Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[Echo4]

The criticism was for hypocrisy. If you were going to stop complaining about tone policing, that's fine. But continuing to complain about the accusation while engaging in what you objected to was funny!

So, you prefer a nastier tone?

While I am pretty sure that that is a very warped interpretation of anything I have said, I will try to communicate with you in clear, exact terms:

1) As a general rule, I prefer a less nasty tone.

However,
2) As a specific rule, I think criticizing oppressed people for using less restrained language to discuss issues surrounding their oppression is oppressive.


3) I think telling said oppressed people that they would have more support if only they posted about it in nicer language is at best disingenuous.

Further
4) Claiming that they are making you less likely to support their cause by their language is more indicative of the claimant's moral weakness than it is of any failure by the user of said language.

5) I find faux-politeness to be far more offensive than I find most so-called objectionable language.

I see. You've overinterpreted my remarks, seeing in them that which was neither said nor implied.
Perhaps you should examine your own need to create unnecessary arguments. Or are you just hear to save the oppressed from further oppression?

Tell me. Who among us on this forum are the truly oppressed, and I'll be sure to follow your guidelines for speaking to those poor souls.

As for "faux politeness", I have no iidea what you mean by that. Either you're paranoid, have suffered some undue trauma in your life, or you've never actually experienced real conversation.

You may continue, but I believe there's nothing left for me to say to you, since clearly you've made a firm choice, preferring the nastier tone of discourse, thus impairing your message and certainly adding to your apparent lack of reading comprehension.

You asked a general question.

You've chosen to think it is specifically aimed at you. Your choice.

And if you don't think Larry is oppressed, think again.

[Echo4]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/west-point-graduates-message/index.html

A group of West Point alums have "issued their own message to the class of 2020 outlining concerns that "fellow graduates serving in senior-level, public positions" are undermining the credibility of an apolitical military and betraying their "commitment to Duty, Honor, Country."

"Pointing to "weak" and "self-serving leaders who emphasize loyalty over duty," the group wrote that leaders who focus on pleasing their commanders and advancing their own careers "is not just a problem, it's a disgrace.""

[Echo4]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/us/chicago-officers-in-congressmans-office/index.html

Why be on the streets when you can hide out in an office and watch the show on TV?

Because video is everywhere, guys, and if you cannot do your job because it is your job, do it because you fear losing your job when you get caught.

Just a few bad apples.

[Hamilton Samuels]

The criticism was for hypocrisy. If you were going to stop complaining about tone policing, that's fine. But continuing to complain about the accusation while engaging in what you objected to was funny!

So, you prefer a nastier tone?

While I am pretty sure that that is a very warped interpretation of anything I have said, I will try to communicate with you in clear, exact terms:

1) As a general rule, I prefer a less nasty tone.

However,
2) As a specific rule, I think criticizing oppressed people for using less restrained language to discuss issues surrounding their oppression is oppressive.


3) I think telling said oppressed people that they would have more support if only they posted about it in nicer language is at best disingenuous.

Further
4) Claiming that they are making you less likely to support their cause by their language is more indicative of the claimant's moral weakness than it is of any failure by the user of said language.

5) I find faux-politeness to be far more offensive than I find most so-called objectionable language.

I see. You've overinterpreted my remarks, seeing in them that which was neither said nor implied.
Perhaps you should examine your own need to create unnecessary arguments. Or are you just hear to save the oppressed from further oppression?

Tell me. Who among us on this forum are the truly oppressed, and I'll be sure to follow your guidelines for speaking to those poor souls.

As for "faux politeness", I have no iidea what you mean by that. Either you're paranoid, have suffered some undue trauma in your life, or you've never actually experienced real conversation.

You may continue, but I believe there's nothing left for me to say to you, since clearly you've made a firm choice, preferring the nastier tone of discourse, thus impairing your message and certainly adding to your apparent lack of reading comprehension.

You asked a general question.

You've chosen to think it is specifically aimed at you. Your choice.

And if you don't think Larry is oppressed, think again.

