The News Thread

[CiG]

So I watched all the multiple angles of that whole clusterfuck and eh, I think he was justified in slamming that woman to the ground (which is what set the mob on him). She wasn't just innocently trying to herd people out of the statue landing zone, she was pretty blatantly stepping backwards into the guy who shot the AntiFa retard and her arm was in his face/neck area. She knew what the fuck she was doing, she was trying to be aggressive while trying to pull her "he won't retaliate" female privilege card.

Hope that guy gets off completely on all charges. Also the media referring to that protest as peaceful while simultaneously acknowledging that they're there to illegally rip down a statue is hilarious.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think vandalism is technically a nonviolent crime.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Assault isn't though.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

@Einherjar86

https://twitter.com/i/status/1272962710989307909

...........

 

[CiG]

I think vandalism is technically a nonviolent crime.

Does something have to be violent for it to cease being peaceful?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Hope that guy gets off completely on all charges. Also the media referring to that protest as peaceful while simultaneously acknowledging that they're there to illegally rip down a statue is hilarious.

no surprise. the media has again proven in the last few weeks that they are completely biased. the left iz da good guyz. the left iz da victimz. herder.

Does something have to be violent for it to cease being peaceful?

cmon dude, youre asking the same twat who just echoes the same shit we all hear and see from the mainstream media. the guy is a joke.

 

[Einherjar86]

Assault isn't though.

Yes, but that wasn’t part of the post I was responding to, was it smarty pants?

Does something have to be violent for it to cease being peaceful?

That’s a good question; but “peacefulness” isn’t part of the legalese. So I’m not sure how to define it.

@Einherjar86

...........

I am? I feel so alive though...

 

[CiG]

That’s a good question; but “peacefulness” isn’t part of the legalese. So I’m not sure how to define it.

Didn't realise mediaspeak was legalese.

 

[Einherjar86]

Didn't realise mediaspeak was legalese.

Not what I meant. The media used the word “peaceful”; the legalese doesn’t. So I’m not sure how to define “peaceful.”

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

since when the fuck did you start pretending to be some kind of lawyer and not the average commie scumbag that you truly are? Dirty little bastard always trying to weasel out of arguments when he gets crushed.

 

[CiG]

See she wasn't just trying to get people back out of concern for their safety, she was on this guy like a fly on shit. Totally deserved to get slammed.

Not what I meant. The media used the word “peaceful”; the legalese doesn’t. So I’m not sure how to define “peaceful.”

You're overthinking it. If you have a party and people vandalize your home, it wasn't a peaceful party. Legalese is irrelevant here since we're talking about regular old definitions that normies and the media use.

 

[Krow]

At least he shot a skateboard antifa. Those ones are really annoying.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Totally deserved to get slammed.

he should've gave her a belly to back german suplex

 

[Einherjar86]

You're overthinking it. If you have a party and people vandalize your home, it wasn't a peaceful party. Legalese is irrelevant here since we're talking about regular old definitions that normies and the media use.

Totally fair. I was approaching it from the perspective of how law enforcement would respond, i.e. how they would classify it—violent or nonviolent. To that extent, “peaceful” would seem (in my opinion) to vary depending on what those involved perceive as tolerable.

Destruction of property can be carried out peacefully, in my honest opinion. But it has to be consensually agreed to and tolerated by the parties involved. If someone trashed my home during a party, you’re right—that probably isn’t peaceful. But if organized protesters consensually tear down a public statue, and state/city officials choose not to intervene, I think that can be peaceful.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Destruction of property can be carried out peacefully, in my honest opinion. But it has to be consensually agreed to and tolerated by the parties involved.

the amount of retardation in those two sentences is amazing. Lmao what a fucking idiot

 

[CiG]

Totally fair. I was approaching it from the perspective of how law enforcement would respond, i.e. how they would classify it—violent or nonviolent. To that extent, “peaceful” would seem (in my opinion) to vary depending on what those involved perceive as tolerable.

Destruction of property can be carried out peacefully, in my honest opinion. But it has to be consensually agreed to and tolerated by the parties involved. If someone trashed my home during a party, you’re right—that probably isn’t peaceful. But if organized protesters consensually tear down a public statue, and state/city officials choose not to intervene, I think that can be peaceful.

What if other parties don't consent and intervene? This is where this idea of consensual destruction of public property runs into issues.

 

[Einherjar86]

What if other parties don't consent and intervene? This is where this idea of consensual destruction of public property runs into issues.

It’s public property though; if no one feels the need to intervene, then there’s no personal loss.

 

[CiG]

It’s public property though; if no one feels the need to intervene, then there’s no personal loss.

But people are intervening, and they're being met with force thus rendering the entire thing non-consensual. Your idea of "peacefully" destroying public property requires that everybody consents. That's not even including the people who oppose such things from a distance without the ability to go and stop it from happening.

It really doesn't make any sense tbh.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

"lets go "peacefully" vandalize and trash a park". After all, it's okay since it's only "public" property The lengths to which this moron will go in order to render her nonsensical arguments as valid is truly amazing.

ein is just once again showcasing her true commie colors

 

[Einherjar86]

But people are intervening, and they're being met with force thus rendering the entire thing non-consensual. Your idea of "peacefully" destroying public property requires that everybody consents.

You're right, and I was specifically commenting on your earlier post in which "peacefulness" and "vandalism" were being contrasted. If acts of resistance between people are occurring, then I'd agree it's not peaceful.

That's not even including the people who oppose such things from a distance without the ability to go and stop it from happening.

It really doesn't make any sense tbh.

Well, that's kind of the deal with public property. Someone might think "aw shucks" from a distance, but not be in a position (or willing) to intervene. The protection of public monuments is left to hired officials; and if they choose not to carry out the will of the people to intervene, then the vandalism is virtually consensual, even if there are those who disagree.

Mostly, I think the destruction of public monuments is an instance for conservatives to proclaim "But what about history!" They don't really care all that much for the statues themselves. I mean, does anyone?