Jump to content

Protecting Second Life From Hate Groups Hiding & Organizing Here


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 150 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Doc Carling said:
7 hours ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

I take that into consideration before I decide someone needs to spend the rest of their existence in my bitbucket

Now there are all the avatars which were recently reported as missing. In your bitbucket. Just kidding. I know you meant the name of someone.

 

E2BD1C6B-3A26-4EEF-96A8-7D6AD8C93749.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 979
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

^^^This^^^ is what scares me.  The belief that people are no longer allowed to have their own opinions, their own thoughts and have to fall in line with one narrative, one ideology.   Newsflash,

When did have a political opinion become "hate speech"?

What exactly do you expect them to do?  As with most things that are against the ToS, they will act appropriately when and if it is brought to their attention.  They have given us, the residents, the

Posted Images

12 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

But again this is a dishonest viewpoint isn't it. You describe the left as fighting against an institutionally sponsored wrong, but describe the right as fighting an institution which can 'do no wrong'.

Sure, it could do wrong. Probably often does. But these riots were based on something that was thoroughly investigated, and of which no proof was found, to the point the case got repeatedly dismissed, because the lawyers had to admit that they had no proof in court.

That is, they were based on pure fantasy. And the riots happened after the election had widely been confirmed to be legitimate, something that said rioters did not want to accept.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

I never claimed one of both examples to be on either side of the policital spectrum.

That is your doing.

OK fair enough although I feel it fair to say that it was mostly the left who engaged in the BLM riots.

Still, the argument remains the same. I can replace the words 'left' and 'right' with 'one side' and 'other side' it still makes sense

You describe one side as fighting against an institutionally sponsored wrong, but describe the other side as fighting an institution which can 'do no wrong'.

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

You describe one side as fighting against an institutionally sponsored wrong, but describe the other side as fighting an institution which can 'do no wrong'.

No. I describe one side as protesting, initially peacefully, against an organisation which kills people regardless of individual circumstance,  while describing the other as obstructing the genuine outcome of the will of the majority of the people.

No matter how you try to 'whataboutism' : the only intend of Trump and his supporters was to stop the outcome of an honest result.

Edited by TDD123
speeling
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cinos Field said:

But these riots were based on something that was thoroughly investigated

Was it? I am not so sure. The majority of people on the right seem to think that their cases went unheard, evidence went without investigation and seem to describe a complete lack of transparency. In a lot of cases courts simply refused to hear the evidence.

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

while describing the other as obstructing the genuine outcome of the will of the majority of the people.

But again that is not honest framing is it, that's not what they're doing, they are obstructing it because they think that the outcome isn't the genuine will of the people, they think it was rigged.

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

In a lot of cases courts simply refused to hear the evidence.

You are evidently misphrasing the truth : all objections where refused, because there is no submittable EVIDENCE for said objections. Courtcase by courtcase.

Edited by TDD123
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

But again that is not honest framing is it, that's not what they're doing, they are obstructing it because they think that the outcome isn't the genuine will of the people, they think it was rigged.

Then they could have peacefully protested outside of the Capitol and not obstruct the meeting of Congress that was ongoing. Barging into the Capitol, at said date and time,  is disrupting the democratic process their own 'leader' signed for and should guarantee : a peaceful transition of power.

Edited by TDD123
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TDD123 said:

Then they could have peacefully protested outside of the Capitol and not obstruct the meeting of Congress that was ongoing. Barging into the Capitol, at said date and time,  is disrupting the democratic process their own 'leader' signed for and should guarantee : a peaceful transition of power.

In much the same way that BLM could and should have protested peacefully. And in reality many did, the same is true of Trump supporters, it was only a minority who became violent and they were rightfully condemned and I condemn those who engaged in it.

I think that is worth remembering that politics is more complicated than good vs evil, no matter which side of the fence people are, they think that they are on the good side and have their reasons to believe so. Riots are never OK and the media should be condemned for justifying them and everybody across all parties should condemn riots regardless of if it is in support of their cause or the other side.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

You describe one side as fighting against an institutionally sponsored wrong, but describe the other side as fighting an institution which can 'do no wrong'.

It has been revealed that a BLM protester and founder of the group Insurgence USA (how is this name even allowed in USA?) was in the capital building as well and standing next to the person who got shot (was the one who filmed it) claiming to be "documenting the riot". Note he was not official press, had no clearance to be in the building, obtained entry by a smashed window and additionally has a history and criminal record of organising violent riots last year.

Considering most of the rioters (all trump supporters) that have been arrested have had the charge of 'knowingly entering a restricted building' thrown at them, if this BLM protester is not charged with the same charge of 'knowingly entering a restricted building' it will defiantly show a clear case of discriminative practices against one political faction and prove your statement correct and perhaps also show that democracy that is supposed to uphold fairness and justice is flawed in the USA.

Utah Man with a History of Organizing Violent Antifa, BLM Protests, Was Inside the Capitol by Katie Pavlich (townhall.com)

I mean what was he even doing there in the first place? There are already conspiracy theories from one side and politicians being flung around that Antifa where the ones that broke the windows of congress to get entry into the building and 'force the riot to happen'. Now, here we have a convicted Antifa riot organiser present?

