Randomness thread, part two.

[OngBonga]

boost, do you suppose Kaepernick is ignorant with regards black history? Do you suppose he didn't anticipate a deeply divided reaction?

[OngBonga]

On another note, the UK has suggested it will offer citizenship to up to 3million Hong Kong citizens if China imposes new security laws. This is where you find out whose anti-immigration sentiments are racist. Here we're talking about a non-religious, economically successful group of people who have already shown they can integrate and respect law and order. I can't think of any reason why we should oppose UK citizenship for Hong Kongers. I would go as far as to say we have an obligation, more so than any other nation on the planet.

Anyone who opposes this I would assume is racist. The cost of integration to the taxpayer will easily be offset by the economic activity of the incoming migrants. There is no risk to national security, or social security. Hong Kongers should be made to feel very welcome here, and for the most part, they will be.

[Poopadoop]

Not getting murder is not a privilege.

Advantage?

[Poopadoop]

On another note, the UK has suggested it will offer citizenship to up to 3million Hong Kong citizens if China imposes new security laws.

We need fruit pickers.

I would go as far as to say we have an obligation, more so than any other nation on the planet.

Sins of our fathers. Carries no obligation.

Anyone who opposes this I would assume is racist.

I don't oppose it if it's applied universally to all peoples of all nations. If it isn't, then that is racist.

[CoccoBill]

Anyone who opposes [treating people differently based on where they're from] I would assume is racist.

I would assume coming to this conclusion requires some mental acrobatics.

[OngBonga]

We need fruit pickers.

We do. We're perfectly capable of doing this, and if we don't, then we deserve excessive prices.

Sins of our fathers. Carries no obligation.

Not quite. We're talking about a territory we handed over in 1997, with caveats, such as continued autonomy for I think 50 years. China appear to be reneging on this agreement. We have an obligation, not because of our history, but because of a contract we essentially have with the Hong Kong people now, at this time.

I don't oppose it if it's applied universally to all peoples of all nations. If it isn't, then that is racist.

We don't have room for all people of all nations, nor do we have an obligation. Even still, it's not racist or xenophobic at all to say certain people don't have the same immigration rights as others. That kind of policy is going on all around the world, it's standard. For example, Australia and New Zealand share benefits for each other that others don't enjoy. Is that xenophobic? It's not racist because I'm white and I don't enjoy the same advantages as Australians when it comes to migrating to NZ. Nor is it xenophobic, since I am allowed to NZ, provided I meet certain criteria (which incidentally I don't because I'm useless to them).

[OngBonga]

I would assume coming to this conclusion requires some mental acrobatics.

I tried to leave it alone in poop's post, but you've done exactly the same thing.

Racism and xenophobia are not the same thing. If I discriminate against someone because of where they are from, I have not been racist. I have been xenophobic.

But read my post to poop, and the same applies. People are treated differently, it's standard immigration policy. Can I move to Israel? I can if I'm a Jew. But I'm not. Can I move to USA? It's be easier if I were Canadian. This isn't xenophobia, it's reciprocal immigration policies that benefit the nations in question.

[OngBonga]

I imagine that Sweden has more favourable immigration policies towards the people of Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland than it does any other nations. Are Sweden being racist?

[OngBonga]

I feel like you guys, if in charge of immigration, would basically say "we can accept x a year" and start picking names out of a hat. That's totally fair. But it's not optimal. Why should I be allowed to go to NZ and eat up their benefits instead of, say, a nurse? Why should NZ give us both an equal chance of success?

[Poopadoop]

We do. We're perfectly capable of doing this, and if we don't, then we deserve excessive prices.

And we'll have to bail out the farmers. Brexit ftw.

Not quite. We're talking about a territory we handed over in 1997, with caveats, such as continued autonomy for I think 50 years. China appear to be reneging on this agreement. We have an obligation, not because of our history, but because of a contract we essentially have with the Hong Kong people now, at this time.

Not really. Our deal was with China, not HK. Anything we do for HK is to assauge national guilt, which we shouldn't have because none of us were alive when we borrowed HK from the Chinese.

And if we'e going to start adopting immigration policies based on national guilt, we've got some work to do in the Caribbean, Africa, and other parts of Asia before we get to HK.

We don't have room for all people of all nations, nor do we have an obligation. Even still, it's not racist or xenophobic at all to say certain people don't have the same immigration rights as others. That kind of policy is going on all around the world, it's standard. For example, Australia and New Zealand share benefits for each other that others don't enjoy. Is that xenophobic? It's not racist because I'm white and I don't enjoy the same advantages as Australians when it comes to migrating to NZ. Nor is it xenophobic, since I am allowed to NZ, provided I meet certain criteria (which incidentally I don't because I'm useless to them).

