The New Lounge

[Dattier]

What qualifications?

What exactly do you disagree with? Can you name a single instance where a community came to an officer's defense after a high profile event involving a LEO and a person of said community?

That communities who have good reason to distrust police should be expected to take a leap of faith without significant LEO outreach and empathy.

The very frame and accuracy. A community member ends up dead at the hands of an outsider with whom they have a tenuous relationship? Why would you expect anything other than for that relationship to be destroyed? You think justifying it through a court system they also have good reason not to trust is going to make any difference when one of their family or friends ends up dead? That’s privilege and entitlement for you right there.

 

[Dattier]

I rarely agree with you on social issues. But mostly have respect for how you articulate your message. But this wasn't your best rebuttal.

That's not an insult, btw. Unlike you, I do struggle with articulating my message a lot of times.

It’ll grow on you.

 

[GhostOf301]

That communities who have good reason to distrust police should be expected to take a leap of faith without significant LEO outreach and empathy.

The very frame and accuracy. A community member ends up dead at the hands of an outsider with whom they have a tenuous relationship? Why would you expect anything other than for that relationship to be destroyed? You think justifying it through a court system they also have good reason not to trust is going to make any difference when one of their family or friends ends up dead? That’s privilege and entitlement for you right there.

You automatically look at LEO as the villain and the community member as the victim. That's evident here. LEO do far more good in these communities than bad. And look at Baltimore, bu-bu-but Chicago and St Louis as examples of where communities kick the police out, essentially, and see how ridden with violence, addiction and death those communities are.

 

[BOOGIEMAN1914]

I definitely believe that some people were treated terribly in the Jim Crow South. I would never disagree with that. However, I think it’s been greatly exaggerated for one. And two, it was led by rouge politicians. Most black and white people got along just fine. And that’s where the problem comes in. Instead of saying it was rouge politicians making unconstitutional laws, they frame it as “All white people were racist and were out to lynch black people”. That couldn’t be farther from the truth.

They have white people walking around feeling guilty for something they had nothing to do with. The amount of white people I’ve heard say that all white people are racist is sickening.

I disagree with most of that and its okay...so rouge politicians made "some" unconstitutional laws and all/most just went along with it?...if you don't mind could you share what part of America you are from...curious?

 

[Dattier]

You automatically look at LEO as the villain and the community member as the victim. That's evident here. LEO do far more good in these communities than bad. And look at Baltimore, bu-bu-but Chicago and St Louis as examples of where communities kick the police out, essentially, and see how ridden with violence, addiction and death those communities are.

No, I wouldn’t participate in efforts to build those relationships if I thought they were villains. You can’t take the first step without understanding and respecting the distrust in those communities. It’s real whether you agree that it should be that way or not. How far is LEO going to get arguing that point?

 

[GhostOf301]

No, I wouldn’t participate in efforts to build those relationships if I thought they were villains. You can’t take the first step without understanding and respecting the distrust in those communities. It’s real whether you agree that it should be that way or not. How far is LEO going to get arguing that point?

Let's end today's discussion with a laugh.

 

[Dahntay#1]

I disagree with most of that and its okay...so rouge politicians made "some" unconstitutional laws and all/most just went along with it?...if you don't mind could you share what part of America you are from...curious?

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.

 

[Mac9192]

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.

 

[GhostOf301]

How about a wild change of subject. Let's talk about the rapidly increasing political violence from the left.

 

[KDSTONE]

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.

 

[Dattier]

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"?

 

[KDSTONE]

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.

 

[GhostOf301]

Wow. Violence from the left is good. Violence from the right is bad. That's a great stance. No wonder you loons defend hamas.

 

[KDSTONE]

Wow. Violence from the left is good. Violence from the right is bad. That's a great stance. No wonder you loons defend hamas.

It appears that because a terrorist group is anti west, anti Israel, that this trumps the fact they view women as chattel and LBQT’s as worthy of nothing other than a free trip off the nearest roof. Very peculiar times we live in

 

[Dattier]

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.

Hahaha!
"So you're saying" is how conservatives alert you to the fact they're about to deliberately misconstrue your words, dumbing them down so it's easier for them to debate.
That's so far from anything I said I don't even get what you're trying to connect it to.

The Left thought Musk was wonderful when they thought he was also on the Left and then stopped liking him when he moved to the Right? Really? Did the Pistons like Dennis Rodman better when he was on the Pistons than when he was on the Bulls, too?

The Tesla hate is purely about Musk, not our President. If it was about our President, someone would be vandalizing the factory where they make little tiny gloves.

 

[Dattier]

Wow. Violence from the left is good. Violence from the right is bad. That's a great stance. No wonder you loons defend hamas.

