Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On April 25 2024 15:09 Velr wrote: Trump saying something is now somehow making the Democrats go facist?
Do you even read what kind of bs you write?
If the Dems open a door, Trump will step through it I assume is his point.
I don’t see why it’s so difficult to just say ‘this is a complex issue and Americans will have different opinions on it, but the right to protest is integral to any functional democracy. But when people step over the line and engage in anti-Semitic behaviour that is absolutely unacceptable and should absolutely be disavowed.’
On April 25 2024 15:09 Velr wrote: Trump saying something is now somehow making the Democrats go facist?
Do you even read what kind of bs you write?
Not so much "Trump saying something" as Democrats equating Pro-Palestinian actions with self-avowed Nazis advocating white supremacy (and worse) in Charlottesville, along with building cop cities, cracking down on "illegals", policing US citizens using the military, warrantless domestic spying, aiding and abetting what they themselves identify as genocide, perpetuating slavery of US citizens, and so on.
I'm saying that in doing those things, they are laying the foundations fascists will use to seize power and implement their plans.
Moreover, that the rationalizing and pettifogging their supporters do to assuage their cognitive dissonance for supporting them despite those actions facilitates the US's creeping normality toward fascism as well.
That if we don't want that future, it's going to require a sizable chunk of people that currently subscribe to lesser evil electoralism to recognize its futility in stopping the US's march into fascism and engage in organized civil disobedience asap.
And to put a button on it, that a lot of them won't for various reasons. Instead, many will pick up a baton and start beating those that do engage in organized civil disobedience and the oppressed groups they're meant to be in solidarity with, all in a vain attempt to maintain their relative comfort and safety under the guise of pragmatism.
The Supreme Court is currently hearing the arguments for absolute presidential immunity, and contemplating whether Donald Trump should be automatically excused from all potentially-illegal wrongdoing and crimes he may have committed while president. Let's just hope that the Supreme Court turns down this nonsense, in the same way that all the lower courts did, and let Trump's four criminal trials play out in full.
On April 26 2024 01:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Supreme Court is currently hearing the arguments for absolute presidential immunity, and contemplating whether Donald Trump should be automatically excused from all potentially-illegal wrongdoing and crimes he may have committed while president. Let's just hope that the Supreme Court turns down this nonsense, in the same way that all the lower courts did, and let Trump's four criminal trials play out in full.
I don't know. I kind of like the idea of Biden ordering the assassination of the right leaning members of the Supreme Court and being immune to prosecution...
On April 26 2024 01:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Supreme Court is currently hearing the arguments for absolute presidential immunity, and contemplating whether Donald Trump should be automatically excused from all potentially-illegal wrongdoing and crimes he may have committed while president. Let's just hope that the Supreme Court turns down this nonsense, in the same way that all the lower courts did, and let Trump's four criminal trials play out in full.
I don't know. I kind of like the idea of Biden ordering the assassination of the right leaning members of the Supreme Court and being immune to prosecution...
To say nothing of the ability to murder Donald Trump too, and then announce that he would assassinate RFK Jr. and anyone else who decided to run against him in the 2024 election, unless they backed out of the race immediately. Of course, Biden would never exercise that "right", even if it was afforded to him.
I caught parts of the oral hearing. I have very little faith in this SCOTUS. They seriously raised things like FDR getting criminally prosecuted because of the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2. Or Obama for ordering a drone strike on US citizens. Or Biden allowing a immigrant crisis at the border. As if these are obviously absurd and should be and were covered by presidential immunity.
I do think that in western democracies, we should hold both leaders in industry and in public service way more personally responsible if things go really really bad. Trump being responsible for involuntary manslaughter because of his failed coronavirus policy is obviously not a crime. But W Bush invasion of Iraq, why should Bush have immunity for that?
That said, this Trump case is not for acts that Trump did that were part of his official duties. Overseeing 100% state-run elections is not the job of the POTUS. Especially not after Trump asked about it and Barr, DoJ, his White House lawyer all told Trump there was no significant fraud.
And the funny thing is, that even if say in Michigan, there were thousands of fraudulent ballots, the election result doesn't get overturned. Even if some Biden campaign official stuffed the ballot boxes, then the legal relief that could be awarded by a court is that that official goes to jail for election fraud. The result is never that the court overturns the election result and declares Trump the winner. Only if the fraud is really really big and could have affected the result, the state of Michigan may decide to redo the election. This is relevant because it obviously shows that all this pressure Trump put on state officials, and the fake elector scheme, cannot even be considered official presidential duty even in the longest stretch.
I still don't get why SCOTUS even is taking this case. They are gonna rule in a narrow hypothetical where a POTUS gets criminal immunity for official acts. A hypothetical case that is not even before them. There is no reason for SCOTUS to spell out in full detail all hypothetical cases where a POTUS does not get criminal immunity, and all hypothetical cases where he would. That's just dangerous. While hypothetical cases can be very useful, including in legal analysis, in a real case there is an actual real context in which a potential crime is committed. And that is actually really relevant. Especially if the crime is committed by POTUS.
