General US Politics Discussion

[RollsReus1959]

Blocking traffic is illegal bro. Rioting and violence too.

 

I think the message would be heard better if laws were not broken while delivering the message.

Edited February 13, 2017 by RollsReus1959

[sivispacem]

Blocking traffic is illegal bro.

So? I don't recall arguing it wasn't. Or anyone else, for that matter. You're going to have to explain why this is relevant. Whilst your at it, you can respond to the numerous other points in my and Tchuck's responses to your drivel.

[RedDagger]

Blocking traffic is illegal bro. Rioting and violence too.

 

I think the message would be heard better if laws were not broken while delivering the message.

Nobody said it wasn't, so hopefully your lack of even acknowledgement of either posts responding to yours is an admission of how dumb it was...

 

And anyway, in this instance "it's illegal" is hardly a strong point. It requires that the government systems and laws are 100% right and just, and there's a slight overlap there with the concerns of protesters.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

Blocking traffic is illegal bro. Rioting and violence too.

 

I think the message would be heard better if laws were not broken while delivering the message.

 

I'll spoiler the images to make them easier to digest and save space :

 

 

 

Look at this image from 1970 :

 

 

Let's go back to the 50's....

 

 

And now, today....

 

 

Oh, wait, that's London, hang on :

 

 

That's better....

 

 

 

 

Right, you're probably wondering why I am posting protest images from over 50 years ago and today as a comparison? I'm making the point that protests happen where people can meet in large groups and unify their opinion on a subject. In all cities that usually happens around roads as it allows the protest to become mobile and inhibit others from traveling, so they are forced to take notice of the protest.

 

But this breaks laws? Well of course it does, but is the right to group in large number illegal? In any of these four images, has martial law been called so that restricts the free movement of people?

 

For large numbers of ordinary people to make a political point you sometimes have to break laws, but usually the laws broken only benefit infrastructure and restrict businesses from operating, which is what the protestors want! Quite often, loss of trading will cause business owners to question to validity of the government, if they don't already support the protestors' view and so the mistrust spreads.

 

Rioters join protestors as they see an opportunity to let anarchy make their opinions felt, but the vast majority of protestors are not rioters so you cannot brand every protestor as a rioter as well. When the first signs of a riot begin to spread, most protestors will retreat from the area and the police let them disperse since they are in no danger of causing further trouble.

 

Protests break laws, but the offenses caused are usually so minor the police and government would be ridiculed for trying to enforce those laws against the people that were protesting, especially if those number in the thousands as the legal costs would far outweigh the point of the entire, fruitless exercise.

 

If protestors hold you up in your fancy automobile, just put your radio on, find some music and chill the hell out, rather than trying to drive through them! Running over protestors is far more likely to cause bigger problems in the future.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Uncle Sikee Atric

[dice]

 

I merely want to show that low levels of education and poverty aren't a factor in (islamic) extremism, while the political component is always present.

You haven't come even remotely close to offering proof for this thesis. Citing single examples does not demonstrate an absence of general correlation or causation. You can't assertion that education and poverty are not general contributing factors to radicalisation based on cherry picked examples of extremist activity which don't ostensibly show these factors.

 

A study from Piazza found that unlike in domestic terrorism where economic discrimination does play a role, in transnational terrorism foreign policy decisions have much greater influence (as suggested by Savun & Phillips 2009 and seen in the 5 recent attacks in Europe). A good example are recent opinion polls of Palestinians on the West Bank which show that support for terrorist attacks did not decrease with income or educational level.

[sivispacem]

 

 

I merely want to show that low levels of education and poverty aren't a factor in (islamic) extremism, while the political component is always present.

You haven't come even remotely close to offering proof for this thesis. Citing single examples does not demonstrate an absence of general correlation or causation. You can't assertion that education and poverty are not general contributing factors to radicalisation based on cherry picked examples of extremist activity which don't ostensibly show these factors.

