Media Bias

[Cunt]

It's your claim about me that's the focus here, that there's no radically left-eing idea I would condemn, so, if you're able to pwn your own words, all you have to do is give me an example of a really shoddy radical left-wing idea and I'll tell you if I would actually condemn or unwelcome it. Proper radical left-wing ideas mind you, no stawmanning or made-up bollocks.

Again, I'm claiming that you CANNOT name or list 'radical left-wing' ideas.

I mean, you could list a few and easily prove me wrong about it...but then you would have to list radical left-wing ideas not worth supporting, and I doubt that would be comfortable for you.

If you can't even own and take responsibility for the words you typed onto the internet then you probably don't respect yourself very much - something also suggested by your pleading for me to justify your claims about me for you.

As I said, you can't list radical left ideas. Maybe doing so would get you tossed out of the left. Maybe there simply aren't any. I'm left speculating, as you say sweet and considerate things about me.

[JimC]

1. A single political party, (the Worker's Party or whatever...), all other political parties banned
2. Forced nationalisation of all industries, now to be owned and controlled by the Party
3. Pure left ideology only, including in all education sectors, with Party commissars checking all activities for purity
4. Enemies of the people arrested then executed with no trial

Now, Cunt may be surprised, but these are truly radical left ideas, and I rather suspect that no Ratzian posters would support them...

[Cunt]

1. A single political party, (the Worker's Party or whatever...), all other political parties banned

The realm of fantasy. OK, so fantasy lefties are out.

2. Forced nationalisation of all industries, now to be owned and controlled by the Party

Only the universal control of all, eh? Everything up to that is 'rational left' then? [/quote]
3. Pure left ideology only, including in all education sectors, with Party commissars checking all activities for purity[/quote]sounds like Canadian Universities after docolonization

4. Enemies of the people arrested then executed with no trial

That sounds like either extreme, not particular to the left.

Now, Cunt may be surprised, but these are truly radical left ideas, and I rather suspect that no Ratzian posters would support them...

How about the abortion divide? Is there a right and left there? Or would you say only the rational opinion and fucking idiots?

[pErvinalia]

If the left could identify and prune the radical left, it would be stronger and better.

And Trump and the far right?

[Scot Dutchy]

I agree with the above Jim but they would also apply to fascist system. That is where the left and the right meet. The idea of a party within a party is also a very typical point. Another very typical point is having a government structure in place which has little or no power. This was the case in the Soviet Union. All government decisions required the approval of the Politburo the Party's main committee.

[rainbow]

The only thing that would make it more hilariously, is if someone came along asking outright who the radical left was.

Ridiculously question indeed. We really don't need to know who the radical left was when recommending the pruneration of the radical left. At least no more so than what Obamagate is when recommending that Obamagate be investigatedly.

The fact that you can't clearly identify the radical left makes my point.

The point is that you cannot, without risking the 'measured response' of the left media/twitterati/mob.

Only a complete arse would call someone radical left for protesting police violence.

[Cunt]

Only a complete arse would call someone...

...protester when they are actually a rioter.

[Brian Peacock]

What's the ratio of protestors to rioters then?

[Cunt]

What's the ratio of protestors to rioters then?

Well, if the media uses terms like that, just know that they are adding their own colour.

If someone is burning buildings, and stealing high-end consumer goods, then it's pretty safe to assume they are a criminal opportunist. If they are a protester, they probably have clear desires which could be addressed by a willing community.

[Brian Peacock]

The point of the question was to determine if it's reasonable to conflate protest with violent opportunism, and with that to undermine defensive reactions to untoward and/or unwarranted police violence.

[Cunt]

The point of the question was to determine if it's reasonable to conflate protest with violent opportunism, and with that to undermine defensive reactions to untoward and/or unwarranted police violence.

If someone places bricks, where a protest will take place, they are setting someone up.

Protesters are human, so if a riot breaks out, I would guess that even 'Gentle, Loving Brian Peacock' will hoist the jolly roger (and a brick) to defend their loved ones, or retaliate.

The violence and looting is a danger in any large group, so a protest, being already pretty emotional, is extra easy to sidetrack with violence.

There are heroic examples of people quieting things, calming their neighbourhoods. People are great, and often are able to show it.

Placing caches of ammunition and other riot equipment isn't the same as losing control in a violent situation.

Of course, 'riot equipment' can include water and medical supplies (counter-tear-gas stuff, for example) so it remains complicated...but if you find someone moving in a pallet of bricks, without a road or building to put them in, you can add 'premeditated' to any charges you want to lay.

It's fucking complicated, BP. We have a 'protest leader' here, in the sense that JimC took a lead role (making props) and was unquestioningly supportive of the group. I think the group was xc.

So it is important to him in a direct way, to find ways to protect 'his protesters' from having their good effort turned into a riot and ruined.

I can't blame the person throwing the bricks, as much as I can blame a person who cached the bricks, and I think that's reasonable distribution of outrage.

[Brian Peacock]

Where did you copy and paste that from?

[Cunt]

Where did you copy and paste that from?

copy and paste what?

[Brian Peacock]

It just seemed such a typically dialled-in poisoning of the well which totally ignored the dubiousness of those brick caching claims. Focusing on those claims though seems like moral safe ground, regardless of whether they're not true.

So yeah, you're only focusing on the violence during the protest, but I'd suggest that the vast majority of people are out to simply register an objection to their residential, political, and economic ghettoisation and the systematic injustices they live under. The establishment are drowning out the causes of the protest - which were merely triggered by the summary execution of a black man who possed no threat to the police or the public - with table-thumping promises of more and extreme state sanctioned violence. But discussions about the protest cannot be reduced to decrying the rioting, and to do so is to avoid the real issues - often deliberately so.

[rainbow]

What's the ratio of protestors to rioters then?

Well, if the media uses terms like that, just know that they are adding their own colour.

If someone is burning buildings, and stealing high-end consumer goods, then it's pretty safe to assume they are a criminal opportunist.

Well done!

If they are a protester, they probably have clear desires which could be addressed by a willing community.

What is radical left about that?