U.S. Riots of May 2020 over George Floyd and others - ITT: a bunch of faggots butthurt about worthless internet stickers

[tigergrinder]

"Fool don' want de help, fool don' get de help"

"Jive-ass fool ain't got no brains, anyhow..."

 

[Grandpa Simpson]

I see many people asking. "How is it that some people see the same event, and yet draw two different conclusions?". It's because you are dealing with someone who deals in subjective arguments, versus someone who deals in objective arguments. You might argue against someone, and find they fall back to the position such as "this would invalidate their lived experiences"

You've just discovered they deal in subjectivism, a school of postmodernist marxist thought. There's no use in arguing with them about the issue at this point, because your objective arguments will fall on deaf ears. The personal perception of the individual overrides the objective reality of the situation. You have to first break down the idea that subjectivism is the prime mode of operation. Which will probably be hard, possibly, impossible. Considering many of the media outlets they rely on operate in this fashion.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

They actually used accelerant this time.

 

[Salubrious]

I don't know anything about Ted Wheeler. Is there a chance he just decides this shit isn't worth it and resigns because "fuck it, I don't care anymore"?

 

[ArthuriusMartyrius]

To anyone defending all these riots, I have to ask:

How far is too far? I mean, can the groups participating in this commit an act that would be considered too far in their supporters eyes?

Honestly, I'm just typing out my thoughts. Those are rhetorical questions and I know the answer is nothing.

Leftards are convinced that there is no too far. I remember going on places like Chapo on Reddit for laughs a few times and those morons will literally jump on you for "thinking that material property is worth more than a human life". The life in question being a literal criminal who attempted to resist arrest and "property" referring to buildings and goods belonging to people who had nothing to do with the killing and in some cases actively support the "protesters". The chapocels think it's "sending a message" and "standing up to the power" and are unable to grasp that it's just making people hate them more. And that's when they are not actively pretending like every instance of destruction and violence is somehow a police frame-up.

 

[Dog-O-Tron 5000v5.0]

So uh... why did they have this "March on Washington" thing specifically 57 years after the King one, its not a very big number. And I've barely heard anything about it, it just feels so astroturfed when Facebook suddenly mentioned it on my home screen.

Because they don't intend for the US to be around for the 60th anniversary.

 

[Salubrious]

To anyone defending all these riots, I have to ask:

How far is too far? I mean, can the groups participating in this commit an act that would be considered too far in their supporters eyes?

Honestly, I'm just typing out my thoughts. Those are rhetorical questions and I know the answer is nothing.

Let's use Kyle as an example.

People who you talk to will be convinced that he is a white supremacist no matter what. That is a fact to them.

Any evidence you show them won't change their mind; it'll just be you defending a white supremacist. Because they've already determined that him being a white supremacist is a fact.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

I don't know anything about Ted Wheeler. Is there a chance he just decides this shit isn't worth it and resigns because "fuck it, I don't care anymore"?

A leftist? Giving up power?

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

I see many people asking. "How is it that some people see the same event, and yet draw two different conclusions?". It's because you are dealing with someone who deals in subjective arguments, versus someone who deals in objective arguments. You might argue against someone, and find they fall back to the position such as "this would invalidate their lived experiences"

You've just discovered they deal in subjectivism, a school of postmodernist marxist thought. There's no use in arguing with them about the issue at this point, because your objective arguments will fall on deaf ears. The personal perception overrides the objective reality. Your have to first break down the idea that subjectivism is the prime mode of operation. Which will probably be hard, possibly, impossible. Considering many of the media outlets they rely on operate in this fashion.

Both sides deal with subjective arguments, it's called being human.
Someone from the other side of the argument would point at his arguments and call them self-evident, objective truths. He would accuse you of being subjective and come up with a term that ties that into buzzwords associated with the alt-right or worse.

It's not necessarily the case with stuff like Kyle Rittenhouse specifically, but you'll stumble over it sooner or later, since it affects all arguments and all situations.
To claim that only one side has The Objective Truth™ on their side is pretty arrogant no matter what side does it. It reeks of the "right side of history" rhetoric tbh.

A politician? Giving up power?

ftfy. As if this wasn't just as true for the other side of the political spectrum.

