Print

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

[Willfor]

Emotional responses make me feel angry because I am utterly removed from the situation and don't want to feel any empathy to it whatsoever.

Seems about right.

[wobbly]

Emotional responses make me feel angry because I am utterly removed from the situation and don't want to feel any empathy to it whatsoever.

Seems about right.

Hey you can read it how you want, though I suspect if you get the blood you want you'll enjoy the reality much less then the fantasy.

[Willfor]

Well, I've been among the posts calling out double standards rather than actual blood, and am far more interested in this being a good point of comparison to how minorities are treated in general. However, I also see the whole schtick of turning one's nose up at the whole idea that people might be angry as the same kind of inhuman (or rather, all-too-human) response that allowed racial biases to crop up amongst the colonially minded in the 18th and 19th centuries. "Oh, what is this anger emotion? Everyone would be better off not venting anything. Beep boop."

[Powder Miner]

If I am presented with an opinion I want to debate in a thread meant for debate I will debate it.

[SalmonGod]

Anyone remember Christopher Dorner?  Police were afraid of him, too.  So they avoided confrontation by burning him alive inside a building.

And I want to be absolutely clear that I do not want this situation to be handled violently. 

I can't speak for everyone else, but my message is "We can do the right thing here, so why can't we do it there?" 

My message is NOT "You did the bad thing there, so you should do it here, too."

[RedKing]

This is what I love about American politics, much ideology & rhetoric, very little practicality. Seems to me they're handling the situation in a way that causes the minimum chance of a bloodbath & a shitfest (for once) and I have to read a whole heap of people calling for blood on principle. Is there a double standard? Of course? Is that shit? yes. No amount of killing crazy white right wing hicks is actually going to make people who don't care about black lives start caring.

Just siege them out. Minimize the collateral damage. Arrest them. Charge them with everything you can. It's actually how law enforcement is supposed to work. I've read a lot of people complaining that the situation is actually being handled the way it's meant to be.

Except that so far there's no siege. Or well, ANY kind of law enforcement response, other than the local sheriff basically warning people to stay clear and the county school system staying closed all week. And the FBI saying they're talking with local and state law enforcement to find a peaceful solution. So yay for talking, but where's the fucking response? If one of these yahoos gets in a snit and shoots a townsperson for being insufficently freedom-loving, you're going to see a whole hell of a lot more people complaining about the lack of a response.

[wobbly]

Well, I've been among the posts calling out double standards rather than actual blood, and am far more interested in this being a good point of comparison to how minorities are treated in general. However, I also see the whole schtick of turning one's nose up at the whole idea that people might be angry as the same kind of inhuman (or rather, all-too-human) response that allowed racial biases to crop up amongst the colonially minded in the 18th and 19th centuries. "Oh, what is this anger emotion? Everyone would be better off not venting anything. Beep boop."

It's not the anger or the emotion that bothers me. Hey I've got plenty of raw disgust for both the militia involved & for some of the posts I've read above. It's the fact that I'm pretty sure some of the posters here would actually like to see this turn bloody. That they think a bloodbath here will actually solve the problems. A few posts here seem to hold an uncanny similarity to the attitudes of the idiots in the building with guns.

[Willfor]

Well, I've been among the posts calling out double standards rather than actual blood, and am far more interested in this being a good point of comparison to how minorities are treated in general. However, I also see the whole schtick of turning one's nose up at the whole idea that people might be angry as the same kind of inhuman (or rather, all-too-human) response that allowed racial biases to crop up amongst the colonially minded in the 18th and 19th centuries. "Oh, what is this anger emotion? Everyone would be better off not venting anything. Beep boop."

It's not the anger or the emotion that bothers me. Hey I've got plenty of raw disgust for both the militia involved & for some of the posts I've read above. It's the fact that I'm pretty sure some of the posters here would actually like to see this turn bloody. That they think a bloodbath here will actually solve the problems. A few posts here seem to hold an uncanny similarity to the attitudes of the idiots in the building with guns.

Ahh, alright.

[RedKing]

Yes, idiots trying to provoke some kind of apocalyptic martyrdom with the government = people who wouldn't mind seeing them get their wish. You've found me out, I'm secretly a left-wing pro-government militiaman from Mirror Universe. Evil mustache and everything.

If they had showed up unarmed, more power to them. As said previously, I actually kind of sympathize with the Hammonds and think they're getting a bit of a raw deal. But when these nutters showed up armed and started spouting confrontational macho bullshit rhetoric, they lose any and all sympathy and become a threat.

Civil disobedience != armed occupation by paramilitaries. I still can't fathom why that's so hard for some people to grasp. This is not equivalent to Occupy Wall Street or BlackLivesMatter or protesting the Iraq War. It's more akin to ISIS or eastern Ukraine.

[wobbly]

Yes, idiots trying to provoke some kind of apocalyptic martyrdom with the government = people who wouldn't mind seeing them get their wish. You've found me out, I'm secretly a left-wing pro-government militiaman from Mirror Universe. Evil mustache and everything.

The mustache would look weird on a mechanical owl.

But when these nutters showed up armed and started spouting confrontational macho bullshit rhetoric, they lose any and all sympathy and become a threat.

This part I agree with. What I'm unsure of is why you think the threat is best handled with the maximum chance of bloodshed? & why you think other situations handled badly mean this should also be dealt with badly?

[nenjin]

They've already said they'll die before leaving.

They've already said they'll shoot at anyone trying to remove them.

At what point do you stop wringing your hands over the cost of human life and face facts that they've precipitated this situation and are dictating the terms of engagement? They don't even have a coherent demand to be met.

At that point, it's a question of whether you go in there and establish the authority of the US government, or you back off because you don't want bloodshed and these guys effectively have held the US government response at ransom over a Wildlife Refuge. What happens the next time it's a post office, a government office building or they decide to take hostages instead of waiting until the holidays when a building is empty?

And seriously. No one has said they just want the government to open fire. That's bullshit inserting of motives so people who feel squeamish about it can claim a moral high ground. Try actually debating what is being said instead of inserting a strawman. At least what Redking and I want is for the government and law enforcement to go in there, do their fucking jobs and establish order. At least put up a fucking perimeter so the crazy stays at the refuge instead of getting frozen pizza from the local supermarket, so their fucking charade can go on for 6 months.

After a while it starts to look like complicity by inaction. Never before have I seen armed gunman take a federal property and the government's response was to not be fucking present at the scene after two solid days. Someone, for the love of god, explain that one to me. Because right now it's like the government considers this anything but a crime.

[RedKing]

If there are no real consequences for this action, you're going to see copycat actions pop up all over. They'll perceive restraint as weakness.

Doesn't have to be bloodshed, but it needs to be a solid and decisive takedown. Knockout gas the place and then move in, use sonic guns on them or whatever. But just waiting them out and then watching the prosecution get dragged out for years and/or no real penalty being applied is not a satisfactory resolution, IMHO.

[mainiac]

If there are no observable deterrence effects of gun ownership on crime or deterrence effects of drone strikes on Islamic radicals, why would you expect deterrence to work here?  What makes these people seem unusually rational or intimidatable?

[Frumple]

Think it was RK that already mentioned the apparent effect of stuff like the Waco hit, which was the rough parallel used. Something like that, anyway, it was a few hours back and I'm only half paying attention at the moment. Previous observed effectiveness would seem to be the response, there.

[mainiac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wntX-a3jSY