|
Arrest warrant (criminal trespassing) is out for Amy Goodman, who was covering the protest and the violence against protesters. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/10/breaking_arrest_warrant_issued_for_amy
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
blowfish posted:ok let me amend my statement let me amend my incredibly pedantic statement about what I assume the semantics of the verb "shoot" to be, but also call everyone else a pedant
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If you take a look at photos of people who've been injured by flashbangs, like that kid in the crib a while back, flashbangs leave burn wounds. Potentially very severe ones. They don't blast open your arm down to the bone. Something else caused that and whether the cops were throwing lethal grenades or the girl had an explosive device, someone made a really bad decision. According to the protestors, grenade pieces have been removed from her arm during surgery and are being saved for legal proceedings.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
It is loving hilarious to me that there are actual, real life people in this thread who, in a conflict between protestors and US cops, assume that it's the cops who are telling the truth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Complaining about "legalism" is the last resort of people who have no legal argument for why their desires should prevail. I know you've been posting your drivel for years now and I'm unlikely to change that distorted version of reality you call your home, but for anyone else reading this: Complaining about legalism is an acknowledgement of the fact that there's a difference between morality and the law, and that the latter is supposed to encode the former. So when there's a conflict between morality and the law, it's supremely idiotic to accuse those on the side of morality of not having a legal argument for their position. That's entirely the point, you moron.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Tias posted:So it seems MIGF has taken to drunk-spamming me with PMs - since putting him on ignore doesn't block pms, I'll have to settle for public shaming: Yeah he does that, I told him to go gently caress himself and he stopped.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:only fascists base their case for morality on legislation i mean 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:On the contrary, law and morality are orthogonal. The proper role of law is to define the relationship between citizens and the state/society, not to encode morality. Most people would agree that adultery is immoral, but far fewer think it should be illegal. Not everything immoral is illegal, and not every lawful action is moral. Complaining that the law does not prohibit someone from doing something you find morally objectionable is like complaining that you've been working out and eating right, but your car still doesn't go any faster. "Law encodes morality" doesn't mean "everything immoral must be illegal", since "this should be illegal" and "this is immoral but shouldn't be illegal" are both moral judgments. The fact that we don't make adultery illegal encodes our collective feeling that adultery is not bad enough to send somebody to jail for. Of course we still think it's largely immoral, which is why it's legally relevant in divorce proceedings and character assessments during witness questioning etc. The relationship between the citizenry and the state is defined by a hell of a lot more than just laws, though of course those are part of it as well since we have moral stances on what being a citizen/state entails.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You can't have it both ways. If you are defining morality as any preference for one policy or course of action over another, rather than judgements based on concepts moral good and bad like most people use the word, then you are redefining it beyond all usefulness. Unless you are saying that insistence of native peoples' right to their land has the same moral value as a local noise ordinance. yeah no thats nonsense
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Anyway if the protestors are moving onto someone else's private property, what should the cops do, in your estimation? Deescalate, initiate dialogue
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Naw he's right there is plenty of documentation of the protestors engaging in violence... It's super easy to find it, just look on stormfront, breitbart, bearingarms.com (this one's good, they go full-out TFR on what kind of tear gas launchers the police used and ignoring the fact that all witnesses say it was a thrown object.) I don't know what kind of communist drugs you're on but I know if I see glass jars, propane canisters and motherfucking rocks at a campsite, I know there's something fishy going on. Why else would those commonly found camping supplies and rocks be there, at a site where people commonly camp, in the wild, where there are rocks in the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Think about what you say before you say it. I really wonder what the reaction would be if police responded to protests entirely in kind, as in throwing rocks and mollys back at people (not saying the water protectors did this). Getting poo poo on by CS or LRAD is less likely to kill you than blunt trauma or fire. Yep, those are clearly the only two options
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I guess it depends on what you mean by not using violence. If you're talking about letting people wear themselves out against a riot shield line instead of shooting journalists with baton rounds, yeah that'd be much better. If you mean "letting the protestors stop construction and/or some of them damage more equipment" then lolno. Why do you prioritize continuing construction over not hurting protestors?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Because I don't think trespassing should be legal. Trespassing isn't legal. That's not up for discussion. The question is why, if faced with a group of protestors, you prefer continued construction to not hurting protestors. It seems to me like you think getting a pipeline done is more important than human health and safety, and I'm wondering why that is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
As a follow-up question for DeusExMachinima, when the Bundy militia occupied the Malheur compound, did you advocate that the authorities go in with force? If so, why? If not, why not?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:IMHO you should avoid hurting the protestors as much as possible, short of not moving to evict them per the owner's wishes. You're just restating your position. Why is the "short of" clause in there? Why are the owner's wishes more important than the health and safety of the protestors? Why is any of this precluded by deescalating and creating a dialogue, even if that takes a considerable amount of time which would delay the pipeline?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Ideally the police should have gone in peacefully, read them their rights, and arrested them much more quickly than how it went down. If they tried to shoot the officers, well... quote:Because the owner's rights remain the same regardless of someone else's illegal actions, and a right delayed is a right denied.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
