NationStates

Istoreya wrote:You can't really pull the "only seen five seconds" thing after you already showed to us you have watched at least some of the 1 hour raw body cam footage.

Thats what not the claim was. If you paid attention, you'd have seen that that was me explaining how I formed an opinion last year, when I first heard of the incident.

Cultural Posadism wrote:Also, stop assuming. Assuming random shit about your opponents is not a valid argument either. It's lazy and reveals your lack of curiosity.

I don't need to assume. It's just true.

The vast majority of people on NSG (and reddit, twitter and so on) just parrot whatever is the most socially acceptable thing to say.

Austreylia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:even though folk can go back and read it for themselves and can see that it's clear you thought he was guilty.

Again, my opinion was based on having seen five seconds of a heavily edited, sensationally-captioned video on social media.

In any case, I'll still be made out to be satan, as I'm one of the only people posting here who doesn't get my opinions from the Snapchat story page, r/politics or twitter.

Or maybe try to defend your positions honestly and not in an incoherent manner?

Kilobugya wrote:

Austreylia wrote:Better than the marxists and liberals who are supported by corporations and media, and still think that they're part of the resistance.

Yeah it's obvious that corporations and corporate-owned media are marxists... oh, wait, you mean the Warren Buffet quote « There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning. » ?

Everyone knows that Disney supports Marxism. That's why their workers have never needed to unionize or strike for better working conditions.

Cultural Posadism wrote:

Kilobugya wrote:
Yeah it's obvious that corporations and corporate-owned media are marxists... oh, wait, you mean the Warren Buffet quote « There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning. » ?

Everyone knows that Disney supports Marxism. That's why their workers have never needed to unionize or strike for better working conditions.

Marxism is when liberal, and the more liberal it is the more Marxist it is. Duh.

Austreylia wrote:

Cultural Posadism wrote:Also, stop assuming. Assuming random shit about your opponents is not a valid argument either. It's lazy and reveals your lack of curiosity.

I don't need to assume. It's just true.

The vast majority of people on NSG (and reddit, twitter and so on) just parrot whatever is the most socially acceptable thing to say.

I'm sure that assumption makes being the wrongest person in the thread right now a lot more comfortable for you.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Nousa wrote:
His own underlying health conditions and/or a massive amount of fent in his system?

Tell you what. I'll cuff you behind your back and kneel on your neck for 9 minutes and we can see what happens. You up for it?

Steven Crowder did that. Only took a few minutes before he had his pretend cop buddy shift to gently rest his knees to Crowder's back, rather than having his full weight on Crowder's neck.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Austreylia wrote:Again, my opinion was based on having seen five seconds of a heavily edited, sensationally-captioned video on social media.

In any case, I'll still be made out to be satan, as I'm one of the only people posting here who doesn't get my opinions from the Snapchat story page, r/politics or twitter.

Or maybe try to defend your positions honestly and not in an incoherent manner?

I wish he would, as there has been more gaslighting in this one thread than I've seen in the past year in the rest of NSG combined.

Austreylia wrote:The vast majority of people on NSG (and reddit, twitter and so on) just parrot whatever is the most socially acceptable thing to say.

Back this up with evidence.

Austreylia wrote:

Istoreya wrote:You can't really pull the "only seen five seconds" thing after you already showed to us you have watched at least some of the 1 hour raw body cam footage.

Thats what not the claim was. If you paid attention, you'd have seen that that was me explaining how I formed an opinion last year, when I first heard of the incident.

Cultural Posadism wrote:Also, stop assuming. Assuming random shit about your opponents is not a valid argument either. It's lazy and reveals your lack of curiosity.

I don't need to assume. It's just true.

The vast majority of people on NSG (and reddit, twitter and so on) just parrot whatever is the most socially acceptable thing to say.

Parroting implies that they (we?) Don't believe what they say and are just regurgitating talking points. I don't buy this in the least and the implication that you do says a lot about you, none of it good.

Austreylia wrote:

Istoreya wrote:You can't really pull the "only seen five seconds" thing after you already showed to us you have watched at least some of the 1 hour raw body cam footage.

Thats what not the claim was. If you paid attention, you'd have seen that that was me explaining how I formed an opinion last year, when I first heard of the incident.

In that case, you should be capable of taking on board new information and making a more informed opinion. And it's okay if that opinion is different to your original one. People don't get enough credit for realizing they were wrong and changing their mind on it, tbh.

Istoreya wrote:In that case, you should be capable of taking on board new information and making a more informed opinion. And it's okay if that opinion is different to your original one. People don't get enough credit for realizing they were wrong and changing their mind on it, tbh.

I have taken on board new information.

It strengthened my belief of Officer Chauvin being innocent.

The New California Republic wrote:

Austreylia wrote:Again, my opinion was based on having seen five seconds of a heavily edited, sensationally-captioned video on social media.

And you don't think that your desire to see Chauvin acquitted to spite people has tainted your reading of the evidence in the interim and thus caused this desperate clawing at any excuse for acquittal, even going as far as to lie and distort evidence to make it seem like it's valid to acquit him?

What I specially like about Austreylia's obvious lies about the video evidence is that, even if his claims were partially true (as in, Chauvin did also at one point kneel on Floyd's back), it wouldn't necessarily support Austreylia's desperate attempt to make Chauvin look innocent. Kneeling on someone's back for nine minutes can also cause asphyxia.

Austreylia wrote:

Istoreya wrote:In that case, you should be capable of taking on board new information and making a more informed opinion. And it's okay if that opinion is different to your original one. People don't get enough credit for realizing they were wrong and changing their mind on it, tbh.

