Print

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

[smjjames]

from the assertion that the riots were sparked by a single event?  Because you do know there's a shitload more behind the Ferguson riots, and almost all similar, than the police killing a single person, right?

And in my magic hand I put in one police shooting, and pull out all the hate in the world.

But yeah it was sparked by a single event, but the tension was building for a very long time before that.

 

Because you do know there's a shitload more behind the Ferguson riots, and almost all similar, than the police killing a single person, right?

And what is the point here exactly?

He was just asking if you understood it that way, which clearly you do, and/or trying to understand the logic here.

[Neonivek]

My problem is more that if you do not know the problem, do not present good solutions, and do not have good measures. It isn't going to work very well.

Need a solid problem, a solid solution, a good measure, a solid cause and effect, and a measured response.

Which is why I do not accept Riots just because they are from a ideological or moral position. It is easy to use the same reasoning for just about any ideology.

-Problem: Know what the problem is
-Solution: Know what the solution is OR at least a path to a solution
-Measure: Know how to tell how bad the problem is and when the problem is fixed
-Cause: Know what is causing the problem
-Response: Act in a way that is appropriate for the situation

The BIGGEST problem with "Systematic" arguments is they fall prey, far too often, to boogeymen or invisible problems. They are the easiest arguments to make because you don't have to prove anything other than a problem exists and then just chalk up the cause as something vague and imprecise. You can also leave out the middle man and just point to something and SAY it is a problem.

It is why Christians are able to argue that their religion is being systematically oppressed.

Not that systematic problems and oppression doesn't exist. Only that it is an easy argument to make, in fact more so BECAUSE it actually exists.

[SalmonGod]

If you demand solid solutions to multi-layered problems that have their roots in irrational elements of humanity, you'll never condone anything.

I think riots have their place.  But that's a separate discussion that I don't want to pursue.  This whole thing was about me taking issue with this one-sided narrative I keep seeing that the left in the United States has a violence problem, which I'll contest every time I see it.  And if anything is a cop-out, it's the response that both sides have problems.  It's the same problematic notion of fair and balanced that we know doesn't work for the global warming debate, where the media will pit one climate scientist against a global warming critic as if that's representative of the actual state of scientific debate on the subject.

[Neonivek]

If you demand solid solutions to multi-layered problems that have their roots in irrational elements of humanity, you'll never condone anything.

What was the Suffragette Movement about? Women's right to vote. There are other things too, but that is the focus.

I also included "Or a path to a solution"

I don't even mind temporary solutions that are meant to be used to create a more permanent one. Plugging up a hole with Duct Tape is a perfectly valid temporary solution to a leaking ship.

  It's the same problematic notion of fair and balanced that we know doesn't work for the global warming debate, where the media will pit one climate scientist against a global warming critic as if that's representative of the actual state of scientific debate on the subject

That is because of the scientific illiteracy of both the average consumer and the news. But what your saying has created its OWN problems why? Because now people are creating horrible backwards solution to environmental problems, but you cannot criticize them without hitting that debate.

This is why Trump can suggest a Solar Wall without much fuss.

Yet people have had this fair and balanced approach for a while now... and to my knowledge the Environment side is more popular.

Or rather... I think the shut up tactics create more problems than they solve.

[smjjames]

If you demand solid solutions to multi-layered problems that have their roots in irrational elements of humanity, you'll never condone anything.

I think riots have their place.  But that's a separate discussion that I don't want to pursue.  This whole thing was about me taking issue with this one-sided narrative I keep seeing that the left in the United States has a violence problem, which I'll contest every time I see it.  And if anything is a cop-out, it's the response that both sides have problems.  It's the same problematic notion of fair and balanced that we know doesn't work for the global warming debate, where the media will pit one climate scientist against a global warming critic as if that's representative of the actual state of scientific debate on the subject.

You'd have to look at specific cases since each one is different and I misunderstood your narrative a little earlier (I get it now though), which is why I gave the response I did.

Pretty sure the whole narrative is coming almost entirely from the Right, since, well.... they just want to shout into their own bubbles and not talk about the why, or something.

This is why Trump can suggest a Solar Wall without much fuss.

I think that's more people rolling their eyes and facepalming at it than making a fuss.

[Neonivek]

While I guess whether or not Riots can be necessary or not can be argued... I am not equipped to find an answer.

Yet in my mind it would have to be absolutely necessary and be when you are pitted against an enemy who cannot see reason except through violence.

[Loud Whispers]

While I guess whether or not Riots can be necessary or not can be argued... I am not equipped to find an answer.

Yet in my mind it would have to be absolutely necessary and be when you are pitted against an enemy who cannot see reason except through violence.

now is the time to be reasonable

u r now right wing
u hav becom
neo-Neonivek

[Neonivek]

I am not Right Wing... but thanks I guess?

[Loud Whispers]

I am not Right Wing... but thanks I guess?

Dunno man, forcing people to believe in your ideology with violence is pretty hardcore rw
unless you're going for some vintage mao

[Neonivek]

I am not Right Wing... but thanks I guess?

Dunno man, forcing people to believe in your ideology with violence is pretty hardcore rw
unless you're going for some vintage mao

Ignoring that calling someone right wing as an insult is part of the regressive left.

Forcing people to believe in your ideology with violence is currently in both hands right now.

Well ok, it pretty much always has been.

[smjjames]

I am not Right Wing... but thanks I guess?

Dunno man, forcing people to believe in your ideology with violence is pretty hardcore rw
unless you're going for some vintage mao

It's also pretty hardcore left wing, or should I say, LW?

In all seriousness though, he wasn't even saying that about forcing to believe in ideology, and we weren't talking about that.

I am not Right Wing... but thanks I guess?

Dunno man, forcing people to believe in your ideology with violence is pretty hardcore rw
unless you're going for some vintage mao

Ignoring that calling someone right wing as an insult is part of the regressive left.

Forcing people to believe in your ideology with violence is currently in both hands right now.

Isn't 'regressive left' (which sounds sorta oxymoronic) also an insult thrown via the Right? Loud Whispers wasn't trying to insult you there though.

[Neonivek]

Isn't 'regressive left' (which sounds sorta oxymoronic) also an insult thrown via the Right? Loud Whispers wasn't trying to insult you there though.

It is used very often by the left and moderates as well. I actually think the left has more friction with the "far left" then the right does.

As opposed to the "Right Wing" insult.

which sounds sorta oxymoronic

In some ways it is. Then again Oxymoron does include Army Intelligence.

[redwallzyl]

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court

everything about this is absurd.

[smjjames]

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540903038/u-s-citizen-held-by-immigration-for-3-years-denied-compensation-by-appeals-court

everything about this is absurd.

"There is no right to a court-appointed attorney in immigration court." Oof, that's the problem right there. Not to mention an identity mixup.

[Neonivek]

DEFINATELY sounds like a Supreme Court case.

Of which we already know one Supreme Court Judge will vote no... outright.

---

It is just a WEIRD thing since shouldn't the Statute of Limitations be when the crime stops happening?