US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 293

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On May 30 2020 01:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

GH just screams.

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.

On May 30 2020 01:13 Danglars wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

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.