 

[Grandpa Simpson]

It's not necessarily the case with stuff like Kyle Rittenhouse specifically, but you'll stumble over it sooner or later, since it affects all arguments and all situations.
To claim that only one side has The Objective Truth™ on their side is pretty arrogant no matter what side does it. It reeks of the "right side of history" rhetoric tbh.

You may be right, but kiwifarms have autists on their side. And they hate being decieved.

 

[ArthuriusMartyrius]

Both sides deal with subjective arguments, it's called being human.
Someone from the other side of the argument would point at his arguments and call them self-evident, objective truths. He would accuse you of being subjective and come up with a term that ties that into buzzwords associated with the alt-right or worse.

It's not necessarily the case with stuff like Kyle Rittenhouse specifically, but you'll stumble over it sooner or later, since it affects all arguments and all situations.
To claim that only one side has The Objective Truth™ on their side is pretty arrogant no matter what side does it. It reeks of the "right side of history" rhetoric tbh.

It might be true for complicated historical arguments where we don't have all the pieces or ignore whatever doesn't fit our fancy and make the situation more grey than black and white, but I don't think it works so well for trying to claim that an instance of self-defense was in fact intentional murder when you can see all the bits of evidence laid out before you.

 

[bippu_as_fuck_ls400]

Let's use Kyle as an example.

People who you talk to will be convinced that he is a white supremacist no matter what. That is a fact to them.

Any evidence you show them won't change their mind; it'll just be you defending a white supremacist. Because they've already determined that him being a white supremacist is a fact.

Exactly.

I saw someone on Twitter arguing yesterday that Kyle was a white supremacist. When asked for evidence, they posted screenshots of his Back The Blue and Thin Blue Line posts from his Facebook. In their minds supporting law enforcement in any manner makes someone a white supremacist. There is no way to get through to them and it's wasting time to even try.

 

[Random Internet Person]

Wheeler's got a clear hateboner for Trump, but has he taken into account that what he did just helps Trump out?

Trump: "Shit looks like it's going sideways there. Can I send in some help?"
Wheeler "Fuck off and die, Drumpf!"
Trump: "See, everybody? I tried to help. I tried to stop the riots, but Wheeler literally wouldn't let me."

The thing about it is the future. People like De Blasio and Wheeler are probably considering bigger and better things in their political careers (governor, Congress, POTUS), and they’re probably convinced that the quick fire way to give themselves the best political reputation in their party is to paint themselves as the biggest opponent to Trump and by standing up to the orange bully, they’ll be seen as the face of #TheResistance and they rise the blue wave to new heights.

The odd thing about Tarrant. Though he was an accelerationalist. Notice how quickly the media and the governments clamped down hard on his media presence and his writings? They didn't like that. Remember Tarrant? Should've been the biggest thing since Brevik. Yet, you barely hear anyone ever talk about him. As if what he did threw a wrench into the plans of people who were boiling the frog.

You make it sound like people are secretly wishing that some leftist streams themselves shooting up some church or gathering of Trump supporters. The guy had a manifesto that talked of others taking up the fight against Muslim invaders to defend the West and his weapons had the names of terror victims and historical battles against Islamic forces. How much you wanna bet a left wing person is willing to write about replacing the Trump administration with a progressive utopia and painting their guns with the names of BLM champions?

It's legit insane how these people all have enough money to go from city to city and back and forth for months doing this shit. If anything this is proof that these are people with enough money to travel that frequently, as well as get those fireworks and molotovs. shit ain't cheap. It really lends credence to the theory this is mainly an upper caste larp.

The easiest way they do it is GoFundMe, Venmo, and any donation website you can cook up (I’d say that explains why arrested people get out: bail funds for the people rioting). And right now, investigators have no way to cement the structure of the payments if there even is one, and you also got mayors and city councils keeping police from going all out and refusing to cooperate with federal people looking into things to get a win over Trump.

To anyone defending all these riots, I have to ask:

How far is too far? I mean, can the groups participating in this commit an act that would be considered too far in their supporters eyes?

Honestly, I'm just typing out my thoughts. Those are rhetorical questions and I know the answer is nothing.

To these people, the answer is no. They will do everything in their power to destroy Trump, anything they see as a white construct, every statue of the founding fathers and every war hero, every Confederate, and I can only assume they aim to replace it with a progressive utopia they felt they were promised in 2016 (what that utopia looks like, I have no fucking clue).

