by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday April 19, 2021 @11:32AM (#61290472)
Can't read that due to a paywall, but you do know that we live in an era where video can be easily shared, right? We've watched the left and antifa burn down buildings, watched police force to form a line around a church to prevent "peaceful BLM protestors" from looting, seen the aftermath of these "peaceful protests."
You can try and claim that burning down buildings, lighting police cars on fire, smashing windows and looting stores is "peaceful" all you want, but we can see it happening in real time from people on the ground.
Meanwhile all the "insurrectionists" did was mostly just wander around, taking selfies, yet for some reason we're supposed to be outraged at people watching the electoral system ignore their votes and support people violently burning down businesses and government buildings. The MSM no longer controls the narrative. We can see what's really happening. You can't hide the evidence when anyone can share it online.
This is actually the problem. You see the videos that highlight your latent bias and beliefs. Imagine there was 100,000 hours of protests. Now imagine we have 100 hours of bad actors doing bad things. You will watch those 100 hours and you will say "All protests are violent hateful and extreme" because you simply are informed by the sound bytes and videos of social media.
You slowly start to reject all information that does not meet your worldview and move to extremist views. You doubt everything that causes any cognitive dissonance. Eventually, you start to think that everyone who doesn't think like you are evil.
This is the curse of social media and why it is destroying our country.
Imagine there was 100,000 hours of protests. Now imagine we have 100 hours of bad actors doing bad things. You will watch those 100 hours and you will say "All protests are violent hateful and extreme" because you simply are informed by the sound bytes and videos of social media.
At least you're phrasing that as a hypothetical because we all know it isn't true. But I also note that, weirdly, that same logic doesn't apply to the police. We have likely at this point decades of footage of good police, and very little of bad police. Yet, for some reason, we're supposed to completely "defund the police" over a few bad apples.
So again we see the left double-standard at work: protestors burn down buildings, attack police, throw Molotov cocktails, set vehicles on fire: "mostly peaceful." A
"The left...." People who talk in absolutes rarely have anything worth listening to. While you are close, your bias won't let you see the whole picture. Let's start with the fact that individual protesters can and should be held accountable for any bad actions. The ones who rob, destroy, and harm should be punished by the full extent of the law. This is also true with the police. The problem starts with the fact that the police and local governments refuse to police themselves. There is no way the citizens can affect this. We can't arrest the police and in many cases, there is not political vote that will arrest the police.
Up to this point, you are correct, there are more good police than bad ones, just like the protestors you villainize to meet your world view. The part where you fall for the "fake news" is when you think defunding the police means ending the police. It means no such thing, it means building a better system. The police are too large, too well funded, too militarized, untrained, and unequipped to deal with many of the situations they are called into service for. We need a more diverse system that can handle the struggles of mental and physical illnesses, crisis, and yes crime. People should not be charged with assault on an officer when they have a seizure. People should not get shot with their hands up while complying. We should have much better options than sending the police to deal with problem children in a home. We need to stop ruining the lives of children and young adults.
Many other professions have similar risks and do not carry firearms every single second with the option of ending a life when they are afraid. No other profession has qualified immunity to the law they serve. No one has ever written a rap song called 'F the firemen'.
My point is all of this is far more complex than the black/white liberal/conservative viewpoint you have taken. So is the media biased? Sure everyone and everything is biased. To be informed you can not seek out news that meets your world view, you can not take any social media or commercial media on face value. Find multiple points of view, seek to understand the real motivations of your opposition (not just creating villains in your head) and if you are lucky, you will see that the only thing keeping us from a better world is that we simply don't see each other as people.
The part where you fall for the "fake news" is when you think defunding the police means ending the police. It means no such thing, it means building a better system.
No, it literally means ending the police. Democrats have been desperately trying to get the left (see, I know they're not the same) to stop saying they want to defund the police and trying to spin it as merely asking for police reform. And now the left is demanding instead to "abolish the police" because "defund" was unclear.
They've made it entirely clear that, no, they do not seek police reform, no, they do not want to merely reduce the size of the police or reduce funding, they literally want an end to po
Your earlier post made you seem like reasonable and logical person whose views simply differ from the parent poster; you seemed like someone with a brain on their shoulders. This post shows that your reasonable side is given to being overwhelmed by your emotions. To me, as an outsider, it now seems like you need help more than the person you're replying to - you come across as someone who has lost the plot.
There will never be agreement between the polar opposites of progressive libertarians and conservative
I do understand where the comments come from. I simply will not continue an argument where no progress or common ground can be made. There was no argument against my position. Just a redirect that libs = evil. My point was made, neither party is moving to a middle ground. Continuing is indulging trolls.
I do understand where the comments come from. I simply will not continue an argument where no progress or common ground can be made. There was no argument against my position. Just a redirect that libs = evil. My point was made, neither party is moving to a middle ground. Continuing is indulging trolls.
Sure, but there’s a difference between not continuing an argument snd throwing up condescending insults on the way out. But you know that.
And of course, everyone is a troll to someone.(and some of us a
People who talk in absolutes rarely have anything worth listening to.
Irony?
