First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Mall of America Asks Judge to Bar Black Lives Matter Protest
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

megahobbit wrote:


maxgale wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


Grauger wrote:


megahobbit wrote:

Dick move on mall of Americas part.

So we can plan a party at your house and tell everyone about it despite you not wanting the party because your grandparents are visiting?


Mall of America has a every right to do it. Im saying in this case Mall of America should put forward an effort to support the movement.

Also your comparison is shoddy as fuck.




Why should MoA support a movement intent on harassing their customers?


The comparison works as well. BLM would be trespassing on private property during get togethers of families and other guests of the mall.


Bug off.




Sorry, my young liberal, but reality and public forums are not not your safe space free from facts and logic.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

maxgale wrote:

Sorry, my young liberal, but reality and public forums are not not your safe space free from facts and logic.


Sorry Max but im not fucking talking to you.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

megahobbit wrote:


maxgale wrote:

Sorry, my young liberal, but reality and public forums are not not your safe space free from facts and logic.


Sorry Max but im not fucking talking to you.




So tsundere.
11782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / McDonough
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

Grauger wrote:


megahobbit wrote:

Dick move on mall of Americas part.

So we can plan a party at your house and tell everyone about it despite you not wanting the party because your grandparents are visiting?


This makes me rather glad I didn't respond to them. Such a perfect response *claps*
47868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 12/23/15 , edited 12/23/15

maxgale wrote:

They have no reasonable demands.


They literally are a group formed at outrage of murderous thugs being treated as murderous thugs.


They create situations where they increase hostility between the races and then use that as justification for their existence.


The only good thing to come from them is people are realizing that the Left creates monsters like this, enables monsters like this, and the Left has the audacity to take no responsibility for it.


Revoking the power the Left has on our society and politics is the only way to actually address these issues.


It's always rather interesting to me that, while Black Lives Matter is calling for more accountability for the state, more checks on abuses of power, and assurances of equal freedoms for all, the party of "limited government" sees this as a negative. Seriously, with all the fear-mongering and complaints about government overreach commonly espoused by the right, I legitimately do not understand how the core message of equal rights and increased government accountability can be so hated. It mystifies me. Unless, and of course I hope I'm wrong, the right really is fueled by racism.

Here's the thing. While it's generally agreed that racists exist, and while it's generally understood that many of those racists (even it's only on statistical probability) make it into the police force, I don't really think the core message is against racism 'per se.' Although I may be wrong about this, I suspect that we would not have mass protests and an entire movement if the system were working properly.

I'll ignore the fact that most of the big killings that made headlines were not perpetrated on people guilty of murder, thus nullifying your portrayal of them as murderous. I'll also put aside the fact that the sort of occurrences that started the movement are a constant companion to many people of color -- 'thug' or otherwise. But let's assume the killings that perpetuate the movement are enacted on, as you say, 'murderous thugs'. Consider:

1. Let's assume that all of the victims popularly known -- every single one -- can be legitimately labeled 'murderous thug' (that is, let's say, someone that has killed someone else unlawfully). The Police is not in the business of killing criminals. Shooting unarmed people does not become more reasonable by labeling the victims thugs. The fact that they are (by assumption) criminals does not give one the right to shoot, or kill, or strangle, them. Plus, not all of them were criminals, even less so killers.

2. That aside, these things will happen even if race is no issue at all. And when they do, can we trust police officers to investigate the people they know, and have worked with for a long time? Can we trust the Police to judge themselves, objectively, without bias or self-interest?

3. Is it enough, as in Florida, to be able to say, something like "I was afraid of him, so I shot him" as a lawful excuse for killing someone?

I think, very sincerely, that if we did not have killings of unarmed people thug or otherwise, we would not have Black Lives Matter. Alternatively, if the state were held more accountable, and investigations were likely to produce results that would deter the killing of unarmed people thug or otherwise, we would not have Black Lives Matter. That is to say, if Black people could feel reliant on Police officers the same way that white people do, or if they could feel trust for the system in the same way that white people do, we would not have Black Lives Matter. The fact is, reality has lead their feelings elsewhere.