Just because other countries have prejudicial immigration policies doesn't give us the right to have them too.

[OngBonga]

And we'll have to bail out the farmers. Brexit ftw.

Things were much simpler when the EU basically paid our farms to have empty fields.

Not really. Our deal was with China, not HK

I'm extremely surprised you're taking this position. The contract might be with China, but the obligation is with the people of Hong Kong, since we ruled them and have now handed power over to another party, one they don't trust as much as they trust us.

Anything we do for HK is to assauge national guilt, which we shouldn't have because none of us were alive when we borrowed HK from the Chinese.

I was, and unless you're under the age of 23, then you were too. The colonial "crime" of "borrowing" HK from China was still being committed during both of our lives.

And if we'e going to start adopting immigration policies based on national guilt, we've got some work to do in the Caribbean, Africa, and other parts of Asia before we get to HK.

It's not a policy based on national guilt, it's a policy based on current treaties and agreements.

Just because other countries have prejudicial immigration policies doesn't give us the right to have them too.

It's astonishing that you actually think everyone from every nation should be treated equally when it comes to a nation's immigration policy. It's a deranged policy that puts equality above all over factors, such as economic usefulness, criminal history, cultural compatibility (religion and language), quality of education, standard of living (people used to lawless environments are harder to integrate)... people are not equal, no matter how nice it would be if we were. I am not the equal of a nurse, I should not have the same immigration rights as a nurse. Do you think I should have the same immigration rights as a nurse?

[OngBonga]

Once we've established I am not the equal of a nurse, we recognise that economic discrimination is perfectly fair. So let's look at cultural discrimination. Is that fair?

Should Mexico treat me as the equal of a Spanish person? I can't speak Spanish, so it would be harder for me to settle. Why should Mexico take me instead of a Spanish person? Why should I be treated equally?

[OngBonga]

Is religious discrimination fair? Let's say I want to move to UAE, and so does an equally qualified Saudi. The Saudi is a Muslim and will be much more aware of local customs and sensitivities than I will. The Saudi is more likely to become a valuable member of the community than I am. Should we still be treated as equals?

[OngBonga]

Let's say I own a house and I'm struggling to pay the bills, so I bring in a lodger. I am obviously going to want someone I can live with. I am going to be interviewing people and basically discriminating... if they listen to Coldplay, they can fuck off, if they don't speak English, they can fuck off, if it's 40-stone woman, she can fuck off, if he talks too quietly so I have to keep asking him to repeat himself, he can fuck off. Discrimination is part of everyday life, it's how we form friendships. A world without discrimination is a world where your friends are randomly selected, so is your wife, so is the town you choose to live in, so is the car you drive, all your decisions are basically randed to ensure there is no prejudice involved, because as soon as you start making decisions based on preference, you are discriminating.

[Poopadoop]

Meanwhile in 'Murica, cops are taking Trump's whole "The press is the enemy of the people" thing both literally and seriously.

[oskar]

Good boy!

[OngBonga]

[enter meme of deranged left winger on a chess board as a pawn here]

[OngBonga]

The right to not be murdered is absolute, thus it is not a privilege.

[CoccoBill]

I tried to leave it alone in poop's post, but you've done exactly the same thing.

Racism and xenophobia are not the same thing. If I discriminate against someone because of where they are from, I have not been racist. I have been xenophobic.

But read my post to poop, and the same applies. People are treated differently, it's standard immigration policy. Can I move to Israel? I can if I'm a Jew. But I'm not. Can I move to USA? It's be easier if I were Canadian. This isn't xenophobia, it's reciprocal immigration policies that benefit the nations in question.

It's one thing to have restrictions on e.g. immigration based on nationality. It's a whole another thing to say those that oppose them are racist.

Edit: Just to make it perfectly clear, I didn't say anything about anyone being racist. You said people opposing nationality based restrictions are racist.

[OngBonga]

It's one thing to have restrictions on e.g. immigration based on nationality. It's a whole another thing to say those that oppose them are racist.

I guess the point I was making is that many of the reasons a lot of people oppose immigration do not apply to Hong Kongers.

[Poopadoop]

[enter meme of deranged left winger on a chess board as a pawn here]

I for one am sick of being used by people who care about racial discrimination to push their agenda of equal treatment under the law.

[OngBonga]

I for one am sick of being used by people who care about racial discrimination to push their agenda of equal treatment under the law.