Whilst many talk about how dumb the trump supporters were, this guy deserves some of that pie as well for his shear stupidity in giving the rioters the ability to claim Antifa was there.

Edited by Drayke Newall
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2021 at 11:01 AM, Kenai Harbour said:

I certainly hope with all the other social media outlets that are banning hate groups, Trump, and their speech in light of the attack on our nation's capital that Second Life is not becoming a haven for them. What is Linden Lab doing to make sure they don't hide here?

What more could they do besides what is already in the Community Standards which we all agree to when we sign up for an account? The very first thing they mention is their policy on Intolerance.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TDD123 said:

A pointless video was posted here.

So what is your point? That article is all lies? His twitter posts and the video he filmed showing the Air Force veteran and posted by him on his twitter account and spread around the world wasn't him? He wasn't really there and therefore shouldn't be charged the same as other rioters that trespassed into a restricted building? Which was the whole point of my post.

As to the point I made about conspiracy theories of which I assume was the point of your useless post, what of it? I simply showed that one side is claiming Antifa broke into the building and here is an Antifa supporter claiming to have gained entry through a smashed window. I never claimed the conspiracy theories were founded, just that (an) Antifa was there as evidenced by him being there and that he should be charged just like all of those who gained entry into the building illegally.

Whether he will be charged is yet to be seen, which was also my point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

So what is your point? That article is all lies?

I categorise it as FUD, yes.

7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

As to the point I made about conspiracy theories of which I assume was the point of your useless post, what of it?

David Pakman makes the arguments I wanted to make much more eloquent. Something tells me you haven't listened, but that's cool : I do not expect you to.

7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

I never claimed the conspiracy theories were founded, just that (an) Antifa was there as evidenced by him being there and that he should be charged just like all of those who gained entry into the building illegally.

If so that still makes him a minority in a group of criminals that were mostly right winged. The 'bad apples must have been leftist' approach, also explained by David, is just another way of 'whataboutism' around the fact that Trump committed a fellony.

7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Whether he will be charged is yet to be seen, which was also my point.

True. But he will be held accountable and that process is already happening.

Edited by TDD123
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TDD123 said:

I categorise it as FUD, yes.

No idea what FUD is. Though I can assume what it means.

Just now, TDD123 said:

David Pakman makes the arguments I wanted to make much more eloquent. Something tells me you haven't listened, but that's cool : I do not expect you to.

What a shock, you thinking I didn't listen to it. I did listen to it and knew your point from it. Allegation this or that in support of trump therefore don't believe it and they are just trying to shift the blame. Still was a pointless video.

Just now, TDD123 said:

If so that still makes him a minority in a group of criminals that were mostly right winged. The 'bad apples must have been leftist' approach, also explained by David, is just another way of 'whataboutism' around the fact that Trump committed a fellony.

Once again:

633977_manx1_missing-the-point-gif.gif?f1534736990 

Are the right winged stating that Antifa was the majority? They are claiming that a few were there to rally a riot by breaking into congress and letting the rest happen naturally. I cant really understand how you are just missing my point or are you just blindly ignoring it? I never said they were a majority. I said it gives them evidence however miniscule to fan their conspiracy theory that Antifa was there and just cause more division.

I cant make it much more clearer than that. It comes across from your tone that you think I am trying to provide evidence in support of there claims, of which I have never hinted to anywhere in my post.

But that is my bad. I should have just left the conspiracy theory part out. Though that said, something tells me I would have received the same response from you even if I had.

Just now, TDD123 said:

True. But he will be held accountable and that process is already happening.

He will and it Is? 'Cause I couldn't find anything on him being arrested, or being charged only the newspapers claiming that he could face charges (which was their assumption) even though law officials haven't stated as such. Where is his wanted picture from the FBI?

I mean I hope he does for the fairness of justice, but I have my doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whataboutism in this thread is boggling. I hope it's mere rhetoric.

Anybody who really thinks BLM is remotely comparable to the Proud Boys has a serious problem with reality.

Without justifying any individual act, anybody who thinks the US is on balance worse-off for the actions of BLM protestors over the summer needs to introspect on their connection with humanity.

Same for any who think the US could ever be better-off for the actions of the Proud Boys. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drayke Newall said:

No idea what FUD is. Though I can assume what it means.

Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. I thought you were familiar with the expression. My bad.

4 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

He will and it Is? 'Cause I couldn't find anything on him being arrested, or being charged only the newspapers claiming that he could face charges (which was their assumption) even though law officials haven't stated as such. Where is his wanted picture from the FBI?

I mean I hope he does for the fairness of justice, but I have my doubts.

I have less doubts. He cannot be accused legally yet while being in office, but I'm convinced in time he will have to face several charges, including the incitement.

Time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Extrude Ragu said:

For example, Trump is accused of inciting people to commit acts of violence, but I watched his speech in its entirety on the day and I know I did not see any such call and recall him saying that we will march peacefully and patriotically.

