The Murder of George Floyd & Subsequent Protests/Riots

[Jaguar]

Officers responding to reports of a person with a gun in Woodland Hills Sunday have evacuated some buildings in the area, the Los Angeles Police Department said. Three suspects are barricaded at a location in the 20500 block of Ventura Boulevard, LAPD said. Officers have set up a perimeter and a SWAT team was called to the scene.

People were told to evacuate nearby buildings but LAPD provided no information on their locations or how many buildings were affected.

Police got a call around 11:30 a.m. that someone who was throwing bottles at passing vehicles brandished a gun in the area of Ventura Boulevard and Chalk Hill, authorities said.

A pro-Trump caravan was scheduled to pass through the area around 11 a.m. Sunday, going from Woodland Hills to Studio City. It’s unclear whether the incident is related to the rally.

Some buildings evacuated in Woodland Hills after reports of person with gun: Police | KTLA

I don't see anything about a tire being murdered.

 

[The Cat]

A ratchet only goes one way.

A war doesn't take most of us, just a few. Of those not willing to engage many are more than happy to cheer and signal boost from the sidelines. And no I no longer think 'most' of us want to work together. Each sides vision of what they want the country to be has become a venn diagram where the circle's no longer overlap. Coexistence is no longer the goal, but victory and humiliation. Barring a large scale attack seen as an act of War on the US from a foreign actor nothing will keep us from viewing the opposition as the enemy. Views are now antithetical to one another.

It didnt evaporate after '16 it got worse. Id say the first and second Amendments are a good place to start as to issues.

Stack ammo and pull up a lawn chair with some cold brews and watch, we live in interesting if no longer fun times.

You sound... excited...

 

[Jonny]

A ratchet only goes one way.

A war doesn't take most of us, just a few. Of those not willing to engage many are more than happy to cheer and signal boost from the sidelines. And no I no longer think 'most' of us want to work together. Each sides vision of what they want the country to be has become a venn diagram where the circle's no longer overlap. Coexistence is no longer the goal, but victory and humiliation. Barring a large scale attack seen as an act of War on the US from a foreign actor nothing will keep us from viewing the opposition as the enemy. Views are now antithetical to one another.

It didnt evaporate after '16 it got worse. Id say the first and second Amendments are a good place to start as to issues.

Stack ammo and pull up a lawn chair with some cold brews and watch, we live in interesting if no longer fun times.

I own no firearms and don't plan to. I live and work in San Francisco and have never seen any violence or looting. Nobody I know wants a civil war. Nobody I know supports violence.

What exactly do you want the country to become? You keep talking in these abstract terms without offering any evidence or clarification.

 

[FemMecha]

A ratchet only goes one way.

A war doesn't take most of us, just a few. Of those not willing to engage many are more than happy to cheer and signal boost from the sidelines. And no I no longer think 'most' of us want to work together. Each sides vision of what they want the country to be has become a venn diagram where the circle's no longer overlap. Coexistence is no longer the goal, but victory and humiliation. Barring a large scale attack seen as an act of War on the US from a foreign actor nothing will keep us from viewing the opposition as the enemy. Views are now antithetical to one another.

It didnt evaporate after '16 it got worse. Id say the first and second Amendments are a good place to start as to issues.

Stack ammo and pull up a lawn chair with some cold brews and watch, we live in interesting if no longer fun times.

I want to stop violence. I can't speak for others, but agree that many people seem invested in violence. Where do you stand personally? Do you want to work together? Do you want to stop violence? Do you want to stop signal boosting? If yes, how might one do that from where you stand?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I want to stop violence. I can't speak for others, but agree that many people seem invested in violence. Where do you stand personally? Do you want to work together? Do you want to stop violence? Do you want to stop signal boosting? If yes, how might one do that from where you stand?

The only way out is through. I no longer see a viable pathway for compromise. I would prefer if things weren't as shitty as they are, but that hope doesnt preclude me from preparing for the worst. You can yell at a train to stop before hitting a stuck bus on the tracks, but you can't rewrite the laws of physics to make the train stop before it does.

My preferences will not alter our course, at some point one must make peace with things and plan accordingly. If you cant drive around a forest fire it makes sense to pass through it as quickly as possible.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

A ratchet only goes one way.