To be informed you can not seek out news that meets your world view, you can not take any social media or commercial media on face value. Find multiple points of view, seek to understand the real motivations of your opposition (not just creating villains in your head)
This advice is given to....?
I’ll just cone out and ask, which group(s) do you feel typically practice this?
Not enough people follow this advice. I change my positions with evidence. That is a very rare position for anyone who cares about politics to take. You won’t find this happening often enough to point to a group. When a politician does this they are a waffler.
My point on absolutes stands. It applies to me as well.
This is what's killer here. This notion that's there's only one narrative to push. It's hilarious when folks think that there is only one group to play and "media" is just playing that group.
Project Veritas has proved that time and time again
This is what's fun. Hey don't believe MSM, they're pushing a narrative, so says this group who's entire purpose is to push a narrative. I'm not saying drink the MSM kool-aid here, but you absolutely sounding like you are drinking one of the other team's kool-aid.
not OK for the right to peacefully protest their winning votes being overturned due to fraud
Uh, yeah, that whole January 6th thing, totes peaceful
Uh, yeah, that whole January 6th thing, totes peaceful but you know it's whatever. Folks burning shit down are getting arrested and fuckers invading the capitol are getting arrested, so Thanos balanced in my eyes
You say that but a lot of people act like everyone who feels like the election was was stolen is as guilty as those that did the riot. Apparently the only election fraud we're aloud to believe in is that caused by Russia
Yes, everyone who rioted believing the election was stolen are as bad as the BLM rioters. Perhaps worse, as the stop the steal people were rioting over a lie, while the BLM rioters were rioting over unarmed, actually dead, black people.
I'm sure the families of the people who were unjustly inured or murdered during the BLM riots that small comfort that it was for a better cause. Same with those people whose businesses were burn down
Russia interfering with the election still resulted in a Trump presidency because it wasn't election fraud. There was no one storming the capital trying to overturn fraud that didn't exist in 2016 but there certainly was in 2021.
The word "feel" has no place in whether the election was stolen or it wasn't. It was tried in over 60 courts and in all cases thrown out due to lack of evidence and often thrown out with prejudice. It is factually incorrect to think the election was stolen either in 2016 or in 2020
No, not really. Nobody denies that there are peaceful protestors on the left. And that even the majority of them were so. The problem arises when you have the mainstream media abandoning any pretense of objectivity and overtly twisting their reporting to maintain their preferred narrative. An obvious example being CNN's infamous "fiery but mostly peaceful protests." [washingtontimes.com]
Ugh, where are you getting your news? A police officer was hit with bear spray and hit in the head with a fire extinguisher on the day of the riot. That is in addition to all the injuries of both policies, protestors, and victims inside the capital building.
If you wanna argue the thing is over-hyped go for it, the media sensationalizes everything. 5 people die a direct consequence of events that happened on that day. Just because it took a few people a little longer to croak doesn't suddenly make the cause
A police officer was hit with bear spray and hit in the head with a fire extinguisher on the day of the riot.
Ironic that you'd post that today because it's just breaking that almost none of that happened [npr.org]. Turns out, the police officer who died, Officer Sicknick, died of two separate and unrelated strokes. There was no evidence of trauma, or internal or external injuries. The bear spray did not cause an allergic reaction.
I'm using NPR as a source because I hope that will be seen as trustworthy enough to be considered true, but you can find it in all major media. Finally. Despite the fact that this has been known si
You're a full-on fool if you believe this constitutes that there was no insurrection. This is just as disingenuous a play as Trump and his followers running around saying "See! I didn't say those things they said I said!" after that recording was found in someone's trash - when what he said had just about exactly the same meaning, and in no way refutes what he was recorded as saying to Raffensberger. You guys are all playing king of the hill on a mountain of lies, and directly supporting fascism, whether bl
Eh. Even as an example your 100 hours disingenuous as we all know there were listerally 170 days of riots in Portland alone. Never mind all these other cities that went on for months.
It's a double standard. Pro-lifer protest planned parenthood everyday but are still linked as a whole to antiabortion facility bombings or shootings - which are even more rare than the riots going on now.
It’s not a double standard if both sides are doing it. I agree 99.999% of anti-abortion protests are peaceful. Notice my wording, i did it purposefully to trigger you. You see it as pro life, i see it as anti abortion because it impacts a lot of life and seems to end support after birth. That may have gotten your back up more. Now realize that i don’t support casual abortion and think that we should do everything we can to limit the need for them. So I’m actually in a way on their side. I
To expand upon what JackieBrown wrote, if your intent had been to "trigger" someone, you'd have said anti-choice not anti-abortion. I don't know of a single pro-lifer who would be "triggered" by being called anti-abortion, and if you tried calling a pro-lifer that, they'd likely pull an Eitri and respond with "yes... that's what pro-life means".
Nobody cares about non-problems like peaceful protesters. We care about the problems and the destructive behavior of groups of people that cause them. Everybody knows there are peaceful protests all the time. We also know there are riots, looting, violent assault and property damage all the time. Problem A isn't the problem so we don't care. Let them march and be ignorant and naïve. We care about problem B and the erosion of civil society, the rule of law and sky rocketing crime.
