• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Seattle autonomous zone

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
brycejones said:
You didn’t bother to learn a thing about this incident did you?
Click to expand...
He's just employing the usual RWNJ paranoia where he imagines a possible fate (such as being pulled from his vehicle by protesters and assaulted) and uses that delusion as justification for running down and killing protesters who have never done any such thing. It's not real self-defense, it's pre-emptive self-defense.
 
Vic said:
He's just employing the usual RWNJ paranoia where he imagines a possible fate (such as being pulled from his vehicle by protesters and assaulted) and uses that delusion as justification for running down and killing protesters who have never done any such thing. It's not real self-defense, it's pre-emptive self-defense.
Click to expand...

Liar.
 
jmagg said:
In my humble opinion, the autonomous zones were a bad idea that eventually ended with death and destruction. It seems the majority from both sides will be looking for law and order going forward. For Joe to have a chance, he'll need to come out with a definitive position on this, which im fairly sure he (DNC) does not want todo.
Click to expand...

Two things: 1) the liberal govt of Seattle ended the autonomous zone in the typical liberal fashion of waiting for it all to blow over (just like at Malheur), and 2) the heavy-handed 'law and order' tactic of sending in the military, frequently proposed by conservatives, would not have lessened the death and destruction.

So to say that a definitive position has not already been made here is just missing the point.
 
jmagg said:
In my humble opinion, the autonomous zones were a bad idea that eventually ended with death and destruction. It seems the majority from both sides will be looking for law and order going forward. For Joe to have a chance, he'll need to come out with a definitive position on this, which im fairly sure he (DNC) does not want todo.
Click to expand...
as oppossed to Trumps thoughts..all Joe needs to do is stay silent and not say anything against Police reform......
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Decency has nothing to do with it. Go dance in the middle of a freeway late at night and let us know how it works out for you.
Click to expand...

Lack of that quality defines every post you've made in this thread. The driver's actions are utterly indefensible yet you persist in doing so. Because reasons, apparently. Or something, anything, whatever.
 
Jhhnn said:
Lack of that quality defines every post you've made in this thread. The driver's actions are utterly indefensible yet you persist in doing so. Because reasons, apparently. Or something, anything, whatever.
Click to expand...
The only reason is to troll for responses. That's all starbuck posts for these days, if everyone would ignore his bullshit eventually he would move on.
 
Jhhnn said:
Lack of that quality defines every post you've made in this thread. The driver's actions are utterly indefensible yet you persist in doing so. Because reasons, apparently. Or something, anything, whatever.
Click to expand...
You’re welcome to quote where I defended the driver. At best he was reckless. At worst he intentionally targeted the protestors.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
You’re welcome to quote where I defended the driver. At best he was reckless. At worst he intentionally targeted the protestors.
Click to expand...

By continually saying how the victims are the ones in the wrong you are defending the driver. The not so subtly implied argument is that if they were not doing something wrong they would not have been killed, and therefore the driver is not really all that bad of a guy.

It is basically the same argument as 'if she was not wearing a short skirt she might not have been raped'. It attempts to remove some of the blame from the person that actually did the crime by spreading around a little to the victim.
 
SMOGZINN said:
By continually saying how the victims are the ones in the wrong you are defending the driver. The not so subtly implied argument is that if they were not doing something wrong they would not have been killed, and therefore the driver is not really all that bad of a guy.

It is basically the same argument as 'if she was not wearing a short skirt she might not have been raped'. It attempts to remove some of the blame from the person that actually did the crime by spreading around a little to the victim.
Click to expand...
That’s how blame works, and comparing it to rape is disingenuous.

It is not criminal, reckless or irresponsible to wear a short skirt.

It is criminal, reckless and irresponsible to dance on a freeway.

The only reason this got national attention, and some feel compelled to defend them, is that its tied to BLM. Otherwise, this would be just another tragic example of a young person doing something reckless and paying with their lives.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
That’s how blame works, and comparing it to rape is disingenuous.

It is not criminal, reckless or irresponsible to wear a short skirt.

It is criminal, reckless and irresponsible to dance on a freeway.

The only reason this got national attention, and some feel compelled to defend them, is that its tied to BLM. Otherwise, this would be just another tragic example of a young person doing something reckless and paying with their lives.
Click to expand...

You are most definitely trying to make blame work that way. Your every post says so. You are most definitely implying that the protesters are the ones in the wrong here. The logic is clear, if they were in the wrong was the driver really at fault? You seem to think that just because you don't say the last line in the logic progression you can sit back and say 'Who Me?' Well that is not how logic works. If A = B and B=C then A=C. You can't simply put A=B, B=C and then deny A=C.

You talk about disingenuous but then compare a large group of people protesting on a closed down freeway to someone dancing on a freeway.
Your are not even pretending to argue in good faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
Starbuck1975 said:
It is criminal, reckless and irresponsible to dance on a freeway.
Click to expand...

It is not criminal, reckless or irresponsible to dance on a closed freeway especially one with the added precaution of 3 vehicles blocking the road. That is why the protesters are not in jail and the driver is - charged with 3 felonies. That's all folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top