Who said that?

 

[Mac9192]

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"?

Wow. Violence from the left is good. Violence from the right is bad. That's a great stance. No wonder you loons defend hamas.

I'm trying real hard to give @Dattier the benefit of the doubt, even though he doesn't give us the same. He doesn't watch what we watch, so it's like he believes these are just your typical "sit-in" protests?

He really has no clue. These type protests need to be squashed, and an example made of them to deter any future ones from happening.

 

[KDSTONE]

Hahaha!
"So you're saying" is how conservatives alert you to the fact they're about to deliberately misconstrue your words, dumbing them down so it's easier for them to debate.
That's so far from anything I said I don't even get what you're trying to connect it to.

The Left thought Musk was wonderful when they thought he was also on the Left and then stopped liking him when he moved to the Right? Really? Did the Pistons like Dennis Rodman better when he was on the Pistons than when he was on the Bulls, too?

The Tesla hate is purely about Musk, not our President. If it was about our President, someone would be vandalizing the factory where they make little tiny gloves.

Evidence is mounting that Khalil Mahmoud (sp?) has had direct contact with Hamas, as have many other protest organizers around the country.
Still think this is a free speech issue? Freedom of speech is granted green card or visa holders, not criminal activity. See ya bye Khalil

 

[KDSTONE]

I'm trying real hard to give @Dattier the benefit of the doubt, even though he doesn't give us the same. He doesn't watch what we watch, so it's like he believes these are just your typical "sit-in" protests?

These type protests need to be squashed, and an example made of them to deter any future ones from happening.

He kids himself that these are your 60s style anti war protests.
Either he hasn’t seen any actual footage or he is playing his role to be for whatever it is we’re against. He relishes the role of Devil’s advocate and it makes for healthy debate, but sometimes you just have to take the L.

 

[KDSTONE]

Hahaha!
"So you're saying" is how conservatives alert you to the fact they're about to deliberately misconstrue your words, dumbing them down so it's easier for them to debate.
That's so far from anything I said I don't even get what you're trying to connect it to.

The Left thought Musk was wonderful when they thought he was also on the Left and then stopped liking him when he moved to the Right? Really? Did the Pistons like Dennis Rodman better when he was on the Pistons than when he was on the Bulls, too?

The Tesla hate is purely about Musk, not our President. If it was about our President, someone would be vandalizing the factory where they make little tiny gloves.

You’re a bright guy, but in this particular case it would have been damn near impossible to dumb down your words any further.

 

[Mac9192]

He kids himself that these are your 60s style anti war protests.
Either he hasn’t seen any actual footage or he is playing his role to be for whatever it is we’re against. He relishes the role of Devil’s advocate and it makes for healthy debate, but sometimes you just have to take the L.

He's clever. We know he doesn't watch anything we do, and he dismisses what we post. Even though our info has been proven to be much closer to the truth than almost all of his.

 

[KDSTONE]

I'm trying real hard to give @Dattier the benefit of the doubt, even though he doesn't give us the same. He doesn't watch what we watch, so it's like he believes these are just your typical "sit-in" protests?

He really has no clue. These type protests need to be squashed, and an example made of them to deter any future ones from happening.

Sadly I agree. Normally I side with too much free speech rather than too little but the anti Israel movement has become intertwined with antisemitism to the point where a particular group of students feels under attack 24/7.

 

[Dattier]

That's so far from anything I said I don't even get what you're trying to connect it to.

Oh! Oh! Is that library occupation and chanting what you're saying Columbia allowed? Gotcha.

If they "allowed" them to occupy a building, it wasn't illegal. Period. That's how law works. If I allow someone on my property, it's not trespassing. If I willingly shake someone's hand, it's not assault.
Chants -- including distasteful chants -- are protected by the Constitution. Assault and harassment are crimes and shame on them if they "allowed" that.

Chances are, Columbia didn't "allow" them or approve of them chanting specific things, they just didn't exact any consequences against them. Free speech is a tricky thing, which is why there have been countless cases before SCOTUS in the last 200+ years. It's complicated, and that's a good thing because it prevents such things from being decided based on the kneejerk emotional reactions of our President and his loyal herd. There's a point where it constitutes a threat and is illegal, but that's not your call, my call, or our President's call.

 

[Dattier]

I'm trying real hard to give @Dattier the benefit of the doubt...

No, you don't. You couldn't even finish that sentence without revealing that: "...even though he doesn't give us the same."

