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

[Armybrat 41408]

I didn’t say anything about kidnapping or terrorism and did not say I dismiss BLM. Read what I said. They do not have the right to restrict anyone’s freedom of movement. In doing so, they are causing the BLM to lose support. Do you dispute that?

But I am well aware of how many young people like them revel in being obnoxious towards others. Saw plenty of it first hand in the 1960s & 1970s.

[Dahobbs 18324]

10 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

I didn’t say anything about kidnapping or terrorism and did not say I dismiss BLM. Read what I said. They do not have the right to restrict anyone’s freedom of movement. In doing so, they are causing the BLM to lose support. Do you dispute that?

But I am well aware of how many young people like them revel in being obnoxious towards others. Saw plenty of it first hand in the 1960s & 1970s.

It wasn't clear if you were agreeing with prior posters. If not, then my response was mainly directed at them.

I don't disputes that the tactics of some protesters may result in the loss of support of some individuals. Given the movements recent success, I don't think there has been a net loss. I'm comfortable in saying that most those that would reject the movement based on marching without a permit were never willing to accept it anyway.

[bad_teammate 13524]

Armybrat was out marching in the streets in support of BLM and then, once the Portland people started their shenanigans, he stopped.

You hate to see it.

17 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

But I am well aware of how many young people like them revel in being obnoxious towards others. Saw plenty of it first hand in the 1960s & 1970s.

lol imagine never learning anything ever and being proud of it

[Armybrat 41408]

Correct, a lot of them didn’t and are still proud of it.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, krevo said:

I still can't believe some dipshit tried to compare driving away from the stadium after a home game to marxists mobs surrounding vehicles who are trying to drive down a road.  I just want to go down the road freely.  I dont want to participate.  Don't block my vehicle and then get mad when I try to move around you.  Don't arm yourselves to shoot at me if I try to go around you. That is not protesting.  That is 100% the definition of terrorism.  Look up the fuckin definition, please.  Actually fuck that - I'll do it for you.

 

 

Also - if the purpose of blocking roadways and inciting violence or verbal intimidation is supposed to be the way to get people to notice whats being protested (as some other fuckin retard here suggested) that's not going to work out very well lol.  If you have to surround my car and yell obscenities at me to get me to notice what you're protesting - you're 100% assuring I don't side with you.

I was pretty jaw drop, mystified by that comparison.  It's among the most bizarre, and at the same time ignorant things I've read on this site in a while.  It's GOAT, it's Surly HOF worthy.

[bad_teammate 13524]

I do dispute your contention, by the way. I would like to see evidence that BLM has lost supporters.

[Dahobbs 18324]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I was pretty jaw drop, mystified by that comparison.  It's among the most bizarre, and at the same time ignorant things I've read on this site in a while.  It's GOAT, it's Surly HOF worthy.

Have you read anything I've wrote? How can you still think that was the comparison I was making? Seriously, what is wrong with you?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

1) Protesters are not mobbing cars just for funsies. Every notable case of protesters interacting with cars has been from a car driving into a crowd of protesters, typically driving around barricades set up by the protesters.

2) Blocking a road is not. fucking. violence.

3) By the definition of terrorism you provided, the feds are domestic terrorists for using violence and the threat of violence against peaceful protesters (shooting rubber bullets at moms, teargas at people with their hands up, etc) to achieve their political objective of red meat for the right and video clips for campaign ads.

Blocking a road is inviting violence, because people can get caught inn their protest three no fault or choice of their own which has happened on several occasion.  Blocking a road or worse a freeway are among the more fucked up things I've seen them do beyond their actual often out of control violent burning, vandalizing, tagging, looting of building and business, and attacking people who don't share their distinct point of view.

 

 

[workswithseed 2204]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I do dispute your contention, by the way. I would like to see evidence that BLM has lost supporters.

https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter?uncertainty=true&annotations=true&zoomIn=true&race=White

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Have you read anything I've wrote? How can you still think that was the comparison I was making? Seriously, what is wrong with you?

