just Google up legitimate historical examples of fascism and how they played out. Read a book. (I know, I know, asking someone to read nowadays is an utter travesty...) Does the USA have problems? Oh, absolutely. Crooked as every other nation. But don't let your personal bias blind you to the real problem as you engage in your conditioned behavioral response.



Screaming fascism at every turn is clearly not productive. 
Like, largely left-leaning moderation on a largely left-leaning forum is not fascism, it's just fact.

It's a bit of a "boy who cried wolf" situation that detracts from the fact that even though we're not quite there, there _are _a tiny few things that actually _do _smell of fascist police state in America.


----------



## bostjan

It's understandable to have a fear of being wrong. Especially as news outlets, being wrong means losing credibility.

However, since the turn of the 21st century, news has basically all come from either Reuters, AP, or AFP. The networks then have to do something to set themselves apart from other networks that might just report straight news.

So, for example, a story from 2012...

Reuters - "Job growth steps up, but jobless rate rises."
NBC - "US economy's job engine revved up in July."
Fox - "Wrong-Way Growth: Jobless Jumps
In July as New Hiring Remains Slow."


----------



## StevenC

Emperor Guillotine said:


>





Emperor Guillotine said:


> Thank you for actually providing some citation here, @Xaios.
> 
> So, pretty much, you've got the Commies calling other people Commies because extremist-fueled propaganda has everyone convinced that any dissenter who disagrees with them is a Commie with the propaganda serving to further polarize the populace and weaken the populace's ability to unite together.
> 
> So, either we are all Commies, or none of us are Commies?
> 
> But now in 2021, the insults/terminology has changed. But other than that, the tactic is the same.


My guy, I'm not Google and nor is Xaois. Do some due diligence if you're going to make the argument that both sides are as media influenced when it's verifiable not true.


----------



## mbardu

mmr007 said:


> Ok so a couple of issues I have with this. I never said Fox reported anything about Jews or insinuated. What I said was...two sides can be doing essentially the same activity and one is full of shit and one is justified...it depends on the issue each takes a side about. Sometimes one side can just be plain wrong...not different and we need to respect the difference but wrong.
> 
> I don't really watch MSNBC but I have. MSNBC may have reported on Trump's eating habits, but they didn't demean the man over it in the same way Fox did over the tan suit calling into question Obama's suitability (no pun intended) to lead the free world in a tan suit. MSNBC only questioned Trump's eating habits because his health, weight and secrecy over his checkups and claim that he was the most fit president in the history of presidents seemed dubious. Fox was trying to get their viewers mad that a man in a tan suit lead the free world. Not the same thing.
> 
> I DID clearly say that MSNBC tries to agitate....I didn't say they were honorable.....to raise awareness. They do. They agitate to bring in viewers because that sells. They have an angle, and an agenda...and even a bias. But they aren't out there lying. Rachael Maddow wears her liberal bias on her sleeve but to equate her with Tucker Carlson is ridiculous.
> 
> None of these are true news. They are all just a news sound bite followed by talking heads reminding you what you heard in the sound bite means the end of life as we know it. I don't feel I misspoke about comparing the two but I feel like if I watch MSNBC I have to wade through the bullshit to get to the truth whereas with FOX I have to wade through the bullshit only to find a bigger pile of bullshit



Didn't mean to say you attributed the "nazi" bit to Fox, sorry if that was not clear.
Just showing that the fact there are some extremes in the "FOX watching" camp is not relevant, because there are also extremes in the "MSNBC watching" camp. In other words, I could have made your exact argument backwards, picking an extreme leftist position ("all white people are irredeemable racists who should be punished") and contrasting that with a more moderate rightist position ("maybe not all white people are bad").

Feel free to disagree, but I think you're showing some bias in your defense of MSNBC re: Trump eating habits. There were a ton of things of concern about Trump obviously, including secrecy. Drinking diet coke should _not _have been a concern. Plus, it's not like there is full transparency on Biden's health either, and if I were to bet, I'd say the latter is closer to senility than the former. Focusing on one and not the other is just that, hypocritical.

Both of those outlets try to avoid "technically" lying of course...but we know they're often _just _shy of that. if that... MSNBC has had to do numerous retractions and lost defamation settlements for going over the line.

At the end of the day, it's only a small distinction.
Of course I subjectively agree quite a bit more with MSNBC watchers than with FOX watchers, but both categories are being lied to and manipulated all the same. The messenger is the same. It's not really one network has better practices than the other - it's more that (in extremely broad strokes) Dems are not quite as bad as Republicans in general. The difference is in who the messenger is messenging for 

And for what? MSNBC and the dems are still a pretty shitty pair all things considered for a country like the US...
If we're fine with that, agreeing with one side just because it's not quite as bad and letting MSNBC's shittiness slide because the ends (that are not even that good) justify the means... we're hardly ever going to see any real progress.


----------



## mmr007

mbardu said:


> Didn't mean to say you attributed the "nazi" bit to Fox, sorry if that was not clear.
> Just showing that the fact there are some extremes in the "FOX watching" camp is not relevant, because there are also extremes in the "MSNBC watching" camp.
> 
> Feel free to disagree, but I think you're showing some bias in your defense of MSNBC re: Trump eating habits. There were a ton of things of concern about Trump obviously, including secrecy. Drinking diet coke should _not _have been a concern. Plus, it's not like there is full transparency on Biden's health either, and if I were to bet, I'd say the latter is closer to senility than the former. Focusing on one and not the other is just that, hypocritical.
> 
> Both of those outlets try to avoid "technically" lying of course...but we know they're often _just _shy of that. And MSNBC has had to do numerous retractions and lost defamation settlements for going over the line.
> 
> At the end of the day, it's only a small distinction.
> Of course I subjectively agree quite a bit more with MSNBC watchers than with FOX watchers, but both categories are being lied to and manipulated all the same. The messenger is the same. It's not really one network has better practices than the other - it's more that (in extremely broad strokes) Dems are not quite as bad as Republicans in general. The difference is in who the messenger is messenging for
> 
> And for what? MSNBC and the dems are still a pretty shitty pair all things considered for a country like the US...
> If we're fine with that, agreeing with one side just because it's not quite as bad and letting MSNBC's shittiness slide because the ends (that are not even that good) justify the means... we're hardly ever going to see any real progress.


There were times that as much as I hate Trump and his supporters I had to side with him over unfair treatment by MSNBC so I recognize that is a thing and I was surprised the universe didn't split open and engulf me immediately for feeling that way. Again, does MSNBC have an agenda and bias? Yes. Do I think that agenda is more closely allied with a better vision for a democracy in America than FOX? Yes. But I'm no fan of the channel.


----------



## bostjan

Maybe a more relevant set of examples, these were all the sites' own stories to which they linked back when I searched for "Rittenhouse verdict":

Reuters - "Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of all charges in Wisconsin murder trial"
MSNBC - "Kyle Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict is a symptom of a bigger sickness"
Fox - "Lying media had no effect on Rittenhouse verdict and propaganda was defeated"


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

StevenC said:


> My guy, I'm not Google and nor is Xaois. Do some due diligence if you're going to make the argument that both sides are as media influenced when it's verifiable not true.


I'm just trying to understand your perspective, my guy.

I could Google up some terms, read some articles, post a link, and you could still say: "No, no, no. That's not right. That's not true. That's not what I'm advocating." based on your own personal, subjective opinion. That is why I used that meme and asked YOU to provide citations to back YOUR statements from YOUR perspective.

I've done enough due diligence when I work in that industry, in that field, and have witnessed it all first-hand as an active participating worker; whereas, you're just a consumer on the receiving end of a screen.



mbardu said:


> Feel free to disagree, but I think you're showing some bias in your defense of MSNBC re: Trump eating habits. There were a ton of things of concern about Trump obviously, including secrecy. Drinking diet coke should _not _have been a concern. Plus, it's not like there is full transparency on Biden's health either, and if I were to bet, I'd say the latter is closer to senility than the former. Focusing on one and not the other is just that, hypocritical.
> 
> Both of those outlets try to avoid "technically" lying of course...but we know they're often _just _shy of that. if that... MSNBC has had to do numerous retractions and lost defamation settlements for going over the line.
> 
> At the end of the day, it's only a small distinction.
> Of course I subjectively agree quite a bit more with MSNBC watchers than with FOX watchers, but both categories are being lied to and manipulated all the same. The messenger is the same. It's not really one network has better practices than the other - it's more that (in extremely broad strokes) Dems are not quite as bad as Republicans in general. The difference is in who the messenger is messenging for
> 
> And for what? MSNBC and the dems are still a pretty shitty pair all things considered for a country like the US...
> If we're fine with that, agreeing with one side just because it's not quite as bad and letting MSNBC's shittiness slide because the ends (that are not even that good) justify the means... we're hardly ever going to see any real progress.


^ Absolutely nailed it.


----------



## profwoot

Emperor Guillotine said:


> This comment is an example of projection.
> 
> Man, look, both the conservatives/right and liberals/left engage in every single one of these behaviors to a verifiable, well-documented degree. This isn't a "fascist" thing. This is a "nation of spoiled children" thing, which sums up the USA's populace pretty darn accurately.
> 
> The people who have been conditioned by the media to scream "THIS IS FASCISM!!!" at absolutely everything and anything that they personally, subjectively disagree with are an immense root of the problem. That is cold, hard fact that needs to be acknowledged. People who engage in that conditioned behavioral response don't actually understand what fascism truly is. Maybe you need to actually go visit a fascist country, or heck, just Google up legitimate historical examples of fascism and how they played out. Read a book. (I know, I know, asking someone to read nowadays is an utter travesty...) Does the USA have problems? Oh, absolutely. Crooked as every other nation. But don't let your personal bias blind you to the real problem as you engage in your conditioned behavioral response.



Projecting your own issues onto others? Accuse them of projection.

Also, and I can't emphasize this enough, boiling everything down to "disagreement" is an absolutely insipid way of viewing the world. Fascist movements are plentiful and well-studied, and they follow very similar paths. Today's republican party is fascist. Not because I _disagree_ with them, but because they are using the exact rhetorical and governmental techniques used by every previous fascist movement. Scholars of fascism have been warning about the republican party for years, but at this point it should be extremely obvious to anyone that hasn't been indoctrinated. 

But, I hear you say, the republicans aren't [insert example of previous fascist movements' greatest atrocities]! Well yeah. Neither had any of the previous movements, until they did. It takes quite a while to build a society capable of accepting those atrocities, and the republicans aren't there yet. But they're sure trying. They literally tried to overthrow the results of a democratic election and install a dictator earlier this year, and have spent every day since downplaying it. To this day, most republicans in congress are not willing to admit that Biden won the election. The most popular talking head in the country is in the midst of a documentary series that, near as I can tell, is nothing but a fascist wet dream (granted, I haven't had cable in years and can't be arsed to read a word about Tucker Carlson).

It's especially rich that we aren't allowed to call republicans fascist but they constantly call liberals socialists and even communists, which is just so stupid I never even feel insulted by it. Democrats are almost as corporatist as republicans. They are not on a path that would ever approach communism.


----------



## StevenC

Emperor Guillotine said:


> I'm just trying to understand your perspective, my guy.
> 
> I could Google up some terms, read some articles, post a link, and you could still say: "No, no, no. That's not right. That's not true. That's not what I'm advocating." based on your own personal, subjective opinion. That is why I used that meme and asked YOU to provide citations to back YOUR statements from YOUR perspective.
> 
> I've done enough due diligence when I work in that industry, in that field, and have witnessed it all first-hand as an active participating worker; whereas, you're just a consumer on the receiving end of a screen.


Everything you've said in this thread amounts to "I know you are but what am I".

Now, I work in law. That's my field and a few pages ago you said there was precedent and provided links that contradicted your argument because you didn't understand what was in the article or you didn't read it and just assumed it confirmed your biases. Weirdly no response to that. But you're getting stroppy because I didn't provide evidence that Fox News, the most watched cable news show in the USA, is the most watched cable news show in the USA? If you actually knew your industry like you claim I wouldn't have to explain to you that liberals, and particularly young liberals, are the bigger cable cutting demographic. This is all just bad faith.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

StevenC said:


> Everything you've said in this thread amounts to "I know you are but what am I".


I beg your pardon? How so?

I have definitely _*not*_ even remotely made a single comment in this thread that could be interpreted as: _"I know you are but what am I?"_ I utterly refuse to engage in such immature rhetoric.

Dude, I'm being polite and just asking for additional backing so that I can better understand your perspective on things. How on earth is that wrong to you?



StevenC said:


> Now, I work in law. That's my field and a few pages ago you said there was precedent and provided links that contradicted your argument because you didn't understand what was in the article or you didn't read it and just assumed it confirmed your biases


No, man. That was you misinterpreting the point of my comment, which I later went back and clarified.



StevenC said:


> But you're getting stroppy because I didn't provide evidence that Fox News, the most watched cable news show in the USA, is the most watched cable news show in the USA? If you actually knew your industry like you claim I wouldn't have to explain to you that liberals, and particularly young liberals, are the bigger cable cutting demographic.


And again...I absolutely beg your pardon? I am *not *being "stroppy". I am being very, very, *VERY* polite and simply asking for some backing so that I can better understand your perspective. That's it, man. If someone politely asks you for links or citations, that person is _*not*_ disagreeing with you, nor attacking/insulting you as you're doing to me right now in this thread.

Or wait... Have I been forbidden from engaging in the public discourse on this public forum by you based on your personal judgment?

And as far as your comment regarding "young liberals cutting cable", where is that coming from? Are you confusing me for someone else in this thread? I never said anything about that. Both polar sides spew shit. Both polar sides engage in the same behavior. Both polar sides have folks tuning right the hell out from the agenda machine that is the media outlets. But I never once addressed nor brought up: viewership age, viewership tendencies (just the polarization on both sides), cable-cutting, or young liberals and their particular penchant for whatever behaviors they engage in.


----------



## Randy

My anecdotal experience with Fox News is different. I remember in 2016, on the Spectrum streaming app I noticed that Fox News was the only new channel that worked when you were away from your home wifi, MSNBC and CNN both wouldn't let you watch them on mobile. I noticed a few other times Fox News was easier to access streaming than the alternatives.

I don't frequent the news sites much these days but I noticed for years Fox News had more tabloid type articles like celebrity bikini photos and stuff. Also was a long time Fox News website had easier to read articles with less ads, and also a lot of "more reputable" new sites would reference a video with no link or embed or it would be in their awful built in player with 1min commercial before it and you could t skip/skim the video whereas Fox would just embed the original Twitter post or YT or whatever.

Fox always felt way more accessible, easy to use, easier to get what you came for, etc. Dems too busy figuring their ratings are all based on brainwashing and not that they're just better at reaching their people.


----------



## Adieu

All I remember about Fox is "news stories" with pixel-masked nudity for no real reason and constant scare mongering about some nonsense like killer bees

But that must have been like the 1990s or something


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> All I remember about Fox is "news stories" with pixel-masked nudity for no real reason and constant scare mongering about some nonsense like killer bees
> 
> But that must have been like the 1990s or something



No that's pretty current but it's still fantastic clickbait. My commie ass falls for it every time. Salma Hayek wore a bikini to celebrate her 50th birthday? Okay fine maybe I'm a little curious.


----------



## Adieu

What, are they still lurking around the likes of Kid Rock hoping someone gets mauled by an escaped hyena in mid-orgy for a twofer "scoop"?


----------



## Randy

Too lazy for that kinda stuff tbh. They rely on dumb dumbs to crowdsource that content for them.


----------



## mbardu

Randy said:


> Salma Hayek wore a bikini to celebrate her 50th birthday? Okay fine maybe I'm a little curious.



In Mac's voice: "_Oh my God...That's disgusting journalism. Salma Hayek in a bikini online? Where did they post those?"_


----------



## CanserDYI

mbardu said:


> In Mac's voice: "_Oh my God...That's disgusting journalism. Salma Hayek in a bikini online? Where did they post those?"_


Disgusting! Whats the link so I know to avoid it!


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> There were times that as much as I hate Trump and his supporters I had to side with him over unfair treatment by MSNBC so I recognize that is a thing and I was surprised the universe didn't split open and engulf me immediately for feeling that way.


I'd be curious, though, if it was the news coverage of Trump that seemed unfair, or if it was an editorial that seemed unfair. 

The right likes to point to the latter and complain about the former, but they're not really one and the same thing. An editorial DOES have an opinion, IS choosing sides, and is arguing a case. News coverage is supposed to be reasonably factual. As liberals, we like to bitch about Fox News, and they certainly take this farther than anyone else I'm aware of at least before NewsMax and One America came along... but their actual newsroom coverage is... generally ok, if maybe there's some bias evident in what stories they choose to cover and which they don't. Their editorial coverage, however, is fucking abysmal. 

MSNBC is kind of the same thing, but to a lesser degree and in the opposite direction. Their news coverage is fine, and wouldn't seriously offend a NewsMax viewer if identifying information was stripped out. But, Rachael Maddow isn't a reporter, doesn't pretend to be, and shouldn't be interpreted as one. She's a news commentator, with a very specific perspective and agenda, and anyone on the right pointing to her existence and saying she's proof that MSNBC is biased against the right is either being extremely disingenuous, or doesn't understand how the media works very well.


----------



## mmr007

Thats the problem there is very little “news” anymore. It is cable talking heads generating ad revenue by generating traffic to online anger management courses or therapy. I made the comment because while I loathe Trump, not for breaking America as it was already broken but for trying to rebuild it in the mold of Putin and the russian oligarchs. That said the “news” on several occasions did stories and editorials that were done because Trump is hatable and little other reason. 
But I reiterate that msnbc is biased. Fox is unamerican. Thats not the same thing.


----------



## Randy

Tbh, after the election I swore off my political news channels. No MSNBC, CNN, Fox, Slate, Politico, The Hill, nada. 

