Yellow triangles were for Jews, red triangles for political prisoners, purple for Jehovah's Witnesses, pink for homosexuals, green for criminals, black for Gypsies and "asocials," and blue for emigrants. Letters printed on badges usually indicated nationality.
All fascists hate anti fascism. That’s why trump supporters and white supremacists pose as antifa and instigate violence at peaceful protests.
white supremacists pose as antifa and instigate violence at peaceful protests.
A "perfect" example....
Twitter says fake "Antifa" account was run by white supremacists
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-fake-antifa-acount-white-supremacists-removal/2 ‘Boogaloo’ Members Charged in Drive-by Shooting of Federal Officer in Oakland
https://timesofsandiego.com/crime/2020/0...cer-in-oakland/
Yes, there are whacko righties and white supremacists taking advantage of the situation and causing mayhem.
The bigger inquiry is, at least to me, who is doing the most damage in this entire ordeal of rioting and city damage, assulting people, etc? Where/Who is the larger concern? That answer pretty obvious and there is COUNTLESS video evidence of the main perpetrators. Not altered photos, not skewed articles based on political leanings.... documented footage.
The problem is they are laced with so much profanity and extreme violence, it can't be posted. But if one serious looked, they would see what is out there. I encourage you to do the same.
I don't dismiss that there are people on both sides inflicting the damage. I just refuse to sit around and point all the fingers in one direction. That's exactly what The White House did. And it's what you have done on this board.
I will continue to point out large groups that are convening and organizing for nothing more than to encourage destruction and anarchy. If I come across a group organizing for nothing more than similar destruction and anarchy, and is related to a white supremacist group(s), I'll post it if/when I see it. And to presuppose like your boy Perfect did that the only reason rioting is happening is due to racist white people, I'll showcase the contrary because it's abundantly clear that is not the case. Funny you didn't call him out on that. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Again, I'll ask where the bigger trouble lies in groups causing the rioting, personal injuries, destruction, taking over property, etc....
...Radical left groups or radical right groups?
Both are terrible, obviously. But who is currently causing the most damage? And not just from a physical destruction perspective of cities and businesses, but even bastardizing the Black Lives Matter movement as well and peaceful protests.
Is the triangle actually part of the tweet or is it an advertisement next to a tweet?
or is it a completely fabricated image?
It could be legit, but a file on imgur doesn't inspire much confidence in its authenticity.
Too many people trying to mislead others.
Instead of trying to paint horrible people worse, we need to do more to find good people and get them in office.
I went to the FB page and didn't see anything. Now, it could have been removed or it might never have been there.
The ads were inactivated.
Love how this thread turned into "WHATABOUT ANTIFA!!!" instead of concerns about fascist iconography.
Facebook released a statement.
New York (CNN Business)Facebook on Thursday said it had take action against ads run by President Trump's re-election campaign for breaching its policies on hate. The ads, which attacked what the Trump campaign described as "Dangerous MOBS of far-left groups," featured an upside-down triangle.
The Anti-Defamation League said Thursday the triangle "is practically identical to that used by the Nazi regime to classify political prisoners in concentration camps."
"We removed these posts and ads for violating our policy against organized hate. Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group's symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol," Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesperson, told CNN Business.
Furthermore on this, the first sentence on this advertisements is 14 words. "14 words" is a rallying cry of white supremacy. The Team Trump page bought 88 ads for this, and 88 is code for HH. HH means Heil Hitler in white supremacist circles. Usually this whole thing is combined as 1488, 14/88, or some use where both are combined.
1488 explanation
It's obvious what you wish to focus on and how you wish to ignore any accountability of the other side. Agendas are funny that way.
It's obvious nobody wishes to address it and instead use the same old screaming, hair on fire/Antifa. It's the standard go to line when you make them uncomfortable or they face legitimate facts that upset them.
It's obvious what you wish to focus on and how you wish to ignore any accountability of the other side. Agendas are funny that way.
All that is missing from your non-response response is:
#Triggered
#Snowflake
Just look at the Chop thread for another great example of the same thing you describe.
Post something that breaks the narrative? Either met with "oh you think..." or silence.
I remember when we actually discussed all sorts of issues from 2011-2015. We did so without this purgatory forum. Wonder what happened with fellow posters that suddenly "political topics!!!!!!" became like a deadly disease to them.
As they should.
Deplatform White Supremacy. Deplatform Nazis.
I hate Illinois Nazis!
All that is missing from your non-response response is:
#Triggered
#Snowflake
I'll have to remember to add those in next time.
I remember when we actually discussed all sorts of issues from 2011-2015. We did so without this purgatory forum. Wonder what happened with fellow posters that suddenly "political topics!!!!!!" became like a deadly disease to them.
My guess would be the deadly disease that swept the country in late 2016. The Trumpona virus.
I remember when we actually discussed all sorts of issues from 2011-2015. We did so without this purgatory forum. Wonder what happened with fellow posters that suddenly "political topics!!!!!!" became like a deadly disease to them.
My guess would be the deadly disease that swept the country in late 2016. The Trumpona virus.
Trump is a symptom, not the disease. He does seem to help spread it, though.
I remember when we actually discussed all sorts of issues from 2011-2015. We did so without this purgatory forum. Wonder what happened with fellow posters that suddenly "political topics!!!!!!" became like a deadly disease to them.
My guess would be the deadly disease that swept the country in late 2016. The Trumpona virus.
Trump is a symptom, not the disease. He does seem to help spread it, though.
And that's actually the entire point. Pouring gas on a slow burning fire helps create an inferno.
Darn those Amish Nazis with that racist symbol on the back of their buggies.
It just seems a bit conspiracy theory-ish. Are we supposed to be outlawing basic shapes now?
Was the 14/88 thing intentional? Maybe. I wouldn't put it past them. At the same time, I could also see it having been a setup. 14 word sentences aren't that unusual. How hard would it be to offer 88 slots and wait for a 14 word "ad?"
There's been so much shady garbage on both sides, it's hard to take anything presented in the media at face value.
Perhaps if it had been presented by someone else not so frequently blatantly one sided, my interpretation would have been different. I have a hard time trusting "extremists" no matter their side.
Glad I’m living rent free in your head, too!
Using the source as the logic for your opinion has become quite common place. Much more popular since the "fake news" Trumpism has been spread.
On the surface, this looks very bad from the Trump Admin. I am eagerly waiting a response from them, hopefully sooner rather that later. Or they could dodge it altogether. If so, that might further incriminate him on intent. However, I thought this was funny:
So I’m extreme...yet you [b][i]continually[\b][\I] come at me without actually ever coming back with factually sourced statements that I do my factually based arguments.
So Bull, I’ll tell you what I’ve told Erik. If you wish to come at me to expose my “extremism” please do so on a manner that doesn’t miss.
And your “we need to be polite to coddle individuals while not calling things what they factually are” has been used to oppress minority communities for centuries. Get that weak stuff outta here.
