The New Lounge

[KDSTONE]

No, that's also very fair.

Here's the paragraph before that:
"The shooting is likely to fuel polarization in the United States over the war in Gaza between supporters of Israel and pro-Palestinian demonstrators."
I find it within the reasonable scope of good journalism to make predictions about what might happen as a result. While I'm sure there will be many among the Left rushing to denounce the murders, there will be plenty of volume (if not people) making Luigi comparisons and trying to refocus on Israels's sins. On the Right, this is obviously an escalation of things they already think are out of line.

Then that last paragraph, numbers added for clarity:
"[1] Conservative supporters of Israel led by Trump have branded pro-Palestinian protests as antisemitic. [2] His administration has detained protesters without charge and [3] cut off funding to elite U.S. universities that have permitted demonstrations."
I mean, all 3 of those things are true, and explain how the shooting may fuel polarization. I think you and I have argued about those exact 3 things, and not whether they were true or not, but whether they were appropriate or not.

I accept that a lot of msm has a left-leaning bias, and that sometimes that's insurmountable and compromises their credibility. The issue I have with criticism of msm, though, is when conservatives view neutrality as biased against them, like anything not slanted in their favor is troubling for them. Reuters isn't weighing in either way on the merits of those 3 things. They're just stating them.

Reuters is misrepresenting 2 and 3 in a way intentionally unfavorable to Trump. This is practically the textbook definition of weighing in, an attempt to tip the scales. You accept all three points as true because you’ve chosen to accept that visa holders’ due process has been denied. Reasonable take, but not what the law says.

2) If someone on a student visa is found to have lied about a material fact on their application they can be detained and eventually removed without charge. Lying about support for a terrorist agency, e.g. Khlsil’s attorneys I assume are appealing his detention as we speak. The mere fact that he has attorneys working on his behalf undercuts the Left’s assertion that his rights have been trampled.
3) Cut off funding to elite universities that permitted demonstrations.
While perhaps technically true, this suggests that funding withholding is a free speech issue. In fact, funding has been withheld due to Title 6 violations of Jewish students’ civil rights. Impeding Jews’ movement on campuses, Jews being subjected to genocidal chants and blood libels, barricading Jewish students in the library (Columbia). None of this is protected free speech. You continue to present this issue as a First Amendment case while the Trump order hinges on the civil rights issue.
It’s true that protesters are seldom arrested for words that come out of their mouths even if it’s “Get in the oven” or Go back to Auschwitz. However, the univs should have done more to crack down on this a year and a half ago. This speech is a violation of the Code of Conduct at most any university and is also a violation of intl law according to the Genocide Convention of 1948, although again it’s virtually never prosecuted.
To repeat an oft made point, if these protesters were shouting Lynch the Blacks or Go back to Africa, would the univ be such free speech warriors? We all know the answer. If it were a movement unsavory to the admin their first order of business would have been to kick off campus all the paid protesters who weren’t actually students. Then take it from there, reminding students that all other students have a right to an environment free from harassment and discrimination.

 

[KDSTONE]

You're practically begging for apologies, credit, submission. You are gleeful about your perception that you are right and that it actually means anything when you just guessed what you wanted to be true. Not a second's worth of sympathy or somberness.

Now you're adding that it was comical to watch him. Comical to watch a man you claim to have known was this bad off. You laughed. You had fun. It was comical. You loved it.

Why would I share my outrage with any of y'all? We're not friends. We're not on the same side.

When you just guessed what you wanted to be true.
To say we exaggerated or jumped to conclusions early in his Presidency maybe. I don’t buy it, but at least you have a leg to stand on.
Guess? That’s a stretch. It was bad from the start and gradually got worse. The evidence was clear from the beginning.
Word around the campfire is that Jill and his closest advisors kept him hidden on his “ bad days” but as far as the debate night it was too politically risky to pull out last minute. They expected the media to gaslight the public one more time and were shocked when the media decided to be real journalists for a little while.