A study from Piazza found that unlike in domestic terrorism where economic discrimination does play a role, in transnational terrorism foreign policy decisions have much greater influence (as suggested by Savun & Phillips 2009 and seen in the 5 recent attacks in Europe). A good example are recent opinion polls of Palestinians on the West Bank which show that support for terrorist attacks did not decrease with income or educational level.Firstly, your basic thesis is not supported by the first article. The fact that there's no general correlation between the number of terrorist attacks taking place and the number of people living in poverty is not evidence that poverty does not contribute to violent extremism. In fact, the very idea of drawing a comparison between overall overtly rates and numbers of terrorist attack is utterly absurd; it's an intentionally ambiguous and overly general comparison which tells you absolutely nothing.

 

Then there's the fact that you appear to have quietly conceded the point that, as a general rule, there is a definitive link between terrorism and poverty. By moving the goalposts of your argument to encompass international terrorism and not domestic terrorism, which statistically comprises the overwhelming majority, you've effectively disproven your own basic thesis.

 

Then there's the straw man argument where you claim that that other factors are larger net contributors. This is entirely irrelevant; nobody has argued that there aren't single or multiple other factors which may play a role, even a primary one, in violent extremism. Again, this reads like a tacit confession your initial claims that economic status played no notable role in extremist violence are wrong.

 

As an aside, you can be economically disenfranchised without being in explicit poverty. And we both know that the Israel-Palestine debate isn't widely reflective of violent extremism of the kind we're discussing.

[RollsReus1959]

 

Blocking traffic is illegal bro. Rioting and violence too.

 

I think the message would be heard better if laws were not broken while delivering the message.

 

I'll spoiler the images to make them easier to digest and save space :

 

 

 

Look at this image from 1970 :

 

 

Let's go back to the 50's....

 

 

And now, today....

 

 

Oh, wait, that's London, hang on :

 

 

That's better....

 

 

 

 

Right, you're probably wondering why I am posting protest images from over 50 years ago and today as a comparison? I'm making the point that protests happen where people can meet in large groups and unify their opinion on a subject. In all cities that usually happens around roads as it allows the protest to become mobile and inhibit others from traveling, so they are forced to take notice of the protest.

 

But this breaks laws? Well of course it does, but is the right to group in large number illegal? In any of these four images, has martial law been called so that restricts the free movement of people?

 

For large numbers of ordinary people to make a political point you sometimes have to break laws, but usually the laws broken only benefit infrastructure and restrict businesses from operating, which is what the protestors want! Quite often, loss of trading will cause business owners to question to validity of the government, if they don't already support the protestors' view and so the mistrust spreads.

 

Rioters join protestors as they see an opportunity to let anarchy make their opinions felt, but the vast majority of protestors are not rioters so you cannot brand every protestor as a rioter as well. When the first signs of a riot begin to spread, most protestors will retreat from the area and the police let them disperse since they are in no danger of causing further trouble.

 

Protests break laws, but the offenses caused are usually so minor the police and government would be ridiculed for trying to enforce those laws against the people that were protesting, especially if those number in the thousands as the legal costs would far outweigh the point of the entire, fruitless exercise.

 

If protestors hold you up in your fancy automobile, just put your radio on, find some music and chill the hell out, rather than trying to drive through them! Running over protestors is far more likely to cause bigger problems in the future.

 

 

Good examples.

 

Perhaps I should clarify that when referring to illegal 'road blocking protests'....I am talking about the ones we see when people block highways.

 

A safe organized protests is not the problem here since no motorists/pedestrians are put at risk.

[Creed Bratton]

Have you seen the new Last Week's Tonight?

 

 

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

 

 

 

Blocking traffic is illegal bro. Rioting and violence too.

 

I think the message would be heard better if laws were not broken while delivering the message.

I'll spoiler the images to make them easier to digest and save space :

 

 

 

Look at this image from 1970 :

 

 

Let's go back to the 50's....

 

 

And now, today....

 

 

Oh, wait, that's London, hang on :

 

 

That's better....

 

 

 

 

Right, you're probably wondering why I am posting protest images from over 50 years ago and today as a comparison? I'm making the point that protests happen where people can meet in large groups and unify their opinion on a subject. In all cities that usually happens around roads as it allows the protest to become mobile and inhibit others from traveling, so they are forced to take notice of the protest.