On April 26 2024 02:12 Gienah wrote: I caught parts of the oral hearing. I have very little faith in this SCOTUS. They seriously raised things like FDR getting criminally prosecuted because of the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2. Or Obama for ordering a drone strike on US citizens. Or Biden allowing a immigrant crisis at the border. As if these are obviously absurd and should be and were covered by presidential immunity.
I do think that in western democracies, we should hold both leaders in industry and in public service way more personally responsible if things go really really bad. Trump being responsible for involuntary manslaughter because of his failed coronavirus policy is obviously not a crime. But W Bush invasion of Iraq, why should Bush have immunity for that?
That said, this Trump case is not for acts that Trump did that were part of his official duties. Overseeing 100% state-run elections is not the job of the POTUS. Especially not after Trump asked about it and Barr, DoJ, his White House lawyer all told Trump there was no significant fraud.
And the funny thing is, that even if say in Michigan, there were thousands of fraudulent ballots, the election result doesn't get overturned. Even if some Biden campaign official stuffed the ballot boxes, then the legal relief that could be awarded by a court is that that official goes to jail for election fraud. The result is never that the court overturns the election result and declares Trump the winner. Only if the fraud is really really big and could have affected the result, the state of Michigan may decide to redo the election. This is relevant because it obviously shows that all this pressure Trump put on state officials, and the fake elector scheme, cannot even be considered official presidential duty even in the longest stretch.
I still don't get why SCOTUS even is taking this case. They are gonna rule in a narrow hypothetical where a POTUS gets criminal immunity for official acts. A hypothetical case that is not even before them. There is no reason for SCOTUS to spell out in full detail all hypothetical cases where a POTUS does not get criminal immunity, and all hypothetical cases where he would. That's just dangerous. While hypothetical cases can be very useful, including in legal analysis, in a real case there is an actual real context in which a potential crime is committed. And that is actually really relevant. Especially if the crime is committed by POTUS.
I agree with you. If SCOTUS decides that presidential immunity extends only to official acts, then I suppose Trump's lawyers might try to make it sound like all of his crimes were within the scope of his official presidential duties, if they can't successfully make the argument that what Trump did was perfectly legal regardless of presidential status. Maybe it gives Trump two outs instead of only one - two ways to convince even a single juror that he shouldn't be convicted of his crimes.
They dealt with what official acts would be during the oral hearing. The arguments Trump's lawyer made made no sense, and I believe Sotomayor pointed out how absurd that all was. But I have zero faith in the 'conservative' judges. There was n example that if the president did a bribe and made someone ambassador for 1 million dollar, which Trump did do btw, then that would be a crime despite the fact that making someone an ambassador is an official act.
According to Trump's lawyer, the 'accepting a bribe' part was apparently not the official act and that is what would make it a possible crime. Of course, Trump's lawyer also argues that a POTUS would have full criminal immunity. But lawyers like to argue all things at the same time, in parallel, as if they are independent.
They are both asking for absolute immunity as well as qualified limited immunity for official duties.
[edit]
Wait, in other parts of the hearing, Trump's lawyer concedes that the fake elector scheme are private acts, and therefore not covered by any form of immunity, if they actually happened the way Jack Smith described them in his indictment. That's confusing.
On April 24 2024 15:18 Sermokala wrote: Yeah the bigotry isn't the issue it's people pointing out the bigotry that's the issue. You can safely ignore people without power because we don't respect them or what they say but the people we do think have value should know better than call out bad actors.
It fully depends on what bigotry is being pointed out to begin with to be fair.
Over in the UK there were pro-Palestine protests absolutely chock full of anti-Semitism (and plenty without), but the reporting surrounding them that I read/watched was full of absolutely blatant examples of it.
Perhaps I suck at Googling but articles I’ve been looking up about this topic as per the college protests are completely lacking that element. If anyone does have reporting that ticks that box I’d be very much obliged.
Having attended pro-Palestine events over here, yeah I’ve seen stuff I’d consider anti-Semitic. A few people out of hundreds but it was there, and I feel it was a collective failure of the attendees, myself included not to challenge that.
What BJ is trying to do is justify maga rallies by exploiting peoples good faith again. It's the shit trump did when he went "both sides have good people" ignoring that one side was chanting "Jews will not replace us".
Yes being a part of a protest doesn't make you a supporter of everything everyone on that side is supporting but bjs "the real bad people are the important people that say anything about the bad actors" is just more bad faith bullshit from him. Dude doesn't even respect you enough to agnowedge the possibility of bigots existing, just like Trump's "I assume some of them might be good people".
You're allowed to call out the bad actors in a group without people expecting that you're generalizing the whole group like that. I'm sure people on January 6th did legitimately want to go to the rally and then didn't go into the Capitol because they realized that's a bad thing. That doesn't excuse the people who did "accidentally into a coup" in some bizarre reverse bad apple argument. You can condem the anti semetic protests while not commenting on the anti Zionist ones. I'm sure there are protestors that don't want Jews to all die, but they need to understand and appreciate that there are some who do and are making their fellow Jewish students a bit uncomfortable.
False. Nowhere did I refuse to acknowledge that bigots exist. What I said was that normal people being convinced to dismiss reasonable protests as groups of bigots is more concerning.