 

[KDSTONE]

Here you go again. I will admit I'm gleeful about Biden. Not that he has cancer, but that we were right about his mental decline, despite the fact you and the media did nothing but call us liars over the years. I rejoice being able to say "WE TOLD YOU SO."

I shouldn't feel this way, but to be honest, I think you're a prick.

 

[Dattier]

Reuters is misrepresenting 2 and 3 in a way intentionally unfavorable to Trump. This is practically the textbook definition of weighing in, an attempt to tip the scales. You accept all three points as true because you’ve chosen to accept that visa holders’ due process has been denied. Reasonable take, but not what the law says.

2) If someone on a student visa is found to have lied about a material fact on their application they can be detained and eventually removed without charge. Lying about support for a terrorist agency, e.g. Khlsil’s attorneys I assume are appealing his detention as we speak. The mere fact that he has attorneys working on his behalf undercuts the Left’s assertion that his rights have been trampled.

^Added bold is mine.
Reuters said: "His administration has detained protesters without charge"
You've stated circumstances where someone can be detained without charge. Reuters says the Trump administration has done so. What's the problem?

3) Cut off funding to elite universities that permitted demonstrations.
While perhaps technically true, this suggests that funding withholding is a free speech issue. In fact, funding has been withheld due to Title 6 violations of Jewish students’ civil rights. Impeding Jews’ movement on campuses, Jews being subjected to genocidal chants and blood libels, barricading Jewish students in the library (Columbia). None of this is protected free speech. You continue to present this issue as a First Amendment case while the Trump order hinges on the civil rights issue.

^Again, the bold is mine.
You're admitting it may be technically accurate. It's missing your opinion of it, which is the same as the President's case for it. It is also missing any reference to free speech, but you're claiming the absence of the President's interpretation means support of something that is equally not stated?
**I** am not presenting this issue as anything here, and neither is Reuters.

It’s true that protesters are seldom arrested for words that come out of their mouths even if it’s “Get in the oven” or Go back to Auschwitz. However, the univs should have done more to crack down on this a year and a half ago.

And it is constitutionally correct that they should not be arrested for such hateful speech. I agree that if such speech was confirmed, universities have an ethical obligation to crack down on it to the extent they can.

 

[Dattier]

When you just guessed what you wanted to be true.
To say we exaggerated or jumped to conclusions early in his Presidency maybe. I don’t buy it, but at least you have a leg to stand on.

I'll take it! And if that had been anywhere in the discussion in 2021, it might have gone a different route. It wasn't. It didn't. I've already explained quite thoroughly that I do not owe y'all anything; I do not apologize for anything I said (other than where I already have for something that isn't really part of the broad discussion here); I do not regret how I played the cards I was dealt, especially as it relates to the cards y'all played.

 

[KDSTONE]

Point 3) the wording intentionally suggests that funding was cut off because the universities allowed students to protest or “ permitted demonstrations”. A reasonable person would infer, therefore, that Trump denied funding in an unconstitutional crackdown on First Amendment rights since students’ right to protest is generally seen as sacrosanct especially at Ivies. This inference would be bolstered by the fact that Reuters makes no mention of Jewish students and civil rights violations, deliberately misleading its readers as to why funding was actually suspended.
Re: pt 2, we can agree to disagree why Reuters worded it that way. I think they wanted to suggest without being explicit that the Trump admin had overstepped its legal authority.

 

[KDSTONE]

^Added bold is mine.
Reuters said: "His administration has detained protesters without charge"
You've stated circumstances where someone can be detained without charge. Reuters says the Trump administration has done so. What's the problem?


^Again, the bold is mine.
You're admitting it may be technically accurate. It's missing your opinion of it, which is the same as the President's case for it. It is also missing any reference to free speech, but you're claiming the absence of the President's interpretation means support of something that is equally not stated?
**I** am not presenting this issue as anything here, and neither is Reuters.


