|
On May 30 2020 03:52 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2020 01:13 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 29 2020 23:52 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2020 23:41 Danglars wrote:Talk about taking the worst possible interpretation of a post, and trying to get action against him. Never change, USPol. Ban Mohdoo and Darkplasmaball for supporting riots and arson. Suddenly they’ll find the nuance in posts coming out in favor of some outcome or approach. His followup On May 29 2020 22:51 Xxio wrote:Catching up on news. 170 buildings damaged or looted. Incredible what media narrative can create. On May 29 2020 22:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2020 22:42 Xxio wrote:
Glad to see a strong response from Trump. It's probably hot air, but hopefully not. Bad days when the worst of society is allowed to freely act on their impulses. Time to stop paying taxes and start 3D printing guns if that's the case. Wasn't his response to threaten to shoot people? I mean, that's certainly a strong response, but not one of a leader. "Bad days when the worst of society is allowed to freely act on their impulses." You mean the cop who killed an innocent man? I don't think Trump spoke out against him or law enforcement or racism, in general. For what it's worth I sincerely hope there will be no violence and the rioting and looting stops. I think Trump’s tweet was obviously over the top and stupid, so I won’t defend it, but even more idiotic is to say supporting his political approach is banned in a politics thread. 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:On May 29 2020 23:41 Danglars wrote:Talk about taking the worst possible interpretation of a post, and trying to get action against him. Never change, USPol. Ban Mohdoo and Darkplasmaball for supporting riots and arson. Suddenly they’ll find the nuance in posts coming out in favor of some outcome or approach. His followup On May 29 2020 22:51 Xxio wrote:Catching up on news. 170 buildings damaged or looted. Incredible what media narrative can create. On May 29 2020 22:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2020 22:42 Xxio wrote:
Glad to see a strong response from Trump. It's probably hot air, but hopefully not. Bad days when the worst of society is allowed to freely act on their impulses. Time to stop paying taxes and start 3D printing guns if that's the case. Wasn't his response to threaten to shoot people? I mean, that's certainly a strong response, but not one of a leader. "Bad days when the worst of society is allowed to freely act on their impulses." You mean the cop who killed an innocent man? I don't think Trump spoke out against him or law enforcement or racism, in general. For what it's worth I sincerely hope there will be no violence and the rioting and looting stops. I think Trump’s tweet was obviously over the top and stupid, so I won’t defend it, but even more idiotic is to say supporting his political approach is banned in a politics thread. 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. 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.
Where does he say that he supports shooting protesters? He's supporting using state-sanctioned violence against looters, and in that context it doesn't matter whether they're protesters or not because when they're looting, they're not protesting (unless you believe stealing private property can be a form of protesting, but then there's no reason to assume Xxio holds that opinion).
|
United States41985 Posts
On May 30 2020 04:10 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Destruction of property is the #1 reaction to any kind of protest when the ones protesting are not being heard, and you have years of history for that.
To add onto this, destruction (or seizure) of property is the simplest and most direct rejection of inequality rooted in capitalism.
“You control the seas and are levying import duties on tea, I think that’s bullshit and so I’m going to take all your tea and throw it in the harbour.”
“You own the land but we work it and our rents paid for your big manor house so we’re going to burn that shit down.”
When inequality is manifested through ownership of property the protesting of inequality is going to result in the destruction of property. That said, any destruction of locally owned stores is obviously not ideal, it’s the Amazon warehouses that should be getting looted.
