Surly Megathread of destruction and doom. [BEWARE VERY DOOMY]

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Nope sorry, walking on the street usually gives one plenty of avenues to avoid a protest. In a car your choices are limited to very few avenues and you're creating a situation that can escalate quickly, and dangersously.

Making someone become part of your protest against their will is BS. It's happening in my city. I have clients who won't come to my studio now because of the vandalism this past weekend, and last month.  

I don't entirely disagree with you. I think events that block traffic should be coordinated to the extent possible with local authorities. You can cause disruption, just like 5ks or parades cause street disruptions, but in a way that prevents dangerous situations from occurring. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't entirely disagree with you. I think events that block traffic should be coordinated to the extent possible with local authorities. You can cause disruption, just like 5ks or parades cause street disruptions, but in a way that prevents dangerous situations from occurring. 

Get a permit to close a roadway, and I have no issue. That's legal, and gets my respect, and attention.  Those events have a police presence re routing people. These types of protests trap people in their vehicles.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Onboard 2.0

[Captainant 27661]

21 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Get a permit to close a roadway, and I have no issue. That's legal, and gets my respect, and attention.  Those event shave a police presence re routing people. These types of protests trap people in their vehicles.

Get your free speech permit first, citizen. You can only use it in free speech zones. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

47 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Get your free speech permit first, citizen. You can only use it in free speech zones. 

 Are you seriously trying that angle ? It's well-established to have a large congregation of people you need a permit.  If you're gonna do it in the street, and close down the roadway you damn well better have a permit otherwise it's a mob, and your terrorizing citizens who get caught in the middle of it, and can't get away.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Onboard 2.0

[Captainant 27661]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 Are you seriously trying that angle it's well-established to have a large congregation of people you need a permit to do that if you're gonna do to the street and close down the roadway you damn well better have a permit otherwise it's a mob and your terrorizing citizens 

Are you seriously trying that angle that protests are terrorist activities and that marching with signs is violence?

[Steamboat1874 4058]

4 hours ago, Enchubben said:

More peaceful non violent strategies of protestors. 

Many of these instances are hard core right wingers trying to create chaos......

Just saying.

[Enchubben 5510]

6 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Many of these instances are hard core right wingers trying to create chaos......

Just saying.

Are you insinuating right wing extremists are the ones participating in the riots, or handing out/leaving these items for authorities to find it?

You know how batshit crazy that sounds right? 

[BabaYaga 15296]

4 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Many of these instances are hard core right wingers trying to create chaos......

Just saying.

LOL, just stop.  Not saying there are not isolated incidences, but they are few and far between relative to the number of "organic" rioters and looters that have been discovered.  Also, as was the case in Seattle with the FD Chief, there is not any actual proof.  Just heresay spun up and regurgitated.  

Here's a little hint:  "Allegedly" these days equates to did not happen.  

Quote

Tae Phoenix was across the street, but said she heard the words clear as day: "Quick, boys. Let's go get our guns and shoot 'em."

And just like that, Phoenix found herself walking across the street to confront the man later identified as Seattle Fire Department (SFD) Battalion Chief Alan Cox who had allegedly made the comment to his two young children, after he learned that the group preparing to march down the block was protesting for Black Lives Matter.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Are you seriously trying that angle that protests are terrorist activities and that marching with signs is violence?

I never said anything like that.  Protests are legal, and fine, but when you take that protest, and put it in a street (without getting a permit to close that street) and people become trapped in theIr cars, and can't get out of the mix of people protesting, yes that is a terrorist act because it has the effect of causing terror among the folks caught the middle of it.  The signs have nothing to do with it.

When a person is trapped in their vehicle, and they can't go forward, reverse or otherwise get out of the protest that is an act of terrorizing people.   Put your wife, and children or grand parents in that situation how would you feel about their general safety ?  And please be honest (if you have the ability).

 

Please stop being intentionally obtuse about what I've posted up thread.

[Dahobbs 17534]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I never said anything like that.  Protests are legal, and fine, but when you take that protest, and put it in a street (without getting a permit to close that street) and people become trapped in theIr cars, and can't get out of the mix of people protesting, yes that is a terrorist act because it has the effect of causing terror among the folks caught the middle of it.  The signs have nothing to do with it.

When a person is trapped in their vehicle, and they can't go forward, reverse or otherwise get out of the protest that is an act of terrorizing people.   Put your wife, and children or grand parents in that situation how would you feel about their general safety ?  And please be honest (if you have the ability).

 

Please stop being intentionally obtuse about what I've posted up thread.

