| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Jealous
10229 Posts
My interpretation of Xxio's post is the same as Sent.'s, more or less. Stop supporting the government because of its failures, including its failure to maintain order. Print your own gun for self-defense. Makes a lot of sense to me. Feels to me that Mohdoo was just looking for an excuse to put Xxio on blast, and a bunch of like-minded posters pounced on the opportuntiy as well. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21950 Posts
On May 30 2020 00:55 Jealous wrote: GH isn't a mod and definitely not a mod that has previously stated he would ban anyone arguing with him on the topic of wishing violence upon others. tl.netGreenHorizons has been calling for a violent upheaval for literally years and seems incredibly concerned that people acknowledge this fact, "You seee guys? You see? I told you guys! I've been saying it for years! I'm finally right! Woohoo!" but hey I guess that's okay, right? My interpretation of Xxio's post is the same as Sent.'s, more or less. Stop supporting the government because of its failures, including its failure to maintain order. Print your own gun for self-defense. Makes a lot of sense to me. Feels to me that Mohdoo was just looking for an excuse to put Xxio on blast, and a bunch of like-minded posters pounced on the opportuntiy as well. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On May 30 2020 00:55 Jealous wrote: GreenHorizons has been calling for a violent upheaval for literally years and seems incredibly concerned that people acknowledge this fact, "You seee guys? You see? I told you guys! I've been saying it for years! I'm finally right! Woohoo!" but hey I guess that's okay, right? My interpretation of Xxio's post is the same as Sent.'s, more or less. Stop supporting the government because of its failures, including its failure to maintain order. Print your own gun for self-defense. Makes a lot of sense to me. Feels to me that Mohdoo was just looking for an excuse to put Xxio on blast, and a bunch of like-minded posters pounced on the opportuntiy as well. Xxio's comments were congratulating trump on his incitement of force against looters and got called out on that. Whether warranted or not. It came from a public official using fear and race baiting. GH just screams until he passes out, wakes up, and starts again. Most posters who have some kind of sense ignored it and he was called out repeatedly for those calls to violence. The two can be compared, but it's one person's opinion vs another's opinion on a statement by a public official. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 29 2020 23:52 brian wrote: i think even the most generous interpretation of the post, from the moderator who did threaten bans for supporting violence, is such that he supports trumps promise of violence. I’d appreciate some insight into what other strong response from Trump he is lauding if not the promise to shoot people. from xxio, of course, i don’t mean to have you own that. Is there an even more generous interpretation? i’m excited to see you having been posting in the main thread again too. He’ll have to defend his standard in treating violence against journalists, to threats of violence against non-peaceful rioters. I can’t comment. He should have a chance to argue that it’s only a verbal threat, sufficient to dissuade the loss of livelihoods and property. Or that the libertarian “violence against property” critique. Or it’ll never come to delivering on the threat, though preparations are necessary to make it a real threat. That should be questioned and argued in the thread, and I say I’d like to read his perspective on it. God knows it’s just a dogpile right now. I wouldn’t get so excited seeing a return to posting given this bandwagon ban-encouragement. I’ll return just to get this bloodthirsty bunch saying defense of Trump is advocacy for violence and be right back to subjectively banned. Y’all aren’t showing your best side here. Debate is over, Trump’s politics aren’t up for political debate ... in a debating thread Lmao On May 29 2020 23:57 Nebuchad wrote: I'm not sure why it's supposed to be an unfair interpretation anyway. Support for state violence against people who contest the societal order is a mainstream conservative position. At some point, any belief in a police force empowered to arrest citizens is something of a support for state-sanctioned violence, if you want to go all the way into the theory of it. I suggest to you more citizens than most people in this forum would expect actually want their home and business defended from arson by armed cops willing to forcibly prevent the act. On May 30 2020 00:00 ChristianS wrote: The “strong response” of Trump’s that he likes is threatening to shoot looters. He explicitly acknowledges that Trump might just be *saying* that, rather than actually intending to shoot looters, but he hopes that he actually means it and intends to shoot looters. He follows up that he sincerely hopes the looting and rioting stops without violence, but at no point backs down on wanting looters to be shot. I don’t see the room for interpretation. Xxio thinks looters should be shot. If you think that’s morally equivalent to supporting riots or arson, we can argue that in the other thread if you want. I have covered some main avenues. Let me just say that posters around these parts lack imagination for possible interpretations of positions due to the ideological conformity in discussions here and elsewhere. And yes, I think the same arguments apply to people supporting and defending the riots/arson/looting as an avenue to change the Minneapolis police department (and perhaps more) and they should ask to be banned in the same post they suggest Xxio be banned. As it goes, TeamLiquid should not support felony arson or felony larceny if we’re being uncharitable to every poster the same way. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12318 Posts
On May 30 2020 01:13 Danglars wrote: At some point, any belief in a police force empowered to arrest citizens is something of a support for state-sanctioned violence, if you want to go all the way into the theory of it. I suggest to you more citizens than most people in this forum would expect actually want their home and business defended from arson by armed cops willing to forcibly prevent the act. Yes, I agree. Which is why I don't see how it's an unfair interpretation. I would expect him to react the way he did, I would be surprised if he hadn't. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