|
United States41985 Posts
On May 30 2020 04:36 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2020 03:52 ChristianS wrote:On May 30 2020 01:13 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 29 2020 23:52 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2020 23:41 Danglars wrote:Talk about taking the worst possible interpretation of a post, and trying to get action against him. Never change, USPol. Ban Mohdoo and Darkplasmaball for supporting riots and arson. Suddenly they’ll find the nuance in posts coming out in favor of some outcome or approach. His followup On May 29 2020 22:51 Xxio wrote:Catching up on news. 170 buildings damaged or looted. Incredible what media narrative can create. On May 29 2020 22:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2020 22:42 Xxio wrote:
Glad to see a strong response from Trump. It's probably hot air, but hopefully not. Bad days when the worst of society is allowed to freely act on their impulses. Time to stop paying taxes and start 3D printing guns if that's the case. Wasn't his response to threaten to shoot people? I mean, that's certainly a strong response, but not one of a leader. "Bad days when the worst of society is allowed to freely act on their impulses." You mean the cop who killed an innocent man? I don't think Trump spoke out against him or law enforcement or racism, in general. For what it's worth I sincerely hope there will be no violence and the rioting and looting stops. I think Trump’s tweet was obviously over the top and stupid, so I won’t defend it, but even more idiotic is to say supporting his political approach is banned in a politics thread. 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:On May 29 2020 23:41 Danglars wrote:Talk about taking the worst possible interpretation of a post, and trying to get action against him. Never change, USPol. Ban Mohdoo and Darkplasmaball for supporting riots and arson. Suddenly they’ll find the nuance in posts coming out in favor of some outcome or approach. His followup On May 29 2020 22:51 Xxio wrote:Catching up on news. 170 buildings damaged or looted. Incredible what media narrative can create. On May 29 2020 22:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2020 22:42 Xxio wrote:
Glad to see a strong response from Trump. It's probably hot air, but hopefully not. Bad days when the worst of society is allowed to freely act on their impulses. Time to stop paying taxes and start 3D printing guns if that's the case. Wasn't his response to threaten to shoot people? I mean, that's certainly a strong response, but not one of a leader. "Bad days when the worst of society is allowed to freely act on their impulses." You mean the cop who killed an innocent man? I don't think Trump spoke out against him or law enforcement or racism, in general. For what it's worth I sincerely hope there will be no violence and the rioting and looting stops. I think Trump’s tweet was obviously over the top and stupid, so I won’t defend it, but even more idiotic is to say supporting his political approach is banned in a politics thread. 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. 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. Where does he say that he supports shooting protesters? He's supporting using state-sanctioned violence against looters, and in that context it doesn't matter whether they're protesters or not because when they're looting, they're not protesting (unless you believe stealing private property can be a form of protesting, but then there's no reason to assume Xxio holds that opinion).
Nobody is arguing that Xxio thinks peaceful protestors should be shot and so arguing that he doesn’t want that is missing the point somewhat. Xxio thinks that citizens engaged in looting should be shot by the army if they do not immediately stop. This is a problem because even though looting is against the law we, as a society, prefer not to have the military occupy our streets and summarily execute any lawbreakers.
|
On May 30 2020 04:36 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2020 03:52 ChristianS wrote:On May 30 2020 01:13 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 29 2020 23:52 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2020 23:41 Danglars wrote:Talk about taking the worst possible interpretation of a post, and trying to get action against him. Never change, USPol. Ban Mohdoo and Darkplasmaball for supporting riots and arson. Suddenly they’ll find the nuance in posts coming out in favor of some outcome or approach. His followup On May 29 2020 22:51 Xxio wrote:Catching up on news. 170 buildings damaged or looted. Incredible what media narrative can create. On May 29 2020 22:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2020 22:42 Xxio wrote:
Glad to see a strong response from Trump. It's probably hot air, but hopefully not. Bad days when the worst of society is allowed to freely act on their impulses. Time to stop paying taxes and start 3D printing guns if that's the case. Wasn't his response to threaten to shoot people? I mean, that's certainly a strong response, but not one of a leader. "Bad days when the worst of society is allowed to freely act on their impulses." You mean the cop who killed an innocent man? I don't think Trump spoke out against him or law enforcement or racism, in general. For what it's worth I sincerely hope there will be no violence and the rioting and looting stops. I think Trump’s tweet was obviously over the top and stupid, so I won’t defend it, but even more idiotic is to say supporting his political approach is banned in a politics thread. 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:On May 29 2020 23:41 Danglars wrote:Talk about taking the worst possible interpretation of a post, and trying to get action against him. Never change, USPol. Ban Mohdoo and Darkplasmaball for supporting riots and arson. Suddenly they’ll find the nuance in posts coming out in favor of some outcome or approach. His followup On May 29 2020 22:51 Xxio wrote:Catching up on news. 170 buildings damaged or looted. Incredible what media narrative can create. On May 29 2020 22:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2020 22:42 Xxio wrote:
Glad to see a strong response from Trump. It's probably hot air, but hopefully not. Bad days when the worst of society is allowed to freely act on their impulses. Time to stop paying taxes and start 3D printing guns if that's the case. Wasn't his response to threaten to shoot people? I mean, that's certainly a strong response, but not one of a leader. "Bad days when the worst of society is allowed to freely act on their impulses." You mean the cop who killed an innocent man? I don't think Trump spoke out against him or law enforcement or racism, in general. For what it's worth I sincerely hope there will be no violence and the rioting and looting stops. I think Trump’s tweet was obviously over the top and stupid, so I won’t defend it, but even more idiotic is to say supporting his political approach is banned in a politics thread. 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. 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. Where does he say that he supports shooting protesters? He's supporting using state-sanctioned violence against looters, and in that context it doesn't matter whether they're protesters or not because when they're looting, they're not protesting (unless you believe stealing private property can be a form of protesting, but then there's no reason to assume Xxio holds that opinion).
