Maybe I'm confused on this issue and will admit that, as a human person, I was not born knowing all things and am refining my understanding of things all the time, but at the present moment I find it really insulting to equate stuff like the duck with civil rights protests.
It is a very fine line, but it has nothing to do with not wanting to provoke or wanting to maintain a status quo. It has everything to do with what your motivation is. Deliberately provoking violence, yes, but for what purpose?
Here is what feels like the difference to me:
A ) I am doing this completely innocuous thing that I know for a fact will make a certain kind of person nearby very angry, and they will probably try to beat the shit out of me. Good. Let them do it. Let the world watch them beat the shit out of me for doing what another man could do with literally zero consequence and see what a crock of shit this all is.
B ) I am doing this thing to mock and ridicule other people. That's about it. Bonus: if one of them punches me they will look super bad when I post it on the internet.
(Though I agree they could be viewed as a bit more similar if you are viewing Trump crowds as racists that the ducks are protesting against, though I am not sure that's what was happening here.)
I am seeing a significant difference in the morality/values driving these actions. It seems to me that not all cases of deliberately provoking violent response are inherently good and equal.
Even if it's this, it's not an excuse for violence. Is it being an asshole and should this person be escorted out by security? yes. Is it ok to have the crowd beat up this person? always no.
Just to be clear I don't think anyone is saying that going to a rally and berating or ridiculing the people there is a good thing to do, I wouldn't want "my team" to do that. We're just saying that it doesn't justify certain actions.
Listening to Herman Cain's radio station here in Atlanta has sure been a treat. It's like every single stereotype of "omg them liebrulz" writ large.
His reaction to the Trump sex scandal stuff is particularly amusing, considering his past. Apparently it's just the Democrat playbook to destroy Republicans, smearing them with... their own words and actions. He had Trump on earlier today.
Thousands of birds are lying on the ground. And the eagle. You know, certain parts of California – they’ve killed so many eagles. You know, they put you in jail if you kill an eagle. And yet these windmills [kill] them by the hundreds.
Anybody seen a write up of why this latest O'Keefe video is bullshit rather just than on general terms? Like I know he's refusing to release unedited video which is a big part of why all the networks are ignoring him but I was wondering if any more detail about that silliness came out.
Really don't even care.
He's at National Enquirer level "ignore this shit until someone else corroborates it" level
Honestly, considering how the mainstream media "corroborated" O'Keefe's ACORN videos by taking them at face value and demonizing ACORN without a shred of actual investigation, I'd wait for even more proof than just that.
Anybody seen a write up of why this latest O'Keefe video is bullshit rather just than on general terms? Like I know he's refusing to release unedited video which is a big part of why all the networks are ignoring him but I was wondering if any more detail about that silliness came out.
O'Keefe is a serial faker, he doesn't just cut things out of context he misleads about who he's talking to, what they're saying, and what it means. He's never had a single real revelation in one of his videos. He's so untrustworthy Fox News doesn't let him on air anymore. He released his edited version of the story, everyone asked for the raw tapes, he refused. If this was a real scandal he ought to be happy to release the unedited tapes, since he hasn't, it isn't.
And even if you believe his claims it's just people protesting a political event with a smattering of 6 Degrees of Hillary Clinton
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Maybe I'm confused on this issue and will admit that, as a human person, I was not born knowing all things and am refining my understanding of things all the time, but at the present moment I find it really insulting to equate stuff like the duck with civil rights protests.
It is a very fine line, but it has nothing to do with not wanting to provoke or wanting to maintain a status quo. It has everything to do with what your motivation is. Deliberately provoking violence, yes, but for what purpose?
Here is what feels like the difference to me:
A ) I am doing this completely innocuous thing that I know for a fact will make a certain kind of person nearby very angry, and they will probably try to beat the shit out of me. Good. Let them do it. Let the world watch them beat the shit out of me for doing what another man could do with literally zero consequence and see what a crock of shit this all is.
B ) I am doing this thing to mock and ridicule other people. That's about it. Bonus: if one of them punches me they will look super bad when I post it on the internet.
(Though I agree they could be viewed as a bit more similar if you are viewing Trump crowds as racists that the ducks are protesting against, though I am not sure that's what was happening here.)
