ADVERTISEMENT

The New Lounge

Dattier said:
No, really: I don’t even agree with your alleged “racial hoaxes” or Mac’s claim about BLM and Antifa’s origins. Those are in the first sentences of each of your posts. How do we get past that and have any productive, constructive discussion?
Click to expand...
Michael Brown was determined to be a justified shooting by a police officer due to Black eye witness testimony. This event led to BLM. The msm ignored the evidence and pushed their narrative that Michael Brown was killed due to his race. You don’t think this post is part of a productive constructive discussion? Or does the truth hurt that much?
Wendy’s drive in shooting led to riots in Atlanta. Guy passed out drunk led to police being called . When arriving, The Black victim actually stole the officers own tazer and used it on officer. Another justified shooting. You don’t consider these to be hoaxes?
 
KDSTONE said:
Michael Brown was determined to be a justified shooting by a police officer due to Black eye witness testimony. This event led to BLM. The msm ignored the evidence and pushed their narrative that Michael Brown was killed due to his race. You don’t think this post is part of a productive constructive discussion? Or does the truth hurt that much?
Wendy’s drive in shooting led to riots in Atlanta. Guy passed out drunk led to police being called . When arriving, The Black victim actually stole the officers own tazer and used it on officer. Another justified shooting. You don’t consider these to be hoaxes?
Click to expand...
Spot on. It’s simple. All about the $. Whites committing violence against minorities sells, add even more $$ to it if they wear blue.
The Virginia football shooting is another example. A tragic event, as any of them are. But the shooter is black, so the coverage is really low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDSTONE
Mac9192 said:
Spot on. It’s simple. All about the $. Whites committing violence against minorities sells, add even more $$ to it if they wear blue.
The Virginia football shooting is another example. A tragic event, as any of them are. But the shooter is black, so the coverage is really low.
Click to expand...
The riots, I mean mostly peaceful protests, were based on lies. It would be one thing if it just helped Dems at the polls. Unfortunately lives were lost and communities destroyed. This is when I realized the Dem/ Msm/ Big Tech cabal is not only corrupt but pure evil
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukesince91 and Mac9192
KDSTONE said:
Michael Brown was determined to be a justified shooting by a police officer due to Black eye witness testimony. This event led to BLM. The msm ignored the evidence and pushed their narrative that Michael Brown was killed due to his race. You don’t think this post is part of a productive constructive discussion? Or does the truth hurt that much?
Wendy’s drive in shooting led to riots in Atlanta. Guy passed out drunk led to police being called . When arriving, The Black victim actually stole the officers own tazer and used it on officer. Another justified shooting. You don’t consider these to be hoaxes?
Click to expand...
“JustifiABLE” and “justiFIED” have different meanings. The former means there isn’t enough evidence to support charges. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. The latter means it was not only justifiable, but also the consensus correct choice. It wasn’t. For example, had former Officer Wilson held off on a couple shots that included the fatal shot, yet sufficiently subdued Brown, it would have been a more desirable outcome for anyone who actually values human life. The grand jury — not a court — decided his actions were within a justifiable range. The way the grand jury was conducted was also highly unusual. Former Officer Wilson had the best counsel LEO resources can provide and knew exactly how to talk to the grand jury. Did anyone speaking for what may have become the prosecution have similar privilege?

BLM started in 2013, before Michael Brown was killed.

The Rayshard Brooks’ killing at that Atlanta Wendy’s initially resulted in charges against the officers. The first of two taser shots occurred while he was struggling with the Officer. The second and only other possible shot occurred while he was running away and it missed. He was shot in the back and killed after that.

I’m not arguing that those Atl officers should have been charged and that dropping those charges was some huge racist establishment conspiracy. I’m acknowledging gray area without cynicism and paranoia. Y’all are acting as if everyone knows the exact same objective truth and that some people are consciously choosing to lie.

Look at how long it took me to unpack your FIRST SENTENCE. And y’all still won’t accept that’s there’s a twinge of a reasonable gray area. Y’all deny the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election but can’t see how there’s the slightest degree of the unknown and unknowable gray area in the split second decision-making of a police shooting.

And you also still won’t acknowledge any reason I consider it a waste of time to engage with y’all most of the time.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fourteen44
Mac9192 said:
Spot on. It’s simple. All about the $. Whites committing violence against minorities sells, add even more $$ to it if they wear blue.
The Virginia football shooting is another example. A tragic event, as any of them are. But the shooter is black, so the coverage is really low.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t whites committing violence against BIPOC get media attention?

