Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by TheMeInTeam, Apr 19, 2021.
Just looking for consistency of standards. Seems awfully inciteful.
People with standards have standards. ****heads are ****heads. News at 11?
She's a rep, elected 15 times from CA. I mean, wtf do you want? There is a reason the House is the house. It is supposed to be stupid and mercurial. That's why we elect them every 2 years.
On a certain level, it's almost nice that we have idiotic ancient-ass entrenched black women in the highest halls of power along with all the useless corrupt old men right? Good to see that everybody fits right in, really shows the racists what for, thinking people be different from one another. I can't imagine a presumption stupider. Right?
Please expand on what you think would be the specifics that you are talking about?
She went to Minneapolis and urged protestors to get more active, more confrontational.
Later, there was a drive-by shooting of national guards.
Consistency would be not thrown out of office, nor even censured
I heard downtown Minneapolis is a maze of boarded windows and national guards on street corners.
The verdict better come back guilty on something.
The suburban Minnesota Nice people I know are sort of bracing. But they're relatively close. I hope everyone is ok. I know we have some forum peeps up thataways. I'm not super keen on MN geography.
I do think juries of peers are a good thing. And I'll stand by that even when they ****up, as they will. That's sort of the point*. But as we watch this, we better understand that a jury of peers has several levels.
*And as misinformation saturation becomes more of a thing instead of sole disinformation(in the west(different propaganda models)) the value of a true innocent** juror becomes absolutely premium. Did we get any of those?
**just totally uninformed
what the hell is this thread even
usually when they make so little sense it's because I have blocked some of the participants in the conversation
Google-fu my friend. Just follow the top links like you have a disorder.
Nah this was clearly the work of Undercover MAGA that are causing the violence and making BLM look like terrorist /s
They should definitely storm the government to overturn the acquittal verdict, Iam sure that police wont Shoot them ...... OH WAIT !
Seriously, we both know that that they will riot if there is an acquittal.
The pot is already boiling.
If anything the Dems should be calling for calm right now.
Well, there's an unrefuted argument.
Do standards matter if the OP doesn't actually believe in existing examples of incitement in the first place? Almost seems like a contrived argument.
Well I have read the wiki,
Maxine Waters - Wikipedia
and I think I rather approve.
Are we talking about cancel culture again?
Waters urged attendees at a rally in Los Angeles to confront Trump administration officials in public places by creating a crowd: "...tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."
I think the scandal here is that she does not seem environmentally aware. Criticising cryptocurrency without mentioning its carbon footprint? Heresy!!
She said, "The cryptocurrency market currently lacks a clear regulatory framework to provide strong protections for investors, consumers and the economy. Regulators should see this as a wake-up call to get serious about the privacy and national security concerns, cybersecurity risks, and trading risks that are posed by cryptocurrencies".
If a riot happened moments after her speech you'd have a damn good point here. Unless I missed something, riot still hasn't happened, days after the statement, so what actually did she incite here?
Any riot in MN will not be because of Maxine Waters comments.
Doesn't need to be, if it's trying to explore your standards. Someone can disagree with someone else's conclusions and still try to explore what the other person thinks. I don't believe in God, but can ask someone why God's best ratio of answering prayers is 0.50, but only if it involves sports teams.
This would be better asked of the OP in the form of a question, considering it's as much as presumption of intent as anything I wrote was.
My presumption is backed up by the lack of effort made, no links provided, and no apparent desire to discuss anyone's opinions. You're welcome to presume otherwise.
Oh boy, another one.
I don't really presume much on this topic, but there are multiple ways the bolded can occur, I've learned.
a) when someone is freshly upset with an incident, they might assume that everyone knows what they're talking about.
b) they might believe that the opponent is incapable of honest discussion, and therefore not have the energy to put work in, but to gauge the honesty of the participants before putting in the work
c) the point is to be derisive and actually not conversation
Of course, in any specific circumstance, the strategy of 'vaguebooking' can be useful or damaging. In real life, I've seen (a) with road rage, where people's claims of not understanding are interpreted as deliberate obfuscation. (b) happens for me on CFC with a particular poster, who've I've learned very often will not reciprocate effort, and so is best teased into revealing their position before deciding to care about what he thinks, and (c) explains my post count success.
At some point, there needs to be a lot of tear gas and arrests. Arrests that stick as hard as they did in DC, on generally higher charges (since most of those arrested in DC weren't doing Burning/Looting/Murdering).
If actions were according to my beliefs on legal incitement, previous events would have been different. What I want to see is actions consistent with the purported standards and beliefs of the people who acted on previous assertions of incitement.
Moreso asking for its consistency. Both last summer and recently, she has said things that are obviously incitement...at least by their own previously used standards. Obviously it isn't actual legal incitement now just like it wasn't last time. But either you can say these things or you can't.
Riots are happening consistently in MN, and also crimes like Kaitzilla linked. Tangential link was all that was needed to make the accusation last time. Why not now?
Where was that logic in January? This is why I'm asking for consistency of standards.
While B is a factor, there's also another layer. The same conduct (arguably less inciteful) was widespread news, whereas public knowledge of Waters' conduct isn't despite being similar/arguably worse in nature. The mere fact that most people would have to look up Waters pattern of inciteful speech to know about it suggests that those most guilty of being unwilling/unable to have honest discussion about are not even on this forum.
That kind of dishonesty has itself led to riots, especially in Chicago.
@TheMeInTeam The US has grown quite comfortable with street protests turning into riots over civil rights issues. It's been going on regularly al my life. Storming the US capitol is not a regular thing nor is an attempt to shut down the Congress while they are certifying an election. In city riots, most of the laws violated are state and at the Capitol they are federal. The situations are not really comparable.
Separate names with a comma.