I am seeing a significant difference in the morality/values driving these actions. It seems to me that not all cases of deliberately provoking violent response are inherently good and equal.
Even if it's this, it's not an excuse for violence. Is it being an asshole and should this person be escorted out by security? yes. Is it ok to have the crowd beat up this person? always no.
Just to be clear I don't think anyone is saying that going to a rally and berating or ridiculing the people there is a good thing to do, I wouldn't want "my team" to do that. We're just saying that it doesn't justify certain actions.
Yeah, I agree that not punching people is correct in any situation. I just sorta got the sense from a couple posts on the previous page that some people were honestly saying there isn't much difference between what the duck people were supposedly doing and what the civil rights protestors were doing.
Punching either of those people is not justified. But also they are not really doing the same thing as far as a I can tell.
The discussion going on here about incitement to violence / what provocation should mean to non-gooses is super important, but let's not forget that the only reason it's even a topic in this thread is because of a badly edited video made by a known liar with a well advertised agenda of damaging liberal causes through lying who cannot produce a shred of evidence that anything he's alleged is the truth, despite the media - who have been burned by this asshole's lies before - pointing out that if what he says is true then he should already have the evidence to hand and should have no problem releasing it.
Maybe I'm confused on this issue and will admit that, as a human person, I was not born knowing all things and am refining my understanding of things all the time, but at the present moment I find it really insulting to equate stuff like the duck with civil rights protests.
It is a very fine line, but it has nothing to do with not wanting to provoke or wanting to maintain a status quo. It has everything to do with what your motivation is. Deliberately provoking violence, yes, but for what purpose?
Here is what feels like the difference to me:
A ) I am doing this completely innocuous thing that I know for a fact will make a certain kind of person nearby very angry, and they will probably try to beat the shit out of me. Good. Let them do it. Let the world watch them beat the shit out of me for doing what another man could do with literally zero consequence and see what a crock of shit this all is.
B ) I am doing this thing to mock and ridicule other people. That's about it. Bonus: if one of them punches me they will look super bad when I post it on the internet.
(Though I agree they could be viewed as a bit more similar if you are viewing Trump crowds as racists that the ducks are protesting against, though I am not sure that's what was happening here.)
I am seeing a significant difference in the morality/values driving these actions. It seems to me that not all cases of deliberately provoking violent response are inherently good and equal.
Even if it's this, it's not an excuse for violence. Is it being an asshole and should this person be escorted out by security? yes. Is it ok to have the crowd beat up this person? always no.
Just to be clear I don't think anyone is saying that going to a rally and berating or ridiculing the people there is a good thing to do, I wouldn't want "my team" to do that. We're just saying that it doesn't justify certain actions.
Yeah, I agree that not punching people is correct in any situation. I just sorta got the sense from a couple posts on the previous page that some people were honestly saying there isn't much difference between what the duck people were supposedly doing and what the civil rights protestors were doing.
Punching either of those people is not justified. But also they are not really doing the same thing as far as a I can tell.
I agree. There is a vast a colourful gradient of being a dick to someone else
Dressing up as a duck is probably in the lighter shades.
The discussion going on here about incitement to violence / what provocation should mean to non-gooses is super important, but let's not forget that the only reason it's even a topic in this thread is because of a badly edited video made by a known liar with a well advertised agenda of damaging liberal causes through lying who cannot produce a shred of evidence that anything he's alleged is the truth, despite the media - who have been burned by this asshole's lies before - pointing out that if what he says is true then he should already have the evidence to hand and should have no problem releasing it.
The duck is a lie, is what I'm saying here.
I would actually say that the reason we're having this conversation is the absolutely unconscionable amount of violence at Trump rallies over the past year or so.
Even if people want to take the position that those being assaulted held some degree of responsibility for it (i.e. "they were asking for it", I'll let that sink in), the fact remains that violence can be found relatively easily by going to a Trump rally and nonviolently being a non-Trump supporter. Even the O'keefe video, chopped up lie-storm that it is, tacitly acknowledges this. The plan isn't "go to a Trump rally and throw down", it's "go to Trump rally in Duck-face, get beaten up." Because some troubling percentage of Trump supporters are ready to bring violence to the political discourse at the drop of a red "Make America Great Again" hat.
