BLM Protester Shoots White Woman For Saying "All Lives Matter"

[Snowman0147]

Maybe we should regulate capitalism? Because it looks like not regulating these companies leads to Marxist infiltration. Ironic, right?

I am down with no foreign investors.  Sick and tired of the CCP controlled Chinese companies buying our stocks and thus controlling our companies.

[RandyB]

Maybe we should regulate capitalism? Because it looks like not regulating these companies leads to Marxist infiltration. Ironic, right?

I am down with no foreign investors.  Sick and tired of the CCP controlled Chinese companies buying our stocks and thus controlling our companies.

Might as well say that free speech allows Marxist infiltration.

[Trond]

Most insane tweet that I saw about this:

"This happens to black folks all the time, where is the outrage then?"

[insubordinate polyhedral]

WTF? I didn't say anything about how these were covered in mainstream news outlets. I would agree that mainstream news tends to be liberal-biased in their coverage.

But here in this forum, we're not talking with mainstream media people. We're discussing among ourselves with other rpgsite posters. And a number of posters have been speaking in support of boogaloo (among others), and saying that there can be no peaceful debate with leftists.

Extremist violence on both sides exists, and the key driver of it is extremist talk about how everyone on the "other side" are violent killers, and thus we need violence in order to defend ourselves.

Personally I am more concerned about the key driver of bald-faced hypocrisy than I am about one tiny group of nutbags yelling at another tiny group of nutbags. People aren't blind to injustice and tensions are rising because people notice.

Perhaps I should've led with this restatement, but I am challenging your "both sides" assertion that escalation is happening because both sides have violent extremists. "Both sides" are not equivalent here, as evidenced by one example of asymmetry, which I provided. My assertion/hypothesis is that what is jacking up the temperature is not that these lunatics exist (they always have), it's the climate where one side's threat is hyped up and the other's is downplayed. Condemnation of extremists is *not* being done universally or with equivalent metrics, and that's an important problem.

Edit:

And a number of posters have been speaking in support of boogaloo (among others)

What? Who? Where? The closest I see is Ghostmaker calling the guy from your link nuts and Spinachcat calling him a moron.

[Snowman0147]

Might as well say that free speech allows Marxist infiltration.

I am just applying the Raging Golden Eagle tactics.  To protect free speech you gotta get rid of those who will use free speech to destroy free speech.

[Ghostmaker]

What? Who? Where? The closest I see is Ghostmaker calling the guy from your link nuts and Spinachcat calling him a moron.

It's much easier for him to spin it that way rather than admit for every one loonie wearing a Hawaiian shirt and muttering disdainfully, there's at least ten people in various flavors of progressive, communist, totalitarian, or supremacist views screeching about how a random statue oppresses them and they have the right to yank it down.

Support a civil war? I'm fucking terrified of civil war. Some of us actually read history books as opposed to using them for toilet paper. The records of the siege of Sarajevo alone should be enough to cool anyone's desire for everything going off the rails.

[Steven Mitchell]

It's much easier for him to spin it that way rather than admit for every one loonie wearing a Hawaiian shirt and muttering disdainfully, there's at least ten people in various flavors of progressive, communist, totalitarian, or supremacist views screeching about how a random statue oppresses them and they have the right to yank it down.

Support a civil war? I'm fucking terrified of civil war. Some of us actually read history books as opposed to using them for toilet paper. The records of the siege of Sarajevo alone should be enough to cool anyone's desire for everything going off the rails.

No kidding.  This conflation of "this is what is going to happen if some of the usual suspects don't pull their heads out of their asses" is not an equivalent statement as "this thing that is going to happen is a good thing."  That's why we want said heads out of said asses.  The thing is going to be awful, but not so awful that people are going to completely become slaves to Marxists in order to avoid it.  

We are rapidly running out of non-awful choices.  Guess what happens when the remaining choices are "bad", "worse", or "terrible"?  We'll be lucky if "bad" gets picked.

[RandyB]

No kidding.  This conflation of "this is what is going to happen if some of the usual suspects don't pull their heads out of their asses" is not an equivalent statement as "this thing that is going to happen is a good thing."  That's why we want said heads out of said asses.  The thing is going to be awful, but not so awful that people are going to completely become slaves to Marxists in order to avoid it.  

We are rapidly running out of non-awful choices.  Guess what happens when the remaining choices are "bad", "worse", or "terrible"?  We'll be lucky if "bad" gets picked.

Said another way: as horrifically bad as civil war always is, always has been, and always will be, there are greater evils. Marxism is one of those greater evils.

[Trond]

Speaking of only bad and awful choices. I do think that's where this year's election is at.

[Ghostmaker]

Said another way: as horrifically bad as civil war always is, always has been, and always will be, there are greater evils. Marxism is one of those greater evils.

Easy to say sitting in front of a computer screen, in a presumably air-conditioned room with a solid roof and walls.

A bit harder if you're shivering in front of a tiny fire you have to keep hidden because someone might take a potshot at you for giggles.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it's a lot harder to stick to those principles when you're in the shit.

[jhkim]

Perhaps I should've led with this restatement, but I am challenging your "both sides" assertion that escalation is happening because both sides have violent extremists. "Both sides" are not equivalent here, as evidenced by one example of asymmetry, which I provided. My assertion/hypothesis is that what is jacking up the temperature is not that these lunatics exist (they always have), it's the climate where one side's threat is hyped up and the other's is downplayed. Condemnation of extremists is *not* being done universally or with equivalent metrics, and that's an important problem.