Nc6

[Poopadoop]

durrrrr I'm a troll

fyp

[OngBonga]

I can definitely be a troll, but I don't take positions that are opposite to my real views. Not here, anyway. I did suck some guy into a discussion about flat earth on Twitter, asking him to explain gravity and then mocking his poor attempt at doing so. I'm not all that good at true trolling though, I mean I lost him when I told him the planets were CGI images on the dome, shortly after correctly explaining why the moon was drifting away because his explanation was wrong. I'm too obviously a troll. Still amuses me though.

I for one am sick of being used by people who care about racial discrimination to push their agenda of equal treatment under the law.

My counter to this is basically that this is not what is really happening, rather your anti-racist emotions are being used to manipulate you into supporting a political agenda, which is not equality like you think, but is rather social division.

But maybe I'm just being paranoid. Maybe there are people in power who actually want equality, even though it was inequality that got them into power in the first place.

[Poopadoop]

My counter to this is basically that this is not what is really happening, rather your anti-racist emotions are being used to manipulate you into supporting a political agenda, which is not equality like you think, but is rather social division.

But maybe I'm just being paranoid. Maybe there are people in power who actually want equality, even though it was inequality that got them into power in the first place.

If people like me are being manipulated into thinking Trump is bad for equality and almost anyone else would be better than he, then I'm a monkey's bollocks. All you have to do is look at his behaviour and clearly he's having bad influence on things.

You keep bringing up social division but there's a simple fix to that: It's the existence of inequalities that create social division, not the attempts to fix those inequalities, peaceful or otherwise. Treat everyone the same and they'll all feel like a part of the same community. Have you thought of that?

[OngBonga]

If people like me are being manipulated into thinking Trump is bad for equality...

This is the manipulation. You've personified the inequality. Has Trump been in charge since MLK?

The system is bad for inequality. Overthrowing Trump won't change the system.

[OngBonga]

Treat everyone the same and they'll all feel like a part of the same community. Have you thought of that?

But everyone isn't the same. How does living in a fantasy help to form a stable civilisation?

[OngBonga]

On a lighter note... a peek inside the brain of a genius.

It starts around 9:12, watch for around 20 seconds. The nodding to music at the end...

[Poopadoop]

This is the manipulation. You've personified the inequality. Has Trump been in charge since MLK?

The system is bad for inequality. Overthrowing Trump won't change the system.

He's making things worse is my point.

[Poopadoop]

But everyone isn't the same. How does living in a fantasy help to form a stable civilisation?

Does everyone at least deserve the same treatment under the law? Can you go that far or no?

[OngBonga]

He's making things worse is my point.

I'm not even sure about this. I mean, I definitely agree that people feel racial inequalities are worse under Trump, but do the figures support that? How many black people have died at the hands of cops during Trump's term, compared to Obama's last term? I've tried to find those figures but it's not easy. That would be a reasonable measure of whether things have actually got worse under Trump, as opposed to people just assuming it's worse because "aaaaargggghhh Trump".

But maybe things are actually worse. When Trump got into power, I was glad Clinton lost. The reason was because I knew Clinton was just a cog in the system, whereas Trump I wasn't so sure about. There was hope he was actually going to bring down the Clintons of the world. Now after five years of Trump, I'm thinking he's just part of the same bunch of cunts, he is one of the Clintons of the world.

Does everyone at least deserve the same treatment under the law? Can you go that far or no?

Does everyone deserve equal treatment under law? Yes, to the degree this is practical and reasonable, at least. But of course, since we are not all equal, we cannot all afford equal legal defence, and so the system systematically discriminates against poor people when it comes to law. Is this fixable? Some lawyers are better than others, and the better lawyers will always go where the money is.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not even sure about this.

It's not rocket science that when a nation's leader continuously dog whistles to racists and refuses to say anything against racists 'cause he knows they vote for him, it will make things worse.

Does everyone deserve equal treatment under law? Yes, to the degree this is practical and reasonable, at least.

So presumably you agree it's reasonable and practical that black people shouldn't be targeted by cops for bad treatment, and then the cops get off. Because that's what's been happening up till now.

[OngBonga]

So presumably you agree it's reasonable and practical that black people shouldn't be targeted by cops for bad treatment, and then the cops get off. Because that's what's been happening up till now.

Of course they shouldn't. Neither should white people, nor Native Americans.

[OngBonga]

The same people who were moaning about Cummings are now celebrating the muppets in Hyde Park gathered to "demand justice" for something that happened in another country.

[Poopadoop]

The same people who were moaning about Cummings are now celebrating the muppets in Hyde Park gathered to "demand justice" for something that happened in another country.

