Red Mosquito

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:So on the one side, the cops may brutalize you in some way, and you might get booked for a few hours. On the other side, you're guarded by trigger happy amateurs who have been waiting for this day their whole lives. Hmmm.

No loot, no shoot.

We'll see.

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:So on the one side, the cops may brutalize you in some way, and you might get booked for a few hours. On the other side, you're guarded by trigger happy amateurs who have been waiting for this day their whole lives. Hmmm.

No loot, no shoot.

Travis McMichael disliked this post

surfndestroy wrote:

wease wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:yeah, that was a cool read.

I think prejudice is kinda inherent to the human being though. While i get why black people cant be racist i wonder how that applies with other folks from different countries.

Lets say a wealthy black dude talks shit about some chinese guy. Or some mexican. Isnt it that racism too?

In case anyone is offended, im truly asking your thoughts.

Can the black people impose oppressive structures which enforce their superiority over the Chinese or Mexicans in your example?

Within a predominantly black school or living area, probably. Within society, no but I don't think that makes prejudiced speech or actions any less harmful to the recipient.

But like most people I have lots to learn here and am happy to be wrong and change.

Maybe a lot of people here knew to take Durden's post to mean exactly what he meant, and it was a great post, but I do feel like it should always be noted that this is a contexual argument. That fact is kind of inherent in the argument itself, I guess. My gut reaction was to disagree, because racism has existed everywhere all the time, and of course a black person is capable of racism. It's the context that makes his argument work.

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:So on the one side, the cops may brutalize you in some way, and you might get booked for a few hours. On the other side, you're guarded by trigger happy amateurs who have been waiting for this day their whole lives. Hmmm.

No loot, no shoot.

I am not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to shoot someone because they’re looting a store that doesn’t belong to you.

Rob wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

wease wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:yeah, that was a cool read.

I think prejudice is kinda inherent to the human being though. While i get why black people cant be racist i wonder how that applies with other folks from different countries.

Lets say a wealthy black dude talks shit about some chinese guy. Or some mexican. Isnt it that racism too?

In case anyone is offended, im truly asking your thoughts.

Can the black people impose oppressive structures which enforce their superiority over the Chinese or Mexicans in your example?

Within a predominantly black school or living area, probably. Within society, no but I don't think that makes prejudiced speech or actions any less harmful to the recipient.

But like most people I have lots to learn here and am happy to be wrong and change.

Maybe a lot of people here knew to take Durden's post to mean exactly what he meant, and it was a great post, but I do feel like it should always be noted that this is a contexual argument. That fact is kind of inherent in the argument itself, I guess. My gut reaction was to disagree, because racism has existed everywhere all the time, and of course a black person is capable of racism. It's the context that makes his argument work.

I think the important thing to understand is why this is even being asked; in the face of everything that's going on, why would someone's immediate tendency be to assert that 'black people can be racist, too!' (I'm not arguing anyone quoted above is doing that).

It seems like a ludicrous thing to say, right now, right? Mass protests, police brutality, Trump's actions, and that is your takeaway? But I think it makes a lot more sense when it's seen not as an honest question but as a deflection. For the right wing, it's a lot harder to be the victim when you're confronted with George Floyd's murder and the anger that's resulted. But when your entire identity is based on being the victim (whether your aggressor is the media, or Hollywood, or left-wing universities, or immigrants, or whatever the flavor of the moment is that day), it's easier to play the victim by diverting attention.

In short, when police misconduct happens, and people bring up things like "all lives matter!" and "black people can be racist, too," they're basically trying to avoid asking some hard questions and being this guy:

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:So on the one side, the cops may brutalize you in some way, and you might get booked for a few hours. On the other side, you're guarded by trigger happy amateurs who have been waiting for this day their whole lives. Hmmm.

No loot, no shoot.

I am not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to shoot someone because they’re looting a store that doesn’t belong to you.

Laws are different in every state. If you're there at the owner's request, maybe, but I think it's more about deterring trouble. Nobody is going to fuck with a store that has a couple of armed guys standing out front. If they do, it may be more a matter of self-defense and not just shooting to protect property.

