Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(07-02-2020, 02:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Perhaps don't engage in that type of conduct then? 

I am not in control of your decision to call me racist. Not now, not in the future.

(07-02-2020, 02:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: People often don't see their own misconduct, sometimes it helps to have it pointed out by others.

Sure, people often don't "see their own misconduct," including conduct such as frequently "pointing out" things that aren't there.

No evidence I have "engaged in that type of conduct."  If you disagree, point it out to a moderator.

Normally I would say some things here about how to apply definitions and support assertions with evidence, how to prove rather than assume.  But I am not. Toxic to continue this theme. So I'll not.

(07-02-2020, 02:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As opposed to the Dems?  You don't see a lot of strong support for law enforcement from the Democratic Party right now.  Quite the opposite in most cases.

So, yes?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am really most familiar with the VA protests. There were threats of violence that had occurred that caused the emergency declaration and the rule put in place that firearms could not be carried onto capitol grounds. I know there is a lot of doubt from some of the pro-2A folks about that, but there were legitimate concerns. Now, there was quite the mix going on in that crowd. Alex Jones in a vehicle with Info Wars plastered all over it, plenty of boogaloo kits out and about, and some other things definitely did not help that image. But that wasn't everyone, and many people from the VCDL tried hard to convince people not to come like that. Then they showed up with a guillotine. That was such a shit show all around.

That doesn't change the fact that they lawfully assembled, only one arrest was made (charges later dropped) and actually picked up their own trash.  None of this stopped the media from labeling it a gathering of extremists.

(07-02-2020, 03:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The only ones I have problems with are the ones that carried guns.

The guns served no purpose other than intimidation.

The entire point of protest is intimidation.  The guns were carried lawfully and not a single arrest was made in MI.  The law trumps people's feelings.

(07-02-2020, 03:58 PM)Dill Wrote: I am not in control of your decision to call me racist. Not now, not in the future.

I said you made a racist statement.  This is not the same as calling you a racist, this is a very obvious and important distinction.

Quote:Sure, people often don't "see their own misconduct," including conduct such as frequently "pointing out" things that aren't there.

No evidence I have "engaged in that type of conduct."  If you disagree, point it out to a moderator.

I made a general statement.  If you felt it applied to you that is not my fault.

Quote:Normally I would say some things here about how to apply definitions and support assertions with evidence, how to prove rather than assume.  But I am not. Toxic to continue this theme. So I'll not.

Yet you just did exactly that.

Quote:So, yes?

Being in opposition with the Democratic party does not inherently mean you'll vote for Trump.  Again, a great example of the binary thinking that seems to dominate today's discourse.

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2020, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   The law trumps people's feelings.

Except when Liberals protest out side a person's house, right?

Then legality does not matter and they shouldn't do it because of the homeowner's "feelings", right?

[masonbengals fan]

https://www.city-journal.org/ferguson-effect-inner-cities

Seems we need the police now more than ever.

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2020, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I said you made a racist statement.  This is not the same as calling you a racist, this is a very obvious and important distinction.

Uh, no you didn't.  

(07-02-2020, 01:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Quit your soft racism of treating blacks people as a homogeneous collective.

"obvious and important distinction"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 05:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except when Liberals protest out side a person's house, right?

I didn't say they couldn't, I said the law should be changed so nobody could protest outside a private residence.  If you're going to argue against a point with me, do try and make it a point I'm actually making.  I know I, and others would appreciate that.

Quote:Then legality does not matter and they shouldn't do it because of the homeowner's "feelings", right?

Again, no.  Please try reading arguments made before responding to them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 05:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Uh, no you didn't.  



"obvious and important distinction"

I retract then and replace with "quite your soft racist statements".  I appreciate your pointing out my unintentional error.  Thank you.

[Dill]

(07-02-2020, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Being in opposition with the Democratic party does not inherently mean you'll vote for Trump.  Again, a great example of the binary thinking that seems to dominate today's discourse.

LOL not a particularly great example.


So, yes?

[*bfine32*]

(07-02-2020, 02:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:
Would I protest at someone's private residence? No. I would advise against it, even. But it's a legal and constitutionally protected act. As for that part in bold, though, trying to compare those situations is pretty rough. The protests are about black people not receiving due process under the law. Their right to life being stripped of them without the same constitutionally guaranteed protections as white people. They are protesting the loss of their constitutional rights, not just being made uncomfortable by people yelling outside their home. What they are doing may be a shitty thing, but what they are protesting about goes far beyond that.

Are you saying it's legal to be on someone's private property and protest?

I'm also not sure the ST. Louis protest was about black people. I thought it was about information the Mayor shared. 

[Dill]

(07-02-2020, 05:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Uh, no you didn't.  

"obvious and important distinction"

If he's serious he can define "soft racism" for the moderators and convince them my allusion to the historical tendency of Black voters to vote Dem since '65 was an instance of it. I'd suspend myself two weeks if he managed that.

If he can't/doesn't then we should all just regard this sort of thing as the message board equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit and not respond.

Keep the thread going.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 05:37 PM)Dill Wrote: If he's serious he can define "soft racism" for the moderators and convince them my allusion to the historical tendency of Black voters to vote Dem since '65 was an instance of it. I'd suspend myself two weeks if he managed that.

If he can't/doesn't then we should all just regard this sort of thing as the message board equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit and not respond.

Keep the thread going.  

I'm digging the condescension boys, definitely an excellent example of the civility you claim to want to see here in P&R.  You made a blanket statement about black people, one that is frequently used to belittle people such as Terry Crews who don't adhere to what is "acceptable" for a black person to sat, do or think.  Your kind of thinking leads to the "wrong thinking" black people being called all sorts of derogatory names.  You may not have intended to do so, but your comment perpetuates that type of thinking, insinuating that no black people (sorry except for the seven you counted) would vote for Trump, therefore classifying any that would as an "other".  If that's the kind of thinking you are fine with and want to perpetuate, fine, just don't get twisted in knots when I point it out.