Take the Ottawa trucker protest, for example. You were convinced that they were a group of terrorists/racists/misogynists for no other reason than Prime Minister Trudeau told you so. TL User Falling succinctly refuted your false belief by showing that there was basically 1 person in the group that showed up with a confederate flag on the 1st day of the protest before being chased off.
What's worse is that the post he was responding to is where you essentially called this youtuber a Nazi sympathizer by somehow carefully "hiding" all the non-existent swastikas at the protest while he filmed. That guy is just a random Canadian that has been filming events in his cities for many years and had nothing to do with the protestors.
So yeah, I'm more concerned that you, a presumably normal person, will readily label a random innocent youtuber as a nazi sympathizer without any evidence. Simply because you were gullible enough to believe the lies sold to you by a powerful person. It's despicable.
Again you denying something that no one accused you of because you found evidence to support an argument no one is having with you. Its as unplesent as its predictable. You think some bigotry is okay when its conducted by conservatives and think the real problem is the people labeling them that. The only way you can rationalize someone disagreeing with you is if someone who is rich and powerful tells that to them. You can't comprehend thinking for yourself or having your own morals and values that the only way you think people can come up with what they belive in is if someone they hold in authority tells them those things.
I was convinced they were terrorists because their stated goal was economic terrorism by blocking transport routes in order to advance their political aims. Confederate flags are part and parcel of right-wing terrorism, anyone denying that it just so happens in this case that someone went around and told them it looked bad this time doesn't change this fact about them.
I'll label nazi sympathizers that when they sympathize for nazis, by trying to extend them good faith that "Ah jeez its just a flag" or "they took the flag down when asked because other people knew it looked bad." Their terrorism attracted nazies, they have to deal with why what they support attracts nazis.
On April 24 2024 15:18 Sermokala wrote: Yeah the bigotry isn't the issue it's people pointing out the bigotry that's the issue. You can safely ignore people without power because we don't respect them or what they say but the people we do think have value should know better than call out bad actors.
It fully depends on what bigotry is being pointed out to begin with to be fair.
Over in the UK there were pro-Palestine protests absolutely chock full of anti-Semitism (and plenty without), but the reporting surrounding them that I read/watched was full of absolutely blatant examples of it.
Perhaps I suck at Googling but articles I’ve been looking up about this topic as per the college protests are completely lacking that element. If anyone does have reporting that ticks that box I’d be very much obliged.
Having attended pro-Palestine events over here, yeah I’ve seen stuff I’d consider anti-Semitic. A few people out of hundreds but it was there, and I feel it was a collective failure of the attendees, myself included not to challenge that.
What BJ is trying to do is justify maga rallies by exploiting peoples good faith again. It's the shit trump did when he went "both sides have good people" ignoring that one side was chanting "Jews will not replace us".
Yes being a part of a protest doesn't make you a supporter of everything everyone on that side is supporting but bjs "the real bad people are the important people that say anything about the bad actors" is just more bad faith bullshit from him. Dude doesn't even respect you enough to agnowedge the possibility of bigots existing, just like Trump's "I assume some of them might be good people".
You're allowed to call out the bad actors in a group without people expecting that you're generalizing the whole group like that. I'm sure people on January 6th did legitimately want to go to the rally and then didn't go into the Capitol because they realized that's a bad thing. That doesn't excuse the people who did "accidentally into a coup" in some bizarre reverse bad apple argument. You can condem the anti semetic protests while not commenting on the anti Zionist ones. I'm sure there are protestors that don't want Jews to all die, but they need to understand and appreciate that there are some who do and are making their fellow Jewish students a bit uncomfortable.
False. Nowhere did I refuse to acknowledge that bigots exist. What I said was that normal people being convinced to dismiss reasonable protests as groups of bigots is more concerning.
Take the Ottawa trucker protest, for example. You were convinced that they were a group of terrorists/racists/misogynists for no other reason than Prime Minister Trudeau told you so. TL User Falling succinctly refuted your false belief by showing that there was basically 1 person in the group that showed up with a confederate flag on the 1st day of the protest before being chased off.
What's worse is that the post he was responding to is where you essentially called this youtuber a Nazi sympathizer by somehow carefully "hiding" all the non-existent swastikas at the protest while he filmed. That guy is just a random Canadian that has been filming events in his cities for many years and had nothing to do with the protestors.
So yeah, I'm more concerned that you, a presumably normal person, will readily label a random innocent youtuber as a nazi sympathizer without any evidence. Simply because you were gullible enough to believe the lies sold to you by a powerful person. It's despicable.
Again you denying something that no one accused you of because you found evidence to support an argument no one is having with you. Its as unplesent as its predictable. You think some bigotry is okay when its conducted by conservatives and think the real problem is the people labeling them that. The only way you can rationalize someone disagreeing with you is if someone who is rich and powerful tells that to them. You can't comprehend thinking for yourself or having your own morals and values that the only way you think people can come up with what they belive in is if someone they hold in authority tells them those things.
