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 p
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".
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings:
(5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in
here?
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:5, Insightful)
Fake news was telling you America was burning to the ground. Meanwhile in reality https://time.com/5886348/repor... [time.com]
Re: (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 p
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".