RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[Pat]

*I* want to bring in Antifa? Oh Pat, you've gotten lost mate. Follow the conversation. Where is it you think we started my man?

The point all along has been about comparing Antifa violence to Jan 6 violence and people claiming Jan 6 was non-violent, with me saying no they were in fact violent.  Sicknick was just one in many many points I made to demonstrate they were also violent on Jan 6. I've proven it was violent and rather than talk to that point you want to focus on trying to play gotcha without ever speaking to the issue we're talking about. You got so far from the point that you now think I am the one bringing Antifa to the conversation. Fuck dude, there is a forest around you. Stop beating your head on that tree. Not me who brought Antifa to this conversation I am just responding to what others said. Or did you just forget what the heck we've been talking about?

Tell me Pat, do you agree with what was said, that on Jan 6 everyone in the capital was just "invited" in there by police, they were simply trespassing and wandering the halls, and that they were non-violent? Do you or do you not agree with that statement. Don't be a fucking politician about it, don't ask me to define what "is" is, just answer the simple question as to whether you think that is an accurate assessment of what happened or not.

Because if you don't agree with that statement, I want you to hold the people accountable for saying that at least as much as you have a bug up your ass about Sicknick which was never my point to begin with but that statement WAS the point those guys were making.

Okay, you fucking liar. Where did anyone say this was nonviolent?

Oh wait, that was me! Except there was context, which you can't strip out without being a complete fucking liar. I pointed out that one side of the building was completely nonviolent. They were invited in. They were respectful. And it's absolutely appalling those people are being treated as terrorists. It's a complete travesty, and it's a sign of the sickness of our federal institutions and how far they've drifted from their often but falsely claimed role as public servants.

And on the other side of the the building, I said it got violent. But not a single protestor was carrying a gun. The FBI admitted there was no organized plan to do anything. It therefore wasn't an insurrection. That's another lie, and it's equally appalling. Because we've just gone through dozens of worse riots, some in the summer of 2020 in response to a completely fictitious narrative, some at supreme court confirmation hearings, some at presidential inaugurations, some at the homes of supreme court justices, and one that even attacked the White House. These were all far worse, because they directly threatened legislators, justices, and chief executives, committed arson, and killed people. Yet the people involved mostly got a slap on the hand.

Which in general, I wouldn't have much of a problem with. I think it's a sign of a functioning democracy that protests are largely tolerated, even when they get violent. Yes, people get arrested. But the charges should usually be minor, and the sentences typically probation. Even property damage or inter-personal violence shouldn't be treated that severely, because this idea that all protests are going to be peaceful is nonsense. Reserve the serious charges for things like bombings, killings, or arson.

But what we're seeing here is the weaponization of Congress, the FBI, and the Department of Justice against the opposition political party. I despise that political party almost as much as I despise you, but hey if I stay silent then next they'll come for X, then Y, and eventually me.

Liar.

Liar.

You miserable piece of shit liar.

And if you ask me one more of your little staged lying questions and demand an answer, I'm going totally scorched earth on your miserable piece of shit ass.

Ok Pat, thank you for conclusively proving you did not, in fact, follow the conversation. No wonder you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation when I had not. You apparently jumped into the middle of it and didn't even realize what people had said or why they had said it.

Which, for the record, is no big deal. Happens to us all. But, maybe don't go off the rails in anger at someone when they've just mentioned it seemed like you didn't read the beginning and go check next time before replying?

No buddy, my comment was not directed to you. No, I did not take your comments out of context. Yes, someone did in fact say they were non-violent on Jan 6 and no, that person was not you. In fact you didn't even comment on the topic until well after this was said:

" with protestors who were let into a public building, wandered about, and harmed no one.  "

For more context, he was making a comparison to Antifa violence when he said that. Which is why I was confused earlier when you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation.

That's the comment which started this. It was from 3cat, not you. That's the topic we've been debating ever since. One other person (also not you) seemed to agree with 3cats take on that. This was quite a while ago. Many pages ago now, and we've been debating that issue a while, sprinkled with some other RPGnet stuff in between responses. But yeah, someone here absolutely was describing the Jan 6 rioters (again not to be confused with protestors) as "harming no one" and just wandering about the capital building after being "let in". It's why I eventually posted that video of police getting their asses kicked and retreating and calling for help as rioters broke through their barriers and attacked.

