Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
- Feb 7, 2011
- 9,053
- 3,732
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
The cops are so excited to shoot people they don't care who they hit.
Because American soldiers train for fighting, not for marching.
Goose stepping isn't useful for combat.
So apparently only ten thousand or so people showed up for Trump's military parade thing, while in the Netherlands more than a hundred thousand people demonstrated against the genocide in Gaza. And that's in a country of 18 million people as opposed to a country of 340 million.
It's nice to get some more faith in humanity in these dark days.
It's nice to get some more faith in humanity in these dark days.
No time in the video shows him setting a fire or attacking the police. You are assuming he did these things and just keep insisting it as a definite, hoping that through repetition, people will believe it's in the video.
A horse is ridden over him and impact is visible as he lurches forward. A baton is swung at him by a horse rider. I have not retreated from anything; you've simply denied what's in the video.
Because another video shows someone that appears to be him, motionless in a pool of liquid, after he was subjected to incidents that could easily have resulted in severe blunt trauma.
You know that bleeding can be caused by wounds that aren't easily visible, right? Like being kicked in the head by a horse?
Everyone who watched that series of events, literally everyone, absolutely including you, understands what happened there. Nobody in the entire world would watch a man in a riot zone wearing a gas mask run away from the source of a fire trap aimed at the police and wonder if he was maybe a totally innocent bystander. It's not an impossible scenario, but it's so unlikely, you would have to be the dumbest person alive to believe that based only on the footage. You are lying.
And like, what are you trying to avoid here. In what way will it hurt you to say "ok, maybe that video wasn't the display of unwarranted police brutality that the internet thought it was"? You know you can come out better in an argument by acknowledging when your information was off, and it doesn't in any way compromise your principles. Lying compromises your principles.
He wasn't kicked in the head by a horse, from what we can see, and that puddle is like a foot and a half wide. For that to be a puddle of his blood, he'd have to spill like 10% of the blood in his body within literally a 10 second period and then be sitting up conscious 3 minutes later with no obvious blood on him or his clothing.
They are trained in drill, and tend to be somewhat proficient in it. Hell, every single Army friend and family member I've ever known has at least one story about being made to do it at great length as part and parcel of getting smoked for some fuck-up at basic or MOS training (though the most amusing I've heard come from Marine buddies).
I personally get the feeling a few feathers may be ruffled at the moment among those who aren't balls deep in the Kool-aid man, at Trump coopting the Army's 250th for the sake of his own ego and the ongoing posse comitatus violations.
There's a pretty decent chance he may be connected to the fire - at least associated with someone who did start it.
However, that's not the same standard of reasoning you've employed when Trump demands quid pro quos from foreign leaders, sexually assaults women, etc. though, is it? Then you're falling over yourself to find excuses for why what should be staring you in the face cannot possibly be true, and making up hysterically convoluted explanations to fend it away.
It is, in the sense that of course it isn't, there are genuinely different standards, legal, moral, and practical, between us considering the political implications of he-said/she-saids with hindsight vs the police capturing a suspect in the moment whom they have really straightforward probable cause to believe attacked the police with fire.
I'm quite certain I've said to you in both those other circumstances (the call with Ukraine and the E Jean Carroll case) that those situations seemed credible just on the face of them, but in both cases, more information only ever weakened those claims. If more information becomes available, and we can see something like maybe the other two people were lighting the fire and the guy who was caught was trying to stop them, let him free, I'm all for it. As I've said, it's not impossible he's innocent, but it's foolish to just believe so, and even more nonsensical to insist the police had no reason to detain him.
Trump claims 250K people watched the parade. "No Kings" protests drew around 4 million people.
www.the-independent.com
Trump team claims 250,000 watched military parade. ‘No Kings’ events drew 4 million
‘No Kings’ protests were estimated to have drawn more than one percent of U.S. population
www.the-independent.com
Repetition and volume do not make an argument.
Literally all you actually have is that fire was near him (as well as several other people) in a public street. That's it. You've lost sight of that by digging in.
I didn't say "kicked in the head"; I said he's ridden over by a horse, which is plainly visible to any honest observer, and could result in any number of blunt trauma injuries.
The blood thing is just ridiculous. A shallow puddle would by no means require "10% of his blood", and even a minor trauma can produce an impressive quantity of blood. I don't know that it was blood, it's not at all clear from the video and could easily be water, but then I'm not the one here accusing people with absolute certainty of things we don't see them doing.