I ingest maybe AP and Reuters, and that's it. I'll only open one of those other sites if it's a basic simple coverage "current event" (like a snow storm or something) because they usually get the story up and out faster but I will not waste my time with in depth coverage and political commentary. Every once in a while I'll discuss politics with my dad or friends that follow that stuff and it's remarkable how little anything change and how mad they are despite the fact none of those things have changed. 

Lotta people in this thread really mad like they're being suffocated by these polarizing topics and it's like, almost entirely self imposed.


----------



## ArtDecade

Every media outlet has some level of bias. When you drift too far to one side or the other (especially when you let officials dictate the articles), you are in propaganda land. Both sides of the aisle have outlets that exist in those extremes.


----------



## TedEH

I get all my political news from SSO.
I'm only half kidding. Maybe less than half.


----------



## _MonSTeR_

TedEH said:


> I get all my political news from SSO.
> I'm only half kidding. Maybe less than half.



Me too. I don’t have time to seek out and understand the different US news feeds to try to find something approaching ‘facts’ (I’ve got Boris Johnson and his Brexit fallout to deal with) so I let the folks here half digest it for me. I figure most folks here seem to have a ‘similar outlook’ to me and so I’d believe what you all believe so to speak


----------



## fantom

Everyone knows the best news source is the Onion. See, everything you need to know.

https://www.theonion.com/what-to-know-about-the-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-1847958744


----------



## Adieu

fantom said:


> Everyone knows the best news source is the Onion. See, everything you need to know.
> 
> https://www.theonion.com/what-to-know-about-the-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-1847958744



*"Q: What will happen to Rittenhouse?*
A: Congressman representing Illinois’ 14th District, 2024-2050."

Sounds about right. Go 'Murica!


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> *"Q: What will happen to Rittenhouse?*


----------



## Drew

narad said:


>


Sure. Of COURSE he makes white guitars.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> Sure. Of COURSE he makes white guitars.



Including a photo of a guitar? Sounds like something a PROUD BOY would do. And a guitar with III knobs, too? Figures. /s


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> Including a photo of a guitar? Sounds like something a PROUD BOY would do. And a guitar with III knobs, too? Figures. /s


Does look eerily like the Proud Boy salute in the first pic. 

Though, as a guy who shares a name with a serial killer, I have a LOT of sympathy for this guy.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I watched a good amount of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Court TV.

The evidence was clear, and the verdict was inevitable- not guilty of murder on multiple counts.

Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed murder?

Not by by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not according the laws of Wisconsin, where self defence via lethal force is legal when one is in fear of their life, even though you are not allowed to “escalate force” (unless in that case.)

Pertaining to that law- Many people testified that the first guy he shot was threatening to kill people and rip their hearts out, calling them the “N” word.

Video evidence showed that he was chasing K.R. after threatening his life. After shooting him, some people in the crowd identified K.R. as the shooter and began chasing him. We have seen the rest, and heard the media narrative on several sides.

K.R. attempted to turn himself into police, but could not, as I sort of remember the precinct was barricaded, but did so the next day at his local precinct. He suffered PTSD there, vomiting and convulsing.

What’s interesting to me is that he was in fact hired by the owner of Car Source to protect the property from destruction and looting, and did not illegally carry a weapon across State lines, despite the media narrative. He left that spot to help put out a fire, and subsequently was attacked.

What’s even more interesting is that his family lives in Kenosha and it’s a part of his community- he only lived a short drive away.

Ultimately I feel it is unfortunate that law enforcement did not protect the City of Kenosha prior to this happening-

Why are 17 year old kids taking this upon themselves?

Another interesting point is the video evidence of a rioter pointing to him and saying “that’s the kid who said he would kill me!” And when questioned about it K.R. said he was being “sarcastic.”

Ah yes the good old tried and true “Sarcasm” defence- Especially effective when carrying an AR-15!

And then after acquittal, Rittenhouse was a guest on Tucker Carlson where he said he supports Black Lives Matter! 

Don't Believe The Hype! Seriously…


I guess we can take one thing away from this-

For FIBS it’s Open Season on Sconnies!!!

Next they’ll be going after the Owner of the Chicago Bears, none other than Aaron Rodgers!


----------



## Adieu

Welcome to the United States of North-Western Yemenistan

~Yee-haw~


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adieu said:


> Welcome to the United States of North-Western Yemenistan
> 
> ~Yee-haw~



If only! More like online “vigilantes” in the court of public “opinion…” 

The Media is the Massage!


----------



## bostjan

Wuuthrad said:


> What’s interesting to me is that he was in fact hired by the owner of Car Source to protect the property from destruction and looting,


According to what evidence/testimony? The managers of the car lot both said that was not true, under oath.


----------



## ArtDecade

That kid was there looking for a fight. There were some rioters there looking for a fight. They all got what they wanted. It wasn't self-defense - it was a meeting of morons engaging in mutual combat. And to be fair, I wish there was an island we could ship all these fringe actors off to so that the rest of us can sort out a normal functioning society.


----------



## Xaios

ArtDecade said:


> And to be fair, I wish there was an island we could ship all these fringe actors off to so that the rest of us can sort out a normal functioning society.


I'd say Australia, but even they managed to get their gun legislation sorted, and that's in a land where nature itself has a murder-boner.


----------



## bostjan

ArtDecade said:


> That kid was there looking for a fight. There were some rioters there looking for a fight. They all got what they wanted. It wasn't self-defense - it was a meeting of morons engaging in mutual combat. And to be fair, I wish there was an island we could ship all these fringe actors off to so that the rest of us can sort out a normal functioning society.


I mean, the USA owns several uninhabited islands in both the Atlantic and in the Pacific. Maybe all it would take would be to convince Alex Jones to say something on one of his shows about China encroaching on the Pacific Ocean, and the wingnuts will line up in droves for a boat ride to Baker Island, AR15's in tow.


----------



## nightflameauto

Xaios said:


> I'd say Australia, but even they managed to get their gun legislation sorted, and that's in a land where nature itself has a murder-boner.


Like for 'murder-boner'. I'm totally stealing that.


----------



## zappatton2

Ah, it seems like just yesterday when the premise of The Purge seemed entirely too far-fetched to take seriously.


----------



## nightflameauto

zappatton2 said:


> Ah, it seems like just yesterday when the premise of The Purge seemed entirely too far-fetched to take seriously.


I thought those movies were documentaries.


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> Not by by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not according the laws of Wisconsin, where self defence via lethal force is legal when one is in fear of their life, even though you are not allowed to “escalate force” (unless in that case.)


Except, this is exactly what Rittenhouse did, no? He feared for his life, but while you could maybe argue he was not guilty of shooting the man with a handgun, he clearly used escalating force against the guy with the skateboad and the guy who appears to have been entirely unarmed. That's the thing I'm hung up on here - yes, a lot of murky things happened, and the one thing that was CLEARLY wrong, the fact Rittenhouse was there in the first place, doesn't actually seem to violate any existing laws... but he also unquestionably applied escalated force in self defense and applied lethal force as a deterrent in the face of nonlethal force.


----------



## Bodes

Xaios said:


> I'd say Australia, but even they managed to get their gun legislation sorted, and that's in a land where nature itself has a murder-boner.



You can keep them. We have enough f-witts down here, thank you very much!


----------



## nightflameauto

Bodes said:


> You can keep them. We have enough f-witts down here, thank you very much!


I think the real solution is Antarctica. With no winter gear.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> I think the real solution is Antarctica. With no winter gear.


Depends who all is going. If you sent Tucker Carlson down there, all the hot air would probably melt the ice caps.

Back on the off topic of Rittenhouse, I don't want it to seem like I disagree with the jury. I don't think he was guilty of first degree murder, and I reiterate that I think that this was the worst prosecution we've seen in a high profile case, possibly in our lives. But I also think that having him free without so much as a dirty look from the judge or a fine is telling the rest of the world that we support vigilantes in the USA. Maybe we do, actually, but I don't think we want to make that stance official, do we? And if you want to get into the whole "he wasn't a vigilante because it wasn't his gun and he was there patrolling the streets with a rifle and pseudo military fatigues literally shooting people because he wanted to do good for the community," well, that's not how it looks to anyone outside of the USA, so my point still stands.


----------



## Randy

I don't necessarily think Rottenhouse was a vigilante. I think Kenosha after curfew with the police not enforcing any rule of law was basically Thunderdome and he was one of the guys that showed up with a superior weapon. We can quibble on if being one of the guys that showed up carrying a long rifle was a puss move but it did end up being the smart move.

Everyone there should've and still should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for 100% of what they did there. It's hard to believe that, even if Wisconsin has an open carry law, that it still is fully intact in a state of emergency or post-curfew type situation. Nobody should've been out there, period, if you show up to a riot with any kind of weapon in your hand (even if it's a club or a bat) you should be in handcuffs.

With the absolute implosion of the local police department and clear local bias, the Attorney General should've basically dissolved that local police department and filled it in with the state police and national guard while they rebuilt the place. They were clearly ill equipped (mentally and policy-wise) to handle what was happening there. If you wanna talk about "sending the wrong message", that's a big one that needs to be dealt with.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> worst prosecution we've seen in a high profile case, possibly in our lives.


_Casey Anthony has entered the chat._


----------



## Wuuthrad

Drew said:


> Except, this is exactly what Rittenhouse did, no? He feared for his life, but while you could maybe argue he was not guilty of shooting the man with a handgun, he clearly used escalating force against the guy with the skateboad and the guy who appears to have been entirely unarmed. That's the thing I'm hung up on here - yes, a lot of murky things happened, and the one thing that was CLEARLY wrong, the fact Rittenhouse was there in the first place, doesn't actually seem to violate any existing laws... but he also unquestionably applied escalated force in self defense and applied lethal force as a deterrent in the face of nonlethal force.



Well, he was found not guilty of murder, which imo may have been the wrong charge brought against him? I dunno, effed up situation all around. The Jury was given instructions they could prosecute on lesser charges I believe. It took them several days to reach a verdict.

His defense was “self defense” which was rather easily proven given the evidence.

Strange the Judge wouldn’t allow the evidence of Kyle saying he wanted to shoot people sometime before the incident. Of course that’s only what I heard on the news, so… who knows? It wasn’t part of the trial anyway.

To your question- Wisconsin law is sort of confusing in the use of lethal force in self defense cases, but also rather clear, if the evidence supports it - basically you are not allowed to use lethal force as an escalation of force in self defense, unless you are in a situation where you’re afraid for your life, which was rather clearly demonstrated during the trial given eyewitness testimony, video and audio evidence.

Grosskruetz admitted on stand that K.R. shot him only after he pointed his Glock at him. Grosskruetz explanation for chasing him down was that he thought K.R. was an active shooter.

_Defense attorney: “You would agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse correct?”

Grosskreutz: “Yes.”

Defense: “Once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that’s when he fires his gun, yes?

Grosskreutz: “No.”

Defense: “Sir, look…Does this look like right now your arm is being shot?”

Grosskreutz: “That looks like my bicep being vaporized yes.”

Defense: “It’s being vaporized because you’re pointing a gun directly at him, yes?”

Grosskreutz: “Yes.”

Defense: “When you’re standing 3-5 feet from him with your arms up in the air he never fired. Right?”

Grosskreutz: “Correct.”

Defense: “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him, that he fired, right?”

Grosskreutz: “Correct.” _



I seem to remember video of a mob of people chasing down K.R. after he shot the first guy Rosenbaum, the guy who was screaming “I’ll kill you effin N**** and rip your heart out.” And then he fell down, and one shot killed the skateboard guy, and after shooting Rosenbaum everyone ran away. There was the “jump-kick man” who fled too after Kyle shot at him and missed.

_ "I thought if I were to be knocked out, he would have stomped my face in if I didn't fire," Rittenhouse told the jury. _

Also the Prosecutor was a clown really, he asked Rittenhouse basically “why did you exercise your Miranda Rights” referring to when K.R. turned himself in to the Police, as if to imply he was hiding his guilt. This is the foundation of our legal system- You have the right to remain silent and the presumption of innocence!

And “Is it true you play Call Of Duty?”

The Judge was pretty close to granting a Mistrial with prejudice, meaning the whole
Case would never ever be heard. And the prosecution gave an enhanced video to the Jury while in deliberation, one that was never in evidence!

Before trial, I think the media portrayed it this way and that way, bending the truth to whatever agenda they had. Was KR really a White Supremacist? He says no. He says he supports BLM and people’s right to peacefully protest, but didn’t want to sit and watch his his community get destroyed.

But what I really want to know is what kind of Mother drops off their kid at night and says: “Here’s your AR honey, have a good time, see you tomorrow!”

Here’s the WI law of self defence:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

_1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself._


----------



## Wuuthrad

bostjan said:


> According to what evidence/testimony? The managers of the car lot both said that was not true, under oath.



Kyle and others, at least from what I recall- they had organised to protect the business amongst themselves after taking photos with the sons of the owners in front of the business and sending texts about doing so. 

You are correct that the Son denied organising anything.


----------



## narad

Wuuthrad said:


> Kyle and others, at least from what I recall- they had organised to protect the business amongst themselves after taking photos with the sons of the owners in front of the business and sending texts about doing so.
> 
> You are correct that the Son denied organising anything.



I have never heard that claim validated. As far as I ever heard, they organized to protect the car lot... not on the car lot owner's request! Whether that is true or false is hugely important in understanding the context IMO.


----------



## thraxil

Randy said:


> We can quibble on if being one of the guys that showed up carrying a long rifle was a puss move but it did end up being the smart move.



How was it a "smart" move? It seems like if he'd shown up without a gun... nothing would have happened. No one would have died. Maybe a car lot would've been vandalized. We'd see some news stories about protests and minor clashes in Kenosha like all the other places that had protests and we'd all have forgotten about it in a few weeks. Rittenhouse wouldn't have spent months in jail and become a pariah to half the country for the rest of his life.


----------



## Wuuthrad

narad said:


> I have never heard that claim validated. As far as I ever heard, they organized to protect the car lot... not on the car lot owner's request! Whether that is true or false is hugely important in understanding the context IMO.



Many details were stated in court about Car Source, some conflicting. I agree about the importance of context. According to K.R. it was to provide medical assistance, put out fires, and protect destruction of property, and the gun was for self defense. 

His friend, Dominick Black, who had been dating his sister and referred to him as brothers, bought the gun for him in WI to hold until he turned 18, but things get complicated with the law after that.

Did he actually give him the gun or loan it to him for self defense? Rittenhouse knows more about gun laws than Black, and given the self defense argument and verdict, and the rushed and arguably inept prosecution, it will be interesting to see how or even if they will pursue the case against Black, since he has been charged-

_Dominick Black, of Kenosha, faces two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor, causing death, according to a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. If he's found guilty, he faces up to 6 years in prison per count._

Having looked at some of the WI Law, it looks doubtful… generally speaking there are exceptions for actually giving the gun or just letting him use it, and also the self defense thing arguably voids the charges, so to speak. 

Additionally, Wisconsin is Open Carry- except for in a car, short barrel, or machine guns for those 18 and over. 17 year olds can carry weapons legally due to hunting regulations.

Did Rittenhouse commit a crime? The jury has spoken. I guess it’s wait and see for his friend.


----------



## Wuuthrad

thraxil said:


> How was it a "smart" move? It seems like if he'd shown up without a gun... nothing would have happened. No one would have died. Maybe a car lot would've been vandalized. We'd see some news stories about protests and minor clashes in Kenosha like all the other places that had protests and we'd all have forgotten about it in a few weeks. Rittenhouse wouldn't have spent months in jail and become a pariah to half the country for the rest of his life.



This is an interesting question.

Car Source was already vandalized.

Imagine your sisters boyfriend, your good friend’s brother had been working in the Car Source that was vandalized.

The managers took pics with y’all with your AR-15s in front of the Shop, the owners told you how to get inside, show you up on the roof.

Rosenbaum was unhinged- running around threatening to kill people, rip their hearts out, screaming Racial slurs, etc.

Just stating facts, at least as we know them…

(”state’s evidence” and all)

I suppose maybe it’s safer if we all just stay inside glued to our screens?


----------



## narad

I don't know about you, but if I hire someone for something, it doesn't become a question of interpretation or he said/she said. I don't know in what world the assumption is "hired by a shop to protect it until proven otherwise". If evidence of being hired is having a photo taken with the owner, I think I have a good shot at convincing a court that Mickey hired me to defend DisneyLand.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I’m not making up scenarios though just talking about what was said in court. That’s what this is about right? Reality?

Or are you suggesting that everyone is lying who doesn’t fit your agenda, which is based upon what exactly? Mainstream news media?

But what does that even matter? It’s not a crime, that’s already been established.


----------



## narad

Wuuthrad said:


> I’m not making up scenarios though just talking about what was said in court. That’s what this is about right? Reality?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that everyone is lying who doesn’t fit your agenda, which is based upon what exactly? Mainstream news media?
> 
> But what does that even matter? It’s not a crime, that’s already been established.



I'm suggesting I've never seen the shop owners quoted as saying they hired these guys, in any context, media, courts, or otherwise.

To your latter claim about "it's not a crime" -- we're not arguing whether he has been found guilty or not. We are arguing where he went wrong, what his intentions were, where policy goes wrong, and where the legal system goes wrong. Only psychopaths look at 3 people shot on the streets by a 17 year old and think, "whelp, wasn't a crime, nothing to see or discuss here."


----------



## bostjan

Wuuthrad said:


> I’m not making up scenarios though just talking about what was said in court. That’s what this is about right? Reality?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that everyone is lying who doesn’t fit your agenda, which is based upon what exactly? Mainstream news media?
> 
> But what does that even matter? It’s not a crime, that’s already been established.



According to you, you know more about the case than the media. Also according to you, Kyle's claims that he was hired to protect property was validated in court.

I asked who validated that, pretty specific question.

Your answer: well, Kyle and maybe someone else, you don't remember. 