"If you have 1,300 good cops, and 12 bad cops, then you have 1,312 bad cops. 1 3 1 2, ACAB." I see no reason to not use their own logic against them.
Besides, we're not saying "all protests are violent hateful and extreme". That is an attempt to twist reality and I suspect you damn well know it. What is being said, is "these specific protests that MSM is trying to claim are peaceful, are violent hateful and extreme".
Itâ(TM)s time magazine claiming 93% of protests are peaceful when Portland had daily riots, Minneapolis was burned, NY had several riots and Seattle was having an occupation. Thatâ(TM)s just the ones I paid attention to. So right. Mostly peaceful burning.
Why post such FlameBait? The 93% number is meaningless. Having 93% of protests be peaceful saying nothing about the percentage of protesters who are peaceful. Larger protests are more likely to erupt in violence because there are more attendees. But even then, the vast majority of attendees will be peaceful. Given the gross inequities being protested and the size of the crowd, even if the protesters were violent at an order of magnitude lower than general society (or two orders of magnitude lower than
The insurrectionists did end up delaying the vote. That is the definition of insurrection. Open the time.com link in an incognito window but you won't because it contradicts your beliefs.
Sure, the insurrectionists mostly just took selfies for a terrible cause, only a few broke windows. BLM mostly only protested peacefully and for a good cause, only a few broke windows.
Here's how to tell if you're deluding yourself by praising X:
Ask yourself, how would I feel if X happened in my town, in my workplace, or on my street, or in my home?
I'll go first:
I like the idea of nuclear power, and I would not mind if a couple dozen or hundred acres of open space in my town were used to build a nuclear power plant, even if it's the open field closest to my house that does it.
I like the idea of professional law enforcement, and I wouldn't mind one bit if my kid grows up and becomes a cop.
Now you go, fill on the blank:
"I like the idea of Black Lives Matter, therefore if there were daily Black Lives Matter protests on my street, demanding the typical things BLM the organization demands, such as the abolition of professional police forces, the redistribution of property from white people to black people, and an end to the nuclear family, I would feel __"
What if I told you that lowering the police budget, releasing criminals due to COVID, and promissory bails all coincide with 1900% murder rate increase [lawofficer.com]?
The article does not say there was one homicide last year in Portland. It says there was 1 homicide in Portland in the opening of 2020 compared to 19 in the same time period in 2021.
It's saying that there was one (1) homicide in Portland in all of January and February last year, and apparently more than 50 in the rest of the year during the pandemic. That's hard to believe and would require an exceptional explanation if true.
One thing's for certain. People will continue to elect Democrats in these cities whose policies lead to the police actions leading to the protests.
And the people will continue to elect these same people whosr policies lead to the large crime increases, at the behest of loudmouths who go home to save neighborhoods.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that a 10% budget cut results in skyrocketing murder rates. As if that 10% is the thin line between lawfulness and anarchy.
What's really going on is the cops are intentionally not doing their jobs to try and prove a point.
That point being they don't want to lose their jobs or cause their family members to lose their jobs by association if they get accused of having done something sinister while doing a job that explicitly entails confrontations with people at their low points?
You have a very weird idea of what 1900% means. From another article:
"According to the city's crime statistics website, Portland had 56 homicides in 2020. In 2019, the number of homicides was 35 and in 2018, it was 26. The FBI has expressed interest in helping police curb gun violence."
That depends on what gets cut and wher3 that money goes. And it depends in large part on whether the 10% cut is intended as a prelude to a 100% cut.
Oh look, here's a mainstream news report from a BLM rally this past weekend with people holding signs saying "abolish the police" marching in large numbers together:
I guess either I'm too stupid to understand the nuanced difference between abolishing law enforcement all at once versus a little at a time, or you're lying to me (or
it's to shift what they do. Police are the ones we grant the right to commit violence too. Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using them for every little thing that might need a social worker just because we don't like funding social workers.
Police are the ones we grant the right to commit violence too. Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using them for every little thing that might need a social worker just because we don't like funding social workers.
Are you going to give social workers training in self-defense, and give them body armor to wear?
Our current system is that we send police officers into any unknown situation. If the officers find that the situation is stable and a social worker is needed, they bring in a social worker.
Let me get this straight. You think cops are bad at their job, and your solution is to decrease funding? If this were applied to any other profession, you'd scoff at the idea.
"We've got bad doctors, and your solution is to reduce funding for hospitals? Are you mad?"
"We've got bad teachers, and your solution is to reduce funding for schools? Are you mad?"
It's insane how people can hold two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.
daily protests. The fact that you didn't notice means either a) you don't live in a city with more than a few hundred thousand residence or b) you didn't notice because they were entirely peaceful.
a) is optional. Many small towns had daily protests you didn't notice because, again, they were entirely peaceful.
Also "Defund the Police" isn't the Anarchist thing you're thinking it is. It just means shift funding to non violent social work. The problem with America is we slashed budgets in the name of Austerity on everything but the Cops, so suddenly the cops were made to do *everything*. This is why you can find videos of cops arresting 6 year old in handcuffs.