That's absolutely not how you've approached this. You've stated his guilt as a fact, and used it not only as a reason to detain him, but as a justification for the potentially lethal situation he was put in. You've treated any suggestion that he may not have been responsible with disdain and called me a liar for refusing to join you in assuming definite guilt.
Last edited:
But even still, this is not consistent with your claim:
"Everyone who watched that series of events, literally everyone, absolutely including you, understands what happened there. Nobody in the entire world would watch a man in a riot zone wearing a gas mask run away from the source of a fire trap aimed at the police and wonder if he was maybe a totally innocent bystander."
In principle, this is acknowledging that when we have more information we could make a better judgement, and yet you're not affording this man any of that consideration at all. Although, of course, you were affording Trump extravagant defence even before additional information came through. (This is even without noting that your interpretation of a lot of the evidence in Trump's cases could politely be described as idiosyncratic.)
Correct, The Rogue Wolf said that part. That was a response to him.
No, I've stated your belief in his guilt as fact. I'm not saying he's absolutely guilty, I'm saying you absolutely believe he is, just like everyone else, and you'd be stupid not to. I'm not bothering to go back and count how many times I've said it's not impossible he's innocent, but I believe it was 3 or 4 times now.
Of course it is true that we make better judgments with more information, I just said to you that more information could change our perspectives here. I'm not affording the man the assumption that more information will do that in advance of that information existing, and police detaining someone at the scene of the crime don't get the luxury of waiting for more camera angles to show up.
Honestly, yeah, those protestors absolutely set the fire. There's not really room for debate there. The question underoos doesn't want asked and is going out of his way to dodge, is exactly which part of that justified the escalation, and made lethal violence a proportional response. As I said, he's acting like that was some Rambo IED crap when it was nothing of the sort.
But proportionality is the elephant in the room when protest comes up for debate, isn't it.
No, it isn't. Proportionality is an incredibly stupid concept that people waste their time on. "Proportionality" and "escalation" are not virtue and vice. If you're in the right, it doesn't matter if it's disproportionate. If you're in the wrong, it doesn't matter if it's less. One person being violent doesn't entitle the other side to violence in either direction. The people whose only direct goal in their actions is to harm the police aren't justified at all. The police who have to responsibility to stop people from harming each other are justified in detaining that person.
They didn't do anything to him that you can call "lethal violence". The only thing potentially lethal was the horses, and a near accident with animals near fireworks is not a decision to enact lethal violence.
Police don't always assault or detain people because they have a clear reason. As that cop who notably shot a journalist shows, sometimes they do it for malicious fun. Sometimes they don't know who did something, but they grab people in the vicinity just in case they might get lucky and stop the right one. Or because they meet an individual cop's opinion of what a suspicious person looks like, etc. Long and short of it, there are lots of reasons the cops detain people people that aren't because they saw that person commit a crime.
That guy doesn't seem to be aggressive or difficult for much of that video. But for some reason, despite him being on the ground, at bay and surrounded by three mounted policemen, one cop decides to ride his horse over the man anyway. This had the potential to cause serious injury or even death... for what? Why did one strike at him at all?This wasn't an ongoing fracas.
Oop, fair enough.
Your words:
"He aimed a freaking 30 foot fireball at the police."
"Yes, that tends to be a possible outcome when shooting fireballs at mounted police."
"safely detained after trying to light the cops on fire."
...and several more similar repetitions. So you can say you're not assuming definite guilt, but your approach has been to use the presumption of guilt as a justification for the actions of the police.
Presumption of guilt for something none of us see. And actions of the police which put him in a situation you acknowledge as potentially lethal.
Ah, there we go, now your post makes sense.
You see, that's where tstorm done fuk'd up. He's confusing fireball, a 3rd level spell, with wall of fire, a 4th level spell. And you can't get a 30' radius out of fireball, since the widen spell metamagic doubles the radius to 40'. Antifor was clearly casting wall of fire, not fireball, and he did it far enough away -- but without lining it up properly -- the Porkbeast Cavalry would have used their movement to avoid it and still take their standard actions to use their wands of stinking cloud or scorching ray. Wall of fire doesn't even heavily obscure its own squares or squares behind it.
I agree it was a major misplay on Antifor's part, but you gotta respect that concentration bonus to maintain it while getting surrounded and one-round KO'ed by the Porkbeast Cavalry.
Last edited: