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

[Celery Man 20983]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Posters here have tried to say there is no violence in these protests , that rioting Is not violent,

can you quote these posts

[Hate 20130]

can you quote these posts

Bad a teammate asserted that there can be no violence against inanimate objects...ie the burning of cars, graffiti, and destruction of buildings is not violence. I’m paraphrasing of course, but the post is out there somewhere.

[Bevo 13592]

Questions: Are we saying that all of the riots around the country were done by white supremacists or just the ones in RIchmond?  In the photos on this thread, it looks like some of the rioters may not be white supremacists. I say that not because I profile but because I have heard that white supremacist groups have a pretty strong policy of no non-whites allowed.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

15 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

can you quote these posts

I'm not going back, and finding them.

BT has said destruction of property is not violence.

Brisket has tried to use his anecdotal evidence (which always get shouted down expect for certain groups, the Cabal) to say he was at a rally, and there was no violence so there isn't really any violence.  That's Despite hundred if not thousands info images, and videos showing BLM.com created destruction of property, vehicles, etc.

 Dahobbs made some outlandishly, stupid comparison of protesters blocking roadways, and not allowing people to pass to a post game traffic jam.  

We have protesters in the city of Richmond riding bikes on road ways 3-4 abreast along the monument sections of Monument Avenue not allowing motorists to pass off and on all day long, trying to instigate incidents.  Same thing as a post game traffic jam ?  Really ? Again, among the most stupid, dishonest,  things I've ever read on this site. Honesty just isn't his strong suit, when he can't respond with anything relevant.  

Others here have tried to say oh you being stopped on the road by protesters is just an inconvenience.

Still others have just flat out said there really hasn't been any violence, and if it was the police instigated it.

Jerry Nadler was quoted on record saying the violence in Portland is a right wing myth.

[Dahobbs 17631]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm not going back, and finding them.

BT has said destruction of property is not violence.

Brisket has tried to use his anecdotal evidence (which always get shouted down expect for certain groups, the Cabal) to say he was at a rally, and there was no violence so there isn't really any violence.  That's Despite hundred if not thousands info images, and videos showing BLM.com created destruction of property, vehicles, etc.

 Dahobbs made some outlandishly, stupid comparison of protesters blocking roadways, and not allowing people to pass to a post game traffic jam.  

We have protesters in the city of Richmond riding bikes on road ways 3-4 abreast along the monument sections of Monument Avenue not allowing motorists to pass off and on all day long, trying to instigate incidents.  Same thing as a post game traffic jam ?  Really ? Again, among the most stupid, dishonest,  things I've ever read on this site. Honesty just isn't his strong suit, when he can't respond with anything relevant.  

Others here have tried to say oh you being stopped on the road by protesters is just an inconvenience.

Still others have just flat out said there really hasn't been any violence, and if it was the police instigated it.

Jerry Nadler was quoted on record saying the violence in Portland is a right wing myth.

Yup, my comparison was stupid, not the one comparing a crowd in a road to terrorism and kidnapping... What a child you are. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Yup, my comparison was stupid, not the one comparing a crowd in a road to terrorism and kidnapping... What a child you are. 

My comparison was closer to the truth than you juvenile comparison of a post football game traffic jam. I've clarified my comments, and stated I was incorrect about it meeting the standards of actual kidnapping. The willful detention of someone from moving about freely is OK with you though ?  You think that's justified ?  You have the honesty, or character to admit your example is in no way a relevant comparison to a rioting or protesting blocking streets or interstates ?

 

I'll wait for the crickets.....

[Captainant 27716]

Onboard: "PROTESTERS IN THE STREETS ARE KIDNAPPING DRIVERS BY NOT LETTING THEM MOVE FREELY!!!"

Also Onboard: "federal officers arresting people without charges or probable cause and disappearing them with unmarked vehicles is not kidnapping"

lolk

[Dahobbs 17631]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

My comparison was closer to the truth than you juvenile comparison of a post football game traffic jam. I've clarified my comments, and stated I was incorrect about it meeting the standards of actual kidnapping. The willful detention of someone from moving about freely is OK with you though ?  You think that's justified ?  You have the honesty, or character to admit your example is in no way a relevant comparison to a rioting or protesting blocking streets or interstates ?

 

I'll wait for the crickets.....

Did I not at the very beginning of this discussion say they should get permits to block traffic if possible? Did I not say that I agreed that aggressive and violent behavior would be wrong? I've met you halfway and you've just been an ass because you want to categorize an entire movement based on an outlier (and maybe imaginary) event. 