This all sounds like a great idea.

macphisto wrote:

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:So on the one side, the cops may brutalize you in some way, and you might get booked for a few hours. On the other side, you're guarded by trigger happy amateurs who have been waiting for this day their whole lives. Hmmm.

No loot, no shoot.

I am not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to shoot someone because they’re looting a store that doesn’t belong to you.

Laws are different in every state. If you're there at the owner's request, maybe, but I think it's more about deterring trouble. Nobody is going to fuck with a store that has a couple of armed guys standing out front. If they do, it may be more a matter of self-defense and not just shooting to protect property.

A self-proclaimed militia that descends upon high school students using their right to assemble peacefully. And it's not the responsibility of those gun nuts to maintain law and order. Their first amendment rights aren't superseded by the second amendment just because those guys have little dicks and want to play soldier.

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:So on the one side, the cops may brutalize you in some way, and you might get booked for a few hours. On the other side, you're guarded by trigger happy amateurs who have been waiting for this day their whole lives. Hmmm.

No loot, no shoot.

I am not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to shoot someone because they’re looting a store that doesn’t belong to you.

Laws are different in every state. If you're there at the owner's request, maybe, but I think it's more about deterring trouble. Nobody is going to fuck with a store that has a couple of armed guys standing out front. If they do, it may be more a matter of self-defense and not just shooting to protect property.

A self-proclaimed militia that descends upon high school students using their right to assemble peacefully. And it's not the responsibility of those gun nuts to maintain law and order. Their first amendment rights aren't superseded by the second amendment just because those guys have little dicks and want to play soldier.

OHHHHHHHHHHH OH OKAY SO WHAT ALL GUN OWNERS HAVE LITTLE DICKS NOW?!?!

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:So on the one side, the cops may brutalize you in some way, and you might get booked for a few hours. On the other side, you're guarded by trigger happy amateurs who have been waiting for this day their whole lives. Hmmm.

No loot, no shoot.

I am not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to shoot someone because they’re looting a store that doesn’t belong to you.

Laws are different in every state. If you're there at the owner's request, maybe, but I think it's more about deterring trouble. Nobody is going to fuck with a store that has a couple of armed guys standing out front. If they do, it may be more a matter of self-defense and not just shooting to protect property.

A self-proclaimed militia that descends upon high school students using their right to assemble peacefully. And it's not the responsibility of those gun nuts to maintain law and order. Their first amendment rights aren't superseded by the second amendment just because those guys have little dicks and want to play soldier.

I don't know what message went out to these people, do you? Were they called to counter protest and mix it up with these kids, or to help defend the town should the need arise. I'd bet on the latter.

As an aside, statistically, some of them have big ol' baby arm dicks.

macphisto wrote:

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:So on the one side, the cops may brutalize you in some way, and you might get booked for a few hours. On the other side, you're guarded by trigger happy amateurs who have been waiting for this day their whole lives. Hmmm.

No loot, no shoot.

I am not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to shoot someone because they’re looting a store that doesn’t belong to you.

Laws are different in every state. If you're there at the owner's request, maybe, but I think it's more about deterring trouble. Nobody is going to fuck with a store that has a couple of armed guys standing out front. If they do, it may be more a matter of self-defense and not just shooting to protect property.

A self-proclaimed militia that descends upon high school students using their right to assemble peacefully. And it's not the responsibility of those gun nuts to maintain law and order. Their first amendment rights aren't superseded by the second amendment just because those guys have little dicks and want to play soldier.

I don't know what message went out to these people, do you? Were they called to counter protest and mix it up with these kids, or to help defend the town should the need arise. I'd bet on the latter.

As an aside, statistically, some of them have big ol' baby arm dicks.

They don't NEED to be called in to "defend the town". It's not their responsibility to defend anything.

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:So on the one side, the cops may brutalize you in some way, and you might get booked for a few hours. On the other side, you're guarded by trigger happy amateurs who have been waiting for this day their whole lives. Hmmm.

No loot, no shoot.

