DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

DeusExMachinima posted:

Flashbangs, tasers, CS, batons, rubber bullets, etc etc are also OK as they are less-lethal devices. If you're trespassing or starting fires on someone else's property (and there is no exception for wanting to stay warm or make tea) you're gonna get a response.

Nice to know the deployment of chemical agents on unarmed civilians is OK in your book

# ¿ Nov 23, 2016 22:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 04:39

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Elendil004 posted:

CS is a chemical agent in the loosest definition and a pretty dumb thing to nitpick.

ughhhhhhh but it is a chemical right???

There's also suggestions that it's actually pretty damaging so I guess I wonder why you want to minimise the potential for harm here

# ¿ Nov 23, 2016 22:37

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Imagine the worldview of a person who actually thinks stomping your own citizens with concussion grenades and gas is a cool and good thing.

Preeeeetty edgy

# ¿ Nov 23, 2016 22:46

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Jarmak posted:

100% yes, completely okay, what the gently caress is wrong with you?

Hahaha yes sorry gassing civilians is a cool and good thing, and only normal and not-unhinged people think that

# ¿ Nov 23, 2016 23:37

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

"This piece of legislation/agreement says/doesn't say that X is good/bad so therefore I am fine with shooting/stomping/gassing protesters with rubber bullets/chemical agents/grenades/jackboots"

# ¿ Nov 23, 2016 23:48

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Jarmak posted:

only fascists base their case for morality on legislation"

I am accusing you of basing your morality off legislation so cool I guess

# ¿ Nov 24, 2016 00:04

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Dead Reckoning posted:

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.

Nice work justifying extreme police brutality. Just because it's legal doesn't make it good, friend,

# ¿ Nov 24, 2016 05:54

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

DeusExMachinima posted:

You guys realize that unless you want to count out all less-lethal options, CS isn't usefully distinguishable right? Just giving me your word that getting hit with a less-lethal chemical agent is morally worse than whatever other less-lethal thing you'd prefer doesn't give me a reason to take you seriously. The CWC bans CS use against uniformed militaries (but not for use by soldiers or cops against civilians) specifically because in the fog of war it may be mistaken for the deployment of lethal nerve gas, thus inviting an escalated response. I doubt the protestors have some VX sitting around waiting to be used if they mistake CS for something deadly so that danger doesn't exist here.

I am still glad that you are perfectly okay with gassing civilians

# ¿ Nov 24, 2016 08:22

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

DeusExMachinima posted:

Anyway if the protestors are moving onto someone else's private property, what should the cops do, in your estimation?

Umm so you are saying that if we can't gas the protesters then we can't do anything about them???

# ¿ Nov 24, 2016 23:39

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Basically this

I'm pretty against using disproportionate force against unarmed non-violent protesters to begin with, also it's suggested that CS gas has long-term side effects so I guess it's not as benign as some people make it out to be.

if you ask me whether I'm against in on principle, I'd have to ask whether you need to be shooting rubber bullets/grenades/gas/water cannon in the first place.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 00:00

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

umm excuse me but if we aren't able to use disproportionate force on unarmed protesters, we might as well just let them walk all over us :smug:

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 01:03

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

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.

Are we forgetting that the vehicles the water protectors tried to move were burned by some of their number?* It's pretty weird to see pro-cop pieces can't rush to mention that fact fast enough, and I almost never see the origin of these burnt vehicles mentioned in anti-pipeline articles. Confirmation bias in action I guess.

*This should not be taken as an endorsement for the cops punishing everybody for it.

Why are you so quick to defend the brutal and disproportionate police actions?

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 01:13

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Yeah hahaha sorry, opposing police brutality is trolling

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 01:19

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that forums poster DeusExMachinma is a really big fan of police violence against protesters

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 01:24

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Well I don't usually condone siq av burns but lmao

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 01:30

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

botany posted:

The protestors have a right to protest, and human beings in general have a right to health and safety. Why do you think property rights are more important?

I think you'll find the right to crack some hippie skulls is the most important right

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 01:51

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

silence_kit posted:

This entire outrage has very little to do with the actual issue, the pipeline being built, which probably will have no negative effect on the Standing Rock Sioux. In fact, it could lead to lower oil prices and thus be a good thing for them. While wealthy liberals on the coasts would have no trouble weathering an oil price increase, poor people, of whom I assume are most of the members of the Standing Rock Sioux, would be in even more dire straits than they already are.

The issue is more of a symbolic one about how the US took the natives' land a while ago and haven't really fairly recompensed them for it, partially due to them thinking the natives were lesser beings. If you view this pipeline issue in that way, and if you are still reeling over that, then yeah, it is about racism.