Ugh I'm ready for this to be over. I really want to send a message to all the entitled jerkface people I know. So far my plan is to post this on facebook on Election Day (note that I don't partake in political stuff openly on facebook because of the family drama it always causes):
I do not believe you can accurately compare conspiring to start a fight at a Trump rally to staging civil rights protests in the name of racial justice.
Deliberately causing violence is not something I can support in this day and age. I can tell many of you disagree. But as I said, I'd rather not derail the thread further so I'll drop it.
It's like one of the basic tenants of modern protesting in coalitions and groups, namely black mask groups such as ARA. The intent is disproportionate response not only for the active viewing of the situation of outside observers, but also a passive response of nonviolence to show the dissimilar tactics used by the oppressors. It's a real thing, whether you support it or not doesn't change that it's a core tactic of even modern groups.
@realDonaldTrump: "President Obama will go down as perhaps the worst president in the history of the United States!"
To that Obama responded, "Hey, @realDonaldTrump, at least I will go down as a president."
+42
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
it's amazing someone can't just say 'hey provoking violence kind of sucks' without being told they're blaming the victim or that they are anti civil rights
the law was never mentioned, rights were never mentioned, no one was forgiven for their reactions.
this also isn't an oppressed group trying to get their oppressors brought to justice. it simply isn't.
The interviews were conducted in 2014 by Michael D’Antonio, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who later wrote a biography of Mr. Trump called “The Truth About Trump.”
In the interviews, which occurred in Mr. Trump’s office and apartment in Trump Tower in Manhattan, he is by turns animated and bored, boastful and stubborn when prodded toward soul-searching. “No, I don’t want to think about it,” he said when Mr. D’Antonio asked him to contemplate the meaning of his life. “I don’t like to analyze myself because I might not like what I see.”
Who does he look up to? “I don’t have heroes,” Mr. Trump said.
Does he examine history to better understand the present? “I don’t like talking about the past,” he said, later adding, “It’s all about the present and the future.”
Who earns his respect? “For the most part,” he said, “you can’t respect people because most people aren’t worthy of respect.”
There is little trace of sympathy or understanding. When people lose face, Mr. Trump’s reaction is swift and unforgiving.
And when Mr. Trump feels he has been made a fool of, his response can be volcanic. Ivana Trump told Mr. D’Antonio about a Colorado ski vacation she took with Mr. Trump soon after they began dating. The future Mrs. Trump had not told her boyfriend that she was an accomplished skier. As she recalls it, Mr. Trump went down the hill first and waited for her at the bottom:
IVANA TRUMP: So he goes and stops, and he says, “Come on, baby. Come on, baby.” I went up. I went two flips up in the air, two flips in front of him. I disappeared. Donald was so angry, he took off his skis, his ski boots, and walked up to the restaurant. ... He could not take it. He could not take it.
I cannot get more hyped up for his reaction to being beaten. It is either going to be a massive meltdown or massive pathetic justification s about how he did not really fail.
+12
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Personally It is really discouraging that o'keefe's transparent ratfucking continues to receive thoughtspace
fuck gendered marketing
+41
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
it's amazing someone can't just say 'hey provoking violence kind of sucks' without being told they're blaming the victim or that they are anti civil rights
the law was never mentioned, rights were never mentioned, no one was forgiven for their reactions.
this also isn't an oppressed group trying to get their oppressors brought to justice. it simply isn't.
For me a big part of what rankles about this argument is that on the right, if a man goes to (say) a Ferguson protest and uses the N word and someone throws something at him, well that just proves how inherently violent "those people" are. But if a Donald Duck appears with a bad pun, well obviously that's the worst thing you can do and he had it coming.
Like I know that's not what anyone in the thread is doing, but I just wonder where the right's superfine concern over fighting words was/is any time a black man is in this situation.
I also think that any visible disagreement with Trumpers would lead to violence, no matter how innocuous.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
@realDonaldTrump: "President Obama will go down as perhaps the worst president in the history of the United States!"
To that Obama responded, "Hey, @realDonaldTrump, at least I will go down as a president."