The UVA case has received national attention, but where is the controversy? Where is the complexity? It’s a pretty open-and-shut, horribly tragic thing, just like most inner-city violence in Chicago and anywhere else right-wing extremists like to point while playing whataboutism.

A Black junkie murders a pretty blonde white girl for drug money and gets caught. He is convicted and sentenced. It’s a horrible, nightmarish tragedy, then justice is served. An LEO abuses their authority and kills a total d-bag without clear justification… and it’s considered an affront to LEO everywhere and Gawd-almighty if there’s even an investigation?! Does capital-J Justice have any objective meaning, or is it up to the whims of emotional, snowflake right-wing extremists whether the victim was sympathetic and relatable enough to warrant it?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fourteen44
Dattier said:
“JustifiABLE” and “justiFIED” have different meanings. The former means there isn’t enough evidence to support charges. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. The latter means it was not only justifiable, but also the consensus correct choice. It wasn’t. For example, had former Officer Wilson held off on a couple shots that included the fatal shot, yet sufficiently subdued Brown, it would have been a more desirable outcome for anyone who actually values human life. The grand jury — not a court — decided his actions were within a justifiable range. The way the grand jury was conducted was also highly unusual. Former Officer Wilson had the best counsel LEO resources can provide and knew exactly how to talk to the grand jury. Did anyone speaking for what may have become the prosecution have similar privilege?

BLM started in 2013, before Michael Brown was killed.

The Rayshard Brooks’ killing at that Atlanta Wendy’s initially resulted in charges against the officers. The first of two taser shots occurred while he was struggling with the Officer. The second and only other possible shot occurred while he was running away and it missed. He was shot in the back and killed after that.

I’m not arguing that those Atl officers should have been charged and that dropping those charges was some huge racist establishment conspiracy. I’m acknowledging gray area without cynicism and paranoia. Y’all are acting as if everyone knows the exact same objective truth and that some people are consciously choosing to lie.

Look at how long it took me to unpack your FIRST SENTENCE. And y’all still won’t accept that’s there’s a twinge of a reasonable gray area. Y’all deny the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election but can’t see how there’s the slightest degree of the unknown and unknowable gray area in the split second decision-making of a police shooting.

And you also still won’t acknowledge any reason I consider it a waste of time to engage with y’all most of the time.
Click to expand...
Were Left wing agitators thinking about complexities and “gray areas” when they were burning and looting businesses? I’m guessing they weren’t.
Most people on the right expect the actions of cops to be investigated if it leads to a death. What we hate is the presumption of guilt by the Left and the msm.
 
Dattier said:
Shouldn’t whites committing violence against BIPOC get media attention?

The UVA case has received national attention, but where is the controversy? Where is the complexity? It’s a pretty open-and-shut, horribly tragic thing, just like most inner-city violence in Chicago and anywhere else right-wing extremists like to point while playing whataboutism.

A Black junkie murders a pretty blonde white girl for drug money and gets caught. He is convicted and sentenced. It’s a horrible, nightmarish tragedy, then justice is served. An LEO abuses their authority and kills a total d-bag without clear justification… and it’s considered an affront to LEO everywhere and Gawd-almighty if there’s even an investigation?! Does capital-J Justice have any objective meaning, or is it up to the whims of emotional, snowflake right-wing extremists whether the victim was sympathetic and relatable enough to warrant it?
Click to expand...
Once again, you’re missing the point. No surprise. One particular incident shouldn’t get coverage, while another does. It’s about how the msm handles them. That’s the issue. Cops killing someone makes headlines. Same as a white person. And in many of these, the media jumps to conclusions. But, never do they admit their wrongs. Which are plenty.
It doesn’t fit their narrative if it’s black on black, or black on white.
All deaths are tragic. No one is saying different. Again, it’s how the left and media handles the incidents.
 
Last edited:
The point I think is relevant is that while all deaths are tragic, not all WARRANT equal attention. Those considered controversial or perpetrated by authorities representing the state warrant more attention.

I’m still not sure what point you were trying to make, and as long as you try to make it with claims like “no surprise,” “their narrative,” “how the left and media handles [it],” “it’s simple,” and so many more, you’re going to obscure the point you’re trying to make, and make me less interested in caring what your point is.
 