I am not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to shoot someone because they’re looting a store that doesn’t belong to you.

Laws are different in every state. If you're there at the owner's request, maybe, but I think it's more about deterring trouble. Nobody is going to fuck with a store that has a couple of armed guys standing out front. If they do, it may be more a matter of self-defense and not just shooting to protect property.

A self-proclaimed militia that descends upon high school students using their right to assemble peacefully. And it's not the responsibility of those gun nuts to maintain law and order. Their first amendment rights aren't superseded by the second amendment just because those guys have little dicks and want to play soldier.

I don't know what message went out to these people, do you? Were they called to counter protest and mix it up with these kids, or to help defend the town should the need arise. I'd bet on the latter.

As an aside, statistically, some of them have big ol' baby arm dicks.

They don't NEED to be called in to "defend the town". It's not their responsibility to defend anything.

Right or wrong, clearly there is some disagreement about the needs of the town and the capabilities of the local police to maintain order.

The House should be drafting articles of impeachment against Bill Barr right the fuck now.

cutuphalfdead wrote:The House should be drafting articles of impeachment against Bill Barr right the fuck now.

macphisto wrote:

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:So on the one side, the cops may brutalize you in some way, and you might get booked for a few hours. On the other side, you're guarded by trigger happy amateurs who have been waiting for this day their whole lives. Hmmm.

No loot, no shoot.

I am not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to shoot someone because they’re looting a store that doesn’t belong to you.

Laws are different in every state. If you're there at the owner's request, maybe, but I think it's more about deterring trouble. Nobody is going to fuck with a store that has a couple of armed guys standing out front. If they do, it may be more a matter of self-defense and not just shooting to protect property.

A self-proclaimed militia that descends upon high school students using their right to assemble peacefully. And it's not the responsibility of those gun nuts to maintain law and order. Their first amendment rights aren't superseded by the second amendment just because those guys have little dicks and want to play soldier.

I don't know what message went out to these people, do you? Were they called to counter protest and mix it up with these kids, or to help defend the town should the need arise. I'd bet on the latter.

As an aside, statistically, some of them have big ol' baby arm dicks.

They don't NEED to be called in to "defend the town". It's not their responsibility to defend anything.

Right or wrong, clearly there is some disagreement about the needs of the town and the capabilities of the local police to maintain order.

No, it's just an excuse for these charlatans to come out with their badass guns and try to convince everybody how tough they are.

“Right or wrong” is an interesting way to open a defense of an armed group who want to “maintain order” during a protest for a people or cause they directly oppose.

macphisto wrote:

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Superblood Wolfmoon wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Rob wrote:So on the one side, the cops may brutalize you in some way, and you might get booked for a few hours. On the other side, you're guarded by trigger happy amateurs who have been waiting for this day their whole lives. Hmmm.

No loot, no shoot.

I am not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to shoot someone because they’re looting a store that doesn’t belong to you.

Laws are different in every state. If you're there at the owner's request, maybe, but I think it's more about deterring trouble. Nobody is going to fuck with a store that has a couple of armed guys standing out front. If they do, it may be more a matter of self-defense and not just shooting to protect property.

A self-proclaimed militia that descends upon high school students using their right to assemble peacefully. And it's not the responsibility of those gun nuts to maintain law and order. Their first amendment rights aren't superseded by the second amendment just because those guys have little dicks and want to play soldier.

I don't know what message went out to these people, do you? Were they called to counter protest and mix it up with these kids, or to help defend the town should the need arise. I'd bet on the latter.

As an aside, statistically, some of them have big ol' baby arm dicks.

They don't NEED to be called in to "defend the town". It's not their responsibility to defend anything.

Right or wrong, clearly there is some disagreement about the needs of the town and the capabilities of the local police to maintain order.

Not to mention the cops have no legal obligation to any specific person or their property, and they've largely abandoned any moral obligation in recent days.

McParadigm wrote:“Right or wrong” is an interesting way to open a defense of an armed group who want to “maintain order” during a protest for a people or cause they directly oppose.

Has it been established that they are pro police brutality?