If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,841
- 113
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Protesters were screaming "white power" and "are you going to let our democracy die" at senator Manchin, this is hilarious.
Edit: Divisive free speech advocate Jordan Peterson calls on Judge Kavanaugh to stand down if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Edit: Divisive free speech advocate Jordan Peterson calls on Judge Kavanaugh to stand down if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Last edited:
Vegard Pompey
ALLY TO GOOD, NIGHTMARE TO YOU
A 400+ word article on a 6-word tweet. Nice clickbaity headline too, a single throwaway tweet in a conversation with a friend is now a "call for Kavanaugh to step down". Gotta love modern journalism.
But I do like seeing Peterson not taking the conservatives' side for a change.
But I do like seeing Peterson not taking the conservatives' side for a change.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
The one time he does and it's a pretty retarded position he's taken.
Not that I really buy the implication that siding against far-leftism = siding with conservatives.
Not that I really buy the implication that siding against far-leftism = siding with conservatives.
Vegard Pompey
ALLY TO GOOD, NIGHTMARE TO YOU
I don't agree that you would have to be a far-leftist to oppose Kavanaugh's nomination.
Anyway, more context on this tweet: Peterson was replying to a series of tweets by Bret Weinstein in which he explained that both outcomes would be unacceptable, because 1) Kavanaugh being confirmed would mean placing a person of questionable integrity on the Supreme Court, and 2) Kavanaugh not being confirmed would set a dangerous precedent, in which a Supreme Court nomination can be veto'd by accusation. JBP's tweet was a proposed solution to this no-win situation.
Anyway, more context on this tweet: Peterson was replying to a series of tweets by Bret Weinstein in which he explained that both outcomes would be unacceptable, because 1) Kavanaugh being confirmed would mean placing a person of questionable integrity on the Supreme Court, and 2) Kavanaugh not being confirmed would set a dangerous precedent, in which a Supreme Court nomination can be veto'd by accusation. JBP's tweet was a proposed solution to this no-win situation.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Didn't say that, I'm talking about your implication that Peterson has a history of siding with conservatives.
It was the definition of a pretty pointless centrist opinion, one which makes Peterson look ethical and correct regardless of what happens.
Einherjar86
Active Member
You seem to think you have some objective view on reality from the outside or some such. You're just as susceptible to paranoia and bias as everyone else, and you're reading these videos the way you want to.
The first video shows practically nothing. The second video shows a group of men pulling on a flag and Harris striking the man with a flashlight after he claims the man tried to use the flag to ram his friends. Nothing here is definitive about anything. Talking about "proof" that Harris attacked first is confirmation bias and seeing exactly what you want to see in the visual evidence.
I'm not saying Harris is innocent or undeserving of retaliation. I am saying that the video evidence of the later sequence (i.e. the white guys beating the shit out of him) is demonstrably worse than either of those two videos. In both of the videos you posted, we can see people pulling on a flag and brief physical assault. The video of Harris's beating is an extended sequence of assault by multiple actors assaulting one person (emphatically not an inanimate object like a flagpole).
EDIT: put it this way--there is such a thing as an appropriate response. The response by the rioters at C-ville was inappropriate and disproportionate in the extreme. They continued to attack Harris after he no longer posed any threat, if he even did in the first place (and sure, he probably did; but neither of the videos above are proof that his attack was the "first").
In the case of the pro-choice kick, that was an inappropriate reaction to which the victim showed remarkable restraint. Hell, I'd have been fine if she pushed him back; but she didn't, and that guy's suffering the consequences for it. The entire video is fairly conclusive and the situation is clear. That's not the case in any video evidence of Harris's "first" assault.
Last edited:
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Women Let Out A Primal Scream Over Brett Kavanaugh. It Didn’t Matter.
"The government cupped its hands over women’s mouths and turned the music up."
"The government cupped its hands over women’s mouths and turned the music up."
Last edited:
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,841
- 113
Dak
mentat
Kavanaugh was confirmed with probably precisely the same number of votes as would have been without all the circus Dems tried to introduce. An NPR poll showed that the whole fiasco really fired up Republicans, while Democratic voters were already about as fired up as they could be. Seems like the manufacturing of grievance was a losing move. I guess we will see in another month, but the real shame here is that a Kavanaugh confirmation had legitimate issues related to the 4th amendment, which no Democrat was interested in. Instead, they - including hypocritical shitstains like Booker - tried to use trumped up allegations of a non-legal basis to fire up a base, because the base was too ignorant to care about actual legal matters and because the Democratic leaders are more than happy with the trashing of the 4th amendment. While the Cathedral in the US continues to pretend like they have all the numbers and ethics, worldwide the agenda is slowly beginning to fall. It may not fail ultimately, but there's an inter and intra national realignment underway. I don't know how it's going to turn out but we all live in very interesting times, as much as a curse as that may be.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Reality isn't subjective. Reality's reality--but none of us have a monopoly on it, or any privileged (read: objective) perspective.