You have a point, but it gets lost because of the hyperbole. I've been trapped in a car leaving DKR. It was frustrating. But I wasn't terrified. 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Dahobbs

[MillerEP 30455]

 

[Armybrat 40842]

38 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Get your free speech permit first, citizen. You can only use it in free speech zones. 

Just like I need a government permit to Carry a handgun, and a background check to buy one. Not to mention restrictions on where I may carry.

see how it works?

[Js1 85325]

39 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Get your free speech permit first, citizen. You can only use it in free speech zones. 

Oops, forgot to tell them

[Captainant 27661]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I never said anything like that.  Protests are legal, and fine, but when you take that protest, and put it in a street (without getting a permit to close that street) and people become trapped in theIr cars, and can't get out of the mix of people protesting, yes that is a terrorist act because it has the effect of causing terror among the folks caught the middle of it.  The signs have nothing to do with it.

When a person is trapped in their vehicle, and they can't go forward, reverse or otherwise get out of the protest that is an act of terrorizing people.   Put your wife, and children or grand parents in that situation how would you feel about their general safety ?  And please be honest (if you have the ability).

Please stop being intentionally obtuse about what I've posted up thread.

Please show me these examples of people being trapped in their cars and terrorized by protesters. No points if the car runs a red light to drive directly into the crowd of protesters to become "trapped in their car". 

You literally called people marching with signs in the streets and chanting slogans violent terrorists. You'd best have some actual fucking proof of that claim before you get all patriot-act and tacitly approving of preemptive policing action.

The entire fucking point of civil disobedience is to non-violently break laws to call attention to your cause. Apparently to you, any such actions are VIOLENT TERRORISM!

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You have a point, but it gets lost because of the hyperbole. I've been trapped in a car leaving DKR. It was frustrating. But I wasn't terrified. 

How are you even comparing pre or post game traffic at a football game to a protest erupting in a street  ?  You knew going in you were going to have to wait. That is nothing like being caught in a mob of people closing down a street, yelling at people,  etc.  What hyperbole ?  There are countless videos now of people running people over in cars because they get caught in those illegal protests, and panic. People have been killed, and maimed because of the protesters actions.

I'm done here, it's wrong, illegal, and potentially very dangerous.  You know it, and now posters are just trying BS games of ignorant replies.  Did ya'll actually graduate from college ? 'cause some of the responses look like your kids have hijacked your page.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Onboard 2.0

[workswithseed 2103]

42 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Get your free speech permit first, citizen. You can only use it in free speech zones. 

That's what I basically said about New York City having 8mill people, but only 4k people having a CC for a gun.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Just like I need a government permit to Carry a handgun, and a background check to buy one. Not to mention restrictions on where I may carry.

see how it works?

No they don't or won't or can't admit they're wrong.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Please show me these examples of people being trapped in their cars and terrorized by protesters. No points if the car runs a red light to drive directly into the crowd of protesters to become "trapped in their car". 

You literally called people marching with signs in the streets and chanting slogans violent terrorists. You'd best have some actual fucking proof of that claim before you get all patriot-act and tacitly approving of preemptive policing action.

The entire fucking point of civil disobedience is to non-violently break laws to call attention to your cause. Apparently to you, any such actions are VIOLENT TERRORISM!

Oh for god sakes. There are posts on this very site showing that exact situation (and no I won't go searching for them, do your own homework)  You're being intentionally ignorant.

Have at it brah, it suits you.

[MillerEP 30455]

Now that they're doing a phased withdraw they're going back to wearing more traditional police garb, either that or this is a different force rotated in:

[Captainant 27661]

2 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Just like I need a government permit to Carry a handgun, and a background check to buy one. Not to mention restrictions on where I may carry.

see how it works?

Brat, this is a terrible comparison. Free speech is not a deadly weapon that can irreversibly change someones life with the pull of a switch. I'm a CHL holding, IDPA competing, responsible gun owner - I think this is an incredibly weak argument.

Just now, workswithseed said:

That's what I basically said about New York City having 8mill people, but only 4k people having a CC for a gun.

Again, free speech is not comparable to carrying a firearm. If you get heated and say mean words, you may start a fight. If you get heated and shoot someone defend yourself, you have irreversibly changed your life and theirs.

If yall are really arguing that free speech needs to be licensed and regulated in the same way as guns are, are you really willing to back the argument that free speech is as inherently dangerous as guns are?

[MillerEP 30455]

[workswithseed 2103]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Brat, this is a terrible comparison. Free speech is not a deadly weapon that can irreversibly change someones life with the pull of a switch. I'm a CHL holding, IDPA competing, responsible gun owner - I think this is an incredibly weak argument.

