Sign In

Mrebo

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
20-Mar-2011
Last activity
21-Aug-2018
Posts
4736

Post History

Post
#1232927
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Box of rocks alluded to her status as a protest candidate aimed at taking down the establishment (metaphorical rock throwing) as well as the dopey things she says. When she is asked follow up questions on issues she appears passionate about she all but crumbles and becomes incoherent.

Her comments on Israel stand out where she was saying the correct liberal thing but reveals she doesn’t really have much of a clue when asked follow up questions. Her comments on the low unemployment rate where she said there’s low unemployment because people are working too many jobs. There’s her inability to express how the policies she favors would have funding. She has a degree in economics and international relations but based on those particular segments I saw, I wouldn’t have known it.

In a friendly interview with a friendly audience, I wager she does just fine. The ability to speak is plenty in politics.

Post
#1232852
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Frink, in my responses I already accepted it could have been more precise and that I understand the assumption you made. I still don’t understand the significance of your objection. If I had just pulled a yearly number like mfm suggests, I’d get it. I did nothing remotely like that.

I fully recognize the technical point that a person could make the assumption it was s mass shooting (as I did with Collipso’s post months ago) but it wasn’t my intent. I don’t understand your fixation what amounts to a flimsy debating point.

Post
#1232794
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

Agree about people being in the way. During rush hour it’s inevitable but there are the idiots constantly changing lanes and speeding up on top of people as if they are going to get to their destination much faster when they see traffic is jammed up to the horizon. In actuality they slow down everyone including their like-minded idiots.

Post
#1232286
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Of course it’s equally relevant to gun control. What view is there to express? I want strict gun control. I’ve been saying that forever. And I call out all of those assholes that stop talking about gun control the second they forget about the last big school shooting.

I don’t understand Frink objecting that my post was “completely misleading” nor fixating on how the post was worded.

When I saw the Collipso post I assumed it was another mass shooting. I was surprised to find that wasn’t the case but I didn’t think an important issue was the assumptions I made or the presentation of his post. I thought the particular facts of that case qualified as a different issue and I explained that. I was basically told they’re not really different in an important way.

I think a concentrated bout of shootings with so many victims and so many perpetrators presents a powerful set of facts for gun control than a lone nutbar or a domestic dispute that happens to occur on a campus. If someone wanted to rhetorically call what happened in Chicago a mass shooting to draw attention to it I think that would be fair.

The emotional appeal isn’t the same to many people as you say. Maybe Frink thinks its not worth commenting on the story for the reasons you give: there’s nothing to really say. I don’t know, but I don’t understand thinking my abbreviated description was problematic, as they say.

Post
#1232178
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

can you tell me why it is important to specify up front whether it was all a single shooting incident?

Because multiple/many instances of gang violence, domestic violence, robbery, et al. in a highly populated area are separate issues than someone purposefully shooting into a crowded concert from a nearby hotel room window or else running down scores of people on the sidewalk with a truck.

If the topic is gun control, aren’t any of these shootings equally relevant to whether we bolster background checks, limit who can have guns, or ban guns altogether?

You say they are separate issues, which I take to mean not all necessarily about gun control. It’s a fair point if you think there are different kinds of solutions. I made the same point many pages ago responding to a post by Collipso. If you don’t want to click, Collipso said there, “Is it ever going to end?” with a copypasted link that included, “central-michigan-university-shots-fired.”

If you didn’t click on the link he gave, you might’ve jump to the conclusion there was a big mass shooting at a school. Nobody apparently jumped to that conclusion nor faulted Collipso for not making it clear that that wasn’t what happened. You could say he didn’t “edit” a headline but that’s a stylistic nitpick. The response back then was that it was about guns and the need to restrict them. The fact that it wasn’t a mass shooting was not mentioned by anyone other than me.

All that said, the violence in Chicago this past weekend was really bad even for Chicago. I’d be curious what different solutions people might think are warranted to address it than we see proposed for mass shootings.