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

You may be right, but kiwifarms have autists on their side. And they hate being decieved.

Weaponized Autism is the most destructive thing known to mankind after all. It is very useful to dig up as much information to get as complete a picture as possible. And with a complete picture, the subjective perspective can get closer to the objective truth (man, that sounds stilted as fuck). After all, none of us would like to be entirely dependent on the MSM to get their information. Media framing is something we can see happen in real time with Rittenhouse, which is one of the reasons why his case is so important. You can pinpoint to every bad-faith argument, every unfounded accusation, every insinuation and disprove it with the countless videos that were made. The MSM doesn't care, but the longer this goes on, the more likely it is to get the word out to the general public.

 

[Grandpa Simpson]

Exactly.

I saw someone on Twitter arguing yesterday that Kyle was a white supremacist. When asked for evidence, they posted screenshots of his Back The Blue and Thin Blue Line posts from his Facebook. In their minds supporting law enforcement in any manner makes someone a white supremacist. There is no way to get through to them and it's wasting time to even try.

Because supporting the Police means you support the death of Blacks. It makes perfect sense, if you take the personal testimony of individual Blacks, and ignore any statistical evidence to the contrary, the personal lived experience is the apex of information, you cannot question it. That's what I mean by subjectivism. Ignore any statistics you ever read, and imagine the personal speeches are the absolute truth. Their stance seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[Left Alone]

This hits me right in the feels.

 

[king of pickles]

It's like a proxy war for them. Whenever you have the Left and MSM spin things like that, it's probably good old Donny they see. These people are convinced they are at war that they have to win "by all means necessary". And if it means lying and instigating murder, then that's what they are gonna do. That there has been no real pushback only emboldened them.

When Trump called the media the enemy of the people in one of those press conferences, he wasn't wrong.

 

[Salubrious]

Because supporting the Police means you support the death of Blacks. It makes perfect sense, if you take the personal testimony of individual Blacks, and ignore any statistical evidence to the contrary, the personal lived experience is the apex of information, you cannot question it. That's what I mean by subjectivism. Ignore any statistics you ever read, and imagine the personal speeches are the absolute truth. Their stance seems perfectly reasonable.

Basically, when I argued with my friends that was no statistical evidence supporting black men getting killed at a higher rate, his response was that I was dehumanizing people.

The numbers don't matter. If 1 black man gets shot, that's too many. Even if it's justifiable (:: coughBlakecough:: ), they'll just claim that the police should have done something different. What that "something" is, they don't care.

It's like a proxy war for them. Whenever you have the Left and MSM spin things like that, it's probably good old Donny they see. These people are convinced they are at war that they have to win "by all means necessary". And if it means lying and instigating murder, then that's what they are gonna do. That there has been no real pushback only emboldened them.

When Trump called the media the enemy of the people in one of those press conferences, he wasn't wrong.

It's not just their enemies.

Ted Wheeler gave them all the free reign that they wanted, and they still want him to resign because it wasn't good enough. He should have shut down the police force immediately. Even if he did, they still would have claimed too little too late.

 

[Grandpa Simpson]

Basically, when I argued with my friends that was no statistical evidence supporting black men getting killed at a higher rate, his response was that I was dehumanizing people.

The numbers don't matter. If 1 black man gets shot, that's too many. Even if it's justifiable (:oughBlakecough:, they'll just claim that the police should have done something different. What that "something" is, they don't care.

And yet when the media is on their side, they will constantly defend any killings. Because the mechanics of subjectivism are still there. On well he "disobeyed a law or had an unregistered firearm." When you deal in subjectivism you can take any position you want.

 

[Sammich]

To anyone defending all these riots, I have to ask:

How far is too far? I mean, can the groups participating in this commit an act that would be considered too far in their supporters eyes?

Honestly, I'm just typing out my thoughts. Those are rhetorical questions and I know the answer is nothing.

I would say someone getting killed on video, but that's happened a few times already. Perhaps a few cops getting killed on video?

Honestly, i don't know what the rubicon is here, and how they would cross it. Perplexing to say the least, they always seem to push past what the normal person would considering appalling.