NationStates

Ifreann wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
What’s the best kind of text? Con-text! Seriously what am I looking at here?

The aftermath of a riot in Newark in July, 1967.

Did MLK ever endorse or participate in the Newark 1967 riot?

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Ifreann wrote:You don't need to say "Send bombs to Soros, he's importing immigrants to steal your jobs and rape your women" for someone hearing that to decide to send a bomb to Soros. Just saying the latter bit works as well.

By that logic any expression of dislike towards someone can be considered a tacit call to violence against them.

Violence can be very useful. I think that apart from extreme pacifists, everyone would agree.

Whether an immoral and unethical act is "useful" hardly matters. It is still immoral and unethical.

i can't express any dislike now, in this hypothetical world, for it is classed as a tacit call to violence?
WHO IN THE NAME OF THIS GODDAMN ALT. UNIVERSE CAN I ROLL MY EYES AT NOW?

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Ifreann wrote:You don't need to say "Send bombs to Soros, he's importing immigrants to steal your jobs and rape your women" for someone hearing that to decide to send a bomb to Soros. Just saying the latter bit works as well.

By that logic any expression of dislike towards someone can be considered a tacit call to violence against them.

Henry II didn't explicitly call for whacking Thomas Becket when he said "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" but a bunch of loyalists took it that way and history happened.

Ifreann wrote:

Kaggeceria wrote:Somehow I don't think you know all that much about what the standard police response is for such situations.

I don't think one needs to be deeply enmeshed in police procedure to realise that one car is not the police response to a crazed mob of violent hoodlums trying to break into a person's home.

Sounds like a problem with DC police, then.

Alrighty. That's... interesting.

Mod verdict was a big ol' No, so that won't be happening.

So, in your quest to prove they weren't doxxing him you verified that they were, in fact, doxxing him.

Nothing else really needs to be said on the subject.

Doors, as I said, can be repaired and replaced. And police reports do not always include everything.

Doors can be replaced, but I would expect Carlson to be complaining about the terrible cost and inconvenience of replacing a door, since it greatly benefits him for this to all seem as bad as possible.

*shrugs*

Perhaps he is not as eager to nail himself to a cross as you apparently think he should be.

Or they wanted him to know that he isn't safe in his home.

But, uh, sure. Keep being an apologist.

Or they wanted him to know they could come back and be loud and annoying again. But sure, keep acting like the whole population of revolutionary Paris was there with their guillotines.

Right, they vandalized his home and doxxed him but they totally weren't threatening him.

Alrighty, bud. Don't let me stop your flimsy apologism.

His rhetoric inspired nothing. He has never called for violence.

You don't need to say "Send bombs to Soros, he's importing immigrants to steal your jobs and rape your women" for someone hearing that to decide to send a bomb to Soros. Just saying the latter bit works as well.

Soros has made himself an inherently political figure by, ya know, getting involved in politics and donating millions to different left-wing groups. If he doesn't want to be criticized then he shouldn't be political.

Carlson isn't responsible for a bomb being sent to him simply because he criticizes him.

You, on the other hand, seem perfectly fine with violence and intimidation tactics.

Violence can be very useful. I think that apart from extreme pacifists, everyone would agree.

So, yes, you are indeed fine with violence when you feel it suits you.

I see I need to break out the crayons again.

A door is thicker than a stick. Cracks in doors can more easily be repaired. For fucks' sake.

You can glue cracked wood back together, no matter the dimensions involved, but the crack is still there. You can't make a crack in wood just go away and have it be one piece of wood again.

You can glue it, paint over it, etc.

It's also possible the crack was only visible on the inside. Or he simply had it replaced.

That they're attempting to intimidate him and make him feel unsafe in his own home by sharing his address with every fucking crazy leftist on Twitter. Kind of syncs in well with them threatening him.

Well they can't have shared it with every crazy leftists on Twitter, because I had to go find it on my own. But leaving that aside, a far more likely intention seems to me to be that they wanted more people to join their protest.

Then you're nothing short of delusional.

Obvious threats, vandalism, doxxing.

Either they're mentally retarded pacifists or they were using intimidation tactics.

You don't come to someone's house, vandalize their property, doxx them and start chanting that you know where they live (get over it) unless you're trying to intimidate them.

