Jump to content

Liberal Protests


B-Man

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Yikes.  I never said it was wrong for him to speak as you keep putting words in my mouth.  I disapprove of him going after her advertisers for the purpose of silencing her and possibly getting her off the air for a relatively minor inappropriate tweet.

 

Yeesh, I'm not putting words in your mouth, or, I'm not trying to— can you understand? I'm not saying you do think that. I'm asking for clarification that you don't think that. 

 

I'm saying it's not an "agree to disagree" thing — there is a core element here of "shut the f*** up, David Hogg" that is clear as day, yet there are many who will deny that fact by ignoring it and focusing elsewhere. Under the BS, it comes down to we either think it's okay for him to speak, or that it's not okay for him to speak for xyz reason.

 

So you've clarified that you never said it was wrong for him to speak, but you do stop short of actually saying you support his right to speak. That alone is a way to consider thinking about it. 

 

Going after her advertisers to silence her — This is an example of free speech & the free market, is it not? He didn't initiate the conversation with Ingraham, he responded. Why is that not okay for him to do? For all of the perpetuation of the idea that Hogg is a puppet, paid actor (I don't think there's any clear view of him from the right other than "bad, go away, bad") — Hogg doesn't need advertisers, unlike Ingraham. He has this advantage over her, and understands social media better than she does. Ingraham is a political hack taking a trending topic and going with the most salacious, vulture-like approach to it. It takes some Olympic-level mental gymnastics to think that Ingraham is somehow the 'David' to David's 'Goliath' in this situation.

 

"Hack talking sh!t," like Ingraham is doing, is best responded to by responding non-violently but effectively, which is what Hogg is doing. "Kid talking sh!t" was why Trayvon Martin was lawfully murdered by George Zimmerman, also in Florida. Would it be preferable if Hogg used a firearm, as Zimmerman did, to defend himself against verbal attacks & veiled threats?

 

On the subject of advertisers & boycotts.

 

What's your view on the ongoing situation with Delta & the NRA in Georgia?

 

Or, on football — what did you think about efforts to boycott advertisers over the player protests? In that case, I think the reasoning & effort is much dumber, but the boycotters are entitled to do whatever they want, regardless of what I think.

Edited by LA Grant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Yeesh, I'm not putting words in your mouth, or, I'm not trying to— can you understand? I'm not saying you do think that. I'm asking for clarification that you don't think that. 

 

I'm saying it's not an "agree to disagree" thing — there is a core element here of "shut the f*** up, David Hogg" that is clear as day, yet there are many who will deny that fact by ignoring it and focusing elsewhere. Under the BS, it comes down to we either think it's okay for him to speak, or that it's not okay for him to speak for xyz reason.

 

So you've clarified that you never said it was wrong for him to speak, but you do stop short of actually saying you support his right to speak. That alone is a way to consider thinking about it. 

 

Going after her advertisers to silence her — This is an example of free speech & the free market, is it not? He didn't initiate the conversation with Ingraham, he responded. Why is that not okay for him to do? For all of the perpetuation of the idea that Hogg is a puppet, paid actor (I don't think there's any clear view of him from the right other than "bad, go away, bad") — Hogg doesn't need advertisers, unlike Ingraham. He has this advantage over her, and understands social media better than she does. Ingraham is a political hack taking a trending topic and going with the most salacious, vulture-like approach to it. It takes some Olympic-level mental gymnastics to think that Ingraham is somehow the 'David' to David's 'Goliath' in this situation.

 

Speaking of advertisers.

 

What's your opinion on the ongoing situation with Delta & the NRA in Georgia?

I disagree with most of what you've just said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  

Edited by Doc Brown
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I disagree with most of what you've just said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  

 

The first part: Why?

 

The second part: Thank you. I don't think you will need to do that, honestly. But I appreciate it.

 

In the meantime, maybe... um, something less dramatic would be a wonderful but equally heroic gesture. Like considering what Hogg is saying would be hella tight as hell, brah.

 

An even cooler courtesy would be to recognize when people are being brave/foolish enough to speak against injustice. That would inherently mean speaking against the status quo. It's disappointing how society regularly misreads bravery in real time, and disgusting that the strategy is always always always to attack their inconvenient message by tar-&-feathering the individual messenger, from Jesus f***ing Christ to the countless examples since, up to & including Hogg. Yes. Hogg. 

 

Recognizing Hogg as a human capable of free will would be a start. He's not a robot A.I. programmable Home Alone character. He's an angry kid, maybe he has Asperger's, maybe a kind of post-traumatic shock clarity/euphoria — his style of speech, tone, motivations, articulation: who cares? It is not about one person, as much as the right keeps trying to do with Hogg and Gonzalez; there's so many more of the Parkland kids also making media rounds, and the Chicago group. They are mostly ignored by right-wing media, who prefer the "boogeyman" model of storytelling.

 

Maybe he simply recognizes that he can overcome this tragedy by dedicating his life to fighting what caused it — Hogg almost has Batman's origin, for god's sake. It is possible Hogg is exactly what he appears to be, right?

 

Who is Ida B. Wells and why would I bring her up?

Edited by LA Grant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Yeah.  Looking back at his posts he seems to purposely use straw man arguments.  I just thought he had a reading comprehension problem.

 

That was my first read on him too a few weeks ago... But nope. LA Asshat is just an asshat. 

 

He thinks he's winning. All he's doing is showing how dishonest and imbecilic he is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Yeesh, I'm not putting words in your mouth, or, I'm not trying to— can you understand? I'm not saying you do think that. I'm asking for clarification that you don't think that. 

 

I'm saying it's not an "agree to disagree" thing — there is a core element here of "shut the f*** up, David Hogg" that is clear as day, yet there are many who will deny that fact by ignoring it and focusing elsewhere. Under the BS, it comes down to we either think it's okay for him to speak, or that it's not okay for him to speak for xyz reason.

 

So you've clarified that you never said it was wrong for him to speak, but you do stop short of actually saying you support his right to speak. That alone is a way to consider thinking about it. 

 

Going after her advertisers to silence her — This is an example of free speech & the free market, is it not? He didn't initiate the conversation with Ingraham, he responded. Why is that not okay for him to do? For all of the perpetuation of the idea that Hogg is a puppet, paid actor (I don't think there's any clear view of him from the right other than "bad, go away, bad") — Hogg doesn't need advertisers, unlike Ingraham. He has this advantage over her, and understands social media better than she does. Ingraham is a political hack taking a trending topic and going with the most salacious, vulture-like approach to it. It takes some Olympic-level mental gymnastics to think that Ingraham is somehow the 'David' to David's 'Goliath' in this situation.

 

"Hack talking sh!t," like Ingraham is doing, is best responded to by responding non-violently but effectively, which is what Hogg is doing. "Kid talking sh!t" was why Trayvon Martin was lawfully murdered by George Zimmerman, also in Florida. Would it be preferable if Hogg used a firearm, as Zimmerman did, to defend himself against verbal attacks & veiled threats?

 

On the subject of advertisers & boycotts.

 

What's your view on the ongoing situation with Delta & the NRA in Georgia?

 

Or, on football — what did you think about efforts to boycott advertisers over the player protests? In that case, I think the reasoning & effort is much dumber, but the boycotters are entitled to do whatever they want, regardless of what I think.

Trayvon Martin was killed in an act of self defense by George Zimmerman. For you to claim he was "lawfully murdered" is wrong and shows how biased you are. Nobody is "lawfully murdered". Murder is a crime and can't be lawful, but you are ok with making shitup for your own purposes. Sort of makes everything you write suspect, now doesn't it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Trayvon Martin was killed in an act of self defense by George Zimmerman. For you to claim he was "lawfully murdered" is wrong and shows how biased you are. Nobody is "lawfully murdered". Murder is a crime and can't be lawful, but you are ok with making shitup for your own purposes. Sort of makes everything you write suspect, now doesn't it? 

 

Im amazed people are still reading LA Asshat's drivel. It's nothing but dishonesty and personal attacks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Im amazed people are still reading LA Asshat's drivel. It's nothing but dishonesty and personal attacks. 

I woke up to it and it just pissed me off that he is sullying this board with his copious amount of shitposting.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

The first part: Why?

 

The second part: Thank you. I don't think you will need to do that, honestly. But I appreciate it.

 

In the meantime, maybe... um, something less dramatic would be a wonderful but equally heroic gesture. Like considering what Hogg is saying would be hella tight as hell, brah.

 

An even cooler courtesy would be to recognize when people are being brave/foolish enough to speak against injustice. That would inherently mean speaking against the status quo. It's disappointing how society regularly misreads bravery in real time, and disgusting that the strategy is always always always to attack their inconvenient message by tar-&-feathering the individual messenger, from Jesus f***ing Christ to the countless examples since, up to & including Hogg. Yes. Hogg. 

 

Recognizing Hogg as a human capable of free will would be a start. He's not a robot A.I. programmable Home Alone character. He's an angry kid, maybe he has Asperger's, maybe a kind of post-traumatic shock clarity/euphoria — his style of speech, tone, motivations, articulation: who cares? It is not about one person, as much as the right keeps trying to do with Hogg and Gonzalez; there's so many more of the Parkland kids also making media rounds, and the Chicago group. They are mostly ignored by right-wing media, who prefer the "boogeyman" model of storytelling.

 

Maybe he simply recognizes that he can overcome this tragedy by dedicating his life to fighting what caused it — Hogg almost has Batman's origin, for god's sake. It is possible Hogg is exactly what he appears to be, right?

 

Who is Ida B. Wells and why would I bring her up?

You like hearing yourself talk. What a attention whore. You must be fun at parties ?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Two-part response. The shorter of the two is — You were mentioning fair criticism coming from the media. Wondering if the majority of critical media on Hogg has been fair or unfair? 

 

The longer one: Hogg is not running for office. He is a kid with an opinion. People are listening to his opinion because he survived a mass shooting at his school where his friends and classmates were murdered by a clearly mentally ill 18-year-old legally bought his weapon, an AR-15, without hassle. 

 

His opinion is that purchase should not have been possible. I agree with him. The majority of Americans, including lawful gun owners, support tighter restrictions, particularly universal background checks implemented nationally. Local restrictions are half-measures; a high percentage of gun violence in Chicago come from weapons purchased legally in Indiana. 

 

Hogg isn't as focused on the failures of the local sheriff/FBI because that is not the core issue — because Parkland isn't unique. There are an unacceptable rate of mass shootings & school shootings, particularly since the 2008 Heller decision. Solving this is going to require changing something; despite many attempts, ignoring it hasn't worked.

 

Improving mental health services would be wonderful, but how would this not necessitate higher taxes? The left is obviously onboard with better nationalized healthcare,  and now the right controls the entire government. So what's the hold up here? 

 

Furthermore, I don't understand this overall insistence, only from the right, that Hogg must hold opinions on every subject (tangential but relevant: on a separate board, someone was arguing that Hogg had a filthy mouth and why isn't he focused on the unborn fetuses murdered every year? "because he wasn't the victim of a mass abortion, genius") — while at the same time, criticize him for being too public.

 

The right has been floating various contradictory ideas — is he a liar? is he a puppet? is he an actor? is he an opportunist? — with the unifying thread being it's aimed to discredit. Even if it means going to slander, libel, name-calling. A photoshopped meme of Emma Gonzalez tearing up the Constitution makes the rounds because there are plenty among the right who will share fake crap without a second thought if it aligns with their perception.

 

All the while, the right appears to be absolutely unwilling to even consider the Parkland kids at face value: why can't Hogg simply be an angry teenager with an interest in debate/journalism/politics? Maybe he's got some mild Asperger's, but he's not some major mystery — I remember kids in HS being like Hogg. Their dads weren't in the FBI but some were in law enforcement and military background. That tends to make the kids interested in politics/history, because dad is. It really is not hard to understand Hogg or the Parkland kids if you just put yourself in their shoes and ask what you might do, if you were 16 or 17, and this happened in your school? 

 

Keeping in mind that it is in Florida, where a lot of the worst gun violence has occurred: Orlando was last year, Trayvon Martin a few years ago... and too many others. So, this is both shocking and not surprising. Keeping in mind that teenagers in 2018 are far more comfortable on camera than older generations can fully comprehend, I think, and the older one is, the more difficult it might be to relate to the level of intuitiveness kids have with media and publicness. 

 

tl;dr There are far more examples of unfair criticism of Hogg than fair criticism — on this board, and in right-leaning media. There appears to be almost no effort, on this board and in right-leaning media, to consider what Hogg & the Parkland kids & the Chicago kids & March For Our Lives are saying in good faith.

 

I'm wondering if you agree/disagree with that statement?

This generation also is sort of like Trump in being able to use social media to mobilize voters. Trump figured out he could spew his bigotry and use that to organize the bigots for political gain. These kids are doing something positive and the gun people, xenophobic crowd and general haters are angry that the shoe is on the other foot now. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I disagree with most of what you've just said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  

 

I've been told by many liberals that that is an archaic, dangerous, oppressive thought.  

 

Seriously...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I've been told by many liberals that that is an archaic, dangerous, oppressive thought.  

 

Seriously...

 

Me too. 

 

When I said that disagreeing with that philosophy is to turn your back on the foundations of liberalism itself I was told "times change, the stakes are too high for absolute free speech when we are fighting Nazis in our own government". 

 

After I slow blinked, I thought of your repeated phrase around here and laughed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Trayvon Martin was killed in an act of self defense by George Zimmerman. For you to claim he was "lawfully murdered" is wrong and shows how biased you are. Nobody is "lawfully murdered". Murder is a crime and can't be lawful, but you are ok with making shitup for your own purposes. Sort of makes everything you write suspect, now doesn't it? 

 

Nice job missing the connection. The point sailed right above your head.

 

Repeating it: If Zimmeran killing Trayvon Martin is justified — then would you support David Hogg if he used a gun instead of words against those who threatened him?

 

"Lawfully murdered" is impossible, is it?

 

How would you describe the police executing Philando Castile?

 

How would you describe lynchings in the Jim Crow South?

Edited by LA Grant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

...

 

Had I known a cultist was going to erect a shrine to Bad Arguments in here, I'd have brought a camera.  

 

This is going to be tremendous.

 

Tell us again how you think "History will show Trump to be a great man, the right leader for the times. He will stand equal to George Washington."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Tell us again how you think "History will show Trump to be a great man, the right leader for the times. He will stand equal to George Washington."

History dictates such things:  not me. You should be careful not to get swept up in the coming tidal wave.  Though I'm not hopeful, given your willingness to paddle directly into that particular storm.

 

But this isn't about me, nor is it about the President.  I'm thrilled to be hearing more about your ideas!  Keep going!  You're winning!!!

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...