And it is constitutionally correct that they should not be arrested for such hateful speech. I agree that if such speech was confirmed, universities have an ethical obligation to crack down on it to the extent they can.

Second part. “ permitting demonstrations” could be seen as a free speech issue, definitely a freedom of assembly one. Reuters framing the funding issue as a First Amendment issue rather than a Title VI would prob be more accurate

 

[Dattier]

Okay, @KDSTONE , I see your point. I don't think we're going to get much further here. We agree on almost every paragraph of that Reuters article. We can leave it at that.

I mean, if my favorite Bond is Daniel Craig and yours is Timothy Dalton, at least we're both Bond fans, right? Or if my favorite Duke mbb coach all-time is K and yours is Pete Gaudet, at least we're both Duke fans, right?

 

[GhostOf301]

 

[Dattier]

Theo Vonn is hilarious. Really good casting with all those babies, too. I mean, I know the lips are AI -- I'm not stupid -- but they got babies that look just like all of them.

I really hope he doesn't get corrupted like Rogan.

 

[GhostOf301]

Congratulations to a special someone who is celebrating 5 years of sobriety, today.

 

[Dahntay#1]

Congratulations to a special someone who is celebrating 5 years of sobriety, today.

2020 sure was an interesting year. The white guilt I saw during that time was both hilarious and nauseating. And since that time, George Floyd has somehow been turned into a hero. Never seen anything like it.

 

[GhostOf301]

2020 sure was an interesting year. The white guilt I saw during that time was both hilarious and nauseating. And since that time, George Floyd has somehow been turned into a hero. Never seen anything like it.

Every year I like to remind people of how stupid they were for allowing a violent criminal with a history of violence against women, who didn’t die from how they were told he died, to become a martyr. His death didn’t bring attention to an epidemic of police violence against minorities. His death didn’t start a conversation about change and reform. His death didn’t spark an uprising of the oppressed and marginalized people. The demonstrations were not organic nor just. Dozens of people were killed, billions in damages and thousands of jobs were lost. Not to mention the trickle down effect from department stores closing, police reducing their patrol zones and increased tensions between races. 2020 created a negative shift in cultural behavior and all over a lie and a bullshit narrative.

 

[Dattier]

The only thing i agree on is that he isn’t a hero.

 

[Dahntay#1]

Every year I like to remind people of how stupid they were for allowing a violent criminal with a history of violence against women, who didn’t die from how they were told he died, to become a martyr. His death didn’t bring attention to an epidemic of police violence against minorities. His death didn’t start a conversation about change and reform. His death didn’t spark an uprising of the oppressed and marginalized people. The demonstrations were not organic nor just. Dozens of people were killed, billions in damages and thousands of jobs were lost. Not to mention the trickle down effect from department stores closing, police reducing their patrol zones and increased tensions between races. 2020 created a negative shift in cultural behavior and all over a lie and a bullshit narrative.

Just goes to show how powerful the media is. It appears that msm is dying a slow death, so I’m not sure anything like this could happen again.

 

[Mac9192]

The only thing i agree on is that he isn’t a hero.

Corporate media (agenda pushers behind them) making him out to be a hero was a huge reason his death caused all it did.

 

[GhostOf301]

The only thing i agree on is that he isn’t a hero.

So you think the death and destruction was justified? You believe the bussing in of protesters and the redundant chanting and signs across the country was organic? You don't think that (for example) the closing of Walmart outside of Chicago due to theft and violence was a result of the shift in cultural behavior that was widely being excused and/or encouraged during the "demonstrations"? You don't think that police departments have stopped patrolling in areas due to the risk to their safety because of the environment caused by the false narratives leading up to 2020 and being amplified following 2020?

Pretty naive.

 

[Dattier]

So you think the death and destruction was justified? You believe the bussing in of protesters and the redundant chanting and signs across the country was organic? You don't think that (for example) the closing of Walmart outside of Chicago due to theft and violence was a result of the shift in cultural behavior that was widely being excused and/or encouraged during the "demonstrations"? You don't think that police departments have stopped patrolling in areas due to the risk to their safety because of the environment caused by the false narratives leading up to 2020 and being amplified following 2020?