I have taken on board new information.

It strengthened my belief of Officer Chauvin being innocent.

Would you say that Officer Chauvin moved his knee away from the neck near the end of his restraint to allow a pulse check?

Austreylia wrote:

Istoreya wrote:In that case, you should be capable of taking on board new information and making a more informed opinion. And it's okay if that opinion is different to your original one. People don't get enough credit for realizing they were wrong and changing their mind on it, tbh.

I have taken on board new information.

It strengthened my belief of Officer Chauvin being innocent.

You started from a position of "I think he's guilty but he should be acquitted to spite people", so when you examine the case after that then that's inevitably going to lead to you cherrypicking evidence and disregarding anything to the contrary.

The New California Republic wrote:

Austreylia wrote:I have taken on board new information.

It strengthened my belief of Officer Chauvin being innocent.

You started from a position of "I think he's guilty but he should be acquitted to spite people", so when you examine the case after that then that's inevitably going to lead to you cherrypicking evidence and disregarding anything to the contrary.

And even his cherry picking isn't going to save him here.

https://www.aele.org/law/Digests/civil169f.html

Officers were on notice, based on prior cases finding "compression asphyxia," that keeping a person who was in a state of "excited delirium" restrained with his or her chest to the ground while applying pressure to the back and ignoring pleas that the subject could not breathe constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. They were therefore not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit alleging that they caused a man's death by restraint or positional asphyxiation by keeping him prone and handcuffed while in an agitated state, suffocating him under their weight. Arce v. Blackwell, No. 06-17302, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20162 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).

The New California Republic wrote:You started from a position of "I think he's guilty but he should be acquitted to spite people", so when you examine the case after that then that's inevitably going to lead to you cherrypicking evidence and disregarding anything to the contrary.

No, I started from a position of "I think that he looks guilty".

Austreylia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:You started from a position of "I think he's guilty but he should be acquitted to spite people", so when you examine the case after that then that's inevitably going to lead to you cherrypicking evidence and disregarding anything to the contrary.

No, I started from a position of "I think that he looks guilty".

If falsely believing that Chauvin actually kneeled on Floyd's back instead of his neck is what convinced you that he's innocent of Floyd's death, I'm sorry to tell you that you are wrong. And that also doesn't account for the fact that you originally made it quite clear that your opinion on the matter was largely guided by spite towards rioters and BLM protestors which, as The New California Republic has repeatedly pointed out, casts a lot of doubt on the sincerity of your belief in evidence in general.

Austreylia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:You started from a position of "I think he's guilty but he should be acquitted to spite people", so when you examine the case after that then that's inevitably going to lead to you cherrypicking evidence and disregarding anything to the contrary.

No, I started from a position of "I think that he looks guilty".

But you also said those special words of "even if he was guilty", you want him to be acquitted. Meaning you don't really care if he's guilty or not, you would just quite like to watch how that would stir up the pot.

Austreylia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:You started from a position of "I think he's guilty but he should be acquitted to spite people", so when you examine the case after that then that's inevitably going to lead to you cherrypicking evidence and disregarding anything to the contrary.

No, I started from a position of "I think that he looks guilty".

Lol no you really didn't, that was just some backtracking you tried to do ex post facto to cover up the earlier faux pas. We can all read what you wrote.

Austreylia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:You started from a position of "I think he's guilty but he should be acquitted to spite people", so when you examine the case after that then that's inevitably going to lead to you cherrypicking evidence and disregarding anything to the contrary.

No, I started from a position of "I think that he looks guilty".

I just got here, so I'm fairly unbiased.

And I don't think this is a fair synopsis.

Austreylia wrote:The vast majority of people on NSG (and reddit, twitter and so on) just parrot whatever is the most socially acceptable thing to say.

Yes, it is socially acceptable and intellectually honest to make conclusions based on the evidence. We have the evidence: the video, the reports, all of them. You? Nothing, except gaslighting and lying.

Picairn wrote:

Austreylia wrote:The vast majority of people on NSG (and reddit, twitter and so on) just parrot whatever is the most socially acceptable thing to say.

Yes, it is socially acceptable and intellectually honest to make conclusions based on the evidence. We have the evidence: the video, the reports, all of them. You? Nothing, except gaslighting and lying.

Not true. He also has personal attacks and baseless assumptions based on his petty anti-leftist stereotypes.

Good to see another productive thread devolve into a slap fight

I’ll just state for the record that Austreylia introduced a timestamp which demonstrates, at minimum, a culpable mens rea for Derek Chauvin and reinforces the actus reus (in other words, Derek Chauvin was performing a neck compression, seemingly aware of such)

But, y’know, we can battle over who said what vague saying through this thread.

Cultural Posadism wrote:

Austreylia wrote:No, I started from a position of "I think that he looks guilty".

If falsely believing that Chauvin actually kneeled on Floyd's back instead of his neck is what convinced you that he's innocent of Floyd's death, I'm sorry to tell you that you are wrong. And that also doesn't account for the fact that you originally made it quite clear that your opinion on the matter was largely guided by spite towards rioters and BLM protestors which, as The New California Republic has repeatedly pointed out, casts a lot of doubt on the sincerity of your belief in evidence in general.

Exactly. And his entire argument from that point onwards has been tainted. He showed us far too much of his hand at the opening stages, as it casts serious doubt on how much stock he is willing to put in the evidence presented when you start from a position of "he should have the book thrown at him, but I want him to be acquitted to spite people". The fact that he has been distorting and disregarding evidence lends even more doubt.