I know. Those idiots are spreading CV around. Don't see why they can't have a socially-distanced protest or an online protest or w/e. I seriously wonder how much of this is just people looking for an excuse to get out of the house.

[OngBonga]

I could understand the sense of urgency if this directly involved us, but other than to show solidarity, there's nothing to be gained by protesting. Our government can't do anything. I guess it serves as a reminder that we do have racial issues here that could boil over, but there is absolutely no need for any violent protest here whatsoever. Downing Street has come under fire from bottles and stuff. There are people actively looking to escalate things here in the UK. These people are pushing agendas, and it's extremely dangerous.

[OngBonga]

Most people are not violently protesting here, it should be said. That's not clear from my previous post. The vast majority of protesters here are just idiots showing complete disregard for social distancing.

[Poopadoop]

Trump now saying he went to "inspect" the bunker. #BunkerBaby trending on twitter.

Meanwhile, paramilitary types with no insignia and name tags are serving as riot police in D.C.

Also, there is now at least one counter-protest going on by an open carry group. Standing on the boulevard holding assault rifles while the protesters walk by.

[OngBonga]

Someone actually tried to loot a gun shop.

It ended how you'd expect.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Trump didn't cause the problems we're protesting, no. That has never been said.

Trump is sowing division, not trying to unite. He's repeatedly used language from the 60's persecution of blacks during this crisis.
"When the looting starts the shooting starts"
"set upon with vicious dogs and ominous weapons"
while also bragging about how he "couldn't feel safer" in his ivory tower, protected by dozens of armed guards.


Every living ex-president has spoken out on this with a tone of reconciliation. Even Bush, the only living republican ex POTUS.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yesterday, Trump held a press conference saying he was the president of "law and order"
Then he ordered DC police to fire munitions - tear gas and rubber bullets - at a group of peaceful protestors in Lafayette Park.
He ordered this so he could stroll across the park for a photo op at a church where he did not kneel down, did not pray, did not meet with any clergy, and held up a bible like it was a fish.
Even the clergy of that church were driven off by the police.

Lafayette Park has been a locus of peaceful protests in the US for over 100 years, holding protestors who frequently set up tents and stay for days or weeks.
The protestors fired upon were peaceful. They were not throwing rocks, not throwing water bottles, not rioting, not looting.
They were given 10 minutes notice to disperse, without any direction of to where they should disperse. They weren't given enough time for the crowd to digest the information and comply.

Then our president of "law and order" stayed out after the city-wide curfew for his precious photo op.

Earlier in the day, he held a phone call with all the state's governors and said they were fools to not "dominate the protestors," making no distinction between peaceful protestors vs rioters and looters.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is unconscionable. He's ordering attacks on peaceful protestors exercising their constitutional right to peacefully protest, in a place that is historically exactly where these protests happen.

This is not a political rant. You know that I've repeatedly said that vilifying the POTUS is low-hanging fruit, and that it's puerile to pretend we have access to his level of information, and therefore hubris to judge his actions like he's someone "like us." I'm not a "bleeding heart liberal," and you know that about me.

This is an affront to democracy. This is unconstitutional.
And, I haven't heard anyone say it in any news media, but to me, this is a breath away from treason. This is one move away from actively inciting war against Americans.

[MadMojoMonkey]

All against his boogeyman villain of antifa. A name without an organization, for a "group" without a leader, without meetings or newsletters.

Trump claimed antifa is a terrorist organization, a claim which he has no legal authority or framework to make. There is literally no law that allows any politician to declare an American group as terrorists.

Trump claims he can instate the insurrection act against peaceful protestors.


If this is allowed to continue, without opposition, America will be a police state.

[OngBonga]

Trump is sewing division

I think you mean "sowing". And so is the entire political establishment. So is everyone on Twitter. So are the looters, the gun people, the police, the footballers, the media.

Yesterday, Trump held a press conference saying he was the president of "law and order"

Welcome to neoconservatism, which is basically fascism. Vote for the neoliberals instead, which is basically a different brand of fascism.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're missing the important points to focus on trivialities.
(Thanks for the spelling correction, I guess. I fixed it.)

Sorry if I'm not the world's best public speaker.



And your statement, "not being murdered isn't a privilege," is how it should be, but the reality is that it's not.
If you're saying that you think that's how it should be, then you should probably recognize that it's not, and not blindly assert that the letter of the law is how it is enforced, because there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that the reality is not what it should be.

[OngBonga]

idk if Antifa are even really a thing or not, and anyone here who pretends to know is lying. Maybe it's like Anonymous where you just basically need to buy the tee shirt to join, or maybe someone somewhere is funding and organising left-wing mobs. Fucked if I know.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is for anyone who wants to hear a lawyer's take on the events surrounding that photo op.
He gets emotional, and is speaking as a citizen, not in his capacity as a lawyer, but his position is colored by this.

@ong, it's over 18 minutes, so ... you know... I don't really expect you to watch it.
If you're going to spend the 18 minutes, you'd be much better served watching the Trevor Noah vlog I posted recently.

[OngBonga]

You're missing the important points to focus on trivialities.

What important point? That Trump is an asshole? I know he is. He's showing his true colours here, everything he has done in response to these riots points towards fascism. But his opponents are also showing their true colours, exploiting the death of a black man to oust a president they don't like, or worse, to incite civil unrest.

What's the endgame? Is this how they go about imposing China-style totalitarianism on the western world? Create the conditions for civil war, and then impose a fascist clampdown on civil rights?

I don't think I'm focusing on "trivialities", on the contrary it appears to me that you're missing important points, like what agendas are at play here. The fascists want us fighting each other so they can take away our rights.

[OngBonga]

@ong, it's over 18 minutes, so ... you know... I don't really expect you to watch it.

I don't need to be told the photo op was stupid and outrageous. His handling of this seems to be deliberately belligerent.

[MadMojoMonkey]

“And for those who have been talking about protests, just remember, this country was founded on protest. It is called the American revolution,” [Obama] said. “And every step of progress in this country, every expansion of freedom, every expression of our deepest ideals, has been won through efforts that made the status quo uncomfortable. And we should all be thankful for folks who are willing in a peaceful, disciplined way to be out there making a difference.”
-Barack Obama

[OngBonga]

Obama said that? Cheeky.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Oscar_Grant
Oakland riots in protest at the police shooting of an unarmed black man under restraint after having already been kneed in the head by a cop. Police respond to riots with force. This was fresh into Obama's first term.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy...ent_crackdowns
Quick summary of how the Obama govt clamped down on the Occupy Wall Street protests.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Oakland
Is there something in the water in Oakland?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_C...ummit#Protests
More tear gas for people protesting police brutality against black people.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Oakland_riots
Oakland again. Are there like ten cities in USA called Oakland?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooti...Antonio_Martin
Pepper spray.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_B...ence_escalates
Journalist beaten by riot cops.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooti...ansur_Ball-Bey
Tear gas.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_D..._rally_protest
Trump takes office, fisticuffs in Chicago.

[OngBonga]

I missed a fair few out because in some cases it wasn't clear if the cops responded to protest with force, even though they likely did.

Responding to "protest" with force is standard for any govt. Obama was a much better public speaker than Trump is, but Obama was still a ruthless leader willing to do what had to be done.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So you ignore all of my words, and don't watch the videos that I think help show my perspective, but you can find a whole slew of links to respond to a quote from someone else.
Tell me... did Obama order any of those instances of police brutality? 'cause I'm not reading 9 wikipedia pages that I doubt you yourself read.


Or do you have 18 minutes of time to rage over an Obama quote, but not 18 minutes to understand something that I posted?


You aren't conversing in good faith. You're not trying to understand what your friend is saying.
I've made responses to what you've said, and tried to understand your perspective, but I'm not seeing any reciprocity.


I'm not here to lecture you, and I'm not here to be lectured at. This is a conversation between friends trying to understand each other, or it's a waste of my time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Look at that, there's an organization collecting data on a lot of aspects of police brutality, as well as what has happened in response to prior attempts at reform, with data about how various methods of reform have worked.

There are people actually trying to science the shit out of this.
My people.

https://www.joincampaignzero.org

[OngBonga]

Tell me... did Obama order any of those instances of police brutality? 'cause I'm not reading 9 wikipedia pages that I doubt you yourself read.

You moan at me for not reading your posts, but you clearly missed this from me...

I missed a fair few out because in some cases it wasn't clear if the cops responded to protest with force, even though they likely did.

Yes I checked each link to ensure there was actually a reference to police reaction to riots. Did Obama order any of these instances of brutality? In the case of the Occupy Wall Street protests, yes he most certainly did. That was a federal matter. The others, idk.

Obama is great at saying things, but he's no different to anyone else when it comes to doing things.

Or do you have 18 minutes of time to rage over an Obama quote, but not 18 minutes to understand something that I posted?

Don't be triggered by how I choose to spend my time.

You aren't conversing in good faith.

If you think this, ignore me.

You're not trying to understand what your friend is saying.