I was convinced they were terrorists because their stated goal was economic terrorism by blocking transport routes in order to advance their political aims. Confederate flags are part and parcel of right-wing terrorism, anyone denying that it just so happens in this case that someone went around and told them it looked bad this time doesn't change this fact about them.
I'll label nazi sympathizers that when they sympathize for nazis, by trying to extend them good faith that "Ah jeez its just a flag" or "they took the flag down when asked because other people knew it looked bad." Their terrorism attracted nazies, they have to deal with why what they support attracts nazis.
Hilarious. So the reason the protestors chased off anyone trying to display confederate flags or nazi flags is not because they disagree with that but because they know it's a bad look despite secretly wanting to fly those flags as well. What a great catch-all you've set up for yourself. Now you don't need any evidence that someone is a racist because the lack of evidence is just proof they are a closeted racist. This has been your MO for quite a while, hasn't it? How are you any better than QAnon followers talking about the pedo rings and cannibal cabals?
Again, here's the youtube channel of the guy you accused of being a nazi:
It's called "Ottawa Walks" and it's just a guy that films his city of Ottawa while walking around it. His channel predates the trucker protest that occurred in Ottawa. He was filming it because that's just what he does. Yet because Trudeau told you the truckers were all racists or nazis you convinced yourself that this guy's videos didn't contain confederate flags or swastikas because he was a Nazi sympathizer and wanted to conceal that imagery from his videos to put the truckers in the best light.
Convincing yourself that some random Canadian is a nazi-sympathizer with zero evidence puts you one step away from raiding a pizza parlor to save children from pedos. You're so seething of hatred of those you disagree with that you can't see reality clearly. Your opinion on who is or isn't a bigot is evidently pretty worthless.
BTW, Alito and Thomas in the oral arguments basically said past US presidents already committed coups, were criminals, and that skirting the law is an intentional art of a bold US president as envisioned by the founding fathers.. And that a grand jury indictment doesn't really mean anything because they can be corrupt. These people are unhinged.
On April 24 2024 15:18 Sermokala wrote: Yeah the bigotry isn't the issue it's people pointing out the bigotry that's the issue. You can safely ignore people without power because we don't respect them or what they say but the people we do think have value should know better than call out bad actors.
It fully depends on what bigotry is being pointed out to begin with to be fair.
Over in the UK there were pro-Palestine protests absolutely chock full of anti-Semitism (and plenty without), but the reporting surrounding them that I read/watched was full of absolutely blatant examples of it.
Perhaps I suck at Googling but articles I’ve been looking up about this topic as per the college protests are completely lacking that element. If anyone does have reporting that ticks that box I’d be very much obliged.
Having attended pro-Palestine events over here, yeah I’ve seen stuff I’d consider anti-Semitic. A few people out of hundreds but it was there, and I feel it was a collective failure of the attendees, myself included not to challenge that.
What BJ is trying to do is justify maga rallies by exploiting peoples good faith again. It's the shit trump did when he went "both sides have good people" ignoring that one side was chanting "Jews will not replace us".
Yes being a part of a protest doesn't make you a supporter of everything everyone on that side is supporting but bjs "the real bad people are the important people that say anything about the bad actors" is just more bad faith bullshit from him. Dude doesn't even respect you enough to agnowedge the possibility of bigots existing, just like Trump's "I assume some of them might be good people".
You're allowed to call out the bad actors in a group without people expecting that you're generalizing the whole group like that. I'm sure people on January 6th did legitimately want to go to the rally and then didn't go into the Capitol because they realized that's a bad thing. That doesn't excuse the people who did "accidentally into a coup" in some bizarre reverse bad apple argument. You can condem the anti semetic protests while not commenting on the anti Zionist ones. I'm sure there are protestors that don't want Jews to all die, but they need to understand and appreciate that there are some who do and are making their fellow Jewish students a bit uncomfortable.
False. Nowhere did I refuse to acknowledge that bigots exist. What I said was that normal people being convinced to dismiss reasonable protests as groups of bigots is more concerning.
Take the Ottawa trucker protest, for example. You were convinced that they were a group of terrorists/racists/misogynists for no other reason than Prime Minister Trudeau told you so. TL User Falling succinctly refuted your false belief by showing that there was basically 1 person in the group that showed up with a confederate flag on the 1st day of the protest before being chased off.
What's worse is that the post he was responding to is where you essentially called this youtuber a Nazi sympathizer by somehow carefully "hiding" all the non-existent swastikas at the protest while he filmed. That guy is just a random Canadian that has been filming events in his cities for many years and had nothing to do with the protestors.
So yeah, I'm more concerned that you, a presumably normal person, will readily label a random innocent youtuber as a nazi sympathizer without any evidence. Simply because you were gullible enough to believe the lies sold to you by a powerful person. It's despicable.
Again you denying something that no one accused you of because you found evidence to support an argument no one is having with you. Its as unplesent as its predictable. You think some bigotry is okay when its conducted by conservatives and think the real problem is the people labeling them that. The only way you can rationalize someone disagreeing with you is if someone who is rich and powerful tells that to them. You can't comprehend thinking for yourself or having your own morals and values that the only way you think people can come up with what they belive in is if someone they hold in authority tells them those things.