If you meant violently blocking the road, then next time say that. Instead, you said blocking the road in general would be a terrorist act and kidnapping and that occupants I'm vehicles would be terrified. I correctly pointed out that people get stuck on the road all the fucking time. It isn't innately terrifying. Some protests could be terrifying, I agree. A sit in on a road isn't. A parade across a rode isn't. But you cant hear anything I say because you go blind the rage the moment anyway disagrees with your exaggerations. 

[BabaYaga 15304]

6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Questions: Are we saying that all of the riots around the country were done by white supremacists or just the ones in RIchmond?  In the photos on this thread, it looks like some of the rioters may not be white supremacists. I say that not because I profile but because I have heard that white supremacist groups have a pretty strong policy of no non-whites allowed.

It's compilations of "anonymous" sources and "unverified" innuendo taken as gospel by those desperate to deflect the blame.   

[seven 1367]

If only Onboard would take the five minutes he's delayed by the terrorist bicyclists to think about the inconvenience (to put it extremely mildly) our Justice system inflicts on people of color, maybe he wouldn't be such a myopic dumbass. 

[Brisketexan 105191]

That's Despite hundred if not thousands info images, and videos showing BLM.com created destruction of property, vehicles, etc.

You realize that each camera can take more than one picture, right?  You could have two outbreaks of violence, and someone could take 5,000 pictures of each, and you'd be able to say "HERE ARE 10,000 PICTURES OF RIOTING!"

I could post twice as many pictures taken at demonstrations where there was NO violence.  Shit, I have probably 50 such pictures on my own phone.  Including some cool ones of some black dudes on horseback actually providing security to make sure no shenanigans took place (really thought that was cool, and a callback to a fact a lot of us don't realize -- black men were among the first real-deal cowboys in Texas ; they didn't come late to that game, they helped start it).  But I agree that mere anecdotes are not great evidence.  Yet you and Miller are very, very fixated on every image you can find of violence, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ACKNOWLEDGING ANY OTHER IMAGES.

So, here you go -- two BLM dudes, on horseback, actually working for the cause of ensuring that a march was and remained peaceful.  That is, not only was BLM not fomenting violence, they actually had a plan and took action to prevent it:

 

 

[Celery Man 20983]

 

27 minutes ago, Hate said:

Bad a teammate asserted that there can be no violence against inanimate objects...ie the burning of cars, graffiti, and destruction of buildings is not violence. I’m paraphrasing of course, but the post is out there somewhere.

Ah ok, I'm not parsing too deeply into B_T's posts and that makes sense. Also not trying to fling shit at him but he certainly represents one end of the spectrum or closer to it more than most folks on here.

I'd re-ask my previous question - IF the issue that people have with the protests is the connected violence, was the expectation that unconstitutional application of federal force against the wishes of state and local government against citizens exercising their 1st amendment rights (no, they aren't just targeting violent people rioting as can be and has been demonstrated) would help achieve that goal? If yes, do you still believe that that is the case? If no, then what do you think was actually being accomplished? If it's some sort of "you can't let people get away with this kind of <insert whatever>" can you explain why these people are targeted in this way when other less peaceful protesters were not?

[high side 3 way 54]

40 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Sure seems like a completely un-biased news source and definitely not characteristic of astroturfing sites used to get FB boomers riled up.

Any other completely non-political gems you'd like to share from your FB follows?

[BabaYaga 15304]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

disappearing them with unmarked vehicles

LE has never used unmarked vehicle before?  Good to know.  

[MillerEP 30494]

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by MillerEP

[Captainant 27716]

@MillerEP care to actually add anything to the conversation, or just using this thread as your link dump?

[Bevo 13592]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

@MillerEP care to actually add anything to the conversation, or just using this thread as your link dump?

A picture is worth a 1000 words? I think the pictures above say that not all protests are non-violent and that some of the protests could be termed riots.

[BabaYaga 15304]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

@MillerEP care to actually add anything to the conversation, or just using this thread as your link dump?

I'm sorry,  is this coming from the same person who earlier said he had "no idea" about drivers being attacked and pulled from their cars by protesters.  I gave you a few, here are many more.  In the context of the dangers of protesters blocking traffic and how quickly this can escalate.  

Something, something, something adding to the conversation

[Brisketexan 105191]

So...that first horribly incriminating video of the jacked up truck with multiple flags driving right through the middle of a BLM protest....you really think that helps your argument here?  You don't think that it's maybe, kinda sorta, POSSIBLE, that Ricky Redneck was driving right through the protest to taunt people and start some shit?

No, that doesn't justify a violent response.....but it was damned sure intended to provoke a response.  The bear shouldn't bite you.  But if you poke the bear, you're a fucking asshole.