Using the source as the logic for your opinion has become quite common place. Much more popular since the "fake news" Trumpism has been spread.
Questioning everything has become a necessity when it appears that most people have agendas.
Blindly sucking down a narrative rarely ends well.
I dig into everything.
Occasionally my frustration comes out in sarcasm, but I at least try not to be rigidly dogmatic.
It's the I read this online and you have to believe it 100% as the gospel without considering anything else approach that I can't resist responding to regardless of which side it came from. Nothing good comes from getting in the habit of blindly accepting things.
So I’m extreme...yet you [b][i]continually[\b][\I] come at me without actually ever coming back with factually sourced statements that I do my factually based arguments.
So Bull, I’ll tell you what I’ve told Erik. If you wish to come at me to expose my “extremism” please do so on a manner that doesn’t miss.
And your “we need to be polite to coddle individuals while not calling things what they factually are” has been used to oppress minority communities for centuries. Get that weak stuff outta here.
You present things in an extreme fashion. You expect people to accept your ideas wholesale without any questions. You see asking questions as "coming at you." You don't want to discuss anything. What would you call that?
I guess one could see it in different ways. None of them seem very good options however.
One would be that Trump is too dumb to do any investigation about anything he promotes. This may help explain many such racist type things he's posted to Twitter.
The second would be that he follows racists on Twitter and associates himself with them by following them. By retweeting their posts it seems he agrees with them and supports their message.
Three could be that he has someone in charge of his Twitter account who promotes a racist agenda.
I guess four could be that as many times as he has retweeted racist Twitter accounts it could all just be some crazy coincidence.
However as a police officer I'm pretty sure you would quickly dismiss number four.
You present things in an extreme fashion.
I present items in a factual manner that uses classical greek rhetorical practices with ethos, logos, and pathos.
You expect people to accept your ideas wholesale without any questions.
I understand facts are hard for some to understand.
I don't expect everyone to be okay with reality as a large swath of individuals in our country want to make laws based on dogma that has no factual proven basis.
I know people will think. I mean right now you're thinking, or at least were, when you came into this thread. I don't expect to be the person to change your mind. Only you can change your mind.
You see asking questions as "coming at you."
When I present an argument based in logos and ethos, backed with a bit of pathos, I don't think it's unreasonable for counter-points to actually try and disprove using factual information. I would love to be proven wrong by facts as this is how I learn. Instead you get caught up in the "well, can't state this fact because it's going to offend some people" game.
If you stand for nothing, Burr, what'll you fall for?
What would you call that?
I call that the microcosm which this board shifted to post-2015. I presented arguments and such the same way since I started posting here in 2011. Suddenly it's an extreme thing to post factual arguments that hold people accountable for their views.
The majority can deal with being offended as that's the price of privilege while minorities deal with second-rate freedoms and opportunities in this country.
[quote]
I understand facts are hard for some to understand.
I don't expect everyone to be okay with reality as a large swath of individuals in our country want to make laws based on dogma that has no factual proven basis.
And which (ethos, pathos, logos) is this? There appears to be a 4th (trying to convince someone by insulting them).
Logos.
Argument based on factual data.
I'll agree with you only if the argument has reached the point of everyone giving up and resorting to satire.
We'll see if more info comes out about this.
The, "Oh my bad. Honest mistake"
The, "Oh my bad. Honest mistake"
Right. It more goes to the question in an earlier tweet....
Trump is a complete and utter dumbass OR that he is a detail-oriented historical scholar with abiding knowledge of Juneteenth, the 1921 Tulsa racist riot, and Nazi symbology.
It's clearly the former. Unfortunately, this topic falls into that category as well.... As do some of its participants.
Unfortunately, this topic falls into that category as well.... As do some of it's participants.
You really shouldn't be putting yourself down that way. I mean if you don't stand up for yourself, who will?
Do you have any idea how many times he has retweeted racists? How about the times he has said racist things?
Yeah, it's all an accident.
You really shouldn't be putting yourself down that way. I mean if you don't stand up for yourself, who will?
This is a very poor way to debate. It actually illustrates the opposite.
But hey, at least you didn't call someone a racist in this one!
#BabySteps
I give what I get. And you never like a dose of your own medicine.
There are some great debates actually going on in this forum right now. Then we have single minded individuals who can only focus on BLM and can't sem to try and have discussions. Good luck with that.
I don't think you really understand how to use any of those rhetorical methods very well. Knowing the words clearly doesn't mean an ability to effectively use the methods.
You're great at giving your interpretation of alleged facts. Or repeating someone else's interpretation.
You claim to know things that are unknowable. "I know [what] people will think."
Admitting the things you don't know is the first step towards wisdom.
Holding yourself accountable should come before trying to hold other people accountable.
You claim to make your arguments in a "factual manner," but they seem more emotional and idealized.
Calling something a fact doesn't, in fact, make it a fact.
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
You approach every story as if it only had one side, and it's the one you want to see. The world usually doesn't work that way. Stories are always influenced by the person telling them.
To deny that there could be any other interpretation of any story is the opposite of logic.
...I find myself strangely in the mood for a fortune cookie.
Trump's despicable. His opponents frequently duck just as low.
don't think you really understand how to use any of those rhetorical methods very well. Knowing the words clearly doesn't mean an ability to effectively use the methods.
You just don't like my arguments and you're arguing semantics.
You're great at giving your interpretation of alleged facts.
I'm all for you refuting any of my facts. Please go ahead!
You claim to know things that are unknowable. "I know [what] people will think."
Please show verifiable proof where I claim to know what's unknown or that I know will people think. If you find these very exact statements, I'll leave the board forever. If you don't find those statements, you leave the board forever. Want to take that wager?
Admitting the things you don't know is the first step towards wisdom.
And this is why I wish for you to refute my facts. Please expand my knowledge!
Calling something a fact doesn't, in fact, make it a fact.
Please show where I have called something a fact that hasn't been supported by evidence. I'll be waiting.
You approach every story as if it only had one side, and it's the one you want to see.
Facts are facts. I want to live in reality.
Stories are always influenced by the person telling them.
Oh, the ol' Newt Gingrich "feelings are more important than facts" approach!
On the surface, this looks very bad from the Trump Admin. I am eagerly waiting a response from them, hopefully sooner rather that later. Or they could dodge it altogether. If so, that might further incriminate him on intent. However, I thought this was funny:
Door Number One... with Stephen Miller whispering in his ear.
This is not hard to figure out, Ben Shapiro's observation notwithstanding.
Gig: postponed by one day, after being outed in public on a national scale. Boogaloo Boys, Proud Boys, TripleK's, Stormers... no joy this Friday. 'Negroids' win this round.
I'll bet Miller is
piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissed...
Okay.........I hate doing this because we fight each and every time we talk. I also have noticed others have called you out and I typically stay out of the battle if others are fighting for what I believe in. However, I have been kinda hard on the other side recently because I feel they have been biased and unchecked. Thus, I have to say/ask this.
What do you think you are are accomplishing by posting so many videos that depict black people in a negative light?