The stare he gives the camera at the end is truly awesome.
I read a speech of his this morning in which he called out a Republican seeking re-election who has released a pamphlet detailing all the stuff he "cooperated" with Obama on, in which he absolutely destroyed the guy for not only systematically undermining everything he was doing, but also claiming he "wasn't sure" when asked if Donald Trump's allegations that he wasn't born in the US were true.
it's amazing someone can't just say 'hey provoking violence kind of sucks' without being told they're blaming the victim or that they are anti civil rights
the law was never mentioned, rights were never mentioned, no one was forgiven for their reactions.
this also isn't an oppressed group trying to get their oppressors brought to justice. it simply isn't.
And yet they are the subject of political violence.
it's amazing someone can't just say 'hey provoking violence kind of sucks' without being told they're blaming the victim or that they are anti civil rights
the law was never mentioned, rights were never mentioned, no one was forgiven for their reactions.
this also isn't an oppressed group trying to get their oppressors brought to justice. it simply isn't.
For me a big part of what rankles about this argument is that on the right, if a man goes to (say) a Ferguson protest and uses the N word and someone throws something at him, well that just proves how inherently violent "those people" are. But if a Donald Duck appears with a bad pun, well obviously that's the worst thing you can do and he had it coming.
Like I know that's not what anyone in the thread is doing, but I just wonder where the right's superfine concern over fighting words was/is any time a black man is in this situation.
I also think that any visible disagreement with Trumpers would lead to violence, no matter how innocuous.
a political rally is inherently different because its a controlled space. You can't force someone on the street to go away. At a rally you can easily have someone peacefully escorted out by security
it's amazing someone can't just say 'hey provoking violence kind of sucks' without being told they're blaming the victim or that they are anti civil rights
the law was never mentioned, rights were never mentioned, no one was forgiven for their reactions.
this also isn't an oppressed group trying to get their oppressors brought to justice. it simply isn't.
When just the act of protest becomes a provocation to violence, that shows something very wrong in the group resorting to violence. These people are going out and legitimately protesting, and in return are attacked. And if they are also looking to demonstrate the propensity of Trump supporters to answer peaceful dissent with violence, why is it bad for that to be shown?
The argument that "provocation of violence is always wrong" is what King outright rejected when he said:
but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"
You seek to denounce the provocation as improper, while avoiding the larger questions that the disproportionate response opens up. Which is why so many people are questioning the argument.
it's amazing someone can't just say 'hey provoking violence kind of sucks' without being told they're blaming the victim or that they are anti civil rights
the law was never mentioned, rights were never mentioned, no one was forgiven for their reactions.
this also isn't an oppressed group trying to get their oppressors brought to justice. it simply isn't.
For me a big part of what rankles about this argument is that on the right, if a man goes to (say) a Ferguson protest and uses the N word and someone throws something at him, well that just proves how inherently violent "those people" are. But if a Donald Duck appears with a bad pun, well obviously that's the worst thing you can do and he had it coming.
Like I know that's not what anyone in the thread is doing, but I just wonder where the right's superfine concern over fighting words was/is any time a black man is in this situation.
I also think that any visible disagreement with Trumpers would lead to violence, no matter how innocuous.
a political rally is inherently different because its a controlled space. You can't force someone on the street to go away. At a rally you can easily have someone peacefully escorted out by security
And on any number of occasions, the future victims of assault at a Trump rally were being peacefully escorted out when the assault occured.
even in the worst case of the okeefe video, lets say its all true
Hillary's evil plan was to provoke violence by having people nonviolently protesting trump
WHY IS THIS A BLACK MARK AGAINST HER
I mean, deliberately trying to provoke people into violence isn't exactly awesome.
That's what the Westboro Baptist Church does so they can sue you.
Something like this shouldn't have made anyone violent though and that it did is much more indicative of a problem with the attendees than the protesters. But I don't want to applaud someone if they schemed to try and piss people off enough to fight. But it's not really condemnable either.
The actual actions taken kinda put the lie to this silly equivalency. Unless you gonna start shitting on civil rights lunch sit-ins too.
I don't think lunch counter sit ins were intended to have people assault them. I'm not shitting on anything though.