What you should be asking yourself is why that terrible slogan was the only one you ever heard. Almost like the dumbest members of BLM were given a megaphone by a hostile media... Naw... couldn't be. That would mean you, me and the entire nation just got played for fools. And you'd see right through that, right?
No, I live in a big metro area and we had our bout of looting and rioting and torching police cars and throwing fireworks at cops last year. But our blue state has a Republican governor who called up the national guard, stationed them all over Boston, and that looting and rioting happened exaclty zero times afterword, in contrast with Minneapolis and Seattle and Portland where the Democrat governors just let shit burn and let the lawlessness fester
As for what "defund" means, yeah....it *is* an anarchist thi
Also "Defund the Police" isn't the Anarchist thing you're thinking it is. It just means shift funding to non violent social work.
I believe that you believe that. But the people you are siding with and arguing in favour of aren't treating it as such. They absolutely mean it as "get rid of cops 100%".
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and âoevillagesâ that collectively care...
When one sees the world "disrupt" or "interrupt" in "anti-racist" literature like White Fragility, it is usually synonymous with "reject" or "challenge" and is generally a position of antagonism rather than passive disagreement.
Want to keep a BLM protest peaceful? Surround it with heavily armed troops with orders to shoot looters and rioters on sight. That will keep the protest nice and peaceful or provide them something else to protest.
The murder rate has snapped back to 90's levels. Crime is up in nearly every major city. Police are retiring and departments are struggling to replace them. Keep acting flippant and putting forth strawmen though that "America is burning to the ground". We have objective evidence and measurements as to what is going on.
Billions in property damage. At least 33 murdered in the riots. The erosion of law and order. Politicians interfering in the judicial process.
When your motto is "by any means necessary", anyth
The stated purpose of Facebook and Twitter is different from parler. The later was specifically deployed because mainstream apps did allow sufficient free speech to plan an insurrection against the US. It is like saying because we allow gun stores, we also have to allow bomb stores.
There was no evidence that Parler was used to plan (the unplanned) insurrection (mostly peaceful protest). There is plenty of evidence that Twitter and FB were involved.
No, Parler was where they were spreading election disinformation to anger the mental midgets into taking part in an insurrection.
The difference being that the election lies were public and widely shared, and thus a target, while the planning was in private or small groups, which is really more the FBI's responsibility. Now, why the FBI was so bad at this is another discussion...
you dont need that to plan an insurrection. Any app is enough to drive people to a website blog or old fashioned forum / bulletin board. Once you have the eyes end ears, you safe the objectionable content for other communication. You could launch an IRC channel, or even put cryptic messages on USENET (yes its still around). In fact the more old school you go with it, the harder it is to even be aware that its occurring. If you really were planning a REAL insurrection, and not some half-assed protest gone wr
sufficient free speech to plan an insurrection against the US
There was no insurrection. Just a few idiots walking around Congress and the left falling all over itself to lie about it. There was one cold blooded murder but she wasn't "enlightened" so her life didn't matter.
The only requirement is that you have a timely moderation system. It doesn't really matter how shit it is, just that you have one.
Facebook does have one. Parler didn't because it was only a small network (less than 1 million total users when it first got booted off) and didn't have much cash owing to having no revenue streams (like most startups), so couldn't afford a team large enough to either moderate or to develop moderation tools.
The new re-written Parler claims to have """AI""" systems for hiding nasty posts, presumably some kind of word filter, and a new moderation team that will hopefully keep the moderation queue short.
This is false as event he CEO mentioned in interviews. They did have a moderation system and a report system. What they didn't have is AI moderation because they believed that only a human should be capable of removing content on a free-speech platform. While they did remove posts, their team couldn't handle the volume.
Parler didn't because it was only a small network (less than 1 million total users when it first got booted off) and didn't have much cash owing to having no revenue streams (like most startups), so couldn't afford a team large enough to either moderate or to develop moderation tools.
Bullshit. Parler moderated a lot of content and they kept up with it. It was never a "free speech network" because there were banned topics of conversation. Topics and users were routinely deleted and banned practically instant
From Forbes: The Department of Justice has now charged 223 people for their participation in the events of Jan. 6. A comprehensive analysis [forbes.com] of those charging documents performed by Forbes demonstrate that Parler’s role was minimal, compared to that of Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram.
Of the 223 charging documents, 73 reference posts on Facebook as evidence, 24 reference posts on YouTube, 20 single out Instagram posts (owned by Facebook), and only eight highlight posts on Parler.
"Yes, only trillion dollar companies with billion dollar AI departments and 16,000 full time post moderators are responsible enough to escape cancellation."
Double standard (Score:5, Insightful)
If they held facebook to the same standard it would probably never get back on the app store
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
An Twitter, and YouTube. But we live in the age that Riots = Peaceful Protesting. Meh.
Re: (Score:0, Flamebait)
An Twitter, and YouTube. But we live in the age that Riots = Peaceful Protesting. Meh.
We actually live in the era of flavored riots, where certain groups are protected and allowed to defend their right to incite...freedom.
The others, as defined by a corrupt MSM, are just a bunch of fucking animals that should be locked up.