Pretty naive.

I think you're asking all of those things rhetorically -- not to mention in deliberately inflammatory ways -- assuming one easy answer.

And all it took was for me to state simply and respectfully, without rising to meet your manufactured outrage, that I only agreed with you on one thing.

 

[Dattier]

Corporate media (agenda pushers behind them) making him out to be a hero was a huge reason his death caused all it did.

The strange hero thing came later. The media -- corporate or whatever -- presented what happened, which is that he was the victim of a crime.

 

[GhostOf301]

I think you're asking all of those things rhetorically -- not to mention in deliberately inflammatory ways -- assuming one easy answer.

And all it took was for me to state simply and respectfully, without rising to meet your manufactured outrage, that I only agreed with you on one thing.

Sorry, datt. But this is just a cop out. You choose to ignore inconvenient facts in order to maintain your flawed belief system. You have no objective response to the things I listed. Which is fine, but you responded, so I figured that I would give you an opportunity to respond to substance with substance.

 

[GhostOf301]

The strange hero thing came later. The media -- corporate or whatever -- presented what happened, which is that he was the victim of a crime.

No. They presented this single case as proof that Floyd was killed because of race and that cops were mowing unarmed and innocent black men down on the reg because they were black. There is still not a single bit of evidence that race played a role in this case or many of the other cases they claimed were due to race. And they constantly do this without giving a single moment for facts of any cases to come out. You're not being honest here.

 

[GhostOf301]

It's also funny that datt is accusing me of manufactured outrage. Manufactured outrage is precisely what 2020 was.

 

[Dattier]

It's also funny that datt is accusing me of manufactured outrage. Manufactured outrage is precisely what 2020 was.

There's plenty of manufactured outrage to go around. No one has a monopoly on it. Yours, for example, was not created in a vacuum where you did your own research and came to your own unique conclusions. It was influenced by media outside the mainstream that you consider more valid.

Sorry, datt. But this is just a cop out. You choose to ignore inconvenient facts in order to maintain your flawed belief system. You have no objective response to the things I listed. Which is fine, but you responded, so I figured that I would give you an opportunity to respond to substance with substance.

Belief systems are complicated and ever-evolving. They are allowed to hold contradictions. That's not a sign of being flawed.
I disagree that you've presented any inconvenient facts. I disagree that you've put forth anything objective warranting an objective response. I disagree that you put forth anything of substance. You know I have words -- the best words -- and that I'm not afraid of engagement or challenge, but I do so on my terms -- the best terms.

"You don't think that (for example) the closing of Walmart outside of Chicago due to theft and violence was a result of the shift in cultural behavior that was widely being excused and/or encouraged during the "demonstrations"? You don't think that police departments have stopped patrolling in areas due to the risk to their safety because of the environment caused by the false narratives leading up to 2020 and being amplified following 2020?"
Look at these, your 3rd and 4th questions. Look how long and convoluted they are, how many twists and turns there are. Look how many conditions and assumptions you've built into them. They're word salads designed to confuse someone into silence. I'm not going to attempt to untangle them and sort through them only to be accused of ducking a particular detail you secretly deemed the most important.

"You believe the bussing in of protesters and the redundant chanting and signs across the country was organic?"
I don't accept your loaded terminology. Did people require transportation to attend demonstrations? Yes. Did some of them use buses? Yes. You're insinuating that there's something sinister about that and judging it as inorganic, as if that's an agreed upon standard, as if anything other than a spontaneous convergence of thousands of people who somehow all strike the exact same, peaceful tone and harmony with no practice or structure whatsoever is the only way it's acceptable for something like this to happen. You're probably also insinuating that George Soros is behind it all, but plausible deniability is on your side, so never mind.
People's interest and involvement were authentic. That they didn't learn about it strictly through visions from God or sensing a disturbance in the Force doesn't invalidate it. The media conveyed it. I do not think the media themselves created it, nor that their having bias necessarily corrupted it.
And by definition, chanting is redundant. That's the point. "Redundant chanting" is in and of itself redundant, ironically. It's also a passive-aggressive, petty dig used to influence and shade the meaning. That's another example of loaded terminology.

