Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

Did they threaten to kill people? You know, like random people who do something as normal as going to school, and not something like "we'll shoot at any feds who try to take the land back"? Cause those are like totally different things. If you can't tell the difference, then you can't possibly grasp why terrorism is in a special category as opposed to other forms of resistance (even armed resistance).

You do realize we'd all still be British subjects if not for "scared white guys" who believed in standing up to injustice, right? I can't say I'm a supporter of the Bundy's, or of their methods, but having read a bit on the treatment of the Hammond's (and frankly everyone who got in the way of the BLM in this case), it's clear that a massive injustice has been done, and perhaps we ought to take notice of it. If a non-violent protest and occupation raises awareness of this, then perhaps it's a good thing.

What's funny is the automatic association of firearms and "violence". I will wager that this occupation will have less actual violence than the repeatedly labeled "peaceful" Occupy movement was. There will be no rapes, no defecating on police cars, no destruction of land or property. So if you're giving me a choice of which is "worse", I'm going to go with the actions and intentions of those involved over their skin color, political orientation, and what objects they happen to carry in their hands. But it's clear that for many, it's those other surface things that matter the most. Which I just find bizarre.

I'm not afraid of either. Again, that's your problem. For you, it's all about emotional response to something, rather than an assessment of the thing itself.

I defend the actions of the police with regard to Ahmed bringing the clock to school because I recognize the need for schools to maintain a set of rules that make it easier for faculty to make decisions with regard to their safety. It's not that I "fear" Ahmed's clock, but that I recognize that if you allow him to bring his clock to school, absent sufficient notification, and absent proper teacher supervision, it increases the odds that someone in the future might bring an actual bomb to school, and have a teacher fail to take correct action out of fear of being accused of profiling. I further disagree with the uproar caused by this, apparently purely because of the identity of the student involved. It should not matter what Ahmed's ethnicity or religion is. The same rules apply to everyone. Yet it appears as though most people's outrage over this wasn't because they took the time to learn all the facts, and they objectively came to the conclusion that there was no reason for the police to take the action that they took, but rather because of a knee jerk assumption that this was an example of profiling based on his ethnicity and religion. The condemnation of the police and support of Ahmed took place well before sufficient facts were known to make a proper evaluation of the event. Yet that didn't prevent many people, including the President, from taking a strong yet completely ignorant position. And by doing so, actually tainted the possibility of accurate evaluation later.

I neither defend nor condemn the actions of the Bundy's with regard to taking the reserve building. Why? Because I honestly don't have enough information yet to do so. See. That's what people should do. Take time to form an opinion after the facts are in. You, on the other hand, have taken a position for two reasons:

1. They are white "conservative" activists.

2. They are staunch gun owners.


Which is a freaking stupid set of reasons to pick a side. Every time you've talked about this, you've made a point to mention their skin color and the fact that they have firearms. Funny. You don't talk about why they are there, or the legality of said protest, or even bother to mention the thing they are protesting at all. It's all just about their identity.


Are you even aware you do this? I'd mention the whole Haidt's pillars thing again, but you'll probably burst a vessel or something. But you should know you're exhibiting exactly the blindness he talks about.

And here I thought this was an actual application of the 2nd Amendment (wrongheaded though it may be).

CTS

Doesn't matter anymore. They done enraged the birders, it's all over now.

I'm not sure the birds are on board, at least not yet.

We can talk them round. I'm sure they'll listen to reason.

We should all find some place to occupy and do it. It'll be ok as long as we're all white and bring guns with us. It's like a free vacation anywhere you want.

Nope. Now see, people might get upset if it's a private business. It would have to be some place like a public library or a museum. A big one!

Nerds.

The correct answer to the question I actually asked was: No.



Which would seem to apply to those who label people as "terrorists" purely because they don't like them, and not based on any specific objective evaluation of their actions and methodology. Seems like they're the ones applying their "personal opinion of what words should mean", and not the people like me saying "Um... I don't think that's actually an accurate label".



Nothing at all. Wait. Were you actually trying to be sarcastic? Um... You do get that saying you're willing to use violence to defend yourself, including lethal force, isn't actually an act of violence itself, right? Otherwise, every single home owner is committing an act of violence every single day. Every police officer. Every private citizen. Every member of the military sitting around the barracks. All are engaged in violence to you?

That's a pretty meaningless definition of "violence" you've cooked up there sparky. How about trying for something a bit more realistic and usable?