A war doesn't take most of us, just a few. Of those not willing to engage many are more than happy to cheer and signal boost from the sidelines. And no I no longer think 'most' of us want to work together. Each sides vision of what they want the country to be has become a venn diagram where the circle's no longer overlap. Coexistence is no longer the goal, but victory and humiliation. Barring a large scale attack seen as an act of War on the US from a foreign actor nothing will keep us from viewing the opposition as the enemy. Views are now antithetical to one another.

It didnt evaporate after '16 it got worse. Id say the first and second Amendments are a good place to start as to issues.

Stack ammo and pull up a lawn chair with some cold brews and watch, we live in interesting if no longer fun times.

Are you surprised that prioritizing the economy over human life during a pandemic has drawn vociferous opposition? I would have hoped you would have been intelligent enough to account for that.

 

[Jonny]

The only way out is through. I no longer see a viable pathway for compromise. I would prefer if things weren't as shitty as they are, but that hope doesnt preclude me from preparing for the worst. You can yell at a train to stop before hitting a stuck bus on the tracks, but you can't rewrite the laws of physics to make the train stop before it does.

My preferences will not alter our course, at some point one must make peace with things and plan accordingly. If you cant drive around a forest fire it makes sense to pass through it as quickly as possible.

Would you please speak plainly?

How does your stockpiling of ammunition, or advocating for it, facilitate passing "through it as quickly as possible?"

And I'll ask again, what vision of the country do you have that is so disparate from mine or others?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I own no firearms and don't plan to. I live and work in San Francisco and have never seen any violence or looting. Nobody I know wants a civil war. Nobody I know supports violence.

What exactly do you want the country to become? You keep talking in these abstract terms without offering any evidence or clarification.

There is no point in trying. I could talk about the percentage of the foreign born among the populace and how it is now as high as it has ever been since the 1920's when we limited immigration until the Hart Cellar act in '65. Allowing the immigrants here in the 20's time to be fully digested into the American diaspora before returning to more liberal immigration policies. I have argued for some time that a country can only take so much immigration before the cultural bonds allowing for a high trust society to weaken irrevocably. If we continue there is nothing to expect but increased political and ethnic balkanization as every group decides to adopt an identitarian lens through which to view themselves.

I know how this line of argument will be viewed, and see no point in taking it further.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Would you please speak plainly?

How does your stockpiling of ammunition, or advocating for it, facilitate passing "through it as quickly as possible?"

And I'll ask again, what vision of the country do you have that is so disparate from mine or others?

It merely means I'm prepared whatever may come my way. It doesnt speed up anything. And I dont need to advocate for anything there are already millions doing the same. Have you looked at gun purchase and ammo price statistics?

 

[The Cat]

So no then...

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

There is no point in trying. I could talk about the percentage of the foreign born among the populace and how it is now as high as it has ever been since the 1920's when we limited immigration until the Hart Cellar act in '65. Allowing the immigrants here in the 20's time to be fully digested into the American diaspora before returning to more liberal immigration policies. I have argued for some time that a country can only take so much immigration before the cultural bonds allowing for a high trust society to weaken irrevocably. If we continue there is nothing to expect but increased political and ethnic balkanization as every group decides to adopt an identitarian lens through which to view themselves.

I know how this line of argument will be viewed, and see no point in taking it further.

The fact that this is a bigger priority to you than the pandemic tells me everything about your "values"; you are correct that I have no respect for them.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The fact that this is a bigger priority to you than the pandemic tells me everything about your "values"; you are correct that I have no respect for them.

My point precisely.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

My point precisely.

They are trash.

 

[Jonny]

There is no point in trying. I could talk about the percentage of the foreign born among the populace and how it is now as high as it has ever been since the 1920's when we limited immigration until the Hart Cellar act in '65. Allowing the immigrants here in the 20's time to be fully digested into the American diaspora before returning to more liberal immigration policies. I have argued for some time that a country can only take so much immigration before the cultural bonds allowing for a high trust society to weaken irrevocably. If we continue there is nothing to expect but increased political and ethnic balkanization as every group decides to adopt an identitarian lens through which to view themselves.

I know how this line of argument will be viewed, and see no point in taking it further.

