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.
A Georgia Tech student who was fatally shot by police made the 911 call that led to the deadly encounter, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said Monday.
Georgia Tech Police officers responded to a 911 call at 11:17 p.m. Saturday reporting a suspicious person on the Atlanta campus. The caller said the person -- described as a white male with long blond hair, white T-shirt and blue jeans, possibly intoxicated -- was holding a knife and possibly a gun.
The officers encountered Scout Schultz, 21, outside a dorm. The student was barefoot and "disoriented" in the middle of a "mental breakdown," family attorney L. Chris Stewart said. The lawyer -- who has represented the families of other victims of police-involved shootings -- accused the officer who opened fire of overreacting to the circumstances.
Cellphone video shows the officers repeatedly yelling at Schultz to put down the knife and not to move. In the video, after Schultz takes a few steps forward, an officer opens fire.
As allegations of excessive force mounted, Stewart accused Georgia Tech of forcing the narrative that Schultz was a "knife-wielding" threat despite evidence suggesting otherwise.
But the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said evidence showed that Schultz was the caller. Three suicide notes were found in the student's dorm room; no gun was found at the scene and the only knife found was one inside a multipurpose tool, the GBI said.
Georgia Tech declined to comment, citing the GBI's investigation.
The shooting prompted mourning across Georgia Tech, where Schultz was known as a leader in the campus LGBTQ community as president of Georgia Tech Pride Alliance.
According to a profile on the group's website, Schultz identified as nonbinary and intersex and preferred the pronouns they, them and their.
"It's tragic that as Scout was battling mental health issues that pushed them to the edge of desperation, their life was taken with a bullet rather than saved with non-lethal force," Stewart said in a statement.
On September 19 2017 11:43 Doodsmack wrote: The free speech rights of paid political provocateurs and Nazis must be vehemently defended; but the free speech rights of others to put a towel on a statue must be vehemently condemned.
With vehemence like "the form of the protest was counterproductive and ineffective."
Ouch. They must be so wounded to endure such a vicious assault on their protest.
On September 19 2017 11:43 Doodsmack wrote: The free speech rights of paid political provocateurs and Nazis must be vehemently defended; but the free speech rights of others to put a towel on a statue must be vehemently condemned.
With vehemence like "the form of the protest was counterproductive and ineffective."
Ouch. They must be so wounded to endure such a vicious assault on their protest.
The topics you choose to defend and not defend so passionately speaks volumes of who you are as a person. Especially as an anonymous voice online. You consistently prove that ignoring you is the best course of actions for others to avoid being warned and or banned.
On September 19 2017 11:43 Doodsmack wrote: The free speech rights of paid political provocateurs and Nazis must be vehemently defended; but the free speech rights of others to put a towel on a statue must be vehemently condemned.
With vehemence like "the form of the protest was counterproductive and ineffective."
Ouch. They must be so wounded to endure such a vicious assault on their protest.
The topics you choose to defend and not defend so passionately speaks volumes of who you are as a person. Especially as an anonymous voice online. You consistently prove that ignoring you is the best course of actions for others to avoid being warned and or banned.
On September 19 2017 09:44 Danglars wrote: Shapiro speech at Berkeley goes off pretty well. Thousands arrive to protest, nine arrested, but none of the widespread violence and property destruction we're used to seeing these days. The price tag was quite steep: $600,000. LA Times has the story.
In amongst all the white-supremacist name calling and tribalism, it's nice to be pleasantly surprised by a speaker protected to do his thing. I hope it's a change in the winds like the Little Rock Nine.
You could have found a better example. That was in bad taste in my opinion.
Large police protest keeps a rowdy mob at bay successfully so a group can excercise its civil rights?
Politically incorrect victims.
Equating 9 little black girls fearing for their life to attend school to whatever this was. Civil rights =/= constitutional rights. There are countless other examples you could have used and you know it. That is all I'm saying.
A history of conservative speakers fearing for their life as a vicious mob acted violently outside? A professor sent to the hospital? I see I chose my parallel well. Some people just can't afford rights to all victims of violence.
Your parallel, using conservative speakers known for...questionable philosophies, does not stand up to the little rock nine. And, for the record, I don't approve of the violence at the event. But yes, draw a parallel of black children being spit on and verbally attacked by white adults to grown white men talking about questionable philosophies suffering verbal abuse. It's funny how all groups like to co-opt black civil rights moments for their own use when it suits them. I'm done with this conversation. Moving on.