Again, free speech is not comparable to carrying a firearm. If you get heated and say mean words, you may start a fight. If you get heated and shoot someone defend yourself, you have irreversibly changed your life and theirs.

If yall are really arguing that free speech needs to be licensed and regulated in the same way as guns are, are you really willing to back the argument that free speech is as inherently dangerous as guns are?

I'll let Xi, Kim, and other dictators that speech is totally safe. 

[Hpara759 1778]

6 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

  You know it, and now posters are just trying BS games of ignorant replies.  

that's their shtick......

[Poe It Up 126]

7 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

Stop lighting shit on fire and you might be able to breathe. How can anyone defend these retards? 

[Cajun 11705]

21 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

 

I honestly can't believe that's still on YouTube.  

[Captainant 27661]

25 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

 

Just so you're aware, that youtube channel appears to be a russian propoganda channel. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzVuNCYewjzD7nkjR6zfHZQ/videos

The only videos uploaded out of hundreds without cyrillic titles are politically inflammatory in the US. Consider the source of where you get the information you consume

[workswithseed 2103]

4 minutes ago, Cajun said:

I honestly can't believe that's still on YouTube.  

This is nothing. They have the this on there.

 

[Cajun 11705]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Just so you're aware, that youtube channel appears to be a russian propoganda channel. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzVuNCYewjzD7nkjR6zfHZQ/videos

The only videos uploaded out of hundreds without cyrillic titles are politically inflammatory in the US. Consider the source of where you get the information you consume

You're right.  Didn't happen.

Nothing to see.

wow

[MillerEP 30455]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Just so you're aware, that youtube channel appears to be a russian propoganda channel. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzVuNCYewjzD7nkjR6zfHZQ/videos

The only videos uploaded out of hundreds without cyrillic titles are politically inflammatory in the US. Consider the source of where you get the information you consume

Thanks. I'll see if I can find it posted elsewhere. I saw it posted embedded in a tweet, and I've been trying to embed less tweets since it comes with comments, so I've had to search Youtube for them. Either way this is from this summer riots.

Edited July 30, 2020 by MillerEP

[Cajun 11705]

There's plenty out there, but it won't matter to him...

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Cajun

[Armybrat 40842]

27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Brat, this is a terrible comparison. Free speech is not a deadly weapon that can irreversibly change someones life with the pull of a switch. I'm a CHL holding, IDPA competing, responsible gun owner - I think this is an incredibly weak argument.

Again, free speech is not comparable to carrying a firearm. If you get heated and say mean words, you may start a fight. If you get heated and shoot someone defend yourself, you have irreversibly changed your life and theirs.

If yall are really arguing that free speech needs to be licensed and regulated in the same way as guns are, are you really willing to back the argument that free speech is as inherently dangerous as guns are?

Free speech has brought on the destruction.

[Captainant 27661]

1 minute ago, Armybrat said:

Free speech has brought on the destruction.

 

25 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I'll let Xi, Kim, and other dictators that speech is totally safe. 

So are yall in the "we need to be more like china and the north koreans" camp? Free speech is dangerous and needs to be limited in the same way we limit how and where you can carry a fucking firearm?

[Dahobbs 17534]

40 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

How are you even comparing pre or post game traffic at a football game to a protest erupting in a street  ?  You knew going in you were going to have to wait. That is nothing like being caught in a mob of people closing down a street, yelling at people,  etc.  What hyperbole ?  There are countless videos now of people running people over in cars because they get caught in those illegal protests, and panic. People have been killed, and maimed because of the protesters actions.

I'm done here, it's wrong, illegal, and potentially very dangerous.  You know it, and now posters are just trying BS games of ignorant replies.  Did ya'll actually graduate from college ? 'cause some of the responses look like your kids have hijacked your page.

Oh come the fuck on. You made a broad statement that people getting stuck in their car during any protest would cause terror. it is a fucking ridiculous exaggeration. People get stuck in crowds and traffic all the fucking time without it causing terror. Sometimes it is because a sporting event getting out (whether the driver knows about it or not). Sometimes it is because of a race or festival. Sometimes it is because of parade. Sometimes it is just because traffic can be a bitch. All of these events can be unexpected, but it doesn't make them terrifying. You could certainly argue that those things could become terrifying in certain scenarios, I wouldn't disagree. But you can't make the blanket statement that getting stuck in your car because of a protest is always going to be terrifying. Not unless you're talking about the scaredest of scaredy cat.