So rather than suffer ethnic balkanization you advocate for (or suggested the inevitability of) literal balkanization of the country via civil war?

I don't fundamentally disagree that a country needs to limit immigration lest it lose its national identity. And I also agree that allowing too many immigrants can erode the cultural bonds and decrease trust. But I don't think that Mexican immigrants, at least in the current numbers, pose that much of a threat.

I do find your concern interesting though--your claim is that immigration is bad insofar as it weakens cultural bonds and trust. It is precisely for these reasons that I oppose Trump, for instance. I think he's the ultimate divider. And he sows mistrust and division in order to advance his political and financial objectives (orders of magnitude higher than any POTUS in recent history). It strikes me as odd that you would oppose immigration for those reasons, and then race to the precipice through your (I assume) support for a President who does those very things.

 

[ceecee]

I think it's hilarious that these conservatives are so pissed about the violence THEY are responsible for. They voted for Trump. They were told this would happen if they voted for Trump. They've spent 4 years trying to convince everyone else that they aren't had nothing to do with it - everyone else did for voting Hillary or not voting. Let that right wing conservative logic marinate a bit then you will come to the conclusion that these are lost people and truly not worth anyone's time or effort.

Or it's all immigrants fault! Same argument they've used since the turn of the century. 1899 that is.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I do find your concern interesting though--your claim is that immigration is bad insofar as it weakens cultural bonds and trust. It is precisely for these reasons that I oppose Trump, for instance. I think he's the ultimate divider. And he sows mistrust and division in order to advance his political and financial objectives (orders of magnitude higher than any POTUS in recent history). It strikes me as odd that you would oppose immigration for those reasons, and then race to the precipice through your (I assume) support for a President who does those very things.

That doesn't matter to him because they share the same "values". Before they used to try and tell me it had something to do with religion, but now I know that's a crock of shit.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

So rather than suffer ethnic balkanization you advocate for (or suggested the inevitability of) literal balkanization of the country via civil war?

I don't fundamentally disagree that a country needs to limit immigration lest it lose its national identity. And I also agree that allowing too many immigrants can erode the cultural bonds and decrease trust. But I don't think that Mexican immigrants, at least in the current numbers, pose that much of a threat.

I do find your concern interesting though--your claim is that immigration is bad insofar as it weakens cultural bonds and trust. It is precisely for these reasons that I oppose Trump, for instance. I think he's the ultimate divider. And he sows mistrust and division in order to advance his political and financial objectives (orders of magnitude higher than any POTUS in recent history). It strikes me as odd that you would oppose immigration for those reasons, and then race to the precipice through your (I assume) support for a President who does those very things.

So basically, you'll concede the academic validity of the point but would be unwilling to discuss it as a current policy matter.

That's just a fancier no.

And this is just one of a million things, some of which we would agree on as individuals in our body politic but which become untenable politically because of the entrenched nature of massive interests which would successfully fight tooth and nail to keep them from coming to fruition.

The fact that I'm resigned to the continued worsening of our societal situation assumes that policy compromise is moot at this point.

If I had any real hope for a policy solution, I wouldnt be resigned as I am now to the course things are on.

Arguing about is especially here, is just arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pen.

 

[ceecee]

That doesn't matter to him because they share the same "values". Before they used to try and tell me it had something to do with religion, but now I know that's a crock of shit.

Everything out of their mouth is a crock of shit, same for their media and their politicians. Bring on balkinization, but these fuckers need to be stood on and never allowed to rise up again.

 

[Jonny]

So basically, you'll concede the academic validity of the point but would be unwilling to discuss it as a current policy matter.

That's just a fancier no.

I'm totally willing. I agree with you that a certain level of unchecked immigration can lead to erosion of social cohesion and trust in a society, and threaten national identity. I disagree that the current level of foreign-born nationals, mostly from Mexico, crosses that threshold.

 

[Jonny]

Everything out of their mouth is a crock of shit, same for their media and their politicians. Bring on balkinization, but these fuckers need to be stood on and never allowed to rise up again.

If you're suggesting that balkinization of the US is acceptable, then I'm going to have to whole-heartedly disagree. It is not in our best interest to fracture our nation, despite how hateful the current political climate has become.