Portland.

[Neveragain]

If you have not been following Portland, things just got serious.


Unidentified stormtroopers. Unmarked cars. Kidnapping protesters and causing severe injuries in response to graffiti.

These are not the actions of a democratic republic.

@DHSgov’s actions in Portland undermine its mission.

Trump & his stormtroopers must be stopped. ~ Nancy Pelosi 07/17/2020


First Amendment speech should never be met with one-sided violence from federal agents acting as Trump’s secret police, especially when unidentified. This is disgraceful behavior we would expect from a banana republic — not the government of the United States. ~ Nancy Pelosi 07/17/2020

https://www.newsweek.com/portland-protesters-lock-police-precinct-rope-american-flag-1511918


Protesters in Portland, Oregon, locked police inside their own precinct building early Wednesday morning, using the rope from a flagpole located outside the police station.

A little after 11 p.m. on Tuesday, a small group of demonstrators dressed in black removed the rope from the American flag outside the Portland Police Bureau's Central Precinct and tied the roll-up doors, effectively locking the police in.

The front door to the precinct was also locked with a U-lock from the outside, which later had to be cut off. When officers could not leave the building, the police bureau took to Twitter to plead with the protesters to let the officers out. 06/17/2020

The "protests" have been going on for a month now since "protesters" locked the police in their precinct. There have been multiple fires and millions in property damage in Portland since these "protests" started. Both the state and the city of Portland have failed to contain the illegal element involved with these "protests".

It's getting real fucking ugly now.

[Tgo01]

It's sad that this is exactly why Democrats aren't protecting their citizens. This right here. They are waiting for shit to get serious, they are willing to look the other way as rioters burn down buildings, loot stores, and assault the police on a nightly basis, knowing full well their media lapdogs won't report on it.

Then when Trump finally says "Enough is enough!" and goes in to help they can downplay the riots as merely "protesters expressing their free speech" and portray Trump as some sort of tyrant for cracking down on violent crimes.

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with Democrats? Why do you keep electing these monsters into office? This shit is unfolding before our very eyes; people being beaten in the streets, entire city blocks being taken over, these rioters starting buildings on fire on a nightly basis, businesses being looted, people being murdered in zones that the local and state government allowed the rioters to occupy, and you're all fine Democrats continuing to allow this shit to happen because you think it will make Trump look bad when he cracks down on violent criminals.

The fuck is wrong with you to keep voting for this shit?

[Neveragain]

It's sad that this is exactly why Democrats aren't protecting their citizens. This right here. They are waiting for shit to get serious, they are willing to look the other way as rioters burn down buildings, loot stores, and assault the police on a nightly basis, knowing full well their media lapdogs won't report on it.

Then when Trump finally says "Enough is enough!" and goes in to help they can downplay the riots as merely "protesters expressing their free speech" and portray Trump as some sort of tyrant for cracking down on violent crimes.

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with Democrats? Why do you keep electing these monsters into office? This shit is unfolding before our very eyes; people being beaten in the streets, entire city blocks being taken over, these rioters starting buildings on fire on a nightly basis, businesses being looted, people being murdered in zones that the local and state government allowed the rioters to occupy, and you're all fine Democrats continuing to allow this shit to happen because you think it will make Trump look bad when he cracks down on violent criminals.

The fuck is wrong with you to keep voting for this shit?

I'm calling it insurrection at this point. 3rd to the seat of POTUS is encouraging a violent uprising with this language.

[FlayedAngel]

Portland has not been "under siege" by a violent mob, that's absolute horseshit. The protests here have - for the most part - been overwhelmingly peaceful, despite an unnecessary military presence that's been increasingly and disproportionately more antagonistic (and violent) than helpful.



The fuck is wrong with you to keep voting for this shit?
I'm sure a lot of us have been wondering the same thing.

[beldannon5]

I thought the military presence just got there? Weird Portland has and has had a lot of issues. I lived in Vancouver WA acrross the river for 10 years and it was crazy then. Watching the news it is crazier now.

[Tgo01]

Portland has not been "under siege" by a violent mob, that's absolute horseshit. The protests here have - for the most part - been overwhelmingly peaceful, despite an unnecessary military presence that's been increasingly and disproportionately more antagonistic (and violent) than helpful.

Are you for real?

I have watched videos and seen pictures coming out of Portland on an almost nightly basis with Antifa and other goons setting shit on fire, attacking the police, trying to take over parts of the city like they did in Seattle, attacking the federal courthouse, and them attacking the police precinct.

I understand these rioters are on the left so you have a knee jerk reaction to downplay the violence, but come on, man. The videos, pictures, and arrest reports are out there, it just takes the mental fortitude to want to see the facts and reality to go out and find them.

[Tgo01]

I thought the military presence just got there?

It is, the "military presence" literally just started a couple of nights ago.

I don't think Portland has even requested the national guard to help yet.

[FlayedAngel]

I thought the military presence just got there? Weird Portland has and has had a lot of issues.
It's been an ongoing point of contention with local government; the full-on military presence is new, supplanting what was previously local law enforcement.

[FlayedAngel]

Are you for real?

I understand these rioters are on the left so you have a knee jerk reaction to downplay the violence, but come on, man. The videos, pictures, and arrest reports are out there, it just takes the mental fortitude to want to see the facts and reality to go out and find them.
Sure, dude... reread your initial response and then maybe lecture me about knee-jerk reactions, facts, and reality.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Dude, send in the social workers. Trump should let it burn to the ground if the local and state leaders don’t want him there.

[Tgo01]

Sure, dude... reread your initial response and then maybe lecture me about knee-jerk reactions, facts, and reality.

I'm not making a knee jerk reaction. Like I said I have been watching videos, seeing pictures, and reading police reports on this on a near nightly basis for well over a month now. I have known about this for a while now. This isn't just something I learned about from Neveragain's post and commented on it.

Let's be honest now: have you seen any of the videos, pictures, police reports, or news articles I am referring to? If not would you watch/read them if I linked them and maybe change your mind on the situation?

I'm guessing not, your mind seems pretty made up that fires in Portland are starting on their own and buildings are attacking themselves.

[time4fun]

If you have not been following Portland, things just got serious.





https://www.newsweek.com/portland-protesters-lock-police-precinct-rope-american-flag-1511918



The "protests" have been going on for a month now since "protesters" locked the police in their precinct. There have been multiple fires and millions in property damage in Portland since these "protests" started. Both the state and the city of Portland have failed to contain the illegal element involved with these "protests".

It's getting real fucking ugly now.

It's really scary how quickly you turned against having a functional Democracy after Trump got elected.

The kinds of countries where these things go on are not the ones you want to live in. You people have turned into this dark and twisted version of Americans.

The United States of America is NOT a country where the Federal government sends in its forces to kidnap peaceful protesters by hauling them into unmarked vans without any formal charges.

What the hell happened to you people?

[Tgo01]

Dude, send in the social workers. Trump should let it burn to the ground if the local and state leaders don’t want him there.

I think that was the plan until they started attacking the federal courthouse (my bad, until the federal courthouse broke its own windows and wrote graffiti on itself). Once they went after federal property that gave the federal government all the reason in the world to clamp down on the lawlessness. Of course it takes actual leadership in the Democrat party to recognize this as facts, but as we have seen the Democrat party is made up of a bunch of petulant children.

[Tgo01]

It's really scary how quickly you turned against having a functional Democracy after Trump got elected.

The kinds of countries where these things go on are not the ones you want to live in. You people have turned into this dark and twisted version of Americans.

The United States of America is NOT a country where the Federal government sends in its forces to kidnap peaceful protesters by hauling them into unmarked vans without any formal charges.

What the hell happened to you people?

Calm down, princess. They are being charged with crimes or questioned and released. No one is "disappearing". None of this is illegal.

Turn off CNN and MSNBC for once.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Notice how the cunt uses “you people”? Fucking bigot.

[FlayedAngel]

I'm not making a knee jerk reaction. Like I said I have been watching videos, seeing pictures, and reading police reports on this on a near nightly basis for well over a month now. I have known about this for a while now. This isn't just something I learned about from Neveragain's post and commented on it.

Let's be honest now: have you seen any of the videos, pictures, police reports, or news articles I am referring to? If not would you watch/read them if I linked them and maybe change your mind on the situation?
I'm sure you have read a ton of news on it, that wasn't in dispute; what I am disputing the veracity of some of what's been reported on here. I do actually live here, and my comment was in reference to the reality I've experienced... which is in gross incongruity to how I've seen some of this portrayed by various sources.

Make of that whatever you want.

I'm sure we can both agree that media bias/spin is an incredibly dangerous thing, especially right now.



I'm guessing not, your mind seems pretty made up that fires in Portland are starting on their own and buildings are attacking themselves.
Not at all what I said, and I'm going to do you the solid of not assuming your thesis statement to be all protesters are a belligerent mob of riotous and destructive fiends; that would be reductive.

[Tgo01]

I'm sure we can both agree that media bias/spin is an incredibly dangerous thing, especially right now.

Videos, police reports, and pictures aren't susceptible to media spin.


Not at all what I said, and I'm going to do you the solid of not assuming your thesis statement to be all protesters are a belligerent mob of riotous and destructive fiends; that would be reductive.

That's a good assumption because I haven't said anything even remotely close to that. I'm not saying the feds should be driving around picking up everyone they see carrying a sign, but I recognize that Portland has a serious problem with rioters right now and I see nothing wrong with the feds arresting people who are breaking the law.

[FlayedAngel]

Videos, police reports, and pictures aren't susceptible to media spin.
https://media3.giphy.com/media/Vgdnagu37fu5W/giphy.gif



That's a good assumption because I haven't said anything even remotely close to that.
Good, that was my point.



I'm not saying the feds should be driving around picking up everyone they see carrying a sign, but I recognize that Portland has a serious problem with rioters right now and I see nothing wrong with the feds arresting people who are breaking the law.
I'll reiterate what I said before: the problem has been both exacerbated and exaggerated by local law enforcement. I have no problem with arresting people who are breaking the law either, but that's not exactly what's happening. And I do have a problem with denigration of the right to protest by mislabeling all protesters as purely destructive subversives, and then using that as a justification for selective targeting. Yes, there has been property damage, and fires started, and harm visited (accidental or otherwise); there will always anarchic opportunists, radicals, and other issues with large assembly, especially those centered around such a deeply personal issue for many, but I would wager that the majority of the violence here has been preemptively committed upon (not by) the protesters.

That is the problem.

I'm not suggesting you should take my anecdotal evidence as absolute gospel, but in light of the broader picture it might be worth at least taking into consideration.

[Tgo01]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/Vgdnagu37fu5W/giphy.gif

Wait, so you really think the media has somehow "spun" their narrative to me when I am looking at raw video footage, pictures, and reading police reports?

I am more than perfectly capable of looking at a video of a bunch of rioters tearing down a statue, setting a building on fire, and throwing rocks at windows and the police and arrive to the conclusion all on my own that these are violent people who are breaking many laws.

If your counter argument to literally everything I say is going to be "that's media spin" then you might as well just stop because that's a lame cop-out.

[FlayedAngel]

If your counter argument to literally everything I say is going to be "that's media spin" then you might as well just stop because that's a lame cop-out.
That wasn't really my point at all, but sure... respond to the GIF, and not the actual content.



Seriously what the fuck is wrong with Democrats? Why do you keep electing these monsters into office? This shit is unfolding before our very eyes; people being beaten in the streets, entire city blocks being taken over, these rioters starting buildings on fire on a nightly basis, businesses being looted, people being murdered in zones that the local and state government allowed the rioters to occupy, and you're all fine Democrats continuing to allow this shit to happen because you think it will make Trump look bad when he cracks down on violent criminals.
Yeah, your rhetoric seems perfectly logical, completely unbiased, and not at all influenced or skewed in any way.

[Tgo01]

Yeah, your rhetoric seems perfectly logical, completely unbiased, and not at all influenced or skewed in any way.

Where have I ever claimed I'm not biased in my politics?

What exactly in my comment is wrong, other than your disagreement with my overall conclusion?

Did the mayor of Seattle care when rioters took over parts of the city? Nope. She even referred to it as the Summer of Love. She didn't have it dismantled until they protested outside her house.

Did the governor of Washington state care about this? Nope. Days after they took over parts of the city he claimed he wasn't even aware of what was going on.

Has the mayor of Portland done really anything to stop all of the rioting going on in his city? Nope. He has hamstrung the police and hardly made a peep about any of it.

Did any Democrat politicians care when people were being murdered in CHAZ? Not really, in fact some even tried to blame Trump and claimed it was all just Republican hype.

Did Nancy Pelosi recognize that a federal courthouse in Portland was being attacked several nights in a row which is probably what prompted Trump to take action? Nope. She didn't even mention it and instead claimed Trump was disappearing "peaceful protesters" who were just expressing their freedom of speech.

Time and time again Democrats look the other way when violent leftists engage in violence. Literally the minute Trump wants to try to restore law and order he's the bad guy who is quashing freedom of speech.

Doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here.

[Tgo01]

https://youtu.be/ha-7SETmJD4

Black officer in Portland explains how the city police have been dealing with violent "protesters" for weeks now, how he and other black officers have racial slurs hurled their way by the "protesters" and how white officers are called racist.

But yeah, nothing to see here! It's all peaceful! Trump is a monster! Yadda yadda yadda.

I don't know why people choose to bury their heads in the sand.

[Neveragain]

It's really scary how quickly you turned against having a functional Democracy after Trump got elected.

The kinds of countries where these things go on are not the ones you want to live in. You people have turned into this dark and twisted version of Americans.

The United States of America is NOT a country where the Federal government sends in its forces to kidnap peaceful protesters by hauling them into unmarked vans without any formal charges.

What the hell happened to you people?

This has been going on from the very first day Trump took office, when there was rioting in DC.

Nancy Pelosi, in her statement, is not only supporting insurrection she's calling our police/service members storm troopers. The "peaceful protester" bullshit went out the door when they locked police in their precinct.

Better pick a side Time4redaction, if you're standing with the side that's destroying cities and marches under the flag of communism, you are the enemy of Democracy. There are zero fucks to give about these "protestors" now, if these states can't handle it, it's the duty of the federal gov. to take control.

[Parkbandit]

Dude, send in the social workers. Trump should let it burn to the ground if the local and state leaders don’t want him there.

Exactly.

Let these cesspools burn to the ground. The people have spoken and they are the ones that elected these Democrats.

Let them finally see exactly what they voted for.

[FlayedAngel]

Where have I ever claimed I'm not biased in my politics?
I'm not talking about partisanship, I'm talking about numerous harmful cognitive and perceptive biases and other pitfalls. We're all a little biased, in our politics and otherwise -- I'm talking about unhealthy and unproductive extremes, or an intractable inability to critically examine one's own viewpoint or the viewpoints of others.



What exactly in my comment is wrong, other than your disagreement with my overall conclusion?

To wit: Seriously what the fuck is wrong with Democrats? Why do you keep electing these monsters into office? This shit is unfolding before our very eyes; people being beaten in the streets, entire city blocks being taken over, these rioters starting buildings on fire on a nightly basis, businesses being looted, people being murdered in zones that the local and state government allowed the rioters to occupy, and you're all fine Democrats continuing to allow this shit to happen because you think it will make Trump look bad when he cracks down on violent criminals.
The entire narrative, I just explained this twice.



Did the mayor of Seattle care when rioters took over parts of the city? Nope. She even referred to it as the Summer of Love. She didn't have it dismantled until they protested outside her house.

Did the governor of Washington state care about this? Nope. Days after they took over parts of the city he claimed he wasn't even aware of what was going on.

Has the mayor of Portland done really anything to stop all of the rioting going on in his city? Nope. He has hamstrung the police and hardly made a peep about any of it.

Did any Democrat politicians care when people were being murdered in CHAZ? Not really, in fact some even tried to blame Trump and claimed it was all just Republican hype.

Did Nancy Pelosi recognize that a federal courthouse in Portland was being attacked several nights in a row which is probably what prompted Trump to take action? Nope. She didn't even mention it and instead claimed Trump was disappearing "peaceful protesters" who were just expressing their freedom of speech.

Time and time again Democrats look the other way when violent leftists engage in violence. Literally the minute Trump wants to try to restore law and order he's the bad guy who is quashing freedom of speech.
So your argument is that Democrats should be held responsible for your own attributions and motivations, but Trump should not? Cool.



Doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to see what's going on here.
Do you like authoritarian dystopias? Because this is how you get authoritarian dystopias... and ants.

[Tgo01]

I'm talking about unhealthy and unproductive extremes, or an intractable inability to critically examine one's own viewpoint or the viewpoints of others.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/26BRrSvJUa0crqw4E/giphy.gif

I could say the same thing about you in this thread where you are actively downplaying the violence in Portland and keep saying "media spin" when all I've ever talked about was the raw video footage I've seen and police reports I've read.


So your argument is that Democrats should be held responsible for your own attributions and motivations, but Trump should not? Cool.

Huh?


Do you like authoritarian dystopias? Because this is how you get authoritarian dystopias... and ants.

See what I mean about you having an "unhealthy and unproductive extremes, or an intractable inability to critically examine one's own viewpoint or the viewpoints of others."

No, I don't consider the federal government enforcing federal laws to lead to an "authoritarian dystopia."

You should cut back on the Nancy Pelosi tweets who heavily implied federal officers and the military are comparable to Nazi Germany stormtroopers.

[Neveragain]

Nancy Pelosi tweets who heavily implied federal officers and the military are comparable to Nazi Germany stormtroopers.

Interestingly enough, Nancy has never had an issue sending the "stormtroopers" to Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. In fact, Nancy and the Democrats have made it even more difficult to remove the "stormtroopers" from Syria and Afghanistan under Trump's administration.

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sumitc91/data/master/askgif/hd_f27e7c9e-5acd-4a4b-b4dc-563306cd4078_image_36_wm_icon.gif

[~Rocktar~]

I'm not talking about partisanship, I'm talking about numerous harmful cognitive and perceptive biases and other pitfalls. We're all a little biased, in our politics and otherwise -- I'm talking about unhealthy and unproductive extremes, or an intractable inability to critically examine one's own viewpoint or the viewpoints of others.



The entire narrative, I just explained this twice.