"So you think the death and destruction was justified?"
Boring gotta boring.
Unlike someone who would make jokes about George Floyd's death, I consider all preventable deaths tragic and regrettable**.
The outrage was justifiable. That the outrage resulted in riotous behavior is predictable and understandable*.

I probably still didn't answer according to the choices you would limit me to. I stand by what I said originally: I agree with you on one thing. I stand by what I said about your questions when you pushed me on it: They are rhetorical, deliberately inflammatory, and assume a single simple answer. Now, if you're anticipating an unusually slow Tuesday, feel free to rephrase anbd ask again and we can see if this gets us anywhere interesting. Or you can just accept that I agree with you that George Floyd was not a hero and we can move on.

 

[GhostOf301]

Talk about word salad.

 

[Dattier]

Yes, you did not seem to like or respect my short answer, so I decided to be thorough. If there were any long, convoluted sentences you would like to bring to my attention for the sake of clarity, please let me know.

 

[KDSTONE]

Corporate media (agenda pushers behind them) making him out to be a hero was a huge reason his death caused all it did.

Another reason seldom discussed is the media and Dems’ infantilizing the protesters and justifying the destruction and violence. Aw look, they need to “blow off some steam”. as if they’re two year olds denied a second bowl of ice cream throwing a hissy fit down at the Chuck E Cheese. As if there were a shred of evidence proving Chauvin was racist. Constant failure to condemn the violence for fear of being called racist, Cnn calling them “ mostly peaceful” protests as buildings were engulfed in flames in the background.
Then, there’s the Dems and Fauci’s 180 on Covid. Sec football games and church choirs were super spreaders, crickets on the protesters. All in all, a shameful period in American history. We were living way down the rabbit hole and damn if it ain’t hard to breathe after a while.

 

[Mac9192]

To change the subject, the Republicans in Congress are showing they're as useless as the hacks across the aisle.

 

[KDSTONE]

To change the subject, the Republicans in Congress are showing they're as useless as the hacks across the aisle.

Bold statement. What makes you say that?

 

[Dattier]

Another reason seldom discussed is the media and Dems’ infantilizing the protesters and justifying the destruction and violence. Aw look, they need to “blow off some steam”. as if they’re two year olds denied a second bowl of ice cream throwing a hissy fit down at the Chuck E Cheese. As if there were a shred of evidence proving Chauvin was racist. Constant failure to condemn the violence for fear of being called racist, Cnn calling them “ mostly peaceful” protests as buildings were engulfed in flames in the background.
Then, there’s the Dems and Fauci’s 180 on Covid. Sec football games and church choirs were super spreaders, crickets on the protesters. All in all, a shameful period in American history. We were living way down the rabbit hole and damn if it ain’t hard to breathe after a while.

Throughout American history, even entirely peaceful protest centers on some dissatisfaction with a policy or event. Enough mostly peaceful protests have had some outburst of violence by now that it should neither surprise nor perplex us why it happens. I see understanding it as a tool for preventing it in the future, not a justification of it.

Incidentally, the name Chauvin is historically linked to the word chauvinist. Nicolas Chauvin weas a fierce Napoleonic soldier. Napoleon praised him, saying everyone should be like Chauvin, everyone should be a chauvinist. it was considered a good thing, meaning fierce loyalty. Then, of course, Napoleon met his Watergate, so to speak, and those who were fiercely loyal to him were seen as fools. Flash forward and a chauvinist is one who is fiercely loyal to something antiquated, like the idea that women should stay in the kitchen or that segregation is a good idea. None of which has anything to do with Derek Chauvin, per se.