It remains the case that you and I and every human being can only have a perspective on reality, but that doesn't mean reality reduces to our perspectives. If we're going to call reality anything, the best we can say is that it's an impossibly complex assemblage of all perspectives (on which, logically, there is no total perspective). Ronald N. Giere calls this "scientific perspectivism," and he backs it with Ian Hacking's contingency thesis--i.e. that "knowledge is grounded in the local contingencies of its production or construction and, in principle, could have been significantly different without necessarily being significantly worse." Perspectives are conditioned by their historical context and view things in particular ways. For humans, this means viewing events with values toward which we're predisposed; and for inanimate observing apparatuses (like video recorders) it means viewing reality according to the specs to which they're built and the directions their users point them. In both cases, we're looking at reality through perspectives, which automatically limits and conditions what we perceive.
The other crucial aspect of perspectivism is that relations between perspectives are dictated by uncertainty. This doesn't mean we can't know anything, but it does mean that some information inevitably--and logically--escapes the domain of the perspective. There are examples of this in the natural and social sciences, and at this point it's basically an accepted tenet of scientific and philosophical thought that knowledge isn't the exorcism of uncertainty, but rather that uncertainty is built into knowledge. Knowing entails non-knowing.
To the videos above, I'll say again that they offer no proof as to the beginning of the (or any) assault. There is uncertainty and, given the scope and complexity of the Charlottesville riots, I don't think the videos prove anything.
In the case of the guy who kicked the pro-lifer, however, there isn't much uncertainty at all.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Well, the guy who kicked the pro-lifer I'm at least willing to believe he meant to hit her phone, the way he wound up the kick seemed more like a class-clown act rather than genuine aggression. Can't say the same for that other guy, he seemed pretty intent on making contact on that guy's head with his weapon.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, if we're trying to boil it down to retaliatory violence, how can we be sure the guy with the flag pole wasn't trying to ram it into the people pulling on it, and Harris was trying to stop him? If you watch the video, it's impossible to tell how much pushing/pulling was actually going on.
Furthermore, the problem with allowing retaliatory violence is that once you do, you open the floodgates. You can't measure violence so as to calculate how much should be allotted in return, or determine when the balance is paid. It strikes me as completely foolhardy to think we can use video evidence, of all things, to make such determinations. It's a purely value-based judgment.
Furthermore, the problem with allowing retaliatory violence is that once you do, you open the floodgates. You can't measure violence so as to calculate how much should be allotted in return, or determine when the balance is paid. It strikes me as completely foolhardy to think we can use video evidence, of all things, to make such determinations. It's a purely value-based judgment.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
We can't, all I'm saying is - in the absence of the full context being known to us, going solely by what video we have of both incidents - Harris displayed a genuine intention to commit bodily harm and Fruitcake Swayze displayed a genuine intention to commit harm to property in an attempt to be edgy.
Einherjar86
Active Member
How does a video demonstrate a "genuine intention"? All it displays is an action. Harris claims he was trying to knock the pole out of the guy's hands; the kicker claims he was trying to kick the woman's phone.
Why is one more genuine than the other?
Why is one more genuine than the other?
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
The woman was holding her phone in-front of her face so the kick intended for the phone could very easily accidentally hit her face, Harris claims he swung for the pole in the man's hands which was held at waist level yet he completely seems to hit him in the face shown by the way the man's head snaps backwards. I mean... either he's a lying cunt or an inaccurate loser.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Right... because it's impossible that at the moment he swung the flashlight toward the pole the man holding it wasn't either pulled toward Harris or didn't lunge forward.
Again, it's ridiculous to think we can assess the situation from the video evidence.
Again, it's ridiculous to think we can assess the situation from the video evidence.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Disingenuous twat, I didn't say it was impossible, but swinging at someone's waist is a different movement to swinging at someone's head. Watch the video HBB posted, Harris swings in a wide vertical arc so unless his shoulder was dislocated and that was the only way he could swing downward it makes no fucking sense to swing low in that way.
If you look closely Harris didn't just hit the guy in the head but it seems like he hit him in the back of the fucking head.
Last edited:
Similar threads
