I think we just don't understand each other tbh. That's all there is to it.

And I'm sure frank's PMs to me claiming he was concerned I was drunk were not an attempt to annoy me so he could claim he was being harassed. I need to see the good in people more.

I'm sorry I was mean to frank everyone. When he said he was calling Hanover for help with a sad face emoji, it sounded like a joke and I responded with an lol. The idea of Hanover saving anyone sounds inherently amusing to me. But apparently my response was harassful oppression, so I apologize.

The systemic oppression is so heavy here we haven't yet banned @NOS4A2 and @Chester. We may have to up our game.

I was told I'd be banned if I trolled anymore — frank

As above:

I said I don't care about and that you (posters in general) don't troll on the site or you get banned. Period. That's a statement of fact regarding the rules not a statement of my intention to do anything... I've already said I'd leave moderating you to others. — Baden

No, I didn't say you're due to be banned nor did I suggest that you're generally badly behaved. Yesterday, you called a post bullshit and then when asked for a reason said you didn't even read it. I can't think of a more trollish thing to do than that. It seems disingenuous to me you wouldn't recognize that, but fine.

Today, you came up with some excuse which I said I don't care about and that you (posters in general) don't troll on the site or you get banned. Period. That's a statement of fact regarding the rules not a statement of my intention to do anything. But whatever, feel free to continue this with someone else. I've already said I'd leave moderating you to others (if that happens to be necessary). That's all I have to say about it.

What you'll find in the political discussions is many emotive posts interspersed with some decent ones. That's just the nature of politics. Emotionally, people tend to react more strongly to things like police brutality than most philosophical topics. If we modded political topics like philosophical ones, we'd have to rip so much out of the discussions that they'd become incoherent. Anyway, the door's always open if you want to make the discussion better.

Hm.

It's not baiting. There is some good stuff on here and your post was a low-quality complaint about low quality (a sweeping generalization). I don't doubt you can contribute, so go ahead.

Thanks for introducing him to me. :up:



Having said that, there is still some pretty good analysis to be found here considering what an emotive topic this is. What's your contribution been, @Brett? If you think you have something philosophical to say, please say it. Complaining about people falling into holes is no better than the lowest quality stuff on here.

Trump stooges attacking "the enemy of the people" again.

No worries. The whole thing is horrible. That can't be said enough.

Oh, I know, concerning the situation, I was just referring to the statement.

"White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Monday pressed the notion that the far-left “antifa” movement is largely behind the violence that has emerged in protests around the nation and said President Trump is “committed to acting on this.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/01/george-floyd-protests-live-updates/

You have to laugh at the level of idiocy of this administration, tragic as it is.

Yes, the "returning fire" excuse doesn't hold much water if they decided to shoot randomly at protesters, which is what I suspect happened as they would have likely said otherwise if not. Of course, the double-speak and excuse-making will start now in that case. There's video going to come out anyhow so a clearer picture of what actually happened will emerge soon, I guess. E.g. if protesters or provocateurs did fire on police for no other reason than them clearing the crowds, they're going to be primarily responsible for whoever died.

Your high-level English reasoning has this poor Paddy confused. What I would do if I had a gun in my own house determines what people in America think the police should do to protesters looting Target. Therefore, Trump will be elected. Wow, teach me more of your Anglo wisdom, sir.

Yes — Chester

Show me the evidence you have, the polls and such, that the majority of Americans support the idea that looters should be shot.

If someone was in my property looting it and I had a gun I wouldn't hesitate. — Chester

What you would or would not do is not evidence for anything to do with reelecting Trump.

but many people — Chester

Your argument concerned the "majority". Not "many". Because it aimed to support the idea that Trump will be re-elected. So, do you think the majority of people support the shooting of looters? Yes or no?

To make it clear, @Hanover. I said this re the specifics of looting etc.

And that doesn't yet mean that burning down Target stores is justified or effective, it only means we've got to the point where it's not necessarily unjustified or at least not any worse than what's been done to the people who are doing it.

Well, peacefully appealing to the moral sentiments of the ruling aristocracy who have made America a systematically racist shithole clearly isn't going to work. How to effectively apply other forms of pressure is an extremely difficult question.

Yes, some of the localised violence is uncalled for and counterproductive and even carried out for completely the wrong reasons.

I don't personally feel that random destruction of property is justified and I sympathize with any innocent small business owner who got caught up in this.

But the main point is the problem with legitimacy, which hasn't been taken up much because the focus is just on saying this or that action is wrong, period. That's an impoverished level of analysis is what I'm saying.

You responded with this:

So you encourage looting liquor and TVs from stores? But for the distance, you'd be in the streets burning cars? Why do you sit idly behind your computer when your morals demand throwing rocks at police and stealing from stores? — Hanover

How is what you said a reasonable interpretation of what I said? How is it anything but a random expression of your emotional state?

I also said this:

Just to reiterate, we reject the framing that this is just a "bad apple" event or, if systemic, one that the authorities are willing and able without strong coercion to solve. We reject the framing that there is an equitable foundation of law on which to make neutral moral judgements concerning breaches of law. We reject the framing that legitimizes the use of force only for those who control the channels of visibility for grievances. So, if you want to argue with us, argue on the level of whether or not such rejections are justifiable not through the very framing we've already rejected. — Baden

Again, just quote my words, tell me what you think they mean and we'll go from there. Otherwise, we'll be talking past each other.

objections to your nonsense — Hanover

Here's an opportunity. Which specific claim, quote it, is nonsense and why?

