YAMST El Paso Wall Mart

[zinfamous]

Did the El Paso shooter give up peacefully and follow police orders? Eric Garner didn't, he should have.

can you please crawl to a corner and fuck yourself into eternity?

 

[Jhhnn]

I knew that term was going to catch on in a big way.

It's too accurate for you to cope with, or what?

 

[Greenman]

It's too accurate for you to cope with, or what?

The term will be used to limit speech, a justification for interdiction and removal of ideas that we find troubling or offensive. The problems will come form whoever defines those limits.
Clearly, there are things that shouldn't be said, ideas that are so hateful they shouldn't be shared, but at the same time it troubles me that we want to limit what can be discussed. We're going to celebrate a solution that may end up being worse than the problem it solves.
Unintended consequences are the rule, not the exception.

 

[sportage]

Lets face it folks....
We're in one hell of a pickle.
We have entered THE PERFECT STORM.
A president that spews racist hate.
Assault weapons in every home.
A society consisting of many different nationalities and religions.
The internet.
Fox News.
A congress bought and paid for by the NRA.
And an election coming up thus with more Donald Trump rallies.

Yes..... THE PERFECT STORM.
Of which will result in more mass shootings from shore to shore.
So what can we do?
Well.... as they prescribed back in the 1950's, DUCK AND COVER.
Oh yeah.
Making America Great Again.
One hate tweet at a time.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Did the El Paso shooter give up peacefully and follow police orders? Eric Garner didn't, he should have.

you deserve any horrible future that falls upon you, you wretched piece of filth
sorry, my bad, you wretched, RACIST piece of filth

 

[Commodus]

The term will be used to limit speech, a justification for interdiction and removal of ideas that we find troubling or offensive. The problems will come form whoever defines those limits.
Clearly, there are things that shouldn't be said, ideas that are so hateful they shouldn't be shared, but at the same time it troubles me that we want to limit what can be discussed. We're going to celebrate a solution that may end up being worse than the problem it solves.
Unintended consequences are the rule, not the exception.

I don't see how it's a problem in the case of Trump. The President of the US shouldn't be scapegoating entire cultures, portraying non-white politicians as inherently foreign and downplaying the severity of racist violence. We can and should call him a stochastic terrorist, because he fosters that kind of hate and is unrepentant about it.

Besides, you know there's an obvious solution to this terrorism that doesn't involve limiting free speech, and that's how you vote in November 2020.

 

[zinfamous]

The term will be used to limit speech, a justification for interdiction and removal of ideas that we find troubling or offensive. The problems will come form whoever defines those limits.
Clearly, there are things that shouldn't be said, ideas that are so hateful they shouldn't be shared, but at the same time it troubles me that we want to limit what can be discussed. We're going to celebrate a solution that may end up being worse than the problem it solves.
Unintended consequences are the rule, not the exception.

Commanding your followers to beat up or kill those you disagree with, or just anyone of color seems, at the very least, one of those common ideas or types of words that we can all agree should not be allowed, correct?

Or do we have to quibble over the meaning of this idea, or when or who can define that those are the exact ideas being expressed, when they are expressed....only of course determined by who exactly is speaking them?

 

[sportage]

Interesting discussion by the panel on todays MEET THE PRESS
"THE COLD CIVIL WAR"
(just to 26.22 minutes into the show)

 

[Indus]

Also, a reminder. Many times as many innocent victims died from second hand smoke as this tragedy, but you don't care. Your Democrat puppet masters haven't told you to care, so you don't. You don't care about saving lives, you care about limiting guns. If you cared about saving lives I'd see a lot more angst from the liberals here about these bigger killers that have no benefit to society. But you simply don't care about saving lives, you care about harming the 2A because the right is pro-2A. That's really all you care about, not agreeing with the right.

I used to think slow cared about guns and gun rights.

I am now thinking he just wants to distract so that more white supremacists kill more and more non white folks. All his posts now are pathetic excuses for everything only whites are the "real" victims.

I noticed in the manifesto of the El Paso shooter, there was a reference into dividing the country and creating a white utopia for white nationalists.

While that may not solve everything, it may very well solve White Nationalism but just pushing them into some states and leaving the rest for us Americans who aren't racist fucks like them.

It's beyond time to start the conversation on this because staying together in the current America is like keeping gasoline and matches together.

 

[sandorski]

The term will be used to limit speech, a justification for interdiction and removal of ideas that we find troubling or offensive. The problems will come form whoever defines those limits.
Clearly, there are things that shouldn't be said, ideas that are so hateful they shouldn't be shared, but at the same time it troubles me that we want to limit what can be discussed. We're going to celebrate a solution that may end up being worse than the problem it solves.
Unintended consequences are the rule, not the exception.

Some Speech is unacceptable.

 

[Indus]

Interesting discussion by the panel on todays MEET THE PRESS
"THE COLD CIVIL WAR"
(just to 26.22 minutes into the show)

The part where he blames Antifa?

 

[Sunburn74]

Number of people killed by left wing radical groups?
Number of people killed by right wing radical groups this year?
Who is to blame for these deaths other than the president and his spineless republican party that refuse to condemn him and to protect the people they took an oath to serve?

 

[Greenman]

I don't see how it's a problem in the case of Trump. The President of the US shouldn't be scapegoating entire cultures, portraying non-white politicians as inherently foreign and downplaying the severity of racist violence. We can and should call him a stochastic terrorist, because he fosters that kind of hate and is unrepentant about it.

Besides, you know there's an obvious solution to this terrorism that doesn't involve limiting free speech, and that's how you vote in November 2020.

You don't see any issue there at all? The fact that speech is being redefined as terrorism? That strikes me as being incredibly short sited. Once that idea becomes mainstream it hands government the power to control what can be said.
Did you ever wonder why the first amendment is the first amendment?