I don't like posting videos in these types of discussions because sides can take a video that makes the police look bad or whites look bad or blacks look bad or etc, etc, etc.
What does it accomplish other than to further divide our nation?
I have often said that if folks would put 1/10th of the energy in trying to build bridges as they do in trying to further the divide, this country would prosper immensely. And I am being conservative in that 1/10th stat.
I can tell you this. I have had the honor of serving the black community for many decades. Yes, there are idiot black folks. Racist blacks. Woe-is-me blacks. Just like there are in every freaking race. However, most black people are decent folks just like every other race.
I have no idea why there is so much resistance to just treating each person as an individual rather than part of a "group."
What do you think you are are accomplishing by posting so many videos that depict black people in a negative light?
My videos are depicting
people in a negative light. Some white. Some black. Some hispanic. Some asian. Actually most of my videos have depicted white people in a negative light.
You are doing the very thing you are complaining about. You are making this about race. I am making this about large groups of people that are destroying property, injuring people, etc., WHILE hurting an important movement and peaceful protesters. These people are of various races, but again, mostly white. I don't appreciate the idea that I am sharing videos of only black people in some effort to target a particular race. That has been the furthest from the case.
The group isn't white. The group isn't black. This group comes in various colors and I wish people would do more research on them.
You know trump supporters don’t care.
Still gonna vote for him. They’re perfectly fine with racism. It’s just not important to them.
J/C
https://nyti.ms/37JEaJrOAKLAND, Calif. — Twitter added a warning to a post from President Trump about a racist baby on Thursday, saying it contained manipulated media designed to mislead people.
Mr. Trump’s tweet, which he posted earlier on Thursday, featured a video of two toddlers running down a sidewalk. The video had been altered to appear as if CNN had broadcast it, along with a fake chyron that claimed, “Racist baby probably a Trump voter.” The video went on to accuse “fake news” of stoking misinformation.
Mr. Trump sourced the video from a popular pro-Trump meme creator who goes by the name CarpeDonktum.
Pfft trump supporters. And really trump! How much hate do you have to repost this How much more hate can you project toward our brothers and American citizens?
The complete video showed the two kids hugging and playing together. Only trump supporters could take a beautiful moment captured and turn it into a ugly racist hate filled meme.
I have been kinda hard on the other side recently
Not really. I'll give you credit for making some feeble attempts at doing so, but they've fallen well short of the mark.
You claim to know things that are unknowable. "I know [what] people will think."
Please show verifiable proof where I claim to know what's unknown or that I know will people think. If you find these very exact statements, I'll leave the board forever. If you don't find those statements, you leave the board forever. Want to take that wager?
"I know people will think" is a direct quote of something you wrote earlier in this thread. Another person's thoughts are unknowable.
You approach every story as if it only had one side, and it's the one you want to see.
Facts are facts. I want to live in reality.
You want to live in your subjective version of reality. All "reality" is subjective. Here's one of a multitude of articles on the topic:
link Stories are always influenced by the person telling them.
Oh, the ol' Newt Gingrich "feelings are more important than facts" approach!
No, I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying people let their feelings get in the way of the facts. "People see what they expect to see." "
This is what they say happened, it agrees with what I already believe, that must be exactly how it happened." This is faulty, but typical logic. You deny any other possible explanation because of your beliefs, not your knowledge. You're stuck in a paradigm.
Sadly, our society seems to turn people into partisan parakeets. "
This is a fact because I was told so. I will repeat it." Once something gets through a person's inherently flawed "sniff test," it becomes a part of their subjective reality and they are increasingly unwilling to really examine it.
It's not because they know things are facts. It's because they want to believe them.
Wow. Really grasping straws hey?
"I know people will think" is a common expression, it's part of our vernacular, it is not a statement oof being able to read minds. trying to suggest anything otherwise is just admitting that you have lost an argument. Congrats
Wow. Really grasping straws hey?
"I know people will think" is a common expression, it's part of our vernacular, it is not a statement oof being able to read minds. trying to suggest anything otherwise is just admitting that you have lost an argument. Congrats
What is it a statement of? Why is it in our "vernacular", as you say? It indicates and contributes to the problem I am talking about.
Rocket's argument fits your paradigm, so you seem to be unwilling to critically examine it.
But, I can see I'm wasting my time. It becomes more and more obvious, people don't want to change, they want to feel righteous. My time apparently would be better spent having this discussion with an actual parakeet. At least they can learn to repeat words that don't agree with the ones they "know."
Wow. Really grasping straws hey?
"I know people will think" is a common expression, it's part of our vernacular, it is not a statement oof being able to read minds. trying to suggest anything otherwise is just admitting that you have lost an argument. Congrats
What is it a statement of? Why is it in our "vernacular", as you say? It indicates and contributes to the problem I am talking about.
Rocket's argument fits your paradigm, so you seem to be unwilling to critically examine it.
But, I can see I'm wasting my time. It becomes more and more obvious, people don't want to change, they want to feel righteous. My time apparently would be better spent having this discussion with an actual parakeet. At least they can learn to repeat words that don't agree with the ones they "know."
I know you'll think this is not accurate, but you are a trip recently. You've given up any attempt to have real conversations
I know people will think that political discussion on a football message board is meaningless, but for many it seems very important.
I know people will think that Trump used the symbol from Nazi Germany by accident, and maybe he did.
I know people will think it's impossible for Trump and all his aides that worked on this to be totally ignorant of the symbolism and Nazi connection.
I know you'll think this is not accurate, but you are a trip recently. You've given up any attempt to have real conversations
I'll admit my frustration is coming through. The problem isn't that I've given up, the problem is that I keep trying to have a conversation with individuals that aren't prepared/equipped to listen to it.
In the end, it amounts to about the same thing.
Things come easy to me that don't to other people. It's a blessing and a curse. Great for getting good grades and solving analytical problems. Not so great for having meaningful conversations. Life can be lonely at the top of the bell curve, I keep hoping someone will understand. I'm not sure why I keep looking here, I suppose the hope is that the bonds of shared Browns fandom will help.
Darn those Amish Nazis with that racist symbol on the back of their buggies.
It just seems a bit conspiracy theory-ish. Are we supposed to be outlawing basic shapes now?
Was the 14/88 thing intentional? Maybe. I wouldn't put it past them. At the same time, I could also see it having been a setup. 14 word sentences aren't that unusual. How hard would it be to offer 88 slots and wait for a 14 word "ad?"
There's been so much shady garbage on both sides, it's hard to take anything presented in the media at face value.
Perhaps if it had been presented by someone else not so frequently blatantly one sided, my interpretation would have been different. I have a hard time trusting "extremists" no matter their side.
Not for nothing, but I guess you didn't notice the difference between the two signs....
Things come easy to me that don't to other people. It's a blessing and a curse. Great for getting good grades and solving analytical problems. Not so great for having meaningful conversations. Life can be lonely at the top of the bell curve, I keep hoping someone will understand. I'm not sure why I keep looking here, I suppose the hope is that the bonds of shared Browns fandom will help.
