What is Masculinty

[*Nately120*]

(05-16-2023, 07:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Uh, if you see a mob of angry people whose intent is apparently hostile you'd have to be an idiot not to run away.  None of us are John Wick.

Methinks the knock on him is that he saluted the mob and encouraged them before eventually fleeing from them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2023, 07:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Methinks the knock on him is that he saluted the mob and encouraged them before eventually fleeing from them.

I've only seen the video of his running away, maybe you're correct.

[*Nately120*]

(05-16-2023, 07:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've only seen the video of his running away, maybe you're correct.

He just seems to fall into that standard MAGA GOP category where they encouraged the mob and called them patriots and that they were right to be angry and then when they got violent he ran off and let them attack the police and then afterwards acted like it was all no big deal and not even that bad.

it's just all so outwardly and blatantly cynical. 

[GMDino]

(05-16-2023, 07:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Methinks the knock on him is that he saluted the mob and encouraged them before eventually fleeing from them.

I mean it was only the biggest thing of the year that year...I'm sure someone could miss it if they deliberately avoided absolutely all coverage of January 6th.  That is ONLY way one wouldn't know about his air fist bump tot he crowd not long before he turned tail and ran.





For which he was rightfully laughed at.

I can’t stop watching this. pic.twitter.com/b1DoQ2B9Kq

— Daniel Uhlfelder (@DWUhlfelderLaw) July 22, 2022

 

[GMDino]

(05-16-2023, 07:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: He just seems to fall into that standard MAGA GOP category where they encouraged the mob and called them patriots and that they were right to be angry and then when they got violent he ran off and let them attack the police and then afterwards acted like it was all no big deal and not even that bad.

it's just all so outwardly and blatantly cynical. 

So typical Republican then?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2023, 07:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: He just seems to fall into that standard MAGA GOP category where they encouraged the mob and called them patriots and that they were right to be angry and then when they got violent he ran off and let them attack the police and then afterwards acted like it was all no big deal and not even that bad.

it's just all so outwardly and blatantly cynical. 

Fair enough.  It's not exactly unheard of for people to encourage a mob and then become frightened when it progresses past their control.  Hell, I've seen a few of those happen first hand.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-16-2023, 07:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Uh, if you see a mob of angry people whose intent is apparently hostile you'd have to be an idiot not to run away.  None of us are John Wick.

None of us act like we are and then tuck tail and run, either.

Hawley tries to, but he's easier to see through than a clean window.

[*Nately120*]

(05-16-2023, 08:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fair enough.  It's not exactly unheard of for people to encourage a mob and then become frightened when it progresses past their control.  Hell, I've seen a few of those happen first hand.

Yeah, but the MAGA narrative is now to downplay how dangerous the mob they encouraged and fled really was.

1. encourage mob
2. flee from mob
3. admit mob was violent and that police who stood up to them are heroes
4. realize admitting #3 is bad for your brand, so change your tune

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2023, 08:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, but the MAGA narrative is now to downplay how dangerous the mob they encouraged and fled really was.

1. encourage mob
2. flee from mob
3. admit mob was violent and that police who stood up to them are heroes
4. realize admitting #3 is bad for your brand, so change your tune

Hardly unique.  I spent over a year being told about "peaceful protests" in which heavy objects were thrown, lasers shined in officer's eyes, fires set and people physically attacked.  I won't even get into the racial slurs hurled at non-white officers by white protestors.  I suppose excusing political violence when it's perceived to threaten your objectives has become the norm.  You'll note I think what happened on 01/06 was terrible.  But I saw far more violent protests first hand that didn't seem to bother many people, and in fact were excused at very high levels.  Very interesting, from my perspective, were Democrat politicians who all of the sudden cared about the well being of law enforcement instead of demonizing them on a daily basis and calling for them to be defunded, lose their jobs, be disbanded, etc.  I'd be much more comfortable if we could condemn all of it, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

[Lucidus]

Masculine and feminine are terms much like attractive and sexy; utterly subjective from one individual to the next, and completely dependent on personal criteria.

