NationStates

Katganistan wrote:

Telconi wrote:
>People shouldn't go where they're not wanted.

I'm sorry, is this not America?

Yes, it's America, but go spoiling for a fight and you WILL find it.
And it "being America" does not mean saddling up with hundreds of people from outside an area to go to an area to start shit.

Ifreann wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
I was making a point about how the two men debate with each other. Andy Ngo addressed the factual assertions and substantive criticism of Respectable Law by making a counter-argument, whereas Respectable Law resorted to gutter and uncivil attacks on Ngo as a "snivelling little worm". Objectively, one person comes off better than the other, just as a human being.

There is nothing objective about your judgement here.

Andy Ngo clearly is a snivelling little worm to anyone familiar with his work,

and Respectable Lawyer is...well, I have no idea, but they don't seem to be a snivelling little worm.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:Sauce

A rally of far-right groups was met by a large counterdemonstration in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday.

Fears that the showdown would turn violent prompted some downtown businesses to close and led to a massive police presence. At least 13 people were arrested, according to Lt. Tina Jones of the Portland Police Bureau.

Six people, including one who was hospitalized, reported minor injuries during the day, police Chief Danielle Outlaw said at news conference.

There were also six "use-of-force" events by officers, she said, mostly involving "take-downs" of suspects, and no one was injured.

The dueling demonstrations garnered national attention, including from President Donald Trump, who tweeted earlier Saturday in reference to self-described anti-fascists, some of whom are known collectively as antifa, “Major consideration is being given to naming ANTIFA an “ORGANIZATION OF TERROR.” Portland is being watched very closely. Hopefully the Mayor will be able to properly do his job!”

Portland police tweeted about 30 minutes after the protests started at 11 a.m. that officers were there to protect people's right to speak freely.

“PPB and our partners are here to protect everyone's safety while facilitating everyone's 1st Amendment right to gather and speak. It is the foundation of our democracy and critical to Portland's identity,” police tweeted.

Officers worked to keep the opposing groups apart and nearly an hour after the demonstrations began police said they had seized weapons from participants including bear spray, shields, and poles.

This is sickening, that Trump didn't comment on the White Supremacists he emboldened as they are big fans of him but instead focused on Antifa, shows who he cares about, the piece of shit he is. He needs to be impeached for the bloodshed he threatened to spill in my city.
Since when is racism populism?

These "protesters" are just white-supremacist terrorists, though legally gangs, and should be treated as such. I am sick of this violent behavior, as a city council candidate I am in increased danger purely for my skin color. This is not ok! This is not normal!
We should be able to live in our state, city, and country without fear of murder due to our skin color not being the dominant one!

We need a new, civic, activist populism. We need a populism of compassion, and tolerance. I not only ask NSG to comment, but to create a thread somewhere for a new, NS-originated group dedicated to stopping this madness(The thread is not going to be the main means, it's just a way to get ns'ers together without creating a discord server which would be a mess).
I am done watching, and I'm doing my part to fight.

But it's time for all of us now to fight, across the country.

Together.

Proctopeo wrote:That's Portland for you.
At least the Mayor didn't fuck up and make things get worse than "concerning, if you're in the immediate area".

Ifreann wrote:There is nothing objective about your judgement here.

He says, right before making an even more subjective judgement,

Andy Ngo clearly is a snivelling little worm to anyone familiar with his work,

There it is!

and Respectable Lawyer is...well, I have no idea, but they don't seem to be a snivelling little worm.

I dunno, anyone pretentious enough to call themselves "respectable" who then turns around and flings childish insults when called out on their BS is definitely a tier worse than a "sniveling little worm".
Probably not even in law school either smh

Telconi wrote:

Katganistan wrote:Yes, it's America, but go spoiling for a fight and you WILL find it.
And it "being America" does not mean saddling up with hundreds of people from outside an area to go to an area to start shit.

Did they forget their internal travel passes? Was Portland closed to non residents by order of the Politburo?

Katganistan wrote:

Telconi wrote:
>People shouldn't go where they're not wanted.