I was convinced they were terrorists because their stated goal was economic terrorism by blocking transport routes in order to advance their political aims. Confederate flags are part and parcel of right-wing terrorism, anyone denying that it just so happens in this case that someone went around and told them it looked bad this time doesn't change this fact about them.
I'll label nazi sympathizers that when they sympathize for nazis, by trying to extend them good faith that "Ah jeez its just a flag" or "they took the flag down when asked because other people knew it looked bad." Their terrorism attracted nazies, they have to deal with why what they support attracts nazis.
Hilarious. So the reason the protestors chased off anyone trying to display confederate flags or nazi flags is not because they disagree with that but because they know it's a bad look despite secretly wanting to fly those flags as well. What a great catch-all you've set up for yourself. Now you don't need any evidence that someone is a racist because the lack of evidence is just proof they are a closeted racist. This has been your MO for quite a while, hasn't it? How are you any better than QAnon followers talking about the pedo rings and cannibal cabals?
Again, here's the youtube channel of the guy you accused of being a nazi:
It's called "Ottawa Walks" and it's just a guy that films his city of Ottawa while walking around it. His channel predates the trucker protest that occurred in Ottawa. He was filming it because that's just what he does. Yet because Trudeau told you the truckers were all racists or nazis you convinced yourself that this guy's videos didn't contain confederate flags or swastikas because he was a Nazi sympathizer and wanted to conceal that imagery from his videos to put the truckers in the best light.
Convincing yourself that some random Canadian is a nazi-sympathizer with zero evidence puts you one step away from raiding a pizza parlor to save children from pedos. You're so seething of hatred of those you disagree with that you can't see reality clearly. Your opinion on who is or isn't a bigot is evidently pretty worthless.
I do need evidence to consider someone racist because I'm a free thinking person who can make decisions based off of the information presented to me. I never said they wanted to secretly fly the flags themselves I said that it was against their movement. I can approach the situation with good faith and say "Hey they didn't want those other guys to fly nazi and confederate flags because that wasn't why they were committing economic terrorism." while still positing "Hey isn't it odd that the economic terrorism that they're committing for some reason attracts nazis and racists?" Because thats what people who can use their own critical thinking to decide what they think about a situation do. If you would acept my logic with what I recently have posted with what I said before you would logically be able to deduce that I think it was good and right for them to try and distance themselves from any nazis or racists because that wasn't what their economic terrorism was about. I really don't give a shit about Trudeau and don't know much of anything about him, I don't idolize my politicians as Authority figures that needs to be followed as my only source of values or morals.
If you look at the post you quoted and in good faith read it you will see the text.
You should question why you are accepting as fact someone who is well aware of his surroundings and is trying to portray the terrorists he clearly supports in the best light. Trying to hide the nazi and confederate flags seems like something a reasonable person would expect from such a source.
None of that is me accusing someone of being a nazi and there's no better evidence of how much bad faith you trade in than trying to use this "proof" as a gotcha that I did. Again its cute that you keep trying to tie my belief in people being racist or nazis to a faith in my authority figure. I explained where I get my opinion from the matter but you again can't see a world where people can think for themselves and not just hold faith in anything coming from a person of authority. You don't think evidence or viewpoints you disagree with are valid so you reject any possibility that they could exist in any legitimate framework. Everything cycles back to the same thing over and over and over again with you BJ I'm not just going to gloss over it like you despretly want me to.
On April 24 2024 15:18 Sermokala wrote: Yeah the bigotry isn't the issue it's people pointing out the bigotry that's the issue. You can safely ignore people without power because we don't respect them or what they say but the people we do think have value should know better than call out bad actors.
It fully depends on what bigotry is being pointed out to begin with to be fair.
Over in the UK there were pro-Palestine protests absolutely chock full of anti-Semitism (and plenty without), but the reporting surrounding them that I read/watched was full of absolutely blatant examples of it.
Perhaps I suck at Googling but articles I’ve been looking up about this topic as per the college protests are completely lacking that element. If anyone does have reporting that ticks that box I’d be very much obliged.
Having attended pro-Palestine events over here, yeah I’ve seen stuff I’d consider anti-Semitic. A few people out of hundreds but it was there, and I feel it was a collective failure of the attendees, myself included not to challenge that.
What BJ is trying to do is justify maga rallies by exploiting peoples good faith again. It's the shit trump did when he went "both sides have good people" ignoring that one side was chanting "Jews will not replace us".
Yes being a part of a protest doesn't make you a supporter of everything everyone on that side is supporting but bjs "the real bad people are the important people that say anything about the bad actors" is just more bad faith bullshit from him. Dude doesn't even respect you enough to agnowedge the possibility of bigots existing, just like Trump's "I assume some of them might be good people".
You're allowed to call out the bad actors in a group without people expecting that you're generalizing the whole group like that. I'm sure people on January 6th did legitimately want to go to the rally and then didn't go into the Capitol because they realized that's a bad thing. That doesn't excuse the people who did "accidentally into a coup" in some bizarre reverse bad apple argument. You can condem the anti semetic protests while not commenting on the anti Zionist ones. I'm sure there are protestors that don't want Jews to all die, but they need to understand and appreciate that there are some who do and are making their fellow Jewish students a bit uncomfortable.