Don't project your own failure to follow the conversation onto others, you smarmy piece of shit. You replied to my posts, and made a statement that applied to a previous post of mine. I responded to that, rather than bringing anyone else into the vile pile of sewage and lies you were spewing. That in no way suggests that I was unfamiliar with other posts, and the only way you can draw that conclusion is just to make shit up. Which you do, because you're disingenuously attempting to avoid addressing the topic.

Speaking of you lying, you did bring up Antifa. You raised it in reply to one my posts. And then you lied about bringing it up, and now you're lying about it again.

When you told me that I was bringing Antifa into the conversation and I explained no I had not someone else had (which they had), that was me telling you that you seemed confused about the responses. And you're doubling down, even though you just fucking said that nobody had claimed the rioters were non-violent when you've just seen conclusive proof you were wrong on that.

Pat, it's OK that you jumped in the middle of a conversation. It's also normal for me to assume you've read what's come before and understood what you were commenting on. But once you see for sure that you were wrong and someone had in fact described them as non-violent, it falls on you to figure that shit out and apologize for the mistake. Not double down and get defensive and act like I was lying when you now realize you really were wrong in saying that.

Be an adult. Just say whoops you messed up and move on. Don't be that guy who can't admit he messed up.

And you continue to lie.

You brought up Antifa, in a post where you quoted 3 nested replies. Not a single one mentioned Antifa. You brought it up on your own. I questioned whether you wanted to go there, because it was a terrible analogy which would thoroughly undermine your argument, but like the dishonest scumbag you are, you neither addressed the argument nor my criticism. Instead, you fabricated this entire web of suppositions, and dishonestly claimed I believe and said all kinds of things I never did.

Be an adult. Admit you're completely fucking wrong and a terrible human being for trying to project your own faults onto others.

Pat, probably a dozen of us at that point had brought up Antifa. IT WAS THE TOPIC YOU WERE IN THE MIDST OF. You still apparently won't go back and look at that, even though it's all right there for you to see. I assumed you knew what conversation you were in. It's fair for me to assume you know what conversation you jumped into. If you don't, inform yourself. It's not on me to inform you that you might have missed something (though I did try to do that).

Again, what does that have to do with anything?

I wasn't responding to them. I was responding to your post. I was saying "do you really want to go there", because, as I pointed out, it would demolish your own argument. I wasn't responding to them, I wasn't making any universal statements about the thread. I was giving you an out, because unlike you, I'm not a vile excuse for a human being.

Look, you've always been terrible at arguing, and ultimately your two methods are folding and running away, or doing what you're doing now, which is acting like you can't even follow a basic conversation.

Why not just be honest? Drop the pretense of being stupid, and admit you're a bad person who can't argue, so you make these futile and feeble attempts at deflection and projection.

[Shasarak]

The Iron Law of Woke Projection

[Pat]

Also, I am like, 99.9% sure that if anybody tried to bring up CAF on police reform on RPG.net, they would immediately be at best chided for steering the conversation away from their subject of worship, minority victimization. Or heck, how a more widespread use the 2nd amendment can help take the burden off police, which I think is part of what SHARK just posted. Most direct crimes that fail, and many never attempted, are stopped with a gun, either its use or just its presence.

Just find a case where CAF was used by the police against a minority and talk about that minorities right to due process were violated by the police who used the ill-gotten gains to fund something extremely anti-woke.

Sometimes the best use for trolls is to convince them your enemy is their enemy.

Fair point. Though I guess the second amendment might still be a hard sell. Opposition to it is almost also innate left wing doctrine these days. "But [insert recent mass shooting here]!" Nevermind that mass shootings constitute less than 1% of gun homicides and less of overall homicides. Or that rifles, never mind assault rifles, were used in only roughly a quarter.

The left wing isn't anti-second amendment.

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"

That's Karl Marx. Real leftists oppose public disarmament. You can't call the gun grabbers liberals, either, because the Founding Fathers were liberals, and they wrote the 2A. You can't even say they're progressives, because Teddy Roosevelt wasn't exactly opposed to guns.

