Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Anyone Keeping Up With the January 6th Riot?

Page 12 of 23 [ 364 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 23  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

13 Aug 2021, 4:11 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/tucker-carlson-mocks-alexandria-ocasio-042350472.html

Here's another reason to hate that smarmy rich boy, (F)ucker Carlson. Shows a total lack of empathy for the legitimate fears of another human being.


Legitimate fear? I read that article even though it almost gave me brain cancer with the bias (if you read HuffPo you don't get to make fun of FOX viewers), and she basically spun this "fear" out of whole cloth, no one actually threatened her with sexual assault. I don't agree with Tucker's approach, I think he flirts with authoritarianism and dumbs himself down for the sake of his audience and to own the libs, but seeing how serious rape is, AOC definitely deserved to be called out for trivializing it for political purposes like this. This is Hilary Clinton ducking sniper fire in Bosnia all over again, but with much higher stakes this time.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

13 Aug 2021, 4:13 am

Disgusting the attitudes some people have toward women (specifically AOC)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... or-capitol



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

13 Aug 2021, 4:15 am

envirozentinel wrote:
@Kraichgauer: Interesting, as we have a few members of WP who have been through sexual assault and thus it is highly offensive to them when that gets trivialized, which has occasionally happened in the past. So this Carlson guy has no business with a heartless response like that. The sort of response you'd expect from a certain straight males who don't care to educate themselves about empathizing with women.


Did you read through the article, or click through to the original CNN interview with her? No one actually threatened her with rape, her justification for invoking it was that "white supremacy and patriarchy are often linked", which even if you took it at face value that everyone storming the capitol was a white supremacist, does not translate to an actual rape threat. Honestly, if anyone is trivializing rape here, it's AOC.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

13 Aug 2021, 4:18 am

Dox47 wrote:
Honestly, if anyone is trivializing rape here, it's AOC.


She's a rape survivor



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

13 Aug 2021, 4:33 am

cyberdad wrote:
She's a rape survivor


So what? That isn't a license to make irresponsible accusations that can't be supported, and it certainly doesn't make it out of bounds to question her account, which has grown progressively more harrowing in the months since January. If anything, as a survivor she should be extra conscientious not cheapening the issue by trying to use it to score political points.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

13 Aug 2021, 4:42 am

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
She's a rape survivor


So what? That isn't a license to make irresponsible accusations that can't be supported, and it certainly doesn't make it out of bounds to question her account, which has grown progressively more harrowing in the months since January. If anything, as a survivor she should be extra conscientious not cheapening the issue by trying to use it to score political points.


Rape survivors have PTSD...the idea of thousands of violent men rushing toward her (AOC) is self-evidently going to trigger an episode for her. I think Tucker Carlson should have thought twice before shooting his mouth off.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

13 Aug 2021, 5:04 am

Off Topic
Dox47 wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
As a result you end up with a large amount of the media reporting solely on one side of the case, leading the majority of the public to believe that is the entire case, and coming to conclusions based upon a subset of the relevent information. This both causes confusion should the verdict not align with their beliefs based on the restricted information they had, as well as a reluctance (bordering on inability at times) to believe\accept facts that were not included\aligned with their inital encounter with the case (a belief that "if it was true, it would have been reported in <insert media>", as it wasn't, it's "made up").

There are 2 sides to every story, yet many refuse to look beyond the first they see.


Were you here the the Trayvon Martin incident? I think that was the worst I've ever seen with people who weren't familiar with the relevant case-law just spouting nonsense, while the handful of us that follow this stuff and can read legal documents were all "George is going to walk", and then it was surprised Pikachu all around when he did. I expect a similar trajectory whenever Kyle Rittenhouse goes to trial, that should be fun. :lol:


I missed out on the reactions to that one, sadly... It was the expected verdict based on the actual evidence, from what I could tell at the time, even with only a cursorary interest in legal issues back then.

The reaction to Kyle's case has also been interesting here - despite providing and explaining the applicable laws, etc. there are still some people clinging to the misguided belief that "he was under the legal age to have a gun, so can't claim self defence\has no defence for other charges", so you'll likely see a repeat - Discussion is\was at https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=389886 should you wish to see what information people here have on which to base their expectations.

