More "largely peaceful" Portland protests

[Dill]

(08-23-2020, 12:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I tend to hold individuals responsible for their own actions.  

I think NATI's point was that there are more people responsible for their own rioting actions under Trump

than were under Obama.

Fewer people will likely be personally responsible for rioting if Biden is elected.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-23-2020, 02:50 PM)Dill Wrote: I think NATI's point was that there are more people responsible for their own rioting actions under Trump

than were under Obama.

Fewer people will likely be personally responsible for rioting if Biden is elected.

I got his point, I just reject the premise.  People are responsible for what they do regardless of who is POTUS.  An interesting extrapolation from that position would be that the left reacts to the other side being in power much more violently than the right.  One could certainly view the premise from that angle, if one more so inclined.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-23-2020, 12:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Way to advocate for personal responsibility.  These riots are the fault of the rioters and only the rioters.


I tend to hold individuals responsible for their own actions.  

Well then hold the president accountable for his actions. It’s not just the riots. The whole country is divided and on edge. In part because he has condoned violence, constantly talks shit, insults, and divides. Constant lies failure to dismiss obscene conspiracy theories failure to condemn police brutality. And attacks perceived opponents any chance he gets. His world class scumbaggedness is obviously a leadership style that is not good for a country.

Let me know if this makes sense. Many on the right advocate for personal responsibility then have no desire to hold their leader to that same standard. It is mind boggling.

It’s like blaming a stupid little punk ass kid for being a stupid little punk ass kid when their scumbag parent is one of the worst people on the planet.

[Dill]

(08-23-2020, 02:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I got his point, I just reject the premise.  People are responsible for what they do regardless of who is POTUS.  An interesting extrapolation from that position would be that the left reacts to the other side being in power much more violently than the right.  One could certainly view the premise from that angle, if one more so inclined.  

I didn't disagree with the bolded.

I just noted that more people are personally responsible for rioting under the Trump presidency than were personally responsible for rioting under the Obama presidency, which did not see widespread civil unrest and protests in every major city and continuing for months, though it certainly saw some in Baltimore, Ferguson and Oakland.

So no one is suggesting anyone knock a few months off jail time because Trump was president.

Someone inclined to hypothesize that "the left reacts to the other side being in power much more violently than the right," would want to explain when "the left" has ever been in power in the US (or at least the left-without-quotation-marks"), and in this case why it waited until May of 2020 of the Trump presidency to react. A good hypothesis in this case would also explain why other more direct and apparent causes should be ruled out, causes that appear to operate no matter which "side" is in power.    

[GMDino]

(08-23-2020, 09:03 PM)Dill Wrote: I didn't disagree with the bolded.

I just noted that more people are personally responsible for rioting under the Trump presidency than were personally responsible for rioting under the Obama presidency, which did not see widespread civil unrest and protests in every major city and continuing for months, though it certainly saw some in Baltimore, Ferguson and Oakland.

So no one is suggesting anyone knock a few months off jail time because Trump was president.

Someone inclined to hypothesize that "the left reacts to the other side being in power much more violently than the right," would want to explain when "the left" has ever been in power in the US, and in this case why it waited until May of 2020 of the Trump presidency to react. A good hypothesis in this case would also explain why other more direct and apparent causes should be ruled out, causes that appear to operate no matter which "side" is in power.     

Then we have the "good people on both sides" argument which melds into "Yes, they are a self avowed violent right wing group that calls for the death of anyone that opposes them (my proof that will not be linked again)...but maybe they didn't start it" which acts to absolve one group from their "personal responsibility" for their actions.

I understand their "right" to exist but I don't have to like it or try to pretend that they are they to peacefully protest vs being there to cause trouble and start violence that will then be used to attack the entire movement and the people who ARE peacefully protesting.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-24-2020, 09:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: Then we have the "good people on both sides" argument which melds into "Yes, they are a self avowed violent right wing group that calls for the death of anyone that opposes them (my proof that will not be linked again)...but maybe they didn't start it" which acts to absolve one group from their "personal responsibility" for their actions.