But here's where I really have to give a chuckle. To you, it seems, going to a Mall and pestering shoppers is a monstrous act. Seriously? The act of pestering someone else, while annoying, is enough to qualify calling them "monsters"? This, coming from a party whose front -runner supports murdering, not terrorists, but the families of terrorists? This, coming from a party whose standard position on people entering this country is: send them back, protect ourselves? This, coming from a party where "bomb the hell out of them" and "carpet bomb them to oblivion" are considered plus points? I mean, what does it say about your mindset when you consider it a monstrosity to be pestered at the mall?
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

theYchromosome wrote:


3. Is it enough, as in Florida, to be able to say, something like "I was afraid of him, so I shot him" as a lawful excuse for killing someone?


This has to be the stupidest thing I've read all week.
9551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

maxgale wrote:


megahobbit wrote:


maxgale wrote:

Sorry, my young liberal, but reality and public forums are not not your safe space free from facts and logic.


Sorry Max but im not fucking talking to you.




So tsundere.


Baka.
47868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

VZ68 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


3. Is it enough, as in Florida, to be able to say, something like "I was afraid of him, so I shot him" as a lawful excuse for killing someone?


This has to be the stupidest thing I've read all week.


The Stand-Your-Ground Law, or my unkind portrayal of it?
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

theYchromosome wrote:


VZ68 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


3. Is it enough, as in Florida, to be able to say, something like "I was afraid of him, so I shot him" as a lawful excuse for killing someone?


This has to be the stupidest thing I've read all week.


The Stand-Your-Ground Law, or my unkind portrayal of it?


Your completely made-up "understanding" of it.

14783 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/23/15
And now, back to our program:

Accdg. to Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-minnesota-idUSKBN0U61QN20151223 the protest "ended quickly", as police and mall security were ready:

Black Lives Matter officials had promised to assemble at the mall "restraining order or not" and said in a Facebook post late Tuesday, "What happens next will tell us volumes about who we are as a society." After the protest was broken up, the group Tweeted that it was gathering at a nearby train station.

And so it did: We're a society that finds attention-starved protestors annoying and prefer to shop for the holidays, while said attention-starved protestors have to be pushed to the cheap venues.
47868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 12/23/15 , edited 12/23/15

VZ68 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


VZ68 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


3. Is it enough, as in Florida, to be able to say, something like "I was afraid of him, so I shot him" as a lawful excuse for killing someone?


This has to be the stupidest thing I've read all week.


The Stand-Your-Ground Law, or my unkind portrayal of it?


Your completely made-up "understanding" of it.



I'll actually admit that I used piss-poor wording there, and judicially, I'd doubt that 'perception of threat' translates to 'fear.' Although I will say that my doubt is more built on hope than knowledge. My only point is that Black Lives Matter, in part, brought into question the validity of the law, particularly regarding the 'perception of threat' bit. maxgale said that BLM had no reasonable or positive effect on society. Even if you think the law ought to be there, BLM brought the law under review and brought attention to a vague clause open to wide interpretation. This, I think, is a good habit to be in as citizens in democracy. But, if you want, you can just ignore it, pretend I never said it. It was more of an afterthought, although I do think the scrutiny of the law was well founded.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 12/23/15
Works for me. BLM is a joke and a scam
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

theYchromosome wrote:
I'll actually admit that I used piss-poor wording there, and judicially, I'd doubt that 'perception of threat' translates to 'fear.' Although I will say that my doubt is more built on hope than knowledge. My only point is that Black Lives Matter, in part, brought into question the validity of the law, particularly regarding the 'perception of threat' bit. maxgale said that BLM had no reasonable or positive effect on society. Even if you think the law ought to be there, BLM brought the law under review and brought attention to a vague clause open to wide interpretation. This, I think, is a good habit to be in as citizens in democracy. But, if you want, you can just ignore it, pretend I never said it. It was more of an afterthought, although I do think the scrutiny of the law was well founded.



Since the law or others like it have been on the books for over 100 years, I see no problem with the law.
1322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
102 / M / Hicksville Ohio(n...
Offline
Posted 12/23/15
Current news is they gave up on the mall and are blocking the freeway and are heading towards the airport.. Carpet bombing anyone?
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 12/23/15

hicksvilledave wrote:

Current news is they gave up on the mall and are blocking the freeway and are heading towards the airport.. Carpet bombing anyone?


Naw, that's no good and MN has crappy roads to start off with.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.