The group that oppose guns are basically the milquetoast American futurists in the social science sense who adopted socialist-inspired ideas from Europe about centralized planning and control in the early decades of the 20th century, and later formed FDR's brain trust. They're technocrats and college grads educated beyond their native intelligence who considered themselves to be naturally superior to the masses, who they believed just needed their guidance and control, in order to form a more perfect society.

Yes, another term for that kind of person is "stupid idiot". Or "insufferably arrogant". Under the delusion that other people are sheeple or automata who can be precisely commanded, they cause immense amounts of damage. Their heirs in later decades shared all the same traits, but the majority are coffee table theorists in suburbia, unaware just how clueless and divorced from reality their suggestions really are. This group of meddling monsters has become increasing cozy, living soft and easy lives, and thus, while completely fine with violence directed at the dirty masses of deplorables, are utterly horrified at the idea of those masses being able to exert violence in any way, even in defense of themselves, or defense of the republic, or to hunt and eat (even if they're aware that nature involves animals killing each other, they think it's icky and prefer to live in a fantasy world).

Somewhere along the way, someone started calling these people "liberals", which is a horrible perversion of the term, because real literals are almost their antithesis. And now they're often called "progressives", which is fairer but still not accurate. Woke is okay, but it's a new term for a new phenomenon, and can't really be stretched to include their full history from the era of the brain trust to their current mad frenzy of racism and hate.

[KindaMeh]

Also, I am like, 99.9% sure that if anybody tried to bring up CAF on police reform on RPG.net, they would immediately be at best chided for steering the conversation away from their subject of worship, minority victimization. Or heck, how a more widespread use the 2nd amendment can help take the burden off police, which I think is part of what SHARK just posted. Most direct crimes that fail, and many never attempted, are stopped with a gun, either its use or just its presence.

Just find a case where CAF was used by the police against a minority and talk about that minorities right to due process were violated by the police who used the ill-gotten gains to fund something extremely anti-woke.

Sometimes the best use for trolls is to convince them your enemy is their enemy.

Fair point. Though I guess the second amendment might still be a hard sell. Opposition to it is almost also innate left wing doctrine these days. "But [insert recent mass shooting here]!" Nevermind that mass shootings constitute less than 1% of gun homicides and less of overall homicides. Or that rifles, never mind assault rifles, were used in only roughly a quarter.

The left wing isn't anti-second amendment.

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"

That's Karl Marx. Real leftists oppose public disarmament. You can't call the gun grabbers liberals, either, because the Founding Fathers were liberals, and they wrote the 2A. You can't even say they're progressives, because Teddy Roosevelt wasn't exactly opposed to guns.

The group that oppose guns are basically the milquetoast American futurists in the social science sense who adopted socialist-inspired ideas from Europe about centralized planning and control in the early decades of the 20th century, and later formed FDR's brain trust. They're technocrats and college grads educated beyond their native intelligence who considered themselves to be naturally superior to the masses, who they believed just needed their guidance and control, in order to form a more perfect society.

Yes, another term for that kind of person is "stupid idiot". Or "insufferably arrogant". Under the delusion that other people are sheeple or automata who can be precisely commanded, they cause immense amounts of damage. Their heirs in later decades shared all the same traits, but the majority are coffee table theorists in suburbia, unaware just how clueless and divorced from reality their suggestions really are. This group of meddling monsters has become increasing cozy, living soft and easy lives, and thus, while completely fine with violence directed at the dirty masses of deplorables, are utterly horrified at the idea of those masses being able to exert violence in any way, even in defense of themselves, or defense of the republic, or to hunt and eat (even if they're aware that nature involves animals killing each other, they think it's icky and prefer to live in a fantasy world).

Somewhere along the way, someone started calling these people "liberals", which is a horrible perversion of the term, because real literals are almost their antithesis. And now they're often called "progressives", which is fairer but still not accurate. Woke is okay, but it's a new term for a new phenomenon, and can't really be stretched to include their full history from the era of the brain trust to their current mad frenzy of racism and hate.

Okay, so more like the woke movement and the new American left, than leftists historically or internationally, then?

[Pat]

Okay, so more like the woke movement and the new American left, than leftists historically or internationally, then?

