|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 05 2015 04:58 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 04:49 puerk wrote:On May 05 2015 04:41 Yoav wrote:On May 05 2015 02:34 phil.ipp wrote:why do people think everything that comes out of your mouth falls under the freedom of speech. if i say to my friend: hey lets kill this guy over there. i dont use my constitutional right to freedom of speech. its a murder plot. its the same for a hate speech. of course the line is more blurry and at some point the decision has to be made - but its not a discussion with different opinions. they dont discuss something in a hate speech. there is no, and probably never will be a law that allows you to say everything in every situation. its like the https://xkcd.com/1357/ comic. freedom of speech just should guarantee you, that you dont get thrown into jail for speaking out on political ideas. but only if these ideas respect the human rights. so if you tell 1000 people they should kill all jews, you dont exercise your right to freedom of speech. You utterly misunderstood that comic. It takes as its assumed starting point that all speech shouldn't be fucked with by the government. It then goes on to say that a free society can then fuck with speech by mocking it and arguing against it. On May 05 2015 02:51 puerk wrote:
So we are now basically at:
Hitler did nothing wrong, it is not his fault that other people took him seriously.
Which obviously ends the topic. Yeah. I'm pretty sure calling your opponents in an argument Nazis or Nazi sympathizers means you automatically lose though. Also, the problem with the Nazis was definitely too much free speech guys. Wait, it was about governments illegalizing opinions and outlawing the opposition? Well, shit. Governments are just people speaking words. They are not responsible when some one who considers himself a soldier or a policemen takes violent actions in accordance with those words. To reiterate: words have impact, drawing the line between words and physical violence misses the point, as there is verbal violence that can be harmful and also incitment to violence that in itself is harmful. The issue got resolved as almost all commenters on this thread acknowledged that some limits on what someone can say should apply, and that provoking someone knowingly to commit physical violence is a stupid idea that should be discouraged. You don't seem to get the difference between orders and general speech. I can say "The military should drone strike the Queen of England." and that's perfectly legal because I have no authority. If Obama says "Drone strike the Queen of England." that's not okay because it's an order.
I get the difference, but that difference is only one of perception. And that is the whole problem with the personal responsiblity crowd, claiming that the arm at the end of the causal chain is the perpetrator when there was so much cultural, perceptual and communicated prelude to it.
People follow orders, because they percieve it to be their duty. It is their own personal choice for every single one if they follow it or not. But humans are only the products of their genetics, epigenetics, experiences and general surroundings. You yourself acknowledged that humans can not think independently of the physical wiring of their brain.
Human interactions are complex and simplistic rules: every word is ok but only at physical violence we have to draw the line, totally neglect human nature. And that is what i am not ok with.
|
On May 05 2015 05:04 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 04:58 Millitron wrote:On May 05 2015 04:49 puerk wrote:On May 05 2015 04:41 Yoav wrote:On May 05 2015 02:34 phil.ipp wrote:why do people think everything that comes out of your mouth falls under the freedom of speech. if i say to my friend: hey lets kill this guy over there. i dont use my constitutional right to freedom of speech. its a murder plot. its the same for a hate speech. of course the line is more blurry and at some point the decision has to be made - but its not a discussion with different opinions. they dont discuss something in a hate speech. there is no, and probably never will be a law that allows you to say everything in every situation. its like the https://xkcd.com/1357/ comic. freedom of speech just should guarantee you, that you dont get thrown into jail for speaking out on political ideas. but only if these ideas respect the human rights. so if you tell 1000 people they should kill all jews, you dont exercise your right to freedom of speech. You utterly misunderstood that comic. It takes as its assumed starting point that all speech shouldn't be fucked with by the government. It then goes on to say that a free society can then fuck with speech by mocking it and arguing against it. On May 05 2015 02:51 puerk wrote:
So we are now basically at:
Hitler did nothing wrong, it is not his fault that other people took him seriously.