Context matters. The context of months of claiming the election was rigged and stolen (with no evidence) and the only thing that stood between them and the far left socialist agenda of Joe Biden (let that bit of idiocy sink in for a moment) was overthrowing the result of the election. The results of which had been certified by every state and the District of Columbia, after multiple recounts and dozens of failed court cases. Leading up to a speech to a mob everyone knew was wound up for violence and telling them to go to the Capitol.

Trump also told them he was going with him, instead he went back to the White House. What do you think the reason for that was? 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TDD123 said:

I have less doubts. He cannot be accused legally yet while being in office, but I'm convinced in time he will have to face several charges, including the incitement.

Time will tell.

Wait what? I am confused. Who are you talking about here? Did you even read my post or that news article?

I am talking about a left wing Antifa linked rioter that gained entry into congress as part of the riots and that he should be charged with the same trespassing laws as the right wing rioters. As such if he is not then it shows discrimination against a specific political faction. That is what I wrote many posts ago.

Why are you talking about trump being charged when I didn't even imply that anywhere in my post?

From your post just now I now know you didn't even read my first post with the link and just blindly replied based on me mentioning a conspiracy theory about Trump.

Good grief. Why do I bother. I'm out.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Wait what? I am confused. Who are you talking about here? Did you even read my post or that news article?

Yes, Drayke, I do.

7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

I am talking about a left wing Antifa linked rioter that gained entry into congress as part of the riots and that he should be charged with the same trespassing laws as the right wing rioters. As such if he is not then it shows discrimination against a specific political faction. That is what I wrote many posts ago.

With mentioning all of this by you, I still remain under the impression you are making a 'whataboutism' in favor of recent acts committed by the right, so the riots can be justified and justifies Trump's 'objection' and methods.

I agree this is purely subjective from my side.

7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

From your post just now I now know you didn't even read my first post with the link and just blindly replied based on me mentioning a conspiracy theory about Trump.

Good grief. Why do I bother. I'm out.

Sorry you feel this way. Thanks for debating.

Edited by TDD123
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Anybody who really thinks BLM is remotely comparable to the Proud Boys has a serious problem with reality. 

I don't know that it was the 'Proud boys' who were involved in the Capitol rioters. 

I think it is more than fair to compare the BLM riots to the riots at the Capitol. Both saw a break down of law and order, both caused untold damage, grief and distress. Both seemed like acts of terror in the eyes of the other side. Both were fighting for causes they felt were righteous and just. And both were wrong. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Extrude Ragu said:

Was it? I am not so sure. The majority of people on the right seem to think that their cases went unheard, evidence went without investigation and seem to describe a complete lack of transparency. In a lot of cases courts simply refused to hear the evidence.

The question is, "Did the people on the right read their own evidence?" It was pretty sad.

I read one "statistical analysis" that "proved" it was impossible for certain jurisdictions in Michigan to have the voting results they had honestly because the "new" votes between 2016 and 2020 were suspiciously pro-Biden. The problem was that the author (who was a computer scientist rather than someone with any evident experience with elections) apparently failed to consider the fact that:

1) It's possible that people may have voted for different parties in 2016 and 2020

and

2) It's possible that not exactly the same people voted in each year - in both years the turnout of registered voters was well under 100%.

And I'm not even talking about the study that "proved" voting fraud in Michigan by using numbers from Minnesota...

Edited by Theresa Tennyson
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

With mentioning all of this by you, I still remain under the impression you are making a 'whataboutism' in favor of recents acts committed by the right, so the riots can be justified and justifies Trump's 'objection' and methods.

Let me be clear then for you.

I AM NOT IN FAVOUR OF RECENT ACTS. I AM NOT TRYING TO JUSTIFY THOSE ACTS. I HAVE NEVER IN ANY OF MY POSTS STATED ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

I am pointing out that a person can claim he was fetching his shoe that a rioter threw into the building for all I care. The fact remains that the charges against the right wing rioters specifically state that it was a 'restricted building' at the time and therefore by that definition he should be charged like the rest of them for trespassing.

If he is not charged equally then fairness of the justice system is broken in the USA, is skewed to favouritism against a specific ideology and completely against the democratic principles of fairness, freedom and liberty.

Let me put it this way. If I film a murder taking place standing right next to the person trespassing in someone else's home can I claim "oh I was only filming I did nothing wrong?" No. I would be charged with accessory to murder. As such if this guy isn't charged equally it would therefore put the entire USA justice system, their laws and all previous convictions into question.

He had no reason to be there even if he claims it was to film and didn't do anything violent. He climbed through a window and gained access illegally therefore should be charged like them all.

THAT is my point. It isn't a 'whataboutism' or the like. It is a fact. You can argue with me all you like but don't think it gives you the right to accuse me of supporting x,y,z or that I am in favour of illegal activities, or am trying to justify riots to overthrow a democracy that claims to be the "keepers of the Free World".

The more I hear and read even in this forum, makes me wonder if the USA still has the right to claim that last phrase.

:EDIT:

Also my post was in response to something Extrude Ragu posted and should be read in context to that. Clearly something you did not do.

Edited by Drayke Newall
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 150 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...