Yes, fundamentally it was a long way to say "the US has badly mangled the word 'liberal'".

I think terminology matters, but this area's such a mess that there really aren't any good options except to periodically say "right now, I'm using this word this way."

[KindaMeh]

What is the international left like, anyway? I mean, I know some authoritarian countries that claim to be descended from communism, and they probably wouldn't want to give their citizens power by arming them. But IDK if that's actually the international political left per se. I know this is mostly a question of definitions, but what is the general consensus as to the policy aims of the left on the global stage? Are we talking Marxism? Democratic socialism but with guns? Something else? Sounds from what you said about the history that maybe centralized planning and control with a tendency towards socialism are part of it.

[Mistwell]

*I* want to bring in Antifa? Oh Pat, you've gotten lost mate. Follow the conversation. Where is it you think we started my man?

The point all along has been about comparing Antifa violence to Jan 6 violence and people claiming Jan 6 was non-violent, with me saying no they were in fact violent.  Sicknick was just one in many many points I made to demonstrate they were also violent on Jan 6. I've proven it was violent and rather than talk to that point you want to focus on trying to play gotcha without ever speaking to the issue we're talking about. You got so far from the point that you now think I am the one bringing Antifa to the conversation. Fuck dude, there is a forest around you. Stop beating your head on that tree. Not me who brought Antifa to this conversation I am just responding to what others said. Or did you just forget what the heck we've been talking about?

Tell me Pat, do you agree with what was said, that on Jan 6 everyone in the capital was just "invited" in there by police, they were simply trespassing and wandering the halls, and that they were non-violent? Do you or do you not agree with that statement. Don't be a fucking politician about it, don't ask me to define what "is" is, just answer the simple question as to whether you think that is an accurate assessment of what happened or not.

Because if you don't agree with that statement, I want you to hold the people accountable for saying that at least as much as you have a bug up your ass about Sicknick which was never my point to begin with but that statement WAS the point those guys were making.

Okay, you fucking liar. Where did anyone say this was nonviolent?

Oh wait, that was me! Except there was context, which you can't strip out without being a complete fucking liar. I pointed out that one side of the building was completely nonviolent. They were invited in. They were respectful. And it's absolutely appalling those people are being treated as terrorists. It's a complete travesty, and it's a sign of the sickness of our federal institutions and how far they've drifted from their often but falsely claimed role as public servants.

And on the other side of the the building, I said it got violent. But not a single protestor was carrying a gun. The FBI admitted there was no organized plan to do anything. It therefore wasn't an insurrection. That's another lie, and it's equally appalling. Because we've just gone through dozens of worse riots, some in the summer of 2020 in response to a completely fictitious narrative, some at supreme court confirmation hearings, some at presidential inaugurations, some at the homes of supreme court justices, and one that even attacked the White House. These were all far worse, because they directly threatened legislators, justices, and chief executives, committed arson, and killed people. Yet the people involved mostly got a slap on the hand.

Which in general, I wouldn't have much of a problem with. I think it's a sign of a functioning democracy that protests are largely tolerated, even when they get violent. Yes, people get arrested. But the charges should usually be minor, and the sentences typically probation. Even property damage or inter-personal violence shouldn't be treated that severely, because this idea that all protests are going to be peaceful is nonsense. Reserve the serious charges for things like bombings, killings, or arson.

But what we're seeing here is the weaponization of Congress, the FBI, and the Department of Justice against the opposition political party. I despise that political party almost as much as I despise you, but hey if I stay silent then next they'll come for X, then Y, and eventually me.

Liar.

Liar.

You miserable piece of shit liar.

And if you ask me one more of your little staged lying questions and demand an answer, I'm going totally scorched earth on your miserable piece of shit ass.

Ok Pat, thank you for conclusively proving you did not, in fact, follow the conversation. No wonder you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation when I had not. You apparently jumped into the middle of it and didn't even realize what people had said or why they had said it.

Which, for the record, is no big deal. Happens to us all. But, maybe don't go off the rails in anger at someone when they've just mentioned it seemed like you didn't read the beginning and go check next time before replying?

