Eric Garner all over again

[ecogen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1267714017654706176

We need more context, he could have done something to provoke them before the start of the clip tbh.

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1267714017654706176

one of many such incidents from last night

https://twitter.com/x/status/1267827968472002560

 

[brianmanahan]

wall street journal comments are always a good read.

proposed solution to the unrest:

- arrest and convict all people involved with rioting/looting
- send them to forced labor as punishment
- seize all of their assets to use as compensation for damages
- make them ineligible for all forms of government assistance for the rest of their lives

it would seem draconian, but you wonder if it'll come down to something like this.

by the end of this century every country is going to be authoritarian anyway. nobody will escape from the great war over energy resources.

 

[snoopy7548]

You're the second person to miss the point. Smogzinn justified the violence saying it was the only way to get the point across. Why then can't I destroy abortion clinics for the same reason?

Or is using violence to achieve political ends only permissible when you approve of the ends?

Because in your example, it would not be justified. These protests are happening because of illegal and unconstitutional activity; abortion is legal.

 

[ecogen]

wall street journal comments are always a good read.

proposed solution to the unrest:

- arrest and convict all people involved with rioting/looting
- send them to forced labor as punishment
- seize all assets in their name to use as compensation for damages
- make them ineligible for all forms of monetary government assistance for the rest of their lives

it would seem draconian, but you wonder if it'll come down to something like this.

by the end of this century every country is going to be authoritarian anyway.

I'm guessing the cops assaulting peaceful protestors will be receiving equivalent punishments, or did the enlightened crowd of the WSJ comment section not mention anything about them?

 

[KMFJD]

I'm guessing the cops assaulting peaceful protestors will be receiving equivalent punishments, or did the enlightened crowd of the WSJ comment section not mention anything about them?

maybe they where too busy applying boot polish?

 

[Atreus21]

Because in your example, it would not be justified. These protests are happening because of illegal and unconstitutional activity; abortion is legal.

I see. So if police brutality were legal, there'd be no justification for the riots?

 

[brianmanahan]

I'm guessing the cops assaulting peaceful protestors will be receiving equivalent punishments, or did the enlightened crowd of the WSJ comment section not mention anything about them?

general consensus seemed to be that restrictions on law enforcement actions should be relaxed so they can take whatever means are necessary to stop the riots.

 

[ecogen]

general consensus seemed to be that restrictions on law enforcement actions should be relaxed so they can take whatever means are necessary to stop the riots.

Do you have reading comprehension issues or did you just not read my post at all?

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1267321172309544960

perfectly fine right bootlickers?

 

[snoopy7548]

I see. So if police brutality were legal, there'd be no justification for the riots?

False equivalency. The abortion debate comes down to your beliefs; police brutality is not based on beliefs, but facts.

 

[ecogen]

NSFW.

https://www.reddit.com/r/2020PoliceBrutality/comments/gv3xuu

JFC.

 

[brianmanahan]

Do you have reading comprehension issues or did you just not read my post at all?

i did read your post, the suggestion i saw is that cops should be able to do whatever is necessary to stop the riots even if it bends the rules, and the implication is that they would not be held accountable because it is extenuating circumstances.

there are opposing opinions as well. WSJ mod team tries to control the really crazy comments and bans some posters, but they will do things like get a new subscription in their wife's name and then sign every post something like "karen's husband" so they can keep track of who they are as they get banned.

it is always a good time reading through those comments LOL, just as grabs-popcorn-and-lawnchair entertainment

i generally like the articles though, they are pretty impartial all things considered.

all they care about is money so they evaluate everything through that perspective instead of choosing a particular party to associate with.

 

[ecogen]

i did read your post, the suggestion i saw is that cops should be able to do whatever is necessary to stop the riots even if it bends the rules, and the implication is that they would not be held accountable because it is extenuating circumstances.

They suggested this regarding peaceful protests as well? That's pretty fucked up.

there are opposing opinions as well. WSJ mod team tries to control the really crazy comments and bans some posters, but they will do things like get a new subscription in their wife's name and then sign every post something like "karen's husband" so they can keep track of who they are as they get banned.

Time for IP bans.

i generally like the articles though, they are pretty impartial all things considered.

Their non-editorials tend to be pretty good, I agree.

 

[Atreus21]

False equivalency. The abortion debate comes down to your beliefs; police brutality is not based on beliefs, but facts.

Double standards. You can use violence to achieve your political ends as long as you agree with them. But I can't because you don't agree with them.

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1267830933631074306

more progress

 

[brianmanahan]

They suggested this regarding peaceful protests as well? That's pretty fucked up.

oh no not the peaceful ones, just the rioting and looting

still messed up though all things considered

Time for IP bans.

lol yeah i'd think WSJ would've switched to that by now, but maybe these dudes are using VPNs or something

 

[ecogen]

oh no not the peaceful ones, just the rioting and looting

still messed up though all things considered

Well, half of the point I was trying to make was them completely ignoring police assaulting peaceful protestors and only focusing on the rioters/looters.

Double standards. You can use violence to achieve your political ends as long as you agree with them. But I can't because you don't agree with them.

Is the fact that not all causes are or should be treated the same a revelation to you or something?

 

[Artorias]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1267321172309544960

perfectly fine right bootlickers?

This makes me angry.

 

[Atreus21]

Is the fact that not all causes are or should be treated the same a revelation to you or something?

No, it's not a revelation to me at all that leftists endorse violence to get what they want, while calling it off limits to others.

 

[ecogen]

No, it's not a revelation to me at all that leftists endorse violence to get what they want, while calling it off limits to others.

Nobody endorsed violence. If you think someone did, quote the specific passage in which they did so, so I can tell you why you suck at reading and then laugh at you.

 

[KMFJD]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1267842037673590787

Trump was right to tear gas peaceful protesters?

 

[Fenixgoon]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1267830933631074306

more progress

The caption is pretty brilliant

 

[Atreus21]

Nobody endorsed violence. If you think someone did, quote the specific passage in which they did so, so I can tell you why you suck at reading and then laugh at you.

You're now the third person to miss it, and supposedly I'm the one who sucks at reading.

There is almost no way to get to the rich and powerful, they live in walled palaces. No, you have to hurt the middle class. You have to hurt the ma and pa store owners. The real problem is that they don't care. Make them care and they will get something done.

But I also know that as long as a society does not listen this sort of thing is inevitable. You and others were saying that rioting does not help their cause, but I am trying to explain that historically it really has, and why it does. In fact for disenfranchised groups it is just about the only thing that actually does work. We really could stop this cycle if we were willing to listen and seriously talk to minority groups about their problems, but we would rather either ridicule or ignore them until something like this is once again inevitable.

 

[ecogen]

You're now the third person to miss it, and supposedly I'm the one who sucks at reading.

Yes, because apparently you can't distinguish between accepting something as true and endorsing it.

Please understand, I have this violence. It makes me profoundly sad. I wish protests could say peaceful. I wish we has a society where we could have civil discourse about issues that a part of our society is facing and for them to feel heard and like the rest of society is taking their issues seriously. I wish it didn't have to come to this.

Why'd you leave this out?

But I also know that as long as a society does not listen this sort of thing is inevitable.

Or this?

So, you suck at reading for not understanding the difference between endorsement and acknowledgment, haha.