And just out of curiosity, why does that possibility seem more likely to you?

Petrasylvania wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:By that logic any expression of dislike towards someone can be considered a tacit call to violence against them.

Henry II didn't explicitly call for whacking Thomas Becket when he said "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" but a bunch of loyalists took it that way and history happened.

By that logic you can't criticize anyone for fear of violence happening against them.

Stop criticizing Donald, Gauth. You're going to inspire violence.

Petrasylvania wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:By that logic any expression of dislike towards someone can be considered a tacit call to violence against them.

Henry II didn't explicitly call for whacking Thomas Becket when he said "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" but a bunch of loyalists took it that way and history happened.

Yes, and Henry II wasn't responsible for the actions of the loyalists. In fact, he was so shocked by their actions that he punished himself in some way iirc.

Kaggeceria wrote:

Petrasylvania wrote:Henry II didn't explicitly call for whacking Thomas Becket when he said "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" but a bunch of loyalists took it that way and history happened.

By that logic you can't criticize anyone for fear of violence happening against them.

Stop criticizing Donald, Gauth. You're going to inspire violence.

I'll keep that in mind if I ever become a national leader. :^]

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Petrasylvania wrote:Henry II didn't explicitly call for whacking Thomas Becket when he said "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" but a bunch of loyalists took it that way and history happened.

Yes, and Henry II wasn't responsible for the actions of the loyalists. In fact, he was so shocked by their actions that he punished himself in some way iirc.

If a Cesar Sayoc actually killed someone he constantly demonized, say Hillary Clinton, the last thing Donnie would do is connect it to his tirades, much less punish himself for it.

Petrasylvania wrote:If a Cesar Sayoc actually killed someone he constantly demonized, say Hillary Clinton, the last thing Donnie would do is connect it to his tirades, much less punish himself for it.

If the FBI had actually planned a World Trade Center bombing, say the first one, the last thing a lemming would do is connect it to widely-publicized October surprise distributions of non-viable explosive devices, much less realize that their "your speech is actually violence" platform is less effective than just going back to Bernie Sanders Infinite Free Stuff For Everyone as a path to political power.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Petrasylvania wrote:Henry II didn't explicitly call for whacking Thomas Becket when he said "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" but a bunch of loyalists took it that way and history happened.

Yes, and Henry II wasn't responsible for the actions of the loyalists. In fact, he was so shocked by their actions that he punished himself in some way iirc.

Always struck me as plausible deniability. A bit like MBS and Khashoggi, they needed to keep Henry II out of the frame for the mess he created.

Petrasylvania wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Yes, and Henry II wasn't responsible for the actions of the loyalists. In fact, he was so shocked by their actions that he punished himself in some way iirc.

If a Cesar Sayoc actually killed someone he constantly demonized, say Hillary Clinton, the last thing Donnie would do is connect it to his tirades, much less punish himself for it.

As he would be well within common sense to do, given that someone else committed a violent act which he did not incite at all. If someone went and killed Trump, do you think that Clinton should feel some of the responsibility?

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Petrasylvania wrote:If a Cesar Sayoc actually killed someone he constantly demonized, say Hillary Clinton, the last thing Donnie would do is connect it to his tirades, much less punish himself for it.

As he would be well within common sense to do, given that someone else committed a violent act which he did not incite at all. If someone went and killed Trump, do you think that Clinton should feel some of the responsibility?

I think everyone is responsible for their own actions, and I wouldn't say Trump is at fault for this bomber, but the fact is that Trump incites violence. That doesn't mean Trump caused this act of violence, I'm not holding him responsible for it. It's more so that I'm disgusted by his hypocrisy.

Page wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:As he would be well within common sense to do, given that someone else committed a violent act which he did not incite at all. If someone went and killed Trump, do you think that Clinton should feel some of the responsibility?

I think everyone is responsible for their own actions, and I wouldn't say Trump is at fault for this bomber, but the fact is that Trump incites violence. That doesn't mean Trump caused this act of violence, I'm not holding him responsible for it. It's more so that I'm disgusted by his hypocrisy.

When did he incite violence?