So your argument is that Democrats should be held responsible for your own attributions and motivations, but Trump should not? Cool.



Do you like authoritarian dystopias? Because this is how you get authoritarian dystopias... and ants.

That is a whole lot of words to say "If you don't think and act like I want you too then you are ignorant, unproductive, intractable and lack critical thinking skills. Can you be any more arrogant and condescending, really? This is the age old 'you should compromise your beliefs and views to get closer to mine because if you do that enough, I win without having to yield.'

Fuck off.

[Tgo01]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdQL48NWsAEdbOS?format=jpg&name=large

That's Democrat Congressman Conor Lamb's brother and campaign manager wishing death upon Lamb's Republican challenger, who also happens to be a combat veteran.

This is where Democrats ignore this outrageous bullshit yet again because it comes from a Democrat and takes another statement from Trump out of context to make him look like a racist.

[FlayedAngel]

I could say the same thing about you in this thread where you are actively downplaying the violence in Portland and keep saying "media spin" when all I've ever talked about was the raw video footage I've seen and police reports I've read.
"Actively downplayed" is inaccurate, more like warned against false representation of the severity (or lack thereof) of the situation; that's more of a zero-sum situation at best, so we're even. I remarked on factors behind the escalation of violence without denying the occurrence of violence, and the way it's being portrayed in some cases -- as I said -- is a flat-out lie (https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/feds-right-wing-media-paint-portland-as-city-under-siege-a-tour-of-town-shows-otherwise.html?fbclid=IwAR31dZWPS2OAUlBpqRqevyUBON uE4oZCGxCcZ93JQQZWk7QhLzRpIVL18Vo).

I actually live here. The protest area itself is an incredibly small part of the city and the protests have remained largely peaceful, so the narrative of a "city on fire" and "gripped by violence" is a blatant exaggeration (see above).

Once again: You can do whatever you want with that information.



See what I mean about you having an "unhealthy and unproductive extremes, or an intractable inability to critically examine one's own viewpoint or the viewpoints of others."
Is this the response equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Extreme biases are bad and something to be avoided, that's just a fact. If you want to disagree with that point and be proud of having flagrant biases, well... go ahead, I guess.



Huh?

RE: Did the mayor of Seattle care when rioters took over parts of the city? Nope. She even referred to it as the Summer of Love. She didn't have it dismantled until they protested outside her house.

Did the governor of Washington state care about this? Nope. Days after they took over parts of the city he claimed he wasn't even aware of what was going on.

Has the mayor of Portland done really anything to stop all of the rioting going on in his city? Nope. He has hamstrung the police and hardly made a peep about any of it.

Did any Democrat politicians care when people were being murdered in CHAZ? Not really, in fact some even tried to blame Trump and claimed it was all just Republican hype.

Did Nancy Pelosi recognize that a federal courthouse in Portland was being attacked several nights in a row which is probably what prompted Trump to take action? Nope. She didn't even mention it and instead claimed Trump was disappearing "peaceful protesters" who were just expressing their freedom of speech.

Time and time again Democrats look the other way when violent leftists engage in violence. Literally the minute Trump wants to try to restore law and order he's the bad guy who is quashing freedom of speech.
I was remarking that your chain of logic was fallacious due to attacking (or presuming) motive in all cases; you assume the worst of all Democrats, and decry those assuming the worst of Trump, which is not terribly shocking. Neither are perfect entities, and MISTAKES WERE MADE seems to be shaping up to be the theme of the year all around.



No, I don't consider the federal government enforcing federal laws to lead to an "authoritarian dystopia."

You should cut back on the Nancy Pelosi tweets who heavily implied federal officers and the military are comparable to Nazi Germany stormtroopers.
I don't follow Nancy Pelosi, but sure... undesignated feds dragging citizens into unmarked civilian vehicles without evidence or probable cause is totally constitutional, and has absolutely no parallels to anything else in history.

[FlayedAngel]

That is a whole lot of words to say "If you don't think and act like I want you too then you are ignorant, unproductive, intractable and lack critical thinking skills. Can you be any more arrogant and condescending, really? This is the age old 'you should compromise your beliefs and views to get closer to mine because if you do that enough, I win without having to yield.'

Fuck off.
That was a whole of words to say that biases are bad and we should practice critical thinking on all sides... but if you feel that the shoe fits, feel free to lace that bitch up and wear it.

But sure... go fuck yourself, I guess?

[Tgo01]

the way it's being portrayed in some cases -- as I said -- is a flat-out lie (https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/feds-right-wing-media-paint-portland-as-city-under-siege-a-tour-of-town-shows-otherwise.html?fbclid=IwAR31dZWPS2OAUlBpqRqevyUBON uE4oZCGxCcZ93JQQZWk7QhLzRpIVL18Vo).

And you accused me of repeating media spin.


The protest area itself is an incredibly small part of the city and the protests have remained largely peaceful

No offense but the phrase "largely peaceful" is just weasel words. It's just a way to downplay the violence.

In the CHAZ there were 3 murders, allegations of rape, theft, assault, and myriad other crimes, but were these reported on extensively? Not really, instead it was described as "mostly peaceful."

Likewise I have seen videos coming out of Portland of statues being pulled down and set on fire, buildings being set on fire, police being locked inside of their own precinct, police having projectiles thrown at them, people being assaulted, windows smashed, entire streets being shutdown, private property and public property destroyed, rioters trying to lock police inside of the federal courthouse and other shit. This is all very much violent and very illegal, hence why the federal government is getting involved. Rather than recognizing this Democrats will just say "These are mostly peaceful protesters." No one cares. No one cares that a harpy wants to screech on a street corner somewhere, no one is arresting said screeching harpy. We are talking about the violent elements. You should want the violent element to be arrested and charged and taken off the streets so those mean Republicans can't use them as a talking point anymore. But that's not the way the Democrat party gets votes and power, they have to divide people and make it look like Republicans are cracking down on free speech.


Is this the response equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Yes, that is me pointing out that arguments based on nothing but emotion don't mean much because everything you just said about me I could easily say about you.


but sure... undesignated feds dragging citizens into unmarked civilian vehicles without evidence or probable cause is totally constitutional, and has absolutely no parallels to anything else in history.

Now you're just flat out making things up. Where did you get the idea that they are arresting or detaining these people without evidence or probable cause? Let me guess, from videos and statements from the rioters themselves?

Again weasel words: claim the protests are "largely peaceful" and thus ignore the violent element of the "protests" then you can claim that the feds have no reason to arrest or detain anyone because they are all peaceful...except they're not, remember? They are "largely" peaceful.

[~Rocktar~]

I actually live here. The protest area itself is an incredibly small part of the city and the protests have remained largely peaceful, so the narrative of a "city on fire" and "gripped by violence" is a blatant exaggeration (see above).

Keep repeating the Leftist playbook. The number of assaults, beatings, rapes and murders in the "incredibly small part of the city" from "largely peaceful" protests suggest that you are full of shit.


Extreme biases are bad and something to be avoided, that's just a fact.

Again more of the lovely bullshit of trying to seam reasonable while supporting abject crap in an attempt to sway others to your POV.


I was remarking that your chain of logic was fallacious due to attacking (or presuming) motive in all cases; you assume the worst of all Democrats, and decry those assuming the worst of Trump, which is not terribly shocking. Neither are perfect entities, and MISTAKES WERE MADE seems to be shaping up to be the theme of the year all around.

I am far past worrying about such false arguments about motives and intentions when it comes to Democrats and in politics in general. The saying goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Democrat leadership of your city and the region has allowed riots, arson, rape, assault and murder to go on without abatement, they have ordered the police to stand down and allowed parts of the city to burn. When the police sought to escort EMS to the scene of the murders to help the victims, then the "mostly peaceful" protesters attacked them and drove them off, mostly likely exacerbating the treatment of the victims and possibly aiding in assuring the death of a victim.

The Democrat "leadership" of your city and region has sown the wind and the citizens are reaping the whirlwind and paying the price in blood for it. Time for the "good intentions" to be set aside, order to be restored and the average citizen to be protected, which is what our governments are supposed to be doing in the first place.


I don't follow Nancy Pelosi, but sure... undesignated feds dragging citizens into unmarked civilian vehicles without evidence or probable cause is totally constitutional, and has absolutely no parallels to anything else in history.

Your knowledge of law and history or lack of it is glaring. There is no law that requires law enforcement to wear a particular uniform or use marked vehicles. There is PLENTY of probable cause for them to arrest and detain the people they are picking up. Those people are being taken to a federal building, advised of their Miranda rights, questioned and either booked for prosecution or released. All of this is 100% legal, constitutional and even based on the accounts of some of the idiots being arrested, being done without much real violence and harm to the individual.

No one has "disappeared" no one is being shipped to Guantanamo, no waterboarding, no rubber hoses and because of the tactics being used, no one is being seriously hurt and the average citizenry is not being endangered.

Believe it or not, you can be detained for 48 hours on just about anything. You can be questioned about anything. And you can assert your Miranda rights at any time.

All of this is far more legal, constitutional and ethical than the siege of Waco, siege of Ruby Ridge, capture of Elian Gonzales, the IRS abuse of Conservative non-profits, arming of drug gangs, FISA court abuse and a huge host of other local, state and federal law enforcement abuses under Democrat leadership in the last 30 years. So spare us your whiny indignation that the criminal "mostly peaceful" protesters are being detained to determine who needs to be criminally prosecuted for the long laundry list of crimes your local and state "leadership" have incited, ignored and encouraged.

[FlayedAngel]

And you accused me of repeating media spin.
Because I linked an accurate article that both expresses and is supported by what I've experienced? 'Kay.



No offense but the phrase "largely peaceful" is just weasel words. It's just a way to downplay the violence.
"Largely peaceful" in the context I used it refers to the fact that the majority of the protests -- and protesters -- have been peaceful, thus the "largely" and not entirely. Not really sure what nomenclature you'd prefer me to use, but that's just a fact; protests have happened day-in and day-out with little incident, it's largely when law enforcement becomes antagonistic during protests about police brutality that things have turned ugly. Shockingly.

One could use that phrase to downplay violence, sure -- I wasn't. Conversely, conflating all protesters (violent and non-violent) together is just another tactic to inflate and magnify the impression of violence and destruction.



In the CHAZ there were 3 murders, allegations of rape, theft, assault, and myriad other crimes, but were these reported on extensively? Not really, instead it was described as "mostly peaceful."
By who? Have I mentioned or was I talking about the CHAZ at all? Have I described the CHAZ as mostly peaceful? That wasn't the subject.

I get what you're saying, and again -- for the fourth time -- I'm not disputing that crime has occurred, or that it won't continue to happen with or without protests. Again: there are always going to be opportunists, straight-up anarchists, and other elements... but these are a minority of both persons and incidents.



Likewise I have seen videos coming out of Portland of statues being pulled down and set on fire, buildings being set on fire, police being locked inside of their own precinct, police having projectiles thrown at them, people being assaulted, windows smashed, entire streets being shutdown, private property and public property destroyed, rioters trying to lock police inside of the federal courthouse and other shit. This is all very much violent and very illegal, hence why the federal government is getting involved. Rather than recognizing this Democrats will just say "These are mostly peaceful protesters."
"They'll" say that because they are mostly peaceful protesters, not sure what your point is or how many times I need to repeat it. This is not unilateral violence; there are violent protesters, but police brutality is also very much a thing whether you want to acknowledge it or not. That's kind of been the whole point of the protests. I've seen law enforcement antagonizing non-hostile and non-confrontational protesters, staged scenes, tear gas used with absolutely no provocation, force used without necessity, and people severely injured by "non-lethal" rounds used in grossly improper ways. Oh, but there was that one lady who straight-up scared the cops off with her nudity.

Portland has not been "under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob and lawless anarchists" -- that's fabricated bullshit.



No one cares. No one cares that a harpy wants to screech on a street corner somewhere, no one is arresting said screeching harpy.
You're referring to the BLM protests? Wow, someone isn't going to win any cultural sensitivity awards.



Yes, that is me pointing out that arguments based on nothing but emotion don't mean much because everything you just said about me I could easily say about you.
I could say literally anything about you, that doesn't make it true. Deflecting isn't a response, and my arguments haven't been based on emotion.



Now you're just flat out making things up. Where did you get the idea that they are arresting or detaining these people without evidence or probable cause? Let me guess, from videos and statements from the rioters themselves?
In fairness to you, that is a valid point of contention. I've read reports, and apparently they're acting without explicit approval of the mayor, the state, or local municipalities (the ACLU has filed lawsuits about this) and there's a fair amount of confusion; to circle back to my original point, however, I'm taking a good deal of the news as it comes out with a grain of salt.

[FlayedAngel]

Keep repeating the Leftist playbook. The number of assaults, beatings, rapes and murders in the "incredibly small part of the city" from "largely peaceful" protests suggest that you are full of shit.
Feel free to show me these stats, then.

Just curious, are you including the assaults, beatings, rapes, and murders committed by law enforcement and other agencies, or no?



Again more of the lovely bullshit of trying to seam reasonable while supporting abject crap in an attempt to sway others to your POV.
I get it... you've got a real hard-on for Democrats, blah blah blah. I don't really give a shit what you believe, all you've demonstrated so far is that you're an asshole.



I am far past worrying about such false arguments about motives and intentions when it comes to Democrats and in politics in general. The saying goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Democrat leadership of your city and the region has allowed riots, arson, rape, assault and murder to go on without abatement, they have ordered the police to stand down and allowed parts of the city to burn. When the police sought to escort EMS to the scene of the murders to help the victims, then the "mostly peaceful" protesters attacked them and drove them off, mostly likely exacerbating the treatment of the victims and possibly aiding in assuring the death of a victim.

The Democrat "leadership" of your city and region has sown the wind and the citizens are reaping the whirlwind and paying the price in blood for it. Time for the "good intentions" to be set aside, order to be restored and the average citizen to be protected, which is what our governments are supposed to be doing in the first place.
You sound like the blurb for a Tom Clancy novel that we'd all rather forget.



Your knowledge of law and history or lack of it is glaring. There is no law that requires law enforcement to wear a particular uniform or use marked vehicles. There is PLENTY of probable cause for them to arrest and detain the people they are picking up. Those people are being taken to a federal building, advised of their Miranda rights, questioned and either booked for prosecution or released. All of this is 100% legal, constitutional and even based on the accounts of some of the idiots being arrested, being done without much real violence and harm to the individual.
Peachy, I'll be sure to pass along that there's no need to worry about credentials the next time someone is thrown in the back of an unmarked van for protesting abuse of power; after all, hey... it might be legit, and not at all a hate crime about to happen.



All of this is far more legal, constitutional and ethical than the siege of Waco, siege of Ruby Ridge, capture of Elian Gonzales, the IRS abuse of Conservative non-profits, arming of drug gangs, FISA court abuse and a huge host of other local, state and federal law enforcement abuses under Democrat leadership in the last 30 years. So spare us your whiny indignation that the criminal "mostly peaceful" protesters are being detained to determine who needs to be criminally prosecuted for the long laundry list of crimes your local and state "leadership" have incited, ignored and encouraged.
Yeah, you're a real free-thinking patriot. Spare me your fulmination, if you want to talk past me about the evils of democracy... go for it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Just curious, are you including the assaults, beatings, rapes, and murders committed by law enforcement and other agencies, or no?

The overwhelming and vast majority, I'd go so far as to say greater than 99%, of LEO encounters have zero of that. You are being intellectually dishonest even stating it. I say pull LEOs and Feds out of Oregon entirely and let it fucking burn to the ground. All the hippies can have sit ins and hug each other while the criminals assault, beat, rape and murder them. Or better yet, call the community organizer or the mental health specialist and they can get in on the action also.

If it's not clear, I hope your city gets what it's asking for.

[Neveragain]

The overwhelming and vast majority, I'd go so far as to say greater than 99%, of LEO encounters have zero of that. You are being intellectually dishonest even stating it. I say pull LEOs and Feds out of Oregon entirely and let it fucking burn to the ground. All the hippies can have sit ins and hug each other while the criminals assault, beat, rape and murder them. Or better yet, call the community organizer or the mental health specialist and they can get in on the action also.

If it's not clear, I hope your city gets what it's asking for.

Wait till this is done and over with. Suddenly they will want the fed's involved when they put their hands out and ask for federal dollars to rebuild their shit. Just like Minneapolis did.

Portlands "peaceful protesters" looting a jewelry store:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zEUYQimXIs

[Neveragain]

Portlands "peaceful protesters" looting a Louis Vuitton store:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr7QBzDW4hg

[Parkbandit]

Wait till this is done and over with. Suddenly they will want the fed's involved when they put their hands out and ask for federal dollars to rebuild their shit. Just like Minneapolis did.

Portlands "peaceful protesters" looting a jewelry store:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zEUYQimXIs

There are leftists out there that legit believe that this is an example of peaceful protesting. No one was killed.. big deal, some property of obviously a rich, white asshole was taken.

[Parkbandit]

Portlands "peaceful protesters" looting a Louis Vuitton store:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr7QBzDW4hg

And you know they are good people because most of them are wearing masks to protect others from Covid-19!

[~Rocktar~]

Feel free to show me these stats, then.

OK:
22 additional incidents, in person-related crime in the area, to include two additional homicides, 6 additional robberies, and 16 additional aggravated assaults (to include 2 additional non-fatal shootings),” Durkan’s order on Tuesday says.

Taken from the Mayors order to clear out the area and restated here:

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/07/02/chaz-525-crime/


Just curious, are you including the assaults, beatings, rapes, and murders committed by law enforcement and other agencies, or no?

Nice attempt at a distraction. Chaz had no police so there can be no crimes committed by what doesn't exist.



I get it... you've got a real hard-on for Democrats, blah blah blah. I don't really give a shit what you believe, all you've demonstrated so far is that you're an asshole.

Yes I am an asshole. And worse yet, I am correct in my assertions. Don't worry, your poor feelings will recover and the agitators will get far more fair trials than the victims of the crimes committed at their behest got.


Peachy, I'll be sure to pass along that there's no need to worry about credentials the next time someone is thrown in the back of an unmarked van for protesting abuse of power; after all, hey... it might be legit, and not at all a hate crime about to happen.