Which obviously ends the topic. Yeah. I'm pretty sure calling your opponents in an argument Nazis or Nazi sympathizers means you automatically lose though. Also, the problem with the Nazis was definitely too much free speech guys. Wait, it was about governments illegalizing opinions and outlawing the opposition? Well, shit. Governments are just people speaking words. They are not responsible when some one who considers himself a soldier or a policemen takes violent actions in accordance with those words. To reiterate: words have impact, drawing the line between words and physical violence misses the point, as there is verbal violence that can be harmful and also incitment to violence that in itself is harmful. The issue got resolved as almost all commenters on this thread acknowledged that some limits on what someone can say should apply, and that provoking someone knowingly to commit physical violence is a stupid idea that should be discouraged. You don't seem to get the difference between orders and general speech. I can say "The military should drone strike the Queen of England." and that's perfectly legal because I have no authority. If Obama says "Drone strike the Queen of England." that's not okay because it's an order. I get the difference, but that difference is only one of perception. And that is the whole problem with the personal responsiblity crowd, claiming that the arm at the end of the causal chain is the perpetrator when there was so much cultural, perceptual and communicated prelude to it. People follow orders, because they percieve it to be their duty. It is their own personal choice for every single one if they follow it or not. But humans are only the products of their genetics, epigenetics, experiences and general surroundings. You yourself acknowledged that humans can not think independently of the physical wiring of their brain. Human interactions are complex and simplistic rules: every word is ok but only at physical violence we have to draw the line, totally neglect human nature. And that is what i am not ok with.
And that's dangerous. You're saying its only natural that people get violent when they hear what they don't like. I don't agree that it is. Just because people have no control of the physical wiring of their brain doesn't mean that wiring can't change. Violence is only in human nature if you allow it.
|
No i am saying that an approach focussed on only demanding nonviolence and punishing violence will fail.
And i think you agree there because you already said you are in favour of fighting poverty, and it would do loads to reduce violent crime.
|
However, it should be made exceedingly clear that no matter what someone says to you, you are not justified in shooting him. Anything else is simply not a reasonable basis for a civilized society.
|
On May 05 2015 05:34 puerk wrote:
No i am saying that an approach focussed on only demanding nonviolence and punishing violence will fail.
And i think you agree there because you already said you are in favour of fighting poverty, and it would do loads to reduce violent crime.
I don't agree there. Of course I'm in favor of fighting poverty, but who isn't?
The difference is poverty is universally agreed to be bad. You should fight poverty whether it would reduce crime or not. Free speech though is not bad. You shouldn't give it up just because someone's feelings might get hurt and that person is immature enough to get violent over it.
|
So we're excusing certain things because of human nature?
Certain outside factors can influence people in a certain direction. People can see how factors outside of a person's control would tend to lead said person down the path they took. However that doesn't excuse them. At the end of the day they still did what they did. They alone bear 100% of the responsibility for their actions. While you might understand why they did it on some level that in no way excuses it. They are still entirely in the wrong.
Because someone might react as a petulant child and lash out with violence for you saying or doing something they don't like doesn't mean you shouldn't say or do something. It's that person's fault they can't be an adult and restrain themselves. There is no right to not be offended, there is no right to assault or kill someone because you don't like what they say or do. You're basically saying "I'm sorry, that person or group can't handle themselves. You know they're going to go crazy because they don't have the mental or emotional faculties we do so you can't say that shit around them".
|
On May 05 2015 03:57 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 03:50 Millitron wrote:
I think it's funny that the people who are advocating limiting free speech are the same ones who accuse people of being rape apologists or victim blamers if they say the rape victim should've taken more precautions. I can't believe they don't see the irony in the fact that they're now blaming the victim. That comparison doesn't hold up that well. Maybe if a woman was standing on a corner holding a sign that says "Please rape me," you could make the argument that the situations are similar. At the risk of derailing the thread back to rape, there is also a difference between victim blaming and hoping women take better care of themselves. I would never say a woman deserved rape for wearing certain clothing or acting a certain way, but knowing what I do about culture I would ask my daughter to be careful if she is out late alone. It's of little consolation to a rape victim that it was 100% not her fault because she was still raped. I would rather we prevent the rape in the first place, and until culture can address that issue women should probably take precautions. This group in Texas is like the kid from your 1st grade class that hovers half an inch from your face repeating "I'm not touching you I'm not touching you," and then when you headbutt him he looks shocked and appalled that you touched him. Nobody likes that kid, but at least he didn't hurt you. Everyone is free to hate anyone or everyone depending on their own personal tastes, but the line should be drawn at physical violence. And obviously encouraging everyone to hate just a little bit less.
