Chuck Schumer radicalizes man, man tries to murder SCOTUS justice.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-10-2022, 01:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ah gotcha.  Side note, the wife and I were walking down the street the other day and a hooker asked me if I was looking for a good time and I told her to stand by. 

Ahaha, nicely done.  I've literally never been accosted by a prostitute.  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2022, 10:34 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Well sure. But that doesn't make them correct. Just because they deny reality doesn't mean that we should entertain their delusions as if they are as equally viable as reality. 

I'm confused as to what reality is being denied here.  The reality right now is that abortion is a constitutional right due to a SC decision.  If that decision is overturned then the reality is it is not a constitutional right due to a SC decision.  Or maybe I am missing your point.

[CJD]

(06-10-2022, 02:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm confused as to what reality is being denied here.  The reality right now is that abortion is a constitutional right due to a SC decision.  If that decision is overturned then the reality is it is not a constitutional right due to a SC decision.  Or maybe I am missing your point.

Talking about oppression vs imagined oppression.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-09-2022, 07:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Agree.


I didn’t hear Trump say he was going to do anything. Pretty big difference imo.

Didn’t he give a speech to a crowd and tell them to fight like hell and lie about a stolen election moments before that same crowd stormed the capital, assaulted police officers, all to keep him in power?

You putting that plus the weeks and weeks of lies leading up to it next to a few lines Schumer said in 2020 and saying they are the same. Is pitiful. Just shows the distorted twisted view of reality, of oh both sides do it, that I constantly hear conservatives complain about. When in reality it’s nowhere near the same.

It’s like saying getting stung by a bee and hit by a rpg are the same thing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-10-2022, 05:58 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Didn’t he give a speech to a crowd and tell them to fight like hell and lie about a stolen election moments before that same crowd stormed the capital, assaulted police officers, all to keep him in power?

You putting that plus the weeks and weeks of lies leading up to it next to a few lines Schumer said in 2020 and saying they are the same. Is pitiful. Just shows the distorted twisted view of reality, of oh both sides do it, that I constantly hear conservatives complain about. When in reality it’s nowhere near the same.

It’s like saying getting stung by a bee and hit by a rpg are the same thing.

I know being confronted for having double standards is tough, I'll let you take the weekend to work through it.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-10-2022, 07:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know being confronted for having double standards is tough, I'll let you take the weekend to work through it.

Hate to burst your bubble. Your high horse is imaginary.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-11-2022, 12:44 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Hate to burst your bubble. Your high horse is imaginary.

More like non-existent.  That doesn't change your being caught in a double standard.

[basballguy]

According to my Facebook feed, Beto o’rourke has radicalized an insane amount of middle aged stay at home moms in texas

[StrictlyBiz]

(06-09-2022, 10:34 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Well sure. But that doesn't make them correct. Just because they deny reality doesn't mean that we should entertain their delusions as if they are as equally viable as reality. 

What makes you correct? Whose reality? What is so delusional? 

From their side it can be argued that the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive side is trying to stop their right to bear arms and that the other side is delusional about RVW and Trans rights. Regarding Trans rights, they'll tell you that bill in AZ isn't stopping the rights to drugs/surgeries for adults, but rather limits those options for minors during their formative teenage years and doesn't impact the availability for adults. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-11-2022, 12:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: More like non-existent.  That doesn't change your being caught in a double standard.

I’m not the one who started a thread blaming a few lines Schumer said in 2020 for radicalizing a man who went try to kill a scotus member in 2022. Then compared it to tucker who for years has a a nightly tv show where he goes on for an hour spewing hate and division. Acting like these two things are the same

If you are worried about someone having double standards maybe check on yourself

[CJD]

(06-11-2022, 04:22 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: What makes you correct? Whose reality? What is so delusional? 

From their side it can be argued that the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive side is trying to stop their right to bear arms and that the other side is delusional about RVW and Trans rights. Regarding Trans rights, they'll tell you that bill in AZ isn't stopping the rights to drugs/surgeries for adults, but rather limits those options for minors during their formative teenage years and doesn't impact the availability for adults. 