I will grant, on a principle of charitable interpretation, that it’s entirely possible Xxio only believes people who are in the process of breaking into businesses and stealing at the time they are apprehended should be shot. Technically we could push it and say he only thinks shooting should happen, not necessarily *at people* (e.g. warning shots), but I think even with charitable interpretation that strains belief.
That still means, in the context of mass protests in which rioting and looting is happening, he thinks the appropriate response is for police and/or military to open fire on people they believe are looting. Given that the looting is happening in the context of police response to protests I don’t think “shooting protesters” was inaccurate, but perhaps “shooting looters” would have been clearer.
|
On May 30 2020 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2020 03:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 30 2020 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2020 01:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. GH just screams. 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. Oh just that whining again, got it. I thought you said you was trying to be a better poster? But apparently not it appears.
|
On May 30 2020 05:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2020 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2020 03:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 30 2020 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2020 01:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. GH just screams. 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. Oh just that whining again, got it. I thought you said you was trying to be a better poster? But apparently not it appears.
Sometimes the biggest improvements are the things people don't post 
|
I once again find Xxios post in the thread highly questionable.
On May 30 2020 20:35 Xxio wrote:
Remarkable restraint by police across the country last night. They didn't escalate the mob violence, at least. LA shutdown seems like it was a good approach.
Is clearly an extremely slanted perception of the situation. This would not be problematic from a normal user of the site, but from a moderator, who clearly threatened to ban people who disagree with him the last time this happened, this seems like a bait to get some slight reaction out of people which he could use as an excuse to ban them.
I find it extremely strange that someone who is basically a fascist calling for the police to murder protestors is allowed to moderate a politics thread, and take part in it in this way.
|
On May 30 2020 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2020 05:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 30 2020 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2020 03:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 30 2020 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2020 01:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. GH just screams. 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. Oh just that whining again, got it. I thought you said you was trying to be a better poster? But apparently not it appears. Sometimes the biggest improvements are the things people don't post I agree, the USPol thread was remarkably improved when you couldn't post there.
|
brutally ironic choice of post to respond to. and GH is the problem. 🙄
|
Yes, clearly it is my recent posts in the USPol thread that is the problem. 🙄
I'm not the one who asks for criticism to claim to become a better poster, then insult that guy by calling him a whiner 🙄
Didn't occur to you that the biggest improvements that are the things people don't post would be not to call other people a whiner when you are pretending to solicit criticism?
Now that is ironic.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 31 2020 02:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Yes, clearly it is my recent posts in the USPol thread that is the problem. 🙄
I'm not the one who asks for criticism to claim to become a better poster, then insult that guy by calling him a whiner 🙄
I mean... last time you asked for criticism, it wasn't all that long before you did exactly that. Some pot-kettle action going on here for sure.
And GH certainly has more meaningful contributions to the thread, warts and all.
|
On May 31 2020 02:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Yes, clearly it is my recent posts in the USPol thread that is the problem. 🙄
I'm not the one who asks for criticism to claim to become a better poster, then insult that guy by calling him a whiner 🙄
Didn't occur to you that the biggest improvements that are the things people don't post would be not to call other people a whiner when you are pretending to solicit criticism?
Now that is ironic.
pretending that’s criticism. that’s some bait.