The circumstances involved with, and the societal impact of, one person shooting sixty people versus sixty people shooting one person each, is significant enough to be relevant to the story. Omitting such information skews the response people will give, which is to say it leads people to become misinformed based on (understandably) inaccurate assumptions.

The societal/emotional impact and the journalistic hooks are different, I grant you. I do hope people click on the link and maybe express their views on the topic.

Post
#1232164
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

If you had repeated the headline, which says “66 shot, 12 fatally, in Chicago weekend shootings,” then no objection.

You edited it and then object when I point out that you did so. “60 shot in Chicago” is technically correct (assuming it was 60 at the time and later upped to 66, which is neither here nor there), but completely misleading at the same time.

I didn’t so much as edit as briefly give what I thought were important facts.

It’s not “completely misleading” and I think you’re fixated on the wrong thing here. 60 people shot (later updated) was more than technically correct. I know you’re not saying we should take those victims less seriously so I’m not sure what your point is.

You made an assumption, which was fair enough since we’re used to seeing major headlines about mass shootings, but can you tell me why it is important to specify up front whether it was all a single shooting incident? Again, I don’t (and didn’t) see any value in trying to mislead in the way you think. I thought such a short violent period resulting in so many shootings was notable and relevant to the topic of gun control.

Post
#1232151
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

For the purposes of discussing it as a political issue, I didn’t think it mattered. I don’t see what is gained in trying to make it sound like a mass shooting, except maybe people would care less about it because it isn’t? Again 60+ people shot, a dozen dead…and the issue is that I didnt specify it’s not a mass shooting. It’s a weird objection. If I were in support of banning guns, would the same objection be made to my post?

Post
#1232133
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

It’s a lot of people shot in a short time frame. I thought the gun control advocates would care but it’s not a story that get lots of play because it’s not a mass shooting.

Gun control advocates do care. It’s the media that doesn’t care because it isn’t an exciting enough story to get attention.

That’s what I think too.

It’s fodder for discussion. I’m not sure what Frink is saying with his comment.

He was obviously saying that you wrote your post to make it sound like 60 people were shot in a single mass shooting in Chicago.

I wrote it to describe what happened in Chicago: 60+ people were shot. It’s obvious that leaves out a lot of detail (for instance some people died) but that’s what the link is for. It’s not like it was actually a water gun shootout at a water park, so I don’t see how my inexact headline was misleading in an important way. 60+ people were shot, a dozen dead.

If the remarkable thing is that it wasn’t a mass shooting, well okay.

Post
#1231952
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Your zeal for violence and my relative pacifism probably can’t be reconciled. Your fixation on ills of the right and ignoring/downplaying/excusing ills on the left is also unresolvable.

Whatever point you’re trying to make, the following is logically fallacious (a non sequitur):

The Hodgkinson example is bullshit because I, unlike Steve Scalise, actually want political action to be taken to prevent assholes like him from getting shot in the first place, plus I’ve never advocated shooting anyone, let alone an elected official.

Either he is a leftwing nut motivated by extreme rhetoric or he isn’t. Your justifying violence based on the identity of the victim is horrible as a matter or morality and logic. There’s no reason that shabby logic belongs only to the self-declared righteous.

Post
#1231926
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Why do you always want to play the apologist for right wing craziness like this or Alex Jones?

Just who were you talking to here? You posted right after Frink. Frink may be many things, but if you think he is an apologist for Alex Jones, you have to be drunk.

I was talking to Mrebo.

Also in response to Mrebo, I was obviously fucking joking. You have mentioned multiple times that I’m calling for violence and death and I think that’s absurd.

I mentioned it in that one post.

If you can’t tell that my “I’m usually against violence but I wish the state would execute everyone that believes in Qanon” was a literal call for action, then you have the situational awareness of a brick. You can say that it’s callous that I don’t value the lives of people dumb enough to believe in QAnon (and I don’t, and I won’t pretend that I’d shed any tears if they all keeled over tomorrow) but you can’t say that I’m calling violence. Not unless you’re okay with being totally dishonest. I know you throw in a line about how I’m hyperbolic, but your implication that my rhetoric will inspire people to violence is absurd. I have no following, and the political violence I’m in favor of isn’t even actually happening with any kind of regularity.