It seems very unlikely someone would say "I know how to make them fight! A cartoon duck!" at all but specifically going into the situation with the intent to start a fight isn't great or something I want to encourage.
You need to learn more about the civil rights fights of the mid-20th century. And before too. Provoking violent reaction for doing nothing was a core part of their strategy. This idea you are pushing here is part of the white washing of the civil rights movement.
I find your remarks incorrect and condescending, but this isn't a civil rights thread. I think there's a notable difference between these two things but this isn't really the topic so I'm dropping it.
You can feel about the facts I'm telling you however you want, it doesn't make them wrong. Lunch counter sit-ins were 100% done with the idea that they might provoke a violent response. That was practically the whole point. To showcase the injustice of the situation via demonstrating disproportionate response. So you are wrong on that account.
And this relates directly to the point you were trying to make. Not all provocations are equivalent. "Provoking" someone by dressing up as Donald Duck or sitting at a lunch counter while black is not equivalent to, say, screaming bigoted slurs in someone's face at a funeral.
The nature of the provocation determines whether it's worthy of praise or derision. To say all provocation to violence is the same is to condemn, as I already pointed out, the civil rights movement that used provocation all the time. Which is why your point was ridiculous.
I'm not loading infowars, but people make these complaints because of improperly calibrated touchscreens every election. Maybe we should just stop using them.
@realDonaldTrump: "President Obama will go down as perhaps the worst president in the history of the United States!"
To that Obama responded, "Hey, @realDonaldTrump, at least I will go down as a president."
The stare he gives the camera at the end is truly awesome.
I read a speech of his this morning in which he called out a Republican seeking re-election who has released a pamphlet detailing all the stuff he "cooperated" with Obama on, in which he absolutely destroyed the guy for not only systematically undermining everything he was doing, but also claiming he "wasn't sure" when asked if Donald Trump's allegations that he wasn't born in the US were true.
No fucks given Obama is glorious!
Darrel Issa, who is such a shit heel he deserved the personal shout out.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'm not loading infowars, but people make these complaints because of improperly calibrated touchscreens every election. Maybe we should just stop using them.
I read the article and the complaint seems to be that people are clicking "Vote all Republican" and then when they scroll down they see that its auto-voted for all republicans except that Clinton is voted for instead of Trump
Its not just one report, either, so its sounding like an issue.
That being said, I'd be surprised if it was anything other than the fact that the Clinton/Trump choice is just in a bad spot for the scrolling controls and causing the switch accidentally when people are scrolling down.
I'm taking it as a positive sign that the majority of this thread for the past few days has been about sports, insipid Okeefe BS, and civil disobedience. It means that nothing else interesting is going on and the trend of Donald losing support has not changed.
The George Soros owned voting machines are rigging the elections. The people on the donald said it would happen. Personally, I assume the people making those claims are just making shit up to try to drive the "hillary is rigging the election" narrative.
+2
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
I'm not loading infowars, but people make these complaints because of improperly calibrated touchscreens every election. Maybe we should just stop using them.
I'm a programmer by trade. I do embedded systems. I know exactly how difficult it is to get things right, and I have some idea of how hard it is to ensure chain of custody with electronics.
Using electronic voting machines is stupid. Paper and pen works fantastic, and then you can use a damned scantron to get the totals quickly, while randomly selecting say 1% of the ballots cast and verify by hand.
Securing the chain of custody for physical items is a known problem. For electronics? Where to be sure you would have to verify every chip, every compiler, every library, and every program used in the entire damned thing? And then have a means of logging that a) doesn't allow you to back into the physical identity of the person who voted while b) ensuring the totals are correct while c) allowing you to audit said totals?
Are you fucking kidding me?
As it stands right now, gambling machines are better secured against tampering.
It'd be great if we had secure voting machines because I imagine counting hand ballots is a less than fun process. It'd be even better if we could vote online!
Will we ever be able to do that securely and in a way everyone agrees works? Probably not!
It'd be great if we had secure voting machines because I imagine counting hand ballots is a less than fun process. It'd be even better if we could vote online!
Will we ever be able to do that securely and in a way everyone agrees works? Probably not!
Given the state of cyber security in general right now, I'm ok with this not happening in the foreseeable future.
