Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
As tho there's something wrong with bring emotional
Is America burning? (Black Lives Matter protests, civil unrest and riots 2020)
- Thread starter Jeremiah18.17
- Start date
Numbers
an ting!
Anytime I’m being emotional I bring emotion.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Tbh I'd be wary of anyone who isn't emotional about a cop killing someone, who isn't incandescent with rage
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Sigh. I understood the 'emotion'al response of wanting to slag off an entire nation because of some of it's dumb culture. Because, when it comes to the USA, I sometimes do it myself, I'm sure a lot of people do. However, I find it's best to try and take a step back sometimes and not slag off a whole group of people who aren't actually 'a whole' but a diverse set. Because otherwise if I do start to slag off a whole group of people who are diverse I remind myself that that way leads racism.
I wasn't being condescending, I wasn't telling Mation what they thought, I explained clearly in my post what I meant. But you continue to put words in the mouths of others, a trait of yours seen here quite regularly, while pretending to not care so much about what I think or feel that you are constantly referring back to it and detracting from the actual fucking huge issue of what happened and is happening here.
bimble
floofy
Clearly he enjoyed the whole thing was just upset that they didn’t get to use the vicious dogs and ominous weapons.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Well, all right then. The alternative is that people like me carry on using the words we use to convey the meanings we intend, and if someone else wants to read into our choice of word some kind of sinister meaning, that's their problem.
Nobody who knows me personally is likely to be digging around looking for dubious motives signalled by my use of vocabulary, and I'm really not sure how much of a fuck I give about anyone who is.
So I'm glad I've sorted that out in my head, anyway.
petee
no gods, no malarkey
i read a piece that had a point, that trump will repeat nixon's strategy: ignore the war (vietnam/coronavirus) and focus on the unrest, pose as the law and order type, rile up the base. so he's leaping on the MN situation.
and the voter suppression, the attacks on the USPS, the cancellation of primaries (already happened) etc.
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
of course this will not inflame any of his base to organise against these so call protesters
ffs the guy is a loon
expects another good people on both side in the morning
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Getting serious...
Well, if these reserves can't get on top of the situation, I guess the only option left is the full-time troops.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
they already have
bimble
floofy
National guard do you mean? Separate thing, army is supposed to never be used against American civilians I think.
eta I don’t really understand the difference but that bit is true.
Last edited:
kalidarkone
Bringing YOU round.....
Good point!
FiFi
Hot Cross Bunny
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
I don't want a list of words, but the other day a friend of my daughter's posted a really well-put Facebook update about their experience as a POC in the UK Italy. I initially commented that it was well-written and something else I can't remember because I deleted it. My reason for deleting it was that it sounded patronising. It wasn't meant that way, but it definitely read like a review rather than an emotional response, even though part of my emotional response to something is to say that something is well written or articulate.
That was slightly different because of how I know that person, so I was thinking that I'd come across as basically being a Mum saying well done in a condescending way. But the topic could have made it seem like that too.
(I changed my comment to something even shorter, like "powerful" - can't remember now).
Some might. Some might not. There would be massive amounts of trouble way beyond this.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
they sent in the troops during the LA roits
IIRC, that was the first time federal troops had been ordered in to deal with riots since the 60's, but they didn't do much, because by the time they were actually deployed, the riots were under control.
ETA - just checked, I was basically right, although 10,000 National Guard troops were called in.
The deployment of federal troops was not ready until Saturday, by which time the rioting and looting were under control.
Meanwhile, the 40th Infantry Division (doubled to 4,000 troops) of the California Army National Guard continued to move into the city in Humvees; eventually 10,000 Army National Guard troops were activated. That same day, 1,000 federal tactical officers from different agencies across California were dispatched to L.A. to protect federal facilities and assist local police. This was the first federal law enforcement response to a civil disorder in any U.S. city since the Ole Miss riot of 1962 and the largest mobilization of such personnel to the same in history.
1992 Los Angeles riots - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Yes
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Of course they would/will. That's their job, to do exactly as they're told, without question.
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
Christ.
Numbers
an ting!
Well done you.Well, all right then. The alternative is that people like me carry on using the words we use to convey the meanings we intend, and if someone else wants to read into our choice of word some kind of sinister meaning, that's their problem.
Nobody who knows me personally is likely to be digging around looking for dubious motives signalled by my use of vocabulary, and I'm really not sure how much of a fuck I give about anyone who is.
So I'm glad I've sorted that out in my head, anyway.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
polly
Well-Known Member
Well, all right then. The alternative is that people like me carry on using the words we use to convey the meanings we intend, and if someone else wants to read into our choice of word some kind of sinister meaning, that's their problem.
Nobody who knows me personally is likely to be digging around looking for dubious motives signalled by my use of vocabulary, and I'm really not sure how much of a fuck I give about anyone who is.
So I'm glad I've sorted that out in my head, anyway.
Why on earth would anyone dig around your words looking for dubious motives?? There's no agreed list of words that can be forwarded to you - you just need to either engage with the general conversation here and elsewhere on this subject and similar (where these themes very quickly become obvious, trust me) or be gracious when it is made clear to you that there are things you might not fully understand. I don't understand why any white person would want to confront a woman of colour on this subject in such a petulant way - do you not think that there is enough hurt around this subject?
edit - actually you should always be gracious in this context, however well read.
Numbers
an ting!
We’re living in a dream world Neo...I like to think so
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Nope, read back a few posts.
They are part of the army, but organised at state level, they can be mobilised at both state & federal level, by a state governor or by the president, even without agreement of the various governors.
LINK
Anyway, latest news on Sky, for the first time since the LA riots, Trump has made an order that Federal army troops can be deployed within 4 hours.
Numbers
an ting!
It’s sorted in his own head tho’.
Similar threads