I don't know what's in Derek Chauvin's heart, and there is no point arguing it with people who see it fundamentally differently. I could explain why many people reasonably see racism in it if you need it, but I would just be the messenger. What is known is that Derek Chauvin knelt on George Floyd's neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds and was convicted of unintentional 2nd degree murder.

Can we not all agree that Covid was a first-of-its-kind epidemic in our lifetimes? Why would anyone expect us to get it 100% right from the very beginning? Dr. Fauci -- under both Presidents Trump and Biden -- went with the best information he knew at the time. Football games and church services occur in confined spaces that are very different from open city streets. They're also longstanding planned events. Protests and marches are organized pretty quickly, and outside of those constructs.

I don't mind the questions, but accept reasonable answers. You don't even have to accept them as definitive, but knowing they apply somewhere to some degree to something... it really seems that ought to soften the intense judgment of people.

I wouldn't say that was a shameful period in American history. I'd say it was a chaotic, traumatic time in American history. We should all extend a lot more grace.

 

[KDSTONE]

There's plenty of manufactured outrage to go around. No one has a monopoly on it. Yours, for example, was not created in a vacuum where you did your own research and came to your own unique conclusions. It was influenced by media outside the mainstream that you consider more valid.


Belief systems are complicated and ever-evolving. They are allowed to hold contradictions. That's not a sign of being flawed.
I disagree that you've presented any inconvenient facts. I disagree that you've put forth anything objective warranting an objective response. I disagree that you put forth anything of substance. You know I have words -- the best words -- and that I'm not afraid of engagement or challenge, but I do so on my terms -- the best terms.

"You don't think that (for example) the closing of Walmart outside of Chicago due to theft and violence was a result of the shift in cultural behavior that was widely being excused and/or encouraged during the "demonstrations"? You don't think that police departments have stopped patrolling in areas due to the risk to their safety because of the environment caused by the false narratives leading up to 2020 and being amplified following 2020?"
Look at these, your 3rd and 4th questions. Look how long and convoluted they are, how many twists and turns there are. Look how many conditions and assumptions you've built into them. They're word salads designed to confuse someone into silence. I'm not going to attempt to untangle them and sort through them only to be accused of ducking a particular detail you secretly deemed the most important.

"You believe the bussing in of protesters and the redundant chanting and signs across the country was organic?"
I don't accept your loaded terminology. Did people require transportation to attend demonstrations? Yes. Did some of them use buses? Yes. You're insinuating that there's something sinister about that and judging it as inorganic, as if that's an agreed upon standard, as if anything other than a spontaneous convergence of thousands of people who somehow all strike the exact same, peaceful tone and harmony with no practice or structure whatsoever is the only way it's acceptable for something like this to happen. You're probably also insinuating that George Soros is behind it all, but plausible deniability is on your side, so never mind.
People's interest and involvement were authentic. That they didn't learn about it strictly through visions from God or sensing a disturbance in the Force doesn't invalidate it. The media conveyed it. I do not think the media themselves created it, nor that their having bias necessarily corrupted it.
And by definition, chanting is redundant. That's the point. "Redundant chanting" is in and of itself redundant, ironically. It's also a passive-aggressive, petty dig used to influence and shade the meaning. That's another example of loaded terminology.

"So you think the death and destruction was justified?"
Boring gotta boring.
Unlike someone who would make jokes about George Floyd's death, I consider all preventable deaths tragic and regrettable**.
The outrage was justifiable. That the outrage resulted in riotous behavior is predictable and understandable*.

I probably still didn't answer according to the choices you would limit me to. I stand by what I said originally: I agree with you on one thing. I stand by what I said about your questions when you pushed me on it: They are rhetorical, deliberately inflammatory, and assume a single simple answer. Now, if you're anticipating an unusually slow Tuesday, feel free to rephrase anbd ask again and we can see if this gets us anywhere interesting. Or you can just accept that I agree with you that George Floyd was not a hero and we can move on.