[Dahobbs 17534]

43 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Brat, this is a terrible comparison. Free speech is not a deadly weapon that can irreversibly change someones life with the pull of a switch. I'm a CHL holding, IDPA competing, responsible gun owner - I think this is an incredibly weak argument.

Again, free speech is not comparable to carrying a firearm. If you get heated and say mean words, you may start a fight. If you get heated and shoot someone defend yourself, you have irreversibly changed your life and theirs.

If yall are really arguing that free speech needs to be licensed and regulated in the same way as guns are, are you really willing to back the argument that free speech is as inherently dangerous as guns are?

I don't think they are saying all speech needs regulation. But, some actions done in furtherance of free speech probably should have regulation, particularly when the associated action has the risk of causing harm. I think traffic disruption is one of those things. People should be encouraged to get permits for that type of disruption and the government should readily provide them so as to reasonably ensure safety. That said, sometimes civil disobedience is also needed. But folks then have to deal with the consequences. 

[workswithseed 2103]

13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

So are yall in the "we need to be more like china and the north koreans" camp? Free speech is dangerous and needs to be limited in the same way we limit how and where you can carry a fucking firearm?

 I'm saying both are dangerous, and both don't need permits.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Oh come the fuck on. You made a broad statement that people getting stuck in their car during any protest would cause terror. it is a fucking ridiculous exaggeration. People get stuck in crowds and traffic all the fucking time without it causing terror. Sometimes it is because a sporting event getting out (whether the driver knows about it or not). Sometimes it is because of a race or festival. Sometimes it is because of parade. Sometimes it is just because traffic can be a bitch. All of these events can be unexpected, but it doesn't make them terrifying. You could certainly argue that those things could become terrifying in certain scenarios, I wouldn't disagree. But you can't make the blanket statement that getting stuck in your car because of a protest is always going to be terrifying. Not unless you're talking about the scaredest of scaredy cat.

No I didn't, but you try to parse it that way.  I said people in cars  getting caught in a protest that has spilled into a street ,and they have no way out is beyond legal, and causes panic, is dangerous, holds people captive beyond their will (which is the definition of kidnapping) is an act of terror towards the people in the vehicle.

You trying to make it comparable to a post game traffic jam is BS, and shows a dishonesty to discuss the issue.

[Cajun 11705]

@Dahobbs

So, portraying that getting stuck in the middle of any number (not all) of these protests going on now as "sitting in your car waiting for the DKR crowd to walk by" is not a "bullshit blanket statement" as you call it?

Lots of bullshit blanket statements being made these days, aren't there?

Interesting that you'd ignore one while going full junkyard dog on the other.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Cajun

[Captainant 27661]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

But folks then have to deal with the consequences. 

I 100% agree. The difference is that the consequences should not be for terroristic actions, as has been promoted by onboard

[Js1 85325]

18 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

So are yall in the "we need to be more like china and the north koreans" camp? Free speech is dangerous and needs to be limited in the same way we limit how and where you can carry a fucking firearm?

Staunch supporters of the Second Amendment, that is held in such sacred and high regard, seem to want to limit the First Amendment because of protests. 

Call me shocked. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

I 100% agree. The difference is that the consequences should not be for terroristic actions, as has been promoted by onboard

I'm not promoting it, the assholes illegally blocking streets, and not allowing people to move thru in their vehicles are promoting terror.  You're trying to condone it thru bizarre, illogical,  mental gymnastics. It actually making you just like the assholes in the street.

[Dahobbs 17534]

Just now, Cajun said:

So, portraying that getting stuck in the middle of any number (not all) of these protests going on now as "sitting in your car waiting for the DKR crowd to walk by" is not a "bullshit blanket statement" as you call it?

Lots of bullshit blanket statements being made these days, aren't there?

You're proving my point. Not every protest is going to be something "terrifying." I'm very comfortable saying that most are simply going to be a parade of people walking by, pretty much indistinguishable from any other massive crowd. There is simply no reason to be terrified of that in a general sense. Some particular protests may be different and could definitely lead to terror. But calling every protest that disrupts the streets an act of terror and suggesting that everyone in a car would be terrified is fucking absurdly hyperbolic. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

You're proving my point. Not every protest is going to be something "terrifying." I'm very comfortable saying that most are simply going to be a parade of people walking by, pretty much indistinguishable from any other massive crowd. There is simply no reason to be terrified of that in a general sense. Some particular protests may be different and could definitely lead to terror. But calling every protest that disrupts the streets an act of terror and suggesting that everyone in a car would be terrified is fucking absurdly hyperbolic. 