No buddy, my comment was not directed to you. No, I did not take your comments out of context. Yes, someone did in fact say they were non-violent on Jan 6 and no, that person was not you. In fact you didn't even comment on the topic until well after this was said:

" with protestors who were let into a public building, wandered about, and harmed no one.  "

For more context, he was making a comparison to Antifa violence when he said that. Which is why I was confused earlier when you thought I had brought Antifa to the conversation.

That's the comment which started this. It was from 3cat, not you. That's the topic we've been debating ever since. One other person (also not you) seemed to agree with 3cats take on that. This was quite a while ago. Many pages ago now, and we've been debating that issue a while, sprinkled with some other RPGnet stuff in between responses. But yeah, someone here absolutely was describing the Jan 6 rioters (again not to be confused with protestors) as "harming no one" and just wandering about the capital building after being "let in". It's why I eventually posted that video of police getting their asses kicked and retreating and calling for help as rioters broke through their barriers and attacked.

Don't project your own failure to follow the conversation onto others, you smarmy piece of shit. You replied to my posts, and made a statement that applied to a previous post of mine. I responded to that, rather than bringing anyone else into the vile pile of sewage and lies you were spewing. That in no way suggests that I was unfamiliar with other posts, and the only way you can draw that conclusion is just to make shit up. Which you do, because you're disingenuously attempting to avoid addressing the topic.

Speaking of you lying, you did bring up Antifa. You raised it in reply to one my posts. And then you lied about bringing it up, and now you're lying about it again.

When you told me that I was bringing Antifa into the conversation and I explained no I had not someone else had (which they had), that was me telling you that you seemed confused about the responses. And you're doubling down, even though you just fucking said that nobody had claimed the rioters were non-violent when you've just seen conclusive proof you were wrong on that.

Pat, it's OK that you jumped in the middle of a conversation. It's also normal for me to assume you've read what's come before and understood what you were commenting on. But once you see for sure that you were wrong and someone had in fact described them as non-violent, it falls on you to figure that shit out and apologize for the mistake. Not double down and get defensive and act like I was lying when you now realize you really were wrong in saying that.

Be an adult. Just say whoops you messed up and move on. Don't be that guy who can't admit he messed up.

And you continue to lie.

You brought up Antifa, in a post where you quoted 3 nested replies. Not a single one mentioned Antifa. You brought it up on your own. I questioned whether you wanted to go there, because it was a terrible analogy which would thoroughly undermine your argument, but like the dishonest scumbag you are, you neither addressed the argument nor my criticism. Instead, you fabricated this entire web of suppositions, and dishonestly claimed I believe and said all kinds of things I never did.

Be an adult. Admit you're completely fucking wrong and a terrible human being for trying to project your own faults onto others.

Pat, probably a dozen of us at that point had brought up Antifa. IT WAS THE TOPIC YOU WERE IN THE MIDST OF. You still apparently won't go back and look at that, even though it's all right there for you to see. I assumed you knew what conversation you were in. It's fair for me to assume you know what conversation you jumped into. If you don't, inform yourself. It's not on me to inform you that you might have missed something (though I did try to do that).

Again, what does that have to do with anything?

I wasn't responding to them. I was responding to your post.

Which WAS RESPONDING TO THEM. And THEY had raised Antifa. But you seemed completely oblivious to that.

You called me a liar. So far in this conversation I caught you outright lying or just horribly mistaken about what people had said in this conversation. YOU are the one who claimed nobody said the Jan 6 rioters were peaceful. That was you either lying, or wrong. But you won't address that at all and you keep deflecting from it. You are sure to do it again in response to this. Which tells me you were probably lying because damn dude, it would have been so easy to just say you were wrong but continuing to deflect sure makes it seem like you knew that's what was said and were just lying.

And as usual, you go on the offense when you're caught lying. A very Trumpian response.

[GeekyBugle]

Also, I am like, 99.9% sure that if anybody tried to bring up CAF on police reform on RPG.net, they would immediately be at best chided for steering the conversation away from their subject of worship, minority victimization. Or heck, how a more widespread use the 2nd amendment can help take the burden off police, which I think is part of what SHARK just posted. Most direct crimes that fail, and many never attempted, are stopped with a gun, either its use or just its presence.

Just find a case where CAF was used by the police against a minority and talk about that minorities right to due process were violated by the police who used the ill-gotten gains to fund something extremely anti-woke.

Sometimes the best use for trolls is to convince them your enemy is their enemy.

Fair point. Though I guess the second amendment might still be a hard sell. Opposition to it is almost also innate left wing doctrine these days. "But [insert recent mass shooting here]!" Nevermind that mass shootings constitute less than 1% of gun homicides and less of overall homicides. Or that rifles, never mind assault rifles, were used in only roughly a quarter.

The left wing isn't anti-second amendment.

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"

That's Karl Marx. Real leftists oppose public disarmament. You can't call the gun grabbers liberals, either, because the Founding Fathers were liberals, and they wrote the 2A. You can't even say they're progressives, because Teddy Roosevelt wasn't exactly opposed to guns.

The group that oppose guns are basically the milquetoast American futurists in the social science sense who adopted socialist-inspired ideas from Europe about centralized planning and control in the early decades of the 20th century, and later formed FDR's brain trust. They're technocrats and college grads educated beyond their native intelligence who considered themselves to be naturally superior to the masses, who they believed just needed their guidance and control, in order to form a more perfect society.

Yes, another term for that kind of person is "stupid idiot". Or "insufferably arrogant". Under the delusion that other people are sheeple or automata who can be precisely commanded, they cause immense amounts of damage. Their heirs in later decades shared all the same traits, but the majority are coffee table theorists in suburbia, unaware just how clueless and divorced from reality their suggestions really are. This group of meddling monsters has become increasing cozy, living soft and easy lives, and thus, while completely fine with violence directed at the dirty masses of deplorables, are utterly horrified at the idea of those masses being able to exert violence in any way, even in defense of themselves, or defense of the republic, or to hunt and eat (even if they're aware that nature involves animals killing each other, they think it's icky and prefer to live in a fantasy world).

Somewhere along the way, someone started calling these people "liberals", which is a horrible perversion of the term, because real literals are almost their antithesis. And now they're often called "progressives", which is fairer but still not accurate. Woke is okay, but it's a new term for a new phenomenon, and can't really be stretched to include their full history from the era of the brain trust to their current mad frenzy of racism and hate.

Okay, so more like the woke movement and the new American left, than leftists historically or internationally, then?

Not all socialists are marxists, of those who are plenty are pro disarming the people. Then you have the other types of socialists who incidently are also pro dissarming the people. You can't cite ONE quote from Marx and think that disproves what we can see with our own eyes. But yes, there are SOME exceptions here and there, at least until they are in power, then all bets are off.

Define "Left", traditionally it meant Liberal in certain parts of the world but who was the protagonists of the Terror in France? The Left.

Now lets say we agree that Liberals ARE the left... So what about ALL the types of socialists? They aren't the Right so what are they?

In a sane world Liberals would be the center, with the Right being the Conservatives and the Left being the Progressives... But that still leaves out all the socialist types, so what then?

Sadly in the US (and in the world's zeitgeist because of that) Liberal means the Left, and the Left means socialists, progressives and such, who ALL just happen to be authoritarian fucks (I know enough "libertarian-Left Wing" to include them there too). The Religious zealots of the right have lost all power and nobody listens to them, but you have mildly conservative types AND right wing libertarians (the only type of libertarianism that's not an axiomatic oxymoron) and no center.

[Pat]

Which WAS RESPONDING TO THEM. And THEY had raised Antifa. But you seemed completely oblivious to that.

You called me a liar. So far in this conversation I caught you outright lying or just horribly mistaken about what people had said in this conversation. YOU are the one who claimed nobody said the Jan 6 rioters were peaceful. That was you either lying, or wrong. But you won't address that at all and you keep deflecting from it. You are sure to do it again in response to this. Which tells me you were probably lying because damn dude, it would have been so easy to just say you were wrong but continuing to deflect sure makes it seem like you knew that's what was said and were just lying.

And as usual, you go on the offense when you're caught lying. A very Trumpian response.

You are a liar. All you're doing it lying. All this post of yours is is a collection of lies.

I pointed out that bringing up Antifa was a terrible move on your part. The rest of this is just your delusion.