Ahhhh... nobody else is smart enough to keep up ? Got it! .... either that or maybe your not actually the smartest person in the room and people see thru you? Hmmmm ? Wonder which is more likely ?
Hey at least you have it all straight in YOUR head. At least YOU know YOU are right and everyone else is wrong! Thats an awesome starting point
by the way I didn't see if you answered the question about the cop shooting the individual at Wendy's.... on my phone so I hard for me to look up right now
by the way I didn't see if you answered the question about the cop shooting the individual at Wendy's.... on my phone so I hard for me to look up right now
I hate the term justified. It has both moral and legal definitions. I'd like to think that I'd have never done it. Intellectually, I never would. However, I don't know what was going through the mind of anyone involved. Morally, I find it reprehensible. Legally, it's a gray area. Technically, I think he could be charged in his own killing. It's silly but the law frequently is.
How did he get to the Wendy's parking lot? As far as I know, Wendy's doesn't serve alcohol. Did he drive drunk to get there? Do we actually know that he was "drunk"? It's been used as a reason that he may not have complied, but I'm not sure if a BAC was officially released. Legally, these things matter.
It's tragic and should never happen. Sadly, it does happen all too frequently. There's plenty of blame to go around, though. With the officers, yes. Also, society and the way we promote alcohol. Probably a bit with the man himself.
I hadn't answered the question because this thread keeps getting pulled towards a certain issue to the detriment of the myriad issues that allow that issue to constantly happen.
Darn those Amish Nazis with that racist symbol on the back of their buggies.
It just seems a bit conspiracy theory-ish. Are we supposed to be outlawing basic shapes now?
Was the 14/88 thing intentional? Maybe. I wouldn't put it past them. At the same time, I could also see it having been a setup. 14 word sentences aren't that unusual. How hard would it be to offer 88 slots and wait for a 14 word "ad?"
There's been so much shady garbage on both sides, it's hard to take anything presented in the media at face value.
Perhaps if it had been presented by someone else not so frequently blatantly one sided, my interpretation would have been different. I have a hard time trusting "extremists" no matter their side.
Not for nothing, but I guess you didn't notice the difference between the two signs....
I probably should have used purple.
I guess I need to stop overestimating what people will comprehend.
As long as you realize that you're no less guilty of what you seem to be accusing others of that's fine.
Only for a police officer is shooting someone is the back a "gray area". The rest of us knows exactly what would happen if we did the same thing. A badge means it's you duty to uphold the law, not be above the law.
Only for a police officer is shooting someone is the back a "gray area". The rest of us knows exactly what would happen if we did the same thing. A badge means it's you duty to uphold the law, not be above the law.
Was he calmly walking away or was he constantly twisting around to look behind him? Where were his hands at? Was he saying/shouting anything?
Shooting someone in the back sounds horrible and very well could have been (most likely was.) It's not like he was just standing there with his back to the police and they walked up, pressed their guns against the back of his head, and shot him, though. There were things that led up to the shooting and not just the being in his car asleep. There was interaction between the sides. I don't know what that was. Neither do you or anyone else that wasn't there.
Morally, we shouldn't be shooting people. However, legal doesn't equal moral.
The body cam issues do trouble me. I think they should be fixed to harnesses instead of on clips that can "fall off." Maybe even have multiple of them sewn securely inside the uniforms.
Dude, you really need to stop reaching. The guy "twisted around" one time. It was before the officer fired. The guy was turned away with his back to the officer when he fired. There is video that can't be refuted. What happened "before he started to flee" does not change what happened at the time of the shooting.
Dude, you really need to stop reaching. The guy "twisted around" one time. It was before the officer fired. The guy was turned away with his back to the officer when he fired. There is video that can't be refuted. What happened "before he started to flee" does not change what happened at the time of the shooting.
I'm neither reaching nor refuting anything. I'm asking questions. I'm trying to get you to ask yourself questions. Try to step outside the narrative.
Every story should be looked at from multiple perspectives before deciding on which one you believe. Sometimes people just need to learn that they'll never know the particulars despite how strongly they suspect.
It's okay to admit not knowing something or that there are other possibilities than what you believe.
There's always more to learn, and there will always be things that each individual doesn't know. Most things are complicated. Insisting on simplifying them only works with math, and even then it can be problematic.
I've watched the video several times. Stating what actually happened is not a narrative. Trying to create a false narrative, rationalizations and excuses is nothing more than creating a story about conditions that didn't happen.
Dude, you really need to stop reaching. The guy "twisted around" one time. It was before the officer fired. The guy was turned away with his back to the officer when he fired. There is video that can't be refuted. What happened "before he started to flee" does not change what happened at the time of the shooting.
I'm neither reaching nor refuting anything. I'm asking questions. I'm trying to get you to ask yourself questions. Try to step outside the narrative.
Every story should be looked at from multiple perspectives before deciding on which one you believe. Sometimes people just need to learn that they'll never know the particulars despite how strongly they suspect.
It's okay to admit not knowing something or that there are other possibilities than what you believe.
There's always more to learn, and there will always be things that each individual doesn't know. Most things are complicated. Insisting on simplifying them only works with math, and even then it can be problematic.
Which is a lot of words that don't say squat.
We've seen the video. We've seen enough to take a position and form an opinion on fairly detailed and distinct evidence.
Based on what is to see - and what is known ... it's not hard. The shooting of the man running away from the police with a tazer in his hand is flat wrong. Period.
See - not hard. Straight forward.
If there is additional information that comes to light we can revise and update our opinions at that point. But as it is -
1. The guy was not armed with any sort of deadly weapon.
2. He was running away from the cops after they had talked and breathalyzed him - it's not like he could of had a firearm tucked in his waistband.
3. He certainly aimed the tazer at the cops - but again, the appropriate response to that can't be taking of life.
There's enough evidence to have charged the police officer with murder.... and yet you want to talk in circles and avoid offering an opinion ... and I don't know if that's because you are so clever and see so many things ordinary mortals don't or if you are just biased. Hard to tell.
Which is a lot of words that don't say squat.
We've seen the video. We've seen enough to take a position and form an opinion on fairly detailed and distinct evidence.
Based on what is to see - and what is known ... it's not hard. The shooting of the man running away from the police with a tazer in his hand is flat wrong. Period.
See - not hard. Straight forward. If there is additional information that comes to light we can revise and update our opinions at that point. But as it is -
1. The guy was not armed with any sort of deadly weapon.
2. He was running away from the cops after they had talked and breathalyzed him - it's not like he could of had a firearm tucked in his waistband.
3. He certainly aimed the tazer at the cops - but again, the appropriate response to that can't be taking of life.
There's enough evidence to have charged the police officer with murder.... and yet you want to talk in circles and avoid offering an opinion ... and I don't know if that's because you are so clever and see so many things ordinary mortals don't or if you are just biased. Hard to tell.