I guess the police identification on their body armor and them being told they are being detained isn't enough. The primary people being arrested are white, every Leftist knows you can't commit a hate against a white person. /sarcasm Melodramatic much?



Yeah, you're a real free-thinking patriot. Spare me your fulmination, if you want to talk past me about the evils of democracy... go for it.

Democracy is a terrible form of government, is just happens to be better than all the others.

[FlayedAngel]

The overwhelming and vast majority, I'd go so far as to say greater than 99%, of LEO encounters have zero of that. You are being intellectually dishonest even stating it.
Yeah, that's fair -- that was bad representation in the act of being snide, thanks for calling me on it.



Taken from the Mayors order to clear out the area and restated here:

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/07/02/chaz-525-crime/

Nice attempt at a distraction. Chaz had no police so there can be no crimes committed by what doesn't exist.

I guess the police identification on their body armor and them being told they are being detained isn't enough. The primary people being arrested are white, every Leftist knows you can't commit a hate against a white person. /sarcasm Melodramatic much?
You do know that I've been talking about Portland this entire time, right? As per the thread title? The CHAZ is in Seattle, different city in a different state.

[Astray]

Shit's pretty fucked.

[~Rocktar~]

You do know that I've been talking about Portland this entire time, right? As per the thread title? The CHAZ is in Seattle, different city in a different state.

Portland shows a 240 percent increase in shootings in June.

https://www.kptv.com/news/portland-police-report-240-increase-in-july-shootings-compared-to-2019/article_610d09f6-bfcc-11ea-ba5e-d7eacd55a00b.html

So there you go. No Chaz, more than double the number of shootings over last year. I could not find other crime stats since it seems your police are holding the records. Gee, why would they do that?

[Geijon]

Portland shows a 240 percent increase in shootings in June.

https://www.kptv.com/news/portland-police-report-240-increase-in-july-shootings-compared-to-2019/article_610d09f6-bfcc-11ea-ba5e-d7eacd55a00b.html

So there you go. No Chaz, more than double the number of shootings over last year. I could not find other crime stats since it seems your police are holding the records. Gee, why would they do that?

From 3 to 7? I like how you spin your bullshit Rocktar. You live in Montana? Shut up already. Police hold your records? You couldn't find them? How about if we tested half as many then there would be half as many cases, but the deaths would be the same? Know who said that. Trump. Idiot.

Have you seen the pictures of the homeland security forces? Poorly trained. Dapped out in maximum armor. It's like a bad counter-strike player, but he's fighting Mario or level 1 Pokemon. Losing like he logged into League for the first time. Basically, you.

[~Rocktar~]

From 3 to 7? I like how you spin your bullshit Rocktar.

Someone is triggered.


PPB is experiencing delays in the report review process due to the current public health crisis. Reports from February 2020 and later have not completed the quality control process. Due to the delays, PPB will be publishing preliminary statistics and data on this page that will be revised at a later date.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/71978

So, no data from the most recent months due to "quality control" issues. Right.


Have you seen the pictures of the homeland security forces? Poorly trained. Dapped out in maximum armor. It's like a bad counter-strike player, but he's fighting Mario or level 1 Pokemon. Losing like he logged into League for the first time. Basically, you.

The lack of injuries among those both being picked up and the officers involved seems to suggest they are adequately trained. As to the rest, well . . .

https://i.imgur.com/EUnFNgQ.gif

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Poor Javier Martos

[Geijon]

Someone is triggered.



https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/71978

So, no data from the most recent months due to "quality control" issues. Right.



The lack of injuries among those both being picked up and the officers involved seems to suggest they are adequately trained. As to the rest, well . . .

https://i.imgur.com/EUnFNgQ.gif

damn your dumb. It's lower than 2019 by the GRAPH YOU POSTED.

Got anything else?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Poor Suppa Hobbit Mage. He fucked himself in the asshole. He said it hurt. Poor guy. He liked it. Rescinded.

God damn you're stupid.

Dude are you bipolar?

[Geijon]

Dude are you bipolar?

That isn't what I said based on my post. Do you care to have some fun by reading what I actually posted?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Is it a full moon?

[Tgo01]

"Largely peaceful" in the context I used it refers to the fact that the majority of the protests -- and protesters -- have been peaceful, thus the "largely" and not entirely.

It's weasel words, it literally means nothing. Does it mean 51% have been peaceful? 99%? Are you referring just to protesters or both protesters and protests in general? Are you referring to number of arrests? Are you only including criminal acts that harm another person?

It's a vague meaningless statement people throw around whenever the discussion of violent protests pops up. It's right up there with "common sense gun control."


it's largely when law enforcement becomes antagonistic during protests about police brutality that things have turned ugly.

Yeah okay. I'm sure the rioters had to break into the police union hall last night and start a fire in it because those mean police officers forced them to do it.


By who? Have I mentioned or was I talking about the CHAZ at all? Have I described the CHAZ as mostly peaceful? That wasn't the subject.

I used the CHAZ crime wave to show how Democrats use the phrase "largely peaceful" to downplay violent actions by leftist rioters.


You're referring to the BLM protests? Wow, someone isn't going to win any cultural sensitivity awards.

I didn't mention any particular group protesting.


I could say literally anything about you, that doesn't make it true. Deflecting isn't a response, and my arguments haven't been based on emotion.

I think you're missing the point.

"Extreme biases are bad and something to be avoided, that's just a fact."

You're just proclaiming me to be extremely biased (opinion), then saying extreme biases are bad and something to be avoided (opinion), then ending with "that's just a fact." No, those are your opinions, we can argue your opinions if you like, but this is just an emotional argument that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. I can engage in this type of emotional argument all day too but what's the point?


they're acting without explicit approval of the mayor, the state, or local municipalities (the ACLU has filed lawsuits about this) and there's a fair amount of confusion

The feds don't need the approval of any of those people to enforce federal law.

[Neveragain]

Last night, "peaceful protesters" broke into and tried to set fire to the police union building:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJb9LtQ_orQ

[FlayedAngel]

Portland shows a 240 percent increase in shootings in June.

https://www.kptv.com/news/portland-police-report-240-increase-in-july-shootings-compared-to-2019/article_610d09f6-bfcc-11ea-ba5e-d7eacd55a00b.html
"One shooting earlier this month injured a man, and another involved an infant child putting a spent bullet cartridge in her mouth, police said on Monday."

https://media2.giphy.com/media/RhdrRkefjNuit98fG4/giphy.gif



So there you go. No Chaz, more than double the number of shootings over last year. I could not find other crime stats since it seems your police are holding the records. Gee, why would they do that?
Yeah, it's a real crime spree. So your argument against police corruption is... police corruption?

[~Rocktar~]

"One shooting earlier this month injured a man, and another involved an infant child putting a spent bullet cartridge in her mouth, police said on Monday."

https://media2.giphy.com/media/RhdrRkefjNuit98fG4/giphy.gif



Yeah, it's a real crime spree. So your argument against police corruption is... police corruption?

So if you take out those two, you go from about a 240% increase in shootings down to what, 200-210% increase over same month last year? Seriously.

[FlayedAngel]

So if you take out those two, you go from about a 240% increase in shootings down to what, 200-210% increase over same month last year? Seriously.
Did you actually read the report you linked? Most of those aren't even anywhere near the protest zone, and have nothing to do with it.

[FlayedAngel]

It's weasel words, it literally means nothing. Does it mean 51% have been peaceful? 99%? Are you referring just to protesters or both protesters and protests in general? Are you referring to number of arrests? Are you only including criminal acts that harm another person?

It's a vague meaningless statement people throw around whenever the discussion of violent protests pops up. It's right up there with "common sense gun control."

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with Democrats? Why do you keep electing these monsters into office? This shit is unfolding before our very eyes; people being beaten in the streets, entire city blocks being taken over, these rioters starting buildings on fire on a nightly basis, businesses being looted, people being murdered in zones that the local and state government allowed the rioters to occupy, and you're all fine Democrats continuing to allow this shit to happen because you think it will make Trump look bad when he cracks down on violent criminals.
How many people were beaten? How many blocks were taken over? How many buildings were the fires contained to, and how much square footage was destroyed in the fires? How many people were looted? How many businesses were murdered? How many infants put what number of spent bullet cartridges in their mouths?

If you want to get mired in pointless and counterproductive semantic arguments, go for it.



it's largely when law enforcement becomes antagonistic during protests about police brutality that things have turned ugly.

Yeah okay. I'm sure the rioters had to break into the police union hall last night and start a fire in it because those mean police officers forced them to do it.

I used the CHAZ crime wave to show how Democrats use the phrase "largely peaceful" to downplay violent actions by leftist rioters.
Again: In Portland, most of the protesters have not been rioters -- there are smaller sub-sects of more violent protesters from various sources. That's it. That was my entire point. It seems pretty self-evident, and I've said that like, 10 times now; at this point, you're being a bit obtuse. I get that you were using the CHAZ as a point of reference, and that's fine, but my main issue was with misattribution.

Not. All. People. Who. Are. Part. Of. A. Larger. Demographic. Are. The. Same.

Given people's sensitivity to being called racists and lumped in with white supremacists and such, I would think that would be a more significant point.



I didn't mention any particular group protesting.
'Kay. So you weren't referring to the protests mentioned in that same paragraph?



I think you're missing the point.

"Extreme biases are bad and something to be avoided, that's just a fact."

You're just proclaiming me to be extremely biased (opinion), then saying extreme biases are bad and something to be avoided (opinion), then ending with "that's just a fact." No, those are your opinions, we can argue your opinions if you like, but this is just an emotional argument that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. I can engage in this type of emotional argument all day too but what's the point?
We're talking about two different things. Some biases are fine, and actually expedite mental processing; others can negatively impact personal and professional relationships, and at a societal level lead to the unfair persecution of a group (topical). Implicit biases can be harmful blind-spots in our processing of societal input, so to clarify, I feel pretty comfortable labeling those as bad and something to be avoided -- that, more precisely, is what I was referring to.

I pointed out what I observed as some implicit biases in your statements, largely jokingly, because it's a common trend here. You said that you never claimed to be unbiased, and I responded by clarifying that I wasn't referring to partisanship but actual harmful biases, which -- for some goddamn reason -- everyone took as an extremely personal attack, even though I was no longer explicitly referring to anyone in particular, but rather, making a larger point about how biases can be damaging to productive discourse.

[FlayedAngel]

Exactly.

Let these cesspools burn to the ground. The people have spoken and they are the ones that elected these Democrats.

Let them finally see exactly what they voted for.
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/57864432/fire-rising-intensifies.jpg

[Astray]

Don't think we've missed you.

Well I missed you.

[Tgo01]

If you want to get mired in pointless and counterproductive semantic arguments, go for it.

It's not semantics. I'm saying crime is happening, I even listed several specific instances and pointed out several particular crimes. You came back with "It's largely peaceful" which is so vague it could literally mean anything and you can say "this is what I meant" in response to any counterargument I attempted, that's why it's weasel words.


Again: In Portland, most of the protesters have not been rioters

I never once said or even implied that most of the protesters in Portland have been rioters. I really don't care what the percentage is, I don't care if it's just one rioter in a sea of thousands of peaceful protesters. All I'm saying is crime is happening and the local and state government and Democrat leaders don't really seem to care about the crime, but they sure care a hell of a lot about the feds cracking down on said crime, even going so far as to say the protests are "mostly peaceful", but again who cares if they are "mostly peaceful"? Shouldn't we be striving for "all peaceful"?


Not. All. People. Who. Are. Part. Of. A. Larger. Demographic. Are. The. Same.

Given people's sensitivity to being called racists and lumped in with white supremacists and such, I would think that would be a more significant point.

Now you're just fighting strawmen.


'Kay. So you weren't referring to the protests mentioned in that same paragraph?

I was, but you didn't mention BLM either, you just mentioned the protests going on in Portland, and I know for a fact that big portion of the "protesters" are Antifa. I doubt many of them are actual BLM protesters anymore to be honest, it's just Antifa latching onto that movement to use as a shield to riot.


Implicit biases can be harmful blind-spots in our processing of societal input, so to clarify, I feel pretty comfortable labeling those as bad and something to be avoided -- that, more precisely, is what I was referring to.

Implicit bias is another buzz phrase that means nothing. It was dreamed up as a counter argument to someone saying "I never treat anyone differently based on their race." Now you can just accuse that person of "implicit bias" because they have an "unconscious" bias, and you can't really refute this because how do you prove you don't have an "unconscious" bias? You can't, just like the person accusing you can't prove you have an "unconscious" bias, but these days accusations don't need to be rooted in fact, just feeling.

[Tgo01]

So there was a "Back the Blue" rally held in Denver yesterday. They got all proper permits, notified the city and the police, you know, how protests are SUPPOSED to be done.

What happened? A bunch of "counter protesters" showed up, drowned out the free speech of the "Back the Blue" rally with their usual tactics of playing loud music and screaming into megaphones, and of course assaulted several attendees.

I saw the raw videos, I'm not repeating "media spin" in what I saw with my own eyes.

But go on, tell me how these people are just "largely peaceful" when they do this shit time and time and time and time and time again.

You can bury your heads in the sand all you want, don't expect me to bury my head alongside yours.

[Bhaalizmo]

You can bury your heads in the sand all you want, don't expect me to bury my head alongside yours.

Oh I wouldn't, I'd expect to find yours buried in a confederate cemetery.

[FlayedAngel]

It's not semantics. I'm saying crime is happening, I even listed several specific instances and pointed out several particular crimes. You came back with "It's largely peaceful" which is so vague it could literally mean anything and you can say "this is what I meant" in response to any counterargument I attempted, that's why it's weasel words.
You made a number of heavily slanted generalizations and then claim that I'm somehow countering with vagaries by stating a different casual observation. I mean... come on, dude.



I never once said or even implied that most of the protesters in Portland have been rioters. I really don't care what the percentage is, I don't care if it's just one rioter in a sea of thousands of peaceful protesters. All I'm saying is crime is happening and the local and state government and Democrat leaders don't really seem to care about the crime, but they sure care a hell of a lot about the feds cracking down on said crime, even going so far as to say the protests are "mostly peaceful", but again who cares if they are "mostly peaceful"? Shouldn't we be striving for "all peaceful"?
So... who's fighting strawmen again??



I was, but you didn't mention BLM either, you just mentioned the protests going on in Portland, and I know for a fact that big portion of the "protesters" are Antifa. I doubt many of them are actual BLM protesters anymore to be honest, it's just Antifa latching onto that movement to use as a shield to riot.
Right... I'm the one who's speaking from anonymous authority and replying with vague and opinion-based statistics. Sure, bud.



Implicit bias is another buzz phrase that means nothing. It was dreamed up as a counter argument to someone saying "I never treat anyone differently based on their race." Now you can just accuse that person of "implicit bias" because they have an "unconscious" bias, and you can't really refute this because how do you prove you don't have an "unconscious" bias? You can't, just like the person accusing you can't prove you have an "unconscious" bias, but these days accusations don't need to be rooted in fact, just feeling.
No offense, but that's a ridiculous refutation that's not actually based on much other than your apparent disdain for and one potential misapplication of the term. Calling someone "racist" may or may not be justified individually -- such is debatable -- but that doesn't mean one can accurately claim racism to be a buzz word that carries no weight nor meaning.

[Tgo01]

Right... I'm the one who's speaking from anonymous authority and replying with vague and opinion-based statistics. Sure, bud.

Again I'm watching the videos, I've been watching Antifa videos for years. It's pretty easy to spot Antifa. Yes my comment about not many legit BLM protesters being there is my opinion and I even phrased it as such.


that doesn't mean one can accurately claim racism to be a buzz word that carries no weight nor meaning.

First of all I didn't claim "racism" was a buzz word, I said "implicit bias" was a buzz phrase.

Second of all the word "racism" has actually lost all meaning. When a sizeable segment of our society throws around words like "racist" and "Nazi" for the slightest transgression then the words lose all meaning. If everything is "racist" then nothing is "racist."

[FlayedAngel]

Again I'm watching the videos, I've been watching Antifa videos for years. It's pretty easy to spot Antifa.
https://ruinmyweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/antifa-meme5.jpg




First of all I didn't claim "racism" was a buzz word, I said "implicit bias" was a buzz phrase.
It's called an analogy.



Second of all the word "racism" has actually lost all meaning. When a sizeable segment of our society throws around words like "racist" and "Nazi" for the slightest transgression then the words lose all meaning. If everything is "racist" then nothing is "racist."
According to whom? By that logic, the words "virtue signaling" and "communist" have lost all meaning, as well.

[Tgo01]

https://ruinmyweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/antifa-meme5.jpg

Oh boy, more downplaying. I suppose those buildings on fire in Portland started themselves? Or perhaps BLM protesters started them? Or maybe it was Antifa? Take your pick.


It's called an analogy.

That's a weird analogy then.


According to whom? By that logic, the words "virtue signaling" and "communist" have lost all meaning, as well.

Deflecting isn't a response.

[FlayedAngel]

Oh boy, more downplaying. I suppose those buildings in fire on Portland started themselves? Or perhaps BLM protesters started them? Or maybe it was Antifa?
Are we back to that again? You already tried that, and I already responded.



That's a weird analogy because I wasn't even talking about the word "racism."
Not that weird, I assume you know how analogies work -- it's a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

I was pointing out the issue in attempting to undermine the concept of "implicit bias" in favor of your argument by claiming that it's a meaningless buzz word, that seemed pretty evident.



Deflecting isn't a response.
Neither are absolutes spoken from a position of anonymous authority about how social constructs work. You claimed that the word "racist" has lost all meaning, which definitely seems like an opinion; I can agree or disagree with your opinion (and it might even be accurate in some cases, and of some people), but that doesn't make it universally true.

[FlayedAngel]

Meanwhile, this is still the most Portland thing ever:

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/dbc4b59/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2272x1473+0+0/resize/840x545!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F66%2F4b%2Fdefd3f7c40 e6aec08ba728d3ddab%2F045-july-17-protest...jpg

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-07-19/portland-protest-naked-athena

[Tgo01]

Are we back to that again? You already tried that, and I already responded.

You're mocking me for "seeing Antifa everywhere". I see Antifa where they are. Buildings aren't burning themselves down.


Not that weird, I assume you know how analogies work -- it's a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

I knew you would latch onto that part which is why I edited my post to just say it was a weird analogy because it was.