When you go out looking for trouble, you shouldn't feign shock, surprise, and anger when you find it.

[dcar00 14321]

this isn't very complicated.  protest all you want, get a permit when required, and don't parade down streets unless you have a permit to do so.  the permit will have to come with some agreement by the city to cordon off the area.  if this is done in an orderly fashion there is a) police presence to stop the rioters who hijack the protest and b) keep dumbasses away.

The rest is just bloviating.

[MillerEP 30494]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Sure seems like a completely un-biased news source and definitely not characteristic of astroturfing sites used to get FB boomers riled up.

Any other completely non-political gems you'd like to share from your FB follows?

I understand the source's other views can be problematic, so I tried to only post videos and pictures without any additional comments or attachments since the spirit of the thread is to document what is occurring during the protests as far as damage and tactics go. Unfortunately beggars can't always be choosers when finding a source, but the video shown is what it is.

Edited July 31, 2020 by MillerEP

[BabaYaga 15304]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

.you really think that helps your argument here? 

Of course it does.  This is again, in the context of allowing these protests to block and occupy major roads.  It's not solely an indictment of the crowds.  There are also numerous clips of drivers instigating occurrences.  Does anyone not think that the Omaha leadership is trying to mitigate these incidents before they spark up and spin out of control and people get hurt and property destroyed.  

[Brisketexan 105191]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Does anyone not think that the Omaha leadership is trying to mitigate these incidents before they spark up and spin out of control and people get hurt and property destroyed.  

Read what you just wrote.

Holy shit.

The government gets to use violent force against the people because.....it fears that some of them might...at some point in the future....do something bad?  

Amazing.

[BabaYaga 15304]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Read what you just wrote.

Holy shit.

The government gets to use violent force against the people because.....it fears that some of them might...at some point in the future....do something bad?  

Amazing.

Arguing with the straw-man in your own head again.  Not surprising....

Quote

Omaha police said more than 75 protesters were taken into custody Saturday night.

Quote

Once protesters blocked the roadway, police announced the demonstration was "unlawful" and began taking people into custody.

Quote

Sunday, Omaha police said most charges were for "obstructing traffic" and "failure to disperse." According to police, no one was injured and a pepper ball was deployed.

A.  Singular.  One.  For a specific and defined purpose.  Unlawful demonstration.  Obstruction.  Failure to disperse.  Nobody is this fucking dense.  Which by itself, with no other incidents of significant violence across the country, maybe they let them do their thing.  With a large number of recent events of attacks, shootings, and property destruction, no.  Omaha decided to act immediately and squash this before it flared up and got out of control.  

[MillerEP 30494]

39 minutes ago, Captainant said:

@MillerEP care to actually add anything to the conversation, or just using this thread as your link dump?

I am contributing to the conversation by posting videos and pictures related to the thread's topic, so you can reserve your own judgement. I'll very rarely go into the cloak room, and don't want to engage in politics here. When I want to be heard I'll say it loud and clear when I cast my ballot in November. 

Since you ask though, and without taking any of the other bait dangled, my personal opinion is that everything isn't black and white. I am for some civic disobedience, but against law breaking. Two wrongs don't make a right. The moment one person infringes on the rights of another person or their property (or we the people's property), regardless of who they are, or whatever belief they may hold (even misguided ones from either spectrum) I am against it. So it's situational.

Edited July 31, 2020 by MillerEP

[Brisketexan 105191]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

With a large number of recent events of attacks, shootings, and property destruction, no.  Omaha decided to act immediately and squash this before it flared up and got out of control.  

Cool.  So, thoughtcrime is a thing.  Just want to bookmark this for later.  Like, you know, maybe if there are right-wing demonstrations after the election, with some violent incidents.  Just want to be able to pull this back up as a reminder.

As for me, I've always been pretty strongly against thoughtcrime.  Then again, I think that governmental draconian policing is not a good thing if we are to be a free people, and always have, regardless of the cause at issue, so, there's that.

[Brisketexan 105191]

2 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

Two wrongs don't make a right. The moment one person infringes on the rights of another person or their property, regardless of who they are, or whatever belief they may hold (even misguided ones) I am against it. 

Do you feel that way when the "person infringing on the rights of another person" is a police officer/government paramilitary trooper, say, one of those folks using a nightstick or teargas against an individual protester who hasn't committed or openly threatened to commit a single violent act?  Because if you get on board the train with that logical consistency, you might be surprised that most of the people here who you think oppose your take actually agree with it.

[Zonahorn 8079]

People being terrified of property damage are always good for a laugh

[Poe It Up 126]

1 minute ago, Calihorn said:

People being terrified of property damage are always good for a laugh

Guess you’ve never had your property damaged. 