A taser is classified as a firearm in the Georgia criminal code.
Link The fact that it is less lethal doesn't make it non-lethal.
I'm not saying what happened was right. It might make it legal, though.
If you get hit by electricity, most SOPs have you put under mandatory observation in case you go into cardiac arrest. They don't do it without reason. Getting shocked with electricity has, does, and can kill people.
I'm not going to be sorry for my intelligence. Trust me, I've tried to drink myself stupid, so I can see things the way the rest of you do. It didn't work.
It doesn't make me "better," but I do see things most people don't. A lot of times I wish I were "ordinary." I'm not proud of my intelligence, it's just something I was born with. I can't help it, and there is no point in denying it. When you test in the 99th percentile on all the standardized test, there aren't a lot of people that think like you. Most people fall in, for simplicities sake, the 25-75 range of the bell curve. We "lucky"/ cursed few only represent something like 0.1% of the population. We do think differently. You can either consider what smart people say and try to learn from it, or you can ridicule it because you don't understand. You don't understand, that's fine, but don't try to make it my problem.
I wasn't trying to toot my own horn. I was trying to show some vulnerability and give some perspective. If you don't understand something, ask. Don't attack because you don't understand and it makes you feel insecure. Things aren't learned by attacking. Things are learned by asking questions.
This ties back into the whole protest problem. We're not asking questions. We're not even allowing others to ask questions. People are attacking anyone that doesn't agree with them.
It seems to be our society's default. When in doubt, attack.
It's a lousy way to solve problems.
Is "When in doubt, ask" that unthinkable for people?
Or is the problem that people don't allow themselves to have doubts? Are they so insecure that they don't allow themselves to question things?
Sometimes ones own eyes tell us more than word salad.
Sometimes, but usually not.
It depends on the "word salad," and how willing one is to try to understand the words.
Eyes can be deceived. Illusionists, advertisers, and propagandists rely on this fact.
Breaking News...
Bull Dawg is smarter than everyone else.
lol
A taser is classified as a firearm in the Georgia criminal code.
Thanks. That is why I used the word "Deadly".
And while a Tazer may well be deadly to some people with health issues .... they are used when deadly force is NOT needed.
Thanks. But sometimes the 99-1 rule applies.... it's a lot like the 80-20 rule but in this case it's 99-1.
It wasn't David Blaine out there shooting a man in the back.
Why am I not surprised you would think that from of person trying to make excuses for a cop shooting a black man in the back and killing him.
I often time do. Yet at the same time I always consider the source when reaching a conclusion.
Breaking News...
Bull Dawg is smarter than everyone else.
lol
Jeez, more hyperbolic headlines and fake news. But, really, that wasn't the point of the post at all.
It was just an incidental part of the response when someone uses "maybe you're just cleverer than the rest of us" as some kind of dig.
It's possible that I am *shrug*Not that it makes me infallible. It's the people that act like they are infallible that drive me nuts.
That's part of the reason I frequently pose things as questions. I freely admit there are lots of things I don't know.
Then there are obvious lessons we many of us has seen, witnessed ans history points out to work that some just can't seem to accept.
A taser is classified as a firearm in the Georgia criminal code.
Thanks. That is why I used the word "Deadly".
And while a Tazer may well be deadly to some people with health issues .... they are used when deadly force is NOT needed.
Thanks. But sometimes the 99-1 rule applies.... it's a lot like the 80-20 rule but in this case it's 99-1.
Tasers can be deadly to people with no health issues.
Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Death Followin...rol Device Link That's a link to a journal article from the American Heart Association.
Just providing information.
It was just an incidental part of the response when someone uses "maybe you're just cleverer than the rest of us" as some kind of dig. It's possible that I am *shrug*
That was a dig (in jest) after your post the other day where you were extolling your extra sensory perception and smarts.
Then there are obvious lessons we many of us has seen, witnessed ans history points out to work that some just can't seem to accept.
You've been told that protests work so many times that you believe it. That doesn't make it objectively true. It appears they more often end up in creating hostile environments.
If they worked so well, why do you have to keep doing them to bring about effectively the same thing? (equality)
Because progress has been brought about one step at a time.
You somehow think people base their beliefs on "what they've been told" and not "what they've seen". You somehow think the things that transpired to help bring about social changes are a mirage and not factual. That's a you problem.
It was just an incidental part of the response when someone uses "maybe you're just cleverer than the rest of us" as some kind of dig. It's possible that I am *shrug*
That was a dig (in jest) after your post the other day where you were extolling your extra sensory perception and smarts.
I wasn't extolling. I tried to be as clearly deprecating as possible while presenting a quantifiable fact. It's not something I regular broadcast because responses like yours are all too common. I decided to show some vulnerability in the hope it might help the message to reach someone.
The extra sensory idea is only in your head. There are people that are smarter than you, you need to grow up and learn to deal with it without getting defensive.
Blah, this isn't helping anything, but it is another example of emotions derailing things.
Because progress has been brought about one step at a time.
You somehow think people base their beliefs on "what they've been told" and not "what they've seen". You somehow think the things that transpired to help bring about social changes are a mirage and not factual. That's a you problem.
What they've been told influences how they see.
Your grasp of causation appears to be so rudimentary that it is more of a hindrance than a help. People used to think that the only reason the sun came up in the morning is because they prayed the night before or because human sacrifices were made.
"I was praying for the sun to come up and it did, it worked!" People see connections that aren't necessarily there.
I'm just wondering if you use a magnifying glass when you go grasping for straws? So it wasn't the Russians bringing missiles into Cuba that caused Kennedy to blockade Cuba?
Ignoring that causation isn't a real thing doesn't dictate reality.
I'm just wondering if you use a magnifying glass when you go grasping for straws? So it wasn't the Russians bringing missiles into Cuba that caused Kennedy to blockade Cuba?
Ignoring that causation isn't a real thing doesn't dictate reality.
I have no idea what you are trying to say or how it could possibly relate to anything relevant.
Since you brought up the Cuban Missile Crisis, here are some articles that do seem relevant:
Did Kennedy Cause the Crisis? Link The Real Cuban Missile Crisis- Link
So then causation is something you decide whether it's relevant on a case by case basis? It was The Cuban Missile Crisis.
You see, actions create other actions. It's not some novel idea. It's actually basic math. For each and every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
Civil discourse has been the biggest motivating factor in social change in this country. Those of us who have lived through and experienced this know and understand it. Others not so much.
I'm just wondering if you use a magnifying glass when you go grasping for straws? So it wasn't the Russians bringing missiles into Cuba that caused Kennedy to blockade Cuba?
Ignoring that causation isn't a real thing doesn't dictate reality.
If by your own admission, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then one must ask the question, what was the action that caused the soviets to want to place missiles in Cuba... right?
Or did they just want to put them there because they are bad people?
So then causation is something you decide whether it's relevant on a case by case basis? It was The Cuban Missile Crisis.