As you recognize I said you were being hyperbolic, and I didn’t initially respond to your post to express any concern about your post…because I know your way of expressing things.

I was implying that the kind of rhetoric you use, which is increasingly common on the left, can inspire and has inspired violent acts. I’d hope there’s not such a nutjob on this site who would somehow be motivated by your post. I suppose you would hope the same.

The kind of rhetoric we see on the left, excusing Antifa violence of any kind, or inspiring somebody like James Hodgkinson, does seem far more dangerous than a silly conspiracy theory that all the Democratic leaders are going behind bars soon.

And Antifa never killed anybody. Like I said earlier, the people using violence against Nazis aren’t automatically as bad as the Nazis. To claim that they are is a false equivalence.

I’m not trying to draw any equivalence. One doesn’t need to do that to recognize violence is bad.

Post
#1231885
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

I agreed we should kill these people?

If you’re referring to my blog comment I just meant he was writing a blog instead of posting on a forum because he was just making random posts about stuff that was annoying him.

Me saying I don’t think a conspiracy theory is dangerous vs mfm calling for violence…and you find my post so objectionable you have to engage in personal attacks.

If you know someone that believes the Q thing, they might not be bad, but they’re definitely crazy. Or at the very least super gullible.

Average level of crazy, gullible in believing QAnon stuff certainly.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It makes it hard not to lump this shit in with the right wing in general when you refuse to condemn any of it.

I think Mrebo just pretends to be rational. The fact that half the time I have no idea what he’s saying just shows it only works half the time at most.

The kneejerk reaction to make issues personal is what makes this thread particularly dumb.

That post contained a truth and an assumption that may or may not be true. You defend a lot of crazy shit so maybe there’s another reason you do it but you haven’t said why so we’re left to make guesses.

You can engage in a sincere way and ask questions instead of saying whatever nonsense leaps to mind.

You can do the same. You just hide your disdain better than I do.

In the last couple pages, mfm engaged in apologia for Antifa violence and called for violence based on what people think. I know he is being hyperbolic, at least on the second matter, but that sets the scene for then fretting about how other people might possibly inspire crazies to be violent.

QAnon is a two-bit conspiracy theory that involves a belief that Mueller is secretly working on behalf of Trump and will soon arrest Clinton, Obama, Comey, etc. I don’t think there’s a compelling argument that it’s dangerous - juat that it is silly and wrong. Your criticism of me for saying so is absurd.

I experience a whole lot less disdain than you. And whether by nature or nurture, I don’t hold grudges.

Post
#1231855
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It makes it hard not to lump this shit in with the right wing in general when you refuse to condemn any of it.

I think Mrebo just pretends to be rational. The fact that half the time I have no idea what he’s saying just shows it only works half the time at most.

The kneejerk reaction to make issues personal is what makes this thread particularly dumb.

That post contained a truth and an assumption that may or may not be true. You defend a lot of crazy shit so maybe there’s another reason you do it but you haven’t said why so we’re left to make guesses.

You can engage in a sincere way and ask questions instead of saying whatever nonsense leaps to mind.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

Floyd Lee Corkins, James Hodgkinson, Kermit Gosnell, Antifa. Fun to demonize movements or thoughts based on the actions of the crazies or potential crazies.

I don’t know who any of those are other than Antifa and anyone who believes that Q shit is crazy.

I’m not surprised as those names/incidents don’t get the same play in the media and certainly not on your side of the aisle.

I think a good half the people here are crazy. But like I said, I know someone (who isn’t a bad/crazy person) who believes in it. When you know somebody who believes a crazy thing you’re generally apt to not be quite so harsh, I wager even you might understand.

In any event, I certainly wouldn’t have the reaction of ‘OMG we should kill these dangerous crazy people who threaten civilization,’ proposed by mfm that you go along with.