Ummm it's actually to do with the pipeline leaking, you should check earlier in the thread where basically pipeline leaks go effectively unreported in the media so there's that

# ¿ Nov 26, 2016 23:23

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

silence_kit posted:

It's not actually about that though.

but it actually is

# ¿ Nov 27, 2016 03:59

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Gobbeldygook posted:

Let's recall what you said to me earlier in the thread.

They won, therefore they were right. So might makes right when it suits you.

You have access to Wikipedia too! You know what's really interesting? How utterly worthless every single post you've made in this thread has been.

Drive by claim that no-one should listen to a particular poster.

Interesting, drives by to accuse me of being an "openly racist shitbag"

Another post just driving by to accuse me of being racist.

Interesting post that contributes nothing to the discussion.

Interesting post that contributes nothing and ascribes bad faith to your opponents.

Boy, everyone who is against you is a racist!

Everyone who doesn't agree with you is pro-genocide.

Could you please just gently caress off?

I-i'm not racist :qq:

# ¿ Dec 5, 2016 00:30

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Also a good win today, hopefully this can continue to be a win in the future and not just a temporary reprieve

# ¿ Dec 5, 2016 00:32

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Jesus loving christ can the stupid law enforcement cheerleaders take it to GiP?

# ¿ Dec 5, 2016 00:51

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Gobbeldygook posted:

I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth and please stop beating your wife. Do you support the government using eminent domain to confiscate all of the land that ever belonged to the Lakota from the mostly private owners and transferring control to the Lakota?

hahaha holy poo poo

# ¿ Dec 5, 2016 02:05

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

wateroverfire posted:

Dude of all the places you could be living, the USA is one of the absolute best.

hahahahahahahaha

# ¿ Dec 7, 2016 01:09

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Gobbeldygook posted:

100 people died today in car accidents. We should not be building any more roads! #NoMoRoads #WalkingIsLife

I'd like to hear more about how this is somehow a valid comparison and not you making GBS threads in the bed again

# ¿ Dec 13, 2016 05:49

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Gobbeldygook posted:

Imagine a city proposed widening a road to accommodate increased traffic and an activist cried out, "Thirty-five thousand people die in motor vehicle accidents every year! We should not be encouraging people to drive!" Would you agree with the activist? An oil pipeline somewhere leaking is not an argument against building another oil pipeline any more than a fatal five-car pileup is an argument against building more roads.

Ughhh this is still just rephrasing what you said before

# ¿ Dec 13, 2016 06:58

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Gobbeldygook posted:

My hypothetical car accident protester was in the US and only cared about deaths here because those are the only deaths Americans care about. I was working from memory; Dr. Google says it was 38.8k in the US last year, but the precise number of deaths is not any more important than whether 176,000 or 186,000 gallons of oil leaked.

Correct, there are car accident protesters who successfully advocated for safety changes that save lives. An analogous effort for oil pipelines would be protesters lobbying for improved construction techniques, requiring retrofits/inspections of older pipelines or be shut down, etc. Instead we get the Standing Rock Sioux protesting the construction of oil pipelines any distance upstream from their water source for fear of it tainting their precious bodily fluids.

Nothing you said is wrong; there are good reasons for a hypothetical person to oppose the widening of a road. Also, like all analogies mine is imperfect. In the case of the road widening the money spent on widening the road really could have instead been spent on expanding public transit, building bike paths, walkways, etc and wouldn't have dealt with the fundamental traffic problem while in the case of Dakota Access we're talking about whether a private company should be allowed to build something that makes them money but has some negative externalities (potential oil spills & increased used of fossil fuels) with no real possibility of the money spent on its construction being diverted to some other social purpose.

Sorry but please could you say, definitively, why the comparison you used was valid.

# ¿ Dec 13, 2016 07:47

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Polygynous posted:

"what if bad things were actually good"

The best justification provided thus far

# ¿ Dec 13, 2016 08:41

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Gobbeldygook posted:

I'm not making a very complex argument. Here is the implicit argument someone makes whenever they link to a story about an oil pipeline spill, or a list of pipeline spills.

1. Oil pipeline leaks are bad.
2. An oil pipeline in (place) leaked.
3. Therefore the Dakota Access pipeline should not be built.

Here is my analogous argument, somewhat reformulated:

1. Car accidents are bad.
2. There was a car accident yesterday in Sioux City.
3. Therefore we should not widen this road in Boston.

Do you get it yet?

Sorry, what I'm trying to get from you is your hot take on ~why~ this is a valid comparison

# ¿ Dec 13, 2016 09:25

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

stone cold posted:

Oh, that's my bad.

The car accident comparison is still specious though.

Yeah, interesting how forums poster Goebbeldygook missed this

# ¿ Dec 13, 2016 14:22

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

RBC posted:

Nobody bothered to explain why car accidents are different from oil spills because they're not retarded.