So, Larry is the oppressed one. Got it. Anyone else? I want to make a list so I don't stray from your special guidelines.

Your choice was getting in over your head.

Try to improve.

[Hamilton Samuels]

LeBron refuses to shut up and dribble: https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEDxa1iCJnYJsjXdKx9K4VnEqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowyNj6CjDyiPICMJyFxQU?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

[LarryBnDC]

One of our political parties partitions voting districts and fucks with voting sites in order to disenfranchise Black voters. 


Is that truly what you think just happened in Atlanta?

Republicans close voting sites in majority Black neighborhoods to make it more difficult for them to vote.  In Georgia, 1.5 years ago, they tried to close 7 of 9 in a majority Black county before getting called on it and canceling those plans.

So do I think its very possible what happened in Atlanta is the result of a years long effort to degrade the voting infrastructure of minority neighborhoods?  Fuck yes.

I think it was mostly improper training and incompetence

The Secretary of State has ONE job.

To run an efficient election.

He was in charge.

He fucked up. It was either malfeasance or incompetence. Take your pick.

[LarryBnDC]

One of our political parties partitions voting districts and fucks with voting sites in order to disenfranchise Black voters. 


Is that truly what you think just happened in Atlanta?

Republicans close voting sites in majority Black neighborhoods to make it more difficult for them to vote.  In Georgia, 1.5 years ago, they tried to close 7 of 9 in a majority Black county before getting called on it and canceling those plans.

So do I think its very possible what happened in Atlanta is the result of a years long effort to degrade the voting infrastructure of minority neighborhoods?  Fuck yes.

I think it was mostly improper training and incompetence

Of course you do.

Do you grant the other was a factor at all?!

I recall a trainer, back when I was doing labor relations. When it was suggested some malfeascing employees be sent to him for additional training, he responded, "Why? I ALREADY TRAINED THEM. If they couldn't listen the first time, what makes you think they will start now?"

Police officers have been trained on all of the relevant issues  - use of force, race issues, public relations - for years. It has not worked. Things keep happening. It is time to rethink policing.

I agree it is time to rethink policing. But I also think it is well past time for the public at large to decide that it is as fed up with the poverty, substandard housing, limited access to quality health care, food insecurity, and other issues of disparity that create the trauma with which far too many Americans live each day. And that is particularly a dire circumstance for children.

As long as we are obsessed with the Kardashians and who's Got Talent and Netflix and the NFL to the point of being anesthetized and completely numb to the suffering of so many of our countrymen, and as long as we allow politicians to determine what is meant by "effective policing", we will continue to struggle to restore our once (however illusory) image of the City upon the Hill.

Bread and circuses...

[LarryBnDC]

The criticism was for hypocrisy. If you were going to stop complaining about tone policing, that's fine. But continuing to complain about the accusation while engaging in what you objected to was funny!

So, you prefer a nastier tone?

While I am pretty sure that that is a very warped interpretation of anything I have said, I will try to communicate with you in clear, exact terms:

1) As a general rule, I prefer a less nasty tone.

However,
2) As a specific rule, I think criticizing oppressed people for using less restrained language to discuss issues surrounding their oppression is oppressive.


3) I think telling said oppressed people that they would have more support if only they posted about it in nicer language is at best disingenuous.

Further
4) Claiming that they are making you less likely to support their cause by their language is more indicative of the claimant's moral weakness than it is of any failure by the user of said language.

5) I find faux-politeness to be far more offensive than I find most so-called objectionable language.

I see. You've overinterpreted my remarks, seeing in them that which was neither said nor implied.
Perhaps you should examine your own need to create unnecessary arguments. Or are you just hear to save the oppressed from further oppression?

Tell me. Who among us on this forum are the truly oppressed, and I'll be sure to follow your guidelines for speaking to those poor souls.

As for "faux politeness", I have no iidea what you mean by that. Either you're paranoid, have suffered some undue trauma in your life, or you've never actually experienced real conversation.

