- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Did I miss what city block Lebron and Kaep were looting last night?
Posted on 5/30/20 at 9:37 am to Joshjrn
Posted on 5/30/20 at 9:37 am to Joshjrn
quote:
So Kaep's protests were 100% non-violent, non-aggressive, non-intrusive, and you want to drag him into this shite?
Yet...
[quote]Kaepernick says in a tweet ... "When civility leads to death, revolting is the only logical reaction." He adds ... "The cries for peace will rain down, and when they do, they will land on deaf ears, because your violence has brought this resistance." The "your" here is obviously the police, and Colin suggests it's due time to respond to the violence with violence, saying ... "We have the right to fight back!"[/quote]
You were saying?
1
Posted on 5/30/20 at 9:40 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
You were saying?
I'm saying that you should probably read the entire thread before you get too excited about replying to something on the first page
Posted on 5/30/20 at 9:49 am to Joshjrn
quote:
I did. I think the OP is a silly false equivalency, but I acknowledge that Kaep put himself in the middle of this one.
I couldn't care less what the guy wants to "protest" or how he does it. Do I agree with his stance? No. But he has the same rights as you and me.
I wasn't trying to call you out individually, either. I was just pointing out he was using rhetoric that gets others shouted down as violent rhetoric. Also, I was pointing out that no one here had dragged him into anything and he had willfully entered into the fray. And I see where you manned up and admitted that you were wrong about that point. Which is refreshing to see. Most people on both sides are so entrenched that they can't admit to themselves that their take could even approach being wrong.
to you, sir.This post was edited on 5/30/20 at 9:52 am
Posted on 5/30/20 at 9:49 am to Joshjrn
quote:
But frick Kaep for trying a non-violent approach first, amirite?
No. frick Kaep for grabbing his ankles and letting media shove false propaganda up his arse, so he can regurgitate it to the simpletons.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 9:53 am to IAmNERD
quote:
I wasn't trying to call you out individually, either. I was just pointing out he was using rhetoric that gets others shouted down as violent rhetoric. Also, I was pointing out that no one here had dragged him into anything and he had willfully entered into the gray. And I see where you manned up and admitted that you were wrong about that point. Which is refreshing to see. Most people on both sides are so entrenched that they can't admit to themselves that their take could even approach being wrong.
I didn't take it as anything other than pointing out that I was off-base, and I was. Like I mentioned in another post, I don't consider it embarrassing to be wrong; I consider it embarrassing when people are clearly wrong and refuse to admit it
Posted on 5/30/20 at 9:58 am to PhifeDogg
quote:
No. frick Kaep for grabbing his ankles and letting media shove false propaganda up his arse, so he can regurgitate it to the simpletons.
His argument wasn't that white people don't get shot; his argument was that when black people get shot by police, nothing ever happens to the officer, even when it appears as though force wasn't justified.
Now, I'll line up first to admit that the problem of law enforcement being utterly shielded from the repercussions of their actions goes vastly further than their actions against black people. But, getting pissy because Kaep focused on police brutality against black people makes about as much sense as going after a charity because it's only raising money for a specific type of cancer.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:36 am to Joshjrn
quote:
The vast majority of people going after Kaep back then were doing so for "disrespecting the anthem" or "disrespecting the troops" or "bringing politics into sports".
Well sure, but do you think they would have been as upset if it were for a legit cause?
Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:50 am to noonan
quote:
Well sure, but do you think they would have been as upset if it were for a legit cause?
You're begging the question. I believe his cause was legit.
But, to respond to a more fair wording of your question, no, I don't think they would have been as upset if they believed the cause was legit.
But that's the point. They disagreed with his cause, but instead of focusing on that, they pilloried him for how he was protesting, which was utterly disingenuous.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 12:20 pm to PhifeDogg
Those numbers show what a nonissue these police killings really are in comparison to so many other issues. Not worthy of riots. Not worthy of inciting a racial divide. What should be a nonissue is tearing at the country, poisoning minds, and will not lead to a better society in any way.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News