Nobody is trying to understand what I'm saying. Everyone just thinks I'm pro-Trump, pro-right, because that's how the world works. If I oppose the deranged left, I therefore stand shoulder to shoulder with racists.

Look, these constant back and forths, quoting this and that, respond point by point, it's tiring. Reading some wikipedia pages is education. I wanted to know if there were problems with black people being shot, and riots, and police response to riots, during Obama's time in office, and guess what? There were. People are arguing that this is Trump's fault, but the eivdence suggests otherwise. This has been an ongoing problem for a long time, but the left are fixated on one man because he's the bogey man. Never would they actually dare to critisise that well spoken black man who they hold in such high regard. It's just easier to ask questions like "yeah but did he order it" when he's the actual president and if it was Trump people would be saying he still takes responsibility. If he didn't order it, then he should speak out against the police immediately, since he's so pro-protest and all.

If this conversation is not thrilling enough for you, just withdraw. If you're unhappy with my efforts, don't waste your effort engaging me. But whatever you do, don't allow people on the internet to get on your nerves by not replying as you expect and hope.

[OngBonga]

Poop doesn't moan at me when I ignore 3/4 of his post, and I don't moan at him when he does it, other than to perhaps mock him ignoring something that he didn't want to answer.

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to make me understand, mojo, other than Trump is bad. I know he is. But Obama was bad, Bush was bad, Clinton was bad. The system is rotten, but people focus on one man like he's the problem. I did the same when it was Bush and Blair, I was all over them both like a deranged left wing nutjob. I gleefully quoted Bush comments like "the problem with the French is they don't have a word for entrepreneur". I didn't even care if he really said it, or if it was brilliant irony, it just summed up beautifully how I felt about Bush. It's easy to get sucked into the game of hating the person supposedly in charge. But after Bush and Blair, things don't change, the system remains rotten, I lose faith in the entire political system, I stop seeing them as opposing politics, and start to see them as different brands of the same politics.

Hating (or supporting) Trump is exactly what they want. It doesn't matter which, just so long as you take a side. Social division.

[CoccoBill]

People are arguing that this is Trump's fault, but the eivdence suggests otherwise. This has been an ongoing problem for a long time, but the left are fixated on one man because he's the bogey man.

You must realize this is an obvious strawman. I haven't seen anyone claim, least of all here, that Trump is responsible for hundreds of years of oppression. He's being blamed, imo legitimately, of causing further divide and inciting violence.

Never would they actually dare to critisise that well spoken black man who they hold in such high regard. It's just easier to ask questions like "yeah but did he order it" when he's the actual president and if it was Trump people would be saying he still takes responsibility. If he didn't order it, then he should speak out against the police immediately, since he's so pro-protest and all.

Who is "they"? And what does Obama have to do with any of this? Did Obama by his words or actions make things worse, and even if he did, how would that absolve Trump? If Obama did something bad or insufficient (which he obviously did), that's a completely separate discussion.

[OngBonga]

You must realize this is an obvious strawman. I haven't seen anyone claim, least of all here, that Trump is responsible for hundreds of years of oppression. He's being blamed, imo legitimately, of causing further divide and inciting violence.

If I decide to smash my room up because of what you just said, did you incite violence? These riots didn't happen because of something Trump did or said, it's because of decades of inequality, and because of an incident of unreasonable force by the police.

Yes he's causing further division. That's his agenda. It's also the agenda of his opponents. Why is Trump's attempts to cause division a problem for you but not when his opponents do it?

Who is "they"? And what does Obama have to do with any of this? Did Obama by his words or actions make things worse, and even if he did, how would that absolve Trump? If Obama did something bad or insufficient (which he obviously did), that's a completely separate discussion.

"They" in this context are the deranged left. Mojo decided to quote Obama, who was celebrating protest. I pointed out the hypocrisy. That's why Obama is a topic right now.

[CoccoBill]

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to make me understand, mojo, other than Trump is bad. I know he is. But Obama was bad, Bush was bad, Clinton was bad. The system is rotten, but people focus on one man like he's the problem.

I think most people would agree that there are degrees of bad. Are any of those people perfect? Hell no. Are there some of them who look only after themselves, and some that even try to do the right thing most of the time? I think so. If you think all these people are equally bad, why is it only Trump that you feel the urge to defend?

Just out of curiosity, name one politician you like, or that you think means well, in any country?

[OngBonga]

I'm making it sound like I think mojo is the "deranged left". I don't think that, I just get carried away sometimes.

Poop and oskar are the "deranged left". mojo is just "the left" with cocco.