You may continue, but I believe there's nothing left for me to say to you, since clearly you've made a firm choice, preferring the nastier tone of discourse, thus impairing your message and certainly adding to your apparent lack of reading comprehension.

Daaaammmmn.

[Echo4]

The criticism was for hypocrisy. If you were going to stop complaining about tone policing, that's fine. But continuing to complain about the accusation while engaging in what you objected to was funny!

So, you prefer a nastier tone?

While I am pretty sure that that is a very warped interpretation of anything I have said, I will try to communicate with you in clear, exact terms:

1) As a general rule, I prefer a less nasty tone.

However,
2) As a specific rule, I think criticizing oppressed people for using less restrained language to discuss issues surrounding their oppression is oppressive.


3) I think telling said oppressed people that they would have more support if only they posted about it in nicer language is at best disingenuous.

Further
4) Claiming that they are making you less likely to support their cause by their language is more indicative of the claimant's moral weakness than it is of any failure by the user of said language.

5) I find faux-politeness to be far more offensive than I find most so-called objectionable language.

I see. You've overinterpreted my remarks, seeing in them that which was neither said nor implied.
Perhaps you should examine your own need to create unnecessary arguments. Or are you just hear to save the oppressed from further oppression?

Tell me. Who among us on this forum are the truly oppressed, and I'll be sure to follow your guidelines for speaking to those poor souls.

As for "faux politeness", I have no iidea what you mean by that. Either you're paranoid, have suffered some undue trauma in your life, or you've never actually experienced real conversation.

You may continue, but I believe there's nothing left for me to say to you, since clearly you've made a firm choice, preferring the nastier tone of discourse, thus impairing your message and certainly adding to your apparent lack of reading comprehension.

You asked a general question.

You've chosen to think it is specifically aimed at you. Your choice.

And if you don't think Larry is oppressed, think again.

So, Larry is the oppressed one. Got it. Anyone else? I want to make a list so I don't stray from your special guidelines.

Your choice was getting in over your head.

Try to improve.

Eat shit.

Find a mirror. Sit and stare at it for a while, because you are not the "good guy" you apparently think you are.

He may or may not be the only one. Given the attitude of folks like you and Kid and Ward, I sure wouldn't want to expose myself. And with crap like this, you remind me more of Ham than anything else.

[Echo4]

https://www.westernjournal.com/nyt-writer-claims-good-cops-television-cover-violence-system/?fbclid=IwAR0VjeRAu1SwQFG85pzd9eteeexkeBZARUwMbkM58wB_suoc4wIFzLYL4Zc

[Echo4]

Self-parody!

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/502360-trump-rally-sign-up-includes-disclaimer-about-potential-covid-19-exposure?fbclid=IwAR0U2IEtfx4FdJB6iGOOt_LPv__R2Wk2AfKLPQ1MrsV8HSCtkDC12mttHWw

Those wishing to attend President Trump's rally next week in Oklahoma must agree not to sue the Trump campaign or host venue in the event they contract the coronavirus.

The Trump campaign on Thursday formally announced that the president's first rally in three months will take place June 19 in Tulsa. The page for guests to sign up for free tickets to the event includes a disclaimer related to the virus.

"By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present," the statement reads.

"By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury."

Anybody inclined to sue is not going to be blocked by this sort of notice nor would it protect those being sued in cases of negligence, in most instances. It's largely just an admission that the organizers knew it was dangerous.

[Echo4]

[LarryBnDC]

The criticism was for hypocrisy. If you were going to stop complaining about tone policing, that's fine. But continuing to complain about the accusation while engaging in what you objected to was funny!

So, you prefer a nastier tone?

While I am pretty sure that that is a very warped interpretation of anything I have said, I will try to communicate with you in clear, exact terms:

1) As a general rule, I prefer a less nasty tone.

However,
2) As a specific rule, I think criticizing oppressed people for using less restrained language to discuss issues surrounding their oppression is oppressive.


3) I think telling said oppressed people that they would have more support if only they posted about it in nicer language is at best disingenuous.