Your analogy doesn't quite fit. I think a lot of people would be okay with the victim of the "I'm not touching you" harassment to headbutt that other kid. If my kid was pulling that shit and got headbutted I'd probably leave it as a "lesson learned".
I don't think anyone would say the "I'm not touching you" kid should get shot as a result though.
That's pretty much the difference.
|
On May 05 2015 05:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
So we're excusing certain things because of human nature?
Certain outside factors can influence people in a certain direction. People can see how factors outside of a person's control would tend to lead said person down the path they took. However that doesn't excuse them. At the end of the day they still did what they did. They alone bear 100% of the responsibility for their actions. While you might understand why they did it on some level that in no way excuses it. They are still entirely in the wrong.
Because someone might react as a petulant child and lash out with violence for you saying or doing something they don't like doesn't mean you shouldn't say or do something. It's that person's fault they can't be an adult and restrain themselves. There is no right to not be offended, there is no right to assault or kill someone because you don't like what they say or do. You're basically saying "I'm sorry, that person or group can't handle themselves. You know they're going to go crazy because they don't have the mental or emotional faculties we do so you can't say that shit around them".
No i am not excusing anything, i am saying demanding nonviolence from irrational people will not magically turn them rational or nonviolent, there is a need for an other approach.
That will never change, no matter how often you claim moral superiority by strict adherence to fundamental principles.
|
On May 05 2015 06:12 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 05:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
So we're excusing certain things because of human nature?
Certain outside factors can influence people in a certain direction. People can see how factors outside of a person's control would tend to lead said person down the path they took. However that doesn't excuse them. At the end of the day they still did what they did. They alone bear 100% of the responsibility for their actions. While you might understand why they did it on some level that in no way excuses it. They are still entirely in the wrong.
Because someone might react as a petulant child and lash out with violence for you saying or doing something they don't like doesn't mean you shouldn't say or do something. It's that person's fault they can't be an adult and restrain themselves. There is no right to not be offended, there is no right to assault or kill someone because you don't like what they say or do. You're basically saying "I'm sorry, that person or group can't handle themselves. You know they're going to go crazy because they don't have the mental or emotional faculties we do so you can't say that shit around them". No i am not excusing anything, i am saying demanding nonviolence from irrational people will not magically turn them rational or nonviolent, there is a need for an other approach. That will never change, no matter how often you claim moral superiority by strict adherence to fundamental principles.
So you are arguing that people should not be punished for violent crimes? Because I can't really figure out what, or who you are arguing against in this thread.
|
If someone is so irrational they'd commit acts of violence upon someone for saying something, writing something, drawing something they deserve to be in prison or a mental hospital. End of story.
Those of us who are emotionally and mentally mature enough to not fly off the handle and physically attack someone for doing something we didn't like are in the right. This is the standard society and our constitution have given us. Speak your mind about anyone or anything, no violence can come to you because of it.
Again, freedom of speech is the most important right there is. Without it you have no real freedom.
|
I'm kind of confused as to why yelling fire in a theatre is supposed to be some kind of cultural achievement. It's actually its own form of extremism. "Free speech is the supreme right!, no matter the consequences we need more free speech!" Most people seem to agree that certain instances of free speech can be harmful and most people here also seem to agree that something needs to be regulated when it's harmful, so I don't really understand why a fundamentalist position on free speech is okay or better than a religious one.
It's actually the same argument Islamic nations make. "It's the cornerstone of our society, we can not have Islamic thought watered down by anything else, no compromise!" When in reality it seems much more reasonable to not say that X is the most important right, but that there are many rights and all of them deserve to be balanced out.
|
I don't understand people who are making analogies to things like victim-blaming in rape or something like that. I guess in this analogy person "wore the short dress" (Mohammed cartoon show), but also brought the pepper spray ($10,000 in security), thus foiling the attempted rapist (terrorists)?
When you lay it out simply, criticisms like "why would you take that risk" evaporate, because they properly accounted for the risk. And what we are left with is "don't wear a short skirt because I don't like it" ("don't talk about Muslims/Islam that way because I disagree with your point of view"). Which should be expected, because suppression of ideas they disagree with is a very strong undercurrent in the modern press.
|
On May 05 2015 06:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 06:12 puerk wrote:On May 05 2015 05:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
So we're excusing certain things because of human nature?