 

[Dattier]

Evidence is mounting that Khalil Mahmoud (sp?) has had direct contact with Hamas, as have many other protest organizers around the country.
Still think this is a free speech issue? Freedom of speech is granted green card or visa holders, not criminal activity. See ya bye Khalil

Is direct contact with Hamas illegal?
Yes. I still think this is a free speech issue. That was almost certainly why Columbia didn't move as quickly with the level of rage you wanted. As I stated, free speech becomes illegal at some point. Determining that should not be done in the court of public opinion.

 

[Mac9192]

No, you don't. You couldn't even finish that sentence without revealing that: "...even though he doesn't give us the same."

Nothing wrong with what I said, because it's true. You tell us "you really didn't see what you think you saw."

 

[KDSTONE]

Oh! Oh! Is that library occupation and chanting what you're saying Columbia allowed? Gotcha.

If they "allowed" them to occupy a building, it wasn't illegal. Period. That's how law works. If I allow someone on my property, it's not trespassing. If I willingly shake someone's hand, it's not assault.
Chants -- including distasteful chants -- are protected by the Constitution. Assault and harassment are crimes and shame on them if they "allowed" that.

Chances are, Columbia didn't "allow" them or approve of them chanting specific things, they just didn't exact any consequences against them. Free speech is a tricky thing, which is why there have been countless cases before SCOTUS in the last 200+ years. It's complicated, and that's a good thing because it prevents such things from being decided based on the kneejerk emotional reactions of our President and his loyal herd. There's a point where it constitutes a threat and is illegal, but that's not your call, my call, or our President's call.

Since he’s President and heads the executive branch, he is actually responsible for enforcing the laws protecting ALL students from harassment and discrimination. If Jewish students are prohibited from attending classes or to even move about freely on campus this is illegal and a violation of their civil rights.
Without consequences for the protestors , Columbia tacitly endorsed said behavior.
This part of the equation is actually not all that tricky.
As stated before, the university’s own task force concluded that they failed to protect Jewish students from harassment and intimidation. Getting in their faces constantly with questions like Are you a baby killer? etc. unacceptable that this has been going on for 18 months.

 

[Dattier]

Nothing wrong with what I said, because it's true. You tell us "you really didn't see what you think you saw."

lol
You do know what quotation marks mean, don't you?
You're doing that thing I just told @KDSTONE he was doing: "[conservatives] deliberately misconstrue your words, dumbing them down so it's easier for them to debate."
What you may be referring to is my statement that trusting your own limited senses and even further limited analysis skills is the arrogance of many on the Right who eschew properly vetted experts.

 

[KDSTONE]

Is direct contact with Hamas illegal?
Yes. I still think this is a free speech issue. That was almost certainly why Columbia didn't move as quickly with the level of rage you wanted. As I stated, free speech becomes illegal at some point. Determining that should not be done in the court of public opinion.

Didn’t want rage. That’s a ridiculous assertion. Wanted all students protected.

 

[Mac9192]

lol
You do know what quotation marks mean, don't you?
You're doing that thing I just told @KDSTONE he was doing: "[conservatives] deliberately misconstrue your words, dumbing them down so it's easier for them to debate."
What you may be referring to is my statement that trusting your own limited senses and even further limited analysis skills is the arrogance of many on the Right who eschew properly vetted experts.

Only someone as shifty as you can weave a bunch of words together in a post, cleverly manipulating the conversation to avoid discussing the actual subject. Take a bow.

 

[KDSTONE]

Only someone as shifty as you can weave a bunch of words together in a post, cleverly manipulating the conversation to avoid discussing the actual subject. Take a bow.

He wouldn’t be such a pearl clutching, free speech warrior if we replaced the word Jews with any other minority group. He’d be demanding that our Fascist in the White House do something dammit!

 

[Dattier]

Either he hasn’t seen any actual footage or he is playing his role to be for whatever it is we’re against. He relishes the role of Devil’s advocate and it makes for healthy debate, but sometimes you just have to take the L.

I have not seen any footage. I don't recall if you have provided any. My follow-up to any such footage would be to condemn it, then ask whether it was an isolated incident or something more widespread.

I told y'all in response to the original inquiry from @GhostOf301 about political violence on the Left: "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." You're welcome to decline, to tell me that no, you don't want me to play the Devil's advocate, but if you extend tacit approval by launching right into an argument with me, it seems a bit hypocritical to then turn around and attack me for playing the role you want me to play.

 

[Mac9192]

He wouldn’t be such a pearl clutching, free speech warrior if we replaced the word Jews with any other minority group. He’d be demanding that our Fascist in the White House do something dammit!

Spot on. Ironic his views line up with msm.

Imagine that.