False. Nowhere did I refuse to acknowledge that bigots exist. What I said was that normal people being convinced to dismiss reasonable protests as groups of bigots is more concerning.
Take the Ottawa trucker protest, for example. You were convinced that they were a group of terrorists/racists/misogynists for no other reason than Prime Minister Trudeau told you so. TL User Falling succinctly refuted your false belief by showing that there was basically 1 person in the group that showed up with a confederate flag on the 1st day of the protest before being chased off.
What's worse is that the post he was responding to is where you essentially called this youtuber a Nazi sympathizer by somehow carefully "hiding" all the non-existent swastikas at the protest while he filmed. That guy is just a random Canadian that has been filming events in his cities for many years and had nothing to do with the protestors.
So yeah, I'm more concerned that you, a presumably normal person, will readily label a random innocent youtuber as a nazi sympathizer without any evidence. Simply because you were gullible enough to believe the lies sold to you by a powerful person. It's despicable.
Again you denying something that no one accused you of because you found evidence to support an argument no one is having with you. Its as unplesent as its predictable. You think some bigotry is okay when its conducted by conservatives and think the real problem is the people labeling them that. The only way you can rationalize someone disagreeing with you is if someone who is rich and powerful tells that to them. You can't comprehend thinking for yourself or having your own morals and values that the only way you think people can come up with what they belive in is if someone they hold in authority tells them those things.
I was convinced they were terrorists because their stated goal was economic terrorism by blocking transport routes in order to advance their political aims. Confederate flags are part and parcel of right-wing terrorism, anyone denying that it just so happens in this case that someone went around and told them it looked bad this time doesn't change this fact about them.
I'll label nazi sympathizers that when they sympathize for nazis, by trying to extend them good faith that "Ah jeez its just a flag" or "they took the flag down when asked because other people knew it looked bad." Their terrorism attracted nazies, they have to deal with why what they support attracts nazis.
Hilarious. So the reason the protestors chased off anyone trying to display confederate flags or nazi flags is not because they disagree with that but because they know it's a bad look despite secretly wanting to fly those flags as well. What a great catch-all you've set up for yourself. Now you don't need any evidence that someone is a racist because the lack of evidence is just proof they are a closeted racist. This has been your MO for quite a while, hasn't it? How are you any better than QAnon followers talking about the pedo rings and cannibal cabals?
Again, here's the youtube channel of the guy you accused of being a nazi:
It's called "Ottawa Walks" and it's just a guy that films his city of Ottawa while walking around it. His channel predates the trucker protest that occurred in Ottawa. He was filming it because that's just what he does. Yet because Trudeau told you the truckers were all racists or nazis you convinced yourself that this guy's videos didn't contain confederate flags or swastikas because he was a Nazi sympathizer and wanted to conceal that imagery from his videos to put the truckers in the best light.
Convincing yourself that some random Canadian is a nazi-sympathizer with zero evidence puts you one step away from raiding a pizza parlor to save children from pedos. You're so seething of hatred of those you disagree with that you can't see reality clearly. Your opinion on who is or isn't a bigot is evidently pretty worthless.
I do need evidence to consider someone racist because I'm a free thinking person who can make decisions based off of the information presented to me. I never said they wanted to secretly fly the flags themselves I said that it was against their movement. I can approach the situation with good faith and say "Hey they didn't want those other guys to fly nazi and confederate flags because that wasn't why they were committing economic terrorism." while still positing "Hey isn't it odd that the economic terrorism that they're committing for some reason attracts nazis and racists?" Because thats what people who can use their own critical thinking to decide what they think about a situation do. If you would acept my logic with what I recently have posted with what I said before you would logically be able to deduce that I think it was good and right for them to try and distance themselves from any nazis or racists because that wasn't what their economic terrorism was about. I really don't give a shit about Trudeau and don't know much of anything about him, I don't idolize my politicians as Authority figures that needs to be followed as my only source of values or morals.
If you look at the post you quoted and in good faith read it you will see the text.
You should question why you are accepting as fact someone who is well aware of his surroundings and is trying to portray the terrorists he clearly supports in the best light. Trying to hide the nazi and confederate flags seems like something a reasonable person would expect from such a source.
None of that is me accusing someone of being a nazi and there's no better evidence of how much bad faith you trade in than trying to use this "proof" as a gotcha that I did. Again its cute that you keep trying to tie my belief in people being racist or nazis to a faith in my authority figure. I explained where I get my opinion from the matter but you again can't see a world where people can think for themselves and not just hold faith in anything coming from a person of authority. You don't think evidence or viewpoints you disagree with are valid so you reject any possibility that they could exist in any legitimate framework. Everything cycles back to the same thing over and over and over again with you BJ I'm not just going to gloss over it like you despretly want me to.
You said he was intentionally hiding the nazi flags to paint the protestors in the best light because he supports them. It’s extremely valid to say you’re calling him a nazi sympathizer.
You can’t say you need evidence before calling someone a racist because you’re a “free thinking person” while simultaneously flinging wild accusations at some random Canadian filming his walks of his city. It’s despicable.
