Politics Thread 6

[Ironhide]

I assume people who have banners with "ACAB","Kill Cops" and "KilltheBill" absolve themselves from ever using their services?

They all seem like level-headed, rational people

evergreen

How exactly is a mentality of "kill the bill" and "all cops are bastards" in any way, shape or form an effort to improve society?

Fairly sure "Kill the Bill" doesn't actually mean what you think it does, its referring to the proposed bill to give the police more powers to prevent protests.

[Prototype]

Yeah, we established that on the previous page.

[Corazon de Leon]

but I honestly don't think losing our gooseberry fool over a random player from a random team not taking the knee should be anywhere near the top of the agenda.

I asked before for an example but you've just repeated your claim.

Which team/player that hasn't kneeled has been pushed to the top of the agenda? Who has gotten up tight about him/them not doing it?

I'm sure i saw outrage online about a lower-league club not taking the knee. I've had a look but can't find anything other than the Millwall stuff published. Millwall though.

The Scotland national team got stick for not doing it though:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19071 ... land-game/

Is The National the only source for that criticism?

Of the Scotland team? Nah, there were a few sites who carried the story of them being criticised. Times, Telegraph, Daily Record etc.

Fair enough. Was just thinking that the National are a joke even amongst independence voters.

[Tomous]

Some twats in Swansea went to the Liberty to boo the players taking the knee from outside

[Wrathy]

twitter.com/SimonFRCox/status/1378707602138349570

twitter.com/SimonFRCox/status/1378707612917768196

weird how everyone clutching their pearls about this statement inciting violence or pretending the left want to murder innocent cops or w/e is overlooking the fact it's been used for at least 50 years in opposition to piss poor legislation

[Moggy]

twitter.com/SimonFRCox/status/1378707602138349570

twitter.com/SimonFRCox/status/1378707612917768196

weird how everyone clutching their pearls about this statement inciting violence or pretending the left want to murder innocent cops or w/e is overlooking the fact it's been used for at least 50 years in opposition to piss poor legislation

Reminds me of those that moan about sports people taking the knee because it's "Marxist Antifa BLM!!!!", but:

twitter.com/OfficialMLK3/status/1267638781550702592

[OrangeRKN]

REFUTATION OF THE LEGISLATION

A slogan approved by centrists for a protest attended by no one

[Moggy]

REFUTATION OF THE LEGISLATION

A slogan approved by centrists for a protest attended by no one

[Ironhide]

"If I don't come back from the protest, tell my wife hello"

[Return_of_the_STAR]

I still can’t believe so many people on here support acts of criminality and violence as a form of protest. This is where we differ and will never agree. We all have different lines I could only support anything on this level if there was a genuine civil war or military coup or something. Not protesting against a government bill. How does it help make a point to the government by attacking and abusing general members of the public, damaging private property, blocking roads. It just turns people against you.

[Moggy]

I still can’t believe so many people on here support acts of criminality and violence as a form of protest. This is where we differ and will never agree. We all have different lines I could only support anything on this level if there was a genuine civil war or military coup or something. Not protesting against a government bill. How does it help make a point to the government by attacking and abusing general members of the public, damaging private property, blocking roads. It just turns people against you.

"I can't support people blocking motorways or throwing plastic bottles, that's too violent! I advocate full civil war!"

[Return_of_the_STAR]

I still can’t believe so many people on here support acts of criminality and violence as a form of protest. This is where we differ and will never agree. We all have different lines I could only support anything on this level if there was a genuine civil war or military coup or something. Not protesting against a government bill. How does it help make a point to the government by attacking and abusing general members of the public, damaging private property, blocking roads. It just turns people against you.

"I can't support people blocking motorways or throwing plastic bottles, that's too violent! I advocate full civil war!"

Because that’s what I said

[Hexx]

Don't let him derail the thread any further. Everyone's got his number, some spectacularly so. You're not telling anyone anything new.

[VlaSoul]

I still can’t believe so many people on here support acts of criminality and violence as a form of protest. This is where we differ and will never agree. We all have different lines I could only support anything on this level if there was a genuine civil war or military coup or something. Not protesting against a government bill. How does it help make a point to the government by attacking and abusing general members of the public, damaging private property, blocking roads. It just turns people against you.