That said, there is one charge there which could go either way (underage with gun), depending on how the judge reads the law (it is slightly ambiguous, and has the faint possibility (however unlikely), that it may be translated in a way not favourable to him), but the rest seem to be fairly straight-forward "not gulty", even just looking at the evidence released by the prosecutors...Having spent the past few weeks with the little one in hospital (just got home with her), I haven't had a chance to see what updates one of his legal team have been able to provide (if any), but should catch up on that over the weekend, all going well.



envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,226
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria

13 Aug 2021, 5:05 am

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
She's a rape survivor


So what? That isn't a license to make irresponsible accusations that can't be supported, and it certainly doesn't make it out of bounds to question her account, which has grown progressively more harrowing in the months since January. If anything, as a survivor she should be extra conscientious not cheapening the issue by trying to use it to score political points.



I'd say AOC's crusading on behalf of the voiceless, ordinary women who have been the subjects of sexual violence but who are not in a position of power and able to change their situation, e g in an abusive relationship and afraid to leave. It isn't cheapening the issue. It's the same as some autistic person who was bullied at school, became a celeb and now advocates for victims of such bullying.


_________________
Why is a trailer behind a car but ahead of a movie?


my blog:
https://sentinel63.wordpress.com/


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

13 Aug 2021, 5:10 am

Off Topic
cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
She's a rape survivor


So what? That isn't a license to make irresponsible accusations that can't be supported, and it certainly doesn't make it out of bounds to question her account, which has grown progressively more harrowing in the months since January. If anything, as a survivor she should be extra conscientious not cheapening the issue by trying to use it to score political points.


Rape survivors have PTSD...the idea of thousands of violent men rushing toward her (AOC) is self-evidently going to trigger an episode for her. I think Tucker Carlson should have thought twice before shooting his mouth off.


For some reason, I seem to recall someone on the forum claiming in another case that a person who was the victim of sexual assault had nothing to worry about from a lone male in a secluded area telling her that "he would do what he wanted and she may not like it", which would also potentially trigger PTSD in her... How would this be any different (particularly as in this case the "victim" was in a completely different building to that in which the "mostly peaceful protesters" were interested in)?



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

13 Aug 2021, 5:14 am

Off Topic
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
There are 2 sides to every story, yet many refuse to look beyond the first they see.


Unless I am mistaken and you are veering way off the topic thread (like some other posters) what defence do the capitol rioters (many of whom were carrying rope for lynching congressmen whom they blame for enabling fabricated electoral fraud) have that warrants the public to examine another another side to their story??

Please feel free to share OR if I was mistaken then carry on derailing this thread.


Given the fact that my reply was contributing to an ongoing portion of the discussion, providing further related details, one could suggest that by extracting a tiny section, removing it from context, then claiming the post was "off topic" was actually where it branched "off-topic" :wink:



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

13 Aug 2021, 5:15 am

cyberdad wrote:
Rape survivors have PTSD...the idea of thousands of violent men rushing toward her (AOC) is self-evidently going to trigger an episode for her. I think Tucker Carlson should have thought twice before shooting his mouth off.


Every woman is different, not all survivors get PTSD, and not all PTSD sufferers would be triggered by the events of January 6th, which IIRC did not involve men rushing at her but rather her hiding out in her office across the street until she was rescued by the CPD. I don't even think it was close, last I heard the one time she thought she heard rioters hunting her, it actually turned out to be the cops looking to evacuate her.

As to Tucker, being provocative is his job, as is poking wholes in exactly this kind of thin story where a politician is trying to make something that never happened into in issue; if he makes the liberals mad, that's just a bonus for him.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

13 Aug 2021, 5:17 am

envirozentinel wrote:
I'd say AOC's crusading on behalf of the voiceless, ordinary women who have been the subjects of sexual violence but who are not in a position of power and able to change their situation, e g in an abusive relationship and afraid to leave. It isn't cheapening the issue. It's the same as some autistic person who was bullied at school, became a celeb and now advocates for victims of such bullying.


That's all fine and dandy, but this accusation she's making has literally no substance, and will damage her credibility in the future, having revealed herself as someone who will use a sexual assault allegation as a political weapon even when there's no supporting evidence.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

13 Aug 2021, 5:19 am

Brictoria wrote:
Off Topic
cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
She's a rape survivor


So what? That isn't a license to make irresponsible accusations that can't be supported, and it certainly doesn't make it out of bounds to question her account, which has grown progressively more harrowing in the months since January. If anything, as a survivor she should be extra conscientious not cheapening the issue by trying to use it to score political points.


Rape survivors have PTSD...the idea of thousands of violent men rushing toward her (AOC) is self-evidently going to trigger an episode for her. I think Tucker Carlson should have thought twice before shooting his mouth off.