 

[Greenman]

Some Speech is unacceptable.

I know, I said that.

 

[Jhhnn]

The term will be used to limit speech, a justification for interdiction and removal of ideas that we find troubling or offensive. The problems will come form whoever defines those limits.
Clearly, there are things that shouldn't be said, ideas that are so hateful they shouldn't be shared, but at the same time it troubles me that we want to limit what can be discussed. We're going to celebrate a solution that may end up being worse than the problem it solves.
Unintended consequences are the rule, not the exception.

"Will be used to limit speech"? That's a leap of faith. It's a way to accurately describe a real phenomenon. It gives us a handle on how to understand, describe & condemn hate speech. It helps us understand how a man like Trump should never, ever be allowed the power & reach of the bully pulpit. He knows or should know that his words will inspire susceptible people to take action & that others will use them in a deliberate fashion.

 

[sandorski]

I know, I said that.

If certain Speech leads to violence in a consistent manner, shouldn't it be considered suspect?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Really fuckwad.? You still haven't acknowledged blacks "behaving like you want" didn't help John Crawford.

Know who else it didn't help? Levar Jones. Black man stopped by white cop. White cop asks for his ID, black man immediately complies and wash shot for it.

I'm sure you don't give a damn because our lives don't matter.

From what I saw of the John Crawford situation I'd agree, that wasn't a good play by the police. But it does sound like they were called in to a situation with a man possibly with a gun pointing it at people. Not great information to go on.

It happens. In a perfect world it wouldn't happen.

Now back to the question, did the El Paso shooter give up and follow police orders? Did he resist to the point that they needed to get physical with him? You're trying to manufacture racism again.

Want to talk about real racist issues? Then let's talk about what the El Paso shooter believed, his agenda, what made him do what he did. I'm on board with stopping that kind of behavior, educating people so they aren't so ignorant and hateful. That's a real issue and deserves attention., let's talk about how we can stop that kind of thing from happening again. But Eric Garner? He should have listened to the police, if he did then he'd probably be here today.

 

[Commodus]

You don't see any issue there at all? The fact that speech is being redefined as terrorism? That strikes me as being incredibly short sited. Once that idea becomes mainstream it hands government the power to control what can be said.
Did you ever wonder why the first amendment is the first amendment?

There is a careful line to walk. I'm not suggesting that we formally redefine things or use this as an excuse for excessive controls on speech -- I'm just saying that we have to call out that kind of behavior when it takes place. Trump is inciting mass murders and other racist violence; we shouldn't dance around that fact.

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't see any issue there at all? The fact that speech is being redefined as terrorism? That strikes me as being incredibly short sited. Once that idea becomes mainstream it hands government the power to control what can be said.
Did you ever wonder why the first amendment is the first amendment?

We already limit speech in a variety of ways. The whole thing is like incitement to riot in many respects.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Also, a reminder. Many times as many innocent victims died from second hand smoke as this tragedy, but you don't care. Your Democrat puppet masters haven't told you to care, so you don't. You don't care about saving lives, you care about limiting guns. If you cared about saving lives I'd see a lot more angst from the liberals here about these bigger killers that have no benefit to society. But you simply don't care about saving lives, you care about harming the 2A because the right is pro-2A. That's really all you care about, not agreeing with the right.

seriously, fall into a hole, disappear, you provide no benefit to society in any measurable way.

 

[SlowSpyder]

can you please crawl to a corner and fuck yourself into eternity?

you deserve any horrible future that falls upon you, you wretched piece of filth
sorry, my bad, you wretched, RACIST piece of filth

I don't get why this is an unfair question to ask given what that poster (victim) is trying to imply. I understand what this guy did was terrible, but if he gave up and followed orders when the police arrived on scene, it is easy to see why he wasn't put in a choke hold. I know you want to create racism, hate, and victimization for your feels, but it is a fair question. Follow the law first and foremost, and obey the police if they're giving you orders and it'll help you live longer. Sound advice.

 

[SlowSpyder]

seriously, fall into a hole, disappear, you provide no benefit to society in any measurable way.

Keep doing what the puppet masters tell you to do, NPC.

 

[Commodus]

I don't get why this is an unfair question to ask given what that poster (victim) is trying to imply. I understand what this guy did was terrible, but if he gave up and followed orders when the police arrived on scene, it is easy to see why he wasn't put in a choke hold. I know you want to create racism, hate, and victimization for your feels, but it is a fair question. Follow the law first and foremost, and obey the police if they're giving you orders and it'll help you live longer. Sound advice.

Just because someone didn't immediately cooperate doesn't mean the police are entitled to choke them to death, especially when they're repeatedly saying "I can't breathe." The whole point is to call out excessive police force aimed at minorities, and murdering an unarmed man with a chokehold is a textbook example of that.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I don't see how it's a problem in the case of Trump. The President of the US shouldn't be scapegoating entire cultures, portraying non-white politicians as inherently foreign and downplaying the severity of racist violence. We can and should call him a stochastic terrorist, because he fosters that kind of hate and is unrepentant about it.

Besides, you know there's an obvious solution to this terrorism that doesn't involve limiting free speech, and that's how you vote in November 2020.

Do you think he'll accept the result if he loses? Every day kind of feels like uncharted grounds in this nightmare of a presidency, and I'm not convinced he'll bow out peacefully if he loses.

 

[Greenman]

There is a careful line to walk. I'm not suggesting that we formally redefine things or use this as an excuse for excessive controls on speech -- I'm just saying that we have to call out that kind of behavior when it takes place. Trump is inciting mass murders and other racist violence; we shouldn't dance around that fact.

I don't believe that Trump is inciting mass murder.