KDSTONE said:
Were Left wing agitators thinking about complexities and “gray areas” when they were burning and looting businesses? I’m guessing they weren’t.
Click to expand...
Yes. Dr. King said, “A riot is the language of the unheard,” and “We must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced the murderers.” The right acts as if understanding the reason is the same as condoning it.

Now how about you stop playing whataboutism with deflective examples and pointing, and address my point regarding the exact examples at hand?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fourteen44
Dattier said:
The point I think is relevant is that while all deaths are tragic, not all WARRANT equal attention. Those considered controversial or perpetrated by authorities representing the state warrant more attention.

I’m still not sure what point you were trying to make, and as long as you try to make it with claims like “no surprise,” “their narrative,” “how the left and media handles [it],” “it’s simple,” and so many more, you’re going to obscure the point you’re trying to make, and make me less interested in caring what your point is.
Click to expand...
But the media is a huge part of the problem. They are the ones driving the train, and making things worse.

It’s not by accident either.
 
KDSTONE said:
Were Left wing agitators thinking about complexities and “gray areas” when they were burning and looting businesses? I’m guessing they weren’t.
Most people on the right expect the actions of cops to be investigated if it leads to a death. What we hate is the presumption of guilt by the Left and the msm.
Click to expand...
Just want to remind you about this:
“Look at how long it took me to unpack your FIRST SENTENCE. And y’all still won’t accept that’s there’s a twinge of a reasonable gray area…
And you also still won’t acknowledge any reason I consider it a waste of time to engage with y’all most of the time.”

And what did you do? You came back with a whatsboutism— which I addressed, unlike you.
 
Mac9192 said:
But the media is a huge part of the problem. They are the ones driving the train, and making things worse.

It’s not by accident either.
Click to expand...
Yes, the media is at least a part of the problem. They’re not the only problem; they’re not the primary problem; they’re not strictly a problem; and the day you stop quoting conspiracy theories and completely illegitimate right-wing propaganda will be the day I consider you anything but a hypocrite when it comes to critiquing the media. You don’t vet a daggum thing you cite. It’s Gospel and anything else is the Satanic Bible. That’s an extremist, cultish perspective. You show no signs here of any humility, any self-reflection, any self-awareness. You’re self-righteous and intolerant. Note how often I say things like “we see things differently” and how regularly I phrase it without bias or judgment. When was the last time you did anything but condemn the other side wholesale?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fourteen44
Dattier said:
Yes, the media is at least a part of the problem. They’re not the only problem; they’re not the primary problem; they’re not strictly a problem; and the day you stop quoting conspiracy theories and completely illegitimate right-wing propaganda will be the day I consider you anything but a hypocrite when it comes to critiquing the media. You don’t vet a daggum thing you cite. It’s Gospel and anything else is the Satanic Bible. That’s an extremist, cultish perspective. You show no signs here of any humility, any self-reflection, any self-awareness. You’re self-righteous and intolerant. Note how often I say things like “we see things differently” and how regularly I phrase it without bias or judgment. When was the last time you did anything but condemn the other side wholesale?
Click to expand...
Yes we do see things differently. I see the left as hateful, and inciting more violence. The media is a bigger problem than you’re willing to admit.

I agree with you: we aren’t able to have decent conversation. I think your views are harmful, and I won’t back down from my claims.
 
Mac9192 said:
Yes we do see things differently. I see the left as hateful, and inciting more violence. The media is a bigger problem than you’re willing to admit.

I agree with you: we aren’t able to have decent conversation. I think your views are harmful, and I won’t back down from my claims.
Click to expand...
In fairness, he needs mental health breaks from this board. That alone shows his mental resolve 😂
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Crest is Garbage
Dattier said:
“JustifiABLE” and “justiFIED” have different meanings. The former means there isn’t enough evidence to support charges. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. The latter means it was not only justifiable, but also the consensus correct choice. It wasn’t. For example, had former Officer Wilson held off on a couple shots that included the fatal shot, yet sufficiently subdued Brown, it would have been a more desirable outcome for anyone who actually values human life. The grand jury — not a court — decided his actions were within a justifiable range. The way the grand jury was conducted was also highly unusual. Former Officer Wilson had the best counsel LEO resources can provide and knew exactly how to talk to the grand jury. Did anyone speaking for what may have become the prosecution have similar privilege?

BLM started in 2013, before Michael Brown was killed.

The Rayshard Brooks’ killing at that Atlanta Wendy’s initially resulted in charges against the officers. The first of two taser shots occurred while he was struggling with the Officer. The second and only other possible shot occurred while he was running away and it missed. He was shot in the back and killed after that.