You see, actions create other actions. It's not some novel idea. It's actually basic math. For each and every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
Civil discourse has been the biggest motivating factor in social change in this country. Those of us who have lived through and experienced this know and understand it. Others not so much.
I'm so confused right now.
I was the one saying we should use civil discourse. You're completely changing your argument. Surely you can't be implying that protest, unrest, and civil discourse are the same things?
Causation is always relevant when looking at the thing that was caused. However, it's not always easy to pinpoint the cause(s).
Also, Newton's third law of motion is usually placed in physics and physical laws rather than math. I don't think it really applies to politics.
Surely you can't be implying that protest, unrest, and civil discourse are the same things?
They are not the same thing but there are times when all of them are necessary. Usually unrest leads to protests leads to civil discourse... because a lot of people aren't willing to participate in civil discourse until they are forced to.
Also, Newton's third law of motion is usually placed in physics and physical laws rather than math. I don't think it really applies to politics.
Not the "equal and opposite" part but in politics very little happens spontaneously or in a vacuum... most things are in response to something else. The general law of cause and effect still applies.... usually.
Surely you can't be implying that protest, unrest, and civil discourse are the same things?
They are not the same thing but there are times when all of them are necessary. Usually unrest leads to protests leads to civil discourse... because a lot of people aren't willing to participate in civil discourse until they are forced to.
Also, Newton's third law of motion is usually placed in physics and physical laws rather than math. I don't think it really applies to politics.
Not the "equal and opposite" part but in politics very little happens spontaneously or in a vacuum... most things are in response to something else. The general law of cause and effect still applies.... usually.
If you're forced to participate is it really civil?
In "politics" it definitely seems like every action leads to escalation. ...and then you end up with Trump as president. I'm not sure I want to know how one would escalate from that.
If you're forced to participate is it really civil?
Kind of into semantics now but yes.. eventually you realize that civil discourse should have been had all along.. so you aren't really forced to participate as much as you are forced to acknowledge your neglect of the subject..
In "politics" it definitely seems like every action leads to escalation. ...and then you end up with Trump as president. I'm not sure I want to know how one would escalate from that.
Would be nice if this was the end and we actually got to the civil discourse part.... though I'm not betting on it.
Then there are obvious lessons we many of us has seen, witnessed ans history points out to work that some just can't seem to accept.
You've been told that protests work so many times that you believe it. That doesn't make it objectively true. It appears they more often end up in creating hostile environments.
If they worked so well, why do you have to keep doing them to bring about effectively the same thing? (equality)
The same prankster keeps sneaking up behind you and kicking you in the ass. But if you turn around and punch him out a few times, he will stop. It's a behavioral adjustment and the punch in the nose is the attention getter, just like the protests.
You can't go along with what you bully wants you to do and be, then expect him to stop being your bully. Black people and their supporters need to press this point until laws and hearts change, period. They've stopped short far too many times now in the name of peacefulness, getting along, and coming together.
Then there are obvious lessons we many of us has seen, witnessed ans history points out to work that some just can't seem to accept.
You've been told that protests work so many times that you believe it. That doesn't make it objectively true. It appears they more often end up in creating hostile environments.
If they worked so well, why do you have to keep doing them to bring about effectively the same thing? (equality)
The same prankster keeps sneaking up behind you and kicking you in the ass. But if you turn around and punch him out a few times, he will stop. It's a behavioral adjustment and the punch in the nose is the attention getter, just like the protests.
You can't go along with what you bully wants you to do and be, then expect him to stop being your bully. Black people and their supporters need to press this point until laws and hearts change, period. They've stopped short far too many times now in the name of peacefulness, getting along, and coming together.
If this were a singular bully, that logic would work. It's not that simple.
edit 1:Now it's more punch everyone in the face regardless of whether they are a bully, and then wonder why some of them think you are violent.
edit 2: Even that is a gross oversimplification. It just seems that the we need to act to get change mentality often coincides with a "punch" first, ask questions later mentality.
I think a mentality of think, then act, then think some more, then adapt the action, then think some more, rinse and repeat would work better than the swing first and keep swinging that things frequently devolve into as is.
Then there are obvious lessons we many of us has seen, witnessed ans history points out to work that some just can't seem to accept.
You've been told that protests work so many times that you believe it. That doesn't make it objectively true. It appears they more often end up in creating hostile environments.
If they worked so well, why do you have to keep doing them to bring about effectively the same thing? (equality)
The same prankster keeps sneaking up behind you and kicking you in the ass. But if you turn around and punch him out a few times, he will stop. It's a behavioral adjustment and the punch in the nose is the attention getter, just like the protests.
You can't go along with what you bully wants you to do and be, then expect him to stop being your bully. Black people and their supporters need to press this point until laws and hearts change, period. They've stopped short far too many times now in the name of peacefulness, getting along, and coming together.
If this were a singular bully, that logic would work. It's not that simple.
yes, its multiple bullies.
which is why the movement exist.
He doesn't get it and never will. Then somehow believes it's everyone else that doesn't get it.
You can show him the history. Show him that nothing was done on many social issues until the people rose up.
He just keeps twisting it and pretends like none of it happened. You're wasting your time.
it was worth a shot.
ive been paying attention to your convo with Bull and his comments overall in these threads, and im just confused as to how so much factual information seems to get ignored because of his own viewpoint rarely backed up by anything.
im trying my hardest to understand where dude is coming from but.....eh.
it was worth a shot.
ive been paying attention to your convo with Bull and his comments overall in these threads, and im just confused as to how so much factual information seems to get ignored because of his own viewpoint rarely backed up by anything.
im trying my hardest to understand where dude is coming from but.....eh.
When "you" see a flower, you may think that it's a pretty flower.
When I see a flower, I acknowledge the flower, but then I think about how the shade progresses throughout the day at that location that allows it to grow the way it did. I consider the soil composition and think about how much moisture (rain and humidity) there has been recently. There may be some bite marks on some of the petals, so I wonder what's been eating it. From there, I wonder if the critter is indigenous to the ecosystem. And on, and on.
Some people are content thinking about a thing itself. I get bored with that and think about all the things that are connected to the thing, and there are always more things that are connected to the initial thing than are readily apparent.
Some people see things as simple, "obvious", etc. I see no simple things, but things with different orders of complexity. I'm not trying to make a value judgment on the different perspectives, just juxtaposing the differences.
We think differently. *shrug*
What you actually do is just gaslight people in the politest way possible, Bull.
People provide you with facts, real world examples, anecdotal stories of their experience, etc. and you constantly tell them "well, no. This doesn't fit the long arduous process I use to form an opinion." Then you typically explain "honestly, you're wrong because in my mind you create more division. We need to be nicer to racist idiots."
Incase if you're unfamiliar with the term:
Gaslighting is a tactic in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality.
You question the reality people present regardless of the factual information they present.
its funny you used a metaphor like that when the evidence says you loving judging books by its cover.
Pit and other people have acknowledge and even go into deep detail about specific topics, but what you and him have been talking about has actually been very simple concepts to grasp, yet keeps flying over your head.
for example, look at this post of yours:
If you're forced to participate is it really civil?
