What's new

F Champ Receives Lifetime Ban, Racism in the FGC/USA, and Other Prevalent Social Discussions

KingHippo

Alternative-Fact Checker
No, but don't you see, before you got triggered, saying rhetoric can be violent goes both ways and could cause deaths on both sides. Obviously this killing was politically motivated (despite no evidence of that except by death cult right-wingers) so ipso facto you've been owned, sir.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

(NOTHING)
Premium Supporter
What?

And what?

It's like you need to bring a spoon to this thread.
For what, exactly? To eat Oreo O's while you crack wise about a man being murdered in order to take a sideways shot at people in this thread for your own obtuse amusement?
Because that seems like pretty straight-forward extrapolation of a dead man to me.
No spoon necessary.
 

ItsYaBoi

Noob
Let’s see what Chaos thinks about this.


Inb4 “it was self defense as the victim had a rifle”. It’s legal to open carry there (I don’t blame him either with how things are) and him and his disabled wife have attended every protest peacefully. There’s footage of the shooter trying to run people over before the shooting occurs. This is what Trumps America enables, 100 fucking percent.

Rest in power Garrett.
 

ItsYaBoi

Noob
Can people ITT explain why this happened? What’s the justification? Dude is peacefully expressing his first amendment rights.


What is going on RIGHT NOW is something that EVERYBODY should be standing up against. This is the tyrannical government that 2A nuts always like to go on about, and it’s actually here now. Where the fuck are you all?
 

NaCl man

Welcome to Akihabara
Let’s see what Chaos thinks about this.


Inb4 “it was self defense as the victim had a rifle”. It’s legal to open carry there (I don’t blame him either with how things are) and him and his disabled wife have attended every protest peacefully. There’s footage of the shooter trying to run people over before the shooting occurs. This is what Trumps America enables, 100 fucking percent.

Rest in power Garrett.
I'm sorry but what part of a peaceful protest requires you to carry an ak 47 in the streets.

You have all lost your minds.

Rolling around the streets with an ak is in no way peaceful.
 

ItsYaBoi

Noob
I'm sorry but what part of a peaceful protest requires you to carry an ak 47 in the streets.

You have all lost your minds.

Rolling around the streets with an ak is in no way peaceful.
You’ve got unidentified people grabbing protestors off the street, beating them up etc. I don’t blame him for open carrying (again, legal there). Isn’t that what the 2A is for? Why is it only an issue when peaceful protestors for BLM do it but not when people protesting against wearing masks storm the Capitol building and stand outside of it in their hundreds?

And again, the shooter tried RUNNING OVER protestors, which led to all of this.
 
Last edited:

Lt. Boxy Angelman

(NOTHING)
Premium Supporter
I'm sorry but what part of a peaceful protest requires you to carry an ak 47 in the streets.

You have all lost your minds.

Rolling around the streets with an ak is in no way peaceful.
You’ve got unidentified people grabbing protestors off the street, beating them up etc. I don’t blame him for open carrying (again, legal there). Isn’t that what the 2A is for? Why is it only an issue when peaceful protestors for BLM do it but not when people protesting against wearing masks storm Capitol Hill and stand outside of it in their hundreds?

And again, the shooter tried RUNNING OVER protestors, which led to all of this.
^^^^ That.
This is exactly what the agencies and Trump sending these people in is meant to accomplish; scare protestors enough that they start arming themselves and either lose the shield of being peaceful or give said agents an excuse to go in with pre-emptive guns blazing. It's not just about Portland itself now, but about how protestors are going to go about their actions - and their persecutors find ways to lay the blame at their feet -for the rest of the year, as things escalate further toward November.

But hey,let's watch the talking heads on Laura Ingrahm try harder to talk down the fact that these agents are the Trump equivalent of the secret police. Like...lady, they're armed and disguised officers illegally and secretly detaining protestors at will. That, much like extrapolating dead men, is the textbook definition of secret police. Someone call Rupert Murdoch and tell him to tell his puppets to stop trying to whitewash and laugh over the horrible shit they're trying to defend. It can't be done. We are watching Shitty Hitler learn the hard way that he is not Putin or Xi, and that trying to enact authoritarianism isn't going to do anything except cost himself whatever tiny sliver of hope he had left for this election that wasn't rested on the pandemic getting worse.
 
Last edited:

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
People carry guns in peaceful protest all the time, especially conservative ones. The 2A isn't just for right wingers lol
In a way though, this shows just how messed up our country is.

When people think that rolling around with lethal war weapons in a peaceful protest is ‘normal’ we’ve got a lot of work to do.

