Jump to content

Political Containment Thread


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, mikecamper said:

Yes.   The fact that I laughed at Bill Maher's joke, I'm  inflicting  JUST AS MUCH DAMAGE as the rhetoric and actions of real white supremacists.    Wow.  Ok then.   Good to know.

 

Guess I'll make sure to suppress my laughter next time I watch Richard Pryor.  That should just be a real swell time.

My mind is blown by the fact that you would equate Bill Maher and Richard Pryor's respective uses of the N word. Gee, I wonder what the difference could be that would change the effect of that word?

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Young P said:

Intent is useless because it's just a demand for listeners to assume goodwill on the part of the speaker.

I don't agree with this assertion. Plenty of statements are made with bad intentions in mind.

 

I'd suggest the Trump example from before- the one in which he stated Clinton laughed at a girl who was raped- illustrates that. I don't see a positive intention, I cannot see why I'd have to assume goodwill given what the statement was, as everything about it seems negative, with an end goal of painting Clinton in a negative light, as someone unsympathetic to sexual assault victims.

 

I don't equate considering the intent of a statement with assuming goodwill: bad intentions exist.

 

27 minutes ago, Schmengland said:

So, what is your point?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that intent means nothing.

 

As Young P suggests, I'm probably associating intent with context. And while there's no denying that intent and context can go hand in hand (and context can help identify a person's intent), they aren't identical. The examples were meant to illustrate the dangers of saying intent should play zero role, as such a statement suggests to me that you don't actually have to consider what a person is saying. You can frame it anyway you like to make it appear someone said or meant something they didn't.

 

Which, I think, might not have been the intended message of that statement regarding intent.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, blcdude1 said:

I don't agree with this assertion. Plenty of statements are made with bad intentions in mind.

 

I'd suggest the Trump example from before- the one in which he stated Clinton laughed at a girl who was raped- illustrates that. I don't see a positive intention, I cannot see why I'd have to assume goodwill given what the statement was, as everything about it seems negative, with an end goal of painting Clinton in a negative light, as someone unsympathetic to sexual assault victims.

 

I don't equate considering the intent of a statement with assuming goodwill: bad intentions exist.

Well, you're right, I was just addressing more the specific circumstances of people like Bill Maher and Pewdiepie using racial slurs and seeing "they didn't have bad intent" come up as a defense. Certainly the inverse happens as well. The broader point is that intent is nebulous, which is why choosing the right words in the first place is so important.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Anselma said:

Remember guys, our country doesn't have a gun problem and saying otherwise would be politicizing a tragedy.

The problem is not enough people have guns! If more people had them, they could've shot the guy sooner.

 

/s

Link to comment

Remember that it's Mental Illness Awareness Week.  The same assholes who want to cull gun control laws are the same people who want to gut healthcare in this country to keep the mentally ill from being diagnosed or receiving help.  They in no capacity have a desire to protect you.  Never forget these garbage people.

 

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Isotope said:

its only terrorism when the shooter is brown; im sure the case will be made for mental illness being the cause here

Legal Definition of Terrorism: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".

In short: not every psycho with a gun is a terrorist. And in this case, we don't know his motives so he can't be called him a terrorist unless we find some evidence that shows his intent was intimidation.

 

I honestly do not understand why people act like being called a terrorist is worse than being called a psycho. They're both awful and mentally unwell.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Yellow said:

Legal Definition of Terrorism: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".

In short: not every psycho with a gun is a terrorist. And in this case, we don't know his motives so he can't be called him a terrorist unless we find some evidence that shows his intent was intimidation.

 

I honestly do not understand why people act like being called a terrorist is worse than being called a psycho. They're both awful and mentally unwell.

 

Ii4LrEH.jpg

 

Hey look at that, under Nevada state law, what he committed was terrorism, so yes, I'm going to call him for what he was which is a terrorist. Who the fuck cares what his motive was; his goal was to kill and terrorize civilians, which he did. Don't give me this "we can't call him a terrorist!" rhetoric when he literally terrorized a crowd of innocent people and inhumanly killed 50+ people.

 

How about the media calls it for what it is, which is domestic terrorism, instead of tip-toeing around it. How about our fucking President condemns domestic terrorism instead of relying on God to magically fix it or getting into a fucking Twitter argument with Puerto Rico. How about members of Congress grow a fucking backbone and pass gun control laws instead of giving "Thoughts and Prayers" or lining their pockets with money from gun lobbyists like the NRA.

Edited by Isotope
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Yellow said:

Legal Definition of Terrorism: "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".

In short: not every psycho with a gun is a terrorist. And in this case, we don't know his motives so he can't be called him a terrorist unless we find some evidence that shows his intent was intimidation.

 

I honestly do not understand why people act like being called a terrorist is worse than being called a psycho. They're both awful and mentally unwell.

The point is that this isn't the standard used when the culprit is dark skinned or foreign-looking. In those cases, it's always assumed to be a political/ideological crime, as opposed to white shooters who are always psychos/lone wolves/mentally ill/whatever excuse the media can find to avoid mentioning terrorism. If you ask me, there is no scenario where shooting into a crowd of people isn't an act of intimidation. Yet this guy gets the benefit of the doubt; he's just "a psycho with a gun."

 

Side note, it seems worth mentioning that once the usual anti-Islam fearmongering was off the table after the shooter was identified to be white, 4channers falsely pinned it on a vaguely similar-looking white guy whose social media showed that he was a Trump-hating, BLM-supporting, Rachel Maddow-watching liberal. They spread photos of this guy and his family around the internet, accusing him of being a mass shooter. This is what the horrifying evolution of the Boston bombing reddit witch hunt looks like. This, plus all the fake pics on social media of loved ones supposedly missing in Las Vegas after the shooting, is what it looks like when they harness the power of "fake news." At this point it's so second nature to them that in the case of those hoaxes, they literally do it for no apparent reason beyond heightening the fear and confusion. And in the case of the falsely accused culprit, they've demonstrated they will use that power indiscriminately, even against a completely innocent, middle-aged white man, purely on the basis of not supporting Trump. That is how bad it's gotten.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I'd love to throw one of those rolls back at him. What he did there was just disrespectful to the people. It doesn't help them in any way. It's just a cheap photo op.

At 99 cents a roll, it's a very cheap photo op

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...