Yeah, my comment is in reference to that exact comparison you attempted to foist off as similar experiences. I've read most things you wrote, that one is etched in my mind as well............. SEE: post #902 it pretty much covered it.

 

[Dahobbs 18324]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah, my comment is in reference to that exact comparison you attempted to foist off as similar experiences. I've read most things you wrote, that one is etched in my mind as well............. SEE: post #902 it pretty much covered it.

 

You are a special man. I have no idea why you are obsessed with creating this false narrative over what started over the benign comment that "I thought you had a point but lost it with the exaggeration" of comparing simply blocking a road to kidnapping. You may have meant violently blocking a road. But you didn't say it and I wasn't addressing it. 

[clapclapclap 9000]

 

[bad_teammate 13524]

43 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter?uncertainty=true&annotations=true&zoomIn=true&race=White

BLM support is 8% higher than it was immediately after the initial "riots" in early June

lol good job

[Message Board User 12405]

I’m sure somehow someway the continued rioting is the Feds fault and these are just largely peaceful protesters remembering George Floyd in the middle of the night.

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/08/portland-protests-continue-on-day-70-downtown-throughout-city-live-updates.html

Edited August 6, 2020 by Message Board User

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

You are a special man. I have no idea why you are obsessed with creating this false narrative over what started over the benign comment that "I thought you had a point but lost it with the exaggeration" of comparing simply blocking a road to kidnapping. You may have meant violently blocking a road. But you didn't say it and I wasn't addressing it. 

Because you were trying to intentionally down play protestors blocking  streets (I gave examples of why it was dangerous, you chose to ignore those reasons) and how it can become a dangerous situation.  Goal post moving, you're the new club house leader.

[Buzzrock 15136]

BLM support is 8% higher than it was immediately after the initial "riots" in early June
lol good job

And has been falling since George Floyd was killed. That’s notable.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

 

And has been falling since George Floyd was killed. That’s notable.

 

People will support at first but continued violence, and vandalism attributed to their cause will eventually begin turning people .  That's human nature on both points 

[Hate 20249]

You can see just how polarizing the riots/protests have been in that chart. The “undecided” made up their minds pretty quickly.

[BabaYaga 15625]

39 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

People will support at first but continued violence, and vandalism attributed to their cause will eventually begin turning people .  That's human nature on both points 

Because almost everyone agrees with the sentiment that the lives of black people do and always have mattered.  What they are seeing more and more is a movement hijacked with Anarchists and Marxists destroying neighborhoods and businesses, extorting local communities, burning down buildings, burning books, and attacking anyone - black or white, that dares question their actions.  

[BabaYaga 15625]

12 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

 

Are they getting whisked away in unmarked cars?  A tactic never utilized before in the history of LE until this fateful moment in time?

[Dahobbs 18324]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Because you were trying to intentionally down play protestors blocking  streets (I gave examples of why it was dangerous, you chose to ignore those reasons) and how it can become a dangerous situation.  Goal post moving, you're the new club house leader.

Common ground: I agree, protesters (with an 'e') violently blocking a street (e.g., attacking cars) is (obviously) dangerous and taken to an extreme could be construed as an act of terrorism. 

Where we apparently differ: I do not believe that all forms of protests that could block a street are inherently dangerous, cause fear, or are akin to kidnapping. For instance,

(1) a sit in protest in the middle of the street, that is a protest where literally all the protesters do is sit in the middle of the street, is not dangerous and should not cause fear in anyone. It is annoying and most likely illegal (assume no permits). 

(2)A protest marching through a street, no aggression, just simply marching like any other parade of people, that impedes traffic, is not dangerous and should not cause fear in anyone. Again, it may be annoying and may be illegal. 

Hell, I even agree that the types of protests above SHOULD GET A PERMIT for the benefit of public safety. However, as a corollary, governments should readily give out such permits.