I’m not arguing that those Atl officers should have been charged and that dropping those charges was some huge racist establishment conspiracy. I’m acknowledging gray area without cynicism and paranoia. Y’all are acting as if everyone knows the exact same objective truth and that some people are consciously choosing to lie.

Look at how long it took me to unpack your FIRST SENTENCE. And y’all still won’t accept that’s there’s a twinge of a reasonable gray area. Y’all deny the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election but can’t see how there’s the slightest degree of the unknown and unknowable gray area in the split second decision-making of a police shooting.

And you also still won’t acknowledge any reason I consider it a waste of time to engage with y’all most of the time.
Click to expand...
Ray shard Brooks: charges were only brought because the mayor of Atl at the time Keisha Bottoms is a race obsessed partisan hack who is not as smart or emlightened as you. Like everyone else on the Left she does not give a rats ass about nuance or complexity but only cares about advancing one narrative: White people bad and white police officers especially
 
Mac9192 said:
But the media is a huge part of the problem. They are the ones driving the train, and making things worse.

It’s not by accident either.
Click to expand...
Huge part? Sure.

I think it actually IS by accident. We conceded too much control and trust to the media. We didn’t know that’s what we were doing, but we did.

The media pursued ratings and hits and mentions, etc. Shame on them, okay, but shame on us for the circumstances that make speech a commodity or/and marketing thing, as opposed to a right — with certain accountability measures attached.
 
Mac9192 said:
Yes we do see things differently. I see the left as hateful, and inciting more violence. The media is a bigger problem than you’re willing to admit.

I agree with you: we aren’t able to have decent conversation. I think your views are harmful, and I won’t back down from my claims.
Click to expand...
I see your views similarly. If there’s no reciprocal agreement to consider each other’s side respectfully, we should just accept that discussion is pointless.
 
Dattier said:
I see your views similarly. If there’s no reciprocal agreement to consider each other’s side respectfully, we should just accept that discussion is pointless.
Click to expand...
Typical liberal. Either say what I want you to say or I’m gonna whine about it. You make good points every now and then, but the facts are usually not on your side. Feelings over Facts defines the modern Left. It’s become the Lefts religion. More like a cult really that shuns any one who doesn’t accept every tenet
 
KDSTONE said:
Ray shard Brooks: charges were only brought because the mayor of Atl at the time Keisha Bottoms is a race obsessed partisan hack who is not as smart or emlightened as you. Like everyone else on the Left she does not give a rats ass about nuance or complexity but only cares about advancing one narrative: White people bad and white police officers especially
Click to expand...
Geez. “Only”? “Race obsessed partisan hack”? Doesn’t care about “nuance or context complexity”? “Advancing one narrative”?

Not worth it
 
KDSTONE said:
Typical liberal. Either say what I want you to say or I’m gonna whine about it. You make good points every now and then, but the facts are usually not on your side. Feelings over Facts defines the modern Left. It’s become the Lefts religion. More like a cult really that shuns any one who doesn’t accept every tenet
Click to expand...
What’s typical?
Are there not non-negotiable standards you have? Would you agree to a discussion, for example, with the given condition that transgendered people are the gender they say they are? Why would I accept your conditions I consider as unreasonable as you must see mine?
 
Dattier said:
What’s typical?
Are there not non-negotiable standards you have? Would you agree to a discussion, for example, with the given condition that transgendered people are the gender they say they are? Why would I accept your conditions I consider as unreasonable as you must see mine?
Click to expand...
I’d agree about transgender adults not children who have been brainwashed into having their genitals mutilated and their future sex lives destroyed I figure you know what the word typical means.
 
As mentioned previously, I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan, though I respect him and there have been rare occasions where I think he's spot-on. Here's an interview on a YouTube channel I just discovered. I'm about 2/3 through it and so far, it's pretty fascinating and unobjectionable,

 
Dattier said:
As mentioned previously, I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan, though I respect him and there have been rare occasions where I think he's spot-on. Here's an interview on a YouTube channel I just discovered. I'm about 2/3 through it and so far, it's pretty fascinating and unobjectionable,

View embedded media
Click to expand...
You’re not a fan because he tends to defend males, and quite often white males.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Crest is Garbage and pisgah101
This is part of the "adults being back in charge". Disgusting P.O.S.

 
GhostOf301 said:
This is part of the "adults being back in charge". Disgusting P.O.S.

