(February 14, 2017 at 1:19 pm)Exian Wrote: And you said you could point a gun at a cop. That would be violent white privilege, wouldn't it? I guess we'd have to agree the lines are blurred.

The perpetrators of the oregan wildlife standoff were acquitted. That doesn't seem blurry, at all, to me. Pretty cut and dry. One of the things they were found not guilty of....work this one out in your mind...was possession of firearms in a federal facility.........

Quote:They proved the narrative wrong by controlling it with non-violence. The public became incensed, as you stated. Particularly when a woman, whose name slips my mind, gave her account on live tv, that was abruptly cut into, but the news already grabbed it and ran with it, and more after bloody sunday. Would the public have been so incensed had the protesters been violent from the start? I say no.

They were told that they were regardless, and many believed it.  You're having a disconnect between what you know, now, and the perception then. Yes, there came a point at which state propaganda was no longer sufficiently compelling.

You're right though, peaceful protests nowadays are treated entirely differently by both the cops and the media, depending on who makes up the majority of the protest. It seems violent and non-violent approaches are both subject to systemic racism and white privilege, unsurprisingly. But that's with everything. I think within those rules, the cost and rewards of the non-violent approach is a better bet. And far be it from me to guess at when it's time to abandon that and take on the risks.

I'm liberal with my uneccesary permission, lol.  At the exact moment that a person is willing to trade their life for change....it's justifiable.  I may disagree with them, I might even hate them...but people don't forfeit their lives, their most prized possession, lightly, in my experience.  If a person finds themselves holding a bottle full of kerosene...and thinks to themselves "what's the worst they'll do to me, shoot me?" - then obviously we have a problem.

Not aimed at you, but all this "Oh, just darkies being darkies for no reason but to stir up shit" makes me want to vomit.  Gee, thanks Whitey, as if we really needed to be reminded of why these folks are rioting.......

(February 14, 2017 at 1:44 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I'm liberal with my uneccesary permission, lol.  At the exact moment that a person is willing to trade their life for change....it's justifiable.  I may disagree with them, I might even hate them...but people don't forfeit their lives, their most prized possession, lightly, in my experience.  If a person finds themselves holding a bottle full of kerosene...and thinks to themselves "what's the worst they'll do to me, shoot me?" - then obviously we have a problem.

Not aimed at you, but all this "Oh, just darkies being darkies for no reason but to stir up shit" makes me want to vomit.  Gee, thanks Whitey, as if we really needed to be reminded of why these folks are rioting.......

Islamic suicide bombers are justifiable?

Has it never occurred to you that the people who strap them with vests are leveraging a legitimate grievance in order to convince them that this sacrifice has merit? That the people themselves feel that their own life is worth less than whatever aim they seek to achieve? You know why they like to recruit them as young boys? The loss of their father, or mother, or siblings..or father and mother and siblings... is fresh in mind. My experience..so, anecdotal, but the most fanatic insurgents were always the ones who had suffered a horrendous loss. I'll still cut em in half with a few good bursts, but I'm under no illusions as to how either of us ended up in our respective positions in that scenario.

I'm guessing you just think they're bad guys™ with no possible justification for their actions?

Typical, though..."hur dur terrorists!". Usual Objection™ noted. The protesters here are also likened to (or just flat out called) terrorists.

(February 14, 2017 at 2:12 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Has it never occurred to you that the people who strap them with vests are leveraging a legitimate grievance in order to convince them that this sacrifice has merit? That the people themselves feel that their own life is worth less than whatever aim they seek to achieve? You know why they like to recruit them as young boys? The loss of their father, or mother, or siblings..or father and mother and siblings... is fresh in mind. My experience..so, anecdotal, but the most fanatic insurgents were always the ones who had suffered a horrendous loss.

Typical, though..."hur dur terrorists!". Usual Objection™ noted. The protesters here are also likened to (or just flat out called) terrorists.

I'm not comparing protesters to terrorists.

I'm disagreeing with you.

I don't believe that every time someone is willing to risk their life for a cause that it makes that cause justifiable.

I used Islamic terrorists an example but there's plenty of others.
Timothy mcveigh, Elliot Rodgers. Sacrificed his own life in order to take vengenge on the women who rejected him.

Maybe you made the comment without thinking but that's one of the most stupid statements I've seen, that a cause is justified the moment someone risks their life for it.

Do the actions of a single unhinged individual seem, to you, to have anything to do with what we're talking about? Try to keep up Pablo.

Now, after comparing protesters to terrorists, you're comparing them to Timothy McVeigh and Elliot Rodgers. No wonder they're throwing bricks and lighting cars on fire.

(February 14, 2017 at 2:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Do the actions of a single unhinged individual seem, to you, to have anything to do with what we're talking about? Try to keep up Pablo.

I'm keeping up with what you just said.

That someone risking their life for change is always justifiable.

It's a really stupid thing to say.

There's mentally fucked up people who'll risk their lives in a shoot out with the police because they believe they're the next Jesus.

Eliot Rodgers was a bad example because he didn't risk his life for change but theres plenty of other examples.

Because there are mentally unhinged people out there is why you're wrong.

No, you're not.  You're looking for a way to wheedle around and continue the "hur dur, troublemakers with no justification" line of bullshit.  

Are protesters mentally unhinged, in your opinion?

The fact that certain groups are more likely to get their way through non-violent protest is absolutely an example of privilege.

It does not follow from the existence this privilege, however, that the group that can't get their way through non-violent protest is any more likely to get their way with force.

The privilege just might be "being able to get one's way at all," or within a year rather than a decade or a century.

When the change the non-privileged group fighting for is to eliminate that privilege... well, then we're all in it for the long haul.