All I have said is that it would be an exaggeration to call (1) or (2) above kidnapping and terrorism. I had no other goals, and no posts have moved. I have no idea why these thoughts have made me your enemy. You apparently had in mind some specific allegedly violent events or examples when posting, but I was not aware you thought we were discussing them as you neglected to actually include them in your initial posts.

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Dahobbs

[high side 3 way 54]

Imagine actually thinking that rioting, extorting, damaging private (and public) property, and endangering everyone's life by being covid superspreaders isn't violence or terrorism.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

14 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

You're free to dislike their actions and dismiss their cause. But that doesn't make peaceful disruptions of street traffic "kidnapping" or "terrorism."  Incidences of violence are another matter entirely. 

You're "freedom" ends when it encroaches on my freedom.

[Dahobbs 18324]

8 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You're "freedom" ends when it encroaches on my freedom.

As a legal matter, that isn't true. Your "freedom" isn't inherently superior to someone else's. Different rights often encroach upon each other and our legal system has created a way to balance those rights. You are not unique or special. Under that balancing system sometimes your rights will give way to others and vice versa. There is no bright line rule. 

[Dahobbs 18324]

12 minutes ago, high side 3 way said:

Imagine actually thinking that rioting, extorting, damaging private (and public) property, and endangering everyone's life by being covid superspreaders isn't violence or terrorism.

 

Literally no one has said that. 

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Your "freedom" isn't inherently superior to someone else's.

In this instance, my freedom to drive down the road is certainly superior to  your freedom to protest. But let's try it out if you want to stand in the middle of the street while I'm driving.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

1 hour ago, Buzzrock said:

 

And has been falling since George Floyd was killed. That’s notable.

 

Let’s call it what it is. It received support then because it was the popular thing to do. Everyone was posting their black squares on Instagram, and everyone was out marching because it was the popular thing to do.
 

it’s pretty simple. For the average person that can think for themselves, you either support what the movement is trying to accomplish or yon don’t. I don’t agree with looting and rioting, but if that was all it took for you change your opinion was “you know what, I thought about supporting BLM but these riots made me change my mind” then you didn’t really want to support their movement anyway. And the people that dropped off in that poll, they never supported BLM. If anything they were just virtue signaling from the start.

[Captainant 28539]

9 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

In this instance, my freedom to drive down the road is certainly superior to  your freedom to protest. But let's try it out if you want to stand in the middle of the street while I'm driving.

Threats of violence, nice. You planning on running him down, or stopping just short of running him down and then shooting him to death while claiming self defense?

[Dahobbs 18324]

12 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

In this instance, my freedom to drive down the road is certainly superior to  your freedom to protest. But let's try it out if you want to stand in the middle of the street while I'm driving.

It isn't though, at least not completely. For instance, even if I were illegally standing in the middle of the road as part of a protest, it would still be a crime for you to intentionally (or negligently) hit me with your car. Your assertion over simplifies what is actually a much more complex analysis.

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

11 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

In this instance, my freedom to drive down the road is certainly superior to  your freedom to protest. But let's try it out if you want to stand in the middle of the street while I'm driving.

You won’t do shit. You may even be convinced that you would just plow through that crowd and say “fuck em all” but you won’t do shit. You’ll come to a complete stop or you’ll turn around and find another route.

[BabaYaga 15625]

15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Threats of violence, nice. You planning on running him down, or stopping just short of running him down and then shooting him to death while claiming self defense?

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

14 minutes ago, youdunnf'dup said:

You won’t do shit. You may even be convinced that you would just plow through that crowd and say “fuck em all” but you won’t do shit. You’ll come to a complete stop or you’ll turn around and find another route.

[BabaYaga 15625]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It isn't though, at least not completely. For instance, even if I were illegally standing in the middle of the road as part of a protest, it would still be a crime for you to intentionally (or negligently) hit me with your car. Your assertion over simplifies what is actually a much more complex analysis.

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

I'm so glad I have that Captain Ant dude on ignore...