 

But this breaks laws? Well of course it does, but is the right to group in large number illegal? In any of these four images, has martial law been called so that restricts the free movement of people?

 

For large numbers of ordinary people to make a political point you sometimes have to break laws, but usually the laws broken only benefit infrastructure and restrict businesses from operating, which is what the protestors want! Quite often, loss of trading will cause business owners to question to validity of the government, if they don't already support the protestors' view and so the mistrust spreads.

 

Rioters join protestors as they see an opportunity to let anarchy make their opinions felt, but the vast majority of protestors are not rioters so you cannot brand every protestor as a rioter as well. When the first signs of a riot begin to spread, most protestors will retreat from the area and the police let them disperse since they are in no danger of causing further trouble.

 

Protests break laws, but the offenses caused are usually so minor the police and government would be ridiculed for trying to enforce those laws against the people that were protesting, especially if those number in the thousands as the legal costs would far outweigh the point of the entire, fruitless exercise.

 

If protestors hold you up in your fancy automobile, just put your radio on, find some music and chill the hell out, rather than trying to drive through them! Running over protestors is far more likely to cause bigger problems in the future.

 

 

 

Good examples.

 

Perhaps I should clarify that when referring to illegal 'road blocking protests'....I am talking about the ones we see when people block highways.

 

A safe organized protests is not the problem here since no motorists/pedestrians are put at risk.

 

But it doesn't matter if the protest is organized or not. If the protest blocks roads then it is big enough to get noticed, cause delays and restrict traffic. Local authorities must take notice of that protest, whether it is a local, national or international issue.

 

The suggestion of 'driving through protests' is just ludicrous in that regard! A driver will be facing assault charges if a protestor is injured and vehicular manslaughter charges if one is killed, and the weight of public opinion from elsewhere will be so slanted in the weight of the protestors, it's likely the entire region / nation will come out in support of the protestors' issues and cause a major rethink in policy.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Uncle Sikee Atric

[RollsReus1959]

I am Trump family and even I can understand and accept a protest but not to the extent of the protests/riots we are seeing from California. Put it this way....I accept the protests more than people accepting me as a Trump Fam.

 

I'm from California so I see a lot of things that are not reported.

Edited February 13, 2017 by RollsReus1959

[Tchuck]

I am Trump family and even I can understand and accept a protest but not to the extent of the protests/riots we are seeing from California. Put it this way....I accept the protests more than people accepting me as a Trump Fam.

 

I'm from California so I see a lot of things that are not reported.

 

Pray tell, what is the acceptable limit of the protests then? (Also riots? Sorry bro, they're pretty damn far from being a riot).

 

Whether you accept protests or not is irrelevant to the argument at hand. They are what they are, and they are a legitimate tool for the oppressed to bring their issues to the forefront.

 

And do share what you see that isn't being reported.

[RollsReus1959]

 

I am Trump family and even I can understand and accept a protest but not to the extent of the protests/riots we are seeing from California. Put it this way....I accept the protests more than people accepting me as a Trump Fam.

 

I'm from California so I see a lot of things that are not reported.

Pray tell, what is the acceptable limit of the protests then? (Also riots? Sorry bro, they're pretty damn far from being a riot).

 

Whether you accept protests or not is irrelevant to the argument at hand. They are what they are, and they are a legitimate tool for the oppressed to bring their issues to the forefront.

 

And do share what you see that isn't being reported.

Berkeley Riot.

 

Tools. Indeed.

[Tchuck]

 

 

I am Trump family and even I can understand and accept a protest but not to the extent of the protests/riots we are seeing from California. Put it this way....I accept the protests more than people accepting me as a Trump Fam.

 

I'm from California so I see a lot of things that are not reported.

Pray tell, what is the acceptable limit of the protests then? (Also riots? Sorry bro, they're pretty damn far from being a riot).

 

Whether you accept protests or not is irrelevant to the argument at hand. They are what they are, and they are a legitimate tool for the oppressed to bring their issues to the forefront.

 

And do share what you see that isn't being reported.

Berkeley Riot.

 

Tools. Indeed.