Certain outside factors can influence people in a certain direction. People can see how factors outside of a person's control would tend to lead said person down the path they took. However that doesn't excuse them. At the end of the day they still did what they did. They alone bear 100% of the responsibility for their actions. While you might understand why they did it on some level that in no way excuses it. They are still entirely in the wrong.
Because someone might react as a petulant child and lash out with violence for you saying or doing something they don't like doesn't mean you shouldn't say or do something. It's that person's fault they can't be an adult and restrain themselves. There is no right to not be offended, there is no right to assault or kill someone because you don't like what they say or do. You're basically saying "I'm sorry, that person or group can't handle themselves. You know they're going to go crazy because they don't have the mental or emotional faculties we do so you can't say that shit around them". No i am not excusing anything, i am saying demanding nonviolence from irrational people will not magically turn them rational or nonviolent, there is a need for an other approach. That will never change, no matter how often you claim moral superiority by strict adherence to fundamental principles. So you are arguing that people should not be punished for violent crimes? Because I can't really figure out what, or who you are arguing against in this thread.
Punishment is currently an inevitability but i like rehabilitive justice systems more than punitive.
I understand that i am not clearly enough expressing myself. I think that has to do with that i am colluding different opinions, and arguing against an overarching perception, that a simple and ultimate answer to intersocietal rule-making was found in "draw a clear line at physical violence", when i see how much pain and trouble can be caused by words alone.
I simply do not know how to effectively beat corruptive ideas, and radicalization, but i am not convinced that provoking irrationals to show how bad they are and than punishing their reactions is good enough.
To me it comes of as a whiff of "i am better than them so i do enough in a thread calling out "violence is bad m'kay""
And you are right if you think that i am not a single bit better.. or even worse. It happens...
|
On May 05 2015 06:23 cLutZ wrote:
I don't understand people who are making analogies to things like victim-blaming in rape or something like that. I guess in this analogy person "wore the short dress" (Mohammed cartoon show), but also brought the pepper spray ($10,000 in security), thus foiling the attempted rapist (terrorists)?
When you lay it out simply, criticisms like "why would you take that risk" evaporate, because they properly accounted for the risk. And what we are left with is "don't wear a short skirt because I don't like it" ("don't talk about Muslims/Islam that way because I disagree with your point of view"). Which should be expected, because suppression of ideas they disagree with is a very strong undercurrent in the modern press.
Kind of reminds me of the conservative position on gay marriage.
My religion says you can't marry, I don't like you talking about it or doing it. We should make it illegal!
My religion says you can't draw my prophet, I don't like you drawing my prophet, we should make it illegal!
Obviously violence isn't ok, but on their face the arguments are remarkably similar. Even weirder when you consider much of the outrage from Texans was about religious laws.
|
On May 05 2015 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 06:23 cLutZ wrote:
I don't understand people who are making analogies to things like victim-blaming in rape or something like that. I guess in this analogy person "wore the short dress" (Mohammed cartoon show), but also brought the pepper spray ($10,000 in security), thus foiling the attempted rapist (terrorists)?
When you lay it out simply, criticisms like "why would you take that risk" evaporate, because they properly accounted for the risk. And what we are left with is "don't wear a short skirt because I don't like it" ("don't talk about Muslims/Islam that way because I disagree with your point of view"). Which should be expected, because suppression of ideas they disagree with is a very strong undercurrent in the modern press. Kind of reminds me of the conservative position on gay marriage. My religion says you can't marry, I don't like you talking about it or doing it. We should make it illegal! My religion says you can't draw my prophet, I don't like you drawing my prophet, we should make it illegal! Obviously violence isn't ok, but on their face the arguments are remarkably similar. Even weirder when you consider much of the outrage from Texans was about religious laws.
Anyone who is in favor of enacting any religious laws is completely in the wrong.
People don't seem to have a problem when it's their team doing something. Fuck Sharia law! But lets enact some Christian laws! I've got no problem with the Patriot Act when Bush is in charge, but suddenly when it's Obama it's a travesty! The whole thing was a god damn travesty from the jump!
People should have a problem with some things even if it's their side doing it, when your team is winning and you make a bunch of BS rules you don't have a leg to stand on complaining when another team comes to power and starts doing the same shit only in favor of themselves. It's completely hypocritical.