Like, wake up America. That’s not what being an ideal place to live looks like.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

(NOTHING)
Premium Supporter
People carry guns in peaceful protest all the time, especially conservative ones. The 2A isn't just for right wingers lol
For real, though. And it's not like we didn't just see the Trump militia/Proud Boy morons storming state capitols strapped as can be because they couldn't get haircuts, and blocking/disrupting access to hospitals just to scare the shit out of people. If those guns are legal and it's an open carry state, then the right wing is defeating their own logic getting mad that people are arming themselves in the face of real ass secret police disappearing people and trying to sow fear. Another example of something only being okay when one side does it. Bullshit.

In a way though, this shows just how messed up our country is.

When people think that rolling around with lethal war weapons in a peaceful protest is ‘normal’ we’ve got a lot of work to do.

Like, wake up America. That’s not what being an ideal place to live looks like.
That's facts, my guy. Unfortunate ones, but facts nonetheless. This is all fucked up.
It's depressing as hell on the block today.
Prayers for Portland.
 

ChaosTheory

A fat woman came into the shoe store today...
Let’s see what Chaos thinks about this.
Sure. But before I go on, I'd like to point out that you (and Boxy) seem to miss the initial point. It's not a dick-measuring contest for whose "team" has worse shit happen to them. It was about harmful messages. J.K. Rowling isn't on the level. Garrett Foster is. Bernell Trammell is.

As for this shooting, I'll break it down first, then comment.

-------------------

No official information has been released yet. From what I gather on this incident:

-Protesters were blocking the street
-Driver attempts to get through
-Driver is swarmed by protesters
-After some time, nine shots in total are fired
-Car took off, police and medics arrive, driver apparently went to the cops


-------------------

My take:

I don't have a problem in general with open-carry. I don't think the fact that he was open-carrying is the reason this happened. You tried to preempt the argument saying he was running people over, so lets get that out of the way. From what I saw, the driver tries to turn a corner, people are in the way and he stops before being swarmed. Maybe you saw a video that I didn't. But if we're looking at the same footage, it doesn't warrant the claim that he was "trying to run people over."

17249

You can see from the still shot that, along with the mob, Foster has approached the driver's side of the vehicle, chicken-winging his rifle. It's a ready position. That's a much different scenario than a peaceful protester simply exercising his Second Amendment rights.

If you're going to tell me that if you were in the driver's position, you wouldn't feel imminent threat, then OK. I doubt it, but OK. For most of us, fight-or-flight would kick in. If a mob swarms a vehicle and begins assaulting it, and one of them approaches with a weapon drawn and readied, you shouldn't be surprised if the driver and/or passengers fight back. And in Texas of all places, you shouldn't be surprised if they fight back with firepower.

Not like it's a one-off thing.

17250

This guy (fuck his name) was peacefully protesting in Provo, Utah. They tried obstructing traffic and blocking an intersection, assaulting and damaging vehicles that tried to pass. A white Excursion pulls up, gets swarmed, this guy pulls out a handgun, fires, and hits the 60-year-old driver. The driver floors it, and he fires again. Dude goes back to peaceful protesting and later on is smashing other cars' windows, etc.

You've probably seen the video.


17251

This guy (fuck his name, too) was among the protesters in Atlanta, Georgia. He was arrested and charged felony murder of an 8-year-old little girl who was just riding in a car. That car tried to turn around in a parking lot that had an illegal barricade. They were confronted by armed men who opened fire on the car. The little girl got shot and killed.

You can look up other cases of vehicles being assaulted, drivers being pulled out, etc.

Bottom line, I don't find it unreasonable in the slightest to defend yourself in that type of situation. Would you sit there and take it?
 

Juggs

Lose without excuses
Lead Moderator
Protesting in the street or hwy (on the road in general) in which the road isn’t closed down is stupid and dangerous. Both for the protesters and the people inside the vehicles. And if on top of that you swarm a vehicle and prevent it from moving, you absolutely deserve whatever happens to you.

Not saying that’s what happened, haven’t looked into it. Just saying in general, if that is the scenario, the driver of the vehicle has every right to get out of there in any way possible.
 

Dankster Morgan

she don’t call me daddy she call me Grandmaster
Protesting in the street or hwy (on the road in general) in which the road isn’t closed down is stupid and dangerous. Both for the protesters and the people inside the vehicles. And if on top of that you swarm a vehicle and prevent it from moving, you absolutely deserve whatever happens to you.