While it can sometimes be difficult in the moment to determine which side of a debate is being unreasonable/delusional, it is often easy to understand it in hindsight.

Slave rebellions from all manners of civilization (both the ancient Roman/Greek worlds as well as more modern worlds like the Pre-Civil War South) may have, at the time, been contested by the ruling class but in hindsight we obviously understand that the slaves were in the right to be outraged.

You can do this with the majority of social issue discussions. Whether women could vote, whether black people could vote or go to the same places as white people, whether gay people should be allowed to be married or adopt children etc.

At the moment that the discussion is taking place, there will be people arguing on both sides of the issue but, in retrospect, we know that the side that opposed those people's rights were in the wrong and/or delusional.

So, how do we determine which side is correct during our current social issues? It can sometimes be a bit murkier, especially from a general consensus standpoint but there are several common through lines that can help you identify which side will be historically viewed as correct in the moment:

1. Does the current discussion revolve around a person's identity, whether it be gender, sex, race, religion, country of origin or any other protected/immutable identity?
2. Does the current discussion revolve around increasing or decreasing a person's rights or access to certain things based on that protected/immutable identity?
3. Is this group of people historically oppressed or otherwise disadvantaged?
4. Does the current discussion significantly hurt or hinder this group of people if the right they are fighting for were to be taken away/not given?


There are definitely more through lines but those are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head at the moment.

So, with that in mind, let's give each issue a crash course through these through lines?

Abortion:
1. Unequivocally, yes. It entirely is based on people who were born female and have female genitals/reproductive organs.
2. Unequivocally, yes. It is based on decreasing women's (or birthing persons', if you prefer) access to services and operations that they want.
3. Again, yes. Women are historically oppressed throughout history.
4. Yes. If abortion is restricted, it will affect women's/mothers' lives, guaranteed. From removal of the ability to get an abortion when her life is in danger, such as ectopic pregnancies (which several snap back laws currently do not have exceptions for) all the way to the physical pain of child birth for someone who does not want to be pregnant, removing the right to abortion will harm or hinder anyone who wants to get an abortion.

Trans rights:
1. Yes, it exclusively affects trans people.
2. Yes again. If a person wants gender affirming care, whether it be hormones, puberty blockers or surgery, their right to have those things are in jeopardy.
3. Yes. We've just now entered a time frame where people are even willing to admit that they're trans because of how oppressed and not socially accepted they have been in modern history.
4. Yes. If a person does not want to go through male puberty, forcing them to do so through denial of treatment will permanently change their physical appearance, their voice, hair growth etc. If you look at people who transitioned pre-puberty and post-puberty, you'll notice physical differences that are associated with puberty. It also increases the risks of them committing suicide, if they are terminally unhappy with their appearance or the acceptance of their identity.

Now let's try gun rights:
1. No. Restricting gun rights would affect every American equally. There is no law that would restrict your right to buy a gun based on your immutable characteristics. Just your age and personal history, which are already mainstay precedents for restrictions in this country (underage people can't drive, drink, rent a car etc. Felons cannot do a lot of things).
2. No, see above.
3. No.
4. You could make a weak argument that if someone wants to buy a gun but can't they can't do a few things that they may want to do like hunt at 18, but even then there are often youth hunter laws in states that allow a 12 to 17 year old person to hunt as long as they are with an adult, so age restriction laws wouldn't really prevent that either.

And don't even get me started on the crazy people who claim that "White men are now the most oppressed group in America/The World." That viewpoint is so ridiculous that we don't even have to run it through the through lines to know it's absurd.