I mean, that's some weird recursion there. If Kyle makes a claim in his defense that should be validated by a receipt, contract, text message, etc. pretty easily, and you're willing to accept Kyle's testimony without corroborating evidence against two other witnesses saying it's untrue under oath, then I believe you don't understand how evidence works.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> According to you, you know more about the case than the media. Also according to you, Kyle's claims that he was hired to protect property was validated in court.
> 
> I asked who validated that, pretty specific question.
> 
> Your answer: well, Kyle and maybe someone else, you don't remember.
> 
> I mean, that's some weird recursion there. If Kyle makes a claim in his defense that should be validated by a receipt, contract, text message, etc. pretty easily, and you're willing to accept Kyle's testimony without corroborating evidence against two other witnesses saying it's untrue under oath, then I believe you don't understand how evidence works.



Shhh! It was not a crime! Your post is futile!


----------



## StevenC

If I were Kyle Rittenhouse and I was hired by a car lot owner to protect it, then shot a bunch of people, you can be damn sure I'd be bringing the car lot owner in as a codefendant/second defendant. I can't say I know exactly how it works in the US, but in most UK based legal systems if an employee/contractor breaks the law on company time the employer would have to prove they acted on their own and outside of their employment. If this was the case, that Rittenhouse had been hired, he would have made the case that as a minor he was coerced into his actions and would definitely be bringing an easily winnable civil case against the car lot owner for all the mental anguish he has suffered in the last year.

These things didn't happen because he acted independently of the car lot owner.


----------



## Adieu

Is it legal to hire paramilitary child soldiers with automatic weapons now?


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Is it legal to hire paramilitary child soldiers with automatic weapons now?



As long as they're using long-barrel rifles.


----------



## Randy

thraxil said:


> How was it a "smart" move? It seems like if he'd shown up without a gun... nothing would have happened. No one would have died. Maybe a car lot would've been vandalized. We'd see some news stories about protests and minor clashes in Kenosha like all the other places that had protests and we'd all have forgotten about it in a few weeks. Rittenhouse wouldn't have spent months in jail and become a pariah to half the country for the rest of his life.



"Smart move" is in the context that it was full Thunderdome (or The Purge, since it was brought up) and he went there not to help anything but to fulfill his murder fantasy unabated because he knew people like him were being given a free pass from the local cops.

The people he killed weren't there to protest for racial equality. We saw for weeks/months that there were protests by people who wanted change during the day and riots by the people who wanted anarchy at night. It was a literal political battleground.

Remember the other incident in another city where MAGAs were paintballing people from trucks and one of them paintballed a dude and got shot? Another one where a MAGA pulled bear spray out on a guy and the other dude pulled out a gun and shot him? It was all over the place, everyone was staging their own little Democrats vs Republican downtown quick draw competition.

So yeah, in the context the police were allowing people to exercise political violence out in the open until someone gets killed, THEN they intervene, yeah it was the smart move. It was literally just bringing a better weapon at murdering people to a place where everyone was itching to murder someone.

The rest of the stuff I don't qualify as "not smart" either. I'm not sure Rittenhouse spent more than a couple nights in jail, I seem to remember him being bailed out and when they wanted to revoke his bail, that scumbag judge refused. He's also going to land somewhere cushy as a result of the political dimension to this.

Now if "law and order" were intact, it would have been a "dumb move" because he WOULD have ended up in jail for just being there, and double for killing two people. Or he'd have been shot on sight. But instead it was an "anything goes and by the way, if you shoot an unarmed person, you're going to become a rich conservative icon for the rest of your life" situation.

Again I return to the fact the local authorities were responsible for this.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> As long as they're using long-barrel rifles.


 
Just NOT medium barrel rifles.


----------



## mmr007

Adieu said:


> Is it legal to hire paramilitary child soldiers with automatic weapons now?


The rest of the world to the US-“you should have universal healthcare like the rest of the planet”

US -“ nah we’re good. We’re liking that child soldier thing tho. Maybe we’ll give that a try”


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Is it legal to hire paramilitary child soldiers with automatic weapons now?


It probably depends on the state. If you took out the child part, then I believe so.

In pretty much any _civil_ case, if someone hired you to do something and provided nothing in writing, then failed to pay you, and you sued but were unable to prove in court that you were ever hired, the judge would throw it out of court. 

In a _criminal_ case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution; however, if you said someone hired you for a job, say, to establish an alibi or something, and the boss testified under oath that you were never hired, and there was no evidence in writing or whatever that you were hired, you'd be boned on your alibi.

In the case of self defense, if you are claiming you were hired to guard business A and shot someone over at business B and then two more people in the middle of the street, I suppose it's going to be an uphill battle even establishing relevance. Unless, of course, your prosecutor is going too far with the charges, doesn't know his legal ass from his elbow, the judge happens to be your biggest fan, and any one or more particular fringe groups pick up your cause as a crusade to "own" their political opponents, then you'd be walking away scot-free.


----------



## nightflameauto

This entire situation can basically be summed up with this:

"MERICA! FUCK YEAH!"

What a mess.


----------



## Adieu

nightflameauto said:


> This entire situation can basically be summed up with this:
> 
> "MERICA! FUCK YEAH!"
> 
> What a mess.



Duuude you misspelled 'Murica


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> His defense was “self defense” which was rather easily proven given the evidence.


You're making a lot of other claims that don't really have any backing in publicly-available evidence, that others are already addressing. So, I'll just hone in on this, since this was in direct response to my own post.

This isn't corrent. Two reasons.

One, "self defense" wasn't proven. It didn't_ have_ to be proven. Rather, "murder" failed to be proven. This is a technicality, maybe, but an important one - failing to convict isn't the same as proving Kyle's innocence, because that's not the standard the US judicial system is held to. Failing to convict simply means there was not adequate evidence to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not the same as saying murder definitively didn't happen, it just means that Rittenhouse can't be imprisoned for murder because it was not clear "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he committed murder. This goes both ways - it's not appropriate for his critics to say "yeah, but he got off on a technicality, we all know he _really_ did it," but it's also not appropriate for his supporters to say, "the courts proved he acted in self defense and proved his innocence!" They didn't - they merely determined there was insufficient evidence to convict. This was something we talked a lot about after the Mueller Report.

Two, "self-defense" has a very technical definition in Wisconsin law, and part of that definition is the principle of using proportional force in self defence and not escalating force. Yes, one of the three victims had a gun. the other two didn't, and Kyle pretty clearly escalated force in those two shootings, which makes a "self defense" defense kind of hard to jive with the facts.


----------



## bostjan

Well, it's a bit slippery with self-defense. It's an affirmative defense, which means that the defense, legally, picks up the burden of proof. You can't plead insanity or self defense (or statute of limitations, either, for example) and then leave it for the prosecution to prove that it's *not* the case.

The American legal system uses the burden of proof to keep anyone from having to prove a negative, which is different from "innocent until proven guilty."

When someone kills someone and then pleads any affirmative legal defense, it's usually an uphill battle, generally. Wisconsin law is no different regarding self defense.

However, _what_ you have to prove in Wisconsin is simply that you feared for your life and reacted reasonably based on your situation and whatever you believed at the time.

However however, I don't think someone who rolled up in a car and shot someone else is going to be able to simply say "Huh, I was, umm, like, scared for my life, or uhh ... somethin'" and get away with it.

Rittenhouse's defense did a good job proving that he was scared for his life. The prosecution could have countered loophole for loophole, but they were inept and didn't really go that route, at least not for more than a hot minute.


----------



## Randy

If you rape a baby to death and the father chases after you with a skateboard, can you legally shoot him to death because you're scared for your life?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> If you rape a baby to death and the father chases after you with a skateboard, can you legally shoot him to death because you're scared for your life?



Depends, are you a white male with right wing views?


----------



## StevenC




----------



## Wuuthrad

narad said:


> I'm suggesting I've never seen the shop owners quoted as saying they hired these guys, in any context, media, courts, or otherwise.
> 
> To your latter claim about "it's not a crime" -- we're not arguing whether he has been found guilty or not. We are arguing where he went wrong, what his intentions were, where policy goes wrong, and where the legal system goes wrong. Only psychopaths look at 3 people shot on the streets by a 17 year old and think, "whelp, wasn't a crime, nothing to see or discuss here."



Psychopath? Give me a break dude… I never said any of this wasn’t worth discussing, you are reaching. Try a little harder next time you want to take the piss.

My point is what he did protecting the business was not a crime, and was not crucially important to the facts of the case, according to the proceedings of trial re. what transpired afterwards.

You seem to be picking a relatively inconsequential detail of the trial to justify your moral opinion.

I never shared my opinion really, but it doesn’t really matter what I think! You don’t like the laws, change them. But you yourself cannot, I assume based on your citizenship?

That’s what makes your arguments disingenuous- you are looking down from afar. Would I be so quick to judge things in your Society? Who knows?

Go and watch the trial if you want to discuss it from a position of some knowledge. You seem to be disagreeing with his testimony about his intentions because they conflict with your opinions, as if you are some moral authority on what’s right and wrong?

And so quick to judge. You would quickly be excused from Jury duty with all this presumption and self righteous blather. Impartial much? Oh wait- again I presume you would never be asked to Jury duty.

Your Presumption:

How did the legal system go wrong here exactly? As if it is supposed to prevent these things from happening in the first place? Or wrongly convict someone?

There is an interesting legal doctrine here that I learned watching this case:

_1895 U.S. Supreme Court case which stated, “it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” This doctrine was dated back to Roman law. _

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...guilty-persons-go-free-one-innocent-person-be

Think about how that applies here.

Also what exactly are you suggesting? You think he should have been convicted? There is no evidence to support that.

You think he never should have done what he did? Who’s to say? You’re not his parents!

You think he is part of a R-Wing militia because he took a photo with some supposed Proud Boys or whatever who bailed him out or something? You have ignored the fact that he said he supports peaceful protest and BLM.

Let me ask you this- if you were in on charges and someone payed your $2 mil bail, would you refuse to leave because you disagreed with them politically?


----------



## Wuuthrad

bostjan said:


> According to you, you know more about the case than the media. Also according to you, Kyle's claims that he was hired to protect property was validated in court.
> 
> I asked who validated that, pretty specific question.
> 
> Your answer: well, Kyle and maybe someone else, you don't remember.
> 
> I mean, that's some weird recursion there. If Kyle makes a claim in his defense that should be validated by a receipt, contract, text message, etc. pretty easily, and you're willing to accept Kyle's testimony without corroborating evidence against two other witnesses saying it's untrue under oath, then I believe you don't understand how evidence works.



Did you even watch the trial? I skipped over that detail mostly because it really seemed inconsequential to the facts of the case- the shootings transpired after he left that place to help put out a fire. 

What was he doing there in the first place? Easy question. Answered. Do we believe him and the multiple corroborating witnesses? Is it right or wrong. Is legal good? Should be right? 

But… its all relative isn’t it. Morally and otherwise.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Drew said:


> You're making a lot of other claims that don't really have any backing in publicly-available evidence, that others are already addressing. So, I'll just hone in on this, since this was in direct response to my own post.
> 
> This isn't corrent. Two reasons.
> 
> One, "self defense" wasn't proven. It didn't_ have_ to be proven. Rather, "murder" failed to be proven. This is a technicality, maybe, but an important one - failing to convict isn't the same as proving Kyle's innocence, because that's not the standard the US judicial system is held to. Failing to convict simply means there was not adequate evidence to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not the same as saying murder definitively didn't happen, it just means that Rittenhouse can't be imprisoned for murder because it was not clear "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he committed murder. This goes both ways - it's not appropriate for his critics to say "yeah, but he got off on a technicality, we all know he _really_ did it," but it's also not appropriate for his supporters to say, "the courts proved he acted in self defense and proved his innocence!" They didn't - they merely determined there was insufficient evidence to convict. This was something we talked a lot about after the Mueller Report.
> 
> Two, "self-defense" has a very technical definition in Wisconsin law, and part of that definition is the principle of using proportional force in self defence and not escalating force. Yes, one of the three victims had a gun. the other two didn't, and Kyle pretty clearly escalated force in those two shootings, which makes a "self defense" defense kind of hard to jive with the facts.



Again, you don’t seem to understand the law in WI despite my quoting and linking it- you are in fact allowed to use Lethal Force as Self Defense when afraid for your life, and this was clearly demonstrated by multiple eye-witness testimony, video and audio evidence. 

Did you even read where Grosskruetz admitted that Rittenhouse didn’t shoot him in the arm until he pointed a gun at him, and not when he had his arms up? 

Or that K.R. said on multiple occasions he never intended to kill anyone and only shot people because he was afraid they were going to kill him, one of whom was screaming the words and others who acted in mob mentality with same intent and similar language? 

I mean this is like repeating the same thing over and over again- you seem to think he murdered people, despite the evidence. 

I will say I thought initially back when this happened- what is this dumass doing with an AR? Some kind of militia vigilante? Disagreeable sure. Criminal? Not after seeing the trial. Fucked up situation all around regardless. 

Ultimately the “presumption of innocence” was unanimously upheld by the Jury’s Not Guilty verdict. 

The burden of proof resting on the prosecution does not mean that not guilty verdicts are not proven fact. The opposite is true. A not guilty verdict is the ultimate proof of innocence. You cannot appeal not-guilty. 
A “presumption of innocence” is not a proven fact in criminal proceedings until a verdict is reached. 

All of the details are in the trial video if you want to educate yourself more. I have watched very little of the news media narrative of the case, and quite a bit of the actual trial. 

Interesting discussion altogether.


----------



## narad

Wuuthrad said:


> My point is what he did protecting the business was not a crime, and was not crucially important to the facts of the case, according to the proceedings of trial re. what transpired afterwards.
> ...
> You seem to be pickingI hate a relatively inconsequential detail of the trial to justify your moral opinion.



Again, not important to the case on a purely legal level. One that we're not discussing. The outcome is terrible... how do we avoid that outcome? It is a failure on multiple levels, from the federal government take a hands-off approach to protests in general, to the state governments not calling in for aid in a situation they were clearly incapable of dealing with, to a boy getting involved in situations they should not be getting involved in, to a hospital releasing mentally unstable patients they shouldn't be, to a boy getting in way over his head with a powerful weapon.

I hate to quote an over-used meme phrase, but play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It applies to everyone here. And games of this degree of stupidity are not the ones we're supposed to be playing in a civilized society.




Wuuthrad said:


> I never shared my opinion really, but it doesn’t really matter what I think!



When you hedge on unsubstantiated claims it really helps inform everyone what you do think.



Wuuthrad said:


> You don’t like the laws, change them. But you yourself cannot, I assume based on your citizenship?
> ...
> That’s what makes your arguments disingenuous- you are looking down from afar. Would I be so quick to judge things in your Society? Who knows?
> ...
> You would quickly be excused from Jury duty with all this presumption and self righteous blather. Impartial much? Oh wait- again I presume you would never be asked to Jury duty.



You really went out of your way digging this big hole about me not knowing how America works...



Wuuthrad said:


> Also what exactly are you suggesting? You think he should have been convicted? There is no evidence to support that.



I'm suggesting 17 year olds shouldn't be running around shooting people under any circumstances outside of "Red Dawn". That outcome is a failure, and we should reflect on what cultural and political factors led to that outcome. Kyle isn't guilty of murder -- he was scared and he defended himself and in Wisconsin that's enough. But Kyle put himself in a situation that was likely to end in a confrontation with a gun, and he bears the responsibility of those moronic actions. There obviously needs to be some reigning in of these laws if you can shoot someone hitting you with a skateboard (in an attempt to disarm you, an active shooter who just killed a guy) under the grounds that you feared for your life.


----------



## Wuuthrad

narad said:


> Again, not important to the case on a purely legal level. One that we're not discussing. The outcome is terrible... how do we avoid that outcome? It is a failure on multiple levels, from the federal government take a hands-off approach to protests in general, to the state governments not calling in for aid in a situation they were clearly incapable of dealing with, to a boy getting involved in situations they should not be getting involved in, to a hospital releasing mentally unstable patients they shouldn't be, to a boy getting in way over his head with a powerful weapon.
> 
> I hate to quote an over-used meme phrase, but play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It applies to everyone here. And games of this degree of stupidity are not the ones we're supposed to be playing in a civilized society.



Can you please edit the quoted bits I’m having trouble reading your replies- they're all grey and tiny on my phone.


----------



## mmr007

Randy said:


> If you rape a baby to death and the father chases after you with a skateboard, can you legally shoot him to death because you're scared for your life?




sounded like you had song lyrics going there for a second.......


----------



## Wuuthrad

Randy said:


> Again I return to the fact the local authorities were responsible for this.



How? 

What should the police have done exactly?

Shoot people? Rubber bullets? Tear Gas?

Should they have gone Kent State/Philly/Watt’s Riots on them? 

I thought Law Enforcement was supposed to be “reformed” or whatever…


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> How?
> 
> What should the police have done exactly?
> 
> Shoot people? Rubber bullets? Tear Gas?
> 
> Should they have gone Kent State/Philly/Watt’s Riots on them?
> 
> I thought Law Enforcement was supposed to be “reformed” or whatever…



Enforce the curfew and de-escalate the situation for starters. You know, like their job and stuff. 

I live closer to Kenosha than Kyle and the entire police response, state and local, was an absolute joke.


----------



## Adieu

Wuuthrad said:


> How?
> 
> What should the police have done exactly?
> 
> Shoot people? Rubber bullets? Tear Gas?
> 
> Should they have gone Kent State/Philly/Watt’s Riots on them?
> 
> I thought Law Enforcement was supposed to be “reformed” or whatever…



SWAT anyone who brings an automatic weapon to a demonstration/protest/riot, for starters

Y'know, POLICE-WORK-TYPE-STUFF


----------



## Wuuthrad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Enforce the curfew and de-escalate the situation for starters. You know, like their job and stuff.
> 
> I live closer to Kenosha than Kyle and the entire police response, state and local, was an absolute joke.



