ADVERTISEMENT

The New Lounge

If y'all wanna fight I could take the stance that violence from the Left is for the sake of advancing rights while violence from the Right is for the sake of oppressing rights, but my heart probably wouldn't be too into it.

I'll see if I can crank-up the Leftist Bat Signal and get a bunch of us to denounce violence from the Left so y'all don't claim that you know that we know we know our silence makes us complicit.

Of the examples you mentioned in that first paragraph, I denounce them all except the "illegal takeover of campus buildings." That's just a pearl-clutching, manipulative way of saying "sit-in." Yes, it amounts to an illegal act if they refuse to disperse, and that's the point. Conscientious objection has always used passive resistance as a tactic. I suppose you would accuse Claudette Colvin of "illegal takeover of the front seat"?
So you’re saying that Columbia would have allowed pro life protestors to disrupt campus life, harass and assault students, barricade students in the library, and chant for genocide against all nonbelievers in the name of free speech? Doubtful.
As for Tesla this is driven purely by hatred of Trump and by extension Musk. The Left thought Musk was wonderful until he fixed Twitter and aligned himself with Trump.
  • Like
Reactions: Mac9192

The New Lounge

I’ve actually heard some on the Left defend the violence against Tesla and the violence against Jews, illegal takeover of campus buildings, preventing Jews from attending their classes as protected free speech.
Committing violent acts to advance a political narrative is the textbook definition of terrorism. Trump’s right about that, conflict of interest or not, these are acts of domestic terrorism.
I wonder how long Columbia would have put up with this nonsense if it were pro life protests or a Klan rally. They would have shut that sh- down in a New York minute.
It’s only free speech when it’s causes the Left supports. Otherwise, it’s hate speech or an incitement to violence if it’s causes they detest. Definite double standard.
If y'all wanna fight I could take the stance that violence from the Left is for the sake of advancing rights while violence from the Right is for the sake of oppressing rights, but my heart probably wouldn't be too into it.

I'll see if I can crank-up the Leftist Bat Signal and get a bunch of us to denounce violence from the Left so y'all don't claim that you know that we know we know our silence makes us complicit.

Of the examples you mentioned in that first paragraph, I denounce them all except the "illegal takeover of campus buildings." That's just a pearl-clutching, manipulative way of saying "sit-in." Yes, it amounts to an illegal act if they refuse to disperse, and that's the point. Conscientious objection has always used passive resistance as a tactic. I suppose you would accuse Claudette Colvin of "illegal takeover of the front seat"?

The New Lounge


How about a wild change of subject. Let's talk about the rapidly increasing political violence from the left.
I’ve actually heard some on the Left defend the violence against Tesla and the violence against Jews, illegal takeover of campus buildings, preventing Jews from attending their classes as protected free speech.
Committing violent acts to advance a political narrative is the textbook definition of terrorism. Trump’s right about that, conflict of interest or not, these are acts of domestic terrorism.
I wonder how long Columbia would have put up with this nonsense if it were pro life protests or a Klan rally. They would have shut that sh- down in a New York minute.
It’s only free speech when it’s causes the Left supports. Otherwise, it’s hate speech or an incitement to violence if it’s causes they detest. Definite double standard.

The New Lounge

Correct. Very similar to what happened with COVID and the vaccine. Politicians and other powerful people made discriminatory laws and mandates against those that didn’t want to get the vaccine. A lot of people are easily manipulated so they just went along with it.

I’m from North Carolina.
Be careful. What you’re saying here will make a certain poster here accuse you of making things up. How dare you think like this!

Please refrain from using common sense from here forward. @Dattier doesn't know what to do with a black man thinking like a dumb, uneducated, white man like myself. Shame on you.
  • Like
Reactions: Dahntay#1

Official ACC tourney thread (all excluding Duke)

I think they have to at least beat Wake tomorrow to have a shot. Lose tomorrow and they are toast. But you just know they are likely going to win tomm. So it will be up to us. Beat Wake, lose a respectable one to us and they may get in. It just is what it is. Would probably be 50/50 unless they beat us. The tournament is about money and they would rather see UNC in the play in game than a Dayton type team.
Just read the portal opens today. Wow.
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT