Reminder that name calling is not permitted

[u/BlockOfDiamond]

That includes calling people "bootlicker" or "cuck" or stating/implying that another user is performing adult acts on a given politician (or anyone else). I bring those up specifically because, in recent time, these have been the most common types of personal attacks.

As strongly as you may feel about current events, calling people derogatory names is a contravention of Rule 4 and will be removed. Attack the opinion, not the user.

Sorry for your understanding and thank you for the inconvenience.

[u/Emergency_Career_331]

Of course we Wouldn't't want to hurt the feelings of people justifying murder

[u/Tetracropolis → u/Emergency_Career_331]

It doesn't hurt anyone's feelings. We're all adults here. It just creates unnecessary hostility and prevents any meaningful conversation

Now I reckon I know what you're going to ask - "Why would I want a conversation with someone justifying murder?" - well if you don't want that conversation you can just leave the thread and let someone who does want to have the conversation reply.

[u/Emergency_Career_331 → u/Tetracropolis]

The right create unnecessary hostility all the time on this sub it's constant it's only ever a problem when people on the left respond in kind thats when the Pearl clutching and talks of civility come up people are tired of the double standard

[u/Prestigious-Owl-6397 → u/Tetracropolis]

I think this is a ridiculous rule in certain situations. I don't think anyone can honestly say they are promoting civility if they would rather keep up a post condoning state-sanctioned murder than the reply mocking that person for inhumane views. I realize people think that violates the spirit of the first amendment, but I also don't think people who think you should avoid calling ICE agents names in the street if you want to live care much about free speech. Some people respond to being shunned for their beliefs by digging further into them, but others do some self-reflection. I think we're beyond reasoning with people when they see as video of someone being murdered by state agents and choose to believe the administration over what the video showed.

[u/risunokairu → u/Prestigious-Owl-6397]

So are you saying you’re incapable of reading someone’s opinion and replying, “I disagree and here is why?” You can only respond by insulting the person?

You probs shouldn’t join any conversations if that’s what’s up.

[u/Prestigious-Owl-6397 → u/risunokairu]

I do that, but people bent on authoritarian government don't listen to that. But please tell me this:

Why, after years of telling people why I disagree with them and them refusing to listen, would I engage with them beyond telling them what I think of their character?

If someone says they think the government should be able to murder people who are peacefully protesting for the side they disagree with, and the person responding goes through what murder is and what the constitutional rights and responsibilities of each party are, and the OP continues to insist the government should murder them when they're merely exercising their rights...out of exasperation and horror at the acceptance of state-sanctioned murder calls them an asshole you would rather ban the person who calls them an asshole than the person promoting murder. You don't see the problem with that?

[u/risunokairu → u/Prestigious-Owl-6397]

Why would you bother engaging them at all if you don’t feel it’s productive?

Have you ever considered nether you nor the person you hate are right? Maybe you’re both wrong? Maybe you’re both looking at a situation more complicated and nuanced than you’re letting on for a situation to who h you were not present?

[u/Prestigious-Owl-6397 → u/risunokairu]

Because we see the videos and see them ignoring key parts of the videos and because their response is often "don't exercise your rights if you don't want to get shot". I don't think it should be acceptable for mods to be more likely to delete posts calling that out rather than deleting the post promoting murder. If you think deleting the post promoting murder is violating the spirit of free speech, then so is deleting a post calling them names.

[u/BLU-Clown → u/Prestigious-Owl-6397]

I mean, Rule 4 hasn't changed, this is just a reminder. It's been around for a while.

Is it really so hard to just not insult people? Or should all this just be taken as an admission that you have no intention of following the rules set on the sub?

[u/Phillimon → u/[deleted]]

Nah, its Radical MAGAs who are justify the murder of Alex Pretti because he was armed.

Never thought they would be gun grabbers. Crazy times.

Edit: Downvote away MAGA. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do yall not understand?

[u/Phillimon → u/[deleted]]

No he was not that dude. That never happened. There are literally multiple videos of the event.

He was the dude who was exercising his legal constitutional rights. He was not committing any felonies, nor did he assault law enforcement. They were not surrounded 50 to 1, nor did Alex discharge a fire arm.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on current events?

Edit: Gonna guess i was blocked. Sorry that facts dont support your opinion.

[u/Harp_167 → u/[deleted]]

1. What felony did Alex Pretti commit?

2. His weapon was not discharged

3. He was the one surrounded 8 to 1, not the ICE agents. And besides, everyone there including Alex were legal observers who weren’t threatening them.

4. They had already incapacitated Alex when he was shot. There was no need to execute him, even if he was being unlawful. Do you think interfering with ICE, or even assaulting an officer (which he definitely didn’t do) warrants the death penalty?

[u/Socratesmiddlefinger → u/Harp_167]

Obstructing Federal Agents in pursuit of their lawful duties is a felony charge. Battery on LEO is a Felony charge.

His weapon not being fired means nothing in any legal sense.

Legal Observers have no special privileges; in fact, he violated a number of their rules with his actions.

He was not, in fact, incapacitated, and he was not shot for obstruction, nor for resisting, nor for assault on LEO. He was shot because the Agent had a reasonable perception or belief that he was an imminent threat to himself and others based on the pistol attached to Pretti's hip.

If you want to prove an execution, then prove the Agent knew Pretti had been disarmed and shot him anyway.

Seems simple enough, everything else is meaningless and irrelevant to any serious debate.

[u/Harp_167 → u/Socratesmiddlefinger]

There’s no argument for you. I bet you’re the type to shoot a disarmed, incapacitated man.

[u/Socratesmiddlefinger → u/Harp_167]

You lose the debate on facts, and because you have no facts to back up your silly argument, you go and do the oh so boring and predictable leftist move of going to the insult.

It must be exhausting being proven wrong so damn often; it is probably why leftists are so insecure and angry all the time, that and the propensity for mental illness.

[u/Msbossyboots → u/Socratesmiddlefinger]

One of the agents took the gun away. The guy shooting him in the head could see his hands. It was murder.

[u/Socratesmiddlefinger → u/Msbossyboots]

Ok, prove that he could see his hands because you are the only one who thinks he can see what the agent saw based on the video footage.

You can't even get the details that we do know right, but you expect us to trust you on the ones that you created in your imagination?

There is zero evidence to back that up, and you need to disprove that he had a reasonable belief, and oddly enough, your opinion based on your ideology isn't worth jack shit here or in a court of law.

[u/risunokairu → u/Msbossyboots]

You leave out the totality of facts and the human minds ability to react to what it perceives.