4 ms·

"Take his badge and gun" is the typical expression. That person replaced gun with manhood implying that the person's manhood is derived from them power-trippin

"Take his badge and gun" is the typical expression. That person replaced gun with manhood implying that the person's manhood is derived from them power-tripping with weapons. Threatening violence IN RESPONSE to violence is a far cry from INSTIGATING violence against peace. One is defending yourself against bullying by standing up to it with comparable force. The other is bullying. Is there nothing people like you won't "both side"?

wolco 6y ago
What if that officer was a transgender half black half native post successful surgury cop. Would threatening to cut his parts off be considered a hate crime to you?
vxNsr 6y ago
> That person replaced gun with manhood implying that the person's manhood is derived from them power-tripping with weapons. That’s quite the convenient stretch. Pretty impressive how some people are amazing at reading subtext where non exists as long as it plays into their narrative. > Threatening violence IN RESPONSE to violence is a far cry from INSTIGATING violence against peace. I mean... police going after law makers isn’t exactly peaceful. But again, whatever fits your narrative is true and everything else is fakenews(TM).
koolba 6y ago
> Threatening violence IN RESPONSE to violence is a far cry from INSTIGATING violence against peace. So by that logic it was wrong for Twitter to sensor the President’s tweet regarding using force to stop vandals destroying monuments.
- Natsu 6y ago
  Well, but those rioters were protesting police violence, who get called to deal with people who react violently to their presence due to the history of other police reacting violently to other people they were arresting acting violently who... Wait, wasn't this the whole theme of the song "We didn't start the fire"?
- bsanr 6y ago
  1) The president was threatening physical harm to people who were destroying non-living objects. Violence and destruction are not the same thing. 2) An exceedingly large proportion of those statues were erected during exceedingly specific historical political climates, which generally feature the following: >Having been well after the events or the deaths of the figures commemorated >During periods of economic decline or uncertainty >Following periods agitation for civil rights, particularly by black Americans, and the subsequent spasm of anti-black violence or political jostling In other words, those monuments tend to represent oblique commemoration of racist violence, and seem to threaten future violence by their presence. Taking them down is not instigation, it's a response. I mean, even without this context, how can one argue that the dismantling of an extant object is instigation? Its original erection would be the first act, courting a response of either general respect (it stays up) or general disdain/shame (it's taken down) over the course of its existence.
  - koolba 6y ago
    > 1) The president was threatening physical harm to people who were destroying non-living objects. Violence and destruction are not the same thing. They don’t have to be the same thing. It’s illegal activity and we shouldn’t have to wait for a person to be physically injured to stop a mob of maniacs. > 2) An exceedingly large proportion of those statues were erected during exceedingly specific historical political climates, which generally feature the following: It doesn’t matter if it’s a statue of Krusty the Clown. You can’t destroy public or private property just because you feel it shouldn’t exist. This is why we have police. To enforce the rules that we as a society have agreed to live by. The alternative is a bunch of vigilantes beating the rioters. I can assure you that nobody wants that. > In other words, those monuments tend to represent oblique commemoration of racist violence, and seem to threaten future violence by their presence. Taking them down is not instigation, it's a response. I mean, even without this context, how can one argue that the dismantling of an extant object is instigation? Its original erection would be the first act, courting a response of either general respect (it stays up) or general disdain/shame (it's taken down) over the course of its existence. Then get public opinion to agree with you and have the city, State, or Federal government to get rid of them. Your misguided feelings, no matter how strong, do not supersede all others just because they’re not yelling loudly.
- deanCommie 6y ago
  Why are conservatives so hell bent on equating violence against inanimate objects (property, monuments) with violence against other humans? THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
  - Ghjklov 6y ago
    Many people depend on their businesses to provide for their livelihoods. They may be put on the streets if their business is burnt down during a riot. Will you be there to help them pay to rebuild or to help them rehome themselves?

wolco 6y ago

What if that officer was a transgender half black half native post successful surgury cop. Would threatening to cut his parts off be considered a hate crime to you?

vxNsr 6y ago

> That person replaced gun with manhood implying that the person's manhood is derived from them power-tripping with weapons. That’s quite the convenient stretch. Pretty impressive how some people are amazing at reading subtext where non exists as long as it plays into their narrative. > Threatening violence IN RESPONSE to violence is a far cry from INSTIGATING violence against peace. I mean... police going after law makers isn’t exactly peaceful. But again, whatever fits your narrative is true and everything else is fakenews(TM).

koolba 6y ago

> Threatening violence IN RESPONSE to violence is a far cry from INSTIGATING violence against peace. So by that logic it was wrong for Twitter to sensor the President’s tweet regarding using force to stop vandals destroying monuments.

Natsu 6y ago
Well, but those rioters were protesting police violence, who get called to deal with people who react violently to their presence due to the history of other police reacting violently to other people they were arresting acting violently who... Wait, wasn't this the whole theme of the song "We didn't start the fire"?
bsanr 6y ago
1) The president was threatening physical harm to people who were destroying non-living objects. Violence and destruction are not the same thing. 2) An exceedingly large proportion of those statues were erected during exceedingly specific historical political climates, which generally feature the following: >Having been well after the events or the deaths of the figures commemorated >During periods of economic decline or uncertainty >Following periods agitation for civil rights, particularly by black Americans, and the subsequent spasm of anti-black violence or political jostling In other words, those monuments tend to represent oblique commemoration of racist violence, and seem to threaten future violence by their presence. Taking them down is not instigation, it's a response. I mean, even without this context, how can one argue that the dismantling of an extant object is instigation? Its original erection would be the first act, courting a response of either general respect (it stays up) or general disdain/shame (it's taken down) over the course of its existence.
- koolba 6y ago
  > 1) The president was threatening physical harm to people who were destroying non-living objects. Violence and destruction are not the same thing. They don’t have to be the same thing. It’s illegal activity and we shouldn’t have to wait for a person to be physically injured to stop a mob of maniacs. > 2) An exceedingly large proportion of those statues were erected during exceedingly specific historical political climates, which generally feature the following: It doesn’t matter if it’s a statue of Krusty the Clown. You can’t destroy public or private property just because you feel it shouldn’t exist. This is why we have police. To enforce the rules that we as a society have agreed to live by. The alternative is a bunch of vigilantes beating the rioters. I can assure you that nobody wants that. > In other words, those monuments tend to represent oblique commemoration of racist violence, and seem to threaten future violence by their presence. Taking them down is not instigation, it's a response. I mean, even without this context, how can one argue that the dismantling of an extant object is instigation? Its original erection would be the first act, courting a response of either general respect (it stays up) or general disdain/shame (it's taken down) over the course of its existence. Then get public opinion to agree with you and have the city, State, or Federal government to get rid of them. Your misguided feelings, no matter how strong, do not supersede all others just because they’re not yelling loudly.
deanCommie 6y ago
Why are conservatives so hell bent on equating violence against inanimate objects (property, monuments) with violence against other humans? THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
- Ghjklov 6y ago
  Many people depend on their businesses to provide for their livelihoods. They may be put on the streets if their business is burnt down during a riot. Will you be there to help them pay to rebuild or to help them rehome themselves?