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Page wrote:
I think everyone is responsible for their own actions, and I wouldn't say Trump is at fault for this bomber, but the fact is that Trump incites violence. That doesn't mean Trump caused this act of violence, I'm not holding him responsible for it. It's more so that I'm disgusted by his hypocrisy.

When did he incite violence?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-violence/

It's quite a long list.

Vassenor wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:When did he incite violence?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-violence/

It's quite a long list.

Fair point, although Trump's language is so stupid it's unclear whether that's incitement to violence or stupid snarling.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Ifreann wrote:You don't need to say "Send bombs to Soros, he's importing immigrants to steal your jobs and rape your women" for someone hearing that to decide to send a bomb to Soros. Just saying the latter bit works as well.

By that logic any expression of dislike towards someone can be considered a tacit call to violence against them.

No, not really. Some sports reporter expressing dislike of some sports team won't make anyone do anything except maybe agree. But someone on Fox, someone who tells you that all the other is fake and you can only trust them, starts painting a picture of a certain group posing an existential threat to your way of life, some people will hear that and decide that the only possible response is violence.

Violence can be very useful. I think that apart from extreme pacifists, everyone would agree.

Whether an immoral and unethical act is "useful" hardly matters. It is still immoral and unethical.

That would depend on one's systems of morality and ethics.

---

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Ifreann wrote:The aftermath of a riot in Newark in July, 1967.

Did MLK ever endorse or participate in the Newark 1967 riot?

When he spoke of riots being the language of the unheard, those are the riots he was talking about.

Ifreann wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:By that logic any expression of dislike towards someone can be considered a tacit call to violence against them.

No, not really. Some sports reporter expressing dislike of some sports team won't make anyone do anything except maybe agree. But someone on Fox, someone who tells you that all the other is fake and you can only trust them, starts painting a picture of a certain group posing an existential threat to your way of life, some people will hear that and decide that the only possible response is violence.

Whether an immoral and unethical act is "useful" hardly matters. It is still immoral and unethical.

That would depend on one's systems of morality and ethics.

---

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Did MLK ever endorse or participate in the Newark 1967 riot?

When he spoke of riots being the language of the unheard, those are the riots he was talking about.

But that quote is not an endorsement of said riots. In fact in the speech he condemns the riots as deplorable multiple times. MLK's position is that riots are inevitable from a behavioral science standpoint, not that they should happen. Which is why I said, that article is propagandist bullshit. They're cherry picking MLK quotes, a man that "the whites" respect, and using it to give cover for riots and violence. MLK never endorsed or supported riots and was firmly opposed to them, but he also understood why they happen.

Kaggeceria wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I don't think one needs to be deeply enmeshed in police procedure to realise that one car is not the police response to a crazed mob of violent hoodlums trying to break into a person's home.

Sounds like a problem with DC police, then.

OR

The 911 call wasn't someone begging for protection from a crazed mob of violent hoodlum trying to break into their house. It was a person asking the police to deal with some annoying and loud people outside their house.

Mod verdict was a big ol' No, so that won't be happening.

So, in your quest to prove they weren't doxxing him you verified that they were, in fact, doxxing him.

Nothing else really needs to be said on the subject.

You should probably go back and edit out the whitepages link in your post.

Doors can be replaced, but I would expect Carlson to be complaining about the terrible cost and inconvenience of replacing a door, since it greatly benefits him for this to all seem as bad as possible.

*shrugs*

Perhaps he is not as eager to nail himself to a cross as you apparently think he should be.

I find that hard to believe.

Or they wanted him to know they could come back and be loud and annoying again. But sure, keep acting like the whole population of revolutionary Paris was there with their guillotines.

Right, they vandalized his home and doxxed him but they totally weren't threatening him.

Alrighty, bud. Don't let me stop your flimsy apologism.

A single person vandalised his drive, without the clear disapproval of other present. But I'm sure you knew that and just didn't care to make the distinction between one person doing something bad and the whole group they're part of being bad.

You don't need to say "Send bombs to Soros, he's importing immigrants to steal your jobs and rape your women" for someone hearing that to decide to send a bomb to Soros. Just saying the latter bit works as well.

Soros has made himself an inherently political figure by, ya know, getting involved in politics and donating millions to different left-wing groups. If he doesn't want to be criticized then he shouldn't be political.