I was pointing out the issue in attempting to undermine the concept of "implicit bias" in favor of your argument by claiming that it's a meaningless buzz word, that seemed pretty evident.

This is why it's a terrible analogy. You can't just choose a random word and apply my reasoning to that word. The word "racist" has a long history and is widely understood by everyone, except for those who want to misuse the word of course. "Implicit bias" as a phrase isn't even a hundred years old and didn't really have widespread usage prior to 10 years ago and is largely based on nothing at all.

It's a meaningless term because how do you prove or disprove implicit bias? You can't.

I can say you have an extreme implicit bias towards people holding a conservative viewpoint, how can you defend against it? Anything you try to say to rationalize why you don't have an implicit bias towards conservatives I can just say your bias is unconscious so you don't even realize you're doing it.


You claimed that the word "racist" has lost all meaning, which definitely seems like an opinion

It has lost all meaning, your implicit bias just won't allow you to realize this.

Let me put it this way; if the "okay hand symbol" is racist, voting for Trump is racist, buying Goya products is racist, and the Aryan Brotherhood are racist, then how can you honestly say the word "racist" has meaning anymore? How can you look at those 4 things and honestly say they all fall under the term "racist."

The word has been rendered meaningless. I'm not saying there are no legit racists out there, which seems to be what you think I'm saying, I'm just saying the left has abused the word so much that it's just a shell of its former meaning.

[Bhaalizmo]

Meanwhile, this is still the most Portland thing ever:

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/dbc4b59/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2272x1473+0+0/resize/840x545!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F66%2F4b%2Fdefd3f7c40 e6aec08ba728d3ddab%2F045-july-17-protest...jpg

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-07-19/portland-protest-naked-athena

Portland loves to get naked. It's kinda their thing. I'm just surprised it was only one person.

[FlayedAngel]

You're mocking me for "seeing Antifa everywhere". I see Antifa where they are. Buildings aren't burning themselves down.
No, I'm teasing you for your engagement in the term "Antifa" as a political boogeyman.



I knew you would latch onto that part which is why I edited my post to just say it was a weird analogy because it was.
That changes exactly none of the meaning of the analogy, so... how is it weird? I was referring to the underlying principle of refuting a word's weight in an attempt to downplay its applicability, not the meaning of the comparative word.



This is why it's a terrible analogy. You can't just choose a random word and apply my reasoning to that word. The word "racist" has a long history and is widely understood by everyone, except for those who want to misuse the word of course. "Implicit bias" as a phrase isn't even a hundred years old and didn't really have widespread usage prior to 10 years ago and is largely based on nothing at all.
Sorry you don't believe our understanding of social theory hasn't advanced in the last 100 (or even 20) years, but again: I was referring to the principle, not the word.



It's a meaningless term because how do you prove or disprove implicit bias? You can't.

I can say you have an extreme implicit bias towards people holding a conservative viewpoint, how can you defend against it? Anything you try to say to rationalize why you don't have an implicit bias towards conservatives I can just say your bias is unconscious so you don't even realize you're doing it.
That's because it's not empirical. In this context, it's not something you need to defend against -- it's an opinion formed by observation. I don't give a shit what anyone's implicit biases are, but we point them out to one another so that we have an opportunity to be more cognizant of them. If you feel that I'm biased against conservatives, that's something for me to be receptive to and examine critically, which I have done and will continue to do; it doesn't make you inherently right or wrong, and it doesn't mean that I have to change my mind based on your opinion... or vice versa.

This is exactly why echo chambers are bad, because they limit our exposure to conflicting viewpoints and increase our susceptibility to dogmatic indoctrination, and thus, make other viewpoints seem disproportionately alien and monstrous when we are exposed to them.



It has lost all meaning, your implicit bias just won't allow you to realize this.

Let me put it this way; if the "okay hand symbol" is racist, voting for Trump is racist, buying Goya products is racist, and the Aryan Brotherhood are racist, then how can you honestly say the word "racist" has meaning anymore? How can you look at those 4 things and honestly say they all fall under the term "racist."

The word has been rendered meaningless. I'm not saying there are no legit racists out there, which seems to be what you think I'm saying, I'm just saying the left has abused the word so much that it's just a shell of its former meaning.
That's a wild correlation, but sure. All you did was list four things, one of which is absolutely applicable... I would hardly call that grounds for rendering a word meaningless. Sure, the left's usage or over-usage of the word is debatable (and I would probably even agree with you, in some instances), but that doesn't render the word without inherent meaning.

Calling someone an ideologue doesn't make them a believer in that ideology, but doing or saying things strongly associated with that ideology does lend itself to causing others to create an association.

[FlayedAngel]

Portland loves to get naked. It's kinda their thing. I'm just surprised it was only one person.
You are absolutely correct and I'm sure we're just getting started... stay tuned, heh.

[Alashir]

Portland loves to get naked. It's kinda their thing. I'm just surprised it was only one person.

Lol you haven't lived until you've done the naked bike ride baby. It's hilarious because the police obv look the other way which...isn't exactly what's happening right now.

[Tgo01]

No, I'm teasing you for your engagement in the term "Antifa" as a political boogeyman.

Like I said I'm willing to hear your thoughts on who is setting fires and assaulting people and destroying property in Portland: ghosts, BLM, Antifa, or perhaps the feds are setting the fires themselves? Conspiracy theories abound! Or we can rely on good ol' Occam's razor and say it's Antifa.


That changes exactly none of the meaning of the analogy, so... how is it weird?

Because you're looking at this in a vacuum, like I just chose implicit bias at random. I explained why I felt this way, I'm not just saying words, hence the analogy to a random word like racism doesn't work.


Sorry you don't believe our understanding of social theory hasn't advanced in the last 100 (or even 20) years, but again: I was referring to the principle, not the word.

I am also referring to the principle. My problem isn't with the word "implicit" nor "bias" specifically.


In this context, it's not something you need to defend against

You don't think it's a pretty serious accusation to accuse someone of treating someone differently based on the color of their skin? I sure as hell think that's a very serious accusation and I want to see evidence to support said accusation. But that's the beauty of implicit bias isn't it? You don't need evidence, you just say it exists and tell everyone they are guilty of it.


it doesn't mean that I have to change my mind based on your opinion

There is nothing to change your mind about when it comes to implicit bias, remember it's something you do unconsciously.


This is exactly why echo chambers are bad, because they limit our exposure to conflicting viewpoints and increase our susceptibility to dogmatic indoctrination, and thus, make other viewpoints seem disproportionately alien and monstrous when we are exposed to them.

This is a fairly gross understanding of what I'm saying. I've read about implicit bias, I know what it's about, I know who pushes it, I happen to disagree with its premise. Me disagreeing with it doesn't mean I live in an echo chamber and limit my exposure to conflicting viewpoints.


one of which is absolutely applicable

Of course it is, that was my entire point. Everyone reading that list knows exactly which thing I listed you are referring to without you even having to say it, because that's a perfect example of what racism used to mean. But now there is a sizeable segment of the population (even right here on the forums) who would argue all 4 things I listed are examples of racism, and that's the problem.

When you say buying Goya products is comparable to Neo-Nazis then you have taken the bite out of the word "racism." Someone who gladly continues to buy Goya products isn't going to be swayed by accusations of racism anymore because they know they aren't comparable to Neo-Nazis yet they are being compared to one anyways.

[MokiePrime]

Lol you haven't lived until you've done the naked bike ride baby. It's hilarious because the police obv look the other way which...isn't exactly what's happening right now.

It's not even so much that they look the other way as it is that our state laws dictate that nudity is a valid form of artistic expression and political speech. It's also why exotic dancers here are permitted to get fully nude unlike many other places.

[Alashir]

It's not even so much that they look the other way as it is that our state laws dictate that nudity is a valid form of artistic expression and political speech. It's also why exotic dancers here are permitted to get fully nude unlike many other places.

Yea was reading that in a linked article. Makes me happy all the same.

[nocturnix]

It's sad that this is exactly why Democrats aren't protecting their citizens. This right here. They are waiting for shit to get serious, they are willing to look the other way as rioters burn down buildings, loot stores, and assault the police on a nightly basis, knowing full well their media lapdogs won't report on it.

Then when Trump finally says "Enough is enough!" and goes in to help they can downplay the riots as merely "protesters expressing their free speech" and portray Trump as some sort of tyrant for cracking down on violent crimes.

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with Democrats? Why do you keep electing these monsters into office? This shit is unfolding before our very eyes; people being beaten in the streets, entire city blocks being taken over, these rioters starting buildings on fire on a nightly basis, businesses being looted, people being murdered in zones that the local and state government allowed the rioters to occupy, and you're all fine Democrats continuing to allow this shit to happen because you think it will make Trump look bad when he cracks down on violent criminals.

The fuck is wrong with you to keep voting for this shit?

Its funny because if you find and replace democrats with republicans in your statement we are basically echoing the same frustrations.

I dont think our views are that vastly far off in the end, but we are polarized by the election and political system in America:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MykMQfmLIro

[Tgo01]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MykMQfmLIro

Eh, no system is perfect really.

At least we directly vote for our president, in some countries it's the leader of the party who has the most seats in congress, which just seems odd to me.

[Tgo01]

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1285486125792944128?s=20

Peaceful protesters in Portland push an officer to the ground who was trying to make an arrest so the Antifa goon could get away.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1285554323187879937?s=20

Largely peaceful protesters in Portland tear down a barrier protecting a federal courthouse.

[nocturnix]

Eh, no system is perfect really.

At least we directly vote for our president, in some countries it's the leader of the party who has the most seats in congress, which just seems odd to me.

Perfect? You think 2 parties is an effective and democratic way to govern a country of 300+ million people? If it were perfect then why are buildings burning, why are you so pissed off at democrats, why is the US leading the pack GLOBALLY of corona fuck-ups, why do we have the worst education, literacy and highest amount of citizens in prison in the world? I think we can both agree our country is not perfect right now. And the election system we have is not helping that, it is in fact dividing americans so those in power (on BOTH sides) can fuck us normal people over. You think its only democrats who could ever do wrong i suppose, but its happening on both sides. I identify as a liberal, but I am not behind my party on MANY issues. I try to see conservative side too and do appreciate some things, but the two parties we have now are far from fitting my political views.

[Bhaalizmo]

Perfect? You think 2 parties is an effective and democratic way to govern a country of 300+ million people? If it were perfect then why are buildings burning, why are you so pissed off at democrats, why is the US leading the pack GLOBALLY of corona fuck-ups, why do we have the worst education, literacy and highest amount of citizens in prison in the world? I think we can both agree our country is not perfect right now. And the election system we have is not helping that, it is in fact dividing americans so those in power (on BOTH sides) can fuck us normal people over. You think its only democrats who could ever do wrong i suppose, but its happening on both sides. I identify as a liberal, but I am not behind my party on MANY issues. I try to see conservative side too and do appreciate some things, but the two parties we have now are far from fitting my political views.

I think you may have interpreted "No system is perfect" as "No. System is perfect"

[Bhaalizmo]

You are absolutely correct and I'm sure we're just getting started... stay tuned, heh.

Looking forward to it

[drauz]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-napolitano-federal-agents-portland-constitution


“The federal government can use federal assets to protect federal property,” Napolitano said.

“Stated differently, the Department of Homeland Security can send police into Oregon to protect a federal courthouse in Oregon, use that as an example.”

He went on to say that the federal government cannot, however, enforce the general criminal law.

“They can't supplement or replace the police,” Napolitano explained. “They can't go throughout the streets and say, ‘Hey, you’re committing a crime. We’re going to arrest you.’”

“They certainly can't do what they have been doing in Oregon, which is arresting people without a warrant and without probable cause, holding them for a few hours and then letting them go,” he went on to explain. “So they have to be restrained and they have to confine their activity to the federal property.”


“Their law enforcement duties must absolutely be confined to the protection of federal assets, so says the Constitution, which leaves the general police power in the hands of the cities and states and not the federal government,” Napolitano said on Tuesday.

He also noted that federal agents “have to wear uniforms that identify them.”

“They can't wear fatigues with a piece of tape that says ‘police.’ Why not? Because if you have an encounter with one of them, you are entitled to know the name of the human being with whom you are having an encounter,” Napolitano explained.

[ClydeR]

If Trump was not behind in the polls, would these troops still be in Portland? I don't think so. Sending the troops to Portland is politically risky. A candidate who is ahead in the polls does not take risks. A candidate who is behind must take risks.

[Tgo01]

Perfect? You think 2 parties is an effective and democratic way to govern a country of 300+ million people? If it were perfect then why are buildings burning, why are you so pissed off at democrats, why is the US leading the pack GLOBALLY of corona fuck-ups, why do we have the worst education, literacy and highest amount of citizens in prison in the world? I think we can both agree our country is not perfect right now. And the election system we have is not helping that, it is in fact dividing americans so those in power (on BOTH sides) can fuck us normal people over. You think its only democrats who could ever do wrong i suppose, but its happening on both sides. I identify as a liberal, but I am not behind my party on MANY issues. I try to see conservative side too and do appreciate some things, but the two parties we have now are far from fitting my political views.

Err...I said NO system is perfect, I didn't say our system was perfect.

Our system doesn't really cater to a two party system, it's just that the two parties have been working together for over a hundred years now to make impossible for a third party to have any chance of winning an election. The problem isn't our system of electing politicians, it's the fact that the two parties have basically created a duopoly so they only ever really have to compete against one other party.

Bernie Sanders had TWO opportunities to run as a viable third party candidate. Would he have succeeded? Probably not. Would both runs pretty much ensure a Trump win? Probably yes. Would he have won some states and showed that third parties can make it in US politics if they stop being so afraid of "But if I run then the other person will win!" Again probably yes. But both times he chose to back down to maintain the status quo of Republicans and Democrats dominating our elections.

Blame weak people like Sanders for being weak, don't blame the system that in no way prevents a third party candidate from running or winning.

[Tgo01]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-napolitano-federal-agents-portland-constitution

Doesn't this guy have like a 90% track record of being wrong in his anti-Trump screeds?

[Bhaalizmo]

It's not even so much that they look the other way as it is that our state laws dictate that nudity is a valid form of artistic expression and political speech. It's also why exotic dancers here are permitted to get fully nude unlike many other places.

And that is one of the many things I love about Oregon.

[FlayedAngel]

And that is one of the many things I love about Oregon.
Portland rules, in a lot of ways.

[FlayedAngel]

Like I said I'm willing to hear your thoughts on who is setting fires and assaulting people and destroying property in Portland: ghosts, BLM, Antifa, or perhaps the feds are setting the fires themselves? Conspiracy theories abound! Or we can rely on good ol' Occam's razor and say it's Antifa.
I did state that most of the violence is due to antagonization. Collateral damage sometimes happens, beyond that I'm not really in a hurry to attribute it to any particular group... except for maybe ghost cowboys.



Because you're looking at this in a vacuum, like I just chose implicit bias at random. I explained why I felt this way, I'm not just saying words, hence the analogy to a random word like racism doesn't work.

I am also referring to the principle. My problem isn't with the word "implicit" nor "bias" specifically.
In what way am I looking at this in a vacuum? I get that it's difficult to prove or disprove a bias, that doesn't mean they don't exist -- that's why I elaborated to limit to self-examination as a criteria, in fairness.



You don't think it's a pretty serious accusation to accuse someone of treating someone differently based on the color of their skin? I sure as hell think that's a very serious accusation and I want to see evidence to support said accusation. But that's the beauty of implicit bias isn't it? You don't need evidence, you just say it exists and tell everyone they are guilty of it.
So does the word "racist" bear weight, or not? I need a verdict here.



There is nothing to change your mind about when it comes to implicit bias, remember it's something you do unconsciously.
Becoming aware of implicit biases allows you to change your thinking or behavior in a way that's less harmful, both individually and (ultimately) systemically.



This is a fairly gross understanding of what I'm saying. I've read about implicit bias, I know what it's about, I know who pushes it, I happen to disagree with its premise. Me disagreeing with it doesn't mean I live in an echo chamber and limit my exposure to conflicting viewpoints.
I was extemporizing on how implicit biases are formed. I neither made that correlation, nor accused you of limiting your exposure to conflicting viewpoints.



Of course it is, that was my entire point. Everyone reading that list knows exactly which thing I listed you are referring to without you even having to say it, because that's a perfect example of what racism used to mean. But now there is a sizeable segment of the population (even right here on the forums) who would argue all 4 things I listed are examples of racism, and that's the problem.

When you say buying Goya products is comparable to Neo-Nazis then you have taken the bite out of the word "racism." Someone who gladly continues to buy Goya products isn't going to be swayed by accusations of racism anymore because they know they aren't comparable to Neo-Nazis yet they are being compared to one anyways.
Except that your argument there completely disregards any scope or context, which is important, and downplays the complexity of the social issue as a whole; your alleged "fatigue" of the word is only one element, which is its use (or its debatable overuse) as a pejorative. The problem is that if someone observes casual racism in someone else -- even if that someone is devoid of any malicious intent -- such is often treated by both parties (the accused and the accuser) as having the same connotations as the full-blown KKK-imbrued usage of the word. There aren't different words for different "degrees" of racist, which is unfortunate... that's why context matters.

[FlayedAngel]

Well, this is just rude:

https://katu.com/news/local/video-shows-portland-protester-beaten-pepper-sprayed

[Tgo01]

So does the word "racist" bear weight, or not? I need a verdict here.

That's the thing; the same group that has watered down the word to mean nothing are also the ones who think every accusation of racism should not only be believed at face value (as long as it comes from this same group) but they also want the consequences to remain the same. I wouldn't care about these accusations if they didn't have a real world impact.

Look at that one NBA announcer who lost his job after like 20 years because he said "All lives matter" because that term is also somehow racist. It's nuts.


Becoming aware of implicit biases allows you to change your thinking or behavior in a way that's less harmful, both individually and (ultimately) systemically.

If you're aware you're doing it then isn't that an explicit bias?


There aren't different words for different "degrees" of racist, which is unfortunate... that's why context matters.

Exactly, because you're either racist or you're not racist. You either treat people differently based on race/think one race is superior than others, or you don't. You're not "sort of" racist, you either are or aren't.