Re:Double standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Fake news was telling you America was burning to the ground. Meanwhile in reality https://time.com/5886348/repor... [time.com]
Re:Double standard (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't read that due to a paywall, but you do know that we live in an era where video can be easily shared, right? We've watched the left and antifa burn down buildings, watched police force to form a line around a church to prevent "peaceful BLM protestors" from looting, seen the aftermath of these "peaceful protests."
You can try and claim that burning down buildings, lighting police cars on fire, smashing windows and looting stores is "peaceful" all you want, but we can see it happening in real time from people on the ground.
Meanwhile all the "insurrectionists" did was mostly just wander around, taking selfies, yet for some reason we're supposed to be outraged at people watching the electoral system ignore their votes and support people violently burning down businesses and government buildings. The MSM no longer controls the narrative. We can see what's really happening. You can't hide the evidence when anyone can share it online.
Re:Double standard (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually the problem. You see the videos that highlight your latent bias and beliefs. Imagine there was 100,000 hours of protests. Now imagine we have 100 hours of bad actors doing bad things. You will watch those 100 hours and you will say "All protests are violent hateful and extreme" because you simply are informed by the sound bytes and videos of social media.
You slowly start to reject all information that does not meet your worldview and move to extremist views. You doubt everything that causes any cognitive dissonance. Eventually, you start to think that everyone who doesn't think like you are evil.
This is the curse of social media and why it is destroying our country.
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
Imagine there was 100,000 hours of protests. Now imagine we have 100 hours of bad actors doing bad things. You will watch those 100 hours and you will say "All protests are violent hateful and extreme" because you simply are informed by the sound bytes and videos of social media.
At least you're phrasing that as a hypothetical because we all know it isn't true. But I also note that, weirdly, that same logic doesn't apply to the police. We have likely at this point decades of footage of good police, and very little of bad police. Yet, for some reason, we're supposed to completely "defund the police" over a few bad apples.
So again we see the left double-standard at work: protestors burn down buildings, attack police, throw Molotov cocktails, set vehicles on fire: "mostly peaceful." A
Re:Double standard (Score:5, Interesting)
"The left...." People who talk in absolutes rarely have anything worth listening to. While you are close, your bias won't let you see the whole picture. Let's start with the fact that individual protesters can and should be held accountable for any bad actions. The ones who rob, destroy, and harm should be punished by the full extent of the law. This is also true with the police. The problem starts with the fact that the police and local governments refuse to police themselves. There is no way the citizens can affect this. We can't arrest the police and in many cases, there is not political vote that will arrest the police.
Up to this point, you are correct, there are more good police than bad ones, just like the protestors you villainize to meet your world view. The part where you fall for the "fake news" is when you think defunding the police means ending the police. It means no such thing, it means building a better system. The police are too large, too well funded, too militarized, untrained, and unequipped to deal with many of the situations they are called into service for. We need a more diverse system that can handle the struggles of mental and physical illnesses, crisis, and yes crime. People should not be charged with assault on an officer when they have a seizure. People should not get shot with their hands up while complying. We should have much better options than sending the police to deal with problem children in a home. We need to stop ruining the lives of children and young adults.
Many other professions have similar risks and do not carry firearms every single second with the option of ending a life when they are afraid. No other profession has qualified immunity to the law they serve. No one has ever written a rap song called 'F the firemen'.
My point is all of this is far more complex than the black/white liberal/conservative viewpoint you have taken. So is the media biased? Sure everyone and everything is biased. To be informed you can not seek out news that meets your world view, you can not take any social media or commercial media on face value. Find multiple points of view, seek to understand the real motivations of your opposition (not just creating villains in your head) and if you are lucky, you will see that the only thing keeping us from a better world is that we simply don't see each other as people.
Re: (Score:1)
The part where you fall for the "fake news" is when you think defunding the police means ending the police. It means no such thing, it means building a better system.
No, it literally means ending the police. Democrats have been desperately trying to get the left (see, I know they're not the same) to stop saying they want to defund the police and trying to spin it as merely asking for police reform. And now the left is demanding instead to "abolish the police" because "defund" was unclear.
They've made it entirely clear that, no, they do not seek police reform, no, they do not want to merely reduce the size of the police or reduce funding, they literally want an end to po
Re: (Score:2)
"If they don't attack the police, don't commit crime, and their lives won't be ruined. Seems simple enough to me. Stop trying to cover for criminals."
All I can say is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
I'm sorry you are too far gone for reason. You hate to make yourself feel better. Please seek help.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry you are too far gone for reason. You hate to make yourself feel better. Please seek help.
That’s the problem with advice which, on its face, seems sound.
They person offering it rarely practices it themselves.
In the end, it’s just another condescending , self-indulgent post to make them feel better about them.
Can you show us where you “sought to understand where your opposition was coming from?”
Shall we all tell our opponents that they are too far gone for reason when they d
Re: (Score:0)
Your earlier post made you seem like reasonable and logical person whose views simply differ from the parent poster; you seemed like someone with a brain on their shoulders. This post shows that your reasonable side is given to being overwhelmed by your emotions. To me, as an outsider, it now seems like you need help more than the person you're replying to - you come across as someone who has lost the plot.