[OngBonga]

I think most people would agree that there are degrees of bad. Are any of those people perfect? Hell no. Are there some of them who look only after themselves, and some that even try to do the right thing most of the time? I think so. If you think all these people are equally bad, why is it only Trump that you feel the urge to defend?

Just out of curiosity, name one politician you like, or that you think means well, in any country?

I don't think I do "defend" Trump, this is once again social division. I don't oppose him in the same way you guys do, therefore I am defending him. You see me as "on his side".

I "defend" Trump because I know he's not the problem. The system is rotten.

A politician I like? Anne Widdecombe. She's a bitch, but she's honest.

[CoccoBill]

If I decide to smash my room up because of what you just said, did you incite violence?

I don't think any reasonable person would say that.

These riots didn't happen because of something Trump did or said, it's because of decades of inequality, and because of an incident of unreasonable force by the police.

Yes, and again I haven't seen anyone claim anything else.

Yes he's causing further division. That's his agenda. It's also the agenda of his opponents. Why is Trump's attempts to cause division a problem for you but not when his opponents do it?

So it's ok to incite violence if it's his agenda, or if someone feels someone else before him has done it? If you point me to a case where one of his opponents has suggested using force to attack peaceful protesters, you can be damn sure I'll see that as a problem.

"They" in this context are the deranged left. Mojo decided to quote Obama, who was celebrating protest. I pointed out the hypocrisy. That's why Obama is a topic right now.

The right to protest is in the 1st amendment, what's wrong with it?

[CoccoBill]

I don't think I do "defend" Trump, this is once again social division. I don't oppose him in the same way you guys do, therefore I am defending him. You see me as "on his side".

If it's a matter of optics I apologize, but it sure feels like every time anyone says anything negative about him, there's a good chance you'll be there defending him. It might also be worthwhile to think why you're doing it (what seems like) only with him.

[OngBonga]

So it's ok to incite violence if it's his agenda, or if someone feels someone else before him has done it? If you point me to a case where one of his opponents has suggested using force to attack peaceful protesters, you can be damn sure I'll see that as a problem.

This is drifting into "deranged". It didn't say it's ok for him to incite violence, I argued that if people respond to his comments with violence, that doesn't mean he's inciting violence. But you also confirm what you actually mean by "inciting violence", and that is riot police responding to protest. I can';t seriously believe that this surprises you in any way. He may have chosen aggressive language, but his actions are no different to what any president would do when faced with riots. Deploy the police, then the national guard, and potentially the military. That isn't "inciting violence". I would use that term to describe making public comments like "get them off the roads or I will do it with my supporters", like what some Indian guy said before his supporters decided to start killing Muslims (Feb 2020). Saying "when the looting starts the shooting starts" is not inciting violence, it's just a reckless method of leadership.

The right to protest is in the 1st amendment, what's wrong with it?

Nothing.

If it's a matter of optics I apologize, but it sure feels like every time anyone says anything negative about him, there's a good chance you'll be there defending him. It might also be worthwhile to think why you're doing it (what seems like) only with him.

That's because you guys are obsessed with him, it's a fixation bordering on sexual. The vast majority of topics discussed are about Trump, like he's the problem with the world. If the people who hate him spent half as much effort attacking the system instead, we might actually make some progress.

[Poopadoop]

Four people on the Deranged Left side (I'm including Mojo now since he went on a pretty good rant there, and I'm assuming a certain passion is a requirement in order for one to be considered deranged), and only one on the We're all Pawns of the System side.

Ong please save us from our derangement. Show us the light.

[OngBonga]

poop thinks a small circle jerk means something.

If we still had an active forum here like the old days, you four would be outnumbered and outgunned by the right, and nobody would even pay attention to me.

mojo isn't deranged, and neither is cocco. oskar definitely is, while you're not quite as deranged as oskar but more so than mojo.

idk what I even mean by deranged, I just like the word, it goes well with "left". The "deranged left". It's catchy. I guess I mean extreme, measured by your hatred for Trump.

[CoccoBill]

But you also confirm what you actually mean by "inciting violence", and that is riot police responding to protest. I can';t seriously believe that this surprises you in any way.

Using force against looters is perfectly fine, in fact endorsed. Using force against peaceful protesters, children, reporters etc is fascism and tyranny.

He may have chosen aggressive language,

That has been the point from the beginning, glad we finally agree.

but his actions are no different to what any president would do when faced with riots.

Like that time when Obama dispersed a crowd of protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets to walk to a photo op during the 2015 Baltimore Riots? Or when he demanded governors to "dominate" the peaceful protests or he'd send in the military? None of that ever happened, did it, and you'd have to find a dictatorship or a banana republic to find any examples of such actions in recent history.

[Poopadoop]

Well Ong, your last ally on the deranged right got banned 'cause he couldn't be civil to even the people who agreed with him. And spoon was only a troll, and you're mostly a troll, so your side isn't doing so hot in the debating department.

[OngBonga]

Using force against looters is perfectly fine, in fact endorsed. Using force against peaceful protesters, children, reporters etc is fascism and tyranny.

Yep. Like I said previously, I do think he's showing his true colours here. But rather than default to "Trump bad", I'm going in the direction of "the system is still rotten". He's not draining the swamp, he's wallowing in it. I'm not going to become obsessed with Trump because he's only a symbol, the personification, of the problem. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

This is basically a war between cunts and cunts. I don't want to be on either side, but most people just pick the side which in their opinion is better at making the other side look worse. That's pretty much how politics works, that's how they sell the illusion of choice.

That has been the point from the beginning, glad we finally agree.

I don't think it's aggressive enough to qualify as "inciting violence" though. I haven't seen him say protesters should meet force, just looters.

Like that time when Obama dispersed a crowd of protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets to walk to a photo op during the 2015 Baltimore Riots?

He didn't take a photo op at a church while riot police beat protesters, what a guy.

[OngBonga]

Well Ong, your last ally on the deranged right got banned 'cause he couldn't be civil to even the people who agreed with him. And spoon was only a troll, and you're mostly a troll, so your side isn't doing so hot in the debating department.

Banana was definitely the deranged right. Spoon was very much reasonable when he wasn't trolling or being a dick. And I'm not that close to them politically, just closer than I am to you. In your world, that makes us allies, because it's all so binary. Banana wasn't my ally, I would literally rather meet all of you guys irl than him. We simply both had contempt for the left. That puts us on the same side from your pov. Us vs them.

[Poopadoop]

Banana was definitely the deranged right. Spoon was very much reasonable when he wasn't trolling or being a dick. And I'm not that close to them politically, just closer than I am to you. In your world, that makes us allies, because it's all so binary. Banana wasn't my ally, I would literally rather meet all of you guys irl than him. We simply both had contempt for the left. That puts us on the same side from your pov. Us vs them.

Banana was a deranged person who happened to be right on the political spectrum. You're more center-right, and who knows what spoon is/was 'cause he never engaged in a serious conversation afaict. So yeah, I consider you individuals despite your rather sad attempts to turn every one of our arguments into a criticism of my character, which is pretty reminiscent of banana, even if your ad bananums are more restrained than his were.

[OngBonga]

I say it like I see it. As you do. Often your posts have a tone of judgement too, thought I doubt it's usually your intention.

[OngBonga]

Good old Roger Daltrey. Imagine being in a band with a guy who got done for accessing child pornography and still being the worst member of the Who.

This is the deranged left. This is a world where opposing the EU is literally worse than child porn.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I very much appreciate the change in tone in today's discussion. There's just too much for me to respond to it all, and a forum like this isn't conducive to that kind of "everyone respond to everything someone else said," so I'm not going to do that.

I don't think what I did was a rant against Trump. It was a rant against 1 particular hypocrisy and 1 particular event that strikes me as a flagrant disregard for the constitution and specifically the first amendment. The fact that Trump was the one who did it is incidental, not central, to my rant.

Though, I wish I hadn't posted that part about being a breath away from treason, as it does reflect a fear of mine, and not necessarily a reality.

I'm not even on the left, ong. I'm about as central as you can be. I strongly support the right to bear arms, which I do not want to bring up as a topic to discuss right now, but just to give an example of how my opinions can be called right or left depending on the topic.


Ong, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I am very much trying to understand what you're saying. I'm not talking over you or past you. Multiple times I've made statements that weren't even directed to you and you took offense to them. That doesn't really feel like you're trying to understand me, so much as defend a perceived miscommunication. Let's both try to understand what is triggering to each other and avoid those phrases, and express our desire to both be heard and to listen equally.

I'm going to try to take a step back and examine my emotional response for what it is before responding to you for a while, out of respect.
If I've pushed your buttons, I apologize. It wasn't my intent, but it also hasn't been my intent to not push your buttons, either, so I can accept that as unfair when the topic is as heated as this.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@poopadoop - Spoonitnow expressed his political views a few times, and quite well, as you probably can imagine with someone of his intelligence and verbal skills. He was far more active on this forum before you joined.

FWIW, he and I butt heads a lot over almost everything, and yet, when it came time for the mods to vote if I should be invited to be a mod, he was vocal in his support of me.

That's solid character, IMO. He and I may not agree on anything, but we respect each other as people.