Social WR Lounge v214: RR, will it be Meth?

Favorite dinosaur?

  • Total voters
    44
Status
Not open for further replies.
]
tonni said:
That's what Proud Boys have been doing for months, did you have a problem with that too?
Click to expand...

Well sure. I don't think people should riot period. We live in a polite society.
In light of the fact this is where I live I find it particularly disturbing not due to the politics but because there are a lot of families and people just trying to enjoy their day at that place.
 
AgonyandIrony said:
There he is! How's War Machine doing these days?
Click to expand...
He's writing a fantasy screenplay, it's about evil witches that lure men into their dens with magic spells and then they get them arrested by the town guards.
 
Holy shit, I ran out of likes for the first time ever.

 
Anyway I was going to post this in the thread about the woman who was shot at the riot but that thread was full when i went in. Do you guys think this was a good shoot or not? PS I asked a mod if I could post it so please PM me if you are a mod that has an issue with this please.
 
Lord Coke said:
Anyway I was going to post this in the thread about the woman who was shot at the riot but that thread was full when i went in. Do you guys think this was a good shoot or not? PS I asked a mod if I could post it so please PM me if you are a mod that has an issue with this please.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's a good shoot.
 
Gregolian said:
Felony but likely plead down to a misdemeanor if they have limited criminal history.

It’d be a low end felony if convicted that way.


It’s not.

If it was I’d post this:
Click to expand...

And now I am in a Lonely Island hole.
 
Lord Coke said:
Anyway I was going to post this in the thread about the woman who was shot at the riot but that thread was full when i went in. Do you guys think this was a good shoot or not? PS I asked a mod if I could post it so please PM me if you are a mod that has an issue with this please.
Click to expand...

The wording of that tweet is deceptive. They didn't shoot a "Trump supporter", they shot someone trying to violently overthrow an election while she was forcing her way into the place they barricaded themselves in. She was warned.

What were they supposed to do? Let them in, give them a tour, meet and greet with the senators?
 
tonni said:
The wording of that tweet is deceptive. They didn't shoot a "Trump supporter", they shot someone trying to violently overthrow an election while she was forcing her way into the place they barricaded themselves in. She was warned.

What were they supposed to do? Let them in, give them a tour, meet and greet with the senators?
Click to expand...
They shot a terrorist. Or if it is easier for the righties to swallow, a domestic terrorist.
 
tonni said:
The wording of that tweet is deceptive. They didn't shoot a "Trump supporter", they shot someone trying to violently overthrow an election while she was forcing her way into the place they barricaded themselves in. She was warned.

What were they supposed to do? Let them in, give them a tour, meet and greet with the senators?
Click to expand...

its a sickening crime to defend the capitol hill against rioters breaking in.
i wonder how the dude feels about people shooting a thief breaking into his house
 
Sycho Sid said:
They shot a terrorist. Or if it is easier for the righties to swallow, a domestic terrorist.
Click to expand...

oh... i think they have been busy shallowing something else...
 
@senri
giphy.gif
 
Lord Coke said:
That is wild. I hadn't seen the footage of the heev hoy scene before.
Click to expand...
What's a heev hoy? And yeah, it's wild. I think it clearly shows those people are not protesters and they're not rioters either.
 
tonni said:
What's a heev hoy? And yeah, it's wild. I think it clearly shows those people are not protesters and they're not rioters either.
Click to expand...
The part where the people are piling into the police en masse and pushing as a crowd
 
Lord Coke said:
Do you guys think this was a good shoot or not?
Click to expand...

Confusing for me that you are asking this question, considering you have long made up your mind:

She was murdered by the police while she was unarmed and no threat to the police.

I did call you out on it:

As someone whose professional life is focused on preserving the constitution and defending civil rights, how can you join the chorus of election fraud screechers instead of pointing out what a fucking disgusting display of a fascist and undemocratic mindset it is to storm the parliament of one's own nation to disrupt the process of completing the process of an open and fair election? Incited and encouraged by a President who has completely lost it and who can be considered a traitor to his people and an oathbreaker without hyperbole?

You're not getting the election result you hoped for, and you were enraged by looters and rioters in the summer. All of that is quite understandable. I refuse to believe you are honestly this far gone.

To which you did not reply.

I also asked you are while back what your thoughts are regarding the election fraud claims. You did answer but not exactly the question. I didn't push further because I think you rely on largely right-wing clients and probably don't want to be in a situation where you have to call out Trump for what he is. I can understand that, but now to come in here doubling down to make a martyr of a domestic terrorist?
 
riots.jpeg


These are rioters. They are not presently engaged in an attempt to overthrow the Canadian government. They're drunk, stupid, violent, but altogether disinterested in revolution.

capitol4.jpg


These are insurrectionists. They are also stupid and violent, but altogether much more interested in revolution.

The responses to these two things aren't the same. Why? Because the government is the ''leviathan.'' The sovereign with the supreme ability to conduct violence. Because of its supreme ability to conduct violence, the question of how we can have a just civilization under the power of such a sovereign has been asked and answered by various political scholars for hundreds of years leading to the answer that underpins most of western society today: the consent of the governed. That is a participatory process is what separates citizens from subjects.

What storming the capitol means is a declaration of war against that process. They participated, they lost, and rather than accepting the loss, their response is to change the order of society through violence. Fair enough. But obviously a system whereby the control of supreme violence is handled by participatory government must be able to use that violence to withstand a violent challenge to that participatory process. Otherwise, all you have left is violence.

This is maybe not a perfect analysis of the situation, but it's more than you're going to get from right wingers who say ''all political violence bad, brb, I'm going to go jerk off to my portrait of washington crossing the delaware now.''
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,955
Messages
58,330,572
Members
176,001
Latest member
batty

Share this page

Back
Top