Not saying that’s what happened, haven’t looked into it. Just saying in general, if that is the scenario, the driver of the vehicle has every right to get out of there in any way possible.
In NM there have been people just shooting people from the side of the road just because, if someone especially with a gun is in front of your vehicle and you got half a brain you run them over
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
The issue is, no matter whose 'fault' this is, the situation is sad.

We have someone dead over a minor disagreement. And for what -- does this really make everyone happy that they had "second amendment rights?"

What about the right to exist in peace without crazies bringing firearms out into public places? Or like, a society where people don't get shot over traffic stops. These things already exist in the modern first world, just not in America.

I would like to think that we are the kind of country that can move beyond this.. I really don't want my future kids to grow up in a place where people are shooting each other dead in the street 'just because'.
 

Sage Leviathan

I'm platinum mad!
*I deleted my post from earlier today regarding the Garrett Foster story. I meant to point out a hypocrisy about 2nd amendment rights as they relate to those fighting for Black lives but inadvertently I was spreading possibly wrong information about an emerging event. Apologies.
 

NaCl man

Welcome to Akihabara
Have a listen to the interview he did before he was shot. Its on YouTube, I won't upload as it has the shooting after, but this to me doesn't sound like a guy who is all about peace. Sounds like a bit of a nutter.

And the news saying he was pushing his girls wheel chair and got shot??? Photo says otherwise
 

Marlow

Premium
Premium Supporter
I tried that political compass thing, I think it's kinda busted. I got what everyone else got. Also, some of those questions seem a little wack.
 

Arqwart

Return to Monke
I tried that political compass thing, I think it's kinda busted. I got what everyone else got. Also, some of those questions seem a little wack.
It's an inadequate test because it boils down each topic to black and white "Very Left, Left, Right, Very Right" / "Very Auth, Auth, Lib, Very Lib" in addition to not having NEAR enough questions to be thorough. I wouldn't put any stock into it.
 

Obly

Ambiguous world creator
It's an inadequate test because it boils down each topic to black and white "Very Left, Left, Right, Very Right" / "Very Auth, Auth, Lib, Very Lib" in addition to not having NEAR enough questions to be thorough. I wouldn't put any stock into it.
I had similar thoughts when I took a look. I mean, impossible to know without seeing the psychometrics, but my guess is that the test is accurate for the direction of your philosophical leanings. That is, if the test says you're left-leaning and Libertarian-leaning, it's very unlikely you're actually a right-wing authoritarian. But you probably didn't need a test to tell you that.

More valuable, the test is probably also roughly accurate about your relative standing on the two dimensions. Relevant to what some folks ITT have been saying about how typical political discourse is too simplistic and promotes a false left-right dichotomy, you may think "I lean left," but the test can give a rough sense of whether your beliefs are actually more Libertarian than left (or vice versa). It's a useful distinction to make if dealing with some knuckle-dragger trying to argue that inside every Liberal is really some evil pinko Commie trying to come out.

That said, I agree with your criticisms. The questions should offer more response options (e.g., strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, etc.) for the results to have good precision. I'd read your results as having a pretty wide margin of error right now.

The questions are also all focused on philosophical beliefs without accounting for policy leanings. Two people can share generally the same philosophy (e.g., everyone should have access to good education) but legitimately disagree on the correct policy response (e.g., whether or not the gov't should offer everyone a college subsidy). So yeah, there's a lot of definition being left out.
 

Juggs

Lose without excuses
Lead Moderator
This endless obsession with a false left vs. right dichotomy is part of what keeps us from actually solving problems here.

The world doesn’t work along a linear scale.
It's an inadequate test because it boils down each topic to black and white "Very Left, Left, Right, Very Right" / "Very Auth, Auth, Lib, Very Lib" in addition to not having NEAR enough questions to be thorough. I wouldn't put any stock into it.
It’s just a fun test, y’all really need to lighten up. No one is taking it super seriously. I’ve just seen people take it and thought it would be fun. Fuck me I guess
 

Juggs

Lose without excuses
Lead Moderator
I thought it was a fun test.
Thank you Marlow, lol. I really just figured for those who wanted to, it would be a fun little test that didn’t mean much but just for curiosity sake. No one is saying this test is 100% definitive or anything.
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
It’s just a fun test, y’all really need to lighten up. No one is taking it super seriously. I’ve just seen people take it and thought it would be fun. Fuck me I guess
This wasn’t a response to your test; I’m just addressing the situation as a whole, and how silly it is that some people think you can fit the entire country into two categories.

At this point I’m just tired of it, and it’s a distraction in every social discussion from addressing the stuff we need to fix.

I’m not bothered by your graph, though, if that’s what you were thinking — by all means, have fun.