I said who said it was nonviolent? Then I answered my own question -- me. The rest of this is just you making up shit I didn't say. You completely ignored what I did say, because you'd have to admit you were wrong.

I may be the only person on this board who regularly admits when they're wrong. Something you've never done. So that's more projecting your own flaws on other people.

Like I said, you're very bad at arguing. And when you're caught at it, you either slip away like a slimy little scumbag, or move into projection mode, accusing everyone else of doing what you're doing. This is why you're such a terrible person.

[Effete]

Okay, so more like the woke movement and the new American left, than leftists historically or internationally, then?

Yes, fundamentally it was a long way to say "the US has badly mangled the word 'liberal'".

I think terminology matters, but this area's such a mess that there really aren't any good options except to periodically say "right now, I'm using this word this way."

The process of perverting language and definitions has been around for a long time. It's always been a tool of authoritarians, who wish for nothing more than controlling the narrative, rather than engaging in any type of discourse or debate. I'm sure the use of "liberal" for these early, FDR-era technocrats was a purposeful act, designed to obfuscate and confuse.

[Effete]

Not all socialists are marxists, of those who are plenty are pro disarming the people. Then you have the other types of socialists who incidently are also pro dissarming the people. You can't cite ONE quote from Marx and think that disproves what we can see with our own eyes. But yes, there are SOME exceptions here and there, at least until they are in power, then all bets are off.

Define "Left", traditionally it meant Liberal in certain parts of the world but who was the protagonists of the Terror in France? The Left.

Now lets say we agree that Liberals ARE the left... So what about ALL the types of socialists? They aren't the Right so what are they?

In a sane world Liberals would be the center, with the Right being the Conservatives and the Left being the Progressives... But that still leaves out all the socialist types, so what then?

Sadly in the US (and in the world's zeitgeist because of that) Liberal means the Left, and the Left means socialists, progressives and such, who ALL just happen to be authoritarian fucks (I know enough "libertarian-Left Wing" to include them there too). The Religious zealots of the right have lost all power and nobody listens to them, but you have mildly conservative types AND right wing libertarians (the only type of libertarianism that's not an axiomatic oxymoron) and no center.

I always found it more helpful to define "Left" and "Right" in terms of economics.

Do you want central planning with a heavily regulated industry? You're Left.
Do you want laissez faire open markets and little to no regulation? You're Right.
Do you want something in the middle? You're Center.

Political labels are largely meaningless since almost no one fits squarely into a box. It's infinitely more helpful to just ask, "What do you believe?" and have a conversation from there. Otherwise, you have people calling each "libtard" or "trumptard" and neither side wants to back down because they both have made assumptions about the other.

[KindaMeh]

Annually there's like one fatal police shooting per every 800 cops or something crazy low like that. https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ (Divide each year by 800,000 US cops.) Likewise, while black people are 2.9 times more likely to be fatally shot according to that site, they also have a disproportionate representation in the violent crime rate almost as high. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/revcoa18.pdf

I'm not saying that there are no racist cops, or that there isn't some degree of such activity in play with the numbers, but they were much more reasonable numbers than I had been led to believe. For violence, rather than outright fatal shootings, the numbers are admittedly a little less balanced, even with violence and likelihood of the recipient of said effects being armed factored in.

Failed to include something showing higher levels of police violence towards equally resisting blacks (and hispanics, apparently). https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw

Though in police stops they seem about equally likely to be hurt or whatever and they get stopped more often. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/25/study-finds-blacks-arent-more-likely-to-get-hurt-during-police-stops/

So IDK.

Yeah, I find it hard to tell as well. Statistics on policing are very difficult to get truly controlled comparisons - and there are plenty of people on both sides who give mistaken or false impressions. It's very difficult to either prove or disprove racial bias in the field. You noted disproportionate representation in violent crime (i.e. black people tend to be more violent), but that itself is a function of policing. The U.S. legal system gives a wide range of latitude to police and prosecutors about what crimes get charged for given events. The same behavior could be let off with a warning, or they could throw the book at the offender.

From my observation, there is often obvious class bias in policing. A millionaire whose kid goes missing will get lots of attention from officers, while a family in poverty has to wait in line. Racial bias is less visible to me personally, but I know people who spoke of their experience believably.

