Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interesting:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/whites-riot-over-pumpkins-in-nh-and-twitter-turns-it-into-epic-lesson-about-ferguson/

Interesting indeed. No scumbag rioters were shot in NH, either, just arrested, like in Ferguson. What's the point of this post?

Sorry, if you read the story and don't get it then the structural nature of the internet physically prevents me from taking the blinders off for you.

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interesting:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/whites-riot-over-pumpkins-in-nh-and-twitter-turns-it-into-epic-lesson-about-ferguson/

Interesting indeed. No scumbag rioters were shot in NH, either, just arrested, like in Ferguson. What's the point of this post?

Sorry, if you read the story and don't get it then the structural nature of the internet physically prevents me from taking the blinders off for you.

I read the story when someone posted it on Facebook.

All rioting is fething moronic and destructive.

 Hordini wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Which part can't you believe?

Potentially interfere in any way with the one thing people in STL almost universally consider holy ground.

Are all the protesters actually from STL?

Of course not. The demagogues involved in on the ground organizing around Ferguson have successfully turned Mike Brown into a martyr. There was a "weekend of resistance" advertised nationally via social media. The entire point was to bring in more people that don't live in the towns immediately affected in order to spread the "fire"...so to speak.

At this point it isn't about the kid that got shot, his family, the town, or that individual cop. The cop could be arrested tomorrow and it wouldn't matter to the majority of the youth/radical protest community because its not about what happened, its about the fact that they see the entire "system" as corrupt and worth overturning. Note the powerful attempts (legitimate or illegitimate, I am not making a judgement call) to directly link the death of Mike Brown to Trayvon Martin & Eric Garner.

Follow the appropriate hashtags on twitter, its all openly discussed.

 Jihadin wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interesting:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/whites-riot-over-pumpkins-in-nh-and-twitter-turns-it-into-epic-lesson-about-ferguson/

Interesting indeed. No scumbag rioters were shot in NH, either, just arrested, like in Ferguson. What's the point of this post?

There's a "keyword" your missing there

I think we are in agreement about the keyword in the title, but I was looking at the fact that no rioters were shot, just arrested. The difference is a cop was shot in MO

We can agree that the points presented in the article might not matter, but if you are going to pretend the points don't even exist then there is really no reason for me to even post any more replies.

 d-usa wrote:
We can agree that the points presented in the article might not matter, but if you are going to pretend the points don't even exist then there is really no reason for me to even post any more replies.

Tell it to me from your perspective. In past threads you've made some good points I found out in the end, to agree with.
What I see in both instances are straight up donkey-caves that need a serious butt kicking. One group was using Brown as an excuse to loot and cause mayhem, the other group was using pumpkins. In the end the signifigance was the same to both.

 d-usa wrote:
We can agree that the points presented in the article might not matter, but if you are going to pretend the points don't even exist then there is really no reason for me to even post any more replies.

And yet you will still continue posting your smarmy cryptic little posts.

There is nothing cryptic about the link, the story is told in the link. With letters that make up words, that then combine to form sentences, that then combine to make the many points.

Again, feel free to disagree about the points being valid. But if people want to pretend that there is no point then there is no reason for me to become involved in the "lets all pretend we can't read a simple article" game.

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Interesting:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/whites-riot-over-pumpkins-in-nh-and-twitter-turns-it-into-epic-lesson-about-ferguson/

Interesting indeed. No scumbag rioters were shot in NH, either, just arrested, like in Ferguson. What's the point of this post?

Sorry, if you read the story and don't get it then the structural nature of the internet physically prevents me from taking the blinders off for you.

they critique the rioters in that article d-use, and rightly so.

the fact that other people riot and damage stuff to doesnt mean another group gets to.

The article has a distinct tone to it to say the least as well.

Keep posting you smarmy cryptic little posts, I like em.

 d-usa wrote:
There is nothing cryptic about the link, the story is told in the link. With letters that make up words, that then combine to form sentences, that then combine to make the many points.

Again, feel free to disagree about the points being valid. But if people want to pretend that there is no point then there is no reason for me to become involved in the "lets all pretend we can't read a simple article" game.

I am honestly trying to understand your point, d. White or black, rioters are jerks that deserve imprisonment. What is it you find interesting about this? I feel the same way about rioters of any color. I really want to know what your view is on the article.

I'm assuming that the point is something along the lines of the fact that Ferguson rioted over someone being shot and ether was condemnation of races as a whole, calls for more leadership from within the community, large spread news coverage and criticism,and when these guys riot over pumpkins nothing has happened.

I will agree with D though, the points are pretty succinctly summed up in the twitter posts in that article.

Relapse wrote:
Looks like they found Brown's blood on the police car, indicating he might have attacked the officer:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/18/justice/michael-brown-darren-wilson-account/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Clearly this was planted by The Man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Everything I have read said there was a struggle in the car. There are different accounts about who started it, but we knew about it. "The gun went off in the car" was also part of the very early dialogue.

But you don't get to shoot someone later because of it.

Several witnesses were saying he was just chaased down and executed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

AFAIK, he bought some items and got in a confrentation with the clerk because he didn't have enough money for all of it.