[Wally Pryor 5410]

Cars and people in streets don't mix.  It's a fucking toxic situation.  Ask Garrett Foster.  Bet he'd like a do over when it comes to permits, people in the streets, traffic and all that became of it.   

If you have a permit, march.  Vehicles will be prohibited.  Barricades will be in place.  If you don't have a permit, get one.  Until then. streets are designed and designated for vehicular traffic. 

This thought today that people can simply set up shop in a roadway is maniacal, unbridled lunacy.  Our city is not only neglecting to address these shitastic situations where people and cars come into contact, they're actually continuing to encourage this type of activity.  Even after a person was shot and killed because of it.

More proof positive that we are simply in the middle of some Bizarro world with no end in sight. 

[Captainant 28539]

8 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I'm so glad I have that Captain Ant dude on ignore...

[BabaYaga 15625]

22 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

This thought today that people can simply set up shop in a roadway is maniacal, unbridled lunacy.  Our city is not only neglecting to address these shitastic situations where people and cars come into contact, they're actually continuing to encourage this type of activity.  Even after a person was shot and killed because of it.

We all know why, because to push back in any form or fashion is to open yourself up to what has become weaponized charges of racism.

[Dahobbs 18324]

28 minutes ago, Wally Pryor said:

Cars and people in streets don't mix.  It's a fucking toxic situation.  Ask Garrett Foster.  Bet he'd like a do over when it comes to permits, people in the streets, traffic and all that became of it.   

If you have a permit, march.  Vehicles will be prohibited.  Barricades will be in place.  If you don't have a permit, get one.  Until then. streets are designed and designated for vehicular traffic. 

This thought today that people can simply set up shop in a roadway is maniacal, unbridled lunacy.  Our city is not only neglecting to address these shitastic situations where people and cars come into contact, they're actually continuing to encourage this type of activity.  Even after a person was shot and killed because of it.

More proof positive that we are simply in the middle of some Bizarro world with no end in sight. 

The problem with making the blanket statement that we as a society should only support marching in a street  when permitted by government is it turns the first amendment on its head. 

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Instead of government being precluded from acting against speech and assembly, government would have to approve speech and assembly. But the very point of those rights is to prevent government excluding speech, particularly speech against it. The point is to allow the freedom to speak truth to power rather than power to dictate truth. 

I believe the appropriate balance of interests is served by having assemblies that disrupt public life and/or present potential danger seek government permit AND by having the government be required to reasonably permit such assemblies. But, if government fails to uphold its obligation, then we as a society should approve of "civil disobedience" in the form of peaceful assembly, even if in violation of law. 

P.S. I'm not convinced that the Foster situation would have been any different had there been official permit. It appears to me that you had two guys looking for a fight and eventually found one. 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Dahobbs

[high side 3 way 54]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Literally no one has said that. 

Don't even feel like quoting. It's basically 1-2 posters advocating for people blocking busy roadways and generally fucking up everyone's lives because muh freedoms!

Get.the.fuck.out.of.the.road.

[Js1 87183]

I'm truly shocked at times that people like Onboard and his friends here leave their house.  The world is so scary. 

[Dahobbs 18324]

1 minute ago, high side 3 way said:

Don't even feel like quoting. It's basically 1-2 posters advocating for people blocking busy roadways and generally fucking up everyone's lives because muh freedoms!

Get.the.fuck.out.of.the.road.

You can't quote because no one said what you originally suggested.

[high side 3 way 54]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I'm truly shocked at times that people like Onboard and his friends here leave their house.  The world is so scary. 

You're right. You might catch a virus that kills you. Unless you're rioting, then you're immune.

[ChickenSandwich 9959]

2 hours ago, youdunnf'dup said:

Let’s call it what it is. It received support then because it was the popular thing to do. Everyone was posting their black squares on Instagram, and everyone was out marching because it was the popular thing to do.
 

it’s pretty simple. For the average person that can think for themselves, you either support what the movement is trying to accomplish or yon don’t. I don’t agree with looting and rioting, but if that was all it took for you change your opinion was “you know what, I thought about supporting BLM but these riots made me change my mind” then you didn’t really want to support their movement anyway. And the people that dropped off in that poll, they never supported BLM. If anything they were just virtue signaling from the start.

