(07-23-2020 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote: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.

The most violent protest seemingly occurred prior to the van incident.

And no, the tinderbox being 'ablaze' is due really to the refusal of the Portland government to do anything to defuse the issue. Oh, and I forgot --- the shitbirds committing the violence there has a lot to do with it as well.

Yes, there is no doubt that Portland has had more violent protests than other cities, which is why the Feds arrived.

I didnt say 'had more'. I said they have been increasing in ferocity. To a local maxima Saturday, the events that sparked the van arrests.

Quote:But based on videos I've seen of the protests/riots the last week or so, things look to be worse than they were before. Can you send some videos from before for comparison? It sounds like we've seen different things.

I think the fact that Saturday was actually declared a riot by the spineless as **** Portland police is a good objective indication. That declaration had not been made in a substantial amount of time.

Quote:Again, I know there was vandalism/arson before, but the issues seem to have gotten worse.

See above.

Quote:And I don't think the Portland police didn't try anything - they've attempted to disperse protesters before.

Point out any Portland police in any shots from the courthouse on Saturday. Or most any other day. The only cops in view at pretty much any time in and around the courthouse for the last three weeks have been of the Federal variety.

Quote:I think the Portland police have just absolutely failed, in a similar manner, at defusing the situation.

The Portland city government is tacitly supporting the protests at the Federal buildings. Anyone with half a brain can denote this.

Quote:If we notice a trend, violent response by law enforcement really only reinforces the narrative of why people are out there protesting in the first place.

So do like Seattle and cede the Federal building? I mean that is the ultimate act of non-violence.

I am sorry, the Federal officers at the Federal courthouse have every fing right to enforce Federal law there. I guess you havent noticed that the Feds, up until Saturday, hadnt responded. Yet the violence *has* increased there -- all without active Federal intervention. That kind of blows the fk out of your thesis.

I dont guess you notice how much you are ghosting the amazing ethos of Neville Chamberlain above.