It all good though, because some dictionaries have promised to "redefine" racism to better encompass modern day usage of it so I can't wait to see what definitions they come up with.

[Tgo01]

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1285830145622765568?s=20

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1285837828820099075?s=20

Mostly peaceful protests. What a joke.

[FlayedAngel]

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1285830145622765568?s=20

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1285837828820099075?s=20

Mostly peaceful protests. What a joke.
Yeah, that poor wall.

[Tgo01]

Yeah, that poor wall.

Ah ha, so you don't consider property damage to be violent.

Also that poor photographer.

[Bobmuhthol]

Ah ha, so you don't consider property damage to be violent.And neither does the government.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/crimes/violent-crime

[FlayedAngel]

That's the thing; the same group that has watered down the word to mean nothing are also the ones who think every accusation of racism should not only be believed at face value (as long as it comes from this same group) but they also want the consequences to remain the same. I wouldn't care about these accusations if they didn't have a real world impact.

Look at that one NBA announcer who lost his job after like 20 years because he said "All lives matter" because that term is also somehow racist. It's nuts.
The same "group" meaning what? You constantly complain about stereotyping while gleefully engaging in it.



If you're aware you're doing it then isn't that an explicit bias?
Yes, that transference is what I just explained.



Exactly, because you're either racist or you're not racist. You either treat people differently based on race/think one race is superior than others, or you don't. You're not "sort of" racist, you either are or aren't.

It all good though, because some dictionaries have promised to "redefine" racism to better encompass modern day usage of it so I can't wait to see what definitions they come up with.
Except that position is flagrantly reductive, as I just illustrated; doubling-down doesn't somehow magically make it correct. That's a weak and evasive defense.

[FlayedAngel]

Ah ha, so you don't consider property damage to be violent.

Also that poor photographer.
That's not an "ah ha", you do know what antagonize means... yes?

Ah ha, so you think all photographers are natural victims.

[Tgo01]

And neither does the government.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/crimes/violent-crime

Weird, I don't remember qualifying that statement as "violent CRIME."

From OED:

violence: The exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on, or cause damage to, persons or property; action or conduct characterized by this; treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom.

[Tgo01]

The same "group" meaning what? You constantly complain about stereotyping while gleefully engaging in it.

I didn't even mention a group so how am I stereotyping anyone?


Yes, that transference is what I just explained.

But the idea of implicit bias is you're not aware you're doing it.

So you know you don't have any racist tendencies, but someone else is going to come along and say you do have racist tendencies you just don't know you're doing it, this person is then going to point out all of your racist tendencies, and by pointing them out you are now aware of your previously unknown racist tendencies and now you can fix these racist tendencies? Or perhaps it's all just bullshit. I'm going with the latter.


Except that position is flagrantly reductive, as I just illustrated; doubling-down doesn't somehow magically make it correct. That's a weak and evasive defense.

It's not reductive, that is literally the definition of the word.

Racist is a binary thing, just like the state of being pregnant.

Explain to me how someone is just "a little bit" racist compared to someone who is "a lot" racist. I of course mean the traditional use of the word racist, not the modern usage of the word where saying "All Lives Matter" or being against illegal immigration are examples of "racist" behavior.

[Tgo01]

That's not an "ah ha", you do know what antagonize means... yes?

Ah ha, so you think all photographers are natural victims.

Wait, are you suggesting the courthouse or the photographer was antagonizing those peaceful protesters? Or both?

[Bobmuhthol]

Weird, I don't remember qualifying that statement as "violent CRIME."

From OED:

violence: The exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on, or cause damage to, persons or property; action or conduct characterized by this; treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom.Nothing supports a dumbass claim quite like a pedantic and questionable interpretation of a subset of the definition of a term cited from a dictionary. Damaging property is a crime, but it isn't a violent crime, and yet you want the world to believe that graffiti is violence.

Somehow, someway, if you were standing trial for graffiti, I suspect you would not characterize the act you're being charged with as a violent act. But when it's the left doing the same thing, shit, that's as violent as it comes.

[Tgo01]

Nothing supports a dumbass claim quite like a pedantic and questionable interpretation of a subset of the definition of a term cited from a dictionary. Damaging property is a crime, but it isn't a violent crime, and yet you want the world to believe that graffiti is violence.

I didn't even mention crime. This is what I said in the other thread about deflection, you want to drag me down into this rabbit hole with you but it's not going to work.

Bob, it's okay, you were wrong. It happens.

But I am curious how you think I misinterpreted the definition of "violence." That one should be a doozy to read.

[Bobmuhthol]

I didn't even mention crime.

...

But I am curious how you think I misinterpreted the definition of "violence." That one should be a doozy to read.Oh, I see. You didn't use the word crime, but your claim is that the protests are not peaceful and should be stopped by law enforcement. Well, if there's no crime being committed here, then the law enforcement activity to stop it is itself unlawful... but you don't believe that.

And to the same extent that you didn't "mention crime" even though you really did without having to use the word, I didn't mention "misinterpreting" anything. I called your interpretation pedantic and questionable. This isn't a deflection issue. It's a critical thinking issue. And you, having yet to provide any evidence of your intelligence being high or my intelligence being low, still haven't shown us that you have critical thinking skills.

[Tgo01]

Somehow, someway, if you were standing trial for graffiti, I suspect you would not characterize the act you're being charged with as a violent act. But when it's the left doing the same thing, shit, that's as violent as it comes.

A) If my choices were between "peaceful" (which is what many Democrats have described these protests as) and "violent" then yes, I would characterize graffiti as violence.
B) We aren't talking about graffiti, we are talking about a bunch of hooligans tearing down a protective barrier so they can further damage the courthouse said barriers are protecting.

Would it make you feel better if I said "non-peaceful" instead of "violent" from now on? You know two words that mean the same thing?

[Bobmuhthol]

A) If my choices were between "peaceful" (which is what many Democrats have described these protests as) and "violent" then yes, I would characterize graffiti as violence.
You're making my point for me. You simultaneously want it to be true that graffiti is both violent and a crime, but not a violent crime. Well, if it's a nonviolent crime, then it isn't violent to a reasonable person.

[Tgo01]

Oh, I see. You didn't use the word crime, but your claim is that the protests are not peaceful and should be stopped by law enforcement. Well, if there's no crime being committed here, then the law enforcement activity to stop it is itself unlawful... but you don't believe that.

Plenty of crime going on, you can clearly see that just from the two videos I linked to. I merely asked FlayedAngel if he considered property damage to be violent because he has said repeatedly that the protesters are largely peaceful and I am curious as to what he considers "peaceful."


I didn't mention "misinterpreting" anything. I called your interpretation pedantic and questionable.

Speaking of being pedantic. You didn't say I was "misinterpreting" anything, you just called my interpretation "questionable."

I'm going to need to take some Dramamine if we're going to continue backtracking at this rate.

[Tgo01]

You're making my point for me. You simultaneously want it to be true that graffiti is both violent and a crime, but not a violent crime. Well, if it's a nonviolent crime, then it isn't violent to a reasonable person.

Again I never said anything wasn't a crime, you brought up both crime AND graffiti, I merely asked FlayedAngel if he considered property damage to be violence since he has often referred to the protests as "largely peaceful."

Again would "non-peaceful" work better for your sensibilities?

[Bobmuhthol]

Speaking of being pedantic. You didn't say I was "misinterpreting" anything, you just called my interpretation "questionable."

I'm going to need to take some Dramamine if we're going to continue backtracking at this rate.You remember when I mentioned earlier how you haven't demonstrated critical thinking skills? This is an example of it. Do you honestly believe that I, independently of your post that I responded to establishing a ridiculous pattern ("I didn't say X! I just said something that's equivalent!"), think that what you quoted stands valid out of context? You don't see that I'm using your poor logical reasoning against you?

[Bobmuhthol]

Again I never said anything wasn't a crime, you brought up both crime AND graffiti, I merely asked FlayedAngel if he considered property damage to be violence since he has often referred to the protests as "largely peaceful."

Again would "non-peaceful" work better for your sensibilities?So, to be clear, you believe that we should categorize acts which are by law nonviolent crimes as violent acts, and this sounds reasonable?

[Tgo01]

You remember when I mentioned earlier how you haven't demonstrated critical thinking skills? This is an example of it. Do you honestly believe that I, independently of your post that I responded to establishing a ridiculous pattern ("I didn't say X! I just said something that's equivalent!"), think that what you quoted stands valid out of context? You don't see that I'm using your poor logical reasoning against you?

You really need me to apologize for calling you unintelligent and for me to recognize your vast education don't you? I honestly had no idea it was so easy to get under your skin.

I'm not going to apologize but I do feel slightly bad. This is kind of sad. You don't even know me, why do you care so much that I said you were unintelligent?

[Tgo01]

So, to be clear, you believe that we should categorize acts which are by law nonviolent crimes as violent acts, and this sounds reasonable?

Would non-peaceful make you feel better? Or do you consider destroying property to be "peaceful"?

[Bhaalizmo]

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007247168/video-shows-police-beating-portland-protester.html

[Alfster]

So you're cool with people being kidnapped to proactively stop a crime before one is committed? Because that's exactly what they're doing and they aren't hiding it. It's massive overreach

[Bobmuhthol]

You really need me to apologize for calling you unintelligent and for me to recognize your vast education don't you? I honestly had no idea it was so easy to get under your skin.

I'm not going to apologize but I do feel slightly bad. This is kind of sad. You don't even know me, why do you care so much that I said you were unintelligent?I need you to stop ignoring reality in all contexts. My intelligence is easily verifiable. I don't care what you think of me. I do care that you lie.

[Tgo01]

So you're cool with people being kidnapped to proactively stop a crime before one is committed? Because that's exactly what they're doing and they aren't hiding it. It's massive overreach

This is what I meant the other day when I said I haven't seen you express a single conservative view that I can recall since Trump became president.

It's like your thoughts are formed via MSNBC directly inserting them into your brain.

"Kidnapping", "no crimes being committed." You got all of the buzz words in there except "Orange man bad."


I need you to stop ignoring reality in all contexts. My intelligence is easily verifiable.

I promise you it's going to be okay that I said you weren't intelligent.

[Bobmuhthol]

I promise you it's going to be okay that I said you weren't intelligent.Typical response from someone who can't back up bullshit claims.

[leifastagsweed]

Typical response from someone who can't back up bullshit claims.

Speaking of....

Methais and PB aren't here in full force spreading their bullshit? Oh that's right, they were just attracted to the CHAZ thread because *I* needed attention. Plus, they prefer to bully women.

Flayed, you have the patience of a saint. Respect.

[Bhaalizmo]

Speaking of....

Methais and PB aren't here in full force spreading their bullshit? Oh that's right, they were just attracted to the CHAZ thread because *I* needed attention. Plus, they prefer to bully women.

Flayed, you have the patience of a saint. Respect.

Agreed, Flayed has been rather restrained. Going high versus going low. Admirable.

Latrin too for that matter, has the patience of a saint with these guys. Remarkable.

I on the other hand do not have that kind of patience, nor do I care to spend that kind of time on their ilk. I don't care to engage them in lengthy debate or calm discussion, because all TGo, PB, & the crew here seem to want to do is deny or ignore the facts while putting forth propaganda from the right, from Fox, and from their Russian electoral influence groups on FB (that they think are like-minded racist American "patriots"). Expect more disrespect for the Politics sub-forum crew from me. I haven't got the time to attempt to engage them in healthy discussion of any kind, it's just going to be antagonistic. I'll find it more enjoyable to read later than I did their chump loving monopoly of this sub-forum in years past.

[Tgo01]

Methais and PB aren't here in full force spreading their bullshit? Oh that's right, they were just attracted to the CHAZ thread because *I* needed attention. Plus, they prefer to bully women.

You poor victim.


Agreed, Flayed has been rather restrained. Going high versus going low. Admirable.

I don't know about all that. He's been somewhat cordial.

Might want to take those blinders off a bit.

[Bhaalizmo]

So you're cool with people being kidnapped to proactively stop a crime before one is committed? Because that's exactly what they're doing and they aren't hiding it. It's massive overreach

Not cool with it at all. It's Tyrranical and not a bad argument for a full on armed revolution.

[Parkbandit]

Speaking of....

Methais and PB aren't here in full force spreading their bullshit? Oh that's right, they were just attracted to the CHAZ thread because *I* needed attention. Plus, they prefer to bully women.

Flayed, you have the patience of a saint. Respect.

You posted there because *YOU* wanted attention because you are an attention whore.

Also, I don't bully women.. I bully really stupid people. You being a "woman" is irrelevant since I wouldn't know.

You're just really, really stupid.

[Tgo01]

Not cool with it at all. It's Tyrranical and not a bad argument for a full on armed revolution.

It's pretty amazing how I have shown video after video after video of rioters in Portland breaking all sorts of laws and you still have dipshits like Bhaalizmo and Alfter insist no laws are being broken and Trump sending officers to restore law and order is "tyrannical."

You guys then have the audacity to claim you care about facts.

Why can't you guys be honest? You don't care how many people die, you don't care how many people get hurt, you don't care how much property is destroyed, just as long as it makes Trump look bad. Just say it. Be honest. You can do it. I believe in you.

[Tgo01]

15 people were shot at a funeral home in Chicago. Is it okay for Trump to send the feds in there to restore law and order? Or were those peaceful guns the criminals were firing?

[Gelston]

15 people were shot at a funeral home in Chicago. Is it okay for Trump to send the feds in there to restore law and order? Or were those peaceful guns the criminals were firing?

If it was a Federal crime, sure. If it wasn't, unless they are requesting it, no.

[Tgo01]

If it was a Federal crime, sure. If it wasn't, unless they are requesting it, no.

Feds don't need permission to be there to restore order. I think a 40% rise in murders and other violent crime along with the mayor's unwillingness to do anything about it gives Trump all the reason he needs to send in the feds.

Personally I don't think he should, the best way to show Democrats that their shitty policies don't work is to let them play out fully and fail. But Trump seems to want to do what is right even if it hurts him in the polls, something I can't say for past presidents during my adult life.

[Neveragain]

Not cool with it at all. It's Tyrranical and not a bad argument for a full on armed revolution.

Settle down there, Buffalo Bill.

You city girls are easily outgunned 5 to 1 not counting the military.

[Bhaalizmo]

15 people were shot at a funeral home in Chicago. Is it okay for Trump to send the feds in there to restore law and order? Or were those peaceful guns the criminals were firing?

Not even close to enough info for me to make a decision, but I'll bet you don't have that problem do you?

[Bhaalizmo]

Settle down there, Buffalo Bill.

You city girls are easily outgunned 5 to 1 not counting the military.

Those sound alot like Custer's last words. Good luck with that fiction, I hope it keeps you cozy.

[leifastagsweed]

You posted there because *YOU* wanted attention because you are an attention whore.

Also, I don't bully women.. I bully really stupid people. You being a "woman" is irrelevant since I wouldn't know.

You're just really, really stupid.

Look at you triggered as hell that I invaded your Politics folder safe space.

I posted because the discussion is relevant to me as an actual resident of said area. I actually live here and have some idea of what it is transpiring day-to-day versus what we're all being fed on television. I would assume you might have greater knowledge of your own city. REASONABLE, no? Despite your incessant intrusions with absolutely no valid points, nothing of value to add but insults, others continue to discuss the issues at hand. I believe there are folks here who are interested in discourse and information, even if we disagree or don't have all the information to make an informed opinion. You just want to hurl ugly words and intimidate and yes, particularly target women or anyone you perceive as a threat.

Take a look at how many posts I've made on this site versus you and methlab. There's a very large number off to the right of your name if you aren't sure where to find it. Do the math on who is truly seeking attention around these parts. In fact, STILL you two campaign a hate smear negrepathon like it's your full time job.

PB, you're just really, really horrible.

<3 PDX!

[Tgo01]

Not even close to enough info for me to make a decision

What more info do you need? If the victims were black or white? They were all black by the way, I guess that's why you don't care.

[leifastagsweed]

Feds don't need permission to be there to restore order. I think a 40% rise in murders and other violent crime along with the mayor's unwillingness to do anything about it gives Trump all the reason he needs to send in the feds.

Personally I don't think he should, the best way to show Democrats that their shitty policies don't work is to let them play out fully and fail. But Trump seems to want to do what is right even if it hurts him in the polls, something I can't say for past presidents during my adult life.

You and I both know that Trump hates Oregon and Washington because we resist his policies and our AGs have filed multiple lawsuits. It's not about doing "what is right". Jesus, he wouldn't know right from wrong if it bit him in the ass. It's about revenge.

[Bhaalizmo]

What more info do you need? If the victims were black or white? They were all black by the way, I guess that's why you don't care.

Keep guessing, you're doing so horribly so far, why not just keep fuckin winging it?

Try the one again where you project your faults on me, I like that one.

[Tgo01]

You and I both know that Trump hates Oregon and Washington because we resist his policies

Right. He's sending in feds to arrest violent protesters because he hates you guys.

Christ on a cracker. I haven't seen this much delusion since I told a kindergarten class that Santa isn't real.

[Tgo01]

Keep guessing, you're doing so horribly so far, why not just keep fuckin winging it?

Try the one again where you project your faults on me, I like that one.

Ouch, looks like I hit a bit close to the truth there huh. I bet if we had pictures of pretty white women with blonde hair that were shot at the funeral home you would be all for sending in the feds to ensure that never happens again huh. Don't you have a white hood that needs washing?

[Bhaalizmo]

I posted because the discussion is relevant to me as an actual resident of said area. I actually live here and have some idea of what it is transpiring day-to-day versus what we're all being fed on television.

So, as a resident of Oregon, if not Portland. I have some questions.

We all saw the naked protest that was popular in the news this week due to the potential hotness of said nude protestor.
Do you know, are there more naked protests planned, and do you plan to take part?
Is asphalt as unfriendly to vaginas as sand?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Disclaimer, these are jokes and I love Oregon and Portland. But also, we need answers.

On a more serious note, have you heard any indication of where the abducted folks from Portland are being taken? Have any been released?

[Bhaalizmo]

Ouch, looks like I hit a bit close to the truth there huh. I bet if we had pictures of pretty white women with blonde hair that were shot at the funeral home you would be all for sending in the feds to ensure that never happens again huh. Don't you have a white hood that needs washing?

