Look. In times of Martin Luther King, the Blacks managed to get their point through, with peaceful protests. They didn't pick the bait, they were victims of violence but still didn't get violent in return. Somehow that worked.
Currently there is absolutely no doubt it's the BLM who initiated the violence. Maybe they were provoked. Maybe there was some reporting bias - though I seriously doubt that, because Liberal media would be first to report about BLM extending hand for cooperation and getting shunned. No, simply this generation of Blacks picks violent assault as the first option, not the last, when all peaceful options fail. There is no valid excuse for that.
Matter of attribution remains. A lot of stupid trolls, a lot of paranoid people, a lot of news outlets hunting for sensation. How much of that is Russian? Likely we'll never know.
The cop who shot the (white) driver who merely informed him that he has a legally owned weapon in the car, when asked if he has anything the cop should know about?
We can cherry-pick examples where one or the other side gets the short end of the stick from the Police, all day. We can bid whose cases are more abhorrent.
Or we can agree that police brutality is a problem that touches everyone to some degree, and fight it together.
Or alternatively, you can jump me with your fists and keep beating me until I say what you want, right? That's how BLM goes about that after all.
Apparently there were way more of these wanting to go the violent way than these willing to reach out to them. And way more willing to go violent than those who'd dare to shun violence and call out to the violent ones to stop.
I can imagine the AIDS support group response: "Look dude, that's not exactly our focus but we share a theme, we should be able to help each other out. Say, you get your cancer friends, we could meet sometimes, exchange experiences, we sometimes have field trips and we're a couple guys short so we could invite you, or something like that. We could even get someone to lobby the government to fund both AIDS and cancer cure research, jointly."
I don't think beating that guy to a pulp is exactly the first kind of response I'd be thinking of.
Note though, that rushing with fists against proponents of the "Patriot Act", and any other law with the words "Patriot," "American", or "Freedom" in the title. is hardly an advisable action.
I never said "trust ALM". I never said they stand behind what they say. I purposefully chose ambiguous wording to underline how that DOESN'T MATTER - but of course leftists did what they always do and assumed the worst of me without pausing for a second to think what I'm actually saying.
It doesn't matter who ALM really are and what is their agenda. What matters is the results. And the results look really ugly for BLM, making them look like mindless thugs that the Police is entirely right to shoot at the first signs of misbehavior.
If the purpose of ALM is to discredit BLM through providing image of BLM as violent, unhinged lunatics, BLM really helps in setting this image in stone.
Once again, the wise course of action is to stand behind what ALM says, regardless of what they do. You can do no wrong if you genuinely support the message "all lives matter". But if you trample the message in your rush to attack hypocrites that use it, you'll be known for trampling the message, and nobody will give a shit about a few shiners you give the hypocrites.
I don't know if ALM grew up and changed... maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but I know for a fact when they were starting, they didn't give a fuck - they were just a bunch of trolls of 4chan, with loose rightist affiliation and no actual agenda beyond "get the niggas to chimp out for teh lulz." Yes, the issue is real. The slogan is catchy and valid. The organization behind it... uh.
I saw some guys on 4chan/k/ (gun nuts board), organizing themselves to go to a protest, armed with fully legally owned weapons, provoke with ALM banners, then shoot people attacking them, "in self defense". It actually happened. Media spun it initially as armed assailants shooting at innocent protesters, but the story got hushed very quickly because yes, everything went according to the plan and they indeed did shoot in self-defense (if awfully eagerly) and it wouldn't do liberal media much good to publish the narrative that was accepted by the court. It was a sickening, but - all too expectable outcome.
So - the distrust towards ALM is absolutely justified. But attacking them physically is absolutely stupid. The general public buys the story as pushed by the trolls, BLM has been proven to be a violent organization beyond all doubt, a big shadow has been cast on the BLM case, and all because none of the people in BLM stopped for a minute to think and realize they are being played. They never thought of any solution beyond the use of their fists.
Heh. You don't even understand what the simple trick Russia pulled off was, do you? You still didn't even notice, that you took the bait, hook, line and sinker, becoming target of hate of the stupid and the average and a laughing stock for the smart? You still have no clue how Clinton lost?