blowfish posted:how many people live in each of the two places "this decision to gently caress over natives isn't due to racism, it's because there's so few of them. because we genocided the rest. so now it can never be racism to gently caress over natives" - Albert Einstein
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OTOH, I think it is possible for a decision that has negative consequences for natives or other minorities to be made for reasons other than sneering racism. yep and given america's history with natives we should definitely give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I kind of wish I would have gotten a There Will Be Blood 'I am an oilman' avatar, after writing my post about how most people who do the low-effort vague protesting against oil at large, are pretty huge hypocrites and actually are heavily reliant upon oil and would be kicking and screaming if it weren't cheap and plentiful. Oh well. o well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
i wish someone would have given me a cool and good avatar for my poo poo rear end opinions instead of the one i got. o well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Tias posted:They haven't lost if they can block the pipeline, which is why they attempt to block it. Can you please stop being dense and understand that your own government is ready to kill its citizens in order to build a dead object under them? They understand, they're just okay with it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You don't get to claim "mah civil rights!!" if you're tresspassing and the police use necessary force to get you to move. That is just not how it works.  do you have any idea how many protestors in the civil rights movement were forcibly arrested for trespassing?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Plenty, of course. And it wasn't unjust to arrest them for tresspassing. Why would you think it was? I don't know mate, arresting people for sitting in the "whites only" section seems pretty loving unjust to me
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Let's imagine some time in the next year the Lakota decided to start building a new school for the reservation. In this imaginary world, Dakota Access decides to get back at them for delaying the pipeline by paying people $200/day to squat on the land the school is to be built on and says they'll pay more squatters to squat anywhere they try to build the school for the next seven months. Would you support the squatters right to protest construction projects they don't like? Would it be any different if they were just Dakota Access employees who took some leave time? Or if instead of Dakota Access paying for it it was crowd funded? This is it, the dumbest argument. "But what if white people did sit-ins in black restaurants, huh. What then!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Ah, so should Mutti suspend elections, then? Or are Germans inherently superior to other peoples? No, but we do have a better electoral system than you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:That's a direct contradiction of blowfish's argument that Germany is superior because its democratic institutions are a fraud and all power rests in an oligarchic bureaucracy. I suppose I can't blame you for refusing to read his posts. I never said I agree with blowfish 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah except the pipeline isn't poisoning anyone, gently caress the Lakota didn't even attempt to cite that as an issue when they sued to stop the construction. yeah on the other hand they've consistently made that argument to the press from the very start
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Just because you say something consistently to the press does not stop it from being made up, disingenuous, or unsupported by facts. http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/pipeline.aspx http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/americas_dangerous_pipelines/ http://www.ecowatch.com/pipeline-spills-2061960029.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Wait you mean they've been basing their complaint around one thing in the press and not even mentioning it in court? Why that almost sounds like a man i cannot wait to hear your spirited defense of al capone now! 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This has nothing to do with actual pipeline spills. This only covers the CONSTRUCTION and initial improvement. C'mon now. No there are reaction plans for spills in the document.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
The actual important bit is about 170 pages, most of which can be skimmed easily for the important parts.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
I can't find the actual news over all the slapfights. So the construction was delayed? Any articles?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Does this decision have any legs or is it just the Obama admin kicking the can down the road so the Trump admin has to make the call? In the latter case it's hard to see how this substantially changes anything.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 09:50
|
|
|
Here's some grade A crying by the way:quote:Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics Partners Respond to the Statement from the Department of the Army Did you know that "policy decision" is Washington code for "political decision"? Now you know!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Who keeps buying the avatars? Daym. I want to know that too, to be honest. There seem to be around three distinct "styles" of red texts around, so either we have three very wealthy goons throwing money at stuff or the admins are trying to get additional revenue by getting people to spend money on avatar change certificates 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
blowfish posted:One is effectronica five, because effectronica is easily outraged. What's his current name now?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Brainiac Five That makes a lot of sense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Various native groups are in favor so maybe ask them? It's not like even Native Amercans are of one mind on the topic. link?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Dude of all the places you could be living, the USA is one of the absolute best. Outside of all the better ones.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 01:01
|
|