Physical abuse and threats of violence. Fears for their life. Being shuttled out of back entrances and dark corridors to shelter them from the mob. You should really pay more attention to violence against the right. This is like #4 or #5 for Berkeley, and a success story from the perspective of the response and safety of the speaker.
I hope you pay more attention to white and Jewish victims next time around, or I might gather that blacks are the only people you want protected. Or will pay any attention to.
You really don't see the absurdity of your Little Rock Nine comparison? Or was it just to draw out this type of interaction?
In the little rock nine case, the state government employed the national guard to block the students from entering the school. And this is why I keep saying that the rightist arguments are bad faith arguments. Danglars knows that the little rock nine were up against a hostile state government and were only able to get to school via intervention by the President and nationalization of the state level national guard.
Several segregationist councils threatened to hold protests at Central High and physically block the black students from entering the school. Governor Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to support the segregationists on September 4, 1957. The sight of a line of soldiers blocking out the students made national headlines and polarized the nation.
In Shapiro's case .. Shapiro faced protests (by non state actors), but he was able to speak without disruption. That is how democracy and free speech work. If people think Shapiro sucks, then they have a right to yell in the street about it. That is how free speech works. And sometimes it is expensive.
In Shapiro's case, the CHP, and local law enforcement were called out at extreme cost to physically protect the conservative speaker from past violence that reckless endangered speaker's lives. Their early assembly was made to physically block the speaker's access to his venue and discourage students from attending the speech with threats of violence. The sight of a line of well-armored CHP should have made national headlines, but the national news is in a bit of a bad state right now. https://twitter.com/jpanzar/status/908480692891160576
An absolutely incredible figure of $600,000 dollars is cited as being required for security, given the recent and highly publicized failings of the Berkeley police department and mayoral actions to safeguard speakers on a public campus.
Thankfully, and three cheers, both security actions successfully allowed the threatened citizens to enter the school.
Regrettably, there are still some that choose to forget the violence that sent a professor to the hospital. Or how a black-clad mob smashed windows and threw fireworks. They are more ideologically possessed to discount right-of-center speakers, as if their ideology is so provocative that they were asking for it. Not unlike a regressive attitude towards women that dress a certain way, because these conservatives think a certain way, they're asking for it.
I'm in a very good move and hope other college campuses take note about how not to cave to dyscivic pressure and show that campus venues are open to the invited speakers of student groups. Three cheers for the latest actions and all involved in this showing. This beer's for you!
*crickets*
... Response to troll
How dare you defend whites on college campuses!
Let me repeat what you said. What you choose to defend, nay how you choose to even comment on civil rights victories, shows just how disconnected you are from current events. May your awareness improve.
For those interested, here is the speech, his first in a while that wasn't nixxed:
On September 19 2017 11:43 Doodsmack wrote: The free speech rights of paid political provocateurs and Nazis must be vehemently defended; but the free speech rights of others to put a towel on a statue must be vehemently condemned.
With vehemence like "the form of the protest was counterproductive and ineffective."
Ouch. They must be so wounded to endure such a vicious assault on their protest.
The topics you choose to defend and not defend so passionately speaks volumes of who you are as a person. Especially as an anonymous voice online. You consistently prove that ignoring you is the best course of actions for others to avoid being warned and or banned.
You're barking up the wrong tree by trying to tag this shit on Danglars.
A Georgia Tech student who was fatally shot by police made the 911 call that led to the deadly encounter, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said Monday.
Georgia Tech Police officers responded to a 911 call at 11:17 p.m. Saturday reporting a suspicious person on the Atlanta campus. The caller said the person -- described as a white male with long blond hair, white T-shirt and blue jeans, possibly intoxicated -- was holding a knife and possibly a gun.
The officers encountered Scout Schultz, 21, outside a dorm. The student was barefoot and "disoriented" in the middle of a "mental breakdown," family attorney L. Chris Stewart said. The lawyer -- who has represented the families of other victims of police-involved shootings -- accused the officer who opened fire of overreacting to the circumstances.
Cellphone video shows the officers repeatedly yelling at Schultz to put down the knife and not to move. In the video, after Schultz takes a few steps forward, an officer opens fire.
As allegations of excessive force mounted, Stewart accused Georgia Tech of forcing the narrative that Schultz was a "knife-wielding" threat despite evidence suggesting otherwise.
But the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said evidence showed that Schultz was the caller. Three suicide notes were found in the student's dorm room; no gun was found at the scene and the only knife found was one inside a multipurpose tool, the GBI said.