There's a world of difference between criticism and casting someone as the arch-villian in a plot to destroy America.

Carlson isn't responsible for a bomb being sent to him simply because he criticizes him.

Just a few sentences ago a whole crowd of people were responsible for one person spray-painting a driveway. Why does Carlson get a pass?

Violence can be very useful. I think that apart from extreme pacifists, everyone would agree.

So, yes, you are indeed fine with violence when you feel it suits you.

Yes. So are you. You've called for lethal violence in this very thread.

You can glue cracked wood back together, no matter the dimensions involved, but the crack is still there. You can't make a crack in wood just go away and have it be one piece of wood again.

You can glue it, paint over it, etc.

It's also possible the crack was only visible on the inside. Or he simply had it replaced.

Or the door was never damaged.

Well they can't have shared it with every crazy leftists on Twitter, because I had to go find it on my own. But leaving that aside, a far more likely intention seems to me to be that they wanted more people to join their protest.

Then you're nothing short of delusional.

Obvious threats, vandalism, doxxing.

No threats, one person vandalising a drive, posting a publicly listed address.

Either they're mentally retarded pacifists or they were using intimidation tactics.

Or they're just protesters.

You don't come to someone's house, vandalize their property,

You really are having trouble with the fact that only one person vandalised anything, aren't you?

doxx them and start chanting that you know where they live (get over it)

Maybe it's facts in general you're having trouble with.

unless you're trying to intimidate them.

And just out of curiosity, why does that possibility seem more likely to you?

Well I think that if these people wanted to intimidate Carlson, they wouldn't have gone to his house, read their statement, made some noise, and left. Peaceful protest isn't very intimidating.

Ifreann wrote:No, not really. Some sports reporter expressing dislike of some sports team won't make anyone do anything except maybe agree. But someone on Fox, someone who tells you that all the other is fake and you can only trust them, starts painting a picture of a certain group posing an existential threat to your way of life, some people will hear that and decide that the only possible response is violence.

Okay, any statement of non-trivial dislike of someone is tacit incitement by your logic then. Happy?

That would depend on one's systems of morality and ethics.

Well, what does your system of morality say about violence? I can tell you that I'm not gonna find much to like about a system of morality in which either forceful, non-defensive violence is acceptable, or the moral worth of an act is defined by how useful it is.

When he spoke of riots being the language of the unheard, those are the riots he was talking about.

His speech from which that quote is cherrypicked is an explanation of the intention behind riots, not an endorsement of riots.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Ifreann wrote:No, not really. Some sports reporter expressing dislike of some sports team won't make anyone do anything except maybe agree. But someone on Fox, someone who tells you that all the other is fake and you can only trust them, starts painting a picture of a certain group posing an existential threat to your way of life, some people will hear that and decide that the only possible response is violence.

Okay, any statement of non-trivial dislike of someone is tacit incitement by your logic then. Happy?

That's very much not what I said, so no.

That would depend on one's systems of morality and ethics.

Well, what does your system of morality say about violence?

I dunno, man, I don't have it written down or anything. I just kind of figure shit out as I go, like most people.

When he spoke of riots being the language of the unheard, those are the riots he was talking about.

His speech from which that quote is cherrypicked is an explanation of the intention behind riots, not an endorsement of riots.

It's not really an explanation of the intention behind riots. It's a response to demands that he condemn violence and riots.

Tarsonis wrote:

Ifreann wrote:No, not really. Some sports reporter expressing dislike of some sports team won't make anyone do anything except maybe agree. But someone on Fox, someone who tells you that all the other is fake and you can only trust them, starts painting a picture of a certain group posing an existential threat to your way of life, some people will hear that and decide that the only possible response is violence.

That would depend on one's systems of morality and ethics.

---

When he spoke of riots being the language of the unheard, those are the riots he was talking about.

But that quote is not an endorsement of said riots. In fact in the speech he condemns the riots as deplorable multiple times. MLK's position is that riots are inevitable from a behavioral science standpoint, not that they should happen. Which is why I said, that article is propagandist bullshit. They're cherry picking MLK quotes, a man that "the whites" respect, and using it to give cover for riots and violence. MLK never endorsed or supported riots and was firmly opposed to them, but he also understood why they happen.