There will never be agreement between the polar opposites of progressive libertarians and conservative
Re: Double standard (Score:2)
I do understand where the comments come from. I simply will not continue an argument where no progress or common ground can be made. There was no argument against my position. Just a redirect that libs = evil. My point was made, neither party is moving to a middle ground. Continuing is indulging trolls.
Re: (Score:0)
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
I do understand where the comments come from. I simply will not continue an argument where no progress or common ground can be made. There was no argument against my position. Just a redirect that libs = evil. My point was made, neither party is moving to a middle ground. Continuing is indulging trolls.
Sure, but there’s a difference between not continuing an argument snd throwing up condescending insults on the way out. But you know that.
And of course, everyone is a troll to someone.(and some of us a
Re: (Score:2)
People who talk in absolutes rarely have anything worth listening to.
Irony?
To be informed you can not seek out news that meets your world view, you can not take any social media or commercial media on face value. Find multiple points of view, seek to understand the real motivations of your opposition (not just creating villains in your head)
This advice is given to ....?
I’ll just cone out and ask, which group(s) do you feel typically practice this?
Re: (Score:3)
Not enough people follow this advice. I change my positions with evidence. That is a very rare position for anyone who cares about politics to take. You won’t find this happening often enough to point to a group. When a politician does this they are a waffler.
My point on absolutes stands. It applies to me as well.
Re: (Score:3)
We know that media is pushing a narrative
This is what's killer here. This notion that's there's only one narrative to push. It's hilarious when folks think that there is only one group to play and "media" is just playing that group.
Project Veritas has proved that time and time again
This is what's fun. Hey don't believe MSM, they're pushing a narrative, so says this group who's entire purpose is to push a narrative. I'm not saying drink the MSM kool-aid here, but you absolutely sounding like you are drinking one of the other team's kool-aid.
not OK for the right to peacefully protest their winning votes being overturned due to fraud
Uh, yeah, that whole January 6th thing, totes peaceful
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, yeah, that whole January 6th thing, totes peaceful but you know it's whatever. Folks burning shit down are getting arrested and fuckers invading the capitol are getting arrested, so Thanos balanced in my eyes
You say that but a lot of people act like everyone who feels like the election was was stolen is as guilty as those that did the riot.
Apparently the only election fraud we're aloud to believe in is that caused by Russia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure the families of the people who were unjustly inured or murdered during the BLM riots that small comfort that it was for a better cause. Same with those people whose businesses were burn down
Re: (Score:2)
Russia interfering with the election still resulted in a Trump presidency because it wasn't election fraud. There was no one storming the capital trying to overturn fraud that didn't exist in 2016 but there certainly was in 2021.
The word "feel" has no place in whether the election was stolen or it wasn't. It was tried in over 60 courts and in all cases thrown out due to lack of evidence and often thrown out with prejudice. It is factually incorrect to think the election was stolen either in 2016 or in 2020
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"5 dead and congress hiding from a mob in a mostly peaceful protest at the capitol today."
Re: Double standard (Score:0)
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, where are you getting your news? A police officer was hit with bear spray and hit in the head with a fire extinguisher on the day of the riot. That is in addition to all the injuries of both policies, protestors, and victims inside the capital building.
If you wanna argue the thing is over-hyped go for it, the media sensationalizes everything. 5 people die a direct consequence of events that happened on that day. Just because it took a few people a little longer to croak doesn't suddenly make the cause
Re: (Score:1)
A police officer was hit with bear spray and hit in the head with a fire extinguisher on the day of the riot.
Ironic that you'd post that today because it's just breaking that almost none of that happened [npr.org]. Turns out, the police officer who died, Officer Sicknick, died of two separate and unrelated strokes. There was no evidence of trauma, or internal or external injuries. The bear spray did not cause an allergic reaction.
I'm using NPR as a source because I hope that will be seen as trustworthy enough to be considered true, but you can find it in all major media. Finally. Despite the fact that this has been known si
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:0)
Eh. Even as an example your 100 hours disingenuous as we all know there were listerally 170 days of riots in Portland alone. Never mind all these other cities that went on for months.
Stop lieing to your self.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a double standard. Pro-lifer protest planned parenthood everyday but are still linked as a whole to antiabortion facility bombings or shootings - which are even more rare than the riots going on now.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s not a double standard if both sides are doing it. I agree 99.999% of anti-abortion protests are peaceful. Notice my wording, i did it purposefully to trigger you. You see it as pro life, i see it as anti abortion because it impacts a lot of life and seems to end support after birth. That may have gotten your back up more. Now realize that i don’t support casual abortion and think that we should do everything we can to limit the need for them. So I’m actually in a way on their side. I
Re: (Score:2)
It's all semantics. No one in this debates wants to be "anti"
My side wouldn't say we are anti-choice just like your wouldn't say you are anti-life.
You didn't write anything that would trigger most pro-life, anti-abortion people.
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:-1)
Nobody cares about non-problems like peaceful protesters. We care about the problems and the destructive behavior of groups of people that cause them. Everybody knows there are peaceful protests all the time. We also know there are riots, looting, violent assault and property damage all the time. Problem A isn't the problem so we don't care. Let them march and be ignorant and naïve. We care about problem B and the erosion of civil society, the rule of law and sky rocketing crime.