On May 31 2020 01:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2020 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2020 05:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On May 30 2020 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2020 03:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On May 30 2020 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2020 01:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: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. GH just screams. 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. Oh just that whining again, got it. I thought you said you was trying to be a better poster? But apparently not it appears. Sometimes the biggest improvements are the things people don't post I agree, the USPol thread was remarkably improved when you couldn't post there.
oh my mistake, i was talking about your posting.
|
Yes, brian, we know you wanted to imply that the "brutal irony" was on me not GH, as we all know you are a fervent GH supporter, brian. Unfortunately GH got burned bad. Carry on brian.
|
sorry, no, i’m actually just talking about your posting. it’s crazy to me this goes on lol. i actually agree with zeros criticism to a point, as far as i can tell it has shown some results too.
i’ll leave it alone though. this is a useless exchange.
|
On May 31 2020 23:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Yes, brian, we know you wanted to imply that the "brutal irony" was on me not GH, as we all know you are a fervent GH supporter, brian. Unfortunately GH got burned bad. Carry on brian. I have argues with GH plenty, stop being a dick and making such blatant baits towards him that add absolutely nothing to any discussion going on. How on earth you haven't been warned for this is beyond me.
|
If it you think it is a useless exchange why make the same kind of comment in the first place?
And Gorsameth, what blatant bait am I making? Point it out. Go on. If I am a dick and making bait posts then what is:
On May 30 2020 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Oh just that whining again, got it. On May 30 2020 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Sometimes the biggest improvements are the things people don't post
What standard is it that if it is GH it's fine, if it is someone else it is not?
Seriously though when GH had his blog thread to make his blog posts, the US Pol thread was remarkably improved.
|
How is Xxio allowed to continue with his disgusting string of posts with nothing?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On June 01 2020 04:42 Slaughter wrote:
How is Xxio allowed to continue with his disgusting string of posts with nothing?
What disgusting string of posts? Can you link them?
|
On June 01 2020 04:45 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2020 04:42 Slaughter wrote:
How is Xxio allowed to continue with his disgusting string of posts with nothing? What disgusting string of posts? Can you link them?
Take all his posts in the thread starting from when he was cheering on Trump's threat to shoot people until now. It paints a a nice racist picture.
|
On May 31 2020 05:17 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2020 01:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2020 01:14 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2020 00:38 Xxio wrote:It's really sad to see how the looting and destruction is impacting local businesses and communities. Sometimes it's the small things, like when Dianne Binns of St. Paul was unable to pick up medication for her daughter. Her words of wisdom: “What are people going to do in those communities when they need those resources? We don’t have many stores as it is. So why are we going to burn down the small business owners who are there for us?” SourceThe sports bar of a firefighter and local coach was looted and burned down. The good news is that 611,000 was raised of a 100,000 fundraiser goal to rebuild. I wonder how much honest, hard-working people will have to pay to fix the mess left by rioting thugs. And this is in a time of business closures, when many people are struggling just to hold on to what they have. "Minnehaha Lake Wine and Spirits has been serving the neighborhood since it was legal to sell alcohol, and run by the same family since 1983. Its vintage neon sign is an icon of the area. News cameras caught the looting of the shop happening early in the evening, and expletives spray painted on the exterior... Town Talk Diner possesses another iconic sign of the area, and has been a small family-run restaurant since 2016. This morning, the words, “Kill Cops,” are visible spray-painted on the front door, under the iconic sign. The restaurant had its windows smashed, interior looted, and chairs and tables strewn about." Source. Many more cases in the article. Those innocent victims of these riots should be furious that it has come to this through years of peaceful protests being ignored. Why don't you burn your own house and store rather than elect members of your community as targets for your demonstration. Why do you get to choose who suffers. What a disgusting and self-righteous mindset. It's like you can't even hear your own words. Disgusting and self righteous! Nice If you only you were that furious about the murder that happened the other day. I mean imagine being angrier about a business having to receive insurance money than hundreds of years of of a whole population being killed by the state lol. Disgusting and self righteous indeed. The whole population has not been killed by the state. In fact, black families are overrepresented as welfare recipients by 26.3%. "FY 1999, Non-Hispanic White families made up 30.5% of the [welfare]caseload, African-American families 38.3%, and Hispanic families, 24.5%." Source. Overall, "The rate of dependency for non-Hispanic Blacks is more than six times that of non-Hispanic Whites, and that of Hispanics is more than four times as high." Source. More stats you may find useful. “Of adults arrested for murder, 53% were Black or African American", an overrepresentation of 41%. Source. From 2012-2015, black people represented 22.7% of violent crime offenders, an overrepresentation of 10.7%. White people committed 8.9% (91,470 offenders) of violent crime against black people. Black people committed 17.8% (540,360 offenders) of violent crime against white people. Source. Unfortunately the data is incomplete. "In 2015, 46% of the violent crimes and 19% of the property crimes reported to police were cleared, according to FBI data. 62% of murders and non-negligent homicides in the U.S. were cleared." Source Baltimore, Chicago and New Orleans cleared less than 28% of homicide cases in 2016. Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis have similar rates. Source.
