Calling a criticism of riots that my wife might have to dodge on the way to an office "PC boilerplate". Those tactics. You're aware that this disorder is centred in British loyalist areas and driven by loyalist paramilitaries, are you? That there's a tiny microgrouping of Irish fascists rowing in behind them, made relevant by funding they get from UK and international shitbags while posing as patriots and unable to speak our language? That the north of Ireland is the most racist place in western Europe, with crime statistics that bear this out? No, you just think "everyone is pissed" and that calling a pogrom by its name is a "funny way of saying" that. There was no claim that it was "racist to not want to be fucking stabbed", you fucking clown car. It is racist to burn the fucking city and brown people in particular because a brown person did a stabbing, while you don't make a whimper when there are record levels of femicide in the same place. It's selective and organised outrage by fascists motivated specifically by a dislike for brown people, not a spontaneous and general outcry from normal people.
*Cops kill a black guy and black folk riot* UA - fucking animals!!!! Property damage!!!!!! *Muslim stabs a white guy and white folk riot* UA - yeah but remember they've got a really good reason to be mad!!!
Musk has been looking to foment a race war since he bought Twitter, looks like he made some progress in Ireland there People need to get the fuck off social media
Still sounds like de-emphasizing the murder to me, just like local public figures reflexively urging calm and singing the praises of their migrant community. That sounds like running cover. Nor is it racist to identify the perpetrator, whether it "stigmatizes a community" or not. There's no good reason to burn the city, but you don't speak for everyone. Failing to deal with one crime doesn't excuse failing to deal with the rest. Maybe you need to lock up more locals AND vet your migrants more thoroughly, I don't know.
You don't get to wreck shit and hurt people while still calling it a protest, regardless of what you look like. Nor is "people will riot" an excuse to hold anyone less accountable or confine the options of police and courts.
There was no murder. One criminal attacked another criminal (didn't know that part either, did you?) and he's still alive. Telling people to stop burning houses with kids in them as a result is not running cover for that, you utter twat. Nobody said that it was racist to identify the perpetrator. It is racist to fixate on this crime as a singular problem above all other crimes and above racist pogroms, as both you and our local fascists wish to. I have a fairly detailed understanding of local politics. You're the one wading into this pretending you know what's going on and why when you haven't a clue. Which again, nobody disputes.
Right. Misspoke. Stabbing. I guess that makes it ok. But that's not all they're saying, is it? And yet your answer is "what about what about what about."
Lots of people are saying lots of stuff. If you've a problem with some of it, quote it and we'll see. But it's fairly clear that you consider anything short of getting on board with the agenda of the rioters to be incorrect. Highlighting the inconsistent positions that you and your fascist chums take is not "whatabout". There isn't a single person that I'm aware of who doesn't want the stab-happy twat punished severely. Our problem is with trying to collectively punish others.
UA- I'm against collective guilt!! Uuuunleeeessss.... *Unrolls long scroll of groups it's okay to collectively punish*
My positions are consistent, and they are never in suport of violent riots or holding different people to different standards.
No collective guilt, but no holding anyone to a lesser standard based on their presumed victimhood status, either.
Unless it's crying diaper wetting white men with beards. Oh, right, they can never be victims, because their blubbering and sobbing is really macho and butch. Except it totally fucking isn't.
i am beginning to believe ole Al is the pedo(32) of wordforge (not that he is a pedophile but he behaves like one i am familiar with). he has a fragile ego that he must defend at all costs. if you say anything he will take it in the worst possible way mostly because when he says something he means it in the worst possible way. ole al like the pedo(32) spends his time telling us just how tough he is and and you better not touch his stuff (lighten up Francis). he looks in the mirror and see a liberatarian hero staring back at him.......he is frustrated that the rest of the world does not see him the same way. just like the pedo(32) he is easily manipulated. yep just like the pedo(32) ole al feels he above us and he is just as sure he is better than us.
Many of them ARE guilty of nothing more than tresspassing. That FACT does not make me responsible for the J6 riot.
Sorry, can't agree with that. Intent matters. When you are part of a group that is intent on doing something illegal (in this case, preventing Congress from carrying out its constitutionally mandated job of taking note of the results of the election, as certified by all 50 states), you are part of that crime. In the same way, if I and a bunch of others go into a store to commit armed robbery, even if I was personally unarmed, was there only as part of a "show of muscle", and didn't carry out any of the loot myself, I can't say I was only guilty of trespassing. All those who went into the Capitol were part of an insurrection against the United States governement and the constitution, whether or not they actually did (or got the chance to do) anything more than "go along with the crowd" in doing it. It is quite appropriate that those who committed specific offenses in addition to that intent to prevent a legally elected president from being able to take office receive additional sentences for those additional offenses. But all of them were part of a violent insurrection, intended to prevent the results of an election from being recognized. Their failure to do so, and the fact that they were lied to in order to motivate them to do it (by the very person who hoped to gain something to which he had no right whatsoever, if their insurrection had been successful), are not really mitigting circumstances. An "attempted coup d'état" is still treason, in the same way that attempted murder is still a serious crime. As for being lied to, as you yourself point out (correctly) so often: we are responsible for our own choices. So no, they weren't guilty simply of "trespassing". That is a blatant distortion of the facts.
Sorry, no. Not everyone in the vicinity was up to the same activities, an you cannot attribute motive to an entire group. That is guilt by association because you don't like their politics.
"In the vicinity" is not the same thing as "illegally entering a government building as part of a crowd intent on carrying out a crime".
Funny you don't think that about literally any other situation where that would also apply. I wonder why...
The lengths you go to in order to distort the facts in favour of the January 6th insurrectionists says much more about you than it does about them.
Nope. "Conspiracy to commit murder" is a serious crime, even if it didn't end up causing any harm to anyone. So is planning a terrorist attack, even if they got you before you got beyond the planning stage. And by the same token, so is "conspiracy to commit treason".
Not every one of them entered any building. Not everyone was involved in any violence or damage. None of that is distorted. I just refuse to apply a different set of standards because you don't like their grievances.