You've been asked to produce proof of them starting anything, you haven't.  You are certainly correct that they appear in places to deliberately provoke antifa.  But they cannot be blamed when antifa actually starts the violence.  As lame as they are, I can't hold them equally responsible for the violence when antifa is the group that routinely starts the violent confrontations.

Quote:I understand their "right" to exist but I don't have to like it or try to pretend that they are they to peacefully protest vs being there to cause trouble and start violence that will then be used to attack the entire movement and the people who ARE peacefully protesting.

We've been over this before.  If you're a "peaceful protester" you should probably not protest with people who've engaged in violence on a  continuous basis for weeks, if not months.  Violence that they start in every instance. If you're still choosing to protest with those people then you've chosen to make them part of your movement, not me.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Businesses leaving downtown Portland due to the nearly three straight months of nightly violence.

https://www.koin.com/news/protests/developer-businesses-leaving-downtown-portland-over-riots/


Good thing Trump pulled the Feds out and everything immediately calmed down. Oh wait, that was a bullshit story and the protests just continued anyways? Who'da thunk it?

Don't worry, Ineffectual mayor Ted Wheeler is on the case!

“I vehemently oppose what the Proud Boys and those associated with them stand for, and I will not tolerate hate speech and the damage it does in our city."

So, let's get this straight, hate speech, which is protected by the Constitution regardless of how objectionable we may find it, will not be tolerated. Daily rioting and violence, no problem! To summarize, legal speech = bad. Illegal violence = good.

[GMDino]

I wonder if we could cut back on all these protests if we stopped shooting black men seven times in the back for walking away?

Or if when the police broke into the wrong house, shot two people (killing one) and then lied on their reports if they got, I don't know, charged with something?  Anything?

Cause some can complain about the violent end of the protesting spectrum but that says nothing toward the root cause of the protests at all.

That's a person playing with matches around an oil tank and then complaining that the fire spread and no one is stopping it while standing in line to buy matches.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2020, 08:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: I wonder if we could cut back on all these protests if we stopped shooting black men seven times in the back for walking away?

Probably not as the Portland protests had nothing to do with the incident in WI.  But deflection attempt noted.

Quote:Or if when the police broke into the wrong house, shot two people (killing one) and then lied on their reports if they got, I don't know, charged with something?  Anything?

To borrow a line from your side, the police are "largely peaceful", therefore you should have no issues with them.  The very smal percentage who act as you state should not represent the whole movement, er, I mean profession, correct?

Quote:Cause some can complain about the violent end of the protesting spectrum but that says nothing toward the root cause of the protests at all.

Law enforcement isn't the root cause of these riots, they are the target of these riots.  But again, deflection attempt noted.

Quote:That's a person playing with matches around an oil tank and then complaining that the fire spread and no one is stopping it while standing in line to buy matches.

Nah.  See in your analogy the gasoline and matches are inanimate objects without free will.  In the real world people are choosing to engage in nightly riots and local government is choosing to allow them to do so.  You keep trying to liberate these rioters from any sense of personal responsibility.  This would be fine if the mob was made up of eight year olds.  But it's made up of adults who are responsible for their behavior.  You keep making excuses for them though and then keep wondering why they keep rioting.  If only the good protesters would turn in the bad ones, then we wouldn't have this problem.  Sound familiar?

[GMDino]

(08-26-2020, 11:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Probably not as the Portland protests had nothing to do with the incident in WI.  But deflection attempt noted.



To borrow a line from your side, the police are "largely peaceful", therefore you should have no issues with them.  The very smal percentage who act as you state should not represent the whole movement, er, I mean profession, correct?



Law enforcement isn't the root cause of these riots, they are the target of these riots.  But again, deflection attempt noted.


Nah.  See in your analogy the gasoline and matches are inanimate objects without free will.  In the real world people are choosing to engage in nightly riots and local government is choosing to allow them to do so.  You keep trying to liberate these rioters from any sense of personal responsibility.  This would be fine if the mob was made up of eight year olds.  But it's made up of adults who are responsible for their behavior.  You keep making excuses for them though and then keep wondering why they keep rioting.  If only the good protesters would turn in the bad ones, then we wouldn't have this problem.  Sound familiar?