For some reason, I seem to recall someone on the forum claiming in another case that a person who was the victim of sexual assault had nothing to worry about from a lone male in a secluded area telling her that "he would do what he wanted and she may not like it", which would also potentially trigger PTSD in her... How would this be any different (particularly as in this case the "victim" was in a completely different building to that in which the "mostly peaceful protesters" were interested in)?


Saved me from pointing it out...


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Aug 2021, 3:45 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/tucker-carlson-mocks-alexandria-ocasio-042350472.html

Here's another reason to hate that smarmy rich boy, (F)ucker Carlson. Shows a total lack of empathy for the legitimate fears of another human being.


Legitimate fear? I read that article even though it almost gave me brain cancer with the bias (if you read HuffPo you don't get to make fun of FOX viewers), and she basically spun this "fear" out of whole cloth, no one actually threatened her with sexual assault. I don't agree with Tucker's approach, I think he flirts with authoritarianism and dumbs himself down for the sake of his audience and to own the libs, but seeing how serious rape is, AOC definitely deserved to be called out for trivializing it for political purposes like this. This is Hilary Clinton ducking sniper fire in Bosnia all over again, but with much higher stakes this time.


She had a legitimate fear. An army of riotous inbreds were storming the building, planning to lynch and who knows what else to the elected representatives there.
(F)ucker Carlson has a long history of heartlessness when it comes to attacking and demeaning people he doesn't like, and this is absolutely no different. Who is he to say what someone else' experience was real, and what wasn't? When was he ever able to see things through her eyes, and to feel what she had felt?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

13 Aug 2021, 4:10 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
She had a legitimate fear. An army of riotous inbreds were storming the building, planning to lynch and who knows what else to the elected representatives there.
(F)ucker Carlson has a long history of heartlessness when it comes to attacking and demeaning people he doesn't like, and this is absolutely no different. Who is he to say what someone else' experience was real, and what wasn't? When was he ever able to see things through her eyes, and to feel what she had felt?


The first words out of your mouth are "She had a legitimate fear", as if you know what happened for certain, but then later you say "Who is he to say what someone else' experience was real, and what wasn't?"; that's called a contradiction, you apply one standard when you or someone you like makes a claim, and then another when people you disagree with make a counter-claim. It also tells me that you understand the mind reading fallacy that you and your political allies on this board so often use, but only object when it comes from the other side, which is classic hypocrisy. Your saving grace is that I'm not sure you're aware you're doing it, so I can't say for certain it's malicious rather than simply ignorant, but it's definitely poor reasoning either way.

I'm also not sure that you get to hit someone for attacking and demeaning when you childishly write his name as "(F)ucker Carlson" every time, quite aside from the sidestepping of the auto-censor that I've been told is a violation of the rules around here, that some people seem to selectively care about.

To get back to the allegation, was AOC even ever in the same building as any of the rioters?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Aug 2021, 7:20 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
She had a legitimate fear. An army of riotous inbreds were storming the building, planning to lynch and who knows what else to the elected representatives there.
(F)ucker Carlson has a long history of heartlessness when it comes to attacking and demeaning people he doesn't like, and this is absolutely no different. Who is he to say what someone else' experience was real, and what wasn't? When was he ever able to see things through her eyes, and to feel what she had felt?


The first words out of your mouth are "She had a legitimate fear", as if you know what happened for certain, but then later you say "Who is he to say what someone else' experience was real, and what wasn't?"; that's called a contradiction, you apply one standard when you or someone you like makes a claim, and then another when people you disagree with make a counter-claim. It also tells me that you understand the mind reading fallacy that you and your political allies on this board so often use, but only object when it comes from the other side, which is classic hypocrisy. Your saving grace is that I'm not sure you're aware you're doing it, so I can't say for certain it's malicious rather than simply ignorant, but it's definitely poor reasoning either way.

I'm also not sure that you get to hit someone for attacking and demeaning when you childishly write his name as "(F)ucker Carlson" every time, quite aside from the sidestepping of the auto-censor that I've been told is a violation of the rules around here, that some people seem to selectively care about.

To get back to the allegation, was AOC even ever in the same building as any of the rioters?


I know what was going through her mind because she said so.
Just because she wasn't in the same building doesn't mean she can't have been traumatized.
I call Carlson, (F)ucker, because he's more than earned my derision. He's demeaned those in pain (AOC, the officers who defended the capitol), denied that white nationalism exists when he surely knows it does, exploited racist conspiracy theories such as "the Great Replacement," and is now chummy with authoritarian strongmen in Hungary and around the globe. He's more than earned the (F) I've given him.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer