TLM Protest St. Louis - is TLM the new BLM?

[Blade Wolf]

Shooting someone with a knife who already cut you is proportional force. Not only are they waving a deadly weapon at you, but they have already shown willingness to use it against you.

Often I'm against the cops, but this seems pretty open and shut.

Nah they clearly only are allowed to shoot when the cops head is rolling on the ground.

[Leadsop]

Her only 'crime' was that she attempted to 'stab' a police officer.

Why is crime put in '', as if attempted bodily harm with a knife / attempted murder is a joke or something.

And then people protest her death? And attack others for Nothing?

Wtf am I missing

Agree.

So if one FUCKING STAB WOUND wasn't enough for these clowns to justify shooting, how many? 2 FUCKING STAB WOUNDS? 3? 4?

What are you supposed to say to your wife when you get home?

"Hi honey, hope you had a good day!"

"OMG is that a FUCKING STAB WOUND?"

"Yeah, but this is no big deal that I have a FUCKING STAB WOUND. It's part of my job."

"Wait, did you do anything?"

"No, of course not, I'm afraid some douches on the internet will get upset."

Don't FUCKING STAB cops. You won't die.

[Themius]

Don't mind Trans, Gay, Lesbians etc., but I really wish they'd stop trying to shove their views up everyone else's ass and blowing their shit when you disagree with them. Whether it be RL, Online, or in-game with demands for Anduin to go gay, ship with Wrathion, threads on more gay characters in WoW, etc. etc. Attacks like this don't help their cause at all.

Disagree with me being gay is just stupid... that's why we have a problem lol.

And what's wrong with wanting representation?

- - - Updated - - -

Sigh... another snowflake group who wants to be at the top of the oppression totem pole.

Nobody wants to be oppressed, but everyone wants to be "The oppressed".

Trans people are probably some of the most oppressed people... they get shit both from gays and straight people.

- - - Updated - - -

Lets face it, people will protest anything.

I mean, I'm generally always on the side of being against police brutality, being supportive of minorities and whatnot...but you fucking attacked an officer with a knife and cut them? The fuck other outcome did you expect?

Perhaps she thought they are in England.

[Radeghost]

That's what happens if you throw your mentally ill ass charging a cop with a knife. It got what it deserved.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I don't understand why we always have to be so darned specific when we want to take a stance. Why TLM? Just, why?

What's inherently wrong with All Lives Matters? And I'm not talking about the idiotic neo-nazi takeover of the claim. ALM SHOULD be the default claim being made when these things happen. Transgenders matters. Afro-Americans matters. Muslims matters. Caucasians matters.

Why do we always have to categorize everything? Are we that inherently bigoted?

[Mormolyce]

Such an odd world we live in, two people can see the same video of a massive group of protesters stopping and surrounding a car, but to one person its Charlottesville 2.0 and to another person its an angry mob menacing an innocent passerby who was just trying to drive down the road.

It's a man driving a car through a crowd, even divorced of the distasteful context it's still reckless endangerment and yes the driver is in the wrong.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Why do liburals like to fight cars so much?

Also, calling a dad a mom because of PC culture is confusing.

[Sama-81]

Nope. Definitely not.

There is something seriously grossly wrong with your police force if their answer to someone swinging a knife is to use deadly force.

It is 'third world police' reasoning. It is disproportionate violence by the government.

It is actually a perfectly valid reason for a policeman to fire his gun, so even here where the police aren't really allowed to normally have guns on them in the first place, and where police actually firing is an exceptionally rare occurence. I can absolutely agree on the right move being to use their guns for non-lethal damage, if possible, but in those cases where the suspect in a similar incident died from their wounds here (ie wounds to the torso or similar), after attacking a police officer with a knife (whether the policeman were injured or not, nota bene), no policeman has been deemed culpable of any wrongdoing. I would love to hear where in the world the police have harsher rules levied against them than in Scandinavia, though...because it has to be a pretty exotic place. Certainly not anywhere in the western world at least, I'll pretty much bet my house on that.

Edit: I see the goalposts are now at the perpetrator usually not being shot and killed in such situations...that is however a rather correct assessment, but as for the original argument, again, it is perfectly legitimate to do so if the perceived risk is great enough. It is in other words deemed as warranted use of force in such cases.

[Kraenen]

I was actually waiting for LGBT activists to become as violent and aggressive and hostile as some other movements. They've been pretty fucked over for hundreds of years and most Trans have it worse than black people.

[kneehidude]

Her only 'crime' was that she attempted to 'stab' a police officer.

Don't know why the word crime is in quotes. Pretty sure that's assault with a deadly weapon

[Zython]

I fucking love that this got infracted, when it is 100% scientifically accurate....

Ok. Then link your sources.

- - - Updated - - -

I was actually waiting for LGBT activists to become as violent and aggressive and hostile as some other movements. They've been pretty fucked over for hundreds of years and most Trans have it worse than black people.

Look up Stonewall.

[Kraenen]

Look up Stonewall.

I was thinking about that when typing that, it's just it seems much more rare.

[xuros]

So whos killing trannies?

[Zython]

I don't understand why we always have to be so darned specific when we want to take a stance. Why TLM? Just, why?

What's inherently wrong with All Lives Matters? And I'm not talking about the idiotic neo-nazi takeover of the claim. ALM SHOULD be the default claim being made when these things happen. Transgenders matters. Afro-Americans matters. Muslims matters. Caucasians matters.

Why do we always have to categorize everything? Are we that inherently bigoted?

Because we need to understand specific problems in specific communities if we want to make their lives better. Yes, race is a social construct. Yes, gender is a social construct. Money is also a social construct, but you wouldn't tell poor people that to solve their problems, would you? Social constructs have POWER, and fixing these problems isn't as simple as ignoring these constructs.

[Leadsop]

Social constructs have POWER, and fixing these problems isn't as simple as ignoring these constructs.

It's not as simple as taking over Twitter, following politicians to their homes, and blocking streets, either, but you support that.

[dvaz]

That's because we all know there are only 2 genders, the rest are mentally ill people or genetic errors.


[Infracted]

QFT.

C'mon mods, Infracted. Really?

[elaina]

Tomato, Lettuce, and Mayonnaise?

Serve em up with Bacon and you've got yourself a great sandwich!

[The Penguin]

Disagree with me being gay is just stupid... that's why we have a problem lol.

And what's wrong with wanting representation?

Representation is fine.

Shoving it in the face of anyone who does not agree with you while employing a double standard is not.

It's kinda like GoDaddy/Paypal's little ban-wave, and the guy who didn't want to bake cakes for gay people.

Case and point:

Party A: "It's legit to refuse service because X."
Party B: "Well I refuse to serve because Y".
Party A: "No. You WILL F---ING BAKE MY CAKE IF I HAVE TO HOLD YOU DOWN AND RAM THAT FACT HOME TO YOU!"

Can't have it both ways. Either it's people's right to refuse service, or it's not. It's really that simple.

QFT.

C'mon mods, Infracted. Really?

Look at who performed the infraction, and that will tell you all that needs be said.

[Deleted]

TLM... Tlack lives matter?

[Venant]

Representation is fine.

Shoving it in the face of anyone who does not agree with you while employing a double standard is not.

It's kinda like GoDaddy/Paypal's little ban-wave, and the guy who didn't want to bake cakes for gay people.

Case and point:




Can't have it both ways. Either it's people's right to refuse service, or it's not. It's really that simple.



Look at who performed the infraction, and that will tell you all that needs be said.

You are missing the point that most of the people who think that way don't think you have any rights, and that what you can and cannot do is simply decided by the state sending people to point guns at you when you do something they disagree with. There was a whole massive debate on here months ago about this, and the social justice crowd made their position clear that they don't believe in individual rights, but instead rights are granted to you by the state.

As I have mulled over this impasse for awhile, I came across a quote that seemed to fill in an important missing link: Progressivism is a mystery cult of power.

I realized that what is often termed as 'progressivism' is actually a power structure, which functions through the abuse of democracy. This ideology attracts people who want to use democracy (mob rule) as an excuse to accrue power, whether they be politicians of people in influential fields or internet moderators. This ideology is at its core only concerned with power, which is why there is often a lack of rationality when it comes to policy, like censoring something because it is 'offensive' or your case of favoring one group simply because you deemed that group to have superior rights to another group (in order to secure more power by buying the allegiance of that group).

Paradoxically enough, even though progressives heavily rely on people with guns forcing others to do what they want, progressives don't actually believe in the law, because a rational and just code of law would be an imposition of limits on their own power. This is why they instead prefer to have vague rules that are not clearly defined at all. When you look at all of the censorship that has been imposed on the internet recently, you see a lack of logic or consistency when it comes to anything, but instead just an excuse to use public outrage (mob rule) to impose convenient 'rules' that are just made up on the spot. Even in this thread, you have people making seemingly sincere arguments that police officers should just allow themselves to be stabbed to death.

In regards to your final point, look at this guideline from the rules posted here:

Your access to these forums is a "privilege", and not a "right". MMO-Champion reserves the right to suspend your access to these forums at any time for reasons that include, but are not necessarily limited to, your failure to abide by these guidelines.

Do you notice it? You have no 'rights' only 'privilege'. But wait a second, in the second part of the statement, there is an assertion that MMO-Champion does have rights. Of course, if you think it through rationally, MMO-Champion does not exist as an entity, it is actually very similar to the government which is just made up of all the people who are in the government. So what this 'rule' says is that the only people who have 'rights' are those who are part of the 'state' (the website), the most obvious and numerous of whom are the moderators.

Its something to think about, draw your own conclusions.