Still cold with your in the box guesses, wrap yourself in the rebel flag and keep trying cretin.

[leifastagsweed]

Right. He's sending in feds to arrest violent protesters because he hates you guys.

Christ on a cracker. I haven't seen this much delusion since I told a kindergarten class that Santa isn't real.

Well, to be precise, he feels threatened by our leadership that tells him No. He doesn't like to lose. He's a bad loser. Didn't you hear him tell Chris Wallace on Fox News? Or could you not hear it over the flop sweat?

[Tgo01]

Still cold with your in the box guesses, wrap yourself in the rebel flag and keep trying cretin.

That's weird. I see 15 black people shot while attending a funeral and I say "Enough is enough! Do something about black people being gunned down!"

You look at that and say "I need more information, I'm still leaning towards Trump being an authoritarian asshole."

And somehow you're making the argument that I'm the racist? No, no, no. Once again you prove you don't care about facts. You don't care about black lives. Your entire life, your entire reason for existing, is to hate Trump and everything he does.

Sad, pathetic little man.

[Solkern]

Ouch, looks like I hit a bit close to the truth there huh. I bet if we had pictures of pretty white women with blonde hair that were shot at the funeral home you would be all for sending in the feds to ensure that never happens again huh. Don't you have a white hood that needs washing?

This is how you know Tg01 is going off the rails, he doesn’t know what to say, or how to say it, Starts throwing around massive whataboutisms, comes up with insane, stupid shit that has no relevance to the topic at hand, just needs to keep fighting and fighting, he believes he wins when people just stop responding to his dumb antics. Instead of understanding reality.

[drauz]

Feds don't need permission to be there to restore order. I think a 40% rise in murders and other violent crime along with the mayor's unwillingness to do anything about it gives Trump all the reason he needs to send in the feds.

Personally I don't think he should, the best way to show Democrats that their shitty policies don't work is to let them play out fully and fail. But Trump seems to want to do what is right even if it hurts him in the polls, something I can't say for past presidents during my adult life.

Feds can only arrest for federal crimes, if there aren't federal crimes then they can't.

How can you be so comfortable with damn near Martial Law?

[Tgo01]

This is how you know Tg01 is going off the rails, he doesn’t know what to say, or how to say it, Starts throwing around massive whataboutisms, comes up with insane, stupid shit that has no relevance to the topic at hand, just needs to keep fighting and fighting, he believes he wins when people just stop responding to his dumb antics. Instead of understanding reality.

Here comes Solkern, tarding up everything again.

So quiet when all of the Democrats are implying or flat out calling me a racist. I give his new best friend a taste of his own medicine (except there is more weight in my accusations) and suddenly Tgo has gone too far! That's too mean!

You're so phony, Solkern. If you're trying to take over for Seran in his absence recently then I say BRAVO! Great job. You do morons the world over proud.

[Bhaalizmo]

That's weird. I see 15 black people shot while attending a funeral and I say "Enough is enough! Do something about black people being gunned down!"

You look at that and say "I need more information"

Um, yeah. Lots of questions.

Is there an investigation with local law enforcement? For starters.
How's that going?
SBI?
Plenty of steps between this shit going down and, cinnamon hitler sending in his nameless goons to fuck shit up and trample jurisdictions and rights alike. It's not the only option, as you appear to think.

[Neveragain]

Those sound alot like Custer's last words. Good luck with that fiction, I hope it keeps you cozy.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

GL, Custer.

[drauz]

That's weird. I see 15 black people shot while attending a funeral and I say "Enough is enough! Do something about black people being gunned down!"

You look at that and say "I need more information, I'm still leaning towards Trump being an authoritarian asshole."

And somehow you're making the argument that I'm the racist? No, no, no. Once again you prove you don't care about facts. You don't care about black lives. Your entire life, your entire reason for existing, is to hate Trump and everything he does.

Sad, pathetic little man.

I don't think you actually care for those 15 families. I think you see a democratic city with some deaths and you got your democrat citys are falling narrative. Which allows you to justify Trump trying to sent in the Feds.

[Tgo01]

Feds can only arrest for federal crimes, if there aren't federal crimes then they can't.

How can you be so comfortable with damn near Martial Law?

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that no federal crimes are being committed. The feds haven't even arrested anyone in Chicago yet and you're already saying the can only arrest for federal crimes.

Let's see what they start charging people with before we jump the gun here.

[leifastagsweed]

I think you see a democratic city with some deaths and you got your democrat citys are falling narrative. Which allows you to justify Trump.

Yes.

[Bhaalizmo]

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

GL, Custer.

https://i.imgur.com/s7xcR9h.jpg

[Tgo01]

I don't think you actually care for those 15 families. I think you see a democratic city with some deaths and you got your democrat citys are falling narrative. Which allows you to justify Trump trying to sent in the Feds.

I think they deserve a mayor and governor who gives a shit about them. Everyone does.

[leifastagsweed]

Let's see what they start charging people with before we jump the gun here.

I am legitimately interested in how you feel about Martial Law. Are you wiling to share?

[Tgo01]

I am legitimately interested in how you feel about Martial Law. Are you wiling to share?

Like in general or for this particular instance in Chicago?

[Gelston]

Feds don't need permission to be there to restore order. I think a 40% rise in murders and other violent crime along with the mayor's unwillingness to do anything about it gives Trump all the reason he needs to send in the feds.

Personally I don't think he should, the best way to show Democrats that their shitty policies don't work is to let them play out fully and fail. But Trump seems to want to do what is right even if it hurts him in the polls, something I can't say for past presidents during my adult life.

If you want shit thrown out in courts, sure.

[leifastagsweed]

Like in general or for this particular instance in Chicago?

I am personally curious about your general attitude towards Martial Law, since one would presume that to hold less bias against/for current affairs.

[Tgo01]

I am personally curious about your general attitude towards Martial Law, since one would presume that to hold less bias against/for current affairs.

In general I can see how martial law might be needed sometimes, of course it should require some very serious circumstances.

And no, what Trump is doing is nothing even remotely close to martial law if that is what you are getting at.

[Solkern]

Here comes Solkern, tarding up everything again.

So quiet when all of the Democrats are implying or flat out calling me a racist. I give his new best friend a taste of his own medicine (except there is more weight in my accusations) and suddenly Tgo has gone too far! That's too mean!

You're so phony, Solkern. If you're trying to take over for Seran in his absence recently then I say BRAVO! Great job. You do morons the world over proud.

Now here comes the attacks on me.
1. What people call you, is none of my concern, now is it? Why should I be concerned what they call you? Am I your daddy? Do you need me to give you support while the other kids make fun of you? You want special treatment? You call people shit all the time, yet, you cry when it gets done to you. That’s funny.
2. My new best friend? I have no friends here, I don’t know anyone here.
3. Deflect more Tg01. It’s what you're best at.
4. I don’t read every post, if I see anything that remotely looks like flaming or insults, I usually just skip over it and not waste my time.

[Neveragain]

https://i.imgur.com/s7xcR9h.jpg

https://media.tenor.com/images/c748bdce45aa15254d2e42e3a3561d2d/tenor.gif

[Solkern]

https://i.imgur.com/s7xcR9h.jpg



FYI, Putin and Trump aren’t working together, and never have. That narrative is horse shit.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't think you actually care for those 15 families. I think you see a democratic city with some deaths and you got your democrat citys are falling narrative.

Do you have stats saying democratic cities aren't failing, because you should publish them if you do.

[Parkbandit]

Look at you triggered as hell that I invaded your Politics folder safe space.

I posted because the discussion is relevant to me as an actual resident of said area. I actually live here and have some idea of what it is transpiring day-to-day versus what we're all being fed on television. I would assume you might have greater knowledge of your own city. REASONABLE, no? Despite your incessant intrusions with absolutely no valid points, nothing of value to add but insults, others continue to discuss the issues at hand. I believe there are folks here who are interested in discourse and information, even if we disagree or don't have all the information to make an informed opinion. You just want to hurl ugly words and intimidate and yes, particularly target women or anyone you perceive as a threat.

Take a look at how many posts I've made on this site versus you and methlab. There's a very large number off to the right of your name if you aren't sure where to find it. Do the math on who is truly seeking attention around these parts. In fact, STILL you two campaign a hate smear negrepathon like it's your full time job.

PB, you're just really, really horrible.

<3 PDX!

You posted because "OMG I R THE EXPERT BECAUSE I LIVE IN PORTLAND!" and thought you could bring something intelligent to the conversation.

That's never been your forte. Ever.

leifastagsweed, you're just really, really stupid.

[Parkbandit]

Well, to be precise, he feels threatened by our leadership that tells him No. He doesn't like to lose. He's a bad loser. Didn't you hear him tell Chris Matthews on Fox News? Or could you not hear it over the flop sweat?

Chris Matthews is a Democrat. He was on MSNBC until he was forced to resign over being a scumbag.

Did you mean Chris Wallace?

Like I said.. you are just really, really stupid.

[leifastagsweed]

random hodgepodge of garbledy gook and other remarks your grampa might splutter drunkenly at the Christmas table

https://media1.tenor.com/images/9077452116963bcc093e6c6fc1be5e74/tenor.gif?itemid=12024917

You should totally show proof of your intellectual acuity by attempting to master this test (https://www.parkinsons.va.gov/resources/MOCA-Test-English.pdf), stable genius.

[Alfster]

And no, what Trump is doing is nothing even remotely close to martial law if that is what you are getting at.

1) Trump's not doing it
2) DHS officials are admitting they're arresting people before a crime is committed, which is against the constitution.

If you don't see the problem with this approach, then you're not as conservative as you claim.

[drauz]

Do you have stats saying democratic cities aren't failing, because you should publish them if you do.

What metric should we judge them by, murders per capita?

[Parkbandit]

Derp, derp, yellow three.

leifastagsweed trying to count to 10.

Also, this is a real life clip of why she's not allowed to use crayons (because they are too advanced):

https://media2.giphy.com/media/ZFHMZGdTVMhq0/giphy.gif

[~Rocktar~]

1) Trump's not doing it
2) DHS officials are admitting they're arresting people before a crime is committed, which is against the constitution.

If you don't see the problem with this approach, then you're not as conservative as you claim.

First, your understanding of being detained and so on is deeply flawed. Second, prove it.

[leifastagsweed]

In general I can see how martial law might be needed sometimes, of course it should require some very serious circumstances.

And no, what Trump is doing is nothing even remotely close to martial law if that is what you are getting at.

I wasn't getting at, but you went there. Okay....

What circumstances, *hypothetically*, would be serious enough for you to be taken off the street in an unmarked car by men in black?

[Tgo01]

1)2) DHS officials are admitting they're arresting people before a crime is committed, which is against the constitution.

Link?

[Tgo01]

I wasn't getting at

Sure you weren’t.


What circumstances, *hypothetically*, would be serious enough for you to be taken off the street in an unmarked car by men in black?

What’s happening in Portland is just normal arrests. The fact that they are in an unmarked car means exactly nothing. Law enforcement don’t have to drive around in police cars.

Your understanding of what martial law is seems to be extremely limited. I’m guessing you read from Pelosi or Don Lemon that this is what martial law is so that’s your only education on the subject.

[FlayedAngel]

That's the thing; the same group that has watered down the word to mean nothing are also the ones who think every accusation of racism should not only be believed at face value (as long as it comes from this same group) but they also want the consequences to remain the same. I wouldn't care about these accusations if they didn't have a real world impact.

I didn't even mention a group so how am I stereotyping anyone?
What "group" are you referring to here?



But the idea of implicit bias is you're not aware you're doing it.

So you know you don't have any racist tendencies, but someone else is going to come along and say you do have racist tendencies you just don't know you're doing it, this person is then going to point out all of your racist tendencies, and by pointing them out you are now aware of your previously unknown racist tendencies and now you can fix these racist tendencies? Or perhaps it's all just bullshit. I'm going with the latter.
I've never suggested that anyone is required to have a "come to Jesus" moment just because someone calls them a racist. What I said was that receiving critical feedback from others is part of the way we improve ourselves as people, that includes taking a genuine hard look at our cognitive blindspots -- by definition, those flaws we aren't able to perceive in our own thinking. This process involves becoming aware of them, yes; that is, in fact, what I described prior.



It's not reductive, that is literally the definition of the word.

Racist is a binary thing, just like the state of being pregnant.

Explain to me how someone is just "a little bit" racist compared to someone who is "a lot" racist. I of course mean the traditional use of the word racist, not the modern usage of the word where saying "All Lives Matter" or being against illegal immigration are examples of "racist" behavior.

"Racist" in the colloquial sense, or in the sense of participation (either knowingly or not) in racism as an institution. You, yourself, were caviling about over-usage lessening the impact of the word, which would indicate at least an acknowledgement of degrees of conceptual application. Reducing the label of "racist" to something one either is or isn't would imply that there is a singular definition, eg. pregnancy (the state of gestation) -- it isn't that simple, that's why I said that line of reasoning was reductive.


1. Belief that there are distinct human races with inherent differences which determine their abilities, and generally that some are superior and others inferior.
2. The policies, practices, or systems (e.g. government or political) promoting this belief or promoting the dominance of one or more races over others.
3. Prejudice or discrimination based upon race or ethnicity; (countable) an action of such discrimination.


And again, verbatim: Except that your argument there completely disregards any scope or context, which is important, and downplays the complexity of the social issue as a whole; your alleged "fatigue" of the word is only one element, which is its use (or its debatable overuse) as a pejorative. The problem is that if someone observes casual racism in someone else -- even if that someone is devoid of any malicious intent -- such is often treated by both parties (the accused and the accuser) as having the same connotations as the full-blown KKK-imbrued usage of the word. There aren't different words for different "degrees" of racist, which is unfortunate... that's why context matters.
To be fair, "different degrees of racism" (not racist) would have been a better fit.

[FlayedAngel]

It's pretty amazing how I have shown video after video after video of rioters in Portland breaking all sorts of laws and you still have dipshits like Bhaalizmo and Alfter insist no laws are being broken and Trump sending officers to restore law and order is "tyrannical."

You guys then have the audacity to claim you care about facts.

Why can't you guys be honest? You don't care how many people die, you don't care how many people get hurt, you don't care how much property is destroyed, just as long as it makes Trump look bad. Just say it. Be honest. You can do it. I believe in you.

That's weird. I see 15 black people shot while attending a funeral and I say "Enough is enough! Do something about black people being gunned down!"

You look at that and say "I need more information, I'm still leaning towards Trump being an authoritarian asshole."

And somehow you're making the argument that I'm the racist? No, no, no. Once again you prove you don't care about facts. You don't care about black lives. Your entire life, your entire reason for existing, is to hate Trump and everything he does.

Sad, pathetic little man.
Dude... are you okay??

I'm genuinely asking.

[Tgo01]

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1286187623258628097?s=20

The mostly peaceful protesters in Portland tried setting the federal courthouse on fire last night.

[Tgo01]

Dude... are you okay??

I'm genuinely asking.

I'm fine. I'm not the one downplaying violence because I hate a politician so much.

Oh my bad, Bob, is setting a building on fire considered "violent"?

I suppose the rioters in Portland set a fire near the federal courthouse because they wanted to roast marshmallows.

[FlayedAngel]

What circumstances, *hypothetically*, would be serious enough for you to be taken off the street in an unmarked car by men in black?


Are the arrests in Portland legal?
Legality isn't morality -- being legal or illegal doesn't make something inherently right or wrong. Even if DHS officials are obeying the letter of the law, they sure as fuck aren't obeying the spirit of it. While I'm holding off judgment for now, this is building to a volatile situation that could easily be twisted into something far worse, deliberately or otherwise -- Portland is a possible early warning sign of how that might go down.

If government agencies are the ones primarily inciting violence (which seems to be the case here) and then using retaliation or self-defense as grounds for detainment, it should be clear why that's extremely problematic.

[Tgo01]

If government agencies are the ones primarily inciting violence (which seems to be the case here)

Right, the fires are setting themselves, the bottles and rocks are throwing themselves at police officers, the graffiti is writing themselves, the photographers are assaulting themselves, and the windows are breaking themselves.

So much for fact based arguments.

[FlayedAngel]

Right, the fires are setting themselves, the bottles and rocks are throwing themselves at police officers, the graffiti is writing themselves, the photographers are assaulting themselves, and the windows are breaking themselves.

So much for fact based arguments.
Is your fact-based rebuttal to that statement the video of a handful of people tearing down a plywood wall? Or the video of the three people setting a fire?

If that's what passes for an argument, I'm sure that Navy vet clubbed and gassed himself as well.



Christ on a cracker. I haven't seen this much delusion since I told a kindergarten class that Santa isn't real.
I have.



I'm fine. I'm not the one downplaying violence because I hate a politician so much.

Oh my bad, Bob, is setting a building on fire considered "violent"?

I suppose the rioters in Portland set a fire near the federal courthouse because they wanted to roast marshmallows.
You believe what you believe, and that's fine -- but I think it's a disservice to rational thinking to attribute everything (positive or negative) to one demagogue.

I would imagine we have some commonality in that.

[FlayedAngel]

From an acquaintance, regarding a group of protests called the Wall of Moms:


I joined the wall of moms at the protests at the Portland justice center and the federal courthouse last night. I made sure to talk with some Black and brown organizers before I went, to check that they didn’t feel that us middle-aged, mostly-white ladies were taking away from the activists who have literally been there every night for 53 nights (many of whom are moms themselves, it’s worth noting). Everyone assured me there was nothing but love for the moms.

Except from law enforcement. The feds tear gassed us without warning, while they hid inside the comfort of their federal property. Once we got gassed and were trying to leave, they threw flash bangs, pepper balls, and tear gas cannisters at us (including expired ones- a friend kept the empty. In case you don’t know— I didn’t—expired tear gas can convert to cyanide). I could barely see the lines of unidentifiable men in camouflaged army fatigues approaching the crowd through a thick layer of smoke.

Each corner we tried to calmly exit by, there were more hazy goons throwing more tear gas, pepper spray and flash bangs. A friend I was with shouted, “I don’t like this way!” as we waded through a cloud of gas. But when we turned around, we saw every other way out only had more.