To say that the protest movement isn't about police violence is tremendously ignorant (perhaps willfully) to the facts.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2020, 12:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: To say that the protest movement isn't about police violence is tremendously ignorant (perhaps willfully) to the facts.

The protests are, the riots are not.

[Millhouse]

This isnt Portland, but in D.C. BLM protesters confronted diners and told them to raise their fists in support. One woman didnt because she felt it was wrong to, and here is the video of it in the link.

Good for her, I wouldn't raise my hand either if I was told to, **** that. And **** anyone out there that promotes a protest in which they are forcing people to join them, otherwise they will get shouted down, surrounded, or give it time someone getting severely hurt (hopefully if this is the case it's the 'protester')

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/08/26/video-black-lives-matter-protest-confronting-dc-diners-goes-viral/3441636001/

Should be noted the D.C. Mayor who is a Dem already condemned this recent strategy of these BLMrs that did this.

[GMDino]

(08-26-2020, 12:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The protests are, the riots are not.

No shooting guys in the back 7 times...no protests.

No protests and the "riots" are regular crimes that can't be used to attach to the cause of police violence...particularly against minorities.

So the police need to clean up their house.  That's a good first step.  Rather than welcoming the vigilantes. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-27-2020, 09:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: No shooting guys in the back 7 times...no protests.

No protests and the "riots" are regular crimes that can't be used to attach to the cause of police violence...particularly against minorities.

So the police need to clean up their house.  That's a good first step.  Rather than welcoming the vigilantes. 

Keep excusing the behavior and it'll keep happening.  They were riots and looting in Chicago after the police shot a man who shot at them first.  So please don't pretend this is about police violence.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-27-2020, 10:28 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Keep excusing the behavior and it'll keep happening.  They were riots and looting in Chicago after the police shot a man who shot at them first.  So please don't pretend this is about police violence.  

I think it's still fair to say it's about police violence, but I think we need to recognize that the people starting the protests which result in people taking advantage of the situation are very quick to jump to conclusions. Far too often we see instances of police involved shootings which are completely above board, yet the protests are already going. Even the Jacob Black shooting is in this realm, to be quite frank.

It's tough because stuff like what happened to Floyd and Taylor are horrible situations and we need to be taking a hard look at them, but because people are so quick to either denounce or defend the police actions it becomes almost farcical and results in people digging their heals in even more on their side.

[GMDino]

(08-27-2020, 09:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: No shooting guys in the back 7 times...no protests.

No protests and the "riots" are regular crimes that can't be used to attach to the cause of police violence...particularly against minorities.

So the police need to clean up their house.  That's a good first step.  Rather than welcoming the vigilantes. 

(08-27-2020, 10:28 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Keep excusing the behavior and it'll keep happening.  They were riots and looting in Chicago after the police shot a man who shot at them first.  So please don't pretend this is about police violence.  

That's what I said.

Quit excusing minorities being shot and killed and paralyzed.

(08-27-2020, 10:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think it's still fair to say it's about police violence, but I think we need to recognize that the people starting the protests which result in people taking advantage of the situation are very quick to jump to conclusions. Far too often we see instances of police involved shootings which are completely above board, yet the protests are already going. Even the Jacob Black shooting is in this realm, to be quite frank.

It's tough because stuff like what happened to Floyd and Taylor are horrible situations and we need to be taking a hard look at them, but because people are so quick to either denounce or defend the police actions it becomes almost farcical and results in people digging their heals in even more on their side.

If those two (and all the ones before them) were handled in a quick and open manner, if we saw legitimate changes, if we saw anything but victim blaming and support for people who "might have" been acting in self-defense when they are white but not when they are a minority.  If we saw any of that maybe the protests would slow down, the looters wouldn't have cover for been criminals and we could move forward.