Re: (Score:0)
Besides, we're not saying "all protests are violent hateful and extreme". That is an attempt to twist reality and I suspect you damn well know it. What is being said, is "these specific protests that MSM is trying to claim are peaceful, are violent hateful and extreme".
Re: Double standard (Score:1, Troll)
Itâ(TM)s time magazine claiming 93% of protests are peaceful when Portland had daily riots, Minneapolis was burned, NY had several riots and Seattle was having an occupation. Thatâ(TM)s just the ones I paid attention to. So right. Mostly peaceful burning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Double standard (Score:5, Insightful)
The insurrectionists did end up delaying the vote. That is the definition of insurrection. Open the time.com link in an incognito window but you won't because it contradicts your beliefs.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, the insurrectionists mostly just took selfies for a terrible cause, only a few broke windows. BLM mostly only protested peacefully and for a good cause, only a few broke windows.
Re: Double standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's how to tell if you're deluding yourself by praising X:
Ask yourself, how would I feel if X happened in my town, in my workplace, or on my street, or in my home?
I'll go first:
I like the idea of nuclear power, and I would not mind if a couple dozen or hundred acres of open space in my town were used to build a nuclear power plant, even if it's the open field closest to my house that does it.
I like the idea of professional law enforcement, and I wouldn't mind one bit if my kid grows up and becomes a cop.
Now you go, fill on the blank:
"I like the idea of Black Lives Matter, therefore if there were daily Black Lives Matter protests on my street, demanding the typical things BLM the organization demands, such as the abolition of professional police forces, the redistribution of property from white people to black people, and an end to the nuclear family, I would feel __"
Re: Double standard (Score:5, Informative)
What if I told you lowering the police budget by 10% was not equal to dissolving the department?
Re: Double standard (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Your article says there was one homicide last year in Portland, but a quick Google search says there was 55.
Re: (Score:2)
The article does not say there was one homicide last year in Portland. It says there was 1 homicide in Portland in the opening of 2020 compared to 19 in the same time period in 2021.
Re: (Score:2)
It's saying that there was one (1) homicide in Portland in all of January and February last year, and apparently more than 50 in the rest of the year during the pandemic. That's hard to believe and would require an exceptional explanation if true.
Re: (Score:1)
One thing's for certain. People will continue to elect Democrats in these cities whose policies lead to the police actions leading to the protests.
And the people will continue to elect these same people whosr policies lead to the large crime increases, at the behest of loudmouths who go home to save neighborhoods.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it extremely difficult to believe that a 10% budget cut results in skyrocketing murder rates. As if that 10% is the thin line between lawfulness and anarchy.
What's really going on is the cops are intentionally not doing their jobs to try and prove a point.
Re: Double standard (Score:1)
That point being they don't want to lose their jobs or cause their family members to lose their jobs by association if they get accused of having done something sinister while doing a job that explicitly entails confrontations with people at their low points?
Yeah that's called the Ferguson Effect.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a very weird idea of what 1900% means. From another article:
"According to the city's crime statistics website, Portland had 56 homicides in 2020. In 2019, the number of homicides was 35 and in 2018, it was 26. The FBI has expressed interest in helping police curb gun violence."
Re: Double standard (Score:1)
That depends on what gets cut and wher3 that money goes. And it depends in large part on whether the 10% cut is intended as a prelude to a 100% cut.
Oh look, here's a mainstream news report from a BLM rally this past weekend with people holding signs saying "abolish the police" marching in large numbers together:
https://boston.cbslocal.com/20... [cbslocal.com]
I guess either I'm too stupid to understand the nuanced difference between abolishing law enforcement all at once versus a little at a time, or you're lying to me (or
The point isn't to lower their budget (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Police are the ones we grant the right to commit violence too. Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using them for every little thing that might need a social worker just because we don't like funding social workers.
Are you going to give social workers training in self-defense, and give them body armor to wear?
Our current system is that we send police officers into any unknown situation. If the officers find that the situation is stable and a social worker is needed, they bring in a social worker.
If I unders
Re: (Score:0)
But you are siding with and arguing in favour of people who do.
Re: (Score:0)
"We've got bad doctors, and your solution is to reduce funding for hospitals? Are you mad?"
"We've got bad teachers, and your solution is to reduce funding for schools? Are you mad?"
It's insane how people can hold two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.
Umm. if you were in a major city there *were* (Score:4, Informative)
a) is optional. Many small towns had daily protests you didn't notice because, again, they were entirely peaceful.
Also "Defund the Police" isn't the Anarchist thing you're thinking it is. It just means shift funding to non violent social work. The problem with America is we slashed budgets in the name of Austerity on everything but the Cops, so suddenly the cops were made to do *everything*. This is why you can find videos of cops arresting 6 year old in handcuffs.
What you should be asking yourself is why that terrible slogan was the only one you ever heard. Almost like the dumbest members of BLM were given a megaphone by a hostile media... Naw... couldn't be. That would mean you, me and the entire nation just got played for fools. And you'd see right through that, right?