Georgia Tech declined to comment, citing the GBI's investigation.
The shooting prompted mourning across Georgia Tech, where Schultz was known as a leader in the campus LGBTQ community as president of Georgia Tech Pride Alliance.
According to a profile on the group's website, Schultz identified as nonbinary and intersex and preferred the pronouns they, them and their.
"It's tragic that as Scout was battling mental health issues that pushed them to the edge of desperation, their life was taken with a bullet rather than saved with non-lethal force," Stewart said in a statement.
More training please. This could have been resolved nonviolently.
Friend of mine tried to put himself in this situation. Thankfully the cops were able to defuse that situation. I can't imagine what being in that position is like.
On September 19 2017 11:43 Doodsmack wrote: The free speech rights of paid political provocateurs and Nazis must be vehemently defended; but the free speech rights of others to put a towel on a statue must be vehemently condemned.
With vehemence like "the form of the protest was counterproductive and ineffective."
Ouch. They must be so wounded to endure such a vicious assault on their protest.
The topics you choose to defend and not defend so passionately speaks volumes of who you are as a person. Especially as an anonymous voice online. You consistently prove that ignoring you is the best course of actions for others to avoid being warned and or banned.
You're barking up the wrong tree by trying to tag this shit on Danglars.
Given that I think most here would describe you and Danglars as being birds of a feather, if you want this assertion to be taken seriously you'd need to justify it.
It's probably a better use of everybody's time if you just don't bother and we move on, though.
Alt-knights, proud-boys, ID Europa, etc. drive up to Berkeley to pick fights with radicals. It ends up costing more and more money during the protests. This last protest they actually put enough resources into securing the situation. Where are you getting the crisis of threats to conservatives?
Here you go, here are the kinds of guys who were driving up from San Diego to fight Antifa. The woman being punched is one of the few famous Antifa members. Maybe if racist nutbags weren't driving up to Berkeley to start fights, then the protests wouldn't cost so damned much to secure. + Show Spoiler +
On September 19 2017 12:34 Wulfey_LA wrote: Alt-knights, proud-boys, ID Europa, etc. drive up to Berkeley to pick fights with radicals. It ends up costing more and more money during the protests. This last protest they actually put enough resources into securing the situation. Where are you getting the crisis of threats to conservatives?
Here you go, here are the kinds of guys who were driving up from San Diego to fight Antifa. The woman being punched is one of the few famous Antifa members. Maybe if racist nutbags weren't driving up to Berkeley to start fights, then the protests wouldn't cost so damned much to secure. + Show Spoiler +
Any comments on the linked previous controversies? I'm up to three posts on past violent conflicts. I would suppose if you're interested in the truth of who's there to pick fights, you'd do a little listening to the other side. It's not like $600,000 just came out of nowhere.
I'll throw you a softball. Characterize past conflicts at Berkeley for me.
You've shown a punch and thrown out a racists dbags. This should be an easy job.
On September 19 2017 11:43 Doodsmack wrote: The free speech rights of paid political provocateurs and Nazis must be vehemently defended; but the free speech rights of others to put a towel on a statue must be vehemently condemned.
With vehemence like "the form of the protest was counterproductive and ineffective."
Ouch. They must be so wounded to endure such a vicious assault on their protest.
The topics you choose to defend and not defend so passionately speaks volumes of who you are as a person. Especially as an anonymous voice online. You consistently prove that ignoring you is the best course of actions for others to avoid being warned and or banned.
You're barking up the wrong tree by trying to tag this shit on Danglars.
Given that I think most here would describe you and Danglars as being birds of a feather, if you want this assertion to be taken seriously you'd need to justify it.
It's probably a better use of everybody's time if you just don't bother and we move on, though.
Here's what I just posted in the website feedback thread:
On September 19 2017 12:39 xDaunt wrote: Responding with such vehemence to Danglars' posting is what we call a tell. Danglars is eminently reasonable when he posts and has a tendency to really put some time and effort into his arguments. Politics aside, he's one of the least objectionable posters in the thread. As far as I am concerned, attacking him is a true sign of small mindedness.
I find it odd that you consider Danglars and me to be "birds of a feather" in this context. Sure, we may not be too far apart politically, but our posting styles are quite different. To put it bluntly, Danglars tends to be far nicer than I am.