Do you think there’s been a calculated decision to de-escalate police presence in these situations for whatever reason? I wonder this myself, considering the violent history of our country.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adieu said:


> SWAT anyone who brings an automatic weapon to a demonstration/protest/riot, for starters
> 
> Y'know, POLICE-WORK-TYPE-STUFF



That’s police state totalitarian kind of stuff though! Not to mention a direct violation of constitutional and state law!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> Do you think there’s been a calculated decision to de-escalate police presence in these situations for whatever reason? I wonder this myself, considering the violent history of our country.



I don't think that the police, especially in this instance, cared to keep order. It plays more to their own ends to let all Hell break loose. 

Or they're completely inept. 

At least that's how it appeared on the ground in the days leading up to that night and immediately afterwards.


----------



## Adieu

Wuuthrad said:


> That’s police state totalitarian kind of stuff though! Not to mention a direct violation of constitutional and state law!



Oh yeah, SWATting the child soldier paramilitaries from wingnut extremist organizations brandishing weapons to intimidate and provoke the public is so totally wrong

Remind me of wtf the purpose of SWAT was again?


----------



## narad

Wuuthrad said:


> That’s police state totalitarian kind of stuff though! Not to mention a direct violation of constitutional and state law!



Whenever someone says common sense ideas (like not bringing automatic protests) are in direct violation of law/founding ideas of America, I just think back to The Onion, "'No way to prevent this', Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" headline.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Is there some sort of event I'm missing? I've seen it mentioned a few times now how automatic weapons were brought to the protests. Did somebody bring an automatic weapon to a demonstration that I'm missing?

Automatic weapons are pretty uncommon, and are damn expensive. I can't imagine many, if any, protestors or counter-protestors having one. For shits and giggles I looked it up and an AK-47, a gun you can obtain for less than to a little over $1k in semi-auto would cost upwards of $20k and involve jumping through many many hoops. Automatic weapons, at the very least, played zero role in the whole Rittenhouse case.

Anywho, law is weird, but I think this video is pretty relevant and does a decent job of explaining things.


----------



## Randy

Señor Voorhees said:


> Is there some sort of event I'm missing? I've seen it mentioned a few times now how automatic weapons were brought to the protests. Did somebody bring an automatic weapon to a demonstration that I'm missing?
> 
> Automatic weapons are pretty uncommon, and are damn expensive. I can't imagine many, if any, protestors or counter-protestors having one. For shits and giggles I looked it up and an AK-47, a gun you can obtain for less than to a little over $1k in semi-auto would cost upwards of $20k and involve jumping through many many hoops. Automatic weapons, at the very least, played zero role in the whole Rittenhouse case.
> 
> Anywho, law is weird, but I think this video is pretty relevant and does a decent job of explaining things.




"Automatic weapons" is a catch all term non-gun-obsessed folks use to refer to semi-automatic long guns. Are you actually legitimately confused what people meant or is that a snarky jab at people for not being intimately familiar with the specifics of firearms?


----------



## Randy

Wuuthrad said:


> How?
> 
> What should the police have done exactly?
> 
> Shoot people? Rubber bullets? Tear Gas?
> 
> Should they have gone Kent State/Philly/Watt’s Riots on them?
> 
> I thought Law Enforcement was supposed to be “reformed” or whatever…



Everyone in this thread please screenshot this post and frame it as a reminder of what a "bad faith" argument is, how to recognize it and a reminder not to waste your time.


----------



## TedEH

Randy said:


> "Automatic weapons" is a catch all term non-gun-obsessed folks use to refer to semi-automatic long guns. Are you actually legitimately confused what people meant


That is actually pretty confusing. If someone said to me "automatic weapons" without any other context, I wouldn't assume they mean semi-auto guns too, and I'm far from a gun nut.


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> That is actually pretty confusing. If someone said to me "automatic weapons" without any other context, I wouldn't assume they mean semi-auto guns too, and I'm far from a gun nut.



What I mean is that a person who doesn't know guns and especially if they're from somewhere that guns are less common, something like this:




...looks like their impression of an "automatic rifle" or "machine gun". Long military-style black rifle with a magazine. I see people colloquially refer to these that way all the time.

And it's a distinction without a difference in this discussion, since we're mostly referring to it's function. Holding the trigger and firing multiple rounds isn't substantively different than firing a round every time you squeeze the trigger if it's a gun that holds several rounds and can be fired in rapid succession.

The form factor and the fact it's designed for combat use is more meaningful, and that's a bit more what the purpose is behind invoking it. Again, you guys like, didn't realize that or are we micro-analyzing the way people describe guns to negate the actual discussion about how they're being used?


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Randy said:


> "Automatic weapons" is a catch all term non-gun-obsessed folks use to refer to semi-automatic long guns. Are you actually legitimately confused what people meant or is that a snarky jab at people for not being intimately familiar with the specifics of firearms?



I honestly thought I missed something. Or that maybe we were talking about a different case entirely. Admittedly I don't really keep up on this thread too closely and with the amount of shit that's going on in the world, I was wondering if there were in fact people bringing automatic weapons to demonstrations, as that would be an entirely new level of scary. All of that aside, I was also curious if people actually thought he had an automatic weapon or not.

That said, even as a non-gun enthusiast I always kind of understood "automatic" to mean "pull the trigger and gun goes brrrrr." Turns out that's not even correct as apparently any gun that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull is "automatic" So things like burst fire are also considered automatic weapons. Of course, now I'm curious what that says about double barreled weapons that fire more than one round per trigger pull, but that's just going even more excessively off topic.

I'll chalk it up to arguing/concerning myself with semantics and kindly not discuss it further as the larger point does remain that at the very least... It's pretty stupid that you can walk around with a gun like that out in the open legally.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> SWAT anyone who brings a *semi-automatic* weapon to a demonstration/protest/riot, for starters
> 
> Y'know, POLICE-WORK-TYPE-STUFF



Here, I 'fixed' one of those posts that's got people's nose outta joint. Does that read any differently? Did you come away with a notably different impression of the content of this post because of the change?


----------



## Adieu

Señor Voorhees said:


> I honestly thought I missed something. Or that maybe we were talking about a different case entirely. Admittedly I don't really keep up on this thread too closely and with the amount of shit that's going on in the world, I was wondering if there were in fact people bringing automatic weapons to demonstrations, as that would be an entirely new level of scary. All of that aside, I was also curious if people actually thought he had an automatic weapon or not.
> 
> That said, even as a non-gun enthusiast I always kind of understood "automatic" to mean "pull the trigger and gun goes brrrrr." Turns out that's not even correct as apparently any gun that fires more than one bullet per trigger pull is "automatic" So things like burst fire are also considered automatic weapons. Of course, now I'm curious what that says about double barreled weapons that fire more than one round per trigger pull, but that's just going even more excessively off topic.
> 
> I'll chalk it up to arguing/concerning myself with semantics and kindly not discuss it further as the larger point does remain that at the very least... It's pretty stupid that you can walk around with a gun like that out in the open legally.



How the fcuk would that be scarier?

Can't nobody tell the difference until they press the trigger.

Unless you mean PKMs instead of AKM variants? In which case, meh, whatever again, unless they start mounting them on their pickup trucks and using ribbon feeds... in which case, the picture of 3rd world strife would be complete.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Here, I 'fixed' one of those posts that's got people's nose outta joint. Does that read any differently? Did you come away with a notably different impression of the content of this post because of the change?



Go for "anything that remotely looks like an assault weapon", then.

Ultimately it isn't about substance or even gunpowder. I'd want em to SWAT anyone that brings a chainsaw or a greatsword too.


----------



## Randy

My girlfriend and I are arguing right now. She's pissed because her hot blonde friend came over, and when she bent over infront of me she said I had a *full-erection* when I only had a *semi-erection*.


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> greatsword



Add 'not so great' swords to the list too.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> My girlfriend and I are arguing right now. She's pissed because her hot blonde friend came over, and when she bent over infront of me she said I had a *full-erection* when I only had a *semi-erection*.



It is your God-given right, how is this not enshrined in the Constitution?

Damn founding fathers, why u no write a document that can last a few hundred years without constant amendment???


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Adieu said:


> How the fcuk would that be scarier?
> 
> Can't nobody tell the difference until they press the trigger.
> 
> Unless you mean PKMs instead of AKM variants? In which case, meh, whatever again, unless they start mounting them on their pickup trucks and using ribbon feeds... in which case, the picture of 3rd world strife would be complete.



Perhaps it's just me, but sustained automatic gunfire is kind of by nature less accurate than semi-auto and certainly more difficult to maintain control. The Kyle situation was bad enough, now imagine if he had an actual automatic rifle... The likelihood of him hurting/killing more people goes up, even just by chance. At the very least I'd venture a guess that Gaige's chance of buying the farm would've gone up quite a bit. Keeping in mind that I'm not advocating for people like Kyle (or anyone) to walk around with even semi-auto rifles, I just think redneck loonies with automatic guns are more scary than redneck loonies with semi-auto guns. It's fine for people to disagree. I can see why people would feel that way.


----------



## Randy

Señor Voorhees said:


> Perhaps it's just me, but sustained automatic gunfire is kind of by nature less accurate than semi-auto and certainly more difficult to maintain control. The Kyle situation was bad enough, now imagine if he had an actual automatic rifle... The likelihood of him hurting/killing more people goes up, even just by chance. At the very least I'd venture a guess that Gaige's chance of buying the farm would've gone up quite a bit. Keeping in mind that I'm not advocating for people like Kyle (or anyone) to walk around with even semi-auto rifles, I just think redneck loonies with automatic guns are more scary than redneck loonies with semi-auto guns. It's fine for people to disagree. I can see why people would feel that way.



Right, but what you're referring to is the difference between killing people with tons of collateral damage vs killing potentially just as many people but more deliberate.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Randy said:


> Right, but what you're referring to is the difference between killing people with tons of collateral damage vs killing potentially just as many people but more deliberate.



I mean, one of those is inherently worse than the other if you consider that the "collateral damage" could be someone down the street doing nothing other than trying to get home, but again I'm just arguing semantics and it's kind of pointless to the overall subject. I basically agree with you and it feels silly to argue it further when, again, you're ultimately not wrong.

I misunderstood something, you corrected me, it's all good. I'm not even mad at the sorta-rude way it was addressed because I can see why you might think I was being antagonistic. I promise I wasn't trying to be and I'm sorry it came off that way. 100% my bad for assuming things/not reading further back.


----------



## Randy

Señor Voorhees said:


> I mean, one of those is inherently worse than the other if you consider that the "collateral damage" could be someone down the street doing nothing other than trying to get home, but again I'm just arguing semantics and it's kind of pointless to the overall subject. I basically agree with you and it feels silly to argue it further when, again, you're ultimately not wrong.
> 
> I misunderstood something, you corrected me, it's all good. I'm not even mad at the sorta-rude way it was addressed because I can see why you might think I was being antagonistic. I promise I wasn't trying to be and I'm sorry it came off that way. 100% my bad for assuming things/not reading further back.



Oh, I don't think I was being semi-rude, I was being straight up rude. I had no idea your intention but this is page 90 of the millionth gun related thread in the 15 years I've been here, and it's SUPER common for conservative posters to come in and talk down to everyone else for their lack of knowledge about guns to basically bury the debate in minutae. So yeah, that's not something personal but I'm quick to jump on that because I've seen the discussion derailed a bunch of times over that. That's no judgement of you, we all play a little rough in here.

As far as the collateral damage thing, I go back to discussing the intent.

Imagine the AR-15 posted earlier, but in one scenario it's fully automatic and in the other it's semi-automatic. Then imagine an "active shooter" situation where someone is just looking to kill people. Same gun, same form factor, same ammo, same magazine capacity. The lethality of booth seemingly the same, with maybe the exception that the full auto would be harder to control wide open, but also the added potential of overheating or jamming.

But otherwise, you've got the same number of bullets and the same number of targets. If the INTENTION of the shooter is to just kill as many people as they can until they're out of ammo or they're overwhelmed, I don't see NOT having full auto as being a "well, thank God for that, that saves a lotta lives" kinda thing.

The only way I see lack of full auto in an otherwise similar weapon as being a life saver is if the people being shot at are specific, intentional targets and thankfully you didn't "accidentally" shoot someone else nearby but that starts to feel like a really vague scenario. If I'm a victim and within range of either, I'm not really considering myself more or less lucky with either.


----------



## 3bolt79

Well the BLM crowd rioted in my town and burned down, and looted, a few square blocks of downtown. The cops did nothing about it. People are griping about The Proud Boys. Well, Proud Boys didn’t riot and cause destruction, or steal anything. But the BLM crowd did. I know which one I think needs to be designated a terrorist organization.

My friend owns a business 2 blocks up from one of the blocks that was destroyed. He camped out at his business with a shotgun for a couple of nights. If anyone would have tried to burglarize, or set fire to his building, he would have shot them. And it would have been completely justified and legal.

If the cops would have shot a couple of guys in the act of setting fire, or looting, the majority of the bad people would have dispersed. Our police and our governor are a bunch of wimps. 

Oklahoma got it right. There if protesters, rioters, or anybody else tries to get at occupants in a vehicle, or blocks the road, it’s now legal to drive through, regardless of if a few get ran over.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Randy said:


> Oh, I don't think I was being semi-rude, I was being straight up rude. I had no idea your intention but this is page 90 of the millionth gun related thread in the 15 years I've been here, and it's SUPER common for conservative posters to come in and talk down to everyone else for their lack of knowledge about guns to basically bury the debate in minutae. So yeah, that's not something personal but I'm quick to jump on that because I've seen the discussion derailed a bunch of times over that. That's no judgement of you, we all play a little rough in here.
> 
> As far as the collateral damage thing, I go back to discussing the intent.
> 
> Imagine the AR-15 posted earlier, but in one scenario it's fully automatic and in the other it's semi-automatic. Then imagine an "active shooter" situation where someone is just looking to kill people. Same gun, same form factor, same ammo, same magazine capacity. The lethality of booth seemingly the same, with maybe the exception that the full auto would be harder to control wide open, but also the added potential of overheating or jamming.
> 
> But otherwise, you've got the same number of bullets and the same number of targets. If the INTENTION of the shooter is to just kill as many people as they can until they're out of ammo or they're overwhelmed, I don't see NOT having full auto as being a "well, thank God for that, that saves a lotta lives" kinda thing.
> 
> The only way I see lack of full auto in an otherwise similar weapon as being a life saver is if the people being shot at are specific, intentional targets and thankfully you didn't "accidentally" shoot someone else nearby but that starts to feel like a really vague scenario. If I'm a victim and within range of either, I'm not really considering myself more or less lucky with either.




This is fair. I'm also operating under the assumption that people are acting deliberately. Spraying a 30 round mag deliberately into a crowd leaves a lot to chance where as someone deliberately aiming a semi-auto is more likely to hurt/harm less. (edit: assuming he's deliberately aiming at "bad guys." It's possible that 30 well placed shots is way more detrimental than 30 random shots.) That also fails to acknowledge that somebody with no care whatsoever can dump a 30 round mag at least *almost* as quickly as a full auto. You'd still probably have better aim with mag dumping a semi, but that's still 30 bullets in quick succession, each one with the possibility to take a life.

It ultimately kind of is just splitting hairs, I suppose. Just because I think the "random" factor is scarier than someone acting deliberately, that doesn't change the fact that a loony with a semi-auto is still pant-shittingly terrifying. I just think of all those videos of dudes at weddings with AK's firing into the air and the recoil carries the barrel across a crowd and it rubs me a little more wrong than semi-auto... But again... There's shit like this so maybe it's just a bit of unintentional mental gymnastics on my part:



Bump firing is also a little more scary to me as it removes even more control from the shooter.


----------



## mmr007

3bolt79 said:


> Well the BLM crowd rioted in my town and burned down, and looted, a few square blocks of downtown. The cops did nothing about it. People are griping about The Proud Boys. Well, Proud Boys didn’t riot and cause destruction, or steal anything. But the BLM crowd did. I know which one I think needs to be designated a terrorist organization.
> 
> My friend owns a business 2 blocks up from one of the blocks that was destroyed. He camped out at his business with a shotgun for a couple of nights. If anyone would have tried to burglarize, or set fire to his building, he would have shot them. And it would have been completely justified and legal.
> 
> If the cops would have shot a couple of guys in the act of setting fire, or looting, the majority of the bad people would have dispersed. Our police and our governor are a bunch of wimps.
> 
> Oklahoma got it right. There if protesters, rioters, or anybody else tries to get at occupants in a vehicle, or blocks the road, it’s now legal to drive through, regardless of if a few get ran over.


We don't shoot people who are looting because lives (even those who are stealing) are more precious than shoes....even nice shoes. Yes cops indiscriminately firing into a crowd of protestors and looters will make them disperse...there are lots of things that will do that and they were all used in Stalinist Soviet Union and other totalitarian governments that kept good order. I don't want that. A looter and an arsonist is not by definition a terrorist and neither is BLM a terrorist organization. I don't agree with everything they stand for or some of the measures use but only after walking a mile in another man's shoes will understand the steps he takes.

It's very unfortunate your friend and his business were caught up in the crosshairs of a nearby riot, just as it is unfortunate that too many black people wind up dead at the hands of cops for misdemeanors ....or just being asleep in their bed when a full scale invasion occurs.

Why would Proud Boys riot? They weren't being killed by cops. They were being patted on the back by their buffoon president...... Trump.


----------



## Adieu

3bolt79 said:


> Well the BLM crowd rioted in my town and burned down, and looted, a few square blocks of downtown. The cops did nothing about it. People are griping about The Proud Boys. Well, Proud Boys didn’t riot and cause destruction, or steal anything. But the BLM crowd did. I know which one I think needs to be designated a terrorist organization.
> 
> My friend owns a business 2 blocks up from one of the blocks that was destroyed. He camped out at his business with a shotgun for a couple of nights. If anyone would have tried to burglarize, or set fire to his building, he would have shot them. And it would have been completely justified and legal.
> 
> If the cops would have shot a couple of guys in the act of setting fire, or looting, the majority of the bad people would have dispersed. Our police and our governor are a bunch of wimps.
> 
> Oklahoma got it right. There if protesters, rioters, or anybody else tries to get at occupants in a vehicle, or blocks the road, it’s now legal to drive through, regardless of if a few get ran over.