The outrage was justifiable.
And whoop there it is.

 

[Mac9192]

Bold statement. What makes you say that?

From what I hear, The Big Beautiful Bill has a lot of massive spending in it. Nothing can be simple. And what's going on with DOGE? I mean, it was finding all this money being wasted. But nothing will get done. And in a few more months, DOGE will be nothing but an afterthought. Get the people fired up thinking there might be some change. NOPE. Another nothing burger.

We can't blame this on the Democrats. For the next two years, Republicans have control.

 

[GhostOf301]

I put more responsibility on the initial officer who confronted Floyd with anger and agitated behavior than I do the officers who were trying to subdue him while he was out of control. It was hard to watch, don't get me wrong. But the actions would not have killed or even injure Floyd if he wasn't in the condition he was in.

 

[KDSTONE]

Throughout American history, even entirely peaceful protest centers on some dissatisfaction with a policy or event. Enough mostly peaceful protests have had some outburst of violence by now that it should neither surprise nor perplex us why it happens. I see understanding it as a tool for preventing it in the future, not a justification of it.

Incidentally, the name Chauvin is historically linked to the word chauvinist. Nicolas Chauvin weas a fierce Napoleonic soldier. Napoleon praised him, saying everyone should be like Chauvin, everyone should be a chauvinist. it was considered a good thing, meaning fierce loyalty. Then, of course, Napoleon met his Watergate, so to speak, and those who were fiercely loyal to him were seen as fools. Flash forward and a chauvinist is one who is fiercely loyal to something antiquated, like the idea that women should stay in the kitchen or that segregation is a good idea. None of which has anything to do with Derek Chauvin, per se.

I don't know what's in Derek Chauvin's heart, and there is no point arguing it with people who see it fundamentally differently. I could explain why many people reasonably see racism in it if you need it, but I would just be the messenger. What is known is that Derek Chauvin knelt on George Floyd's neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds and was convicted of unintentional 2nd degree murder.

Can we not all agree that Covid was a first-of-its-kind epidemic in our lifetimes? Why would anyone expect us to get it 100% right from the very beginning? Dr. Fauci -- under both Presidents Trump and Biden -- went with the best information he knew at the time. Football games and church services occur in confined spaces that are very different from open city streets. They're also longstanding planned events. Protests and marches are organized pretty quickly, and outside of those constructs.

I don't mind the questions, but accept reasonable answers. You don't even have to accept them as definitive, but knowing they apply somewhere to some degree to something... it really seems that ought to soften the intense judgment of people.

I wouldn't say that was a shameful period in American history. I'd say it was a chaotic, traumatic time in American history. We should all extend a lot more grace.

Fair enough for most of it, but when you’re talking about billions in property damage and hundreds of businesses destroyed, you’re gonna have to do better than “ I don’t know what was in Chauvin’s heart”. Bottom line: if Floyd had been white, it would have been a blip on the local Twin Cities news. There’s no evidence supporting the fact that race was the determining factor in this case.
To have brought race into this to the extent that the media and Dems did, there needed to be witness testimony that Chauvin said racist sh-, social media posts, etc. Something. But there was nothing.

 

[Dattier]

The outrage was justifiable.
And whoop there it is.

"The outrage was justifiable. That the outrage resulted in riotous behavior is predictable and understandable*."
Ask me what that asterisk is for. It's in the original, which you quoted in its entirety right before you took that bold sentence out of context in order to misrepresent what I said.

 

[Dahntay#1]

To change the subject, the Republicans in Congress are showing they're as useless as the hacks across the aisle.

At this point, it might as well be professional wrestling. They are putting on a show to keep us divided. Kash Patel, Bongino, Bondi. They are all full of it. They were saying one thing last year and now have done a 180.

 

[Dattier]

I put more responsibility on the initial officer who confronted Floyd with anger and agitated behavior than I do the officers who were trying to subdue him while he was out of control. It was hard to watch, don't get me wrong. But the actions would not have killed or even injure Floyd if he wasn't in the condition he was in.