Further, it's possible for there to be plenty of variety. Different police will have different biases, so local statistics might not match national statistics.

So, sorry to dig this up a while after it was posted, but your reply did eventually get me thinking. I feel like if there is class bias in police attentions, then this would one might think potentially lead to higher violence within poorer areas as the poor receive less protection. This matches up decently with the poor and not the rich most often being the victims of burglary. It also matches up with the poor being able to successfully commit more crimes with poor victims, and with my supposition that it is because blacks are poor and come from difficult backgrounds more often that they are most often hailed as both the victims and perpetrators of crime. (I did have a reason, I just didn't give it.) Admittedly, past discriminations have a hand in ensuring that this is the case. Likewise,  as communities that feel marginalized and do not trust police cooperation falls, as crime rates rise. So current mistrust is potentially damaging black communities, especially when the high rates of crime victimization from those of the same race and incarceration are factored in.

Likewise, regarding rates of crime and police bias, may want to take a look at this, for a place and time that I feel rationally should have shown such bias, if it were a robust statistical trend: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/offender-race-and-case-outcomes-do-crime-seriousness-and-strength.

Also, the disparity in killings changes on the basis of whether folks are armed to come closer together. Killings of racial groups for armed and unarmed civilians respectively, when compared, show that Hispanic victims more than white victims (though I guess it can't be said as easily who is and isn't worthy of being shot, so maybe neither should intrinsically be called that) are likely to be violently armed (where you would expect the opposite if proportionally use of force were more unjustified for them). Likewise violence or intent to harm was more often established and accepted in court of law for African Americans, of which roughly 22 are shot annually unarmed.

I would expect some racism, and hence some degree of disparity even with all factored in, though I must admit I have no proof of it factoring in now. But maybe that's because the average cop, unlike the racist bad apples we know exist, actually is more careful about shooting blacks than whites, all things considered.

Which bleeds into my next point, jumping off of how you noted some localities could have more racist cops masked by the national average. hands up don't shoot is too broad in its assignment of blame, and does not seem to have support statistically on average across the national level. In which case, local protests may be justified in such cases as discrimination is legitimately proven, but only within a locality. And with only 1,000 or so shootings in general to go around, fewer of which are racial, and many of which if cops on average are not super racist will be legally no less justified than any other shooting, I have to disbelieve protests targeted at most any non-specific shooting in most localities. And localities without patterns of bad shootings should not be protesting shootings specifically. And even in such cases as a specific shooting is unjustified legally, it should be a local reform affair if and only if the officer is not brought to justice and is allowed to continue their career or there is certain reason to believe a like shooting will be preventably done again, and reform doesn't hurt the community more through the likely uptick in crime should police cooperation decrease than what is gained for the minorities potentially targeted.

I support body cams because they promote trust and allow an officer to document what actually happened in a situation. I support promoting collaboration with local communities of low income status, which will also incidentally but not in a discriminatory manner benefit people of color, I feel. I support accountability on due process and the like. I support investing in crime prevention and police presence in high crime areas, which also I feel benefits minority demographics incidentally. I support officer training, and resources for officers to collaborate with when dealing with a mental health crisis event in the community or one of the many other tasks officers wind up randomly having to perform, oftentimes despite having limited training for that.  I do not support defunding the police, because as noted these populations and populations in general are more affected by crime than police killings. And I do not believe the statistics support hands up don't shoot within the contexts I enumerated earlier. Police violence more generally is murkier, but based on what you said about localities and averages, I feel like reform would need to take place at a local level of accountability, and often on a case by case basis.

[I]

I'm still wondering what happened to that asshole Tanka.  Anybody know?  I have some theories, but none are confirmed:

1.  Choked to death on a cock
2.  Died of ruptured colon; lubricated own dice tower and then sat on it
3.  TDS-induced stroke
4.  Not dead, but fired from RPG.net for sexual harassment of women (typical behavior for male feminists)

Dude, quit stalking your ex.

HEY EVERYBODY -- I THINK I FOUND TANKA!!!

[Battlemaster]

Polite question here, who is this tanka person?

[Crawford Tillinghast]

Polite question here, who is this tanka person?

Tanka ?was? a moderator who was notorious for using his Red Text Shield to abuse posters.