It has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions that both the points I highlighted and organised violence in general have proven to be effective forms of protest. Effective protest generally requires acts of disruption to draw attention to the cause and puts pressure on the government to actually institute meaningful change in order to return to everyday function.

We support so called acts of criminality at least on the hypothetical level because we're realistic and recognise that such things have their place in movements towards genuine change. Assuming that people turn against those championing a cause simply due to violence perpetuated is a fallacious line of reasoning; the reactionary will appear no matter what. Where there is the promise of change, there will be those who oppose it, and they will be supported and allowed to proliferate by the establishment, for change is not in the interest of the powers that be.

[Hexx]

I still can’t believe so many people on here support acts of criminality and violence as a form of protest. This is where we differ and will never agree. We all have different lines I could only support anything on this level if there was a genuine civil war or military coup or something. Not protesting against a government bill. How does it help make a point to the government by attacking and abusing general members of the public, damaging private property, blocking roads. It just turns people against you.

It has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions that both the points I highlighted and organised violence in general have proven to be effective forms of protest. Effective protest generally requires acts of disruption to draw attention to the cause and puts pressure on the government to actually institute meaningful change in order to return to everyday function.

We support so called acts of criminality at least on the hypothetical level because we're realistic and recognise that such things have their place in movements towards genuine change. Assuming that people turn against those championing a cause simply due to violence perpetuated is a fallacious line of reasoning; the reactionary will appear no matter what. Where there is the promise of change, there will be those who oppose it, and they will be supported and allowed to proliferate by the establishment, for change is not in the interest of the powers that be.

Just don't - you're not explaining anything that has already been explained to him several times before. The only person here that's got unquestioning and unwavering support for violence and acts of criminality is ROTS for the police. He's just derailing/distracting.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

Blue line profile pic indicates trustworthiness

He’s an ex police officer who attends these events to act as an observer. My point is that there are always different sides to the narratives. There’s no reason to trust him anymore or less than tweets from others. That’s my point. Even feeds from people like HUCK are clearly biased towards the protesters to the point that they completely ignore the criminal element. People either have a vested interest in attacking or defending rather than remaining independent.

But in this case, the alternate perspective you posted showed...the same thing? Police smashing into stationary protestors. You're just proving my previous posts right: you constantly give the benefit of the doubt to the oppressors as the objective truth is an impossible goal.

You say "none of us were there, so we can't really say what happened!" I wonder, really wonder, what your reaction would be if one of us had been there and had been charged (as in "stampeded" not "with a crime") by the police? Would you change your views?

Of course not, because as discussed this search for the complete objective truth is a smokescreen to hide your biases while you attempt to hold the middle ground. Dude...it's not working.

Out of interest can anyone defend what’s going on below? It seems relatively minor in the grand scheme of what was happening yesterday but I feel the ‘protesters’ are totally out of order. One even kicks the car.

twitter.com/normanbrennan/status/1378573583476264964

If that is acceptable to you then what about blocking the M32? Which also happened yesterday.

The protestors politely ask the guy to go around. The kick is unwarranted, but there's no violence here. Also:

1: Coincidentally I'm sure, the guy who tweeted this is ex-police. So where's your benefit of the doubt for the protestors here? What if they were stopping the traffic because someone up ahead was injured in the road?
2: Absolutely people should block the M32 if that will help their cause. Civil disobedience is a proven method of enacting societal change.

Do you agree with the latter part of 2, by the way? If, as I suspect, not then what methods would you deem acceptable for the public to show their discontent re: matters of state?

I assume people who have banners with "ACAB","Kill Cops" and "KilltheBill" absolve themselves from ever using their services?

They all seem like level-headed, rational people

Why would you say this? Are people immediately not allowed to use things they actively dislike? How does that work? By this metric, does everyone who uses Amazon automatically approve of their systemic worker abuse?

Oh and that "Kill Cops" banner?

twitter.com/gavinmit/status/1378672538700677122

Yeah (also if you didn't already see, the guy holding it up as "Kill Cops" was later spotted behind police lines, chatting with officers).