[Zonahorn 8079]

Just now, Poe It Up said:

Guess you’ve never had your property damaged. 

I have, don't give a fuck.

[Zonahorn 8079]

Just now, StruggleBus said:

You sound retarded

That's not what your mom said

[StruggleBus 3922]

2 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

I have, don't give a fuck.

You sound retarded

[high side 3 way 54]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

@MillerEP care to actually add anything to the conversation, or just using this thread as your link dump?

On 7/27/2020 at 5:45 PM, blacklab said:

I enjoy threads like this. I have no idea, nor do I care about the politics behind the people making these tweets. I find what is happening on the videos newsworthy and worth watching. 

If you don't like it don't come in this thread. 

...

 

[high side 3 way 54]

9 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

People being terrified of property damage are always good for a laugh

Come damage my property, you won't be laughing much anymore.

[Zonahorn 8079]

6 minutes ago, high side 3 way said:

Come damage my property, you won't be laughing much anymore.

Gonna need you to point out where I said I was rioting.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Calihorn

[workswithseed 2109]

 

Wat?

[Zonahorn 8079]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

 

Wat?

It was a multi post, I guess he deleted the first one

[BabaYaga 15304]

49 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  So, thoughtcrime is a thing.

No, but unlawful demonstration, obstruction, and failure to disperse are.  

[elfenix 34331]

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

No, but unlawful demonstration, obstruction, and failure to disperse are.  

which are all just thoughtcrime.

[elfenix 34331]

2 hours ago, Hate said:

Bad a teammate asserted that there can be no violence against inanimate objects...ie the burning of cars, graffiti, and destruction of buildings is not violence. I’m paraphrasing of course, but the post is out there somewhere.

property crime isn't violent crime and arson is counted as arson.  violent crimes are murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. 

[seven 1367]

Get out the firehoses and dogs, they're trying to march without our permission again 

[BabaYaga 15304]

12 minutes ago, elfenix said:

which are all just thoughtcrime.

If you are making the assertion that any efforts to disburse a crown is likened to an obstruction of their right to free speech.  I disagree with such an assertion.  

[Captainant 27716]

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

If you are making the assertion that any efforts to disburse a crown is likened to an obstruction of their right to free speech.  I disagree with such an assertion.  

No idea where the idea of forcefully disbursing a crowd to stifle their peaceful demonstrations could come from...

 

[MillerEP 30494]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Do you feel that way when the "person infringing on the rights of another person" is a police officer/government paramilitary trooper, say, one of those folks using a nightstick or teargas against an individual protester who hasn't committed or openly threatened to commit a single violent act?  Because if you get on board the train with that logical consistency, you might be surprised that most of the people here who you think oppose your take actually agree with it.

In these instances I try to think logically and imagine the whole world is just 2 guys in a room (as much as possible), and from there I play out the scenario. 

So in this example if there is one person chanting, yelling, singing, etc. and causing no harm, then it is wrong for person 2 to actively force person 1 to stop, through physical violence or force to person 1. I would include teargas as a physical deterrent. However, another person can actively discourage person 1 and has every right to do so non-physically if they feel they want to for whatever reason, since no person's rights are more or less than anyone else's. We're all equal. 

If Person 1 or Person 2 ever physically violates the other unbidden and unprovoked, then the "victim" has the right to retaliate to prevent further infringement against the initial perpetrator, up to the point where the first perpetrator is stopped for that FIRST action (i.e. this doesn't give them license from that point further to infringe on person 2 in perpetuity). If Person 1 damages or inconveniences Person 2's property (or property they are given charge over, see next paragraph), then Person 2 has the right to prevent further infringement and to prevent being inconvenienced by having to repair/clean/replace/etc their property. This includes the trespassing on Person 2's property uninvited and/or unwelcome. So Person 2 is in the right to prevent further infringement.

The nuance to this scenario is in the fact that person 2 can be agents for somebody else, as in they are law enforcement or agents of the local, state, or federal government. For this "somebody else" we can call them Person 3. Person 3 has deferred to Person 2 to represent them and given them charge over person 3's rights and property by proxy. So Person 1 is still in the wrong to damage or inconvenience Person 3's property, and person 2 is still within their right as person 3's representative to protect that property from infringement. 

As to the tactics used by person 2 to prevent infringement it should be limited to only stopping the initial offense. They shouldn't use teargas on people not infringing anybody and peacefully going about their business. The nuances there are either a) there are bad actors hiding among the peaceful actors or b) the lawful assembly is now declared an unlawful assembly.

