How to end this

[SkyDekker 1,295]

9 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I said it's possible...now I think it's probable.  It's a headline designed to grab the reader's attention.  Happens all the time.  My first reaction was "is Will advocating anarchy?"

That's because you tend to think in terms of violence. There are non-violent ways to remove the president. The headline made me wonder about reasoning and method.

[kallend 1,829]

31 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I said it's possible...now I think it's probable.  It's a headline designed to grab the reader's attention.  Happens all the time.  My first reaction was "is Will advocating anarchy?"

If a headline in July 1974 said "NIXON MUST GO", would you consider that the writer was promoting anarchy?

[airdvr 201]

1 minute ago, kallend said:

If a headline in July 1974 said "NIXON MUST GO", would you consider that the writer was promoting anarchy?

That would be an entirely different headline.  The headline would need to be "Nixon must be removed. So must his congressional enablers".  I'm not suggesting the writer is promoting anarchy, I'm suggesting the publication consciously used that headline to trigger.

[kallend 1,829]

2 minutes ago, airdvr said:

That would be an entirely different headline.

Really?  Are you sure about that?

[gowlerk 2,103]

8 minutes ago, kallend said:

If a headline in July 1974 said "NIXON MUST GO", would you consider that the writer was promoting anarchy?

Just out of curiosity, if a headline were to read "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" what would that be promoting?

[airdvr 201]

2 minutes ago, kallend said:

Really?  Are you sure about that?

Yes John...I'm quite sure the two headlines would be different.  One of them only has 3 words.  The other has nine.

[airdvr 201]

Just now, gowlerk said:

Just out of curiosity, if a headline were to read "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" what would that be promoting?

That would be promoting the consequences of violently destroying property and risking people's lives.  I can assure you if my business was one that was in danger I'd be there ready to shoot those who are intent on the destruction.  I have no problem with Trump's statement.

[kallend 1,829]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

That would be promoting the consequences of violently destroying property and risking people's lives.  I can assure you if my business was one that was in danger I'd be there ready to shoot those who are intent on the destruction.  I have no problem with Trump's statement.

So you DO believe in anarchy.  OK.

[yoink 321]

52 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Never said that he was however, it is possible that WaPo used that headline on purpose.

I've always enjoyed Will.  His intelligent analysis is one I have come to respect.

All media use attention grabbing headlines. That's how they get you to read the story.

 

If your brain reads this one and immediately goes to 'they wrote this headline to deliberately incite anarchy' that says more about your state of mind than it does the Post. Maybe chill out on the conspiracy theories a bit - you're on the road to becoming Ron.

[airdvr 201]

Just now, kallend said:

So you DO believe in anarchy.  OK.

If anarchy meant protecting my livelihood then I guess so.

[gowlerk 2,103]

2 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I have no problem with Trump's statement.

I am not surprised by that.

[jakee 1,352]

13 minutes ago, airdvr said:

That would be an entirely different headline.  The headline would need to be "Nixon must be removed. So must his congressional enablers".  I'm not suggesting the writer is promoting anarchy, I'm suggesting the publication consciously used that headline to trigger.

Don't be so bloody stupid.

 

What exactly is it about the phrase 'must go' that strongly implies a legal process and what is it about the headline 'must be removed' that (especially in an election year) strongly implies an illegal one?

[airdvr 201]

42 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

That's because you tend to think in terms of violence. There are non-violent ways to remove the president. The headline made me wonder about reasoning and method.

Hmmm...I wonder why I would think in terms of violence right now...

[airdvr 201]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

Don't be so bloody stupid.

 

What exactly is it about the phrase 'must go' that strongly implies a legal process and what is it about the headline 'must be removed' that (especially in an election year) strongly implies an illegal one?

This...

[JoeWeber 2,573]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Too bad it's behind a paywall for me.

Maybe some nice liberal will give you free access.

[DJL 232]

28 minutes ago, airdvr said:

That would be promoting the consequences of violently destroying property and risking people's lives.  I can assure you if my business was one that was in danger I'd be there ready to shoot those who are intent on the destruction.  I have no problem with Trump's statement.

1.  The penalty for looting is not death.

2. There's a world of difference between protecting your own property and the police using lethal force to stop someone from committing an act that would only be penalized by fines and minor prison time.  When that escalates to an act that may kill people it's a different story.

[gowlerk 2,103]

25 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Hmmm...I wonder why I would think in terms of violence right now...

Because you are angry and frightened, like black men are frightened every day. They also are worried about violence being done. But not to property. Real violence.

Edited June 2, 2020 by gowlerk

[SkyDekker 1,295]

23 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Hmmm...I wonder why I would think in terms of violence right now...

Mmm, I wonder why you post that image and not the image of George Floyd being murdered?

 

There are two types of people during this time.

1. "it is horrible that innocent black man was killed, but destroying property has to stop"
2. "it is horrible that property is being destroyed, but killing innocent black men has to stop"

 

 

[jakee 1,352]

37 minutes ago, airdvr said:

This...

That has nothing to do with the wording of the headline, which is what you were making a big deal about and which I was specifically asking you about.

What is the difference between the headlines themselves?

[airdvr 201]

18 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Because you are angry and frightened, like black men are frightened every day. They also are worried about violence being done. But not to property. Real violence.

I'm not angry and frightened...I'm concerned.

[airdvr 201]

5 minutes ago, jakee said:

That has nothing to do with the wording of the headline, which is what you were making a big deal about and which I was specifically asking you about.

What is the difference between the headlines themselves?

Why don't you tell me?  I'm not playing your fucked up Q and A game.

[Guest]

There are some agitators calling upon Minnesota to release the Somali cop who murdered an Australian woman in cold blood. No, this will never end.

https://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2020/05/31/rioters-call-for-freeing-of-muslim-migrant-cop-who-killed-unarmed-woman-in-minneapolis/

Edited June 2, 2020 by Guest

[wolfriverjoe 1,464]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

That would be promoting the consequences of violently destroying property and risking people's lives.  I can assure you if my business was one that was in danger I'd be there ready to shoot those who are intent on the destruction.  I have no problem with Trump's statement.

I strongly suggest you read up on the use of deadly force. 
There are some pretty strict rules on it. 
One of them is that you can't use it to protect property.

If you start shooting at people who are simply threatening to damage or destroy your property...
I hope you have a good lawyer and a lot of money. You'll need i.hem both.

47 minutes ago, DJL said:

2. There's a world of difference between protecting your own property and the police using lethal force to stop someone from committing an act that would only be penalized by fines and minor prison time.  When that escalates to an act that may kill people it's a different story.

Not really.

The cops have rules on the use of deadly force. They have a lot more latitude, and generally are viewed in a much more postive light than civilians after a 'use of deadly force' incident. 

But the force used in Minneapolis against a non-resisting suspect was waaaaay beyond 'legal'.
Lots of cops have weighed in on that. 

 

Even if Floyd hadn't died, those cops would likely have been in 'more than a little' bit of trouble for what they did (the video is pretty clear on what they were doing).

[airdvr 201]

So we should apply the rule of law to me but ignore those who are breaking it?  You don't see the problem there?

[SkyDekker 1,295]

Just now, airdvr said:

So we should apply the rule of law to me but ignore those who are breaking it? 

You have been ignoring your law enforcement murdering unarmed black people for decades.