The male holding the ‘kill cops’ banner is Barrett Brown, an American left wing journalist who works for the Guardian amongst other news media.

I do not support obstructing the general members of the public from going about their normal lives. I don’t think it’s acceptable. Protests can be held on pedestrianised streets, in parks, public squares also by working with local authorities to block off roads should that be required before hand. However covid has thrown all of this out of the window. Planned, organised marches are totally acceptable in normal times.

Protesting is something that should always remain a human right. Violence is not.

I think they are the only questions you directed to me.

[VlaSoul]

I still can’t believe so many people on here support acts of criminality and violence as a form of protest. This is where we differ and will never agree. We all have different lines I could only support anything on this level if there was a genuine civil war or military coup or something. Not protesting against a government bill. How does it help make a point to the government by attacking and abusing general members of the public, damaging private property, blocking roads. It just turns people against you.

It has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions that both the points I highlighted and organised violence in general have proven to be effective forms of protest. Effective protest generally requires acts of disruption to draw attention to the cause and puts pressure on the government to actually institute meaningful change in order to return to everyday function.

We support so called acts of criminality at least on the hypothetical level because we're realistic and recognise that such things have their place in movements towards genuine change. Assuming that people turn against those championing a cause simply due to violence perpetuated is a fallacious line of reasoning; the reactionary will appear no matter what. Where there is the promise of change, there will be those who oppose it, and they will be supported and allowed to proliferate by the establishment, for change is not in the interest of the powers that be.

Just don't - you're not explaining anything that has already been explained to him several times before. The only person here that's got unquestioning and unwavering support for violence and acts of criminality is ROTS for the police. He's just derailing/distracting.

dude I can't strawberry floating stand it he's been doing it for like two weeks now, it's getting ridiculous
Maybe you're right but I don't want to believe that even the most obstinate of reactionaries can't eventually see reason

[Hexx]

I still can’t believe so many people on here support acts of criminality and violence as a form of protest. This is where we differ and will never agree. We all have different lines I could only support anything on this level if there was a genuine civil war or military coup or something. Not protesting against a government bill. How does it help make a point to the government by attacking and abusing general members of the public, damaging private property, blocking roads. It just turns people against you.

It has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions that both the points I highlighted and organised violence in general have proven to be effective forms of protest. Effective protest generally requires acts of disruption to draw attention to the cause and puts pressure on the government to actually institute meaningful change in order to return to everyday function.

We support so called acts of criminality at least on the hypothetical level because we're realistic and recognise that such things have their place in movements towards genuine change. Assuming that people turn against those championing a cause simply due to violence perpetuated is a fallacious line of reasoning; the reactionary will appear no matter what. Where there is the promise of change, there will be those who oppose it, and they will be supported and allowed to proliferate by the establishment, for change is not in the interest of the powers that be.

Just don't - you're not explaining anything that has already been explained to him several times before. The only person here that's got unquestioning and unwavering support for violence and acts of criminality is ROTS for the police. He's just derailing/distracting.

dude I can't strawberry floating stand it he's been doing it for like two weeks now, it's getting ridiculous
Maybe you're right but I don't want to believe that even the most obstinate of reactionaries can't eventually see reason

Edit - the original was meant to be a PM sorry!
Oh I know it winds me up something rotten and I was angry as hell. But then I realised everyone knew exactly what he was, I didn't need to waste time and energy telling people what they already knew.
Good luck with that - you're going to be disappointed. When someone tells you they are, repeatedly. Believe them.

[Moggy]

[

The male holding the ‘kill cops’ banner is Barrett Brown, an American left wing journalist who works for the Guardian amongst other news media.

He hasn't written for the Guardian for 6 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/barrett-brown

[Return_of_the_STAR]

[

The male holding the ‘kill cops’ banner is Barrett Brown, an American left wing journalist who works for the Guardian amongst other news media.

He hasn't written for the Guardian for 6 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/barrett-brown

And? He’s still clearly not working undercover for the police like some people seem to think because some clever clogs on twitter decided he is. He’s a left wing journalist that’s clearly trying to stir gooseberry fool up.