But if any retards in here need to have it explained to them, maybe they can go ask on the forum for retards or something. Or ask a kindergarten teacher.

wowzers

# ¿ Dec 14, 2016 03:28

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

honestly I can't tell if that's pro or anti pipeline, but what I can say for certain is that was a pretty sick own

# ¿ Dec 14, 2016 03:38

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

CommieGIR posted:

Hey look, that thing that everyone said wouldn't happen? It happened:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/12/pipeline-spills-176000-gallons-of-crude-into-creek-about-150-miles-from-dakota-access-protest-camp.html

People die every day, why don't we just ban living!!!!

# ¿ Dec 14, 2016 05:07

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Dead Reckoning posted:

But I realize I'm explaining the universality of logic and standards of argument in D&D again, which tends to get the same reaction as explaining orbital mechanics to a fish.

hahahahaha

# ¿ Dec 14, 2016 06:37

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

It's almost like the pro-authoritarian posters have this weird dialectical thinking going on.

It's against the ~law~ so the protesters are ~bad~

# ¿ Dec 16, 2016 01:25

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Dead Reckoning has never heard of the Heinz Dilemma, apparently

# ¿ Dec 17, 2016 06:11

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Dead Reckoning posted:

My two favorite things about the Heinz Dilemma are people who think it is actually a useful examination of the ethics of seizure instead of an ethical ink blot test, and people who smugly declare that adherence to their moral code is Stage 6 Universal Human Ethics, but everyone else's adherence to their moral code is Stage 4 Law-and-order Authoritarianism. Because obviously their ethics are the universal and correct ones, and everyone else is parroting what an authority figure told them.
The latter, but not necessarily to the same conclusion that you draw. I don't mean that laws have to be immutable or even identical across jurisdictions, just that they have to be based on consistent principles and consistently applied. For example, some countries have different justice systems than the United States, and while I might disagree with some aspects of how they do things, I don't necessarily think that a conviction in, say, Switzerland is inherently unjust because it doesn't conform to American standards of criminal procedure. And for the record, there are plenty of laws I disagree with, but that I follow anyway.

And you've missed the underlying reason why I raised the Heinz Dilemma, which is that people will arrive at different conclusions based on how they reason. Neo-Kohlbergianism organises the "stages" more like schemas these days, but I think that generally, in a western society, it's an easy way to conceptualise how people reason in ambigious and conflicting situations.

I highlighted parts of your thing which I find pretty pretty ironic, given your argument (where you basically miss the point completely).

twodot posted:

I've actually never heard of the Heinz Dilemma, and it seems very dumb. The ordering of the stages itself at least looks like a normative judgment which seems like a mistake when examining moral systems. Also self interest and universal human ethics (as though such a thing could exist) are identical. The reasons human lives have fundamental value is because other humans want people to stick around. (or if you've taken the fundamental value of human life as an axiom, it's identical to human rights)

lol

Dead Reckoning posted:

I think the Heinz Dilemma is fine as a thought experiment for demonstrating the author's thesis, but people tend to read too much into it, and moral reasoning does not easily fall into a six tiered hierarchy.

That's why it was reorganised into a schema-based conceptualisation (there are problems with hierarchical-based models). Also, please elaborate how people are "reading too much into it".

# ¿ Dec 23, 2016 00:42

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, since 90% of your contributions to this thread have been ankle biting, you don't seem to be taking any sort of affirmative position other than "people reason things differently", which, yep.

The position here is that you are extremely pro-authoritarian and had no problems with the police curbstomping the DAPL protesters. You deride others for having (paraphased) "correct" ethics, while your position is wholly derivied from an authority figure (this is actually true, lmao).

You aren't going to "get" why the people are protesting, or why people protest in general. To you, they are just people breaking a law and being gassed/shot/whatever is just them getting their just desserts.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2016 01:57

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I've explained a few times now that I understand the protesters' rationale, but that I find it insufficient justification for obstructing lawful construction that has made a good faith effort to comply with applicable standards and practices. It also seems to never occur to you that a person might agree with honoring existing rules for reasons other than that they are the rules. You keep on keeping on though.

Or maybe you could make and affirmative argument for why the protesters should be permitted to obstruct people acting lawfully.

oh my god

# ¿ Dec 23, 2016 03:48

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

All it took was an executive order from a president who named their inauguration "National Day of Patriotic Devotion" hmmm

# ¿ Jan 24, 2017 22:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 04:39

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

It's good that we can chalk this one up to "actually needed a literal fascist to gently caress over the traditional owners" so we can add this to the long list of "why the US government can't be trusted to fairly deal with minorities" :shrug:

# ¿ Feb 6, 2017 23:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

«‹›2 »