These are not your everyday cops in riot gear, holding a line, whose faces you can see and whose humanity you can at least imagine. I know that PPB has done all the same messed up shit and is working with the feds, but being attacked by nameless, faceless, camo-clad agents of war who only appear in a cloud of smoke and gas feels different.

They were not dispersing the crowd, they were punishing us.

I am proud to say that last night’s protest was one of the biggest since George Floyd’s murder. PPB and now federal agents try to quell the protests, to punish the protestors into submission. But the people only come back stronger, in larger groups.

Please don’t buy the media and right-wing hype trying to cast protestors in a negative light. The worst that protestors have done is vandalize some property— primarily property that represents systemic injustices against Black and brown folks. And please don’t buy into the good protestor/bad protestor trope, or throw your respectability politics at the activists who are in the struggle. When people are literally fighting for Black lives, don’t police how exactly they do it. They get enough of that from the police and now the feds. Those are the only people who are being violent; those are the only people who deserve your scorn.

Being a respectable middle-aged mom did not keep me from being tear-gassed. Being respectable does not save Black lives. In the words of Assata Shakur, “Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.”


Another account (from a few days ago):


To those of you curious about what's going on in Portland: it's not a dystopian warzone, it's not an anarcho-communist free state, the traffic's not even that bad. I work a few blocks away from where the Eastside protests have been gathering and the extent to which they've inconvenienced anyone is in taking up all the parking. Downtown there's been some vandalism, but in a pretty small area and not where anyone lives (or works, these days). The sites of contention have been a single federal building, a big fence, and some statues.

What *has* been an issue, from day one, are the trucks full of battle-armored police officers tearing through my neighborhood on the way to the protests. The near-constant surveillance overflights by helicopters and aircraft. The sudden appearance of military vehicles in my quiet residential neighborhood. I grew up here and I've never seen anything like it.

Even before the feds showed up I've been hearing flashbangs every night on the walk home, and I live on the other side of the river from where they're being set off. Whatever chaos there is here, it's entirely the result of state forces attempting to violently quell peaceful protests.

[Tgo01]

Is your fact-based rebuttal to that statement the video of a handful of people tearing down a plywood wall? Or the video of the three people setting a fire?

Or the video of Antifa goons attacking that photographer. Or the video of the Antifa goons attacking an officer trying to make an arrest. Or the video of Antifa goons setting fire to the police union. Or the video of dozens of Antifa charging towards the courthouse while throwing projectiles.

Why would you even attempt to downplay starting a building on fire by pointing out the number of people doing it?

Again I would think you would be all for law enforcement removing the dangerous elements who are doing these things. But much like the useless mayor of Portland and the useless governor of Oregon you don't seem to want that. You instead just want to keep saying it's a "largely peaceful" protest. Why is that? Why aren't you in favor of any law enforcement agency making arrests and taking these violent psychopaths off the street?

[FlayedAngel]

Or the video of Antifa goons attacking that photographer. Or the video of the Antifa goons attacking an officer trying to make an arrest. Or the video of Antifa goons setting fire to the police union. Or the video of dozens of Antifa charging towards the courthouse while throwing projectiles.

Why would you even attempt to downplay starting a building on fire by pointing out the number of people doing it?

Again I would think you would be all for law enforcement removing the dangerous elements who are doing these things. But much like the useless mayor of Portland and the useless governor of Oregon you don't seem to want that. You instead just want to keep saying it's a "largely peaceful" protest. Why is that? Why aren't you in favor of any law enforcement agency making arrests and taking these violent psychopaths off the street?
Why would you attempt to downplay -- or just ignore -- police brutality and abuse of power... in a huge protest specifically about police brutality and abuse of power?

[Tgo01]

Why would you attempt to downplay -- or just ignore -- police brutality and abuse of power... in a huge protest specifically about police brutality and abuse of power?

You first.

[FlayedAngel]

You first.
https://media3.giphy.com/media/d91w2JizNMQty7LGIn/giphy.gif

[Tgo01]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/d91w2JizNMQty7LGIn/giphy.gif


Again I would think you would be all for law enforcement removing the dangerous elements who are doing these things. But much like the useless mayor of Portland and the useless governor of Oregon you don't seem to want that. You instead just want to keep saying it's a "largely peaceful" protest. Why is that? Why aren't you in favor of any law enforcement agency making arrests and taking these violent psychopaths off the street?

Your deflections have no power here.

[Neveragain]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/d91w2JizNMQty7LGIn/giphy.gif


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_WMHn4RIs8

I didn't know they tried looting a bank, no wonder the feds are there.


Bank Robbery. ... In 1934, it became a federal crime to rob any national bank or state member bank of the Federal Reserve System. The law soon expanded to include bank burglary, larceny, and similar crimes, with jurisdiction delegated to the FBI.

Kind of looks like the Feds should have been there back in May, early June.

CVS pharmacy, Brent Collier.

[Tgo01]

Federal officers in Portland may have been permanently blinded by lasers, officials say (https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-riots-federal-officers-blinded-lasers-fireworks-doxed)


At least three federal officers in Portland may not recover their vision after earlier this week demonstrators, who have shown up in crowds of over 1,000 for more than 50 consecutive nights, shined lasers in their eyes and threw fireworks at a federal courthouse, officials said.


Federal Protective Service (FPS) Deputy Director of Operations Richard “Kriss” Cline said at a press conference on Tuesday that a crowd of more than 1,000 “rioters” surrounded the Hatfield Federal Courthouse and began removing plywood coverings before attempting to throw objects – some of them incendiary – through the windows at federal officers inside.


“When officers responded to put out these fires, glass bottles were thrown and lasers – which can cause permanent blindness – were shined in their eyes,” Cline said. “We have three officers who currently have eye injuries and they may not recover sight in those eyes from those laser attacks.”

Right, it's the police who are escalating the violence.

When are you all going to stop downplaying this violence and take it seriously? How many more people need to be injured or killed before you realize these goons aren't peaceful protesters who care about police brutality? These people don't give a single shit about BLM, I bet half of them don't even remember George Floyd's name. They are anarchists who just want to harm people and destroy things, and you're all too happy to ignore their violence (oh wait, is blinding someone considered "violent", Bob?). Why is that? Why are you ignoring this violence? Don't tell me you're not, stop with the excuses. Why are you ignoring this violence and pinning the blame on the feds and Trump?

It's time to act like the good people you claim to be.

[Orthin]

Federal officers in Portland may have been permanently blinded by lasers, officials say (https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-riots-federal-officers-blinded-lasers-fireworks-doxed)







Right, it's the police who are escalating the violence.

When are you all going to stop downplaying this violence and take it seriously? How many more people need to be injured or killed before you realize these goons aren't peaceful protesters who care about police brutality? These people don't give a single shit about BLM, I bet half of them don't even remember George Floyd's name. They are anarchists who just want to harm people and destroy things, and you're all too happy to ignore their violence (oh wait, is blinding someone considered "violent", Bob?). Why is that? Why are you ignoring this violence? Don't tell me you're not, stop with the excuses. Why are you ignoring this violence and pinning the blame on the feds and Trump?

It's time to act like the good people you claim to be.

I am not in support of the violence going on. That being said this is eerily similar to the situation that has been bubbling up for years with minorities and police. You could easily take your quote and remove some words and it would be the same argument that some folks have been pushing at for police reform. As you can see below I only had to change several words and it is one in the same. It is a little jarring. Also I am not saying you TGO are for or against my quote and not trying to misrepresent you in any way I was just noting the similarities in the situations

Right, it's the citizens who are escalating the violence.

When are you all going to stop downplaying the police brutality and take it seriously? How many more people need to be injured or killed before you realize these officers aren't acting in good faith who care about lawful detainment? These people don't give a single shit about minorities, I bet half of them don't even remember the last minority victim. They are totalitarians who just want to harm people and destroy things, and you're all too happy to ignore their violence. Why is that? Why are you ignoring this violence? Don't tell me you're not, stop with the excuses. Why are you ignoring this violence and pinning the blame on citizens and minorities?

Also it should be understood that police brutality is not a Trump specific problem. It has certainly bubbled to its climax while Trump has been president and there could be some cause/effect from him being the president but this is decades of rise and fall of police brutality that has needed reform. I am not a Trump supporter and he has not done himself any favors during all of this IMO but he also is not sole cause of police brutality.

[Tgo01]

I am not in support of the violence going on. That being said this is eerily similar to the situation that has been bubbling up for years with minorities and police. You could easily take your quote and remove some words and it would be the same argument that some folks have been pushing at for police reform. As you can see below I only had to change several words and it is one in the same. It is a little jarring. Also I am not saying you TGO are for or against my quote and not trying to misrepresent you in any way I was just noting the similarities in the situations

Right, it's the citizens who are escalating the violence.

When are you all going to stop downplaying the police brutality and take it seriously? How many more people need to be injured or killed before you realize these officers aren't acting in good faith who care about lawful detainment? These people don't give a single shit about minorities, I bet half of them don't even remember the last minority victim. They are totalitarians who just want to harm people and destroy things, and you're all too happy to ignore their violence. Why is that? Why are you ignoring this violence? Don't tell me you're not, stop with the excuses. Why are you ignoring this violence and pinning the blame on citizens and minorities?

Also it should be understood that police brutality is not a Trump specific problem. It has certainly bubbled to its climax while Trump has been president and there could be some cause/effect from him being the president but this is decades of rise and fall of police brutality that has needed reform. I am not a Trump supporter and he has not done himself any favors during all of this IMO but he also is not sole cause of police brutality.

I'm not ignoring police brutality. I think pretty much everyone was on board that what happened to George Floyd was wrong. Changes were already under way at the local, state, and federal level.

But these people in Portland don't care about George Floyd. You don't fight for change by blinding officers and injuring them. Those are the actions of a violent mob, not a group of people seeking change.

[Parkbandit]

I'm on the sides of the crazy liberals when it comes to this... President Trump should just let the local government deal with it since they are the ones that have allowed it to grow to this extent.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/g0mzdiXspEFYdH0ojf/200_d.gif

[Tgo01]

I'm on the sides of the crazy liberals when it comes to this... President Trump should just let the local government deal with it since they are the ones that have allowed it to grow to this extent.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/g0mzdiXspEFYdH0ojf/200_d.gif

Sad thing is Trump will be blamed either way. These lunatic mayors are already pinning the blame on Trump for all of the violence going on in their cities, then when he says "Fine, I'll send in the feds to put it a stop to it" they call him a dictator and refer to the US military and federal law enforcement as Nazis.

I seem to recall 2 years ago these same Democrats were telling us we were traitors if we dared to question a single thing in regards to federal law enforcement investigating the Russian collusion bullshit, and now these Democrats are calling the same law enforcement Nazis.

There is no reasoning with the modern day Democrat party.

[Tgo01]

https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1286194901357535232?s=20

Worthless piece of shit mayor of Portland joined the rioters last night. They heckled him most of the night and threw shit at him, when he decided to leave the rioters followed him, screamed in his face, heckled him, threatened him, and threw shit at him and his security detail as he tried to enter a building to leave the lunacy behind.

Oh yeah the mayor also got a front row seat to watch as rioters climbed the fence protecting the federal courthouse and tried to storm the building, tear down the walls, and set it on fire, he then went on to say he saw no reason for feds to use tear gas in response to these violent (is it okay to call setting buildings on fire "violent", Bob?) actions.

But oh yeah, it's the feds who are escalating the violence. Darn those dastardly feds! Sitting inside the courthouse! Doing...nothing.......until those peaceful misunderstood protesters accidentally climbed the fence and started a campfire so some nearby homeless orphans could keep warm.

What a joke.

[Bobmuhthol]

(is it okay to call setting buildings on fire "violent", Bob?)
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/40/2c/19/402c1987c7bedd352abd9504c7cd0236.png

[Tgo01]

Still bitter about me saying you weren't very intelligent I see. It's okay, Bob, things will look up tomorrow.

[Tgo01]

https://twitter.com/ArtValley818/status/1286218393473843200?s=20

Someone asked the worthless mayor of Portland if he supports reducing the funding for police to zero, he answered no. The crowd then went absolutely crazy, booing him and threatening him.

"But...but 'defund' doesn't REALLY mean 'defund.'"

Why do Democrats engage in so much gaslighting? It's pathetic.

[Bhaalizmo]

Worthless piece of shit mayor of Portland joined the rioters last night. They heckled him most of the night and threw shit at him, when he decided to leave the rioters followed him, screamed in his face, heckled him, threatened him, and threw shit at him and his security detail as he tried to enter a building to leave the lunacy behind.

Oh yeah the mayor also got a front row seat to watch as rioters climbed the fence protecting the federal courthouse and tried to storm the building, tear down the walls, and set it on fire, he then went on to say he saw no reason for feds to use tear gas in response to these violent (is it okay to call setting buildings on fire "violent", Bob?) actions.

But oh yeah, it's the feds who are escalating the violence. Darn those dastardly feds! Sitting inside the courthouse! Doing...nothing.......until those peaceful misunderstood protesters accidentally climbed the fence and started a campfire so some nearby homeless orphans could keep warm.

Doesn't sound the same at all the way I heard it.

PORTLAND, Ore. — The mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler, was left coughing and wincing in the middle of his own city Wednesday night after federal officers deployed tear gas into a crowd of protesters that Mr. Wheeler had joined outside the federal courthouse.

Mr. Wheeler, who scrambled to put on goggles while denouncing what he called the “urban warfare” tactic of the federal agents, said he was outraged by the use of tear gas and that it was only making protesters more angry.

“I’m not going to lie — it stings; it’s hard to breathe,” Mr. Wheeler said. “And I can tell you with 100 percent honesty, I saw nothing which provoked this response.”

He called it an “egregious overreaction” on the part of the federal officers, and not a de-escalation strategy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/portland-protest-tear-gas-mayor.html

[Tgo01]

Doesn't sound the same at all the way I heard it.

PORTLAND, Ore. — The mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler, was left coughing and wincing in the middle of his own city Wednesday night after federal officers deployed tear gas into a crowd of protesters that Mr. Wheeler had joined outside the federal courthouse.

Mr. Wheeler, who scrambled to put on goggles while denouncing what he called the “urban warfare” tactic of the federal agents, said he was outraged by the use of tear gas and that it was only making protesters more angry.

“I’m not going to lie — it stings; it’s hard to breathe,” Mr. Wheeler said. “And I can tell you with 100 percent honesty, I saw nothing which provoked this response.”

He called it an “egregious overreaction” on the part of the federal officers, and not a de-escalation strategy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/portland-protest-tear-gas-mayor.html

So what is the proper "de-escalation strategy" for rioters climbing the fences and setting the building on fire?

This outta be good!

[drauz]

I'll say this. It's always the extremes that ruin it for the rest.

The bad cops using force to often, tarnish the majority who are actually there to protect and serve.

The violent protesters take away from the good the peaceful protesters are doing.

I think both sides need to get their houses in order so they can come back to the table in a meaningful way.

[Alfster]

Link?

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/two-dhs-officials-apparently-just-admitted-their-troops-have-been-violating-the-constitution/

[Alfster]

First, your understanding of being detained and so on is deeply flawed. Second, prove it.

Read the link. Someone tried claiming you self identified as a libertarian, which is obviously not the case if you don't see a problem with what's happening.

[~Rocktar~]

Read the link. Someone tried claiming you self identified as a libertarian, which is obviously not the case if you don't see a problem with what's happening.

I have never claimed to be Libertarian, I have claimed to be Conservative. First mistake. The DHS people describing "proactively arresting people" don't elaborate and they clearly indicate that the local law enforcement is not doing the arrests which is the usual case in non-Leftist retarded jurisdictions. So a massive amount of assumptions by the author and people such as yourself due to confirmation bias. Second mistake. Next, the people were not placed under arrest, they were detained, it is not the same thing. And unless you are smart enough to ask to leave, it's considered voluntary. See the link (https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/how-long-can-police-detain-you/). Since the people were detained, given Miranda rights, asked if they wanted to waive the rights to answer questions and then released, there has been no violation of law or rights. That is, unless of course, you argue that they have a constitutional right to riot, loot, burn things, attack people and murder people in which case you are so full of shit that the whites of your eyes should be brown. Third mistake.

These people are no more a constitutional lawyer than you are, the media is aiding and abetting in their crimes and the cover up of said crimes and now they are crying when the Feds are doing the job that the local law enforcement has refused to do. The fact that there have not been beatings, police dogs, gunfights and so on should speak well to the professionalism and commitment of the federal law enforcement people involved.

BTW, probable cause for detaining these people, assuming they don't have them on video could easily be considered the fact they are dressed in garb consistent with participants in a riot, in the general area on foot and acting in a suspicious manner. It has been adequate in the past as probable cause to detain people and question them.

So, in the end, you are wrong on all counts.

[Tgo01]

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/two-dhs-officials-apparently-just-admitted-their-troops-have-been-violating-the-constitution/


Two DHS Officials Apparently Just Admitted Their Troops Have Been Violating the Constitution

Well that's as far as I got in that clickbaity link. Thanks for trying I guess.

[~Rocktar~]

Well that's as far as I got in that clickbaity link. Thanks for trying I guess.

I scanned it, it's just more of the same clickbait conjecture.

[Alfster]

Well that's as far as I got in that clickbaity link. Thanks for trying I guess.

God forbid you read something that goes against your narrative, with actual citing of case law. Just keep screaming fake news and refuse to educate yourself.

[Alfster]

I scanned it, it's just more of the same clickbait conjecture.

[A] person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person. Where the standard is probable cause, a search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person.

[Alfster]

These people are no more a constitutional lawyer than you are, the media is aiding and abetting in their crimes and the cover up of said crimes and now they are crying when the Feds are doing the job that the local law enforcement has refused to do. The fact that there have not been beatings, police dogs, gunfights and so on should speak well to the professionalism and commitment of the federal law enforcement people involved..

https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/11435/Crespo

Yup. This guy who has dedicated his career to laws that regulate law enforcement is no more an expert on this topic than you or I. Ignorance is strong in you.

[Tgo01]

God forbid you read something that goes against your narrative, with actual citing of case law. Just keep screaming fake news and refuse to educate yourself.

What you said:


DHS officials are admitting they're arresting people before a crime is committed, which is against the constitution.

