Other police cover for them. The feds only take reports from the other police that said they did nothing wrong. Militias don't exist, they are called The National Guard now. Everyone who thinks they are a well regulated militia is just a nut with a gun.
“When two people with extreme views on a subject meet and one calls the other out of touch with reality” - 2020 colorized.
Historians wonder if perhaps both viewpoints contained truth, and the actual reality was somewhere between the two extremes? All we know is the people of the time never found out, as they never actually tried to communicate. A sad and savage time it was.
Shocker Medros is doubling down on putting the "ass" into "assume" once again
.
Try not to be so hateful, mate. If you weren't so eager to project all over the place you'd not look anywhere near this misinformed and spiteful in the future
I mean... There's two 'conservative' usernames I know on this website, you and famousone, and y'all are both on this post making jokes.
Now correlation doesn't mean causation, but you're both here is all i'm saying.
I didn't make a joke either.
.
You somehow took the two username that you yourself have labelled "conservative," and then projected your own misrepresentations onto them.
.
Now, correlation doesn't mean causation. But you're here. Doing this.
.
Please tell me more about what you're saying, though. It sounds truly fascinating
.
.
Edited because typos were bothering me
Actually I just noticed. And it seems worth pointing out.
.
"Who do you call when the police murder?"
.
Responses (posted prior to your own):
Cold Pasta: Internal affairs
Dr_richard_ew: GhostBusters
Mr Fahrenheit: Coastguard?
Ratfink11: A sniper
Famousone: other police. The militia.
Me: Why is one E different?
.
Am I to assume from this that you think the GhostBusters, internal affairs, a single sniper, and/or the Coastguard are not, in fact, JOKES, but actual suggestions to combat the subjugation of Hong Kong?
In fairness- I didn’t see a problem with xvarnahs comment. She didn’t undermine or mock the issue or politics or include any subtle messages. The post was off the “focus” of the topic- but she also acknowledged that- and she was in my opinion, doing something I do all the time- she was looking at the meme at a different angle, a less obvious angle. There’s something here that she noticed and wanted to share, and I can respect that. Wether one would say she refuses to believe or even supports police brutality- she didn’t come here in the name of politics. I think that is fair. This is funsubstance. For her- there may not have been anything “fun” she cared to discuss about the political issue- and maybe others too. So here is a neutral comment that isn’t political but still explores this meme and allows her (and others) to also have fun while being a part of this.
I also want to be fair and say that I don’t want to invalidate the stance that one could view such comments as some sort of meta politics itself, disarming the issue or such- it is possible to work an agenda without actually openly doing so. And that itself to me would be an interesting concept to discuss and analyze- as a concept and not with aggression or malice to xvarnah, who we do not have proof that was her intention, and being honest having known her some time- I do believe that she came here to just share an observation and not just add a political comment about the situation which has largely already been said in other posts on this thread. So I dunnoh. Lord knows she and I butt heads on politics many times- but I personally don’t think she should get any heat for this. I think she was just having fun, and not hurting anyone.
I actually wanted to know if there was a reason for the E being different. I know the people of Hong Kong carry umbrellas to deflect tear-gas, scream "I will NOT commit suicide" so when they turn up dead the government can't blame it on suicide, and various other things. I was curious if this was actually some sort of code or some shit like that.
.
Either way, while I genuinely appreciate the effort, it is largely moot.
.
As pointed out, the above comments had nothing to do with my own comment... they were made because some people on this website dislike me (and famousone) as people - to the point that my actual stance on Hong Kong wasn't even required
.
Which is absolutely fine, but anyone who does know me also knows I will point out the ridiculousness of that behavior - and enjoy doing so.
just going to point out that using conservative as a dirty word makes you just as much of a useless piece of shit as people that use liberal as a dirty word, not better
I would agree on your point Bethorien, with the caveat which I am not saying applies here but CAN apply- that 1. Sometimes conservative or liberal are used to label something and it is the reader who infers it as a dirty word; and 2. While it is imprecise and can lead to division and generalization- often “liberal” or “conservative” are used as dirty words in context to extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism- which most forms of extremism, especially in politics, generally should be dirty words. Simply put, reality rarely exists solely in one extreme. So consistent thinking to the extreme of most any bias is inherently the mark of a mind which is not aligned to reality. A form of delusion. Given that what today we call “regular” liberal or conservative stances would historically be viewed as centrist- those labeled as “liberal” or “conservative” in 2020 are often extremists.