How about we just do like the constitution says and we don't have any religious laws period? Seems smart.
|
On May 05 2015 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 06:23 cLutZ wrote:
I don't understand people who are making analogies to things like victim-blaming in rape or something like that. I guess in this analogy person "wore the short dress" (Mohammed cartoon show), but also brought the pepper spray ($10,000 in security), thus foiling the attempted rapist (terrorists)?
When you lay it out simply, criticisms like "why would you take that risk" evaporate, because they properly accounted for the risk. And what we are left with is "don't wear a short skirt because I don't like it" ("don't talk about Muslims/Islam that way because I disagree with your point of view"). Which should be expected, because suppression of ideas they disagree with is a very strong undercurrent in the modern press. Kind of reminds me of the conservative position on gay marriage. My religion says you can't marry, I don't like you talking about it or doing it. We should make it illegal! My religion says you can't draw my prophet, I don't like you drawing my prophet, we should make it illegal! Obviously violence isn't ok, but on their face the arguments are remarkably similar. Even weirder when you consider much of the outrage from Texans was about religious laws.
Ehh, I don't buy that comparison if only because not being able to draw a cartoon is head and shoulders more batshit insane that having qualms with gay marriage (and I am pro same-sex marriage). I get why Christians don't like gay marriage, they don't like to think about it, gay people make them uncomfortable, and they think the concept of marriage will be devalued if gay people are allowed to enjoy it as well.
But not allowing people to draw pictures is off the wall crazy, and there isn't really a justification outside of "well my holy book says so." And I would be ok with that if that is where it ends: Muslims being offended. But killing people as a response takes it to another level entirely.
|
WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is putting the brakes on a Senate effort to push through a controversial trade deal, saying that Democrats will block the measure until the Senate deals first with a stalled infrastructure bill and a package of reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA.
"We have two very complicated issues that I think should have strong consideration before we even deal with trade," Reid said in an interview with The Huffington Post, referencing the two measures that are set to expire unless the Senate takes action.
Reid said he has spoken with his leadership team and is confident Democratic senators will stick together to demand the two bills be dealt with before moving to approval for trade promotion authority or the Trans-Pacific Partnership. "I'm not willing to lay over and play dead on trade until we have some commitment from them on surface transportation," he said.
The same goes for FISA, he said, arguing the Senate should adopt a package of reforms in the House. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has pushed instead for a five-year extension of the current surveillance policy, without any reforms. "I'm not willing to simply let anyone move to FISA without a fight unless I have some idea of what they're going to do with it," Reid said.
TPP is a deeply controversial trade deal with 11 other countries. Critics argue the pact is less a trade deal and more a boon to multinational corporations that drive down wages in the United States. Backers say that if the U.S. doesn't engage with Pacific Rim countries, they will shift toward China and the U.S. will suffer economically.
Source
|
On May 05 2015 07:22 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 05 2015 06:23 cLutZ wrote:
I don't understand people who are making analogies to things like victim-blaming in rape or something like that. I guess in this analogy person "wore the short dress" (Mohammed cartoon show), but also brought the pepper spray ($10,000 in security), thus foiling the attempted rapist (terrorists)?
When you lay it out simply, criticisms like "why would you take that risk" evaporate, because they properly accounted for the risk. And what we are left with is "don't wear a short skirt because I don't like it" ("don't talk about Muslims/Islam that way because I disagree with your point of view"). Which should be expected, because suppression of ideas they disagree with is a very strong undercurrent in the modern press. Kind of reminds me of the conservative position on gay marriage. My religion says you can't marry, I don't like you talking about it or doing it. We should make it illegal! My religion says you can't draw my prophet, I don't like you drawing my prophet, we should make it illegal! Obviously violence isn't ok, but on their face the arguments are remarkably similar. Even weirder when you consider much of the outrage from Texans was about religious laws. Ehh, I don't buy that comparison if only because not being able to draw a cartoon is head and shoulders more batshit insane that having qualms with gay marriage (and I am pro same-sex marriage). I get why Christians don't like gay marriage, they don't like to think about it, gay people make them uncomfortable, and they think the concept of marriage will be devalued if gay people are allowed to enjoy it as well. But not allowing people to draw pictures is off the wall crazy, and there isn't really a justification outside of "well my holy book says so." And I would be ok with that if that is where it ends: Muslims being offended. But killing people as a response takes it to another level entirely.