In "politics" it definitely seems like every action leads to escalation. ...and then you end up with Trump as president. I'm not sure I want to know how one would escalate from that.
this line specifically: If you're forced to participate is it really civil?
^^^^ really highlighted how unaware you seem to be, how movements are created and dissolved, and how actions of a group can lead to progress - or digression - within a state or country.
those concepts and ideas should be simple to grasp. those concepts and ideas should be obvious to most, if not all.
No rain, no flower. It's a concept you seem to understand on one level but not so much on another level.
it was worth a shot.
ive been paying attention to your convo with Bull and his comments overall in these threads, and im just confused as to how so much factual information seems to get ignored because of his own viewpoint rarely backed up by anything.
im trying my hardest to understand where dude is coming from but.....eh.
When "you" see a flower, you may think that it's a pretty flower.
When I see a flower, I acknowledge the flower, but then I think about how the shade progresses throughout the day at that location that allows it to grow the way it did. I consider the soil composition and think about how much moisture (rain and humidity) there has been recently. There may be some bite marks on some of the petals, so I wonder what's been eating it. From there, I wonder if the critter is indigenous to the ecosystem. And on, and on.
Some people are content thinking about a thing itself. I get bored with that and think about all the things that are connected to the thing, and there are always more things that are connected to the initial thing than are readily apparent.
Some people see things as simple, "obvious", etc. I see no simple things, but things with different orders of complexity. I'm not trying to make a value judgment on the different perspectives, just juxtaposing the differences.
We think differently. *shrug*
So you overthink crap to the point of inaction or inadequate action. Gotcha. Paralysis by analysis... You wouldn't happen to be an engineer would you?
What you actually do is just gaslight people in the politest way possible, Bull.
People provide you with facts, real world examples, anecdotal stories of their experience, etc. and you constantly tell them "well, no. This doesn't fit the long arduous process I use to form an opinion." Then you typically explain "honestly, you're wrong because in my mind you create more division. We need to be nicer to racist idiots."
Incase if you're unfamiliar with the term:
Gaslighting is a tactic in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality.
You question the reality people present regardless of the factual information they present.
You think I want you to question your reality, so that I have more power?
I want you to question your version of reality, so that you have more power.
People don't question things enough.
People focus on a particular part of the story (or "fact" as they seem to use interchangeably), and act like it's the entire story. There is always more to every story.
Then they come up with/use ideas they only partially understand so they never have to question anything. An avoidance of questions inevitably leads to ignorance in the areas they refuse to examine.
I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm trying to get people to thoughtfully consider what they believe. Consider that there may be more complexity than you've been led to/come to believe.
People use real world examples that illustrate the opposite of what they are trying to relate like Pit's repeated reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis. "Kennedy blockaded because the Russians were bringing missiles, Kennedy blockaded because the Russians were bringing missiles...Kennedy blockaded...." The Russians brought missiles because Castro asked for them because the CIA was trying to kill him with Kennedy's approval. I've posted links to that elsewhere.
I've never said you have to be nicer to racist idiots. I've said perhaps you should stop treating people indiscriminately like they are racist idiots and consider that there might be a better way to effect the change you want to see, if not in those words.
Instead of considering that maybe there could be a better way, "you" seem intent on picking fights and insisting that it is impossible that there could be a better way.
Instead of immediately sending back a defensive retort, could you take a day or two to think about? Read what I've said a few times? Try to take the emotion out of it?
I'm just wondering if you use a magnifying glass when you go grasping for straws? So it wasn't the Russians bringing missiles into Cuba that caused Kennedy to blockade Cuba?
Ignoring that causation isn't a real thing doesn't dictate reality.
If by your own admission, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then one must ask the question, what was the action that caused the soviets to want to place missiles in Cuba... right?
Or did they just want to put them there because they are bad people?
I never claimed anyone was "evil or bad people". The Bay of Pigs is what in my opinion caused Russia to place missiles in Cuba. Would you like to keep playing games like, "And why did the Bay of Pigs happen"?
You did however enforce the point I was making. Thanks.
I'm so confused right now.
Finally something we agree on.
Eww boy ..blind in one eye and can’t see out of the other. Moving on.
You think I want you to question your reality, so that I have more power?
I want you to question your version of reality, so that you have more power.
You're a politician aren't you?
its funny you used a metaphor like that when the evidence says you loving judging books by its cover.
Pit and other people have acknowledge and even go into deep detail about specific topics, but what you and him have been talking about has actually been very simple concepts to grasp, yet keeps flying over your head.
for example, look at this post of yours:
If you're forced to participate is it really civil?
In "politics" it definitely seems like every action leads to escalation. ...and then you end up with Trump as president. I'm not sure I want to know how one would escalate from that.
this line specifically: If you're forced to participate is it really civil?
^^^^ really highlighted how unaware you seem to be, how movements are created and dissolved, and how actions of a group can lead to progress - or digression - within a state or country.
those concepts and ideas should be simple to grasp. those concepts and ideas should be obvious to most, if not all.
My statement was referring to the incongruity of the definitions:
force: make (someone) do something against their will.
civil: courteous and polite
(definitions per Google)
It was kind of tongue in cheek word play. Maybe I should have put it in purple.
You seem to have taken something completely different from it than the statement's intention.
I was in no way trying to say there was something wrong with movements, or any any way referencing methods of their creation.
It was a half-hearted joke directed at his word choice.
Try to take the emotion out of it?
Invalidating
By definition, invalidation is the process of denying, rejecting or dismissing someone’s feelings. Invalidation sends the message that a person’s subjective emotional experience is inaccurate, insignificant, and/or unacceptable.
it was worth a shot.
ive been paying attention to your convo with Bull and his comments overall in these threads, and im just confused as to how so much factual information seems to get ignored because of his own viewpoint rarely backed up by anything.
im trying my hardest to understand where dude is coming from but.....eh.
When "you" see a flower, you may think that it's a pretty flower.
When I see a flower, I acknowledge the flower, but then I think about how the shade progresses throughout the day at that location that allows it to grow the way it did. I consider the soil composition and think about how much moisture (rain and humidity) there has been recently. There may be some bite marks on some of the petals, so I wonder what's been eating it. From there, I wonder if the critter is indigenous to the ecosystem. And on, and on.
Some people are content thinking about a thing itself. I get bored with that and think about all the things that are connected to the thing, and there are always more things that are connected to the initial thing than are readily apparent.
Some people see things as simple, "obvious", etc. I see no simple things, but things with different orders of complexity. I'm not trying to make a value judgment on the different perspectives, just juxtaposing the differences.
We think differently. *shrug*
So you overthink crap to the point of inaction or inadequate action. Gotcha. Paralysis by analysis... You wouldn't happen to be an engineer would you?
Raised by one, and thus, definitely not one now.
I can actually do things and keep thinking. I can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, too. I can be doing something, be told new information, think about it and adapt on the fly if it makes sense. It does have to make sense, though.
