(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (07-23-2020 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: Quote: (07-23-2020 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: You may not like what they're doing and that's a reasonable discussion.
This is literally what my entire criticism is about - that I do not like the methods they are using, and I have laid out why I am critical of these methods.
But you've engaged in intentional (or at the very least, non-challenging of the story being told) misrepresentations in order to do it.... and degraded others for doing so.
Reasonable discussion requires accepting facts as they come to you and incorporating those facts into the discussion. Discussions with you require ignoring facts after they've been brought to you and acting as if 'someone not knowing something' before invalidates their claim... as opposed to merely needs to be added to the claim to see if it still makes sense.
An example... You made a comment to Tanq essentially blaming the feds for 'escalating' the situation by arresting people... ignoring or not being aware of the fact that the attacks on police came BEFORE then, and that this was the RESPONSE to the escalation to violence by some of those protesting. If you were not aware and this gets added to your original position, it certainly changes 'who escalated first'. I made a comment saying essentially that I wasn't seeing the sort of outrage that one would expect from the outrageous acts being described... and you noted something I didn't know, and that was that a lawsuit HAD been filed including those allegations... but the lawsuit was pretty benign... It didn't show the outrage that I would have expected or demanded of my representatives... so when I add that information, it actually supports (somewhat) my position as it doesn't reflect the outrage... while you saw it as dismissing me because they did 'check the box'.
I don't think it was you, but I remember someone actually praising rioters who clearly intended to do physical harm to an individual who made a mistake... and only stopped when they realized that he was handicapped. So we're praising people for drawing the line for assaulting people at visible, physical handicaps? WHat if the person had merely suffered from PTS (like me) and panicked into a mistake? Yes, maybe some of them wouldn't have harmed the person, but others of them clearly would. So here we are... praising people for damaging private property of people who have nothing to do with the thing being protested and are merely present... many of whom intended to do him physical harm... but we're to 'praise' them for the restraint of not beating up a handicapped man? Wow, has the bar for HEROES in this country fallen.
Oh **** off with that - I've not been engaging in intentional misrepresentation and this condescending lecture about "reasonable discussions" requires you to jump to a lot of conclusions about my responses, and ironically, ignore that I actually acknowledge what Tanq has said, and incorporate those statements into my responses.
My criticism is valid, regardless of whether or not the protesters had been violent previously, because I wasn't trying to argue who was the first to act violently. But clearly, the feds' decision to start picking up people off the streets struck a nerve and backfired. It has resulted in the largest protests Portland has seen in the past two months, and what look to be the most violent.
If we want to talk about whether or not those who are resorting to violence are egging on the feds - of course they are. And did their actions invite the feds to come to Portland - of course they did. But the Feds also made the decision which has really set the tinderbox ablaze.
And you can eff off with this sort of response. Thank you for once again, demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about.
I gave two options. One is that you're aware of the situation and doing it anyway... which you respond to. The other is that you have simply not challenged the story as told... and then chastised people who do challenge the story as told. You ignore that one completely and act as if I gave only the one option.
And when I tell you that, you tell me to eff off and call me condescending. It's only condescending because you ignore option two and/or take issue with me believing that you haven't challenged the story... That's not condescension... especially when you do just as i described in response to it.
Show me where I said your criticism wasn't valid? You can't. Your criticism being valid doesn't mean that you aren't doing exactly what I said you are doing... I see no evidence that you challenged the stories as being told. You in fact directly defended them... I believe you said something like... "like the guy would lie about that' or similar when I challenged the story as being his impression, rather than a neutral observation. You then (talk about irony) acted as if my not having seen a filing.... 'WAIT FOR IT' (talk about condescending) invalidated my questioning of the lack of outrage.
I wonder how many of those protesting, especially any protesting violently.... erroneously believe that people who are of no value in a legitimate criminal investigation are being randomly picked up off of city streets in order to intimidate them into not protesting? That's what has been alleged... That's what is in the lawsuit. None of that is a 'fact'. The lawsuit doesn't even allege that it is fact. It merely says it has been reported and in belief of that, we ask for relief.
Once again, you focus on the pedantic (my supposed condescension towards you, who is pure as the driven snow) and ignore the questions that matter...
So what is your suggestion for what should happen when a peaceful protest about SYSTEMIC police violence turns into physical assaults on citizens of the US and/or their property?
Should police not attend protests where violence (from either side) could erupt? That would certainly keep the police from escalating the situation, but I'm 100% convinced that it wouldn't stop them from being sued/blamed for failing to protect citizens there. If violence and damage occurs, should police not investigate and detain people who are 'persons of interest'? What if 'defenders' showed and injured protesters?
I suspect that your gut response right now is to argue the facts with me... but neither of us have the facts... so you'd only be arguing opinions. I'm asking you as a police policy... how you think things should have played out the moment protesters started damaging private property and throwing rocks and incendiary devices at law enforcement... which it SEEMS (and you are more than welcome to correct me if you disagree) we agree happened first.... when I've not even seen an allegation that the police at the time were keeping protestors from engaging in lawful protest... Maybe you have?
Many on the left AND the right have suggested that the feds all pull out and let 'whatever happens' happens... and I would begrudgingly support that... so long as there is no cost to the Federal taxpayer for anything associated with it, including insurance premiums for building/business insurance. Now the question would be, just as it would be for say poor people living in public housing in large cities... what if people who own businesses there under the expectation that they would be protected from looting etc. don't want to leave? Even if they do, who will pay to relocate them?
You take issue with what they did, but I'm asking you to address what they SHOULD have done. 'Don't escalate' is far too generic. A significant purpose of the non-peaceful protestors actions toward police was to either harm them or to elicit a response. Police shouldn't be required to simply risk bodily harm so as not to escalate, IMO