Who cares?

Petty crime let's just disperse them with nukes


----------



## StevenC

3bolt79 said:


> Oklahoma got it right. There if protesters, rioters, or anybody else tries to get at occupants in a vehicle, or blocks the road, it’s now legal to drive through, regardless of if a few get ran over.


This right here is lunacy.


----------



## Adieu

3bolt79 said:


> Oklahoma got it right. There if protesters, rioters, or anybody else tries to get at occupants in a vehicle, or blocks the road, it’s now legal to drive through, regardless of if a few get ran over.



FFW to acquittals for "how was I supposed to know these were city workers"... or, hey, COPS.

That'll be fun.

Order that bull bar from Amazon Prime and it's open season, y'all


----------



## spudmunkey

3bolt79 said:


> Oklahoma got it right. There if protesters, rioters, or anybody else tries to get at occupants in a vehicle, it’s now legal to drive through, regardless of if a few get ran over.



Ok, OK, I'm with you. I don't disagree. Wait...lemme read that again?



3bolt79 said:


> Oklahoma got it right. There if protesters, rioters, or anybody else tries to get at occupants in a vehicle, *or blocks the road,* it’s now legal to drive through, regardless of if a few get ran over.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

The criminalization of protest. Hmmm. I wonder what the founding fathers would have thought about that. Better yet, I'd love someone with a Gadsden Flag bumper sticker or Punisher Skull tattoo explain that one.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> The criminalization of protest. Hmmm. I wonder what the founding fathers would have thought about that. Better yet, I'd love someone with a Gadsden Flag bumper sticker or Punisher Skull tattoo explain that one.



Oh, simple

The hateful enemy doesn't deserve rights. They're not your neighbors or even your competitors, rivals, whatever, they're just something to legitimately run over with your truck.

It's the next step from Trump's "fine people on both sides." Now it's like PEOPLE? WHAT, WHERE? Them's not people, son.

PS this is an observation of a trend, not advocacy for such treatment of those you disagree with.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Imagine if we turned to the founding fathers for everything? "Poop in a jar, don't wash your hair, wooden teeth are cool, n-words are property..." Yikes... The founding fathers lived in a more fucked up world than we do.


----------



## Adieu

Besides, all they really wanted was to dodge taxes


----------



## narad

I don't get how you can have a law creating a misdemeanor for blocking roads in a protest, but not about bringing guns to protests. Like are you allowed to control the space or not?


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> I don't get how you can have a law creating a misdemeanor for blocking roads in a protest, but not about bringing guns to protests. Like are you allowed to control the space or not?



It's basically a misdemeanor for having the gall to block roads WITHOUT the guns to back it up

This classic scene illustrates all you need to know about right of way:


----------



## mmr007

Merry Christmas....from some Kentucky congressman and his family. And I remember my parents were reluctant to buy me ACDC's Highway to Hell for christmas when I was a kid....but both my parents are terrorist liberals


----------



## Randy

^^^
They gave their daughter an uzi though? Yeesh.


----------



## spudmunkey

So who wants to bet me that the word everyone in this photo said at this photoshoot, to make it look like everyone was smiling, wasn't "cheese!", but "Jeeeeeesus!"


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> So who wants to bet me that the word everyone in this photo said at this photoshoot, to make it look like everyone was smiling, wasn't "cheese!", but "Jeeeeeesus!"



"Freeeeeeze!"


----------



## TedEH

Am I seeing things right, or is the lady on the couch pointing her gun strait at red plaid shirt guy?
Cue any "responsible gun ownership" argument.


----------



## Adieu

TedEH said:


> Am I seeing things right, or is the lady on the couch pointing her gun strait at red plaid shirt guy?
> Cue any "responsible gun ownership" argument.



Prolly cuz he banging her daughter, by the looks of it


----------



## spudmunkey

TedEH said:


> Am I seeing things right, or is the lady on the couch pointing her gun strait at red plaid shirt guy?
> Cue any "responsible gun ownership" argument.



That's the son-in-law, who she never forgave for voting for Obama in his first campaign.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

narad said:


> "Freeeeeeze!"


I find it interesting how cops in the USA no longer shout this anymore. Like, in any state anywhere in the USA. Period. They just go straight for the taser or gun and pull the trigger.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adieu said:


> Oh yeah, SWATting the child soldier paramilitaries from wingnut extremist organizations brandishing weapons to intimidate and provoke the public is so totally wrong
> 
> Remind me of wtf the purpose of SWAT was again?



I’ve no idea, nor do I really care. 

Is he all that? Consider that is only what a certain part of the media wants you to believe. Another part of the media wants you to believe something else.

If you watch the trial, a different story is told. 

Kyle wanted to protect his community. He wanted to protect Car Source, provide medical assistance, and put out fires. 

He was offering medical assistance. He didn’t commit any crimes. When he left Car Source to put out a fire he was chased down by a lunatic, and shot him in self defense. 

And then a group of people were chasing after him. He was trying to run away and turn himself in. It’s all self defense and nothing was a crime. It’s all been proven in court, despite the divisive BS portrayed by the media on both sides. 

Do I have an opinion on people carrying weapons legally in public? Sure, but nobody asked…


What’s really funny is “Liberals” calling for more Police action. 

And characterizing poor White kids as extremists. Really is easy to target white guys isn’t it? Evem when they support BLM and the right to peacefully protest as Kyle Rittenhouse does. 

Maybe Rittenhouse suing for Defamation is a good idea because it’s actually true?


----------



## Wuuthrad

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think that the police, especially in this instance, cared to keep order. It plays more to their own ends to let all Hell break loose.
> 
> Or they're completely inept.
> 
> At least that's how it appeared on the ground in the days leading up to that night and immediately afterwards.



Yes it seems they were strangely “Hands Off” during the Riots in Wisconsin. I remember seeing footage of Cop Cars being burned and statues of an Abolitionist and Prison Reformer being torn down (like WTF rioters monkey see monkey do?) at the State Capitol down with basically no police response.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Randy said:


> Everyone in this thread please screenshot this post and frame it as a reminder of what a "bad faith" argument is, how to recognize it and a reminder not to waste your time.



Precisely my point. Remind you of anything?


----------



## Wuuthrad

narad said:


> Whenever someone says common sense ideas (like not bringing automatic protests) are in direct violation of law/founding ideas of America, I just think back to The Onion, "'No way to prevent this', Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" headline.



Easy to resort to the make believe world of online Satire isn’t it!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> Yes it seems they were strangely “Hands Off” during the Riots in Wisconsin. I remember seeing footage of Cop Cars being burned and statues of an Abolitionist and Prison Reformer being torn down (like WTF rioters monkey see monkey do?) at the State Capitol down with basically no police response.



I don't know about Madison, that's like 100 miles away, but down here as soon as the shooting hit national news the MAGA trucks and out of state plates started steadily rolling in, and the law enforcement presence quickly got weirdly thin. Like from about Highway K to Kenosha proper there's practically a cop car every other block, but they all scurried away. It just lead to an atmosphere of "everyone for themselves", at least at night especially. The "state of emergency" was a joke. Absolutely zero enforcement, at least in any practical sense.



Wuuthrad said:


> protect Car Source



I don't get this. Do these places not have insurance?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Señor Voorhees said:


> Is there some sort of event I'm missing? I've seen it mentioned a few times now how automatic weapons were brought to the protests. Did somebody bring an automatic weapon to a demonstration that I'm missing?
> 
> Automatic weapons are pretty uncommon, and are damn expensive. I can't imagine many, if any, protestors or counter-protestors having one. For shits and giggles I looked it up and an AK-47, a gun you can obtain for less than to a little over $1k in semi-auto would cost upwards of $20k and involve jumping through many many hoops. Automatic weapons, at the very least, played zero role in the whole Rittenhouse case.
> 
> Anywho, law is weird, but I think this video is pretty relevant and does a decent job of explaining things.





That’s a very detailed explanation, and thoroughly explains how Rittenhouse was acting in Self Defense, according to WI law.

He didn’t even provoke anyone, and even then he tried to retreat, although had he not retreated, he still could have used lethal force in defense because he had not initiated any attack on anyone, but, he may have been better off with an automatic weapon in that case! 

Although that would probably have been even more dumb, being illegal and all, and been an even worse outcome for more people!


----------



## Wuuthrad

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know about Madison, that's like 100 miles away, but down here as soon as the shooting hit national news the MAGA trucks and out of state plates started steadily rolling in, and the law enforcement presence quickly got weirdly thin. Like from about Highway K to Kenosha proper there's practically a cop car every other block, but they all scurried away. It just lead to an atmosphere of "everyone for themselves", at least at night especially. The "state of emergency" was a joke. Absolutely zero enforcement, at least in any practical sense.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get this. Do these places not have insurance?



I’m wondering if they were told “hands off” to prevent more police violence or gun violence, considering the climate? I don’t know who’s jurisdiction Riot Control would fall under- National Guard? Weird any way you look at it, or off-kilter, considering many historic examples. 

I understand K.R. and his group thought they were hired or were asked to protect the business. The folly of youth perhaps? 

Kyle is no idiot though! Wrong place, wrong time ? Or Right place, Right time? He seems to have known all the details re. gun possession and self defense. Had the Prosecution been more competent, they might have been able to pursue motive or intent more effectively. 

Especially considering the intricacies of WI law re. Self defense. The perfect crime? Highly doubtful… (cue Hollywood Crime Drama Screenwriters) 

Hey Kyle here’s how to really cash in! Poor kid wants to become a nurse…


----------



## narad

Wuuthrad said:


> Easy to resort to the make believe world of online Satire isn’t it!



I'm confused as to what you think is "make believe" about it.


----------



## mmr007

I don't give a shit about Kyle or his motives or the trial. Never watched a second of it. Doesn't matter what the verdict was...people are dead and a young man's life is forever changed. Maybe he's a MAGA maybe he's a Proud Boy....maybe he's just a nerd that needs a girlfriend. What I DO KNOW is that he is proof positive that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun argument is bullshit (spoiler alert I already knew that). In a violent situation we need less guns at the table not more. How is anyone there supposed to know if he is an active shooter, hunting an active shooter, defending a car lot, hunting skateboarders. Is he pointing a gun in self defense? How is another person to know?

I know that when the Floyd riots broke out even though there was looting I stayed home and nobody died because of me because I didn't go out to defend a Hobby Lobby with an AK and then had to "defend" myself. Sorry if the recent Michigan shooting reminds me of anything its that when I see a young white kid with a gun in public I'm not going to rest easy and say "aww how cute. He must really like car dealerships"


----------



## Wuuthrad

narad said:


> I'm confused as to what you think is "make believe" about it.



The Onion? Brilliant Satire for sure, but come on… Surely not admissible in court!

Imagine if anyone used George Carlin as a defense:

_“That's why they call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” _

And with this yer Honor, we rest our case:

_“Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!” _


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> I’m wondering if they were told “hands off” to prevent more police violence or gun violence, considering the climate? I don’t know who’s jurisdiction Riot Control would fall under- National Guard? Weird any way you look at it, or off-kilter, considering many historic examples.
> 
> I understand K.R. and his group thought they were hired or were asked to protect the business. The folly of youth perhaps?
> 
> Kyle is no idiot though! Wrong place, wrong time ? Or Right place, Right time? He seems to have known all the details re. gun possession and self defense. Had the Prosecution been more competent, they might have been able to pursue motive or intent more effectively.
> 
> Especially considering the intricacies of WI law re. Self defense. The perfect crime? Highly doubtful… (cue Hollywood Crime Drama Screenwriters)
> 
> Hey Kyle here’s how to really cash in! Poor kid wants to become a nurse…



I think they let all Hell break loose to spite the peaceful protesters, which were the overwhelming majority, and our Governor, as well as serve their own political and financial interests: i.e. "see what happens when we're not around?"

It's a tactic we've seen throughout the country. Enforcement when it suits them, lack thereof when it does as well.

I think we have different criteria for idiocy. Like, I've done some stupid stuff, but I've never put myself in a situation so above my head that I had to shoot my way out of it, regardless of legality.

As someone who lives and travels in said community, I don't want folks firing wildly. Full stop. Protecting a business is a really shitty and absolutely stupid reason to put people at risk.


----------



## Wuuthrad

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think they let all Hell break loose to spite the peaceful protesters, which were the overwhelming majority, and our Governor, as well as serve their own political and financial interests: i.e. "see what happens when we're not around?"
> 
> It's a tactic we've seen throughout the country. Enforcement when it suits them, lack thereof when it does as well.
> 
> I think we have different criteria for idiocy. Like, I've done some stupid stuff, but I've never put myself in a situation so above my head that I had to shoot my way out of it, regardless of legality.
> 
> As someone who lives and travels in said community, I don't want folks firing wildly. Full stop.



No don’t get me wrong I don’t agree with certain aspects of the Law either, but I’m not about to put myself on the wrong side of it trying to be a hero. Arguments are for the Court, not the Cops!

Your explanation seems to make sense. Strange how it’s come to this!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> No don’t get me wrong I don’t agree with certain aspects of the Law either, but I’m not about to put myself on the wrong side of it trying to be a hero. Arguments are for the Court, not the Cops!
> 
> Your explanation seems to make sense. Strange how it’s come to this!



You can litigate the semantics of right vs. wrong in relation to the law, but it's a fucking _miracle_ that no one else got shot and you can guarantee that didn't stop Rittenhouse from pulling the trigger. Next time, the shooter, crowd, or some innocent bystanders might not be so lucky.


----------



## narad

Wuuthrad said:


> The Onion? Brilliant Satire for sure, but come on… Surely not admissible in court!
> 
> Imagine if anyone used George Carlin as a defense:
> 
> _“That's why they call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.”
> 
> “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” _
> 
> And with this yer Honor, we rest our case:
> 
> _“Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!” _



I wasn't suggesting The Onion should be used as the basis of an argument in court....(obvious to everyone). Just that The Onion, and the rest of the world, and a large swath of America, can all look at gun culture and the resulting number of senseless deaths and think... dude, wtf, how is neanderthal mentality dictating policy in a country that views itself as a moral leader and peacekeeper of the world? Rittenhouse is a perfect example of that. Anyone with a brain would have stayed home, and he ran out into that shitstorm and made it worse, and appears to suffer no penalty for the lack of foresight.

It's funny because now there are also these parents of this school shooter who are going to be indicted for negligence, for overlooking obvious warning signs with their kid, but Rittenhouse is not subject to negligence for overlooking the natural conclusion of showing up to a riot with a gun and a desire to confront the people there.


----------



## TedEH

Wuuthrad said:


> Kyle wanted to protect his community. He wanted to protect Car Source, provide medical assistance, and put out fires.


How can anyone claim to know exactly what another person's intentions are? Why does a 17 year old care about a car dealership? What medical assistance could he have possibly provided? Why would you go to provide medical assistance with a gun instead of health supplies? Have you met 17 year olds? They'll say whatever they need to in order to get themselves out of trouble.


----------



## StevenC

Wuuthrad said:


> Kyle wanted to protect his community.


His community, or a different state?


----------



## Adieu

The white power community, I take it?


----------



## Señor Voorhees

TedEH said:


> How can anyone claim to know exactly what another person's intentions are? Why does a 17 year old care about a car dealership? What medical assistance could he have possibly provided? Why would you go to provide medical assistance with a gun instead of health supplies? Have you met 17 year olds? They'll say whatever they need to in order to get themselves out of trouble.



Honestly, I believe those were his surface level intentions. Not sure if it's the right term to use in this circumstance, but my best guess is he was virtue signaling. "Look, I gave this guy a band aid I'm helping." Making it a point to walk around with a gun shouting "friendly friendly friendly." I don't think he cared all that much about the community, but probably wanted to give the appearance of someone who did. Just seems strange to go out into danger unrelated to you "for the community." Maybe it's just me, but my home town was never that bad so I don't hate it, but is it worth putting myself in danger over? That's a big ol' nope. Is that something people legitimately have? Some sort of legitimate patriotism towards their towns? Seems silly to me. You're better off staying at home to defend *it* with your gun, not some random car company that has insurance and gives zero fucks about your wellbeing. I don't think he was out deliberately looking for trouble, but is it in any way surprising that he *found* trouble? Again, I think he was just virtue signaling and it turned up real bad. And it will never not be confusing to me that it was all somehow legal.

If he wanted to help, he should've done what he was doing in the daytime... Cleaning graffiti and such.


----------



## Adieu

He was cleaning graffiti? Like... court-ordered cleaning graffiti?


----------



## bostjan

I just wanted to jump in here and follow the thought experiment of him "just wanting to help his community."

Let's assume he went there just to help his community, even though he had no medical training and no medical equipment. That's fine, he can whitewash graffiti or put out fires. Let's also assume that he felt unsafe there, so it was necessary for him to bring a weapon in order to protect himself. That still leads to the obvious question of why an AR15? If his hands are busy helping, then the rifle would be dangling from the strap, swinging around pointing just wherever. That's stupid. No matter how people argue that he was there to help, you follow the logical conclusions and it ends up being stupid, once you account for the obvious major facts. So, in the absence of any logical explanation of him being there to help, he was there to stir up shit. Period. Going someplace you ought not to be in order to stir up shit is not tantamount to premeditation of murder, though, but it sure is recklessness with disregard for human life. If only there was a criminal charge for killing people out of reckless disregard for human life... oh wait.

But the idiot prosecutor decided to go for the angles he knew he couldn't prove. Oh well...


mmr007 said:


> Merry Christmas....from some Kentucky congressman and his family. And I remember my parents were reluctant to buy me ACDC's Highway to Hell for christmas when I was a kid....but both my parents are terrorist liberals



That's a fortune worth of guns. 3 AR15's, a Tommy Gun, an Uzi, a fricken M60, and some other sort of FAL/HK91/not-sure... those all quite likely cost more than my annual income when you sum them all up. If I had that kind of spending money imagine the guitars I'd blow it all on I could responsibly invest in my retirement!