I don't disagree with any of that. I would add that (1) the officers, including Chauvin, failed to deescalate, and that as sober officers of the law, that was their responsibility, and (2) that nothing short of immediate physical threat justifies an officer's use of deadly force, including against non-heroes who have committed any and every type of crime prior to this moment.

 

[KDSTONE]

I don't disagree with any of that. I would add that (1) the officers, including Chauvin, failed to deescalate, and that as sober officers of the law, that was their responsibility, and (2) that nothing short of immediate physical threat justifies an officer's use of deadly force, including against non-heroes who have committed any and every type of crime prior to this moment.

And none of that is in dispute. Race is the factor that caused the outrage and the destruction of American cities.
Black on black violence? No one cares
Cop on white violence? Doesn’t fit the narrative.

 

[Dattier]

Fair enough for most of it, but when you’re talking about billions in property damage and hundreds of businesses destroyed, you’re gonna have to do better than “ I don’t know what was in Chauvin’s heart”. Bottom line: if Floyd had been white, it would have been a blip on the local Twin Cities news. There’s no evidence supporting the fact that race was the determining factor in this case.
To have brought race into this to the extent that the media and Dems did, there needed to be witness testimony that Chauvin said racist sh-, social media posts, etc. Something. But there was nothing.

I wasn't talking about billions in property damage and hundreds of businesses destroyed when I mentioned that I don't know what was in Chauvin's heart. I was addressing whether Derek Chauvin is racist or not, and I do not know either way.

I don't think media or the Dems brought race into this. The people did. The media reported it. Dems repeated it. For people who believe that systemic racism is a major problem, focusing on that angle is understandable. If the exact same thing happened to a white person, they would deserve the same justice in a court of law that George Floyd received posthumously. That it would be different people advocating for a police brutality victim based on possible contributing factors isn't a big deal to me.

Someone doesn't have to profess racist things or have personal racial animus in order to do racist things within the context of systemic racism. Surely there were Black NYPD officers doing "stop & frisk" on mostly Black pedestrians in NYC before that was deemed unconstitutional. The policy was the problem, not necessarily the individual officers.

 

[Dattier]

And none of that is in dispute. Race is the factor that caused the outrage and the destruction of American cities.
Black on black violence? No one cares
Cop on white violence? Doesn’t fit the narrative.

It's all very well and good to say it's not in dispute when it's written down. It's not so clear-cut in practice.

I'd say race and a death were factors that elevated an act of police brutality to an internationally covered event. The perception exists that police get away with brutality more often when their victim is a person of color. There is therefore a higher degree of trust that a white victim of police brutality will get justice using the court system. If you trust that you'll be made whole in court, it's easier to go along with that process. As Dr. King said, "a riot is the language of the unheard." The general perception is that white people will be "heard," as everyone should be, but that Black people won't necessarily be "heard."

Many view the very term "Black on Black crime" as a racist dogwhistle because the great majority of violent crime and property crime happen within racial groups, yet the term "white on white crime" isn't a thing. There's still a high degree of de facto racial segregation in housing, so people committing crime victimize the people around them, who are usually of the same race. And poverty has a correlation with higher crime rates. Rather than focusing on race in "Black on Black crime," we should be focusing on poverty.

 

[Mac9192]

Here we are going back and forth with @Dattier over something that happened years ago. The real problem is DC, and the power players that run the show. They have done a masterful job of dividing the country over race, gender, wealth... Like @Dahntay#1 said, politicians are like pro wrestlers. And too many of them have been bought, and because of that, they've sold their soul to the devil.

You have politicians that have become wealthy while up there, whine about a system that only helps "the rich." They actually say this with straight faces, and people buy what they're spewing! If this wasn't true, it would be laughable.

I'm not saying Trump is great, but I think he has more care to him than most up there. He may as well be shooting a BB gun at a train though.