Kranes' drunk thoughts on political violence

Just the one and how dare you say that about my cute kitty witty!

 

Americans went to conduct a peaceful protest at the Spa where a man was in the women's locker with an erect penis traumatizing a little girl and many women. ANTIFA showed up at the protest and beat many of the peaceful protestors.

That's terrorism.

That's also ANTIFA again being the Brown Shirt arm of the Democratic Party.

 

Phew…. Good to hear.

 

Yeah that’s proving my point on political violence. Stop making my argument for me it’s rude to those that are actually trying.

 

I love her. She’s a good cat.

 

The site which she gets her information from classifies terrorism as this..


GTD Definition of Terrorism and Inclusion Criteria
The GTD defines a terrorist attack as the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation. In practice this means in order to consider an incident for inclusion in the GTD, all three of the following attributes must be present:
 The incident must be intentional – the result of a conscious calculation on the part of a perpetrator.
 The incident must entail some level of violence or immediate threat of violence -including property violence, as well as violence against people.
10
GLOBAL TERRORISM DATABASE CODEBOOK ©UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND OCTOBER 2019

 The perpetrators of the incidents must be sub-national actors. The database does not include acts of state terrorism.
In addition, at least two of the following three criteria must be present for an incident to be included in the GTD:
 Criterion 1: The act must be aimed at attaining a political, economic, religious, or social goal. In terms of economic goals, the exclusive pursuit of profit does not satisfy this criterion. It must involve the pursuit of more profound, systemic economic change.
 Criterion 2: There must be evidence of an intention to coerce, intimidate, or convey some other message to a larger audience (or audiences) than the immediate victims. It is the act taken as a totality that is considered, irrespective if every individual involved in carrying out the act was aware of this intention. As long as any of the planners or decision-makers behind the attack intended to coerce, intimidate or publicize, the intentionality criterion is met.
 Criterion 3: The action must be outside the context of legitimate warfare activities. That is, the act must be outside the parameters permitted by international humanitarian law, insofar as it targets non-combatants


https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/downloads/Codebook.pdf

So I would classify ANTIFA as terrorist but I’m not sure if the site does. I’m looking to find out right now. If I recall they shutdown a whole city block and called it their own. You can’t say that wasn’t terrorism

 

No such thing

 

You're not making a point. You're just babbling.

ANTIFA are terrorists that support the Democratic Party. I just provided two textbook examples of terrorism and you quickly want to move on.

You're welcome.

 

Perhaps I missed it but the OP author state any specific examples of recent right wing terrorism here in the U.S. of A.?

 

Your perspectives are so ridiculously partisan biased, I don't think there is any hope for a rational discussion.

 

That hurts.

ANTIFA can't be a terrorist organization... because ANTIFA doesn't exist as a terrorist organization. It's just a loose ideology. You have to say certain cells act as terrorist organizations which... end up ignoring the reason why they're mobilizing. IE because they see the right mobilizing more by committing more acts of terrorism.

I did.

Yeah that's why drunk me said this. Sober me knew exactly what people were going to say in response. There was no point in a rational discussion when the point was for drunk me to say something about right wing ignorance on political violence.

 

This is little gem of 1984 NewSpeak.... and comical to any honest person.

If you think ANTIFA is not organized, I'll bet you also believe that:

• A man is a woman
• CV-19 was a naturally occurring virus
• China Joe is not the "Big Guy" on Hunter's emails
• Children under the Age of Reason should be allowed to choose their gender
• The United States is "Systemically Racist"

This propaganda is so easy to expose. Please keep it up... it's why everyone is turning on the Leftists.

 

Yeah I don't have enough booze in the world to deal with your conspiracy theories. This is why I hate talking about political violence here. I have to deal with the conspiracy theories. Normally? Don't have to worry about those. We just have to deal with the fact there are conspiracy theories. But here and now? It's annoying.

 

Do you often have drunken debates with yourself?

 

Actually it's been getting worse lately due to stress about my job, thank you for asking.

 

Strange that a lefty has a job these daze. Me thought lefties were all at home collecting tax dollars for the permanent lockdown of our society. Isn't it like $300 a week and even more if you have children? How much you think the govt should increase the minimum wage to get you out of your basement and back to work with a livable wage? Would $30 and hour suffice for flipping burgers at Mickey Dee's? They do have black coffee there that might help you to quell any hangover you might have.

 

Honestly I'm shocked I still have my job too. But I don't know for how much longer.

 

If a riot were provably 'pre-planned', as in someone organized a large protest with the intention of provacateuring that protest via a few cooperating instigators to become violent and destructive, would that change your opinion regarding that particular riot?

 

No because the crowd commits the act of violence; ie the crowd enables the group to become violent. A crowd normally will prevent those actors from taking action by reinforcing the idea that they will be peaceful. This explains why as the day turns into night crowds become more violent. That's because the ones that remain are more politically motivated and more willing to use force to accomplish their goals.

 

I think what this is is something called an equivocation fallacy in logic.

Two different things get the same label, but those two different things are very different.

You can't treat one just like you would the other simply because you have chosen the same word to describe them both.

Riots could be seen as "terrorism" but it's definitely not the sort of "terrorism" that brings up connotations of murdering innocent people. It's very disingenuous to describe one as the other.

There can be a blurry line in some situations, having to do with motives, but using these type of words we will just get caught up in semantics.

 

Can we still be friends though?

 

I suppose so.

 

I have not been to Mickey Ds in over a year now, they got too expensive for what it is for me.
There are better deals to be had at other places.
Really I can make my own hamburgers that are exponentially better than McDonalds.

I do support the Ronald McDonald House, though.

They do good things.

 

Riots ARE political violence.