As a Michigan kid (we were living in Detroit, maybe 50-ish miles / 80ish km away from the shooting), everybody I knew had a gun. Starting around 4th grade, we were taught gun safety in school. My dad gave me a rifle for my 12th birthday, which his father had given him for his 12th birthday. But it was the early 90's. There were, in fact, school shootings, but you never really heard about them. Not long after I got my first gun from my parents, there was a pretty major shooting at Finney high school where something like a dozen kids were shot. But it's Detroit, so a shooting there is just another day. You heard about Columbine, IMO, because it was a bunch of rich white kids in a rich white neighbourhood. Oxford is another rich white neighbourhood. For every one of those, there may well have been a hundred shootings in places like Detroit, Washington, Baltimore, Philly, etc., that the national media never mentioned. OTOH, now I live in VT, and everyone here also owns a gun, but there are almost never shootings. Maybe there aren't enough people here for it to even be an issue, but it seems like it's still a psychological issue.

Conservatives like to point out that, if a person is dead-set on killing another person, and no guns were around, a knife, wrench, lead pipe, candlestick, or even a rock would do the trick. I agree with that, but there are details here that I suppose one would argue are either key or nuance. For one, a gun is a terrifically convenient killing tool. If one person wanted to go on a killing spree and do away with a dozen other people in under 10 minutes, they'd have to use a gun, unless their victims were like already bound up conveniently or some other unrealistic caveat. It's a point-and-click death machine. Note that there are no reports of mass school stonings or mass school pointed-stickings, but there are now a steady stream of mass school shootings in the news. There are a few cases of people using a knife or a motor vehicle to commit mass murder, though. And guns have been around in the USA in the general population for a very long time and this problem of mass shootings just keeps getting worse and worse. So the root cause for the problem is mental health. We _have _stigmatized mental health disorders and we _have_ pulled the rug out from our mental health programmes here in the USA. However, people with recorded mental health problems are not generally able to obtain a gun, however however, with so few mental health resources available, most mental health problems go undiagnosed. It's not like we can snap our fingers and suddenly restore our public mental health support, but, the longer we put it off, the worse this is going to get. Either that, or maybe it'll get bad enough here that the rest of the world will decide that people in the USA are just too dangerous and crazy and we'll get World War III and every good ol' boy in the USA will get exactly the scenario they wanted where they get to grab the M134A minigun they got as a graduation present and go shootin'.


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> Again, you don’t seem to understand the law in WI despite my quoting and linking it- you are in fact allowed to use Lethal Force as Self Defense when afraid for your life, and this was clearly demonstrated by multiple eye-witness testimony, video and audio evidence.
> 
> Did you even read where Grosskruetz admitted that Rittenhouse didn’t shoot him in the arm until he pointed a gun at him, and not when he had his arms up?
> 
> Or that K.R. said on multiple occasions he never intended to kill anyone and only shot people because he was afraid they were going to kill him, one of whom was screaming the words and others who acted in mob mentality with same intent and similar language?
> 
> I mean this is like repeating the same thing over and over again- you seem to think he murdered people, despite the evidence.


Ok, broken record here - Grosskruetz, the one who pointed a gun at him, yeah, you can plausibly argue self-defense here... although even then it's probably murkier than I personally would be comfortable weighing in on, considering by the time Grosskruetz pointed a handgun at him, Rittenhouse had already shot and killed two unarmed men, and at this point Grosskruetz himself could claim he was responding proportionally to an active shooter who had already killed two people.

But, sure, let's say it's irrelevant for self defense that Grosskruetz only pointed a gun at him after seeing him shoot two men to death. The first two men Rittenhouse shot, however, were unarmed, and not only is it hard to argue that shooting someone at close range with an AR15 when they swing a skateboard at you is "proportional," Rittenhouse had already shot Rosenbaum, again who was unarmed, before Huber attacked him with a skateboard.

Focusing on Grosskreutz is a bit of a bat and switch here, and even Huber is pretty disingenuous, as by the time either of them directly interacted with Rittenhouse, they had already seen him shoot an unarmed man to death. You're questioning my knowledge of WI law, which is fair, but I'll say this - I honestly don't know if self-defense can be used to "defend" yourself _after_ you've shot an unarmed man... but it would _seem_ to be rather tenuous, and it's awfully hard to argue shooting Rosenbaum was not an escalation of force of the sort that is prohibited under the self defense law, even IF Rittenhouse believed he was afraid for his life.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Can we just drop this whole "justice is blind" horseshit? Have any of you been to Kenosha? There was absolutely no way a good little Proud Boy was going to get convicted of anything down here. Maybe in Milwaukee County or Dane County, or possibly even Brown, but sure as Hell not Kenosha.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Can we just drop this whole "justice is blind" horseshit? Have any of you been to Kenosha? There was absolutely no way a good little Proud Boy was going to get convicted of anything down here. Maybe in Milwaukee County or Dane County, or possibly even Brown, but sure as Hell not Kenosha.


All I know about Kenosha is the extended "You never did the Kenosha Kid" iterations ...halucination, I guess? That Tyrone Slothrop undergoes early-ish on in Gravity's Rainbow which was evidently supposed to be his experience of the Army running some sort of experiment on him to understand white perceptions of blackness. That's probably all I need to know about a white guy getting prosecuted for shooting a few protesters after the death of a black guy at the hands of police in Kenosha. It was probably the whitest place Pynchon could think of.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Emperor Guillotine said:


> I find it interesting how cops in the USA no longer shout this anymore. Like, in any state anywhere in the USA. Period. They just go straight for the taser or gun and pull the trigger.



Let's be real... are victims of police brutality really going to feel that much better because they're already doing what "freeze" means anyways right before they get gunned down?


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

TheBlackBard said:


> Let's be real... are victims of police brutality really going to feel that much better because they're already doing what "freeze" means anyways right before they get gunned down?


Nope.

Maybe shouting “freeze” is/was a cop’s cheat code? Well over half of the police officers in the USA can’t even aim their weapon. So, having an unmoving target just makes it easier for them to commit their heinous acts.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> All I know about Kenosha is the extended "You never did the Kenosha Kid" iterations ...halucination, I guess? That Tyrone Slothrop undergoes early-ish on in Gravity's Rainbow which was evidently supposed to be his experience of the Army running some sort of experiment on him to understand white perceptions of blackness. That's probably all I need to know about a white guy getting prosecuted for shooting a few protesters after the death of a black guy at the hands of police in Kenosha. It was probably the whitest place Pynchon could think of.



They went for Trump twice after almost fifty years of leaning blue. It was not because he had an "R" next to his name. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## spudmunkey

"On the right-wing network the Blaze on Monday night, [podcast] co-host Sydney Watson told her guest, Kyle Rittenhouse, that it was 'kind of impressive' that 'of all the people that you shot at, you killed probably two of the worst on the planet.' 'Congratulations,' Watson said Monday to Rittenhouse. 'Good job, you.'"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i...osha-was-not-the-best-idea/ar-AARyQST?pc=U531


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> "On the right-wing network the Blaze on Monday night, [podcast] co-host Sydney Watson told her guest, Kyle Rittenhouse, that it was 'kind of impressive' that 'of all the people that you shot at, you killed probably two of the worst on the planet.' 'Congratulations,' Watson said Monday to Rittenhouse. 'Good job, you.'"
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i...osha-was-not-the-best-idea/ar-AARyQST?pc=U531



What an awful person. Rittenhouse doesn't seem to espouse the gun crazy rightwing stuff, at least not in public interviews:

Rittenhouse, 18, responded that the killings were “nothing to be congratulated about.” “Like, if I could go back, I wish I would never have had to take somebody’s life,” he said.

but unfortunately a win for Rittenhouse in this case is a win for all the true crazies like Sydney congratulating a kid on killing two people in the streets. And Rittenhouse, even if he does not condone his actions outright, is 17 and should know better. That's my qualm. I'd prefer a judge ruling sort of like ~"Well, alright, you get one bullshit killing in the streets on the technicalities of how current policy works. But now we're changing the policies so that gun-toting wannabe heroes face charges for putting themselves in these situations"


----------



## Randy

All I know about Kenosha is what I hear from Max and this


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Drew said:


> All I know about Kenosha is the extended "You never did the Kenosha Kid" iterations ...halucination, I guess? That Tyrone Slothrop undergoes early-ish on in Gravity's Rainbow which was evidently supposed to be his experience of the Army running some sort of experiment on him to understand white perceptions of blackness. That's probably all I need to know about a white guy getting prosecuted for shooting a few protesters after the death of a black guy at the hands of police in Kenosha. It was probably the whitest place Pynchon could think of.



Wow, I _really_ need to read that book again.


----------



## Drew

wheresthefbomb said:


> Wow, I _really_ need to read that book again.


"What? You? Never.... _Did_ the Kenosha Kid?"


It's a seriously, seriously, seriously convoluted, twisted, and fucked up novel... but it's also just hauntingly beautiful in places. The bit about the double integral sign and the rocket factory, Slothrop finding the dead girl in the sub and the narration slipping into second person addressed directly to the reader, Slothrop and Tchiterine, unbeknownst to each other and not able to communicate because they don't share a language, crossing paths on a bridge in the Zone and one bumming a cigarette off the other before they, completely unaware of who the other is, go their seperate ways... The guy with the jammed machine gun counting down his final seconds int he raid towards the end... the final sing-along in the church as Rocket 00000 comes barreling down overhead about the sacredness of the preterite... Every once in a while the madness stopps and there's just a moment of aching beauty in the text. I had to read it twice before it clicked for me, but that second time it became one of my favorite books.


----------



## ArtDecade

Drew said:


> It's a seriously, seriously, seriously convoluted, twisted, and fucked up novel... but it's also just hauntingly beautiful in places.



You've just described our first date.


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> You've just described our first date.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Drew said:


> "What? You? Never.... _Did_ the Kenosha Kid?"
> 
> 
> It's a seriously, seriously, seriously convoluted, twisted, and fucked up novel... but it's also just hauntingly beautiful in places. The bit about the double integral sign and the rocket factory, Slothrop finding the dead girl in the sub and the narration slipping into second person addressed directly to the reader, Slothrop and Tchiterine, unbeknownst to each other and not able to communicate because they don't share a language, crossing paths on a bridge in the Zone and one bumming a cigarette off the other before they, completely unaware of who the other is, go their seperate ways... The guy with the jammed machine gun counting down his final seconds int he raid towards the end... the final sing-along in the church as Rocket 00000 comes barreling down overhead about the sacredness of the preterite... Every once in a while the madness stopps and there's just a moment of aching beauty in the text. I had to read it twice before it clicked for me, but that second time it became one of my favorite books.



I didn't finish it the first time, got lost a little over halfway through and honestly decided I wasn't smart enough to understand it hahaha. I think i'd like it a lot better now.


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> The bit about the double integral sign and the rocket factory, Slothrop finding the dead girl in the sub and the narration slipping into second person addressed directly to the reader, Slothrop and Tchiterine, unbeknownst to each other and not able to communicate because they don't share a language, crossing paths on a bridge in the Zone and one bumming a cigarette off the other before they, completely unaware of who the other is, go their seperate ways... The guy with the jammed machine gun counting down his final seconds int he raid towards the end... the final sing-along in the church as Rocket 00000 comes barreling down overhead about the sacredness of the preterite...


This is one of those AI-written plot summaries, isn't it? Admit it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> "What? You? Never.... _Did_ the Kenosha Kid?"
> 
> 
> It's a seriously, seriously, seriously convoluted, twisted, and fucked up novel... but it's also just hauntingly beautiful in places. The bit about the double integral sign and the rocket factory, Slothrop finding the dead girl in the sub and the narration slipping into second person addressed directly to the reader, Slothrop and Tchiterine, unbeknownst to each other and not able to communicate because they don't share a language, crossing paths on a bridge in the Zone and one bumming a cigarette off the other before they, completely unaware of who the other is, go their seperate ways... The guy with the jammed machine gun counting down his final seconds int he raid towards the end... the final sing-along in the church as Rocket 00000 comes barreling down overhead about the sacredness of the preterite... Every once in a while the madness stopps and there's just a moment of aching beauty in the text. I had to read it twice before it clicked for me, but that second time it became one of my favorite books.



I was waiting for this to turn into an "Aristocrats" riff but was sorely disappointed.


----------



## Xaios

MaxOfMetal said:


> I was waiting for this to turn into an "Aristocrats" riff but was sorely disappointed.


I'm also disappointed that it didn't end with "nineteen ninety eight when the undertaker threw mankind off hеll in a cell, and plummeted sixteen feet through an announcer's table."


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> This is one of those AI-written plot summaries, isn't it? Admit it.


Not even close.  

Ploy synopsis - Tyrone Slothrop, a young American lieutenant stationed in London and working with the British in WWII, keeps a map of his sexual conquests all over the city on his cubicle wall, mostly as an excuse to bust balls with his British colleagues. All's well and good until British intelligence realizes the map corresponds perfectly with a map of German V2 rocket impact sites, with a mean lag from conquest to rocket of about three days. Turns out as an infant he was the subject of some sort of Freudian conditioning experiment involving loud noises run by a scientist who thought an infant erection would be a conveniently binary indicator, and they suspect the deconditioning might have gone past neutral and it was something about the inversion with the faster-than-sound rocket, the explosion and _then_ ther screaming of the rocket's travel, that might be stimulating him. Not sure what's going on but fairly confident he isn't some sort of enemy agent, if nothing else because the rocket doesn't have nearly that kind of accuracy, they send him down to newly recaptured France figuring something's going on here so the least they can do is expose him to as much information as they've been able to obtain about the V2 rocket program and basically stand back and watch what happens. That's how it _starts_.  



MaxOfMetal said:


> I was waiting for this to turn into an "Aristocrats" riff but was sorely disappointed.


Pick it up. You will _not_ be disappointed.


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> Ploy synopsis - Tyrone Slothrop, a young American lieutenant stationed in London and working with the British in WWII, keeps a map of his sexual conquests all over the city on his cubicle wall, mostly as an excuse to bust balls with his British colleagues. All's well and good until British intelligence realizes the map corresponds perfectly with a map of German V2 rocket impact sites, with a mean lag from conquest to rocket of about three days. Turns out as an infant he was the subject of some sort of Freudian conditioning experiment involving loud noises run by a scientist who thought an infant erection would be a conveniently binary indicator, and they suspect the deconditioning might have gone past neutral and it was something about the inversion with the faster-than-sound rocket, the explosion and _then_ ther screaming of the rocket's travel, that might be stimulating him. Not sure what's going on but fairly confident he isn't some sort of enemy agent, if nothing else because the rocket doesn't have nearly that kind of accuracy, they send him down to newly recaptured France figuring something's going on here so the least they can do is expose him to as much information as they've been able to obtain about the V2 rocket program and basically stand back and watch what happens. That's how it _starts_.






...





Man, I gotta lay off the peyote.


----------



## Jonathan20022

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't get this. Do these places not have insurance?



This in particular irks me and always has, it's always people's final trump card in a conversation where people take a focus on being against the violence/rioting/looting. I'm confident you know far more about insurance than the average person to be making statements like this. 

Yeah you need insurance, but you still need a buffer you can't sleep soundly at night knowing your town is getting destroyed just because you pay your premiums  business owners are still begging for assistance from the government and the community to rebuild and restart. The pandemic also unfortunately forced many small businesses to avoid insuring themselves, those people are completely fucked, as opposed to you know getting fucked in limbo while they can't generate revenue waiting for the insurance to pay out whatever they accept to covering.

I get it, defund the police and all that. Go riot/destroy state property and the police that people are so vehemently against existing in it's current form then instead. 

This naturally goes towards the defense of private property, and others doing so due to a communal care and pride. You guys also against the owners and citizens of a local community defending their area/property? Or should you concede and hope for the best the next morning?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jonathan20022 said:


> This in particular irks me and always has, it's always people's final trump card in a conversation where people take a focus on being against the violence/rioting/looting. I'm confident you know far more about insurance than the average person to be making statements like this.
> 
> Yeah you need insurance, but you still need a buffer you can't sleep soundly at night knowing your town is getting destroyed just because you pay your premiums  business owners are still begging for assistance from the government and the community to rebuild and restart. The pandemic also unfortunately forced many small businesses to avoid insuring themselves, those people are completely fucked, as opposed to you know getting fucked in limbo while they can't generate revenue waiting for the insurance to pay out whatever they accept to covering.
> 
> I get it, defund the police and all that. Go riot/destroy state property and the police that people are so vehemently against existing in it's current form then instead.
> 
> This naturally goes towards the defense of private property, and others doing so due to a communal care and pride. You guys also against the owners and citizens of a local community defending their area/property? Or should you concede and hope for the best the next morning?



Yikes, project more. I haven't said any of that. 

I've had my property, including my business, damaged. It sucks. I don't wish dealing with the insurance companies on anyone. But, _it's not worth killing people over_. At all. Like, not even close.

I'm against people getting killed in the streets. Full stop. No one has earned the right of judge, jury, and executioner, and especially no one should be firing into a crowd to protect "stuff", not people mind you, but stuff that can be replaced or compensated for. 

It's all a fun thought exercise until there are bullets flying in your neighborhood which is just as bad as rioting. Go figure.


----------



## Jonathan20022

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yikes, project more. I haven't said any of that.
> 
> I've had my property, including my business, damaged. It sucks. I don't wish dealing with the insurance companies on anyone. But, _it's not worth killing people over_. At all. Like, not even close.
> 
> I'm against people getting killed in the streets. Full stop. No one has earned the right of judge, jury, and executioner, and especially no one should be firing into a crowd to protect "stuff", not people mind you, but stuff that can be replaced or compensated for.
> 
> It's all a fun thought exercise until there are bullets flying in your neighborhood which is just as bad as rioting. Go figure.