This is the thing people misunderstand about MLK

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Ifreann wrote:The aftermath of a riot in Newark in July, 1967.

Did MLK ever endorse or participate in the Newark 1967 riot?

No

Ifreann wrote:

Kaggeceria wrote:Sounds like a problem with DC police, then.

OR

The 911 call wasn't someone begging for protection from a crazed mob of violent hoodlum trying to break into their house. It was a person asking the police to deal with some annoying and loud people outside their house.

So, in your quest to prove they weren't doxxing him you verified that they were, in fact, doxxing him.

Nothing else really needs to be said on the subject.

You should probably go back and edit out the whitepages link in your post.

*shrugs*

Perhaps he is not as eager to nail himself to a cross as you apparently think he should be.

I find that hard to believe.

Right, they vandalized his home and doxxed him but they totally weren't threatening him.

Alrighty, bud. Don't let me stop your flimsy apologism.

A single person vandalised his drive, without the clear disapproval of other present. But I'm sure you knew that and just didn't care to make the distinction between one person doing something bad and the whole group they're part of being bad.

Soros has made himself an inherently political figure by, ya know, getting involved in politics and donating millions to different left-wing groups. If he doesn't want to be criticized then he shouldn't be political.

There's a world of difference between criticism and casting someone as the arch-villian in a plot to destroy America.

Carlson isn't responsible for a bomb being sent to him simply because he criticizes him.

Just a few sentences ago a whole crowd of people were responsible for one person spray-painting a driveway. Why does Carlson get a pass?

So, yes, you are indeed fine with violence when you feel it suits you.

Yes. So are you. You've called for lethal violence in this very thread.

You can glue it, paint over it, etc.

It's also possible the crack was only visible on the inside. Or he simply had it replaced.

Or the door was never damaged.

Then you're nothing short of delusional.

Obvious threats, vandalism, doxxing.

No threats, one person vandalising a drive, posting a publicly listed address.

Either they're mentally retarded pacifists or they were using intimidation tactics.

Or they're just protesters.

You don't come to someone's house, vandalize their property,

You really are having trouble with the fact that only one person vandalised anything, aren't you?

doxx them and start chanting that you know where they live (get over it)

Maybe it's facts in general you're having trouble with.

unless you're trying to intimidate them.

And just out of curiosity, why does that possibility seem more likely to you?

Well I think that if these people wanted to intimidate Carlson, they wouldn't have gone to his house, read their statement, made some noise, and left. Peaceful protest isn't very intimidating.

I forgot I was having this debate.

A mob threatening someone is intimidating.

Nothing else needs to be said. I'm done here.

Kaggeceria wrote:

Ifreann wrote:OR

The 911 call wasn't someone begging for protection from a crazed mob of violent hoodlum trying to break into their house. It was a person asking the police to deal with some annoying and loud people outside their house.


You should probably go back and edit out the whitepages link in your post.


I find that hard to believe.


A single person vandalised his drive, without the clear disapproval of other present. But I'm sure you knew that and just didn't care to make the distinction between one person doing something bad and the whole group they're part of being bad.


There's a world of difference between criticism and casting someone as the arch-villian in a plot to destroy America.


Just a few sentences ago a whole crowd of people were responsible for one person spray-painting a driveway. Why does Carlson get a pass?


Yes. So are you. You've called for lethal violence in this very thread.


Or the door was never damaged.


No threats, one person vandalising a drive, posting a publicly listed address.


Or they're just protesters.


You really are having trouble with the fact that only one person vandalised anything, aren't you?

Maybe it's facts in general you're having trouble with.

Well I think that if these people wanted to intimidate Carlson, they wouldn't have gone to his house, read their statement, made some noise, and left. Peaceful protest isn't very intimidating.

I forgot I was having this debate.

A mob threatening someone is intimidating.

Nothing else needs to be said. I'm done here.

Threatening to come back and protest some more. Clearly endangering Tucker's life by depriving him of sleep.

Petrasylvania wrote:

Kaggeceria wrote:I forgot I was having this debate.

A mob threatening someone is intimidating.

Nothing else needs to be said. I'm done here.

Threatening to come back and protest some more. Clearly endangering Tucker's life by depriving him of sleep.

"Doxxing isn't dangerous." - Gauthier