+32
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
It'd be great if we had secure voting machines because I imagine counting hand ballots is a less than fun process. It'd be even better if we could vote online!
Will we ever be able to do that securely and in a way everyone agrees works? Probably not!
Voting online is a terrible idea.
It has all of the problems of electronic voting, with even less security. You can't trust the client.
I'm not loading infowars, but people make these complaints because of improperly calibrated touchscreens every election. Maybe we should just stop using them.
I read the article and the complaint seems to be that people are clicking "Vote all Republican" and then when they scroll down they see that its auto-voted for all republicans except that Clinton is voted for instead of Trump
Its not just one report, either, so its sounding like an issue.
That being said, I'd be surprised if it was anything other than the fact that the Clinton/Trump choice is just in a bad spot for the scrolling controls and causing the switch accidentally when people are scrolling down.
The noted Democratic stronghold of Texas is rigging the election to give Hillary a superfluous state without offering any benefit downballot.
Posts
Even if it's this, it's not an excuse for violence. Is it being an asshole and should this person be escorted out by security? yes. Is it ok to have the crowd beat up this person? always no.
Just to be clear I don't think anyone is saying that going to a rally and berating or ridiculing the people there is a good thing to do, I wouldn't want "my team" to do that. We're just saying that it doesn't justify certain actions.
His reaction to the Trump sex scandal stuff is particularly amusing, considering his past. Apparently it's just the Democrat playbook to destroy Republicans, smearing them with... their own words and actions. He had Trump on earlier today.
politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/10/25/herman-cain-and-donald-trump-tilt-at-west-coast-windmills/
Tilting at windmills indeed.
Honestly, considering how the mainstream media "corroborated" O'Keefe's ACORN videos by taking them at face value and demonizing ACORN without a shred of actual investigation, I'd wait for even more proof than just that.
O'Keefe is a serial faker, he doesn't just cut things out of context he misleads about who he's talking to, what they're saying, and what it means. He's never had a single real revelation in one of his videos. He's so untrustworthy Fox News doesn't let him on air anymore. He released his edited version of the story, everyone asked for the raw tapes, he refused. If this was a real scandal he ought to be happy to release the unedited tapes, since he hasn't, it isn't.
And even if you believe his claims it's just people protesting a political event with a smattering of 6 Degrees of Hillary Clinton
Yeah, I agree that not punching people is correct in any situation. I just sorta got the sense from a couple posts on the previous page that some people were honestly saying there isn't much difference between what the duck people were supposedly doing and what the civil rights protestors were doing.
Punching either of those people is not justified. But also they are not really doing the same thing as far as a I can tell.
The duck is a lie, is what I'm saying here.
I agree. There is a vast a colourful gradient of being a dick to someone else
Dressing up as a duck is probably in the lighter shades.
I would actually say that the reason we're having this conversation is the absolutely unconscionable amount of violence at Trump rallies over the past year or so.
Even if people want to take the position that those being assaulted held some degree of responsibility for it (i.e. "they were asking for it", I'll let that sink in), the fact remains that violence can be found relatively easily by going to a Trump rally and nonviolently being a non-Trump supporter. Even the O'keefe video, chopped up lie-storm that it is, tacitly acknowledges this. The plan isn't "go to a Trump rally and throw down", it's "go to Trump rally in Duck-face, get beaten up." Because some troubling percentage of Trump supporters are ready to bring violence to the political discourse at the drop of a red "Make America Great Again" hat.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It's like one of the basic tenants of modern protesting in coalitions and groups, namely black mask groups such as ARA. The intent is disproportionate response not only for the active viewing of the situation of outside observers, but also a passive response of nonviolence to show the dissimilar tactics used by the oppressors. It's a real thing, whether you support it or not doesn't change that it's a core tactic of even modern groups.
In which the secret service is forced to activate Megalon.
the law was never mentioned, rights were never mentioned, no one was forgiven for their reactions.
this also isn't an oppressed group trying to get their oppressors brought to justice. it simply isn't.
I cannot get more hyped up for his reaction to being beaten. It is either going to be a massive meltdown or massive pathetic justification s about how he did not really fail.