Who is saying kill...? Why does defense have to automatically not mean neutralize in this conversation?

A community rallying together to keep rioters/looters out doesn't have to resort to machine gun fire into a crowd. And could loosely be supported by local law enforcement to prevent things from escalating, these things *could* all happen. 

Speaking of things no one said, no one fired into crowds here to protect "property". KR fired at close range on 3 people who ironically enough were right on top of him as they were shot, we can blow that up into crowds if you want but the videos are there. The only real things that happened as a result of a defense of property was KR yelling at some people at said car lot who were trying to damage the vehicles.

I don't think you actually disagree with anything I've said, because I'm not for executing people in the streets either. The "but" is going to exist, because your full stop can't reasonably exist when someone is threatening the existence of another. That case will always exist in hostile environments, and unfortunately someone walks out alive from that interaction.

So I'm back at square one, the insurance bullet point is dismissive of reality and doesn't pan out for those affected. My point is for all the anti-cop rhetoric, why not protest/riot against the state instead or is it all posturing and fizzles out so people can vent frustrations and just steal and break shit for no good reason? If it's just a handwave ignorant of the sample pool of people genuinely screwed after all the major riots, including minority business owners then just say so.

If anyone legitimately suited up and went to defend controversial PD's as some publican' pride against the lib rioters, that would truly be idiotic beyond a shadow of the doubt. But people defending *their *communities and property shouldn't be vilified for doing so, (This doesn't include KR before someone tries to pin me on that in bad faith).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jonathan20022 said:


> Who is saying kill...? Why does defense have to automatically not mean neutralize in this conversation?



Bringing firearms into an already caustic mix is inviting escalation which _did_ ultimately lead to deaths. Why not ask Kyle Rittenhouse? 



> A community rallying together to keep rioters/looters out doesn't have to resort to machine gun fire into a crowd. And could loosely be supported by local law enforcement to prevent things from escalating, these things *could* all happen.



Yeah, if only there was a group of community members with the training, gear, and mandate to keep the peace and protect both people and property...oh wait. 

I mean, the police *could* have enforced the curfew, but didn't. They let this get out of hand, which includes letting the riots occur. See how they stepped in immediately after the shooting went down? They had four counties of manpower and the National Guard. Hundreds of millions of dollars in assets.



> Speaking of things no one said, no one fired into crowds here to protect "property". KR fired at close range on 3 people who ironically enough were right on top of him as they were shot, we can blow that up into crowds if you want but the videos are there. The only real things that happened as a result of a defense of property was KR yelling at some people at said car lot who were trying to damage the vehicles.



Bringing a gun predicated the later events that lead to two deaths, and very well could have lead to more.

Make no mistake, it is an absolute miracle that no one else got shot. Bullets, not .223, don't vanish, especially at close range. They keep going.



> I don't think you actually disagree with anything I've said, because I'm not for executing people in the streets either. The "but" is going to exist, because your full stop can't reasonably exist when someone is threatening the existence of another. That case will always exist in hostile environments, and unfortunately someone walks out alive from that interaction.



I think we fundamentally disagree, as I don't think ANY property is worth more than life. I don't accept murder as means to an end.



> So I'm back at square one, the insurance bullet point is dismissive of reality and doesn't pan out for those affected. My point is for all the anti-cop rhetoric, why not protest/riot against the state instead or is it all posturing and fizzles out so people can vent frustrations and just steal and break shit for no good reason? If it's just a handwave ignorant of the sample pool of people genuinely screwed after all the major riots, including minority business owners then just say so.



I'm not anti cop. I've worked very close with law enforcement most of my adult life. You can be critical of people and things and organizations that you like and have respect for. Law enforcement officers should be, and often are, pillars of the community, and as such should be held to a standard befitting the community they serve, and that means everyone. No one with such authority should be beyond reproach. Which also mean that if that pillar is showing cracks and faults, perhaps it needs to be rebuilt.

What I am is anti cops not doing thier jobs because it suits thier political and financial ends, and especially anti killing and maiming citizens. That's reasonable.

If that's "anti-cop" to you, I guess add that to the fundamental disagreement we have.

Civil disobedience is messy. It has always been messy, that's the point. It pushes the system to make change whether it wants to or not. Every great revolution in this country's history has been messy. History will be the judge. This isn't my fight, so I'm not going to tell folks what to stand for.



> If anyone legitimately suited up and went to defend controversial PD's as some publican' pride against the lib rioters, that would truly be idiotic beyond a shadow of the doubt. But people defending *their *communities and property shouldn't be vilified for doing so, (This doesn't include KR before someone tries to pin me on that in bad faith).



And again, we just disagree, and that's fine. I understand why folks defend their businesses and property, I just don't feel that killing people is okay.


----------



## Adieu

Pro-law-enforcement platform 2021: "we support the constitutional right of radicalized minors to travel to other jurisdictions with automatic weapons to kill random locals at a riot"

...really?


----------



## narad

Jonathan20022 said:


> This naturally goes towards the defense of private property, and others doing so due to a communal care and pride. You guys also against the owners and citizens of a local community defending their area/property? Or should you concede and hope for the best the next morning?



I mean that's not what this was. Had Kyle been hired to protect the shop (and by hired comes with it the usual proper insurance and training in the proper practices associated with such contractors), and wound up in an altercation, shot someone, then contacted the police to come to the scene, that would have been a totally different situation. I've never heard of someone defending property, and then shooting two people that had nothing to do with attacks on that property, and having it wrapped up into the same "defense of property" argument. 

The reason Rittenhouse could be out in the middle of the street far away from the property he was purportedly defending and still be scared, is because that entire situation was a hostile powder keg, with confrontations popping up all over the place. He knew it then, and anyone sensible would have known it enough in advance to not get involved, bring a gun, and confront people with said gun.

And of course, Kyle was not hired to do anything in the first place.


----------



## Jonathan20022

MaxOfMetal said:


> Bringing firearms into an already caustic mix is inviting escalation which _did_ ultimately lead to deaths. Why not ask Kyle Rittenhouse?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, if only there was a group of community members with the training, gear, and mandate to keep the peace and protect both people and property...oh wait.
> 
> I mean, the police *could* have enforced the curfew, but didn't. They let this get out of hand, which includes letting the riots occur. See how they stepped in immediately after the shooting went down? They had four counties of manpower and the National Guard. Hundreds of millions of dollars in assets.
> 
> 
> 
> Bringing a gun predicated the later events that lead to two deaths, and very well could have lead to more.
> 
> Make no mistake, it is an absolute miracle that no one else got shot. Bullets, not .223, don't vanish, especially at close range. They keep going.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we fundamentally disagree, as I don't think ANY property is worth more than life. I don't accept murder as means to an end.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not anti cop. I've worked very close with law enforcement most of my adult life. You can be critical of people and things and organizations that you like and have respect for. Law enforcement officers should be, and often are, pillars of the community, and as such should be held to a standard befitting the community they serve, and that means everyone. No one with such authority should be beyond reproach. Which also mean that if that pillar is showing cracks and faults, perhaps it needs to be rebuilt.
> 
> What I am is anti cops not doing thier jobs because it suits thier political and financial ends, and especially anti killing and maiming citizens. That's reasonable.
> 
> If that's "anti-cop" to you, I guess add that to the fundamental disagreement we have.
> 
> Civil disobedience is messy. It has always been messy, that's the point. It pushes the system to make change whether it wants to or not. Every great revolution in this country's history has been messy. History will be the judge. This isn't my fight, so I'm not going to tell folks what to stand for.
> 
> 
> 
> And again, we just disagree, and that's fine. I understand why folks defend their businesses and property, I just don't feel that killing people is okay.



To be fair, I wasn't attributing a lot of what I characterized directly to you, just elaborating that the claim of insurance is regularly a tag line for handwaving rioting and looting.

While we can fundamentally disagree on someone's right to take a life, I just find we're not exploring the entire scenario here. I'm not ignorant of the situation in any way shape or form, if you take the scenario and copy/paste it over but remove Kyle's weapon and means of harm, I highly doubt he would have trailed into the same end result we saw unfold.

If he was truly *just a medic*,
- No one would have a single problem with him being there, and where he originally came from
- He wouldn't have enraged Rosenbaum if he didn't point a weapon at him, averting the first shooting and the chase down after
- Potentially no one would have died
- If KR had verbally instigated and gotten into scuffles with people he may have been harmed/killed

But removing the weapon from the situation, KR would have just been another random person in Kenosha that we wouldn't know about. I get that bringing a weapon and handling it in less than mature/ideal ways led us down this path and the result we now live with today.

Would your opinion have changed if we replaced KR with the owner of the car lot, defending his business with a legally acquired/licensed firearm? I'd wager you still would prefer for him to be unarmed, but to that end it's one's personal choice to arm up or not.

But I will agree that law enforcement was beyond poorly handled that night and chose to spectate until shit went down.



Adieu said:


> Pro-law-enforcement platform 2021: "we support the constitutional right of radicalized minors to travel to other jurisdictions with automatic weapons to kill random locals at a riot"
> 
> ...really?



I'm not certain Adieu is referring to me, but if he is that is one horrifying attempt to misconstrue something I'd said if that's the case.



narad said:


> I mean that's not what this was. Had Kyle been hired to protect the shop (and by hired comes with it the usual proper insurance and training in the proper practices associated with such contractors), and wound up in an altercation, shot someone, then contacted the police to come to the scene, that would have been a totally different situation. I've never heard of someone defending property, and then shooting two people that had nothing to do with attacks on that property, and having it wrapped up into the same "defense of property" argument.
> 
> The reason Rittenhouse could be out in the middle of the street far away from the property he was purportedly defending and still be scared, is because that entire situation was a hostile powder keg, with confrontations popping up all over the place. He knew it then, and anyone sensible would have known it enough in advance to not get involved, bring a gun, and confront people with said gun.
> 
> And of course, Kyle was not hired to do anything in the first place.



Right, I didn't say he was. Kyle was neither, the owner of the business he claims to be defending, a member of that community, nor hired to defend anything. In fact I never defended his claim to be defending property in my latest posts, he only claims self defense due to being aggressed on.



Jonathan20022 said:


> But people defending *their *communities and property shouldn't be vilified for doing so, (This doesn't include KR before someone tries to pin me on that in bad faith).



 I'm of the opinion that if someone is invading my home, I'm personally not going to morally hold myself into a state of not retaliating because I may or may not take their life in the effort to defend myself, my family, and my property. I'm not awarding KR the same right because of what I outlined before.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jonathan20022 said:


> Would your opinion have changed if we replaced KR with the owner of the car lot, defending his business with a legally acquired/licensed firearm? I'd wager you still would prefer for him to be unarmed, but to that end it's one's personal choice to arm up or not.



I still don't think standing outside with a rifle is a smart idea, no. 

I don't think that brandishing a firearm in that environment would make a business less of a target, and I think it introduces even more potential risk, both for the person themselves and said business that it more than compensates for any feeling of safety the gun might provide.


----------



## spudmunkey

Not a real quote, but a basic distillation of the scenario: "After I was leaving a scene after having just shot someone (regardless of the justification of this shooting), someone else was trying to take my gun away from me. I had to shoot him, because I was afraid that if he got my gun, he'd kill me with it."

But then is just the _fear_ that someone else _might_ hurt you after they've got the upper hand ...isn't the rest of that thought then, "because that's what I'd do"?

Is it naive to think that most people wouldn't murder the person (aka the shooter) they took a gun away from them? I feel like, of the people that would grab the gun, the majority of those people would point it at the shooter and order them to stop/freeze/get down on the ground and _threaten _to shoot (with the smarter people would back up and get out of reach/melee range of the shooter), and most people wouldn't shoot them unless this shooter then started to come after them.

So...I've written out the above thoughts about a dozen times in the last few months without posting it, and it's still not really what I'm trying to communicate and it's probably coming across in a way I'm not intending...


----------



## Adieu

I believe the term was 'active shooter'.

In many places in the US, anyone and everyone was within their rights to mow him down.

The big difference was that no one has had the gall to claim in court that further killings by an active shooter were justified on the basis of self defense.

Expect people running from cops to play this a lot, up to and including the next bank robbers to tangle with SWAT to claim freedom to murder. Precedent, biotches!


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> Not a real quote, but a basic distillation of the scenario: "After I was leaving a scene after having just shot someone (regardless of the justification of this shooting), someone else was trying to take my gun away from me. I had to shoot him, because I was afraid that if he got my gun, he'd kill me with it."
> 
> But then is just the _fear_ that someone else _might_ hurt you after they've got the upper hand ...isn't the rest of that thought then, "because that's what I'd do"?
> 
> Is it naive to think that most people wouldn't murder the person (aka the shooter) they took a gun away from them? I feel like, of the people that would grab the gun, the majority of those people would point it at the shooter and order them to stop/freeze/get down on the ground and _threaten _to shoot (with the smarter people would back up and get out of reach/melee range of the shooter), and most people wouldn't shoot them unless this shooter then started to come after them.
> 
> So...I've written out the above thoughts about a dozen times in the last few months without posting it, and it's still not really what I'm trying to communicate and it's probably coming across in a way I'm not intending...



Just imagine there was a school shooting and in the aftermath the shooter was charged with 5 counts of murder, found guilty of 3, but acquitted on 2 since the shooter fired in self defense when a couple of students lunged in an attempt to disarm him.

That's what I find confusing about this case in particular -- even if you think he was justified in the first killing, the second one was not a guy randomly looking for a fight but a legit attempt to take out an active shooter. I don't know why this was so downplayed during the trial. I heard more about the things the dead guys had done in the past than what they were doing then in the moment.

And had someone shot Rittenhouse after he killed the first guy, then I would be curious what charges/outcomes would have faced them.


----------



## Randy

What about inactive shooters?


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> What about inactive shooters?



I only encounter those on guitar forums. Talking about situational awareness and trigger safety.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> I only encounter those on guitar forums. Talking about situational awareness and trigger safety.



It's never entirely safe to trigger morons


----------



## TedEH

I immediately thought this, but you sort of beat me to it:


----------



## bostjan

Jonathan20022 said:


> If he was truly *just a medic*,
> - No one would have a single problem with him being there, and where he originally came from
> - He wouldn't have enraged Rosenbaum if he didn't point a weapon at him, averting the first shooting and the chase down after
> - Potentially no one would have died
> - If KR had verbally instigated and gotten into scuffles with people he may have been harmed/killed
> 
> But removing the weapon from the situation, KR would have just been another random person in Kenosha that we wouldn't know about. I get that bringing a weapon and handling it in less than mature/ideal ways led us down this path and the result we now live with today.
> 
> Would your opinion have changed if we replaced KR with the owner of the car lot, defending his business with a legally acquired/licensed firearm? I'd wager you still would prefer for him to be unarmed, but to that end it's one's personal choice to arm up or not.
> 
> But I will agree that law enforcement was beyond poorly handled that night and chose to spectate until shit went down.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not certain Adieu is referring to me, but if he is that is one horrifying attempt to misconstrue something I'd said if that's the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I didn't say he was. Kyle was neither, the owner of the business he claims to be defending, a member of that community, nor hired to defend anything. In fact I never defended his claim to be defending property in my latest posts, he only claims self defense due to being aggressed on.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm of the opinion that if someone is invading my home, I'm personally not going to morally hold myself into a state of not retaliating because I may or may not take their life in the effort to defend myself, my family, and my property. I'm not awarding KR the same right because of what I outlined before.



My personal philosophy is that everyone should have the right to self-defense. Many Americans disagree with me there.

However, the right to defend yourself has to have some limitations. Obviously, there are going to be grey areas. I *do not* believe that Rittenhouse's case is a case of first degree murder like the prosecution charged. I also do not believe this is a case of an innocent kid being chased by what he believed to be a murderous mob demanding his head.

For example, if a huge MMA guy showed up at my house and kicked down my door, I would have reasonable basis to believe I and my family were in danger. However, if I go up to the huge MMA guy outside of one of his public appearances, and start a verbal altercation with him, and he rushes at me, even though I'd have reason to believe that I was in danger, this would not be justification for me to pull out a gun and start blasting away at him.

Rittenhouse brought a military-stylized weapon (on full display) to a riot. Right there, we have a problem with culpability. Anyone outside of law enforcement who brings a weapon into a riot and displays it visually, whether to intimidate or not, has made a choice, consciously or not, to escalate the tension in an already dangerous situation. If his home was there, and he brandished the weapon whilst standing on his own property, then it'd possibly be a different discussion. But, even if he had owned a car dealership and showed up in faux military fatigues with a faux military weapon on full display, I'd say that's a clear indication of malintent already. The argument as to whether he was hired to protect the car dealership or not is a bit of a red herring, because he was neither at the dealership at the time of the shootings, nor does it remove the ethical culpability associated with bringing a large weapon to visibly display to a riot.

Whether Rosenbaum started the argument with Rittenhouse or not is really just a small detail. Rosenbaum was a bag guy, sure okay. But, if that's a defense, then what's to stop someone from taking a rifle to a prison and running around shooting prisoners other than the guards? You don't go looking for trouble and then get into trouble and shoot your way out of trouble and then say "self defense" and get away with everything, or, well evidently you do now, but there's a philosophical problem deep seated within that interpretation.

I've said it before, but the blundered trial is mostly the prosecutor's fault. They didn't argue any logically consistent position, they went after nonsensical charges, and they couldn't stop themselves from screwing up every chance they had to make a point. The judge might have been biased, the jury might have been biased, but it's too hard to tell with how horribly the prosecution did here.