I'm sorry, is this not America?

Yes, it's America, but go spoiling for a fight and you WILL find it.
And it "being America" does not mean saddling up with hundreds of people from outside an area to go to an area to start shit.

Purgatio wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So what actually happened then?

I already explained like ten times. The activists on the bus were attacked, unprovoked, by ANTIFA vandals tossing rocks at them without first provocation, the activists disembarked and, fearing a continuing attack from the ANTIFA vandals, swung their hammers in the air to protect their bodily integrity, and passers-by were accidentally struck, the fault for that lies on the persons who made the unprovoked attack in the first place, ANTIFA.

Hence, Andy Ngo did not lie when he characterised the activists on the bus as acting in legitimate self-defence, and ANTIFA as the unprovoked aggressors.

Necroghastia wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
I already explained like ten times. The activists on the bus were attacked, unprovoked, by ANTIFA vandals tossing rocks at them without first provocation, the activists disembarked and, fearing a continuing attack from the ANTIFA vandals, swung their hammers in the air to protect their bodily integrity, and passers-by were accidentally struck, the fault for that lies on the persons who made the unprovoked attack in the first place, ANTIFA.

Hence, Andy Ngo did not lie when he characterised the activists on the bus as acting in legitimate self-defence, and ANTIFA as the unprovoked aggressors.

"unprovoked"
"fearing"
Stop fucking lying.

Purgatio wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
"unprovoked"
"fearing"
Stop fucking lying.

Where's the lie? You throw rocks at someone without provocation, that's an unprovoked attack.

Here's a tip - when you say "stop fucking lying", try to accompany that with the proof that said person is lying. Because as it stands, you're proving nothing.

Necroghastia wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Where's the lie? You throw rocks at someone without provocation, that's an unprovoked attack.

Here's a tip - when you say "stop fucking lying", try to accompany that with the proof that said person is lying. Because as it stands, you're proving nothing.

I already explained using your own example. Several times.

Purgatio wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
I already explained using your own example. Several times.

You've asserted that Andy Ngo is lying but I've already explained how he isn't and why, when someone is throwing rocks at you without you doing anything to them, that's an unprovoked assault on you.

Purgatio wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
"unprovoked"
"fearing"
Stop fucking lying.

Where's the lie? You throw rocks at someone without provocation, that's an unprovoked attack.

Here's a tip - when you say "stop fucking lying", try to accompany that with the proof that said person is lying. Because as it stands, you're proving nothing.

Necroghastia wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
You've asserted that Andy Ngo is lying but I've already explained how he isn't and why, when someone is throwing rocks at you without you doing anything to them, that's an unprovoked assault on you.

I haven't mentioned that "journalist" once in all my posts. Try actually reading what I write for once.

Purgatio wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
I haven't mentioned that "journalist" once in all my posts. Try actually reading what I write for once.

You claimed I was "lying" for saying Andy Ngo was telling the truth about what happened during the 'bus incident'. If you've never even mentioned him in any of your posts, then that just validates my point that you claimed I was "lying" without bothering to explain why (since logically, in order to prove I'm lying by claiming Andy Ngo was telling the truth, you'd actually have to engage with what he said, basic syllogism).

Essentially, by saying you never mentioned Andy Ngo once in all your posts, you're finally admitting you unilaterally-asserted I lied without proof. Thanks for the admission.

Vassenor wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Where's the lie? You throw rocks at someone without provocation, that's an unprovoked attack.

Here's a tip - when you say "stop fucking lying", try to accompany that with the proof that said person is lying. Because as it stands, you're proving nothing.

You try and hit someone standing by your battle bus with a hammer without provocation, that's an unprovoked attack.

Purgatio wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
You try and hit someone standing by your battle bus with a hammer without provocation, that's an unprovoked attack.

I feel like a broken record having to explain how the law works over and over again, but if you randomly hit people near your bus for no reason, that's an unprovoked attack. However, if you're trying to defend yourself from an unprovoked aggressor throwing rocks at you, and in the course of you acting in self-defense you accidentally hit bystanders, that's self-defense.