I would say that what is jacking up the temperature is social media. Liberals see lists of people killed by the police, and by right-wing extremist shooters, and they are outraged. The other side kill people in broad daylight in front of witnesses -- or they flip a switch and shoot everyone. Clearly, the other side are violent scum and can't be reasoned with.

Conservatives see lists of people killed by black criminals and by left-wing extremists, and they are outraged. The other side cut down people senselessly and savagely. Clearly, the other side are violent scum and can't be reasoned with.

There are different patterns of violence, but the body count is similar. The left-wing have more public displays of less intense violence like breaking windows and fist-fights, but the right-wing have more high body-count spree shootings. While extremist violence has always existed and overall violent crime has gone down since the 1990s, there has been an uptick in the number of extremist killings and mass shootings in recent decades. It is the social media posting of this still-rare-but-increasing violence that drives outrage. Still, overall, people are still much safer than in the 1990s.

This conflation of "this is what is going to happen if some of the usual suspects don't pull their heads out of their asses" is not an equivalent statement as "this thing that is going to happen is a good thing."  That's why we want said heads out of said asses.  The thing is going to be awful, but not so awful that people are going to completely become slaves to Marxists in order to avoid it.

I apologize that I was not clear. I understand that it's not a unified movement, but from my reading, this is what many within the boogaloo movement are saying. They don't want civil war, but they believe civil war will be necessary to preserve their freedom -- which is why they are preparing for it. There are also those who don't use the term, but use similar language. In the video by John Mark discussed in the balkanization thread, he does not advocate war, but he believes that civil war is inevitable and will be necessary to preserve people's freedom. What's an appropriate term for support of the views expressed by John Mark, for example?

[RandyB]

Easy to say sitting in front of a computer screen, in a presumably air-conditioned room with a solid roof and walls.

A bit harder if you're shivering in front of a tiny fire you have to keep hidden because someone might take a potshot at you for giggles.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it's a lot harder to stick to those principles when you're in the shit.

Agreed. We can keyboard warrior all we want to. When it hits meatspace is where choices get hard.

[Steven Mitchell]

Easy to say sitting in front of a computer screen, in a presumably air-conditioned room with a solid roof and walls.

A bit harder if you're shivering in front of a tiny fire you have to keep hidden because someone might take a potshot at you for giggles.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it's a lot harder to stick to those principles when you're in the shit.

It's a bit simpler for me in one sense, in that the most likely outcome for all of the awful choices is that I'm dead.  I won't make it as far as the campfire to hide out.  Not the immediate outcome I would choose for myself, but after I'm dead it won't be my problem anymore.  So I've got that going for me.

[Steven Mitchell]

I would say that what is jacking up the temperature is social media. Liberals see lists of people killed by the police, and by right-wing extremist shooters, and they are outraged. The other side kill people in broad daylight in front of witnesses -- or they flip a switch and shoot everyone. Clearly, the other side are violent scum and can't be reasoned with.

Conservatives see lists of people killed by black criminals and by left-wing extremists, and they are outraged. The other side cut down people senselessly and savagely. Clearly, the other side are violent scum and can't be reasoned with.

There are different patterns of violence, but the body count is similar. The left-wing have more public displays of less intense violence like breaking windows and fist-fights, but the right-wing have more high body-count spree shootings. While extremist violence has always existed and overall violent crime has gone down since the 1990s, there has been an uptick in the number of extremist killings and mass shootings in recent decades. It is the social media posting of this still-rare-but-increasing violence that drives outrage. Still, overall, people are still much safer than in the 1990s.



I apologize that I was not clear. I understand that it's not a unified movement, but from my reading, this is what many within the boogaloo movement are saying. They don't want civil war, but they believe civil war will be necessary to preserve their freedom -- which is why they are preparing for it. There are also those who don't use the term, but use similar language. In the video by John Mark discussed in the balkanization thread, he does not advocate war, but he believes that civil war is inevitable and will be necessary to preserve people's freedom. What's an appropriate term for support of the views expressed by John Mark, for example?

I don't believe there is a single term, because people have all kinds of ways of handling situations where what they feel that they must do ... they'd rather not.  Out of those that do handle it, you are going to get some that handle it by "making the best of it"--which in a civil war is being as prepared as you can be and trying hard to make the other guy die for his beliefs instead of him killing you for yours.   You also get people that tell themselves it won't be as bad as all that as a coping mechanism.  (Whether they really believe it or not and how much is of course highly variable and hard to tell from the outside looking in.)  Out of those subsets, you'll get a few that even convince themselves it would be a good thing, as opposed to a less bad thing.  

That's why it's sometimes called a "national divorce".  Think of all the different ways a couple and those around them handle a divorce.  The divorce itself is rarely a good thing.  Depending on the couple it can range from unpleasant to absolutely devastating.  No one gets a divorce out of the blue or just for fun.  It's an ends to a means--get me out of this bad situation, get us apart because we can't be together, etc. As a shorthand, some people will say "the divorce was a good thing" when what they really mean when they think about it is that it was a necessary (unpleasant or worse) thing to get to a different good thing (being single, being married to this other person, etc.).  However, if they say the shorthand enough, they start to think about it in that simpler form.  

Well OK, prepare for what you see as an increasingly inevitable civil war long enough, think about the alternatives that are diminishing by the week, and eventually you'll use the same kind of shorthand.  Use it long enough, and you'll believe it.  

No doubt, same as in any war, there are a few people looking forward to the opportunity to shoot people and they haven't thought about what that means at all.  Human nature being what it is.   The mistake is to assume anyone that speaks favorably of the civil war is being one of them.

[Mjollnir]

I am down with no foreign investors.  Sick and tired of the CCP controlled Chinese companies buying our stocks and thus controlling our companies.

"The Chinese"

Yeah, ok.