Better mods than Xxio have made it very clear they never intend to mod the politics thread they participate in. Xxio casually floated that very idea the moment they entered the thread, and has not since changed their stance on this. Absolutely unacceptable. | ||
|
brian
United States9629 Posts
hopes not, i don’t think either of us will be seeing that added perspective you mentioned. personally i won’t be calling for a ban, but in his own words it is ban worthy. i think that’s the larger complaint, but i’ll agree that some would consider it ban worthy regardless. You're overthinking it, but post more in the website feedback section if you'd like. If someone says they want to assassinate bernie, assassinate trump, whatever, I'll ban them. If they say they want to shoot, or someone should shoot, antifa or nazis generally speaking I'll ban them. As a pre-emptive, I don't care about the thesis on morality some of you are ready to post. tl.net Trump is threatening to have someone start shooting, and Xxio ‘hopes that’s not hot air.’ There is precious little daylight between that and ‘i hope looters get shot.’ just enough for (extremely weak) plausible deniability, I’d say  and i think he should have to answer to that given he’s the one threatening bans for it. but i think i hear you, for the most part. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 30 2020 01:36 brian wrote: eh, i’ll agree with everything until your last edit. in this instance, defense of trump is at a minimum condoning violence, if not advocacy. I’d say Xxio’s post gets to advocacy. he expressly hopes that the promise of violence is not hot air. it would be up to him to argue that it is a verbal threat, but considering he expressly hopes not, i don’t think either of us will be seeing that added perspective you mentioned. personally i won’t be calling for a ban, but in his own words it is ban worthy. i think that’s the larger complaint, but i’ll agree that some would consider it ban worthy regardless. tl.net Trump is threatening to have someone start shooting, and Xxio ‘hopes that’s not hot air.’ There is precious little daylight between that and ‘i hope looters get shot.’ just enough for (extremely weak) plausible deniability, I’d say and i think he should have to answer to that given he’s the one threatening bans for it. but i think i hear you, for the most part. I’m old enough to remember the LA riots. The police stood down, and a lot of predominantly Korean-owned businesses started round the clock armed guards on rooftops. Literally, threatening violence to stop looting and arson. That whole episode was fascinating, and lo and behold, the mere appearance of long rifles and shotguns and masked Koreans patrolling with them meant their businesses were saved. Now they’re celebrated as “roof Koreans” and Imgur had a couple salutary long posts on the most recent anniversary. Roof Koreans, probably banned for discussion on TeamLiquid if we’re going this direction on any violence in response to dangerous rioting and arson. The second amendment implications are involved too, since that’s the rest of the post. The American constitution and some state law guarantees your access to violence to protect yourself, property, and family. Can you really debate the extent that you may take your own guns for defense of home, if all threats of reactive violence are banned? I haven’t developed a standard that also fits Xxio’s antifa violence actions, so to the extent that people are mad at the appearance of a double standard, I understand. I wasn’t too happy about people suggesting violence against journalists was justified back in the day, but I was happy to just register the shock and move on. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9244 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On May 30 2020 02:09 Danglars wrote: I’m old enough to remember the LA riots. The police stood down, and a lot of predominantly Korean-owned businesses started round the clock armed guards on rooftops. Literally, threatening violence to stop looting and arson. That whole episode was fascinating, and lo and behold, the mere appearance of long rifles and shotguns and masked Koreans patrolling with them meant their businesses were saved. Now they’re celebrated as “roof Koreans” and Imgur had a couple salutary long posts on the most recent anniversary. Roof Koreans, probably banned for discussion on TeamLiquid if we’re going this direction on any violence in response to dangerous rioting and arson. The second amendment implications are involved too, since that’s the rest of the post. The American constitution and some state law guarantees your access to violence to protect yourself, property, and family. Can you really debate the extent that you may take your own guns for defense of home, if all threats of reactive violence are banned? I haven’t developed a standard that also fits Xxio’s antifa violence actions, so to the extent that people are mad at the appearance of a double standard, I understand. I wasn’t too happy about people suggesting violence against journalists was justified back in the day, but I was happy to just register the shock and move on. I’m not going to just move on especially when it’s a mod. | ||
|
brian
United States9629 Posts
On May 30 2020 02:38 Sent. wrote: To me it looks like someone coming up with their own interpretation of Trump's statement, deciding it has to be what Xxio's thought and then misinterpreting Xxio's statement because of that. this is precisely the level of plausible deniability i was alluding to. except we don’t need to wonder what xxio thought, he expressly said he hopes it is not hot air. the deniability for me is in that perhaps there is a different response he is referring to, because for now i’m assuming it’s ‘shoot looters,’ because it’s the only response i’ve seen so far. unfortunately xxio is only marginally better at responding to any question or criticism as Nettles, so we’ll just continue speculating. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 30 2020 02:38 Sent. wrote: To me it looks like someone coming up with their own interpretation of Trump's statement, deciding it has to be what Xxio's thought and then misinterpreting Xxio's statement because of that. I'm curious as to how many other interpretations one can get from Trump announcing sending in the National Guard and calling black people "thugs", adding that "looting is followed by shooting". It's literally the far-right tactic of dehumanizing minorities in action. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23456 Posts