Try to take the emotion out of it?
Invalidating
By definition, invalidation is the process of denying, rejecting or dismissing someone’s feelings. Invalidation sends the message that a person’s subjective emotional experience is inaccurate, insignificant, and/or unacceptable.
You're allowed to have them. They aren't wrong. You will undoubtedly feel something.
However, they don't help rational thought. I was asking you to wait for them to pass before responding, which you didn't do.
You think I want you to question your reality, so that I have more power?
I want you to question your version of reality, so that you have more power.
You're a politician aren't you?
I think the reality is subjective and you have a personal bias baked into your opinion.
Bull, it doesn't take me long to process most things. If we're talking Calculus...well that's an arduous process for another lifetime.
For you to tell me "take some more time to think" is incredibly dismissive without any sort of factual basis to back your pseudo-parental attitude. It makes me think "huh, apparently my thoughts don't matter and that if I only thought longer by some arbitrary measure that people will listen."
Your main argument across threads has been "this isn't authentics, BLM is doing it wrong, and we can't call people out even if the definition fits because it sows division." If someone is using Nazi iconography, you call it what it is. If someone is endorsing views of racists, you call it for what it is.
Minority groups don't have time to waste for the majority to not be offended. Step out of the way and let minority groups lead.
I wonder if you would be telling MLK Jr, Gandhi, Elizabeth Jean Peratrovich, Rose Parks, or anyone else their methods aren't worth it as they sowed this "division" you keep preaching about.
I think the reality is subjective and you have a personal bias baked into your opinion.
You think I want you to question your reality, so that I have more power?
I want you to question your version of reality, so that you have more power.
You're a politician aren't you?
Hey, here you go again trying to point out how smart you are again.
I was speaking in terms of the qualifier you mentioned. ie the type of people voters elect. Sometimes people overvalue their self worth.
Bull, it doesn't take me long to process most things. If we're talking Calculus...well that's an arduous process for another lifetime.
For you to tell me "take some more time to think" is incredibly dismissive without any sort of factual basis to back your pseudo-parental attitude. It makes me think "huh, apparently my thoughts don't matter and that if I only thought longer by some arbitrary measure that people will listen."
Your main argument across threads has been "this isn't authentics, BLM is doing it wrong, and we can't call people out even if the definition fits because it sows division." If someone is using Nazi iconography, you call it what it is. If someone is endorsing views of racists, you call it for what it is.
Minority groups don't have time to waste for the majority to not be offended. Step out of the way and let minority groups lead.
I wonder if you would be telling MLK Jr, Gandhi, Elizabeth Jean Peratrovich, Rose Parks, or anyone else their methods aren't worth it as they sowed this "division" you keep preaching about.
It's not about how long it takes you to think, it's about how long it takes for the initial emotional response to pass.
I think there's an old cliche along the lines of "control your emotions, don't let them control you."
Emotions cloud perceptions.
Emotion and Perception: The Role of Affective Information The emotions we feel may shape what we see 5 Ways Your Emotions Influence Your World (and Vice Versa) You don't have to read those, I just want to show that the idea isn't unsubstantiated. The fifth example on the last link is kind of interesting. I don't know what orange text does.
Were MLK/Gandhi/Rosa Park's movements so overtly focused on symbols and gestures? Did Rosa Parks tell everyone that they had to sit on the bus and only sit on the bus. "Everyone keep sitting on the bus, we're sitting on the bus to fight injustice. You can't say everyone should be able to sit where they want on the bus. You have to say African Americans should be able to sit wherever they want on the bus."
MLK didn't just march. He gave speeches. He didn't just give off the cuff interviews. He carefully crafted a message and delivered it with passion.
You keep thinking in clearly delineated terms of black and white, right and wrong. I'm trying to get you to think in terms of degrees of effectiveness. Working Better instead of kind of working.
People didn't think that Netflix would work because the Blockbuster model is what had always been done before. Blockbuster's gone now. Netflix was more effective. For some reason, it seems "you" want to keep going to Blockbuster and keep insisting that there can't possibly be a Netflix. ...I could probably tie that together better, but I'm about all DawgTalked out.
For you to tell me "take some more time to think" is incredibly dismissive without any sort of factual basis to back your pseudo-parental attitude.
He's taken over from Nelson as the smartest guy in the room. He's a bit nicer about it but just as condescending the more he types.
j/c:
Lot's of name calling, insulting, ganging up on, narrow-minded thinking by those who claim to be "liberal" in their thinking.
I can hardly read Bull's posts because they are too out there for me. I try and live in the real world instead of the conceptual realms. However, I absolutely despise bullying and ganging up on someone just because they have a different thought process.
The ironic and disgusting thing is that the guys who are partaking in the bullying techniques are the very guys who cry repeatedly how some are mistreated by others.
You are no better than those you hate. You ideology is polar, but your tactics and bias is the same as those you despise. You are losing folks. Trust me on that one.
j/c:
Lot's of name calling, insulting, ganging up on, narrow-minded thinking by those who claim to be "liberal" in their thinking.
I can hardly read Bull's posts because they are too out there for me. I try and live in the real world instead of the conceptual realms. However, I absolutely despise bullying and ganging up on someone just because they have a different thought process.
The ironic and disgusting thing is that the guys who are partaking in the bullying techniques are the very guys who cry repeatedly how some are mistreated by others.
You are no better than those you hate. You ideology is polar, but your tactics and bias is the same as those you despise. You are losing folks. Trust me on that one.
trust you ? Eww boy .
j/c:
Lot's of name calling, insulting, ganging up on, narrow-minded thinking by those who claim to be "liberal" in their thinking.
I can hardly read Bull's posts because they are too out there for me. I try and live in the real world instead of the conceptual realms. However, I absolutely despise bullying and ganging up on someone just because they have a different thought process.
The ironic and disgusting thing is that the guys who are partaking in the bullying techniques are the very guys who cry repeatedly how some are mistreated by others.
You are no better than those you hate. You ideology is polar, but your tactics and bias is the same as those you despise. You are losing folks. Trust me on that one.
Without doubt there are a large number of meaningless posts that do nothing more than jab at one side or the other. I think some of it is a result of the media - someone reads an inflammatory, blaming, "the other side is so wrong" type story - and then someone comes and posts it here or relays the gist of it. Some of it is just banter, all be it mean spirited. Some of it is 'can you believe this schtick'. Some of it is just complaining or venting. Some of it is squabbling over a technicality .... And then you have folks come in here and don't comment much on the issues and spend more time telling other posters what to think and how to post or conduct their lives while personally insulting posters.
I think the take away is no-one should get bent out of shape over the posts ... maybe less than 15% of all content is intended to be sincere dialogue or debate.
maybe less than 15% of all content is intended to be sincere dialogue or debate.
Come on, it's way less than 15%.
I started out at writing "5%" ... but there have been several well intended threads recently with some momentous events going on. Thought I would give the benefit of the doubt.