For me a big part of what rankles about this argument is that on the right, if a man goes to (say) a Ferguson protest and uses the N word and someone throws something at him, well that just proves how inherently violent "those people" are. But if a Donald Duck appears with a bad pun, well obviously that's the worst thing you can do and he had it coming.
Like I know that's not what anyone in the thread is doing, but I just wonder where the right's superfine concern over fighting words was/is any time a black man is in this situation.
I also think that any visible disagreement with Trumpers would lead to violence, no matter how innocuous.
The stare he gives the camera at the end is truly awesome.
I read a speech of his this morning in which he called out a Republican seeking re-election who has released a pamphlet detailing all the stuff he "cooperated" with Obama on, in which he absolutely destroyed the guy for not only systematically undermining everything he was doing, but also claiming he "wasn't sure" when asked if Donald Trump's allegations that he wasn't born in the US were true.
No fucks given Obama is glorious!
And yet they are the subject of political violence.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
a political rally is inherently different because its a controlled space. You can't force someone on the street to go away. At a rally you can easily have someone peacefully escorted out by security
When just the act of protest becomes a provocation to violence, that shows something very wrong in the group resorting to violence. These people are going out and legitimately protesting, and in return are attacked. And if they are also looking to demonstrate the propensity of Trump supporters to answer peaceful dissent with violence, why is it bad for that to be shown?
The argument that "provocation of violence is always wrong" is what King outright rejected when he said:
You seek to denounce the provocation as improper, while avoiding the larger questions that the disproportionate response opens up. Which is why so many people are questioning the argument.
And on any number of occasions, the future victims of assault at a Trump rally were being peacefully escorted out when the assault occured.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You can feel about the facts I'm telling you however you want, it doesn't make them wrong. Lunch counter sit-ins were 100% done with the idea that they might provoke a violent response. That was practically the whole point. To showcase the injustice of the situation via demonstrating disproportionate response. So you are wrong on that account.
And this relates directly to the point you were trying to make. Not all provocations are equivalent. "Provoking" someone by dressing up as Donald Duck or sitting at a lunch counter while black is not equivalent to, say, screaming bigoted slurs in someone's face at a funeral.
The nature of the provocation determines whether it's worthy of praise or derision. To say all provocation to violence is the same is to condemn, as I already pointed out, the civil rights movement that used provocation all the time. Which is why your point was ridiculous.
it begins
I say with complete sincerity that the Khan's have genuine courage to be making such a public effort. Truly inspirational.
Darrel Issa, who is such a shit heel he deserved the personal shout out.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Did it ever end?
I read the article and the complaint seems to be that people are clicking "Vote all Republican" and then when they scroll down they see that its auto-voted for all republicans except that Clinton is voted for instead of Trump
Its not just one report, either, so its sounding like an issue.
That being said, I'd be surprised if it was anything other than the fact that the Clinton/Trump choice is just in a bad spot for the scrolling controls and causing the switch accidentally when people are scrolling down.
A folded piece of paper stuffed in a cardboard box works just fine.
Sincerely, everywhere else.
I'm a programmer by trade. I do embedded systems. I know exactly how difficult it is to get things right, and I have some idea of how hard it is to ensure chain of custody with electronics.
Using electronic voting machines is stupid. Paper and pen works fantastic, and then you can use a damned scantron to get the totals quickly, while randomly selecting say 1% of the ballots cast and verify by hand.
Securing the chain of custody for physical items is a known problem. For electronics? Where to be sure you would have to verify every chip, every compiler, every library, and every program used in the entire damned thing? And then have a means of logging that a) doesn't allow you to back into the physical identity of the person who voted while b) ensuring the totals are correct while c) allowing you to audit said totals?
Are you fucking kidding me?
As it stands right now, gambling machines are better secured against tampering.
Will we ever be able to do that securely and in a way everyone agrees works? Probably not!
Given the state of cyber security in general right now, I'm ok with this not happening in the foreseeable future.
Voting online is a terrible idea.
It has all of the problems of electronic voting, with even less security. You can't trust the client.
The noted Democratic stronghold of Texas is rigging the election to give Hillary a superfluous state without offering any benefit downballot.
Are you absolutely sure this is a real issue?