[Lucidus]

(05-16-2023, 09:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hardly unique.  I spent over a year being told about "peaceful protests" in which heavy objects were thrown, lasers shined in officer's eyes, fires set and people physically attacked.  I won't even get into the racial slurs hurled at non-white officers by white protestors.  I suppose excusing political violence when it's perceived to threaten your objectives has become the norm.  You'll note I think what happened on 01/06 was terrible.  But I saw far more violent protests first hand that didn't seem to bother many people, and in fact were excused at very high levels.  Very interesting, from my perspective, were Democrat politicians who all of the sudden cared about the well being of law enforcement instead of demonizing them on a daily basis and calling for them to be defunded, lose their jobs, be disbanded, etc.  I'd be much more comfortable if we could condemn all of it, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

That would be nice, but whataboutism seems preferable in most dialogues these days.

I will note though, there can be demonstrable differences that tend to be more prevalent / one-sided in these events, and in those cases, pointing it out is needed and also very informative.

[*pally*]

(05-16-2023, 09:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hardly unique.  I spent over a year being told about "peaceful protests" in which heavy objects were thrown, lasers shined in officer's eyes, fires set and people physically attacked.  I won't even get into the racial slurs hurled at non-white officers by white protestors.  I suppose excusing political violence when it's perceived to threaten your objectives has become the norm.  You'll note I think what happened on 01/06 was terrible.  But I saw far more violent protests first hand that didn't seem to bother many people, and in fact were excused at very high levels.  Very interesting, from my perspective, were Democrat politicians who all of the sudden cared about the well being of law enforcement instead of demonizing them on a daily basis and calling for them to be defunded, lose their jobs, be disbanded, etc.  I'd be much more comfortable if we could condemn all of it, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

The violence was condemned, in both circumstances. But I think most people understand there is a difference in the 2 situations. One started as a protest for racial justice after watching a cop murder a man over a $20 counterfeit bill. The other was a protest built on lies by the President of the United States whose goals were to overturn the Federal Government in favor of Trump by any means necessary.
Now you may claim this is being hypocritical others will say it is using critical thinking skills to understand that while there were similarities in the situations there are also vast differences.
One wouldn’t have happened if Minneapolis didn’t have an out of control cop. The other wouldn5 have happened if we didn’t have an out of control President.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2023, 09:08 PM)Lucidus Wrote: That would be nice, but whataboutism seems preferable in most dialogues these days.

I will note though, there can be demonstrable differences that tend to be more prevalent / one-sided in these events, and in those cases, pointing it out is needed and also very informative.

It could be considered "whataboutism" if I was using the point to excuse or mitigate Jan. 6th.  I am not doing so in any fashion.  You are correct in that they are not exactly direct parallels, but that's a sword that cuts both ways.

(05-17-2023, 08:40 AM)pally Wrote: The violence was condemned, in both circumstances.  But I think most people understand there is a difference in the 2 situations.  One started as a protest for racial justice after watching a cop murder a man over a $20 counterfeit bill. The other was a protest built on lies by the President of the United States whose goals were to overturn the Federal Government in favor of Trump by any means necessary.

Incorrect, one was multiple protests over several months that became increasingly more violent as they went along.  The other was a one off event.  As I said above, there are certainly differences, but that's a sword that cuts both ways.  Also, the reason your protesting becomes utterly irrelevant to me once you start assaulting law enforcement, burning buildings, looting and, in some cases, murdering people.

Quote:Now you may claim this is being hypocritical others will say it is using critical thinking skills to understand that while there were similarities in the situations there are also vast differences.
One wouldn’t have happened if Minneapolis didn’t have an out of control cop.  The other wouldn5 have happened if we didn’t have an out of control President.

You're proving my point for me.  The riots were excused by many and you're providing a perfect illustration of that in this post.  You start by saying the violence was condemned.  It largely was not and instead was largely excused and mitigated, just as you're doing in this exact post.

[*pally*]

The race riots continued because there were several more incidents similar to George Floyd's over that summer. Plus other stressor like COVID and lack of jobs. I hear right wingers say that Floyd would still be alive if he had just followed the cop's order. That would be true of Ashli Babbit as well...but Floyd wasn't trying to over throw the government like she was.
No one condoned the violence. Show me anyone who did. We understood the reasons behind the actual protests but things crossed the line when rioting exploded. If you can't see the difference in the origins then maybe you are working too hard to justify the actions of Trump, his advisors, and supporters on Jan 6


Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2023, 12:48 PM)pally Wrote: The race riots continued because there were several more incidents similar to George Floyd's over that summer. Plus other stressor like COVID and lack of jobs. I hear right wingers say that Floyd would still be alive if he had just followed the cop's order. That would be true of Ashli Babbit as well...but Floyd wasn't trying to over throw the government like she was.
No one condoned the violence. Show me anyone who did. We understood the reasons behind the actual protests but things crossed the line when rioting exploded. If you can't see the difference in the origins then maybe you are working too hard to justify the actions of Trump, his advisors, and supporters on Jan 6


Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Again, making excuses and proving my point for me.  As for Dems excusing violence, as you are here, are you really serious?  Kamala Harris helped raise bail money for those arrested. The mayor of Seattle allowed an "autonomous zone" to be set up where lawlessness reigned and multiple people were murdered.  "The Squad" members took every opportunity to shift the focus to the "racist origins of policing", and calling for the disbanding of law enforcement.  Need I go into the term "mostly peaceful?"  When you mitigate and excuse violence, as you are doing in your post by throwing out excuses like "Covid stressor" and "lack of jobs" you are mitigating and excusing the violence, which is the exact opposite of condemning it.  Use the Rittenhouse incident as an interesting case study.  Every shred of evidence showed he acted in self-defense.  Many posters here who are hardly right leaning were of this opinion.  Yet the response from the left was, "he shouldn't have been there", he was "looking for trouble", all the while ignoring the fact that he had no more, or less right to be there than any of the protestors.  He was attacked, not the other way around, yet the media coverage was wall to wall excuses and mitigation for the left wing violence.  If you're honestly blind to this glaring fact, and the consistent attempts to excuse and mitigate left wing violence then I honestly don't know what to tell you.

If a right leaning person tried to excuse and mitigate what happened on Jan. 6th you would, correctly, call them out for making excuses for the inexcusable.  Which makes your contradictory position on the '20 riots, and beyond, all the more glaring.  Like I said, it would be great if we could all get on the same page and condemn politically motivated violence, but apparently we're not there yet.

[*pally*]

Where did I ever excuse violence?

Understanding the reasons that went into it does not condone why it happened. Looking into the situations that lead to violence is not condoning violence. Looking to find solutions so the problems don't repeat isn't condoning violence. Nor does donating to a fund to bail out those arrested for PROTESTING not rioting as many were in Minneapolis, also does not condone violence. Most of those cases were actually dismissed because they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute them for anything else.

Kyle Rittenhouse was a kid looking for trouble. You blow this off but he isn't a hero. He used a weapon he wasn't legally allowed to carry into a volatile situation in a community where he didn't live. You call it self-defense and that is what the jury decided. Maybe that is the legal conclusion. But, 2 people are dead and 1 permanently disabled because he put himself into a situation where he had no business being with a weapon he had no business using and lacked the proper training to understand when to use it. He shouldn't be celebrated nor is a victim both of which he has become to the right wing. He's an example of how bad things can get when you put yourself into a bad situation and that includes the people who died that night. They also made bad decisions.

Every right-wing person I know makes excuses for Jan 6. We on the left understand why it happened just like we understand why the riots of 2020 happened and we do understand that the daylight peaceful protests turned into riots at night On Jan 6, A large group of people believed the lies being told to them by a man who was desperate to maintain power. Violence and lawbreaking from many ensued out of an otherwise peaceful "rally" But, unlike the left who at least acknowledges the violence, most right-wingers, including politicians, refuse to even admit Jan 6 got violent and out of control....except of course other than that thug cop who murdered poor Ashli Babbit for doing nothing at all

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2023, 02:01 PM)pally Wrote: Where did I ever excuse violence?

In the posts I responded to.

Quote:Understanding the reasons that went into it does not condone why it happened.

It certainly excuses it though.  You provided excuses for the violence, by definition that is excusing the behavior.

Quote: Looking into the situations that lead to violence is not condoning violence.  Looking to find solutions so the problems don't repeat isn't condoning violence. Nor does donating to a fund to bail out those arrested for PROTESTING not rioting as many were in Minneapolis, also does not condone violence.

There was no such distinction made.  One of the people bailed out by this organization was a violent felon who then murdered someone.

A suspect released with the help of a nonprofit organization operating a Minnesota bail fund endorsed by Vice President Kamala Harris has now been charged with murder.



Shawn Michael Tillman, a repeat felon, shot and killed a passenger on a light rail platform in St. Paul, Minnesota in May after reportedly being released from jail on April 29 for indecent exposure thanks to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF).