Further
4) Claiming that they are making you less likely to support their cause by their language is more indicative of the claimant's moral weakness than it is of any failure by the user of said language.

5) I find faux-politeness to be far more offensive than I find most so-called objectionable language.

I see. You've overinterpreted my remarks, seeing in them that which was neither said nor implied.
Perhaps you should examine your own need to create unnecessary arguments. Or are you just hear to save the oppressed from further oppression?

Tell me. Who among us on this forum are the truly oppressed, and I'll be sure to follow your guidelines for speaking to those poor souls.

As for "faux politeness", I have no iidea what you mean by that. Either you're paranoid, have suffered some undue trauma in your life, or you've never actually experienced real conversation.

You may continue, but I believe there's nothing left for me to say to you, since clearly you've made a firm choice, preferring the nastier tone of discourse, thus impairing your message and certainly adding to your apparent lack of reading comprehension.

You asked a general question.

You've chosen to think it is specifically aimed at you. Your choice.

And if you don't think Larry is oppressed, think again.

So, Larry is the oppressed one. Got it. Anyone else? I want to make a list so I don't stray from your special guidelines.

Your choice was getting in over your head.

Try to improve.

There are times, if you truly want to learn something of which you don’t understand for you have no frame of reference upon which to draw,  it would help to keep the discussion civil if you’d just shut up and listen so as to hear what you’re responding to.

I used to lay out rational arguments by the yard accompanied by links to fact based sources and relate things from my perspective and why I saw it that way.

Who has that kind of time anymore?

You were so busy trying to make me speak in a respectable tone you failed to consider what I was saying.

If you are not a black person in America you have no idea the compromises we make so as not get killed.

You demand respect and then joke about the president rebooting his campaign on the anniversary of the final day of slavery in the USA in the a place where a thriving black community was destroyed and hundreds murdered at the hands of whites people.

Al Sharpton.

Fuck off.

[facilitatorn]

Tell me. Who among us on this forum are the truly oppressed, and I'll be sure to follow your guidelines for speaking to those poor souls.

As for "faux politeness", I have no iidea what you mean by that. Either you're paranoid, have suffered some undue trauma in your life, or you've never actually experienced real conversation.

You may continue, but I believe there's nothing left for me to say to you, since clearly you've made a firm choice, preferring the nastier tone of discourse, thus impairing your message and certainly adding to your apparent lack of reading comprehension.

You asked a general question.

You've chosen to think it is specifically aimed at you. Your choice.

And if you don't think Larry is oppressed, think again.

So, Larry is the oppressed one. Got it. Anyone else? I want to make a list so I don't stray from your special guidelines.

Your choice was getting in over your head.

Try to improve.

You were right. There was nothing more for you to say. The next thing you said was pretty conclusive proof.

Your writing does add a certain dramatic flair to some namby-pamby ideas. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, at least not mine, but, by all means, party on with your bad self.

[LarryBnDC]

Tell me. Who among us on this forum are the truly oppressed, and I'll be sure to follow your guidelines for speaking to those poor souls.

As for "faux politeness", I have no iidea what you mean by that. Either you're paranoid, have suffered some undue trauma in your life, or you've never actually experienced real conversation.

You may continue, but I believe there's nothing left for me to say to you, since clearly you've made a firm choice, preferring the nastier tone of discourse, thus impairing your message and certainly adding to your apparent lack of reading comprehension.

You asked a general question.

You've chosen to think it is specifically aimed at you. Your choice.

And if you don't think Larry is oppressed, think again.

So, Larry is the oppressed one. Got it. Anyone else? I want to make a list so I don't stray from your special guidelines.

Your choice was getting in over your head.

Try to improve.

You were right. There was nothing more for you to say. The next thing you said was pretty conclusive proof.

Your writing does add a certain dramatic flair to some namby-pamby ideas. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, at least not mine, but, by all means, party on with your bad self.

Pompous asshole.

I’ve had enough of that shit in here.