When you take it anyway that's still theft.

When you put your hands on someone, that's still assault.

Historically thats actually battery. Assault is the threat to do such. Some states just combine the two, because occasional some dill weed lawyer will try to point that out and be all snooty, kind of like what I'm doing now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
There is nothing cryptic about the link, the story is told in the link. With letters that make up words, that then combine to form sentences, that then combine to make the many points.

Again, feel free to disagree about the points being valid. But if people want to pretend that there is no point then there is no reason for me to become involved in the "lets all pretend we can't read a simple article" game.

I am honestly trying to understand your point, d. White or black, rioters are jerks that deserve imprisonment. What is it you find interesting about this? I feel the same way about rioters of any color. I really want to know what your view is on the article.

I'll be honest. If the rioters were green or purple I'd probably have a different view. "Ma get the shotguns, the aliens are riotin' again."

 Goliath wrote:


I will agree with D though, the points are pretty succinctly summed up in the twitter posts in that article.

But they're false positives.

No one in the "white" community is condoning the rioting. At all.

And the riots APPEAR to have been handled quite similarly:

The Ferguson riots were intermittent over the course of two weeks. Pumpkin riot less than 12 hours.

30 were arrested in the initial Ferguson riot that involved massive looting, vandalizing, and a GAS STATION being set on fire. "At Least 12" were arrested in the pumpkin riot that involved overturning cars, uprooting street signs, and A COUCH being set on fire.

Is the point that the relatively benign pumpkin riot got barely any coverage? feth, be more pissed that the WVU campus "riot" following their dismantling of Baylor didn't get any coverage.

I'm just curious where all the twitter uproar was regarding Dillon Taylor.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Goliath wrote:


I will agree with D though, the points are pretty succinctly summed up in the twitter posts in that article.

But they're false positives.

No one in the "white" community is condoning the rioting. At all.

And the riots APPEAR to have been handled quite similarly:

The Ferguson riots were intermittent over the course of two weeks. Pumpkin riot less than 12 hours.

30 were arrested in the initial Ferguson riot that involved massive looting, vandalizing, and a GAS STATION being set on fire. "At Least 12" were arrested in the pumpkin riot that involved overturning cars, uprooting street signs, and A COUCH being set on fire.

Is the point that the relatively benign pumpkin riot got barely any coverage? feth, be more pissed that the WVU campus "riot" following their dismantling of Baylor didn't get any coverage.

I'm just curious where all the twitter uproar was regarding Dillon Taylor.

I was thinking the same things.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Goliath wrote:


I will agree with D though, the points are pretty succinctly summed up in the twitter posts in that article.

But they're false positives.

No one in the "white" community is condoning the rioting. At all.

And the riots APPEAR to have been handled quite similarly:

The Ferguson riots were intermittent over the course of two weeks. Pumpkin riot less than 12 hours.

30 were arrested in the initial Ferguson riot that involved massive looting, vandalizing, and a GAS STATION being set on fire. "At Least 12" were arrested in the pumpkin riot that involved overturning cars, uprooting street signs, and A COUCH being set on fire.

Is the point that the relatively benign pumpkin riot got barely any coverage? feth, be more pissed that the WVU campus "riot" following their dismantling of Baylor didn't get any coverage.

I'm just curious where all the twitter uproar was regarding Dillon Taylor.

yup,

seems hypocritical to think that the pumkin riots get some sort of defacto support from the white community at large... despite no one really knowing about them or supporting them.



No one is claiming its racist when the white rioters are arrested/charged with riot related crimes, while it seems like the tone at fergison is "dont arrest anyone or else you are a racist or just furthering the "anti black" cops agenda"

I mean, if D-usa is going to act like that article proves something,

One could easily link articles where cops shoot white people, and claim that its proof of some widespread "anti-white" agenda on the cops part... but for obvious reasons that wouldnt fly.

 easysauce wrote:

I mean, if D-usa is going to act like that article proves something,

I didn't post that article to prove something.

I posted it because it raised some interesting points: how media covered the two events, the public response to both events, how it goes counter to the "white people don't riot" that was posted quite a few times in this thread.

Points that are very clearly talked about in the article, and points that are worth talking about whether you agree with them or not. The whole "what's the point" thing this thread had going while pretending that the points are not clearly raised in the article was pretty insulting to anybody actually reading the article. Which is why I said that it's fine if you don't agree with it, but it's stupid to pretend that the point wasn't raised in the article.

Edit:

If you don't agree with the whole "nobody called on white leaders to condemn this riot or to take responsibility for these actions" bit of the article, then say so. That's what we call talking about stuff. Which is what you did in your post.

Reading the article, reading the points raised, and going "what's the point" when the point is very clear even though you might not agree with it doesn't actually do anything on a discussion board.

If that is how we are going to talk about stuff we can just have the initial post by the OP, a couple pages of "what's the point", and then lock the thing.

who said white people do not riot?

even if someone made that point, it wouldnt be worth addressing as its just silly.. of course white people riot.. and they get arrested for it, and are idiots for doing it as well.

the difference being, when a white person is shot, arrested, or otherwise disciplined by police for something they actually did, they are seen as crooks who deserved the punishment for their crimes, as opposed to being used to feul accusations of racism

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

I mean, if D-usa is going to act like that article proves something,

I didn't post that article to prove something.