And do you think the majority of people want black people shot for stealing TVs?

Again, try quoting my position. That usually works if done with context and demonstrates a minimum of comprehension.

Nah, you haven't bothered to read my posts and are completely lost.

Yes, you said that several times. Any evidence for it?

I'm not so sure it's just the rich, that seems a bit of an exacerbation. I think even poor people do want police to perform well. — ssu

Point taken though that's not exactly what I meant. @StreetlightX gave a far better answer than that anyway.

For the rest, pretty much, you've seen that in this thread. I would argue conservatives are wrong here in the framing but we'll never get to that if the debate doesn't switch focus.

You poor sad little man. It really is all you have, isn't it? Bless your silly little soul. Anyway, the topic is Trump so back to making a clown of yourself on that.



:lol: Who knows what @Chester is on about, but the idea anyone cares continues to be funny.

Is that really all you have? No intelligence, no wit, no real humor, just sloppy attempts at ethnic insults that for some reason you think embarrass anyone other than yourself. Sad.

I think... — Chester

What you think doesn't matter because, as is evident from your post history, you have nothing remotely intelligent to say. Nothing that couldn't be burped up by some drunken geezer in a sports bar. You can clown around for a while if you like but the idea that what you think matters is the only truly funny thing you've come up with here.

Say no violence" the moment one needs to actually contemplate that privilege being taken away, is an not simply an empty platitude but completely absurd line of reasoning if one benefits from, much less, promotes the right of state violence. At least say "I like the current violence situation the way it is", — boethius

:up:

The interesting question is why the US simply is unable to truly reform it's police? — ssu

I think it's because the ideological discourse is so skewed. Cops protect scared rich white people from their worst nightmares. In return, scared rich white people make them virtually untouchable.

Just to reiterate, we reject the framing that this is just a "bad apple" event or, if systemic, one that the authorities are willing and able without strong coercion to solve. We reject the framing that there is an equitable foundation of law on which to make neutral moral judgements concerning breaches of law. We reject the framing that legitimizes the use of force only for those who control the channels of visibility for grievances. So, if you want to argue with us, argue on the level of whether or not such rejections are justifiable not through the very framing we've already rejected.

The president's expressed wish for all of them to be shot isn't weighing heavily on people's minds, but a Target store being attacked is. — fdrake

This is very salient. In what ethical universe is a call for shooting people for looting—which they began as a result of a situation where a member of their community was tortured to death and the perp not charged—not only less objectionable than the theft involved but actually a laudable response to it?

The ideological fog obscures the fact that an official call for killing members of a community who are protesting being murdered is considered by many to be acceptable discourse, but any talk about violence against property isn't. Everyone should let that sink in. It highlights how the whole debate is so perversely framed. Take away the fact that the ones who are calling for the shooting are the powerful and the ones doing the looting are the powerless and you've got a disgusting upending of priorities where property is more important than life. Because it's their property and your life.

And this is not just about Trump's stupid tweets, that's just a particularly egregious example, the whole of the official discourse devalues the interests and concerns of those who lack the social and material capital to make them visible and elevates the concerns and interests of those who control the channels of visibility. Any analysis of important social events must recognize and deal with that reality to be worth anything at all.

Just rehashing what you said really. But it's so important to recognize. Those surfing on the moral waves of the dominant discourse need constantly to be knocked into the cold water until they learn to swim for themselves to the shore.

:clap:

:lol: I worked in a supermarket once. The manager got pissed off at me because I called in sick and went to the pub. Typical frigging capitalist.

I mean burn down the local WalMart. :fire: :cheer:

It's a disagreement over values and framing. — StreetlightX

Exactly. What it's not is "stealing TVs is good!" vs. "stealing TVs is not good!". If we can't get past that I'm going to punch me a @#$*ing wall somewhere.

I've assaulted two previous bosses... — Chester

I can just see you now swinging your beer belly at them like an obese Bruce Lee with tats.

'Parently so. Joining antifa now. As I don't live in a ridiculous country where fighting fascism is terrorism. The negative consequences to that will equal zero.

(OK, not really joining antifa. The point remains though.)

Being actively against fascism is terrorism now, apparently. So being for fascism is what?

I thought I made that clear previously, but apparently not — Baden

Actually, looking back I did.

And that doesn't yet mean that burning down Target stores is justified or effective, it only means we've got to the point where it's not necessarily unjustified or at least not any worse than what's been done to the people who are doing it. — Baden

Well, peacefully appealing to the moral sentiments of the ruling aristocracy who have made America a systematically racist shithole clearly isn't going to work. How to effectively apply other forms of pressure is an extremely difficult question. — Baden

Yes, some of the localised violence is uncalled for and counterproductive and even carried out for completely the wrong reasons — Baden

I don't personally feel that random destruction of property is justified and I sympathize with any innocent small business owner who got caught up in this. — Baden

But the main point is the problem with legitimacy, which hasn't been taken up much because the focus is just on saying this or that action is wrong, period. That's an impoverished level of analysis is what I'm saying.