I think the US legal system is obviously broken, and this is a great example of evidence as to how. But, from the facts of the events that are publicly available, I firmly believe that Rosenbaum's death was involuntary manslaughter for which Rittenhouse was responsible. Everything that followed that is a little more open to various interpretations based on personal philosophical viewpoints, but I don't believe any of them were first degree murder/attempted first degree murder. I tend to lean toward manslaughter and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. But I'll admit that it's an ethical conundrum how to interpret a person who believes that they are chasing down a murderer being shot by a person who believes that they are being chased down by a person who believes that they are a murderer and how self-defense stands up in that circumstance. The legal defense that was used successfully here was that Rittenhouse feared that if he were to be struck with nonlethal force, his assailant would be able to take his deadly weapon and use it to harm others. That's an odd line of defense, but there seems to be some reasoning behind it. However, if we don't get too distracted by the fact that neither Rittenhouse nor his deadly weapon had any reason to be there in the first place, it's a pretty crumbly ethical position to find yourself on.

Then there are the parts of the puzzle that we don't have a good factual grasp upon, but those are mostly red herrings. It all has to come back to the fact that Rittenhouse must have had some thought that prompted him to go to Kenosha with a rifle in the first place. Was it to "volunteer"? No, you don't volunteer to go into ground zero of a riot with a rifle in order to promote peace in the community or whatever. Since that very basic aspect of all of this makes no reasonable sense, it must be bullshit. If the defense's story is clearly false, then you have to fall back on the facts, which is that this young man dressed in an intimidating way, displayed a very intimidating weapon, traveled away from his home neighbourhood and into a chaotic environment, and shot three (or maybe four) people, killing two of them. That's aggression, that's assault, and that's manslaughter.


----------



## Adieu

What manslaughter? That's clear-cut premeditated domestic terrorism


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> What manslaughter? That's clear-cut premeditated domestic terrorism


Maybe, but doubtful. If all he wanted was to kill people, he could have fired a lot more shots. If all he wanted to do was coerce a political change through violent force, he could have set off a bomb or something.

Whether he went into a riot with a semi-automatic rifle (one that is primarily known to the public for it's role in mass shootings) expecting to kill someone or just to intimidate visually or hoping to impress some white nationalist girls, who knows? The thing we do know is that, regardless of his intentions, he did kill two unarmed people, and only after they approached him in a way that could be construed as violently.


----------



## Adieu

Bringing weapon to riot and then using said weapon to kill people at said riot strongly implies intent and premeditation

If he went to a liquor store or a high school with a rifle and killed people there, would we even be discussing this?

Or is dresscode:Taliban deemed socially appropriate for a riot setting?


----------



## Adieu

Btw, expanding on said analogy, if he were a Muslim American who brought his Taliban cosplay to a disorderly demonstration for/against Islam, would we even be having this discussion?

Nah, he prolly woulda been shot dead before he ever took the safety off on his weapon and some cop woulda got a medal for it. And if he DID manage to kill people, he'd have several hundred police rounds in him and his mother would be in Guantanomo for driving him there.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Bringing weapon to riot and then using said weapon to kill people at said riot strongly implies intent and premeditation
> 
> If he went to a liquor store or a high school with a rifle and killed people there, would we even be discussing this?
> 
> Or is dresscode:Taliban deemed socially appropriate for a riot setting?


1. Maybe. There might be other reasons to bring a weapon to a riot, for example to intimidate others or to shoot at cans. Since three people were shot and no cans, it's going to look like premeditation on the surface, but, knowing the facts that were established, it also could be reasonable to believe that he didn't go there intending to kill anyone, and then the situation got out of hand and it was bad snap decisions that led to him shooting Rosenbaum. The prosecution even went with that suggestion, initially, so I don't think the jury had any credible reason given in court to rule it out.

2. Key difference is that guns are allowed to be carried around in public in Wisconsin, but not in schools or whatever.

3. You're probably correct, but that doesn't make it ethically right.


----------



## Adieu

Wait, open carry of assault rifles is legal for out of state MINORS?


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> Wait, open carry of assault rifles is legal for out of state MINORS?



Apparently, as long as the barrel isn't too short. But to be clear, it wasn't an assault rifle.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, I gotta lay off the peyote.


An - excellent - early Amazon.com review describes this as "a WWII novel that drops acid halfway through." I'd say you're primed for it.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> Not a real quote, but a basic distillation of the scenario: "After I was leaving a scene after having just shot someone (regardless of the justification of this shooting), someone else was trying to take my gun away from me. I had to shoot him, because I was afraid that if he got my gun, he'd kill me with it."


This was what I was trying to get across to Wuuthrad before he evidently dropped out of the thread - most conversational attempts to describe this as "self defense" focus on the guy with a handgun, and occasionally the guy with a skateboard, arguing the former was capable of using lethal force himself, and the latter could technically be considered armed, as you could do some real harm hitting someone in the face with a skateboard, so Rittenhouse was entitled to use deadly force. 

The problem with this argument is, by the time Rittenhouse encountered either man, he had already shot and killed one _totally_ unarmed man. He was an active shooter. The next two guys he shot were very plausibly the "good guy with a gun/skateboard" the NRA, may they rest in peace, swears we need to stop a bad guy with a gun.


----------



## StevenC

Maybe I'm being naive, but it seems like open carry laws and general free flowing firearms isn't a good way to run a country. Seems like it just muddies up the judicial process. You know who wasn't trying to shoot anyone? People without a gun.

Weirdly, rest of the world had BLM protests last year as well and no Kyle Rittenhouses turned up. If I brought a rifle of any kind to a protest or riot, I'd be arrested. If I did that and shot someone I would go to prison for murder.

The second amendment and open carry laws are dumb things whose only modern purpose is to protect criminals.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> Maybe I'm being naive, but it seems like open carry laws and general free flowing firearms isn't a good way to run a country. Seems like it just muddies up the judicial process. You know who wasn't trying to shoot anyone? People without a gun.
> 
> Weirdly, rest of the world had BLM protests last year as well and no Kyle Rittenhouses turned up. If I brought a rifle of any kind to a protest or riot, I'd be arrested. If I did that and shot someone I would go to prison for murder.
> 
> The second amendment and open carry laws are dumb things whose only modern purpose is to protect criminals.


Hi, welcome to America. I don't think you're going to like it here.  

You're not wrong... but an increasingly narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment by gun owners has made it incredibly hard to have reasonable discussions on how guys should fit in with day to day life in America (someone will undoubtedly have a problem with even the reference to how narrow an interpretation we're working with here), and by what I'm sure is a wild coincidence, we have more gun-related violence here than in any other first-world country in the world, so those are discussions we really, really, really need to have.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> The second amendment and open carry laws are dumb things whose only modern purpose is to protect criminals.


I disagree with the first part of that. The right to self defense is a basic human right. The second amendment of the US Constitution states:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Note that "a well regulated Militia" would describe something more like the National Guard and not at all like the Proud Boys. As for the part about bare arms, I personally prefer sleeves, but the government passing laws panning tank tops would be crossing a line. Oh wait, ..., ok, someone is telling me right now that it's "bear arms" and not "bare arms," give me 250 years to figure out what, specifically, that means in this context, and I'll get back to on whether that means AR-15's or not.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> ok, someone is telling me right now that it's "bear arms" and not "bare arms,"


John Petrucci thought he was in trouble for a second there.


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> I disagree with the first part of that. The right to self defense is a basic human right. The second amendment of the US Constitution states:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


I'd still argue that in the modern context this doesn't hold water because if the USA decided to genocide its people with drones tomorrow there is no amount of well regulation of militia that can stop it. So since it can't fulfill its original purpose (ie what if we have to do to ourselves what we did to the British [see: Civil War]) its only value is to protect people who intend to do harm.


----------



## Adieu

Why not just institute a universal right to kill anyone bearing firearms in public places and be done with it?

Amendment safe, everyone "happy"


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> I'd still argue that in the modern context this doesn't hold water because if the USA decided to genocide its people with drones tomorrow there is no amount of well regulation of militia that can stop it. So since it can't fulfill its original purpose (ie what if we have to do to ourselves what we did to the British [see: Civil War]) its only value is to protect people who intend to do harm.


If they did that, who would be left to pay taxes, though?!

Honestly, since the advent of nuclear weapons, humanity is a ticking time bomb. It's honestly just a matter of how long it will take before some madman or small fringe group gets ahold of weapons of apocalyptic magnitude and then, you know... unless something else takes us out first.

If the USA did decide to send the army into, say California, to murder everyone, I'd argue that the California National Guard would potentially be fairly effective at slowing the process down and making it difficult for the army. The guards are pretty much 100% ex-military guys and these are not podunk little groups of dudes trouncing through the woods shooting cans with Ar-15s, like the Michigan Militia or the Montana United Citizens for Justice Brigade or whatever. They are funded by the states and have tanks and missiles and shit. They just answer to the state government rather than the federal government. I'm sure California would eventually cave, but if other states got involved quickly, it'd turn the attack into a Civil War 2.0 rather than just a massacre. The only reason I bring this up, is because the state-level National Guard Units are the modern day result of the oldest interpretation of the Second Amendment. This whole idea that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to organize their own personal paramilitary arsenal originated in the late 20th Century in spite of several Supreme Court opinions that explicitly stated that the Amendment was a collective right and not a personal right. 

If you asked 15 Americans what the Second Amendment said, probably more than 10 would paraphrase it as "the right to own a gun." But the actual text of the Amendment is super short- one sentence, and not even every state agrees on whether there are any commas or not. The word "gun," nor any direct synonym even occurs in the wording. Furthermore, in the 18th Century, when the Amendment was written, pistols fired one shot per reload and even the smallest novelty pistols were over a foot (>30cm) long. What the framers intended was very much most likely something akin to the English Bill of Rights from a century before, which was intended to prevent the King of England from demanding the surrender of personal swords and bows and whatnot from noblemen who had paid for the weapons themselves. And also the USA was very much afraid at the time that the redcoats would come back again, and every state/colony had a frontier full of wolves and bears and so forth, so there were a bunch of reasons to encourage property owners to keep a musket handy. As the 18th century turned into the 19th century, and the American Civil War got fired up, and then ended, the matter seemed to come up about how to interpret the right, and it seemed to have been finally settled, but fuckin Woodrow Wilson had to try to revise history to make the Civil War about different things than it was about and to alter what the Confederate identity was about and also drudge up the Second Amendment interpretation again. The matter once again seemed to have been settled when Wilson suddenly lost the wind in his political sails after WWI, but then the NRA brought the debate to the forefront again decades later (late 1970's) with all sorts of new interpretation, and although it seemed like a fringe group at the time, they gained political traction with hard conservatives, and that's essentially where we are still at now here in the USA.


----------



## nightflameauto

The one thing I can say about the possibility of the military acting against US citizens en-masse? The military is made up of US citizens. How many of them really want to kill off their neighbors, friends and family? The only way that happens at this point is if, as stated above, a madman gets ahold of the nukes. All it would take is one strategic launch in the wrong direction and the entire world would be obliterated.

There's my happy contribution for the day.


----------



## Adieu

nightflameauto said:


> The only way that happens at this point is if, as stated above, a madman gets ahold of the nukes. All it would take is one strategic launch in the wrong direction and the entire world would be obliterated.
> 
> There's my happy contribution for the day.



Where in the constitution does it say Thou Shalt Not Bear Privately Held Nuclear Arsenals?


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> The one thing I can say about the possibility of the military acting against US citizens en-masse? The military is made up of US citizens. How many of them really want to kill off their neighbors, friends and family? The only way that happens at this point is if, as stated above, a madman gets ahold of the nukes. All it would take is one strategic launch in the wrong direction and the entire world would be obliterated.
> 
> There's my happy contribution for the day.



It's happened before in the USSR. Odd blips on their radar coming over the Arctic Ocean. Soviet military protocol at the time was to launch long-range nukes before everyone was obliterated. The mid-level officer in charge of pressing the button decided to disobey and either be vaporized or court-martialled. It turned out to be clouds. I'm sure it was not the only time.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> It's happened before in the USSR. Odd blips on their radar coming over the Arctic Ocean. Soviet military protocol at the time was to launch long-range nukes before everyone was obliterated. The mid-level officer in charge of pressing the button decided to disobey and either be vaporized or court-martialled. It turned out to be clouds. I'm sure it was not the only time.



Stanislav Petrov




Thank this dude we didn't all nuke each other for no damn reason


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Where in the constitution does it say Thou Shalt Not Bear Privately Held Nuclear Arsenals?



Actually, this is a great question. US Code 18 S 832c Until someone gets arrested for owning a nuclear bomb and manages to get to the Supreme Court by saying this law contradicts the Second Amendment, I suppose that's as far as it goes.


----------



## Randy

Nuke discussion is hyperbole, but I think the issue with testing that theory (besides, you know, a person having a nuke) is the outsized amount of infrastructure necessary to get there. Selling the nuke to you is already illegal a number of ways, so then you'd need to gather the materials to build it, the actual construction process and where you're going to house it.

There's a number of ways CBP, OSHA, FAA, local codes and ordinances, etc get win the way long before you even get a chance to have that fight.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Nuke discussion is hyperbole, but I think the issue with testing that theory (besides, you know, a person having a nuke) is the outsized amount of infrastructure necessary to get there. Selling the nuke to you is already illegal a number of ways, so then you'd need to gather the materials to build it, the actual construction process and where you're going to house it.
> 
> There's a number of ways CBP, OSHA, FAA, local codes and ordinances, etc get win the way long before you even get a chance to have that fight.



What if they choose to go FULL legal?

Imagine the MAGA or Xenu people or some state-sized parish of some megachurch deciding to develop the dang things, ostebsibly with aims to supply our wonderful military, but with no promises (or at least no public trust) that they aren't intending to keep the damn things for themselves?

If Trump the private citizen tomorrow announced that he wants to launch the Greatestest America Weapons Developments (GAWD) ballistic missile program... does anyone even have any legal cause to take issue with that?


----------



## Adieu

And then, next thing you know, we'll be here discussing whether stand your ground laws allow him to legally nuke Portland or Minnesota as a private citizen next time somebody loots a flatscreen from a Target or holds a skateboard aggressively in Wisconsin


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I disagree with the first part of that. The right to self defense is a basic human right. The second amendment of the US Constitution states:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Note that "a well regulated Militia" would describe something more like the National Guard and not at all like the Proud Boys. As for the part about bare arms, I personally prefer sleeves, but the government passing laws panning tank tops would be crossing a line. Oh wait, ..., ok, someone is telling me right now that it's "bear arms" and not "bare arms," give me 250 years to figure out what, specifically, that means in this context, and I'll get back to on whether that means AR-15's or not.


Fun fact I learned from a buddy whose office shares space with the NRA:

In the NRA headquarters, they have the 2nd Amendment engraved on a giant marble wall in the lobby of the building as you walk in. Except, they don't - they omitted half. It reads: 




Weird how they just, like, _forgot_ that first part, huh?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Fun fact I learned from a buddy whose office shares space with the NRA:
> 
> In the NRA headquarters, they have the 2nd Amendment engraved on a giant marble wall in the lobby of the building as you walk in. Except, they don't - they omitted half. It reads:
> 
> View attachment 101104
> 
> 
> Weird how they just, like, _forgot_ that first part, huh?


At least the quote starts with an ellipsis. Maybe they were being charged by the word count or something. 

I really really _really_ think we are _long_ overdue for a calm productive discussion about gun rights in the USA. The NRA represents one of the two extreme fringes in the debate, so it'll never happen as long as the NRA continues to be the NRA. There are people on the opposite extreme as well. And the discussion will never be productive as long as either or both extreme views are over-represented. I think the middle 80% of Americans on this issue are more or less in agreement with one another, but the edges are just too damned extreme.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> At least the quote starts with an ellipsis. Maybe they were being charged by the word count or something.
> 
> I really really _really_ think we are _long_ overdue for a calm productive discussion about gun rights in the USA. The NRA represents one of the two extreme fringes in the debate, so it'll never happen as long as the NRA continues to be the NRA. There are people on the opposite extreme as well. And the discussion will never be productive as long as either or both extreme views are over-represented. I think the middle 80% of Americans on this issue are more or less in agreement with one another, but the edges are just too damned extreme.


Word count.  I like it. 

I agree. And honestly the NRA's current legal troubles, bankruptcy, and increasingly probable dissolvement may be the necessary first step towards having that happen; get the handful of extremists out of the room, and then have a level-headed, adult, serious conversation about the sort of reasonable gun control measures that have broad bipartisan majority support in the US.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> At least the quote starts with an ellipsis. Maybe they were being charged by the word count or something.
> 
> I really really _really_ think we are _long_ overdue for a calm productive discussion about gun rights in the USA. The NRA represents one of the two extreme fringes in the debate, so it'll never happen as long as the NRA continues to be the NRA. There are people on the opposite extreme as well. And the discussion will never be productive as long as either or both extreme views are over-represented. I think the middle 80% of Americans on this issue are more or less in agreement with one another, but the edges are just too damned extreme.



NRA has been bleeding themselves dry thanks to all the embezzlement over the last several years.

They're not the juggernaut they were, the bigger problem is all the cultists they've spawned like Boeberts of the world that now just parrot the talking points without even having the lobby necessary to back them. It used to be you need to say those things to get the NRA to back you so the you get those votes. Now you just feed the red meat directly to the audience, no intermediary necessary.

I think the Newsome concept is a nice start but the overall theme I think is blue states that have the ability to pass these things just need to do it, along with a big stick to hit people over the head that bring guns in from states with more lax policies. If people want to murder eachother in civil war and turn their kids into child soldiers in a shithole state like Texas, let em. If you don't want that, come up north and leave your AR down there.


----------



## bostjan

Back on topic, I guess: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/15/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-524867

It looks like Chauvin could get equal or more time from pleading guilty to the federal crime of unreasonable force by a LEO than he did from being convicted of murder, which, good. That message needs to be received loud and clear that it's not okay for police officers to abuse their position.

Also in case anyone didn't know, Chauvin is also facing other serious charges in an embezzlement and tax-evasion case starting shortly after the holidays. 

Through appeals, there was still a chance he could have been released if something was overturned, but, with this guilty plea, considering the sentencing guidelines, I don't think he'll be abusing people outside of a prison yard for at least a decade and a half.


----------