These protests aren't new and they are not just based on the latest incident.  We all know that.  Each new incident whether there is an over reaction or not is just fuel to a fire that isn't being fought...just left to burn.  Sometimes I think the police like it burning to justify what they do to minorities.  Maybe Not all of them, but in a country where the leaders love to stoke the flames of fear for votes it sure would help them.

[Belsnickel]

(08-27-2020, 11:44 AM)GMDino Wrote: If those two (and all the ones before them) were handled in a quick and open manner, if we saw legitimate changes, if we saw anything but victim blaming and support for people who "might have" been acting in self-defense when they are white but not when they are a minority.  If we saw any of that maybe the protests would slow down, the looters wouldn't have cover for been criminals and we could move forward.

These protests aren't new and they are not just based on the latest incident.  We all know that.  Each new incident whether there is an over reaction or not is just fuel to a fire that isn't being fought...just left to burn.  Sometimes I think the police like it burning to justify what they do to minorities.  Maybe Not all of them, but in a country where the leaders love to stoke the flames of fear for votes it sure would help them.

I don't disagree at all that the mishandling of those cases results in the perpetuation of the problem. It's just an overall shitty situation.

[GMDino]

(08-27-2020, 11:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree at all that the mishandling of those cases results in the perpetuation of the problem. It's just an overall shitty situation.

Totally agree.

And I think we can care about the police and minorities and working toward a solution.  But I haven't seen a great movement for that from those in charge yet.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-27-2020, 11:44 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's what I said.

Quit excusing minorities being shot and killed and paralyzed.

If the shooting shouldn't have happened then the correct steps should be taken.  A shooting isn't incorrect because you think it is or because a mob of people choose to believe it is.

Quote:If those two (and all the ones before them) were handled in a quick and open manner, if we saw legitimate changes, if we saw anything but victim blaming and support for people who "might have" been acting in self-defense when they are white but not when they are a minority. 

Acting in "self defense" against the police?  If you're talking about in other cases, I don't know anyone here who has been inconsistent in stating we should wait for actual facts before reaching a conclusion, regardless of the ethnicity of the person involved. 

Quote:If we saw any of that maybe the protests would slow down, the looters wouldn't have cover for been criminals and we could move forward.

No, they wouldn't and Chicago is proof of this.  The police shot a guy after he opened fire on them.  Riots and looting promptly followed.  It's not about whether it was a justified shooting or not anymore, it's just ACAB.

Quote:These protests aren't new and they are not just based on the latest incident.  We all know that.  Each new incident whether there is an over reaction or not is just fuel to a fire that isn't being fought...just left to burn.  Sometimes I think the police like it burning to justify what they do to minorities.

Now, you're finally being honest.  No more hiding behind "I have respect for law enforcement."

 

Quote:Maybe Not all of them, but in a country where the leaders love to stoke the flames of fear for votes it sure would help them.

Maybe not "all of them"?   Seriously, you're off the deep end on this subject.  Please don't ever try and tell me you have any respect for law enforcement.  I knew it wasn't true in the past, but it's blatantly obvious now.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-27-2020, 10:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think it's still fair to say it's about police violence, but I think we need to recognize that the people starting the protests which result in people taking advantage of the situation are very quick to jump to conclusions. Far too often we see instances of police involved shootings which are completely above board, yet the protests are already going. Even the Jacob Black shooting is in this realm, to be quite frank.

I completely agree.  You'll notice how others here completely ignored your last point in this paragraph. 

Quote:It's tough because stuff like what happened to Floyd and Taylor are horrible situations and we need to be taking a hard look at them, but because people are so quick to either denounce or defend the police actions it becomes almost farcical and results in people digging their heals in even more on their side.

The police officer who killed Floyd had literally zero justification for his actions.  Honestly, it was mind boggling and can really only be explained by pure sadism.  The Taylor shooting was a horrible mistake and, as usual, the cover up attempt made it worse.  But, as you say, the vast, vast majority of law enforcement shootings are entirely justified, and even when the fall into a grey area they tend to lean towards justification.  trust me when I say no officer wants to shoot someone.  Even if you're a complete bastard the process you go through after a shooting is intensely unpleasant, even when the shooting is a cut and dry justified one.