Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, the government is responding correctly in not taking their bait. 

But is the frustration not understood when protests by the left are almost never responded to correctly?

Protests by the left and/or minorities are almost unanimously disruptive but peaceful in nature, yet responded to with force, internally classified as terrorism by the government, and monitored by apparatus that presumably exists for the purpose of counter-terrorism.  Protests by the right are armed, threaten violence against anyone who challenged them, and often do violently harm people, yet they're treated with kid gloves and usually not acted on until after someone gets hurt.  It's bullshit.  Why should one side be happy that only the other gets handled with any respect or tact?

And some corrections that need to be made here: 
1.  I watched the Occupy movement very, very closely throughout its lifespan and I'm only aware of a single instance of anyone openly bringing a gun to one of the camps.  The guy didn't even identify with the Occupy movement.  He just showed up one day and marched around with a rifle claiming that although he didn't agree with Occupy, he was there to defend their right to free speech.  I can't find a link right now, but I think it was at Occupy Portland.
2.  All these incidents of rioting that you guys are pointing to didn't turn into riots until after peaceful protests were violently attacked by authorities.

I'm not one saying that we should airstrike their little hold-out.  Just that the double-standards are infuriating, and need to be brought up aggressively until they're recognized.

[smjjames]

Are they seriously trying to make their own soveriegn nation over there?

And yeah, they're pushing for a confrontation with the Feds or the military.

[Dorsidwarf]

Yeah, the government is responding correctly in not taking their bait. 

But is the frustration not understood when protests by the left are almost never responded to correctly?

Protests by the left and/or minorities are almost unanimously disruptive but peaceful in nature, yet responded to with force, internally classified as terrorism by the government, and monitored by apparatus that presumably exists for the purpose of counter-terrorism.  Protests by the right are armed, threaten violence against anyone who challenged them, and often do violently harm people, yet they're treated with kid gloves and usually not acted on until after someone gets hurt.  It's bullshit.  Why should one side be happy that only the other gets handled with any respect or tact?

And some corrections that need to be made here: 
1.  I watched the Occupy movement very, very closely throughout its lifespan and I'm only aware of a single instance of anyone openly bringing a gun to one of the camps.  The guy didn't even identify with the Occupy movement.  He just showed up one day and marched around with a rifle claiming that although he didn't agree with Occupy, he was there to defend their right to free speech.  I can't find a link right now, but I think it was at Occupy Portland.
2.  All these incidents of rioting that you guys are pointing to didn't turn into riots until after peaceful protests were violently attacked by authorities.

I'm not one saying that we should airstrike their little hold-out.  Just that the double-standards are infuriating, and need to be brought up aggressively until they're recognized.

Spoiler: GRUMP DO NOT TAKE SRSBSNS (click to show/hide)

Mostly because in America, it's a capital crime to in any way put a policeman in theoretical danger.

IE if the police are ordered to storm the building they'll clearly be able to turn around and shoot their bosses because "hey man those fellas coulda been armed! I was in fear of mah life!"

Edited into spoiler for clarity

[Strife26]

Yeah, the government is responding correctly in not taking their bait. 

But is the frustration not understood when protests by the left are almost never responded to correctly?

Protests by the left and/or minorities are almost unanimously disruptive but peaceful in nature, yet responded to with force, internally classified as terrorism by the government, and monitored by apparatus that presumably exists for the purpose of counter-terrorism.  Protests by the right are armed, threaten violence against anyone who challenged them, and often do violently harm people, yet they're treated with kid gloves and usually not acted on until after someone gets hurt.  It's bullshit.  Why should one side be happy that only the other gets handled with any respect or tact?

And some corrections that need to be made here: 
1.  I watched the Occupy movement very, very closely throughout its lifespan and I'm only aware of a single instance of anyone openly bringing a gun to one of the camps.  The guy didn't even identify with the Occupy movement.  He just showed up one day and marched around with a rifle claiming that although he didn't agree with Occupy, he was there to defend their right to free speech.  I can't find a link right now, but I think it was at Occupy Portland.
2.  All these incidents of rioting that you guys are pointing to didn't turn into riots until after peaceful protests were violently attacked by authorities.

I'm not one saying that we should airstrike their little hold-out.  Just that the double-standards are infuriating, and need to be brought up aggressively until they're recognized.

So it's only cool to break out the rifles after the protest has been put down violently?

Because, as someone who would like to seek protests in general respected, it's looking to me like being armed just greatly helps you're protest not be fucked with.

I don't see the unarmed protest good, armed protest bad distinction in any way, shape, style, or form. Unless it's purely a "these protesters agree with me" issue.

[Willfor]

Yeah, the government is responding correctly in not taking their bait. 

But is the frustration not understood when protests by the left are almost never responded to correctly?

Protests by the left and/or minorities are almost unanimously disruptive but peaceful in nature, yet responded to with force, internally classified as terrorism by the government, and monitored by apparatus that presumably exists for the purpose of counter-terrorism.  Protests by the right are armed, threaten violence against anyone who challenged them, and often do violently harm people, yet they're treated with kid gloves and usually not acted on until after someone gets hurt.  It's bullshit.  Why should one side be happy that only the other gets handled with any respect or tact?

And some corrections that need to be made here: 
1.  I watched the Occupy movement very, very closely throughout its lifespan and I'm only aware of a single instance of anyone openly bringing a gun to one of the camps.  The guy didn't even identify with the Occupy movement.  He just showed up one day and marched around with a rifle claiming that although he didn't agree with Occupy, he was there to defend their right to free speech.  I can't find a link right now, but I think it was at Occupy Portland.
2.  All these incidents of rioting that you guys are pointing to didn't turn into riots until after peaceful protests were violently attacked by authorities.

