SaltSong @ SaltSong @startrek.website

Posts

3

Comments

706

Joined

6 mo. ago

Do you think the employees of the dealership felt threatened?

You make some good points.

Back in the late 2000 or early 2010, there was a spate of, let's say, aggressive vandalism directed at abortion clinics. I cannot help but think that, even though no person was hurt, that it must have been pretty scary for both the employees, and the patients. But would you argue that it's not terrorism? I'd argue it was. It was a direct effort to use force, I would say violence, in order to cause a political change in practice, if not in fact.

Falsehoods? Like equating municipally owned water towers and privately owned charging stations?

No falsehoods like "property damage isn't violence against civilians," when we both know perfectly well it can be.

"False equivalency" seems to be another way of saying that you can't defend your position without illustrating that you define "violence against civilians" based on how much you like the civilians in question.

No, but if someone did, and could support their case, I'd allow it.

Can we not link to reddit's craptastic image containers?

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm trying to get people on my side of the political divide to stop supporting their ideas with falsehoods. That is one way the right wing is able to attract a certain kind of adherent. They just have to point to things like this, where we say, and support, a false idea that we demonstrably don't even believe ourselves.

If our ideas are good, we only need the truth to make them look good.

Why do you think that? Because I'm trying to get us to make a sensible argument rather than a simple, incorrect argument?

You know, I might be a little more ok with this, if it actually stopped school shootings.

But I doubt it will.

It's quite easy to understand. But you said "Property damage is not violence against civilians."

Clearly property damage can be violence against civilians.

It is if you're using the definition provided by the person I'm replying to.

Only if you're shorting them to further a political goal.

He didn't say "swasticars." He said "property." Property damage can absolutely be violence against civilians.

My audience would be anyone tempted to think that planting a burning cross in the yard of a black family does not count as violence against civilians, because it's just property damage.

What if I blew up a water tower?

Or burned down every grocery store in the city? (At night, while no-one was there to get hurt)

In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.

Enough damage to that dealership costs someone money. That's harm.

Maybe not a lot of harm. But it's harm.

Most of our government seems to be.

This isn't a case of logic, it's a case of observation.

It's also a joke. There are very few Democrat leaders that get involved in gay sex scandles, not because they don't have gay sex, but that their base doesn't care. Most of us just call it "sex" unless we have a specific need to differentiate. Some additional factor is required to make it a scandal.

Republicans, though, officially disapprove of gay sex. So anytime one of them is caught having any, automatic scandal.

It's honestly not too bad an idea, provided they are old enough.

I have no expectation of inheriting anything. Between medical bills and consumer debt, and the fact that my family is poor as shit anyway, there will be nothing to inherit. They might as well run that credit card debt up, because it dies with them.

I might feel differently if I had any reason whatever to feel bad about cheating credit card companies out of their money, but banks and financiers as a whole address not on my list of favorite people.

This is why gatekeeping is actually important. But you've got to be sure you're keeping out the people who want to change the group, rather than people who want to join it.

I actually stopped buying their products.

No huge loss. Black beans are black beans.