Personally I’d rather talk about issues with some substance but unfortunately 99% of your posts on these topics lack any substance and are just you calling people you disagree with racists/misogynists or any other -ist. So the least I could do was shed some light on your standard of proof for making such accusations. Apparently not filming nazi flags that only exist in your mind is sufficient.
Howard Stern fanboying over Joe Biden is pretty cool to watch. This is a solid interview with really interesting stories. All of Biden's presidential accomplishments are already enough to earn him reelection, but this discussion also does a great job of highlighting a compassionate, thoughtful, and wise family man. He's a much better president and a much better person than Donald Trump, and I hope my memory is as good as Biden's when I'm in my eighties.
On April 24 2024 15:18 Sermokala wrote: Yeah the bigotry isn't the issue it's people pointing out the bigotry that's the issue. You can safely ignore people without power because we don't respect them or what they say but the people we do think have value should know better than call out bad actors.
It fully depends on what bigotry is being pointed out to begin with to be fair.
Over in the UK there were pro-Palestine protests absolutely chock full of anti-Semitism (and plenty without), but the reporting surrounding them that I read/watched was full of absolutely blatant examples of it.
Perhaps I suck at Googling but articles I’ve been looking up about this topic as per the college protests are completely lacking that element. If anyone does have reporting that ticks that box I’d be very much obliged.
Having attended pro-Palestine events over here, yeah I’ve seen stuff I’d consider anti-Semitic. A few people out of hundreds but it was there, and I feel it was a collective failure of the attendees, myself included not to challenge that.
What BJ is trying to do is justify maga rallies by exploiting peoples good faith again. It's the shit trump did when he went "both sides have good people" ignoring that one side was chanting "Jews will not replace us".
Yes being a part of a protest doesn't make you a supporter of everything everyone on that side is supporting but bjs "the real bad people are the important people that say anything about the bad actors" is just more bad faith bullshit from him. Dude doesn't even respect you enough to agnowedge the possibility of bigots existing, just like Trump's "I assume some of them might be good people".
You're allowed to call out the bad actors in a group without people expecting that you're generalizing the whole group like that. I'm sure people on January 6th did legitimately want to go to the rally and then didn't go into the Capitol because they realized that's a bad thing. That doesn't excuse the people who did "accidentally into a coup" in some bizarre reverse bad apple argument. You can condem the anti semetic protests while not commenting on the anti Zionist ones. I'm sure there are protestors that don't want Jews to all die, but they need to understand and appreciate that there are some who do and are making their fellow Jewish students a bit uncomfortable.
False. Nowhere did I refuse to acknowledge that bigots exist. What I said was that normal people being convinced to dismiss reasonable protests as groups of bigots is more concerning.
Take the Ottawa trucker protest, for example. You were convinced that they were a group of terrorists/racists/misogynists for no other reason than Prime Minister Trudeau told you so. TL User Falling succinctly refuted your false belief by showing that there was basically 1 person in the group that showed up with a confederate flag on the 1st day of the protest before being chased off.
What's worse is that the post he was responding to is where you essentially called this youtuber a Nazi sympathizer by somehow carefully "hiding" all the non-existent swastikas at the protest while he filmed. That guy is just a random Canadian that has been filming events in his cities for many years and had nothing to do with the protestors.
So yeah, I'm more concerned that you, a presumably normal person, will readily label a random innocent youtuber as a nazi sympathizer without any evidence. Simply because you were gullible enough to believe the lies sold to you by a powerful person. It's despicable.
Again you denying something that no one accused you of because you found evidence to support an argument no one is having with you. Its as unplesent as its predictable. You think some bigotry is okay when its conducted by conservatives and think the real problem is the people labeling them that. The only way you can rationalize someone disagreeing with you is if someone who is rich and powerful tells that to them. You can't comprehend thinking for yourself or having your own morals and values that the only way you think people can come up with what they belive in is if someone they hold in authority tells them those things.
I was convinced they were terrorists because their stated goal was economic terrorism by blocking transport routes in order to advance their political aims. Confederate flags are part and parcel of right-wing terrorism, anyone denying that it just so happens in this case that someone went around and told them it looked bad this time doesn't change this fact about them.
I'll label nazi sympathizers that when they sympathize for nazis, by trying to extend them good faith that "Ah jeez its just a flag" or "they took the flag down when asked because other people knew it looked bad." Their terrorism attracted nazies, they have to deal with why what they support attracts nazis.
Hilarious. So the reason the protestors chased off anyone trying to display confederate flags or nazi flags is not because they disagree with that but because they know it's a bad look despite secretly wanting to fly those flags as well. What a great catch-all you've set up for yourself. Now you don't need any evidence that someone is a racist because the lack of evidence is just proof they are a closeted racist. This has been your MO for quite a while, hasn't it? How are you any better than QAnon followers talking about the pedo rings and cannibal cabals?