 

[Dattier]

Only someone as shifty as you can weave a bunch of words together in a post, cleverly manipulating the conversation to avoid discussing the actual subject. Take a bow.

You mean "be better at word-using"? Yeah. Guilty as charged.

I wish your big mouth came with the intelligence of a fish. Maybe you'd learn to stop chomping down on the hook all the time.

 

[Dattier]

He wouldn’t be such a pearl clutching, free speech warrior if we replaced the word Jews with any other minority group. He’d be demanding that our Fascist in the White House do something dammit!

Cool! @Mac9192 loves fan-fiction! Now he can pretend this actually happened while he's trying oh-so hard to give me the benefit of the doubt.

 

[KDSTONE]

I have not seen any footage. I don't recall if you have provided any. My follow-up to any such footage would be to condemn it, then ask whether it was an isolated incident or something more widespread.

I told y'all in response to the original inquiry from @GhostOf301 about political violence on the Left: "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." You're welcome to decline, to tell me that no, you don't want me to play the Devil's advocate, but if you extend tacit approval by launching right into an argument with me, it seems a bit hypocritical to then turn around and attack me for playing the role you want me to play.

I’ve provided links to UCLA, Tulane, and Columbia. It seems your intellectual curiosity only extends as far as seeking out confirmation of your preexisting views, precisely what you accuse us of.

 

[Dattier]

Since he’s President and heads the executive branch, he is actually responsible for enforcing the laws protecting ALL students from harassment and discrimination. If Jewish students are prohibited from attending classes or to even move about freely on campus this is illegal and a violation of their civil rights.
Without consequences for the protestors , Columbia tacitly endorsed said behavior.
This part of the equation is actually not all that tricky.
As stated before, the university’s own task force concluded that they failed to protect Jewish students from harassment and intimidation. Getting in their faces constantly with questions like Are you a baby killer? etc. unacceptable that this has been going on for 18 months.

(Missed this previously.)
Eh. It's true that Presidents can involve themselves in local matters, but most choose to allow state and local government to handle it themselves. I would be less skeptical if "ALL students" really meant all students. I've never seen our President address harassment of Muslims or BIPOC or LGBTQIAQAFC+.

"If Jewish students are prohibited from attending classes or to even move about freely on campus this is illegal and a violation of their civil rights."
Agreed.

"Without consequences for the protestors , Columbia tacitly endorsed said behavior."
This presumes the verdict on that speech/behavior. Even still, allowing ALL free speech (not that schools have to) includes speech you do not endorse.

"As stated before, the university’s own task force concluded that they failed to protect Jewish students from harassment and intimidation."
In that case, the school should act in a timely manner to fix that.

 

[Dattier]

I’ve provided links to UCLA, Tulane, and Columbia. It seems your intellectual curiosity only extends as far as seeking out confirmation of your preexisting views, precisely what you accuse us of.

I remember the UCLA one, and that it was behind a firewall. I remember finding it elsewhere myself. UCLA shut it down, so that's that. I don't know what more story there is to it wrt UCLA.

I don't remember anything you posted about Tulane or Columbia that stands out as relevant. I don't remember details, in any regard. Did I proceed to ask about how widespread it was, like I've stated I will do in the post you quoted?

Seeking out the UCLA info myself is evidence that I'm willing to extend beyond my bubble. Telling you in the last sentence of my last post that "In that case, the school should act in a timely manner to fix that," or earlier in the same post that I agreed about the hypothetical violation of Jewish students' civil rights is further evidence. I stand by that accusation of conservatives here.

 

[Mac9192]

I remember the UCLA one, and that it was behind a firewall. I remember finding it elsewhere myself. UCLA shut it down, so that's that. I don't know what more story there is to it wrt UCLA.

I don't remember anything you posted about Tulane or Columbia that stands out as relevant. I don't remember details, in any regard. Did I proceed to ask about how widespread it was, like I've stated I will do in the post you quoted?

Seeking out the UCLA info myself is evidence that I'm willing to extend beyond my bubble. Telling you in the last sentence of my last post that "In that case, the school should act in a timely manner to fix that," or earlier in the same post that I agreed about the hypothetical violation of Jewish students' civil rights is further evidence. I stand by that accusation of conservatives here.

Again, when shown proof, you find some way to discredit it or use the line “I don’t remember.”

Classic

 

[Dattier]

Again, when shown proof, you find some way to discredit it or use the line “I don’t remember.”

Classic

Doesn't speak very highly of your standard for "proof" when I find a way to discredit it so often. Try raising the standard you hold yourself to before you whine about how easily I discredit your so-called "proof."

And you try giving me the benefit of the doubt... that I actually do remember but am pretending I don't. Try harder.

You are boring.