I'm not one saying that we should airstrike their little hold-out.  Just that the double-standards are infuriating, and need to be brought up aggressively until they're recognized.

Mostly because in America, it's a capital crime to in any way put a policeman in theoretical danger.

IE if the police are ordered to storm the building they'll clearly be able to turn around and shoot their bosses because "hey man those fellas coulda been armed! I was in fear of mah life!"

No, these guys are directly threatening the police. They are making actual threats. By this logic they should already have been dealt with by deadly force, and yet here we are.

I'm not calling for violence, I'm just saying that this logic only holds up when it's either liberal or non-white by nature.

[SalmonGod]

Because, as someone who would like to seek protests in general respected, it's looking to me like being armed just greatly helps you're protest not be fucked with.

I don't see the unarmed protest good, armed protest bad distinction in any way, shape, style, or form. Unless it's purely a "these protesters agree with me" issue.

It's the rhetoric you see following these double-standard responses, official responses included.

Popular rhetoric when peaceful leftist protests get shit on is that they posed some sort of public threat and/or that they would have been treated better by police if they'd been more compliant.

But conservatives can literally show up somewhere with guns and say anyone they don't like who comes close will be shot, and these sentiments are mysteriously absent from the very same people.

If a protest needs to present itself as an armed rebellion in order to be respected by authorities, there's something seriously fucked up going on.  But I don't think that's the issue.  I think it's that some politics are favored over others, and always have been in the U.S.

[Loud Whispers]

The moral of the story is arm yourself. No one portrays Muhammed in the media because people get killed for it, no police in Baltimore were on the streets after shit got violent and gangs were threatening their lives, and no hellfire missiles will fall on this gr8 b8 because it's bait hooked to a tripwire

Git peaceful, git beat by police

[hector13]

It's rather unsettling that you appear to be correct, LW.

[Strife26]

Because, as someone who would like to seek protests in general respected, it's looking to me like being armed just greatly helps you're protest not be fucked with.

I don't see the unarmed protest good, armed protest bad distinction in any way, shape, style, or form. Unless it's purely a "these protesters agree with me" issue.

It's the rhetoric you see following these double-standard responses, official responses included.

Popular rhetoric when peaceful leftist protests get shit on is that they posed some sort of public threat and/or that they would have been treated better by police if they'd been more compliant.

But conservatives can literally show up somewhere with guns and say anyone they don't like who comes close will be shot, and these sentiments are mysteriously absent from the very same people.

If a protest needs to present itself as an armed rebellion in order to be respected by authorities, there's something seriously fucked up going on.  But I don't think that's the issue.  I think it's that some politics are favored over others, and always have been in the U.S.

I'd note that the exact opposite seems to be true too. Not too many people called for wiping out Occupy protesters, but I've already seen more than one argument that it's perfectly okay here.

[SalmonGod]

Not too many people called for wiping out Occupy protesters

Were you under a rock in 2011?

[Strife26]

I saw plenty of disperse them with Bearcat calls. I didn't hear any serious disperse them with tanks and hellfire ones.

[Frumple]

... occupy generally didn't exactly involve multiple dozen armed people explicitly issuing death threats, right from the start. Biiiiit of a difference, there. Just a 'lil. Could be a fair bit of why you're seeing calls for a different reaction.

[Willfor]

Not too many people called for wiping out Occupy protesters

Were you under a rock in 2011?

Yeah, he has to have been. Just on this forum we had a whole bunch of people saying it was dangerous, and that they should all stop being so dangerous. There were quite a number of people invested in discrediting the movement, and using false flags to break them, use of false charges to arrest as many as they could, use of anti-terror rhetoric to get them off the streets. There was a whole hell of a lot of trying to wipe them out, and trying to deny it now is blatant historical revisionism.

I saw plenty of disperse them with Bearcat calls. I didn't hear any serious disperse them with tanks and hellfire ones.

... Yes, I did hear tanks though. Just not hellfires because they were in the middle of a very wealthy district with lots of collateral targets around them.

Also, Strife, do you understand what hyperbole is? Do you know we're not literally calling for hellfire missiles to be launched at you? Do you understand that we are not attacking you? Because I am having a very hard time with your defensiveness on this issue. We get it. You're a conservative. We're not attacking you. We're not trying to take your guns. Were not attacking you, Strife. You can calm down. We're not launching hellfire missiles at you. You can calm down.

[SalmonGod]

I saw plenty of disperse them with Bearcat calls. I didn't hear any serious disperse them with tanks and hellfire ones.

I didn't see calls for military action, but I did see plenty of calls for more rudimentary violence and cheers when it happened.

The moral of the story is arm yourself. No one portrays Muhammed in the media because people get killed for it, no police in Baltimore were on the streets after shit got violent and gangs were threatening their lives, and no hellfire missiles will fall on this gr8 b8 because it's bait hooked to a tripwire

Git peaceful, git beat by police

I sincerely doubt that would work for the left in the U.S.  You mention Baltimore, but the national guard was deployed there.  And there's a deep history of authorities going HARD after anyone left-leaning who engages in or threatens any sort of violence or property destruction.

[Dutchling]

So are the bombings gonna get streamed on Twitch or something? And if so, is there anywhere I can petition for a reasonable time, EU wise? I really don't wanna stay up all night since I have a few difficult courses this semester.