Again, here's the youtube channel of the guy you accused of being a nazi:
It's called "Ottawa Walks" and it's just a guy that films his city of Ottawa while walking around it. His channel predates the trucker protest that occurred in Ottawa. He was filming it because that's just what he does. Yet because Trudeau told you the truckers were all racists or nazis you convinced yourself that this guy's videos didn't contain confederate flags or swastikas because he was a Nazi sympathizer and wanted to conceal that imagery from his videos to put the truckers in the best light.
Convincing yourself that some random Canadian is a nazi-sympathizer with zero evidence puts you one step away from raiding a pizza parlor to save children from pedos. You're so seething of hatred of those you disagree with that you can't see reality clearly. Your opinion on who is or isn't a bigot is evidently pretty worthless.
I do need evidence to consider someone racist because I'm a free thinking person who can make decisions based off of the information presented to me. I never said they wanted to secretly fly the flags themselves I said that it was against their movement. I can approach the situation with good faith and say "Hey they didn't want those other guys to fly nazi and confederate flags because that wasn't why they were committing economic terrorism." while still positing "Hey isn't it odd that the economic terrorism that they're committing for some reason attracts nazis and racists?" Because thats what people who can use their own critical thinking to decide what they think about a situation do. If you would acept my logic with what I recently have posted with what I said before you would logically be able to deduce that I think it was good and right for them to try and distance themselves from any nazis or racists because that wasn't what their economic terrorism was about. I really don't give a shit about Trudeau and don't know much of anything about him, I don't idolize my politicians as Authority figures that needs to be followed as my only source of values or morals.
If you look at the post you quoted and in good faith read it you will see the text.
You should question why you are accepting as fact someone who is well aware of his surroundings and is trying to portray the terrorists he clearly supports in the best light. Trying to hide the nazi and confederate flags seems like something a reasonable person would expect from such a source.
None of that is me accusing someone of being a nazi and there's no better evidence of how much bad faith you trade in than trying to use this "proof" as a gotcha that I did. Again its cute that you keep trying to tie my belief in people being racist or nazis to a faith in my authority figure. I explained where I get my opinion from the matter but you again can't see a world where people can think for themselves and not just hold faith in anything coming from a person of authority. You don't think evidence or viewpoints you disagree with are valid so you reject any possibility that they could exist in any legitimate framework. Everything cycles back to the same thing over and over and over again with you BJ I'm not just going to gloss over it like you despretly want me to.
You said he was intentionally hiding the nazi flags to paint the protestors in the best light because he supports them. It’s extremely valid to say you’re calling him a nazi sympathizer.
You can’t say you need evidence before calling someone a racist because you’re a “free thinking person” while simultaneously flinging wild accusations at some random Canadian filming his walks of his city. It’s despicable.
Personally I’d rather talk about issues with some substance but unfortunately 99% of your posts on these topics lack any substance and are just you calling people you disagree with racists/misogynists or any other -ist. So the least I could do was shed some light on your standard of proof for making such accusations. Apparently not filming nazi flags that only exist in your mind is sufficient.
Missed this really but its again the same tired shit from you. No I said that he would intentionally hide the nazi flags to paint the protestors in the best light because he supports them, as in he supports the protestors. The bad faith argument you're trying to make is this leap where you think I'm accusing the video guy as someone who is trying to paint the protestors in the best light because the video person thinks they're nazis and thats a good thing. If you're not thinking things through just think for a second why someone wouldn't want nazi or confederate flags on a video in their youtube. You don't make arguments you continuously make statements without useing any sort of logic or reason in them.
I'm calling myself a free thinking person to differentiate myself with you because you obsess over authority so much that you can't imagine someone not defaulting to what an authority figure tells them. You understanding why thats a bad thing to accept and ignoring the point I'm making is vintage BJ shit. You're constantly trying to reframe the argument boiling down everything you're responding to so you can fit square pegs into round holes that you think makes you look like the smart person. Your "shedding light" is thinly veiled gotchas that you can't defend and refuse to defend because playing defence isn't smart when you've got a bad hand. This insistent refusal that anyone could have any motivation behind what they're saying at all that isn't your first reaction says a lot more about you than what you're saying about me. This whole argument is you making an argument and "nu uh I know exactly what you were thinking when you posted that" over and over again. Its really sad that you think this is respectful of the time and effort of anyone around you.
In other news Its wild guys that a Trump VP shortlister thought the hill to die on was shooting a puppy. Its one thing to make it a story in your book that you "had to" shoot a puppy because you didn't understand the type of dog you got and couldn't train it but its another to double down on it like its a good story to keep talking about. I get its south dakota governor level but you need to have some sort of reognition that killing dogs doesn't go down well with anyone.
On May 04 2024 07:03 Sermokala wrote: In other news Its wild guys that a Trump VP shortlister thought the hill to die on was shooting a puppy. Its one thing to make it a story in your book that you "had to" shoot a puppy because you didn't understand the type of dog you got and couldn't train it but its another to double down on it like its a good story to keep talking about. I get its south dakota governor level but you need to have some sort of reognition that killing dogs doesn't go down well with anyone.
Yeah, the "pro-life" Kristi Noem bragging about murdering her own dog because she couldn't be bothered to train her pet properly. Nothing like a Vice President Puppy Killer to complement a President Rapist, right?
EPT