This is the worst one for me. Stats for racists, with clear subtext which he then denies:
On May 31 2020 10:10 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2020 06:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On May 31 2020 05:17 Xxio wrote:On May 31 2020 01:23 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2020 01:14 puppykiller wrote:On May 31 2020 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 31 2020 00:38 Xxio wrote:It's really sad to see how the looting and destruction is impacting local businesses and communities. Sometimes it's the small things, like when Dianne Binns of St. Paul was unable to pick up medication for her daughter. Her words of wisdom: “What are people going to do in those communities when they need those resources? We don’t have many stores as it is. So why are we going to burn down the small business owners who are there for us?” SourceThe sports bar of a firefighter and local coach was looted and burned down. The good news is that 611,000 was raised of a 100,000 fundraiser goal to rebuild. I wonder how much honest, hard-working people will have to pay to fix the mess left by rioting thugs. And this is in a time of business closures, when many people are struggling just to hold on to what they have. "Minnehaha Lake Wine and Spirits has been serving the neighborhood since it was legal to sell alcohol, and run by the same family since 1983. Its vintage neon sign is an icon of the area. News cameras caught the looting of the shop happening early in the evening, and expletives spray painted on the exterior... Town Talk Diner possesses another iconic sign of the area, and has been a small family-run restaurant since 2016. This morning, the words, “Kill Cops,” are visible spray-painted on the front door, under the iconic sign. The restaurant had its windows smashed, interior looted, and chairs and tables strewn about." Source. Many more cases in the article. Those innocent victims of these riots should be furious that it has come to this through years of peaceful protests being ignored. Why don't you burn your own house and store rather than elect members of your community as targets for your demonstration. Why do you get to choose who suffers. What a disgusting and self-righteous mindset. It's like you can't even hear your own words. Disgusting and self righteous! Nice If you only you were that furious about the murder that happened the other day. I mean imagine being angrier about a business having to receive insurance money than hundreds of years of of a whole population being killed by the state lol. Disgusting and self righteous indeed. The whole population has not been killed by the state. In fact, black families are overrepresented as welfare recipients by 26.3%. "FY 1999, Non-Hispanic White families made up 30.5% of the [welfare]caseload, African-American families 38.3%, and Hispanic families, 24.5%." Source. Overall, "The rate of dependency for non-Hispanic Blacks is more than six times that of non-Hispanic Whites, and that of Hispanics is more than four times as high." Source. More stats you may find useful. “Of adults arrested for murder, 53% were Black or African American", an overrepresentation of 41%. Source. From 2012-2015, black people represented 22.7% of violent crime offenders, an overrepresentation of 10.7%. White people committed 8.9% (91,470 offenders) of violent crime against black people. Black people committed 17.8% (540,360 offenders) of violent crime against white people. Source. Unfortunately the data is incomplete. "In 2015, 46% of the violent crimes and 19% of the property crimes reported to police were cleared, according to FBI data. 62% of murders and non-negligent homicides in the U.S. were cleared." Source Baltimore, Chicago and New Orleans cleared less than 28% of homicide cases in 2016. Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis have similar rates. Source. This is literally what racist argue on Facebook... have you ever thought that it’s possible crime in general is up in poverty stricken areas?? There is no argument, claim, or supposition in my post. Only facts. Interpret them as you please.
Honestly idc if he gets mod action everyone should just ignore this kind of shit in the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