In scenario a) Person 2 should endeavor to use tactics to not infringe on the peaceful actors if at all possible. However that doesn't mean they are not allowed to defend themselves or actively seek to prevent Person 1 from further infringement. They should try to be smart about it and try to not involve any innocents as much as possible. However the good actors become complicit in the infringement the moment they knowingly aid or abet the infringement of person 2 by person 1. In a perfect world they would aid person 2 in stopping any infringement of person 2 or 3's property by person 1 wherever possible, although they are under obligation to do so. In scenario b) once declared unlawful by person 3 and/or their proxy person 2, then now everybody is infringing on the rights of person 3, and teargas and other deterrents are allowed.

So like I said it's all situational. The too long didn't read answer to your specific question is "No, Person 2 has no right to infringe on Person 1's rights if they were there peacefully, lawfully, and not infringing on the rights or property of anyone else."

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by MillerEP

[bad_teammate 13221]

11 hours ago, Spankytoes said:

Yet you condemn all police based on the actions of individuals...

I don't have the power to "condemn" anyone.

I think most police officers are, overall, good individual humans. I reject the good cop/bad cop labels because the structure of policing (blue wall of silence, etc...) makes being a "good cop" functionally impossible. My evidence for this is the rarity of officers being held accountable for their actions and how common it is for officers to just watch as their co-workers abuse and kill.

3 hours ago, Hate said:

Bad a teammate asserted that there can be no violence against inanimate objects...ie the burning of cars, graffiti, and destruction of buildings is not violence. I’m paraphrasing of course, but the post is out there somewhere.

Property crime isn't violence. The law agrees with me.

It's just not.

It's bad. It shouldn't happen. But it's not violence.

2 hours ago, MillerEP said:

I am for some civic disobedience, but against law breaking.

If you're against ALL law-breaking then you're against civic disobedience, since civic disobedience involves breaking laws. Otherwise it's not "disobedience".

You're just against civil disobedience as a protest tactic, embrace it. Be free.

[bad_teammate 13221]

Also, has anyone found an example of a driver injured by protesters while sitting and waiting passively for traffic to clear up?

[elfenix 34331]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

If you are making the assertion that any efforts to disburse a crown is likened to an obstruction of their right to free speech.  I disagree with such an assertion.  

it's bullshit crime used to selectively target people who aren't actually doing anything wrong, just like jaywalking and loitering.  actual wrongs: murder, rape, assault, mayhem, theft, arson, vandalism. not actual wrongs: walking around without a permit, crossing the street, smoking a joint. 

[BabaYaga 15304]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

it's bullshit crime used to selectively target people who aren't actually doing anything wrong, just like jaywalking and loitering.  actual wrongs: murder, rape, assault, mayhem, theft, arson, vandalism. not actual wrongs: walking around without a permit, crossing the street, smoking a joint. 

Your selective enforcement of certain laws doesn't really matter then as it compares to the Omaha leaders and how they view the current landscape.  Considering so many protests have escalated to include acts in bold above are probably the reason.  

[bad_teammate 13221]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

it's bullshit crime used to selectively target people who aren't actually doing anything wrong, just like jaywalking and loitering.  actual wrongs: murder, rape, assault, mayhem, theft, arson, vandalism. not actual wrongs: walking around without a permit, crossing the street, smoking a joint. 

Anytime a gathering is "declared" illegal there should be a public inquiry requiring evidence and the person responsible's job should be on the line for whether or not that declaration was justified as determined by an independent panel with law enforcement/prosecutors representing no more than half the panel.

There need to be standards and accountability for the government having the power to decide to suspend rights.

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Your selective enforcement of certain laws doesn't really matter then as it compares to the Omaha leaders and how they view the current landscape.  Considering so many protests have escalated to include acts in bold above are probably the reason.  

A person who gets mad and drives through a crowd of people isn't doing so to enforce the law, not that it's his purview anyway.

[BabaYaga 15304]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Also, has anyone found an example of a driver injured by protesters while sitting and waiting passively for traffic to clear up?

Did you not bother to look at the half-dozen or so videos already posted?  The guy with the american flag.  Cattle truck  in Tulsa.  Tanker in Minneapolis.  Shooting in Provo.  These drivers didn't attack and try and strike anyone protesting.  They were mobbed.  Some drug from their vehicles.  Other protesters hot when the drivers accelerated and tried to get away.  The protesters are blocking major roads.  There are no cones or signs giving warning.  You might crest a hill and have no recourse but to enter a massive crowd of people.  Some drivers have been assholes.  Some have don't little.  Some drivers made it through.  Some were torn from their vehicles.  It's a massive potential shit storm the city of Omaha obviously wants to avoid.