I posted it because it raised some interesting points: how media covered the two events, the public response to both events, how it goes counter to the "white people don't riot" that was posted quite a few times in this thread.

Points that are very clearly talked about in the article, and points that are worth talking about whether you agree with them or not. The whole "what's the point" thing this thread had going while pretending that the points are not clearly raised in the article was pretty insulting to anybody actually reading the article. Which is why I said that it's fine if you don't agree with it, but it's stupid to pretend that the point wasn't raised in the article.

Edit:

If you don't agree with the whole "nobody called on white leaders to condemn this riot or to take responsibility for these actions" bit of the article, then say so. That's what we call talking about stuff. Which is what you did in your post.

Reading the article, reading the points raised, and going "what's the point" when the point is very clear even though you might not agree with it doesn't actually do anything on a discussion board.

If that is how we are going to talk about stuff we can just have the initial post by the OP, a couple pages of "what's the point", and then lock the thing.

The white community did speak up we sent police and arrested them. The big difference is when people act like that and cops arrest them we say good little bastard deserved it. Where all i hear about the other groups is more hate crimes.

 d-usa wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

I mean, if D-usa is going to act like that article proves something,

I didn't post that article to prove something.

I posted it because it raised some interesting points: how media covered the two events, the public response to both events, how it goes counter to the "white people don't riot" that was posted quite a few times in this thread.

Points that are very clearly talked about in the article, and points that are worth talking about whether you agree with them or not. The whole "what's the point" thing this thread had going while pretending that the points are not clearly raised in the article was pretty insulting to anybody actually reading the article. Which is why I said that it's fine if you don't agree with it, but it's stupid to pretend that the point wasn't raised in the article.

Edit:

If you don't agree with the whole "nobody called on white leaders to condemn this riot or to take responsibility for these actions" bit of the article, then say so. That's what we call talking about stuff. Which is what you did in your post.

Reading the article, reading the points raised, and going "what's the point" when the point is very clear even though you might not agree with it doesn't actually do anything on a discussion board.

If that is how we are going to talk about stuff we can just have the initial post by the OP, a couple pages of "what's the point", and then lock the thing.

Thank you for explaining what you meant. I disagree with nobody caring about the riot in NH. It sounds like plenty of people from whatever race were happy these punks went to jail.

It doesn't look like a done deal, though. The police are now hunting people that took part so they can prosecute them.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/us/new-hampshire-pumpkin-festival-riot/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 d-usa wrote:
how it goes counter to the "white people don't riot" that was posted quite a few times in this thread.

I know that I haven't really been following this thread too closely, but someone actually said that?

 d-usa wrote:


If you don't agree with the whole "nobody called on white leaders to condemn this riot or to take responsibility for these actions" bit of the article, then say so. That's what we call talking about stuff. Which is what you did in your post.

I disagree with this portion. I think white PEOPLE in general roundly condemned it so there wasn't any need to call on white LEADERS (do we even have any?)

And I don't think anyone said "white people don't riot." That would be just ignorant.

What is interesting, however, is if one were to notice the difference in the riots. The rioters in NH didn't touch any stores or building, nor does it appear that they looted at all.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


If you don't agree with the whole "nobody called on white leaders to condemn this riot or to take responsibility for these actions" bit of the article, then say so. That's what we call talking about stuff. Which is what you did in your post.

I disagree with this portion. I think white PEOPLE in general roundly condemned it so there wasn't any need to call on white LEADERS (do we even have any?)

And I don't think anyone said "white people don't riot." That would be just ignorant.

What is interesting, however, is if one were to notice the difference in the riots. The rioters in NH didn't touch any stores or building, nor does it appear that they looted at all.

Judging from the few pictures I've seen, they messed up at least one car pretty badly.

 Hordini wrote:

Judging from the few pictures I've seen, they messed up at least one car pretty badly.

They absolutely have.

I think there's an interesting distinction between wrecking cars and uprooting street signs vs. destroying businesses and looting them.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Judging from the few pictures I've seen, they messed up at least one car pretty badly.

They absolutely have.

I think there's an interesting distinction between wrecking cars and uprooting street signs vs. destroying businesses and looting them.

I agree to a certain extent, but they are both idiotic and within a similar vein.

Both groups need to be slapped down with jail time appropriate to the offence.

 Hordini wrote:

I agree to a certain extent, but they are both idiotic and within a similar vein.

You won't find me disagreeing there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Both groups need to be slapped down with jail time appropriate to the offence.

Or there.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
how it goes counter to the "white people don't riot" that was posted quite a few times in this thread.

I know that I haven't really been following this thread too closely, but someone actually said that?

There was at least one person, I just remember that another person followed the post up with "because other races actually have jobs so that they don't have time to riot".

Do you have a link? I need to see that level of derp for myself

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Do you have a link? I need to see that level of derp for myself

That was somewhere deep in the past of that thread, and I'm not even sure if that post is still there since I triangled it. I'll check later on tonight.