I think making the judgment that one of those is obviously more insane than the other is a call that's coming from someone who's not trying to perceive it from a religious fundamentalist's perspective. I think they're both ridiculous, and one could easily try to (fallaciously) appeal to common sense, but I think it boils down to the fact that both of those decisions- gay marriage and cartoon mockery- are supposedly viewed as absolutely going against the word of a deity (the Christian and Muslim gods, respectively).
From the point of view of many Christian fundamentalists, God explicitly outlaws gay marriage.
From the point of view of many Muslim fundamentalists, God explicitly outlaws cartoon mockery.
If God says No, then the answer is No. Period. Amen. End of discussion, regardless of how absurd the statement is in practice. (Obviously, we can independently have the discussion regarding whether the Bible and the Quran *really* are explicit in these outlawed statements, and we can point out cherry-picking certain Biblical statements and ignoring other ridiculous ones, but for the fundamentalists, there's no question as to whether or not these are morally acceptable in the eyes of their gods.)
|
On May 05 2015 07:22 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 05 2015 06:23 cLutZ wrote:
I don't understand people who are making analogies to things like victim-blaming in rape or something like that. I guess in this analogy person "wore the short dress" (Mohammed cartoon show), but also brought the pepper spray ($10,000 in security), thus foiling the attempted rapist (terrorists)?
When you lay it out simply, criticisms like "why would you take that risk" evaporate, because they properly accounted for the risk. And what we are left with is "don't wear a short skirt because I don't like it" ("don't talk about Muslims/Islam that way because I disagree with your point of view"). Which should be expected, because suppression of ideas they disagree with is a very strong undercurrent in the modern press. Kind of reminds me of the conservative position on gay marriage. My religion says you can't marry, I don't like you talking about it or doing it. We should make it illegal! My religion says you can't draw my prophet, I don't like you drawing my prophet, we should make it illegal! Obviously violence isn't ok, but on their face the arguments are remarkably similar. Even weirder when you consider much of the outrage from Texans was about religious laws. Ehh, I don't buy that comparison if only because not being able to draw a cartoon is head and shoulders more batshit insane that having qualms with gay marriage (and I am pro same-sex marriage). I get why Christians don't like gay marriage, they don't like to think about it, gay people make them uncomfortable, and they think the concept of marriage will be devalued if gay people are allowed to enjoy it as well. But not allowing people to draw pictures is off the wall crazy, and there isn't really a justification outside of "well my holy book says so." And I would be ok with that if that is where it ends: Muslims being offended. But killing people as a response takes it to another level entirely.
Well I guess I kind of set up a false equivalency in that American Muslims don't want the drawings to be illegal, they just want them to be considered poor taste.
We don't know a lot about what happened, but we certainly don't know what exactly motivated these men, and we never will truly.
But really if you think the outrage is exclusively about drawing pictures your kind of looking through blinders.
What happened recently in Garland is not like the thousands of protesters many of whom, wanted to shutdown or prevent the Muslim event prior (who's worst known offense was having an unindicted person keynote speak) and said despicable things unprovoked. They held signs like the one below.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o7AZFS6.png)
and worse.
But because 2 (who as long as were speculating) mentally unwell people try to kill someone yet only manage to superficially wound his ankle we just go on ignoring all the other crap that led up to it. Use this event to divert attention from the very real bigotry beyond the jerks at the event and the ease with which abuse happens. In addition to ignoring that Muslims didn't even bother to protest one of the most ridiculously inflammatory events one could hold.
Seeing the reactions in juxtaposition to to each other through clear lenses it's pretty odd. (Though admittedly mine are plenty jaded)
|
Speaking of Texas...
Wal-Mart issued a statement Monday to TPM dismissing "rumors" that tunnels were being built by the U.S. military beneath closed stores in an attempt to launch a takeover of Texas.
"There’s no truth to the rumors," Wal-Mart spokesperson Lorenzo Lopez told TPM via email.
The tunnels are part of a series of conspiracy theories surrounding "Jade Helm 15," a military training operation set to take place later this year in seven Western states. The conspiracy theorists have said the operation may be part of a covert attempt to takeover Texas and other states.
In response to the theories, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) last week issued an order for the state guard to monitor the U.S. military — a decision he defended on Monday.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