 

 

Sorry bro, that wasn't a riot. The only media calling it a riot are the likes of BreitBart. If you take their word as fact, then we have nothing further to discuss.

 

You still failed to address any of the questions I've raised in my posts, though.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Tchuck

[RollsReus1959]

 

 

 

I am Trump family and even I can understand and accept a protest but not to the extent of the protests/riots we are seeing from California. Put it this way....I accept the protests more than people accepting me as a Trump Fam.

 

I'm from California so I see a lot of things that are not reported.

Pray tell, what is the acceptable limit of the protests then? (Also riots? Sorry bro, they're pretty damn far from being a riot).

 

Whether you accept protests or not is irrelevant to the argument at hand. They are what they are, and they are a legitimate tool for the oppressed to bring their issues to the forefront.

 

And do share what you see that isn't being reported.

Berkeley Riot.

 

Tools. Indeed.

 

Sorry bro, that wasn't a riot. The only media calling it a riot are the likes of BreitBart. If you take their word as fact, then we have nothing further to discuss.

 

You still failed to address any of the questions I've raised in my posts, though.

I was there that night.

 

I live here.

 

Nobody needs to read Breibart. Just look on social media of people that were there.

Edited February 14, 2017 by RollsReus1959

[Tchuck]

 

Sorry bro, that wasn't a riot. The only media calling it a riot are the likes of BreitBart. If you take their word as fact, then we have nothing further to discuss.

 

You still failed to address any of the questions I've raised in my posts, though.

I was there that night.

 

I live here.

 

Nobody needs to read Breibart. Just look on social media of people that were there.

 

 

Oh you were there? Oh sorry that completely invalidates my point. Your one person experience and biased point of view contradicts and invalidates the point of view of, well, everyone else.

[RollsReus1959]

Good move the administration to drain the swamp of Flynn.

[RollsReus1959]

 

 

 

Sorry bro, that wasn't a riot. The only media calling it a riot are the likes of BreitBart. If you take their word as fact, then we have nothing further to discuss.

 

You still failed to address any of the questions I've raised in my posts, though.

I was there that night.

 

I live here.

 

Nobody needs to read Breibart. Just look on social media of people that were there.

 

Oh you were there? Oh sorry that completely invalidates my point. Your one person experience and biased point of view contradicts and invalidates the point of view of, well, everyone else.

 

Thank me later.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

She got a heated reception....

 

But then, that is Fox News, where they give the Moron a nice welcome.... Yuck!

 

 

This was the first video linked from yours and Piers Moron makes my toenails curl, since he should be in Court for Insider Trading. (I'll tell you about the history of the case someday....)

 

The Morons' Twitter spat with J.K. Rowling and the clip showing him getting ribbed on that panel show at the weekend were both so funny. I always enjoy seeing him being humiliated! Maybe one day we'll see him sink back into forgotten obscurity....

 

PS : We have had an advisor for the Great Orange Grope, resign overnight.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Uncle Sikee Atric

[make total destroy]

 

Berkeley Riot.

 

Was off the hook.

[Svip]

Good move the administration to drain the swamp of Flynn.

You mean after Trump appointed Flynn himself? Sounds more like stepping in mud, then taking a shower afterwards and being congratulated for taking a shower after stepping in mud. Like a realisation after the fact.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Svip

[Eutyphro]

Pretending it wasn't a riot is ridiculous. It caused $100,000 in damage, and even Rolling Stone magazine calls it a riot. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/berkeley-riots-inside-the-campus-showdown-over-free-speech-w465151

[make total destroy]

Peaceful protests are boring anyway.

[Tchuck]

 

 

 

 

Sorry bro, that wasn't a riot. The only media calling it a riot are the likes of BreitBart. If you take their word as fact, then we have nothing further to discuss.

 

You still failed to address any of the questions I've raised in my posts, though.

I was there that night.

 

I live here.

 

Nobody needs to read Breibart. Just look on social media of people that were there.

 

Oh you were there? Oh sorry that completely invalidates my point. Your one person experience and biased point of view contradicts and invalidates the point of view of, well, everyone else.

 

 

Thank me later.

 

 

Lol. Fox News. You're not even trying.