Could you provide an example? I'm trying to be a better poster. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On May 30 2020 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote: Could you provide an example? I'm trying to be a better poster. In your past about wanting to start revolution and bringing it up at every opportunity. The statement wasn't meant to be taken literally. As others have stated, even without provocation or the necessary news to bring it up, you brought it up in the middle of discussions. It's the same with you're new angle of finding ways to blame Dems for everything or bringing capitalism into topics that they don't really belong. Fishing for an excuse to bring up your topic du jour is, for me personally, tiring. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23456 Posts
On May 30 2020 03:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: In your past about wanting to start revolution and bringing it up at every opportunity. The statement wasn't meant to be taken literally. As others have stated, even without provocation or the necessary news to bring it up, you brought it up in the middle of discussions. It's the same with you're new angle of finding ways to blame Dems for everything or bringing capitalism into topics that they don't really belong. Fishing for an excuse to bring up your topic du jour is, for me personally, tiring. Oh just that whining again, got it. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
Are you saying I'm whining or...because if so, I have time today sir. We can do this dance. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3245 Posts
On May 30 2020 01:13 Danglars wrote: + Show Spoiler + On May 29 2020 23:52 brian wrote: i think even the most generous interpretation of the post, from the moderator who did threaten bans for supporting violence, is such that he supports trumps promise of violence. I’d appreciate some insight into what other strong response from Trump he is lauding if not the promise to shoot people. from xxio, of course, i don’t mean to have you own that. Is there an even more generous interpretation? i’m excited to see you having been posting in the main thread again too. He’ll have to defend his standard in treating violence against journalists, to threats of violence against non-peaceful rioters. I can’t comment. He should have a chance to argue that it’s only a verbal threat, sufficient to dissuade the loss of livelihoods and property. Or that the libertarian “violence against property” critique. Or it’ll never come to delivering on the threat, though preparations are necessary to make it a real threat. That should be questioned and argued in the thread, and I say I’d like to read his perspective on it. God knows it’s just a dogpile right now. I wouldn’t get so excited seeing a return to posting given this bandwagon ban-encouragement. I’ll return just to get this bloodthirsty bunch saying defense of Trump is advocacy for violence and be right back to subjectively banned. Y’all aren’t showing your best side here. Debate is over, Trump’s politics aren’t up for political debate ... in a debating thread Lmao On May 29 2020 23:57 Nebuchad wrote: I'm not sure why it's supposed to be an unfair interpretation anyway. Support for state violence against people who contest the societal order is a mainstream conservative position. At some point, any belief in a police force empowered to arrest citizens is something of a support for state-sanctioned violence, if you want to go all the way into the theory of it. I suggest to you more citizens than most people in this forum would expect actually want their home and business defended from arson by armed cops willing to forcibly prevent the act. I have covered some main avenues. Let me just say that posters around these parts lack imagination for possible interpretations of positions due to the ideological conformity in discussions here and elsewhere. And yes, I think the same arguments apply to people supporting and defending the riots/arson/looting as an avenue to change the Minneapolis police department (and perhaps more) and they should ask to be banned in the same post they suggest Xxio be banned. As it goes, TeamLiquid should not support felony arson or felony larceny if we’re being uncharitable to every poster the same way. Look, I’m all for interpretive charity and think the thread would benefit a lot from everyone doing more of it. And lest you include me in your “bandwagon ban” complaint, I haven’t called for moderation against Xxio and don’t intend to. But historical context of the “when the looting starts the shooting starts” quote aside, Xxio was crystal clear that he thinks an appropriate police action would be to start shooting protesters to stop looting. At least you could argue Trump is just trying to talk tough; Xxio specifically acknowledged it might “just be hot air” but hopes it isn’t. You can support the position that police should shoot protesters to stop looting or not, as you choose, but Xxio isn’t being misinterpreted. If that isn’t what he meant to say, he’s free to clarify. If you think shooting protesters is morally equivalent to destruction of property, I disagree, but I think it’s a discussion for the other thread, not this one. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43203 Posts
What may appear unforgivably damning from one angle (how could they treat a Target that way!) may appear more reasonable when properly contextualized. And while it may still be far from commendable the statement (that the people are the worst of society and should be shot) may no longer seem appropriate. | ||
| ||
|
|
LAN Event
ByuN vs Zoun
TBD vs TriGGeR
Clem vs TBD
IPSL
JDConan vs WIZARD
WolFix vs Cross
BSL 21
spx vs rasowy
HBO vs KameZerg
Cross vs Razz
dxtr13 vs ZZZero
OSC
OSC
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
WardiTV Korean Royale
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Classic vs Solar
herO vs Cure
Reynor vs GuMiho
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
