7 ms·

So we agree, GFM should have nothing to do with any occupation, right? You agree with this, correct? You think that I'm some sort of partisan in this -- perhap

So we agree, GFM should have nothing to do with any occupation, right? You agree with this, correct? You think that I'm some sort of partisan in this -- perhaps a projection -- and you caught me in hypocrisy. But you didn't. Financing protests is an incredibly dangerous game. I was against BLM justified violence and looting, as well as the various "free" zones. I was against the railway blockades in Canada (due to complex aboriginal issues) I am against the trucker occupations and criminal harassment of the citizens of Ottawa and other jurisdictions (and I think they should be layered with so many fines their trucks become the property of the state). I'm remarkably consistent on this. Law and order is good. Democracy is good.

jterrys 5y ago
- dang 5y ago
  Please omit personal swipes from your comments here. Your post would be fine without the first sentence.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Wiseacre 5y ago
You may have trapped yourself in a different web of hypocritical rhetoric: Would you also be against civil rights sit-ins and GoFundMe being used to support those?
- defaultname 5y ago
  It's hypocritical because of something you imagined? Why would a sit-in, or any similar event, EVER need sponsorship? When has it ever needed sponsorship?
  - refurb 5y ago
    Very impressive dodge of the question. Let’s say a sit in did need support. Do you think that’s a valid use of GoFundMe?
    - defaultname 5y ago
      Is this what your rhetoric is reduced to? Demanding that people answer for invented, imaginary hypocrisy? I didn't "dodge" a completely stupid, manufactured question because I have literally no onus to answer it. GFM shouldn't be used to sponsor *ANY* protest. I've said that REPEATEDLY, and consistently. A protest that needs sponsorship is not a legitimate protest.
      - Wiseacre 5y ago
        And as the other response mentioned, demonstrations were in fact funded in the past. Getting all defensive and outraged is one way to avoid an answer.
        defaultname 5y ago
        "And as the other response mentioned, demonstrations were in fact funded in the past" You think this is a retort. Amazing. "Getting all defensive and outraged is one way to avoid an answer" Demanding an answer out of someone, especially when they've spoken directly to the topic repeatedly, and then announcing an imagined, projected hypocrisy, is an unbelievably ignorant, boorish tactic. I might just say a troll tactic. Did you learn this from Tucker Carlson? It has absolutely no place on HN.
      - refurb 5y ago
        You realize the Civil Rights movements in the US had substantial fundraising? The March to Selma? How do you think people were fed? Where did they sleep? So by your logic the Civil Rights movement was not legitimate?
        5y ago
StanislavPetrov 5y ago
>So we agree, GFM should have nothing to do with any occupation, right? You agree with this, correct? They should have a consistent standard one way or the other.

jterrys 5y ago

dang 5y ago
Please omit personal swipes from your comments here. Your post would be fine without the first sentence.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Wiseacre 5y ago

You may have trapped yourself in a different web of hypocritical rhetoric: Would you also be against civil rights sit-ins and GoFundMe being used to support those?

defaultname 5y ago
It's hypocritical because of something you imagined? Why would a sit-in, or any similar event, EVER need sponsorship? When has it ever needed sponsorship?
- refurb 5y ago
  Very impressive dodge of the question. Let’s say a sit in did need support. Do you think that’s a valid use of GoFundMe?
  - defaultname 5y ago
    Is this what your rhetoric is reduced to? Demanding that people answer for invented, imaginary hypocrisy? I didn't "dodge" a completely stupid, manufactured question because I have literally no onus to answer it. GFM shouldn't be used to sponsor *ANY* protest. I've said that REPEATEDLY, and consistently. A protest that needs sponsorship is not a legitimate protest.
    - Wiseacre 5y ago
      And as the other response mentioned, demonstrations were in fact funded in the past. Getting all defensive and outraged is one way to avoid an answer.
      - defaultname 5y ago
        "And as the other response mentioned, demonstrations were in fact funded in the past" You think this is a retort. Amazing. "Getting all defensive and outraged is one way to avoid an answer" Demanding an answer out of someone, especially when they've spoken directly to the topic repeatedly, and then announcing an imagined, projected hypocrisy, is an unbelievably ignorant, boorish tactic. I might just say a troll tactic. Did you learn this from Tucker Carlson? It has absolutely no place on HN.
    - refurb 5y ago
      You realize the Civil Rights movements in the US had substantial fundraising? The March to Selma? How do you think people were fed? Where did they sleep? So by your logic the Civil Rights movement was not legitimate?
      - 5y ago

StanislavPetrov 5y ago

>So we agree, GFM should have nothing to do with any occupation, right? You agree with this, correct? They should have a consistent standard one way or the other.