Re: Umm. if you were in a major city there *were* (Score:1)
No, I live in a big metro area and we had our bout of looting and rioting and torching police cars and throwing fireworks at cops last year. But our blue state has a Republican governor who called up the national guard, stationed them all over Boston, and that looting and rioting happened exaclty zero times afterword, in contrast with Minneapolis and Seattle and Portland where the Democrat governors just let shit burn and let the lawlessness fester
As for what "defund" means, yeah....it *is* an anarchist thi
Re: (Score:0)
Also "Defund the Police" isn't the Anarchist thing you're thinking it is. It just means shift funding to non violent social work.
I believe that you believe that. But the people you are siding with and arguing in favour of aren't treating it as such. They absolutely mean it as "get rid of cops 100%".
Re: (Score:1)
Relieved, because it could mean those things might happen. I would probably go out and participate some of the time.
Re: (Score:1)
Though I have no idea what you mean by "an end to the nuclear family". I don't think anyone is advocating the end of people having families.
Re: Double standard (Score:2)
Have a look:
http://web-old.archive.org/web... [archive.org]
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and âoevillagesâ that collectively care...
When one sees the world "disrupt" or "interrupt" in "anti-racist" literature like White Fragility, it is usually synonymous with "reject" or "challenge" and is generally a position of antagonism rather than passive disagreement.
Re: (Score:2)
"Mostly peaceful protests":
https://thehill.com/homenews/m... [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:0)
Want to keep a BLM protest peaceful? Surround it with heavily armed troops with orders to shoot looters and rioters on sight. That will keep the protest nice and peaceful or provide them something else to protest.
Re: (Score:-1)
The murder rate has snapped back to 90's levels. Crime is up in nearly every major city. Police are retiring and departments are struggling to replace them. Keep acting flippant and putting forth strawmen though that "America is burning to the ground". We have objective evidence and measurements as to what is going on.
Billions in property damage. At least 33 murdered in the riots. The erosion of law and order. Politicians interfering in the judicial process.
When your motto is "by any means necessary", anyth
Re: Double standard (Score:2, Informative)
If you base your worldview on racist propaganda, well, you might be a racist...
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
There was no evidence that Parler was used to plan (the unplanned) insurrection (mostly peaceful protest). There is plenty of evidence that Twitter and FB were involved.
The left can't keep their standards straight.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(mostly peaceful protest).
You're disillusion [youtube.com].
But I'm sure you said the same thing about the BLM protests right? Mostly peaceful?
The left can't keep their standards straight.
Oh the irony, it hurts.
Re: Double standard (Score:2, Insightful)
No, Parler was where they were spreading election disinformation to anger the mental midgets into taking part in an insurrection.
The difference being that the election lies were public and widely shared, and thus a target, while the planning was in private or small groups, which is really more the FBI's responsibility. Now, why the FBI was so bad at this is another discussion...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:0)
sufficient free speech to plan an insurrection against the US
There was no insurrection. Just a few idiots walking around Congress and the left falling all over itself to lie about it. There was one cold blooded murder but she wasn't "enlightened" so her life didn't matter.
Re:Double standard (Score:4, Interesting)
The only requirement is that you have a timely moderation system. It doesn't really matter how shit it is, just that you have one.
Facebook does have one. Parler didn't because it was only a small network (less than 1 million total users when it first got booted off) and didn't have much cash owing to having no revenue streams (like most startups), so couldn't afford a team large enough to either moderate or to develop moderation tools.
The new re-written Parler claims to have """AI""" systems for hiding nasty posts, presumably some kind of word filter, and a new moderation team that will hopefully keep the moderation queue short.
Re: (Score:-1)
This is false as event he CEO mentioned in interviews. They did have a moderation system and a report system. What they didn't have is AI moderation because they believed that only a human should be capable of removing content on a free-speech platform. While they did remove posts, their team couldn't handle the volume.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't it some garbage moderation system where everything reported would have to get reviewed and voted on my a bunch of people weeks later?
The key word there is "timely" since deleting a post "telling people to murder politicians in two days" is pointless if it's done a week later
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Parler moderated a lot of content and they kept up with it. It was never a "free speech network" because there were banned topics of conversation. Topics and users were routinely deleted and banned practically instant
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
Parler DID have a moderation system.
They used it to kick liberals off for disagreeing with them.
That is why they got booted so fast. They proved that they could moderate, but only did so for bullshit reasons.
*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a... [cbsnews.com]
It seems Apple was not alone in believing Parler was unable to moderate content.
Re: Double standard (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:-1)
Neither would Twitter
Re:Double standard (Score:5, Informative)
From Forbes:
The Department of Justice has now charged 223 people for their participation in the events of Jan. 6. A comprehensive analysis [forbes.com] of those charging documents performed by Forbes demonstrate that Parler’s role was minimal, compared to that of Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram.
Of the 223 charging documents, 73 reference posts on Facebook as evidence, 24 reference posts on YouTube, 20 single out Instagram posts (owned by Facebook), and only eight highlight posts on Parler.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, only trillion dollar companies with billion dollar AI departments and 16,000 full time post moderators are responsible enough to escape cancellation."
Re: (Score:2)