On September 19 2017 11:43 Doodsmack wrote: The free speech rights of paid political provocateurs and Nazis must be vehemently defended; but the free speech rights of others to put a towel on a statue must be vehemently condemned.
With vehemence like "the form of the protest was counterproductive and ineffective."
Ouch. They must be so wounded to endure such a vicious assault on their protest.
The topics you choose to defend and not defend so passionately speaks volumes of who you are as a person. Especially as an anonymous voice online. You consistently prove that ignoring you is the best course of actions for others to avoid being warned and or banned.
You're barking up the wrong tree by trying to tag this shit on Danglars.
Given that I think most here would describe you and Danglars as being birds of a feather, if you want this assertion to be taken seriously you'd need to justify it.
It's probably a better use of everybody's time if you just don't bother and we move on, though.
Here's what I just posted in the website feedback thread:
On September 19 2017 12:39 xDaunt wrote: Responding with such vehemence to Danglars' posting is what we call a tell. Danglars is eminently reasonable when he posts and has a tendency to really put some time and effort into his arguments. Politics aside, he's one of the least objectionable posters in the thread. As far as I am concerned, attacking him is a true sign of small mindedness.
I find it odd that you consider Danglars and me to be "birds of a feather" in this context. Sure, we may not be too far apart politically, but our posting styles are quite different. To put it bluntly, Danglars tends to be far nicer than I am.
I would say the primary difference between the two of you is that Danglars' sophistry is far less skilled. Perhaps I'll wander over to website feedback and debunk you sometime.
edit: Having said that, we are now wandering away from the purpose of this thread.
If I think (as I do) that there is a qualitative difference between a man punching a man vs punching a woman (as that article also implies from the title alone), is that gender essentialism and/or outdated chivalry?
On September 19 2017 12:51 Falling wrote: If I think (as I do) that there is a qualitative difference between a man punching a man vs punching a woman (as that article also implies from the title alone), is that gender essentialism and/or outdated chivalry?
given the severity of the punch in that picture it's simply an issue of physical strength which runs along gender lines.
On September 19 2017 12:06 Sermokala wrote: Yet people don't get warned or banned and you specifically engaged him. Great points as always zero.
I've been warned a few times from engaging him, so I speak from experience.
You don't get warned from engaging people. You get warned for shitposting, amongst other things.
Not that i'm going to defend Danglars, i certainly have a "strong" opinion of him/resident rightwingers here in general, but i have a very similar opinion of most leftwingers here as well.
Blaming Danglars for your own mistakes because you tend to argue with your stomach rather than your brain is idiotic.
As a general sidenote, you both have a point. It obviously is not comparable, but that doesn't mean that there is "nothing", or that it's okay to prevent free speech by violence. A point that you vehemently made clear is completely okay.
Here you go, here are the kinds of guys who were driving up from San Diego to fight Antifa. The woman being punched is one of the few famous Antifa members. Maybe if racist nutbags weren't driving up to Berkeley to start fights, then the protests wouldn't cost so damned much to secure.
That happens on both sides. It's called counter protesting. You don't get to judge one and not the other.
Is it dumb? No. The violence, of course, but not the concept of counter protesting, that's a right every american has regardless of viewpoint. By your measure, antifa should not be allowed(!) to get close to any right wing, pro-police or whatever demo.
Just actually realizing how big of a deal this is. FBI had Trump's former campaign manager wiretapped both before and after the election. Imagine if that had gotten leaked. Who were the idiots inside the FBI that pushed Comey to publicly announce the reopening of the emails but not this? Please bring these people down, Mueller.
On September 19 2017 12:51 Falling wrote: If I think (as I do) that there is a qualitative difference between a man punching a man vs punching a woman (as that article also implies from the title alone), is that gender essentialism and/or outdated chivalry?
given the severity of the punch in that picture it's simply an issue of physical strength which runs along gender lines.
In my opinion stuff like this is mostly irrelevant outside of pure acadamia (IE there may be interesting discussions but it's not anything that should effect your daily life. and if people really have a problem with it then they have a problem. I will say it becomes problematic if the amount of injuries are different. For example if you have more of a problem with a woman being punched once than with a guy repeatedly having his face smashed in or something than that might be something to reevaluate but It's still not wrong and not something that I would waste time on caring about personally in terms of telling you to do something else or that it needs to be corrected immediately.)
I'm speaking strictly abstractly of course and these are just my opinions which I'm not going to claim are correct or even that informed on the issues of gender dynamics and stuff.
EPT