Someone, anyone, who wants to make this point in future, please read the famous 'human shield' English case of R v. Paggett before posting legally-misinformed comments about what is or isn't self-defense.

Vassenor wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
You claimed I was "lying" for saying Andy Ngo was telling the truth about what happened during the 'bus incident'. If you've never even mentioned him in any of your posts, then that just validates my point that you claimed I was "lying" without bothering to explain why (since logically, in order to prove I'm lying by claiming Andy Ngo was telling the truth, you'd actually have to engage with what he said, basic syllogism).

Essentially, by saying you never mentioned Andy Ngo once in all your posts, you're finally admitting you unilaterally-asserted I lied without proof. Thanks for the admission.

Did you ever actually explain what really happened in the bus incident? Because Ngo conveniently omitted the bit where the neo-nazi was swinging the hammer before he was relieved of it.

Vassenor wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
I feel like a broken record having to explain how the law works over and over again, but if you randomly hit people near your bus for no reason, that's an unprovoked attack. However, if you're trying to defend yourself from an unprovoked aggressor throwing rocks at you, and in the course of you acting in self-defense you accidentally hit bystanders, that's self-defense.

Someone, anyone, who wants to make this point in future, please read the famous 'human shield' English case of R v. Paggett before posting legally-misinformed comments about what is or isn't self-defense.

If that's what really happened, why did Ngo need to omit the neo-nazi swinging the hammer if he was perfectly justified in doing so?

Purgatio wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
If that's what really happened, why did Ngo need to omit the neo-nazi swinging the hammer if he was perfectly justified in doing so?

All he said was that the people on the bus suffered injuries from an unprovoked attack, which wasn't wrong. Whatever happened after the rocks were thrown at the bus is the direct consequence flowing from ANTIFA's initial unprovoked aggression.

Purgatio wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
I haven't mentioned that "journalist" once in all my posts. Try actually reading what I write for once.

You claimed I was "lying" for saying Andy Ngo was telling the truth about what happened during the 'bus incident'. If you've never even mentioned him in any of your posts, then that just validates my point that you claimed I was "lying" without bothering to explain why (since logically, in order to prove I'm lying by claiming Andy Ngo was telling the truth, you'd actually have to engage with what he said, basic syllogism).

Essentially, by saying you never mentioned Andy Ngo once in all your posts, you're finally admitting you unilaterally-asserted I lied without proof. Thanks for the admission.

Crysuko wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
All he said was that the people on the bus suffered injuries from an unprovoked attack, which wasn't wrong. Whatever happened after the rocks were thrown at the bus is the direct consequence flowing from ANTIFA's initial unprovoked aggression.

Ngo and his merry band of halfwits were themselves the provocation

Necroghastia wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
You claimed I was "lying" for saying Andy Ngo was telling the truth about what happened during the 'bus incident'. If you've never even mentioned him in any of your posts, then that just validates my point that you claimed I was "lying" without bothering to explain why (since logically, in order to prove I'm lying by claiming Andy Ngo was telling the truth, you'd actually have to engage with what he said, basic syllogism).

Essentially, by saying you never mentioned Andy Ngo once in all your posts, you're finally admitting you unilaterally-asserted I lied without proof. Thanks for the admission.

I don't give a flying fuck what he says. You are also claiming the rock throwing was unprovoked. I have explained to you, numerous times, using your own goddamn example, why it wasn't.

Purgatio wrote:

Crysuko wrote:Ngo and his merry band of halfwits were themselves the provocation

Explain to me, in your own words, what Ngo did which was a provocation to violence? Understanding that in the eyes of the law, the only thing which can provoke justifiable self-defense is imminent injury to person or property. Did Ngo do anything of the sort? Who did he injure, what property did he damage?

Crysuko wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Explain to me, in your own words, what Ngo did which was a provocation to violence? Understanding that in the eyes of the law, the only thing which can provoke justifiable self-defense is imminent injury to person or property. Did Ngo do anything of the sort? Who did he injure, what property did he damage?

were to I answer that question i'd get slapped for advocating harm