 

Pretending it wasn't a riot is ridiculous. It caused $100,000 in damage, and even Rolling Stone magazine calls it a riot. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/berkeley-riots-inside-the-campus-showdown-over-free-speech-w465151

 

Cool story, bro. Every other news outlet called it a protest. Sometimes a violent protest, but a protest. I'm not one to get my news from Rolling Stones, though.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Tchuck

[Eutyphro]

What would've made it a riot exactly Tchuck? For those participating in it to be ideologically further from you? It seems that way, and it's f*cking stupid.

 

also HuffPo calls it a riot: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/berkeleys-milo-riot-seen-from-ground-zero_us_5893846ae4b091e06a2b35a6

 

And the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/03/milo-yiannopoulos-is-returning-to-white-house-briefing-room-in-wake-of-berkeley-riot/

Edited February 14, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

What would've made it a riot exactly Tchuck? For those participating in it to be ideologically further from you? It seems that way, and it's f*cking stupid.

 

also HuffPo calls it a riot: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/berkeleys-milo-riot-seen-from-ground-zero_us_5893846ae4b091e06a2b35a6

 

And the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/03/milo-yiannopoulos-is-returning-to-white-house-briefing-room-in-wake-of-berkeley-riot/

The balance point between a 'violent protest' and a 'riot' is purely based on personal opinion.

 

If trere wasn't such unsettling undertones to the entire debate, it would have been seen as little more than a 'good frat night party'! But the extremism seen on both sides is beginning to overwhelm all rational thinking on the subject....

 

Whether the scale of the events are seen as a protest or a riot, will only be decided in several years' time, when we can actually see events from all sides evenly. It is impossible to do that right now.

[Mr. Scratch]

Peaceful protests are boring anyway.

Wall Street would've gone down for good if they turned it into a riot in 2008. Oh well...

[Tchuck]

What would've made it a riot exactly Tchuck? For those participating in it to be ideologically further from you? It seems that way, and it's f*cking stupid.

 

also HuffPo calls it a riot: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/berkeleys-milo-riot-seen-from-ground-zero_us_5893846ae4b091e06a2b35a6

 

And the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/03/milo-yiannopoulos-is-returning-to-white-house-briefing-room-in-wake-of-berkeley-riot/

 

Intention makes it a protest. Wantom violence makes it a riot. Protesters make a strong objection against something; In this case, giving a f*cktard and piece of sh*t human being as Milo a sopabox. Rioters just want to create violence and destroy things; like in Vancouver when the canucks lost.

 

Oh yeah, and the pigs response to the situation can also turn it into a protest or a riot. They come in with violence and repression? It can escalate into a riot. They come in peacefully and respecting the people? It'll likely remain a protest.

 

As for your sources:

 

HuffPo doesn't call it a riot, at least not on that link. That is merely the blog post of some random journalist. Dude who says he's been in protests around the worlds and calls the Berkeley protest the most frightening hasn't been to many protests.

And for Washington Post, not to be pedantic, but they call the protest a protest far more than they call it a riot.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Tchuck

[Eutyphro]

A protest and a riot aren't mutually exclusive. It can be both, and it was both, clearly, to anyone not judging it through some ideological lense.

[Clem Fandango]

A protest and a riot aren't mutually exclusive. It can be both, and it was both, clearly, to anyone not judging it through some ideological lense.

yfw defining your politics as 'anti-extremism' renders you an extremist relative to more nuanced centrists.

 

Like you're aware that people like you and Jordan 'horseshoe theory' Peterson are militant liberals? Most liberals do not have a militant hatred for anything that veers away from their logic and systems. They don't levy 'collectivist' as an accusation either. So it's funny to see you make constant references to 'ideology' when your own liberalism is cartoonish.

 

Your concerns about property damage I wouldn't even dignify by calling ideology. It's just middle class respectability. How do you go from railing against carpet bombings to railing against smashed windows?

[RedDagger]

I don't think you're really in much of a position to say what's what when not judged "through some ideological lense" since your statement itself can be borne out of an ideological lens, with or without it being "clear"...not exactly a statement of whether I agree with your point but more that claiming objectivity in that instance doesn't really make sense.