Vice President Kamala Harris pointed potential donors to the Minnesota Freedom Fund during the violence that ensued after the murder of George Floyd.

Quote: Most of those cases were actually dismissed because they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute them for anything else.

Source?  Also, was that the real reason, or was it a left leaning DA like we see in many places who lets left wing violence, or any violence for that matter, go with a slap on the wrist?

Quote:Kyle Rittenhouse was a kid looking for trouble.  You blow this off but he isn't a hero. He used a weapon he wasn't legally allowed to carry into a volatile situation in a community where he didn't live.

 

More proving my point for me.  Also, the illegally carrying a weapons charge was dismissed, so you are incorrect in that regard.

Quote:You call it self-defense and that is what the jury decided. Maybe that is the legal conclusion. But, 2 people are dead and 1 permanently disabled because he put himself into a situation where he had no business being with a weapon he had no business using and lacked the proper training to understand when to use it.

More excusing violence on your part.  Two people are dead and one "disabled" because they chose to attack a person without provocation.  Also, very interesting how all three people shot were convicted felons.  Not that Rittenhouse knew that, only that they were attacking him.

 

Quote:He shouldn't be celebrated nor is a victim both of which he has become to the right wing. He's an example of how bad things can get when you put yourself into a bad situation and that includes the people who died that night.  They also made bad decisions. He is a stupid kid who made a who

He shouldn't have been anything because the DA should have never charged him and we wouldn't have become a symbol of selective and political prosecution.  The far left is as responsible for his lionization as anyone.

Quote:Every right-wing person I know makes excuses for Jan 6.

 

Then you've found some common ground.  Do you accept their excuses or do you challenge them?

Quote:We on the left understand why it happened just like we understand why the riots of 2020 happened and we do understand that the daylight peaceful protests turned into riots at night  On Jan 6, A large group of people believed the lies being told to them by a man who was desperate to maintain power. Violence and lawbreaking from many ensued out of an otherwise peaceful "rally"  But, unlike the left who at least acknowledges the violence, most right-wingers, including politicians, refuse to even admit Jan 6 got violent and out of control....except of course other than that thug cop who murdered poor Ashli Babbit for doing nothing at all

Does the left acknowledge the violence?  "Mostly peaceful" would indicate otherwise.  Even when it is acknowledged it is excuse and mitigated.  It's frustrating that you don't see this exact behavior in yourself.  You even made false claims in this very post that the bail money raised at the behest of Kamala Harris was only used to bail people out for "protesting, not rioting" when the organization themselves stated clearly that they made no such distinction, read the link above. 

Lastly, in regard to Babbit, I would honestly like you to answer one question for me.  Was she unarmed when she was shot?

[*pally*]

it is no use continuing a discussion with somebody who is bound and determined to misunderstand everything I say.

Ashlie Babbit was unarmed, however, she was leading a violent mob against 1 cop who was the last man between them and the Senate chamber. He was in clear danger from them which anyone who looks at the situation honestly knows

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-18-2023, 11:01 AM)pally Wrote: it is no use continuing a discussion with somebody who is bound and determined to misunderstand everything I say.

I don't think that's what's happening, but you could at least try and refute the points being made.  But this is certainly your prerogative.  

Quote:Ashlie Babbit was unarmed, however, she was leading a violent mob against 1 cop who was the last man between them and the Senate chamber.  He was in clear danger from them which anyone who looks at the situation honestly knows

Thank you for at least answering this.  Now please remember that you found justification for shooting an unarmed person the next time the media spins a law enforcement shooting as unjustified as the suspect was "unarmed." All I ask for is consistency.

[*pally*]

(05-18-2023, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think that's what's happening, but you could at least try and refute the points being made.  But this is certainly your prerogative.  


Thank you for at least answering this.  Now please remember that you found justification for shooting an unarmed person the next time the media spins a law enforcement shooting as unjustified as the suspect was "unarmed." All I ask for is consistency.

Every shooting has circumstances leading up to it.  They do not happen in a vacuum.  I try very hard to look at those circumstances before coming to a conclusion.  Some I've concluded were justified and some weren't.  I do not believe all cops are bad yet I do not believe all are good either

You may not know me very well, but let me assure you, I never ever jump to conclusions.  I do not react in a knee-jerk manner.