Yet again trying to change the point of view, and circumstances. This is called goal post moving, and you're doing it right now.

[Dahobbs 17534]

6 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No I didn't, but you try to parse it that way.  I said people in cars  getting caught in a protest that has spilled into a street ,and they have no way out is beyond legal, and causes panic, is dangerous, holds people captive beyond their will (which is the definition of kidnapping) is an act of terror towards the people in the vehicle.

You trying to make it comparable to a post game traffic jam is BS, and shows a dishonesty to discuss the issue.

How the fuck is it not the same in your scenario? If I'm driving along and have no idea a game is about to get out, I could by trapped by a flood of people that "spill into the street" and "have no way out." It doesn't make it fucking terrifying. It makes it annoying. If the people flooding the street, whether protesters or sports fans, start acting aggressive, that could make it terrifying. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yet again trying to change the point of view, and circumstances. This is called goal post moving, and you're doing it right now.

Yes, I'm trying to change your point a view from hyperbolic, piss-your-pants at the sight of a crowd to one that is reasonable. My goal has always been the same, so I haven't moved anything. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Staunch supporters of the Second Amendment, that is held in such sacred and high regard, seem to want to limit the First Amendment because of protests. 

Call me shocked. 

This is, at best, disingenuous. At worst, utter bullshit.

[Dahobbs 17534]

I 

13 minutes ago, Cajun said:

@Dahobbs

So, portraying that getting stuck in the middle of any number (not all) of these protests going on now as "sitting in your car waiting for the DKR crowd to walk by" is not a "bullshit blanket statement" as you call it?

Lots of bullshit blanket statements being made these days, aren't there?

Interesting that you'd ignore one while going full junkyard dog on the other.

Dude, read. Three posts up from yours I challenged the exaggeration by Captainant below:

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Brat, this is a terrible comparison. Free speech is not a deadly weapon that can irreversibly change someones life with the pull of a switch. I'm a CHL holding, IDPA competing, responsible gun owner - I think this is an incredibly weak argument.

Again, free speech is not comparable to carrying a firearm. If you get heated and say mean words, you may start a fight. If you get heated and shoot someone defend yourself, you have irreversibly changed your life and theirs.

If yall are really arguing that free speech needs to be licensed and regulated in the same way as guns are, are you really willing to back the argument that free speech is as inherently dangerous as guns are?

 

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think they are saying all speech needs regulation. But, some actions done in furtherance of free speech probably should have regulation, particularly when the associated action has the risk of causing harm. I think traffic disruption is one of those things. People should be encouraged to get permits for that type of disruption and the government should readily provide them so as to reasonably ensure safety. That said, sometimes civil disobedience is also needed. But folks then have to deal with the consequences. 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, I'm trying to change your point a view from hyperbolic, piss-your-pants at the sight of a crowd to one that is reasonable. My goal has always been the same, so I haven't moved anything. 

 No one said pissing your pants at the side of a crowd like a post game traffic jam

this is you being in your car people filling streets not allowing you to pass by, and if you try and back up you can't go to try and go forward you can't go anywhere they start attacking your car the dishonesty in this thread is unbelievable this is you being in your car people filling streets not allowing you to pass, and if you try and back up you can't, you  try and go forward you can't.  They start surrounding your car, shouting , blocking you. Just like we've seen in countless videos the last couple years .  the intellectual dishonesty in this thread is unbelievable.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Onboard 2.0

[high side 3 way 54]

44 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Just so you're aware, that youtube channel appears to be a russian propoganda channel. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzVuNCYewjzD7nkjR6zfHZQ/videos

The only videos uploaded out of hundreds without cyrillic titles are politically inflammatory in the US. Consider the source of where you get the information you consume

 

[BabaYaga 15296]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, I'm trying to change your point a view from hyperbolic, piss-your-pants at the sight of a crowd to one that is reasonable. My goal has always been the same, so I haven't moved anything. 

Oh, for fucks sake.  There is the aspect of context you are intentionally missing.  There are not recent incidents of people being stopped by large crowds at football games and being dragged form their cars and beaten.  You think that aspect of recent events plays into the equation?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

How the fuck is it not the same in your scenario? If I'm driving along and have no idea a game is about to get out, I could by trapped by a flood of people that "spill into the street" and "have no way out." It doesn't make it fucking terrifying. It makes it annoying. If the people flooding the street, whether protesters or sports fans, start acting aggressive, that could make it terrifying. 

 Now imagine you are in College Station...