I would agree on your point Bethorien, with the caveat which I am not saying applies here but CAN apply- that 1. Sometimes conservative or liberal are used to label something and it is the reader who infers it as a dirty word; and 2. While it is imprecise and can lead to division and generalization- often “liberal” or “conservative” are used as dirty words in context to extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism- which most forms of extremism, especially in politics, generally should be dirty words. Simply put, reality rarely exists solely in one extreme. So consistent thinking to the extreme of most any bias is inherently the mark of a mind which is not aligned to reality. A form of delusion. Given that what today we call “regular” liberal or conservative stances would historically be viewed as centrist- those labeled as “liberal” or “conservative” in 2020 are often extremists.
We literally had to create further spectrums of extreme going from adding “far right” and “far left” to “alt left” and “alt right” and start using political factions and movement names to describe people who aren’t even part of those groups by have a general ideological or political alignment just to be able to categorize people in any way that is useful. Saying someone is “conservative” in 2020 means what? They don’t believe in Gay Marriage? They don’t think we should abolish all national borders and become a single world collective governed by a magic 8 ball and a system of dice and weather patterns? Or is a conservative in 2020 someone who believes that we should purge America of “undesirables” and fight wars until the world speaks only English and that we should abolish democracy and abolish basic math because vote counting sometimes elects the wrong guy? It’s a HUGE spectrum of “liberal” and “conservative” and the language is always changing and there isn’t always the best...
Label to apply. Call someone an “Antifa” or a communist or something and the whole thing can get derailed as they explain that their views incorporate anarcho-capitalist post Marxist secular humanist theories based on a vandergraft-Hughes proto fascist economic technocracy with corpocratic egalitarianism, or some crap. So often times all that gets shortened down and people just say: “Freaking liberal nonsense...” and personally, as you all likely know, I favor lengthier and more precise labels to try and remove confusion from the world- but as long as there are people who do not, or who can’t understand nuance or muster the attention to keep up, that itself can and often is a cause of confusion because people want all that precision but in 100 characters or less, and without having to learn or adhere to newer more precise words that allow concise but detailed communications.
Lol. That is one valid solution. Although I would say that no one should have to leave their country because their own police are a threat to them, and given the often racially charged nature of the issue in the US, if those seemingly most at risk (or most aware of their risk) left- it would basically only serve the underlying racial tone as that would just basically mean America being gutted of minority groups. Perhaps it is better for all to fix these problems. But I like where your head is at. Perhaps we could train our officers overseas, or mandate that police can only be recruited from countries with better track records in policing- until we have established a culture and practices and then we could start slowly recruiting US officers again at a rate that allows them to assimilate?
Historians wonder if perhaps both viewpoints contained truth, and the actual reality was somewhere between the two extremes? All we know is the people of the time never found out, as they never actually tried to communicate. A sad and savage time it was.
.
Try not to be so hateful, mate. If you weren't so eager to project all over the place you'd not look anywhere near this misinformed and spiteful in the future
Now correlation doesn't mean causation, but you're both here is all i'm saying.
.
You somehow took the two username that you yourself have labelled "conservative," and then projected your own misrepresentations onto them.
.
Now, correlation doesn't mean causation. But you're here. Doing this.
.
Please tell me more about what you're saying, though. It sounds truly fascinating
.
.
Edited because typos were bothering me
.
"Who do you call when the police murder?"
.
Responses (posted prior to your own):
Cold Pasta: Internal affairs
Dr_richard_ew: GhostBusters
Mr Fahrenheit: Coastguard?
Ratfink11: A sniper
Famousone: other police. The militia.
Me: Why is one E different?
.
Am I to assume from this that you think the GhostBusters, internal affairs, a single sniper, and/or the Coastguard are not, in fact, JOKES, but actual suggestions to combat the subjugation of Hong Kong?
.
Either way, while I genuinely appreciate the effort, it is largely moot.
.
As pointed out, the above comments had nothing to do with my own comment... they were made because some people on this website dislike me (and famousone) as people - to the point that my actual stance on Hong Kong wasn't even required
.
Which is absolutely fine, but anyone who does know me also knows I will point out the ridiculousness of that behavior - and enjoy doing so.