[GMDino]

(07-02-2020, 03:58 PM)Dill Wrote: I am not in control of your decision to call me racist. Not now, not in the future.


Sure, people often don't "see their own misconduct," including conduct such as frequently "pointing out" things that aren't there.

No evidence I have "engaged in that type of conduct."  If you disagree, point it out to a moderator.

Normally I would say some things here about how to apply definitions and support assertions with evidence, how to prove rather than assume.  But I am not. Toxic to continue this theme. So I'll not.


So, yes?

Dill is one of the least racist people I've ever met on line.

Anyone who feels different should report his posts and leave the "soft criticisms" off of threads.

And yes.  I came to his defense.  Go ahead and accuse me of whatever you want.  

Secondly African Americans have voted in large numbers for the Democratic party for a long time and continue to poll that way.  I not sure the "I know lots of black people who like Trump" argument changes that.

[Dill]

(07-02-2020, 08:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Secondly African Americans have voted in large numbers for the Democratic party for a long time and continue to poll that way.  I not sure the "I know lots of black people who like Trump" argument changes that.

Could be a lot of black voters feel more supported by one party than the other.

I've heard that Police who don't feel supported Dems might not vote their way. Same principle at work, perhaps.

Anyway, with respect to the topics broached on this thread, I am wondering about the recent spate of protests against a video of police violence against black citizens, which has generated more videos of police violence against all kinds of people--will that affect proportions of the vote? Turn MORE blacks to Biden? I believe Trump only got 8% of the black vote last election. Not much left to drop there, but could it go down 7%? Might black police and their families who have traditionally voted Dem turn away, offsetting other decreases?

[GMDino]

Can something be considered non-lethal unless/until it is abused?

2 Oklahoma police officers have been charged with second-degree murder after they used Tasers more than 50 times on a man who later died, according to court records https://t.co/ZHHp8FoUPh

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 3, 2020

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2020, 09:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Could be a lot of black voters feel more supported by one party than the other.

I've heard that Police who don't feel supported Dems might not vote their way. Same principle at work, perhaps.

Anyway, with respect to the topics broached on this thread, I am wondering about the recent spate of protests against a video of police violence against black citizens, which has generated more videos of police violence against all kinds of people--will that affect proportions of the vote? Turn MORE blacks to Biden? I believe Trump only got 8% of the black vote last election. Not much left to drop there, but could it go down 7%? Might black police and their families who have traditionally voted Dem turn away, offsetting other decreases?

Your statement contributes to the idea that there’s a “right way” to be black. That type of thinking leads to people like Terry Crews being called a “coon” and an “Uncle Tom” because they don’t think the “right way”. Maybe that wasn’t your intention and I’m certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt given your explanation.

[BmorePat87]

(07-02-2020, 07:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm digging the condescension boys, definitely an excellent example of the civility you claim to want to see here in P&R.  You made a blanket statement about black people, one that is frequently used to belittle people such as Terry Crews who don't adhere to what is "acceptable" for a black person to sat, do or think.  Your kind of thinking leads to the "wrong thinking" black people being called all sorts of derogatory names.  You may not have intended to do so, but your comment perpetuates that type of thinking, insinuating that no black people (sorry except for the seven you counted) would vote for Trump, therefore classifying any that would as an "other".  If that's the kind of thinking you are fine with and want to perpetuate, fine, just don't get twisted in knots when I point it out.

Your insistence on taking a comment that you know to be facetious as literal and continued defense of your manufactured outrage is the crap that will get PnR shut down.

You know he was being facetious. You calling it racism despite that doesn’t generate any meaningful dialogue.

You absolutely have a good point about treating groups as monoliths, but calling someone racist for a comment you know not to be racist and then continuing to treat it as literal defeats any argument you hoped to make.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2020, 10:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: Can something be considered non-lethal unless/until it is abused?

2 Oklahoma police officers have been charged with second-degree murder after they used Tasers more than 50 times on a man who later died, according to court records https://t.co/ZHHp8FoUPh

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 3, 2020

 

You and your friends have a habit of making “gotcha” posts for points already conceded. Obvious abuse of a taser has been mentioned, by me, numerous times in this thread. I think tasing someone fifty times falls under obvious abuse.

Did the officer in Atlanta tase the students fifty times. A comparable number of times?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2020, 12:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your insistence on taking a comment that you know to be facetious as literal and continued defense of your manufactured outrage is the crap that will get PnR shut down.

You know he was being facetious. You calling it racism despite that doesn’t generate any meaningful dialogue.

You absolutely have a good point about treating groups as monoliths, but calling someone racist for a comment you know not to be racist and then continuing to treat it as literal defeats any argument you hoped to make.

I already retracted the statement and further explained my point.

[GMDino]

(07-03-2020, 12:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You and your friends have a habit of making “gotcha” posts for points already conceded. Obvious abuse of a taser has been mentioned, by me, numerous times in this thread. I think tasing someone fifty times falls under obvious abuse.

Did the officer in Atlanta tase the students fifty times. A comparable number of times?

This is absolutely not a "gotcha".  There was/is a debate in this thread about whether a taser is a "lethal weapon" based on two separate cases and the charges in them.  My question is if it is not can it still be considered lethal when it is misused.  I'd say yes.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2020, 12:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: This is absolutely not a "gotcha".  There was/is a debate in this thread about whether a taser is a "lethal weapon" based on two separate cases and the charges in them.  My question is if it is not can it still be considered lethal when it is misused.  I'd say yes.  

This exact point was made, by me, pages ago.