What the headline of your clickbaity article said:


Two DHS Officials Apparently Just Admitted Their Troops Have Been Violating the Constitution

I can't hold your hand forever, Alfter. Eventually you are going to have to start thinking for yourself and realize when "journalists" are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

[Bobmuhthol]

Does Tgo01 need a reminder from our old pal OED?

ap·par·ent·ly
/əˈperəntlē/
adverb
as far as one knows or can see.

The fuck do you think apparently means dawg?

[Tgo01]

Does Tgo01 need a reminder from our old pal OED?

ap·par·ent·ly
/əˈperəntlē/
adverb
as far as one knows or can see.

The fuck do you think apparently means dawg?

Oh goodie, I get to give more English lessons to Bob.

Alfter's original post:

"DHS officials are admitting"

That's a factual statement: DHS officials are admitting to something.

Headline: "Two DHS Officials Apparently Just Admitted Their Troops Have Been Violating the Constitution "

"Apparently" turns this statement into an opinion, as evidenced by your own definition of the word "as far as one knows."

You do know a "fact" isn't just something "as far as one knows" right?

Apparently Bob is an idiot, was that an opinion or fact? Trick question! It's both!

[Bobmuhthol]

"Apparently" turns this statement into an opinion, as evidenced by your own definition of the word "as far as one knows."You're seriously fucking dumb, man, if you believe this.

[Tgo01]

You're seriously fucking dumb, man, if you believe this.

You are seriously trying too hard to prove you're intelligent. And failing I might add.

Let's do a simple thought experiment, Bob.

2 + 2 = 4

Is that "apparently" true or is that a fact?

I know I'm being a bit mean expecting you to do simple math like this, but take my word for it that 2 + 2 = 4.

If DHS officials were admitting to wrongdoing why wouldn't the headline read "DHS officials admit to wrongdoing?" Oh right, because they don't want to get their asses sued for libel, gotta make it sound like an opinion!

[Bobmuhthol]

You are seriously trying too hard to prove you're intelligent. And failing I might add.

Let's do a simple thought experiment, Bob.

2 + 2 = 4

Is that "apparently" true or is that a fact?

I know I'm being a bit mean expecting you to do simple math like this, but take my word for it that 2 + 2 = 4.

If DHS officials were admitting to wrongdoing why wouldn't the headline read "DHS officials admit to wrongdoing?" Oh right, because they don't want to get their asses sued for libel, gotta make it sound like an opinion!Preserving the contents of this post because you're so absurdly fucking dumb.

[Tgo01]

Preserving the contents of this post because you're so absurdly fucking dumb.

You do that.

Remember that time you admitted you were a dumb ass, Bob?

Apparently you did, so according to your logic that means you did in fact admit to being a dumb ass.

You're really bad at this, Bob. I've broken a few people on the PC before but it hardly took any effort at all to break you. Like 3 posts.

[Tgo01]

"Apparently" turns this statement into an opinion, as evidenced by your own definition of the word "as far as one knows."


You're seriously fucking dumb, man, if you believe this.

As far as I know God exists. According to Bob's logic if something is "as far as one knows" that means it's fact.

Boom. I just proved God exists. Who knew it was so easy?

[Bobmuhthol]

You do that.

Remember that time you admitted you were a dumb ass, Bob?

Apparently you did, so according to your logic that means you did in fact admit to being a dumb ass.

You're really bad at this, Bob. I've broken a few people on the PC before but it hardly took any effort at all to break you. Like 3 posts.


As far as I know God exists. According to Bob's logic if something is "as far as one knows" that means it's fact.

Boom. I just proved God exists. Who knew it was so easy?Keep it up dude. Keep showing us all how you think you understand what the word apparently means. You're crushing it.

[Tgo01]

Keep it up dude. Keep showing us all how you think you understand what the word apparently means. You're crushing it.

Thanks.

Be sure to keep going through life thinking when someone says another person admitted to doing something it doesn't necessarily have to mean the person actually admitted to it.

The whole reason I wanted to see Alfter's link was because his comment reeked of far left wing bullshit, and what do you know? I only had to read to headline to see that.

If Alfter had just said from the beginning "I read a far left wing rag which said DHS officials apparently admitted to something" then I would have just laughed and moved on. But Alfter phrased it as if DHS officials literally said before journalists "We admit we are violating the constitution."

[leifastagsweed]

It's ludicrous how you immediately spin it and clutch your pearls, yet Wheeler actually got out there last night and walked WITH the people (https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1286186731763412993?s=20). Did they yell at him? Yes. They said things like, "How does it feel, Mayor?" He DID experience violence...at the hands of the FEDS. Not a single civilian harmed him or threatened him. He has more balls than your Bunker Boy and all you keyboard jockeys put together.

[Tgo01]

It's ludicrous how you immediately spin it and clutch your pearls, yet Wheeler actually got out there last night and walked WITH the people (https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1286186731763412993?s=20). Did they yell at him? Yes. They said things like, "How does it feel, Mayor?" He DID experience violence...at the hands of the FEDS. Not a single civilian harmed him or threatened him. He has more balls than your Bunker Boy and all you keyboard jockeys put together.

Speaking of blinders. I guess you missed the shit that was thrown at him, the getting in his face to scream at him, and the threats he received huh?

But look who I'm talking with? The person who sees nothing wrong with Antifa goons blinding federal officers and setting the courthouse on fire.

Oh yeah, worthless piece of shit Ted Wheeler is SO brave and had to prove the protesters are so peaceful that he went to the riot with 6+ security guards.

So brave! So wonderful! So peaceful!

Fuck off.

I just realized in YOUR OWN VIDEO LINK he has something thrown at him from a rioter. Talk about major blinders.

[Bobmuhthol]

Thanks.

Be sure to keep going through life thinking when someone says another person admitted to doing something it doesn't necessarily have to mean the person actually admitted to it.

The whole reason I wanted to see Alfter's link was because his comment reeked of far left wing bullshit, and what do you know? I only had to read to headline to see that.

If Alfter had just said from the beginning "I read a far left wing rag which said DHS officials apparently admitted to something" then I would have just laughed and moved on. But Alfter phrased it as if DHS officials literally said before journalists "We admit we are violating the constitution."Yeah I don't really care about your opinion on "far left wing bullshit," especially because you're a dumb person, but can you please throw "apparently" around in front of false statements some more to make me somehow look bad? I'm a real glutton for punishment and you'd make my day causing, again totally me, to look foolish!

[Tgo01]

https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1286194901357535232?s=20

"They're just saying "How does it feel, Mayor?" Like they are asking him how his day was going.

You don't have to be a willing idiot. You can choose to do better in life.

[Tgo01]

Yeah I don't really care about your opinion on "far left wing bullshit," especially because you're a dumb person, but can you please throw "apparently" around in front of false statements some more to make me somehow look bad? I'm a real glutton for punishment and you'd make my day causing, again totally me, to look foolish!

I didn't say you cared about my opinion, not everything is about you, Bob. Your reading comprehension really is garbage though, holy shit.

It really does seem like Bob doesn't realize I was mocking him in those posts.

Damn, Bob. I think I'm going to have to hold back on mocking you a bit, I'm beginning to feel like I'm picking on the slow kid in school.

But good job calling me dumb, way to turn it around and distract from your very obvious lack of intelligence.

[Alfster]

Thanks.

Be sure to keep going through life thinking when someone says another person admitted to doing something it doesn't necessarily have to mean the person actually admitted to it.

The whole reason I wanted to see Alfter's link was because his comment reeked of far left wing bullshit, and what do you know? I only had to read to headline to see that.

If Alfter had just said from the beginning "I read a far left wing rag which said DHS officials apparently admitted to something" then I would have just laughed and moved on. But Alfter phrased it as if DHS officials literally said before journalists "We admit we are violating the constitution."

The title goes against my beliefs! I refuse to read the cited case law and make my own opinion. Fake news! Title was mean! I won't even read it!

[leifastagsweed]

Speaking of blinders. I guess you missed the shit that was thrown at him, the getting in his face to scream at him, and the threats he received huh?

But look who I'm talking with? The person who sees nothing wrong with Antifa goons blinding federal officers and setting the courthouse on fire.

Oh yeah, worthless piece of shit Ted Wheeler is SO brave and had to prove the protesters are so peaceful that he went to the riot with 6+ security guards.

So brave! So wonderful! So peaceful!

Fuck off.

I just realized in YOUR OWN VIDEO LINK he has something thrown at him from a rioter. Talk about major blinders.

LOL I've got a romantic partner, but thanks?

Bud, I am not claiming that ANY video proves anything, thus why I hyperlinked and didn't scream from the hilltops. But I did listen to his own words about his own experience. Heaven forbid (oh wait, we aren't worrying about that anymore) we trust someone to understand their own experience. SMH

[Alfster]

I didn't say you cared about my opinion, not everything is about you, Bob. Your reading comprehension really is garbage though, holy shit.

It really does seem like Bob doesn't realize I was mocking him in those posts.

Damn, Bob. I think I'm going to have to hold back on mocking you a bit, I'm beginning to feel like I'm picking on the slow kid in school.

But good job calling me dumb, way to turn it around and distract from your very obvious lack of intelligence.

You're the one looking like an idiot. Haha.

[leifastagsweed]

You don't have to be a willing idiot. You can choose to do better in life.

You could try experiencing the world instead of watching it from behind a screen.

[Tgo01]

LOL I've got a romantic partner, but thanks?

Bud, I am not claiming that ANY video proves anything, thus why I hyperlinked and didn't scream from the hilltops. But I did listen to his own words about his own experience. Heaven forbid (oh wait, we aren't worrying about that anymore) we trust someone to understand their own experience. SMH

Do you have a point or just rambling hoping to make sense?

[Tgo01]

You're the one looking like an idiot. Haha.

Quote for me where the DHS officials admitted to violating the constitution, you know since you said they admitted it.


You could try experiencing the world instead of watching it from behind a screen.

Why aren't you staying home to save lives? Sounds like you don't care that you are murdering others. Oh right, that nonsense went out the window as soon as your worthless piece of shit mayor decided that rioting and looting for BLM was acceptable during a pandemic.

[Bobmuhthol]

I didn't say you cared about my opinion, not everything is about you, Bob. Your reading comprehension really is garbage though, holy shit.

It really does seem like Bob doesn't realize I was mocking him in those posts.

Damn, Bob. I think I'm going to have to hold back on mocking you a bit, I'm beginning to feel like I'm picking on the slow kid in school.

But good job calling me dumb, way to turn it around and distract from your very obvious lack of intelligence.I didn't say you said you cared about my opinion, so what the fuck are you talking about? I am simply telling you that I don't care about your opinion. Why is everything about you?

Separately, I will just repeat that I have a 760 GMAT score and request that you provide a third party verification of your alleged intelligence at your leisure.

[Tgo01]

Separately, I will just repeat that I have a 760 GMAT score and request that you provide a third party verification of your alleged intelligence at your leisure.

You are so easily triggered.

[Bobmuhthol]

Do you need to be given the definition of "triggered" also?

[drauz]

Apparently is an adverb meaning "evidently" or "obviously." After his sixth hot dog, you might say to your friend, "Well! Apparently somebody was hungry!" While apparently can mean "plainly" — like, duh — it can also mean "seemingly," which is almost "evidently" or "obviously," but not quite.

It doesn't change it to an opinion.

[Tgo01]

Do you need to be given the definition of "triggered" also?

If I do I'll be sure to seek out a source that is just a bit more intelligent than you. No offense, you're just an idiot.


It doesn't change it to an opinion.

So where in that article did the two DHS officials admit to violating the constitution?

[Bobmuhthol]

If I do I'll be sure to seek out a source that is just a bit more intelligent than you. No offense, you're just an idiot.I like that this is how you communicate while simultaneously calling other people triggered, despite all the evidence of reality freely available for the world to see. It is amusing.

[drauz]

So where in that article did the two DHS officials admit to violating the constitution?


we are having to go out and proactively arrest individuals

If they are proactively arresting individuals that means they are arresting them before they do something.

[Iwannajoinin]

Long time fan of these forums felt like I needed to toss my hat into the ring since it's so slow at work.

They are proactively arresting them for crimes they committed by not waiting for the local police to process them first which would be the norm.

Let's keep the entertainment rolling 2 more hours at work.

[Solkern]

Long time fan of these forums felt like I needed to toss my hat into the ring since it's so slow at work.

They are proactively arresting them for crimes they committed by not waiting for the local police to process them first which would be the norm.

Let's keep the entertainment rolling 2 more hours at work.


That is one way to see it, and it could be 100% true, it could also be 100% false, that’s why the reporter used the word “apparently” because he wasn’t sure which way it was, and wasn’t able to clarify what he meant by it.

[Tgo01]

If they are proactively arresting individuals that means they are arresting them before they do something.

A) So they "apparently" admitted to violating the constitution, they didn't actually admit to it.
B) It sure sounds like that statement is taken out of context because this is the full context:


Anytime that you attack a federal facility such as a courthouse in Portland that is a federal crime. Attacking federal police officers, law enforcement officers, which they have done for 52 nights in a row is a federal crime. So, the Department, because we don't have that local support, that local law enforcement support, we are having to go out and proactively arrest individuals and we need to do that because we need to hold them accountable.

This idea that they can attack federal property and law enforcement officers and go to the other side of the street and say you can't touch me is ridiculous. We don't do that in any other type of law enforcement. We pursue a criminal, we investigate, we pull them over if we have probable cause. We arrest them, we charge them, and we prosecute them. And you need to hold individuals accountable and when we don't do that I think we get what we see in Portland today.

Sure sounds like he's saying they are witnessing these people commit crimes but since the local law enforcement isn't helping them they can't make an arrest as they see it happen so they are proactively making an arrest the next night or whenever.

Apparently this is all just a bunch of bullshit because apparently the guy never admitted to violating the constitution and apparently very plainly says the people they are arresting are committing crimes and people are using the excuse that because they flee across the street so they are no longer on federal land means they are now safe from being arrested.

Apparently.

[Iwannajoinin]

So are there any solid facts to be derived from this article we do want to address? Or is this clickbait? I like how you apparently know how to use the word apparently. Solkern you at least dont come off as a raving lunatic like most people here but you got your moments. I'm sure I will get mine as well.

[Neveragain]

That is one way to see it, and it could be 100% true, it could also be 100% false, that’s why the reporter used the word “apparently” because he wasn’t sure which way it was, and wasn’t able to clarify what he meant by it.

Quantum journalism.

[Bobmuhthol]

A) So they "apparently" admitted to violating the constitution, they didn't actually admit to it.
B) It sure sounds like that statement is taken out of context because this is the full context:



Sure sounds like he's saying they are witnessing these people commit crimes but since the local law enforcement isn't helping them they can't make an arrest as they see it happen so they are proactively making an arrest the next night or whenever.

Apparently this is all just a bunch of bullshit because apparently the guy never admitted to violating the constitution and apparently very plainly says the people they are arresting are committing crimes and people are using the excuse that because they flee across the street so they are no longer on federal land means they are now safe from being arrested.

Apparently.Check out this fucking dumb individual still misunderstanding the definition of a common word.

[Tgo01]

They are proactively arresting them for crimes they committed by not waiting for the local police to process them first which would be the norm.

That's apparently a good take on it too. All I know is with the full context the guy never even came close to even implying that they are arresting people who have not committed crimes, much less did he admit to violating the constitution.

[Tgo01]

Check out this fucking dumb individual still misunderstanding the definition of a common word.

Apparently someone is butthurt.

[Bobmuhthol]

I thought I was triggered?

[Tgo01]

So are there any solid facts to be derived from this article we do want to address? Or is this clickbait? I like how you apparently know how to use the word apparently. Solkern you at least dont come off as a raving lunatic like most people here but you got your moments. I'm sure I will get mine as well.

Apparently I don't know what's in the article, apparently I only read as far as the headline because that was enough for me to call bullshit on the whole narrative Alfter was apparently pushing.

Apparently.

[Tgo01]

I thought I was triggered?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. And before you ask, no, I don't need you to define mutually exclusive for me.

[Iwannajoinin]

That's apparently a good take on it too. All I know is with the full context the guy never even came close to even implying that they are arresting people who have not committed crimes, much less did he admit to violating the constitution.

Reading comprehension is key, unless you want to just bitch about semantics like bob.

I learned about it in the third grade.

Did I quote right?


I did! And I edited to.

[Bobmuhthol]

Reading comprehension is key, unless you want to just bitch about semantics like bob.I hate to break it to you, but if you think the word "apparently" is synonymous with "this is my opinion," you're as fucking dumb as Tgo01. This isn't semantics.

[leifastagsweed]

the third grade
I did!

ooooooh, loooooook, a BABY troll!

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SpottedUnconsciousCoypu-size_restricted.gif

[Tisket]

Reading comprehension is key, unless you want to just bitch about semantics like bob.

I learned about it in the third grade.

Did I quote right?


I did! And I edited to.

Too bad someone isn't bitching about grammar.

[Tgo01]

I hate to break it to you, but if you think the word "apparently" is synonymous with "this is my opinion,"

When did I say "apparently" is synonymous with "this is my opinion.


"Apparently" turns this statement into an opinion

This statement. This statement. Context matters, Bob.

Apparently you are confused.

[Neveragain]

ooooooh, loooooook, a BABY troll!

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SpottedUnconsciousCoypu-size_restricted.gif

Apparently.

[Bobmuhthol]

When did I say "apparently" is synonymous with "this is my opinion.



This statement. This statement. Context matters, Bob.

Apparently you are confused.Holy fuck you are truly dumb.

[Iwannajoinin]

I hate to break it to you, but if you think the word "apparently" is synonymous with "this is my opinion," you're as fucking dumb as Tgo01. This isn't semantics.

I can't control if the author of that article used the word wrong. Most people dont use proper English, I'm bad at it and I'm sure you all will latch onto it.

But did people who committed no crimes at all get arrested?

Please answer with an easy to understand format,

Yes? No? Apparently?

[drauz]

Too bad someone isn't bitching about grammar.

Their, isn't?

[Bhaalizmo]

You're really bad at this, Bob. I've broken a few people on the PC before but it hardly took any effort at all to break you. Like 3 posts.

You've never broken anyone here, stop trying to tell yourself that. None of us care what you think, log off, delete your account. Check out farmersonly.com. I'll bet they'd love to hear all the endless self defeating shit you spew.