View embedded media
Click to expand...
I’d respect this evil sob if he called it what is: child mutilation Liberals and their word games. Destroying a fetus is called reproductive care. I guess this helps them sleep at night, assuming they have a conscience
 
Dattier said:
How is it easier to believe that grooming is the intention than that there is huge difference in perspective?
Click to expand...
Kids and teens do all kinds of crazy stuff. Having a doctor cut off your testicles or breasts should not be one of them.
 
KDSTONE said:
I’d respect this evil sob if he called it what is: child mutilation Liberals and their word games. Destroying a fetus is called reproductive care. I guess this helps them sleep at night, assuming they have a conscience
Click to expand...
Best info I could find is that hormone therapy isn't allowed until age 18 (16 or 17 w/ parental consent). Hormone blockers, which are different, can start w/ puberty, which could indeed be significantly younger. The latter have been used with pubescent children for 40 years and are temporary (kind of like how 16-y-o women Olympic gymnasts' extreme training postpones their physical development).

For gender reassignment surgery, they have to be on the hormone treatment for at least one year, and to have had a qualifying mental health evaluation for at least two years. As I didn't find anything to the contrary, I guess the mental health evaluation could happen earlier, so if there is parental consent for the hormone therapy at age 16, gender reassignment surgery could happen as early as age 17.
 
KDSTONE said:
Kids and teens do all kinds of crazy stuff. Having a doctor cut off your testicles or breasts should not be one of them.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how that addresses my question. Also, I shared some facts in response to your previous post just now.
 
Dattier said:
Best info I could find is that hormone therapy isn't allowed until age 18 (16 or 17 w/ parental consent). Hormone blockers, which are different, can start w/ puberty, which could indeed be significantly younger. The latter have been used with pubescent children for 40 years and are temporary (kind of like how 16-y-o women Olympic gymnasts' extreme training postpones their physical development).

For gender reassignment surgery, they have to be on the hormone treatment for at least one year, and to have had a qualifying mental health evaluation for at least two years. As I didn't find anything to the contrary, I guess the mental health evaluation could happen earlier, so if there is parental consent for the hormone therapy at age 16, gender reassignment surgery could happen as early as age 17.
Click to expand...
If they’re grooming kids the mental health evaluation is a rubber stamp and therefore meaningless. If the trans commun gets their way there will be no age restrictions. Children at school are being treated as their preferred sex without parental consent in many states already. Johnny is being called Jenny, etc. LGBTQ are already advocating foster care for prepubescents whose parents don’t want to play make believe or even just want to wait a couple of years to see if the child “grows out of it”
 
Dattier said:
Best info I could find is that hormone therapy isn't allowed until age 18 (16 or 17 w/ parental consent). Hormone blockers, which are different, can start w/ puberty, which could indeed be significantly younger. The latter have been used with pubescent children for 40 years and are temporary (kind of like how 16-y-o women Olympic gymnasts' extreme training postpones their physical development).

For gender reassignment surgery, they have to be on the hormone treatment for at least one year, and to have had a qualifying mental health evaluation for at least two years. As I didn't find anything to the contrary, I guess the mental health evaluation could happen earlier, so if there is parental consent for the hormone therapy at age 16, gender reassignment surgery could happen as early as age 17.
Click to expand...
Gender affirmation surgery is the approved terminology this week.
 
KDSTONE said:
If they’re grooming kids the mental health evaluation is a rubber stamp and therefore meaningless. If the trans commun gets their way there will be no age restrictions. Children at school are being treated as their preferred sex without parental consent in many states already. Johnny is being called Jenny, etc. LGBTQ are already advocating foster care for prepubescents whose parents don’t want to play make believe or even just want to wait a couple of years to see if the child “grows out of it”
Click to expand...
If who is grooming kids? Mainstream medical professionals? You can't dismiss mental health evaluations on an "if."

Kids try out nicknames at school all the time. William becomes Bill; Percy decides to go by his middle name because it has to be better than Percy. They also explore romantic relationships that may be interracial or same-sex. There is also confidentiality up until the point safety may be compromised. Sometimes that confidentiality is what provides safety.

Advocates of all types advocate for foster care in abusive situations. There is a wide range of parental resistance to gender-identity issues. I think reasonable people can accept that on one end is abuse and on the other end is mild disapproval/skepticism,

Throwing in phrases like "play make believe" makes me suspect you're not willing to discuss this respectfully and logically.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fourteen44
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back