I will admit that abortion is the most controversial of the discussions going on right now and that's because there are other lives involved. The unborn child, while arguably not a legally protected/defined human at the point of abortion, does have the potential to be a legally protected/defined human, so I at least understand the arguments against them and a compromise may be the ultimate answer that the American people choose, but there are so many exceptions and circumstances surrounding it, I think significantly restricting it will cause more harm than good. Let's say you limit it to "12 weeks or earlier, you can have an abortion unless a situation comes up that makes the child non-viable or puts the mother's life in danger." If you live in a state that begrudgingly agreed to this compromise (a red state, essentially), they could just strip the funding of abortion clinics such that there is only 1 in the entire state. If a mother finds out she's pregnant at 8 weeks (as those week counts are often estimated based on the last period the woman experienced rather than the time that the egg was literally fertilized), she now has 4 weeks to get to that abortion clinic. Hopefully, they have the availability to take her in that time frame and she has the capability of getting there. And, if she can't make it until 12 weeks and a day, she's screwed...On the other side of that compromise, what if a doctor tells a mother than there's a 25% chance that continuing this pregnancy can kill her due to some unexpected scenario. Is that enough to breach the standard of the mother's life "being in danger?" Or does it have to be 100%? Or 50%? And that number is completely conjecture on the doctor's part anyway, so different doctors could think this mother's situation is more or less dangerous than other doctors. If you have to apply for an exception, how long can that be held up before an abortion is "OK'd" by whatever governing body gives these exceptions? And is the mother still alive by the time that decision is passed down? There's just too much red tape to consider with lives on the line and I believe we can trust women to make the right decision for themselves and their families in these situations. Especially when abortions past 12 weeks are, I believe, less than 5% of all abortions. You could make a sound argument that that 5% are the most critical abortions to be allowed because, if an abortion occurs past that time frame, it often has to do with life threatening situations, as the vast majority of mothers would have decided that they wanted a child or not by the 12 week mark. There are not mothers out there maliciously getting abortions out of spite for the growing fetus inside of them, especially past the 12 week mark.
TL;DR: the abortion issue, if you do not concede it should just be at the mother's discretion, is complicated.

But, I digress, that through line framework is the angle from which I am coming at this "oppression" vs "imagined oppression" discussion. I hope it makes sense and that I've articulated my beliefs clearly.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-11-2022, 12:06 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m not the one who started a thread blaming a few lines Schumer said in 2020 for radicalizing a man who went try to kill a scotus member in 2022. Then compared it to tucker who for years has a a nightly tv show where he goes on for an hour spewing hate and division. Acting like these two things are the same

If you are worried about someone having double standards maybe check on yourself

Like I said earlier, I can't be blamed for some people lacking even a semblance of appreciation for nuance.  Pro-tip, if you read an entire thread before posting in it you can frequently avoid these types of errors.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-08-2022, 06:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I was surprised to not already see a thread on this.  A California nut job traveled to Brett Kavanaugh's home, armed with a firearm, with the intent to murder Kavanaugh.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3515826-officials-detain-armed-man-outside-kavanaughs-home/

Not too long ago Chuck Schumer directly threatened Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by name, stating the following;

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer roared Wednesday to a crowd of protesters angry over a Louisiana case before the court that threatens abortion rights. "You won't know what hit if you go forward with these awful decisions."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2020/03/05/chuck-schumer-threatening-rhetoric-gorsuch-kavanaugh-crosses-line-editorials-debates/4964578002/

We heard a lot from the Dems about how Tucker Carlson "radicalized" the Buffalo shooter.  One wonders if they will have the same opinion on Schumer radicalizing and emboldening this sick weirdo with his direct threats against Kavanaugh.  Maybe Schumer should resign?  Maybe Merrick Garland should resign for utterly refusing to enforce the law prohibiting protesting outside the home of a judge with the intent to sway their opinion or intimidate them?  I will be very interested to see how the Dems react to this.

(06-11-2022, 12:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Like I said earlier, I can't be blamed for some people lacking even a semblance of appreciation for nuance.  Pro-tip, if you read an entire thread before posting in it you can frequently avoid these types of errors.

I love going back and forth with you. Definitely make me really think about stuff. But I have no idea what you are getting at.

You are mad dems won't pull a cancel culture and go after Schumer for these comments and use people going after Tucker to say there is a double standard.

Then you bring up a stand back and stand by in response to me explaining my thoughts on threats vs warnings. And then start blaming me for having a double standard.

thought this was an interesting tidbit I saw the other day since you decided to use that trump comment as an example.
https://twitter.com/ValerioCNN/status/1535071397600444419?s=20&t=aEnSVJGqflgezOFDHgUGYA

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-11-2022, 01:19 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I love going back and forth with you. Definitely make me really think about stuff. But I have no idea what you are getting at.

You are mad dems won't pull a cancel culture and go after Schumer for these comments and use people going after Tucker to say there is a double standard.

Then you bring up a stand back and stand by in response to me explaining my thoughts on threats vs warnings. And then start blaming me for having a double standard.

thought this was an interesting tidbit I saw the other day since you decided to use that trump comment as an example.
https://twitter.com/ValerioCNN/status/1535071397600444419?s=20&t=aEnSVJGqflgezOFDHgUGYA

OK, I'll explain, again.  The title is intentionally inflammatory, parodying the attempts by the Dems to make Tucker Carlson responsible for the Buffalo shooter.  Using Schumer's own standards helped radicalize and influence the man who tried to kill Kavanaugh.  Hence the thread title.

As for your having double standards, that was stated because you actually defended Schumer's statement but criticized Trump for staying, "Stand back and stand by."  You argument being that some of those people went on to storm the capitol.  Of course, this ignores the fact, and the subject of the thread, that someone also took action and attempted to kill Kavanaugh.  So, if you condemn one inflammatory statement that is not a direct call to action, but lead to action by others, and defend another that had the same outcome, a person acting on it, then you have a double standard.

[grampahol]

Damned..republicans can't even lie to congress and the FBI anymore.. Where's the world going to? 

Just goes to show that the proverbial good guy with a gun isn't such a good idea after all.. 

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-11-2022, 05:27 PM)grampahol Wrote: Damned..republicans can't even lie to congress and the FBI anymore.. Where's the world going to? 

Just goes to show that the proverbial good guy with a gun isn't such a good idea after all.. 

[grampahol]

(06-11-2022, 06:50 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote:

Ever tried following the news? yeah..I didn't think so.. 

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-11-2022, 08:16 PM)grampahol Wrote: Ever tried following the news? yeah..I didn't think so.. 

Never. Thanks gramps, I’ll check this news thing out. You’re full of good ideas!

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-11-2022, 01:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: OK, I'll explain, again.  The title is intentionally inflammatory, parodying the attempts by the Dems to make Tucker Carlson responsible for the Buffalo shooter.  Using Schumer's own standards helped radicalize and influence the man who tried to kill Kavanaugh.  Hence the thread title.

As for your having double standards, that was stated because you actually defended Schumer's statement but criticized Trump for staying, "Stand back and stand by."  You argument being that some of those people went on to storm the capitol.  Of course, this ignores the fact, and the subject of the thread, that someone also took action and attempted to kill Kavanaugh.  So, if you condemn one inflammatory statement that is not a direct call to action, but lead to action by others, and defend another that had the same outcome, a person acting on it, then you have a double standard.

You are comparing someone giving a speech in Washington DC saying taking away women's rights will have consequences to a potus at a national presidential debate who told the proud boys (a well known violent hate group) to stand back and stand by, tripled their ranks, and gave a speech to them and others moments before they attempted to seize power by force after losing an election, and a real life internet troll who has been spreading hate for views  on tv for years.

If you are saying by having a double standard. One met the standard. And the other two do not. Then yes I have a double standard. You really want people to view these things as morally equal?

[BigPapaKain]

(06-11-2022, 08:16 PM)grampahol Wrote: Ever tried following the news? yeah..I didn't think so.. 

My guy - even I've read that story and am just as confused as Stone by your post.

This ain't really the thread to discuss it is all.