Which stated goals?  To acknowledge and fight racism?  Check.  To push for accountability and police reform?  Of course.  Some people were immediately on board like you stated, and then they actually read the demands and watched the actions of the BLM faction and disapprove of the cancel culture and destructive/ violent rhetoric associated with it.

To empty the jails, defund/abolish the police, abolish the nuclear family (their most dangerous rhetoric - no surprise the leaders have daddy issues - attack dads) etc etc.  "Give up the right to personal safety" ? as demanded in the whiteness training for Seattle government workers?  Marxism?  Extorting local businesses, enforcing quotas etc.  Peaceful protesting = block freeways, set fires, wear riot gear, attempt to blind law enforcement, loot businesses?

It's great cover, if you aren't all in, then clearly you don't think BLACK LIVES MATTER!

[Captainant 28539]

6 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Which stated goals?  To acknowledge and fight racism?  Check.  To push for accountability and police reform?  Of course.  Some people were immediately on board like you stated, and then they actually read the demands and watched the actions of the BLM faction and disapprove of the cancel culture and destructive/ violent rhetoric associated with it.

To empty the jails, defund/abolish the police, abolish the nuclear family (their most dangerous rhetoric - no surprise the leaders have daddy issues - attack dads) etc etc.  "Give up the right to personal safety" ? as demanded in the whiteness training for Seattle government workers?  Marxism?  Extorting local businesses, enforcing quotas etc.  Peaceful protesting = block freeways, set fires, wear riot gear, attempt to blind law enforcement, loot businesses?

It's great cover, if you aren't all in, then clearly you don't think BLACK LIVES MATTER!

From cherry picking pandemic stats to fallaciously back your opinion that it'll go away like a miracle and we should reopen, to misrepresenting a fringe position to discredit people who think black people shouldn't get murdered by the police. Is there anything that you can't do?

Just remember guys - nothing about this is political, it's all economic right? 

[high side 3 way 54]

[Guest Lobo]

I'll never understand this country's obsession with "The Nuclear Family."  Most American husbands are assholes, most American children are stupid (mainly their parents fault), and most American wives are fat and/or ugly.  Why are we clinging to this again? 

[Incredulity 11876]

2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I'll never understand this country's obsession with "The Nuclear Family."  Most American husbands are assholes, most American children are stupid (mainly their parents fault), and most American wives are fat and/or ugly.  Why are we clinging to this again? 

It's the better option vs. foster parents, state facility, ....

 

What do you propose?

[BabaYaga 15625]

7 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I'll never understand this country's obsession with "The Nuclear Family."  Most American husbands are assholes, most American children are stupid (mainly their parents fault), and most American wives are fat and/or ugly.  Why are we clinging to this again? 

[Guest Lobo]

That's a low bar man, to be better than a "State Facility"  

There's lots of blood-options that work out just fine.  It's just that the 2 heterosexual spouse, never divorced, with 2.3 kids model is more often fucked up than it is correct.  

The problem with children in our country isn't the families from which they come from, their main issue is that they were born into a fucked up society hell-bent on celebrating ignorance and mediocrity.  

[Captainant 28539]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

It's the better option vs. foster parents, state facility, ....

What do you propose?

A nuclear family means: ONLY mother, father, and children in the home. The other alternatives are: single parent family, extended family, childless family, step family, etc. 

The stance against a nuclear family doesn't mean "there should be no households with parents in them", it means that it should not be abnormal to have a non-nuclear family. You know, because many black households have no father figure in them due to the war on drugs and lopsided and arbitrary police enforcement of laws.

It's just the easiest culture war thing for "all/blue lives matter" folks to cling onto and shout down other discussion with.