Hey, it's definitely helping Trump get the votes. It also helps Russia in dividing America and gaining influence. It's helping the police in maintaining power. It helps the business of firearms manufacturers. It sells news stories.
Your definition of "everybody" is very narrow.
And BLM behaving violently at the merest hint of disagreement is definitely not helping their case.
and with the whole Alt-Left crowd, you really don't need to look hard. They are more numerous than alt-right, more vicious, and even less open-minded.
At least most of alt-right acknowledge existence of moderates, undecided, doubtful and skeptical, and treat them as people to be convinced and swayed to their side. For the far leftist, everyone right of them is a nazi scum and a lost cause.
We can go back and forth about ethics of what happened, make, support or debunk our assumptions who thought or meant what, who had the actual moral high ground - and it won't matter shit. What matters is how it looked like.
Take the message at face value, and accept it at face value, and if the *actual* value doesn't match, then you have exposed the lie. Attack first, the lie lives on and you get the label of the villain.
We can go back and forth about ethics of what happened, make, support or debunk our assumptions who thought or meant what, who had the actual moral high ground - and it won't matter shit. What matters is how it looked like.
For the general populace, to violently oppose "All lives matter" exactly suggests you think not all lives matter (or not all matter equally). No matter what you think, or imagine that means means, the general public gets your message, conveyed through violence, as "Black lives matter, others don't."
The correct reaction from BLM would be reaching out and asking ALM to join them: "We're fighting for the same cause. Your message is compatible with ours. Join our protest." Accept, embrace, include. You protest more general cause, we protest a specific instance of it, but we're united in the same fight. Take the message at face value, and accept it at face value, and if the *actual* value doesn't match, then you have exposed the lie and the counter-protesters lose face. And if they choose to play along, hey, a message of peace, love, unity, equality reaches the nation, your movement only benefits. Play their game, because it set you up in a win-win scenario. Just pick the challenge.
But noooo. You know better. You always assume the worst. They MUST be Evil, and Evil deserves Fist to the Face.
You chose to pick one specific interpretation of "All lives matter", specifically assuming ill intent, putting in the mouth of ALM protesters words they didn't say, Then you assaulted them. And completely regardless of what they actually meant, and what you meant, everyone outside got your message as "Black lives matter, others don't."
The only people who chose to read this according to your interpretation from moment one are already Hillary's stalwart supporters and that doesn't mean shit. The undecided Joe Average saw this as a solid confirmation of their lingering suspicion of BLM being supremacists, and decided "Trump is a better choice."
We can go back and forth about ethics of what happened, make, support or debunk our assumptions who thought or meant what, who had the actual moral high ground - and it won't matter shit. What matters is how it looked like - and to everyone "in the middle"/"undecided" it looked exactly like in my prior post. It was a horrible PR move that likely cost Hillary the victory, and put BLM under scrutiny about racist tendencies. The tiny moral victory of several bruises on the trolls' faces, at cost of losing the whole war - losing the elections.
Yes. Of course assuming them feeling threatened has anything in common with actually being threatened (or even the speech containing any threats) is really far-fetched. But they grew so over-sensitive they will cry, throw a tantrum and sue for use of words like 'niggardly'.
Yep to first half. Nope to other, the other guy debunks it adequately (not political but commercial expense)
A couple trolls under the flag of 'All lives matter' were able to incite BLM to violence by merely showing up. This clearly showcased Hillary as supporting violent extremists; black supremacists who consider actual equality insufficient. It caused a lot of backlash - who the hell gets enraged by a slogan of "All lives matter"?
But for that to happen, the BLM protests had to be organized in the first place. No BLM protest = no BLM causing riot = not exposing BLM as black supremacists = not showing Hillary supports a racial supremacist group.
OTOH, maybe Hillary would be better off not supporting a racial supremacists group in the first place?
What about AMIX? SUN wanted to create cheap, Amiga-based workstations running UNIX. This could have borne a new line of architecture directly competing with PC in the office and standard computing, while bearing familiarity to home and multimedia computing of classic Amiga line. And to be completely honest, the PC architecture was horribly clunky at the time. Nobody really *liked* the PC - it was a work machine, and the only available work machine that was reasonably priced.
It was the sheer untamed greed of the Commodore CEO that killed the deal, because instead of tackling the ticket to a new, big market and doing everything in his power to make it work, he demanded SUN to pay such outrageous licensing fees the product, if ever created, could never compete with existing products price-wise, never mind the (outdated) specs.
It was also stagnating technology. Amiga 500, and Amiga 1200 were strides ahead of PC where it came to multimedia. But Commodore squandered that edge, releasing what boiled down to repackaging of old products, rearranging slots on the motherboards and bundling built-in peripherals that had been supported for years as standalone external devices. PC caught up, overtook, and left Amiga in the dirt, because the CEO totally gutted the R&D division, redirecting the "savings" to his own, and owner's pockets.
I seriously doubt your assertion about cell phone stores.
First, the current trend is "more powerful CPU, more fancy screen, more feature-packed, and try to squeeze in a better battery that can run that for a couple hours." This trend doesn't seem to be changing, and so self-powered phones won't happen anytime soon as anything but a gimmick. There's simply no way to keep all these features running off "ambient" power.
And Wifi range is short enough there's no way you'd see these 'self-charging' phones running a mile away from the city.
The shops may lose some impact as Internet sales and delivery to your door take over, but it's still a long way until they vanish, and certainly not because phones get replaced by "smart jewelry".
Slashdot Mirror
Look. In times of Martin Luther King, the Blacks managed to get their point through, with peaceful protests. They didn't pick the bait, they were victims of violence but still didn't get violent in return. Somehow that worked.
Currently there is absolutely no doubt it's the BLM who initiated the violence. Maybe they were provoked. Maybe there was some reporting bias - though I seriously doubt that, because Liberal media would be first to report about BLM extending hand for cooperation and getting shunned. No, simply this generation of Blacks picks violent assault as the first option, not the last, when all peaceful options fail. There is no valid excuse for that.
Matter of attribution remains. A lot of stupid trolls, a lot of paranoid people, a lot of news outlets hunting for sensation. How much of that is Russian? Likely we'll never know.
The cop who shot the (white) driver who merely informed him that he has a legally owned weapon in the car, when asked if he has anything the cop should know about?
We can cherry-pick examples where one or the other side gets the short end of the stick from the Police, all day. We can bid whose cases are more abhorrent.
Or we can agree that police brutality is a problem that touches everyone to some degree, and fight it together.
Or alternatively, you can jump me with your fists and keep beating me until I say what you want, right? That's how BLM goes about that after all.
Apparently there were way more of these wanting to go the violent way than these willing to reach out to them. And way more willing to go violent than those who'd dare to shun violence and call out to the violent ones to stop.
uhh... according to...?
Anyone who hesitates between voting Trump and Clinton?
Or is such hesitation also a sign of being Nazi?
I can imagine the AIDS support group response: "Look dude, that's not exactly our focus but we share a theme, we should be able to help each other out. Say, you get your cancer friends, we could meet sometimes, exchange experiences, we sometimes have field trips and we're a couple guys short so we could invite you, or something like that. We could even get someone to lobby the government to fund both AIDS and cancer cure research, jointly."
I don't think beating that guy to a pulp is exactly the first kind of response I'd be thinking of.
I'll just isolate this piece leaving it for all to see the lunacy you represent.
Note though, that rushing with fists against proponents of the "Patriot Act", and any other law with the words "Patriot," "American", or "Freedom" in the title. is hardly an advisable action.
I never said "trust ALM". I never said they stand behind what they say. I purposefully chose ambiguous wording to underline how that DOESN'T MATTER - but of course leftists did what they always do and assumed the worst of me without pausing for a second to think what I'm actually saying.
It doesn't matter who ALM really are and what is their agenda. What matters is the results. And the results look really ugly for BLM, making them look like mindless thugs that the Police is entirely right to shoot at the first signs of misbehavior.
If the purpose of ALM is to discredit BLM through providing image of BLM as violent, unhinged lunatics, BLM really helps in setting this image in stone.
Once again, the wise course of action is to stand behind what ALM says, regardless of what they do. You can do no wrong if you genuinely support the message "all lives matter". But if you trample the message in your rush to attack hypocrites that use it, you'll be known for trampling the message, and nobody will give a shit about a few shiners you give the hypocrites.
I don't know if ALM grew up and changed... maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but I know for a fact when they were starting, they didn't give a fuck - they were just a bunch of trolls of 4chan, with loose rightist affiliation and no actual agenda beyond "get the niggas to chimp out for teh lulz." Yes, the issue is real. The slogan is catchy and valid. The organization behind it... uh.
I saw some guys on 4chan/k/ (gun nuts board), organizing themselves to go to a protest, armed with fully legally owned weapons, provoke with ALM banners, then shoot people attacking them, "in self defense". It actually happened. Media spun it initially as armed assailants shooting at innocent protesters, but the story got hushed very quickly because yes, everything went according to the plan and they indeed did shoot in self-defense (if awfully eagerly) and it wouldn't do liberal media much good to publish the narrative that was accepted by the court. It was a sickening, but - all too expectable outcome.
So - the distrust towards ALM is absolutely justified. But attacking them physically is absolutely stupid. The general public buys the story as pushed by the trolls, BLM has been proven to be a violent organization beyond all doubt, a big shadow has been cast on the BLM case, and all because none of the people in BLM stopped for a minute to think and realize they are being played. They never thought of any solution beyond the use of their fists.
Did you miss the wording from my first post? " A couple trolls under the flag of 'All lives matter' "
In a casino, playing Poker, you're sure your opponent is bluffing. The bet is rather large currently. Choose correct course of action:
a) Play cautiously. Match the bet and Call.
b) Go all in. Call.
c) Fold.
d) Attack the opponent with your fists.
Apparently, BLM members believe d) is the best course of action.
Heh. You don't even understand what the simple trick Russia pulled off was, do you? You still didn't even notice, that you took the bait, hook, line and sinker, becoming target of hate of the stupid and the average and a laughing stock for the smart? You still have no clue how Clinton lost?
Hey, it's definitely helping Trump get the votes. It also helps Russia in dividing America and gaining influence. It's helping the police in maintaining power. It helps the business of firearms manufacturers. It sells news stories.
Your definition of "everybody" is very narrow.
And BLM behaving violently at the merest hint of disagreement is definitely not helping their case.
and with the whole Alt-Left crowd, you really don't need to look hard. They are more numerous than alt-right, more vicious, and even less open-minded.
At least most of alt-right acknowledge existence of moderates, undecided, doubtful and skeptical, and treat them as people to be convinced and swayed to their side. For the far leftist, everyone right of them is a nazi scum and a lost cause.
Once again.
We can go back and forth about ethics of what happened, make, support or debunk our assumptions who thought or meant what, who had the actual moral high ground - and it won't matter shit. What matters is how it looked like.
Take the message at face value, and accept it at face value, and if the *actual* value doesn't match, then you have exposed the lie. Attack first, the lie lives on and you get the label of the villain.
Let me repeat once again.
We can go back and forth about ethics of what happened, make, support or debunk our assumptions who thought or meant what, who had the actual moral high ground - and it won't matter shit. What matters is how it looked like.
For the general populace, to violently oppose "All lives matter" exactly suggests you think not all lives matter (or not all matter equally). No matter what you think, or imagine that means means, the general public gets your message, conveyed through violence, as "Black lives matter, others don't."
The correct reaction from BLM would be reaching out and asking ALM to join them: "We're fighting for the same cause. Your message is compatible with ours. Join our protest." Accept, embrace, include. You protest more general cause, we protest a specific instance of it, but we're united in the same fight. Take the message at face value, and accept it at face value, and if the *actual* value doesn't match, then you have exposed the lie and the counter-protesters lose face. And if they choose to play along, hey, a message of peace, love, unity, equality reaches the nation, your movement only benefits. Play their game, because it set you up in a win-win scenario. Just pick the challenge.
But noooo. You know better. You always assume the worst. They MUST be Evil, and Evil deserves Fist to the Face.
You chose to pick one specific interpretation of "All lives matter", specifically assuming ill intent, putting in the mouth of ALM protesters words they didn't say, Then you assaulted them. And completely regardless of what they actually meant, and what you meant, everyone outside got your message as "Black lives matter, others don't."
The only people who chose to read this according to your interpretation from moment one are already Hillary's stalwart supporters and that doesn't mean shit. The undecided Joe Average saw this as a solid confirmation of their lingering suspicion of BLM being supremacists, and decided "Trump is a better choice."
We can go back and forth about ethics of what happened, make, support or debunk our assumptions who thought or meant what, who had the actual moral high ground - and it won't matter shit. What matters is how it looked like - and to everyone "in the middle"/"undecided" it looked exactly like in my prior post. It was a horrible PR move that likely cost Hillary the victory, and put BLM under scrutiny about racist tendencies. The tiny moral victory of several bruises on the trolls' faces, at cost of losing the whole war - losing the elections.
Yes. Of course assuming them feeling threatened has anything in common with actually being threatened (or even the speech containing any threats) is really far-fetched. But they grew so over-sensitive they will cry, throw a tantrum and sue for use of words like 'niggardly'.
Your message has been evaluated and found worth 3 Kopyeykas. The funds shall be transferred to your account shortly. Keep up the good work, tovarisch,
Almost. Currently, all they need is to shell out some pocket money to leaders of the commies to get the commies to smash stuff all on their own.
The Russians didn't *fake* anything for the elections. They just gave the opponents a small nudge to get them to reveal their true face.
Yep to first half. Nope to other, the other guy debunks it adequately (not political but commercial expense)
A couple trolls under the flag of 'All lives matter' were able to incite BLM to violence by merely showing up. This clearly showcased Hillary as supporting violent extremists; black supremacists who consider actual equality insufficient. It caused a lot of backlash - who the hell gets enraged by a slogan of "All lives matter"?
But for that to happen, the BLM protests had to be organized in the first place. No BLM protest = no BLM causing riot = not exposing BLM as black supremacists = not showing Hillary supports a racial supremacist group.
OTOH, maybe Hillary would be better off not supporting a racial supremacists group in the first place?
Nah. They don't cater to gamers anymore. They are all about being diverse and inclusive.
That crowd is far less demanding. Make the protagonist be a dark-skinned lesbian, and you're gold.
Oh, I wouldn't worry too much. MMO games aren't really competing with Pachinko machines.
What about AMIX? SUN wanted to create cheap, Amiga-based workstations running UNIX. This could have borne a new line of architecture directly competing with PC in the office and standard computing, while bearing familiarity to home and multimedia computing of classic Amiga line. And to be completely honest, the PC architecture was horribly clunky at the time. Nobody really *liked* the PC - it was a work machine, and the only available work machine that was reasonably priced.
It was the sheer untamed greed of the Commodore CEO that killed the deal, because instead of tackling the ticket to a new, big market and doing everything in his power to make it work, he demanded SUN to pay such outrageous licensing fees the product, if ever created, could never compete with existing products price-wise, never mind the (outdated) specs.
It was also stagnating technology. Amiga 500, and Amiga 1200 were strides ahead of PC where it came to multimedia. But Commodore squandered that edge, releasing what boiled down to repackaging of old products, rearranging slots on the motherboards and bundling built-in peripherals that had been supported for years as standalone external devices. PC caught up, overtook, and left Amiga in the dirt, because the CEO totally gutted the R&D division, redirecting the "savings" to his own, and owner's pockets.
I seriously doubt your assertion about cell phone stores.
First, the current trend is "more powerful CPU, more fancy screen, more feature-packed, and try to squeeze in a better battery that can run that for a couple hours." This trend doesn't seem to be changing, and so self-powered phones won't happen anytime soon as anything but a gimmick. There's simply no way to keep all these features running off "ambient" power.
And Wifi range is short enough there's no way you'd see these 'self-charging' phones running a mile away from the city.
The shops may lose some impact as Internet sales and delivery to your door take over, but it's still a long way until they vanish, and certainly not because phones get replaced by "smart jewelry".